Gulf Stream

[Aufan59 80]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

Doesn’t help?  Doesn’t help what?  The narrative of gloom and doom is right around the corner if we don’t do something?  anything?

Having a differing opinion is counter productive?

Net zero is the preferred method of stopping the increase in CO2 and it is cost prohibitive.  The Sec. of Energy admitted he has no idea how much it would lower the earths surface temps by 2100.  

 

 

 

Differing opinion is fine.

 

Posting “scientific studies” that conflate scientific terms to confuse people is not fine.

[I_M4_AU 7,957]

9 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

Differing opinion is fine.

 

Posting “scientific studies” that conflate scientific terms to confuse people is not fine.

Having a theory that the earth is warming is fine.

Spreading fear that we only have a fixed time period to act before it’s tool late is fear mongering.

[Aufan59 80]

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Having a theory that the earth is warming is fine.

Spreading fear that we only have a fixed time period to act before it’s tool late is fear mongering.

Is this your excuse for posting bull**** studies?  To counter the fear?

Edited April 19 by Aufan59

[I_M4_AU 7,957]

1 minute ago, Aufan59 said:

Is this your excuse for posting bull**** studies?  To counter the fear?

No, to post alternative thoughts.  You believe it is a BS study, I thought it was something that people might be interested in knowing everyone doesn’t agree with the 97%.

What is interesting is not one of us well be around in the year 2100 to see if the earth has warmed.

[Aufan59 80]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

No, to post alternative thoughts.  You believe it is a BS study, I thought it was something that people might be interested in knowing everyone doesn’t agree with the 97%.

What is interesting is not one of us well be around in the year 2100 to see if the earth has warmed.

It’s definitely a BS study, one you don’t understand but only post because it’s alternative.

 

But we do agree that we both don’t care what happens in 2100.

[auburnatl1 5,010]

1 minute ago, Aufan59 said:

But we do agree that we both don’t care what happens in 2100.

Seems to be same logic as the deficit. Screw it. We’ll create the problem and let our kids and grand kids deal with it. 

[Cardin Drake 1,853]

On 4/4/2024 at 11:16 AM, homersapien said:

Well I see the crazies have hi-jacked this thread.

Meanwhile, (emphasis mine):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2024/04/04/atlantic-hurricane-season-forecast/

An “extremely active” Atlantic hurricane season is likely this year, a key preseason forecast warns, with chances for long-lived and intense storms fueled by record ocean warmth and atmospheric patterns known for boosting tropical cyclones.

Hurricane researchers from Colorado State University are predicting that nearly two dozen named tropical storms will form, including 11 hurricanes, during the season that officially begins June 1. Accumulated cyclone energy, a measure that accounts for storms’ frequency and longevity, could rise nearly twice as high as normal, to a forecast 170 percent of average by the season’s end Nov. 30.

The forecast released Thursday is the latest indication that a surge in global heat over the past year, far beyond the gradual warming observed across recent decades, could translate to greater extreme weather risks.

The predictions are so aggressive, they would mean the Atlantic basin could exhaust a list of 21 storm names for a second time in four years, and the third time since 2005. After that, meteorologists would start using a list of supplemental storm names the World Meteorological Association adopted in 2021, replacing a practice of using Greek letters.

The researchers said their hurricane season forecast comes with more confidence than usual, and it includes the highest predictions the team has made in 40 years of producing these outlooks. Although hurricane season predictions aren’t rock-solid at this time of year, sea surface temperatures are so extreme across the Atlantic basin that stormy conditions appear all but assured.

“It would take something pretty crazy for the Atlantic to not be substantially warmer than normal for the peak of the season,” which typically occurs in August and September, said Colorado State University hurricane researcher Philip Klotzbach, the forecast’s lead author. “The signal certainly points quite strongly toward a busy season this year.”

A trend toward a stormier Atlantic

The forecast far outpaces historical averages, but it is in line with several recent hurricane seasons.

In a typical year, about 14 tropical cyclones organize and strengthen enough to become named tropical storms — swirling systems organized around a low-pressure center and with maximum sustained winds of at least 39 mph. About half become hurricanes, on average, with maximum sustained winds of at least 74 mph.

