Global Warming

[Sunsettommy]

Newtonian writes:

Bait and switch. I did not post about why Harvey stalled. The point was the amount of rainfall Harvey produced.

The ASTOUNDING total amount of rain was largely caused by the stalling effect of the two pressure cells onshore, north of the Hurricane. Part of the Hurricane stayed over the Gulf of Mexico, thus continuing to draw in a lot of warm moisture.

Not a bait and switch, but a valid explanation on WHY there was so much rain.

Newtonian writes:

Btw - Irma was in 2017; Dorian was in 2019 - you might want to check your math!

NO mention of Dorian or Irma at all in your post, this is only Hurricane mentioned:

"Larger windspeeds (projected) due to warmer oceans.... warmer air over oceans can hold more water:
Hurricane Harvey stalled and "basically supercharged itself."

bolding mine

That is why I Wrote like this:

"Oh my you easily fell for obvious misleading crap and over a... ha ha ha.. single year and a even a single storm.....

Harvey was stalled by TWO Pressure cells in the area, that is why It didn't move inland hardly at all.

I drop the Weather Channel a while ago as they constantly provide misleading claims, heck they are even ignored by warmists as they are not being used as a source."

YOU are the one who is confused here.....

Agree about New Orleans, a city with a ticking bomb future.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Newtonian writes in post 37:

Can you provide documentation for your claims?

I replied on it already:

"Over 90% of all Permafrost by area on the planet have already vanished, nearly all of it melted out by 3,000 years ago since deglaciation began, thus little left to melt today. It is another phony scare over something that was mostly gone over 3,000 years ago."



The L ast P ermafrost M aximum (LPM ) map of the N orthern H emisphere: permafrost extent and mean annual air temperatures, 25–17 ka BP

===

Go read it, note how far south the line was in Europe?

I will try to find another paper that had showed it was as far south as 45 degrees North, in America.

 

[Newtonian]

The warming we have experienced is inconsequential relative to prior warming periods. I suspect warming is a minor issue.

Now, pollution is not. Something must be done about humans polluting the land, sea, and air.

Secondly, the world’s population has grown enormously these past few decades. Unless we utilize technology to properly handle population growth, pollution and species extinctions will continue.

Thank you for your respectful post!

The arctic permafrost testifies to a catastrophic sudden (Likely within 30 minutes) climate change where many animals, including many mammoths, were quick frozen until the current global warming. Now this old permafrost (over 4,000 years ago) testifies to a warmer climate before that catastrophe - clearly life did fine in a warmer climate so I get your point.

The current global warming is much slower - though it is already causing some extinctions because it is too fast for many species to adapt.

Nonetheless, there are many other causes of extinctions besides global warming. Deforestation and over fishing are 2 are related to over-population - though there are ways of increasing food production without destroying habitat and environment.

And, yes, pollution is a very important way man is ruining the earth.

My main point is the warning in the prophecy in Revelation 11:18 that our Creator will destroy the destroyers of the earth.

The catastrophe you speak of some think was caused by a geomagnetic pole shift accompanied by a micro nova and crustal displacement. This then lead to centuries of global cooling and massive glaciers...an ice age.

Indeed some think that. The problem with that model is that the animals in the Arctic permafrost were quick frozen, probably within 30 minutes - it certainly did not take as long as a week, let alone years.

But that is somewhat off topic (my fault). On topic is the fact that the permafrost is now, after thousands of years, melting in a matter of decades!

Yes they were quickly frozen, because of a crystal displacement that moved them to the polar region very quickly, as the theory posits.

Evidence of forests even rain forests, have been found at both poles. The only way this is possible that I know of, is the crustal displacement moved the land to the poles.

There is a time factor and I am not sure the tropical rainforests near the poles involved such a sudden climate change - btw - can you document that point?

I would need to study your documentation to respond properly. However, I suspect that two factors were involved in two separate effects/results:

1. The falling of the last accretion belts of water at the Noahchian flood - likely including super-cooled water that both drowned the Beresovka mammoth also quick froze that mammoth in about 30 minutes. Earth may have had low CO2 levels by that time, similar to 200 years ago.

