Superstorm Sandy, not anthropogenic?

[DonH]

Well, that's according to Kininmonth and Carter in "The Age" (8/11). Phew!
So, folks, we can relax, it was just another natural disaster, though why
NOW is a moot question - and not long after Katrina.
Still, the frequency and occurrence of seemingly extreme and erratic
weather events is not due to AGW, thus CO2, even if seven billion humans
pouring chimney smoke into the air may have SOME impact, you'd think.
After all, hot air rises, steam adds to clouds, dust particles seed
clouds, and you get rain, hail, snow, and hurricanes, etc - and dams which
are nicely filled.
Prior to 1800 AD, humans were too few in number, and technology too
primitive, to have any impact on anything much. Nature could cope.
But today, we need not be too modest, and eliminating The Human Factor
from the Ecology Equation is not so easy.
Place it safe, and sign up to Kyoto 2?
Or, She'll be right, mate, and just build up the levee banks?

[Frank O'Connor]

Well, I gave up taking anything either of those two said seriously years ago.

I mean, we have two venerable blokes, way way way past their research
prime, neither of whom specialised in the science that matters, that
are paid by the American Heartland Institute (reportedly a stipend of
$1667 per month), one of whom was a bureaucrat rather than a scientist
for the majority of his working life, both of whom have been venting
their OPINIONS in the face of (overwhelming) majority evidence based
and peer reviewed research for the last decade or so … and Fairfax (God
love 'em) gives them (equal?) space … I'd hate to think Fairfax took
them seriously … to vent some more.

That said, definitively attributing specific meteorological events to
any cause is bad science at best, and hokum at worst. All that can
reasonably be said is that an accumulation of conditions contributed to
same, and that a hurricane travelling that far North with the energy it
maintained was statistically unlikely unless other factors than 'the
usual' could be taken into account.

And those other factors might include Global Warming … :)
----

Post by DonH
Well, that's according to Kininmonth and Carter in "The Age" (8/11). Phew!
So, folks, we can relax, it was just another natural disaster,
though why NOW is a moot question - and not long after Katrina.
Still, the frequency and occurrence of seemingly extreme and erratic
weather events is not due to AGW, thus CO2, even if seven billion
humans pouring chimney smoke into the air may have SOME impact, you'd
think.
After all, hot air rises, steam adds to clouds, dust particles seed
clouds, and you get rain, hail, snow, and hurricanes, etc - and dams
which are nicely filled.
Prior to 1800 AD, humans were too few in number, and technology too
primitive, to have any impact on anything much. Nature could cope.
But today, we need not be too modest, and eliminating The Human
Factor from the Ecology Equation is not so easy.
Place it safe, and sign up to Kyoto 2?
Or, She'll be right, mate, and just build up the levee banks?