Consequences

This is a great way to explain why there's still no substantive limits on fossil fuel production because the people rigging the game are making way to much money to ever want to stop... I mean most of the world's war are fought on their behalf.

 

How many small towns and rural homes existed on that landscape in the 30's versus how many people live there now?
How much monetary loss did the people in the 30's experience compared to the amount of loss they experienced recently?

Please do go ahead and tell us more about how $34 billion dollars in destroyed infrastructure and property isn't very much and it was actually worse in the 30's all because as climate change deniers you're trying to score political points from the comfort of your own home that hasn't been destroyed (at least yet)?

 

I have no idea what posts #18 & #20 are talking about. I IN NO WAY SUPPORT FOSSILE FUELS. How many times do I have to state that?

 

So is NOAA lying to us also?

By the way, I LIVE in the Southern Appalachians. I am fully aware of what is going on around here. I don't need a lecture on it.

 

Lol... You accuse the people around you who are going through the worst moment of their life where they've lost nearly everything of "hysteria." Seems to me you deserve way too many lectures from them about how cruel and insensitive you are...

 

I'm not accusing the folks around me of hysteria, I'm accusing the media of hyping every off-normal weather event that occurs. I haven't heard anyone mention climate change here since the event occurred.

Again...

IPCC AR6 Summary per Chapter 12 (12.5.2) (Chapter 12: Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment | Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis)


Mean air temperature: Warming of mean annual temperatures has already emerged in all land regions, as obtained from past observations and confirmed by historical simulations (HIGH CONFIDENCE), with S/N ratios larger than two

Extreme heat and cold: An increase in heat extremes has emerged or will emerge in the coming three decades in most land regions (HIGH CONFIDENCE), relative to the pre-industrial period...Decrease of cold spells has already emerged above the interannual variability in Australasia, Africa and most of Northern South America, and they are projected to emerge before 2050 in the northern mid-latitudes and in Southern South America (King et al., 2015) under RCP8.5 (MEDIUM CONFIDENCE, limited evidence and high agreement)

Mean precipitation: Mean precipitation changes only emerged over a few regions in the historical period (increase in Northern and Eastern Europe and decrease in West Africa and Amazonia) from observations with an S/N ratio larger than one (LOW CONFIDENCE)
Heavy precipitation and floods: There is LOW CONFIDENCE in the emergence of heavy precipitation and pluvial and river flood frequency in observations

Droughts, aridity and fire weather: There is LOW CONFIDENCE in the emergence of drought frequency in observations, for any type of drought, in all regions.... Historical climate simulations indicate that fire weather indices have already emerged in several regions (the Amazon basin, Mediterranean, Central America, West and Southern Africa) (LOW CONFIDENCE, limited evidence)

Wind: Observed mean surface wind speed trends are present in many areas (Section 12.4), but the emergence of these trends from the interannual natural variability and their attribution to human-induced climate change remains of LOW CONFIDENCE due to various factors such as changes in the type and exposure of recording instruments, and their relation to climate change is NOT ESTABLISHED.
The SAME LIMITATIONS also holds for wind extremes (severe storms, tropical cyclones, sand and dust storms)

Snow and ice: The decrease in the Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent in spring HAS ALREADY EMERGED from natural variability...For snow depth or snow water equivalent, there is LOW CONFIDENCE (limited evidence) of the emergence of a decrease
Sea ice: Sea ice area decrease in the Arctic in all seasons HAS ALREADY EMERGED from the interannual variability (HIGH CONFIDENCE)

Relative sea level, coastal flood and coastal erosion: Near-coast RSLR will emerge before 2050 for RCP4.5 along the coasts of all AR6 regions (with coasts) except East Asia, the Russian Far East, Madagascar, the southern part of Eastern North America and the Antarctic regions (MEDIUM CONFIDENCE)

