I often highlight situations where the science of disasters and climate change is misrepresented. Here is a case of the opposite situation. Today's
Financial Times gets the science of disasters and climate change exactly right:
The biggest question, though, remains the extent to which climate change is the driver of hurricanes, cyclones and flooding that have hit the world with apparently increased ferocity and regularity in recent years.
It is still proving extremely difficult for scientists to extract a clear sign of the effects of climate change from the normal long-term historic cycles of weather and climate activity. That is despite simple logic saying that a warmer climate should result in more powerful storms because of a greater water content in the atmosphere.
Axel Lehmann, chief risk officer at Zurich Financial Services, says it is necessary to take a long-term perspective – of 200 or even 1,000 years.
“In terms of severity and frequency, is this type of event happening in a more systematic way? We do not yet have an answer on that,” he says.
“But on a systematic basis we do know that a growing population puts pressure on the earth and its resources.”
10 comments:
"apparently increased ferocity and regularity in recent years"
That's exactly right??
And the last line makes no sense following the line before. How does a growing population put pressure on the earth and its resources say anything about weather? It doesn't unless you assume the conclusion.
I didn't think your position was that hurricanes, cyclones and flooding have intensified in strength and frequency.
“But on a systematic basis we do know that a growing population puts pressure on the earth and its resources.”
A more important thing we know is that human beings continuously attempt to improve when they identify problems.
Andrew Revkin's blog indicated that 44% of deaths from tornadoes occur at trailer parks. It sems to me that a logical response would be to have tornado shelters, siren warning systems, and periodic drills at trailer parks.
"That is despite simple logic saying that a warmer climate should result in more powerful storms because of a greater water content in the atmosphere."
I challenge the scientific basis for that statement. Temperature differences drive all heat engines (not heat nor water content). This is why the severe storms are in the mid latitudes where polar and tropical air meat, not in the tropics where the temperature and water content are highest.
The simple logic says increasing co2 will warm the poles more than the tropics, reducing the global temperature differences not increasing them. The AGW simple logic implies fewer severe storms not more.
Slightly more complex logic says that the temperature increase will be greatest at the poles, where the incremental change in saturated water vapor pressure is still very small because the temperature is low. And the effect of the increase in the water content of the atmosphere may be offset by a decrease in the polar/equatorial temperature gradient.
Even more sophisticated logic says it's a complex problem with no simple answer, and maybe not a single answer. Some problems just can't be "intuited".
"Slightly more complex logic says that the temperature increase will be greatest at the poles, where the incremental change in saturated water vapor pressure is still very small because the temperature is low. And the effect of the increase in the water content of the atmosphere may be offset by a decrease in the polar/equatorial temperature gradient."
Yes, and the data (no material increase in hurricane and tornado) is consistent with this logic.
Theory and data support each other. This is science.
charlesH:
I wouldn't say what I posted rises to the level of theory, and the data aren't very good either. A verdict of 'no clear answer' on both theory and experiment isn't the sort of agreement between theory and experiment I generally shoot for :-)
Notice how Dr. Lehmann shifts from climate to population and enviro pressures?
In many ways cliamte is a paradigm to line up a very disparate group of issues and concerns.
The problem is that the CO2 obsession offers only a one sized answer to this diverse set of problems, and that answer does not seem to have any real world impact.
Gerard,
OK, I'll just say what I posted as theory is supported by the data.
Theory:
Heat and humidity do not drive severe storms. Hot and cold air differences do (as with any heat engine).
Data:
The tropics are hotter and more humid than the mid-latitudes while the severe storms are concentrated in the mid-latitudes.
QED
Sorry about the typos.
Here is a clear read of what I tried to say:
Notice how Dr. Lehmann shifts from climate to population and enviro pressures?
In many ways 'climate' is a paradigm which lines up a very disparate group of issues and concerns.
A lens which allows the believer to see the world as inter-connected.
The problem is that the CO2 obsession offers only a one sized answer to this diverse set of problems, and this answer does not seem to have any real world impact. Controlling CO2 seems to be as effective as solving environmental problems and population problems as pushing wet rope.
Dr. Lehmann, when pushed to explain the important of the AGW CO2 paradigm has to fall back on other topics like population and environment because CO2 regulation is not going to work.
This is in a sense an implication of the Iron Law you discuss in your book. Things that do not work are by definition too costly.
Post a Comment