Climate change makes cyclones more intense, destructive: scientists

The US Navy has a useful site for tracking typhoons. https://www.metoc.navy.mil/jtwc/jtwc.html Click on "warning graphic" to see its expected path (he current one looks to be going towards southern China) and wind strength.

Typhoon Mawar is heading right for Guam and is currently a category 4, possibly intensifying to a super typhoon.

The fear mongering from these beliefs is more intense and frequent lately.

The fear mongering from these beliefs is more intense and frequent lately.

Not beliefs but actual scientific findings, just because you are not able to accept the science of climate change that does not make it less valid,

Can you demonstrate the warnings are out of proportion according to the results obtained? can you refute the methods and data used to reach those results?

If you can't then you are wrong by calling valid and adequate warnings "fear mongering".

RKL

I agree with you entirely. Even if true the media makes things sound worse and make some people think the end of the world is imminent

I agree with you entirely. Even if true the media makes things sound worse and make some people think the end of the world is imminent

What part of this article gives that impression to you? what part of what the "media" is telling here comes primary from them and not from the scientists?

Calling scientific findings a product of the media is obviously invalid. If you want to say the experts are wrong here and their conclusions exaggerated or false you first need to argue how this is the case.

With all due respect, it’s always happening. I. Never said their findings are invalid, you jump on people with baseless attacks all the time. I said the media often exaggerate things, if you say that’s false then you obviously don’t ever view it.

You're absolutely correct.

What part of this article gives that impression to you? what part of what the "media" is telling here comes primary from them and not from the scientists?

What is the purpose of that question? It makes no sense in the context of the above comments.

Rrrrrrrright

More destruction as a result of more buildings built in the paths of these storms.

The IPCC itself says their is no evidence for the increase in the frequency or intensity of severe weather events. But we can’t go even a single day without another doom-and-gloom climate change article. At least the IPCC reports follow a rudimentary form of peer review, unlike the study in conducted by the scientists in the article. Let’s not forget that the claims of more than 70% of science papers published over recent years cannot be replicated, meaning more or less that they are bollocks.

You're absolutely correct.

So incorrect it is not even allowed.

What is the purpose of that question? It makes no sense in the context of the above comments.

To demonstrate that the comment made has no logic nor reason. Pretending that the media is the one making a claim when in reality that comes from the experts with proper data to prove that claim is a completely misrepresentation used when people know they can't disprove the experts so they try to pretend is the media making up things.

More destruction as a result of more buildings built in the paths of these storms.

That is irrelevant for the findings of the experts, the authors clearly mention the higher category of the cyclones and ithe higher amount of rain they bring, none of these things are affected at all by the number of buildings in their path.

The IPCC itself says their is no evidence for the increase in the frequency or intensity of severe weather events.

Where? can you give a reference where the IPCC says so based on the evidence presented here? Obviously pretending less data gives a better idea of the situation makes absolutely no sense.

But we can’t go even a single day without another doom-and-gloom climate change article.

People giving their professional opinion about the realities of climate change is not "doom and gloom" it is just exposing what the current situation is, even if you don't want to accept it just claiming they are wrong is not enough to prove it so, for that you would have to demonstrate it with actual evidence or at least a reference where that is proved.

Let’s not forget that the claims of more than 70% of science papers published over recent years cannot be replicated, meaning more or less that they are bollocks.

The replication crisis do not happen in general but is clearly concentrated in those fields where objective measurement is difficult or finding apply only to specific populations, like in psycology or sociology. The situation in the sciences dealing with climate is not even close, precisely because the data used to reach conclusions is there for anybody to examine and analyze with the same methods to see if the same conclusions are reached.

Climate change is also warming the oceans. This warm water fuels cyclones and gives them their strength

What exactly does climate change mean?

Climate cooling down is not climate change?

False!

Climate change caused by human activity influences tropical cyclones in three major ways -- by warming the air and oceans and by triggering a rise in sea levels.

What about climate change by natural causes? It doesn't influence cyclones the same ways?

What exactly does climate change mean?

What is the point of repeating the same question in several articles even if it has been already answered? The answer is not going to change just because you refuse to accept it.

https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/what-is-climate-change

https://climate.nasa.gov/

Climate cooling down is not climate change?

It would be, but since it is not happening then it is not worth considering.

What about climate change by natural causes? It doesn't influence cyclones the same ways?

The predominant cause of climate change is human activity, which is also the part where something can be done to mitigate it. What do you think would be the point in focusing in something that is not only just a small fraction of the reasons but also something much more difficult to control? This would be like seeing a child being violently abused by his parents and asking if his slightly low calcium levels could also explain the fractures in his face.

False!

Based on what exactly? The scientists of the article use objective data and valid reasonings to defend their conclusions, you need at least the same to say the contrary.

Climate change is drastic changes in the weather patterns we normally experience. In my childhood city, deep snow in the winter was the norm. Today, there is often no snow. That is more than 70 years.

In my home country, there are more floods than we ever had 70 years ago. No one had AC because the summer highs didn't warrant it but today people are installing AC units.

Where? can you give a reference where the IPCC says so based on the evidence presented here? Obviously pretending less data gives a better idea of the situation makes absolutely no sense.

IPCC AR6, AR5, and AR4. Read the reports themselves, the summaries are political.

The IPCC itself says their is no evidence for the increase in the frequency or intensity of severe weather events.

(...)

IPCC AR6, AR5, and AR4. Read the reports themselves, the summaries are political.

So let's look at AR6 (yes, the report proper at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_LongerReport.pdf):

Human-caused climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical cyclones, and, in particular, their attribution to human influence, has strengthened since AR5

And furthermore:

Climate change has reduced food security and affected water security due to warming, changing precipitation patterns, reduction and loss of cryospheric elements, and greater frequency and intensity of climatic extremes

The whole report is riddled with mentions of increasing frequency of extreme weather events.

I'm not a professional readologist and I barely manage to language, but to my eyes this pretty much says the opposite of what you say it does.

Tropical cyclones(hurricanes) NOT increasing, neither in number nor intensity.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/01/climate-change-weekly-439-hurricanes-not-increasing-despite-warming/

The predominant cause of climate change is human activity,

That is patently false lol.

What do you think would be the point in focusing in something that is not only just a small fraction of the reasons but also something much more difficult to control? This would be like seeing a child being violently abused by his parents and asking if his slightly low calcium levels could also explain the fractures in his face.

You actually says it's a small fraction, curious.

Where are the numbers

What is the point of repeating the same question in several articles even if it has been already answered? The answer is not going to change just because you refuse to accept it.

https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/what-is-climate-change

https://climate.nasa.gov/

Refuse what ? Those are baseless claims, no evidenced.

You know very well those are opinions at best

If there's evidence that climate change is primarily caused by humans it would have been published everywhere possible and shoved in everyone's faces

Anyway, what's the climate emergency again?

If it's real then we're all doomed because it seems no one is actually doing anything significant to address it

Climate change is drastic changes in the weather patterns we normally experience

So small or gradual changes in climate is not climate change?

Climate change is drastic changes in the weather patterns we normally experience

> So small or gradual changes in climate is not climate change

Anyway that is the reason I was asking for the "official"meaning of climate change.

Because the way it is being used is vague and ludicrous at times, maybe most times.

Very unscientific so to speak.

If pretending to be scientific try to keep usage clear and precise

That is patently false lol.

The scientists of the world clearly say so and can demonstrate it with data, just claiming you know more than the scientific community of the world is not a rational argument, just an excuse to avoid accepting reality.

Tropical cyclones(hurricanes) NOT increasing, neither in number nor intensity.

So when the best data available prove something you don't like you go back in time to where less data was available? that is deeply antiscientific.

You actually says it's a small fraction, curious.

As in the example, a tiny fraction that would not be a problem by itself, which makes it useless to focus on that, the same as in the example given.

What proof do you have the scientific community (that clearly says this) is wrong? just your personal beliefs?

Refuse what ? Those are baseless claims, no evidenced.

In the references there are links to studies with that evidence, pretending they don't exist so you can misrepresent the scientific conclusions as opinions only reveal a personal bias and trying to push something you already are implicitly accepting is mistaken.

If there's evidence that climate change is primarily caused by humans it would have been published everywhere possible and shoved in everyone's faces

It has, it is. Which unfortunately does not stop people just claiming there is none, even when presented with valid references and links, as if denial was not obvious.

If it's real then we're all doomed because it seems no one is actually doing anything significant to address it

There are many other problems politicians and international companies are trying their best to manipulate the population into not doing anything, according to your flawed argument that means any of those things are not real, or that there is no value in doing something to solve them.

Not to mention that pretending to know more than the scientists of the world is much closer to contributing to the problem than doing anything to solve it.

So small or gradual changes in climate is not climate change?

Small or gradual changes are not the problem right now, those caused by human activity are.

Because the way it is being used is vague and ludicrous at times, maybe most times.

The links provided give clear, explicit definitions, that alone proves your argument false.

What do you think would be the point in focusing in something that is not only just a small fraction of the reasons but also something much more difficult to control? This would be like seeing a child being violently abused by his parents and asking if his slightly low calcium levels could also explain the fractures in his face.

You actually says it's a small fraction, curious.

> Where are the numbers

Where's your proof virusrex?

You keep saying you have proof show it

Because the way it is being used is vague and ludicrous at times, maybe most times.

> The links provided give clear, explicit definitions, that alone proves your argument false.

Clear ? Explicit?

You've been trying to add to and explain those definitions

It has, it is. Which unfortunately does not stop people just claiming there is none, even when presented with valid references and links, as if denial was not obvious.

You did not present anu proof.

try again?

Where's the proof that climate change is caused primarily by humans?

If it's real then we're all doomed because it seems no one is actually doing anything significant to address it

> There are many other problems politicians and international companies are trying their best to manipulate the population into not doing anything, according to your flawed argument that means any of those things are not real, or that there is no value in doing something to solve them.

What's the flaw in that statement?

Just show its not true.

And stop making strawmen lol.

You are probably wasting your time, Virusrex. But kudos for trying.

Tropical cyclones(hurricanes) NOT increasing, neither in number nor intensity.

Here is some evidence provided by a US governmental site:

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

No, I believe that whatever he says there are many who don't want to believe any of it anyway. It's not even about evidence. It's about motive. So, it is a waste of time engaging until they can talk about their real motives. I'd be the first to be happy if incontrovertible evidence were shown that humans are having no effect on the climate (impossible to prove a negative, of course) but, clearly, on balance we are. Just imagine for a minute if it is really true. How do you think things will pan out? We cannot even cope, without descending into fascist rhetoric, with the tiny number of refugees today. And that is only one consequence.

What problems did you find with the evidence linked in the references of the UN and NASA links? the evidence is already in the comments, pretending not being able to see it is not an argument.

CPTOMO, from the website you linked, notice that the 1940's had far more major tropical cyclones (30's and 50's slightly fewer than 40's) than other decades. And the more recent decades were mostly below average.

Also, that website doesn't have data after 2005.

Hervé,

you're arguing about frequency, so please note the very first sentence in this here article:

Climate change does not make cyclones (...) more frequent but it does render them more intense and destructive

I'm also not entirely sure if "Watts Up With That?", a blog promoting climate change denial, can be considered an reliable source.

The contention is with the claims that the primary cause of climate change is due to human activities

Then let's look in the very next paragraph:

2.1.1 Observed Warming and its Causes

Global surface temperature was around 1.1°C above 1850–1900 in 2011–2020 (1.09°C [0.95°C–1.20°C])7, with larger increases over land (1.59 [1.34 to 1.83]°C) than over the ocean (0.88°C [0.68°C–1.01°C]). Observed warming is human-caused, with warming from greenhouse gases (GHG), dominated by CO2 and methane (CH4), partly masked by aerosol cooling

(...)

Observed increases in well-mixed GHG concentrations since around 1750 are unequivocally caused by GHG emissions from human activities.

(...)

Formal detection and attribution studies synthesise information from climate models and observations and show that the best estimate is that all the warming observed between 1850– 1900 and 2010–2019 is caused by humans

That's rather unambiguous.

and that there is a climate emergency upon us.

That's up to the reader, I guess. Personally, I would call "widespread adverse impacts on food and water security, human health and on economies and society and related losses and damages to nature and people" an emergency. Your mileage may vary.

CPTOMO, from the website you linked, notice that the 1940's had far more major tropical cyclones (30's and 50's slightly fewer than 40's) than other decades. And the more recent decades were mostly below average.

Yes. I posted that link to show there is a decrease in the number of hurricanes hitting the US mainland.

Contrary to what some here are arguing.