• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Earth's Hottest Decade on Record Marked by Extreme Storms, Deadly Wildfires

Despite 1990s Warming, Japan Climate Has Become More Agreeable, Less Extreme Over Past 100 Years!

By P Gosselin on 9. January 2020
Though the media like to tell their audience that man-made climate change is leading to more extreme weather, the data don’t support it. In fact, one could easily argue that Japan’s climate is more agreeable today.
By Kirye in Tokyo
and Pierre Gosselin

No trend in long-term annual precipitation
Over the past 100 years, for example, annual precipitation has not trended in an particular direction over the long term, showing rather some cyclical attributes:

Data source: Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA). ​
If anything, precipitation has been rather steady for the better part of the past 2 decades, and even resembles what was observed about 60 years ago, in the 1950s.
Note how the extremes in precipitation occurred in the 1970s and 1980s when most of the climate talk was about global cooling. But overall, there’s been no trend change in precipitation in Japan.
Typhoons trending downward modestly!
Typhoons forming, and those striking Japan, also show no worsening, as is otherwise often claimed by climate alarmists. What follows is a plot of typhoon landfalls for Japan and typhoons formed, since 1951:
Data: JMA here and here. ​
The data suggest the number of typhoons forming and those striking Japan have declined modestly over the past 70 years, which is in line with the trends for global tropical storms. So there’s nothing alarming happening.
Japan sea level rise “no long-term trend”

Also nothing dramatic is happening with regards to Japan and sea level rise. This is the official conclusion of the JMA! Their site states:
A trend of sea level rise has been observed in Japanese coastal areas since the 1980s, but no long-term trend of rise is seen for the period from 1906 to 2018. Variations with 10- to 20-year periods (near-10-year variations) are seen for the period from 1906 to 2018.
sl_trend_graph_e.png

Time-series representation of annual mean sea level values (1906 – 2018)
The 1981 – 2010 average is used as the normal.
Annual sea level anomaly time series (comma-separated value file: 3 KB)​
. . . . .​

​
Japan annual temps steady 80 years, before peculiar 1990 jump
Finally, we look at Japan’s mean annual temperature trend over the past 100 years. Though we see an overall rise – it had remained more or less steady for some 80 years, from 1918 to 1990. But suddenly in 1990, the mean temperature jumped to new plateau.

Data source: JMA. ​
Perhaps this may have in part been due to a change over to electronic measurement systems and urban heat island effect, along with station siting. One thing can be ruled out: Any CO2 effect would not act so instantaneously.
Japan’s climate has not really worsened
Overall in terms of weather extremes, cold and storms, things in Japan have not gotten worse. In fact one could easily argue things have tamed just a bit.
 
code1211 said:
The 1800's was the coldest point in the Holocene following the temperature peak. 1880 was among the coldest years in the Holocene. The instrument record started at about that point.

I have no doubt that there is ongoing climate change. Always has been. Always will be. I could be wrong. Maybe Gretta can produce perfect climate stability. Does she dare?

The warming peak in the Holocene occurred about 8000 years ago. We have been cooling with short periods of warming/cooling variations ever since.

The Glaciers in Glacier National Park did not start to form until about 7000 years ago. Other glaciers in Europe seem to have formed later and advanced down the mountains.

In one of my Art History courses taken in the 70's, the professor noted that paintings of villages with snow on the roofs of huts appeared all over Europe at the same time.

The early Renaissance artists had never seen this before and assumed they'd never see it again. They all scrambled up the nearby hills to paint it quick before it melted. Their assumption was, apparently, not well founded.

As far as I know, industrialization prior to 5000 BC was not sufficient to either end the previous Ice Age or to maintain that kind of a climate for the next 5000 years.

CO2 is undoubtedly a GHG, but its incremental impact on warming diminishes as the concentration increases. As a climate influencer, it exists in a field of about 50 different influencers.

As a GHG, it's only about 5% of the total GHG's in the air at any particular point in time.

Is reducing CO2 in the air a good thing? Probably, yes. Will adjusting CO2 emissions allow mankind to control and direct the climate of the planet? Undeniably, no.
Click to expand...


If all those scientists that wrote the IPCC report as they did only knew as much as you they’d have come to a different conclusion. That a denier comes to so different a conclusion ending with the term “undeniably no” is hilarious.
 
bluesmoke said:
If all those scientists that wrote the IPCC report as they did only knew as much as you they’d have come to a different conclusion. That a denier comes to so different a conclusion ending with the term “undeniably no” is hilarious.
Click to expand...

