Climate change is almost certainly responsible for storms like Sandy.

[Direckshun]

Starting a new thread on this, because this story has nothing to do with Al Gore. There's nothing more deniers of the true effects of climate change love to do more than reference Al Gore.

Don't give a shit about Gore. This is real science, and more and more experts in science and fields related to climate change are coming to the conclusion that the factors that produce storms are being amped up thanks to climate change.

Climate change is making storms like Sandy as big as they are, and as bizarre as they are. Climate change is making storms worse.

In addition to that, this is science that gigantic insurance corporations are starting to adjust to. It's so reliable that huge insurers are adjusting their bottom lines to account for it.

If global corporations are even starting to make radical adjustments to account for it, and you're still not buying it, ask yourself: how far from the reservation have you strayed?

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...rricane-sandy/

Did Climate Change Cause Hurricane Sandy?
By Mark Fischetti
October 30, 2012

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.”

Hanson 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.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by Calcountry

You know, if all of us Christians thought it was a neat idea to tax you unbelievers to the alter of our religion, how would you feel about that? That is precisely, what all this nonsense about cap and trade is, taxing non believers in your Gaia religion into submissive compliance.

No thanks.

Awesome, kneel at the altar of climatology.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by ChiefaRoo

Really Cosmo. I know your a drone and all but do you really think Al Gore is some kind of environmental sage? His family background is Tobacco, Politics and Newspaper publishing. He's making money dummy and setting himself up on a big stage. It's a joke and in the fullness of time it will become obvious that he is a joke.

He's speaking out on a situation that he believes is important. You don't think he's sincere?

He had money before, and --shocking--he made a lot money after politics, largely by sitting on boards of directors for various corporations, including Google. And if he's made some money off of activities or investments related to his causes, so what?

[Fish]

Originally Posted by ChiefaRoo

Ok lets agree for the moment that Global warming is caused exclusively by Man. What are we going to do about it? De-industrialize? Good luck in getting the Chinese to do that even if we'd be dumb enough to do it. What do you want to do? Exterminate a billion or so humans so we can get demand down? The facts are Earths population is going to grow and the energy demands will continue to grow.

We can all agree that cleaner is better but lets not fool ourselves that we are going to alter our species development to cool the Earth .5 degrees over the next 50 years. It's not going to happen. This whole idea of carbon credits and carbon sinks are another form of tax and control at an International level disguised as controlling climate change. Don't buy into it.

Now, back to the issue at hand. Let's talk about warming. Why is Mars warming as well? There aren't any humans there?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

I think we should engineer some watertight doors for the NYC subways and build better cities over the next 100 years.

The Earth constantly changes. It warms and cools on scales that humans have a hard time understanding because we don't live long enough... yet. We will figure it out but lets not commit developmental suicide because of data fed to us by some scientists and from Politicians like Al Gore.

Nobody is saying Global Warming is caused exclusively by man. Not even the most adamant of climate change supporter would say that.

What are we going to do about it? Well, there's lots that can be done about it. And no, it doesn't involve de-industrialization. That's silly. Nobody is recommending we stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow. But we can definitely form a plan of action to reduce future emissions, and research and develop better forms of energy.

Climate change is definitely real. The question becomes, how much of it is from humans. Some of it is absolutely caused by humans. That can't really even be debated. But again, the question of how much is still widely debatable.

Earth's population is definitely going to grow. Although personally, I think our species would be much better off if we did exterminate a few billion people. But that's beside the point. The important thing is that we don't approach it with the attitude that nothing can be done, and humans can't have any affect. Whichever side of the issue you're on, it should still be very important to the future of our society.

Personally, I don't think that manmade climate change is as much of a factor as some people claim. But I also don't think it should be shrugged off with a "Ehh, we can't do anything" attitude. Current energy dependence should be motivation enough to encourage and explore different methods. Because we are currently incredibly dependent on a finite source of energy. And we're so dependent on that source of energy, that if it were to become unavailable to the masses, it would cause serious social unrest and could potentially halt trade and transportation of everything.

[loochy]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

He's speaking out on a situation that he believes is important. You don't think he's sincere?

He had money before, and --shocking--he made a lot money after politics, largely by sitting on boards of directors for various corporations, including Google. And if he's made some money off of activities or investments related to his causes, so what?

Oh, he's sincere. He's sincere in the way that schizophrenics are sincere about the voices that they hear.

[SNR]

Originally Posted by Calcountry

You know, if all of us Christians thought it was a neat idea to tax you unbelievers to the alter of our religion, how would you feel about that? That is precisely, what all this nonsense about cap and trade is, taxing non believers in your Gaia religion into submissive compliance.

No thanks.

They still do that in Austria and a ton of other European countries.

Then again, America isn't Europe.

[Bwana]

Yeeeeeeeeah
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhend...the-century/2/
and the tooth fairy is REAL.

[ChiefaRoo]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

Nobody is saying Global Warming is caused exclusively by man. Not even the most adamant of climate change supporter would say that.

What are we going to do about it? Well, there's lots that can be done about it. And no, it doesn't involve de-industrialization. That's silly. Nobody is recommending we stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow. But we can definitely form a plan of action to reduce future emissions, and research and develop better forms of energy.

Climate change is definitely real. The question becomes, how much of it is from humans. Some of it is absolutely caused by humans. That can't really even be debated. But again, the question of how much is still widely debatable.

Earth's population is definitely going to grow. Although personally, I think our species would be much better off if we did exterminate a few billion people. But that's beside the point. The important thing is that we don't approach it with the attitude that nothing can be done, and humans can't have any affect. Whichever side of the issue you're on, it should still be very important to the future of our society.

Personally, I don't think that manmade climate change is as much of a factor as some people claim. But I also don't think it should be shrugged off with a "Ehh, we can't do anything" attitude. Current energy dependence should be motivation enough to encourage and explore different methods. Because we are currently incredibly dependent on a finite source of energy. And we're so dependent on that source of energy, that if it were to become unavailable to the masses, it would cause serious social unrest and could potentially halt trade and transportation of everything.

Lookit, the President said himself that you can build a new coal plant if you like but you'll go bankrupt doing it. He's hostile towards fossil fuels. His policy is not sensible and is damaging to the country. Getting rid of fossil fuels is deindustrializing by definition. Get real.

[Calcountry]

Originally Posted by SNR

They still do that in Austria and a ton of other European countries.

Then again, America isn't Europe.

Thank God!

[aturnis]

Originally Posted by ChiefaRoo

Lookit, the President said himself that you can build a new coal plant if you like but you'll go bankrupt doing it. He's hostile towards fossil fuels. His policy is not sensible and is damaging to the country. Getting rid of fossil fuels is deindustrializing by definition. Get real.

Romney despises coal. Coal plants kill people. Or...wait...isthisreallife?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Donger

Weird? I don't believe that is a scientific classification.

You got me. Way to dismantle my adjective.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by petegz28

the "climate" is changing every second of every minute of every hour of every day of ever week of every month of every year of every decade of ever century..and on and on and on

What point are you making?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

A hurricane of any type in the northeast at the end of October is rare.

It didn't form in the Northeast, dumbass.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

This.

That's the problem with the Democrats. They want to use global warming as an excuse to implement all sorts of goofy policies like Cap & Trade, the total elimination of the burning of coal, and the investments of billions of dollars in wind turbines and solar energy. And coincidentally enough, the friends and relatives of the Democrats who implement these goofy policies become fabulously wealthy. Case in point: Al "now worth over $100 million" Gore.

The Democrats have no freaking clue if the science that they've turned into a religion is right or wrong. And it has clearly become a religion because (1) they accept it on faith and refuse to listen to people who disagree, and (2) they want everyone to donate to the collection plate, and they want you to give until it hurts.

If the Democrats would just lighten the **** up about it, a lot of Republicans would agree to take a look at the situation and see if there really is a problem that is (1) caused by man, and (2) fixable by the United States if the United States takes unilateral action while the rest of the world does nothing.

Whenever ANYTHING happens with weather, they blame it on global warming. Hot summer? Global warming caused it. Cold winter? Global warming (oops, I mean Climate Change) caused it. Hurricane? Global warming caused it. Cassel throws an interception? Global warming probably caused that too.

It just gets old. Al Gore needs to shut the **** up.

I just have no idea where to start with this.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by blaise

So, you've stopped driving your car, right?

Of course he hasn't. The government hasn't mandated that everybody do it, and damned if he's going to "be the change he wants to see." That shit is only for campaign slogans, not real action.

[Direckshun]

Which of course means it must get an applause sign from somebody.

Originally Posted by Munson

Well said.

I swear to god it's like we inhabit different planets sometimes.