Katrina-level storm surges have more than doubled due to global warming

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 2:08 PM GMT on March 25, 2013

Since 1923, there has been a ‘Katrina’ magnitude storm surge every 20 years, according to a storm surge index developed by Aslak Grinsted, an assistant professor at the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute. The index uses data from six tide gauges along the U.S. coast from Texas to New Jersey from 1923 - 2011, and is part of a statistical model that links global temperatures to the risk of Katrina-level storm surges. Because of global warming, Katrina-magnitude storm surge events have now more than doubled in frequency since the late 1800s, Grinsted and colleagues argue, in research published in March 2013 in the scientific journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS). Their statistical model found that an increase of 0.4°C in global temperatures was sufficient to double the odds of Katrina-magnitude storm surges. Since global temperatures have risen 0.6°C since the late 1800s, "we have already crossed the threshold where more than half of all ‘Katrinas’ are due to global warming,” said Grinsted in a press release. Projecting into the future, the model predicts that if the global climate warms as expected by 2°C before the end of the century, Katrina-level storm surge events will become ten times more common, and a Katrina-level surge will occur, on average, every 2 years, instead of every 20 years. Since sea level is steadily rising due to global warming, these future storm surges will also be riding in on top of an elevated ocean surface, and will thus be able to do even greater damage than in the past. Since this is a simple statistical model, I am hopeful that the relationship Grinsted at al. found might break down as the climate warms, due to unexpected changes in hurricane tracks, wind shear, etc. However, this high-end consequence of global warming is quite possible, and is something coastal planners should should consider, particularly since the U.S. population living along the coast is expected to grow from 123 million in 2010 to 134 million people by 2020, according to a NOAA report issued on March 25. We need to retreat from barrier islands highly vulnerable to storm surge, and invest in significantly improved shoreline protection measures in the coming decades.


Figure 1. High water marks on East Ship Island, Mississippi, after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Katrina brought the highest storm surge ever recorded on the U.S. coast, 27.8' at Pass Christian, MS. Left image: Bark stripped off a tree with salt-burned pine trees in the background (note the 25 ft (7.65 m) long survey rod for scale). Right: Massive beach and over wash erosion illustrated by damaged and snapped pine trees along the beach. Arrows show the the high water mark left by the storm surge. Image credit: Fritz et al., 2007, "Hurricane Katrina storm surge distribution and field observations on the Mississippi Barrier Islands" (PDF File), Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science (2007), doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2007.03.015.


Figure 2. Number of Katrina magnitude surge events per decade for the past and future computed using gridded global temperatures and a statistical model relating global temperatures to storm surges. Confidence intervals of 5% and 16% are shown in the lighter blue colors. Image credit: Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen.

References
Grinsted, A., J. C. Moore, and S. Jevrejeva, 2012, "A homogeneous record of Atlantic hurricane surge threat since 1923," PNAS 2012, doi:10.1073/pnas.1209542109

Grinsted, A., J. C. Moore, and S. Jevrejeva, 2012, "Projected Atlantic hurricane surge threat from rising temperatures" PNAS March 18, 2013 201209980, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1209980110

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Log In or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 542 - 492

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20Blog Index

Quoting Levi32:
521.

I don't care at all for this language:

"Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years"

When every official dataset shows a dramatic slowing of the increase in atmospheric global temperature during the last 15 years, to say that the claim of a short-term deceleration in warming is a myth? Such obvious contempt hardly makes the authors sound professional. The paper suggests they themselves have only just discovered "where the heat went." Thus, maybe they shouldn't be criticizing others for not finding it first?

That aside, if the paper's data is sound, it's a great illustration of how the ocean modulates the atmosphere's heat content and can "hide" heat deep down, thereby affecting the climate.


The atmosphere is but one aspect of our globe. When the oceans are still warming while the atmosphere has warmed less during the same time interval, is this not still a global warming? "When you take away our oceans, what do have? Very little global warming". Is this a scientific approach to understanding global climate?



Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 5225
Quoting ScottLincoln:

No. Maybe 20-30 years ago, but not today. I think you might want to review what the term "hypothesis" means to scientists.


links?

Here is one, The Discovery of Global Warming

"Since 2001, greatly improved computer models and an abundance of data of many kinds strengthened the conclusion that human emissions are very likely to cause serious climate change." Ah, if I am generous on the definition of fact, you were off by 8-18 years...

"In 2007 the IPCC reported that scientists were more confident than ever that humans were changing the climate. Although only a small fraction of the predicted warming had happened so far..." Now a fact?

My 18-year child likes to remind us that in Science there are no 'facts' as we like to think of them. In other words, a truth that is unchangeable. That is where you cross over in to belief.

From the other link,
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

That as good as it gets.

To clarify my earlier comments....
* Earth is warming, fact
* That man is contributing to climate change?, less fact, but yeah the theories and models line up, fact
* That it we know how to reverse it? Ummm...have not see it demonstrated yet, I am going with Hypothesis
* Exactly was the results will be? The models are all over the place, a bunch of hypotheses.



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting DFWdad:


No, they are just hedging there bets, and waiting for someone else to jump in first so they don't look silly.

Are we sure enough about sea-level increase, due to Climate Change,:
* To put signs on the coast warning residents of how high the sea at a future specified time?
* To require disclosures on coastal property transactions warning of future sea-levels?
* that insurance companies started putting 'sea-level change' riders/adjustments on their policies?

I think the debate feels like Hype right now because:
* It is a sure bet right now to get good ratings on your TV program/channel, magazine, web-site, if you harp on this topic, and the more dire results the better. (everyone loves a train-wreck?)
* It is probably easy money to get funding grants to try to analyze this event, predict the future, and find ways to prevent. (We need to do this, but at some point, when we are sure enough, we need to divert some of this money to preparing for the dire results.)

It seems like we are not at the point yet where the money-trail points beyond hype.



Hedging their bets? In what sense? And what makes you think that they do not already look silly?

"Are we sure enough about sea-level increase, due to Climate Change,"

Yes, but this is not hedging their bets. This is their betting that they will either be out of office or dead before the worst is to come. This is a fairly safe bet, considering the age of many of our elected officials. The sea level will not rise by 3' before the end of this decade.

"I think the debate feels like Hype right now because:"

Hype? TV ratings? When people are trying to tell that that there is an out of control train heading down the tracks that you are standing on, do you simply reply back to them, "That is a lot of hype! I do not even see a train! I only see the tracks that I am on and these tracks have always been here. I am staying put right where I am! Now go away! You are bothering me!". ... Ignorance may be bliss, but why do so many seem to consider it to be a virtue?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 5225
Quoting AGWcreationists:
...it's not too hard to ignore the alarms about something as abstract to them as global warming.
The disappearance of Arctic sea ice is not abstract. Neither are deep, blistering heat waves and droughts. Neither are massive floods, disappearing species, desertification of agricultural lands, ocean acidification, and so on. The tens of billions of dollars in damage and thousands of deaths caused by the growing number and ferocity of warming-enhanced extreme weather events over the past few decades are very real and very tangible, and are thus becoming increasingly impossible to ignore. In fact, doing so requires quite a bit of stubbornness and effort, coupled with an abiding ideological blindness.

Some speak as though an either/or proposition is being offered, a six-of-one-half-dozen-of-the-other balance: either we deal with climate change, or we concentrate on jobs. I contend that's a severely faulty equivalence; I contend that if we don't recognize that climate change is our most pressing issue and start dealing with it as such, we'll have problems far, far worse than jobs, spending, or entitlement reform. And more importantly, a growing number of scientists are making that same contention.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Fugate: Plan now for flood insurance rate hikes

Excerpt:

Craig Fugate says some people now paying hundreds of dollars a year could wind up paying thousands of dollars a year. That's because Congress has ordered the program to pay for itself.
Member Since: September 23, 2005 Posts: 21 Comments: 12548
MesoWest Jurupa Valley CA US SGXWFO, Riverside, California (PWS)
Updated: 11:49 AM PDT on March 26, 2013
Haze
69 °F
Haze
Humidity: 55%
Dew Point: 52 °F
Wind: 3 mph Variable
Wind Gust: 7.0 mph
Pressure: 29.91 in (Falling)
Visibility: 6.0 miles
UV: 8 out of 16
Pollen: 9.00 out of 12
Pollen Forecast new!
Clouds:
Few 25000 ft
(Above Ground Level)
Elevation: 794 ft

Forecast is 76. Airport is 68F, 68.8 here.....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ScottLincoln:


Actually, it isn't the paper that does that - scientists have already known that the lower troposphere is not the only reservoir of heat energy in the climate system. This paper just illustrated that known fact much more clearly, and added something quantitative.


Sorry, I should have said, "the article" instead of "the study". My mistake.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 6 Comments: 6037
Quoting Levi32:
521.
I don't care at all for this language:

"Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years"

When every official dataset shows a dramatic slowing of the increase in atmospheric global temperature during the last 15 years, to say that the claim of a short-term deceleration in warming is a myth? Such obvious contempt hardly makes the authors sound professional.


Global warming is the accumulation of heat in the climate system. The climate system includes more than just the atmosphere - it also includes the cyrosphere and the oceans. The oceans and cryosphere hold more heat than the lower atmosphere ,which is measured the most and is the source of most temperature data used to illustrate global warming. If the lower troposphere slows in its rate of warming but the cryosphere and the oceans increase in their rate of warming (which has been observed), then the heat energy of the climate system will have accelerated in it's upward trend. As someone who studies an area of meteorology so closely tied to the oceans, I'm actually quite surprised by your comment. It is also worth noting that I believe you are commenting on a statement made by the report on the journal article, instead of the article itself.

Climate scientists have known for several years now that the earth was still accumulating heat. It was also shown that when natural factors that show apparent cooling and warming on near-surface temperature trends were removed, the warming trend was still there, and had not changed. So yes, it was a myth that global warming had "slowed" or "stopped."
Quoting Naga5000:


All this study does is shows that air temperature isn't the only measurement of a warming world and that Ocean Heat Content also needs to be considered before making any claims about a slow down in warming.

Actually, it isn't the paper that does that - scientists have already known that the lower troposphere is not the only reservoir of heat energy in the climate system. This paper just illustrated that known fact much more clearly, and added something quantitative.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3529
Quoting Levi32:
521.

I don't care at all for this language:

"Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years"

When every official dataset shows a dramatic slowing of the increase in atmospheric global temperature during the last 15 years, to say that the claim of a short-term deceleration in warming is a myth? Such obvious contempt hardly makes the authors sound professional. The paper suggests they themselves have only just discovered "where the heat went." Thus, maybe they shouldn't be criticizing others for not finding it first?

That aside, if the paper's data is sound, it's a great illustration of how the ocean modulates the atmosphere's heat content and can "hide" heat deep down, thereby modulating the climate.



Nor is it professional to make a claim that 15 years qualifies as statistically significant for a non-normal distribution, which is what many have tried to proclaim. All this study does is shows that air temperature isn't the only measurement of a warming world and that Ocean Heat Content also needs to be considered before making any claims about a slow down in warming. The paper itself is, of course, lacking the aggressive language.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 6 Comments: 6037
Feels like summer in Puerto Rico and adjacent islands.

.CLIMATE...SO FAR THE MAXIMUM HIGH TEMPERATURE OF 92 DEGREES TODAY
HAS TIED THE DAILY RECORD SET AT THE LUIS MUNOZ MARIN AIRPORT SAN
JUAN/P.R. IN 1984.
Member Since: April 29, 2009 Posts: 75 Comments: 16626
Quoting ScottLincoln:

A good start would be for our elected leaders to actually pay attention to what polls say of the majority of U.S. citizens. Heck, even having congressional representation match closely to vote totals would be a nice start...
Well, there is an underlying problem there. Namely, the gap between those who think global warming is an issue and those who think global warming is a far more pressing issue than others in the political agenda such as jobs, entitlements and spending.

And it tracks similar to the conflicts many taxpayers have about spending. They want spending reduced as long as their pet programs are not impacted. Which means political support for effective spending reduction is neutered.

Likewise, many people will be fine with little baby steps on carbon emissions but will recoil at any demand that they make significant lifestyle changes - or bear significant costs - to reduce their carbon footprint.

It basically is not a serious age on many, many levels. If voters can ignore the oncoming fiscal train wreck that is the Medicare/Social Security funding gap, it's not too hard to ignore the alarms about something as abstract to them as global warming.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting trHUrrIXC5MMX:
Now that is a very interesting point Sky just brought up...
the depth of water temperature is different from the surface than at 500', 1000' or 2000' with respects to La nina or el nino. Also the extend of coverage plays a role determining the strength of it.


We learn new things about weather every day.
Member Since: April 29, 2009 Posts: 75 Comments: 16626
521.

I don't care at all for this language:

"Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years"

When every official dataset shows a dramatic slowing of the increase in atmospheric global temperature during the last 15 years, to say that the claim of a short-term deceleration in warming is a myth? Such obvious contempt hardly makes the authors sound professional. The paper suggests they themselves have only just discovered "where the heat went." Thus, maybe they shouldn't be criticizing others for not finding it first?

That aside, if the paper's data is sound, it's a great illustration of how the ocean modulates the atmosphere's heat content and can "hide" heat deep down, thereby affecting the climate.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
more snow!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting txjac:


I agree but it needs to be explained in better terms. I've attempted to wade through some articles but sometimes unless you are a scientist its not easy. Spend a lot of time looking up words or reserching and wind up getting frustrated.


Edit ...just thought there should be a "climate change for dummies" book ...went to google and there is! Guess I'll start with these


txjac

I am not a scientist and it has been over 40 years since I have taken any science related classes. I have ventured into other areas of self study and I have found, no matter the subject, the key to understanding what you are trying to learn is to first learn the terminology associated with the subject. Sailing, for example, uses a lot of terminology that is pretty specific to sailing. Without understanding the terminology associated with sailing you will spend a great deal of time trying to have conversations that they either do not know what you are trying to say or you cannot understand what they are telling you. Should you not understand the difference between port and starboard then you can spend a great deal of time stranded on a sandbar. However, once you have learned the terminology, you can easily join in conversations and understand what is being said. Knowing the terminology is key to being able to understand the conversation and to learn from it. This, at least, has always been my experience.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 5225
Quoting DFWdad:
It is less sure, really bordering on 'Hypothesis' what is causing Climate Change

No. Maybe 20-30 years ago, but not today. I think you might want to review what the term "hypothesis" means to scientists.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3529
Now that is a very interesting point Sky just brought up...
the depth of water temperature is different from the surface than at 500', 1000' or 2000' with respects to La nina or el nino. Also the extend of coverage plays a role determining the strength of it.
Member Since: April 23, 2011 Posts: 104 Comments: 14876
Quoting VR46L:



ehh??

Igor retired ??

Why??


Igor was the worst tropical cyclone to impact Newfoundland on record.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting DFWdad:


I believe 'the debate is over' regarding whether our climate is changing. By these definitions, see Link, I accept that 'the climate has been warming' as a 'fact'. Dr. Masters has convinced me, by providing study after study based on scientific observations, that it is occurring.

I also accept as 'fact' that the Earth has warmed and cooled before.

It is less sure, really bordering on 'Hypothesis' what is causing Climate Change, what the remedies are, and how successful we could be.

That's why I am focused more on preparing our descendants for the results.


The Earth has indeed warmed and cooled before, but not at the rate we are seeing now. That's one large difference.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 6 Comments: 6037
Quoting Naga5000:


The problem is the "debate" is actually a false one. It is completely constructed with no basis in reality. In the science community, the debate simply does not exist. You are right about the hype now, and that is totally the media's fault. Why give a public forum to those who deny the science and try to debunk it with bad math and unfounded correlations? Because the debate sells, it keeps people divided and talking, and turns it into an us vs. them issue. I find the whole thing to be rather sad.


I believe 'the debate is over' regarding whether our climate is changing. By these definitions, see Link, I accept that 'the climate has been warming' as a 'fact'. Dr. Masters has convinced me, by providing study after study based on scientific observations, that it is occurring.

I also accept as 'fact' that the Earth has warmed and cooled before.

It is less sure, really bordering on 'Hypothesis' what is causing Climate Change, what the remedies are, and how successful we could be.

That's why I am focused more on preparing our descendants for the results.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
only ecmwf fun is at 192hrs. we'll see

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
521. Skyepony (Mod)
New paper out totaling the ocean heat at all depths, concluding global warming has accelerated. Blames the more La Nina events lately (which recent papers blame on solar cycle max) & the neg PDO for mixing the oceans more..

some main points.. whole article is here..

Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years. This is because about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been warming dramatically.

As suspected, much of the 'missing heat' Kevin Trenberth previously talked about has been found in the deep oceans. Consistent with the results of Nuccitelli et al. (2012), this study finds that 30% of the ocean warming over the past decade has occurred in the deeper oceans below 700 meters, which they note is unprecedented over at least the past half century.

Some recent studies have concluded based on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade that the sensitivity of the climate to the increased greenhouse effect is somewhat lower than the IPCC best estimate. Those studies are fundamentally flawed because they do not account for the warming of the deep oceans.

The slowed surface air warming over the past decade has lulled many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security.




Ocean Heat Content from 0 to 300 meters (grey), 700 m (blue), and total depth (violet) from ORAS4, as represented by its 5 ensemble members. The time series show monthly anomalies smoothed with a 12-month running mean, with respect to the 1958–1965 base period. Hatching extends over the range of the ensemble members and hence the spread gives a measure of the uncertainty as represented by ORAS4 (which does not cover all sources of uncertainty). The vertical colored bars indicate a two year interval following the volcanic eruptions with a 6 month lead (owing to the 12-month running mean), and the 1997–98 El Niño event again with 6 months on either side. On lower right, the linear slope for a set of global heating rates (W/m2) is given.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
dumps more snow in midwest



ohio valley and NE

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting LargoFl:
listen folks..all this talk aout climate change and what can we do about it....remember back..when science was messing around with atoms..what happened?...Hirosima BOOM......what do you THINK..will happen when Man finds out HOW to control weather?....YOU trust them i surely do NOT


We aren't trying to control the weather, we are trying to restore the equilibrium in the climate system.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 6 Comments: 6037
found this next week
maybe MCS squall line sinking south into TN/MS/AL/GA
possibly iso tornadoes.











Member Since: Posts: Comments:
listen folks..all this talk aout climate change and what can we do about it....remember back..when science was messing around with atoms..what happened?...Hirosima BOOM......what do you THINK..will happen when Man finds out HOW to control weather?....YOU trust them i surely do NOT
Member Since: August 6, 2011 Posts: 7 Comments: 66127
Quoting txjac:


I agree but it needs to be explained in better terms. I've attempted to wade through some articles but sometimes unless you are a scientist its not easy. Spend a lot of time looking up words or reserching and wind up getting frustrated.


I agree, and this is a huge problem. As of 2005, only 22% of Americans had a bachelor's degree. So how can we realistically expect the average person to be able to read and comprehend sophisticated research papers written at a grade level and using jargon that goes over the average person's head? (Please don't mistake this as an attack on those without degrees or calling the masses dumb). There are some amazing studies out there on this very issue when it comes to children trying to learn from text books that are written above their grade level of comprehension. I don't know what the solution is here, but you brought up a very interesting and real issue that may be responsible for at least some aspects of the denying of climate science, or science in general for that matter.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 6 Comments: 6037
Quoting FLwolverine:
Not too late but very very expensive to acquire all that privately held property. But maybe after several horrific storms and storm surges, the property values will go down and people will want to donate the land for a tax deduction. Not that I'm wishing storms and destruction on anyone - far from it - but that's what is being projected.
yes maybe parcel by parcel along the coastline, is the property is destroyed by storms it should be turned into parkland, the owners would have collected insurance and perhaps the town,city or state govt gives them some compensation..well perhaps that IS the future
Member Since: August 6, 2011 Posts: 7 Comments: 66127
Quoting DFWdad:


No, they are just hedging there bets, and waiting for someone else to jump in first so they don't look silly.

Are we sure enough about sea-level increase, due to Climate Change,:
* To put signs on the coast warning residents of how high the sea at a future specified time?
* To require disclosures on coastal property transactions warning of future sea-levels?
* that insurance companies started putting 'sea-level change' riders/adjustments on their policies?

I think the debate feels like Hype right now because:
* It is a sure bet right now to get good ratings on your TV program/channel, magazine, web-site, if you harp on this topic, and the more dire results the better. (everyone loves a train-wreck?)
* It is probably easy money to get funding grants to try to analyze this event, predict the future, and find ways to prevent. (We need to do this, but at some point, when we are sure enough, we need to divert some of this money to preparing for the dire results.)

It seems like we are not at the point yet where the money-trail points beyond hype.



The problem is the "debate" is actually a false one. It is completely constructed with no basis in reality. In the science community, the debate simply does not exist. You are right about the hype now, and that is totally the media's fault. Why give a public forum to those who deny the science and try to debunk it with bad math and unfounded correlations? Because the debate sells, it keeps people divided and talking, and turns it into an us vs. them issue. I find the whole thing to be rather sad.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 6 Comments: 6037
513. txjac
Quoting Naga5000:


Public opinion only gets you so far. For political change to occur, we need elected officials in the appropriate committees that not only reflect public opinion, but also actually understand and accept the science itself. There lies the disconnect. So to get back to your first question, more pressure on officials due to a larger majority supporting the science needs happen. So while you say we are yelling through a bull horn, maybe we are, but that's how social movements put pressure on governments. We don't have the millions of dollars to lobby to congress, our lobby is our voices en masse...the more the better.


I agree but it needs to be explained in better terms. I've attempted to wade through some articles but sometimes unless you are a scientist its not easy. Spend a lot of time looking up words or reserching and wind up getting frustrated.


Edit ...just thought there should be a "climate change for dummies" book ...went to google and there is! Guess I'll start with these
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting washingtonian115:
So let's say I don't beleive in G.W or refuse to?.

Am I retarded then according to you?.I'm getting that impression from you..

You can't make people beleive in what you want them to beleive unless they choose to believe it.I educate my children that the world is changing and such but if they choose to not beleive it does that mean they are retarded?.
If you taught your children the world was changing ( which I assume you are doing because you see the changes), what is your reaction when they don't believe you? Of course you don't think they are retarded. Do you think you need to try harder in your teaching? Do you think they can't bear the thought of the changes? Do you think they just don't want to understand?

That's kind of how many of us feel when people refuse to even look at, much less accept, the science that proves global warming.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting allahgore:


The latest polls show the majority of people understanding climate change. What's next? What's the plan?


