Posted on 06/22/2015 9:00:11 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
One of the hottest areas of climate research these days is on the potential connections between human emissions, global warming, and extreme weather. Will global warming make extreme weather more common or less common? More severe or less severe?
New research, just published today in Nature Climate Change helps to answer that question by approaching the problem in a novel way. In short yes, human emissions of greenhouse gases have made certain particular weather events more severe.
In summary, human warming affects weather in two ways. It changes the odds that any given extreme event will occur. But more importantly it makes the events more severe. I’ll leave you with the final paragraph from the paper which summarizes this as well as I could.
"The climate is changing: we have a new normal. The environment in which all weather events occur is not what it used to be. All storms, without exception, are different. Even if most of them look just like the ones we used to have, they are not the same."
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
“human emissions”
I did that last night after dinner and my wife yelled at me.
There was no “hurrican Sandy” when it hit land....
You left out global cooling, i.e. the coming ice age of the 1970s
Yet there is a justifiably strong sense that some of these events are becoming more frequent
No scientist makes an assessment based on a "strong sense."
We have rigorous statistical methods to decide whether discrete events are, or are not, becoming more frequent. It is nonscientific -- indeed, antiscientific -- to rely on our "sense" of their intensity or frequency.
Either these events are more frequent under a genuine test of significance, or they are not. If they are, then habeas corpus. If they are not then STFU.
------------------------------------------------
No smoking hot spot1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
Hurricane Sandy was a low grade hurricane, but wide. It traveled up the East coast, and came ashore in the most populated place in the USA, at a very high tide which caused a huge storm swell. It was soon met by two cold fronts fronts coming down from the north and west.
That is why it was so bad. It wasn’t glo-bull warming.
bttt
I noticed that too. The media had to come up with a new name so they called it”super storm” Sandy.
Lysenko affair in the former Soviet Union is often cited as an example of politics trumping good science. It’s a good example, but it’s often used to imply that such a thing could only happen in a totalitarian culture, that is, when all-powerful elites can control the flow of information. But this misses the almost equally powerful conspiracy of agreement, in which interlocking assumptions and interests combine to give the appearance of objectivity where none exists. For propaganda purposes, this voluntary conspiracy is even more powerful than a literal conspiracy by a dictatorial power, precisely because it looks like people have come to their position by a fair and independent evaluation of the evidence.
More papal bull!
NASA is busy redefining data measurements to erase reality. Now we are hearing revisionism coming from the other "scientific" communities.
In truth it is selective data altering to meet the expectation instead of scientific data review to evaluate reality. I'm guessing there are big bucks in creating a crisis that can be constantly redefined to maintain a sense of urgency and impending doom.
In President Eisenhower's farewell speech to the country, this is the part we always hear quoted, as a matter of fact we get hammered with it:
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."
Here is part of that same speech we never hear:
"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. "
Yes and yes. However...
Ike could not possibly have foreseen the two problems we face today; the Democrat-controlled academic-media complex is destroying our society and China's military-industrial complex is gearing up to wipe us off the face of the earth.
And sadly, the US doesn't even have a military-industrial complex any more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.