Proof global warming isn't making weather wackier?
Tropical Cyclone Bingiza (Photo credit: NASA Goddard Photo and Video)
Greenhouse gases do much more than just warm the planet, some environmentalists warn: They cause hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, droughts, and even extreme cold spells. Or do they?
Steven Goddard, who runs the skeptical climate blog Real Science and has a background in geology and computer science, has spent thousands of hours studying bad weather events around the world.
He found that the weather was wilder and weirder in the past than it is today.
“People are claiming there are more disasters now,” Goddard said. “That’s crazy. The weather was terrible in the past, back when CO2 was below 350ppm."
1) Deadly hurricanes
The deadliest hurricane in U.S. history was not hurricane Katrina, but rather one that hit Galveston, Tex., more than a century ago. The Texas State Historical Association notes that, upon the first signs of the hurricane in 1900, a local weather official drove “a horse-drawn cart around low areas warning people to leave.”
For many, the warning was too late.
“A storm wave… caused a sudden rise of 4 feet in water depth, and shortly afterward the entire city was underwater to a maximum depth of 15 feet.”
The hurricane destroyed most of the city, killing between 10,000 and 12,000.
“Hurricanes have not become more frequent or intense,” University of Alabama climate scientist John Christie told FoxNews.com. NOAA hurricane records back up that claim.
“The story on hurricanes is a mixed bag,” agrees Brenda Ekwurzel, a climate scientist at the Union for Concerned Scientists.
2) Melting Glaciers
Glaciers are melting around the world, and many worry that will cause flooding. But the melting is not necessarily due to greenhouse gases. Goddard points to places where glaciers nearly vanished due to natural warming.
Glacier Bay, in Alaska, is one such place. The glacier was discovered in 1794, but the National Park Service reports that “by 1879… naturalist John Muir discovered that the ice had retreated more than 30 miles ... By 1916 it … had melted back 60 miles.”
3) Extreme Cold
It was so cold in New York City that the rivers around Manhattan froze over for five weeks -- in 1780, that is. British troops occupying the city at the time rolled cannons from Manhattan across the ice to Staten Island. They even built temporary fortifications on the ice, which stayed solid enough to support men on horseback until March 17.
Throughout the 1800s, the rivers froze over at least six times.
Add comment
Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work.
PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.
Comments
I learned at school that the huge rock formations and valleys in Scotland and Wales were formed by glaciers millions of years ago which melted.
Even in the Old Testament (if you believe that kind of stuff) there were extreme weather events, the Old Testament is perhaps partly historical in an anecdotal kind of way.
The only reason people have the mindset that the weather is worse today is because of the mobile phone.
Never before in history have so many people been taking pictures, furthermore, more people are taking reasonably good pictures as well, so every momentous event be it weather or revolution/terrorism etc etc is instantly available on the net.
So it only appears to be worse today than ever before.
What is more worrying though is the mindset the s**t for brains Joe public who is now of the mindset that something must be causing this bad weather, which of course is what the Climate Change scaremongers want.
Not many folks commenting these days on this site, is that a good thing I wonder?
notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/us-tornado-report-2011/
While I firmly agree with the premise of this article, it smacks of another over-done effort to throw the wet rag in the faces of the Global Warming alarmists which makes our case seem weak.
Global warming is certainly nothing new and it may not even be happening now. We have so much evidence available to make this case clear to the public. Lets us it.
In reality it was an accident waiting to happen. The trouble is that alarmists use examples like these to make their case.
notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/is-our-climate-becoming-more-extreme/
articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-09-14/news/sfl-number-of-tropical-storms-increases-to-12-20110914_1_average-storm-season-chris-landsea-tropical-systems
www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/images/cum-average_Atl_1966-2009.gif
www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5742/1844.full
climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#globalTemp
www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=29957
www.usfa.fema.gov/fireservice/nfirs/status/no_fires_report.shtm
A 2010 paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society by Netherlands researcher Laurens Bouwer titled, “Have Disaster Losses Increased Due to Anthropogenic Climate Change?”, looked at 22 disaster-loss studies worldwide, published between 2001 and 2010.
Here is what Bouwer concludes on the full set of 22 papers that he reviewed :
"The studies show no trends in losses, corrected for changes (increases) in population and capital at risk, that could be attributed to anthropogenic climate change. Therefore, it can be concluded that anthropogenic climate change so far has not had a significant impact on losses from natural disasters."
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2010BAMS3092.1
A Dutch scientist reviewed 22 recent peer-reviewed studies regarding disaster losses and global warming. Not a single study found a connection between extreme weather, global warming and increased disaster losses. The 22 studies covered the entire spectrum of disasters, including: bushfire, earthquake, flood, hail, landslide, windstorm, thunderstorm, tornado, tropical storm, hurricane and hail.
