What I am saying is that the only time my underground cable failed was when an excavator hit it. Which of course, made it easy to find and fix, since they had already excavated to the point of the cable.
Worst Storm in 100 Years Seen for Northeast U.S.
- Thread starter Murky
- Start date
What I am saying is that the only time my underground cable failed was when an excavator hit it. Which of course, made it easy to find and fix, since they had already excavated to the point of the cable.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
So you are saying the CO2 controls the timing of the tides? That is what made Sandy so bad, was it's timing with high tide. Take away the fact that it happened at high tide, the storm surge of Sandy is not all that remarkable
Murky
Deity
No. That was only one of several factors. Listen to the video I posted. It explains a lot about why this happened the way that it did.
With rising Co2 you get more heating of the atmosphere and the ocean. Warmer temperatures allow tropical storms to gain in intensity. The warmer arctic melted more of the ice and contributed to an abnormal jet stream pattern. The confluence of these separate events coincided with the development of the whole storm system. It didn't cause the hurricane but it did have an effect on it's intensity and path. The foot of the sea level rise added a foot to the storm surge.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Indemonstrable. It's a foot higher than it would have been had the planet not been warming, tide or not. It would have still be very high, because of both winds and extremely low air pressure. The tide situation simply exacerbated it.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
So if we take out that foot, the storm still would have been devastating. Take out six feet as if it had happened at low tide and not high tide, then it would not have done much damage at all so that is a far bigger contributor to the damage than any man made influences.
@Murky, you really should retract you claim of 5 degrees warmer.
Such data can be obtained from websites such as http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
Also if you see from here http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/, if you look at the predicted storm tracks for October, you will that compared to other months, it is the only month were the storms normally hook towards the East coast rather than move out to sea. Sandy should be a wake up call for those on the East Coast, since in recent times they have had a lull in tropical storm activity, when history has shown that it does get hit by hurricanes. Nothing to do with global warming at all.
@Murky, you really should retract you claim of 5 degrees warmer.
Such data can be obtained from websites such as http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
Also if you see from here http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/, if you look at the predicted storm tracks for October, you will that compared to other months, it is the only month were the storms normally hook towards the East coast rather than move out to sea. Sandy should be a wake up call for those on the East Coast, since in recent times they have had a lull in tropical storm activity, when history has shown that it does get hit by hurricanes. Nothing to do with global warming at all.
Murky
Deity
That graph looks a lot like the cherry picked graphed they used for their climate change denial argument over at WUWT
This is from NOAA's page that has an animation showing Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies.
Notice that it goes from -5.0 to +5.0. Notice the Red in the North Atlantic.
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ml/ocean/sst/anom_anim.html
This is from NOAA's page that has an animation showing Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies.
Notice that it goes from -5.0 to +5.0. Notice the Red in the North Atlantic.
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ml/ocean/sst/anom_anim.html
King Kalmah
Magyar Madness
So arrogant...we think we can predict anything about the future based on only 100 or 150 years of actual scientific readings... again anything older isn't backed by scientific readings/devices...
Murky
Deity
Not true. The ice core, geological and tree ring data go back way farther than 150 years. The models have proven to be fairly accurate. If anything the IPCC has been underestimating the rate of the warming and melting.
I can sort of understand why people might buy into the whole "Global Warming is a Hoax" conspiracy because of popular conspiracy theorist promoting it. There may be some bad players on the side of the global warming activists who see an opportunity for financial gain. That doesn't discredit the whole environmental movement or the science of climate change. Most people who are activist have very little incentive for personal gain. I haven't made a penny off my involvement with the issue.
Hey, I'm just going to link my last post on global warming since a few people seem to have disregarded it the last time I posted it.
Here it is!
In short, while there's no way to conclusively prove one way or another that Sandy was caused by Global Warming, we can expect more storms like Sandy to strike more often in the future.
Here it is!
In short, while there's no way to conclusively prove one way or another that Sandy was caused by Global Warming, we can expect more storms like Sandy to strike more often in the future.
I'm still skeptical of the claim that mankind causes global warming. There have been ice ages and warm periods on earth without any human intervention whatsoever. Maybe if the environment was destroyed to the level of China everywhere on earth then I could see it.
Does warming cause Co2 to rise or does Co2 rising cause the warming? How do we identify the magnitude of human influence on a system that is already in progress? How many years of data points do we need before before we can accurately make a valid conclusion? I see lots of climate models that predict things that end up not happening. The weather models predicted hurricane Sandy a week in advance perfectly so I'm willing to believe those have finally been fine tuned to be accurate. Modeling the whole planet for years into the future seems much more difficult.
Global warming/cooling by humans seems a much harder thing to prove than ozone depletion, acid rain, or even evolution. A wait and see attitude seems prudent but those who take it are called deniers, disbelievers, conspiracy nuts, and hoax swallowers. Very scientific attitude by the scientists and politicians who pay them.
