They're idiots - don't even factor in internal radioactive decay and gravitational forces - they just see global atmosphere as a solar radiation paradigm
Hurricane Dorian Becomes the 5th Atlantic Category 5 in 4 Years
- Thread starter The Barbarian
- Start date
They're idiots - don't even factor in internal radioactive decay and gravitational forces - they just see global atmosphere as a solar radiation paradigm
Here's what we are certain of: CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" (meaning that it absorbs and reflects back to earth some of the infrared radiation that would otherwise escape out into space, thus raising the temperature), and over the decades we have been pumping millions of metric tons of the stuff out of the ground and into the atmosphere through the burning of oil and gas. More greenhouse gasses in the air means more warming--scientific fact.
Yes, that's now known. No "maybe" about it. Would you like to see the evidence, again?
No one really knows how to deal with it. Cutting carbon emissions has helped, but as long as we keep dumping more into the atmosphere, it's a losing battle. As you learned, technology can blunt some of the harm, but not all of it. Tropical storms are getting more powerful, and contrary to Trump's assumption, dropping a nuclear weapon into a hurricane won't do much of anything to stop it.
Miami dodged a bullet last week. Hurricane Dorian, just a wobble off South Florida's coast, was one of the strongest and longest-lasting Atlantic hurricanes on record.
Florida has always had hurricanes, but climate change will make them bigger, stronger, slower, and deadlier. Tom Knutson, a research meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), says the evidence that a warming world is producing stronger hurricanes is greater than the evidence against it. Last week, in a webinar hosted by Climate Central, Knutson reviewed recent scientific research about how hurricanes are changing Evidence suggests a warmer climate will not necessarily result in more hurricanes, but it will increase the likelihood that these storms transform into extreme weather events such as Dorian.
"The frequency is not changing, but the intensity is," Knutson says. "The number of storms may not increase, but those that reach Category 4 or 5 hurricanes will."
Hurricane Dorian, for example, was a record-breaking storm. It was the strongest hurricane to hit the Bahamas since records began in 1851, and it's tied with the 1935 Labor Day Hurricane as the storm with the highest wind speeds at landfall. It was a named storm for more than two weeks — one of the longest-lasting storms on record. It was also an incredibly slow-moving storm, infamous for stalling. And it brought devastating waves of storm surge — a consequence that will only climb alongside sea-level rise.
"Hurricane Dorian sat over the Bahamas for 48 hours and then went all the way north to Canada," says Nancy Metayer, climate justice program manager for the nonprofit New Florida Majority. "This was a monster storm."
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/...-bigger-stronger-slower-and-deadlier-11257649
Florida has always had hurricanes, but climate change will make them bigger, stronger, slower, and deadlier. Tom Knutson, a research meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), says the evidence that a warming world is producing stronger hurricanes is greater than the evidence against it. Last week, in a webinar hosted by Climate Central, Knutson reviewed recent scientific research about how hurricanes are changing Evidence suggests a warmer climate will not necessarily result in more hurricanes, but it will increase the likelihood that these storms transform into extreme weather events such as Dorian.
"The frequency is not changing, but the intensity is," Knutson says. "The number of storms may not increase, but those that reach Category 4 or 5 hurricanes will."
Hurricane Dorian, for example, was a record-breaking storm. It was the strongest hurricane to hit the Bahamas since records began in 1851, and it's tied with the 1935 Labor Day Hurricane as the storm with the highest wind speeds at landfall. It was a named storm for more than two weeks — one of the longest-lasting storms on record. It was also an incredibly slow-moving storm, infamous for stalling. And it brought devastating waves of storm surge — a consequence that will only climb alongside sea-level rise.
"Hurricane Dorian sat over the Bahamas for 48 hours and then went all the way north to Canada," says Nancy Metayer, climate justice program manager for the nonprofit New Florida Majority. "This was a monster storm."
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/...-bigger-stronger-slower-and-deadlier-11257649
A tropical storm is flooding Texas with up to 43 inches of rain, just 2 weeks after Hurricane Dorian. Here's why storms are getting stronger, slower, and wetter.
Tropical Storm Imelda, now a tropical depression, has flooded southeastern Texas with rainfall totals of up to 43 inches. That makes Imelda the seventh-wettest tropical cyclone in US history.
The flooding appears to be worse than that of Hurricane Harvey, and it's impacting similar areas in and around Houston. Homes that weren't flooded by Harvey are flooding now, Jefferson County Judge Jeff Branick told the Associated Press on Thursday.
"What I'm sitting in right now makes Harvey look like a little thunderstorm," Chambers County Sheriff Brian Hawthorne told ABC 13...warming overall makes hurricanes more frequent and devastating than they would otherwise be.
That's because higher water temperatures lead to sea-level rise, which increases the risk of flooding during high tides and in the event of storms surges. Warmer air also holds more atmospheric water vapor, which enables tropical storms to strengthen and unleash more precipitation.
...
"With warmer oceans caused by global warming, we can expect the strongest storms to get stronger," James Elzner, an atmospheric scientist at Florida State University, told Yale.
That can also mean that storms are able to intensify and develop into powerful hurricanes in a shorter time span.
Here's what to know about why storms are getting so much stronger, wetter, and slower.
https://www.businessinsider.com/cli...-why-storms-are-wetter-stronger-slower-2019-7
Tropical Storm Imelda, now a tropical depression, has flooded southeastern Texas with rainfall totals of up to 43 inches. That makes Imelda the seventh-wettest tropical cyclone in US history.
The flooding appears to be worse than that of Hurricane Harvey, and it's impacting similar areas in and around Houston. Homes that weren't flooded by Harvey are flooding now, Jefferson County Judge Jeff Branick told the Associated Press on Thursday.
"What I'm sitting in right now makes Harvey look like a little thunderstorm," Chambers County Sheriff Brian Hawthorne told ABC 13...warming overall makes hurricanes more frequent and devastating than they would otherwise be.
That's because higher water temperatures lead to sea-level rise, which increases the risk of flooding during high tides and in the event of storms surges. Warmer air also holds more atmospheric water vapor, which enables tropical storms to strengthen and unleash more precipitation.
...
"With warmer oceans caused by global warming, we can expect the strongest storms to get stronger," James Elzner, an atmospheric scientist at Florida State University, told Yale.
That can also mean that storms are able to intensify and develop into powerful hurricanes in a shorter time span.
Here's what to know about why storms are getting so much stronger, wetter, and slower.
https://www.businessinsider.com/cli...-why-storms-are-wetter-stronger-slower-2019-7
Right Divider
Body part
With selective use of data.... we can prove anything.
Barbarian shows total severe hurricane data for all oceans:
Perhaps you don't know what "selective use of data" means. What data do you think was left out? Keep in mind, climatology theory does not predict that there will be more storms than in the past few decades. It merely predicted stronger storms.
And that prediction, as you now realize, has been verified by the results.
Perhaps you don't know what "selective use of data" means. What data do you think was left out? Keep in mind, climatology theory does not predict that there will be more storms than in the past few decades. It merely predicted stronger storms.
And that prediction, as you now realize, has been verified by the results.
At least everything outside those ranges. :idunno:
Perhaps you don't know what "selective data" means.
:think:
Perhaps you don't know what "left out" means.
Right Divider
Body part
Showing TWO VERY NARROW slices of time proves NOTHING.Barbarian shows total severe hurricane data for all oceans:
Perhaps you don't know what "selective use of data" means. What data do you think was left out? Keep in mind, climatology theory does not predict that there will be more storms than in the past few decades. It merely predicted stronger storms.
And that prediction, as you now realize, has been verified by the results.
Right Divider
Body part
Give him a break. Those are two very difficult to understand concepts. :french:
At least everything outside those ranges. :idunno:
Perhaps you don't know what "selective data" means.
:think:
Perhaps you don't know what "left out" means.
So...please show other, more complete data.
Why? :idunno:
Right Divider
Body part
I'm not the one with the "data".
This from the same people, who think a few days of cold weather means global warming is refuted. :chuckle:
It merely shows that as the Earth's climate warmed up, the prediction of climatologists that we'd have stronger storms was verified. It's why almost all climatologist accept the model; it accurately called trends three decades in advance.
Deniers regard data the way a vampire regards a crucifix.
Right Divider
Body part
Selectively using TWO VERY NARROW windows of time proves nothing. It completely ignores the cycles that are excluded from that data.
Nonsense.
Barbarian observes:
It merely shows that as the Earth's climate warmed up, the prediction of climatologists that we'd have stronger storms was verified.
This from the same people, who think a few days of cold weather means global warming is refuted. :chuckle:
And it compared two 14-year periods. Feel free to show us a different selection of decades where the data shows it got colder when the carbon dioxide levels went up.
(Barbarian points out that an early climate model accurately predicted warming thirty years in advance, at a time when deniers were predicting cooling)
Well, let's take a look...
Thirty years ago, James Hansen testified to Congress about the dangers of human-caused climate change. In his testimony, Hansen showed the results of his 1988 study using a climate model to project future global warming under three possible scenarios, ranging from ‘business as usual’ heavy pollution in his Scenario A to ‘draconian emissions cuts’ in Scenario C, with a moderate Scenario B in between.
Changes in the human effects that influence Earth’s global energy imbalance (a.k.a. ‘anthropogenic radiative forcings’) have in reality been closest to Hansen’s Scenario B, but about 20–30% weaker thanks to the success of the Montreal Protocol in phasing out chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Hansen’s climate model projected that under Scenario B, global surface air temperatures would warm about 0.84°C between 1988 and 2017. But with a global energy imbalance 20–30% lower, it would have predicted a global surface warming closer to 0.6–0.7°C by this year.
The actual 1988–2017 temperature increase was about 0.6°C. Hansen’s 1988 global climate model was almost spot-on.
Remarkably accurate for the state of climate science in the 1980s. Remember, this was at a time when deniers were predicting colder climate, and energy companies funding them were secretly preparing for exactly the conditions Hansen was predicting:
https://insideclimatenews.org/sites...982 Exxon Primer on CO2 Greenhouse Effect.pdf
Notice the graph on p. 14 precisely agrees with the predictions of other climatologists, including Hansen's predictions, which were remarkably accurate for a 30-year time span.
It merely shows that as the Earth's climate warmed up, the prediction of climatologists that we'd have stronger storms was verified.
This from the same people, who think a few days of cold weather means global warming is refuted. :chuckle:
And it compared two 14-year periods. Feel free to show us a different selection of decades where the data shows it got colder when the carbon dioxide levels went up.
(Barbarian points out that an early climate model accurately predicted warming thirty years in advance, at a time when deniers were predicting cooling)
Well, let's take a look...
Thirty years ago, James Hansen testified to Congress about the dangers of human-caused climate change. In his testimony, Hansen showed the results of his 1988 study using a climate model to project future global warming under three possible scenarios, ranging from ‘business as usual’ heavy pollution in his Scenario A to ‘draconian emissions cuts’ in Scenario C, with a moderate Scenario B in between.
Changes in the human effects that influence Earth’s global energy imbalance (a.k.a. ‘anthropogenic radiative forcings’) have in reality been closest to Hansen’s Scenario B, but about 20–30% weaker thanks to the success of the Montreal Protocol in phasing out chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Hansen’s climate model projected that under Scenario B, global surface air temperatures would warm about 0.84°C between 1988 and 2017. But with a global energy imbalance 20–30% lower, it would have predicted a global surface warming closer to 0.6–0.7°C by this year.
The actual 1988–2017 temperature increase was about 0.6°C. Hansen’s 1988 global climate model was almost spot-on.
Remarkably accurate for the state of climate science in the 1980s. Remember, this was at a time when deniers were predicting colder climate, and energy companies funding them were secretly preparing for exactly the conditions Hansen was predicting:
https://insideclimatenews.org/sites...982 Exxon Primer on CO2 Greenhouse Effect.pdf
Notice the graph on p. 14 precisely agrees with the predictions of other climatologists, including Hansen's predictions, which were remarkably accurate for a 30-year time span.