"James" wrote in :


"Prosecute Killer Koch Bros for Global Warming Deaths"
wrote in message
. 17.102...
"James" wrote in :


"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
ups.com...
James wrote:
Prior to the first satellite that looked at this stuff sometime in
the
70s,
many storms went unnoticed.

Yes. When I looked at hurricane data I also found increases
at about the time ships gave up sail power, and another near
the time when ships started carrying radio.

That's a problem to be sure, but I don't think it's the major
one here. According to what I have read, models do not
show increasing hurricanes for another half-century or so.
I think everyone is counting hurricanes before they're hatched.
This business about increasing strengths, is tricky to model
and hard to measure, so the claims are hard to verify. Put
me in the doubters camp on this issue, at least for about
another two decades.


How about a few more decades. To compare 1995 - 2005 is a bit much
comparing the period the 1950 -1960 don't you think?

"The North Atlantic data clearly show that - in the last
decade (since 1995) relative to the decade centered around 1950
(previous peak period) - there are 50% more named storms, 50% more
hurricanes, and 50% more category 4 and 5 storms.

Science anybody can do themselves -- No Spin, No Experts Required

COMPARISON: 1950-1959 versus 1996-2005
Hurricane season intensity compared to average from 1851-2005

The 1950s was the second most violent hurricane decade ever in the records which go back to the
California Gold Rush time period. This data is a comparison to the 2nd most violent ten years to this current
ten years supreme violence of weather...

Location of Source Data:
http://tinyurl.com/7q4xp 1851-2002
Wikipedia 2003-2005
For brevity sake, abbreviations are used:
TS = Tropical Storm
C1 = Hurricane Category 1, C2 = Hurricane Category 2
C3, C4, C5 = Major Hurricanes Category 3, 4 & 5 respectively.

The Violent NEW-ERA Storms Record
The 10-year stretch from 1996-2005 Stats:
1996 : TS=4, C1=3, C2=0, C3=4, C4=2
1997 : TS=5, C1=1, C2=0, C3=1, C4=0
1998 : TS=4, C1=3, C2=4, C3=1, C4=1, C5=1
1999 : TS=4, C1=0, C2=3, C3=0, C4=5
2000 : TS=7, C1=5, C2=0, C3=1, C4=2
2001 : TS=6, C1=5, C2=0, C3=2, C4=2
2002 : TS=8, C1=1, C2=1, C3=1, C4=1
2003 : TS=9, C1=3, C2=1, C3=2, C4=0, C5=1
2004 : TS=5, C1=1, C2=1, C3=2, C4=3, C5=1
2005 : TS=13, C1=7, C2=1, C3=2, C4=1, C5=4
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals TS= 4+5+4+4+7+6+8+9+5+13= 65 Tropical Storms
Totals C1= 3+1+3+0+5+5+1+3+1+7 = 29 Hurricanes Category 1
Totals C2= 0+0+4+3+0+0+1+1+1+1 = 11 Hurricanes Category 2
Totals C3= 4+1+1+0+1+2+1+2+2+2 = 16 Major Hurricanes Category 3
Totals C4= 2+0+1+5+2+2+1+0+3+1 = 17 Major Hurricanes Category 4
Totals C5= 0+0+1+0+0+0+0+1+1+4 = 7 Major Hurricanes Category 5

==== 1851-2005 =======
Total # of TS = 538 Tropical Storms.
Total # of C1 = 307 Hurricanes Category 1
Total # of C2 = 208 Hurricanes Category 2
Total # of C3 = 169 Major Hurricanes Category 3
Total # of C4 = 91 Major Hurricanes Category 4
Total # of C5 = 30 Major Hurricanes Category 5 = 1,343 Storms
Totals OLD-ERA plus NEW-ERA Hurricane Regimes.
======================

Statistical frequency 1851-2005 (154 years): NEW+OLD ERA
8.7 storms per year average, 87 storms per ten year-sequence.
TS = 3.49 per year, 35 per 10-years
C1 = 1.99 per year, 20 per 10-years
C2 = 1.35 per year, 13.5 per 10-years
C3 = 1.1 per year, 11 per 10-years
C4 = 0.59 per year, 6 per 10-years
C5 = 0.19 per year, 1.9 per 10-years
======================

Compare 1950-1959, the second most violent weather period on record:
1950 : TS=2, C1=0, C2=2, C3=5, C4=2, C5=1
1951 : TS=2, C1=2, C2=1, C3=3, C4=1, C5=1
1952 : TS=1, C1=1, C2=2, C3=2, C4=1
1953 : TS=8, C1=1, C2=1, C3=3, C4=1
1954 : TS=3, C1=3, C2=3, C3=1, C4=1
1955 : TS=3, C1=1, C2=2, C3=4, C4=1, C5=1
1956 : TS=5, C1=1, C2=0, C3=1, C4=1
1957 : TS=5, C1=1, C2=0, C3=0, C4=2
1958 : TS=3, C1=2, C3=3, C4=1, C5=1
1959 : TS=4, C1=5, C2=0, C3=1, C4=1
TS= 2+2+1+8+3+3+5+5+3+4= 35 Tropical Storms
C1= 0+2+1+1+3+1+1+1+2+5= 17 Hurricanes Category 1
C2= 2+1+2+1+3+2+0+0+3+0= 14 Hurricanes Category 2
C3= 5+3+2+3+1+4+1+0+1+1= 21 Major Hurricanes Category 3
C4= 2+1+1+1+1+1+1+2+1+1= 12 Major Hurricanes Category 4
C5= 1+1+0+0+0+1+0+0+0+0= 3 Major Hurricanes Category 5
==================================================
35 Average for record for ten years TROPICAL STORMS
35 total for 1950-1959 TROPICAL STORMS (1950s = normal)
65 total for 1996-2005 TROPICAL STORMS (Now nearly doubled)

19.7 Annual Average for record for ten years HURRICANES Category 1
17 total 1950-1959 HURRICANES Category 1 (1950s below normal)
29 total 1996-2005 HURRICANES Category 1 (Now 50% higher)

13.5 Annual Average for record for ten years HURRICANES Category 2
14 total 1950-1959 HURRICANES Category 2 (1950s up slightly)
11 total 1996-2005 HURRICANES Category 2 (Now down slightly)

10.7 Annual Average for record for ten years MAJOR HURRICANES Category 3
21 Total 1950-1959 MAJOR HURRICANES Category 3 (1950s double normal)
16 Total 1996-2005 MAJOR HURRICANES Category 3 (Now up 60%)

5.8 Annual Average for record for ten years MAJOR HURRICANES Category 4
12 total 1950-1959 MAJOR HURRICANES Category 4 (1950s double normal)
17 total 1996-2005 MAJOR HURRICANES Category 4 (Now triple)

1.4 Annual Average for record for ten years MAJOR HURRICANES Category 5
3 total 1950-1959 MAJOR HURRICANES Category 5 (1950s double normal)
7 total 1996-2005 MAJOR HURRICANES Category 5 (Now almost quadruple)

87.2 Average total storms for record over ten years 1851-2005
102 total storms 1950-1959 (17% More Storms than record-average for 10-years)
138. total storms 1996-2005 (58% More Storms than record-average for 10-years)
NOW 35% MORE Total Storms than 1950s in recent decade.

33.4 Total Weak Hurricanes (under 110 mph) per decade average of record.
31 Weak Hurricanes (under 110 mph) 1950-1959
40 Weak Hurricanes (under 110 mph) 1996-2005
NOW 29% MORE Weak Hurricanes than 1950s in recent decade

18.8 MAJOR HURRICANES (Over 110 mph) per decade average of record.
36 MAJOR HURRICANES (Over 110 mph) 1950-1959
40 MAJOR HURRICANES (Over 110 mph) 1996-2005
NOW 11% MORE MAJOR HURRICANES than 1950s in recent decade.

In article , "James" wrote:

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
roups.com...
From
:http://www.earthsky.org/features/Sci...nesWarming.php

Experts respond to questions challenging link between global warming
and hurricanes

(July 28, 2006) A research meteorologist at the National Hurricane
Center today challenged a proposed link between global warming and
hurricane intensity, which had been reported earlier by other hurricane
researchers.

Two other hurricane scientists - whose research indicates this link
does exist, and that global warming is already causing stronger
hurricanes - have now responded.


Chris Landsea
Research meteorologist Chris Landsea called the existing data on
hurricanes "insufficently reliable" to be able to detect a connection
between global warming and the appearance of more intense hurricanes in
recent years.
Landsea wrote in the July 28, 2006 edition of Science, in a section of
the journal called "Perspectives." In his remarks, Landsea questioned
the objectivity of what's called the Dvorak Technique, a method of
estimating tropical cyclone intensity using satellite imagery.

"It is common for different forecasters and agencies to estimate
significantly different intensities on the basis of identical
information," Landsea wrote.

He wrote that data solely relying on satellites showed "artificial
upward trends in intensity," and that data inconsistencies cast "severe
doubts on any such trend linkages to global warming."


Judith Curry
Meanwhile, Judith Curry - a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute
of Technology, who recently testified before a U.S. congressional
committee on the subject of hurricanes and global warming - told Earth
& Sky, "Landsea's 'article' is commentary, not a peer reviewed
article."
She said, "The North Atlantic data clearly show that - in the last
decade (since 1995) relative to the decade centered around 1950
(previous peak period) - there are 50% more named storms, 50% more
hurricanes, and 50% more category 4 and 5 storms.

"WIth regard to the global data since 1970 ... there have been
variations with time in how the data has been processed. There is
anecdotal evidence that some storms have been misclassified (some
classified to high and some too low).

"However, at this point, no one has done a rigorous error or
uncertainty analysis on the data, so in my opinion Landsea's statements
about the trends are not supported."


Kevin Trenberth
Kevin Trenberth - head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National
Center for Atmospheric Research - told Earth & Sky, "There are still
good reasons to believe that hurricanes have become more intense, and
that this trend will continue."
He said, "The data on sea surface temperatures, and on water vapor in
the atmosphere, are sound. Sea temperatures have risen. Water vapor has
increased about 4% since 1970 over the oceans.

"This is fuel for storms, including the extratropical storms that
caused floods in New England earlier this year and in Washington D.C.
this summer.

"There is no question about the changes of huge increases in intensity
and duration of storms, as found by Kerry Emanuel. For Landsea to
suggest otherwise has no credence.

"Moreover, as we have published, this is associated with increases in
sea surface temperatures and that is mostly caused by global warming,
not natural variability," he concluded.


Tom Knutson
Tom Knutson of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab also weighed in.
In an email to Earth & Sky, he said, " I would not claim to have the
expertise to decide who is closer to the truth in this particular
debate at this point."
He continued, "The issue of data homogeneity is a very legitimate and
important question to raise concerning the issue of possible long-term
trends in hurricane activity."


Prior to the first satellite that looked at this stuff sometime in the 70s,
many storms went unnoticed.


Which is why the studies all start from the 70s.

Roger Coppock wrote:
From
:http://www.earthsky.org/features/Sci...nesWarming.php

Experts respond to questions challenging link between global warming
and hurricanes

Now we read on with the certain knowledge that everything is true
because they have been labeled "experts", as opposed to those who are
"challenging" that "link", right?

Only we know that "expert" is an acronym for 'A has been drip under
pressure', don't we :-)

(July 28, 2006) A research meteorologist at the National Hurricane
Center today challenged a proposed link between global warming and
hurricane intensity, which had been reported earlier by other hurricane
researchers.

Ah, a mere "research meteorologist", a weather man, like those seen on
telly that does similar work like a junior filing clerk in an office.
Right got that!

Two other hurricane scientists - whose research indicates this link
does exist, and that global warming is already causing stronger
hurricanes - have now responded.

But now we have real "hurricane scientists", and not mere petty dog's
body of a weather man! Who-hoo, better look out and cower meekly under a
desk, the big guns are being brought in!

Well at least the scene has been properly set for what follows.

Chris Landsea
Research meteorologist

This all part of that appeal to authority nonsense, where the
"authority" or qualifications, and therefor ability, is being belittled
by minimising the "title" of the person. It is illogical and
unscientific, but often used in place of science.

Chris Landsea called the existing data on
hurricanes "insufficently reliable" to be able to detect a connection
between global warming and the appearance of more intense hurricanes in
recent years.
Landsea wrote in the July 28, 2006 edition of Science, in a section of
the journal called "Perspectives." In his remarks, Landsea questioned
the objectivity of what's called the Dvorak Technique, a method of
estimating tropical cyclone intensity using satellite imagery.

"It is common for different forecasters and agencies to estimate
significantly different intensities on the basis of identical
information," Landsea wrote.

He wrote that data solely relying on satellites showed "artificial
upward trends in intensity," and that data inconsistencies cast "severe
doubts on any such trend linkages to global warming."

Seems to me to be valid points.

Judith Curry
Meanwhile, Judith Curry - a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute
of Technology, who recently testified before a U.S. congressional

Oh but it must be a really important person, hell this Judy female
(probably a feminist to boot) even testified before a US congressional
"committee". Now that makes everything she say absolutely true and true
twice over perhaps!

committee on the subject of hurricanes and global warming - told Earth
& Sky, "Landsea's 'article' is commentary, not a peer reviewed
article."

Hang on that is one of the oldest cop-outs there is. Does the female
claim it is "not true"? Hell no! She didn't have an opportunity to
poo-poo it before it was published, is what she says. Nothing at all
about the actual issues being dealt with. It is merely a petty dummy
spit from her.

She said, "The North Atlantic data clearly show that - in the last
decade (since 1995) relative to the decade centered around 1950
(previous peak period) - there are 50% more named storms, 50% more
hurricanes, and 50% more category 4 and 5 storms.

Opppppsss..... here we have to remember that the article where she
states this "not a peer reviewed article"! Then according to her on
dummy spit, it is meaning less and should be disregarded! What's good
for the goose... and all that jazz.

NOTE also the following:
"North Atlantic" is not "tropical" and therefor it is not a relevant
comparison.
"named storms" - is a reference to cyclones as they get named but are
not the same as "tropical storms".
"decade centered around 1950", there was no satellite data available to
run a comparison with.
"there are 50% more NAMED STORMS" (emphasis is mine). This is what is
know as 'weasel words', it is using an "argument" that storms not name
don't count and are therefor not counted.
A "hurricane" is a British term for a very large pressure system with
strong winds - not the same at all as a "tropical storm", and in any
event Britain is hardly in the "tropics".

"WIth regard to the global data since 1970 ... there have been
variations with time in how the data has been processed. There is
anecdotal evidence that some storms have been misclassified (some
classified to high and some too low).

The "variations with time in how the data has been processed" supports
Landsea's comments.
"anecdotal evidence" isn't worth a gnats fart scientifically, however it
goes to point toward a suspicion that the data since 1970 has not been
accurate - supporting Landsea.

"However, at this point, no one has done a rigorous error or
uncertainty analysis on the data, so in my opinion Landsea's statements
about the trends are not supported."

Oh dear. Talk about speaking pout of the wrong orifice! She has
supported Landsea's comments, and then she goes and makes that claim!
Talk about a real "drip under pressure"!

Kevin Trenberth
Kevin Trenberth - head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National
Center for Atmospheric Research

Ahh, isn't that nice, another lead in with an appeal to authority, this
time called "head of..blah blah.." or to put it another way, a
meteorologist! Why say anything more? The "authority" has been pumped up
so much that reason, science and sound logic is no longer necessary.
Just "believe" the deity!

- told Earth & Sky, "There are still
good reasons to believe that hurricanes have become more intense, and
that this trend will continue."

Yes there it is, the operative word "believe", no facts required!

He said, "The data on sea surface temperatures, and on water vapor in
the atmosphere, are sound. Sea temperatures have risen.
Water vapor has increased about 4% since 1970 over the oceans."

BULL! The date referred to by Judy was for the 'North Atlantic" and that
is where the gulf stream is. Professor Bryden said:
"In previous studies over the last 50 years the overturning circulation
and heat transport across 25°N were reasonably constant. We were
surprised that the circulation in 2004 was so different from previous
estimates." They have records from 1957, 1981, 1992 and 1998 to use as
comparison.
http://www.soc.soton.ac.uk/index.php...y_news&idx=303

Naturally we just have to "believe" the 4% from the, oh so mighty, "head
of.." whatever it was!

"This is fuel for storms, including the extratropical storms that
caused floods in New England earlier this year and in Washington D.C.
this summer.

A single instance "this summer" is not evidence of anything other that
it happened and then it is totally subjective and useless for anything
scientific.

"There is no question about the changes of huge increases in intensity
and duration of storms, as found by Kerry Emanuel. For Landsea to
suggest otherwise has no credence.

Of course we have to remember the "authority" Judy, who points out that
something not "peer reviewed" is worthless and this article according to
that "authority" is therefore worthless as is all that by the "head
of..." whatever.

"Moreover, as we have published, this is associated with increases in
sea surface temperatures and that is mostly caused by global warming,
not natural variability," he concluded.

....and has we have seen the "sea surface temperature" as decreased
recently and should therefor show a DECLINE of "tropical storms" in the
non tropics.


Tom Knutson
Tom Knutson of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab also weighed in.
In an email to Earth & Sky, he said, " I would not claim to have the
expertise to decide who is closer to the truth in this particular
debate at this point."

He continued, "The issue of data homogeneity is a very legitimate and
important question to raise concerning the issue of possible long-term
trends in hurricane activity."

And that is about the sanest bit of commentary I have seen in the
article other than from Landsea!

Fact is that data over such a short term as 30 years is practically
useless for anything other than storing for the future. It cannot tell
of any "trend" toward global warming. Specially not when there is no
sane reference point to compare it with.

Secondly the article is obviously written by a member of a GW religious
sect. It is biased to hell. I have shown the absurdity of many writers
when they push their own barrow. This article is worthless for anything
at all. Tom Knutson puts it well. Be critical of what you read!