Global Warming - Best Science After The Fact?

Question

Why is it that warming alarmist will point to something like Hurricane Humberto and say that it quickly becoming a hurricane is proof of global warming only after the fact that it did become a hurricane quickly?

If it was part of global warming, if we know what causes global warming, if we can predict the effects of global warming, this should have been easy to see coming and have warnings issued weeks before Humberto actually started to form off the coast.

But it wasn't because global warming is only accurate after something happened, as everything that happened is the result of global warming.

If global warming was real, we would be able to forecast these events many days before they happened.

More proof that this is nothing more than a money making scheme.

Answer 1

A weather event only seems to count when it helps the argument for GW, but not when goes against it.

Earlier today when a person asked why it was snowing already where he lived, he was told that it was just a local thing.

Answer 2

Some of the After the Fact science and changes in the story seem kind of hurting the credibility of the whole global warming science in my eyes. Just check out this article:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070809225722.demeczc1&show_article=1

We seem to continually go through "corrections" and new starting points for global warming which supposedly had been discovered back in 1980 to be the most devastating environmental crises in 1990's and then later and then later and now 2009. Maybe some new unforeseeable event may come up to delay it even further. I almost can't wait until it actually starts to happen - the suspense is killing me!

Answer 3

It's grasping at straws. New Age superstition.

You'd have had to tell Texans that Humberto was a hurricane, because it was hardly different than any other tropical storm coming from the Gulf. In terms of energy (ACE), Humberto limped through with less than EVERY named storm of 2006 including 4 tropical storms. Humberto had a quarter of the energy of 2006's weakest hurricane and around half the energy of those 4 tropical storms.

And 2006 was not even a normal year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Atlantic_hurricane_season

2007 is currently below normal - behind where we were in 2006 at this time. We may get the hurricane that alarmists are hoping for - or about twenty more Humbertos - to surpass 2006, but we'll still be less than average. We'd need about 30 Humbertos just to get up to average.

Don't hold your breath anyone...

And as for you folks who are swayed by two cat fives and the quick formation of Humberto, you need to look at TOTAL energy involved. If I were to tell you that the static shock from a doorknob is around 10,000 volts, would that make you think it's OK to go out in the rain and hold on to the bare terminals of your 12 volt car battery? (Please don't experiment the latter - I won't be able to tell you this twice.)

Answer 4

That's a lame argument, although I agree that using Humberto as proof of global warming is equally lame.

There's no way to predict the chaos that is global weather.

Why not argue that the failure of other tropical storms to form into hurricanes is proof against global warming?

Answer 5

Why is it? I think people need proof, the kind of proof that could possibly effect their lives, and even though there are whole armadas of Spanish galleons littered across the gulf of mexico because of hurricanes. Hurricanes are the best proof that alarmists can come up with.

Answer 6

That's like saying "We are wrong about what causes an apple tree to grow because we aren't able to accurately predict when the next apple will fall."
The basic idea is that weather is driven by heat energy and when there is more heat energy available there will be more weather.
Any one who says that a hurricane is a direct result of global warming is wrong or guessing. However, The idea that climate change will contribute to more severe weather patterns is well founded.

Answer 7

Global warming/climate change can not be assessed on local/individual storms. It is not regional...it is global.

It has regional effects. It can be observed locally. But it does not predict local events.

Scales people! Scales! Both Spacial and Time!

Answer 8

I try to take in as much opinions and weigh them and yes we need to depend on proofs most often. And you're right, there are those who may do some twisting to make money out of it. There are those who do make money out of it and wouldn't care if it's true or not; there are those who're not making money out of it but gets envious of others who make money out of it, and they would just complain while sitting on their comfortable chair. I hear you and I respect your opinion but what proof do you have that you have a better understanding than them?

Answer 9

Your criticism is not quite fair.

Global warming scientists have been predicting that, on the average, storms will get stronger, because of warmer ocean waters.

The fact that this storm increased in intensity faster than any before it surely is related to the concept that warming ocean waters will provide more fuel and make stronger storms.

The fact that scientists are unable to forecast short term weather precisely, does not invalidate the idea that they can give useful information about long term trends.

Answer 10

Yeah!
You are right on! This whole global warming thing is just for money, its just like the o-zone scare. You don't hear anything about the o-zone anymore, because as soon as all the money that the government wanted to make off of it was made they claimed that the o-zone "fixed" itself (not to mention that the o-zone is a "very thin layer of invisible something" ....it just doesn't seem believe-able to me).