Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

Extreme weather tops 2018 global threats list

22 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

 
Vlad the Mighty

And there was me thinking it was Donald Trump. :hmm: 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
6 minutes ago, seanjo said:

There is no correlation between Hurricanes intensity and "Global Warming".

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

 

 

There is, as that page says - but it cannot be shown that AGW has had an impact yet.

What is more important is that there are more people living in more expensive properties in areas prone to tropical cyclones.  So, all else being equal, their impact will increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
21 minutes ago, Essan said:

There is, as that page says - but it cannot be shown that AGW has had an impact yet.

What is more important is that there are more people living in more expensive properties in areas prone to tropical cyclones.  So, all else being equal, their impact will increase.

I don't know about hurricanes.  Estimating their probable occurrence is tough because there aren't that many of them to study.  BUT:  there are lots of smaller storms.  And those have been getting more numerous.  It's called storminess and storminess is increasing, exactly as would be predicted by global warming theory.

Doug

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter

 Then there's the forest and wildfires. All we need is some sharks thrown in for the perfect storm.

Hank

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noxasa

LOL, they've been warning about "extreme weather" due to AGW for decades now.  That next year, or the year after, will see a marked increase in hurricane frequency and/or intensity.  That all this is because of man-made global warming.  Yet, as with their climate models that never come true neither do their warnings about extreme weather.  North America has not had a category 5 hurricane hit the US mainland for 25 years.  Thank God cat 5 hurricanes are rare and remain so. So how about those predictions of increased intensity?  NOT!  What about frequency?  According to NOAA's data on hurricane frequency there is no meaningful increase in the frequency of hurricanes over the past 100+ years either.  So to the climate scare mongers just saying that there's an increased risk of weather related catastrophe does not make it real or true.  Only measurable science and observation makes it true.  I think AGW should be re-refereced as Anthropological Global Whining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr.United_Nations

Hurricane Katrina hit the US in 2005, that' not 25 years ago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
11 hours ago, Noxasa said:

LOL, they've been warning about "extreme weather" due to AGW for decades now.  That next year, or the year after, will see a marked increase in hurricane frequency and/or intensity.  That all this is because of man-made global warming.  Yet, as with their climate models that never come true neither do their warnings about extreme weather.  North America has not had a category 5 hurricane hit the US mainland for 25 years.  Thank God cat 5 hurricanes are rare and remain so. So how about those predictions of increased intensity?  NOT!  What about frequency?  According to NOAA's data on hurricane frequency there is no meaningful increase in the frequency of hurricanes over the past 100+ years either.  So to the climate scare mongers just saying that there's an increased risk of weather related catastrophe does not make it real or true.  Only measurable science and observation makes it true.  I think AGW should be re-refereced as Anthropological Global Whining.

Did that list include typhoons (hurricanes in the Pacific) and large cyclonic storms in the Indian Ocean.  Those are also hurricanes and need to be included in any global assessment.  Also, a Category 5 storm that completely misses the US is still a hurricane and needs to be included.  Only counting storms that hit the US mainland is a sure way to end up with a bad conclusion.

And while hurricane activity in the Atlantic is not keeping up with forecasts, smaller storms over the continental interior are increasing in both frequency and intensity.  It is the total amount of energy in the climate system that is related to global warming, not just one expression of it.

Doug

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
12 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

 Then there's the forest and wildfires. All we need is some sharks thrown in for the perfect storm.

Hank

Sharknado?  We had a quakenado here in Oklahoma.  Actually, I think we've had two.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Calibeliever
15 hours ago, Noxasa said:

  I think AGW should be re-refereced as Anthropological Global Whining.

Why? 

Quote

Yet, as with their climate models that never come true neither do their warnings about extreme weather.

Which models are you referring to? If you're only going by sensational headlines then your LOL at the beginning of your comment might be seen in the same light. No models I'm aware of predicted the immediate change deniers keep pointing to as proof of deception. A "better than even chance of a 2-11% increase in average intensity" is hardly alarmist. The fact that the world didn't stop turning 5 years after Al Gore made his movie is all the proof some seem to need that the whole thing is made up in a grand conspiracy to increase my taxes and collapse the world economy.

What scientists do agree on is the TREND that the system as a whole is warming and the long term (decades, centuries) impact of that will likely make life more difficult for humans. I don't get the LOL-ing about that. If you are a climate scientist then I apologize for my presumption and I'd appreciate your efforts to enlighten us with your expertise. 

Edited by Calibeliever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paperdyer

I think we can start blaming this as well.  If the magnetic fields are shifting, so does the weather.  Now I want to see the AGW scientists blame this on mankind like they do everything else related to "Global Warming"

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2116536-molten-iron-river-discovered-speeding-beneath-russia-and-canada/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
2 hours ago, paperdyer said:

I think we can start blaming this as well.  If the magnetic fields are shifting, so does the weather.  Now I want to see the AGW scientists blame this on mankind like they do everything else related to "Global Warming"

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2116536-molten-iron-river-discovered-speeding-beneath-russia-and-canada/

How do you figure that climate is a function of geomagnetism?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noxasa
On 1/18/2018 at 9:24 AM, Doug1o29 said:

Did that list include typhoons (hurricanes in the Pacific) and large cyclonic storms in the Indian Ocean.  Those are also hurricanes and need to be included in any global assessment.  Also, a Category 5 storm that completely misses the US is still a hurricane and needs to be included.  Only counting storms that hit the US mainland is a sure way to end up with a bad conclusion.

And while hurricane activity in the Atlantic is not keeping up with forecasts, smaller storms over the continental interior are increasing in both frequency and intensity.  It is the total amount of energy in the climate system that is related to global warming, not just one expression of it.

Doug

No, storms in the interior continental US are not increasing in either frequency or intensity.  (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/extreme-events/us-tornado-climatology/trends)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noxasa
On 1/18/2018 at 1:15 PM, Calibeliever said:

Why? Which models are you referring to? If you're only going by sensational headlines then your LOL at the beginning of your comment might be seen in the same light. No models I'm aware of predicted the immediate change deniers keep pointing to as proof of deception.

I'm referring to ALL the models that have been around long enough to be able to do a verification of their predictive value.  ALL of them have failed.

Quote

What scientists do agree on is the TREND that the system as a whole is warming and the long term (decades, centuries) impact of that will likely make life more difficult for humans. I don't get the LOL-ing about that. If you are a climate scientist then I apologize for my presumption and I'd appreciate your efforts to enlighten us with your expertise.

The global climate system may in fact be warming naturally.  The Earth has been warmer and cooler throughout the existence of mankind as a species.  I just don't think the data shows that catastrophe is in the making.  If climate science has shown itself to NOT BE ABLE to predict 25 or 50 year global surface temperature changes then why should we assume their current 25, 50 or 100 year temperature predictions are accurate.  Especially when there's so much corruption of money in the science.  A 30+% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels since 1950 has not shown a corresponding catastrophic result in climate data measurements, or catastrophic weather related events, as predicted.  The science is just not good enough yet to understand global climate systems and predict the truth of future climate reality.  Someday maybe it will get there, but it's not there now and we shouldn't quiver under the sheets in our beds because somebody says the worlds going to end soon due to our energy use.  Pardon me if I'm skeptical. 

And I'm all for a move to sustainable energy sources as reasonable for an economy and society as long as it doesn't destroy people's lives.  But environmental whack-o's want to destroy people's lives now claiming the world's going to end tomorrow if we don't.  I just don't see the scientific data that supports doing that to people, there's no need.  Let sustainable energy markets emerge naturally by supply and demand.  That's the pace that those technologies should be developed.  Not rushed at great damage to people and the economy because someone says the world is ending tomorrow when the science hasn't even been proven yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
2 hours ago, Noxasa said:

No, storms in the interior continental US are not increasing in either frequency or intensity.  (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/extreme-events/us-tornado-climatology/trends)

 

I did a paper on this in grad school.  Would you like a copy?

Besides, that link is about tornados.  There are a lot more types of storms than just tornados.  If you want to know what is happening, you have to include them all.  Cherry-picking isn't allowed.

Doug

 

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Calibeliever
18 hours ago, Noxasa said:

I'm referring to ALL the models that have been around long enough to be able to do a verification of their predictive value.  ALL of them have failed.

The global climate system may in fact be warming naturally.  The Earth has been warmer and cooler throughout the existence of mankind as a species.  I just don't think the data shows that catastrophe is in the making.  If climate science has shown itself to NOT BE ABLE to predict 25 or 50 year global surface temperature changes then why should we assume their current 25, 50 or 100 year temperature predictions are accurate.  Especially when there's so much corruption of money in the science.  A 30+% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels since 1950 has not shown a corresponding catastrophic result in climate data measurements, or catastrophic weather related events, as predicted.  The science is just not good enough yet to understand global climate systems and predict the truth of future climate reality.  Someday maybe it will get there, but it's not there now and we shouldn't quiver under the sheets in our beds because somebody says the worlds going to end soon due to our energy use.  Pardon me if I'm skeptical. 

