The fact that climate change has heated up our oceans means Dorian was stronger than it would have been had we not spent the past years dumping carbon pollution into the atmosphere. Sea surface temperatures were more than 1C warmer in the region where Dorian formed and strengthened than they were before we started burning fossil fuels.
We saw that wind damage in the heartbreaking scenes of total devastation that have come in from the Bahamas. We know that the warmer air gets, the more moisture it can hold — and then turn into flooding rains in a storm like this. And we know that as climate change has melted glaciers and ice around the world, that water has gone into the oceans.
One is that all that warm water allowed for the storm to ramp up quickly, undergoing what is known as rapid intensification as it exploded from a moderate category 2 to extreme category 5 over just two days. A recent study has shown that this is getting more common because of climate change, and indeed the past few years have seen many similar examples of this effect in action. Dorian was the fourth category 5 storm in just the last four years. So while climate change is making it so hurricanes can spin up quickly, it may also be slowing down how fast hurricanes move. Even if you replicated them they are simply a correlation to a model s and then you still need to evaluate what the model is actually doing.
Compare that to hard sciences where a model that fails to meet reality or predictions is axed.
In none of them have I seen a list of names or at the very least a set of credentials that qualifies an individual for voter status. A good scientist ought to be able to figure that out. A bad scientist accepts the meme at face value because it reinforces his belief.bbmpay.veritrans.co.id/conocer-chicos-chozas-de-canales.php
The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change: A Guide to the Debate - PDF Free Download
Reliable global records of climate only began in the s, and proxies provide the only means for scientists to determine climatic patterns before record-keeping began. It is the knowledge that adding large amounts of CO2 to the air will cause warming. Then compare that tiny anthropogenic flux to the seasonal and annual fluxes from natural sinks and sources. Which corresponds to a temperature how? The effect is logarithmic.
The rest is the several centuries long additional ECS tail of ocean thermal equilibrium. GCMs are an ensemble of runs, which will average out NV. ENSO is not yet predictable. This is not a secret — the IPCC clear states that…….
Practical, not ethical
However, there are significant year-to-year and decade-to-decade differences in the resulting climate. These differences are due to natural climate variability and are particularly large at regional scales and for some variables such as precipitation. For this reason, results from the different members of an ensemble may be averaged together to provide a more robust estimate of the climate change. Then a period of a prolonged -ve will do the opposite.
- Project MUSE - The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change: A Guide to the Debate (review);
- Andrew Dessler.
- In This Article.
- Perfection To A Fault: A Small Murder in Ossipee, New Hampshire, 1916!
Well it used to anyway. Now it just slows down warming. That means projections went skyhigh during that pause. Is the next ten years going to validate something which is missing? We have ocean cycles which are quite well understood. The climate alarmists assured us that CO2 was so powerful that natural cycles would be completely swamped and no longer mattered.
What was predicted was accelerated warming and a hot spot. Both these predictions failed and falsified AGW. Spot on with the hot spot and the hiatus. The third strike was that ice cores showed that warming went up before atmospheric CO2 levels rose… AGW hypothesis falsified…. Correlation does not provide causation. No, they are saying that there was an estimated zero net effect in that period. It just happened to add to zero in that time. Well, Wohou. It just happened? That is the best proof ever.
What was that warming? I think cherrypicking is in fashion nowadays. Unfortunately for that logic Nick, I offer a counter hypothesis. With the spread of cities and urban areas the food sources for crows are greatly enlarged. Crows of course are black and black things absorb sunlight and heat which is or course radiated to the surrounding air.
So it follows that the more crows there are the warmer the atmosphere will get. So the hypothesis is that with more crows will come more warming. Data manipulation is not warming. Knowledge is just a product of twisted mind. CO2 is a great benefit to mankind, and that is maybe too big to understand, but that fact is the thing we all can see. Why did global temperatures actually decline between and , at a time CO2 levels were increasing strongly?
But when people trot out this Christy plot, there is always vagueness about what is supposed to match what. Also on the plot is Hadcrut surface, and UAH, presumably lower troposphere. So what are we supposed to conclude from that?
The real curiosity is where the claimed prediction pink is located. I presume it is of the mid-troposphere, extracted somehow from the CMIP 5 results. How about comparing with where we actually live? Oops, reading the bars as units. Multiply by 0. Not a huge difference. Not knowledge, Nick. Only if you do a brain dead straight line analysis of years ago till today. In reality temperatures have gone up, down and sideways over that years while CO2 has been going steadily upward. Secondly, so what if the temperature goes up by a few tenths of a degree because of CO2. Warming is good, and so is CO2.
Our contribution is trivial. We do not contribute to AGW. The same is true about sea level rise. But even putting all that aside — warming is good, cooling is bad.
Related The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change: A Guide to the Debate
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved