Global warming :: is it just a 'chinese hoax' like trump told us or is it serious?

@thirdperson

The hystrairia and misinformation is beyond belief!

Checking the weather on weather.com I see this link; https://jalopnik.com/extreme-heat-causes-i-94-freeway-to-buckle-in-minnesota-1850686153

The extreme heat by much of the U.S. this summer is continuing to break down our very infrastructure.

The buckling happened near Moorhead, Minnesota, close to the state’s border with North Dakota. The Minnesota Department of Transportation tweeted images of the two sites on I-94 where the pavement gave way under intense heat and pressure

And the heat has been intense in Moorhead and across much of the country this year, according to AccuWeather:

In Moorhead, Minnesota, near where temperatures haven't dipped below 80 degrees from July 17th. On Wednesday, Moorhead reached a high of 98 degrees, the hottest it has been since June 19, 2022, when the mercury spiked to 101 degrees. 

And since we aren’t exactly moving quickly on fixing climate change we’re all going to have to get more use to things breaking in the extreme heat

Ok, I've read enough, let's FACT CHECK THIS.

"Temps haven't dipped below 80 degrees from July 17 to July 28th"? Fraid not! Those are "HIGH" daily temps, everyday the low was at least 71F or lower. From July 16th to the 22nd the weekly avg temp was 69.86F and from July 23th to July 29th it was 75.13F.

So how many days has Moorhead had above 100F? The record is July 6, 1936 at 114F. Every year in the 1930's except 1931-not recorded and 1938 at 99F all highs were 100F or higher

1940's - four years season high at or above 100F, one not recorded,

1950's - two years season high at or above 100F

1960's - two years at or above 100F

1970's - two years at or above 100F

1980's - seven years at or above 100F

1990's - ONE year that had a high at or above  100F

2000's-  ONE year that a high was at or above 100F

2010's- ONE year that a high was at or above 100F

2020- nope

2021- 101F

2022- 102F

2023- nope

IN 1977 THE AVERAGE DAILY TEMPERATURE IN SISTER CITY FARGO WAS 72.57F WITH THE HIGHEST DAY 100F. IN 1988 THE AVG TEMP IN JULY WAS 73.25F AND TWO DAYS AT 105F AND 104F. THIS YEAR JULY AVERAGE IS 70.81F AND THE HIGH 98F. HELL, IN 1959 THE DAILY AVG JULY TEMP WAS 72.06F.

STOP THE BULLSHIT!!!

sources; https://www.currentresults.com/Yearly-Weather/USA/ND/Fargo/extreme-annual-fargo-high-temperature.php

https://www.wunderground.com/history/weekly/us/nd/fargo/KFAR/date/2023-7-23

@UNIMAN

@Raiders22

 Totally incredible. This shit is fed to us on a daily basis. Who has time to fact check them all? Absolutely NO extreme heat in Moorhead/Fargo this year. 

Just one of thousands.

Outdoors online reveals good news about the Inflation reduction act.  It has generated over $270 billion in private investments for utility scale clean power.  Over 170,000 jobs created in 44 states.  Cost of wind and solar energy has dropped 37-54%.  In the future, the average family stands to see $1800 per year savings on energy bills as more clean energy comes available.

The cost of wind turbines up 38% in just two years.

https://www.energymonitor.ai/renewables/data-insight-the-cost-of-a-wind-turbine-has-increased-by-38-in-two-years/?cf-view

The whole story in Outdoors Online is from Marcy Franck, a self proclaimed Climate Optimist. You see so much gloom & doom has been projected (just see posts in this thread) there is a nich for "Climate Optimists" to make their fortunes now. 

Like the stories from Outdoors online like; How to dress for extreme climate change weather and Maui's fires were all climate change and not total imcompetence that it really was. 

@thirdperson

Hurricane IDALIA expected to hit hard after midnight

Cat 2 hurricane

Flooding and power outages expected 

Global warming has increased the ocean temperature surrounding much of Florida including the Gulf or Mexico, to record levels never before seen in recorded history.  It's directly impacting marine life.

But worse is the warmer waters fuel large storms including hurricanes, to become stronger and more intense, with greater rainfall and subsequently  increased flooding and more dangerous storm surges along the coasts.  

