NationStates Jolt Archive

Global Warming for the devastating hurricanes. They think that Global Warming is causing the ocean surface temperature to rise creating stronger storms Oo.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/gifs/decost1.gif

Riggght

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdeadly4.shtml?

Riggght

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdeadly4.shtml?How does the ability or inability of a population to get out of harms way determine the intensity of a storm?

How does the ability or inability of a population to get out of harms way determine the intensity of a storm?

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/gifs/decost2.gif

It was the wrong chart.. sorry.

"Scientis" would be a cool NationState name. *ponders taking it*

Storms have something to do with the interaction of heat/cold so I guess it's plausable.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/gifs/decost2.gif

It was the wrong chart.. sorry.
Could you explain that chart to me? i'm a little confused as to what is supposed to be saying :confused:

well, it only makes sense. hurricanes are related to sea surface temps. climate change has increased them. check out the post on the subject (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181#more-181) at realclimate.org

http://www.realclimate.org/slp_all_w_cat.gif
"Figure 1. Model Simulation of Trend in Hurricanes (from Knutson et al, 2004)

In the particular simulation shown above, the frequency of the strongest (category 5) hurricanes roughly triples in the anthropogenic climate change scenario relative to the control. This suggests that hurricanes may indeed become more destructive (1) as tropical SSTs warm due to anthropogenic impacts."

Could you explain that chart to me? i'm a little confused as to what is supposed to be saying :confused:

From the source below: Apparently, the 1780 hurricanes occurred during a 10- to 20-year period notable for numerous past deadly storms in the Atlantic5.

---

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdeadly4.shtml?

There are two links under the chart. It is a bit difficult to explain, but you can see what the shaded part and the non-shaded part mean.

I heard this ages ago but my dad says that for some strange reason hurricanes barely ever hit texas.....or never I can't remember but things are changing and I can't remember but I do know that in the past two years the hurricane season has been ultimately rough.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/gifs/decost2.gif

It was the wrong chart.. sorry.

how does the number of storm systems impact the average intensity of them or the likelyhood of one of them becoming a cat 5?

I heard this ages ago but my dad says that for some strange reason gurricanes barely ever hit texas.....or never I can't remember but things are changing and I can't remember but I do know that in the past two years the hurricane season has been ultimately rough.

As you can see with my source, the 1930-1940s was actually the toughest for the US in the 20th century and even moreso then now.

As you can see with my source, the 1930-1940s was actually the toughest for the US in the 20th century and even moreso then now.

the last bar on that chart is only half a decade. how many tropical cyclones were there between 1995 and 1999? how many have their been between 2000 and now?

Yeah...I wasn't aware of that and now I am...scientists only partly blame the hurricanes for global warming...anyway the amount of people killed by Hurricane Katrina shocked me....

As you can see with my source, the 1930-1940s was actually the toughest for the US in the 20th century and even moreso then now.

Not really. Your source shows the number of hurricanes, not the intesity of them. 10 category 1 hurricanes do less damage than 1 category 5 hurricane.

This report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4249138.stm) shows how hurricanes have become more intense over the last 35 years.

Yeah...I wasn't aware of that and now I am...scientists only partly blame the hurricanes for global warming...anyway the amount of people killed by Hurricane Katrina shocked me....

You've got that the wrong way round. Scientists blame hurricanes on global warming, not for global warming.

oh, and btw, this is some relevant stuff in "science":
http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/katrina/#climate

I never said global warming doesn't exist.. all I'm saying it is a natural cycle.

Of course global warming had a part to play in this.In the past month there have been 3 hurricanes that threatened america,this is obviously not the norm or nobody in the rest of the world would even have heard about it.

Of course global warming had a part to play in this.In the past month there have been 3 hurricanes that threatened america,this is obviously not the norm or nobody in the rest of the world would even have heard about it.

That's nonsense. Every year many hurricanes threaten the US. In fact the 1930s-1940s were the most intense years.

Sorry....that was a typo to....I've made three typos already *looks at clock* it's 1:31 am no wonder....sorry, gomen gomen

From the source below: Apparently, the 1780 hurricanes occurred during a 10- to 20-year period notable for numerous past deadly storms in the Atlantic5.

---

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdeadly4.shtml?

There are two links under the chart. It is a bit difficult to explain, but you can see what the shaded part and the non-shaded part mean.The number of cyclones != intensity. The arguement is the intensity, not the number.

