News No logic for inaction - Global Warming

[Ivan Seeking]

Based on what I see and read, and in spite of the many attacks on Al Gore's laudable effort to help inform the public, there is a consensus that global climate change is real and caused in part by humans. The forecasts for future emissions cinch the debate.
http://www.ipcc.ch/

From a political point of view the debate is over. While it is true that the minority of skeptics who remain should continue to challenge the consensus as they see fit, this does not speak to the logic that governs our political actions. Obviously there can never be one-hundred percent certainly about something as complex as the future of our global weather, however given the risk to humanity, and now with what appears to be an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community, I can see no reason why any debate about "if" should remain in the public domain. This is a question for the minority of scientists to pursue, not Joe Sixpack. In short, it is crackpottery to publically peddle the arguments for doing nothing. There is no logical justification based on any risk to benefit ratio that you wish to consider.

The most irresponsible and selfish action, or lack thereof, is to doom all future generations for nothing but ego. If the publicly vocal skeptics are wrong, what price should they pay for interfering in what may be humanity's last hope to avert a global disaster? There is no justification. In fact, consider why they even make their debates public? Clearly the reason is that other scientists don't agree. Crackpottery! They are trying to bypass the scientific process for a political one because they stand alone.

Also, the economic benefits of green technologies are many-fold; the economic gloom and doom arguments used against green technologies are based on dull thinking that ignores issues such as the tremendous health costs associated with fossil fuel use, the military industrial complex and the history of US military action in the Middle East, jobs created by green and domestic energy solutions, and efficiency gains to name a few. Consider for example that Wal Mart just opened their first high efficiency store; not out of concern for our global health, but because they are the nations largest user of electricity. It made economic sense to save energy. See, no gloom and doom. Green pays.

 

[vanesch]

I have several conceptual problems with the global warming issue, and other "ecological" concerns. As I say, they are more on the conceptual level, and not so much on the practical side. They are meant to be thought-provoking, and debate-stimulating.

The first and foremost idea (which makes my mother-in-law jump to the ceiling, which might in itself be the main reason why I cherish it), is the following: we, as a species, being part of an ecology, cannot, by definition, be responsible for "an ecological disaster". If the presence and the actions of our species leads to our own extinction (which should in any case arrive sooner or later: no species has an infinite time of existence), and even to the sixth great extinction, then that is just an ecological fact as any other, and part of the natural evolution of the ecological system which brought us into existence in the first place. Great extinctions are usually followed by a plethora of new ecological developments, so by itself, a great extinction is not an "ecological disaster". So one should take some step back from the "big disaster and responsibility" we have concerning "ecology". There's no serious problem if our actions put our species, and 90% of other species, to an end. Life will find a way. So we shouldn't worry about THAT responsibility.

Next in line, the survival of our own species. Why would it be a problem by itself that our own species stops existing ? Of course, for the last generation, times will be hard, true. But each individual member of our species has to die somehow some day. This is the real problem, and is unsolvable. What could we care that an abstract concept such as "humanity" or "our species" survives or doesn't, if the only thing that really counts, namely that WE OURSELVES, will not survive, is an unavoidable fact ?
The only reason to try to avoid the extinction of our species, is indeed the probably deplorable conditions in which our last descendants will suffer to death. THIS might be a motivation to be careful. Or might be a reason not to have kids anymore.

Even better, it might be that a "disaster" on limited scale decimates our species without eliminating it. The survivors will then have "a new start" so to say, from which to build a truly better world with the lessons they learned from our errors. In that case, the "ecological disaster" was nothing else but some auto-regulatory effect for non-optimized behavior - a weeding-out which might otherwise not take place, and put more strain on our species in the long term. So maybe we should even stimulate it, if we want a better world on the long term.

Finally, the question is: can we avoid it, and at what price ? All measures of economy will probably smoothen out the total consumption of fossile fuels for a few more decades. So instead of pumping all that CO2 in the atmosphere in 30 years, we might do it in 80 years. But in any case, the total quantity put back in the ecosphere will be the same. It is just over a longer period, but geologically, 30 years, or 80 years is in any case a delta function. Does this really make any difference ? The only difference I can see is that it buys some time for our species, which might have one or two more generations, and - maybe most importantly - might have some extra time to develop some technology that might help us cope with it.
However, we should also consider the downside of all these economies. The economical price to pay to enforce restrictions of CO2 emissions and so on will bring economical slowdown, and hence more suffering for our current generation. So this is just a shift of suffering from hypothetical future generations to our own.

So all in all, we should think carefully before we start implementing drastic "save-the-earth" programs: it might just bring a bit more suffering to our own generation, without in any case avoiding the final extinction of our species in a few generations' time. That doesn't mean of course that we should ignore the problem, but we should know 1) whether there really IS a "solution" and 2) whether it is worth bringing suffering to our own generation in order to implement it.
All actions that satisfy both 1) and 2) are of course welcome.

Disclaimer: all the above is quite provocative, I know, but I think these ideas should at least be considered before jumping to any conclusions and drastic action.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

The nay sayers do themselves much disservice sometimes, they argue from the position of laymen, and are backed by big business, which automatically makes you think their on a dubious platform.

Scientists who try and nay say things are generally healthy, after all revising the model to allow for dimming, Output of the sun etc, is what science is all about.

Al Gore means well but again his credability isn't as much as a scientists would be, he should be getting his documentary style visions of doom and gloom into perspective from scientists. ie he should have a group of scientists willing to confirm or deny his claims, and not make rash judgements.

George Bush for example when asked about why the polar bears in the North Pole were heading towards extinction said: I have no idea why?

 

[turbo]

My wife and I have taken a number of steps. We needed a new roof anyway, so I made sure the roofer installed a full inch of Styrofoam over the old roof before installing the new metal roof. We heat with wood and make sure that the wood is very dry, and that the flue temp stays up around 400-500 F to obtain as clean a burn as possible. We have replaced every conventional light bulb in the house with the coiled fluorescents. We grow much of our own food, and use only organic fertilizers, manure, peat, etc - no chemicals. There are a lot of things we can do to reduce our negative impact on the Earth, and it's up to us to do what we can. Waiting for "the government" to address the problem is naive and short-sighted.

