After peaking as a Category 5 storm with 160 mph winds, Super Typhoon Ragasa made landfall in the southern Chinese city of Yangjiang in Guangdong Province on September 24 as a Category 3 storm with winds of 120 mph (195 km/h). Ragasa is being blamed for at least 29 deaths and damages in the hundreds of millions of dollars, according to insurance broker Aon. A study released today as part of a new initiative at Imperial College London called the Climate Damage Tracker, which calculates the human and economic costs of climate change, found that climate change boosted Typhoon Ragasa’s winds by 7% and rainfall by 12% at landfall. This is equivalent to intensifying the storm from a weak to a strong Category 3. These factors combined to increase Ragasa’s damages by 36%, the scientists said.
The scientists found that in a cooler world without climate change, similar wind speeds would be expected about once every 33 years. But today, with 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3°F) of global warming, Ragasa’s intense winds have become 49% more likely and are now expected about once every 17 years. Ragasa’s heavy rains could have been expected in the region about once every 8.8 years in the pre-industrial climate, but today, they are expected every 6.7 years.
Their computer models told them this barely a week after landfall. A very specific number. Yup, a cult.
But, what if this is mostly natural, and the number is true? Well, such is life on Earth.
The scientists found that in a cooler world without climate change, similar wind speeds would be expected about once every 33 years. But today, with 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3°F) of global warming, Ragasa’s intense winds have become 49% more likely and are now expected about once every 17 years. Ragasa’s heavy rains could have been expected in the region about once every 8.8 years in the pre-industrial climate, but today, they are expected every 6.7 years.
If you fall for this, please don’t vote or breed.
1) In order for this to make any sense, you would need multiple storms of this magnitude. I’m unsure as to how these “climate scientists” are making this claim with a single data point.
2) Applying a specific percentage increase of the damage caused as due to “climate change”? Sounds like POOMA calcs * to me.
aliassmithsmith on If All You See…: “Linking is a chore when using my phone. And again. More flattery !!! still being called a boy at 75+.I…” Nov 18, 15:25
drowningpuppies on If All You See…: “This lady has more balls and integrity than anyone in the Democrat party. Democrats Gang Up On Colleague For Having…” Nov 18, 14:57
All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.
NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.
After peaking as a Category 5 storm with 160 mph winds, Super Typhoon Ragasa made landfall in the southern Chinese city of Yangjiang in Guangdong Province on September 24 as a Category 3 storm with winds of 120 mph (195 km/h). Ragasa is being blamed for at least 29 deaths and damages in the hundreds of millions of dollars, according to insurance broker Aon. A study released today as part of a new initiative at Imperial College London called the Climate Damage Tracker, which calculates the human and economic costs of climate change, found that climate change boosted Typhoon Ragasa’s winds by 7% and rainfall by 12% at landfall. This is equivalent to intensifying the storm from a weak to a strong Category 3. These factors combined to increase Ragasa’s damages by 36%, the scientists said.
Our esteemed host chastised me:
But, but, but, we did downsize when we moved to Kentucky, and I have 7.92 acres of CO2-gobbling green plants . . . .
The scientists found that in a cooler world without climate change, similar wind speeds would be expected about once every 33 years. But today, with 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3°F) of global warming, Ragasa’s intense winds have become 49% more likely and are now expected about once every 17 years. Ragasa’s heavy rains could have been expected in the region about once every 8.8 years in the pre-industrial climate, but today, they are expected every 6.7 years.
If you fall for this, please don’t vote or breed.
1) In order for this to make any sense, you would need multiple storms of this magnitude. I’m unsure as to how these “climate scientists” are making this claim with a single data point.
2) Applying a specific percentage increase of the damage caused as due to “climate change”? Sounds like POOMA calcs * to me.
*”Pulled Out Of My A$$”