Pretty much all of their prognostications on tropical systems have failed, so, why not one more? Especially putting it out 28 years
Climate change could double the number of major hurricanes and typhoons by 2050, study finds
Thanks to climate change, the number of hurricanes and typhoons rated as Category 3 storms and higher could double by the year 2050, a new study concludes.
Using computer modeling, the study, which was published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances, concluded that, as global air and water temperatures continue to rise due to excess greenhouse gas emissions, the increase in the number of major hurricanes and typhoons will affect a larger number of people.
Computer models? That’s a joke, right?
According to the new study, climate change will help increase the wind speeds of major hurricanes by as much as 20% over the next 28 years, as well as the overall frequency of Category 4 and 5 storms by more than 200% in some parts of the world.
“Our results also reemphasize that regions that currently have a (very) low risk could start to be really impacted by tropical cyclones under climate change,” Nadia Bloemendaal, a climate scientist at the University of Amsterdam and the study’s lead author, told CNN. “We found it shocking to see the disproportionate amount of developing countries at risk for future climate change.”
Who’s held responsible if this fails to materialize? Oh, right, no one will remember this in 2050, it’s meant to scare people now to Do Something. Things that the Warmists won’t do voluntarily in their own lives.
Meanwhile
The world observed Earth Day for the 52nd time last week, but there was a shadow on the celebration. Earlier in the month, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its latest report on efforts to stop global warming. It showed a “litany of broken climate promises” was “putting us on track towards an unlivable world,” in the words of UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.
The report is an indictment of governments, corporations and investors who have signed on to the “net-zero carbon” goal but have put little or no concrete effort behind their pledges. “Government and business are saying one thing and doing another,” Guterres said. “Simply put, they are lying.”
Who’s surprised? Most Warmists fail to keep to their pledges. Citizens might clamor for them, but, once instituted, they are not happy with the effects on their own lives. They thought all the bad stuff would apply to Other People. Corporations and investors are going to care about their bottom lines.
Our distinguished host quoted:
Lying? I suppose that making promises that anyone with an IQ above room temperature would know he can’t keep could be considered lying.
There’s tons of support for eliminating carbon emissions . . . as long as it doesn’t cost anything. Unfortunately every proposal does cost something, costs a lot.
In the meantime, surprise! The economy contracted at a 1.4% rate! The experts tell us that it was just a one-quarter glitch, or so they suppose, but how can anyone expect individuals, corporations and governments to
wastespend the trillions of dollars it would take to do what the ‘experts’ tell us must be done when we could be falling into a recession again?Mx Teach typed: Computer models? That’s a joke, right?
How does Mx Teach suggest we try to understand? Prayer? Ouija Board? Wishing? Coin flips?
Mx Teach typed: Who’s held responsible if this fails to materialize?
Who’s held responsible when it does and the ignorati did nothing?
Way to miss the point, child. For the Slow out there (e.g. you), “Climate Change” weather models have proved themselves wrong on a multitude of occasions – see:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/04/28/arctic-sea-ice-stabilizes-no-trend-reduction-in-more-than-10-years-as-solar-cycle-starts-off-weakly/
(Sorry if it contains large words – I know you have an issue there.)
Maybe the “Climate Change” zealots should try Prayer, a Ouija Board, Wishing and/or Coin flips – they might have a chance at valid predictions that way.
One more time: If the predictions don’t come true and you DON’T change your hypothesis, it’s religion, not science.
Because computer models aren’t observations, they’re……just models. In other words, model conjecture doesn’t equal empirical evidence. “How do we try to understand”? First,, by observation, which is looking at what’s actually happened instead of what could happen. These storms have been predicted to increase now for decades, but there’s been no discernible changes. So, do observations match the hypothesis? No
Dear Elwood:
“How does Mx Teach suggest we try to understand? Prayer? Ouija Board? Wishing? Coin flips?”
Well, whatever we use, models aren’t the answer.
“The most important thing to remember about climate models which are used to project future global warming is that they were “tuned” with the assumption I started this article with: that the climate system is in a natural state of energy balance, and that there is no long-term climate change unless humans cause it.
This is an arbitrary and illogical assumption. The climate system is an example of a “nonlinear dynamical system”, which means it can change all by itself. For example, slow changes in the rate of vertical overturning of the world’s oceans can cause global warming (or global cooling) with no “external forcing” of the climate system whatsoever.
Instead, the climate models are “tuned” to not produce natural climate change. If a 100-year run of the model produces change, the model is adjusted to removed the “drift”. The models do not produce global energy balance from “first physical principles”, because none of the processes controlling that balance are known to sufficient accuracy. Instead, the models are “fudged” to produce energy balance, based upon the modelers’ assumption of no natural climate change. Then, the models are used as “proof” that only increasing CO2 has caused recent warming.
This is circular reasoning.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/