The Jaw-Dropping Stats from Hurricane Irma

[Skeptic14]

In regard to a warmer planet and waters and more atmospheric moisture and the overly simplified relationship between this and more frequent and powerful atlantic tropical systems that some have tried to make:

I obtained the data for these plots from REMSS (temp), NOAA (co2) and wikipedia (atlantic hurricane season data).

Starting with the basics, the first plot is overlaying CO2 PPM in the atmosphere and increase in global temperature. The quote from one of the OPs links from a climatologist was that burning fossil fuels (anthropogenic activity) increased warming; this continues to be a very difficult relationship for climatologist to understand and model; co2 ppm increase and temperature increase.

Looking at the graph it is clear that CO2 PPM is increasing in a quite linear fashion, however while temp was increasing from 1985 through 1998 the relationship with co2 is clearly not direct or linear. Further, while co2 ppm continued to linearly increase from 1998 through 2016 the temp trend was flat until 2016. This demonstrates pretty well why our climate models aren't accurate, finding the true relationship between co2 ppm and global temp isn't simple.

The next plot is the number of atlantic tropical systems overlayed with co2 ppm.

I think this illustrates pretty well there isn't any direct relationship between co2 ppm and hurricane frequency.

The next plot is the number of atlantic tropical systems overlayed with temp (c) increase.

In 1995 there was an above average active season while temps were fairly flat, but as temp increased into 1998 for a max for nearly 20 years, there were a lot of less active seasons and not until 2003 was there a season that matched 1995 despite that temperature had been higher for a decade. The 2005 record breaking season was a decade into flat global temperatures and then there was an incredible drop off in activity while temps remained flat and then recently had another uptick.

There is clearly far more that goes into how active and how powerful tropical systems are than "burning more fossil fuels" and warming the planet. Of course part of that overly simplistic idea is the underlying premise/relationship assumed between an increase in co2 ppm and global temperatures.

 

[chrisch]

It's crap like this that shows your lack of a real response... Belittle the people that are questioning your "science".. All people like me are saying is "The science" of AGW is not fact but a guess at best... They wouldn't be needing to keep changing the subject line if it was settled..

Please, Just say that you don't have a big enough set of data points and the weather is way to complex to put a handle on..

Jim...

OK so you have a sense of humour failure, I will not bother again.

It's not MY science it is scientific fact and I am not belittling people that question it - those people are just plain wrong and need no further comment.

The constant change of subject is the tactic of the liars and lobbyists that seek to hide the truth. This creates enough disbelief amongst the conspiracy theory nut jobs and other assorted parties to give rise to a counter movement of people that just don't want it to be true and are incapable of dealing with the situation. That spirals upwards until large numbers of otherwise intelligent and reasonable people start spouting utter garbage and eventually believe their own nonsense.

I really fail to understand why anyone that is not in the employ of the oil companies cannot simply accept that it makes sense to do whatever we can to stop the output of fossil CO2. Why is it some badge of honour? Do people really think it makes them anti-establishment or something? Personally I think it makes them look like a clown, but hey let's put it to the test.

San Francisco is going to sue the oil majors. Let's see what the lawyers make of it. The scientists get a rough ride but these guys are a bit tougher.

https://www.sfcityattorney.org/wp-c...ile-Stamped-Complaint-for-Public-Nuisance.pdf

https://www.sfcityattorney.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Oakland-file-stamped-complaint.pdf

Maybe the victims of Irma will be next?

 

[RyanT]

All people like me are saying is "The science" of AGW is not fact but a guess at best...

Tens of thousands of papers have been published over the past few decades. It is far from a a "guess." Indeed as skeptik pointed out, the relationship between CO2 increase and temperature in any given year is not linear. Few things in the physical world are and that adds to the difficulty of interpreting any one particular study. As the data accumulate, however, the results have consistently pointed to anthropogenic warming.

 

[Skeptic14]

Tens of thousands of papers have been published over the past few decades. It is far from a a "guess." Indeed as skeptik pointed out, the relationship between CO2 increase and temperature in any given year is not linear. Few things in the physical world are and that adds to the difficulty of interpreting any one particular study. As the data accumulate, however, the results have consistently pointed to anthropogenic warming.

I agree with most of what you say here except the last part regarding the results consistently pointing to anthropogenic sources.

And I'm not presenting the opposite assertion that instead the data consistently demonstrates natural fluctuations are the culprit.

What is the relationship then between co2 ppm and warming? I don't see it, but that's not surprising I don't have nearly the data and time spent analyzing it as climatologist. However, they clearly haven't gotten the relationship determined accurately yet either since the models still aren't accurate. So how does the data consistently point to anthropogenic activity?

 

[chrisch]

....
What is the relationship then between co2 ppm and warming?

Increase CO2 increase greenhouse effect increase global warming (same for methane)

....I don't see it, but that's not surprising I don't have nearly the data and time spent analyzing it as climatologist.

Plenty have and the results are clear.

....However, they clearly haven't gotten the relationship determined accurately yet either since the models still aren't accurate.

Yes they are - why do you persist in stating something that is simply incorrect?

....So how does the data consistently point to anthropogenic activity?

Because CO2 levels have historically increased with human burning of fossil fuels. Again the correlation is clear and unambiguous. Natural fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 can be explained by natural events, with that corrected it is easy to see the increases that we have made by our burning of fossil fuel. Really that's all there is to it. It isn't hard to understand and it isn't hard to stop. Reversing the current levels and managing them to maintain optimum climatic condition for our species is a whole different ball game.

 

[Bubblesong]

Just a thought: Maybe the reason rising co2 has not yet had a linear effect on global weather is the buffer of the ice caps, as temps start to go up, another entire glacier melts and readjusts global temp. BEFORE you post the satellite image of the rebuilding artic ice coverage, the lost ice is yards thick, and refrozen ice in sat. photos is six inches thick.
Once the glaciers and ice caps are gone, our buffer is gone, plus water levels are higher, and stresses on tectonic plates have shifted drastically. Earthquakes are one potential result, but increased vulcanic activity could release sunlight reflecting ash, giving us another "year without summer" as has before.

 

[The Chairman]

It's crap like this that shows your lack of a real response.

Rly? In my experience the preponderance of people who deny global warming also deny evolution. They fail to realize that the scriptures never say "Thou shalt not commit evolution" and proceed to make a stance never envisioned by the writers. The mocking has been earned in many cases.

Looking at the graph it is clear that CO2 PPM is increasing in a quite linear fashion, however while temp was increasing from 1985 through 1998 the relationship with co2 is clearly not direct or linear.

The trends are both positive. The earth's atmosphere and crust create an amazing buffer in regards to temps. BTW, where did your graphs come from? I'm skeptical of it's origin. Maybe this one will help you out:

Or this one straight from NOAA:

And another one straight from NOAA:

Remember that "buffer" I referred to? Part of it consisted of glaciers, which are almost history now. Liquid or frozen, it takes one calorie of heat to increase one gram of water one degree centigrade. However, it takes almost 80 calories to change one gram of ice at 0C to one gram of water at 0C. While we're collectively wiping out at this buffer, you're telling us that there is no clear relationship. No, you simply don't understand the relationship, probably because you don't want to. BTW, here's a NOAA graph of glacial ice.

I drive a huge van for Scuba Diving. It's a Transit 350 XLT and it only gets 14.6 mpg. It's clearly not a great car to take to the grocery store. So, I went and bought a Kia Niro. Please don't ask me how to pronounce it (like a dead emperor maybe???), but it's a hybrid and gets almost 50 mpg. Is this enough? Probably not, but it's a start.

If we don't start making changes, even little ones, we're going to exterminate ourselves.

 

[Skeptic14]

Increase CO2 increase greenhouse effect increase global warming (same for methane)

Plenty have and the results are clear.

Yes they are - why do you persist in stating something that is simply incorrect?

That overly simplistic relationship of "increase co2 increase temp" isn't accurate or at least is incomplete. For starters there are more greenhouse gases than just co2 and of course there are many more other dynamics than just greenhouse gases to the global temperatures.

Measurements of CO2 ppm in prehistoric times have been estimated to have been over 4000ppm vs 400 today and yet the temperatures during those periods were sometimes lower than today and there was glaciation. There is far more to global temperatures than co2 ppm.

Regarding the inaccuracy of our climate models this is a great video by a renowned chemist demonstrating the inaccuracy of climate models and what it means.


If you are aware of better more accurate models that are nailing future climate predictions I'd be very happy to read about them.

Because CO2 levels have historically increased with human burning of fossil fuels.

Yes, if you look at plots of co2 levels since industrialization the trend is indeed up. If you start the plot before industrialization it is still an upward trend.

Of course, there are other periods of time of increasing and decreasing co2 levels prior to both homo sapien existing and prior to industrialization.

Again the correlation is clear and unambiguous. Natural fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 can be explained by natural events, with that corrected it is easy to see the increases that we have made by our burning of fossil fuel.

This simply isn't true considering that there were periods of co2 much higher than our current levels before man existed. To say we can discern natural and anthropogenic forces would again mean that we can produce accurate models; see my above link.

Reversing the current levels and managing them to maintain optimum climatic condition for our species is a whole different ball game.

What is the optimal climatic conditions for our species? What about the other million species on the planet?

 

[chrisch]

...This simply isn't true considering that there were periods of co2 much higher than our current levels before man existed. To say we can discern natural and anthropogenic forces would again mean that we can produce accurate models; ...

Do me a simple favour. Stand up. Now look down. Now the truth is feet existed before you were born and they will exist after you are dead. Are you sure the big things on the end of your legs are feet? How do you know that? Other species have feet.

Data about your feet just isn't accurate. Whatever you do don't buy shoes. They will not fit.

 

[Skeptic14]

Hrmmm ok @chrisch lets try something different. These debates/arguments never go well or change anyone's minds which is why I sometimes successfully try to avoid them.

Anyway, I think we just talk past each other (and by we I mean people with strong opposing opinions).

So you give me one of your strongest points/arguments that you feel I haven't properly addressed and I'll give you mine I feel you haven't properly addressed.

And we can both address it and maybe at least feel like we've both gotten some semblance of an answer?

Mine to you is in regard to inaccurate modeling. Earlier you said I'm persistently saying that but it isn't true. Do you have any response to the link I posted of the data analysis of the models or would you prefer to provide a model that has been producing accurate predictions?

This is kinda the basis of my entire skepticism of our understanding of anthropogenic climate change. If the "science is settled" or it's really as cut and dry as presented we should have some very nice accurate models.