backtop

Blog: Science 2007 Hurricane Season: Where's the Beef, Part II
Michael Asher (Blog) - October 29, 2007 3:55 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 63 comment(s) - last by masher2.. on Nov 16 at 3:31 PM
Doom-and-gloomers are silent as another historically low year comes to a close

Back in July, I predicted 2007 would be a very mild hurricane season. Many called the claim premature, and even irresponsible, despite the fact that other media sources had months earlier predicted far more dire events.

Its now three months later and, with the season in the final month, my crystal ball seems vindicated. COAPS, the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies, has just released data showing 2007 activity to be nearly 50% below average. In their own words, unless we experience a dramatic flurry in activity, 2007 will rank as historically inactive. Just as the year before was.

That's right -- two years in a row of historically low hurricane activity. Yet one of the primary fright-factor tenets of global warming is that it will increase hurricane activity. The real world contradicts the fright-factor predictions of computer models. Once again.

Is two years a trend? Not much ... but data shows landfalling hurricanes (the only kind accurately measured before satellite data) have trended downward the last half of the century. This is in line with the research mentioned in Part I of this blog, which predicts warming will lead to a more mild climate with fewer storms, not more.

There are, of course, computer models that claim the opposite. But like many other doom and gloom predictions, these aren't being born out by real-world data. And so it goes.

In 2005, a single hurricane season was used to justify all sorts of media scare stories about the effects of global warming. Now, with two very low years behind us -- and a century of gradual declines -- the media is suspiciously silent. Obviously bad news sells better than good ... but doesn't the public deserve some truth?

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By Symmetriad on 10/30/2007 1:28:32 PM , Rating: 4
Okay, enough. I realize that, yes, some people do make their living making exaggerated claims of environmental doom and gloom; yes, some news agencies are less than ethical and honest, and attribute every environmental disaster to global warming in order to up their numbers; and yes, global warming has not yet been proven to be disastrous, nor is its existence entirely the doing of human efforts.

But we're discussing something that could have a significant effect in the agricultural, industrial, economic, environmental and social arenas of the earth, and we would be remiss in entirely ignoring the possibility that we are influencing environmental changes that could be majorly detrimental to human existence on this planet. This is not purely a political issue, nor is it purely a black-and-white one, and those of you dismissing it as one are missing the point entirely.

To put it in economic terms, if our industrial production is causing a certain percentage of environmental change that is both negative and preventable, to take preventative measures now has a lower opportunity cost than to have to take drastic action in the future to fix potential catastophes. We buy insurance in case of house fires, theft, and untimely death, but we don't do so because they're all imminent and guaranteed - we do so in case the worst happens. Why, then, is it not economically and socially viable to take similar preventative measures in other arenas? "Hope for the best, plan for the worst" should be a motto that applies to all kinds of planning, but some people seem to conveniently gloss over that philosophy when it comes to something that clashes with either their political or personal ideals.

Do we know with 100% certainty that global warming is going to kill us all and that mankind is solely responsible for it? Of course not, and that perception is missing the point as well. Do we know that global warming might have significantly detrimental effects, and that human action might have an effect on it? Yes, and we would be irresponsible to say that "might" is not good enough to investigate or take into account.

And for all you people shouting "LIBERALS LIBERALS LIBERALS LOL," you're merely reducing the discourse here to childish quarreling, and it's entirely unnecessary and detrimental to any kind of actual discussion.




By mdogs444 on 10/30/2007 1:36:20 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Do we know that global warming might have significantly detrimental effects, and that human action might have an effect on it? Yes, and we would be irresponsible to say that "might" is not good enough to investigate or take into account.


Might is not a good enough reason to place increased environmental sanctions on companies in an effort to become more "green" for reasons that we cannot prove - all it will do is increase their operating expenses and lose US jobs. Too many people are environtmentally gung-ho and do not take into concern that the US is the most powerful country in the world for two reasons: Military & Economy. Neither is worth sacrificing for a global warming "might" that has no solid scientific proof that we caused it, or that we can stop it.


By geddarkstorm on 10/30/2007 3:16:17 PM , Rating: 3
None the less, it is important we concentrate our technological development towards more advanced and environmentally conscious ends. It isn't wise to attack what is now, as you say, but we definitely need to focus on a new technological base (less based on coal power and gasoline for instance; and lower energy consuming electronics). This also potentially has the serendipitous effect of creating new market nitches and driving the economy and employment rates to greater heights. In the end, it is still absolutely foolhearty to wreck one's own habitat, and we should do what we can to reasonably minimize such wrecking ('reasonably' is what most extremists miss of course) without wrecking our economy in the process.


By clovell on 10/30/2007 3:44:42 PM , Rating: 4
I think what's often forgotten is that economies thrive on efficiency, and, ultimately, efficiency and environmentally conscious go hand-in-hand.


By Rovemelt on 10/30/2007 4:39:00 PM , Rating: 2
You bring up a very valid point that the flat-earther's...er climate deniers love to ignore. Even if you're in complete denial about AGW, it's pretty obvious at this point that we would benefit from diversifying our energy system in the US away from fossil fuels. But, to many on this blog, Al Gore is trying to eat your children, so we have to destroy every satanic message he puts out and understand that every scientist has been bought by big solar.


By grenableu on 10/30/2007 4:49:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
pretty obvious at this point that we would benefit from diversifying our energy system in the US away from fossil fuels
In theory, yes. In practice, wasting billions on pie in the sky energy production schemes doesn't benefit us at all. It hurts.

quote:
Al Gore is trying to eat your children
No, I think he's just exploiting a political hot button for fame and power, even though he doesn't personally believe in it himself. But then again, most politicians do that.


By clovell on 10/30/2007 6:10:41 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I was actually driving at the other side of the coin. A free-market will naturally seeks more efficient means of production. And thus, in many instances, leaving things alone will let the economy work out the problems we're seeing with the environment.

As the great James Carville says - well, you know it already.


By Symmetriad on 10/30/2007 4:27:16 PM , Rating: 2
This is part of what I was trying to convey: Certain actions that may not have immediate short-term profitability or widespread success may end up being enormously vital and successful investments for the future. Some of the actions being taken now are indeed too drastic and rash (for instance, the sudden leap to biofuel), but doing nothing at all is a bad long-term investment as well. Taking rational, reasonable steps towards sustainability and ecological balance is the best way to approach the future, rather than irrational all-or-nothing approaches that are economically and logistically unfeasible. As geddarkstorm said, these kinds of changes will actually boost the economy and social well-being when properly carried out, and in fact many people who are written off as "radical greenies" are mutually concerned about the long-term economic viability of our current energy model.

Besides, isn't investing in our long-term survival and sustainability the most critical investment we can make? A balanced and rational approach is the best possible way to do things, and neither side seems willing to budge from their far-divided stances.


By Rovemelt on 10/30/2007 4:54:10 PM , Rating: 2
Good points.

quote:
A balanced and rational approach is the best possible way to do things, and neither side seems willing to budge from their far-divided stances.


There really is no far-divided stance in the scientific community regarding AGW; this blog is fueled by ignoring/dismissing the majority of the published work of climate science professionals out there. Masher's assertive stance is never followed up by the peer-reviewed publications that counter his point. I guess that's the job of the real scientists out there. It's a one-way argument left up to the readers to answer. When that answer is provided, it's promptly ignored and it's back to the rosy candyland predictions and foil hattery we read here frequently.

If you're looking for a real scientific discussion by experts in the field, go to realclimate.org. Most of Masher's BS is soundly crushed by people who know the subject better than anyone here, myself included.


By Symmetriad on 10/30/2007 5:15:09 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not so much talking about the "it's there or it's not" stances - I'm addressing the extreme ends of addressing the issue as a whole, whether it's wholesale tinfoil fingers-in-ears ignorance or militant advocacy of basically destroying industry. The problem is that, in the United States, this issue has become so politicized that many people dive wholesale into the party line, without doing the barest modicum of research for themselves.

In my opinion, the best way to address the objective concern of our impact on the environment and the sustainability of our current energy model would be to say, "We have [X], [Y] and [Z] data, which indicates that we could run into [N] problems in the future. What is the best way to prevent [N] from occurring with the least detrimental impact to the economic and social systems in place right now?" No wild, unfounded speculation, no fearmongering, no hype, no politicization and, most of all, an objective eye towards the issue at hand. Unfortunately, we as a nation have linked politics so inextricably with our other viewpoints that it's a nasty web to untangle.


By grenableu on 10/30/2007 4:56:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A balanced and rational approach is the best possible way to do things
Lol, there is nothing "balanced and rational" in the current media/political hysteria over global warming. And all the money we're pouring down the tubes in government subsidies for windfarms and biofuels isn't helping us one bit. Its hurting us.


By Symmetriad on 10/30/2007 5:02:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Lol, there is nothing "balanced and rational" in the current media/political hysteria over global warming.


Did I say there was? There are legitimate concerns over it, but there are certainly plenty of parties who are taking it to an illogical extent.

And is there anything "balanced and rational" in the anti-environmentalist hysteria opposing the very concept of global warming?


By grenableu on 10/30/2007 5:15:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
is there anything "balanced and rational" in the anti-environmentalist hysteria opposing the very concept of global warming?
I don't hear anyone opposing the CONCEPT. I hear people saying that even if the earth is warming a bit, that most is probably due to natural cycles, and that all evidence points to it being somewhere between a good thing to a mild problem. Not a catastrophe. That we should move slowly and cautiously, and not make a kneejerk reactions that may make things worse.

That sounds pretty rational and balanced. Certainly a lot more than those who pushed biofuels as a "solution", only to find out they produce more greenhouse gases than gasoline. Smooth move there, guys.

I also hear people saying that basing trillion-dollar policy decisions on computer models that have never once made a single accurate prediction is pretty silly. That sounds pretty balanced and rational also.


By ziggo on 10/30/2007 5:59:12 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly.

I have no "anti-globalwarming" sentinment. I am just pro reason and rational thought. Anti-Fear mongering.

Is the earth warming a bit? I personally think the possible errors in the data are greater than the indicated trends. Junk in... Junk out...

Is Global warming a bad thing? Nobody has been able to prove it one way or the other, and you better be able to prove something before I give you my money.

I know the risks exist for getting in a car accident or becoming sick. Thus I purchase insurance for these things. I am not going to pay for insurance against a hostile alien landing simply because "scientists agree" it is likly that there is life out there, and have created models that predict the liklyhood that they are hostile.

Limiting CO2 production directly limits energy usage. The use of energy is the only reason 90% of the population isn't still out in the fields farming. And CO2 is a really crappy greenhouse gas.


By onelittleindian on 10/30/2007 1:50:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and we would be remiss in entirely ignoring the possibility
We're not asking anyone to "ignore the possibility". We're just asking them to not spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a problem that probably doesn't exist.

So the earth is warming a little. Every time its done that in the past, its been good for humans and life in general. Its the COLD that causes problems. Like someone said above, when Greenland warmed up, people moved in. When it got cooled off, they couldn't survive there any more.

As several scientists have pointed out, actions like Kyoto are "an insurance policy" that costs far more than any possible payout. Right now, more research is good, but crippling our economy with silly measures like cap-and-trade carbon programs and massive subsidies for impractical energy schemes is just plain silly.


By clovell on 10/30/2007 2:19:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We buy insurance in case of house fires, theft, and untimely death, but we don't do so because they're all imminent and guaranteed - we do so in case the worst happens. Why, then, is it not economically and socially viable to take similar preventative measures in other arenas?

Because you're dealing with public policy and taxes - two things that are compulsory. Buying such insurance is optional, while abiding by laws and public policy is not. It's not that people don't want others telling them what to do - as long as there is a compelling reason with as much evidence to support it.

AGW does not meet those criteria - and I'm not talking about a 100% burden of proof - I'm talking about the same 95% that juries, doctors, and scientists in almost every other field use everyday to determine significance.

'Might' is good enough to investigate and be aware. 'Might' isn't good enough to raise my taxes, rattle economies, make doomsday predictions, or indoctrinate my children.

Aside from that, I see your point =D


By SoCalBoomer on 10/30/2007 5:29:07 PM , Rating: 2
Your point is relevant IFF the Nobel Peace Prize Winner didn't forward the specific point of the article as proof of Global Warming (r) (which should be called Global Climate Change) - when advocates of GW cite Katrina as definitive proof of GW, it makes mockery of that entire branch of the argument (not the whole argument, but hurts that one branch.)

We discuss a LOT of things that COULD have a significant effect in the agricultural, economic, environmental, and social arenas of the earth.

Not long ago, issues with bee colony collapse were being discussed as being attributable to GW - turns out it WAS indeed a virus (and since virii don't care about GW, it's pretty much dismissable.) Definitely applicable to life on earth - but while it COULD have a significant effect, to exaggerate it as climate scareologists did is FUD.

Right now, the wildfires in Southern Cali are being attributed to GW, utterly discounting the fact that one of them was lit by a hiker/hunter who was lost and lit a signal fire, others by arson, one possibly by downed power lines - none of those influence by GW. Wait, you say, the tinder was dry because of drought brought on by GW. . . Well, sorry, once the fires get going, they just keep on going - as witnessed by several years ago when we had nasty wildfires right after a hard El Nino event where Southern Cali was DRENCHED in rain (over 200% of our normal) - when desert winds funnel from the High Desert and Palm Springs, etc. like they do every single year in the same or similar frequency, it's not GW. It's not GW when they dry out our chaparral. And it's not GW when idiots light fires which get whipped up by those selfsame Santa Ana winds.

My point is specifically that while, yes, our climate is changing and yes, we are contributing to it to some degree and in some fashion, when the GW apologists try to use incidents of disaster as proof, they're often WRONG and they need to ADMIT it.

More hurricanes cannot be used as an argument FOR GW since the number is NOT increasing.

Santa Ana wildfires cannot be used as an argument FOR GW since they are not GW induced - and the increase in damage is NOT due to their severity, it's due to OUR stupidity in building right in their paths!!! (ever heard of Turtle Mountain and Frank Slide?)

Al Gore and his ilk need to drop the FUD and resort to facts and reality - doing so will raise their credibility and convert many who doubt, and rightly so with the dubious "facts" that are being used.


RE: Hurricanes
By gradoman on 10/29/2007 4:46:24 PM , Rating: 5
As a person from the Caribbean, I'm always looking at the weather maps, the predictions and posts like these. I must agree with you that the media does harp on all the bad; nary the good.

Moving to NY and living with a fear monger for an in-law, I always have to argue that down where I used to live, St Thomas, we haven't had a major hurricane since '95 with Marilyn and that while there is a major hit every few years -- Marilyn, Hugo, Andrew, Katrina, Rita are a few I recall -- you can't say the world is f*cking ending cause of 1 or 2 serious strikes every 5-10 years and a little bit of unexpected warm weather.

Makes me sick to no end to hear those idiots at CNN and NOAA harp on and on about how bad the next season will be.

Thank you for a reality check.