QuestionAt the end of another hurricane season, where are all the global warming induced storms of destruction?
      – DigitalBoss, 2009-10-02 at 13:44:10   (39 comments)

On 2009-10-02 at 13:44:35, DigitalBoss wrote...
Back in 2005 when Katrina hit, we were deluged with claims of global warming induced massive storms and destruction. Where is it at now? The last 2 or 3 years have had no such storms. Kind of makes you wonder, does it not?
On 2009-10-02 at 14:16:46, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Those were media claims, not scientific ones. Climate scientists have always stated that warming is likely to increase the variability of the system, which is actually fairly obvious. We don't have long-term records that can show a trend in hurricane numbers, which are relatively low, so any predictions would be premature. Atlantic hurricanes tend to occur on years with few Pacific cyclones and vice versa - it's not at all unusual to have few hurricanes. Plus there are plenty of hurricanes, but we only hear about the ones that threaten both land and population centres. A large increase in temperatures can actually suppress hurricane formation, as they rely on a difference between ocean and air temperatures to grow large. As I recall, Katrina doubled in size as a result of ridiculously high temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico - if it hadn't passed that area, and hit a populated area, it wouldn't have been as significant. In 2008 there were 8 hurricanes, 5 major, and 16 tropical storms. There are always some.
On 2009-10-02 at 14:41:15, DigitalBoss wrote...
Remember Al Gore and his "An Inconvenient Truth" movie? Well he is our climate change advocate here, and I think he is a nut. I know, this year we had 6.
On 2009-10-02 at 14:44:05, DigitalBoss wrote...
Using your quote, "so any predictions would be premature." Is exactly how I feel about climate change.
On 2009-10-02 at 14:51:23, DigitalBoss wrote...
Are you saying that Al Gore was wrong? OMG!
On 2009-10-02 at 18:22:37, Lee J Haywood wrote...
It's not wrong to say that hurricane formation is affected by climate change, but if you think that the effects will be immediately visible within a couple of years then you're being unreasonable. I don't have the film to hand right now, so I don't know exactly what Al Gore said, but models do suggest some increase in the number of cyclones in the South Atlantic later in the century. Hurricanes are unpredictable by nature, so obviously the exact timing is anyone's guess. Long-term predictions about climate change do have a wide margin of error, although we don't need to wait for predictions to see change is already underway. When the nasty changes kick in, they're likely to be quite sudden and it will be too late to do anything about them.
On 2009-10-02 at 19:44:44, DigitalBoss wrote...
I am so sick of hearing about the shit, I could vomit.
On 2009-10-03 at 03:38:08, BorgClown wrote...
DB, you want immediate certainties in order to take a permanent posture. You won't see them in your lifetime, specially if you insist on denying the whole issue because you want it not to be.
On 2009-10-03 at 03:38:48, BorgClown wrote...
Focus your fairtax mojo on something more immediate, brother.
On 2009-10-03 at 21:15:28, DigitalBoss wrote...
I don't insist on denying the whole issue, I am simply waiting for someone to convince me.
On 2009-10-03 at 21:18:09, DigitalBoss wrote...
So, are you saying that Al Gore was right?
On 2009-10-04 at 00:13:57, BorgClown wrote...
I don't know much about Al Gore, what is the particular posture we are judging?
On 2009-10-04 at 15:36:05, DigitalBoss wrote...
You know, the guy that invented the Internet, Al Gore. His movie, "An Inconvenient Truth", is all about "global warming". He used large slides of hurricane satellite pictures to instill fear of destruction by large storms. Our movie industry here in the US made feature films echoing the same fears, "The Day After", I think was one of them. LeeJ, maybe you can respond to this. I read that the schools in GB tried to require that all students watched his movie in class, and it went to court where a judge ruled that there were too many errors and misleading comments for it to be shown in schools. Have you heard anything about that?
On 2009-10-04 at 15:36:44, DigitalBoss wrote...
You are lucky to not know much about him, waste of time.
On 2009-10-04 at 15:37:59, DigitalBoss wrote...
I found something about it here: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth
On 2009-10-04 at 16:26:07, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Hmm, well of course there are inaccuracies in the film - it was meant to be conscious-raising rather than 100% scientifically accurate - yet I can see plenty of problems with the rebuttals too. For example, the idea that 'sea levels are expected to rise by about 40 cm over the next hundred years' is misleading. That's a best-guess figure, but there could be a much greater rise depending on how quickly the feedback mechanisms cause run-away warming and melting. The danger is that we are complacent and help speed up the process, rather than being sensible and trying to minimise it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise I hadn't heard about the film being shown in schools. I certainly think it should be labelled as an informative but potentially outdated film. Its point is to make people aware of the scope of climate change and its effects, to engage them emotionally, and obviously isn't something you'd point to as a source in a scientific paper.
On 2009-10-04 at 17:42:03, BorgClown wrote...
This reminds me of the Y2K bug. Almost everybody thinks it was fearmongering, but the reality is that lots of developers put lots of time to find, correct and test date management. Based on the customer base, my team's work alone assured that almost 150,000 people/companies received their invoices and loans correctly. I'm not sure if this story is accurate, but a friend of mine was employed to check and fix elevators, and he told me that some models were prone to stack overflow. If left unfixed they would execute data as code, and behave randomly until reset. Some elevators have clocks way off, so the crazies wouldn't necessarily happen at midnight.
On 2009-10-04 at 17:43:31, BorgClown wrote...
The moral is, you gotta prevent. Waiting until risks become problems is unwise, specially when the risk is great.
On 2009-10-04 at 18:55:02, DigitalBoss wrote...
There is nothing to prevent.
On 2009-10-04 at 18:59:50, DigitalBoss wrote...
The Y2K bug is not a good example in this case. People knew that some programming languages and methods did not consider 4 digit dates. It was evident by looking at the code that it was going to fail when switched when incremented from 99. It was not a rumor, or junk science, it was a fact.
On 2009-10-04 at 19:03:19, DigitalBoss wrote...
The film was meant as propaganda.
On 2009-10-04 at 21:49:13, BorgClown wrote...
Only technical people like you know Y2K wasn't bullshit. The media gave people the populace the impression that 2000/01/01 00:00 was going to be the end of the world. Global warming is the same, the infotainment industry overhypes it, but there are small changes already aggregating. The solar cycle of 11 years can't explain it all, and we don't have much detail on larger time scales. Anyway, why stall and grab to carbon energy? Cleaner, renewable energy is the inevitable future, sooner or later.
On 2009-10-04 at 21:51:38, BorgClown wrote...
You know that many people will resist change unless forced by law. Even corporations have become short-sighted, looking for quick money now and disregarding the long-term consequences.
On 2009-10-04 at 23:10:57, DigitalBoss wrote...
We have a right to resist, we are free citizens. If the government is going to force something down our throats, they should be decent enough to wait until it is proven fact, not just consensus.
On 2009-10-04 at 23:12:51, DigitalBoss wrote...
There are many more natural cycles involved than just the 11 year solar cycle.
On 2009-10-05 at 03:12:32, DigitalBoss wrote...
Let us see, there is the Avery-Singer 1500 year cycle, the Chandler Wobble 7 year cycle, and the Milankovitch theory of Earth's orbital variability, the aforementioned 11 year solar sunspot cycle, and all of the above mixed and matched in many combination of effects.
On 2009-10-05 at 09:22:59, BorgClown wrote...
Fine, there isn't a consensus. But a consensus of what? Scientists, politicians, citizens? Either way, 100% is impossible, and even 90% would be unrealistic. How about 75%? Would that convince you?
On 2009-10-05 at 10:19:05, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@BorgClown: There is a consensus - between climate scientists. They're the only ones who count. Everyone else is merely opinionated, myself included.
On 2009-10-05 at 20:12:32, BorgClown wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: Well, there a a few climate scientists who deny global warming, but they're so few it makes you think if they're doing it for notoriety. I asked DB because I want to know how high he put the bar.
On 2009-10-05 at 21:13:34, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@BorgClown: Which climate scientists are you thinking of? What are their names?
On 2009-10-06 at 02:20:59, BorgClown wrote...
I don't recall any specifics, so you'll forgive me for throwing a good WP article instead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
On 2009-10-06 at 02:22:54, BorgClown wrote...
WP makes great efforts to remain neutral, and the article I just linked is proof of it.
On 2009-10-06 at 02:27:33, BorgClown wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: Rereading the article I realized global warming has indeed reached more consensus since the last time I read about it. Every major science academy in the world has accepted it, it is a significant consensus in less than a decade. Now it seems more unlikely that Global warming is just a plot for increasing USA's bureaucracy. It's become an world-wide phenomenon.
On 2009-10-06 at 09:16:54, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@BorgClown: It's laughable that people take a Professor of Geography as an example of a scientist against climate change. Interestingly, there is a climate scientist way down the page - but his only claim is that plants will increase. This is worrying, since rising temperatures and dwindling water supplies have already driven wheat yields down by 30% and rice yields down by 15% (in Africa/Asia). There are projections of 10s of millions of children being malnourished as a result over the next 40 years. The anti-climate change lobby is very vocal and brilliant at spreading misinformation. They're happy to pick up on outdated ideas and spread them as if they are 'scientific truths' which disprove climate change, when they're nothing of the sort.
On 2009-10-06 at 12:47:52, DigitalBoss wrote...
It is laughable that people actually believe Al Gore.
On 2009-10-06 at 12:52:12, DigitalBoss wrote...
From reading the WP link, it seems to me the issue is undecided. There are cases and beliefs that can go either way. I vote disbelief, and I do not want to pay higher taxes and energy costs for something that just simply cannot be proven.
On 2009-10-06 at 13:47:17, Lee J Haywood wrote...
From Wikipedia: For the purpose of this list a "scientist" is an individual who has published at least one peer-reviewed article during their lifetime in the broadly-construed area of natural sciences, though not necessarily in recent years nor in a field relevant to climate. They're not relevant at all - none are any more climate scientists than we are, and I'd guess that many of the statements are either old or based on old information. The issue may well be 'undecided' amongst a random selection of people who happen to be scientists, but there is no debate amongst climate scientists. Anyone who says otherwise is being deliberately misleading.
On 2009-10-06 at 16:30:17, DigitalBoss wrote...
I think that climate scientists should be taken out of the documentation, they are surely biased. No global warming scare = no government funds for next grant.
On 2009-10-06 at 20:08:11, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: Nowai, you leave us with only the wackos! It's like saying that teachers shouldn't teach pedagogy because they're biased. Who would do it then, religious zealots?