Just look at the chart and ignore everything before the mid-1960s which is when the first weather satellites went up.
I disagree that Lidia was bigger than Harvey. Maybe it was bigger in size but certainly not as strong. Lidia's winds only peaked at 65 mph, less than hurricane/tropical cyclone strength.
So I have looked at your c3headlines link and cnsnews link.
The c3headlines link is only about the Continental US which is about 3% of the surface of the Earth, a very small part of the whole picture.
the cnsnews link is a story from 2014 about Don Easterbrook predicting 20 more years of cooling*. I guess the cooling hasn't started yet because 2014, 2015 and 2016 consecutively set new global temperature records. 2017 will not be as warm as 2016 because the El Nino of 2015/2016 ended but it has a good chance of being the 2nd warmest on record. If he wants to say it's cooling then temperatures will have to drop back to at least what they were during during the 2000s. That hasn't happened yet and doesn't appear likely to me.
*He said the cooling started 17 years before which I guess means 1998 but while the rate of warming slowed some during that period it didn't actually cool in any statistically significant way.
I checked out climatedepot a few times when it first went online but all I found there was a lot of unsupported BS so I won't bother giving them any clicks now.
Actually the first weather satellites went up in the early 1960s but with the increase in naval traffic starting in the 1940s with WW II I doubt we missed much since then.
Anthropogenic global warming is still a useful term. Much of the climate change we are seeing is a result of global warming. The term "climate change" just encompasses all of the effects that include things besides warming.
Not really. How many climate scientists have access to this data, who funds them and who will challenge their data "corrections"?
Most climate data is available online if you care to take the time to look for it and there are papers available that describe the methodology used to correct the data. If you think they are wrong you are free to write a paper that contradicts them.
Well, the science is not settled [breitbart.com], the "all scientists agree" is taken out of context and doesn't refer to what you think it does, the data has been manipulated, and most importantly critique and debate are not allowed.
Critique and debate are certainly allowed. But you have to bring real science and empirical evidence to the debate which few climate science deniers are willing to do.
If climate science is a religion then it's an awesome one because it has actual evidence to back it up.
Actually it appears the past decade has been pretty normal for the number of major hurricanes. It's just that when they don't hit the Continental United States nobody here pays much attention to them.
Human industrial activity within the past 300 years, especially with the most significant of it happening only within the past 100 years, is not responsible for the ice sheets retreating. This most recent cycle of retreating glaciation has been going on for over 10,000 years now, and started well before humans were engaging in any sort of notable industrial activity.
The more recent cycle of retreating glaciation started over 20,000 years ago and was largely over by the Holocene Climatic Optimum 5,000-9,000 years ago. Since then temperatures have generally been declining and glaciers growing... until recently when anthropogenic global warming has taken over.
Good luck. At this point SMRs are still vaporware. I'm not against nuclear power in principle but until they can effectively compete in the electricity generation market they are just pipe dreams.
I hope you are ready for Congress to spend a shitload of taxpayer money for nuclear power then. Because that's what it will take. They are too expensive for the "market" to invest in them at this point and with the continued decline in the cost of solar and wind energy it's not likely that nuclear will be able to compete without massive subsidies.
My road trip consists of walking out my front door. I might walk over to the park two blocks from my house. Weather report for Monday in Salem, Oregon is sunny so I'm all set.
The issue is if a bunch of people do that in a relatively small area it becomes a problem. There's going to be lots of people out looking at the eclipse.
Slashdot Mirror
Just look at the chart and ignore everything before the mid-1960s which is when the first weather satellites went up.
I disagree that Lidia was bigger than Harvey. Maybe it was bigger in size but certainly not as strong. Lidia's winds only peaked at 65 mph, less than hurricane/tropical cyclone strength.
For now. Sea level rise is expected to increase as time goes on.
We've probably overshot on that by quite a bit.
Perhaps you could provide some links to your accusations. I heard about the Australian accusation and looked into it and it was BS.
So I have looked at your c3headlines link and cnsnews link.
The c3headlines link is only about the Continental US which is about 3% of the surface of the Earth, a very small part of the whole picture.
the cnsnews link is a story from 2014 about Don Easterbrook predicting 20 more years of cooling*. I guess the cooling hasn't started yet because 2014, 2015 and 2016 consecutively set new global temperature records. 2017 will not be as warm as 2016 because the El Nino of 2015/2016 ended but it has a good chance of being the 2nd warmest on record. If he wants to say it's cooling then temperatures will have to drop back to at least what they were during during the 2000s. That hasn't happened yet and doesn't appear likely to me.
*He said the cooling started 17 years before which I guess means 1998 but while the rate of warming slowed some during that period it didn't actually cool in any statistically significant way.
I checked out climatedepot a few times when it first went online but all I found there was a lot of unsupported BS so I won't bother giving them any clicks now.
Actually the first weather satellites went up in the early 1960s but with the increase in naval traffic starting in the 1940s with WW II I doubt we missed much since then.
The information in that link is confined to the Continental US, only 3% of the surface area of the Earth. You need to broaden your horizons.
Anthropogenic global warming is still a useful term. Much of the climate change we are seeing is a result of global warming. The term "climate change" just encompasses all of the effects that include things besides warming.
Not really. How many climate scientists have access to this data, who funds them and who will challenge their data "corrections"?
Most climate data is available online if you care to take the time to look for it and there are papers available that describe the methodology used to correct the data. If you think they are wrong you are free to write a paper that contradicts them.
"Climategate" was much ado about nothing.
Well, the science is not settled [breitbart.com], the "all scientists agree" is taken out of context and doesn't refer to what you think it does, the data has been manipulated, and most importantly critique and debate are not allowed.
Critique and debate are certainly allowed. But you have to bring real science and empirical evidence to the debate which few climate science deniers are willing to do.
If climate science is a religion then it's an awesome one because it has actual evidence to back it up.
12 years of no hurricane hits only counts if all you care about is the Continental US. Other places certainly have had hurricane hits.
And to lamely reply to myself here are tables that show statistics for Atlantic hurricanes:
Hurricane season statistics by year.
And here is a nice bar chart that shows the number of named storms and hurricanes by year since 1851.
Actually it appears the past decade has been pretty normal for the number of major hurricanes. It's just that when they don't hit the Continental United States nobody here pays much attention to them.
Human industrial activity within the past 300 years, especially with the most significant of it happening only within the past 100 years, is not responsible for the ice sheets retreating. This most recent cycle of retreating glaciation has been going on for over 10,000 years now, and started well before humans were engaging in any sort of notable industrial activity.
The more recent cycle of retreating glaciation started over 20,000 years ago and was largely over by the Holocene Climatic Optimum 5,000-9,000 years ago. Since then temperatures have generally been declining and glaciers growing ... until recently when anthropogenic global warming has taken over.
Good luck. At this point SMRs are still vaporware. I'm not against nuclear power in principle but until they can effectively compete in the electricity generation market they are just pipe dreams.
That is funny but it's also insightful. Nuclear is one of the more expensive ways to generate electrical power.
Exactly, the electric vehicle batteries probably have at least another decade of useful life after they've declined too much for use in vehicles.
I'm assuming that the flooding you are talking about is due to sea level rise (which is measured in fractions of an inch per decade)
Actually the rate of sea level rise since 1993 is at least 3.2 mm/year which is well over an inch per decade.
And if they ever become cost competitive with other forms of power generation they will be built.
It may be that nuclear plants are overregulated but given the potential for a catastrophic failure that's better than having them underregulated.
I hope you are ready for Congress to spend a shitload of taxpayer money for nuclear power then. Because that's what it will take. They are too expensive for the "market" to invest in them at this point and with the continued decline in the cost of solar and wind energy it's not likely that nuclear will be able to compete without massive subsidies.
that is all.
Maybe the bankruptcy of Westinghouse has something to do with it.
The difference between 98% and totality is the difference between night and day. It was spectacular to see the total eclipse earlier today.
But there are people in the world who have no interest in things like this. I don't understand how they aren't interested but they aren't.
My road trip consists of walking out my front door. I might walk over to the park two blocks from my house. Weather report for Monday in Salem, Oregon is sunny so I'm all set.
The issue is if a bunch of people do that in a relatively small area it becomes a problem. There's going to be lots of people out looking at the eclipse.