2. The much more gradual removal of earth's vast primordial CO2 atmosphere due to the geological carbon cycle by which earth's primordial ocean(s) removed the CO2 from the atmosphere and created the vast carbonate deposits in earth's crust. This process probably continued for billions of years - not 30 minutes. The reason earth would be habitable under such an extreme greenhouse effect is that astronomers note our sun had a considerably lower output back 1 billion + years ago. Another example of fine tuning by Jehovah of planet earth and the sun that caused the opposite to happen to Earth compared with what happened to Venus.

 

[Newtonian]

In

Newtonian writes:

Bait and switch. I did not post about why Harvey stalled. The point was the amount of rainfall Harvey produced.

The ASTOUNDING total amount of rain was largely caused by the stalling effect of the two pressure cells onshore, north of the Hurricane. Part of the Hurricane stayed over the Gulf of Mexico, thus continuing to draw in a lot of warm moisture.

Not a bait and switch, but a valid explanation on WHY there was so much rain.

Newtonian writes:

Btw - Irma was in 2017; Dorian was in 2019 - you might want to check your math!

NO mention of Dorian or Irma at all in your post, this is only Hurricane mentioned:

"Larger windspeeds (projected) due to warmer oceans.... warmer air over oceans can hold more water:
Hurricane Harvey stalled and "basically supercharged itself."

bolding mine

That is why I Wrote like this:

"Oh my you easily fell for obvious misleading crap and over a... ha ha ha.. single year and a even a single storm.....

Harvey was stalled by TWO Pressure cells in the area, that is why It didn't move inland hardly at all.

I drop the Weather Channel a while ago as they constantly provide misleading claims, heck they are even ignored by warmists as they are not being used as a source."

YOU are the one who is confused here.....

Agree about New Orleans, a city with a ticking bomb future.

Incorrect but I am not going to bother correcting you since you do not study the documentation I post and worse: misrepresent the few points you do not ignore.

 

[Newtonian]

So, going offline soon - watching TV. On the weather channel broadcast about the 2017 hurricane season (c. 7PM CST, 6/1/20) global warmng's effect on hurricane strength was discussed, along with evidence of global warming and sea level rise.

I took notes - a few points from the broadcast (approximate quotes):

"No secret that oceans are warming and sea level is rising."

Dr. Marshall Shepherd
Professor, Atmospheric Sciences
University of Georgia

Concerning hurricanes & global warming:

"to deny there is some connection is irresponsible."

Moderator (Jim Cantore?):

"More long term data and better climate models are needed before definitive conclusions can be made - but there are signs."

2017 hurricane season [coincided] with some of the warmest ocean temperatures on record.

Shepherd: "2017 long lasting severe storms (e.g. Irma) directly related to sea surface temperatures."

90%+ of warming of our climate system is in the oceans.

Dr. Kim Cobb
Climate Scientist
Georgia Tech

We (society) need to connect the dots and realize there is a clear and present danger.

Larger windspeeds (projected) due to warmer oceans.... warmer air over oceans can hold more water:
Hurricane Harvey stalled and "basically supercharged itself."

Carrie Emanuel (renowned climate scientist):

"Likelihood of a Harvey like rain event has increased 6-fold since the late 20th century" - add to that rising sea level:

Moderator: "Near Galveston, Texas sea level is rising 2"+ each decade.

Shepherd: "We know sea level is rising and in recent years rising faster."

Carrie: "How many lives lost (+ billions of dollars) before we realize we need to be pro-active in planning for our climate future which is our climate now."

Overall, the same message Greta Thunberg related in her speech - with different details of course.

How does atmospheric CO2 warm the deep ocean?

It doesn't. I was posting about sea surface temperatures. I will check this out again, but in the past I found the stirring time of the ocean is about 1,000 years.

Stirring times in the Southern Ocean - Nature

Spreading iron on the sea boosts phytoplankton's use of CO2 in the Southern Ocean. But the idea that fertilizing the oceans could be a way to manipulate the climate is flawed.

www.nature.com

Excerpt:

"As the carbon passes through consumers in surface waters, most of it is converted back to CO2 and released to the atmosphere. But some finds its way to the deep ocean where it is remineralized back to CO2 by bacteria. The net result is transport of CO2 from the atmosphere to the deep ocean, where it stays, on average, for roughly 1,000 years."

