interesting little slide show

[callmeslick]

I didn't wish to revisit the specifics of climate change deniers back in the middle of a more general thread, so I'll toss this out on its own:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015- ... the-world/

[Tunnelcat]

That's pretty interesting data. But proving climate change to all the deniers is akin to flogging a dead horse. It ain't going to change things until everyone is definitely roasting, getting wiped out by bigger and more frequent hurricanes and tornadoes, or buried in severe snow storms every winter.

[Spidey]

Doom and Gloom...film at 11:00

[callmeslick]

That's pretty interesting data. But proving climate change to all the deniers is akin to flogging a dead horse. It ain't going to change things until everyone is definitely roasting, getting wiped out by bigger and more frequent hurricanes and tornadoes, or buried in severe snow storms every winter.

which, oddly enough, has BEEN happening with increasing frequency,and they still deny.

[woodchip]

Been predicting more tornadoes and hurricanes for the last 10 years. I suggest you read up on reality

[snoopy]

The correlation looks pretty impressive as presented. As an engineer, I have a hard time believing that the correlation can really be that good, especially considering the size of their error bounds... I'd like to see the math & data behind their plots. But, that's really an aside.

I'm not skeptical about us humans having a large effect on the environment. I'm can even be fine with assuming that the graph is perfect. Here's what I want to ask:

1. Why are we focused on trying to keep the world the same? The planet's been changing, drastically, for a very long time now - why is it important to suddenly try to freeze here where we are? Nature will march on. [My answer: because the current conditions are about ideal for the human race... and we don't particularly want conditions to get worse for us.]

2. Okay, so we're driving up overall world temperature - what should be do about it? Prevent? Adapt? Prepare? What's realistic, and what's globally fair?

3. What are you, personally, going to take it upon yourself to do about it?

[callmeslick]

Been predicting more tornadoes and hurricanes for the last 10 years. I suggest you read up on reality

worldwide, they are up(hurricanes/cyclones) and moreover, no one is really claiming that NUMBERS would be up. Severity is what was predicted to rise,and if you'd care to deny that has been happening, go ahead. I'll stick with reality.

[callmeslick]

The correlation looks pretty impressive as presented. As an engineer, I have a hard time believing that the correlation can really be that good, especially considering the size of their error bounds... I'd like to see the math & data behind their plots. But, that's really an aside.

I'm not skeptical about us humans having a large effect on the environment. I'm can even be fine with assuming that the graph is perfect. Here's what I want to ask:

1. Why are we focused on trying to keep the world the same? The planet's been changing, drastically, for a very long time now - why is it important to suddenly try to freeze here where we are? Nature will march on. [My answer: because the current conditions are about ideal for the human race... and we don't particularly want conditions to get worse for us.]

2. Okay, so we're driving up overall world temperature - what should be do about it? Prevent? Adapt? Prepare? What's realistic, and what's globally fair?

3. What are you, personally, going to take it upon yourself to do about it?

valid points here. My responses, which are specific to me:
1. I don't care if the Earth changes, at a normal gradual pace, but don't wish to see mankind shove the natural curve out of whack.
2. Prevent further damage, spend a lot of time learning how best to adapt and prepare. The resistance to those last two by the 'deniers' and their GOP lackeys is what has annoyed me most. In VA, they cannot even spend state money to STUDY the issue, despite pretty accurate analysis that suggests that Norfolk will be under water in 50-65 years. That is just dumbass governance.
3. I've tried to limit vehicle emissions, although without going full-on electric. I installed a new, far cleaner heating system in the VA house, and am working to set up a solar farm in VA on 4 acres of farmland. Not all that much, frankly. This is where government can make or break the effort, though, via both subsidies, basic research, grants for more end-level research and development, and yes, taxes on pollution by industries. No one likes the latter, but it becomes a driver to revamp the current hydrocarbon based model.

[Vander]

1. Why are we focused on trying to keep the world the same? The planet's been changing, drastically, for a very long time now - why is it important to suddenly try to freeze here where we are? Nature will march on. [My answer: because the current conditions are about ideal for the human race... and we don't particularly want conditions to get worse for us.]

It's important because we don't know everything about our environment. But what we do know, is that our planet has gone through drastic changes, but at a comparatively slower pace. We know pace is important, for slower pace allows for adaptation, faster pace increases extinction. Faster pace of extinction collapses interdependant food chains in a snowball effect. We know that we are a product of an ecosystem that changes climate much slower.

2. Okay, so we're driving up overall world temperature - what should be do about it? Prevent? Adapt? Prepare? What's realistic, and what's globally fair?

The first step to getting out of hole is realizing you're in a hole in the first place. This is unfortunately a problem with our current most successful system of society. If you are benefiting from the hole, you are not likely to be motivated to stop digging. I tried to discuss this topic in this thread.

3. What are you, personally, going to take it upon yourself to do about it?

I try to buy sustainable products. I try to minimize my carbon footprint. I put more weight to these concerns when voting for leaders. But I also realize that I can't do this alone. Individually living a sustainable lifestyle won't change anything if the other 7 billion people don't give a sh!t. So I do what I can to spread the word.

[woodchip]

Been predicting more tornadoes and hurricanes for the last 10 years. I suggest you read up on reality

worldwide, they are up(hurricanes/cyclones) and moreover, no one is really claiming that NUMBERS would be up. Severity is what was predicted to rise,and if you'd care to deny that has been happening, go ahead. I'll stick with reality.

Here is reality:

http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/h ... ?region=at

http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/top10.asp

Severity is not rising.

[Ferno]

yes it is.

http://www.wwfblogs.org/climate/content ... res-among-

An increase in the maximum wind speeds of the strongest hurricanes has been documented and linked to increasing sea surface temperatures.

source: http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/outloo ... cane.shtml

[vision]

http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/top10.asp

Severity is not rising.

Here are some charts using data points you provided in your link. Yes, severity and frequency is rising.

[snoopy]

Um vision, your charts don't prove your point.

try looking at this:
ACE, Global, 1970-2015

(Note: I'm not really invested in an argument about storm quantity/severity, I'm just not a fan of people pointing to inkblots and insisting that they say what they want them to.)

[Spidey]

Funny, but I do believe all sides have now made that argument.

[vision]

Um vision, your charts don't prove your point.

It does, and so does the link you provided. Thanks!

[Tunnelcat]

These happenings are not proof, but a pretty good indication of a trend, a bad one.

http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/g ... 02956.html

Remember people, the nation gets quite a bit of it's food from California's central valley. Prices are already going up because of the drought. If this is a permanent trend, say goodby to a lot of that food. Many California farmers a currently thumbing their noses at water restrictions because they claim El Nino will bail them out and besides, they have ironclad water rights. Maybe we'll get a El Nino year this winter, maybe not, we'll see. But eventually the groundwater they are removing for irrigation will run out and force them into complying and bankruptcy.

http://news.yahoo.com/california-many-f ... 08345.html

[woodchip]

Um vision, your charts don't prove your point.

It does, and so does the link you provided. Thanks!

snoopys link shows no increase in severity. Try pointing out where it does.

[vision]

snoopys link shows no increase in severity. Try pointing out where it does.

#1: The chart is missing tons data. It only shows from 1970-201. Why not show all the data? You could just as easily say "from 1997-2001 ACE dropped over 300%." It's careless. Climate change happens on a geologic timescale.

#2: Hurricane intensity is driven by warm water. The Southern Hemisphere is mostly water. Click on the Southern Hemisphere tab and see the difference (and the Indian Ocean too) That is a bad, bad sign.

#3: Better organized data would be able to answer the more important question, that is, "which hurricanes should we be worried about?" Most of the hurricane damage in the US stems from the Atlantic. Click on the Atlantic tab. See the problem? This is kind of like the tree falling in the forest koan. If a hurricane never interferes with the environment, is it a problem? Maybe. But the ones that make landfall are, and the data shows increasing ACE for the ones we need to be worried about.

Any more questions?

[snoopy]

snoopys link shows no increase in severity. Try pointing out where it does.

#1: The chart is missing tons data. It only shows from 1970-201. Why not show all the data? You could just as easily say "from 1997-2001 ACE dropped over 300%." It's careless. Climate change happens on a geologic timescale.

#2: Hurricane intensity is driven by warm water. The Southern Hemisphere is mostly water. Click on the Southern Hemisphere tab and see the difference (and the Indian Ocean too) That is a bad, bad sign.

#3: Better organized data would be able to answer the more important question, that is, "which hurricanes should we be worried about?" Most of the hurricane damage in the US stems from the Atlantic. Click on the Atlantic tab. See the problem? This is kind of like the tree falling in the forest koan. If a hurricane never interferes with the environment, is it a problem? Maybe. But the ones that make landfall are, and the data shows increasing ACE for the ones we need to be worried about.

Any more questions?

Actually, yes.

1. It's the most convenient consolidated summary that I found on the page. I suspect that if you dig further you will find that the reliability of the data gets worse as it gets older... furthermore I'd bet that 1970 was chosen precisely because the data gets much more reliable around then [conjecture, but I bet I'm right] Climate change doesn't happen at a geologic time scale any more... the whole point of the environmentalist argument is that man's accelerating things, alarmingly.

2. Wait, are we supposed to be looking at more data, or at less? Is this supposed to be a global problem, or only a localized one?

3. Again... if we're worried about global warming and global climate change, why are you looking at localized charts? I don't really care about damage in the US... I care about our whole planet going in the crapper because of our carbon emissions. After all, I can move across the globe, but not off the globe.

My primary complaint about your original charts are that they are too sparse. In the first plot, if you had yearly data from 1880 your point might be proven... but the points that you show are all around the same level. I can't make any assumptions about the data that isn't included.... In the second plot, the sparseness complaint applies. Also, you nicely grouped your points... you do realize that your first and last groups have almost the same average ACE (using your provided data points)?

[Spidey]

That storm we had come through here the other night was the first storm in my entire life that actually put the fear of god into me. Normally I sit on my porch (enclosed) and enjoy the show, but not the other night, I went into the house and shut the door, so I wouldn’t end up a Shish Kebab. Then I spent a very uncomfortable 12 hours without power.

Sorry I know this may be off topic, but I didn’t want to start a thread just to say this.

But, in a way it could be related…huh.

[vision]

I suspect that if you dig further you will find that the reliability of the data gets worse as it gets older.

Then let's see some studies that address the reliability issue. I know none of you care to find them because it's more convenient to just look at the titles of articles and blog posts, so good luck with that.

Climate change doesn't happen at a geologic time scale any more... the whole point of the environmentalist argument is that man's accelerating things, alarmingly.

You still need a geological frame of reference. We aren't going to find that in the Farmer's Almanac. We can see things like droughts and flooding in core samples. You're not going to find hurricanes there. Plus, weather isn't a predictor of climate anyway.

Wait, are we supposed to be looking at more data, or at less? Is this supposed to be a global problem, or only a localized one?

Both. It depends on the nature of the question. Hurricanes are a unique question because we are really only concerned about the ones that cause damage. A hurricane that spins up in the middle of the ocean and dissipates without ever creating a negative effect is of less concern than one that does damage.

My primary complaint about your original charts are that they are too sparse. In the first plot, if you had yearly data from 1880 your point might be proven... but the points that you show are all around the same level.

I just used what was on the page woody posted. It has 10 measly data points, which we all know is not a good sample size. But even with those 10 points you can see in increase in frequency and maximum strength.

Also, you nicely grouped your points... you do realize that your first and last groups have almost the same average ACE.

Right, because we are only talking about 10 points. You can't get a meaningful average out of so few points. Also, the groups are not the same size, but the chart still shows an increase in frequency and max strength no matter which way you divide it.

Let's put it this way, the data on that site is not very useful in making (or refuting) the claim that storms are/aren't getting worse. That's why it's on a corporate weather site which is trying to sell you stuff. It's not where you go for good data.

[woodchip]

snoopys link shows no increase in severity. Try pointing out where it does.

#1: The chart is missing tons data. It only shows from 1970-201. Why not show all the data? You could just as easily say "from 1997-2001 ACE dropped over 300%." It's careless. Climate change happens on a geologic timescale.

Glad to see you mentioned geologic timescale as we are nowhere near as warm as we were in the past. 1970-2010 is a good spread. Warmers were predicting more hurricanes and tornadoes happening here in America and it hasn't happened. Wonder why I don't believe them?

#2: Hurricane intensity is driven by warm water. The Southern Hemisphere is mostly water. Click on the Southern Hemisphere tab and see the difference (and the Indian Ocean too) That is a bad, bad sign.

I looked. Southern Hem. is down so I don't know what you are looking at and the Indian Ocean appears to have cyclic highs, of which the present is no worse than 40 years ago.

#3: Better organized data would be able to answer the more important question, that is, "which hurricanes should we be worried about?" Most of the hurricane damage in the US stems from the Atlantic. Click on the Atlantic tab. See the problem? This is kind of like the tree falling in the forest koan. If a hurricane never interferes with the environment, is it a problem? Maybe. But the ones that make landfall are, and the data shows increasing ACE for the ones we need to be worried about.

I looked at Atlantic and I see a declining ACE since 2005.

Any more questions?

Yes, were you drinking when you looked at the graphs?

[vision]

I looked at Atlantic and I see a declining ACE since 2005.

Ask your optician for a new prescription.

[Lothar]

It has 10 measly data points, which we all know is not a good sample size. But even with those 10 points you can see in increase in frequency and maximum strength.

... we are only talking about 10 points. You can't get a meaningful average out of so few points.... but the chart still shows an increase in frequency and max strength no matter which way you divide it.

So in other words, the data is meaningless, but it also proves your point?

Pick one or the other.

[Ferno]

So in other words, the data is meaningless, but it also proves your point?

Pick one or the other.

I think he means that the data is rather slim, but still shows a trend. Am I correct?

[callmeslick]

So in other words, the data is meaningless, but it also proves your point?

Pick one or the other.

I think he means that the data is rather slim, but still shows a trend. Am I correct?

that was how I read it, and to make such a statement is perfectly consistent.

[vision]

So in other words, the data is meaningless, but it also proves your point?

Yes, both actually. The data does not support woody's claim that "severity is not rising," however, it does show the opposite in a very, very coarse way.

[snoopy]

Let's put it this way, the data on that site is not very useful in making (or refuting) the claim that storms are/aren't getting worse. That's why it's on a corporate weather site which is trying to sell you stuff. It's not where you go for good data.

This we can agree on. The data they present is too sparse. If you want to talk about trends and averages, you need yearly data, not just "top ten" lists. The best non-sparse data I could find on that site was what I linked... And I don't think it assisted in proving your point. But then maybe that's the root of my point: I don't think the data, as presented, really proves anyone's point, so lets all stop making claims about how it does. Fwiw I don't know that I'd give data from a non-profit any more/less credence - they have agendas, too. In a sense maybe the motive to make money by selling you lots of data is pretty likely to get you unbiased data over some site that wants to give you data that proves their point.