And I'm all for a move to sustainable energy sources as reasonable for an economy and society as long as it doesn't destroy people's lives.  But environmental whack-o's want to destroy people's lives now claiming the world's going to end tomorrow if we don't.  I just don't see the scientific data that supports doing that to people, there's no need.  Let sustainable energy markets emerge naturally by supply and demand.  That's the pace that those technologies should be developed.  Not rushed at great damage to people and the economy because someone says the world is ending tomorrow when the science hasn't even been proven yet.

There's a lot to unpack here so I'll start by saying it's good to be skeptical. There's no reason to take anything at face value or to believe sensational headlines designed to instill fear and get ratings. I think it's right to rail against this kind of rhetoric, but I'd also be careful not to allow yourself to fall into the same trap. Using inflammatory language like whack-o, generalizing that ALL data is wrong without providing any citation, claiming that there have been no damaging effects due to the increase of CO2 without proof, and claiming that lives have been destroyed is reverse hysteria.

If you make the claim that there is too much corruption and money in science that creates a bias, you also have to admit that there is as much money and corruption being poured into anti-science to create it's own bias. The difference I've seen between the two sides in the last decade is that scientists have to provide facts. Anti-science can simply say "no it isn't doing that" and point out the slightest variance to invalidate the entire data set. You're free to believe what you want, but if you're going to characterize a group of people who've made it their life's work to study a problem as whack-os without understanding some of the complexities of the problem yourself, then you aren't really contributing anything of value.

The politics of climate change are different from the science of climate change. Scientists are hampered by the fact that they aren't politicians. They don't see it as their job to sway public opinion, just to understand the problem and communicate, as best they can, what's going on. Are some (on both sides) biased? Of course, they're human. But in science that bias has to be backed up with data. And when it comes to data, one side clearly has the preponderance. Again, as a denier, you don't need data. You can just wave a hand and say "I don't believe it" and go on about your day. 

I have been reading and listening to climate change news for decades now. I try to discard the more extreme viewpoints and ignore the emotional images of polar bears floating out to sea on thinning ice. I am not an alarmist by any stretch, but I'm fairly convinced that we are altering our planet's atmosphere at an increasing rate and by the time we realize how much damage we've done it will be too late. Delaying change for the sake of an unknown impact on the economy makes no practical sense. If the economy is what you really care about, I'd be much more concerned with the effects of automation and the globalization of manufacturing to begin with, then work your way around to free-trade and the world bank. The effects of a decades long shift in energy policy pales in comparison.

Just my .02

 

Edited by Calibeliever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Socks Junior
On 1/19/2018 at 2:29 PM, Doug1o29 said:

How do you figure that climate is a function of geomagnetism?

He probably doesn't. But some people have explored that possibility. Courtillot et al., 2007.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5d0a/404c024f1e293fa12c97af1af89c5084914c.pdf

Quote

Understanding climate change is an active topic of research. Much of the observed increase in global surface temperature over the past 150 years occurred prior to the 1940s and after the 1980s. The main causes invoked are solar variability, changes in atmospheric greenhouse gas content or sulfur due to natural or anthropogenic action, or internal variability of the coupled ocean–atmosphere system. Magnetism has seldom been invoked, and evidence for connections between climate and magnetic field variations have received little attention. We review evidence for correlations which could suggest such (causal or non-causal) connections at various time scales (recent secular variation ∼10–100 yr, historical and archeomagnetic change ∼100–5000 yr, and excursions and reversals ∼103 –106 yr), and attempt to suggest mechanisms. Evidence for correlations, which invoke Milankovic forcing in the core, either directly or through changes in ice distribution and moments of inertia of the Earth, is still tenuous. Correlation between decadal changes in amplitude of geomagnetic variations of external origin, solar irradiance and global temperature is stronger. It suggests that solar irradiance could have been a major forcing function of climate until the mid-1980s, when “anomalous” warming becomes apparent. The most intriguing feature may be the recently proposed archeomagnetic jerks, i.e. fairly abrupt (∼100 yr long) geomagnetic field variations found at irregular intervals over the past few millennia, using the archeological record from Europe to the Middle East. These seem to correlate with significant climatic events in the eastern North Atlantic region. A proposed mechanism involves variations in the geometry of the geomagnetic field (f.i. tilt of the dipole to lower latitudes), resulting in enhanced cosmic-ray induced nucleation of clouds. No forcing factor, be it changes in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere or changes in cosmic ray flux modulated by solar activity and geomagnetism, or possibly other factors, can at present be neglected or shown to be the overwhelming single driver of climate change in past centuries. Intensive data acquisition is required to further probe indications that the Earth's and Sun's magnetic fields may have significant bearing on climate change at certain time scales

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
1 hour ago, Socks Junior said:

He probably doesn't. But some people have explored that possibility. Courtillot et al., 2007.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5d0a/404c024f1e293fa12c97af1af89c5084914c.pdf

 

Maybe there really is a connection.  I think I see the Chandler Wobble in tree rings.  But how a wobble of only 150 meters or so could leave an effect in tree rings is beyond me.  So maybe there is a connection to geomagnetism.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
20 hours ago, Noxasa said:

I'm referring to ALL the models that have been around long enough to be able to do a verification of their predictive value.  ALL of them have failed.

I dare say you've missed a few.  There are about 300 climate models, many of which have very limited uses, such as predicting water levels in a particular river (like the Arkansas and Platte, for example).  Ordinarliy, there wouldn't be a need to publish accuracy figures.  One need only run the numbers and compare them with the actual measurments, just like any statistical analysis.  As the results only have value to those working on that particular river, the result would be distribiuted by email and never get into the literature.  Unless there was something unusual about the technique that might be worth a paper.

A model fails or succeeds based on whether it meets a particular level of accuracy.  I use 95% confidence of an error less than 1.5 degrees in average monthly temperature figures.  So what level of accuracy do you think is appropriate?

And who needs models to measure global warming?  That can be done with weather data, no modelling needed.  Just plot the annual average temperatures for a given city and see what you get.  Oklahoma City has 127 years of data.  Fort Gibson has 190 years.  That ought to be enough to see what's going on.  Oklahoma is a good place to see rising temperatures.  We're dry enough that the signal readily shows up in the data.  But places like Washington, DC, being near the coast, are wet and the warming signal isn't as obvious.  But you can get data going back to about 1900 for nearly any city in the US here:  https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/cd/cd.html?_finish=0.019470860178568694

 

And who's asking anyone to spend government money?  The US is converting to wind power and that is being done with private money.  Who knows?  Maybe you're already using wind power.  Congress and the President have elected not to be involved, so they're being left behind.  Conversion is happening without their input.  Very literally, billions of dollars are being spent on wind farms and transmission lines.  And that's just Oklahoma.  Iowa and Texas have more and, until now, bigger wind farms.  I'm guessing that investment in wind now exceeds hundreds of billions of dollars.

Why would private investors spend that kind of money if they didn't expect to make a profit?  It's really quite simple:  the grid is getting old and starting to break down, as are the old coal-fired power plants.  They are going to have to be replaced.  So why not replace them with something cheaper, and thus, more profitable?

Thank god that money will be made in conversion.  Thanks to profits we'll have a cleaner, healthier amd maybe cooler planet.  It's a cinch that governments aren't doing anything.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29

Footnote on wind:  SAFETY.  The greatest risk around a wind farm is somebody falling from the nacel.  Everybody has safety harnesses and the like, but accidents occasionally happen.  I don't know of any wind-connected injuries in Oklahoma for the past sixteen years and that's most of wind's history here.

How about oil?  Just this morning a well blew up southeast of Tulsa.  Three people with critical injuries, five missing.  There are normally about ten people on a well, so that's nearly everybody.  It's a Patterson well.  Same company had another well blow up out near Edmondson about four years ago.  Nobody killed or injured that time, but some private cars got burned up.  And a couple months ago a derrickman fell from the top of the rig - wasn't wearing his safety harness.  About the same time we had a rig tip over - no injuries, but some underwear had to be changed.  The crew was setting it up - it wasn't running yet.  And we almost had a guy killed when they took measurement-while-drilling gear out of the well for repairs.  The power was off while the work was being done, but nobody told the new guy.  He noticed the power switch was off and knew it was normally on, so he flipped it.  A 50-foot electrical arc shot across the site.  Luckily, the repairman had just stood up and wasn't touching anything hot.

All businesses have some sort of risk.  It's dangerous out there.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
17 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

There are normally about ten people on a well, so that's nearly everybody.  It's a Patterson well.

There were 22 people on this well.  Apparently both day and night crews were there.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.