Global Warming

One data point becomes the new trend.

 

Didn't you just toss out Katrina to make a sweeping point. Just sayin'.

 

I never mentioned Katrina. I responded to a claim of there having not been much in the way of hurricanes since Katrina by pointing out that we are less than a year removed from an unprecedented hurricane that hit New York in November, causing more damage by cost and area than Katrina did, so his point wasn't valid. And it isn't like that has been the only hurricane the 8 years. In fact, the trend is positive over the last several decades

This year is anomalous for unknown reasons. How increasing global temperature affects tropical cyclone frequency and intensity is something not well understood. Of course, Eric says it is irresponsible to try.

 

Meant Sandy.

 

Here's something from NOAA, just a little over a month ago calling for an above average season.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20130808_atlantichurricaneupdate.html

Also, Sandy was the first hurricane in what 7 years that even got to Cat 3, and yet the prediction center kept producing over active seasons each year after Katrina's season? They even termed Sandy "Super Storm", and not a hurricane, when it dipped to almost a Cat 1 before making landfall.

Come on IP, I know you're a smart guy, but you can't help but to laugh at those who keep calling for more active seasons, especially when they have no idea if it will be active or not. Weather prediction is something that will never be a "true" science, more of a science + luck at calling it past 3-4 days.

 

Reread my posts in this thread. I said the predictions for hurricanes is tricky and sometimes way off. A majority of the time, it is pretty accurate.

There have been many, many hurricanes of Category 3 or greater in the 7 years before Sandy. I have no idea how you can claim otherwise.

Sandy was termed a "Super Storm" because it defied typical patterns. One only needs to look at the damage to see it wasn't some conspiracy to make people "scared."

I already showed you that the number of hurricanes is trending up, prior to this year.

As for weather prediction never being a true science, you're an idiot.

 

i'll say it again, my biggest deal with all this is garbage like carbon credits

 

I don't like carbon credits either.

 

According to this, you are wrong.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/hurricane/story/2012-08-14/hurricane-prepared-katrina/57192442/1

 

Just because the storm doesn't hit us doesn't mean it didn't exist.

 

This is one thing we agree on.

 

I will however note that this factor does make per-satellite hurricane frequency difficult to discern - but that is irrelevant to the discussion here of the post-Katrina hurricane activity.

 

Sorry, meant to say hit the US.

 

How are the boundaries of a particular nation-state relevant to global climate patterns, in your opinion?

You do realize that the majority of tropical cyclones actually occur in the Pacific, right?

 

I honestly couldn't answer that question accurately.

Yes I do.

 

Think about it this way. If you were Guatemalan, would it be globally significant if you happened not to get hit by a hurricane for a few years, if Florida, the Yucatan, and West Indies were? Probably not.

 

the only thing i'll say to this is the "more hurricanes are gonna hit us (as in, the US)" routine is one of the things they feed the unwashed in the attempt to gain support for garbage like carbon credits

 

I know that statement has been made, but there has not been conclusive findings to back that statement up. It makes logical sense that we will see an increase due to warming, but that is based on the idea that it takes warm sea surface temperatures (SST's) to produce these storms, and warmer global climate will tend to produce warmer temperatures. The complicating factor in this is ocean circulation patterns. Despite the global warming trend continuing this year, for whatever reason SST's in the Atlantic did not respond in the way one would expect when looking at the situation on a basic level.

One year is one year. The oceans and climate are constantly responding to the inputs of climate that are constantly varying, and sometimes are responding to things that actually occurred a great deal of time prior at the same time as something occurring presently.

So what I am saying is, don't think one year proves those folks wrong anymore than you would think 2005 proved them right.

What is indisputable is eustatic sea level rise has been constant for the past 14,000 years due to going from a glacial to an interglacial period. Furthermore, that rise has accelerated in the last century and is only going to continue to accelerate. That means any storms, enhanced or not, will be getting a slight boost to storm surge/erosion potential. So even if warming was a complete scam and not real (but it is, I assure you) one would still see increasing coastal issues associated with storms. So what I am saying is even if the folks saying there is no issue with storms because of this good season and because it's a "hoax", they're still going to be ultimately wrong. Which should tell you something about that position in general- it is ignorant.

 

The earth hasn't been hit by a large meteor in a loooing time. No need to look for them and/or try to predict whether or not they are on a potential collision course.

 

Probably as much as the "we can dump whatever we want into the atmosphere and mother nature magically makes it go away" routine is fed to the masses to save a corporation a buck while it poisons the air.