 

[Apost8]

We grow much of our own food, and use only organic fertilizers, manure, peat, etc - no chemicals.

Speaking of, here's a great book on organic lawncare: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1580176496/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[kmarinas86]

Global warming or no global warming, whether it is good for us or bad for us, whether we want it or do not want it, there should be no arbitrary force against the will to make things more energy efficient and free of pollution.

 

[Azael]

Next in line, the survival of our own species. Why would it be a problem by itself that our own species stops existing ? Of course, for the last generation, times will be hard, true. But each individual member of our species has to die somehow some day. This is the real problem, and is unsolvable. What could we care that an abstract concept such as "humanity" or "our species" survives or doesn't, if the only thing that really counts, namely that WE OURSELVES, will not survive, is an unavoidable fact ?
The only reason to try to avoid the extinction of our species, is indeed the probably deplorable conditions in which our last descendants will suffer to death. THIS might be a motivation to be careful. Or might be a reason not to have kids anymore.

I kind of like the idea to ensure my grandchildren will have a nice and clean planet to live on after I am gone. It won't effect me obviously because Il be dead. Maby there is no logical basis for that, but it is still a driving force that seems to be present in most humans.

 

[turbo]

Speaking of, here's a great book on organic lawncare: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1580176496/?tag=pfamazon01-20

You don't have to do too much to keep a lawn healthy if you have good soil. I leave the grass a bit taller than most folks, and I never rake or bag clippings - they go right back on the lawn for the nitrogen content. We get enough green stuff for the compost bins from weeds, trimmed plants, etc. I have planted the front lawn with fruit trees and will eventually have a nice mature orchard with cherries, plums, apples, apricots, peaches, pears, crabapples, etc. The trees and lawn get little doses of organic fertilizer made from bone meal, blood meal, processing waste from seafood, etc.

 

[russ_watters]

I have a number of comments about this issue, but one thing in particular that jumped out and grabbed me:

My wife and I have taken a number of steps.

We heat with wood and make sure that the wood is very dry, and that the flue temp stays up around 400-500 F to obtain as clean a burn as possible.

"As clean a burn as possible" with wood is still much, much, much dirtier than natural gas or oil. In addition, many wood stoves/furnaces pull their combustion air from inside the house (not sure about yours), which means when it is cold outside, the infiltration of cold air offsets the heat added by the stove. I'm having trouble finding good numbers on combustion gases, but here is a link that shows an EPA certified wood stove emits more than 100x more fine particle pollution (soot) than an oil furnace: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/woodsmoke/appliances.html

I don't see how such a thing can be seen as environmentally friendly.

 

[turbo]

I don't see how such a thing can be seen as environmentally friendly.

Wood grows on my 10 acres and is renewable. The numbers you quoted for emissions are end-use only. They do not take into account the energy used to drill for oil, extract it, transport it, refine it into end-products such as heating oil and kerosene, etc. I'll take the environmental impact of a clean-burning wood stove any day, not to mention the economic and geopolitical advantages.

 

[denverdoc]

Can't we just drop a few nukes down the mouth of a big volcano every so often? You know a little sunscreen applied every few years to keep things in thermal equilibrium... Now which volcano might get some big NIMBY argument started...
JS

 

[turbo]

Can't we just drop a few nukes down the mouth of a big volcano every so often? You know a little sunscreen applied every few years to keep things in thermal equilibrium... Now which volcano might get some big NIMBY argument started...
JS

We could drop one into Dotsero Crater. After 4-5K years, there might be a good build-up of pressure ready to vent.

 

[denverdoc]

We could drop one into Dotsero Crater. After 4-5K years, there might be a good build-up of pressure ready to vent.

Not in my backyard you don't!

 

[gravenewworld]

People always complain about the costs associated with reducing CO2 emmisions, but I ask you what is the long term cost of doing nothing? Massive crop failure due to global warming, destruction of homes in the gulf region from increased hurricane activity, etc. =trillions of dollars.

 

[denverdoc]

thats not the 1/2 of it--what of all that expensive beachfront real estate. The only good thing I can see is with the polar icecap melting, all sorts of new shipping lanes. And I disagree with some of what Vanesch had to say (not the more philosophical issues) re that we can only slow down a runaway process and hope to buy time for a better fix--eg sequestration, whatever. Wish I could recall the numbers, but believe I heard something on the order of absorbing an increase to about 0.05% before we hit the slippery slope. It's tough but doable with enough collective resolve. What do you tell India, China, and the devoping world--sorry you guys don't get a chance? Or to Americans and their addiction to Walmart for that matter, to say nothing of their own prodigal habits.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The first and foremost idea (which makes my mother-in-law jump to the ceiling, which might in itself be the main reason why I cherish it), is the following: we, as a species, being part of an ecology, cannot, by definition, be responsible for "an ecological disaster". If the presence and the actions of our species leads to our own extinction (which should in any case arrive sooner or later: no species has an infinite time of existence), and even to the sixth great extinction, then that is just an ecological fact as any other, and part of the natural evolution of the ecological system which brought us into existence in the first place. Great extinctions are usually followed by a plethora of new ecological developments, so by itself, a great extinction is not an "ecological disaster". So one should take some step back from the "big disaster and responsibility" we have concerning "ecology". There's no serious problem if our actions put our species, and 90% of other species, to an end. Life will find a way. So we shouldn't worry about THAT responsibility.

Obviously you don’t believe in reincarnation.

Next in line, the survival of our own species. Why would it be a problem by itself that our own species stops existing ? Of course, for the last generation, times will be hard, true. But each individual member of our species has to die somehow some day. This is the real problem, and is unsolvable. What could we care that an abstract concept such as "humanity" or "our species" survives or doesn't, if the only thing that really counts, namely that WE OURSELVES, will not survive, is an unavoidable fact ?

The most obvious answer is that those who may suffer miserable deaths due to our actions will be our children or grandchildren. We are not talking about an “abstract” surplus population after all, we are talking about our progeny. But beyond this is the issue of responsibility. Simply put, we don’t have the right to ignore the ramifications of our actions. We don’t have the right to ignore the suffering that it will cause. We don’t have the right to doom future generations. Just as any parent is implicitly responsible to feed and clothe their children, we have the responsibility to give future generations a fighting chance. Of course we will all die one day [for now], but this same argument might be used to starve a child to death as well. If the child will die one day anyway, what does it matter? For that matter, why not just nuke the middle east and be done with it. It sure would make MY life easier. And they’re all going to die someday anyway.

The only reason to try to avoid the extinction of our species, is indeed the probably deplorable conditions in which our last descendants will suffer to death. THIS might be a motivation to be careful. Or might be a reason not to have kids anymore.

We didn’t have kids.

Even better, it might be that a "disaster" on limited scale decimates our species without eliminating it. The survivors will then have "a new start" so to say, from which to build a truly better world with the lessons they learned from our errors. In that case, the "ecological disaster" was nothing else but some auto-regulatory effect for non-optimized behavior - a weeding-out which might otherwise not take place, and put more strain on our species in the long term. So maybe we should even stimulate it, if we want a better world on the long term.

A good war could accomplish the same thing. Would you support nuclear annihilation as a means to improve the species?

Finally, the question is: can we avoid it, and at what price ? All measures of economy will probably smoothen out the total consumption of fossile fuels for a few more decades. So instead of pumping all that CO2 in the atmosphere in 30 years, we might do it in 80 years. But in any case, the total quantity put back in the ecosphere will be the same. It is just over a longer period, but geologically, 30 years, or 80 years is in any case a delta function. Does this really make any difference ? The only difference I can see is that it buys some time for our species, which might have one or two more generations, and - maybe most importantly - might have some extra time to develop some technology that might help us cope with it.

We have the technology to eliminate fossil fuel use now - it is more a matter of will and priorities than technology. For example, it was estimated by the scientist in the http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/biodiesel_from_algae.pdf that for about the price of the Iraq war to date, maybe two, we could tap a CO2 neutral energy supply to replace the entire US demand for crude. And time after time we see that the only factor stopping the use of clean technologies is the price. In other words, the problem is not technology; it’s the money – the artificially suppressed price of oil. What is the real value of having no reliance on oil? What is the economic value of walking away from the problems of the Middle East? What is the value of averting an energy war with the Chinese? The demand for crude has been a plague on humanity for a century now, and it has come with price that is incalculable.

However, we should also consider the downside of all these economies. The economical price to pay to enforce restrictions of CO2 emissions and so on will bring economical slowdown, and hence more suffering for our current generation. So this is just a shift of suffering from hypothetical future generations to our own.

I think what you are really saying is that you don’t have the answers in your back pocket. Sure there are challenges to be met, but your position is to say that without even trying we should give up because other bad things might happen. You are also ignoring that our best estimate is that future undue suffering is only guaranteed if we do nothing. Sure, the experts could be wrong, but based on what they are saying we have no time to argue any longer. We have to make a choice and take action if we are ever going to do so. We are told that a “soft landing” is still possible. We are told that it may not be too late. When faced with only one option, the only reasonable course is to act on that remaining option.

So all in all, we should think carefully before we start implementing drastic "save-the-earth" programs: it might just bring a bit more suffering to our own generation, without in any case avoiding the final extinction of our species in a few generations' time. That doesn't mean of course that we should ignore the problem, but we should know 1) whether there really IS a "solution" and 2) whether it is worth bringing suffering to our own generation in order to implement it.
All actions that satisfy both 1) and 2) are of course welcome.

Disclaimer: all the above is quite provocative, I know, but I think these ideas should at least be considered before jumping to any conclusions and drastic action.

Absolutely I agree - we must think carefully about the actions taken. The real danger that I now see is that irrational choices will be made to satisfy political concerns. We must make good decisions that are guided by the science. We have to let go of our favorite solutions and accept the best solutions. We have to be willing to change and adapt. But first and foremost, we have to be willing to try.

I think I enjoyed your rebuttal as much as any seen before.

 

[sneez]

Prevention is shortsighted and passive for our species. Long gone are days of stable Earth in the middle of universe, unchanging, dull. Problem solving is adaptative. I say, bring it on GW. We should focus whatever resources into solving the problem, rather than trying to prevent the problem, after all, if the projections proove right we are up for big warming (inducing social, biological, climatological disbalance which will induce ... ) even if we stop CO2 emissions right now.

 

[denverdoc]

Ivan,

Nice post. Yea the best estimates for IRAQ I have seen are about a trillion dollars, not the 400 billion or so usually quoted. That would buy a lot of wind turbines and the like. As to Vanecsh's args, they're is something deeply and darkly fatalistic about it all. Here I was just hoping that the Bird flu might take out a couple billion people, relatively painless vs starvation--that along with zero growth birth control would buy some time.

 

[Evo]

destruction of homes in the gulf region from increased hurricane activity, etc. =trillions of dollars.

Actually that's not true, there was a thread about it in the Earth forum and looking back, this is normal cyclical activity. Look at 2006, nothing in the way of a major hurricane. And something that's not mentioned is typhoon activity, which hasn't been unusual. Gee, is global warming only in the Atlantic ocean?

It's these inacuracies that tend to harm the global warming issue.

 

[gravenewworld]

Actually that's not true, there was a thread about it in the Earth forum and looking back, this is normal cyclical activity. Look at 2006, nothing in the way of a major hurricane. And something that's not mentioned is typhoon activity, which hasn't been unusual. Gee, is global warming only in the Atlantic ocean?

It's these inacuracies that tend to harm the global warming issue.

Hmmm, I guess Cnn and the huge report on global warming coming soon out of Europe must have been lying to me then?


http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/01/climate.talks.ap/index.html

The report will say that global warming has made stronger hurricanes, including those on the Atlantic Ocean, such as Hurricane Katrina, according to Fields, the Barbados delegate, and others. (Watch what would happen to San Francisco if sea levels rose 3 feet Video)

They said the panel agreed that an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 "more likely than not" can be attributed to man-made global warming. The scientists said global warming's connection varies with storms in different parts of the world, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced.

 

[Evo]

Hmmm, I guess Cnn and the huge report on global warming coming soon out of Europe must have been lying to me then?

Sure looks like it. There is not only no proof that "global warming" caused any increase in hurricane activity, the actual records show that their hypothesis is wrong. This doesn't mean that global warming isn't a concern, just that they are looking foolish on the hurricane issue.

