Conquer Club

Duk, my argument in a nutshell is that you can't decouple "Global Warming" from the false conclusion that minor limitations on industrial nation CO2 emissions is going to save the planet. We have a ton of problems with what we are doing on the planet. Just because one proposed solution might advance the globalist agenda is no reason to prioritize it above all others. In fact that is the worst thing we can do because we need to dedicate resources towards changes that can have the greatest immediate impact. Because resources are diverted that could have been used for changes that would have a more drastic impact we are actually making things WORSE.

I mean where can I begin with how we have FUBARed the planet ...
Even your sea salt is almost certainly contaminated with plastic
Here's How Your Contact Lenses May Be Polluting the Ocean
Clothing, Furniture Also To Blame For Ocean And Freshwater Pollution
Iron floating into the sea on aerosols is driving a loss of oxygen

Now, the oceans may be rising, but animals are already dying ...
Environmentalists: Long Island estuaries in water quality 'crisis'
5 Things You Should Know About the Florida Algae Crisis

Cutting down on meat consumption can drastically reduce both methane and the manure that winds up in the oceans causing these blooms.

tzor wrote:Duk, my argument in a nutshell is that you can't decouple "Global Warming" from the false conclusion that minor limitations on industrial nation CO2 emissions is going to save the planet. We have a ton of problems with what we are doing on the planet. Just because one proposed solution might advance the globalist agenda is no reason to prioritize it above all others. In fact that is the worst thing we can do because we need to dedicate resources towards changes that can have the greatest immediate impact. Because resources are diverted that could have been used for changes that would have a more drastic impact we are actually making things WORSE.

I mean where can I begin with how we have FUBARed the planet ...
Even your sea salt is almost certainly contaminated with plastic
Here's How Your Contact Lenses May Be Polluting the Ocean
Clothing, Furniture Also To Blame For Ocean And Freshwater Pollution
Iron floating into the sea on aerosols is driving a loss of oxygen

Now, the oceans may be rising, but animals are already dying ...
Environmentalists: Long Island estuaries in water quality 'crisis'
5 Things You Should Know About the Florida Algae Crisis

Cutting down on meat consumption can drastically reduce both methane and the manure that winds up in the oceans causing these blooms.

Okay. I don't really disagree with any of that.

Personally, I think the problem will have to get quite a bit worse before it gets better. Band-aids won't heal these wounds; there's going to have to be major changes and they won't be cheap. Before people are willing to shoulder the costs involved, they'll have to be suffering more than they are. When the summer heat waves get so bad that perfectly fit and healthy people are choking like COPD patients, they'll finally figure out that this shit isn't funny any more. That's just the sad truth. We are addicted to our comforts, and it takes a lot to make us willing to change. Many people have their first heart attack before they finally stop smoking. I demolished two cars before I grew up and stopped driving like an asshole.

So, I'm not particularly excited by any of the trivial Band-aids being proposed. I'm neither strongly in favour nor strongly opposed to carbon taxes or anything like that. They're Band-aids. It's mildly good if we reduce our gas emissions by 10% or whatever, but it won't change much in the long run. The changes needed are HUGE.

I have seen data that eliminating beef from your diet or at least cutting back is probably the most effective thing you can personally do to fight global warming. You're very likely right about that. Ultimately, though, that will not be enough. We are going to have to address all the major problems. Have real limits on urban sprawl and the bulldozing of forests. Seriously push our diets from beef and other high methane producing animals to rabbits and other more efficient meat producers. And yes, ultimately the internal combustion engine will need to become something you go to a museum to see.

At this point, though, I'm not ready to argue about the solutions. At this point, we still have people like the one cited in the OP that are still fighting a rearguard action saying there isn't a problem. As long as many people refuse to accept that there's a problem, bringing up the solutions is a hopeless task.

Dukasaur wrote:When the summer heat waves get so bad that perfectly fit and healthy people are choking like COPD patients, they'll finally figure out that this shit isn't funny any more.

This type of paranoia panic is probably the number one reason why no one takes these things seriously anymore. Global warming is in terms of a tenth of a degree Celsius every decade. That's like 10 degrees a century. Most people will have died of old age before they noticed. Everyone else will just assume that the weather in New York was always like the weather in Florida used to be a hundred years ago. (Seriously, the "Overseas Railroad" was built across the Florida Keys because some winters in Florida were below freezing.)

(By the way, due to other pollution there are in the present days "air advisory alerts" that are given out in New York City encouraging people on those days to take mass transit to reduce the problem of poor air quality in the city. It's that annoying habit of people to adapt.)

The real problem will be when New England tourism starts to fail because all those wonderful whales have moved further north because it is the cold water that is the source of food or when algae blooms become so common that no one goes to the beaches anymore. (But that's good because they won't be there when the ocean rises, right?)

tzor wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:When the summer heat waves get so bad that perfectly fit and healthy people are choking like COPD patients, they'll finally figure out that this shit isn't funny any more.

This type of paranoia panic is probably the number one reason why no one takes these things seriously anymore. Global warming is in terms of a tenth of a degree Celsius every decade.

That's what it used to be. In the last decade it went up four tenths of a degree, and I see predictions that the next decade could see a rise of six tenths of a degree, or even more.

Still, what's a degree here and there, right?

Turns out it means a lot. The rise of "one tenth of a degree" means a rise in the average temperature of the whole world over the whole year. A tiny difference over that aggregated average can make a huge difference in a given location at a given spot. This last year, we had both a very cold winter and a very hot summer. The annual average went up just a tenth of a degree over last year, but we still had record-breaking heat waves in many areas.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2458/why- ... -big-deal/

a half degree averaged out over the whole world can mean much more of an increase in some locations and at certain times.

“Most of that temperature change may occur during a small fraction of the year, when it actually represents conditions that could be 5 or 10 degrees warmer than pre-industrial temperatures instead of just 1.5 or 2 degrees warmer,” said Dave Schimel, who supervises JPL’s Carbon Cycle and Ecosystems group.

Your example below actually helps to illustrate the point very nicely:

tzor wrote: That's like 10 degrees a century. Most people will have died of old age before they noticed. Everyone else will just assume that the weather in New York was always like the weather in Florida used to be a hundred years ago. (Seriously, the "Overseas Railroad" was built across the Florida Keys because some winters in Florida were below freezing.)

There's been only a 1.1 degree rise between 1900 and 2018, but in that time Florida has gone from having some winter to no winter. Other places probably saw much less difference.

Wow, Tzor, despite several attempts by Duk and me to tell you the MAIN points here, you still fail to see the BIG PICTURE. Get some glasses, Tzor.

Whales drive New England Tourism? REALLY? Ever hear of Fall Foliage; i.e., Autumn leaves? and why do you continue to cite minutia? Whales is really not a major point of Global Warming debates.

And NOW YOU bring up "air advisory alerts"...? You do realize that this problem is mainly due to ozone and is significantly caused by emissions from automobiles, right? AND what does this have to do with Global Warming? I think you are bringing up irrelevant points. At this time, I will not speculate as to why you deal in 1) irrelevant topics and/or 2) minor (or at best, tangential) issues.

The topic is man-made Global Warming; whether it is due to CO2 or CH4 is not really a key point in the debate. You continue to discuss issues that do not address the main point, that many EVEN DENY Global Warming and Man-made causes. OK, maybe some CO2 in the atmosphere is NOT caused by man's activities, BUT THE major cause of the INCREASE IN CO2 levels over that past 100+ years can be traced to man using and burning fossil fuels. And it is that INCREASE in CO2 (and methane) levels that cause Global Warming.

A little Chemistry for you: one main component of gasoline used to fuel automobiles is octane, C8H18. Here is the chemical reaction for it:
2 C8H18 + 25 O2 --> 16 CO2 and 18 H2O; for every 2 MOLES (molecules, if you prefer) of octane burned, the reaction releases 16 moles (molecules) of CO2, an 8:1 ratio of CO2 to octane. LOTS of CO2 is released as a result of driving cars. I can give you other chemical reactions, but let's see if you comprehend this one and not ignore the science here.

You cite paranoia; I cite scientific facts and chemical reactions, and scientific data (such as CO2 levels measured at Mauna Loa). I will concede this point: paranoia is likely why there are so many who deny Man-Made Global Warming and try to use things like sun cycles to explain unprecedented temperature increases. Point #2: too many who believe in Man-Made Global Warming go to the extreme and try SCARE people with ridiculous claims. Let's stick to facts and good science and avoid hyperbole, hysteria, and obfuscation. (Here is an example of YOUR use of hysteria: "choking like COPD patients" ).

