Human-caused climate change is “supercharging” hurricanes, raising the risk of major damage

By Tom Yulsman | May 12, 2018 5:19 pm

A new study shows that record-breaking ocean heat pumped up Hurricane Harvey, contributing to catastrophic flooding

Climate change is supercharging hurricanes, a new study focusing on Hurricane Harvey has found

An animation of infrared imagery from the GOES-16 weather satellite shows the evolution of Hurricane Harvey between Aug. 25 and 28 2017. (Note: The animation may take awhile to fully load and play smoothly. Source: RAMMB/CIRA)

The North Atlantic hurricane season last year was extraordinary for a number reasons, but none more memorable than these:

Irma, Maria and Harvey.

These three hurricanes brought enormous devastation to portions of the continental United States, the Caribbean islands, and other parts of the tropical Atlantic. Harvey alone produced more than 100 trillion kilograms of rain, causing cataclysmic flooding along the Gulf Coast.

Now, a new study links Harvey’s devastation to climate change resulting from human activities.

As the summer of 2017 began, the amount of heat stored in the world’s oceans was the highest ever recorded. That was also true within the Gulf of Mexico, where Harvey prowled, according to the study, appearing in the journal Earth’s Future.

All that heat pumped Harvey up with enormous amounts of moisture — making it one of the wettest storm systems in United States history. The highest rainfall amount recorded on land during Harvey totaled 48.20 inches at a rain gauge on Clear Creek near Houston. That ranked as the highest rainfall amount in a single storm for any place in the continental United States, according to NOAA.

And by one estimate, 1,300 square miles of Harris County’s 1,800 square miles was inundated with 1.5 feet of water from Harvey.

Shortly after Harvey hit, I created this animation for a story intended to help readers visualize the full extent of the flooding:

By supercharging Hurricane Harvey, climate change contributed significantly to the flooding it caused

False-color before and after images acquired by NASA’s Terra satellite and centering on Houston show dramatic flooding from Hurricane Harvey. One image was captured on May 2, before Harvey; the other on Aug. 31, 2017, afterward. (Images: NASA Worldview. Animation: Tom Yulsman)

Thanks to the new study, these impacts can now be attributed in no small measure to the effect we are having on our planet’s climate system.

The authors, led by Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, say their new research has implications for hurricanes generally. “While hurricanes occur naturally, human-caused climate change is supercharging them and exacerbating the risk of major damage,” they write.

Hurricane Harvey offered an excellent opportunity to examine the “supercharging” phenomenon because it traveled by itself over relatively undisturbed water in the Gulf of Mexico. This meant there were fewer complicating factors for the researchers to contend with, including the impact of other storms. As a result, Trenberth and his colleagues could gain a detailed picture of how Harvey feasted on the record-breaking heat in the Gulf of Mexico.

To do so, they used temperature data collected by Argo, a network of autonomous floats in the Gulf. They also used satellite-derived precipitation data provided by NASA’s Global Precipitation Measurement mission.

These data revealed a direct link between the moisture evaporating from the warm surface waters of the Gulf of Mexico as Harvey passed overhead, and the precipitation that subsequently fell on land.

“We show, for the first time, that the volume of rain over land corresponds to the amount of water evaporated from the unusually warm ocean,” Trenberth and his colleagues write in their study.

Here’s how it works: As a hurricane like Harvey charges toward the coast, it violently stirs up the sea surface, helping water to evaporate. And the more heat energy that’s available, the more water that will evaporate. That moisture rises and converges into the storm, and then much of it precipitates, falling out as rain.

As Hurricane Harvey moved across the Gulf, the scientists found an expected signature: Thanks to all of the energy that went into evaporating water from the sea surface, a cool wake was left behind the storm.

But measurements showed that in this case, the wake wasn’t as cool as it might have been. Here’s why: The upper reaches of the Gulf contained such a staggering amount of energy that as the storm cooled the surface, heat from below simply welled up, rewarming the surface waters. And this, in turn, continued to help supercharge the storm.

The top graph shows a growing trend of heat buildup in Earth's ocean's overall, with the black indicating the monthly ocean heat content anomaly and red showing annual. The second graph show the trend in ocean heat content for the top 160 meters of the Gulf of Mexico. The bottom graph shows how sea surface temperatures have varied from the long-term average in the Gulf of Mexico. For each, the last month is October 2017 and the last red dot is for Jan-Oct 2017. The baseline is 1961-90. (Source: Earth’s Future, a journal of the American Geophysical Union)

The top graph shows that the heat content of the world’s oceans has been rising. Black indicates the monthly ocean heat content anomaly, and red shows the annual anomaly. The middle graph shows a rising trend in ocean heat content for the top 160 meters of the Gulf of Mexico. The bottom graph reveals a rising trend in sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico. For each graph, the last month shown is October 2017 and the last red dot is for the period Jan-Oct 2017. The baseline period is 1961-90. (Source: Earth’s Future, a journal of the American Geophysical Union)

The oceans have absorbed the vast majority of the heat that has built up in our planet’s climate system due to our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases — some 92 percent in total, in fact. Two-thirds of that excess has been absorbed by the upper ocean.

Research published by Trenberth and colleagues last year showed that the upper ocean warmed four times faster between 1992 and 2015 than it did between 1960 and 1990.

These percentages don’t really give us a concrete idea of just how much heat is going in to the world’s oceans. So this comparison may help clarify that: The increase in ocean heat content observed since 1992 in just the upper 2,000 meters of the ocean is equivalent to 2,000 times the electricity generated by U.S. utility companies over the ten years ending in 2016.

What goes into the ocean doesn’t all stay in the ocean. That’s literally so, because heat absorbed in the ocean is slowly released back into the atmosphere. And it’s figuratively so for a number of reasons.

Ocean waters are expanding as they warm, causing sea level to rise. Warmer seawater also is helping to melt ice shelves and glaciers, speeding the flow of ice into the oceans from Greenland’s and Antarctica’s massive ice sheets. This too helps raise sea level.

And as Trenberth and his colleagues have shown, warming ocean waters are supercharging hurricanes, leading to more damage on land than would otherwise occur.

With that in mind, we should be planning for stronger storms, with an eye toward making coastal communities more resilient through “better building codes, flood protection, and water management,” Trenberth says. We should also be preparing to deal better with loss of electrical supplies to communities, and for evacuating communities.

But we didn’t really need the new study to tell us that. As Trenberth and his colleagues put it in their paper:

Houston has been beset with three 500year floods in three years prior to Harvey, and Miami regularly experiences “sunny day” flooding with high tides. Why was there reportedly only 1 in 6 with flood insurance in the Houston area and Florida? Why have various flood mitigation measures not been enacted? The hurricanes of the summer of 2017 in the Atlantic are yet another example of how disaster risk management and climate adaptation, while challenging for multiple reasons, remain critically important.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Robert Callaghan

    **Fracking scientist says fracking will make us hit 2° C by 2030**

    Fossil emissions are going down only 1% / decade as a part of total energy use.

    To avoid 2° C, fossil emissions must go down 100% in 2 decades says Stefan Rahmstorf.

    The news by fracking scientist, Dr. Ingraffea, means emissions now have to go down *100% in 10 years!*

    Kevin Anderson says we have a 5% chance of staying below 2° C.

    This means we have 95% chance of not avoiding disaster in 10-20 years.

    Headline Link: https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/04/11/climate-change-two-degree-warming-fracking-natural-gas-rush-ingraffea

    Headline Video Link: https://youtu.be/PGfIjCG-zB4 IMPORTANT 12 min

    **Additional Source Links:**

    https://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/07/13/analysis/these-missing-charts-may-change-way-you-think-about-fossil-fuel-addiction – The Missing Fossil Fuel Charts

    https://youtu.be/io3FI-PLCXA?t=666 – Stefan Rahmstorf 12 min

    https://youtu.be/gDP8xH_Qmls?t=127 – James Hansen 13 min

    https://youtu.be/-2b68JFsnkA – Kevin Anderson 45 of 95 min

    The US will soon spend more on interest payments than the Pentagon each year.

    https://3r8md7174doo44lgpk3kou79-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/USInterestvsMilitarySpending.png

    **More Energy/Ecology/Climate Links:**

    World energy consumption

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#/media/File:Bp_world_energy_consumption_2016.gif

    In 2017, the myth of powering the world with 100% renewables has started to crack

    http://energyforhumanity.org/en/climate-energy/2017-myth-powering-world-100-renewables-started-crack/

    EUROPE GETS 60% OF ITS “RENEWABLE ENERGY” BY BURNING TREES OFF CARGO SHIPS

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2114993-europes-green-energy-policy-is-a-disaster-for-the-environment/

    The EU is emitting way more greenhouse gases than it says

    https://qz.com/528491/the-eu-is-emitting-way-more-greenhouse-gases-than-it-says/

    UC Davis Peer Reviewed Study: It Will Take 131 Years to Replace Oil with Alternatives (Malyshkina, 2010)

    http://energyforhumanity.org/en/climate-energy/2017-myth-powering-world-100-renewables-started-crack/

    At this rate, it’s going to take nearly 400 years to transform the energy system

    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610457/at-this-rate-its-going-to-take-nearly-400-years-to-transform-the-energy-system/

    University of Chicago Peer Reviewed Study: predicts world economy unlikely to stop relying on fossil fuels (Covert, 2016)

    https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.30.1.117

    Solar and Wind produced less than one percent of total world energy in 2016 – IEA WEO 2017

    https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2017.pdf

    Fossil Fuel Share of Global Energy since 1990 – BP 2017

    https://imgur.com/k7VecMq

    Renewable energy ‘simply won’t work’: Top Google engineers

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/

    Top scientists show why powering US using 100 percent renewable energy is a delusional fantasy

    http://energyskeptic.com/2017/big-fight-21-top-scientists-show-why-jacobson-and-delucchis-renewable-scheme-is-a-delusional-fantasy/

    IEA Sees No Peak Oil Demand ‘Any Time Soon’

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/iea-sees-no-peak-oil-demand-any-time-soon-1488816002

    Peak Conventional Oil In Ten Years

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/nov/19/peak-oil-economicgrowth

    The Curse of Energy Efficiency

    https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2018/02/26/Energy-Efficiency-Curse/

    Vaclav Smil: “The great hope for a quick and sweeping transition to renewable energy is wishful thinking”

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/vaclav-smil-e2809cthe-great-hope-for-a-quick-and-sweeping-transition-to-renewable-energy-is-wishful-thinkinge2809d/

    The Long Slow Rise of Solar and Wind – Vaclav Smil

    http://vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/scientificamerican0114-521.pdf

    Wind turbines are not helping with energy — they are consuming much more coal in their creation

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/wind-turbines-are-neither-clean-nor-green-and-they-provide-zero-global-energy/#

    Is Renewable Energy Renewable?

    https://ozziezehner.com/2013/04/03/is-renewable-energy-renewable/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6uVnyjTb58 – 100 min

    Global Energy Demand & Carbon Emissions Increase In 2017

    https://cleantechnica.com/2018/03/22/global-energy-demand-carbon-emissions-increase-2017/

    A new report finds that none of the negative emission technologies has the potential to deliver carbon removals at the gigaton (Gt) scale and at the rate of deployment envisaged by the IPCC, including reforestation, afforestation, carbon-friendly agriculture, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCs), enhanced weathering, ocean fertilisation, or direct air capture and carbon storage (DACCs).”

    https://easac.eu/publications/details/easac-net/

    Humans are sleepwalking into a mass extinction of species not seen since the demise of the dinosaurs | The London Economic

    https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/humans-are-sleepwalking-into-a-mass-extinction-of-species-not-seen-since-the-demise-of-the-dinosaurs/23/03/

    Black Carbon Aerosols Cause Global Dimming But Overall Warming – Paul Beckwith 15 min

    https://youtu.be/_NsdV9e2eRc

    75% of Earth’s Land Areas Are Degraded (news.nationalgeographic.com)

    https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/03/ipbes-land-degradation-environmental-damage-report-spd/

    SMARTPHONES = Earth Dead Faster Than Expected

    https://www.fastcodesign.com/90165365/smartphones-are-wrecking-the-planet-faster-than-anyone-expected

    Billions of people live on farmland that is deteriorating and producing less food

    http://www.thisisplace.org/i/?id=7251ef46-1f44-43d6-a7ed-bde0782e825f

    40% of Amazon Rainforest Already destroyed !!!

    https://rainforests.mongabay.com/amazon/amazon_destruction.html

    Tropical rainforests may be near a tipping point beyond our control

    https://www.salon.com/2018/04/09/tropical-rainforests-may-be-near-a-tipping-point-beyond-our-control_partner/

    Insect Collapse = Suicide

    https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/21/insects-giant-ecosystem-collapsing-human-activity-catastrophe?CMP=share_btn_tw&__twitter_impression=true

    The Ring of Fire Awakens

    https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Cover-Story/Is-the-Ring-of-Fire-becoming-more-active

    The Earth-Space Battery And The Future of Life on Earth

    http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/31/9511.full.pdf

    Life At $10/milliwatt

    http://www.cabrillo.edu/~rnolthenius/Apowers/A7-K43-Garrett.pdf

    ► 99% of Rhinos gone since 1914.

    ► 97% of Tigers gone since 1914.

    ► 90% of Lions gone since 1993.

    ► 90% of Sea Turtles gone since 1980.

    ► 90% of Monarch Butterflies gone since 1995.

    ► 90% of Big Ocean Fish gone since 1950.

    ► 80% of Antarctic Krill gone since 1975.

    ► 80% of Western Gorillas gone since 1955.

    ► 60% of Forest Elephants gone since 1970.

    ► 50% of Great Barrier Reef gone since 1985.

    ► 50% of Human Sperm Counts gone since 1950.

    ► 80% of Western Gorillas gone since 1955.

    ► 50% of Forest Bird Species will be gone in 50 years.

    ► 40% of Giraffes gone since 2000.

    ► 40% of ocean phytoplankton gone since 1950.

    ► Ocean plankton declines of 1% per year means 50% gone in 70 years, more than 1% is likely.

    ► Ocean acidification doubles by 2050, triples by 2100.

    ► 30% of Marine Birds gone since 1995.

    ► 70% of Marine Birds gone since 1950.

    ► 28% of Land Animals gone since 1970.

    ► 28% of All Marine Animals gone since 1970.

    ► Humans and livestock are 97% of earth’s land-air vertebrate biomass.

    ► 10,000 years ago humans and livestock were a mere 0.01% of land-air vertebrate biomass.

    ► Humans and livestock are now 97% of land-air vertebrate biomass.

    ► Our crop and pasture lands caused 80% of all land vertebrate species extinctions.

  • Oortcloud

    It’s easy, and popular, to blame Harvey on AGW. But what if humans had nothing to do with the warming at all? Skeptics hold that the current warming is a natural cycle which follows the cold period of the LIA. The last time the earth warmed was during the MWP. We have no records from that time and so we can’t dismiss the possibility that such events have occurred many times during previous warming periods.

    • Chris Crawford

      Here goes Mr. Oortcloud again, spewing the same old lies he spews everywhere else. I challenged him to answer a simple, basic question about climate science. He couldn’t answer it, so he slinked away. Now that he’s back, I’m going to ask him the same question:

      If solar power output were to decrease by 1%, by what percentage would earth’s surface temperature decrease, to first order?

      Let’s see if he tries to brazen his way out of this one, or slinks away again.

      • dogsoldier0513

        How about explaining what caused 1816 to be known as ‘the year without a summer’?

        • Chris Crawford

          The eruption of Mount Tambora.

          • dogsoldier0513

            Good answer! Now, how much CO2 did it dump into Earth’s atmosphere?

          • Chris Crawford

            The global cooling effect of volcanoes is due to the SO2 that it injects into the atmosphere. See:
            http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/climate-cooling

            The CO2 emissions from volcanoes are much less than anthropogenic emissions. See https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

          • CB

            Everything you say is true, but one fact is missing:

            Eruptions on land cause local and short-term cooling.

            Immediately after an eruption, the effect can be cooling in the area nearby, but because sulfur compounds are heavier than the air, they soon fall to the ground, whereas the carbon dioxide does not.

