Climate Change(d)?

[Jimmy Higgins]

When it comes to mitigating financial risk, particularly due to natural disasters, insurance companies are very likely to be a good source.

I highly doubt that.

They would go bankrupt real quick if they didn't understand risk.

You quoted text from the study that says the number of tornados isn't changed much. I didn't say there were more tornados, I said the tornados are popping up further to the east.

So what if it does. It doesn't point to an existential climate crisis.

So you've gone from 'OMG, your own link debunked you, what a fucking dumbass you are.' to 'So what you are correct?'

The point was that this was one of eight broad changes I've raised that have been seen with the ecosystem, that appears strongly linked to the heating planet. You seem to only want to count stuff that has led to mass extinctions.

I'd say you were cherry picking, but it seems more likely you just don't understand the content you were trying to post about.

From one of the other studies;

Significant tornadoes, overall, have shown a decrease since 1973 by all metrics (tornadoes, tornado days, and pathlength); this could be due to a number of factors. The difference in F/EF2+ tornadoes during two 24-yr subperiods (1973–96 and 1997–2020) shows that an eastward shift in significant tornadoes and the pathlength of significant tornadoes are apparent. The overall national decrease in significant tornadoes was apparent in the data, with large decreases in the southern GP and small increases in the Southeast. However, the metric with the least decrease (1973–2020), pathlength, showed a decrease in much of the GP and an increase in much of the eastern United States, primarily the Southeast and western Ohio Valley, from 1973–96 to 1997–2020.

A slight shift of a few tornados eastwards could change at any time.

I'd say it is you who cherry picks.

A slight shift? It has shifted hundreds of miles.

You are just serving up red herrings at this point. Feels like you are a creationist in an evolution thread, quote-mining scientists who believe in evolution, trying to use it to prove what those scientists don't believe.

 

[Shadowy Man]

A slight shift? It has shifted hundreds of miles.

if you look from far enough away even hundreds of miles will be imperceptible.

 

[TSwizzle]

They would go bankrupt real quick if they didn't understand risk.

Insurance companies are not known to have their customer's interests at heart.

So you've gone from 'OMG, your own link debunked you, what a fucking dumbass you are.' to 'So what you are correct?'

Nope. The slight shift over a very short period of time is pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things. What IS meaningful is that despite the claims of more tornados and hurricanes, there are actually fewer. But you gloss over that part because it doesn't fit the climate porn narrative.

You seem to only want to count stuff that has led to mass extinctions.

lol, you are the one that points to a slight variability and screeches the world is coming to an end.

A slight shift? It has shifted hundreds of miles.

And it could shift back again just as quickly. The study is a very short time period.

You are just serving up red herrings at this point. Feels like you are a creationist in an evolution thread, misquoting scientists who believe in evolution, trying to use it to prove what those scientists don't believe.

You sound like you want there to be a climate apocalypse rapture.

 

[Shadowy Man]

And it could shift back again just as quickly.

can you support this claim?

 

[TSwizzle]

wildfires risks growing across continents

lol, I ask for science and I get propaganda. Earth.org?

about the author; Martina is a journalist and editor with experience covering climate change, extreme weather, climate policy and litigation.

Not biased at all.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

They would go bankrupt real quick if they didn't understand risk.

Insurance companies are not known to have their customer's interests at heart.

Who said anything about customers? Insurance companies at the very least need to understand the risks they are underwriting, or they'll go bankrupt very fast.

So you've gone from 'OMG, your own link debunked you, what a fucking dumbass you are.' to 'So what you are correct?'

Nope. The slight shift over a very short period of time is pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

Yes. Your post was quite arrogant, particularly regarding something you were absolutely wrong in claiming because you have tunnel-visioned yourself regarding 'claims' on climate change and forgot to actually read what was posted. I said it shifted (a claim that is not remotely controversial), and it has shifted over 600+ miles. You want to use poorly selected adjectives as a defense, but that doesn't particularly help your cause.

