Study: Global warming affects hurricane intensity (1 Viewer)

[LeftyHenry]

MIAMI (Reuters) - Global warming is affecting the intensity of Atlantic hurricanes, according to a new study by a university professor in Florida who says his research provides the first direct link between climate change and storm strength.

James Elsner of Florida State University said he set out to perform a statistical analysis of the two theories in a raging debate within the scientific community: Whether recent intense hurricanes are the result of climate change or natural ocean warming and cooling cycles.

"Is the atmosphere forcing the ocean or the ocean forcing the atmosphere?" Elsner asked.

The issue has a wide-ranging impact on insurance companies, municipal planners, some 50 million residents of hurricane-prone U.S. coastal communities and millions of others in Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean islands.

The 2005 hurricane season produced 28 tropical storms and hurricanes, shattering the old record of 21 set in 1933....

Full Article Here

 

[BodiSatva]

It is scary that people of so little common sense and obvious delusion are out there ranting about their inane ideologies...:doh

If you live anywhere but a Communist country, you are nothing but a TOTAL HYPOCRITE and anything you say from this point foward about your beliefs will be met with nothing but contempt and utter disgust regarding you and your hypocrisy.

:rofl :lol: :rofl

 

[Stinger]

MIAMI (Reuters) - Global warming is affecting the intensity of Atlantic hurricanes, according to a new study by a university professor in Florida who says his research provides the first direct link between climate change and storm strength.................
"Is the atmosphere forcing the ocean or the ocean forcing the atmosphere?" Elsner asked........................The 2005 hurricane season produced 28 tropical storms and hurricanes, shattering the old record of 21 set in 1933....

:rofl so what happened this year? It just stopped? Or did we start to cool?

2005
Arlene (Jun 8-13) / Bret (Jun 28-29) / Cindy (Jul 3-7) / Dennis (Jul 4-12)
Emily (Jul 11-21) / Franklin (Jul 21-29) / Gert (Jul 23-25) / Harvey (Aug 3-8)
Irene (Aug 7-18)

We've had one minor shortlive storm in the Gulf this year same timeframe.

 

[faithful_servant]

:rofl so what happened this year? It just stopped? Or did we start to cool?

2005
Arlene (Jun 8-13) / Bret (Jun 28-29) / Cindy (Jul 3-7) / Dennis (Jul 4-12)
Emily (Jul 11-21) / Franklin (Jul 21-29) / Gert (Jul 23-25) / Harvey (Aug 3-8)
Irene (Aug 7-18)

We've had one minor shortlive storm in the Gulf this year same timeframe.

Here's your answer, Stinger.

 

[LeftyHenry]

It is scary that people of so little common sense and obvious delusion are out there ranting about their inane ideologies...:doh

If you live anywhere but a Communist country, you are nothing but a TOTAL HYPOCRITE and anything you say from this point foward about your beliefs will be met with nothing but contempt and utter disgust regarding you and your hypocrisy.

:rofl :lol: :rofl

wtf? relevence? I live in the USA but I lived in Cuba for a while a couple years back. BTW the idea of a 'communist country' or state is an oxymoron.

 

[Gill]

:rofl so what happened this year? It just stopped? Or did we start to cool?

That's the beauty of being a global warming alarmist.... no matter what the weather does, it's caused by global warming.

 

[Stinger]

That's the beauty of being a global warming alarmist.... no matter what the weather does, it's caused by global warming.

I know, isn't it unreal??

I'm just waiting for one of them to claim the calm hurricane season is due to global warming.

 

[Stinger]

Here's your answer, Stinger.

And they think they can predict climatic conditions 10 years from now.

 

[Stinger]

:rofl so what happened this year? It just stopped? Or did we start to cool?

2005
Arlene (Jun 8-13) / Bret (Jun 28-29) / Cindy (Jul 3-7) / Dennis (Jul 4-12)
Emily (Jul 11-21) / Franklin (Jul 21-29) / Gert (Jul 23-25) / Harvey (Aug 3-8)
Irene (Aug 7-18)

We've had one minor shortlive storm in the Gulf this year same timeframe.

