Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

M'kay. Was Sandy and Katrina weather or climate change? How 'bout this current el nino then?

It is hard to say that any particular weather event is the result of climate change. But we can see global increases in extreme weather.



The El Nino / La Nina cycles can only be forecast for about 6 months.

Climate Prediction Center: ENSO Diagnostic Discussion

I am following the ENSO discussion right now because a friend is planning a crossing from Panama to the South Pacific, and I might be delivering a Vic Maui boat back to Vancouver this summer.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Your memory is good. You are correct it is a low. I confused it with an polar/Arctic high is is cold as well.

Try clearing your cache - which I hate doing or go to:

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html

That should get you on to the site.

Already tried all the usuals but still nothing must be this temp tablet Im using it requires apple based apps but the base OS is android so I will just have to wait a couple days for the data. No problem. Thanks for trying to help.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

It is hard to say that any particular weather event is the result of climate change. But we can see global increases in extreme weather.



The El Nino / La Nina cycles can only be forecast for about 6 months.

Climate Prediction Center: ENSO Diagnostic Discussion

I am following the ENSO discussion right now because a friend is planning a crossing from Panama to the South Pacific, and I might be delivering a Vic Maui boat back to Vancouver this summer.

I'm not buying your chart that claims a rise in the number of events. Whilst climate driven disasters are a catch cry of alarmists, my understanding is that natural disasters show no significant trends in either frequency or intensity over historical data although damage and economic cost have sky rocketed due to increased population spread. Perhaps there's just progressively more instances of these events in general being recorded?

[fryewe]

Which is worse?...

...losing this much ice?

Greenland has lost 9,000 billion tons of ice in a century | ScienceNordic

...or this much ice?

Greenland Lost 9 Trillion Tons of Ice in Century | RealClearScience

...or this much ice?

Greenland retained 99.7% of its ice mass in 20th Century!!! | Watts Up With That?

They all say the same thing, but the first two provide no context, and might lead one to believe that such a big number means this is a big problem. The last provides a bit of context, and might lead one to believe it's no problem at all. Note the use of the word "Science" in the first two websites.

Do you think such headline dueling is a good thing, or a bad thing, or is it inconsequential?

Do "sky-is-falling" headlines help or hurt the green movement? Are they designed to excite the aliterate?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I'm not buying your chart that claims a rise in the number of events. Whilst climate driven disasters are a catch cry of alarmists, my understanding is that natural disasters show no significant trends in either frequency or intensity over historical data although damage and economic cost have sky rocketed due to increased population spread. Perhaps there's just progressively more instances of these events in general being recorded?

Perhaps you could show some evidence for your assertion?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Perhaps you could show some evidence for your assertion?

Perhaps you should show the evidence. Your chart makes no reference to climate change.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Perhaps you could show some evidence for your assertion?

Here is a NOAA report that backs the " improved reporting " increase in the number of short duration storms. Also the report said there was no net increase in longer duration storms.
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory - Historical Atlantic Hurricane and Tropical Storm Records

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Which is worse?...

...losing this much ice?

Greenland has lost 9,000 billion tons of ice in a century | ScienceNordic

...or this much ice?

Greenland Lost 9 Trillion Tons of Ice in Century | RealClearScience

...or this much ice?

Greenland retained 99.7% of its ice mass in 20th Century!!! | Watts Up With That?

They all say the same thing, but the first two provide no context, and might lead one to believe that such a big number means this is a big problem. The last provides a bit of context, and might lead one to believe it's no problem at all. Note the use of the word "Science" in the first two websites.

Do you think such headline dueling is a good thing, or a bad thing, or is it inconsequential?

Do "sky-is-falling" headlines help or hurt the green movement? Are they designed to excite the aliterate?

The first 2 are science sites reporting the same story verbatim, the third is a radio weatherman's bog poo-pooing the first two.

It still takes a lot of heat energy to turn that much ice into water, especially when solar activity is down.

Yes, perspective is required.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Here is a NOAA report that backs the " improved reporting " increase in the number of short duration storms. Also the report said there was no net increase in longer duration storms.
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory - Historical Atlantic Hurricane and Tropical Storm Records

That article deals with the Atlantic only and uses a very different time frame.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Perhaps you should show the evidence. Your chart makes no reference to climate change.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

I just showed that extreme weather has increased. I made no reference to climate change. I have already indicted that tying individual weather events to climate change is very hard.

Risk aggravated by persistent extreme weather conditions – “Topics GEO” analyses 2014 natural catastrophes | Munich Re

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I just showed that extreme weather has increased. I made no reference to climate change. I have already indicted that tying individual weather events to climate change is very hard.

Risk aggravated by persistent extreme weather conditions – “Topics GEO” analyses 2014 natural catastrophes | Munich Re

Check out here...

http://www.emdat.be/disaster_trends/index.html

Notice how even earthquakes have increased, for the most part, since 1980?

How is this so?

Oh yes. Firstly a disaster / catastrophe / whatever needs to kill a certain number of people or cause a certain amount of economic loss in order to become classified as a disaster. Notice the word "reported" in the title?

I'll leave it to you to compare with population growth and distribution curves for the same period.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

That article deals with the Atlantic only and uses a very different time frame.

Yes it does use the data from the atlantic ocean . ( more ships =better reporting.)

Secondly ) I fail to see any issues with using a longer timeframe for figuring the averages. More data would seem to equal a more accurate averaging over a longer timeframe. Shorter timeframe may be skewed by years/decades of increased activity that follow a natural rise and fall of activity.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Which is worse?...

...losing this much ice?

Greenland has lost 9,000 billion tons of ice in a century | ScienceNordic

...or this much ice?

Greenland Lost 9 Trillion Tons of Ice in Century | RealClearScience

...or this much ice?

Greenland retained 99.7% of its ice mass in 20th Century!!! | Watts Up With That?

They all say the same thing, but the first two provide no context, and might lead one to believe that such a big number means this is a big problem. The last provides a bit of context, and might lead one to believe it's no problem at all. Note the use of the word "Science" in the first two websites.

Do you think such headline dueling is a good thing, or a bad thing, or is it inconsequential?

Do "sky-is-falling" headlines help or hurt the green movement? Are they designed to excite the aliterate?

Land ice is of particular interest because when it melts, it increases ocean level.

If all of Greenland's ice were to melt, it's estimated it would raise the ocean level by 23 ft. The 0.3% loss referred to in your article... is like 3/4".

(big whoop, I hear you say)

Sure, but the melt rate is accelerating; it's probably going to be more than 0.3% lost in the next century. Shall we gamble that there won't be accelerated melt?

Same issue with Antarctic land ice.

(who cares, we have boats)

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The first 2 are science sites reporting the same story verbatim, the third is a radio weatherman's bog poo-pooing the first two.dc

Appeal to authority...

It still takes a lot of heat energy to turn that much ice into water, especially when solar activity is down.

Of course it does, but the period of interest in the articles is a hundred years. Has solar activity, on average, been "down" for a hundred years? Relative to what other similar period is it down?

Yes, perspective is required.

Does your comment provide perspective, or simply pooh-pooh the skepticism regarding the seriousness of the trend?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Does your comment provide perspective, or simply pooh-pooh the skepticism regarding the seriousness of the trend?

An argument from authority is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:
- The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
- The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
- There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
- The person in question is not significantly biased.
- The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
- The authority in question must be identified.