One of the biggest climate change threats -- Rain

[Write4U]

I guess you are losing the argument quite badly.

Donald Trump: "I love the poorly educated."
Recent Pew poll - 58% of republicans think higher education is a bad thing, 36% of democrats think it's a bad thing.

And more likely to vote their ignorance.

I like the concept of preferring to be ignorant by choice. That way you'll never regret your own causal participation in the destruction of earth's ecosphere and can blame everyone else for the disasters as they emerge. How convenient.

 

[sculptor]

Most likely the main impact will be from secondary causes, not the rise of a few degrees in temparature.

Draughts, Crop failure, Migration, Landloss due to rising oean levels, Competition for habitat.
Nothing is going to happen at once, it'll be a steady chronology (domino effect) of continual hardship.

The problem with global events is that once a threshold has been breached, there follows a cascade of secondary events, most of which cannot be planned for.

Why do you think that warming = droughts?
The proxy records indicate that warmer most likely = wetter. both conditions are usually beneficial for the primary producers.
and, then ...................................

 

[Write4U]

Why do you think that warming = droughts?

Statistics. ............................

See how global warming is expected to worsen drought it Australia—and find other hot spots threatened by extremely dry conditions on the Climate Hot Map.

• Increased drought in dry areas. In drier regions, evapotranspiration may produce periods of drought—defined as below-normal levels of rivers, lakes, and groundwater, and lack of enough soil moisture in agricultural areas. Precipitation has declined in the tropics and subtropics since 1970. Southern Africa, the Sahel region of Africa, southern Asia, the Mediterranean, and the U.S. Southwest, for example, are getting drier. Even areas that remain relatively wet can experience long, dry conditions between extreme precipitation events.

• [*]Expansion of dry areas. Scientists expect the amount of land affected by drought to grow by mid-century—and water resources in affected areas to decline as much as 30 percent. These changes occur partly because of an expanding atmospheric circulation pattern known as the Hadley Cell—in which warm air in the tropics rises, loses moisture to tropical thunderstorms, and descends in the subtropics as dry air. As jet streams continue to shift to higher latitudes, and storm patterns shift along with them, semi-arid and desert areas are expected to expand.

http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-effects/drought.html

ENVIRONMENT
3,185,671 Forest loss this year (hectares)
4,288,775 Land lost to soil erosion this year (ha)
24,980,331,356 CO2 emissions this year (tons)
7,350,806 Desertification this year (hectares)
5,998,490 Toxic chemicals released in the environment this year (tons)

https://www.worldometers.info/

 

[billvon]

Why do you think that warming = droughts?

Because even if the rainfall stays exactly the same, warming = more droughts. We've seen that in practice here.

 

[Write4U]

Because even if the rainfall stays exactly the same, warming = more droughts. We've seen that in practice here.

The problem is compounded by the fact that weather fronts do move. Warm air picks up a lot of moisture but the front does not remain stationary and moves all that moisture laden air 200 miles to some mountain range where the moisture condenses and it rains abundantly in that area, but not in the original area which has lost that moisture and has become drier.

The devious part is global chance occurs so slowly and erratically that any patterns are diverse and seemingly not reliable. But when we start looking at 100 yr blocks the changes become apparent and everything points to the fact that GW and climate change are real and existentially "dangerous" because they are caused by man's industrial activities and industry is the last to adopt environmentally friendly practices. They are costly.

 

[iceaura]

The proxy records indicate that warmer most likely = wetter. both conditions are usually beneficial for the primary producers.

In general: No, they don't. They indicate AGW will produce more extremes of wet and dry both - with no indication that one will prove more common or widespread or in any other way more "usual" than the other on a global scale.

And where they do, the ever-changing and increasingly variable distribution of the extra warmth and rain (in space and time and severity all) is predicted to render it destructive of primary production - in the ocean as well as on land.

That's what the research into AGW reports. Not sure what is meant by "proxy records", but AGW is a unique event in this planet's history.

 

[Schmelzer]

In general: No, they don't. They indicate AGW will produce more extremes of wet and dry both - with no indication that one will prove more common or widespread or in any other way more "usual" than the other on a global scale.

And where they do, the ever-changing and increasingly variable distribution of the extra warmth and rain (in space and time and severity all) is predicted to render it destructive of primary production - in the ocean as well as on land.

That's what the research into AGW reports.

As usual, without any reference to any sources, thus, simply propaganda.

The interesting point here is how it illustrates the techniques of the alarmists. There is some increase in volatility of rains - an increase which one can observe by comparing such events in Europe with tropical weather. This increase is used by the alarmists to present the weather in the future as something completely horrible, consisting of extremal events only, leading to complete destruction. Living actually in the tropes, average temperature 27°C, I can say that the rains are more extreme during the rainy season, and non-existent during the other time, thus, much more extreme than Germany, average temperature 8°C. Nonetheless, one can live here in a quite comfortable way.

 

[iceaura]

As usual, without any reference to any sources, thus, simply propaganda.

Well established simple facts most people interested in the topic know already are your idea of "propaganda"?
No wonder you are unable to recognize real world propaganda, disinformation, etc.

There is some increase in volatility of rains

That wasn't mentioned. The predictions of the research analysts for the future were mentioned.

To repeat: What the AGW researchers and analysts have found is that the extra rain from AGW will most likely fall as torrential increases in rainfall from storms of existing frequency, duration, and area of coverage, rather than as a general increase in precipitation more evenly and beneficially distributed.

The interesting point here is how it illustrates the techniques of the alarmists.

People who simply refer to the findings of AGW research, the analysis thereof by the researchers, and the physical facts thereby established and observed, are namecalled "alarmists" by US Republican Party propagandists funded by the fossil fuel industry, their parrots, and essentially nobody else.

This increase is used by the alarmists to present the weather in the future as something completely horrible, consisting of extremal events only, leading to complete destruction.

Posting references to sources is for other people, not you, apparently. You just post one silly falsehood after another, without letup, factchecking none of it.
Meanwhile, although you pretend to be responding to my posting, nothing like that appears in my posting. So your readers have no clue, from your posting alone, where you are getting that ignorant bs from.

I know, of course, because I am familiar with your sources and recognize their vocabulary, characteristic errors of fact, viewpoint on the science involved in AGW research, and rhetorical approach. But lots of people might not. Do you intend to mislead and deceive these people, or just not know any better yourself?

 

[sculptor]

Statistics. ............................

See how global warming is expected to worsen drought it Australia—and find other hot spots threatened by extremely dry conditions on the Climate Hot Map.
http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-effects/drought.html

ENVIRONMENT
3,185,671 Forest loss this year (hectares)
4,288,775 Land lost to soil erosion this year (ha)
24,980,331,356 CO2 emissions this year (tons)
7,350,806 Desertification this year (hectares)
5,998,490 Toxic chemicals released in the environment this year (tons)

https://www.worldometers.info/

You might consider an example wherein colder =dryer.

Pollen analyzes from many places in Australia show that during LGM the climate was extremely dry. The desert stretched as far south as northern Tasmania, and a large area with less than 2 percent vegetation covered entire South Australia. Forests were largely limited to small sheltered areas along the east coast and the extreme southwestern part of Western Australia.

The climate of the Eemian was generally warmer and wetter than today.

http://www.dandebat.dk/eng-klima5.htm

and
as/re the eemian-mis 5 which was warmer than this holocene

These oscillations of climate in Australian drylands have been found to be reflected in levels of available moisture which vary with cyclical fluctuations. Lakes and rivers across the arid interior are activated in interglacials and active dunefields and blowing dust characterise the glacial phases which are cold and drier.

https://austhrutime.com/last_interglacial_australian_deserts .htm

in general, warmer =wetter, colder = dryer
...................
poor soil management and deforestation are problems that are being addressed, and still need more cooperative work world wide.

ergo
plant a tree
lots more would be better

 

[Schmelzer]

Well established simple facts most people interested in the topic know already are your idea of "propaganda"?

No, claims with an obvious political agenda behind them, with no supporting evidence presented. How many people "know" the claims is completely irrelevant, given that the very aim of propaganda lies is that as many people as possible "know" them.