Been wondering what happened to all the GW faithful here. So I thought I'd post an update

Arlene (Jun 8-13) / Bret (Jun 28-29) / Cindy (Jul 3-7) / Dennis (Jul 4-12)
Emily (Jul 11-21) / Franklin (Jul 21-29) / Gert (Jul 23-25) / Harvey (Aug 3-8)
Irene (Aug 7-18) / Jose (Aug 22-23) / Katrina (Aug 23-30) / Lee (Aug 31-Sep 1)

We've now had two storms make it into the Caribeen with one barely making it to hurricane strength one hitting the US as little more than a minor tropical storm. Twelve by this time last year some of them major.

So is the low number due to Global Warming too?

 

[Citizendave]

Yes! (it's like a hammer on his "strumming thumb!")

.......Study Agreement

Michael Mann is the director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University in University Park. He said the new findings are robust and consistent with models of how the global climate responds to warmer oceans.

According to Mann, the models predict that the number of intense hurricanes—though not necessarily the total number of hurricanes—will increase with rising sea surface temperatures.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/0915_050915_hurricane_strength_2.html

Even Christopher Landsea, the scientist who quit the IPCC in frustration, is on record as having said that higher sea surface temps will contiubute to the formation of hurricanes.

[Mr. Landsea before the COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS SUBCOMMITTEE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES on October 11, 2001]

......Hurricanes are fueled by warm water as they travel across the ocean. An abundance of warm water provides more energy allowing the storm to increase in strength.

http://www.house.gov/science/ets/oct11/landsea.htm

Whoops! Lookie below!

World News

Title: New proof that man has caused global warming

Published: Feb 18, 2005

The strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in the world’s oceans.

The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, new research has revealed.

The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study said yesterday.

"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable."

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=85351

So sorry Stinger!

 

[Stinger]

Yes! (it's like a hammer on his "strumming thumb!")

.......Study Agreement

Michael Mann is the director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University in University Park. He said the new findings are robust and consistent with models of how the global climate responds to warmer oceans.

According to Mann, the models predict that the number of intense hurricanes—though not necessarily the total number of hurricanes—will increase with rising sea surface temperatures.

So where are they? We haven't had any so far this year and look at last year and the previous years.

Even Christopher Landsea, the scientist who quit the IPCC in frustration, is on record as having said that higher sea surface temps will contiubute to the formation of hurricanes.

OK but recent measurements show the upper oceans are cooling

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/~lyman/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf

Whoops! Lookie below!

So let me get this straight, if we have a lot of strong hurricanes it proves global warming (man-made, at the point of no return as all the GW faithful state), and if we don't have a lot of strong hurricanes it also proves global warming. How convienent that no matter what happens IT"S STILL GLOBAL WARMING.

So sorry Stinger!

For what, did you rebut my claim that we are having fewer hurricanes or something?

 

[Gill]

Even Christopher Landsea, the scientist who quit the IPCC in frustration, is on record as having said that higher sea surface temps will contiubute to the formation of hurricanes.

Chris Landsea DID quit the IPCC because members with no experience in hurricane dynamics, were claiming that global warming was affecting hurricane intensity. Following is an excerpt from his letter to the IPCC:

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth's role as the IPCC's Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current sc ientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html

The above letter was written in 2005.

The House testimony you quoted was in 2001, so it quite a bit older than Landsea's letter. You were very selective in your quote. Landsea also says the following in his testimony before the House Subcommittee:

Based upon changes in oceanic and atmospheric conditions, we think this increased activity is due to a natural cycle called the Atlantic Multidecadal Mode, a north Atlantic and Carribean sea surface temperature shift between warm and cool phases that each last 20 to 40 years. The data suggest that we are in a warm Atlantic phase; thus, an active Atlantic hurricane era may be underway, similar to that last seen from the late 1920s to the late 1960s. Further, our results suggest that the record amount of hurricane activity could possibly be caused by a combination of the multidecadal ocean temperature changes plus a small contribution from the long‑term warming trend. Known cycles of natural variability are high. However, inadequacies in the data record make long-term warming a difficult issue to resolve because model variability studies are inconclusive.

Landsea is stating that the increase in the numbers and intensity of hurricanes is due to naturally occurring cycles. He also clearly stated that warmer SSTs are also due to this cycle.

Your quotes are both misleading and disingenuous. Typical of AGW fanatics.

 

[Gill]

OK but recent measurements show the upper oceans are cooling

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/~lyman/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf

A 2005 study claims the oceans are warming and a 2006 study claims they are cooling.

And we are supposed to destroy our economy based on what these "scientists" say??

More junk science.

 

[Citizendave]

So where are they? We haven't had any so far this year and look at last year and the previous years.

I'll tell ya straight up: I don't have a good answer for ya. The basic big picture regarding GW is as follows: since 1800 humans have altered the earth's atmosphere. (You know the chant.) We've increased a greenhouse gas by about 1/3. Mid level world pop estimates are for 9 billion people on the earth by 2050. America pumps out around 25% of the CO2 humans contribute to the atmosphere each year. It's going to take us a long time to get around to it, but one way or another as a society we are going to address this responsibly. Any idiot knows that a (completely unfettered) free market, with it's eye riveted on profits, cares very little about the environment, and so it is ill equipped to address the problem. That's why it's a good thing that we have a strong federal government which will intervene one way or another.

OK but recent measurements show the upper oceans are cooling

I read some of the article and I've added the page to my ever growing list of "favorites" related to GW. What you've picked up on is a trend. This is the sort of thing which skeptics and deniers usually delight in ignoring. "The trend is so small!" the skeptics and deniers trumpet. The trend you are encapsulating indicates that the oceans are cooling. Very well, point acknowledged. Meanwhile, the NOAA has not changed it's overall stance on GW:

......The greenhouse effect is unquestionably real and helps to regulate the temperature of our planet.

......Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point.

.....Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4°F (0.2 to 0.3°C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data). The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S.) have, in fact, cooled over the last century.

......Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of 1 to 2 mm/year over the past 100 years, which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years.

....Due to the enormous complexity of the atmosphere, the most useful tools for gauging future changes are 'climate models'. These are computer-based mathematical models which simulate, in three dimensions, the climate's behavior........ Climate models are constantly improving based on both our understanding ........ though by definition, a computer model is a simplification and simulation of reality, meaning that it is an approximation of the climate system.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

So let me get this straight, if we have a lot of strong hurricanes it proves global warming .......

Saying that GW has been proven 100% would imply that all the nuances are understood. As your statement reveals, the science isn't at that stage yet. Much is known about the human body, and yet some die of cancer. If you got cancer, would you focus on what Dr.'s don't know and refuse treatment?

(man-made, at the point of no return as all the GW faithful state),

True, the faithful state this, but public policy is a game of collisions. And right now, the skeptics and deniers are getting slammed. The momentum is very much on the side of those who would regulate CO2. Given the severity of this issue, (excuse me, the potential severity, the likely severity) I support the spin. I don't support outright lies which would hurt the progress toward regulating CO2 output.

How convenient that no matter what happens IT"S STILL GLOBAL WARMING.

Truthfully, I share your frustration regarding the uncertainties that lurk within the science. Here's how I would interpret what you said above: No matter what happens, we need to continue studying world climate, and as a society, dollar for dollar, the smartest thing is to do that, so we will. The US federal gov't spent 5 billion related to GW last year. After we begin restricting CO2, we will continue to study world climate. This is for two reasons: 1) there is a slight chance that the scientists are wrong. 2) We may have a huge crisis on our hands, and we may need to drastically decrease CO2 output.

did you rebut my claim that we are having fewer hurricanes or something?

I provided a source saying that current GW theory speaks to the intensity of hurricanes rather than their total number. You asked:

So is the low number due to Global Warming too?

Upon review, I see that I could have given a better answer to your question: I should have said, "No, the low number of hurricanes is independent from current global warming theory according to one top expert."

 

[Citizendave]

Your quotes are both misleading and disingenuous. Typical of AGW fanatics.

Gadzooks and Shiver my timbers! I am frothing at the mouth and when I finish brushing my teeth I am going to tear my hair out! How dare you GiL? From now on I will forever think of you as my enema!

I suppose I could have prefaced my statement that quote a bit better. What I did say was: "Even Christopher Landsea, the scientist who quit the IPCC in frustration....." That statement implies disagreement with the IPCC's position on GW and hurricanes which most people on this site would be able to glean.

