The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

How many of those little boxes 'made of ticky-tacky' will be replaced with concrete hemispheres? Not many?

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.

I picture humankind as being like myriad finger-puppets, chattering about free will — and rolling coal.

[oil pan 4]

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.

Life long residents say where I live sand dunes used to be common. If you only look for negative you will only find negative.

I can think of one big positive of climate change. The end of the last ice age.

[RedDevil]

It all depends on temperature difference. Capacity is important, but if the difference stays the same it has no effect on the outcome. The difference is what powers the storm.

[oil pan 4]

Maybe space is getting colder.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

It all depends on temperature difference. Capacity is important, but if the difference stays the same it has no effect on the outcome. The difference is what powers the storm.

I understand what you're saying.What I'm saying is,that whatever situation existed at the time of Michael's development,it was perfect for creating a near-Category-5 hurricane.
If present 'conditions' were extrapolated into the future,there would be a degree of confidence that a Michael-esque hurricane could come along.
Winds,(driven by pressure differentials,which in turn are driven by density,which is a function of temperature,a function of atmospheric heating),throughout the vertical air column,were steady enough not to produce wind shear.
There was no dry air available for intrusion into the storm.
The warm,moist air has a lot of kinetic energy,and buoyancy,which coupled with the lapse rate,release energy as it rises.As long as the wind within the vertical air column of the storm is basically uniform and without shear,all it needs to grow is the source of warm,moist air.
It's like the Convective Available Potential Energy (CAPE) of a super-cell,super-storm tornado

[NeilBlanchard]

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.

It is only open for debate IF you have evidence that puts it in debate.

You don't have any evidence.

And if you want to "debate" facts, then that is called denial.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Maybe space is getting colder.

Space Shuttle crew members doing EVAs reported 400-degrees F on their sunward side,and 250 F below zero on the shady side of their spacesuits.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Space Shuttle crew members doing EVAs reported 400-degrees F on their sunward side,and 250 F below zero on the shady side of their spacesuits.

The best amount of greenhouse gases - are juuuuuust right.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

It is only open for debate IF you have evidence that puts it in debate.

You don't have any evidence.

And if you want to "debate" facts, then that is called denial.

There is plenty of evidence out there man isn't the driving force behind climate change. The believers just chose to ignore it.
The biggest one is solar forcing.

Main reason being the only solar forcing related papers the belivers will even look at is from the mid 1990s and agrees with their narrative.

But that's going to all change in 2021. There is a satellite going up that will specifically study the interaction between the solar wind and the earths atmosphere, weather, jet stream, ect.
This will absolutely confirm the suns impact on weather at first and climate as the data piles up.

I will have a tombstone made.

"Man made climate change
197? - 2022"

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

The best amount of greenhouse gases - are juuuuuust right.

I'm curious if there has been any research on what the ideal (for human life and activity) ppm for CO2 is, and if others have found similar results?