To repeat: What the AGW researchers and analysts have found is that the extra rain from AGW will most likely fall as torrential increases in rainfall from storms of existing frequency, duration, and area of coverage, rather than as a general increase in precipitation more evenly and beneficially distributed.

Maybe, maybe not, given that you have not supported your claims with evidence. In fact, it does not change my point, given that I have not made any claims about "beneficially distributed".

People who simply refer to the findings of AGW research, the analysis thereof by the researchers, and the physical facts thereby established and observed, are namecalled "alarmists" by US Republican Party propagandists funded by the fossil fuel industry, their parrots, and essentially nobody else.

Says an alarmist, who never (with a few exceptions, where the evidence presented usually supports something different) supports his claims with evidence.

Posting references to sources is for other people, not you, apparently. You just post one silly falsehood after another, without letup, factchecking none of it.

I have posted a quote from one particular alarmist, who posts in this forum as "iceaura", which illustrated my claim. I understand that you don't agree with my interpretation of that quote, but that does not mean that I have not presented evidence for my claim.

I know, of course, because I am familiar with your sources and recognize their vocabulary, characteristic errors of fact, viewpoint on the science involved in AGW research, and rhetorical approach. But lots of people might not. Do you intend to mislead and deceive these people, or just not know any better yourself?

I know that your fantasies about my sources are nothing but your inventions. You cannot even read most of my sources without translation.

But I have no big problem with the claims that some US sources write similar things. Cheap ad hominem, but so what? As mentioned many times, I continue to think 2+2=4 even it Hitler made such a propaganda claim too.

 

[iceaura]

No, claims with an obvious political agenda behind them, with no supporting evidence presented.

The research reports are stuffed to the gills with "supporting evidence". So are many of the media articles about them, the interviews and essays by knowledgable and honest investigators and journalists (nonRepublican, etc).

The political agenda is in your dingbat imagination, where you assign everything a "side", filter "information" out of "propaganda" without knowing anything about the physical reality involved, and end up parroting the Republican Party media feed - which is no surprise: they are the best marketing pros in the world, and you have no defenses.

So all of your claims regarding climate change have an obvious political agenda behind them (they are the Republican Party line)

and since you have never presented supporting evidence - - - - .

I know that your fantasies about my sources are nothing but your inventions. You cannot even read most of my sources without translation.

There's only one general source on this planet for your posting here - and you don't even know that, because you factcheck nothing and verify nothing in these matters

I have posted a quote from one particular alarmist, who posts in this forum as "iceaura", which illustrated my claim

It didn't.
You mislabeled a source as "propaganda", misread the quote, and got your own claims wrong, all at once. Not for the first time.

As mentioned many times, I continue to think 2+2=4 even it Hitler made such a propaganda claim too.

What you post here is the part where Hitler changes his mind, and declares 2+2=5, or maybe 11, and in any case people have done arithmetic before so any answer is ok

- and you follow along on your media leash, posting "2+2=11" on this forum, because you never got around to learning what the right answer was. You don't know what 2+2 equals, so you balance the "propaganda" from "both sides" - just as instructed by the US Republican media feed.

The situation has been explained to you several times.
On US issues with any domestic relevance you post almost nothing except the media feed of the US rightwing corporate authoritarian media operations - including their coordinated and characteristic errors and idiocies. There is only one general source for that media feed, on this planet.

And that source - the US rightwing etcetcetc - is an immediate problem in dealing with the CO2 boost and its effects. It interferes with any attempts to handle the heavier rains predicted, for example.

 

[Schmelzer]

The research reports are stuffed to the gills with "supporting evidence". So are many of the media articles about them, the interviews and essays by knowledgable and honest investigators and journalists (nonRepublican, etc).

Except that it is, at best, "supporting evidence" for alarmist claims. But, ok, feel free to link some of them, we will see.

and since you have never presented supporting evidence - - - - .

For what I claim, I present arguments. I do not use authority arguments of type "this is supported by 99% of all scientists" or so. So, I'm not obliged to link to at least 1% which supports my claims.

You mislabeled a source as "propaganda", misread the quote, and got your own claims wrong, all at once. Not for the first time.

Feel free to show this in detail at least once. That the source is propaganda is obvious, it posts all the time all the alarmist claims and never gives any scientific evidence, despite being questioned to do this, because there is none. Some misreading may happen sometimes, nobody is perfect, but it has not been shown.

- and you follow along on your media leash, posting "2+2=11" on this forum, because you never got around to learning what the right answer was.

Except that I post "2+2=4", and you don't give any counterarguments, but claim "that's wrong, 2+2=11, this has been shown by all the scientific research" without giving any link to any textbook or paper showing 2+2=11. Not clear if you do this simply because you don't know any such link, or because you know that I would look into it and easily detect that the context is $\mathbb{Z}_3$, thus, something completely different.

 

[Write4U]

ergo
plant a tree
lots more would be better

Plant Hemp......seriously.

Hemp is the most versatile industrial crop in addition to being the most effective natural CO2 scrubber.

Hemp offers many different uses that can promote a more sustainable world. Hemp products can be recycled, reused and are 100% biodegradable. Proponents of hemp claim that it can help reduce global warming because it takes out large amounts of carbon dioxide per acre, more than most plants. This is especially true if the end products are locked up permanently in applications like building materials as opposed to recycling the carbon by applications such as compost.

Large Hemp Tap Root

Hemp must be compared to an alternate major acreage crop grown in the area like wheat, which on average will produce 0.75 tonnes per acre of straw per year equating to 0.15 tonnes of residue in the wheat roots. A hemp crop producing 3 tonnes of fibre per acre would produce 0.6 tonnes per acre in the roots. A net benefit for growing or switching wheat acres to hemp acres in the agriculture production system would be 0.6 - 0.15 = 0.45 tonnes per acre more carbon sequestered in the soil per year from the hemp roots as opposed to growing wheat.

http://www.hemptrade.ca/eguide/background/hemps-environmental-impact

 

[RainbowSingularity]

The proxy records indicate that warmer most likely = wetter.

and wetter = more tornados & more cyclones & more rain storms & more flooding

instead of having awful-hot-lovely-for-sunbathing-weather-dont-mind-i-have-to-buy-water-because-i-can-afford-it type of Florida day dreams to keep the elderly republican voters moving to the polling booths...
it will be surface flooding, rain storms and blocked drains and sewage running in the streets.

subsidence and sink holes is probably a big issue for the usa where they have built on flood plains that layers on layers of soft sediment have developed over the last century.
as flooding into those sediment area sbecomes normal it is likely they are not compacted and settled, rather just washed into mounding.

if i was in government i would form an equity insurance body to cover forced migration from poorly constructed land development(& forced re-settlement due to weather conditions) so it can stand on its own feet while the insurance companys sue themselves.

it will be interesting to see what happens.

vastly increased cell phone coverage means millions more people able to document events that would have otherwise gone undocumented.

urban sprawl from land and house price inflation drives people to more and more remote places, increases habitat loss for apex predators etc etc

See how global warming is expected to worsen drought it Australia—and find other hot spots threatened by extremely dry conditions on the Climate Hot Map.

i had completely forgotten about the mega sand storms
thats a local specialty for desert borders

at home on the back porch minding your own business & eating your honey roasted duck dim-sum noodle pop tarts(with chop sticks because you hate western racist mothertrucker media _ankers), shopping on the dark web on ebay for some western philosophy book and you look up to see the desert coming @ ya like a drunk roller derby team carrying bags of itching powder
...

 

[iceaura]

xcept that it is, at best, "supporting evidence" for alarmist claims

Yep,
All the research supports the "alarmist" claims. None of it supports the Republican Party line.

That the source is propaganda is obvious

You are wrong again - and about an obvious matter. You cannot recognize propaganda, because you have no intellectual base in physical reality - you don't know anything.

For what I claim, I present arguments

You don't.

Feel free to show this in detail at least once.

