Haiyan and Climate Change

right because typhoons never occurred in the past

Shameful attempt to profit from a tragedy

 

Like most of these discussions one incident certainly isn't indicative of a trend and in the case of looking at storm intensities and frequencies still seems pretty tenuous.

That said you don't need to look at storms to show that global warming is happening. There are many changes to the arctic areas and in places like the Philippines regarding sea level and coral bleaching.

 

Is there conclusive evidence storms were stronger when the Earth was hotter?

 

Not sure, but it makes scientific sense. Warmer temperatures lead to warmer oceans, and storm's draw their strength from warm water.

 

The climate change debate has been perverted by the politically derived connotations that anthropogenic climate change is morally wrong. Warming is now morally wrong, and anyone who opposes efforts to change the warming trend is therefore morally wrong.

As I have said in the past, the debate does not center on whether CO2, CH4 and HCFCs can lead to global warming, but is instead focused on specific things like linking CO2 to the oil industry.

 

Katrina and Rita were results of global warming. It was predicted we would start seeing more of these superstorms.

While I am not one who completely pretend global warming doesn't exist, its just disgusting how people capitalize on these tragedies with no scientific basis.

 

Huh?

Will if you consider negative affects such as population dislocation, disruptions to agriculture and water availability moral then yes you might have a point.

There is a scientific debate that is pretty much over regarding whether Greenhouse gases actual lead to warming (they do). There is a policy debate though that necessarily focuses on things like the oil industry since that is an area where human action is contributing to the increase in global warming.

 

If you can find some solid research that proves the bolded I'll be happy to read it, but I don't think it exists. Further, the hurricane predictions have been horribly inaccurate.

We have only been keeping decent data of storm intensity for about 40 years. If you can find research that clearly shows that storm intensity has increased over that time period please show me because I can't find it.

 

When the Phillipines becomes the economic powerhouse of the world, they can b****. Until then, **** them. Just a former colony begging for cash.

 

..... edit...

 

That is my point. The lefties were ready to pass all kinds of legislation in the name of natural disasters that had no scientific backing. To them, everything is a sign of global warming, whether its a powerful storm, too cold, too hot, too perfect.
I do believe it exists, but I do not know to what extend. Passing needless legislation will not fix the problem.

 

Here's a pretty educational report about global warming's current effect on Atlantic Hurricanes, and how it will affect hurricanes in the future.

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

 

From the link:

Sounds like a sample size issue. It does stand to reason that holding 60 years worth of data against 10,000 and 100,000 year cycles makes it very difficult to distinguish the effects of AGW. And then it is that much more difficult to distinguished if they are good or bad.

 

Space Ghost is right. There was more of this handwringing after Sandy about future powerful storms...only this year, there hasn't been a single major hurricane which has hit the US, and I believe it's been the quietest in a long time.

I certainly believe in AGW and its effects, but hurricanes are just a silly way of measuring it.

 

The handwringing wasn't just about the frequency and power of storms but also about sea level rise and how that adds to storm driven flooding.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...-likelihood-of-sandy-level-floods-in-nyc.html

 

Profit how? Who is profiting from climate change?

 

Politicians, science community, many big-business industries providing carbon reduction technologies, etc. MANY interests profit from perpetuating the notion that climate change is a danger...

 

It is generally accepted by the scientific community that an upward trend in global temperature is a danger.

 

And the renewable energy push is creating some amazing technologies. We are on the verge of some major developments in battery technology because of it. This may sound trivial but there haven't been any major battery changes in decades and it would have wide ranging applications.

I do agree with your irritation about people using climate change as an excuse for things when it isn't valid. But are there any drawbacks pushing for more efficient, less polluting, and less invasive energy sources?