If the period you mentioned Mesatecala had the most problems with hurricanes then how come we are so unprepared for the ones that are happening now?

That's nonsense. Every year many hurricanes threaten the US. In fact the 1930s-1940s were the most intense years.Maybe, but note that your graph only covers until 1994 while this treats '95-'04:
During the hurricane season of 2004, there were 14 named storms in the North Atlantic, of which 9 achieved hurricane intensity. Four of these hurricanes struck the southeast United States in rapid succession, causing considerable damage and disruption. Analysis of hurricane characteristics in the North Atlantic (1, 2) has shown an increase in hurricane frequency and intensity since 1995. Recently, a causal relationship between increasing hurricane frequency and intensity and increasing sea surface temperature (SST) has been posited (3), assuming an acceleration of the hydrological cycle arising from the nonlinear relation between saturation vapor pressure and temperature (4). The issue of attribution of increased hurricane frequency to increasing SST has resulted in a vigorous debate in the press and in academic circles (5).It's from the first source in Free Soviet's post.

I never said global warming doesn't exist.. all I'm saying it is a natural cycle.

How much are you willing to bet on that though? $200billion to rebuild New Orleans again in 20 years time?

People who say it's a "natural cycle" are quite probably correct. There is evidence of a natural cycle of warming and cooling. However, that is just ignoring the whole point of the dicussion. Let's assume there is a natural cycle and forget about it.

The facts are (and they are facts), pumping CO2 into an environment increases the amount of heat trapped in that environment. We have been pumping C02 into the atmosphere in large quantities for a long time. It will have an increasing effect on global warming.

Unfortunately it's far too late to do aything about it now. Our kids are screwed.

The number of cyclones != intensity. The arguement is the intensity, not the number.

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

Ever heard of hurricane cycles?

Sorry....that was a typo to....I've made three typos already *looks at clock* it's 1:31 am no wonder....sorry, gomen gomenMy clock says something completely different... :p

That's nonsense. Every year many hurricanes threaten the US. In fact the 1930s-1940s were the most intense years.

In numbers or intensity of hurricanes? The "evidence" you keep posting has very little to say about what we are actually discussing.

Unfortunately it's far too late to do aything about it now. Our kids are screwed.

Our kids are screwed? That's rich. Maybe if you had an argument I would believe you. But I don't buy into that doomsday nonsense.

Maybe we could figure this out if we looked at other places other than the United States. Global Warming isn't Global if it is concentrated on one area.

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

Ever heard of hurricane cycles?That doesn't include this year and those 4 years in this decade already have half the average (not including the 2 cat 5's that just made it on that list).

My clock says something completely different... :p

Ah but that's because you aren't in Japan....now....I know that there are Hurricanes and Typhoons....and I forgot what the ones in the souther hemisphere are called...

Where's your argument? All I see are specious graphs that really have no bearing on the matter. Sticking your head in the sand and saying "It's a natural cycle" isn't exactly an argument is it? How about showing me that atmospheric C02 doesn't increase the heat trapped i the atmosphere, or that we havig been pumping C02 into the atmosphere for decades?

Between 1975 and 1989, there were 171 severe hurricanes but the number rose to 269 between 1990 and 2004.

Try some facts.

That doesn't include this year and those 4 years in this decade already have half the average (not including the 2 cat 5's that just made it on that list).

I'm saying look at previous decades.

This chat is just getting on my nerves. You won't accept anything and you keep skewing everything.

You greens.. :rolleyes:

Where's your argument? All I see are specious graphs that really have no bearing on the matter. Sticking your head i the sand and saying "It's a natural cycle" isn't exactly an argument is it? How about showing me that atmospheric C02 doesn't increase the heat trapped i the atmosphere, or that we havig been pumping C02 into the atmosphere for decades?



Try some facts.

Where is your argument? I am saying the facts. How is your argument any more or less valid then my own?

Try some facts? What do you think I've been doing?

I'm saying look at previous decades.

This chat is just getting on my nerves. You won't accept anything and you keep skewing everything.

You greens.. :rolleyes:

We're talking about this decade. Like I said, your graphs have no bearing on the discussion.

We're talking about this decade. Like I said, your graphs have no bearing on the discussion.

Like I said "hurricane cycles", and as far as I'm concerned your argument has no bearing on this discussion.

I'm saying look at previous decades.

This chat is just getting on my nerves. You won't accept anything and you keep skewing everything.

