MMGW proponents now blame lack of hurricanes on MMGW

[Pumpkin Eater]

They just can't keep their story straight.

 

after 2004/5, they said the reason there were so many hurricanes was because of GW. Now they are trying to blame to lack of hurricane activity on GW. They think that people have short memories (and apparently many MMGW proponents do)

[heckofajobbrownie]

No, no, and no.

 

The claim was never that global warming would create more hurricanes. It's simply that the hurricanes that are created are likely to be stronger. It's simple: hurricanes feed off warm water. Warmer ocean temperatures means stronger hurricanes.

 

Nice try, though.

[Pumpkin Eater]

yes, it was.

[heckofajobbrownie]

No, it's really not. The question isn't whether you heard someone claim that's what the theory says. It's whether the theory actually says it. But it doesn't say that.

 

For instance, there's a study out today that predicts we'll see stronger hurricanes in the future, not more of them. This is consistent with global warming theory.

 

You're just arguing with a straw man. Have fun with that.

[Pumpkin Eater]

I live in Florida, ground zero for the 04/05 hurricane seasons AND the 2004 presidential election. I know the arguments and scare tactics that MMGW proponents were preaching back then. But, as with other aspects of their faulty theory, they had to change their predictions to fall in line with what is really happening.

 

Al Gore, the poster boy for MMGW said:

"Now I'm going to show you, recently released, the actual ocean temperature. Of course when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms. We have seen in the last couple of years, a lot of big hurricanes. Hurricanes Jean, Francis and Ivan were among them. In the same year we had that string of big hurricanes; we also set an all time record for tornadoes in the United States. Japan again didn't get as much attention in our news media, but they set an all time record for typhoons. The previous record was seven. Here are all ten of the ones they had in 2004.

 

"The science textbooks that have to be re-written because they say it is impossible to have a hurricane in the South Atlantic. It was the same year that the first one that ever hit Brazil. The summer of 2005 is one for the books. The first one was Emily that socked into Yucatan. Then Hurricane Dennis came along and it did a lot of damage, including to the oil industry. This is the largest oil platform in the world after Dennis went through. This one was driven into the bridge at Mobile."

 

While not making a direct connection the argument is certainly implied.

 

Also, in July 2007, Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research and Peter Webster of Georgia Tech published a paper: "Heightened Tropical Cyclone Activity in the North Atlantic: Natural Variability or Climate Trend?" They noted an increase in the number of observed hurricanes in the North Atlantic over the past century, concluding that: "increasing cyclone numbers has lead to a distinct trend in the number of major hurricanes and one that is clearly associated with greenhouse warming".

 

It was later refuted.

 

But, here's some contrary evidence to the latest MMGW scare theory

 

"Free, M., Bister, M. and Emanuel, K. 2004. Potential intensity of tropical cyclones: Comparison of results from radiosonde and reanalysis data. Journal of Climate 17: 1722-1727.

 

However since CO2 is supposed to produce warming primarily in cold dry air, the models I am familiar with predict that the poles should see the most significant warming. As temperature differential between the tropics and the poles is a major driving force of cyclonic storms a decrease in the differential should lead to a decrease in storm intensity. Prior to Katrina the relatively low number of major hurricanes in recent years had been seen as evidence that the models were right. I have looked at a number of papers and while 15-20 years ago I would have said warming should increase system energy and therefore intensity, I think I was wrong back then. It seems pretty clear that frequency and intensity have not increased in the last 70 years, if GW theory predicts they should this would in fact be strong evidence against it."

 

interesting that K. Emanual co-authored both this article and the dis-proven article above.

[Pumpkin Eater]

Spontaneous Generation was once a valid scientific theory. As more and more evidence came out to disprove it, SG proponents had to change aspects of their theories in a similar manner to what we see from MMGW proponents today.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I like that logic - people have been wrong in the past and therefore they're wrong again now.

[calfoxwc]

The IPCC has admitted that it should have not linked global warming with an increase in natural disasters such as floods and hurricanes. An article in an Australian journal describes how this claim was a primary driver for the $100b compensation to developing countries as well as a key argument used by a range of politicians including Kevin Rudd, Barack Obama and British Climate Change Minister Ed Miliband.

 

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/unite...6-1225823075213

 

Corrupt, politically motivated funding, requiring positive "proof" of global warming.

 

Follow the money.

 

Obama is dirty. A major portion of the entire alleged man made global warming movement is dirty.

 

[Westside Steve]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0319262/

 

 

"It could happen."

Al Gore

 

WSS

[Pumpkin Eater]

yep. and now that it isn't, they are blaming MMGW for that, too.