It's been one of the most hotly debated questions this week: Is climate change driving Hurricane Irene?
"No one is going to point to Irene and say this is climate change," Kim Knowlton, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, told The Huffington Post. "But we can say that we are seeing the fingerprint of climate change this year."
So here is the rule as I see it. If it's an exceptionally cold and snowy series of winters....then that's weather. However, if the US HAPPENS to have a relatively weak, Category 1 or 2 hit it for the first time in say 5-6 years. That's climate change. Hmmmm. Now I understand.
Yes, indeed. That is how the science has been going. If it is consistent with your theory, include it, if not, look for a way to deny it or attribute it to other causes. There is no way they can loose. Public opinion is behind them, so even if the science is wrong, who cares? If man were to stop emitting CO2 completely, AGW proponents will argue that we already went too far too long. It is a sad state of affairs when scientific endeavors are ruled by emotions. It's unfortunate that the science of CO2 is still not understood. While it is a known greenhouse gas, the current rise in temperature is ahead of any CO2 increase, meaning an increase in CO2 rides piggy back on increases in temperature NOT the other way around as the AGW crowd wants to believe. WHile few scientists deny the earth is warming up and that an expected rise in sea level will result the AGW crowd is all about stopping CO2 being the cause. You know what? It doesn't and isn't going to matter in the end. Instead of focusing eliminating tar sand projects or coal consumption, activists ought to be engaged in bringing about change in infrastructure that is going to get submerged in low lying coastal areas. Their focus is all wrong, but wait, doing something that will actually mean something in the end, you still end up needing energy to create those changes.
And SC, the analogy you made between CO2 and a hot water burn is not even close to being accurate. And how is it that you can be so damn sure that temperatures will rise so dramatically? Is this based on those GW models that have already failed to be anywhere near accurate?
Sorry guys, I've been meaning to find some stats to post here, but my time is being taken up by other administrative stuff right now, not leaving me much time for fun research stuff. I'll try to address salient points soon.
Rockdoc, you must know that my hot water analogy wasn't meant to be taken literally, but metaphorically? I only meant that if you're doing something to yourself that is causing damage, you wouldn't continue the action that creates the negative consequence; rather, you'd stop the damaging stimulus, at the least, and apply an opposite stimulus to attempt to lessen/mitigate the damage done in the first place. The burn will still exist, but won't be worse than it could've been, was my point.
While I can't say for certain that temperature rises will be dramatic, I picked a numerical value that is within range of estimates of multiple models' calculations based on business as usual of using fossil fuels - the physics of adding CO2 to the atmosphere and it's effect on radiative heating, and the feedbacks that are known for certain to arise from that basic consequence is, as far as I know, not in question (ie more trapped heat means higher air and water temps which in turn means more ice melting, which in turn means less albedo, more water vapor being held in the atmosphere and more methane being released from melting permafrost). Do you have data showing the models calculations to be inaccurate? I'd like to take a look, please, if so. Thanks!
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
“In the past two decades or so, this discussion has focused on the role of water vapor as a positive feedback for the radiative forcing supposedly caused by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. A key assumption in this argument is that the relative humidity in the atmosphere will remain constant as the atmosphere heats or cools [1, 2]. In the case of atmospheric heating, this means that the specific humidity (g water vapor/kg air) or mixing ratio (g water vapor/kg dry air) will increase as the surface/atmosphere warms. This is based on the Clausius- Clapeyron equation which defines the increase in water evaporation as surface temperature increases. This is one of the algorithms that is included in all Global Climate Models (GCM) currently in use.
Unfortunately the actual observational data contradict this core rational of AGW. While specific humidity levels in the lower troposphere do increase with increasing surface temperature, the specific humidity levels in the mid to upper troposphere have shown a decreasing trend over the past few decades even though surface temperatures (and tropospheric temperatures) are thought to be increasing”
William C. Gilbert June 12, 2011. The Thermodynamic Relationship Between Surface Temperature And Water Vapor Concentration, The Troposphere Atmospheric Physics, Basic Science
