5 ms·

We can be thankful that these kinds of event happen rarely. The thing I find interesting is the comments by the experts that these kinds of events are supposed

We can be thankful that these kinds of event happen rarely. The thing I find interesting is the comments by the experts that these kinds of events are supposed to be an indicator of future catastrophe and they do not say that these kinds of events have occurred in the past as well. If we were to see these kinds of events occur more and more frequently (like, every year and a couple of times a year) then we would have evidence that specific changes had occurred in the climate. But to jump the gun and say that this is a harbinger of massive change based on just this occurrence is premature at best and at worst, well, choose your own words.

oldandtired 8y ago
I should add that the last time this kind of event occurred at my parents town, which is in the tropics, was just before a significant years long drought. The local post office's rain gauge maxed out at about 1 metre. This was over a period of either 9 hours or 19 hours.
dhimes 8y ago
If we were to see these kinds of events occur more and more frequently (like, every year and a couple of times a year) then we would have evidence that specific changes had occurred in the climate. The problem is that we don't really know the number is that means "frequently." In the US we had this Hawaii event; we had the Nor'easters[1] in what-10 days?; we had the strongest winter storm on record; we had the catastrophic Texas flooding (because of the Hurricane, but extra). In what-7 months or so? [1] One of those Nor'easters brought enormous damage not because it was so strong, but because there was simultaneously an enormous storm in the ocean-2000 miles across or so, that was going to pound our coast with waves anyway, piling on.
- oldandtired 8y ago
  Certainly, what number of events over what period of time to be considered frequently is a judgement call and different people and different groups of people will have different criteria to determine this. The problem with records, as they currently exist, is that they are partial at best. It doesn't take much for extent records to be destroyed. As a civilisation, we do not value things like this. As a consequence, when those looking into what has happened in the past, personal recollection is considered extremely unreliable and is often ignored. Some time in the last year, I did a search for extreme weather events that occurred between 1850 and 1910 in Queensland, Australia. The kinds of records that are available are quite sparse. However, a couple of interesting things did arise. 1. The population of that area was quite small during the time period in question. The records come from farms and cattle stations mostly. 2. The recorded values aren't usually used today, though when I was a child and a teen, those values were regularly given during the cyclone season to warn people of the severity of the events. The values were for barometric pressure. I found the recorded values to be so much lower than what was published during the 1960's and 1970's. The inference being that these extreme weather events were spectacularly bigger and more destructive than the events recorded in recent years. The actual destruction to human property and lives was minimal due to the low population density of those times. There are a lot of factors that go into how "destructive" recent events are. If you look at the bigger picture, what we can see is that increasing population density and the subsequent population distribution and the subsequent greed by various factions means that there are more and more people now living in places that a century ago, no one would have lived in because they knew that to do so would be foolish as the weather events would be destructive in those areas. When it boils down to it, people en bulk tend to be less wise and more easily manipulated. If climate scientists and those that support the anthropogenic climate change agenda want to get to be supportive, they need to be less political and less dogmatic and much more open. As I have said elsewhere, if climate scientists can answer specific question in a clear logical manner then they can have the benefit of the doubt. If they don't and they won't then one can quite logically call their utterances as rubbish. I'm still waiting fifteen years after my initial questions and still nary an answer. Your opinion over whether or not anthropogenic causes are responsible for climate change is still, at this time, just an opinion. We do not have sufficient facts or research to determine this, nor do we have sufficient facts or research to determine what mitigation protocols will be effective in the face of climate change. Does climate change exist? Of course it does. We have the obvious evidence before us. But, is it anthropogenic? That we cannot tell at this point. Do humans alter the environment? Yes, we have seen this over a period of a couple of millenia. Does this environmental change have gross effects on climate? We really don't know. We don't know the long term feedback cycles within the planetary system and these feedback cycles are important. Anyone who declares that they know for certain, is just blowing smoke in your eyes. If we cannot stop the dogma and the politics about the subject, we will not even begin to understand the complexity of our planetary system. I have had arguments with scientists and all I can say is that they need a good engineering education to understand the limitations of their theories and models. Many seem to live in a fairy land that ignores reality. Maybe it is just the scientists I have come in contact with.
  - dhimes 8y ago
    Maybe it is just the scientists I have come in contact with. Perhaps. In general you are preaching to the choir. I don't follow the politics of climate change, however. Occasionally I'll see something about a denier paper funded by somebody with skin in the game (like an oil company), so I'm sure there are shenanigans going on. But there are a lot of people out there who have some idea of a boogey-man scientific power structure that is desperate to maintain it's supremacy and therefore will corrupt scientific research to protect it. It's the same boogey-man that gives rise to theories about evolution and the origin of the universe. Exactly what this power structure is they don't explain. These are not people who have ever been engaged in scientific research. They aren't stupid, just aren't in the field. Kind of like non-athletes who criticize an athlete who is probably in the top 100 people on the planet at doing what they do as "sucking." So they're easily distracted by arguments like it's "all political" and "both sides have a point," which, while true, miss a very important distinction. One side very clearly has a financial stake in the game, and their investors demand (by force of law) that they protect that stake. The other side stands to gain...I'm not really sure. Does the scientist who "proves" anthropogenic climate change make 15 million dollars a year for it? Does the lab stand to gain? Maybe some research funding to pay for more trips, but they're not flying first class. You don't make a name for yourself by saying what everybody else is saying. But maybe there is something I'm missing. Maybe you can explain it to me.
    - oldandtired 8y ago
      Most work environments are "political" in nature. Within them, certain ideas are not to be questioned. Within most science research groups there will be an expectation that you will be following the "consensus" model, whatever that may be. For example, in string theory research groups you will be expected to follow the party line of "string theory" as the basic viewpoint, and so your work will not be supported if you dispute string theory in any way. Whereas in other research groups you will be expected to discount any string theory model as valid and if you support string theory you will be frowned upon and not funded. So it is with many different research areas. Anthropogenic climate change is the mantra for climate research, so you had better follow party line or you don't get funded. If your research doesn't produce the results that support that view then it will quickly be removed from funding. It really doesn't matter what the subject matter is, if what you are doing doesn't follow "funding guidelines", it will be closed down. Before that happens, to keep their jobs, most people will follow the party line. This is a shame as "science should be fun" and a way to further our understanding of the universe around us. What I find interesting is that scientists, on the whole, seem to be trained to believe that some things are "truth" because the theories on which those "truths" are based seem to work and work well. In fact, many believe that certain things exist and spend their days, months and years trying to find those things. Occasionally after much time, some of these things seem to appear as based on their models. It seems to vindicate their belief in their theories and models. Yet, if one takes a few steps back and takes along hard look at the data collected, other things appear that raise questions about the validity of those theories and models. This is a good thing as it suggests that our theories and models may not only be incomplete but could be quite wrong. There is nothing wrong with that. I liken it to the geocentric to heliocentric viewpoints. Both had some level of workability, but both have been superseded by later data and observations. Instead of being a tool for exploration of our universe, science appears to be getting the veneer of a religious system of belief and a pantheon of gods to go with it. Oh well.

oldandtired 8y ago

I should add that the last time this kind of event occurred at my parents town, which is in the tropics, was just before a significant years long drought. The local post office's rain gauge maxed out at about 1 metre. This was over a period of either 9 hours or 19 hours.

dhimes 8y ago

If we were to see these kinds of events occur more and more frequently (like, every year and a couple of times a year) then we would have evidence that specific changes had occurred in the climate. The problem is that we don't really know the number is that means "frequently." In the US we had this Hawaii event; we had the Nor'easters[1] in what-10 days?; we had the strongest winter storm on record; we had the catastrophic Texas flooding (because of the Hurricane, but extra). In what-7 months or so? [1] One of those Nor'easters brought enormous damage not because it was so strong, but because there was simultaneously an enormous storm in the ocean-2000 miles across or so, that was going to pound our coast with waves anyway, piling on.

oldandtired 8y ago
Certainly, what number of events over what period of time to be considered frequently is a judgement call and different people and different groups of people will have different criteria to determine this. The problem with records, as they currently exist, is that they are partial at best. It doesn't take much for extent records to be destroyed. As a civilisation, we do not value things like this. As a consequence, when those looking into what has happened in the past, personal recollection is considered extremely unreliable and is often ignored. Some time in the last year, I did a search for extreme weather events that occurred between 1850 and 1910 in Queensland, Australia. The kinds of records that are available are quite sparse. However, a couple of interesting things did arise. 1. The population of that area was quite small during the time period in question. The records come from farms and cattle stations mostly. 2. The recorded values aren't usually used today, though when I was a child and a teen, those values were regularly given during the cyclone season to warn people of the severity of the events. The values were for barometric pressure. I found the recorded values to be so much lower than what was published during the 1960's and 1970's. The inference being that these extreme weather events were spectacularly bigger and more destructive than the events recorded in recent years. The actual destruction to human property and lives was minimal due to the low population density of those times. There are a lot of factors that go into how "destructive" recent events are. If you look at the bigger picture, what we can see is that increasing population density and the subsequent population distribution and the subsequent greed by various factions means that there are more and more people now living in places that a century ago, no one would have lived in because they knew that to do so would be foolish as the weather events would be destructive in those areas. When it boils down to it, people en bulk tend to be less wise and more easily manipulated. If climate scientists and those that support the anthropogenic climate change agenda want to get to be supportive, they need to be less political and less dogmatic and much more open. As I have said elsewhere, if climate scientists can answer specific question in a clear logical manner then they can have the benefit of the doubt. If they don't and they won't then one can quite logically call their utterances as rubbish. I'm still waiting fifteen years after my initial questions and still nary an answer. Your opinion over whether or not anthropogenic causes are responsible for climate change is still, at this time, just an opinion. We do not have sufficient facts or research to determine this, nor do we have sufficient facts or research to determine what mitigation protocols will be effective in the face of climate change. Does climate change exist? Of course it does. We have the obvious evidence before us. But, is it anthropogenic? That we cannot tell at this point. Do humans alter the environment? Yes, we have seen this over a period of a couple of millenia. Does this environmental change have gross effects on climate? We really don't know. We don't know the long term feedback cycles within the planetary system and these feedback cycles are important. Anyone who declares that they know for certain, is just blowing smoke in your eyes. If we cannot stop the dogma and the politics about the subject, we will not even begin to understand the complexity of our planetary system. I have had arguments with scientists and all I can say is that they need a good engineering education to understand the limitations of their theories and models. Many seem to live in a fairy land that ignores reality. Maybe it is just the scientists I have come in contact with.
- dhimes 8y ago
  Maybe it is just the scientists I have come in contact with. Perhaps. In general you are preaching to the choir. I don't follow the politics of climate change, however. Occasionally I'll see something about a denier paper funded by somebody with skin in the game (like an oil company), so I'm sure there are shenanigans going on. But there are a lot of people out there who have some idea of a boogey-man scientific power structure that is desperate to maintain it's supremacy and therefore will corrupt scientific research to protect it. It's the same boogey-man that gives rise to theories about evolution and the origin of the universe. Exactly what this power structure is they don't explain. These are not people who have ever been engaged in scientific research. They aren't stupid, just aren't in the field. Kind of like non-athletes who criticize an athlete who is probably in the top 100 people on the planet at doing what they do as "sucking." So they're easily distracted by arguments like it's "all political" and "both sides have a point," which, while true, miss a very important distinction. One side very clearly has a financial stake in the game, and their investors demand (by force of law) that they protect that stake. The other side stands to gain...I'm not really sure. Does the scientist who "proves" anthropogenic climate change make 15 million dollars a year for it? Does the lab stand to gain? Maybe some research funding to pay for more trips, but they're not flying first class. You don't make a name for yourself by saying what everybody else is saying. But maybe there is something I'm missing. Maybe you can explain it to me.
  - oldandtired 8y ago
    Most work environments are "political" in nature. Within them, certain ideas are not to be questioned. Within most science research groups there will be an expectation that you will be following the "consensus" model, whatever that may be. For example, in string theory research groups you will be expected to follow the party line of "string theory" as the basic viewpoint, and so your work will not be supported if you dispute string theory in any way. Whereas in other research groups you will be expected to discount any string theory model as valid and if you support string theory you will be frowned upon and not funded. So it is with many different research areas. Anthropogenic climate change is the mantra for climate research, so you had better follow party line or you don't get funded. If your research doesn't produce the results that support that view then it will quickly be removed from funding. It really doesn't matter what the subject matter is, if what you are doing doesn't follow "funding guidelines", it will be closed down. Before that happens, to keep their jobs, most people will follow the party line. This is a shame as "science should be fun" and a way to further our understanding of the universe around us. What I find interesting is that scientists, on the whole, seem to be trained to believe that some things are "truth" because the theories on which those "truths" are based seem to work and work well. In fact, many believe that certain things exist and spend their days, months and years trying to find those things. Occasionally after much time, some of these things seem to appear as based on their models. It seems to vindicate their belief in their theories and models. Yet, if one takes a few steps back and takes along hard look at the data collected, other things appear that raise questions about the validity of those theories and models. This is a good thing as it suggests that our theories and models may not only be incomplete but could be quite wrong. There is nothing wrong with that. I liken it to the geocentric to heliocentric viewpoints. Both had some level of workability, but both have been superseded by later data and observations. Instead of being a tool for exploration of our universe, science appears to be getting the veneer of a religious system of belief and a pantheon of gods to go with it. Oh well.