I believe the IPCC position is that while there may not necessarily be more storms, the ones that do form will be more intense. The increased moisture in the atmosphere will supply the extra fuel to intensify the storms.

BTW, the IPCC report is throughly referenced. There are thousands of peer reviewed scientific reports used to compile the IPCC report. It is only after extensive review that and debate that the IPCC report is put together. This makes the IPCC report the most comprehensive assessment in existance. It's also a living document. The current report is the 4th so far and it will eventually be superceded with the 5th after new research comes out and is incorported.

It's also not the only source of information on global warming. According to NOAA, every one of the last 13 years (1994-2006) is among the warmest on record since 1880:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

Again, keep in mind it is GLOBAL AVERAGE temperatures that are rising. The US is a large country, but represents less than 2% of the globe. I realize some people can't grasp that concept, so unofrtunately it bears repeating.

Here are the official NOAA hurricane records for the last 150 years. They don't show any increase - if anything they are decreasing. This study appears to be worse than "sloppy science."
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

Because of satellites, more short-lived hurricanes are now detected offshore. Amazing who dishonest or incompetent some scientists, politicians and the press can be.

Although the media often reports that the IPCC conclusion is based on the consensus of 2500 world experts, there are perhaps not more than a few hundred genuine climatologists in the world. A large number of the participating IPCC scientists are basically meteorologists, whose study areas are physical processes of weather phenomena, not necessarily weather forecasting; their main scientific interests do not include understanding climate change that has occurred in the past. There is also a large group of scientists in the IPCC study group whose primary expertise is in computer modeling.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/06/15/

Andrew:

Seriously, do you work for an AD agency that is promoting the IPCC report?

The idea that storms would be more severe due to increased temps or more frequent kinda goes against reality. Storms are more severe due to energy potential differences between two areas. (Simplistic yes but I think fairly accurate.) If there is less difference in temp, there should be less potential energy to create the storms. Otherwise, the stormiest areas of the planet would be the deserts, right? I love August in Ohio, when it gets hot the frequency of severe storms go down. In Spring and Fall, where there is a greater temp difference, we have bigger more intense storms.

As far as the research, seems rather sloppy to me and merely put forth to further their agenda. Can we get a read on the slant of the reporting agency? I know MSN is liberal. What about the Royal Society?

There is too much emphasis now by those on both 'sides' of the warming debate to 'prove' their point, by 'cheery-picking' data, ingoring the big picture. For instance, I know that parts of southeast Europe are having a heat wave, but most other parts are cool and wet. In fact, when I look at hourly surface temperatures worldwide, it appears to me that there are by far more parts of the planet 'normal' or even below 'normal' than above normal. Here's the site I go to for the hourly temps:
http://www.findlocalweather.com/weather_maps/temperature_north_america.html

You can click on any part of the world. Just keep in mind what local time it is in the country
you're viewing.

Ken

Andrew,

Sounds like you are admitting that the US isn't warming much.

We also know that Antarctica and most of the southern hemisphere aren't warming much. In fact about the only place in the NASA database that really seems to be warming a lot are areas north of 60 degrees latitude, and climatologists in Russia dispute that claim too.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17978
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_1200km_Anom0112_2006_2006_1930_2006/GHCN_GISS_1200km_Anom0112_2006_2006_1930_2006.gif

Patrick,

A few things I'd like to point out:

First of all, I see no problem with a large group of scientists in the IPCC being primarily experts in computer modeling. Should we scrap NASA because a large group of them are not astronautical engineers? They have electricians and biologists and geoscientists. None of that has to do with astrophysics or rocketry. Why are they there? Because they are essential parts of the team.

The same goes for computer modelers, who need to have a fairly good understanding of the data they are inputting to get an output anywhere recognizably close to reality. If you want all government and scientific agencies to be primarily composed of foremost experts in the fields in which they're employed, then you're living on the wrong planet.

Secondly, the data you referenced paints a poor picture of year-to-year changes or even general trends. It may give the numbers of storms by decade, but those figures can easily present a false picture. One reason is that it only references hurricanes making landfall in the US. That alone does not provide an accurate representation of the overall activity in the Atlantic Basin.

Furthermore, the decadal results can be skewed by one active year. From 1911 to 1920, there was only one year with more than seven hurricanes basin-wide. In 1916, there were 14 hurricanes, compared to 5 in 1915 and 3 in 1917. The only time since 1930 there have been fewer than five storms in a year was in 1983. Between 1911 and 1920, which appears to have been a relatively active period on the chart you referenced, there were FOUR years with fewer than five storms.

Nor does this chart reveal that the 1930s were much more active than the 1940s, which appear to be the most active based on this data set.

It is also worth noting that the last entry only covers four years (2001-2004). It does not include the 28 named storms of 2005, nor any of the land-falling major hurricanes that year. Adding 2005 alone would raise the total of the last column to 7 major hurricanes, putting this decade near the top, and with five more years to go.

I do not pretend to imply that this proves global warming, but only that your choice of supporting evidence for your own claims to the opposite leaves something to be desired.

With all respect,

~Travis

Travis,

100 years ago there wasn't any accurate way to observe hurricanes in the mid-Atlantic. Any comparisons vs. that time are invalid. The only accurate records are the ones which make landfall - which statistically should be fairly random.

I do computer modeling for a living, and I have seen that most modelers decide a model is correct when it emits the results they are looking for. In the case of long term climate models, there is no way to verify the accuracy other than to regress the model backwards in time - and from what I hear most climate models fail that test miserably.

2006 and 2007 have had very low hurricane activity. Maybe you should average that in with 2004/2005?

Pre-satellite observations are incomplete and do not provide an accurate "picture" of actual storms. It is truly sloppy science when researchers draw conclusions from invalid comparisons.

It's like comparing the number of earthquakes before and after the invention of seismographs then declaring an alarming rise in earthquakes. Then, in an effort to make their findings appear plausible they link it to the highly improbable hypothesis of AGW. That's worse than sloppy - that's fraudulent.

Well, Darren, if you had read the article before making up criticisms, you would know that they aren't talking about storms in Ohio. They are talking about tropical storms, which are fed by, well, HEAT.

And how do you know that their research is sloppy, if you haven't even read it enough to know what they are talking about? Or maybe, perhaps, you have an agenda of your own?

Of course they have an agenda, Jock. They want us to live in their 'Libertarian' world, which is their version of utopia. If you think about it, Libertarians and Anarchists aren't that different. It's a shame that they thoroughly abuse the science to further their agenda, though.

Regarding the topic at hand, I don't think we've established a clear link between AGW and increased hurricanes. Most aspects of AGW that we know about are proven and agreed upon by nearly all scientists not having the last names of Lindzen, Gray or Singer. But this one requires more study.

The Atlantic hurricane cycles tend to run in long cycles lasting about 2 to 3 decades. That means we have to go back further than 5 decades to study the last up cycle. We are talking about periods, at the latest, occurring prior to 1960!

Prior to 1960, we did not have the information technology that we have today, such as our eyes in the sky from the space program. This means we do not have comparable information to analyze this current up cycle & compare it to the last up cycle. This is the essence of the sloppy science!

In my opinion, because of our data problems with this, the fastest way to tell if global warming is increasing our hurricane activity would be to determine if the hurricane season becomes extended. Longer hurricane seasons should produce a larger number of storms each season, & give more chances for one of them to become major. The question "Does each individual storm get stronger with global warming" may not get answered until we are in the next up cycle many decades away because only then will we have comparable data.

Darren, you are confusing winter(non-tropical) storms with tropical systems. They are not driven by the same forces. They are not driven by temperature differences, but are driven by convective thunderstorms at the surface combined with good ventiliation at the top(but not wind shear)& the earth's rotation. Absent convective thunderstorms from 80 degree+ water, they will never form in the desert.

Travis,
Chris Landsea's point was simple: as the methods of Tropical Storms has improved -mainly due to report sensing (ie GOES, DMSP and NOAA satellites), the number of reported Tropical Storms has also increased. The AGW theorists disregarded this simple fact.

The main driving force for North Atlantic Hurricanes is the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation of North Atlantic SSTs. This is a 25 year oscillation, and it has been in the warm phase since 1995.

"Experts" blame the dearth of Atlantic 2006 Hurricanes on ENSO and its attendent high level wind shear.

For 2007, unforecasted cooling of North Atlantic ocean temps is dampering convection along the ITCZ.

Need help on El Nino. I've heard conflicting reports that there is a pretty good El Nino this year and other reports that there is none. What is the correct answer. This would affect hurricanes, at least somewhat.

kenzrw,

There's no El Nino right now. In fact, it's looking more like La Nina. Check this link: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/MJO/enso.shtml

Andrew - atmospheric water vapor is not the only factor effecting the formation of storms. A recent study showed 'global warming' would increase vertical wind shear and thus WEAKEN storms, not strengthen them.

So isn't this convenient? If there are more or stronger storms, this is evidence in favor of the AGW theory - but if the contrary occurs, this is evidence in favor of the AGW theory are well.

Of course, all these studies are carried out in the make-believe world of computer models, and the authors of the above study were quick to pledge their fealty to the AGW theory.

This is not science.

Jock:

The Ohio storms bit was just to show my point. However, I believe it would apply to the tropics as well.

I actually read this one and it seems to be an exageration of the situation bent on making a statement regarding an impending crises, ie more and bigger storms.

I kinda don't have an agenda beyond pointing out that blaming humans for the entirety of warming is just plain silly. Past that, I am not interested in inconveniencing our society for the unproven theories of the AGW crowd. I find it funny that many of the AGW crowd have a vested interest in the continuation of AGW theory and modeling. Why that does not get more attention is beyond me.

I think that many have personified the earth insofar as they seem to think that the planet

I found this site which shows 2 billion years of cooling and warming, which undoubtably effect tropical systems. How reliable is this site? Anyone know anything about it? Thanks.

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

Patrick,

You make the assumption that an equal percentage of hurricanes make landfall each year. I would argue that this is not the case. Also, Accuweather has some fairly detailed information about hurricanes going back to 1851 in their hurricane center. Many of these hurricanes did not make landfall. If the instruments that recorded these hurricanes are not accurate, then perhaps the instruments that recorded the landfalling hurricanes are not to be trusted either. But you're right, fully accurate comparisons of overall hurricane activity during that time to hurricane activity now is not possible.

I don't accept hearsay as far as your verdict on climate modelers goes, but certainly if they make their conclusions only when they get the result they want, then it is poor science. If most modelers you see follow this method, then you are surrounded by poor scientists, which is most unfortunate. I expect better from my peers. If you don't mind my asking, what kind of computer modeling do you do?

So far as 2006 goes, you are right, no hurricanes made landfall. There were, however five hurricanes, two of them major hurricanes. Considering the fact that the 2007 season has essentially just begun, I think it's more than premature to say that 2007 has been characterized by very low hurricane activity. There's a lot that can happen between now and October.

Including 2005 and 2006, there have been 13 landfalling hurricanes since 2001, 7 of them major hurricanes. The decadal averages for each, according to the site you referenced are 17.7 and 6.0, respectively. With four seasons to go until the next "decade" begins, I'd say the chances of having significantly above average hurricane activity this decade are pretty good.

For interest's sake, here is a link to maps of landfalling hurricanes from 1901 to 2004. Just looking at the numbers from 1901 to 1920, it appears that there are some discrepancies within NOAA's own data (comparing this to the NOAA data Patrick posted earlier). Here are both links.

Hurricanes by decade: 1851-2004
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

Landfalling Hurricanes: 1901-2004
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/hurricanes.html#earlier

Most aspects of AGW that we know about are proven and agreed upon by nearly all scientists not having the last names of Lindzen, Gray or Singer.

Really, how about CO2 is causing the 1 degree increase we have seen over the last century. Please share the data, we have been asking for it for months.

Only Lindzen, Gray, and Singer? What about these folks http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

Yes, the debate is over since this really is not a debate but a bunch of religious followers attempting to convert those of us are not as easily swayed by consensus, doom, and gloom.

We don't care if you live like a Libertarian, Democrat, or Marxist, but we do care if you attempt to force us to live and believe like you. Sounds depressing.

>> Most aspects of AGW that we know about are proven and agreed upon by nearly all scientists not having the last names of Lindzen, Gray or Singer.

Even if that were true, it would mean nothing from a scientific point of view, since it's a logic fallacy. However, since you keep repeating it, I'll point out that you are not correct. It has now been shown that Oreskes & Science magazine's claim of "consensus" was fraudulent. Judging from papers written since 2004, only 7% explicitly endorse AGW, and fewer than half implicity/explicitly endorse AGW. The trend is definitely away from AGW.