Mean ocean temperature and marine heatwave: The emergence of the sea surface temperature increase signal HAS BEEN OBSERVED in global oceans over the last century, and the largest S/N values are found in the tropical Atlantic and tropical Indian oceans
Ocean acidity, ocean salinity and dissolved oxygen: The global ocean pH decline has VERY LIKELY emerged from natural variability for more than 95% of the global open ocean... Deoxygenation HAS ALREADY EMERGED in many open oceans. The signal is most evident in the Pacific and Southern oceans but not evident in the North Atlantic Ocean

"...It is likely that the proportion of intense tropical cyclones has increased over the last four decades and that this cannot be explained entirely by natural variability....." (Page TS-37)
"...there is low confidence of an observed increase in TC precipitation intensity due to observing system limitations.... (Page 8-57)
"...There is low confidence in most reported long-term (multidecadal to centennial) trends in TC frequency- or intensity-based metrics due to changes in the technology used to collect the best-track data...." (Page 11-88)

"...We conclude that the historical Atlantic hurricane data at this stage do not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced century-scale increase in: frequency of tropical storms, hurricanes, or major hurricanes, or in the proportion of hurricanes that become major hurricanes...." [last paragraph of Section 2B, emphasis original]

Source: Global Warming and Hurricanes – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

"...We conclude that the patterns observed are largely attributable to progressively better reporting of natural disaster events, with the EM-DAT dataset now regarded as relatively complete since ∼2000. The above result sits in marked contradiction to earlier analyses by two UN bodies (FAO and UNDRR), which predicts an increasing number of natural disasters and impacts in concert with global warming. Our analyses strongly refute this assertion as well as extrapolations published by UNDRR based on this claim...."

Source: Alimonti, G., & Mariani, L. (2023). Is the number of global natural disasters increasing? Environmental Hazards, 23(2), 186–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2023.2239807

 

Atmospheric and marine processes both have large spatial and temporal variability. Possible emerging trends can hide behind these veils for a while. Until conventional statistical tools open the veil. Newer tools may open the veil sooner, but largely result in people arguing about whether such newer tools are valid.

Damaging events may be becoming larger or more frequent. Different tools are employed to discern such things.

Overall, there are plausible ways to argue in favor of 'change' and of 'no change' in these derived processes. Change in many aspects of global T including ice dynamics are far harder to argue against. The veils relate to when and where damaging events express themselves.

 

Thanks for the Alimonti link, @wxman.

Not speaking for anyone else, I am always interested in lectures (rather call them information) on areas and topics I am very familiar with. There are things to be learned and other perspectives to consider.

 

Altimonti 2023 was published by Taylor and Francis. Their paywall is pretty good but never perfect

 

Two other related links:

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-critical-assessment-of-extreme-events-trends-in-Alimonti-Mariani/aab1be0d765fec10788406e44f4894b02d9d83df

Natural disasters: a comprehensive study using EMDAT database 1995–2022 - ScienceDirect

 

Don't have to.
YOU are validating my points quite well, thanks much!

@ political.
If $cience has to be focused through a political lens, IS IT REALLY Science?

Thanks Again!

 

Only a non scientist would attempt to constrain how scientists might make make use of their knowledge.

 

Concur!

Not part of that club.
A victim?
...perhaps.

Time will tell.
I'm one of the people still waiting for the population bomb to detonate.

I'm an electronics technician damnit, not a demographer!

So....what are we talking about here?
Climate?
Weather?
The environment?
Insurance tables?
Is data (or weather) influenced by the crushing effects of inflation on property values?
When somebody uses "climate" and "denier" in the same breath, I take my victory lap.

Science.
REAL empirical science isn't supposed to care about people's 'feels' and I'm NOT SURE (since I've been 'outted' as a non-scientist) but I'm thinking that REAL ENVIRONMENTAL science isn't supposed to care about lumber prices.

 

The science doesn’t care about lumber prices.
There are PEOPLE that care about lumber prices and are aware that the science warns of upcoming consequences.
Just as the science, that shows an unsupported object will fall, doesn’t care that an object will crush a person. However, I care a lot that about being crushed by an unsupported engine block I am underneath.

