CodyBigdog

I’m not an expert. But unlike you, I read.

More than 41 percent of the 292 hurricanes that have hit the U.S. since 1851, hit Florida…and of the 7 worst hurricanes to hit Florida in the last 100 years, 3 of them were in the last 30 years.

Nearly half of today's North Atlantic hurricanes are reaching major intensity (Category 3, 4, or 5), which is 260% more than four decades ago. Hurricanes are also becoming stronger faster, a phenomenon known as rapid intensification. While the mean intensity of hurricanes has not changed significantly in the past, warmer oceans raise the ceiling for intensity. A larger proportion of storms have reached major hurricane (Category 3-5) strength in recent years, along with an increase in rapid intensification events.

Buckle up as your insurance rate will continue to go up as more, and stronger hurricanes roll over Florida. 👍

M3Inline6

Experts are often just guessing and hypothesizing. Sometimes with reasonable deductive reasoning, and other times it’s complete sham work.

Anger is always the response when you dispute and/or challenge the movements. See, it’s okay to believe the experts until the experts’ positions change course or don’t align with the narrative. We were told to “trust the science” and “the experts know better” for the last 4 years and those who were critical were lambasted and ridiculed. Well gosh, oh how the tables have turned. Everybody who challenged the narrative and were called conspiracy theorists turned out to be right, over and over and over.

We have been told to trust our higher institutions without question. We have been told that those in my profession hunt blacks (…and for the record, I am a black male). But when the black Harvard professor looked at the data - multiple times - the data didn’t support the claim. As expected, ridicule resulted because the results didn’t fit the chosen narrative to sell us our oppression.

CodyBigdog

I agree. The “experts” from Faux are sham/scam artist.

Got it.



You clearly have no clue, but I’ll help you out a bit…the conclusions from “experts” (people that have spent their entire life studying the science) can, and do change their conclusions as more, or better data is obtained. Remember, it was not that long ago when your relatives thought that the earth was the center of the solar system, or that the earth was flat. But then better measurements showed that your people were wrong. 😎 That’s how science works.

But there’s overwhelming experimental evidence that has shown, for several decades, that the atmosphere is experiencing additional and rapid warming due to man made pollution. While global warming has a component that is due to natural effects, the component due to man-made contributions can be isolated, and is accurately measured. The Greenhouse effect is a real thing….despite what the liars at Faux tells you.

M3Inline6

[QUOTE=CodyBigdog;19494087]
That’s a ridiculous conclusion to draw as if reasonable people don’t believe that we, as humans, don’t contribute to climate change to some degree. What we continue to argue and debate about is how significant our impact actually is. The climate will change with or without us. Our innovation and industry does pollute, but as it has been proven, the massive hysteria was just that…..hysteria. Gore’s predictions have been debunked and proven wrong (obviously) and more data continues to show that the climate zealots were clearly wrong. Virtue signaling, anger, etc. isn’t going to strengthen your position. We should be able to discuss this subject matter, albeit with contrary positions, absent the labeling and anger just because we disagree.

CodyBigdog

Climate scientists/experts were not wrong. But you are - Biggly.

Sadly, what you fail to understand is, that the scientific community that studies such things (not politicians like Gore): (1) Understand the contributions, both natural and man-made, to global warming; (2) have measured the increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere that are specific to man’s contributions (yes, they can easily determine the difference); and (3) use the increasing concentrations of green-house gases to calculate estimates of temperature rise around the globe. The more data that is accumulated, around the globe, the more accurate the model will become. Since the model refinement and data gathering has been going on for more than 2 decades, the data and models have become increasingly accurate.

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-cha...limate-change/


As far as your claim about Al Gore, well, he got the basic premise right, but was wrong on the details/predictions. But that’s what politician do.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/en...el-al-gore.htm

“The basic truth, and its inconvenience, remains," Scambos, a senior research scientist, writes. "In fact, it is clearer than ever that greenhouse gases are a major cause of the observed climate warming.

Additionally, just as Gore's film depicted, carbon dioxide levels have continued to rise. "Carbon dioxide has now crossed the 400 parts-per -million mark," Scambos says. "The level for the 6,000 years prior to about 1900 was rarely more than 280 ppm."In the decade since 2006, Scambos says, our understanding of climate change has evolved, but that data doesn't challenge the basic conceit of the film. "What we've learned are details--how warm ocean water is playing a role in both sea ice and ice sheet retreat; details in how the glacier and ice sheet flow speeds and thicknesses on Earth are changing; details on the past history of the ice ages and the triggers and timing of abrupt climate change."

That's not to say that "An Inconvenient Truth" got everything right. Scambos says that in an effort to shock the public into action, the film did exaggerate some dire scenarios. It was "a bit over-the-top" he says.

CodyBigdog

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/




https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs...re/?intent=121

“Earth’s average surface temperature in 2023 was the warmest on record since recordkeeping began in 1880 (source: NASA/GISS). NASA’s analysis generally matches independent analyses prepared by the​ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other research groups. Overall, Earth was about 2.45 degrees Fahrenheit (or about 1.36 degrees Celsius) warmer in 2023 than in the late 19th-century (1850-1900) preindustrial average. The 10 most recent years are the warmest on record.”

But even without sea levels rising and inundating coastal communities….sea temperatures are warming. Surface sea temperatures off the coast of Florida, during certain months in the Summer, have become like a sauna. With warmer water temperatures, will come more powerful storms.

The handwriting is on the wall, and Neanderthals may try to ignore the new realities…but insurance companies won’t, and they are putting a $$ figure on global warming.

bkrantz

Read this. People with statical skills review data to see if natural disasters have increased. Spoiler alert: they haven't.
https://ourworldindata.org/disaster-...se-limitations

bkrantz

I can share graphics about climate history, too. And as a research geologist I might be better able to interpret them. Here are a pair of temperature vs. time graphs, from Hansen and Sato (2011, NASA). The upper plot shows global temperature for the past 5.5 million years. Notice two things: recurring temperature cycles, and an overall cooling trend. Also note the cold-hot-cold swings get more extreme.

The lower plot expands the past 800,000 years. This lets us see how each recent cycle has gradual cooling but very rapid warming. And that we have yet to reach peak temperatures as high as some recent cycles.

Now both the overall cooling trend and these roughly 100,000 cycles are driven by internal earth processes, orbital mechanics, and solar processes. Do you really think human influences on short term atmospheric behavior will change this in any significant way?

Tobeit

I think your plot shows the problem: the ice age caused only a 4degree temperature drop and it lasted from 2.6million years to 11.000 years ago with the last period about 100.000 years long.

The current human induced warm up changes temperatures of the same scale in a few decades!! That is orders of magnitude faster!

you mix up your scales of time and amount of change.

M3Inline6

So @CodyBigdog ….one minute you claim it was fake news and more lies when I highlighted some of the ridiculously exaggerated predictions, yet, turn around and admit his predictions were way off the mark and exaggerated. Which one is it?!? We are all old enough to remember the doomsday predictions from politicians and climate experts.

Bluehighways

This has been an entertaining thread to say the very least. LOL It doesn't bear much if any resemblance to the original subject, but here are my general thoughts on this subject.
.
Benz sold 25 horseless carriages between 1888 and 1893. Most respected publications put the market capitulation to between 1917 (Scientific American) and the mid 1920's to the early 1930’s depending on the source of the opinion as there doesn't seem to be any firm line in the sand. But for the sake of simplicity let’s say it took roughly 40 years for market forces to result in a voluntary transformation from a horse driven transportation system to an ICE driven one. Then with the railroads, the transformation from 100% Steam to 100% Diesel Electric took place from the first sale of a Diesel Electric Locomotive in 1925 until 1953 when the last steam engine was manufactured and sold, That makes it 28 years for the voluntary and 100% complete transformation of the entire Railroad industry. That happens fast in an industry that is driven by immediate hard copy P&L statements.
So let's now take a look at the ICE vs EV market timeline thing. Modern EV Market firsts: GM EV1 in 1996, Toyota Prius 1997, Honda Insight Hybrid 1999, Nissan Leaf August 2009, Chevy Volt January 2010, etc. I think it would be fair to say, that at best, we’re undergoing a market transformation every bit as dislocating as any comparable precedents. We as a group need time. As the benefits one exceed those of the other market capitulation will take place. The benefits and the drawbacks to each need not be parallel to each other. If you evaluate an EV using an ICE yardstick, that only contains ICE benefits, the conclusion is forgone. This is why so many folks who have owned or leased an EV become what might seem like annoying apostles to those who are familiar with and like ICE vehicles. At the same time they have little personal experience with an EV and no real reason or motivation to pursue that subject based on their yardstick or call it their shopping list. Sort of the "If it ain't broke, don't be trying to fix it." logic, and there's a lot to be said for that.
FWIW, the Amish still use horses. I grew up in S.E. Pennsylvania. They, the Amish, have their reasons.

