NOAA doesn't even think their is a link...
Ahem...
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
From NOAA no less... Data doesn't support what a lot of people think.
Lot of weather stuff in that link care to summarize?
Re: actual data: In short, the historical Atlantic hurricane record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase.
Bejesus, if not now, when? Never has there been two humongous hurricanes in one year much less in two weeks.
Never? Because recordable data has been around forever? Nop. Just a tiny sliver of the earth's existence. But you're confident enough to claim its never happened. Well, fact is you cannot make that statement as a statement of fact.
You mean like no category 3 or higher hurricanes making landfall in the United States for 12 years? That kind of extreme?And that is the point from my amateur understanding it's not about more storms it's about more extremes.
You mean like no category 3 or higher hurricanes making landfall in the United States for 12 years? That kind of extreme?
Or are we waiting for 100% of the experts plus that shirtless guy in those YouTube videos to all agree?
Here's my favorite linkage.I actually went looking for peer reviewed scientific papers published in the last 5 years using google. I used "hurricanes" "climate" "change" and got nothing.
Could somebody link some recent papers regarding this topic so at least we all know what the scientists are saying?
Here's my favorite linkage.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/09/08/hurricane-irma-eyes-florida/#more-23347
"
Global warming
Ever since Hurricane Harvey, the global warming – hurricane hysteria has ratcheted up to levels I haven’t seen since 2006.
NOAA GFDL has written a good article on Global Warming and Hurricanes. Their main conclusions:
- It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate). "................
https://judithcurry.com/
- Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
- There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclone in some basins–an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones.
- Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day ones, with a model-projected increase of about 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center.
Likelihood Statements
The terminology here for likelihood statements generally follows the conventions used in the IPCC AR4, i.e., for the assessed likelihood of an outcome or result:
- Very Likely: > 90%,
- Likely: > 66%
- More Likely Than Not (or Better Than Even Odds) > 50%
NOAA doesn't even think their is a link...
Ahem...
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
From NOAA no less... Data doesn't support what a lot of people think.
- Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
- There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclone in some basins–an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones.
- Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day ones, with a model-projected increase of about 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center.
In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts over the past 120+ yr support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic. One modeling study projects a large (~100%) increase in Atlantic category 4-5 hurricanes over the 21st century, but we estimate that this increase may not be detectable until the latter half of the century.
- It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).
At the time Harvey intensified into a Category 4 hurricane, it was over a section of the Gulf that was about 4 degrees above normal, says Martin Hoerling, a research meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colo.
"The water in the Gulf of Mexico is the heat reservoir to support these hurricanes," says Ben Kirtman, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Miami. The warm water and air above the Gulf means there's more energy to drive a storm such as Harvey.
Kirtman says that doesn't mean Harvey was directly caused by climate change. Rather, climate change is shaping conditions for storms like this one. So if Harvey was a 1-in-100-year storm, for example, "maybe it becomes a storm that could happen one in 50 years, or one in 20 years, or one in 10 years," Kirtman says.
Exactly how much climate change contributed is difficult to say, but Hoerling points to a study of flooding in Louisiana last year that attributed about 10 percent of the rain totals there directly to human-caused climate change.
"It's early to know whether we can just put that knowledge into the experience over South Texas with Harvey," Hoerling says. But as a first estimate, "it's probably not unreasonable."
Very good. Next time there's a horse race in your town you can lay a huge bet on what the consensus says and get rich !Ok, the consensus appears to be:
Very good. Next time there's a horse race in your town you can lay a huge bet on what the consensus says and get rich !
You mean like no category 3 or higher hurricanes making landfall in the United States for 12 years? That kind of extreme?
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
From NOAA no less... Data doesn't support what a lot of people think.
Lot of weather stuff in that link care to summarize?
Re: actual data: In short, the historical Atlantic hurricane record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase.
I hate this bullshit, since 1896 there has been sufficient evidence but retards keep going "hurr".
I don't know who that is, i've been watching the hurricane numbers for years, the Pielke link I included has plenty of information on hurricane damage numbers. BTW Roger Pielke Jr. is a local Colorado boy for you. He used to work for 538 until Silver got the politically correct bug up his ass.I saw SE Cupp touting this same argument on Real Time.
I doubt you came up with this on your own. Neither did she.
Why is this relevant? Or is this some bullshit metric the RW is passing around as proof of something.
What is that supposed to mean? It seems to be a complete non-sequitor.Very good. Next time there's a horse race in your town you can lay a huge bet on what the consensus says and get rich !
The fact that this statement has so many obvious caveats in it shows you've lost the argument before it even starts. This is like the made up 'pause'.
1) Climate change is about long term trends. 12 years is nothing.
2) Whether or not a hurricane make landfall is irrelevant from a climate change perspective.
I think it would be a fun game to mine posts on this forum for climate change deniers going back 10 or 15 years. It's amazing both how far the deniers have retreated and how they keep trying to find new ways to continue their denial.
Plus, if anything what would probably be more helpful at this point would be for your side to change focus from generation source to the logistics of transmission and delivery. Lots of folks who support "green energy" are still working on a mental model of top-down, centralized infrastructure of power station, long distance transmission lines, and substations which involve as much cost, overhead, and negative externalities as fossil fuel power generation itself. It's clear that a total rebuild of our infrastructure to be more modular, localized, and distributed energy system that lends itself more naturally towards renewable power sources anyway.
12 years was a lot when Al Gore was arguing that unless we did something immediately that we'd reach a "tipping point" and all arctic sea ice would disappear, etc. I guess when you're a climate change dogmatist, whether 12 years is a long time depends on whether it supports your argument or not, sorta like how long a minute is depends on which side of the bathroom door you're on.
And honestly you should be pretty happy with the way things are going now anyway. A few more decades of technological progress has moved alternative energy sources to where they're competitive with or sometimes exceed the economic value proposition of older fossil fuel technologies and more importantly can do so at scale. Due to limitations in energy storage we'll still need some fossil fuel generation to meet baseline power needs but perhaps even that will be solved at some point. If we had tried to force the issue like Al Gore wanted then we would be stuck with a sh!tload of inefficient and obsolete solar panels that never would have been sufficient for the needs of the time. It would have been a bad choice trying to switch over to an "fossil fuel free" world in the 1990s or early 2000s for the same reason it would have been a bad choice trying to bruteforce a "big data" type world back then where a large HDD held all of 80GB. I know your side is all about trying to create positive changes in the world but sometimes you need to step back and say the best solution is actually "do nothing."
Plus, if anything what would probably be more helpful at this point would be for your side to change focus from generation source to the logistics of transmission and delivery. Lots of folks who support "green energy" are still working on a mental model of top-down, centralized infrastructure of power station, long distance transmission lines, and substations which involve as much cost, overhead, and negative externalities as fossil fuel power generation itself. It's clear that a total rebuild of our infrastructure to be more modular, localized, and distributed energy system that lends itself more naturally towards renewable power sources anyway.
Of course this means that some rich guys are going to get even richer building this huge investment in infrastructure and it might mean you need to sacrifice some of your social welfare money dumps like food stamps or 99 weeks of unemployment instead into government spending that generates construction jobs instead. Of course most of those jobs will go to blue collar men so that's 3 strikes against the plan from the POV of folks like Jhhnn whose primary concerns are only hurting the rich.
It's also interesting to see you try and make this about race after repeatedly complaining about people making things about race in the past.
Of course this means that some rich guys are going to get even richer building this huge investment in infrastructure and it might mean you need to sacrifice some of your social welfare money dumps like food stamps or 99 weeks of unemployment instead into government spending that generates construction jobs instead. Of course most of those jobs will go to blue collar men so that's 3 strikes against the plan from the POV of folks like Jhhnn whose primary concerns are only hurting the rich.
Not sure what any of this nonsense means but there's no need to sacrifice social welfare money to make the appropriate investments. In fact we can and should expand social welfare spending while taking care of this as well. It's also interesting to see you try and make this about race after repeatedly complaining about people making things about race in the past.
Race was mentioned nowhere in my post so it's highly telling that you conflated it thusly. Either you see economic issues in expressly racial terms (perhaps you subconsciously associate "rich" with "white" or "social welfare" with minorities), or you can't imagine how someone on the other side would make an argument that isn't race centered. It looks poorly on you either way and you honestly need to learn to argue better if you're using that as a crutch. Inventing accusations of racism out of whole cloth speaks to the weakness of your position, not its strength.