Let's focus on the mythical 'pause' in global warming. The falsely reported 'pause' is only in the surface temperature record which accounts for only 2% of Earth's heat capacity. Let's totally ignore the 98% of the warming because it's just totally inconvenient to talk about the globe as a whole when talking about GLOBAL warming. Heat absorbed by the ocean accounts for practically all of Earth's heat imbalance and there has been zero pause: Source.
The energy imbalance in the oceans is equivalent to 17x10^22 Joules of energy over the last 30 years alone. That's a Hiroshima bomb every single second for the last 30 years being dumped into the oceans. Anyone who claims a pause in global warming is ignoring data. The 'pause' in surface temperatures is not an end to the warming.
Cornwall Declaration, which states: “We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence—are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception.”
I find this too be the scariest bit of info in this entire topic.. Regardless of weather climate change is real or not, like all of you, i truly do not know. But the idea of a group of people influencing any type of policy choices for us based on this "declaration" is, too me, scary to think about..
"Nothing too worry about, "God" will fix it".. Scary, regardless of the situation.
Not fully on topic i know, but i wanted too comment on it. Plz continue with your copy & paste article arguments.
[This message has been edited by Jonesy (edited 09-27-2013).]
Here we go again. A Hiroshima bomb every single second for the past 30 years and the sun has what? to do with it?
The output of the sun simply buries any output by mankind and the evidence is exactly as you point out. The oceans absorb all that heat. They constitute 3/4 of the earth's surface and absorb how much of the heat produced by the sun? More than 3/4 because water transfers heat faster than dirt does.
So once again, CO2 is only 0.039% of the atmosphere.
There are no drowning and starving polar bears the islands have not been inundated there are no increases in the number of hurricanes the Arctic icefield has not disappeared (hear about those poor souls being rescued currently?)
We are back to square one.
The world has not gone to hell in a hand basket despite the millionaires Al Gore and David Suzuki and their outlandish claims
Originally posted by Arns85GT: The output of the sun simply buries any output by mankind
False and just nonsense. Clear empirical evidence shows solar output has had zero net increase in output. Source.
In fact the solar cycle is currently at a low point yet ocean heat content is still climbing. Hmm, that's a mystery.
Arn, you're better off pulling predictions out of the bible instead of dabbling in debates based on actual evidence, not your whimsical interpretations.
You REALLY think that the majority of climate scientists are cooking the numbers? That's a pretty strong assertion to make.
just as brazenly as tobacco and pharmaceuticals do. you never crap on your own bread and butter source.
If my company's product were inferior to the competition, I'd tell my boss we need to do better. but I would not stand in front of wal-mart and encourage costumers to buy from our competitors.....
If you BELIEVE the science is settled you no longer question whether or not a spike in temperature is because of co2... You just accept it and the next time Co2 levels rise and temperatures drop or remain flat you just write it off as an anomaly.
when data does not conform to your projections it's time to do the scientific thing and re-evaluate to find the reason why your projections missed the facts instead of shrugging off the event as erroneous because "It doesn't agree with the consensus".
The only real concern I have with the Leaked report is not knowing who leaked it and for what purpose. I'm waiting for someone to present the real report and find that the leak was faked info to whip up skeptics only to crush them as nut jobs who had no idea what the report actually said.
Kind of like overhearing a plot to rob a bank and when you report it you look like a conspiracy nut when the robbery doesn't happen.
So I'm going to sit back down and wait to see what the IPCC actual releases. Until then, I still do not think Co2 causes the Climate to warm. I believe Co2 is producing a cooling effect.
You guys who think that Global Warming is real, you may be right. But I think your reliance on Co2 as proof has taken you off course and away from the real answers.
But the Air conditioning guys will know the answer to this question. how does your air conditioning system remove heat from your house?.
On a "funny but true note"
quote
"Lie" vs "False Statement": If the person who says it believes it to be true then it is only a false statement.
If you want to see politicians run from you, ask them for a sworn statement.
Originally posted by jmclemore: just as brazenly as tobacco and pharmaceuticals do.
You realize it was scientists who said tobacco caused cancer and the tobacco industry fought it, don't you? The oil companies are fighting scientists in the exact same way.
quote
Originally posted by jmclemore: Until then, I still do not think Co2 causes the Climate to warm. I believe Co2 is producing a cooling effect.
It's a well known and undisputed scientific fact that CO2 causes warming. What evidence, if any, are you basing your opinion on?
CO2 is a heavily documented and undisputed greenhouse gas. Evidence already cited in this thread discusses greenhouse gas crises in 19 separate occasions during the Permian and Triassic. Source.
It simply blows me away we have people who doubt that CO2 can cause warming. There is simply zero evidence to substantiate the claim and TONS of evidence contrary to it. It's like claiming Earth is flat at this point.
False and just nonsense. Clear empirical evidence shows solar output has had zero net increase in output. Source.
.
The chart you quote shows clearly an increase in solar output since 2007 yet we are in a zero net gain in global temperature where it counts and that is where we live.
The increased CO2 brought about in the wake of increased heat is still the outcome of the post iceage warming that is ongoing. What was pointed out by jmclemore is essentially right. It does not create warmth nor does it promote warmth. It does help plants and we all know the benefits of increased plant growth
So once again, CO2 is only 0.039% of the atmosphere.
There are no drowning and starving polar bears Have I missed something? You got a dead one? the islands have not been inundated It is always argued they WILL but they never ARE there are no increases in the number of hurricanes Again, am I missing something? the Arctic icefield has not disappeared (hear about those poor souls being rescued currently?)
We are back to square one.
BTW the Bible doesn't talk about global warming at all. Your religious intolerance is showing however. So is it a case of lose the arguement and resort to religion bashing as your refuge?
And after you've argued against the facts we still have 20 people who have foolishly believed the hype and are the subjects of rescue from an icey tomb in August
Originally posted by Arns85GT: The chart you quote shows clearly an increase in solar output since 2007 yet we are in a zero net gain in global temperature where it counts and that is where we live.
Solar output increases yet no increase in surface temperatures, hmm, sounds like solar output isn't a significant driver of anything. Ocean temperatures climb when output is low, surface temperatures stay steady when output climbs, yet you think you have a wholesome theory that makes sense. Disturbing.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Your religious intolerance is showing however.
The only intolerance that is showing is against whimsical interpretations of religious works. You destroy credibility when you make up nonsense and wrap the bible around it.
2 Peter 3:16- There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 09-27-2013).]
It's a well known and undisputed scientific fact that CO2 causes warming. What evidence, if any, are you basing your opinion on?
CO2 is a heavily documented and undisputed greenhouse gas. Evidence already cited in this thread discusses greenhouse gas crises in 19 separate occasions during the Permian and Triassic. Source.
It simply blows me away we have people who doubt that CO2 can cause warming. There is simply zero evidence to substantiate the claim and TONS of evidence contrary to it. It's like claiming Earth is flat at this point.
Let's stipulate that the scientist who are studying AGW on both sides (pro and con) do in fact have skin in the game and much at risk if ever proven wrong.
Can you at least agree with that?
Now returning to the "it's a proven fact" argument. I can not say what the up coming IPCC report will show. However, "given" their assertions over the past few years, I am convinced they are about to make a hard shift away from Co2 and toward Water Vapor.
quote
The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.
The temperature increases.
It causes an increase in water vapor.
The additional water vapor causes temperatures to go up.
Those are true. Have been true all along. They want Co2 to be pushed off into the background and only referred to as "fact". The real story is that without Co2 as the Prime cause of AGW the validity of the argument falls apart and you are only left with natural produced causes and effects. Once the Conversation shifts to Water Vapor and Co2 is pushed aside, the level of Co2 concentrations will no longer be discussed. The increase in temperature will be blamed on Water Vapor which is cause by _____?. The blank line will be filled in with the echos of what people were taught and unchallenged (mentioned) by the scientist responsible for teaching it.
Regardless of what the report will say, and even if the data is correct, they are moving to cover their "bad" by shelving the Co2 conversation altogether....
Originally posted by jmclemore: Let's stipulate that the scientist who are studying AGW on both sides (pro and con) do in fact have skin in the game and much at risk if ever proven wrong.
Can you at least agree with that?
No. You're suggesting there's more or equivalent money in science than the money in oil. I am assuming when you refer to 'skin' you are referring to money.
quote
Originally posted by fieroX: Wrong, we are at a solar maximum right now.
Thanks for the correction.
I was speaking more to the point of solar irradiance which is currently still lowish, not at maximum.
quote
Originally posted by fieroX: also thank god for co2. Without it this planet would be a snowball floating through space.
Too little CO2 will turn the planet into a snowball, yet too much wont turn it into a fireball? How's that work exactly?
I find this too be the scariest bit of info in this entire topic.. Regardless of weather climate change is real or not, like all of you, i truly do not know. But the idea of a group of people influencing any type of policy choices for us based on this "declaration" is, too me, scary to think about..
"Nothing too worry about, "God" will fix it".. Scary, regardless of the situation.
Not fully on topic i know, but i wanted too comment on it. Plz continue with your copy & paste article arguments.
Funny thing is isn't the claim by the faithful that the first time God "destroyed the earth" was by water and this time it would be by fire? Something tells me that some would consider it too much of leap to relate global warming to fire.
WEAK MAX: The weakest Solar Max in 100 years continues today with another 24 hours of quiet. None of the sunspots on the Earthside of the sun are actively flaring. NOAA forecasters estimate a scant 5% chance of M-class solar flares. Solar flare alerts: text, voice.
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: No. You're suggesting there's more or equivalent money in science than the money in oil. I am assuming when you refer to 'skin' you are referring to money.
They have far more than $Money in the game they have real skin. Their Reputation, Credibility and Market ability in their career field.
How much will peer reviews matter if they were wrong. Everyone who cites their studies and opinions will quickly hide behind the "Yeah he fooled us to" excuse. And that is true on both sides of the debate.
It is admirable that someone will take a stand for what they believe. Just be willing to follow the data that "is" not just that which made it past the Filters of "peer reviews".
On the issue of money on par with say oil or Tabasco, Even if the scientist were all employed by a non-profit who genuinely is seeking to save the planet from AGW, You can not do that if the funding dries up.
That is why, on both sides, those who don't toe the line Get forced out, get discredited and get treated like a threat. (both sides do it).
If what I have said in this post doesn't register at the minimal level of plausible. I appreciate your faith I just can't trust either side that deeply anymore. My current position has come from my own reading of information from both sides. I did not look at their responses to their critics to come to a conclusion. Instead I relied on my own ability to follow my own sniff test. When something didn't sound right to me, I went and read up on it. when I didn't understand the formula, I went and read up on it. When I found and inconsistency I tracked it until I understood why it existed.
When I said the Co2 is cooling, I have a reason that I understand to back it. Is it my opinion? Yeah! But my opinion can be change in the face of facts that prove otherwise. The reading I have done extended beyond AGW or GW or Climate Change. The sources I went to were no Different than many cited here But many of those sources do more than just study the climate.
[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 09-27-2013).]
Are you serious? Many times throughout Earth's history CO2 has warmed the planet. It's a known and undisputed scientific fact.
<snip>
You post links to "palaeoclimate studies" and suggest these are scientific papers proving CO2 causes global warming? Your studies are the very reasons the models are not working. If those studies were correct the models would follow and it's not happening. Correlation is not causation. Did the temps rise because CO2 also rose or did CO2 rise because the temps rose? Again, you have shown no proof.
WEAK MAX: The weakest Solar Max in 100 years continues today with another 24 hours of quiet. None of the sunspots on the Earthside of the sun are actively flaring. NOAA forecasters estimate a scant 5% chance of M-class solar flares. Solar flare alerts: text, voice.
quote
Solar output increases yet no increase in surface temperatures, hmm, sounds like solar output isn't a significant driver of anything. Ocean temperatures climb when output is low, surface temperatures stay steady when output climbs, yet you think you have a wholesome theory that makes sense. Disturbing.
Once again Flyinfieros displays ignorance. During the past several years, since 2006 solar output has been in decline. It has not increased at all. And, "coincidentally"? there has been no net Global Warming in that period. Well, what about that?
Oceans are the main heat sink of the earth. They are 75% of the surface. They are composed of a substance that transfers and stores heat easily, and are huge in capacity. Of course they are absorbing heat and holding it.
preaches that the polar bears are endangered due to CO2.
This simply is not true. They are thriving and their numbers are growing. The Inuit know this.
The IPCC predicted in 2007 that the polar ice would disappear. It is still there and increasing this year.
So we have adventurers camping out on ice flows, and becoming victims of the ever shifting and dangerous summer ice. We still have people dreaming of using the Northwest Passage for commercial shipping. All foolishness.
In 2007 USA Today reported that Micronesia was disappearing. It is still there.
In 2007 Global Warming alarmists were predicting catastrophic hurricanes, and greater numbers of hurricanes. While we have had a few real bad ones, this is no different that years gone by with Hurricane Hazel in 1954 for instance, but for certain, hurricane overall activity is reduced, not increased.
In short, we have a reduced solar activity and net cooling over 15 years. No amount of crafted argument, propoganda, fear mongering or hurling of abuse changes the facts.
Great article....does nothing to dispel Climate Change but a good read on why this year may have a lower hurricane activity and how the experts are constantly refining what they are learning.
Great article....does nothing to dispel Climate Change but a good read on why this year may have a lower hurricane activity and how the experts are constantly refining what they are learning.
Once again, you don't get it. The "experts" you believe in are wrong again. They predicted that hurricanes would increase in number and intensity. NEITHER has happened, and in fact the OPPOSITE has happened. They are WRONG. Get that through your thick skull.
Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
Yeah, but MMGW is because fossil fuels release carbon that has been sequestered deep underground, since prehistoric times, back into the atmosphere. All those other natural processes are just recirculating the same total amount of carbon between the atmosphere and ocean and land-based carbon sinks (or reservoirs). Except for CO2 from volcanos, but as I have posted here on PFF, on previous occasions, volcanic CO2 emissions are considered to be about 130 times smaller than fossil fuels, year in and year out (averaged over the last 100 years or so).
quote
Over the course of millions of years, as biomass from dead plants and microorganisms accumulated in sediments and was subjected to high temperature and pressure deep below Earth's surface, organic remains from the biosphere (both terrestrial and marine) have been converted to fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas). However, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the 1800s, humans have been burning these fossil fuels, releasing the carbon from them back into the atmosphere as CO2. Processes that took millions of years to remove carbon from the biosphere have been reversed so that the same carbon is being released at unprecedented rates as a result of human activities. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased 38% [as of 2009] since Preindustrial times and are higher than at any time in the past 800,000 years.
Yeah, but MMGW is because fossil fuels release carbon that has been sequestered deep underground, since prehistoric times, back into the atmosphere. All those other natural processes are just recirculating the same total amount of carbon between the atmosphere and ocean and land-based carbon sinks (or reservoirs). Except for CO2 from volcanos, but as I have posted here on PFF, on previous occasions, volcanic CO2 emissions are considered to be about 130 times smaller than fossil fuels, year in and year out (averaged over the last 100 years or so).
Fossil fuels and sedimentary rocks such as limestone, formed from carbonates that were laid down as the shells of prehistoric organisms were fossilized.
Sedimentary rocks release CO2 as they weather, but that's a long, slow process, on the human time scale.
But fossil fuels are a recent development, and a very rapid and still expanding process, on the human time scale.
MMGW is because we are putting long sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere much faster than any natural processes can remove it.
So human activities are moving us back towards deep prehistoric levels of CO2 in the atmosphere--which the current human species (homo sapiens) has never experienced in its brief history on the planet, and is not currently adapted for.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-01-2013).]
It simply blows me away we have people who doubt that CO2 can cause warming. There is simply zero evidence to substantiate the claim and TONS of evidence contrary to it. It's like claiming Earth is flat at this point.
No, there is tons of evidence presented by both sides of science. We have to remember science is based on theories, rarely on facts. They just work with what they have at the time and rarely use ALL the available data. Something like the earth warming? Well there is variables they probably don't even know exist, along with many variables they don't even include in their "models". Depends which side of the coin you are trying to prove to be the shiniest to what variables you include.
No, there is tons of evidence presented by both sides of science. We have to remember science is based on theories, rarely on facts. They just work with what they have at the time and rarely use ALL the available data. Something like the earth warming? Well there is variables they probably don't even know exist, along with many variables they don't even include in their "models". Depends which side of the coin you are trying to prove to be the shiniest to what variables you include.
Science is based on theories, rarely on facts? Where did you get your knowledge of science? Science takes theories and then proves or disproves the theories with facts.
Yeah, but MMGW is because fossil fuels release carbon that has been sequestered deep underground, since prehistoric times, back into the atmosphere. All those other natural processes are just recirculating the same total amount of carbon between the atmosphere and ocean and land-based carbon sinks (or reservoirs). Except for CO2 from volcanos, but as I have posted here on PFF, on previous occasions, volcanic CO2 emissions are considered to be about 130 times smaller than fossil fuels, year in and year out (averaged over the last 100 years or so).
Is there an example of a tube filled with Co2 exposed to an equivalent IR that shows a change in Gas temperature the exceeds ambient?
For the claims made about Co2's effect on temperatures of the Ocean, Surface and/or atmosphere to be true, Co2 must be able to not only entrap heat but also reach a temperature high enough above ambient to make heat transfer possible.
This should not only be easy to prove, the proof should be abundant because it would be simple to reproduce the results consistently.
Once again, you don't get it. The "experts" you believe in are wrong again. They predicted that hurricanes would increase in number and intensity. NEITHER has happened, and in fact the OPPOSITE has happened. They are WRONG. Get that through your thick skull.
So let me get this straight because this particular hurricane season has been less active in intensity so far that disproves the science of Climate Change? It's almost as short sighted as the Arctic ice "recovery"of 2013. One year does not a trend make.
And before you regurgitate your "16 years flat temp" theory remember to also look at the big picture not just starting at the year 1998 as it skews the data.
So this time your position is the Climate is not warming? Correct?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 10-01-2013).]