Ocean Layers & Mixing - Time Scavengers

Now that we've quickly discussed some basics of how our atmosphere works, it's time to get down to business and start discussing how our oceans work! The oceans are a key component to discussing and understanding climate change. On this page, we will talk about the main layers of the ocean...

timescavengers.blog

"The ocean has three main layers: the surface ocean, which is generally warm, and the deep ocean, which is colder and more dense than the surface ocean, and the seafloor sediments.

• The thermocline separates the surface from the deep ocean.
• Due to density differences, the surface and deep ocean layers do not easily mix. This means that the gases dissolved in surface seawater, such as CO2, also get mixed into deep seawater on longer timescales.
• The seafloor is made up of 4 main types of sediments: Biogenic, Lithogenic, Hydrogenous, and Cosmogenic.
• Biogenic sediments are very important, and include both siliceous and carbonaceous sediments made up of the hard parts of marine organisms.
• Carbonaceous sediments are those that contain calcite, or calcium carbonate (CaCO3).

[Note: the geological carbon cycle is involved - for example, CaCO3 is the basic chemical compostion of earth's sedimentary limestone deposits which may have taken billions of years.]

Hypothetical cross section of a continental shelf to ocean transect with different layers of the ocean showing timescales on which different layers of the ocean mix completely, along with how long it takes for the biosphere to take in CO2 from the atmosphere, and how long it takes for CO2 that is buried on the seafloor to be part of the rock record. Blue whale not to scale."

You will notice that I was correct about the 1,000 year stirring time of the oceans but was incorrect in implying that this is the whole picture. The above picture is the whole picture. To sum up:

The surface stirring time is on the scale of the current global warming: 10 to 100 years. Concerning the deeper ocean layers:

1. The stirring time in the upper ocean is about 1,000 years.
2. The stirring time in the main body of the oceans ranges from 1,000 to 100,000 years.
3. The stirring time in the deepest ocean layer which interacts with earths crust (e.g. the geological carbon cylce) is greater than 100,000 years.

Bottom line - the rising of earth's surface ocean temperature in the mere decades of recent time is not influenced by the deep ocean in any comparable time scale. In other words: global warming may become catastrophic as we reach the tipping points the scientific journals and Greta Thunberg referred to. It would take over 1,000 years for the deeper ocean to return the ocean surface to normal temperatures by mixing/stirring.

 

[gipper]

The warming we have experienced is inconsequential relative to prior warming periods. I suspect warming is a minor issue.

Now, pollution is not. Something must be done about humans polluting the land, sea, and air.

Secondly, the world’s population has grown enormously these past few decades. Unless we utilize technology to properly handle population growth, pollution and species extinctions will continue.

Thank you for your respectful post!

The arctic permafrost testifies to a catastrophic sudden (Likely within 30 minutes) climate change where many animals, including many mammoths, were quick frozen until the current global warming. Now this old permafrost (over 4,000 years ago) testifies to a warmer climate before that catastrophe - clearly life did fine in a warmer climate so I get your point.

The current global warming is much slower - though it is already causing some extinctions because it is too fast for many species to adapt.

Nonetheless, there are many other causes of extinctions besides global warming. Deforestation and over fishing are 2 are related to over-population - though there are ways of increasing food production without destroying habitat and environment.

And, yes, pollution is a very important way man is ruining the earth.

My main point is the warning in the prophecy in Revelation 11:18 that our Creator will destroy the destroyers of the earth.

The catastrophe you speak of some think was caused by a geomagnetic pole shift accompanied by a micro nova and crustal displacement. This then lead to centuries of global cooling and massive glaciers...an ice age.

Indeed some think that. The problem with that model is that the animals in the Arctic permafrost were quick frozen, probably within 30 minutes - it certainly did not take as long as a week, let alone years.

But that is somewhat off topic (my fault). On topic is the fact that the permafrost is now, after thousands of years, melting in a matter of decades!

Yes they were quickly frozen, because of a crystal displacement that moved them to the polar region very quickly, as the theory posits.

Evidence of forests even rain forests, have been found at both poles. The only way this is possible that I know of, is the crustal displacement moved the land to the poles.

