This month’s open thread. Topics might include the record breaking hurricane season, odds for the warmest year horse race (and it’s relevance or not), or indeed anything climate science related.
Reader Interactions
304 Responses to "Unforced variations: Dec 2020"
Adam Leasays
130: “In terms of the intensity, duration and frequency of storms, 2020 does not compare to the record set in 2005. That year, eight hurricanes reached Category 3 status or higher. Three of those hurricanes were a Category 5. The year 2005 is memorable in a bad way for many. One of the storms that season was Hurricane Katrina, which was a Category 3 at landfall but a Category 5 at its strongest. The storm devastated much of New Orleans and killed more than 1,500 people.
This year, two hurricanes — Laura and Delta — reached Category 4 status before making landfall in Louisiana and Texas. Both storms caused damage. So far this year there have been no Category 5 hurricanes.”
Incorrect. There have been several records broken this year, named storms and September storms for a start. There also has been one category 5 storm this year, hurricane Iots which reached 160 mph sustained winds, it weakend slightly before landfall in Central America.
There are a list of features and records of the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season in Phil Klotzbach’s verification report:
Of course Mr. Know Nothing chooses to quote an article that was written before category 5 Hurricane Iota formed and subsequently made landfall on the US.
Ah yes, the record breaking hurricane season that actually was.
From NOAA:
The extremely active 2020 Atlantic hurricane season is drawing to a close with a record-breaking 30 named storms and 12 landfalling storms in the continental United States.
The 2020 season surpassed 2005 as the busiest on record.
Of the 30 named storms, 12 made landfall in the contiguous United States, breaking the record of nine set in 1916.
During the season, 27 tropical storms established a new record for the earliest formation by storm number. This season also featured a record 10 tropical cyclones that underwent rapid intensification, tying it with 1995.
3 feet in NE USA, 7 feet in Japan; I’m starting to see a trend here! :)
Killiansays
119 Barton Paul Levenson: K 115: Get this through your head: Current conditions have never existed on this planet before.
BPL: Get this through your head: It doesn’t mean science can’t analyze it.
A dog can analyze it. What matters is analyzing it effectively. Given over the past ten years I have done that better than the scientists or any of you here on these forums, in terms of looking forward indicates “the science” should have been doing a hell of a lot better than it has.
How many different ways do you want me to state this instead of just saying, “Yeah, we need to do better?”
Killiansays
124 nigelj:
Killian @116 started off previously by suggesting the last two years of very low arctic sea ice could constitute a new trend (something that will continue for many years) and now says this new trend is because he is “pattern literate”.
I said nothing of the kind. You are unbelievably stupid.
A slew of records
The list of single-season and multi-season records established in 2020 is long. Below are the most notable ones, primarily taken from Dr. Phil Klotzbach’s 2020 season summary from November 30.
Multi-season records
– Fifth consecutive year with above-average Atlantic hurricane activity (previous record: four years, 1998-2001).
– Fifth consecutive year with a category 5 hurricane in the Atlantic (previous record: three years, 2003-2005).
Figure 5 tweet
Figure 5. The 2020 Atlantic hurricane season featured six major hurricanes, tied for second highest number of intense hurricanes on record. (Image credit: Tweet by Dakota Smith)
Single-season records
– Thirty named storms (previous record: 28 in 2005).
– Five category 4 and stronger hurricanes (tied with 2005, 1999, 1961, and 1933).
– Earliest forming ‘C’ named storm and the earliest named storm formation from the ‘E’ storm onwards.
– Ten named storms formed in September (old record: eight in 2002, 2007 and 2010).
– Five named storms formed in the Caribbean after October 1 (Gamma, Delta, Zeta, Eta and Iota), tying the record set in 2005.
– Four major hurricanes formed in the Atlantic basin after October 1 (Delta, Epsilon, Eta and Iota). Old record: two, set in numerous years.
– November produced 20 named storm days, tied with 1932 for most on record in November.
– Three Atlantic named storms formed in November (Eta, Theta and Iota). This ties 2020 with 1931, 1961, 2001 and 2005 for the most November named storm formations on record.
– Twelve Atlantic named storms made landfall in the continental U.S. (previous record: nine in 1916).
– Six Atlantic hurricanes made landfall in the continental U.S. (tied with 1886 and 1985).
– Five named storms made landfall in Louisiana (previous record: four in 2002).
– Hurricane Laura made landfall with maximum sustained winds of 150 mph in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. Laura is tied with the Last Island Hurricane of 1856 for the strongest winds for a Louisiana hurricane landfall on record.
– Hurricane Eta made landfall in Nicaragua with maximum sustained winds of 140 mph, making it the strongest November landfalling hurricane in Nicaragua on record. That record was broken just 13 days later by Iota, which hit with 155 mph winds.
– Hurricane Iota became a category 5 hurricane on November 16 – the latest Atlantic calendar year category 5 hurricane on record (previous record: November 8, by the Cuba hurricane of 1932).
– Nine named storms rapidly intensified by at least 35 mph in 24 hours in 2020: Hanna, Laura, Sally, Teddy, Delta, Epsilon, Zeta, Eta and Iota. This ties 2020 with 1995 and 2010 for the most rapidly intensifying named storms in a single Atlantic hurricane season on record. Tropical Storm Gamma also met the rapid intensification criteria by intensifying 35 mph in 24 hours, but it was a tropical depression at the start of its rapid intensification phase.
– Three named storm underwent 36-hour intensification of at least 100 mph: Delta, Eta, and Iota. According to an analysis by Sam Lillo, only eight other storms in 169 years of record-keeping accomplished this feat.
– Subtropical Storm Alpha made landfall in Portugal on September 18, becoming the first ever named storm to make landfall in the country. Alpha was also the easternmost-forming named storm on record in the Atlantic. Alpha killed one person in Spain and caused several million dollars (USD) in damages to Portugal and Spain.
– The NOAA Hurricane Hunters flew 86 missions into Atlantic named storms and disturbances, beating the previous record from 2005.
This list, from a hurricane expert, speaks for itself.
Claiming that “increasingly strong hurricanes are battering the Gulf coast” is a lie. Between Hurricane Wilma in 2005 and Hurricane Harvey in 2017…
So, you do realize that we’re on the verge of 2021 at this point, right? And that “are” is present tense?
William B Jacksonsays
KIA #154 there is a thing called weather, climate and weather are different!
nigeljsays
Killian @156 so you think I have missinterpreted what you said. Let me remind you of what you posted at 116:
MAR : Demonstrate how that “the last two years” of Arctic Sea Ice minimums constitutes that “dramatic new downward trend on the road to an ice-free Arctic,”
Killian: Waste of time. You’re at least as scientifically reticent than, e.g. Schmidt, if not more so. ……..Further, as I have said many times, I am pattern literate which allows me to surmise things before the numbers are fully confirmed. You are unable to do this so it looks like magic to you. It’s just pattern literacy.
Nigel: So what you posted sure looks like you are essentially saying the last two years of arctic sea ice minimums constitute a new trend, because your ability with “pattern literacy” is one factor that enables you to see this new trend developing. And if its nothing to do with pattern literacy, what is it? But like Al Bundy says: You crow but never show.
nigeljsays
mike @141
“I think he (Spencer) was simply stating his faith and belief in God and God’s intelligent design…. When we consider who might qualify as a conservative climate scientist who is well-respected by their peers (move the goal posts again), are we automatically tossing out the folks who don’t accept theory of evolution etc and instead want to go with some version of intelligent design or put their bets on a supreme deity who will step in and bail us out? For me, that kind of fundamental (yeah, I know) decision about science and creation means that climate scientist doesn’t make the first cut.”
I don’t have a problem with christian climate scientists. I think going further and believing in intelligent design rather than evolution would be pushing the limits, but it doesnt make their climate research wrong so its probably ok.However Spencer went beyond all this. Read Mal Adapteds cut and paste quote @128 and its clear Spencer signed a document saying “recent warming is one of many natural cycles of warming through history ….We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.”
This puts Spencer into the category of “crazy full on climate change denialist”, as opposed to “conservative leaning climate scientist”. I had already said theres a difference between the two categories of crank and conservative leaning climate scientist. Hence that is why I said it does put a question mark over him. He would need to explain himself, quite a lot.
And yeah its a tricky one because differentiating a crank / denialist and a conservative leaning climate scientist would be partly subjective, but like AB said a team of people get to call the shots and he said ” There is little or no reason to consider contrarians. You’re not trying to impress deniers by including their heroes. You’re trying to ensure that your communication encompasses reality.” I would add the idea is to target communications at the sensible people in the middle of the bell curve that would understand the purpose of a list of that type and the challenges putting it together but also its usefulness. I hope.
John Pollacksays
Mr. Know It All @143 Looks like a fairly ordinary winter storm to me, as a weather forecaster. Could you have fallen for media hype? And, yes, it will be quite cold and windy in the aftermath, but not exceptional for this time of year. Of course, any winter storm is “potentially an existential threat to survival” if you get stuck in it, and have to walk to shelter, so it’s best to consult the forecast before you travel.
@144 Looks like you’ve made the astonishing discovery that northern Canada normally gets really cold in the middle of the winter. Could it be another ice age coming? Nope. What you haven’t shown is that these temperatures are exceptional for the season and region, because they aren’t. So, I’m not impressed. On the other hand, Norman Wells NWT had a high of 50F on Dec. 3. This was 54F above their daily normal, and 17F warmer than any temperature recorded at that site 5 days either side of the record. If you show me a recent record low that’s 54F below normal, and 17F below any temperature record within a 5-day window on either side, anywhere in Canada or the U.S., I’ll be properly impressed.
nigeljsays
J Doug Swallow @157, thank’s for that, but I dont get my climate science from AL Gore, who is not a scientist, or Anthony Watts who is a contrarian who mostly writes garbage and who runs a garbage website, or some journalist at the Washingon Post who might be hopeless, and might have have been lazy and copied some old article. Anyway copying some old article doesnt make the underlying warming trend in the arctic false, and its well known that the arctic warmed in the 1920s, but the recent warming and loss of ice volume is considerably greater, according to many lines of evidence.
Instead, I get climate information from things like the IPCC reports that are put together by hundreds of experts in their fields. I suggest you do the same, otherwise you will go down rabbit holes and will waste a lot of time and will miss the big picture, the important stuff. Merry xmas.
Killian @156,
Ah yes!!
It is the pantomime season. So the seasonal response to your seasonal denial would be “Oh yes you did!!”
And more seriously, you did. Remember this was when I said @55 of Wadhams’ Arctic Sea Ice predictions:-
Relative to more main-stream climatology he has not so far been proved correct and, unless we see some dramatic new downward trend on the road to an ice-free Arctic, he will remain ‘not correct’
to which you chipped in:-
You mean like the last two years? Great. Glad you have come to your senses.
leading me @102 to chastise you for trying to put words in my mouth and challenging you to demonstrate how a “dramatic new downward trend” was represented by your “last two years.”
Your demonstration @116 began by stating “Waste of time.” followed by a bit of ad hominem fallacy then “Yeah, if it’s not already in the data and essentially proved, it doesn’t exist or you” and explaining you were able to short-cut normal analysis (in which most folk require stuff to be “proved” or at least have some sort of supporting evidence) because you were “pattern literate.”
The rest of it was saying nothing that provided a valid “demonstration” unless the bold assertion that “the last two years should not have happened according to what we knew at the time” means something to those who are “pattern literate.”
Thus Killian, if you don’t object to the pantomime response, you may surely respond to nigelj @124 saying ‘Oh no I didn’t!!!’ and thank you for getting us all christmasy.
A merry Xmas to one and all.
J Doug Swallowsays
#157 20 Dec 2020 at 7:27 AM Michael D. Sweet says: “Once again Mr. KIA shows his deliberate ignorance of facts”. One can wonder why this record that I submit below was not considered to be news worthy by the anthropogenic climate change crowd who now are, I assume, trying to blame the 2020 hurricane season on the essential for all terrestrial life on Earth trace gas, CO₂? Was good news about hurricanes or a diminished number of tornadoes not good news to hear?
(CNSNews.com) — Saturday, June 24 marked the completion of a record 140 straight months since the last major hurricane made landfall in the continental United States, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA).
The last major hurricane to hit the continental U.S. was Hurricane Wilma, which struck Florida on Oct. 24, 2005. According to NOAA, four major hurricanes hit the continental United States that year. They included Wilma, Rita, Katrina, and Dennis.
But since Wilma, no Category 3 or above hurricane has made landfall in the continental United States, making June 24, 2017 the end of a record 140 months without a major hurricane strike.
Prior to this 140-month stretch without a major hurricane strike, the longest major hurricane drought was the 96 months between September 1860 and August 1869. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/gage-cohen/record-140-months-major-hurricane-strike-us
K 155: over the past ten years I have done that better than the scientists or any of you here on these forums
BPL: “How Like a God.”
CCHolleysays
RE. Mr. Know Nothing @154
3 feet in NE USA, 7 feet in Japan; I’m starting to see a trend here!
A trend indeed.
A warming atmosphere will and does hold more moisture. More moisture = more precipitation. Snow is a form of precipitation and more of it falling is not unexpected, although regardless, the length of time that it stays on the ground will diminish and overall snow cover is diminishing amplifying the warming.
J Doug Swallowsays
Anyway, Michael D. Sweet, it appears that Hurricanes have been around for a while:
“The 30 Deadliest US Hurricanes / Tropical Cyclones (1851 – 2006)” http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/usdeadly.asp
Also it appears that they are not a new phenomenon:
Believe it or not there were even disastrous storms back in the distant past and how could that have been without Al Gore calling the shots and blaming every weather occurrence on the alarmist devil, CO2?
The First Invasion, 1274
From the port of Masan in southern Korea, the Mongols and their subjects launched a step-wise attack on Japan in the autumn of 1274.
The Mongols relented, and the great armada sailed out into open waters – straight into the arms of an approaching typhoon.
Two days later, a third of the Yuan ships lay on the bottom of the Pacific, and perhaps 13,000 of Kublai Khan’s soldiers and sailors had drowned. The battered survivors limped home, and Japan was spared the Great Khan’s dominion… for the time being. http://asianhistory.about.com/od/japan/a/Mongolinvasion.htm
The Second Invasion, 1281:
Kublai Khan was determined to smash Japan this time. He knew that his defeat seven years earlier had been simple bad luck, due more to the weather than to any extraordinary fighting prowess of the samurai.
The people who believe that a trace gas absolutely essential for all life, CO₂, could have been a devil in the sky back in 1635 to have caused this “Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635” are not using logic to analyze the occurrence of hurricanes. Anyone who believes that a trace gas that makes up only .04% of the atmosphere causes anthropogenic global warming sure would not know about what follows.
“The fast-moving hurricane hit Massachusetts without warning, bringing winds that destroyed houses and floods that sent many scrambling for high ground. Farms around Boston were swamped by a storm surge that approached 20 feet, and at least 46 people died.
It happened 379 years ago today. Meteorologists still believe it is the strongest hurricane ever to hit Southern New England.
Though the settlers and Native Americans at the time lacked sophisticated weather equipment, researchers have combed through written accounts indicating that the Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635 — which had peak sustained winds of 135 miles per hour — would have overpowered storms of more recent memory”. https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/08/26/the-great-colonial-hurricane-was-strongest-hurricane-ever-hit-massachusetts/KsnoPkIRfGqpUKKM2bdPIP/story.html
It is hard to believe that in 1900 CO₂ could possibly have contributed to the most deadly hurricane to have ever struck the US. The logical answer is that CO₂ has nothing to do with any weather event.
(The Great Galveston Hurricane of 1900 was the deadliest hurricane to ever hit the United States and caused between 8000 and 12000 deaths.) http://geology.com/hurricanes/largest-hurricane/
Al Bundysays
Unforced Variations, 23 Sep 2019 at 10:43 PM AB:
zebra,
Here’s the second half of Quantum Magic part 2’s back cover, which is titled “For the English Teacher”:
He approached her and asked her advice, saying that he was a writer looking for a contest to enter. The problem was that his writing didn’t fit any current genre. He’d made up his own, which he called “weaving”. It’s a type of interactive nonfiction where one must write the most fantastical story using/explaining facts that can be easily and solidly verified, but of apparently supernatural origin: there can be no physical fiction or forcing.
She read two of Harmless and Intriguing’s chapters. (As of 040117, the rest were still being woven.)
.
For a writer, it’s high praise when an English teacher tries to melt through a counter five feet away. Did my Work instill “the terror of what couldn’t possibly be”? Was she afraid of an old one-legged man? Maybe she was in a hurry to get back to collating.
Her suggestion? Science fiction. I agree. It’s time for you to finally read some SF you can’t put down.
Doc
PS to the English teacher: Have you applied your skills as a teacher to the ancient texts by analyzing the characters for motivation? Why would anyone join the losing side on purpose? Well, what if your reality is a story to me, and I’m trying to win the shortest shelf’s writing contest?
____________________
AB: This Christmas star is about choices. Fundamental choices. Which is real, the metric or the physical?
The book has been woven. Now comes free will.
Al Bundysays
A subsequent edit:
He’d made up his own, which he called “weaving”. It’s a type of interactive nonfiction where one must write the most fantastical story using/explaining facts that can be easily and solidly verified, but are of apparently supernatural origin when informed by the story.
There can be no physical fiction. There can be no forcing. Weaving’s not magic tricks but the stacking of improbabilities for the sake of the story.
zebrasays
Real Hurricane Question
I’m re-posting this from Andrew Sipocz back at #13:
“What’s going on here? Check out the negative trend line of vertical wind shear for the Main Development Region of Atlantic tropical cyclones on page 30 by Dr. Klotzbach.
What we’ve heard in the past is that with AGW, climate models show increasing wind shear and thus fewer tropical cyclones in the future, though stronger ones (due to increased ocean temperature). This seems to show that AGW may bring both more (lower wind shear) and stronger tropical cyclones to the Atlantic. This seems to be the case with more, and more rapidly intensifying storms since 2005.”
I was hoping someone would answer it for him; I haven’t seen any response. Much more interesting to my mind than the yawn-inducing nonsense from KIA. It would take some time for me to get up to speed on this…any experts or semi-experts able to give it a shot?
nigeljsays
Killian @156, I’m not stupid. You are confusing at times. You explained that it would be a “waste of time”, explaining your views on a new sea ice trend to MAR, then said “furthermore you are pattern literate”. This is confusing because its not clear to me whether you are saying your beliefs about the trend are due to pattern literacy, or your comment about pattern literacy refers to something else entirely, given the overall context. If I misinterpreted it I apologise. And if you wont explain what you really mean about the trend, either put up or shut up.
A UK Met Office forecast for 2021 is projecting a year cooled by La Niña so not “scorchyissimo!!” (as 2020 may yet prove to be). The central projection for 2021 is +1.03°C putting 2021 6th warmest year below 2020 which has averaged +1.17°C-to date, 2016 +1.16°C, 2019 +1.12°C, 2015 +1.09°C and 2017 +1.06°C and then above 2018 +0.99°C and 2014 +0.92°C.
The Met Office are averaging GISTEMP, NOAA & HadCRUT4 in this analysis.
Isn’t the whole point that the denialist scientists have rejected the climate consensus without proposing anything better and without having truly compelling evidence to motivate them? If so, doesn’t that make them crappy scientists?
Yes, but why are they so willing to go out on a public limb, and expose themselves to the unsparing judgment of their trained, genuinely skeptical peers? Mike has the same thought:
When we consider who might qualify as a conservative climate scientist who is well-respected by their peers (move the goal posts again), are we automatically tossing out the folks who don’t accept theory of evolution etc and instead want to go with some version of intelligent design or put their bets on a supreme deity who will step in and bail us out? For me, that kind of fundamental (yeah, I know) decision about science and creation means that climate scientist doesn’t make the first cut.
Roy Spencer is interesting because some of his output is well-regarded by climate specialists, e.g. his work to establish the satellite-derived temperature record (aside from some early math errors, since corrected). He’s demonstrated the intellectual ability, and the training, needed to do respectable science. Why, then, would he affix his name to the bald assertion, There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming? Since the great majority of his scientific peers agree there is convincing scientific evidence for “dangerous” (i.e. increasingly costly in money and tragedy) anthropogenic global warming, Spencer appears to say he won’t accept any such evidence: IOW, empiricism be damned! And he simply declares himself right, and the lopsided consensus of his specialist peers wrong: IOW, intersubjective verification be damned! IMO, it’s as explicit a repudiation of science’s foundational principles as one could ask for.
Again: It’s clear that devout religious faith doesn’t necessarily entail denial of scientifically justified knowledge! Respectable witnesses are Kenneth Miller on evolution, and the aforecited K. Hayhoe on climate change. Poor Dr. Roy Spencer complained on his blog that if climate realists were fair, we’d criticize Dr. Hayhoe for her religion too! Way to miss the point. It is for him to ask how his faith differs from Hayhoe’s: I, for one, will never understand how either reconciles science and faith in their minds. I merely evaluate scientific claims by the norms I was trained in, strengthened over a lifetime of engagement. It’s undeniably best for all that Spencer doesn’t actually require my approval to remain erroneous, nor I his to question his cognitive motivations on RC. Ain’t freedom grand? I’m a consequentialist libertarian 8^D!
In spite of everything: Happy winter solstice, the reason for the season, to everyone in the northern hemisphere; and you southerners enjoy your midsummer, too. Here’s to the imminent termination of dual pestilences.
nigeljsays
J Doug Swallow @148
“This lifting people out of poverty was accomplished on the back of fossil fuels. If the climate alarmist had their way, the trend would be reversed and more people would be living in destitution and sorrow.”
Lifting people out of poverty is not confined to electricity generated by fossil fuels. Lifting people out of poverty doesn’t care where the electricity comes from and solar and wind power are now cheaper per kwhr than coal and gas, according to the Laazard international energy analysis. And alleviating global poverty has actually mostly been due to the promotion of free trade since the mid 1980s, not fossil fuels per se. Suggest people read some reputable material like the economist.com
“The world economy is growing. In less than a generation the value of the yearly global economic production has doubled.1”
And what does Swallow think would happen if we have a big drive to build renewables? This adds to economic growth and job creation. Think of the huge jump in output during WW2. This can all potentially help reduce poverty, assuming the money isnt all grabbed by the elite.
Funny how all these right wing climate denialists are suddenly interested in poverty….it never worried the right wing before.
Al Bundysays
The solstice is about new beginnings. The power wielded by those who hold nothing but metrics is virtual. We can replace the system. As if the useful part of Facebook isn’t boilerplate and servers rent by the carbon dioxide emissions (you can Bitcoin it).
Al Bundysays
Unforced Variations is about forces of nature. Millions to the nth power. We’ve had enough.
#deFacebook
nigeljsays
A new fact based, balanced, and comprehensive review of 2020: “The top 10 weather and climate events of a record-setting year. In an all-around bizarre and largely unpleasant calendar year, extreme weather and climate-related changes contributed to the woes of 2020. By Jeff Masters, PhD, and Dana Nuccitelli | Monday, December 21, 2020.”
The review looks at everything from CO2 levels to warming to wildfires to flooding to arctic sea ice and of course hurricanes:
“The 2020 season was notable not only for its record number of named storms (after breaking into the Greek alphabet by the ridiculously early date of September 18), but also for its record number of rapidly intensifying storms (10), record number of landfalling U.S. named storms (12), and record number of landfalling U.S. hurricanes (six). Every single mile of the mainland U.S. coast from Texas to Maine was under a watch or warning related to tropical cyclones at some point in 2020. U.S. hurricane damage exceeded $37 billion, according to insurance broker Aon, the eighth-highest annual total on record.”
Al Bundysays
J Doug Swallow: On August 15, 1281, a second typhoon roared ashore at Kyushu. Of the khan’s 4,400 ships, only a few hundred rode out the towering waves and vicious winds.
AB: Yep. And it’s not just invasion fleets. I have it on good authority that trailer parks cause/attract tornadoes. Something about elevated metal boxes. Gotta be a Tesla generator thing.
J Doug Swallow @170&172,
You seem to be happily trolling down this thread with grand assertions but with little enough in the way of supporting evidence. So forgive me for investigating what species of troll you are.
You write “It is hard to believe that in 1900 CO₂ could possibly have contributed to the most deadly hurricane to have ever struck the US” and also @170 you described CO₂ as a “trace gas absolutely essential for all life.”
So let us take a step back.
This “trace gas” CO₂; surely this “trace gas” is a greenhouse gas without which the global temperature would be 7ºC colder and that with such a drop in temperature there would also be a reduction in levels of atmospheric water vapour which is itself a greenhouse gas and so global temperatures would drop a further 25ºC, roughly.
So here is an initial question for you, J Doug Swallow. Would there be any tropical cyclones at all if global temperatures were to drop 32ºC?
And, perhaps slightly more interesting, given that greenhouse gases will increase global temperatures and tropical cyclones are driven by high sea surface temperatures, why would you think that an increase from 185ppm CO₂ to 410ppm CO₂ would not increase tropical cyclone activity?
mikesays
at MAR at 177: I think I also read that 2021 is likely to be in the top three hottest years in the record when it is complete, despite being a La Nina year. if true, then that would make it the hottest LN year in record. Still pretty hot.
2020 is likely to end up either hottest year or number 2. I think that will happen with no EN bump, so I think what we are seeing is just global heat buildup. There will be some wobbles as ocean absorb and return heat to atmosphere and some wobbles as our means of measurement and analysis continue to improve or be refined, but the bottom line is Hot! Hot! Hot!
I suspect that we agree on that.
At Nigel: yeah, Spencer may do some good science and have respect from peers on some particulars and still qualify as a crank to you and me based on his sign on his Christian Climate subscription. I would guess he won’t lose any sleep over our opinions of him.
In thiss scenario, we might want to give Spencer credit where credit is due and withhold credit and respectability where he has revealed some crazy ideas that don’t seem to hold up to scientific scrutiny. Be that as it may, you brought up his name a couple of times before backing away from him. So we are back where we started: it’s hard to figure out who the most peer-respected, conservative climate scientist might be. Maybe it’s someone like Schmidt or Mann? That would allow a range of Wadhams/Shakhova to Schmidt/Mann. I am comfortable with that. I think Schmidt and Mann tend to skew conservative in many regards for me.
I don’t really care about a scientist’s ideas about religion and mysticism. If they think God or Santa Claus or the Great Pumpkin are likely to intervene and protect us from ourselves and our experiment with green house gases, I think they are nuts.
To some extent, your religion is like your gender to me. I don’t care about it one way or the other when we are discussing science. Keep it in your pants, please. If you can’t keep your gender gear or religious gear in your pants, then I really am unlikely to care very much about what you have to say.
Funny how all these right wing climate denialists are suddenly interested in poverty….it never worried the right wing before.
I’m a little hesitant to assign individuals or ideas to a political “wing”, but it’s reasonably correct to say the majority of US climate-science deniers identify with the country’s modern right wing. The Republican Party came to represent it during the Red Scare of the 1950s. The first Presidential campaign I was aware of was 1964, and at the time I understood that Barry Goldwater, the GOP candidate, was “right wing”, which mostly meant reflexively anti-Communist, and in favor of US military intervention to block Communism’s spread. This platform was of course supported by the military-industrial complex the decade’s Republican President, WWII General Dwight Eisenhower, warned us about as he was stepping down.
In fairness, the US Democratic Party has long embraced its own venality. A preponderance of evidence nonetheless shows that today’s GOP represents plutocratic interests, aided by a popular disregard for the social costs of capitalism.
Into the 1970s, support for environmental protection was widely bi-partisan in the US. In the ’80s, however, Ronald Reagan allied the GOP with extractive industry corporations, who greenwashed their freedom to socialize much of their production costs under the so-called wise use movement (now represented by ALEC). That made “environmentalism” a left-wing concern by default. During the 2000 election campaign, again abetted by public disinformation paid for with extractive industry profits, the consensus of US and International climate science was successfully linked to environmentalism and the nominal left wing, i.e. the Democratic Party. The demagogic Donald Trump’s wholesale reversal of environmental protections, along with his conspiracism about AGW, now has the support of nearly half of US voters, who apparently reject climate science simply because “libs” are seen to accept it. America, what a country 8^(!
nigeljsays
J Doug Swallow @170
“Anyway, Michael D. Sweet, it appears that Hurricanes have been around for a while: The 30 Deadliest US Hurricanes / Tropical Cyclones (1851 – 2006)”
Yes but this is a STRAWMAN. Nobody has said they haven’t been. But evidence shows the numbers of category 4 and 5 hurricanes have doubled globally in recent years. These are the ones that cause most of the damage:
Honestly Doug you should make a New Years resolution to wake up.
nigeljsays
MAR @164 “oh yes you did, because….” Thanx. That’s exactly what I thought.
Al Bundysays
Mal Adapted: Again: It’s clear that devout religious faith doesn’t necessarily entail denial of scientifically justified knowledge!
AB: True. And the alternatively adapted would do real time experiments.
Look at the dates. I’m pretending to claim, through the suspension of disbelief, the entire Trump era. If there’s a shred of truth in the one-in-a-million-or-quadrillion-it-doesn’t-matter to the 50th or so power required to weave this book, I’m sorry for the deaths, both global and intensely personal, but once removed. I’ll move this discussion to my blog.
the-weaver.org
I found the CMIP6 tables with data from 1850 to 2014. This will help immensely. Thanks!
Killiansays
Mal and nigel:
Please direct yourself to the papers that have stated a shift in temperatures starting around 2015 is in play. Previously been posted to these fora. I noticed it in 2019, but it became clear in 2020 for the simple reason already stated: The temperatures of ’19 and ’20 had no freaking reason to be occurring, so why did they? The ASI melt levels had no clear reason to be happening, so why were they? I have noted this multiple times over the last year, particularly WRT ASI effects.
I ALREADY posted about that.
But, hey, pretend I haven’t already given you the context. As I said… waste of time. All the data already noted, the trend long already discussed, it’s confirmation, or at least support for this trend existing, from SCIENCE, already provided, yet you act as if none of the above occurred. I also posted Hansen, et al.’s recent finding on aerosols being the potential cause of the acceleration. And I posted about Francis and Wu and the potential negative feedback of snow cover on late summer AO temps/ASI. (The article I read mentioned the effect had been minimal in ’19 and ’20, thus allowing high melt rates.)
Waste of time, as I said. I am well within the science (it caught up… again…), but look at you two… goodness.
