Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 Next
Comments 52251 to 52300:
-
Dikran Marsupial at 20:24 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Eric (skeptic) You don't understand the analogy then. Loading the dice alters the distribution of values that you get when you repeatedly roll the dice. You will still roll ones and twos sometimes, but you will see more fives and sixes than you would if the die were not loaded. If you look at a single roll of the die, it is partly a matter of chance whether you get a one or a six, but also partly a matter of how heavily the die is loaded. Similarly, it takes a combination of "random factors" coming together to make a storm in the first place, but climate change alters the distribution of those "random factors" and hence has an effect on the intensity of storms (IIRC current thinking is that it is intensity that is affected more than frequency, but I not read a great deal on this particular issue). Just as you can't attribute rolling a six on a particular occasion purely on the loading of the die, you can't attribute the severity of a particular storm purely on climate change. However common sense should tell you that loading the die made that six more likely, and similarly a decent grasp of the physics should tell you that warmer oceans makes a strong storm/hurricane more likely. -
Eric (skeptic) at 20:15 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Dikran, it depends on the meaning of the dice analogy. If the dice has an outcome with "rainfalls could be 5 to 10 percent higher" then the analogy works. Storm surge could be another side of the dice with another few inches added to the surge. But I do not believe that a Sandy "event" is a valid dice roll outcome. The Sandy "event" as a whole was part of the pattern. As an example, had Sandy not appeared at the right time but instead a nor'easter spun up off the coast, but instead of moving inland the nor'easter lingered off of New Jersey pushing water into NYC for multiple high tides, it could have caused the same surge that Sandy did. A stalled front in fall could (and has) yielded more rainfall than Sandy did and that rain could be 5 to 10 percent higher due to climate change. -
Dikran Marsupial at 20:10 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Dale anecdotal evidence is not the same a statistics. Noting that there have been hurricanes worse than Sandy in the past is essentially a cherry pick as what really matters is the trends. There are proper statistical procedures for analysing such trends, so if you really want to make a scientific argument, then I'm afraid you will need to use the proper scientific procedures. Alternatively you could argue the physics, can you explain why warmer oceans does not affect hurricane intensity as Prof. Trenberth suggests? -
Dale at 20:05 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
chriskoz @ 21 I was in Innisfail for tropical cyclone Larry (cat 4 - Saffir Simpson). I know how destructive these things are. Larry had sustained 1 min winds of 205+ kmh at landfall, Sandy had 140 kmh at landfall (NOAA advisory 7-8pm Mon 29th). I apologise if I sound "sceptical" of the beat-up of Sandy. But I don't apologise for sounding "sceptical" of the climate change claims affecting Sandy. @ those talking about "loaded dice". I invite you guys to read the Wiki entries on north-east Atlantic hurricanes. You'll find a number of hurricanes worse than Sandy. Frequency is not getting higher as you claim. You will probably also enjoy reading about the 1938 hurricane (often called the Long Island Express) with its 260 kmh winds and 14-25 foot storm surge (also during a full moon) which if occurred today has been estimated would cause $40 billion in damage to New York. Or if you like, try the 1821 Norfolk and Long Island hurricane, which had 215 kmh winds which caused a 13 foot storm surge flooding Manhattan back to Canal Street. -
Dikran Marsupial at 20:03 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Eric It is hard to reconcile your interpretation of what Trenberth said with the particular quote that you actually gave. That quote describes the deterministic effect that climate change has had that should be expected to affect the formation and intensity of storms. Of course there is also an element of chance involved, but as far as I can see the quote you gave suggests that climate change is loading the dice, which is essentially the mainstream position on this. -