The overall temperature increase in the past 50 years in particular has caused significant reduction in glaciers and polar ice. The rise in sea levels are concerns for those who live near the coast. What is more difficult to prove is the impact on weather. Can the increase in hurricanes and severe storms be caused by Global Warming? I already answered that: the causal link or even a statistical correlation would be difficult to prove.

This paragraph of yours makes no real sense to me. I do not think it is worthy of a reply by me.
"This type of paranoia panic is probably the number one reason why no one takes these things seriously anymore. Global warming is in terms of a tenth of a degree Celsius every decade. That's like 10 degrees a century. Most people will have died of old age before they noticed. Everyone else will just assume that the weather in New York was always like the weather in Florida used to be a hundred years ago. (Seriously, the "Overseas Railroad" was built across the Florida Keys because some winters in Florida were below freezing.)"

Let's also avoid minutia and irrelevant topics.

JP

tzor wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:When the summer heat waves get so bad that perfectly fit and healthy people are choking like COPD patients, they'll finally figure out that this shit isn't funny any more.

This type of paranoia panic is probably the number one reason why no one takes these things seriously anymore. Global warming is in terms of a tenth of a degree Celsius every decade. That's like 10 degrees a century. Most people will have died of old age before they noticed. Everyone else will just assume that the weather in New York was always like the weather in Florida used to be a hundred years ago. (Seriously, the "Overseas Railroad" was built across the Florida Keys because some winters in Florida were below freezing.)

(By the way, due to other pollution there are in the present days "air advisory alerts" that are given out in New York City encouraging people on those days to take mass transit to reduce the problem of poor air quality in the city. It's that annoying habit of people to adapt.)

The real problem will be when New England tourism starts to fail because all those wonderful whales have moved further north because it is the cold water that is the source of food or when algae blooms become so common that no one goes to the beaches anymore. (But that's good because they won't be there when the ocean rises, right?)

jusplay4fun wrote:Whales drive New England Tourism? REALLY? Ever hear of Fall Foliage; i.e., Autumn leaves? and why do you continue to cite minutia? Whales is really not a major point of Global Warming debates.

Bullshit. The Autumn leaves are far better in New York, Vermont, and New Hampshire.

Hate to break this to you but as someone who hunted bear in Maine (and no I didn't hunt bare ... I had a ton of cammo on in the middle of a hot August) the state is a vast land of SWAMPS. If it wasn't for the lobster it would be dead, tourist wise.

jusplay4fun wrote:And NOW YOU bring up "air advisory alerts"...?

Duk did, actually by mentioning weather that would make people think they had COPD.

jusplay4fun wrote:A little Chemistry for you: one main component of gasoline used to fuel automobiles is octane, C8H18. Here is the chemical reaction for it: 2 C8H18 + 25 O2 --> 16 CO2 and 18 H2O; for every 2 MOLES (molecules, if you prefer) of octane burned, the reaction releases 16 moles (molecules) of CO2, an 8:1 ratio of CO2 to octane. LOTS of CO2 is released as a result of driving cars. I can give you other chemical reactions, but let's see if you comprehend this one and not ignore the science here.

Like whatever. I was a physics major. That meant I didn't have to take organic chemistry and have a good chance of breaking and paying for chemistry lab equipment. Let me give you the "science" here. The most densest energy reservoir for independent vehicles is still petroleum. Battery technology still can't get to the level of an ordinary tank of gas. So unless you want to see cars eliminated or you want to turn the entire highway system into a bumper car lot that's the only reasonable choice you have for a significant potions of the United States.

jusplay4fun wrote:The overall temperature increase in the past 50 years in particular has caused significant reduction in glaciers and polar ice. The rise in sea levels are concerns for those who live near the coast. What is more difficult to prove is the impact on weather. Can the increase in hurricanes and severe storms be caused by Global Warming? I already answered that: the causal link or even a statistical correlation would be difficult to prove.

There are a lot of things here and you are leaping to a lot of conclusions. Polar Ice is interesting and complex (each pole has to be considered separately).

Let's take Antarctica. It's a good example of the effects of ... wait, what is this "lava" lake doing there? Antarctic Lava Lake Huffs and Puffs Like a Sleeping Dragon or just under the ice sheets Active Volcano Discovered Under Antarctic Ice Sheet so when the ice is said to be better or worse than the previous year is it because of a change in the air or just those sleeping giants being more or less sleepy.

Likewise I can't see any evidence for "increase in hurricanes and severe storms" whatsoever. We really should see it with the increase in ocean temperature along the tropics but the data doesn't really show it. Check out the list of Cat 5 Atlantic Hurricanes. Yes it sucks to be 2005, but it's far from increasing.

And none of this is going to matter when the real shit hits the fan. The Yellowstone Supervolcano could easily move to a danger state that would result in massive devastation in decades after that condition is reached. The timelines are similar for another super quake in California. Let's face it, there are a ton of doomsday situations for the next century. Modern technology may have some say in the results or it might just be like with the black death (at least the survivors are somewhat well off because of the drastic reduction in the labor market).

If it's all about BLAME AMERICA then I dismiss it outright.

Advertising might change minds more than science.

Famous when I was a kid.

B-17

tzor wrote:

jusplay4fun wrote:Whales drive New England Tourism? REALLY? Ever hear of Fall Foliage; i.e., Autumn leaves? and why do you continue to cite minutia? Whales is really not a major point of Global Warming debates.

Bullshit. The Autumn leaves are far better in New York, Vermont, and New Hampshire.

At least you got 1 out of 3 right for non-New-England States.

You really do not get it, do you? You cite spurious or irrelevant data and facts again.

HUNT bare? Is that a PUN? Tourism does not equal Global warming. You miss the point.

COPD is also irrelevant. I certainly did not bring that point up. And you fail to make the connection, AGAIN.

The combustion of hydrocarbons is not limited to Organic Chemistry in college. High school students learn it. And did I deny the energy value of petroleum? Again, you go off the deep end to try to prove a point that is still vague and irrelevant.

A volcano in Antarctica disproves Global warming? REALLY? That is like saying because it snowed in my state (city, location) that Global Warming is not true. Get REAL, TZOR. Cite something relevant.

And Yellowstone having a volcano makes the problem of Global Warming a minor problem? Are you trying to confuse people? You again rely on confusion to try to win a debate you are clearly losing. Physics majors are not known to debate well. You certainly lend LOTS of proof to such a notion. Debate with facts and with logic, not with irrelevant minutia and confusion and smoke screens. Your volcano arguments are merely smoke screens, whether they are in Yellowstone or the Antarctic.

An opinion about where autumn leaves are better or the economic conditions in Maine are again irrelevant. WOW. Learn to stay on topic, Tzor. That is Debate 101. I see you missed that course as you majored in Physics.

Your shit hitting your fan is merely BULLSHIT, and tons of it.

Unless you come up with credible arguments, this debate is over and you lost it.

JP

tzor wrote:

jusplay4fun wrote:Whales drive New England Tourism? REALLY? Ever hear of Fall Foliage; i.e., Autumn leaves? and why do you continue to cite minutia? Whales is really not a major point of Global Warming debates.

Bullshit. The Autumn leaves are far better in New York, Vermont, and New Hampshire.

Hate to break this to you but as someone who hunted bear in Maine (and no I didn't hunt bare ... I had a ton of cammo on in the middle of a hot August) the state is a vast land of SWAMPS. If it wasn't for the lobster it would be dead, tourist wise.

jusplay4fun wrote:And NOW YOU bring up "air advisory alerts"...?

Duk did, actually by mentioning weather that would make people think they had COPD.

jusplay4fun wrote:A little Chemistry for you: one main component of gasoline used to fuel automobiles is octane, C8H18. Here is the chemical reaction for it: 2 C8H18 + 25 O2 --> 16 CO2 and 18 H2O; for every 2 MOLES (molecules, if you prefer) of octane burned, the reaction releases 16 moles (molecules) of CO2, an 8:1 ratio of CO2 to octane. LOTS of CO2 is released as a result of driving cars. I can give you other chemical reactions, but let's see if you comprehend this one and not ignore the science here.

Like whatever. I was a physics major. That meant I didn't have to take organic chemistry and have a good chance of breaking and paying for chemistry lab equipment. Let me give you the "science" here. The most densest energy reservoir for independent vehicles is still petroleum. Battery technology still can't get to the level of an ordinary tank of gas. So unless you want to see cars eliminated or you want to turn the entire highway system into a bumper car lot that's the only reasonable choice you have for a significant potions of the United States.

jusplay4fun wrote:The overall temperature increase in the past 50 years in particular has caused significant reduction in glaciers and polar ice. The rise in sea levels are concerns for those who live near the coast. What is more difficult to prove is the impact on weather. Can the increase in hurricanes and severe storms be caused by Global Warming? I already answered that: the causal link or even a statistical correlation would be difficult to prove.

There are a lot of things here and you are leaping to a lot of conclusions. Polar Ice is interesting and complex (each pole has to be considered separately).

Let's take Antarctica. It's a good example of the effects of ... wait, what is this "lava" lake doing there? Antarctic Lava Lake Huffs and Puffs Like a Sleeping Dragon or just under the ice sheets Active Volcano Discovered Under Antarctic Ice Sheet so when the ice is said to be better or worse than the previous year is it because of a change in the air or just those sleeping giants being more or less sleepy.

Likewise I can't see any evidence for "increase in hurricanes and severe storms" whatsoever. We really should see it with the increase in ocean temperature along the tropics but the data doesn't really show it. Check out the list of Cat 5 Atlantic Hurricanes. Yes it sucks to be 2005, but it's far from increasing.

And none of this is going to matter when the real shit hits the fan. The Yellowstone Supervolcano could easily move to a danger state that would result in massive devastation in decades after that condition is reached. The timelines are similar for another super quake in California. Let's face it, there are a ton of doomsday situations for the next century. Modern technology may have some say in the results or it might just be like with the black death (at least the survivors are somewhat well off because of the drastic reduction in the labor market).

Data and conclusions linking more intense hurricanes to Global Warming:

Global Warming and Hurricanes

An Overview of Current Research Results
Last Revised: Sept. 20, 2018

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warmin ... urricanes/

1. Summary Statement
Two frequently asked questions on global warming and hurricanes are the following:
• What changes in hurricane activity are expected for the late 21st century, given the pronounced global warming scenarios from IPCC models?
• Have humans already caused a detectable increase in Atlantic hurricane activity or global tropical cyclone activity?
The IPCC AR5 presents a strong body of scientific evidence that most of the global warming observed over the past half century is very likely due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. But what does this change mean for hurricane activity? Here, we address these questions, starting with those conclusions where we have relatively more confidence. The main text then gives more background discussion. “Detectable” change here will refer to a change that is large enough to be clearly distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes. Our main conclusions are:

Likelihood Statements
The terminology here for likelihood statements generally follows the conventions used in the IPCC assessments, i.e., for the assessed likelihood of an outcome or result:
• Very Likely: > 90%,
• Likely: > 66%
• More Likely Than Not (or Better Than Even Odds) > 50%

• Sea level rise–which very likely has a substantial human contribution to the global mean observed rise according to IPCC AR5–should be causing higher storm surge levels for tropical cyclones that do occur, all else assumed equal.

• Tropical cyclone rainfall rates will likely increase in the future due to anthropogenic warming and accompanying increase in atmospheric moisture content. Modeling studies on average project an increase on the order of 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm for a 2 degree Celsius global warming scenario.

• Tropical cyclone intensities globally will likely increase on average (by 1 to 10% according to model projections for a 2 degree Celsius global warming). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size. Storm size responses to anthropogenic warming are uncertain.

• The global proportion of tropical cyclones that reach very intense (Category 4 and 5) levels will likely increase due to anthropogenic warming over the 21st century. There is less confidence in future projections of the global number of Category 4 and 5 storms, since most modeling studies project a decrease (or little change) in the global frequency of all tropical cyclones combined.


2. Global Warming and Atlantic Hurricanes

A. Statistical relationships between SSTs and hurricanes

Observed records of Atlantic hurricane activity show some correlation, on multi-year time-scales, between local tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the Power Dissipation Index (PDI) —see for example Fig. 3 on this EPA Climate Indicators site. PDI is an aggregate measure of Atlantic hurricane activity, combining frequency, intensity, and duration of hurricanes in a single index. Both Atlantic SSTs and PDI have risen sharply since the 1970s, and there is some evidence that PDI levels in recent years are higher than in the previous active Atlantic hurricane era in the 1950s and 60s.
Model-based climate change detection/attribution studies have linked increasing tropical Atlantic SSTs to increasing greenhouse gases, but proposed links between increasing greenhouse gases and hurricane PDI or frequency has been based on statistical correlations. The statistical linkage of Atlantic hurricane PDI to Atlantic SST suggests at least the possibility of a large anthropogenic influence on Atlantic hurricanes. If this statistical relation between tropical Atlantic SSTs and hurricane activity is used to infer future changes in Atlantic hurricane activity, the implications are sobering: the large increases in tropical Atlantic SSTs projected for the late 21st century would imply very substantial increases in hurricane destructive potential–roughly a 300% increase in the PDI by 2100 (Figure 1a).

jusplay4fun wrote:You really do not get it, do you?

And you have never gotten anything so I am no longer responding to you because you think when I respond to someone else I am responding to you.

As I said, Advertising might change minds more than science.

Inject this shit right into my fucking heart.

I only go to New England to see the Massholes, the Pats fans and the Dunkin lovers. Usually, they're all the same person.

This sign was my destination last time I went down there:

AGAIN, you do not get it. What a DOLT. I responded to EACH and everyone of your "arguments" and this is your response? This is your best REBUTTAL?

When did I misconstrue your response to someone else and a response to ME? What an appalling lack of debate skills.

Face it, TZOR, you do not want to respond because you CLEARLY lost this debate and you clearly have no reasonable response to ANY of my arguments, my logic, my sources, or my facts. You lost. Q.E.D.

You are truly a DOLT.

JP

tzor wrote:

jusplay4fun wrote:You really do not get it, do you?

And you have never gotten anything so I am no longer responding to you because you think when I respond to someone else I am responding to you.

You actually had ONE good response with the hurricane angle, but I totally refuted your weak argument with overwhelming facts, sources, and analysis.

So you shout UNFAIR! So slink back into your corner pouting like a spoiled child. Take your weak debate skills back to the corner with you.

Tzor = dollard.

And you claim to be a Physics major. Apparently the use of logic, facts, analysis and the ability to convince others using any of those is beyond your ability and your training as a scientist.

OK. I win. CLEARLY.

Q.E.D.

jusplay4fun wrote:Data and conclusions linking more intense hurricanes to Global Warming:

Global Warming and Hurricanes

An Overview of Current Research Results
Last Revised: Sept. 20, 2018

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warmin ... urricanes/

1. Summary Statement
Two frequently asked questions on global warming and hurricanes are the following:
• What changes in hurricane activity are expected for the late 21st century, given the pronounced global warming scenarios from IPCC models?
• Have humans already caused a detectable increase in Atlantic hurricane activity or global tropical cyclone activity?
The IPCC AR5 presents a strong body of scientific evidence that most of the global warming observed over the past half century is very likely due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. But what does this change mean for hurricane activity? Here, we address these questions, starting with those conclusions where we have relatively more confidence. The main text then gives more background discussion. “Detectable” change here will refer to a change that is large enough to be clearly distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes. Our main conclusions are:

Likelihood Statements
The terminology here for likelihood statements generally follows the conventions used in the IPCC assessments, i.e., for the assessed likelihood of an outcome or result:
• Very Likely: > 90%,
• Likely: > 66%
• More Likely Than Not (or Better Than Even Odds) > 50%

• Sea level rise–which very likely has a substantial human contribution to the global mean observed rise according to IPCC AR5–should be causing higher storm surge levels for tropical cyclones that do occur, all else assumed equal.

• Tropical cyclone rainfall rates will likely increase in the future due to anthropogenic warming and accompanying increase in atmospheric moisture content. Modeling studies on average project an increase on the order of 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm for a 2 degree Celsius global warming scenario.

• Tropical cyclone intensities globally will likely increase on average (by 1 to 10% according to model projections for a 2 degree Celsius global warming). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size. Storm size responses to anthropogenic warming are uncertain.

• The global proportion of tropical cyclones that reach very intense (Category 4 and 5) levels will likely increase due to anthropogenic warming over the 21st century. There is less confidence in future projections of the global number of Category 4 and 5 storms, since most modeling studies project a decrease (or little change) in the global frequency of all tropical cyclones combined.


2. Global Warming and Atlantic Hurricanes

A. Statistical relationships between SSTs and hurricanes

Observed records of Atlantic hurricane activity show some correlation, on multi-year time-scales, between local tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the Power Dissipation Index (PDI) —see for example Fig. 3 on this EPA Climate Indicators site. PDI is an aggregate measure of Atlantic hurricane activity, combining frequency, intensity, and duration of hurricanes in a single index. Both Atlantic SSTs and PDI have risen sharply since the 1970s, and there is some evidence that PDI levels in recent years are higher than in the previous active Atlantic hurricane era in the 1950s and 60s.
Model-based climate change detection/attribution studies have linked increasing tropical Atlantic SSTs to increasing greenhouse gases, but proposed links between increasing greenhouse gases and hurricane PDI or frequency has been based on statistical correlations. The statistical linkage of Atlantic hurricane PDI to Atlantic SST suggests at least the possibility of a large anthropogenic influence on Atlantic hurricanes. If this statistical relation between tropical Atlantic SSTs and hurricane activity is used to infer future changes in Atlantic hurricane activity, the implications are sobering: the large increases in tropical Atlantic SSTs projected for the late 21st century would imply very substantial increases in hurricane destructive potential–roughly a 300% increase in the PDI by 2100 (Figure 1a).

The IPCC is a joke and uses junk science to demonize Co2 for political reasons. Governments knew that they couldn't easily use fluctuations in solar activity as a means to control & tax the masses but they sure knew that they could with C02. I don't recognize this so-called authority.

This dude pretty much breaks it down.

https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-lea ... 3ae4712ace

It's depressing when scientists from all manner of disciplines come to the same conclusion, but there's this weird guy on the internet who says that they're all wrong, but can't actually quote them. Just gives a dodgy link.

Sorry, Defo, but I won't buy it.

Symmetry wrote:It's depressing when scientists from all manner of disciplines come to the same conclusion, but there's this weird guy on the internet who says that they're all wrong, but can't actually quote them. Just gives a dodgy link.

Sorry, Defo, but I won't buy it.

You're just perpetuating a false narrative. A consensus does not exist, it just doesn't. What's depressing is seeing this same fucking tired consensus argument over and over and over and over again.

demonfork wrote:

Symmetry wrote:It's depressing when scientists from all manner of disciplines come to the same conclusion, but there's this weird guy on the internet who says that they're all wrong, but can't actually quote them. Just gives a dodgy link.

Sorry, Defo, but I won't buy it.

You're just perpetuating a false narrative. A consensus does not exist, it just doesn't. What's depressing is seeing this same fucking tired consensus argument over and over and over and over again.

Seeing as you're here, and online, and responding, what sort of evidence for a consensus would you accept?

Symmetry wrote:

demonfork wrote:

Symmetry wrote:It's depressing when scientists from all manner of disciplines come to the same conclusion, but there's this weird guy on the internet who says that they're all wrong, but can't actually quote them. Just gives a dodgy link.

Sorry, Defo, but I won't buy it.

You're just perpetuating a false narrative. A consensus does not exist, it just doesn't. What's depressing is seeing this same fucking tired consensus argument over and over and over and over again.

Seeing as you're here, and online, and responding, what sort of evidence for a consensus would you accept?

I don't know that there is any evidence that exists that could sway me. I've researched all of the evidence and there isn't any credible evidence, that I know of, in existence.

The only answer that I could give you would be hypothetical & if you could produce the evidence based on this hypothetical scenario, then I would accept that there is a consensus.


I personally know too many climate scientists that speak a very different narrative when we have one on one and off the record discussions.
I personally know too many climate scientists that are ridiculed as crazies and cooks and deniers beccause they dare to challenge the status quo.
I personally know too many climate scientists that have flat out told me how dangerous it would be for thier career and how they would lose their grants if they deviated from the narrative.

And those are just the climate scientists that I know.

I honestly don't know a single scientist, engineer, Ph.D. that buys into the alarmism of climate change... and I know a lot of em from all over the planet.

The only people that I know that do buy into it are the Huffington Post reading, Bernie Sanders supporting, Rachel Maddow watching, pseudo-intellectual types that really don't understand anything and only regurgitate what they hear and read.

demonfork wrote: I honestly don't know a single scientist, engineer, Ph.D. that buys into the alarmism of climate change... and I know a lot of em from all over the planet.

I have a Ph.D. in physics. I am alarmed about climate change.

Metsfanmax wrote:

demonfork wrote: I honestly don't know a single scientist, engineer, Ph.D. that buys into the alarmism of climate change... and I know a lot of em from all over the planet.

I have a Ph.D. in physics. I am alarmed about climate change.

I don't know you

demonfork wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

demonfork wrote: I honestly don't know a single scientist, engineer, Ph.D. that buys into the alarmism of climate change... and I know a lot of em from all over the planet.

I have a Ph.D. in physics. I am alarmed about climate change.

I don't know you

Well then, I guess I don't exist.