A Yogi Berra moment – “it’s deja vu all over again…”
From NHC Public Advisory #25
DATA FROM AN AIR FORCE RECONNAISSANCE AIRCRAFT INDICATE THAT MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS HAVE INCREASED TO NEAR 150 MPH…240 KM/HR…WITH HIGHER GUSTS. GUSTAV IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS CATEGORY FOUR HURRICANE ON THE SAFFIR-SIMPSON HURRICANE SCALE. SOME FLUCTUATIONS WITH AN OVERALL SLIGHT STRENGTHENING IS FORECAST DURING THE NEXT 24 HOURS…AND GUSTAV COULD REACH CATEGORY FIVE INTENSITY DURING THIS PERIOD. GUSTAV IS FORECAST TO REMAIN A MAJOR HURRICANE THROUGH LANDFALL ALONG THE NORTHERN GULF COAST.
Here is my own hurricane track imagery of Gustav and Hanna:
Click for a Hi Definition image
I’m sure this will become mass-media fodder again for the ever popular “global warming causes more damaging hurricanes”, but it is important to note that NHC’s own science officer, Christopher Landsea, co-authored a paper that claims otherwise. So have other scientists.
Al Gore is probably salivating right now.
Let’s be very careful here: there are still conflicting studies being published regularly on the impact of an increasing climate on tropical cyclones. I believe the general consensus at the moment is that while a warming climate may reduce the overall number of storms by altering the tropical environments in such ways that could produce more shear, among other things, it will likely increase the potential for more intense hurricanes by increasing not only the SST’s of the waters in the breeding grounds for hurricanes, but could also lead to a larger profile of warm water, which helps amplify the potential energy available to be extrapolated by hurricanes.
The bottom line is that the jury is out on this one. Furthermore, it’s much more likely that, with the RNC going on early next week, the media will spend much more time rehashing memories of Hurricane Katrina, which complicates PR matters quite significantly for the Republicans.
People are going to be hurt by this storm. If bringing up the demon of global warming persuades a few more people to evacuate to safety, then in the grand scheme of things, I can take a pass on the media not quite accurately representing the science of global warming and hurricanes.
REPLY: The first part is noted and is reasonable, but regarding your last paragraph. I’m sorry “counters”, but that’s got to be one of the most ridiculous things ever written on this blog, and I’m being kind in my use of language here. If getting the hell out of the way of a Cat5 Hurricane isn’t enough incentive to evacuate, what the heck is?. The “demon of global warming” as “scare factor” for some stubborn dolt that won’t move despite repeated warnings won’t even move the needle on the fright meter for them.
Some people just won’t leave. A few folks that thought they could ride out the Mt. St. Helens eruption come to mind.
Anthony,
It is unusual that a member of the AGW crowd would be at variance with the standard mantra, but Michael Moore, in an interview with Keith Olberman, said that “Gustav is proof that there is a God in Heaven.” It is obvious that he cannot be saying Gustav is due to AGW. The AGW believers sometimes come closer to the truth than they realize.
Anthony, good for the nail.
Now, Counter’s first paragraph is discussable. The problem about any discussion with historical records of hurricanes or cyclones or typhoons, is that there is nor reliable historical record. Same as with global temperatures.
We only have reliable records, globally, since satellites made available global; measurements.
What amuses me is that Hansen, working for NASA, relies soooo much on terrestrial measurements.
REPLY: What amuses me is that Hansen has this absurd idea that he can accurately adjust for the entropy of the measurement environment for the thousands of terrestrial data points.
Yeah, it’s not funny. We just finished shuttering up.
Lake Okeechobee is filled, and believe it or not, they are considering draining it again. This is causing afirestorm of protest because of the damage that was done the last time they drained it — It was last drained 8 feet in summer 2006 this caused the ‘Florida drought’ of the last few years. Few want to actually say, it was man’s decision, well SWFMD did it, to drain the lake …
Not looking good for New Orleans; its projected path is just far enough west to avoid a direct hit but not far enough west to avoid the worst side of the storm. At least the politicians seem to have learned a lesson from three years ago and are taking this one seriously.
I brought up a point on this blog in another article that we have a natural experiment going on with 2 storms in similar water temps. If, as Algore et al believe, the water temp is the main reason for increased hurricane intensity, then both storms should end up about the same strength. However, as we now see, tropical cyclones are affected by much more than just water temps. They must have the right weather conditions to grow into major storms. Gustav has had the required warm water, a good outflow due to atmospheric conditions above and little or no wind sheer. Hannah, on the other hand, has the warm water temps but is being sheered by a low pressure system just to it’s west which is keeping the thunderstorms from closing the loop around the center of circulation. The AGW crowd’s simplistic reasoning is once again shown to be flat out wrong. And to those who only two days ago referred to Gustav as being “hyped”, well, I guess you were wrong too.
Seriously? Nearly a Cat 5? I don’t even see a defined eye…
REPLY The eye is covered by the symbol, look at this image:
http://www.intelliweather.net/imagery/IntelliWeather/sat_atlhurr_fullview_640x480.jpg
The eye will become better defined once it passes over Cuba
Ed Scott (15:59:46) :
Only someone like Moore or Olberman would say such a despicable thing. Imagine a Republican saying it was God punishing New Orleans for re-electing Nagin and how they would react!
REPLY: What amuses me is that Hansen has this absurd idea that he can accurately adjust for the entropy of the measurement environment for the thousands of terrestrial data points.
You mean, FIX THE BOOKS, but cannot say that.
Tarpon:
SWFMD ????
counters (15:42:49) :
I probably would have passed on this if Anthony hadn’t commented, If you had referred to something more general than one intense (but small) hurricane then I’d be more inclined to be the first to comment.
You are not the first person to argue this line, but when the general public realizes that everything they’ve heard has been wrong, and when other news media look into all the nonsense bandied about for the last few decades the result is going to be 1) disbelief of the media, 2) disbelief of the scientists.
We already have 1), though the general public has shown they follow the “If it bleeds (or flames) it leads” maxim.
2) though, will be a real shame. Several scientists are either staying silent to protect their careers or speaking out at risk to their careers. If CO2 turns out not to be the culprit, as it increasingly appears, and we wind up in decades of a cooling climate and tight energy supplies, who’s going to chart a way out? If the public decides that all the lies and overstatements from people like Hansen means that scientists are just as biased as the media and deserve just as much disrespect, then what?
There’s a huge amount of research and engineering that can be done with everything from breeder reactors producing electricity and hydrogen to bacterial reactors producing fatty acids for biofuels. Setting the stage for rejection of scientists because AGW turns out to be wrong raises my hackles.
Lying to the entire population to encourage a few idiots to evacuate has too many bad consequences down the road.
Anthony wrote:
“Some people just won’t leave. A few folks that thought they could ride out the Mt. St. Helens eruption come to mind.”
I’ve concluded that Harry Truman made the right decision. He couldn’t bear to life without what he had, he had lived a long and full life, and he understood the risks. He and other didn’t realize just what was coming, if he knew that potential, then perhaps he would have left. If he knew the outcome, he might have sent his cats away but stayed himself. At least no one lied to him.
BTW, another thing to worry about with Gustav is that it is forecasted to slow down as it reaches land. While strong winds don’t reach far inland, rain does, so we have a good set up for a lot of inland flooding.
One saving grace is that the storm is small (gee, so was Camille), so perhaps not too large an area will have wind damage. Another is that water temps are cooler for the most part north of Cuba, so even if Gustav reaches Cat 5, I’d say it’s unlikely to be Cat 5 at landfall.
Still, the only reasonable course to take when a Cat 4 or 5 hurricane is coming at you is simply move out of the way….
Moore’s comment and those of several DNC leaders as to how this will ‘lock up’ the election are despicable. No matter what your politics, it is very wrong to rejoice over the suffering caused by any event.
It reveals their true agenda.
(@ a couple of early comments)
Gustav is in warmer water than Hanna is, plus Hanna is under more wind shear, so I don’t expect Hanna to do what Gustav is doing. In 2005 Wilma was one of the most intense storms ever when it was in very warm waters in the Western Caribbean. By the time it went over us in South Florida, it had traversed cooler waters and was only about a Cat 1 or 2 by the time it got here (I was still out of power & phone service for a week.)
Hopefully Gustav will also diminish in intensity when it reaches the cooler waters closer to La. Right now its over some of the warmest waters in the entire Atlantic.
Robert, I think Tarpon meant to say “South Florida Water Management District”, the people who drain Lake Okeechobee every time a thunderstorm goes by for fear it will fill too high and break through its aging dikes and drown everyone. Happened before, killed 2,000 people in the 1920’s. But their recent zealousness has kept South Florida in perpetual drought for the past few years, that lake is the origin of most of our water.
Was he trying to say it was good for the AGW movement that people should be forced from their homes by a normal weather event so it can be blamed on AGW?
You’re free to find my opinion ridiculous, but that doesn’t change the fact that casting Gustav in the guise of some ridiculous AGW-powered “super-cane” could very well cause more people to evacuate. I’m not saying it’s the right thing to do, I’m merely throwing this out there. It’s a little thing called propaganda; it’s supposed to be ridiculous – that’s how it works. Go ahead and vilify the media for their misinformed spin, but that doesn’t change the reality of things – especially in a post-Katrina New Orleans. I’m okay with being the messenger that must be shot to get this point across.
Mr Watts, on a blog where some commentors regularly claim that CO2 has no effect on the climate, or that climatologists ignore the effects of the sun, or that we’re actually seeing a global cooling trend, or that the models are fabrications of some conspiracy and manipulated solely to produce a warming climate, or – my favorite – that AGW is some vast Socialist conspiracy (okay, so this is moreso on other blogs, but it comes up every so often here), I am honored to be bestowed the honor of having contributed the most ridiculous comment.
Now, I suggest we all get back to filling up our gas tanks before the prices skyrocket thanks to price gouging in this convenient situation.
REPLY: Counters, don’t lecture it is unbecoming, especially from anonymous cowards. And please don’t try to justify “bending the truth for the greater good”. As a member of the media, myself I’m tasked with reporting weather, I find that insulting. You’ve earned more than the most ridiculous comment. Take a time out.
“If bringing up the demon of global warming persuades a few more people to evacuate to safety”
This reminds me of those who justify the exaggeration of the possible consequences of global warming in order to force action.
I believe that the end never justifies the means. Tell me the truth and let me, as a free man, decide what is best for me and my family.
The UN has cried “wolf” far too many times.
According to a July 5, 1989, article in the Miami Herald, the then-director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), Noel Brown, warned of a 10-year window of opportunity to solve global warming. According to the 1989 article, A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of eco-refugees, threatening political chaos.
Anyone else notice that none of this has happened?
Isnt the fact its a good chance its gonna go west of N.O a good thing? While it will put the city in risk of high wind damage, wouldnt that push the surge from the lake away from the city itself and into the opposite shore? I thought Katrina was so bad because it hit at the perfect angle east of the city that the natural spin of the storm caused the lake to push into the city itself.
Though I admit the storm at the angle it is going west of the city seems to have a good chance of pushing its storm surge directly up the bay and into the lake, but again, wouldnt the natural spin and motion still push that extra water away from the city and into the opposite shores?
Brendan Loy is blogging as ‘Weather Nerd’ at Pajamas Media. Some may remember his Katrina coverage. Where did that high, dry, air come from?
======================================
“I believe that the end never justifies the means.” Mike Bryant
Yep, someone said “the means are the end”.
To BarryW,
Science and scientists, when practicing science, should be apolitical. I am optimistic that the damage done, and being done, to science by the AGW acolytes can be repaired, but the question remains, where does science go to get its reputation back? A good beginning was the signing of the petition by 31,000 plus physicists. although it received practically no media attention.
In a brilliant display of ignorance, Senator Boxer accused Dr. Roy Spencer,Principal Research Scientist. University of Alabama, of being an echo of Rush Limbaugh.
The despicable display of schadenfreude by some AGW believers should be condemned by all engaged in scientific pursuit. You ask, how can one be so cruel?
my favorite – that AGW is some vast Socialist conspiracy (okay, so this is moreso on other blogs, but it comes up every so often here)
Fair enough. My own thesis is that it is not a conspiracy, but a “class action” error of the sort which has ocurred before (re. resources, population, what have you).
And, yes, political extremists of any stripe will always jump on the bandwagon (real or not) in order to take advantage. But they are exploiting the issue, not instigating it.
However, I must object to employing AGW fears to evacuate the coast. The events of 2005 should do just fine for that.
“Science and scientists, when practicing science, should be apolitical.” Ed Scott
The problem is they think the consequences are so immense that it is best to err on the side of caution even if that involves spending trillions and possibly wrecking the world’s economy. Panic might work every now and then but it is for sure not the percentage play.
I believe that the end never justifies the means.
Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn’t. It depends entirely on the means. And the end.
So glad we cleared THAT one up!
Tom in Florida says: “If, as Algore et al believe, the water temp is the main reason for increased hurricane intensity, then both storms should end up about the same strength. However, as we now see, tropical cyclones are affected by much more than just water temps…The AGW crowd’s simplistic reasoning is once again shown to be flat out wrong.”
It’s always bad form to create a strawman of your opponents’ arguments and then accuse them of simplistic reasoning. Nobody has ever claimed that the only major factor in intensities of individual hurricanes is the water temperatures. The argument is more along the lines that, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, an increase in water temperatures will on average tend to produce an increase in hurricane intensity.
The main questions still being debated is how strong an effect this is and to what extent other factors, such as wind shear, are likely to remain equal in a warmer world. These are valid questions but just pointing to the fact that wind shear does play an important role in the evolution of individual hurricanes isn’t enough to show that any changes in wind shear that are likely to occur as a result of AGW will be less conducive to hurricanes in a way that counteracts the effects due to warmer ocean temperatures.
Ed Scott: “Science and scientists, when practicing science, should be apolitical. I am optimistic that the damage done, and being done, to science by the AGW acolytes can be repaired, but the question remains, where does science go to get its reputation back?”
What about the AGW skeptics? Are they all apolitical? In my experience, it seems like nearly all of them are coincidentally conservative or libertarian in their leanings.
Ed Scott: “A good beginning was the signing of the petition by 31,000 plus physicists. although it received practically no media attention.”
Actually, if you are referring to the Oregon petition (which I assume from the number that you quote that you are), it was not specifically physicists but scientists in general (and with the interpretation of what constitutes a “scientist” being very broad). And, it is a strange example to cite as somehow being apolitical as it seemed to be very political, in the sense that they bombarded science departments across the country with a very one-sided article with a cover letter written by a former head of the National Academy of Sciences (the late Frederick Seitz) that was formatted to look like an article in the Proceedings of the NAS even though it was not a real scientific article at all. The scientists were then asked to sign on to the petition. It is sort of the equivalent of an old Soviet-style election where you are bombarded with propaganda and then asked to vote but with the only option (besides not voting) being to vote YES. The whole thing was so deceptive that the NAS was forced to issue a statement noting that they or that paper were in no way associated with the NAS and that its conclusions did not agree with NAS assessments.
I would guess that the temperature difference between the water and the atmosphere would be really important to hurricane strength. So, since water retains heat better than the atmosphere, if we have cooling, then I would expect (ATBE) that we would have more powerful hurricanes. And since our current culture teaches that all things ARE equal, I rest my case.
Demons? Blame? Heaven? What’s next? “Sins?” “Transgressions?”
Freeman Dyson was totally correct. This issue is about religion. The religion is called “Environmentalism.” The AGW denomination priests are shoveling “blame” dreck by the spadeful into the open mouths of the believers: “This is Gawd’s way of punishing the Republicans….told’ya, GOP choose New Orleans…and God is gonna get ’em.” The “news” loaded with AGW screed….
Sad thing is that I hear almost NONE (other than some like-minded folks on this “blog) saying, hey, now that we have terabytes of computer power, let’s see if we can find out how the latest attractor, the Three Gorges dam, changed the bounds of the previous dynamical system. Let’s study the whole system now these things are happening.
More implications that Darwin was wrong. Man has been going down hill for
5 millenia. I’m thinking Moore’s law should include an indirect variation, squared, for common sense.
[Counters, I said take a time out. Please respect that]
Christopher (18:59:58) :
I guess it would depend on how far west it hits. Driving the water directly up the delta at the levees may be bad or worse. I always thought the east side of the storm was the worst. Not only storm surge but that’s where the rain is going to be.
Looks like the models are moving it eastward. Head on hit on NO.
models
Christopher (18:59:58) :
“Isnt the fact its a good chance its gonna go west of N.O a good thing? While it will put the city in risk of high wind damage, wouldnt that push the surge from the lake away from the city itself and into the opposite shore? I thought Katrina was so bad because it hit at the perfect angle east of the city that the natural spin of the storm caused the lake to push into the city itself.”
As I recall, post Katrina, the analysts said that it was good that the eye went east of N.O, because the worst path was the eye going slightly west with a NW storm direction at landfall. This would push the storm surge up into the lake and also expose N.O to the strongest (right front) quadrant winds which would start about from the East and then turn out of the NE pushing water straight across the Lake into N.O.
During Katrina, N.O. winds weren’t “too” bad being on the weaker side of the storm.
It seems that the central cone path is exactly that worst case scenario.
“I’m thinking Moore’s law should include an indirect variation, squared, for common sense.” Mike Pickette
You mean as the machines get smarter we get dumber? Also, the more advanced the creature, the sooner it goes extinct. Mankind has about 5 million years left. Genetic modification might not help, it might in fact speed the process.
The problem with Katrina was an unexpected failure of the levies.
You are correct Evan. The IPCC’s means don’t justify their desired ends.
counters — I believe the general consensus at the moment is … (stronger) …hurricanes.
Except that Landsea, who is probably the only guy who really has a handle on all this stuff, says otherwise. I’m not sure what to make of appeal to authority arguments like yours. On the surface they seem sound, but my experience is that your best bet is to go with the guy who knows the most about it, and right now that’s Landsea.
Joel Shore — In my experience, it seems like nearly all of them are coincidentally conservative or libertarian in their leanings.
And in mine, more than a few of the skeptics are older rather than younger. As per my comment above, I’m experienced enough to have dealt with all of this same stuff before, which essentially boils down to an attack on evil corporations (capitalists) and their right wing minions. DDT, ozone, unsafe nuclear power, cell phones cause cancer, obesity epidemic, AGW, doesn’t matter; it’s essentially variation #n on the same theme: Exxon or McDonald’s or (insert corporate name here — anyone can play) is evil and must be punished. More to the point, each time out the accusers (generally, the left) have been proven wrong, and I see no reason to think at this point that AGW will prove to be any different.
And to be blunt about things, rarely do the accusers have a handle on the actual science. They *think* they understand. They *assume* they understand. And then you find out that, for example, the accuser still has some sort of quasi-religious belief such as the idiot assumption that we don’t know how to handle nuclear waste. In short, it’s been my life experience that the accusers, usually the left, generally are those who know the LEAST about the subject while simultaneously claiming otherwise. Interestingly the far right religious types have the same problem protesting about stem cells or homosexuality.
Therefore this is not so much a problem of the left so much as a general observation — if something is protested, or on the flip side, promoted in the media, it is almost certainly wrong. Since AGW is promoted by the left, certainly the opposition/skepticism is not.
“Interestingly the far right religious types have the same problem protesting about stem cells …”
I am a libertarian; I have a problem with the violation of human rights.
It is those who justify infanticide that have a problem.
Moore’s law ‘an attack on evil corporations (capitalists) and their right wing minions MAKES ME RICH’
“I’ve concluded that Harry Truman made the right decision.”
Good take.
“What about the AGW skeptics? Are they all apolitical?”
Nature abhors a vacuum. Skeptics have merely joined a political battle prosecuted by AGW believers.
In my opinion 4 things killed people during Katrina.
! Hurricane Betsy. “My house didn’t flood during Betsy”, so they stayed.
2 Hurricane Camile. “My house survived Camile.” So they stayed.
3 Hurricane Ivan. People evacuated for Ivan, only to watch it go to Florida. They stayed.
4 Propaganda and hype. Just about every storm is hyped. From the dinks to big bad wolves. Too many of us never dealt with bad storms. When there is too much hype over dinks people stop listening.
Gary Gulrud says: “Nature abhors a vacuum. Skeptics have merely joined a political battle prosecuted by AGW believers.”
So, let’s see, I am supposed to believe that the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences and analogous organizations in all of the other G8+5 countries, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the councils of the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, and the American Geophysical Union, the editors of Science and of Nature, and corporations such as Shell, BP, Ford, and Dupont (to name just a few) are all in some massive political conspiracy. And, it is only a small band of scientists and their allies who often seem to have connections to various conservative or libertarian think-tanks who have been forced to become political to fight these forces and spread the gospel of what the science really says?
Sounds plausible to me!
I am completely apolitical for reasons that have nothing to do with any of the discussions on this blog. I have never voted in an election and I never will. My reasons are mine and will not be discussed or revealed in this venue. However, this being said, I am not fooled by the rush to “fight” climate change. Whether any coming climate change is catastrophic or not, we are pretty much along for the ride.
Fasten your seatbelts.
The driving forces of growth for Gustav seem to be falling apart. Not saying it will weaken significantly, but a Cat 4 or 5 seems highly unlikely at this point.
http://www.cookevilleweatherguy.com
What about the AGW skeptics? Are they all apolitical? In my experience, it seems like nearly all of them are coincidentally conservative or libertarian in their leanings. That’s an AGW myth, Joel, belied by the fact that many of us skeptics, myself included are, or at least were, die-hard Democrats and liberals.
Your “experience” is colored by your AGW ideology. Our politics run the gamut. But make no mistake, this issue is so huge that it can change one’s entire political persuasion. Your mistake is in believing that it is politics which is driving the skeptic movement. In fact, it is the science.
It is politics, however which has driven, and continues to drive the fraudulent AGW movement.
I still object to classifying AGW as a fraud and insist that it is, rather, merely an error. (A big one.)
And, it is only a small band of scientists
No, not a small band at all. A very large one. After the events of the last 18 months, I daresay it’s split pretty evenly. And the “conversion rate” (the trend, if you will) is all tending towards skepticism.
But no matter. Nearly all scientists (and intellectuals of every stripe) were utterly convinced that we were running out of most vital (and nonvital) natural resources. That turned out to be utterly, 180-degrees wrong (and based on a premise that turned out later to be risible).
Climatology, as it stands, is simply not very well understood. Therefore, what the “crowd” believes is of very little relevance. Heck, by 1998, ten years into the AGW movement, multidecadal ocean/atmospheric cycles had not even been discovered yet.
Actually, I doubt that if we knew then what we know now, AGW would have been a hysterical issue in the first place. It has been a bad few years for the AGW proponents.
As it stands, I am strongly with the skeptics, but I also admit either side could possibly be right (either wholly or partially).
more than a few of the skeptics are older rather than younger.
#B^1
In discussing where the worst damage will be, remember that the gulf coast east of NO in Mississippi, was devastated with storm surge into tree tops. The gambling boats were left high and dry and homes (Trent Lott’s for one) were wiped off the face of the earth. It just didn’t get anywhere near the airplay that NO did because of the Superdome fiasco.
Many skeptics are older rather than younger. This seems natural to me. Older people have seen the majority of people wrong so many times, that to witness the mob dynamics once more is not surprising. Only disappointing.
Maybe we can start a list.
Remember when everyone was making millions on stocks in the tech boom?
Y2K
Population explosion
Peak oil, over and over and over…
DDT
Acid rain
Ozone hole
Eugenics
This is only a very, very small sample of things that should have been met with far more skepticism by the scientific community.
evanjones you are truly civilized,
The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant, in this field as in all others. His culture is based on “I am not too sure.”
-H. L. Mencken
I need to work on my tolerance.
To Joel Shore,
I freely admit to being libertarian-conservative, but is there a political overtone in objecting to an unproven scientific premise which has serious life consequences. I would appreciate a link to the scientific data that shows AGW, in order to collect the award from Junk Science. There are believers on both sides of the political spectrum and the facts used to prove AGW are anecdotal, in nature. One serious consequence of AGW, was the Lieberman-Warner legislation, which fortunately failed. It began life as the McCain-Warner legislation with the subsequent change in name made to protect the “guilty,” with quite obvious political overtones.
As stated in a post by Leif Svalgaard: Science is about what has been observed, demonstrated, and explained. Ideology is belief in what must be true [‘final analysis’].
The AGW acolytes have not observed, demonstrated or explained AGW. The fact that a political group has an agenda driven by the ideology of AGW, does not make my objection on scientific grounds, political.
I have read the series of articles in the Canada Free Press by Dr. Tim Ball, and have not recognized a political agenda. His objections seem to be directed toward Maurice Strong and the UN with their IPCC Report signed by 2,500 scientists, the majority of which may well be politicians (If I say I am a scientist, I am a scientist).
I apologize for errors that I made in the backgrounds of the petition signers. It does say American scientists. Chalk it up to personal bias.
(and with the interpretation of what constitutes a “scientist” being very broad).
That speaks of a familiarity with the 31,000 plus scientists which you may not have. I did, at one time, peruse the qualifications of the IPCC signatories and scientists were in the minority.
I have re-read the petition and failed in recognizing any political bias. As of yesterday, petitions were legal to use to effect change and are not necessarily political in nature, especially one that objects to bogus science.
Here is Dr. Seitz’ cover letter. Please point out the political content. Do you consider the geopolitical statement to be political?
Enclosed is a twelve-page review of information on the subject of “global warming,” a petition in the form of a reply card, and a return envelope. Please consider these materials carefully.
The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.
This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.
The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.
It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.
We urge you to sign and return the petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.
Frederick Seitz
Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
President Emeritus, Rockefeller University
The equivalent of an old Soviet-style election where you are bombarded with propaganda and then asked to vote but with the only option (besides not voting) being to vote YES. This is a classic example of the true AGW believers projecting their actions upon the deniers.
Science has been politicized but not by responsible scientists.
Joel Shore (20:24:18) wrote: “It’s always bad form to create a strawman of your opponents’ arguments and then accuse them of simplistic reasoning.”
So who’s creating the “strawman” here, you or Tom. From what I see, it seems to be you.
Shore also wrote: “The main questions still being debated is how strong an effect this is and to what extent other factors, such as wind shear, are likely to remain equal in a warmer world. These are valid questions but just pointing to the fact that wind shear does play an important role in the evolution of individual hurricanes isn’t enough to show that any changes in wind shear that are likely to occur as a result of AGW will be less conducive to hurricanes in a way that counteracts the effects due to warmer ocean temperatures.”
That’s one of the “foggiest” paragraphs I’ve read in a long time. But putting the “fog” aside for the moment, up until recently the Pogies were completely oblivious to wind shear and completely fixated on SST. It wasn’t until hurricanes didn’t develop as predicted that they started looking for excuses. Along came the effect of wind shear as well as dust storms in Africa, discoveries I believe, which were made by the Skeptics.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
At this time, Gustav is over the warmest waters yet and because of wind shear has weakened. As I orginally pointed out, the AGW crowd simplistically focused on water temps as the main cause of increased hurricane strength.
To Tom in Florida
I saw a graphic which indicated an area of water between Yucatan and Cuba and extending briefly into the Gulf. It was said that hurricanes, Gustav, would gain strength over that area. The surface temperature was said to be 80 degrees Fahrenheit. Do you know if this relatively shallow water?
I believe wind shear disappointed the AGW acolytes during the hurricane season last year. Maybe the water temperature is the only dynamic that remains relatively static and the AGW crowd “clings” to that.
Man, AGW is gonna have to get alot scarier or Al will never be able to sell it.
REPLY: I beg to differ. He’s selling it now, people are eating it up.
Hannah is barely a tropical storm. The Weather Channel is hoping for warm moist air instead of the dry air. They say Hannah also needs the windshear to stop, otherwise no story for late week.
When the planet warms, it decreases the temperature gradient between the poles and the equator.
When we have sufficient data (30 to 50 years from now), my bet would be on, warmer conditions decreasing hurricane strength, and the most dangerous times, would be the periods of strong temperature and pressure gradients, between the tropics and the poles.
I am an engineer, and watch in horror as the world begins to follow Algore down the yellow brick road paved with the chicken little “the sky is falling” junk science blind speculations. Oh wait Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize. I’m so tupid (intentional) he’s a genius, after all.
McGrats says: “But putting the “fog” aside for the moment, up until recently the Pogies were completely oblivious to wind shear and completely fixated on SST. It wasn’t until hurricanes didn’t develop as predicted that they started looking for excuses. Along came the effect of wind shear as well as dust storms in Africa, discoveries I believe, which were made by the Skeptics.”
Ridiculous! I’ve been reading the forecast discussions for hurricanes for years and they have long known about wind shear. And, lest you think it is something that the forecasters knew but the climate change people didn’t, here is a reference to shear in discussing hurricanes in the 2001 IPCC report: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/367.htm
McGrats (11:13:46) :
I’m not familiar with the history of hurricane research, but the affects of these and other impactors like dry air entrainment were understood long before people started up the AGW bandwagon. Satellite tech has made seeing dry air and dust clouds much easier. While some effects have been studied by hurricane researchers who flat out say that global warming is not affecting hurricane intensity or rate, that stand would not have affected the timing of the discoveries.
People who have not taken a broad look at hurricanes, e.g. Kerry Emmanuel, have claimed there’s a link between AGW and hurricanes, but the last couple of years has taught them there’s more to tropical storms than air and water temps.
One point to Joel.
Ed Scott:
The point is that if you have strong political opinions that would tend to lead you dislike the policy prescriptions that follow from AGW, you are going to demand more “proof” before you accept the science. And, since science can never prove anything…it is inductive, not deductive…you can always find the evidence wanting.
This is why the Junk Science award is meaningless. They could make the same award for evolutionary theory and also not have anyone satisfy it to their standards.
There is a good reason why the National Academy of Sciences was created and that is exactly to prevent science from becoming a political football. Unfortunately, those on the losing side of the scientific debate are going to always want to change the rules.
You might want to read here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Timothy_Ball
Joel Shore (07:24:06) :
Ed Scott:
Curious. I’ve been interested in almost any form of hard science since grade school and didn’t get much involved in politics until I discovered I was a Libertarian.
Perhaps that’s why I demand much more honesty from the politicians before I’ll accept the policy prescriptions that follow from AGW. AGW seems to be having a little trouble now that CO2 levels and solar activity are going in different directions. Before the split, separating politics from science was nearly impossible.
I’m happy that this blog is run by someone like Anthony instead of the National Academy of Science. Small science can be a beautiful thing.