gws at 19:52 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Dale and others, The category of a storm says little about its impact. While it is still widely used in the media and for historical reasons, hurricane researchers have moved on and discuss more aspects of a storm. Particularly the hurricane severity index (follow the external links) is more useful for storm comparisons. I addition, impact upon landfall is not only affected by the external factors listed here, but also by i) infrastructure preparedness (e.g. construction locations; are power lines above-ground? and trees trimmed away from them?) ii) disaster preparedness (e.g. construction types; disaster kits) iii) previous weather in area (e.g. is the ground soaked already?) And there are likely some more. One of the reasons the east coast is not as prepared as the Gulf Coast, is storm frequency in the area. If conditions are "right", even a "minor" storm can do a lot of damage (e.g. TS Allison, Fay). Comments like Dale's are short-sighted, as they focus on one or a few aspects, as one would expect a denialist do. Meaning, without going to a denialist page, I predict with certainty ;-) that is what they are doing. Informed people consider many aspects, and although this storm is not going to be shown to have been caused by Global Warming, informed people that its impact would likely have been lower had Global Warming been addressed early on. -
adelady at 19:36 PM on 31 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
I can't remember his name but I heard a person from the USA on car radio today with a catchy take on starting the process. We don't 'rebuild', we must 'reposition'. I doubt it will be enforced by too many governments this time round, but I rather fancy the insurance companies might have a few things to say to guide people's future decisions. Insisting that insurance payments will be forthcoming only if people build elsewhere and that elsewhere must be further away from sea level could be one wake-up call. -
shoyemore at 19:24 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
A wind map of this time yesterday shows how unique Sandy was/ is ... it affected every state from Florida to Maine, and from New York to Illinois. A "Superstorm" indeed.
The "Only a Category 1" meme is pretty anaemic in the face of that.
One joker pointed out that the Candadian border guards prevented it entering their country!! But it also affected all the Canadian states along the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence.
An animated map here: Animated Wind Map
Thanks to coby A Few things Ill Considered
-
Eric (skeptic) at 19:24 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Scaddenp, I disagree and so does Trenberth: at Slate.com He said: "The thing that the climate is doing is that the sea temperatures are higher. There is more moisture feeding into the storm. That adds to the rainfalls. The rainfalls could be 5 to 10 percent higher as a consequence of climate change. The sea level is running a little bit higher. Sea level is going up a foot a century at the current rate." He basically said the hybrid storm was a chance event. In particular I would add that the upper level pattern would have caused a "normal" nor'easter had Sandy not been in a particular location at a particular time. The models could not agree at first (particularly GFS) because timing was everything. -
Rob Painting at 19:14 PM on 31 October 2012Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
Doomsdays - I'm not sure that hemispheric surface temperatures are the best way to approach this. Those will be contaminated by the ENSO trend over this short interval because La Nina is when ocean surface temperatures drop due to greater-than-average heat being buried in the subsurface layers, and El Nino is when the greater-than-normal heat wells to the surface and is lost to the atmosphere -temporarily boosting surface temperatures. During 2001-2006 the latter part of that period was dominated by El Nino (see here), so there would be a tendency toward greater surface temperatures during the interval - a tendency which would counteract the Southern Hemisphere dimming, and therefore cooling, trend. A global brightening trend during the 1990's, and a dimming trend during the noughties would, however, help explain their trends relative to each other, i.e a strong rate of global warming in the earlier decade followed by very little warming. But again, the picture is contaminated by the ENSO trend, and what appears to be a change in ocean mixing processes in the noughties - i.e greater heat transport to the deep ocean. A less complex approach is to ask what would happen at the surface if less sunlight was reaching it? Think of heat absorption into the upper layers of the ocean, the sea level trend, and evaporative trends. These are all strongly influenced by surface solar radiation, and are discussed in part 2. -
ajki at 18:32 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
From my POV single events like "Sandy" (or the summer droughts, Fukushima...) show the weakness of the "We will adapt"-concept [SkS] in a "Loaded Dice" scenario. The adaption concept, accompanied by the idea of shifting the workload to our grandchildren [WP, "Copenhagen Consensus", Lomborg] because they will be richer and more scientifically and technologically improved, generally leads to not spending any money "now", take the hits from events and then, after the event, decide to put x money into the hardening of the infrastructure. So there will be losses by the event AND a cost afterwards. And as the dice rolls, the chances are high for our grandchildren that the same situation will come over them (again, and again...). -
Dikran Marsupial at 18:27 PM on 31 October 2012The Big Picture (2010 version)
To clarify: Here is a plot of both BEST and GISSTemp for the same sort of period, and you can see that the land has been warming more quickly than the global temperatures, which is I suspect due to the high heat capacity of the oceans.So the difference is likely to be just the difference between land only and global temperature datasets.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 18:18 PM on 31 October 2012The Big Picture (2010 version)
@tksoft I suspect because the second plot is the change left after accounting for the effects of ENSO and solar and volcanic forcing. Also the 12 month running mean filtering used will damp down the variability of the signal somewhat. Oh and BEST is land only, whereas I suspect the second plot is probably global temperature, which includes the oceans. -
wili at 17:58 PM on 31 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
"regardless of sea level rise the long term odds for safety of coastal development are poor. Add in expected sea level rise and these odds become still worse; as years pass the probability of record high storm surges increases and the trend of storm surge heights is upwards." At what point do we start the planned, permanent evacuation of coastal cities and towns? Isn't this inevitable eventually anyway, at this point? Won't it take a very long time to do well? Shouldn't this be our wake-up call to start the process? What's the chance that there will be no more Sandys or worse in the coming decades? What's the chance that sea level will be lower when they hit? We are now under attack by the climate. It is (long past) time both to take precautionary measures and, of course, to stop providing 'munitions' to our 'attacker.' -
bill4344 at 17:58 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
NYC has a long and proud history of being hit by big storms / weak hurricanes
...none of which has ever managed to achieve this scale of damage. But that's only the reality of the situation, which is as nothing, when compared to your certain (error-bar free!) knowledge that this wasn't really much of a storm at all, and that proves something, apparently, in your mind. Just like those fine folks at WUWT sneering that the storm surge was only 'sloshing'. Superdenier indeed. But please keep it up, you're providing an outstanding - and almost breath-takingly tone-deaf/off-putting - illustration of just how extreme your movement really is. -
jsam at 17:50 PM on 31 October 2012Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
To the minor point of who are these scientists, try Wikpedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming. -
scaddenp at 17:39 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Dale, do you get the concept of loaded dice or not. Of course AGW didnt cause Sandy - it simply makes such an event more common as the statistics show. -
tksoft at 16:31 PM on 31 October 2012The Big Picture (2010 version)
Can anyone explain why the first chart on the page shows the global warming to have about 2X greater slope than the second chart? Thanks. -
ajki at 16:20 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
For german readers: As noted by some german newspapers (e.g. sz) S. Rahmstorf puts together some early thoughts about the very special conditions of this unusual storm on his blog [KlimaLounge]. And then, there is always the "loaded dice" [SkS]. -
Doug Hutcheson at 15:47 PM on 31 October 2012Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
DOOMDAYS, I think we are missing each other's point. I am trying to see the change in global temperature: you seem to be looking at the change in land surface temperature, which is barely useful as a measure of global warming, because global warming includes oceans, cryosphere, land surface and atmosphere. Therefore, looking at recent dimming due to atmospheric pollution and expecting to see a correlated change in land surface temperature is missing the point. Dimming may change the rate of increase of global temperature, but it cannot magically eliminate all the other positive forcings and cannot eliminate all the energy used to heat the ocean and melt Arctic ice. As long as the relatively constant sun shines on a planet with increasing levels of CO2 in its atmosphere and as long as the ingoing radiation exceeds the amount reflected/radiated back into space, the planet will warm. The more aerosols in the air, the more gets reflected without heating the planet, but no-one is suggesting that the aerosols are currently reflecting enough to stop the globe from warming. Thus, trying to conflate global dimming with hemispheric land surface temperature changes is not going to get enough legs to run with, IMO. Trying to extrapolate warming/cooling trends for the short time-span 2001-2006, is always going to be a bad idea, because such a short time span will have the signal so swamped by the noise that no robust conclusions can be drawn one way or the other. -
chriskoz at 15:37 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
With his post @18, Dale partially vindicated himself by saying an obligatory "sorry" to the 100mega victims. Up to this point, I had an impression he was simply disappointed that Sandy was too weak, perhaps he was expecting he will see something ala "Independence Day"... With such quality of argumentation, even with the "sorry" acknowledged, I still find any factual discussion with Dale worthless. How can I expect from such a person to understand/appreciate the slow-paced AGW, which makes the events like Sandy more and more probable? And how can I expect from such a person any duty of care to future generations when he ignores the damages to his peers affected by the storm right now? -
Doug Bostrom at 15:24 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
With respect to your earlier remark, Dale, the significance of Sandy with regard to climate change is what the storm tells us about vulnerability of cities such as New York. Arguing about the exact contributory effects of climate change to Sandy is rather missing the point. Or do you believe sea level rise isn't a problem? -
Doug Bostrom at 15:21 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
This website is focused on climate change and so-called "climate skeptics," Dale. Perhaps you could comment with your complaints at Media Matters, or write to editors. -
Dale at 14:42 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
I'm sorry, but my heart-felt sympathies to those affected by the storm. But it's hard to believe the media beat-up when NYC mayor Bloombery declares the city will be open for business tomorrow. How long did it take New Orleans to be open for business after Katrina? Question: if this system had've hit a much less populated area, and much less financially and politically important area, would the same media hype have been seen? Absolutely not. Whilst it's a very public tragedy, this is no New Orleans/Queensland/Japan. -
Doug Bostrom at 14:25 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Albatross: I find Dale's indifference given the scale of this calamity to be troubling. "I have other priorities" is the way one recent US VP expressed it. Question is, what are those priorities? Defending a doomed dinosaur? -
Dale at 14:23 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Fine, let's look at the facts which led to Sandy doing what she did. 1. AO is currently strongly negative, which pushes the Arctic front down across central US. 2. NOA is currently strongly negative, which results in a blocking high-low formation in the North Atlantic. 3. Sandy formed in such a broad area in the Caribbean due to uniformity of pressure across a massive area. 4. Sandy strengthened as she hit the gulf current. 5. The North Atlantic block caused a pressure compression on the north of Sandy increasing wind speeds. 6. The broad area and strength of wind moved a massive amount of water westward (towards the US). 7. Sandy was bounced towards the US by the North Atlantic block crashing into the Arctic front elongating the system across the eastern seaboard. 8. A peak tide (full moon) would have caused a higher than usual storm surge. So ultimately, unless AGW controls the AO, NAO, Caribbean air pressure and the moon, I fail to see how Sandy is a result of climate change. BTW, here's a good site explaining why Sandy became what she did. http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/the-science-of-sandy-how-a-category-1-storm-can-panic-a-nation/ -
John Hartz at 13:45 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Additional reading: Hurricane Sandy's Storm Surge Wreaks Havoc As Its Energy And Trajectory Stun Experts,Tom Zeller Jr., The Huffington Post, Oct 30, 2012 -
scaddenp at 13:24 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Dale, if my memory serves me right, you have persistently beat the drum that its only weather, nothing unusual going on, no evidence that warming is making things worse. Well what about the evidence in the latest Grinsted paper discussed with further analysis here? Note the correlation between temperature and surge. Are you trying to fool us or yourself? -
Doug Hutcheson at 13:23 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #43
When and how did you first become concerned about manmade climate change and its consequences?
