[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.

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)

1, I don't use "skeptocal science" because it is neither.

2, The link https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-tropical-cyclone-activity shows a graph of no real difference. It shows that there has not been any change in the amount of huricanes in the Atlantic.

3, The next one is long. Which bit of it says that there is a link? How do they explain this in a detailed mechanism? Can you explain this mechanism yourself? Can you quote from it to show that you have read it and undeerstand it? How big is it?

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

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!

But they will be maintained over time and if different ratios of tar are to be used like they do in hotter places the net cost is tiny.

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.

Again, we need to establish a direct link that says that this is due to global warming from CO2. How many deaths? How do you know that this is not within normal variability of weather? How many deaths are not happening due to warmer winters?

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?

How big a trouble is this?

Iran often has such temperatures. They manage. How would the airport manage if all flights were canceled due to the panic over CO2? If you want a decent airport with easy flights then you will have to accept the CO2 that that will inevitable mean. Unlucky.

[jeffreyH]

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.

If you won't read it then you are showing yourself to be foolish. Anyone else reading it will get it. Except you won't since you don't care about evidence. Bye.

[jeffreyH]

Now Tim will attempt to use my last answer to claim a victory. Trying to imply that I have given up. Well make your own minds up peeps.

[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!

But they will be maintained over time and if different ratios of tar are to be used like they do in hotter places the net cost is tiny.

They have to switch from asphalt to concrete. There are pros and cons to each, and it is not clear which one is cheaper, but changing from one to the other is a big project.

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.

Again, we need to establish a direct link that says that this is due to global warming from CO2. How many deaths? How do you know that this is not within normal variability of weather? How many deaths are not happening due to warmer winters?

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?

How big a trouble is this?

Iran often has such temperatures. They manage. How would the airport manage if all flights were canceled due to the panic over CO2? If you want a decent airport with easy flights then you will have to accept the CO2 that that will inevitable mean. Unlucky.

Yes, those in the Middle East can deal with these temperatures. I never claimed that this was an insurmountable problem. That wasn't the "challenge." You were looking for substantial increased cost. Air conditioning (both hardware and energy) is very costly. And the higher the outside temperature, the more costly it is to keep the inside livable. Also, since you brought it up, let us consider Iran and the Middle East as global temperatures rise: An article from last year ( https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10584-016-1665-6.pdf ) shows that since the turn of the century, much of the Middle East and North Africa has had hotter and longer heat waves during the summer months than they were in the 70s, 80s and 90s. Furthermore, they use several computational models which predict that by 2100, there will be on average about seven days of the year with high temperatures over 50 °C, and lows above 30 °C.

Again, because it apparently needs repetition, the problem is not that the world will be a particular temperature. The problem is how quickly it will change, and how expensive it will be to keep up.

Much of the cost of infrastructure is determined by its maximum capacity, which is determined by the extreme cases that one expects: Storm water systems are designed to handle downpours of multiple inches of rain per hour, even though this might only happen once or twice in a year, when it does happen you need a system that can handle it. So when the worst case scenario gets worse, you need to update the whole system. Similarly buildings need AC systems that can handle the hottest days of the year, and when that changes from 40 °C to 42 °C across much of Europe and Northern America over the next 50 years, you better bet that the cost of AC upgrades is going to reflect that. One more example: building codes for areas that are threatened by hurricanes and tornados--as maximum wind speeds and maximum storm surges increase, buildings will have to be reinforced or raised to accommodate the new maximal threats.

[chiralSPO]

2, The link https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-tropical-cyclone-activity shows a graph of no real difference. It shows that there has not been any change in the amount of huricanes in the Atlantic.

Correct, there has not been a change in the frequency of the storms. But figure 3 clearly shows an increase in the storm *intensity*

3, The next one is long. Which bit of it says that there is a link? How do they explain this in a detailed mechanism? Can you explain this mechanism yourself? Can you quote from it to show that you have read it and undeerstand it? How big is it?

The noaa one? That is not about mechanism, it is a summary of a few dozen climate metrics, and how they have changed in different regions over the past few decades. It clearly shows that there are changing weather patterns (not just weather) across the entire US, with changes in seasonal weather, rainfall amounts (some areas increase, some decrease) temperatures (increasing everywhere), and it shows the increasing rates of record-breaking weather (events and averages).

[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.

If you won't read it then you are showing yourself to be foolish. Anyone else reading it will get it. Except you won't since you don't care about evidence. Bye.

The fact that you cannot quote from it shows that you have not read it.

The fact that you cannot explain it your self shows you do not understand it.

The fact that you choose to avoid making any attempt at answering the challeng shows that you know you can't.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

2, The link https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-tropical-cyclone-activity shows a graph of no real difference. It shows that there has not been any change in the amount of huricanes in the Atlantic.

Correct, there has not been a change in the frequency of the storms. But figure 3 clearly shows an increase in the storm *intensity*

According to the total annual ACE Index, cyclone intensity has risen noticeably over the past 20 years, and six of the 10 most active years since 1950 have occurred since the mid-1990s (see Figure 2). Relatively high levels of cyclone activity were also seen during the 1950s and 1960s.

Now all that is needed is to show that this has happened all over the world, that there is more to it than just natural variability, that there is a mechanism by which increased temperatures (and that would not be since 1950 but later) are the cause and then to see how much of an effect this is.

3, The next one is long. Which bit of it says that there is a link? How do they explain this in a detailed mechanism? Can you explain this mechanism yourself? Can you quote from it to show that you have read it and undeerstand it? How big is it?

The noaa one? That is not about mechanism, it is a summary of a few dozen climate metrics, and how they have changed in different regions over the past few decades. It clearly shows that there are changing weather patterns (not just weather) across the entire US, with changes in seasonal weather, rainfall amounts (some areas increase, some decrease) temperatures (increasing everywhere), and it shows the increasing rates of record-breaking weather (events and averages).

Again, no mechanism. And, yes climate/weater always changes. This expected variability of the earth is nothing new.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

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!

But they will be maintained over time and if different ratios of tar are to be used like they do in hotter places the net cost is tiny.

They have to switch from asphalt to concrete. There are pros and cons to each, and it is not clear which one is cheaper, but changing from one to the other is a big project.

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.

Again, we need to establish a direct link that says that this is due to global warming from CO2. How many deaths? How do you know that this is not within normal variability of weather? How many deaths are not happening due to warmer winters?

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?

How big a trouble is this?

Iran often has such temperatures. They manage. How would the airport manage if all flights were canceled due to the panic over CO2? If you want a decent airport with easy flights then you will have to accept the CO2 that that will inevitable mean. Unlucky.

Yes, those in the Middle East can deal with these temperatures. I never claimed that this was an insurmountable problem. That wasn't the "challenge." You were looking for substantial increased cost. Air conditioning (both hardware and energy) is very costly. And the higher the outside temperature, the more costly it is to keep the inside livable. Also, since you brought it up, let us consider Iran and the Middle East as global temperatures rise: An article from last year ( https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10584-016-1665-6.pdf ) shows that since the turn of the century, much of the Middle East and North Africa has had hotter and longer heat waves during the summer months than they were in the 70s, 80s and 90s. Furthermore, they use several computational models which predict that by 2100, there will be on average about seven days of the year with high temperatures over 50 °C, and lows above 30 °C.

Again, because it apparently needs repetition, the problem is not that the world will be a particular temperature. The problem is how quickly it will change, and how expensive it will be to keep up.

Much of the cost of infrastructure is determined by its maximum capacity, which is determined by the extreme cases that one expects: Storm water systems are designed to handle downpours of multiple inches of rain per hour, even though this might only happen once or twice in a year, when it does happen you need a system that can handle it. So when the worst case scenario gets worse, you need to update the whole system. Similarly buildings need AC systems that can handle the hottest days of the year, and when that changes from 40 °C to 42 °C across much of Europe and Northern America over the next 50 years, you better bet that the cost of AC upgrades is going to reflect that. One more example: building codes for areas that are threatened by hurricanes and tornados--as maximum wind speeds and maximum storm surges increase, buildings will have to be reinforced or raised to accommodate the new maximal threats.

As you said it is not clear which is more expensive, concrete or tarmac. So there is obviously not going to be a large cost increase as all roads have to be remade/repaired all the time.

The reason I use the size of the traffic light budget is to show that although there obviously will be work needed to cope with the changes, should they actually happen, no sign of that in the last 19 years, they will not be crippling.

Not using the best resources that the world has in the best way will be and is extremely crippling. Millions of dead people per year today. Lots worse if we do more about it.

[Bored chemist]

As you said it is not clear which is more expensive, concrete or tarmac. So there is obviously not going to be a large cost increase as all roads have to be remade/repaired all the time.

Except that it's obvious that there will be a large cost because all the roads will need to be upgraded on a fast schedule based on the weather, rather than a slow schedule based on wear and tear (or equivalently, that wear and tear will be much faster).

[jeffreyH]

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.

If you won't read it then you are showing yourself to be foolish. Anyone else reading it will get it. Except you won't since you don't care about evidence. Bye.

The fact that you cannot quote from it shows that you have not read it.

The fact that you cannot explain it your self shows you do not understand it.

The fact that you choose to avoid making any attempt at answering the challeng shows that you know you can't.

It is about the 1997-1998 el Nino event. It is about how drastic changes in temperature over a short period can cause devastating effects. This was an actual event, causing the actual effects that will cost more than traffic lights. This is observed data Timmy my boy. It trumps all else. Only an idiot would dismiss it. You aren't an idiot Tim so don't act like one.

[jeffreyH]

In December of 1999 there was another event.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vargas_tragedy
"The 1999 Vargas tragedy was a disaster that struck the Vargas State of Venezuela on 15 December 1999, when the torrential rains and the flash floods and debris flows that followed on December 14–16 which killed tens of thousands of people, destroyed thousands of homes, and led to the complete collapse of the state's infrastructure. According to relief workers, the neighborhood of Los Corales was buried under 3 metres (9.8 ft) of mud and a high percentage of homes were simply swept away to the ocean. Whole towns like Cerro Grande and Carmen de Uria completely disappeared. As much as 10% of the population of Vargas perished during this event."

It would need to be diamond encrusted gold traffic lights to outdo this.

[jeffreyH]

Continuing the trend.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/interesting/autumn2000.html
"Impacts

The flooding that occurred across much of England and Wales in the autumn and early winter of 2000 was the most extensive since the snowmelt-generated floods of March 1947. In all, 10,000 homes and businesses were flooded at 700 locations. Peak flows on five major rivers - the Thames, Trent, Severn, Wharfe and Dee - were the highest for sixty years, and the River Ouse in Yorkshire reached its highest level since the 1600s. Many river catchments were subjected to multiple flood events, especially in south-east England.

Two areas were particularly hard hit. In mid-October, large areas of Kent and Sussex were left underwater as rivers such as the Ouse at Lewes (East Sussex), the Uck at Uckfield (East Sussex) and the Medway at Tonbridge (Kent) burst their banks. Hundreds of homes and businesses were flooded to a depth of several feet, floodwater and landslips closed roads and rail travellers faced widespread delays and cancellations.

By early November, it was the turn of Yorkshire, with flood warnings on the Ouse and its tributaries such as the Derwent and Aire. On the 4th, the River Ouse at York was 5.3 m above its normal summer level and the associated flooding there was reported as the worst in 400 years of records; some 5000 properties were affected. Around this time there were similar scenes along the Severn, where water levels at Shrewsbury and Worcester were the highest since 1947."

At that time I got stuck in the flooding on my way back from the hydrology business I worked at. So when you insinuate that I don't understand this it is laughable.

[jeffreyH]

BTW The equipment we manufactured would have been monitoring the rivers that over topped.

[jeffreyH]

In 2002 another event.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_European_floods
"In August 2002 a flood caused by over a week of continuous heavy rains ravaged Europe, killing dozens, dispossessing thousands, and causing damage of billions of euros in Russia, the Czech Republic, Austria, Germany, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania and Croatia. The flood was of a magnitude expected to occur roughly once a century."

This is within 3 years of the worst recorded el Nino event. The el Nino temperature rises were extreme. While I cannot say definitely that these events are connected, I can say the cleanup costs more than traffic lights. Mechanism would be the temperature rise resulting from a record breaking el Nino event.

[jeffreyH]

Now I'm not going to paste a table of data so it is up to those who wish to read it to do so. The latter portion of the table shows the increasing frequency of heavy rainfall events that affect multiple countries.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_floods_in_Europe

The greater the frequency of flooding the higher the cost. Traffic lights do not keep pace in terms of cost.

[jeffreyH]

Now during the 1997-1998 el Nino event we have the European millenium flood.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Central_European_flood
"Southwestern Poland and the northern Czech Republic experienced two periods of extensive rainfall, the first occurring 3–10 July and the second 17–22 July.[3][6] The precipitation was caused by a Genoa low pressure system, which moved from northern Italy to Moravia and Poland. The unusual development occurred when the field of higher air pressure between the Azores Islands and Scandinavia was blocked. The center of the low pressure remained over southern Poland for a long period.[3]

The precipitation was very high, measuring 300–600 millimetres (12–24 in), and corresponded to several months' average rainfall over a few days.[2] The waters rose 2–3 m above the previously recorded averages[2] and were so high that they flooded over standing measurement poles. It was one of the heaviest rainfalls in the recorded world's history.[5] It was dubbed the Millennium Flood because the likelihood of such a flood in a particular year was estimated at 0.1%."

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

As you said it is not clear which is more expensive, concrete or tarmac. So there is obviously not going to be a large cost increase as all roads have to be remade/repaired all the time.

Except that it's obvious that there will be a large cost because all the roads will need to be upgraded on a fast schedule based on the weather, rather than a slow schedule based on wear and tear (or equivalently, that wear and tear will be much faster).

Is a 20 year program of steady change that much?

Is it slightly hotter in Mexico? Do they manage?

Which is more restrictive to getting about, having a slightly largere roads budget or not having any fuel?

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

In December of 1999 there was another event.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vargas_tragedy
"The 1999 Vargas tragedy was a disaster that struck the Vargas State of Venezuela on 15 December 1999, when the torrential rains and the flash floods and debris flows that followed on December 14–16 which killed tens of thousands of people, destroyed thousands of homes, and led to the complete collapse of the state's infrastructure. According to relief workers, the neighborhood of Los Corales was buried under 3 metres (9.8 ft) of mud and a high percentage of homes were simply swept away to the ocean. Whole towns like Cerro Grande and Carmen de Uria completely disappeared. As much as 10% of the population of Vargas perished during this event."

It would need to be diamond encrusted gold traffic lights to outdo this.

Yet again;

1, show the mechanism that links this to global warming.

2, describe it yourself.

3, link to some sort of supporting science.

4, Then we can look at it and see how big an issue it will be.

[jeffreyH]

In December of 1999 there was another event.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vargas_tragedy
"The 1999 Vargas tragedy was a disaster that struck the Vargas State of Venezuela on 15 December 1999, when the torrential rains and the flash floods and debris flows that followed on December 14–16 which killed tens of thousands of people, destroyed thousands of homes, and led to the complete collapse of the state's infrastructure. According to relief workers, the neighborhood of Los Corales was buried under 3 metres (9.8 ft) of mud and a high percentage of homes were simply swept away to the ocean. Whole towns like Cerro Grande and Carmen de Uria completely disappeared. As much as 10% of the population of Vargas perished during this event."

It would need to be diamond encrusted gold traffic lights to outdo this.

Yet again;

1, show the mechanism that links this to global warming.

2, describe it yourself.

3, link to some sort of supporting science.

4, Then we can look at it and see how big an issue it will be.

1. Changing climate.

2. The climate changes.

3. Why bother, you refuse to read anything.

4. Refer to item 3.