Originally posted by fierobear: AND, with all that increasing CO2, temperatures are FLAT for 16 years.
I have not looked at any of the newly released IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), which is now online: http://www.ipcc.ch
It could be that some of the latest findings about warming of the oceans below the surface (below 700 meters down) were so recent that they were published after the IPCC's cutoff date, so they could not be referenced or considered in the new IPCC report. Here's the first example that comes to mind:
Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content
Magdalena A. Balmaseda, Kevin E. Trenberth, Erland Källén
"The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the ocean's role in the Earth's energy budget and transient climate sensitivity. Here we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observation-based reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-01-2013).]
So let me get this straight because this particular hurricane season has been less active in intensity so far that disproves the science of Climate Change? It's almost as short sighted as the Arctic ice "recovery"of 2013. One year does not a trend make.
And before you regurgitate your "16 years flat temp" theory remember to also look at the big picture not just starting at the year 1998 as it skews the data.
So this time your position is the Climate is not warming? Correct?
So, the differences in Earth's temperature measured over a short period of time, say 100 or so years, is more relevant than the billions of years she has been spinning?
One years does not make a trend. Nor does 100. Nor does it during the span of man.
So let me get this straight because this particular hurricane season has been less active in intensity so far that disproves the science of Climate Change? It's almost as short sighted as the Arctic ice "recovery"of 2013. One year does not a trend make.
And before you regurgitate your "16 years flat temp" theory remember to also look at the big picture not just starting at the year 1998 as it skews the data.
So this time your position is the Climate is not warming? Correct?
No, hurricanes are down for the last SEVERAL YEARS. If you were paying attention, you'd know that.
I have not looked at any of the newly released IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), which is now online: http://www.ipcc.ch
It could be that some of the latest findings about warming of the oceans below the surface (below 700 meters down) were so recent that they were published after the IPCC's cutoff date, so they could not be referenced or considered in the new IPCC report. Here's the first example that comes to mind:
Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content
Magdalena A. Balmaseda, Kevin E. Trenberth, Erland Källén
"The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the ocean's role in the Earth's energy budget and transient climate sensitivity. Here we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observation-based reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution."
Rusty, they couldn't find the heat anywhere in the atmosphere, where they said it would be. So they just shifted the theory to the oceans.
Science is based on theories, rarely on facts? Where did you get your knowledge of science? Science takes theories and then proves or disproves the theories with facts.
Ir doesn't actually. I presents the current theory based on the information they have used. It is always evolving and old theories are constantly being proven wrong. Science is never fact. Scientists know it.
Originally posted by Tony Kania: So, the differences in Earth's temperature measured over a short period of time, say 100 or so years, is more relevant than the billions of years she has been spinning?
One years does not make a trend. Nor does 100. Nor does it during the span of man.
Great point. However that's what the science is proving that this is an unprecedented change brought on by the influence of man it's not a natural variance.
The scientists and experts have answered basically all of these arguments with data. Are they still learning some things sure but I still trust them over the internet know-it-alls and desperate deniers.
Once again, you don't get it. The "experts" you believe in are wrong again. They predicted that hurricanes would increase in number and intensity. NEITHER has happened, and in fact the OPPOSITE has happened. They are WRONG. Get that through your thick skull.
Yes because of one year...the EXPERTS ARE WRONG.
That's like saying, if you smoke and don't get cancer within the first year the health experts are wrong, it obviously isn't bad for you!
quote
It is precisely because the scientists are NOT rich, and rely on research grants, that they have to keep the catastrophic warming story going so they can simply ensure themselves a paycheck.
...scientists who are cooking the numbers to keep up the flow of research dollars.
WHY would someone become a scientist in the first place? a scientist is going to believe in the scientific method (or he/she wouldn't have become a scientist). It's incredibly disrespectful to accuse all scientists of cooking the numbers so they can continue to make money. NOBODY (figuratively speaking) does it to get rich.
Who should be believed - a scientist who went to university for 12 years, studying the most rigorous science topics currently known, or an internet blogger with absolutely no credentials and nothing to lose? You do realize that a scientist's reputation is important?
Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity: Geophys. Res. Lett. (2011), Abstract: Tropical cyclone accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) has exhibited strikingly large global interannual variability during the past 40-years. In the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low. Here evidence is presented demonstrating that considerable variability in tropical cyclone ACE is associated with the evolution of the character of observed large-scale climate mechanisms including the El Nino Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. In contrast to record quiet North Pacific tropical cyclone activity in 2010, the North Atlantic basin remained very active by contributing almost one-third of the overall calendar year global ACE.
Scary, regardless of the situation.
