Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

Your Einstein quotes are not applicable for the reason I pointed out.

Proclaiming papers you hand pick because you think they support your own opinion, and doing so without the availability of review is not good enough.

 

Good enough for me. That's why it's a debate forum. Why are you so uncomfortable with diversity of opinion?

 

It's not the issue of opinion.

The issue is how to consume science - what is legitimate argument.

I respect those such as Dr. Judith Curry, who is a denier to some extent. And, there are others.

I don't respect the idea that those on this board should accept one off papers that climatologists haven't seen fit to incorporate in any way.

 

There has only been a 1.1 degree C. rise in the GMT so far and the total surface are of the regions of the earth that have experienced
either an increase in rainfall or drought due to climate change is small compared to the Earth's total surface area. Climate models project
increased drought over some regions of the world, including much of North and South America, as the GMT rises.

Climate Change Is Making Extreme Weather Events More Frequent, Say Scientists (sciencealert.com)

Dr Geert Jan van Oldenborgh, an expert in climate science from the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, says, "Some types of weather events are becoming more extreme, such as heatwaves or intense precipitation. Others are becoming less extreme, such as cold waves. And many fall in between: in some areas, drought becomes more extreme, in others less so".

Professor Kevin Trenberth, a leading atmospheric scientist, makes an important distinction for us relating to this question: "A key point here is that there are not more of these events (mostly) but rather the events that do occur are associated with greater extremes on the warm side for temperatures, and at both ends of the water cycle."



There is evidence for tropical cyclones becoming stronger and wetter. The storm surges associated with hurricanes and cyclones is
increasing and there is evidence that hurricanes are intensifying faster due to warmer sea surface temperatures. The evidence isn't
considered robust by many scientists.

Long-term data show hurricanes are getting stronger -- ScienceDaily

In almost every region of the world where hurricanes form, their maximum sustained winds are getting stronger. That is according to a new study involving an analysis of nearly 40 years of hurricane satellite imagery.


Climate Change Indicators: Tropical Cyclone Activity | US EPA

According to the total annual ACE Index, cyclone intensity has risen noticeably over the past 20 years, and eight of the 10 most active years since 1950 have occurred since the mid-1990s (see Figure 2). Relatively high levels of cyclone activity were also seen during the 1950s and 1960s.

Hurricanes growing stronger, more intense; climate change may be a factor, federal study says | Fox News

 

As you wish.

 

You've given us models and tub-thumping without any data presented. Here's some data.

Figure: Last 4-decades of Global Tropical Storm and Hurricane Accumulated Cyclone Energy -- Annual totals. The Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season occurs from July-June each calendar year. The graph is constructed such that SH annual value for July 2014 - July 2015 is positioned in 2015.

 

I have NEVER said anything about cyclones.

NASA's comment on hurricanes is that they appear to be building more rapidly.

So, your Trump guy here isn't refuting anything I know about.

 

All of the articles that I cited about hurricanes getting stronger are based on data. There has been an increase in category 5 hurricanes globally
in the past 24 years compared to past decades. The observational data is supported by models. More time is needed to determine if this trend will
continue.


RealClimate: Does global warming make tropical cyclones stronger?




Fig. 2 Percentage increase 1980 to 2016 (as a linear trend) in the number of tropical storms worldwide depending on their strength. Only 95% significant trends are shown. The strongest storms are also increasing the most. Red colors show the hurricane category on the Saffir-Simpson scale. Graph by Kerry Emanuel, MIT. Creative Commons License CC BY-SA 3.0.

A significant global increase (95% significance level) can be found in all storms with maximum wind speeds from 175 km/h. Storms of 200 km/h and more have doubled in number, and those of 250 km/h and more have tripled. Although some of the trend may be owing to improved observation techniques, this provides some evidence that a global increase in the most intense tropical storms due to global warming is not just predicted by models but already happening.

 

This is also from that realclimate.org article.

RealClimate: Does global warming make tropical cyclones stronger?

Nevertheless, observational data support the expectation from models that the strongest storms are getting stronger. We focus here on the period from 1979, because this is the period covered by geostationary satellite data (thus no cyclones went unobserved) and also the period over which three quarters of global warming has occurred. These data show an increase in the strongest tropical storms in most ocean basins (Kossin et al. 2013).

One consequence of this increase is that in most major tropical cyclone regions, the storms with the highest wind speeds on record have been observed in recent years (see Fig. 1 based on reanalysis by Velden et al. 2017). The strongest globally was Patricia (2015), which topped the previous record holder Haiyan (2013).



Fig. 1 The strongest storms for the major storm regions Western and Eastern North Pacific, North Indian, South Indian and South Pacific, Caribbean/Gulf of Mexico and open North Atlantic. Of these seven regions, five had the strongest storm on record in the past five years, which would be extremely unlikely just by chance. Irma was added by personal communication from Chris Velden, and a tie of two storms with equally strong winds in the South Indian was resolved by selecting the storm with the lower central pressure (Fantala). (Graph by Stefan Rahmstorf, background image from Robert Rohde, Creative Commons License CC BY-SA 3.0.)

 

My post was not addressed to you. And I agree it's not something you know about.

 

Real Climate is contradicted by the data record.


Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity: Geophys. Res. Lett. (2011), Abstract:
Tropical cyclone accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) has exhibited strikingly large global interannual variability during the past 40-years. In the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low. Here evidence is presented demonstrating that considerable variability in tropical cyclone ACE is associated with the evolution of the character of observed large-scale climate mechanisms including the El Nino Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. In contrast to record quiet North Pacific tropical cyclone activity in 2010, the North Atlantic basin remained very active by contributing almost one-third of the overall calendar year global ACE.





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.




Figure: Last 50-years+ of Global and Northern Hemisphere Accumulated Cyclone Energy: 24 month running sums. Note that the year indicated represents the value of ACE through the previous 24-months for the Northern Hemisphere (bottom line/gray boxes) and the entire global (top line/blue boxes). The area in between represents the Southern Hemisphere total ACE.




Figure: Last 50-years+ of Global Tropical Storm and Hurricane frequency -- 12-month running sums. The top time series is the number of TCs that reach at least tropical storm strength (maximum lifetime wind speed exceeds 34-knots). The bottom time series is the number of hurricane strength (64-knots+) TCs.

 

96 knots = 110 miles per hour. Your graph of major hurricanes includes all hurricanes that are category 3 and higher. The realclimate.org article was about
category 4 and 5 hurricanes. " Storms of 200 km/h and more have doubled in number, and those of 250 km/h and more have tripled."
200km/h = 124 mph and 250 k/h = 153 mph. So, there has been an increase in category 4 and 5 hurricanes. Your data and graphs do not contradict
what I have presented. Also. the EPA link that I provided stated that the accumulated cyclone index (ACE) has increased in recent decades when examining the years from1950 to 2020. That fact is not contradicted by your graph.
"According to the total annual ACE Index, cyclone intensity has risen noticeably over the past 20 years, and eight of the 10 most active years since 1950 have occurred since the mid-1990s (see Figure 2). Relatively high levels of cyclone activity were also seen during the 1950s and 1960s."

Category 4 hurricanes have wind speeds between 130 mph and 156 mph. Category 3 hurricanes have wind speeds between 111 mph and 129 mph.

Your article about recent low global cyclone activity is from 2006 - 2011. There was a significant drop in ACE during that 5 year period but then it
rose to more normal level. One cannot determine anything about the long-term trend in ACE by looking at just 5 years. It appears that you are
just looking to find some article that you think contradicts what I am presenting without caring much about the details.

 

Other than to know that life as we know it will continue for a very long time because the ecosystem works and it would be a damned shame if we messed it up, I don't lie wake worrying about it.
My options are these:
If climate warriors are right, science will speed up the development of cleaner, better and perhaps even cheaper and reliable energy sources which current oil companies would never develop.
If they are wrong, then by 2050 it will be too late.

So I lean towards the win-win option which even if the planet doesn't need "saving", science will improve the conditions on earth.
What needs to be done at the same time, however, is to find something to replace plastic. There is no reason to clean up the planet if you kill off the oceans by wrapping them in plastic.

 

the question is, are we preventing the next ice age or not.... long term effects are just not known

what we do know is we are having an effect, good or bad long term, remains to be seen

 

"What needs to be done at the same time, however, is to find something to replace plastic. There is no reason to clean up the planet if you kill off the oceans by wrapping them in plastic."

I have thought about this, we have limited resources, so plastic is needed, but what we need is more microbes to breakdown plastic and I think nature is helping with this already

it's like early on, there were no microbes to break down trees, but eventually evolution solved that

this argues against that theory for coal, but the decay part is still true, earth microbes changed and are still changing

https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/why-was-most-of-the-earths-coal-made-all-at-once/

"The reason all that oxygen was present, by the way, is the vast burial of organic material before it could be eaten by oxygen-respiring organisms. And while oxygen rose, atmospheric CO2 fell, eventually leading to glacial conditions. It was a massive carbon-cycle experiment that mirrored our current one but with carbon moving in the opposite direction, from the atmosphere into the ground, where it formed the coal we’re now burning into atmospheric CO2."

 

How can cleaning up the planet ever be anything but a good thing?

 

learning more about the climate is a good thing, cleaning up the planet at times may mean different things than others time

having alternative energy sources is a good thing

 

Well I am at a loss to understand how cleaning up the planet matters when everything you do to that end is beneficial to everyone.
When I was a child it was absolutely known that the presence of nature in all its guises would still be the same when I hit 90.
I am not sure I could promise that to todays child of the same age.

 

You claim that one paper could change science, citing Einstein.

Please show ONE of the DOZENS of papers you choose to promote that has made ANY DIFFERENCE in climatology.

 

Please cite the post where I claimed one paper could change science.

 

In post #250 you continued your Einstein thing with him saying 1 paper would be enough.

But, the catch is that you can't apply that to your hand picked papers.

None of those papers is being accepted by climatologists as being the kind of falsification which drove you to select those papers.

 

True.

You post these hand selected papers of yours now, BECAUSE you want to use them to support your personal opinion before climatologists respond.

That's what I've been pointing out repeatedly.

You claim these papers you post falsify world wide climatology. And, you aren't interested in seeing whether that is true.

 

My #250 was merely a correction to your error in referencing Einstein. And as I pointed out in #248, "We await the response, if any."

 

I support what I've said.

You haven't found any issue with my last post - #272.

 

Your #272 was just an emotional rant.