Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
Global Northern Hemisphere data from Colorado State University for the year 2024 hurricane season shows that the Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) for this latest season of 455.1 is only 78.6% of “normal” (lower than the 30-year 1991-2020 Climatology hurricane storm season average of 579.2 as presented in the graph below with data through December 31, 2024) and less than the year 2023 value of 636.6 (as presented in the table below).
The highest ACE value measured for the Northern Hemisphere oceans over the 1991 to 2020 Climatology period was 880.3 in 1992 (as presented in the table below) nearly double the 2024 ACE measured outcome.
These outcomes clearly dispute and invalidate decades long flawed and contrived climate alarmists claims that these global storms are growing stronger and more intense because of man-made climate change.
Additionally, this latest year end data (presented below) shows that measured ACE values as well as data for numbers of both Major Hurricane and Hurricane outcomes (as presented in the table and 3 graphs below with these graphs displaying the period 1991 through 2023) have no consistently rising trends over the 30-year climatology period between 1990 to 2020.
Furthermore, the table shows year 2024 values for these measures are significantly lower than prior highest year measurements occurring (455.1 ACE in 2024 versus 880.3 in 1992, 17 in 2024 versus 31 in 2015 for number of major hurricanes and 32 in 2024 versus 44 in 1992 for number of hurricanes) during this climatology period. Also, the 17 major hurricane occurrences in 2024 were exceeded in 18 other years during the Climatology period and the 32 hurricanes occurrences in 2024 were exceeded in 19 other years during this 1990 to 2020 period as well.
The perspectives noted above regarding the Global Northern Hemisphere Climatology outcomes for ACE, Major Hurricanes and Hurricanes are also reflected in the climatological data for the Northeast Pacific Ocean Region, Northwest Pacific Ocean Region and North Indian Ocean Region.
The two North Pacific Ocean regions have nearly twice the ocean surface area (31.9 million square miles) compared to the North Atlantic Ocean (16 million square miles). Including the North Indian Ocean Region with the two Pacific Regions results in an ocean area accounting for about 70% of the Global Northern Hemisphere hurricane ocean surface area represented in the Colorado State University Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone statistical data analysis.
Provided below are the Climatology data for each of these three regions (Pacific Northeast Ocean, Pacific Northwest Ocean and North Indian Ocean) with the year 2024 ACE outcomes shown to be far below the “normal” value at only 61.8%, 68.1% and 30.9% respectively of the 1991 to 2020 Climatology average values.
These results make a complete mockery of the climate alarmist purely politically contrived claims that man-made climate change is driving increasing hurricane strength and intensity around the world.
Provided below are Colorado State University Tables for the Pacific Northeast Region, Pacific Northwest Region and North Indian Region (respectively) for the 1991 to 2020 Climatology period that include data on ACE, Major Hurricane and Hurricane yearly outcomes during this period for each region.
The data for the Pacific Northeast Region show that the year 2024 values for ACE, Major Hurricanes and Hurricanes are significantly lower than prior highest year measurements occurring (82 ACE in 2024 vs 294.3 in 1992, 3 in 2024 vs 11 in 2015 for major hurricanes and 5 in 2024 vs 16 in 2015, 2014 and 1992 for hurricanes) during this climatology period.
The data for the Pacific Northwest Region show that the year 2024 values for ACE, Major Hurricanes and Hurricanes are significantly lower than prior highest year measurements occurring (204 ACE in 2024 vs 570.4 in 1997, 9 in 2024 vs 16 in 2015 for major hurricanes and 15 in 2024 vs 23 in 1997 for hurricanes) during this climatology period.
The data for the North Indian Ocean Region show that the year 2024 values for ACE, Major Hurricanes and Hurricanes are significantly lower than prior highest year measurements occurring (7.5 ACE in 2024 vs 93 in 2019, 0 in 2024 vs 5 in 2019 for major hurricanes and 1 in 2024 vs 6 in 2019 for hurricanes) during this climatology period.
Without further belaboring the point, the values of ACE, major hurricanes and hurricanes occurring in each of these 3 global regions in 2024 is exceeded numerous additional times during the chronological period as was addressed in the data presented above for the entire Northern Hemisphere Region.
The data for the year 2024 North Atlantic region ACE is provided below showing that this year’s value of 161.6 exceeded the 1991 to 2020 Climatology value average of 122.5 which is 31.8% above “normal”.
The highest ACE values during the Climatology period for the North Atlantic Region (presented in the data table below) are 227.1, 226.9, 245.3 and 224.9 occurring in years 1995, 2004, 2005 and 2007 respectively.
The 2024 ACE value is exceeded by 10 other years during the Climatology period.
The 5 major hurricanes occurring in 2024 are matched or exceeded by 10 other years with the maximum being 7 major hurricanes in 2005 during the Climatology period. The 11 hurricanes occurring in 2024 are matched or exceeded by 4 other years during the Climatology period with highest value being 15 in 2005.
The year 2024 Climatology data compiled by Colorado State University for the North Atlantic Region, as shown above, establishes that there were no record high measured outcomes for ACE, Major Hurricanes, Major Hurricane Days, Hurricanes, Hurricane Days, Named Storms or Named Storms Days in that year.
This outcome occurred despite the record high hurricane hype provided by the clueless and incompetent climate alarmist election year Democrat politicians and media.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Arson and accidental fires in California will make up for it.
California (and Australia) are more examples of bad wildlands management than anything to do with climate. Letting green NGOs manage (by sue-and-settle lawsuits) wildlands with no responsibility for outcomes is folly.
Global warming inhibits hurricane activity … https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/04/08/global-warming-inhibits-hurricane-activity-as-indicated-by-decreasing-tropical-cape-values/
The IPCC does not make this claim. Citing various recent studies in its Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (2019) it states:
(Chapter 6, 6.3.1.1)
Overall, the IPCC TC projection is for a reduction in frequency, which you would expect to lead to a decline in the accumulated energy; but that the most intense storms will generally be stronger.
The report is available online as a PDF doc.
If you read the IPCC reports it is obvious that global warming is not a very big concern.
Agreed,
But the problem is that the media have hyped it as a newsworthy issue. This is skewing debate and diverting moneys from worthwhile public causes into pointless tilting at windmills.
“… the media have hyped it …”
________________________________________________________________________
It’s not just the media, look at this 2018 propaganda blitz put out by the government:
FOURTH NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT
Also the fifth national climate assessment, which curiously did not track anything in the IPCC summary report.
Thanks I’ll have to update my files for the next time an illustration of government propaganda is appropriate.
Yes, it’s often over-hyped, though we could debate whether the projected increase in the intensity of the strongest TCs is a concern or not.
Projected, but not observed. As usual.
Mr. nail: We can debate??!! Better contact your AGW handler, debate was over when Al Gore (your fellow cultist) declared it over, you just ran off the reservation.
If the planet is warming, with more total energy in the ocean/atmosphere system available, then why would it be “expect[ed] to lead to a decline in the accumulated energy”? This sounds like a conclusion tailored to fit the evidence, as opposed to a valid prediction of future trends.
“why would it be “expect[ed] to lead to a decline in the accumulated energy””
The Walker and Hadley circulations will weaken as the climate warms, which reduces air mixing and dries out the atmosphere. The Polar front moves further north in the NH and further south in the SH (though much slower).
The climate system is influenced by internal climate variability, such as the El Niño–Southern, and the PDO Oscillation. EG, the PDO transition to its negative phase and strong La Niña events, GW is tentatively projected to change, with a higher frequency of ENs which causes increased wind shear aloft and disrupts thermal development.
Which climates are you focusing on here Anthony?
There’s not just one that covers the whole planet you know.
There are hundreds / thousands of different climates all around the planet, and not all are affected by the observed, established major fluid dynamics events.
Truer words were never written that climates are “coupled, non-linear, chaotic systems”.
“There’s not just one that covers the whole planet you know”….
Are you serious? What kind of patronising drivel is this? Oh yes, of course a qualified and experienced meteorologist doesn’t realise that there’s more than one climate that affects the planet (sarc)! Get real! I’m surprised some take the time to bother commenting on this platform, when they receive patronising replies such as this.
Referring to the “climate system” very clearly doesn’t imply one climate covering the whole planet. I would have thought that would be plain to see.
