Burma cyclone : How can we tell if climate change created it or made it worse?

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Bit of an open ended science question to start with. I do know that warmer temperatures makes for faster windspeeds etc.

But If 100000 plus dead people IS the product of climate change, how many more must die before all of us stop wibbling and start to change the way we live?

 

[samk]

And how much of the deathtoll was due to the government? Obstructing aid, maybe preventing free communication that would allow earlier warning, etc?

 

[purves grundy]

And how much of the deathtoll was due to the government? Obstructing aid, maybe preventing free communication that would allow earlier warning, etc?

A much better question to ask imho. Certainly no 'maybe' about the prevention of free communication - when you don't give a shit about the welfare of your people, there's no way they'd waste precious resources on a cyclone warning (to not be aired on the two TV channels that are available on the rare occasions when the electricity is flowing). Not to mention the cultivation of a climate of fear in which few dare talk about events which might have an impact on the country.

 

[stargazer]

It is weird and so sad that inspite of the many warnings and documentaries about the devastating effects of global warming, most of us need to see hundreds and thousands of people dying before we make a small effort of going green.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Bit of an open ended science question to start with.

I suggest we decide if global warming had an effect, by throwing dice, or tossing a coin.

 

[Frankie Jack]

It is weird and so sad that inspite of the many warnings and documentaries about the devastating effects of global warming, most of us need to see hundreds and thousands of people dying before we make a small effort of going green.

It's more devastating to see that a closed off country is making it difficult to give aid in a crisis

Whatever the planerary weather tragedy it helps to be able to help..

 

[Crispy]

Impossible to tell.

Count the number of, and the severity of, cyclones over the next 20 years and compare it to the past 20 years and you might get a meaningful result.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Impossible to tell.

Count the number of, and the severity of, cyclones over the next 20 years and compare it to the past 20 years and you might get a meaningful result.

Obviously thats the most sensible answer we can have, even though it is rather vapid.

What it would mean is that by the time we might conclude CC is killing shedloads of people it will be too late to do anything. At the same time, climate scientists tell us with almost unanimous voice that loads of people are going to die.

I have a dire feeling that as events like these occur, any CC component will be the elephant in the room. And if mentioned the smartarses, pedants and skeptics will say "oooooh, you cant prooooove its CC"

The best analogy is the corporate denialists who said we couldnt prooooove smoking caused cancer for decades.

 

[bigfish]

Warming Vultures Descend On Burma

The world has not warmed in a decade. Moreover, there is little evidence that tropical cyclones have got worse. And any link between hurricanes and warming is highly disputed. Yet Al Gore is already feeding on Burma's dead:

Using tragedy to advance an agenda has been a strategy for many global warming activists, and it was just a matter of time before someone found a way to tie the recent Myanmar cyclone to global warming. Former Vice President Al Gore in an interview on NPR's May 6 "Fresh Air" broadcast did just that...

"And as we're talking today, Terry, the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there yesterday has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated," Gore said. "And last year a catastrophic storm from last fall hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China - and we're seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming."

Of course, a British judge has already rapped Gore for linking hurricanes to global warming. And the leading proponent of the warming=hurricanes claim [Kerry Emanuel] has backed off.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...n/comments/warming_vultures_descend_on_burma/

Here is a list of the 20 Deadliest Tropical Cyclones in World History. Note that almost all of them occurred before so called "global warming".

Rank: Name / Areas of Largest Loss: Year: Ocean Area: Deaths:
1. Great Bhola Cyclone, Bangladesh 1970 Bay of Bengal 550,000
2. Hooghly River Cyclone, India and Bangladesh 1737 Bay of Bengal 350,000
3. Haiphong Typhoon, Vietnam 1881 West Pacific 300,000
3. Coringa, India 1839 Bay of Bengal 300,000
5. Backerganj Cyclone, Bangladesh 1584 Bay of Bengal 200,000
6. Great Backerganj Cyclone, Bangladesh 1876 Bay of Bengal 200,000
7. Chittagong, Bangladesh 1897 Bay of Bengal 175,000
8. Super Typhoon Nina, China 1975 West Pacific 171,000
9. Cyclone 02B, Bangladesh 1991 Bay of Bengal 140,000
10. Great Bombay Cyclone, India 1882 Arabian Sea 100,000
11. Hakata Bay Typhoon, Japan 1281 West Pacific 65,000
12. Calcutta, India 1864 Bay of Bengal 60,000
13. Swatlow, China 1922 West Pacific 60,000
14. Barisal, Bangladesh 1822 Bay of Bengal 50,000
15. Sunderbans coast, Bangladesh 1699 Bay of Bengal 50,000
16. Bengal Cyclone, Calcutta, India 1942 Bay of Bengal 40,000
17. Canton, China 1862 West Pacific 37,000
18. Backerganj (Barisal), Bangladesh 1767 Bay of Bengal 30,000
19. Barisal, Bangladesh 1831 Bay of Bengal 22,000
20. Great Hurricane, Lesser Antilles Islands 1780 Atlantic 22,000
21. Devi Taluk, SE India 1977 Bay of Bengal 20,000
21. Great Coringa Cyclone, India 1789 Bay of Bengal 20,000

http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/deadlyworld.asp

 

