ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Observations

Observations


Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American
Observations HomeAboutContact

Did Climate Change Cause Hurricane Sandy?

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



If you’ve followed the U.S. news and weather in the past 24 hours you have no doubt run across a journalist or blogger explaining why it’s difficult to say that climate change could be causing big storms like Sandy. Well, no doubt here: it is.

The hedge expressed by journalists is that many variables go into creating a big storm, so the size of Hurricane Sandy, or any specific storm, cannot be attributed to climate change. That’s true, and it’s based on good science. However, that statement does not mean that we cannot say that climate change is making storms bigger. It is doing just that—a statement also based on good science, and one that the insurance industry is embracing, by the way. (Huh? More on that in a moment.)

Scientists have long taken a similarly cautious stance, but more are starting to drop the caveat and link climate change directly to intense storms and other extreme weather events, such as the warm 2012 winter in the eastern U.S. and the frigid one in Europe at the same time. They are emboldened because researchers have gotten very good in the past decade at determining what affects the variables that create big storms. Hurricane Sandy got large because it wandered north along the U.S. coast, where ocean water is still warm this time of year, pumping energy into the swirling system. But it got even larger when a cold Jet Stream made a sharp dip southward from Canada down into the eastern U.S. The cold air, positioned against warm Atlantic air, added energy to the atmosphere and therefore to Sandy, just as it moved into that region, expanding the storm even further.

Here’s where climate change comes in. The atmospheric pattern that sent the Jet Stream south is colloquially known as a “blocking high”—a big pressure center stuck over the very northern Atlantic Ocean and southern Arctic Ocean. And what led to that? A climate phenomenon called the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)—essentially, the state of atmospheric pressure in that region. This state can be positive or negative, and it had changed from positive to negative two weeks before Sandy arrived. The climate kicker? Recent research by Charles Greene at Cornell University and other climate scientists has shown that as more Arctic sea ice melts in the summer—because of global warming—the NAO is more likely  to be negative during the autumn and winter. A negative NAO makes the Jet Stream more likely to move in a big, wavy pattern across the U.S., Canada and the Atlantic, causing the kind of big southward dip that occurred during Sandy.

Climate change amps up other basic factors that contribute to big storms. For example, the oceans have warmed, providing more energy for storms. And the Earth’s atmosphere has warmed, so it retains more moisture, which is drawn into storms and is then dumped on us.

These changes contribute to all sorts of extreme weather. In a recent op-ed in the Washington Post, James Hansen at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York blamed climate change for excessive drought, based on six decades of measurements, not computer models: “Our analysis shows that it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather and to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change. To the contrary, our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change.”

He went on to write that the Russian heat wave of 2010 and catastrophic droughts in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 could each be attributed to climate change, concluding that “The odds that natural variability created these extremes are minuscule, vanishingly small. To count on those odds would be like quitting your job and playing the lottery every morning to pay the bills.”

Hansen also argued a year ago that Earth is entering a period of rapid climate change, so radical weather will be upon us sooner than we’d like. Scientific American just published a big feature article detailing the same point.

Indeed, if you’re a regular Scientific American reader, you might recall that another well-regarded scientist predicted behemoths such as Sandy in 2007. The article, by Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, was presciently titled, “Warmer Oceans, Stronger Hurricanes.” Trenberth’s extensive analysis concluded that although the number of Atlantic hurricanes each year might not rise, the strength of them would.

Hurricane Sandy has emboldened more scientists to directly link climate change and storms, without the hedge. On Monday, as Sandy came ashore in New Jersey, Jonathan Foley, director of the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota, tweeted: “Would this kind of storm happen without climate change? Yes. Fueled by many factors. Is [the] storm stronger because of climate change? Yes.”

Raymond Bradley, director of the Climate Systems Research Center at the University of Massachusetts, was quoted in the Vancouver Sun saying: “When storms develop, when they do hit the coast, they are going to be bigger and I think that’s a fair statement that most people could sign onto.”

A recent, peer-reviewed study published by several authors in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science concludes: “The largest cyclones are most affected by warmer conditions and we detect a statistically significant trend in the frequency of large surge events (roughly corresponding to tropical storm size) since 1923.”

Greg Laden, an anthropologist who blogs about culture and science, wrote this week in an online piece: “There is always going to be variation in temperature or some other weather related factor, but global warming raises the baseline. That’s true. But the corollary to that is NOT that you can’t link climate change to a given storm. All storms are weather, all weather is the immediate manifestation of climate, climate change is about climate.”

Now, as promised: If you still don’t believe scientists, then believe insurance giant Munich Re. In her October 29 post at the The New Yorker, writer Elizabeth Kolbert notes:

Munich Re, one of the world’s largest reinsurance firms, issued a study titled “Severe Weather in North America.” According to the press release that accompanied the report, “Nowhere in the world is the rising number of natural catastrophes more evident than in North America.” … While many factors have contributed to this trend, including an increase in the number of people living in flood-prone areas, the report identified global warming as one of the major culprits: “Climate change particularly affects formation of heat-waves, droughts, intense precipitation events, and in the long run most probably also tropical cyclone intensity.”

Insurers, scientists and journalist are beginning to drop the caveats and simply say that climate change is causing big storms. As scientists collect more and more data over time, more of them will be willing to make the same data-based statements.

Image courtesy of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Mark Fischetti About the Author: Mark Fischetti is a senior editor at Scientific American who covers energy, environment and sustainability issues. Follow on Twitter @markfischetti.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.





Rights & Permissions

Comments 93 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. geojellyroll 10:51 am 10/30/2012

    The vultures have already pounced.

    What a ridiculous piece of non journalism.

    Link to this
  2. 2. Shoshin 11:15 am 10/30/2012

    Yes. Of course it did. Man is dripped in original sin and is responsible for any and every bad thing that happens on the planet. Gaia on the other hand is pewceful and merciful. Only through knowing the ways of Gaia can man live in harmony with nature.

    That and buying palm oil and carbon credits from Al Gore, the WWF, Sierra Club and Greenpeace, all of whom are Gaia’s annointed representatives on Earth. They take Visa, American Express and Diner’s Club. Cheques with three pieces of ID and a valid credit card. And Cash, of course.

    Link to this
  3. 3. Merlinsscience 11:33 am 10/30/2012

    As a contributing scientist to the debate for the past fifteen years, I cannot support the methodology or the rationale of this article. That is not to say that I refute it either. The evidence, albeit slim, that is offered is purely anecdotal and the recognition that a reinsurer is now embracing climate change is, well, statistically insignificant. However, I’m not certain that this is not a case of someone reporting the obvious, proclaiming “Tada” and then continuing on as if it was always a foregone conclusion. Scientists typically do not do that- we leave that magic trick for politicians.

    “Are we warming?” Yes, slightly. “Will that cause storms of greater frequency?” Unknown, but probably not according to the bulk of research I am involved in. “Can it cause storms of greater strength, longevity and less predictability?” Yes. And I’ll explain why in the next post.

    Link to this
  4. 4. Merlinsscience 11:47 am 10/30/2012

    If you think of the earth as a giant living machine or plant (not planet), you would recognize that it too will develop strategies for maintaining it’s default state in an evolutionary way, just as plants do. Our archaeology, anthropology and geology depts. worldwide have shown that, for millennia, the planet’s weather patterns have been as diverse as it’s climate in general and that it seems to always default to a steady state that is beneficial for life. That would appear to be because the planet itself is alive; like a plant- not an animal. Given that it is heating up, for whatever reason, it makes perfect logical and scientific sense that it’s mechanism for cooling itself (giant storms) would also scale to meet the new demands. There is no theoretical limit to just how large a storm can grow, it is all governed by physics, so it would follow that the storms would grow larger as the demand increased. The article got that right, though it did so in a very dysfunctional way.

    I’m just thankful that the writer left the term “anthropomorphic” on the sidelines and that this piece is in the “Observations” section.

    Link to this
  5. 5. Merlinsscience 11:51 am 10/30/2012

    Shoeshine lost me… Whatever your religious beliefs are, the planet has evolved to survive for billions of years. As long as we don’t kill it, it will take care of us for billions more. Assuming the 2012 predictions are inaccurate our course… Lol sorry, could’nt resist.

    Link to this
  6. 6. Shoshin 12:08 pm 10/30/2012

    No offense taken. Science ceased to be a serious topic of discussion in CAGW related SCIAM years ago. Discussing science with the self-styled eco-radicals is a waste of breath as their prevailing attitude is that man is always responsible for everything and that all fossil fuels are evil. Nothing else really matters to them.

    The larger issue is that for decades the more serious climate scientists have discredited and downplayed the idea that extreme weather or any single storm event could be linked to man made climate change.

    I find it more than a bit ridiculous that now that each and every test designed to scientifically and rigorously prove the theory of Man Made Climate Change has failed that the eco-radicals are resorting to wild-eyed catastrophism in an effort to scare everyone into fervent supplication.

    The saving grace is that the more thoughtful and moderate faction of the eco-movement are now distancing themselves from the radical element. This explains why the general rhetoric of the eco-radicals is becoming more extreme. The moderation of the thoughtful is no longer there.

    As a matter of policy, I try not to discuss science on these websites. It’s all about politics, power and money. Science is irrelevant to the Alarmists.

    Link to this
  7. 7. SteveO 12:28 pm 10/30/2012

    Shoshin and Geojellyroll,

    How much are you guys winning over at InTrade betting on no climate change?

    Or, in other words, put your money where your mouth is! Go and reap the rewards of your superior climate knowledge!

    Or, alternatively, pay a (more immediate) price for your ignorance. Let the market decide!

    Link to this
  8. 8. Dredd 12:32 pm 10/30/2012

    Makes plenty of sense and science Mark.

    Now, we can get back to guzzling fossil fuels so as to insure bigger global warming induced climate change catastrophe in the future.

    Triage is a form of planned obsolescense; but it is no way to deal with the cause of the global phenomenon.

    http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2012/10/new-climate-catastrophe-policy-triage-10.html

    Link to this
  9. 9. G. Karst 1:03 pm 10/30/2012

    Of course! GW has caused all hurricanes! The frozen snowball earth could not generate anything that we would recognize as a hurricane. GW enabled hurricanes… just as it enabled life. I don’t see that, as motivation to return to such a state. GK

    Link to this
  10. 10. sjn 1:51 pm 10/30/2012

    In the end, the debate whether or not, or how much, you can attribute Hurricane Sandy specifically to climate change is irrelevant. What no one disputes, is that the next generation will face a higher frequency of such catastrophic events. So once in a hundred year or more events become every generation, generational events happen every few years, once in a decade or so events become routine.
    So obviously, insurance companies, whose whole expertise (if any) is in betting on frequency distributions are going to be the first to protect themselves from climate change by restricting their policies. When no one can get crop, flood, hurricane or storm insurance maybe they’ll start believing.

    Link to this
  11. 11. Ekoh1 2:03 pm 10/30/2012

    Ha, as soon as an article like this is published the scientifically-challenged freepers arrive to mock the existence of man-made global warming. No doubt they are the type who may drive drunk or smoke three packs a day and when the worst occurs keep smoking or driving drunk.

    The irony is, if these changes are indeed accelerating in a few years they will deny they were ever denialists.

    Link to this
  12. 12. yarberry 2:07 pm 10/30/2012

    Shoshin – Man is not separate from Gaia, but part of the Earth’s system (Gaia). We do impact the systems on this planet, as do termites, volcanoes and crabs. There is no state of peaceful harmony, just the present that is reacting to the various forces at work within the system. If we suffer climate change then what matter the source of the change to the system – the impacts are still very real. To claim that 7 billion people on this small planet have no affects is very bizarre, but we can claim innocence and still take positive steps to change what is occuring.

    Link to this
  13. 13. geojellyroll 2:22 pm 10/30/2012

    sjn: “What no one disputes, is that the next generation will face a higher frequency of such catastrophic events”

    That’s ridiculous. It’s based on NOTHING other than non-scientific hyperbolae. a lower percent of the world’s popuilation have died from drought, famine, etc. in the last 50 years thasn any previous 50 years in the history of mankind. A lower percent has dies from infectious disease. A lower percent from wars over scarce resources.

    Link to this
  14. 14. priddseren 2:36 pm 10/30/2012

    I have been waiting for this one. I have to wonder if the warmists waited until after landfall to see how much damage was done so they could make their claims global warming caused it. Had Sandy gone out to sea or did little damage this article probably would not have been written.

    Sorry author but your just blowing wind here. You warmists could not even predict the warming of the last 16 years as recently published, no change, which means the magic heat you claim exists to cause these storms is simply not there.

    1993 “Storm of the Century” was larger and was followed by an entire summer of the central north american continent being flooded from canada to texas and between the mountain ranges also caused by 3 weather systems converging.

    And we can find massive storms and floods going back in history long before the industrial age.

    The fact is the atmosphere, land, ocean and sun all cause storms and occasionally they are supersized. It has nothing to do with global warming.

    Link to this
  15. 15. Hmm.. 2:37 pm 10/30/2012

    Just a couple of thoughts…

    I live in Europe. Last winter here was fairly mild, certainly could not in any way be described as ‘frigid’. So that ‘fact’ is actually incorrect.

    You cite Arctic sea ice melting as being ‘because of global warming’ but you fail to mention that the area of sea ice in the Antarctic region is currently increasing year on year. Can you also confirm that is ‘because of global warming’? If not then perhaps your statement on sea ice is also incorrect.

    It is no wonder that increasingly people ‘don’t believe scientists’ if they base their arguments on false information.

    Link to this
  16. 16. Sisko 2:41 pm 10/30/2012

    The only possible impact of global warming on the Atlantic hurricanes is the extension of the tropical Atlantic warm pool eastward (towards Africa), which means formation is occurring further east than previously and results in more TCs curving North into the Atlantic (so called fish storms). Note: the impact of warming on hurricane intensity seems theoretically robust, but impossible to sort out an AGW signal from the natural variability.

    Kevin Trenberth frequently says that global warming is affecting all of weather. He is probably right, but apart from the relative magnitude of the effect, this begs the question as to whether the effect is good or bad; arguably in terms of Atlantic hurricanes, the warming is resulting in fewer U.S. landfalls.

    The attribution of this storm to additional human released CO2 is nearly baseless. That will not prevent a large number of inaccurate assessments however. Please do let good science get in the way of your preconceived prejudices-lol.

    Link to this
  17. 17. N49th 2:43 pm 10/30/2012

    Sandy was a result of climate change. O.K.
    This changes the fact Russia, Norway, Canada and the United States are rushing for the resources the Artic is showing.
    I take it the lights were on when you wrote your column?

    Link to this
  18. 18. ildenizen 3:00 pm 10/30/2012

    If someone hands you a pair of dice that is slightly loaded to yield snake eyes – would you blame every snake eyes on the dice being loaded? Probably not. But neither would any gambler play with these dice.
    Climate change is much like this. We are loading the dice in such a way that we favor certain weather events.

    Link to this
  19. 19. h4x354x0r 3:26 pm 10/30/2012

    Oh yeah… every time I follow a link here, I forget the Scientific American discussion boards are overrun by anti-science morons. Hate to say it, but if ignorant, anti-science comments are all you’re getting here, why bother with it?

    Link to this
  20. 20. mfischetti 4:24 pm 10/30/2012

    Thanks to the (few) people here who have presented scientific comments or corrections. For those who have offered nothing but hate, if you find an incorrect scientific statement, then explain the science of how it is incorrect, tell us your credentials, and give us a scientific citation where we can learn more.

    Link to this
  21. 21. drafter 4:33 pm 10/30/2012

    If you look at the history of hurricanes this falls right in with past weather cycles and was actually no bigger than previous storms. More damage based on cost yes but only because more people live in the affected regions and cost have gone up. So if you ignore those facts then you can claim global warming as the cause.

    Link to this
  22. 22. InterestInMaths 5:13 pm 10/30/2012

    They Dont quite understand the Negative Loop effect and the way the biosphere protecting the planet works?
    A balancing act Of warm and cold mixes?
    Its the Rob Petter to pay paul thing with the Back to back and Drought here Flood there thing..
    Out of SYNC? Maths not quite correct ey?

    But we warm the planet to high = More precipitation and moisture feeds more smaller storms.

    Editor is correct?
    Not to argue people need to look hard at why the hurricane started?

    It got Fed? By Warm water. Well Known?

    The Hurricane East to west then north? Warm equitorial air causing the hurricane? But why did it do that?

    To cool Down the Ocean itself?
    It can trigger events? Its Like Maths?
    To hot add some cold? To cold add hot. North and south poles cool down warmer equitoral waters circulating and driving nutrients globally to feed the eco system.?

    If the waters at surface in Atlantic are to warm, then not as much Ice up North to cool the warm water arriving from the equator then you have a loop effect that will further and more rapidly remove the Ice adding even more moisture to atmosphere= precipitation and or power to storms or low depressions?

    The biosphere triggers when the maths are upset or offset, and tries to re balance? Good here while Bad there rob peter pay paul yes?

    Gets into feedback loop and look out.
    So not enough ice up north to cool the incoming warm water = Hurricane to reduce the temp of the ocean as you do when Blowing a fresh hot Cuppa= To hot you add some cold water? If no cold water, you have to Blow. Nature? Maths.

    So The bio’s feels cues? Knowing what triggers the Biosphere to respond would help. Finding the triggers.

    And the Warm Air from Sandy got stopped by NAO yes.

    By what? A Northen response dip twist in Jet to lower the colder air to meet head on near the warm = Air from Sandy?
    So Cold air booting South means that warm gets stopped flat in its tracks stopped from going North and further ruducing the ice pack seeing as this is responding to lower ice?

    So The offset reaction trigger is also pressure dependant to trigger?
    Mid atlantic pressure needs to be just correct to hold the hurricane on it’s North path as it feeds from the Atlantic.

    This pressure in turn reacts on The North to Bring down Cold Air Via a twist in the Jet stream (interaction) and it can alter its path to meet the warmer air and stop it heading up North.

    Thats what Happens? Nature is Running out of SYNC?

    You on the ground in Usa see the Results of this temp reducing hurricane and out of sync biosphere= protecting our eco systems?

    Records are being broke on a month by month basis global scale?
    1 Thing is for sure? Thats not the biggest storm yet? Records will be beaten so look at the next worse being just that, worse? You may get many lower events over many yrs? But garuntee they are getting bigger?

    Storms in Sync or near are good? Storms not in Sync you want to worry for?
    By rights the planet should not need to use hurricanes to reduce the damage nore develop them?

    I will not Bleh on to much more. Ask me if you like i will explain more.

    How much colder did the hurricane leave the surface temps on the Atlantic?
    Anybody know the before and after Data= NOAA?

    Link to this
  23. 23. dgolumbia 5:36 pm 10/30/2012

    the most poisonous thing about Anti-Global Warming is that it claims to be “scientifically skeptical,” but is at the same time absolutely unwilling to consider *any* evidence that the climate change theory might be correct.

    any real science proceeds by testing hypotheses against data. the Anti-Global Warming types talk as if they believe climate scientists have failed to produce enough data, but their practice says: no data could possibly count.

    that’s not science. it’s paid propaganda, which we all know is the main force driving anti-global warming in the first place. it is paid for, and therefore can never and will never allow any evidence to confirm the climate change hypotheses.

    hopefully, most readers of this magazine know that, but for anyone who might be persuaded by the hateful and ignorant responses to this article, ask yourself (and ask climate change deniers if you have to talk to them): what proof *would* convince you climate change was real? or do you think the thesis is *impossible*? Is claiming a theory is *impossible* a part of normal science?

    If not, what evidence beyond the historic flooding of New York City, one of the main nightmare scenarios many climate watchers have predicted, *would* count as evidence in favor of the thesis?

    Link to this
  24. 24. Strangy 5:49 pm 10/30/2012

    This question means a lot. Can we answer it? Yes we can and of course, one can surely says it’s due to climate change. Some may say otherwise, we would not disagree with them, but what people have to realize is the fact that climate change is already here. We american people are so skeptical about some issues, we always believe that we know everything. Climage change is all about change in the climate. It’s a sort of instability. No one knows for sure how it’s going to present, if not that the climate is going to be unstable and it already is. I laugh when I hear people on their skeptical views about this issue. The US is being controlled by corporations which make their profits regardless of our their actions impact the world. It’s pretty sad. I remember when I first saw Roland Emmerich’s movie ” The day after tomorrow “. Sure it’s about science fiction, but something we might see in reality in the coming days. The earth is like a sphere filled with different elements inside, but interconnected to each other. Every change in one of these elements can affect the others at a certain degree. Climage change impact every single compartment of the planet and its consequences will undoubtedly bring change in other compartments on the planet. Anything can happen at anytime. Why can’t we switch to electric cars, why not increasing green energy on our soil ? Why not promoting solar energy ? Why not limiting our greenhouse gaze emissions ? How many extinctions do we have to witness actually so we can decide to change our lifestyle ? One thing I know for sure, we are just witnessing our own extinction.

    Link to this
  25. 25. CWLongway 5:57 pm 10/30/2012

    I have a master’s degree in engineering, have read more than 90% of the articles in Scientific American since 1978, and have had an eye on the arctic since 2007. In my opinion article Mark referenced last month in Scientific American, which I did read is the most significant one that has been published in over 30 years. I applaud the courage of your editor for telling us the factual truth. Now regarding Sandy, two factors stand out. The hurricane would have gone North if not for the extreme high pressure set up in the arctic. The jet stream should have blown the hurricane into the Atlantic save for the fact that the residual heating in the arctic reduced the temperature differential between the arctic and mid-latitude. Sandy was not normal system. I have yet to see someone show a record of a hurricane that turned left coming up the US east coast. I understand that the low pressure was also a record. The Antarctic is also in trouble, please do not pretend that the increase in ice extent shows health, the ice volume is decreasing. So I agree 100% with Mark’s assessment of Sandy.

    Link to this
  26. 26. geojellyroll 6:06 pm 10/30/2012

    Strangy…’the Day After Tomorrow’ is science fiction. You seem to know this but still cite the movie…? Is this your level of ‘science’?

    If there was a movie and ‘nothing happened’ would this also be some statement about climate change?

    Hint…it was FICTION. Noah’s flood was FICTION…as a geologist I take NOTHIMG from that tale or your movie as meaning anything one way or the other in the real world….ZIP….NADA

    Link to this
  27. 27. tucanofulano 8:43 pm 10/30/2012

    Another political nonsense no-science hit piece by yet another ignorati

    Link to this
  28. 28. Postman1 9:43 pm 10/30/2012

    Do any of the regular commentors know if Bird/tree etc is offline due to the storm? The last comment I saw from him was about being in a basement and the power going out. I hope he and the rest of you are all okay tonight, I miss bird’s comic relief. We are snowed in in the NC mtns, but warm. Night, All!

    Link to this
  29. 29. joelhuberman 10:59 pm 10/30/2012

    Thanks, Mark, for an excellent, clear article. It’s too bad that so much space is taken up after your article by the rantings of climate deniers. If any such climate denier wishes to educate himself or herself about how climate science is really done and about how scientists themselves are their own most skeptical critics, then I recommend that he or she take a look at http://www.skepticalscience.com. Among other interesting information, the Skeptical Science web site contains a list of the favorite arguments of climate deniers, with patient, constructive explanations of why each of these arguments is fallacious.

    Link to this
  30. 30. Carlyle 12:55 am 10/31/2012

    Re: 25. CWLongway
    So how do you explain the thirty year expansion of ice extent in the Antarctic? Do you believe the data on sea level rise & ice altimetry that NASA has been giving us?
    How does it sit with you that NASA has admitted that their data is seriously flawed & they need to deploy a new satelite system, GRASP,to get correct readings?
    You see, if you are not sceptical about what you read, you are gullible.

    Link to this
  31. 31. sophieneubauer 1:20 am 10/31/2012

    Can people PLEASE stop talking about Gaia? The Earth is not, as a planet and substrate for the meta-ecological system, consciously working to return itself to its pre-human-damaged state. That assumes some sort of purpose, and what purpose would a lump of rock in space have for existing? It’s not something with a brain, with an evolutionarily-based drive to survive. Speaking of which, the sum or life on Earth does not work together to ensure the survival of all. That goes against most evolutionary theory. The vast majority of species that ever existed are extinct. Tell me how Gaia explains that, in terms of an Earth system desire for stasis?

    Climate change has always occurred, yes, and has always returned to a state which might support humans, but that doesn’t mean that’s some kind of ideal to be returned to in terms of a conscious planet. But the scale and speed with which CC/GW is occurring now suggests a little more than natural events, since we haven’t had mass volcanism etc. of note in recent times.

    Even if it turns out that humans didn’t cause climate change after all (which is doubtful based on the majority (the important word here) of the science), we still need to adjust how we use natural resources and how we breed and how we do urban planning.

    Link to this
  32. 32. eddomaal 1:11 pm 10/31/2012

    This is absolutely ridiculous. So, Climate Change, the hypothesis that temperature rises in the next 100 years, will cause more extreme weather, is responsible for a hurricane now? That doesn’t even make any sense! What, did someone send that hurricane from the future?

    What a ridiculous article.

    Link to this
  33. 33. eddomaal 1:17 pm 10/31/2012

    Also, if you check hurricane statistics, each year we have less hurricanes than the previous one. Riddle me that!

    Link to this
  34. 34. Trent1492 3:54 pm 10/31/2012

    @Carlyle,

    In your ignorance you are trumpeting another accurate prediction based on the physics of climate change. Back in 1992 it was predicted that Antarctic SEA ICE would grow because warmer temperatures would allow for more snow to fall:

    Transient Responses of a Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Model to Gradual Changes of Atmospheric CO2. Part II: Seasonal Response: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%281992%29005%3C0105%3ATROACO%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    Funny how your ignorance seems to make you trip over own rhetorical shoes so many times, eh?

    Link to this
  35. 35. Carlyle 5:24 pm 10/31/2012

    Re: 34. Trent1492
    The study you link to did not predict a steady thirty year increase in Antarctic Ice that shows no sign of reversing. I encourage others to read it. By the way, if you make enough predictions,sooner or later you will get one right. You make no mention of the inacurate data from NASA that you have previously held up as unasailable proof of ocean rise & ice melt.

    Link to this
  36. 36. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 6:16 pm 10/31/2012

    Mailman (comment 28): No, I survived, but a tornado (yes, really) touched down about a quarter-mile from my house and I was without Internet for two days. I am now in a hotel while the trees are removed from the power lines near my house.

    Link to this
  37. 37. Trent1492 6:18 pm 10/31/2012

    @Carlyle,

    Wrong again. From the page 113:

    “In sharp contrast to the Arctic Ocean, the change of sea ice is relatively small in the circumpolar ocean of the Southern Hemisphere, with the exception of the Weddel and Ross seas where it changes increases substantially…”

    So did you not read it or are you lying?

    Carly Says: if you make enough predictions,sooner or later you will get one right.

    Trent Says: That is not a rational objection. The article made predictions and gave the physical mechanism why they happened. You have summarily dismissed them.

    Carlyle: You make no mention of the inacurate data from NASA that you have previously held up as unasailable proof of ocean rise & ice melt.

    Trent Says: Sorry but every lie that you repeat with full credulity from WTFUWT does always warrant a response. How about you show us where NASA says its data is worthless. I am going to bet that you guys have taken scientist trying to reduce errors and the margin of error as evidence that all data on sea level and ice cover is therefore erroneous. Am I right?

    And you have never given it a thought that for you to trumpet the measured and predicted small increase in Antarctic sea ice while at the same time denigrating the accuracy of these measurements is contradictory? Of course you have not.

    Let me make this explicit. You can not claim sea ice and sea level measurement are error ridden and unreliable and then turn around and make ANY CLAIM about the increase or decrease of sea ice or sea level. Which is it? Accurate or not?

    Link to this
  38. 38. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 6:26 pm 10/31/2012

    More:
    Postman1 (seriously, though, who calls them “postmen” except the British?), thank you for the sentiment and the appreciation of my trained lightheartedness. I hope that you and your family, if any, are safe, sound, warm, and happy.

    joelhuberman: I love skepticalscience! They’ll never visit it, though, because they prefer to stay ignorant.

    eddomal (comment 33): Lie. The data directly contradicts your statement (look at 2005).

    Carliele: You are trotting out the same old pathetic arguments that have been disproved repeatedly. Try out skepticalscience.

    Link to this
  39. 39. Postman1 11:08 pm 10/31/2012

    Bird- Remember the Kevin Costner movie, ‘The Postman’? I’ve been using postman since then.
    We are snowed in, but safe and sound and warm, and we have six kids and eight grandkids (thank God they aren’t all here with us).
    Glad you and yours are okay.

    Now, back to the fun!

    Link to this
  40. 40. Lucy Jr 4:53 am 11/1/2012

    Now insurance companies admit there is global warming, you can bet the evidence really does add up.

    They are the experts on risk and they cannot afford to let denial take precedence over evidence.

    Link to this
  41. 41. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 7:52 am 11/1/2012

    @ Postman1: Never seen it; I prefer Cary Grant and Humphrey Bogart. “To catch a thief”, “Casablanca”, “North by Northwest”, and “Rear Window” are among my favorites.

    If you’re snowed in, try making tunnels through the snow (if your doors open inwards). It works for deer mice; for human-sized tunnels, you’d probably need supports, though.

    Link to this
  42. 42. supermills 10:18 am 11/1/2012

    A lot of contrarian comments on here are not mentioning the dipping of the North Atlantic oscillation due to the melting of the arctic ice cap. If the NAO will be dipping further, and further as the ice cap continues to melt, then we will see more events where a jet stream system collide with a northern system, and slam into the east coast. We do not look at climate in terms of one event, Sandy is not by any means proof of global warming, it is just an indicator. We will continue to see severe weather in this country, and around the globe, more landfall hurricanes, in places not regularly seen, more drought, more blizzards, more flooding, a raising in the 100 year floodplain across the country, causing millions of houses to require flood insurance in order to qualify for a mortgage, and affecting the price of homes.

    If we know to expect events like these for the rest of our lives, and our childrens lives, then we can invest in plans and protections from these events. It will save us all money, and keep us and our property safe.

    Link to this
  43. 43. eddomaal 12:45 pm 11/1/2012

    Here’s the data: http://policlimate.com/tropical/index.html

    Congratulations, comment 38., we are at historical lows for the past 20 years.

    Before that, how reliable is hurricane tracking information? Im sure they weren’t very accurate at identifying hurricanes that never made it to shore.

    Link to this
  44. 44. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 1:14 pm 11/1/2012

    “”"Here’s the data: http://policlimate.com/tropical/index.html“”"

    I don’t trust anything called “policlimate.com”. This is science, not politics.

    “”"Congratulations, comment 38., we are at historical lows for the past 20 years.”"”

    Lie.

    “”"Before that, how reliable is hurricane tracking information? Im sure they weren’t very accurate at identifying hurricanes that never made it to shore.”"”

    What do you mean? Do you mean to say that we have no offshore hurricane data from before 1992?

    Link to this
  45. 45. tjp77 5:38 pm 11/1/2012

    Nobody argues that the climate is not changing.

    But the notion that humans are the primary force behind it (and can do anything at all to stop it) is patently ridiculous, and driven entirely by political motives.

    If you believe in massive technocratic central planning as a political philosophy, you push the idea of man made climate change because it gives bureaucrats and politicians a catch all reason to regulate nearly every aspect of life on Earth. And that’s the real goal here.

    Yes, the climate is changing. The best thing the scientific community can do is to come up with innovative ways for humanity to adapt, and abandon the fundamentally unscientific idea of trying to stop the Earth’s natural climate cycles.

    Link to this
  46. 46. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 5:40 pm 11/1/2012

    tjp77: You are clearly a businesstarian, greedy fool who has not bothered to learn even a token amount of climate science. Please go learn basic meteorology, and then get back here.

    Link to this
  47. 47. Carlyle 8:55 pm 11/1/2012

    46. tjp77
    Rational arguments get short shrift as a rule rather than as an exception on this so called Scientific American site as per the above.

    Link to this
  48. 48. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 9:53 pm 11/1/2012

    Carliele: Irrational people like AGW denialists (such as you and tjp) get eaten for breakfast on SciAm by people like me. This is the rule, rather than the exception, as per the above.

    Link to this
  49. 49. Derek12 10:08 pm 11/1/2012

    No one storm can be blamed on climate change, and to do so tends to sabotage one’s credibility. However, a pattern can be correlated to climate change. If any good comes of this storm is that maybe people will start thinking about the impacts of climate change more seriously. They should be rethinking land use, too. Is it really sensible to rebuild vacation homes for the rich where they never belonged in the first place? It’s bad enough to see how many tax dollars are wasted just putting sand back on those beaches each year. When will people wake up and realize there is a reason they are called Barrier Islands and that they are not permanent?

    Link to this
  50. 50. Postman1 10:57 pm 11/1/2012

    Bird “What do you mean? Do you mean to say that we have no offshore hurricane data from before 1992?”
    Not sure about the 1992 date, but prior to the 1980′s, hurricane hunter planes did not go out to storms until they neared a shore. Storms weren’t named until wind speed was confirmed by a ship or shore station or an Air Force Hurricane Hunter crew. Many storms stayed out to sea and were never counted or named. Today, storms are named and categorized based solely on satellite data, until and unless they reach land. Each year there are several of these ‘fish storms’ also called ‘day storms’ due to their short life span spent entirely at sea. While I see no problem with recording and naming these previously missed storms, we must acknowledge the resulting inflation of the numbers in recent decades.

    Link to this
  51. 51. Shoshin 11:46 pm 11/1/2012

    Saw tons of people lining up for gas and diesel. None lined up for wind.

    Link to this
  52. 52. Carlyle 2:07 am 11/2/2012

    52. Shoshin
    Were the pumps solar powered?

    Link to this
  53. 53. heartofgoldfish 5:00 am 11/2/2012

    The PNAS article being referenced (and poorly cited) is doi: 10.1073/pnas.1209542109 (Homogeneous record of Atlantic hurricane surge threat since 1923), abstract available at http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/10/10/1209542109.abstract.

    In greater detail:

    “We find that warm years in general were more active in all cyclone size ranges than cold years. The largest cyclones are most affected by warmer conditions and we detect a statistically significant trend in the frequency of large surge events (roughly corresponding to tropical storm size) since 1923. In particular, we estimate that Katrina-magnitude events have been twice as frequent in warm years compared with cold years (P < 0.02)."

    Link to this
  54. 54. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 1:39 pm 11/2/2012

    Postman1 (and I do hope that you’ve gotten out of your house; being snowed in can be boring after a while):
    Good point, but the fact is that storms like Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Sandy, etcetera were at least made worse by climate change.

    Link to this
  55. 55. Dredd 2:19 pm 11/3/2012

    The global climate system generates all weather, local and remote.

    It is damaged by pollution.

    All weather on the globe is affected by the global warming induced by green house gases.

    Hurricane Sandy is part of that system.

    http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2012/11/how-fifth-graders-analyze-hurricane.html

    Link to this
  56. 56. Derek12 5:36 pm 11/3/2012

    Climate change is real but no single storm can be blamed on it. Changing weather patterns can. Sea-level rise certainly was not the cause of the flooding. The problem was dense development of high-risk flood areas. Look at the flood zone maps. Things would have been a lot worse if people did not evacuate. Some idiots ignored all warnings, in some cases leading to death and putting emergency personnel at risk. This storm was not a particularly powerful Cat 1 caught by a negatively tilted trough — that’s all. The flooding was the result of bad land use and planning. So now we are supposed to rebuild and watch it all happen again eventually.

    Link to this
  57. 57. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 6:00 pm 11/3/2012

    Sandy was a hugely sprawling storm in an area where the Gulf stream should have forced it even further east. Current evidence shows that the Gulf stream breakdown is caused by global warming, and was exacerbate this year by the sudden melting of the Greenland ice sheet this spring. Therefore, at least part of the devastation can be laid solely on global warming.

    Link to this
  58. 58. Postman1 8:26 pm 11/3/2012

    Bird (Yes we are out, Thanks for asking. I hope you are back in your home)
    “Current evidence shows that the Gulf stream breakdown is caused by global warming, and was exacerbate this year by the sudden melting of the Greenland ice sheet this spring”
    Please provide sources for this, the physics don’t seem to add up.

    Link to this
  59. 59. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 8:47 am 11/4/2012

    Postman1: Glad to hear it! Yes, I’m back at home, and I’ve even got power!

    Here I need to go into details. A side effect of global warming is the Arctic and Antarctic regions warming more than tropical regions (the physics is complicated, but paleoclimatological data backs me up). The Greenland melt indicates that the ice sheet had warmed up to 0 degrees Celsius, which means that its capacity to serve as a heat sink was greatly reduced for much of the spring and summer.

    The Gulf Stream normally is strengthened by contact with extremely cold Arctic air coming off of Greenland. The thermocline created by the Caribbean Gulf stream air flowing against the supercooled Greenland air is normally strong enough to break up and move seaward a tropical storm heading for New York and northwards. This time, however, the thermocline was weak, and the Gulf air started to mix with the Greenland air, weakening the “shield” of the sudden thermocline. This allowed Sandy to punch through the shield with minimal weakening of winds and no change of direction.

    Hope that helps.

    Link to this
  60. 60. InterestInMaths 7:17 pm 11/4/2012

    Arctic sea Ice melt ask official US monitoring organisation the National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Boulder, Colorado. http://nsidc.org/
    18% Loss this yr.. 2012.. all time record? ey up chuck.. wot no climate?

    No sea level toxification ,,added salinity and acidifiction up 30% at presant..

    Acidification that is by co2 Sink? Ever increasing Hurricane magnitude .
    Us Lakes bone dry along with many world wide.=China Japn Tibet.. all melting Northen southern lattitudes or parched.

    When you have no waters you irrigate from land further complicating the air and humididty levels of land and atomphere = areas?

    so much to learn when the climate is out it’s out?

    inter anual weather patterns are wrong mainly because all that water, no longer on land global is either airborne being moved about in messed up wether patterns or in the sea’s.

    We do a orbit.
    It takes 12 months.
    If the water levels is x one yr the orbital warming then cooling has suficient time to heat and cool. Think cup of tea then Mug of tea?

    X = Ocean water or cup 1 china cup.
    Y = Water locked by land masses,Ice, Lakes, sea’s rivers and Well atmosphere also.

    If More waters in them Oceans regardless of the amounts noticed by the measured increase what about the fact the water now X + y amount Land and ocean mix you get the ocean levels up a tad and six month orbit getting the water warmer?

    No longer your holding a China cup your now holding a MUG very hot same time to cool it down? Loop when you get more warm added, no cold in equal amount to reduce temps in given time frame?

    Now you have your 6 months to cool it?> But there.s more Agua? so more time needed to reduce this temp? Nature regulates the temps? It will throw up extreems to deal with extreems?

    The Hurricane in effect has reduced the temps of the Ocean, do this when that eye wall vortex low pressure being fed by higher winds takes the ocean up like a hoover high and out at altitude? This is where the higher altitudes winds spread the size of the hurricane the arm’s front extending from over the menacing looking vortex.

    Blocking and Nao were factor?s
    The cold trough was the mix needed to reduce and block any more further northen disruption to melted ice?

    Closed loop system kind of.
    One area affecting another in many differing interactions that would boggle the mind and leave many asking for CITATION..

    Close scrutiny needs to be paid to Ocean Temps.
    The Melt.
    Acidification salinity.
    Ocean Geoscience and Meteorology and many other ologies? combining to cater for the Global Biosphere that works with and as a norm in harmony with all eco systems?

    When there is not a Sync we have trouble. Ie #Sandy

    Not only is there Co2 in fizzy f drinks volcanoes cars trains plains Beer yeast you name it i aint citing it?

    But lets just say Fossil fuel has a loop from plant to ground to water ie LME or Larger marine ecosystem.

    Higer acidification of Lme = Loss of carbination in microbiological life forms..ie shrimp lobsters and all other forms of marine life depending on the environments staying free of acidification?

    This in turn ruins the whole food chain and as we all know
    the very smallest land and marine animals or bio organism are doing a vary neat job of making our planet good for human habitation? Ie every last organism is filter feeding thus cleaning the oceans lands or Sea’s. This is more than a climate problem?

    Try the biosphere?

    Now for any with me thus Far… Phew breath. There is more.
    The precipitation felt globally
    and higher winds than normal or mass drought
    ie Agil Sea? Many Us Lakes Bone dry or half gone
    Malawi?
    Africa
    Japan and china all suffering water LOss in a very big way?

    Where’s the water GONE think?It must have gone somewhere? Look up how much evaporated?Us only then go global for a shock?

    All those Lakes all that water so many KILOMETERS and Meters in depths? of water?

    airborne or lost in a loop of messed up climate weather patterns robbing peter Humid and paying paul dry= floods.
    back to back extreem??

    Drought here.. snow and flood there? Global not just Us UK.

    The hurricanes try to reduce this more localised bad weather systems by Ocean temp reducing. (Some think this Luggy Cuppa Hypotesis incorrect)

    In a more stable planet less ocean temps we see less damaging hurricane’s or ones that do the Norm blow out to Sea where they are trying to be the active hot to cold ocean reducing factors?

    So In short.. If more Ocean has more water? It takes longer to cool than the given 6 month.
    During summer warmer climate means less co2 sink global by the oceans interanually yes?

    during the colder climate months as the orbit moves from the sun we have the cooling effect on the 70% water and also a higher factor of co2 and other greenhouse gas sink ability— Do the maths? heats up, sink’s co2 and turns the Sea’s to acid eventually?

    More water = more volume heated in 6 months?
    There’s a lot more to the orbit and volume and so on and so 5th.. about the heating being in equalibrium and what ever but to many factors point otherwise.

    But The 6 Months cooling back down does not make the required lower level temp ( Surface and sub surface layers?) before the re-warming effect of the orbit we do, and then it can increase the temps a tad.
    This yr by yr is trouble, as you now see.

    70% of this plant is the governing factor of the planets global ecology.

    Large Marine ecosystems? Food chains Lead to Humans.
    Humans and Farming and all our ways of life are a constant threat to nature’s little secrets.

    Techtonic plates?
    Add water to a sand bag when dry and see the added weight?
    Yes when land is very wet it holds more pressure on the faults or plates =when there’s a dam or basin where waters can congregate en mass.

    To all reading
    i could add so many points to this,
    any body not beliveing in climate who wish to admit it come ask and i will personally show you evidence of what you
    some how
    have missed out On?
    REGARDLESS of How highly educated you are?

    I would like to add. I hope not to be dragged into any arguments.
    Hope not to offend anybody.

    If any point i have brought out
    help’s in any way jog a mind now
    or in 20 yrs time that might just Help this planet
    for us all
    then it was worth all
    or any FLAK.

    Link to this
  61. 61. East of Nowhere 12:15 am 11/5/2012

    I usually stay out of the arguments for climate change or the original “global warming” as I agree with Shoshine that you are wasting your breath with the eco-radicals. These people including the author of this article never offer reasonable solutions only alarmist cries. The Kyoto Protocol is merely an attempt to destabilize western economies.

    It is interesting to note the the author did not say “man-made” climate change. I must wonder if he consciously omitted that and why.

    Thank you to Merlinsscience for a well written response. That the Earth is a living system. This might explain many of the weather extremes of the distant past. Those that the eco’s fail to mention because they cannot compartmentalize them into their lifetimes. These people are so ego centric that they want to throw out the baby with the bath water so they can feel like they have made a difference.

    Take the CFL for example. This was a bad idea caused by a knee jerk reaction. Much the same as oxygenated fuels, one of the the most heinous crimes committed against the US.

    The thing that strikes me most about this article and all of the articles or opinions I have seen on CC is that they ignore the fact that the earth has seen much greater extremes many times in its history. The only difference is that the eco’s weren’t here before to blame man for it.

    The earth was once so warm that there was a meat eating dinosaur living in the Antartic called cryolophosaurus. Meat eating means he was not alone down there! Where was man made warming then? I suppose Dinosaur farts caused it.

    The coastline that is now the United States was under water much farther inland. Category 5 hurricanes were common according to geological records. Have you ever seen a Cat 5? No!

    Ten thousand years ago, we had an ice age. There was a mini ice age about 700 years ago. I bet you wouldn’t complain about GW if you had just come out of one of those periods.

    I also love the generalized predictions, mentioned in this article, that someone points to them and says “See, they were right!” If you make enough predictions, yes, some of them will come true.

    The fact is that we are now living in one of the most calm periods in the Earth’s history. The entire human existence is just a blip on the Earth’s timeline. Draw a mile long line to represent the history of the Earth and the entire history of man is probably in the last inch of it.

    Remember Mann’s hockey stick graph? The science used to make this graph was so horribly distorted in favor of his desired conclusion that it is completely unreliable. Show me some real science where the source data is made available willingly for review and I will believe.

    Link to this
  62. 62. Swiss422 2:04 am 11/5/2012

    Ah, yer all a bunch of tobacco industry attorneys. “You can’t prove that that particular cigarette caused that particular cancer!” Figh on you.

    Link to this
  63. 63. InterestInMaths 6:43 am 11/5/2012

    Somebody once said “father forgive them, for they know not what they do”. I understand this statement folks.

    AS for those mentioning Jurassic climates
    best think
    where man would be today if we CO-existed with them DINO’s?

    We also would be
    intombed by millions of years of rock never to be found because
    we were also extinct?
    Pah
    cat 5 on earth yes ..
    But not when man was habitating it.

    Link to this
  64. 64. InterestInMaths 6:45 am 11/5/2012

    “Father Forgive them for they, own a keyboard”

    Link to this
  65. 65. East of Nowhere 8:24 am 11/5/2012

    You are a big boy aren’t you InterestinMaths? Sitting in your mama’s basement typing insults. When you want to have a rational discussion, please sign back in. Until then go back to your job at Wendy’s. Hmmm, I lowered myself to your level. I feel dirty.

    Please do not cherry pick from what I wrote. My point is that we have been living in a time of great stability. Give me data that has not been altered like Mann did for his hockey stick graph and I will listen intently.

    Link to this
  66. 66. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 8:51 am 11/5/2012

    East of blatant, willful stupidity:

    We have not been living in a time of great climate stability. At our current rate, we’ll be out of oil by 2031 and the planet will be as hot as it was in the Smithian stage of the early Triassic (when the tropics were literally too hot to support animal life) by 2200 (that second one’s approximate, though).

    Mann’s data was not altered. That argument has been debunked so many times that it can no longer be used.

    The “little ice age” was a North Atlantic phenomenon, caused by weather pattern disruption. It ended around 1900, drowned out by massive CO2 release from coal burning.

    Your conspiracy hypothesis about the Kyoto protocol is laughable. Germany is bound by it, and is basically holding up the EU at this point.

    “”"The coastline that is now the United States was under water much farther inland. Category 5 hurricanes were common according to geological records. Have you ever seen a Cat 5? No!”"”

    I’ve seen at least 3 cat 5s: Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.

    Also, there used to be a shallow ocean over the Great Plains, but that was in the Cretaceous period (about 90 to 75 million years ago).

    In short: you are a nasty, ranting, scientifically illiterate troll who tries to get by on sheer pompous buffoonery. You are just like priddersen, another troll who annoys me.

    Link to this
  67. 67. InterestInMaths 10:11 am 11/5/2012

    East of No- where?

    Goes to show just how narrow minded some can be? Not an insult to you?

    I am not even in the states?
    What may i enquire, is Wendy’s? I take it it a car wash run by Women?

    You see my Friend? I last worked in a supervisory position for,
    Shell
    PB
    Texaco, bleh bleh bleh and bleh…

    and many many other leading TOP Company’s Ie Haliburton and bleh bleh
    do i really need
    to Drone on,
    i do not think so.

    If you knew how much work i have devoted
    to the climate problems..
    You woul;d see me in a total diffrent light?

    Incidently time Devoted = I have funded By my self=Costing regions of Many K’s

    And since we entered convo regading my mother?

    Me = Not ever knowing who My Mum was,
    but being very fortunate in having a blessing,
    a father who taught oh so well,
    your a little off on that one also.

    You are correct it does look as though i, Cherry picked from your entry.
    But you were not the 1st to mention Jurassic Climates on SA..

    And thus i will offer an apologee

    But from a scientific point of view, it was only yourself who left that door, wide open..

    I also regulary write and express things And they get Read not quite as intended?

    The reader can and on times, will read, with a self bias towards any negative words and being humans find need to retaliate?

    I find it is Easy to Swear,
    and easy to retaliate? Imagine we all did?

    Truth is a man? will find it Easy to Swear>?

    But Harder not to swear
    and harder not to retaliate?

    Retaliation is yes, not for my mind.
    For I have other things more pressing to deal with.

    As for The climate being wrong.

    I have looked at=
    More data
    than you have cared to look, as for a messed up climate= It proves this ten fold?

    Now then.

    The job i mentioned involved me flying about this planet to many many offshore oil installations.

    Where it was my Job to make sure your car got fed some OIL>

    Wendy’s and basement
    are of course to me a giggle, i must say …

    The Fact i live outside the states,
    but Care just a little about those living there?

    Means i am quite well balanced at maintaining an upright standing,
    and care about thing’s that do not effect me, at all.

    Let’s Just say, if you insult me?
    Here?

    I really do not care.

    What i do think is this?

    If one single person now, or in the next 1000 yrs reads just 1 thing i have wrote and then it just so happens
    to help their brain, to make a call for the benefit of any other Human who does care about others
    then GREAT,

    it was all worth

    My Time

    My Money

    and me looking past any forms of comment
    being aimed at my personal life…..
    By Anybody ;)

    Chow for Now…

    Link to this
  68. 68. G. Karst 10:25 am 11/5/2012

    Here is what the insurance underwriters (who would love to raise rates) has to say:

    “Risk-management consultant Karen Clark pointed out that after Katrina “some” predicted more powerful storms could be expected because of the warming climate, which she pointed out has not happened. The president of Eqecat, a risk-modeling firm, said we are actually in a low period of hurricane activity. Something you would never know from the media.”

    Even those who hold to GW increased risk, had to qualify their alarmism with:

    “Bill Keogh, president of Eqecat, one of the major risk-modeling firms in the U.S., says that despite what it may seem, we are now in a statistically low period of hurricane activity. After Katrina, few powerful hurricanes have made landfall in the U.S.” GK

    http://www.npr.org/2012/11/04/164185424/insurance-companies-rethink-business-after-sandy

    Link to this
  69. 69. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 10:40 am 11/5/2012

    “”"After Katrina, few powerful hurricanes have made landfall in the U.S.”"”

    Yeah, but the US isn’t the whole world. There have been plenty of 3+ hurricanes, typhoons, and cyclones that have hit all over the world. Furthermore, as I have explained above, the sheer size and trajectory of Hurricane Sandy (before it met the nor’easter) would have been impossible if not for rapid anthropogenic climate change. Please troll somewhere else.

    Link to this
  70. 70. InterestInMaths 12:31 pm 11/5/2012

    Let’s Just
    add the Other Ologies
    That we should have added to climate-ology ok..

    And Point out once again a point that gets Very much over looked???
    About the Data provided and how and where it is first obtained?

    Governemnt Grants are the driving force in most climate studies globally.
    Billions are being speant while your sleeping and working.

    (Working In doors by the look’s of those who think the climate is fine).

    The Data is normally obtained under grant funded Uni’s and the like’s ????? Scholar’s those carring forms of Knowlage = Drone on some more ere..

    But the Data
    obtained by let’s say Ocean engineers are regarded as secret and to be used as for the benefit of government who funded the research and by the establishment doing the research
    useing the data to create more Money than in sense deal with any problems..

    Was the was thing were going?

    It was with hide sight of this and clear sight of climate PROBLEM’s

    that all the differing Ologies and a good call from a clever expert who relalised Yes there is a Problem decided they should share data to better understand the bigger picture they are facing?

    But it is Not Just related to the Sky above
    all our heads, but to the whole planet and all the eco systems?

    And so the Call was Made to make availble
    all data
    from the likes of those who held climate data’s????

