[W:#101]Climate Change Rapidly Intensified Hurricane Ian Before Landfall

[watsup]

That's scary.
Here's a fact- Las Vegas daily average temperatures were the same in 2021 as they were in 1917. A degree more here or a degree less there. That data includes averagrs for every five years from 1917 to 2021.
Maybe that's why so many freighted Californians keep moving here. CO2 scary things also have not changed our temps.

Blah blah blah. Answer the questions.

 

[flogger]

That's scary.
Here's a fact- Las Vegas daily average temperatures were the same in 2021 as they were in 1917. A degree more here or a degree less there. That data includes averagrs for every five years from 1917 to 2021.
Maybe that's why so many freighted Californians keep moving here. CO2 scary things also have not changed our temps.

Did you know that 32 out of 50 US maximum state temperature records were set before 1940 and still stand ?

Did you know that since AGW was first invented in 1988 only three US state maximum records have been set yet rather ironically four state MINIMUM records have been set over that same period

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_and_territory_temperature_extremes

Go figure

 

[longview]

Inflation is world wide. The US has a lower inflation rate than much of the rest of the world, thanks to Biden and Democrats. People who don't know what's going on, people who are not every well informed politically, take the simpleton approach. "Economy not good. Blame party in power."

I've got a message for those who don't really know if Republicans might do better or not.

Don't expect billionaires to give you a break after ripping you off made them billions. Big money is supporting the big lie.

You clearly missed the point, there was a science called Eugenics, that was widely accepted,
but was sudo science, and is now largely defunct.
I suspect AGW will end up on the same path.

 

[bubbabgone]

Again, it says that my browser is not up-to-date enough to capture the article. You read it. I would think that you could summarize it. Or just copy the summarization and post it. Anyway, here is a rebuttal from climate scientists:

“Scientists involved in related research, however, doubt the new findings make much difference to accepted climate models.

“The authors need to quantify the effects in an atmospheric model rather than just speculating,” says Ken Carslow, of the University of Leeds, UK, who has also studied potential links between cosmic rays and aerosol formation as part of CERN’s Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD) experiment. “It’s a tiny effect and previous studies suggest it will not be important,” he states.

Terry Sloan, of the University of Lancaster, UK, whose own research has calculated the contribution of cosmic rays at less than 10% of the global warming seen in the 20th century, is also dubious. He points out that other atmospheric “impurities”, such as dust and salt particles, play more important roles as cloud-condensing nuclei.

“The effects [of ionisation] are too small to measure except in the dust- and impurity-free atmosphere such as in their experiments,” Sloan says. “Dust in the atmosphere plays a much bigger part in cloud formation.”

Steven Sherwood concurs. The paper itself, he notes, only suggests the result “may be relevant in the Earth’s atmosphere under pristine conditions”. Even if things do work in the real world the same way as in a laboratory, cloud growth due to ions would only make up “several per cent” of the total.

“Several per cent ain’t much, and the real atmosphere is not pristine,” Sherwood says. While the new research has shown that cosmic rays can produce particles big enough to seed clouds, that was never “the real problem” with Svensmark’s ideas. A bigger issue is the number of such particles, which “would be negligible compared with the background aerosol and the aerosol humans are adding by burning things, tilling soil, etc.”

“If clouds were affected by cosmic rays,” he adds, “they would have been affected a hundred times more strongly by human air pollution, and the world would have cooled over the past century, rather than warmed.”

Cosmic ray theory of global warming

Henrik Svensmark has propounded a theory of “cosmoclimatology”, which holds that cosmic rays and sunspots are the real drivers of global warming.

cosmosmagazine.com

1) I never heard of a browser that can't activate a link. Did you write it yourself?
2) "doubt the new findings make much difference to accepted climate models.". You don't see the irony there?
3) cosmic ray amount and strength vary wildly. 10% is a great deal. Your quotes contradict each other.

Ask me whatever you want.
What caused the warming before before the industrial revolution and what caused the decades of warming pauses since?

 

[Peacenik]

Because there is no such thing. If there were we would be doing it already. Renewables have failed due to their cost everywhere they have been tried to date and they've been around for a very long time now

Safe clean renewable energy is providing reliable power for myriads of uses. In many cases the power source is free. Falling water, wind and sunlight are great sources of power. The only cost is in capturing the energy and storing it. And the best of it is they do not pollute, do not hurt the environment nor cause climate change. The technology and efficiency continues to improve.

 

[watsup]

1) I never heard of a browser that can't activate a link. Did you write it yourself?
2) "doubt the new findings make much difference to accepted climate models.". You don't see the irony there?
3) cosmic ray amount and strength vary wildly. 10% is a great deal. Your quotes contradict each other.

Ask me whatever you want.
What caused the warming before before the industrial revolution and what caused the decades of warming pauses since?

More deflection from you. Let me know when you are ready to give an honest answer to the basic question that I have now asked numerous times. I don’t see the point in going any further if you are unwilling to do so.

 

[Peacenik]

You clearly missed the point, there was a science called Eugenics, that was widely accepted,
but was sudo science, and is now largely defunct.
I suspect AGW will end up on the same path.

This is not about me; don't try to make it about me. It's about Climate Change.

AGW is sadly here to stay for a very long time. The only question is what the human response will be.

Proactive minds support doing all we can to protect the habitat for the future of humanity, our children, our grandchildren, our descendants.

Big fossil energy corporations support keeping their profit streams in place. Some minds are not fooled by big dark money going into disinformation campaigns, trying to spread doubt. Others are unfortunately fooled by the propaganda from billionaires who don't want you to know where the propaganda funding is coming from them.

Follow the money. Big money is supporting the big lie from the side that cuts taxes for billionaires. Permanent tax cuts for the super-rich, temporary ones for the 99%. When do those Trump tax cuts run out again? Why were they only temporary?

Check it out. 'Dark money' is supporting Republicans who are telling the Big Lie. Secret big money donors who don't want you to know who they are. That's what is buying a lot of these Republican campaign ads.

It only makes sense when we recall that Republicans killed a bill to force campaign spending disclosure.

Open Secrets:

Big dark money is backing Republicans. They don't want you to know who is bankrolling the propaganda.

 

[longview]

This is not about me; don't try to make it about me. It's about Climate Change.

AGW is sadly here to stay for a very long time. The only question is what the human response will be.

Proactive minds support doing all we can to protect the habitat for the future of humanity, our children, our grandchildren, our descendants.

Big fossil energy corporations support keeping their profit streams in place. Some minds are not fooled by big dark money going into disinformation campaigns, trying to spread doubt. Others are unfortunately fooled by the propaganda from billionaires who don't want you to know where the propaganda funding is coming from them.

Follow the money. Big money is supporting the big lie from the side that cuts taxes for billionaires. Permanent tax cuts for the super-rich, temporary ones for the 99%. When do those Trump tax cuts run out again? Why were they only temporary?

Check it out. 'Dark money' is supporting Republicans who are telling the Big Lie. Secret big money donors who don't want you to know who they are. That's what is buying a lot of these Republican campaign ads.

It only makes sense when we recall that Republicans killed a bill to force campaign spending disclosure.

Open Secrets:

Big dark money is backing Republicans. They don't want you to know who is bankrolling the propaganda.

AGW is more of a fad, and will only last as long as it's political value!
The published science predicts how much the average temperature will increase IF assumed variables are met.
If you read any of the more catastrophic predictions, they combine a high CO2 climate sensitivity, with an emission scenario like RCP8.5.
The problem with this, is the high sensitivity is based on a flawed simulation, and RCP8.5 is nearly impossible,
as it would require CO2 levels to increase by more than 12 ppm per year. (For the last 20 years the average is 2.74 ppm per year.)
A more realistic approach is to look at TCR for the sensitivity, and an RCP level of maybe 6.
IPCC AR6 technical summary

Based on process understanding, warming over the instrumental
record, and emergent constraints, the best estimate of TCR is 1.8°C,
the likely range is 1.4°C to 2.2°C and the very likely range is 1.2°C to 2.4°C.

Using a doubling sensitivity of 1.8°C with RCP6.0 would produce much lower simulated results.

 

[bubbabgone]

More deflection from you. Let me know when you are ready to give an honest answer to the basic question that I have now asked numerous times. I don’t see the point in going any further if you are unwilling to do so.

In what you replied to I said "Ask me whatever you want."

 

[Peacenik]

AGW is more of a fad, and will only last as long as it's political value!
The published science predicts how much the average temperature will increase IF assumed variables are met.
If you read any of the more catastrophic predictions, they combine a high CO2 climate sensitivity, with an emission scenario like RCP8.5.
The problem with this, is the high sensitivity is based on a flawed simulation, and RCP8.5 is nearly impossible,
as it would require CO2 levels to increase by more than 12 ppm per year. (For the last 20 years the average is 2.74 ppm per year.)
A more realistic approach is to look at TCR for the sensitivity, and an RCP level of maybe 6.
IPCC AR6 technical summary

Using a doubling sensitivity of 1.8°C with RCP6.0 would produce much lower simulated results.

