Comments on: Global Warming-Hurricane Link Questioned

U.S. Scientist Shifts Positions, Says Warmer Weather Will Reduce Number Of Hurricanes

[jimfinster]

ZykraCosmos:

Thanks for the insightful comments.

The new supercomputer at the National Center for Atmospheric Research should help. It''s called "Bluefire." Bluefire is one of the top 25 most powerful computers in the world, and it will triple NCAR''s computing power. Pretty neat - it is water cooled!

[zykracosmos]

A few observations of my own- While there is strong scientific evidence to link global warming with increased intensity of hurricanes (almost obvious, because hurricanes feed on warm water, and global warming has raised surface seawater temperatures), there are problems with predicting an increase in frequency for hurricanes or tropical storms. I had a conversation with Trenberth myself about this years ago, in suggesting global warming may increase the intensity of El Nino events (instead of an El Nino current 60 miles wide, you now have west to east currents that reach 600 miles in width). El Ninos now are so strong that they can actually reverse the Trade Winds, sending westerly winds across from the Pacific that provide formidable wind shear on any developing tropical storms. The storms get torn apart from the top down before they can develop into anything very powerful. This is exactly what happened in the El Nino year after the summer of Katrina. Climatology is a very complex science, and we still are trying to understand all the variables that need to be entered into a reliable computer model. We are much better at it than we were ten years ago, but it is definitely an evolving science.

[sistatee-2009]

Global warming''s wrath? What BS. Get Al Gore''s fat _ss off that Gulfstream IV and watch the Earth cool down.

[lochlan-2009]

I''''m and electrical engineer doing research. And I doubt you are even in science.

Posted by FloydZepp

I can tell, with words like "nucular". Tell me the site you would prefer.

[zykracosmos]

What you are witnessing is how science works and is meant to work. Real science is peer reviewed, and studies aren''t necessarily conclusive. No one should critize Knutson for his study. Computer modeling is an evolving field, and although his model is flawed, it deserves to be thoroughly reviewed as unbiased science. Trenberth is the reigning expert in climate modeling, and his comments are most important here. This is part of the process. Knutson''s work was at least serious enough to gain a comment from Trenberth. No one is threatened by the scientific process. You can''t disprove truth. The search for truth in science is based upon peer review, repetition, and conclusions based upon probability, not absolutes. Even the most established theories of all time are constantly under review. This process is what separates science from politic or philosophical debate.

[questionnews]

And what sort of education level do you have again. A degree in NASCAR?


Posted by FloydZepp

I don''''t like to brag, but I am a nuclear engineer.

Posted by lochlan at 11:28 AM : May 19, 2008

Careful there FloydZepp!! You might want to just stay with your normal insults & flee without a scentific response.

[lochlan-2009]

FloydZepp-

And you?

[lochlan-2009]

And what sort of education level do you have again. A degree in NASCAR?


Posted by FloydZepp

I don''t like to brag, but I am a nuclear engineer.

[lochlan-2009]

2005 U.S. Senate Bill 517 and U.S. House Bill 2995
U.S. Senate Bill 517[15] and U.S. House Bill 2995[16] were two laws proposed in 2005 that would have allowed experimental weather modification by artificial methods, established a Weather Modification Operations and Research Board, and implemented a national weather modification policy. Neither ever became law.

[lochlan-2009]

All right global warming nuts, let me get this straight.

The earth, with a climate that has been changing for billions of years, has been trending warmer for about a hundred years now by a few degrees. And now you people want to stop it from getting any warmer. The whole planet, you want to keep it at its current temperature, is that right?

CO2 is the greenhouse gas you are talking about reducing correct? Just Facts From Wikipedia (for those with a brain):

Nitrogen 78.0842%
Oxygen 20.9463%
Argon 0.93422%
-- Carbon dioxide 0.03811%
Water vapor about 1%
Other 0.002%

"Existence of the greenhouse effect as such is not disputed. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 0C (59 0F), without which Earth would be uninhabitable.[24][25] On Earth, the major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36%u201370% of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds); carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9%u201326%; methane (CH4), which causes 4%u20139%; and ozone, which causes 3%u20137%."

"The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 have increased by 31% and 149% respectively since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the mid-1700s."