Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Science

Running out of Hurricane Names 712

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the still-waiting-for-hurricane-taco dept.
fm6 writes "LiveScience is reporting that the 21 names reserved for tropical storms and hurricanes in Atlantic Basic are almost used up. If there are more than 21 storms, they'll start using the Greek alphabet. The most storms ever recorded was 21 in 1933, before they started giving them official names. The connection between this record-breaking storm year and global warming remains controversial."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Running out of Hurricane Names

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:09PM (#13605702)
    Use the Chinese alphabet. If you have a year where you run out, it's all just one big hurricane.
    • by Black Parrot (19622) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:23PM (#13605898)


      > Use the Chinese alphabet. If you have a year where you run out, it's all just one big hurricane.

      Or FEMA could just stall and clean up two at a time, so we'd only need half as many names.

    • by JPriest (547211) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:38PM (#13606071) Homepage
      I thought Hurricane-names v6 was supposed to solve this problem. Can't we NAT them or something? Maybe we could follow x86-86 and hack in extentions or something. Come on Slashdot, I know we can solve this.
    • Record set in 1933 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DRue (152413) <{drue} {at} {therub.org}> on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:39PM (#13606081) Homepage
      Were the 21 hurricanes in 1933 caused by global warming?
    • I suggest outsourcing the naming to India, and at a much lower cost.

      Hurricane Punjab
      Hurricane Krishna
      Hurricane Patel
      etc...
  • What? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Shads (4567) * <(gro.sudahs) (ta) (sudahs)> on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:10PM (#13605706) Homepage Journal
    They can't get a baby book out and look up a few more names? They didn't even get a name for ever letter of the alphabet?! What are we paying them for!!?
    • Names... (Score:5, Funny)

      by ackthpt (218170) * on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:14PM (#13605757) Homepage Journal
      They can't get a baby book out and look up a few more names? They didn't even get a name for ever letter of the alphabet?! What are we paying them for!!?

      These will be a hit with techies...

      "That hurricane isn't ready for release."
      "Why not?"
      "Because it's Beta!"

      Thank you, I'm here all week.

      • Future News (Score:5, Funny)

        by Rei (128717) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @03:43PM (#13607514) Homepage
        Hurricane Report:

                Tropical depression #36 has increased in intensity to a tropical storm with maximum sustained windspeeds of 49 miles, and has been named tropical storm Pi. Its eye wall has circularized surprisingly early, and the storm is expected to gain strength as it squares the radial islands of the Florida Keys.

                Hurricane Delta continues to change latitude, longitude, pressure, and windspeeds in the west, Atlantic, with d-la=-1.3, d-lo=0.2, d-p=-15 mbar, and d-w=15 mph. This is quite the contrast to last year's hurricane Iota, which refused to change much at all. It is recommended that all residents in the eastern Carribean continue to plot the course of this dangerous storm carefully, as all of this data is subject to change.

                Hurricane Beta has been downgraded to tropical storm beta as it decays over the North Atlantic. Beta caused quite a scare after it formed from the reminants of the collision of tropical storm alpha and the eastern antilles, but has passed harmlessly through open water ever since it was spawned.

                Tropical storm Lambda continues to redefine itself as it disintigrates now that it has moved inland from the Texas gulf cost. A category 5 hurricane on impact, it left a swath of destruction as a void in its wake. After making landfall, it took a break before continuing for n>3 days across the continental United States. The variable number of refugees that fled in advance of the hurricane are not expected to return any time soon; garbage collection must be done and the environment cleaned up first.
    • Re:What? (Score:3, Funny)

      by jdray (645332)
      I was watching CNN last night, and they were displaying names for some of the displaced children from the area affected by Katrina. If they start using some of the names that are evidently common in that part of the U.S. (Shaniqua, Delwayne, etc.), they will never run out. I suspect if I lived on the coast and someone told me that Hurricane Shaniqua was on its way, I'd run like hell.
    • Re:What? (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It is George Bush's fault that there are so many hurricanes.
  • controversial? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by syrinx (106469) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:10PM (#13605713) Homepage
    Everything I've seen says that climate scientists say there's no connection at all. The only place I've seen any connection put forward as a fact are people who write letters to the editor in the NY Times and similar papers.

