First, if you really want to start at the beginning, read Arrhenius' 1895 paper on the impact of carbonic acid on temperatures. Second, examine the Keeling data on the atmospheric trends on CO2. Then read the AR5 for a summary of the hundreds of thousands of studies bearing out the link between those trends and global temperatures and CO2 and even fairly specific and localized trends. You can take a look at global temperature trends of course:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-surface-temperature Fee figure 1 for example.

I'm sure your data includes historical data. Feel free to plot trends of current temperatures over the last 20 years compared to the historical averages

Do I need to explain the relationship between water temperatures and storm strength? Really?

This notion suggesting there is no relationship between climate and weather is dumb. Guess what? I can look at the climate in the Sahara and safely predict that next July the weather will be very hot and dry. That couldn't be done if there were no lonk

Keep putting words in my mouth and act like I'm a denier and I'm going to stop being patient. That garbage is dumb. I'm looking for concrete information on data from THIS STORM RIGHT NOW that correlates it to climate change. It is hurricane season and the conditions are always more than fair for this kind of event. Show me how THIS STORM is the result of climate change and why Cat 5 hurricanes can't happen this way otherwise.

Hint hint: you should be using data from THIS STORM.

Actually, you don't know that is the case at all. You would have to prove that the high temperatures aren't influenced by climate change


Here is an analogy to help you wrap your head around this: Take the temperature distribution as it has been. It's has a range of lows and highs. Now add a LOT of energy to your atmosphere. It doesn't go away and it doesn't just sometimes influence things and then sometimes vanish. It is there at all times so the entire distribution moves What this means is that every last aspect of weather that would be different with lower temperatures or normal weather patterns (historically) is affected by that change. Those are all proven aspects of climate change

If you want to say that climate change hasn't had an impact, you'd have to show that the energy driving climate change is basically somewhere else. This does happen, for example, when disproportionate amounts of that energy ends up in the deep oceans.

But given that climate change impacts are ubiquitous, you have a very difficult task in proving that a given storm say Irma, would be exactly the same as it is now if the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were below 280 ppm and temperatures globally hadn't risen. When you've got instances where we see that temperatures are persistently higher than historical (and those records go back a long ways and every conceivable correction has already been done because guess what? Scientists have been looking at whether it is historical record bias for decades and corrected for that. You're not a unique genius among humans, sorry to say) then you've got a doubly difficult task to suggest that climate change had nothing to do with it

I doubt very much that climate change hasn't had an impact. I have made that quite clear. I am simply waiting on you to prove your claim that climate change has been driving this hurricane more than, say, hurricane season being hurricane season.

Hurricanes did not exist before the Industrial Revolution. Humankind created hurricanes through excess coal burning which increased ocean temps.

Sources:
The bible: theres no mention of there ever being hurricanes

Or to use the baseball analogy: if everyone starts using steroids or corked bats across the league, you'll still have foul balls and strikeouts, and yes, a lot of homeruns would have been homeruns anyway, but you'd have a hard time pointing to individual homeruns and saying that the steroids or bats had no influence on that homerun

So the better use of your time would be to look at trends, not individual ABs by individual players or even individual storms that form relatively predictably in the Atlantic.

Gotta love the outlandish hypocrisy of liberals

Did I say "more than" anywhere? Nope. And to suggest that things can be so divided suggests you don't understand statistics as a field.

The claim has always been that given that there are always hurricanes, making the temperatures warmer is going to make them stronger and more severe. You'll see more big hurricanes, just as we have.

Mechanistically, we can point to specific warmer temperature anomalies above historical distributions and estimate the relative increase I. Strength of a given hurricane driven by the deviation above expectation.

The onus on the "climate change has nothing to do with this" (your original assertion) to prove that warmer temperatures don't drive stronger hurricanes and that the warmer temperatures in the gulf didn't increase the strength or maisture of Harvey

Did you put that in quotes for dramatic effect or are you just wildly misquoting and intentionally misunderstanding me?

Gotta love the scientific stupidity and savage hatred of all living things and cruelty of conservative pigfucjers

Your re one who said there is no link to climate change.

Thanks for confirming the outlandish hypocrisy in one hateful post :)

So, steroids had nothing to do with all those homeruns records because we need to look only at trends. Right.

You deserve it KB. You'd sell you're own kids into sex slavery for a few bucks

Here is a hint: you should look up the word "hypocrisy" in a dictionary. I realize that would involve educating yourself, which is anathema but it'd probably help you use the English language correctly

Bo. Are water temperatures in the eastern pacific over historical normal?

Simple question.

A simple solution to evaluating Irma is to see what kind of actual damages it causes. Katrina billowed into a cat5 just before landfall and declined to a 3.

Storms dont maintain intensity over land. Any land at all weakens a storm. So even the sheer disruption caused to the storm by lashing puerto rico and cuba by natural means will decrease it to a 4 or 3.

It doesnt look like currents would carry it to the gulf. This could end up being less of an issue than harvey.

Now lets talk about Harvey and why thats a much better example of bizarre formation.

1. Harvey formed off the Yucatan from a small cell of thunderstorms.
2. Harvey formed in under 72 hours and became a Category 4 and slammed texas
3. Harvey was not a tropical storm for more than 24 hours before becoming a hurricane.
4. Harveys formation and path are unique and very rarely has ever happened.
5. Hurricanes tend to take time to form, the right conditions, perfect water temperature and open sea to gain energy. Harvey had none of those conditions.
6. Harvey 5 daya before landfall was a small blip of rain in mexico.

Climate change is-real.
Storms radically forming in places they dont normally is weather displacement caused by global warming.

Examples its burning all up the west coast
Drought and wildfires.
Meanwhile the south is drenched.

Weather displacement is real and is a side effect of global warming.

Remember those crazy winter storms last few years? Where an arctic bubble dips south and causes -21 in chicago and blizzards across the midwest? Meanwhile its 112 in australia same week and forests are burning

Look. THIS STORM developed in THIS ATLARINC OCEAN which has absorbed a LOT of energy. It is warner than it otherwise would. Thus THIS STORM is stronger than it otherwise would be

Not sure why that's so hard to understand

Brainbomb is a lot closer to the right analysis than the "gee we just can't say climate change is a factor"

Bo: "I doubt very much that climate change hasn't had an impact"

Ogion:

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZpE6xMoPRVI/VrQqJHNWORI/AAAAAAAAAEk/wFu26OdSN0U/s1600/StrawMan2.jpg

@Ogion

that is a DIRECT quote from bo.

your problem is that you have no nuance in the creation of hurricanes, Edward Lorenz began the idea of intense instability in individual weather events. yes climate change created a larger potential for more devastating hurricanes, but this specific storm was as dependent on a increasing heat in the atlantic as it was a million other precise factors.

hurricanes are notorious for their unpredictability in movement and formation in early stages. literally, if 1000 fewer pounds of carbon had been released into the atmosphere, it's possible that a random series of events would have made a superstorm twice as strong as Irma.

we lack the mathematic ability for modeling such things. Yes we have a general idea of increased serious hurricanes with climate change (though interestingly enough, fewer total hurricanes) but for this specific storm, you'd have to be able to lay out, quantify and define 1,000,000+ factors to prove yourself correct Ogion. THAT is the burden of proof. good luck

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter14_FINAL.pdf

Well, theres some storms which behave like storms. Irma is alot more the type of storm the media comes to expect from hurricane season. Its big. Its scary. And its traditional in path..

Harvey was an outlier that doesnt happen. Land didnt really weaken harvey, it resurrected it.

"The remnants of Harvey continued to push northwest for several days and eventually crossed Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula. Once its remnants moved back over water in the southwest Gulf of Mexico, Harvey quickly reformed into a tropical depression on Aug. 23.
In just 56 hours, Harvey grew from a regenerated tropical depression over the Gulf of Mexico into a Category 4 hurricane as it made landfall near the Texas Gulf Coast late on Aug. 25.

(MORE: Why Harvey Rapidly Intensified)
Harvey's center of circulation stalled over south Texas on Aug. 26 and then meandered slowly east into the Gulf of Mexico before making a final landfall near Cameron, Louisiana, on Aug. 30.
Still a named storm 117 hours after landfall, Harvey was the longest a Texas landfalling hurricane remained a named storm after landfall on record, according to Colorado State University tropical scientist Dr. Phil Klotzbach."

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter14_FINAL.pdf

page 1250 for specific reference on fewer total Tropical Cyclones, but higher cat. 4-5 cyclones per each individual ocean and on aggregate

Despite all that we have a lot of people saying climate change has nothing to do with it

@Ogion

but not Bo

Ogion I know the exact definition of the word and how it applies.

Painting all conservatives as being savagely hateful in a hate filled post is textbook hypocrisy.

Plus you need to learn more about baseball.

If there are 414 homeruns hit in about the next month, that will set a new record for most homeruns in a season in MLB history. Which is almost certain to happen as there hasn't been less than about 870 HR's in a month this season.

They also have the strictest PED testing and penalties than ever before.

But by your logic, the record number of HR's this year can only be due to steroid use?

Laughable.

And speaking of hypocrisy talking about selling my kids into sex slavery (so classy by the way) while you are out chasing ambulances for money. Quite humorous.

You don't even know what you are babbling about. The fact of the matter is conservatives want to doom their children and everyone else's to serious disruption and catastrophic impacts because it would be "too exapensive" to deal with climate change. (While spending obscene amounts on the military). That's pretty clearly selling your kids for a few bucks. As for hateful, don't think for a second people haven't notice how closely conservatives play footsie with neonazis.

So, both are extremely well grounded


Not sure what ambulance chasing is about, but I work in the area of clean energy policy (not surprisingly) so my money is firmly where my mouth is

So because you are dumb enough to think all conservatives "play footsie with neo-Nazis" that makes your hateful speech and language ok?

Right.

Yet you will be the first one to whine and cry about how conservatives stereotype and paint others with a broad stroke while have zero problems doing it yourself as you just did. You sure I am the one that needs to look up the definition of hypocrisy?

At least you were smart enough to drop you stupid baseball talk, cause you clearly have zero idea what you are talking about there and like the typical liberal, when you are shown to be completely wrong, you just ignore it like it never happened.

Ah ok, clean energy policy. So you are available to the highest bid lobbyist. So much more moral than chasing ambulances. Thanks for clarifying.