Climate Change Denial

[DrLOAC]

You mentioned hurricanes? OK, let's have a look:

http://climatlas.com/tropical/frequency_12months.png

http://climatlas.com/tropical/global_running_ace.png

Since the early 1970s, there is no trend of increasing tropical cyclone activity across the world - both numerically and in tropical cyclone energy. Human-caused global warming is a gross exaggeration!

Of course this isn't the whole story.

For example

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

"

Abstract​

During August 25–30, 2017, Hurricane Harvey stalled over Texas and caused extreme precipitation, particularly over Houston and the surrounding area on August 26–28. This resulted in extensive flooding with over 80 fatalities and large economic costs. It was an extremely rare event: the return period of the highest observed three-day precipitation amount, 1043.4 mm 3dy−1 at Baytown, is more than 9000 years (97.5% one-sided confidence interval) and return periods exceeded 1000 yr (750 mm 3dy−1) over a large area in the current climate. Observations since 1880 over the region show a clear positive trend in the intensity of extreme precipitation of between 12% and 22%, roughly two times the increase of the moisture holding capacity of the atmosphere expected for 1 °C warming according to the Clausius–Clapeyron (CC) relation. This would indicate that the moisture flux was increased by both the moisture content and stronger winds or updrafts driven by the heat of condensation of the moisture. We also analysed extreme rainfall in the Houston area in three ensembles of 25 km resolution models. The first also shows 2 × CC scaling, the second 1 × CC scaling and the third did not have a realistic representation of extreme rainfall on the Gulf Coast. Extrapolating these results to the 2017 event, we conclude that global warming made the precipitation about 15% (8%–19%) more intense, or equivalently made such an event three (1.5–5) times more likely. This analysis makes clear that extreme rainfall events along the Gulf Coast are on the rise. And while fortifying Houston to fully withstand the impact of an event as extreme as Hurricane Harvey may not be economically feasible, it is critical that information regarding the increasing risk of extreme rainfall events in general should be part of the discussion about future improvements to Houston's flood protection system."

So this study found causitive evidence that Harvey had 15% more intensive rainfall due to global warming and since Harvey dumped 50+ inches in many spots that would have been about 8inches less rain. How many billions of dollars would have been saved if those extra 8 inches hadn't been there. They also say we should expect more severe rainfall along the gulf coast. Guess whose insurance and tax dollars will continue to cover them.

 

[MitchP85D]

Here is data of all hurricane strength tropical cyclones globally since the early 1970s.

http://climatlas.com/tropical/global_major_freq.png

I think you global warming fanatics are shocked by this data. All of you have been programmed by the new age religion (human-caused global warming) followers that hurricanes are becoming more frequent and are more powerful. You have been lied to by an apocalyptic cult, and you all bought it hook, line, and sinker.

 

[MitchP85D]

Of course this isn't the whole story.

For example

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

"

Abstract​

During August 25–30, 2017, Hurricane Harvey stalled over Texas and caused extreme precipitation, particularly over Houston and the surrounding area on August 26–28. This resulted in extensive flooding with over 80 fatalities and large economic costs. It was an extremely rare event: the return period of the highest observed three-day precipitation amount, 1043.4 mm 3dy−1 at Baytown, is more than 9000 years (97.5% one-sided confidence interval) and return periods exceeded 1000 yr (750 mm 3dy−1) over a large area in the current climate. Observations since 1880 over the region show a clear positive trend in the intensity of extreme precipitation of between 12% and 22%, roughly two times the increase of the moisture holding capacity of the atmosphere expected for 1 °C warming according to the Clausius–Clapeyron (CC) relation. This would indicate that the moisture flux was increased by both the moisture content and stronger winds or updrafts driven by the heat of condensation of the moisture. We also analysed extreme rainfall in the Houston area in three ensembles of 25 km resolution models. The first also shows 2 × CC scaling, the second 1 × CC scaling and the third did not have a realistic representation of extreme rainfall on the Gulf Coast. Extrapolating these results to the 2017 event, we conclude that global warming made the precipitation about 15% (8%–19%) more intense, or equivalently made such an event three (1.5–5) times more likely. This analysis makes clear that extreme rainfall events along the Gulf Coast are on the rise. And while fortifying Houston to fully withstand the impact of an event as extreme as Hurricane Harvey may not be economically feasible, it is critical that information regarding the increasing risk of extreme rainfall events in general should be part of the discussion about future improvements to Houston's flood protection system."

So this study found causitive evidence that Harvey had 15% more intensive rainfall due to global warming and since Harvey dumped 50+ inches in many spots that would have been about 8inches less rain. How many billions of dollars would have been saved if those extra 8 inches hadn't been there. They also say we should expect more severe rainfall along the gulf coast. Guess whose insurance and tax dollars will continue to cover them.

That is one tropical cyclone.

 

[MitchP85D]

I didn't say frequency. I said intensity. Are the oceans are getting warmer? Yes. What powers a hurricane? Stop your pathetic trolling and connect the dots.

And it's not just wind speed but how much rain these storms are able to drop. The amount of rain Hurricane Harvey delivered would have been statistically impossible in a ~280ppm climate. CO2 loads the dice.

View attachment 668481

Which basin is that from?

 

[MitchP85D]

Simply provide evidence of another source for that energy. Energy is always conserved. It must come from somewhere and it must go somewhere.. It's not extra energy coming from the sun, the sun has been quieter than normal, it's not from volcanism, and it's not from decay of radio active elements. So simply tell us where that energy comes from.

You can't of course because it's from heat retention due to man made climate change due to the release of greenhouse gases.

Other than geological activity, all of the energy comes from the sun. The ocean and atmosphere reacts to the solar energy in a complex way. Attributing a temperature change to one parameter is extremely short-sighted.

 

[DrLOAC]

Other than geological activity, all of the energy comes from the sun. The ocean and atmosphere reacts to the solar energy in a complex way. Attributing a temperature change to one parameter is extremely short-sighted.

We don't have to particularly care what's going on with the energy while it's here. What we want to know is how much is coming and how much is leaving and since less is leaving, why less is leaving.

 

[nwdiver]

Which basin is that from?

Does it matter? Physics is Physics. Where does a Hurricane get its energy from? Is there more or less energy available?

 

[nwdiver]

Other than geological activity, all of the energy comes from the sun. The ocean and atmosphere reacts to the solar energy in a complex way. Attributing a temperature change to one parameter is extremely short-sighted.

Energy in; Energy out. If your financial advisor says you need to reduce your spending and you say 'All my income comes from my Job', he then says 'Yes.... I understand all your income comes from your Job, you need to reduce your spending'; Then you... looking perplexed say... 'But.... all my income comes from my Job' He would rightly judge your IQ to be ~80. How is 'all of the energy comes from the sun' any different?

CO2 reduces outgoing energy. That causes warming. Where are you getting lost?.... or is this just more pathetic trolling?

 

[drtimhill]

Not to the point of boiling us alive like you silly global warming worshippers think.

Your posts are now devoid of any serious content. You scatter pejoratives randomly, move goal posts, ignore or deflect posts that you cannot answer, and make wild claims about imaginary conspiracies of climatologists. The few scientists who support your position are elevated with epithets such as "the wise.." or "the highly regarded.." as if that somehow makes their claims more valid, while any scientist who disagrees with your position is branded with a variety of rather sad put-downs such as "worshippers", "liberals", "left wing" etc in ad-hominem attacks.

You claim to support science, but in every post you show biases that would disqualify you from any serious scientific debate. You have said nothing that could contribute to any meaningful challenge to the prevailing theories on climate change and its causes. Puerile attacks on individuals is not the way to win an argument. If you have genuine concerns, voice them, discuss them, and defend them by all means, but if you are simply mad that no-one will listen to you, well, that is problem that you must work out for yourself. You do not win factual arguments by shouting at people.

 

[MitchP85D]

Does it matter? Physics is Physics. Where does a Hurricane get its energy from? Is there more or less energy available?

The graph you presented was not global. That's why!

 

[MitchP85D]

Energy in; Energy out. If your financial advisor says you need to reduce your spending and you say 'All my income comes from my Job', he then says 'Yes.... I understand all your income comes from your Job, you need to reduce your spending'; Then you... looking perplexed say... 'But.... all my income comes from my Job' He would rightly judge your IQ to be ~80. How is 'all of the energy comes from the sun' any different?

CO2 reduces outgoing energy. That causes warming. Where are you getting lost?.... or is this just more pathetic trolling?

And I have been trying to tell you over and over that the reduction is minor.

 

[MitchP85D]

We don't have to particularly care what's going on with the energy while it's here. What we want to know is how much is coming and how much is leaving and since less is leaving, why less is leaving.

As Dr. Spencer already told us, the amount is so tiny our instruments can't even measure it.

 

[MitchP85D]

No. It will keep going up until it reaches thermal equilibrium. All things being equal it will go up less if we stop putting greenhouse gases into the air and more if we don't.

Earth can only reject heat to space via radiative transfer which increases by temperature raised to the 4th power. So the more we insulate the atmosphere the hotter it must get to reach equilibrium with incoming solar energy, although the hotter it gets the more efficiently it radiates.

So how much more CO2 are we going to put into the atmosphere. If it were up to you and the fossil fuel companies whose stock prices are built in part on known reserves, we would burn every drop of oil on the planet. Right now there's about 1.65 Trillion barrels of proven reserves. Here's what we use in one year:

So about one of these every year for the next 47 years.

That's enough to add another 90PPM

But wait we still need to burn all the known reserves of coal (1055 billion tonnes) and natural gas (7.2 Trillion cubic feet) which would add another 281 PPM & 50.8 PPM respectively raising our atmospheric totals to around 832PPM. Over double what they are now, and over triple from where they were at the start of the industrial revolution.

So once all that was burned and all feedbacks and Earths thermal system had time to reach equilibrium, then I would expect the temperature of the ocean to stop rising.

Just look at your false liberal math. I'm supposed to believe 2 +2 = 4? A "2" is not a 4, neither is a "+". I mean there are three whole symbols on the left and only one on the right and you expect me to believe they are the same? Only in commie liberal land.

Think you are a tad bit hyperbolic to claim that if it was up to me, we would burn every drop of oil on the planet. We will be way more technologically advanced than what we are now well before that ever happens. Texas already generates 20-25% of its electricity from wind.

 

[nwdiver]

reduction is minor.

...... do you REALLY not understand how ~1.5/w^2 IS NOT 'MINOR' spread across 510T square meters and accumulated year after year after year? That' 'minor' reduction is the difference between a glacier 1 mile thick over NYC and no ice at all.

For the ~4th time. If it's not the change in CO2 concentration that ends a glacial period..... WHAT. ELSE.... DOES?

 

[MitchP85D]

Your posts are now devoid of any serious content. You scatter pejoratives randomly, move goal posts, ignore or deflect posts that you cannot answer, and make wild claims about imaginary conspiracies of climatologists. The few scientists who support your position are elevated with epithets such as "the wise.." or "the highly regarded.." as if that somehow makes their claims more valid, while any scientist who disagrees with your position is branded with a variety of rather sad put-downs such as "worshippers", "liberals", "left wing" etc in ad-hominem attacks.

You claim to support science, but in every post you show biases that would disqualify you from any serious scientific debate. You have said nothing that could contribute to any meaningful challenge to the prevailing theories on climate change and its causes. Puerile attacks on individuals is not the way to win an argument. If you have genuine concerns, voice them, discuss them, and defend them by all means, but if you are simply mad that no-one will listen to you, well, that is problem that you must work out for yourself. You do not win factual arguments by shouting at people.

Spare me your sanctimonious lectures. When this was directed to me, I'm sure you jumped up and down with jubilant glee.

"If there is a rabid monkey throwing poo in the kitchen it's not a bad idea to stay out."

 

[nwdiver]

As Dr. Spencer already told us, the amount is so tiny our instruments can't even measure it.

..... they literally measured it >140 years ago and only increased the accuracy since. We've been over and over and over and over this.... you're a moron, insane or trolling... which is it?

 

[MitchP85D]

...... do you REALLY not understand how ~1.5/w^2 IS NOT 'MINOR' spread across 510T square meters and accumulated year after year after year? That' 'minor' reduction is the difference between a glacier 1 mile thick over NYC and no ice at all.

Are you hoping for that glacial ice sheet over NYC?

 

[nwdiver]

Are you hoping for that glacial ice sheet over NYC?

.... no.... which is why I said we need ~280 - 350ppm. CO2 @ 180ppm is a glacial sheet over NYC. We've been over this.... do you have a ~15 minute memory span?

 

[Norbert]

As Dr. Spencer already told us, the amount is so tiny our instruments can't even measure it.

If that is what he told you, then that is proof that his word is worthless.

 

[MitchP85D]

..... they literally measured it >140 years ago and only increased the accuracy since. We've been over and over and over and over this.... you're a moron, insane or trolling... which is it?



View attachment 668554

I have no friggin' clue what you are trying to demonstrate with that contraption, and how that applies to the atmosphere. If you truly want to learn something about the Annual Global Budget of the atmosphere, you would listen to the late, great Dr. William Gray. He spent his entire life studying the atmosphere, The entire lecture is worth watching. To shorten things, go to 7:30. There he talks about where CO2 fits in. This guy knew by far more what goes on in the atmosphere than some Pac NW engineer.