If you remember, they had predicted 2006 as having an even greater increase of strong hurricane activity then had to wipe the egg off their faces and retract the forecast.

 

[gravenewworld]

Sure looks like it. There is not only no proof that "global warming" caused any increase in hurricane activity, the actual records show that their hypothesis is wrong. This doesn't mean that global waming isn't a concern, just that they are looking foolish on the hurricane issue.

I'm not trying to be a jerk Evo, but you know there were hundreds of scientists (and there were over 2500+ scientist reviewers), including skeptics, and 113 government officials from all over the world on the panel. They came to the conclusion which I stated above. I feel like what you are claiming seems to be in the minority. Well, we will see tomorrow when the report comes out and get a chance to read it.

 

[Evo]

I'm not trying to be a jerk Evo, but you know there were hundreds of scientists, including skeptics, and 113 government officials from all over the world on the panel. They came to the conclusion which I stated above. I feel like what you are claiming seems to be in the minority. Well, we will see tomorrow when the report comes out and get a chance to read it.

Actually, it was basically one person.

"The report says that global warming has made stronger hurricanes, including those on the Atlantic Ocean, such as Hurricane Katrina, according to Fields, the Barbados delegate, and others.

"That's a contrast from the 2001 which said there was not enough evidence to make such a conclusion. And it conflicts with a November 2006 statement by the World Meteorological Organization, which helped found the IPCC. The meteorological group said it could not link past stronger storms to global warming."

Like I said, the hurricane part is wrong and the actual records prove it. Don't confuse the overall report with the tiny blurb on hurricanes.

If you are interested, there is something called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). This website explains it quite well and is quite unbiased.

"Is the AMO a natural phenomenon, or is it related to global warming?

Instruments have observed AMO cycles only for the last 150 years, not long enough to conclusively answer this question. However, studies of paleoclimate proxies, such as tree rings and ice cores, have shown that oscillations similar to those observed instrumentally have been occurring for at least the last millennium. This is clearly longer than modern man has been affecting climate, so the AMO is probably a natural climate oscillation. In the 20th century, the climate swings of the AMO have alternately camouflaged and exaggerated the effects of global warming, and made attribution of global warming more difficult to ascertain."

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/amo_faq.php

 

[gravenewworld]

Actually, it was basically one person.

Maybe my reading comprehension is terrible but the article also said

It [it being the report] also said an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 "more likely than not" can be attributed to man-made global warming. The scientists said global warming's connection varies with storms in different parts of the world, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced.

Yes the article from cnn said :

"The report says that global warming has made stronger hurricanes, including those on the Atlantic Ocean, such as Hurricane Katrina, according to Fields, the Barbados delegate, and others.

but notice what I have highlighted. Fields, the Barbados delegate, and others might have claimed that hurricanes in the Atlantic are related to global warming, but their claim made it into the report.

From what I read and interpreted, the conclusion about the hurricane activity in the Americas and its relation to global warming will be in the IPCC report. The report was reviewed by 2500 scientists before it was released so I don't think it was just basically 1 person's conclusion. The cnn article may be unclear, but the IPCC report will not be, and we will be able to see tomorrow when we can read it (or possibly in April).

Sure the report conflicts with previous findings, but what makes the previous findings right? I really don't think the IPCC is biased at all since it is open to every member of the UN and WMO. In order for a IPCC report to be released, it has to be unamiously agreed upon and passed through by 154 countries which also includes the United states and oil rich countries like Saudi Arabia. So yeah, I would say the IPCC reports are pretty thorough.

If you are interested, there is something called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). This website explains it quite well and is quite unbiased.

Thanks. Will read.

 

[Manchot]

I have a number of comments about this issue, but one thing in particular that jumped out and grabbed me: "As clean a burn as possible" with wood is still much, much, much dirtier than natural gas or oil. In addition, many wood stoves/furnaces pull their combustion air from inside the house (not sure about yours), which means when it is cold outside, the infiltration of cold air offsets the heat added by the stove. I'm having trouble finding good numbers on combustion gases, but here is a link that shows an EPA certified wood stove emits more than 100x more fine particle pollution (soot) than an oil furnace: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/woodsmoke/appliances.html

I don't see how such a thing can be seen as environmentally friendly.

Wood is much cleaner than natural gas or coal. Even though it seems to produce more pollutants, as far as CO2 is concerned, it is leaps and bounds better. The major difference between the two is that carbon released from wood is carbon already in the ecosystem, while carbon released by burning natural gas and coal is carbon that was excluded from the ecosystem millions of years ago. In the long run, burning wood is a carbon-netural process, which means that it does not disturb the equilibrium of the carbon cycle. Coal and gas throw the whole thing out of whack.

 

[denverdoc]

Maybe my reading comprehension is terrible but the article also said



Yes the article from cnn said :



but notice what I have highlighted. Fields, the Barbados delegate, and others might have claimed that hurricanes in the Atlantic are related to global warming, but their claim made it into the report.

From what I read and interpreted, the conclusion about the hurricane activity in the Americas and its relation to global warming will be in the IPCC report. The report was reviewed by 2500 scientists before it was released so I don't think it was just basically 1 person's conclusion. The cnn article may be unclear, but the IPCC report will not be, and we will be able to see tomorrow when we can read it (or possibly in April).

Sure the report conflicts with previous findings, but what makes the previous findings right? I really don't think the IPCC is biased at all since it is open to every member of the UN and WMO. In order for a IPCC report to be released, it has to be unamiously agreed upon and passed through by 154 countries which also includes the United states and oil rich countries like Saudi Arabia. So yeah, I would say the IPCC reports are pretty thorough.




Thanks. Will read.

Hear you there, i was under the assumption that because of the warming of the gulf waters more energy could be pumped into storm systems which would be superimposed on these 30 year cycles. So with time, while the periodicity would be preserved, on average the storms would become more destructive. Should make for some interesting reading.

 

[Evo]

Hear you there, i was under the assumption that because of the warming of the gulf waters more energy could be pumped into storm systems which would be superimposed on these 30 year cycles. So with time, while the periodicity would be preserved, on average the storms would become more destructive. Should make for some interesting reading.

Here are the facts, sorry, doesn't hold with the global warming claims.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

 

[Evo]

ields, the Barbados delegate, and others might have claimed that hurricanes in the Atlantic are related to global warming, but their claim made it into the report.

So what? Lots of crap makes it way into reports. This will probably be the part that they regret letting in since it has no scientific basis.

 

[vanesch]

People always complain about the costs associated with reducing CO2 emmisions, but I ask you what is the long term
cost of doing nothing?

The extinction of our species (and quite a few other), followed by a renewal, with plenty of new species (the ants are coming :-). So the very long term cost of doing nothing, is probably nothing.

 

[denverdoc]

Here are the facts, sorry, doesn't hold with the global warming claims.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

Looks bloody chaotic to me at first blush. But surely the warmer water can produce more energetic storms, no? I mean just from first principles and the increase in surface temps has been documented, has it not. Thanks for the info.

 

[denverdoc]

The extinction of our species (and quite a few other), followed by a renewal, with plenty of new species (the ants are coming :-). So the very long term cost of doing nothing, is probably nothing.

But what if the ants have no curiosity, we are the only inhabited world, and there are no more mass extinctions until the big one when ole sol balloons into a red giant, and therefore the chance for the universe to know itself is scissored from the script. Terribly anthropocentric suggestion i know.

 

[Evo]

Looks bloody chaotic to me at first blush. But surely the warmer water can produce more energetic storms, no? I mean just from first principles and the increase in surface temps has been documented, has it not. Thanks for the info.

Chaotic? It goes back to 1851 and breaks the hurricanes into category by decade. Pretty clear.

 

[denverdoc]

Chaotic? It goes back to 1851 and breaks the hurricanes into category by decade. Pretty clear.

No what I meant is that looking say at just big storms, I don't see a clear cycle with a T of 30 - 35 years, maybe something closer to 50, and without the last 2 years, hard to know whether we were in a nadir or peak in 2005. Guess I like my data graphical vs tabular, if there is some big picture here.

 

[Evo]

No what I meant is that looking say at just big storms, I don't see a clear cycle with a T of 30 - 35 years, maybe something closer to 50, and without the last 2 years, hard to know whether we were in a nadir or peak in 2005. Guess I like my data graphical vs tabular, if there is some big picture here.

I have no idea what you are talking about. The chart lists all hurricanes from level 1 through 5 going back to 1851. Nothing is missing. If you want 2005 and 2006 stats, you just need to look at the website

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2005atlan.shtml

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2006atlan.shtml

Global warming huh? Look at the HUGE drop in storms for 2006.

The main problem I have with global warming alarmists is that they claim that all current issues (storms, ice cap melting, sea level rise) are all due to man made global warming and this absolutely is not true. All of these things have been happening throughout history. That's a fact. If they hope to gain any credibility, they will state that all of these things have always happened, and they are cyclical, but they think man made emissions may be exacerbating things. Then they need to show to what percent man made emmissions are making things worse.

They are not doing this.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

First, I think it is correct to say that we can never know if any particular storm or weather event was caused or amplified by GW. Likewise, we can never say that GW didn't play a role. Also, we can never say what it would have been without GW since this is a purely hypothetical circumstance. We can only say whether or not the observed trends are consistent with the models.

Also the issue of time has come up. Let's say that we can delay the most significant impact of GW by thirty years. Having an extra thirty years to anticipate and plan for the effects not only allows for potential technological solutions to emerge, but it also gives large populations an extra thirty years to adjust to the change. When the day comes that we have to evacuate New York or Japan, for example, that extra time may have come in handy. The more that we can soften the blow, the more time that agriculture, real estate, civil planning, disease control, economic systems, and perhaps even species pushed to the brink will have to adjust to the change.

Unless we assume that our extinction due to AGCC is enevitable, it is logical to help soften the blow.

 

[Evo]

First, I think it is correct to say that we can never know if any particular storm was caused or amplified by GW. Likewise, we can never say that GW didn't play a role. Also, we can never say what it would have been without GW since this is a purely hypothetical circumstance. We can only say whether or not the observed trends are consistent with the models.

Also the issue of time has come up. Let's say that we can delay the most significant impact of GW by thirty years. Having an extra thirty years to anticipate and plan for the effects not only allows for potential technological solutions to emerge, but it also gives large populations an extra thirty years to adjust to the change. When the day comes that we have to evacuate New York or Japan, for example, that extra time may have come in handy. The more that we can soften the blow, the more time that agriculture, real estate, civil planning, disease control, economic systems, and perhaps even species pushed to the brink will have to adjust to the change.

I absolutely feel that man is making things worse. Like the knee jerk reaction to ban CFC's. We ended up replacing them with something that is 10,000 times worse for the environment. I will look that up tomorrow and post it, I previously posted it in another link.

Yes, we have a problem. We need to be more environmentally friendly. It just saddens me when I see so much disinformation,when there is enough information that could be presented, if presented properly.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

From what I've heard, the ban on CFCs is working. I will also try to find that report but it is getting too late right now. But refrigerants have always been a problem. In the bad old days your refer could kill you - ammonia, sulfur dioxide - and people in Russ's profession had a relatively high mortality rate, but the relatively benign alternatives found have long term environmental consequences. So the real problem is the need for refrigeration. The solution is to contain these gases and/or come up with better options.

 

[Evo]

From what I've heard, the ban on CFCs is working. I will also try to find that report but it is getting too late right now. But refrigerants have always been a problem. In the bad old days your refer could kill you - ammonia, sulfur dioxide - and people in Russ's profession had a relatively high mortality rate, but the relatively benign alternatives found have long term environmental consequences. So the real problem is the need for refrigeration. The solution is to contain these gases and/or come up with better options.

Here it is.

"In theory, the ban should have helped both problems. But the countries that first signed the Montreal Protocol 17 years ago failed to recognize that CFC users would seek out the cheapest available alternative.

That effect is at odds with the intent of a second treaty, drawn up in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 by the same countries behind the Montreal pact. In fact, the volume of greenhouse gases created as a result of the Montreal agreement's phaseout of CFCs is two times to three times the amount of global-warming carbon dioxide the Kyoto agreement is supposed to eliminate.

Some of the replacement chemicals whose use has grown because of the Montreal treaty -- hydrochloroflourocarbons, or HCFCs, and their byproducts, hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs -- decompose faster than CFCs because they contain hydrogen.

But, like CFCs, they are considered potent greenhouse gases that harm the climate -- up to 10,000 times worse than carbon dioxide emissions."

http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=11090

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I absolutely feel that man is making things worse. Like the knee jerk reaction to ban CFC's. We ended up replacing them with something that is 10,000 times worse for the environment. I will look that up tomorrow and post it, I previously posted it in another link.

Yes, we have a problem. We need to be more environmentally friendly. It just saddens me when I see so much disinformation,when there is enough information that could be presented, if presented properly.

There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics.

Mark Twain

What you don't mention is that it's generally believed by scientists that although global warming does not increase the number of hurricanes, there is consistent evidence that it increases the ferrocity. Same number of hurricanes increasing category, the fact that in the last 50 years some of the most damaging hurricanes have wreaked havoc across the Carribean and gulf coast.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0804_050804_hurricanewarming.html

I haven't the time to find the nature paper, but this'll do for a start

Hurricanes bring winds and slashing rains that flood streets, flatten homes, and leave survivors struggling to pick up the pieces. But has global warming given the storms an added punch, making the aftereffects more dreadful?

According to hurricane historian Jay Barnes of Pine Knoll Shores, North Carolina, ocean heat is the key ingredient for hurricane formation. More heat could "generate more storms and more intense hurricanes," he said.

Numerous studies in recent years have found no evidence that the number of hurricanes and their northwest Pacific Ocean cousins, typhoons, is increasing because of the rise in global temperatures.

But a new study in the journal Nature found that hurricanes and typhoons have become stronger and longer-lasting over the past 30 years. These upswings correlate with a rise in sea surface temperatures.

The duration and strength of hurricanes have increased by about 50 percent over the last three decades, according to study author Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge.

Emanuel's finding defies existing models for measuring storm strength. Current models suggest that the intensity of hurricanes and typhoons should increase by 5 percent for every 1ºC (1.8ºF) rise in sea surface temperature.

"We've had half a degree [Celsius] of warming, so that should have led to a 2.5 percent increase [in intensity], which is probably not detectable," Emanuel said. "What we've seen is somewhat bigger than that, and we don't really know why."

One possibility, Emanuel said, is that ocean temperatures may be increasing more quickly than atmospheric temperatures.

"When that happens we've shown theoretically you get an increase in the intensity of hurricanes," he said.

Anatomy of a Hurricane

According to Barnes, who has authored several books on U.S. hurricane history, the physics of hurricanes are complex and full of variables. "But the sun beating down on Earth is the primary thing that gets it going," he said.

Barnes explains in his book North Carolina's Hurricane History that the summer heat warms the ocean's surface and spurs evaporation. As heat and moisture rise into the atmosphere, billowing clouds, scattered showers, and thunderstorms form.

 

[whitay]

Actually that's not true, there was a thread about it in the Earth forum and looking back, this is normal cyclical activity. Look at 2006, nothing in the way of a major hurricane. And something that's not mentioned is typhoon activity, which hasn't been unusual. Gee, is global warming only in the Atlantic ocean?

It's these inacuracies that tend to harm the global warming issue.

I agree. I live in the tropics and I've seen more cyclones from the age of 0-10 then i have from 11-now. Which is quite bemusing for me and the whole global warming issue. Because I see it hard how you differentiate between weather here and global warming.

 

[Andre]

Perhaps this may add the the hurricane discussion:

Consensus Statements by International Workshop on Tropical Cyclones-VI (IWTC-VI) Participants
1. Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point.
2. No individual tropical cyclone can be directly attributed to climate change.
3. The recent increase in societal impact from tropical cyclones has largely been caused by rising concentrations of population and infrastructure in coastal regions.
4. Tropical cyclone wind-speed monitoring has changed dramatically over the last few decades, leading to difficulties in determining accurate trends.
5. There is an observed multi-decadal variability of tropical cyclones in some regions whose causes, whether natural, anthropogenic or a combination, are currently being debated. This variability makes detecting any long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity difficult.
6. It is likely that some increase in tropical cyclone peak wind-speed and rainfall will occur if the climate continues to warm. Model studies and theory project a 3-5% increase in wind-speed per degree Celsius increase of tropical sea surface temperatures.
7. There is an inconsistency between the small changes in wind-speed projected by theory and modeling versus large changes reported by some observational studies.
8. Although recent climate model simulations project a decrease or no change in global tropical cyclone numbers in a warmer climate, there is low confidence in this projection. In addition, it is unknown how tropical cyclone tracks or areas of impact will change in the future.
9. Large regional variations exist in methods used to monitor tropical cyclones. Also, most regions have no measurements by instrumented aircraft. These significant limitations will continue to make detection of trends difficult.
10. If the projected rise in sea level due to global warming occurs, then the vulnerability to tropical cyclone storm surge flooding would increase.
The comprehensive scientific statement will be available on the WMO Tropical Meteorology Research Program website from Monday 4 December 2006:

 

[Andre]

Anyway the new Summary for Policy makers (SPM) is here,, released today.

This was my reaction submitted here:

The innate objective of about everybody is to survive, avoid danger, have offspring and ensures its future. An average citizen is certain to react to dangers for the future both for avoiding own danger and that for his offspring. Therefore, they are likely to listen and obey those who have identified a future threat and who appear to know how to fight it.

H.L. Mencken identified that effect of that listen-and-obey-to-fight-the-threat mechanism: “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it”. Not only the environmentalist want global warming to be true, but also the intelligent citizen, knowing that the fossil fuels will deplete and have a grave crisis potential if not timely countered by going nuclear or renewable. The climatologists want it to be true and secure moe research funding. The governments want it to be true because it’s a great way to rule, having an obedient population and impose taxes to fight the horrible enemy. The media want it to be true because the story sells excellently.And thus the positive scaremongering feedback loop continues to spiral up. So it is very good for humanity if anthropogenic global warming was to be true, but it isn’t.

