Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 Next
Comments 52051 to 52100:
-
Tom Curtis at 08:32 AM on 4 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
AnderMi has variously conflated "low confidence" in the SREX report with lack of statistical significance (they are not the same), and quoted summary results on global statistics as though they are representative of observations in the North Atlantic. In fact, the SREX says this of the North Atlantic (p 159, PDF):"Regional trends in tropical cyclone frequency have been identified in the North Atlantic, but the fidelity of these trends is debated (Holland and Webster, 2007; Landsea, 2007; Mann et al., (2007a). Different methods for estimating undercounts in the earlier part of the North Atlantic tropical cyclone record provide mixed conclusions (Chang and Guo, 2007; Mann et al., 2007b; Kunkel et al., 2008; Vecchi and Knutson, 2008)."
Webster et al (2005) (PDF) says of the North Atlantic:"Figure 3 shows that in each ocean basin time series, the annual frequency and duration of hurricanes exhibit the same temporal characteristics as the global time series (Fig. 2), with overall trends for the 35-year period that are not statistically different from zero. The exception is the North Atlantic Ocean, which possesses an increasing trend in frequency and duration that is significant at the 99% confidence level. The observation that increases in North Atlantic hurricane characteristics have occurred simultaneously with a statistically significant positive trend in SST has led to the speculation that the changes in both fields are the result of global warming (3)."
So, the trend in North Atlantic cyclones (Hurricanes) is statistically significant, contrary to Andermi's clear suggestions. The validity of that trend, at the time of the SREX had "low confidence" not because the data do not show a trend, but because it is unclear whether the data accurately reflects the frequency of hurricanes in the early part of the record. That lack of confidence is no longer warranted. Grinsted et al have used long records of consistent quality to establish that Hurricanes are twice as likely in warm years as in cool years. The connection between increased temperature and increased frequency of Hurricanes in the North Atlantic must therefore be considered well established. (Note: although Grinsted et al show a positive trend in US land falling tropical storms, and in Accumulated Cyclone Energy, those trends are not statistically significant in large part because the record starts in the relatively warm 1930s.) Turning to AndersMi's frankly silly argument, he says:"So, since there is no clear statistical increase of storms, it follows that if we can prove that some storms are indeed caused by global warming, then some others must be disappearing to keep the observed balance even. Otherwise we would see an increasing trend, which we don't."
Leaving aside the fact that his premise is false of the North Atlantic, the implied argument is nonsense. He equates "no statistically significant increase" with no increase. That is, he assumes uncertainty about the magnitude of the increase implies certainty that there has been no increase. Assume the increase in tropical cyclones since the 1950s was 5 +/-10 per annum. Then there would have been no statistically significant increase. We would not know from that fact, plus the fact that one particular cyclone was caused by global warming that the increase was in fact zero, and that therefore a potential cyclone was caused to dissipate by global warming. -
dana1981 at 08:28 AM on 4 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Anders @72 - as I noted @70 and as I believe others have noted as well, inability to detect a statistically significant trend due to a large amount of noise does not mean a trend doesn't exist. -
Composer99 at 07:31 AM on 4 November 2012Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
I note that the graphical representation of the data from Levitus 2012 shows approximately 50% data coverage down to 2000 m up to the end of the time series shown. I suspect, given additional papers discussed in this Skeptical Science post, that improving the coverage would not favour the claim that the oceans are cooling. -
AndersMi at 06:21 AM on 4 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Moderator and dana1981: as I've already written in many comments, the source for the statement "there is no clear statistical increase of storms" is IPCC's SREX report, published in March 2012. Full report, page 111: "There is low confidence that any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities." And more, with a slightly different nuance in the same report's Summary for Policymakers, page 6: "There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e., intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities.". For Moderator, I'd appreciate if you'd remove from my previous comment the request to provide a source, since it suggests that I hadn't - while I alrady had in my very first comment to this post: >>----- AndersMi at 22:06 PM on 3 November, 2012 It seems to me that this post contradicts the latest IPCC report on extreme events, SREX, published in March 2012, where it says: "There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e., intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities." >>----- For dana1981: The Knutson et al. (2010) paper has been surely taken in account in IPCC's SREX (2012). As for what Emanuel shows, it's fine, but it's model-based. Reality doesn't seem (yet) to show the signature of GW in this respect. -
Climate Newbie at 06:06 AM on 4 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Thanks michael sweet - it's just perplexing that he has enough time to answer the question, and to block me, and then to re-edit his answer. And erase my question. My comment and question were (and are) on this topic. -
Rob Painting at 05:53 AM on 4 November 2012Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Markx - Yes, with a mercury thermometer. Reversing thermometers, but it's good to see you've moved on from the ropes and buckets claim. I note you never attempted any explanation as to why you thought ropes and buckets were used to measure subsurface ocean heat. Is that a myth circulating on contrarian blogs? "It seems to be quite test of the power of the statistical analyses to take this back to 1955" The uncertainty of the analysis is shown in vertical red bars (0-2000mtrs) & grey shaded areas (700-2000m) in this figure from Levitus (2012):
"I worry at the statistically calculated precision over a 55 year period from data which itself has required corrections"
Virtually all datasets require corrections. Until such time as humans invent a perfect measuring instrument, it's something we have to live with.
The issues with some of the ARGO floats is unlikely to side with the wishful thinking of contrarians I'm afraid. The faulty floats have a pressure sensor issue which underestimates the actual depth that they are at. This means they are taking a temperature reading colder than is actually the case, introducing a cool bias into the dataset.
This issue is still being addressed, and no doubt other problems will crop up, but this is no different to any other climate-related dataset.
I do note, however, that many contrarians, such as Roger Pielke Snr, thought ARGO was the greatest thing since sliced bread when it indicated the oceans were cooling. But now that ARGO confirms the long-term ocean warming trend, contrarians are falling over themselves trying to find excuses not to accept the evidence.
-
Doug Bostrom at 05:15 AM on 4 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
If China pulls off the juggling act they need to perform in order to maintain social and political stability while building a durable system it'll be quite remarkable. As Markx implies, coal is a necessary if unfortunate part of that equation but still amenable to optimization. It's the permitted longevity of the band-aid fix in the form of more efficient coal plants that's dubious, unpredictable. Brutal as it is,the Chinese government might order plants only a couple of decades old decommissioned, if that government survives, and be obeyed. Scary and fascinating at the same time. -
dana1981 at 04:55 AM on 4 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Regarding hurricane intensity I recommend Knutson et al. (2010) linked in the post. They explain that there is a great deal of natural variability in hurricane intensity (and frequency), and therefore it is very difficult to discern a trend in the noise. Nevertheless, they do find a trend in the intensity of the strongest hurricanes, and the models clearly predict that they will continue to grow stronger in the future. Despite this difficulty in detecting the signal beneath the noise, as Emanuel shows (in the many links to his work in the post), higher SSTs fuel stronger hurricanes. SSTs are higher than they were in the past due to AGW, and that's the world in which Sandy existed. -
Paul D at 04:48 AM on 4 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
AndersMi you have ignored the point I made. An absense of something doesn't impact the intensity of the individual events. The cause of an event that has a greater amplitude has no impact on the absense of the signal at other points. The problem I have with your statements is that you are implying a cause and effect regarding the absense of something. That is frankly absurd. It also probably breaks the laws of thermodynamics and most other phyical laws. You are confusing actual physical events and actions with mathematical human assessment of those events and actions. -
michael sweet at 03:54 AM on 4 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Climate newbie, Dr. Mann is very busy. I recommend you ask your questions here where people try to answer newbie climate questions. Find a thread where your comment is on topic and you will receive replies. -
AndersMi at 03:42 AM on 4 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Paul D: you say "If there is more energy being held in the system and it gets unevenly distributed you would expect the frequency and intensity of storms to increase.". I agree with you. But that's exactly what, according to the IPCC, is NOT happening (at least in a statistically relevant way). So, since there is no clear statistical increase of storms, it follows that if we can prove that some storms are indeed caused by global warming, then some others must be disappearing to keep the observed balance even. Otherwise we would see an increasing trend, which we don't.Moderator Response:[DB] "since there is no clear statistical increase of storms"
Please provide a link citation to a reputable source that documents this. Assertions lacking citations to proof sources are subject to moderation, as they constitute sloganeering.
-
markx at 03:42 AM on 4 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Sphaerica at 02:50 AM on 4 November, 2012 "...Except that those new coal fired plants are going to kill us..." Not really, they are a step in a better direction (at this stage of the game). The energy demand is there, it will be met one way or the other. The current system is not good. It is amazing to see factories (even pharmaceutical companies) burning coal for their energy. Not to mention hotels, and even pig farms. But you should see the often wet and dirty coal piles, and the age of some the old furnaces used (although there are good modern ones too). Good point re the Solar hot water - and we should mention all the low cost electric vehicles - all possible by being extremely affordable to the poor. Legislation wise (if that is seen as the need), Sandy was a convenient arrival, at exactly the right time. -
Climate Newbie at 03:38 AM on 4 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
I asked Dr. Mann a question on his FB page about the extent of sea level rise he referenced in his interview with Alan Colmes on Fox Radio. In a FB reply he directed me to this article, which explains the reference completely. But now I cannot seem to comment on his FB page anymore. I have lots of questions about the evidence and theory of climate change. Did asking one question result in my being barred from D. Mann's page? Confused. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:31 AM on 4 November 2012Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Markx, you're probably not very worried, or you'd dig into the literature and learn how the temperature record is assembled. If you're really worried it would be better to take a hint, stop voicing your fears and go help yourself. Clearly you know how to do that. But here's the rub if you've got other issues with the matter of ocean warming: if you question the measured amount of warming of the ocean then you also have to come up with an alternate explanation for thermosteric SLR. Tough cookie to crack: if the average km3 of the ocean is expanding in volume, how does it accomplish that without becoming warmer? As you begin to replace thermosteric SLR with a novel hypothesis you'll be entering the region of "here be dragons." Tread carefully. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:13 AM on 4 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Markx forgot to mention the 20+GWE of domestic solar hot water installed in China in the past half dozen years, with ~40GWE more slated for installation coming right up. 20GWE of solar DHW is quicker and easier to put in place than the 20 or so nuclear plants otherwise needed to warm up water. Similarly, PV and wind. Similarly we see that coal plants don't yield energy "in the most efficient manner." What's strangely inefficient is ignoring an ample supply of fusion nuclear power delivered daily to our doorsteps. One thing we can probably agree on: while we yammer endlessly about what we might do, the Chinese actually deliver results. Too bad it takes an iron handed authority to substitute for common sense; it doesn't have to be that way, if we ignore people like the Koch bros. who are throwing sand in our mental gears. -
Paul D at 03:10 AM on 4 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
AndersMi "...if we can prove that some exceptionally strong or frequent storms have to be attributed to GW, then we also have implicitly proved that GW prevents the formation of some other storms or lowers their intensity..." That is the most bizare statement I have seen for a while. It is logically flawed. It's a bit like saying that when you increase a signal amplitude such as a sine wave clipped at zero. That the energy in the signal is responsible for when the voltage is zero as well as when it is at the peak! You don't measure the absense or attribute an absense to a cause. If there is more energy being held in the system and it gets unevenly distributed you would expect the frequency and intensity of storms to increase. -
markx at 03:08 AM on 4 November 2012Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
I worry at the statistically calculated precision over a 55 year period from data which itself has required corrections. It seems the Argo floats are not always precision instruments. From NASA – (Titled “Correcting Ocean Cooling”. by Rebecca Lindsey November 5, 2008 http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php “…But when he factored the too-warm XBT measurements into his ocean warming time series, the last of the ocean cooling went away. Later, Willis teamed up with Susan Wijffels of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organization (CSIRO) and other ocean scientists to diagnose the XBT problems in detail and come up with a way to correct them. “So the new Argo data were too cold, and the older XBT data were too warm, and together, they made it seem like the ocean had cooled,” says Willis. …” -
markx at 03:07 AM on 4 November 2012Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Rob Painting at 19:10 PM on 2 November, 2012 "...measure ocean temperature down hundreds of meters..." Yes, with a mercury thermometer, but marked in 1/10th degrees. Until about 2004, there were not so many Argo measures being taken below 700 meters. The Argo project only really starting in earnest in 2000. It seems to be quite test of the power of the statistical analyses to take this back to 1955. Granted, not evenly distributed: Levitus etal 2010 showed a 0.18 degree C rise in the Zero to 700 meter depth range world wide over 55 years, as well as the aforementioned 0.09 degrees C rise over the whole 2000 meter depth over 55 years. -
Bob Lacatena at 02:50 AM on 4 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
markx, Except that those new coal fired plants are going to kill us. We're all going to look back on that "short cut" and say "what were we thinking?" -
Griffin at 02:40 AM on 4 November 2012Grinsted et al. Examine Historical Hurricane Storm Surges
