Changes in Tropical Cyclone Intensity & Track

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Scientific American Magazine:

We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and We’re Going to Say So
It’s time to use a term that more than 13,000 scientists agree is needed

By Mark Fischetti on April 12, 2021

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...e8872-45326354

"Given the circumstances, Scientific American has agreed with major news outlets worldwide to start using the term “climate emergency” in its coverage of climate change. An official statement about this decision, and the impact we hope it can have throughout the media landscape, is below."
. . .

Hmmmm . . . scientists now following the lead of media outlets. I see. And praising the media response to the pandemic. It's getting clearer now. Climate "emergency" sounds awful close to the climate "crisis" that was declared by the new US administration on Jan. 20th. But this has nothing to do with politics, only "the" science. At least it adds the disclaimer at the end that it's an opinion article, but that won't prevent many from taking it as scientific "fact." We all should know by now how well alarmism sells.

[Lateral Hazard]

"Like many, it sounds like you may be assuming that the strong scientific consensus over the mere existence of CC carries over into the much less certain causal connection between CC and recent weather/environmental events."

30 years is not recent.
" One may ask why sample size is so important. The answer to this is that an appropriate sample size is required for validity. If the sample size it too small, it will not yield valid results. ... If we are using three independent variables, then a clear rule would be to have a minimum sample size of 30."

It is called statistics and science.

[Lateral Hazard]

Originally Posted by Exile

Hmmmm . . . scientists now following the lead of media outlets. I see. And praising the media response to the pandemic. It's getting clearer now. Climate "emergency" sounds awful close to the climate "crisis" that was declared by the new US administration on Jan. 20th. But this has nothing to do with politics, only "the" science. At least it adds the disclaimer at the end that it's an opinion article, but that won't prevent many from taking it as scientific "fact." We all should know by now how well alarmism sells.

Agreeing with is not following. News is reporting what science is saying. You are twisting words to make a point.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lateral Hazard

"Like many, it sounds like you may be assuming that the strong scientific consensus over the mere existence of CC carries over into the much less certain causal connection between CC and recent weather/environmental events."

30 years is not recent.
" One may ask why sample size is so important. The answer to this is that an appropriate sample size is required for validity. If the sample size it too small, it will not yield valid results. ... If we are using three independent variables, then a clear rule would be to have a minimum sample size of 30."

It is called statistics and science.

When it comes to climate 30 years is minuscule compared to the predominant climate events such as ice ages. This is not to be confused, as GordMay has already pointed out, with the 30 year averages that the science uses for statistical purposes. Whether 30 years is an appropriate "sample size" (as you say) is a major component of the debate within the science itself. I think you're confusing the two.

There is certainly scientific support for your position, but it's far more complex and nuanced than a simple declaration that "30 years is not recent." Or even more nebulous, that your superficial view reflects "statistics and science." You're obviously welcome to whatever opinions you wish, but implying that others who disagree are not following statistics and science is an all too common but nevertheless empty refrain around here.

Originally Posted by Lateral Hazard

Agreeing with is not following. News is reporting what science is saying. You are twisting words to make a point.

I don't know what your first sentence means, the second is for the most part patently false, and I'm certainly not trying to twist anything. In fact, I'm not even stating "you're wrong" that CC is the cause of recent extreme weather events and modern warming trends. I'm only pointing out that scientists as a whole don't share your level of certainty, nor does climate science as a whole support the alarmism we see in articles such as what was recently posted. You may personally view it as "life & death," and that's your prerogative. But claiming the "statistics and science" support that view in such absolute terms is not objectively true.

Since this thread has been posted in the Seamanship/Nav/Weather forum, perhaps it's best not to rehash yet another CC debate amongst non-scientists, and stick to whether the intensity and tracks of tropical storms are indeed changing and, if so, how that may affect cruisers' passage planning and passage making. If this is in fact happening, then it's actual cause is hardly relevant to cruisers trying to accomplish such endeavors.

[contrail]

Originally Posted by jmschmidt

Why so few in 2018, 2019 and 2020 compared to 2017?

I am surprised that you quoted such an easily disproved statistic. You are usually more subtle. Are you really saying that 2020 was a season with few hurricanes?

[Lateral Hazard]

EXILE,
It is mathematics, statistics and science. No one i saying you have to believe in those things. That is ok. You are in the minority but that is also ok. Have a nice night.

[Montanan]

More than 300 businesses and investors, including tech giants and major utilities, are calling on the Biden administration to set an ambitious climate-change goal that would cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50% below 2005 levels by 2030. Includes Apple, Google, CocaCola, Walmart, Microsoft, Unilever, GE, Exelon, Edison International, Pacific Gas & Electric / PG&E.

That target would nearly double the U.S.’s previous commitment on emissions reduction and the time horizon would require dramatic changes in the power and transportation sectors and elsewhere throughout the economy, analysts say.

Ranging from small companies to major corporations, signatories to the open letter sent Tuesday employ a combined 6 million U.S. workers across all 50 states and represent more than $3 trillion in annual revenue.

President Biden is considering policy options for expected carbon reductions by 2030 ahead of a virtual international climate summit he is hosting April 22-23 as the administration looks to reup the U.S. leadership role on climate change.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ap...?siteid=yhoof2

[Exile]

And this is relevant to seamanship, navigation, and passage planning how?

Wouldn't this sort of science politics be better suited to the off-topic forum?

[donradcliffe]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Not sure I see the humor. There was another sea temp heat wave in 1998 that also killed off the reefs. But my understanding is that it was not near as bad as this last one. 90%+ of the coral in the reefs are dead. It is pretty astounding. We've seen lots of places that had dead sections of reef and talk of bleaching across the Carib, Pacific, Australia and Indo islands, but we could always look the other way and head off to colorful, healthy reef near by. Not so here, it is major destruction.

If this was simply a weather event, then I would have expected the corals to have adapted over the decades.

Interesting paper on the Indian Ocean coral bleaching here
https://link.springer.com/article/10...38-019-01821-9

I would have to say to my unscientific eyes that 90% of the reefs were dead in 2004, and the prognosis I heard was it would take decades for the coral to recover if it ever did. The study you quoted for Chagos mentioned the possibility that bleaching events may actually make the reefs recover faster, although it may be different species. Here is a somewhat more optimistic view of the situation.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...-reefs/549713/

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

I would have to say to my unscientific eyes that 90% of the reefs were dead in 2004, and the prognosis I heard was it would take decades for the coral to recover if it ever did. The study you quoted for Chagos mentioned the possibility that bleaching events may actually make the reefs recover faster, although it may be different species. Here is a somewhat more optimistic view of the situation.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...-reefs/549713/

Strangely as we have gotten much closer to the equator in the Maldives the reefs are much healthier. We are about 350 miles further south than where we started, 40 miles north of the equator. The reefs here look reasonably healthy. You see signs of bleaching and dead reef, but they are mixed with a lot of live coral.

I would of thought the closer to the equator the worse it would be. Wrong again.

[boatman61]

My thought are tourism and all the needs tourism brings are what is killing of the reefs around the big inhabited Islands and smaller 'all in' purpose built paradises.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by boatman61

My thought are tourism and all the needs tourism brings are what is killing of the reefs around the big inhabited Islands and smaller 'all in' purpose built paradises.

Probably true in many places. Not so here in the Maldives where there is island after uninhabited island all connected by hundreds of miles of reefs.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Strangely as we have gotten much closer to the equator in the Maldives the reefs are much healthier. We are about 350 miles further south than where we started, 40 miles north of the equator. The reefs here look reasonably healthy. You see signs of bleaching and dead reef, but they are mixed with a lot of live coral.

I would of thought the closer to the equator the worse it would be. Wrong again.

This seems consistent with what's been reported on the Great Barrier Reef, i.e. the more northerly areas with naturally warmer waters are doing better. But then those areas are also away from large population centers, tourist areas, agricultural run-off, industry, etc. Do any of these factors sync with your observations in the Maldives?

Edit: You just answered, thanks.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Exile

This seems consistent with what's been reported on the Great Barrier Reef, i.e. the more northerly areas with naturally warmer waters are doing better. But then those areas are also away from large population centers, tourist areas, agricultural run-off, industry, etc. Do any of these factors sync with your observations in the Maldives?

Edit: You just answered, thanks.

Yes, the reefs nearer the equator are much healthier. Changed my whole attitude on the Maldives.

[parachute]

[QUOTE=GordMay;3376641]Changes in Tropical Cyclone Intensity & Track


Climate change is probably increasing the intensity of tropical cyclones


I am not sure about that we were in the Caribbean in 2004, there were the most hurricanes, the most Cat 5s and hurricane in January 2005.