The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I was watching the weather channel today and they said there hasn't been an EF4 or higher tornado in the US for about a year and a half.
That's the longest recorded EF4 break since they have been able to keep track of them.
So much for their being more severe storms with more stronger tornadoes due to so call man made climate change.
Another record breaking event for 2018, I think it's called mountain sky resort in VT is open, the earliest opening in its 64 year history.

While tornado intensity is down,we have record wildfires,drought,hurricanes,flooding,mud-slides,home destruction,business destruction,military base destruction,road washouts,travel delays,refugees,dam failures,bridge failures,infrastructure destruction,power outages,potable water outages,strandings,crop failures,heat waves,tropical disease,insect infestations,coral bleachings,species loss,loss of life from all of the above.
As poles warm,the circumpolar jets are deforming,taking the Jet Stream with it,and moving weather around the map.
It's good that we didn't have severe tornado outbreaks.We've had the warm moist air for super-cell storms.We just didn't have the C.A.P.E.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

...and as I've said before, it's not really interesting to debate if the warming is naturally occuring or not, as the answer of what to do about it would be the same.

It is interesting to me that the hockey stick has received criticism from scientists though, especially since it's in pop culture movies like "An Inconvenient Truth". Even if the overall results are the same, why was the data massaged in such a way that it didn't show the most accurate portrayal of climate change that it could?

Do we have graphics for both,for a side-by-side comparison?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Another one you missed, mean wealth per capa.
It was almost unchanged for 7,000 years until about the early 1800s.
Then by about 1900, zoom! Straight up.

The only chance our future generations have to not all end up as peasants is to go nuclear uranium, thorium and recycled mixed oxide fuel.
We have to stop this use it one time and bury it garbage.

But some people think nuclear and fossil fuel energy is the devil. I guess they want future generations to be in danger of starving to death every single year because of a bad harvest or dieing from exposure, every single year if it gets unusually cold.

The Mann hockey stick graph is at the very least a gross wildly embellished pile of steaming assumptions.
Or as I like to say the lie that birthed the religion.

If you've read all these contemporaneous accounts by the likes of Adam Smith,David Hume,Stanley Jevons,Thomas Malthus,etc.,you'll know that all these authors take a very contextual,conditional,limited statistical view of the world ,which in no way represents the actual world.It's all laughable.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redneck

Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Outpouring of Skeptical Scientists Continues as 59 Scientists Added to Senate Report

‘The *science has, quite simply, gone awry’



https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...1-fc38ed4f85e3


https://ecomodder.com/forum/images/editor/quote.gif















These and many more.


Doesn’t sound like a “consensus” or “settled” to me.



>

I don't think the polar ice caps or Greenland are paying any attention to the the skeptics.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

What if we "solved the problem" and it kept on getting warmer?

Not that there is any way current technology can "fix the problem" with out going all khymer rouge.

If that were true,then there'd be no science,technology,materials,metallurgy,medicine,i ndustry,military,reason for education,agro-business,etc..
We'd be back in caves.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Are these concepts (biochar) meaningfully scalable on a global CO2 emissions level? Or is this just more wishful thinking?

I'm guessing,that it's just a single component of a holistic approach to the problem.
You're not going to get all your nutrition from potatoes,you'll diversify your market basket.

[oil pan 4]

The record going back to 1885 for major land falling hurricanes has been showing a down trend since at least the 1960s and back as far as the 1930s depending on how you like to cut and stack the data.
Wild fires are mostly a man made construct by mismanagement or over management of the forests combined with weather favorable to fires. To blame climate change for forest fires is a huge stretch since it's not the only thing in play.
I do like how climate change is responsible for both droughts, floods and any unusual weather but climate change is defined by a guy on the weather channel who at least holds a PhD in climate studies says "climate change is over the century time scale" and " not to fall into the weather is climate trap" or something to that effect.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

One can dress for the cold,but one cannot get more naked than naked.
If we have to gamble the planet for the sake of those who choose to live in four-season climes,there's gonna be a discussion.
The ideal temp was probably 58-F.

That's a good point. I'm always saying that temperatures should err on the side of too cold, because something can be done about that. Nothing to be done about too hot. There's a reason (several) why I'll never live in Florida.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The record going back to 1885 for major land falling hurricanes has been showing a down trend since at least the 1960s and back as far as the 1930s depending on how you like to cut and stack the data.
Wild fires are mostly a man made construct by mismanagement or over management of the forests combined with weather favorable to fires. To blame climate change for forest fires is a huge stretch since it's not the only thing in play.
I do like how climate change is responsible for both droughts, floods and any unusual weather but climate change is defined by a guy on the weather channel who at least holds a PhD in climate studies says "climate change is over the century time scale" and " not to fall into the weather is climate trap" or something to that effect.

*'Major' hurricanes meaning specifically what?
*For the number?
*For the wind intensity?
*Storm surge?
*Rainfall?
*Michael was 'historic'
*Yutu was 'historic'
*Florence was 'historic'
*Harvey was 'historic'
*'historic' events are concerns for climatologists.
*Climate change affects everything from phytoplankton blooms to Cyclones.
*Polar warming affects circumpolar jets,which affect the Jet Stream,which affects all distribution of pressure anomalies,temperature,precipitation,drought,flood, snow,hail,etc..
*Stationary highs and lows can 'park' weather over a specific geographic area for weeks if not months.
*Extended drought creates the fuel for wildfire.Whether real estate development or impotence of forest service management complicates the situation isn't germane to climate issues.
*Climate change is anything which lies outside natural variability of the recorded weather dynamics.

[oil pan 4]

Looking specifically at the count of hurricanes that made US land fall from 1885 till now and were cat 3 or greater.
That number has been steadily declining since at least the 1960s.
I know the believers really hate these kinds of records that go back well over 100 years and can't be manipulated like temperature data.
Furthermore something like 2/3 of the most powerful hurricanes to hit over the last 133 years hit between 1885 and 1930.
Back at the turn of the century they would call 2 years of storms like Michael, Florence, Harvey normal and say "is that all you got".
So this is clear proof the climate is changing.
It's just not changing in a way that supports the narrative.