Climate continues to change.

[Rightguide]

Florida Major Hurricane Strikes: Still No Trend
October 11th, 2018 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Note: The first plot had Michael’s wind speed plotted incorrectly, which has been fixed.

I’ve updated a plot of Florida major hurricane strikes since 1900 with Hurricane Michael, and the result is that there is still no trend in either intensity or frequency of strikes over the last 118 years:

https://i.imgur.com/FoCVE3dm.jpg

Nevertheless, the usual fearmongers are claiming Hurricane Michael is somehow tied to climate change.

After all, the Gulf of Mexico is unusually warm, right?

Yes, but if you look at the history of Jul-Aug-Sept average sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies over the eastern Gulf (available here, 25N-30N, 80W-90W), you will see that since 1860, this summer is only the 9th warmest in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.

Even more astounding is that out of the top 10 warmest Gulf years since 1860, 7 occurred before 1970, which is before we experienced any significant warming.

More here:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/florida-major-hurricane-strikes-still-no-trend/

 

[phrodeau]

According to NOAA, five of the ten strongest Atlantic storms in history have occurred since 2016. Dorian is one of those five.

 

[trysail]

If you take a basic physics course you will learn that the universe is composed of electrons, protons, neutrons and morons.


​

 

[Conager]

According to NOAA, five of the ten strongest Atlantic storms in history have occurred since 2016. Dorian is one of those five.

Wow that is truly significant.

What you're saying is that all of that carbon dioxide that the United States is generating is forcing outward and all of that energy it retains is keeping those hurricanes out over the ocean longer and keeping them from hitting landfall. We definitely need more carbon dioxide. Clearly.

 

[Hal9000_]

"Since 1970, average annual temperatures have risen by 4 degrees Celsius in Svalbard, with winter temperatures rising more than 7 degrees, according to a report released by the Norwegian Center for Climate Services in February. The “Climate in Svalbard 2100” report also warns that the annual mean air temperature in Svalbard is projected to increase by 7 to 10 degrees Celsius by the end of this century.

Since 1979, the Arctic sea ice extent has declined by nearly 12% per decade, with the most pronounced winter reduction in the Svalbard and Barents Sea area."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...in-the-worlds-northernmost-town-idUSKCN1VO19M

 

[Conager]

"Since 1970, average annual temperatures have risen by 4 degrees Celsius in Svalbard, with winter temperatures rising more than 7 degrees, according to a report released by the Norwegian Center for Climate Services in February. The “Climate in Svalbard 2100” report also warns that the annual mean air temperature in Svalbard is projected to increase by 7 to 10 degrees Celsius by the end of this century.

Since 1979, the Arctic sea ice extent has declined by nearly 12% per decade, with the most pronounced winter reduction in the Svalbard and Barents Sea area."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...in-the-worlds-northernmost-town-idUSKCN1VO19M

Phrodeau recently asserted that the lack of temperature increase in the United States is simply weather and not climate change. Why is this particular localized weather occurance climate change and not weather?

 

[Hal9000_]

Phrodeau recently asserted that the lack of temperature increase in the United States is simply weather and not climate change. Why is this particular localized weather occurance climate change and not weather?

All that fresh water added to the oceans from melting ice sheets and glaciers.

It has an effect on the global ocean thermohaline circulation.

This is just one local example, but it's widely accepted that ice melt is a modern and current global phenomenon.

 

[phrodeau]

Phrodeau recently asserted that the lack of temperature increase in the United States is simply weather and not climate change. Why is this particular localized weather occurance climate change and not weather?

Conager is lying again. I can’t imagine why.

 

[Conager]

Conager is lying again. I can’t imagine why.

Oh, really?

The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time


https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/503a5bade4b0b543ed240317/1551222353145-XJBKFLZX91HRPEZDI45E/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kNiAQw_lA3hvO3KgnAwdPH9Zw-zPPgdn4jUwVcJE1ZvWQUxwkmyExglNqGp0IvTJZamWLI2zvYWH8K3-s_4yszcp2ryTI0HqTOaaUohrI8PIS8nWvDQi4vChAUcc5gca16mVmj8qT9NANXLovwCTWmU/Downward+adjustments+U.S..png?format=1000w


by Tony Heller

"...NOAA’s US temperature record shows that US was warmest in the 1930’s and has generally cooled as CO2 has increased. This wrecks greenhouse gas theory, so they “adjust” the data to make it look like the US is warming.

The NOAA data tampering produces a spectacular hockey stick of scientific fraud, which becomes the basis of vast amounts of downstream junk climate science. Pre-2000 temperatures are progressively cooled, and post-2000 temperatures are warmed. This year has been a particularly spectacular episode of data tampering by NOAA, as they introduce nearly 2.5 degrees of fake warming since 1895..."


more...



​

​

Ah yes, the US temp record. A full 1.9% of the planet’s area.

You should work on you manifesto. It's key that you remember what you have asserted, when.

Localized weather for the entirety of the US is insignificant, but you have no issue with Hal's "contribution" regarding a small, localized weather pattern.

Why is that?

We know why.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Phrodeau recently asserted that the lack of temperature increase in the United States is simply weather and not climate change. Why is this particular localized weather occurance climate change and not weather?

Climate change is real and caused by humans, but because America cleaned up its act decades ago, it will only affect Europe, Asia and other places that still pollute.

 

[Conager]

Climate change is real and caused by humans, but because America cleaned up its act decades ago, it will only affect Europe, Asia and other places that still pollute.

A) CO2 is not a pollutant.

B) Everyone on the planet breathes the same atmospheric mix of various gases.

C) Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that the targets set forth in the Paris Climate Accords are a worthwhile goal to strive for and not just yet another means to pick Uncle Sam"s pocket ti finance the left'sgoals (and I have no problem with those targets, so long as it doesn't cripple ones economic output,) it's rather interesting that the United States (while never ratifying that agreement as a treaty) has done more to abide by it than any of the actual signatories who so vilify the United States.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

It should be obvious to anyone that while Florida escaped this time, it's only a matter of time before what happened in the Bahamas will happen to them. A behemoth Cat5 or more will park over the state for 24 hours and utterly destroy anything in its path.

 

[Conager]

It should be obvious to anyone that while Florida escaped this time, it's only a matter of time before what happened in the Bahamas will happen to them. A behemoth Cat5 or more will park over the state for 24 hours and utterly destroy anything in its path.

Of course.

What does that have to do with climate change?

 

[Klinkster]

It should be obvious to anyone that while Florida escaped this time, it's only a matter of time before what happened in the Bahamas will happen to them. A behemoth Cat5 or more will park over the state for 24 hours and utterly destroy anything in its path.

I think that's called 'weather'.

 

[gunthernehmen]

A) CO2 is not a pollutant.

B) Everyone on the planet breathes the same atmospheric mix of various gases.

C) Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that the targets set forth in the Paris Climate Accords are a worthwhile goal to strive for and not just yet another means to pick Uncle Sam"s pocket ti finance the left'sgoals (and I have no problem with those targets, so long as it doesn't cripple ones economic output,) it's rather interesting that the United States (while never ratifying that agreement as a treaty) has done more to abide by it than any of the actual signatories who so vilify the United States.

You may have missed my sarcasm.

I believe the climate is changing, always has and always will, regardless of what we do. Maybe we're affecting it some, or not, but by its nature, it changes. Thank God. The climate of millions of years ago was not hospitable to humans.

I don't believe climate change is primarily driven by our activities.

I believe some of the plans to reverse the changes are scarier than the idea that it might get a little warmer. Those people have no clue what they're doing. This is how horror movies start.

I believe we ought to take proper care of the world and not screw it up more with trash, pollutants and ruining wilderness areas. America is doing FAR better at that than other heavily industrialized parts of the world. They're where we were half a century or so ago, doing whatever they care to and damn the consequences.

I believe it is impossible to use wind and solar on a scale that can support an industrial civilization. That means fossil fuels or nuclear. Since fossil fuels will inevitably run out eventually, that leaves improving nuclear power generation using modern technology rather than the reactors we operate now that were designed in the 1950's.

I believe Al Gore and his holy prophets are in it for profit, whether money or power. I don't believe he gives a damn for any of this. He is a con artist on a global scale.

I believe Phro and the rest of the CC acolytes are simply "useful idiots" for the cause.

 

[phrodeau]

Oh, really?





You should work on you manifesto. It's key that you remember what you have asserted, when.

Localized weather for the entirety of the US is insignificant, but you have no issue with Hal's "contribution" regarding a small, localized weather pattern.

Why is that?

We know why.

Holy shit. You think trysail’s graph is just about weather, and not climate.

I wonder if trysail agrees with you.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Global warming = warming of the oceans = more frequent and more powerful storms.

That's why it's "of course."

Of course.

What does that have to do with climate change?

 

[Carnal_Flower]

It's called the inevitability of the destruction of our coastlines.

I think that's called 'weather'.

 

[Klinkster]

It's called the inevitability of the destruction of our coastlines.

Yeah.....weather does that.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Coincidence. Has nothing to do with the rising temperature of the oceans.

According to NOAA, five of the ten strongest Atlantic storms in history have occurred since 2016. Dorian is one of those five.

 

[Conager]

Holy shit. You think trysail’s graph is just about weather, and not climate.

I wonder if trysail agrees with you.

No. You think it is about weather. If you admit it is about climate, you would have to admit your religion is a sham. Climate "change" does not neglect to impact "1.9% of the planet’s area." Only localized weather patterns do that.

This is where you always go wrong instead of morphing with the new orthodoxy that climate change is inevitable, but always just a few years away, you plant your feet and assert that the portion of complex climate systems that *will* presumedly be attributable to anthropogenic factors is already here and having measurable, definitely attributable impact.

Even the now highly politicised NOAA says you are wrong to assert that. It is wise that you have begun to backpedal, but you have well over 500 ultra-pius sermons recorder in this thread alone

 

[Conager]

Coincidence. Has nothing to do with the rising temperature of the oceans.

Wait.

"Rising temperature of the oceans?" That sounds quite serious.

When did this happen?

How much did it "rise?" Where and how was this ascertained? What has been the range of temperatures, historically?

 

[phrodeau]

No. You think it is about weather. If you admit it is about climate, you would have to admit your religion is a sham. Climate "change" does not neglect to impact "1.9% of the planet’s area." Only localized weather patterns do that.

This is where you always go wrong instead of morphing with the new orthodoxy that climate change is inevitable, but always just a few years away, you plant your feet and assert that the portion of complex climate systems that *will* presumedly be attributable to anthropogenic factors is already here and having measurable, definitely attributable impact.

Even the now highly politicised NOAA says you are wrong to assert that. It is wise that you have begun to backpedal, but you have well over 500 ultra-pius sermons recorder in this thread alone

Come up with actual science or get lost, troll.

 

[Conager]

Come up with actual science or get lost, troll.

You first.

This entire thread was you trolling. You don't give a s*** about the environment all you care about is trying to build up your sense of self-importance by showing that you know things that other people don't, when in all actuality you don't even understand the things that you post.

It's become a catechism of the left that the right is stupid because they don't believe your alarmist fantasies about incremental changes to the climate that may be marginally impacted by anthropogenic sources.

You have nothing but snark, troll.

 

[dick912]

Change?

The climate has been changing since the day the earth was formed. Oh, yes - mankind and Trump destroyed the dinosaurs.