I think hurricanes are more and more becoming water events rather than wind events. Between tidal surges, torrential rains and flooding, most of the property damage is caused by water, not wind. It's driving up housing costs as flood insurance gets more pricey. It's only going to get worse, I'm afraid, as rising sea levels from the melting cryosphere and simple thermal expansion of the oceans aggravate the coastal problems. I foresee a flight inland by people who can afford to.
Some kind of split between the propagandists and the propagandized, maybe?
MISinformer can be applied to people who carelessly repeat bad information (think "FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: ..." subject lines), whereas DISinformer implies a conscious choice to give out misleading information.
All I know is conservatives are masters at labeling things. Punchy labels that don’t need to be accurate, but do need to scare people into voting for them.
But for us, shitting where we eat is just fundamental irresponsibility.
Someone recently described conservative ideology as "giving people permission to be selfish," and Captain Ketamine himself described empathy as the "fundamental weakness of Western civilization." One person responded that empathy *is* Western civilization.
Heh. Speaking as a "climate realist", I'm quite willing to label anyone who rejects any part of the climate-science consensus a "denialist". And I agree with NSAlito's distinction between "mis-" and "dis-" informers, as well as with most of (pronoun?) subsequent comment. Yet IMHO "Murderers of the Earth", if a little anthropomorphic, is unflinchingly judgemental. While the non-living component of Earth (or "Sol III") can make no value judgement of what human population, technology and economic growth has done on its surface, the rate and magnitude of biodiversity (i.e. the living component) loss is accelerating with anthropogenic climate change, by multiple quantitative metrics. That, and the small but finite probability of our own extinction, are what we all care about, even if we don't expect to be directly affected. Both climate change and biodiversity erosion are worthy of a few hyperbolic labels. How about "pro-extinctionist" for those who persist in raising repeatedly discredited objections to decarbonization?
I'm confident that the globe is warming, it's wholly anthropogenic, the cost in money and grief of the resulting climate change is already being paid, and is open-ended until the economically-driven transfer of fossil carbon to the atmosphere ceases. I'm humble enough, however, to acknowledge that the community of trained, publishing climate specialists including Prof. Dessler, collectively knows more about the subject than I do. I, for one, find the lack of humility reflected in your over-confidence in your denialist opinions, really stifling.
I have written a lot on this topic from the standpoint of energy. One expects more "activity" but that can come in many forms: heavier rains, greater intensity, bigger, longer lasting, and greater numbers. As you say that latter is not clear and numbers may well go down, and data on some of these is poor. But longer lasting and bigger storms are not only likely (along with more intensity) but also there is some evidence for them
Please see:
How hurricanes are supercharged by climate change 15 Oct 2024
Kevin Here's what the climate models are missinghttps://r3genesis.substack.com/p/164-the-earth-sauna-audio-version?utm_source=podcast-email%2Csubstack&publication_id=899805&post_id=162800940&utm_campaign=email-play-on-substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=play_card_post_title&r=2ddkm6&triedRedirect=true
Our research group has teamed up with an electrical and thermodynamics engineer. Here's an abstract and Podcast. If there is further interest we have more in depth work on the atmospheric effect of domes of water vapor that cannot condense in the Arctic atmosphere and end up high/jetstream (Ionisphere/Troposphere and the vapor is moved sometimes thousands of miles till it hits the right atmospheric conditions CCL Cloud Condensing Nuclei which willl form clouds and severe storms
Can someone here please help out NSAlito? He/she seems to be needing some assistance with finding global trends to support the alarmist narrative. Anecdotes are perfect for conspiracy theorists, not scientists.
The Jones at al study referenced to support the idea that: "Increases in the frequency and extremity of fire weather have been globally pervasive due to climate change during 1979–2019, meaning that landscapes are primed to burn more frequently", just means that they believe fires are more likely to start because of underlying primed conditions. It says nothing of the number and extent of wildfires globally, which have been stable, decreasing, not increasing.
However, Jones found just the opposite of expectations: "Overall, BA has reduced by 27% globally in the past two decades, due in large part to a decline in BA in African savannahs."
The sole reference used actually supports the notion that burn areas have decreased.
He states, "It is incontrovertible that many coral reefs are in various stages of decline and may be unable to withstand the effects of global climate change.... An estimated 50% of the world’s corals have already been lost, and those remaining may be lost by 2030 under the “business as usual” CO2 emissions scenario."
Nothing but more words. More words that do nothing more than explain how you are convinced in the belief that you have. That's called religion, Mal. Let me just say--your confidence has zero relativity in this new world we find ourselves living in. The "trust me--I'm an expert" days are over. If I truly lack the humility that you obviously have, then perhaps you can respond here using peer reviewed published research to rebut the peer reviewed published points I have made. I noticed nobody has been able to do so yet. Which is so telling...
