The effects of warming: Kilodeaths

[angelo]

[consistency]

 

[steve_bank]

And on the conservative side people raking in the money writing books and speaking claiming to debunk climate change. An endless stream of deniers on FOX and conservative radio.

You can try and make an argument that it is not related to human activity, but is measurably upon us.

 

[angelo]

And on the conservative side people raking in the money writing books and speaking claiming to debunk climate change. An endless stream of deniers on FOX and conservative radio.

You can try and make an argument that it is not related to human activity, but is measurably upon us.

Having just endured a 42.7C day here in sunny Perth WA, and not much cooler today at 36C but double the humidity as a cyclone is gathering pace to the north west of the state, i can repeat the mantra that climate has been changing since there was a climate.

The only difference today is that it's become a religious like doomsday cult.

 

[bigfield]

i can repeat the mantra

That's a bit culty.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And on the conservative side people raking in the money writing books and speaking claiming to debunk climate change. An endless stream of deniers on FOX and conservative radio.

You can try and make an argument that it is not related to human activity, but is measurably upon us.

Having just endured a 42.7C day here in sunny Perth WA, and not much cooler today at 36C but double the humidity as a cyclone is gathering pace to the north west of the state, i can repeat the mantra that climate has been changing since there was a climate.

The only difference today is that it's become a religious like doomsday cult.

Oh... we are at the 'the climate is changing, but...' part of the argument. Watching angelo argue climate change is a bit like The Little Prince watching the sun set.

 

[bigfield]

 

[bilby]

And on the conservative side people raking in the money writing books and speaking claiming to debunk climate change. An endless stream of deniers on FOX and conservative radio.

You can try and make an argument that it is not related to human activity, but is measurably upon us.

Having just endured a 42.7C day here in sunny Perth WA, and not much cooler today at 36C but double the humidity as a cyclone is gathering pace to the north west of the state, i can repeat the mantra that climate has been changing since there was a climate.

The only difference today is that it's become a religious like doomsday cult.

You know that weather and climate are not the same thing, right?

Right?

Oh, perhaps you still don't. (Far right.)

 

[angelo]

And on the conservative side people raking in the money writing books and speaking claiming to debunk climate change. An endless stream of deniers on FOX and conservative radio.

You can try and make an argument that it is not related to human activity, but is measurably upon us.

Having just endured a 42.7C day here in sunny Perth WA, and not much cooler today at 36C but double the humidity as a cyclone is gathering pace to the north west of the state, i can repeat the mantra that climate has been changing since there was a climate.

The only difference today is that it's become a religious like doomsday cult.

You know that weather and climate are not the same thing, right?

Right?

Oh, perhaps you still don't. (Far right.)

Meaning, which is it. Weather influencing climate or vice versa? Predictions were made that most if not all Pacific islands would be under water by rising sea levels because of GW/CC/CD as far back as 2 decades ago, when the facts are that many of these atolls have actually grown in size. Oh, and the Arctic ice sheet is still there despite ALL the climate activists predicting it would be no more by 2000.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You know that weather and climate are not the same thing, right?

Right?

Oh, perhaps you still don't. (Far right.)

Meaning, which is it. Weather influencing climate or vice versa? Predictions were made that most if not all Pacific islands would be under water by rising sea levels because of GW/CC/CD as far back as 2 decades ago, when the facts are that many of these atolls have actually grown in size. Oh, and the Arctic ice sheet is still there despite ALL the climate activists predicting it would be no more by 2000.

Meanwhile, from an uber left-wing source (military related).

According to the U.S. Department of Defense, there are a number of US military installations that are already at risk. The report states: “The National Intelligence Council [NIC] judged that more than 30 U.S. military installations were already facing elevated levels of risk from rising sea levels. DoD’s operational readiness hinges on continued access to land, air, and sea training and test space.”

Yeah, those environmental climate change cults at the DoD are just crazy.

 

[bilby]

You know that weather and climate are not the same thing, right?

Right?

Oh, perhaps you still don't. (Far right.)

Meaning, which is it. Weather influencing climate or vice versa? Predictions were made that most if not all Pacific islands would be under water by rising sea levels because of GW/CC/CD as far back as 2 decades ago, when the facts are not being presented in evidence in case they don't support my claims

FTFY.

Citations, or it didn't happen.

Who made these alleged 'predictions'? Climatologists? Or random fearful hippies with arts degrees, and politicians seeking popularity amongst the random fearful hippy demographic?

 

[steve_bank]

Actualy people were concerned aboiut temperature rise well before it became news.

Those who do not understand the difference between climate and weather should not be debating climate change.

Weather is local, climate a broader scope up o the ntire planet.

What drives the climate are two main things. Temperature and global winds.

Temperature drives ocean currents which drive climate. Cold water sinks at the poles starting currents. The current along the European coast moderates weather. If the current stalls climate changes. It is an actual concern.

That current through convection currents serve to bring up nutrients for sea life. Sea die eventually we die. Current stalls food and oxygen drops for marine life. It is affecting salmon in some places. Higher temp water in steams during spawning means less oxygen. Fish are literally suffocating.

The typical conservative says so what about a few dead fish?. It is the canary in the mine for the ecosystem.


Temperature drives storms. Heat is energy. Physics says energy wants to distribute itself, increase ocean heat and that added energy drives bigger storms. A 1 degree rise in ocean water represents a vast amount of energy.

 

[skepticalbip]

... snip ...

Temperature drives storms. Heat is energy. Physics says energy wants to distribute itself, increase ocean heat and that added energy drives bigger storms. A 1 degree rise in ocean water represents a vast amount of energy.

This bit is wrong even though it is a constant talking point for politicians. Storms are driven by a difference in temperature of air masses, not by absolute temperature. As an example, Jupiter has had a gigantic storm raging (the great red spot) for at least several hundred years and Jupiter's atmospheric temperature is minus 145 degrees C. on average.

Climate models for Earth show greater warming at the poles and much less equatorial warming which should mean less severe storms as planetary temperature differences become less.

 

[bilby]

... snip ...

Temperature drives storms. Heat is energy. Physics says energy wants to distribute itself, increase ocean heat and that added energy drives bigger storms. A 1 degree rise in ocean water represents a vast amount of energy.

This bit is wrong even though it is a constant talking point for politicians. Storms are driven by a difference in temperature of air masses, not by absolute temperature. As an example, Jupiter has had a gigantic storm raging (the great red spot) for at least several hundred years and Jupiter's atmospheric temperature is minus 145 degrees C. on average.

Climate models for Earth show greater warming at the poles and much less equatorial warming which should mean less severe storms as planetary temperature differences become less.

You are disregarding vertical temperature differentials. Warm oceans provide vast energy to warm the troposphere, allowing warm, damp air to punch upwards into the stratosphere. Hotter tropical oceans therefore imply more intense tropical cyclones, regardless of temperatures at higher latitudes.

The smaller diffential between poles and tropics tends to imply fewer tropical cyclones; So overall we should expect to see fewer hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones; But those we do see should be more severe.

And indeed that is exactly the trend that is developing, particularly in the more traditionally predictable North Atlantic hurricane season. Typhoons in the North West Pacific are also showing this tendency; Southern Hemisphere cyclones are historically more random in frequency, intensity, and track than those in the Northern Hemisphere, so it's too early to be sure that this pattern is also occurring there, though it's certainly not evident that it isn't.

 

[angelo]

This article is over two years old, but still relevant as alarmists have become more shrill and even violent in some cases.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...ir-heads-on-rising-ocean-claims/#681267e11946

I have asked my very good friend Dr. Fred Singer to comment about the latest U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers report with particular regard to their most recent sea level rise projections. Dr. Singer is an expert in remote sensing measurements, having served as founding director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, vice chair of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere, deputy assistant administrator for policy at the EPA, and as a reviewer for several of the IPCC reports. He is an elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Physical Society, and the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics.

Fred is a professor emeritus at the University of Virginia, and directs the Science & Environment Policy Project which has produced a series of scientific Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NICPP) report studies which often take issue with IPCC conclusions. NICPP’s new publication “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science” is available at no cost on-line.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

... snip ...

Temperature drives storms. Heat is energy. Physics says energy wants to distribute itself, increase ocean heat and that added energy drives bigger storms. A 1 degree rise in ocean water represents a vast amount of energy.

This bit is wrong even though it is a constant talking point for politicians. Storms are driven by a difference in temperature of air masses, not by absolute temperature. As an example, Jupiter has had a gigantic storm raging (the great red spot) for at least several hundred years and Jupiter's atmospheric temperature is minus 145 degrees C. on average.

Climate models for Earth show greater warming at the poles and much less equatorial warming which should mean less severe storms as planetary temperature differences become less.

We need to deal with a problematic phrase there, "severe storms". It is unspecific what is a severe storm. Houston was walloped by a pair of slow lumbering tropical systems. The winds weren't terrible, but the lumbering lead to extreme flooding.

 

[skepticalbip]

... snip ...

Temperature drives storms. Heat is energy. Physics says energy wants to distribute itself, increase ocean heat and that added energy drives bigger storms. A 1 degree rise in ocean water represents a vast amount of energy.

This bit is wrong even though it is a constant talking point for politicians. Storms are driven by a difference in temperature of air masses, not by absolute temperature. As an example, Jupiter has had a gigantic storm raging (the great red spot) for at least several hundred years and Jupiter's atmospheric temperature is minus 145 degrees C. on average.

Climate models for Earth show greater warming at the poles and much less equatorial warming which should mean less severe storms as planetary temperature differences become less.

We need to deal with a problematic phrase there, "severe storms". It is unspecific what is a severe storm. Houston was walloped by a pair of slow lumbering tropical systems. The winds weren't terrible, but the lumbering lead to extreme flooding.

It depends on whether you are talking about the news media or scientists. Science has a quite detailed description for classifying storm strength. OTOH, the news media hypes property damage or inconvenience to humans as a measurement. So for the news media a Beaufort scale 9 storm that hits a population center is far more severe than a category 5 hurricane that doesn't hit land.

So we do have two different measurement systems already.
1.. The news media's "how many dollars of property damage or how many people were inconvenienced?"
2. The science's "what was the wind speed or barometric pressure?"

 

[steve_bank]

This article is over two years old, but still relevant as alarmists have become more shrill and even violent in some cases.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...ir-heads-on-rising-ocean-claims/#681267e11946

I have asked my very good friend Dr. Fred Singer to comment about the latest U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers report with particular regard to their most recent sea level rise projections. Dr. Singer is an expert in remote sensing measurements, having served as founding director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, vice chair of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere, deputy assistant administrator for policy at the EPA, and as a reviewer for several of the IPCC reports. He is an elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Physical Society, and the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics.

Fred is a professor emeritus at the University of Virginia, and directs the Science & Environment Policy Project which has produced a series of scientific Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NICPP) report studies which often take issue with IPCC conclusions. NICPP’s new publication “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science” is available at no cost on-line.

The difference between you and those of us opposed to you is that while we are not professional scintists we have enogh science to grasp the problem and make a rational decision.

Others like you, Tucker Carlson, and Shaun Hannity have no idea what they are talking about. All you can do is get blown around by a biased media segment which you echo like a trained dog.

 

[angelo]

All while the activists and alarmists are led by the collar by the likes of a 17 year old brainwashed, clueless brat and the Al Gores of this world.

 

[bigfield]

This article is over two years old, but still relevant as alarmists have become more shrill and even violent in some cases.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe.../#681267e11946

I have asked my very good friend Dr. Fred Singer to comment about the latest U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers report with particular regard to their most recent sea level rise projections. Dr. Singer is an expert in remote sensing measurements, having served as founding director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, vice chair of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere, deputy assistant administrator for policy at the EPA, and as a reviewer for several of the IPCC reports. He is an elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Physical Society, and the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics.

Fred is a professor emeritus at the University of Virginia, and directs the Science & Environment Policy Project which has produced a series of scientific Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NICPP) report studies which often take issue with IPCC conclusions. NICPP’s new publication “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science” is available at no cost on-line.

The SEPP is a poster child for pseudoscience. They talk a big game but they haven't actually done any scientific research. Just look at their lists of authors; it's mostly people who don't even have science degrees, let alone expertise in climate science. Out of their four lead authors, two are not even scientists and only one (Legates) is a climate scientist.

One has to marvel at the mentality that distrusts the IPCC but trusts this trunkload of clowns.

 

[angelo]

https://nofrakkingconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/delinquentteenager_sample.pdf

There's very little to criticize here. If only it's not rejected out of hand!

2 - Showered With Praise
The IPCC has lounged, for more than two decades, in a large comfy chair atop a pedestal. When the
IPCC is mentioned in broadcasts, newspapers, and books it is portrayed as a paragon of scientific truth
and authority. Here are some direct quotes from people describing the IPCC:
 phenomenally successful
 a remarkable history of accomplishments
 there is not a parallel on this planet, in any field of endeavour
 its place in the history books is clear
 if the IPCC says something, you had better believe it