Climate Change and Storm Frequency

Good post!

One note: A tropical Canada sounds nice for Canadians (and people at similar latitudes), but what would the rest of the world be like?

Probably desert!!!!

A definite pessimists viewpoint............this won't happen..........will it?????

Could be quite the opposite as warmer temperatures will evaporate more of the oceans' waters. Does anyone REALLY think they know? I'm not sure how one simulates this system given all the variables involved. Climatologists work with relatively crude models and anyone involved in engineering understands how important complete models are. That's why we build one on the bench after we get done with Spice, Cadence, Mentor, etc.

Climate change is an interesting topic because climate patterns have been in agreement with models based on the Milankovitch Cycles and sun spots up until the industrial revolution. Because Earth should be entering a cooling trend and instead is warming. Because if the majority of glacial deposits melted 70% of our industrialized world would be flooded as the vast majority of urban development exist along the continental coast.

The topic of ice volume and rising sea levels has been exhausted in my opinion and I wanted to share a related effect to periods of rapid climate change. They are indicative of increased frequency and magnitude of tropical storms. We have been flooded and Tornadoes have torn us apart as we enter hurricane season. Just imagine if next year was worse, and then in 2 to 7 years we could see some of the worst droughts ever in a magnified la nina event.

Yeah, I heard that NOAA is indicating these may be the worst tornadoes since 1953. Also, the worst drought period on record is actually in the early 1930s, we haven't had anything close to that in the US since then. Maybe the observations based on sensationalized news reporting within the recent life of an individual is not a sound basis for evidence of significant climate change. Even in the period of record there have been worse weather cycles. What is distinctive now is that people have had long enough to forget and have gone back to developing without adequate consideration that such events occur naturally every so often. In some cases the recurrence rate is so rare, it may not be seen but once ever 3rd or 4th generation or more. Maybe it isn't the climate that is causing the damage, but rather the fact that after a very short while we stop adequately preparing for such events.

I agree, the focus should be on preparing for such events, whether the cause is a normal weather cycle or due to larger shifts in climate.

What is different now, cw the 30's, are two things: 1. The fact that the arctic is melting, and 2. the thinning of stratospheric ozone. Those are factors that indicate major changes and in themselves can be expected to affect climate on a global scale, as opposed to characteristics of weather cycles on a hundred year scale or so.

There are certainly implications for how we plan and design everything from housing to agricultural land. Maybe drainage designs should be upgraded to handle more water and prevent homes and roads from being flooded by extreme events, for example. Maybe something as simple as incorporating regular hedgerows into agricultural land to minimize erosion risk by drought or flood. The cost of preparing for weather extremes is not as serious as the damages inflicted if we are not prepared.

Even the absence of polar ice is not an abnormal condition apparently for the planet when you expand to a global condition, it is just abnormal recently.

The problem isn't that designs were not sufficient for their proposed design capacities, but what you find is that freqently during the last decade developers were allowed to tie in to these systems exceeeding the design capacities. Additionally, frequently due to cost considerations, companies have been brought in to seek cheap alternatives to standard O&M, to aid Cities in avoiding O&M costs. So systems are failing. Really what we need to do is just maintain the systems properly, and not allow connections from every developer who whines about the cost of new facilities to service their developments. On the down side you may lose a few extra construction jobs in the community if develoeprs can not get a really sweet deal there for infrastructure improvements.

Of course - even the absence of stratospheric ozone layer is 'normal' in the context of long geological time scales.

Some of the extreme conditions which are 'normal' in long geological time scales are, of course, also associated with conditions difficult for survival, showing up as mass extinction events in the fossil records. So it is reasonable to be interested in developments such as the melt of polar ice cap, which afaik is not at all normal on the time scale of human civilization or existence. If we really are entering that kind of phase in the earth's climate, why wouldn't we be thinking about how to survive it.

