Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

[simple]

But it isn't man's fault the ice is melting so them critters can die just how God intended them to.

Am I doing it right?

[MultiVerse]

Sorry, but I don't equate extreme rainfall events with vague heavy precipitation trends.

Extreme rainfall events (EREs) are defined in the scientific literature as peaks-over-threshold. For example, rainfall events above the 95th percentile (top five percent). Not only does extreme precipitation appear to be increasing but the events also appear to be globally correlated across long spatial distances.

A recent paper shows a statistical connection for events above the 95th percentile between the Eurasian wave train and the Indian summer monsoon and another that propagates across the tropical Atlantic Ocean before turning northwards, towards the Caribbean and the eastern coast of North America.

"From a statistical point of view, these global-scale connections are remarkable because they are far more likely than expected from the scaling regime of the shorter connections. .... Such instances have been referred to as ‘dragon kings’, and their occurrence is typically interpreted as a switch to a different physical regime"


2019 : https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0872-x

[ron johnson]

I read SumJong's link before responding to your post and the article does in fact raise concerns over thin ice as well as ice formed late in the season:

Other dangers facing the Arctic were highlighted by Professor Julienne Stroeve, of University College London. “Consider the example of harp seals,” she said. “They often give birth on snow mounds on sea ice. But if that sea ice is thin or formed late it breaks and the seal pups are dumped into the ocean and they drown.” In addition, Stroeve pointed to the problem of increasing numbers of warm spells during which rain falls instead of snow. “That rain then freezes on the ground and forms a hard coating that prevents reindeer and caribou from finding food under the snow,” she added.

....

It is a problem of synchronicity. The alignment of different lifecycles is being disrupted by sea ice loss and it is affecting animals on both land and in the ocean.

Off topic, and more weather than climate, but touring sucks when it rains at elevation and then freezes. It's a lot sketchier especially when skinning compared with a typical overnight refreeze.

It's a far cry from any of Greta's ecosystem collapse claims. There hasn't been much trend in Arctic warming in recent years and it was just as warm in the 1930's:


There has been significantly less ice in the Arctic over much of the past 10,000 years compared to today. The polar bears, harp seals, and reindeer seemed to have survived:

[WMD]

The reason Greta affects people so much is that she is shaming us. We all react differently to that shaming by a 16 year old girl.

But,

It's real.

It's us.

It's bad.

It will get worse if we do not act.

And we all know it.

[ron johnson]

Extreme rainfall events (EREs) are defined in the scientific literature as peaks-over-threshold. For example, rainfall events above the 95th percentile (top five percent). Not only does extreme precipitation appear to be increasing but the events also appear to be globally correlated across long spatial distances.

What is heavy precipitation defined as?

A recent paper shows a statistical connection for events above the 95th percentile between the Eurasian wave train and the Indian summer monsoon and another that propagates across the tropical Atlantic Ocean before turning northwards, towards the Caribbean and the eastern coast of North America.

"From a statistical point of view, these global-scale connections are remarkable because they are far more likely than expected from the scaling regime of the shorter connections. .... Such instances have been referred to as ‘dragon kings’, and their occurrence is typically interpreted as a switch to a different physical regime"


2019 : https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0872-x

From the abstract it doesn't appear this paper is doing any analysis of trends in extreme rainfall?

[SumJongGuy]

Attachment 295442

they should get her started on the federal budget

Eat your dinner.. There's starving kids in Africa that have worse..

[MultiVerse]

There hasn't been much trend in Arctic warming in recent years and it was just as warm in the 1930's:

There has been significantly less ice in the Arctic over much of the past 10,000 years compared to today. The polar bears, harp seals, and reindeer seemed to have survived:

- In the 1930's it was warm in United States, Canada and the Arctic but globally temperatures were much cooler than average for the 20th century. It's also time to update your prior beliefs because your chart is outdated. The Arctic has been warmer for the past five years than at any other point since 1900 when records began.

-- If you read the Stein (2017) paper the arctic should be cooling over the past ~6,000 years because of the Earth's orbital cycles. Polar bears, harp seals, and reindeer aside, long-term orbital forcing means the arctic should be cooling, but it's not, which suggests current warming is unnatural and likely human caused.

[ron johnson]

Similar apocalyptic claims abounded prior to the passage of every major piece of environmental legislation enacted in the late 20th century. How'd that work out?

I'm not familiar with the claims you are referring to, but I am familiar with these environmental prediction failures: https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-...ic-predictions

[MultiVerse]

What is heavy precipitation defined as?


From the abstract it doesn't appear this paper is doing any analysis of trends in extreme rainfall?

- The extreme precipitation events in the paper are defined as 95th percentile.