You seem to only want to count stuff that has led to mass extinctions.

lol, you are the one that points to a slight variability and screeches the world is coming to an end.

So you are moving on from quote-mining to misquoting now.

A slight shift? It has shifted hundreds of miles.

And it could shift back again just as quickly. The study is a very short time period.

I am glad to see you are conceding that not only is there change, but it occurred relatively rapidly.

You are just serving up red herrings at this point. Feels like you are a creationist in an evolution thread, quote-mining scientists who believe in evolution, trying to use it to prove what those scientists don't believe.

You sound like you want there to be a climate apocalypse rapture.

Now going from misquoting to ad hominems.

 

[TSwizzle]

Who said anything about customers? Insurance companies at the very least need to understand the risks they are underwriting, or they'll go bankrupt very fast.

Of course they do but that doesn't mean they won't take advantage of nonsense that puts the increased premiums under the dodgy premise of "climate change".

Yes. Your post was quite arrogant, particularly regarding something you were absolutely wrong in claiming because you have tunnel-visioned yourself regarding 'claims' on climate change and forgot to actually read what was posted.

I'm not claiming anything, I am repeating what is in the source, the number of tornados are fewer. I know you want to ignore that because it doesn't suit your climate apocalypse.

I said it shifted (a claim that is not remotely controversial), and it has shifted over 600+ miles. You want to use poorly selected adjectives as a defense, but that doesn't particularly help your cause.

It's still a slight shift and it could shift again. But the good news is that there are fewer tornados, right?

I am glad to see you are conceding that not only is there change, but it occurred relatively rapidly.

Hard to say for sure. Needs more $$ to keep studying.

 

[Elixir]

Of course they do but that doesn't mean they won't take advantage of nonsense that puts the increased premiums under the dodgy premise of "climate change".

You’re full of shit.
In the United States, insurers have notably pulled out or stopped issuing new policies in high-risk areas like California, Florida, Arizona, and Louisiana, largely because of escalating wildfire and hurricane risks.
Way to “take advantage”!

the number of tornados are fewer.

I bet you haven’t been threatened by one all week! It must be comforting to think Daddy Trump cured your tornado problem.

Nonetheless, the number of tornadoes is increasing in the US and shifting geographically, hitting more areas outside “Tornado Alley.”

“Researchers report over 1,000 tornadoes across the U.S. by May 2025. The frequency and intensity of tornadoes have increased in many regions, especially in the U.S., resulting in unprecedented insured losses. For example, in the first half of 2024, severe thunderstorms (including tornadoes) led to $34 billion in insured losses—the highest ever recorded for that period.”
-perplexity, obviously a democrat

That may be a record dollar number only because of Trumpflation and associated increases in replacement costs, I don’t know.
But nowadays tornado outbreaks generate billion-dollar claim events, and put significant financial strain on insurance companies. Ask someone in the Midwest.

But the good news is that there are fewer tornados, right?

No, the good news for you is that you are safe from them and able to maintain your status as severely misinformed.

 

[steve_bank]

The jet stream may be shifting

Climate change is altering the jet stream in two primary ways: speeding up the fastest winds and causing the jet stream to become more wavier and slower. The accelerating winds of the upper-level jet stream could shorten flight times but increase turbulence, while the more erratic, meandering jet stream can lead to prolonged extreme weather events like heatwaves, cold snaps, droughts, and floods by blocking normal weather patterns. These changes are linked to warming temperatures and the disruption of atmospheric circulation patterns.

Affecting the mid west 'bread basket'.

 

[Elixir]

A slight shift? It has shifted hundreds of miles.

Yabut the center of tornadic activity is still about the same distance as it was - and even maybe further - from Santa Monica. That's all that matters.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The jet stream may be shifting

Climate change is altering the jet stream in two primary ways: speeding up the fastest winds and causing the jet stream to become more wavier and slower. The accelerating winds of the upper-level jet stream could shorten flight times but increase turbulence, while the more erratic, meandering jet stream can lead to prolonged extreme weather events like heatwaves, cold snaps, droughts, and floods by blocking normal weather patterns. These changes are linked to warming temperatures and the disruption of atmospheric circulation patterns.

Affecting the mid west 'bread basket'.

But it could shift back just as quickly.

 

[steve_bank]

Even if we drastically reduce emissions the amount of heat stored in the oceans would take a long time to go down. The only way to to get rid of heat is radiation into space.

I doubt climate will return to what it was. To me it is all adding up o a drastic change in human civilization. It has happened before, not on a global scale.

It is not just the jet stream also ocean currents. The Atalanta current off Europe is slowing down. If it stalls completely that would have drastic effects on weather and fish.

Yes, key Atlantic currents, particularly the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), are slowing down due to global warming and the resulting influx of freshwater from melting ice sheets and increased precipitation, which makes the ocean water less salty and less dense. This slowdown has significant global climate implications, including colder winters in Northern Europe, increased rainfall over the western coast of Europe, and shifts in tropical rainfall patterns, potentially causing more intense droughts in the Amazon and sub-Saharan Africa. While a complete shutdown this century is unlikely according to the IPCC, the system is approaching a potential tipping point, with the long-term consequences of this weakening yet to be fully understood, according to the United Nations.

It has been known at least since the 90s the aquifer underneath the Midwest agriculture is drawing down and can not be replenished.

Midwest aquifers, most notably the vast Ogallala Aquifer in the Great Plains, are experiencing significant drawdown due to excessive pumping for irrigation and other uses, which is happening much faster than the natural rate of replenishment. This depletion leads to declining water tables, dry wells, increased pumping costs, and threats to the agricultural economy and rural communities that depend on this vital groundwater source. Factors contributing to this crisis include water-intensive agriculture, prolonged droughts, climate change, and the inherent low recharge rate of the aquifer, particularly its southern sections.

The Colorado River is consumed.

At some point food supplies will be affected.

And here in Seattle what is on people's minds are the Mariners making a World Series run, how the Seahawks will do this year, and the price of ground beef for Labor Day barbecue....

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Even if we drastically reduce emissions the amount of heat stored in the oceans would take a long time to go down. The only way to to get rid of heat is radiation into space.

I doubt climate will return to what it was. To me it is all adding up o a drastic change in human civilization. It has happened before, not on a global scale.

It is not just the jet stream also ocean currents. The Atalanta current off Europe is slowing down. If it stalls completely that would have drastic effects on weather and fish.

Certainly a few things are baking in. Melted ice means less energy reflection for sunlight, so more energy absorbed into the ecosystem. If we get to zero CO2 today, we still have the excess from 150+ years CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere that'll trap more energy from the sun, every year.

It has been known at least since the 90s the aquifer underneath the Midwest agriculture is drawing down and can not be replenished.

That would be caused by agricultural uses, not drought. Still an issue. And with the new Trump Admin, they'll likely cancel programs meant to make agricultural processes more efficient.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The jet stream may be shifting

Climate change is altering the jet stream in two primary ways: speeding up the fastest winds and causing the jet stream to become more wavier and slower. The accelerating winds of the upper-level jet stream could shorten flight times but increase turbulence, while the more erratic, meandering jet stream can lead to prolonged extreme weather events like heatwaves, cold snaps, droughts, and floods by blocking normal weather patterns. These changes are linked to warming temperatures and the disruption of atmospheric circulation patterns.

Affecting the mid west 'bread basket'.

But it could shift back just as quickly.

As if the shift has zero meteorological explanation.

 

[TSwizzle]

Yes it does, natural variability.

Why so many people believe that climate never changes or shouldn’t ever change is baffling.

 

[Swammerdami]

The jet stream may be shifting

Climate change is altering the jet stream in two primary ways: speeding up the fastest winds and causing the jet stream to become more wavier and slower.

"more wavier" ?? Somebody needs a better grammar-checker. Or do the "best" AI's cleverly combine "more wavy" and "wavier" to produce the more definitive "more wavier"? Will AI-enhanced grammar become the new standard?