    Obtained and used by the likes of the international Council for Science? Noaa?

    taking snip bits from all the below and vise-versa?

    Global Climate Observing Authority?

    World Meteorological Organization?

    Inter-governmental Oceanographic Commission?

    all modeling with data and observation the global
    thematic disciplines that include but are not exclusive to

    meteo-rology,
    climate-ology,
    paleo-climate=ology,
    ocean=ography,

    Also sources from

    marine geology,
    geophysics to include
    data also on both orbital solar terrestrial physics and
    solar geophysic’s
    environmental
    and human economic dimensional data?

    You see if your useing data to model things you even have to include what mans progected effect of poulation growth and many other Factors as mentioned and sorry but there are so many missing Variables
    in the bigger picture?

    How can they possibly get this correct
    and i am not speaking of No 5 day prediction of a hurricane’s direction but the true mapping of all data to come to a 100% conclusion?

    Not possible but for sure they have got data that supports climate change and gw.

    But are they correct of projected time scales is another thing?

    A call is being made to change Now
    by so many scientist’s but those who control are not so quik nore able to turn thier attention to true problems?

    So Any body
    who does not quite clearly Grasp the climate problems
    had best be willing to

    Self School ones self? = Gain Knowlage?

    at ones own discretion= At a time of your own choice

    and also at their cost in all the above
    and many more sciences as i was trying to mention in short
    earlier..

    It is when you have covered the whole lot
    or have a very good basic understanding of everything above and some more =
    including the results of scalar field’s ability to nr produce Mass from nothing

    you might see why the result i agree to choose is to cool down the Sea’s/Ocean.

    So when people Barf on?

    I do kind of find it well amusing
    and not worth the effort of being drawn into an argument to be quite fair, it’s better to be simpathetic as they are
    blind in way..
    And It’s is said
    “that the Blind, are lead by the Blind”

    I limit my thought’s to a

    consious train of thought free from sway in any direction left nore right.

    It is with this type of mind i took it apon myself to look into the above in depth?

    Thats Means having to open the concious train of thought to links between the above..

    You will soon find your self looking at something totally in conextion with the ground and some are Nr able to work this out useing maths Alone?= Interest in Maths.

    In a Rant i can quite quikly type a none accurate fact?
    But did you ever here the term?

    “Forgot more than most have learned”

    Bleh bleh

    Tea Bag?
    2 sugar’s please= Your sevices are required,
    Slurp…

    Link to this
  71. 71. Postman1 3:18 pm 11/5/2012

    InterestInMaths – You do realize, I hope, that No One is going to waste their time to read your extremely long comments? Especially when they are so nonsensical. Please lighten up and shorten, unless you are just posting to make yourself feel good.

    Link to this
  72. 72. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 4:05 pm 11/5/2012

    Postman1: My sentiments exactly. Long, boring comments are a good sign of the Pompous Buffoon troll, like priddersen or (to a lesser extent) Sisko/pokerplayer.

    Link to this
  73. 73. InterestInMaths 4:37 pm 11/5/2012

    Thought i had added the Bleh bleh bleh in the correct places…

    Link to this
  74. 74. Larry-wa 9:45 pm 11/5/2012

    As in all things, Earth has a system of elements that advance control of the climate. Let us call them feedback control and feed forward control, servos. A quick look at feedback systems tell you that they have some weak spots. If disturbed by noise they can become unstable. And, Modern Man is a noisy bunch…
    A few points are brought out in the text: ” The End of The Last Ice Age ” on the servos which control Earth’s climate. There appears to be two major servos and a number of secondaries. The two majors have a firm base in the poles and Greenland. They are melting away and where does that water end up. In the clouds and the oceans. Now swish that around the Earth and see what come out.

    Link to this
  75. 75. InterestInMaths 4:51 am 11/6/2012

    Larry Understand’s….

    Larry has asked a Question====== In a statement?

    They are melting away and “where does that water end up.”?

    Larry answer’s the Question=

    With a statement?
    He Say’s
    “In the clouds and the oceans” =

    More moisture up and more in the Ocean’s this is one of the problematic feedback loops i explained by the way,
    when you add TEMP to water and land thats already dry…

    But there are many across the full list of climatic studies that all tug on the number’s trying to be crunched by the natural Biosphere system.

    For sure the problems exsist’s,
    where are all your Solutions?

    For i do see many claiming to to be scientist’s on this site?

    I see Not one person come’s up with a solution,

    or even an attempted stab at the solution?
    Otha than for whats already called for, get the governments to sharpen their pencil’s OR BASIC Old Bleh

    Point being made. Who’s wasting who’s time being argumentitive..

    As for long post’s
    you will find they are read?

    By those wishing to wade thru the chaff????

    Just to find a dropped,
    or missed bit of Wheat…???

    And fair Play
    i really do, read some CHAFF on the commnet strip here,

    but on times fair play to some of you some wheat?

    And what you do Find is, those most likes to use or apply anything they have read on SA,
    sure aint the type to leave no comment.

    It’s pretty well known that every word will be scrutinised eventuly, by the resident i live heer POSTER’s
    Followed by
    name calling derogotory remarks and all that usuall rubish found in public areas like Fb/Forum’s or SA commnet’s.

    There would look to be a FB overspill here?

    And for those

    To Make insult’s

    over matter’s of such importance just show’s the mentality of a candy covered chocolate sweet or attitude..

    = a brain made from Candy

    And to those who Ha ….

    think they have celebrity status within the walls of the
    SA
    Comment STRIP =

    That gotta be the FUNNIEST one YEEET, YOGI

    Like little Girls
    = MY turf

    Gotta laff at just how silly they realy are..

    Oh and the Keyboard warrior’s who climb so far up their rear,s they carry the darn tooth brush to clean their teeth for them :)

    Sure, i have bin there, wore that t-shirt..

    Belive me you lot, if i want to reside here???

    i can easy ignore all to foolery and speak direct to any body i see who may have direct impact on such matter’s leaving just the reader

    to make up one’s own mind??

    It Take a Real Man to Talk..

    Some

    Don’t quite get that..

    —————-

    Roll on the
    (so called Celebrity Status = Major Barf) Replies?

    Common, you just Know those finger’s need to Dance on that Keyboard..

    GO on YOU Know who you Are seeing as

    You

    are

    About

    to
    REPLY to ME?

    “let’s Roll = Nah, Let’s Dance”

    your Itching to..

    Chancer’s

    Link to this
  76. 76. InterestInMaths 9:11 am 11/6/2012

    Keep this one Short But Ahum = POSTMAN1

    Look = Good old Stanford Uni ..
    They do understand ..Also? Ya
    2010 his idea?

    You would not believe that thats the first time today
    i noticed that by Stanford, but?

    http://www.smartplanet.com/video/busting-hurricanes-with-ocean-cooling-pumps/402178

    Love the Americanism= BUSTING = Post And Co Bleh bleh

    maybe that’s why i missed this one?

    But Postman1
    and Partner in Keybording?

    Yes Long Comment’s =
    it’s boring when
    YOU
    cannot
    FOLLOW, of Course i understand what your trying to say?

    as in, way Past
    well over the
    head of = You

    were my Long Comment,s

    Think Dr Noah B From Stanford
    Not the guy above in the tubevid Understands me also.

    Readers=

    Jury’s out :)

    YA

    Link to this
  77. 77. InterestInMaths 9:30 am 11/6/2012

    A Statement by 2 people
    = “BORING” =
    Get the Boing effect..

    So called Comment Celebrity’s Heh..Shooting thier own feet off.

    Only Stupid People Get Bored.
    My Father,
    always told me that only,
    stupid people get bored.
    If you think about it, it’s true?

    Back to that Statement Boring =

    Thing’s one cannot understand yes become boring this is why it was said you need a good understanding of all climate effecting studies
    to come to a conclusion..

    Ya…

    Short Sweet around your level Ey?

    Link to this
  78. 78. InterestInMaths 10:02 am 11/6/2012

    And How to Cheaply run a High Power Pump at Sea

    = Fluid Dynamic’s….
    Just one more thing you might need to understand to start offering any form’s of conclusion’s?

    So Here’s one for you all ok.

    ———————————————–
    How to Cleanly reduce sea temps?
    Carbon emmission, Limited or free?

    Frak boat’s who has seen one?

    Second a hydraulic pump?
    contected to a water pump needs Very very little HP to run a high power water Pump…Yes?
    With me?

    So Solar
    and wave energy
    and Wind energy = all Green

    A fleet of Converted frak boats.

    Only convert the Frak boats to = ice makers

    Now connect a small Hp electic motor
    to run the larger sea water pumps?

    Also cool the water by
    Use of
    electrical Pumps
    to run the Refridgeration unit PUMPS
    to cool the water.. Job Done.