There is a time factor and I am not sure the tropical rainforests near the poles involved such a sudden climate change - btw - can you document that point?

I would need to study your documentation to respond properly. However, I suspect that two factors were involved in two separate effects/results:

1. The falling of the last accretion belts of water at the Noahchian flood - likely including super-cooled water that both drowned the Beresovka mammoth also quick froze that mammoth in about 30 minutes. Earth may have had low CO2 levels by that time, similar to 200 years ago.

2. The much more gradual removal of earth's vast primordial CO2 atmosphere due to the geological carbon cycle by which earth's primordial ocean(s) removed the CO2 from the atmosphere and created the vast carbonate deposits in earth's crust. This process probably continued for billions of years - not 30 minutes. The reason earth would be habitable under such an extreme greenhouse effect is that astronomers note our sun had a considerably lower output back 1 billion + years ago. Another example of fine tuning by Jehovah of planet earth and the sun that caused the opposite to happen to Earth compared with what happened to Venus.

Crustal displacement theory is considered fringe but the scientist who came up with it, Charles Hapgood, was supported by Einstein.

Here are links to an article that explains the theory and three books on the subject.
Explorer I, Einstein and the Theory of Crustal Displacement
Robot Check
Robot Check
Robot Check

 

[gipper]

Chan Thomas’ book on Earth’s cataclysmic events, may also discuss crustal displacement. The CIA classified the book for many years, then recently declassified for some unknown reason.

The Adam & Eve Story

 

[Sunsettommy]

Newtonian writes:

Incorrect but I am not going to bother correcting you since you do not study the documentation I post and worse: misrepresent the few points you do not ignore.

If you are referring to post 34, there were no documents in it, just your personal notes.

Full quotes of everything you wrote about Hurricanes:

watching TV. On the weather channel broadcast about the 2017 hurricane season (c. 7PM CST, 6/1/20) global warmng's effect on hurricane strength was discussed, along with evidence of global warming and sea level rise.

I took notes - a few points from the broadcast (approximate quotes):

This alone makes clear it was a single year 2017 hurricane season.

Concerning hurricanes & global warming:

"to deny there is some connection is irresponsible."

No one here deny there is a connection.

2017 hurricane season [coincided] with some of the warmest ocean temperatures on record.

Shepherd: "2017 long lasting severe storms (e.g. Irma) directly related to sea surface temperatures."

Again just the 2017 hurricane season is mentioned, IRMA is mentioned.

Larger windspeeds (projected) due to warmer oceans.... warmer air over oceans can hold more water:
Hurricane Harvey stalled and "basically supercharged itself."

By now you should realize hurricanes don't stall all by itself, Harvey was considerably slowed to a crawl by two pressure cells inland.

"Likelihood of a Harvey like rain event has increased 6-fold since the late 20th century" - add to that rising sea level:

Harvey super rainfall total was largely caused by two pressure cells inland that kept part of the hurricane over the Gulf of Mexico much longer than usual, thus sweeping in a lot of warmth and moisture. meanwhile it slowly decayed to a Tropical Storm.

That is why I brought it up to explain the astounding rainfall total, the very words YOU wrote about:

"Likelihood of a Harvey like rain event has increased 6-fold since the late 20th century" - add to that rising sea level:

"Harvey like rain event"

That is NOT a "bait and switch"

In post 38 was your reply to post 36, where you state:

Btw - Irma was in 2017; Dorian was in 2019 - you might want to check your math!

I never mentioned Dorian at all, where did that come from?

All along YOU talked about a SINGLE Hurricane season 2017. That is why I though you were getting confused when you bring up a Hurricane Dorian that was in a different year.

===========

About Permafrost, you wrote at POST 37:

Can you provide documentation for your claims?

Had already done that in post 35, it is about HISTORICAL Permafrost. Ooops!

Then in post 44, I presume you are talking about YOUR Permafrost documentation:

Incorrect but I am not going to bother correcting you since you do not study the documentation I post and worse: misrepresent the few points you do not ignore.

I see that again you get confused, since I never disputed YOUR permafrost link at all, which was about recent thawing. I have read similar articles for years now, which tends to be laced with some fearmongering bullcrap. Some of it is illogical too, but that was never picked up by you.......