            This makes the long-term, global effect of vulcanism a warming effect, not a cooling effect.

      • Tom Yulsman

        Chris: Please try to keep the snark level down. For example, you could have said something like: “In a previous post, I asked a simple climate science question but I never heard back from you. Perhaps you missed my response, so here is my question again… ” Avoid words like “slinks away.” They will do nothing to convince him or others that his views about the science are incorrect. Quite the opposite, in fact.

        • Chris Crawford

          I respect your efforts to keep the discussion productive. I have some experience with Mr. Oortcloud and his posts are… often untruthful. One thing is absolutely certain: I have refuted Mr. Oortcloud’s false assertions many times, providing evidence from peer-reviewed publications, and he has never altered his claims one iota in response to my refutations, so any hope that any argument will convince him is vain. The same thing applies to other deniers. I have been answering these people for more than 15 years, and I have never seen even one of them alter their position by the slightest amount in response to contrary evidence.

          The only value of responding to them here is to demonstrate to other readers that climate science deniers are fonts of falsehoods.

          Please advise if my most recent response to Mr. Oortcloud (beginning with “the sad cases there…” goes over the line.

          • Oortcloud

            You’re bullshitting. We’ve had ONE other encounter dude, and you didn’t supply a single reference.

          • FishOutofWater00 .

            You have gone from making a false claim, that the MWP was a global, not a regional event, to rudely attacking someone who pointed out that you are not engaging in a good faith discussion. Bullying does not win any points in science. Google scholar will bring up dozens of articles about the regional nature of the MWP.

          • Oortcloud

            Google Scholar will do that if your search is limited to studies showing no climate regimes. Scroll down for my exchanges with the author of this article (Tom Yulsman) where I take that claim part objection by objection.

          • socalpa

            Sorry fish , you are indeed Out of water .
            .
            The MWP was a global event .
            .
            Google scholar produces dozens of refuted articles that the MWP was a regional event ..
            .
            Here are three major reconstructions showing a distinct MWP and LIA .
            .
            Marcott et al 2013 .
            .
            Two ocean reconstructions ..
            .
            Oceans 2k 2015 .2,000 year global SST reconstruction .
            .
            Rosenthal et al 2013 10,000 year OHC reconstruction which postulates oceans 0.65C warmer 1,000 years ago then current temps . HTM . MWP and LIA global events
            .
            I suggest you and others are stuck in 1998 . Every IPCC AR since TAR shows both global as well..

          • classicalmusiclover

            Neither Marcott et al. 2013 nor Rosenthal et al. 2013 suggests that the MWP was synchronously warmer than today on a global scale. Rosenthal furthermore attests that current warming of the oceans is more rapid than anything seen in his research about the previous thousand years. You are misrepresenting their research and their conclusions.

        • Oortcloud

          Chris Crawford is bullshitting. We’ve had ONE other encounter and you didn’t supply a single reference.

      • Oortcloud

        My you are a busy guy in your mission to police the internet. If you’re wondering why you received no reply on the WTTW page it’s because the sad cases there removed all of my comments which contained references to back everything I said there. Cowardly and under-handed on their part.

        The question you ask above is not the same question that was asked on me on the WTTW page. Ask your original question again here and let’s see if the mods will allow me to supply references.

        As to the topic here, if you’re calling me a liar then you must be rejecting the accepted scientific truth that climate has varied in the past and that the MWP preceded the LIA.

        As for your question above, I can’t answer it, and neither can you. Why? because the various feedbacks make such a determination impossible. Here is what i provided to you on the WTTW page, as it’s applicable here as well:

        Given the current geography of Earth and stage of the Milankovitch cycle we expect that the planet has settled around a climate mean that varies naturally due to competing feedback mechanisms. For instance, warmth increases evaporation over time leading to an increase in cloud cover that leads to natural cooling. Milankovitch cycles play a role in overturning the current climate regime on the order of thousands of years. Within those cycles climate varies around a mean on the order of hundreds of years. Within those hundreds year periods are the short term modifiers such as ENSO. What we conclude is that climate is dynamic rather than (more or less) static as AGW insists. Climate may only effect the thin skin and atmosphere of Earth, but that is still a very large area that takes time to warm and time to cool. Feedback mechanisms can’t shift temperature trends quickly.

        So, a decrease in solar output may or may not have an immediate effect depending on other factors such as the phase of the ENSO cycle.

        You may be tempted to argue that the current warming is happening faster than the warming of the MWP. That is a specious argument because there is no data from the 11th century on which to make that case.

        • Chris Crawford

          “the sad cases there removed all of my comments”

          Well, I suppose that says something about the value of your comments there.

          “As for your question above, I can’t answer it, and neither can you.”

          You assume that I have an education similar to your own. As it happens, I have taught lower division physics courses, and the question, in various forms, shows up on second-semester sophomore tests. I won’t give you the answer — it is so useful in stumping deniers. Besides, any reader here who has had a little college-level physics knows what I’m referring to.

          In any event, your answer is incorrect; perhaps you don’t understand the meaning of the phrase “to first order”.

          “…there is no data from the 11th century on which to make that case.”

          False. See AR5 WG1, Chapter 5, Information from Paleoclimate Archives.

          • Oortcloud

            Man, that is one pathetic attempt at an insult. Let’s be clear – that site allows YOU to insult people because you’re an AGW defender, while those mods censor counter-references.

            Your claim to being a professor is bogus, as is your claim to know the answer to your own question. If you actually knew the answer you’d post it here. So, you’re a liar.

            Paleo data is not hard data. As one goes back in time the record becomes blurred simply due to age. What is presented in AR5 is a degree of certainly that is simply impossible. Only hard data, taken at the time is pertinent to the question. Hell man, even the data from the 1800s is suspect due to the instrumentation available at the time. Paleo data can’t be even that accurate.

            Don’t go ape-shit this time if I don’t respond right away. It’s a beautiful day outside and I have a life outside the internet. Go out and enjoy yourself – there’s plenty of time.

          • Chris Crawford

            Your claims are, as usual, falsehoods, but I think I’ll leave it to the moderator to deal with your comment.

          • Tom Yulsman

            Chris: It looks like he ignored everything I wrote. Moreover, compared to his sanctimonious, holier-than-thou attitude, the snark in your original comment was very mild. That said, I am trying — and unfortunately mostly losing — to keep things focused on evidence, facts, and actual science here. (Focusing on science at a science magazine? What the hell am I thinking?)

            As for Mr. Oortcloud, it looks like you are right: No amount of actual scientific evidence will convince him.

          • Oortcloud

            This is only the second time we’ve interacted. Besides the WTTW article I’ve never had any dealings with you. Can you link to any others? Of course not.

          • Tom Yulsman

            Mr. Oortcloud: By your logic, we cannot know anything about Earth history except for the tiniest scintilla of time during which we’ve had instruments like thermometers to collect “hard data.” This is patently absurd on its face.

            Moreover, your arguments are self-refuting. You essentially argue that we cannot know that humans are causing the current warming because the Medieval Warm Period was, well, warm, and if Earth can have warm periods without humans, then humans can’t cause warming. Let’s put aside the obvious logical flaw in this argument (not to mention what science actually has shown, which you seem determined to ignore). Instead, let’s just focus on how you have refuted yourself:

            If we cannot really know what happened to the climate beyond the thermometer era, then how do we know that Medieval Warm Period was actually warm? By your own argument, we cannot, because there were no thermometers back then to provide hard data. Therefore, it could have been colder than currently. Or… Whatever.

            Lastly, you seem to be afflicted by hubris. You know better than thousands of scientists who have dedicated their lives to trying to understand how Earth systems work. You are smarter, more knowledgable than all of them, plus the legions of scientists who have come before them, dating back to the likes of John Tyndall, one of the most famous physicists of all time. You’re better than all of them. They’ve deluded themselves. But you, never.

          • Oortcloud

            That’s a ridiculous conclusion based on the very little that I wrote. As alarmists always seem to do, you’re inventing your opponents’ position as you go along. Nowhere did I say that we can’t know the past. You just made that up rather than asking me for clarification.

            The current warming is, so far, only ~1C difference from the end of the LIA. And, even that is suspect due to the low number of recording stations, the calibration of those that did exist, and other modern factors such as heat islands. We may, in fact, only be seeing less of a rise than has been supposed. Then again, it might be a bit higher, but we can’t know for sure because of the lack of hard data. What we do have are historical records and paleo data that give us a broad picture, but no fine detail. Clear?

            You wrote:

            “You essentially argue that we cannot know that humans are causing the
            current warming because the Medieval Warm Period was, well, warm, and if
            Earth can have warm periods without humans, then humans can’t cause
            warming. ”

            Which is another assumption on your part. My argument is that we can’t conclude that humans are causing the present warming because we have no hard data, and therefore making the case that WE MUST BE causing warming is unscientific as well as presumptuous.

            Your last paragraph above is so-o-o-o-o typical of the attitude of climate alarmists. Do you really think that what you came up with is original and that I’ve never heard it before? Seriously dude, that’s the sort of elementary school bashing that makes me so confident. It’s the sort of childish rant that tells me that getting a PhD is only a matter of doing the work, not thinking critically.

          • Tom Yulsman

            I’m just reading what you wrote, Mr. Oortcloud. If I’ve misunderstood you, it is because you have not been clear. Or perhaps it is because you make illogical and even absurd arguments.

          • Oortcloud

            No, what I write is very clear. That”unclear” putdown has been tried time and again by people I’m mopping the floor with. That’s fruxtration on your part. You guys are committed to living in a fantasy world where science can mean whatever you want it to mean. When someone simplifies the situation for you, you feign confusion, or become legitimately confused.

            I never said you had a PhD. .You linked to studies and described experiments by people with PhDs. Mine a was general comment about the state of PhDs.

            Listen guy, read the thread. I was respectful and open. You’re the one who started making stuff up about where i stand on the issues. And. read your own article; it’s climate alarmist in topic and scope.

            I have data and accepted science on my side. You, and your fellow alarmist have panic on your side. What you wrote in your article amounts to making stuff up as you go along, which is what climate science is all about.

            This is pretty good article about how climate science is just one interpretation of data:

            http://archive.boston.com/lifestyle/green/articles/2011/09/25/climate_skeptics_dont_deny_science/

            And here we have a study showing that skeptics are more scientifically literate than believers:

            https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503&http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503

            I have no doubt that you’re an environmentally conscious and well-meaning guy. But your well-meaning has been co-opted to bad ends.

          • Chris Crawford

            “I have data and accepted science on my side.”

            Wow! Talk about cutting the bonds of reality and soaring off into the wild blue yonder!

          • James Owens

            More like a dark, dank cave – not the open sky

          • Oortcloud

            So tell me genius, what have I presented here that hasn’t turned out to be 100% accurate?

          • Tom Yulsman

            “I never said you had a PhD.” And I’m sure you don’t beat your wife either.

          • Oortcloud

            Thank you for confirming what I’ve learned to expect from alarmists. Petty, infantile and cowardly.

          • 9.8m/ss

            The climate science dismissives I hear from most have been listening to talk radio or reading Daily Caller for so long that they no longer think about their bogus assumptions, if they ever did. The #1 bogus assumption is that climate science makes its projections by extrapolating historic or prehistoric trends. Wrong. Projections come from mathematically modeling the physics of the system, and initializing the model with observations of current conditions. Paleoclimate from proxy evidence is interesting for validating the models, but extrapolation doesn’t get you anywhere and everybody knows it.

          • John Thompson

            Actually it is precisely the lack of accurate data that makes this issue very difficult to deal with.
            We simply do not have enough prior data to make predictions about the future.
            Past predictions have been wrong on this topic.
            Things like what is actually a 500 year flood event are not settled, and in fact based on best guesses. (Again, due to the lack of accurate measurements and the limited length of time we measure. Past flood evidence is notoriously difficult to pin down because floods cover or remove evidence of prior floods.)
            When we are basing so much on educated guesses of the past – without real hard evidence – you have to expect people will disagree.
            One way to end the animosity is to make it clear that all restrictions, regulations and taxes concerning this issue would be opt in – only for those who believe it is some major threat.
            The old – put your money where your mouth is – thing.
            If half the people who believe in man made global warming being a major problem were to end just half their CO2 emissions, we would more than meet the targets for reductions without the other half of the people having to do anything.
            If that produces a lifestyle that others want, then maybe they will join in.
            This is an issue that doesn’t just stay in science, if it didn’t get into politics then the animosity would be minimal.

    • Tom Yulsman

      Oortcloud: Thank you for taking the time to contribute here.

      As to your point about the Medieval Warm Period: Research has shown pretty conclusively that the warming was not global. Some areas did warm, but others did not. In fact, a paper published in 2015 in the peer-reviewed journal Science Advances shows that the warming did not even affect the entire North Atlantic region. (See: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/11/e1500806)

      The researchers found that alpine glaciers on Baffin Island and in western Greenland were almost as big, and in some cases as big, as they were during the Little Ice Age. In other words, they did not shrink as would be expected with significant climatic warming. Other data also show that “the western North Atlantic region remained cool, whereas the eastern North Atlantic region was comparatively warmer during the MWP—a dipole pattern compatible with a persistent positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation.”

      As my colleague here at the University of Colorado, Giff Miller, put it at the time (quoted in a story published by Inside Climate News — https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04122015/medieval ): “If anyone is interested in the actual evidence this is going to be one more nail in the coffin of the Medieval Warm Period.” It shows that “the ice is in an expanded state and it’s not retreating rapidly, it certainly says that Medieval times were not anomalously warm.”

      FYI: Miller is renowned paleoclimatologist. I know him well, and he is a straight shooter — he goes where the evidence leads.

      This one study builds on others that have shown that the Medieval Warm Period was not a global event, and thus not at all comparable to what we are seeing now. Moreover, even in places where the MWP was, in fact, relatively warm, there is evidence that it is even warmer today. For example, research published in the peer-reviewed journal Geology in 2012 (https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstract/40/11/1007/130714/mild-little-ice-age-and-unprecedented-recent?redirectedFrom=fulltext ) showed that summer temperatures in Svalbard, an Arctic archipelago ~400 miles north of Norway, have been between 3.6°F and 4.5°F higher over the past 25 years than the summers the Vikings enjoyed during the Medieval Warm Period.

      I also mention this particular study because it gets at another one of your points — that scientists supposedly have no records from that time. True, there are no thermometer records. But there are so-called ‘proxy’ data. The best known of these are ice cores, which have provided key insights into climate shifts dating back hundreds of thousands of years. And in the last 10 or so years, scientists have perfected the use of molecular records of climate stored in lake sediments.

      Here’s a description of the molecular detective work carried out by the scientists involved in the Svalbard project, from a press release about the study issued by Columbia University’s Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events/high-arctic-heat-tops-1800-year-high-says-study):

      “Researchers produced the 1,800 year climate record by analyzing levels of unsaturated fats in algae buried in the sediments of Kongressvatnet lake, in western Svalbard. In colder water, algae make more unsaturated fats, or alkenones; in warmer water, they produce more saturated fats. Like pages in a book, the unsaturation level of fats can provide a record of past climate. So far, most Arctic climate records have come from ice cores that preserve only annual layers of cold-season snowfall, and thus cold-season temperatures. But lake sediments, with their record of summertime temperatures, can tell scientists how climate varied the rest of the year and in places where ice sheets are absent.”

      For more details on this research, see this story by a long-time colleague and renowned science writer, Michael Lemonick, in Climate Central: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/so-called-medieval-warm-period-not-so-warm-15064

      I may be participating this February in a similar scientific endeavor, this time in Iceland. Giff Miller, whom I mentioned earlier, hopes to drill cores of sediments from lakes there to try to build an environmental history for Iceland, starting 10,000 years ago. In anticipation of this project, I recently toured the lab where the molecular detective work is carried out on the samples returned from such research, and I can tell you that it is really impressive — and convincing.