Fact: the polar front has migrated north in the N Hemisphere over the past few decades. Less so (migrating south) in the S Hemisphere…. because guess what? All meteorologists know very well that within the “climate system” there are different factors at play in that broad region. However, the same principles apply, so that over time, a similar migration of the SH polar front towards the pole will become more evident.
And there is no evidence that CO2 has any effect on any of the “climates” around the world.
The polar fronts have always fluctuated,
There is lots of evidence of much warmer times in the last 10,000 years in that region.
Your far-from-neutral AGW-cultism is showing itself again.
“And there is no evidence that CO2 has any effect on any of the “climates” around the world.”
Just plain wrong! There most certainly is evidence. Whether or not that evidence is enough to be overwhelming or not, is open to debate but to claim “no evidence” is just miles off the mark.
So tell me which of my observations above were erroneous.
“So tell me which of my observations above were erroneous”.
It was more the statement, as I highlighted above, in which you remind a highly qualified weather man that there’s more than one climate affecting the planet, as if he wasn’t sufficiently aware…
“All” ?
“I’m surprised some take the time to bother commenting on this platform, when they receive patronising replies such as this.”
Yes, I too am “surprised”…. often.
As I will never change such entrenched ideation on here (and some notable others).
Best I (and I suspect those others) can do is get over some of my knowledge (common-sense doesn’t seem to work) and make neutral minds think a bit more deeply.
Thanks Neutral 1966.
For these hitting the negative button on Anthony Banton’s comment, please note that increased wind shear aloft disrupts and weakens hurricanes. Walker and Hadley circulations also weaken. IOW he is saying that we SHOULD expect fewer and less intense hurricanes in a warmer world. I have no idea why people are down voting this. The data agrees with Mr. Banton.
“For these hitting the negative button on Anthony Banton’s comment, please note that increased wind shear….”
Agreed!
It’s probably more the case that many on here seem to impulsively disagree with Anthony Banton, on principle rather than on the contents of his posts 😖
All of this, as I’ve said before does not paint the skeptical cause in a positive light.
As I’ve said before, many on here are akin to fanatical football (soccer) supporters, who have an inherently biased opinion on their own team.
It’s specifically referring to accumulated energy of Tropical Storms; not ocean heat content. If there are fewer storms, then you would expect accumulated energy of storms to decline on average, even if the really big ones are getting stronger.
As to why they expect a reduction in the frequency of tropical storms, I’m afraid you’ll have to read the report and citations.
“even if the really big ones are getting stronger”
Which they aren’t !
Nobody puts much store in model based GIGO from the IPCC…
.. you really need to wake up to the fact that IT IS NOT REAL.
Nostradamus also made prophecies. !
Prophesies only mean something in fairy-tales.
Climate models predicted warming from the 1990s. Broadly speaking, they were correct.
My tomatoes forgot to listen to the climate model predictions. They wont set fruit below 50 degrees and its a waste of time to plant them before April 15th here, the same as it has been for the last 100 years.
Please see my reply to johnesm above.
Sigh. Below, not above. I hate threading.
Anthony Banton gives a good response. I try and break it down in broader strokes, though a lengthier explanation.
All weather is driven by temperature differentials and fluctuations. These drive pressure differentials which drive wind, etc etc etc. That is waaaaay over simplifying things, this next statement is not.
Temperature is driven by energy flux, the equation being P=5.67*10^-8*T4 with P being in watts per meter squared and T being degrees Kelvin. The important part is the T^4. If you run the math, raising the temperature from 233K to 234K (-40 C to -39 C) vs raising the temperature from 313K to 314K (+40 C to +41 C) you will get:
233 => 234 = 2.89 w/m2
313 => 314 = 6.99 w/m2
So as temps increase over all, the same increase in energy flux raises cold temps faster than it raises warm temps. So the temperatures over all might be higher, but the difference in temps between day and night shrinks, between low altitudes and high altitudes shrinks, between low latitudes and high latitudes shrinks. Its not the AMOUNT of energy in the system that matters, its how much temperature DIFFERENTIAL in the system that matters. Since the temperature differential MUST fall as the “average” temperature increases, one would expect less storms and less intensity.
By analogy, when you boost a dead car battery, if you hook the batteries up right (in parallel) you will get almost no sparks and a small but steady current between the batteries. Hook them up wrong though (in series) and HUGE sparks, melted contacts, I melted the insulation right off the jumper cables once (yes, I was a slow learner when I was young). The point being that the total energy in both cases is the same. But the voltage differential in parallel is close to zero while the voltage differential is parallel is is 24+ volts. Its the high voltage differential that makes all the excitement.
I’ve been saying to anyone who would listen since Kyoto that a warmer world should be a calmer world. Apparently the data agrees.
“Temperature is driven by energy flux”
Wrong way round. !! Temperature differentials drive energy flux.
Same as in an electrical circuit it is potential difference that drive the energy flow.
No energy flux, temperature goes to absolute zero and stays there until there is an energy flux to raise the temperature.
The number of things you get wrong is amazing.
So S-B is wrong.. OK !
If there is no energy flux from an object, the object stays the same temperature.
For an object to lose energy, there has to be an energy flux.
What does SB say about the net radiative flux between two vertical points in the atmosphere.
No, SB Law is correct.
So weather is driven by changes in energy flux. Every day the energy flux from the sun starts at zero at dawn, rises until noon, falls again to zero at sunset and remains at zero until the next morning.
These fluctuations in energy flux drive the daytime highs and the nighttime lows. All the weather processes are in turn driven by the daily changes in energy flux from the sun. These in turn change over the course of the year as the earth’s inclination dictates which hemisphere is in winter and which in summer. Energy flux and changes in energy flux drive our weather and our climate.
If you wish to argue that winter causes a change in the energy flux from the sun instead of a reduction in energy flux from the sun causing winter, you are free to do so. You’ll be absolutely and hilariously wrong, but that’s your call.
“So S-B is wrong.. OK !”
This somes up perfectly this …. err, poster.
LOL.
Someone down voted you, I think I can guess who. So I upvoted to cancel him out.
Interestingly, there was not a “Mann-tastic” CAT6 TC in the lot. 😉
“This outcome occurred despite the record high hurricane hype provided by the clueless and incompetent climate alarmist election year Democrat politicians and media.”
Yes, I fear it is:
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
“In summary, it is premature to conclude with high confidence that human-caused increases in greenhouse gases have caused a change in past Atlantic basin hurricane activity that is outside the range of natural variability, although greenhouse gases are strongly linked to global warming. Some possible emerging human influences on past tropical cyclone activity were summarized above. These include, for the Atlantic, recent increases in rapid intensification probability, aerosol-driven changes in hurricane activity, increases in extreme tropical cyclone precipitation in some regions, and a slowing of storm propagation speeds over the U.S. A number of measures of Atlantic hurricane activity have increased since 1980, but in the of case of metrics where much longer records are available, trends since 1980 are not representative of longer (e.g., century-scale) trends. Substantial multidecadal variability in the Atlantic basin confounds efforts to detect long-term greenhouse gas-induced trends. At the global scale, increased intensities, rapid intensification (especially in near-coastal regions), and fraction of tropical cyclone 6-hourly “fixes” at high intensity are examples of possible emerging human influences, along with a poleward shift of the latitude of maximum tropical cyclone intensity in the Northwest Pacific basin. Human activities may have already caused other changes in tropical cyclone activity, in the Atlantic or globally, that are not yet clearly apparent due to the small magnitude of these changes compared to natural variability, or due to observational limitations.”
Or they may NOT have.
Why don’t these reports ever state the most honest position that can be concluded about climates’ behaviors –
“we just don’t know”
“Or they may NOT have.”
If you add several billion people to the planet, all of whom have to be fed, housed, kept warm etc, through: intensive agriculture, burning of carbon based fuels, building vast cities, clearance of rain forests etc….do you really honestly believe that this won’t have caused changes to the atmosphere and by extension, also to tropical cyclone activity?
See, I’m not a “believer”.
I’m one these strange homo sapiens sapiens that needs to see / be shown / observe first-hand the claims that invested people make about their offerings.
“Safe and effective” comes to mind.
“although greenhouse gases are strongly linked to global warming.”
They get it wrong from the start.. .
everything else can be safely ignored as irrelevant nonsense.
That’s climate models for you. GIGO. !