NOAA has upgraded their hurricane season forecast from expected "average" to a 2 in 3 chance of being significantly worse than average.

IDALIA threatens the west coast of Florida with an intensity not seen before on the west coast.

The forecast is not 100% perfect and does not claim to be.  It's always possible a hurricane can shift course or lose intensity down to a mere storm.  We can hope for this but Florida is preparing for the worst.

Hoping our forum friend Midnight1 will be fine.

@Zeus4par

 Thanks Zeus...we are on the east coast & will be fine. We'll just get some rain bands & 20-30 MPH winds.

It doesn't sound so good for Floridians on the west coast. Hope they heed the warnings because this isn't something to ignore & hope for the best. Access to gas & cash will become extremely difficult after the storm. 

the destruction will be bad    but somethin tells me it wont be as bad as the top end of the probabilities say it could bunless it turns into a high end category 3 or a 4

Hurricanes and Climate Change cult, hand in hand.

Let's look at history; Since 1950 to today there have been recorded 18 major (Cat3 or higher)  hurricanes hitting Florida. That's 73 years. From 1877 to1949 there have been 20 hurricanes to hit Florida.

So frequency obviously not an issue. How about intensity?

Those 20 from 1877 to 1949 were as follows; 1-cat5, 8-cat 4's, and 11-cat3's. Averaged out (5+(8*4)+(11*3)/20)it equals a cat 3.5

Those 18 from 1950 to today were/are as follows; 3-cat 5's, 3-cat 4's, and 12-cat3's. Averaged out ((3*5)+(8*4)+(12*3)/18) equals a cat 3.5

Climate change cult members will cling to those 3 cat5's in the last 30 years, it's all they really have, but the overall data shows nothing has really changed except more humans now live in hurricane prone areas resulting in more personal property damages and injuries. 

source; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Florida_hurricanes

@UNIMAN

 Correct.  No types of storms have increased in frequency or intensity.  Tornadoes, hurricanes, cyclones, typhoons, etc.

There are cycles and anomalies but no link at all to Global Warming and certainly not to anything Man-made that man could control.

This is just another thing the scam crowd stirs up every single time anything happens, whether it is a fire, tornado, or hurricane, rain, drought, etc.

The obvious thing with hurricanes is people have become complacent and live and build more and more in hurricane-prone areas.

Although Atlantic hurricane data go back to the 1880s, they are only considered reliable globally since the 1980s with satellite coverage.  The proportion of major hurricanes (category 3 or above) in the Atlantic  has doubled since the 1980s.  Higher risk of storms making landfill in the US and slower moving storms increase destruction.  Now scientists conduct attribution science studies on individual storms to gauge how much climate change affect them.  Bottom line is that climate change has made extreme weather more common or intense.

@Zeus4par

Great points! Exactly right. We can expect it to continue to get worse slowly but surely through our lifetime

@thirdperson

 More nonsense.  You do not need satellites to tell when they strike, for example.

The average of a 3, 4, or 5 Category strikes per decade is 5.6

There have been 8 decades above this average.

Only one decade since 1970 have had more than this average.  That was 2001-2010 when there were 7 strikes.

1941-1950 had 10, 1891-1890 had 8, 1911-1920 and 1871-1880 had 7, 1851-1860 and 1951-1960 and 1961-1970 had 6

2011-2020 only had 4 strikes from hurricanes of this intensity 

This is easy to research.  No increase in hurricanes and certainly no increase in more intense hurricanes.

Research this stuff on your own instead of just quoting propaganda. 

 no question about that 

man made acceleration of global warming  

I am actually going to defend Thirdperson here......sort of.

Third is saying that hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean have been catoragized as Cat-3 or higher more often (doubled) in recent years than 1980's. Going online and reviewing available data this appears to be true.

First question to pop up is, so why haven't there been double or even a large increase in landfall Cat-3 or better hurricanes??? Either very lucky or something is wrong here.

A hurricane is catoragized by "sustained" winds. Cat-3, 111mph-129mph, Cat-4, 130-156mph, Cat-5, 157mph and higher.

So then I Googled "sustained" winds; To be classified as a hurricane, a tropical cyclone must have one-minute-average maximum sustained winds at 10 m above the surface of at least 74 mph (64 kn, 119 km/h; Category 1).

