Slashdot Mirror
Climate Change is Making Hurricanes Even More Destructive, Research Finds (theguardian.com)
Hurricane Harvey swamped Houston with seven days of pounding rain last August. When scientists went back to look at historical weather patterns, they reported Harvey dumped 20 percent more rain than it typically would have. The culprit: climate change. From a report: High-resolution climate simulations of 15 tropical cyclones in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans found that warming in the ocean and atmosphere increased rainfall by between 5% and 10%, although wind speeds remained largely unchanged. This situation is set to worsen under future anticipated warming, however. Researchers found that if little is done to constrain greenhouse gas emissions and the world warms by 3C to 4C this century then hurricane rainfall could increase by a third, while wind speeds would be boosted by as much as 25 knots.
"Climate change has exacerbated rainfall and is set to enhance the wind speed," said Christina Patricola, who undertook the study with her Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory colleague Michael Wehner. "My hope is that this information can be used to improve our resilience to the kinds of extreme weather events we are going to have in the future." The research, published in the journal Nature, used climate models to see how factors such as air and ocean temperatures have influenced hurricanes. Projections into the future were then made, based upon various levels of planetary warming. The findings suggest that enormously destructive storms have already been bolstered by climate change and similar events in the future are on course to be cataclysmic.
"Climate change has exacerbated rainfall and is set to enhance the wind speed," said Christina Patricola, who undertook the study with her Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory colleague Michael Wehner. "My hope is that this information can be used to improve our resilience to the kinds of extreme weather events we are going to have in the future." The research, published in the journal Nature, used climate models to see how factors such as air and ocean temperatures have influenced hurricanes. Projections into the future were then made, based upon various levels of planetary warming. The findings suggest that enormously destructive storms have already been bolstered by climate change and similar events in the future are on course to be cataclysmic.
Wetter and windier hurricanes going forward is not surprising, since global warming of the atmosphere causes weather systems to have more energy and the atmosphere to hold more water vapor,
This study is consistent with climate science assumptions going back at least several decades.
In short, this is not really news. Just more detailed simulations confirming the general model.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
"Scientists build computer model that simulates stronger hurricanes"
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
NO...the problem is that people continue to build in flood areas, designed flood areas or otherwise and they build their houses out of wood and other material that is easily knocked over by wind or ruined by water...and the more people do this...the more is destroyed when a storm does come along.
You know, for "gut" level parity with the science? We can't put all our faith in science, we have to leave some for bullshitter pollution funded liars.
You know, if it was a hurricane that had 250-300 mph winds and 2x or 3x the amount of rain fall, then sure, I'd buy it. But when you come up with yep, it's climate change, based off of 1 hurricane, I'll wait for your correction in 2 weeks. This amounts to, gee it's hot or cold outside, it must be climate change.
Now, if you had the next 10-20 years of hurricanes and they ALL had more rainfall, then sure, you can draw a conclusion. But one? WTF?!?
Harvey dumped a stupid amount of rain on SE Texas ( ~56 inches where I live ) for a couple of reasons.
1) It was caught in between two high pressure systems ( One in Texas, the other over the Gulf ) which is why it tracked the way it did.
2) It was moving at a blistering 2-3 mph which meant the rain bands just kept dumping water over the same areas for hours at a time. ( ~4in / hour or more )
It went from " who cares, it's a tropical depression " to " holy shit it's a significant strength hurricane " in a day or two.
This was due to the warm water ( ~85-90f is typical in the Summer months ) in the Gulf of Mexico and # 2 above.
Again, the only reason it dumped so much water is because it effectively sat on the coastline and kept drawing in Gulf moisture. The Gulf Water temps have always been warm in late Summer ( has been that way my entire life ), so I don't see where they drew the conclusion about the amount of water Harvey dumped and climate change.
Had it been tracking at typical hurricane speeds, it wouldn't have been able to continue funneling Gulf Moisture onto the Texas Gulf Coast for as long as it did.
I would lean more towards just bad timing with the two High Pressure systems coupled with the normal seasonal water temps in the Gulf of Mexico as the root cause.
some still calling this 'weather'? cease fire stand down.. there are mothers & children in every single town..
The enemies of humanity keep promoting this hoax.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
It isn't based off one instance you nitwit, that's just the latest example in a decades long trend. If you don't even look at the data how can you expect to see either way? Better luck next time denialist.
You mean to go with this bogus analysis and exercise in confirmation bias?
Isnt the goal to reduce mankinds footprint on the planet?
The earth will resolve this.
I sure hope next year the same kind of damaging hurricanes make landfall in more southern states because maybe, just maybe it will finally convince enough deniers that we'll actually start taking real action to reverse the damage we've done. People claim it's "too big a problem" or "too hard to solve" but that's just bullshit. Men and nations behave wisely when they have exhausted all other resources... and supplies are running low.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Oooo knuckle dragger name calling...way to elevate the conversation...better luck next time shit head... see others can do it too
The more time passes is more global warming causes more and more disaster, it is very disturbing
Remember, if anything bad happens in your life... or anything even bothers you... at all... it was probably climate change.
Before you laugh, remember, Roger Federer lost the U.S. Open because of Climate Change.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Because the stats are pretty clear...there's never been fewer hurricanes per hurricane season than past decade in the Instrumented Era (note lack of blaring headlines and press releases for that one).
But the initial Warmer videogames from years ago promised hurricanes were supposed to increase in both numbers of hurricanes and intensity of hurricanes. Obviously saying more hurricanes happened than actually happened (because computer said so) doesn't make any sense.
So severity the only plausibly marketable thing computer spat out this week for the Carbontologists.
It is not only wind storms but also things like the current firestorm in California or a crises in delivering food and meat due to crops being ruined. The enemy is hidden but think about it a bit. What bank will write mortgage for uninsured property? None at all. And what lunatic would be willing to insure homes and businesses when such storms are more and more common. The entire west coast should not be insured due to storms, fire, earthquakes and a super volcano under yellow stone. The Gulf Coast states also are at too great a risk to insure as are ant cities near larger rivers. The East Coast is a problem as well as the damage incurred by a single event could destroy an economy. In essence there is no reasonably safe place to live. As insurance companies refuse to insure the entire construction industry may vanish. We will also going to see wars breaking out as many areas become abandoned due to the high risk of living there. One event could easily destroy the US. and events will be more and more common.
Your post is somewhat misleading.
Most of what you've listed for weather-related impacts are regional, and those impacts are not going to be the same in every region or every season. For example, the southwest US is likely to become drier while the north central US is likely to be wetter. These are not contradictory conclusions at all, just the reality that climate change doesn't affect every region in the same way.
In terms of temperature, the Arctic is warming disproportionately to other regions. Although climate models project most areas to warm significantly, it's not all at the same rate. The models do suggest that one small area in the far north Atlantic might get cooler, which is probably due to changes in the ocean circulation.
As for extreme winter weather becoming more frequent, this is generally confined to the mid-latitude regions. Overall, temperatures are warming, but disproportionately in the Arctic. The result is less of a temperature difference between the tropics and polar regions. The result is a jet stream that's slower and, as a result, tends tends to meander more. The jet stream roughly divides between warm air on the equatorial side and cold air on the polar side.
In the US, if the jet stream meanders more during the winter, that might allow cold air to come south from the Arctic more frequently. Although the Arctic air masses aren't as cold, due to climate change, they might more frequently move into the mid-latitudes. The result would be more cold air outbreaks, but on a global scale, temperatures would still be warmer. This is primarily regional in its impacts and to some degree seasonal, in that it generally affects weather in the winter. This is somewhat new research and the confidence in this result is much lower. By the way, slowing winds in the upper atmosphere and a more meridional jet stream will also result in weather systems that move slowly and increase the frequency of blocking events.
Tell us about your fascinating life in TV/VCR Repair!
We're looking at 300 kelvin vs. 302 kelvin, something on that order, like a 1% increase in total energy.
And hurricane strength is based on temp differences and humidity differences, so you are looking at a fraction of a percent in number and strength.
That's my prediction. Even if the sliding scale is much warmer, even freezing, it's still just a percent or two more, on average.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
you are a tard as is your mother for having you
No worries though, keep sticking your head in the sand and soon enough you'll drown.
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
Like that smug self-righteous pose of yours is going to keep your head above the rising tide.
What does your hatred for ZIP have to do with climate change?
Or are you just going to spam this in every article, even though it has nothing to do with the topics of those articles?
I challenge you to show that your post is relevant to climate change or its impacts.
Would you like to discuss how a warming planet is increasing humidity in the atmosphere and leading to heavier rainfall in some regions? Or perhaps discuss how a decreasing temperature gradient between the tropics and poles is causing changes in upper level winds, more frequent blocking events, and slower moving weather systems?
Republican faggots drown in their own vats of bullshit, one after another. The world will not miss you when you're gone.
“2006: Expect Another Big Hurricane Year Says NOAA”—headline, MongaBay .com, May 22, 2006 .com, Aug. 7, 2008 .com, June 19, 2015
“NOAA Predicts Above Normal 2007 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration press release, May 23, 2007
“NOAA Increases Expectancy for Above-Normal 2008 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, gCaptain
“Forecasters: 2009 to Bring ‘Above Average’ Hurricane Season”—headline, CNN, Dec. 10, 2008
“NOAA: 2010 Hurricane Season May Set Records”—headline, Herald-Tribune (Sarasota, Fla.), May 28, 2010
“NOAA Predicts Increased Storm Activity in 2011 Hurricane Season”—headline, BDO Consulting press release, Aug. 18, 2011
“2012 Hurricane Forecast Update: More Storms Expected”—headline, LiveScience, Aug. 9, 2012
“NOAA Predicts Active 2013 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, NOAApress release, May 23, 2013
“A Space-Based View of 2015’s ‘Hyperactive’ Hurricane Season”—headline, CityLab
“The 2016 Atlantic Hurricane Season Might Be the Strongest in Years”—headline, CBSNews, Aug. 11, 2016
“NOAA: U.S. Completes Record 11 Straight Years Without Major Hurricane Strike”—headline, CNSNews, Oct. 24, 2016
Tip of the hat to “Best of the Web” from The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto.
*EVENTUALLY* they had to get one right...2016 was the "strongest in years" but was still pretty much meh, except for Matthew's impact on Haiti.
Actual activity in 2016: 15 named storms, 7 hurricanes, 4 CAT3+
Average (1981–2010[1]) 12.1, 6.4, 2.7
Record high activity 28, 15, 7
Also 2017 was pretty well above average: 17, 10, 6. But obviously it followed close to 12 years (2005, Hurricane Wilma) without a major hurricane strike in the US as it produced 3 major impact storms (Maria, Irma, Harvey).
"2018 Hurricane Season Expected to Be More Active Than Usual, CSU Forecasters Say"
2018 so far: 15 named storms, 8 hurricanes, 2 CAT3+ (Michael, Florence)
2107 and 2018 have actually been right around average for major hurricanes.
Science doesn't care about your opinions.
You put more energy in the system, it comes out.
So, look at your flood plains maps. Build to the floods of 100 year cycles, because those are the ones you'll get every 2-5 years from now on. Note the historic storms and hurricanes. Increase their power by 100 and you've got a good measure of what you'll be dealing with.
You have 12 years. And that's if you go to 100 percent renewables. It would have been to 50 percent renewables if you'd listened back in 1999.
And all the storm intensity and hurricane power that will happen over the next 20 years is already baked in from your inaction.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
BECAUSE THE FUCKING CLIMATE CHANGED, DIPSHIT
If it were all "these factors made it" and that was the end of it, why the hell did it never do it before, in the 300+ years people lived there????
It's because those factors never applied before.
So something changed,
Get it now?
Except it has and was much more deadly. I guess it's nice to black hole everything weather related before 1970's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Galveston_hurricane
"Science" didn't catch the errors.
A, "Denier" did.
"Science" didn't give enough of a shit to actually check.
How much other AGW research sufferers from similar neglect?
"denalist"
A hyperbolic association between holocaust deniers and people that poke fun at the obvious over the top climate change alarmists.
Do you even Godwin's law, amigo?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
These are the sorts of silly things that alarmists do that make any kind of productive discussion impossible.
Any reasonable criticism is dismissed by immediately making personal attacks.
And it is pretty telling that you aren't comfortable one the issues if that's all you do. You say mudding the waters of science? What science did you demonstrate there?
You associated someone with the nazis, you without any particular supporting argument questioned my integrity and education, and then you made some appeal to authority by suggesting science was with you.
Do you know what science even is? Go look it up. The underlying philosophical concept and method.
Where in that process does it say "step one, accuse anyone that disagrees with you of being a nazi"... or some other absurd ad hominem that ignores relevant criticism?
Your little post there surrendered any pretense at an intellectual high ground. And to make that matter all the clearer... you don't even realize it... and probably still don't after it was explained to you.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
See how STUPID "ZIP" (Zach Patterson) the CHIMP is (tried to take credit for what I solved before him) https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... (he needs to LEARN TO READ)!
I even SHOW ways to do it YOURSELF https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... (he couldn't).
Delphi/FreePascal/ObjectPascal HAS no issue w/ null-term'd string bufferoverflows - C does, C++ can UNLESS you do what I said 1st loser.
Tell us about CODE SIGNING (which has been STOLEN & ABUSED) https://www.helpnetsecurity.co... MY METHOD CAN'T BE (upmodded +2 INTERESTING in CODING FOR DEFCON no less) https://it.slashdot.org/commen...
"I'm a much better programmer than APK" - by Anonymous Coward ZIP on Monday October 08, 2018 @11:27PM (#57449082) FROM https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...
BIG TALK - Yet ZIP has nothing to show in programs. I can https://news.slashdot.org/comm... from registered /.ers liking/using/praising my work (& 100k users worldwide too). He can't.
LIAR ZIP says he has no account "I don't have an account, so I don't have mod points" https://news.slashdot.org/comm...
Yet LIAR ZIP says he downmods my posts (IMPOSSIBLE MINUS AN ACCOUNT on /.): "I down-modded a few of your post on other threads" - by Anonymous Coward "ZIP" on Thursday October 11, 2018 @11:31AM (#57461058) FROM https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> KEEP IMPERSONATING ME YOU CHIMP - this comes out every time, lol!... apk
I thought that climate change was meant to cause LESS rainfall, not more.
Climate change ate my homework.
No more hurricanes:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjcs-as9tTeAhWH7YMKHcUlDygQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncdc.noaa.gov%2Fsotc%2Ftropical-cyclones%2F201713%2F&psig=AOvVaw2wZbTdgkahmROQLVSR3l7y&ust=1542320630984535
No more rain per year:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiP5MTN9tTeAhWko4MKHSq3AhQQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.climate.gov%2Fnews-features%2Fevent-tracker%2Frecord-breaking-rain-arizona&psig=AOvVaw3ElYmd6HrMutEsfpRRR72M&ust=1542320720916471
Hurricane force isn't increasing:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjRmbiC99TeAhUE4oMKHSD0DL8QjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Frogerpielkejr.blogspot.com%2F2012%2F11%2Fus-hurricane-intensity-1900-2012.html&psig=AOvVaw0Vae3Mi973O36-0Cu4OUeP&ust=1542320814234412
The destruction of hurricanes is going up due to the number and value of homes in the path of the hurricane. Put more money in front of a storm and lose more money. The sky isn't falling.
I get there are regions. But you are also aware that there is a lot of politics on this issue that inclines people to say "whatever my problem = climate change"... the auditing and checking on that is often not great. And this is not helped by the tribalism that follows any issue permitted to become political.
To address what is and isn't credible... the whole topic would have be understood to permit discussion and debate. And as everyone is more than aware... discussion, criticism, and debate is discouraged on this topic.
Until that changes, I find any conclusions suspect as they haven't gone through unfettered evaluation.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Whatever your conclusion, we know the fault is climate change.
Climate change causes me to not agree with you.
Climate change causes you to be rude to people on the internet.
It is all climate change.
It probably is why you have irritable bowel syndrome.
If only we had listened to Al Gore.
*tears to eyes*
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
We have to wait for winter, so that they can point out it snowed.
Remember... it will also be dryer
Also wetter...
hotter...
colder...
Golly...it's almost like climate change is a change in climate.
But you are also aware that there is a lot of politics on this issue that inclines people to say "whatever my problem = climate change"
It's almost like climate affects a lot of different things.....
the whole topic would have be understood to permit discussion and debate. And as everyone is more than aware... discussion, criticism, and debate is discouraged on this topic.
Largely because the discussion already occurred among scientists who actually understand the data and a very strong consensus was reached....which was not politically popular. Scientifically, the discussion is down to margins of error, not the overall subject.
The "discussion" that is currently being attempted is not at all an attempt to discuss the subject, but a political battle. It serves no purpose but to obfuscate.
See subject: I'm so sick & tired of /. BULLIES. You shitweasels have nothing better to do than HARASS, STALK & IMPERSONATE little ol' me. I've done absolutely NOTHING wrong & just try to make everyone's lives better w/ my work that stops ads & malware.
* As soon as I post, I'm CENSORED to -1 w/ ABUSED downmodpoints by bullies like ZIP, who even admit to this. I caught c6gunner mocking then IMPERSONATING me when he forgot to log out. Zontar mailed me a postcard w/ THREATS on it, then LIES & STALKS me. All because you JEALOUS JOWIE "ne'er-do-wells" KNOW I'm World-Class & you're shit. It's why you hide behind FAKE names & UNIDENTIFIABLE ANONYMOUS.
I'm even improving my already GREAT PHYSIQUE by getting calf implants while you weezils sit around all day on /. STALKING & HARASSING your BETTERS. I repeatedly dust the no-mind bullshit blatherings you BULLIES post to attack me. Like always I WIN & YOU LOSE.
APK
P.S.=> This BULLYING of me is SO UNFAIR & is probably a HATE CRIME because I'm gay. GROW UP... apk
Largely because the discussion already occurred among scientists who actually understand the data and a very strong consensus was reached
And then they declared cigarettes are not only safe, but healthy!
The wheel in the sky turns, but life down here stays the same.
Wha? Your mom's stretched asshole is already missing me, Tinkerbell.
You're forgetting that these systems feed on themselves. The amount of energy a hurricane can suck up is based on how strong the storm already is. So if the storm is slightly stronger way off in the Atlantic, it can be much, much, much stronger when it reaches land.
Also, the estimate is a 4 degree increase, not 2. And that's assuming we actually do something about it soon, so 4 degrees is probably optimistic.
Refusing to acknowledge the tribalism, hyperbole, ad hominems, and other corrupting elements on this topic that are pervasive even in academia is not productive.
If you want to have a legitimate discussion, then you first have to appreciate why conversation shut down in the first place.
If you can't even acknowledge the no-platforming that occurred... then the discussion ends. That is the price of ending the debate.
That the discussion ends. That doesn't mean a concession. It means silence. Choose.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Looks like we have a fuckwit. Disappointingly though he's been modded up.
Also wetter... hotter... colder...
Um yes. It's called "change". The change is not uniform.
The only solution is to send money now to the new church and repent sinners.
I don't like reality therefore you're religious. Uh huh.
Some people were offended by this post...
Offensive? Well offensively stupid perhaps if one is offended by extreme stupidity. On the other hand we're all arguing on the internet here so that's unlikely.
You probably didn't give Al Gore enough money
u wot m8?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You've commented like three times on the same post with basically the same comment.
Do you need to breath into a paper bag or something Jeff?
What a twist ending if what you needed was to slowly inhale your own CO2 emissions... to help you... Seriously... calm down and try again.
I'm not an idiot.
I'm not the reincarnation of Hitler.
I don't want the world to choke to death on poison.
I'm not anti science or anti human.
If you want to understand... I can explain. If you don't... then go back to barking at the moon.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
A hyperbolic association between holocaust deniers and people that poke fun at the obvious over the top climate change alarmists.
That's one of the quickes and most irrelevant way I think I've ever seen someone brng up the Nazis. Well done!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Very poor trolling.
Please go away.
http://m.earth.org.uk/
Of course the hurricanes are more destructive. we are adding more heat, i.e. energy to our weather system. That means more and more powerful hurricanes, tornadoes, thunderstorms, etc. It also means with added heat, that clouds will carry more water. If an area does not cool down enough, then no rain, i.e longer droughts. Otoh, where places get rain will see a great deal more rain/snow. Places will undergo massive changes. China will likely lose all of their arable lands, though, they are building massive diversionary dams in the Himalayan mountains to steal the water from Pakistan, India, and southeast Asia. At the same time, America's west, including CA valley, will likely be lost due to drought as well.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Actually, nothing reasonable about your posting. The fact is, if you add lots of heat, i.e. energy, to a system, esp a weather system, you will change it. Our weather IS going to become more extreme, but another part of the issue is that weather systems will move. Hurricanes are mostly from South Carolina to Venezuela. Now, we are very likely to see it commonly run from New York(sometimes Maine ) to Spain (sometimes France ) down to Brazil . In addition, we should see a lot more hurricanes hitting CA, possibly all the way to San Francisco. These areas are not built for hurricanes. And most home in tornado alley are built to handle 200 mph, but will likely soon see close 300 mph. The home we built can withstand that( 2x6 studs), maybe, and I am willing to bet that less than 1% of other homes in tornado alley can do that.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You've commented like three times on the same post with basically the same comment.
You realize my name is right there on my posts, right? There's only one replying to this post.
I'm not an idiot.
Well, you seem to not be able to understand that usernames are attached to posts, so....
And then they declared cigarettes are not only safe, but healthy!
There was never a consensus that cigarettes were safe or healthy. But they do very nicely when igniting strawmen.
If you want to have a legitimate discussion, then you first have to appreciate why conversation shut down in the first place.
The legitimate discussion is over. It has been over for 20 years. We're now discussing exactly how bad it will be.
The fact that you want to ignore that 20 years of discussion is indicative of just how important discussion actually is to you. And it appears to be far less important than tribalism.
No, only the denialist being an ass points to climate change is cause of all problems. The rooted person will point to real issues and causes of AGW
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
is that scientists admit when they're wrong, and learn from their mistakes.
This is an easy thing to grasp with climate change: warming means more evaporation, and more evaporation means ore rain.
Your "denier" has said publicly he agrees that CO2 causes warming, so not really much of a denier. And unlike deniers, the author of the paper has freely accepted the critique, saying:
We expect the combined effect of these two corrections to have a small impact on our calculations of overall heat uptake, but with larger margins of error.
So a long way from bogus (there's still a lot of extra heat being absorbed by the oceans), and the result is science improved by true scepticism, rather than waved away wholesale by denialism.
Also telling that, of the sustained denialist attacks on all of the last 40 years of climate research, this is one of the very few real contributions made.
"Discussion, criticism, and debate" are absolutely and strongly encouraged - if you know what you're talking about. Go to any climatology conference and you'll see real scientific discussion in action, as the implications of new data are debated among many viewpoints.
It's uninformed denialism that gets dismissed out of hand. Don't mistake the two - and don't mistake journalistic sensationalism for real science, either.
is that climate change makes these conditions more likely. It's not that Harvey couldn't have happened before, but it's increasingly likely to happen again. It's not such a coincidence that the top two wettest cyclones are both in the last couple of years.
Our climate is changing.
Okay.
NOW WHAT?
Figure out an actual engineering solution that doesn't require us to revert to stone-age hunter-gatherer existence and kill off 99% of the population.
No political bullshit.
No bullshit gamey tax schemes.
AN ENGINEERING SOLUTION.
Until then fuck off and die.
A hot dry desert area got lots of water? THE HORROR.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...
The legitimate discussion is over. It has been over for 20 years. We're now discussing exactly how bad it will be.
It won't be bad. The predictions are mostly hyperbole.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Hurricane intensity does not follow a pattern over the last 67 years. You can see the data for yourself here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/tropical-cyclones/201713/
Hurricanes are more destructive because more people and property live along the coasts. More people and more property means more property damage
https://oceanleadership.org/noaa-u-s-census-report-finds-increases-in-coastal-population-growth-by-2020-likely-putting-more-people-at-risk-of-extreme-weather/
Good Lord there are a lot of idiots confusing weather with climate, then setting the straw men up.
I suppose if your team has decided its view, you have to stick to it not matter how wrong it is.
See here. Though it's still not enough to say if your city will be spared or not. We know enough to tell people when to evacuate, which is pretty damn good if you ask me.
Your post seems to be trying to cast shade on scientists, implying that their computer models are purposefully wrong. They're not. Again, these computer models are amazing things that are saving lives.
I'm not sure if you really intended to imply the scientists are lying for the sake of profit, but you are. Comments like yours are part of a broader narrative to discredit scientists in general. That narrative is coming out of right wing, pro-corporate think tanks who don't want their profits jeopardized. It's not even that there'd be all that much less money going around if we fought climate change instead of ignoring it, rather the money might go somewhere else. Somewhere besides their coffers.
Again, I don't know if you were aware of all this when you posted, but if by some chance you read my post, well, congrats, you are now. The only question is what are you going to do with this information?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Nice way to edit to eliminate a critical counter point. The new calculated range is between 10% and 70% which s a totally useless range, scientifically.
If you AGW religious nutters would stop lying and just present the facts then weâ(TM)d listen to what you say. But the fact parts do not match your AGW bible. Your AGW religion requires faith because it certainly is not fact based. Facts are not arguable but nearly every pseudo fact coming from your AGW priests is subject to debate and therefore is not a fact but an opinion and thus not science.
There is no point using logic on deniers, the stupid cunts are brain dead morons, who can’t accept an obvious reality. Most likely the usual alt right incels
You do not get to decide when the discussion is over. Perfectly intelligent, capable, learned, and aware scientists in the field say it is bullshit. Science is not done by consensus not is it democratically determined. Science is cold hard facts. The cold hard facts have yet to be determined and will not be until the people presenting data stop altering or destroying data that does not fit their bias.
Until that happens we can not have a serious discussion but the discussion is not over and the pro-AGW crowd has not won the debate. They simply screamed really loudly and smeared anyone who disagreed and silenced their ability to debate. That is not winning a debate. That is just evil.
As if Windy's version of logic is any better. He still doesn't believe Americans are more polluting than everywhere else, just because there are less of them.
The major cause is Americans consuming so much crap and pumping out the most CO2 per person, along with Canada and Australia.
it's accuracy isn't perfect, but that is by no means the same as being wrong. Science is about predictions. Predictions are not prophecy. There is a statistical probability of something happening, and that means it might not happen. On the plus side science is a hell of a lot more accurate than prophecy.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
We do not know where extra energy in the atmosphere will go or what effect it will have on such a complex system.
It could be anything from ice ball to fireball or nothing at all.
Saying it will have such n such effect is an assumption, not fact.
Welcome to science. Real science does not always adhere to our biases and beliefs. We have religion for that.
China alone is responsible for more than 1/2 of the plastic in the oceans
As shown by Edgar, Americans are #16 in 2016. Not even close to the top of the most CO2 per capita. In fact, Americans went from #7 in 2000 with more than 20 tonnes to #16, in 2016 with 15.5 tonnes.
However, Chinese went from near the bottom, i.e. 100-150, in 1990 with 1.97 tonnes, to #41 in 2016 with 7.4 tonnes
By end of 2018, you Chinese should be somewhere in the upper 20s, while Americans will likely be in the lower 20.
Even better, would be a map showing which nations are actually taking CO2 serious and doing something about it.
Here is the growth/decline of CO2 per capita from 1990-2016. We see Chinese emissions grew by 5-10 tonnes per capita, while Americans fell by 1-5 tonnes per capita.
Caffeinated Bacon(Crimson Tsunami) quit lying you bloody git.
We have actual data that says accumulated cyclone energy is decreasing over the last 25 years. Why would you go with a simulation about what supposedly happened, when you can look at the actual data? This is part of the reason so many (including myself) are skeptical of the whole AGW things - it's based on models and projections, but the models don't match reality. If your model doesn't actually match what's happening, then I'm certainly going to give VERY little credence to your claims about what could happen.
Even then, you have to be aware of the "data" as it's presented, because often it is massaged a massive amount to turn a decreasing trend into an increasing trend. And even rewrite history. Simulations over data, data "corrected" to turn downward trends into upward trends, and historical values and records rewritten to "prove" the models. It's a house of cards built on shifting sand, and this paper is just adding another wing to that trembling structure.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Today it turns out that the last major study which said the Lucifarian Freemasonry Club of Rome's Man Made Global Warming conspiracy theory is worse than what we thought was completely defused due to many mathematical mistakes, who would have known Man Made Global Warming conspiracy theory would contain so many errors?
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-14/climate-scientists-admit-major-math-error-after-global-warming-study-debunked
Now, everyone's favourite mockingbird UK fake news media tabloid finds another "study" for us to waste even more time on to disprove?
At what time will we all come together, sit down and finally agree that the Man Made Global Warming conspiracy theory is a hallucination, a hoax to distract away from terrestrial issues? Its wasting valuable space in every fake news media: from news papers to TV programming.
When will this demorilization religion of endless guilt from idle hands die?
It's not a 1% increase in total energy. There are a few ways to think about it.
1) A 2-4 C temperature difference (3-7 F) is definitely noticeable. It's much more than 1-2% in day-to-day life. You are looking at it on a scale where zero is total stop of molecular motion.
2) Most of the energy in a hurricane is in the form of water vapor, that is turned into heat through convection in the eye. As the air moves upward it cools, and the water vapor condenses into water. As it does so it releases heat, which causes the air to warm, strengthening the cyclone. Water vapor is stored much better in warm air. Google "Saturation mixing ratio" to see how much water vapor air can hold over temperature. It's not linear.
I hope this helps.
data is no so edited you fucking idiot. UHI is removed and the trend goes down. Fucking moron.
I'll keep playing with reality. You feel free to play in your sandpit of imagination.
Keeping to reality is how posts are taken seriously, just not by morons like yourself who find reality doesn't agree with their ideologies.
It just has large error bars so it isn't "proven" to 95% confidence YET. Do you wait until AFTER you lose a leg to decide that playing with daddy's power saw is dangerous too?
So when you say they cut the subsidies, this says NOTHING about the installations being cut. So your assertion is baseless.
Looked all over the paper for "the politics of the situation". Not found. But it is also your lie. you care ONLY about the politics.
The model isn't wrong. Neither does THAT appear in the paper.
So... wind speeds remain unchanged until they go and fudge that data? This is just the hourly FUD about the global warming religion trying to convert people. I guess they think if they say the same thing over, and over, and over, and over, and over again people will eventually believe it. Combine in some fake data, and voila!
Don't believe me? Nobel Laureate in Physics: See what he says about the global warming religion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM
You never fail to disappoint Windy, keep trolling along.
You are claiming #16 is a good thing? But China is in the 40's...
You are taking it so seriously you are still in the top 20. Along with all the tiny oil producing countries who still chop the hands of thieves and stone rape victims.
Congratulations.
You are still more than double the EU28 average as well. Why you so polluting?
From Wikipedia on Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE): Atlantic Hurricane Seasons 1851 - 2018 scroll to the bottom, see how everything goes crazy yellow and orange starting in 1995.
I think I trust this more than your crazy conspiracy site. Hey, but don't let facts change your mind.
Letter To Iran
A couple of years ago, climate scientists were insisting that climate change would cause more hurricanes, typhoons, and other serious storms as it progressed. This has largely been shown to be untrue, with the number of major storms remaining the same or slightly declining in recent years. So, in their relentless search to identify a global disaster that justifies their research grants, these same scientists are saying that the storms we are having are larger than before. Sorry, guys. Your credibility is at a low point and I will not believe this or any other disaster-mongering reports until there is a lot more evidence supporting them.
you're talking about the descriptive language they use. Scientists always uses weak, uncertain sounding language, even when they're 90% certain. That's because they are trying very, very hard to keep an open mind and above all be ready to be proven wrong. But to a layman it always sounds like they don't trust anything they say or do. That's not true.
Again, these models are being used to save lives. Is there room for improvement? Yes. There is _always_ room for improvement. That's what science is. You're never satisfied with the results. And again, this is frustrating to a layman because laymen want definite, perfect answers. But you should never trust anyone telling you something with absolute certainty.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
So Atlantic is global? We ignore all the other (and larger) oceans? Does the climate only affect the Atlantic ocean, not the globe? If so - then if I find a small, local downward temperature trend somewhere in the world we can - via your logic - agree that the temperature is actually falling, right?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Perfectly intelligent, capable, learned, and aware scientists in the field say it is bullshit.
[Citation Required]
Same webpage Pacific hurricane seasons and ACE above normal 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018.
From a different mainstream source:
The Atlantic and Pacific Ocean hurricane season is most powerful on record this year
Combined ACE of 221
Letter To Iran
I think I trust this more than your crazy conspiracy site. Hey, but don't let facts change your mind.
Here's a paper showing global ACE: https://www.casact.org/pubs/fo...
Figure 2 gives running means. The long term trend is up, but the paper suggests that only data after 1985 is robust. The trend since 1985 has been "flat to downward, but this time period is not sufficiently long for a credible conclusion."
Additionally, this is all consistent with the subject paper which found higher precipitation, but not higher wind speed (ACE measures the second only): "We found that, relative to pre-industrial conditions, climate change so far has enhanced the average and extreme rainfall of hurricanes Katrina, Irma and Maria, but did not change tropical cyclone wind-speed intensity."
It's worth noting that the same method suggests that "future anthropogenic warming would robustly increase the wind speed and rainfall of 11 of 13 intense tropical cyclones (of 15 events sampled globally).
Look at the total cyclonic energy over a longer term, you'll see it's trending down over the last 25-26 years. Or is a trend of a few years enough to consider it now on a permanent rise?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
and science in general. There is _always_ uncertainly in science (unless you're talking "Scientology", but I trust you know the difference).
If you want somebody to give you certainty join a religion or a cult. If you want to solve problems use science.
At this point I think you're either trolling or your a shill. It doesn't matter, you're going to lose this one. If the scientists win we start acting to solve global warming. If they don't the problems are likely to hit us all before you die. It's going to suck. The economy is going to take a major hit, they'll be wars. If you're young you might get drafted to go die in them. If you're old you'll suffer at home as money is diverted to the war effort. I don't know what you think you're doing, but this is not going to end well for you.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
there is a lot that kid doesn't understand. see how his signature bitches about sock puppets? put that in teh context of him recently being busted for using sock puppets to try to further his own cause and you'll have a better understanding of the depths of his hypocrisy and ignorance
There's a minimum temperature below which hurricanes will not develop. What is it - 280K? Let's just say it's 280K for the sake of my argument.
That 280K is the baseline you should use, not 0K. Then a change from 300K to 302K isn't just one percent anymore, it's more like 10%. And that additional 10% energy will wreak additional havoc.
So the data says it's either flat or downward, but somehow that supports the conclusion that it will be higher. See the problem here?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
No. Did you read the paper? It is consistent with the observations.
Just look at the pretty pictures you linked. Which country is bright red? It's America.
Look at the country data graph. In China the yellow power industry is less than 3. In America it's over 7.
With a quarter the population, your power industry uses much more than twice what China does.
How about transport? America is over 6, but China is way less than 1 (maybe 1/2).
You have a similar sized country with less than 1/4 the population, but your transport is 10x higher CO2 polluting.
Keep denying the facts you yourself provided WindBourne, it's comical to watch.
People are getting more stupid as time goes on.
Nothing is valid unless it covers thousands of years. We haven't had iPhone that long.
the Model is fine. It's not accurate enough to say if a city is going to get missed, it's just accurate enough to tell folks when to evacuate.
That's the trouble with science, it's not exact. Not yet anyway. Folks like yourself are exploiting that for profit, or trying to. It'll bite you in the ass eventually. Your masters will turn on you.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
... and now he's responded to being again called out as a liar by removing his signature line about how he hates the AC. that might make him 0.000000001% less of a hypocrite, at most.