Harvey the Invisible Rabbit: Did not exist.
This is a picture of some men.
Since they are men, they have some abilities. They can, for example, knock each other over, and they can play with balls. This is what men do, and this is what these men can do.
This is a picture of some professional NFL foodball players.
They are also men. They can also knock each other over, and they can also play with balls. But the NFL football players are much better at knocking each other over, and you wouldn't believe how great they are at playing with balls.
They are NFL enhanced. They are trained, embiggened with special diets, and they are clad with armor and vibrant, often scary, colors.
This is a picture of a hurricane from 1938.
It was a big one; It did lots of damage when it slammed into New England and New York.
A hurricane is a large storm that forms in the tropics, and sometimes hits land. The energy from a hurricane comes from a combination of the earth's spin, trade winds, and so on, but mainly, from the heat on the surface of the sea. The rain that falls from the hurricane also comes mainly from the sea surface indirectly, and any water that evaporates into the atmosphere.
This is a picture of Harvey the Hurricane, the remnants of which are still circulating around in Texas.
Harvey is a lot like the 1938 hurricane, in that it formed in the tropics, in the Atlantic, and was a big spinny thing. It got its energy in the same way, and formed in the same way, and both slammed into land and scared the crap out of everybody.
But they are different, the 1938 Hurricane and Harvey the Hurricane. How are they different? Have a look at this map:
The pairs of photos above show "then" and "now" for two different things (men and hurricanes). This map shows both then and now in the same graphic. This map represents the current sea surface temperature anomalies, meaning, how much warmer or cooler the current sea temperatures are compared to the same time of year but at some time in the past, averaged over a long period, in this case, from 1971-2000. Global warming was well underway during that period, so present sea surface temperature readings that are above that baseline are not only high but are actually very high, because the baseline is high.
In this map, red is more, blue is less. Look at all the nearly ubiquitous more-ness in sea surface temperatures around the world. That causes the atmosphere across the entire globe to potentially contain much more water vapor than it could have contained during that that baseline period. Look at the sea surface temperature anomalies for the gulf of Mexico, where Harvey formed. They are high. This means that any hurricane that formed over that extra warm water will be stronger, and any tropical storm system that occurs pretty much anywhere on this map (or round the other side of the Earth as well, for that matter) will contain more water, than it would if it existed and all else was equal several decades ago.
This is a picture of a Unicorn.
A unicorn poops rainbows and pees mimosas. Or so I'm told. This is another view of Harvey the Hurricane.
What is the difference between the unicorn and Harvey? Harvey is real, and the unicorn is not.
I won't quote you or give you links. Why? Because I find this whole thing a bit too embarrassing. But here is the thing. Otherwise intelligent and well informed individuals have stated in various outlets, including major media, and including twitter, that it is simply inappropriate to claim that Harvey the Hurricane is in any way global warming enhanced.
This is wrong. There is no such thing as a storm of any kind that is not a function of the current climatology. The current climatology has widespread and persistent, and in many cases alarmingly high, sea surface temperature anomalies. There will not be a tropical storm, including hurricanes, that escape the physics and poop out rainbows and pee mimosas. They will all be real. They will all have greater power and more moisture than they otherwise would have, had they formed decades ago before the extreme global warming we have experience so far.
There was a time when Harvey was a rabbit, an invisible rabbit only seen by a delusional character in a movie, played by Jimmy Stewart. Today, we have Harvey the Unenhanced Storm, playing that role. It is a fiction, something seen by a few but that is no more real than the above depicted unicorn.
As I was writing this post, Michael Mann posted an item in the Guardian that makes this case.
He says (click here for the whole story):
Sea level rise attributable to climate change – some of which is due to coastal subsidence caused by human disturbance such as oil drilling – is more than half a foot (15cm) over the past few decades ... That means the storm surge was half a foot higher than it would have been just decades ago, meaning far more flooding and destruction.
