Recent Comments
Prev 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 Next
Comments 52151 to 52200:
-
adelady at 12:51 PM on 2 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Thank you OregonStream. I really don't understand Trenberth taking this line. There's no need to claim that the whole SST anomaly was due to warming. Equally, there's no basis to claim that 0.6C was the warming ocean's only contribution. This should have been a teaching moment about averages. If the average warming is 0.6, then there must be, by definition, areas of water both above and below that average. Therefore a good starting point for an area that is way, way over its 'normal' temperature for a specified period could be to consider that this particular part of the ocean is one of those above average areas. -
Shoe at 12:34 PM on 2 November 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
Paul Magnus, If links to such information are easy to come by, and plentiful, it would be tremendously useful if you could post two or three, since you have already vetted them. Once I see one article, I would have some better idea what kind of search words and phrases to use, to find more. But it is not helpful when you offer a whole book, and slam the person who asked for references. This is science, why ask others to reinvent a wheel that you have at your fingertips? Just post links, make it easy for others to see what you see.Moderator Response: There does not seem to be an appropriate topic at SkS connecting SLR with seismic activity, this thread included. Please arrange another location for continued discussion of the topic. -
OregonStream at 12:30 PM on 2 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
"However, note that during the hurricane event, SSTs along the coast were approximately 3°C above average, whereas global warming has increased SSTs by closer to 0.6°C. Thus as Kevin Trenberth notes, while global warming contributed to the hurricane intensity, so did natural variability". And can't natural variability regionally amplify a forcing? That 0.6 C isn't exactly evenly distributed, and future warming won't be either. As the NERC/Met office/Royal society statement put it, "We expect some of the most significant impacts of climate change to occur when natural variability is exacerbated by long-term global warming, so that even small changes in global temperatures can produce damaging local and regional effects". -
Vedran at 11:26 AM on 2 November 2012Antarctica is gaining ice
While not directly related to this article, it is always worth keeping in mind that the loss of Arctic sea ice is far bigger than the gain of Antarctic sea ice. -
Doug Bostrom at 09:29 AM on 2 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Pielke's the same fellow down on record claiming the head of the IPCC is corrupt. Pielke was wrong but I don't recall him public retracting his remark that Pachauri was guilty of "a classic and unambiguous case of financial conflict of interest." Why would anybody listen to somebody so gullible as to repeat fabrications and also so sloppy as to not apologize when it turned out he was spreading slander? Is Pielke only imagining what he says in this op-ed? How are we to know, without diligently verifying his claims? If we have to double-check what Pielke says, of what use is he as a thought leader? -
dhogaza at 09:09 AM on 2 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Well, RP JR has posted the WSJ editorial on his blog, along with a follow-up post, and unlike his dad, comments are open if anyone wants to pursue the generally fruitless diversion of rebutting him in the commetns ... -
John Russell at 08:12 AM on 2 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
When asked by people I've been summing up the influence of climate change on Sandy with the following analogy. It's like rain on the highway: it might not actually cause an accident but it 1) reduces visibility, 2) reduces grip, and 3) will likely mean that any accident that does occur will have a greater impact. -
Albatross at 07:55 AM on 2 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Wow, that WSJ opinion piece by Pielke Jr. is quite the exercise in cherry picking and spin, not to mention ignoring inconvenient facts. But I suppose one should not expect much from an opinion piece in the opinion pages of the WSJ, the same section that people like Lindzen and deniers have used to spread their ideology and pseudo-science. Roger Pielke Jr. is now playing the same game as the other contrarians and obfuscators and delayers who have exploited the very same opinion pages of the WSJ-- a paper that sadly seems only too happy to uncritically promulgate misinformation. Ultimately it boils down to this, Roger Pielke Jr. is entitled to his misguided opinions, but he is not entitled to his own facts. In this case, as in many others, the facts do not agree with his (overvalued) opinion. -
Tom Curtis at 07:44 AM on 2 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Addicted @24, the recent sea level rise began about 1800, based on data from Jevrejevya: The initial increase was due to the end of the Little Ice Age, brought about by a period with unusually few large equatorial volcanoes, a slight increase in solar radiation, and (almost certainly) a reduction in the Earth's albedo due to black carbon from the rapidly ongoing industrialization of Europe and America. (It must be remembered that in the 19th and early 20th century, trees in Europe and the NE US were so blackened with soot that the normal light form of the Peppered Moth was almost entirely replaced by the black form.) However, the ongoing rise in sea temperatures is undoubtedly due to the onging rise in temperatures which is almost entirely due to anthropogenic factors. -
Tom Curtis at 07:28 AM on 2 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Dana @25, the mid-century cooling is distinctly a NH phenomenon. Except for a slight blip coinciding with WW2, the SH warming has been continuous since 1920: As most of the Earth's ocean surface lies in the Southern Hemisphere, SH temperatures would be a better predictor of sea level rise due to thermal expansion. SH temperatures would also be a better predictor of glacial retreat in the Andies, NZ and or course Antarctica as well. Having said that, the rate of sea level did peak during the warm years of of the 30s and 40s, indicating that the NH roller coaster in temperature did have some impact. -
Addicted at 06:47 AM on 2 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Dana @25 - Thanks for your response. Regarding your point about the lack of decline in the mid 20th century, as far as I can tell, local warming should not have made a difference to sea levels. Or am I wrong there? -
vrooomie at 06:41 AM on 2 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Re: the BW article, Ive not checked yet but the mention of "climate deniers" in the *first* 'graph, of this *particular* publication, must be making spleens hemorrhage on WUWT et al, ad nauseum. Appreciate the link and as I stated before, we in the rationalist camp have a huge job ahead and this gift of time (the silver lining of the dark cloud that is Sandy's dire effects) to reframe the conversdation is short. I know it must be doing a little something, because some who I've contacted over the past few months are now asking me about this issue, in the new light in which it exists. Keep up the unending and largely thankless job, SkSers! We've got a biosphere to save! -
dana1981 at 06:15 AM on 2 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Addicted @24 - there was both global and local warming in the early 20th Century. I'd be more curious as to why local sea level rise continued during the mid-century 'cooling', though looking at local temp data, the mid-century cooling isn't easy to spot in the NY area. -
Addicted at 05:31 AM on 2 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
In fig 1, could someone explain what explained the sea level rise in the early part of the 20th century (although it does appear that the trend line is slightly misleading, in that, the real rise only seems to have begun in the 1930s). Is this just because of local factors (being Manhattan, there was probably some reclamation work being done in the early 20th century) or just random variation? -
Alpinist at 05:16 AM on 2 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
See Tamino's newest post for an alternate view from the business world!Moderator Response: I linked directly to the Business Week article that Tamino highlights. -
Doug Bostrom at 05:02 AM on 2 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Pielke ignores that-- as with all adaptation-- accommodating ourselves to the mess we're creating will largely be an iterative process of mayhem at all scales. The larger a single destructive event, the fewer will successfully adapt. Collectively we behave with little more intelligence than does evolution, as the very fact of continuing burgeoning C02 emissions concisely tells us. Cases in point for illustration are photos of some portions of the New Jersey shoreline where the vague outlines of street grids can be seen below water, many yards out from a new shoreline. Those streets couldn't adapt quickly enough and they certainly were not planned intelligently. -
vrooomie at 04:55 AM on 2 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Annoying, yes; but I posit we (rational, fact-based reserchers/scientists) only have a very limited window to 'trimtab' the conversation towards reality; as sure as, within a couple of weeks, folks exogenous to the 'Sandy zone' will tend to forget the enormity of it, and the MSM will, move onto the next "is the head dead yet?" meme. This is an issue that we need to hammer on, to take a perfect opportunity (unfortunate to those who suffered through it, and will continue to do so) moment offered to us by Sandy, to counteract the superior (in its ability to "Tannoy" its disinforamtion) to a gullible populace. This is indeed the tactic we need to utilize, and I believe we have had to use it for quite a long while, certainly since AR4 came out. -
Tom Dayton at 04:54 AM on 2 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Dana, I was hoping someone would write a response. I want to post it in some places where Pielke's piece has been cited. Thanks in advance! -
dana1981 at 04:42 AM on 2 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Tom @16 - this isn't the first time we've seen Pielke Jr.'s extreme weather obfuscation. If you boil it down, his argument is basically that we've been able to adapt to hurricane changes so far (i.e. better building engineering and better model predictions), therefore there's nothing to worry about. I'm not really sure how you adapt to New York being regularly underwater though. I'll probably have to put together a response post. Annoying. -
vrooomie at 04:27 AM on 2 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
adelady, my ex was from the Woodford area: even in 'normal' flood events, the Stanley River would often flood, downstream of Somerset reservoir, to an extent that she was literally an island, unable to get to either Woodford or Kilcoy. she learned early on to lay in a stock of provisions and water. IIRC, Woodford is only about 40 clicks away from the coast. Assuming flooding events might get more frequent there, that would put real kibosh on not only property values in that region, but its habitability. And that's just a *teensy* slice of an area that would be affected, just in Qld. -
vrooomie at 04:17 AM on 2 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Tom Dayton, re: 16... (Mods, please allow me this one time...) ARRRRRRGH! I hope someone will point out Nuccitelli (2012) and other recent works to RPJr, and soon, showing how erroneous his claims are. Time to put feet to (robust research fire). We really only have a small gap of time to do so, before the populace (outside NJ and NY, mainly) forget Sandy. And they *will*. -
Tom Dayton at 04:05 AM on 2 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Pielke Jr. says in the Wall Street Journal today: "Humans do affect the climate system, and it is indeed important to take action on energy policy—but to connect energy policy and disasters makes little scientific or policy sense. There are no signs that human-caused climate change has increased the toll of recent disasters, as even the most recent extreme-event report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finds. And even under the assumptions of the IPCC, changes to energy policies wouldn't have a discernible impact on future disasters for the better part of a century or more." -
vrooomie at 04:00 AM on 2 November 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
Paul Magnus, perhaps you should reliquish your preconcived notions of where my *question* (not a declarative statement about what you referenced, just a *question*) was going. I reiterate.. "As a geologist, I find this *fascinating*: are you saying ...that GW ~drives~ seismic and volcanic activity? *Really*? Please cite the sources of that data, given you assert "...it has been noted in the geological record...." And this, for fairness, "I remain *extremely* skeptical of the claim that storms lead temblors and/or vulcanism." So you responded with a link to a book, by Bill McGuire, with whom I'm not terribly familiar. I have heard of his work and he seems well-regarded and well-published. https://iris.ucl.ac.uk/iris/browse/profile?upi=WJMCG95 Now, again, I ask, it was you asserted that storms like Sandy "...could be one mechanism which is involved when we get sudden climate change like GW as it has been noted in the geological record that earthquakes, volcanoes and seismic activity does increase with the changing climate." This could well be and as a scientist, I *still* regard this with some skepticism, as it should be. "I might end up being wrong about that, but in the scheme of being a scientist, it would be a position we all are used to! We fail a lot more on early hypotheses, leading to credible and robust theories. Have you read McGuire's book? If you did, does it credibly demonstrate that in the geological record, large storm activity drives seismological/volcanic events, and how? That would be the question wrt Sandy, and I'm not entirely tossing it out as as a *possible* option, wrt changes sudden CC could induce. I have not read the book, but will give it a read and look into other "listings of reputable ilk" to see what is being said by others in my field who are more connencted to the hypothesis than I. I put a *whooole* lotta research into this subject, and your assertion was the first time I'd heard it floated as a possible consequence for the damage caused by Sandy: a stormn surge of 13-ish feet is a large amount of water, no doubt; I still don't see credible data that that *very* local, and *very* time-restricted event, resulted in greater flood damage than otherwise it would have caused, due to land subsidence. As data is collected, we shall see. Please do not *assume* I don't do "a bit of research" into this subject, and thanks for the tip about McGuire's book. -
vrooomie at 01:42 AM on 2 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
"Now, with a week to go until polling, the elephant in the room farted. Our discussions here won't affect it either. It's about pictures, not words." One of the first, and funniest (to those of us who think farts are funny!) vids I ever saw on UT...fits the occasion and gosh knows we all need some humor! Let's just label the pig "Sandy", and the dinosaurs as "WUWT" and "Jo Nova." The climate just farted. Tee hee...;) -
Kevin C at 01:34 AM on 2 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Lambda: I just tried a very crude calc of temperatures in coastal cells vs all cells for HadSST3. There are differences in the resulting temperature record, but the warming since 1950 still looks like ~0.6C. -
vrooomie at 01:33 AM on 2 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
"It seems to me that the whole climate of debate now shifts. For one thing, AFAICT, Obama has now won the US election. Governor Romney is now unelectable." From your lips to YHWH's ears.....:( Let's revisit this thread in, oh say...120 hours? We'll see. I sincerely hope you are correct, for then, as a progressive, I can begin to *really* kicks this Administrations a-double Q about doing something towards solving this critcally important issue. As someone else said, upthread, thank God this wasn't a *serious* storm. It was "just a sloshing." -
idunno at 01:24 AM on 2 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Significant signs of some exasperation from "Big Money": http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/11/01/1122241/bloomberg-businessweek-its-global-warming-stupid/ -
Ari Jokimäki at 01:20 AM on 2 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
I made a list of papers on hurricanes and global warming: http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/papers-on-hurricanes-and-global-warming/ -
idunno at 01:14 AM on 2 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Hurricane Sandy and Change of Climate It seems to me that the whole climate of debate now shifts. For one thing, AFAICT, Obama has now won the US election. Governor Romney is now unelectable. For this, I think we have to thank WUWT, Jo Nova, the Heartland Foundation and the huge political campaign donations of Big Oil, and yes, the little guys like Dale, too. They have made it absolutely impossible for the GOP to field a candidate with any position on climate change that is not firmly based on utter gibberish. That really didn't matter, so long as AGW was never debated. Now, with a week to go until polling, the elephant in the room farted. Our discussions here won't affect it either. It's about pictures, not words. There are pictures of luxury cars bobbing about in flood water in Manhattan. It takes a thousand words to even discuss whether climate change has caused this. Then here's a picture of the Jersey Shore pummelled to hell. Explaining that this isn't necessarily climate change takes another thousand words. Do you give up yet? No, well sorry, but your audience is now watching the baseball, and Obama has won the election. Those of you who visit WUWT may have noticed Tony's sudden aversion to tabloid climatology? (What he going to do? Launch a campaign to have the web's biggest climate tabloid - WUWT - closed down?) This should now provoke some interesting discussions. Governor Romney was backed not only by Big Oil, but also, and much more significantly, by Big Money. In the aftermath of the coming election, Big Money is going to have some Big Questions for Big Oil to answer. I would like to suggest that soon would be a good time for SkS to examine again the costs/benefits of Climate Action/Inaction, in the light of the damage caused by Sandy, and the clearly increasing danger of such damage being repeated in future. Heck! This was a local, temporary storm surge of 13 feet. Hansens's latest discusses the possibility of a global, permanent sea level rise of more like 20 feet (5 metres) by 2100. Still the damage caused by Sandy is going to cost a lot of money. I believe I read that NYC has an official report from last year, which estimated that if two significant tunnels flooded, that would cost US$55billion. They flooded. An update on the latest Monckton "adaptation will cost too much" stand up routine might be in order, as long as I can volunteer somebody else to write it... -
DOOMDAYS at 00:58 AM on 2 November 2012Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
@Rob Painting Another Question : Why in 1975 when The CLean Air Act. is fully implemented and the aerosols stall and becoming to fall ,the resultant brightening of N.H is aparently and inmediately reflected in the temperature graph of N.H in aprox. 1975??? Why ENSO No mask the warming here for a short time...??? sorry for so many questions and thanks -
Lambda 3.0 at 00:55 AM on 2 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Question about the Atlantic sea surface temperatures: The impact of anthropogenic warming on Earth's ocean surface temperatures overall is measured at 0.6C. The surface temperature off the North American coast is measured at 3C. Is there any work that can tease out the contribution of climate change on the coastal SSTs? My intuition tells me that it may not simply be that natural variation is responsible for 2.4C (additive). Would not the global forcing be like a gain, a multiplicative effect on natural variation? -
Lambda 3.0 at 00:47 AM on 2 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Today's Today Show included a segment where Harry Smith discusses the impact of climate change on hurricane Sandy: MSNBC Today Show Nov 1 2012 circa 10:30 EDT Smith concludes "something's going on." -
John Hartz at 00:18 AM on 2 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
At least 56 people in the United States and one in Canada died during the storm, raising Sandy's overall death toll to 124 after earlier claiming 67 lives in the Caribbean. Source: Superstorm Sandy's human toll mounts; at least 56 killed in U.S. by Chelsea J. Carter, CNN, Nov 1, 2012 -
vrooomie at 00:16 AM on 2 November 2012Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
As I demonstrated, increasing O2 partial pressure in a combustion engine results in very little improvement in EROI terms. And Dikran's correct: A 100% O2 atmosphere is lethal: ref: Apollo 1. Also, let me me state this a little more forcefully: NO combustion engine, powerplant, or anything else that operated by burning a/some fuel would operate AT ALL with pure O2: it is non-combustible, by itself. There ARE no magical engine designs that will work on O2, irrespective of how much money and fanciful hopes are thrown at them. -
vrooomie at 23:51 PM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Dale@82, I offer an apology, such as is necessary, for misidentifying you with WUWT: Your name, and modus operandi, appear there quite a lot, and I *never* visit Jo Nova--too fact-free for my tastes. However, your own admission that Jo Nova is your home site, as opposed to WUWT, stands on its own. I also happen to know a fair bit about the "Aussie psyche," having been married to an Aussie, and having a number of Aussie friends; we are much alike, Americans and Aussies, in calling spades spades. Fair enough...now, back to the science. It is evident by your unwillingness to address *directly* Dikran's reasonable questions, viz. IPCC's data and interpretation about the intensity of large storms, that it's an uncomforatable place to be: We've all been there, with cherished and tightly-held *beliefs*. However, as shown by Dikran et al, your stance is not correct. As gws stated, you need not agree with the interpretation of the data, but please let me remind you...data doesn't lie. I will give you credit inasmuch as far as the clearly identified "skeptics" who come to SkS to challenge the science--and challenging science is a good thing, assuming one doesn't use one's own facts and data to do so--that you sometimes almost seem willing to accede that the data is what it is. To that end, I am still waiting to see a clear answer to Dikran's question.Moderator Response:[DB] Actually, in a comment at 07:07 AM on 31 August 2012, Dale said:
"I read both WUWT and SkS"
With his recent conduct, Dale has decided to recuse himself from further participation in this venue.
-
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 23:45 PM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Should have said Yasi and Katrina were smaller (not small) in diameter compared to Irene and especially Sandy. Both Yasi and Katrina were still huge cyclones. -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 23:43 PM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Click here for a larger version of the graphic shown below, which also gives a quantitative comparison of the size and force of Sandy, Yasi, Katrina and Irene. Yasi and Katrina were fierce in wind strength but small in diameter. Sandy is enormous. We do seem to have had more than our share in the past few years, haven't we. -
Composer99 at 23:32 PM on 1 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Climate science contrarians have often been criticized for conflating climate and weather, and try to turn the criticism about when climate science discusses the impact of climate on weather. I recall seeing on the blog Deltoid a commenter waving away natural disasters with "it's just weather, innit?" as if to dispel the notion of the two being related. Of course, it's not really the conflation of climate and weather that's the problem, it's the backwards attribution. When cold weather or snow was a "disproof" of climate change, contrarians were effectively claiming weather drives climate. But the reality is the opposite: climate drives weather. -
cRR Kampen at 22:54 PM on 1 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
"Changing Weather Patterns Resulting from Arctic Warming" Yes. Look at the blocking high in forbidden territory, that is over de Cold Wall between Newfoundland and Greenland. The persistence of this pattern is unique. Normally highs tend to exist there for maybe a day - in transit as an ending block the high moving into the Canadian Arctic (viz aroung 1 November 1985) or, more ordinary, as a transiting high moving to the Azores region. The present blocking is highly, highly anomolous. And it has everything to do with Sandy's dramatic impact. -
Kevin C at 21:53 PM on 1 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Jeff Masters on the storm track, blocking ridges and NAO. He includes the same quote from Dr Francis. -
ajki at 21:43 PM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
"Thank goodness it wasn't a serious storm." The goodness might answer: "My pleasure. I'll do much better next time." -
CBDunkerson at 21:28 PM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Isn't it fascinating how Sandy not only wasn't a major storm... but even if it was then it had nothing to do with global warming? This kind of 'multiple denial' is usually an excellent predictor of a fact resistant personality. -
gws at 21:19 PM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Dale, are you listening? "[...] Sandy being influenced by climate change, which I called out since there is no observational evidence to support such a claim. Hmmh, maybe you could tell your definition of "influenced" then, as there are several lines of evidence, summarized in the newest post, that describe said influence. Always good to broaden your mind. You don't have to aggree on how to interpret the evidence, but you should not deny it either. "[...] the amount of times AR4 has been proven incorrect since it was published makes anything they claim suspect" And if you want to be taken seriously, may I suggest that being conspiratorial about the IPCC this way is trolling, at best. Of course the IPCC AR4 was "wrong" about some things (e.g. Arctic sea ice decline) and will be shown wrong about other things in the future, such is the nature of science. In ten years, we may well have the understanding and scientific tools to show that Sandy was indeed "caused" by a warmer climate relative to 50 years earlier. This site lists and describes what we know now, for the benefit of those who care to listen. And it shows plainly that you are wrong. -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:13 PM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Dale, I haven't moved the goal posts. It was you that introduced papers on the lack of a trend in the frequency of storms. I am asking you in what way this contradicts mainstream scientific opinion on, given that the IPCC reports say that there is no clear trend. It seems to me that you are "calling out climate science" while not actually being aware of what climate science actually says, which frankly is not very reasonable behaviour on your part. So, tell me: (i) Exactly how does the lack of a trend in storm frequency contradict mainstream scientific opinion. (ii) Why are you avoiding discussing trends in storm intensity? So far you have provided no evidence that contradicts the mainstream view on that matter. -
Brian Purdue at 21:11 PM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Sorry Dale, I remember reading that - pays to check. "Why don't YOU tell me what the IPCC claims then? Obviously me two dum two wrok it out, eh?" Stop trying to dodge Dikran’s question by being smart. You’re making it obvious by using the denier’s well-worn tactic of attacking the IPCC. -
CBDunkerson at 20:47 PM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Today the 'not even a small hurricane' named Sandy continues to kill people here in New Jersey. More than 80% remain without electricity. Fires still burn in half a dozen cities around the area. Gasoline for automobiles and generators is nearly gone as the ports and pipelines are still recovering from the storm and many local stations that have gasoline have no electricity to pump it. Temperatures are set to plunge below freezing for the next week, which will cause pipes to burst and leave many without water. Thank goodness it wasn't a serious storm. -
Dale at 20:27 PM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Just noticed the mod has commented on my post @36, and changed it recently. Stupid how it doesn't notify you when that happens, specially when you're on another page. Mod: "Add in the warmest 17 years in the instrumental record are all the most recent 17 years" And the last 17 years have also been my tallest. I also haven't grown in those last 17 years either.Moderator Response: (Rob P) 93% of global warming has gone into the oceans over the last 5 decades. See Levitus (2012) & Nuccitelli (2012). And note this graph from Nuccitelli (2012): I'm sure you are aware of this given that you commented on this SkS thread when Nuccitelli (2012) was accepted for publication. These facts make clear that your comment was simply the repetition of a contrarian myth, and one you know well to be erroneous. As such, this constitutes sloganeering, your third such breach despite being warned. Revocation of posting rights is sure to follow. -
ranyl at 20:06 PM on 1 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
"Sandy's barometric pressure at landfall was 946 mb, tying the Great Long Island Express Hurricane of 1938 as the most powerful storm ever to hit the Northeast U.S. north of Cape Hatteras, NC. New York City experienced its worst hurricane since its founding in 1624, as Sandy's 9-foot storm surge rode in on top of a high tide to bring water levels to 13.88' at The Battery, smashing the record 11.2' water level recorded during the great hurricane of 1821." Jeff Masters. http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/archive.html?year=2012&m 1624 seems like 400 years ago. Was also the biggest storm size area in Atlantic since they've been measured. Fairly extreme event to break so many records, lets hope it is a unique event, for if another Hurricane even came close that would be mighty unual, but still possible under natural variation. But this if this Hurricane is an indication of what Hurricanes are going to be more like (wetter, large but lower wind speed as so big) with warmer oceans and a changing climate, then the North East of American needs to start adaptating to the possibility of this being a more regular event. -
Dikran Marsupial at 19:02 PM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Dale, I'm surprised you can't see the point, as it was you that pointed out that there is no trend in the number of storms, even though this is just what mainstream science says, as embodied by the IPCC reports. So exactly what point did you think you were making by blustering on about trends in the number of storms, rather than in their intensity? -
Dale at 18:46 PM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Dikran: Where are you going with this? Seems pointless. 3.8.3 - "definitive results are not available." Yes some basins trended upwards and some trended downwards. But as noted the trends were opposing in the Pacific and Atlantic and correlated strongly to the ENSO index (when one went up, the other went down). Since ENSO was generally positive from the 1970's till about 2000, rising trend in the Pacific and dropping trend in Atlantic. Since ENSO switched early 2000's to negative, we've seen those trends swap. But overall, no statistically relevant trend either way globally.
Prev 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 Next