Tamino, Nice presentation. Your technique of reducing the noise looks to be very effective. I wonder if Grinsted et al. might be better able to judge the significance of historical trends by applying something like this to the raw daily data for all their stations over their whole period. Incidentally there may be methods based on knowledge of tides and movement of the moon to choose the particular frequency and phase for each tide gauge theoretically, rather than by a fit to the data. Malcolm Griffin -
Bob Lacatena at 02:33 AM on 4 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
AndersMi, Oh, and you'll forgive my personal attacks on you (or not), but I live on the east coast, and have many friends and family in VA, MD, NJ and MA who are directly suffering as a result of Hurricane Sandy, so you'll forgive me if I'm just a little more sensitive than usual to denier B.S. [I myself was very, very lucky, because while much of my town lost power, I did not, but MA in general pretty much dodged this storm, because it hit a little further south than it could have.] -
markx at 02:13 AM on 4 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
I suspect Obama will get elected, at least partly because of Sandy, and you are going to get the "Climate Programme" you wish for. (Sloganeering snipped)(Some will do very well indeed http://www.4-traders.com/CO2-GROUP-LIMITED-6501027/news/CO2-Group-Limited-CO2-Group-delivers-a-record-$7-million-full-year-profit-well-positioned-for-fut-15439948/.) I spend a lot of time in China. I think they are going the right way about this, opening a new efficient coal fired power station every ten days, to replace the millions of old smoky boilers inefficiently burning dirty wet coal, investing in vast hydro-power projects, investing in nuclear power, centrally investing in vast infrastructure projects including highway networks and high speed rail, and new airports everywhere I go. They are also rapidly modernizing, mechanizing and expanding farming operations. All in the interests of producing what is needed in the most efficient manner. All of which will use energy more efficiently and decrease all sorts of pollution (Oh, to see a blue sky over Beijing!) On storms, the Beijingers find it amusing that their press covers Sandy but ignored a recent storm which hit Beijing in July and killed 70 people.Moderator Response: [Sph] Please review the comments policy. -
Bob Lacatena at 02:10 AM on 4 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
FYI, the "no statistical evidence" and "no empirical evidence" are constant denier tactics (it's a favorite of Jo Nova's). They take a faux-science position of being thoroughly objective and requiring statistical evidence to prove a point, knowing full well that there are many cases in the world in general and climate change in particular where the only way to gather such evidence is to wait until it is far, far too late. But there are many tools in the human brain's toolbox, besides statistics, with which to evaluate positions, think ahead, and plan intelligently. -
Bob Lacatena at 02:07 AM on 4 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
I'm not commenting on the IPCC meme because it's silly. I never contested what AR4 said. I contested how it does or does not apply to this situation. You are right in that you did not attack the IPCC. That's my mistake. You tried instead to use it to incorrectly support a position of denial and inaction. On that I stand corrected. You didn't attack the IPCC. You simply misunderstood and misrepresented the facts. -
AndersMi at 01:47 AM on 4 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
I'm sorry, that's my last reply to you. I think that my logic is pretty clear. In fact you didn't even question it but said that I was attacking IPCC or AR4, while it is you the one who disagrees with IPCC's report (I see you're not commenting on this anymore). Now you say that the time period taken in consideration by IPCC (40 years) is too short to detect trends... It seems to me that you're changing your argument every time and mixing in personal attacks. I invite the other readers to check our comments and decide by themselves. -
Bob Lacatena at 01:29 AM on 4 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
AndersMi,... if GW can be held responsible for some storms, then it has to be held responsible also for the absence of some other, because the overall trend is flat.
False. As stated, the time period and degree to detect a statistically significant trend is too short, and the science is uncertain at this point as to what trend we will see. You cannot make the statement that the trend is flat. We don't yet know what the trend is. It is not statistics, it's logic. This has been explained to you several times now, and you can't seem to get it. This is not statistics, this is physics and logic. [Don't worry, a lot of deniers have trouble with that distinction. They can't seem to let go of the things that are appealing to them and help them to arrive at the conclusions they prefer.] It can and should be considered that Sandy was likely enhanced, in timing, strength and direction/location, by climate change. There is no positive proof, but to me it is beyond a reasonable doubt. If you can't follow the logic, that's your problem. Other people can. -
Albatross at 01:23 AM on 4 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Cynicus, You may have a point here. I know you asked Dana, but I'm curious about this so will delve a little deeper. One could rank the estimated energy for all Atlantic storms by category (1-5) and by energy, regardless of the Saffir-Simpson classification. -
AndersMi at 01:12 AM on 4 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Sphaerica, you keep failing to understand that if GW can be held responsible for some storms, then it has to be held responsible also for the absence of some other, because the overall trend is flat. If you blame Sandy on GW, then you have to thank the same GW for other missing storms. It's trivial statistics. Second, my assault on IPCC and AR4? You must be joking. I said that *you* are in disagreement with IPCC and its SREX report, which hasn't been published 5 years ago, but this year, 2012. -
