In The News

[knocker]

California is Home to Extreme Weather, Too

The state won’t see a superstorm like Hurricane Sandy, but UC Merced researchers monitoring precipitation and snowpack say weather can have comparable effects

http://www.ucmerced.edu/news/california-home-extreme-weather-too

[keithlucky]

Will Hurricane Sandy Convince Congress To Form a U.S. Weather Commission?

http://www.slate.com..._button_toolbar

Next time we get press hysteria about super storms Frankiestein Storm, read this .nothing rare about this storm.

Source: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/images/tracks/majors_1951_1960.jpg

[knocker]

Nothing rare about this storm? Well I suppose it's back to P.G. Wodehouse.

[4wd]

If it hadn't hit at high tide and unusually high spring tide at that, the sea defences would not have overtopped which was the main problem.

Several other storms had higher surges but did not hit at high tide and moved through quickly.

[knocker]

If it hadn't hit at high tide and unusually high spring tide at that, the sea defences would not have overtopped which was the main problem.

Several other storms had higher surges but did not hit at high tide and moved through quickly.

Could you give the details please. I understood this was the highest surge that has been measured. The tide is irrelevant apart from the resultant impact. Naturally the surge will be more damaging depending on the surge but it has no relevance to the height of the surge.

[knocker]

BREAKING NEWS: GSA Session to Address Hurricane Sandy

GSA Annual Meeting Technical Sessions: Rapid Sea-Level Rise and Its Impacts: Past, Present, and Future I and II

Boulder, Colorado, USA - In response to the devastation caused last week by Hurricane Sandy, organizers of the Geological Society of America Annual Meeting technical sessions on rapid sea-level rise and its impacts have created a break-out discussion panel consisting of geoscience experts. The idea is to relate early findings and discuss how the changes caused by Hurricane Sandy to the U.S. East Coast tie into the scientific papers already scheduled for presentation.

Session organizers George T. Stone of Milwaukee Area Technical College, Michael E. Mann of The Pennsylvania State University, Stanley R. Riggs of East Carolina University, and Andrew M. Buddington of Spokane Community College recognized early the need to discuss the effects of Hurricane Sandy. The newly revised discussion panel will follow morning talks in room 219AB of the Charlotte Convention Center on Monday, 5 November.

Five GSA Divisions (GSA Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology; Environmental and Engineering Geology; Geology and Society; Hydrogeology; Sedimentary Geology) and GSA's International Section have teamed up with the Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists and the National Association of Geoscience Teachers to bring a multidisciplinary perspective to the problem.

Other talks in this two-part session (morning and afternoon) include "Pulses of rapid sea level rise: Their effect on past, present and future coastal environments and sequences"; Anthropogenic sea-level rise: ethical transgressions; and "Sea-level change during the last 2000 years in southern Connecticut."

Oh dear this isn't a problem. Raipid sea level rise. Been reading to many NW forums.

http://www.geosociet...ws/pr/12-84.htm

Edited November 3, 2012 by knocker

[4wd]

Sea levels have been rising at a fairly steady rate since anyone started trying to measure them. no idea why there's a sudden flurry of alarmist stuff about accelerating in the trend, it just isn't there - and the most likely explanation for the slow rise is probably that we are still recovering from the last ice age.

(could be something to do with capitalising on Sandy footage I suppose)

http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/LSA_SLR_timeseries_global.php

[Polar Maritime]

Poor Corbyn...

[Interitus]

Next time we get press hysteria about super storms Frankiestein Storm, read this .nothing rare about this storm.

Source: http://www.nhc.noaa....s_1951_1960.jpg

Hurricane Donna in 1960 produced the record storm tide at The Battery, New York, of 10.5 feet, and the record for New York dates back to the Great Hurricane of 1821 at 11.2 feet - Sandy reached 13.88 feet at The Battery - its surge alone (minus tide) was 9 feet. New York City experienced it's worst hurricane since its founding in 1624.

http://www.wundergro...l?entrynum=2282

If it hadn't hit at high tide and unusually high spring tide at that, the sea defences would not have overtopped which was the main problem.

Several other storms had higher surges but did not hit at high tide and moved through quickly.

The peak danger will be between 7 pm - 10 pm, when storm surge rides in on top of the high tide. The full moon is today, which means astronomical high tide will be about 5% higher than the average high tide for the month, adding another 2 - 3" to water levels.

http://www.wundergro...l?entrynum=2280

Sandy may be a symptom of climate change or simply a long term extreme, but the anxiety to dispel any notion of a possible AGW contribution is a failed, mistaken attempt to deflect that this was an exceptionally rare and severe storm for a multitude of reasons.

[4wd]

Sandy may be a symptom of climate change or simply a long term extreme, but the anxiety to dispel any notion of a possible AGW contribution is a failed, mistaken attempt to deflect that this was an exceptionally rare and severe storm for a multitude of reasons.

What anxiety, I see plenty of anxiety to try to convince us it must have been somehow made worse or deflected inland [LOL] because of AGW

Your own statement makes it clear that a small section of the US east coast was plain unlucky in that a powerful late storm coincided with a very high tide, causing coastal flooding in an area which has historically seen similar events many times before.

[Interitus]

What anxiety, I see plenty of anxiety to try to convince us it must have been somehow made worse or deflected inland [LOL] because of AGW

Your own statement makes it clear that a small section of the US east coast was plain unlucky in that a powerful late storm coincided with a very high tide, causing coastal flooding in an area which has historically seen similar events many times before.

What? On the contrary, the 'very high tide' added only 2-3 INCHES over the normal high tide of the month. The storm didn't only affect a small area - it had the LARGEST diameter of an Atlantic hurricane on record. There have not been many similar events before, since 1851 only ONE other hurricane has made landfall in New Jersey, in 1903. Dispute the causes all you like but, get the facts right.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Interitus

[Methuselah]

IMO, to deny the very possibility of AGW as a contributor, is every bit as narrow-minded as is invoking AGW as the reason behind everything...

[Gray-Wolf]

IMO, to deny the very possibility of AGW as a contributor, is every bit as narrow-minded as is invoking AGW as the reason behind everything...

The only difference being I've not read of anyone saying that AGW was the only reason behind the storm even if the usual suspects are denying any augmentation via climate change.

To accept the bare minimum of human driven climate impacts accepts that AGW must be involved , to some extent, in every weather event as the events occur within the system that is reacting to AGW.

[Methuselah]

The only difference being I've not read of anyone saying that AGW was the only reason behind the storm even if the usual suspects are denying any augmentation via climate change.

To accept the bare minimum of human driven climate impacts accepts that AGW must be involved , to some extent, in every weather event as the events occur within the system that is reacting to AGW.

Not in my opinion, it doesn't...Are you really suggesting that, should East Anglia receive a heavy snow shower, any time this winter, it's partly down to AGW?

Edited November 3, 2012 by Rybris Ponce

[Interitus]

The only difference being I've not read of anyone saying that AGW was the only reason behind the storm even if the usual suspects are denying any augmentation via climate change.

To accept the bare minimum of human driven climate impacts accepts that AGW must be involved , to some extent, in every weather event as the events occur within the system that is reacting to AGW.

Scientists are frequently asked about an event “Is it caused by climate change?†The answer is that no events are “caused by climate change†or global warming, but all events have a contribution. Moreover, a small shift in the mean can still lead to very large percentage changes in extremes. In reality the wrong question is being asked: the question is poorly posed and has no satisfactory answer. The answer is that all weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be.

- Kevin Trenberth, head of Climate Analysis, US National Center for Atmospheric Research, in "Framing the way to relate climate extremes to climate change" (2012) http://www.springerl...text.pdf?MUD=MP

[keithlucky]

Hurricane Donna in 1960 produced the record storm tide at The Battery, New York, of 10.5 feet, and the record for New York dates back to the Great Hurricane of 1821 at 11.2 feet - Sandy reached 13.88 feet at The Battery - its surge alone (minus tide) was 9 feet. New York City experienced it's worst hurricane since its founding in 1624.

http://www.wundergro...l?entrynum=2282

The peak danger will be between 7 pm - 10 pm, when storm surge rides in on top of the high tide. The full moon is today, which means astronomical high tide will be about 5% higher than the average high tide for the month, adding another 2 - 3" to water levels.

http://www.wundergro...l?entrynum=2280

Sandy may be a symptom of climate change or simply a long term extreme, but the anxiety to dispel any notion of a possible AGW contribution is a failed, mistaken attempt to deflect that this was an exceptionally rare and severe storm for a multitude of reasons.

In fiscal quotes on hurricane damage (ICAT insurance company)Sandy caused20 billion dollars in damages not breaking the top ten Katrina caused 180 billion dollars in damages .How dare Sandy hit the fiscal capital of USA.