-- The quoted text is from the paper itself. The paper connects increasing odds of extreme precipitation events with a "different physical regime" i.e. a changing climate. The paper is focused on how the, "characteristics of extreme events will change under ongoing climate change."

--- You can read more about the Northeast United States component here: https://www.c2es.org/content/extreme...limate-change/

[ron johnson]

- In the 1930's it was warm in United States, Canada and the Arctic but globally temperatures were much cooler than average for the 20th century. Also, time to update your prior beliefs because your chart is outdated. The Arctic has been warmer for the past five years than at any other point since 1900 when records began.

Where are you getting your figures from?

Diagram showing area weighted Arctic (70-90^oN) monthly surface air temperature anomalies (HadCRUT4) since January 2000, in relation to the WMO normal period 1961-1990. The thin blue line shows the monthly temperature anomaly, while the thicker red line shows the running 37 month (c.3 yr) average. Last month shown: July 2019. Last diagram update: 3 September 2019.

-- If you read the Stein (2017) paper the arctic should be cooling over the past ~6,000 years because of the Earth's orbital cycles. Polar bears, harp seals, and reindeer aside, long-term orbital forcing means the arctic should be cooling, but it's not which suggests current warming is unnatural and likely human caused.

This is irrelevant to our discussion of the Arctic sea ice and ecosystem relationship.

[MultiVerse]

Where are you getting your figures from?

This is irrelevant to our discussion of the Arctic sea ice and ecosystem relationship.

- NOAA's latest annual Arctic report card.

-- It's highly relevant to the larger discussion that current warming is unnatural and likely human caused.

[ron johnson]

- The extreme precipitation events in the paper are defined as 95th percentile.

I get that, but what are heavy precipitation events defined as? Or are you saying heavy is the same as extreme?

-- The quoted text is from the paper itself. The paper connects increasing odds of extreme precipitation events with a "different physical regime" i.e. a changing climate. The paper is focused on how the, "characteristics of extreme events will change under ongoing climate change."

Okay I guess, but I'm still not seeing much evidence that shows increasing trends in extreme rainfall events.

[MultiVerse]

I get that, but what are heavy precipitation events defined as? Or are you saying heavy is the same as extreme?

Okay I guess, but I'm still not seeing much evidence that shows increasing trends in extreme rainfall events.

- I'm deferring to the scientific literature which defines extreme rainfall as something like two or three standard deviations outside the mean.

-- I found extreme rainfall event papers specific for each region mentioned above and I provided a link for the Northeast United States component sourced from the National Climate Assessment (U.S. Global Change Research Program).

[ron johnson]

- NOAA's latest annual Arctic report card.

-- It's highly relevant to the larger discussion that current warming is unnatural and likely human caused.

I didn't know this was a point of contention.

[ron johnson]

- I'm deferring to the scientific literature which defines extreme rainfall as something like two or three standard deviations outside the mean.

-- I found extreme rainfall event papers specific for each region mentioned above and I provided a link for the Northeast United States component sourced from the National Climate Assessment (U.S. Global Change Research Program).

I'm failing to understand what point you are trying to make about the definition of extreme rainfall. The IPCC gives no evidence of more extreme rainfall, only some vague trends regarding whatever heavy precipitation is supposed to encompass.

Do you not realize that the point of the IPCC is to review and represent climate research as a whole? Finding a trend in NE United States, or some new paper who's focus is on revealing atmospheric teleconnection patterns and understanding their underlying mechanisms doesn't somehow trump the IPCC position. You like to accuse me of cherry picking.

You seem to think your paper shows trends in monsoon regions. The IPCC sources a number of studies that do not find trends in monsoon regions: "There is, in particular, low confidence regarding observed trends in precipitation in monsoon regions, according to the SREX report (Seneviratne et al., 2012) and AR5 (Hartmann et al., 2013), as well as more recent publications (Singh et al., 2014; Taylor et al., 2017; Bichet and Diedhiou, 2018; see Supplementary Material 3.SM.2)."

[Flounder]

I'm failing to understand

FIFY


Sent from my SM-G950U using TGR Forums mobile app

[ron johnson]

FIFY


Sent from my SM-G950U using TGR Forums mobile app

Have you gotten around to understanding why the McNeil power plant is essential to your energy system?

[basinbeater]

Ron, are you citing scientists? I thought you didn't trust scientists. Are you citing the ipcc for evidence backing your (whatever it is) argument? Because their conclusions on the matter were posted earlier in this thread. But here you go anyway.

Intergovernmental panel on climate change.

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13

“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14

sent from Utah.

[ron johnson]

Ron, are you citing scientists? I thought you didn't trust scientists. Are you citing the ipcc for evidence backing your (whatever it is) argument? Because their conclusions on the matter were posted earlier in this thread. But here you go anyway.

Intergovernmental panel on climate change.

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13

“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14

sent from Utah.

I sure am. Anytime an you have an organization promoting an agenda, that cannot find evidence supporting certain claims of that agenda (extreme weather events in this case) you can be pretty certain of its validity.

[spanghew]

I sure am. Anytime an you have an organization promoting an agenda, that cannot find evidence supporting certain claims of that agenda (extreme weather events in this case) you can be pretty certain of its validity.

Can you support your claim to being an actual human with independent thoughts not living in his mama’s garage?

[ron johnson]

Let's ignore the climate discussion for a minute. Can anyone read this article: https://www.manhattan-institute.org/...ear-impossible and tell me what is wrong with it? It's pretty clear that it is impossible for non carbon renewables to power the world. I know its a big ask to read something this lengthy that doesn't fit your viewpoint, but here area bunch of quotes:



"To completely replace hydrocarbons over the next 20 years, global renewable energy production would have to increase by at least 90-fold.[6] For context: it took a half-century for global oil and gas production to expand by 10-fold.[7] It is a fantasy to think, costs aside, that any new form of energy infrastructure could now expand nine times more than that in under half the time.

If the initial goal were more modest—say, to replace hydrocarbons only in the U.S. and only those used in electricity generation—the project would require an industrial effort greater than a World War II–level of mobilization.[8] A transition to 100% non-hydrocarbon electricity by 2050 would require a U.S. grid construction program 14-fold bigger than the grid build-out rate that has taken place over the past half-century.[9]

Then, to finish the transformation, this Promethean effort would need to be more than doubled to tackle nonelectric sectors, where 70% of U.S. hydrocarbons are consumed. And all that would affect a mere 16% of world energy use, America’s share. This daunting challenge elicits a common response: “If we can put a man on the moon, surely we can [fill in the blank with any aspirational goal].” But transforming the energy economy is not like putting a few people on the moon a few times. It is like putting all of humanity on the moon—permanently."
---
"With today’s technology, $1 million worth of utility-scale solar panels will produce about 40 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) over a 30-year operating period (Figure 2). A similar metric is true for wind: $1 million worth of a modern wind turbine produces 55 million kWh over the same 30 years.[13] Meanwhile, $1 million worth of hardware for a shale rig will produce enough natural gas over 30 years to generate over 300 million kWh.[14] That constitutes about 600% more electricity for the same capital spent on primary energy-producing hardware.[15]"
---
"It costs less than $1 a barrel to store oil or natural gas (in oil-energy equivalent terms) for a couple of months.[20] Storing coal is even cheaper. Thus, unsurprisingly, the U.S., on average, has about one to two months’ worth of national demand in storage for each kind of hydrocarbon at any given time.[21]

Meanwhile, with batteries, it costs roughly $200 to store the energy equivalent to one barrel of oil.[22] Thus, instead of months, barely two hours of national electricity demand can be stored in the combined total of all the utility-scale batteries on the grid plus all the batteries in the 1 million electric cars that exist today in America.[23]"
---
"After a total system outage in South Australia in 2018, Tesla, with much media fanfare, installed the world’s single largest lithium battery “farm” on that grid.[45] For context, to keep South Australia lit for one half-day of no wind would require 80 such “world’s biggest” Tesla battery farms, and that’s on a grid that serves just 2.5 million people."
---
"Battery storage is quite another matter. Consider Tesla, the world’s best-known battery maker: $200,000 worth of Tesla batteries, which collectively weigh over 20,000 pounds, are needed to store the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil.[49] A barrel of oil, meanwhile, weighs 300 pounds and can be stored in a $20 tank. Those are the realities of today’s lithium batteries. Even a 200% improvement in underlying battery economics and technology won’t close such a gap."
---
"So how many batteries would be needed to store, say, not two months’ but two days’ worth of the nation’s electricity? The $5 billion Tesla “Gigafactory” in Nevada is currently the world’s biggest battery manufacturing facility.[52] Its total annual production could store three minutes’ worth of annual U.S. electricity demand. Thus, in order to fabricate a quantity of batteries to store two days’ worth of U.S. electricity demand would require 1,000 years of Gigafactory production."
---
"Radically increasing battery production will dramatically affect mining, as well as the energy used to access, process, and move minerals and the energy needed for the battery fabrication process itself. About 60 pounds of batteries are needed to store the energy equivalent to that in one pound of hydrocarbons. Meanwhile, 50–100 pounds of various materials are mined, moved, and processed for one pound of battery produced.[54] Such underlying realities translate into enormous quantities of minerals—such as lithium, copper, nickel, graphite, rare earths, and cobalt—that would need to be extracted from the earth to fabricate batteries for grids and cars.[55] A battery-centric future means a world mining gigatons more materials.[56] And this says nothing about the gigatons of materials needed to fabricate wind turbines and solar arrays, too.[57]