abiazis

worked with German companies also - they might not be right but they are never wrong ie - 996 IMS debacle and GT3 991.1 F engine…

Hunky

You mean experts like Dr Faucci were wrong? The 10 cent masks that we were forced to wear on airplanes, in stores, schools, etc., didn't work? "Social distancing" didn't work? Stay at home for a year or two didn't work? Oh that's right, this carnival barker now admits when under oath that none of that did any good.
I think we have all had about enough of these so called "experts" who are nothing more than aviricious, con artist, parasites, pitching a poorly disquised political agenda. Even us Neanderthals in FL can see through this BS. LOL.

CodyBigdog

Thank you for the information, but the article also says the following:

”To be clear: this does not mean that there is no increase in disasters, especially when looking at specific types of events, or specific locations. To establish clear trends on this, people need to look at more focused academic literature. It also says nothing about the intensity of disasters.”

The data analysis contained in the article is a composite of all “disasters”, with no clear definition of what constitutes a disaster? Is it number of deaths or injuries? Is it property loss in terms of $$? But they did mention one thing that I agree with, that the data does not always capture a disaster. For example, there have been a number of hurricanes that have hit Florida, or parts of Louisiana….that because it made landfall in a sparsely populated area, loss of life or property damage was at a minimum. Would such an event regester in their data base as a “disaster”? I have no idea. Is a Cat4 hurricane 100 miles off the shore of Florida, that never makes landfall, still considered a “disaster”? Doubt that it is…it’s a new category called, “disaster in waiting” or “near disaster”. Just because a storm doesn’t kill anyone, or destroy property, doesn’t negate the fact that the storm formed because the water temperature and winds were right to induce its formation. But that won’t be on the data base.

But to their point, I am talking specifically about weather-related storms in the US. Not flooding in Malaysia. Or earthquakes in Chile.

There is no question that the number of tornados and/or formed hurricanes has dramatically increased….but in this data base, if a hurricane never makes landfall, or a tornado only tears up of farmland….it would be not recorded as a “disaster”. Nevertheless, climate change is contributing to an increase in the number and severity of storms and draughts (that impact the likelihood of forest fires),…there is a whole host of disasters, such as famines that resulted from years of severe draught, that I’m not clear is depicted in their data.

But speaking of people that study the data/statistics…that would be the insurance agencies….and they know things aren’t getting better, but worse and are dropping policies and moving out of various states with a high frequency of severe storms.

CodyBigdog

Since you don’t seem to grasp the concept, I’ll spell it out for you - You were talking about Al Gore’s “predictions”. He is a politician, not a scientist. Nevertheless, his underlying position that man-made climate change is, and will continue to impact man, and all species of wildlife on the planet, is accurate.

I have been talking about what the science shows. That said, people like you that discount the underlying facts of global warming, because early predictions were not accurate…just shows me your ignorance of the problem. Exact predictions regarding the rise of sea levels is as hard to do, if not much harder, than predicting next weeks weather. But over the decades, with better equipment and better models, predicting the weather has become much more accurate…yet, still not perfect if trying to predict further out than 48 hours.