Oct 31, 2012

Did climate change create the ‘Frankenstorm’? It didn’t help

Global warming may not have caused the Frankenstorm but it is loading the dice so the devastating flooding just witnessed becomes a lot more likely in future.

In reading through press interviews with various assorted climate scientists and meteorologists, none were suggesting a strong link between global warming and the formation of the Frankenstorm. This storm’s enormous size was a product of an unusual confluence of weather systems forming a hybridised storm.


Leave a comment

15 thoughts on “Did climate change create the ‘Frankenstorm’? It didn’t help

  1. beachcomber

    “…a product of an unusual confluence of weather systems…”

    Whilst few scientists will claim any single event as proof of Cliamte Change, the increasing number of unusual events suggests something is amiss.

    This particular unusual confluence of weather systems may be due to Climate Change:


  2. Stevo the Working Twistie

    Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology had better watch herself if the US authorities take a leaf out of Italy’s book. “We have fantastic climatology of hurricanes, but we don’t have a good climatology of hybrid events. It is really because we haven’t done our homework.

    Guilty as charged. Bailiff, clap her in irons!

  3. Microseris

    Very few climate change deniers in the insurance industry. When there is potential to erode the bottom line, they rely on the statistics and the weight of facts.

  4. Harry1951

    Agree beachcomber. A good case has been made here for a link of some degree: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/did-global-warming-contribute-to-hurricane-sandys-devastation/?ref=science
    Caution is required but more extreme weather events have long been predicted under climate change scenarios.

    Also as microseris states, the insurance industry rely on statistics and the weight if facts. Risk aversion drives their stance also.

  5. anthony.muscio

    Climate will never cause weather.

    Climate is the long term trend in weather. So how can a long term trend in something cause itself ?

    Would we ever say ?
    The Long term trend in car accidents causes car accidents ? No

    Then why would we say
    The Long term trend in weather causes weather ?

    Since “Long term trend in weather” = Climate, why would we say
    “Climate Causes weather” ?
    “Climate change Causes weather change” ?

    The Long term trends in Weather indicate the system is being forced by human activity, despite other natural cycles. This is not in doubt. What is certain is that vested interests will use human frailty and misinformation to protect there position, either that or they are simply exposing there ignorance.

    Weather is so chaotic that it is only in its long term trends that we can extract information about long term change. That is climate change.

  6. Scott

    What about a long term increase in car accidents resulting in people reducing non essential car transport leading to less experienced drivers on the road causing more car accidents.?Simultaneous causality is a valid statistical concept.

  7. David Hand

    The short answer is they don’t know. The lazy speculation in this article does climate science a disservice by straying yet again into fringe alarmist hype.

    The biggest problem with the global warming debate is not the lunatic fringe of the deniers such as Monkton, but the lunatic fringe of the climate change lobby such as Edis. Leave the scientific communication to the scientists, mate.

  8. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    Deniers such as Monkton can easily be dismissed, so I think the biggest problem with the debate are people such as David Hand who sound reasonable but are in fact denying the science just as much as Monkton.

    The IPCC is always out of date and conservative. This is why each IPCC report finds that the reality of measurements is worse than they predict. David is right that we don’t know exactly, but not knowing whether something will be extremely bad or even worse is not a reason for saying we don’t know.

  9. David Hand

    You seem to have a high regard for facts.
    Can you support your perceived “fact” that I am denying the science?

    What science am I denying?

  10. Liamj

    As if more proof would change anything, or the deniers are even capable of admitting any!

    I wish we could all just grow up and admit that we are not, in fact, any smarter than yeast, then we could get back to exterminating all life, without all the bleating.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details