By all standards, the last few years have been wimps when it comes to tropical cyclones - in spite of projections from all the experts including the Climate Change wish-thinkers.  Sure, there were some oddities such as two Cat-5 hurricanes in the Atlantic, a few small surprise hurricanes (Humberto, Lorenzo, Noel), and freak storms in the Mediterranean and off Oman.  But really, frequency and intensity shows no bright, clear line or path that leads one to point the root causes at global warming.  

In fact, more potential tropical cyclones fizzled than usual, a remarkable phenomena largely explained by wind sheer that literally blew the storms apart.  

In the wake of the 2005 hurricane season, with Katrina and Rita, it was popular to credit Climate Change with hurricane intensity.  Dr. Emmanuel of Harvard wrote his classic thesis along those lines, although the hurricane experts warned that his predictions would be contaminated by many other variables.  It turns out the weather geeks were right and Dr. Emmanuel was acting way above board, drawing conclusions he could not (e.g., records of hurricanes prior to satellite imagery made common in the 1960's).  

The extent to which "burning fossil fuels" contributes to tropical cyclones is not proven in the least.  Is it plausible and conceivable?  Well yes, certainly, any scientist would never close off options that should be investigated.  I would suggest perhaps talking with Dr. Jeff Masters at Weather Underground because he is reasonably fair and balanced on this issue, and has a very good grasp of the subject.  /sam

Onward through the fog

Where on Earth did you come up with those ideas?  Wow, fertile imaginations here!

Here's an interesting factoid I just read:  Science magazine has an article saying that the destruction of forests in Louisiana and Mississippi was much larger than anticipated, and the amount of carbon being released due to decomposing wood and leaf matter is roughly equivalent to all of the CO2 captured by trees in the contiguous US.  

Sounds defensible, no?

Onward through the fog

Here is what my colleague in Dhaka is reporting via cell phone connection on Friday local time.  

all of Bangladesh seems to be without electricity since 0100h last night.

all of Dhaka is without power for almost 20 hours now. telecom, water and gas is still functioning but unknown for how long. No information available on damage from cyclone or when power is expected back -and no TV to get info from.

critical infrastructure in Dhaka is running on diesel generators so far - including hospitals, shops and banks - for the entire day.

Dear Sam,

Indeed, it is; but why do you insult the intelligence of your readers by using it (unless you wrote from ignorance - in which case I apologize).

It is, after all, NOT THE QUANTITY of carbon that is being moved around that is the problem here: it the EXCESS of carbon beyond the amount that should be circulating naturally that is the killer. A human produced .5% excess of circulating atmospheric carbon doesn't sound like much but that amount CUMULATES, year after year. If you added a FIXED amount of CO2 to the air (equivalent to .5% of the natural occurence at some base year), you would, at the end of 50 years have increased your CO2 by a dangerous 50 X 1/2 or 25 percent. If, however, the increase was .5% of the ANNUAL CO2 level ("compound interest" model), the rise would be even faster (and more dangerous). Why do people still continue to use this faulty argument at this - supposedly late - date in the global warming (GW) "debate"?

Such vacuous GW denier propaganda is counterproductive because it suffocates the emergence of new technologies, new industrial processes, new lifestyles and new services - all of which, as technological and industrial history show repeatedly - are JOB and MARKET CREATORS. Thus GW deniers falsify the basic dynamic behind technological and industrial history with their claims that following the new energy enthusiasts would reduce us to "wearing loincloths and killing rabbits with rocks".

As adult members of democracies (I live in N. America), who are supposedly (???) the rulers, don't we DESERVE better than stinky logic upon which to found public debate and decision making? These are weighty times and issues (ostensibly GW is a much greater danger than terrorism: the poverty and chaos it COULD generate would be the true Mother of All Terrorisms. Analysts note that islamoterrorists recruit among the poor and disaffected in black Africa for example..)