There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[brenthutch 383]

2 hours ago, DJL said:

What, it’s the first time we’ve ever had a La Niña?  

I decided to check in here to see how your stance was standing up that man made global warming  coincides with the presence or absence of  hurricanes.  I see you still won’t listen to the metrics that YOU establish.

I used NOAA’s prediction of six to ten hurricanes with three to six being cat 3 or higher so we still have a way to go.

[kallend 1,623]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

I used NOAA’s prediction of six to ten hurricanes with three to six being cat 3 or higher so we still have a way to go.

 So far 2020 has featured a total of 21 tropical cyclones, 20 tropical storms, eight hurricanes, and one major hurricane. With 20 named storms, it is the second most active Atlantic hurricane season on record, tied with the 1933 Atlantic hurricane season, and behind only the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. The season officially started on June 1 and will officially end on November 30.

[brenthutch 383]

So it’s no worse than 1933* got it.  I don’t know why I am getting so much pushback, NOAA says there is no discernible trend.  
 

*In all reality, 1933 probably was much worse as we did not have satellite coverage and may have missed a few.

[kallend 1,623]

7 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

So it’s no worse than 1933* 

So far.  The season isn't over yet.

[turtlespeed 212]

3 hours ago, kallend said:

So far.  The season isn't over yet.

3/5ths or so has passed.

2/5ths remain . . .

And the rate we are going - we will meet and exceed all of the NOAA predictions, with the exception of maybe the strength of Cat 3 or above.

But Brent will take that micro point and disqualify the entire prediction and say - "See NOAA cant predict anything - so Climate change caused by (non natural introduction of chemicals and elements and compounds into the air)AKA Man Made Climate Change is a hoax!"

Am I right?

[gowlerk 1,905]

In another of the feedback loop effects warmer weather has died out peat bogs in Siberia. Now many are on fire releasing long stored carbon. With predicable results.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/147083/another-intense-summer-of-fires-in-siberia

 

[turtlespeed 212]

6 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

In another of the feedback loop effects warmer weather has died out peat bogs in Siberia. Now many are on fire releasing long stored carbon. With predicable results.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/147083/another-intense-summer-of-fires-in-siberia

 

What are the predictable results?

[kallend 1,623]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/09/18/tropical-storm-beta-texas/

Tropical Storm Beta was named in the western Gulf of Mexico on Friday afternoon and is predicted to become a hurricane while affecting the Texas coastline with gusty winds and potentially flooding rain.

 

Beta is Friday’s third newly named storm, the most in a single day since records began in 1933, and sixth new named storm in the past six days. Tropical Storm Wilfred formed in the eastern Atlantic, while Subtropical Storm Alpha — the first storm in 15 years to be labeled with a Greek letter — materialized just offshore of Portugal. Alpha subsequently made landfall and caused “extensive damage.”

The record day for Atlantic tropical storm activity comes during a record-setting year for named storms. Beta is the 23rd named storm of 2020, the most on record through Sept. 18. It formed 34 days before the 23rd name storm, Beta, in 2005, the year that holds the record for the most named storms in an entire season. There are still six weeks left in the official 2020 hurricane season.

[airdvr 197]

Interesting.  I know many on here hate Shellenberger but I'd be interested in knowing what you don't agree with.

[brenthutch 383]

22 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Interesting.  I know many on here hate Shellenberger but I'd be interested in knowing what you don't agree with.

I predict the usual suspects will ignore the content and attack the messenger with something like
“Stossel is a racist, climate denier and homophobe and Shellenberger is a shill for the nuclear industry”

[JoeWeber 2,297]

14 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I predict the usual suspects will ignore the content and attack the messenger with something like
“Stossel is a racist, climate denier and homophobe and Shellenberger is a shill for the nuclear industry”

You do recall that John Wayne Gacy was a party clown, right?

[billvon 2,394]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

Interesting.  I know many on here hate Shellenberger but I'd be interested in knowing what you don't agree with.

I agree with most of what he says, like "climate change has made these worse."   Fires happen all the time.  The fire-control policies of the federal government are absolutely partly to blame for big ones.  So is climate change.  So is land use; we care more about fires because they more often encroach on houses because there are just plain more houses.

[murps2000 86]

I agree with most of the video as well. I have spent a considerable amount of time in Big Basin redwoods and it's absolutely true that there was a lot of litter on the forest floor in that park. There is still a whole bunch in surrounding parks that didn't burn in the CZU complex fire, and it should be dealt with. I was never too worried about the old growth trees, although there a few lesser known ones that I'd like to check on the next chance I get to visit. 

California is not all forest, however. Much of the coast is chaparral and inland there are thousands of square miles of grassland which you can burn this year all you want. It will be right back again next year after a wet winter. Locally to me, the SCU complex fire burned through much of that kind of terrain and became one of the largest fires in the states history. I realize that if it were the only large fire that Calfire had to contend with at the time, it probably would have gotten more resources and been contained sooner. So we can call the lightning event, which started multiple fires over a large area, and the likes of which I have never seen in the 16 years I've been on the west coast, an anomaly. A freak event. We don't have to blame climate change for the fact that monsoon type weather crept further north than it usually does. I have no data so I won't pretend that I know it is anything other than just that, an anomaly. But add to the anomaly a record breaking heat wave, and conditions were perfect for a catastrophe. I have also spent a good bit of time in Henry Coe State park where much of the SCU complex fire was. Trust me it is ready to burn every year. And this is why I disagree with one statement in the video.