Public opinion only gets you so far. For political change to occur, we need elected officials in the appropriate committees that not only reflect public opinion, but also actually understand and accept the science itself. There lies the disconnect. So to get back to your first question, more pressure on officials due to a larger majority supporting the science needs happen. So while you say we are yelling through a bull horn, maybe we are, but that's how social movements put pressure on governments. We don't have the millions of dollars to lobby to congress, our lobby is our voices en masse...the more the better.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 6 Comments: 6037
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Well, this often said, "Why don't our elected officials listen to their constituents?".

Until we, the voters, stop electing officials that turn a blind eye to the what the science tells us, then we cannot muster the political will needed to make the changes that will be required. The longer this is delayed, the more likely it will be forced upon us as a knee jerk reaction to a problem that can be intelligently approached. The time left for reasoned approaches is running down and we still have enough elected officials that will counter any well reasoned approaches to the problems that we all will face.


No, they are just hedging there bets, and waiting for someone else to jump in first so they don't look silly.

Are we sure enough about sea-level increase, due to Climate Change,:
* To put signs on the coast warning residents of how high the sea at a future specified time?
* To require disclosures on coastal property transactions warning of future sea-levels?
* that insurance companies started putting 'sea-level change' riders/adjustments on their policies?

I think the debate feels like Hype right now because:
* It is a sure bet right now to get good ratings on your TV program/channel, magazine, web-site, if you harp on this topic, and the more dire results the better. (everyone loves a train-wreck?)
* It is probably easy money to get funding grants to try to analyze this event, predict the future, and find ways to prevent. (We need to do this, but at some point, when we are sure enough, we need to divert some of this money to preparing for the dire results.)

It seems like we are not at the point yet where the money-trail points beyond hype.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting VR46L:
@ all the people who responded I honestly didn't realize that it was retired . and was extremely surprised .

I perfered his little sister Jules a sweet Cane
I think it was the worst hurricane in Newfoundland and it cause 200millions dollars in damage.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Gearsts:
And what do you think for us here in the islands and tropical activity?


For us it all depends on how is the ridge positioned and how strong it is to cause systems to threat the NE Caribbean islands. I guess we will have to wait until June or July to see a definite pattern and know more if we will have threats.
Member Since: April 29, 2009 Posts: 75 Comments: 16626
Quoting LargoFl:
I know this sounds mean, but all along the whole coastline of the usa, ALL the low lying lands should be US park lands..but its too late now for THAT to happen..people LOVE to live right on the waters edge
Not too late but very very expensive to acquire all that privately held property. But maybe after several horrific storms and storm surges, the property values will go down and people will want to donate the land for a tax deduction. Not that I'm wishing storms and destruction on anyone - far from it - but that's what is being projected.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ScottLincoln:

A good start would be for our elected leaders to actually pay attention to what polls say of the majority of U.S. citizens. Heck, even having congressional representation match closely to vote totals would be a nice start...


As long as you have multi-millionaires and billionaires as leaders, none of them will get anything done. And for that...deeper down the rabbit hole we go.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Tropicsweatherpr:
Here is the december JB's outlook. I imagine that very soon he will do his next one.



Link
And what do you think for us here in the islands and tropical activity?
Member Since: August 2, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 5649
Quoting trHUrrIXC5MMX:


how about this one...since you mention deaths

Gordon 1994


1,147 deaths!!!
$514 million in damages

DID NOT GET RETIRED! why?

Even though most of the deaths occurred in Haiti (over 1,100), they did not send a representative to the WMO meeting next spring to have that name retired.
If it were retired back then, there should have been another name for 2000, 2006 and 2012 G name


Gordon dumped 5" to 15" of rain across E C FL. I was in middle school then and I remember the flooding being severe as Lake Monroe flooded into Downtown Sanford.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting allahgore:


The latest polls show the majority of people understanding climate change. What's next? What's the plan?

A good start would be for our elected leaders to actually pay attention to what polls say of the majority of U.S. citizens. Heck, even having congressional representation match closely to vote totals would be a nice start...
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3529
So unusual... me no likey.


Member Since: July 18, 2010 Posts: 52 Comments: 2015
501. Thrawst
6:00 PM GMT on March 26, 2013
Quoting HurrikanEB:


Retirement is specific to the damages inflicted on the local area... Generally, Juan (2003) is regarded as Canada's most destructive hurricane in over a century... Igor had the same price tag as Juan. True, $200 million is just a drop in the bucket for the US, but for Canada, Igor was significant.


Really gives everyone a perspective...
Member Since: July 18, 2010 Posts: 52 Comments: 2015
500. SFLWeatherman
5:55 PM GMT on March 26, 2013
FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate and NHC Director Rick Knabb held a joint press conference at the National Hurricane Conference today. The takeaway message: "Don't focus on the skinny black (track) line, don't focus on the category. Focus on the impacts. Each storm is unique
Member Since: May 23, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 5200
499. Some1Has2BtheRookie
5:53 PM GMT on March 26, 2013
Quoting allahgore:


The latest polls show the majority of people understanding climate change. What's next? What's the plan?


Well, this often said, "Why don't our elected officials listen to their constituents?".

Until we, the voters, stop electing officials that turn a blind eye to the what the science tells us, then we cannot muster the political will needed to make the changes that will be required. The longer this is delayed, the more likely it will be forced upon us as a knee jerk reaction to a problem that can be intelligently approached. The time left for reasoned approaches is running down and we still have enough elected officials that will counter any well reasoned approaches to the problems that we all will face.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 5225
498. Tropicsweatherpr
5:52 PM GMT on March 26, 2013
Here is the December JB's outlook. I imagine that very soon he will do his next one.



Link
Member Since: April 29, 2009 Posts: 75 Comments: 16626
496. nrtiwlnvragn
5:37 PM GMT on March 26, 2013
Quoting trHUrrIXC5MMX:
Important note...

In the second week of April the World Meteorological organization will announce which names of the 2012 Hurricane season are going to be retired.

My thinking...

Sandy - definitely!
Isaac - possible (not entirely sure)
any other has a low chance


Sandy pretty much a given since RSMC Miami has already requested the retirement.

Item #5 of this WORD doc
Member Since: September 23, 2005 Posts: 21 Comments: 12548
495. VR46L
5:34 PM GMT on March 26, 2013
@ all the people who responded I honestly didn't realize that it was retired . and was extremely surprised .

I perfered his little sister Jules a sweet Cane
Member Since: March 1, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 7172
494. SPLbeater
5:29 PM GMT on March 26, 2013
Quoting VR46L:



ehh??

Igor retired ??

Why??




Cause it is my favorite hurricane, there will never be another one like it. Thats why :D
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4543
493. Some1Has2BtheRookie
5:29 PM GMT on March 26, 2013
Quoting VR46L:



ehh??

Igor retired ??

Why??



Complicity?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 5225
492. ScottLincoln
5:19 PM GMT on March 26, 2013
Quoting allahgore:


Is there a timeline when you stop yelling in a bull horn that the Earth is warming, the Earth is warming and get busy solving the problem? I have a feeling 5 yrs from now people will be yelling in the bull horn and not do anything about it. Nea you are more than welcome to chime in.

The main issue remains that this was a problem caused collectively and it will require a collective response. A few individuals could live like people from the stone age but it would hardly be a noticeable dent.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3529

Viewing: 542 - 492

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20Blog Index

Top of Page
Ad Blocker Enabled

Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog

About

Dr. Masters co-founded wunderground in 1995. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters 1986-1990. Co-blogging with him: Bob Henson, @bhensonweather

JeffMasters's Recent Photos

Pictured Rocks dunes and clouds
Grizzlies in Lake Clark National Park
Mount Redoubt Lava Dome
Matanuska Glacier