“although greenhouse gases are strongly linked to global warming.”
How so?
“although greenhouse gases are strongly linked to global warming.”
How so?
What is this? Some kind of mutual admiration society? At least acknowledge that even some of the great champions of the skeptical cause acknowledge the role of greenhouse gases on climate.
So let’s agree that no immutable law of nature has been acknowledged by everyone who has some degree of knowledge in these matters?
And as ever, many (me included) accept many of the observations of the influences on climatic behaviors, but we don’t necessarily buy the “whole package” of the climate change tenets promoted by the “settled science” crowd.
As I said earlier –
Why don’t these reports ever state the most honest position that can be concluded about climates’ behaviors –
“we just don’t know”
“don’t necessarily buy the “whole package” of the climate change tenets promoted by the “settled science” crowd.”
This is fair! I don’t believe many of us completely swallow the whole package of CAGW. The over hyped catastrophy scenarios promoted by the UN and the media aren’t helpful.
As for”settled science”. When is science ever settled? What I do find difficult to accept is the constant tired old claims that CO2 doesn’t cause warming. Even when some on here have gone to quite a lot of effort to explain how radiative forcing mechanism works, they continue to demand evidence. How much head burying in the sand can someone engage in?
Whether or not that forcing is to the degree claimed by the IPCC and others, I believe remains open to debate. Personally, I’m inclined to agree with the stance taken by Roger Peilke Snr, who doesn’t believe CO2 to be the main culprit but does hold that human activity is mostly responsible for the warming. I also believe he’s more qualified in the field than most. Land use changes, in particular must have a huge impact.
On whether increased CO2 is necessarily a bad thing or not, there does seem to be evidence that it’s improving crop yields and greening the planet. Perhaps this will eventually bring about equilibrium? More plant life absorbing more CO2 etc.
You should read Moeller’s study. He claims CO2 additions to the atmosphere actually cools the Earth’s atmosphere after negative feedbacks are figured in.
Is he a climate denier?
There are lots of other studies that put CO2 near or just above zero as to its warming potential, and that’s without negative feedbacks figured in.
A greenhouse gas warms the atmosphere. But by how much? Nobody knows. Does negative feedback offset CO2, or other greenhouse gas warming (with the exception of water vapor)? Nobody knows?
Do you see the problem here?
The only “evidence” Climate Alarmists can point to connecting CO2 to atmospheric warming is the current warming period. Since CO2 is increasing and we are experiencing a spell of warming, the Climate Alarmists want everyone to assume they are connected.
But it may just be a coincidence. Correlation is not necessarily causation.
The warming in the Early Twentieth Century was of the same magnitude as the current warming and reached similar high temperatures, but nobody claims the past warming was due to increasing CO2 because there was much less CO2 in the air then.
So something other than CO2 caused the Early Twentieth Century warming, so it is not unreasonable to assume that the current warming has the same cause.
Don’t assume too much. That’s a very big problem in climate science and all sciences.
100% agreement from me about how changes to land use, broad scale flora clearing, urbanization (tar & cement) can change weather patterns in affected localities.
This I have seen and experienced first-hand in my now > 3 score + 10 lifetime.
Regarding the role of CO2 as the control knob in the change of weather behaviors that I’ve observed (as described above), I remain unconvinced.
There are just too many mixed messages coming from too many vested interest “scientists” who are blatantly intent on shouting down the relatively few disinterested scientists who maintain that CO2 cannot do what it is being claimed to do to the entire atmosphere.
So not being an automatic “believer” as such in most things postulated by “experts” / “authorities”, I would give them credit if they just admitted that
“we just don’t know”.
“CO2” and “human activity” aren’t the same thing. Much CO2 generations is natural, and the anthropogenic CO2 isn’t all that is embodied in “human activity”. One needs to understand that CO2 alone isn’t the source of climate change, and that conflating CO2 with “human activity” isn’t the right way to talk about either.
Not some, most.
I should make it clear that I’m not doubting that CO2 has a positive radiative heating effect in our atmosphere, due to LWIR re-radiation, that is well established by science.
~Anthony Watts, founder of WUWT
Quote can be found at the bottom of this article by Anthony:
Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment – Watts Up With That?
He’s said it elsewhere, as have many other longtime commenters, that’s just a link I happen to have handy.
Bnasty usually responds to that kind of statement with sarcasm, insults and anything else he can think of. I would advise him to hold his fire as he would be insulting our host directly.
[just stop –mod]
Stop asking for evidence?? That seems very odd !
[yes,
stop with your insincere bullshit. You are not asking for evidence, you are asking for unequivocal proof, an unobtainable strawman standard that cannot be met.
By your “empirical evidence” standard, there is no evidence that fossils display the morphology of ancient living creatures. Plausible mechanisms, sure, just like AGW. Correlations, sure, just like AGW. BUT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, absolutely none. No one’s ever proved that if you bury a creature in the right mud and conditions it will turn to stone and leave the shape of the organism behind over millions of years.
There’s lots of evidence for AGW. You’ve been answered hundreds if not thousands of times.
There’s lots of evidence that feedbacks make it a wash.
There’s lots of evidence against AGW.
Evidence does not mean proof. Evidence may not be convincing. But it’s still evidence.
You’re continuing in this vein is just vile pollution of the site and you drive away potential new users.
I am seriously considering a ban for harassment.
Your screaming for unobtanium constitutes harassment.
Clean up your act. Stop harassing with the bullshit unobtanium gambit.
~ctm]
I’m just asking for someone, anyone, to show me where atmospheric warming by CO2 has been measured.
I really want someone to show me and tell me how much warming it has caused, in say, the last 45 years, without resorting to models and radiative only calculations.
Why is that such a crime. ?
Andy May has said several times that warming by atmospheric CO2 has never been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.
I happen to agree with him.
The video by Tom Shula also agrees.
“I’m just asking for someone, anyone, to show me where atmospheric warming by CO2 has been measured.”
I would like to see that myself. I’ve been waiting for over 50 years to see that.
Dr. Happer is probably as close as anyone to a real number, but he says his number does not include any negative feedbacks figured in.
Good luck teasing out the negative feedbacks in the Earth’s atmosphere! We may eventually have computer power that can do such a thing, but we certainly don’t have it today, and that means we have no answers about how CO2 affects the Earth’s atmosphere.
What is a crime is the manner in which you ask the questions, and worse, your snotty attitude to those who respond to you. You reject each and every piece of evidence shown to you out of hand by declaring it not evidence combined with insults, sarcasm and angry assertions. You appear more interested in belittling people than having a productive discussion.
So once again, I shall answer you. As CTM pointed out, there is no answer to your question as stated. If there WAS an answer, then the debate would be over.
By analogy, if I pee in a Olympic size swimming pool, I know for certain that there is more water in it than if I did not pee in it. Can I measure a change in the water level as a result? Perhaps if all the circulation pumps are turned off, nobody is in the pool, and the water is perfectly still and I have really accurate instrumentation. The problem is that the circulation pumps are always on, there’s people thrashing around in the pool all day and the cleaning crew comes in at night so I cannot separate all that turbulence from the rise due to peeing in the pool Your argument is that since I cannot measure it, there’s no proof my pee increased the volume of water in the pool. But it did.
We know from spectroscopic research exactly which wavelengths are radiated from earth surface. We know exactly which wavelengths every molecule in the atmosphere absorbs. We know that there are small ranges of wavelengths that CO2 absorbs. We know that it will give up that extra energy either by collision with other molecules or by emission. These are all things that have been conclusively measured in countless lab experiments.
If there are more CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, it is illogical to proceed on any other assumption than some number of photons that would otherwise have escaped directly to space would instead be retained as additional energy in the atmosphere and/or radiated back toward earth surface.
How large is that total effect? There’s no way to measure that in the way that you ask. Is it zero? It would be illogical to assume it is zero. It is a number above zero and can have no other result than to warm the system. Are the feedbacks? Yes there are. Are some positive and some negative? Yes. Do we know what the net is? No. That’s why we have a debate, a disagreement amongst scientists and policy makers.
If you want to carry on a discussion about the observed effects of the system as a whole and how much CO2 contributes to observed changes that is one thing. But if your starting premise is that peeing in the pool doesn’t increase the amount of water in the pool because no one measured it, there’s no point, then you’ve condemned yourself to learn nothing and there’s no point engaging with you.
