The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Nice post niky. My other question is whether global warming, at least at its current form, might have more positive than negative consequences for humans. It's a topic almost not discussed at all.

1 site I mentioned above said we would observe net positive effects until 2080. Nobody commented on it.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/10/carry-on-warming/

If we reap positive benefits until 2080, and then gradually begin to experience negative consequences, the rational thing to do would be to leverage science/technology to keep conditions somewhere around 2080 levels to maximize human well being. I expect we'll have much better technology in the next 60 years.

I have seen discussions in either SCIENCE,or NATURE,by climatologists.They've said that,while climate effects are not uniform,and some regions will be 'winners',that statistically,there will be more 'losers.'
The non-linear climate amplifications are believed to continue,and accelerate,since carbon emissions continue to grow and what's in the atmosphere already will be there a thousand years.Things are expected to just keep ratcheting up.
As the wettest September in DFW history wasn't enough,now we've broken the all-time record for Autumnal rainfall.We're over 41-inches for the year.Last year was an all-time record for North Texas rainfall.
Llano and Marble Falls' lakes,Texas are out of bank today,with loss of life.Everson,Texas is already a State disaster area with continued flooding.I-35,near Crosby Road,Dallas,'buckled' last night under stress from heavy rains causing car wrecks.It's unprecendented!
Tampa,Florida set a heat record yesterday at 93-F.
These 'black-swans' just keep coming.
6,000 scientific papers say we better get our ---- together by 2030,or it's really gonna hit the fan.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

If it's not open for debate then it's not science.

The only parts of science that are not open for debate are scientific laws.

You won't find bigger skeptics outside the scientific community.
When they submit papers,they do have to pass through referees though,who screen for nut-cases,and cranks.They can smell them.
If you actually read the original research papers,written by the researchers,without any interface or filtering,you'll soon see for yourself,that open debate is alive and well within the scientific community.That's how they do.And they're the only ones qualified to question one another's work.
The Alex Epstein's of the world aren't welcome and shouldn't be.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

These charts include all of the possible "striving" for wind and solar. The problem is that the scale of our consumption dwarfs the build out of alternatives due to their very poor density. World solar and wind is still less than 2% of total energy. Can't even mention storage.

Please bear in mind that this level of consumption is contextual,conditional.
With the stroke of a pen,it could be curtailed drastically.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

It is a hoax when the belivers are telling us "there's going to be more major land falling hurricanes like Harvey, Florence, Mike" and the long term trends are not supporting that at all.
The way the segment was presented was "it's happening now" not "we think this is what's going to start happening".

Then sample size. How do we know the all the 1885 to 1930 hurricanes, aren't actually normal. Or maybe it's exceptionally rare happening only once every few hundred years.

The climate models show a range of predictions.Some show a probability for an increase in frequency and magnitude,as we're experiencing these 'rapidly intensifying hurricanes'.
Municipal planners might find the information useful for long-range real estate development,or the decision not to do any more of it.
Michael grew from a tropical disturbance,to a near-Category-5 hurricane in a very brief matter of time.It's a 'historic' hurricane.It's a 'black-swan' event,exactly the sort of thing mentioned pre-Gore.
Michael is scientific 'evidence' that climate change is currently a reality.God didn't wiggle his finger and create that 87-degree F water in the Gulf of Mexico,which is currently flooding and killing in Texas as I type.
The Carbon and Oxygen isotopic fingerprints have 'man' all over them.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

Personally I don't see how climate change would cause more hurricanes. If both the sea and the air heat up equally there isn't more power in the system to cause hurricanes.
So I'm not convinced there is a relationship. Global warming is a fact, but hurricanes may not be the best instrument to measure it.

To filter on just landfall hurricanes reduces the sample size and increases ambiguity - do narrow passes count, and when? Also, each hurricane takes energy out of the system, without the non-landfall hurricanes energy would build up to extreme levels.
The effect often spreads out over very large areas so each hurricane anywhere in the world should count.

