Are the storms really getting more powerful or is it just that our knowledge of how they work and the increased accuracy of our measuring equipment has improved?

---

... and still I fear, and still I dare not laugh at the Mad Man!

Queen - The Prophet's Song

Are the storms really getting more powerful or is it just that our knowledge of how they work and the increased accuracy of our measuring equipment has improved?

Methinks both

---

Are the storms really getting more powerful or is it just that our knowledge of how they work and the increased accuracy of our measuring equipment has improved?

The seas are getting warmer, for whatever reason, and warmer seas mean more power goes into the hurricanes and storms.

Was there another reason you chose to say record keeping started in 1930, or was it just the spike that year caught your eye?

IIRC that is when storms started getting names/numbers. Before then hodgepodge, you have to look in dozens of different sources for info and not all use the same criteria. ex some records are by central pressure others by wind speed.

Well, as to names... the Australians started naming tropical cyclones with personal names back around 1887, I think. Before that, for centuries, they were named after the place they hit, the saint whose feast day it was, etc. The current scheme on the naming of the North Atlantic basin hurricanes started in 1953/1954, and was last 'patched' (to include male names) in 1978.

If you look at the data, for instance HURDAT2, you will see that all (or at least almost all) of the entries list a wind speed, and starting in the late 1800s (1883), increasingly they listed a central pressure. But even in the late 1970s on named storms, the occasional entry was missing a central pressure.


http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/hurdat/hurdat2-1851-2016-041117.txt
The most recent HURDAT2 database.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Are the storms really getting more powerful or is it just that our knowledge of how they work and the increased accuracy of our measuring equipment has improved?

Well, certainly our measuring equipment is improving.

Also, it seems that the storms might be getting more powerful.

But, one measure of 'powerful' is the $ amount of the damage they cause. And as time goes on, the coastal areas prone to being hit by hurricanes are getting more and more built up. At least loss of life is getting lower, due to warnings from better tracking and detection of the things.

However, one reason it might seem they are getting more powerful and/or more frequent is the mass (news) media. "If it bleeds, it leads"... Showing mass death and destruction is good for ratings. In other words, showing hurricanes (and wars) makes CNN more $$$.


It definitely would be interesting to do some curve-fitting on the HURDAT2 data.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

The Hurdat database is not an original source. It is derived data.

The Hurdat database is not an original source. It is derived data.

This an original source?


http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/storm_wallets/atlantic/atl1958/cleo/worksht/w081504z.gif

HURDAT2 is a data format used to collect and record a summary of information about tropical cyclones. The database itself is maintained by the National Hurricane Center, which is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is part of the US Department of Commerce, which is part of the US Federal Government.

At least they are honest about not being perfect...

General Notes:
The database goes back to 1851, but it is far from being complete and accurate for the entire century and a half. Uncertainty estimates of the best track parameters available for are available for various era in Landsea et al. (2012), Hagen et al. (2012), Torn and Snyder (2012), and Landsea and Franklin (2013). Moreover, as one goes back further in time in addition to larger uncertainties, biases become more pronounced as well with tropical cyclone frequencies being underreported and the tropical cyclone intensities being underanalyzed. That is, some storms were missed and many intensities are too low in the pre-aircraft reconnaissance era (1944 for the western half of the basin) and in the pre-satellite era (late-1960s for the entire basin). Even in the last decade or two, new technologies affect the best tracks in a non-trivial way because of our generally improving ability to observe the frequency, intensity, and size of tropical cyclones. See Vecchi and Knutson (2008), Landsea et al. (2010), Vecchi and Knutson (2012), Uhlhorn and Nolan (2012) on methods that have been determined to address some of the undersampling issues that arise in monitoring these mesoscale, oceanic phenomenon.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/hurdat/hurdat2-format-atlantic.pdf

Yes, it is not a primary source. It is a secondary(maybe) or tertiary(likely) source. But it IS maintained by the agency that is in charge of maintaining the information for the USA (as I said, part of the US Federal Government). Other nations have their own agencies for the purpose.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

The Hurdat database is not an original source. It is derived data.

This an original source?

Nope.
This is original format

KLAX 201753Z 13005KT 8SM FEW026 BKN036 24/16 A2991 RMK AO2 SLP127 T02440156 10244 20172 50009

Remember this stuff was originally sent by telegraph so it was compact.

Your example may be a compilation of such original reports, but at sea before sat's and hunter aircraft, the center of the storm was a bit of a guess, just as their remarks on their accuracy says. On land some pour soul likely was in the eye so its position was known.
<ed>And when did the air force form as it is mentioned on your example? Well after 1930 IIRC.

The Hurdat database is not an original source. It is derived data.

This an original source?

Nope.
This is original format

KLAX 201753Z 13005KT 8SM FEW026 BKN036 24/16 A2991 RMK AO2 SLP127 T02440156 10244 20172 50009

Remember this stuff was originally sent by telegraph so it was compact.

Your example may be a compilation of such original reports, but at sea before sat's and hunter aircraft, the center of the storm was a bit of a guess, just as their remarks on their accuracy says. On land some pour soul likely was in the eye so its position was known.
<ed>And when did the air force form as it is mentioned on your example? Well after 1930 IIRC.

The US Air Force separated from the US Army on Sept. 18, 1947 (the example I posted was from 1958).

Records on Atlantic basin hurricanes began in 1494. HURDAT records go back to 1851.

Tropical cyclones were given various names for a very long time, indeed. Even a scheme very similar to our current system was started in 1887 by Australian meteorologist Clement "Wet" Wragge. Our current system dates from the early 1950s, and was modified to include 'male' names in 1978.

Radio on ships didn't really become required equipment until 1913, over the sinking of the Titanic a few years earlier.

'Hurricane Hunter' flights didn't really begin until the early 1940s.

Weather satellite service didn't really start until the late 1960s.

As technology improves, so does the quality and completeness of our data.

If you had said 1968, 1953, 1943, or 1913 for our recordkeeping beginning, I would have understood.

But why do you maintain your statement of 1930 being when it began? What happened that year?

Looks to me like you saw a spike on that chart for 1930, and decided on your own that that is when we 'got serious' about it as a way to explain the spike...

You waver of hands.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

https://www.upi.com/Sports_News/2017/10/13/Ocean-clams-worms-release-surprisingly-large-amounts-of-greenhouse-gas/3171507899151/?utm_source=fp&utm_campaign=ts&utm_medium=25

Oct. 13 (UPI) -- Scientists have measured the amounts of greenhouse gas released by worms and clams in the Baltic Sea and the results are surprising.

Researchers estimate polychaetes and bivalves account for 10 percent of the Baltic Sea's methane emissions -- roughly the amount of methane released by 20,000 dairy cows.

Though not as ubiquitous as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, methane's heat-trapping greenhouse effect is 28 times more potent than that of CO2.

"What is puzzling is that the Baltic Sea makes up only about 0.1 percent of Earth's oceans, implying that globally, apparently harmless bivalve animals at the bottom of the world's oceans may in fact be contributing ridiculous amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere that is unaccounted for," Ernest Chi Fru, a researcher at Cardiff University in Wales, said in a news release.

Besides these Few Nuggets-SO MUCH MORE. HuWoMan Climate Change is DENIED!

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/28/the-istvan-marko-interview-possibly-the-best-thing-you-will-ever-read-on-global-warming-pt-1-the-science

In Ancient Roman times, glaciers were much smaller than the ones we know nowadays. I invite the reader to look at the documents dating back to the days of Hannibal, who managed to cross the Alps with his elephants because he did not encounter ice on his way to Rome (except during a snow storm just before arriving on the Italian plain). Today, you could no longer make Hannibal’s journey. He proved to be capable of such an exploit precisely because it was warmer in Roman times.

From storms to tornados, extreme events are going down all around the world and, when they occur, their level is much lower, too. As explained by MIT physicist Richard Lindzen, the reduction of the temperature differential between the north hemisphere and the equatorial part of our planet makes cyclonic energy much smaller: the importance and frequency of extreme events thus tend to decrease.

Present deserts, far from expanding, are receding; and they are receding due to the higher quantity of CO2 available in the air. It turns out that greenhouse operators voluntarily inject three times as much CO2 in the commercial greenhouse as it is present in the atmosphere. The result we can observe is that plants grow faster and are bigger, that they are more resistant to diseases and to destructive insects, and that their photosynthesis is way more efficient and that they, therefore, consume less water. Similarly, the rise of CO2 level in the atmosphere makes plants need less water so they can afford to colonize arid regions.

Breathin' Out dA CO2 of Yap

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

As explained by MIT physicist Richard Lindzen

Note that (long RETIRED) Richard Lindzen has long been totally discredited regarding climate change.


