Blue Mass Group

Discuss

1. tropical rain in a warmer climate

   (0+ / 0-) View voters

   No voters yet.

   Courtesy Jeff Master’s blog:

   Hurricane rains and climate change

   Hurricanes are expected to dump 20% more rain in their cores by the year 2100, according to modeling studies (Knutson et al., 2010). This occurs since a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor, which can then condense into heavier rains. Furthermore, the condensation process releases heat energy (latent heat), which invigorates the storm, making its updrafts stronger and creating even more rain. We may already be seeing an increase in rainfall from hurricanes due to a warmer atmosphere. A 2010 study by Kunkel et al. “Recent increases in U.S. heavy precipitation associated with tropical cyclones”, found that although there is no evidence for a long-term increase in North American mainland land-falling tropical cyclones (which include both hurricanes and tropical storms), the number of heavy precipitation events, defined as 1-in-5-year events, more than doubled between 1994 – 2008, compared to the long-term average from 1895 – 2008. As I discussed in a 2011 post “Tropical Storm Lee’s flood in Binghamton: was global warming the final straw?”, an increase in heavy precipitation events in the 21st Century due to climate change is going to be a big problem for a flood control system designed for the 20th Century’s climate.

   jasiu   @   Sat 27 Oct 7:43 AM
   

2. Misplaced hysteria

   (0+ / 1-) View voters

   Disapproved by: Christopher.
   

   I am disappointed that the media generates an amazing amount of hysteria about upcoming storms like Sandy, while staying virtually silent about global climate change — and our role in forcing it. One element of collateral damage from this misplaced hysteria is growing cynicism about climate change — our weather forecasters nag us to bring umbrellas and boots, instead of a “rainy day” we have a “severe weather warning”, and of course we have these spectacular fire-drills, yet that same media says NOTHING about climate change during an election campaign. So long as our happy-face “news” readers characterize a 75 degree day in January as “beautiful”, then their hysteria about storms like Sandy will ring hollow.

   I welcome research, after the fact, that explores whether climate change played a role in strengthening Sandy — once we have some concrete data about just how intense the storm actually is. For now, I would prefer if we could all take a deep breath and see what actually happens.

   I remind all of us that if climate change becomes an issue in this, or for that matter the next, election, we Democrats are about as culpable as the GOP. We held the House, the Senate, and the White House, and did essentially nothing about climate change. President Obama shamelessly flogs oil, gas, and coal production as flagrantly as the GOP.

   So long as we insist on delusional thinking about climate change (such as that we can make the needed changes without major investments and sacrifice), then we are in no position to accuse the GOP of being deniers — at least they’re open about their insanity.

   somervilletom   @   Sat 27 Oct 9:21 AM
   

3. Never enough

   (1+ / 0-) View voters

   Recommended by: stomv.
   

   No matter how much the amount of moisture and energy increases in the atmosphere, and no matter how much the frequency of devastating ‘freak’ storms and ‘hundred-year’ floods increases, we will continue to hear the claim that is has nothing to do with the climate disruption we are causing because we want someone else to pay for the cost of the carbon we are dumping into the atmosphere. Democrats could and must do a lot more, but Republicans through their almost uniform determination to block any meaningful action represent a clear and present danger to the environment of the only planet we have.

   historian   @   Sat 27 Oct 11:39 AM
   

4. Not being an expert on any of this,

   (0+ / 0-) View voters

   No voters yet.

   it seems to me that it’s largely about probabilities. Can one confidently say that the highly unusual combination of events that may turn Sandy into Frankenstorm would have happened even without human activity leading to climate change? No, of course not. But I think one can safely say that the likelihood of that combination of events coming about, given what we know about climate change, is higher than it would otherwise have been. That also means that more freak storms are likely to occur in the future than otherwise would have.

   It’s always difficult to make the case that things would be different in an alternate reality (that’s in part what has made the president’s job so tough – he’s had to argue that things would have been much worse economically had he not done what he did, but that’s hard to prove). So the climate deniers have the easier task. Which is damned unfortunate.

   david   @   Sat 27 Oct 12:19 PM