Moderator: Community Team
demonfork wrote:jusplay4fun wrote:Data and conclusions linking more intense hurricanes to Global Warming:
Global Warming and Hurricanes
An Overview of Current Research Results
Last Revised: Sept. 20, 2018
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
1. Summary Statement
Two frequently asked questions on global warming and hurricanes are the following:
• What changes in hurricane activity are expected for the late 21st century, given the pronounced global warming scenarios from IPCC models?
• Have humans already caused a detectable increase in Atlantic hurricane activity or global tropical cyclone activity?
The IPCC AR5 presents a strong body of scientific evidence that most of the global warming observed over the past half century is very likely due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. But what does this change mean for hurricane activity? Here, we address these questions, starting with those conclusions where we have relatively more confidence. The main text then gives more background discussion. “Detectable” change here will refer to a change that is large enough to be clearly distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes. Our main conclusions are:
Likelihood Statements
The terminology here for likelihood statements generally follows the conventions used in the IPCC assessments, i.e., for the assessed likelihood of an outcome or result:
• Very Likely: > 90%,
• Likely: > 66%
• More Likely Than Not (or Better Than Even Odds) > 50%
• Sea level rise–which very likely has a substantial human contribution to the global mean observed rise according to IPCC AR5–should be causing higher storm surge levels for tropical cyclones that do occur, all else assumed equal.
• Tropical cyclone rainfall rates will likely increase in the future due to anthropogenic warming and accompanying increase in atmospheric moisture content. Modeling studies on average project an increase on the order of 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm for a 2 degree Celsius global warming scenario.
• Tropical cyclone intensities globally will likely increase on average (by 1 to 10% according to model projections for a 2 degree Celsius global warming). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size. Storm size responses to anthropogenic warming are uncertain.
• The global proportion of tropical cyclones that reach very intense (Category 4 and 5) levels will likely increase due to anthropogenic warming over the 21st century. There is less confidence in future projections of the global number of Category 4 and 5 storms, since most modeling studies project a decrease (or little change) in the global frequency of all tropical cyclones combined.
2. Global Warming and Atlantic Hurricanes
A. Statistical relationships between SSTs and hurricanes
Observed records of Atlantic hurricane activity show some correlation, on multi-year time-scales, between local tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the Power Dissipation Index (PDI) —see for example Fig. 3 on this EPA Climate Indicators site. PDI is an aggregate measure of Atlantic hurricane activity, combining frequency, intensity, and duration of hurricanes in a single index. Both Atlantic SSTs and PDI have risen sharply since the 1970s, and there is some evidence that PDI levels in recent years are higher than in the previous active Atlantic hurricane era in the 1950s and 60s.
Model-based climate change detection/attribution studies have linked increasing tropical Atlantic SSTs to increasing greenhouse gases, but proposed links between increasing greenhouse gases and hurricane PDI or frequency has been based on statistical correlations. The statistical linkage of Atlantic hurricane PDI to Atlantic SST suggests at least the possibility of a large anthropogenic influence on Atlantic hurricanes. If this statistical relation between tropical Atlantic SSTs and hurricane activity is used to infer future changes in Atlantic hurricane activity, the implications are sobering: the large increases in tropical Atlantic SSTs projected for the late 21st century would imply very substantial increases in hurricane destructive potential–roughly a 300% increase in the PDI by 2100 (Figure 1a).
The IPCC is a joke and uses junk science to demonize Co2 for political reasons. Governments knew that they couldn't easily use fluctuations in solar activity as a means to control & tax the masses but they sure knew that they could with C02. I don't recognize this so-called authority.
This dude pretty much breaks it down.
https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-lea ... 3ae4712ace
jusplay4fun wrote:One article by one man (David Siegel) does not refute the overwhelming scientific facts and observations. His refutation is very cursory and not at all cogent.
His refutation is very cursory and not at all cogent
jusplay4fun wrote:Your comment that IPCC is a joke and uses JUNK science does not deny the evidence.demonfork wrote:jusplay4fun wrote:Data and conclusions linking more intense hurricanes to Global Warming:
Global Warming and Hurricanes
An Overview of Current Research Results
Last Revised: Sept. 20, 2018
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
1. Summary Statement
Two frequently asked questions on global warming and hurricanes are the following:
• What changes in hurricane activity are expected for the late 21st century, given the pronounced global warming scenarios from IPCC models?
• Have humans already caused a detectable increase in Atlantic hurricane activity or global tropical cyclone activity?
The IPCC AR5 presents a strong body of scientific evidence that most of the global warming observed over the past half century is very likely due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. But what does this change mean for hurricane activity? Here, we address these questions, starting with those conclusions where we have relatively more confidence. The main text then gives more background discussion. “Detectable” change here will refer to a change that is large enough to be clearly distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes. Our main conclusions are:
Likelihood Statements
The terminology here for likelihood statements generally follows the conventions used in the IPCC assessments, i.e., for the assessed likelihood of an outcome or result:
• Very Likely: > 90%,
• Likely: > 66%
• More Likely Than Not (or Better Than Even Odds) > 50%
• Sea level rise–which very likely has a substantial human contribution to the global mean observed rise according to IPCC AR5–should be causing higher storm surge levels for tropical cyclones that do occur, all else assumed equal.
• Tropical cyclone rainfall rates will likely increase in the future due to anthropogenic warming and accompanying increase in atmospheric moisture content. Modeling studies on average project an increase on the order of 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm for a 2 degree Celsius global warming scenario.
• Tropical cyclone intensities globally will likely increase on average (by 1 to 10% according to model projections for a 2 degree Celsius global warming). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size. Storm size responses to anthropogenic warming are uncertain.
• The global proportion of tropical cyclones that reach very intense (Category 4 and 5) levels will likely increase due to anthropogenic warming over the 21st century. There is less confidence in future projections of the global number of Category 4 and 5 storms, since most modeling studies project a decrease (or little change) in the global frequency of all tropical cyclones combined.
2. Global Warming and Atlantic Hurricanes
A. Statistical relationships between SSTs and hurricanes
Observed records of Atlantic hurricane activity show some correlation, on multi-year time-scales, between local tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the Power Dissipation Index (PDI) —see for example Fig. 3 on this EPA Climate Indicators site. PDI is an aggregate measure of Atlantic hurricane activity, combining frequency, intensity, and duration of hurricanes in a single index. Both Atlantic SSTs and PDI have risen sharply since the 1970s, and there is some evidence that PDI levels in recent years are higher than in the previous active Atlantic hurricane era in the 1950s and 60s.
Model-based climate change detection/attribution studies have linked increasing tropical Atlantic SSTs to increasing greenhouse gases, but proposed links between increasing greenhouse gases and hurricane PDI or frequency has been based on statistical correlations. The statistical linkage of Atlantic hurricane PDI to Atlantic SST suggests at least the possibility of a large anthropogenic influence on Atlantic hurricanes. If this statistical relation between tropical Atlantic SSTs and hurricane activity is used to infer future changes in Atlantic hurricane activity, the implications are sobering: the large increases in tropical Atlantic SSTs projected for the late 21st century would imply very substantial increases in hurricane destructive potential–roughly a 300% increase in the PDI by 2100 (Figure 1a).
The IPCC is a joke and uses junk science to demonize Co2 for political reasons. Governments knew that they couldn't easily use fluctuations in solar activity as a means to control & tax the masses but they sure knew that they could with C02. I don't recognize this so-called authority.
This dude pretty much breaks it down.
https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-lea ... 3ae4712ace
jusplay4fun wrote:I do not think any of these points has been refuted in this thread.jusplay4fun wrote:Let's look at the scientific data.
Climate change: How do we know?
The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.
Scientific Consensus
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:
Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century.
Global temperature rise
The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.
Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months.
Warming oceans
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.
Shrinking ice sheets
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005
Declining Arctic sea ice
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.
Glacial retreat
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.
People such as Prince Charles, Gore, Pachauri, Brown, and Hansen don’t deal in real science; they pedal fear masquerading as science to the gullible. When challenged, they pull out the “97 percent of scientists agree on global warming” malarkey, as if that ends all discussion on the subject. They compare skeptics of anthropogenic global warming to holocaust deniers, as if there were some moral equivalence between the two. They willingly prevaricate, obfuscate, and outright lie in order to frighten the masses.
But the masses have caught on. Polls show that climate change is consistently near the bottom of issues that people are concerned about.
As the climate-alarmist movement ever so slowly fades from our consciousness, the alarmists are becoming more desperate; their shrill cries and declarations of doom sounding even more unhinged than they were before.
demonfork wrote:
99% of Americans aren't all that concerned about climate change.
Metsfanmax wrote:Well then, I guess I don't exist.
riskllama wrote:isn't that just because most 'muricans spend most of their time wondering when the McRib will make it's next appearance?
tzor wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Well then, I guess I don't exist.
Damn it man, you have a PhD in Physics. You know damn well that it cannot be determined if you exist or not until someone actually observes you and these forums don't count.riskllama wrote:isn't that just because most 'muricans spend most of their time wondering when the McRib will make it's next appearance?
Some people are always talking about the number of the beast but only a few talk about the fast food of the beast. Stop bringing up the end times!
HitRed wrote:
I went into a MDs this week and had to order at a computer (most employees are gone just a computer instructor to help train you).
riskllama wrote:HitRed wrote:
I went into a MDs this week and had to order at a computer (most employees are gone just a computer instructor to help train you).
thank you, President Trump...
demonfork wrote:jusplay4fun wrote:One article by one man (David Siegel) does not refute the overwhelming scientific facts and observations. His refutation is very cursory and not at all cogent.
One article- NO
One man - NO
Overwhelming - NO
Scientific facts - NO
This one article by one man references over 200 other articles/videos made by many other men & women, climate scientists, professors etc.His refutation is very cursory and not at all cogent
You didn't read the article and research it's content. It took me 2 weeks. No way that your cursory look provided you with the data to extrapolate that his view was cursory.
In this article he references this statement from ORNL
I work very closely with ORNL and have done joint projects with their energy division & have had many after hours discussions with many of the scientists there and not a single one of them, that I've had discussions with, buys into the alarmism of climate change.
jusplay4fun wrote:One quote from ORNL does not negate other scientific data and observations.
And your quote does NOT deny Global Warming; it says that the evidence is NOT 100% sure is not a totally sure correlation. So what is new there? I would argue you cannot make sense of all the data of a complex phenomenon such as weather. That quote is rather useless and is not worth repeating. And from 1800? There has to be holes in the data from that long ago.
BTW when did ORNL do research on Global Warming? At least I use NOAA data and their website. What is NOAA? Oh, they study the Atmosphere, RIGHT?demonfork wrote:jusplay4fun wrote:One article by one man (David Siegel) does not refute the overwhelming scientific facts and observations. His refutation is very cursory and not at all cogent.
One article- NO
One man - NO
Overwhelming - NO
Scientific facts - NO
This one article by one man references over 200 other articles/videos made by many other men & women, climate scientists, professors etc.His refutation is very cursory and not at all cogent
You didn't read the article and research it's content. It took me 2 weeks. No way that your cursory look provided you with the data to extrapolate that his view was cursory.
In this article he references this statement from ORNL
I work very closely with ORNL and have done joint projects with their energy division & have had many after hours discussions with many of the scientists there and not a single one of them, that I've had discussions with, buys into the alarmism of climate change.
riskllama wrote:just show him your conq. medal and end this madness, df...
tzor wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Well then, I guess I don't exist.
Damn it man, you have a PhD in Physics. You know damn well that it cannot be determined if you exist or not until someone actually observes you and these forums don't count.
demonfork wrote:jusplay4fun wrote:One quote from ORNL does not negate other scientific data and observations.
And your quote does NOT deny Global Warming; it says that the evidence is NOT 100% sure is not a totally sure correlation. So what is new there? I would argue you cannot make sense of all the data of a complex phenomenon such as weather. That quote is rather useless and is not worth repeating. And from 1800? There has to be holes in the data from that long ago.
BTW when did ORNL do research on Global Warming? At least I use NOAA data and their website. What is NOAA? Oh, they study the Atmosphere, RIGHT?demonfork wrote:jusplay4fun wrote:One article by one man (David Siegel) does not refute the overwhelming scientific facts and observations. His refutation is very cursory and not at all cogent.
One article- NO
One man - NO
Overwhelming - NO
Scientific facts - NO
This one article by one man references over 200 other articles/videos made by many other men & women, climate scientists, professors etc.His refutation is very cursory and not at all cogent
You didn't read the article and research it's content. It took me 2 weeks. No way that your cursory look provided you with the data to extrapolate that his view was cursory.
In this article he references this statement from ORNL
I work very closely with ORNL and have done joint projects with their energy division & have had many after hours discussions with many of the scientists there and not a single one of them, that I've had discussions with, buys into the alarmism of climate change.
Cut your losses bro... no one is alarmed about climate change.
Don't you know there is a consensus? 99% of the masses aren't concerned about it.
demonfork wrote:https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/29748-failed-predictions-of-climate-alarmists-make-future-predictions-suspectPeople such as Prince Charles, Gore, Pachauri, Brown, and Hansen don’t deal in real science; they pedal fear masquerading as science to the gullible. When challenged, they pull out the “97 percent of scientists agree on global warming” malarkey, as if that ends all discussion on the subject. They compare skeptics of anthropogenic global warming to holocaust deniers, as if there were some moral equivalence between the two. They willingly prevaricate, obfuscate, and outright lie in order to frighten the masses.
But the masses have caught on. Polls show that climate change is consistently near the bottom of issues that people are concerned about.
As the climate-alarmist movement ever so slowly fades from our consciousness, the alarmists are becoming more desperate; their shrill cries and declarations of doom sounding even more unhinged than they were before.
Wanna talk consensus? Here is some consensus for you...
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most- ... oblem.aspx
99% of Americans aren't all that concerned about climate change.
riskllama wrote:demonfork wrote:
99% of Americans aren't all that concerned about climate change.
isn't that just because most 'muricans spend most of their time wondering when the McRib will make it's next appearance?
Metsfanmax wrote:demonfork, have you considered the possibility that the reason you don't know any Ph.D.'s that accept the IPCC view on climate change is that none of them would be interested in associating with someone who insists that their life's work is fueled by a Huffington Post conspiracy theory? Your point on this makes about as much sense as Flat Earth believers saying that they don't know any Ph.D.'s who believe the Earth is round.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: ConfederateSS, mookiemcgee