Hurricane Dorian Becomes the 5th Atlantic Category 5 in 4 Years

[The Barbarian]

as a chemist, i would recognize that as a tautology, that heat is energy

Most of us use the word ‘heat’ to mean something that feels warm, but science defines heat as the flow of energy from a warm object to a cooler object.
https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/750-heat-energy

Thermal energy is the sum of all the kinetic energies of the molecules in a substance.

 

[Stripe]

Still waiting for Barbarian to demonstrate the validity of his assertion that give storms in five years is unexpected.

PREDICTION: He'll keep hiding.

 

[chair]

Here's your chance to stop playing your stupid games and simply apologize for being wrong.

still waiting, Stripe.

 

[Stripe]

still waiting, Stripe.

For an apology? Those come from the heart, not from demands. Entirely different from a request for working to support an assertion of fact that Barbarian will dodge till the end of time.

 

[The Barbarian]

Heat is energy transferred spontaneously from a hotter to a colder system or body.[1][2] Heat is energy in transfer, not a property of any one system, or 'contained' within it.[1] On the other hand, internal energy is a property of a system. In an ideal gas, the internal energy is the sum total of the gas particles' kinetic energy, and it is this kinetic motion that is the source and the effect of the transfer of heat across a system's boundary. For this reason, the term "thermal energy" is sometimes used synonymously with internal energy. (Heat and work depend on the way in which an energy transfer occurred, whereas internal energy is a property of the state of a system and can thus be understood even without knowing how the energy got there.) The term "thermal energy" is also applied to the energy carried by a heat flow,[3], although this quantity can also simply be called heat or amount of heat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy

Because a hurricane is a Carnot engine, operating by transfer of thermal energy (heat) from a warmer to a colder object, it is a classical thermal energy dissipation engine.

The production of motive power is therefore due in steam engines not to actual consumption of caloric but to its transportation from a warm body to a cold body.
Sadi Carnot, Reflections on the Motive Power of Heat 1890

In the fall of caloric, motive power undoubtedly increases with the difference of temperature between the warm and cold bodies
ibid

 

[Clete]

Yes, upon further investigation, I find that I was incorrect in my interpretation of the data. According to NOAA:

"We find that..there is a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. But statistical tests reveal that this trend is so small, relative to the variability in the series, that it is not significantly distinguishable from zero. Thus the historical tropical storm count record does not provide compelling evidence for a greenhouse warming induced long-term increase."

Source: https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/

Intellectual honesty! How completely refreshing! Thank you!

(Seriously! That's not me trying to be at all sarcastic!)

 

[chair]

For an apology? Those come from the heart, not from demands. Entirely different from a request for working to support an assertion of fact that Barbarian will dodge till the end of time.

It's very simple. You wrongly accused me of a few things, without any basis. Just admit that you were wrong. Adults sometimes do this. This has nothing to do with Barbarian.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's very simple. You wrongly accused me of a few things, without any basis. Just admit that you were wrong. Adults sometimes do this. This has nothing to do with Barbarian.

It's why I have him on ignore. He's kinda obsessed.

And yes, the data fits the model indicating stronger storms, but not more storms. In fact, the model suggests that greater warming could reduce the number of hurricanes when stronger high-altitude wind disrupt convection.

Hurricanes start simply with the evaporation of warm seawater, which pumps water into the lower atmosphere. This humid air is then dragged aloft when converging winds collide and turn upwards. At higher altitudes, water vapor starts to condense into clouds and rain, releasing heat that warms the surrounding air, causing it to rise as well. As the air far above the sea rushes upward, even more warm moist air spirals in from along the surface to replace it.

As long as the base of this weather system remains over warm water and its top is not sheared apart by high-altitude winds, it will strengthen and grow. More and more heat and water will be pumped into the air. The pressure at its core will drop further and further, sucking in wind at ever increasing speeds. Over several hours to days, the storm will intensify, finally reaching hurricane status when the winds that swirl around it reach sustained speeds of 74 miles per hour or more.

Eventually, hurricanes turn away from the tropics and into mid-latitudes. Once they move over cold water or over land and lose touch with the hot water that powers them, these storms weaken and break apart.

Recent studies have shown a link between ocean surface temperatures and tropical storm intensity – warmer waters fuel more energetic storms.
https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/facts/hurricanes.html

 

[Stripe]

It's why I have him on ignore.

Yep. You hate dealing with challenges.

You're kinda obsessed.

The data fits the model.

You can't even do a simple probability analysis. What are the odds that five storms would happen in five years given the historical data we have?

PREDICTION: Barbarian will keep his fingers in his ears, while it's plain for all to see that he is indeed reading along.

 

[chair]

It's very simple. You wrongly accused me of a few things, without any basis. Just admit that you were wrong. Adults sometimes do this. This has nothing to do with Barbarian.

Stripe, my opinion of you is dropping even further. I didn't think that was possible.
Why is it so hard to admit you were wrong?

 

[Stripe]

Stripe, my opinion of you is dropping even further.

I'll be crying myself to sleep tonight.

Why is it so hard to admit you were wrong?

You asked for an apology. Is all you really want for me to admit that I was wrong about something?

Global warmists and leftists, but I repeat myself, do indeed think that banning straws is a sensible response to their end-of-the-world ravings.

You're more likely to get the apology than for me to deny facts.

And as I said, an apology must come from the heart. Keep on demanding it and you'll have your reward.

 

[chair]

I'll be crying myself to sleep tonight.



You asked for an apology. Is all you really want for me to admit that I was wrong about something?

Global warmists and leftists, but I repeat myself, do indeed think that banning straws is a sensible response to their end-of-the-world ravings.

You're more likely to get the apology than for me to deny facts.

And as I said, an apology must come from the heart. Keep on demanding it and you'll have your reward.

Listen carefully. I never said anything about global warming being caused by man. Nor did I say anything about end of the world. Nor have I ever indicated that I am a "leftist"- whatever that is. Nor did I say anything positive about bending straws.

You are doing this stupid Identity Politics thing, where, since I disagree with you on some topics, I belong in the enemy camp. It is stupid. Wake up.

I am only asking you to admit that you wrongly accused me of having those extreme opinions. Are you such a child that you can't manage that?

 

[Stripe]

You wrongly accused me of having those extreme opinions.

I feel confident that with time and counseling, you'll get over it.

Are you such a child that you can't manage that?

How scandalous. I demand an apology.

 

[Truster]

No, you're a stupid idiot because you say stupid things.



So then let's all just be idiots then! Is that your point?

You can just say the most mindlessly idiotic stupidity imaginable, no matter how far removed it is from whatever is being discussed and it's perfectly impenetrable to any scrutiny or criticism whatsoever because you're a loyal fool for God.

If you showed up to tell us that God was a one eyed purple people eater, what could anyone say to refute the foolishness you spout in God's name? Why do you even bother quoting the bible? Who needs it? You've got the magical "It's spiritually discerned and so I can any stupid thing I want!" trump card!

How does your utterly dysfunctional brain even keep your heart and lungs functioning?

Bless you.

 

[The Barbarian]

Atmospheric science is fairly well developed. We know what the inputs and outputs to the earth's system are. What are these nebulous unknowns you're positing?

In 1988 James Hansen, using the best knowledge to that point, predicted global temperatures for the future, with three different scenarios. Thirty-one years later, this is the result:

As climate scientist John Christy noted, "this demonstrates that the old NASA [global climate model] was considerably more sensitive to GHGs than is the real atmosphere." However, Dr. Christy did not investigate why the climate model was too sensitive. There are two main reasons for Hansen's overestimate:

Scenario B, which was the closest to reality, slightly overestimated how much the atmospheric greenhouse gases would increase. This isn't just carbon dioxide. It also includes methane and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
Hansen's climate model had a rather high climate sensitivity parameter. Climate sensitivity describes how sensitive the global climate is to a change in the amount of energy reaching the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere.

If we take into account the lower atmospheric greenhouse gas increases, we can compare the observed versus projected global temperature warming rates, as shown in the Advanced version of this rebuttal. To accurately predict the global warming of the past 22 years, Hansen's climate model would have needed a climate sensitivity of about 3.4°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. This is within the likely range of climate sensitivity values listed as 2-4.5°C by the IPCC for a doubling of CO2. It is even a bit higher than the most likely value currently widely accepted as 3°C.

In short, the main reason Hansen's 1988 warming projections were too high is that he used a climate model with a high climate sensitivity. His results are actually evidence that the true climate sensitivity parameter is within the range accepted by the IPCC.
https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm

Not bad for a science that was back then, still in its infancy. We know a lot more about it now. But the fact that Hansen understood the basic forcings well enough to make a remarkably accurate prediction even 31 years ago, is compelling evidence.

 

[Right Divider]

Not bad for a science that was back then, still in its infancy. We know a lot more about it now. But the fact that Hansen understood the basic forcings well enough to make a remarkably accurate prediction even 31 years ago, is compelling evidence.

Compelling evidence of what?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Not bad for a science that was back then, still in its infancy. We know a lot more about it now. But the fact that Hansen understood the basic forcings well enough to make a remarkably accurate prediction even 31 years ago, is compelling evidence.

Compelling evidence of what?

That the model was an accurate representation of the the process. Even then, it was able to accurately call global temperatures thirty years later. Of course, the models are much better now, albeit that like all models, they are never perfect. The models, for example, slightly underestimated the amount of warming we're seeing now.

 

[Right Divider]

Barbarian observes:
Not bad for a science that was back then, still in its infancy. We know a lot more about it now. But the fact that Hansen understood the basic forcings well enough to make a remarkably accurate prediction even 31 years ago, is compelling evidence.

That the model was an accurate representation of the the process. Even then, it was able to accurately call global temperatures thirty years later. Of course, the models are much better now, albeit that like all models, they are never perfect. The models, for example, slightly underestimated the amount of warming we're seeing now.

So, once again, evidence of what?

That the global climate changes and that it is currently warming? So what?

From historical data we can tell that there were times in the past that were both much colder and much warmer than now... woopee.

 

[The Barbarian]

So, once again, evidence of what?

That carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere cause warming. Hansen's prediction, based on CO2 levels, accurately called global temperatures thirty years later.

That the global climate changes

That it changes when carbon dioxide levels change.

and that it is currently warming?

That it's warming precisely as predicted, based on increasing carbon dioxide levels.

So what?

It verifies the prediction first made in the late 1800s, by Svante Arrhenius, that increases in carbon dioxide levels would increase global temperatures.

From historical data we can tell that there were times in the past that were both much colder and much warmer than now...

But now, we can predict such changes, because we know the most important factor in changing them.

woopee.

Well, sort of. Knowing what causes it, is not the same thing as figuring out how to best deal with it. That's the real issue.

 

[Right Divider]

That carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere cause warming. Hansen's prediction, based on CO2 levels, accurately called global temperatures thirty years later.

That it changes when carbon dioxide levels change.

That it's warming precisely as predicted, based on increasing carbon dioxide levels.

It verifies the prediction first made in the late 1800s, by Svante Arrhenius, that increases in carbon dioxide levels would increase global temperatures.

So before cars and airplanes, etc. he was worried about man-made impacts of increased CO2 emissions? Was this based on horse flatulence?

But now, we can predict such changes, because we know the most important factor in changing them.

That is certainly what some people claim. There are many other major factors that you brush aside so easily.

Well, sort of. Knowing what causes it, is not the same thing as figuring out how to best deal with it. That's the real issue.

CO2 is plant food and plants like it along with warmer climates. So why all the fuss? You don't like plants?