The 1800s wrought mass industrialization and technological marvels. Weather satellites, obviously, were not one of them.
But that point didn't bear repeating until deep in Dan Vergano's July 30 article, "Study links more hurricanes, climate change."
Reads the lede:
The number of hurricanes that strike each year has more than doubled over the past century, an increase tied to global warming, according to a study released Sunday.
It took to paragraph nine of the 13-paragraph story to bring around a dissenting opinion:
The new study drew criticism from experts who dispute the merits of combining data from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when hurricane-tracking satellites didn't exist, with statistics gleaned from more modern technology.
"Looking for trends in noisy count data is fraught with problems," says researcher James Elsner of Florida State University in Tallahassee. "I agree with the message, but cannot recommend the science."
Of course for the liberal media, the message is more important than the science. For example, the fact that at least one 2007 hurricane forecast has been downgraded went unmentioned by Vergano, while 2006's relative quiet was dismissed as one that would have been considered "stormy" in 1906.
While it was appropriate and commendable for Vergano to find critics of the new study, it would have served the reader better for him to note the controversy in the lede and then to alternate the following grafs between supporters and detractors of the study's conclusions.
















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I wish USA Today would make up its mind.
July 30, 2007 - 02:33 ET by Dave RI wish USA Today would make up its mind. The title of the article attributes the increase in hurricane activity to "climate change." Then in the very first paragraph, it's due to "global warming." So, which is it?
I'm guessing the dissenting information was added late in the article due to the short attention spans that so many people seem to have these days. Many people probably won't trouble themselves to read the entire article, and still others will probably only scan the title itself.
"Because the ocean temperatures have not yet rebounded from
the significant drop in late spring, we have decided to reduce
our forecast numbers slightly," said Todd Crawford, a WSI
seasonal forecaster.
Hmm. According to Al Gore and his minions, who claim the planet is well on its way to becoming a burnin' ball of fire, to what do they attribute these cooler ocean temperatures?
Given that last year's hurricane season was pretty mild, and this year's seems headed the exact same way, I don't think these people have the foggiest notion what they are talking about.
Help Fred defeat everybody.
Lower criteria for named storms
July 30, 2007 - 02:47 ET by niner-four-whiskeyNot to mention the NWS criteria for a "named storm" has been reduced in the last year.
Leading of course, to an increase in "named storms".
I am not making this up.
wrong...
July 30, 2007 - 03:06 ET by tropicalreportThe NWS has not lowered the criteria for a "named storm". It is the National Hurricane Center that issues advisories for tropical storms, and they haven't changed the criteria. In any case, Chris Landsea, a researcher at the NHC has spent the better part of his career attempting to work out problems with the Atlantic best-track databaset of hurricanes from the 1850s onwards. He is quoted in several stories as bluntly disagreeing with the Holland and Webster paper. Also, there is a reason this type of paper is in the Philosophical Transactions and not a Climate/Meteorology journal: it is because it wouldn't survive peer review. So, now we must rely on the media to ask the hard questions and give voice to the other side. Reminds me of one word: Courage -- Dan Rather. tropicalreport.com
Landsea's writing in April
July 30, 2007 - 07:21 ET by danboLandsea's writing in April on Vecchi and Soden, is that the so called AGW model indicate that wind shear should increase in the tropics thus reducing the number of hurricanes.
The opposite has happened. There has been a decrease in windshear over the last 13 years. Thus if there is an actual increase in hurricanes it is natural and cyclical rather than man made.
Landsea
And this is without even gettingin to the absuridity comparing actual observation at land based site to remote sensing.
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge will be shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods. Albert Einstein
}}}----> I'm lost danbo
July 30, 2007 - 07:31 ET by Cool ArrowI was thinking this year and last year are on record as two of the lowest in frequency.
This GW model must be something really fancy. Regardless of the situation, the model predicted it. The daVinci Code and the Bible Code come to mind.
Last time I looked. Last
July 30, 2007 - 07:54 ET by danboLast time I looked. Last year was below normal, but not one of the lowest. Just no biggies and only a dinky TS/low cat 1 storm hitting the US.
This year is too early to tell. It looks hopeful but is still too early.
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge will be shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods. Albert Einstein
}}}----> Exactly Danbo
July 30, 2007 - 08:02 ET by Cool ArrowThe Global Warming model predicted below normal, but not one of the lowest. I just misread the chicken entrails.