citizenschallenge at 01:05 AM on 4 November 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
For what it's worth I've done a paragraph by paragraph review of Judith Curry's latest publication. "Climate change: no consensus on consensus" I think it's time to count up the falsehoods and slights of hand these mesmerists use. Dr. Curry's "Climate change: no consensus on consensus" - challenged" A review of Dr. Judith Curry's reader's digest to "Climate change: no consensus on consensus" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ re: ¶1 "Manufacture consensus" Notice the slight of hand Curry has performed. Curry creates the assumption that the IPCC process is nothing but high octane politics... ... now we try to look for her evidence. I intend to review Curry's reader's digest with an eye toward finding and evaluating the supporting evidence for her claims. ~ ~ ~ Along the way I'll be looking for intellectual slight-of-hand, such as turning suppositions into self-evidence truths. Which she has already done in her opening. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -
AndersMi at 01:03 AM on 4 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
DSL, I've never said that if "Sandy was huge because of AGW; therefore, all storms should be huge because of AGW". I've said quite the opposite: since there is no statistically significant trend in intensity and frequency of storms under GW conditions, if we can prove that some exceptionally strong or frequent storms have to be attributed to GW, then we also have implicitly proved that GW prevents the formation of some other storms or lowers their intensity, such that the overall trend is flat. If this is true, as it can be, then it's right to blame Sandy on GW, but at the same time we should thank the same GW for other missing and/or high intensity storms that simply aren't there. Bottom line: as far as we know, stopping or reverting global warming would leave us with exactly the same number and intensity of tropical storms. -
Bob Lacatena at 01:01 AM on 4 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
AndersMi,That's why we have to look at statistics
No. You keep missing the point. In many cases, in general, yes, we need statistics with a long enough time frame and enough storms to measure the trend. In this particular case, however, we are able to use logic and physics to evaluate possible causality. Your knee-jerk assumption that we must use statistics and so we must wait for decades to perform any analysis is just another excuse to wait and deny. As far as your (tired, trite, predictable) assault on the IPCC and AR4... I will readily admit that the IPCC and AR4 tended (needed?) to err on the side of "caution" (as in underestimating), and they have made some mistakes in that regard (underestimating, for example, sea level rise). No one ever said the science 5 years ago was perfect, and there certainly had been and still is political pressure to make sure they aren't "overselling" the dangers. Sadly, "underselling" the dangers is even more dangerous, especially with certain people who will use any excuse they can to ignore and fail to address the problem. I just hope that ten and twenty years down the road, those people realize that they have blood on their hands. -
AndersMi at 00:44 AM on 4 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
DSL, "low confidence" means that a statistically significant trend is hardly discernible. When you can hardly see something even at a statistical level, even less you can blame the single event on a cause. It's somehow right what you say: every single weather event is related to global warming, in the sense that, had the global warming not been there, the weather would have been different. However, exactly the same can be said also of the proverbial butterfly in Japan, that flapping its wings can cause a hurricane over the US: had that butterfly not been there, the weather would have been different. But does this imply that by killing all the butterflies we'd get less storms, i.e. a statistically significant decreasing trend in storms? Not at all, we would just get them in different places and times. Would it make sense to blame a particular storm on the butterfly that caused it? Obviously not, because then you should praise the same butterfly for the absence of storms everywhere else in the same moment. -
DSL at 00:37 AM on 4 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
No, AndersMI. You assume that the energy is uniform across the system: Sandy was huge because of AGW; therefore, all storms should be huge because of AGW. No. The elements that form and develop hurricanes are dynamically generated and those conditions (not their specific values) are not generally a feature of rapid climate change. Some of those conditions may be available for longer periods of time in a rapidly warming world. Some conditions may, at certain places and times, help intensify a storm that happens to form when the other conditions are right. The bottom line, though, is that all conditions must be right for a Sandy to form and track the way it did. Under the AGW regime, some of the conditions are more persistent. Some are less persistent. No storms form under precisely the same conditions as any other storm. Is anything unusual? Yes. Increased SSTs, the unusually strong blocking high, and the weakened jet. Three conditions necessary for Sandy. Do those three conditions interact with every tropical system? No. One or two might at the same time (SSTs and the jet, specifically), if a storm happened to benefit from the right conditions in the first few weeks of its formation. If, if, if. What the IPCC is saying is that link between GW and specific hurricane development (not formation) is not well understood, because the conditions for development are dynamic, and the circulation of additional energy is dynamic, affecting every part of the conditions for development. Give it a few years, and the science--if not shut down by a Monckton-informed Congress--will have a better grip. It already has a much better grip than it did a decade ago. -
