Climate Change? Nahhh ...

Should have stayed in my Weston, Fla. home. Maybe it'll be beachfront someday.

 

"The heat from the water is the energy source..."

So the warmer the water (this is called global warming) the more energy in the hurricane and the stronger the hurricane.

This is not complicated science. It's really pretty simple and straightforward.

 

That's certainly why we've seen so many record-setting hurricanes the last few years.

 

Tons of them. It's like a weekly occurrence!!!

 

No one's mind will be changed but

• Roughly twice as many hurricanes are now reported in the Atlantic compared to a century ago. The rise, identified by Greg Holland (NCAR), occurred over three distinct periods associated with rises in sea-surface temperature (see NCAR news release).
• In both the North Atlantic and North Pacific oceans, the duration of tropical cyclones as well as their strongest wind speeds have both increased by about 50% over the past 50 years, according to Kerry Emanuel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (see MIT news release).
• The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes worldwide nearly doubled from the early 1970s to the early 2000s, found a team from the Georgia Institute of Technology and NCAR (see NCAR news release).

That comes with the caveat that earlier storms that didn't make landfall or stayed out at sea weren't always recorded.

So yes, more storms and more storms that are stronger.

 

Do any of these studies ever account for improved instruments?
A storm like Patricia that was a Category 5 at sea was measured as such by aircraft and satellites — things that weren't around a century ago. It made landfall as a Category 2, I believe, which is what it would have been recorded as in 1914. Same with Katrina. As powerful as it was, it was at its strongest when it was still in the Gulf and not at landfall.
There were storms in the early 20th century (like the devastating 1900 Galveston hurricane) that weren't even detected until they made landfall. Even if they'd known it was out there it's doubtful they could have accurately recorded its true strength.
It's one of the same issues I have with the global warming theories. We've made such great strides in meteorology in the last 60 years that when you're talking about increases of a degree or two, or even tenths of a degree in an a global average, it makes me wonder if the baseline we're measuring off of is skewed.

 

See: Oceans, rising.

 

You could name it East Otisburg.

 

So, you acknowledge this huge caveat, but draw conclusions from incomplete data anyway?

 

No one disputes climate change.

The dispute is why the climate is changing.

 

Is that in response to me?

Sure, climate is changing, but using incomplete data to draw conclusions doesn't prove anything, including the point you said it proves.

 

The argument about climate change also goes well beyond what is causing it.

Here's a few things that we should include in the discussion:

- Are the predictions for what how much the climate will change in the (near) future, and the damage that will result accurate? Well, let's look at how the models have performed so far. Have they been predictive? Have they been accurate?

- Assuming human activity is causing climate change, what would it take to slow and/or reverse it? Is it even possible?

- If it is possible, will we accomplish anything without a worldwide buy in, including from nations like India and China?

- If it is possible, what will it cost, both in things like taxes, and in damage to the economy, and is it worth it?