[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

4. By the way this point is a nonsense since you are suggesting that we look at a hypothesised degree of damage. Straw man Tim.

Drivel.

You claim that there is a good reason to stop using fossil fuels.

What is it?

More deliberate ignorance!!

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

Helicopter rescue. The accumulative cost is more than traffic lights.

This is utterly pathetic!!!

Are you arguing that there have never been such events until it has warmed up a bit recently?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disasters_in_Great_Britain_and_Ireland

Great Storm of 1703

The great storm of 1703 killed 15,000 people. Was that due to CO2 from fossil fuels?

Weather and climate are different and you will need to show that extreme events have increased in frequency due to the minute warming we have had so far. Or that you have compelling science that describes how this wil happen in the future. The mechanism. You will be expected to actually show that you understnad this mechanism yourself.

Please think before you type. No one is saying that floods like this have never happened before. They are saying that floods like said great storm, which only happen every couple years, will increase in frequency, possibly to the point where what used to be every hundred years could be every 20 years. Do you think that maybe quintupling the rate that these things happen might, just might, be more expensive than standard upkeep?

Then show some link between the world being slightly warmer now than it was in 1970 and any increase in such events.

There is no such evidence.

Posting anecdotal photos is utterly unscientific and pathetic.

[jeffreyH]

They are videos Tim. Since you obviously didn't bother to watch them then you are not interested in a proper debate.

[chiralSPO]

Regarding mechanism of temperature leading to more extreme weather:

The amount of water that can go into the air (vapor pressure) increases with higher temperature. But that increase is not linear, it increases increasingly with higher temperature (see a data table here: http://www.wiredchemist.com/chemistry/data/vapor-pressure )

This leads to greater rainfall events with higher temperatures. Consider this: at 25 °C the vapor pressure of water is 23.8 mmHg, but at 20 °C the vapor pressure is only 17.5 mmHg. That means high humidity air at 25 °C would have to lose 6.3 mmHg worth of water on cooling by 5 °C. An increase of 2 °C (which is now essentially unavoidable) changes these numbers to 26.7 mmHg at 27 °C and 19.8 mmHg at 22 °C, a difference of 6.9 mmHg, meaning that 10% more rain would fall. This doesn't sound too scary, but this difference is more exaggerated on more extreme weather.

In a major thunderstorm, humid air can be cooled from over 35 °C to 0 °C (based on our chart that's a difference of 37.6 mmHg or 36 metric tons of rain per km³ of air). Bumping the surface temp up by 2 °C to 37 °C does not change the 0 °C, which is set by altitude, so the rainfall increases to 41 metric tons of rain per km³ of air (an increase of almost 14%.)

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

They are videos Tim. Since you obviously didn't bother to watch them then you are not interested in a proper debate.

If you have any science that shows any increase in storms or any such thing have at it!!!!

That you want to post videos which have no bearing on anything shows it all.

This is supposed to be a science forum!!!

[jeffreyH]

4. By the way this point is a nonsense since you are suggesting that we look at a hypothesised degree of damage. Straw man Tim.

Drivel.

You claim that there is a good reason to stop using fossil fuels.

What is it?

More deliberate ignorance!!

I have made no mention of fossil fuels. The CO2 they pump into the atmosphere is incidental.

[jeffreyH]

The videos show what actually happens during the events in question. Venezuela and in particular the year 1997 are of interest in this regard. Go and do a little research. You might learn something. Instead of sitting on your bum telling others how pathetic they are.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

Regarding mechanism of temperature leading to more extreme weather:

The amount of water that can go into the air (vapor pressure) increases with higher temperature. But that increase is not linear, it increases increasingly with higher temperature (see a data table here: http://www.wiredchemist.com/chemistry/data/vapor-pressure )

This leads to greater rainfall events with higher temperatures. Consider this: at 25 °C the vapor pressure of water is 23.8 mmHg, but at 20 °C the vapor pressure is only 17.5 mmHg. That means high humidity air at 25 °C would have to lose 6.3 mmHg worth of water on cooling by 5 °C. An increase of 2 °C (which is now essentially unavoidable) changes these numbers to 26.7 mmHg at 27 °C and 19.8 mmHg at 22 °C, a difference of 6.9 mmHg, meaning that 10% more rain would fall. This doesn't sound too scary, but this difference is more exaggerated on more extreme weather.

In a major thunderstorm, humid air can be cooled from over 35 °C to 0 °C (based on our chart that's a difference of 37.6 mmHg or 36 metric tons of rain per km³ of air). Bumping the surface temp up by 2 °C to 37 °C does not change the 0 °C, which is set by altitude, so the rainfall increases to 41 metric tons of rain per km³ of air (an increase of almost 14%.)

Thank you for a good post.

The counter point to that is that there has been no such increase in storm intensity.

It is also a matter of the additional energy required to get all that water into the cloud. The proposed level of forcing is at most 4 W/m² (from memory and there are lots of numbers about) from a doubling of CO₂.

That there would be a general increase in rainfall is I think reasonable. But over most of the world that is a very good thing. Over the wet parts the slight increase in rainfall would be only noticable to those looking at the weather data.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

The videos show what actually happens during the events in question. Venezuela and in particular the year 1997 are of interest in this regard. Go and do a little research. You might learn something. Instead of sitting on your bum telling others how pathetic they are.

Do you have anything that links that to global warming??

No? Then leave your irrelavent drivel out of it!

[jeffreyH]

We all learn by our mistakes Tim. You have made the mistake of assuming that you know what you are talking about. You could learn from that mistake if you were so inclined.

[jeffreyH]

First there was this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_1997_tornado_outbreak

[jeffreyH]

Also this.
https://www.netweather.tv/forum/topic/34880-christmas-eve-severe-gale-of-1997/

[jeffreyH]

And this is why Tim. Read it carefully.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997%E2%80%9398_El_Ni%C3%B1o_event

[puppypower]

Global warming is a relative concept, because the earth does not have a uniform temperature profile over time. Rather the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles all by itself. There is no base temperature for the earth. The impact of a slight warm up, from an arbitrary point in earth history, is not good or bad but neutral to nature.

The idea that warming is evil, is a man made up value judgement. We are not going anywhere, where the earth does not go on its own. The perceived affect is more psychological and human. It is not much different from each generation having a nostalgia for a point in time, and wanting to stop time there. The older generation may even work to stop progress due to their perceived doom and gloom, if anything changes. The next generation, who grew up in different times, now has its own sweet spot for nostalgia. That is the new best of times. The earth does not work this way, since cyclic change is the best of times not any single point in time.

Consider a place like California, that is subject to earth quakes, with major quakes always predicted in the future. Why doesn't everyone panic and start a mass migration out of California? The drum beat of predicted doom and gloom has been sounding for decades. It even created a substantial science and government bureaucracy. The reason there is no mass migration is, people take their chance and learn how to be prepared. People get tired of worrying about the sky falling each day. You learn to live with minor earthquakes and tremors, which will scare a newbie who is still in panic mode and has yet to psychologically adapt to the new best of times.

The real doom and gloom, always seems delayed compare to the sales pitch and once an event does occur,  it is never as bad as the sales pitch. The sales pitch is a type of snake oil made from the finest of ingredients. The quality flavor of the product seems to dominate its practical value and is often mistaken for practical value.

[puppypower]

In terms of a psychology angle, say the entire manmade global warming was a dream. It is interesting to look at the symbolism of this dream and compare it to the teachings of different political orientations. The earth would symbolize instincts; mother nature. The warming of the earth/instinct would imply going from calm to excited, from love to hate, etc. It would represent a change into a more excitable state than natural.

Since the dream says this change is due to man, this would imply this psychological change is being caused by human activity; propaganda and meme virus. This is not natural. This human activity is destroying the earth or damaging instincts. It does not happen over night but is building and causing climate change. The social climate is much less friendly and more combative, with storms of insults and hostility on the internet.

America's left is currently besides itself with fear, anger and hate. This was anticipated by the dream and is reaching a tipping point. This is a large departure from the love generation; cool and calm from which the modern left was spawned. This change in the earth or instinct is being caused by snake oil salesmen in politics, university and in the media. They are damaging instinct, for power, prestige and money, and the base is starting to project a dire future in their day dreams.

One anticipated affect are the poles will melt. The north and south poles are analogous to natural polarizations such as male and female, young and old. It is not about good and evil but polarization of neutral things. The left has conditioned its base to think that male and female is socially conditioned, but homosexuality and heterosexuality is a natural distinction.

The loss of the natural polarization anticipates a shift in the brain, that will flood the earth. This anticipates the unconscious; oceans, swallowing up the conscious mind (land). This symbolism anticipates a psychosis that needs to occur to restore balance. The ego needs to be rebooted, and all that was built, washed away.

Natural human is being replaced by fake human nature, with the result leading to social chaos. Deep down the left senses something wrong inside, and is  projecting this outward into climate change, since it is not yet conscious to them. The right is not using this climate change dream projection, since it does not have the natural instinct problem. They have decided to stay more old school even with crazy peer pressure from the globally warmed left whose instinct is over excited.

In terms of human manipulation to make such a thing possible, if you create an instinctive problem, you can use that to sell people things that have low or no value, while making think they are getting a deal. For example, if I withhold food until you are hungry, I can get you to buy stale bread. If you are allowed to eat as you need; natural instinct, you will not buy stale bread, even if I tell you this is fresher than yesterday's stale bread. One stale bread that is always fresher today that the left like to sell and eat is Trump and Russia.

[jeffreyH]

@puppypower You introduce the word evil which is a loaded term. A threat is neither good nor evil in terms of climate. The climate has no intent. You may attribute the term evil to those proposing a threat from a changing climate but that is very unhelpful.

[chiralSPO]

Regarding mechanism of temperature leading to more extreme weather:

The amount of water that can go into the air (vapor pressure) increases with higher temperature. But that increase is not linear, it increases increasingly with higher temperature (see a data table here: http://www.wiredchemist.com/chemistry/data/vapor-pressure )

This leads to greater rainfall events with higher temperatures. Consider this: at 25 °C the vapor pressure of water is 23.8 mmHg, but at 20 °C the vapor pressure is only 17.5 mmHg. That means high humidity air at 25 °C would have to lose 6.3 mmHg worth of water on cooling by 5 °C. An increase of 2 °C (which is now essentially unavoidable) changes these numbers to 26.7 mmHg at 27 °C and 19.8 mmHg at 22 °C, a difference of 6.9 mmHg, meaning that 10% more rain would fall. This doesn't sound too scary, but this difference is more exaggerated on more extreme weather.

In a major thunderstorm, humid air can be cooled from over 35 °C to 0 °C (based on our chart that's a difference of 37.6 mmHg or 36 metric tons of rain per km³ of air). Bumping the surface temp up by 2 °C to 37 °C does not change the 0 °C, which is set by altitude, so the rainfall increases to 41 metric tons of rain per km³ of air (an increase of almost 14%.)

Thank you for a good post.

You are most welcome :-)

The counter point to that is that there has been no such increase in storm intensity.

But there has been and is. See here: https://skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming-intermediate.htm and here: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-tropical-cyclone-activity and here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/201513 Although, I will point out, Australia seems to be getting a reprieve: http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml but that appears to be largely due to a change in target, as Southeast Asia is seeing an uptick in storm risk: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n4/abs/nclimate1410.html

It is also a matter of the additional energy required to get all that water into the cloud. The proposed level of forcing is at most 4 W/m² (from memory and there are lots of numbers about) from a doubling of CO₂.

That there would be a general increase in rainfall is I think reasonable. But over most of the world that is a very good thing. Over the wet parts the slight increase in rainfall would be only noticable to those looking at the weather data.

It might be a good thing if the rainfall is distributed over time, but my understanding of the models is that the frequency of the storms is not expected to change that much, instead the rainfalls would be more extreme. Yes Arizona is dry, but this:

is not what they need. (Click the video)

[chiralSPO]

I will also add that there is currently a record-setting heat wave across the Southwestern corner of the US. Phoenix Arizona (same location as the rainburst I mentioned in my last post) reached 118 °F yesterday (48 °C). This is a tie with the record temp, which was set last year. I will point out that the mechanism by which global warming increases the maximum temperatures observed is well understood, and to some extent self-explanatory.

Where the economics/human suffer comes in is this:

1) some of the roadways have melted! The expense of repairing these roads would not necessarily be that much more than the "traffic light rule of thumb" proposed by Tim, but updating all the roadways to be rated for higher temps will be massively expensive!

2) Electricity usage spiked because everybody needed their AC. But the local power can't keep up, and they have rolling blackouts (eek). This is not only dangerous for those who are depending on AC for maintaining livable conditions at home (there have been some deaths reported), but also throws a wrench in the works for businesses, hospitals, factories etc.

3) Oh, and remember how the roads are melting? Similar problems at the airport...

So, if the average temperatures creep up another 2–3 °C over the next 30 years, these people could be facing yearly heat waves the pass 50 °C! Did I mention the humidity is increasing too?

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

And this is why Tim. Read it carefully.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997%E2%80%9398_El_Ni%C3%B1o_event

No.

I will not read a load of drivel you want to throw at me to avoid actually answering anything yourself.

To pass this challenge you have to;

1, Choose 1 aspect/effect/issue of a slighly warmer world that is bad.

2, Then in your own words, describe the mechanism that will cause this.

3, Then support this mechanism with some science.

4, Then I will read it and look at it. If it is more bad than would be sorted out with the budget of traffic lights for any local council that has them you win.

Otherwise you demonstrate that you have no clue at all.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

@puppypower You introduce the word evil which is a loaded term. A threat is neither good nor evil in terms of climate. The climate has no intent. You may attribute the term evil to those proposing a threat from a changing climate but that is very unhelpful.

If there is nothing bad/evil about a warmer world why should we avoid it?