This post, for starters, provides a link to a pertinent paper by Jennifer Francis, another link to a short summary of it, a link to an extensive IPCC assessment of climate change impacts, and another link to a summary chart. If you want links, you’ve got links, but my guess is that you didn’t read any of it.
The question really is if you will acknowledge that there was a lot of ignorance in your previous replies. Your reply showed that you ignored that** I did point out who was paying**. As for cooking meals you are still implying that it is more evil to “prevent” (No one is really doing that) poor people from the developing countries from cooking by burning wood, but then it follows that such logic then considers that is “good” then to have several of them die of lung diseases with all that smoke first and later having to endure other bad issues because of the changing climate thanks to that smoke too.
But as it turns out, yours is a fallacy that excludes a big middle: Current efforts are geared to offer very low emission cooking burners and also electrical ones that need very little energy.
What **Wolfpup *said, but here I have to add that it is noticeable that you ignore what she is a Professor at Rutgers University. And it has to be pointed out that **I linked to her work before on a previous reply to you. **
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20294473&postcount=21
- [sub]Jennifer Francis earned a B.S. in Meteorology from San Jose State University in 1988 and a PhD in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Washington in 1994. As a professor at Rutgers University since 1994, she taught courses in satellite remote sensing and climate-change issues, and also co-founded and co-directed the Rutgers Climate and Environmental Change Initiative
[/sub]
Ah … I didn’t realize we were giving YouTube the same scientific credibility as Geophysical Research Letters … I found the paper late last night on the Not-so-Deep Web … “Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid‐latitudes” – Geophysical Research Letters – Mar 28th, 2012 …
This paper does not substantiate the “hurricane” claim, the tropics aren’t mentioned … nor this “slower winds causes faster winds” claim, not a word to this effect … neither do the videos except that she emphasizes she’s researching polar areas, not tropical …
This seems to be the statement that’s got everyone’s knickers in a knot … but she fails to state how much … y’all are free to say 10,000%, I’m free to say 0.01% … in the video interview she repeated states that “nice” weather will also be prolonged … perhaps in her next paper she can elaborate on this point …
She confirmed my first impression of her paper in the video interview {7’35"} … this is ground breaking research, there’s more we don’t know about the jet stream than we do … I’m pleased she has taken this on and getting top quality information published …
No smoking gun … not yet … I can see why she put this statement in the paper … she may well be on the right track nailing specific dynamic events to AGW … y’all should be excited about this …
=====
“Slower winds/faster winds” … did you just make that up or do you have another citation? … that’s why I wanted to read the actual paper … slower polar jet stream is exactly what I claim above about less average power in the atmosphere … faster zonal winds anywhere else doesn’t conserve energy … and this is your claim, not hers …
You deserve more time from me answering your solar-power-for-Africa part of your post than I can give right now … please be patient …
Nice straw man, because the extreme events we were talking about there were about droughts and snow storms becoming more intense. Not hurricanes indeed. And it is clear that: yes you already did met Professor Francis before, and the medium where she shows the evidence is not as important as finding out that you do think that scientists using video are automatically disqualified from explaining what is going on.
And we should remember that one previous contrarian claimed that research from Cohen and Francis supported the idea that there was no global warming, when it was and she and the vast majority of researchers continue to see the warming that is changing the system they are looking at.
[snip]
For the first video I remembered what she mentioned: that slowing the jet stream does lead to the meanders between the zones to slow down, but fast winds are still present inside those meanders.
Jennifer Francis - Understanding the JetstreamNow the thing to notice here is that the winds inside the envelope of the slow moving meander, as shown in the animation based on real data, can indeed be as fast as if the jet stream was not meandering around.
Ahem watchwolf49, when you have a sec…?
Good to see you admit that your previous pronouncements were bullshit – I refer to unmitigated bullshit like this:
Global warming won’t cause bad things to happen
so weather will be more moderated in a warmer world
[The IPCC SREX] report finds it is virtually certain [99-100% probability] that the frequency and magnitude of extreme high temperatures will increase, with warm spells, including heat waves, very likely [>90% probability] increasing in length, frequency, and/or intensity over most land areas. And it is not just temperature extremes that will change. Heavy precipitation events will likely [>66% probability] increase in frequency, climate projections imply possible changes in floods, and there is medium confidence that droughts will intensify in some seasons and areas.
[The IPCC report] says there is at least a two-in-three probability that weather extremes have already worsened because of man-made greenhouse gases.
Bullshit, that’s not what you claimed. What you claimed was this: a reduction of winds means a reduction of power, so it is less likely for powerful events to occur, like longer drier droughts or hypercanes … so weather will be more moderated in a warmer world … less crop failures, less flooding, less human misery.
Also, “power in the atmosphere” – from your quoted pontification – is scientifically incoherent; the global atmosphere doesn’t “contain” power, it contains energy, which is why we speak of the earth’s energy budget and how greenhouse gases affect the balance of incoming and outgoing energy. Higher levels of energy generally tend to increase the power of dynamic climate processes like turbulent heat flux between the surface and the atmosphere, processes like convection, circulation, and latent heat flux which affects evaporation and rainfall.
Arctic amplification is anomalous because it reduces temperature differentials between polar and more temperate regions, so its effect is to spread out and slow down the jet stream while other factors drive stronger storms and long-term precipitation changes. Hence the pretty much unanimous projections of stronger storms and more extreme weather, and the fact that we’re already seeing it.
Since watchwolf49 doesn’t seem inclined to respond, allow me to suggest that I think we know the answer. 
There’s a good assessment here.
Granted … but you choose to participate in a dog-pile, you should expect to get gouged for something you didn’t post …
Except:
Emphasis mine
[Hand wave] … still makes mine a strawman argument and I do apologize …
HOWEVER:
Nah … neither the paper nor the two videos support this claim you’re making … nowhere does she say other circulation cell winds are increasing in speed, we can’t have more energy being delivered to the poles and have the poles be receiving less energy at the same time … conservation of energy and all … those that can explain this to you, won’t, who wants to get dog-piled on? …
Yes, winds in the polar jet stream are fast … but Dr. Francis repeated states these winds are slowing down … contrary to what you seem to think she is saying …
I think we’ve gone as far in this line of our discussion as we need to … Mr Dibble has asked for the dance so I promise to dance next with you when the band plays “Solar for Africa” … these links you’re providing are very interesting and I’d like to learn more …
Hard to reply when at the same time there is a lot of nonsensical statements. I have to grant that that bit of the cells is not in the video, however I do remember seeing a source where it explained that while the circulation winds are slowing down the next cell closer to the equator was likely to increase in speed, again because of that conservation of energy. Will look around, but I can let that one go.
Read it again, I’m not saying that the winds are not slowing down, only that since the meanders do slow down that does not mean that the winds inside of them will comply with your wishes. Strong wind and precipitation in an area it gets “stuck” will cause more damage than a storm with slightly faster winds and precipitation that does not linger.
And that is the key anyhow, to learn more. After all, a lot of the evil that many think that they see on people that slow progress is in reality ignorance, not evil. (Again, it is actually good to seek better air quality for poor people, to see developing countries depending less on resources from the outside, and preventing more damage in the future with less global warming)
Quarter billion years for your “gotcha” … you’re welcome to it …
Irrelevant in geology, how long does it take for a rock to move from the equator to 23.5º? … it takes about a week for air to move this far …
When you posted this I checked, and the convergence zone was swung up north across the Sahara, thus pulling the Hadley Cell along with it … so meridional flow across the geographic equator is quite common … as we have Rossby waves along the polar convergence zone, so also we have tropical waves along the tropical convergence zone …
This actually answers my question, and thank you for this … I don’t think me winding through Wikipedia for the rest of what you posted will change my concession of this point …
My questions to you geologic are sincere, I honestly do not know … rocks to my east last about an hour in a rock tumbler, rocks to the west about two … they’re just mush afterwards … so please use small words …
From what direction do these aeolian deposits record the wind … is it strictly north/south (meridional), or is there and east/west component (zonal)? …
My apologies for not making myself clear … “Is it any good?”, this is not a rhetorical question, it should be the first question everybody asks … “hell, no”, this mean I don’t think it’s any good in this context, thus I’ve asked for how we measure climate that demonstrates that it is changing …
Ahem MrDibble, when you have a sec…?
You now have my undivided attention … except for the attention my 4" paint brush demands …
=====
The convective transfer of energy is when we give a molecule some energy, then move the molecule to some place else and release the energy … thus in convective circulation we’re required to intermix the molecules at the convergence/divergence boundaries so that the molecules can continue the journey from the equator to the poles … molecules with more energy are driven across these boundaries to places with less energy, molecules with less energy are driven across these boundaries to where energy is in surplus … 2nd Law and all …
Ahem watchwolf49, when you have a sec…? Perhaps you should consider that before anyone feels obliged to waste more time on your latest pontifications, you might want to address post #46 which establishes essentially that you’ve been wrong about everything so far in this thread. Thanks.
No, I believe my “gotcha” is at least 1.75 billion years, since that’s the most charitable difference between your “billions of years now” and the truth.
What the fuck does that have to do with, well, anything?
We were discussing the equator, and the supposed lack of deserts there. What’s happening at some other arb line is completely irrelevant, now or in the Permian.
I’ve heard of moving the goalposts, but 2608 km is a new record.
That’s irrelevant to either of the monsoon circulations I mentioned, which don’t have anything to do with the Sahara.
And it sounds like you only *just *learned the ITCZ shifts during the year. Please, do tell us more about climate…[insert Gene Wilder Wonka meme here]
Read my cites.
I’m sorry, was there a question for me in there somewhere? One that wasn’t already addressed by other posts in this thread, I mean? And one that a brief perusal of the IPCC reports wouldn’t render unnecessary would be good, too.
And dude, I love parentheses *much *more than is healthy, and even *I *would prefer you type more legibly.
How do we measure climate that demonstrates that it is changing? …
I have others on my dance card, I’m sorry you don’t like the song the band is playing {YouTube 31’35"}, perhaps later we can try again …
I have you down right after GIGO … [shivers] … I feel like the Homecoming Queen at the Homecoming Dance …
http://www.npolar.no/en/themes/climate/climate-change/climate-change-measuring.html
Bob Weir speaks on Climate Change and our Future at Social Good Summit 2017
- Bob Weir - American musician and songwriter best known as a founding member of the rock band Grateful Dead.
Like so:
and others.
Right?
I don’t particularly care if the city I’m in is classified as “tropic” or “sub-tropic”. That’s a label that doesn’t actually mean anything to me because of how vague and fuzzy it is. What I care about is whether I can survive without air conditioning, or whether I’m going to die of heatstroke if I try. What I care about is whether or not the beachfront property I own is going to be “beachfront” or “underwater” in a few decades. What I care about is whether a mosquito bite is a temporary annoyance or a potentially lethal threat.
These are all fairly easily measured. These are all things we can predict. These are all real metrics. And they’re all tied to global warming.
watchwolf49, do you care about any of these things? If so, why would you even bring up those “climate categories” that nobody involved in climatology actually cares about?
I’d like to start this conversation with you agreeing to a stipulation … the 2006 article speaks to “hundreds of people”, in 2012 we have “thousands of people” and the 2017 article has “10’s of thousands of people” … so it seems to me it’s fair to assess these programs talked about in these articles as affecting 100’s of thousands of people … maybe not today but in rather short order this will be true …
These are still tiny tiny numbers compared to the problem at hand …
1] The New Yorker touches upon my biggest concern … we’re bringing financial resources to address this problem in places that are effectively un-moneyed … no paying jobs, no grocery stores, no shopping malls … these are sustenance farmers who can only eat the food they themselves can grow and they have to make any tools they need with the materials at hand … for somebody cutting firewood with a stone axe, those steel supports for the solar panels look awful inviting …
Although the novel was fiction, the symbolism rings true … the entire village had to pool their money to buy a single car, which is parked 7 miles away along the closest road … there are utility poles every hundred feet along the footpath, without wire, as no matter how much can be strung during the day, it’s all torn down and scrapped at night … this is juxtaposed with the Drug Lord gang coming into the village and carting off all the pretty 12-year-old girls … a situation not unlike northern Nigeria today … we bring a specific type of wealth into places where there is no wealth … Electric light at night is nice but the people need clean water, police force and all-weather roads … and maybe some hand soap …
Rich guy from the Big City offers a each villager ten year’s income for their community solar panels … everybody profits …
2] I’m appalled that anyone sitting in an air conditioned house in Western Europe/Anglo-America (WE/AA) would bitch about South Africa’s carbon load on the atmosphere … “Honey, run across town and pick me up a bobbin … oh and hate on South Africa for burning a little coal would ya?” … here’s the image of The Earth at Night [2000], this pin-points who’s causing the pollution, these folks need to clean up their act FIRST before they whine and bitch at the others …
Now, WE/AA made huge mistakes though ignorance these past 100 years, and are working hard to mitigate these mistakes … South Africans know this, they see the mistakes we made and they’re going to try and not make the same mistakes … I think they need to be removed from the emission control discussions, trust them to make the right decisions on their own … with what they’ve done these past few decades, I think they’re worthy of this trust, as if that matters to them and I wouldn’t blame them if they didn’t give a rat’s ass if we trust them or not … I also think these other impoverished and non-polluting areas should get the same hand-wave … Indo-China, The Congo, Australia, Outer Mongolia … these folks are just as smart as WE/AA … they’ll do the right thing …
3] The articles discuss some of the problems that are being seen with these programs, but they’re only using successes as examples … are we to assume they’ve experienced no failures? … or do descriptions of these failures sell less magazines? … what about cell phone chargers in Mauritania or the South Sudan refugee camps … this is millions of people and still less than 1% of the problem …
=====
These are serious issues, but this is a web-site dedicated to the humorous side of things:
A] “African countries, blessed with sunlight all year round” … okay … ummmm … I guess that is a blessing, damn lucky aren’t they? …
B] It takes some deciphering but the solar panels for the miller is for just the lights, so he can mill more grain at night … because even a small household flour mill draws 1000W … looks like $100 for a “plug-and-play” system to run this mill on Amazon … for this kind of money, the people can eat cake …
C] Passive solar hot water heaters work great, no electricity … paint a 5-gallon bucket black, insert water, set out in sun … warm enough to wash hands and butts with … too cold outside, then you’re heating your home so try inside …
=====
What makes me hopeful with these articles is that, at the same time, WE/AA are working to make the affluent lifestyle less energy dependent … as Africa ramps up it’s “carbon-free” energy production, far more efficient appliances are becoming available … these two forces will meet in the middle and we’ll have everybody living a cleaner and better life … my mother remembers when she was 8-years-old when REC came and installed a single electric outlet in the home … huge improvement on her family’s standard of living … grandma had an electric sewing machine to sew flour sacks together for mom’s school clothes … within a few years they had money to buy her shoes for church … that’s all I’m asking for here, just a little carbon load, just to give folks a start … is it really too much of a burden to ditch your A/C? …
After GIGO and wolfpup I’m going to have to sit down a spell … a misogynist invent pumps … they are NOT good for dancing … then Budget and MrDibble if he promises to stop trying to step on my feet, the fist-fighting is behind the gym in case you didn’t know …
Creating an issue that id not there just make a “but what about?” silly argument. So the rest has a lot of your post snipped from a lot of silly padding:
Here in Arizona:
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=AZ
Not doing your homework, or in other words: you need to make your point yourself. Or like I did when there I could not pinpoint the comment of the cell circulation speed, give up the point because no cite is available to counter the good efforts going on in Africa.
“The man who says it can’t be done* is constantly being interrupted by somebody doing it.”
*With less or without carbon dumped into the atmosphere.
Unwilling to debate … noted …
That plant is located in the dark areas of the map … if those folks want to yell at the 1 billion people without electricity … okay, they won’t hear, no electricity … go to the light areas, them folks should clean up their act …
“Examples of Failed Aid-Funded Projects in Africa” — NBC News — Dec 23rd, 2007
“Boreholes and wells (developing community water sources)” — International Donor Agencies – Africa — (Catalogue of Catastrophe) — July 2016
20,000 down … 999,980,000 to go … and no diesel generators until then? … callous …