Attributing extreme events to climate change - the debate

[rdale]

Dan - this news article is simply their interpretation of the actual paper. If you click the link now, you can get free access to the paper (so no worries about who interpreted it ) [Strangely enough I'm at work so I cannot access it here, but when I was at home it said this was open-access. Maybe they noticed my IP address so I can't get it? YMMV.)

 

[Jason Harris]

I can see my attempts to shed light on the intended aspect of this debate has been completely missed. That's what I get for trying to post anything about the science regarding climate.

Carry on. This will be the last of my participation in this thread.

I hope you reconsider. I always very much appreciate the sharing and discussion from people who are up on the latest studies in atmospheric sciences.

 

[Michael Gavan]

So, are you saying you do not vote?

When necessary I do not vote, correct. My presidential candidate of choice in 2012, for instance, was litigated off of the ballot in Michigan by Mitt Romney's legal team over a technicality, So I did not vote. Otherwise, I have voted for all independent or libertarian candidates. I have voted for one Republican once, but she's more of an infiltrator. There are several republicans and democrats that I like, but because I'm not in their districts, I can't vote for them. to be clear.

 

[rdale]

It would be nice if threads about science topics were made "off-limits" from political discussions, at least on this forum. I know it's not possible in the real world

 

[Jeff Duda]

STAFF NOTE:
This is a quick reminder for all participants of this thread to stay on-topic. If the conversation steers heavily towards political issues unrelated to this thread, post deletions and a thread lockdown will quickly follow.

To those who are staying on topic, thank you. Please continue to do so.

 

[Jason Harris]

In terms of larger patterns starting to be supported by statistics, it's interesting to consider some of these points situating Tropical Storm Bill in context with the fact of higher-volume rainfall events increasing in the Northeast and Midwest:
__
Bill developed from a low-pressure system over the Gulf of Mexico, becoming a named system on Monday night, when it met the official criteria for a tropical storm. Because it formed over warm Gulf waters, the system is plenty ripe for dumping serious amounts of rain over the eastern portions Texas and Oklahoma, as well as parts of Arkansas and Missouri. Such balmy waters provide ample energy for developing storms, and the warm air in the region means more water in the atmosphere available to turn into rains.

The relationship between warmer air and the greater amounts of moisture it contains is one of the most well-accepted tenets of climate science, and underpins one of the more solid projections, that warming will lead to more heavy downpours in general across the globe.

This trend has already been observed across the U.S., with some regions showing more of an increase than others. The biggest rises have come in the Northeast, which has seen a 71 percent increase in heavy precipitation events since 1958, and the Midwest, which has seen a 37 percent increase, according to the National Climate Assessment.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/bill-downpours-texas-future-19116

 

[Kevin Rimcoski]

So we're going to see another 'noah's arc' situation sounds like

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[rdale]

So we're going to see another 'noah's arc' situation sounds like

I'm not sure I understand what you say is coming?

 

[John Farley]

I'm in favor of listening to a consensus of *scientists* (not politicians or journalists) who study in that specific, relevant field and know what they're talking about. I am apprehensive of accepting the conclusions of one scientist and one paper. It doesn't mean he is wrong, I just believe that conclusions that lead to costly actions must be very well substantiated.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that there are also costs - and potentially greater costs - of NOT acting. A newly released, peer-reviewed study by the EPA notes that the economic and other costs of NOT acting are likely to be very high. In the spirit of suggestions by Dan and others, here is a link to the study (as opposed to the many journalistic reports about the study that are out there):

http://www2.epa.gov/cira

 

[Kevin Rimcoski]

I'm not sure I understand what you say is coming?

I think if the trend follows (as in warmer temps, more water vapor, more moisture etc) we'll see a lot more flooding events, much more HP storms, more widespread rain, maybe more brown ocean effect cyclones...things around that.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Todd Lemery]

Here is what really worries me.
http://notrickszone.com/2014/05/10/...roaching-little-ice-age/#sthash.tB2bspUJ.dpbs

And this
https://patriotpost.us/pages/33

 

[Boris Konon]

A little off-topic, but I thought this would be of some value for overall perspective:

Sometimes I feel we focus now too much on the "what if" and "could be" rather
than addressing long-standing issues in the here and now that are not up for debate
and need more attention. There is a lot of human misery that requires immediate
attention today and access to low-cost fossil fuels still can go long way to
alleviating suffering. At least a billion people don’t have access to modern
energy, living instead off other rather dirty fuel sources such as smokey wood and dried
dung. As much as this sounds politically incorrect, more fossil-fuel energy still would
go a long way to lift up a billion of the world's poor. I am all for cleaner energy
sources, but it takes time. New technology costs a lot to develop and implement.
You can't just flick a switch and end fossil fuel burning like that. The social, political, and
economic structure of the world simply does not allow that. Right now, fossil fuels
are still plentiful and the most cost effective, for better or worse. There is a balance
here that needs to be maintained for the world to function without complete chaos.

Is climate change an issue?, of course. Does it deserve serious attention?, yes,
but let's not get too carried away and ignore other more concrete, tangible issues
that exist today, and yes, some solutions are still found in carbon emission fuels.

 

[rdale]

And this
https://patriotpost.us/pages/33

Oh that worries me too... 1) PatriotPost.us is not a scientific journal by any stretch. 2) The first quote dispelling the climate change science is from an astronomer. ASTRONOMER. As in someone who studies STARS, not weather... Sigh.

 

[Todd Lemery]

You guys are too easy. I didn't even read them.

 

[Mike Benefield]

For all those who are wondering a little bit about attribution of climate change to some extreme events, or for those who think they are convinced the truth is one way or another, I invite you to read this short news article: http://www.denverpost.com/breakingn...st-ties-severity-colorados-2013-flood-climate.

Towards the end there is a short debate between two respected, experienced, and knowledgeable researchers about how much attribution towards an extreme event can be applied to anthropogenic climate change. This is the actual scientific debate that EVERYONE should focus on. I want people to get a look at it, because it differs strongly from the highly politicized debates most of you are probably familiar with. Don't listen to politicians on matters of science; rather, listen to those who are actually conducting the research.

I've looked at some of the data regarding climate change, not an in-depth analysis but just an overview of the situation. The climate has changed on it's own throughout history, and these changes occurred before industrialization and the impact of mankind on the environment. Remember the most recent Ice Age? I can't recall with certainty, but I believe that was about 10,000 years ago. The climate goes through cycles. Record-keeping, at least on a detailed scale, didn't begin until the late 1800's. So, there are no historical data with which to compare today's climate change. The real question comes down to this: How much of this current climate change is mankind actually responsible for? My personal opinion is that man plays a much smaller role than many suggest. I believe we are going through a natural climate change cycle. One thing that gets me is that when this climate issue began a few decades ago, it started as "global warming". Then, as data changed to indicate that the Earth was actually cooling in more locations than it was warming, it was renamed "climate change", to cover any change in average temperature, whether it be warmer or cooler. I agree the climate has changed slightly, but how much is attributable to mankind? And Jeff, I strongly agree that people not listen to politicians on this subject, because, as usual, they have their own ulterior motives.