You stated at the end of your post, “Instead of the selective offering of climate misinformers, you should look at all of the data.” I couldn’t agree more. Your blog post is indeed quite compelling…to those who don’t do their homework. But thanks to modern conveniences and a penchant for finding truth amidst distraction, I have provided a rebuttal to your comments. I guess this is as close as I’ll ever come to doing a climate debate, so here it goes:
You state: “Because of sea level rise, you can say with 100% certainty that climate change is making every TC more destructive.” Wow! I love the confidence! Especially without you providing us any peer reviewed scientific references! Since climate change is all about global trends, let’s start with TC intensity:
1. No change ACE global trend. Colorado State Univ. ACE global trend per hurricane 1980-2024. https://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/See alsohttps://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-most-major-hurricanes-ever. Verdict: Neutral.
Can you now say with 100% certainty that you and I are making every TC more destructive with this research? Especially with exactly—zero—scientific references? More specifically, in what manner, way, shape or form am I a climate “misinformer” based on what you provided vs. what I provided?
Just a note: Watch out for using death as a metric in complex social systems: EMS, emergency room, and hospital care can reduce deaths (e.g., more kids surviving handgun shootings due to modern city trauma care), but then more are shifted into other serious morbidity categories. In this case, death is not a measure of the destructive power of a tropical cyclone.
As far as non-earthquake disasters are concerned, early warnings give people time to prepare. After the thousands of deaths in the 1977 Andhra Pradesh cyclone (officially 10,000 but later estimates rose significantly), India established an early warning system. When the 1996 cyclone hit Andhra Pradesh, ~225,000 families were evacuated ahead of time. Building is more competent, now, too. There are many examples online of newer and better-built homes surviving events that wiped out surrounding homes.
Hi NS, all of the things you cite regarding infrastructure improvements, planning, mitigation and adaptation are important factors in reducing deaths from natural disasters. However please understand, that the opinions of the vast majority of the climate science community including those running The Climate Brink, are that in order for climate change to be catastrophic, it must somehow overwhelm society's ability to adapt to the changes. Otherwise there would be no catastrophe, and no need to cut off fossil fuels. Clearly adaptation plays a role in plummeting deaths from natural disasters, that is true. But the alarmists are finding it increasingly difficult to support a narrative that appears to less tenable with each passing year of "record" warmth accompanied with lowered mortality rates.
"...in order for climate change to be catastrophic, it must somehow overwhelm society's ability to adapt to the changes."
Yes, that is exactly the case. And to be clear, we aren't talking just about the well-off in the US (whose 50 states cover a mere 2% of the globe), but the entire globe, and not just direct mortality, but morbidity and impoverishment. Our climate has been relatively stable (i.e., changing almost imperceptibly over the course of each generation) for thousands of years. Those days are over.
We're breaking more records and we're crossing more and more natural tipping points: We're on a trajectory to lose upwards of 70% of coral reefs (aka "the nurseries of the sea") within three decades. Salt water encroachment is reducing once-productive farming areas (e.g., the Mekong delta), and taking out once-reliable water supplies for millions of people (e.g., south Florida). The global frequency of crop failures or reductions in yield is going up. In many parts of the world, wildfire doesn't have a "season" any more. And we ain't seen nothing yet. Meanwhile, there are more than enough people who will squeal like stuck pigs at any mention of increasing the relevant budgets to handle it.
BTW, I have never gotten a clear definition of what an "alarmist" is, probably because that's just a mushy disparaging term people pick up from anti-RE, anti-science media. I don't suppose you can supply one that describes people who have given accurate (or, too often, sadly underestimated) forecasts about climate change for the past half century.
"We find that readily available public data for coral cover exhibit unexpected trends (e.g., a positive correlation between coral cover and multi-year cumulative thermal stress), contrary to prevailing scientific expectations."
It is incontrovertible that many coral reefs are in various stages of decline and may be unable to withstand the effects of global climate change.... An estimated 50% of the world’s corals have already been lost, and those remaining may be lost by 2030 under the “business as usual” CO2 emissions scenario.
==============
This paper is discussing improved methods of sampling coral at a global level, plus designing better metrics for establishing the health of a reef (coral v. algae v. sand). This is not a challenge to the forecast of increased heat stress and death of corals, but it might be a way to determine [local] external factors in the survival of individual reefs.
[Off to fetch my suitcase and expand my carbon footprint.]
NS--again, unless you provide scientific articles showing trends over time, all you have are anecdotes. Salt water encroachment needs to be global, not just Mekong delta. Reduced water supplies needs to be global, not just south Florida. Anecdotes aren't science.
"Global and Regional Trends and Drivers of Fire Under Climate Change"
======================
Fire weather controls the annual timing of fires in most world regions and also drives inter-annual variability in BA in the Mediterranean, the Pacific US and high latitude forests. Increases in the frequency and extremity of fire weather have been globally pervasive due to climate change during 1979–2019, meaning that landscapes are primed to burn more frequently.
=======================
Is that trend-y enough for you?
=======================
Moreover, several of the major wildfires experienced in recent years, including the Australian bushfires of 2019/2020, have occurred amidst fire weather conditions that were considerably more likely due to climate change.
=======================
The Australian bushfires of their 2023/2024 summer (>144M ha) covered more than three times the area of the 2019/2020 season.
Of course these disasters don't result in the higher death tolls you are so focused on, just increased public expense for rescues and firefighting, and increases in financial loss or impoverishment for those whose homes and businesses were affected.
"You state, 'Wildfire doesn't have a "season" any more.' Not sure what you mean by that...."
It was an empirical observation by some wildfire management officials trying to inform the public. It affects budgeting and increasingly overworked personnel, and there is less personnel relief as regional firefighting overlaps with the "seasons" of other regions' wildfires.
Humans have, and always have had, a major impact on wildfire activity, which is expected to increase in our warming world. Andela et al. use satellite data to show that, unexpectedly, global burned area declined by ∼25% over the past 18 years, despite the influence of climate. The decrease has been largest in savannas and grasslands because of agricultural expansion and intensification.
===========
Note that the metric in this paper is *burned area* (where a savanna and a forest are measured the same way, even though the impacts are radically different due to the volume of fuel involved), and they have attributed the reduction in burned area primarily due to agricultural expansion.
I do note that since that study, we have had twelve of the 18 biggest wildfires of this century, and the Manitoba fires are just getting started.
"Salt water encroachment needs to be global, not just Mekong delta."
No, it does *not* need to be global. The mechanism of saltwater intrusion is taught in undergraduate geology classes (both hydro and coastal structures). Along porous coastlines (sand, fractured granites, porous limestone), all else being equal, a local rise in sea level (or a reduction in fresh water supply) will push the boundary between a freshwater lens and salt water. This is a critical and well-understood issue on small or arid islands.
In the case of unconsolidated river deltas, as the sea rises, so does the saline nature of the saturated soils. Saline intrusion also happens when the flow rate of freshwater out of a stream is cut back, as when the Mississippi River flow got so low due to watershed drought that there was the fear that the salt water boundary would reach New Orleans. Similarly, natural flow levels can be reduced by dams or high extraction. This is undergraduate textbook stuff.
FWIW, I want the scientists and science communicators to make clear that Mean Global Sea Level Rise is a global calculation that is only useful to measure some trend, like a global thermometer. What local communities need to know is what their *local* sea level rise rate will be, taking into account the various factors that apply to that particular stretch of coastline.
If I take some of the smaller apples out of the fruit basket, making the proportion of larger apples higher, does this mean the larger apples themselves have grown bigger? not really. but I could get fancy and say the frequency distribution is shifted to larger apples..
"...ask the people who have money on the line: insurance companies. If you do that, the verdict is clear: insurance premiums are skyrocketing..."
One proviso: Part of the premium increases is due to the increasing *expense* of rebuilding. It isn't just simple inflation affecting material and labor costs, but higher demand for rebuilding as more communities get hit. (Los Angeles' rebuild must be a competitive nightmare.)
For all the utterly insane amount of rain from Hurricane Harvey (2017), I like to remind people that in 2001, a measly "tropical storm" called Allison dropped 10-25" of rain as it wandered about the Texas/Louisiana coast. With 50 deaths, and losses of ~$6B making it the costliest tropical storm on record, people who would normally pay attention to a "hurricane" were taken by surprise (hence, I believe, the high death toll).
That’s a pretty small event these days. I’m in far north Queensland in Australia. Earlier this year we had a tropical low that delivered over 3m (around 120 inches) of rain to areas just north of Townsville. The tropical lows we are experiencing now are like a cyclone, but without the wind but much worse. They come in off the sea and dump enormous amounts of rain before going back out to sea to replenish and return and repeat. It’s very nasty.
Aye, I get that. But as someone who grew up in a hurricane zone (New Orleans), I was used to thinking dismissively of mere tropical storms. They ain't my grandfather's storm no mo'.
Tropical cyclones are becoming increasingly common in South Central and Southern US. Of course they're called Tornadoes, not hurricanes. The Northern jetstream has weakened and relocated seemingly almost permanently now, coming down from Siberia and Canada in through central and Southern US and at the same time this weakening is permitting very warm equatorial jet stream air to invade into the South. On top of all this there appears to be an abundance of water vapor in the high atmosphere coming from somewhere. Could be coming down with the Northern jet stream that has relocated or coming up from the Equatorial Jet.
Now we think or the Northern latitudes( subarctic/Arctic) as dry and desert-like the entry of larger quantities of water vapor from up there seem unlikely, however with the introduction of mega dams impounding thousands of square miles of sea-size reservoirs for the pas 65 years for the sole purpose of making hydroelectric energy mostly wintertime. This may have something to do with creating water vapor there Bot the process of evaporations of the seas-size impoundment in summer time and the delivering only in winter of warmer waters, at 40F, well below the thermal cline , ice free, then discharging this warmer water through the turbines all winter long creates even stronger evaporative forces at work.
The abstract and podcast below is for all folks who firmly believe that there is only one main driver of climate change . CO2 appears to have some effect however the thermodynamics of rearranging the atmosphere in the northern reaches must be studied more carefully. Unfortunately many are quite comfortable putting the lions share of Climate problem on what might be only a secondary issue. There are millions of dams throughout the world, many are very large and located in severe evaporative zones either equatorial sub-polar. Our concern should be the subarctic and Arctic zones.
Our research group has teamed up with an electrical and thermodynamics engineer. Here's an abstract and Podcast. If there is further interest we have more in depth work on the atmospheric effect of domes of water vapor that cannot condense in the Arctic atmosphere and end up high/jetstream (Ionisphere/Troposphere and the vapor is moved sometimes thousands of miles till it hits the right atmospheric conditions CCL Cloud Condensing Nuclei which willl form clouds and severe storms
Andrew of course you're correct. However similar forces support the formation of both. Very warm water / very warm air. Of course the water vapor is a vapor form of water however the latent heat carried and is released as an implosion process creating cloud, rain, and severity of storms.
It now seems commonplace that from mid winter till sometime into summer there are now 100's of Tornadoes throughout Southern and also South central regions. This area only a decade ago or a little more only had 5-7Tornadoes a season.
Something is up literally up in the atmosphere that is causing such a radical change. We believe that it is displaced water vapor, created in an area that is not capable of condensation process, not enough cloud condensing nuclei than the large excesses are caught up in the Jet stream to be relocated in another region. I'm going to add another abstract deeper details of ours. I appreciate your following up. this is a link to more information and supporting materials. it's long but would appreciate your input
I like how you also point out what we don't know. It gives more credence to what we do know.
I think hurricanes are more and more becoming water events rather than wind events. Between tidal surges, torrential rains and flooding, most of the property damage is caused by water, not wind. It's driving up housing costs as flood insurance gets more pricey. It's only going to get worse, I'm afraid, as rising sea levels from the melting cryosphere and simple thermal expansion of the oceans aggravate the coastal problems. I foresee a flight inland by people who can afford to.
Calling them “misinformers” is entirely too polite. They are liars.
Or possibly ignoramuses.
Seriously we need a label.
Some kind of split between the propagandists and the propagandized, maybe?
MISinformer can be applied to people who carelessly repeat bad information (think "FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: ..." subject lines), whereas DISinformer implies a conscious choice to give out misleading information.
All I know is conservatives are masters at labeling things. Punchy labels that don’t need to be accurate, but do need to scare people into voting for them.
So maybe Murderers of the Earth?
The planet will be just fine.
But for us, shitting where we eat is just fundamental irresponsibility.
Someone recently described conservative ideology as "giving people permission to be selfish," and Captain Ketamine himself described empathy as the "fundamental weakness of Western civilization." One person responded that empathy *is* Western civilization.
The planet may survive as a “thing” but a lot of the life on it—especially the humans—will not.
Heh. Speaking as a "climate realist", I'm quite willing to label anyone who rejects any part of the climate-science consensus a "denialist". And I agree with NSAlito's distinction between "mis-" and "dis-" informers, as well as with most of (pronoun?) subsequent comment. Yet IMHO "Murderers of the Earth", if a little anthropomorphic, is unflinchingly judgemental. While the non-living component of Earth (or "Sol III") can make no value judgement of what human population, technology and economic growth has done on its surface, the rate and magnitude of biodiversity (i.e. the living component) loss is accelerating with anthropogenic climate change, by multiple quantitative metrics. That, and the small but finite probability of our own extinction, are what we all care about, even if we don't expect to be directly affected. Both climate change and biodiversity erosion are worthy of a few hyperbolic labels. How about "pro-extinctionist" for those who persist in raising repeatedly discredited objections to decarbonization?
