Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

It is his data.

Of course, this is Alley's data and his graph.



Nova's is fake.

BTW - you might want to find out who the GWPF is.

Global Warming Policy Foundation: The wealthy backers behind the climate change sceptics | Environment | The Independent

Two secret funders of Nigel Lawson’s climate sceptic organisation revealed | Environment | The Guardian

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/10...cy-foundation/

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

That bears no resemblance to Nova's graph. Looks a lot like Alley's.

Just to make it clear (and apologies for being slightly out of scale)...

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Of course, this is Alley's data and his graph.

Nova's is fake.

BTW - you might want to find out who the GWPF is.

Global Warming Policy Foundation: The wealthy backers behind the climate change sceptics | Environment | The Independent

Two secret funders of Nigel Lawson’s climate sceptic organisation revealed | Environment | The Guardian

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/10...cy-foundation/

I don't give a rat's behind who the GWPF is. The data is real.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I don't give a rat's behind who the GWPF is. The data is real.

You will shallow any crap won't you.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Yet again, Skepticalscience peddles alarmism.

https://www2.ucar.edu/news/backgroun...hoons-cyclones

Not sure why you would say that Skeptical Science peddles alarmism, as the UCAR reference you provided says essentially the same thing that Skeptical Science said. Which is that it's not clear whether global warming increases hurricane frequency, but that there is evidence that hurricane intensity is increasing.

From your link above:

Examining the record

Several studies in the last decade have reported enhanced hurricane activity in some regions. For example:

• Roughly twice as many hurricanes are now reported in the Atlantic compared to a century ago. The rise, identified by Greg Holland (NCAR), occurred over three distinct periods associated with rises in sea-surface temperature (see NCAR news release).
• In both the North Atlantic and North Pacific oceans, the duration of tropical cyclones as well as their strongest wind speeds have both increased by about 50% over the past 50 years, according to Kerry Emanuel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (see MIT news release).
• The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes worldwide nearly doubled from the early 1970s to the early 2000s, found a team from the Georgia Institute of Technology and NCAR (see NCAR news release).

Changes in observing techniques pose a major challenge when studying past hurricanes. Tropical cyclones have been routinely monitored by aircraft for 60 years or less, and by satellite for only 20 to 40 years, depending on the ocean. In earlier years, many storms over the open ocean may have gone unobserved, as noted in a 2007 study by Christopher Landsea (NOAA, view a PDF of this paper). Thus, scientists must take special care in analyzing global hurricane records prior to the 1970s.

Studying the future

The bottom line: According to the 2012 IPCC report Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (PDF):

Average tropical cyclone maximum wind speed is likely to increase, although increases may not occur in all ocean basins. It is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged. (Section 3.4.4)

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Not sure why you would say that Skeptical Science peddles alarmism, as the UCAR reference you provided says essentially the same thing that Skeptical Science said. Which is that it's not clear whether global warming increases hurricane frequency, but that there is evidence that hurricane intensity is increasing.

From your link above:

You should take a leaf out of Jackdale's "read all the paragraphs" rulebook, Sailoar. The quote I posted was this organisation basically quoting the IPCC.

Here's what they have to say about it on the same page...

HASN'T THE NUMBER OF HURRICANES BEEN GOING DOWN LATELY?
On average there are about 70 to 110 named tropical cyclones per year across the world, including about 40 to 60 that reach hurricane strength. This range has held remarkably steady within the last 40 years. Within each basin, the numbers often vary more dramatically than the global average.

In part this is due to ocean-atmosphere cycles such as El Niño and La Niña. Because they affect where showers and thunderstorms develop, these cycles can suppress hurricane activity in one basin while enhancing it in another.

During El Niño years, the Atlantic tends to be less active than usual, while parts of the central and northeast Pacific are typically busier than usual. While the long-distance effects are not exactly opposite during La Niña events, there is a tendency for more activity in the Atlantic than the Pacific.

Even though the total number of tropical cyclones around the world holds fairly steady, some years are more active than others. Scientists often use an index called Accumulated Cyclone Energy, or ACE, to measure the overall intensity of a given year’s cyclone activity. ACE takes into account a storm’s peak winds at each six hours of its lifetime. After dipping to 30-year lows in the early 2010s, global ACE values have begun rising again (see graph).

Of all the hurricanes that build over the North Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico each year, only a small fraction make it to the U.S. coastline at hurricane strength. As of early 2013, the nation had not seen a major landfall (Category 3 or stronger) since 1995. However, the total number of hurricanes swirling across the North Atlantic remains unusually high.

See, now you'll say "but.. but... but... Skeptical science is talking about Atlantic hurricanes and it's true!". Yet in reference to the Greenland GISP2 data, Skepticalscience is quite happy to write it off in a lame argument that the cooling trend is regional and not global.

I do believe that's often referred to as having your cake and eating it too.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You will shallow any crap won't you.

Are you sore because you were wr.... wr...... wro..... wrong?

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Natural cycles would have us in a cooling phase. Where is the cooling?

Last winter is was here in New England, this year it was apparently along the Southern California/Baha California coast during the past two weeks.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Of course, this is Alley's data and his graph.



Nova's is fake.

BTW - you might want to find out who the GWPF is.

Global Warming Policy Foundation: The wealthy backers behind the climate change sceptics | Environment | The Independent

Two secret funders of Nigel Lawson’s climate sceptic organisation revealed | Environment | The Guardian

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/10...cy-foundation/

Ah yes, and here we have the inevitable attack on the messengers that always accompanies a dislike for the message. I thought this was now against the rules?

Where again is this evidence of fakery, or was it only an allegation? I'd like to know where all the science is at on the question of whether we are currently in a long-term warming or cooling trend, and how that informs the influence of MMGW.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Last winter is was here in New England, this year it was apparently along the Southern California/Baha California coast the past two weeks.

Record highs here for the past two winters and springs.

Globally

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Record highs here for the past two winters and Spring.]

Your question was: Where's the cooling?

I'm hoping for substantial warming to begin in 17 days upon my arrival in Sardinia. But who's counting?

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Must be true, it has a graph

It's absolutely, positively true... because I found it on the Internet.

That's where Jack finds his clippings

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Just to make it clear (and apologies for being slightly out of scale)...

Cherry pick and press to fit. Got it.

It is instructive that Alley's own graph shows long term warming.



Figure out why I referenced Jo Nova?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Your question was: Where's the cooling?

I'm hoping for substantial warming to begin in 17 days upon my arrival in Sardinia. But who's counting?

The Med looks warmer than the mean.

And the sea levels nearby are rising

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The Med looks warmer than the mean.

And the sea levels nearby are rising

About 5" over 120 years, or 0.4"/year. Think Keno will be OK? Except science can't agree on how to measure sea level, just like it cannot agree on how to take the earth's temperature, whether we're in a long-term warming or cooling trend, whether GW is causing more severe storms, whether islands are sinking or expanding, whether clouds are playing a role, sea ice contraction, land ice expansion, and 100's of other natural phenomena that seem to be inflexibly attributed to MMGW. Provided there's some evidence to support it that is.

From your cited Forbes link:

Alarmists. They pay little attention to the details of the science. They are “unconvincibles.” They say the danger is imminent, so scare tactics are both necessary and appropriate, especially to counter the deniers. They implicitly assume that all global warming and human-caused global warming are identical.