Three of the storms become major hurricanes, on average, with winds of at least 111 mph. This year, the Colorado State researchers predict five major Atlantic hurricanes.

There have been at least 20 named storms in three of the past four seasons, including in 2020 when a record 30 storms got names, nine of them carrying the names of Greek alphabet letters.

Whether tropical cyclones are becoming more frequent isn’t scientifically settled, but there is evidence to suggest that is one consequence of global warming. Research has also shown intense cyclones are forming earlier during hurricane season than they did in the past.

‘Very concerning’ conditions in place

This year, there are two main factors driving expectations of a busy season: Historic warmth across Atlantic surface waters, and an assumption that a La Niña global climate pattern will develop by the hurricane season’s peak in late summer and early fall. Warmth provides more energy for storms to unleash, and La Niña tends to promote atmospheric wind patterns that are conducive to storms’ development.

Record ocean warmth made for an active 2023 hurricane season, with 20 named storms, despite the presence of El Niño, the opposite of La Niña and typically a hindrance to Atlantic cyclone development. While El Niño encourages wind shear in the Atlantic basin — changes in wind speeds and direction at different altitudes — La Niña discourages it, providing an environment for cyclones to develop tall clouds and intense low-pressure centers.

As April begins, the tropical Atlantic is as warm as it would normally be at the start of July.

That means the heat that will drive storm activity could already be all but locked in. If Atlantic temperatures surpass 2023 levels, “that’s very concerning,” said José Javier Hernández Ayala, an associate professor focusing on climatology at Sonoma State University in California.

“We don’t know if these [ocean temperature] trends are going to continue,” he said. “If they do, that’s definitely going to be fueling more activity.”

That said, “having warm water does not guarantee hurricanes,” said Kim Wood, an associate professor of hydrology and atmospheric sciences at the University of Arizona. Storm activity will also depend on the African monsoon season, which can send atmospheric disturbances into the Atlantic that serve as “seeds” for tropical cyclones, they said.

Heightened coastal risks

 

Florida's Fisher Island, foreground, along with Miami Beach sit next to the Atlantic Ocean. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

While seasonal forecasting does not allow meteorologists to predict where storms might go, the conditions expected across the Atlantic raise the odds for landfalling storms in the United States.

The researchers estimate a 62 percent chance that a major hurricane will make landfall somewhere in the continental United States, compared to a 43 percent chance in an average year.

And they estimate a greater than 1-in-3 chance of a major hurricane landfall somewhere on the East Coast, an area where the average chances are about 1 in 5. If La Niña forms as expected, that would raise the risks of storms forming off Africa and sweeping across the Atlantic basin and up the East Coast, Colorado State’s Klotzbach said.

“Your odds of landfall from Florida to Maine go up quite a bit when you have La Niña, because it favors those long-track storms,” he said.

Exceptionally warm waters in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean, which have helped drive a growing number of storms to rapidly intensify into major hurricanes in recent years, will likely mean especially high storm risks for islands, including Puerto Rico, Central American countries and the U.S. Gulf Coast, said Hernández Ayala of Sonoma State University.

The conditions are prompting calls to prepare for potentially violent storms. AccuWeather last month warned its audiences that an “explosive” hurricane season could be ahead, predicting 20 to 25 named tropical storms and eight to 12 hurricanes, including as many as seven major hurricanes. The National Hurricane Center is expected to issue its season forecast in May.

Klotzbach said there is still time for conditions to change in ways that could impact storm risks. While forecasters have dramatically improved their skills at predicting hurricane activity so many months out, there is still more uncertainty in April than there will be in June or August.

“It’s a forecast, not a guarantee,” Klotzbach said.

Glad you brought up ACE. Do you see a trend here?

[Aufan59 80]

6 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Seems to be same logic as the deficit. Screw it. We’ll create the problem and let our kids and grand kids deal with it. 

Yikes if you actually have kids and grandkids though.  

[I_M4_AU 7,957]

4 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

Yikes if you actually have kids and grandkids though.  

I have faith our kids and grandkids will be able to deal with life’s problems in the future.

[Aufan59 80]

32 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I have faith our kids and grandkids will be able to deal with life’s problems in the future.

So no need to lie to them with bull**** studies right?

[I_M4_AU 7,957]

3 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

So no need to lie to them with bull**** studies right?

By 2100 they should know what was BS or not.  Just like the 70’s global cooling scare was because of bad theory, so will any bad theory be exposed if we keep digging and not think the science is settled.

[Aufan59 80]

10 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

By 2100 they should know what was BS or not.  Just like the 70’s global cooling scare was because of bad theory, so will any bad theory be exposed if we keep digging and not think the science is settled.

We don’t have to wait until 2100 to know the difference between entropy and radiative forcing.

 

This is not even about climate change, politics, the 1970s, etc.  This is about the study you posted, that you don’t understand, that is just “offering a different view point.”

Please just admit your only criteria is “a different viewpoint”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,957]

7 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

Please just admit your only criteria is “a different viewpoint”.

Did I deny it?

[Cardin Drake 1,853]

5 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

By 2100 they should know what was BS or not.  Just like the 70’s global cooling scare was because of bad theory, so will any bad theory be exposed if we keep digging and not think the science is settled.

You underestimate the ability of the left to deny facts. We have over 50 years of data on ACE-accumulated cyclonic energy-that shows there is no trend whatsoever. Yet every lefty on here will insist that hurricanes are increasing in frequency and intensity.  And they have convinced 90% plus of the population that that is a fact just be repeating it over and over.  They have proven Goebbels was right:  If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.

Edited April 20 by Cardin Drake

[homersapien 11,428]

23 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

Glad you brought up ACE. Do you see a trend here?

First, where did you find that?  I'd like to see the full article to see what the authors concluded, if anything.

Secondly, It is difficult - at least for a non-expert like myself - to deduce a trend from such a chart. But it is interesting to note that all of the maximum peaks in this graph have occurred since about 1993, so it probably doesn't demonstrate what you think it does.

Here's a plain statement lifted from an EPA website:

•  According to the total annual ACE Index, cyclone intensity has risen noticeably over the past 20 years, and eight of the 10 most active years since 1950 have occurred since the mid-1990s (see Figure 2). Relatively high levels of cyclone activity were also seen during the 1950s and 1960s.

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-tropical-cyclone-activity

[homersapien 11,428]

17 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

You underestimate the ability of the left to deny facts. We have over 50 years of data on ACE-accumulated cyclonic energy-that shows there is no trend whatsoever. Yet every lefty on here will insist that hurricanes are increasing in frequency and intensity.  And they have convinced 90% plus of the population that that is a fact just be repeating it over and over.  They have proven Goebbels was right:  If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.

Says who?  You? 

Edited April 20 by homersapien

[johnnyAU 3,643]

Looks like most, if not all, of those ACE peaks are correlated with ENSO events, which makes sense. 

[Cardin Drake 1,853]

On 4/20/2024 at 4:05 PM, homersapien said:

Says who?  You? 

You know how much it pains NOAA to write this:

In summary, it is premature to conclude with high confidence that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities have had a detectable impact on Atlantic basin hurricane activity, although increasing greenhouse gases are strongly linked to global warming... Human activities may have already caused other changes in tropical cyclone activity that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of these changes compared to estimated natural variability, or due to observational limitations."

Here's an updated version of the chart from climatlas.com

[homersapien 11,428]

6 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

You know how much it pains NOAA to write this:

In summary, it is premature to conclude with high confidence that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities have had a detectable impact on Atlantic basin hurricane activity, although increasing greenhouse gases are strongly linked to global warming... Human activities may have already caused other changes in tropical cyclone activity that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of these changes compared to estimated natural variability, or due to observational limitations."

Here's an updated version of the chart from climatlas.com

That doesn't surprise me at all.  I agree that it's way too "premature" to
"conclude with high confidence". (Science is based on data.  Predictions are just that - predictions.)

That's the nature of climate study.

