[anarchist23]

Hurricanes and now wild fires in California. Do you think this unusual weather is to do with global warming?

It’s a monster. As the eye of Hurricane Irma approached the tiny island of Barbuda this morning, wind speeds soared to 250 kph before the instrument broke.

At the time of writing, all contact with the island had been lost and it is unclear how the 1600 inhabitants have fared. But already reports of severe destruction are coming in from other islands in Irma’s path.

What will happen if the climate goes over the edge? Learn more at New Scientist Live
The destruction could be extreme. Hurricane Irma has the strongest winds of any hurricane to form in the open Atlantic, with sustained wind speeds of 295 kph.

It is also huge. The strongest winds are limited to a relatively small area around its centre, but hurricane-force winds of 118 kph or more extend out 85 kilometres from its eye.

Irma could yet grow stronger and is going to graze or directly hit many densely-populated islands in the Caribbean before possibly making landfall in Florida on Sunday – but there is still a lot of uncertainty about its path and intensity this far ahead.

Warmer waters
So why did Irma grow so strong? Most likely because climate change is making Atlantic waters ever warmer.

Tropical cyclones are fuelled by warm surface waters of around 26°C or more. They draw in moist air from all around them, and as it rises, the water vapour condenses out and releases latent heat, which drives further uplift. Irma’s clouds are 20 kilometres high.

However, as tropical cyclones grow stronger they churn up the ocean and bring deeper water to the surface. Usually this deeper water is cooler, and cuts off the energy supply.

The strongest hurricanes, then, can only grow if warm waters extend down to depth of 50 or 100 metres – conditions normally only found in the Gulf or Caribbean.

In 1980, Hurricane Allen reached 305 kph winds, fuelled by these warmer waters. In 2017’s warmer world, Irma began growing way out in the Atlantic, thanks to sea surface temperatures that were more than 1°C above average.

Stronger storms
Hurricane intensity depends on many other factors, too, though. For instance, winds high in the atmosphere are often faster than those lower down, blowing away rising air and preventing hurricanes from forming, or growing very strong. Low wind shear helped Irma grow into a perfect storm.

Computer models suggest global warming is likely to increase wind shear over the Atlantic, counteracting the effect of warmer waters. This means the overall number of hurricanes may not increase and could even fall. However, the storms that do form are likely to grow stronger, so the number of intense hurricanes will go up.

While tropical cyclones are currently ranked according to their wind speed, storm surges and flooding from high rainfall typically cause most of the damage, as we saw with Harvey.

The height of a storm surge depends not just on the strength of winds, but on their extent. Hurricane Sandy’s winds were not that strong but the size of the storm piled up the huge storm surge that caused most of the damage in New York and elsewhere.

So strong winds don’t necessarily mean big damage. The record is held by Hurricane Patricia in the eastern Pacific in 2015, with sustained winds of 345 kph. Fortunately Patricia was small, weakened dramatically before landfall and struck a sparsely populated area.

Irma, ominously, is both big and intense, and could cause big storm surges in highly populated places. Barbuda recorded a storm surge of 2.4 metres.

The amount of rainfall dumped by hurricanes can also vary widely depending both on a storm’s intensity, local factor and how fast it moves. Harvey produced huge amounts of rain because it barely moved for days.

Irma, thankfully, is moving faster – but its behaviour more than two or three days ahead remains highly uncertain.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... l-warming/

[Ter]

Hurricanes and now wild fires in California. Do you think this unusual weather is to do with global warming?

No.

Hurricanes and forest fires are natural phenomena, caused by normal variations in temperature and air pressure and other variables.

[Zagadka]

Yea, we just happen to be on a streak for hottest temperatures, long droughts, and most active natural disasters.

[Ter]

Yea, we just happen to be on a streak for hottest temperatures, long droughts, and most active natural disasters.

Indeed.
It was eerily quiet on that front when people's asses were frozen last winter.
In any case, why get excited about it? We'll all be dead before this Century ends.
It would actually be fun to see the beach front villas get inundated, those rich stinkers deserve no better.
(sorry I am in a special mood, my feelings, my precious feelings are getting to me)

[Zagadka]

It was eerily quiet on that front when people's asses were frozen last winter.

Global warming can have effects that cause cooling in some areas. When the Gulf stream gets disrupted, Europe is in for a rough time. This is why it is now called climate change.

[Ter]

Global warming can have effects that cause cooling in some areas. When the Gulf stream gets disrupted, Europe is in for a rough time. This is why it is now called climate change.

Agreed.
I just think it is a bit silly to blame every rain shower, erupting volcano or flood on global warming.

[foxdemon]

So your got’ta measure it. How can you be sure it’s global warming and not just typical climatic variation? Climate departure. When the range of temperatures are completely outside the historic range, then you can be sure the climate has changed.

Bare in mind there is an ocean as well as an atmosphere. There is a growing consensus that the oceans have already past climate departure.

http://takvera.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/climate-departure-oceans-aleady-outside.html

The soonest equatorial regions will follow is 2020 for the first areas. If you live in Canada, you will be OK until 2060-70ish era. After that, your fucked.

At this point there isn’t really much that can be done.

[Godstud]

Myth. Total myth.

I mean, who are you going to believe, scientists, or people who don't know how to brush their teeth without a diagram?



Just beacuse British Columbia, in Canada, had the worst wildfires, in 2017, in recorded history(200+ years), doesn't mean global climate change is happening.

[Hindsite]

Hurricanes and now wild fires in California. Do you think this unusual weather is to do with global warming?

No. Of course not. Global warming has already been proven to be a fraud began by Al Gore. Weather temperatures have always changed during the four seasons of the year. Dry weather often leads to more wildfires. Careless humans have often caused many of these fires. But fires are good to get rid of dry dead underbrush. HalleluYah.

[Pants-of-dog]

Both global warming debates are over in my mind.

The science is clear. Anthropogenic climate change is real.

The politicians are clear. Nothing will be done about it because the economy is supposedly more important than people's lives or the natural environment we need in order to survive.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

It was eerily quiet on that front when people's asses were frozen last winter.

Just to be clear, last winter the global temperature was 1.25 degrees C above the 1951-80 average. The only warmer winter was the one before it.

[QatzelOk]

A lot recent "historical weather events" have had the silver lining of opening up areas to new development.

Katrina lead to some gentrification and new parks, as well as the unloading of a lot of poor people to other cities like Houston. Houston now has lots of new areas that can be rebuilt for profit.

Perhaps we are seeing the capitalist class vandalizing dams and starting fires in order to make profit?

I mean, we live in a society that is run by crooked banks and ecologically-suicidal corporations so why would this be a surprise?

[Truth To Power]

Just to be clear, last winter the global temperature was 1.25 degrees C above the 1951-80 average.

After the thermometer readings were "adjusted," "smoothed", "weighted," "reconciled," etc...

And what makes the 1951 start date and 1980 end date of that average so special that that particular 30-year stretch has to be considered the baseline? Maybe that the 1930s and 40s were warmer, and the 1950-75 interval saw notable global cooling....?

The only warmer winter was the one before it.

What about the winters when the Vikings were farming in Greenland?

[Pants-of-dog]

After the thermometer readings were "adjusted," "smoothed", "weighted," "reconciled," etc...

Please provide evidence for the claim that the "thermometer readings were "adjusted," "smoothed", "weighted," "reconciled," etc...". Thank you.

And what makes the 1951 start date and 1980 end date of that average so special that that particular 30-year stretch has to be considered the baseline? Maybe that the 1930s and 40s were warmer, and the 1950-75 interval saw notable global cooling....?

What about the winters when the Vikings were farming in Greenland?

If you have evidence to refute PC's claim, please present it. Thank you.

[Truth To Power]

Please provide evidence for the claim that the "thermometer readings were "adjusted," "smoothed", "weighted," "reconciled," etc...". Thank you.

<yawn> You are well aware that they are.

"The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/06/ ... mate-data/

If you have evidence to refute PC's claim, please present it. Thank you.

Done.

[Pants-of-dog]

<yawn> You are well aware that they are.

"The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/06/ ... mate-data/

Done.

Are you arguing that they adjusted the temperature to fit a preconceived hypothesis, instead of doing the accepted adjustments that to make the data useful?

[B0ycey]

Another Global Warming thread. Until people understand the reasons why Venus has a hotter surface temperature than Mercury, how can you expect them to fully understand why there is such a thing as global warming? Along with the notions of lung cancer with smoking, sugar with diabetes, fatty foods with obesity and alcohol to liver failure, it appears that people refuse to accept a truth if it is inconvenient to their lifestyle - even to the point of absurbness by doubting basic temperature readings! Intelligent people know the truth. Let the idiots live in bliss to oil corporate propaganda.

[Hindsite]

Another Global Warming thread. Until people understand the reasons why Venus has a hotter surface temperature than Mercury, how can you expect them to fully understand why there is such a thing as global warming? Along with the notions of lung cancer with smoking, sugar with diabetes, fatty foods with obesity and alcohol to liver failure, it appears that people refuse to accept a truth if it is inconvenient to their lifestyle - even to the point of absurbness by doubting basic temperature readings! Intelligent people know the truth. Let the idiots live in bliss to oil corporate propaganda.

If global warming is due to the Sun, then there is nothing we can do about it anyway. You may not be old enough to remember that these same idiots were claiming we were moving into another ice age. And they are hedging their bets again.

A 'Mini Ice Age' Is Coming in The Next 15 Years

http://www.sciencealert.com/a-mini-ice- ... t-15-years

[Pants-of-dog]

If global warming is due to the Sun, then there is nothing we can do about it anyway.

Since it is due to pollution, we can do something about it.

You may not be old enough to remember that these same idiots were claiming we were moving into another ice age.

There was never a scientific consensus that the Earth was getting colder. If I recall correctly, it was one article in Scientific American that was eventually repudiated by the scientist who made the claim when the data showed he was wrong.

[Hindsite]

We’re Due For Another Ice Age But Climate Change May Push It Back Another 100,000 Years, Researchers Say

"We should be heading into another ice age right now," Columbia University paleoclimate doctoral student Michael Sandstrom told Live Science.

The big ice ages account for roughly 25 percent of the past billions of years on Earth, says Sandstrom. The most recent of Earth’s five major ice ages in the paleo record dates back 2.7 million years and continues today.

Within these large periods are smaller ice ages called glacials and warm periods called interglacials.

https://weather.com/news/climate/news/i ... ial-period