Solar now accounts for over 50% of new electricity capacity added to the U.S. grid

Makes a mockery of your "Science News disagrees" claim. And the 50-year graph makes my point and refutes yours.

 

Yes, if you choose to cherry-pick it.

 

The graph shows the entirety of the collected data and the trend line over the full 50 years is gently downward. The "cherry picking" excuse is not available to you this time.

 

False interpretation. But this will really settle it.

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/



Figure 3: Normalized Atlantic Indices. Since the late-19th Century global (green) and tropical Atlantic (blue) temperatures have risen – an increase that was partly driven by increased greenhouse gases. If one does not account for possible missed storms (first red line) Atlantic tropical storms appear to have increased with temperature...

 

Play stupid games; win stupid prizes.
European Conservatives: How Has Fossil Fuel Suppression Worked Out For You?
April 03, 2024/ Francis Menton

• 
  Throughout the West, the cult of fossil fuel suppression presents itself as an orthodoxy from which no dissent is permitted.
  
  
• In the U.S., there has been substantial and growing resistance to the enforcement of that orthodoxy, among Republicans in general and particularly from red and energy-producing states.
  
  
• By contrast, in Europe, there has been little push-back. Somewhere along the line, in country after country, the drive for Net Zero carbon emissions got the backing of an effective all-political-party consensus. In a gigantic political miscalculation, many mainstream center-right conservative parties got fully on board.
  
  
• That mistake now looks to destroy several of these parties in the major countries.
  

READ MORE

 

Yes, your link pretty much settles it. There is no real evidence of any increase related to warming. A few pull quotes.

 

You have a penchant for obsolete research. The most recent paper you cite is thirteen years old. Science has moved on.

 

You have a penchant for cherry-picking data, and ignoring long-term trends, which we have seen over and over.

 

I'm afraid that criticism applies to you rather than to me in this discussion.

 

We were discussing intensity, not numbers of events. Look at the statement in my link above. This thread is not about cyclones or hurricanes, so I didn't spend much time on it. That article just discussed the Atlantic. It would be better to do a worldwide study. The US coastal Atlantic region really hasn't seen the same degree of warming as other worldly areas. Since we're looking at NOAA --->
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

 

A nearly, to be generous, meaningful stat. Where is this temperature measured? It's a mathematically generated number that has little if any, scientific value.

 

I'm not going to look it up for you, but I've done research before, and I can assure that the average worldly temperatures are quite accurate.

 

I can assure you it's not. Vast stretches of territory are not measured, Seasonal differences, calibration and location of the measuring stations and several other issues make this a questionable metric.

 

Didn't look up the methodology, did you?

 

It's well known. And been mocked continually. Here's a question for you. Since the Northern Hemisphere comprises more land and the South Hemisphere more water, does it matter when the result is calculated? Does the result depend on which hemisphere is in Spring/Summer phase? What about La Niña/El Niño periods?

 

I responded to your link and claims. Your link deals with frequency of events, not intensity. The pull quote you provided dealt with frequency. I just respond to what’s posted.

Yes, it’s getting warmer. More quickly in northern latitudes.

The US coastal Atlantic is warming more quickly than most areas of the planet. Faster than the average by far.

https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/9/12/176/htm

Yes, global studies on tropical cyclones are interesting. Here’s a recent one that accounts for accumulated cyclone energy (the totality of frequency, intensity and duration. Globally, ACE (the totality of frequency, intensity and duration) is decreasing.


https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2021GL095774

 

It's important to look at the 2023 map that I posted, which shows more of a global perspective. Notice Peru has a darker color. They had their worst cyclone in their history.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ead-as-powerful-cyclone-causes-major-flooding

At least six people have died in Peru as a powerful cyclone unleashed torrential rains, battering hundreds of homes and causing major disruptions in northern areas.

The government has declared a state of emergency as it seeks to bring relief to regions including Lambayeque, Piura and Tumbes hit by the cyclone known as Yaku.

It's a fact that warmer air and warmer oceans allow storms and hurricanes to become more severe. World weather varies naturally. At the end of 2024 that map may look completely different. We are at the very beginning of the effects of Climate Change. The situation will continue to worsen around the world.

 

It’s important to understand the links we post. Your map is global temperature rise since 1901 compared to since 1994.



It’s statistically impossible for either map to look totally different in 2024.

Did someone tell you Peru had a tropical cyclone because the temperature increased in Peru? That person does not understand what creates tropical cyclones.

If your theory was correct, there should be powerful hurricanes above the arctic circle.

The flooding in Peru was primarily from El Niño. It happens in Peru routinely and this was pretty minor compared to past events. Look at the 1982 fatalities compared to the 2023 El Niño.



The “unorganized tropical cyclone” that occurred in Peru in your link never had pressures low enough to be classified as a real tropical cyclone.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topic...hich develop over,tidal waves or tidal surges).

At 1009 mb, Yaku was essentially a tropical depression with rotation, not a tropical cyclone meeting the definition of what we’ve been discussing. Yaku is the only “cyclone” to have impacted Peru—but it’s not officially a tropical cyclone so that’s pretty meaningless. When we say an unofficial storm is the only one of its kind it’s not particularly meaningful as there is nothing to compare it to. You can’t compare fabricated phenomena.

 

You are correct, I saw the "2023" on the left of the map, and assumed it was 2023 averages. Actually, it's 1991 thru 2020 averages/

 

Not a mistake engineers usually make.

 

Shows that I'm willing to admit when I overlook something. I'll pat myself on the back.

 

How can one temperature represent that state of the globe's condition? There are huge swaths of land were no sensors are located. Obviously, bodies of water are scarcely monitored. Exactly WHAT does that single number represent? It's construction, a formulaic abstraction. How are normal weather events compensated for?

 

I'll leave it for you to look up. Maybe you'll learn something. I believe the source is NOAA. I pointed you in the direction.

 

Smokescreen to cover the retreat.

 

As you parrot WUWT conspiracy theory articles and No Tricks Zone QUACKERY articles, many of us do research of actual science. If you want to refute well-accepted scientific methods, such as how global average temperatures are measured, then do your research, using real science, to prove your point. Don't expect others to do this for you.