    One Clean New Method =

    Post1 and others ..
    Do you find that Very cheap solution of mine= :)

    A solution to the Ocean temp problems :) online else where?
    Before Today = No :)

    Do you have any thoughts on how to make the ocean any cooler,
    cheaper and greener than this idea of Mine?

    ?
    And seeing as all along i have been on Track
    and sticking to the subject matter of

    yes there’s a climate problem
    and yes conclusions need to be made
    and also solution’s offered

    what exactly did you offer in way of conclusion and or Solutions?

    One begs

    Link to this
  79. 79. InterestInMaths 11:38 am 11/7/2012

    Where Exactly Are Ernie and Wernie the key board warrior’s gone then?

    Their statment of Boring
    and also NONSESICAL turn’s out to be the very Key to the heart of Matter, waffing on about how it turned,

    how it developed is of more importance.. Yawn’s profusly at the remarks they made above.. PPINO and BILLBal

    Havard Finally Agreeing with me that the Mid Atlantic warm water’s Fulled and Fury-fied Frenken-stormage

    #Sandy @SCIAM
    @interestinmaths

    http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/11/hello-again-climate-change/

    As it turns out, warm water played a big part in Sandy’s track. Schrag said cool mid-Atlantic water typically would have sapped the hurricane’s energy. But water warmed by 4 degrees Fahrenheit gave it energy. Also, Schrag speculated, the jet stream, perhaps intensified as the result of a dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice since 2007, steered Sandy over the United States and away from its usual eastern course.

    Water has a role in climate change,
    Schrag said.

    Last July, flooding in Duluth, Minn., swept polar bears and seals from the zoo and half-submerged cars. Some zoo animals drowned. As air gets warmer, Schrag said, it holds more water, so storms become more intense. There isn’t more total rain, but when it does shower, the storms are harsher or last longer.

    snowmelts are occurring 60 days earlier in some locations, Schrag said. There already has been flooding in the Sacramento delta because snow packs in the Sierra Nevada mountains are melting earlier than usual.

    The water,
    Schrag pointed out,

    needs somewhere to go, and countries don’t have the wherewithal to build dams to pick up the slack.

    One theory for warming involves a lack of soil moisture, Schrag said.

    Moisture is deposited in the soil by rain and given back into the atmosphere by transpiration, which cools the Earth.

    Schrag said recent droughts have prevented that cooling — a chicken-and-egg theory,
    he acknowledges,
    but an intriguing one.

    One theory for warming involves a lack of soil moisture, Schrag said.
    Moisture is deposited in the soil by rain and given back into the atmosphere by transpiration,
    which cools the Earth.

    Schrag said recent droughts have prevented that cooling — a chicken-and-egg theory, he acknowledges, but an intriguing one.

    ———————

    Well well well.

    Look like Havard Got Wind
    of the = Drought= Moisture up Loop theory then?

    And Folk’s i have been trying to point this out but to the mere Juvanile??

    They not see this conection as stated, with out a very good knowlage of all the other climate affecting sciences…

    And that when your Modeling

    the prediction’s you not only need the thematic disciplines

    but also the socio-economic data’s for prediction.

    Thus
    Luggy;s cuppa Hypothosis

    Well and Truly Stand’s.. According to Havard, Monday Evening they released the above statement??

    One beg’s

    Link to this
  80. 80. InterestInMaths 1:27 pm 11/7/2012

    Schrag @havard currently serves on President Obama’s Council of Advisors, He Speak’s Monday 5th November 2012 at Radcliff.

    He Make’s mention of something suprising or Boring?
    Jury’s Out.

    He mentions a theory thats intre

    “Wetter Weather: Water on a Changing Planet.” It was the latest in the ongoing = Water Lecture Series at the Radcliffe Institute for = Advanced Study’s :) Fay House.
    Barf….
    The moderator was Joan Ruderman, Nelson Professor of Cell Biology at Harvard Medical School and director of the Marine Biology Laboratory in Woods Hole.

    Scrag Say’s

    “One theory for warming involves a lack of soil moisture, Schrag said.
    Moisture is deposited in the soil by rain and given back into the atmosphere by transpiration, which cools the Earth.”
    “recent droughts have prevented that cooling — a chicken-and-egg theory, he acknowledges, but an intriguing one.

    Intriguing one?”

    ——————————-
    @interestinmaths

    Thats is exactly what happened?

    As i have been trying to say for some time now the storm’s get worse with more atmoshperic moisture? = More in the Ocean’s = Temps up = for well over 1 yr..

    = Beat them to the link=

    Moisture up Frequency and intensity up??
    + Drought related feedback

    Link to this
  81. 81. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 3:03 pm 11/7/2012

    Interestinmaths:

    I am going to imitate my state’s governor here and be blunt: knock it off.

    Nobody likes a long-winded buffoon. Your unreasonably long posts, nearly impossible to understand, are frankly clogging up this thread. Please cut it out.

    Link to this
  82. 82. Postman1 12:54 am 11/8/2012

    LOL, Bird, interestinmaths says less with more words that anyone else commenting.

    Link to this
  83. 83. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 8:59 am 11/8/2012

    BTW, Postman1, do you have power back? I was actually really worried when I heard that you were snowed in.

    I got my first snowfall up here yesterday; only about half an inch, though.

    Link to this
  84. 84. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 9:05 am 11/8/2012

    Continued due to overzealous enter key use:

    I myself actually have a propensity towards going on tangents while talking, which I keep a lid on through iron self-control. Because of this, I really dislike people who take 3,000 words to say nothing at all (hey, at least my tangential wanderings are packed with random information that occasionally is quite useful).

    Very nice 1-sentence summary of the Verbose One, Interestinmaths.

    Link to this
  85. 85. InterestInMaths 1:19 pm 11/8/2012

    Go Google this term and you will not find it in one sentence?

    “drought related link to hurricane”

    Link to this
  86. 86. Postman1 7:42 pm 11/8/2012

    Bird, thanks for asking. We didn’t lose power for long, but still have plenty of snow in places.
    Sometimes the tangents on these comment strings are better than the original posts, and I do read yours. I just think Uninterestingmath is trying to blow his own horn, loudly.

    Link to this
  87. 87. InterestInMaths 9:28 pm 11/8/2012

    Just think? Post1, there is a tree some where?

    supplying you oxygen ..

    In my book that, Be a bit of Theft :)

    Link to this
  88. 88. InterestInMaths 9:31 pm 11/8/2012

    Post1
    Busy, cleaning toothbrush ey…

    Link to this
  89. 89. InterestInMaths 4:46 am 11/9/2012

    And while you are both on the subject
    of Trolling?

    Let me ..well, well, well.

    Put that tooth brush away, Posty=1

    Guess he the ( celebrity ) been caught out Trolling and leaving comment’s
    not worth the reader’s time, nore effort
    Read Below..
    Comment 7
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-protect-new-york-city-from-storm-surges

    Comment : 7 Very Interesting .. who had their comment’s deleted By @Sciam = Not me = :)

    ——-As Highlighted by Mfishcetti ———–

    Above

    In his word’s =

    quote
    “Thanks to the (few) people here who have presented scientific comments or corrections.

    For those who have offered nothing but hate,
    if you find an incorrect scientific statement, then explain the science of how it is incorrect, tell us your credentials,
    and give us a scientific citation where we can learn more.”
    Un-quote

    ——————-

    then explain the science of how it is incorrect == PAh

    = tell us your credentials
    ( this one invoked a wry smile)

    = and give us a scientific citation ==

    (This i laff at in the caes of both Dino and Post))

    let’s Just say what i brought to the Table
    was infact the the meat, Horn Blown and all..

    Mark,
    Brought the Wholemeal Loaf.
    And twas Very tasty indeed.

    But

    I saw both of you lost, in a cloud of dusty Chaff..

    But smiling as you were, both having Fun:)

    At my expense = Not..

    Deleted Commnet’s ey Dino… Pfffff TUT tut

    Link to this
  90. 90. dinbay 9:49 pm 10/10/2013

    If you are going to watch comical videos on the internet then I suggest you to pay a visit this web page, it consists of really therefore funny not only movies but also additional data.https://www.rebelmouse.com/wartrolreviews

    Link to this
  91. 91. InterestInMaths2 8:55 am 12/7/2013

    Think you will find that InterestInmaths = 1

    said this a long time ago. Read this below…

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=length-of-human-domination

    And humans have only been here for less than 10k yrs …

    Link to this
  92. 92. kevinbrands 1:45 am 02/19/2014

    I know this web page gives quality based articles or reviews and additional information, is there any other website which presents such stuff in quality?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSNqJvDsdF8

    Link to this
  93. 93. kevinbrands 1:47 am 02/19/2014

    Obviously high resolution videotape quality carries much memory, that’s why it presents enhanced quality.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSNqJvDsdF8

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Dinosaurs

Get Total Access to our Digital Anthology

1,200 Articles

Order Now - Just $39! >

X

Email this Article

X