Extreme weather finally brings home the reality of climate change
This is not true. Only 250 Ma, in the late Permian, the equatorial regions of Pangaea were ariddesert.
The unfettered fatuousness and borderline incoherency displayed in these posts is so appallingly counterfactual it is difficult to read them as anything other than a poor attempt at satire, or else intentional misinformation. Setting aside the fact that the global climate circulation models and the IPCC and other reports that reference provide quantitative estimates which are evaluated for their impact upon agriculture, sea level rise, livability, et cetera, rather than just giving the qualitative result of “bad”, the feckless appeal that those concerned about climate change are sorely misinformed and need to read a textbook would appear to ignore the fact that the overwhelming consensus of meteorologists and climatologists—some of whom have literally written the textbooks referred to—is that climate change is real, demonstrable, and will have dramatic impact upon agriculure and habitibility, an opinion shared by the US Department of Defense considers climate change to be not only a major long term threat to national security and international stability but also a “present security threat” that has been integrated into the planning of all of the combatant commands. The idea that a rise in average global temperatures just means that it is consistently just a couple degrees warmer overall belies an utter lack of comprehension in climate behavior and meteorology.
As for the notion that everyone (in the continental United States) can just migrate up to Alaska as some kind of absurdly reductionaist solution to the multitude of impacts of temperature rise and attendant climate changes, Alaska is actually currently suffering the most pronounced effects of climate change including permafrost melting, coastal erosion, and habitat reduction. Notwithstanding the logistical problems of somehow migrating more than three hundred million people to Alaska, or what to do with the majority of the world’s population that lives in low laying and coastal regions directly impacted by sea level rise, the food security and other stability impacts of global climate change make any simplistic solutions and casual dismissal of such changes as something to be addressed as hoc as benighted foolishness of the most obtuse kind.
Stranger
Next couple of decades? No. That’s not accurate unless there is a radical change (somehow we set all of the coal and oil reserves on fire or something along those lines). I can’t really speak to the map itself, though it’s an older map (it does come up as the top link on Google when you ask about 4 degree increases). I know that China is already under quite a bit of stress wrt water, and the desert zone in Africa is increasing, in the US the west coast especially is under a lot of stress but that stretches into the south west and into the central part of the country. Droughts seem to be the new norm, though wrt weather at least here the prediction was for a very weak monsoon this year which doesn’t seem to be the case.
I don’t believe that the US, China, Japan etc. will be abandoned, no. In that respect I think viewing such a map is ‘scaremongering’. But I think that as global climate change increases so will the costs. This will, IMHO, hit the poorer countries the hardest, and I think this is already the case. But wealthy countries such as China will do what they are doing…they are already doing major mega projects to divert water from the west and south to the north, and I expect that to continue. There are also the possibility on a 100 year time scale of other mitigation technologies. Carbon capture or even solar shades are not outside of the realms of possibility, though of course tech solutions often are double edged swords, causing unexpected problems. Perhaps if things get dire enough we might even consider building some new nuclear fission plants. Crazy, I know, but we might…
Nah, no problem at all in the US, a 4 degrees C will only effect those metric ‘euro type’ countries, we have here only Fahrenheit here, so no problem with a temperature rise in Celsius.
Got a link?
I’ll offer the Biblical definition of “good” … the rich and powerful are obligated to protect the poor and weak … the richest billion people should be building power plants, grids and providing electric stoves to the poorest billion … so the children don’t have to spend all day every day gathering firewood to cook the families meals, they can spend their day in a school room learning to read … thus alleviating human misery …
Yeah, I know, that means it’s “evil” for the richest billion to interfere with the poorest’s ability to do this themselves … wind/hydro/solar is expense, diesel generators are off-the-shelf … only Satan would complain of carbon pollution here, as he loves to see little children physically toil all the day long in abject misery …
Sooooooooooooooo … how about you suggest a definition of “good” and “evil” … I have a lot more trust in you than you have in me … maybe you are the better person to decide this …
Ah … I think I see why this doesn’t make sense to you … energy and power are different things, related but distinctly different … it doesn’t matter how much energy we have in one place (10[sup]100[/sup] Joules), if none of it is flowing to or away we have no power (0 Watts) …
Air has friction, to have wind of constant speed, we must have energy flowing into the air parcel (power) to counteract the energy flowing out of the air parcel due to friction (power) … faster wind require more energy flow (power) and slower winds require less energy flow (power) … this is true whether the air is -10ºC (energy) or 40ºC (energy) …
With lower wind speeds then, we have lower power values … powerful weather events require more power, not more energy … hurricanes (cyclones) and droughts (anti-cyclones) occur when power is concentrated, with less power available it becomes much more difficult to concentrate the power in one place … not that it won’t happen, just the odds of it occurring will be less … less power means less powerful events …
I see Stranger on a Train is attending our discourse … perhaps he would be kind enough to explain how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is applied to Arctic Amplification to make the above assertions … I’m afraid I’ll have to ask you to trust me on a few points and I don’t think that trust from you is possible right now …
If I may, how do geologists define “sub-tropical” … the meteorological definition puts these belts in the temperature circulation cell … to merge would mean the elimination of the Hadley Cell … how would this event be recorded in the geologic record? …
… or are we just using the lack of fossils to determine this area was inhospitable? …
Please refer to Figure 2d in Exapno Mapcase’s citation … LOOK AT ALL THE RED IN EUROPE … the metric system is DANGEROUS … may God have mercy on their everlasting souls …
Same way geographers do - 23.5°-35°- which is kind of irrelevant, since we’re talking about the equatorial region here, not the subtropics.
Yes, it would, wouldn’t it … it’s pretty naive to think the atmospheric circulation is confined to neat cells either side of the equator. That’s certainly not the case with the East Asian monsoon today, and definitely wasn’t with the Pangaean megamonsoon- characterized by cross-equatorial flow. You may want to learn the word “meridional”, it’ll come up a lot in this regard.
By aeolian deposits indicating steady cross-equatorial flow inland and monsoonal flow in more coastal regions, for one thing.
No, we’re using the rocks - thick evaporites, thicker dune red sandstone beds. Lack of certain other rockforms inland away from Tethys.
Look, just what exactly is your level of knowledge of geology, palaeoclimatology or desert geomorphology, just so I know what level to pitch any further replies at.
Really, trying to pass off yet more bullshit when your credibility is already at zero is not helping you.
Projections of the effects of rapid forcing on the climate system are based on many decades of observation and a large suite of sophisticated global climate models, not on simplistic assumptions drawn from an elementary fifth-grade understanding of physics and an apparent misunderstanding of how winds and storms are affected. There is substantial evidence that Arctic amplification is slowing the winds in the jet stream, changing its flow pattern, and making it both slower and its N-S ridges wavier, which has been shown to lead to stronger storms, extreme temperatures, and precipitation extremes, all of which tend to linger much longer than normal because of the same jet stream changes that caused them.
This is, in part, the reason for the strong association between climate change and extreme weather events including stronger storms and hurricanes. Warmer SSTs are a clear factor in powering stronger hurricanes. Meanwhile there will likely be changes in surface winds as well, and while there may be modestly weaker surface winds in many areas and stronger ones in others on a day-to-day basis, this has absolutely no bearing on the formation of stronger storms, stronger wind gusts, stronger storm surges, regional heat waves, and potentially catastrophic changes in precipitation – all supported by very widely published data including some of the links I posted previously. Most parts of the world will respond to continuing unabated climate change with a much more extreme and violent climate regime – some of which we’re seeing already – and not the tranquil paradise you’re trying to paint for us, which is complete unsubstantiated bullshit.
It is clearly at the level of knowing a few words of jargon and misrepeating things he’s heard without comprehending, often entirely absent of meaningful context.
I can’t make heads or tails of the gibberish in his reasoning of why Arctic amplification would result in less powerful weather systems other than that he seems to be of the misapprehension that if the average global temperature rises and the polar ice caps decline that there will be a less of a temperature differential to drive weather systems and heat energy will somehow remain static. Setting aside the fact that the global climate is not a static equilibrium and direct cooling of the atmosphere by polar cap and sea ice is less of a driver of meteorological events than the thermohaline circulation and exchange with the surface water, the effects of reduced polar cap and sea ice have a multitude of effects including a reduction in albedo with less sunlight being reflected back into space, melting of permafrost and release of trapped greenhouse gases in frozen tundra, and the potential for release of methane clathrate reservoirs in deep ocean sediment disturbed by changes in salinity and density. A warmer atmosphere also holds more water vapor and thus has a higher heat energy content, resulting in greater momentum differences in the atmosphere between interacting flows, which is what produces and drives cyclones around low pressure centers. A quick introduction to Arctic amplification from the NOAA Nationals Snow and Ice Data Center.
