There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[ScottishJohn 25]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

“Higher temps cause droughts.  Basic earth science” BillV

For every 1°F increase in temperature, the atmosphere can hold around 4 percent more water vapor, which leads to heavier rain and increases the risk of flooding of rivers and streams. 

There are lots of stuff on google about this topic.

 

No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/24/scientific-consensus-on-humans-causing-global-warming-passes-99

 

Edited July 29, 2019 by ScottishJohn

[brenthutch 388]

1 hour ago, ScottishJohn said:

For every 1°F increase in temperature, the atmosphere can hold around 4 percent more water vapor, which leads to heavier rain and increases the risk of flooding of rivers and streams. 

 

How do you explain below average temperature in the US = record low drought?

[billvon 2,419]

6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

How do you explain below average temperature in the US = record low drought?

Think about it.

(Hint - does going to 12,500 always give you the same freefall time?)

[ScottishJohn 25]

9 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

How do you explain below average temperature in the US = record low drought?

What the fuck is a low drought ?  I doubt this is WMO term.

Are you talking about below average rainfall , average rainfall or above average rainfall. 

[brenthutch 388]

4 minutes ago, ScottishJohn said:

What the fuck is a low drought ?  I doubt this is WMO term.

 

The area of a country under drought conditions 

http://mentalfloss.com/article/500485/most-us-experiencing-record-low-drought-levels

[brenthutch 388]

9 minutes ago, billvon said:

Think about it.

(Hint - does going to 12,500 always give you the same freefall time?)

Body position?

[billvon 2,419]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Body position?

Nope.  We're assuming similar skydives here.

Specifically, do you get the same freefall time from 12,500 at the Ranch vs Lost Prairie?  If not, why not?

[DJL 232]

And today's news regarding the Global Warming that stopped 20 years ago:

The Greenland ice sheet is in the throes of one of its greatest melting events ever recorded

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/07/31/greenland-ice-sheet-is-throes-one-its-greatest-melting-events-ever-recorded/?utm_term=.8b7cce032c98

 

Out of curiosity, what's the opposition stance about this?  That they don't like it that liberals are the one's trying to do something about it?

 

[billvon 2,419]

Looks like BH bowed out of this one. 

To return to the topic he was asking about, higher temperature = higher ability of air to carry water.  (That's where dew point comes from.)  So as the planet warms there will be more water in the air, which is a problem right away because water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas there is.  That's one of those positive feedback effects that the IPCC has to deal with with in their models. 

However that does NOT always equal more rain.  For low altitude rain, the important number is temperature _differential._  In other words, if average temperature ranges go from 50F-80F to 55F-85F you will, on average, not see more precipitation.  The difference in dew points will be similar, so rainfalls will be similar.

However, for HIGH altitude storms (i.e. big ones) it's a different story.  AGW results in a warmer troposphere (due to more retained heat) and a colder stratosphere (because the heat is retained at the surface by the addition of CO2.)  This means you start with more water, and have a larger differential from the top of the storm to the bottom.  This means more water comes out of it.

So will you get more rain in a given storm?  Depends on the storm.  On average, you'll get more rain out of really large ones (specifically ones that extend past about 30,000 feet.)

And of course this doesn't answer the question about drought.  If you have exactly the same rainfall in an area, but increase the temperature, you will see more drought on average, both due to faster evaporation of surface water and less water stored as snow and ice.

[DJL 232]

15 hours ago, billvon said:

Looks like BH bowed out of this one. 

The Troll was thoroughly fed, but he'll be back having forgotten all that came before and with new and different reasons why he won't accept his own previously stated goalposts and metrics.

[kallend 1,635]

(CNN)July 2019 has replaced July 2016 as the hottest month on record, with meteorologists saying that global temperatures marginally exceeded the previous record.

The European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Programme, which analyzes temperature data from around the planet, said that July was around 0.56 °C warmer than the global average temperature between 1981-2010.

That's slightly hotter than July 2016, when the world was in the throes of one of the strongest El Niño events on record.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/05/world/hottest-july-on-record-climate-sci-intl/index.html

[DJL 232]

42 minutes ago, kallend said:

(CNN)July 2019 has replaced July 2016 as the hottest month on record, with meteorologists saying that global temperatures marginally exceeded the previous record.

The European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Programme, which analyzes temperature data from around the planet, said that July was around 0.56 °C warmer than the global average temperature between 1981-2010.

That's slightly hotter than July 2016, when the world was in the throes of one of the strongest El Niño events on record.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/05/world/hottest-july-on-record-climate-sci-intl/index.html

To highlight an element of that article and what John is pointing out is that it took a record El Nino event to create that previous high.  While there may be other weather patterns contributing to the issue, this is the new normal.

[billvon 2,419]

39 minutes ago, DJL said:

To highlight an element of that article and what John is pointing out is that it took a record El Nino event to create that previous high.  While there may be other weather patterns contributing to the issue, this is the new normal.

Without El Ninos, how would deniers claim "it hasn't gotten any warmer in THREE YEARS!  There's only one problem with global warming - it ended in 2016!"  ?

[DJL 232]

2 minutes ago, billvon said:

Without El Ninos, how would deniers claim "it hasn't gotten any warmer in THREE YEARS!  There's only one problem with global warming - it ended in 2016!"  ?

Yup.   So to continue for our fellow readers, the next "record el nino event" will stand on the shoulders of this new normal.

[brenthutch 388]

On 7/31/2019 at 5:41 PM, billvon said:

Looks like BH bowed out of this one. 

