Is now the time to talk about climate change

[zinfamous]

Climate change causes changes in weather patterns. Sometimes that is stronger and more frequent hurricanes and tropical storms, sometimes that is longer and harder droughts, sometimes that is colder winters, sometimes that is warmer winters and colder summers. The specific changes for any given year and any given place is hard to predict, but the overall world climate is getting warmer, and that is powering more extreme weather overall, and that is becoming obvious.

Please, wake me when a place like Houston experiences 3 "100-year floods" over 3 consecutive years.

 

[Jaskalas]

Extreme weather is a sub category with a soft underbelly ripe for poking holes in. The prior 12 years being a great example.
I find it a disservice to the greater topic to delve into the mud when there are much stronger and more concrete arguments.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Nice strawman argument.

He really does love his straw.

 

[tynopik]

Climate change causes changes in weather patterns.

so, record-setting setting stretch of low hurricane activity = proof of global warming
also, high hurricane activity = proof of global warming

strange, it seems like no matter what happens, you claim it as proof

it's idiots like you who give deniers fodder with your idiotic arguments

 

[Paratus]

so, record-setting setting stretch of low hurricane activity = proof of global warming
also, high hurricane activity = proof of global warming

strange, it seems like no matter what happens, you claim it as proof

it's idiots like you who give deniers fodder with your idiotic arguments

And yet during that "record setting stretch of low hurricane activity" we had the fourth costliest hurricane, (Ike - near and dear to my heart), and the second costliest storm, Sandy.

The general consensus is that while climate change doesn't increase the number of hurricanes and may even slightly decrease the number of hurricanes, climate change does tend to increase the strength of the ones that do form.

I'm sorry but lying about the evidence and theory in the hopes that it'll change some deniers mind is simply something a fool does.

 

[JSt0rm]

When do we get to class action the energy companies for interjecting in the science and creating doubt among the deplorables starting 20 years ago?

I think the oil companies should pay for all of this. Just like the tobacco industry got hammered.

 

[agent00f]

When do we get to class action the energy companies for interjecting in the science and creating doubt among the deplorables starting 20 years ago?

I think the oil companies should pay for all of this. Just like the tobacco industry got hammered.

Look to this guy to parrot excuses for why they shouldn't just like tobacco:

Extreme weather is a sub category with a soft underbelly ripe for poking holes in. The prior 12 years being a great example.
I find it a disservice to the greater topic to delve into the mud when there are much stronger and more concrete arguments.

 

[senseamp]

It's not the time to talk about climate change, and not the time to talk about GOP shilling for arbitration clauses, not the time to talk about bailouts for "small government" conservatives, not the time to talk about anything. Just shut up and sing the national anthem or something. And make sure you are standing and not kneeling. Now is not the time to kneel during anthem either.

 

[tynopik]

I'm sorry but lying about the evidence and theory in the hopes that it'll change some deniers mind is simply something a fool does.

lying about the evidence? wtf are you talking about

if you weren't crowing at the end of 12 years of quiet as 'now being the time to talk about climate change', then don't do it after 2 measly storms

individual weather events don't move the needle and it's fundamentally dishonest to point to any one event as proof

you should remain on larger trends

And yet during that "record setting stretch of low hurricane activity" we had the fourth costliest hurricane, (Ike - near and dear to my heart), and the second costliest storm, Sandy.

again, another idiotic argument, stop giving the other side ammunition

storms are more costly because there's more development along the shoreline and inflation

even if hurricane activity was exactly the same, costs would go up every year

 

[Paratus]

lying about the evidence? wtf are you talking about

You said to stop saying fewer but stronger storms were indications of climate change.

They are. Placating deniers isn't a reason to not say so.

if you weren't crowing at the end of 12 years of quiet as 'now being the time to talk about climate change', then don't do it after 2 measly storms

I'm going to assume that you are referring to some other "you" here as I did not start this thread.

individual weather events don't move the needle and it's fundamentally dishonest to point to any one event as proof

What "event" are you taking about here?
Harvey? Irma? Jose?

Regardless individual wheather events can be analyzed to determine if they were made more intense by climate change.

Harvey for example continued to intensify all the way up until landfall. Other hurricanes weaken as they reach the coast and churn up deeper colder water sapping some of their energy.