Just a coincidence that they started with an historic low temperature.:roll:
 
Distinguished Professor: “Time To Retire The Notion Hurricanes Are Slowing Down (Much Less Attribution Claims)”

By P Gosselin on 10. January 2020
Climate alarmist scientists refuted

Distinguished climate expert Roger Pielke Jr. tweeted on recent findings contradicting alarmist claims that tropical storms have slowed down (thus stick around longer and wreak more devastation) or are more frequent and intense.
First, lets look at frequency and intensity.
No detected upward intensity/frequency trend at all
In an article appearing at Forbes, Pielke writes together with atmospheric scientist Dr. Ryan Maue how they and University of North Carolina-Wilmington professor Jessica Weinkle used datasets available around the world on tropical cyclones to create a historical record of storms of at least hurricane strength that made landfall.
Fifty years of global landfalls of tropical cyclones of hurricane strength, based on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale, were analyzed.
According to the findings published earlier here:
The analysis does not indicate significant long-period global or individual basin trends in the frequency or intensity of landfalling TCs of minor or major hurricane strength. The evidence in this study provides strong support for the conclusion that increasing damage around the world during the past several decades can be explained entirely by increasing wealth in locations prone to TC landfalls, which adds confidence to the fidelity of economic normalization analyses.”
​
Shown below is an updated chart from the Pielke et al 2012 paper, which was extended to 2019. It shows global tropical cyclone landfalls at hurricane strength from 1970 to 2019:
960x0.jpg


According to Pielke and Maue at FORBES: “There are a lot of ups and downs in the data, but no obvious trends.”
Tropical storm translation speeds have not slowed down
Pielke also tweeted about a new study appearing in Nature here. The University of Colorado scientist commented:
He added that the claim that tropical cyclones have now slowed down are “supported by both observations and modeling” and that “there is no reason to expect a slowdown” in the future:
Roger Pielke Jr.
✔@RogerPielkeJr

· 9 Jan 2020



The notion that hurricanes have slowed down has become a popular claim by some scientists (Mann) & is often repeated in the media

A new study out today says that actually, hurricanes (TCs) haven't slowed down, supported by both observations and modelinghttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13902-y#Sec11 …






​



And, from this study under RCP8.5 (!!) there would be no reason to expect a slowdown in hurricane translation speeds in the future



The distinguished professor also says it’s: “Time to retire the notion that hurricanes are slowing down (much less the attribution claims).”​
 
The deadly and extreme wild fires in Australia continues.

"A pair of massive bushfires in southeastern Australia has merged into a "megafire" engulfing some 2,300 square miles — a single blaze more than three times as large as any known fire in California.

The merged fire, which straddles the country's most populous states of New South Wales and Victoria, measures nearly 1.5 million acres, according to The Sydney Morning Herald. It is just one of some 135 bushfires in Australia's southeast that have claimed the lives of at least 26 people, killed more than a billion animals and damaged or destroyed nearly 3,000 homes.

Since September, the unprecedented bushfires have swept through an area larger than Massachusetts and New Hampshire combined."

Enormous 'Megafire' In Australia Engulfs 1.5 Million Acres : NPR

Documentation of the firefighters heroic work, the devastation of wild life, loss of homes and the devastating impact the fires have on local communities

NSW fires: Behind an SMH photographer’s lens

While the devastating wild fires in Australia now get much deserve and needed attention, the media often still to fail to report about the devastating effect climate change have in developing countries.

Climate change 'cause of most under-reported humanitarian crises' | Science | The Guardian

There you now have devastating floods in Indonesia.

Indonesia Flooding Kills 66: Here'''s What to Know | Time
 
bluesmoke said:
If all those scientists that wrote the IPCC report as they did only knew as much as you they’d have come to a different conclusion. That a denier comes to so different a conclusion ending with the term “undeniably no” is hilarious.
Click to expand...

Can you please link to the scientific, peer reviewed paper that states very clearly what have been deluded to believe?

Please link to the scientific paper that states the Scientific Theory that mankind can control and direct the climate of the planet listing the methodology and the direct, cause-effect, reproducible results.

Please post the pull quote from that paper that states what you have been deluded to believe.