      Bottom line: It is good to be skeptical! It is, in fact, one of the defining characteristics of science AND journalism (at least for journalism in the way it should be done!). But while requiring convincing evidence, scientists and journalists alike must go where that evidence leads. They should also be skeptical of biases that may be blinding them to actually seeing where the evidence is leading. In the case of anthropogenic climate change, huge amounts of evidence gathered over well more than a century show convincingly that humans are warming the planet, and thereby causing impacts like melting glaciers and ice sheets, rising sea level — and supercharged hurricanes, as shown in the study I wrote about here.

      • Oortcloud

        Sorry, but research shows that the MWP was global. Only a few people including M. Mann have pushed the idea that it was regional.

        https://eos.org/research-spotlights/medieval-temperature-trends-in-africa-and-arabia

        https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&ll=-3.81666561775622e-14%2C-116.6493119999999&z=1

        Doing away with the MWP by claiming it to be regional was necessary in order for climate alarmists to make their case that the present warming is unusual. And, consider how ludicrous it is to say that any one region would significantly alter it’s climate for 300 years without that bearing on any other region of the globe. Mann has even put forward the idea that the “regional” MWP was the result of a persistent change in North Atlantic wind patterns. AGW believers make the case right now that minor changes have huge global impacts. How he expects that such a prolonged change could not result in a massive shift elsewhere is a wonder.

        Your link to ScienceMag is broken..

        Here (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683615596827) we have a study showing a correspondence between glacial advance and retreat in Antarctica with the MWP and LIA. Also, during the MWP Greenland was open to colonization due to the retreat of glaciers. We don’t even need climate data for that, it’s an fact of history.

        The link you provided (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04122015/medieval) is to an alarmist website, which has the gall to quote M. Mann whose work to refute the MWP has in itself been refuted many times over, not the least for it’s egregious abuse of statistics.

        You try to make the case that the MWP was not as warm as today based on paleo data (https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstract/40/11/1007/130714/mild-little-ice-age-and-unprecedented-recent?redirectedFrom=fulltext). There is absolutely no way that paleo data can render so fine a result as to make that case. Not only is paleo data not hard data. it’s degraded, and it’s calibrated by the assumptions of the researchers. Paleo data can give us a broad picture, but never such a fine measurement as to make a case down to even 1C.

        I note also that the work you quote from the Svalbard Archipelago is a one-off and has not been published as yet.

        Your link to Lamont-Doherty is also broken.

        From all of the above we can see that your case for the MWP being regional is a weak one. We have no hard temperature data from the MWP, nor do we have SST data from the Gulf of Mexico nor hurricane records from the US east coast, nor rainfall records. Everything you’ve written here is supposition based on the experience of this current warming period.

        • Tom Yulsman

          Mr. Oortcloud: You’ve cherry picked one study to support your preconceived notion. Moreover, the study you cite does not support your contention. It does not at all show that the Medieval Warm Period was global. It shows that most — but not all — of Africa and Arabia experienced warming. Beyond that, it offers no evidence whatsoever about what happened globally.

          In my previous comment, I offered two examples of research providing evidence that the MWP was not global. Let me offer more — research with a global perspective by a group called the PAGES scientific network. It involves scientists from nine regional working groups around the world, each of which analyzes paleoclimate data for its region. Their paleoclimate analyses include data from a wide variety of sources, including tree rings, pollens, corals, lake and marine sediments, ice cores, and stalagmites, as well as historical records. And the data, from 511 locations and going back 2,000 years, span the globe. The PAGES study was published in 2013 in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Geoscience: https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1797.

          Here is the bottom line from the study:

          “There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between AD 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period AD 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.”

          There are two key points most relevant to your argument here: First, there was no globally synchronous warm interval lasting decades that could define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period. Second, there current warming has been higher than at any other time in nearly 1,400 years.

          I also want to point out that your overall argument is illogical. You are saying, in essence, that because the Medieval Warm Period was globally as warm or warmer (even though it wasn’t) than today, and that this occurred due to natural causes, ergo the current warming cannot be due to humankind’s emissions of carbon dioxide (despite simple physics that argue otherwise, and decades of multifaceted scientific research by thousands of researchers). This akin to saying something like this: Over the course of thousands of years, wildfires occurred naturally, so therefore wildfires today cannot be caused by human beings. Bottom line: Your argument is not only illogical; it is absurd.

          Lastly, you’ve previously argued that we can’t really know what the climate was like beyond the era of thermometer records because those records do not represent “hard data.” Yet here you are using paleoclimate research for periods before thermometer records. So which is it, Mr. Oortcloud? Do you stand by what you’ve said before and therefore believe that we can know nothing with any confidence about climates before the thermometer era? Or do paleoclimate records actually give us picture of what Earth’s environment was like in the past? You can’t have it both ways.

          • https://www.facebook.com/pages/My-Original-Music-written-arranged-produced-by-ME/195887277117017 JohnnyMorales

            What a great example of the Dunning Krueger effect in action.

            The Dunning Kruger effect ensures one thing, the fact that he knows far less than he thinks he does means what you wrote won’t make sense to him.

            And because of the Dunning Krueger effect the fact that it doesn’t make sense won’t make him wonder about what he’s missing.

            Instead he’ll decide that it doesn’t make sense to him, because YOU don’t know what you are talking about (or decide you are part of a vast conspiracy determined to take away his incandescent bulbs and force him to use LED bulbs – and thus take away his freedom).

            The Dunning Krueger effect also explains why you go to such futile lengths

            Smart people often assume that if something is easy for them, then it probably is easy for most people.

            As a result, at least initially, you share his inability to grasp HIS limitations. So you speak to him as an equal assuming he will understand if he just gets a nice, thorough explanation.

            While that may be true for some, quite a lot simply do not have the ability to comprehend the issue. For them it is too vast and complex. No argument can convince a person, if they don’t understand what the argument is all about to begin with.

          • Oortcloud

            Man, you didn’t even bother to open BOTH of the links. The second gives a further 1300 references to studies concerning the validity of natural climate cycles. This has happened repeatedly when I deal with alarmists; you’d rather deny the information right in front of your faces than admit to any deficiency in your knowledge. But, even without looking at the second link, you’d have to admit that the claim that the MWP was restricted to Europe (popularized by M. Mann) is bogus. But instead you’re waiving it off. The lengths you people will go to maintain your fantasy world is akin to that seen among schizophrenics.

            Let’s look at the NatureGeoscience study you’ve referenced, (full study here – https://www.researchgate.net/…Continental-scale_temperature_variability_during_the_.past_two_millennia). Firstly, it’s an on-line pubication, not peer-reviewed, and published by a consortium committed to proving AGW rather than honestly reporting findings as my references did.

            That study underscores exactly what I’ve had to say about paleo data.

            “The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature
            reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the
            nineteenth century …but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century ”

            So there they confirm the LIA, which is the most recent of the climate regimes. And, it agrees in detail with what is known from other sources about the LIA. Where they differ is on whether or not the LIA was global. they failed to find evidence for the MWP, which is further removed in time and for which samples are more degraded. But, the NOAA did their own analysis of the study (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/continental-scale-temperature-variability-during-last-two-millennia) and they say:

            “and distinctive periods such as the Medieval Warm Period or the Little
            Ice Age stand out, but do not show a globally uniform pattern on
            multi-decadal time scales.”

            Which is what I told you before. Short term modifiers such as ENSO occur within longer climate regimes and muddy things up, but the climate regimes show up even in studies meant to refute them.

            You repeat a fallacious argument that the current warming is greater than has occurred in thee last 1400 years. Again, that’s based on paleo data that simply can not be calibrated to such a fine degree as is outlined in this report:

            http://www.parc.ca/pdf/conference_proceedings/mar_03_limitations.pdf

            and in this one, though it must be stated that the authors are AGW skeptics:

            https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/response-volume1.pdf

            You have said twice that I must believe that human influence is not reponsible for the current warming. I told you once already that that is not the case. So I have to repeat myself so please GET IT THIS TIME; there is no concrete evidence that humans are responsible. The reason is that we have no hard data from previous warming periods and those periods could not be attributable to humans. Your response has been to deny that such periods took place, regardless of the evidence in their favour. That’s where you and I differ; I look at this scientifically, you look at it ideologically, and to the point that you’ll intentionally blind yourself to evidence. Besides that, my original argument is that because we have no data on SST in the Gulf, nor hurricane records, nor any other pertinent information, your conclusion that AGW is responsible for those hurricanes can’t be substantiated. As well, we have this new study that shows how the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation is behind the strength and rapidity of those hurricanes:

            http://kaltesonne.de/hurrikane-kommen-heute-wegen-atlantischem-ozeanzyklus-schneller-auf-touren-als-noch-vor-30-jahren/

            As well, we have this from GFDL (https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/) where they state that:

            ” Thus the historical tropical storm count record does not provide
            compelling evidence for a greenhouse warming induced long-term increase.”

            As to your last paragraph, it would do you good to actually read what’s there instead of going off on a rant. I said previously that paleo data can only give a broad picture, not the fine detail that you insist is there. That has been backed up by the references I supplied above. Do us both a favour and stop inventing my position as you go along in your desperate attempts to win an argument that you’ve clearly lost.

    • 9.8m/ss

      The LIA and MIA happened before there were instruments to measure the forces that caused them. We may never know what combination of natural forces brought them about, much less how extensive they were, to useful precision. Changes that large would be driven by forces large enough to measure today. And they are irrelevant to today’s climate problem. “Skeptics” who insist that “natural cycles” is an explanation of any physical phenomenon aren’t skeptics at all. If they were truly skeptical, as scientists are, they would know that there are no “natural cycles” without natural forces to drive them. The climate isn’t a spring. It doesn’t bounce back from one extreme or another.

      • Oortcloud

        Irrelevant to today? Man, where do you get that? If the LIA came to an end then temperatures have had to rise. otherwise we’d still be in the LIA. As for mechanism, I’ve summed up elsewhere in this thread what was the thinking on long-term climate variability before AGW came along to say that climate is all about CO2.

        Given the current geography of Earth and stage of the Milankovitch cycle we expect that the planet has settled around a climate mean that varies naturally due to competing feedback mechanisms. For instance, warmth increases evaporation over time leading to an increase in cloud cover that leads to natural cooling. Milankovitch cycles play a role in overturning the current climate regime on the order of thousands of years. Within those cycles climate varies around a mean on the order of hundreds of years. Within those hundreds year periods are the short term modifiers such as ENSO. What we conclude is that climate is dynamic rather than (more or less) static as AGW insists. Climate may only effect the thin skin and atmosphere of Earth, but that is still a very large area that takes time to warm and time to cool. Feedback mechanisms can’t shift temperature trends quickly.

        Clear? In this current warming we’re only talking about a rise of ~1C since the end of the LIA. It’s more reasonable to think that the natural force of cloud cover, plus or minus ocean upwellling and other factors have been responsible rather than an increase in CO2 up to 400 parts per MILLION.

        • 9.8m/ss

          “In this current warming we’re only talking about a rise of ~1C”

          Not really. The 40% increase in CO2 during industrial times isn’t going to suddenly disappear, and the system hasn’t reached thermal equilibrium. Manmade CO2 did its 1C, and it will do another and another. And emissions will continue at least for decades, as there is still no public policy to slow them down much, and those increases will do their 1C and another 1C.

          • Oortcloud

            Ridiculous. As i said, since the LIA ended temperatures have had nowhere to go but up. Past warm periods have had nothing to do with CO2. There is no evidence whatsoever that the current warming is anything but another natural warming in the cycle.

          • Tom Yulsman

            Since there were no thermometers during the Little Ice Age, and thus no “hard data,” as you’ve stated here so many times that it has become tiresome, how do you know that there even was a Little Ice Age?

            My point: Your arguments are illogical, self-refuting — and absurd.

            As for your contention that “past warm periods have had nothing to do with CO2,” this statement flies in the face of long-accepted science — and basic physics.

          • Oortcloud

            I know there was an LIA because of the mountain of evidence, as opposed to your refusal to accept it based on the Mann-stick, which has been refuted.

            Past warm periods have seen a rise in CO2. none of that was from from human industry. Rather, the rise followed the temperature increase.

            I don’t understand why you’re still here whining. You’ve had your ass-kicked. Getting up and asking to get it kicked again is not a sign of bravery, it’s a sign of stupidity.

          • Tom Yulsman

            You can say what you want about the science and the ideas expressed here, but you may not engage in personal attacks like these. Bottle it or be gone.

          • Oortcloud

            Where do you get off? Elsewhere here you accused me of beating my wife.

            You lost this very one-sided debate – big time. You got creamed and then you started in with the personal attacks. Don’t toss stones out the window of your glass house pal.

          • John Thompson

            There were also no anemometers or rain gauges in Texas prior to around a century and a half ago.
            The concepts of what normal hurricanes are like or what normal rainfall is like is not scientifically established.
            You can’t say what a “500 year flood” is without alot more than 135 years of often limited data. (Back then it was just a few of the major cites that even recorded data).
            Now I’m going to ask a really hard question:
            If the media monitors 1000 locations, then wouldn’t the odds of a 1000 year flood event be basically 100% each year?

          • Chris Crawford

            As I explained above, you are wrong about the amount of data required to determine the improbability of a weather event.

          • John Thompson

            You provided no valid basis for your assertion.
            Each location has those odds.
            But let’s use your logic – that there is no defined area for a prediction of a 500 or 1000 year flood event.
            So then the entire country would have to experience a 500 year flood level to call it that.
            So there wasn’t one in a few towns in Texas since you say that the odds are not for individual locations. Most towns didn’t flood, so I guess that means overall there was no 500 year flood event.
            Are you aware that there was a 500 year flood event 30 miles from my house but not at my house?
            I’m sorry but the 500 year flood prediction is by location.
            Even along the Brazos river, some guages broke that predicted level, and other’s didn’t.
            Yes, specific location matters.

          • Chris Crawford

            Again, it’s clear that you have no idea what ‘500 year event’ means. Go learn what it means.

          • socalpa

            No , it does not .The comment by Oortcloud is supported by the paleoclimate record ,and the physical properties of CO2 .

          • James Owens

            In addition to the long-term view of surface temps – let’s also be cognizant of the big interactive picture – only 4% of the added heat resulted in that rise of 1°C of surface temperatures.
            Most went into the oceans and the rest melted ice – hence, the accelerating sea level rise.
            And we don’t seem to understand how the Southern Ocean works to take heat and CO2 from the air – is that process subject to disruption?

          • socalpa

            Speculation .
            .
            Beginning to end .
            .
            The global data shows onset of current warming at ~1700CE ..200 years before any significant rise in CO2 .
            .
            Sea surface temp reconstructions show oceans cooled 1C from ~ 1300CE – 1700CE ,and were 0.65C warmer than current 1,000 years ago.
            .
            See Rosenthal et al 2013 , Oceans 2k 2015 .

  • dogsoldier0513

    Care to explain the extremely severe hurricanes that plagued the Caribbean during the 1600s?

    • Chris Crawford

      Hurricanes are natural phenomena. The fact that hurricanes have taken place in the past does not mean that extremely powerful hurricanes cannot be attributable to AGW. In the same manner, the fact that lightning has been causing forest fires for millions of years doesn’t mean that we can dismiss Smokey the Bear as a “Forest Fire Alarmist”.

      This study provides solid evidence that the extreme rainfall from Hurricane Harvey can be at least partially attributed to AGW. If you have a problem with that, then provide an appropriate scientific argument for why it is wrong.

      • dogsoldier0513

        Average Earth temperatures have only been tracked since 1889. Extreme rainfall amounts have only been tracked since 1951. Does this imply that neither occurred prior to those dates?

        • Chris Crawford

          No. So what?

          • dogsoldier0513

            Then why does NONE of the ‘research’ done by global warming alarmists’ take prior cycles into account, and why does the same ‘research’ totally disregard the effects of volcanic eruptions on current CO2 levels?

          • Chris Crawford

            “… why does NONE of the ‘research’ done by global warming alarmists’ take prior cycles into account”

            False. See AR5 WG1 3.6.

            “…why does the same ‘research’ totally disregard the effects of volcanic eruptions on current CO2 levels?”

            False. See https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

          • https://www.facebook.com/pages/My-Original-Music-written-arranged-produced-by-ME/195887277117017 JohnnyMorales

            Have you ever heard of the Dunning Krueger Effect? If not you should find it very interesting.

            It explains oortclown very nicely. It also explains why you keep trying. Though I think at some point prior or soon the reason if it hasn’t already changed, will change to simply wanting to give him a hard time for believing his gut instinct.

            You will never convince him, because his gut instinct is never wrong.

            It farts out the intoxicating stink of truth to clear his mind of the fog his head fills with arguing about facts with alarmists by allowing him to see the truth behind the lies PC snowflakes always tell.

          • Tom Yulsman

            Mr. Dogsoldier: As Mr. Crawford points out, you are simply wrong that scientists have not taken prior cycles into account. An entire realm of science, called paleoclimatology, is dedicated to determining how Earth’s climate has changed in the past. Many hundreds of scientists, probably thousands, work in this field worldwide. They publish many hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers every year on ‘past cycles’ and other climatic shifts. And this field is by no means new. It has existed for many decades.

            As for scientists disregarding the effects of volcanic eruptions on current CO2, this too is simply false. This is well studied, and volcanic CO2 is dwarfed by anthropogenic emissions. For more, see:

            https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2011EO240001

            https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas.html

            https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/comment-volcanic-versus-anthropogenic-carbon-dioxide-missing-science?page=1

  • http://www.aesopinstitute.org Mark Goldes

    Hard-to-believe new science makes possible technology that will replace fossil fuels FAST! See aesopinstitute.org

    Existing combustion engines can soon be easily and cheaply converted to run on water instead of gas or diesel. See MOVING BEYOND OIL on the website. The water can be extracted from the air, ending the need to refuel.

    New engines will need no fuel. They are designed to run on atmospheric (ambient) heat and will power every variety of vehicle including ships and aircraft.

    Ambient heat will power thin laminates that can keep phones charged and power homes.

    Ambient heat is a 24/7 reservoir of solar energy larger than earth’s fossil fuel reserves!

  • Uncle Buck

    Why wasnt it a stronger huricane, then? I mean, number 14 in US landfall strength at 938 mb isn’t really supercharged, is it? Then it stalled, dumping a bunch of rain. I dunno, sounds like a weather event to me. It’s remarkable due to population proximity. Kind of like Sandy, which hit a big population during a spring tide. How does this pass as AGW?

    • Chris Crawford

      Mr. Buck, the study determined that, without AGW, Hurricane Harvey would not have dropped as much rain. Yes, Hurricane Harvey was a weather event, but it was made more powerful by AGW.

      • Mike Richardson

        Similarly, the historic flooding in Southeast Louisiana in August 2016 (which directly impacted me and my family) was believed by many climatologists to have been magnified by AGW due to the excessive evaporation and resulting precipitation. When a weather front held the rain clouds in place, it resulted in over two feet of rainfall in less than 24 hours. Not many places wouldn’t flood with that amount of water dropped in that short a period.

        • John Thompson

          Yes, and the common factor was a boundary that stalled the forward movement speed of the systems.
          BTW, here’s something to ponder:
          A “500 year flood” means that you have a 1 in 500 chance each year of a flood that big.
          With modern media, we easily report on 500 locations in Texas.
          So then wouldn’t that mean that the odds of having one 500 year flood event out of the 500 locations each year would be 100%?
          I put this all in the category of “look more, find more”.
          BTW, I really wish they would stop forgetting that there is no real proof of what a 500 year flood event actually is. No gauges on the rivers prior to about 150 years ago. No rain gauges either.
          So to use that as some kind of data point is not valid – what a 500 year flood is – is an educated guess.
          The 1913 flood on the rivers hit in the same area as Harvey was MUCH, MUCH higher.
          So really what they call a 500 year event could easily be a 100 year event.

          • Chris Crawford

            “So then wouldn’t that mean that the odds of having one 500 year flood event out of the 500 locations each year would be 100%?”

            Nope, that logic is wrong, because storms are not localized to individual towns. One storm can spread over a large area.

            “So to use that as some kind of data point is not valid – what a 500 year flood is – is an educated guess.”

            No, it is the result of a calculation. In science, we can actually calculate things that haven’t happened before. Nobody had ever made an A-bomb go off before 1945 — they did a lot of calculations based on what they DID know and then built a bomb based on those calculations. Ask the people in Hiroshima how well that worked.

          • John Thompson

            Shall I mention that they had to do lots of experiments BEFORE they were able to build a bomb?
            There is no experiments they can do to determine a 500 year flood level.
            They look at signs of past flooding and try determine when they happened.
            They then use that as a basis for their guess.
            Of course because floods over lap, it is not an exact science.
            IT IS A PREDICTION, NOT A MEASUREMENT!

          • Chris Crawford

            Look, the fact that you don’t know the science doesn’t mean that it’s wrong. You’re just blowing smoke. When you have a specific criticism of the actual methods they use, I’ll be happy to explain how it works.

          • Uncle Buck

            Well, they use reconstructed data and extrapolate to yield their conclusion. Mixed data and or reconstructed data for SST could generate just about anything. Doesn’t prove they’re wrong, but the timeframes are inadequate for the analysis, in my opinion. Precision is a huge factor. If you want to see AGW, you’ll see it. But it’s not required to recreate this event. That’s one of the fundamental problems with climate. What is a long enough period given the statistical limitations of recent, high precision data, vs older and lower quality data?

          • Chris Crawford

            “Well, they use reconstructed data and extrapolate to yield their conclusion.”

            No, they don’t. It’s a great deal more complicated than that. Like I said: go learn how these things are done. Ignorant criticisms serve only to demonstrate ignorance.

          • Uncle Buck

            Ad hom comments reveal the weakness of the commenter.

            How long have we had precise SSTs and the exact same depth and amount of data? What passes for a trend in your eyes? How about the eyes of all science? Stats are tricky and can be deceptive. Explain it.

          • Chris Crawford

            So now you have to go look up what an “ad hominem argument” is. Sheesh.

            “How long have we had precise SSTs and the exact same depth and amount of data?”

            We have never had perfect data. There’s no such thing as perfect data.

            “What passes for a trend in your eyes?”

            The best test of a trend is a slope that is non-zero to statistical significance. However, this is not the only way of establishing a trend, merely the simplest.

            “How about the eyes of all science?”

            Pretty much the same thing.

            “Explain it.”

            What?

          • Uncle Buck

            A trend, huh? I can correlate the stock market to this trend in a not so disguised analysis. What does it mean? Nothing. Variation from normal requires establishment of what is statistically normal to start with. What is normal, given that climate is never static? Again, the issue really is do we need AGW? The answer is resoundingly no. The mechanisms (notice that’s plural) driving this are undoubtedly multivariate, requiring doing math on the positives and negatives of each variable, in an open system, by the way. Complex? Absolutely. I think these guys are smart, so let’s not get too personal. Their statistics, assumptions, and data are weak, despite sophisticated methods. The analysis requires many more inputs and outputs, and years of precise data that don’t exist. Otherwise, it’s a stock market analysis.

          • Chris Crawford

            Apparently you failed to read my comment. I explicitly referred to statistical significance.

            And no, you are not smarter or more knowledgeable than the scientists.

          • Uncle Buck

            You surely aren’t following what I am trying to convey. Does any of this require AGW? No.

            I would never claim to be smarter. But I do understand the limitations of statistics. Their analysis is not a failure, but they went entirely too far with the claim of AGW. Diefication of CO2 is dangerous business if you can’t control the other gods in the room, like cloud formation, humidity, the amount of wind and heat content at multiple levels, ocean currents, and all of the myriad factors in a fluid, open and dynamic system. From what I can see, they did a good job of describing a heating event, suggesting further study and observation. That’s it. It’s cool enough by itself, but the limelight is in CO2 now, isn’t it?

          • Chris Crawford

            I see. You’re not smarter than the scientific community; you just think that they make stupid mistakes.

            Right.

          • Uncle Buck

            Yep. Happens all the time, by me, you, everyone else. And no one dares defile climatologists working with CO2, on account of it being such an exact and predicable discipline where all the mechanisms are understood and statistical estimates are no longer needed. Where else can you go where the science is settled? Oh yeah, that would be NO WHERE. Starting with the assumption that CO2 drives climate, wrong answers are evidently impossible.

          • Chris Crawford

            Since you cannot offer a reasoned argument, you are forced to resort to a straw man argument. Go look up what “straw man argument” means.

            Look, the fact is that you haven’t read the scientific literature, you don’t know what the science is, and yet you are arrogant enough to criticize work that you don’t even understand.

          • Uncle Buck

            You must be really, really smart. I mean really smart. I mean, like, wow, thanks.

            You’re right, this event couldn’t have happened without CO2.

            That was close.

          • Chris Crawford

            No, it’s the scientists who know the science. I don’t go to a politician when I need dental work, I don’t go to a politician for medical problems, and I don’t go to politicians for science. I go to the people who know what they’re talking about. And I don’t presume to think that I know better than they do.

            And the scientific community has been saying for over a century that CO2 emissions will cause temperatures to rise. Lo and behold, it’s happening.

          • Uncle Buck

            I know, I know, and we’re all going to die in an apocalypse with a runaway greenhouse, a new Venus. Alarmist hyperbole. The earth has tested CO2 increases many times and resolved it, not the least of which is our current cyclic glaciation. I looked into your pal Trenberth, too. He’s a piece of work. He is clever, I’ll give him that. Try googling Landscapesandcycles.net/Trenberth.

          • Chris Crawford

            “I know, I know, and we’re all going to die in an apocalypse with a runaway greenhouse, a new Venus.”

            I didn’t write that — YOU did. Once again you resort to a straw man argument, because you have been beaten.

            “The earth has tested CO2 increases many times and resolved it”

            Yes indeed. The earth will survive anything we do. But our civilization isn’t so robust.

            Lastly, your comments on Mr. Trenberth are pure ad hominem. You just can’t address the issues, can you? You don’t have a leg to stand on. Give it up; you’re just digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.

          • Uncle Buck

            Yes, it could certainly be construed as ad hominem. But you are the one invoking the infallibility of “scientists,” not providing even one comment that didn’t rely entirely on a circular reference. My guess is you didn’t check out the link. Mr. Trenberth believes in his message, and he COULD be adding scientific value, but he clearly has trouble with full scientific disclosure. Agendas are funny that way. A mirror might be handy for you right now.

            Give it up? Sure, I give. You would defend an Islamic suicide bomber if he believed in AGW.

          • Chris Crawford

            “Yes, it could certainly be construed as ad hominem.”

            Construed? No, it *IS* an ad hominem argument, pure and simple.

            “But you are the one invoking the infallibility of “scientists,””

            You are just an idiotic font of straw man arguments. YOU are the one talking about infallibility, not I. And I have focused on the scientific community, not individual scientists.

            “A mirror might be handy for you right now.”

            I am defending science against anti-rationalism. YOU are the one with the political agenda. You have no rational leg to stand on; you’re just trying to make the real world fit your political desires.

            ” You would defend an Islamic suicide bomber if he believed in AGW.”

            Good lord, even MORE straw man argumentation! You are a hopeless idiot. I am done with you.

      • John Thompson

        They didn’t mention forward movement speed.
        It’s always been known that the slower a tropical system goes, the more rain it dumps.
        I’m right in the middle of where Harvey hit (though I only got 28 inches of rain).
        Not far from me they got 38 inches.
        But it was over many days.
        This was one of the slowest moving systems on record.
        Old rule of thumb is to divide 100 by the forward movement speed in mph – 10 mph = 10 inches, 5 mph = 20 inches.
        Harvey came to a complete stop and then did a loop to the East!
        So in about 48 hours it moved about 100 miles – you would normally expect around 50 inches of rain from that – and that’s exactly what some people got.
        That they don’t even mention the forward speed means they are being deceptive.

        • Chris Crawford

          No, the analysis did not ask whether AGW caused the slow speed of movement; it analyzed the probability that this amount of rainfall would have fallen in the absence of AGW.

          Here is the paper:
          http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9ef2

          I suggest that you read it before accusing its authors of deception.

          • John Thompson

            They ignored the most important detail.
            Propaganda.

          • Chris Crawford

            And did you have anything substantial to say?

          • socalpa

            Obviously ,he did . You are just unwilling to accept it .

      • david russell

        Correction: It showed that warmer waters provided more power to Harvey, but mis-attributed warmer waters to AGW, which cannot be the reason because CO2 IR doesn’t warm the oceans meaningfully, if at all.

        • halush

          Why do you continue to state this lie David?

          CO2 does cause the temperature of the oceans to be higher than without. That you don’t understand the science does not change this fact.

        • Chris Crawford

          I challenge you to provide evidence to support your claim that the IR from CO2 in the atmosphere does not warm the oceans. You cannot.

          • david russell

            Go here and check out the 4th or 5th chart on the right “Ocean temperature profile, day and night.”

            You’ll see: 1) the top 1mm (the ocean skin) is colder than the layers below day and night, but at night he next layer (the mixed layer) has no temperature gradient. CO2 IR is active 24/7 even when the sun goes down. But as you can see, there’s no warming at night … at all.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_temperature

          • Chris Crawford

            Good lord, what a nitwit you are! The surface of the ocean is both radiating and absorbing IR. You are completely ignoring the fact that the surface of the ocean is also radiating heat. The IR bounced by the CO2 reduces the amount of cooling.

          • david russell

            You aren’t focusing on what I asked you to focus on. Enlarge the chart and view the “night time” temperature profile below the surface. It’s a straight vertical line. That means there’s no warming from the CO2 radiating into the ocean at night.

            Look, you challenged me. I met the challenge. Now are you going to man up and admit it , or not?

          • Chris Crawford

            The lack of a thermal gradient does not in any way suggest that the ocean does not receive heat from the atmosphere. You keep ignoring the fact that the ocean radiates more heat at night than it receives from the atmosphere.

            So you’re the one who owes me an admission of error — which of course you will NEVER do, no matter how many times I try to explain basic thermodynamics to you.

            But let me ask you: how many courses have you taken on thermodynamics?

          • david russell

            Equivocation, pal. The relevant point is that there’s no net heat added by CO2 IR…. at night (and therefore by day).

            Everything radiates IR. But we don’t say that icebergs warm the oceans. Your understanding of thermodynamics reminds be of the difference between knowledge and wisdom:

            Knowledge is asserting that tomatoes are fruits.
            Wisdom is not putting tomatoes into a fruit salad.

          • Chris Crawford

            “there’s no net heat added by CO2 IR”

            That’s false, and you don’t understand basic thermodynamics. You simply don’t grasp the fundamentals. I have wasted too much time trying to explain simple science to you. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • david russell

            More bluster. You’re outing yourself as a fraud. You haven’t explained anything by the way. You’ve merely embarrassed yourself.

          • david russell

            I think I’ve demonstrated that I do have good reasons, scientific ones, for my assertions.

            No one asserts that the CO2 IR warms the oceans below the 1mm ocean skin. The sun on the other hand can penetrate up to 200m, although most if its energy is delivered in 5-10m. All of the thermal processes at the ocean air surface serve to cool the oceans…. except insolation.

          • evenminded

            All scientists that understand climate know why the GHE causes the oceans to warm David.

            Your statements to the contrary are inane.

          • Chris Crawford

            “I’ve demonstrated that I do have good reasons, scientific ones, for my assertions.”

            No, you have demonstrated towering ignorance of basic principles of thermodynamics, along with astounding intellectual arrogance. In ten minutes I could teach a ten-year old more about science than you know.

          • david russell

            Now you’re merely lying. You’ve provided no assertion about thermodynamics that refutes anything I’ve stated. You are all hat and no cattle.

          • socalpa

            You’d think that by now the alarmists would understand that backradiation violate the second law of thermodynamics .
            .
            Keep up the good fight !

          • david russell

            I don’t believe the alarmists believe their own malarkey. It’s always been about power. Climate alarmism is a politicians best dream ever. Socialists only want to control the means of production. Climate alarmists want to control everything, including life itself. In the name of alarmism you could justify euthanasia, human sterilization, outlawing jet travel, air conditioning, heating in the winter, vacations, eating meat. At least we’ d all be equal — equally poor and equally miserable.