[Crispy]

here is a wet trout:

I am using it as a substitute for arguing with bigfish, because it tastes nicer with a bit of parsley and some new potatoes.

 

[frogwoman]

whether or not global warming exists its obvious that this has been exaggerated by the "response" of the junta ...

 

[yield]

Here is a list of the 20 Deadliest Tropical Cyclones in World History. Note that almost all of them occurred before so called "global warming".

Better to look at the strongest cyclones rather than most deadly. As countries in those areas have developed early warning systems and storm/flood protection.

The most powerful tropical cyclones by area of development or impact.
Seems that all except for the West Pacific are within the last 11 years.

 

[bigfish]

You can hear what Gore said for yourselves here:

http://syfsr.com/?e=33D58BE1-5027-4968-9A1D-BF12A26D937E

Gore claimed global warming is forcing ocean temperatures to rise, which is causing storms, including cyclones and hurricanes, to intensify.
Lets take a look at the FACTUAL EVIDENCE.

First the lower troposphere in the tropics has been COOLING over 16 months.

When we take a closer look, the NASA Earth Observatory has a series of illustrated articles on Cyclone Nargis including this map showing its formation and track.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/natural_hazards_v2.php3?img_id=14819

We see it forming NE of Sri Lanka in late April.

Lets look at Sea Surface Temperatures (SST) for that area in late April, viewing SST global anomaly maps at this NOAA (USA Govt) website.

http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/images/wkanomv2.png

This anomaly map is from 27 April to 3 May and shows SST’s were if anything slightly cooler than normal.

You can go to this NOAA archive and check back for earlier weekly SST anomaly maps and there are no relevant warm anomalies.

http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/images/archive/weekly_anomaly/

So I say to Al Gore, please Senator Gore, check your facts before speaking to the world.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=171

 

[david dissadent]

Global warming may reduce the number of hurricanes/ cyclones. This is because it may increase windsheer, that is to say the verticle movement of air. This has a strong role in supressing hurricane formation. Howerver once they form they are likely to have more energy to pick up from the sea and be stronger, last longer.

It would be very difficult to ascribe one weather event to global warming. It will only really be possible to calculate its impact in retrospect.

 

[bigfish]

Global warming may reduce the number of hurricanes/ cyclones. This is because it may increase windsheer, that is to say the verticle movement of air. This has a strong role in supressing hurricane formation. Howerver once they form they are likely to have more energy to pick up from the sea and be stronger, last longer.

Source?

 

[bigfish]

Global warming may reduce the number of hurricanes/ cyclones. This is because it may increase windsheer, that is to say the verticle movement of air. This has a strong role in supressing hurricane formation. Howerver once they form they are likely to have more energy to pick up from the sea and be stronger, last longer.

Dave: can you confirm that you didn't just make up the highlighted part by providing the forum with a credible source? Many thanks.

 

[ymu]

What Crispy said, except that we already have the data. You can't know exactly which events would have occurred, or with what magnitude, under different conditions - but you can make a pretty good guess as to the overall picture and compare it with what we've actually seen.

 

[david dissadent]

Dave: can you confirm that you didn't just make up the highlighted part by providing the forum with a credible source? Many thanks.

Your google broke?

 

[bigfish]

Your google broke?

So the answers no, then. Thank you for clearing that one up.

 

[Crispy]

It's pretty basic stuff. Hurricanes gain energy from the heat of the ocean they pass over. If the ocean is warmer, the hurricane gains more energy. Hurricanes with more energy in them have faster winds, and last longer once they're over land (and no longer have a source of energy to feed from)

The ocean is getting warmer (source = NASA)

Please note that the upwards trend in the linked graph has several periods during which ocean temperatures fell that were longer than the 16 months you mentioned earlier .

 

[free spirit]

Gore claimed global warming is forcing ocean temperatures to rise, which is causing storms, including cyclones and hurricanes, to intensify.
Lets take a look at the FACTUAL EVIDENCE.

lol - now there's a thought bigfish... well I had a look at your links, and they don't actually illustrate what you (or whichever numpty you're cutting and pasting from this time) what you say they do.

The first link does show the path of the cyclone... so far so good.

The 2nd link however doesn't show the sea surface temp anomaly for that area in the period running upto the cyclones formation, it shows the SST's for the 4th-10th may... which unsurprisingly show a drop in sst's all along the route of the cyclone... ie the cyclone not surprisingly has taken heat out of the water along the route.

Looking at the week before, you'll also see the start of a temperature drop around the bit of the ocean where the cyclone started (cyclone formed 28th april, and stayed in same area til 30th april, this map shows the average for the week commencing 27th april, ie. mostly after the cyclone has formed, so mostly reflects the after effects of the cyclone rather than the conditions that led to it's formation).

Looking at the week when the cyclone actually formed there's actually a 0.5-1.5 deg warming anomaly in the ocean all around the edges of the indian ocean, including virtually the entire path the cyclone takes to burma.

in summary, you're cut and paste is utter bollocks as per usual.

 

[free spirit]

btw bigfish, I'm a little confused... what's your explanation for the lack of cyclones and hurricanes in the winter months if warmer water temperatures isn't the major factor in their formation as you appear to be claiming?

 

[bigfish]

btw bigfish, I'm a little confused... what's your explanation for the lack of cyclones and hurricanes in the winter months if warmer water temperatures isn't the major factor in their formation as you appear to be claiming?

Nice try, but that's not what I am claiming. I'm challenging the claim made by Al Gore (who by the way has a huge personal financial stake in the carbon trading and carbon credit indulgences racket, which, in turn, depends on the pseudoscientific trope that human CO2 emissions cause global warming) that global warming is forcing ocean temperatures to rise, which is causing storms, including cyclones and hurricanes, to intensify.

Apart from the odd internet diehard like yourself, most people in real life now realize that global warming peaked in 1998, that the temperature has remained more or less flat since then, apart from last year when it fell - a fact unpredicted by any of the IPCC models, and despite a rise of ~5% in so called "greenhouse gas" emissions.

Now do you see?

 

[free spirit]

Nice try, but that's not what I am claiming. I'm challenging the claim made by Al Gore (who by the way has a huge personal financial stake in the carbon trading and carbon credit indulgences racket, which, in turn, depends on the pseudoscientific trope that human CO2 emissions cause global warming) that global warming is forcing ocean temperatures to rise, which is causing storms, including cyclones and hurricanes, to intensify.

Apart from the odd internet diehard like yourself, most people in real life now realize that global warming peaked in 1998, that the temperature has remained more or less flat since then, apart from last year when it fell - a fact unpredicted by any of the IPCC models, and despite a rise of ~5% in so called "greenhouse gas" emissions.

Now do you see?

no, sorry, you'll have to make yourself a wee bit clearer than that as usual I'm struggling to work out exactly what the point is you're arguing, which makes it damn near impossible to properly refute what you're saying...

anyway... which of the following points are you trying to argue?

1 - Manmade climate chance doesn't exist, therefore there can't be any ocean warming or any intensifying of tropical storms / hurricanes / cyclones due to it.

2 - Manmade climate change doesn't exist, but even if it did then it wouldn't lead to warmer water in the tropics (because of a reason/process I'll explain), and therefore wouldn't lead to any intensification of tropical storms / hurricanes / cyclones.

3 - manmade climate change doesn't exist, but even if it did, and this led to a warming of the waters in the tropics, this wouldn't lead to an increase in tropical storms / hurricanes / cyclones because of a reason I'll explain.

4 - something else entirely (which I'll explain)


btw - I note you made no comment about my post demonstrating your previous cut and paste to be misleading bollocks.

 

[Dravinian]

btw bigfish, I'm a little confused... what's your explanation for the lack of cyclones and hurricanes in the winter months if warmer water temperatures isn't the major factor in their formation as you appear to be claiming?

That isn't what he claimed at all is it?

What he said was that temperatures in the sea were dropping not rising as suggested.

He did not say warm water doesn't cause cyclones or hurricanes.

Also his argument is clearly number 1. No climate change so therefore no effect.

I am struggling to understand how the temperatures of the sea have diminished for the past 16 months. That is over a year and I thought the whole idea of climate change was that it raised the temperature due to the fact that these gases couldn't escape and trapped the heat from the sun.

So what happened for the last 16 months, someone open a window?

 

[free spirit]

That isn't what he claimed at all is it?

What he said was that temperatures in the sea were dropping not rising as suggested.

He did not say warm water doesn't cause cyclones or hurricanes.

Also his argument is clearly number 1. No climate change so therefore no effect.

I am struggling to understand how the temperatures of the sea have diminished for the past 16 months. That is over a year and I thought the whole idea of climate change was that it raised the temperature due to the fact that these gases couldn't escape and trapped the heat from the sun.

So what happened for the last 16 months, someone open a window?

firstly that graph bigfish posted isn't of sea surface temperatures, it's of satellite measurements of the lower troposphere above the tropical oceans.

secondly you need to understand that the climate is a complex system of which manmade climate change due to increased greenhouse gases is just one factor of many that's going on at any one time. The trend predictions are global average long term trends, so someone posting up a graph showing that a certain area of the lower troposphere has experienced cooling over an 18 month period makes zero difference to the validity or otherwise of the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis.

thirdly, you may want to look at these images of the pacific ocean

September 2006 (Strong El Nino, huge area of warm water across the tropical pacific)

Feb 2007 - when bigfish's graph starts showing the fall (start of a strong la nina event, spreading cold water across the tropical pacific ocean)

October 2007 - La Nina Persists - vast swathes of cold water spread across tropical pacific

April 2008 - Still La nina event persists, with huge areas of tropical pacific covered in cold water.

or as nasa puts it (and this quote actually is from nasa - that graph bigfish posted may have been based on some nasa data, but it was from a climate sceptic site not nasa)

[FONT=VERDANA,HELVETICA,ARIAL] Larger Pacific Climate Event Helps Current La Niña Linger [/FONT]
[FONT=VERDANA,HELVETICA,ARIAL] April 1, 2008 Boosted by the influence of a larger climate event in the Pacific, one of the strongest La Niñas in many years is slowly weakening but continues to blanket the Pacific Ocean near the equator, as shown by new sea-level height data collected by the U.S.-French Jason oceanographic satellite.
This La Niña, which has persisted for the past year, is indicated by the blue area in the center of the image along the equator. Blue indicates lower than normal sea level (cold water). The data were gathered in early April.
The image also shows that this La Niña is occurring within the context of a larger climate event, the early stages of a cool phase of the basin-wide Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is a long-term fluctuation of the Pacific Ocean that waxes and wanes between cool and warm phases approximately every five to 20 year.

or in case that doesn't do it, in my own words... the graph starts at the end of an el nino period where vast areas of the tropical pacific ocean are covered in warm water, and the downward trend in the rest of the graph is almost certainly explainable by the switch to a major long la nina period where most of the tropical pacific is covered in cold water. This is a cyclical process that has occurred for millions of years, and effects weather patterns across the globe. It is in no way at odds with any of the manmade climate change hypothesis.




so essentially bigfish has once again produced a totally misleading 'fact' to back up some daft notion he's come up with - had he been being honest about this, he'd have shown a long term graph that'd undoubtedly show that this cooling in this region was part of a cyclycal trend related to the el nino / la nina effects, and I'm pretty sure that the underlying long term trend would obviously be an upward one.



please don't fall for this kind of obvious bullshit, there is a massive disinformation campaign under way across the globe using all forms of media to persuade people that global warming's not real, bigfish is either a long term part of that campaign, or fell for it hook line and sinker a long time ago. i'm not sure which... but essentially when he posts something up, it's worth checking out what the actual facts are behind whatever spurious notion he's putting forward, or if in doubt go on his past history which shows that 99%+ of the stuff he's posted up has been bollocks that's been refuted on here, with bigfish virtually never actually managing to defend a single point.

[/FONT]

 

[free spirit]

Apart from the odd internet diehard like yourself, most people in real life now realize that global warming peaked in 1998, that the temperature has remained more or less flat since then, apart from last year when it fell - a fact unpredicted by any of the IPCC models, and despite a rise of ~5% in so called "greenhouse gas" emissions.

yes bigfish, well done, you and you're fellow bunch of numpties have managed to spread your disinformation so widely, and cause so much confusion in many people's minds that a sizeable chunk of the population has now fallen for some or all of your bullshit.

congratulations, job well done old bean... still doesn't mean for a second that you're right though does it?

and no matter how many times you repeat the bollocks about the 1998 temperature spike, caused by a combination of factors including a strong el nino, peak of the sunspot cycle lower global dimming effect etc on top of greenhouse gas levels... it still doesn't make it true that it in anyway conflicts with the IPCC models. In the same way that a cold day in june doesn't mean that it's not going to get warmer in the summer... it's the difference between long term underlying trends, and a one off bit of data, but then you know that anyway, don't you, you just like to keep repeating it because you've seen that it works in terms of sowing the seeds of confusion in people's minds.

we've done that one to death many times anyway, maybe just for sheer novelty value you'd care to defend one of the other 2 contributions you've made to this thread that I've ripped apart. Possibly you could explain why you'd post up a graph that is so obviously (to the trained eye) designed to mislead the untrained public, when anyone with half a clue about the subject would know straight away that the fall in the graph was down to the change between el nino to la nina?

Was your intention to deliberately mislead?

If so why do you do it? Seriously I just don't get it, if you're right then surely you'd be able to come up with some convincing facts that actually back up what you're saying rather than continuously posting up misleading crap that gets ripped apart? If you're continually unable to come up with anything that stands up to scrutiny outside of your little clique of sceptic bloggers / websites, then don't you think that maybe, just maybe you might have picked up the wrong end of the stick

at what point will you and your ilk actually give up this smoke and mirrors game you're playing and admit you were wrong so we can actually get on and tackle this problem without constantly having to fight a rear guard action against your lot sniping from the sidelines and confusing people?

 

[bigfish]

Global warming - Is UN officialdom split?

Monday May 12, 2008 5:06 AM BST

Piers Corbyn - Director of WeatherAction.Com - Solar Weather Forecaster has said in an "Exclusive" interview with CO2Sceptics.Com, "we need to build a movement to BAN BIOFUELS"

Piers Corbyn gives latest news on the challenge to the UN climate committee (IPCC) which he and three other scientists - the international 'gang of 4' Scientists call on UN Climate leaders to admit they are wrong sent on April 14th and call for the boycott of biofuels.

Piers said on May 11th "We have as yet received no response from the IPCC which is astounding since the matter is of such great importance. I do not believe they can give an adequate response. The letter has received very wide circulation across the world and very significantly it is carried on the United Nations CAPSA site (Centre for Alleviation of Poverty through Secondary crops development in Asia and the pacific).

The serious concerns this part of the UN must have about world food prices and shortages being driven up by biofuel makes what we say about biofuel in our letter very important.

An international movement to boycott biofuel until it is banned is needed. Biofuel is the burning of food which the world needs. The first thing to do to combat the world food crisis is to stop burning food! The alcohol-maize based biofuel in petrol must be stopped and the public should ask which petrol products include biofuel every time they buy petrol - and refuse to buy them. "

*See http://www.uncapsa.org/Topics/Topics.asp and look under Important Issues - Others - 'A letter from...'

The link direct to the letter is:

http://www.uncapsa.org/Topics/IPCC_letter_14April08-1.pdf

http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1114

 

[bigfish]

and no matter how many times you repeat the bollocks about the 1998 temperature spike, caused by a combination of factors including a strong el nino, peak of the sunspot cycle lower global dimming effect etc on top of greenhouse gas levels...

14 April 2008

Dear Dr. Pachauri and others associated with IPCC

We are writing to you and others associated with the IPCC position – that man’s CO2 is a driver of global warming and climate change – to ask that you now in view of the evidence retract support from the current IPCC position [as in footnote 1] and admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change.

If you believe there is evidence of the CO2 driver theory in the available data please present a graph of it.

We draw your attention to three observational refutations of the IPCC position (and note there are more). Ice-core data from the ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) shows that temperatures have fallen since around 4,000 years ago (the Bronze Age Climate Optimum) while CO2 levels have risen, yet this graphical data was not included in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (Fig. SPM1 Feb07) which graphed the CO2 rise.

More recent data shows that in the opposite sense to IPCC predictions world temperatures have not risen and indeed have fallen over the past 10 years while CO2 levels have risen dramatically.

The up-dated temperature measurements have been released by the NASA’s Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) [1] as well as by the UK’s Hadley Climate Research Unit (Temperature v. 3, variance adjusted - Hadley CRUT3v) [2]. In parallel, readings of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been released by the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii [3]. They have been combined in graphical form by Joe D’Aleo [4], and are shown below.

More: http://www.uncapsa.org/Topics/IPCC_letter_14April08-1.pdf

Free Spirit: If you believe as do the IPCC that there is evidence of the CO2 driver theory in the available data can you please present a graph of it here.

All the best, bf

 

[free spirit]

Free Spirit: If you believe as do the IPCC that there is evidence of the CO2 driver theory in the available data can you please present a graph of it here.

All the best, bf

so I'll take that as a no then... you are incapable of defending any of the statements you've made so far on this thread, as you've been incapable of defending virtually any of your statements ever on this site.

go on, I double dare you, at least make some effort to defend your position, or are you accepting that what you posted up is misleading bollocks... in which case maybe you could do the honourable thing and retract your statements?