Hurricane Season 2019

[Rodius]

@Rodius
Sorry, didn't mean to make it personal. I've been following Fani with my heart in my mouth, those poor people, and saw quite a bit of discussion about the Florida thing on the same board (link above, which is useful to those who want more information).

I agree, the general trend towards earlier and later is ominous ...

Another knock-on, though I don't comprehend the scientific part, is that since cyclonic activity is a way of venting excess heat both north and vertically, it's a problem that increases polar melt over time. I am absolutely fascinated by the interlocking systems.

Thanks for your reply.

I wasnt taking it personally, I also watch the hurricanes hit these regions and see the death and destruction happening and ignored by Western media as a basic rule and it boggles my mind that it is roundly ignored after a few days while millions will spend years recuperating or dying from disease, starvation and what will likely be violence on top of it all. Poor parts of the world get hit hardest first..... the rest of us will follow suit when the environment refuses to provide for our needs. Money only buys time at the expense of those who dont have it, not much else.

Even so, large events take up space while the smaller, quieter ones can be missed yet, in a big picture, they can mean just as much as the big current events.

Like you, the science aspect is a learning curve and it is intertwined and it is fascinating and terrifying at the same time.

[b_lumenkraft]

A million people evacuated from South Asia cyclone Fani

[gerontocrat]

Most of Odisha (Orissa) is a very low-lying flood plain forming the southern end of the huge delta(s) that form(s) most of Bangladesh and West Bengal.

There is a huge system of bunds and water channels mostly dating from not just the British Raj but from long before that and developed further after indpendence in 1947. When I was there finding the money to maintain the system was a problem. It probably still is.

Who knows what the short and long-term effects of the storm surge and 300 mm of rainfall will be. More significant than the headlines of wind damage and immediate deaths.

[Alexander555]

Their equipment broke down with the wind at 274 km/h . https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/odisha-death-toll-in-cyclone-fani-rises-to-16-puri-without-power-water/story-RyLL6QJqnqg9mKwz0ry6zK.html

[Sigmetnow]

Autobiographical/historical Twitter thread describes living through the storm surge and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina near Mobile, Alabama. 

Gillis Jones (@Gillis57)5/19/19, 4:26 AM
I grew up in Mobile, Alabama. On the eastern wall of the eye of the hurricane. The eastern wall is (on the gulf) where the water gets pushed hardest into tributaries and waterways. They'd projected a direct NOLA hit, but it ended up landing nearer to Biloxi, which meant we got it
- By 'it', I mean the storm surge. This is what the storm surge looked like on the in downtown Mobile, which hardly ever really floods during a storm. We see and plan for storm surges actively. 6 inches here means our island has about 3-4 ft. here's two ft …

https://twitter.com/gillis57/status/1130026921050480641
Image below.

[vox_mundi]

Atlantic Hurricane Season Could Be Getting a Head Start This Week   
https://earther.gizmodo.com/atlantic-hurricane-season-could-be-getting-a-head-start-1834899526

... Right now, the storm is just a comma-shaped mess of thunderstorms swirling roughly 800 miles off Florida’s coast. But the National Hurricane Center said on Monday afternoon that “conditions are expected to be conducive for the formation of a subtropical or tropical cyclone later today or tonight.” The agency also said a Hurricane Hunter aircraft was en route to visit the disturbance and see how well-organized it was.



https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at1+shtml/222953.shtml?tswind120#contents

[Rich]

The storm now has a name....Andrea. Not forecast to do much, but season's under way.

[Sigmetnow]

Dr. Rick Knabb on Twitter: "Should Atlantic #hurricane season start May 15? #Andrea makes it 6 storms during May 15-31 past 12 years, about every other year like long-term east Pac. But east Pac has late-May hurricane every ~4 years, Atlantic only 2 in past century & no hurricane landfall. June 1 works.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/drrickknabb/status/1131284374236925961
~ Bermuda Radar Loop at the link.

[vox_mundi]

Climate Change is Destroying a Barrier That Protects the U.S. East Coast from Hurricanes 
https://m.phys.org/news/2019-05-climate-barrier-east-coast-hurricanes.html

A new paper, published today in Scientific Reports, finds that climate change could alter wind shear in a way that could deliver more powerful hurricanes to the East Coast. ... as hurricanes move northwestward out of the tropical Atlantic, a strong vertical wind shear along the East Coast prevents the storm from gaining strength, thus providing a protective barrier to strong landfalling hurricanes.

Ting and Kossin, along with Lamont researchers Suzana Camargo and Cuihua Li, used model simulations to examine the effects of climate change on hurricanes in the United States. The group found that these hurricanes will be affected in two different ways. As earlier studies have shown, rising sea surface temperatures will lead to an increase in hurricane intensity. But this study was the first to find that rising anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will weaken the vertical wind shear along the East Coast which will, in turn, enable further intensification of hurricanes that make landfall in this region.

"Once the natural protection is eroded by greenhouse gas warming, we may experience unprecedented hurricane intensification along the East Coast that can lead to stronger landfalling storms and higher storm surges in the future," Ting explains. "This is on top of the stronger tropical cyclone strength expected from the warmer sea surface temperature that we are already aware of. Home owners and policy makers have to take this into account when planning for coastal development and protections." 

Although climate change is typically a slow process, the models point to the possibility of these anthropogenic effects emerging quickly. One of the models with a larger number of simulations indicated that these effects could start to be seen around the year 2040. A timeline like that only gives us about 20 years to try to change course by taking actions to reduce climate change and, at the very least, prepare for more extreme weather events.



Open Access: Mingfang Ting et al. Past and Future Hurricane Intensity Change along the U.S. East Coast, Scientific Reports (2019)

[Tom_Mazanec]

Hurricanes to grow stronger:
https://www.news4jax.com/weather/east-coast-hurricane-landfalls-may-be-more-intense-with-climate-change

[Darvince]

Cyclone Vayu is coming:

https://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/tcdat/tc19/IO/93A.INVEST/ir/geo/1km_bw/20190609.2330.msg1.x.ir1km_bw.93AINVEST.30kts-1000mb-119N-714E.100pc.jpg

[Klondike Kat]

Hurricanes to grow stronger:
https://www.news4jax.com/weather/east-coast-hurricane-landfalls-may-be-more-intense-with-climate-change

Actually, they said may grow stronger.

[Rich]

Hurricanes to grow stronger:
https://www.news4jax.com/weather/east-coast-hurricane-landfalls-may-be-more-intense-with-climate-change

Actually, they said may grow stronger.

According to the IPCC, formed storms are more likely to be stronger as a result of AGW.

Pretty obvious that a warmer ocean leads to stronger storms and a warmer atmosphere leads to wetter storms.

Voila, since 2016 we've had 17 global storms with sustained winds in excess of 150mph and epic rain bombs Harvey and Florence on top of that.

Earlier this decade, we've had two storms that belong on the Mt. Rushmore of tropical cyclones (Haiyan and Patricia).

Pretty damn clear what AGW is doing to storm intensity in general.

[Rod]

Don't waste your breath Rich.  Neven banned that guy last year.  His old handle was Daniel B. Hurricanes were his favorite topic.  He is not a dummy, but he is a troll. 

[Rich]

What do you have to say for yourself Klondike Kat?

What's your mission here?

[Klondike Kat]

Hurricanes to grow stronger:
https://www.news4jax.com/weather/east-coast-hurricane-landfalls-may-be-more-intense-with-climate-change

Actually, they said may grow stronger.

According to the IPCC, formed storms are more likely to be stronger as a result of AGW.

Pretty obvious that a warmer ocean leads to stronger storms and a warmer atmosphere leads to wetter storms.

Voila, since 2016 we've had 17 global storms with sustained winds in excess of 150mph and epic rain bombs Harvey and Florence on top of that.

Earlier this decade, we've had two storms that belong on the Mt. Rushmore of tropical cyclones (Haiyan and Patricia).

Pretty damn clear what AGW is doing to storm intensity in general.

Warmer oceans are likely to set the stage for more tropical development.  However, cyclone strength is determined largely by wind shear.  This is what the article was implying.  While models indicate that an increase is likely, recent studies linking hurricane activity with global warming have found no connection.

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

[Rich]

Hurricanes to grow stronger:
https://www.news4jax.com/weather/east-coast-hurricane-landfalls-may-be-more-intense-with-climate-change

Actually, they said may grow stronger.

According to the IPCC, formed storms are more likely to be stronger as a result of AGW.