A good introduction to climate dynamics and feedbacks can be found in Chapter 10 of Atmospheric Science, Second Edition: An Introductory Survey which is readily accessible to anyone with a layman’s understanding of Earth science and only a few easily skipped equations. It also has an extensive discussion (in Chapter 3) on the topic of atmospheric thermodynamics including the Clausius-Clapeyron equation and the generalized statement of the second law of thermodynamics, for those who wish to imbue themselves with knowledge on the topic.
Stranger
Knock it off.
You have stepped away from attacking the post to attacking the poster.
[ /Moderating ]
blinks
Did you just premise your argument against the consequences of climate change on there being no scientific definition of “good” and “bad”?
The worst thing for his argument is that, looking at resources, it makes more sense and good for developing countries to leapfrog and develop with technology that does not use (for example) millions of pounds of metal for telephone lines or electric lines to get communications and energy to all. (Metal that is more expensive now than when developed countries did electrify or put telephone lines all over.)
My premise is based on the Koppen Climate Classification system … the key word here is “change” … we have to define what the climate is today, then project what the climate will be in 100 years … and then see if this is an actual change …
For the southern half of the United States east of the Rockies … the average temperature of the coldest month of the year is above 0ºC and for the hottest month above 22ºC … after 100 years of global warming both these values will still be above these thresholds … thus no change in the Koppen Classification …
Is the Koppen system best?, maybe … is it any good?, hell no …
Does anyone have a better way to measure climate so we can establish what is changing?
I agree 100% … but who pays? … the American tax-payers voted into office a man who says “not us” …
It seems that you did not read the article that was linked to, as it was the case with the cites made before of Jenifer Frances regarding the reality that while some wind circulation cells are slowing down in a warming world, others are increasing in speed, and also in places where the speed slows down it leads to weather patters that stick in place, making things like hurricanes to become worse.
Are you seriously saying that just because the arbitrary, very, very granular Köppen classification of a place doesn’t change, that means the *climate *there hasn’t changed? That would be a laughable statement if it wasn’t so completely unbelievable that anyone would suggest it, so I’m assuming you actually meant something else. Care to elaborate?
Right. And I think it’s important to note these two additional points, to underscore how incredibly wrong watchwolf49 is on this matter:
[ul]
[li]Francis’ research indicates a slowing of the high-altitude jet stream, not surface winds, which not only makes extreme weather hang around longer, but the changing shape and dynamics of the jet stream actually encourages the formation of extreme weather.[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]Research that suggests surface winds may be slower in many regions (and stronger in others) refers to average daily winds. It is fully consistent with also – at the same time – having a higher probability of stronger storms and extreme weather events like droughts, wildfires, and floods.[/li][/ul]
[quote=“watchwolf49, post:27, topic:819484”]
Got a link?
I read it again … but it doesn’t answer the question of who pays for a billion people to have electric stoves to cook their meals on so they don’t have to burn wood? … light bulb = 20 W … large burner on high = 2,500 W …
But I’m glad I read the article again … i glanced over the part about refrigeration, this would be even more beneficial AND I think that comes in low wattage species …
As far as Jenifer Frances:
I don’t know the woman personally, if she’s written something you want me to read, please provide a link … it’s an overnight trip to visit a library that would have anything remotely close to this material …
Um… Okay, before you change the topic to the next (rather silly, as others have pointed out) argument, can you please address this one? I’d rather you didn’t freely shift the goalposts without acknowledging that what you said before was nonsense. It helps us keep track of how the argument as a whole is going.
Can you, or can you not, determine whether the consequences of global warming are “bad” or “good”?
This is nonsense. Our output for “the effects of climate change” are not “does the climate fit into these arbitrary buckets”, it’s things like overall sea level rise, temperature records, snowfalls, glacial melt… All things that tell us more about our climate than these 10 granular buckets ever could. If there is no change in the Koppen Classification, but the coast is 5 miles inland, has there been no climate change? If there is no change in the Koppen Classification, but now it’s so hot that people are dying of heatstroke when before summer was fairly tolerable, does that mean the climate is the same as before?
“Climate” is a fuzzy word with a lot of meaning attached. How about we measure things that actually matter? Like average global temperatures? Or average local temperatures? Or sea level rise? Or average ocean temperatures? Or hurricane wind speeds over time? All of these things matter. These are all metrics that clearly matter. “Subtropic or tropic” says very little and doesn’t matter.