Nice post, Josh. The consensus among the experts indeed seems to be that global warming is not linked to increased hurricane frequency but may very well be strongly correlated with greater hurricane intensity. As you know, when a paradigm becomes dominant, lay people tend to connect it to everything.  I have tried to explain the above on hurricanes to any number of people but it is difficult to put across. You tend to get either people who think that global warming is causing everything, or conservative and libertarians who minimize it, if they don't totally deny it.

Good job, Josh. You have it right -- there is a correlation with intensity of storms, but no correlation with generation of storms.

Gore is correct in the strictly literal sense of the word "might" (yes, it might be, but might not be), but his statement actually doesn't mean very much. I would prefer if he and others did not make statements like "this storm might be associated with continued global warming", unless they are clearly stating what the link is.

While the science to support a correlation between an increase in hurricane intensity, frequency and size, with global climate change is not totally conclusive, it's disturbing that this blog chooses to post links to the Cato Institute, a right wing "think tank" where very little thinking and certainly no genuine scientific evaluation ever occurs.  Apparently Josh thinks it's a good idea to pander to these elements in order of keeping the BP money, which sponsors this blog, flowing into the pockets of TNR's publishers.

As someone who spent most of his life in South Florida, and has experienced seven hurricanes firsthand since the 80s, and gone through the eye of hurricane in 2005, I can tell you from experience that they are getting stronger and larger in scope. Katrina for example, which passed over Florida when it was still early in its formation, was far stronger there on the ground than the numbers indicated.  And Wilma which hit the Gulf Coast of Florida passing over the peninsula before it reached us on the East Coast, was still enormously strong even after crossing some 120 miles of land.  I personally experienced wind guests in excess of 115 mph, with a steady 92 mph winds at one point on the beach in Broward County.  A similar intensity was experienced some 60 miles north in Palm Beach County at Belle Glade.

Storms which occurred in the 80s and 90s seem to be significantly less intense and smaller in scope than the storms we've seen in this century.  Hurricane Andrew in 1992, which was one of the most intense and destructive storms on record in Florida was relatively small in scope by comparison.  I was down in Florida City the day after that hurricane hit, and the town was wiped clean by the wind and storm surge, nothing but concrete pads were left, not even any debris.  Further north near the Turkey Point Nuclear Powerplant, the storm surge reached several miles inland in some places, but the damage was much less.  Fisher Island just south of South Beach, where my aunt rode out the storm in her condo on the beach, had 150 mph winds.  The heaviest damage occurred south of Miami Beach, but just 35 miles north in Broward County, Fort Lauderdale got very little damage. The worst destruction was confined to less than 50 miles of coastline and 3 to 10 miles inland

Katrina by comparison cut a swath from the Panhandle of Florida over to Eastern Louisiana a path of destruction covering some 150 miles of coastline with the worst destruction reaching perhaps 25 miles inland in some places.

We might not be able to say exactly why these storms are getting larger and more powerful, but it seems to me from what I've observed that they are certainly increasing in magnitude, and until somebody comes up with a competing theory it seems prudent to continue pursuing the possibility that climate change is the likely cause.

At one time there was no conclusive evidence to connect cigarette smoking with cancer, but of course now we all know that it does, or at least those of us who don't work for the tobacco industry know it does. No doubt those who are being paid to dismiss climate changes connections with other problems will continue to do so long after we have conclusive evidence. Evidence means nothing to such people.

Liberal reformer

Simply put, you're a joke.  Your handle is a play on irony right, because your concept of liberalism is the type we often see conservatives pushing, more of a pseudo liberalism than anything genuinely progressive in your attitudes and comments.  

You should change your handle to "Status Quo Warrior" or perhaps "Establishment Pander", or "Corporate Lackey". Your act is all too transparent my friend, I suggest you peddle your wears on a site with less intelligent readers and commenters, because we've got your number around here, and you're not fooling anyone, other than those of the same limited intellectual ability as yourself.

AaronBBrown: You are the one with limited intellectual ability. As I have blogged quite recently on this website, hermeneutical skills are in short supply. You demonstrate this by thinking that you countered Josh when you merely made the point he made about the increasing intensity of hurricanes. Further, I would be a little careful about slighting someone else's intellect if I were fatuous enough to write "wears" when it is actually "wares". The "we" is hilarous as well; red diaper babies are in short supply on this site. Not that you would be aware of it, but the brand of liberalism that TNR represents is often called "corporate liberalism" by those further to the left. Do you not realize that TNR supposrts free trade and that it publishes conservative writers and academics who are learned and sometimes have valid points to make?  Only an idiot would tell someone who is very close to the views of Marty and Leon and Franklin and Jonathan, et al. to get off this  site, especially when the speaker has views that much more closely dovetail with those of the Nation. You should read Cass Sunstein, a superbly eloquent contributor to TNR, a proud liberal yet one who doesn't hesitate to advertise conservative wisdom when he finds it (an Obama supporter and sometime adviser, by the way). But what am I saying? Sunstein would be far over your head. Lastly, someone who approaches others in the thuggish Leninist manner that you do does not belong on the premises of a magazine with elegant writers and courteous approaches.

I'd prefer to steer well clear of this AaronBrown/liberal reformer byplay.  

(AaronBrown, I gotta tell ya, you seem to have a LOT of free floating anger.  The puzzling thing about you is that as much as you DO sometimes have substantive points to make, your vitriol is so intense and at the same time so scatter-shot, it makes it hard for me to take you seriously.)

Anywho, I'd prefer it if people like Gore refrained entirely from drawing even contingent causal links between specific weather events and global warming either in terms of their frequency or severity.  The mathematical language of climate science is statistical, and it does not permit statements of the form "Weather event A was caused by climatic condition B," merely those of the form, "Given observed climatic condition B, weather events similar to A are more likely."  Regardless of whether you think Gore was talking about the frequency of tropical cyclones full stop or the frequency of cyclones as powerful and destructive as Nargis, his words mirrored the format of the first of the above two statements and was therefore potentially misleading.

Aeromonas: AAB does have a lot of free - floating anger. I always prefer civil exchanges but Brown often isn't civil. Plus he is juvenile in the extreme in his approach to others. I have cited you as one of the best posters on this website. Your disquistions are civil and learned.  

Your points on Gore and statistics are excellent. I recall that toward the end of the last century, after we had the warmest year on record in 1998, Gore said that this proved global warming. As you know, one year "proves" nothing.

At this stage of the game there are still way too many factors to pinpoint any one specific storm's formation, intensity, or size as a result of global warming.  Can we get that caveat out of the way first?  

Further, other conditions independent of any generalized climate change still have the power to inhibit the formation, intensity, or size.  A good solid El Nino in the Pacific will still make it harder for an Atlantic storm to get its act together, for instance.

And one more step: it is possible, though far from established, that some factors actually related to global climate change may in fact act to inhibit storm formation, development, etc. in certain situations.  For example, changes in global climate patterns due to generalized warming may yet in fact turn out to generate stronger trade wind patterns in part of the Atlantic, another inhibiting factor in storm formation.  Also, changes in Arctic ice melt patterns may alter ocean current temperatures, which also feed into storms.  In other words, there are so many factors that may tip hurricane formation one way or the other, which may be affected by global climate change one way or the other, that predicting concrete results of global climate change is akin to picking the winner of a horse race because you like the color of their silks.

And as for personal experiences: I got to ride out Charley in central Florida, where it was way stronger than anything Orlando had felt in a long time; got to run away from both Frances and Jeanne, which hit not too far north of West Palm Beach, where I lived at the time; got absolutely soaked by the fringes of Katrina, before anyone knew what kind of history-making monster it would be (one local columnist, who I hope had the decency to feel like a fool later, described it as a perfect Boca Raton-type storm, with a slightly cutesy name), and got to wonder how Wilma remained so strong after crossing over the peninsula.  I don't mind not living in south Florida any more.

Thanks for the complements, liberal reformer.  I'm afraid though that not all Talkbacker's share your opinion of me.  According to embattled Clinton supporters pccostello and sleepyval, I'm a "stupid ass" and a "fuckhead."  (See the WV Margin thread.)  I did probably deserve some of that as, not for the first time, I directed a little snarkiness pccostello's way, but my god does he/she ever bring it out of me!

Aeromonas: I have been a Clinton supporter - I have been just barely hanging on as her campaign went from bad to worse - because of my grave reservations about Obama. I think that there is entirely too much incivility between the two camps on this site. The spirit of Obama - the high road and all  - certainly has not percolated down to any number of his supporters on here. I agree that sleepyavl is terrible and politically correct costello is, as well. I like your posts because you don't engage in ad hominem attacks and because you convey interesting information and well - reasoned opinions.