Global Warming - Earliest Tropical Storm

[shunyadragon]

As the world warms tropical storms and hurricanes arrive earlier and earlier. This one in the Eastern Pacific is the earliest on record. Yes, this global warming tropical waters is also killing the corals.

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/09/weather/andres-hurricane-season-pacific-tropical-storm/index.html

Earliest tropical storm on record develops in the eastern Pacific

By Haley Brink, CNN Meteorologist


(CNN)The first tropical storm of the 2021 eastern Pacific hurricane season formed off the southwest coast of Mexico on Sunday.

Tropical Storm Andres is the earliest tropical storm to ever form during the satellite era in the eastern Pacific, surpassing Adrian in 2017. Andres also holds the distinction of developing before the official start of eastern Pacific hurricane season, which begins on May 15.
Get the latest weather news and forecast path on hurricanes this season.It's not the first time a tropical system has developed before the official start of hurricane season. The eastern Pacific has had either a tropical depression or tropical storm form prior to the official season in three of the last five years.This system began developing on Friday, and has since strengthened into a tropical storm. Tropical Storm Andres currently has sustained winds of 40 mph and is tracking to the northwest at 6 mph."Increasing southwesterly to westerly shear and drier air to the west of the cyclone should prevent any significant additional strengthening," the National Hurricane Center said Sunday.
Enter your email to sign up for the Wonder Theory newsletter.

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/earths-energy-imbalance-removes-almost-doubt-human-made-climate-change-rcna1562

Earth's energy imbalance removes almost all doubt from human-made climate change

Researchers studying Earth's absorption of the sun's energy found a less than 1 percent probability that the recent changes occurred naturally.

For decades, Earth’s energy system has been out of whack.

Stability in Earth's climate hinges on a delicate balance between the amount of energy the planet absorbs from the sun and the amount of energy Earth emits back into space. But that equilibrium has been thrown off in recent years — and the imbalance is growing, according to a paper published Wednesday in the journal Nature Communications.

The changes to Earth's energy system have major ramifications for the planet's future climate and humanity's understanding of climate change. The Princeton University researchers behind the paper found thatthere's a less than 1 percent probability that the changes occurred naturally.

The findings undercut a key argument used by people who do not believe human activity is responsible for the bulk of climate change to explain trends in global warming, demonstrating that the planet's energy imbalance cannot be explained just by Earth's own natural variations.

The research also offers important insights into how greenhouse gas emissions and other consequences of human-caused climate change are upsetting the planet's equilibrium and driving global warming, sea-level rise and extreme weather events.

"With more and more changes to the planet, we've created this imbalance where we have surplus energy in the system," said Shiv Priyam Raghuraman, a graduate student in atmospheric and oceanic sciences at Princeton and lead author of the study. "That surplus manifests as different symptoms."

Emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases from human activities trap heat in the atmosphere, meaning the planet absorbs infrared radiation that would normally be released into space. Melting sea ice, changing cloud cover and differences in the concentration of tiny atmospheric particles called aerosols — all of which are affected by climate change — also mean Earth is reflecting less of the sun's radiation back into the cosmos.

"There isn't this equilibrium between energy coming in from the sun and energy going out," Raghuraman said. "The question is: Are these natural planetary variations, or is it us?"

The researchers used satellite observations from 2001 to 2020 to determine that Earth's energy imbalance is growing. They then used a series of climate models to simulate the effects on Earth's energy system if human-caused climate change was taken out of the equation.

The scientists found that natural fluctuations alone could not explain the trend observed over the 20-year period.

© Copyright Original Source

[Ronson]

The Weather Channel just downgraded the average daily temperatures for August in my city by about 2 degrees. Monthly average was around 91°F for August, now it's about 89°F.

I expect September will be downgraded soon too, Currently, the first few days of September are averaged hotter than the last few days of August.

[Cow Poke]

Global Warming Alarmist ---- "you can't use a single example of a cooling as proof against global warming".

Global Warming Alarmist ---- "LOOK!!!! There's a TROPICAL STORM forming, and it's EARLY!!!!! More PROOF of Global Warming!!!!"

[tabibito]

Yup. this century: "Unprecedented bushfires in Australia one summer, so bad that smoke from the fires reached New Zealand." Obviously a clear sign of global warming. One year in the early twentieth century: ASH was making it as far as New Zealand, not just smoke. (This century's fires may have been the worst in living memory (at a pinch), but by no means unprecedented.)

Early this century: Icebergs reaching so far north that they were close to New Zealand. Unprecedented: a clear sign of global warming. Same thing happened at the end of the 19th century. (At least that one certainly wasn't within living memory.)

Global warming is with us: undeniable. Heat trapping gases in the troposphere increasing temperatures: undeniable. Carbon dioxide of human origin released into the atmosphere and trapping heat: undeniable. Carbon dioxide released from melting ice having the same effect: undeniable. Every little glitch in weather and such events as uncommonly severe bushfires and uncommon location of icebergs is a result of global warming: bulldust.

The chicken little stories are doing nothing to convince people that there is a real concern to be addressed.

[Cow Poke]

Yup. this century: "Unprecedented bushfires in Australia one summer, so bad that smoke from the fires reached New Zealand." Obviously a clear sign of global warming. One year in the early twentieth century: ASH was making it as far as New Zealand, not just smoke. (This century's fires may have been the worst in living memory (at a pinch), but by no means unprecedented.)

Early this century: Icebergs reaching so far north that they were close to New Zealand. Unprecedented: a clear sign of global warming. Same thing happened at the end of the 19th century. (At least that one certainly wasn't within living memory.)

Global warming is with us: undeniable. Heat trapping gases in the troposphere increasing temperatures: undeniable. Carbon dioxide of human origin released into the atmosphere and trapping heat: undeniable. Carbon dioxide released from melting ice having the same effect: undeniable. Every little glitch in weather and such events as uncommonly severe bushfires and uncommon location of icebergs is a result of global warming: bulldust.

The chicken little stories are doing nothing to convince people that there is a real concern to be addressed.

I'm more concerned about....

OK, so it's real -- what can you do about it and how much will it cost?

Nobody ever seems to be able to answer that --- they just want more and more money and more and more laws, regulations, restrictions, control....

[Faber]

The weather has not been bad this summer, at least in this area. If this is global warming, BRING IT ON!!!

[Cow Poke]

The weather has not been bad this summer, at least in this area. If this is global warming, BRING IT ON!!!

Yeah, we really couldn't comfortably get in our pool until very late June. This will be probably the shortest swim season we've ever had.

[tabibito]

I'm more concerned about....

OK, so it's real -- what can you do about it and how much will it cost?

Nobody ever seems to be able to answer that --- they just want more and more money and more and more laws, regulations, restrictions, control....

It is real - it is by no means unprecedented, and that long before humans had any hope of contributing. Paleontology and Archaeology both bear evidence that this has happened before. During the last interglacial, sea levels were 10 metres higher than they are now, and there is no reason to believe the same won't happen again. If every proposed measure to counter global warming were implemented tomorrow, it would be 100 years (or so) before any real flow on effect became noticable.

So - instead of spending huge amounts of time effort and money on trying to stop it, we should be looking at ways to make it possible to live with the changes that are coming. But I'm guessing that idea won't be sexy enough to gain any traction.

[rogue06]

The chicken little stories are doing nothing to convince people that there is a real concern to be addressed.

agree.gif

[Cow Poke]

It is real - it is by no means unprecedented, and that long before humans had any hope of contributing. Paleontology and Archaeology both bear evidence that this has happened before. During the last interglacial, sea levels were 10 metres higher than they are now, and there is no reason to believe the same won't happen again. If every proposed measure to counter global warming were implemented tomorrow, it would be 100 years (or so) before any real flow on effect became noticable.

So - instead of spending huge amounts of time effort and money on trying to stop it, we should be looking at ways to make it possible to live with the changes that are coming. But I'm guessing that idea won't be sexy enough to gain any traction.

What are you doing on Tweb, Bub? You make WAY too much sense!!!

[tabibito]

What are you doing on Tweb, Bub? You make WAY too much sense!!!

Oops. Slipped up. It won't happen again, boss.

[TheLurch]

It is real - it is by no means unprecedented, and that long before humans had any hope of contributing.

That's always struck me as a weird statement (i've seen variants of it used a lot). After all, forest fires happened long before humans arrived on the scene. Does that mean humans can't cause a forest fire? I'm not sure what it's meant to convey.

Paleontology and Archaeology both bear evidence that this has happened before. During the last interglacial, sea levels were 10 metres higher than they are now, and there is no reason to believe the same won't happen again.

That's absolutely true. But it's fair to ask whether that would happen without human activity now (nope), and whether it would happen at the pace it's occurring now (again, nope). So it's also fair to ask whether we want to be dealing with the consequence of all these changes now, given that they are, to a large degree, optional.

If every proposed measure to counter global warming were implemented tomorrow, it would be 100 years (or so) before any real flow on effect became noticable..

Lot to unpack here. If it's the difference between implementing every proposed plan now and doing nothing, we'd see the difference well before 100 years. if it's between continuing the ongoing changes in energy production and use vs. taking more aggressive routes, then we'd see the changes in trends sooner, but wouldn't see statistically significant differences in temperatures until about 75 years out, which might qualify under your "or so." So, to an extent, your phrasing is vague enough to not be inaccurate, but i don't think it captures the situation very well.

So - instead of spending huge amounts of time effort and money on trying to stop it, we should be looking at ways to make it possible to live with the changes that are coming. But I'm guessing that idea won't be sexy enough to gain any traction.

It's not a matter of sexiness; it's a matter of economics and human wellbeing. Do you want to pay for the costs of relocating everything in NYC to someplace that'll be viable in future sea levels? Do you want to pay for the flood walls to keep it viable in its current location? Do you want to cover the inevitable disaster that happens if they're not maintained well?

Now, multiply those questions globally, and contrast that with the question of whether you want to pay a bit more to accelerate the adoption of technologies that are already cheaper than the alternatives?

[Cow Poke]

It's not a matter of sexiness; it's a matter of economics and human wellbeing. Do you want to pay for the costs of relocating everything in NYC to someplace that'll be viable in future sea levels? Do you want to pay for the flood walls to keep it viable in its current location? Do you want to cover the inevitable disaster that happens if they're not maintained well?

OK, this is the part that gets me. I choose to live inland in Texas, far enough from the Gulf so as not to be impacted nearly as much by Hurricanes.
There are people who choose to live right on the beach on the Gulf coast. It's their choice, and they are fully aware of the threat of Hurricanes, or they wouldn't be building their homes on stilts.

Why should I, or the government, or anybody else pay for "the costs of relocating eveything in NYC to someplace that'll be viable in future sea levels"?

[tabibito]

That's always struck me as a weird statement (i've seen variants of it used a lot). After all, forest fires happened long before humans arrived on the scene. Does that mean humans can't cause a forest fire? I'm not sure what it's meant to convey.

Only that forest fires can't be attributed to or taken as a sign of global warming. 13 of the fires that were said to be evidence of global warming were in fact the result of arson. Global warming does not cause arsonists.

That's absolutely true. But it's fair to ask whether that would happen without human activity now (nope),

Disagree on that. Global temperatures have been on the rise since the late 1700s, and had been on the rise until the early 1700s. There was a break through the mid 1700s when temperatures plummeted. Nothing unusual about that in a warming cycle, and nothing unusual about a temporary dramatic warming during a cooling cycle.

and whether it would happen at the pace it's occurring now (again, nope).

agreed. To claim that human activity isn't accelerating the process would defy all logic.

So it's also fair to ask whether we want to be dealing with the consequence of all these changes now, given that they are, to a large degree, optional.

I don't argue that anti warming strategies won't be effective, but that there will be quite a lead time before its effects are felt. Meantime, things will continue to get warmer.

Lot to unpack here. If it's the difference between implementing every proposed plan now and doing nothing, we'd see the difference well before 100 years. if it's between continuing the ongoing changes in energy production and use vs. taking more aggressive routes, then we'd see the changes in trends sooner, but wouldn't see statistically significant differences in temperatures until about 75 years out, which might qualify under your "or so." So, to an extent, your phrasing is vague enough to not be inaccurate, but i don't think it captures the situation very well.

Maybe it is a pessimistic estimate, but I did see some estimates of 150 years - so splitting the difference.

It's not a matter of sexiness; it's a matter of economics and human wellbeing.

By sexiness - "attractiveness." People have also been inured to the sky is falling stories with media predictions made for the near future (now passed) that did not pan out predominating in consciousness. The upshot is that global warming warnings have broadly been consigned to the realms of people who bear "end of the world" sandwich boards.

Do you want to pay for the costs of relocating everything in NYC to someplace that'll be viable in future sea levels? Do you want to pay for the flood walls to keep it viable in its current location? Do you want to cover the inevitable disaster that happens if they're not maintained well?

If sea walls are viable, prepare to build them. If they aren't, prepare to find places to relocate to. It is simply a matter of looking at what is happening - a lot of talk and no real action, and the likely political will to do anything before it is too late (always assuming it is not too late already.) As I mentioned someplace before - prevent any new developments in vulnerable areas.

Now, multiply those questions globally, and contrast that with the question of whether you want to pay a bit more to accelerate the adoption of technologies that are already cheaper than the alternatives?

Quite happy to do the extra payments - but I don't have so much confidence in our political and economic systems that I believe anything momentous will be done. Not to mention that doing enough to have a significant impact would [I BELIEVE] be a death sentence for unconscionably large numbers of people. That immediate risk would also act to dampen the political will to take any real action.

Bottom Line: If people don't see leaders taking global warming seriously, they won't take it seriously. To make a start on addressing global warming, it will be necessary to find things that the politicians will find attractive to actually do, rather than indulging in gab-fests that even they don't take seriously.