Actually none of the long geological conditions that are normal would show up as correlating with mass extinctions. Only those that were abnormal conditions would correlate with mass extinctions (abrupt changes that eventually stablized back closer to the nroaml state). Extreme conditions by definition would not be a normal state. However, things like permenant Ice on the poles is only very recent. Ozone on the other hand has been on the planet continuously for about a billion years. As long as there is oxygen in the atmosphere there is ozone. The stratosphere will not be absent of ozone, it just might be depleted relative to some standard. Human civilization is only about 10,000 yr old, and humanity is maybe 1 million. During just the time of human civilization the Sahara formed (it may have driven some aspects of early civilization development in the Nile River Valley). Heck just in the last 1000 yrs, there was a time when wine grapes were grown in England. We are just recently coming out of a mini-ice age. Maybe in order for the supposed evolutionary process to occur there needs to be some unusual stressors to test species. Those that adapt survive, those that do not go extinct and better evolved species fill the gaps. It seems that without the change in stressors there could be no evolution and improvement. Maybe this should be extended to humanity also, afterall aren;'t we supposed to be part of the natural environment (unless you take a religious non-evolutionary perspective in which humans are the protectors of the environment meant to preserve it for an eternity).

" afterall aren;'t we supposed to be part of the natural environment (unless you take a religious non-evolutionary perspective in which humans are the protectors of the environment meant to preserve it for an eternity)."

I believe this is at the heart of the debate- are we a part of the system, or guardians of the system? One need not be of the "religious non-evolutionary" camp to envision nature "evolving" a "caretaker" species- consider, for example, the fact that each of us is host to a multitude of other species, which rely on us to protect them from the dangers of life outside (i.e., exposure to excess atmospheric oxygen)...

The question should be, are we knowledgeable to fulfill the caretaker role, or should we move aside and let a better-adapted species take over?

Are you talking about symbiotic/parasitic relationships? Where a host offers shelter, and protection for the parasites as well as sustenance? (if the host benefits to some substantial degree from the relationship also then it is symbiotic).

There are caretaker species, but at some benefit to them for their care. Taking care of species that provide no direct benefits to the species providing care would be contrary to the advancement and survival of that species, as it would take away some resources available to that species for the care of another species (thus competition for resources without tangible benefit). Now if there were a definable direct tangible benefit, then if the resources competition did not outweigh the benefit it would just make sense. Otherwise it is just an intangible abstract concept based on some transference of religious beliefs and/or perceived human traits (much like people who won't eat meat because of some perceived degree of humanity to the animal, but none related to other living species).

I am actually referring to the biota that occupy your gut. These include both parasitic and symbiotic relationships, and a single species (i.e., E. coli) can assume different roles, depending on factors not fully understood. What is clear is that you would most likely die without the aid of your biota, and you could easily die should the biota change their attitude. Most of the species living in your gut would not survive long in the outside world, being anaerobic (although most of them have modified forms that allow them to depart for greener pastures, so to speak). It is difficult to determine who derives the most benefit from the relationships involved...

"...why wouldn't we be thinking about how to survive it..."

Exactly my point. While there are strong arguments for reducing contaminants in the air that have nothing to do with climate change, there are a whole lot more viable things to spend money on than pie in the sky carbon sequestration schemes or other popular ideas for "tweaking" the weather. Things like water purification, improved sanitation in rapidly urbanizing areas, etc. We would get much more bang for our public dollar focusing on such real, solvable issues right now, rather than trying to prevent the inevitable...

I agree, it is better to focus on achievable goals.

One of the challenges of the "extreme weather" scenario is that you do not know where it will hit or with what. Resilient designs that can withstand a variety of conditions are certainly favoured.

Holistic is the best way to look at this problem. I like to say, "The planet's going to be just fine. Our species, however..."

Most humans live within a few miles of the sea. When sea level rises, there will be problems. Oh, I'm sorry, I meant "adaptations."

Candians may welcome a tropical climate in principle, but there will be a period (only vaguely definable in duration) of "adaptation" as polar bears and belugas die off, to be replaced by pythons and malaria-bearing mosquitoes, etc. The current tropical areas will become unsurvivable deserts, squeezing more humans into less space - more "adaptations."

We are better equipped, both as a species and a civilization, to deal with cold than heat. We can always add a layer, but reach a point fairly quickly where we don't have any more layers to remove.

You forgot about ocean acidification and the possible affects on life as we know it. I personally hope to not be around by the time it happens.

It simply amazes me that people run at the "global warming", "climate change", or whatever title is convenient today in such a serious, scientific way! The real, perhaps unthinkable, unspeakable truth about what is now going on in our so-called global community, is that the bottom line is money! Somehow we have ended up with an unholy alliance between crooks in government and radicals that believe in progressive socialism! The government crooks lick their chops when they think about the trillions of dollars to be skimmed off and the oppressive controls to be imposed on the Earths' population in the name of "good" environment, while the mentally imbalanced progressive ideologues see the long awaited chance to redistribute the Earths' wealth, regardless of who produces that wealth! Wake up America, the climate change scam , which global socialists hope will culminate in the forced purchase of so-called "carbon credits is the absolute most lucrative confiscation of private wealth ever dreamed up! Take into consideration where Jeffery Immelt is right now, he is at obamas' elbow , I believe the reason for the GE leaders close relationship with Barrack Obama is because the radical progressive left has planned for General Electric to be the worlds largest purveyor of "carbon credits", worth trillions of dollars! Imagine selling trillions of dollars worth of nothing, carbon credits are "nothing", they are not tangible , they are a figment of the criminal, exploitive mind!

I think it is time for everyone to re-educate themselves on the subject by looking at these: 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 and 7 and 8 and 9. Numbers 1 & 3 has some very nice graphs from samples taken showing the history of the planet's climate back millions of years ago. Link 2 is the most recent and brings in the issue of water vapor from the heated oceans. Number 6 explains everything in very simple terms (love skepticalscience.com). Number 7 talks about John Everett's claims and explains how he is wrong and what studies (way to many to count) he is ignoring and how he doesn't know how to apply the laws of thermal dynamics. Look at all of them when you get a chance.

Back on subject: climate change (weirding) is going to continue and get worst. The upper atmosphere is going to continue to cool while the lower atmosphere continues to heat. This is going to cause drastic changes in the weather as we and the planet has seen in the past (planetary climate shifts are generally slower than we are seeing now based on the links provided above). For me, Indiana is already going through dramatic shifts. Our spring is wetter and shorter. Our summers are hotter and dryer. Our falls are shorter, hotter, and dryer. Our winters are shorter and wetter. Link 2 above brings up that many areas in the U.S. have had two 500 yr flood events and many 100 yr flood events in a single year.

We (humans) are destroying the environment and have been for centuries. We have put ourselves in the position of planetary guardians by our technology and use of resources at the peril of all other species on this planet. When are we going to get off our high horses and realize that every thing we do has a consequence and how are we going to survive as a species with that consequence? We rely on the species of the oceans and farm lands as food. The consequences of increased ghg's and other air pollutants affect both of our food sources. Once the over-saturation of the ocean kills off most of the algae eating organisms, there will be extreme algal blooms. These algal blooms release sulfur which reacts with water and becomes sulfuric acid. The resulting acid rain will destroy crops and farmlands. This eventually leads to world starvation. I am beginning to believe that such an event may be necessary to change the ways of our species and to create a paradigm shift from greed to a more sustainable approach to life (intentionally not defining it because it is not my expertise).

Note: none of these links go back to Fox fake news and were found through a simple Google search for ocean acidification, climate change or through webinars that I have viewed. I do not post links that don't provide their reference materials and many times, I read the reference materials to determine if I come to the same conclusion of the peer reviewed studies and if the studies have missed anything that is relevant (many studies miss water vapor as a ghg or ocean thermal expansion).

