http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/new...Hurricane.html

In a paper published in EOS, Dr. Michael Mann, director of ESSC, and Dr. Kerry Emanuel of MIT explain that human-induced climate change may be responsible for the increased frequency and intensity of recent North Atlantic hurricanes. Although other scientists have pointed to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscilliation (AMO) as the culprit behind recent increases, this study shows that increasing Atlantic sea surface temperatures, not the AMO, are responsible.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

Those are better, Barn. But the UN merely noted that, based on past trends, 2006 could be worse than 2005 -- much like the NOAA did. And the NOAA, you may recall, noted that the season could also be the same or milder. And Mann doesn't come anywhere close to predicting something about the 2006 season. He simply makes the claim that rising sea surface temperatures are associated with more and bigger hurricanes -- while noting various competing factors that tend to reduce the number and strength of hurricanes.

__________________
Man up.

Then by extension, Mann predicts higher rates of hurricanes in 2006 when he notes rising sea temperatures, caused by, according to Mann, human activity.

I heard on the news today some European doctors are experimenting with a pill to give to cattle in order to reduce their output of greenhouse gasses (farts). I will sleep better tonight knowing scientists are attacking this very serious problem.

You did also note the several articles on the planets Mars, Venus and Pluto also experiencing global warming, didn't you? BTW, when ice melts, the water level remains the same. This means that both poles could totally melt, and the level of the oceans would not rise one inch. Try this little experiment. Fill a glass up with ice and water, and mark the water level on the glass. Wait until all the ice has melted and again mark the water level on the glass. It will not have changed. Yet, the global warming alarmists are warning against rising sea levels due to the poles melting. Amazing.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

He also notes the complexity of the systems involved. Unless he actually issued a prediction, you can't claim he did.

Yes, and those are very interesting data. But the cause and meaning -- and whether it's at all relevant to our own situation -- is almost completely undetermined.

Actually, when ice in a glass of water melts the water level often falls, because water expands when it freezes, thus taking up more volume and displacing more water. Although if the ice is all floating on the surface (and thus is not forced underwater), it will displace water solely by weight, not volume, and thus when it melts the water level will stay the same.

Much of that ice is on land, or attached to land and only semi-floating. When it melts, it raises the sea level. The Greenland ice sheet, for instance -- the largest land ice mass in the Northern Hemisphere -- contains enough water to raise sea level by 24 feet if it all melts.

I know I've told you this before. Why do you keep repeating bad science?

__________________
Man up.

It's basic physics. I even had the question on what happens to the level of water when ice melts in a very elementary physics class I took in college. It stays the same. It doesn't matter if it's ice in a glass or ice in the ocean--when it melts, the water level remains the same, because it displaces the water it once sat in.

It is utter vanity assigning blame to human activity in accounting for fluctuations in natural patterns of the earth's (and other planets) weather. The earth has cycled into and out of several ice ages, all on its own, without the contribution of any human activity. The same holds true for other planets. A 100 million years ago, oceans covered much of what we know as land and continents today. http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...ontinents.html The oceans receded all on their own, just as they once rose all on their own. The continents drifted and formed all on their own. Nothing man did or could do could or would alter or change this. The earth has always done what the earth does, and it always will, with or without humans inhabiting it.

PS

Parts of Greenland were once farmed.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

do you really know

__________________
And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.

And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.

Unless the ice is forced to fully submerge. In which case the ice displaces *more* than its weight in water, because frozen ice has a higher volume than an equal weight of liquid water.

You're right as far as normal displacement goes. But my point is why an ice cube (or iceberg) floating on the surface is partly out of the water. If you push it down into the water, it displaces more water.

Yes they were. And dinosaurs once roamed in Canada. And where I live was once covered in a vast inland sea because of it.

__________________
Man up.

In this case, neither Mann nor the UN were making predictions for 2006. The NOAA did, and assigned probabilities to each occurrence. We were fortunate to fall into the 15% category last year.

Global warming's relation to hurricane activity is a worthy debate. Although the theory was developed in the 80's and a few peer-reviewed studies done in the 90's, recent years have seen more extensive work done in the field. Global warming's relation to hurricane frequency has little scientific consensus at this time. In contrast, global warming's relation to hurricane intensity has a growing consensus and likelihood assigned. The latest IPCC summarizes it as follows:

The IPCC calls the likelihood of the observed trend in hurricane intensity being due to global warming as "more likely than not", which is defined as 50-66%. It determines the chances of global warming increasing hurricane intensity in the future as "likely" (66-90%).

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

The NOAA has been on the conservative side of this debate, in part due to the political influence of one of their own, Chris Landsea, who has tried to stifle the growing evidence in this field. Even so, NOAA's position has gradually shifted on this topic to some degree. Consensus statement #6 seems to agree with the IPCC.

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html

__________________
See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction.

- G.W. Bush, 10/3/2003

But hurricanes are not caused by warm air. They are caused by the influx of cold air.
Have you gobal warming worshipers ever noticed that the word "consensus" only entered the vocabulary of scientific discussion with failed politician/actor, and part-time yo-yo, Algore? Do you know the definition of the scientific method that has seperated fact from "consensus" fiction for centuries?

Consensus scientists preached that the sun and stars revolved around the Earth. Consensus scientists preached that the world was flat. Consensus scientists declared in the 70's that a new ice age was starting. Consensus scientists declared 2006 would be a worse hurricane year than 2005. And now, the consensus scientists are so scared of being called names by the non-scientist Leftist Loons and their non-scientist media, that they cast aside their common sense in ignoring all climate changes in Earth's history prior to human existence, as well as climate changes on planets never hosting human life.

Why can't you devotees the Algore religion answer the obvious questions? It's only because common sense and factual occurrances don't fit in the data for the pre-determined conslusion you desired, and for your current excuse for demanding humanity give up our freedom and wealth to the elitist manipulators.

Algore himself is so concerned that genuine scientists are beginning to say "the king has no new clothes on," that he simply dictated his declaration that "the debate on global warming is over." This "environmental Pope" has tried to put the debate on "house arrest" like the real Pope did to Galileo for speaking against the "consensus."

If we keep acting like this in the enviroment,mother nature will become very vindictive...

__________________
O ΚΑΙΡΟC ΓΑΡ ΕΓΓΥC+