Hacker News Reader

Comment by joshuahedlund | Hacker News Reader

The only one I would quibble with is the one that has nothing to do with technology. Sandy was the largest storm ever recorded in the Atlantic, but it was still not as large as the Pacific's Typhoon Tip in 1979. If three decades of accelerating climate change explains Sandy, it doesn't explain Tip, or why its record has yet to be broken.

View on HN

Yes it does - it's about trends, not isolated occurrences (so in that sense I agree with your quibble, just not with your rationale). The frequency and intensity of extreme weather incidents is on an upward (and exponential) track.

> The frequency and intensity of extreme weather incidents is on an upward (and exponential) track.

I am not one who claims there is no evidence for climate change (I would point to this year's record arctic ice minimum, for instance) but I remain unconvinced that this is true. For example, there is absolutely no positive trend in US F3+ tornadoes[1], or in major US hurricane strikes per decade[2]. I know that's just the US, although the US does have the most tornadoes, but those are just two examples of things that seem like they're becoming more frequent/intense but actually aren't - not even linearly over the past century, much less exponentially.

[1]http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/E... [2]http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

I don't think picking one type of weather event from one geographic location over a relatively short time-frame is going to be representative (however I am by no means suggesting you intentionally picked data that favoured your argument).

This more encompassing study shows a definite trend, although I accept my use of the word 'exponential' was ill-advised without concrete evidence to back it up:

'The data show that the number of such events is rising. Munich Re, one of the world's largest reinsurance companies, has compiled the world's most comprehensive database of natural disasters, reaching all the way back to the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in A.D. 79. Researchers at the company, which obviously has a keen financial interest in trends that increase insurance risks, add 700 to 1,000 natural catastrophes to the database each year, explains Mark Bove, senior research meteorologist in Munich Re's catastrophe risk management office in Princeton, N.J. The data indicate a small increase in geologic events like earthquakes since 1980 because of better reporting. But the increase in the number of climate disasters is far larger. "Our figures indicate a trend towards an increase in extreme weather events that can only be fully explained by climate change," says Peter Höppe, head of Munich Re's Geo Risks Research/Corporate Climate Center: "It's as if the weather machine had changed up a gear.'[1]

[1] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=extreme-wea...

Honest question: Is there a good source for this information?

Anecdotally it feels like weather is getting more extreme, I'd be very interested in seeing the numbers.

It's difficult to find all the data in one place, but this article has links to good sources:

http://ccap.org/extreme-weather-trends-climate-science-and-p...

It's hard to get all the data in one place, but this article has links to good sources:

http://ccap.org/extreme-weather-trends-climate-science-and-p...

No, it's not. The Earth has always experienced devastating weather-related occurrences. There's nothing about it that suggests things are on a upward and exponential track.

The process by which you came to know that the Earth has "always" experienced devastating weather is exactly the same process by which contemporary climatologists are now asserting the existence of anthropogenic climate change. You can't pick and choose when you accept knowledge arising from steadfast application of the scientific method. That's kinda the point.

The parent you are responding to isn't denying climate change, just that events like Sandy or Katrina are caused by it. Saying "you can't pick and choose" is trying to have a different discussion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com