Have they run their climate prediction supercomputer models backwards and accurately predicted the climate for the past 100,000 years with the various ice ages included? We have solid historical evidence to compare expected results with actual results. Once a climate model nails the historical past without being guided to the correct result I will be convinced of its predictive power. If it shows that human Co2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming in the future, then I'll stop being skeptical and support actions to curb carbon emissions.
That graph looks a lot like the cherry picked graphed they used for their climate change denial argument over at WUWT
This is from NOAA's page that has an animation showing Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies.
Notice that it goes from -5.0 to +5.0. Notice the Red in the North Atlantic.
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ml/ocean/sst/anom_anim.html
Subtle. I see the coldest temperature variations are the color of the .... continents of Earth? Gonna be real hard to spot them that way.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Or in other words, if you took away everything that made this storm bad, then it would not have been as bad...
...
Actually, the "wait and see" attitude gas been granted nearly 40 years so far. And during those two decades, climate science has refined models that can accurately produce past climate with a remarkable degree of precision. As well as present climate... but only when anthropogenic carbon emissions are included.
When those emissions are included, average global temperature rise happens faster than at any time in the paleoclimactic record. Global warming is happening now and human energy consumption is essential reason.
I'm on my phone, otherwise I'd link to papers and presentations that show this. But many of the other posters can point you to good sites to start to learn about how did our understanding of this really is.
Interesting that the models are so refined now.
I'm curious. If they have nailed predicting past
Interesting that the models are so refined now.
I'm curious. If they have nailed predicting past weather, then they can be configured to subtract out all the human Co2 emissions and forecast the future without human involvement. When was the next ice age going to occur if we had not entered the industrial revolution?
Weather =/= climate. The fact that we cannot predict exact weather events has nothing to do with whether we know that the system averages are changing, and why.
The following is a response to Kaitzilla.
The pattern of cyclic ice ages and interglacials is fairly well-understood. Right now, we are in an interglacial which we would expect to be fairly warm, with a higher carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere. However, right now atmospheric carbon dioxide is higher than it has ever been in Antarctic Ice Core data. It is fast approaching 400 parts per million, which is far higher than the 300 ppm that has typified previous interglacials.
Overall, interglacials (warm periods) typically last about 12 000 years, and our current interglacial (the Holocene epoch) is roughly 11 000 years old. Ice ages and interglacials, over the last half a million years, have generally happened over 100 000 year cycles (IE 100 000 years between the start of one interglacial and the start of the next), but earlier ice ages may have cycled more quickly (41 000 years as opposed to 100 000 years). Here's a citation from Nature. However, it's possible that the holocene, without humans, would have been a particularly long interglacial, up to 50 000 years long. This is an outlier estimate, but still worthy of consideration. Here's the citation for that, from Science.
Overall, from the cursory research I just did on the matter, there's consensus on the fact that earth will move into another ice age, but there is ongoing discussing as to exactly when this would happen. I strongly suspect that this uncertainty is in no small part due to the difficult counterfactual of assuming human non-existence, given that much of our best data comes from a time when human civilization existed. We have to base our guess off of Milankovitch cycles, ocean currents, pre-human biogeography, atmospheric composition estimates and a variety of other areas, the combination of which results in a good deal of uncertainty.
Wikipedia has a very informative article on the matter, with a lot of useful links for folow-up.
Trend of Temperature and Carbon Dioxide Concentrations over the last 500 000 Years
The pattern of cyclic ice ages and interglacials is fairly well-understood. Right now, we are in an interglacial which we would expect to be fairly warm, with a higher carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere. However, right now atmospheric carbon dioxide is higher than it has ever been in Antarctic Ice Core data. It is fast approaching 400 parts per million, which is far higher than the 300 ppm that has typified previous interglacials.
Overall, interglacials (warm periods) typically last about 12 000 years, and our current interglacial (the Holocene epoch) is roughly 11 000 years old. Ice ages and interglacials, over the last half a million years, have generally happened over 100 000 year cycles (IE 100 000 years between the start of one interglacial and the start of the next), but earlier ice ages may have cycled more quickly (41 000 years as opposed to 100 000 years). Here's a citation from Nature. However, it's possible that the holocene, without humans, would have been a particularly long interglacial, up to 50 000 years long. This is an outlier estimate, but still worthy of consideration. Here's the citation for that, from Science.
Overall, from the cursory research I just did on the matter, there's consensus on the fact that earth will move into another ice age, but there is ongoing discussing as to exactly when this would happen. I strongly suspect that this uncertainty is in no small part due to the difficult counterfactual of assuming human non-existence, given that much of our best data comes from a time when human civilization existed. We have to base our guess off of Milankovitch cycles, ocean currents, pre-human biogeography, atmospheric composition estimates and a variety of other areas, the combination of which results in a good deal of uncertainty.
Wikipedia has a very informative article on the matter, with a lot of useful links for folow-up.
Trend of Temperature and Carbon Dioxide Concentrations over the last 500 000 Years
Similar threads
- Locked