          • socalpa

            They don’t even acknowledge the fact that atmospheric compression due to gravity accounts for all of the surface warming .
            .
            Ridiculous !

          • david russell

            I’ve read some stuff by Charles Anderson on this approach. It seems to be largely ignored. Too bad.

          • socalpa

            I’m not familiar with him .
            .
            But this paper proves that the temperature comes only from the ideal gas law .
            .
            http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.earth.20170606.18.pdf
            .

          • david russell

            Wow!!!!!

          • socalpa

            Same impostor david, ,but I think i’ll leave this one !
            .
            .The creep ROO2 I humiliated for claiming Cooling produced the high internal temps of gas giants and stars looking for revenge ..
            .
            The trolls are all on full tilt .

          • evenminded

            Are struggling to understand the science behind the Kelvin-Helmoholtz mechanism socky?

          • halush

            I know right ?

            .

            Who would have thought that something as simple as the ideal gas law could explain something as complicated as planetary surface temperature so accurately ?
            .
            These scientists have no clue what they are talking about !

          • socalpa

            I know right ?
            .
            Who would have thought that something as simple as the ideal gas law could explain something as complicated as planetary surface temperature so accurately ?
            .
            These scientists have no clue what they are talking about !

          • socalpa

            david , you are responding to an impostor, likely candidate ,the desperate serial impostor ROO2 ..

          • socalpa

            Mods , impersonator ..

            New profile , 3 comments . joined May 31 ,2018.
            .
            Here is my profile for proof of impersonation ..

            https://disqus.com/by/socalpa/

            Joined Apr 5, 2012

          • david russell

            Net/net: You’re just a blowhard. I’m no more arrogant with you than I would be talking to a chipmonk. I’m merely surprised at how little you know.

          • david russell

            I believe you. You could probably teach a 10 year old everything you know — about everything, perhaps over cookies and milk.

          • david russell

            Here’s more: the penetration of CO2 IR (15 micron) in water (about 10 microns):

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water#/media/File:Absorption_spectrum_of_liquid_water.png

          • Chris Crawford

            That’s an especially stupid argument, Mr. Russell. 15 micron photons don’t penetrate far into ocean water because they are ABSORBED by it quickly. Are you possessed of enough intelligence to understand that when water absorbs photons, it gains heat?

          • david russell

            It may gain heat, but: a) heat rises, so said energy goes right back out; and b) the chart I asked you to look at shows that DAY and NIGHT, the ocean skin is colder than that waters below, and as we know cold objects can’t warm hot objects. The ocean skin is 1/2 to 1mm thick. 10 microns is just the tippy-top part of that.

            The oceans skin is cold because at the ocean/air interface is where all the [cooling] evaporation happened. They atmospheric IR may be (probably is) increasing said evaporation, and thus cooling.

            Now there’s a line of though that as the air warms (from whatever reason) this slows conductive cooling. This is a plausible story (but a story is all it as, because to my knowledge there’s no peer-reviewed science quantifying this. No matter. I believe the Lansner and Pederson paper eliminates this notion. Any warmer air over the oceans is a result of the ocean warming the air and however you slice and dice, AGW has got nothing to do with OCH build up

            The final piece of the case is that there is no peer-reviewed science demonstrating the r-square factor correlating global CO2 levels and OHC levels. No correlation mean no causation.

            The icing on the cake is the point that the distribution of added OHC differs ocean by ocean, which would make no sense if GHGs were responsible.

          • Chris Crawford

            My god, your ignorance continues to astound me!
            “heat rises, so said energy goes right back out;”

            What are the three primary means of heat transfer? Once you’ve figured that out, apply that lesson to your statement about heat rising, and then explain how stupid it is.

            “we know cold objects can’t warm hot objects”
            Uh-oh! You’d better go tell the world that the manufacturers of heat pumps are committing fraud!

            By the way, that paper by Lansner and Pederson was published in the journal “Energy and Environment”. Obviously you don’t know that this journal is a political journal, not a scientific one, and papers published in it have no credibility in the scientific community. No serious scientist would want his name to appear in that journal.

            “No correlation mean no causation.”
            So now you are claiming that the earth is not warming. You are pretty far out in Cloud-Cuckoo Land.

          • david russell

            I covered them all — conduction, convection and radiation. You’re beginning to sound a little unhinged.

            For someone who claims to know thermodynamics, you’re close to outing this as untrue. While all objects radiate, heat flows only in the direction of hot to cold.

            Now you’re reverting to ad hominems. I provide a scientific paper and you attack the publisher. Not cool. Not reasoned. Not scientific. Your opinion notwithstanding. Next you’ll be telling me that I’m wrong because I own an oil company. Maybe you and CB should get a room.

            My claim was NOT that the earth is not warming. This is the second time you’ve attributed things to me that I never said. Stop it. What I said (and supported by Lansner and Pederson, 2018) is that the 450 temperature sites that are isolated from ocean influence show NO WARMING TREND for the past 110 years, ending 2010.

            All you’ve provided is bluster.

          • Robert

            “socalpa david russell
            6 hours ago
            They don’t even acknowledge the fact that atmospheric compression due to gravity accounts for all of the surface warming .
            .
            Ridiculous !

            1
            Reply

            Avatar
            david russell socalpa
            5 hours ago
            I’ve read some stuff by Charles Anderson on this approach. It seems to be largely ignored. Too bad.

            Reply”

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/human_caused_climate_change_is_8220supercharging8221_hurricanes_raising_the_risk_of_major_damage/#comment-3911070486

          • socalpa

            You are aware both the david russell and socalpa id s you are posting are by the impostor ROO2 ?
            .
            Want proof ?
            .
            Just ask !

          • Robert

            Guess it is hard to tell the difference between parody and idiocy.

          • ROO2

            You are aware both the david russell and socalpa id s you are posting are by the impostor ROO2 ?
            .
            Want proof ?
            .
            Just ask !

            Yes, please post the proof to substantiate your evidence free allegations. I, for one, will be most interested to see such ‘proof’.

    • FishOutofWater00 .

      It wasn’t a stronger hurricane because it had very little time to intensify under low shear conditions. The tropical wave that formed Harvey tracked all the way from Africa through most of the Caribbean under strong wind shear. It rapidly intensified when atmospheric dynamics became favorable.

      • Uncle Buck

        Well, I appreciate the comment, and certainly don’t disagree, but I don’t buy the link to AGW. This is an extraordinary claim. We don’t need AGW to explain it. It feels like we’ve leapt over the science and math except the parts that reinforce the theory. If the heating was as large, widespread and unique as claimed, we would be seeing a great number more unusual events, and that just isnt true. The energy goes somewhere.

        • John Thompson

          The flooding on the major rivers in the area hit by Harvey was much worse in 1913.
          Don’t know how they would pin that on Global Warming.
          The shape of the Gulf and the weather patterns (convergence of northerly/westerly systems with all the moisture coming up from the Gulf from the South/Southeast) means it is not uncommon here.
          Further north the same geography and weather patterns create Tornado Alley.
          But don’t let anyone fool you, life expectancy in Texas is at the US median and the cost of living here is low – so these events are not all that major when it comes to what they actually cost in loss of life or driving up the costs of owning property or structures.

          • Chris Crawford

            Gee, do you think that maybe the lousy flood control measures in 1913 might have had something to do with that?

            ” life expectancy in Texas is at the US median”

            That depends on who you are.

            https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-has-highest-maternal-mortality-rate-developed-world-why-n791671

            I’m not claiming that Texas is inferior to the rest of the country. I’m claiming instead that there are no free lunches. Texas has no income tax, but it does have a sales tax. I live in Oregon, which has no sales tax, but does have an income tax. What you gain in one area you lose in another.

          • John Thompson

            That was a flood far higher than a 500 year event and it happened just 105 years ago.
            While there are more dams now, there is more development now, leading to much more and faster runoff.
            BTW, since you brought it up, Forbes and Wallet hub both show Oregon to have a higher total tax burden than Texas. And as far as life expectancy for the state, that includes everyone – not just one group that is worse or better.

          • Chris Crawford

            “That was a flood far higher than a 500 year event and it happened just 105 years ago.”

            You don’t know what “500-year event” means. Go look it up.

            “While there are more dams now, there is more development now, leading to much more and faster runoff.”

            Which is more than compensated for by all the flood control measures, which consist of a great deal more than dams. Go look up “flood control”.

            ” Oregon to have a higher total tax burden than Texas.”

            Yes, and Oregon has better services than Texas. Do you really believe in free lunches?

            “as far as life expectancy for the state, that includes everyone – not just one group that is worse or better.”

            Yes, the rich get great medical care, and the poor just die.

    • Oortcloud

      You’re perfectly correct. take a look at this page (https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/) where it states:

      ” Thus the historical tropical storm count record does not provide
      compelling evidence for a greenhouse warming induced long-term increase.”

      As for how fast the storms massed we have this new study:

      http://kaltesonne.de/hurrikane-kommen-heute-wegen-atlantischem-ozeanzyklus-schneller-auf-touren-als-noch-vor-30-jahren/

      • Uncle Buck

        Thanks for the excellent links. Open minds, skepticism and new ideas lead to good science. Groupthink, ad homenim attacks, and censorship yield the opposite.

        • Oortcloud

          You’re welcome.

    • david russell

      Trenberth has drunk the AGW Kool-Aid. He’s the one who famously wrote something like “we can’t find the warming and it’s a travesty we can’t.” That’s why I call him Kevin “Travesty” Trenberth.

  • windy2

    The consensus is still a 2%-11% increase in hurricane intensity with a decrease in frequency. We may yet learn that intensity increase is only 2% but frequency is reduced by 10%, which may end up being a net positive outcome for future hurricanes.

  • socalpa

    This article can only be described as another desperate attempt to attribute something ,anything negative to elevated CO2 .
    .
    In this case ,an attempt to capitalize on public fear of severe weather events , in this example one of three large hurricanes to strike the U.S after a 12 year absence of cat 3+ ,the longest in recorded history .
    .
    The fact is that NOAA has found no detectable effect of CO2 on tropical cyclone activity. .
    .
    And ,the public should also be made aware that contrary to the predictions of Mr.Trendberth, made publicly in 2005 after Katrina (which claims resulted in the resignation of NOAA hurricanes specialist Dr.Chris Landsea from the IPCC) , global hurricanes activity declined to a near 40 year low all categories from 1997 -2015 during the “hottest decades ever”

    http://wx.graphics/tropical/global_major_freq.png

    • classicalmusiclover

      It would seem from socalpa’s comment–which is nearly identical to comments he has posted on dozens of climate blogs, sometimes repeatedly on even the same article–that he did not bother to read much of the above article.

      He also engages in the juvenile tactics of distorting the name of a respected scientist (Trenberth to “Trendberth”), accusing the scientist of lying on the basis of one skeptic getting upset with him, and misrepresenting a NOAA report that actually supported Trenberth’s view by refusing to include the full context of the statement about “no detectable effect.”

      He compounds his errors by hand-flapping about a graph produced by “skeptical” meteorologist Ryan Maue (whose views have been championed by Rush Limbaugh and Mark Steyn). while failing to notice the distinct rising trend in the intensity of individual hurricanes charted by the lower line on the graph–a situation that directly reflects the emergent current understanding of hurricane behavior in the face of a warming climate.

      Nothing socalpa posts is new. Nothing socalpa posts is honest.

      • david russell

        I view “Travesty” Trenberth with great skepticism. If the article is an accurate description of his paper, the paper is based on a lie as I have demonstrated elsewhere on this thread.

      • socalpa

        Lies and requests for tribal support .
        .
        Readers should know I have caught this poster lying online multiple times .
        .
        Proofs on request .

        • classicalmusiclover

          Socalpa’s most pathetic pleas for tribal support concern the hapless and ethically compromised climate misinformer Willie Soon, whom he thinks has no conflicts of interest and no ethical concerns. Not only that but socalpa thinks that Soon’s claim that the 20th century was not very warm has never been refuted, that Soon is right when he says that sea ice is bad for polar bears, and that he is spot-on when he parrots the political claims of Christopher Monckton.

          Naturally, the “lies” he claims proof of are my accurate descriptions of Soon’s haplessness.

          • socalpa

            More pathetic lies and appeals for tribal support ?
            .
            My history is open ,for a reason .. Any readers can check back in my history by clicking on my name and see for themselves all the above are lies .

          • classicalmusiclover

            Please, readers, read socalpa’s comment history. The devious distortions and incompetent misinterpretations of published science and spammed scripts will leap out at you.

        • evenminded

          You lie as well you hypocritical imbecile.

          You lied about the Smithsonian sending out Soon’s papers to multiple journals simultaneously.

          You’re an idiot socky.

  • CB

    This isn’t new information. I’m not entirely sure why some people here don’t seem to be aware of it… Could it be that they really don’t know? …or are they paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie about the dangerous nature of fossil fuel?

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/images/ocean-heat-content.gif

    • socalpa

      That’s odd ! The article addresses sea surface temps , but since you posted this graph ,I note NOAA neglected to post the conversion to degrees C on the right , showed heat content in joules on both ..
      .
      You do know the conversion of joules to degrees C 1955 to 2010 in the top 2,000 ms of the oceans = a whopping 0.09C ? 9/100ths of a degree C ?

      • CB

        “You do know the conversion of joules”

        I do! I also know you’re well-known for lying about climate change.

        If you aren’t paid for that, why are you lying?

        What do you get out of it?

        “Internal fossil fuel industry memos reveal decades of disinformation—a deliberate campaign to deceive the public that continues even today.”

        http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos

        • socalpa

          I have never lied about climate change . I have caught you lying multiple times ,however . You have also been caught using both your accounts to upvote yourself and others to game the Disqus best order.
          .
          Now ,try explaining why NOAA would produce a graph without the conversion to degrees C as shown in the Levitus table ?

          • david russell

            she’s for sure a liar.

          • CB

            “try explaining why NOAA would produce a graph without the conversion to degrees C”

            …because energy is conserved, not temperature. Relying on temperature when ice is melting gives a misleading picture of how much warming is actually occurring.

            psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent.png

          • david russell

            CB just made up “because energy is conserved, not temperature” which is rather a nonsense claim to begin with.

            The problem with temperature is that the ocean has different temperatures everywhere. Most of the ocean is 4C — very, very cold, but at the bottom.

          • halush

            There is no scientific reason why AGW would cause the bottom of the oceans to warm since 1955 David.

            Get a clue.

          • socalpa

            The question was , why would NOAA conceal the actual temp change that the Joules of OHC were based on ?
            .
            The obvious answer is that the joules measurement looks more ominous ,and scary .
            .
            The 0.09C ( 9/100ths ) temperature is not scary at all , and hurts the alarmist agenda .
            .
            I already showed you the claims of CO2 driving Arctic ice increase and decrease were false . Antarctic sea ice extent increased since 1979 ,the opposite of predictions ..
            .
            Want the links ?

          • evenminded

            Actually the more interesting question is, why are you such a scientifically incompetent and mathematically illiterate moron?

      • david russell

        Are you sure? I thought .09C was for the first 700m. For 2000 m it was more like .05C. Correct me if I’m wrong.

        • halush

          LOL. You deniers better be sure to get your irrelevant facts straight. Why is it that the scientifically incompetent find it surprising that the depths will not warm as much as the surface due to AGW?

          Do you know that the ocean surface has warmed by ~0.6C since 1955?

          Do you know that the correlation between temperature and CO2 has an r^2 value of 0.879179?

        • socalpa

          Yeah ,double checked . Levitus is 0.09C 1955 -2010 .
          .
          Balmaseda and Trendberth broke out 0-700ms at 0.03C and 0.06C 700 ms -2000ms for the hiatus period ..
          .
          You sure stirred up a hornets nest on this thread !

    • david russell

      For hurricanes it’s only down to about 26m that matters as for heat content. That’s where an active hurricane draws all of its energy from, according the Mr Hurricane, William Gray.