Pro-Extinction. Yes that works.
Gotta love those cheap shots...You must be quite confident in yourselves...
Please reduce the reverb--the echo in here is really stifling.
I'm confident that the globe is warming, it's wholly anthropogenic, the cost in money and grief of the resulting climate change is already being paid, and is open-ended until the economically-driven transfer of fossil carbon to the atmosphere ceases. I'm humble enough, however, to acknowledge that the community of trained, publishing climate specialists including Prof. Dessler, collectively knows more about the subject than I do. I, for one, find the lack of humility reflected in your over-confidence in your denialist opinions, really stifling.
I am very confident—in the science.
And if you’re not a climate scientist, perhaps your opinion is invalid.
NFIP: Just one inch of floodwater can cause ~$25,000 damage.
https://agents.floodsmart.gov/sites/default/files/fema_nfip-just-one-inch-of-floodwater-flyer-06-2023.pdf
Sometimes it's just the *wake* of passing vehicles on the street that can put it over the doorsill.
Also, storm surge is seawater, more corrosive than rain event flooding.
This is quite incomplete
I have written a lot on this topic from the standpoint of energy. One expects more "activity" but that can come in many forms: heavier rains, greater intensity, bigger, longer lasting, and greater numbers. As you say that latter is not clear and numbers may well go down, and data on some of these is poor. But longer lasting and bigger storms are not only likely (along with more intensity) but also there is some evidence for them
Please see:
How hurricanes are supercharged by climate change 15 Oct 2024
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/10/15/how-hurricanes-are-supercharged-by-climate-change/
Kevin
Kevin Here's what the climate models are missinghttps://r3genesis.substack.com/p/164-the-earth-sauna-audio-version?utm_source=podcast-email%2Csubstack&publication_id=899805&post_id=162800940&utm_campaign=email-play-on-substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=play_card_post_title&r=2ddkm6&triedRedirect=true
Our research group has teamed up with an electrical and thermodynamics engineer. Here's an abstract and Podcast. If there is further interest we have more in depth work on the atmospheric effect of domes of water vapor that cannot condense in the Arctic atmosphere and end up high/jetstream (Ionisphere/Troposphere and the vapor is moved sometimes thousands of miles till it hits the right atmospheric conditions CCL Cloud Condensing Nuclei which willl form clouds and severe storms
Can someone here please help out NSAlito? He/she seems to be needing some assistance with finding global trends to support the alarmist narrative. Anecdotes are perfect for conspiracy theorists, not scientists.
The Jones at al study referenced to support the idea that: "Increases in the frequency and extremity of fire weather have been globally pervasive due to climate change during 1979–2019, meaning that landscapes are primed to burn more frequently", just means that they believe fires are more likely to start because of underlying primed conditions. It says nothing of the number and extent of wildfires globally, which have been stable, decreasing, not increasing.
(See also https://climate.esa.int/de/news-events/multi-decade-global-fire-dataset-set-support-trend-analysis/)
(See also https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/fire/202301)
(See also https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JD027749)
(See also https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.abh2646)
However, Jones found just the opposite of expectations: "Overall, BA has reduced by 27% globally in the past two decades, due in large part to a decline in BA in African savannahs."
The sole reference used actually supports the notion that burn areas have decreased.
He states, "It is incontrovertible that many coral reefs are in various stages of decline and may be unable to withstand the effects of global climate change.... An estimated 50% of the world’s corals have already been lost, and those remaining may be lost by 2030 under the “business as usual” CO2 emissions scenario."
50% of the world's coral have already been lost?!! And we know this by studying 1/10,000 to 1/1000 of the worlds coral population? Verdict: Poppycock. (See https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20240001730/downloads/Hochberg%20Gierach%202021.pdf) Source please?
Mal--and yet--
Nothing but more words. More words that do nothing more than explain how you are convinced in the belief that you have. That's called religion, Mal. Let me just say--your confidence has zero relativity in this new world we find ourselves living in. The "trust me--I'm an expert" days are over. If I truly lack the humility that you obviously have, then perhaps you can respond here using peer reviewed published research to rebut the peer reviewed published points I have made. I noticed nobody has been able to do so yet. Which is so telling...
