The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

So global cooling caused by a volcanic eruption caused more tornadoes.... Then man made global warming is supposed to cause more, but it hasn't happened yet, but it will, eventually, which is starting to seem like never.
Mmmm hmmm.
And you wonder why people are skeptical what the global warming scientists are pushing.

You don't understand.
Krakatoa cooled the atmosphere for a couple of years
BUT
the oceans stayed as warm as they were as they don't drop fast
SO
the difference between atmospheric and sea water temperatures became larger, which most likely caused the high number of tornadoes in the 1880s.
Which are therefore an anomaly not related to climate development.

That should be clear? If not, how can you not see? How?

Krakatoa also emitted a large quantity of CO2, but that admittedly would have had little to do with the short term weather effects.

[oil pan 4]

A volcano doesn't explain the 1880s to 1930s US hurricane anomaly.
Where more hurricanes made land fall between 1885 and 1930 than 1930 till now.
That's why.
Plus this proves climate change, you should be happy.

[RedDevil]

The problem is data quality. We don't have reliable hurricane statistics before the 1950s.
You again narrow down the sample size to US landfall tornadoes. The smaller the sample, the larger the variance in an already very highly variating set.

We do have increasingly melting glaciers. Rising CO2 content in the atmosphere. Rising methane content. Rising ocean temperatures. Rising sea levels. Climate change is happening, and if you find one localised set of data that does not align that does not change the evidence.

If this was a crime scene we'd have the victim, the bullet that killed him, the gun, the DNA of the suspect on the gun, witness reports and a lamp post.
Maybe the lamp post does not prove the crime happened, but the other evidence does.
You sound like an attorney. Never admit no matter the evidence.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

How's that global warming in new England going for you?

Another interesting stat and possible proof of climate change.
The average number of tornadoes per year is down, way down for the last 4 or 5 yesrs.
I thought we were going to get more tornadoes because of man made global warming?
Man the only consistency with man made global warming is the never ending stream of failed predictions.

The jet stream is a mess - as a result of warming in the Arctic; which is about 2X a rapid as most of the earth. That is why we have cold air "leaking" out. We had a low of 1F Monday morning - and we may see 50F for a high on Thursday.

This CONFIRMS climate change.

And it continues to change, so we saw a lot of tornadoes in lots of places and at times that we rarely saw them before. And the number of EF4 and EF5 events have become much more frequent than they used to be.

With new data from new devices, we now know that the oceans are warming 2X more than we thought.

[oil pan 4]

How much were the oceans warming before the new instrumentation was added?

The United States has land falling hurricane data going back to 1885.
Of course the believers want to throw out this data because it doesn't fit their predetermined out come.

[RedDevil]

That's nice. That will stop the ice melting at record speed.

[oil pan 4]

Last year the antartic was only down 3% or 4% off its 1980 base line for ice coverage after being down what, 10 or 12%. I don't remember what the peak was.
What happens when the ice coverage exceeds 1980 levels?

[RedDevil]

Area is not important. Volume is. If it starts to melt it spreads before it is gone...

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/4/1095

Recent observations have shown that the ice sheet is losing mass along the periphery due the enhanced flow of its glaciers, at a rate that has been increasing over time, while there is no long-term trend change in snowfall accumulation in the interior [i.e., Antarctica contributes to sea-level rise (SLR) principally via changes in ice dynamics]

Antarctic ice depletion/growth per decade


Lies! Damn believers! The 1880 hurricanes will get them!

[oil pan 4]

Only goes back to 1979?
Not much of a sample size.

[RedDevil]

It covers the 1980 base line for ice coverage you mentioned. I thought it was spot on. If you have objections, why then didn't you use an older base line?

And don't you agree that this does show the ice mass decreased significantly in the past years, speeding up and all?