      • CB

        I would ask anyone who is neither a liar nor mentally ill to talk over the people stating falsehoods.

        There’s absolutely no reason to allow these people oxygen.

        Bury them.

        “I do own an oil company”

        -David Russell

        disqus.com/home/discussion/phillydotcom/penn_state_climatologist_criticizes_terrifying_ny_mag_climate_change_story_that_went_viral/#comment-3411697250

        “Powerful coal, oil, and gas interests are trying to confuse us all about global warming and renewable energy. Not with facts or reasoned argument — but with disinformation.”

        http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-facts-and-fossil-fuel-industry-disinformation-tactics.html

        • david russell

          The only liar here is NOT CB, but she’s the most CONSISTENT and PROLIX liar.

          I actually believe she’s demented and possibly demented. But folks can decide for themselves. She’s been posting the same nonsense for years.

          I never lie.

          • halush

            I never lie.

            It’s clear you are the one that is demented. You lie frequently David.

          • CB

            “You lie frequently David.”

            Of course he does. He’s well-known for it. I would suggest not engaging with liars and attention trolls, though. Downvote them and talk over them. They cannot exist without that oxygen.

            Here’s a topic for a frame shift: Why are they lying? In David’s case, he claims to make money off of fossil fuel, but is that his only motivation?

            Why is he lying about something that’s endangering his own life?

            “[I] live in Miami, and voted for Trump”

            -David Russell

            disqus.com/home/discussion/thehill-v4/conservatives_fear_epa_chief_going_soft_on_climate_science/#comment-3237134070

            “Flooding is the New Normal in Miami. In Miami, sea-level rise is not a problem for future generations. It’s a present-day reality.”

            http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2017/02/flooding-is-the-new-normal-in-miami

          • david russell

            I’ve blocked Halush because he’s somewhat of a loon. For example he can’t identify a single lie of mine, but I’ve identified many of his. Of course, he merely says the same thing about me, and is prepared to do this over hundreds of posts without let up.

            So I’ve dismissed him.

          • halush

            Poor David, you been caught lying once again.

            Of course you lied about the fact that there is a correlation between CO2 and global temperature.

            And you lied about the fact that you understand science.

            And you lied about ever identifying a single comment of mine that is a lie.

          • evenminded

            Yes David, we know that every time someone proves that you have lied or proves that you don’t know what you are talking about you end up blocking them. You’re like a petulant child covering his ears and singing “la la la la la, I can’t hear you”. It’s your last defense after you’ve been beaten so badly. It’s rather pathetic.

          • david russell

            You are Halush, as I’ve always known. I blocked you last year. Somehow you got around that. Easily fixed. I’m blocking you again.

          • evenminded

            Poor David. Like I said, all you can do in the face of being shown to be wrong is to block those that know more than you.

            When are you going to start holding all of your inane positions to yourself David?

          • socalpa

            Your stalker has arrived ,and is posting from both identities . halush AND evenminded. !
            .
            Both of them ,over the brink !
            .
            Nice work !

          • david russell

            I’ve blocked them both. Somehow Evenminded overcame my blocking him last year. So I had to do it to him again.

          • evenminded

            Have you realized that you lied about the Smithsonian submitting Soon’s papers to multiple journals simultaneously?

          • socalpa

            The loon is now impersonating you .. could also be the serial impostor ROO2 .
            .
            I shall investigate further ..You have driven them all quite mad !
            .
            Funny as hell !

          • Chris Crawford

            Having dealt with climate science deniers for many years, I can state that they all share two prominent characteristics:
            1. They are ignorant of the science.
            2. They are political conservatives.

            While there are some leftist anti-scientific myths (such as those regarding nuclear power and GMOs), the right seems to have made an intensive effort to deny science. Chris Mooney wrote an entire book about it some years ago.

          • halush

            Ask David if there is a positive correlation between atmospheric CO2 and surface temperature.

          • CB

            “Ask David if there is a positive correlation between atmospheric CO2 and surface temperature.”

            I believe Mr. Russell is on record as saying there is a positive correlation between the rise in CO₂ and atmospheric temperature. He has also claimed that this heat energy cannot pass between the atmosphere and the sea… as if he lived in a world where cold beer never warms and hot coffee never cools… It’s good for a larf, at least…

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content700m2000myr.png

          • halush

            Why don’t you ask him and see what he thinks this week?

            The r^2 value for the correlation between CO2 and surface temperature is ~0.88.

          • david russell

            Your above expresses your buffoonish self-puffery. You challenged me and got your head handed back to you.

          • socalpa

            Flagged for targeting harassment of poster and other posters..
            .
            CB writes ;
            .
            “Downvote them and talk over them. They cannot exist without that oxygen” .
            .
            Fascists always turn to censorship ,and worse ,when losing support .

            .

          • Chris Crawford

            Well, Mr. Russell, I won’t call you a liar, but I have demonstrated on a number of cases that the statements you have made are false. Just a few minutes ago you made the false statement that infrared radiation from atmospheric CO2 does not warm the ocean. I challenged you to support your falsehood with evidence. Of course, you will not be able to do so.

          • halush

            Anyone that claims that they have never lied in their lifetime is obviously a liar.

          • david russell

            I not only could. I did. You owe me an apology.

            1. CO2 IR only penetrates 10 microns, perhaps 10% of the ocean skin, which is colder than the waters below (remember the temperature profile chart) and therefore cannot warm them.

            2. The mixed layer, just below the skin, shows zilch warming at night (in the chart) showing that although the air radiates IR to the ocean surface all the time, when the sun goes down, none of it gets below the 1mm ocean skin

            3. The air is warmed by the oceans and not vice versa. If the air was warming the oceans, then why do the 450 land temperature stations show no warming trend from 1900 to 2010 (Lansner and Pederson, 2018)?

          • Chris Crawford

            1. Idiot — the fact that water absorbs IR means that the IR adds heat to it!

            2. The surface of the ocean would cool even MORE if there weren’t incoming IR.

            3. The atmosphere does not warm the oceans; it contains a tiny fraction of the earth’s surface heat content. Air temperatures are much more volatile than ocean temperatures because its heat capacity is so much lower. Of course, you don’t know anything about heat capacity, so none of this will make sense to you.

            Why do you argue about topics you know nothing about?

          • david russell

            Idiot: Here is the first sentence in Wikipedia under “Heat”:

            In thermodynamics, heat is a type of energy transfer in which energy flows from a warmer substance or object to a colder one.

            To your 3 points, reflect on the Wiki quote.

            1. Irrelevant. the coldest object in the world “adds” heat to the hottest object, even miles away if nothing in between blocks radiation.

            2. See 1, above

            3. Well, gee, thanks That’s what I’ve been saying all along. The atmosphere doesn’t warm the oceans. Case closed. You lose by scoring a touchdown on my side of the field.

        • david russell

          The Union of Concerned Scientists rather sounds like “Soccer Moms for Family values.” Here’s another perspective I found on the internet in 25 seconds:

          [quote]
          The Union of Concerned Scientists is a left-wing advocacy organization that spreads unscientific alarmism about environment and energy topics. It is currently bragging about being a major architect and proponent of using the federal RICO Act against executives at fossil fuel companies and nonprofit think tanks, such as The Heartland Institute.
          Despite the impression given by its name and the image the way in which the media portrays it, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is not a professional scientific organization; in fact, for a $25.00 donation, you can also become a “concerned scientist.” Though founded in 1969 by faculty, including some scientists, and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts, UCS’ mission from the beginning has never been the pursuit of knowledge through scientific discovery. It has instead pursued left-wing advocacy on technology, environmental, and energy issues—regardless of what the scientific data have shown.
          [end quote]

          • Chris Crawford

            Mr. Russell, are you seriously arguing that fossil fuel companies have never attempted to influence the public regarding the science of climate change?

          • david russell

            Did I say that? I don’t remember saying that. Hey, I didn’t actually say that.

            The silly CB challenged what hurricane expert, William Gray, told me directly by blabbing on about coal companies and that I owned an oil company.

            Does any of that have anything to do with my assertion? No.

            Why don’t you ignore CB. Reading her stuff will rot your brain. She’s already totally lost to the dark side and unsalvageable.

          • Chris Crawford

            “Did I say that? I don’t remember saying that. Hey, I didn’t actually say that.”

            No, you attacked UCS for stating that:
            ‘”Powerful coal, oil, and gas interests are trying to confuse us all about global warming and renewable energy.”

            Sheesh, what an idiot you are!

          • david russell

            Correction: She posted this blather to me in direct response to my William Gray remark.

            You ought to try to be more honest. You, too 9.8m/ss (and whoever “guest is” — I’m thinking Halush).

          • Robert

            Also, in far less…
            http://leftexposed.org/about/

            A self-interested, biased site that you didn’t bother to cite.
            Good going….. not even acceptable by middle school standards of scholarship.

          • david russell

            I realize, Robert, that you like to be told what to do. So: Buzz off.

          • Robert

            Ah, more effort at personal attack than a substantive response.
            Thanks.

          • david russell

            Poor Robert. You didn’t read what YOUR link said in effect about my link, to wit their purpose is to oppose leftist efforts to tell the rest of us HOW TO LEAD OUR LIVES. I also oppose this. You should too, but apparently not.

            Therefore I concluded that you want someone to tell you what to do.

            I didn’t mean to attack you. You effectively insulted yourself by assuming people should be told what to do and how to lead their own lives by nameless, self-appointed life experts.

          • Robert

            Nice effort circumnavigating the point:a biased, self-interested resource that you didn’t bother to cite.
            I linked to your uncited source’s About page. Your source’s statement of purpose.

            Did you look to see how they supported their claim of “..unscientific alarmism..”?

            Did you look to see how they supported their claim of
            “..pursued left-wing advocacy ..”?

            Did you look to see how they supported their claim of
            “…regardless of what the scientific data have shown”?

            Or did you just accept those claims because they fit your perspective?

            Good going….. not doing a bit of due diligence to check if your resource would meet a middle school level of evaluation, or consciously not citing it because you knew. Neither one meets standards of scholarship.

          • david russell

            Your post is so garbled I can’t tell WTF you’re talking about.

            I’ll presume you’re upset “Left Outed” claim “alarmism is unscientific.” Well, of course it is. Any kind of alarmism is unscientific. Alarmism is advocacy.

            The actual data show that such global warming as we’ve experienced since the end of the LIA has been an unmitigated boon to humanity. The earth is literally much greener today than 200 years ago. Crop yields are at record highs in part due to the extra atmospheric CO2 (read: plant food). Deserts are blooming.

            Climate science (a.k.a, AGW is gonna cause disasters) is total horse manure. It’s history of failure is so abysmal than only intellectuals and lefties would believe it.

            I’m way past middle school. Climate science scholarship is an obscene joke. Now that Trump is President I expect many of climate pseudo-scientists will be looking to become Uber drivers.

          • socalpa

            Many are getting passports to France ..
            .
            They know ..the jig is up !

          • classicalmusiclover

            “Many are getting passports to France ..”
            –Who? Which university research programs are disbanding or defunding their climate research units?

          • Robert

            Since socal pa pointed out there was a parody account , I had to check to make sure this came from the real account.
            “…an unmitigated boon to humanity.”
            “I’m way past middle school. Climate science scholarship is an obscene joke. Now that Trump …”

          • david russell

            Like I said before, you don’t have anything to contribute. Here you seem to think that quoting what I have posted is somehow enlightening or relevant. Since I posted it, it’s not news to me. Apparently you and Mike Richardson and Popcorn Joe are unaware of the plain truth of my remarks. Such warming as we’ve had since the end of the LIA has been an unmitigated boon for humanity. Coming out of the LIA there were fewer than a billion humans alive Now there are almost 7 billion of us and we 7 billion are collectively better off in just about every respect today than those 1 billon of our forebears — better fed, longer living, healthier, and so forth. These are things everyone knows but you have to disregard what you know in order to be a climate alarmist.

            What you may not know is that the entire edifice of AGW alarmism is built on lies and half-truths. The only ‘science’ is the half-truth of radiative forcing and that can only demonstrate a 1C response to 2X CO2, which is hardly worth worrying about. Beyond that, the rest is just made up — positive feedback (unproved and unobserved), predictions of disasters (that are always ‘down the road’), claims of causation (without demonstrating correlation).

            I say that the physics of “2X Co2 = 1C” is a half-truth, because it’s not universally accepted. Moreover, it’s just theoretical. Radiative forcing occurs at the top of the atmosphere (it’s the energy imbalance at TOA). None of the over 100 GCMs agree even as to what that imbalance is. Moreover, there’s a much simpler explanation for any TOA energy imbalance, to wit energy sinks like the oceans absorbing more incoming insolation than they release.

            Finally there’s a much better theory than GHSs explaining the surface temperature of planets with sufficiently dense atmospheres — gravitational auto-compression. It accurately quantifies the surface temperature of all such planets (and moons) in our solar system without any reference to GHGs.

            As for Trump, if you don’t think that Trump’s going to cut the funding for climate alarmism you’ve got another think coming.

          • Robert

            “Finally there’s a much better theory than GHGs explaining the surface
            temperature of planets with sufficiently dense atmospheres —
            gravitational auto-compression.”

            Please explain how you think that the force of gravity can continually add energy to a system. Do you believe in perpetual motion machines too?

          • david russell
          • Robert

            Where does this paper state that gravity can continually add energy to a system?

          • david russell

            Compress a gas and it heats up. You obviously don’t understand the Ideal Gas Law. It’s the basis on how a diesel engine works without sparkplugs. It’s largely the basis on how air conditioning and refrigeration work. It’s rather basic science.

            Did your read the article? The ideal gas law explains the surface temperature of every planet or moon in our solar system (except Mars — air too thin) with NO REFERENCE to GHGs.

            Ooops.

          • Robert

            Yes, I do understand the ideal gas law. I did read the article. All it does is explains that the ideal gas law is valid. That’s obvious. If you give me the pressure, density, and molar mass of an ideal gas, then I can give you its temperature at any location in the universe.

            Air conditioning and refrigeration work on a cycle and require continuous energy input in order to work. Gravity is not a source of continuous energy input.

            This paper offers zero explanation as to why planets are warmer than their effective radiating temperature.

          • david russell

            So one again you chose ignorance over enlightenment. The sun is the ultimate energy source, of course. GHG’s are relevant only to the extent the change the parameters in the article (e.g., CO2 is denser than air).

            The point you miss is that the components to calculate the surface temperature of all these planets (and moons) make no reference to GHGs.

          • Robert

            Yes, no kidding, the sun is the energy source, and without the greenhouse effect the surface could not be 288K. If it was 288K then it would emit more energy to space than it would receive from the sun. That means that in order to be warmer than 255K, there must be some other energy source. You are claiming that energy source is gravity, which is nonsense. Gravity is not a continuous source of energy.

            You miss the point. This paper calculates the temperature of a gas based on its pressure, density, and molar mass without any reference to any energy input to the system, including the sun.

            All this paper does is to validate the ideal gas law.

          • david russell

            [more on the below]

            Essentially the energy that warms the surface temperature reflects the [gravitational] potential energy of air parcels at altitude being converted to kinetic energy (heat) as these parcels fall to the surface. It’s all an artifact of convection and the lapse rate.

            Now read the article and become enlightened

          • Robert

            That’s a zero sum game. For every parcel that falls and increases in temperature there is a parcel that rises and decreases in temperature. It’s an adiabatic process, which means that no heat is gained or lost.

            A planet without a greenhouse effect will cool to its radiative equilibrium temperature. This paper does not refute that basic physics.

          • david russell

            The parcels that fall heat up The ones that rise cool down. Your comment about adiabatic is without relevance. The point is that you don’t need any GHGs to explain the surface temperature. If as you say, one has the components to use the Ideal Gas Law, you can compute the temperature of any planet (except Mars). You haven’t engaged intellectually with why this doesn’t work on Mars — the air is too thin for convection to work — the same is true in our stratosphere.

          • Robert

            You do need GHGs to explain the surface temperature. Without GHGs the sun only provides enough energy to warm the surface to 255K.

            The ideal gas law works just as well on Mars as it does on any other planet.

            You must be joking if you actually think otherwise.

          • Robert

            I’m liking that a fake account is all sciencey.

          • Robert

            So, did gravity become stronger?

            Where does your single paper address the observed increase in temperature?
            Acidification?

          • david russell

            http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.earth.20170606.18.pdf

            This paper addresses the surface temperature of every planet with an atmosphere greater than .1 bar.
            Here’s a thought question: Why isn’t Mars hot, rather like Venus, adjusted for surface insolation. They both have about the same percentage CO2 in their atmosphere’s. I aver that Venus has a much lower degree of surface insolation than Mars. How do you address this issue? I’ll stand by.

          • Robert

            They don’t have the same amount of CO2 in their atmosphere David, and Mars is quite a bit farther from the sun than Venus.

            This is not difficult to understand.

          • david russell

            One again, you are being disingenuous. I told you that Mars gets more surface insolation than Venus (and it’s for the very simple reason that Venus is surrounded by clouds, whereas Mars is not).

            And I never said Mars has more CO2, but rather than they have about the same percentage CO2 in their atmospheres.

            The ugly truth is that Venus is so hot because of the tremendous pressure (auto-compression, remember?), despite only getting a few W/M2 of surface insolation.

          • Robert

            I’m not being disingenuous, Mars is understood.

            http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4374

            Less CO2 than Venus and less insolation make for a vastly reduced greenhouse effect. It’s not difficult to understand.

          • david russell

            Where does the air conditioning manual say that you have to plug in the unit to the wall socket? The sun is the wall socket here.

          • Robert

            The sun only provides enough energy to cause the surface to be 255K without the greenhouse effect.

            Where is your energy source that accounts for the extra 33K?

          • Robert

            Usually on the final page… and in the troubleshooting guide.
            And of course , the sun isn’t discounted as the radiation source. It is the false claims about variations driving the recent warming.

            Just as your single paper doesn’t address the same.

          • Robert

            “..is a half-truth, because it’s not universally accepted. ”
            As is “…an unmitigated boon to humanity.”
            “I’m way past middle school. Climate science scholarship is an obscene joke. Now that Trump …” then.

            But the main point stays;12 hours ago
            Nice effort circumnavigating the point:a biased, self-interested resource that you didn’t bother to cite.
            I linked to your uncited source’s About page. Your source’s statement of purpose.

            Did you look to see how they supported their claim of “..unscientific alarmism..”?

            Did you look to see how they supported their claim of
            “..pursued left-wing advocacy ..”?

            Did you look to see how they supported their claim of
            “…regardless of what the scientific data have shown”?

            Or did you just accept those claims because they fit your perspective?

            Good going….. not doing a bit of due diligence to check if your resource would meet a middle school level of evaluation, or consciously not citing it because you knew. Neither one meets standards of scholarship.

          • Robert

            “I’ll presume you’re upset “Left Outed” claims “alarmism is unscientific.” ”

            The concern was clearly stated.

            Good going….. not doing a bit of due diligence to check if your resource would meet a middle school level of evaluation, or consciously not citing it because you knew. Neither one meets standards of scholarship.
            And you redoubled your effort.

            Thanks.

          • classicalmusiclover

            Robert’s post was very clear and showed your lack of critical thinking skills in buying into a politically-overcharged smear piece just because it fit your views.

            Either you have a short attention span and intense reading comprehension issues, or you are being deliberately dishonest.

            Maybe it’s both.

          • david russell

            As Richard Lindsen said about so called climate alarmism:

            “The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for forthcoming catastrophe. Without these claims, one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all.”

          • Robert

            And, yet again, what is missing is the supporting evidence.

            This time: “… false and/or misleading claims…”

            And, yet again, a citation…

            Thanks!

          • david russell

            What a dope you are. Go back to middle school where your development got arrested. Geez.

          • Robert

            And now, just argument by personal attack.
            Sorta like playground behavior, not how science works.

          • david russell

            You don’t deserve more than personal attacks. You don’t have much to say and what you do say you express poorly.

          • classicalmusiclover

            Projection.

          • david russell

            Now you’re attempting to joke. Your above is patently untrue. I have a lot to say and it’s factual. In the current context my claim was that Bill Gray told me that it’s heat content of the first 26 m in the oceans the power hurricanes. To call that begging the question or to call it projection just outs you as an ignoramus.

          • Robert

            The wealth of information available in every library, yet “..Bill Gray told me..”

            Might want to take http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/09/entertainment/la-ca-stephen-ambrose-20100509 to heart.

          • david russell

            I don’t read the LA Times. But you’re suggesting I do speaks volumes about you.

            Why are you pointing me to a book review about Eisenhower, anyway?

          • Robert

            Well, to start with, it is more than ” a book review about Eisenhower, “, and that topic relates directly to your claim.

            Nice to see you think a source you’re not acquitted with is ripe for attack .
            And you might find the level of grammar used there of value.

          • david russell

            Well, it’s described as a book review. I read the first paragraph. Nothing there of relevance. You merely tried to waste my time. I didn’t fall for it. If you’ve got a relevant point, spit it out. Argument by link is so tiresome.

          • Robert

            Read on… get to the bits about Ambrose’ s scholarship.

          • david russell

            Why would I want to waste my time further on this? If you have a point, spit it out in your own words.

          • david russell

            Climate science work about as well as political science.

          • Robert

            And now just random assertions…..
            You’ve done a fine job of showing, to recycle a phrase, there is no ‘there’ in climate science denialism.
            Thanks

          • david russell

            I’ve pretty much wiped you out. Have you comprehended that gravitational auto-compression powered by the sun explains the surface temperature perfectly for all planets and moons in our solar system (except Mars) yet?

            Once you do, you’ll change your tune and be enlightened. Climate science is pseudo-science, as I have demonstrated, scientifically.

          • Robert

            I’m liking that you think one paper, from a year ago, somehow validates a counterclaim about the global research done over the past nearly two centuries.
            Doing so, plus adding in the “.. pretty much wiped you out”, insulting, and near total lack of critical thinking skills evidenced by hiding your source while quoting biased quoting that resource, really shows the level of intellectual honesty and rigor it takes to remain true to science claims brought forward primarily by politically and financially motivated organizations.

          • david russell

            Yes, precisely. All it took was a little child to point out the Emperor had no clothes. And your point is ludicrous. The Ideal Gas Law is nothing new.

            Or are you asserting that the Ideal Gas Law was thought up by the evil coal companies to fool all of us. Climate scientists have been fooling themselves and ignoring basic science known for centuries. You said it yourself.

            Look, you’ve had your eyes opened and it’s hard to accept you’ve been wrong all this time. My recommendation is that you withdraw from the field of battle and contemplate what I’ve revealed hereon. Then when you’ ve adjusted, drop the Robert handle and come over and help me destroy all these goofball climate pseudo-scientists.

          • Robert

            That’s right, the ideal gas law is nothing new. It explains the temperature of ideal gases anywhere in the universe, including on planetary surfaces.

            What it does not explain is why a given surface is hotter than what would be dictated by radiative equilibirum with the sun. Without the insulating effect of GHGs, where are you claiming this extra continuous input of energy is coming from?

          • david russell

            Of course it does — gravitational compression heats up air at altitude as it falls to the surface, converting [gravitational] potential energy into kinetic energy (heat). Then this [now] hot air rises due to convection and cools. Repeat ad infinitum.

            Where the air is too thin for convection (like in the stratosphere and on Mars) convection stalls. So the auto-compression even explains Mars.

          • Robert

            No it does not provide a continuous source of energy. The internal energy gained by the parcels of air that are falling is balanced by the internal energy lost by the parcels of air that are rising. There is no net energy input due to gravity. This is basic physics.

            Are you still confused about the fact that the ideal gas law works on Mars as well?

          • david russell

            The continuous source of energy is the sun. You don’t think for a second that GHG’s provide a source of energy do you? Bwahahahahaha.

            I’ve made your point, namely that rising air cools and falling air heats. Duh!!! We know this because it’s cooler as you go up. Once a pilot of a flight I was on told us that it was -60 degrees outside. Brrrrr.

          • Robert

            No, GHG’s provide insulation. Without the insulating effects of GHGs the surface temperature can only be 255K.

            That’s all the sun alone cane do. Gravity is not a continuous source of energy.

          • Robert

            “..contemplate what I’ve revealed hereon.”
            That would be one paper.

            One one year old paper

            One paper you claim disproves virtually all the near two centuries of global research done on climate science.

            One one year old paper that doesn’t even address the issue of the current observed rise in temperature, ocean acidification, ….

          • Robert

            You may not have noticed that it wasn’t my account that queried the gravity conjecture your brought forward. But that you think a single paper is proof enough… not to mention missing the first problem w what isn’t even a hypothesis being brought forward says more than enough about the thinking and rigor coming from this tent of the climate science denialist camp.

          • david russell

            Actually I don’t pay too much attention. There are quite a few of you Chicken-Littles out there and all chickens look alike to me.

            A single paper is all that’s required. Science isn’t a democracy. Besides, the Ideal Gas Law is centuries old.

            So now who is the denier? You’re denying the Ideal Gas Law. Like Brer Rabbit you just can’t get away from the tar baby of your mistaken beliefs.

          • Robert

            No, I don’t deny the ideal gas law. I am quite aware that the ideal gas law works quite well for ideal gases throughout the universe.

            Apparently, you think that it breaks down on Mars and in our stratosphere.

            It doesn’t.

          • david russell

            Now you’re being disingenuous (I suppose that’s your penultimate refuge. Next you’ll be accusing me of DK-Effect, the actual last refuge someone losing the argument). The article doesn’t say the Ideal Gas Law beaks down on Mars. You know that. Stop digging.

          • Robert

            You claimed that it didn’t work on Mars.

            “If as you say, one has the components to use the Ideal Gas Law, you can compute the temperature of any planet (except Mars). You haven’t engaged intellectually with why this doesn’t work on Mars — the air is too thin for convection to work — the same is true in our stratosphere.”

            All this paper is doing is showing that the ideal gas law works throughout the solar system. If it is showing that it failed on Mars, then it used poor data.

            The paper does not even consider the effects of the sun on surface temperature. It’s basically showing a tautology. We already knew that the ideal gas law would work on all of these planets. It even works at the low pressures where you are implying that it doesn’t.

          • david russell

            If I claimed that the ideal gas law doesn’t work on Mars, then I mis-spoke. The article certainly doesn’t make such a claim.

            The rest of your post goes completely off the reservation. There’s nothing wrong with our data about Mars.

            A lot in science is rather tautological (What is mass? — that which responds to a force What is a force — that which causes motion in mass). But that’s more philosophical argument for a different venue and time.

            It doesn’t show the effects of the sun on the surface because it doesn’t need to.

            I get quite a chuckle out of your in effect suggestion that the entirety of climate science is trying to explain a tautology. The temperature of the surface of Earth can be calculated without having a variable for insolation. Why explain “the unnecessary to explain?”

          • Robert

            Apparently the article does claim that Mars does not fit the ideal gas law, which means that the author did not use valid data.

            The data for Mars certainly does fit the ideal gas law.

            http://www.braeunig.us/space/atmmars.htm

            Explaining planetary surface temperature requires thermodynamics and an energy balance. It is certainly not tautological. Claiming that the ideal gas law works on planets in the solar system is tautological given that it is widely accepted as a “law” throughout the known universe.

            If the paper does not account for the sun, then it is not predictive. All it has done is to show that the IGL works on planets, but used bad data for Mars.

          • david russell

            Frankly the above lost me. Are you saying that the auto-compression explains every atmosphere containing planet’s surface temperature, even Mars. If so, great. Even better.

            Therefore thermodynamics are totally unnecessary to explain the basic surface temperature of [any] such planet —- in the case of earth, the 288K. Now we have variations around this value, largely explicable in terms of the cycles of the earth’s heat sinks, mainly the oceans, as well as changes in albedo, mainly clouds (and these 2 things are interrelated).

            Does thermodynamics come into calculating these finer points. Not to my knowledge. The oceans are warmed by the sun, not GHGs. And cloud formation is not well understood scientifically AT ALL. So all this thermodynamics talk is mostly a waste of effort. Furthermore is sounds an awful lot like ANTI-thermodynamics (cold things warming hot things — the cold air warming the hot oceans, the coldest air (at TOA) warming the surface).

          • Robert

            No, I’m saying that auto-compression doesn’t explain the temperature of ANY planet. Auto-compression is not a source of energy when the center of mass of the atmosphere does not change.

            I am saying that the IGL works everywhere in the known universe for ideal gasses and that this paper provides results that are in no way surprising (except for the error on Mars) and in no way explain planetary temperature.

            Thermodynamics is ENTIRELY necessary for explaining the surface temperature of planets.

            in the case of earth, the 288K

            OK, let’s see you explain why the surface of the Earth is 288K without using thermodynamics.

          • Robert

            What an odd claim
            “A single paper is all that’s required”
            Especially given it doesn’t address the current observations

          • david russell

            It explains the current observations almost perfectly. It’s the GHG theory which is incompatible with observations — either there are no viable observations (like the energy imbalance TOA, for which there’s just no agreement among 126 GCMs) or the data don’t correlated well with the theory.

          • Robert

            It explains that the ideal gas law works perfectly.

            Who would have thought?

          • ROO2

            Have you comprehended that gravitational auto-compression powered by the sun explains the surface temperature perfectly for all planets

            Pwhahahaha. Still not understanding elementary science I see david, I’ll leave you with your perpetually warm car tyres. LOL

          • david russell

            I’ve now intuited that you, Halush, and Evenminded are all the same person. I’ll give you a bit of rope so you can hang yourself, but my patience is thin.

            Car tires (and fire extinguishers) are not warm because they are not BEING compressed. When they were BEING COMPRESSED, they were hot. You know this. I know this. Stop being disingenuous.

            I frankly had your point in mind when I first contemplated this auto-compression explanation. Then I thought it through. If the sun went out, the auto-compression would ceases. As long as the sun provides energy and the atmosphere is capable of material convection, auto-compression will continue.

          • Robert

            The error in your thinking is that the sun does not provide enough energy to maintain the surface temperature at 288K.

            If you take a tire with pressurized air in it and place it in an enclosure exchanging radiation with it, can its temperature be higher than the radiative equilibrium temperature?

          • david russell

            The energy comes from the atmosphere’s potential gravitational energy at attitude getting converted to kinetic energy under pressure at the surface.

          • Robert

            Potential energy is not a source of energy. The center of mass of the atmosphere is not changing. Hence the change in potnetial energy of the atmosphere is zero. For every rising parcel there is a falling parcel.

            The compression of the atmosphere was accomplished long ago. Gravity is not supplying energy to the atmosphere.

            I note that you avoided addressing the question on the tire.

          • david russell

            Potential energy is energy. What is your point? A brick on top of the Empire State building has the potential energy to crush your skill if it falls on your head.

          • Robert

            The point is that the potential energy of the atmosphere as a whole is not changing, and that means it is not a source of energy.

            The energy balance is simple.

            Energy in from the sun
            minus energy radiated out to space
            equals
            change in internal energy
            plus change in potential energy

            The last two are not changing if the system is not increasing or decreasing in temperature

          • david russell

            Oh for goodness sake. What nonsense. The atmosphere is not a homogenous block. Furthermore to state that the Empire State building’s potential energy as a whole is not changing is no consolation when the tower on top breaks off and skewers you to oblivion.

            The equation implied by your post (the Global Energy Budget) is basically correct. I would state it: energy in = energy out (plus or minus the effects of heat sinks). So what?

          • Robert

            It makes no difference if the atmosphere is a homogeneous block or not. The atmosphere has mass, and it has a center of mass. There is not part of the atmosphere that is breaking off and dropping that does not have an equally massive part that is rising to balance it.

            This is how science works. The thermodynamics is clear.

            Yes, the global energy budget is basically correct and it shows that the change in potential energy of the atmosphere is not a source of energy to the system. As I said before. That is progress if you agree.

          • classicalmusiclover

            Where did you get that blather, David, riddled as it is with begging-the-question and other fallacies?