It is only in the last couple of years that I have confronted AGW as an issue, although I have been subconciously aware of GW for some time. I was led to investigate AGW as a spin off from web searching for information about Peak Oil, which has been a concern of mine for a long time. Many people referred to AGW as the 'partner' crisis to PO and I kept hitting links to SkS. Reading SkS, it did not take me long to realise that AGW is something deserving my attention. IMHO, PO and AGW are going to be biting about the same time in our collective future: at the very point we will need copius surplus energy to mitigate and adapt to AGW, PO will be restricting our access to cheap fossil fuels. I used to regard Homo Sapiens sapiens as pretty smart, but the wilful ignorance about where we are heading is making me revise my opinion. Homo Stupidus suicideous might be closer to the mark. -
DSL at 13:10 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Dale, a .22 caliber bullet is considered small -- until the gun containing it is pointed at your head. Context is everything -- that's the first law of critical thinking. You would have to be incredibly dense to fail to realize that the danger of Sandy was in its not-simply-highly-unusual but actually unique track, combined with its size. I say you'd have to be incredibly dense, or you'd have to be trolling. Or perhaps you've been out of town for a while and all you know at this point is that Sandy was a Cat 1. Here's part of what Jeff Masters had to say: "In a stunning spectacle of atmospheric violence, Superstorm Sandy roared ashore in New Jersey last night with sustained winds of 90 mph and a devastating storm surge that crippled coastal New Jersey and New York. Sandy's record size allowed the historic storm to bring extreme weather to over 100 million Americans, from Chicago to Maine and from Michigan to Florida. 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. Damage from Superstorm Sandy will likely be in the tens of billions, making the storm one of the five most expensive disasters in U.S. history." -
John Hartz at 13:09 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Additional reading: Sandy's impact: State by state, CNN, 0ct 30, 2012 -
Albatross at 13:07 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Dale @8 is trying to make a strawman argument and . It is not going to work. Whether people refer to "hurricane Sandy" or a "Frankenstorm" or "Superstrom Sandy" or "post-tropical storm Sandy" does not change the facts, the storm was a record breaker: 1) Record low surface pressure, smashing previous records 2) Unprecedented storm surge along portions of the coast, smashing previous records 3) Hurricane-force winds 4) About eight million people without power 5) Up to 13 inches of rain causing widespread flooding 6) About4050 deaths and counting (not including the 30 deaths in the Caribbean) 7) Damage running into tens of billions of dollars, the final tally will only be known after several months, perhaps longer The following claim is a red herring and misses the point, "NYC has a long and proud history of being hit by big storms / weak hurricanes" Yet the 100 plus year old transit system has never seen flooding like this. But don't take my word for it: ""The New York City subway system is 108 years old, but it has never faced a disaster as devastating as what we experienced last night," said Joseph Lhota, chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, or MTA." [Source] I find Dale's indifference given the scale of this calamity to be troubling. Superdenial indeed. -
numerobis at 13:00 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
If it had been a category 5 storm, it might have been worse, indeed. So? -
DOOMDAYS at 12:59 PM on 31 October 2012Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
To understand that I'm "questioning" that indeed the aerosol forcing is negative in the SH and positive in the NH in the last decade of the 21st century -
Brian Purdue at 12:44 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Dale, you definitely fall into the “Superdenier” catalogue, and we can all guess why. -
Dale at 12:44 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
@ doug_bostrom: Care to explain what the "Morano Memo" is? I actually have no idea. And seriously, Sandy was not category 1 when it hit land. @ Doug_H: I refer you to the NYC website: http://www.nyc.gov/html/oem/html/hazards/storms_hurricanehistory.shtml NYC has a long and proud history of being hit by big storms / weak hurricanes. -
DOOMDAYS at 12:41 PM on 31 October 2012Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
True, before the 2000s decade warming in the NH is more pronounced in the SH qeu but I think that has more to do with the more continental NH vs SH, although it certainly could and should have also influenced the decline in anthropogenic aerosols emissiones in the 80s and 90s. But I did not mean for that period, but the period after the 2000s, (which is also part of the study period analyzed 2001-2006) where, for me, in the NH the heating rate is less than 2 decades whereas in the above SH is almost equal. Sorry I can not express myself better ... It is clearer now??? -
Doug Bostrom at 12:23 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Historic barometric pressure records broken by Sandy:Atlantic City, NJ: 28.01"/948mb 28.37"/961mb 3/6/1932 Philadelphia, PA: 28.12"/953mb 28.43"/963mb 3/13/1993 Harrisburg, PA: 28.46"/964mb 28.62"/969mb 1/3/1913 Scranton, PA: 28.69"/971mb 28.72"/973mb 2/25/1965 Trenton, NJ: 28.31"/958mb 28.43"/963mb 3/13/1993 Baltimore, MD: 28.49"/965mb 28.68"/971mb 3/3/1932 Harrisburg, PA: 28.46"/964mb 28.62"/969mb 1/3/1913
The Morano Memo says we're supposed to focus on semantics rather than facts on the ground. -
YubeDude at 12:19 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
You missed one. Count on this getting lots of traction as it is memed around the WUWT denialo'sphere. I found it on the Drudge so it is going to get heavy traffic. Al Gore blames Hurricane Sandy on 'global warming' The Washington Times October 30, 2012, 03:16PM Al Gore has to be the gift that keeps on giving for all the "deskepticons" like Morano, Watts and Harris. Consider the discussion regarding public perception of AGW like a person fighting addiction. They can stay sober for months while the empirical metrics build and build and build toward a reasoned conclusion and then one day Al Gore is mentioned and suddenly they are half naked in the streets, lying in a pool of their own vomit which reeks from the scent of cheap red wine and Climate Depot while mumbling something about "climate-gate" and "where's the 100% undeniable proof?" Best if you just stay off the radar Al. -
Doug Bostrom at 12:18 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Oh come on. Sandy wasn't even a category 1... Morano Memo has arrived. -
John Hartz at 12:17 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
@bharath272 #1: Correct link inserted. Thanks for bringing the glitch to our attention. -
Doug Hutcheson at 12:17 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Dale, when was the last time NYC experienced a ten foot storm surge with inches of rain and 110kmh winds? Sandy covered an unusually large area and was impacted by Arctic conditions from a 'stuck' jet stream. A storm of this size in NY etc affects a large population living near sea level, just as has been projected. Does an end-of-season hurricane impacting an unusual polar weather pattern justify asking the question: How did this happen? Prudence suggests to me that it does. YMMV. -
Doug Hutcheson at 12:03 PM on 31 October 2012Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
DOOMDAY, I am confused by your question. All the graphs you posted show greater warming in the northern hemisphere than in the southern. If the study is correct and there has been dimming in the south vs brightening in the north, we would expect the solar forcing to promote greater warming in the north and that is what your graphs show. The bigger question is the amount of forcing this dimming/brightening gives. Was the temperature of the globe in the decade 2001-2010 more influenced by aerosols, or GHGs? Did the dimming/brightening over-ride the GHG forcing? To my mind, the forcing from aerosols is not sufficient to completely negate the forcing from GHGs, so we should see both hemispheres warming. Your graphs show both hemispheres warming, so they support my expectations. Have I misunderstood your question? -
Dale at 12:00 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Oh come on. Sandy wasn't even a category 1 when it made landfall. Since when is a big storm global panic? So there was a 10 foot storm surge, inches of rain, 110 kmh winds. It's being beat-up like a category 5 with 30 foot storm surge, a foots of rain, 250+ kmh winds. Katrina and Yasi sized cyclones/hurricanes eat Sandy size storms for breakfast and don't even flinch. Sandy wasn't even a small hurricane. It was a big storm, that is all. -
bharath272 at 11:47 AM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Hi, The link for "Sandy versus Katrina, and Irene: Monster Hurricanes by the Numbers" seems to point somewhere else.. Thanks, Bharath -
DOOMDAYS at 11:22 AM on 31 October 2012Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
@Rob Painting Rob. Firstly sorry for my bad English Second..Great Post!!! , but are something that not match for me... the study afirms that the South Hemisphere is dimming and the North Hemisphere is Brightening Correct? So how is it possible that as GISS temperature data can show just the opposite of what is expected???
If the study is correct and the S.H is dimming, and this brightening NH, we should not expect the temperature falling in the SH and the NH will increase in the period in question? If I did not misread the previous graphs see just the opposite in recent years, the SH is heated to the "same speed" as before, but the NH "apparently" stopped warming to the "same speed" even appear to have "stopped", this interpretation is correct?
I would really appreciate an answer to my question...
many Thanks
-
Don9000 at 09:41 AM on 31 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
Brian Williams on NBC's extra half hour of Nightly News coverage tonight (Tuesday, 30 October 2012) has just forcefully pointed out that Sandy and last year's epic October storm in the Northeastern U.S. constitute the "new normal." He went on to point out that scientists have explained the storms will get worse due to global warming. Dr. Kevin Trenbreth was the first go-to person Williams went to in order to back up the reporting. Trenbreth forcefully identified the increasing ocean heat content as a key player in the changing weather. Then Dr. Katharine Hayhoe got a chance to speak. Very powerful. -
Andy Skuce at 05:24 AM on 31 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
There's a good article by Dan Kahan on the science communication problem, in which he identifies what he thinks is the best explanation (identity-protective cognition); what he thinks are bad ones (including misinformation); and what he sees as a fitting solution (separating scientific facts from cultural values). "Identity-protective cognition" means "the tendency of individuals to form perceptions of fact that promote their connection to, and standing in, important groups". In other words, motivated reasoning and information filters are employed to protect and enhance somebody's standing within their social group. Kahan sees misinformation as a symptom, not a cause of the disease. Perhaps this explains why dealing with climate denialism is so frustrating. We are carefully lancing one misinformation boil at a time, even as others rapidly pop up due to the underlying and untreated socially-driven staph infection that is actually causing these eruptions. Kahan suggests that the fitting solution is to separate scientific facts from cultural meanings. This would make the facts more palatable since the bitter taste of potential social-identity challenges would be less obvious. Many people here, me included, have criticized scientists for not speaking out more strongly on the policy implications of their work. But, if Kahan is right, the more politically reticent scientists may actually be the more effective communicators and the more activist scientists, like James Hansen, may be doing more harm than good when it comes to changing people's minds. -
Doug Bostrom at 05:09 AM on 31 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
Vroomie, I'm reminded again of this excellent interaction: "Why are you failing? Is it ignorance, or apathy?" "I don't know and I don't care." Meanwhile, the WSJ talks with a VP of ConED:WSJ: A lot of meteorologists, including one who tracks weather for The Wall Street Journal, were blaring sirens about this storm. In what sense was Con Ed was not prepared for the ferocity of the surge? We’ve never had a 14-foot surge in New York City — I don’t know how you predict that. We were tracking probably 10 different storm models — I never heard an inch more than 12. WSJ: What would ConEd have done differently if you knew the that the water levels were going to be 14 feet. I’m pretty sure I would not have taken out the [E. 13th St substation] in advance — 220,000 customers. We always…look for lessons learned. I don’t know, if we could we have got the fire department with pumps, the National Guard with pumps? You’re talking about a lot of water. I don’t know if there was any way to keep up with the water. It’s basically the sea is up into the substation. The same thing happened during Katrina, the same thing happened in a bunch of different places. I mean, the force of nature is just tremendous. WSJ: Any lessons learned so far to prepare for next time? I think it’s too soon to tell…We certainly have to look at the water, 14-foot tides, certainly we need to look at a plan going forward as to what we can possibly do differently. Maybe we can move equipment up to higher levels [like control wiring], but that’s going to take some time. WSJ
A lot of information packed into that sequence: "We’ve never had a 14-foot surge in New York City — I don’t know how you predict that." Arm yourself with the best information and don't let legislators tell you that you shouldn't know certain things. We’ve never had a 14-foot surge in New York City — I don’t know how you predict that. We were tracking probably 10 different storm models — I never heard an inch more than 12. Researchers are conservative. Uncertainty is not your friend. Legislators mandating that models be less reliable is not a good thing. It’s basically the sea is up into the substation. Get used to it. Avoid the problem by choosing wisely. Don't allow legislators to make you ignorant. I mean, the force of nature is just tremendous. True. Why make it more powerful yet? -
vrooomie at 05:03 AM on 31 October 2012NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
Composer99, as is the style of the drive-bys...after data, facts, and rational thought was laid out, from LaughinChance we .. hear....
Prev 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 Next
