Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
Engineer792 said:
Still more questions than answers there, I'm afraid.
Right so in the UK we normally get weather from the Atlantic. It’s known as polar maritime airmass. If its cold in winter its usually because we are experiencing air coming from the north called arctic maritime or polar continentalfeom the NE, What weather we get depends on the position of the high and low pressure areas. In between these areas we get jetstreams the wind is also caused by differences in the pressure between these highs and lows and the rate of change. To get record cold weather we just need more of a polar maritime airmass which could be caused by the temperature changing the circulation of the air added to the influence of changing ocean temperatures and currents. So warmer temperatures can bring warmer or colder record weather to the uk but the general trend will be warming.
If we have warmer temperatures globally, it changes the positions of these high and low air masses and the jetsteams. Everything is linked so a stronger storm of Senegal creates a more intense hurricane in the Carribean, this may lead to low pressure reaching the UK days later as rain. Warmer air globally will influence these hurricanes as it changes the position of the ITCZ.
In the states warming might bring record snow as lakes may not have frozen so I much, leading to more precipitation, again changes in airmass due to temperature lead to different positions of low and high pressure and stronger gradients in pressure again leading to freak weather conditions.
El stovey said:
Engineer792 said:
Still more questions than answers there, I'm afraid.
Right so in the UK we normally get weather from the Atlantic. It’s known as polar maritime airmass. If its cold in winter its usually because we are experiencing air coming from the north called arctic maritime or polar continentalfeom the NE, What weather we get depends on the position of the high and low pressure areas. In between these areas we get jetstreams the wind is also caused by differences in the pressure between these highs and lows and the rate of change. To get record cold weather we just need more of a polar maritime airmass which could be caused by the temperature changing the circulation of the air added to the influence of changing ocean temperatures and currents. So warmer temperatures can bring warmer or colder record weather to the uk but the general trend will be warming.
If we have warmer temperatures globally, it changes the positions of these high and low air masses and the jetsteams. Everything is linked so a stronger storm of Senegal creates a more intense hurricane in the Carribean, this may lead to low pressure reaching the UK days later as rain. Warmer air globally will influence these hurricanes as it changes the position of the ITCZ.
In the states warming might bring record snow as lakes may not have frozen so I much, leading to more precipitation, again changes in airmass due to temperature lead to different positions of low and high pressure and stronger gradients in pressure again leading to freak weather conditions.
PRTVR said:
You cannot simplify a chaotic system, if you agree that things expand when heated, what of the atmosphere? Imagine a balloon, heat it up it expands increasing its surface area, leading to higher heat loss, it is not possible to understand the climate enough to attribute any change to a minute addition to a trace gas.
The earths atmosphere isn’t like a balloon though. It’s heated by the sun as it rotates and rotates around the sun and it’s tilted and it has variations in surface temperatures due to water and land and terrain etc, of course it’s hard to predict. It has a changing atmosphere where it’s ability to absorb and reflect different radiation waves is slowly changing. What we can say though is that more heat simply increases the amount of movement of air due to expansion and increased mixing and it’s ability to hold more moisture and be more unstable. It’s these changes in circulation driven by heat that creates more extreme weather events. If it’s a chaotic system driven by heat, will adding more heat to it make it more or less chaotic?
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 7th January 12:19
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html
But the number of hurricanes has not increased, the truth is we do not know if extra heat will lead to a change in extreme weather, it's very easy to say it will, but the numbers don't back it up that assumption.
But the number of hurricanes has not increased, the truth is we do not know if extra heat will lead to a change in extreme weather, it's very easy to say it will, but the numbers don't back it up that assumption.
PRTVR said:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html
But the number of hurricanes has not increased, the truth is we do not know if extra heat will lead to a change in extreme weather, it's very easy to say it will, but the numbers don't back it up that assumption.
The numbers certainly back it up.But the number of hurricanes has not increased, the truth is we do not know if extra heat will lead to a change in extreme weather, it's very easy to say it will, but the numbers don't back it up that assumption.
El stovey said:
The numbers certainly back it up.
How is a "occurrence" defined in this graph?Could the increase in floods also be correlated to things like deforestation, urbanisation of low lying or coastal areas, increase in global population (especially in aforementioned low lying areas) etc.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Moonhawk said:
How is a "occurrence" defined in this graph?
Could the increase in floods also be correlated to things like deforestation, urbanisation of low lying or coastal areas, increase in global population etc.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Frequency of Atlantic storms and hurricanes? Could the increase in floods also be correlated to things like deforestation, urbanisation of low lying or coastal areas, increase in global population etc.
Correlation does not imply causation.
El stovey said:
mondeoman said:
Riiiiiight
Which bit are you struggling with?Heating makes things like water and air expand.
Warm air holds more moisture than cold air.
A warmer atmosphere will have stronger pressure gradients..
The increase in temperature and greater pressure differentials and increases in moisture will lead to extremes of weather of all kinds.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-cha... - sorry to piss on your chips, no discernible signal
and another
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-cha...
