"Climate Change" Was Supposed to Spawn Monster Storms-What Happened?

Doggo · June 4, 2013, 10:52am

Ken001:

You need to be open minded about this stuff. The Earth’s climate is a very complex system. Humans have only invented the technology to observe and record climate over the past 300 years - on a planet 4.5 billion years old. Furthermore the really intense information gathering has only been possible for 30 years and computing power just about copes with the data.

Yes, 10 years ago the physics said that more energy in the planet’s atmosphere would lead to bigger and more violent storms. Instead it now seems that storm bands spread out (widen) in both hemispheres rather than concentrating in historical systems. I have no idea why. Decreased ice around the North Pole? Increased sun spots?

Whatever. What is indisputable is that air water and soil is being polluted to poisonous levels by 7 billion humans. Anything we can do to reverse this can only be good for our neighbours and our children.

While what you say is true, to actually reverse the change would necessitate eliminating most of the activity that modern western people engage in ie fossil based travel and agricultural production. While it would lead to a reduction in CO2 output, it would also lead to mass starvation of billions.
So take your pick, climate change perhaps leading to the end of the world as we know it, or mass starvation.
If politicians actually believed it was reversible, and that to do nothing effective, as is the present situation, would lead to humanity’s extinction, don’t you think they might actually do something, like banning all air travel, for a start?

When eco warriors/ scientists and politicians stop flying around the world, I’ll believe they are serious. Have they never heard of video conferencing?

FXMastermind · June 4, 2013, 12:05pm

The larger issue of “climate change” and pollution, along with land use changes, overfishing, deforestation, erosion, and on and on and so forth are all vastly complex, contentious and at times overwhelming to the educated person.

The storm intensity or increase due to “more heat” is another failed attempt to unite and frighten people into doing … something. Fighting global warming? Or reducing fossil fuel use.

But that isn’t the topic. (of course it always turns into something like that, but it isn’t the topic)

The issue for some, is that predictions made, based on what is described as “real physics”, turn out to be wrong. But rather than admit a single mistake, the shrill alarming voices want to still be right, which is understandable.

Nobody wants to be wrong. Much less look foolish. It’s a rare person who can admit they were wrong, and when it comes to vast global issues and saving the world it’s really hard to be wrong. Which is why as the years go by and killer giant hurricanes haven’t laid waste to America, the story changes. Anything rather than admit the slightest error, or that in reality nobody actually could know what the last decade would hold in regards to storms.

After the disastrous 2004 season, and then 2005/Katrina, the voices of doom were cackling with glee, telling us it was the new normal, along with a good dose of shame and guilt, because you know, it was your fault. Our fault. We caused it, and we are to be punished. (sound familiar? Noah? Moses? You hearing this?)

Seven years later, (or is it eight?) the same strident voices can’t bring themselves to admit anything. Which sucks, because of the political issues, nobody wants to do science. A single error is enough for the other side to start jumping up and down with glee, burning fuels in an orgy of victory. Meanwhile, 86 million newly wealthy Chinese tourist happily boarded jets and visited the world in the last year, sucking on the fossil teat, sucking down booze, candy and cows, happy as clams at high tide.

A bunch of other stuff happened, and we argue over the number of storms.

Doggo · June 6, 2013, 10:09am

On the news today, floods in Europe were the highest in 400 years.
So, before anyone claims that this is “evidence” of climate change, they should explain why we are still here 400 years later.

septimus · June 6, 2013, 12:43pm

Over the past thirty years, AGW has warmed the Earth’s surface by 0.5 degrees on average. That’s half-a-degree. Digital air-conditioner controls offer only 1 degree as the smallest step. 0.5 degrees isn’t a lot. The big worry is that temperature may continue to rise: by 1 degree, 2 degrees, or even 5 degrees over the next century.

0.5 degrees isn’t much. What’s this gibberish about “killer giant hurricanes,” “voices of doom were cackling with glee” etc.?

Someone is speaking shrilly here, but it isn’t the scientists.