 

So, if a tree falls in a forest.....'eh?
If you come at me with "worst flood in HISTORY!" then you'd better be able to back it up with a little SCIENCE or HISTORY....and remember.....History is at a disadvantage over and above the fact that (like economic and crime data) the 'story' in HIS story changes a lot.

There were relatively fewer ASOS locations in 1901.
Or River Gauges...
AND accurate weather nodes.
AND lumber was cheaper.


$cinece gets PAID to warn of 'upcoming consequences..."

Me?
I've seen enough Disney movies to know that climate change is a real thing.
The wholly mammoths and apex cats with big teeth stopped duking it out a looooong time ago.
My own beloved home state of Indiana is fairly flat until you get to the southern third of the state, because of the last ice age.

I know also that there is an anthropogenic component to climate change.
HOWEVER (comma!)
If you've been around longer than COVID years ago, DO you REALLY trust mitigation over adaptation??

It snows down in Hell, and Hell does occasionally freeze over!
How do I know?

Simple statistical analysis.
I know this because IU is ranked 13th and Bama is ranked 14th....

In FOOTBALL.
In NOVEMBER!!!

 

I didn’t, and you are correct, that statement is false, hyperbole at best.

No, it doesn’t.
Science, when it gets paid, gets paid for innovation, for making better things, for making more efficient things, sometimes for making deadlier things.
Science gets paid for proving science wrong. Any scientist that could disprove the greenhouse effect would likely win a Nobel prize.

 

Sounds like a GE commercial from the 60's.
Science always gets paid - otherwise the scientists would have a hourly job fixing phones or teaching kids.
It's been MY experience that, like politicians, they're always looking for new and interesting ways to get their research FUNDED - and this funding usually informs or at least influences some of the 'sciencing.'

MY experience with my brief dalliance in R/D is that engineers get paid for making better things, for making more efficient things, sometimes for making deadlier things.
I will give you the innovation thing - in an Eddison-free, Ford-free, Rudolf Diesel free, Steve Jobs-free, and [trigger alert!!!] Elon Musk-free world.

Really?
If somebody wants to call me a 'denier' put ME down for denying the HELL out of THAT!!!

You can't deny a greenhouse effect in a world where greenhouses have been in common use for thousands of years
However (comma!)
If some foolhardy $cientist out there tried to disprove AGW then they would be working in the petrochemicals or as a geophysicist for [trigger alert!] big oil.

...not booking a flight to Stockholm.

 

It’s the best system we have, unfortunately, kinda like democracy

 

This thread is a great example of humanity's total ineptitude when it comes to addressing climate change... Just get a @wxman to throw down so much information previewed with how we're "over reacting to individual storms" then make us all numb with too much information we don't want to read through so we don't realize the seriousness of the situation and his information is predicting worst case scenarios in 2050 right? No reason to over-react these days, right?

Meanwhile a greater frequency of 2050 weather patterns are already happening, even just today in Valencia, Spain with an entire year's worth of rainfall happening in only 8 hours. This is way more common in recent years, especially flood in Pakistan a couple years back. Truly astonishing flooding on a scale humanity has never experienced and its frequency and intensity is in the earliest stages. But nothing to worry about till 2050, right? And still no one even hinting at a movement to nationalize and wind down fossil fuel corporations before they destroy any chance our children and their children have for a future.

 

My point exactly.

Our super-power is adaptation - NOT mitigation.
We are a little less than 'superpowery' at that!
As a matter of fact, the very premise points to our arrogance in trying to keep an ever changing 'climate' static in the first place, JUST because we're sorta 'used to the fact' that we're cool with the way things are NOW - in THIS shutter-click of time.

This is why every scientificky panel should include at least ONE for-real historian.

I love science and I've had the honor of working FOR (NOT with!!!) some pretty good ones.
I fix phones for a living, and HAVE for the last 25 years only because there is a UNION of concerned scientists, but they're not hourly unionized employees.
-just sayin'

We should keep scientists doing the science thang. (channeling my inner VPOTUS, here.)
I DIG it when some of the best of them 'white-sheet' a problem and "bring good things to life."

HOWEVER (comma!)
You need to send in the engineers and the technicians after that!