There’s nothing to this global warming stuff … go to sleep. Go to sleeeeeep … Oh. 3 giant storms simultaneously roar in the Pacific. For the first time. Ever.

Posted: September 2, 2015 in Political musings, Science
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Three storms have been found simultaneously belting their way through the Pacific Ocean for the first time in measured history. And although tropical storms Kilo, Ignacio and Jimena haven’t made landfall, they’re making part of the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii resemble a scary version of a Van Gogh painting.


Here’s a photo showing Hurricanes Kilo, Ignacio, and Jimena from left to right. Photo: NOAA


This is the first time three Category Four storms have been seen in the central and eastern Pacific Ocean at one time, according to The Weather Channel. Category Four hurricanes have wind speeds anywhere from 209 to 251km per hour.

Hurricanes are categorised primarily by wind speeds: the higher the sustained wind speed, the stronger the hurricane.

A Category One hurricane has winds up to 119 to 152km per hour, and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says even those are typically expected to cause some damage to buildings as well as power outages for a few days. These aren’t Cat 1. They’re ALL Cat 4.

A Category Four hurricane is considered catastrophic, with severe damage to buildings and power outages for weeks if not months.




Climate Change Deniers like to find any random fact they can to debunk the reality of climate change. Why is a more complex question to answer, as they and their children are threatened just like everyone else.

Recently they have taken to noting that the year 1934 was a very hot year in the United States, ranking fourth behind 2012, 2006, and 1998. Skeptics like to point to 1934 in the U.S. as proof that recent hot years are not unusual.

However, this is yet another example of “cherry-picking” a single fact that supports a claim, while ignoring the rest of the data.

Globally, the ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998, with 2005 and 2010 as the hottest.

Remember, global warming takes into account temperatures over the entire planet. The U.S.’s land area accounts for only 2% of the earth’s total surface area. Despite the U.S.heat in 1934, the year was not so hot over the rest of the planet, and 1934 barely holds onto a place in the hottest 50 years in the global rankings – in fact it ranks 49th.

global_warming3The fact that there were hot years in some parts of the world in the past is not an argument against climate change. There will always be regional temperature variations as well as variations from year to year. These happened in the past, and they will continue. The problem with climate change is that on average, when looking at the entire world, the long term trend shows an unmistakable increase in global surface temperatures, in a way that is likely to dramatically alter the planet.

In fact, the recent uptick in hurricane activity is consistent with recent climate-change-affected El Niño predictions. What climate change deniers (like most of the Liberal Government in Australia, and virtually everyone on the right of politics in America) fail to understand is this simple equation:

The scientific community agrees (well over 95% agreement across a variety of scientific disciplines, not just climatology but also biology, oceanography, geology and so on – way in excess of the agreement we should need to feel “certain”) that humanity’s activity in the last 250 years or so has caused the planet to get hotter.

  • Yes, the planet has warmed in the past, but never as fast, never as consistently, and never like this during the period of human civilisation.
  • Global Warming causes Climate Change.
  • Climate Change doesn’t mean everywhere will become warmer. It means some areas will be colder, some hotter, some wetter, some drier, some windier and some less windy.
  • In addition, the seas will become more acidic, reducing biodiversity in the oceans, affecting the food chain, and threatening a widespread die off of species.

This is just the latest example of “extreme weather events” becoming more common, emphasising the need for concerted international action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from “dirty power” generation, heating, vehicles, farm animals, and industry.

So what’s your latest head-in-the-sand response to these storms, Dear Climate Change Denier?

  1. Ned Rasor says:

    Global warming is a fact. It has happened occasionally for millions of years, and is happening now again. Whether mankind is responsible for the present one is still uncertain.


    • I suggest you click the link at the end of the Article, Ned. The site I reference argues that point specifically.


      • Ned Rasor says:

        Many of the arguments in the link you provided are very persuasive. I must spend some time to get better acquainted with the current state of evidence for human-caused warming and to change my opinion if the supporting evidence is more conclusive than the uncertainty in it. Some of the supporting “evidence” is unconvincing, e.g., “97% of climate scientists support it”. I suppose a similar percentage of scientists who were working on heat and combustion at the time (prior to the 1780 experiments by Priestly) would have been found to support the validity of the phlogiston theory — one example of many in science. I am a PhD physicist but not a climate specialist, am a Democrat unaffiliated with any fossil fuel interests, and am a signer of the petition you mentioned. Thanks for the reminder that I should update the knowledge obtainable then.


  2. mlshatto says:

    Research has shown that one of the primary predictors for climate change denial is one’s political and economic world view. Libertarian free market ideologues are most likely to deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change. They can’t accept the remedy, which must inevitably include substantial government regulation and control of the activities of the extractive industries (the carbon-industrial complex, as some have named it), and their defense is to deny the reality of the problem.

    Several months ago I completed a MOOC (on-line mass learning) through edX on Climate Change Denial, facilitated by Australia’s excellent researcher and spokesperson Michael Mann. The course classified denial techniques into five categories: Fake Experts, Logical Fallacies, Impossible Expectations, Cherry Picking, and Conspiracy Theory. The illustration you used about which are the hottest years is an example of cherry picking. Your first commenter above illustrates impossible expectations when he states that it is “still uncertain” that human activity is causing the current, and unprecedentedly rapid, climate change.

    This statement from the Summary Report of IPCC 5, released last year, indicates scientific agreement:
    Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven
    largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to
    atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in
    at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.
    {1.2, 1.3.1}

    “extremely likely” is italicized in the original and indicates 95-100% agreement. In the world of climatology, with tens of thousands of scientists working on the issue and hundreds of those contributing in some direct way to the IPCC studies, agreement of 95 to 100% is about as certain as a scientific community is going to get. To demand unanimity is an unreasonable and impossible expectation.

    Two enlightening books in very different styles have been written by Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway. “Merchants of Doubt” is a careful study of the forces behind science denial, tracing the techniques and often the same “experts” (and the advertising agencies they employ!) in the U.S. as they argued against the reality of the toxic effects of DDT, the carcinogenic properties of tobacco, and now the pending devastation of climate change. “The Collapse of Western Civilization” is a small work of science fiction, written from the point of view of a 24th century Chinese historian who is studying 21st century history and trying to determine the reasons why the major countries of the developed world refused to listen to their scientists and take action before it was too late to avoid catastrophe. I highly recommend both volumes.

    This response has grown nearly as long as your article. I apologize for its length but not for my passion on this topic. I have had a good life, and I wish that also for the coming generations. Instead we seem to be choosing (because not acting is a choice) to leave them with a far less hospitable planet than we have enjoyed. My heart aches for what my great nieces and nephews are likely to endure in their lifetimes.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. gwpj says:

    Thanks for this Yolly. I’ve shared it on Twitter, g+, & facebook & will repost it on my Musings blog. Japan (especially southern Japan) has been pounded by typhoons this year, at least once by 2 or 3 of them (one of which, thankfully, veered east into the Pacific Ocean).


  4. gwpj says:

    Reblogged this on Musings by George Polley and commented:
    A must-read article by Stephen Yolland.


  5. Your Blog is such a rich source of fact, opinion and the wisest of musing. It is a real treasure trove: an oasis of common sense in a world which clings increasingly to distracting trivialities in the face of disturbing facts

    Liked by 1 person

What do YOU think? That's what matters. Please comment!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s