[laserguy]

If CO2 was miraculously restored to pre-industrial levels, what 'weird' weather events (or lack of ) would you AGW afficianados expect to see? Would we all be walking around in a paradise of weather normality with nice snowy winters and long,hot summers inbetween "mainly dry with sunny spells" at other times? Will you ever be happy until this mumbo-jumbo voodoo science is somehow grudgingly accepted by folk like me who are sick and tired of your moaning? Ah forget it- it's cobblers. I'm off to prepare a bonfire - if that's alright with you?

[Devonian]

If CO2 was miraculously restored to pre-industrial levels, what 'weird' weather events (or lack of ) would you AGW afficianados expect to see? Would we all be walking around in a paradise of weather normality with nice snowy winters and long,hot summers inbetween "mainly dry with sunny spells" at other times? Will you ever be happy until this mumbo-jumbo voodoo science is somehow grudgingly accepted by folk like me who are sick and tired of your moaning? Ah forget it- it's cobblers. I'm off to prepare a bonfire - if that's alright with you?

To answer you questions in order: I think it's like saying what chages do you get if you change a cake recipe. Answer, you have to change it enough to notice, and that depends upon the effect of each ingredient, just like with climate - which is what we dispute. I think we would see a colder climate. I doubt you'll ever accept the science. And, you really don't have to ask.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

In the end all folk will accept what we have caused it will just take more brutal impacts to have some folk accept that this is the case.

This will come with a caveat though. They will insist that we did not 'know' it was our impacts prior to the events that forced them to accept the scale of the problem?

I have always maintained that it will take major impacting events to convince many of todays doubters and this appears a real shame that such misery is avoidable if we acted now to mitigate. Ho Hum!

[keithlucky]

No rise in sea temps in 15yrs http://climaterealis...ng-nor-co2.html

[knocker]

I suspect it may well be too late to mitigate GW. Concentration will have now have to on adaption policies.

Too late to stop global warming by cutting emissions

Scientists argue for adaption policies

Governments and institutions should focus on developing adaption policies to address and mitigate against the negative impact of global warming, rather than putting the emphasis on carbon trading and capping greenhouse-gas emissions, argue Johannesburg-based Wits University geoscientist Dr Jasper Knight and Dr Stephan Harrison from the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom.

"At present, governments' attempts to limit greenhouse-gas emissions through carbon cap-and-trade schemes and to promote renewable and sustainable energy sources are prob¬ably too late to arrest the inevitable trend of global warming," the scientists write in a paper published online in the scientific journal, Nature Climate Change, on Monday, 14 October 2012.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-10/uotw-tlt101712.php

[BornFromTheVoid]

No rise in sea temps in 15yrs http://climaterealis...ng-nor-co2.html

I think it's about time you start thinking for yourself Keith. Posting nothing but links to nonsense and dis-information isn't going to convince anyone.

[knocker]

Taking a longer view point for different seas that is quite important although this isn't comprehensive the N. Atlantic is quite interesting.

Sea surface temperature anomaly for period 1870-2006

Data (oC) show the difference between annual average temperatures and the period 1982-2006 mean in different European seas

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/sea-surface-temperature-anomaly-for-period-1870-2006

Edited November 3, 2012 by knocker

[VillagePlank]

The scale and severity of the event is unusual - but it may or may not have a root in AGW and precedents do not prove it one way or another.

"So the exact frequency and power of ALL tropical storms is only known for 30 years or so - too short a period, say Met Office scientists, to form a proper judgment."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20181266

[VillagePlank]

In the end all folk will accept what we have caused it will just take more brutal impacts to have some folk accept that this is the case.

This will come with a caveat though. They will insist that we did not 'know' it was our impacts prior to the events that forced them to accept the scale of the problem?

I have always maintained that it will take major impacting events to convince many of todays doubters and this appears a real shame that such misery is avoidable if we acted now to mitigate. Ho Hum!

No. Absolutely not.

You talk of impacts as a convenient point of evidence to support your view; that convenience is at the expense of people's lives. The point you are missing is that more people are living next to regions that are normally affected by severe weather events; your measure is that of the lives of human beings. Since more people live in these regions ergo more people will die even if all things are held equal.

If I picked up all the people in Kent and dropped them in Antarctica in shorts and tee-shirts, then a week later discovered that the incidence rate of people dying from hypothermia had dramatically increased therefore indicating a cooling climate you would think me mad.

As I understand it, the current view from science is that we just don't know how to attribute weather events to climate regardless of whether one chooses to attribute severe weather events on mankind's pollution or otherwise.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Boar Wrinklestorm