And we are supposed to destroy our economy

One thing we agree on: if we actually pursue CO2 reductions, it will greatly interfere with the economy. I'm not one of those bubble-heads who thinks there is going to be some sort of economic benefit from switching to other power sources. No windmill can deliver the pop that a combustion engine does. Switching over (to whatever) is going to put huge numbers of people out of work. Profitable companies like stability, and it just isn't known where GW is leading.

based on what these "scientists" say?? More junk science.

I feel a little silly saying this, but it seems warranted: the scientists are the scientists. These experts, even though there are uncertainties related to GW, ARE the experts. Unless the major car and oil companies want to train or buy their own climate scientists, and build their own research facilities, these are the scientific experts who are going to have to reverse the current scientific consensus. We (you, I and the man in the moon) are stuck with them. That's the reality, and that's why CO2 is going to be a restricted pollutant within 4 years.

Now, I for one have to vanish. If you have a response, that will be just dandy and I will be back on the site next week.

 

[Stinger]

I'll tell ya straight up: I don't have a good answer for ya. The basic big picture regarding GW is as follows:

Well I'm well aware of the the basic big picture the GW faithful spout, but what is left out is that during all the time temps have not really followed C)2 levels and in fact there have been periods of cooling (including the 70's when the cry was we were all going to freeze to death) all the while CO2 have been creeping up, and there have been periods when CO2 levels were higher.

Saying that GW has been proven 100% would imply that all the nuances are understood. As your statement reveals, the science isn't at that stage yet.

It's not even close.

Much is known about the human body, and yet some die of cancer. If you got cancer, would you focus on what Dr.'s don't know and refuse treatment?

Once the treatment has been clinically proven to work and the cancer has been identitified and diagnose properly. We are a long way from that point vis-a-vis GW.

True, the faithful state this, but public policy is a game of collisions. And right now, the skeptics and deniers are getting slammed. The momentum is very much on the side of those who would regulate CO2.

Even though there is no evidence we could or even need to.

Given the severity of this issue, (excuse me, the potential severity, the likely severity) I support the spin. I don't support outright lies which would hurt the progress toward regulating CO2 output........

I provided a source saying that current GW theory speaks to the intensity of hurricanes rather than their total number. You asked:

And go and read what I posted, we are down in BOTH numbers and intensitity so far this year. In fact don't be surprised if we see a another round of revised forcast.

"No, the low number of hurricanes is independent from current global warming theory according to one top expert."

Although I take exception to what you are saying, it wasn't just intensity the GW chicken littles were screaming about including many of the scienties who hold to the belief, it was the numbers also. They were quite pointed about it.

But taking your assertions for a moment, hurricane developement is a function of the energy in the water and the length of time it is there during the year (how long the season last), that energy is in the form of heat. If in fact Global warming is heating the oceans and that is causing greater intensity in the hurricanes why is it not also effect the numbers too. If the heat input is greater then the oceans would recover from the heat loss of the hurricane (it drains that energy) quicker and create more hurricanes.

But then I don't accept it as scientific fact anyway.

It still gets down to GW causes more and more powerful hurricanse while at the same time GW causes there to be fewer and less powerful hurricanes.

And anyone who thinks they have a scientific explaintion is selling you swamp land in Florida. They just don't know, same as with GW overall. For all they know the next five years will get cooler, the next decade could be cooler, or they could be warmer.

 

[Gill]

And go and read what I posted, we are down in BOTH numbers and intensitity so far this year. In fact don't be surprised if we see a another round of revised forcast.

You're a clairvoyant Stinger !!!

Forecasters Call for Fewer Hurricanes
Sep 01 9:48 AM US/Eastern

The Colorado State University hurricane forecast team Friday called for a slightly below-average hurricane season with only five hurricanes instead of the seven earlier forecast. It is second time they had revised downward their forecast in a month.

Two of the hurricanes will be intense, the team predicted.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/01/D8JS3K680.html

 

[Stinger]

You're a clairvoyant Stinger !!!

If I could only pick the dogs as well :mrgreen:

 

[Gill]

If I could only pick the dogs as well :mrgreen:

Why don't you take a shot at climate prediction. You're bound to do as good as some of these so-called scientists out there.

