Skip to main content

View Diary: NY Times reporter asks President question that NY Times deems not newsworthy (116 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Can I be pedantic? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, caul, MichaelNY

    I would say that one can attribute the size of the storm (or the droughts) to climate change, in that a highly plausible causal connection can be inferred from a combination of mechanistic understanding and indirect evidence.   However, provin that attribution is difficult and not indisputable.

    A proof is something that makes you beleive something more.  Thus, depending on the weight applied one may or may not be able to prove this connection, I. The sense that the evidence will prove the attribution for some but not others.  

    This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

    by Mindful Nature on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 05:49:04 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  the droughts are much more correlative than (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, Notreadytobenice, gramofsam1

      this storm, considering similar storms have occurred throughout the 20th century.  I  think it's likely that sea level rise exacerbated the damage (although I'd argue that a more substantial factor is coastal development, population shift, etc.--basically people badly miscalculating risk-benefit ratios).  

      But I'm glad Obama didn't play into the 'climate change caused Sandy' meme because it's incredibly simplistic.  He stressed that some significant weather events are likely to be exacerbated, which is, I think, a good way of framing things.

      •  The fact that the storm's landing (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        coincided with one of the highest tides of the year was probably much more of a factor than rising sea levels. This unfortunate coincidence added several feet to the storm surge.

        Here's my take on it - the revolution will not be blogged, it has to be slogged. - Deoliver47

        by OIL GUY on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 10:26:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It was the worst storm in the New York area (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior, FischFry

        since the 1930s, and there's plenty of other evidence of local warming and more and more severe storms in the area, plus a general increase in the frequency and destructiveness of tropical storms, hurricanes, and droughts. Whether that proves we are in the early stages of the greenhouse effect is something scientists argue about, but I for one am completely convinced.

        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

        by MichaelNY on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 01:34:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  that's actually incorrect--there really isn't an (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          increasing trend in the number or frequency of tropical systems.  Actually,  many AGW scenarios actually anticipate a decrease in number (although an increase in precipitation and possibly intensity).

          But the AGW-tropical systems link really is--at present--weak.  Doesn't mean that that won't change--but it's weak.  I was referred to the IPCC's documentation on this, so I actually read through it!

          You're right about the droughts, though--and probably other large-precipitation events (but keep in mind the destructiveness of this storm really wasn't in the rain or the winds--but the storm surge compounded by high tide AND a full moon).  Without those, this wouldn't have been that bad.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site