|
|
The Paris Climate Disagreement (Page 13)
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
That's why Laminar corrected me that it was an anecdotal.
Did not seem like you accepted that correction, given your statement about others using equally faulty logic about snowballs in april and that "there are signs of extreme weather". But if we're in agreement that there is nothing to tie Irma to climate change one way or the other, then
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
I think what we'd want is a graph showing the total intensity of this type of climate activity per year.
In theory, the line on the graph will be trending up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
I think what we'd want is a graph showing the total intensity of this type of climate activity per year.
In theory, the line on the graph will be trending up.
Ask and ye shall receive. From NOAA. Also keep in mind that hurricane tracking in the early 20th century is not what it is today, and also that named storms in modern times might not have been recognized as tropical storms before we had planes, satellites, etc taking a good look at them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
Now, match that with annual storm predictions.
|
45/47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Ask and ye shall receive. From NOAA. Also keep in mind that hurricane tracking in the early 20th century is not what it is today, and also that named storms in modern times might not have been recognized as tropical storms before we had planes, satellites, etc taking a good look at them.
Thank you!
I think major hurricanes is the most useful bit here, and suffers the least from poor reporting in the past.
Taken as a whole, there's an obvious drift up. Correcting (very roughly) for the bad data problem by cutting the graph off... the span from 1930 to 1995 eyeballs differently than 1995 onward.
So, that's not inconsistent with AGW, but the difference isn't large enough I'd call it conclusive, either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Taking the increase (or not) of major storms off the table, a rise in temperature will mean that the air holds more moisture. More moisture in the air means more rainfall. More rainfall means more flooding.
Add higher sea levels to the mix, and it only gets worse.
Rising temperatures due to climate change can have adverse effects even if major storms are no more frequent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Chongo
Now, match that with annual storm predictions.
Why?
Originally Posted by subego
So, that's not inconsistent with AGW, but the difference isn't large enough I'd call it conclusive, either.
Not necessarily. You'd have to show that the rate of change of tropical storms correlates with some facet of AGW and that this isn't a result of the earth's natural cooling and warming cycles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
Thank you!
I think major hurricanes is the most useful bit here, and suffers the least from poor reporting in the past.
Taken as a whole, there's an obvious drift up. Correcting (very roughly) for the bad data problem by cutting the graph off... the span from 1930 to 1995 eyeballs differently than 1995 onward.
So, that's not inconsistent with AGW, but the difference isn't large enough I'd call it conclusive, either.
Nor does it rule out other contributing factors such as the bad data you speak of. Stands to reason that a category 5 in the middle of the Atlantic in August 1903 might not be recognized at all. I am not qualified to analyze the data further, but I believe the data sets are available on NOAA if anyone wants to take a crack at it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Paco500
Taking the increase (or not) of major storms off the table, a rise in temperature will mean that the air holds more moisture. More moisture in the air means more rainfall. More rainfall means more flooding.
Add higher sea levels to the mix, and it only gets worse.
Rising temperatures due to climate change can have adverse effects even if major storms are no more frequent.
More moisture also means more clouds, which reduces heat absorption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
Indeed this is correct, though I'm not certain it's so simple.
I don't think the direct impact on water temperature would be a significant factor. However, the effects on the currents (which mediate temperature/oxygenation) which indirectly impact temperature, the clouds which impact albedo (and thus temperature), and wind patterns would be the bigger story here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Nor does it rule out other contributing factors such as the bad data you speak of. Stands to reason that a category 5 in the middle of the Atlantic in August 1903 might not be recognized at all. I am not qualified to analyze the data further, but I believe the data sets are available on NOAA if anyone wants to take a crack at it.
Oh, absolutely.
That's why I wanted to cut off the earlier part of the graph. I'm not trusting how complete the data is until the 1930-1940 range.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Nor does it rule out other contributing factors such as the bad data you speak of. Stands to reason that a category 5 in the middle of the Atlantic in August 1903 might not be recognized at all. I am not qualified to analyze the data further, but I believe the data sets are available on NOAA if anyone wants to take a crack at it.
Originally Posted by subego
Oh, absolutely.
That's why I wanted to cut off the earlier part of the graph. I'm not trusting how complete the data is until the 1930-1940 range.
The accuracy of weather observation improved tremendously in the late 1960s when we started getting data from weather satellites, before then you had to rely on sightings. Traffic on the oceans has also increased over time which also increased the probability to detect storms. So I was focussing at the part of the graph from 1970s onwards. I also think the period of observation (with reliable data) might be too short, many extreme events are, as the name suggests, extremely rare.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Indeed this is correct, though I'm not certain it's so simple.