 

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
If I could only pick the dogs as well :mrgreen:

Why don't you take a shot at climate prediction. You're bound to do as good as some of these so-called scientists out there.

OK here goes

I predict.......................................drum roll please...............................that there will be climate change in the future.

 

[Citizendave]

Hello Stinger,

I've read through your reply three times and I find it sorta fuzzy and I'm having trouble getting my arms around it.

in fact there have been periods of cooling (including the 70's when the cry was we were all going to freeze to death) all the while CO2 have been creeping up,.

Please be specific regarding the cooling periods. Please provide a link. Also, Are you referencing a scientific error which occured 30 years ago and using that to debunk GW science? If so, you dum-dum.

Whatever Happened To Global Cooling?

By Susan Kruglinski

DISCOVER Vol. 27 No. 02 | February 2006 | Environment

Global warming skeptics often cite contradictory reports from a generation ago warning of global cooling. In 1975 Newsweek wrote of "ominous signs" that temperatures were dipping, and a year later National Geographic suggested the possibility of a worldwide chilling trend. Stephen Schneider, a climatologist at Stanford University, recalls those stories well. "I was one of the ones who talked about global cooling," he says. "I was also the one who said what was wrong with that idea within three years."

Schneider coauthored a 1971 article in the journal Science about atmospheric aerosols—floating particles of soil dust, volcanic ash, and human-made pollutants. His research suggested that industrial aerosols could block sunlight and reduce global temperatures enough to overcome the effects of greenhouse gases, possibly triggering an ice age. But he soon realized that he had overestimated the amount of aerosols in the air and underestimated the role of greenhouse gases.

"Back then this science was so new, so theoretical, it was really hard to sort it out," he says. He and other early climate researchers say they did not predict a global cooling trend but simply suggested the possibility. Evidence suggests that average worldwide temperatures did decrease between the 1940s and the 1970s. Some climatologists partially attribute the temporary cooling trend to industrial smog, which has since been overcome by the effects of growing greenhouse emissions and, ironically, by clean-air laws that have reduced atmospheric particulates.

"Science is a self-correcting institution," Schneider says. "The data change, so of course you change your position. Otherwise, you would be dishonest."

http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-06/rd/global-cooling/

and there have been periods when CO2 levels were higher

I concede the point, and below I provide a cherry-picked quote in keeping with my misleading and disingenuous character:

Ice cores unlock climate secrets

By Julianna Kettlewell
BBC News Online science staff

Tiny bubbles of ancient air are locked in the ice

Global climate patterns stretching back 740,000 years have been confirmed by a three-kilometre-long ice core drilled from the Antarctic, Nature reports.
Analysis of the ice proves our planet has had eight ice ages during that period, punctuated by rather brief warm spells - one of which we enjoy today.

If past patterns are followed in the future, we can expect our "mild snap" to last another 15,000 years.

The data may also help predict how greenhouse gases will affect climate.


Initial tests on gas trapped in the ice core show that current carbon dioxide (CO2) levels are higher than they have been in 440,000 years......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3792209.stm

Was that the time period you were referring to when CO2 levels were higher?

 

[Citizendave]

Saying that GW has been proven 100% would imply that all the nuances are understood. As your statement reveals, the science isn't at that stage yet.

It's not even close.

It is close enough to merit government regs.

Donald Perovich has studied sea ice for thirty years....

....Perovich’s particular area of expertise, in the words of his crrel biography, is “the interaction of solar radiation with sea ice."

....An ideal white surface, which reflected all the light that shone on it, would have an albedo of one, and an ideal black surface, which absorbed all the light, would have an albedo of zero. The albedo of the earth, in aggregate, is 0.3, meaning that a little less than a third of the sunlight that hits it gets reflected back out. Anything that changes the earth’s albedo changes how much energy the planet absorbs, with potentially dramatic consequences.....

At one point, Perovich asked me to imagine that we were looking down at the earth from a spaceship above the North Pole. “It’s springtime, and the ice is covered with snow, and it’s really bright and white," he said. “It reflects over eighty per cent of the incident sunlight. The albedo’s around 0.8, 0.9. Now, let’s suppose that we melt that ice away and we’re left with the ocean. The albedo of the ocean is less than 0.1; it’s like 0.07.

