This is why there’s been so much extreme rainfall and flooding in the U.S.

[ReinyDays]

What you posted isn't from the actual abstract. But from another study that was never adopted by the IPCC.

How about this one ... Myhre et al (1998)

"Three radiative transfer models are used to estimate
the radiativeforcingdueto the WMGG. The radiative
forcingdue to CO2 is found to be about 15076lower
than the IPCC estimate. On the other hand the ra-
diative forcing due to the CFCs are higher than the
IPCC estimates,especiallyfor CFC-11 and CFC-12 (be-
tween 10% and 25% higher and somewhatmodel de-
pendent).IPCC hasusedsimplifiedexpressionsfor the
radiative forcing of the WMGG. We recommendnew
constantsfor these expressionsresulting from our cal-
culations which treat all the componentsin a consistent
way. We suggestan explanationfor the range of forc-
ings found for CH4 in other studies."

Okay, this paper doesn't say you're wrong, but it doesn't say you're right eather ... but there's your link, where's the equation? ...

 

[forkup]

Any article written by a group like: The Europenan Environment Agency is OUT.

Nobody in these groups is objective. And No, I am not spending my time proving it to myself again.

Sure because people routinely exaggerate how much damage disasters do. It's not like insurance companies keep books or anything... oh wait.

If you want to yell, "conspiracy" for information that doesn't fit your narrative have at it. It just shows it's only political for people like you.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Wait economic losses from weather and climate related extremes aren't tied to weather? Boy that's some logic.

You dont even consider the part about WHERE they has been building in the last 40 years California is a great example where they built many new homes in the forested areas in the last few decades that gets burned to the ground in an area where climate is essentially the same the entire time.

The recent massive flood disaster in Texas occurred in long known flash flood zones the very same in North Carolina, and many homes and business build right on the ocean shoreline that irregularly gets smashed by hurricanes over the years.

Houston was started in a well-known flood zone as it was a swampy region, Baton Rouge was funded on the erratic Mississippi delta and BELOW sea level and has been sinking ever since as the city grows.

Your source leaves all those factors out hoping you are not aware enough of the topography importance of the regions build on that effects the cost of damage.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Sure because people routinely exaggerate how much damage disasters do. It's not like insurance companies keep books or anything... oh wait.

If you want to yell, "conspiracy" for information that doesn't fit your narrative have at it. It just shows it's only political for people like you.

Insurance companies distinguish between so-called "climate related" disasters (whatever those are) and others? This should be good.

I don't yell conspiracy because I still myself as learning. But I know political BS when I see it.

Kinda like COVID.

Died of heart attack....

Oh wait.....he tested positive for covid.....

Died of COVID......

Yeah....we know how that works.

Oh, that never happened. But I know people who worked in healthcare who explained how it did happen.

And you have clear evidence of people tampering with data.

 

[Robert W]

Sure because people routinely exaggerate how much damage disasters do. It's not like insurance companies keep books or anything... oh wait.

If you want to yell, "conspiracy" for information that doesn't fit your narrative have at it. It just shows it's only political for people like you.

That would consume several years to accomplish. We do have so called experts predicting doom. When will the imaginary doom happen?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Sure because people routinely exaggerate how much damage disasters do. It's not like insurance companies keep books or anything... oh wait.

If you want to yell, "conspiracy" for information that doesn't fit your narrative have at it. It just shows it's only political for people like you.

Meanwhile there are other reports that sees it differently:

 

[forkup]

How about this one ... Myhre et al (1998)

"Three radiative transfer models are used to estimate
the radiativeforcingdueto the WMGG. The radiative
forcingdue to CO2 is found to be about 15076lower
than the IPCC estimate. On the other hand the ra-
diative forcing due to the CFCs are higher than the
IPCC estimates,especiallyfor CFC-11 and CFC-12 (be-
tween 10% and 25% higher and somewhatmodel de-
pendent).IPCC hasusedsimplifiedexpressionsfor the
radiative forcing of the WMGG. We recommendnew
constantsfor these expressionsresulting from our cal-
culations which treat all the componentsin a consistent
way. We suggestan explanationfor the range of forc-
ings found for CH4 in other studies."

Okay, this paper doesn't say you're wrong, but it doesn't say you're right eather ... but there's your link, where's the equation? ...

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/98GL01908 section 5 table 3

 

[ReinyDays]

I get you’re using cos(lat±23°) to show an almost negligible seasonal tweak. But every season that extra snow boosts albedo, cutting net absorption by I·cos φ·(1–α). Do that winter after winter, and those tiny shortfalls pile up until the climate shifts. It’s the year-on-year accumulation, not a one-off solstice snapshot, that drives the feedback loop

We see the opposite of this right now ... with temperatures rising world-wide, we observe these polar regions are warming twice as fast ... so we should expect the reverse to be true ... in our example, we'd be seeing temperature fall twice as fast as the rest of the world ... still a matter of equilibrium ...