I am particularly interested in the test that the writer of the peer reviewed paper has defined that may be used to falsify the theory.

Lacking this, you are free to link to the thesis and provide the requested items as they relate to the thesis.

I'm only going to be alive for another 20 or so years, so, please, start your search immediately.

You got nothin'.
 
Last edited:
The cost of the Australian fires will be billions of dollars.

"More than 5,000 insurance claims totalling $375 million have been made in relation to the Australian bushfires, including 1,600 destroyed homes, according to the Insurance Council of Australia (ICA).
The real cost however will likely run into the billions, with fourteen times more land scorched than during the Black Saturday fires.
In addition, up to 1% of GDP growth is estimated to be wiped out, according to economist Shane Oliver, potentially pushing the nation into negative growth this quarter.
All together, the costs could derail the government’s projected $5 billion surplus as the economy slows."

The bushfires are set to cost Australia billions of dollars, as the government's long-touted budget surplus looks to go up in smoke | Business Insider

There over one billion animals have also been killed.

Australia's fires have killed over a billion animals. Here's how to help - CNET
 
bluesmoke said:
If all those scientists that wrote the IPCC report as they did only knew as much as you they’d have come to a different conclusion. That a denier comes to so different a conclusion ending with the term “undeniably no” is hilarious.
Click to expand...

code1211 said:
Can you please link to the scientific, peer reviewed paper that states very clearly what have been deluded to believe?

Please link to the scientific paper that states the Scientific Theory that mankind can control and direct the climate of the planet listing the methodology and the direct, cause-effect, reproducible results.

Please post the pull quote from that paper that states what you have been deluded to believe.

I am particularly interested in the test that the writer of the peer reviewed paper has defined that may be used to falsify the theory.

Lacking this, you are free to link to the thesis and provide the requested items as they relate to the thesis.

I'm only going to be alive for another 20 or so years, so, please, start your search immediately.

You got nothin'.
Click to expand...

Code is correct.

Most the names on the IPCC are just acknowledgements because their papers were used. Not so many people actually authored the Assessment reports themselves. They cherry picked parts from hundreds of papers to make the report they did.

If you really want to be credible in these discussions, when you fins a part in one of the assessment reports you wish to champion, find the source paper and see if it really says what the assessment report claims it says.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
The cost of the Australian fires will be billions of dollars.

"More than 5,000 insurance claims totalling $375 million have been made in relation to the Australian bushfires, including 1,600 destroyed homes, according to the Insurance Council of Australia (ICA).
The real cost however will likely run into the billions, with fourteen times more land scorched than during the Black Saturday fires.
In addition, up to 1% of GDP growth is estimated to be wiped out, according to economist Shane Oliver, potentially pushing the nation into negative growth this quarter.
All together, the costs could derail the government’s projected $5 billion surplus as the economy slows."

The bushfires are set to cost Australia billions of dollars, as the government's long-touted budget surplus looks to go up in smoke | Business Insider

There over one billion animals have also been killed.

Australia's fires have killed over a billion animals. Here's how to help - CNET
Click to expand...

Then maybe any arsonist that is found guilty of intentionally setting an out of control fire, should receive the death penalty?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Code is correct.

Most the names on the IPCC are just acknowledgements because their papers were used. Not so many people actually authored the Assessment reports themselves. They cherry picked parts from hundreds of papers to make the report they did.

If you really want to be credible in these discussions, when you fins a part in one of the assessment reports you wish to champion, find the source paper and see if it really says what the assessment report claims it says.
Click to expand...

If you really want to be credible in these discussions, you must acknowledge that the judgement of the hundreds of expert scientists who issue the IPCC reports is much better than that of anonymous DP commenters who pretend they understand published papers better than the authors themselves fo.
 
Threegoofs said:
If you really want to be credible in these discussions, you must acknowledge that the judgement of the hundreds of expert scientists who issue the IPCC reports is much better than that of anonymous DP commenters who pretend they understand published papers better than the authors themselves fo.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should stop and think.

It's complicated. Far more than you realize. Outside of the vocal activist scientists like Schmidt, Mann, etc, there are as many or more credible scientists who disagree with them.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Maybe you should stop and think.

It's complicated. Far more than you realize. Outside of the vocal activist scientists like Schmidt, Mann, etc, there are as many or more credible scientists who disagree with them.
Click to expand...

No there isn’t.

There’s a handful, and they literally are constantly brought up by deniers.

On the other side, it’s virtually the entire scientific community.

You wouldn’t know, because you literally are not a part of, snd have no connection with that scientific community.
 
Threegoofs said:
No there isn’t.

There’s a handful, and they literally are constantly brought up by deniers.

On the other side, it’s virtually the entire scientific community.

You wouldn’t know, because you literally are not a part of, snd have no connection with that scientific community.
Click to expand...

How many of them can you name, that have actually made public statement supporting the extent of the position you have?
 
Threegoofs said:
Of course it doesn’t.

Nothing will.

You will just move the goalposts.
Click to expand...

We have had similar conversations before. Are you forgetful or playing games?

I can't fathom why you want to keep covering your same losing position over and over?
 
Lord of Planar said:
We have had similar conversations before. Are you forgetful or playing games?

I can't fathom why you want to keep covering your same losing position over and over?
Click to expand...

My position is agreed upon by most scientists, as evidenced by statements from literally every significant scientific body in the world, general acceptance of the scientific rigor of institutions like the IPCC, NOAA, NASA,HADCRUT, the Royal Society, etc etc etc.

Not to mention just being casually acquainted with academia in the sciences would clearly show you my position is mainstream.

Your position is based on some calculations you do that are usually eviscerated, on the background of literally no formal training in any of the sciences.

I remember alright. It’s you who’d rather forget.
 
Threegoofs said:
My position is agreed upon by most scientists, as evidenced by statements from literally every significant scientific body in the world, general acceptance of the scientific rigor of institutions like the IPCC, NOAA, NASA,HADCRUT, the Royal Society, etc etc etc.

Not to mention just being casually acquainted with academia in the sciences would clearly show you my position is mainstream.

Your position is based on some calculations you do that are usually eviscerated, on the background of literally no formal training in any of the sciences.

I remember alright. It’s you who’d rather forget.
Click to expand...

You're having an argument with flat earthers. You win can't that argument, it's like trying to convince people who believe in the Lizard People that they don't really exist.
 
JustHanging said:
You're having an argument with flat earthers. You win can't that argument, it's like trying to convince people who believe in the Lizard People that they don't really exist.
Click to expand...

Except you guys are the flat earthers, not accepting newer and deeper understandings. Sticking with the dogma.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Code is correct.

Most the names on the IPCC are just acknowledgements because their papers were used. Not so many people actually authored the Assessment reports themselves. They cherry picked parts from hundreds of papers to make the report they did.

If you really want to be credible in these discussions, when you fins a part in one of the assessment reports you wish to champion, find the source paper and see if it really says what the assessment report claims it says.
Click to expand...

I'll have to show this to the wife.

Might be the first time since I got married. ;)
 
code1211 said:
I'll have to show this to the wife.

Might be the first time since I got married. ;)
Click to expand...

I often tell people, "that's OK, I'm always wrong. My ex-wife taught me that very well."
 
code1211 said:
Can you please link to the scientific, peer reviewed paper that states very clearly what have been deluded to believe?

Please link to the scientific paper that states the Scientific Theory that mankind can control and direct the climate of the planet listing the methodology and the direct, cause-effect, reproducible results.

Please post the pull quote from that paper that states what you have been deluded to believe.

I am particularly interested in the test that the writer of the peer reviewed paper has defined that may be used to falsify the theory.

Lacking this, you are free to link to the thesis and provide the requested items as they relate to the thesis.

I'm only going to be alive for another 20 or so years, so, please, start your search immediately.

You got nothin'.
Click to expand...



“Can you please link to the scientific, peer reviewed paper that states very clearly what have been deluded to believe?”

There is nothing I can cite by which I’ve been deluded.

“Please link to the scientific paper that states the Scientific Theory that mankind can control and direct the climate of the planet listing the methodology and the direct, cause-effect, reproducible results.”

I don’t believe mankind can control and direct the climate of the planet. Mankind can affect their own contribution to the climate.

“Please post the pull quote from that paper that states what you have been deluded to believe.”

There is nothing by which I’ve been deluded. Regardless, I don’t know to what you allude. Could you be more specific?

“I am particularly interested in the test that the writer of the peer reviewed paper has defined that may be used to falsify the theory.”

You are too vague for me to be responsive, and so to the rest of your post. Please be more specific.

Have you read any part of any IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report? Education is a good thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom