Yes, indeed, I am not being condescending. You, otoh, are. With that out of the way....
Just because you say something doesn't make it so. But it does seem like we're moving past it now, so I'm glad for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
1) I still have no idea that the IPCC has said anything at all about Sandy. I simply pointed out that the IPCC has said that hurricanes are likely to become more intense, and that they have not said they have or will become more frequent. You made a bombastic statement about IPCC's views being simply the result of a "temporal correlation". That is simply incorrect. If you read the IPCC report (I can give you the specific report and page numbers later, but don't have the time now) -- and tons of other research -- the basis for that argument is rise in sea levels and ocean warming (again, both are facts documented by the IPCC). Some research also links it to loss of arctic ice (the loss itself is well-documented), but the IPCC has not made that connection afaik.
Now, it is important to note that IPCC has well-documented evidence of ocean warming and sea level rise in the N. Atlantic Ocean, so it is perfectly logical and reasonable to make the link to hurricane intensity in the N. Atlantic, no? Or wherever those two phenomena (warming and level rise) have been observed?
2) OK, you're not a climate scientist.
3) Your 'logical conclusion' is based on an incorrect premise that it's all based on a 'temporal correlation.' See Point #1 above.
1) I don't believe they have either, but many people have, including people in a position of significant power, such as the President of the US (this is a comment on his title, not D vs R). If there has been a documented rise in surface temperature, it does stand to reason that this is the likely cause of the increased intensity.* So why did the IPCC make a statement that says it is 'premature to say global warming is affecting hurricane activity'?
It turns out that the evidence for significant effect of rising global temperatures isn't very strong when talking about hurricanes. They predict an increase in category 4-5 hurricanes, but say that even according to their predictions, this trend would not be distinguishable from normal variance until the second half of the 21st century. The effect does not seem particularly strong either, as they predict only 2-11% increase in intensity over the course of the 21st century (we still have a long way to go in this century). It hardly seems necessary to start ringing the alarm bells for something like this. Going off point a bit (but back to my overall point), it seems a shame to me that so many resources are devoted to 'climate change', at the expense of other important issues.
3) I would guess that the reason they are not making the leap to connect hurricane activity with global warming is because the trend in hurricane activity has been occurring despite a prolonged period of stagnant global temperatures. Because of this discrepancy, it seemed to me that there was just a temporal correlation being made. However, if they documented continued surface temperature rise, despite the stagnation in overall temperature, then I would be wrong in my supposition.
*Using the same logic, it also stands to reason that increased temperature is also responsible for the observed decrease in hurricane frequency. In that case, maybe we're better off overall with an increase in global temperature (with respect to hurricane activity).
Comments
I think the point of the article has been lost. Apple did something nice, even if it isn't perfect.
Yes, indeed, I am not being condescending. You, otoh, are. With that out of the way....
Just because you say something doesn't make it so. But it does seem like we're moving past it now, so I'm glad for that.
1) I still have no idea that the IPCC has said anything at all about Sandy. I simply pointed out that the IPCC has said that hurricanes are likely to become more intense, and that they have not said they have or will become more frequent. You made a bombastic statement about IPCC's views being simply the result of a "temporal correlation". That is simply incorrect. If you read the IPCC report (I can give you the specific report and page numbers later, but don't have the time now) -- and tons of other research -- the basis for that argument is rise in sea levels and ocean warming (again, both are facts documented by the IPCC). Some research also links it to loss of arctic ice (the loss itself is well-documented), but the IPCC has not made that connection afaik.
Now, it is important to note that IPCC has well-documented evidence of ocean warming and sea level rise in the N. Atlantic Ocean, so it is perfectly logical and reasonable to make the link to hurricane intensity in the N. Atlantic, no? Or wherever those two phenomena (warming and level rise) have been observed?
2) OK, you're not a climate scientist.
3) Your 'logical conclusion' is based on an incorrect premise that it's all based on a 'temporal correlation.' See Point #1 above.
1) I don't believe they have either, but many people have, including people in a position of significant power, such as the President of the US (this is a comment on his title, not D vs R). If there has been a documented rise in surface temperature, it does stand to reason that this is the likely cause of the increased intensity.* So why did the IPCC make a statement that says it is 'premature to say global warming is affecting hurricane activity'?
It turns out that the evidence for significant effect of rising global temperatures isn't very strong when talking about hurricanes. They predict an increase in category 4-5 hurricanes, but say that even according to their predictions, this trend would not be distinguishable from normal variance until the second half of the 21st century. The effect does not seem particularly strong either, as they predict only 2-11% increase in intensity over the course of the 21st century (we still have a long way to go in this century). It hardly seems necessary to start ringing the alarm bells for something like this. Going off point a bit (but back to my overall point), it seems a shame to me that so many resources are devoted to 'climate change', at the expense of other important issues.
3) I would guess that the reason they are not making the leap to connect hurricane activity with global warming is because the trend in hurricane activity has been occurring despite a prolonged period of stagnant global temperatures. Because of this discrepancy, it seemed to me that there was just a temporal correlation being made. However, if they documented continued surface temperature rise, despite the stagnation in overall temperature, then I would be wrong in my supposition.
*Using the same logic, it also stands to reason that increased temperature is also responsible for the observed decrease in hurricane frequency. In that case, maybe we're better off overall with an increase in global temperature (with respect to hurricane activity).