Pretty obvious that a warmer ocean leads to stronger storms and a warmer atmosphere leads to wetter storms.

Voila, since 2016 we've had 17 global storms with sustained winds in excess of 150mph and epic rain bombs Harvey and Florence on top of that.

Earlier this decade, we've had two storms that belong on the Mt. Rushmore of tropical cyclones (Haiyan and Patricia).

Pretty damn clear what AGW is doing to storm intensity in general.

Warmer oceans are likely to set the stage for more tropical development.  However, cyclone strength is determined largely by wind shear.  This is what the article was implying.  While models indicate that an increase is likely, recent studies linking hurricane activity with global warming have found no connection.

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

You are linking to a report which is confirming EVERYTHING I spelled out in my previous post.

Tropical cyclones becoming more intense, wetter and more frequently becoming Cat 4 / 5.

You still didn't answer my question. Why do you come to ASIF? How does this tie in with your purpose in life?

You've been accused by others of being a troll. You should have the opportunity to respond to that.

[bligh8]

Spot on reply Rich....thanks

Just so there's no confusion higher water temps are what's driving this rapid intensification of these storms.  Wind sheer will halt development or knock the top off and allow the storm to walk away at a greater pace.

40ft sea's and dark alleys don't scare me.....but all this hot water in the N. Atlantic scares the hell out of me.     

[Tom_Mazanec]

Any chance of a hypercane in a few centuries?

[bligh8]

I live at what was ground zero for Sandy....if one listens closely they'll hear a collective sigh of relief once Sept/Oct have passed without incident.

[Klondike Kat]

Hurricanes to grow stronger:
https://www.news4jax.com/weather/east-coast-hurricane-landfalls-may-be-more-intense-with-climate-change

Actually, they said may grow stronger.

According to the IPCC, formed storms are more likely to be stronger as a result of AGW.

Pretty obvious that a warmer ocean leads to stronger storms and a warmer atmosphere leads to wetter storms.

Voila, since 2016 we've had 17 global storms with sustained winds in excess of 150mph and epic rain bombs Harvey and Florence on top of that.

Earlier this decade, we've had two storms that belong on the Mt. Rushmore of tropical cyclones (Haiyan and Patricia).

Pretty damn clear what AGW is doing to storm intensity in general.

Warmer oceans are likely to set the stage for more tropical development.  However, cyclone strength is determined largely by wind shear.  This is what the article was implying.  While models indicate that an increase is likely, recent studies linking hurricane activity with global warming have found no connection.

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

You are linking to a report which is confirming EVERYTHING I spelled out in my previous post.

Tropical cyclones becoming more intense, wetter and more frequently becoming Cat 4 / 5.

You still didn't answer my question. Why do you come to ASIF? How does this tie in with your purpose in life?

You've been accused by others of being a troll. You should have the opportunity to respond to that.

Did you even read the link?  The only observed connection between warmer waters and tropical cyclones is increased rainfall.  "Our regional model projects that Atlantic hurricane and tropical storms are substantially reduced in number, for the average 21st century climate change projected by current models, but have higher rainfall rates, particularly near the storm center."

The rest is pure conjecture. 

As to your question, I come here to learn about the scientist.  I am tired of all the pseudo-science and political mumbo jumbo that so many spread of the extremists (on both sides) spread.  If I have been accuse of being a troll (this is the first I have heard of it), then at least I will be a scientifically-informed troll.  Much better than the alternative.

[Tim]

Klondike Kat, you seem to like to omit a lot of things, isolate certain points while being guilty of omission. I find you to be like a subtle doubt merchant more than any sort of legitimate skeptical thinker, which is how you like to present yourself.

You claim to know a lot about hurricanes, but you just mentioned shear, when Michael last fall rapidly intensified in a high shear environment, which confounded the historical ideas of a lot of experts in the field.

You also ignore the way these systems are both stalling, and also steering differently, due to the changes AGW has produced in jetstream behavior, which is also noted by hurricane experts. I called you out on your omission of that once before here. Think ... Flo last fall and the Carolina's, stalling, and steering, from noted and observable jetstream changes.

You don't seem that up on hurricanes. I find you to just be a doubt merchant, not a legitimate skeptic. You omit a lot of things to make points in very isolated contexts, and I find that disingenuous. Yes, just an intentional doubt merchant, grasping at straws in isolation through a lot of omission and placing things outside of their larger context a lot.

[Klondike Kat]

Klondike Kat, you seem to like to omit a lot of things, isolate certain points while being guilty of omission. I find you to be like a subtle doubt merchant more than any sort of legitimate skeptical thinker, which is how you like to present yourself.

You claim to know a lot about hurricanes, but you just mentioned shear, when Michael last fall rapidly intensified in a high shear environment, which confounded the historical ideas of a lot of experts in the field.

You also ignore the way these systems are both stalling, and also steering differently, due to the changes AGW has produced in jetstream behavior, which is also noted by hurricane experts. I called you out on your omission of that once before here. Think ... Flo last fall and the Carolina's, stalling, and steering, from noted and observable jetstream changes.

You don't seem that up on hurricanes. I find you to just be a doubt merchant, not a legitimate skeptic. You omit a lot of things to make points in very isolated contexts, and I find that disingenuous. Yes, just an intentional doubt merchant, grasping at straws in isolation through a lot of omission and placing things outside of their larger context a lot.

Just because one hurricane was able to intensify in the face of higher wind shear does not discount the overall effect of wind shear on hurricane strengthening.  You seem to be guilty of exactly what you accuse me of doing - omitting certain key points.  If you read my post carefully, I noted the increased rainfall that has been observed in connection with changing weather patterns.

[Tim]

The point was, you try to discount AGW effects through a great deal of omission when you present your arguments. It's pretty obvious to see what your intention is here at ASIF. That was my point.

You try to create a sense that hurricane behavior is not actually changing much, by omitting most of the ways they are being observed to be changing when you make points in isolation.

Your arguments you make here are clearly specious in their nature, dishonest. You're here to obfuscate science, that's pretty clear from watching you make your arguments against climate science here (which is what you do, even though you say you don't.)

A troll.

[Tim]

Here's how you like to phrase things:

"... linking hurricane activity with global warming have found no connection."

Would you like to talk about the jet stream, AGW, and hurricanes?

Jennifer Francis had some thoughts about it's influence on Florence last fall.

You would be laughed off Dr. Masters site for the ignorance you spew about there being no connection between AGW and hurricane behavior, which is what you're arguing hard to try and imply here.

You're just a subtle doubt merchant dude, and it's annoying to watch you do it. Desperately trying to show how it's not happening with most everything you post.

[Klondike Kat]

Here's how you like to phrase things:

"... linking hurricane activity with global warming have found no connection."

Would you like to talk about the jet stream, AGW, and hurricanes?

Jennifer Francis had some thoughts about it's influence on Florence last fall.

You would be laughed off Dr. Masters site for the ignorance you spew about there being no connection between AGW and hurricane behavior, which is what you're arguing hard to try and imply here.

You're just a subtle doubt merchant dude, and it's annoying to watch you do it. Desperately trying to show how it's not happening with most everything you post.

Sorry if I prefer solid research over speculation.  We scientists rely on statistical methods to show connections.  Absent that standard, we can make speculations, but not definitive statements.  Could a warmer climate be influencing hurricane behavior?  Sure.  Is it?  We have no concrete evidence.

This is what the scientists at the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration (NOAA) state,   
"Through research, GFDL scientists have concluded that it is premature to attribute past changes in hurricane activity to greenhouse warming"

While models and simulations have shown the likelihood of increases, they have not been observed to date.

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/hurricanes-and-climate-change/

The full text of the previous paper states:

"Opinion on the author team was divided on whether any observed TC (tropical cyclone) changes demonstrate discernible anthropogenic influence, or whether any other observed changes represent detectable changes"

and

"The relatively low confidence in TC change detection results from several factors, including: observational limitations, the smallness of the expected human-caused change (signal) relative to the expected natural variability (noise), or the lack of confident estimates of the expected signal and noise levels."

I repeat, the claim is not that there is no link.  Rather, that it cannot be detected in the evidence to date.  Whether you call that doubt or truth, is your choice.  I have made mine.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-18-0189.1

[Tim]

So now you change your story from a very solidly stated 'no connection' to 'too early to make one very specific procedural conclusion, a long term statistical one' ... admitting now that there are observed changes, they just haven't been observed for long enough.