From the EPA, so any bias in the data is pro AGW
mondeoman said:
El stovey said:
mondeoman said:
Riiiiiight
Which bit are you struggling with?Heating makes things like water and air expand.
Warm air holds more moisture than cold air.
A warmer atmosphere will have stronger pressure gradients..
The increase in temperature and greater pressure differentials and increases in moisture will lead to extremes of weather of all kinds.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-cha... - sorry to piss on your chips, no discernible signal
and another
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-cha...
From the EPA, so any bias in the data is pro AGW
El stovey said:
So you’re basically arguing against a load of points I haven’t even made.
Ermmm - nope: you argued "global warming" = increase pressure gradients = more extreme weatherSaturday 13:28
El stovey said:
…extreme weather events. ….
Today 08:56 El stovey said:
…. Leading to an increase in weather record of all kinds, …
Today 09:45 El stovey said:
… extremes of weather of all kinds.
Today 10:55 El stovey said:
… freak weather conditions. ..
Today 12:15 El stovey said:
... creates more extreme weather events.…
I think I've quite easily shown that your claim of extreme weather events, records breaking everywhere etc... aren't borne out in realitymondeoman said:
El stovey said:
So you’re basically arguing against a load of points I haven’t even made.
Ermmm - nope: you argued "global warming" = increase pressure gradients = more extreme weatherSaturday 13:28
El stovey said:
…extreme weather events. ….
Today 08:56 El stovey said:
…. Leading to an increase in weather record of all kinds, …
Today 09:45 El stovey said:
… extremes of weather of all kinds.
Today 10:55 El stovey said:
… freak weather conditions. ..
Today 12:15 El stovey said:
... creates more extreme weather events.…
I think I've quite easily shown that your claim of extreme weather events, records breaking everywhere etc... aren't borne out in realityYour self congratulary post has just shown that the amount of hurricanes has remained reasonably constant. Are you saying that’s proof that global temperature rises won’t lead to all kinds of extreme weather events?
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 7th January 14:53
El stovey said:
mondeoman said:
El stovey said:
So you’re basically arguing against a load of points I haven’t even made.
Ermmm - nope: you argued "global warming" = increase pressure gradients = more extreme weatherSaturday 13:28
El stovey said:
…extreme weather events. ….
Today 08:56 El stovey said:
…. Leading to an increase in weather record of all kinds, …
Today 09:45 El stovey said:
… extremes of weather of all kinds.
Today 10:55 El stovey said:
… freak weather conditions. ..
Today 12:15 El stovey said:
... creates more extreme weather events.…
I think I've quite easily shown that your claim of extreme weather events, records breaking everywhere etc... aren't borne out in realityYour self congratulary post has just shown that the amount of hurricanes has remained reasonably constant. Are you saying that’s proof that global temperature rises won’t lead to all kinds of extreme weather events?
Edited by El stovey on Sunday 7th January 14:53
Simply saying that your understanding is incorrect wrt pressure gradients, as indicated by no increase in hurricanes. According to you, we should all be drwoden and blwed away by now, or is it frozd and bernt to a cwisp, I forget which calamity is supposed to be linked to GW this week.
I offer no proof, simply saying that you haven't demonstrated jack, and your supposition is just plain wrong.
Isn't the question rather irrelevant? If extreme weather events are becoming more frequent then whether the cause is anthroprogenic or natural, then in the medium term (possibly long term using the precautionary principle and assuming all is natural) policy makers should be adopting measures which mitigate against the damage such occurrences may wreak.
Ali G said:
Isn't the question rather irrelevant? If extreme weather events are becoming more frequent then whether the cause is anthroprogenic or natural, then in the medium term (possibly long term using the precautionary principle and assuming all is natural) policy makers should be adopting measures which mitigate against the damage such occurrences may wreak.
I agree with you but as you’ve seen, people don’t think there are extreme weather events occurring at all.I think the discussion started because a few people seem to think record cold weather couldn’t be caused by overall warming. I simply pointed out that it’s the variations in low and high pressure that can lead to records in weather and how the location of high and low pressure areas and thus air masses caused by them are influenced by overall temperature.
The issue is of course that on this thread you end up getting people that think.
There is no warning
There is warming but it’s natural
Warming won’t influence the weather
Warming won’t lead to extremes of weather
There is no evidence of extreme weather occurring
There is warming and it’s influencing the weather.
Extreme weather events are obviously normal, the only difference is they are now pushed out relentlessly on 24/7 media channels, even if they don't have any new events to show they will repeat previous weather events, just as long as they have pictures on air to get the message into viewers heads.
If anyone believes Earth's climate and weather is more extreme and wilder now than during the past, they may have a problem with extreme myopia. We're pretty lucky at present to have such a stable warm climate, hence why life is thriving.
When we see record low temperatures like those occurring in the USA, it's amazing to see some people have the myopia to claim that it's caused by human CO2 emissions that have warmed the planet! I think if anyone believes that, they have been well and truly indoctrinated, or at least had a logic bypass.
Imagine what Earth will be like with another 100 years of human induced CO2 global warming, the extreme cold will be unbearable!
If anyone believes Earth's climate and weather is more extreme and wilder now than during the past, they may have a problem with extreme myopia. We're pretty lucky at present to have such a stable warm climate, hence why life is thriving.
When we see record low temperatures like those occurring in the USA, it's amazing to see some people have the myopia to claim that it's caused by human CO2 emissions that have warmed the planet! I think if anyone believes that, they have been well and truly indoctrinated, or at least had a logic bypass.
Imagine what Earth will be like with another 100 years of human induced CO2 global warming, the extreme cold will be unbearable!
If, as claimed, it's the North and South pole areas that are seeing the greatest warming - all nice and deep red on the temperature anomaly images - how come the temperature differentials between, say, the equator and the poles, would be increasing?
If the land mass of North America is especially cold right now but over all, year on year, the global temperature is increasing, somewhere around the world there must be higher temperatures to offset that block of cold.
Has anyone managed to report where the number change by enough to compensate? Maybe Siberia is experiencing a relative heatwave?
What are the satellite data telling us?
If the land mass of North America is especially cold right now but over all, year on year, the global temperature is increasing, somewhere around the world there must be higher temperatures to offset that block of cold.
Has anyone managed to report where the number change by enough to compensate? Maybe Siberia is experiencing a relative heatwave?
What are the satellite data telling us?
Moonhawk said:
El stovey said:
The numbers certainly back it up.
How is a "occurrence" defined in this graph?Could the increase in floods also be correlated to things like deforestation, urbanisation of low lying or coastal areas, increase in global population (especially in aforementioned low lying areas) etc.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Maybe a graph of 'floods' v global ownership of wide-screen TV's (r squared probably in the 0.9's) is needed. Damn you Samsung!
Vizsla said:
Moonhawk said:
El stovey said:
The numbers certainly back it up.
How is a "occurrence" defined in this graph?Could the increase in floods also be correlated to things like deforestation, urbanisation of low lying or coastal areas, increase in global population (especially in aforementioned low lying areas) etc.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Maybe a graph of 'floods' v global ownership of wide-screen TV's (r squared probably in the 0.9's) is needed. Damn you Samsung!
Vizsla said:
Moonhawk said:
El stovey said:
The numbers certainly back it up.
How is a "occurrence" defined in this graph?Could the increase in floods also be correlated to things like deforestation, urbanisation of low lying or coastal areas, increase in global population (especially in aforementioned low lying areas) etc.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Maybe a graph of 'floods' v global ownership of wide-screen TV's (r squared probably in the 0.9's) is needed. Damn you Samsung!
Spot on x2. Casuality is the key issue here as always and as always with agw propaganda it's conveniently sidelined.Putting the unknown 'occurrence' definition aside for now, the EU is out of step with that international database. Can the likes of Delors and Juncker take any credit here
There is no human warming signal in normalised european flood losses. J. I. Barredo of the European Commission published a paper titled "Normalized Flood Losses in Europe: 1970-2006" in the open access journal Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences of the EGU. The study looked at a climatically relevant period, 37 years, and after assessing normalised flood losses in 31 European countries, results showed no detectable sign of human-induced climate change in normalised flood losses across 31 countries in Europe.
Looking at an even more relevant timescale, episodes of increased flooding occurrence have been identified in geological records (ca. 11220, 5790, 4900, 4580, 3600, 2790, 2610, 2340, 2010, 1350, 720, & 630 years ago, from Macklin et. al., 2005) all a long, long time before industrialisation and anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Presumably these major floods have a miraculous cause given there was no anthropogenic tax gas around back then.
Miracles or natural variation, tough choice.
For the UK, summer flooding in 2007 was due to slow moving depressions tracking over the UK as a result of a chaotic shift in the jet stream.
Winter floods in 2013/14 were due to the arctic oscillation and related jet stream movement which brought a sequence of depressions over the UK.
If the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology can get it right in 2007 (no human signal, floods not due to so-called global warming) and even the Met Office in 2013 (no human signal, floods not due to so-called global warming) then the media has no excuse.
It's worth pointing out, again as we're in a flood attrition loop, that agw predicted a weaker jet stream moving closer to the pole (N) what we got was a stronger jet stream moving away from the pole.
It can only be a matter of time before global warming predicts both, as per more snow/less snow and more hurricanes/fewer hurricanes. The agw religion must have it both ways to avoid refutation.
Winter floods in 2013/14 were due to the arctic oscillation and related jet stream movement which brought a sequence of depressions over the UK.
If the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology can get it right in 2007 (no human signal, floods not due to so-called global warming) and even the Met Office in 2013 (no human signal, floods not due to so-called global warming) then the media has no excuse.
It's worth pointing out, again as we're in a flood attrition loop, that agw predicted a weaker jet stream moving closer to the pole (N) what we got was a stronger jet stream moving away from the pole.
It can only be a matter of time before global warming predicts both, as per more snow/less snow and more hurricanes/fewer hurricanes. The agw religion must have it both ways to avoid refutation.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff