71
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2019 05:28 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
dp you understand frequency is not intensity?

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.

. . . 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.

. . .The evidence for an upward trend is even weaker if we look at U.S. landfalling hurricanes, which even show a slight negative trend beginning from 1900 or from the late 1800s.

. . . Existing records of past Atlantic tropical storm or hurricane numbers (1878 to present) in fact do show a pronounced upward trend, which is also correlated with rising SSTs (e.g., see blue curve in Fig. 4 or Vecchi and Knutson 2008). However, the density of reporting ship traffic over the Atlantic was relatively sparse during the early decades of this record, such that if storms from the modern era (post 1965) had hypothetically occurred during those earlier decades, a substantial number of storms would likely not have been directly observed by the ship-based “observing network of opportunity.” We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there remains just a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. Statistical tests indicate that this trend is not significantly distinguishable from zero.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

At this point it would be good for you to offer your interpretation to this.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2019 06:35 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
Oh you do.

That is incorrect. I am not paying any attention to this biased and unreliable data.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2019 06:37 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
You are the one in hysterics,

I am not the one who is running around in panic about the end of the world.

If you are having trouble telling the difference between "my actions" and "your actions" try looking into a mirror.


MontereyJack wrote:
rejecting unbiased and reliable data

Cherry picked data is neither unbiased nor reliable.


MontereyJack wrote:
on the basis of specious illogical claims

I know that progressives really hate facts, but no. Reality is neither specious nor illogical.


MontereyJack wrote:
that one journal article which was rejected because its conclusion was not in fact the case was suppressed, when it was in fact just wrong,

When reality contradicts the progressive narrative, it's not reality that is wrong.


MontereyJack wrote:
and generalizing wrongly from that that all AGW data were unreliable, no matter how independelntly derieved.

It is quite clear that biased and unreliable data is being accepted as valid. There is no reason to trust any of it.


MontereyJack wrote:
Your logic and "facts are incorrect.

You cannot point out any errors in my facts or my logic.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2019 06:51 pm
@oralloy,
You are in smug, blind ideology-based denial. I have in fact repeatedly pointed out that what you call "facts" are purely uninformed opinion and misinterpretations only.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2019 06:58 pm
@Glennn,
Do you read? It's talking about numbers of storms, not their intensity.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2019 07:09 pm
@Glennn,
Kerry Emmanuel the world-recognized MIT expert on tropical storms, from the MIT News

Quote:
Kerry Emanuel: This year’s hurricanes are a taste of the future
Climate scientist describes physics behind expected increase in storm strength due to climate change.
Watch Video
David L. Chandler | MIT News Office
September 21, 2017
Press Inquiries
Share










Comment

In a detailed talk about the history and the underlying physics of hurricanes and tropical cyclones, MIT Professor Kerry Emanuel yesterday explained why climate change will cause such storms to become much stronger and reach peak intensity further north, heightening their potential impacts on human lives in coming years.
“Climate change, if unimpeded, will greatly increase the probability of extreme events,” such as the three record-breaking hurricanes of recent weeks, he said.
In Houston, Hurricane Harvey, which devastated parts of the Texas coastline and produced more total rainfall than any U.S. hurricane on record, would have been considered a one-in-2,000-years event during the 20th century, according to the best available reconstructions of the past record of such storms, Emanuel said. But in the 21st century, that probability could drop to one in 100 years, given the likely trajectory of climate change conditions. Hurricane Irma, with its record-breaking duration as a Category 5 storm, will go from being a one-in-800-years event in the area of the Caribbean that suffered a direct hit, to a one-in-80-years event by the end of this century, he said.


Emanuel, the Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Atmospheric Science and co-director of the Lorenz Center at MIT, has long been considered one of the leading researchers on tropical storms including hurricanes and cyclones (which is the name for such storms in the Pacific Ocean), the physical mechanisms that generate them, and the reconstruction of their past frequency and intensity. Ron Prinn, the TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Science and director of the Center for Global Change Science, said in introducing Emanuel’s talk, “I can’t think of a better person in the world to address this issue of hurricanes,” including what he called the “2017 hurricane train” with its succession of huge storms.
In fact, although his talk had been titled “What Do Hurricanes Harvey and Irma Portend?” Emanuel pointed out that now there was “a tragic irony in presenting this lecture just hours after another hurricane [Maria] has devastated Puerto Rico.” At such a time, he said, “it is natural to ask if these are just natural events.” Referring to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt’s recent comments that it was inappropriate to talk about climate change in relation to hurricanes Harvey and Irma, Emanuel wondered aloud “if after 9/11 he would have said that now is not a good time to talk about terrorism?”
Already, over the last four decades, he said, hurricanes and cyclones globally have caused an average of $700 billion in damages annually since 1971. Meanwhile, thanks to population growth and the development of oceanfront property, “the global population exposed to hurricanes has tripled since 1970,” he said.
While hurricanes, like earthquakes and volcanoes, “are part of nature,” Emanuel said, “what we’re talking about are unnatural disasters — disasters we cause by building structures” in places that are inherently vulnerable to such devastating forces.
Because of policies, including the current system of federally provided flood insurance that gives private insurers little motivation to study countermeasures, he said, “we’re going to be having Harveys, Irmas, and Marias as far as the eye can see.”
While much of the news coverage of hurricanes focuses on the powerful winds, which have indeed been a major cause of damage and loss of life in the islands pummeled by Irma and Maria, Emanuel said that overall it is water, not wind, that causes the vast majority of damage from such storms, though most people underestimate the severity of the water impact. To illustrate the point, he showed a short, dramatic video of a hurricane-produced storm surge striking a building. “It is hydrodynamically the same thing as a tsunami,” he explained, as the clip showed water rushing steadily in and quickly engulfing an entire house.
“I wish everyone who lives in zones subject to these storms could see films like this,” he said, adding that the scene depicted was clearly not survivable. “Water is the big killer.”
Part of the difficulty in providing strong, clear documentation of the increasing intensity of hurricanes is the sparsity of the historical records. “Prior to 1943, everything we know about hurricanes on the planet comes from anecdotal accounts,” he said, especially those provided by ships’ logs and news accounts in coastal cities. Still, Emanuel and others have devised a variety of ingenious ways of deducing the hurricane record over much longer periods, using techniques such as taking cores from coastal lagoons to reveal periods when storm surges drove quantities of beach sand far inland, and analyzing the annual rates of shipwrecks over a period of centuries.
Meanwhile, the use of new methods, including a technique for deriving wind speed information from the radio signals from GPS navigational satellites, are starting to provide an unprecedented degree of detail of the internal dynamics of these storms, which should enable researchers to continue to refine their models and may ultimately allow for more accurate forecasting of hurricanes. While projecting of hurricane tracks has already improved greatly, he said, the ability to predict the strength of coming storms is not yet as good.
Emanuel said his calculations of the physics behind the formation and growth of hurricanes indicate that the storms’ strength will continue to increase as the climate warms, but that there are inherent limits to that growth. At some point the maximum size of such storms will begin to level off, he said.
But those limits are still far off. For the near term, Emanuel said that U.S. rainfall events as intense as that produced by hurricane Harvey, which had about a 1 percent annual likelihood in the 1990s, has already increased in likelihood to about 6 percent annually, and by 2090 could be about 18 percent.

Topics:
Special events and guest speakers

oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2019 07:10 pm
@MontereyJack,
Erroneously claiming that facts are opinions does not count as pointing out an error.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2019 08:46 pm
@MontereyJack,
Even the alarmist Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledged in its Fifth Assessment Report in 2013 that there has been little change in long-term hurricane activity:

In summary, [there is] low confidence that any reported long-term (centennial) increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust, after accounting or past changes in observing capabilities. More recent assessments indicate that it is unlikely that annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have increased over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin. Evidence, however, is for a virtually certain increase in the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones since the 1970s in that region.

"A virtually certain increase." They are talking about a future projection.
________________________________________________________________________________________

Unfortunately, a particularly severe hurricane season in the North Atlantic in 2017 gave the alarmists just the excuse they needed to cry wolf once more. Backed by footage of the devastation caused by that year’s two major landfalling hurricanes — Harvey and Irma — they concocted a plausible theory as to why global warming will increase such extreme weather events: hurricanes feed off warm waters, so the warmer the waters, the more intense the hurricane.

This theory, though, is confounded by real-world evidence:

The longest and most reliable database of hurricanes is of US landfalling ones. NOAA’s Hurricane Research Division has carefully reanalysed the original records of all hurricanes up to 1960. Its HURDAT database shows that there has been no increase in the frequency of hurricanes or major hurricanes (Category 3 and over) since the start of the record in 1851. Prior to Harvey, no major hurricane had hit the US since Wilma in 2005, the longest such period on record. In 2017, for instance, two major landfalling hurricanes – Harvey and Irma – hit the US, but this is not unusual. In 1893, for instance, there were three, a number repeated in 1909. The record year for landfalling hurricanes was 1886, when there were seven. Only
three Category 5 hurricanes have hit the US mainland: the Labor Day hurricane in 1935, Camille in 1969, and Andrew in 1992.