Hmm, it actually appears that figure 3 shows the temperature estimates only back about 450,000 years, and if you actually look at it you will realize there are periods in there where the temperatures spiked higher than they are shown for today. I am not sure that your references are supporting your argument as strongly as you appear to believe.

Actually, figure 3 has a chart of 5 million years, 65 million years, and 540 million year from sediment cores. I just didn't provide a link to each chart that was on the right hand side of the screen in link 3 because I thought people could see them on the screen and follow them on their own. Guess I gave to much credit. I have now provided the links.

Yes, the planet has been warmer and our sun has been warmer, too. Here is a study for 540 m.y. which includes cosmic rays.

Are these new figures provided supposed to support some thesis that the world is suffering a cataclysmic global warming somehow outside of normal parameters as shown in the historical data provided? I am not sure that is what they are showing. Even the 12,000 yr figure shown in 3 shows periods of much higher temperatures only about 7,000 years ago.

BTW they were not on the right side of figure 3 does not show those figures. It shows a 5.5 my one and a 12,000 yr one at the bottom, but I do not see the others on that link.

Ugh, I had a nice long post typed up. All of the links locked up my IE. Here is the only one that recovered. Take some time to search for Robert Alley. He is very knowledgeable on ice cores and the planet's climate history. He has many awards for his work and is one of the most referenced scientists is the field.

I'll read through the links as I can, but I have to comment on using the number of flood events to substantiate any claim on climate change.

1. The recurrence interval for storm and flood events are simply a percent chance of a particular event happening in a given year. A 100 year storm does not mean it only occurs once every hundred years, it means there is a 1% chance to have a storm of that magnitude in a given year. Can you have 2 or three back to back? Absolutely.

2. The time band of data used to determine what these intervals are extremely narrow in the grand scope of "climate change". There is data that goes "all the way back".... to about 100 years ago, but the bulk of the storm data used to generate these recurrence intervals is actually within the last 60 years. Hydrologists and engineers will tell you, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that using 60 years worth of data doesn't paint a perfect picture for the millions of years that the Earth has had storms and floods.

My last sentence goes for all the personal experiences people have.... including shorter summers, more severe storms, wetter winters, or whatever. One lifetime does not paint a picture for global climate change... 60 years isn't even a blink of eye to the life of the planet.

I'm not denouncing climate change, but adding in superlative (and IMO, junk) information only makes your point seem more weak. None the less, as I said, I'll read through it all as I have time. (and thanks for the links!)

I should have left out my own personal recent observations. Although, most Americans, based on polls, will believe in global warming when the local weather is warmer and have disbelief when the local weather is colder.

How profound!

Indeed - and that's the price of miss naming so focusing on 'temperature' and attributing that variation on CO2 alone.

This why you get the somewhat 101 responses like 'it was hotter' back when, without considering how survivable the resulting 'weather violence correction' was that bought the surplus climate energy back to a new balance.

Or basically if you want to get past these shallow grasp circumlocutions, don't call it 'warming'

True and climate change doesn't work any better, because then everyone starts blaming climate change when the local building standards (and enforcement), infrastructure and emergency systems fail, or some climatic event occurs that appears to be the worst they have heard of locally in their 40 years of adult life. People frequently misunderstand the death toll as somehow correlating to the intensity of a natural event such as a hurricane or earthquake. As an example the death toll was far worse in Haiti then Japan (Earthquake wave intensities are readily measurable). However, you have to name anything that must be funded through public resources in a manner that is simple enough for the public to understand and inspires some support purely through the name.

"However, you have to name anything that must be funded through public resources in a manner that is simple enough for the public to understand and inspires some support purely through the name"

Well, actually I think that is the 'height of arrogance' that 'poor communicators' and shonky marketers, resort to.

The public is not holistically 'simple'. Some may be simple all the time ... etcetera, to paraphrase Lincoln, but focusing 'debate' on an 'indicator', not the key concept of 'energy', is dumber. People do grasp 'energy' - well those that drive cars and pay power bills at least.

Ok, I'm not that excited about "Climate Change" either. It leaps to 'dreaded outcome' and adds in a different volume of spurious argument on 'natural cycles' = it's inevitable, so 'we are helpless', so 'what's the point of changing our ways?'

Yes naming is important, so stupid misleading, defocussing names, are more about the lack of clarity of the namers, than lack of 'public smarts'.

More to the point would be directing the 'naming' at how you want people to respond to excessive energy inputs to 'climate' through 200 hundred years of fossil energy waste.

E.g. If the 'slogan' was "Stop Fossil Waste" (and here is the science and climate reasons too) you wouldn't have the ridiculous ideas of burning more coal to make it 'cleaner', or 'greens' resisting - well everything - that could reduce fossil reliance.

Does it require funding "through public resources"? Not really. It's a fossil conversion efficiency issue.

All it requires via government is 'popular awareness' of what is excessively wasteful.

After all the Man component in this is because of the lack of a "War on Waste"

And yet those shonky marketers do far better at getting what they want. It is not arrogant to realize the limitations of your audience. Peoples time is valuable to them, so if you intend to spend a great deal of it you must realize how much value they place on their time and that you are taking that away from them to deal with something that may not reward them in equal value. To offset this you have to entertain them, draw them in, create some interest so they come into with a favorable mindset. If they think it is going to be boring to start with they will lose interest immediately, and stop paying attention sooner, which mean you have even less time to explain a position before you lose your audience. You already are in the awkward position of discussing a topic that even a little detail would exceed most peoples understanding, and when you exceed their understanding they start to lose interest. Many people just won't bother at all, at the name alone would sell it, why do you think partisan politics involves creating names and catch phrases for solely the publicity sake to garner support for their positions, like "death panels" for instance.

BTW stop fossil waste would just sound like we were wasting fossils, wouldn't that be misleading? Since most people equate fossils to old bones.

It's (global warming) convenient to use when corporations are lobbying (paying) for profitable legislation, too! Excellent PR tool. Get the whole "End of the World is Nigh" syndrome going with the media, and you can fast-track any legislation through on the backs of the environmentalist before there is a chance for any substantial research.

WWkayaker-

I have followed your 9 links- I generally do not watch videos because that is the most inefficient way I have found to share information- but one point that needs clarifying- I reference #3, the "records" only go back 450,000 years- about 0.01% of the estimated age of the earth. The period represented does not even extend back to pre-human time frames (which, if one wants to understand human impact on climate, is a must). You will note, from the illustration provided in your link #3, the rate of change we are experiencing today has occurred at least 5 times in "recent" history, and the average temperature of the earth has exceeded the current average temperature by nearly 3 ºC or more at least three times. In fact, looking at your referenced chart, it would appear that human activity over the past 10,000 years has actually acted as a damper on climate change, not an accelerator.

I suggest you have a look at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html, which discusses "natural" climate change with a longer perspective. Also, the original UN climate study included a chapter on paleoclimate that included some intriguing graphs illustrating that 65,000,000 years ago, about the time the dinosaurs went extinct, atmospheric CO₂ concentrations were orders of magnitude greater than anything projected for the near (i.e., end of century) future, the rate of change of CO₂ and average temperature appears to have far exceeded the worst predictions coming out of the climate community. I believe subsequent issues of the UN climate report have "sanitized" this information, because it is inconsistent with the main findings of the Council. A more appropriate illustration of the change of earth's climate over the history of the earth is shown here. (Although this is from Wikipedia, it is consistent with the original UN report information). human effect on the climate, when one takes the longer view, is indistinguishable from random noise.

There was a study done back in the 1990's (unfortunately, I have lost my link to the study) suggesting that human impact on climate has been measurable for the past 5,000 years or more, being the result of extensive deforestation for agricultural purposes. This study was essentially ignored by the UN council, again, because it did not coincide with the political agenda of those driving the process...

"I suggest you have a look at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html, which discusses "natural" climate change " Very campy and very basic. He doesn't evaluate everything as a whole. He has the idea that 1 thing controls everything. His statements "One mechanism proposed as a cause of this decrease in carbon dioxide is that mountain uplift lead to enhanced weathering of silicate rocks, and thus removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. " & "The uplift may have caused both an increase in the global rate of chemical erosion, as well as erode fresh minerals that are rapidly transported to lower elevations, which are warmer and moister and allow chemical weathering to happen more efficiently. " only adds to the links that I provided.

This thread has led me to some interesting reading (and thoughts on your remarks), and the salient points (to my mind) are these:

1. The present Holocene is an "interglacial" period, in which we enjoy some warmer conditions

2. This is likely to be followed by a glacial period, which in geological history is associated with the more serious mass extinction events. So although excess warming can also cause mass extinctions, it may be easier to adapt to than extreme cold

3. To stay on topic, storm frequency and intensity was forecast to increase due to the present warming trend, and the data from the next decade will show if this is correct or not. However in the geological record, it is seismic and volcanic activity that have had truly extreme effects on climate.

H2S produced by volcanic eruptions and by climate change effects on other organisms (large bacterial populations) is hypothesized to have caused or compounded stratospheric ozone thinning and acid rain effects in the past. Biological products can be significant, and we have unwittingly produced some effects on the ozone layer with our industries. Warming associated with our CO2 emissions is forecast to accelerate the effects of CFC's and other halogen ions lingering in the stratosphere. The effects of increased UV radiation are, IMO, far more significant to life conditions than simple warming or cooling trends, or storm frequency. That is because UV can be devastating to keystone species in soil biota, on which the survival of plants/trees/crops may depend.

4. There is evidence that we are already experiencing a "mass extinction" event in the life history of the earth, because the present extinction rate is far in excess of the background extinction rate. The high extinction rate is largely attributed to habitat destruction by human activity. The destruction of forest also affects balance in the natural carbon cycle. Our system is under stress, and according to what I have read, we are primed to be plunged into a serious mass extinction by some unfortunate (most likely seismic or volcanic, not a 'storm') extreme event, or by the inevitable downturn of climate into an ice age. Recovery of diversity after an event like this is on the order of 5 to 10 million years.

5. From an enlightened pov, diversity of complex life forms is in the best interest of our own survival. The concept of stewardship is a higher calling that many people feel. There is a long history of the calling, preserved for example in the tale of Noah's ark. From an ecological perspective, animals evolved as dispersal agents and custodial agents for plants and their biota which offer survival value in return in the virgin habitat opened up by receding glaciers.

The soft bodied human is a creature that needs some clothing and shelter even in optimal climes, and we have used our natural drive and capacity to clothe and shelter, to expand our range and survive in every climate niche on earth. By the same token, we have the capacity to employ those techniques to protect plants and animals in our care, and to maximize the diversity of life which can survive a climate challenge. But we may be late to the party if we don't consider the ways of conserving diversity by restricting our consumption/destruction of natural habitats and especially forests. Could human actions make this a "lesser" extinction event? I think so, and whether this is true or not, it is in our best interests to try.

5. The wide dispersal of humans across the globe indicates that our species is likely to survive the next mass extinction event in some form. We have a very poor history when it comes to survival of culture, however. One dark age after another, seems to be the rule. So I can't help wondering, what will remain of the vast empirical knowledge we have obtained at present only because our population attained such massive proportions and the organization and economic surplus was there to finance the science. This could not have happened with a small human population or a minimal 'footprint' culture.

The weather extremes forecast for warming trend may be somewhat challenging to the economy, but will it be sufficient to cause the collapse of our present cultural model? It seems likely that bigger scale catastrophes caused by volcanic and seismic activity will have the larger impact.

artsmith-

Your comments most definitely are not off topic, and are very insightful. Your contributions are valuable.