Hi Andrew,
You stated at the end of your post, “Instead of the selective offering of climate misinformers, you should look at all of the data.” I couldn’t agree more. Your blog post is indeed quite compelling…to those who don’t do their homework. But thanks to modern conveniences and a penchant for finding truth amidst distraction, I have provided a rebuttal to your comments. I guess this is as close as I’ll ever come to doing a climate debate, so here it goes:
You state: “Because of sea level rise, you can say with 100% certainty that climate change is making every TC more destructive.” Wow! I love the confidence! Especially without you providing us any peer reviewed scientific references! Since climate change is all about global trends, let’s start with TC intensity:
1. No change ACE global trend. Colorado State Univ. ACE global trend per hurricane 1980-2024. https://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/See alsohttps://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-most-major-hurricanes-ever. Verdict: Neutral.
2. Slightly increased ACE global trend 1979-2017 (only after adjusting from 28 yr to 39 yr). Kossin et al. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1920849117 . Verdict: Slight positive.
3. Decreased ACE global trend 1990-2021. Klotzbach et al. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2021GL095774. Verdict : Negative.
4. “Quantitative contributions of anthropogenic climate change to the global TC intensification or increase in the proportion of intense tropical cyclones have not been confidently established”. Knutson et al. https://tyndall.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/ScienceBrief_Review_CYCLONES_Mar2021.pdf. Verdict : We just don’t know.
Now let’s talk deaths—a surefire way to see how well the theory pans out:
1. Very significant decrease in TC deaths since 1970:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1297464/global-reported-deaths-tropical-cyclones/#:~:text=The%2010%2Dyear%20period%20with,been%20registered%20across%20the%20globe.
2. Very significant decrease in climate related deaths since 1920: https://humanprogress.org/the-collapse-of-climate-related-deaths-2/.
Now let’s talk financial losses:
1. ICAT dataset corrupted. Pielke https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/64/4/JAMC-D-24-0222.1.xml.
Can you now say with 100% certainty that you and I are making every TC more destructive with this research? Especially with exactly—zero—scientific references? More specifically, in what manner, way, shape or form am I a climate “misinformer” based on what you provided vs. what I provided?
Just a note: Watch out for using death as a metric in complex social systems: EMS, emergency room, and hospital care can reduce deaths (e.g., more kids surviving handgun shootings due to modern city trauma care), but then more are shifted into other serious morbidity categories. In this case, death is not a measure of the destructive power of a tropical cyclone.
As far as non-earthquake disasters are concerned, early warnings give people time to prepare. After the thousands of deaths in the 1977 Andhra Pradesh cyclone (officially 10,000 but later estimates rose significantly), India established an early warning system. When the 1996 cyclone hit Andhra Pradesh, ~225,000 families were evacuated ahead of time. Building is more competent, now, too. There are many examples online of newer and better-built homes surviving events that wiped out surrounding homes.
Hi NS, all of the things you cite regarding infrastructure improvements, planning, mitigation and adaptation are important factors in reducing deaths from natural disasters. However please understand, that the opinions of the vast majority of the climate science community including those running The Climate Brink, are that in order for climate change to be catastrophic, it must somehow overwhelm society's ability to adapt to the changes. Otherwise there would be no catastrophe, and no need to cut off fossil fuels. Clearly adaptation plays a role in plummeting deaths from natural disasters, that is true. But the alarmists are finding it increasingly difficult to support a narrative that appears to less tenable with each passing year of "record" warmth accompanied with lowered mortality rates.
"...in order for climate change to be catastrophic, it must somehow overwhelm society's ability to adapt to the changes."
Yes, that is exactly the case. And to be clear, we aren't talking just about the well-off in the US (whose 50 states cover a mere 2% of the globe), but the entire globe, and not just direct mortality, but morbidity and impoverishment. Our climate has been relatively stable (i.e., changing almost imperceptibly over the course of each generation) for thousands of years. Those days are over.
We're breaking more records and we're crossing more and more natural tipping points: We're on a trajectory to lose upwards of 70% of coral reefs (aka "the nurseries of the sea") within three decades. Salt water encroachment is reducing once-productive farming areas (e.g., the Mekong delta), and taking out once-reliable water supplies for millions of people (e.g., south Florida). The global frequency of crop failures or reductions in yield is going up. In many parts of the world, wildfire doesn't have a "season" any more. And we ain't seen nothing yet. Meanwhile, there are more than enough people who will squeal like stuck pigs at any mention of increasing the relevant budgets to handle it.
BTW, I have never gotten a clear definition of what an "alarmist" is, probably because that's just a mushy disparaging term people pick up from anti-RE, anti-science media. I don't suppose you can supply one that describes people who have given accurate (or, too often, sadly underestimated) forecasts about climate change for the past half century.
Regarding coral reefs:
"We find that readily available public data for coral cover exhibit unexpected trends (e.g., a positive correlation between coral cover and multi-year cumulative thermal stress), contrary to prevailing scientific expectations."
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20240001730/downloads/Hochberg%20Gierach%202021.pdf.
Dang, y'all seriously can't get a break here! You can't even win the coral reef argument!
==============
It is incontrovertible that many coral reefs are in various stages of decline and may be unable to withstand the effects of global climate change.... An estimated 50% of the world’s corals have already been lost, and those remaining may be lost by 2030 under the “business as usual” CO2 emissions scenario.
==============
This paper is discussing improved methods of sampling coral at a global level, plus designing better metrics for establishing the health of a reef (coral v. algae v. sand). This is not a challenge to the forecast of increased heat stress and death of corals, but it might be a way to determine [local] external factors in the survival of individual reefs.
[Off to fetch my suitcase and expand my carbon footprint.]
NS--again, unless you provide scientific articles showing trends over time, all you have are anecdotes. Salt water encroachment needs to be global, not just Mekong delta. Reduced water supplies needs to be global, not just south Florida. Anecdotes aren't science.
You state, "The global frequency of crop failures or reductions in yield is going up." Wrong. Sorry. See: https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields.
You state, "Wildfire doesn't have a "season" any more." Not sure what you mean by that, but global wildfires and burned area are down globally. See: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aal4108
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020RG000726
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JD027749
The definition of an alarmist is someone equivalent to a hippie standing on the corner with a sandwich sign written on it, "The end is near(er)!"
Can't address the rest right now. I have a flight tomorrow and I don't want to be late for injecting another 100kt or so CO2 into the atmosphere!
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020RG000726
First published in early April 2022
"Global and Regional Trends and Drivers of Fire Under Climate Change"
======================
Fire weather controls the annual timing of fires in most world regions and also drives inter-annual variability in BA in the Mediterranean, the Pacific US and high latitude forests. Increases in the frequency and extremity of fire weather have been globally pervasive due to climate change during 1979–2019, meaning that landscapes are primed to burn more frequently.
=======================
Is that trend-y enough for you?
=======================
Moreover, several of the major wildfires experienced in recent years, including the Australian bushfires of 2019/2020, have occurred amidst fire weather conditions that were considerably more likely due to climate change.
=======================
The Australian bushfires of their 2023/2024 summer (>144M ha) covered more than three times the area of the 2019/2020 season.
Of course these disasters don't result in the higher death tolls you are so focused on, just increased public expense for rescues and firefighting, and increases in financial loss or impoverishment for those whose homes and businesses were affected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_fires_of_the_21st_century
"You state, 'Wildfire doesn't have a "season" any more.' Not sure what you mean by that...."
It was an empirical observation by some wildfire management officials trying to inform the public. It affects budgeting and increasingly overworked personnel, and there is less personnel relief as regional firefighting overlaps with the "seasons" of other regions' wildfires.
"...but global wildfires and burned area are down globally. See: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aal4108 "
Did you understand what they were measuring?
===========
Humans have, and always have had, a major impact on wildfire activity, which is expected to increase in our warming world. Andela et al. use satellite data to show that, unexpectedly, global burned area declined by ∼25% over the past 18 years, despite the influence of climate. The decrease has been largest in savannas and grasslands because of agricultural expansion and intensification.
===========
Note that the metric in this paper is *burned area* (where a savanna and a forest are measured the same way, even though the impacts are radically different due to the volume of fuel involved), and they have attributed the reduction in burned area primarily due to agricultural expansion.
I do note that since that study, we have had twelve of the 18 biggest wildfires of this century, and the Manitoba fires are just getting started.
"Salt water encroachment needs to be global, not just Mekong delta."
No, it does *not* need to be global. The mechanism of saltwater intrusion is taught in undergraduate geology classes (both hydro and coastal structures). Along porous coastlines (sand, fractured granites, porous limestone), all else being equal, a local rise in sea level (or a reduction in fresh water supply) will push the boundary between a freshwater lens and salt water. This is a critical and well-understood issue on small or arid islands.
In the case of unconsolidated river deltas, as the sea rises, so does the saline nature of the saturated soils. Saline intrusion also happens when the flow rate of freshwater out of a stream is cut back, as when the Mississippi River flow got so low due to watershed drought that there was the fear that the salt water boundary would reach New Orleans. Similarly, natural flow levels can be reduced by dams or high extraction. This is undergraduate textbook stuff.
FWIW, I want the scientists and science communicators to make clear that Mean Global Sea Level Rise is a global calculation that is only useful to measure some trend, like a global thermometer. What local communities need to know is what their *local* sea level rise rate will be, taking into account the various factors that apply to that particular stretch of coastline.
How does ACE relate to rapid intensification?
