The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

When 630 billion dollars is at stake (the amount Obama said carbon cap and tax would raise) yes it's a conspiracy.

It was sold to me that tornadoes and sever storms were going to keep getting worse and worse and that it probably wasn't going to slow down, let alone pause or get better.
You know that's why we had to do something now, big emergency, ect, ect, give us all your money and we promise you will feel better.

I already caught the believers in a straight up lie when they tried to say that "there are now more hurricanes than ever". Nope. That was the best one to date because it was so easy proven to be an out right lie.

Looks like the tornado data says the same thing. 1884, wow and only a fraction of tornadoes that happened were ever reported. Until the advent of weather radar the, historically the state with the most reported tornadoes was Massachusetts.
The weather now was nothing like the turn of the last turn of the century.
Definitely proof of climate change, just opposite of what the belivers say is going on now.

Looks like you don't pay any attention to weather-related news reports.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I don't think a sample size of 40 years is going to show anything useful on a system as large and as complicated as the earth.
Especially since the definition of climate change is change over at least a century time scale.

We have older data. The data since 1979 is from satellites and it is more accurate than the older data.

Science takes all the data into account. None of it is ignored, or changed - some data has known errors, and since we have multiple overlapping data sets, we can correct for known anomalies. To not correct when we know it is not as accurate - would be irresponsible, and would be wrong.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by 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.

*in the past 2-million years,there's been a worldwide surge in volcanic explosive eruptions associated with ice cap fluctuations.
*the 1626-BC explosive eruption of Mount Thera/Santorim,Aegean Sea,cooled the whole planet.
*in 1695 there was a 'Krakatoa'-scale eruption which cooled the whole planet.
*in 1725,ditto
*The Spring,1815 Mount Tambora explosive eruption ended in an average,mean global temperature drop of 2-F.
*in 1883,Krakatoa,east of Java,East Indies,cooled the whole planet.
*in 1912,Mount Katmai,Alaska blew her top.
*in 1950,began a worldwide increase in explosive volcanic eruptions
*in 1963,Mount Agung went off,with a stratospheric ash cloud which reduced global surface temperature by 1.6-2% all the way to the Equator.
*in 1970,the Deception Island,Antarctica volcano blew a 1/4-mile hole though 300-feet of ice.
*in 1976 Mount Fuego,Guatemala went off with an ash plume great enough to cool the whole planet.This was part of the 'Global Cooling' controversy at the time,and researchers were perfectly justified in any and all reporting.
*in 1980 we had Mount St. Helens
*in 1992,Mount Pinatubo,Philippines
*Recently we've had Iceland's little demonstration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All we know,is that these explosive eruptions can,have,and could cool the entire Earth,due to albedo affects,plus other atmospheric photolysis/photochemical reactions which affect the ozones' absorption of solar spectra or not,and Methanogenesis,oxidation to water vapor,and infrared forcing from the lower stratosphere.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Their causation or implications about Tornado spatial and temporal frequency and magnitude would be a completely different kettle of fish.
Like hurricanes,tornadoes are 'heat engines',driven by at the intersection of warm,moist air and cold dry air.
Since the oceans have warmed,and store most of the heat,available heat energy is ever present and can span (as already mentioned) short term perturbations in 'weather' on both a regional as well as global scale.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
With polar jet perturbation,no one can guess what the Jet Stream will do,which has a strong bearing on a proper setup for cyclonic activity,whether over land or water.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And another 'Elephant in the room',is the fact that ice sheet loss,triggers tectonic rebound,which in turn accumulates lithospheric stress,which,you guessed it,can trigger volcanic eruptions.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by 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.

True! Some of the oceanographic data necessary for more accurate modelling,won't even be available until 2041.And that's contingent upon Congress not messing with funding.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by 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.

The data won't be available until 2041.So cut 'em some slack.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by 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?

Ice coverage is not ice volume,and the latter is the issue.
Ice loss is exceeding snowfall.
As the ice shelves disintegrate,the glaciers they used to buttress accelerate into the sea,raising sea-level.
And now Eastern Antarctic glaciers are going away.
Buoyant,rising meltwater from under the shelves,create convection gyres which induce warmer intermediate and deep water to the face of the submerged shelves,glaciers,amplifying the loss.
And while there is a lot of precipitation from all the evaporation,due to the warmer oceans,there are also stronger foehn winds which blow the snow off Antarctica,before it has a chance to stick.
And I'd say that we'd have 1980s ice cover when cows fly,but Reed Timmer vidiographed those last year,N-W of Cheyenne,Wyoming.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

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

Data before then is deemed deficient or unreliable.And some data is still being transcribed from archaic files and placed in a digital domain,which will take until 2041, before they can complete the process,so any models will be compromised until then.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I went back to 1885, but that wasn't good enough.
Probably because the data can't be manipulated.

Presently,ocean data are being collected for the entire water column,reaching all the way down to the sea floor,by surface ships as well as decommissioned submarines.
This isn't something that you're going to find in early data archives.
Navies from the US/UK and USSR submarine operations have declassified their oceanic measurements,but these are only a fraction of archived data undergoing transcription and entry into computer databases,which will take a few more decades to retrieve from the original source material.
Any conclusions drawn from 1885 material would be extremely dubious at best.
I know you hunger for a conspiracy,but you're going to have to look elsewhere.
Perhaps the folks at the Bohemian Grove can help out.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I don't think a sample size of 40 years is going to show anything useful on a system as large and as complicated as the earth.
Especially since the definition of climate change is change over at least a century time scale.

We didn't even have instrumented surface buoys with telemetry until fairly recently.
Salinity,density,temperature,surface currents,intermediate currents,deep water currents,seafloor topography,winds,freshwater sources,heat transport,nutrient transport,convection gyres,overturning currents,polynas,upwellings,downwellings,ice cover dynamics,radiative forcings,astronomical forcings,anthrpogenic forcings,ice rubble,icebergs,ice-rafted detritus,etc.,all would have to be captured in realtime and fed into high-resolution models which continue to evolve.
It is complicated.They do the best they can.There are people struggling to hamstring their progress due to the economic implications of what they're learning.
If you want the conspiracy,follow the money.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I just completed a 24-lecture series on astronomy, published last year,and no mention of a mini-nova.
They covered from the Big-Bang,to present day (2017),ongoing research.

My wife's cousin is a professor in astrophysics who's primary research field is the detection of exoplanets. He and his team of students have discovered thousands of exoplanets (and confirmed the existence of many more that were detected by others) by studying minute variations in the intensity and spectrum of millions of stars.

If mininovas were a thing he should have encountered them.
It is unthinkable that those are a regular phenomenon to our star, but absent in the millions of stars that surround us. He should know, and if there are mininovas he'll tell me so the next time I see him and ask. He's in Ireland now, so it will take some time.

I would be really excited if mininovas exist. I'm not expecting it though. If he knew he'd publish about it and I would have found it looking for it.
But I'll ask nonetheless, we'll see.