Comments on: Does Global Warming Mean Fewer Hurricanes?

U.S. Government Study: Warmer Waters May Lessen Chances Of Hurricanes Hitting Land

squidly8:

And yet I''m an "enviro" and I don''t want any of the thing you say we do. I expect accountability - in fact I would demand it.
And it''s absurd to suggest we don''t care about cost. Sorry, but that''s just plain crazy. I think this is the biggest problem
this world faces today about the future - a failure to communicate. There are many different perspectives about what the
problems actually are, and how they can be solved. To flatly state that the other side has no understanding of the issue is
simplistic. Of course we do. We all need to try to see it from the other side. Personally, if I was in charge of a village,
I''d organize a fire department BEFORE the first house burned down. We''ve all seen the turmoil and chaos that occurrs after
a major natural disaster, so it''s not something we''re not able to anticipate. I realize there are some that would wait until
there was actually a fire before they did anything. But if you already know that fires happen, and they can burn houses down,
it seems very reckless to wait. I think it boils down to what is important to you - your personal finances, or your neighbor''s
well-being. Sharing the cost of a community fire department is much less than rebuilding your home. Keep in mind - our
individual contribution is going to be minimal, compared to what we stand to lose.

"Why does every enviro believe that because someone doesn''''t believe them they are a gas guzzling, Bush, neocon, oil industry lover. READ WHAT I HAVE POSTED."

You were obviously referring to me in your generalization. Or do you have a different definition for the word "every" than the rest of the English speaking world?

[squidly8]

I said nothing about Bush, or about anyone being an oil industry lover.
Hominatrix53

Hominatrix53, Never said you did. Others have.

WRT sustainability. I am all for sustainability and being off of oil. Enviros dont want simple sustainability, they want their programs instituted regardless of cost and with no accountability for results - just spend the money. then you know that there is not one money handling institution that will give someone their money without an expectation of a return. alphaa10 seems to think I mean only $ when I say return - I do not. You want $500M to remove X% of carbon from the atmosphere. Show us that you can do it, how it will be done, how you intend to measure it and what is the corresponding global temp change we can expect. Would you give your money to somebody that just shrugged their shoulders and said they won''t be able to? That is the core of my concern. GW isnt proven to be true, we cant quantify it if it is and we cant even say it is because of man. Their is no proof that we are the cause. It doesnt mean I want to pollute the world into oblivian.
Remember the debit cards the govt gave out after Katrina? How did you feel as a taxpayer when their was no accountability for the $ and people spent the money on big screens, strippers and at the casinos? Are you seeing it - instead of $M it will be Trillions

alphaa10 - BTW, I am a scientist/engineer

Squidly8: I see you%u2019re unfamiliar the precautionary principle. You also appear to be taking in too much caffeine. Relax. I am in college %u2013 I%u2019m also 54 years old, so you can save your sermon about what I%u2019ll see after I%u2019m out of school. I was in the business world for 30 years, and I%u2019ve been self-employed for five. I%u2019ve seen it, and then some. You%u2019re assuming that sustainability is incompatible with economic growth. That couldn%u2019t be further from the truth. BTW - global warming is not a lie. The *** coming from the likes of Fred Singer, however, is. I%u2019m frankly astonished at the reluctance of conservatives to jump on this perpetual bandwagon. The oil industry is going to make money for what %u2013 150 years, tops. The next energy providers are going to be in business for 1000 %u2013 and the population is going nowhere but up. Talk about a growing market.

I really hate it when people generalize. I posted what the students IN MY CLASS said %u2013 I made no judgments about you or anyone else. I said nothing about Bush, or about anyone being an oil industry lover. If you don%u2019t want to get in on the ground floor, don%u2019t. It%u2019s no skin off my nose. But don%u2019t put words in my mouth - keep them in your own.

[alphaa10-2009]

squidly8 said, "...The return on investment cannot be quantified because there is no solid proof of global warming..."
---
When did a cost-benefit analysis become relevant to whether the global warming theory is correct? You seem to discuss, "How much will it cost?" rather than "Is it true?"

All to betray that the real focus of the GOP with global warming is on money, not science. Global warming remediation will threaten Big Oil and other major industrial sectors, all cash cows to the GOP for decades.

And since global warming policy inevitably becomes a money issue with Bush''s pet political base, a perverse rationalization comes into play among Bush conservatives-- global warming is to be summarily dismissed as mythology and a nefarious plot by politicians to (insert hidden agenda here).

Discussion by laymen of a scientific issue should defer to the scientific community, and its general consensus on global warming.

Again, politics cannot settle a scientific issue-- both Bolsheviks and Nazis tried to combine the two and failed. Likewise, with dissenters to global warming, it is noteworthy that a minority opinion among scientists is taken to the general public to create a political flank attack on global warming.

rf35: Frankly, what you believe is immaterial. what matters is what you do. If you want to believe the moon is made out of green cheese, be my guest.

[squidly8]

So you are all for perpetuating a lie because the outcome MAY be beneficial. Spend TRILLIONS of $ because it might be good? I assume that you are still in college from your earlier post. After you are out of school, you will see that virtually any non-academic institution or business does cost/benefit analysis on projects. If you can''t quantify the return on investment you won''t get the money. That is where the global warming issue falls apart. The return on investment cannot be quantified because there is no solid proof of global warming.

The interstate analogy is weak. There were cars and trucks and demand for goods from around the country. Back roads were an inefficiency in the country''s distribution system so the highway system was initiated. The cars and trucks were not invented after the interstate highway system was built. There were also national defense related considerations also but that is another topic.

Why does every enviro believe that because someone doesn''t believe them they are a gas guzzling, Bush, neocon, oil industry lover. READ WHAT I HAVE POSTED. Increase efficiency because it helps us more wisely use our resources and identify new processes and resources. Doing it because the bogeyman (we are all going to die scenario your cohorts claim) might come along is a ridiculous reason.

[co2max]

Go ahead, but don''t butcher science in the process. Our kids will have to carry on after we leave this world and they''ll be unable to do so if they can''t figure out cause-and-effect situations.
Hx53-If only I were one of the elites who had my hands in the energy biz...

[rf35]

Fine. You''ve convinced me that global warming is not real. It is, at best, an elaborate hoax or at worst, a huge conspiracy. I STILL SUPPORT EVERYTHING THE GLOBAL WARMING CAMP IS DOING TO TRY AND CUT CARBON EMISSIONS AND BUILD A RENEWABLE ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE!! The real reason for doing this DOESN''T MATTER!! It MUST be done and if doom and gloom predictions are the best way for leaders to mobilize the world to act, then more power to them.

Max: It will be if you''re one of the elite that controls our energy supplies, anyway.

squidly8: Nothing is certain. There was certainly no way to know that our nation would rely as heavily as it does on cars. Yet at some point, our nation committed to spending enormous amounts of money on an infrastructure that was not yet needed. It''s called planning based on best knowledge. If we''re wrong, and we invest in a sustainable economy, then we''ve spent money that accomplishes nothing worse than a massive improvement in our quality of life. Certainly you are aware that fossil fuels - particularly petroleum, IS a finite resource. It will eventually be gone, and new sources of energy will be necessary. If you''re wrong, and we do nothing, it means the end of human civilization.
It obviously makes more sense to invest in a sustainable economy than a petroleum based one. It''s why the oil companies are frantically trying to wrest every dollar possible from your pockets, because the next major energy source will never need to be replaced.

[co2max]

"Tragedy of the Commons" is a total joke, at least as far as it concerns climate change. Global warming will likely be an improvement of the overall condition of our living space.

[squidly8]

Hominatrix53, I don''t over consume and my concern is not that I will have to change my ways. My concern is the untold TRILLIONS of $ that some want TAX and SPEND on UNKNOWN programs that have an UNKNOWN impact on an UNPROVEN theory based on UNCALIBRATED and INACCURATE MODELS of earth wide temperature changes that MAY occur in 100 years that MAY be as high as 5-6 degrees but as low as 1 degree that is ASSUMED to be catastrophic because it MAY be DIFFERENT than what we have now. How much more uncertain can we get. We have difficulty getting a weather forecast correct 2-5 days into the future, what makes you think we are smart enough to know what will happen in 100 years?

jimfinster, the burden of proof is on you not I. You claim to have the EVIDENCE and PROOF (not circumstantial events) but refuse to show it. You want to spend TRILLIONS of $ to fix it, I, and I am sure billions of others on the planet, don''t think it is unreasonable for you to present the evidence before writing the check.

I did a presentation on sustainable development yesterday in my Environmental Issues class. I would have to say, from the questions raised by the other students, the biggest problem with acceptance of global warming in this country is a fear that we''ll have to curtail our consumption. I read a passage to them from Hardin''s "Tragedy of the Commons." I hope some of them got it. If everyone pi$$es in the pool without restriction, eventually everyone will be swimming in a pool full of pi$$.

[co2max]

A consensus about future consequences, especially when the current driving forces of those consequences are unknown, is really nothing more than speculation. The consensus in this case just means that the campaign for plausibility is stronger than the proof. Consensus makes sense in a diagnosis of an existing situation, such as in medical science or determining what actually killed the dinosaurs.

In any case, the burden is never ever to prove non-existence of a condition or situation. It works the other way; the case for global warming, mainly its causes, is far from proven.

It makes perfect sense that generally warmer conditions which spawn upper-level windshear would disrupt the tropical storm development process. This was predicted a couple of years ago and recent studies are showing that this is in fact what likely happens.

[alphaa10-2009]

WaterBaby said, "... Check out some of the posts below from global_chick. They feature a number of scientists who dispute global warming in part or in whole..."
---
At issue here is the consensus of scientific opinion, not what conspiracy theories may emerge about IPCC or other matters.

Too many posters are content with what science "ought" to say with the realities and difficulties of interpreting scientific data. However, most of those professionally trained to evaluate the hard evidence have come down on the side global warming is in full or in part man-made.

A historian of science can see parallels between the continuing debate in some quarters about evolution, and general scientific consensus about the evidence for evolution.

This is not to say scientific consensus does not, or should not change. Debate about the evidence is very beneficial, so long as it stays professional and not political. From Galileo to NASA scientist Hansen, this has not always been so.

[jimfinster]

Show us some proof of your global warming assertations. You won''''t because you can''''t because it doesn''''t exist. Please leave, your drivel is just a waste of time, space, 1s and 0s.
Posted by squidly8

Dear Neocontard,
The burden is on you to disprove. The scientific evidence is strong and growing stronger every year. Now run along and pray for enlightenment.

[messenger9]

The hurricanes are caused from a temperature difference between the north pole and the equator. When the north pole warms the temperature difference gets smaller so hurricanes happen less. I once said if the north pole warms up too much it will end all the hurricanes. But I''m no scientist though so what do I know? Besides, how can a 10mph updraft wind slow down a 100mph hurricane?

[squidly8]

What part of the fact that the IPCC committee is comprised mostly of politicians and non-climate scientists don''t you understand. Did you think that they would even consider the gentleman''s work knowing that it contradicted their conclusions? Show us some proof of your global warming assertations. You won''t because you can''t because it doesn''t exist.

please leave, your drivel is just a waste of time, space, 1s and 0s.

[jimfinster]

Comment by Dr. Kevin Trenberth, Head of the Climate Analysis Section, NCAR:


"Wang and his colleague weigh in on this by relating their statistics to land-falling storms. The trouble is that the latter are so few in number that they are not reliable indicators of activity. Considerable controversy on this topic, highlighted in work by Chris Landsea and countered by articles by Greg Holland and Michael Mann that point out why use of land-falling storms is misleading. Unfortunately, several works related to these aspects are not accounted for by Wang and Lee, and their conclusions on this point are suspect. Their trends on wind shear are also highly suspect, again owing to changes in information as satellites became available in the 1970s that were not accounted for. Accordingly, Wang%u2019s conclusions do not account for the back-to-back record number of Atlantic land-falling storms in 2004 and 2005."


So, in other words, a fairly worthless study.