 

[forkup]

We see the opposite of this right now ... with temperatures rising world-wide, we observe these polar regions are warming twice as fast ... so we should expect the reverse to be true ... in our example, we'd be seeing temperature fall twice as fast as the rest of the world ... still a matter of equilibrium ...

The example is derived from the conditions 100000 years ago. You are right the reverse is true now. We are losing ice not gaining it. One of those feedback loops we are discussing.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The example is derived from the conditions 100000 years ago. You are right the reverse is true now. We are losing ice not gaining it. One of those feedback loops we are discussing.

The arctic summer ice was near zero to zero at times in this interglacial, period while CO2 changes in the atmosphere was near zero the whole time.

What feedback loop is that?

 

[forkup]

Meanwhile there are other reports that sees it differently:

View attachment 1153082


View attachment 1153085

View attachment 1153086

View attachment 1153087

View attachment 1153088

U.S. GDP | Historical Chart & Data

GDP at purchaser's prices is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the products. It is calculated without making deductions for depreciation of fabricated assets or for depletion and...

www.macrotrends.net

Funny how you picked damages as a proportion of GDP. Out of curiosity. What do you suppose happens to a percentage when the base value you're calculating that percentage to multiplies in value several times over? Would that cause the relative percentage to increase or decrease. Let's say in 1990 the GDP of the US was 6 trillion and the percentage is 0,22 percent and in 2016 the GDP was 18,8 trillion and the percentage of GDP spend on disasters was 0,18 percent. Do you suppose there's a significant increase in money spend on disasters from 1990 to 2016? Mind you I could have picked 2017 a much more devastating year but you get the picture.

My question is why pick it as a percentage of GDP at all? Is it maybe because in absolute terms you know economic damage has skyrocketed.

 

[Sunsettommy]

U.S. GDP | Historical Chart & Data

GDP at purchaser's prices is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the products. It is calculated without making deductions for depreciation of fabricated assets or for depletion and...

www.macrotrends.net

Funny how you picked damages as a proportion of GDP. Out of curiosity. What do you suppose happens to a percentage when the base value you're calculating that percentage to multiplies in value several times over? Would that cause the relative percentage to increase or decrease. Let's say in 1990 the GDP of the US was 6 trillion and the percentage is 0,22 percent and in 2016 the GDP was 18,8 trillion and the percentage of GDP spend on disasters was 0,18 percent. Do you suppose there's a significant increase in money spend on disasters from 1990 to 2016? Mind you I could have picked 2017 a much more devastating year but you get the picture.

My question is why pick it as a percentage of GDP at all?

LOL, you didn't rebut any of the charts thus you are batting zero.

Your deflection is pathetic and dishonest.

 

[forkup]

LOL, you didn't rebut any of the charts thus you are batting zero.

Your deflection is pathetic and dishonest.

I didn't? Let's do the math since you seem unable.

1990– GDP: $6 trillion– Disaster spending: 0.22 % of GDP → 0.0022 × $6 000 billion = $13.2 billion

2016– GDP: $18.8 trillion– Disaster spending: 0.18 % of GDP → 0.0018 × $18 800 billion = $33.84 billion

Increase from 1990 to 2016– $33.84 B − $13.2 B = $20.64 billion

So even though the share of GDP dipped from 0.22 % to 0.18 %, absolute disaster outlays rose by about $20.6 billion.

So, I guess thank you for proving my point is in order.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Where is the climate emergency?

All from OFFICIAL 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

And here are the numbers of Pacific typhoons (hurricanes) from the Japanese Meteorological Agency.

And here are a century and a half of records of the number of landfalling hurricanes in Florida.

Finally, here are the declining numbers of both strong and average cyclones (Southern Hemisphere hurricanes) in Australian waters, from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM).

=====

And here is the Rutgers Snow Labatory’s snow extent data from 1972 to April 2023 … basically, no change.

=====

Regarding heat, very hot days in the US (over 100°F, or 38°C) were much higher in the 1930s than at any other time in the last 125 years

Here’s another view of the temperatures of US summers. Again, nothing unusual going on.

But if you want to worry about heat waves, please get back to me when the heat waves are worse than those of the 1930s, well before the large increase in CO2 …

=====

Strong tornadoes in the US are steadily decreasing over the last 72 years.

And the same is true of weaker tornadoes … decreasing.

How about the dreaded heat waves that are supposed to be an inevitable result of “global warming”? If you need something to worry about, that’s not it … the real danger is not heat, it’s cold.

And here’s the UK Government’s assessment of the effect of more warmer days and fewer cold days … in twenty years, the warming has saved over half a million lives.

Here’s another analysis of heat vs. cold … it says that global warming is saving 160,000 lives per year through fewer cold deaths.

 

[BULLDOG]

That's because you wouldn't know a real expert if they jumped up and bit you in the ass.

You seem to think you look for credentials, but I don't see you touting the credentials of the experts. For all you know, they may be psych majors.

Someone demonstrates knowledge.....a lot of it and is able to show facts to back thier positions and they might as well be telling you the formula for LSD. You don't know the difference.

I get that you don't want to put all that time in. Most people don't.

In the meantime, why don't you just shut up about who knows what given that you know so little?

Got it. You and he have proven all the top scientists wrong, and you decided the best place to release your findings is on an anonymous discussion board. No written paper or presentation before a board of scientist for you. You went directly to USMB for your announcement. Smart move. Have I mentioned I'M BATMAN?

 

[BULLDOG]

Yep....this is what I was talking about....scorched earth looking for an exit. His general pattern.

ding has presented that information on about 100 threads in which I've participated. All the same players are there, even you. You just seem to have a selective memory. Most of us keep posters in context. For example:

I know that ding has gone round and round with the best of them and has generally come out on top. People like Old Rocks just fold up once they've been data'ed to pieces. ding's got a lot of knowledge around the past and has all kinds of charts and graphs to back it up.

I know that EMH is pretty hard-headed and collides with anyone who does not agree with him on everything. In spite of that, he's got a lot of knowledge of the earths workings, the past and weaves it together pretty well. He also is formidable arguer for no temperature rise. I have not had time to sort through all the arguments (and my questions generally get me called names.....so I quit), but he presents a lot of stuff.

EMH and ding don't agree on a great deal. But they both know a great deal.

schmidlap does not know crap about science. He simply parrots the bs of the alarmist crowd, touts the "experts" and can't tell you anything technical about climate change. In short, he's a sycophant that feels the need to belittle people who actually know something despite the fact that he knows nothing....and so far he only demonstrated he knows nothing. He can't talk about it. He simply blathers his little meme about "experts" and "Trump" and whatever bs crawled in his ear that day.

And you are like schmidcrap. Blah blah blah blah blah...experts.

And he's so kind as to share his conclusions with us here instead of before a panel of climate scientists or a reputable publication. What a guy.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I didn't? Let's do the math since you seem unable.

1990– GDP: $6 trillion– Disaster spending: 0.22 % of GDP → 0.0022 × $6 000 billion = $13.2 billion

2016– GDP: $18.8 trillion– Disaster spending: 0.18 % of GDP → 0.0018 × $18 800 billion = $33.84 billion

Increase from 1990 to 2016– $33.84 B − $13.2 B = $20.64 billion

So even though the share of GDP dipped from 0.22 % to 0.18 %, absolute disaster outlays rose by about $20.6 billion.

So, I guess thank you for proving my point is in order.

I understood it the first time but you completely failed on something that is amazing as you left out a factor many economists commonly use thus again you have no idea what a fool you are.

He called it a PROPORTION of Global GDP

Here is his abstract explaining how he made the figures,

Tracking progress on the economic costs of disasters under the indicators of the sustainable development goals​

Roger Pielke

ABSTRACT​

The Sustainable Development Goals indicator framework identifies as an indicator of progress the objective of reducing disaster losses as a proportion of global gross domestic product. This short analysis presents data on this indicator from 1990. In constant 2017 US dollars, both weather-related and non-weather related catastrophe losses have increased, with a 74% increase in the former and 182% increase in the latter since 1990. However, since 1990 both overall and weather/climate losses have decreased as proportion of global GDP, indicating progress with respect to the SDG indicator. Extending this trend into the future will require vigilance to exposure, vulnerability and resilience in the face of uncertainty about the future frequency and magnitude of extreme events.

LINK

red bolding mine

Already showed you the massive drop of the weather-related deaths since 1920,

 

[Sunsettommy]

Got it. You and he have proven all the top scientists wrong, and you decided the best place to release your findings is on an anonymous discussion board. No written paper or presentation before a board of scientist for you. You went directly to USMB for your announcement. Smart move. Have I mentioned I'M BATMAN?

Still making misleading dishonest statements and still falling hard on education and authority fallacies.

Still ignoring the many listed consensus failures I posted.

 

[Robert W]

And he's so kind as to share his conclusions with us here instead of before a panel of climate scientists or a reputable publication. What a guy.

Democrats show up here and do the same thing.

 

[BULLDOG]

Still making misleading dishonest statements and still falling hard on education and authority fallacies.

Still ignoring the many listed consensus failures I posted.

Forgive me. When will you be releasing your peer reviewed report?