Slashdot Mirror
'Half' of 2012's Extreme Weather Impacted By Climate Change
sciencehabit writes "2012 was a year of extreme weather: Superstorm Sandy, drought and heat waves in the United States; record rainfall in the United Kingdom; unusually heavy rains in Kenya, Somalia, Japan, and Australia; drought in Spain; floods in China. One of the first questions asked in the wake of such extreme weather is: 'Could this due to climate change?' In a report (huge PDF) published online today, NOAA scientists tackled this question head-on. The overall message of the report: It varies. 'About half of the events reveal compelling evidence that human-caused change was a [contributing] factor,' said NOAA National Climatic Data Center Director Thomas Karl. In addition, climate scientist Peter Stott of the U.K. Met Office noted that these studies show that in many cases, human influence on climate has increased the risks associated with extreme events."
It's important also, if you want to properly understand the study, to realize that it only looks at the negative effects. To get a good understanding of AGW, you need to look at both the positive AND the negative effects.
For an example, this recent study published in PNAS suggests that Hurricane Sandy type storms would become less likely as a result of global warming.
Anyone who only shows you the negative of something is trying to manipulate you. That's a heuristic.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Is that considered extreme weather? If so, which half is it in?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/30/a-head-scratcher-no-atlantic-hurricane-by-august-in-first-time-in-11-years/#more-92771
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/05/noaa-goes-full-alarmist-with-new-publication-seeing-agw-in-extreme-weather-events/
Can we agree in future not to post news items having to do with climate "science" unless we are at the same time including links to debunkers of said news?
It's obvious to everyone that the wheels have come off this particular scam. Obvious to everyone, that is, except to those whose livelihood depends on them continuing to find new ways of makinjg hockey sticks.
Are you saying that it's not obvious to Canadians here? Probably not obvious to Alaskans either, or the Danish -- the three groups that can look outside and see the immediate effects of the climate "science" "scam".
Personally though, I'm more concerned with the dead zones in the pacific ocean (caused by human pollution); these are likely affecting climate (and ecology) way more than our GHG emissions.
I am TEMPTED to reply with the short version of this argument, that goes as follows:
SCIENCE, bitches!
However, I'd tell you how I'm confident of my information. We call it "Geology", and it's what I studied and did 20+ years ago, before I evolved into an IT Geek. Specifically, Quaternary Geology, which, amongst other things, chronicles the glaciations of the past 2.6 million years. Which is proven by land structures, glacial remains like drumlins and moraines, and radio-isotopic dating of various types used to date those structures.
I also note the longer-term average climate based on the extensive fossil and geological record, as evidenced by not just radio-dating, but standard principles like "unless overturned (which can be detected easily by examination of the rocks), lower strata are older than younger strata. Paleomagnetic data yields approximate latitude, so we KNOW most of what is now the US and Europe were swampy jungles, which require a significantly warmer and wetter climate than they currently enjoy. And before you mention Continental Drift, paleomagnetic data was crucial in supporting that theory, as well.
So again, I say to your boggling: SCIENCE, bitches!!!
1) "compelling" - well, maybe, probably 2) "evidence" - not proof or anything 3) "contributing" - might be some part of it 4) "factor" - however small Don't discount me as a denier... I just don't like seeing "compelling evidence of a contributing factor". You can say that about anything and not be wrong....
Consensus? Oh, you mean that report by Cooks that erroneously claimed 97% consensus when in fact it was 0.3%? That consensus?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!