Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?

In a nutshell...the change is happening too fast.

 

If we could just find an alternative that packs a wallop like gasoline in a small space.

 

No increase in hurricane frequency or intensity.




Figure: Global Hurricane Frequency (all & major) -- 12-month running sums. The top time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached at least hurricane-force (maximum lifetime wind speed exceeds 64-knots). The bottom time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached major hurricane strength (96-knots+). Adapted from Maue (2011) GRL.

 

I doubt the age of it really makes it "obsolete."

 

OK, if that is the data, I accept it. At least the source appears to be valid and impartial, and it also has this to say:

While this statement focuses on the Atlantic Ocean basin, much of the information can be applied to the other ocean basins in a general sense. We present the most up-to-date information on how climate change is expected to impact hurricanes in the future. There are two complementary lines of evidence used to diagnose climate change effects upon hurricanes including (1) historical records of observed activity and (2) computer modeling. Many scientists have dedicated their careers to improve the understanding of hurricanes and published countless papers that help inform the scientific consensus: From the NOAA GFDL website (Link) : "In summary, it is premature to conclude with high confidence that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities have had a detectable impact on Atlantic basin hurricane activity, although increasing greenhouse gases are strongly linked to global warming... Human activities may have already caused other changes in tropical cyclone activity that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of these changes compared to estimated natural variability, or due to observational limitations."

Regardless of the scientific ability to conclude confidently in every impact of climate change on hurricanes, they will continue to occur and devastate rapidly growing coastal regions. The only proven and practical way to prevent loss of life and property damage is to prepare ahead with improved building codes and maintain a high level of vigilance and resilience in the face of natural disasters. This includes more accurate intensity and track forecasting through advanced numerical weather prediction or weather models.

Note that lack of evidence does NOT mean absence of evidence. It means we currently have incomplete knowledge or inadequate methods and/or observations. We can still have medium to high confidence in an expected outcome based upon fundamental understanding of physics and fluids.​

https://climatlas.com/tropical/

Not even my emphasis above. The bold and italics are in the original.

 

Tornado counts have declined.
Number of tornadoes in the U.S. 1995-2022
https://www.statista.com/statistics/203682/number-of-tornadoes-in-the-us-since-1995/
Nov 9, 2023 — In 2022, there were 1,143 tornadoes reported across the United States. A tornado is a narrow, violently rotating column of air that extends from a thunderstorm to the ground and is among

 

AGW theory posits more intense and frequent hurricanes. That has not been observed.

 

Yes, it does, in light of subsequent research results.

New Study: CO2 May Only Be Responsible For 17% Of The 2000-2023 Global Warming Trend
By Kenneth Richard on 20. September 2024

Yet another scientific study concludes CO2 is an insignificant contributor to Earth’s recent temperature changes.
New research involving a comparative analysis of satellite (CERES) observations of absorbed solar radiation (ASR) and CO2 radiative forcing modeling finds CO2 may have contributed just 0.09°C to the 0.52°C temperature increase from 2000 to 2023.

The rising ASR trend is instead the primary (0.39°C of 0.52°C) cause of the 21st century warming, and it is solely responsible for the high temperatures achieved during the second half of 2023.

Thus, it can be said that “carbon dioxide has an insignificant impact on annual and monthly temperature changes.”



Image Source: Ollila, 2024

 

When trying to convince people that they should do nothing in the face of catastrophic climate change, do it anonymously on a political message board?

 

Western North Carolina would like a word.

 

Are you a climatologist?

 

Is it? How would you actually measure that? These are what is called quibble words. "too fast", means what? It fails the basic test.

 

Hmm.. why? Can you explain why this is a "crazy" event? Do you feel that it is somehow unique? Because it isn't. What is new is the level of populated places adjacent to flood plains in the region.

 

Nope. "Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information upon it. When we inquire into any subject, the first thing we have to do is to know what books have treated of it." --Samuel Johnson

 

You'll forgive me if I don't accept "science" from "No Tricks Zone." I am seeing familiar patterns here to how conspiracy theorists operate, always flailing about and putting up different alternative "facts" with no deep understanding of what they're citing and not even caring if they contradict one another. Another piece at No Tricks Zone claims:
Physicists: Non-Greenhouse Gases (O2 and N2) Are Mainly Responsible For The 33°C Greenhouse Effect
https://notrickszone.com/2024/10/01...ly-responsible-for-the-33c-greenhouse-effect/

I guess they don't agree with the solar input guy.

 

And then there is the question of intelligently evaluating the information that you find. Beware of Dunning-Kruger.

 

NTZ is an aggregator. They provide a valuable service in bringing forward peer-reviewed research. In this case:

• June 2024
• Zeitschrift für Physikalische Chemie/International journal of research in physical chemistry and chemical physics

 

Q. What is ResearchGate? Is it a reputable source?

ResearchGate is a business that hosts open access research. It is neither a publisher nor a journal. It is a popular hub on the web for sharing academic publications. There is no editorial review board, nor does ResearchGate require that articles be peer reviewed, although they may be. Since it is an academic social network and there is no process for vetting the articles, evaluate each source carefully. If you choose to use an article found on ResearchGate, cite it using the citation information provided by the authors. No mention of ResearchGate is necessary.

Sources: Guide from the University of Michigan and the ResearchGate website.​

https://answers.library.american.edu/faq/405403

It's a jungle out there.

 

I'm not the one defending CO2 orthodoxy. I'm just pointing out its shortcomings.
Causality Analysis Finds Temperature Changes Have Determined CO2 Changes Since The Phanerozoic
By Kenneth Richard on 15. July 2024

Popular claims that CO2 changes drive temperature changes currently or throughout the distant past “are based on imagination and climate models full of assumptions.”
A comprehensive new study details a stochastic assessment determination of the sequencing of CO2 variations versus temperature variations since the 1950s, over the last 2,000 years (the Common Era), and throughout the last 541 million years.

The robust conclusion is that the causality direction – with the understanding that causes lead and effects lag – clearly shows the temperature changes lead and CO2 changes lag on yearly, decadal, and centennial/millennial scales. In other words, “the reverse causality direction [CO2]→T should be excluded.”

The claim that CO2 increases drive temperature changes is thus a “narrative” only, as the claim that “humans, through their emissions by fossil fuel burning, are responsible for the changes we see in climate” can be regarded as a “non-scientific issue.”



Image Source: Koutsoyiannis, 2024
The author has had a series of peer-reviewed scientific papers published supporting this same T→CO2 conclusion (Koutsoyiannis et al., 2022, Koutsoyiannis et al., 2020, Koutsoyiannis et al., 2023, Koutsoyiannis, 2024, Koutsoyiannis, 2024) in just the last few years.



[/QUOTE]

 

The journal is named in the link. You may have missed that because it's in German.

 

Fair enough. I had the benefit of a first-class education, I've lived in seven countries outside the US and I speak three languages other than English. I'll take my chances.

 

Is it "nature"? "History"? "Statistics"? How about "data"? If they don't want any of those words, I'm not sure I can help.

 

Here's the original insight AFAIK.
Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar ...

AGU Publications
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com › doi › full

by NJ Shaviv · 2008 · Cited by 60 — In other words, we use the oceans as a calorimeter to measure the radiative imbalance associated with the solar cycle. This imbalance will be ...

 

<sigh> Did you know that if you go to a library, you can find books that are full of bull$#!+, but the bull$#!+ doesn't rub off on the books that don't have any bull$#!+?

It's a library out there.

 

There is no credible empirical evidence for such a thing. None. CO2 is broadly beneficial because it is plant food: greenhouse operators add it to the air in their operations. There is also no credible empirical evidence whatever that warmer climate is on balance a bad thing for humanity, quite the contrary. There is also no credible empirical evidence that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels could cause a significant effect on the earth's climate.

So, trying to convince people that they should do nothing about the sky falling because the sky cannot fall sounds like common sense.

Well, when acolytes of the CO2 climate narrative physically attack, deplatform, and even propose capital punishment for those who disagree...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Parncutt