You greens.. :rolleyes:

That fact that your data only includes the storms that hit the United States makes it unreliable. I've said it before if anyone didn't read but Global Warming isn't concentrated on one area. That's why it's global. There has to be evidence from the other places in the world as well.

I'm saying look at previous decades.

This chat is just getting on my nerves. You won't accept anything and you keep skewing everything.

You greens.. :rolleyes:
Better to deal with a problem before it becomes a problem then to fix the mess. Sooner or later we're going to get into trouble because of our emissions, and it's going to cost us a lot more to fix it later then now.

You could be right. If you're right, so what, we get cleaner air, and only have to spend a bit. But what if you're wrong? Care to guess how much money it's going to cost to fix the earth if we manage to do something stupid like melt the ice caps (good luck fixing that one)?

Where is your argument? I am saying the facts. How is your argument any more or less valid then my own?

Try some facts? What do you think I've been doing?

Posting specious graphs that you can't explain by the looks of it.

Show me 1 fact that proves that climate change is not being caused by atmospheric C02 and I'll shut up.

You could be right. If you're right, so what, we get cleaner air, and only have to spend a bit. But what if you're wrong? Care to guess how much money it's going to cost to fix the earth if we manage to do something stupid like melt the ice caps (good luck fixing that one)?

I am totally for reducing emissions in a technologically beneficial manner that can benefit all of us.

Maybe we could figure this out if we looked at other places other than the United States. Global Warming isn't Global if it is concentrated on one area.

Sure, the Gulf Stream has been slowly shifting away from its Northern course over the past 100 or so years- slowly but surely.

Record heatwaves across Europe in Summer. Record rainfalls in across Europe in Winter. Record low temp in Russia in Winter.

Forest fires sweeping through the Iberian peninsula/California during abnormally high temps.

We're alright- we've just screwed up the planet for our grandkids.

Yeah, so I haven't really read any of this, so I'll just post what I've heard are the two opposing theories.

1. Global warming is causing more intense hurricanes - it's well documented and evidence exists in testament to the fact that higher sea temperatres beneath a hurricane feed the power of it and so increase the intensity. The rise in sea temperatures generated by global warming means that, although the frequency of hurricanes does not necessarily increase, the average intensity should. Current evidence backs up this claim - from the late '80s onward, average hurrican intensity has risen, hence the advanced greenhouse effect must play some part in the hurricane intensity.

OR:

2. Global warming has sod all to do with the hurricane intensity. It's also well documented amongst hurricane experts that hurricane intensity follows a near predictable cycle over a period of time (30 years, I think, but I don't know). Before the late '80s, average hurricane intensity was lower because the atlantic storm system was in the 'down' sector of the cycle - it is now in the 'up' sector. Evidence to back this up has been agreed upon for many years now. However, there is also certain evidence against the global warming argument. Typhoons in the pacific also follow the rule that warmer sea temps leads to stronger storms - however, typhoon intensity has actually been relatively low these last few years. This is because the typhoon cycle is currently in its down sector - if global warming was increasing hurricane intensity, it would also be increasing typhoon intensity, but it isn't.

I'd also like to note that there is an added factor in all of this. Katrina and Rita have both blown through the Gulf of Mexico. In the Gulf near the southern US coast, the hotter water mostly only exists to a shallow depth. It was generally conceeded before now that the sea turmoil created by the passing hurricane would therefore mix up the deeper cold water and the hotter top water, effectively reducing the surface temperature and so the ferocity of the storm. However, these two storms seem to have followed a current system within the Gulf (I forget its name) where the hot water runs over 100 metres deep as opposed to the shallower 20 metres. The storms cannot really mix the cold water from this depth, so continue to feed off the upper layer of warmer water. It then follows that the storm continues to increase in intensity right until it hits land, hence the category 5 storms.

I'm saying look at previous decades.And judging from previous decades, we should be having less hurricanes of less intensity this year...
This chat is just getting on my nerves. You won't accept anything and you keep skewing everything....says the person that claims the United Arab Emirates aren't in Asia :rolleyes:
You greens.. :rolleyes:What? I haven't tried to debunk your statement that global warming isn't influenced by human behavior. That global warming (you yourself said it "exists" at least) inlfluences hurricanes is only logical, since hurricanes are a natural way of cooling the oceans. That has little to do with being a Green.

We're alright- we've just screwed up the planet for our grandkids.