If I take some of the smaller apples out of the fruit basket, making the proportion of larger apples higher, does this mean the larger apples themselves have grown bigger? not really. but I could get fancy and say the frequency distribution is shifted to larger apples..
"...ask the people who have money on the line: insurance companies. If you do that, the verdict is clear: insurance premiums are skyrocketing..."
One proviso: Part of the premium increases is due to the increasing *expense* of rebuilding. It isn't just simple inflation affecting material and labor costs, but higher demand for rebuilding as more communities get hit. (Los Angeles' rebuild must be a competitive nightmare.)
For all the utterly insane amount of rain from Hurricane Harvey (2017), I like to remind people that in 2001, a measly "tropical storm" called Allison dropped 10-25" of rain as it wandered about the Texas/Louisiana coast. With 50 deaths, and losses of ~$6B making it the costliest tropical storm on record, people who would normally pay attention to a "hurricane" were taken by surprise (hence, I believe, the high death toll).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_Storm_Allison#/media/File:Allison_2001_rainfall.gif
That’s a pretty small event these days. I’m in far north Queensland in Australia. Earlier this year we had a tropical low that delivered over 3m (around 120 inches) of rain to areas just north of Townsville. The tropical lows we are experiencing now are like a cyclone, but without the wind but much worse. They come in off the sea and dump enormous amounts of rain before going back out to sea to replenish and return and repeat. It’s very nasty.
Aye, I get that. But as someone who grew up in a hurricane zone (New Orleans), I was used to thinking dismissively of mere tropical storms. They ain't my grandfather's storm no mo'.
Tropical cyclones are becoming increasingly common in South Central and Southern US. Of course they're called Tornadoes, not hurricanes. The Northern jetstream has weakened and relocated seemingly almost permanently now, coming down from Siberia and Canada in through central and Southern US and at the same time this weakening is permitting very warm equatorial jet stream air to invade into the South. On top of all this there appears to be an abundance of water vapor in the high atmosphere coming from somewhere. Could be coming down with the Northern jet stream that has relocated or coming up from the Equatorial Jet.
Now we think or the Northern latitudes( subarctic/Arctic) as dry and desert-like the entry of larger quantities of water vapor from up there seem unlikely, however with the introduction of mega dams impounding thousands of square miles of sea-size reservoirs for the pas 65 years for the sole purpose of making hydroelectric energy mostly wintertime. This may have something to do with creating water vapor there Bot the process of evaporations of the seas-size impoundment in summer time and the delivering only in winter of warmer waters, at 40F, well below the thermal cline , ice free, then discharging this warmer water through the turbines all winter long creates even stronger evaporative forces at work.
The abstract and podcast below is for all folks who firmly believe that there is only one main driver of climate change . CO2 appears to have some effect however the thermodynamics of rearranging the atmosphere in the northern reaches must be studied more carefully. Unfortunately many are quite comfortable putting the lions share of Climate problem on what might be only a secondary issue. There are millions of dams throughout the world, many are very large and located in severe evaporative zones either equatorial sub-polar. Our concern should be the subarctic and Arctic zones.
https://r3genesis.substack.com/p/164-the-earth-sauna-audio-version?utm_source=podcast-email%2Csubstack&publication_id=899805&post_id=162800940&utm_campaign=email-play-on-substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=play_card_post_title&r=2ddkm6&triedRedirect=true
Our research group has teamed up with an electrical and thermodynamics engineer. Here's an abstract and Podcast. If there is further interest we have more in depth work on the atmospheric effect of domes of water vapor that cannot condense in the Arctic atmosphere and end up high/jetstream (Ionisphere/Troposphere and the vapor is moved sometimes thousands of miles till it hits the right atmospheric conditions CCL Cloud Condensing Nuclei which willl form clouds and severe storms
tropical cyclones are not the same as tornadoes.
https://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone
https://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Tornado
Andrew of course you're correct. However similar forces support the formation of both. Very warm water / very warm air. Of course the water vapor is a vapor form of water however the latent heat carried and is released as an implosion process creating cloud, rain, and severity of storms.
It now seems commonplace that from mid winter till sometime into summer there are now 100's of Tornadoes throughout Southern and also South central regions. This area only a decade ago or a little more only had 5-7Tornadoes a season.
Something is up literally up in the atmosphere that is causing such a radical change. We believe that it is displaced water vapor, created in an area that is not capable of condensation process, not enough cloud condensing nuclei than the large excesses are caught up in the Jet stream to be relocated in another region. I'm going to add another abstract deeper details of ours. I appreciate your following up. this is a link to more information and supporting materials. it's long but would appreciate your input
https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZxlzS5Zpemi2OaEaAQohhdCpCt085TzJI0X