It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NOAA Makes It Official: 2011 Among Most Extreme Weather Years in History

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Just shy of the halfway mark, 2011 has seen eight $1-billion-plus disasters, with total damages from wild weather at more than $32 billion, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Agency officials said that total could grow significantly, since they expect this year's North Atlantic hurricane season, which began June 1, will be an active one.


Climate change has played a roll in the extreme weather exactly how much is extremely hard to determine due to the following two weather patterns and the fact that climate change may effect these patterns themselves. It is a very muddy and complicated picture but it is becoming hard to dismiss the extent of the extreme weather. It will be interesting to watch how the new predictions on the solar cycle will play into this if at all.


The unusually wet December in southern California and heavy snowpack in the northern United States are also signs of Arctic air that dipped south as another weather pattern, the North Atlantic Oscillation, hit a negative phase, experts said. That sent cold air and winter storms farther south than normal until the weather pattern started fading away in mid-January. "The effects of La Niña were sort of muddled together with the effects of the North Atlantic Oscillation," said Ed O'Lenic, chief of the operations branch at NOAA's Climate Prediction Center. "It's very difficult to separate the two."

Further muddling the picture, some research suggests that the unusual behavior of the North Atlantic Oscillation this year and during the winter of 2009-2010 may be a consequence of declining sea ice in the Arctic.


ScientificAmerican




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by iforget
 


Probably because more infrastructure and increasing human population implies increased chance of more destruction and monetary loss through destruction;

Because humans are more widespread throughout the Earth than ever before and their structures are more prevalent as well


The Japan Disaster with the 9.1 Earthquake is something that is very rare probably once every 100 years or 200 years! It could be even rarer i surmise.
edit on 18-6-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   
What kind of climate change we talking about? The fake kind (driven by man), or the real kind (driven by the sun)?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
That's pretty #ing hilarious, considering the Little Ice Age happened during written history. Sensationalists, Scumbags, and the Corrupt rule the NOAA and NASA. Don't listen to a word of it. They'll tell you whatever furthers their "climate change" agenda.


They had to throw in that "declining artic sea ice," Sorry I have to laugh, anyone who follows these things knows this year the Artic sea ice cover was very strong. Why don't you ask all those Ice breaker crews stranded for weeks about the ice cover.
edit on 18-6-2011 by Tephra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
I didn't need NOAA to tell me it was the most extreme weather in history. I think we all got the brunt of this extreme weather this past year.


Whether it's being caused by man or something beyond our control is another story.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tephra
That's pretty #ing hilarious, considering the Little Ice Age happened during written history. Sensationalists, Scumbags, and the Corrupt rule the NOAA and NASA. Don't listen to a word of it. They'll tell you whatever furthers their "climate change" agenda.


Yeah! Screw 'science'! We believe the polluting industries!
edit on 18-6-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 



Yeah! Screw 'science'! We believe the polluting industries!


Yet even the scientists in the link don't really agree with you..


But for some kinds of extreme weather, teasing out a contribution from climate change is more difficult.


So far, scientists say there's no good evidence for or against a climate change influence on tornado behavior.


But because patterns of drought vary widely from decade to decade, that makes it "very difficult and unlikely that we're going to be able to discern a human fingerprint, if there is one, on the drought record in the foreseeable future," Karl said.


But not everyone is convinced. Bill Patzert, a climate scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, says he believes that climate change is real, but "it's too simple an answer to say there is more moisture in the atmosphere, so storms are more violent."

"Sometimes we have a quiet year, and sometimes Mother Nature just blasts us," he said.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 



Yeah! Screw 'science'! We believe the polluting industries!


Yet even the scientists in the link don't really agree with you..


"Agree with me"? Based on all the quotes you supply, I think you have no idea what I 'agree with".

My comment was in response to someone completely rejecting 'science' from NASA or the NOAA out-of-hand because they disagree with their conclusions.



edit on 18-6-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 



"Agree with me"? Based on all the quotes you supply, I think you have no idea what I 'agree with".


Sorry, so enlighten us as to what you believe..
Your post seemed to infer it's the polluting industries lying about MMGW..



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 



"Agree with me"? Based on all the quotes you supply, I think you have no idea what I 'agree with".


Sorry, so enlighten us as to what you believe..
Your post seemed to infer it's the polluting industries lying about MMGW..


Absolutely the are lying about it. To reject, out-of-hand entire bodies of work from entire entities like NASA or NOAA, while wholly accepting he notion that climate change doesn't exist is silly.

Climate Scientists, in general, are VERY careful to say one specific event or even a year of weather can be attributed solely to climate change. The quotes you supply above obviously affirm that.

But to completely reject, out-of-hand all actual evidence in favor of the pro-industry claim that polluting our environment has no effects on the climate, or ensuing weather patterns is as ignorant as you claim climate scientists are.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 



Absolutely the are lying about it. To reject, out-of-hand entire bodies of work from entire entities like NASA or NOAA, while wholly accepting he notion that climate change doesn't exist is silly.

Climate Scientists, in general, are VERY careful to say one specific event or even a year of weather can be attributed solely to climate change. The quotes you supply above obviously affirm that.

But to completely reject, out-of-hand all actual evidence in favor of the pro-industry claim that polluting our environment has no effects on the climate, or ensuing weather patterns is as ignorant as you claim climate scientists are.


You actually raise two very different points..
I see this tactic used often in this debate..

Firstly you say,

while wholly accepting he notion that climate change doesn't exist is silly.

And then,

But to completely reject, out-of-hand all actual evidence in favor of the pro-industry claim that polluting our environment has no effects on the climate, or ensuing weather patterns is as ignorant as you claim climate scientists are.


I don't think ANYONE denies Climate Change..
It's whether MAN's influence is enough to even consider that's at question IMO..

And where did I say scientists are ignorant??
Please don't fabricate my words..
It only makes your argument look less than honest.

edit on 18-6-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Can you make your last post make sense? It doesnt right now. Where's the contradiction?

I suspect your own confusion arises because you responded to my post without seeing what was stated that I was responding to. Perhaps you should re-read the thread to gain a bit of context, or perhaps you should stop trying to argue a point for someone else.
edit on 18-6-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Damage costs are not a very good indicator for extreme weather for a number of reasons. Firstly, with more people in disaster prone areas, more damage will occur, and not necessarily as a result of more extreme weather. If 1915 had weather exactly like this year, we would get more damage costs now. So you cannot correlate damage costs with increased severe weather accurately.

Also, inflation needs to be taken into account. A good scientific study should do this, but since the Scientific American article was rather lacking in science, we cannot see if this has been done. Does anyone know where NOAA has made these claims? I did a quick search and could only find the SA article about it.

It seems the article had a bold title, which then linked it to climate change, only to have the rest of the scientists say they can't actually attribute it to climate change. It seemed to just waffle on without any real substance.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 


Indeed you are correct that the article makes a sensational point instead of a reasoned one. But if you read the article, it isnt merely costs that are being attributed to 'extreme weather'. It also attributes heavier amounts of precipitation to flooding, which has been modeled by climate scientists for many years now. The severity of weather patterns contributing to record-sized floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc is very likely connected to shifting weather patterns. The problem with saying 'its climate change', as any climate scientists worth their salt will say is that you cant measure one storm or one year and say its connected to climate patterns. You need at least a decade for that. But when one can see these storms unfolding exactly as has been predicted based on climate modeling, one can begin to see there is likely a pattern emerging and it is worth continuing paying attention to.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
reply to post by backinblack
 


Can you make your last post make sense? It doesnt right now. Where's the contradiction?

I suspect your own confusion arises because you responded to my post without seeing what was stated that I was responding to. Perhaps you should re-read the thread to gain a bit of context, or perhaps you should stop trying to argue a point for someone else.
edit on 18-6-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)


I suspect it's not my comprehension skills that are lacking..
I suggest YOU reread MY post.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

I suspect it's not my comprehension skills that are lacking..
I suggest YOU reread MY post.

Oh, trust me sir, I did. A few times. And, for the life of me I cant discern the contradiction you are referring to.

How about re-stating it?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I don't know if it is because of climate change or not but I have to admit it's been a crazy season for weather so far, gone from extreme dry, to extreme storms, back to extreme heat and dry mixed with wind, and now back to extreme storms. And that is just for this area, other places got snow in June that's just odd to me anyways. But I do not claim to be an expert on that sort of thing. I am very interested to see how this hurricane season play's out though.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by backinblack

I suspect it's not my comprehension skills that are lacking..
I suggest YOU reread MY post.

Oh, trust me sir, I did. A few times. And, for the life of me I cant discern the contradiction you are referring to.

How about re-stating it?


You don't see a difference between,

1) There is NO climate change.
and
2) There is No Man Made climate change ?

edit: And I'm still waiting for you to show where I said "scientists are ignorant"...
edit on 18-6-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack


edit: And I'm still waiting for you to show where I said "scientists are ignorant"...
edit on 18-6-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)


I didn't. I quite clearly was referring to the person whose post I initially responded to, who was rejecting, out-of-hand, the findings of NASA and the NOAA.. As I stated before, you seem confused by that.
edit on 18-6-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: splling



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by backinblack


edit: And I'm still waiting for you to show where I said "scientists are ignorant"...
edit on 18-6-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)


I didn't. I quite clearly was referring to the person whose post I initially responded to, who was rejecting, out-of-hand, the findings of NASA and the NOAA.. As I stated before, you seem confused by that.
edit on 18-6-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: splling


And yet you posted this to me.


is as ignorant as you claim climate scientists are.


I don't see how I'm confused, looks clear to me..



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join