But we know that global warming is creating more energy (heat) in the ocean and we know that heat will naturally produce more energetic storms.  It just hasn't happened yet to the point we have conclusive data that demonstrates it.

It's one of the inherent problems with climate change - people won't believe it until its readily apparent, in which case it is too late to affect it.

 

[jj3jordan 2,059]

38 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That doesn't surprise me at all.  I agree that it's way too "premature" to
"conclude with high confidence". (Science is based on data.  Predictions are just that - predictions.)

That's the nature of climate study.

But we know that global warming is creating more energy (heat) in the ocean and we know that heat will naturally produce more energetic storms.  It just hasn't happened yet to the point we have conclusive data that demonstrates it.

It's one of the inherent problems with climate change - people won't believe it until its readily apparent, in which case it is too late to affect it.

 

You think you can affect it? LOL

[homersapien 11,428]

22 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

You think you can affect it? LOL

I certainly think humans in total can.

Look around man.

[Cardin Drake 1,853]

23 hours ago, homersapien said:

That doesn't surprise me at all.  I agree that it's way too "premature" to
"conclude with high confidence". (Science is based on data.  Predictions are just that - predictions.)

That's the nature of climate study.

But we know that global warming is creating more energy (heat) in the ocean and we know that heat will naturally produce more energetic storms.  It just hasn't happened yet to the point we have conclusive data that demonstrates it.

It's one of the inherent problems with climate change - people won't believe it until its readily apparent, in which case it is too late to affect it.

 

Well, maybe next time your hear it you will stand up and correct this lie from skepticalscience.com  that is being repeated every day in every media you can find:  Atlantic hurricanes have increased both in power and frequency, coinciding with warming oceans that provide energy to these storms. 

[homersapien 11,428]

On 4/23/2024 at 3:36 PM, Cardin Drake said:

Well, maybe next time your hear it you will stand up and correct this lie from skepticalscience.com  that is being repeated every day in every media you can find:  Atlantic hurricanes have increased both in power and frequency, coinciding with warming oceans that provide energy to these storms. 

First, Accepting that skeptical science said that, I cannot say that it is false without more information.

Can you provide the link?  They usually reference their claims.

It's quite possible the skeptical science statement - which has no scientific probability attached to it in your quote -  can be true if based on a statistical analysis at a lower confidence level than the NOAH statement (also unspecified).  

Lower could be say,  90% or 95% instead of 99% percent confidence level.  (The 90% means if you conduct the same study 100 times, you'd get the same results 90 times, and so forth for the 95% and 99% confidence levels.)

(Disclaimer: I am saying this more than 50 yrs after I studied statistics so I am less than 90% certain  I am using the terminology correctly.  And I sure as hell don't remember the calculations.)

Bottom line: 

Practically speaking, it is quite possible that both statements are true - within the statistical parameters of the conclusions. They don't necessarily conflict.

Not trying to confuse the issue, just offering a scientific - or statistically based - perspective on two seemingly conflicting statements.  They may both be true at the differing statistical levels of confidence.  

Secondly your statement that: it "is being repeated every day is in every media you can find." is clearly a lie - or at least something you just made up.

And to the point of my original comment on the NOAH statement: we may find evidence that supports either statement this year - or not.  Maybe that evidence won't occur until next year or the year after next.  There is only one hurricane season per year with only a relatively few hurricanes, which brings up another question:  How many hurricanes on average are occurring and is that increasing?

Since you apparently enjoy this, I'll let you research that and get back to us.

Edited April 26 by homersapien

[Cardin Drake 1,853]

Homer, there is no statistical reference with the skeptical science quote. It's easy enough to find; I'll let you do your own research.  I see a statement like that in almost every MSM article written about an upcoming hurricane season. Surely you don't believe that lie is NOT widespread.  And the information you want on hurricane frequency is already in the chart I posted. 

[Aufan59 80]

On 4/20/2024 at 12:29 AM, I_M4_AU said:

Did I deny it?

Seems like a very low bar.  What is the consensus among flat earthers about global warming?  

 

There are differing viewpoints about everything.  Stating or even proving that there are differing viewpoints is meaningless.  
 

Edited April 24 by Aufan59