“Not only is the albedo of the snow-covered ice high; it’s the highest of anything we find on earth," he went on. “And not only is the albedo of water low; it’s pretty much as low as anything you can find on earth. So what you’re doing is you’re replacing the best reflector with the worst reflector." The more open water that’s exposed, the more solar energy goes into heating the ocean. The result is a positive feedback, similar to the one between thawing permafrost and carbon releases, only more direct. This so-called ice-albedo feedback is believed to be a major reason that the Arctic is warming so rapidly.

http://www.wesjones.com/climate1.htm

It is close enough that major oil companies have shifted their positions from their previous attempts to debunk the science behind GW:

Climate Change Position

ConocoPhillips recognizes that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate. While the debate continues over the extent of human contributions and the timing and magnitude of future impacts, we are committed to taking action to expand our business planning processes to address greenhouse gas emissions and to develop greenhouse gas targets for our operations

http://www.conocophillips.com/about/Sustainable+Development/Climate+Change+Position+Statement/index.htm

I think we can safely assume that a company with profits on the line has studied the science. The science is persuasive, and therefore denial is not a viable long term strategy for any rational company. Here is what is on Saudiaramco's mind:

Symposium Set on Carbon Issues

First Regional Symposium on Carbon Management
Environment & Safety

DHAHRAN, April 29, 2006 -- Saudi Aramco will sponsor the First Regional Symposium on Carbon Management in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, from May 22 to 24, 2006.

The conference will focus on carbon management challenges and opportunities that impact the petroleum industry, and seeks to develop regional awareness of the issue.

Oil-producing companies have recognized the importance of carbon management and the need to fully understand its impact on their responsibilities. In this context, the First Regional Symposium on Carbon Management will provide valuable carbon management updates on policy and leading technology solution development activities across the globe.

Ambitious carbon dioxide emissions reduction targets have been set by many countries to be achieved over relatively short periods. Meeting these targets will have significant implications on energy systems selections, which will define the energy supply landscape over the next two decades.

http://www.saudiaramco.com/bvsm/JSP/content/articleDetail.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@0379247242.1157432809@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccciaddikfjjmdicefeceefdfnkdfhn.0&datetime=09%2F05%2F06+08%3A08%3A35&SA.contentOID=1073766191

and a few headlines from the symposium, I decided to bold some of the speakers:

8:15–8:30 Saudi Aramco President and CEO Opening Speech
Keynote Session
Chairman: Nadhmi Al Nasr, VP Engineering Services, Saudi Aramco

8:30–8:50 Energy Efficiencies & Carbon Capture/Storage: Pipe-dream or Reality – Gerald Doucet, Secretary General, World Energy Council

8:50–9:10 Global Energy and Emission Outlook: Key Challenges and Uncertainties – Fatih Birol, Chief Economist, Head, Economic Analysis Division, IEA

9:10–9:30 International Regulatory Trends Toward Climate Change Mitigation – R. K. Pachauri, Chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
9:30–9:45 Break

9:45–10:05 Impact of Carbon Constrained World on Petroleum Industry – Adnan Shihab-Eldin, Independent Consultant & Ex OPEC General Secretary

10:05–10:25 Carbon Management Technology Needs: Impact and Role in Minimizing Economic Growth Liability for Industrialized and Emerging Nations – Kelly Sims Gallagher, Director, Energy Technology Innovation Project, Harvard University

10:25–11:00 Panel Discussion

http://www.co2management.org/symposium_program.php

How perfectly odd! They forgot to invite the esteemed skeptics and deniers to tell the truth about the shaky science behind the GW hoax! Very strange indeed!

 

[Citizendave]

Much is known about the human body, and yet some die of cancer. If you got cancer, would you focus on what Dr.'s don't know and refuse treatment?

Once the treatment has been clinically proven to work....

Are you saying that you would only accept a cancer treatment which was 100% effective? What if you went to a Dr with a malignant brain tumor and they had a treatment which was only 20% effective. Would you refuse treatment because 80% of the time the treatment does not work?

there is no evidence [of human induced global warming]

Gosh Stinger you just about have me crying in my beer.

Greenland glaciers dumping ice into Atlantic at faster pace

Estimates of future contributions to sea-level rise could be too low

The amount of ice that Greenland's glaciers dump into the Atlantic Ocean has almost doubled in the last five years because glaciers are moving faster, according to a new Science study.

Rising surface air temperatures appear to be triggering the increases in glacier speed in the southern half of Greenland, according to the study's authors who say that many estimates of Greenland's future contributions to sea-level rise could be too low.

......Over the last 20 years, the air temperature in southeast Greenland has risen by 3 Celsius degrees.

The warmer temperatures increase the amount of melt water reaching the glacier-rock interface where it serves as a lubricant that eases glaciers' march to the ocean, the authors say......

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-02/aaft-ggd021006.php

Yes, there is no evidence of global warming, and you also do not have a nose on your face.

And anyone who thinks they have a scientific explaintion is selling you swamp land in Florida.

Golly! Looks like I'm going to be neighbors with some rich folks! (Pass the sunscreen and watch out for the gators!):

Jan. 19, 2006

WASHINGTON - Six former heads of the Environmental Protection Agency — five Republicans and one Democrat — accused the Bush administration Wednesday of neglecting global warming and other environmental problems.

......All of the former administrators and EPA’s current chief, Stephen Johnson, raised their hands when asked by the event moderator whether they believe global warming is a real problem, and again when he asked if humans bear significant blame.

......“If we wait for every single scientist who has a thought on the issue of climate change to agree, we will never do anything,” [Carol Browner] said. “If this agency had waited to completely understand the impacts of DDT, the impacts of lead in our gasoline, there would probably still be DDT sprayed and lead in our gasoline.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10913795/

 

[Citizendave]

I'm just waiting for one of them to claim the calm hurricane season is due to global warming.

I found the explanation for the calm hurricane season in a radio inteview at the following link:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5709585


Here is the answer to your clumsy attempt to debunk GW science:

James Elsner, professor, geography director, Hurricane Climate Institute, Florida State University

(at 2 min into the interview)

We are seeing a normal amount of activity. …..What’s been unusual and I think was not anticipated is that fact that these storms have not strengthened into hurricanes so that‘s somewhat unusual….. I think the reason for that is probably the amount of wind shear this year as compared to last year.

…..If the winds are blowing in different directions at different elevations, that tends to tip the storms over if you will and then they don’t hang together as one system.

….This year we are not in either El Nino or La Nina so the wind shear is coming from something else.

….Typically the waters warm up first during the onset of the season, and then the shear relaxes we just haven’t seen that relaxation of the shear yet but, it appears that that is changing and in the next 4 to 6 weeks I expect some of these tropical cyclones to develop into hurricanes.

From the same interview:

Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research

(8 min into the interview

What it does in the El Nino case is it creates lighter winds and sunny skies which warm up the sea temperatures and sort of set the conditions for a following hurricane season which is more active than normal as long as the El Nino itself goes away before the hurricane season.


This year, instead, in January, the winds were quite a lot stronger 5 mph stronger in the tropical Atlantic and that creates evaporative cooling and actually cools off the ocean and so as we go into this hurricane season in parts of the Atlantic, uh tropical Atlantic The sea temperatures are below normal….this so this is a key part of the differences between the two years…

This year sea temperatures overall are normal, last year they were at record high levels.

And finally, I'm so sorry, but a word about intensity versus total numbers. (from the same interview)

Judith Curry, professor and chairwoman, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

(at 10 min into the interview

…..while the total number of hurricanes wasn’t really changing, what we were finding was a shift in distribution of intensity towards more intense storms, and in particular it was the category four and five storms that were increasing we found almost a doubling in the number of category 4 and 5 storms from 1970 to 2004 and we associated this increase in intensity with the rising tropical sea surface temperatures which has warmed about a degree Fahrenheit since 1970

We win! We have made it all up! The nerds are beating the jocks!

 

[Stinger]

We win! We have made it all up! The nerds are beating the jocks!

We had a large increase in both numbers and intensity last year, we've had a large decrease in both numbers and intensity this year.

So which did GW cause? Last year it was the dire warnings, this year silence.