OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress.

formatting link

talks about the factors that limit spectacular downpours, and how a warmer atmosphere isn't going to limit them as strongly as it does now.

We've already had had statistics on the increased frequency of extreme weather with the global warming we've had so far, and this paper does suggest that it's going to get worse.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman
Loading thread data ...

A few years ago they were talking about how more CO2 would lead to more droughts and a drier atmosphere.

formatting link

formatting link

Now others say it will be wetter. Great predictive ability, sounds more like any weather that happens confirms their bias. If you expect to see fairies in the garden then you WILL see fairies in the garden!

John

CO2 warming Skeptic. Inverse log rules that the CO2 warming effect gets weaker as the concentration increases - do the math.

The global climate is always changing - just ask the Mayans!

Reply to
John Robertson

Actually it is talking about the effects that create specific desert areas, and how global warming will make these effects more dramatic in the specific areas affected by them.

" The general view is that areas which are currently wet will become wetter; areas that are currently dry will become drier."

If you don't read what you cite, you can look remarkably stupid.

The fact that you took a superficial look at what has been posted, and found that it confirmed your - false - expectations does provide an unfortunate example of this human weakness.

Nobody is arguing otherwise. Unfortunately, they don't get weaker fast enough that the extra warming doesn't happen or is negligibly small.

Sure, but it doesn't usually change as fast as it is changing at the moment.

The last time it came remotely close was some 55 millions ago

formatting link

It looks as if there was a massive release of methane - a greenhouse gas - as documented by a drop in the C-13 isotope ratio in the carbon laid down around then. Where the methane came from is a subject of debate.

Once the methane hit the atmosphere it oxidised to CO2 and water - the half-life of a methane molecule in the atmosphere is about seven years - so that episode of global warming may be a reasonable model of how ours will play out.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

Why would anyone think it strange to see a fairy in Slowman's garden?

Reply to
krw

lol you didn't even read the article

I anxiously await the publication of this exciting discovery!

Reply to
bitrex

Heck, even the sign is uncertain.

We're having a crazy wet year so far in California, contrary to past predictions of enduring drought. The snowpack in the Sierras is 170% of normal, and the ski areas are reporting base in feet. But the long-term precipitation record, from about 1880, has no obvious trend.

formatting link

What's amazing here is that, after a week of rain, and predictions of lots more, about a quarter of the people walking around in San Francisco have no rain gear, no hats, no umbrellas. They walk in the cold rain and get soaked.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

I still think he would do better looking at the antarctic ice. It has been discovered and proved why it is disappearing - the proof is very recent. The ice is melting from the bottom up - the sea temperature has risen.

--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Reply to
David Eather

Maybe they aren't afraid of the water? I can't remember the last time I wore rain gear, a hat or an umbrella in the shower!

Come to think of it, I don't *own* any of those things -- despite taking my daily neighborhood walks regardless of the weather!

(I will, however, insist on removing eyeglasses as there's little worse than trying to see out of WET glasses!)

Reply to
Don Y

Eighth floor apartments don't have gardens ... seeing a non-existent fairy in a non-existent garden would be what you'd expect of krw.

In fact John Robertson cited two articles that explicitly contradicted what he wanted to say, so the fairies were in the bottom of his garden, not mine, but krw wouldn't have been able to see that.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

There's nothing new or exciting about it. I think it is dealt with on American Institute of Physics web-site

formatting link

The fact that it doesn't mean what John Robertson would like it mean comes as no surprise.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

I've always refrained from forming strong opinions about AGW, simply because I don't know enough about it.

FWIW, so far, we've been having the driest winter in recent times here, and one of the mildest weathers over the past 12 months. According to my own irregular measurements, the temperature in my

degrees. (The official figures, as usual, are more extreme because the sensors are placed at the airport which is 30km outside and 2000ft lower than the city).

Reply to
Pimpom

Only to somebody who has as thoroughly suckered by denialist propaganda as John Larkin.

It's weather, not climate. John Larkin can't tell the difference.

You'd have to take out the short term noise before you could see any long term trend. Michael Mann worked out a way of doing that, but the denialists complained it wasn't giving the results they wanted.

Maybe they just like being wet, after all those years of drought.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

Local measurements don't say all that much about global warming, for fairly obvious reasons.

formatting link

If you been living in North America or Europe while that was going on, you would have taken some persuasion before you could believe that the ice age that had prevailed for the previous 100,000 years was ending and that the g lobal climate was switching to an interglacial.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

The validity of my reasoning to black-list John Robertson has been confirmed >:-} ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

Don't feel bad; nobody does.

We are having an epic wet, warmish winter. We have floods, mudslides, reservoirs overflowing, a fresh foot or two of snow in the mountains on a good day.

formatting link

We had a gigantic rainfall Thursday night. Our business has a flat roof and the water drains into the city sewer system, except when it doesn't. Something clogged, and the ground floor flooded. Luckily, it was all nice clean rain water. The giant pick-and-place machine was sitting in the middle of a small lake.

The old classic Bridgeport mill looked like it was walking on water.

I used to live in New Orleans, where the temperature and humidity would both hit the high 90's. When I achieved the Age Of Reason (32, in my case) I moved to California.

Temp sensors at airports tend to report more extreme numbers than nearby ones. Runways (and airplanes!) make it hot in the daytime, and the big bare expanses make for lots of radiation cooling at night.

formatting link

That outlier -2F is at the airport, in a big flat meadow.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

John Larkin is happy to ignore all the climate scientists that know a great more than he does, and - in absolute terms - quite a lot.

John Larkin can't get the idea that weather isn't climate. Climate may be t he long term average of weather, but it is averaged over some years.

Things like the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation mean that it's really mor e like some decades. John Larkin doesn't even understand short term stuff l ike El Nino, and for quite a while claimed that because temperatures hadn't got as hot as they had in the 1997-8 El Nino - one of the most intense on record - global warming had stopped in its tracks.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

Leave the wrench on the head nut when you turn it on, and it really will walk. ;)

A modelmaker I knew at IBM did that once, and was known round the shop as "Igor Sikorsky" ever after.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Reply to
pcdhobbs

Flying cars are scary enough. Flying milling machines are a really bad idea.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

Yes, I have to agree my example did not seem to support my position. Happens to all of us.

Ah, yes, we humans make errors, unlike computer models(?).

How do you warmists explain the temperature rise since the end of the Little Ice Age? I'm seeing some recent claims that the industrial revolution is being blamed for the temperature rise since then, but really, isn't that a bit farcical?

Really? You think that the world has run on an even keel since time immemorial and only now are we seeing large changes? How do you explain the Little Ice Age then? Perhaps it was caused by the Black Death wiping out too many Europeans and thus the temperatures fell? How do you explain the temperature rise in the early 1900s, same slope as the late

1900s, and then it pretty much leveled off, yet CO2 is continuing to pour into the atmosphere at unprecedented rates.

That doesn't explain the massive sea level falls and rises since the last ice age went into hiatus. We aren't finished with ice ages, you know...warmth (up to a point, let us define that point) is always preferred over cold.

So, now Wikipedia is the bible of climate change theory?

Check out a glacier in Alaska that are uncovering forests that existed about 1000 years ago. How can you explain forests getting covered by glaciers round about the time of the end of the Medieval Warm Period?

We both can find 'evidence' to support our suppositions, but neither of us are climate scientists (and they only seem to work from models that never match reality), just well meaning amateurs. I don't see the point of keeping the developing world from using energy to gain a decent standard of living and perhaps you do.

John

Reply to
John Robertson

te:

armer atmosphere isn't going to limit them as strongly as it does now.

e weather with the global warming we've had so far, and this paper does sug gest that it's going to get worse.

e

eas, and how global warming will make these effects more dramatic in the sp ecific areas affected by them.

tter; areas that are currently dry will become drier."

e

And we get jeered at when it happens.

in the garden!

found that it confirmed your - false - expectations does provide an unfortu nate example of this human weakness.

Computer models don't make errors, they incorporate errors. The real error lies in not appreciating what these errors are and how the people who use t he models cope with them.

s

enough that the extra warming doesn't happen or is negligibly small.

The Little Ice Age was an essentially Atlantic-centred local effect, rather like the Younger Dryas (if a lot less dramatic). Globally speaking, there' s not a lot to explain.

Why?

ment.

Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which works like the El Nino/La Nine osc illation, but slower. Calling it an oscillation tends to make people think that it is regular which it isn't.

We'll need a lot more data on deep ocean currents from the Argo buoys befor e we get a good handle on what's going on.

The global temperature signal is noisy, but the rising CO2 level in the atm osphere is imposing a fairly obvious long term trend.

Atmospheric CO2 levels went up from 180ppm to 270ppm at the start of the cu rrent interglacial, and stayed that way to the start of the industrial revo lution - about 1750.

When Keeling started measuring atmospheric CO2 in 1958, it was up to 315ppm , 16% above the interglacial norm. People started believing in anthropogeni c global warming around 1990, when it had got up to about 350ppm, about 30% up, when the rise in global average temperature started showing above the noise on the temperature signal. It's now up to 400ppm, 50% higher than th e interglacial norm.

formatting link

We probably are finished with ice ages for a while. It would be hard to get back to an ice age from 400ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. One of the bonuses o f the current attention to climate science is that we now know the tiny Mil ankovitch effect triggered the switch between ice ages

Nobody claims that it has been dictated by God, so no. Wikipedia does aim t o put together reliable digests of what is known, but they also like to be as non-controversial as possible.

formatting link

is more aimed at detailing what has gone on, and has less of an obligation to keep denialists propagandists happy.

My own knowledge is more broadly based.

I don't have to explain regional variations when I'm talking about global w arming.

s - as documented by a drop in the C-13 isotope ratio in the carbon laid do wn around then. Where the methane came from is a subject of debate.

half-life of a methane molecule in the atmosphere is about seven years - so that episode of global warming may be a reasonable model of how ours will play out.

I don't get paid for my efforts, but I do know a lot more about the subject than you and John Larkin. Julia Slingo - who works for the UK Met office - has a climate model that fits the last thousand years of Chinese monsoon d ata, which is a pretty good fit to reality. Getting that model to replicate the Madden-Julian oscillation is trickier, but they seem to be making prog ress.

formatting link
MJO%3E2.0.CO%3B2

There's nothing stopping the developing world from using renewable energy t o get a decent standard of living. There's quite a strong argument against burning even more fossil carbon as fuel to generate energy.

Even if you can't be bothered to do the reading that explains how and why b urning more fossil carbon is a bad idea, you need to think about the fact t hat there's only a finite amount of fossil carbon to be extracted, and that we've already extracted all the stuff that's easy to extract. There's plen ty of harder to extract stuff out there, but extracting it is getting progr essively more expensive, Renewable energy - solar and wind - is now no more expensive per kilowatt hour than energy generated by burning fossil carbon , and if we ramp the manufacturing volume by another factor of ten we'll ha lve the price again - it's already happened a couple of times.

Developing countries love wind and solar generation because they are distri buted. You don't have to build a power grid to distribute power from a few huge central generating plants to get the local advantages of electric pow er. It's still a good idea to build a power grid, but it is cheaper if it i s decentralised.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.