            Could it be some right wing-nut blog with no connection to the truth, perhaps?

          • david russell

            You don’t know what “begging the question” means. And you ought to learn to count. I only made one point at the top of this subthread, which was clear and 100% correct, namely that CB was responding to a point I made about what William Gray — about where hurricanes get their power (which he said to me directly).

            Then I chided those who failed to realized they all had misunderstood (really: deliberately distorted) that point.

            Chris Crawfiish, and others have tried to confuse the issue subsequently, but the fact remains that this is about my original response to CB pointing out the it’s only the heat of the first 26m deep from which hurricanes draw their power, according to William Gray — a clear, concise, declarative that begs no question nor make any fallacy

          • classicalmusiclover

            “Begging the question” is argument based on loaded statements, where the implication of the loaded statement pushes rejection or acceptance of the argument without reference to the factual and logical basis of the argument. A common example is the reference to mainstream climate scientists as “alarmists” or “warmists” or “rent-seekers.” Another example is puerile distortions of people’s names, like substituting “Crawfish” for Crawford or “Trendberth” for Trenberth.

            But, to the point, your disparagement of the UCS on the basis of a smear piece on an ideologically-overheated right wing blog combined begging the question with a fallacious ad hominem.

            And you compound this with the fallacious appeal to authority implicit in your focus on William Gray, who became a darling of the Heartland Institute because of his dismissiveness of AGW and his evidence-free insistence that the prevalance of scientists who supported AGW was a product of grant grubbing and part of a one-world government conspiracy.

            Indeed, it is typical of you that the person you trusted most was an extreme outlier and crank.

            I believe that you did have a personal conversation with him, because you seem to wholeheartedly endorse every position the Heartland Institute has taken on this and other science issues, including its transparently inept evasion of its role in pushing overt misinformation that favors ff industry propaganda.

          • david russell

            So I was right. You have no clue what ‘begging the question’ means. Neither does Popcorn Joe. One would think you dodos would have the sense to look the term up before pontificating about it:
            [Wikipeda definition]
            To beg a question means to assume the conclusion of an argument—a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy, in which an arguer includes the conclusion to be proven within a premise of the argument, often in an indirect way such that its presence within the premise is hidden or at least not easily apparent.
            [end]

            So name calling is not begging the question. Geez. How do you even get out of bed in the morning?

            Now you double down and show you don’t know what “appeal to authority’ means. You are quite the comedy act. If you knew enough to profile William Gray, you would know that he was known as Mr. Hurricane — the go-to guy on such matters. Why does it even occur to you and your ilk to challenge such a simple claim as the one I provided from Professor Gray? It makes you sound quite deranged.

          • classicalmusiclover

            Well, that is pretty inept, David.

            Calling a mainstream climate scientist an “alarmist” is begging the question because it suggests that claims made by alarmists are to be regarded as overheated or exaggerated, possibly politically motivated and not to taken seriously.

            Climate science dismissives use these kind of characterizations (and others like “CAGW”) so fluently that they don’t even know they are predetermining their arguments.

            Calling Kevin Trenberth “Trendberth” is begging the question by suggesting that he manipulates data and is not to be trusted.

            The late William Gray was respected during his career, but in retirement he threw his lot in with the Heartland Institute and pushed a lot of nonsense denying an anthropogenic effect on climate. This undercuts the validity of using him as an expert authority.

          • david russell

            You just can’t stop digging, can you?

            FWIW, I never called Trenberth Trendberth.

            Your point about William Gray is totally worthless and irrelevant. I quoted Gray on what he was arguably the world’s leading expert on — hurricanes, not global warming.

          • david russell

            I merely Googled “Union of Concerned Scientists”. Isn’t that obvious?

            I got the biggest chuckle out of learning than anyone can become “a concerned scientist” if they can cough up a $25 donation.

          • classicalmusiclover

            That’s a ridiculous and inept spin on a non-profit website.

            The authors of their articles are who counts.

            And, yes, it is rather obvious that your knowledge of non-climate-dismissive sources of information is woefully inept.

          • david russell

            There are many, many similar descriptions on the Internet about UOCS. The one I picked was just the first one I thought looked interesting. Frankly I agree with you that it’s the science articles that count…. and the data. But in the current circumstance all CB provided was a generally claim attributed to no one in particular and no science article specifically. So this point of yours is moot.

        • socalpa

          Flagged for personal attack .encouraging others to attack .
          /
          CB wrote ;
          ..
          “I would ask anyone who is neither a liar nor mentally ill to talk over the people stating falsehoods.

          There’s absolutely no reason to allow these people oxygen.

          Bury them.”

        • Mike Richardson

          Well, your good advice must have struck a nerve, CB, from the reaction below. LOL. They really don’t like the prospect of being ignored or downvoted, but it’s probably the best way to deal with partisan science deniers.

          • socalpa

            And yet another brown shirt in a green jacket chimes in .?
            .
            Like the calls for censorship on the Discover comments ,do you ?
            .
            Your uncle Josef would be so proud of you !

          • Mike Richardson

            LOL! Godwin’s law in force now. Funny how hyperpartisans hypocritically compare others to fascists, when reality it is the far right ideology which motivates so much climate change denial. N@zi comparisons earn you another downvote, of course. 😀

          • socalpa

            You do know who Uncle Josef was ,right ? Or are you as ignorant of history as you are about climate science ?
            .
            Why are you supporting the deletion by downvoting of skeptical posters ?
            .
            Censorship = Fascism .

          • Mike Richardson

            Brownshirts were N@zis, a brand of fascist. You’re projecting your own historical confusion on others if you suggest they were affiliated with Joseph Stalin, though it is admittedly unclear what you’re trying to say. And I’ve every right to vote up, down, or not at all, depending on whether or not I like a post. Or is freedom of expression a one-way thing for you?

          • socalpa

            Whether they wear brown shirts ,or caps with red stars . a fascist is a fascist is a fascist . Censorship of opposition .
            .
            CB sees co ordinated downvoting of skeptical posters .
            .
            You don’t fool anyone.

          • Mike Richardson

            Your refusal to acknowledge your own demonstrated ignorance of history is noted, as is your hypocrisy in calling for your own right of free speech expression, while opposing the right of others to vote for or against posts as they choose. YOU are not fooling anyone (except maybe yourself, but from what I’ve seen, that’s not very hard to do).

          • socalpa

            What a pathetic reply .
            .
            The organized targeting of other posters for harassment and/or downvoting is a terms of service violation ..
            .
            Go ahead , deny your inner fascist . plain as day ,for all to see .

          • classicalmusiclover

            Your definition of fascism is adorably incompetent.

          • classicalmusiclover

            He’s actually garbling an attempt to parrot Christopher Monckton’s political views, which were for socalpa most recently expressed in an interview with Willie Soon posted at CFACT. Soon deferred to Monckton on politics and to Crockford on polar bears, including her claim that sea ice was bad for them. It’s a confused back-story, but typical of the pretzels into which socalpa routinely twists himself.

          • david russell

            There is no such law. You can call that Russell’s Law if you like, which also isn’t a law.

          • classicalmusiclover

            There is no such thing as “Godwin’s law?”

            Gawd, you’re ignorant.

          • CB

            “your good advice must have struck a nerve, CB, from the reaction below. LOL.”

            lol! Indeed!

            At one point, one could find people who were actually ignorant of the science, but I think all of those people are gone now. I also think most of the paid liars are gone now! What you have currently are simply people who are lying for attention. The more vile and ridiculous the lie, the better. I wouldn’t put it past David to be fully making up his entire character. It may all be a ridiculous cartoon he’s created for people to look at…

            I would still suggest interaction with Climate Deniers who are new, and who have not yet established they are acting in bad faith. Neither David, nor “SocalPa” fall into that category.

            “Recent studies have shown a link between ocean surface temperatures and tropical storm intensity – warmer waters fuel more energetic storms.”

            oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/facts/hurricanes.html

          • Mike Richardson

            True enough, CB. I think I’m about done with socalpa, since all he’s doing now is calling folks fascists for voting against his silly remarks. The other guy also bit off more than he can chew, from what I’ve seen. They’ll probably go the way of the BBQ Man and Ol’Wilson before long, and no one will miss their politically motivated rhetoric.

            By the way, good topical link. I see NOAA data cherry-picked from some of the usual suspects (particularly the satellite data), but they always ignore that NOAA has consistently provided good data showing how the oceans and the rest of the planet are warming as a result of human activity.

          • socalpa

            You like NOAA ? Then , you’re going to LOVE this !
            .
            GFDL Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

            NOAA
            ..
            1. Summary Statement
            .
            “Two frequently asked questions on global warming and hurricanes are the following:

            Have humans already caused a detectable increase in Atlantic hurricane activity or global tropical cyclone activity?.”
            .
            “Our main conclusions are”: (excerpted ) .;
            .
            ” It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.”. .

            https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

            .

            Got that ? No detection of an impact of ghgs .
            .
            Stay tuned .

          • classicalmusiclover

            The dishonest socalpa only included the first sentence from the

            “Premature to conclude” means that research is ongoing and does not presume that there will be no detection of an already existent impact of ghgs. Indeed, it means nearly the opposite, as the rest of the statement strong suggests:

            “That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).
            Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC mid-range scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
            There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclones globally–an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones. However, there is at present only low confidence that such an increase in very intense storms will occur in the Atlantic basin.
            Tropical cyclone rainfall rates will likely increase in the future due to anthropogenic warming and accompanying increase in atmospheric moisture content. Models project an increase on the order of 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center by the end of the 21st century. There is already medium confidence for a detectable human contribution to past observed increases in heavy precipitation in general over global land regions and the United States, although this increase has not been formally detected for hurricane precipitation alone.
            Sea level rise–which very likely has a substantial human contribution to the global mean observed rise according to IPCC AR5–should be causing higher storm surge levels for tropical cyclones that do occur, all else assumed equal.”

          • CB

            “all he’s doing now is calling folks fascists for voting against his silly remarks”

            …as if he were entitled to attention… poor dear… To be fair, the correlation between sea surface temperature and hurricane strength/number isn’t always the clearest! …but there’s another factor which ties AGW to hurricane damage and that’s sea level rise. It’s a much stronger signal.

            climate.nasa.gov/system/charts/12_15_seaLevel_left.gif

          • socalpa

            Wow ! A whopping 2. 9 inches (75mm) … since 1950 !
            .
            A tsunami !
            .
            How much more damage did that 2 inches cause and in which storms ?

          • socalpa

            GFDL Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

            NOAA

            .

            updated 4/25/18
            ..
            1. Summary Statement
            .
            “Two frequently asked questions on global warming and hurricanes are the following:

            Have humans already caused a detectable increase in Atlantic hurricane activity or global tropical cyclone activity?.”
            .
            “Our main conclusions are”: (excerpted ) .;
            .
            ” It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.”. .

            https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

            .
            Woops !

          • classicalmusiclover

            No “woops!”

            Why did socalpa omit the following, which changes the meaning of the first sentence?

            “That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).
            Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC mid-range scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
            There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclones globally–an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones. However, there is at present only low confidence that such an increase in very intense storms will occur in the Atlantic basin.
            Tropical cyclone rainfall rates will likely increase in the future due to anthropogenic warming and accompanying increase in atmospheric moisture content. Models project an increase on the order of 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center by the end of the 21st century. There is already medium confidence for a detectable human contribution to past observed increases in heavy precipitation in general over global land regions and the United States, although this increase has not been formally detected for hurricane precipitation alone.
            Sea level rise–which very likely has a substantial human contribution to the global mean observed rise according to IPCC AR5–should be causing higher storm surge levels for tropical cyclones that do occur, all else assumed equal.”

          • Mike Richardson

            Wow, it’s like he’s being deliberately dishonest or something! 😮

          • Robert

            Even better is how socalpa changes CB’s “talk over” to ” harassment ” in an effort to say there’s a TOS violation.

          • socalpa

            As usual , you forget to mention ;
            ..

            “There’s absolutely no reason to allow these people oxygen.

            Bury them.” ..
            .
            CBs inner fascist ,and yours , on plain display ,Eco -Socialist .

          • Robert

            Yup, that would be the “talk over”.

            And nice touch, that last bit, btw.

          • classicalmusiclover

            Historically, fascism and socialism are opposite ideologies. Your conflating them is another sign of your historical illiteracy. Stop listening to the demented misinformer Monckon and you might begin to understand the things you read.

          • Mike Richardson

            Pretty funny coming from the folks who like to call their opponents “snowflakes,” right? But these ideologues think that freedom of speech means you must listen to them, and never contradict them with scientific fact, or downvote a ridiculous comment they make. Such a grandiose sense of entitlement.

    • socalpa

      Just thought I should add that in addition to concealing the deg C conversion which shows temps in the top 2,000 ms of the global oceans rose only 0.09C 1955 -2010 .
      .
      The upper layers of the global oceans cooled between 2004 -2014 per Cheng et al 2015 ..during the “hottest decades ever ‘

      and highest CO2 in 800,000 years at least ‘
      .
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4585812/figure/f2/?report=objectonly

    • socalpa

      Mods , please note CB upvoted own post seeking to game Disqus Best order ..
      .
      CB is also seeking/organizing blanket downvoting of skeptical posters to cause deletion by spam reporting .,
      .
      Censorship of opposition should not be tolerated on Discover .

      • socalpa

        Mods , please disregard my prior message ..
        .
        I decided to upvote her comment too since I’ve realized I am wrong .,
        .
        Sorry that I suggested you censor CB’s right to upvote her own posts .

        • socalpa

          Mods ,
          .
          Impostor , flagged and reported ,adding false upvote from puppet accounts .
          .
          Show the utter desperation of climate alarmists as their religion collapses !

          • evenminded

            Mods ,
            .
            I ‘m out of sorts tonight .
            .
            That should be obvious from my inability to punctuate sentences properly .
            .
            Sorry to be such a bother .
            .
            I’ll pull my self together pone of these days .
            .
            Take care .

  • david russell

    Kevin “Travesty” Trenberth is not to be trusted. Ocean Heat Content has pretty much nothing to do with CO2 IR, as CO2 IR cannot penetrate the ocean skin. Au contraire, as the oceans are 1-2C warmer than the air, the oceans heat the air.

    Another study (Lansner and Pederson, 2018) shows that there’s been no warming trend from 1900 to date (2016, as recall) when you consider just the 450 land stations that are isolated from ocean or ocean wind influences.

    Finally the 5000 or so ARGO Buoys show that as must as 98% of the excess heat going into the oceans in recent years has been going into the Southern Hemisphere, which only has 2/3rds of the oceans’ surface. In other words, given that CO2 is a well-mixed gas, you’d expect 2/3rd of the oceans would get 2/3rds of the excess, so something else is going on….. like variations in cloud cover. The oceans are warmed by the sun from above, not GHGs. Variations in OHC are the result of variations in surface insolation, most likely cloud cover.

    Post-finally, it turns out the CO2 is not perfectly well-mixed. Since 90% of humanity lives in the Northern Hemisphere, there’s more human emitted CO2 in the North, further vitiating the idea the CO2 is what’s driving OHC (i.e., you’d expect more than 1/3 of the increase to happen in the north because of greater CO2 in the north).

    So this entire article is a lie (Better: based on a lie — that human GHG emissions produced the increase in OCH).

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

ImaGeo

ImaGeo is a visual blog focusing on the intersection of imagery, imagination and Earth. It focuses on spectacular visuals related to the science of our planet, with an emphasis (although not an exclusive one) on the unfolding Anthropocene Epoch.

About Tom Yulsman

Tom Yulsman is Director of the Center for Environmental Journalism and a Professor of Journalism at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He also continues to work as a science and environmental journalist with more than 30 years of experience producing content for major publications. His work has appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, Audubon, Climate Central, Columbia Journalism Review, Discover, Nieman Reports, and many other publications. He has held a variety of editorial positions over the years, including a stint as editor-in-chief of Earth magazine. Yulsman has written one book: Origins: the Quest for Our Cosmic Roots, published by the Institute of Physics in 2003.

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar
+