Two things are at play here: 1. I’m the one who pointed out the trend…. before anyone else… again… so you automatically reject it rather than seeking to confirm or disprove (you are such slaves to the science, yet reject using it…?) and 2. your natural reticence to accept any new finding unless it is fully confirmed by numbers…. which means you are and will continue to be well behind the curve: Scientific PROOF takes time, no? Since that is all either of you are willing to accept…
I am an excellent analyst, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not. I could act as a canary in the coal mine for you to consider forward-looking possibilities, but you two are too busy trying to convince yourselves I know nothing, see nothing. But what have I been wrong about all these years? Not a damned thing.
Up to you to pull your heads out or not.
168 Barton Paul Levenson: K 155: over the past ten years I have done that better than the scientists or any of you here on these forums
BPL: “How Like a God.”
Indeed, the ability to analyze seems like magic to those who cannot analyze, they being confined to numbers that reflect only what has been, not what is nor what will be. Science takes time, so always lags reality, but policy must always look ahead, so we need people who can see trends developing and extrapolate. Get it through your thick skull: That’s what I do.
188 nigelj: MAR @164 “oh yes you did, because….” Thanx. That’s exactly what I thought.
And, as always, you thought wrong. You both did, and typically do, rather than learn from someone who thinks differently, to positive effect, you hate and clown and act studpidly, suicidally.
Good luck with that.
nigeljsays
Mike @185,
“it’s hard to figure out who the most peer-respected, conservative climate scientist might be. Maybe it’s someone like Schmidt or Mann? That would allow a range of Wadhams/Shakhova to Schmidt/Mann. I am comfortable with that. I think Schmidt and Mann tend to skew conservative in many regards for me.”
I think that is ok. Its hard to think of a more conservative leaning climate scientist that is not a contrarian or crank. I think Spencer would have been ok if he hadn’t signed that declaration, given his record. I’m not backing away from him so much as I forgot he signed that thing. Its vaguely possible he signed it in a hurry without digesting it. Then again maybe his real views slipped out.
Al Bundysays
mike: So we are back where we started: it’s hard to figure out who the most peer-respected, conservative climate scientist might be. Maybe it’s someone like Schmidt or Mann?
AB: Fortunately, it can be an amalgamation. What would MannSchmidt think?
______
Nigel,
The right wingers are focused on poverty. They believe that private organizations, such as churches, are best suited to help lift people, as opposed to permanently float them via the intergenerational capture of governmental assistance linked to qualifications that penalize income (and so should support Yang?)
This is borne out in the numbers. Right wingers man soup kitchens and donate personal funds in excess of the amount expected by population alone.
J Doug Swallowsays
# 163 21 Dec 2020 at 1:38 AM nigelj says: “…or Anthony Watts who is a contrarian who mostly writes garbage and who runs a garbage website…” Obviously that is only your opinion and you are certainly entitled to that. Richard Muller, who I know that more folks have heard of than someone on a blog who will not present their full name, certainly seems to have a different view of Anthony Watts that what ‘nigelj’ does.
Muller also had four specific concerns with the scientific consensus on global warming, which the BEST project was designed to address. The first – and most serious, he says – is the “stations issue”, referring to a problem highlighted by controversial US blogger and former TV meteorologist Anthony Watts. In 2007 Watts initiated the Sur/acestatiQns.org project, which reported that 70% of temperature recording stations in the US were inaccurate to a level of 2–5°C. MulIer says that the BEST team has now cleared up this issue by showing that when it comes to specifically measuring change in temperature, the 30% of good stations are not significantly more accurate than the 70% of bad stations. “lf Watts hadn’t done his work, we would not have reliable data today. The fact that he did that means he’s a hero; he deserves some sort of international prize.” http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/4/2/muller-on-watts.html
J Doug Swallowsays
# 163 21 Dec 2020 at 1:38 AM nigelj says: “Anyway copying some old article doesnt make the underlying warming trend in the arctic false, and its well known that the arctic warmed in the 1920s, but the recent warming and loss of ice volume is considerably greater, according to many lines of evidence”.
I will certainly present nigelj with evidence that the loss of sea ice in the Arctic now is not as profound as it was in the 1920s and before that when good records were kept by whaling ships.
nigelj will not find this valid information below at his ‘go to site’ for his information on the Arctic sea ice.
“Locations of ice observations made from whaling ships during May (a, b), July (c, d), and September (e, f) in the 1850s and 1860s. White dots show locations where ice was reported, and blue dots, those where no ice was reported. Red lines show the southernmost extent of ice reported in the NOC atlas for the period 1972-82. Black solid and dashed lines are the 20% and 40% mean ice concentration contours, respectively, for 1972-82”. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Locations-of-ice-observations-made-from-whaling-ships-during-May-a-b-July-c-d-and_fig3_263653192
This “Arctic Sea Ice Extent Animation 2016-2018” doesn’t seem to be much different than what we saw back over 100 years ago
This animation shows the annual variation of sea ice extent in the Northern Hemisphere. Throughout the winter, the cold temperatures freeze more and more of the water in the Arctic Ocean and surrounding bodies of water. As this water freezes, it gradually builds a layer of ice on the surface that covers millions of square kilometers. The ice pack generally reaches its maximum extent around March. https://scied.ucar.edu/video/sea-ice-extent-maps-animate-arctic
J Doug Swallowsays
# 163 21 Dec 2020 at 1:38 AM nigelj says: “Instead, I get climate information from things like the IPCC reports that are put together by hundreds of experts in their fields. I suggest you do the same, otherwise you will go down rabbit holes and will waste a lot of time and will miss the big picture, the important stuff”. It appears that you may have missed much ‘important stuff’ if the IPCC reports are what you rely on without checking to see how true that they are.
This below gives an indication of how you and your kind of science works where the IPCC uses the musing of some doped up hippies with the WWF when they said that the Glaciers in the Himalayan Mountains would be gone by 2035:
“GLACIERGATE” HIGHLIGHTS IPCC FLAWS
Firstly, the IPCC has a procedure for using documents that are both non-published and non-peer-reviewed but none for material published without peer review. Secondly, no members of the author team for each chapter are responsible for checking the work of other authors.
In theory this checking is left to reviewers but they only comment “according to their own
knowledge and experience” and the IPCC appears to take no steps to ensure that suitably
qualified people check every
word. […]
Chapter 10, section 6.2, of the Working Group II contribution to the IPCC’s 2007 report stated that Himalayan glaciers would likely disappear by 2035. This error was discovered in December 2009 and quickly was given the name “Glaciergate” in an echo of “Climategate”, the title given to the release of controversial computer files from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in November 2009. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/glacier_gate.pdf
I have been to Nepal on three separate occasions & I never saw any glaciers disappearing before my eyes as I froze my ass off in the high mountains. I did notice, because I’m observant, is that the Himalayan glaciers often have many rocks on their surface because of the high mountains that they very slowly flow out of.
#187 22 Dec 2020 at 3:53 PM nigelj says: “Yes but this is a STRAWMAN. Nobody has said they haven’t been. But evidence shows the numbers of category 4 and 5 hurricanes have doubled globally in recent years”. Nigelj then directs me to a good article that Judith Curry, who has seen the light and knows that this anthropogenic climate change is not happening like so many poorly informed people on the subject would like everyone to believe just on faith alone since there is no empirical evidence that the trace gas, CO₂, can drive the Earth’s climate. It is the Sun that comprises 99.86% of the mass of the solar system that does that or there would have been no last ice age, or the Earth would not have recovered from this deadly time on Earth. The fifteen year old article that was published on September 15, 2005 stated that; “The North Atlantic averaged eight to nine hurricanes each year in the past decade, compared to the six to seven before. Category 4 and 5 hurricanes in the North Atlantic have increased at an even faster clip: from 16 between 1975 and 1989 to 25 between 1990 and 2004. That constitutes a 56 percent increase”. The article also stated this; “This trend is happening, the scientists say, as sea-surface temperatures around the globe are rising–anywhere from 0.50 to 1.0 degree Fahrenheit, depending on the region–over hurricane seasons since the 1970s”.
Would it then be logical to assume that the sea-surface temperatures around the globe were dropping for this below to have been written on June 26, 2017? Were the doom and gloom alarmist who thrive on adversity and destruction, that they try to pin on CO₂, advertising this fact? No, of course not!
(CNSNews.com) — Saturday, June 24 marked the completion of a record 140 straight months since the last major hurricane made landfall in the continental United States, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA).
The last major hurricane to hit the continental U.S. was Hurricane Wilma, which struck Florida on Oct. 24, 2005. According to NOAA, four major hurricanes hit the continental United States that year. They included Wilma, Rita, Katrina, and Dennis.
But since Wilma, no Category 3 or above hurricane has made landfall in the continental United States, making June 24, 2017 the end of a record 140 months without a major hurricane strike.
Prior to this 140-month stretch without a major hurricane strike, the longest major hurricane drought was the 96 months between September 1860 and August 1869. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/gage-cohen/record-140-months-major-hurricane-strike-us
There is no celebrating this fact below either by the doom and gloom alarmist who thrive on adversity and destruction.
“2020 Had the Fewest May Tornadoes in the U.S. in 50 Years
June 01, 2020 May is typically the most tornadic month in the U.S., averaging 272 tornadoes each year between 1999 and 2018. But only 59 tornadoes were confirmed throughout the month, according to George Delanjian, a meteorologist at Southwest Airlines. The last time May had fewer than 100 tornadoes was in 1970, when 88 touched down in the U.S., tweeted Evan Bentley, a severe weather meteorologist at NOAA’s Storm Prediction Center (SPC). The least-tornadic May was back in 1952, when only 34 twisters were confirmed during the month, according to data from the SPC.” https://weather.com/safety/tornado/news/2020-05-27-fewest-may-tornadoes-in-united-states-in-50-years
130: “In terms of the intensity, duration and frequency of storms, 2020 does not compare to the record set in 2005. That year, eight hurricanes reached Category 3 status or higher. Three of those hurricanes were a Category 5. The year 2005 is memorable in a bad way for many. One of the storms that season was Hurricane Katrina, which was a Category 3 at landfall but a Category 5 at its strongest. The storm devastated much of New Orleans and killed more than 1,500 people.
This year, two hurricanes — Laura and Delta — reached Category 4 status before making landfall in Louisiana and Texas. Both storms caused damage. So far this year there have been no Category 5 hurricanes.”
Incorrect. There have been several records broken this year, named storms and September storms for a start. There also has been one category 5 storm this year, hurricane Iots which reached 160 mph sustained winds, it weakend slightly before landfall in Central America.
There are a list of features and records of the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season in Phil Klotzbach’s verification report:
https://tropical.colostate.edu/Forecast/2020-11.pdf
RE. Mr. Know Nothing @130
Of course Mr. Know Nothing chooses to quote an article that was written before category 5 Hurricane Iota formed and subsequently made landfall on the US.
Ah yes, the record breaking hurricane season that actually was.
From NOAA:
The extremely active 2020 Atlantic hurricane season is drawing to a close with a record-breaking 30 named storms and 12 landfalling storms in the continental United States.
The 2020 season surpassed 2005 as the busiest on record.
Of the 30 named storms, 12 made landfall in the contiguous United States, breaking the record of nine set in 1916.
During the season, 27 tropical storms established a new record for the earliest formation by storm number. This season also featured a record 10 tropical cyclones that underwent rapid intensification, tying it with 1995.
Gavin et al.,
Does anyone have a time series for methane that extends back before 1983? NOAA has 1983-2019 but I’m stuck for data before that.
[Response: CMIP has a blended data series: https://www.climatecollege.unimelb.edu.au/cmip6 -gavin]
Oh my LORD! What next! 7 feet of snow dumped on Japan!!! 1000+ cars stuck in traffic jam! Al Gore, we’re watching you! SNOWMAGEDDON!!!!!! :)
https://www.dw.com/en/japan-1000-vehicles-trapped-overnight-by-record-snowfall/a-55991161#:~:text=A%20massive%20winter%20storm%20has,more%20heavy%20snowfall%20is%20expected.
3 feet in NE USA, 7 feet in Japan; I’m starting to see a trend here! :)
119 Barton Paul Levenson: K 115: Get this through your head: Current conditions have never existed on this planet before.
BPL: Get this through your head: It doesn’t mean science can’t analyze it.
A dog can analyze it. What matters is analyzing it effectively. Given over the past ten years I have done that better than the scientists or any of you here on these forums, in terms of looking forward indicates “the science” should have been doing a hell of a lot better than it has.
How many different ways do you want me to state this instead of just saying, “Yeah, we need to do better?”
124 nigelj:
Killian @116 started off previously by suggesting the last two years of very low arctic sea ice could constitute a new trend (something that will continue for many years) and now says this new trend is because he is “pattern literate”.
I said nothing of the kind. You are unbelievably stupid.
Once again Mr. KIA shows his deliberate ignorance of facts.
From Dr. Jeff Masters blog at https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/12/a-look-back-at-the-horrific-2020-atlantic-hurricane-center/:
A slew of records
The list of single-season and multi-season records established in 2020 is long. Below are the most notable ones, primarily taken from Dr. Phil Klotzbach’s 2020 season summary from November 30.
Multi-season records
– Fifth consecutive year with above-average Atlantic hurricane activity (previous record: four years, 1998-2001).
– Fifth consecutive year with a category 5 hurricane in the Atlantic (previous record: three years, 2003-2005).
Figure 5 tweet
Figure 5. The 2020 Atlantic hurricane season featured six major hurricanes, tied for second highest number of intense hurricanes on record. (Image credit: Tweet by Dakota Smith)
Single-season records
– Thirty named storms (previous record: 28 in 2005).
– Five category 4 and stronger hurricanes (tied with 2005, 1999, 1961, and 1933).
– Earliest forming ‘C’ named storm and the earliest named storm formation from the ‘E’ storm onwards.
– Ten named storms formed in September (old record: eight in 2002, 2007 and 2010).
– Five named storms formed in the Caribbean after October 1 (Gamma, Delta, Zeta, Eta and Iota), tying the record set in 2005.
– Four major hurricanes formed in the Atlantic basin after October 1 (Delta, Epsilon, Eta and Iota). Old record: two, set in numerous years.
– November produced 20 named storm days, tied with 1932 for most on record in November.
– Three Atlantic named storms formed in November (Eta, Theta and Iota). This ties 2020 with 1931, 1961, 2001 and 2005 for the most November named storm formations on record.
– Twelve Atlantic named storms made landfall in the continental U.S. (previous record: nine in 1916).
– Six Atlantic hurricanes made landfall in the continental U.S. (tied with 1886 and 1985).
– Five named storms made landfall in Louisiana (previous record: four in 2002).
– Hurricane Laura made landfall with maximum sustained winds of 150 mph in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. Laura is tied with the Last Island Hurricane of 1856 for the strongest winds for a Louisiana hurricane landfall on record.
– Hurricane Eta made landfall in Nicaragua with maximum sustained winds of 140 mph, making it the strongest November landfalling hurricane in Nicaragua on record. That record was broken just 13 days later by Iota, which hit with 155 mph winds.
– Hurricane Iota became a category 5 hurricane on November 16 – the latest Atlantic calendar year category 5 hurricane on record (previous record: November 8, by the Cuba hurricane of 1932).
– Nine named storms rapidly intensified by at least 35 mph in 24 hours in 2020: Hanna, Laura, Sally, Teddy, Delta, Epsilon, Zeta, Eta and Iota. This ties 2020 with 1995 and 2010 for the most rapidly intensifying named storms in a single Atlantic hurricane season on record. Tropical Storm Gamma also met the rapid intensification criteria by intensifying 35 mph in 24 hours, but it was a tropical depression at the start of its rapid intensification phase.
– Three named storm underwent 36-hour intensification of at least 100 mph: Delta, Eta, and Iota. According to an analysis by Sam Lillo, only eight other storms in 169 years of record-keeping accomplished this feat.
– Subtropical Storm Alpha made landfall in Portugal on September 18, becoming the first ever named storm to make landfall in the country. Alpha was also the easternmost-forming named storm on record in the Atlantic. Alpha killed one person in Spain and caused several million dollars (USD) in damages to Portugal and Spain.
– The NOAA Hurricane Hunters flew 86 missions into Atlantic named storms and disturbances, beating the previous record from 2005.
This list, from a hurricane expert, speaks for itself.
Doug “Gish Gallop” Swallow, #146–
So, you do realize that we’re on the verge of 2021 at this point, right? And that “are” is present tense?
KIA #154 there is a thing called weather, climate and weather are different!
Killian @156 so you think I have missinterpreted what you said. Let me remind you of what you posted at 116:
MAR : Demonstrate how that “the last two years” of Arctic Sea Ice minimums constitutes that “dramatic new downward trend on the road to an ice-free Arctic,”
Killian: Waste of time. You’re at least as scientifically reticent than, e.g. Schmidt, if not more so. ……..Further, as I have said many times, I am pattern literate which allows me to surmise things before the numbers are fully confirmed. You are unable to do this so it looks like magic to you. It’s just pattern literacy.
Nigel: So what you posted sure looks like you are essentially saying the last two years of arctic sea ice minimums constitute a new trend, because your ability with “pattern literacy” is one factor that enables you to see this new trend developing. And if its nothing to do with pattern literacy, what is it? But like Al Bundy says: You crow but never show.
mike @141
“I think he (Spencer) was simply stating his faith and belief in God and God’s intelligent design…. When we consider who might qualify as a conservative climate scientist who is well-respected by their peers (move the goal posts again), are we automatically tossing out the folks who don’t accept theory of evolution etc and instead want to go with some version of intelligent design or put their bets on a supreme deity who will step in and bail us out? For me, that kind of fundamental (yeah, I know) decision about science and creation means that climate scientist doesn’t make the first cut.”
I don’t have a problem with christian climate scientists. I think going further and believing in intelligent design rather than evolution would be pushing the limits, but it doesnt make their climate research wrong so its probably ok.However Spencer went beyond all this. Read Mal Adapteds cut and paste quote @128 and its clear Spencer signed a document saying “recent warming is one of many natural cycles of warming through history ….We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.”
This puts Spencer into the category of “crazy full on climate change denialist”, as opposed to “conservative leaning climate scientist”. I had already said theres a difference between the two categories of crank and conservative leaning climate scientist. Hence that is why I said it does put a question mark over him. He would need to explain himself, quite a lot.
And yeah its a tricky one because differentiating a crank / denialist and a conservative leaning climate scientist would be partly subjective, but like AB said a team of people get to call the shots and he said ” There is little or no reason to consider contrarians. You’re not trying to impress deniers by including their heroes. You’re trying to ensure that your communication encompasses reality.” I would add the idea is to target communications at the sensible people in the middle of the bell curve that would understand the purpose of a list of that type and the challenges putting it together but also its usefulness. I hope.
Mr. Know It All @143 Looks like a fairly ordinary winter storm to me, as a weather forecaster. Could you have fallen for media hype? And, yes, it will be quite cold and windy in the aftermath, but not exceptional for this time of year. Of course, any winter storm is “potentially an existential threat to survival” if you get stuck in it, and have to walk to shelter, so it’s best to consult the forecast before you travel.
@144 Looks like you’ve made the astonishing discovery that northern Canada normally gets really cold in the middle of the winter. Could it be another ice age coming? Nope. What you haven’t shown is that these temperatures are exceptional for the season and region, because they aren’t. So, I’m not impressed. On the other hand, Norman Wells NWT had a high of 50F on Dec. 3. This was 54F above their daily normal, and 17F warmer than any temperature recorded at that site 5 days either side of the record. If you show me a recent record low that’s 54F below normal, and 17F below any temperature record within a 5-day window on either side, anywhere in Canada or the U.S., I’ll be properly impressed.
J Doug Swallow @157, thank’s for that, but I dont get my climate science from AL Gore, who is not a scientist, or Anthony Watts who is a contrarian who mostly writes garbage and who runs a garbage website, or some journalist at the Washingon Post who might be hopeless, and might have have been lazy and copied some old article. Anyway copying some old article doesnt make the underlying warming trend in the arctic false, and its well known that the arctic warmed in the 1920s, but the recent warming and loss of ice volume is considerably greater, according to many lines of evidence.
Instead, I get climate information from things like the IPCC reports that are put together by hundreds of experts in their fields. I suggest you do the same, otherwise you will go down rabbit holes and will waste a lot of time and will miss the big picture, the important stuff. Merry xmas.
Killian @156,
Ah yes!!
It is the pantomime season. So the seasonal response to your seasonal denial would be “Oh yes you did!!”
And more seriously, you did. Remember this was when I said @55 of Wadhams’ Arctic Sea Ice predictions:-
to which you chipped in:-
leading me @102 to chastise you for trying to put words in my mouth and challenging you to demonstrate how a “dramatic new downward trend” was represented by your “last two years.”
Your demonstration @116 began by stating “Waste of time.” followed by a bit of ad hominem fallacy then “Yeah, if it’s not already in the data and essentially proved, it doesn’t exist or you” and explaining you were able to short-cut normal analysis (in which most folk require stuff to be “proved” or at least have some sort of supporting evidence) because you were “pattern literate.”
The rest of it was saying nothing that provided a valid “demonstration” unless the bold assertion that “the last two years should not have happened according to what we knew at the time” means something to those who are “pattern literate.”
Thus Killian, if you don’t object to the pantomime response, you may surely respond to nigelj @124 saying ‘Oh no I didn’t!!!’ and thank you for getting us all christmasy.
A merry Xmas to one and all.
#157 20 Dec 2020 at 7:27 AM Michael D. Sweet says: “Once again Mr. KIA shows his deliberate ignorance of facts”. One can wonder why this record that I submit below was not considered to be news worthy by the anthropogenic climate change crowd who now are, I assume, trying to blame the 2020 hurricane season on the essential for all terrestrial life on Earth trace gas, CO₂? Was good news about hurricanes or a diminished number of tornadoes not good news to hear?
(CNSNews.com) — Saturday, June 24 marked the completion of a record 140 straight months since the last major hurricane made landfall in the continental United States, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA).
The last major hurricane to hit the continental U.S. was Hurricane Wilma, which struck Florida on Oct. 24, 2005. According to NOAA, four major hurricanes hit the continental United States that year. They included Wilma, Rita, Katrina, and Dennis.
But since Wilma, no Category 3 or above hurricane has made landfall in the continental United States, making June 24, 2017 the end of a record 140 months without a major hurricane strike.
Prior to this 140-month stretch without a major hurricane strike, the longest major hurricane drought was the 96 months between September 1860 and August 1869.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/gage-cohen/record-140-months-major-hurricane-strike-us
JDS 148: If the climate alarmist had their way, the trend would be reversed and more people would be living in destitution and sorrow.
BPL: And they would eat little kittens. LITTLE KITTENS! How heartless can you be?
KIA 154: Oh my LORD! What next! 7 feet of snow dumped on Japan!!! 1000+ cars stuck in traffic jam! Al Gore, we’re watching you! SNOWMAGEDDON!!!!!! :)
BPL: Bringing up Al Gore in a climate forum is the climate equivalent of Godwin’s Law. Automatic fail.
K 155: over the past ten years I have done that better than the scientists or any of you here on these forums
BPL: “How Like a God.”
RE. Mr. Know Nothing @154
A trend indeed.
A warming atmosphere will and does hold more moisture. More moisture = more precipitation. Snow is a form of precipitation and more of it falling is not unexpected, although regardless, the length of time that it stays on the ground will diminish and overall snow cover is diminishing amplifying the warming.
Anyway, Michael D. Sweet, it appears that Hurricanes have been around for a while:
“The 30 Deadliest US Hurricanes / Tropical Cyclones (1851 – 2006)”
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/usdeadly.asp
Also it appears that they are not a new phenomenon:
Believe it or not there were even disastrous storms back in the distant past and how could that have been without Al Gore calling the shots and blaming every weather occurrence on the alarmist devil, CO2?
The First Invasion, 1274
From the port of Masan in southern Korea, the Mongols and their subjects launched a step-wise attack on Japan in the autumn of 1274.
The Mongols relented, and the great armada sailed out into open waters – straight into the arms of an approaching typhoon.
Two days later, a third of the Yuan ships lay on the bottom of the Pacific, and perhaps 13,000 of Kublai Khan’s soldiers and sailors had drowned. The battered survivors limped home, and Japan was spared the Great Khan’s dominion… for the time being. http://asianhistory.about.com/od/japan/a/Mongolinvasion.htm
The Second Invasion, 1281:
Kublai Khan was determined to smash Japan this time. He knew that his defeat seven years earlier had been simple bad luck, due more to the weather than to any extraordinary fighting prowess of the samurai.
On August 15, 1281, a second typhoon roared ashore at Kyushu. Of the khan’s 4,400 ships, only a few hundred rode out the towering waves and vicious winds.
http://asianhistory.about.com/od/japan/a/Mongolinvasion.htm
The people who believe that a trace gas absolutely essential for all life, CO₂, could have been a devil in the sky back in 1635 to have caused this “Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635” are not using logic to analyze the occurrence of hurricanes. Anyone who believes that a trace gas that makes up only .04% of the atmosphere causes anthropogenic global warming sure would not know about what follows.
“The fast-moving hurricane hit Massachusetts without warning, bringing winds that destroyed houses and floods that sent many scrambling for high ground. Farms around Boston were swamped by a storm surge that approached 20 feet, and at least 46 people died.
It happened 379 years ago today. Meteorologists still believe it is the strongest hurricane ever to hit Southern New England.
Though the settlers and Native Americans at the time lacked sophisticated weather equipment, researchers have combed through written accounts indicating that the Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635 — which had peak sustained winds of 135 miles per hour — would have overpowered storms of more recent memory”.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/08/26/the-great-colonial-hurricane-was-strongest-hurricane-ever-hit-massachusetts/KsnoPkIRfGqpUKKM2bdPIP/story.html
The Most Active Hurricane Seasons
Seasons with the most named storms, 1851-Present
Rank Year Number of Storms
1. 2005 28
2. 1933 20
3. 2012 19
4. 2011 19
5. 2010 19
6. 1995 19
7. 1887 19
https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/articles/most-active-hurricane-seasons
It is hard to believe that in 1900 CO₂ could possibly have contributed to the most deadly hurricane to have ever struck the US. The logical answer is that CO₂ has nothing to do with any weather event.
(The Great Galveston Hurricane of 1900 was the deadliest hurricane to ever hit the United States and caused between 8000 and 12000 deaths.)
http://geology.com/hurricanes/largest-hurricane/
Unforced Variations, 23 Sep 2019 at 10:43 PM AB:
zebra,
Here’s the second half of Quantum Magic part 2’s back cover, which is titled “For the English Teacher”:
He approached her and asked her advice, saying that he was a writer looking for a contest to enter. The problem was that his writing didn’t fit any current genre. He’d made up his own, which he called “weaving”. It’s a type of interactive nonfiction where one must write the most fantastical story using/explaining facts that can be easily and solidly verified, but of apparently supernatural origin: there can be no physical fiction or forcing.
She read two of Harmless and Intriguing’s chapters. (As of 040117, the rest were still being woven.)
.
For a writer, it’s high praise when an English teacher tries to melt through a counter five feet away. Did my Work instill “the terror of what couldn’t possibly be”? Was she afraid of an old one-legged man? Maybe she was in a hurry to get back to collating.
Her suggestion? Science fiction. I agree. It’s time for you to finally read some SF you can’t put down.
Doc
PS to the English teacher: Have you applied your skills as a teacher to the ancient texts by analyzing the characters for motivation? Why would anyone join the losing side on purpose? Well, what if your reality is a story to me, and I’m trying to win the shortest shelf’s writing contest?
____________________
AB: This Christmas star is about choices. Fundamental choices. Which is real, the metric or the physical?
The book has been woven. Now comes free will.
A subsequent edit:
He’d made up his own, which he called “weaving”. It’s a type of interactive nonfiction where one must write the most fantastical story using/explaining facts that can be easily and solidly verified, but are of apparently supernatural origin when informed by the story.
There can be no physical fiction. There can be no forcing. Weaving’s not magic tricks but the stacking of improbabilities for the sake of the story.
Real Hurricane Question
I’m re-posting this from Andrew Sipocz back at #13:
“What’s going on here? Check out the negative trend line of vertical wind shear for the Main Development Region of Atlantic tropical cyclones on page 30 by Dr. Klotzbach.
https://tropical.colostate.edu/Forecast/2020-11.pdf
What we’ve heard in the past is that with AGW, climate models show increasing wind shear and thus fewer tropical cyclones in the future, though stronger ones (due to increased ocean temperature). This seems to show that AGW may bring both more (lower wind shear) and stronger tropical cyclones to the Atlantic. This seems to be the case with more, and more rapidly intensifying storms since 2005.”
I was hoping someone would answer it for him; I haven’t seen any response. Much more interesting to my mind than the yawn-inducing nonsense from KIA. It would take some time for me to get up to speed on this…any experts or semi-experts able to give it a shot?
Killian @156, I’m not stupid. You are confusing at times. You explained that it would be a “waste of time”, explaining your views on a new sea ice trend to MAR, then said “furthermore you are pattern literate”. This is confusing because its not clear to me whether you are saying your beliefs about the trend are due to pattern literacy, or your comment about pattern literacy refers to something else entirely, given the overall context. If I misinterpreted it I apologise. And if you wont explain what you really mean about the trend, either put up or shut up.
A UK Met Office forecast for 2021 is projecting a year cooled by La Niña so not “scorchyissimo!!” (as 2020 may yet prove to be). The central projection for 2021 is +1.03°C putting 2021 6th warmest year below 2020 which has averaged +1.17°C-to date, 2016 +1.16°C, 2019 +1.12°C, 2015 +1.09°C and 2017 +1.06°C and then above 2018 +0.99°C and 2014 +0.92°C.
The Met Office are averaging GISTEMP, NOAA & HadCRUT4 in this analysis.
Ray Ladbury:
Yes, but why are they so willing to go out on a public limb, and expose themselves to the unsparing judgment of their trained, genuinely skeptical peers? Mike has the same thought:
Roy Spencer is interesting because some of his output is well-regarded by climate specialists, e.g. his work to establish the satellite-derived temperature record (aside from some early math errors, since corrected). He’s demonstrated the intellectual ability, and the training, needed to do respectable science. Why, then, would he affix his name to the bald assertion, There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming? Since the great majority of his scientific peers agree there is convincing scientific evidence for “dangerous” (i.e. increasingly costly in money and tragedy) anthropogenic global warming, Spencer appears to say he won’t accept any such evidence: IOW, empiricism be damned! And he simply declares himself right, and the lopsided consensus of his specialist peers wrong: IOW, intersubjective verification be damned! IMO, it’s as explicit a repudiation of science’s foundational principles as one could ask for.
