NC Media Watch

A quest for reason and accuracy in letters to the editor, guest editorials and other issues of interest to the citizens of Western Nevada County.

Friday, September 09, 2005

Cool facts for greenie hotheads

This for those who continue to insist that Katrina is the result of global warming. If they cannot understand the words, here is a graphic that shows the number and strengths of hurricans is declining, not increasing. If the globe is warming, it is not producing more or stronger hurricanes. If you have contrary DATA, please give us a link.

Click here for a private e-mail comment. For public comment select comments below.


Blogger Frederic Christie said...

I've shown you numerous links, Russ, and there's the NOAA who disagrees with you. Here's another one:

Notice how my evidence, even if it doesn't prove the NUMBER has gone up (which it does and has), will argue that the NET STRENGTH has gone up.

Fri Sep 09, 09:20:00 AM PDT  
Blogger NCRebane said...

Perhaps Frederic Christie should reread the "evidence" he cites. The first describes an ongoing debate on the validity of the increased hurricane 'strength' conclusion that includes a strong refutation. And the second one is a blog(!) that cites the first refuted study. While there may be a case for fewer but stronger hurricanes, such "evidence" does not tilt the conclusion.

George Rebane

Fri Sep 09, 10:18:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Sherry said...

I'm pretty sure that Katrina has spoken louder than any blog site, NOAA stats sheet, or even divine intervention that MIGHT have told George Bush that a potential disaster LOOMED not far from Texas shorelines! Obviously, George, et al, were not looking to the heavens with questions surrounding the event, nor looking to FEMA for answers to the questions they might have asked. However, SHOULDN'T someone have taken some "let's be prepared" action ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL, when the "potential" involved knowledge that SPOKE LOUDLY TO IT BEING CATASTROPHIC? The 9-11 commission's heels hadn't quit clicking so long ago that THE MESSAGE from them should have been so completely ignored! I know---I'm in the wrong room here---but WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S GLOBAL WARMING---there is NATURAL DISASTER. Playing into it's hands, whether it's for profit or thrills, shouldn't AUTOMATICALLY spell money for the rich, death for the stupid UNLESS we're all, CONSTITUTIONALLY going to agree on it.

Fri Sep 09, 10:48:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Frederic Christie said...

But NC, I also cited a Paul Street article and an entire webpage that indicates the evidence is plausible and describes more evidence. Yes, the study is controversial, as the Boston Globe article admits, but after they cite Gray's challenge, they say the following:

"Suzana Camargo, a cyclone specialist at Columbia University in New York, said Emanuel's findings should be taken seriously, arguing that his conclusion about the growing power of hurricanes is similar to the increase in the energy of typhoons she measured when tropical Pacific temperatures rise by several degrees Celsius as a result of cyclical El Nino weather events. ''You don't have more typhoons; you have more intense ones. You have supertyphoons," she said.

Christopher Landsea, research meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Miami, said Emanuel deserves credit for taking on a tough issue where the violence of the storms often destroys the equipment intended to measure their ferocity. ''It's certainly the first paper that does systematically connect hurricane intensity . . . to ocean temperature rises that may be due to global warming," said Landsea, who, like Gray, is concerned about the lack of reliable measures of hurricane winds."

And the article goes onto say:

"Mounting damage from hurricanes has been a major political issue in the United States, at least since Hurricane Andrew caused tens of billions of dollars in damage to Florida in 1992. After several relatively quiet decades, the number of hurricanes originating in the tropics between Africa and the Caribbean rose sharply in the mid-1990s, including two storms last year, Charley and Ivan, that rank among the worst in US history for total damage."

Contrary to Russ' assertion (and note: the above was NOT controversial), hurricanes have increased. Further, you have conceded that there is no necessary contradiction between there being less hurricanes and more net hurricane strength. My evidence may not be the best in town (though I don't think you gave the articles a fair shake, and there's plenty more where that came from, including others I've cited), but right now it is the ONLY game in town regarding the STRENGTH of hurricanes. Unless you or Russ can dig something up about that, some evidence is better than none.

Further, that article wasn't a BLOG, it was a review of a book, that included in the first sentence "The National Oceanographic & Atmospheric Administration predicted yesterday that this year may set a record for number and intensity of hurricanes."

And included this: "According to a Miami Herald article by Martin Merzer", The accumulated power of Atlantic hurricanes has more than doubled in the past 30 years, with a particularly dramatic spike since 1995, and global warming likely is a major cause, according to a study published this week.

Though a connection between global warming and hurricane ferocity might seem logical, the report by a reputable climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is the first to draw a statistical relationship between the two..."

Yes, I read the evidence I cite, ncrebane. If you take umbrage, why not do what you'd do in scholarship and QUOTE something? Especially since you actually got it wrong, because the second article did NOT just cite Kerry Emmanuel, but also cited Merzer and the NOAA.

Sherry: Hurricane Katrina may be loud, but the question is, loud about what?

Fri Sep 09, 01:53:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Sherry said...

From Frederic Christie:
Sherry: Hurricane Katrina may be loud, but the question is, loud about what?

I'd have to say, "capability".

The "threat", even the "promise", as mother nature throws punches, is understood, sometimes debated, ultimately agreed upon. Whether she's blowing a category 5 hurricane, rattling the earth's crust with a magnitude 8 shaker, or cleaning up with a non-discriminating firestorm that wipes out an entire forest, SHE'S HERE. Commerce may be the key to keeping humanity happy, but maybe the price paid in securing "happiness" (what determines it) for some, (and in more and ever increasing bank balances) means we'll NEVER be truly capable of seeing that "happiness" divided, even reasonably fairly, amongst the population . Maybe "global warming" is a factor in something destined to stretch our tolerance as more of humanity suffers, and in the name of that "commerce". If, by virtue of WHAT THEIR JOB IS, WHERE THEY WORK & LIVE and HOW THEY CONTRIBUTE TO MAKING THE WORLD GO ROUND, there is a segment of society that is little more than "sacrificial", how does, "humanity", overall, benefit. THAT'S what I'm "seeing" as the entire "New Orleans as written by Katrina" unravels, and especially as left and right make excuses for WHY there are HUGE differences as losses suffered, in how "loss" is determined. "Capability" cannot be ignored and ONE SEGMENT OF SOCIETY does not have to be a lamb on the altar because it's somehow necessary to HAVE THEM in harms way. NATIONAL SECURITY obviously needs a better plan---one that INCLUDES something better for the poor than what they got in New Orleans. I have to say, it's "better news" to hear that perhaps the death toll won't reach 10,000, but still defeating to know that TOO MANY lost everything -- TOO MANY have nothing to return to. Is it going to be possible to see these people re-absorbed into other communities if they're NOT returned to a BETTER SITUATION in New Orleans? Even as I write and consider "the poor", I wonder just how brain dead ALL OF US ARE as we listen to, never really contemplate what we're hearing, as OUR GOVERNMENT throws around the word "billion" on a daily basis, generally having it ASSOCIATED with 87 BILLION dollars, or 120 BILLION dollars. These "amounts" are staggering when you actually try and imagine them. In the whole scheme of things, it's politically correct to have lost touch with reality.

Sat Sep 10, 11:42:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Frederic Christie said...

Of course Mother Nature is here and is here to stay, and there's only so much she can stand before she eliminates dangerous experiments such as mankind. Ernst Mayr once ominously pointed out that the unique form of humanity we represent only evolved about 100,000 years ago, which is the average time a species exists before it becomes extinct.

If by commerce you mean capitalist commerce, I don't think it ever has or ever will be capable of making "humanity" writ large happy. It will always enslave, imprison, wage war, waste resources, and encourage consumption instead of happiness. Now, I would have no problem with a segment of humanity being sacrificial if they had made that choice for themselves. But a billion people survive on less than a dollar a day, and hundreds of millions of children have starved merely in the last few decades. In America, an incredible amount of people work 60 or 80 hour weeks, often double-overtime or at two jobs, simply to pay the bills with very little hope of improving their status, simply trying to stay on the treadmill, while Bill Gates has the GDP of Norway.

Sun Sep 11, 01:47:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Russ Steele said...

Really: NOAA gave a prediction. How many time have they been right?
Was their predictions outside of normal variability, was their prediction outside of past storm history? We are coming out of a low activity period, entering an active period. Let's see if NOAA is right when the season is over. FACTS not predictions made on unreliable climate models.

Sun Sep 11, 07:51:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Frederic Christie said...

That's circular, Russ, because they predicted that a hurricane would hit using their models, which you deny. If they have a theory (global warming) and that theory plus other data predicts a storm (Katrina), then the theory is benefitted. Yes, not proven, but certainly not harmed. I think the evidence I've shown from Kerry Emmanuel and numerous others establish very interesting data, that becomes even more plausible when all sorts of other evidence of warming is considered.

Mon Sep 12, 04:44:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Russ Steele said...


It was a math model, which Emanuel said does not match the real world. The last two years are just a natural swing. Please get the facts!

"In the Aug. 4 edition of Nature, Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology presented math models that he said "show a substantial increase in potential intensity with anthropogenic global warming, leading to the prediction that actual storm intensity should increase with time." Emanuel concedes, however, that the observedI storm intensities do not match what the models predict and that his study can only "suggest" that global warming "may" lead to more intense storms. In the New York Times last week, he agreed with Gray and Klotzbach that the increase in hurricane activity the last two years "is mostly the natural swing."

Mon Sep 12, 09:56:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Frederic Christie said...

"It was a math model, which Emanuel said does not match the real world. The last two years are just a natural swing. Please get the facts!"

What facts? My argument is precisely that Emmanuel, among others, has shown fairly well that what we have seen CANNOT be reasonably attributed to natural phenomena, because it has consistently been higher incidences and more intense incidences than ever before. Emmanuel argues that the net power has doubled since 1970, which (barring some unforeseen climate pattern that no one can identify) means that global warming practically has to be to blame. Among the scientists also arguing this is Gerry Bell, James McCarthy Kevin Trenberth,.

Now note that Emmanuel published this prediction (note the word "prediction" in what you quoted) BEFORE Katrina. If his model and the NOAA's models are in fact predicting a stronger storm year, that is a bar successfully met for the global warming theory.

More resources:

To quote: "Most hurricanes do not strike land, McCarthy points out, and up until the past 25 years, with the advent of satellite tracking, there was scant data on the storms.

But there is abundant evidence of an unprecedented number of severe weather events in the past decade, McCarthy says. In 1998, Hurricane Mitch killed nearly 20,000 people in Central America, and more than 4,000 people died during disastrous flooding in China. Bangladesh suffered some of its worst floods ever the following year, as did Venezuela. Europe was hit with record floods in 2002, and then a record heat wave in 2003. "

Tue Sep 13, 12:48:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Frederic Christie said...

Let me also point out, Russ, that your cite about Kerry's caveat undermines your very argument about global warming-advocating scientists spreading junk science in order to achieve panic and to satisfy sinister political goals. Notice how Kerry said "mostly" the natural upswing. There is NO CONTRADICTION in noting that natural cycles will occur as always and then pointing out that IN ADDITION warming is operating.

Tue Sep 13, 12:54:00 AM PDT  

Post a Comment

<< Home