Even without a new energy economy, the mining required to make batteries will soon dominate the production of many minerals. Lithium battery production today already accounts for about 40% and 25%, respectively, of all lithium and cobalt mining.[58] In an all-battery future, global mining would have to expand by more than 200% for copper, by at least 500% for minerals like lithium, graphite, and rare earths, and far more than that for cobalt.[59]

Then there are the hydrocarbons and electricity needed to undertake all the mining activities and to fabricate the batteries themselves. In rough terms, it requires the energy equivalent of about 100 barrels of oil to fabricate a quantity of batteries that can store a single barrel of oil-equivalent energy.[60]"

[ron johnson]

"For wind, the boundary is called the Betz Limit, which dictates how much of the kinetic energy in air a blade can capture; that limit is about 60%.[75] Capturing all the kinetic energy would mean, by definition, no air movement and thus nothing to capture. There needs to be wind for the turbine to turn. Modern turbines already exceed 45% conversion.[76] That leaves some real gains to be made but, as with combustion engines, nothing revolutionary.[77] Another 10-fold improvement is not possible."

"For silicon photovoltaic (PV) cells, the physics boundary is called the Shockley-Queisser Limit: a maximum of about 33% of incoming photons are converted into electrons. State-of-the-art commercial PVs achieve just over 26% conversion efficiency—in other words, near the boundary. While researchers keep unearthing new non-silicon options that offer tantalizing performance improvements, all have similar physics boundaries, and none is remotely close to manufacturability at all—never mind at low costs.[78] There are no 10-fold gains left.[79]"
---
"An energy revolution will come only from the pursuit of basic sciences. Or, as Bill Gates has phrased it, the challenge calls for scientific “miracles.”[98] These will emerge from basic research, not from subsidies for yesterday’s technologies. The Internet didn’t emerge from subsidizing the dial-up phone, or the transistor from subsidizing vacuum tubes, or the automobile from subsidizing railroads.

However, 95% of private-sector R&D spending and the majority of government R&D is directed at “development” and not basic research.[99] If policymakers want a revolution in energy tech, the single most important action would be to radically refocus and expand support for basic scientific research."

[WMD]

"Climate change more than doubled the odds of Houston’s most recent deluge, study finds"

Lumbering Tropical Storm Imelda dumped up to 43.39 inches of rain in Southeast Texas, between Houston and Port Arthur, on Sept. 18 and 19. At least $1 billion in damage was probably incurred, along with at least five deaths from the epic deluge, which scientists estimate had a return period of once in 1,200 years.
But the flooding wasn’t a freak occurrence in this region, having followed other heavy rains in 2016, 2017 and 2018. The biggest and most damaging event was 2017′s Hurricane Harvey, which set a national rainfall record for the heaviest rain in a tropical system, at 60.58 inches.
A new study examines Tropical Storm Imelda which, like Harvey, lingered in one general area for days on end, and any ties between the heavy rainfall totals and long-term, human-caused climate change.
A scientific consortium known as World Weather Attribution, which conducts rapid analyses of whether and how climate change played a role in extreme weather events, analyzed Imelda in a similar way to a previous analysis of Hurricane Harvey.
The Harvey study found that global warming increased the intensity of rainfall from that devastating storm by about 15 percent, while the probability of its occurrence went up by a factor of three, because of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and corresponding changes to ocean temperatures and the amount of water vapor available for storms to tap into as energy

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weath...e-study-finds/

[Bunion 2020]

Game over.

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chi...oad-initiative

The remainder of the 2nd and 3rd worlds wants the same standard of living as we in the "advanced" nations and who can blame them.

Add that much carbon production into an already teetering system and within 50 years we will have the definitive answer as to whether or not Climate Change is real and man made. Of course by that time it will be far too late.

[SkiCougar]

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitic...ries-drop-dead

"greta thurnberg to poor countries: drop dead"

>>article puts forth that for every country that has climbed from poverty to the top in recent year, i.e. China; and those climbing now, Brazil; they have done it thru fossil fuels; so Greta is telling them essentially to drop dead and stay at the bottowm of the world's poverty levels.


you know what ? as a big time evil conservative bigot and hater of anyone not white, which of course all the poor countries are; i'm down with Greta. if implementing green useless policies keeps the rest of the world down; i'm for it !


Climate change bad !