As Mike notes, Spencer is a cdesign proponentsist. So is his scientific co-author and fellow Evangelical John Christy. Christy, despite his proud association with the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation (Russell calls it the Cornball Alliance, lol), did not sign the Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming. I wonder what he was thinking? Please also note the other twelve “Climate Scientist” signatories. The only names I recognize are Joseph D’Aleo and David Legates. ‘Nuff said?
Again: It’s clear that devout religious faith doesn’t necessarily entail denial of scientifically justified knowledge! Respectable witnesses are Kenneth Miller on evolution, and the aforecited K. Hayhoe on climate change. Poor Dr. Roy Spencer complained on his blog that if climate realists were fair, we’d criticize Dr. Hayhoe for her religion too! Way to miss the point. It is for him to ask how his faith differs from Hayhoe’s: I, for one, will never understand how either reconciles science and faith in their minds. I merely evaluate scientific claims by the norms I was trained in, strengthened over a lifetime of engagement. It’s undeniably best for all that Spencer doesn’t actually require my approval to remain erroneous, nor I his to question his cognitive motivations on RC. Ain’t freedom grand? I’m a consequentialist libertarian 8^D!
In spite of everything: Happy winter solstice, the reason for the season, to everyone in the northern hemisphere; and you southerners enjoy your midsummer, too. Here’s to the imminent termination of dual pestilences.
J Doug Swallow @148
“This lifting people out of poverty was accomplished on the back of fossil fuels. If the climate alarmist had their way, the trend would be reversed and more people would be living in destitution and sorrow.”
Lifting people out of poverty is not confined to electricity generated by fossil fuels. Lifting people out of poverty doesn’t care where the electricity comes from and solar and wind power are now cheaper per kwhr than coal and gas, according to the Laazard international energy analysis. And alleviating global poverty has actually mostly been due to the promotion of free trade since the mid 1980s, not fossil fuels per se. Suggest people read some reputable material like the economist.com
“The world economy is growing. In less than a generation the value of the yearly global economic production has doubled.1”
And what does Swallow think would happen if we have a big drive to build renewables? This adds to economic growth and job creation. Think of the huge jump in output during WW2. This can all potentially help reduce poverty, assuming the money isnt all grabbed by the elite.
Funny how all these right wing climate denialists are suddenly interested in poverty….it never worried the right wing before.
The solstice is about new beginnings. The power wielded by those who hold nothing but metrics is virtual. We can replace the system. As if the useful part of Facebook isn’t boilerplate and servers rent by the carbon dioxide emissions (you can Bitcoin it).
Unforced Variations is about forces of nature. Millions to the nth power. We’ve had enough.
#deFacebook
A new fact based, balanced, and comprehensive review of 2020: “The top 10 weather and climate events of a record-setting year. In an all-around bizarre and largely unpleasant calendar year, extreme weather and climate-related changes contributed to the woes of 2020. By Jeff Masters, PhD, and Dana Nuccitelli | Monday, December 21, 2020.”
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/12/the-top-10-weather-and-climate-events-of-a-record-setting-year/
The review looks at everything from CO2 levels to warming to wildfires to flooding to arctic sea ice and of course hurricanes:
“The 2020 season was notable not only for its record number of named storms (after breaking into the Greek alphabet by the ridiculously early date of September 18), but also for its record number of rapidly intensifying storms (10), record number of landfalling U.S. named storms (12), and record number of landfalling U.S. hurricanes (six). Every single mile of the mainland U.S. coast from Texas to Maine was under a watch or warning related to tropical cyclones at some point in 2020. U.S. hurricane damage exceeded $37 billion, according to insurance broker Aon, the eighth-highest annual total on record.”
J Doug Swallow: On August 15, 1281, a second typhoon roared ashore at Kyushu. Of the khan’s 4,400 ships, only a few hundred rode out the towering waves and vicious winds.
AB: Yep. And it’s not just invasion fleets. I have it on good authority that trailer parks cause/attract tornadoes. Something about elevated metal boxes. Gotta be a Tesla generator thing.
J Doug Swallow @170&172,
You seem to be happily trolling down this thread with grand assertions but with little enough in the way of supporting evidence. So forgive me for investigating what species of troll you are.
You write “It is hard to believe that in 1900 CO₂ could possibly have contributed to the most deadly hurricane to have ever struck the US” and also @170 you described CO₂ as a “trace gas absolutely essential for all life.”
So let us take a step back.
This “trace gas” CO₂; surely this “trace gas” is a greenhouse gas without which the global temperature would be 7ºC colder and that with such a drop in temperature there would also be a reduction in levels of atmospheric water vapour which is itself a greenhouse gas and so global temperatures would drop a further 25ºC, roughly.
So here is an initial question for you, J Doug Swallow. Would there be any tropical cyclones at all if global temperatures were to drop 32ºC?
And, perhaps slightly more interesting, given that greenhouse gases will increase global temperatures and tropical cyclones are driven by high sea surface temperatures, why would you think that an increase from 185ppm CO₂ to 410ppm CO₂ would not increase tropical cyclone activity?
at MAR at 177: I think I also read that 2021 is likely to be in the top three hottest years in the record when it is complete, despite being a La Nina year. if true, then that would make it the hottest LN year in record. Still pretty hot.
2020 is likely to end up either hottest year or number 2. I think that will happen with no EN bump, so I think what we are seeing is just global heat buildup. There will be some wobbles as ocean absorb and return heat to atmosphere and some wobbles as our means of measurement and analysis continue to improve or be refined, but the bottom line is Hot! Hot! Hot!
I suspect that we agree on that.
At Nigel: yeah, Spencer may do some good science and have respect from peers on some particulars and still qualify as a crank to you and me based on his sign on his Christian Climate subscription. I would guess he won’t lose any sleep over our opinions of him.
In thiss scenario, we might want to give Spencer credit where credit is due and withhold credit and respectability where he has revealed some crazy ideas that don’t seem to hold up to scientific scrutiny. Be that as it may, you brought up his name a couple of times before backing away from him. So we are back where we started: it’s hard to figure out who the most peer-respected, conservative climate scientist might be. Maybe it’s someone like Schmidt or Mann? That would allow a range of Wadhams/Shakhova to Schmidt/Mann. I am comfortable with that. I think Schmidt and Mann tend to skew conservative in many regards for me.
I don’t really care about a scientist’s ideas about religion and mysticism. If they think God or Santa Claus or the Great Pumpkin are likely to intervene and protect us from ourselves and our experiment with green house gases, I think they are nuts.
To some extent, your religion is like your gender to me. I don’t care about it one way or the other when we are discussing science. Keep it in your pants, please. If you can’t keep your gender gear or religious gear in your pants, then I really am unlikely to care very much about what you have to say.
ya follow?
Cheers
Mike
nigelj:
I’m a little hesitant to assign individuals or ideas to a political “wing”, but it’s reasonably correct to say the majority of US climate-science deniers identify with the country’s modern right wing. The Republican Party came to represent it during the Red Scare of the 1950s. The first Presidential campaign I was aware of was 1964, and at the time I understood that Barry Goldwater, the GOP candidate, was “right wing”, which mostly meant reflexively anti-Communist, and in favor of US military intervention to block Communism’s spread. This platform was of course supported by the military-industrial complex the decade’s Republican President, WWII General Dwight Eisenhower, warned us about as he was stepping down.
In fairness, the US Democratic Party has long embraced its own venality. A preponderance of evidence nonetheless shows that today’s GOP represents plutocratic interests, aided by a popular disregard for the social costs of capitalism.
Into the 1970s, support for environmental protection was widely bi-partisan in the US. In the ’80s, however, Ronald Reagan allied the GOP with extractive industry corporations, who greenwashed their freedom to socialize much of their production costs under the so-called wise use movement (now represented by ALEC). That made “environmentalism” a left-wing concern by default. During the 2000 election campaign, again abetted by public disinformation paid for with extractive industry profits, the consensus of US and International climate science was successfully linked to environmentalism and the nominal left wing, i.e. the Democratic Party. The demagogic Donald Trump’s wholesale reversal of environmental protections, along with his conspiracism about AGW, now has the support of nearly half of US voters, who apparently reject climate science simply because “libs” are seen to accept it. America, what a country 8^(!
J Doug Swallow @170
“Anyway, Michael D. Sweet, it appears that Hurricanes have been around for a while: The 30 Deadliest US Hurricanes / Tropical Cyclones (1851 – 2006)”
Yes but this is a STRAWMAN. Nobody has said they haven’t been. But evidence shows the numbers of category 4 and 5 hurricanes have doubled globally in recent years. These are the ones that cause most of the damage:
https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=104428
Honestly Doug you should make a New Years resolution to wake up.
MAR @164 “oh yes you did, because….” Thanx. That’s exactly what I thought.
Mal Adapted: Again: It’s clear that devout religious faith doesn’t necessarily entail denial of scientifically justified knowledge!
AB: True. And the alternatively adapted would do real time experiments.
Look at the dates. I’m pretending to claim, through the suspension of disbelief, the entire Trump era. If there’s a shred of truth in the one-in-a-million-or-quadrillion-it-doesn’t-matter to the 50th or so power required to weave this book, I’m sorry for the deaths, both global and intensely personal, but once removed. I’ll move this discussion to my blog.
the-weaver.org
Gavin,
I found the CMIP6 tables with data from 1850 to 2014. This will help immensely. Thanks!
Mal and nigel:
Please direct yourself to the papers that have stated a shift in temperatures starting around 2015 is in play. Previously been posted to these fora. I noticed it in 2019, but it became clear in 2020 for the simple reason already stated: The temperatures of ’19 and ’20 had no freaking reason to be occurring, so why did they? The ASI melt levels had no clear reason to be happening, so why were they? I have noted this multiple times over the last year, particularly WRT ASI effects.
I ALREADY posted about that.
But, hey, pretend I haven’t already given you the context. As I said… waste of time. All the data already noted, the trend long already discussed, it’s confirmation, or at least support for this trend existing, from SCIENCE, already provided, yet you act as if none of the above occurred. I also posted Hansen, et al.’s recent finding on aerosols being the potential cause of the acceleration. And I posted about Francis and Wu and the potential negative feedback of snow cover on late summer AO temps/ASI. (The article I read mentioned the effect had been minimal in ’19 and ’20, thus allowing high melt rates.)
Waste of time, as I said. I am well within the science (it caught up… again…), but look at you two… goodness.
Two things are at play here: 1. I’m the one who pointed out the trend…. before anyone else… again… so you automatically reject it rather than seeking to confirm or disprove (you are such slaves to the science, yet reject using it…?) and 2. your natural reticence to accept any new finding unless it is fully confirmed by numbers…. which means you are and will continue to be well behind the curve: Scientific PROOF takes time, no? Since that is all either of you are willing to accept…
I am an excellent analyst, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not. I could act as a canary in the coal mine for you to consider forward-looking possibilities, but you two are too busy trying to convince yourselves I know nothing, see nothing. But what have I been wrong about all these years? Not a damned thing.
Up to you to pull your heads out or not.
168 Barton Paul Levenson: K 155: over the past ten years I have done that better than the scientists or any of you here on these forums
BPL: “How Like a God.”
Indeed, the ability to analyze seems like magic to those who cannot analyze, they being confined to numbers that reflect only what has been, not what is nor what will be. Science takes time, so always lags reality, but policy must always look ahead, so we need people who can see trends developing and extrapolate. Get it through your thick skull: That’s what I do.
Some of you may have participated in a survey about climate blog readers last year. Well, the paper about it has been published:
Christel W. van Eck, Bob C. Mulder & Sander van der Linden (2020) Echo Chamber Effects in the Climate Change Blogosphere, Environmental Communication, DOI: 10.1080/17524032.2020.1861048
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17524032.2020.1861048?src=&
188 nigelj: MAR @164 “oh yes you did, because….” Thanx. That’s exactly what I thought.
And, as always, you thought wrong. You both did, and typically do, rather than learn from someone who thinks differently, to positive effect, you hate and clown and act studpidly, suicidally.
Good luck with that.
Mike @185,
“it’s hard to figure out who the most peer-respected, conservative climate scientist might be. Maybe it’s someone like Schmidt or Mann? That would allow a range of Wadhams/Shakhova to Schmidt/Mann. I am comfortable with that. I think Schmidt and Mann tend to skew conservative in many regards for me.”
I think that is ok. Its hard to think of a more conservative leaning climate scientist that is not a contrarian or crank. I think Spencer would have been ok if he hadn’t signed that declaration, given his record. I’m not backing away from him so much as I forgot he signed that thing. Its vaguely possible he signed it in a hurry without digesting it. Then again maybe his real views slipped out.
mike: So we are back where we started: it’s hard to figure out who the most peer-respected, conservative climate scientist might be. Maybe it’s someone like Schmidt or Mann?
AB: Fortunately, it can be an amalgamation. What would MannSchmidt think?
______
Nigel,
The right wingers are focused on poverty. They believe that private organizations, such as churches, are best suited to help lift people, as opposed to permanently float them via the intergenerational capture of governmental assistance linked to qualifications that penalize income (and so should support Yang?)
This is borne out in the numbers. Right wingers man soup kitchens and donate personal funds in excess of the amount expected by population alone.
# 163 21 Dec 2020 at 1:38 AM nigelj says: “…or Anthony Watts who is a contrarian who mostly writes garbage and who runs a garbage website…” Obviously that is only your opinion and you are certainly entitled to that. Richard Muller, who I know that more folks have heard of than someone on a blog who will not present their full name, certainly seems to have a different view of Anthony Watts that what ‘nigelj’ does.
Muller also had four specific concerns with the scientific consensus on global warming, which the BEST project was designed to address. The first – and most serious, he says – is the “stations issue”, referring to a problem highlighted by controversial US blogger and former TV meteorologist Anthony Watts. In 2007 Watts initiated the Sur/acestatiQns.org project, which reported that 70% of temperature recording stations in the US were inaccurate to a level of 2–5°C. MulIer says that the BEST team has now cleared up this issue by showing that when it comes to specifically measuring change in temperature, the 30% of good stations are not significantly more accurate than the 70% of bad stations. “lf Watts hadn’t done his work, we would not have reliable data today. The fact that he did that means he’s a hero; he deserves some sort of international prize.”
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/4/2/muller-on-watts.html
# 163 21 Dec 2020 at 1:38 AM nigelj says: “Anyway copying some old article doesnt make the underlying warming trend in the arctic false, and its well known that the arctic warmed in the 1920s, but the recent warming and loss of ice volume is considerably greater, according to many lines of evidence”.
I will certainly present nigelj with evidence that the loss of sea ice in the Arctic now is not as profound as it was in the 1920s and before that when good records were kept by whaling ships.
nigelj will not find this valid information below at his ‘go to site’ for his information on the Arctic sea ice.
“Locations of ice observations made from whaling ships during May (a, b), July (c, d), and September (e, f) in the 1850s and 1860s. White dots show locations where ice was reported, and blue dots, those where no ice was reported. Red lines show the southernmost extent of ice reported in the NOC atlas for the period 1972-82. Black solid and dashed lines are the 20% and 40% mean ice concentration contours, respectively, for 1972-82”.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Locations-of-ice-observations-made-from-whaling-ships-during-May-a-b-July-c-d-and_fig3_263653192
This “Arctic Sea Ice Extent Animation 2016-2018” doesn’t seem to be much different than what we saw back over 100 years ago
This animation shows the annual variation of sea ice extent in the Northern Hemisphere. Throughout the winter, the cold temperatures freeze more and more of the water in the Arctic Ocean and surrounding bodies of water. As this water freezes, it gradually builds a layer of ice on the surface that covers millions of square kilometers. The ice pack generally reaches its maximum extent around March.
https://scied.ucar.edu/video/sea-ice-extent-maps-animate-arctic
# 163 21 Dec 2020 at 1:38 AM nigelj says: “Instead, I get climate information from things like the IPCC reports that are put together by hundreds of experts in their fields. I suggest you do the same, otherwise you will go down rabbit holes and will waste a lot of time and will miss the big picture, the important stuff”. It appears that you may have missed much ‘important stuff’ if the IPCC reports are what you rely on without checking to see how true that they are.
This below gives an indication of how you and your kind of science works where the IPCC uses the musing of some doped up hippies with the WWF when they said that the Glaciers in the Himalayan Mountains would be gone by 2035:
“GLACIERGATE” HIGHLIGHTS IPCC FLAWS
Firstly, the IPCC has a procedure for using documents that are both non-published and non-peer-reviewed but none for material published without peer review. Secondly, no members of the author team for each chapter are responsible for checking the work of other authors.
In theory this checking is left to reviewers but they only comment “according to their own
knowledge and experience” and the IPCC appears to take no steps to ensure that suitably
qualified people check every
word. […]
Chapter 10, section 6.2, of the Working Group II contribution to the IPCC’s 2007 report stated that Himalayan glaciers would likely disappear by 2035. This error was discovered in December 2009 and quickly was given the name “Glaciergate” in an echo of “Climategate”, the title given to the release of controversial computer files from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in November 2009.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/glacier_gate.pdf
I have been to Nepal on three separate occasions & I never saw any glaciers disappearing before my eyes as I froze my ass off in the high mountains. I did notice, because I’m observant, is that the Himalayan glaciers often have many rocks on their surface because of the high mountains that they very slowly flow out of.
Maybe this paper says something of interest to the assembly here.
Sayedi et al (2020) ‘Subsea permafrost carbon stocks and climate change sensitivity estimated by expert assessment’
#187 22 Dec 2020 at 3:53 PM nigelj says: “Yes but this is a STRAWMAN. Nobody has said they haven’t been. But evidence shows the numbers of category 4 and 5 hurricanes have doubled globally in recent years”. Nigelj then directs me to a good article that Judith Curry, who has seen the light and knows that this anthropogenic climate change is not happening like so many poorly informed people on the subject would like everyone to believe just on faith alone since there is no empirical evidence that the trace gas, CO₂, can drive the Earth’s climate. It is the Sun that comprises 99.86% of the mass of the solar system that does that or there would have been no last ice age, or the Earth would not have recovered from this deadly time on Earth. The fifteen year old article that was published on September 15, 2005 stated that; “The North Atlantic averaged eight to nine hurricanes each year in the past decade, compared to the six to seven before. Category 4 and 5 hurricanes in the North Atlantic have increased at an even faster clip: from 16 between 1975 and 1989 to 25 between 1990 and 2004. That constitutes a 56 percent increase”. The article also stated this; “This trend is happening, the scientists say, as sea-surface temperatures around the globe are rising–anywhere from 0.50 to 1.0 degree Fahrenheit, depending on the region–over hurricane seasons since the 1970s”.
Would it then be logical to assume that the sea-surface temperatures around the globe were dropping for this below to have been written on June 26, 2017? Were the doom and gloom alarmist who thrive on adversity and destruction, that they try to pin on CO₂, advertising this fact? No, of course not!
(CNSNews.com) — Saturday, June 24 marked the completion of a record 140 straight months since the last major hurricane made landfall in the continental United States, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA).
The last major hurricane to hit the continental U.S. was Hurricane Wilma, which struck Florida on Oct. 24, 2005. According to NOAA, four major hurricanes hit the continental United States that year. They included Wilma, Rita, Katrina, and Dennis.
But since Wilma, no Category 3 or above hurricane has made landfall in the continental United States, making June 24, 2017 the end of a record 140 months without a major hurricane strike.
Prior to this 140-month stretch without a major hurricane strike, the longest major hurricane drought was the 96 months between September 1860 and August 1869.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/gage-cohen/record-140-months-major-hurricane-strike-us
There is no celebrating this fact below either by the doom and gloom alarmist who thrive on adversity and destruction.
“2020 Had the Fewest May Tornadoes in the U.S. in 50 Years
June 01, 2020 May is typically the most tornadic month in the U.S., averaging 272 tornadoes each year between 1999 and 2018. But only 59 tornadoes were confirmed throughout the month, according to George Delanjian, a meteorologist at Southwest Airlines. The last time May had fewer than 100 tornadoes was in 1970, when 88 touched down in the U.S., tweeted Evan Bentley, a severe weather meteorologist at NOAA’s Storm Prediction Center (SPC). The least-tornadic May was back in 1952, when only 34 twisters were confirmed during the month, according to data from the SPC.”
https://weather.com/safety/tornado/news/2020-05-27-fewest-may-tornadoes-in-united-states-in-50-years