Wait a minute, didn't Prof.
July 30, 2007 - 09:32 ET by dscottWait a minute, didn't Prof. Al Gore say there was consensus and the matter was settled? Who should we believe? Now it's dueling studies, is this what the Goracle means by consensus? I'll match your study and raise you another study. Bets, bets, place your bets. Pay up if you want to play or fold'em and get out.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane"
}}}----> Hurricane forecast
July 30, 2007 - 03:39 ET by Cool ArrowI predict the frequency of hurricanes will triple by 2018.
We only have 10 years to save the planet. My dog and I have come to this consensus after negotiations with Michael Vick.
My dogs say the planet is
July 30, 2007 - 04:37 ET by lnthompMy dogs say the planet is definitely doomed in less than 3 years. My cats, on the other hand, say the dogs are doomed in 3 years, and humans a year or two after that when the cats take over and save the planet.
Lee T.
U.S. Navy (ret.) / Vancouver, Washington
The history of the race, and each individual's experience, are thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.-- Mark Twain
}}}----> My cat, Oscar
July 30, 2007 - 04:42 ET by Cool ArrowMy cat, Oscar seems intent on curling up next to me in bed tonight. Hmmm, wonder what that means?
Well, if you don't post
July 30, 2007 - 04:46 ET by lnthompWell, if you don't post anything after about 4 hours from now, we'll call the coroner to come get you.
Lee T.
U.S. Navy (ret.) / Vancouver, Washington
The history of the race, and each individual's experience, are thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.-- Mark Twain
Heh, I read that article.
July 30, 2007 - 04:54 ET by tracheostomyHeh, I read that article. Thought it was fascinating. Had me and my more cynical friends talking for hours.
One theory was the cat was waiting to eat the Nursing Home residents.
Another was that the cat was killing the residents himself by sitting on the resident's chest.
I didn't know what to make of it.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
oops, double post
July 30, 2007 - 04:46 ET by lnthompoops, double post
Context
July 30, 2007 - 09:29 ET by GalvanicMy dogs say the planet is definitely doomed in less than 3 years. My cats, on the other hand, say the dogs are doomed in 3 years, and humans a year or two after that when the cats take over and save the planet.
Is that in human years, dog years, or cat years?
}}}----> This latest GW cycle
July 30, 2007 - 04:59 ET by Cool ArrowSomewhere on this site I was directed to Rush Limbaugh's site. I immediately had to download the article he was reading from and found it was from MRC. It explained the 4 major about face turns from Cooling to warming over the last 100 years. All media driven.
My local paper
July 30, 2007 - 09:12 ET by ahusserMy local paper (The Frederick News Post, Frederick MD) this Sunday had at least three articles about Global Warming. I have noticed that now the news doesn't even pretend there is another side to the issue. AGW is now a given fact in their reportage. The constant reporting of the issue of AGW as a given fact with this "matter of factedness" built into each article seems to be a very effective strategy, IMO, because a contrary opinion is now considered a looney tunes opinion not worthy of any consideration or relevance or mention. Here are the articles:
"Boxer sees global warming" (had to use MSNBC cite/site- article was not on their internet site.) "Carbon footprint offsetting fails to toe the line on addressing global warming" editorial by staff writer of Frederick News Post."Global Warming forces Forest Service to reconsider strategy" (FNP-newswire from McClatchy Newspapers, had to Use McClatchy site/cite)
PS McClatchy Newspapers seem to be more left wing than the AP
A little good news on the AGW front
July 30, 2007 - 10:34 ET by RJMy very liberal state newspaper, the Hartford Courant, has been a strong advocate of anthropogenic global warming, pushing the concept in repeated stories and editorials.
That's why it was a shock to read a story today (by Martin Merzer of McClatchy Newspapers) that presented a decent argument against the study by Holland/Webster.
One story isn't a movement, but from zero stories to one is encouraging....
What is bothering me now is
July 30, 2007 - 11:26 ET by ahusserWhat is bothering me now is the leap the news has made to give credence to the belief that the debate is over. AGW is a given (and postulated very casually as in day follows night) in their reportage. Almost every story on the AGW side now focuses on what we are going to do about AGW not whether it exists or the "theory" is accurate. To be on the other side of the given fact of AGW is now not even relevant it is more akin to believing in UFO's. Your money and freedom are soon to follow.
RJ... That is good news
July 31, 2007 - 20:18 ET by bigtimerRJ...
That is good news for all of us...if the Hartford Courant is putting this out, gives real people with reality ...