The effects are already beginning. Ice is vanishing. Seas are rising. Hurricanes are experiencing rapid intensification. Temperature records are being set. Wildfires are spreading faster and becoming more numerous. Lakes and rivers are drying up. Weather and rain patterns are changing, affecting subsistence farming.

Climate is changing.

It's only going to become more extreme. We determine how extreme it gets by what we do. We need to do the right thing. We need to cut carbon emissions to zero. We need to find ways to remove and sequester carbon already released. We humans can change our climate for the better by acting in a coordinated way. That is what we need to do.

 

[Peacenik]

Big money doesn't want any regulation of their markets at all. Big money always opposes proper government regulation. And if government moves to regulate anyway, big money always tries to control the process to make the regulation ineffective, or even beneficial to big mega corporations.

We have to resist that.

We have to make our government regulate big mega corporations properly and effectively.

We need representatives who work for us, not the big money corporations who don't even want you to know what their political spending is. Right now, big dark money is supporting Republicans. We have to vote for Democrats and then hold them to task after they are elected.

This is our country. We have to manage our own self-government. Vote for the candidates most likely to represent our environmental concerns. Then contact them to let them know what you want. There are 335 million of us in the USA. If we all did this they would definitely pay attention. Obviously most of us do not. That is why it is important for as many of us as possible to vote Democrats in and tell them what we want. We have to do this now for our future.

Vote Blue in 22. Tell them what they need to do.

 

[flogger]

Safe clean renewable energy is providing reliable power for myriads of uses. In many cases the power source is free. Falling water, wind and sunlight are great sources of power. The only cost is in capturing the energy and storing it. And the best of it is they do not pollute, do not hurt the environment nor cause climate change. The technology and efficiency continues to improve.

Globally renewables now employ as many as the fossil fuel industry yet provide 7% of their power so how can that possibly be true ?

 

[longview]

The effects are already beginning. Ice is vanishing. Seas are rising. Hurricanes are experiencing rapid intensification. Temperature records are being set. Wildfires are spreading faster and becoming more numerous. Lakes and rivers are drying up. Weather and rain patterns are changing, affecting subsistence farming.

Climate is changing.

It's only going to become more extreme. We determine how extreme it gets by what we do. We need to do the right thing. We need to cut carbon emissions to zero. We need to find ways to remove and sequester carbon already released. We humans can change our climate for the better by acting in a coordinated way. That is what we need to do.

All of your supposed facts ether are not happening or have been underway long before CO2 levels started to rise.
By the way the goal of the IPCC is not zero carbon emissions, but net zero, roughly 44% lower than current levels.
This would make the up to 30% trim from transport very important, shifting to artificial methane for gas power plants could trim a few more points.
Think of it this way, the RPC8.5 calls for CO2 levels to grow at 12 ppm per year for the rest of the century. Actual growth this century has been 2.74 ppm per year. If the growth of CO2 can be cut by 44%, growth would be zero.

 

[flogger]

All of your supposed facts ether are not happening or have been underway long before CO2 levels started to rise.
By the way the goal of the IPCC is not zero carbon emissions, but net zero, roughly 44% lower than current levels.
This would make the up to 30% trim from transport very important, shifting to artificial methane for gas power plants could trim a few more points.
Think of it this way, the RPC8.5 calls for CO2 levels to grow at 12 ppm per year for the rest of the century. Actual growth this century has been 2.74 ppm per year. If the growth of CO2 can be cut by 44%, growth would be zero.

I wonder where this need for net zero is established and its effects quantified within peer reviewed literature ....... or is it in fact even mentioned therein.

Same goes for the methane/nitrate fertilizer bans now being imposed on farmers worldwide. Wheres the empirical science supporting artificially induced famine in order to 'save' the planet ?

 

[longview]

I wonder where this need for net zero is established and its effects quantified within peer reviewed literature ....... or is it in fact even mentioned therein.

Same goes for the methane/nitrate fertilizer bans now being imposed on farmers worldwide. Wheres the empirical science supporting artificially induced famine in order to 'save' the planet ?

It is, lookup airborne fraction, if for example 10 GTCo2 is emitted only 4.4 GTCo2 causes the level to increase. The rest is part of the carbon uptake.

 

[Fearandloathing]

China will do what it thinks it needs to do in the immediate sense, and China will also take climate action because they know it has to be done.

China will be China. The West does not understand that they think in generations, we think in political term limits.