"A small change in temperature is not the change between normalcy and catastrophe."

Not exactly as it is stated though. I think a small change in average temperature is the difference between normalcy and catastrophe. I think of climate change as the small canopy that makes the low turn of bad forest management catastrophic.

[billvon 2,394]

1 minute ago, murps2000 said:

Not exactly as it is stated though. I think a small change in average temperature is the difference between normalcy and catastrophe. I think of climate change as the small canopy that makes the low turn of bad forest management catastrophic.

Definitely.  Increasing the average temperature means drier biomes, a change in flora and fauna (like bark beetles) and less water at the end of the summer to fight fires.  It also means that in some transitional areas, if forests burn they won't come back - the various biomes will start migrating north.

One example of such a migration: "over the last three decades, hardwoods — such as red maple, scarlet oak and sweetbay magnolia — ranged west at an average clip of one and a half kilometers each year, while softwoods — including red pine, short-leafed pine and bald cypress — shifted north an average of one kilometer per year."  That means ~150 square miles of forest will be lost in southern areas every year as the range of the trees moves north.  These are trees that, once they burn in a fire, will not come back in those areas.

https://www.americanforests.org/magazine/article/trees-on-the-move/#:~:text=Scientists call the phenomenon “range,they don't typically grow.&text=Fei looked at 86 tree,and softwoods are moving north.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

14 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I predict the usual suspects will ignore the content and attack the messenger with something like
“Stossel is a racist, climate denier and homophobe and Shellenberger is a shill for the nuclear industry”

I predict you won't post an acknowledgement of how incredibly wrong you were.

[brenthutch 383]

42 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

I predict you won't post an acknowledgement of how incredibly wrong you were.

Lots of tropical disturbances only eight hurricanes and only two majors. (From Wikipedia) NOAAs latest prediction was that we would have five majors storms.  We still have another month+ so I might yet be wrong.  If I am, I will gladly admit it.  Wouldn’t it be nice if a warming climate resulted in lots of pesky storms and fewer monsters?

[SkyDekker 1,121]

6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Lots of tropical disturbances only eight hurricanes and only two majors. (From Wikipedia) NOAAs latest prediction was that we would have five majors storms.  We still have another month+ so I might yet be wrong.  If I am, I will gladly admit it.  Wouldn’t it be nice if a warming climate resulted in lots of pesky storms and fewer monsters?

And just like that you prove me right....

[brenthutch 383]

16 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

And just like that you prove me right....

Actually looking back on what I posted, I mistakenly attributed a Colorado State University prediction to NOAA

“The CSU outlook calls for 24 named storms, 12 of which are expected to become hurricanes, and five of those hurricanes becoming major hurricanes – Category 3 or higher”
 

Sticking with NOAA (which we are) I would be wrong thinking that 2020 would not be as active as predicted.  

The CSU prediction was more generous to me.

 

Edited September 23, 2020 by brenthutch

[JoeWeber 2,297]

25 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Lots of tropical disturbances only eight hurricanes and only two majors. (From Wikipedia) NOAAs latest prediction was that we would have five majors storms.  We still have another month+ so I might yet be wrong.  If I am, I will gladly admit it.  Wouldn’t it be nice if a warming climate resulted in lots of pesky storms and fewer monsters?

So are you agreeing that global warming can affect weather?

[brenthutch 383]

17 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

So are you agreeing that global warming can affect weather?

It may, however according to NOAA and the IPCC, it just hasn’t happened yet.  The busy 2020 had been attributed to a La Niña event, not global warming.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

36 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Actually looking back on what I posted, I mistakenly attributed a Colorado State University prediction to NOAA

“The CSU outlook calls for 24 named storms, 12 of which are expected to become hurricanes, and five of those hurricanes becoming major hurricanes – Category 3 or higher”
 

Sticking with NOAA (which we are) I would be wrong thinking that 2020 would not be as active as predicted.  

The CSU prediction was more generous to me.

 

Look at comment from you I quoted when I made my prediction.

[brenthutch 383]

9 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Look at comment from you I quoted when I made my prediction.

Post it you make lots of predictions 

[SkyDekker 1,121]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

Post it you make lots of predictions 

I did, I quoted your prediction when I made my prediction. It is right there, in one post. Just scroll up and look at it. Really isn't very difficult.

[brenthutch 383]

3 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

I did, I quoted your prediction when I made my prediction. It is right there, in one post. Just scroll up and look at it. Really isn't very difficult.

Do you mean this?

“I predict you won't post an acknowledgement of how incredibly wrong you were.“

given that I just said I was wrong, your prediction falls flat.

[JoeWeber 2,297]

53 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

It may, however according to NOAA and the IPCC, it just hasn’t happened yet.  The busy 2020 had been attributed to a La Niña event, not global warming.

Then screw those lightweights, I'm going with you: Global warming might be changing the climate.