    The list of Pacific hurricanes uses X, Y, and Z (but not Q or U), whereas the Atlantic list doesn't use any of those five letters. Perhaps they should add X, Y, and Z names to the Atlantic list too now.
    • Re:controversial? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dubl-u (51156) * <[2523987012] [at] [pota.to]> on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:38PM (#13606066)
      According to this article [realclimate.org], they currently think the main effect of global warming will be stronger hurricanes, not more hurricanes.

      Of course, that's the current theory. If it turns out that we consistently get more, we'll end up with some new theories. Global warming is a big uncontrolled experiment, so it's hard to say. That's pretty sloppy science; I say we should have waited until we had two planets so we could try this side by side. And really, 20 or 30 would be better, so we could get a good statistical sample.
      • Re:controversial? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by MindStalker (22827)
        From what I understand hurricanes are caused when you have warm water and cooler air. Generally this is caused by quick temperature drops in the air. This is why most hurricanes happen in september, when air is starting to cool It seems to me, and I could be wrong, but global warming would cause warmer air, and possibly cooler water as less of the suns rays would hit the water.
        • Re: controversial? (Score:3, Informative)

          by Black Parrot (19622)

          > From what I understand hurricanes are caused when you have warm water and cooler air. Generally this is caused by quick temperature drops in the air. This is why most hurricanes happen in september, when air is starting to cool

          Hurricane season peaks in September, but we still get a darn lot in June-July-August, when there's not a heck of a lot of cooling going on in the tropics of the northern hemisphere.

          I think a more accurate description is that you need hot water+air at the surface and cooler air wa

      • by WombatControl (74685) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @03:28PM (#13607324)

        RealClimate is not a credible source. It's run by an environmentalist lobbying group out of Washington DC - do a WHOIS on the domain.

        Using them as a source is like producing a GOP press release that says that George W. Bush is the best President ever. That may or may not be true, but one can't expect impartial analysis from someone who has a definite interest in pushing one side or the other.

    • Re:controversial? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Martin Blank (154261)
      Actually, there has been a fairly public argument between climatologists and the hurricane researchers. The former claim that the increase in hurricanes is further evidence of global warming; the latter claim that this is part of the normal patterns. William Gray, a prominent hurricane researcher at Colorado State University, has been among the more vocal critics of those claiming that global warming is at fault for the increase.
    • Re:controversial? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Pentagram (40862) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:51PM (#13606185) Homepage
      Everything I've seen says that climate scientists say there's no connection at all.

      Then you haven't been looking very hard [bbc.co.uk].
    • Re:controversial? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Phat_Tony (661117) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:53PM (#13606202)
      They certainly aren't going to be proving a connection anytime soon. There's no way they're going to set up a double-blind experiment where they vary the temperature of the ocean for long periods of time while holding all other factors constant, then carefully measure hurricane activity.

      They like to set up models, but their climate models can't prove a connection either, because they're all based on a lot of assumptions, abstractions, and potentially erroneous inputs. We're a long way off from weather models with any level of certainty. When they can give spot-on weather reports for a month out, then it'll be time to start paying attention to the models.

      All they have now are measurements, where they hope to see a correlation. But no matter what correlation they saw, even if it was the most beautiful curve you've ever seen, with a curve fit with an R value of 1.0, correlation does not imply cause and effect. But at least it wouldn't contradict their theory.