But that's very different from what you first tried to BS us with, which is that there was 'no connection,' implied in a context that there have been no observed changes whatsoever. I know it's subtle, but this is what you do here on this site. You spin things.

That was my point, your here to support the denialists. Same goes with all the other Cato Institute arguments you present here on this site, ad nauseam.  You spin, is what you do, heavily.

We scientists, you say. What, are you a dentist or something? Don't flatter yourself.

[Klondike Kat]

I see.  Basically, whenever you disagree with someone you resort to calling them a BSer, troll or denier, rather than entertaining the possibility that you could be wrong.  I did not change my story.  That is your twist on the subject.  All I did was expound on my claim of no connection, to include the possibility that a connection may exist, but cannot be identified in the current data.  That is called good science, not dentistry. 

[Tim]

No, it's what the politicians and economists have asked for as a stalling tactic for thirty years ... more evidence ... while they delayed and blew past the chance for anybody to do anything about it, where the scientists were quite sure of what they were seeing. Extremely long term statistical evidence is just one singular line of reasoning.  For some people, they could still be asking in a thousand years for more statistical evidence. It's a ruse, and supports the, oh, it will change back argument that people like Trump make.

You'll notice that when it comes to spraying chemicals around, or damning a river, that there's no need to bother with long term statistical evidence in your society. They just spray it. It's a ruse. Your whole tact here is to obfuscate what science is certain of. Quit trying to present yourself as rational. You're need for never ending statistical evidence is called prolonging the debate, a well known doubt merchant strategy, whether you are aware of yourself doing it or not.

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. - A. Einstein

[Tim]

And you did backpedal when confronted. Walked straight backwards and backed off of what you were trying to shmeeb with your doublespeak. It's a smarmy way to be.

Meanwhile, your country is drowning, and burning, and getting blown away. It's absurd what you do here on this site with your stream of contrary arguments.

But whatever. Knowing you were banned before brings some solace. Not sure why you aren't banned again, you definitely just bring obfuscation to the subject of AGW.

[sidd]

The difficulty with hurricane/cyclone numbers is that there are too few of them to give statistically robust results. Right now the consensus seems to be that there will be an increase in intensity, but not necessarily an increase in the number.

As for the models, they do not have the resolution to effectively simulate processes within a hurricane. Some techniques such as downscaling make the attempt, but there are questions as to their effectiveness.

Aside: Accusations of trolling and denial do not advance the discussion. I reply in another thread.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1562.msg204822.html#msg204822

sidd

[Tim]

Neither does constantly making tobacco industry style arguments advance the discussion of AGW.

No knowledge base is ever complete. Sometimes, when considering the risks of not acting, we quite often act after just enough information has been gathered to make a reasonably informed decision. That's what eventually happened in the tobacco debacle.

I'm on a tropical weather blog every day, and there's enough evidence gathered to make some reasonably informed conclusions about recent hurricane behavior, especially considering the pace at which climate change is accelerating and the fact that we don't have the luxury of studying this forever before 'noticing.' We also do a lot of things with gravity without having a complete understanding of that either.

In fact we move forward on many things in science confidently, with only cursory information to inform our decisions. Haven't you noticed how with climate change, there's a stall tactic by asking for more and more ... and ever more ... absolutely conclusive evidence before acting? Which is a tactic the tobacco defendants (some of them scientists) put forth to stall action on tobacco as well?

I'm surprised to see you defending such a tactic. People who watch tropical weather closely, along with other connected meteorology, definitely know some things have changed recently, with lot's of atmospheric connections to back up those observations.

I would say some of the institutions embedded within certain particular countries and cultures have been pushed into taking an unusually conservative stance on what they will say. They wouldn't want to be axed completely after all. Their official statements can often differ what the people actually doing the looking are seeing.

Anyway. Complain away in defense of your denier friend.

[wili]

"...there will be an increase in intensity, but not necessarily an increase in the number..."

That's my understanding of the current science, but I'm be happy to look at any new studies that say otherwise.

I do wonder whether we are conflating hurricanes and cyclones, here. (Mostly North) Atlantic hurricanes are more subject to the destructive (to hurricanes) effects of windshear, as I understand it. Pacific and Indian Ocean typhoons/cyclones are less likely to be so affected, so they are likely to increase both in intensity and frequency.

But again, I haven't looked at the very latest science on this. Are there new developments?

[Tim]

That's what I took Klondike Kat to task about once before on this site wili, was for pointing only to frequency, while conveniently omitting the observations being made about other changes to storms recently observed, and using only frequency to support a conclusion that there are no changes to storms related to climate change (because he only discussed frequency, and then drew that into a more general conclusion, a pretty definitive one.)

And are we to not look at May's ice behavior, or June's? Because I don't think there's a published research paper out about May or June's ice melt behavior yet. No, we look at the observations, here on this site, long before those papers come out, just like tropical weather analysts are able to do. So let's get real. Is there official papers out about the ice melt? Should we not make observations then?

[Rich]

It is the denier playbook to sew doubt where they can and they seize on the small number of major tropical.cyclones as their weapon. Not enough to provide a statistical sample, they say.

This despite the overwhelmingly cogent scientific argument that AGW should increase storm intensity (wind speed and precipitation).

We know that AGW is making the ocean and air warmer.
We know that a warm ocean is is a prerequisite for a major hurricane.
We know that warm air holds more water vapor.
We have paleo evidence of massive boulders being moved great distances which can only be explained by storms much larger than those we see today at times when the earth was warmer.

We have an overwhelming amount of anecdotal evidence in front of us supporting the very simple expectation that storms will get more intense and wetter as the planet heats up. In a court of law, we are way beyond the threshold of reasonable doubt.

The thickening GHG blanket is guilty.

There is no cogent explanation for why storms would not get stronger.

[Tim]

And I would add changes to the jetstream as another thing that's influencing storm activity ... already. Here's some science from Dr. Jennifer Frances discussing this regarding Florence last year, which didn't turn north when traditional meteorology would've thought it should have, and stalled it in place for awhile even, because of a blocking high in the Atlantic that was present due to the changes we should all be familiar with regarding the jetsream, it's increased amplitude and slower movement, and the resilient ridges it's been forming on either side of North America recently, a direct result of climate change.

Just talking frequency, and arguing people aren't seeing changes ... currently ... is a red herring. People are watching meteorology you know, just like how people here watch the ice. If you are close to the data, you are familiar with things long before someone publishes a research paper about them, if they even ever do about a particular event sometimes.

Jetstream, jetstream, jetstream. Those of us who follow weather data as closely as people here follow the ice didn't even need Dr. Francis to tell us about this. We watched it happen ourselves, in real time, and knew exactly what we were looking at, and where that resilient jetstream ridge in the Atlantic came from, and why it was there, and what it was connected to, and how it was affecting Florence. Then we watched Florence stall over Carolina, and even turn south a little, as it tried to find a way around that high, all because of the recently changed jetstream.

https://thinkprogress.org/global-warming-double-whammy-may-be-steering-florence-into-the-carolinas-says-researcher-e125cad60819/

[Shared Humanity]

Aside: Accusations of trolling and denial do not advance the discussion. I reply in another thread.

While I have some suspicions about the motives of some who comment here, it serves no purpose to argue. Present your argument, backed up with links, and move on.

[Tim]

Aside: Accusations of trolling and denial do not advance the discussion. I reply in another thread.

While I have some suspicions about the motives of some who comment here, it serves no purpose to argue. Present your argument, backed up with links, and move on.

I disagree. The struggle to address climate change has turned out to be a social problem. It's the last thing there is to actually tackle about it, the thing hanging us up.

Yet when you point out the social problem, it makes people uncomfortable. I would say that's why we are were we are. My biggest interest in this subject is about solving the social problem that's hanging us up. Shoving more data at people certainly hasn't done anything for thirty years ... because it's a social problem. That's what needs to be pointed to. But I realize it's foreign to our culture to do this. I point to the social problem when I see it. And typically get this same response.

It's no different than pointing out the bad arguments of a creationist, which also makes some people uncomfortable, all because it's an ingrained social taboo.
.

[Klondike Kat]

Aside: Accusations of trolling and denial do not advance the discussion. I reply in another thread.

While I have some suspicions about the motives of some who comment here, it serves no purpose to argue. Present your argument, backed up with links, and move on.

I disagree. The struggle to address climate change has turned out to be a social problem. It's the last thing there is to actually tackle about it, the thing hanging us up.