(cont'd below)
"The Dutch researcher reports that "most of the 22 studies have not found a trend in disaster losses, after normalization for changes in population and wealth." In fact, he says that "all 22 studies show that increases in exposure and wealth are by far the most important drivers for growing disaster losses ," a conclusion that has also been reached by Changnon et al. (2000), Pielke et al. (2005) and Bouwer et al. (2007). And he adds that "no study identified changes in extreme weather due to anthropogenic climate change as the main driver for any remaining trend."...Reiterating these observations in his paper's concluding paragraph, Bouwer says that although "economic losses from various weather-related natural hazards, such as storms, tropical cyclones, floods, and small-scale weather events (e.g., wildfires and hailstorms), have increased around the globe," the 22 studies he analyzed "show no trends in losses, corrected for changes (increases) in population and capital at risk, that could be attributed to anthropogenic climate change."" [Laurens M. Bouwer 2011: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society]
Take you alarmist claptrap somewhere elese. There are no suckers to be had here.
1.) "most of the 22 studies have not found a trend in disaster losses, after normalization for changes in population and wealth." There are studies which do show a correlation between correlation between climate change and natural disasters.
2.)Bowers himself said that "it can be concluded that anthropogenic climate change so far has not had a significant impact on losses from natural disasters." This is the point I emphasized in my argument that it will become a problem if we don't reduce CO2 emissions which are causing the greenhouse effect. This factor causes changes in weather conditions, (you can look towards NASA, NOAA, and numerous other studies which all confirm this).
So next time, please do some more reading and actually read my argument before you put words in my mouth which I did not say.
Quote:Cherry picking alarmists are not honored here.
If I start my timeline this mornig, we are seeing runaway warming!
Run Chicken Little, run!
Your 20-43 years studies do not span more than a single cycle at most. Your conclusions about hurricanes are meaningless.
If you can find me a credible source which states that there is absolutely no correlation between global climate change and an increase in the frequency of natural events I mentioned in my argument, I'll take your word for it. Till then, only people who are too foolish to acknowledge what is going on around them would call any of these arguments which oppose the article "alarmist claptrap". After all, the evidence is all there.
Parrot some more nonsense and please keep us entertained.
The typical Liberal tripe, complete with Latin reactionary whining and the claim that the rebuttal only makes "his point." Dude, Harsha-Kimchi, you have NO POINT.
The crazed crowd of AGW believers, fanatics, disciples and propagandists have for years wrongly claimed that global warming causes more severe weather events. As C3 readers are very aware, the actual empirical evidence does not support that claim whatsoever. In addition, even the AGW theory does not support the claim that global warming will cause extreme weather.
That last sentence is verified by a statement from Gavin Schmidt, a very prominent NASA climate scientist:
"There is no theory or result that indicates that climate change increases extremes in general."
As Luboš Motl (one of the world's premier physicists) explains in his article, the global warming theory better supports the claim that less severe climate extremes will be the result of warming. Why? AGW theory calls for the polar areas to warm more rapidly than the tropical areas. That result means the temperature difference between polar and tropics is lessened. If the temperature difference shrinks, the potential for severe weather shrinks also.
(cont'd below)
In a nutshell, that is actual weather science that all scientists agree on.
Soooo, why does the speculation persist that global warming causes more severe weather despite known science and empirical evidence? Well, the UN's IPCC political agenda requires a propaganda strategy of continuous lies and misconceptions to take root and thrive. Otherwise, it becomes very difficult to convince policymakers and the public to go along with draconian economic policies that reducing CO2 emissions require. And, as the crazed belief in the Soviet Union proved conclusively in the 20th century, leftists/liberals relish in the 'Big Lie' concept, in all its anti-science trappings.
Again, there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current climate or how we got here. It is all perfectly natural and has all happened before.
I don't listen to salesmen pitch their wares, and call it science.
NOAA Reports That 96% of Deadliest U.S. Tornadoes Occurred Before 1960, Prior To The "Global Warming" Hysteria
Once again, we see nothing alarming, just weather. Get a paper bag and slow your breathing.
Not to mention the number of fires:
www.usfa.fema.gov/fireservice/nfirs/status/no_fires_report.shtm
Once again, my points still stand. It also shows that you clearly didn't read my original arguments.
news.mongabay.com/2007/0810-un.html
To address disasters in general:
Tell me Harsha, does your car salesman tell you his cars are the best deal? Based upon his study?
www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html
But essentially, yes.
From your link...
Quote:Time to go back to school young man. You have absolutely no clue as to what you are speaking of, and you just proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt!
I was taking climatlogy classes in the 1980's, and at that time we had just cleared the new ice age and were staring down 'desertification'. I wrote a most embarrassing paper in support of mitigation plans for stopping desertification. I did so because my research showed every governmental panel and every scientific body agreed we were going to experience starvation, war, pestilence and mass migrations brought on by desertification unless we spent the developed world's fortune fighting it.
I have attempted to follow every study regarding AGW since I first heard the phrase 'global warming'. Based upon over 10 years of geology studies and two years of climatolgy classes, I recognized we were in an interglacial (happy thing) and still recovering from the last mini ice age. It was supposed to be getting warmer, mother nature and all. Then when I saw the data fraud, that was the last concern I had with AGW.
I learned my lesson, now it is your generation's turn.
atlas-conferences.com/c/a/m/u/33.htm
www.iisd.ca/africa/desert/jicd/html/arc0601e.html
Harsha, you have much to learn and until you start questioning authority, you will learn little.
www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7604188/Volcanic-ash-cloud-Global-warming-may-trigger-more-volcanoes.html
Piece of advice, when you see the phrase 'tipping point', walk away. The Earth needs no help from us, just good stewardship.
Now I have breakfast to attend to, and you your studies.
"And he said there may be ''tipping points'' in the geological systems, where the crust reaches a threshold that causes a step-change in the frequency of such events - but it was not clear where those thresholds might lie. "
is the context of the article. You fail to understand that in order to promote "good stewardship" we need to accept the facts that global climate change is affecting the environment. Otherwise, if we don't attempt to remedy the problem, we will experience the effects of climate change in a more profound manner than we already have. We need to do something, otherwise we risk going past the "tipping point". To be honest, I was expecting to learn something from this debate, but it was pretty sad to hear such weakly based arguments from someone who is supposedly so experienced. I hope you enjoy your breakfast, and you are absolutely right, I have more important things to do than to correct such backward arguments.
Take care,
Harsha
Even Darwin recognized 'climate change' and its effects on evolution. Climate change is the norm, and not an aberration.
Come back here sometime with an open mind, you will learn much more, and be much smarter.
PS - Breakfast was awesome.
Quote:Indicates you are unable to think for yourself. It is you who fails to understand.
In all the history of the planet the only "tipping" points it has ever faced have been towards ice ages.
www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm
abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/technology&id=8609351
The climate change which results from this event was one of cooling, significantly so, but obviously not due to any earthly process except for what was set into motion by a cosmic influence.
You must consider the entire body of evidence when discussing these matters. Gator has already thrashed you sufficiently about your cherry-picking data, so I will refrain from doing so again.
Quote:Meaning that we are beginning to move in a path that Earth cannot balance for.
It is not correct to measure storm activity by the extent of damage they cause.
notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/rahmstorfs-claims-of-increasing-extreme-weathera-damning-put-down-by-noaa-expert/
It is imperative to look at the big picture and not just the extremes. In the paper you cited:
Quote: I firmly agree, and that is what I have been saying this entire time that there is NO correlation between global climate change and EXTREME weather. However, there is a correlation between the frequency of this weather, as cited by:
NOAA:
NASA:
climate.nasa.gov/
The US Fire Administration + FEMA:
www.usfa.fema.gov/fireservice/nfirs/status/no_fires_report.shtm
Please read before you cite studies and be able to: Quote:.
As I said, read more here, comment less, and you will be a better man for it.
You do not know it all yet.
But, I acknowledged where there have been misunderstandings on my part about the initial volcano issue and some other minor misunderstandings along the way. Furthermore, you hardly ever acknowledge my arguments beyond saying that it is simply alarmist or juvenile. You don't explain your reasoning, but simply say that I should believe you because of your experience with events that are contrary to popular belief. I have shown that the evidence you bring up don't even address my arguments half the time.
As a final statement to your last comment, there isn't a spike in the 30s, why should there be? There is an increase from the previous years. For a man who preaches that I should read more and post less, you should address more of my arguments the first time around instead of just promoting the ad hominem fallacy. But, I do have the guts to admit that I don't know everything. But you have taught me about how people are influenced by propaganda, and I am not talking about the government.
As I said, read and learn, or you will not grow.
PS - I've read your sources before, and they only confirm what I already knew.
The problem with polls is that they are not exhaustive and that they are based on public opinion. The public is generally unqualified to state what is or what is not, so nobody who understands the scientific method cares a fig about polling and opinions. That is why the democracy does not rule in science, why the concensus is meaningless and that the supposed "98-percent of climatoligsts agree" is equally stupid. At the introduction of each radical theory, the proponent is a minority of a single individual. Einstein was once regarded as hopelessly wrong by his peers; now hardly anyone challenges his theories.