Some people don't have to worry about screwing up the planet for their grand kids, so they stick their heads in the sand and say "I don't believe it's happening".

the last bar on that chart is only half a decade. how many tropical cyclones were there between 1995 and 1999?

to answer my own question, it looks like this page (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html) says that there were 41 hurricanes, and 20 major ones, in the atlantic basin between 1995 and 1999.

and now that i'm looking at it, mesatecala's source appears to be listing hurricanes that killed at least 25 people. which is, once again, stupid and irrelevant.

Sure, the Gulf Stream has been slowly shifting away from its Northern course over the past 100 or so years- slowly but surely.

Record heatwaves across Europe in Summer. Record rainfalls in across Europe in Winter. Record low temp in Russia in Winter.

Forest fires sweeping through the Iberian peninsula/California during abnormally high temps.

We're alright- we've just screwed up the planet for our grandkids.

We just screwed up the planet for our grandkids? where the hell is the argument for that? Not just some occurrances that have been happening for a long time.. and have happened in greater intensities in past centuries.

What? I haven't tried to debunk your statement that global warming isn't influenced by human behavior. That global warming (you yourself said it "exists" at least) inlfluences hurricanes is only logical, since hurricanes are a natural way of cooling the oceans. That has little to do with being a Green.

Well why don't you chew on this: We have to live with it because that is how the world works. I'm all for reducing emissions and such, but I highly doubt that is the primary factor, or even a secondary factor to begin with. In fact I think the impact would be so small, it would not be noticeable.

Stop it with the screwing our grandkids stuff. it's not related to the topic and it's starting to irritate me

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

See, it has nothing to do with C02 :rolleyes:

Well why don't you chew on this: We have to live with it because that is how the world works. I'm all for reducing emissions and such, but I highly doubt that is the primary factor, or even a secondary factor to begin with. In fact I think the impact would be so small, it would not be noticeable.What is the primary or secondary factor then? And that that's how the world works is a dumb arguement. Germany doesn't work like that at all. German law has been curbing carbon emmissions from the industry for quite some time now and it is a fact that the US is far behind other industrial countries when it comes to reducing emmissions.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdeadly4.shtml?

There are two links under the chart. It is a bit difficult to explain, but you can see what the shaded part and the non-shaded part mean.

"Figure 1b: Number of Atlantic tropical cyclones listed in Appendix 1 (dark shading) and Appendix 2 (light shading), shown in 10-year periods (except for 1990-1994)."

Appendix 1. Cyclones with 25+ Deaths
Appendix 2: Cyclones that may have 25+ deaths

are you even trying?

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/gifs/decost2.gif

It was the wrong chart.. sorry.

This chart is useless.

In fact all of these charts are useless also.
Your charts only goes up to 1994. The water tempature ocean tempature didn't go up until around 1998. (I think) We're at the Rs (17 they don't use Q) in the Alantic and the Ns (14) in the east Pacific. So on both coasts there have be over 31 Tropical storms and above this year alone.

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

See, it has nothing to do with C02 :rolleyes:

Nah, that's proving nothing. Higher temperatures mean more water, what results in more habitats for pirates. Cause and consequence... ;)

You people provide useless arguments, and I'm off. You never bother with evidence. So good day.

I never said it was the primary reason, Mesatecala. What you are arguing from my point of view is that it could never in a million years even be a partial source or something. We could both be right bu both sides are discluding the others views...

It's nearly page 5. We're about due a post saying "plants eat C02 so more C02 will mean more plants".

We just screwed up the planet for our grandkids? where the hell is the argument for that?

Emmm.... in .... my.. post....

Did you not see where that was going?

Is no-one going to reply to my original post? I thought it contained a fair bit of debatable stuff...

It's nearly page 5. We're about due a post saying "plants eat C02 so more C02 will mean more plants".

...if only CO2 was limiting to plant growth

Yeah, so I haven't really read any of this, so I'll just post what I've heard are the two opposing theories.

1. Global warming is causing more intense hurricanes - it's well documented and evidence exists in testament to the fact that higher sea temperatres beneath a hurricane feed the power of it and so increase the intensity. The rise in sea temperatures generated by global warming means that, although the frequency of hurricanes does not necessarily increase, the average intensity should. Current evidence backs up this claim - from the late '80s onward, average hurrican intensity has risen, hence the advanced greenhouse effect must play some part in the hurricane intensity.

OR:

2. Global warming has sod all to do with the hurricane intensity. It's also well documented amongst hurricane experts that hurricane intensity follows a near predictable cycle over a period of time (30 years, I think, but I don't know). Before the late '80s, average hurricane intensity was lower because the atlantic storm system was in the 'down' sector of the cycle - it is now in the 'up' sector. Evidence to back this up has been agreed upon for many years now. However, there is also certain evidence against the global warming argument. Typhoons in the pacific also follow the rule that warmer sea temps leads to stronger storms - however, typhoon intensity has actually been relatively low these last few years. This is because the typhoon cycle is currently in its down sector - if global warming was increasing hurricane intensity, it would also be increasing typhoon intensity, but it isn't.

I'd also like to note that there is an added factor in all of this. Katrina and Rita have both blown through the Gulf of Mexico. In the Gulf near the southern US coast, the hotter water mostly only exists to a shallow depth. It was generally conceeded before now that the sea turmoil created by the passing hurricane would therefore mix up the deeper cold water and the hotter top water, effectively reducing the surface temperature and so the ferocity of the storm. However, these two storms seem to have followed a current system within the Gulf (I forget its name) where the hot water runs over 100 metres deep as opposed to the shallower 20 metres. The storms cannot really mix the cold water from this depth, so continue to feed off the upper layer of warmer water. It then follows that the storm continues to increase in intensity right until it hits land, hence the category 5 storms.

This is the reason I have come to my conclusion...

It's nearly page 5. We're about due a post saying "plants eat C02 so more C02 will mean more plants".
mmm, self correcting world hypothesis.

By the way hurricances are a way of nature countering Gobal warming, the massive amount of Rain and the massive cloud cover cools the planet off. It also absorbs all of the excess heat in Ocean water, cooling down the world even more. So all these hurricances are Nature's Failsafe system. Expect them to continue until equality returns.

Is no-one going to reply to my original post? I thought it contained a fair bit of debatable stuff...

Sorry, your post was far too rational :) Both sides are equally debatable, and I agree both can be true. It's people who make the illogical leap that "Hurricanes follow cycles therefore increased hurricane acticity cannot be due to global warming" who need to be debated.

Sorry, your post was far too rational :) Both sides are equally debatable, and I agree both can be true. It's people who make the illogical leap that "Hurricanes follow cycles therefore increased hurricane acticity cannot be due to global warming" who need to be debated.
That was what someone said on Channel 4 (UK) the other night - I forget his name, but he works for some anti-emission laws "global warming isn't because of us" firm that lobbies for businesses in the US to avoid emission curbing.

mmm, self correcting world hypothesis.
Heh you mean like Lovelock's DaisyWorld.

Anyone know what I'm quoting??

Heh Lovelock's DaisyWorld.

Anyone know what I'm quoting??

DaisyWorld and Gaia are quite dead. Let them rest in peace.

You people provide useless arguments, and I'm off. You never bother with evidence. So good day.

or, rather, you ignore posts containing actual evidence - for example, i linked directly to the respected journal, "science", which is allowing free access to a number of peer-reviewed articles on the subject of hurricanes and climate change.

all the while you post evidence that is stupid and irrelevant about the number of north atlantic hurricanes that killed 25+ people each decade, with the graph cutting off halfway through the 90s.

Global Warming for the devastating hurricanes. They think that Global Warming is causing the ocean surface temperature to rise creating stronger storms Oo.
Is this global warming in an objective scientist sense or global warming in a moonbatty humans are eeeeevil scientist sense?

All I said was that scientists partly blame global warming for the devastating hurricanes...and from it rose this debate. Both sides were denying that not even a part of the other sides views were true...

The thing I find crazy is, America went to war over the possibility that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and has spent billions waging that war, but America is unwilling to do anything meaningful over the possibility that CO2 emissions increase global warming.

Which is likely to cost America the most in the long run?

Is this global warming in an objective scientist sense or global warming in a moonbatty humans are eeeeevil scientist sense?

Global warming as in the sense that increased green house gasses in the Earth's atmosphere trap heat therefore causing the earths temperature to rise kind of sense

The thing I find crazy is, America went to war over the possibility that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and has spent billions waging that war, but America is unwilling to do anything meaningful over the possibility that CO2 emissions increase global warming.

Which is likely to cost America the most in the long run?

The one that effects the world. I heard that a lot of the major countries are putting laws and such on the green house gasses that industry and companies put out but the US is refusing too....that's old news too so I'm not sure if it has changed

All I said was that scientists partly blame global warming for the devastating hurricanes...and from it rose this debate. Both sides were denying that not even a part of the other sides views were true...

Maybe you should read the posts. Only one side has denied that the other side's view is untrue.

Global warming as in the sense that increased green house gasses in the Earth's atmosphere trap heat therefore causing the earths temperature to rise kind of sense

No, you're misrepresenting this side of the argument. Global warming is also a natural occurrence and no-one who is saying that increased green house gasses in the Earth's atmosphere trap heat therefore causing the earths temperature to rise denies that it is a natural occurrence.

I only said increased greenhouse gasses....I never said where they were natural (as I am sure some percent it) or if it caused by man...only that it has increased...

Maybe you should read the posts. Only one side has denied that the other side's view is untrue.

Your right but the people on the global warming side is not considering if she might have a point or not....at least I am not sure....I'm 14 and it 2 am in the morning....give me a break if I am slow

Yes, but global warming is also effected by things other than greenhouse gases.

Ok....tell me them. I am always in the mood to learn something new...

Your right but the people on the global warming side is not considering if she might have a point or not....at least I am not sure....I'm 14 and it 2 am in the morning....give me a break if I am slow

She's a he :)

I already stated that I don't disagree that hurricanes run in cycles. However, the evidence that Mesatecala put forward is meaningless in this context, since it doesn't cover the current period, it isn't global data and it is selective in the hurricanes that it counts.

Mesatecala's 2nd graph seems to indicate that we are at a low point of hurricane activity, but the weather seems to indicate otherwise.

She's a he :)

I already stated that I don't disagree that hurricanes run in cycles. However, the evidence that Mesatecala put forward is meaningless in this context, since it doesn't cover the current period, it isn't global data and it is selective in the hurricanes that it counts.

Mesatecala's 2nd graph seems to indicate that we are at a low point of hurricane activity, but the weather seems to indicate otherwise.

ooops.....anyway his graph is also focused on the US alone...what about the rest of the world. This further proves that his 'ecidence' is meaningless

Mesatecala's 2nd graph seems to indicate that we are at a low point of hurricane activity, but the weather seems to indicate otherwise.

but that's because they were being deceptive with that graph. it measures the number of hurricanes in the atlantic basin that killed 25+ people. which is utterly irrelevant.

Global Warming for the devastating hurricanes. They think that Global Warming is causing the ocean surface temperature to rise creating stronger storms Oo.
meteorologists have been warning for years that global warming will cause freak weather patters... whats happening now is pretty normal, isn't it? [/sarcasm]

I guess so....I wonder how many people believed what happened in Day After Tommorow will happen for real. I know it won't....my 7th grade science teacher specifically told us all the reason why (which I don't remember so don't ask)

the weather seems to indicate otherwise.
*takes a look outside the window*

Yep, your right on that one :p

*frowns* theres supposed to be a typhoon headed straight for Yokosuka... -_-

Firstly, none of us here are scientists. Saying those 'dumb scientists'(Who went through 5-10 years of University study) know nothing! Well, they do know what they are talking about. Global warming is fact and most scientists agree that it is due to increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere. For those who don't have a high school education CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat energy.

Also I have yet to hear a meterologist or climatologist who say that this busy hurricane season is due to global warming. They do say that we could see more seasons like this once global warming picks up.

A few points:

Just because there is a natural cycle of ebb and flow to hurricanes (which is basically agreed to be true,) does not mean that all variations are caused by this cycle. If, indeed, the natural cycle is being augmented by warmer waters, then we are in big trouble, as seems to be the case.

No one is arguing that man's effect on the environment is the primary cause of climate change. Mother nature still pwns us. What is important to acknowledge is that even if man only has a minute effect, the results can be profound and wide-reaching. Sure, the earth can protect itself, but at what cost to us?

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If, indeed, man is effecting the environment, or even if there is only a small chance that man is altering the environment, it behooves us to take steps to avert this change, because cleanup/relocation/reversing the course takes much much more time, money and resources than intelligently organized preventative measures. In a way, environmentalism is like keeping healthy by eating well and excercising, rather than having to pay huge medical bills down the road. Short-term, yes, environmental protections may be expensive. Long-term, they save a fortune.

No one is arguing that man's effect on the environment is the primary cause of climate change. Mother nature still pwns us.

actually, the balance of all currently known factors in natural climate forcing say that we should be experiencing a global cooling trend. anthropogenic forcing is enough to not only balance these factors, but to push it all off in the other direction.