DSL at 00:17 AM on 4 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Further, AndersMI, the language of the SREX--"low confidence"--does not mean "is not happening." It means that the level of uncertainty for the proposition is significant. The negative hypothesis would not necessarily warrant the same level of confidence. Sandy should not be used as evidence of anthropogenic global warming. AGW needs no more evidence than the basic, well-tested, observation-confirmed physics. Global warming was responsible for Sandy in that all weather everywhere is fundamentally different as a result of Earth's continued increase in stored energy. With no AGW, it's almost certain that Sandy does not form at that time in that place. Maybe earlier, maybe later, maybe not at all. Maybe two Sandys go back to back, killing tens of thousands. The bottom line, though, is that if it sprinkles on you as you walk from the car to the store, global warming is responsible. Global warming is not responsible for sprinkling or hurricanes in general, but it would be pure coincidence for the sprinkling event or hurricane to have taken place at the same time and place in a world with and without AGW. If anyone wants to claim that AGW is not responsible for Sandy or any other specific weather event of the past fifty years, falsify the greenhouse gas theory. Then I'll believe you. Climate is what weather does over a long period of time (30+ years). Weather is not affected by climate change. Weather is climate change. There is no additional or intermediary component. The additional energy immediately and continually enters the general circulation system, with all its specific manifestations of what we call weather. -
AndersMi at 00:14 AM on 4 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Sphaerica, thank you for your reply. So, if storms are not more frequent or stronger, that means that if climate change is to blame for THIS specific storm presence or intensity, then climate change must be also responsible for the absence or low intensity of some other storm, so that, as IPCC says, overall there is no discernible trend in storms frequency and intensity. Right? It's true that, as you say in your comment, we can't prove a causation link between a particular storm and climate change. That's why we have to look at statistics, and statistics tell us that nothing abnormal is happening. You say that I am in denial.. but in this case it appears that the one in denial is you, as the one refusing to acknowledge what the official science says about hurricanes and tropical storms. -
gws at 22:44 PM on 3 November 2012The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
Good discussion, glad we had this posted. jyushchyshyn @7: I did not put up a strawman, and in fact I do strongly agree with the notion that it is not an either/or question between nuclear and renewables. But, come on, there are plenty of folks who argue pro nuclear and against renewables, e.g. most nuclear lobbyists do so, citing the "base load" problem. "Anyways, the question is not whether to phase out coal, but when and how fast." Indeed. Better to phase out coal much faster than currently pursued. The limit should be the fastest growth rate of renewables that can be accomplished. And for that, Germany and other countries have pioneered the feed-in-tariff among other things. IMHO, first forecasted by Hermann Scheer, the development just needed to get started, then becomes unstoppable as prices for fossil fuels keep rising, while those for renewables keep falling. Time to get on the bandwaggon ... Nuclear? Currently stuck in old, intrinsically unsafe technology, only getting worse with reactor age. So phase-out is inevitable and needed. Unless the industry demonstrates that its new, supposedly intrinsically safe, reactor designs are viable, both environmentally and economically, see my comment above. Aka I will not comment on this thread on nuclear again. I wrote this to demonstrate that Germany (one could also pick Denmark for instance) is a country that does tackle reality, and that, despite obvious challenges, shows both political and private will to make a difference. Thank you Jonas! -
Bob Lacatena at 22:20 PM on 3 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
AndersMi, You have entirely missed the point of the post. There is no contradiction. This post does not say or imply that storms are at this point in time more frequent or stronger. This post does not say or imply that the storm occurred because climate change is already making more storms occur (although that does seem to be happening, we need a longer period to ascertain it). This post does not say or imply that the storm was stronger because climate change is making all storms stronger. This post does say that several unusual aspects specifically and strongly tied to climate change (blocking patterns, higher sea levels, warmer ocean waters) can be directly tied to the formation and path of this specific storm. So in this case, "weather" is "climate" because we can directly tie a very unusual confluence of factors to causing weather which is itself extreme, and those factors are directly tied to climate change. QED. Can anyone exactly, unarguably prove the causation? No, of course not. That's why deniers will have a field day saying "but, but, but..." That shouldn't, however, stop an intelligent person from looking at the facts, drawing conclusions, and taking action. You appear to be right that Sandy was actually second in low pressure, although the total kinetic energy metric is, to me, far more important. It's also of little consolation to the people living in NY and NJ. Your comment smacks of typical denial... i.e., try to find anything you possibly can to help comfort yourself with the idea that maybe this isn't climate change at all, maybe it's just a natural even that would have happened no matter what, so you can go back to ignoring the consequences of your actions for at least a few more years. -
AndersMi at 22:06 PM on 3 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
It seems to me that this post contradicts the latest IPCC report on extreme events, SREX, published in March 2012, where it says: "There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e., intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities." Obviously this was written before Sandy, but as you know, "weather is not climate". Also, I checked but didn't find the source for the claim of "record breaking pressure" on the link given. There is another link in the linked page, which points to a different post, stating that the Sandy's low pressure is tied up with that of Great Long Island Express Hurricane of 1938. -
cynicus at 21:54 PM on 3 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
So I've been playing with NOAA's online IKE calculator and data here and here for typhoon Tip: Rmax: 20 nm (size of the eye of the storm?) Vmax: 140 kt radius 34kn: 474 nm (highest allowable value) radius 50kn: 200 nm radius 64kn: 90 nm (no observation in the data I think, so just a guess) Assuming symmetric windfields I get 647 TJ. When reducing the 64 kn radius to 50 nm I get 587 TJ. Very crude numbers but 2 to 3x more kinetic energy then Sandy. -
Rob Painting at 19:38 PM on 3 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Gordon D - "If the Sea level did not rise, where did all that water go?" See this SkS post for further explanation: Sea Level Isn't Level: Ocean Siphoning, Levered Continents and the Holocene Sea Level Highstand "Maybe the Woods Hole studies are all wrong, and 95% of the rising happened in just the past 100 years?" No. You just fail to understand why the sea level trend in a subsiding region of the world is different to the global average. Relative sea level, i.e what would be observed in a subsiding region, will rise even when the global ocean volume is unchanging. This is because the land is sinking. When global ocean volume began to increase, as it did after the Industrial Revolution, then the rate of sea level rise off the eastern coast of the USA increased further again. -
cynicus at 19:15 PM on 3 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
@40 Dana, I value your posts and work highly, but simply liking to a blog which states something that cannot be verified is not 'a source'. If I would trust that level of information then I could simply go to WUWT for my daily climate info. I expect SkSc to do better. @41 DSL, thanks! I'll have a play with the numbers. -
GordonD at 16:42 PM on 3 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Thank you for the Link to Dr Mitrovica Video, it had some very good theories. His off hand comment that coral 3M above the water was proof enough of no rise in pre-recorded history, is not backed with any studies. This is a classic fitting of observations to a theory, and not forming a theory from the data. In the video he says never to use tide guages near 'faults' But yet the area of italy/grease the fish tanks are in, are known for volcanic upheaval. He did not mention when the tanks were built, but late roman era would be 200AD? Less than 2000 years of rising IN THE mederterianian may be less than significant. [SNIP] As far seas not rising, as I understand it, the last major Ice age the glaciers were south of Ohio and very thick. Over the past 30,000 years the ice has melted. If the Sea level did not rise, where did all that water go? Maybe the Woods Hole studies are all wrong, and 95% of the rising happened in just the past 100 years? But I have my doubts. For the record, I belive the climate is changing, and has always been changing, and the change in rate maybe anthropogenic in nature. The strengh of storms are effected by the heat of the air and oceans. But the media pushes activist theories that mankind is the sole cause and we need to stop the global climate change (as if we could), and at what lost oppurtunity costs. Anyways, I will keep my mind open about climatology theories. Please keep your own minds open about mans effects on the world, is no greater than the worlds effect on man. Thank you and Good bye.Moderator Response: [d_b] Lots of interesting things here to discuss without veering into pure imagination; implication of deception deleted. -
Rob Painting at 16:34 PM on 3 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
KR - A lot of commenters get confused over the global sea level trend, and the trend around areas such as the eastern coast of the US, which was uplifted by the presence of the gigantic Laurentide ice sheet during the last ice age, and which has subsided ever since the ice sheet began to disintegrate. The US is still slowly sinking even though the ice sheet has long disappeared. Therefore the two trends will be somewhat different. Gordon's confusion probably runs a bit deeper than that though. -
quokka at 15:05 PM on 3 November 2012The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
That second video is crying out for some perspective on PV. There is, as I understand, about 70 GWp of PV installed around the world. There is about 60 GWe of new nuclear power under construction. Assuming average worldwide capacity factor of about 13% for PV and 90% for nuclear, world PV capacity will need to expand by a factor of 5-6 times to match new nuclear capacity. All of these things need to be seen from a perspective of where we need to be and how fast we need to get there. -
Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
GordonD - I'm afraid that the sea level has not been rising for 7000 years. And current rise at many times recent historic rates is entirely due to global warming, driven primarily by anthropogenic factors. You are not supporting your argument with your first link, incidentally, which notes recent high rates of sea level rise - and says nothing about attribution. I suggest you take a look at Jerry Mitrovica's video - he shows rates of sea level rise over the last few millennia quite clearly. Pay attention to the Roman fishtanks, coral heads, and dates for solar eclipses as direct evidence. --- Sandy may or may not have occurred without global warming. However, the quite warm sea surface temperatures and higher total humidity made it stronger, and the blocking patterns driven by Arctic warming directed it to our coast - without global warming Sandy could not have been so damaging. -
GordonD at 14:40 PM on 3 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
The sea level has been rising for over 7000 years and since 1400AD the sea coast of the NY Harbor (Barn Island,CN) has lowered my 100 CM. Less than 5% could be caused by human activity. http://www.whoi.edu/science/GG/coastal/research/sealevel.html Yet alarmist repeatedly decree its all manmade activity and the end of civilzation is near unless we ALL do somthing drastic. http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/10/28/what-you-need-to-know-about-frankestorm-hurricane-sandy/ 95% of the issue is natural, why do some insist we are the masters of the domain and we can stop climate change with tea leaves and Co2 absorbing herbs. A skeptic who walks intp a den of "scientists" expects to be bitten, -
DSL at 13:26 PM on 3 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Btw, I've asked AOML if they can update the example set with a Sandy entry. -
DSL at 13:23 PM on 3 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
cynicus, you can figure it yourself here. -
Jonas at 11:13 AM on 3 November 2012The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
Some personal notes: I'm from Germany. Interesting to get an outside view. There is a lot of fighting about these issues internally, about price of course, about speed, need, feasibility ... I would like us germans to go much faster. I do my best, to productively use every possibility I have, to bring forward the issues of climate change, resource depletion, biodiversity, fairness (both now geographically and towards future generations) and change options. There are SUV cars, holiday flights, non vegetable food, etc. in big proportions here as well. The people need to be made sensible for these issues and trained. Sks does a pretty good job in one specific area for this (I posted the escalator graphics on dozens of sites and linked to them at every possible occasion: this is the kind of thing that sticks, even with people driving an SUV: they will of course continue to do it, but it will bring a little nagging piece of science in their mind (I have seen this effect coming up in one face: since then I am sure it works to some (big) degree). We are a global community supporting the sustainability issue: fairness now and with future generations. This is not a socialist european idea, it does not oppose the american dream, it supports it: equal opportunities for all. --- Three notes on nuclear: 1) Many Germans don't like nuclear, because we were a lot nearer to Tchernobyl, than you americans, australians, british ... were: in Munich/Bavaria, where I live, you could no longer buy milk, cheese, ... because they were heavily contaminated: the cloud was raining off right here. In school, we were told not to sit in the grass (Cäsium, Strontium and the like). Lobbyists who gain millions from outdated nuclear plants lobbied to forget the threat. Fukushima brought back the frightening past. You still have to be careful with mushrooms, deer and the like in this area ... Just imagine to be next door to Fukushima, say your neighbor town (you cannot, but you may try). 2) Nuclear hinders the renewables from growing, because it has a tendency to deliver all the time and cannot be easily be turned on/off for balancing the grid. 3) We already have enough of the nuclear waste, which lasts ten thousands of years and more: in Germany, there is a nuclear dump, which is threatened by break down and severe leaking ("Asse") and costs billions in urgency redrawing of the wastes. I don't know where the deadly waste is kept elsewhere in the world. If Germany could be an example of replacing both coal and nuclear at the same time, I think it would be worth a lot of short term investment, which would pay off many times, because the oil/coal/gas bill will go away ... And it would be worth the thing: the world needs proof of concept. --- Two notes on storage: they currently start "wind gas": storing of wind electricity surplusses as methane, in the already existing gas network (you already can buy that, if you are an advanced consumer willing to pay for progress). This still needs time for scaling up. Electric vehicles (+grid) could be another surplus option: charge them only if there is surplus. This asks for consumption pattern changes however (not be able to use the car if there were no surplusses or pay a lot for charging). -
quokka at 09:37 AM on 3 November 2012The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
It is instructive to read the UK government's Climate Change Committee The Renewable Energy Review. Page 75 shows scenarios for decarbonized electricity supply in 2030 with a highest renewables scenario of 65% which they consider to be the limit of technical feasibility by 2030. All scenarios contain substantial amounts of nuclear generation. The required build rates for nuclear in any of the scenarios are considered feasible and less than what has previously been achieved in France. The UK has superior wind resources to Germany with on-shore wind achieving a capacity factor of 26-27% compared to about 18% in Germany. There is a very strong argument for decarbonization of electricity supply at the earliest opportunity with high priority, not only for emission reductions in that sector but as an enabler to achieve most benefit from the displacement of fossil fuels by electricity in transport and heating. Cost of electricity is important as lowest cost will provide more incentive in the displacement of fossil fuels in these sectors. In the context that full decarbonization of electricity supply by 2030 or so looks infeasible without large contributions from nuclear or hydro, current UK policy of support for new nuclear would seem to offer more potential to achieve what needs to be done. How that pans out in practice remains to be seen.
Prev 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 Next
