On 11 Apr, 01:56, "jonathan" wrote:
"Ian Parker" wrote in message

...
On 5 Apr, 19:01, (Rand Simberg) wrote:





On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 13:53:23 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Terrell
Miller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
I had nothing to say about long-term global warming. I was simply
pointing out that Jonathan's thesis that it is causing more intense
hurricanes *now* is lunacy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
I am not so sure, the oceans are a complex entity. There is surface
water and deep water. The oceans apparently cool when cold deep water
reaches the surface. This is the origin of El Nino type effects. Thus
we can have a long term trend of ocean warming with drops in surface
temperature.
What the effect on hurricanes is not at all clear. In a hurricane deep
water (intermediate level) is forced to the surface by high winds. The
effect of temperatures 100-200m down on the development of hurricanes
is unknown. In any event the drop in SST is only a temporary blip. In
e few years time temperatures will be up again.
It is self evident that hurricane formation is related to vapor
pressure.

Why do we make these things more complicated than they need to be?

The underlying concept of global warming is that the weather will become
more chaotic as the planet warms. Which of course means greater volatility
and...less predictability. Small thinkers like Rand want ....proof...when the
expected effect is for the established patterns to become LESS predictable..

Rands and his like want to be shown *proof of unpredictability.

OK! *Proof of global warming is found in forecasters having
less and less idea what the hell is going to happen next, except
they know it'll be stronger or weaker than normal. Or maybe
not.

In other words....they'll know...next to nothing.

From the horses mouth......

"We're in a busy period of hurricane activity that will inflict
unimaginable damage"

"They call the phenomenon ''rapid intensification,''

"....plans to deemphasize its controversial full-season forecasts"

"Those long-range forecasts, issued before the season begins
on June 1....have been *well off the mark in recent years."

etc etc.

If it quacks like a duck, it becomes beholden on those
that claim it's not a duck, to come up with their proof.

People keep pointing to 04 and 05, but last year was the
ideal example. The first *half of the season saw storms intensify
with breathtaking speed. And at the drop of a dime
the second half turned into Lake Placid.

The proof is in seeing more 'headscratching' over the weather.

Hell, we practically don't need to 'speed up' the videos
to show ice caps melting anymore.
Real time footage is almost good enough~

Proof....pfffft!

* - Ian Parker- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Certainly the state of a glacier is a good indicator. One hot day will
not melt a glacier, even a warmer year won't. Melting occurs from
weather that is statistically warmer.

You may be right, increased evaporation (from the tropics) will mean
more storms. There is however one contrary fact. Global warming is
ocuring more at high latitudes than in the tropics. Hence the
difference in temperature between the tropics and high latitudes is
less. This could under certan circumstances lead to calmer weather.

Climate and weather is complicated. It would be difficult to simlify
it without being misleading.


- Ian Parker