Skeptics Win, Endangerment Finding Axed – Truth Finally Prevails in The Climate Wars

[Oddball]

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds - NASA

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon

www.nasa.gov

So you cannot explain it in layman's terms and demonstrate the phenomenon in real time....Only an appeal-to-authority link to the bureaucrats invested in keeping the hoax, and their paychecks, rolling.

Capitulation accepted.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

No to strength either while the 1990's remains the most active and strongest hurricanes decade in the satellite era.

It was posted right in front of you...... lol.

This guy appears to disagree with u

Tom Knutson, senior scientist at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, is a leading scientist on hurricanes and climate change. He notes that “even if hurricanes themselves don’t change [due to climate change], the flooding from storm surge events will be made worse by sea level rise.” In addition, he says models show increases in a hurricane’s rainfall rate by 2100. This means that hurricanes are likely to cause more intense rain when they come ashore

 

[multivita-man]

No it is getting GREENER which is a visible sign of increase in life even Stuart is now posting it.

We can have more vegetation and still be killing the planet. The green is a feedback, but that feedback isn't enough to absorb enough of the GHGs emitted into our atmosphere to maintain climate stability.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Tom Knutson, senior scientist at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, is a leading scientist on hurricanes and climate change. He notes that “even if hurricanes themselves don’t change [due to climate change], the flooding from storm surge events will be made worse by sea level rise.” In addition, he says models show increases in a hurricane’s rainfall rate by 2100. This means that hurricanes are likely to cause more intense rain when they come ashore.

Scientists have long predicted that climate change would increase extreme rainfall events. In a warmer world, there is simply more moisture in the air in the form of gaseous water vapor. Think of heating up a pot of water on the stove. Once the liquid water becomes hot enough, it boils and creates steam (or hot water vapor). This process is called “evaporation,” or when a liquid changes to a gas.

A similar process happens at Earth’s surface. As surface temperatures rise, more liquid water evaporates from the land and ocean. Evaporation adds moisture to the air. How much water vapor the air can hold is based on its temperature. Warmer air temperatures can hold more water vapor. The increased moisture in the air leads to more intense rainfall, especially during extreme events.

In a hurricane, spiraling winds draw moist air toward the center, fueling the towering thunderstorms that surround it. As the air continues to warm due to climate change, hurricanes can hold more water vapor, producing more intense rainfall rates in a storm.

Moreover, according to Knutson, most models show that climate change brings a slight increase in hurricane wind intensity. This change is likely related to warming ocean temperatures and more moisture in the air, both of which fuel hurricanes. While most models show either no change or a decrease in hurricane frequency in a warmer climate, a greater proportion of the storms that form will reach very intense (Category 4 or 5) levels. In other words, while there may be fewer storms, the ones that form have a greater chance of becoming stronger

LOL, still no rebuttal to the official tropical/hurricane data, you haven't once challenged it, all you do is skirt at the edges with opinions, models and propaganda.

Why are you so afraid to address the ******* DATA!

Storminess has not gone up, and there’s been no increase in hurricane strength or frequency … no “emergency” there.

First, the strength.

And here is the global hurricane frequency, both for all hurricanes and for the strongest hurricanes.

Hurricane Data Source

This is all based on the OFFICIAL NOAA data and the ACE methods applied that NOAA created.

You haven't once acknowledged it or challenged it.

You have NOTHING but evasions and propaganda to offer.

 

[Sunsettommy]

We can have more vegetation and still be killing the planet. The green is a feedback, but that feedback isn't enough to absorb enough of the GHGs emitted into our atmosphere to maintain climate stability.

This is my second request for YOU to show where climate has changed, can YOU answer it?

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

LOL, another modeling construct link you didn't read and it is still in conflict with official data at The National Hurricane Center (NOAA) which you continually ignore because you are highly allergic to OFFICIAL data.



They hope you don't know that the Atlantic Ocean waters has for many many many thousands of years been plenty warm enough for strong Hurricane development, heck the warmest waters on the planets are in the Indonesian/Philippines waters but they don't spawn any stronger tropical storms than the Atlantic does.

Your ignorance is hurting you here.

Global Warming and Hurricanes – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

Contents Summary Statement Global Warming and Atlantic Hurricanes Statistical relationships between SSTs and hurricanes Analysis of century-scale Atlantic tropical storm and hurricane frequency Analysis of other observed Atlantic hurricane metrics Model simulations of greenhouse warming...

www.gfdl.noaa.gov

 

[Sunsettommy]

This guy appears to disagree with u

Tom Knutson, senior scientist at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, is a leading scientist on hurricanes and climate change. He notes that “even if hurricanes themselves don’t change [due to climate change], the flooding from storm surge events will be made worse by sea level rise.” In addition, he says models show increases in a hurricane’s rainfall rate by 2100. This means that hurricanes are likely to cause more intense rain when they come ashore

No the NOAA data doesn't care what anyone says, it is the OFFICIAL data that doesn't care about opinions as this is what the NOAA as the organization accepts in their measuring Tropical weather based on the several ways they gather the data, mostly Satellite/Radar and Airplanes.

Do you know what ACE index is?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Global Warming and Hurricanes – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

Contents Summary Statement Global Warming and Atlantic Hurricanes Statistical relationships between SSTs and hurricanes Analysis of century-scale Atlantic tropical storm and hurricane frequency Analysis of other observed Atlantic hurricane metrics Model simulations of greenhouse warming...

www.gfdl.noaa.gov

You are an asshole constantly ignoring the OFFICIAL NOAA data because it doesn't support your world view.

All you have is Cut and Paste, you show no indication that you read them or understand what they are saying as you never write a summary on anything you post.

You are apparently too far gone.

 

[multivita-man]

This is my second request for YOU to show where climate has changed, can YOU answer it?

Easily Googleable, or ChatGPT if you're lazy.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

It appears post one will never be challenged because warmest/alarmists can't address it factually thus ignore it which is why they are losing the debate badly.

All they do now is trot out the same few replies over and over as the following attests,

Consensus bromides

Propaganda articles

Cut and paste

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

No to strength either while the 1990's remains the most active and strongest hurricanes decade in the satellite era.

It was posted right in front of you...... lol.

Natural climate change: glacial-interglacial cycles
By measuring the ratios of different water isotopes in polar ice cores, we can determine how temperature in Antarctica and Greenland has changed in the past. The oldest continuous ice core we have was drilled by the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) from Dome C on the Antarctic plateau (Fig. 3). It extends back 800,000 years and shows a succession of long, cold ‘glacial’ periods, interspersed roughly every 100,000 years by warm ‘interglacial’ periods (of which the last 11,000 years is the most recent). This succession of events is well-known from other records, and the coldest periods in Antarctica are the times when we had ice ages. Ice sheets extended over North America as far south as places like Chicago and New York, and over Britain to south of The Wash

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We're all doing our part to 'kill the planet'. Maybe we can kill a little less of it, or kill it a little more slowly.

I agree, you should use dung. For the planet.

 

[multivita-man]

I agree, you should use dung. For the planet.

Nah

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nah

Why do you want to kill the planet?

I know nat gas is cleaner and dung smoke can't be good for your kids, but the planet,
why do you insist on killing it?

Have you always been evil?

 

[multivita-man]

Why do you want to kill the planet?

I know nat gas is cleaner and dung smoke can't be good for your kids, but the planet,
why do you insist on killing it?

Have you always been evil?

I know you probably think you're being clever, but...you're not.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know you probably think you're being clever, but...you're not.

You talk a green game but won't sacrifice to save the planet.

 

[multivita-man]

You talk a green game but won't sacrifice to save the planet.

First of all, sacrifice is relative. Nobody care what an individual sacrifices or doesn't because our environmental problems are not created by individuals, nor are they addressed by individuals. Earth's environmental crisis has been created by human systems, not individuals per se.

Our environmental problems come from systems that result in massive amounts of manufacturing and consumption. Generally speaking, the wealthier a person is, the more they consume. Wealthy countries consume more than poorer countries, and wealthy individuals in these countries consume more than everybody else.

I wouldn't have a problem with laws that restrict how much wealthy people can consume, and how much wealthy nations can consume.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

First of all, sacrifice is relative. Nobody care what an individual sacrifices or doesn't because our environmental problems are not created by individuals, nor are they addressed by individuals. Earth's environmental crisis has been created by human systems, not individuals per se.

Our environmental problems come from systems that result in massive amounts of manufacturing and consumption. Generally speaking, the wealthier a person is, the more they consume. Wealthy countries consume more than poorer countries, and wealthy individuals in these countries consume more than everybody else.

I wouldn't have a problem with laws that restrict how much wealthy people can consume, and how much wealthy nations can consume.

It's true, to get wealthy, a country needs a lot of cheap reliable energy.
Green idiots want to keep poor countries poor, so it doesn't get 1 degree warmer by 2100.

 

[multivita-man]

It's true, to get wealthy, a country needs a lot of cheap reliable energy.

Putting out 35-40 billion tons of CO2 has consequences. Yes, natural geological forces like plate tectonics and volcanic activity caused carbon pulses in the past, which caused natural climatic changes long before hominids spread across the earth. But humans are causing this carbon pulse, and as in the past, massive amounts of greenhouse gases will have consequences. It is having consequences now.

Green idiots want to keep poor countries poor, so it doesn't get 1 degree warmer by 2100.

Green idiots believe we can save the planet with renewables, but we can't. Renewables just add more available energy supply to the overall grid, which we then consume because it's there. It's like, if you invite an alcoholic over to a house party and you intentionally limit the supply of whiskey, having more beer on hand doesn't help matters much. He's still gonna get drunk as a skunk and end up adding nutrients to the grass in your back yard

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Putting out 35-40 billion tons of CO2 has consequences. Yes, natural geological forces like plate tectonics and volcanic activity caused carbon pulses in the past, which caused natural climatic changes long before hominids spread across the earth. But humans are causing this carbon pulse, and as in the past, massive amounts of greenhouse gases will have consequences. It is having consequences now.



Green idiots believe we can save the planet with renewables, but we can't. Renewables just add more available energy supply to the overall grid, which we then consume because it's there. It's like, if you invite an alcoholic over to a house party and you intentionally limit the supply of whiskey, having more beer on hand doesn't help matters much. He's still gonna get drunk as a skunk and end up adding nutrients to the grass in your back yard

Cheap, reliable energy is what civilization needs.
Even if that means it'll be 1 degree warmer in 2100.