The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Natural disasters: be careful when predicting them! > Comments

Natural disasters: be careful when predicting them! : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 29/10/2012

We now rarely accept that events are random, 'acts of God', or basically beyond human control - 'someone is to blame'.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
Cohenite writes:

>>Extreme weather is now the 'hotspot' of AGW propaganda;>>

For the benefit of those interested in the actual science, one of the forecasts for a warmer world is, indeed, more frequent extreme weather events. The Economist recently carried a piece on this:

Climate change
Bell weather
A statistical analysis shows how things really are heating up

http://www.economist.com/node/21560235

>>ARE heatwaves more common than they used to be? That is the question addressed by James Hansen and his colleagues in a paper just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. >>>

The findings as published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences can be summarised with a single graphic (See link below)

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/print-edition/20120811_STC780.png

From The Economist again:

>>As the chart (right) shows, there are two trends. First, the peaks of the data-based curves move right, over time, with respect to the reference curve. In other words, the average temperature is rising. Second, more recent curves are flatter. A flatter curve means a bigger standard deviation and a wider spread of results.

If the mean of each curve were the same, such flattening would imply both more cold periods and more hot ones. But because the mean is rising, the effect at the cold end of the curves is diminished, while that at the hot end is enhanced. The upshot is more hot periods of local weather.>>

Interesting that this piece should appear in the Economist. Climate forecasts are far from perfect but they are paragons compared to economic forecasts ;-)

Another datum: Are the Chinese cooling the planet?

See:

Global warming pause linked to sulfur in China

http://phys.org/news/2011-07-global-linked-sulfur-china.html

And:

Global warming lull down to China's coal growth

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14002264

Sulphite particles from Chinese coal may have cooled the planet as happened briefly in the 1950s. Of course, once they start cleaning up their power stations we could see a resumption of the warming trend.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 8:52:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

Actually, the "perfect storm" which sank the Andrea Gail is interesting - an "extratropical low" in late October.

Found this:

http://ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/satellite/satelliteseye/cyclones/pfctstorm91/pfctstorm.html
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 10:19:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
More news on the trial of the Italian seismologists.

From New Scientist

Bugged phone deepens controversy over Italian quake

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22439-bugged-phone-deepens-controversy-over-italian-quake.html

>>Wiretap evidence suggests that Guido Bertolaso, then a chief of civil protection, ordered one of the defendants to issue a reassuring statement. A newly released audio recording also appears to show Bertolaso trying to conceal information in the aftermath of the quake.

Franco Coppi, who legally represents Giulio Selvaggi, one of the convicted seismologists, calls Bertolaso the "great absent member of the trial". "All these scientists were sent to L'Aquila with a precise task," he told New Scientist. "Given that they are considered responsible for insufficient communication, it would have been important as well to consider what mandate Bertolaso gave them."

[...]

In the recording, Bertolaso later says: "At the end you'll file a press release with the usual stuff that you can say on the subject, on the potential of a new one [earthquake], and you won't mention the real reason for this meeting. All right?">>

In my view this actually strengthens the case against the Italian scientists. They should not allow themselves to be bullied by a bureaucrat.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 2:21:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“For the benefit of those interested in the actual science”

For those interested in the actual science I would recommend ignoring everything Mr Meyer regurgitates. Hansen is nicely rebutted here:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2012/08/14/hansen-is-wrong/

Michael Mann, who lies about being a Nobel prize recipient, has also joined the chorus of those usual suspects claiming more extreme weather; and likewise has been comprehensively rebutted:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/16/quote-of-the-week-what-planet-does-michael-mann-live-on/

As have those other hysterics claiming god-given inside knowledge about the climate, Trenberth and Fasullo:

http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/a-blog-memo-to-kevin-trenberth-ncar/

Gore calls the lie of more extreme weather “dirty weather”; the only thing dirty about the current situation is the lies of the climate spruikers and their idiot followers.

The whole concept of more extreme weather is based on AGW predictions of more ‘heat’ and therefore energy in the climate system; this lie was disproved in 2010 by Knox and Douglass and measurements of the Earth’s energy balance.

But even if it were true that more heat/energy were being retained in the system that would not necessarily mean more extreme weather. Climate energy is expressed through steeper energy gradients; AGW predicts a warming of the poles and a decrease in the lapse rate; simply put the energy gradients, both vertical and horizontal would decrease under AGW and therefore there would be less energy disparity to cause extreme events.

As usual AGW theory is as contradictory as its believers are gullible.
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 4:55:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

A paper published in Nature in February this year examined storm surges using New York as a test case.

Here's an analysis of it:

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S32/98/37G63/

"Storm of the century" may become storm of the decade."

"Researchers from Princeton University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that regions such as the New york metropolitan area that currently experience flood every century could instead become submerged every one or two decades.

The researchers report in the journal Nature Climate Change that projected increases in sea level and storm intensity brought about by climate change would make devastating storm surges - the deadly and destructive mass of water pushed inland by large storms - more frequent."

A theory which is in keeping with your highlighting of 1991's Halloween Storm.

That storm ,btw, is interesting in that it absorbed another tropical storm - and itself morphed into an unnamed hurricane before it petered out.

The rest of the story on the Halloween Storm of '91:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/satellite/satelliteseye/hurricanes/unnamed91/unnamed91.html
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 5:12:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, I have no doubt that would be the case IF AGW were real. It is not. For your informatiuon, in respect of sea level rise this is another nail in the coffin:

http://www.igs.org/assets/pdf/Poland%202012%20-%20P09%20Bar-Sever%20PR51.pdf

What this analysis from NASA shows is that satellite measurements of sea level rise since 2003 are systemically flawed with a consistent over depiction of the rise. Slide 3 is the key one where it is shown that be comparison with surface based altimeters the satellite measurements show a spurious acceleration of sea level rise.

AGW is a theory with no consequences except vast financial chicanery and waste and the ignoring of real pollution issues.
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 5:52:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy