Six years of global warming tourism ships getting stuck in the ice. A Limerick.

The “climate catastrophe” ship

got stuck, t’was the end of the trip.

They got rescued by air

in a state of despair.

Then Svalbard’s new ice lost its grip.

(The Arctic expedition ship Malmö ofGöteborg getting unstuck by its own power four days after the ecotourists/”scientists” got “rescued” by helicopter airlift)

16 personer blev evakuerade med helikopter, sedan MS Malmö fastnat i isen sydväst om   Hinlopenstredet på Svalbard. Videobild.

It started innocently enough. A group of environmental researchers, led by a couple of film producers were going to retrace the Ahlmann expedition of 1931, where he examined the glaciers of Western and Northern Svalbard. The previous few years Svalbard had been ice free in September, so the conditions seemed ideal. Last winter nearly all winter storms went up the Atlantic from the Gulf of Mexico, dumping a lot of snow on Svalbard, avoiding Greenland. The loss of snow over Greenland is well publicized, but not the extra snow over Svalbard. This meant that the ice was still thick in the same waters where Ahlmann had no trouble navigating. Everybody “knows” that the ice is receding year by ear, and according to Al Gore, all Arctic ice has melted in September by the year 2015, and from then on it will be warmer still, so the sighting of new, healthy ice must be a mistake.

This is the sixth year a polar expedition with global warming “scientists” gets stuck in ice and has to be rescued.

Why is that?

They believe more in what their climate models have proven about global warming than what simple observations could have showed them. It is true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and more CO2 make global temperatures rise unless something else changes as well. The thing that changes when temperatures rise is that the air can contain more water vapor before it condenses. Condensed water vapor in the atmosphere is called clouds, and clouds reflect back into the sky much of the incoming sunlight during the day which has a large cooling effect, and keeps the energy in during the night, which has a much smaller warming effect. The net result is that the clouds have a stabilizing effect on the earth’s climate, so much so that the tropics have found its temperature and there will be no further warming regardless of the level of CO2. Nearly all the warming will occur around the poles, and DanishMeteorologicalInstitute has the chart to prove it: These are polar temperatures above the 80th latitude

The winter temperatures have risen about 8 degrees, but there has been no corresponding rise in summer temperatures.

In the winter there are more clouds and it snows more, which keeps temperatures from falling, and in the summer there is all that extra ice to melt. This will be the new normal with the extra CO2. Some glaciers have started growing again.

 

The red dragon of China. World dominance by 2025 averted? A Limerick.

Insane is to praise the Chinese

and say they go green, planting trees;

for they lie, cheat and steal,

human rights they repeal.

We must stand, no more time to appease.

Beijing’s massive tree planting campaign has worsened air pollution in the city, a new study by Chinese scientists suggests. The “Green Great Wall” prevented dispersion of as much as 15 per cent of PM2.5 – health-damaging fine particulates less than 2.5 micrometres in diameter – during a major smog episode in the capital in January 2014, according to researchers. At its peak during the period studied, the PM2.5 reached 350 micrograms per cubic metre of air – 14 times the safety level recommended by the World Health Organisation.

Man-made forest slowed down the winds that otherwise help to disperse smog and turned the city into an enormous trap for air pollutants, according to the scientists.

How can that be?

China burned 51.2% of the world’s coal in 2012, USA produced 12.5%. China’s production was more than four times larger. This has now stabilized and was in 2018 47%, because India and the real developing world are increasing their dependence on coal for electricity production, and also for cooking meals.

This of course is with the Paris accord in mind. U.S. and the European countries are to limit their emissions and slowly diminish them, down to a per capita emission comparable to the mid 1800’s, while China, being a “developing” country is allowed to increase their emissions until 2030, and then stabilize them, not decrease them.

How can they be burning nearly half the world’s coal mined?

One reason is they are the world’s state controlled manufacturing company. They are also responsible for half the world’s Steel production. China produced 50.3% of the world’s crude Steel in 2015, USA produced 4.9%. China’s production was over 20 times larger than the U.S.Some of this steel was dumped below production cost to crush our domestic low end steel industry. An example: Rolled steel to make steel cans were exported at about $200 a ton, the production cost in the U.S. is more like $400 a ton. They can do this, since their environmental regulations only pay lip service to pollution. Remember how Pittsburgh was 60 years ago? China is much worse.

Cement production. China produced 51.4% of the world’s cement in 2015, USA produced 1.8%. China’s production was almost 30 times larger.

It takes a lot of concrete to build artificial islands so they can take control of the South China Sea. But they are building many other things,  Ghost Cities, but also an impressive infrastructure with high speed trains on elevated concrete tracks.

Worrisome as that may be, it isnothing compared to China,s dominance in Rare Earth Metals. Let me explain why rare earth metals are so important to our modern economy.

First, rare earth metals re not rare at all, they exist in small quantities together with Thorium and sometimes Uranium wherever other metals are mined.

The Lanthanides occur in quantity in Monazite, a byproduct of mining Phosphates, but also as a byproduct of mining Titanium, and even from some Iron ores. The rare earth metals are free to begin extraction if it was not for one thing, they also contain Thorium, and Thorium is radio-active, so in the mid 1980’s the NRC and IAEA reclassified Monazite and anything containing Thorium as a “Source Material” and after that it became too costly to comply with all the regulations for nuclear material, so all production of rare earth minerals ceased in the U.S.

China saw an opportunity to grab the world market for Rare Earth Metals and is now controlling about 94% of the supply of all rare earth metals.

So what are rare earth metals used for?

China now has a de facto monopoly on all usages of rare earth metals, and in the case of war or an embargo, not only are our precious cell phones and computers in jeopardy, so is our defense, night vision goggles, aircraft engines, navigation systems, laser guidance, just to name a few uses.

And not only that, we import the completed parts from China, even for our most sophisticated military equipment, such as the F35 aircraft, after telling the Chinese how to make the components. The very same components are now in China’s version of the F35, still under development, but in a year or so China will have their faithful copies made! A F35 aircraft contains about 935 pounds of rare earth metals.

This is clearly unsustainable, so in 2014  Congress tried to pass HR 4883 and         S 2006 to remedy the situation, but the bills got killed in review by none other than the defense department, citing National Security! Our only major rare earth metals mine reopened, only to go bankrupt in 2015. It has since reopened, but the ore is shipped to China for refining! One good point is that the Mountain Pass mine is scheduled to reopen the processing facilities late 2020.

The idea was that we should change our electricity production into renewable sources, such as wind and solar.

Wind power uses a lot of rare earth metals to get the most efficient generators, all made by China. Wind power is about maxed out, that is, if you care about birds, especially eagles and raptors. The allowable bald eagle kill was upped from 1200 to 4200 a year for all U.S. wind turbines during the Obama administration. Killed golden eagles and storks has a S250000 fine, paid by the electricity users, and if we build it out more, we may exterminate some species.

Solar power looked promising until pollution was taken into consideration.  China added 53 GW solar capacity in  2017.  The forecast for this year i 45 GW, and for next year 35 GW.

The efficiency of solar panels are drastically reduced by the layer of soot accumulating daily from air pollution. They have to be cleaned daily with water, and water is in short supply in northern China. The yellow river no longer reaches the ocean during large periods of the year, all water is spoken for. In southern India a solar farm used up so much water that the wells went dry and there was no more water for agriculture and people, except during the monsoon season. Germany has given up on their solar program except for special needs.

Where it rains, China pollutes. The Yang -Tse  river carries nearly half the plastic waste that is dumped in the ocean. It can be stopped, but it will mean a lot of energy, both man-power and electricity  to do all the cleanup.

The solution is found in Thorium power. Here are 25 reasons why we shouls jump on the opportunity to solve the energy crisis:

1. A million years supply at today’s consumption levels.

2. Thorium already mined, ready to be extracted.

3. One ten-thousandth of the TRansUranium waste compared to a U-235 based fast breeder reactor.

4. Thorium based nuclear power produces Pu-238, needed for space exploration.

5. Radioactive waste from an LFTR decays down to background radiation in 300 years compared to a million years for U-235 based reactors.

6. Thorium based nuclear power is not suited for making nuclear bombs.

7. Produces isotopes that helps cure certain cancers.

8. Molten Salt Thorium Reactors are earthquake safe.

9. Molten Salt Thorium Reactors cannot have a meltdown, the fuel is already molten.

10. Molten Salt Nuclear Reactors have a very high negative temperature coefficient leading to a safe and stable control.

11. Atmospheric pressure operating conditions, no risk for explosions.

12. Virtually no spent fuel problem, very little on site storage or transport.

13. Thorium Nuclear Power generators  scale  beautifully from small portable generators to full size power plants.

14. No need for evacuation zones, can be placed near urban areas.

15. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors will work both as Base Load and Load Following power plants.

16. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors will lessen the need for an expanded national grid.

17. Russia has an active Thorium program.

18. China is having a massive Thorium program.

19. India is having an ambitious Thorium program.

20. United States used to be the leader in Thorium usage. What happened?

21. With a Molten Salt Reactor, accidents like the Three Mile Island disaster will not happen.

22. With a Molten Salt Reactor, disasters like Chernobyl are impossible.

23. With Molten Salt Reactors, a catastrophe like Fukushima cannot happen.

24. Produces electrical energy at about 4 cents per KWh.

25. Can deplete some of the existing radioactive waste and nuclear weapons stockpiles.

Did I mention that Thorium based reactors do not produce CO2, and molten salt reactors do not use water?

Oh – and wish President Trump well in our negotiations with China. Pray, if you believe.

 

Climate emergency? Pray tell why. The climate change has never been better since the end of the ice age.

New York City and seventeen other U.S.Cities has just  joined 650  cities worldwide in declaring a climate emergency. We may have environmental and ecological disasters such as urban asphalt jungles where lots of people live and suffer, erosion and using up the aquifers, but climate disaster, no, not if you live closer to nature and can observe the temperature controller it provides in the forming  and disappearing of clouds.

Many years ago the earth was in an ice age and the CO2 level was around 180 ppm, barely sustaining plant life. The ice age ended, most of the ice melted, and the CO2 level rose to around 260 ppm. The oceans warmed up, the humidity increased, more clouds formed and the temperature rise stopped and has been on a slow cooling trend since then. The Greenland ice cores give a good record:

Greenlandgisp-last-10000-new

All this time the CO2 level was fairly constant at around 260 ppm. This time is different; CO2 levels are now over 400 ppm, rising about 2 ppm per year with no end in sight. The question is: Is it good or bad? If it is bad, how bad is it going to be?

To answer this question the world spends over 400 billion dollars a year in climate research and are starting to spend much more in climate remediation. Over 30 nations are making climate models trying to predict future temperature trends. Of the models so far all but one fail miserably when compared to what actually is happening. The sole exception is the Russian model which tries to fit the model to past temperature records rather than postulate that response from CO2 and water vapor are always additive.

There is a better, far simpler way to predict future temperature trends. The reason CO2 and water vapor are not always additive is because water vapor is a condensing gas, sometimes forming clouds, which drastically alter the temperature of the surface. Clouds forming at day reflects a large portion of the sunlight back into space, clouds at night keep the heat in.

Willis Eschenbach has made en excellent analysis of 19 years of data from CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System from NASA). He compensates for the effect of Advection (horizontal heat transfer of energy from one place on earth to another.) The results are startling:

The 3.7 W/m2 is the expected increase of heat retention for a doubling of CO2 as per IPCC  (the U.N  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). A similar result is obtained if one is to include data from HadCRUT (Temperature data from the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office)

Tis agrees very well with my own, much coarser examination of data, but sould include that the expected temperature increase observed for a doubling of CO2 is by no means evenly distributed. In addition, if temperature rises 0,39C there will be  about 2.6 % more water vapor in the air which would rise temperature another 0.35 C. This too is not evenly distributed. Here are the expected result:

In the tropical doldrums there will be no change at all, the water vapor is all dominant and thunderstorms keep the average temperature constant.

In the 10-40 latitude there will be an increase, but increased clouds will moderate the increase except in the most arid deserts that will carry the full 0.9 C increase.

The temperate regions will experience about a 0.4 C increase in the wet areas, and about a 0.6 C in the arid parts.

Most of the increase will be experienced around the poles, with minimum temperatures rising five to ten degrees, but maximum temperatures staying about the same.

Why is that? With on the average 2.6 % increase in water vapor there will be an increase in the rainfall, about 2.6% on average, but since there is no change in the tropics it will be concentrated at the higher latitudes, especially around the poles where it will manifest itself as more snow, and that is the main reason for the increased minimum temperatures.

So, how bad is it going to get if nothing is done to stop the increase in CO2?

The temperature difference between poles and equator will be less, which means:

Fewer and less severe hurricanes, less severe tornadoes, less severe winter storms, less droughts.

But there will be about 2% more average cloud cover, more rain and more flooding.

So, with an 0.4C average temperature we will not even be back to the medieval warm period, much less the Roman warm period, not to speak of the Minoan warm period.

The sinking eastern seaboard is a problem that has very little to do with ocean rising, and all to do with tectonic plates movements, which we will have to accept.

Will anything good come out of this climate change?

Yes, indeed. With a doubling of CO2 there will be a corresponding response from plant life increasing biological productivity 30 to 60%. It is not linear, and above 800 ppm it tapers of for most plant species. But we will be able to feed at least another 3 billion people and keep them from hunger, but also much cattle and wild animals, (yes that includes flies and gnats, but I digress)

https://lenbilen.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/increase.png?w=660

This picture gives us hope for the future. Notice the most significant increase was in Sub-Saharan Africa and eastern India.

 

 

Twenty-five reasons to rapidly develop Thorium based Nuclear Power generation.

Twenty-five reasons to rapidly develop Thorium based Nuclear Power generation.

We need badly to develop and build Thorium based molten salt fast breeder nuclear reactors to secure our energy needs in the future. Lest anyone should be threatened by the words fast breeder, it simply means it uses fast neutrons instead of thermal neutrons, and breeder means it produces more fissible material than it consumes, in the case of Thorium the ratio is about 1.05.

1. A million years supply at today’s consumption levels.

2. Thorium already mined, ready to be extracted.

3. One ten-thousandth of the TRansUranium waste compared to a U-235 based fast breeder reactor.

4. Thorium based nuclear power produces Pu-238, needed for space exploration.

5. Radioactive waste from an LFTR decays down to background radiation in 300 years compared to a million years for U-235 based reactors.

6. Thorium based nuclear power is not suited for making nuclear bombs.

7. Produces isotopes that helps cure certain cancers.

8. Molten Salt Thorium Reactors are earthquake safe.

9. Molten Salt Thorium Reactors cannot have a meltdown, the fuel is already molten.

10. Molten Salt Nuclear Reactors have a very high negative temperature coefficient leading to a safe and stable control.

11. Atmospheric pressure operating conditions, no risk for explosions.

12. Virtually no spent fuel problem, very little on site storage or transport.

13. Thorium Nuclear Power generators  scale  beautifully from small portable generators to full size power plants.

14. No need for evacuation zones, can be placed near urban areas.

15. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors will work both as Base Load and Load Following power plants.

16. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors will lessen the need for an expanded national grid.

17. Russia has an active Thorium program.

18. China is having a massive Thorium program.

19. India is having an ambitious Thorium program.

20. United States used to be the leader in Thorium usage. What happened?

21. With a Molten Salt Reactor, accidents like the Three Mile Island disaster will not happen.

22. With a Molten Salt Reactor, disasters like Chernobyl are impossible.

23. With Molten Salt Reactors, a catastrophe like Fukushima cannot happen.

24. Produces electrical energy at about 4 cents per KWh.

25. Can deplete some of the existing radioactive waste and nuclear weapons stockpiles.

The need to develop Thorium based Nuclear Energy as the major electric energy supply. 24. Produces electrical energy at about 4 cents per KWh.

Produces electrical energy at about 4 cents per KWh.

Image result for us electricity generation by source

The cost to produce electricity with Thorium generators should be about 40% less than Advanced Nuclear and about 30 % less than from Coal (with scrubbers). Solar generation is about 4 times more expensive (without subsidies) Wind power is cheaper when the wind blows, but the generation capacity has to be there even when the wind doesn’t blow, so the only gain from wind power is to lessen the mining or extraction of carbon. In addition, wind power kills birds, the free yearly quota of allowable Bald Eagle kills was upped from 1200 to 4200 during the Obama administration. (https://lenbilen.com/2019/04/12/what-is-more-precious-babies-eagles-or-fighting-climate-change/). Golden Eagles and a few other rare birds has a quarter of a million dollar fine associated with their kills. If wind power is increased without finding a solution to the bird kills, whole species may be extinct. Solar power is, and will be used in special applications such as on roofs for backup and peak power assist. Hydroelectric power is for all practical purpose maxed out, so nearly all future increase must come from Coal, Natural Gas, Petroleum or Nuclear. Thorium powered Nuclear Generators is the way to go.

Bill Nye knows nothing of Climate Change Science. A Limerick. Al Gore and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are worse.

The Roman Northamptonshire wine

was good, not exquisitely fine.

So it just goes to show

that Bill Nye does not know

of Climate Change past, that’s my line.

The “Science guy” Bill Nye once claimed that we are as a globe heating up rapidly and are at the point of no return and the only solution is to drastically reduce burning fossil fuel. As a proof he pointed out that they have started to grow wine grapes in England, unprecedented in history in his opinion.

During the Roman warm period wine grapes were grown almost up to the Hadrian Wall, and there may have been over ten wineries in England. Then the dark ages came and grapes no longer ripened so the wineries were abandoned. During the Medieval Warm Period there was at least one cattle farm on Greenland,  “Gården under sanden”, exporting cheese, seal skins and meat, as well as peregrine falcons, much sought after by the Arabs. But it was abandoned around 1200 A.D. as the glaciers regrew, starting the “Little Ice Age”. We are still recovering from the little ice age. 2018 may have been a warm year, but most years since the ice age were warmer. See Chart.Greenlandgisp-last-10000-newWe are still in the sweet spot of a remarkable stable climate. The next major climate change will be the onset of another ice age. Most of the time the earth is in an ice age.

Image result for ice ages

As we can see, most of the time the earth is in a glacial state. It gets really interesting when we see the temperature versus CO2.

Image result for ice age co2 levels

A similar chart led Al Gore to write “Earth in the balance” since the correlation between CO2 and temperature seemed almost perfect and CO2 is rising faster and faster. His conclusion was that temperature will soon follow, and we are all doomed. All Arctic ice would be melted by 2015, Greenland was soon to follow, and by 2020 the tipping point would occur after which we were all doomed unless we stopped burning fossil fuel and produced no more CO2 than what plants absorbed, the so called sustainable model.

We know these facts: If there were no greenhouse effect the average temperature on earth would be -18C, half a degree more or less dependent on solar activity. But, thanks to greenhouse gases it is a comfortable +15C. The two most important greenhouse gases are water vapor and CO2, and of the two water vapor are by far the most important, contributing more than 3/4 of the total temperature rise. We know that if nothing else changes, temperature rise would be between 0.9 and 1.05C for every doubling of CO2. But if temperature rises there would be more water vapor in the atmosphere, so the total rise must be more, maybe as much as 8C per doubling of CO2. This assumption is wrong on at least two accounts. First, water vapor and CO2 absorption spectra are not orthogonal, that is , they absorb mostly in the same wavelengths, and you can not absorb more than all the energy available in that wavelength, so if water vapor absorbed 90% and CO2 30% the total sum of absorption is not 120%, but 93% (0.9 +0.3×0.1). There are over 30 government funded climate models that makes this mistake, and they form the basis for the IPCC climate assessment. Only one, the Russian model does not, they base their model on measurements, and it works much better, so it has been excluded from the IPCC as an outlier.

Second, and even more important, water vapor is a condensing gas and forms clouds when the temperature is below the dew point. This means that part of the indwelling sunlight radiation is reflected back into space rather than hitting earth, and that has a larger effect on temperature than the night time reflection back to earth of the long wave radiation. Can we measure that? Clouds are fickle, they come and go and are hard to grasp. Luckily we have the CERES data set, measuring temperature versus surfaca absorption. The results are staggering.

(Thanks,Willis Eschenbach) Note that 3.7 W/m2 is the increase in downwelling longwave radiation expected from a doubling of CO2 …

There we have it! 0.38C temperature rise globally for every doubling of CO2.

But that is not all! It depends on where on earth we are. Check this temperature rise chart:

https://lenbilen.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/uah-lower-troposphere-temperature.jpg

Since 1980 CO2 has risen from 335 ppm to about 405 ppm now or about 21%. This change should show itself in rising temperatures. As we can see from this chart there has been no temperature increase at all except for el nino- la nina variations. The tropics has found its temperature since it is mostly water vapor, and CO2 increase is of no consequence. Not so at the poles! The temperature rise at the poles has so far been about 1.2C above the Arctic Polar Circle, less so below the Antarctic polar circle.

What does it mean when the temperature rises in the Arctic? It means More Snow! And we can see that this is happening.

From Rutgers University climate lab comes this chart of fall snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere. This year’s snow cover is about 5% larger than last year at the same day, so we can clearly see that the increasing trend is not broken; if anything, it is accelerating. The snow is also melting faster in the spring and summer, but melting snow keeps temperature in check, so even though winter temperatures are rising (It is less cold in the winter when it is snowing. After the snow comes the cold) the summer temperatures are below normal as long as the extra snow lasts.

Let us go to ice cover, this time on the Great Lakes. If there is any climate change they should surely show it: March 8 2019 the Great Lakes ice concentration hit 80 percent.

Lake Superior and Lake Erie both had an ice cover of over 95%, Lake Huron over 90%. Only Lake Michigan and Lake Ontario lagged with 60% and 40% ice cover.

This has happened only seven times in the last 45 years that the maximum ice cover has exceeded 80%. And if one looks at a graph, there seems to be no trend whatsoever.

But we just had a streak of bad tornado outbreaks. Isn’t that a sign of climate change?

Historically, strong tornadoes are declining.

And until this year the trend was down even further

So, tornadoes are down. How about wild fires?

Wildfires used to be much worse before modern forest management (Smokey the bear was the symbol) was initiated. Recent environmental concerns has led to a reversal of proper forest management “to save the environment”.

What else does increasing CO2 bring?  Take a look at all disasters.

Image result for disaster statistics

There seems to have been a strong increase in reported disasters. Could it be that the reporting got better after year 2000, after which we see a slightly declining trend?

Image result for death rate from disasters

We seem to be able to handle disasters better. It was much worse a long time ago. Or – the climate is getting more stable.

How about droughts?  Here is a chart of droughts worldwide

Image result for worldwide droughts

And the U.S. has not been so drought free since measurements started

Image result for worldwide droughts

Yes, but that is because there has been unprecedented rain with unprecedented floods. Isn’t that the extreme climate we are talking about? Yes the Missisippi watershed has gotten a lot of rain lately, and it occurs at a time when the solar activity is at its lowest, in other words, it should be getting colder, but since it is raining and snowing so much this releases a lot of heat into the atmosphere while it is raining out, so the cooling is masked. It is also true that building levees to protect cities increases the flooding in the non levied parts of the rivers, a dilemma indeed.

Could it be that increasing CO2 is good for the climate?

Yes there is a Green New Deal associated with increased CO2! The world is getting greener!

Increasing CO2 helps climate resiliency by greening the earth.

https://lenbilen.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/increase.png?w=660

(iii) healthy food;

Increasing CO2 helps increasing food supply. This is good for both people and animals. As a side benefit photosynthesis is more efficient and uses less water as CO2 increases.

What do you think? We have enormous environmental challenges, and pollution. CO2 is not a pollutant, but will help delay the coming of the next ice age.

 

 

Climate panic. New terms to use for climate change according to the Guardian (U.K.)

We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue,” said the editor-in-chief of the British newspaper the Guardian, Katharine Viner.

To accomplish this the Guardian suggested these new terms to replace the old ones.

Old term : “climate change” New terms: “climate emergency,”  “climate crisis,” “climate breakdown”.

Old term: “global warming”. New term: “global heating“.

Old term: “climate skeptic” New term: “climate science denier

In October, the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) said carbon emissions must halve by 2030 to avoid even greater risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.

Lucky for us, we still have a beautiful world around us and it has not suffered a thermal runaway yet, even though the yearly CO2 emissions have doubled since 1982. But, for most of this time we have worldwide satellite and other data to see and verify how the global ecosystem has responded to this unprecedented CO2 increase. As every true scientist knows, validation by observation beats theoretical models every time.

Let us concentrate on just one aspect of weather: Tornadoes. They occur when there is cold, dry atmosphere next to warm, wet air, usually on each side of the jet stream. We are having a tornado outbreak right now

This is the second longest-streak without an EF5/F5 tornado since records began in 1950 and it is just the second time dating to 1950 the U.S. has gone five years or longer with no twisters rated EF5/F5.

The number of F/EF5 tornadoes in the U.S. by year from 1950-2018.

(Data: NOAA/SPC; Graph: Infogram) As we can see from the chart, catastrophic tornadoes are in a slight downward trend.

The number of tornadoes are well within the normal range, and no supertornadoes yet.
The amount of hail is running below normal, which is good.
https://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/phailgraph-big.png
What we have is a much better reporting of tornadoes and hail and the damage it causes, accompanied with the explanation “climate change” or climate emergency or words to that effect. Meanwhile, this climate observer dubbed climate science denier still goes by observations.