FXMastermind · June 6, 2013, 3:09pm

We probably agree on that. Science and those who follow the principles of science do not try to alarm people based on hunches, guessing or an untested hypothesis. It’s probably just “the media” hyping things to increase their ad revenue.

See? The study probably doesn’t say killer storms will be more common due to global warming. And nobody calls it “global warming” anymore, it’s climate change,

By LEE SHEARERupdated Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - 9:32pm

It’s just fearmongering media pundits that are driving the global warming scare. (just like the coming ice age panic was a creation of the media)

National Geographic

See? The media just makes things up, which is why no true climate scientists is ever wrong.

FXMastermind · June 6, 2013, 3:15pm

That isn’t a true claim. There has been no increase in at least 15 years, and a slight decrease since 2002. (don’t take my word for it, see woodfortrees to compare all the different datasets)

The NH global average has dropped in the last 11 years.

Which actually could explain why hurricanes haven’t been increasing. If there were some sort of linear connection between global average temperatures and hurricanes. Which is a hypothesis.

Colophon · June 6, 2013, 3:30pm

Depends. Does it mean “there was a documented flood of known severity 400 years ago, and the current floods are less severe than that”, or as is often the case with these sort of “worst in X years” claims, does it mean “these are the worst floods on record, and accurate records only go back 400 years”?

GIGObuster · June 6, 2013, 8:23pm

And just keep on showing all that you did not read what was previously posted already. Not my problem if you want to get that fame here.

And that was the point, again, just selecting an specific one just to get what you want when others point to warming.

That is just saying that because the temperatures that they report does not matches the cherry pick you did, then it should be dismissed, even if it is coming from NOAA. Suuuure.

GIGObuster · June 6, 2013, 8:27pm

Doggo:

While what you say is true, to actually reverse the change would necessitate eliminating most of the activity that modern western people engage in ie fossil based travel and agricultural production. While it would lead to a reduction in CO2 output, it would also lead to mass starvation of billions.
So take your pick, climate change perhaps leading to the end of the world as we know it, or mass starvation.
If politicians actually believed it was reversible, and that to do nothing effective, as is the present situation, would lead to humanity’s extinction, don’t you think they might actually do something, like banning all air travel, for a start?

When eco warriors/ scientists and politicians stop flying around the world, I’ll believe they are serious. Have they never heard of video conferencing?

And that is just example #100 of not reading what was posted before and with loads of straw men added. Once again, the “eco warriors” that are using science are not demanding the end of civilization, but the straw man is so cherished that it must be preserved at all costs.

GIGObuster · June 6, 2013, 8:45pm

FXMastermind:

The larger issue of “climate change” and pollution, along with land use changes, overfishing, deforestation, erosion, and on and on and so forth are all vastly complex, contentious and at times overwhelming to the educated person.

The storm intensity or increase due to “more heat” is another failed attempt to unite and frighten people into doing … something. Fighting global warming? Or reducing fossil fuel use.

But that isn’t the topic. (of course it always turns into something like that, but it isn’t the topic)

The issue for some, is that predictions made, based on what is described as “real physics”, turn out to be wrong. But rather than admit a single mistake, the shrill alarming voices want to still be right, which is understandable.

Nobody wants to be wrong. Much less look foolish. It’s a rare person who can admit they were wrong, and when it comes to vast global issues and saving the world it’s really hard to be wrong. Which is why as the years go by and killer giant hurricanes haven’t laid waste to America, the story changes. Anything rather than admit the slightest error, or that in reality nobody actually could know what the last decade would hold in regards to storms.

After the disastrous 2004 season, and then 2005/Katrina, the voices of doom were cackling with glee, telling us it was the new normal, along with a good dose of shame and guilt, because you know, it was your fault. Our fault. We caused it, and we are to be punished. (sound familiar? Noah? Moses? You hearing this?)

Seven years later, (or is it eight?) the same strident voices can’t bring themselves to admit anything. Which sucks, because of the political issues, nobody wants to do science. A single error is enough for the other side to start jumping up and down with glee, burning fuels in an orgy of victory. Meanwhile, 86 million newly wealthy Chinese tourist happily boarded jets and visited the world in the last year, sucking on the fossil teat, sucking down booze, candy and cows, happy as clams at high tide.

A bunch of other stuff happened, and we argue over the number of storms.

Only that, this shows that ignorance continues even if the information was posted early in a thread.

Once again: researchers like Judith Curry were advised that an increase in the number of hurricanes (that BTW is what some researchers were referring to when talking about a new normal) was not in the cards.

Other scientists (not false skeptics BTW) showed Curry and others that there was no trend in the number of hurricanes coming, that is, they used science. But the ignorance that it was the climate scientists themselves who did put down some extreme ideas, has to be preserved furiously.

GIGObuster · June 6, 2013, 8:55pm

And don’t take my word for it, but Tamino, the best propeller head in the statistical field tell us, cherry picking like that is dishonest.

In this case, the dishonest point is to once again to look at just the last 16 years or so, and call it a day,

Although all three trend lines slope upward, their slopes aren’t statistically significant. But that doesn’t mean they’re not upward. It just means that there’s not enough data in 16 years to tell for sure, statistically speaking, which way they’re going. That always happens — always — when the time span is short.

That’s why fake skeptics like David Whitehouse like to focus on short time spans.

Whitehouse declares that we’ve had “about 16 years of warming and 16 years of temperature standstill.” According to Whitehouse, all the global warming earth has experienced recently was complete by 16 years ago (the end of 1996). Is that really so? Let’s take a closer look at the last 16 years, compared to what happened before that, starting in 1979 (Whitehouse’s choice).

I’ll do a similar exercise to one I’ve done before. I’ll take the data from 1979 (Whitehouse’s starting point) up to 16 years ago (less one month, the end of 1996). Then I’ll fit a trend line with least-squares regression. Then I’ll extend that trend line to the present, to see what would have happened if that trend continued.

If David Whitehouse is giving an honest portrayal of global temperature, then most of the data points from 1997 onward should be below the extended trend line, since the trend will keep rising but according to him, global warming stopped back then.

If we do this exercise using data from NASA GISS, we get this:

giss79

Let’s try using the HadCRUT4 data set instead:

cru79

Once more into the fray: let’s try using the NCDC data set instead:

ncdc79

Well well … Plainly, it is not the case that most of the data points from 1997 onward are below the extended trend line. As a matter of fact, for all three data sets, every year from 1997 onward has been hotter than expected according to that trend from 1979. There’s only one valid conclusion: David Whitehouse gave a fake portrayal of global temperature.

Thats what fake skeptics do.

GIGObuster · June 6, 2013, 9:11pm

Like shooting fish in a barrel:

And scroll down for a short video on how silly that point is.

Aji_de_Gallina · June 6, 2013, 10:21pm

OK

Can YOU choose one and show the results?

[/QUOTE]

Sure, honey, sure.

GIGObuster · June 6, 2013, 11:31pm

This is just more evidence of just an attempt at not looking at the evidence that does not match your already made opinion.

http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2011/01/31/warming-north-atlantic-water-tied-to-heating-arctic-according-to-new-study

ralph124c · June 7, 2013, 2:33pm

What do climate experts attribute the drying up of the American Southwest?
From what I read, the SW began to enter a drought cycle, sometime around AD 1300. Before this time, the so-called cliff dwellings were inhabited by local Indians who were able to live off crops of corn, beans, squash, etc. The climate got hotter and drier-to the point where farming became impossible. When the Spanish arrived (in the 1580’s) they found these dwelling abandoned-what was the cause of this climate/drought cycle?

GIGObuster · June 7, 2013, 4:18pm

Several things that contrarian sources dealing with this are contradictory (this is really a pattern) in the extreme. But they rarely tell you that they are contradicting each other:

Most of the evidence of that past dought is obtained by paleoclimatology, that is: tree rings and other proxies, false skeptics point at the pueblo and the drought that very likely affected them in an attempt to discredit climate science on the whole, the ugly contradiction is that they are relying on the work of people like Michael Mann (and the hockey stick) to do so, as I can see from the contrarian sites attacks to paleoclimate continue and it does not matter if in reality the whole effort is contradictory, and that is in essence what identifies who is using pseudoscience and not science. Science changes based on the evidence, in this case the science of paleoclimatology tell us that with the pueblo and past droughts it was not that simple.

The more scientists study the situation, the more complex the problem actually becomes. Yes, there was a drought (see the chart above which is based on tree ring data from Northeast New Mexico collected by Henri Grissino-Mayer, 1996), but was it really severe enough to force the Ancient Pueblos from their homes? Some researchers were skeptical. Evidence of cannibalism and human sacrifice was found in the region, adding new questions to the mix. Were the Ancestral Pueblos pushed out of the region by other tribes, such as the Apache and Navajo, or threatened by bands from the central valley of Mexico intent on human sacrifice? (White, 1992). Or did disease, perhaps something akin to the modern day hanta virus that can be triggered by sudden shifts from dry to wet climates, causing increases in disease carrying deer mice populations, run through the communities? (Martin, 1994)

Image of Mt. St. Helens from USGSOther researchers took another look at climate just to make sure they weren’t missing something, and Matthew Salzer (2000) noted there was significant volcanic activity, with one particular event-- likely the largest of the Holocene that occurred in 1259 A.D. – that may have chilled the atmosphere, thereby shortening the growing season and perhaps disrupting normal rainfall patterns. (See Volcanic Aerosols for access to data).

As with many studies of how humans relate with and are impacted by the environment, the reasons for the Ancestral Pueblo people’s migration south to become the Pueblo peoples in modern day New Mexico and Arizona are complex and likely not solely related to one single cause. But because their culture was agriculturally based and the region was relatively arid, periods of drought and shorter growing seasons may well have played a significant role in their southward move. It is known from early Spanish records that later droughts in the 17th century had a devastating impact on the Pueblo villages. (Cordell, 1994).

So, droughts took place in the past, we knew that already, the question is what would happen to those natural drought cycles when one adds “steroids” (Green house gases) into the mix?

http://www.ucar.edu/communications/staffnotes/0705/drought.shtml

The Southwest’s future droughts are expected to be of a different nature than those that have afflicted the region in the past. Scientists attribute past droughts to variations in sea surface temperatures caused by El Niño and La Niña events in the Pacific Ocean. La Niña is especially influential as it tends to shift precipitation belts north, leaving the Southwest thirsty.

As the climate warms, however, the basic dynamics of the atmosphere change, particularly in regard to the Hadley cell, a powerful circulation pattern that drives weather in the tropics and subtropics. “Our confidence in our projection is built upon our understanding of the fundamental dynamics of the Hadley cell,” Jian says.

Warm, moist air from near the equator normally rises into the atmosphere until it reaches the stratosphere, the second layer of Earth’s atmosphere. The air then spreads north and south toward the poles, descends over the subtropics, and flows back toward the Equator in the form of trade winds, completing the cell. Because the descending air over the subtropics suppresses rain by drying the lower atmosphere, many of Earth’s great deserts are located in these regions.

As the atmosphere warms from climate change, scientists expect the Hadley cell to expand its reach, bringing hot, dry air to a larger swath of the Middle East, Mediterranean, and North America, including the Southwest. “In the future warmed climate,” Jian explains, “the Hadley cell and the subtropical high should expand poleward, which tends to block rain coming through from the Pacific.”

For the study, the research team assumed that greenhouse gases would continue to rise from today’s level of 380 parts per million until beginning a decline around 2050, measuring 720 parts per million in 2100.

Jian stresses that it’s difficult to predict the onset or magnitude of the drought. “The timing of the drought is very uncertain, and given the uncertainties in the model physics and sizable spread across different models, we are not very sure about the magnitude of drought in the future,” he says.

The Southwest is one of the fastest-growing regions in the country. Increased aridity would put enormous strain on the Colorado River, a lifeline for the seven states in its basin (Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, and California) and northern Mexico.

Already, the region is experiencing changes that scientists link to climate change, including more severe wildfires, earlier winter snowmelt, the destruction of heat-weakened trees by beetles, and a loss of biodiversity in southern Arizona’s high-elevation “sky islands.”

One has to remember that scientists are seeing is only the beginning since there is a lag on what CO2 accumulation is doing to the atmosphere.

A portrait of worsening drought

Previous climate studies have indicated that global warming will probably alter precipitation patterns as the subtropics expand. The 2007 assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that subtropical areas will likely have precipitation declines, with high-latitude areas getting more precipitation.

In addition, previous studies by Dai have indicated that climate change may already be having a drying effect on parts of the world. In a much-cited 2004 study, he and colleagues found that the percentage of Earth’s land area stricken by serious drought more than doubled from the 1970s to the early 2000s. Last year, he headed up a research team that found that some of the world’s major rivers are losing water.

In his new study, Dai turned from rain and snow amounts to drought itself, and posed a basic question: how will climate change affect future droughts? If rainfall runs short by a given amount, it may or may not produce drought conditions, depending on how warm it is, how quickly the moisture evaporates, and other factors.

Droughts are complex events that can be associated with significantly reduced precipitation, dry soils that fail to sustain crops, and reduced levels in reservoirs and other bodies of water that can imperil drinking supplies. A common measure called the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) classifies the strength of a drought by tracking precipitation and evaporation over time and comparing them to the usual variability one would expect at a given location.

Dai turned to results from the 22 computer models used by the IPCC in its 2007 report to gather projections about temperature, precipitation, humidity, wind speed, and Earth’s radiative balance, based on current projections of greenhouse gas emissions. He then fed the information into the Palmer model to calculate the PDSI. A reading of +0.5 to -0.5 on the index indicates normal conditions, while a reading at or below -4 indicates extreme drought. The index ranges from +10 to -10 for current climate conditions, although readings below -6 are exceedingly rare, even during short periods in small areas.

By the 2030s, the results indicated that some regions in the United States and overseas could experience particularly severe conditions, with average decadal readings potentially dropping to -2 to -4 in much of the central and western United States as well as several regions overseas, and -4 or lower in parts of the Mediterranean. By the end of the century, many populated areas, including parts of the United States and much of hte Mediterranean and Africa, could face readings in the range of -4 to -10. Such decadal averages would be almost unprecedented.

Dai cautions that global climate models remain inconsistent in capturing precipitation changes and other atmospheric factors, especially at the regional scale. However, the 2007 IPCC models were in stronger agreement on high- and low-latitude precipitation than those used in previous reports, says Dai.

There are also uncertainties in how well the Palmer index captures the range of conditions that future climate may produce. The index could be overestimating drought intensity in the more extreme cases, says Dai. On the other hand, the index may be underestimating the loss of soil moisture should rain and snow fall in shorter, heavier bursts and run off more quickly. Such precipitation trends have already been diagnosed in the United States and several other areas over recent years, says Dai.

“The fact that the current drought index may not work for the 21st century climate is itself a troubling sign,” Dai says.

Another contradiction from contrarians is that models can recreate the past conditions and tell us more nuanced views of the past droughts like the one that affected the pueblo, but as usual, models are condemned by contrarians as soon as they are used to look at the most likely outcomes of the near future.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/science/08anasazi.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Doggo · June 8, 2013, 11:15am

Surely the point is that if what we can do without ceasing all carbon producing activity won’t change the outcome, what is the point of doing anything at all?

I’m not saying that making changes to stop exterminating other species isn’t a good idea, but if the population continues to rise unabated, as it is doing, and everyone’s ambition is to have a "western’ lifestyle, as it is, we might as well just enjoy the ride till it stops, and stop worrying.

It does concern me though, that people with children are so reluctant to save our world for them.

GIGObuster · June 8, 2013, 11:36am

Ignorant retort, policy makers and scientists already recognized we can not go cold turkey, there is already a committed level of change coming, but not doing any controls leads to even **worse **scenarios.

I have seen this item before, it is really silly, if emissions brought by our technology are impossible to control because population will increase then things like cholera and the cause: the early lack of control of sewage and bad water, should had increased and should had been impossible to control.

The fact is that modern civilization controlled the issue even with an increase of the population, that there are almost no deaths by cholera and that even paying for that control was not the end of our civilization, shows that this population increase item is just an excuse to do nothing. The reality is that control of the population is recommended, but a lack of controlling emissions is not forced on us because of an increase on the number of people.

And it is not really economical at all to do something now when the costs of doing nothing will be worse and more restrictive.

Nordhaus went on to further dispel the myth that CO2 limits will hurt the economy. In fact, the opposite is true:

"My research shows that there are indeed substantial net benefits from acting now rather than waiting fifty years. A look at Table 5-1 in my study A Question of Balance (2008) shows that the cost of waiting fifty years to begin reducing CO2 emissions is $2.3 trillion in 2005 prices. If we bring that number to today’s economy and prices, the loss from waiting is $4.1 trillion. Wars have been started over smaller sums.

My study is just one of many economic studies showing that economic efficiency would point to the need to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions right now, and not to wait for a half-century. Waiting is not only economically costly, but will also make the transition much more costly when it eventually takes place. Current economic studies also suggest that the most efficient policy is to raise the cost of CO2 emissions substantially, either through cap-and-trade or carbon taxes, to provide appropriate incentives for businesses and households to move to low-carbon activities."

[...]

"The claim that cap-and-trade legislation or carbon taxes would be ruinous or disastrous to our societies does not stand up to serious economic analysis. We need to approach the issues with a cool head and a warm heart. And with respect for sound logic and good science."

Despite the economic reality that CO2 limits will save money, the myth that they will harm the economy is a pervasive one. However, this myth is based on nothing more than a misunderstanding of climate science and economics, and misrepresentation of the climate science and economics body of research.

Trinopus · June 9, 2013, 12:27am

Scylla and Charybdis. We thread the middle, somewhere, and accept losses on both sides. The climate will get nasty, and many will die. The economy will suffer, and many will be unemployed.

But it’s better than having the climate explode entirely…or dismantling industrial civilization entirely. Since neither of those is acceptable, we have to figure out a course somewhere in between.

i.e., has anyone actually claimed that doing something short of eliminating all carbon-producing activity “won’t change the outcome?” Strikes me as something I don’t believe anyone actually has argued. Reducing carbon emission (and taking some other steps) might do some good, without slamming the economy to the mat.

Mr_Quatro · June 9, 2013, 12:58am

It was 1997/98 that I first heard of El Nino … I laughed at the weather man predicting that it would rain more than normal during this time period due to a little hot spot on the map in the south pacific ocean. It was while listening to a radio weather man in Arizona.

A few months later I had to check my laughter and scorn for reality … it rained and rained and rained. I was living in North County San Diego at the time.

Then I remmbered a book by Edgar Casey that I had read in the summer of 1985 that said something, something about the world weather habits would change. No internet for me till 1999 due to remote rural area.

I looked up Edgar Casey’s prophecy and sure enough he had said this would happen. Edgar said a lot of things though and he said it more than one way due to more than one trance like state that he would get into to answer questions.

Here’s the kicker … Edgar said why this would happen and that this strange predicted weather event was due to the poles shifting … the polar poles.

If this happens all at once we all fall off, but if it happens gradually then what we are going through could be the cause and effect.

Here’s the interesting point. Edgar Casey said that this would start in the mid 1990’s.

Don’t get mad at me for making a true statement … as for what I believe I honestly think the weather is due to the car emission problem. I have done a brief study about the weather changing in Sinapore from the 1960’s to today using photo’s from that time period.

The results are clearer photos in the 60’s pointing to climate change, but why is the question no one can answer.

Topic		Replies	Views
Associating bad hurricanes with climate change will backfire on Global Warming Alarmists Great Debates	74	7160	October 15, 2017
What is the Effect of Global Warming on Hurricanes? Great Debates	95	3328	October 27, 2005
The specific effects of global warming ? Factual Questions	24	6492	November 13, 2015
Global Warming debunked? Great Debates	42	3118	May 23, 2007
Credulous "experts" on global warming Great Debates	136	12791	September 6, 2015

"Climate Change" Was Supposed to Spawn Monster Storms-What Happened?

Related topics