      What they actually have is a tiny sample, where nearly any conceivable data set would mean nothing. The problem is that there are so many factors. While their actual data set is really jumpy and shows no really strong trend, suppose it were different- suppose they got their "ideal" data set over the past 30 years. Suppose it showed that the number of hurricanes is trending up sharply and steadily. If they had seen this trend, which would most strongly support the hypothesis of global warming, it would equally strongly support all of the following hypothesis:
      1. We're in a natural cycle of hurricanes increasing, which global warming is making worse.
      2. We're in a natural cycle of hurricanes increasing, which global warming is having no effect on.
      3. We're in a natural cycle of hurricanes increasing, which global warming is partially alleviating.
      4. There is no natural trend, and global warming is causing a rise in hurricane activity.
      5. We are in a natural cycle of reduced hurricanes, and global warming is counteracting that entirely and actually increasing the number of hurricanes.
      6. There is no actual trend at all. The number of hurricanes every year is entirely random, with no natural tendency or influence from global warming, and our 30-year sample happens to look like it has some trends, because any series of random numbers will appear to have some trends over certain samples.

      Furthermore, with so many factors that affect weather, less than two dozen hurricanes per year, an apparently large natural variability, the probability there are many natural trends that could be working in conflict or in concert, using a mere 30-year sample is like trying to estimate global warming with a 30-day temperature sample. It would make all the difference in the world if you take your sample during spring or fall, and time you take it at all, it's extremely unlikely it would give you an accurate picture of what's going on at all. If they had 1,000 years of data, I might expect them to find something more convincing there.

  • They are not inventive enough to develop new names? Also, why use personal names anyways. Why not simply call them Hurricane 2005_21 or 2005_145. Is this really a problem? And who decided on 21 reserved names? Why not 30 or 50? Why is this news?
  • Bad PR (Score:5, Funny)

    by thatguywhoiam (524290) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:10PM (#13605718)
    The Greek thing may not be the best idea... after the big storms the US has endured so far, I doubt anyone would bee looking forward to HURRICANE OMEGA.
    • Re:Bad PR (Score:5, Funny)

      by lgw (121541) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:14PM (#13605769) Journal
      I think hurricanes should have names that *encourage* evacuation!

      Hurricane Killer
      Hurricane Throat-Ripper
      Hurricane Goatse

      I mean, who would decide to "just stay here and weather Hurricane Goatse"?
      • Re:Bad PR (Score:3, Insightful)

        by SlayerofGods (682938)
        Reminds me of Hurricane Ivan.
        Which of course reminded every news caster in the country of apparently the only Ivan they've heard of; Ivan the terrible.
        Certainly made the storm seem more imposing calling it that all the time.
        • Re:Bad PR (Score:3, Informative)

          by fm6 (162816)
          One year they had a nasty Hurricane Anita that coincided with Anita Bryant [wikipedia.org] being in the news for her anti-Gay Rights initiative. I've heard (probably an urban legend, but who knows) that many people thought there was some connection between the activist and the storm, and sent her hate mail because of it.
    • Re:Bad PR (Score:4, Funny)

      by Phat_Tony (661117) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:23PM (#13605890)
      I'm more worried about the first one- who wants to meet the Alpha Male of Hurricanes?

      And yes, it would be male. They alternate genders, and the last hurricane on this year's list [about.com] is "Wilma." [nju.edu.cn]

    • Re:Bad PR (Score:3, Funny)

      by Duncan3 (10537)
      How about...

      Hurricane living below sealevel gets you killed
      Hurricane living on the beach destroys your house
      Hurricane this happens every year so move dumbass
      Hurricane there goes another $2000 from every taxpayer.

      One or two more of these this year, and the US economy will collapse completely as we repeatedly bail out people too stupid to move.
  • by PoderOmega (677170)
    If we have been only accurately tracking climate for 100 years, and the Earth has been around for hundereds of millions, why are we assuming that global warming is something that humans are doing??
    • by djward (251728) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:24PM (#13605904)
      We have records of atmospheric gas content going back many hundreds of thousands of years, from ice cores. We are rapidly approaching that point where the atmospheric CO2 levels are 100% HIGHER than the prior maximums over this time period.

      Levels of methane, another potent greenhouse gas, are approaching 1000% higher than any previous peak on record.

      BOTH of these curves begin a sharp exponential climb right around 1700 AD - the industrial revolution.