Data provided by HURDAT also shows that recent hurricane activity in the North Atlantic has not been unusual by historical standards. In 2017, there were six major Atlantic hurricanes, but the highest total recorded was eight in 1950. Of last year’s six, two were Category 5 – Irma and Maria – but again, this is not unusual, having occurred five times previously, including in 1932 and 1933.

Historical data shows that Atlantic hurricanes, particularly major ones, were much more common between about 1930 and 1960 than in the following three decades. Since 1990, the numbers have returned to the earlier levels. It is widely accepted that this pattern is linked to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), a natural reoccurring cycle of temperature changes in the sea surface temperatures.

A database of global hurricanes is kept, with data going back to 1970. This shows an increase in the number of major hurricanes and their accumulated energy between 1970 and 1993. This is associated with the AMO cycle too. Since 1993, there has been a decline in the frequency of all hurricanes, major hurricanes and accumulated energy.

In summary, there is little evidence that global warming has resulted in more hurricanes, or more intense ones in recent years. On the contrary, available evidence confirms that hurricane and major hurricane frequency has been similar in many prior periods.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/01/18/study-global-warming-does-not-cause-hurricanes-no-increase-in-the-frequency-or-intensity-of-hurricanes/
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2019 11:03 pm
@oralloy,
Not erroneous, and yes an opinion masquerading in your mind as fact.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2019 11:33 pm
@MontereyJack,
That is incorrect. It is erroneous for you to mischaracterize facts as opinions.
Olivier5
 
  4  
Reply Tue 12 Nov, 2019 01:19 am
@Glennn,
That's a different quote though. It speaks of a link between AGW and hurricanes, and the thinking is based here on a 2C increase by century end. But right now we are on track for 5-7C more by century end.

You're a sloppy reader. You should pay greater attention to what you quote.
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Tue 12 Nov, 2019 03:29 am
@Glennn,
Quote:
You were supposed to respond to the content of the quote, and not to where it was found.

Don't tell me what you think I'm "supposed to do", comrade. It's not your thread. It's not you message board. It's not your internet. The AFA site sucks.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 Nov, 2019 03:50 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
I am not paying any attention to this biased and unreliable data.

"This"?

The entirety of your information base for AGW is biased and misleading. You trust websites managed by professional liars, whose job it is to **** with your head.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 12 Nov, 2019 04:17 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
The entirety of your information base for AGW is biased and misleading.

No it isn't. Legitimate scientists really are complaining that their data is being suppressed because it conflicts with the leftist narrative.


Olivier5 wrote:
You trust websites managed by professional liars, whose job it is to **** with your head.

The scientists aren't lying. Their job is to produce accurate data. It's not their fault that their data is being suppressed by leftist cherry pickers.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 Nov, 2019 04:41 am
@oralloy,
Thanks for proving my point that you are totally misinformed about global warming. What you believe are "legitimate scientists" are in fact professional liars paid to misinform you, and you are stupid enough to believe them.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 Nov, 2019 04:49 am
@oralloy,
it is erroneous for you to claim opinion as fact.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 12 Nov, 2019 05:32 am
@MontereyJack,
It's a good thing that I've never done anything like that.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 12 Nov, 2019 05:35 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
Thanks for proving my point that you are totally misinformed about global warming.

Wrong again. I'm not misinformed about anything.


Olivier5 wrote:
What you believe are "legitimate scientists" are in fact professional liars paid to misinform you,

That you stoop to calling scientists liars just because you dislike what the data shows is shameful.


Olivier5 wrote:
and you are stupid enough to believe them.

Only one of us has a 170 IQ, and it isn't you.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 Nov, 2019 07:01 am
@oralloy,
Maybe one day you will realize how stupid, misinformed and gullible you were on this subject. Many other Americans have come to this realization that they've been lied into disbelieving fairly obvious facts about AGW.

It's easy to see right here on A2K: pick any climate-related thread, read what some US posters were saying only 5 years ago, and compare it to what they're saying now. They've made progress; they've progressively come out of the dark and accepted the sorry truth that we're destroying our children's future.

As compared to them, you're just a bit slow on the uptake. I'll check on you 5 years from now. Chances are you will have changed your tune...
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Nov, 2019 07:08 am
@Olivier5,
I am neither slow, nor stupid, nor misinformed, nor gullible.

Your data is simply biased and unreliable, and is therefore not worth paying attention to.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.16 seconds on 11/27/2024 at 11:18:31