Instagram - efrie004
Buy my E46 sport springs. H&R part # 29485 - PM for details.
If you want climate, try this chart:
Click, annual, global, all time.
India on the other hand is definitely taking it seriously.
They kind of have to when monsoon season is starting late, 40-degree (104F) days are increasing, and the warming climate is having a definite impact on them.
To top it off, getting stuck and having to be rescued by helicopter in a remote area.
Big storm hits (just the latest, there have been bad hurricanes forever) and "weather" is proof of GW.
But long term weather is tracked (where I'm from, "long term weather" is called "climate") and doesn't show proof of GW, so we can dismiss "weather" as not being proof of the lack of GW.
The key with the NOAA data is:
-it's long term
-it's taken from areas that are not artificially impacted by localized trends (airports, parking lots, etc) that skew the data
As for one hurricane- that's weather. Citing one bad hurricane as evidence of global warming is as stupid as citing a snowstorm as evidence against. However, changing climate may have an impact on hurricane trends.
Again, NOAA created a whole new network of sites across the country to more accurately measure temperature, and that new network, unadjusted, shows no warming over the last 15 years. If your site has data with a bunch of adjustments and crap in it, that may be where the warming trend is coming from, not the temp itself.
May. But have we seen an increase in bad hurricanes? I grew up on the eastern seaboard, there were plenty of bad hurricanes when I was a kid 20-30 years ago.As for one hurricane- that's weather. Citing one bad hurricane as evidence of global warming is as stupid as citing a snowstorm as evidence against. However, changing climate may have an impact on hurricane trends.
Last edited by Uber Wagon; 09-10-2019 at 02:55 PM.
Beer: The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.
Thus the historical tropical storm count record does not provide compelling evidence for a greenhouse warming induced long-term increase.
Additionally, if one explores the tropical cyclone database for the Atlantic (HURDAT) more carefully, as was described by Landsea et al (2009), one notices that there has been a very substantial increase in the number of short-duration tropical storms (storms lasting less than two days), while those storms whose duration exceeds two days have not shown a statistically significant increase since the late-19th Century (particularly if they are adjusted for likely missing storms) – see Figure 1 above. We are unaware of a climate change signal that would result in an increase of only the shortest duration storms, while such an increase is qualitatively consistent with what one would expect from improvements with observational practices. Thus, we interpret the increase of short duration storms as further evidence for a spurious increase in Atlantic tropical storm counts since the late-19th Century. Further, the absence of an increase in moderate duration tropical storm counts is consistent with expectations from high-resolution dynamical models of a modest (and possibly negative) sensitivity of North Atlantic tropical storm counts to increasing greenhouse gases (e.g., see Bengtsson et al 2007, Knutson et al 2008, FAQ on Knutson et al 2008, Zhao et al 2009, Emanuel et al 2008)If we instead consider Atlantic basin hurricanes, rather than all Atlantic tropical storms, the result is similar: the reported numbers of hurricanes were sufficiently high during the 1860s-1880s that again there is no significant positive trend in numbers beginning from that era (Figure 4, black curve, from CCSP 3.3 (2008)). This is without any adjustment for “missing hurricanes”.
The evidence for an upward trend is even weaker if we look at U.S. landfalling hurricanes, which even show a slight negative trend beginning from 1900 or from the late 1800s (Figure 3, yellow curves). Hurricane landfalling frequency is much less common than basin-wide occurrence, meaning that the U.S. landfalling hurricane record, while more reliable than the basin-wide record, suffers from degraded signal-to-noise characteristics for assessing trends.
Worth noting too AFAIK those USCRN stations are land-based, measuring air temp, soil temp, solar radiation, etc.. Most of the planet's surface is ocean, and ocean warming and ocean surface temp would be significant contributors to global temparature data. Even if the US weren't warming, that doesn't tell us the overall impact of atmospheric GHG across the planet. Look at the observable changes in arctic ice cap coverage, permafrost trends, etc..The author quotes Anthony Watts, a former meteorologist who runs a blog dedicated to climate change denial. For the graphs on which The Daily Caller article focuses, Watts used monthly temperature data from the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) from 2005 to 2015. The USCRN is a system of temperature monitoring stations around the country, managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Watts plotted the average temperature data from those stations over 10 years on a graph and found an almost-stable trend line that indicated slight cooling. This, he writes, "clearly" shows that a "'pause' or 'hiatus' exists in this most pristine climate data," pointing to the much-referenced argument in "skeptic" circles that there has been a global warming "pause" in recent years.
There are two major problems here.
First, in 2005, the USCRN was far from complete. As of January 1, 2005, only 69 of its 114 temperature monitoring stations, or just 60 percent of the ultimate total, had been installed, according to NOAA's Howard Diamond, who is the program manager of USCRN. The last and 114th station wasn't installed until September 2008, which means that comparing the data from 2005 to 2008 with data after 2008 produces a severely lopsided analysis. This is especially important because of the geographic nature of temperature monitoring: Since only stations in certain areas of the U.S. were up and running before 2008, there is a lot of information missing from the averages of those early years.
If Watts had chosen to exclude the data from before the USCRN was complete and start his analysis on, say, January 1, 2009, to the present, he'd actually see see "a slightly increasing trend of temperature anomaly data in the contiguous U.S.," according to Diamond, as shown in the graph below. "So the same upward trends in temperature data we have seen have been and continue to be the case." In other words, the U.S. is still getting warmer.
Second, The Daily Caller tried to extrapolate that interpretation of U.S. data to apply to global climate trends. The author quotes from Watt's blog: "Clearly, a 'pause' or 'hiatus' exists in this most pristine climate data." The piece goes on:
Watts's plotting of [USCRN] data comes after NOAA researchers put out a study claiming there's been no "hiatus" in global warming—a 15-year period with no significant rise in the world's average temperature. Basically, NOAA made adjustments to weather stations, buoys and ships that increased the warming trend from older data.
The peer-reviewed NOAA study the author references (and which he previously referred to as "fiddling with data") found "possible artifacts of data biases" in prior global average temperature analysis and set about to update the analysis. The results, the authors wrote, "do not support the notion of a 'slowdown' in the increase of global surface temperature." Basically, they conclude that a "pause" doesn't exist.
Even if one chooses to believe that the NOAA paper is all smoke and mirrors, you still can't extrapolate U.S. data to apply to the whole globe; clearly, the surface area covered by the U.S. is just a fraction of the planet, and since temperature fluctuates substantially according to geography—well, you get the idea.
NOAA has a whole page on climate change and hurricanes. My main takeaway is while frequency of hurricanes overall won't necessarily increase as the climate warms, intensity and frequency of Cat4/5 storms will. There's many facets at play but it's something that's actively being studied.May. But have we seen an increase in bad hurricanes? I grew up on the eastern seaboard, there were plenty of bad hurricanes when I was a kid 20-30 years ago.
Whether or not there's an observed increase to date, the theory is that there should be as warming trends continue.
Everything's a joke
(a lot like my grammar).
You haven't fixed chit, nothing, period...at all. You engineer crops to produce 37% higher yields & max every agriculture hectare of land maxing the water tables & soil....just to feed the children who can barley eat just so they grow up...to each produce 5 kids themselves ...to produce that much more waste, trash, pollution and hardship upon the land. Congratulations! You've fixed nothing and multiplied the problem many times over while being a problem enabler .
You have countries the size of Delaware with 10,000,000+ people , individuals breeding left & right living in inhospitable conditions (1st citizens need to scale back too).....I get it, this is a "carbon emissions topic", yet people need to understand in the last ~10 years there's been an automotive explosion in 3rd countries as what were "poor farmers" who previously could not afford a vehicle, can & have now.
Something something something Nova, PBS, National Geographic episode I patently await for is something along the lines of, ".....in a individual's life you could never recycle, drive a 5 mpg vehicle, over eat, overly consume, be environmentally unconscious......and it would pale in comparison to the carbon emissions & pollution your offspring will bring upon the planet." <----Ding ding ding
"The universe's resources are finite." - Thanos
What the planet has, is an overpopulation problem.
FS:Custom '73 CB350 Museum Piece, 8 miles FS:3 Piece I-Forged 19" Rims
FS:Custom '69 Stinger: SOLD FS:10' VTWIN Chopper SOLD :
The planet has warmed and cooled, what, millions of times in all the billions of years it has existed? It has been much warmer in the past than it is now. it has been much cooler than it is now. People have completely lost any perspective when looking at the issue. I recall we were informed back in 2006 by Al Gore that we had only ten years to 'save the planet.' The whole global warming/climate change/climate crisis movement has become 100% political to the point that any dissent from the group-think isn't tolerated. I think of the climate hysterics as being cut from the same cloth as fundamental religious hysterics, you know, the whole 'The World is Going to End' thing that's been a favorite feature of charlatans and cult leaders from time immemorial. If we implement everything these people truly want to implement it will lead to economic catastrophe, which will leave very little money for 'saving the planet.' But they are the true believers, and the details don't mean much to these modern-day messiahs of doom. I'm all for being a good steward of the environment, but these people and the politicians who are in lockstep with them want to be stewards of the most minute details of life -- no price is too high to 'save the planet' (and putting aside they can never quite seem to quantify what their 'measures' will actually accomplish). No doubt I will be flamed mightily here, but I am highly suspicious of these people, their methods and their aims.