The evidence for a link between anthropogenic climate change and extreme weather patterns in general (drought, heavy rain, flooding, etc.) is much stronger, and I think it is important to clarify my earlier point by saying that there is evidence pointing to a positive correlation for an increased severity of hurricanes and storms, but that hasn't been strong enough to call it definitive.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
I don't think the direct impact on water temperature would be a significant factor. However, the effects on the currents (which mediate temperature/oxygenation) which indirectly impact temperature, the clouds which impact albedo (and thus temperature), and wind patterns would be the bigger story here.
I don't know what the exact mechanism is, but you don't need to know to see whether global climate change and hurricanes are correlated.
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'd say by WW II, it's going to be nearly impossible to miss a major hurricane in the Atlantic.
Even if we missed a few, that kind of undercount doesn't seem like enough to just trash 30 years of data, especially with such a small set to begin with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Oh... and now we're back in the accord, but not really, but maybe we'll talk about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
Oh... and now we're back in the accord, but not really, but maybe we'll talk about it.
Thats the position on everything now isn't it?
|
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
45/47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status:
Offline
|
|
A news article yesterday about this mentioned we haven't done much tangible to diverge from the Paris agreement. I've been thinking about that - wouldn't Congress have to change laws?
The EPA can change some regs, but significant violation would require Congressional action. Since they've mostly argued over the ACA, perhaps Trump's declaration was the only thing that happened. And we're still in the agreement based on actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
That's been his entire administration so far with the exceptions of...
1) Putting Gorsuch on the court
2) Drop-kicking Mexicans
3) Giving the left apoplexy
He's embarrassingly ineffectual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
That's been his entire administration so far with the exceptions of...
1) Putting Gorsuch on the court
2) Drop-kicking Mexicans
3) Giving the left apoplexy
He's embarrassingly ineffectual.
I made the same argument a while back and Dakar wasn't happy about it. Everything's a media shitstorm but little of value has happened. I'm sure the profits at all of Trump's properties are shooting through the roof, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
I mean, congress controls the laws but the president owns enforcement, and then what happens? Mostly lawsuits. Unless injunctions are issued that means the regs and laws not being enforced might as well not exist while the case winds itself through the courts, usually over years.
Isn't DACA a great example of this? Law says dreamers get deported like everyone else, Obama changed enforcement. Four years later, still not enforced. Congress didn't do shit, either way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'm in over my head here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
That's been his entire administration so far with the exceptions of...
1) Putting Gorsuch on the court
2) Drop-kicking Mexicans
3) Giving the left apoplexy
He's embarrassingly ineffectual.
I don't agree, most of the damage is under the surface and will only become apparent with time. The Trump Administration has understaffed many ministries, gutted various organizations of dedicated public servants and has not filled key posts (e. g. the ambassadorships to the EU and Germany). There have been numerous reports that low level diplomats who usually work with the State Department on specific topics literally have no one to talk to. Plus, the US has removed itself from a lot of discussions (e. g. about Climate Change or, potentially, the Iran deal), and therefore isn't a player in a lot of important issues anymore.
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Laminar
I'm in over my head here.
Originally Posted by Laminar
I made the same argument a while back and Dakar wasn't happy about it. Everything's a media shitstorm but little of value has happened. I'm sure the profits at all of Trump's properties are shooting through the roof, though.
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
I mean, congress controls the laws but the president owns enforcement, and then what happens? Mostly lawsuits. Unless injunctions are issued that means the regs and laws not being enforced might as well not exist while the case winds itself through the courts, usually over years.
Isn't DACA a great example of this? Law says dreamers get deported like everyone else, Obama changed enforcement. Four years later, still not enforced. Congress didn't do shit, either way.
Challenging the ineffectual bit. The EPA, among many departments, has someone running it who is completely against it's purpose. Are you arguing they are ineffectual as they drop lawsuits and fail to enforce regs? Or that the EPA as an entity is ineffectual so it doesn't matter who's running it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'm arguing that it's hard to measure any short term effects and any attempt to do so would probably end up being partisan. Sure in 20 years we'll have a chart of air and water quality and we'll see it start to take a dump in 2017, but it's hard to say with certainty right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Ok, I can agree that measuring the effect is difficult.
I think one of many reasons every issue is a defcon 1 alert is because of mismatched priorities between authors and audience and that when there's a systematic attack on so many fronts, you have to yell that much more to be heard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
If you have doubts humans can **** up a planet in a short amount of time, watch a documentary on the Dust Bowl. Humans managed to affect half the US with dust storms by screwing up an area of something like 400 miles across. It took less than 10 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
From CPAC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|