What price to sell our only one planet to a speedy destruction?

All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

most votes wins the edit war is not a good source Martin.

by James Delingpole28 Oct 2017
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/28/the-istvan-marko-interview-possibly-the-best-thing-you-will-ever-read-on-global-warming-pt-1-the-science


Maybe the biggest of all the lies put out by the global warming scaremongers is that the science is on their side. No it isn’t. And if you’re in any doubt at all you should read this interview with the brilliant scientist István Markó. It tells you all you need to know about the science of global warming.

Dr. Markó, who sadly died earlier this year aged only 61, was a professor and researcher in organic chemistry at the Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium’s largest French-speaking university. More importantly for the purposes of this interview, he was one of the world’s most outspoken and well-informed climate skeptics, who contributed to several articles on the subject for Breitbart News.

Before he died, he gave an extensive interview to the French journalist Grégoire Canlorbe. Here are highlights of the English translation. As you’ll see, he doesn’t pull his punches.

CO2 is not – and has never been a poison

Each of our exhalations, each of our breaths, emits an astronomical quantity of CO2 proportionate to that in the atmosphere (some >40,000 ppm); and it is very clear that the air we expire does not kill anyone standing in front of us. What must be understood, besides, is that CO2 is the elementary food of plants. Without CO2 there would be no plants, and without plants there would be no oxygen and therefore no humans.

Plants love CO2. That’s why the planet is greening

Plants need CO2, water, and daylight. These are the mechanisms of photosynthesis, to generate the sugars that will provide them with staple food and building blocks. That fundamental fact of botany is one of the primary reasons why anyone who is sincerely committed to the preservation of the “natural world” should abstain from demonizing CO2. Over the last 30 years, there has been a gradual increase in the CO2 level. But what is also observed is that despite deforestation, the planet’s vegetation has grown by about 20 percent. This expansion of vegetation on the planet, nature lovers largely owe it to the increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

There have been periods where the CO2 concentration was many times higher than now. Life thrived.

During the Jurassic, Triassic, and so on, the CO2 level rose to values sometimes ​​of the order of 7000, 8000, 9000 ppm, which considerably exceeds the paltry 400 ppm that we have today. Not only did life exist in those far-off times when CO2 was so present in large concentration in the atmosphere, but plants such as ferns commonly attained heights of 25 meters. Reciprocally, far from benefiting the current vegetation, the reduction of the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere would be likely to compromise the health, and even the survival, of numerous plants. To fall below the threshold of 280 or 240 ppm would plainly lead to the extinction of a large variety of our vegetal species.

Animals need CO2 too. And by the way – forests are not the ‘lungs of the earth’…

In addition, our relentless crusade to reduce CO2 could be more harmful to nature as plants are not the only organisms to base their nutrition on CO2. Phytoplankton species also feed on CO2, using carbon from CO2 as a building unit and releasing oxygen. By the way, it is worth remembering that ~70 percent of the oxygen present today in the atmosphere comes from phytoplankton, not trees. Contrary to common belief, it is not the forests, but the oceans, that constitute the “lungs” of the earth.

It is not true that CO2 has a major greenhouse effect. Reports of its influence have been exaggerated

It is worth remembering here too that CO2 is a minor gas. Today it represents only 0.04 percent of the composition of the air; and its greenhouse effect is attributed the value of 1. The major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor which is ten times more potent than CO2 in its greenhouse effect. Water vapor is present in a proportion of 2 percent in the atmosphere. Those facts are, in principle, taught at school and at university, but one still manages to incriminate CO2 alongside this learning, in using a dirty trick that presents the warming effect of CO2 as minor but exacerbated, through feedback loops, by the other greenhouse effects.

Climate change is natural

Over the last 12,000 years, what we have witnessed is an oscillation between warm and cold periods, thus periods with rising and declining sea levels. Incontestably, sea and ocean levels have been on the rise since the end of the Little Ice Age that took place approximately from the beginning of the 14th century until the end of the 19th century. At the end of that period, global temperatures started to rise. That being said, the recorded rise is 0.8 degrees Celsius and is, therefore, nothing extraordinary. If the temperature goes up, ocean water obviously dilates and some glaciers recede. This is something glaciers have always done, and not a specificity of our time.

Don’t worry about shrinking glaciers. We’ve been here before…

In Ancient Roman times, glaciers were much smaller than the ones we know nowadays. I invite the reader to look at the documents dating back to the days of Hannibal, who managed to cross the Alps with his elephants because he did not encounter ice on his way to Rome (except during a snow storm just before arriving on the Italian plain). Today, you could no longer make Hannibal’s journey. He proved to be capable of such an exploit precisely because it was warmer in Roman times.

Sea level rise is normal

Sea levels are currently on the rise; but this is an overestimated phenomenon. The recorded rise is 1.5 millimeters per year, namely 1.5 cm every ten years, and is, therefore, not dramatic at all. Indeed, it does happen that entire islands do get engulfed; but in 99 percent of the cases, that is due to a classic erosion phenomenon[1] and not to rising sea levels. As far as the Italian city of Venice is concerned, the fact it has been faced with water challenges is not due to any rise of the lagoon level and is just the manifestation of the sad reality that “the City of the Doges” is sinking under its weight on the marshland. Once again, the global sea and ocean levels are rising; but the threat effectively represented by that phenomenon is far from being tangible. I note that the Tuvalu islands, whose engulfment was previously announced as imminent, not only have not been engulfed, but have seen their own land level rise with respect to that of waters around them.

[1] The island shores are eroded by the persistent pounding of the ocean waves. This is perceived as ‘sinking’ or as ‘sea level rise,’ but the upward creep of the waters is due to island soil being washed away.

The polar ice caps are fine too

Still another phenomenon we tend to exaggerate is the melting of the polar caps. The quantity of ice in the Arctic has not gone down for 10 years. One may well witness, from one year to the other, ice level fluctuations, but, on average, that level has remained constant. Right after the Little Ice Age, since the temperature went up, the Arctic started to melt; but the ice level in the Arctic finally settled down. Besides, ice has been expanding in Antarctica over the last 30 years and, similarly, we observe in Greenland that the quantity of ice increased by 112 million cubic kilometers last year. On a global scale, glaciers account for peanuts, with most of the ice being located in Antarctica and so on.

Extreme weather events are actually decreasing

From storms to tornados, extreme events are going down all around the world and, when they occur, their level is much lower, too. As explained by MIT physicist Richard Lindzen, the reduction of the temperature differential between the north hemisphere and the equatorial part of our planet makes cyclonic energy much smaller: the importance and frequency of extreme events thus tend to decrease.

Recent warming is modest – much smaller than the alarmists’ various computer models predicted

If you look at satellite data and weather balloon measurements, you then note that the temperature rise around the world is relatively modest, that it is much lower than the rise that is predicted for us by authorities, and that these predictions rely on calculations that are highly uncertain. This is because the simulation inputs cannot take into account past temperatures, for which there is no precision data[1], except by subjectively adjusting x, y, z data that are not always known. The recent temperature spikes measured by satellites and balloons are part of a classic natural phenomenon which is called El Niño. This short-term phenomenon consists of a return of the very warm waters at the surface of the equatorial Pacific Ocean. The heat thus liberated in the atmosphere pushes up the global temperature and CO2 plays no role in that process.

Claims by alarmist ‘experts’ that 2016 was that ‘hottest year ever’ are pure balderdash

The World Meteorological Organization – another emanation of the United Nations and which is also, like the IPCC, an intergovernmental forum – declares 2016 the year the warmest of history. Knowing that 2016 is supposedly hotter by 0.02°C than 2015 and that the margin of error on this value is 0.1°C, we see the absurdity of this statement. For those who don’t understand, this means that the variation in temperature can be of + 0.12°C (global warming) or -0.08°C (global cooling). In short, we can’t say anything and WMO has simply lost its mind.

No, ‘climate change’ hasn’t led to an increase in tropical diseases

Climate-related diseases are relatively rare; and even malaria does not directly depend on the climate, but rather on the way we enable the parasite to reproduce and the mosquito to flourish in the place where we are located. If you find yourself in a swampy area, the odds you will get malaria are high; if you have drained the system and you no longer have that wetland, the odds you will catch the disease are very low. In the end, automatically blaming the resurgence of some disease on climate change comes down to removing the personal responsibility from the people involved: such as denying that their refusal of vaccinations, for instance, or their lack of hygiene, may be part of the problem.

Again, CO2 is greening the planet. And that’s a good thing. So stop demonizing it!

Present deserts, far from expanding, are receding; and they are receding due to the higher quantity of CO2 available in the air. It turns out that greenhouse operators voluntarily inject three times as much CO2 in the commercial greenhouse as it is present in the atmosphere. The result we can observe is that plants grow faster and are bigger, that they are more resistant to diseases and to destructive insects, and that their photosynthesis is way more efficient and that they, therefore, consume less water. Similarly, the rise of CO2 level in the atmosphere makes plants need less water so they can afford to colonize arid regions.

*********************************************************************************

NO REFUTIN' dA Yap

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

When someone has to resort to quoting Breitbart, you know that they are losing the argument. ;-)

The best source of "Fake News" ever (which is why Donny loves to quote them). LOL

Cheers.

CheerlessSocialist said:

When someone has to resort to quoting Breitbart, you know that they are losing the argument. ;-)

NOPE. After a few Words by Journo, ALL dA REST is by dA SCIENTIST. And It is Part ONe. MORE TO FOLLOW!

WINNING! As Usual. Like dA BEST GREATEST LEADER of ALL TIME

45

Resorting to REAL TRUE Yap

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

CheerlessSocialist said:

When someone has to resort to quoting Breitbart, you know that they are losing the argument. ;-)

NOPE. After a few Words by Journo, ALL dA REST is by dA SCIENTIST. And It is Part ONe. MORE TO FOLLOW!
WINNING! As Usual. Like dA BEST GREATEST LEADER of ALL TIME
45
Resorting to REAL TRUE Yap

I don't think you have read the whole interview with István Markó that Breitbart has edited.
Here it is. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/28/information-interview-with-istvan-marko/
Well every scientist have the right to have opinions even when they are totally wrong about the cause of global warming and how it will affect us in near future.

After a few Words by Journo, ALL dA REST is by dA SCIENTIST.

Well, retired scientist... but yes, still there are some that do disagree with AGW. Counting only actual fields relevant to the study of it, it's about 3%. The other 97% are quite confident of AGW including those who are the closest to the field itself, ie climatologists who study just that. (If after studying your test results, 97 doctors told you that you had cancer and should do something about it, but 3 disagreed... who would you listen to?)

But, I don't worry too much about it. The world has moved on... let the deniers deny all they want. The market has pushed research that has developed wind turbines and and solar cells to the point they are cheaper for generation than the cheapest, dirtiest lignite coal (for solar, by several times) and it just keeps getting cheaper. Hope you will not argue that the free-market should choose something pricier, higher-maintenance, more labour-expensive and with a greater risk of interference by lawsuits and legislation down the road just to keep the proverbial buggy-whip factories open. :^)

---

After a few Words by Journo, ALL dA REST is by dA SCIENTIST.

Well, retired scientist... but yes, still there are some that do disagree with AGW. Counting only actual fields relevant to the study of it, it's about 3%. The other 97% are quite confident of AGW including those who are the closest to the field itself, ie climatologists who study just that. (If after studying your test results, 97 doctors told you that you had cancer and should do something about it, but 3 disagreed... who would you listen to?)

But, I don't worry too much about it. The world has moved on... let the deniers deny all they want. The market has pushed research that has developed wind turbines and and solar cells to the point they are cheaper for generation than the cheapest, dirtiest lignite coal (for solar, by several times) and it just keeps getting cheaper. Hope you will not argue that the free-market should choose something pricier, higher-maintenance, more labour-expensive and with a greater risk of interference by lawsuits and legislation down the road just to keep the proverbial buggy-whip factories open. :^)

Heh... that 97% thing again...

Ok, what exactly does that '97%' figure mean? If you read the text of that statement (as well as the language you used in your post), that is '97% are quite confident of AGW.'

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6, Bärbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2, Robert Way7, Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuce2,9

Published 15 May 2013 • 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 8, Number 2

Abstract

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Ok, what do we have here?

Of the 11944 papers on global climate change/global warming published in peer-reviewed scientific literature between 1991 and 2011, 66.4% of them express no position on AGW in their abstracts. 33.6% do. Of the 33.6% of the papers that do express an opinion in their abstracts, 32.6% endorse AGW. 0.7% reject AGW, and 0.3% are uncertain about the cause of 'global warming'. That is, of the 33.6% of the papers that express a position on AGW in their abstracts, 97.1% endorse the position that the GW is AGW.

In phase 2, the authors of the papers rated their own papers. The authors rated their papers more favorable to AGW (35.5% no opinion,64.5% having an opinion). Of those having an opinion, 97.2% endorsed AGW (but that is still only 67.7% of the papers endorsed it per the papers authors).

So, phase 1 of this study found that 32.6% of the papers endorsed AGW. Phase 2 found 67.7% of the papers endorsed it per their authors. But this is STILL nowhere near '97% of scientists', or even '97% of the scientists that study climatology and related fields'.

But, lets say that that either almost 1/3 of papers or a bit over 2/3 of papers are correct (and I believe they are) and AGW exists... What does this mean?

It means that humanity is causing some amount of climate change, through any of a large number of mechanisms. And that is all it means. AGW... Anthropogenic Global Warming... (but I do prefer the term ACC... Anthropogenic Climate Change... And I will use this acronym in the rest of this post).

Now then, this consensus of at best 2/3 of the papers is just ACC... A great many things that humanity does can cause ACC... GhG-ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change due to Greenhouse Gas emission) is just one of them. A great many things that humans do causes GhG emissions... Fossil Fuel use is only about 50% of that.

Do I think that anthropogenic GhG emissions are causing climate change? IMO, it is likely, but I am not sure of the relative proportions of natural climate change, ACC, and GhG-ACC.

That said... sorry, but that '97% of scientists' statement of yours (and so many others all the way back to Algore) is poppycock. The science on the subject is NOT settled. We need a LOT more research on the subject.

IF GhG-ACC is correct, and the major driving force behind the climate changes we see today, then Algore, the UN IPCC, and all the other politicians are just not doing enough. I have said it here before. If we stop using all Fossil Fuel... ALL of it... right now this instant... it wouldn't be enough to even really slow down very much the climate change we are observing in the short to medium-long term. Maybe in a couple of hundred thousand years the climate might get back to normal... And this is the case even if we stopped right now this instant EVERYTHING else we are doing that is driving climate change. There are just WAY too many humans on this planet.. somewhere around 2000 times too many...

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Hi Eric. I hope you don't Mind but I would like to use your Blog -(copy and paste)-
as my contribution to: Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects and Politics: DENIAL (#4)

I like what Dr. Eric Korpela astronomer Project scientist of SETI@home posted in his Blog the following:

After too many months of too much work and no spare time, the power is out, and now I have time to blog. Ah, the life of a scientist. We typically have more ideas than time. So for this blog entry, I'm making it quick. I'm just going to list 10 facts and let you figure out what it's about until I get to the end:

The surface of the Earth is warming, primarily due to increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere prompted by human use of fossil fuels.
Natural gas is the least expensive means of generating gigawatts of electrical power.
Nuclear energy is the safest way to generate gigawatts of electrical power.
Last year, side effects from use of coal as a power source killed more people worldwide than terrorism.
You and bacterium Treponema   pallidum share a common ancestor. That ancestor lived more than 1.7 billion years ago.
The sounds emitted by the heartbeat of a human fetus can be detected at 7 weeks.
The sounds emitted by the multiple hearts of an earthworm can be detected at 6 weeks.
The region of space we call "the universe" was the result of a rapid expansion of space that started between 13.4 and 14.1 billion years ago.
The Earth is between 4.39 and 4.69 billion years old.
Humans will become extinct.

Dr. Eric Korpela astronomer Project scientist of SETI@home posted in his Bog the following:

So are you annoyed? I admit it, I did try to go out of my way to find facts that would annoy people. These aren't even controversial facts. I've expanded the error bounds to the 3-sigma level. None of these even approaches the "OJ is guilty" or "tax cuts/increases have a predictable effect on the economy" level of uncertainty. Even though these are facts, many of them are facts that get used or denied for political purposes. And because it's an election year in the U.S.A., we tend to assume that any statement is a political statement. Every fact is a fact with a hidden agenda. And most are beside the point.
Politics are so polarized that even admitting to a fact is assumed to be a capitulation to the entire agenda of a political party. The alternative is denial of the facts, which is not something I'd recommend. Can't we agree on the facts first, and then talk about what, if anything, should be done about them?
The final fact is just there to put it all into perspective.

Dr. Eric Korpela astronomer Project scientist of SETI@home posted in his Blog.
https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=69041&postid=1272352
https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=69041&postid=1272352

I hope you don't Mind Eric,
Best Wishes,
Byron.