MY link was about Historical Permafrost of thousands of years ago and how far south it went during the late part of the previous Glaciation phase. I even stated this to you, which you didn't respond:

Post 42:

"Go read it, note how far south the line was in Europe?"

I don't think you read my link at all, while I read yours.



You appear confused, made several errors, never backed up anything you wrote about what I stated.

I say you are being dishonest here.

 

[ReinyDays]

Sorry to bring science into this conversation ... but Harvey was a tropical storm when he flooded Houston, not a hurricane ... from the water vapor channel aboard the weather satellite, it was clearly an atmospheric river event ... much of this was compounded by the fact Houston haven't recovered from the 2016 floods yet, nor the 2015 floods, nor the 2013 floods ...

The best science can estimate right now is that: 1] Yes, tropical cyclones will become more intense (lower pressure), and this has a rough correlation to strength (wind speed) and human misery (widows and orphans) due to increased absolute humidity; and 2] No, tropical cyclones will become less frequent due to Arctic Amplification ... as we've learned from Harvey, tropical storms can be just as damaging as hurricanes, sometimes more so ... having fewer tropical storms reduces overall human misery ...

We don't have enough data to do anything but guess ... anyone who claims "settled science" in this matter is lying ... we've only had scientifically accurate data since the Age of Satellites, about 50 years, we can't tease a 100 year average out of that little information ... high school statistics ...

Nearby Galveston still holds the all time record for deadly natural disasters in the USA ... the year 1900 hurricane ... well before any global warming ... climate change would be a good thing for that area ... just saying ...

ETA: Shout out to Rockport, Texas ... Harvey landed there with Cat 4 winds ... utter devastation ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Wikipedia did a nice summary of the storm:

Hurricane Harvey

Excerpt:

It was the first major hurricane[nb 2] to make landfall in the United States since Wilma in 2005, ending a record 12-year span in which no hurricanes made landfall at the intensity of a major hurricane throughout the country.[3] In a four-day period, many areas received more than 40 inches (1,000 mm) of rain as the system slowly meandered over eastern Texas and adjacent waters, causing unprecedented flooding. With peak accumulations of 60.58 in (1,539 mm), in Nederland, Texas, Harvey was the wettest tropical cyclone on record in the United States. The resulting floods inundated hundreds of thousands of homes, which displaced more than 30,000 people and prompted more than 17,000 rescues.

The eighth named storm, third hurricane, and first major hurricane of the extremely active 2017 Atlantic hurricane season, Harvey developed from a tropical wave to the east of the Lesser Antilles, reaching tropical storm status on August 17.[4] The storm crossed through the Windward Islands on the following day, making landfall on the southern end of Barbados and a second landfall on Saint Vincent. Upon entering the Caribbean Sea, Harvey began to weaken due to moderate wind shear, and degenerated into a tropical wave north of Colombia, late on August 19.[5] The remnants were monitored for regeneration as it continued west-northwestward across the Caribbean and the Yucatán Peninsula, before redeveloping over the Bay of Campeche on August 23.[6] Harvey then began to rapidly intensify on August 24, regaining tropical storm status and becoming a hurricane later that day.[7]

While the storm moved generally northwest, Harvey's intensification phase stalled slightly overnight from August 24–25; however, Harvey soon resumed strengthening and quickly became a major hurricane and attained Category 4 intensity later that day.[8] Hours later, Harvey made landfall at San José Island, Texas, at peak intensity, followed by another landfall at Holiday Beach at Category 3 intensity. Rapid weakening then ensued, and Harvey had downgraded to a tropical storm as it stalled near the coastline, dropping torrential and unprecedented amounts of rainfall over Texas.[9] On August 28, it emerged back over the Gulf of Mexico, strengthening slightly before making a fifth and final landfall in Louisiana on August 29.[10] As Harvey drifted inland, it quickly weakened again as it became extratropical on September 1, before dissipating two days later.[11]

bolding and size mine

=====
I was correct on what I said about the 12 year landfalling major hurricane drought, Harvey decayed into a tropical storm while it stalled, and there have been fewer major hurricanes making landfall in recent times.

All factually supported.

 

[Flash]

In these last days (2 Timothy 3:1-5) it is hard to trust news reports - our literature is careful about researching the many ways man is ruining the earth - not just global warming. However, it seems that global warming is the primary topic on the environment in this forum section - why is that? What about plastic pollution of the oceans, for example? So, I welcome any subject that involves the destruction of earth's environment - including deforestation, extinctions due to loss of habitat, etc.

Before going into scientific details, this warning: God will bring to ruin those ruining the earth as foretold in Revelation 11:18.

But, as per thread title, I will start with a source I trust for accurate information - our literature - concerning global warming. Note, however, that while we are careful about accuracy of information, our literature is not infallible. Like the body of scientific literature, our older literature is out of date on some points due to further research. As per my user name, I am into science and hope posters will actually document claims made with scientific research. OK, for starters, our literature has noted global warning as one of many ways that man is ruining the earth - not the most important way but since this seems to be the more popular topic in this forum section I will start with that.

I'll let you all study this entire 2008 article - I will simply start with this introduction:

"Is Planet Earth Under Threat?

GLOBAL WARMING has been described as the greatest threat facing humanity. What worries researchers, says the journal Science, “is the prospect that we’ve started a slow-moving but relentless avalanche of change.” Skeptics question this assertion. True, many agree that the earth is warming, but they are uncertain of both the causes and the consequences. Human activities may be a factor, they say, but not necessarily the primary one. Why the disagreement?

For one thing, the physical processes that underlie global climate systems are complex and not fully understood. In addition, interest groups tend to put their own spin on the scientific data, such as that used to show why temperatures are rising."

So, what do you all think - is it hard to find the truth amidst the "spins" of various interest groups? There are so many factors, but I hope to concentrate on two points for starters:

1. Extinctions (not just due to global warming).

2. Sea level rise.

The reason I wish to start with those two points is this:

1. Either extinctions are occurring or they are not occurring.

2. Either sea level is rising, or it isn't rising. The lives of people living on low elevation islands is a reason this is important.

Feel free to post evidence. I will start with the more current speech by Greta Thunberg - first a written transcript here:

Transcript: Greta Thunberg's Speech At The U.N. Climate Action Summit

"You have stolen my dreams, and my childhood, with your empty words. And yet I'm one of the lucky ones," activist Greta Thunberg, 16, tells world leaders.

www.npr.org

And the actual speech (audio and video):



What "feedback loops" and "tipping points?"

What is the actual science involved in the points she brought up? She pointed to IPCC data - is this data accurate? What of her point about 1.5 degree C limit? Or the graphs she referred to?

A more recent news report on a more recent speech from Greta Thunberg:

Greta Thunberg calls for end to all fossil fuel investment "now" at Davos forum

The teen climate activist urges leaders at the World Economic Forum "to act as if you loved your children above all else."

www.cbsnews.com

For this thread, I will key in on one of her statements:

"We need to bring the science into the conversation."

If God want to change the earth with an extinction level climate change then there is nothing we can do about it. He has done it before.

However, this AGW silliness is nothing more than a Liberal scam job.

 

[ReinyDays]

Wikipedia did a nice summary of the storm:

That's just NWS copy ...

I was correct on what I said about the 12 year landfalling major hurricane drought, Harvey decayed into a tropical storm while it stalled, and there have been fewer major hurricanes making landfall in recent times.

All factually supported.

It is correct that we went 12 years without a major hurricane making landfall in the United States ... but this is by no means long enough to say there's a trend ... we get one of these storms about every other year on average ... assuming standard distribution, it's only 1 in a 1,000 to go 12 years without ... and climate data doesn't usually follow standard distribution ... 1 in 1,000 happens 10,000 times a day in New York City alone ...

Also keep in mind ... there were 51 major hurricanes in the North Atlantic Basin during that time ... some of which landed in the USA as they were decaying ... two Cat 5's landed in Mexico ... and a friend in Florida lost some soffit and a little roofing with Matthew (2016) in a near miss, such that Irma (2017) as a direct hit did very little more damage ...

If we're careful with our sample pool, we can get statistics to say anything we want them to say ... hypercanes and hockey sticks ...