The gulf was significantly warmer than average and there was no energy sapping colder water. We've been measuring increasing OHC for 40 years. Harvey was more intense as a direct result.

you should remain on larger trends

I'll take your opinion under advisement.

again, another idiotic argument, stop giving the other side ammunition

storms are more costly because there's more development along the shoreline and inflation

even if hurricane activity was exactly the same, costs would go up every year

Yet this argument dismisses the evidence that stronger storms cause more damage than weaker storms regardless of increased coastal development. These storms are stronger due to increased ocean heat content from climate change.

Even if coastal development stopped costs would go up because the average hurricane will be stronger.

Stronger doesn't even have to mean only wind speed.

Ike while 1 mph below a category 3 had a wind field almost 250 miles across. The storm filled the gulf and it had a storm surge of a much higher category storm. All thanks to excessively warm gulf waters.

 

[disappoint]

I pretty much agree with you but I do want to take a moment to point out a subtle bias in your wording. It's a bias deniers latch onto.

When you say humans may have exacerbated natural cycles the bias inherent in that statement is humans only have to capability to push the climate in the same direction it was already going.

It cuts off the discussion that humans may be forcing the climate to move in a direction opposite of the way the natural cycles would have it going.

Climate skeptics latch onto that argument and say sure humans have an "effect" but the warming is really being driven by the natural cycles.

In reality current natural forcings are basically neutral and all warming is being driven by human activity. Enough so that it's likely we've pushed off the next ice age.

MorpheusMeme.jpg: What if I told you humans are part of the planet's natural cycle?

 

[Paratus]

MorpheusMeme.jpg: What if I told you humans are part of the planet's natural cycle?

Oracle.jpg: Morpheus believes it so blindly that not even you or I could convince him otherwise.

 

[tynopik]

You said to stop saying fewer but stronger storms were indications of climate change.

They are. Placating deniers isn't a reason to not say so.

tiny little micro-trends aren't proof of shit

you keep abusing science and putting forth stupid arguments, you have no basis to complain when deniers do the same

Yet this argument dismisses the evidence that stronger storms cause more damage than weaker storms regardless of increased coastal development.

but that wasn't your argument. you didn't say storms are getting strong, you said they caused more economic damage, which is a nonsense measure in terms of proof for climate change

 

[Paratus]

And yet during that "record setting stretch of low hurricane activity" we had the fourth costliest hurricane, (Ike - near and dear to my heart), and the second costliest storm, Sandy.

The general consensus is that while climate change doesn't increase the number of hurricanes and may even slightly decrease the number of hurricanes, climate change does tend to increase the strength of the ones that do form.

I'm sorry but lying about the evidence and theory in the hopes that it'll change some deniers mind is simply something a fool does.

tiny little micro-trends aren't proof of shit

you keep abusing science and putting forth stupid arguments, you have no basis to complain when deniers do the same

Your welcome to your opinion as unsupported as it is. However I'll continue to point out when deniers use incorrect arguments.

but that wasn't your argument. you didn't say storms are getting strong, you said they caused more economic damage, which is a nonsense measure in terms of proof for climate change

I most certainly did. See the bolded section above. It shouldn't be controversial that stronger storms cause more $$ damage.

 

[Sunburn74]

I find it odd how it seems the frequency of these historic storms is accelerating and no one in power is publicly speaking about it.

 

[cytg111]

tiny little micro-trends aren't proof of shit..

Definitive proof no, but does it matter? If we agree that climate change is real and that events like this is more often occuring under these circumstances, does it matter if Irma qualifies for p=<0.05 or not if it is the advert that gets people on board? Greater good and all?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Now is precisely the time to talk about it. Let's keep talking and talking and talking. Doing requires sacrifices.

We are well past the time of stopping it with the technology we have today. The best we can do is delay things with current tech and hope we are around long enough to reverse engineer global warning.

 

[blackangst1]

I guess Im not a fanatic nor a denier. I believe based on NOAA's research the planet is nowhere near its hottest point in history, but it is warmer than its been in the last few thousand years. So sure. We're warming. I also believe the temps will never ever be flat. Cyclic? Maybe. I also believe mankind has contributed to climate, but have yet to see any solid science that answers the question of "how much".

 

[tynopik]

Definitive proof no, but does it matter? If we agree that climate change is real

dude, that's the point. not everyone does believe

so pointing to single storms as proof just gives credence to their efforts when they point to a late blizzard and laugh saying 'how about that global warming?'

if it is the advert that gets people on board? Greater good and all?

no, it is not ok to lie or misrepresent or give misleading arguments just because you think it's for the 'greater good'. Sheesh, do I really have to explain this?

 

[tynopik]

However I'll continue to point out when deniers use incorrect arguments.

Which would be a lot more meaningful if weren't also making unscientifc, unsound, unjustified arguments

I most certainly did. See the bolded section above.

try again

And yet during that "record setting stretch of low hurricane activity" we had the fourth costliest hurricane, (Ike - near and dear to my heart), and the second costliest storm, Sandy.

your argument dismissed the stretch of low activity because certain storms were costly

cost has absolutely zero fucking relationship to proof one way or another. it is a complete red herring

you later try make some arguments about the strength of the storms, whatever, you should have never mentioned cost in the first place because it is a spurious argument.

 

[brycejones]

OP it's too soon to talk about until after the first 10M of sea level rise.

 

[Paratus]

Which would be a lot more meaningful if weren't also making unscientifc, unsound, unjustified arguments




try again



your argument dismissed the stretch of low activity because certain storms were costly

cost has absolutely zero fucking relationship to proof one way or another. it is a complete red herring

you later try make some arguments about the strength of the storms, whatever, you should have never mentioned cost in the first place because it is a spurious argument.

Here's my points.

First man made climate change is already proven. The greenhouse effect has been known for over 100 years. Our impact has been know to within an order of magnitude since at least the 80's.

Second I've been addressing this comment

so, record-setting setting stretch of low hurricane activity = proof of global warming

also, high hurricane activity = proof of global warming

This is an unsound unsupported unjustified straw man argument.

Despite what the denier blogs have to say there has been no record setting stretch of low hurricane activity. At least not where global warming is concerned.

It's fairly obvious from the plot that the number of named storms is maybe slightly above average over the last decade.

The argument put forth by mainstream climate science is that hurricane intensity will increase not necessarily frequency:

From IPCC AR4
"Earlier studies assessed in the TAR showed that future tropical cyclones would likely become more severe with greater wind speeds and more intense precipitation. More recent modelling experiments have addressed possible changes in tropical cyclones in a warmer climate and generally confirmed those earlier results. "

Even during this "record setting stretch of low activity" four top ten damaging storms occurred, Ike, Sandy, Irene, and Matthew. All peaked at cat 3 or above. Ike in fact was a single mph of being a cat 3 when it hit the US. It had a hurricane strength wind field larger than Irma and a storm surge potential higher than Irma even as a 2.

The low activity was only in reference to no cat 3 or higher storms hitting the US. Yet those 4 storms caused $140billion dollars. While more coastal development drives hurricane costs so do the strength of the storms. Each of those four storms was larger than their wind speeds would have you believe.

Why mention costs? Because this thread is in part about the politics and policy of climate change. Theory predicts more intense hurricanes. More intense hurricanes do more damage. More coastal development multiplies the damage further. The costs then become something maybe worth mitigating or preventing.

Finally each and every storm can be investigated to determine if climate change played a roll in its intensity. Hurricanes are heat engines. The more OHC the more fuel for when atmospheric conditions allow intensification.

OHC has been going up for 40 years due to climate change.

These storms are passing over waters that are warmer than they otherwise would have been.

So it's laughable that you opine that an individual weather event can't be used to directly show the impact of climate change.

Stop making dumb climate denier arguements.

 

[WackyDan]

Ahem...

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

From NOAA no less... Data doesn't support what a lot of people think.

 

[mxnerd]

Trump will only admit there is climate change if his tower is under water.

 

[Jaskalas]

I find it odd how it seems the frequency of these historic storms is accelerating and no one in power is publicly speaking about it.

If they're smart they'll look at the historical record for storms and shut the hell up. 2005 or 2017 could occur multiple years in a decade and not break any trends or establish any new normal. Only a return to what was. Test yourself. When was the last time a major hurricane struck the New England area? Of course if it ever happens again it'll be blamed on CO2. And that's the fallacy that I'll drive a steak in.