Another fun climate change thread

climate is changing everyday and everywhere. We can do nothing but hope...it's a pity

 

The movie was based on a real climate computer model

 

We'll start here:



This graph shows the number of hurricanes that formed in the North Atlantic Ocean each year from 1878 to 2015, along with the number that made landfall in the United States. The orange curve shows how the total count in the green curve can be adjusted to attempt to account for the lack of aircraft and satellite observations in early years. All three curves have been smoothed using a five-year average, plotted at the middle year. The most recent average (2011–2015) is plotted at 2013.

Data source: NOAA, 20164; Vecchi and Knutson, 20115
Web update: August 2016
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Key Points

• Since 1878, about six to seven hurricanes have formed in the North Atlantic every year. Roughly two per year make landfall in the United States. The total number of hurricanes (particularly after being adjusted for improvements in observation methods) and the number reaching the United States do not indicate a clear overall trend since 1878 (see Figure 1).
• According to the total annual ACE Index, cyclone intensity has risen noticeably over the past 20 years, and six of the 10 most active years since 1950 have occurred since the mid-1990s (see Figure 2). Relatively high levels of cyclone activity were also seen during the 1950s and 1960s.
• The PDI (see Figure 3) shows fluctuating cyclone intensity for most of the mid- to late 20th century, followed by a noticeable increase since 1995 (similar to the ACE Index). These trends are shown with associated variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical North Atlantic for comparison (see Figure 3).
• Despite the apparent increases in tropical cyclone activity in recent years, shown in Figures 2 and 3, changes in observation methods over time make it difficult to know whether tropical storm activity has actually shown an increase over time.3
• _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

So, according to the graph above, do you see an increase in hurricanes?

 

That's not entirely accurate. But even if we were able to completely destroy industrialism in a day, we'd still see climate change getting worse yearly for up to 10 years before finally starting to heal. The healthier the biosphere, the sooner that will happen. And vise versa.

 

Also, #39 refers to one of the links on your list.

This: Home

Post the segment that tells you about the catastrophes that are coming.

Also, you forgot to address this:

And these examples of what was dishonestly deleted from the IPCC's Report:

-- "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

-- "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."

-- "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

What is your opinion concerning the omission of these statements from the report? What does it tell you about the integrity of the IPCC?
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


And to that point:

. . . emails between scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public . . .

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Example: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment."
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The e-mails implicate scores of researchers, most of whom are associated with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization many skeptics believe was created exclusively to provide evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Among the IPCC elite embarrassingly, if not criminally, compromised is Phillip D. Jones, a Ph.D. climatologist at the University of East Anglia whose work figured prominently in the IPCC Third Assessment Report of 2001. Jones also contributed significantly to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 (AR4), but he failed to follow through when skeptical investigators asked to review raw data associated with that report. They announced intent to use UK Freedom of Information laws to obtain the data, so Jones sent the following e-mail to one of his collaborators: "Mike, Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.... Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same?... Will be getting Caspar to do likewise." The Mike in this message is Michael Mann, professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, whose influential "hockey stick" graph warning of pending global warming eco-catastrophe was found by a congressional investigation to be fraudulent. In another correspondence about AR4 labeled HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, Jones contacted Mann regarding research critical of their global warming platform. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," wrote Jones. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I actually want to know if this raises any red flags with you when it comes to the integrity of the people on this panel.

And then there's Cook's misclassification of the position of scientists whose Papers he used to concoct his 97% consensus bullshit.

I mean, do you just turn away from this shit, and pretend it means nothing about anything?
___________________________________________________________________

And concerning the danger of this . . . warming, is there a 97% consensus on that?

 

A little perspective:


And a little more perspective: Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

 

This is an interesting article by Luke Kemp, a researcher based at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge. It touches on climate change as an element in societal collapse but goes further to try and identify all of the factors involved. By looking at the rise and fall of civilizations past he tries to measure how far away we ourselves are from societal collapse.

Are we on the road to civilisation collapse?

 

First of all, you claim to not know what omissions I'm referring to. In the next breath you're asking why you would believe they're true. If you don't know what omissions I'm referring to, how do you know that you would question them? Second of all, I've provided you with those omissions in a couple of posts. Why are you pretending that you haven't seen them? Just to humor you, I'll repost them:

-- "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

-- "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."

-- "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

And here is the source: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/WSJ_June12.pdf

So, what is your opinion concerning the omission of these statements from the report? What does it tell you about the integrity of the IPCC? That you can trust them in the future?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now, having been shown that "scientists" comprising the IPCC were caught red-handed conspiring to delete emails that were detrimental to their desired results concerning global warming, your response is to arbitrarily decide that, because they did so over a period of time, it can be overlooked. And of course we have the fact that an investigation found them innocent of fraud even though the fraud is right there in plain sight for all to see.

About that:

There was a call for public submissions on February 11, 2010 with a virtually impossible deadline of March 1, 2010 (17 days). They did not hold public hearings and only interviewed CRU and UEA staff. Those items alone are sufficient to indicate the bias of the inquiry to a preconceived result. In a commentary on the Muir Russell Report, Fred Pearce of the UK Guardian, a paper long known for its strong support of the IPCC wrote,

“Secrecy was the order of the day at CRU. “We find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness,” says the report. That criticism applied not just to Jones and his team at CRU. It applied equally to the university itself, which may have been embarrassed to find itself in the dock as much as the scientists on whom it asked Russell to sit in judgment.”
__________________________________________________________________________

Montford’s report showed all three Inquiries and their reports had serious flaws. Lord Turnbull summarized Montford’s findings as follows.

· These inquiries were hurried

· The terms of reference were unclear

· Insufficient care was taken with the choice of panel members to ensure balance and independence

· Insufficient care was taken to ensure the process was independent of those being investigated, eg., the Royal Society allowed CRU to suggest the papers it should read

· Sir Muir Russell failed to attend the session with the CRU’s Director Professor Jones, and only four of fourteen members of the Science and Technology Select Committee attended the crucial final meeting to sign off their report.

· Record keeping was poor.

Turnbull concludes,

“But above all, Andrew Montford’s report brings out the disparity between the treatment of the incumbents and the critics. The former appeared to be treated with kid gloves and their explanations readily accepted without serious challenge. The letter [sic] has been disbursed denied adequate opportunity to put their case.”

Climategate & Investigations of IPCC and CRU: Was There a Pattern of Cover Up?
________________________________________________________________________

Next, you offered up that list of links for the purpose of showing all of the organizations that support the idea of dangerous global warming. I asked you to pull from link #39 the segment that does just that. You failed to do so, and now you're pretending that you don't know what I'm asking for.

 

From the NOAA:

Overall, our time-dependent estimate of missed storms results in an adjusted hurricane record that is much more stationary in time, with substantial inter-annual and decadal variations but little secular trend since the late nineteenth century (Table 1). The significant, or nearly significant, 1878–2008 secular changes in basinwide frequency (increase) average duration (decrease), fraction of storms making landfall (decrease), and storm activity in the eastern tropical Atlantic (increase) seen in the raw database all become nonsignificant after our adjustment.

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/gav_2010JCLI3810.pdf

. . . Thus, because of changes in our observing capability, the hurricane record does not support the notion of a strong sensitivity (positive or negative) of Atlantic hurricane frequency to increasing greenhouse gases, nor does it even unambiguously point to the likely sign of the sensitivity. It is worth noting that dynamical techniques indicate the possibility of either a positive or a negative sensitivity of Atlantic tropical storm or hurricane frequency to increasing greenhouse gases. However, no existing dynamical studies we are aware of show very large positive sensitivity to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) twenty-first-century warming scenarios such as A1B.

 

So you didn't provide that list of organizations to show which ones support the idea that terrible catastrophes are coming because of global warming? Why did you provide them?

Also, if you have nothing to refute the article I provided from the Wall Street Journal, that's not my problem. Have you heard anyone refute it? I haven't. But if I were the members of the IPCC, I would demand a retraction or sue for misrepresentation.

Even after seeing some of the incriminating exchanges between members of the IPCC, you are electing to stick up for their integrity.
______________________________________________________________________

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,” writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept. of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”


The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles. “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?” Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. “Keith will do likewise. ... We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!”

The new emails also reveal the scientists’ attempts to politicize the debate and advance predetermined outcomes.

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate​

 

. . . “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment.

I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email.

“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose” skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another newly released email.

These new emails add weight to Climategate 1.0 emails revealing efforts to politicize the scientific debate. For example, Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored a Climategate 1.0 email asserting that his fellow Climategate scientists “must get rid of”
the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis.

More than revealing misconduct and improper motives, the newly released emails additionally reveal frank admissions of the scientific shortcomings of global warming assertions.

“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary,” writes Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.

“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,” Thorne adds.

“Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive ... there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC,” Wigley acknowledges.

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate

 

Iceberg twice the size of NYC about to break off of Antarctica


Iceberg twice the size of NYC about to break off of Antarctica

 

Seriously applaud your efforts and shared info!

 

https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...ages-antarctica-reveal-highs-and-lows-sea-ice

Record for most amount of sea ice covering antarctica since being observed occured in 2014


Just because a big chunk breaks off doest mean more isnt reforming