This was my comment(the article is WRONG about their science)
April 15, 2022 6:22 pm
Tribalism on issues, including science like this is continuing to get greater and greater weighting and critical thinking gets less and less weighting.
One side greatly exaggerates things that are really happening related to climate change/global warming, sometimes by a factor of 3 or 4+ and the other side’s response, SOMETIMES is to say it’s not happening at all.
I’ve been an operational meteorologist for more than 40 years and the laws of physics/meteorology have NOT changed related to this topic.
Warmer air CAN hold more moisture…..around 7% more H2O per 1 deg C.
Air masses over warmer water hold more moisture/have more precipitable water. Weather systems, whether hurricanes or otherwise in warmer environments, all other variables held constant, except for the ability for the air to hold more moisture(with direct access/tapping the moisture)……….will produce more rain.
This may not always be true in land areas distant from oceans (where the dew point depression-difference between the air temp and dp temp matters more) but it sure is over an ocean with an indisputable direct causation of hurricanes yielding higher rainfall amounts because of a warmer ocean/air temp above.
Hurricanes are warm core storms over water of at least 26C/79F. A saturated lapse rate insures latent heat will be released at a maximum rate. The heat hurricanes generate is from the condensation of water vapor as it convectively rises around the eye wall. The lapse rate must be unstable around the eyewall to insure rising parcels of air will continue to rise and condense water vapor. The warmer the ocean temperature and environment in the hurricane is…….the more moisture can be condensed out……….all other factors held constant.
Not an opinion. That is the meteorology/physics.
Also, the reduction of the meridional temperature gradient plays a complicated role here too outside of this.
Warming the higher latitudes actually reduces the need of the planet to exhaust excessive heat in the tropics compared to the cooler temperatures at higher latitudes.
It can also weaken jet streams that form along those gradients. This in turn can lead to changes in the favor-ability of the environment (less sheer) and potentially slow down the movement along a hurricanes track.
That one is more complicated but the causation contribution from warmer oceans/warmer air in hurricanes to heavier rains is crystal clear.
Also, with the higher latitudes warming MUCH more than the lower latitudes, the amount of increase in temperatures in the tropics is LESS THAN 1 deg C, meaning that the extra moisture available in a saturated parcel is LESS THAN 7%.
I found this animation to depict it nicely:
So the 2020 hurricanes, that had to abide by these rock solid laws of physics and meteorology MUST HAVE had more rain than they would have compared to if the oceans were cooler, all other variables being equal.
The question is “how much more?”
The actual report states this:
Human-caused climate change made the entire season — 30 named storms — drop 5-8% more rain. During the 14 storms that reached hurricane status the rainfall was 8-11% heavier, according to the study in Tuesday’s Nature Communications.
The media, greatly embellished with the descriptive verbiage and significance.
CNN, for instance, reported this story(link in the article above) using this for their title:
The climate crisis is supercharging rainfall in hurricanes, scientists report
5% more rain actually seems very reasonable to me. That would mean 30 inches of rain before global warming would result in 31.5 inches of rain after global warming.
11% seems pretty high but that would be 33.3 inches of rain instead of 30 inches.
However, the way to address BS/exaggerations of science in a story to one extreme is not to BS in the opposite direction in an attempt to make them look more wrong.
Just state the true science and agree with what it supports and call them out on the unsupported exaggerating.
This is the correct way to apply authentic science, without letting politics or cognitive bias get in the way.
Heavier rains, actually are one of the few negatives associated with the current climate optimum, from the increase in beneficial CO2 in which climate science was hijacked and even climate history was rewritten to get rid of previous, similar warmings in the past.
There are dozens of anti science, DISinformation narratives related to the FAKE climate crisis on the greening planet.
Many are completely manufactured, many are greatly exaggerated but some are actually close to being true. This study is closer to being true than not, even if CNN and other sources tried to make it scarier and worse.
ADDITION on 4-17-22
Reply to Mike Maguire
April 16, 2022 4:10 am
Today’s Gulf of Mexico water temperatures:
Cuba’s water temperature is 79F to 81F
United States Gulf water temperature is 68F to 74F
Florida’s water temperature is 68F to 77F
Louisiana’s gulf water temperaure is 70F
Mexico’s Gulf water temperature is 72F to 81F
What I’m wondering is how does CO2 cause such divergent temperatures in the ocean?
Are Gulf of Mexico temperatures any higher today than in the past? I have seen the Hockey Stick version, but of course, I don’t believe the Hockey Stick version. I think temperatures were just as warm in the recent past as they are today, going by unmodified regional temperature charts, and in the Gulf of Mexico the temperatures can vary quite a bit from one location to another during hurricane season, so I don’t see CO2 driving anything when it comes to hurricanes.
Reply to Tom Abbott
April 17, 2022 11:29 am
Temperatures in the oceans have been very slowly increasing by all objective measures.
Taking a snap shot of current temperature readings in the GOM shows natural variation at this point in time(April 2022)………..nothing more than that.
If you are trying to say that there’s a 9 deg F difference in the water temperature in the GOM at this moment and CO2 didn’t cause it then………..OK, of course it didn’t cause it. So what?
Natural variation and chaos still vastly dominates weather and oceans have natural cycles that change much slower and last MUCH longer than weather.
But we are superimposing X amount of warming on the entire system because of greenhouse gas(and other warming).
The article relates to that added warmth in the system(especially the oceans, which retain almost all the heat on the planet).
Hurricanes will still form in chaotic fashion based on natural variability/factors but when you add X amount of additional warmth to the system, the result is more rains overall(from the average) when you keep all the other variables constant.
You don’t even need to agree that the extra heat came from CO2 but if you disagree with the above………you are going completely against basic meteorological principles rooted in proven physics/science.
wetter than what????
NO one can tell us how wet hurricanes were 1000 years ago, or 2000 years ago, or 4000 years ago. etc.
NO one can tell us how bad tornadoes were 2000 years ago, or 4000 years ago, or 6000 years ago. etc.
so when someone tries to tell us that storms are getting worse, their data they use for comparison is very limited, and selective. that is poor science.
Great point bear!
Wetter than 100 years ago.
They are likely NOT wetter than 1,000 years ago, during the peak warming of the Medieval Warm Period/Optimum
or 2,000 years ago, during the Roman Warm Period/Optimum….that was warmer than this.(I’ll show the evidence when back in my office on saturday)
or 3,500 years ago, during the Minoan Warm Period
or during the Holocene Climate OPTIMUM, 9,000 to 5,000 years ago
All of this is classic case alarmism tactics. More and more they pick a starting point for their idea of historical record that makes anything we experience now "worst on record".
Always ask those people "when does your record keeping start?" Often their answer is sometime around 1980.
Wildfires in California have been 'pretty bad' in the last few years, compared to the last 20-30 years, but they are nothing compared to the burn acreage in the 1920s and 1930s.
I'll have some wildfire graphs and previous warming graphs, hopefully later today when I get back.
metmike: So how do people manage to put a spin on this authentic science about those periods being warmer than today and being called OPTIMUMS being a bad thing for the current climate optimum?
Yes, they actually do it. This is one example......just crazy, man.
It turns out the Romans were lucky. The centuries during which the empire was built and flourished are known even to climate scientists as the “Roman Climate Optimum.” From circa 200 BC to AD 150, it was warm, wet, and stable across much of the territory the Romans conquered. In an agricultural economy, these conditions were a major boost to GDP. The population swelled yet still there was enough food to feed everyone.
But from the middle of the second century, the climate became less reliable. The all-important annual Nile flood became erratic. Droughts and severe cold spells became more common. The Climate Optimum became much less optimal.
The lesson to be drawn is not, of course, that we shouldn't worry about man-made climate change today, which threatens to be more severe than what the Romans experienced. To the contrary, it shows just how sensitive human societies can be to such change — now amplified in speed and scope by human activity.
metmike: Hugh???? Applying this line of thinking would mean that the reason the current climate optimum that's greening up the planet is a crisis is because it might suddenly go back to the colder climate with less CO2 (when plants were suffering CO2 starvation) a century ago and it would be hard to adjust To such a quick change like what happened to the Romans, who also saw a quick warming…..but the warming part was all good because they didn’t have corrupt politicians and dishonest scientists back then trying to trick people into believing something that went against what they could see with their own eyes was a good thing for life around the,
Based on their mentality, we would be much better off with a continued bad/cold climate, like it was 100 years ago with greatly deficient CO2 that stayed that way indefinitely.
If this sounds confusing……yeah, that’s their objective.
We also hear that those warm periods/optimums were just regional not global.........but absurdly, somehow lasting hundreds of years.
Try to imagine that today, if we suddenly had Europe warming up 2 degrees and no other place on the planet warming up and it lasting 300 years.
That's what they are trying to sell!
It's complete rubbish!
Here are most of the studies(hundreds on the map below), that by a wide margin, show that the Medieval Warm Period was this warm or warmer than this. Most of them done before climate science was hijacked.
Over 100 studies from the Medieval Warm Period, most of which show the planet was this warm or warmer 1,000 years ago. It was also this warm 2,000 years ago during the Roman Warm Period and also just over 3,000 years ago, during the Minoan Warm period.
Medieval Warm Period Project:
|MWP-CWP Qualitative Temperature Differentials - CO2 Science|
Figure Description: The distribution of Level 2 Studies that allow one to determine whether peak Medieval Warm Period temperatures were warmer than (red), equivalent ...
Where did the data from the bar graphs above come from so that we know that this is the authentic science vs the one that the MSM and dems describe with the fake climate crisis(where they can't show the data to prove)?
List of Scientists Whose Work We Cite:
List of Research Institutions Associated With the Work We Cite
For the Medieval Warm Period compared to today below:
Red balloons showed it was warmer.
Blue was colder than today(in that study)
Green was wetter/more precip
Yellow was drier
If you go to the link below, you can hit those individual balloons and get each individual study:
Related to your comment on the wildfires being blamed on climate change......recently, they've increases because of the current La Nina drought(from cold water anomalies in the E/C tropical Pacific)
See more relevant info at this link by scrolling up and down.
Note what happened in the 1930's during the Dust Bowl years in the Plains/Midwest when the drought extended across much of the country for much of the time.......all the way to the West Coast:
(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)
metmike: This should be titled: "How to spin to somebody that doesn't understand authentic science and is showing something that completely busts the Climate Crisis narrative into the opposite of what it really means to make it seem like it doesn't count"
1. The name Holocene Climate Optimum for that period got that name from scientists before climate science was hijacked based on conditions WARMER than this in the areas that are warming the most today on the planet. If something WARMER than this(by 2 deg. C) in the areas having the worst/best of today's warming was called an optimum by objective science, then calling it a crisis today using biased politics/science is bogus.
2. It happened for a reason different than increasing CO2. Their case is to spin it into that fact meaning it can't be the same thing causing the warming today. BUT THAT'S THE ENTIRE SKEPTIC POINT! Something OTHER THAN CO2 INCREASING, caused natural warming in the past and they called it a Climate Optimum.
What is wrong with these people. Repeating the same point that proves we've been warmer before from natural forcing in the atmosphere, not CO2 and claiming it proves that this one is a crisis because it's from an increase in humanities CO2 is retarded.
3. They say that the Holocene Climate Optimum was mainly from the warmer Summers because it made Winters colder. Somehow, this means that the current warming, that's warming the coldest places, during the coldest times of year(Winter) and not so much in the Summer is a Crisis? The current warming also warms the nights much more than days, lessening the temperature extremes between north and south and also between night and day........and that's supposed to be causing a crisis from more temperature extremes? It's the complete, 100% polar opposite of that.
In other words:
Warming from nature = Optimum
Similar warming from humans = Crisis
Paleoclimate Data Before 2,000 Years Ago
metmike: Look at the maps below.
Note that during the coldest month of the Holocene's warmest time frame most of the planet was colder. During the warmest month of the year, during the Holocene's warmest period, the global temperature was WARMER on most of the planet.
And even the alarmists agree that this happened and that it should be called an OPTIMUM.
So how is the current earth, by being WARMER in the coldest months and NOT AS WARM as the OPTIMUM in the hottest months.....in a CRISIS????
It isn't and the authentic science totally obliterates their ludicrous fake climate crisis narratives(on this greening planet) in every way shape and form.
Additional comments first page:
Got this email message earlier.
David Sassoon <email@example.com>
Sun 4/17/2022 11:03 AM
"our work makes a difference. It reduces greenhouse gas emissions. It holds polluters and liars accountable."
metmike: Is there a place where we can donate to hold "Inside Climate News" accountable for THEIR lies about climate (-:
I think Mike summed it up well by saying that they’re averaging somewhat wetter due to somewhat warmer ocean/air temps. Not drastic but somewhat. Also as he said, they are on average moving a little more slowly due to weaker mean steering currents and will thus tend to dump more rain over any location hit by it.
It's frustrating to see a world where so many people are convinced we are having a climate crisis and the news is extremely lopsided in exaggerating the actual metrics used to define it in order to support the fake crisis ....then we have many of the ones that don't believe it, going to the other extreme and insisting NOTHING is happening.
A very small number of people, possibly in the single digit %, actually have a good grasp on the authentic science and real rates of change and reality based perspectives, applying it to useful realms of life, energy, history.
Enjoy reading what authentic facts remain in this article, now while you can. I've noted them changing descriptions here and adding things there in recent years to make the climate optimum seem less significant and today's warming seem more significant.
This, for instance didn't used to be there:
The warm period was followed by a gradual decline, of about 0.1-0.3 °C per millennium, until about two centuries ago (when this trend was rapidly reversed due to human-produced greenhouse gas emissions). However, on a sub-millennial scale, there were regional warm periods superimposed on this decline
TOTAL BS when referring to the Medieval WARM Period/OPTIMUM that was global, as shown by authentic science here: https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/83371/#83386
Interesting, numerous connections related to many human cognitive biases when it comes to the fake climate crisis.
This is one very few people consider:
Plant blindness is an informally-proposed form of cognitive bias, which in its broadest meaning, is a human tendency to ignore plant species. This includes such phenomena as not noticing plants in the surrounding environment, not recognizing the importance of plant life to the whole biosphere and to human affairs, a philosophical view of plants as an inferior form of life to animals and/or the inability to appreciate the unique features or aesthetics of plants. Related terms include plant‐neglect, zoo-centrism, and zoo‐chauvinism.
Just part of the hundreds of human cognitive biases. Scan thru the list below. If you can't find at least a dozen that apply to you, then.....either you are in denial..........or you are a robot, not human (-:
Although the reality of most of these biases is confirmed by reproducible research, there are often controversies about how to classify these biases or how to explain them. Several theoretical causes are known for some cognitive biases, which provides a classification of biases by their common generative mechanism (such as noisy information-processing). Gerd Gigerenzer has criticized the framing of cognitive biases as errors in judgment, and favors interpreting them as arising from rational deviations from logical thought.
Explanations include information-processing rules (i.e., mental shortcuts), called heuristics, that the brain uses to produce decisions or judgments. Biases have a variety of forms and appear as cognitive ("cold") bias, such as mental noise, or motivational ("hot") bias, such as when beliefs are distorted by wishful thinking. Both effects can be present at the same time