Yet when you point out the social problem, it makes people uncomfortable. I would say that's why we are were we are. My biggest interest in this subject is about solving the social problem that's hanging us up. Shoving more data at people certainly hasn't done anything for thirty years ... because it's a social problem. That's what needs to be pointed to. But I realize it's foreign to our culture to do this. I point to the social problem when I see it. And typically get this same response.

It's no different than pointing out the bad arguments of a creationist.
.

I agree with SH.  If we disregard sound science, in favor of social action, we run the risk of appearing just like those who ignore the consequences of climate change.  If you put forward an argument that cannot be backed with sound science, you are no better than those who you are trying to condemn.  Worst of all, the public will view both arguments as extremism, discounting both as folly.  If you truly wish to confront the social problem, then stick to the facts (there are plenty of them).  Every time you present a projection that fails to materialize, you are placing another nail in your coffin for your opponent to hit.

[Tim]

I'm not talking about social action. I was pointing out social dysfunction. You don't present facts, you isolate information and compartmentalize it into silos, ignoring other connected observations and omitting 'facts' heavily when you make your many specious arguments here on the site ... all always leading to the same conclusion, to underplay climate change.

That's what I was calling you out for. You don't present science, you intentionally misrepresent it.

Like with your frequency red herring.
.

[Shared Humanity]

Aside: Accusations of trolling and denial do not advance the discussion. I reply in another thread.

While I have some suspicions about the motives of some who comment here, it serves no purpose to argue. Present your argument, backed up with links, and move on.

I agree with SH.  If we disregard sound science, in favor of social action, we run the risk of appearing just like those who ignore the consequences of climate change.  If you put forward an argument that cannot be backed with sound science, you are no better than those who you are trying to condemn.  Worst of all, the public will view both arguments as extremism, discounting both as folly.  If you truly wish to confront the social problem, then stick to the facts (there are plenty of them).  Every time you present a projection that fails to materialize, you are placing another nail in your coffin for your opponent to hit.

You say you agree with what I said and then compose a paragraph proving the opposite.

For the record and in the interest of full disclosure, what you have just done here is what causes me to be suspicious of the motives of some who come here.

[Tom_Mazanec]

I know KK is an optimist...I used to be one myself (and occasionally still am). I don't know if he is a deliberate troll, but I don't know if he is not. Tim seems to give good arguments. But I hope this diversion ends.

[sidd]

Re: "conflating hurricanes and cyclones"

There are studies that look at hurricanes/cyclones/typhoons in all basins. The advantage to doing so is that there are more of them that hurricanes in the Atlantic alone. But the numbers are still low, and no trend in the total number is evident. So far.  There is some evidence that the intensity of the largest ones is increasing, as is expected from warmer SSTs. The models still have difficulty in getting hurricanes right but perhaps CMIP6 will have better results.

sidd

[Bruce Steele]

Re. Social dysfunction. Rather than taking each other at face value or looking for veiled motives it is first important to discuss goals. If we had agreed upon goals then we might judge solutions in their potential for progress.
 I don't think many people are willing to do what is necessary but then I assume we all agree that bringing CO2 levels back into the 350 ppm levels is a priority ( goal )
 We live in an age of excesses , we live beyond our means. Very very few privileged members of society are willing to accept less . We are going to live in our large homes, drive fast cars , fly , and live a life of excess till the system collapses. Yes I believe in collapse. If I saw anything in society that looked like frugality(  ... abstemiousness; asceticism, Spartanism, frugality, parsimony, economy, simple life, plain living, plainness, ... golden mean I Moderation 521 4 calmness, composure, lack of emotion, stoicism, keeping a stiff ...)  was currently considered a virtue I would have a different opinion .
Sorry Sidd and Tom for dragging this back OT . Hurricane season is rather dull right now .
 The goal of saving the planet is simply overridden by our vices, wishes and laziness. The goal requires something like a two ton CO2 emissions per annum limit for every human . The rest is just rationalizing or postponing the inevitable.

[Rich]

There is some evidence that the intensity of the largest ones is increasing, as is expected from warmer SSTs.

There isn't "some" evidence....there is a lot of evidence.

Once again....

17 storms since 2016 w/ sustained winds >= 150 mph.
Wettest storm in US history (Harvey)
Wettest US storm north of Florida (Florence)
Wettest storm in Hawaiian history (Lane)
Highest wind speed storm globally (Patricia)
Dvorak Scale breaker....8.1 on an 8.0 scale and most powerful landfalling cyclone ever (Haiyan)
Record breaking S. Hemisphere cyclone (Idai)

Outside of the pure tropical storms, we had a record bombogenesis event in the Atlantic the winter before last. We had a record bombogenesis event in the US plains this winter.

We are living in an an era of unprecedented big storm activity in the era of record keeping.

Statistician's want large sample sizes to reach conclusions and tropical storms don't offer that. In the absence of large numbers we're left with common sense to guide us.

There is an abundance of evidence in front of us.

[wili]

Sidd wrote: "... intensity of the largest ones is increasing..." Yes, that's my understanding of it, and also as I recall that is what the latest models predict for the future.

Bruce--insightful and well said, as always!

[Archimid]

While models and simulations have shown the likelihood of increases, they have not been observed to date.

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/hurricanes-and-climate-change/

What a load of BS.

The information in that page related to the statistical analysis of Atlantic hurricanes is outdated by more than a decade!

It completely misses the hottest years of record and the most destructive. It completely misses the phenomenon of rapid amplification we have seen for the last few years. It completely misses the wetness experienced during in Harvey or the incredibly crazy year of 2017.

KkK and cowards like him are counting on the increased hurricane frequency and intensity to go back down to 20th century levels. Fools. The warming will continue. So will the increase in hurricane frequency and intensity.  Can there be a lull? sure, but that likelihood is decreasing as temperatures increase.

[Rod]

I do not pretend to have any expertise on hurricanes.  However, I have noticed the discussion has focused on Atlantic hurricanes. 

It is my understanding the two hurricanes that hit Mozambique this year were unpresidented, I am also pretty sure that in February we had the first ever category 5 hurricane that formed (in the Pacific) that early north of the equator. 

Those seem to be some additional important facts to add to this discussion.

[Tim]

Thanks Bruce for you thoughts.

I didn't see my discussion as being so OT. I pointed out a pretty definitive effect from climate change last year in an effort to point out how only looking in isolation at how many hurricanes there are is dishonest and an example of dysfunction.

If you don't think temperatures have risen, then you don't think arctic amplification has occurred, then you don't think the the jetsream has changed, then you don't think that changed jetstream caused the blocking pattern which definitely affected Florence last year in a very empirical way.

If you intentionally ignore all that, and make a red herring argument based on the one thing that hasn't changed about these storms ... their frequency, how many there have been ... then yes, in that red herring silo you can then say that hurricanes have shown no changes due to climate change. Someone even published a paper about that a few years ago, pointing only to frequency and concluding that therefore ... no changes due to climate change (a particularly renowned meteorologist climate change denier published it.)

But that's dishonest, it ignores all those other empirical observations that have been made, and I gave a link to a pretty renowned scientist discussing those observed empirical effects. That's the social dysfunction I in particular was pointing out, is the omission of pertinent information to the argument in question, that climate change is not influencing hurricanes, except only through speculation about the future, and not in any current observations.

It's typically when I speak up, is when someone tries to peddle some BS like that through omission.

And still people veer back to frequency. I guess this is not a site for discussing hurricanes, except maybe as a rubbernecking sort of sport.

No worries. I presented what I did about Florence, which I didn't think was so OT. Oh wait, I guess it was, because that was last year. 

Thanks again Bruce, I didn't disagree with anything else you said, just about being OT when I corrected someone's specious red herring. Poor arguments shouldn't be tolerated, especially when they seem to be an attempt to intentionally mislead. So, I countered the argument, and pointed out how it was disingenuous and specious, which I find dysfunctional, and presented some sound evidence of climate change affecting a hurricane last year.

But I'll leave you guys to your hurricane discussions now. Enjoy.   

[Bruce Steele]

I think Wili is as close to the 2 ton goal as anyone else here on the forum . If we had a carbon count on contributors we might have a better guide to who is earnest and who is full of it. Talking science , even great climate science , is only entertainment otherwise.
 P.S. The swallows did return and are sitting eggs right now.

https://www.artvilla.com/man-in-the-sun-poem-by-charles-bukowski/