KATRINA AND THE WAVES

Like most people, I am shocked and feel so sorry for all those people unfortunate enough to live in the path of Hurricane Katrina as it cut a fearsome swathe through the Southern parts of the USA. Once again we witness the majestiy but awesome rage of nature. However I was then sickened to read that this tragedy provided Sir David King, the British Government's chief scientific adviser and pet propagandist, with the opportunity to warn that global warming may be responsible for the devastation reaped by Hurricane Katrina.

"The increased intensity of hurricanes is associated with global warming," Professor King told Channel 4 News yesterday. "We have known since 1987 the intensity of hurricanes is related to surface sea temperature and we know that, over the last 15 to 20 years, surface sea temperatures in these regions have increased by half a degree centigrade. So it is easy to conclude that the increased intensity of hurricanes is associated with global warming."

Yeah- easy to conclude if you have abandoned any pretence of scientific objectivity, Sir David.

I'm with  William Gray, a Colorado State University meteorologist who is considered one of the fathers of modern tropical cyclone science, who has said worldwide weather records were too inadequate for a thorough examination of trends. He told The Los Angeles Times:

"The people who have a bias in favour of the argument that humans are making the globe warmer will push any data that suggests humans are making hurricanes worse, but it just isn't so ... These are natural cycles."

Yes, but it's harder to get lucrative Governmenr research grants if you actually suggest that..ahem.....Nature may be to blame for nature.

Comments

[ed]

Of course King's right, that hurricanes are intensified as temperatures rise, but the real issue is whether this warming is something we have caused. Temperatures have risen over his chosen timescale; fair enough. And the incidence of hurricanes might reflect that, you would think. But if I chose the timescale I would show how the incidence of hurricanes is actually lower in the recent time period than it was, say, in the first thiry years of the 20th century. Yet people like him just won't go figure.

[Peter]

King was talking about intensity, not frequency. The incidence of hurricanes and their intensity are two different issues.

So go figure!

["Alice"]

David, I wrote about it on my blog this a.m.

"Because hurricanes form over warm ocean water, it is easy to assume that the recent rise in their number and ferocity is because of global warming.

But that is not the case, scientists say. Instead, the severity of hurricane seasons changes with cycles of temperatures of several decades in the Atlantic Ocean. The recent onslaught "is very much natural," said William M. Gray, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University who issues forecasts for the hurricane season."

"n an article this month in the journal Nature, Kerry A. Emanuel, a hurricane expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote that global warming might have already had some effect. The total power dissipated by tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic and North Pacific increased 70 to 80 percent in the last 30 years, he wrote.

But even that seemingly large jump is not what has been pushing the hurricanes of the last two years, Dr. Emanuel said, adding, "What we see in the Atlantic is mostly the natural swing.""

[ed]

Peter- heaven's above; touchy- for what it's worth the incidence of major hurricanes was greater in the 30's, 40's and 50's than it has been recently. See here:

http://eurota.blogspot.com/2005/08/eu-environmentalism-score-another-one.html

You could also look at this:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/downward/

'There is concern that the enhanced greenhouse effect may be affecting extreme weather events such as tropical cyclones. The North Atlantic basin offers a reliable, long-term record of tropical cyclone activity, though it may not be representative of tropical cyclones throughout the rest of the tropics. The most recent years of 1991 through 1994 have experienced the quietest tropical cyclone activity on record in terms of frequency of tropical storms, hurricanes, and intense hurricanes. This was followed by the 1995 hurricane season, one of the busiest in the past 50 years. Despite 1995's activity, a long-term (five decade) downward trend continues to be evident primarily in the frequency of intense hurricanes. In addition, the mean maximum intensity (i.e., averaged over all cyclones in a season) has decreased, while the maximum intensity attained by the strongest hurricane each year has not shown a significant change.'

Of course this research is a little old, and contains its own caveats, which I fully accept, but it's interesting in context.

You of course say that the frequency of intense events is not the issue King highlights. No, but it is the issue the public care about. Besides that, King's thesis seems to be that the intensity of hurricanes (plural) has increased due to global warming. This doesn't appear to be true based on a lot of what I'm reading. I repeat- I don't dispute the idea that high water surface temperatures cause hurricane intensity; I don't dispute temperature findings. I only dispute the idea that hurricanes in general are increasing in intensity- abnormally so- due to global warming as defined by the publicly funded scarifiers amongst whom you clearly find your idols.

[Monica-Philadelphia]

Can we gather the dead and give some food and water to the survivors before we start pointing fingers at the Republicans????!!!!!

It's a damn disgrace. Already the Democrats are screaming about Kyoto and the evil Bush administration. It's no wonder the Dems just keep losing.

["Alice"]

I totally agree with you Monicar. A hurricane is an act of nature. Period. Having someone say (RFK,Jr.)it is anyone's fault, i.e. the president and/or the governor of Mississippi, is as crass as they come, and completely mind-boggling.

[Jo]

..Peter isn't the only touchy one today! :)

[Peter]

Ed, excellent riposte, but spoiled by your final words:
"publicly funded scarifiers amongst whom you clearly find your idols"

If these guys were privately funded would you be more inclined to believe them? Can publicly funded scientists not be relied on for objectivity in your view?

And for the record, I don't have idols.

[David Gough]

As somebody once said if you do believe in God and He does not exist then nothing much will happen. On the other hand if you do not believe in God and He does exist, well, all Hell may well break loose.
Can any sane person not feel that Mankind has by his actions over the past one hundred years not caused at least some damage to the environment.
No harm will permanently be done by drastically cutting the industrial pollutants in our world, but if we don’t do it,well, all Hell may well break loose.

[The Troll]

Peter

Recent studies that throw another whole in the whether effects of global warming are the studies of solar flares and there effect on the atmosphere. Oh and another report came out just yesterday that the ozone whole is closing "once again" The science of atmospheric and planetary climate is a mass of contradictions. They just don't know what the data means and anyone who says they do is a liar with an agenda to promote.

[Monica-Philadelphia]

Peter, do you seriously believe that science can't be politicized?

[Peter]

The ozone layer is closing eh? Not according to the scientists in antarctica. Of course, maybe they're state-funded and therefore lying toe-rag liberals. Anyways, you can read their lies at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4197566.stm

And of course the ozone hole has s.d.a. to do with global warming in any case.