Page 66 of 70 FirstFirst ... 16566465666768 ... LastLast
Results 651 to 660 of 696

Thread: The effects of warming: Kilodeaths

  1. Top | #651
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    5,769
    Rep Power
    14
    Actualy people were concerned aboiut temperature rise well before it became news.

    Those who do not understand the difference between climate and weather should not be debating climate change.

    Weather is local, climate a broader scope up o the ntire planet.

    What drives the climate are two main things. Temperature and global winds.

    Temperature drives ocean currents which drive climate. Cold water sinks at the poles starting currents. The current along the European coast moderates weather. If the current stalls climate changes. It is an actual concern.

    That current through convection currents serve to bring up nutrients for sea life. Sea die eventually we die. Current stalls food and oxygen drops for marine life. It is affecting salmon in some places. Higher temp water in steams during spawning means less oxygen. Fish are literally suffocating.

    The typical conservative says so what about a few dead fish?. It is the canary in the mine for the ecosystem.


    Temperature drives storms. Heat is energy. Physics says energy wants to distribute itself, increase ocean heat and that added energy drives bigger storms. A 1 degree rise in ocean water represents a vast amount of energy.

  2. Top | #652
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    5,370
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    18,346
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    ... snip ...

    Temperature drives storms. Heat is energy. Physics says energy wants to distribute itself, increase ocean heat and that added energy drives bigger storms. A 1 degree rise in ocean water represents a vast amount of energy.
    This bit is wrong even though it is a constant talking point for politicians. Storms are driven by a difference in temperature of air masses, not by absolute temperature. As an example, Jupiter has had a gigantic storm raging (the great red spot) for at least several hundred years and Jupiter's atmospheric temperature is minus 145 degrees C. on average.

    Climate models for Earth show greater warming at the poles and much less equatorial warming which should mean less severe storms as planetary temperature differences become less.

  3. Top | #653
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    22,262
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    32,739
    Rep Power
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    ... snip ...

    Temperature drives storms. Heat is energy. Physics says energy wants to distribute itself, increase ocean heat and that added energy drives bigger storms. A 1 degree rise in ocean water represents a vast amount of energy.
    This bit is wrong even though it is a constant talking point for politicians. Storms are driven by a difference in temperature of air masses, not by absolute temperature. As an example, Jupiter has had a gigantic storm raging (the great red spot) for at least several hundred years and Jupiter's atmospheric temperature is minus 145 degrees C. on average.

    Climate models for Earth show greater warming at the poles and much less equatorial warming which should mean less severe storms as planetary temperature differences become less.
    You are disregarding vertical temperature differentials. Warm oceans provide vast energy to warm the troposphere, allowing warm, damp air to punch upwards into the stratosphere. Hotter tropical oceans therefore imply more intense tropical cyclones, regardless of temperatures at higher latitudes.

    The smaller diffential between poles and tropics tends to imply fewer tropical cyclones; So overall we should expect to see fewer hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones; But those we do see should be more severe.

    And indeed that is exactly the trend that is developing, particularly in the more traditionally predictable North Atlantic hurricane season. Typhoons in the North West Pacific are also showing this tendency; Southern Hemisphere cyclones are historically more random in frequency, intensity, and track than those in the Northern Hemisphere, so it's too early to be sure that this pattern is also occurring there, though it's certainly not evident that it isn't.

  4. Top | #654
    Elder Contributor angelo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    12,008
    Archived
    5,706
    Total Posts
    17,714
    Rep Power
    60
    This article is over two years old, but still relevant as alarmists have become more shrill and even violent in some cases.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe.../#681267e11946

    I have asked my very good friend Dr. Fred Singer to comment about the latest U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers report with particular regard to their most recent sea level rise projections. Dr. Singer is an expert in remote sensing measurements, having served as founding director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, vice chair of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere, deputy assistant administrator for policy at the EPA, and as a reviewer for several of the IPCC reports. He is an elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Physical Society, and the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics.

    Fred is a professor emeritus at the University of Virginia, and directs the Science & Environment Policy Project which has produced a series of scientific Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NICPP) report studies which often take issue with IPCC conclusions. NICPP’s new publication “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science” is available at no cost on-line.

  5. Top | #655
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    26,123
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    68,596
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    ... snip ...

    Temperature drives storms. Heat is energy. Physics says energy wants to distribute itself, increase ocean heat and that added energy drives bigger storms. A 1 degree rise in ocean water represents a vast amount of energy.
    This bit is wrong even though it is a constant talking point for politicians. Storms are driven by a difference in temperature of air masses, not by absolute temperature. As an example, Jupiter has had a gigantic storm raging (the great red spot) for at least several hundred years and Jupiter's atmospheric temperature is minus 145 degrees C. on average.

    Climate models for Earth show greater warming at the poles and much less equatorial warming which should mean less severe storms as planetary temperature differences become less.
    We need to deal with a problematic phrase there, "severe storms". It is unspecific what is a severe storm. Houston was walloped by a pair of slow lumbering tropical systems. The winds weren't terrible, but the lumbering lead to extreme flooding.

  6. Top | #656
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    5,370
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    18,346
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    ... snip ...

    Temperature drives storms. Heat is energy. Physics says energy wants to distribute itself, increase ocean heat and that added energy drives bigger storms. A 1 degree rise in ocean water represents a vast amount of energy.
    This bit is wrong even though it is a constant talking point for politicians. Storms are driven by a difference in temperature of air masses, not by absolute temperature. As an example, Jupiter has had a gigantic storm raging (the great red spot) for at least several hundred years and Jupiter's atmospheric temperature is minus 145 degrees C. on average.

    Climate models for Earth show greater warming at the poles and much less equatorial warming which should mean less severe storms as planetary temperature differences become less.
    We need to deal with a problematic phrase there, "severe storms". It is unspecific what is a severe storm. Houston was walloped by a pair of slow lumbering tropical systems. The winds weren't terrible, but the lumbering lead to extreme flooding.
    It depends on whether you are talking about the news media or scientists. Science has a quite detailed description for classifying storm strength. OTOH, the news media hypes property damage or inconvenience to humans as a measurement. So for the news media a Beaufort scale 9 storm that hits a population center is far more severe than a category 5 hurricane that doesn't hit land.

    So we do have two different measurement systems already.
    1.. The news media's "how many dollars of property damage or how many people were inconvenienced?"
    2. The science's "what was the wind speed or barometric pressure?"

  7. Top | #657
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    5,769
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post
    This article is over two years old, but still relevant as alarmists have become more shrill and even violent in some cases.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe.../#681267e11946

    I have asked my very good friend Dr. Fred Singer to comment about the latest U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers report with particular regard to their most recent sea level rise projections. Dr. Singer is an expert in remote sensing measurements, having served as founding director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, vice chair of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere, deputy assistant administrator for policy at the EPA, and as a reviewer for several of the IPCC reports. He is an elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Physical Society, and the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics.

    Fred is a professor emeritus at the University of Virginia, and directs the Science & Environment Policy Project which has produced a series of scientific Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NICPP) report studies which often take issue with IPCC conclusions. NICPP’s new publication “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science” is available at no cost on-line.
    The difference between you and those of us opposed to you is that while we are not professional scintists we have enogh science to grasp the problem and make a rational decision.

    Others like you, Tucker Carlson, and Shaun Hannity have no idea what they are talking about. All you can do is get blown around by a biased media segment which you echo like a trained dog.

  8. Top | #658
    Elder Contributor angelo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    12,008
    Archived
    5,706
    Total Posts
    17,714
    Rep Power
    60
    All while the activists and alarmists are led by the collar by the likes of a 17 year old brainwashed, clueless brat and the Al Gores of this world.

  9. Top | #659
    the baby-eater
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Straya
    Posts
    3,875
    Archived
    1,750
    Total Posts
    5,625
    Rep Power
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo
    This article is over two years old, but still relevant as alarmists have become more shrill and even violent in some cases.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe.../#681267e11946

    I have asked my very good friend Dr. Fred Singer to comment about the latest U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers report with particular regard to their most recent sea level rise projections. Dr. Singer is an expert in remote sensing measurements, having served as founding director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, vice chair of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere, deputy assistant administrator for policy at the EPA, and as a reviewer for several of the IPCC reports. He is an elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Physical Society, and the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics.

    Fred is a professor emeritus at the University of Virginia, and directs the Science & Environment Policy Project which has produced a series of scientific Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NICPP) report studies which often take issue with IPCC conclusions. NICPP’s new publication “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science” is available at no cost on-line.
    The SEPP is a poster child for pseudoscience. They talk a big game but they haven't actually done any scientific research. Just look at their lists of authors; it's mostly people who don't even have science degrees, let alone expertise in climate science. Out of their four lead authors, two are not even scientists and only one (Legates) is a climate scientist.

    One has to marvel at the mentality that distrusts the IPCC but trusts this trunkload of clowns.

  10. Top | #660
    Elder Contributor angelo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    12,008
    Archived
    5,706
    Total Posts
    17,714
    Rep Power
    60
    https://nofrakkingconsensus.files.wo...ger_sample.pdf

    There's very little to criticize here. If only it's not rejected out of hand!

    2 - Showered With Praise
    The IPCC has lounged, for more than two decades, in a large comfy chair atop a pedestal. When the
    IPCC is mentioned in broadcasts, newspapers, and books it is portrayed as a paragon of scientific truth
    and authority. Here are some direct quotes from people describing the IPCC:
     phenomenally successful
     a remarkable history of accomplishments
     there is not a parallel on this planet, in any field of endeavour
     its place in the history books is clear
     if the IPCC says something, you had better believe it

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •