Scientists are just discovering (or re-discovering) the importance of wind shear in tropical storm formation. Without the proper high level wind profile you are left with nothing more than alot of potential energy.

Teleconnections such as ENSO, the AMO, NAO, as well as the Hadley and Walker Cells play a very large role in determining the number, location, track,and intensity of North Atlantic Tropical Storms.

Another thing to realize is the rapid population growth of the Southeast -namely Florida- and how it impacts public perceptions. If Oklahoma and North Texas had that kind of growth, the media would be focusing on the months of April through June (Tornado Season). It would be a safe bet that a few well funded scientists would then claim that there is a direct correlation between super cell development and AGW.

I've never been too keen on the link between the tropics and AGW. I think there will be more potential energy for storms due to warmer water temps and thus there could more stronger storms, but many other variables have to be in place to harness that increase in potential energy. I'm more concerned about AGW's effects on northern latitudes and also glacial ice caps in the tropical mountains of the southern hemisphere where many cities depend on water melting from those glaciers.

JP:

Well, duh. How else are they going to get their research budgets? There's a lot of money to be made out there in AGWland.

Hi Guys,

Here is a little set of charts and graphs that illustrate the PDO and AMO or ocean oscillations.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Ocean_Multidecadal_Cycles.pdf

What's so funny -- and stupid -- about this belief that scientists are pressured to arrive at a particular conclusion just to get federal funding is that -- HELLO -- the party controlling the purse strings for the better part of the last six years has been Republicans.

Why would the Bush Administration or the formerly Republican Congress be pressuring scientists to conclude that AGW is real?

If anything, there has been loads of evidence of the Bush Administration attempting to tone down or edit the scientific reports from various agencies which conclude that AGW is real and getting worse. Why no discussion about that?

You guys do realize that, when Bush first became President, he appointed a panel to study AGW. His own panel arrived at the same conclusions that a most scientists have -- that AGW is occuring and needs to be addressed immediately.

I'm actually more impressed that Bush's own panel, along with various other scientific bodies, have agreed with the scientific consensus on AGW ~despite~ knowing that their purse strings are controlled by a party which is 'skeptical' of AGW.

You guys need to think before you type.

Seriously.

Hmmm, I wonder if I could get a grant to study the effects of AGW in relation to the GWOT......

Nah, saying that terrorists spend to much time in the ever hotter deserts getting their brains fried wouldn't the politics of the AGWers.

Maybe linking that effect to our troops, that might work though......

Mark,

You seem to know a great deal about AGW. Can you point me to ONE conclusive study/test/experiment that shows how and how much CO2 is contributing to GW. One that is repeatable. Also do you know why temps went down about a degree in the Dark Ages, why temps went back up in the Middle Ages, went back down during the Little Ice Age, and went back up today about one degree every time. I know you believe CO2 is the reason why they went up today, but why several times up and down with CO2 staying steady at 280 ppm in the past? CO2 was not the cause on several occasions in the past, but today it is? Hmmm, sounds fishy to me.

Whether Republicans or Democrats (not much difference when it comes to wasting money) are funding it makes little difference. Why one would waste that money is my biggest concern. The letters I write my Senators would not make it past Accuweather's censors for sure.

Seems to me that AGW scientists/believers know AGW very well but simple GW or GC (Global Cooling) seems to escape them. I can see why some folks think the reason more cats are being brought to the shelter is because of higher CO2 levels. More of one thing must mean more of another. No studies are needed just someone with a "scientific" background and enough believers to make noise.

I will diligently look over the tests/experiments you clue me in on and let you know what I think. I place a good bit of value in the Milankovitch Cycle. I have yet to be able to falsify it. What are your thoughts on that cycle?

Thanks,

Steve

Mark,

It was Chris Landsea (Science Officer at the National Hurricane Center) who said that he was pressured by the IPCC to report an increase in hurricane activity.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."

Sincerely, Chris Landsea"

Patrick, you do understand that the paper Laura discusses here completely demolishes Landsea's favored natural cycle hypothesis?

Steve, generally the RealClimate archives are a good place to find thorough but not overly-technical answers to this sort of question, and sure enough there's an answer on the extent to which the warming seen thus far can be attributed to CO2. Note that some of the figures have been updated in the AR4. Regarding past short-term variability, there have certainly been fluctuations from solar changes and volcanic eruptions, plus there is no reason to expect that the climate would ever be completely stable (in the sense of flat from year to year) under any circumstances. This too is discussed in detail at RC and in the AR4.

Hi Guys,

CO2 is a trace gas as well as a minor green house gas. It is logarithmic in its ability to absorb and radiate heat, meaning as concentration increases its ability decreases, this is a fact and not an opinion. Water vapor is on average 95% of the green house gas effect (this may vary as you go from polar to tropics). CO2 is 2% and of that 2% man is responsible for about 3%. If you can refute these facts please do so with real links and not obscure references to somebody said so or look it up. Land use and deforestation have a greater impact on local climate change than CO2 well ever have. The forcing involved in climate change is very complex and the debate is far from over. You will see in the links below shows that solar activity has a significant impact on average temperature changes, but is not the only action impacting climate. I have a link to show CO2 concentration and temperature. I have also included a link that shows, from many sources including the "IPCC", that the ocean oscillations have a great impact on climate.

Here are the links and some data sets.

The Junkscience.com links/Graphs provide the data source for these charts in case you want to look them up.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/aerosol.gif
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/CRUglobalan.png
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt

The PDO combined with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) correlates very strongly with Annual Mean US temperatures over the past century:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Ocean_Multidecadal_Cycles.pdf

Steve Bloom,

This was cut from the article you pointed me to. "It certainly is an important question whether we can attribute current climate change to anthropogenic forcing - but this is generally done on a probabilistic basis (i.e. anthropogenic climate change has been detected with some high probability and is likely to explain a substantial part of the trends - but with some uncertainty on the exact percentage depending on the methodology used - the IPCC (2001) chapter is good on this subject)."

Not sure why no one else has a problem with this statement, but I will give you my 2 cents. Here's the problem. One states that human produced CO2 is causing GW. When asked how, the "scientist" says "There is a high probability that Humans are causing GW, we know humans are creating a lot of CO2, therefore GW is caused by CO2 and therefore Humans." See my problem here. No one says how CO2 is contributing, they even go so far as to say probable, likely, and uncertainty all in the same sentence to define their theory.

It is not good enough to simply say it is likely without explaining how. HOW? What other science uses methods like these to explain their theories? We would have never made it out of 19th century technologies if all sciences use the AGW method. It truly amazes me that educated people can fall for this crap. Please read http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/465.htm this is the link above to IPCC. It doesn't say anything, it is a bunch of techno-babble that states nothing. If you can tell me what it means I'd love to hear it.

Here's my favorite "The combination of natural external forcing (solar and volcanic) and internal variability is unlikely to account for the spatio-temporal pattern of change over the past 30 to 50 years, even allowing for possible amplification of the amplitude of natural responses by unknown feedback processes. " I could not have said it better myself. Let's see if I can decipher this. "Natural Global Warming is unlikely to account for the space-time patterns of change over the last 50 years, even allowing for a possible increase to the maximum natural variance by unobserved phenomena." NGW is not causing GW, even allowing for and an increase to the maximum effect of phenomena that do not exist to our knowledge. I'd trust a man who said he read the New-New Testament out of a hat with magic rocks before I would trust the IPCC :)

Truly pathetic. This is what I'm wasting my time and money on?????? Help me out buddy, I am more convinced than ever the IPCC is full of village idiots.
Regards,
Steve