ONE MINUTE???? 

Not hard to figure out. Back in the 1980's I don't think we were tracking every minute of wind speed of a storm way out in the Atlantic.

Today there is an agenda that drives one to categorize every storm. Today it would be, " There it is, we got another one!! One minute, 3 seconds of 111.2 mph winds!! Mark it, CAT-3!!!!

@UNIMAN

 First question to pop up is, so why haven't there been double or even a large increase in landfall Cat-3 or better hurricanes??? Either very lucky or something is wrong here.

One of the major "reasons" there seem to be more forming is absolutely increased monitoring.  That is why I point out the lack of increase in strikes.  This is something that is very easily measured without satellites or 'new and constant measuring'.

It is NOT "just lucky or something is wrong".  We have this as very, very obvious data going back much further than just since 1980.  This does not need an increase in satellite monitoring or advancement in technology to 'monitor'.

The areas they hit are somewhat cyclical and the amounts of strikes are as well.  This is for various reasons in the wether patterns.

But there is absolutely no increase in the longterm intensity or increase in number over the recorded history.  This is simply a way to play with numbers to promote a narrative.  For example, look at the same data and see what happens if you measure since 1990, or since 2000.  What if you start at 1960, or 1970 when the satellites were first started to be used.

@thirdperson

True.  And unfortunately, in addition to the tragic loss of life, there's the destruction and increasing costs of cleanup/recovery, local economies, and insurance rates over time. The excessively warm waters (record!) surrounding parts of Florida/Cuba is a warning...

@UNIMAN

 For example, one of the conclusions would be that there are more hurricanes and more intense hurricanes and this is directly due to man-made global warming.  BUT there are actually fewer land strikes.  

So, with that kind of reasoning why not try to increase man-made global warming since we say there is a longterm increase in the hurricanes BUT a longterm decrease in land strikes.  Does it really make since to use hurricanes as a reason to attempt to manipulate the Earth's temperature IF it would increase hurricane land strikes; this would seem to be a reason to be okay with warming because these more intense hurricanes tend not to hit land as often.

This is simply not how using data works if you really want to use it to promote an agenda.  You have to look at the overall picture and not isolate certain time periods or certain items in the overall picture.

It is the exact same thing these scam artists and the people that simply are uninformed do with everything related to weather:  they blame everything on Man-made global warming.  Whenever there is any weather incident they think they can draw a direct correlation; they simply cannot do this and are being very manipulative with the data.

This takes away from their overall point when, and if, there is something of real concern that needs to be looked at.

Nature study found that hurricanes are moving further inland than they did 50 years ago.  Landfall usually causes a hurricane to decay because of separation from ocean heat source.  But warmer waters increase hurricane intensity so that decay is slower.  The faster the forward speed of a landfall hurricane, the further inland it can penetrate to cause more destruction.

@thirdperson

In short —trends in hurricane activity outside the range of documented variability have not been detected, nor is there high confidence in connections of hurricane behavior to greenhouse gas emissions.

Don’t take it from me. Here is what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said this month:

[F]or Atlantic hurricane activity, the attribution observed changes to increasing greenhouse gases is not yet assessed as highly confident, apart from impacts related to sea level rise. Observed hurricane data generally either do not show clear centennial-scale trends or do not cover enough years to assess century-scale trends. Pronounced multidecadal variations typically dominate over long-term (centennial-scale) trends over decadal timescales for Atlantic hurricanes.

NOAA’s assessment of scientific understandings is consistent with that of the most recent assessment of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

[T]here is still no consensus on the relative magnitude of human and natural influences on past changes in Atlantic hurricane activity, and particularly on which factor has dominated the observed increase (Ting et al., 2015) and it remains uncertain whether past changes in Atlantic TC activity are outside the range of natural variability.

There are hypothesized effects — such as the rapid intensification of storms or enhanced precipitation — but NOAA concludes that “confident quantitative attribution” of changes in the phenomena to greenhouse gas emissions or internal variability “remains an unsettled topic of research.” The media often conflates hypotheses with firmly established conclusions.

@thirdperson

'Nature study'?

 Quote better sources.  Like the scientists that study the actual data and analyze it without an agenda.