At present, China is attempting to secure for themselves the future, technology. All of it. From intelligent rockets to gizmos for your car. They want secrets. They are well poised with many, but not all of the rare minerals needed.

As a result, where we see the past, China's coal burning power and are reminded we ship them our garbage (not any more), behind that lies advances in technology that has scientists worried. While Putin is playing wolf at the front door, China is at the back door licking its chops.

It's not whether China will continue to pollute, but how profitable they will be in getting to zero. And what kind of world that will look like.

 

[Fearandloathing]

I wonder where this need for net zero is established and its effects quantified within peer reviewed literature ....... or is it in fact even mentioned therein.

Same goes for the methane/nitrate fertilizer bans now being imposed on farmers worldwide. Wheres the empirical science supporting artificially induced famine in order to 'save' the planet ?

Where's the empirical evidence that a famine would occur?

As we speak a new fertilizer is being tested and tried on commercial farms. It is vermawaste and wood ash...or worm shit and natural potash. Believe it or not there are worm farms on the coast for use as protein based food for various animal crops, & use the worm shit on wheat.

 

[flogger]

Where's the empirical evidence that a famine would occur?

Artificially choosing to produce less food means more famine...... are you having a difficulty with this ?

 

[Peacenik]

Globally renewables now employ as many as the fossil fuel industry yet provide 7% of their power so how can that possibly be true ?

How can it not be true that the renewable technology continues to improve? That's what technology does. Capitalism + technology = improved lifestyles for humans.

What could be a more improved lifestyle than living in a cleaner more energy-secure world with a more stable climate?

 

[Peacenik]

All of your supposed facts ether are not happening or have been underway long before CO2 levels started to rise.
By the way the goal of the IPCC is not zero carbon emissions, but net zero, roughly 44% lower than current levels.
This would make the up to 30% trim from transport very important, shifting to artificial methane for gas power plants could trim a few more points.
Think of it this way, the RPC8.5 calls for CO2 levels to grow at 12 ppm per year for the rest of the century. Actual growth this century has been 2.74 ppm per year. If the growth of CO2 can be cut by 44%, growth would be zero.

'Either not happening or have been happening'

Can't be both.

Sounds like a conclusion searching for an argument.

 

[Peacenik]

I wonder where this need for net zero is established and its effects quantified within peer reviewed literature ....... or is it in fact even mentioned therein.

Same goes for the methane/nitrate fertilizer bans now being imposed on farmers worldwide. Wheres the empirical science supporting artificially induced famine in order to 'save' the planet ?

The people of the future will look back on arguments like this and shake their heads in dismay.

 

[Peacenik]

China will be China. The West does not understand that they think in generations, we think in political term limits.

At present, China is attempting to secure for themselves the future, technology. All of it. From intelligent rockets to gizmos for your car. They want secrets. They are well poised with many, but not all of the rare minerals needed.

As a result, where we see the past, China's coal burning power and are reminded we ship them our garbage (not any more), behind that lies advances in technology that has scientists worried. While Putin is playing wolf at the front door, China is at the back door licking its chops.

It's not whether China will continue to pollute, but how profitable they will be in getting to zero. And what kind of world that will look like.

I don't fear China. Here's why. China needs customers to sell products to. China needs the USA just as much as the USA needs China. We're all on this planet together.

 

[Peacenik]

Artificially choosing to produce less food means more famine...... are you having a difficulty with this ?

Humans already produce more than enough food to feed all humans.

The only reason any human starves is because capitalism rewards the rich and punishes the poor. We need more socialism to redistribute the wealth from those who have stockpiled it like insecure little wealth-grubbers; and to those who are needy and starving.

When every human on Earth has all their basic needs met, the birth rates will fall to sustenance level and the world population will stop exploding.

Science has shown that even for cultures where large families are the norm, within a few generations of comfortable secure life the birth rate drops to 2.3 per couple, birth/death equilibrium.

It is a logical indication that we just need more socialism mixed in with our capitalism.

 

[longview]

'Either not happening or have been happening'

Can't be both.

Sounds like a conclusion searching for an argument.

You mentioned 7 things in a few sentences, ice melting( been happening for 12,000 years, sea level rise, also 12,000 years, more intense hurricanes ( we do not have accurate records to say for sure). Changing weather patterns, are they outside the normal changing cycle?

 

[Fearandloathing]

Artificially choosing to produce less food means more famine...... are you having a difficulty with this ?

Snide gets you gone.

No where did I even suggest the level of crops has to decrease.


Save the insults for people of your own mein.