HOPE!
...lol....
Not only that, BT,
July 31, 2007 - 20:22 ET by RJNot only that, BT, but McClatchy reporters (the source of the story) are typically very liberal.
McClatchy is almost all of
July 31, 2007 - 20:29 ET by bigtimerMcClatchy is almost all of Montana now...they have spread their web like I have never seen in the last ten to present years.
Tomas I think his name is...he is hand in hand with the Brokaw/Turner/Hollywood/east coast/union ect ilk...he is all over the msm as a non-partisan know it all.
He is nothing but a scum-bag leftist...along with McClatchy with a big agenda as you well know...
Period...
So I see your point...make one wonder if they see what is coming with facts and what may happen weather wise let alone the big backlash they are getting now by other reputable scientists if they keep up the charade that is not working, let alone not many people are really paying attention to the blathering tripe.
Ken. A layman can understand..
July 30, 2007 - 13:54 ET by Gary HallKen. A layman can easily understand.. why there is little scientific record available to state such a thing. First, we can start with your opening observation: 'Weather satellites.."
Before the 1960's we did not have weather satellites, and even at that point in time, the coverage did not blanket the entire globe. And we got these great pictures - such as Betsy, which devastated New Orleans in 1965. Starting in the mid 1940's we started sending planes out into storms - but only those storms that we knew of, and were within reach - certainly not in all parts of the world. Who knows how many hurricanes formed out in the many oceans of the world, upon which no ship happened upon and managed to take the accurate barometer readings required to determine whether they were getting blown around in a tropical storm or a hurricane. If the ship had managed to get a reading (in the required center of the storm, and then sunk without getting the word back home...
Prior to this modern era, we probably would have never known how powerful Hurricane Wilma became in 2005. As Wilma approached the slot between Cuba and Cozumel, it quickly grew into the strongest, on record, in the Atlantic basin (breaking the record of Gilbert - of which I was in the middle of, in 1988). But Wilma was only such an intense storm for but a few hours - and only over while over open water. The details, more likely than not, would have never been known, before say 1960, or 1944.
Besides. We have other experts out there who understand these things:
And from our hurricane experts at Colorado State University - our leading forcasters. Philip Klotzbach and William Gray published this interesting bit in April of 2007:
Table 7: U.S. Landfalling tropical cyclones by intensity during two 50-year periods.
Years Named Hurricanes Intense Global Temp. Inc
Storms Hurricanes degrees C
Cat 3,4,5)
1900-1949 189 101 39
(50 years)
1956-2005 165 83 34 +0.4
(50 years)
Gary, to play the devil's
July 31, 2007 - 20:10 ET by dscottGary, to play the devil's advocate here, why is there a 5 year gap between the compared periods? 1950 to 1955?
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane"
dscott - da gap
July 31, 2007 - 21:07 ET by Gary HallHey. Well, I'm not too sure for sure. I posed that question to them once, and we got sidetracked in the conversation... I think he said that he was attempting to to show equal periods of time.. but then suddenly ending with 1951-2000 would leave out the rather unusual 2005 season (unusual in recorded history, anyway)..so he fudged it to pick up the really active years. Funny how that worked out, is it not (except that 1950 had 11 hurricanes)?
The early 1950's were rather busy. From 1951 to 1955 there were 8,6,6,8, and 9 hurricanes recorded in the Atlantic Basin.
(;~> gary
Excellent post Gary. But we
July 31, 2007 - 20:26 ET by PopularTechExcellent post Gary. But we have to stop letting facts and logic get in the way of the Eco-Crusade.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Impossible!
July 31, 2007 - 20:02 ET by PopularTechReally the average number of hurricanes double in the last 100 years
when NOAA admits that they had no means to properly detect and monitor
them pre-1944?
Tropical Cyclone Data Tape For the North Atlantic Basin, 1886-1983 (NOAA)
"...until organized reconnaissance began in 1944, the two major sources
of information on tropical cyclones were land stations and ships at
sea. Undoubtedly, during this early period some storms went undetected."
HAHA! This report is flawed by simple logic that they did not have the
means to detect every hurricane 100 years ago thus no comparison to present day can be
made! Satellite data only goes back to 1960.
Global Warming Increases Wind Shear, Reduces Hurricanes, Climate Model Shows
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Popular Tech
July 31, 2007 - 20:11 ET by botgYour resource link is quite comprehensive thanks, I've added it to my favs folder on AGW
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.