Scientific American: Extreme Weather a product of Climate Change

[Tinordi]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...climate-change

There are two key lines of evidence. First, it's not just that we've become more aware of disasters like North Dakota or last year's Nashville flood, which caused $13 billion in damage, or the massive 2010 summer monsoon in Pakistan that killed 1,500 people and left 20 million more homeless. The data show that the number of such events is rising. Munich Re, one of the world's largest reinsurance companies, has compiled the world's most comprehensive database of natural disasters, reaching all the way back to the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in A.D. 79. Researchers at the company, which obviously has a keen financial interest in trends that increase insurance risks, add 700 to 1,000 natural catastrophes to the database each year, explains Mark Bove, senior research meteorologist in Munich Re's catastrophe risk management office in Princeton, N.J. The data indicate a small increase in geologic events like earthquakes since 1980 because of better reporting. But the increase in the number of climate disasters is far larger. "Our figures indicate a trend towards an increase in extreme weather events that can only be fully explained by climate change," says Peter Höppe, head of Munich Re's Geo Risks Research/Corporate Climate Center: "It's as if the weather machine had changed up a gear.

That's an interesting aside, want to know who the biggest believers in climate change are? It's the guys who's bottom lines are being felt by it right now in the insurance industry and the forestry industry.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

only a hippie lie-beral would believe that changing the mixture of our atmosphere with green house gasses could possibly make a difference to the climate. Everything is the way it's always been and always will be. God said so.

[blankall]

More people living in more places = more events likely to be labelled a "catastrophe".

Are the saying it is the fraction of a degree warmer temperature that is causing more disasters? Because the climate has been much warmer within the 2000 years than it is now.

I also love how their "insurance expert" is the head of the Munich Re's Geo Risks Research/Corporate Climate Center....gee I wonder if he has any incentive to interpret data a certain way.

I'm not saying that global warming definitely isn't happening but the arguments presented here aren't very good.

[scotty2hotty]

The Great Global Warming Swindle

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...0191369613647#

[Displaced Flames fan]

Video and still images of extreme weather makes them more likely to be interpreted as catastrophes then 50 years ago, let alone 500.

Everyone saw what happened in Joplin and Tuscaloosa and New Orleans. That's not always been the case and there is no way to scientifically measure, for example, how many F-5 tornadoes occurred in North America in the 17th century.

...and since when are earthquakes and volcanic eruptions 'weather'.

I'm not saying there is no merit to climate change simply that the premise here isn't very solid.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Video and still images of extreme weather makes them more likely to be interpreted as catastrophes then 50 years ago, let alone 500.

Everyone saw what happened in Joplin and Tuscaloosa and New Orleans. That's not always been the case and there is no way to scientifically measure, for example, how many F-5 tornadoes occurred in North America in the 17th century.

...and since when are earthquakes and volcanic eruptions 'weather'.

I'm not saying there is no merit to climate change simply that the premise here isn't very solid.

I think its obvious that climate change has an effect on the weather systems, its a matter of figuring out how much of an effect though. I mean I was reading that the earthquakes in Japan shifted the planets rotational angle, the moon has changed its distance to the earth. These things will all radically change the weather.

Besides I think the above quote is kind of true, with the increase in population density we're living in these danger areas now and we can record and predict and watch them. Look at Tornado Alley and the massive monster scars that those tornado's plowed into the ground.

[Tinordi]

You don't think they would account for that?

What climate scientists are measuring now in storm intensity not number of people impacted. Pretty silly thing to conclude that they would make a mistake that juvenile.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

You don't think they would account for that?

What climate scientists are measuring now in storm intensity not number of people impacted. Pretty silly thing to conclude that they would make a mistake that juvenile.

Account for what? What mistake?

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Video and still images of extreme weather makes them more likely to be interpreted as catastrophes then 50 years ago, let alone 500.

Everyone saw what happened in Joplin and Tuscaloosa and New Orleans. That's not always been the case and there is no way to scientifically measure, for example, how many F-5 tornadoes occurred in North America in the 17th century.

...and since when are earthquakes and volcanic eruptions 'weather'.

I'm not saying there is no merit to climate change simply that the premise here isn't very solid.

There are about 3.5 billion more people on the planet right now than there were in 1970. That's a lot more houses and whiners than there used to be ..... just a lot more targets.

And we're going to 9 billion people soon enough.

Maybe its happening, maybe its not but insurance companies have a lot more to do regardless.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

You don't think they would account for that?

What climate scientists are measuring now in storm intensity not number of people impacted. Pretty silly thing to conclude that they would make a mistake that juvenile.

They had no way of recording the intensity for example 200 years ago or even a hundred years ago, so how do you compare Farmer Browns statement that it was a "mighty big sturm"

With todays use of radar, photo evidence etc.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

They had no way of recording the intensity for example 200 years ago or even a hundred years ago, so how do you compare Farmer Browns statement that it was a "mighty big sturm"

With todays use of radar, photo evidence etc.

Not quite science, not quite magic... Smagic!

[MelBridgeman]

I would give that article the time of day if there wasn't also other plausible explantions for an increase in extreme weather. Not suggesting climate change has nothing to do with it at all, just saying its really short sighted article.

never thought i would see the word earthquake in a climate change article!

[mikey_the_redneck]

Climate change happens naturally regardless of human activity. Humans have a minimal effect imo....

This is just another blame game meant to stir up guilt so they can sell us on the carbon tax system. Now, any natural catastrophe that occurs is because of AGW.....

[T@T]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Climate change happens naturally regardless of human activity. Humans have a minimal effect imo....

This is just another blame game meant to stir up guilt so they can sell us on the carbon tax system. Now, any natural catastrophe that occurs is because of AGW.....

So..pumping a trillion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere does little?

Look around, you can see the changes with ease,where I grew up (Cape Breton) we use to play hockey on the Bras d'or lakes. (same lakes that Bell flew the Silver Dart off the ice 100 years ago) Nowdays the lakes don't even freeze over. 30 years ago snow stayed most of the winter,now your lucky to see it last 4 days before it's rained away and grass still has green in it all year.

The climate history there was constant for 200 years,I find it extremely un-likely that the changes over the last 30 years are "natural"

[blankall]

Originally Posted by T@T

So..pumping a trillion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere does little?

Look around, you can see the changes with ease,where I grew up (Cape Breton) we use to play hockey on the Bras d'or lakes. (same lakes that Bell flew the Silver Dart off the ice 100 years ago) Nowdays the lakes don't even freeze over. 30 years ago snow stayed most of the winter,now your lucky to see it last 4 days before it's rained away and grass still has green in it all year.

The climate history there was constant for 200 years,I find it extremely un-likely that the changes over the last 30 years are "natural"

Although human caused climate change may be happening, there is no way it is occuring at the rate you are suggesting. Even the least conservative credible estimates put it at less than a degree since the industrial revolution. The kind of change your talking about would require a difference of 5-10 degrees at least within the last 20 years or so.

Edit:

In 2009, a replica of the Silver Dart took off over the frozen lake, which you are claiming no longer freezes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEVzG...layer_embedded

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...climate-change



That's an interesting aside, want to know who the biggest believers in climate change are? It's the guys who's bottom lines are being felt by it right now in the insurance industry and the forestry industry.

When they quote Kevin Trenberth, you already know what the article's spin is going to be. Wow. Most of the article is anecdotal (which everyone knows is just "weather" - or at least it is if it isn't supporting AGW.) An insurance company will look for any reason to increase rates and what better way to label parts of the country as higher risk for extreme weather ("What? We can't help it - it's climate change!")

This is what Scientific American has been reduced to...sad.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by blankall

Although human caused climate change may be happening, there is no way it is occuring at the rate you are suggesting. Even the least conservative credible estimates put it at less than a degree since the industrial revolution. The kind of change your talking about would require a difference of 5-10 degrees at least within the last 20 years or so.

I totally believe that some places winters have warmed at least 5 degrees in the last 20-30 years. the reason for Cape Breton's changes most likely is the gulf stream moved closer to shore...but what made it move?

Parts of the Atlantic Ocean are 3-4 degrees warmer than 30 years ago.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by blankall

In 2009, a replica of the Silver Dart took off over the frozen lake, which you are claiming no longer freezes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEVzG...layer_embedded

Thats not Beinn Bhreagh, thats up the very end of baddeck bay,(shallow inlets still freeze) not sure about 2009 but last January it was open water a half mile south of there.
,

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by T@T

I totally believe that some places winters have warmed at least 5 degrees in the last 20-30 years. the reason for Cape Breton's changes most likely is the gulf stream moved closer to shore...but what made it move?

Parts of the Atlantic Ocean are 3-4 degrees warmer than 30 years ago.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/2...rming-climate/

Not that this article is the end all that be all, but there could be more to the temperature change than just one thing, you know. Believe all you want, but most things in this world are not black and white.

[SeeBass]

Was there a fire where Slave lake is 150 years ago? How about kelowna? Was there a tornado in the South? Was there a city in northern Japan if a tsunami hit 2,000 years ago? How about the Bay area quake in the early 1900's?.

Will there be a town where the Arizona fires are now in a 150 years. So is it then considered a disaster if there is a fire?

If a disaster hits and nobody records it and there is nobody looking for evidence did it happen?

They used to have vineyards along the Thames but they have been gone for hundreds of years. You could never grow grapes properly now but they found this out long before we even started using coal. What changed the climate then?