Not quite yet brother, I am very concerned about the historically high Greenland ice melt.  I have rented a beachfront house for next week.  I am terribly concerned if it will still be there, after all we are talking about imminent catastrophe.  I understand that it is easy for me to poo poo the imminent threat of catastrophic man made global warming when I am nestled comfortably up here in Happy Valley, it is another thing entirely when I have a five figure investment on the line.  You may have a convert in two weeks.....yet again you may not

[billvon 2,419]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Not quite yet brother, I am very concerned about the historically high Greenland ice melt.  I have rented a beachfront house for next week.  I am terribly concerned if it will still be there, after all we are talking about imminent catastrophe.  I understand that it is easy for me to poo poo the imminent threat of catastrophic man made global warming when I am nestled comfortably up here in Happy Valley, it is another thing entirely when I have a five figure investment on the line.  You may have a convert in two weeks.....yet again you may not

I guess as long as you got yours, all is well.

[DJL 232]

12 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Not quite yet brother, I am very concerned about the historically high Greenland ice melt.  I have rented a beachfront house for next week.  I am terribly concerned if it will still be there, after all we are talking about imminent catastrophe.  I understand that it is easy for me to poo poo the imminent threat of catastrophic man made global warming when I am nestled comfortably up here in Happy Valley, it is another thing entirely when I have a five figure investment on the line.  You may have a convert in two weeks.....yet again you may not

In the meantime, while you're on vacation you can impress everyone with your understanding of sea level rise since 1950, how and why it affects the local area and how the state is spending $2 Billion on mitigation.

https://sealevelrise.org/states/north-carolina/

Or hey, look!  If you have any issues you can just have them drive your house away! (Gee, wonder why they're doing that?)

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/special-features/2014/07/140725-outer-banks-north-carolina-sea-level-rise-climate/

 

[brenthutch 388]

1 hour ago, DJL said:

In the meantime, while you're on vacation you can impress everyone with your understanding of sea level rise since 1750

 

FIFY

[DJL 232]

7 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

FIFY  - 1750

Sure, that too.  So, what's the location?  A two week look ahead makes your plans pretty safe but anyone who is actually from that area doesn't brag about whether their house will be there before vs after hurricane season.  And what's your point anyway, that if a hurricane doesn't hit then global warming doesn't exist?  Is that what you're resorting to?

[brenthutch 388]

26 minutes ago, DJL said:

Sure, that too.  So, what's the location?  A two week look ahead makes your plans pretty safe but anyone who is actually from that area doesn't brag about whether their house will be there before vs after hurricane season.  And what's your point anyway, that if a hurricane doesn't hit then global warming doesn't exist?  Is that what you're resorting to?

Funny you mentioned hurricanes.  According to some we just had THE HOTTEST MONTH IN HISTORY!!!! Yet hurricane related losses = $0.  Things that make you go hmmm.

[billvon 2,419]

5 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Funny you mentioned hurricanes.  According to some we just had THE HOTTEST MONTH IN HISTORY!!!! Yet hurricane related losses = $0.  Things that make you go hmmm.

I'm going to save this post.

[DJL 232]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

Funny you mentioned hurricanes.  According to some we just had THE HOTTEST MONTH IN HISTORY!!!! Yet hurricane related losses = $0.  Things that make you go hmmm.

Funny you mention THE HOTTEST MONTH IN HISTORY because previously that's what you said needed to happen in order for the predictions of global warming to be accurate.  Things that make you go hmmm.

[brenthutch 388]

3 minutes ago, DJL said:

Funny you mention THE HOTTEST MONTH IN HISTORY because previously that's what you said needed to happen in order for the predictions of global warming to be accurate.  Things that make you go hmmm.

That’s the point.  If AGW predictions were accurate we would be sailing the North West Passage impeded only by the carcasses of dead polar bears, the Midwest would be a dust bowl and Florida would be underwater.  To paraphrase Richard Feynman, “it doesn’t matter how smart you are or how beautiful your theory is (or if 97% of climate scientists agree).  If it doesn’t agree with observation IT IS WRONG”

(going to Wilmington BTW)

[billvon 2,419]

23 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

That’s the point.  If AGW predictions were accurate we would be sailing the North West Passage impeded only by the carcasses of dead polar bears, the Midwest would be a dust bowl and Florida would be underwater.  To paraphrase Richard Feynman, “it doesn’t matter how smart you are or how beautiful your theory is (or if 97% of climate scientists agree).  If it doesn’t agree with observation IT IS WRONG”

Actual IPCC predictions:

14 inches of sea level rise by 2060.  Average elevation of Florida - 72 inches.  So the IPCC does not predict that Florida "will be underwater."  It does predict threats to coastal areas.  Reality - Florida has lost over $1 billion in coastal property over the last 20 years.  AGW theory IS RIGHT.

With 1.5C of warming, an ice-free North Pole 1 out of every 100 years during the summer.  With 2C of warming, an ice-free North Pole 1 out of every 10 years during the summer.  So far we've seen .94C of warming, and we have come close to (but have not hit) an ice free summer.  AGW theory IS RIGHT.

Etc etc.

To paraphrase RIchard Feynmann, "it doesn't matter how much you hate a theory, or how much it goes against your political agenda.  If observations match predictions,  IT IS CONFIRMED."

[brenthutch 388]

There are a lot more folks making predictions other than the IPCC.  I really don’t care what a bunch of U.N. bureaucrats have to say.  I am more concerned about who policy makers listen to, like James Hansen, Michael Mann and the New York Times.  

(BTW, theories are no more confirmed than the accused are found innocent)