Associating bad hurricanes with climate change will backfire on Global Warming Alarmists

Great Debates
21

0.85 degrees is significant, but I haven’t seen a single scientist claim that it’s enough to create more major hurricanes, and the data doesn’t support the idea that there are more major hurricanes anyway.

I agree that climate change is likely to produce more major hurricanes, although even that’s not 100% certain, because some climate change models also see an increase in vertical wind shear.

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes-visualizations-of-increased-shear/

My sometime and possibly former allies on the right are REALLY good at using bad sales jobs against cilmate activists. for that reason alone, they should only say what’s supportable by the science. The idea that climate change is causing bigger storms NOW is just not supported.

22

Then we should see more hurricanes and more major hurricanes but we’ve seen neither. Other factors, such as El Nino, are still more significant than warming. And that wind shear issue might be happening already too, just like the warming waters. Just a few years ago I saw something I’d never seen before. A hurricane get basically ripped apart in 24 hours by wind shear.

So while we can acknowledge that climate change is already affecting the planet, it’s not yet going to explain major weather events. We probably have to get a lot warmer for that to happen.

23

Glaciers have been undeniably retreating for quite some time, and the climate deniers have been whistling past that particular graveyard since day one.* I don’t think drowned cities will change their minds either.

*They could raise doubts that the cause is anthropogenic but most of them take the “it’s not really happening if I don’t see it with my own eyes” tack.

24

No, but the data does support the idea that hurricane energies have been increasing in the Atlantic basin and are strongly correlated with sea surface temperatures, as I already mentioned:

25

:sigh:

When are we going to see a reply acknowledging what was mentioned and not the straw man?

Remember: this episode with Tyson should tell you once again that some media is dedicated to spin news about this issue in the worse way and they are the ones that should be taken to task, not the scientists.

26

Well, on the issue of climate change, Tyson is “the media”, not a scientist. Tyson isn’t a climatologist.

27

True.

But for what it is worth, he is well versed on the subject at least. A lot better than a talking head on a news show.

28

Oh definitely and I love the guy. But much like Sagan did, he often feels the need to push things he shouldn’t be using his name to push. Climate change is 99% a future problem, trying to get people to care more about it by telling them it’s a now problem is not helpful. I’m also pretty sure his “We may be too late” line wasn’t something climate change activists appreciated either.

29

That is a poor choice. “Too late” should not be used as it can easily be taken out of context for the modern sound bite world.

30

Global warming alarmists are a very small fringe movement with no real power whatsoever, and nobody at all pays attention to them. Global warming realists are a significant faction, and are gaining in influence, but they’re still dwarfed politically by the robber-baron faction and their allies the denialists.

adaher, we definitely already are too late, in that climate change has already claimed many millions of lives and done many billions of dollars in damage. We can’t prevent that any more, because it’s already happened. We can, however, still prevent some (though not all) of the future damage, if we act now. The longer we postpone acting, the less damage we’ll be able to prevent.

31

The goal is 1.5 degrees celsius, or 2 degrees, depending on who you ask, so we’re accepting a certain amount of warming. We just need to keep it from going much over that. And even our target is going to be very hard to meet. We’re talking something like a 99% reduction in emissions by 2050.

32

By the way, update. The number of ‘super’ hurricanes this year is now 3.

I’ll be the first to say that it could be a coincidence. You know, another storm, another Cat 5. It could just ‘happen’ for no particular reason, the water is warmer than normal this year because of ‘butterflies in Chile’. Just like if you shoot a guy in the chest and they fall over dead, they might have actually just had a heart attack right then, and might have died anyways.

But we have a clear mechanism of action. The reason storm Maria is another Cat 5 is because the water is warm. Why might the water be warm? Well, see, it’s the surface layer of water that’s warm, actually. Which is connected to the air temperature. Which might just be warmer because God Intended it so, or it might be the collective effect of all that CO2 and methane in the upper atmosphere blocking some of the light.

The “god did it” theory isn’t very falsifiable. However, if you stick some methane (or CO2) into a box in a lab you are shining light with the same composition as sunlight through, it seems to block some of the IR frequencies. Weird, that. And it seems as if the sunlight hits, the light gets converted to IR, and tries to radiate back to space. But now some of it has been blocked. And there’s a clear, well checked mechanism of action that might be leading to what we are seeing.

Are there global warming alarmists? Sure. Even if all the ice caps melt, and even if superstorms happen every single year, it’s not the end of Western Civilization. And worrying about your individual ‘carbon footprint’ is pointless - if you voluntarily burn less fuel, and enough people like you do the same thing, you are lowing the market price for fuel and other people will consume more.

A carbon tax or cap on everybody, with other nations doing the same thing, is the only viable way to deal with this problem. That, and subsidizing the development of clean power sources, until they are advanced enough to no longer need subsidies. (which has happened!)

33

We wouldn’t see a bunch of Cat 5 hurricanes in just one year. Next year conditions will almost certainly be less favorable. If climate change was a decisive factor in hurricane severity, we’d be seeing more severe hurricanes over a long period. Except we’re not. There’s no trend in the data between 1900 and today. It’s fair to say that climate change may produce more severe hurricanes in the future, but it is not causing more severe hurricanes today.

34

“my cat’s breath smell like cat food”.

What I’m saying that what you posted has been my line for ages. But it is very sad to use a very sorry attempt at discrediting someone when the scientist (and yes, Tyson is a scientist, this silly aside of “not being a scientist” has been a mantra coming from deniers and conservative media) that, granted that he is not an expert in climate, but he is correct on the whole in this matter.

35

Maybe because if you stretch your graph to 1900 you’re going to be filtering out the most recent, and significant measurable warming.

See the plot :
History of global surface temperature since 1880

Admittedly, you probably are the type who wouldn’t trust a federal government source, but it’s the most credible data we have. See that spike at the end? It could very well be that in order to have a significant effect on hurricane strength, the last fraction of a degree C may matter. Weather is not a linear system. A whole 0.1 degrees in 3 years.

Obviously, we’ll see. Frankly, I was skeptical about the predictions of extreme weather as a result of global warming, myself. Logically, you would assume that if the whole earth is a bit warmer, the temperature gradients are the same, so the weather systems would be no stronger. (the difference between 50 and 60 degree water and between 70 and 80 degree water is 10 degrees either way)

But the data is looking suspicious. Maybe if next year it’s a calm season, well, ok. But if these superstorms start being a yearly thing, I don’t see how you will be able to maintain your position of denial.

36

I don’t question the data on ocean warming. I just observe that even taking the most recent 10 years into account, we’re not seeing growth in hurricanes or severity. Unless you count maybe this year, but there’s no evidence that this one year we reached some kind of tipping point.

37

Again, read post #4

And again, uncertainty is not your friend, you are then betting that what may happen (more hurricanes) may be added to the more certain costly items like ocean acidification, ocean rise, increase on droughts and floods (depending on the area). And once again due to humans still treating the atmosphere as a sewer.

38

This key point is worth repeating.

39

Why do you keep ignoring the facts that have already been cited for you? Here, maybe a direct quote might help, from Kerry Emanuel, one of the foremost hurricane researchers in the world. Incidentally, Emanuel is a traditional moderate Republican who has argued that conservatives have many practical and ideological reasons to support clean energy policies and technologies, and is frustrated by what he regards as short-sighted scientific illiterates who have come to dominate the conservative side of the debate:
I was surprised. When I did this analysis in the Nature paper, I wasn’t even looking for any kind of global trends. And global warming was far from my mind. I was looking for natural variability in the amount of energy expended by hurricanes. And you could see the natural variability, but on top of that, it’s this trend that we couldn’t really get rid of. It became worrying, and led to the Nature paper.

We find that in the Pacific, as well as in the Atlantic, there’s this excellent correlation between this measure of hurricane energy that we developed and the temperature of the tropical ocean. It’s very in concert on all kinds of different time scales. And the amount of energy expended by hurricanes has gone up in the last 50 years by somewhere between 50 and 80 percent.

If all we had to go on was the hurricane data, I don’t think we would be terribly alarmed. We’d just say, well, it’s been changing the last 25, 30 years, so what? It’s the correlation with sea surface temperature and the fact that that trend is unprecedented for a long time that has us worried.

I suppose that depends on whether one is a marketeer trying to sell something or whether one is a scientist conveying the full and objective facts. Given all the climate changes that have already happened, and given the commitment to further warming due to the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere and the time it will take to significantly reduce further emissions, for many purposes and by many criteria it’s already too late. It’s too late to prevent regional climate changes, worse and more frequent heat waves and other extreme weather, and general climate destabilization for hundreds of years to come. The realistic goal now is to minimize further disruption as much as possible.

40

Brisbane, the capital of Q’land, is in *South[/] Queensland.

Regarding the vic water-management boondogle, I didn’t, of course, claim that people remembered who caused it: only that it contributed to the loss of government by those responsible.