I replied to your request for dialog. Finally someone wants to talk science and there's no takers? Let's get his party started!
Posted on 09/16/2005 9:45:17 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
My position is two fold.
First, while hurricanes do need hot water to form, the number and severity of the storms is not well correlated to the ocean temperature. (less than .2) In fact the ocean temp has not shown a rise in temperature correlated to the rise in the concentration of CO2. An article in Scientific American in 2004 or early 2005 concluded that the oceans will act as a "sink" for rising temperature, even preventing the atmosphere from rising for well into the next 100 years. This fact, if true is both good and bad, because it means the verdict on warming or not will have to wait a long time. If it then IS a warming phenomena caused by humans, we may very well be too far along in it to stop the consequences of rising ocean water and changing agriculture climates.
The article quote you provided does not mention the lack of numerical correlation of storms to water and air temperature, it says in fact that since CO2 concentration has more than doubled the storms have increased in intensity. It sounds like the article has concluded that there is a relationship. Referring to a thirty year cycle that resulted in fewer and less severe storms for the past 15 years, the article would have us believe that it is no longer a cycle but after this next 15 years will continue to increase. To be sure the article does mention in passing that a longer time line is needed, (otherwise the lack of correlation will mean that we can't draw a conclusion about storms and their frequency that ties them to the global warming theory.)
BTW, as I understand it, the thirty year cycle is for storms originating in the south Atlantic. Storm counts world wide seem more or less to be constant.
The second point is that Scientific American runs one article (like the one I mentioned) that seems pretty free of bias and then runs ten articles that start with the assumption that warming is running out of control and makes "scientific" predictions of the consequences. The fact that a reputable publication would fall in so completely with the warming theory and its non free market agenda means that soon you and I will have to dig very deeply to find actual science amid the junk.
As far as the article from Science, I can agree with you that it is not a lie. But it also is leaning to support the global warming theory which at this time is only a theory.
I dislike 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' ideas too - seeing various hairdo-types on TV claiming bluntly that 'it's due to global warming' is irritating, as it mis-states evidence. Obviously a long-term rise in oceanic surface temperature would lead to more heat transfer to the atmosphere via cyclonic weather systems. That THIS increase in hurricanes over 10-15 years ago is strongly related to anthopogenic causes is just not clear in any way to me. But I'm not a close follower of current research.
As to Scientific American being a serious scientific journal, it's not. The article in Science on the other hand, said their perceived trend in increased storm power was 'not inconsistent' which is about as weak a starement as you can make - they don't claim there's clear evidence linking the two, just that it would fit the currently accepted model. That's responsible opinion, as I see it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.