Is the increase in severe storms due to global warming?

I question the entire global warming hypothesis. I think it is a ploy to get money and political power. There is no research money if the sky is not falling, and it is much harder to get people to give up freedom and power to the government if there is no crisis that we must be saved from.

If NASA Tech Briefs audience is a scientific community should it be swallowing whole the theory of Global Warming so completely as to be insinuating its existence as a fact?

Since NASA’s own ‘facts’ (about 1998 record temps) were challenged and found to be incorrect, and the fact that so very many highly credible scientists are still in doubt, should any real ’scientist’ be making the assumption or assertion that the ’science is in, global warming’s a fact’. I believe even Newton would have felt that this would be a dangerous arrogance.

I hope we never get that arrogant, and I think your question of the week should be reworded to not imply that all of your readers agree that Global Warming’s a fact.

When you take all of the evidence as a whole, such as shrinking ice caps , disappearing glaciers and rising sea levels, global warming is impossible to deny. Whether or not this is due to human intervention is another matter of discussion. The CO2 concentration is higher than it has ever been in observed history and we know that we emit carbon dioxide as a result of many of our activities. Is it mere coincidence that the frequency of severe storms are increasing at the same time that ocean temperatures are increasing and cloud heights are increasing? I think not. We need to stop doubting the evidence in front of us.

I have not bought into the global warming hoax. The idea that man is “the cause of global warming” is about as believable as the man in the moon. The sun has a far greater influence on the earth’s temperature than anything that man can do. Also, before man appeared on earth, the earth has been much warmer (and colder) than it is now. And if man is the cause of global warming, how did the glaciers melt when man didn’t even exist? Global warming is politics, not science.

The Earth’s temperature is increasing, I don’t necessarily agree with the popular belief that it is all a human made problem. However, if I remember correctly from physics class, energy can not be created, only changed. An increase in temperature is a change in energy, and storms are also another change in energy, so if the two events are occuring together, it could be concluded that one can cause the other. Now which is the cause and which is the effect?

I voted yes only because I have made the scientific observation of a pot of water on a stove: more heat = more steam. An educated extension would be; the warmer the ocean, the more clouds (steam) and thus, more chance for severe weather.

All that being said, I agree 100% with Cecil. While a young man, there was no organization that held higher esteem in my mind than NASA. Today, much older and much wiser, I can not overstate my complete disappointment for NASA’s apparent promotion of the preposterous notion of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. Of all the unmitigated arrogance of a species, to think our dominance on this planet is so pervasive that we can actually alter the weather is beyond ridiculous. Shame on NASA and shame on anyone else who is self-righteous enough to believe that hog wash. Grow up, little people, and open your eyes.

I agree with Cecil’s comments, and want to point out that the enviromnemtalists are no longer calling it global warming, but “climate change”. That way, any extraordinary weather phenomenon can be blamed on some action of humans.

enviromnemtalists = environmentalists (yes, I can spell).

When you take all the known evidence, you will see that man is excluding approximately 99% or more of the total data. This is not through any personal desire, but through the fact that climatic data has only been consistently collected and retained for the last 100 years. And if data exists from earlier time periods that doesn’t fit the model developed on the “Current” data, it is discarded as an anomally.
How many major storms occured in the years following the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883? Of these storms, how many never made lanfall?
What was the Atlantic surface temperature in 1184 AD? Was there the right proportion of storms to match that temperature?
Evidence indicates that tropical cyclone activity has been on the decline in recent years even though Atlantic activity is up.
Global warming or normal cyclic activity? I am not arrogant enough to claim either with as little data as there is.

Let’s not ‘doubt’ all or ANY of the evidence in front of us, but like legitimate researchers, look at it all, not just the pieces that work to support a theory. For example if the polar ice caps’ thickness is relevant, and caused by increased human CO2 emissions, then why is the fact that polar ice caps are not as small as they have been even in just the short time we’ve been observing and recording this data (eg Canada’s NP ice cap) completely ignored, or at least left popularly unexplained.
Why do CO2 levels follow, rather than precede global temp increases? Why are Iceland’s glaciers growing?……..
Until we legitimately understand and can explain how all of the counter-theory phenomena fit with the theory, that’s all we have, no ’science’, other than a questionable theory, and certainly no ‘fact’, as a ‘fact’ would be accepted by the legitimate scientific community.

I voted yes because the earth has warmed slightly and the storms have increased in intensity and I believe the water temperatures have a strong influence on that. Of course the earth has been cooling for the last 5-10 years, but since that contradicts the doomsday scenarios, you don’t hear about it.

I believe that although man may contribute to the warming somewhat, that natural effects, sun spots, cosmic radiation, natural cycles of the oceans and air currents, vastly outweigh anything we do.

As someone who works with computer modeling I find it preposterous that we are contemplating changing everything we do in life based on these theories and models. Climate modeling is certainly not nearly as well understood as FEA and we all know how difficult it is to get accurate results out for even simple parts.

To believe that we can predict cloud formation (low level, high level), jet stream patterns, water vapor (by far the greenhouse gas with the most influence), reflectivity, etc, etc, etc, that are all empirically driven calculations rather than Newtonian physics based. This system is far too complex to think we can predict what will happen. Not to mention, is the trillions of dollars that we’re going to spend going to be able stop and reverse this process if it were truly going on? I don’t think so.

I agree with Cecil that this is a power grab pure and simple and a lot of well intentioned people are being suckered along.

In addition NASA at the behest of James Hansen has been doctoring the historical data to make it seem as if things are worse than they actually are.

The Man-Made-Global-Warming-Leading-To-Catastrophe fanatics WILL deny inexpensive power to people around the world. That WILL cause massive suffering and poverty. A warmer Earth is a more productive Earth. Far more people die from cold weather than hot.

I am all for energy independence and will gladly pay more for alternative energy supplies to avoid being dependent upon the likes of Chavez, Putin, Saudia Arabia, Iran, etc.

The NOAA used to have on its website historical data on hurricane activity and severity. Hurricanes have cycles, just like the rest of the climate. They no longer post the data because it doesn’t fit the enviromentalist’s claims of increased activity. We have been “suffering through” through global warming, yet the numbers and severity of hurricanes has not increased but decreased as we are now in the downward side of a cycle (peaked in 2005). Glaciers are growing in Alaska instead of receding, the Artic sea ice is now back to its 1979 size, so the polar bears won’t drown and the North Pole won’t be open water after all. We don’t have nearly enough long-term acccurate data to understand a system as complex as the atmosphere and its interactions with the oceans and Sun. Still waiting for the sunspots to re-appear…. almost zero solar activity for 2 months…

Yes, the earth is warming up and will continue to do so until we enter the next reoccuring Ice Age. There is nothing we can do about it, perhaps we might fish along the coast of the open Arctic Ocean as others have 12,000 to 14,000 years ago according to radiocarbon dating studies.

No. The biggest and most devastaing weather events happened before WWII. We are at the 11 year minimum for sunspot activity and the polar ice cap is the same size as it was in 1979. Is this proof that solar activity is directly related to global warming? No, of course not, it doesn’t fit the computer model. But wait, why was that left out of the model? It was an innocent mistake. Just like the heat capacities and relative proportions for all of the materials that make up earth: land masses, water, and all of the gases that make up the atmosphere: nitrogen, oxygen, argon, carbon dioxide (less than 1%), etc. When it comes to computer models, when you put Garbage In, you get Garbage Out. Remember that old truism? I was taught in engineering school, that if the results of your computer output is wrong, you are wrong, not the computer. Why doesn’t that apply to global warming scientists? If that were the case, there would be class action lawsuits for fraud, against so-called scientists defrauding public institutions for their own private gain. Call it a witch hunt if you like, but what the global-warming “scientists” are doing, is nothing less than fraud. They are purposely falsifying computer models, actively impeding peer review of their work, and tactically using resources from all avenues, including movies and books (propaganda, illusions, and special effects) to defraud public instittutions for their own private gain.

When the sky takes on the colors of the soil, you know something is wrong.
Indifference to the limited petroleum supplies, and the length of time Mankind ‘could’ use them for all manner of useful polymers and forms, without combusting them into chaos, irretrievable ancient gifts. No, the climate is reacting to the bulk of pollution mass injected into its domain, like the Three Pigs, the walls can no longer be made of straw with the density of billions of tonnes shaping the landscape.

Although there are cycles of Nature, Planetary and Solar elements which we can only prepare, experience and progress beyond, our present may end up being a mere smug on the geological sediments, of what once was, the Fossil Fuel Age.

The additional evidence of Human impact can be seen merely when aircraft stop flying over the United States for a few days. At altitude where does the 130 million odd gallons per day in jet fuel inject its wastes?

If the amount of energy in the atmosphere is increasing (in the form of heat), it stands to reason that there is more energy available to accumulate and then be dispersed in a storm system. If global warming is real there should be a corresponding increase in the potential severity of storms. It remains to be seen whether global warming (if it is real), by itself, provides enough energy to account for the increase in storm severity.

The current global warming “phenomenon” is just a cyclical event. There is no definitive evidence to validate either side of this debate.

The intensity of hurricanes has been directly correlated to sea temperature, as exposited for non-experts like me and the others commenting here, in the book “Divine Wind”, by Emmanuel Harvey, the world’s top hurricane expert. The empirical evidence gathered includes many years of hurricane “intensity” (speed) data for areas where sea surface temperature is also available. I think most of his data came from the north atlantic region, until recent satellite data become available. This data shows a very clear correlation of average storm intensity with T_sea-surface, and is entirely consistent with the theory of hurricanes as a Carnot engine driven by T_sea-surface as the hot source. This theory explains most all the details of hurricane structure. Very nice science developed over the last 30 years or so.

To deny or challenge that the intensity of hurricanes is affected by sea surface temp and thus global warming is fine; to deny the earth is round is fine, etc.; in these cases, it simple confirms the source as an ignorant opiner. You are free to be as stupid as you wish. Go for it.

All the cavalier assertions about conspiracy theories behind global warming science in several posts (reflecting much right-wing dogma) is incredulous and indicates a distressing mental sickness. Right, thousands of scientists have agreed to subvert their integrity, reputations, and their profession and to join some vague bandwagon for some undefined personal gain or nebulous funding? Not possible. At this stage of knowledge, there are lots of legitimate questions uncovered, more every day. But the basic processes are mostly clear and the important physical connections (like radiation transport and the increased absorption from increased absorbent concentration) are well-understood, well-explained, and undeniable to the rational. So, we can change the energy balance of the earth by 4 W/m2, and there is no ramification? Right. In my mind, it is tantamount to being a traitor to all humanity to assert there is no anthropengenic global warming and there is nothing to do about it.

It is energy. If surface water temperatures are increasing, then evaporation will increase, transporting by convection, greater amounts of thermal energy into the atmosphere. More energy in the atmosphere would lead to the possibility of greater, more “severe” storm activity.
It is apparently a charged political issue as to what is causing the increase in surface water temperatures, but the cause is moot if the data is correct. More energy is going to stir things up, probably in ways we can’t imagine. Complex systems such as the global climate tend to settle into an equilibrium state established at a particular energy level. Distrubance of the equilibrium (increase energy input) will send the system into a chaotic regime until a new equilibrium state is established at a new energy level. The chaotic part may not be pleasant for life as we know it.

No, there is no good scientific evidence for such a conclusion, I blame the whole global warming issue on Al Gore! should we be actualy be entering another Ice age I suggest he give back the Prize!

I’d be interested in knowing the ages of those who claim global warming doesn’t exist. In my experience those who refute it tend to be older. As in: when we fully understand what is happening they’ll be dead anyway, so they have the luxury of being wrong.

Global warming may just be a natural, cyclical event. But there can be no doubt that there is some contribution by man - even if it is small. It’s like saying that man’s shoveling of dirt off a mountain doesn’t contribute to the eradication of that mountain because erosion is a natural event. Or that dumping tons of mercury into the ocean doesn’t really pollute the water since mercury naturally runs off into waterways. If cows can add significantly to the CO2 levels, why is it so hard to think that man can’t also affect the environment? Even if man is making no contribution, does that mean we shouldn’t be trying to solve the problem if possible? If not, then we should also stop tossing money at floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, and droughts. Of course, that’s only if you’re willing to accept logic across the board and not just for your pet peeves.

What a strange question, when you think about it. In the background to your question you present the reader with data that directly supports a YES answer. Then you ask the question. You, NASA, and the various scientists studying this for years with the best data available have come to a consensus that says YES on human-caused climate change. But you ask the reader, who may or may not have any technical background, experience, or access to data, what they think. Quite odd.

Then a number of commenters explain how they don’t “believe” in global warming or this high clouds/severe storms/global warming connection when presented with direct data supporting it. Odd, yet again.

I voted no on the presumption that in today’s environment, Global Warming usually is taken to mean Human Caused Global Warming. I personally agree that we might be in a period of global warming, but doubt very much that it is caused by humans. Just like not too many years ago, there was a big stink about man-made CFCs destroying the Ozone Layer, but measurements made (I think by NASA) that just one volcanic eruption, Mt Pinituba in the Phillipines, released more CFCs into the Stratosphere than mankind has produced in the history of Freon based air conditioning and refrigeration.

Is there a global warming trend? Maybe. Is it caused by man? If, by data published by NASA and other sources, there is a proportional increase in average surface temperature on at least 6 planets, starting with Venus, does this mean that human-caused polution is so bad, it’s affecting the entire solar system, not just our planet? Or, is it as has been reported by many environmental scientists, we are at the coincedance of several different natural cycles? If so, than I would be moved to change my vote to yes.
BTW, a couple years ago, the proportion of environmental scientists for Human Caused Global Warming was 17%, opposed was 57%, with the balance undecided. Does anybody know if this has changed?

Your question is phrased as if there actually has been an increase in severe storms. You further imply that sea surface temperatures have increased and that high level clouds are associated with severe storms and rainfall. While all of the assumptions may well be true, without supporting evidence, it takes a leap of faith to get to the question you have asked! No wonder skeptics call it the “church of AGW”. The only factual evidence you offer is the study by the JPL.

So, given that an increase in SST leads to an increase in high level clouds and ASSUMING that high level clouds lead to severe storms and rainfall and ASSUMING that global temperatures are increasing and ASSUMING that increasing global temperatures lead to an increase in SST, one could conclude that the severity and frequency of storms would increase with global warming. Too many assumptions and not enough givens. If your question were the lead question of a students science fair project, I would be kind and give you an incomplete.

The religion of Global Warming has been found wanting and needs to end, now.

Yes, I do have some expertise in this area. So do others, like 35,000 scientists and engineers who have signed the petition AGAINST the concept of global warming and man-made global warming. There were no non-degreed or social science policy wonks who signed this petition.

Oh, BTW, did you see the new report just released? The polar ice is growing THICKER!

For your entertainment:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
Don’t Believe the Hype
Al Gore is wrong. There’s no “consensus” on global warming.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000606
The Press Gets It Wrong
Our report doesn’t support the Kyoto treaty.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/LIND0710.html
Statement Concerning Global Warming
Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73452
The 1 and only solution to America’s energy problem

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjU1ZDBhOGExOWRlNzc5ZDcwOTUxZWM3MWU2Mjc5MGE=
Wikipropaganda Spinning green.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/
Monckton Papers

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/Monckton-The_cost_and_futility_of_trading_hot_air.pdf
The Cost and Futility of Trading Hot Air

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/global_warming_has_stopped.html
“Global Warming” Has Stopped

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/holy_writ_or_wholly_rot_the_new_religion_of_global_warming_.html
Holy Writ or Wholly Rot? The new religion of “global warming”

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/what_hockey_stick.html
Hockey Stick? What Hockey Stick?

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/climate_sensitivity_reconsidered.html
Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070201_monckton.pdf
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report 2007 Analysis and Summary

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533290/Climate-chaos-Don‘t-believe-it.html
Climate chaos? Don’t believe it

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070226_monckton.pdf
Errors covertly corrected by the I.P.C.C. after publication

http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=44
Willie Soon is a physicist at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and an astronomer at the Mount Wilson Observatory.

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=90
Climate History and the Sun

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=96
The Sun Also Warms

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=91
Solar Variability and Climate Change

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/CEI-MonthlyPlanet-03-12-pp6to7.pdf
Q & A with Willie Soon:
A Leading Physicist on What His Research Tells Us About Long-Term Climate Change, and the Environmental Establishment’s Reaction to His Findings

Thanks, Mr. Burch for the opportunity to respond. The Democracy Now website has a full transcript of a radio interview with Kerry Emmanuel, author of “Divine Wind”, which aired in August 2005. Mr. Emmanuel specifically repeats at least three times, that the statistical evidence is weak, and that warming oceans might contribute to hurricanes of greater intensity. It was the interviewer, Amy Goodman, and another interviewee, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, who assert that global warming will increase the intensity of hurricanes. Mr. Emmanuel was very careful to explain that the only evidence is statistical, and it is weak, at that. How you get proof from what your own expert says, is beyond me.

I won’t return your insults. But to try and force us back to the “horse and buggy days” is very Luddite of you and your fellow travelers. I am fully capable of understanding the mathematical formulas regarding reflection, absorption, and even the laws of thermodynamics. Yes, I can do the math, and the amount of heat that mankind contributes to this planet is miniscule, even when we burn all of the oil, which we eventually will, no matter what. Conservation has other merits, such as: saving money for the kid’s college education. So they, too, can understand the difference between emotional myths and science.

You have implied that the number of severe storms has increased. That is not the case. There is no trend, up or down, and the intensity is variable with no discernable pattern. Me thinks you have been listening to Al Gore too much!

POV Fixation

Backside Bounce XXX

Teen Models Live

Flexible Positions

Christy Marks

She Devil Dolls

We Fuck Babysitters

No Condom Zone

Sweet Suzie

Phat White Booty

Private Porn Pass

We Love Bjs

Bang My Big Tits

Ultimate Surrender

Jodi Cassidy

Hottie Hollie

Squirt My Cum

Crissy Moran

Oral Invasion

Terri Summers

Extreme Holly

Kristi Montana

Kaitlyn

Porn Valley Sluts

Dazzling Blondes

Nina Kay

So You Think You Can Squirt

Crazy Beauties

Snatches

Dirty Teen Dykes

Sexy Moms

Daddy And The School Girl

Two Cocks One Box

Gay Bareback Gangbangs

Ms Panther 36F

Hello! kccdegb interesting kccdegb site!

Very nice site!

Very nice site! is it yours too

Very nice site! is it yours too

Hello! fafbdck interesting fafbdck site!

Very nice site!

Hello!
cigarettes ,

Aloha!
vigrx plus ,

Hello!
cigarettes ,

Hello! keeegeg interesting keeegeg site!

Very nice site!

I enjoyed reading your blog. Keep it that way.