How eloquent? You’ve been given the evidence but you still insist on asking for it. Maybe you don’t understand it, in which case you’re clearly out of your depth.
You apparently don’t understand what evidence is. Speculation and assumptions are not evidence. Do you have anything other than speculation or assumptions to offer?
Thanks for this 👍
[just stop –mod]
How do you acknowledge something that hasn’t been shown to exist?
I’m not talking about the greenhouse effect. I agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
I just don’t agree with anyone, alarmists or skeptics, who think they can tell how much warmth CO2 adds to the atmosphere. It may be so little, especially after negative feedbacks are figured in, that it is undetectable in the Earth’s atmosphere. So far, it *is* undetectable, and this, after over 50 years of looking.
Not one instance of CO2 warming the Earth’s atmosphere has ever been recorded or documented. It’s all speculation and assumptions.
Show me a definitive number on how much warmth CO2 adds to the atmosphere. You can’t do it. So you shouldn’t challenge people like me who say just that, because you don’t have anything to challenge with.
Not one person on this Earth can tell you how much warmth CO2 adds to the Earth’s atmosphere.
“How so?”
Water vapour (greenhouse gas); CO2 (greenhouse gas)… there are others….all implicated in warming to a greater or lesser extent….by countless studies. Are you seriously contending that this effect does not carry at least some scientific evidence?
The “countless studies” pertain to the the effects of CO2 and other greenhouse gases inside a container in a laboratory.
None of these countless studies address any negative feedbacks which might occur in the Earth’s atmosphere. Instead, they determine that CO2 increases warmth in the laboratory by a certain amount, and then assume this same straighforward transfer will occur in the atmosphere. But they never address what happens in the atmosphere when this warmth is added. That’s because they don’t know the answer.
My man Moeller says after negative feedbacks are figured in, CO2 actually cools the Earth’s atmosphere.
what do you think about that?
Debunked over 100 years ago:
THE EVOLUTION OF CLIMATE
BY
C. E. P. BROOKS,
M.Sc., F.R.A.I., F.R.Met.Soc.
WITH A PREFACE BY
G. C. SIMPSON, D.Sc., F.R.S.,
DIRECTOR OF THE METEOROLOGICAL OFFICE
LONDON: BENN BROTHERS, LIMITED
8 BOUVERIE STREET, E.C.4
1922
“The theory which connects fluctuations of climate on a geological scale with changes in the composition of the earth’s atmosphere is due to Tyndall and Arrhenius, and was elaborated by Chamberlin. The theory supposed that the earth’s temperature is maintained by the “blanketing” effect of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This acts like the glass of a greenhouse, allowing the sun’s rays to enter unhindered, but absorbing the heat radiated from the earth’s surface and returning some of it to the earth instead of letting it pass through to be lost in space. Consequently, any diminution in the amount of carbon dioxide present would cause the earth to radiate away its heat more freely, so reducing its temperature. But it is now known that the terrestrial radiation which this gas is capable of absorbing is taken up equally readily by water-vapour, of which there is always sufficient present, and variations of carbon dioxide cannot have any appreciable effect.“
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/72714/pg72714-images.html
Sounds good to me.
“But it is now known that the terrestrial radiation which this gas is capable of absorbing is taken up equally readily by water-vapour, of which there is always sufficient present, and variations of carbon dioxide cannot have any appreciable effect.“”
“Debunked over 100 years ago:”
Really … wow.
Evidence has accumulated greatly since then and is now “settled science”.
It really is amazing at what straws get clung to.
And LWIR WV certainly is not taken up “readily by water-vapour”.
Watch this (doesn’t take much of an attention span as it’s only 2 mins long and you can see from the outset that the above comment wrong.
Why is everyone down voting this?
He’s quoting the tortured wording of NOAA which if you skim it sounds like hurricanes are getting worse but if you bother to read it in detail, it pretty much says that human activities “may” have caused changes but they cannot detect them yet.
With all things climate, read the details. This is an admission by NOAA that they cannot detect any human influence on storms except in theory. In theory I’m a millionaire 100 times over, in practice I counted the pennies. Details matter.
[just stop –mod]