Slashdot Mirror
Climate Change Drives Bigger, Wetter Storms -- Storms Like Florence (npr.org)
Rebecca Hersher, reporting for NPR: Hurricane Florence is moving relentlessly toward the Southeastern U.S. It's a large, powerful cyclone that will likely bring storm surge and high winds to coastal communities. But climate scientists say one of the biggest threats posed by Florence is rain. "Freshwater flooding poses the greatest risk to life," explains James Kossin, an atmospheric scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Wisconsin, Madison. And Florence could cause extensive freshwater flooding for two reasons. First, Florence is moving slowly, and could all but stop when it reaches land. "The storm could be over North Carolina and traveling incredibly slowly -- on the order of just a few miles per hour," explains Kossin, who says an official from the city of Charlotte, N.C., contacted him about rainfall projections for that city.
If Florence stalls over the Southeast, it would be reminiscent of Hurricane Harvey, which spent days dumping rain on the Houston region last year. Some areas ended up with more than 60 inches, a catastrophic amount of water that shut down the entire region and resulted in at least 93 deaths. Slow-moving storms like Harvey are getting more common. A study published earlier this year by Kossin found that tropical cyclones around the world have slowed down 10 percent in the last 70 years. "We're seeing that in every ocean basin except the northern Indian Ocean," says Kossin, possibly because climate change is causing the wind currents that hurricanes ride to slow down. If Florence slows down and stalls when it hits land, it will the latest example of that trend. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., says global warming also affects the size and intensity of storms like Florence.
If Florence stalls over the Southeast, it would be reminiscent of Hurricane Harvey, which spent days dumping rain on the Houston region last year. Some areas ended up with more than 60 inches, a catastrophic amount of water that shut down the entire region and resulted in at least 93 deaths. Slow-moving storms like Harvey are getting more common. A study published earlier this year by Kossin found that tropical cyclones around the world have slowed down 10 percent in the last 70 years. "We're seeing that in every ocean basin except the northern Indian Ocean," says Kossin, possibly because climate change is causing the wind currents that hurricanes ride to slow down. If Florence slows down and stalls when it hits land, it will the latest example of that trend. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., says global warming also affects the size and intensity of storms like Florence.
Weatherbug was pretty careful not to make the leap that Florence is a result of climate change. They had an article speculating that the reason Florence became so strong is the result of a Bermuda high which is in an unusual position for the year. The article's author felts that the blocking high was keeping Florence over warmer water so it could strengthen. Typically September hurricanes turn back out to sea.
The slow movement of Florence and possibility it stalls are not related to global warming to rather simply to the location of high pressure systems north of the storm preventing it from turning northward.
The size of the storm could be argued to be greater due to warming, but its a statistical discussion about averages over time, not one of any particular storm.
This article is pure bullshit and conjecture.
The parent was down voted. Although it was rather short and blunt, I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment. The article talks about what Hurricane Florence *might* do, then jumps to what Hurricane Harvey did do, to bolster the pure speculation about what Hurricane Florence might do?
I'm interested in seeing if a pattern develops in hurricane activity along the eastern seaboard of the US, especially since a prediction of much worse hurricane seasons was made in relation to observed global warming/climate change. It seems a little early to act as if that hypothesis is already confirmed, though.
Models should stick to looking pretty and walking down the runway.
And no matter if it's well supported, the politics of the rightwing does not allow AGW to be real. So lots of places won't dare to mention climate change as being the cause of ANYTHING, because the only things AGW deniers will allow climate to do is "change" in such a way that we don't do it. It sure as shit isn't allowed to DO anything. Just change.
There's scientific consensus that life begins at conception? It was my understanding that the scientific consensus was that life had been here for billions of years and propagated through germ lines.
Ezekiel 23:20
What drives storms? Temperature differences.
This is nonsense. Hurricanes are not driven by temperature differences between the tropics and temperate regions. They are driven by vertical differences in temperature and pressure.
Warm seas cause warm humid air near the surface. Warm air is lighter, and high humidity makes it lighter still. So it rises, creating a low pressure region, and drawing in more surface winds that pick up heat and humidity as they move to the center of the storm. When the air in the center rises, it spreads out and cools, condensing the humidity that falls as rain. The cooler dryer air then descends on the edge of the storm.
Warmer seas cause stronger storms. Cooler water weakens the storm as it travels north, the opposite of what you are claiming.
If the oceans were uniformly warm, would we still have hurricanes? Yes, and they would be stronger, bigger, and last longer.
If you believe the models, they say that as the Earth warms, the poles will warm more than the tropics. This means that the temperature difference between the poles and tropics will decrease. What drives storms? Temperature differences. The bigger the difference, the stronger the storm. So, if you believe the models, the intensity of storms will *decrease* due to global warming, not increase as everyone keeps saying. If you believe the models.
The great thing about an amorphous hypothesis like Global Warming/Climate Change is that it can be said to be causing whatever's going on right now. Hurricanes? Climate Change! Tornadoes? Climate Change! Volcanoes? Climate Change! Roger Federer losing the U.S. Open? Climate Change!
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Shill group here, social-conservative morons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yea, its global warming this one year. Before last year Florida went 13 years without a hurricane hit, but that was just "weather".
AGW is bullshit, and they still don't have an answer to why Phil Jones deleted data requested under FOIA requests. Or why he only deleted it when a judge was going to finally force him to release it. That is the base data ALL AGW and IPCC reports use, and I claim it is completely false and made up. Prove me wrong by supplying the original data that Jones deleted rather than "risk someone peer reviewing his work".
AGW is a falsehood and they know it and that is why they delete data because peer review would show different. That is why IPCC predictions are 100% wrong (cue the people that show predictions revised 15 years after they were made to match todays climate)
Point out the relevant line please. And no, "when an individual human life begins" is not the same thing.
the models are only as good as our understanding of the modeled phenomena.
With all this free fresh water falling from the skies, why can't be place huge buckets on the ground and gather it all up and sell it to Saudi Arabia? Sounds like it would be much cheaper than towing an ice berg there.
Nathan
I live in the Northeast and every time a reporter starts showing the people putting up sandbags and preparing, and they get interviewed? They say the same kinds of things. "Been through this a number of times before." The shop owners in places like Annapolis will show you how high flood waters have been, decades ago compared to the last few times they dealt with flooding. And predictions for this one seem to be, at most, somewhat equivalent to one of the higher water levels they saw long ago.
This article talks about a worldwide slowdown of 10% noted in the last 70 years for hurricane movement? Might be completely true, but does that really signify man-made climate change as the culprit? Or would you see at least a 10% variance one way or the other, if you were tracking their speeds of travel in different time periods further back than the last 70 years? Either way, 10% doesn't seem like a huge difference? Assuming the amount of rainfall is directly related to how long the storm sits in a given area, or how much time it has to pick up ocean water as it travels? Wouldn't that mean it accounts for only 6 inches of extra rain from a 60 inch rainfall?
Or is it going to be EVERY time that AGW does anything YOU whine about how it "does EVERYTHING"???
Got a list of what AGW is allowed to do?
When we point to cooler summers or warmer winters or a near-complete absence of tornadoes, the reply is "WEATHER ISN'T CLIMATE, YOU FUCKING DENIER"
But somehow everytime there's a hurricane, we see posts and news stories about how this is driven by climate change.
Funny.
-Styopa
slow moving and steady storms? C'mon climate "science" purveyors, get your shit straight and stop attributing EVERY weather event to 'climate change.' Want to know why intelligent people outside of your funding....er... "science" circles don't believe? (Just in case your science doesn't work out, that is called a rhetorical question).
Science needs to be repeatable and provable, but nothing being trotted about as climate science is anything but half-assed theories and wild fear mongering. I genuinely want to know what are and are not effects of climate change, but I haven't seen anything beyond awful correlations based on fudged data. Call me when you have something based in, well, science.
The problem is that there is already a pattern you folks seem to be ignoring. Wikipedia even has a list. Hurricanes especially off the coast of Florida are increasing in strength on average year over year. The table makes it quite easy to see as it is color coded to the strength of the hurricane. Seriously, there is a reason there is scientific consensus that global warming is real and impacting weather patterns now.
Entire island nations are sinking due to the rising water and you're STILL not convinced? The real question is how many more times must it be proven before you'll get off your ass and stop fighting for the faster and faster march off a hypothetical cliff.
You are correct that hurricanes are not driven by the release of baroclinic instability and form in environments that are somewhat close to equivalent barotropic. Hurricanes are driven by latent heat release in the deep moist convection in the core, especially the eyewall storms. Air spirals in near the surface, ascends in the deep moist convection while releasing latent heat, and spirals outward in an anticyclone aloft. Hurricanes are warm core storms meaning that there is low pressure at the surface and high pressure aloft. You can see this in satellite images as the cirrus outflow aloft rotates anticyclonically, opposite of the storms in the rain bands and the inner core. I use the term "deep moist convection" rather than "thunderstorms" because there just isn't a lot of lightning in the inner core of tropical cyclones. However, lightning in the inner core can be associated with rapid intensification.
When the storm is over warmer water, the low-level inflow will be warmer and moister, resulting in more instability and stronger deep moist convection. The persistent release of latent heat causes high pressure aloft, which evacuates mass from the top of the storm in the outflow. The result of removing the mass aloft is that the pressure falls at lower levels including the surface. Vertical wind shear spreads the energy from latent heat release over a wider area, decreasing the strength of the upper-level anticyclone and causes less outflow at the top of the storm.
The horizontal component of Coriolis, or planetary vorticity, is weaker in the tropics and is zero at the equator, Persistent vertical motion in the deep convection stretches the planetary vorticity and causes hurricanes to spin. The same thing happens in persistent mid-latitude thunderstorms, which can start to spin. The result is called a mesoscale convective vortex. The process in mid-laittude storms is quicker in part because the horizontal component of Coriolis is stronger, but more because the vertical motion in those storms is stronger, resulting in more rapid stretching of planetary vorticity.
While the temperature difference between the tropics and poles does not significantly contribute to hurricane formation, it certainly could affect tropical cyclone behavior. Stronger temperature gradients in the lower and middle troposphere result in larger pressure differences aloft, which drives stronger upper-level winds. Weaker winds in the upper troposphere should generally result in tropical cyclones that move slower.
or we could just stop government subsidized insurance for low lying coastal regions
love is just extroverted narcissism
You sound very sure of yourself. One counter point: The dips in the jet stream that are called "the polar vortex" were predicted a few years before they started happening. Maybe you should read up on or or talk with people in the climate science field and see what they are really up to.
You forgot that being gay was hereditary...
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Go back a couple of decades and you'll find studies that said climate change causes more hurricanes, climate change causes fewer hurricanes, climate change does affect the number of hurricanes, and now this one - fewer but stronger hurricanes. One of these studies will surely hit the nail on the head.
Oh and I love the use of the sentence in the summary "Hurricane Florence is moving relentlessly toward the Southeastern U.S.". You ought to be worried, it will continue to increase in intensity until it hits land as a category 9 storm. To hell with physics. This storm is gonna get you and get you real good.
If you oppose nuclear power based on the threat it poses to humanity then I must assume you are ignorant or believe global warming is no real threat.
Or you believe it's a threat, but you don't care. Or you think that renewables are better. Or you think that we'll end up burning all the easy carbon anyway, even if there's nuclear.
Yeah, I'm sorry.
Stop subsidizing multi-million dollar properties being built in flood plains or areas subject to storm surge. You have no way to change the weather and its habits. You could begin mass sterilization of third world countries too if it makes you feel better.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Cat 3s and less are minor for Florida. I listed 4, 5. Pattern, don't live in Florida just after WW2. Pattern is LESS powerful hurricanes as time goes on. So you provide a link that shows the OPPOSITE of what you claim it does.
If you AGW bullshit people told the truth, AGW would go away. Of course you have to lie, because the truth shows there isn't a problem. The only problem is your credibility.
Cat 5s
1935 - "Labor Day"
1992 - Andrew
That's it
Cat 4s
2017 - Irma
2004 - Charlie
1960 - Donna
1950 - King
1949 - Unnamed
1948 - Unnamed
1947 - Unnamed
In a nutshell, nuclear sucks compared to everything else.
If you actually read the Lazard report they make it very clear that it's dangerous to compare costs of reliable energy sources, like nuclear and natural gas, with unreliable energy, like from wind and sun. Storage and backup costs money, a cost not included in that report from Lazard. Costs that, again, Lazard warns should be included when making honest comparisons of energy sources. Nuclear "sucks" only if you are being dishonest and disingenuous.
Oh, and later Lazard reports point out that solar thermal and rooftop PV are exceedingly expensive. Utility scale solar might seem cheap at first but only if, again, not taking into account the need for storage and/or backup power.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Entire island nations are sinking due to the rising water and you're STILL not convinced? The real question is how many more times must it be proven before you'll get off your ass and stop fighting for the faster and faster march off a hypothetical cliff.
I happen to believe the reports that global temperatures, on average, are rising, and I'm aware that there has been measurable rise in sea levels (not island nations sinking, though). I'm even inclined to believe (although it isn't my field of expertise) that a significant factor in this rise is human activity, including carbon outgassing. I do not believe that the hypothesis "global warming will lead to ever more violent/destructive hurricanes along the eastern seaboard of the US" has been proven (yet). I am interested in understanding both the positive as well as the negative aspects of global warming.
Not to mention that Harvey came in from a different body of water, and was trapped by a high pressure ridge to the North, and mountains to the East and West. Florence is coming in to a completely different area with high pressure to the North and mountains to the West only. Using Harvey as an example of what Florence will do is like saying the fact Michael Jordan was MVP multiple times means that Ferrari will win next year's F1 championship.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Accumulated Cyclone Energy is statistically flat, and potentially falling.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You're the moron. Climate is about global changes over time. Weather is about local events. Sure, one can drive the other to greater extremes, but you cannot pin a single storm on a specific change in the climate. The storm would probably have happened in much the same way as it is now, the question is what difference the size, speed and pattern would've made - eg. 20 deaths or 70 deaths; $50M damage vs $1.5B damage.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Water evaporation is essentially zero for temperatures below freezing. The poles warming from -15 deg C to -10 deg C will not increase the water vapor content of air in any measurable amount.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
One thing is for sure is you're never going to get idiots stop confusing weather with climate.
True but here's the thing. If you string enough weather events together it becomes climate. If the weather tomorrow is 70F and sunny, that is weather. If the weather for most of the next 500 days is 70F and sunny, that's climate. (also that's San Diego) If the accumulated weather events change enough to be statistically different than previous patterns then that is climate change. The only question is what number of accumulated weather events does it take to make a climate and what magnitude over what time period constitutes climate change? The problem is that there is no simple sound bite answers to those questions so idiots keep arguing about it because there is no standard definition in play.
The Alarmists have been predicting a Hurricane Season like this one apparels to be shaping up as for two decades and failed every fucking year.
There will be no end of the, "See! I told you so!" and celebrating their record of 1 and 20...IF that train of storms in the Atlantic all develop into hurricanes and make landfall.
AGW is bullshit, and they still don't have an answer to why Phil Jones deleted data requested under FOIA requests. Or why he only deleted it when a judge was going to finally force him to release it.
No, your claim is bullshit. The data in question was deleted in the 1980s, long before anyone made any FOIA requests.
If it's "settled" it is not science, if it is science it is not settled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
An excellent explanation. +1 Informative.
Water evaporation is essentially zero for temperatures below freezing. The poles warming from -15 deg C to -10 deg C will not increase the water vapor content of air in any measurable amount.
Actually it will increase the water vapor content. Maybe you've heard of something called sublimation.
That's a terrible analogy. Gravity is easily detectable by even a toddler. If the toddler releases grip on a toy, the toy falls. If the toddler loses balance, the toddler falls. Proving a hurricane has behaved differently due to global warming is far more difficult. If it was as easy to detect as gravity, nobody would dispute it.
C'mon climate "science" purveyors, get your shit straight and stop attributing EVERY weather event to 'climate change.'
You're just paying attention to the wrong people. If you listened to actual climate scientists about the subject they don't attribute every weather event to climate change. They just say that when a weather event is embedded in a changing climate that is going to affect them.
If safety is your thing, then you should be for Nuclear. Nuclear power is far safer than photovoltaic solar. You are way more likely to die due to photovoltaic power than nuclear power. Residential solar is crazy dangerous. Having people climbing around on your roof is dangerous. So while things like Fukushima may get the headlines, the actual number of deaths and serious injuries is far far lower than the number of deaths and serious injuries in the same year from people falling off the roof while installing solar.
