Is Global Warming to Blame for the Recent Hurricanes?

By chi_nick
September 28th, 2005 @ 9:25 AM Uncategorized

In an editorial in today

11 Comments so far

  1. Dave (unregistered) on September 28th, 2005 @ 10:06 am

    I think it’s total BS. In fact, we’ve had less major hurricanes than one would have expected (6 is the decade average) over the last 35 years.

    Climate changes happen over hundreds of years, not tens of years, so you have to look at the long-term trend. Not a relatively short climatic period like 35 years.

    Given the long-term trend we are down from the peak (1931-1960) not up from the peak.

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


  2. nikkos (unregistered) on September 28th, 2005 @ 10:17 am

    The data you cite lists US hurricanes only- I believe the author of the op-ed is referring to hurricanes world wide.


  3. nikkos (unregistered) on September 28th, 2005 @ 10:18 am

    Additonal reading:

    I believe that this is the Science article that Rifkin is referring to:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5742/1844


  4. Dave (unregistered) on September 28th, 2005 @ 11:01 am

    Right, it’s hard to find historical data (35 years or older) on the number of global hurricanes in any digestible form. But, the point is that data can be manipulated based on the period you choose to look at. So, until I saw a richer data set looking at a longer period, I wouldn’t be the slightest bit convinced.

    Also, if ‘global’ warming was really affecting the frequency of major hurricanes, wouldn’t you expect that trend would be consistent ‘globally’ and not somehow miss the US?


  5. steven (unregistered) on September 28th, 2005 @ 11:05 am

    I think it makes complete sense, even without all of the scientific data (which can prove either side’s point depending on how the data is crunched). The planet is changing because of the only species in the world that has the capability to do so: us. But we’re just too damn stubborn to think that anything we do could possibly do any harm.


  6. nikkos (unregistered) on September 28th, 2005 @ 11:13 am

    Dave, in reading between the lines, I get the sense that you think the scientific case for global warming in general- not just the impact of global warming on hurricanes- is weak. Is that the case?

    Also, one should not assume that if temperatures rise globally their effect will be felt equally, everywhere. I’m no climate change scientist, but it seems to me that ocean waters which are already warm would require less warming to cause more, and bigger, hurricanes, while ocean water which is cooler would require more heating before the effects become apparent.

    Since ocean water worldwide varies in temperature based on ocean currents, depth, proximity to the equator, etc., then it seems logical that one would see a naturally disproportionate distribution of hurricanes.


  7. tankboy (unregistered) on September 28th, 2005 @ 12:02 pm

    Y’know the Economist just profiled a report about this but it’s a bit more inconclusive than the theory of monster hurricanes caused by Global Warming. Here’s part of it for those of you unable to spend the gajillion dollars a subscription costs:

    Looking at the hurricanes themselves, though, they found no long-term trends in the number of storms per ocean basin or the length a storm lasts, except in the North Atlantic, where both increased. That is unfortunate news for Caribbean countries and the United States, which bear the brunt of those storms. But it suggests that whatever is increasing hurricane incidence it is not


  8. nikkos (unregistered) on September 28th, 2005 @ 12:25 pm

    And who decides what is and what isn’t “suspect science?” The Economist? Tankboy?


  9. steven (unregistered) on September 28th, 2005 @ 1:15 pm

    Suspect science or not, the fact remains that we are heating up the planet. And while we do have to remember global warming, we can’t all scream that these 2 specific hurricanes that hit the U.S. were global warming related.

    Some storm seasons are nastier than others. Next year we could see only category 3 storms. That wouldn’t mean global warming has receded or stopped. What we need to remember is that bad storms or not, we’re doing more harm than good right now and eventually (if not already) we will see weather events that worsen as time wears on.


  10. Dave (unregistered) on September 28th, 2005 @ 2:08 pm

    Tankboy-
    Couldn’t agree more about the concern with suspect science. That’s really the sub-text of my post (I’m not ready to take on global warming Nikkos ;)

    Writers like Rifkin draw less than scientific conclusions that the general public starts to believe are fact — when they are not facts, just theories.

    From the Science article: “attribution of the 30-year trends to global warming would require a longer global data record and, especially, a deeper understanding of the role of hurricanes in the general circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, even in the present climate state.”

    My thoughts exactly.


  11. tankboy (unregistered) on September 28th, 2005 @ 2:15 pm

    //Suspect science or not, the fact remains that we are heating up the planet. And while we do have to remember global warming, we can’t all scream that these 2 specific hurricanes that hit the U.S. were global warming related.//

    Amen.



Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.