In the absence of shear winds,it is 80-degree F water,or warmer,which feeds heat energy into these storms.As air and sea-surface temperatures increase,the available latent energy for storm intensification increases in lock step.The rapid intensification of Hurricane Michael is a perfect example of this dynamic.

[redpoint5]

I did a search for the positive effects of global warming and found nothing.

Being skeptical is more important when everyone is going in one direction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwFmrI5QQFI

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by aerohead

In the absence of shear winds,it is 80-degree F water,or warmer,which feeds heat energy into these storms.As air and sea-surface temperatures increase,the available latent energy for storm intensification increases in lock step.The rapid intensification of Hurricane Michael is a perfect example of this dynamic.

I understand how the buildup of a hurricane works, but it is not temperature that drives it - it is a temperature differential. If the seawater and air temperature at higher altitudes rise equally there should not be a net effect.
If the sea temperature rises and the air doesn't - havoc.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I would say hurricanes land falling on something the size of the US over 130+ years is a pretty good sample size.

Unlike the data cherry picked by the belivers the hurricanes land fall data going back to 1885 is immune to the "corrections" they like to apply to temperature data.

Super storm sandy was the only major thing to happen over that time. Sandy was a hurricane, but it was more like a storm called a "noreaster" that was supercharged by tropical storm remnants.
Thats why what hit the east coast of the United states is called "super storm sandy" and not hurricane sandy, though strong enough to be a hurricane.

That noreaster was going to hit, it just happened to sweep up tropical storm remnants and the 2 systems fed off each other.

The last one like that was the "perfect storm" in 1991. Every 20 to 30 year the east coast gets something like that.
Then going back further the one before the perfect storm was in the early 1980s.

They said on the weather channel that climate change driven warmer waters will make more hurricanes, make them stronger and change the jet stream to cause them to hit the US more often.
That's why I used the 1885 up land falling hurricanes data, because that's exactly what the weather channel specifically said "major land falling hurricanes".
But we are on a downward trend for major land falling hurricanes since about the 1930s.

The believers / pushers say one thing when the long term data says the opposite.

The weatherchannel people never tried to show that there was any kind of long term increase in major land falling hurricanes either, because there isnt.
They merely stated a hypothesis that historical evidence does not supoort.

What did the climatologists say?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I did a search for the positive effects of global warming and found nothing.

Being skeptical is more important when everyone is going in one direction.

*Fewer frozen (broken) water lines
*Winter exposure death reduction
*Regional agricultural productivity
*Lower costs for sidewalk,road, snow removal,sanding,salting
*Fewer weather-related airport closures
*Lower heating costs
*Increased outdoor winter activities

things like this have been tossed around

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

I understand how the buildup of a hurricane works, but it is not temperature that drives it - it is a temperature differential. If the seawater and air temperature at higher altitudes rise equally there should not be a net effect.
If the sea temperature rises and the air doesn't - havoc.

The seawater is at least 833-times more dense than the air.It's capacity to store heat energy is staggering compared to that of the atmosphere.
Diurnal air temperatures can fall,while the sea surface temperature remains essentially constant over vast time frames.
Dry air can kill or weaken a developing storm,as happened with Florence,and was hoped for with Michael.That's why so many at Mexico Beach and Panama City remained at home.They were betting on a Florence-like weakening.
Without shear winds or dry air available,Michael continued to feed off post-Equinox,cooler air and water as warm as 87-degrees F,strengthening until landfall.It was a perfect setup.Had the Gulf of Mexico been a little larger,Michael would have reached Cat-5.
The evidence is,that the conditions that prevailed at the time,were such to produce the 14-foot surge and 155-mph winds.NASA could provide the air temps and conditions aloft.
The fact that it happened foreshadows the future.It can happen again.
And since we're doing nothing to lower the burden of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,how does that bode with respect to even warmer Gulf water temperatures? Do you see a reason for concern? NASA does.