      It is a fact that these gases contribute to a greenhouse effect, and it is also a fact that humans have contributed to the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere.
    • by BWJones (18351) *
      From your question, it appears that you have never studied science, but letting that go, I always have to wonder about what it is with people that seem so resistant to the idea of global warming. After all, what is it that you are objecting to? Not being able to drive your 9MPG SUV without having to pay more?

      Lemme ask you this: How much of your future and your children's future are you willing to gamble on all us scientists being wrong?

      • I have to ask the same question...what is it with people that are so willing to accept global warming as a human created phenomenon? Where is the evidence?

        Prior to enacting laws and restrictions that cost our economy hundreds of billions of dollars (trillions over time), I'd like to know that not only is this not a natural cyclic phenomenon, but that 1) The proposed changes will actually make a difference; and 2) That global warming is BAD for us.

        I have never heard an argument about why raising the tempera
      • by Mr. Underbridge (666784) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:48PM (#13606161)
        As a scientist, the problem I have isn't the idea, it's some of the research. Much is being claimed as fact, and these facts often contradict each other. Extrapolations are being taken as gospel among the policy community. There's a lot of dogma on all sides of the debate. It's gotten extremely political, to the point that even questioning the "established" conclusion makes one a pariah in the academic community. There is too much integration between policy and science here, and a lot of people are using policy goals and their beliefs to drive their research.

        To disclose, I'm a chemist/statistician, and I drive a prius. I'm in favor of hedging our policy on the side of safety - but purely as a scientist, claiming any sort of accuracy in terms of climate prediction seems ridiculous given the current models.

        You say "all us scientists" as if you have 100% consensus, and as if you're a climatologist. Are you?

    • There isn't any firm evidence that global warming is in fact a problem, but we do know a few things.

      First, the climate has become slightly warmer over the past hundred years. This is known fact, over the period for which accurate measurements and records are available.

      Second, there are suggestions from analysis of tree trunk rings that the climate has become progressively warmer over the past several centuries. This research is controversial, and not everyone accepts it.

      Third, records from antarctic i

  • PING! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by minus_273 (174041)
    wow FR linked to the front page of slashdot! I never thought I'd see the day. As everyone knows, cooreation is a really bad basis to draw conclusions from.

      You will also notice that use of gopher space has gone down with the rise of hurricanes this year. I think it is time we all dropped the internet and went back to gopher space.
  • we'll see if cyclical decrease in cat 4-5 hurricanes is a reality, or if a new trend is happening. that's fine, we'll still be pumping out more & more C02 so the base conditions of our little experiment won't be altered
  • by Dr. Transparent (77005) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:14PM (#13605762) Homepage Journal
    Oh Lordy it's rainin, must be global warming!

    Oh Lordy it's snowin, must be global warming!

    Oh Lordy a TORNADO! We never had those before global warming!

    A WHOLE CITY FLOODED BY A HURRICANE! ACK! That surely couldn't happen without global warming!

    For the love, what a bunch of fear-mongering horse shit.
  • by mspohr (589790) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:14PM (#13605764)
    Interesting that a columnist for the "Free Republic" would be given the same weight as "Science" magazine.

    The Bushies have been in denial about global warming and have been spreading FUD at every chance. Most real scientists have accepted the fact of global warming. This "controversy" is just another example of denial and FUD.

    "Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!"

    These people aren't scientists, they are politicians.

  • Trolling? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TrappedByMyself (861094) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:14PM (#13605768)
    The connection between this record-breaking storm year and global warming remains controversial.

    So we may hit a total that we hit in 1933. How is this evidence of a change or part of the global warming debate? Shouldn't we be seeing totals consistently higher than the past? Or is someone just trying to stir up a liberal/conservative debate?
    • Re:Trolling? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by abb3w (696381) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:58PM (#13606245) Journal
      So we may hit a total that we hit in 1933. How is this evidence of a change or part of the global warming debate?

      Because of the question as to whether this is from a natural cycle, or whether from global warming effects causing increased baseline ocean temperatures, or simply a statistical fluke year. As a first pass, either of the first two sounds credible as a cause. (If you RTFA, the last sounds less so.)

      We know climate moves in cycles; we also know that hurricanes are formed by (and get their energy from) warm water. We don't have detailed records for a long enough time frame to readily determine if it's just a natural swing in the cycle. Ergo, we should be doing climate research, perhaps specifically focused on what affects hurricane formation.

      Perhaps it's Global Warming; perhaps it's a natural oscilation in the deep ocean currents; perhaps it's just a statistical outlier event. Depending on which, the responses might be different. If it's an outlier, we can just plan for a short term headache with the rebuilding. If it's caused by human-induced global warming, we should start taking measures to ameliorate it. If it's just an unstoppable natural cycle unrelated to human influence, we should start considering what extent build-up of coastal developments ought to be insurable/taxed/regulated/&c, and considering how to minimize the impact on our national transportation infrastructure.

      The fact that we are headed for a record year and don't know the cause suggests we should be doing more research into climate and oceanography, in order to determine the best reactions... preferably backed more by clearly stated measurements and mathematically calculated confidence intervals, rather than more by political pre-evaluation of what the implications might be for Senator Bedfellow's congressional district. Mother nature doesn't give a damn what we think the world ought to be like; she's going to hit us with the way it is.

  • by danharan (714822) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:15PM (#13605781) Journal
    TFA article confuses more storms and more severe storms, and the editors blithely repeat that assertion.

    It's pretty straightforward: the force of the storm depends on the temperature on the ocean's surface. Higher temperature means nastier storms.

    Look, if you don't believe humans are affecting the climate with CO2, fine. If you think things aren't getting worse, fine. But can you quit mis-representing people's arguments and research conclusions?

    Now back to reading that dupe about IE being more secure than FF. Gotta love editorial standards here.
  • by ctwxman (589366) <me@@@geofffox...com> on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:15PM (#13605786) Homepage
    When you think back to 1933, please remember - no satellites or radar and much more rudimentary communications. It is the prevailing wisdom that 21 understates the actual number, since there were probably some storms at sea (which ships try to avoid) which aren't accounted for.

    As to the Global Warming/hurricane connection, here are the words of hurricane guru Dr. William Gray:

    Many individuals have queried whether the unprecedented landfall of four destructive hurricanes in a seven-week period during August-September 2004 and the landfall of two more major hurricanes in the early part of the 2005 season is related in any way to human-induced climate changes. There is no evidence that this is the case. If global warming were the cause of the increase in United States hurricane landfalls in 2004 and 2005 and the overall increase in Atlantic basin major hurricane activity of the past eleven years (1995-2005), one would expect to see an increase in tropical cyclone activity in the other storm basins as well (ie., West Pacific, East Pacific, Indian Ocean, etc.). This has not occurred. When tropical cyclones worldwide are summed, there has actually been a slight decrease since 1995. In addition, it has been well-documented that the measured global warming during the 25-year period of 1970-1994 was accompanied by a downturn in Atlantic basin major hurricane activity over what was experienced during the 1930s through the 1960s.
    BTW - I am a meteorologist... or meaty urologist, I never quite remember.
  • by FidelCatsro (861135) <fidelcatsro@gma i l .com> on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:16PM (#13605797) Journal
    "the organization adopted a rotating series of women's names"
    I always wondered why they give them nice polite names.
    I think "Hurricane Bastard" or "Hurricane Stalin" would be more appropriate .
    Just name them after real scum bags ...

    • Oh man, it would have been so great to have news organizations playing Shatner during all of the broadcast intros if the most recent one was Hurricane KHAAAAAAAN!
    • Lewis Black said it best. . .

      "Hurricane Andrew? Why would you call a hurricane Andrew? Did the hurricane show up in a little cravat and a dickie, smelling of polo, sipping of perrier, going "Scurry, scurry, Andy's here!!!" What do they call tornado? Tornado. You get the message. They don't go,"Tornado Timmy's coming, FLEE!" Why, if they're going to give a hurricane a name, give it one that applies, like Hurricane Jesus-Christ-On-A-Crutch! Followed by the next big one, Hurricane Holy-Fucking-Moses!"
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:17PM (#13605811)
    I have to point out that while the science is not necessarily clear on global warming, this doesn't merit the 'we'll just wait until we're sure' approach.

    Note how institutions (like, oh, say the office of the president) tend to protect themselves despite attacks not being 100% certain. Note how secret service agents protect the president, even though not all law enforcement officials worldwide agree that it's completely certain that at 12:31 on november the 30th a bullet will enter the presidents head at a 30 degree downward angle fired by a middle aged assassin whose motivations have been understood fully.

    That's a very valid approach - overprotect where the downside of a realized small risk would be great. I just wish we were as smart when it comes to protecting the species. As it is, we can't even protect the inhabitants of one city with days of advance warning.
  • by night_flyer (453866) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:19PM (#13605829) Homepage
    ...that there was global warming in 1933?
  • by liam193 (571414) * on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:19PM (#13605840)
    Is there a correlation between Hurricane Alpha or Hurricane Beta and the number of mosquitos left by any flooding?
  • by CorruptMayor (915031) <CorruptMayor@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:28PM (#13605968) Journal
    I think we need to start letting corporations sponsor hurricanes. In exchange for getting their name on a hurricane (and thus in the press), they'll pick up 50% of the damanages.

    Just think: Pepsi Presentes Hurricane Melvin. Hurricane Ashlee: A Joint Venture of Wal-Mart, Google, and Dell.

    When I becomes president, I tells ya.
  • by localroger (258128) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:35PM (#13606045) Homepage
    I must have missed the day the motto changed to "news for fascist whack jobs." Of course their mirror-image twins at democraticunderground.com aren't much more reliable, but they tend to be more polite. Neither site is a suitable source for science information.
  • by smoondog (85133) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:40PM (#13606095)
    Hmm, what if Hurricane alpha is a major hurricane and then alpha is retired, is this just a finite set of extra names?

    -Sean (OutdoorDB [slashdot.org] - The Outdoor Wiki)
  • by jabber01 (225154) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:53PM (#13606203)
    Chinese zoologists report a surge in native butterfly populations unseen since 1933.
  • by bareman (60518) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @02:06PM (#13606314) Homepage Journal
    Media agencies are running out of anthropomorphized behaviors for meteorological phenomenon.

    "Targets gulf coast"
    "Directs its wrath at..."

  • Free republic... (Score:5, Informative)

    by tfoss (203340) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @02:18PM (#13606441)
    Should tell you something that the "controversial" claim is based on a Free Rpublic article. The guy who they are using as a reference, is pretty well established as one of the leading anti-global warming proponents. A selection of, Dr. Patrick Michaels _scholarly_ articles from his website at UVA:
    Michaels, P.J., and R.C. Balling, Jr. 1999. Global warming: The political science of exaggeration. Prometheus 1, 63-70.
    Hansen, J.E. and P.J. Michaels. 2000. AARST Science Policy Forum, New York. Social Epistemology 14:133-186
    Michaels, P.J., and R.C. Balling, Jr. 2000. The Satanic Gases. Cato Books, Washington DC. 234 pp.

    Additionally, his research interests on that UVA page (where he is the CATO Institute Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies) include:

    The core issue over the next ten years will not be "How much will the climate warm?" but, rather, "Why did it warm so little?" My research also leads me to believe that the next decade will see the emergence of a paradigm of "robust earth," as opposed to the fashionable "fragility" concept. The papers listed below provide some evidence for these observations. It is entirely possible that human influence on the atmosphere is not necessarily deleterious and that it is simply another component of the dynamic planet.

    Ok, so let's look at 'Tech Central Station,' the location hosting the article the free republic is referencing. Dr. Michaels articles on there include:
      Stepping up the Pressure:The all-out, last-ditch effort by global warming alarmists to find any excuse to compel the US to take action.
      Tip of the Iceberg:Yet another predictable distortion.
      Conjecture vs. Science: Are the editors of Science are more interested in conjecture than in firm scientific findings?
     

    And, incidentally, as stated on the About TCS webpage, 'Tech Central Station' is published by DCI Group, LLC. And, DCI LLC is "top Republican lobby and PR firm associated with telemarketing company Feather Larson & Synhorst DCI and the direct-mail firm FYI Messaging. The DCI group publishes the website Tech Central Station and has close ties to the George W. Bush administration." according to Source watch [sourcewatch.org].

    This is pretty clearly an guy who does not buy into global warming as a concept, despite near universal agreement in the scientific community. To hear him proclaim 'no its not' arguments to scientific articles in both Nature and Science seems to carry rather little weight...particularly when he is publishing on a clearly partisan website. Write a Science/Nature (or hell PNAS, whatever) article refuting this, have it peer-reviewed and then there might be some reason to talk. Until that point, this is little more than personal ideaology posing as "science."

    -Ted

  • by SengirV (203400) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @03:01PM (#13606940)
    How could that be? W wasn't the president then. And we've all heard how the number of storms this year is ALL W's fault.

    I'm confused. Can some Liberal help me out with this?
  • by daVinci1980 (73174) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @03:07PM (#13607019) Homepage
    It's completely irrelevant whether global warming is a cause for the increase in hurricanes or not. If it is, then there's nothing we can do to help the problem in the short term--even if we reduced human contributions to global warming to 0, it would still take many years for the damage done already to dissipate. So blaming the especially strong hurricane season on global warming is a bit like blaming your father for the kind of person you've turned out to be. It might make you feel better, but it won't help with the actual problem--that you're a deadbeat drunk and you beat your kids.

    There will always be hurricanes. Just like there will always be tornados, droughts, earthquakes, sinkholes and other natural disasters. That's why they're called natural disasters. They're natural. They're a part of nature. The fact that there are 200 hurricanes this year and only 10 next year doesn't help the people affected by them any more or less.

    Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that there isn't global warming. I have skin. I can tell it's there, even over my relatively short lifespan. We should get in on the Kyoto accord (or at least emulate like we're a part of it), cut back our emissions and do our best not to perturb the natural rest-state of the environment. But in the short term, we need to figure out better ways to evacuate people from affected areas and find better methods to deal with disaster recovery.
  • by JoeDuncan (874519) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @03:17PM (#13607173)
    The link between the growing intensity of hurricanes and global warming is not controversial. The vast majority of the evidence currently supports this link, and the current scientific consensus is that there is a link.

    The only reason there appears to be a controversy is because of the media's misguided efforts to present a "balanced" story, leading them to quote any crackpot that believes the opposite of the current scientific consensus. Like that FreeRepublic author.

    Seriously, saying there's a controversy because some random internet author from a grassroots convervative organisation who has no scientific background claims there is one, is like saying that the moon is made of blue cheese because the hobo yelling at traffic says so. Never mind the actual objective science that says otherwise...
  • Controversial? (Score:5, Informative)

    by coaxial (28297) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @03:55PM (#13607688) Homepage
    Yeah. Just to the Freepers.

    So we have an industry shill and a thinktanker on one side, and almost the entire climatology community on the other [slashdot.org]. (out of 928 peer-reviewed papers published, NOT ONE denied global warming was real and was occuring now due to human activities. 75% accepted that conclusion explicitly or implicitly, and the remaining 25% made no mention either way.) Yeah that's controversial, and so is the planet being round [wikipedia.org].

    Just last week it was reported that arctic sea ice melting was accelerating, and therefore we have passed the tipping point [slashdot.org].

    There may have been controversy 30 years ago. The only controversy now is the manufactured one for political gain. Then again, I suspect fm6, also believes that the white house was changing scientific results [slashdot.org] simply to make it "fair and balanced" [foxnews.com].

The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. -- Niels Bohr

Working...