The accelerating winds of the upper-level jet stream could shorten flight times but increase turbulence, while the more erratic, meandering jet stream can lead to prolonged extreme weather events like heatwaves, cold snaps, droughts, and floods by blocking normal weather patterns. These changes are linked to warming temperatures and the disruption of atmospheric circulation patterns.

The slowing jet-stream may have another effect:

Earth is spinning faster this summer, making the days marginally shorter and attracting the attention of scientists and timekeepers.
July 10 was the shortest day of the year so far, lasting 1.36 milliseconds less than 24 hours, according to data from the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service and the US Naval Observatory, compiled by timeanddate.com. More exceptionally short days are coming on July 22 and August 5, currently predicted to be 1.34 and 1.25 milliseconds shorter than 24 hours, respectively.
...
Some experts believe this could lead to a scenario similar to the Y2K problem, which threatened to bring modern civilization to a halt.

OMG! If Mr. Swiz finds this hyperbolic I'm afraid that for once I'll agree with him!

...
In 1972, after decades of rotating relatively slowly, Earth’s spin had accumulated such a delay relative to atomic time that the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service mandated the addition of a “leap second” to the UTC.
...
Since 1972, a total of 27 leap seconds have been added to the UTC, but the rate of addition has increasingly slowed, due to Earth speeding up; nine leap seconds were added throughout the 1970s while no new leap seconds have been added since 2016. In 2022, the General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM) voted to retire the leap second by 2035, meaning we may never see another one added to the clocks. But if Earth keeps spinning faster for several more years, according to Agnew, eventually one second might need to be removed from the UTC. “There’s never been a negative leap second,” he said, “but the probability of having one between now and 2035 is about 40%.”
... Climate change is also a contributing factor to the issue of the leap second, but in a surprising way. While global warming has had considerable negative impacts on Earth, when it comes to our timekeeping, it has served to counteract the forces that are speeding up Earth’s spin. A study published last year by Agnew in the journal Nature details how ice melting in Antarctica and Greenland is spreading over the oceans, slowing down Earth’s rotation — much like a skater spinning with their arms over their head, but spinning slower if the arms are tucked along the body.

“If that ice had not melted, if we had not had global warming, then we would already be having a leap negative leap second, or we would be very close to having it,” Agnew said.

So, climate change is doing a service by helping to stave off the impending negative-leap-second Armageddon?

This news, about the possible need for an unprecedented negative leap second, may seem tangential to an intelligent discussion of climate change. But that ship has already sailed. Instead we just have a MAGGAT in Santa Monica cackling to his 90-IQ coterie about the turds he lays on a message board, while science-minded Infidels engage and turn him into a hero among that dim-witted coterie.

 

[pood]

Why anyone wastes any more time on Swizzle Fizzle is beyond me,

 

[Elixir]

Why anyone wastes any more time on Swizzle Fizzle is beyond me,

^ THAT
It’s all well and good to let the idle ignorants play their stupid games, but it’s really pointless to address them as if there was any validity to their ignorant assertions.

The urge is strong, but afaik the lurker audience that might learn something, is somewhere between minuscule and nonexistent.

 

[TSwizzle]

rapid intensification of hurricanes becoming more common

Another nonsense article from a biased source

Recent research suggests that warmer sea surface temperatures may contribute to an increased fraction of tropical cyclones that undergo rapid intensification.

Forecasting rapid intensification can be challenging, which contributes to the high human and economic toll of such storms.

While the frequency of landfalling hurricanes in the continental U.S. hasn’t changed from 1900-2017

 

[Elixir]

Nice edit Swizzerz!

What you left out:

“the economic losses have significantly increased, driven by factors like population growth along coastal areas and increased vulnerability of coastal properties. Additionally, the intensity of hurricanes and the resulting damage have increased, with rainfall flooding accounting for the majority of U.S. hurricane-related deaths in the 2013-2022 decade.”

.. all as predicted by CLIMATE SCIENTISTS, dufus.