The real question is how many more times must it be proven before you'll get off your ass and stop fighting for the faster and faster march off a hypothetical cliff.
That will never happen.
They'll insist climate change is not real until it is causing severe problems. Then they will insist it is too late to do anything and continue making it worse.
Your explanations of meteorology are like an 80-year-old's luddite's explanation of how a computer works.
Nope, it's no good, you left out the word relentlessly Ratzo. MSNBC won't be calling you back, you weren't yelling enough. By the way, is it true you have received funding in the past from the big-cyclone industry?
Yeah, that's exactly the case of humans again trying to draw neat lines where there aren't any. Life doesn't "begin", it simply continues in a very fuzzy way that confuses a lot of people.
Ezekiel 23:20
"Princeton Pro-Life is a student-run organization"
That should be enough of a warning to everyone.
"...the thousands pre-born people aborted every day, some of whom would have been here at Princeton with us now, had they been allowed to live."
Oh, fuck off. Without abortions, their numbers would be almost exactly the same. And "pre-born"? I guess those students must be pre-smart! :-p
Ezekiel 23:20
We know this already. Is this the new Slashdot? Rehashing the same worn out tales?
be stronger, bigger, and last longer
Yes!!! Global warming will be better than viagra!
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
The problem is that the crazies are the ones who yell the loudest, and the media in the constant rush for ratings has fueled the fire. Having a scientist say something like "Measuring the climate of the earth is incredibly difficult" doesn't get ratings. Finding a scientist who will shout "WE ARE ALL SCREWED UNLESS WE DO X RIGHT NOW!" gets ratings. Westerners often don't think about things long-term. They are focussed on the present, the now. Look at energy policy. It's a shambles. Regardless of political views, it's sane and rational to study the climate. It's sane and rational to try and understand how we affect the environment. It's also sane and rational to improve efficiency and reduce waste. None of those things is a bad thing to do. You can argue for them on both conservative and liberal principles.
Hey, welcome to Slashdot! I see you just made your account today. Have you read our EZ-Guide to Posting On Slashdot? You can find it at the Customer Assistance Center by following the links or type "help" into the Slashdot Mobile App (available for Android and Blackberry OS). Also, be sure to check out the "So, You've Finally Decided To Make An Account" FAQ.
And remember, we want you to have a great experience here on Slashdot. We're committed to your satisfaction. If you have any problems and want to speak to a Customer Experience Concierge, call the 800 number at the bottom of the page or click "Online Chat". And thanks for joining Slashdot.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Why yes, I have! And if you actually look at how much water vapor can be contained in air versus temperature you will see it's a logarithmic function and essentially zero at temperatures at or below freezing. Sublimation or not.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
And if nuclear was really that cost effective, utilities would be jumping on it.
That was covered in that Lazard report. Natural gas is cheaper than everything. What happens when natural gas prices come back up? My guess is another boom in nuclear power, much like what was seen in the 1970s and 1980s.
What few people seem to realize is that even though new nuclear power construction effectively stopped 40 years ago the output we've seen from nuclear power kept increasing. Improved techniques raised the capacity factor from less than 50% in the 1970s to over 90% today. Upgrades and a better understanding on how the reactors worked allowed for increases in maximum power ratings. This brought down the costs.
Had we not stopped building nuclear power then we would not have seen the loss in experienced technicians and engineers. It's been long enough now that if these people are not retired (or senile, or dead) then they've found work elsewhere. Finding people to build nuclear power at the rate we did 40 years ago will be expensive. At least it will at first.
Nuclear power is expensive because we decided it was expensive. That's it. Once we decide it's not expensive then the price will come back down. It's that simple.
The French did it and it required massive government subsidies - and that will not happen in our political climate.
Haven't you heard? The climate is changing.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Yeah. Because you should always run a control on a second planet, or it's not science!
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
1-800-382-5968.
(That's FUCK-YOU to those who didn't learn to text on telephone keypads.)
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
I am interested in understanding both the positive as well as the negative aspects of global warming.
I understand. You're looking at this from an intellectual point of view employing intellectual honesty in seeking some answers for a seldom-asked but insightful question.
What you seem to be missing is that by pointing out that there actually are positives to warming, you might contribute to people deciding to make plans to adapt to inevitably-rising average temperatures instead of wasting their resources on attempting to control the global climate (and every nation's contribution to warming), thus leaving them helpless, frightened, & desperate when their efforts inevitably fail and they haven't the resources left to adapt, and extremely vulnerable for any political strong-man or any political Party to take total control that tells them "Come with me (us) if you want to live! Only I (We) can save you!".
It's the same sort of tactics that Marxists and Communists have always used, simply on a global instead of a national/regional scale.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
It's fake news, folks. There's no collusion between the weather and the climate, despite that magnificent electoral victory that everyone said was impossible. We have the best people and the best words and the best tax breaks which will boost the economy irregardless of the rain.
These storms are all the fault of the failing New York Times and crooked Hillary. If we could find her emails, they would prove it. As long as there's no more talk of impeachment, we're good for this term and the next.
Trump 2020, Don Jr 2024, Eric 2040
+1
nothing to see here - move along
They didn't say that Hurricane Florence was caused by climate change, just that it may be wetter and moving more slowly because of the effects of climate change.
As my last sentence implies every weather event is affected by climate change, not caused by it.
You are aware that hurricanes don't form at the poles, but over tropical waters...
I agree it's very low at cold temperatures but it's not zero* until you get down to below -30 deg C. The third graph on that page is the only one that has enough detail to show it. At -15 deg C (5 deg F) the air holds about 0.1 lbs of water per 1000 cubic feet of air. At -10 deg C (14 deg F) the air holds 0.14 lbs of water per 1000 cubic feet of air. So obviously it does change the amount of water vapor in a measurable amount. At freezing the air holds about 0.3 lbs of water per 1000 cubic feet, about double what it holds at -10 deg C.
*Actually it's probably still measurable below that even.
Now, go back up this thread, to where I said it is essentially zero (which it is at the poles, when you compare it to a 'global temperature' of 16 deg C), and where there was a discussion about temperature differences and water content between the poles and the tropics. The water held in the tropics (30 deg C+) is an order of magnitude larger than that at a -10 deg C pole. Sublimation is essentially zero at the poles - water held in the air at the poles is essentially zero, compared to what is held world-wide.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Boilderplate denialist dumbfuckery. The point isn't that powerful storms haven't occurred in the past. The point is that warmer weather makes for more frequent and/or more powerful storms.
If the storms were drier and more focused ... that's because "climate change". ... that's because "climate change". ... that's because "climate change". ... that's because "climate change". ... that's because "climate change". ... that's because "climate change". ... that's because "Russia".
If the storms were fewer and weaker
If the storms disappeared
If the storms were pink with balloons
Temperatures up or down or sideways
Everything is
Everything else
"Russia" and "climate change" the two most effective, fear-inspiring scapegoats for just about anything.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
It is not the same deal. It is a textbook example of straw man.
It is exactly the same deal, Anonymous Coward.
While morons may disagree, the fact remains that all are proven science.
Thanks Ratzo! I used to have a slashdot account way back in the old days.
You might hear more comments if their funding wasn't tied up in a game of political football.
Yeah, that's what they all say. It generally means they either A) never had an account, or B) burned out their account so badly that all their posts started at -1, and now they want to farm mod points to down-vote the libs.
Which are you? If you had an account in the "old days", you could have recovered the password, you know.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I didn't know that - interesting, thanks!
At least one solar cycle or ElNino cycle whichever is bigger.
That's a completely arbitrary time scale based on nothing in particular which sort of illustrates my point. Climate scientists have been worrying about consensus when they should be worrying about definitions and standards. You don't convince people over the long run with opinions, particularly people who are disinclined to believe you.
Speculating about climate below 12 year average is moot.
There are plenty of examples of climates (particularly micro-climates) changing fairly dramatically in less than 12 years. Usually this is due to some external event. Asteroid, volcanism, etc but there are occasional exceptions to that too. While as a general proposition you are correct that we're typically talking about time scales of decades to centuries or longer, that's not universally true which is what causes the problem I'm talking about. People don't understand the difference between climate and weather and there is no bright line convention for when accumulated weather events equals a climate so it's difficult to even have a coherent conversation on the topic.