... sea surface temperatures in the region have risen about 0.5C (close to 1F) over the past few decades from roughly 30C (86F) to 30.5C (87F), which contributed to the very warm sea surface temperatures (30.5-31C, or 87-88F).
... there is a roughly 3% increase in average atmospheric moisture content for each 0.5C of warming. Sea surface temperatures in the area where Harvey intensified were 0.5-1C warmer than current-day average ... That means 3-5% more moisture in the atmosphere.
That large amount of moisture creates the potential for much greater rainfalls and greater flooding. The combination of coastal flooding and heavy rainfall is responsible for the devastating flooding that Houston is experiencing.
... there is a deep layer of warm water that Harvey was able to feed upon when it intensified at near record pace as it neared the coast....
Harvey was almost certainly more intense than it would have been in the absence of human-caused warming, which means stronger winds, more wind damage and a larger storm surge...
Mann mentions other effects as well, but I'll let you go read them.
The extra heat at depth Mann mentions is now recognized as responsible for the extra bigness and badness of some other famous hurricanes as well, such as Katrina and Haiyan. Harvey might be a member of a small but growing class of hurricanes, deep-heat hurricanes I'll call them for now, that simply did not exist prior to global warming of recent decades. Further research is needed on this, but that's the direction we are heading.
Climate scientist Kevin Trenberth recently noted that "The human contribution can be up to 30 percent or so up to the total rainfall coming out of the storm,”
Aside from Michael Mann's Guardian article, he has this facebook post making the same argument.
Harvey the Hurricane is real, and so was the 1938 Hurricane. Climate change enhancement of Harvey is real, but unicorns are not. Sadly.
I really thought we had stopped hearing this meme, that "you can never attribute a given weather event to climate change." But, apparently not. That is a statement that is technically true in the same way that we can't really attribute an Alberta Clipper (a kind of snow storm) to the spin of the Earth. Yet, somehow, the spin of the Earth is why Alberta Clippers come from Alberta. In other words, the statement is a falsehood that can never be evaluated because it is framed incorrectly. Here is the correct framing:
Climate is weather long term, and weather is climate here and now. The climate has changed. Ergo ... you fill in the blank. Hit: Unicorns are not involved.
- Log in to post comments
My three volume study the Apocalyps of Earth (in Dutch, partly in English), concerning predictions of Kees de Haar, received in 1984 - 2005, about inter alia a worldwide climate change (is earth change) inclusive huge storms, like these in present time, will be published very soon. How will people cope with climatechange?
See also the present massive flooding of Bangladesh. Watch it globally... .
Watch also the Arctic and the Antarctic. Read Paul, Corinthians, verses 26-29.
Is pure bullshit, as has been pointed out.
Well I'm ecstatic to see you back! You can tell us all where these dirigible planets beyond the understanding of earthbound science are now we're past that 22nd August date we were all exhorted to wait for!
I've been running in and out of hospitals today (and will do so again in a second so can't get any information) visiting people so have only gotten snippets of news. I thought I heard that Harvey had moved back out over the Gulf and would be gathering more strength? Possible? Fact or misguided statement? If possible, common?
Likely, not at all unheard of
Any fairytale you'll cling to, won't you.
But, hey, we'll forgive you if you spill the beans on the location of the dirigible plants we were to be agog for.
What to think of the collapse of the tundra's in Canada and other states, the output of CO2 from of the sleeping giant? The agreement of Paris 2015 is falling too short. Denial of Climate Change is irresponsible, to say the least.
Wow, you think you laugh... Pull your head in.
NOOOO!!!!!! BOOOGERS!!! NOOO!!! You forgot to tell us all where these dirigible planets beyond the ability of earthling science to explain are!
You went all mysteriouso when we asked at the time and just told us to wait and prepare.
And we found nothing.
You're our only hope of alien science discoveries on the 22nd August! Don't take that hope away from us!!!!
Indeed Greg: Likely, not at all unheard of.
dean@6: The center of Harvey has indeed moved offshore, but a substantial portion of the storm's circulation remains over land, including the Houston metropolitan area. Slight strengthening is possible, but the proximity of the center to land will limit that strengthening. Near-shore waters along the Gulf coast simply aren't that deep. NWS is forecasting a second landfall on Wednesday, closer to the Houston/Galveston area; tropical storm warnings are in effect for the upper Texas coast into extreme southwest Louisiana. Meanwhile, a lot more rain will fall on southeast Texas into southwest Louisiana, and as winds are onshore, that water doesn't have anywhere to go.
My 9 was in response to #6
The energy input to Harvey from being over sea (partly) is expected to cause the weakening that should happen to not happen. So we get an extra day of the same storm. However, privately, there are some experts, including those who predicted the Cat 4 level, who are concerned that Harvey will go farther out and actually spin up a bit.
Seems like one prediction of Great Boogers and his Astral Arsehole Chums has been falsified.
And it was one of the more likely ones. At least it is PHYSICALLY possible for aliens to have dirigible planets, even if it's not impossible for earth science to accept or explain the planetships. Unlike the crazy off axis spinning of the earth and the whooshing around of continental crustal plates of his other Astral Arsehole Projectiles shot out into etherspace.
I guess his book won't sell well.
No matter how hard he tries to peddle it on scienceblogs.
Ah, well, it was always a distant hope that at least one prediction of woomancers would come true.
And atop this, the Houston region has seen already, in the last couple of years not one, but TWO 500-year return period floods - only to be followed by THIS 10,000-year return flood as the climactic Act 3. What is the statistical chance of this grouping of floods happening in a two-year period WITHOUT the effect of climate change?
The likelihood of any one of these being enhanced by, or any two of these being juxtaposed by, climate change, is high - and the gathering together of three extraordinary flood events in such a short time is breathtaking if NOT for climate change.
Hoy Greg. Do ya perhaps wanna do an article on flooding in the
sub continent and if its climate change related.
The impact of current flooding is a couple of magnitudes higher
than the Texas, USA flooding.
It would seem eminitly worthy as a case study.
Cheers Li D Australia.
"Read Paul, Corinthians, verses 26-29."
I'd consider it, but (like unicorns and Harvey the rabbit) there is no book of "Corinthians" and the citation "verses 26-29" is meaningless.
One can not manipulate with facts of climate change = earth change. Climate change is a world wide phenomenon. In its process everything is relating to everything. Ridiculing climate change and facts won't change its course. Severe draughts, fires, melting of 'poles, glaciers tundra's', severe floods and storms are accelerating in appearance and strength. The agreement of Paris 2015 is falling too short. Denial of Climate Change is irresponsible, to say the least. It is not at all unheard of.
Li D, absolutely. Don't know if I can, this is s difficult week/summer for writing. I suspect others will cover that sooner, as info is being passed around. 1,200 or more dead, crops destroyed, etc across three countries, 45 million or so directly affected.
Deniers:" WHERE'S THE CATASTROPHE!?!?!?!?"
On at least the rainfall rates Harvey is not the leader if you go back the 150 to 160 years of the total historical record in Tx.
Note several other storms in this list with rainfall in the 40-50 inch range. Note in particular the 1913 flood which appears to have a higher crest at Richmond than the current one, which the newsmedia because of their lack of time did not cover (3 foot higher than the expected crest). Now this does call into question the height of the levees in the newer subdivisions around Richmond, said to be set at the 1% risk level with two events exceeding them in 104 years.
It appears that in Tx no matter the time of year or indeed if the storm is tropical or not it is possible to get high rainfall totals. (The paper above was written by the USGS btw). Now partly the issue is the luck of where the rain peaks were, and of course the much greater number of folks living in Tx than in the past. But if you include all hazards, were in the US can you avoid them, between earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards, what place in the US is immune for hazards?
"Note several other storms in this list with rainfall in the 40-50 inch range."
Harvey has set the continental rainfall record for a single storm of 49", and it hasn't stopped raining yet.
Good link, lyle.
"At the point measured, That is a higher rain rate than with Harvey."
I see, you shift from total rainfall to rain rate to disprove what exactly? Good luck.
I think Harvey has officially beat all those records at this point, and it continues to rain in areas that already have the record beat.
(or maybe not, maybe just greater in terms of amount).
News from the national weather service
Tropical Storm Harvey, which first made landfall Friday as a Category 4 hurricane before weakening into a tropical storm that has circled over southeastern Texas for days, has broken the contiguous-U.S. rainfall record for a tropical storm, preliminary data shows, according to the National Weather Service.
Breaking the previous mark of 48 inches, Harvey recorded a preliminary 51.88 inches at Cedar Bayou, Texas, about 30 miles from Houston, the NWS reported.
Just as example of unintended consequences: just east of Houston and west of the Houston Ship Channel there is an area about 15 miles in diameter in which excessive groundwater withdrawal caused compaction of the clays which make up much of the subsurface. This resulted in ground surface subsidence up to about nine feet in the center of the area by 1978. In other words, human activity turned a sizeable part of the Gulf Coast into a bowl. Generally such subsidence is not completely reversible if reversible at all. Obviously, whatever is sited within this bowl likely got more flooding than it would otherwise have gotten.
I don't know whether the TX GOP - another branch of Science Denial Inc., has made it policy not to mention such things in planning the way that NC (I think it was) did in regard to global warming's influence on sea level rise. Once in power, the motto is: What you don't know can't hurt us.
#23: "... between earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards, what place in the US is immune for hazards?"
If you put it that way, none. However, not all hazards are equal in rate or severity. Blizzards are not usually the killers that floods (including hurricane/tropical storms) are and building-toppling earthquakes are much more rare than either floods or blizzards and do not occur outside of relatively few well-known zones (plate boundaries mostly).
The Gulf Coast region has a diverse share of natural hazards. They include hurricanes, river flooding, tornadoes, occasional ice storms (yes, ice storms), life-threatening combinations of summer heat and humidity, and disease-carrying mosquitos (west Nile virus lately). No earthquakes to speak of (although there was a low magnitude rattler I experienced some years ago) and no volcanism
I'm curious how Harvey compares to the storm that hit Galveston in 1900. The only immediately available comparisons look at storm damage but don't delve into the details of the storm (if they are even available). Does anyone have a link they could share?
There are two paramters that need to be considered with respect to flooding records: 1) the height of the flood (or the amount of rain that fell), and 2) the area over which the flood occurred (or the rain fell).
Even a flood of twice that of Harvey is irrelevant in the greater scheme of clmamte change things, if it occurred only in a small area.
Even a flood height of twice that of Harvey...
Walt, good question.
These days we say most tc deaths are caused by inland flooding from rain. But thousands died in the 1900 storm from a surge the city was not prepared for.
The storm was very different. It was a Cape Verde storm, while Harvey is a Gulf storm. Harvey is doing it's worse because it is slow and meandering. The 1900 storm came in fast, passed through fast, moved north fast, and returned to the Atlantic in Canada, where it sunk a bunch of ships.
The 1900 storm may or may not have been a major hurricane, and the same exact storm hitting Galveston would probably not be that devastating.
We didn't have satellites to see hurricanes develop miles out to sea days in advance of the event in 1900.
But the 1900 Galveston hurricane tracked near or across Cuba a few days before its Texas landfall, and there were weather stations in Cuba at the time. Cuban forecasters were saying that the storm was likely to strengthen rapidly and head for the Texas coast. American forecasters ignored the Cubans, saying that the storm was likely to recurve (which, climatologically speaking, most such storms do). The Cuban forecasts turned out to be pretty accurate for the time.
But the bigger problem was that American meteorologists of the day did not understand the physics of storm surge formation. They thought that the gentle slope of the continental shelf along the Gulf coast would inhibit storm surge. It's actually the opposite: low near-shore topographical relief actually favors higher storm surges, ceteris paribus. The result is that Galveston and other cities along the Texas coast were not prepared for the storm surge that actually happened.
Before the 1900 hurricane hit, Galveston, not Houston, was the primary city along the Texas coast, and in an alternate universe where they had been prepared for the storm surge, it might have remained so for quite a bit longer, at least until the land constraints inherent in being on a barrier island hit. In our universe, people soon realized that Galveston was too vulnerable to be a major port, so they dredged the Houston Ship Canal to allow that city to become the primary port in Texas.
52 inches now, and waning in Houston, mostly because Harvey has made its new landfall somewhat to the east therefore Houston's being spared for now, anyway.
I don't really see this event enhanced through 'global warming'. Perhaps it did get pumped up by crossing warmer water where the warmth in the column extended three hundred feet deep -- This 'anomaly' is nowhere near unprecedented -- in its path but the main reason for the flooding was due to synoptic influence of being stuck between two high pressure systems and central dense overcast intact because of lack of upper level wind shear.
But are you versed enough to expect to be able to see it, gilbert?
A good tracker will spot tracks you would never see, even if, once pointed out, they are clear to you, because the tracker has learned what to look for and you have not.
Would you accept it if it were known (by, say, god's post-it-note saying it was)? Because nobody here believes you ever would.
And have you even TRIED to see if it were? No. You have not even tried to do so.
So you are untrained, willfully against the idea and haven't even bothered. Your post therefore is meaningless and indicates nothing.
"This ‘anomaly’ is nowhere near unprecedented"
demands the question "What constitutes unprecedented, then?" be answered, gilbert.
"They thought that the gentle slope of the continental shelf along the Gulf coast would inhibit storm surge. It’s actually the opposite: low near-shore topographical relief actually favors higher storm surges"
Said something similar before, but "mike" (IIRC) did not like that and thought it meant that either sea level rise of a few inches was meaningless or that storm surges at high lunar tides were meaningless.
Gilbert, although the first of the following reports appears to be specific to the UK it has wider ramifications, as the title suggests. The other one is in three parts and each has something to contribute as to the reason Harvey was enhanced and then got stuck.
A global perspective on the recent storms and floods in the UK
The recent pause in warming. In three parts. Shame they had to include 'pause' in the title.
I was referencing the warm 'anomaly' between Corpus Cristi to half way to Galviston. Happens all the time; Storm just happened to be there this time. I'm not saying that the warmer water did not cause a strengthening of Harvey -- Just that it was not 'unprecedented' for it to be there and that warm.
" “What constitutes unprecedented, then?”
I was referencing the warm ‘anomaly’"
See the title?
What does it say?
Is it "the warm anomaly"? No? What is it.
Go on, gilly, what is it. You can't see it, can you? You're blind.
"Happens all the time; "
Apparently it did not:
If it's record breaking, then it can't "happen all the time". Can it.
And if the storm is unprecedented, then what must the cause be? You can't bring yourself to it, can you. It's just not possible to force the realisation into your head, is it, never mind forcing that admission past your lips.
#35: "The 1900 storm may or may not have been a major hurricane, and the same exact storm hitting Galveston would probably not be that devastating."
And the reason is that after the storm, the remaining buildings were lifted and the island built up 12 feet higher than it was before. Then a seawall was built to provide another 5 feet or so of elevation. However, that protection does not extend to the western part of Galveston island which now is populated. For anyone living there the situation is just as it was in 1900.
The people in the city of Galveston have only one causeway to the mainland over which to flee plus a car ferry service which, of course, can not run in really bad weather. In 1900 there was one (maybe two) railroad bridges but they were destroyed.
"Isaac's Storm" by Erik Larson is a good book to read for personal accounts and other information about the Galveston hurricane and the state of weather forecasting at the time. It's frightening to read how vulnerable people are and how few options they have when they are in a hurricane.
Again, I'm asserting that the warm water 'anomaly' which the storm passed over is not unprecedented.
It has been twelve years since a 'major' hurricane has struck the US. I guess one may discount more and stronger** storms that AGW was supposed to give us.
** I'm not arguing that warmer waters can't pump up a storm; just that it has been of little consequence the past twelve years. Well, there was Allison --
That storm meandered around down there for fifteen days to give that 40 inches. but what was missing was favorable upper level support -- It was continually being sheared apart.
Oh, well. Something something natural variation. If there is a signal in there, I'm not picking it up above the noise; I guess I'm a bad tracker.
"Again, I’m asserting that the warm water ‘anomaly’ which the storm passed over is not unprecedented. "
#30: I don’t really see this event enhanced through ‘global warming’.
No, you were not.
Please stop denial and lying.
It has been twelve years since a ‘major’ hurricane has struck the US. I guess one may discount more and stronger** storms that AGW was supposed to give us
Did they say more storms? Hmm. And is the NA and twelve years, and landfallingness, a big enough dataset to assess a trend claim about very rare weather events ?
Wasn't the global projection more high end storms relative to total number?
With Harvey, the stationariness is the fascinator, given the physics of enhancement is solid. Harvey just keeps on keeping on within a small training ground, keeping that feed from a deeply warm GoM as it of course must.
On August 30, 2017, Gilbert uttered the following:
"...I’m asserting that the warm water ‘anomaly’ which the storm passed over is not unprecedented."
I'm trying to find some evidence that the current SST anomaly is precedented:
Annual mean SST anomaly certainly appears unprecedented:
Recent weekly anomalies in the Gulf appear to be above the level of last annual global mean anomaly:
So what we have is an unprecedented annual global mean anomaly, with the current local anomaly being above that mean.
I wouldn't necessarily assert the opposite of Gilbert's puzzling assertion, but his assertion certainly appears to have very little basis in reality.
Maybe if I spent more time reading denier-blogs I would be more likely to understand where Gilbert is coming from?
I guess Harvey chilled off the anomaly. That patch of blue near Corpus Cristi is probably due to upwelling from the off-shore wind.
Here is another one that stalled in 1994:
I guess it's *collapsed steering winds* and *high pressure anomalys all the way down now.
"I pull out of my ass the claim that Harvey chilled off the anomaly."
Fixed that for you, gilly.
Having failed to get any traction with the unsupported ass-pull of "It's not unusual", you're now going for "Well, look, it's winding down!!! That proves AGW is false!" insanity.
Wonder what would pull cold deep water up to the surface.
Maybe a strong updraft above it removing water and causing a little "water hurricane" in the water beneath pulling water in and up in response to the movement of the air above.
But go ahead, do some investigation and see if this anomaly is unusual or not.
So during AGW, still.
>Wasn’t the global projection more high end storms relative to total number?
That's what it should have been. However, the statements at the time was that these hurricanes are because of global warming, and we are going to see it happen more often(this includes stronger as Katrina was a strong hurricane). I didn't notice any objections from climate scientists at the time.
">Wasn’t the global projection more high end storms relative to total number?
That’s what it should have been"
Not really, though. There's not been enough events to show any difference either proving or disproving the prediction, and the prediction is based on some assumptions that have large error bars.
All we KNOW is how hurricanes get energy and that the method by which they get this is more plentifully supplied under AGW.
What? The upwelling is caused by off-shore winds which move the water out, in a lateral fashion, to be replaced with water from below.
Craig Thomas, That graph is hard for me to read. It looks like the year 2000 was warmer than now. Although the 2017 global trend looks on track to beat it in the homestretch.
I went searching and wanted to supply a sample of such a 'denier-blog' but, apparently, links to wattsupwiththat are verboten here.
It was a discussion of warm anomalys in the gulf of mexico back in 2011. From that, It was shown that the peak warm anomaly was 2000-2002 -- It looks like it still holds for this day and time.
Back in the day, I perused the gulf temperature and how it might be affected by the oil spill in 2010. There was much warmth (oil decreases (the otherwise ripply) surface area and evaporation) that ended up spilling into the gulf stream. Of course, for the discussion of tropical systems, it matters little if the storm does not pass over it.
Can you point me toward a monthly, weekly, or daily (most relevant to the development of Harvey) anomaly measurement?
´People don't have time to spill. The Harvey's of the world don't stop. On the contrary, they become more extreme each year. What's next? Guangzhou or Miami? According to the World Bank the extent of the (financial) damage because of a high risk of flooding is the greatest there. Or will it be Europe? Last year France, Germany and Austria have been flooded.´ Source: NRC Handelsblad, Author: Henk Ovink, water representative of the Netherlands, Sherpa of the UN-panel for water and member of the rebuild team after hurricane Sandy. Translation, GB. This quote confirms earlier messages Kees de Haar received during his time as active psychic medium in 1984-2005 in public séances as warnings directed to mankind. It is all part of this era´s climate change and earth change. Read: De apocalyps van de aarde in vijf bedrijven. Expected in October, November 2017. Publisher.
# 59. Read: NRC Handelsblad, Saturday 2 September & Sunday 3 September 2017, page Opinie & Debat O&D7.
"This quote confirms earlier messages Kees de Haar received during his time as active psychic medium "
No, no it doesn't. Stop lowering the quality of comments with foolish references to your favorite scam artist and faker.
We didn’t have satellites to see hurricanes develop miles out to sea days in advance of the event in 1900. www.kalitetv.net
Watch the path of the hurricanes. These month's we have Harvey, now Irma, what is next?
#58. Is this the sort of thing you mean Gilbert?
That is the same plot I linked to (#52). It was after Harvey and shows the SST ~.5 c and anomalously cool south of Corpus Christi (presumably due to offshore winds causing upwelling).
I didn't see how to view past data there -- data before and during Harvey's growth.
Can't believe some people still don't agree with climate change.
“you can never attribute a given weather event to climate change.”
True, in that the *occurrence* of, say, a hurricane cannot be attributed to climate change. However, the great *severity* of that hurricane CAN be attributed to climate change.
One quibble with an otherwise excellent post:
Sorry, but blaming the current climate science for storms is magical thinking straight out of a Simpsons episode. Anyone remember what the pitchfork-wielding mob shouted after North America narrowly escaped destruction by an asteroid?
"Let's burn down the observatory so this can never happen again!"
Anyway, all this rather-troubling discussion of maritime storms that have now been enhanced by a six-inch sub's worth of SLR has gotta make even the most ostrichistic of denialists nostalgic for long-gone hiatus.
I'm sure we all remember those precious, all-too-brief years when there was no detectable warming, and hence no detectable sea-level rise (because there was no detectable warming, and sea-level rise is caused by warming)?
Daymar College Online,
is this meant to be satire:
Because it's not funny.
Climate change kills, dude. Do you agree with the killing of 300,000 innocent people per annum, according to the UN Secretary-General?
Nobody else does. Every decent person opposes man-made global warming. If you're seriously for it (and not just being sarcastic), then I respect my right to disagree, but I won't fight for your right to complain when you find yourself living—with apologies to the original Chinese—in interesting times.
You deserve them.
“you can never attribute a given weather event to climate change.” Bollocks ya cant. These are terribly uninformed words.
The temp gradient profile by latitude is mucking about bigtime with the ( North ) polar jet stream, causing great big fuckoff waves of high amplitude that move real slow.