eh, I’m sure last time I was paying attention to Queensland weather it was further north than that. That may well have been in a previous year, however.
Yes, we keep chucking out governments who spend shit-tons of our money on overpriced projects, so it’s a bit of a revolving door. Bracks had the desal plant. Baillieu had the East-West link, so then we had to chuck HIM out too, and it’s back to Labor again.
People didn’t hate the desal plant because they don’t believe in Global Warming, they hated it because it was five times dearer than it had to be. The common link in all these deeply unpopular projects is trumped up and opaque *financial * justifications for spending our money on secretive and inefficient PPPs that are probably lining the pockets of both parties successively
That’s so polite … Australian political parties taking turns lining their pockets … that sounds like a big money saver, something perhaps the USA should look into …
Speaking of inept government institutions … the Alarmists are absolutely correct being alarmed at the lack of “top level” action, we all should be as well … those of us well informed and with expertise in the political situation concerning Climate Change must continue to speak out, keep this issue at the forefront of political dialogue … these polls and surveys keep saying we have the votes to throw Big Oil out of Washington D.C. … let’s get busy folks, it’s long past time we break Exxon’s balls with a sledge hammer …
Whatever else can be said about Al Gore … he did the right thing bring this matter to the public conversation … I might not agree with everything he says, but it still needs to be said … the same goes for GIGObuster, keep posting my friend, you are changing people’s minds …
The bottom-up part of the solution is just as important as the top-down part … as individuals and as communities, we can change the world …
Ummm…Gb, you are kind of making my point for me in how readily alarmists misinterpret the science…
There is no science supporting the notion that the current bad hurricanes are related to climate change.
It appears one of us did not “read the thing,” but I suggest that person is you.
Let’s read this together:
“Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century…”
I added the underlining to help focus your attention. May I suggest digesting the “end of the 21st century” part before you hop to the very exciting “more intense” part. Then take a quick peek at your calendar to remind yourself whether we are at the end of the 21st century. (Hint: No. This is 2017, so 75 years or so to go still, to see if that prediction is correct.)
To review my point once again:
There is no science supporting the notion that current North Atlantic hurricanes are a harbinger of global warming. If you take the overall record of hurricanes over the past 150 years or so, there is no evidence they are getting more intense or more frequent than they were in the past. Hurricanes tend to run in cycles. Quiet cycles. Noisy cycles. Further, 100 years ago we had nowhere near the tracking science we have now, so any huge storms at sea which lost power by the time they got to People Who Could Measure would not have even been properly recorded with the correct overall intensity.
If you find science to the contrary, by all means post it.
My point is that the Chicken Littles hollering that the sky is falling because they personally decide they just saw a piece of it will damage the cause of climate change alarm by raising a false alarm–even if the sky really is going to fall in the future.
Confirmation bias from an event science says is not a confirming event is not a good strategy by which to convince the world of the Great Cause at hand. It will backfire when it turns out it was a false alarm.
With hurricanes in particular, we’ve just come off a very quiet North Atlantic cycle. When the weather returns to a quiescent cycle, what happens is that leadership credence is damaged because of all the wolf-crying over something that no scientific analysis said was evidence of the wolf in the first place.
LOL.
I deny that there is any science suggesting the current spate of bad hurricanes is evidence for climate change. Generally I am on board with modeling that suggests greenhouse gases force atmospheric warming, and that therefore anthropogenic climate change exists. I am on the fence about most of the net effects, since we humans are psychologically inclined to love Doom predictions despite our horrible track record at predicting very far out. FWIW, I also do not think AGW is anywhere near the top set of concerns we should have if we just want to Save the Planet. But it’s exciting, isn’t it? Super good fuzzies for a lot of people, and with yet another huge hurricane boinking Puerto Rico, the deliciousness around “I told you so!!” is about as tasty as it gets, even if it is completely misguided.
PS:
I also deny that Jackie likes variety. It appears that, if she can put a label on an individual with whom she does not agree, she doesn’t even want to listen.
But don’t worry; there are many like you on both sides of everything in this very polarized world, so even if you don’t like a variety of inputs into the way you come to a given position, you can be reassured you will not be lonely. Many others will be at your side with equally uninformed but sincerely-held beliefs.
My position is that associating bad hurricanes with climate change will backfire on Global Warming Alarmists, because this is an unscientific position. There is no science supporting current North Atlantic hurricane frequency or intensity with climate change (anthropogenic or otherwise).
I believe this strategy will backfire because, when a quiescent cycle returns, those who bought into this idea will feel duped. As such, it will be even more difficult to mobilize people to any action costing them personal sacrifice or currency. If the sky is actually falling and we need to do something about it, it’s important not to holler “See, here’s a piece of the sky falling!!” at every leaf that drops off a tree. If you do that, then after a while it will be hard to mobilize support against the sky actually falling.
This is not how rational thought works. There is a clear mechanism of action between hurricane strength and water temperature. There’s a clear mechanism of action between air temperature and surface water temperature. There’s a clear mechanism of action between green house gasses and air temperature.
So the 3 bad hurricanes in a row aren’t enough evidence to shift your assumptions all the way over, of course, because it needs to be over multiple years. But you should have adjusted your assumptions a little bit, because this is evidence, and it’s pointing in the direction of the possibility of climate change being responsible.
No rational being is 100% certain about anything. Maybe you thought it was 80% that hurricanes are just random events on a cycle of their own, unrelated to water temperature. But you should update with this new evidence. Some smaller percent chance now that hurricanes are purely random and unrelated to surface temperature.
Basically, all of the denialists’ claims are unscientific, and it hasn’t blown up in their faces. In fact, the president of the United States and many members of Congress agree with the denialists. So, I guess, thank you for your concern?
As to intensity (versus frequency), “the major hurricane data are considered even less reliable than the other two records in the early parts of the record,” which should make intuitive sense if you have followed current hurricanes, some of which were Cat 4 or 5 out in the Atlantic, but lower in intensity upon reaching the US. 100 years ago we would have no idea what they were before they hit. Here is a graph showing some of the summary data.
I do not argue against modeling (which is beyond my ability to critique) that suggests that hurricanes may become worse toward the end of the century. I argue that there is no good scientific basis for suggesting that current hurricanes are a harbinger that climate change is at hand…and that it is counter-productive for the alarmist cause to present them as such.
I am a bit confused around the point you are making.
Using this summary chart, what is your conclusion about the relationship between Atlantic SST and hurricanes, using the trends shown in the second, fourth, fifth and sixth graphs (Atlantic SST, hurricane counts, and landfall hurricane counts)?
So, besides letting all know that you skipped the early explanation, you tell them now that I omitted that I indeed said that there is no effect seen in the number of hurricanes. The issue now is indeed that basic physics tell us that the intensity of the hurricanes is related to things like the ocean rise and the increase of water vapor in a warming world. (Items that you deftly avoided dealing with) The point that you missed spectacularly is that those effects are happening now and will most likely increase in the future.
The main point stands, you are just insisting that we should ignore **that **and also that on top of all that we should ignore that by the end of the century that then we might, just might find out that the hurricane numbers also increase. You are like a doctor that is telling an smoker that the mild emphysema can be controlled now, but to not quit just because cancer would be unlikely. Of course that makes no sense, just like your post. The intensity the scientists are talking about is related to the increase in energy, water vapor and the ocean rise that continues in a warming world due to humans dumping more global warming gases into the atmosphere.
Of course just like the doctors in the pockets of the tobacco companies deniers of climate change also make assumptions about what scientists and posters like me are saying.
I think it has to be pointed out here that **wolfpup **was remarking about intensity not an increase in the number of the hurricanes. You are not even wrong. Of course you do notice after that asinine aside:
You argue with one opinion that is not the only or final word on the matter. What is even sadder is that it was already pointed before that the source you pointed at (once again, there is no complain about the lack of an increase in numbers) also mentions that the intensity is increasing. Of course your hung up is that it reports that it will be by the end of the century, but that is once again like a doctor that tells a smoker to not mind that a condition is beginning to increase now.
50 years is not “cherry-picked”. 50 years represents, in round numbers, the amount of time that we’ve had comprehensive satellite coverage of storms over the open oceans, most notably over those areas where PDIs have been significantly increasing. Before that time the data was just not accurate enough to determine anything, a point which you at least partially acknowledge (with regard to intensity) later in your own post.
Are you at all troubled by the fact that you are contradicting one of the most prominent hurricane experts in the world?
Sigh…
Look, Gb; I am not going to pretend that I understand how the modeling of Emmanuel and others predicts a rise in intensity or frequency. I don’t have the ken to weigh in on whether or not they are good models. (I am skeptical that ocean rise and water vapor are the explanations for intensity–more likely those are explanations for the increased amount of damage predicted to occur from a storm with the same PDI.)
What I am trying to get across is that there is no science supporting the idea that the current hurricanes are harbingers of those models, because there is no data supporting an increase in hurricane intensity or frequency over the last 150 years or so. I gave you a pretty good article reviewing the data and you continue to insist these things are “happening now.”
Do you have some kind of hurricane record data beyond what I have given you? I am not interested in arguing about what models predict. I am interested in using science to make statements, and not PR.
Back to my original point, for which I will use your own smoker-physician analogy:
Smoker comes to see me. I tell him he’s gonna be sorry in the future. He doesn’t listen. So I take an xray, point out some completely unrelated “shadow” on it and tell him the effects are already starting, because here’s the proof.
This is bad doctoring, for the same reason that jumping on the hurricane-climate change bandwagon with the current hurricanes is a bad alarming. No data supports the idea that the patient’s xray finding is from smoking. When, between now and the future, he finds out that said smoking harbinger was not a harbinger at all, he’s less likely to stop smoking because I lost credibility.
What is highly likely to happen with hurricanes is that we will simmer down to a quiet cycle, and when we do, those who hyped them will have cost the climate change alarmists credibility currency. I see this play out every day with the climate change battle for hearts and sacrifice. It is simply not helpful to cry wolf without data, even if a real wolf is about to chow down.
Well, it is underwhelming when you still insist on talking to the strawman.
And my second post that you also avoided does link to the evidence of the increase of intensity. And as much as you try to assume that I was not talking about ocean rise and the increase in water vapor as elements of why hurricanes are getting more intence, I was.
Just a few items that I have more time to deal with:
Sure, lets ignore all logic. Thing is that others more knowledgeable than you or me do not do that.
Again, you are still talking about the straw man. As mentioned a really underwhelming point.
[There is a cut here on your quote as I replied early to that bit.]
And as I pointed many times one does lose credibility when one insists on talking about the straw man instead of the reasons why hurricanes get more intense.
As pointed before, you are indeed making a straw man out of how you are making the smoker-physician analogy. The point I made does stand. In the analogy I made the cancer (increase in number of hurricanes) was probably in the future, and you insist on ignoring that I was talking about the currently noticeable emphysema (Hurricane intensifying items like increase in water vapor and ocean rise). I was not talking about the cancer being certain, I was however pointing out that a very bad physician would be the one that does not warn that, besides the emphysema getting worse by continuing to smoke, the patient then opens the chance of getting something even worse in the future.
As pointed many, many times before, you are really wrong on this. Most of the scientists that are experts on the field do talk about how storms may be fewer but stronger for years already, as I also pointed before.
Point being that, yes, your OP was mostly wrong as many others already pointed out. (And as I also pointed before, I already mentioned that there are indeed some alarmist media that does get it infuriatingly wrong, but it is not me nor the scientists that I looked at).
But that’s the point…the time period is cherry picked because that’s when we have data. If you read the GFLD article and look at the NOAA historic trend graphs, you’ll see why it’s so hard to decide that current hurricane, for either intensity or frequency, have worsened as a result of climate change.
As to Kerry Emanuel (I assume this is to whom you are referring), I am confused where I have contradicted him. He has two key expertises: 1. How hurricanes work, and 2. Modeling what will happen in the future.
Emanuel is very careful to parse out “expected increase” from current events. His complaint about current events boils down to building near the coast, and a future probability increase that we will have more intense, (but less frequent) storms. His model does not support a current increase in number, so the increased number of storms this year is an outlier to his model. Obviously that does not mean the model is wrong; just that weather is variable around a long-term mean.
The recent quiescent cycle in the North Atlantic does not mean Emanuel is wrong, and the current year does not mean that Emanuel is right. The current spate of bad hurricanes is not some kind of evidence of climate change, and climate change models do not predict this bad year and more than they failed to predict recent years.
I suspect it drives Emanuel crazy that every time some bad hurricanes come along, alarmists want him to shout “Global Warming!” As a scientist he is very circumspect about doing that, and for the same reason I hold: It does not further a Great Cause to over-reach, and we are lousy at predicting. Science is science and we do ourselves no favors creating wolves out of every shadow even if we recognize that wolves exist.
Now we’re once again deep into storm season around the world, and it’s not pretty. With events still unfolding in Texas with Hurricane/Tropical Storm Harvey, and weeks of escalating devastating monsoon floods in Bangladesh, India and Nepal, many people are asking: are these extreme storms the result of climate change?
The current thinking: it’s complicated. Foremost, we shouldn’t be seeking a direct causal link between climate change and any particular storm. As Professor Emanuel told The Washington Post’s Chris Mooney a few days ago:
“My feeling is, when there’s a hurricane, there’s an occasion to talk about the subject,” he said. “But attributing a particular [weather] event to anything, whether it’s climate change or anything else, is a badly posed question, really.”