After the first ten or eleven times I went into detail
(the best was the time you tried to "argue" that the NYT was not damaging Clinton in 2016 by posting one article from one page of one issue, and getting it wrong: for starters, you had mistakenly labeled the article "pro Clinton" when it was damaging to Clinton, and you were unable to see why)
I realized you were handling everything as propaganda - not information. And since the corporate rightwing authoritarian US pros are the best propagandists on the planet, they control your world-view.
Saves me the typing.

Except that I post "2+2=4", and you don't give any counterarguments,

You post 2+2=11, and 5, and 6, and so forth. Whatever the latest Republican Party line is, you post.

I do not use authority arguments of type "this is supported by 99% of all scientists" or so.

You appear to have mistaken argument from published research for an "authority argument". Again - no physical reality, everything you encounter is assumed to be propaganda.

That is: in scientific matters you present no arguments, and no evidence. You post assertions and claims, one after the other, all of them in conflict with the AGW research, most in conflict with common sense and what anybody can learn by looking outside,

but every single one of them identical in vocabulary, thesis, viewpoint, and supposed "argument", with the rightwing authoritarian corporate US professional media feed as employed for the benefit of the Republican Party.

Part of the reason is that with AGW as with the others you have no idea what the research has found, and are not capable of learning in those particular areas. The more fundamental reason is that you don't know enough to defend yourself against US fascist propaganda, and it blinds you.

 

[Schmelzer]

Yep,
All the research supports the "alarmist" claims. None of it supports the Republican Party line.

claims an alarmist, without proof. Already boring.

(the best was the time you tried to "argue" that the NYT was not damaging Clinton in 2016 by posting one article from one page of one issue, and getting it wrong: for starters, you had mistakenly labeled the article "pro Clinton" when it was damaging to Clinton, and you were unable to see why)

Except that that was quite different. You have posted some "research" showing that NYT supports Trump against Clinton, I have tested this by evaluating the headlines of a week or so, which showed overwhelming support for Clinton against Trump.

You appear to have mistaken argument from published research for an "authority argument". Again - no physical reality, everything you encounter is assumed to be propaganda.

Everything you post is assumed to be propaganda, of course. As explained many times, I'm used to extracting information from propaganda sources.

Scientific research is something which has yet high authority, so what is the problem? What I have criticized was not that you refer to some authority, scientific or not, but that you do not give any evidence that the authority really supports that position. I use, instead, common sense argumentation which can be evaluated directly. In this case, I do not have to refer to some other, external authority, scientific or whatever, but defend my own claims myself. You make claims about what scientific research tells, but these claims are not supported by any links to that scientific research. Some of these claims are not in conflict with common sense, and then I do not question them, some are, and in this case I ask for evidence, for links to scientific research. Given your permanent refusal to provide the evidence, it becomes more and more obvious that it does not exist at all.

You post assertions and claims, one after the other, all of them in conflict with the AGW research, most in conflict with common sense and what anybody can learn by looking outside,

Feel free to provide the evidence. I see no references to AGW research. And everything else does not go beyond a "no that's wrong", with the most powerful argument being "no that's stupid".

Part of the reason is that with AGW as with the others you have no idea what the research has found, and are not capable of learning in those particular areas.

Except that you have not even tried to argue seriously. No link to the research in conflict with my claims, no argument beyond "no that's stupid".

 

[Quantum Quack]

I don't think that humans will become extinct from global warming/climate change, but I wouldn't entirely rule it out.

I'm surprised to see the ''arguments'' going on in this thread against the idea that rainfall alone, has caused great devastation. Isn't it obvious?

It is indeed surprising when you consider that the global media ( not just USA media ) have many reports of devastating record breaking flooding across most regions of the globe along side droughts and severe water restrictions.
It is surprising that Schmelzer can argue against so many reports and remain straight faced. Even some Russian media outlets have been reporting...and they are supposedly not Republican party members (lol)

The science behind increased dynamics in weather caused by global warming, especially of the oceans is relatively simple to understand so it is puzzling why any one could consider any significant and rapid uptake increase of water vapor, due to increased ocean surface temps, into the atmosphere as being somehow benign and ultimately beneficial.
Perhaps understanding that water vapor dispersal is not as even or uniform as one would like and that it must by it's very nature gather to form heavy clouds and potential storms, might help. Just applying a hypothetical 5% uptake increase in storm water intensity will demonstrate catastrophic outcomes.
As cyclonic storms requires warm oceans to fuel them, obviously if the oceans are warmer then those cyclones, typhoons and hurricanes will become more violent with record breaking precipitation and destructive wind speeds.
Not to mention super super cells, tornadoes and seemingly freak, unpredictable and almost spontaneous storms that have proved surprisingly violent and destructive.
Intense record breaking monsoonal down pours wiping out mountain sides and villages, numerous fatalities etc. all constantly being reported this season.

Also, what fails to be grasped, is that it only takes major crop failure of one season, due to either too much water (including hailstone super super cells) or not enough water, with no certainty of another cropping season - ever again in that region, to precipitate a massive food security calamity.
The whole thing is happening way too fast for anything to adapt to... even if 5% was spread over 100 years it would still wipe out for example, most of our insect population due to temperature sensitive breeding requirements.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

is predicted to render it destructive of primary production

what is the real cost for the product for all those grain crops using free water for irrigation ?
we might see the breakfast cereal become a true luxury item once the real cost is put into the consumer price.

im no cereal hater but it does seem like the cereal industry is not dealing with optimal cost variance influencers.

people do not eat cereal dry and without a drink
equally without something else
while the basic dry product may seem easy and low Green miles(& low water use and low carbon), the end product seems to be vast amounts of plastic bags & plastic coated cardboard boxes, all requiring more water to wash dishes and provide milks & refrigeration.

like buying a very expensive toaster.
you expect it to last many years while it delivers a cheap affordable product

i am guessing that breakfast cereal may become a bar with a compostable wrapper.

but the whole food waste issue and environmental issues around compliance is all the same
tiny plastic children's toys problem.

self-righteous tiraids against plastic waste are yet to be leveled at parents buying their children endless mountains of single play plastic shit toys
its an addiction
thats part of the problem, but its a socially accepted addiction in a functional enabler market.

..."i don't think i need you telling me i cant buy single use plastic bags for my children to play with"

"I NEED IT ! ... I NEED IT ! ! ! "

 

[Quantum Quack]

what is the real cost for the product for all those grain crops using free water for irrigation ?
we might see the breakfast cereal become a true luxury item once the real cost is put into the consumer price.

im no cereal hater but it does seem like the cereal industry is not dealing with optimal cost variance influencers.

people do not eat cereal dry and without a drink
equally without something else
while the basic dry product may seem easy and low Green miles(& low water use and low carbon), the end product seems to be vast amounts of plastic bags & plastic coated cardboard boxes, all requiring more water to wash dishes and provide milks & refrigeration.

like buying a very expensive toaster.
you expect it to last many years while it delivers a cheap affordable product

i am guessing that breakfast cereal may become a bar with a compostable wrapper.

but the whole food waste issue and environmental issues around compliance is all the same
tiny plastic children's toys problem.

self-righteous tiraids against plastic waste are yet to be leveled at parents buying their children endless mountains of single play plastic shit toys
its an addiction
thats part of the problem, but its a socially accepted addiction in a functional enabler market.

..."i don't think i need you telling me i cant buy single use plastic bags for my children to play with"

"I NEED IT ! ... I NEED IT ! ! ! "

Micro plastic found in Arctic Ice cores!
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08...res-arctic-pollution-travel-research/11416188
How sick is that?!!

 

[RainbowSingularity]

alarmist

2nd amendment alarmists ?
free speech alarmists ?
nazi parade rights alarmists ?

what other types of alt-right alarmism is there ?
foreign funding of political partys ... conveniently timed

new terms of language "foreign actor" ?

what is the alt-left alarmist topics ?(inside the usa)[maduro is baby jesus in disguise?]

i must note i feel like im wasting my time trying to have an adult discussion on the topic.
but occasionally i like to make a small amount of effort just to prove myself right in not bothering most of the time.