 

[Newtonian]

Sorry to bring science into this conversation ... but Harvey was a tropical storm when he flooded Houston, not a hurricane ... from the water vapor channel aboard the weather satellite, it was clearly an atmospheric river event ... much of this was compounded by the fact Houston haven't recovered from the 2016 floods yet, nor the 2015 floods, nor the 2013 floods ...

The best science can estimate right now is that: 1] Yes, tropical cyclones will become more intense (lower pressure), and this has a rough correlation to strength (wind speed) and human misery (widows and orphans) due to increased absolute humidity; and 2] No, tropical cyclones will become less frequent due to Arctic Amplification ... as we've learned from Harvey, tropical storms can be just as damaging as hurricanes, sometimes more so ... having fewer tropical storms reduces overall human misery ...

We don't have enough data to do anything but guess ... anyone who claims "settled science" in this matter is lying ... we've only had scientifically accurate data since the Age of Satellites, about 50 years, we can't tease a 100 year average out of that little information ... high school statistics ...

Nearby Galveston still holds the all time record for deadly natural disasters in the USA ... the year 1900 hurricane ... well before any global warming ... climate change would be a good thing for that area ... just saying ...

ETA: Shout out to Rockport, Texas ... Harvey landed there with Cat 4 winds ... utter devastation ...

Actually, we do have data. From Scientific American:

April 2020: Earth's 2nd Warmest April on Record

2020 is likely to be the warmest year on record

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Figure 1. Departure of temperature from average for April 2020, the second warmest April for the globe since record keeping began in 1880. Record-warm April surface temperatures were present across parts of the Atlantic Ocean, Mexico, the Gulf of Mexico, northern South America, Africa, northern Asia, as well as parts of the Indian and western Pacific oceans. Overall, April 2020 had 6.87% of the world's land and ocean surfaces with a record high April temperature. No land or ocean areas had record cold April temperatures. Credit: NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

I think NOAA/NECI and NASA data is more reliable than misleading sources climate change deniers post.

 

[Newtonian]

Also from Sciam:

Climate Models Got It Right on Global Warming

Even models in the 1970s accurately predicted the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and temperature rise

www.scientificamerican.com

Excerpts:

"Climate Models Got It Right on Global Warming
Even models in the 1970s accurately predicted the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and temperature rise
By Chelsea Harvey, E&E News on December 5, 2019.....

"There’s a favorite argument among doubters of mainstream climate science: Climate models overestimate the rate at which the Earth is warming.

That claim surfaces time and again and is frequently based on single examples of uncertainty or cherry-picked data. Various studies have gone back and closely examined individual climate models in recent years and have generally found that they’re working pretty well.

A study released yesterday has taken the exercise to the next level. The research takes a comprehensive look at all the global climate models published from the 1970s to 2007, including the models used in the first three reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change....."

The article shows that the physics of these older models were correct - it was the actual slower increase of greenhouse gases that caused overestimates as to future global temperature. In other words, if you input wrong numbers in a correct physics formula you will get an inaccurate result even thought the formula was correct!

It is like the current pandemic. Early estimates of death toll did not take into account the lower transmission rate because populations took severe steps to slow the spread.

Btw, both are examples of the silver lining is the ominous clouds of data- If only the world leaders really listen to Greta Thunberg and the scientists she referred to (e.g. IPCC). Not very likely though.

 

[Newtonian]

A list of good recent Sciam articles on global warming is here:

Climate Change

Climate Change coverage from Scientific American, featuring news and articles about advances in the field.

www.scientificamerican.com

For example, this older article from 6/3/20: [2 days old]

High Temperatures Set Off Major Greenland Ice Melt--Again

An Arctic heat wave ushered in the start of the melt season two weeks earlier than average

www.scientificamerican.com

Excerpt:

"With temperatures nearly 20 degrees Fahrenheit higher than usual in some areas, the southern part of the ice sheet is melting at its highest rate this season. Forecasts suggest that the melting on Greenland’s South Dome—one of the highest elevations on the ice sheet—may be the strongest for early June since 1950."

 

[ReinyDays]

Actually, we do have data. From Scientific American:

April 2020: Earth's 2nd Warmest April on Record

2020 is likely to be the warmest year on record

blogs.scientificamerican.com

How does this change climate? ... how does slightly warmer make any difference? ...

 

[Newtonian]

Actually, we do have data. From Scientific American:

April 2020: Earth's 2nd Warmest April on Record

2020 is likely to be the warmest year on record

blogs.scientificamerican.com

How does this change climate? ... how does slightly warmer make any difference? ...

It is because of the tipping points and feedback loops involved with reaching 1.5 degrees C global warming.

37 things you need to know about 1.5C global warming

The UN climate science panel has released its summary of the evidence around the tougher climate goal demanded by vulnerable countries. We break it down

www.climatechangenews.com

"37 things you need to know about 1.5C global warming
Published on 08/10/2018, 2:00am
The UN climate science panel has released its summary of the evidence around the tougher climate goal demanded by vulnerable countries."

For example:

" 10. One of the most striking quantitative findings concerns the loss of biodiversity. It predicts the proportion of species that will lose half their geographic range. Out of 105,000 species studied, the rate doubles between 1.5C and 2C warming to 16% for plants and 8% for vertebrates, and triples to 18% for insects."

 

[ReinyDays]

It is because of the tipping points and feedback loops involved with reaching 1.5 degrees C global warming.

Which tipping point? ... what feedback loop? ... these things violate the laws of thermodynamics unless you can explain how they don't ... the main feedback loop here is clouds will be increasing which lowers temperatures, but this is a negative feedback ... reducing temperatures as time goes forward ... look at the ice core data ... why didn't these "tipping points" happen during previous inter-glaciations? ... what magic are you relying on with your claim? ...

You didn't say how this changes climate either ...

For example:
" 10. One of the most striking quantitative findings concerns the loss of biodiversity. It predicts the proportion of species that will lose half their geographic range. Out of 105,000 species studied, the rate doubles between 1.5C and 2C warming to 16% for plants and 8% for vertebrates, and triples to 18% for insects."

We can go through each of these 37 weasel statements if you'd like ... but you just copy/pasted one:

The main cause for species loss is habitat destruction ... cutting down a forest and planting corn ... and we are over-fishing our oceans ... and these are accelerated by increasing human populations ... global warming will only have a trivial effect on species loss as long as we continue farming and fishing ... more people to feed means more loss of species ...

Ever notice the great mega-fauna extinction events in the past 50,000 years were coincident with the arrival of humans? ... famously here in North America 15,000 years ago, but also Australia 40,000 years ago ... many many species have gone extinct long before industrial times ...

Sounds like you're okay with clear-cutting the rain forests, dumping toxic waste in our rivers and stripping the oceans of all life forms larger than a rat ... in your claim above, you say it's only the warming that's bad, everything else is fine ...

How many species are thriving behind human's destructiveness ... lampreys, coyotes, coronaviruses, Johnson grass, zebra mussels ... the list goes on ... plus the warmer temperatures and more abundant CO2 will benefit plants in general, and benefit human food plants specifically ... especially since rainfall will increase and be more evenly distributed ... slight increases in temperature means slight increases in rain, not near enough to solve our water problems or counter-act human procreation ...

Human population quadrupled in just the last 100 years ... it will not quadruple in the next 100 years ... if population only doubles, we still have negative outcomes for 16 billion people ... all this death and misery from causes completely unrelated to global warming ...

"A Bengal tiger. Global warming puts more species at risk of habitat loss and extinction"

Falsehood ... human predation and clearing the forests is what's killing off all the tigers, not global warming ... and of the panthers; lions, tigers and jaguars are in trouble; but leopards are growing in population and expanding their ranges ... ecological niches don't stay empty for long ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Newtonian writes:

It is because of the tipping points and feedback loops involved with reaching 1.5 degrees C global warming.

It was at least that warm or warmer early in the interglacial period, but nothing terrible happened.

I have seen the claims of tipping points and feedback loops for years now, they are dumb today as they were 25 years ago.

 

[ReinyDays]

It was at least that warm or warmer early in the interglacial period, but nothing terrible happened.
I have seen the claims of tipping points and feedback loops for years now, they are dumb today as they were 25 years ago.

Predicting things that have never happened before ... it's magic ...