The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by 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.

So this is clear proof the climate is changing.
It's just not changing in a way that supports the narrative.

Thanks,I'll try and look at that some time.Bear in mind though,that hurricanes do not 'define' climate change.They're only one element of a larger picture.
I'm a believer and I don't hate anything ,so leave me out of it!
There's plenty of data which support the narrative if you'll remove your confirmation-bias filter.
Some of your sources need to quit with the recreational lobotomies.

[aerohead]

Weather Channel saying that 2018 is the most active Eastern Pacific Hurricane Season on Record.
Are they making this up?
*already a dozen hurricanes
*Nine of them CAT-3 or higher
*Some of these,the longest-lasting,longest- track hurricanes
*Warmer water and El Nino have contributed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*How did that water get so warm?
*22-named storms
*12-hurricanes
*9-major hurricanes
*at least 3-CAT-3
*Using the Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index,2018,a new record,relating to 'reliable' records dating to 1971.
*It's the lifespans of the storms making the difference.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The 2018 Southern Hemisphere cyclone season started in September,instead of November,which hasn't happened since 1950.

[oil pan 4]

Fall into the weather is climate trap again?

Also thats not land falling hurricanes. How far back do these records go for this new fangled "cyclone energy" whatever?
Bet it doesn't go back to 1885, probably goes back to what, the 1970s?

How do we know the water wasn't this warm and had this many storms back around 1900?
We dont.
So when the facts don't fit the predetermined out come just change the rules, throw out some red herrings?

Also 1992 they went a through z for named storms. Last time I checked there was more than 22 letters in the alphabet.

The weather channel also said to expect more major storms making land fall due to warmer waters and changing jet stream but this hypothesis goes against historical trend we have seen since the middle of last century.

I just presented the definitive text book example of unaltered climate change proof, why deny it?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Fall into the weather is climate trap again?

Also thats not land falling hurricanes. How far back do these records go for this new fangled "cyclone energy" whatever?
Bet it doesn't go back to 1885, probably goes back to what, the 1970s?

How do we know the water wasn't this warm and had this many storms back around 1900?
We dont.
So when the facts don't fit the predetermined out come just change the rules, throw out some red herrings?

Also 1992 they went a through z for named storms. Last time I checked there was more than 22 letters in the alphabet.

The weather channel also said to expect more major storms making land fall due to warmer waters and changing jet stream but this hypothesis goes against historical trend we have seen since the middle of last century.

I just presented the definitive text book example of unaltered climate change proof, why deny it?

They mention 'reliable' records,which they've cut off prior to 1971.
We know the water temperatures back hundreds of thousands of years.
That new-fangled thing is an analog to ice mass vs ice extent,it has everything to do with storm magnitude.You could have a CAT-5 hurricane that lasted for 5-hours,with less total energy that a CAT-1 which lasted for 2-weeks,like Olivia.
I don't really give a s-- if they're land falling or not.This is not a homocentric universe.It's not germane.Oscar is being tracked and it won't be a land falling storm,but it's a storm,which IS germane.There are ocean-going vessels that would be happy for the data.
Again,you're using a single metric(hurricanes) for which to define a subject which encompasses a myriad of phenomena.
Facts are just that.They don't need an agenda in order to exist.
Where did you present anything definitive? I've looked your posts all day and haven't seen a thing!
But you're right.You've never made a mistake in your entire life.Millions of lives have been saved by your spot-on forecasts,predictions, and tireless devotion to scientific research,of course at your own personal expense,since you might not want to be seduced by corrupt grant money.Higher education? Why bother.P.hD.s? You hate them all.You've told us so.They're all just a bunch of liberal leftist,tree-hugging,green-weenie,commie-pinkos,out to destroy free enterprise,personal freedom,and take your consumer preferences away from you.Pure evil! Pleased to meet you.

[oil pan 4]

So 1971 versus 1885.
Hmmm. I know which one I would go with.
The 1885 observations are one of the few that show change over more than a century and can't be "adjusted".
Because that 1885 to 1930s anomaly really throws a wrench into the narrative.
Kind of makes you wonder whatwas going on prior to 1885. I could speculate but then I would be no better than a beliver.

Land falling major hurricanes is the observation.
I know the belivers can't and wont accept the oldest observations with out adjusting them to fit the predetermined result. Then always always fire back trying to reference stuff that has about 100 less years of observation.

I don't hate anyone.
I do like money. If I was being paid by the global warming establishment I would be singing a whole different tune.
The only answer the political belivers have is to slap billions of dollars worth of taxes on everything and not offer any kind of measurable, attainable time line of how to fix global warming. They are pretty much offering to lower my standard of living for nothing in return.
Yeah that sounds great. Where do I sign up...

The fight to throw out or edit anything that doesn't fit the narrative tells me all I need to know.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by aerohead

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.

And we understand that there are increased shear winds which prevent tornadoes and hurricanes from forming. Sometimes we get more events, and sometimes less - it is the extended "seasons" and the increased strength of the storms that is indicative.

And the increased precipitation, and the increased droughts, and the warmer temperatures, and the higher average temperatures, and the higher overnight lows, and the shifting seasonal changes - that all indicate very rapid climate change.

[oil pan 4]

Last year it was summer like here well into november.
I was thinking I could get used to global warming thing.
Then this year we went straight into winter at the end of october.

Yes something very rapid happened with the Atlantic and gulf of Mexico between the 1930s and 1960 even through now.
No denying it, no adjusting it.

[redpoint5]

Last year I ran the heat for the first time in September. This year I haven't run it yet. A couple years ago I went until November before needing heat. Not bad for cold rainy Oregon. BTW, current temperature in here is 72 degrees with an outdoor temp of 51.

[Xist]

How important are hurricanes that do not reach land?

How long should I grow my grass to best sequester carbon?

We have already had more snow than we did last winter.

[redneck]

NeilBlanchard;

There are thousands of scientists contributing to the IPCC - and they are all climate scientists. Who are the 700? Are they dentists, or geologists, or what? Most "skeptics" are not climate scientists, and some are not even scientists.

Apparently you didn’t read the report.

Here it is.

https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...b-bd9faf4dcdb7

This new 2009 255-page U.S. Senate Minority Report -- updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 700 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC.

Quote.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”


Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.


“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.


“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.



And there are many more...



Quote.


This Senate report is not a “list” of scientists, but a report that includes full biographies of each scientist and their quotes, papers and links for further reading. The scientists featured in the report express their views in their own words, complete with their intended subtleties and caveats. This Senate report features the names, biographies, academic/institutional affiliation, and quotes of literally hundreds of additional international scientists who publicly dissented from man-made climate fears. This report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies, scientific analyses and original source materials as gathered from directly from the scientists or from public statements, news outlets, and websites in 2007 and 2008.

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; astrophysics, engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore. Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Abo Akademi University in Finland; University of La Plata in Argentina; Stockholm University; Punjab University in India; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.

You quoted a lot of OPINION. That is not evidence based science.

OPINION based on the evidence or the lack there of.

This current administration is anti-science.

The original Senate report was published 12/11/2008 at the end of the Bush administration.

The updated report includes 59 more scientists and was published 3/16/2009 during the Obama administration.

Nothing to do with the current administration.

They believe - like you, apparently - in a conspiracy theory.

A conspiracy theory - by definition, is bunk.

con·spir·a·cy

/kənˈspirəsē/Submit

noun

a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

"a conspiracy to destroy the government"
synonyms: plot, scheme, plan, machination, ploy, trick, ruse, subterfuge; informalracket

"a conspiracy to manipulate the results"

the action of plotting or conspiring.

Climategate - See definition of conspiracy.


Climategate II

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe.../#776a6b8b1323

Again, a conspiracy to manipulate the results.

Not a theory.

Not bunk...


>