The new SPM is characterized by fallacies, abandoning the scientific method, selective empiric evidence, ignoring all the scientific research with are more balanced approach until the outright refuting studies of an anthropogenic cause. Lot’s of evidence for warming until 1998, but none for its cause. Also, now that the Pleistocene ice ages, once the cause of the global warming fever, no longer support CO2 greenhouse gas effect neither as cause nor as positive feedback, it’s completely ignored. Few will realize that this is actually effectively falsifying the anthropogenic hypothesis. But there is no place for good news.

We need not to reduce emissions for saving the climate, we must think however how to transit to a fossil fuel-less future, but these are two completely different things and a false use of the first to ensure the second will rebound. People don't buy to be misled when they suffer from the highly backfiring measures against global warming during the next little ice age caused by the Landscheidt solar minimum around 2030.

 

[Azael]

Wood is much cleaner than natural gas or coal. Even though it seems to produce more pollutants, as far as CO2 is concerned, it is leaps and bounds better. The major difference between the two is that carbon released from wood is carbon already in the ecosystem, while carbon released by burning natural gas and coal is carbon that was excluded from the ecosystem millions of years ago. In the long run, burning wood is a carbon-netural process, which means that it does not disturb the equilibrium of the carbon cycle. Coal and gas throw the whole thing out of whack.

You are ignore the health consequenses of burning wood.

 

[Evo]

What you don't mention is that it's generally believed by scientists that although global warming does not increase the number of hurricanes, there is consistent evidence that it increases the ferrocity. Same number of hurricanes increasing category, the fact that in the last 50 years some of the most damaging hurricanes have wreaked havoc across the Carribean and gulf coast.

That's not true. Here are the listings of hurricanes by category, the number of severe hurricanes has decreased. It only seems like they are worse because of population increase and news coverage. You can't argue with the facts.

Incase you haven't researched the facts, here are the hurricanes since 1941 by categories 1 through 5.

Year...1...2...3...4...5
1941-1950..8...6...9...1...0
1951-1960..8...1...5...3...0
1961-1970..3...5...4...1...1
1971-1980..6...2...4...0...0
1981-1990..9...1...4...1...0
1991-2000..3...6...4...0...1
2001-2004..4...2...2...1...0

Major hurricanes Category 3-5

1941-1950...10
1951-1960...8
1961-1970...6
1971-1980...4
1981-1990...5
1991-2000...5
2001-2004...3

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

You'll find sensationalism is rampant in any media, a good hard look at the facts is always needed for a reality check.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

That's not true. Here are the listings of hurricanes by category, the number of severe hurricanes has decreased. It only seems like they are worse because of population increase and news coverage. You can't argue with the facts.


You'll find sensationalism is rampant in any media, a good hard look at the facts is always needed for a reality check.

So the scientists paper in nature that claims this is wrong, well ok? Do you think they simply looked at the news reports then and misrepresented the facts? Seems a little amazing that well respected scientists could claim such a thing and it actually be based on a tissue of misrepresented facts and half baked ideas?

I'll try and route the paper out, but I wouldn't hold up much hope.

Well blow me meteorology papers are much easier to get hold of than physics papers

ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/NATURE03906.pdf

Climate model predictions of the influence of global

 

[turbo]

You are ignore the health consequenses of burning wood.

What health consequences?

People in Maine (especially women and children) are warned not to eat too much fresh-water fish from the state's waters. Why? Mercury from midwest coal-fired plants is polluting our lakes, ponds and rivers. Our waters are being acidified by those same power plants. We frequently have health alerts for high ozone levels during the summer - people with respiratory problems are warned to stay indoors and avoid exertion. Again, pollutants drifting in from the west. Maine only has about 1.2M people, and we are not creating these problems, we are suffering the consequences of the actions of others. It is difficult to see how burning dry, seasoned firewood in a well-designed wood stove can be more harmful to one's health than burning fossil fuels. Remember that heating oil (the predominant fuel here in Maine) may burn relatively cleanly, assuming the furnace is clean and well-tuned, but that is absolutely the cleanest part of its product cycle.

The pollution involved in burning #2 fuel oil is cumulative. Crude has to be pumped from the ground and transported to ports and loaded onto supertankers that bring it to the states. It is off-loaded and run through refineries (ever stand down-wind from one?), then the finished products are loaded onto coastal tankers for the trip to Maine and off-loaded at tank farms. The products are then loaded into semi-trailer tanks for delivery to fuel companies. At every step of this process, there are environmental impacts. When the tanker comes into the harbor, and when the diesel tractor-trailers accelerate out of the tank farm, they pump soot and unburned fuel into the air, so even delivering the finished product has negative environmental impacts. By burning wood, I am using a renewable energy source that is far cleaner in total than heating oil. The only time you will ever see any smoke coming out of my chimney is when I am starting a fire from scratch - the flue temperature is high enough that all you will see over my chimney is a refractive shimmer.

 

[Evo]

So the scientists paper in nature that claims this is wrong? Do you think they simply looked at the news reports then and misrepresented the facts? Seems a little amazing that well respected scientists could claim such a thing and it actually be based on a tissue of misrepresented facts and half baked ideas?

It's the opinion of one person and the article you posted seems to disagree with his opinion.

"Numerous studies in recent years have found no evidence that the number of hurricanes and their northwest Pacific Ocean cousins, typhoons, is increasing because of the rise in global temperatures."

"Emanuel's finding defies existing models for measuring storm strength. Current models suggest that the intensity of hurricanes and typhoons should increase by 5 percent for every 1ºC (1.8ºF) rise in sea surface temperature.

"We've had half a degree [Celsius] of warming, so that should have led to a 2.5 percent increase [in intensity], which is probably not detectable," Emanuel said. "What we've seen is somewhat bigger than that, and we don't really know why."

Just glancing at the paper he wrote he's making a "prediction". Apparently all of the studies done so far disagree with his "predictions" as the article stated.

 

[Azael]

What health consequences?

People in Maine (especially women and children) are warned not to eat too much fresh-water fish from the state's waters. Why? Mercury from midwest coal-fired plants is polluting our lakes, ponds and rivers. Our waters are being acidified by those same power plants. We frequently have health alerts for high ozone levels during the summer - people with respiratory problems are warned to stay indoors and avoid exertion. Again, pollutants drifting in from the west. Maine only has about 1.2M people, and we are not creating these problems, we are suffering the consequences of the actions of others. It is difficult to see how burning dry, seasoned firewood in a well-designed wood stove can be more harmful to one's health than burning fossil fuels. Remember that heating oil (the predominant fuel here in Maine) may burn relatively cleanly, assuming the furnace is clean and well-tuned, but that is absolutely the cleanest part of its product cycle.

The pollution involved in burning #2 fuel oil is cumulative. Crude has to be pumped from the ground and transported to ports and loaded onto supertankers that bring it to the states. It is off-loaded and run through refineries (ever stand down-wind from one?), then the finished products are loaded onto coastal tankers for the trip to Maine and off-loaded at tank farms. The products are then loaded into semi-trailer tanks for delivery to fuel companies. At every step of this process, there are environmental impacts. When the tanker comes into the harbor, and when the diesel tractor-trailers accelerate out of the tank farm, they pump soot and unburned fuel into the air, so even delivering the finished product has negative environmental impacts. By burning wood, I am using a renewable energy source that is far cleaner in total than heating oil. The only time you will ever see any smoke coming out of my chimney is when I am starting a fire from scratch - the flue temperature is high enough that all you will see over my chimney is a refractive shimmer.

Unfortunaly I don't have a english reference, but particles released from wood has detrimental effects on healths. Even in a small country like sweden wood burning does cause a noticable increase in premature deaths.

I never stated that its better or worse than coal or oil.
Im just saying its not healthy to burn biofuels. It might be the best of a load of bad options. But electric heating from electricity produced by nuclear power for instance would be a better option. Best would be direct heating but that offcourse is only viable in areas close to a plant.

 

[Azael]

According to a study done by the swedish environmental protection agency burning wood causes 2.1 deaths by cancer for every TWh heat produced. (primary cause is release of PAH's)

A study done in portugal gives the number 5.5 deaths/TWh heat produced. This because of damage to respiratory organs(I hope this is the correct translation). Not taking into account cancer.


Biofuels emit more cancerogenic substances than coal power plant while coal power emits more NOx.
Info gotten from here
http://www.analys.se/lankar/bkgr/bakgrund96-5.html

It is in swedish but it is a respected organisation in sweden.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

It's the opinion of one person and the article you posted seems to disagree with his opinion.

"Numerous studies in recent years have found no evidence that the number of hurricanes and their northwest Pacific Ocean cousins, typhoons, is increasing because of the rise in global temperatures."

"Emanuel's finding defies existing models for measuring storm strength. Current models suggest that the intensity of hurricanes and typhoons should increase by 5 percent for every 1ºC (1.8ºF) rise in sea surface temperature.

"We've had half a degree [Celsius] of warming, so that should have led to a 2.5 percent increase [in intensity], which is probably not detectable," Emanuel said. "What we've seen is somewhat bigger than that, and we don't really know why."

Just glancing at the paper he wrote he's making a "prediction". Apparently all of the studies done so far disagree with his "predictions" as the article stated.

Well what I was going to say is that actually it is not the opinion of a single person, there is serious research in this area, and as he himself says there are clues that the warming of seas causes an increase in hurricanes ferrocity, since this is basically the hurricanes fuel source via the sun, do you think it not logical to conclude that more energy in=more energy out?

Check the citations here, it's wiki but it's backed up by scientific papers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone

Global warming
Link between tropical cyclone activity and sea surface temperature over the past century in the Atlantic Basin This image has an uncertain copyright status and is pending deletion. You can comment on the removal.
Link between tropical cyclone activity and sea surface temperature over the past century in the Atlantic Basin This image has an uncertain copyright status and is pending deletion. You can comment on the removal.

A common question is whether global warming will cause less frequent or delicate tropical cyclones. So far, virtually all climatologists agree that a single storm, or even a single season, cannot clearly be attributed to a single cause such as global warming or natural variation.[109] The question, therefore, is whether a statistical trend in frequency or strength of cyclones exists.

The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory performed a simulation that concluded "the strongest hurricanes in the present climate may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the Earth's climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."[110]

In an article in Nature,[111] Kerry Emanuel stated that potential hurricane destructiveness, a measure combining hurricane strength, duration, and frequency, "is highly correlated with tropical sea surface temperature, reflecting well-documented climate signals, including multidecadal oscillations in the North Atlantic and North Pacific, and global warming." He predicts "a substantial increase in hurricane-related losses in the twenty-first century."[111]

Along similar lines, P.J. Webster and others published an article[112] in Science[112] examining "changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity" over the last 35 years, a period when satellite data has been available. The main finding is that while the number of cyclones "decreased in all basins except the North Atlantic during the past decade," there has been a "large increase in the number and proportion of hurricanes reaching categories 4 and 5." That is, while the number of cyclones has decreased overall, the number of very strong cyclones has increased.

Both Emanuel and Webster et al. consider sea surface temperatures to be very important in the development of cyclones. The question then becomes: what caused the observed increase in sea surface temperatures? In the Atlantic, it could be due to global warming and the hypothesized Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), a possible 50–70 year pattern of temperature variability. Emanuel, however, found the recent temperature increase was outside the range of previous sea surface temperature peaks. So, both global warming and a natural variation (such as the AMO) could have made contributions to the warming of the tropical Atlantic over the past decades, but an exact attribution is so far impossible to make.[109]

While Emanuel analyzed total annual energy dissipation, Webster et al. analyzed the percentage of hurricanes in the combined categories 4 and 5 and found that this percentage has increased in six hurricane basins: North Atlantic, North East and North West Pacific, South Pacific, and North and South Indian.

Assuming that the six basins are statistically independent except for the effect of global warming,[113] zFacts has carried out the obvious paired t-test and found that the null-hypothesis of no impact of global warming on the percentage of category 4 and 5 hurricanes can be rejected at the 0.1% level. This means that there is only a 1 in 1000 chance of simultaneously finding the observed six increases in the percentages of category 4 and 5 hurricanes. This statistic needs refining because the variables being tested are not normally distributed with equal variances, but it may provide the best evidence yet that the impact of global warming on hurricane intensity has been detected.

# ^ a b Webster, P. J., G. J. Holland, J. A. Curry and H.-R. Chang (September 16, 2005). "Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment" (PDF). Science 309 (5742): 1844-1846. Retrieved on 2006-03-20.

this looks promissing.