RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
McDonalds Happy meal Christmas special collectors edition co-lab with My my little kitchen collectables ...
presents...
arctic hell glam plasto-rama
One of the biggest climate change threats -- Rain
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
McDonalds Happy meal Christmas special collectors edition co-lab with My my little kitchen collectables ...
presents...
arctic hell glam plasto-rama
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
That's because I know myself already from my childhood that to make conclusions from media reports about real probabilities is nonsensical.
It is indeed sufficiently simple, but it would be beneficial not because it is somehow benign but because water is necessary for live.
If a simple 5% increase would lead to catastrophic outcomes, the infrastructure should be actually in an extremely catastrophic state.
And have never been reported before? LOL.
First, a major crop failure of one season is not a problem at all in a global world. Crop failure is always local. Then, a single crop failure will not lead to "no certainty of another cropping season" beyond the trivial one that there is even actually nowhere such a certainty, crop failures are always possible. And the probability of several crop failures is only lower than of a single one but not non-zero. If the climate changes, there will be corresponding changes in the crops.
Your insect populations would, in this case, have been wiped out many times in the past.
indeed.. so true...so?
you missed the bit about how with repetitive flooding an entire region will go unplanted in fact the region may have to be abandoned ...take the Mid Western USA for example. Major flooding has been occurring since March and appears to be on going even today... that's nearly 5 months of agricultural land under water with out any reason to expect next year to be any better...if anything the anticipation would be that it will worsen.
India:
Climate change has played an important role in causing large-scale floods across central India, including the Mumbai floods of 2006 and 2017. During 1901-2015, there has been a three-fold rise in widespread extreme rainfall events, across central and northern India – Gujarat, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Odisha, Jharkhand, Assam and parts of Western Ghats – Goa, north Karnataka and South Kerala.[13] The rising number of extreme rain events are attributed to an increase in the fluctuations of the monsoon westerly winds, due to increased warming in the Arabian Sea. This results in occasional surges of moisture transport from the Arabian Sea to the subcontinent, resulting in heavy rains lasting for 2–3 days, and spread over a region large enough to cause floods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floods_in_India
Just google global floods stats and find out for your self...
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
And, how large was the possibility of famines leading to many deaths in 1901 and in 2015? What about the population of India in 1901 and in 2015?
Torrential rains are not necessary for life. They are destructive to agriculture.
And yet you make them in almost every post - even very silly ones, obviously false.
Like this:
Local crop failure is a serious problem in the world we live in.
Also: Crop failure is not always local even without AGW pushing it (Irish potato famine, US corn blight in the 1970s, the banana blight that destroyed most banana plantations worldwide last century, etc). If on top of that it is caused by AGW, it is very likely to be regional and ecosystem wide at least - AGW is not local.
And according to the AGW researchers, under AGW "local"crop failures - the ones that are actually local - are much more likely to be synchronized over large regions than in the past. That's a mathematical consequence of the increased variability in scale and location and frequency, which has been checked against the records of the past century and found to match the data with high confidence.
Under AGW: From alive to dead, productive to meagre, nutritional to inadequate, over large areas of the planet - including the currently most productive agricultural regions.
And that's "when", not "if".
Nope.
For example: A sudden but sustained 5% increase in the average global atmospheric temperature - about 13C - would kill most of the land animals and plants in about a year. The fact that evolution has proved capable of producing adapted critters that would prosper in such a climate is unfortunately irrelevant - that takes time, and there isn't enough.
- - -
As you have often said - and everything from many other sources, including the standard scientific journals. I'm in good company.
That, as I have pointed out several times, is your standard method of analysis, just as described by you several times ( you called me a liar when I pointed that out, and I predict you will again). Which explains your continual posting of silly factual errors identical to those found in the US Republican media feed. You cannot distinguish information from propaganda, because you have no knowledge of the physical reality involved, but you refuse to adjust your methods or defend yourself by acquiring a base of knowledge - so you end up getting played by the best propagandists.
When you don't know what you are talking about, but insist on pretending you do, the pros have no trouble handling you. What else would you expect?
The case of better informed AGW deniers is not as simple. But the fact that the ones otherwise known to buy into the Republican media feed sometimes endorse your public displays of ignorance on this forum provides us with clues, hints to the root nature of this phenomenon.
It's interesting, AGW denial. In a way. People wonder about what was going on in collapsed empires and self-destroyed civilizations - they often seem to have been sleepwalking right over the cliff. After twenty or thirty years of watching AGW denial in American politics, there's much less mystery involved.
What has population or famine got to do with a three fold increase in extreme rainfall events over 14 years?
Actually much worse and certainly quicker than a year... if the humidity ( that is water vapor - Schmelzer) is high enough it could be as little as 20 minutes for most warm blooded animals. ( and less for all the bugs etc)
Just think about it... 20 minutes with out air conditioning and.... (now that's alarmist!)
Last edited:
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Enough rain is necessary, if it comes in comfortable form or not is secondary.
Of course it is a problem for the local farmers, but it does no longer lead to famines, if not supported by additional political factors.
We are in the context of a discussion about climate, not about famines caused by various blights.
As usual no link to research. But, ok, at least an argument. In any way, it is irrelevant, because my argument covers regional crop failures too. In a global world, the food is anyway transported a lot, and to feed a region with crop failure is not a problem
Typical alarmism. The production of most of the crops will simply be shifted to regions closer to the Poles. In these cases, the crops remain the same, the climate too (the warming was compensated by moving toward the Poles) and for everything else we have to use the null hypothesis. There will be, of course, regions where the replacement is inferior, and others where it is superior. The job of the alarmist is to concentrate on only those regions where the replacement is inferior. Standard technique.
LOL. Sorry, we were talking about 5% more water, not about temperature.
A lie. I name mass media propaganda sources, especially the Western one, so, your company is big enough. But I have not named standard scientific journals propaganda sources. (Ok, there may be exceptions for some gender sciences and other pseudoscience.)
Repetitions of the usual bs disposed of.
I have stopped wondering about such things long before the climate hysteria gained full power.
I'm discussing alarmism. Population and famines are indications about how serious the region was harmed by that threefold increase. In this case, they indicate it is irrelevant and does not endanger the survival of mankind at all.
Well...sorry but I am not discussing alarmism, unless you wish to discuss how alarming it is for people such as yourself to ignore the weather stats in front of them... in fact the denialist is incredibly alarming.. because if not for the denialist we as a race may have already made significant preparations for what appears to be on the horizon..
A three fold increase in extreme rain events over 14 years is a 300% increase on what was already a serious issue for India.
Do you deny this stat?
What stat do you think will be available in another 6 years do you think? (total 20 years)
Take into account the acceleration factors and have a go at it...
Traditionally, we have related precipitation events to the local average temperature. However, it’s clear that there’s a strong relationship between the peak temperature and the precipitation rates. In fact, relations reveal that precipitation rates are increasing between 5 and 10% for every degree C increase. The expected rate of increase, just based on thermodynamics is 7%.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...2/global-warming-is-increasing-rainfall-rates
credibility: 7/10 ( my personal rating)
Not at all sure where you get the "stat" : "A three fold increase in extreme rain events over 14 years is a 300% increase on what was already a serious issue for India." ?!
However, according to this article "A threefold rise in widespread extreme rain events over central India ", published at nature.com :
: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-00744-9 ,
" Abstract
Socioeconomic challenges continue to mount for half a billion residents of central India because of a decline in the total rainfall and a concurrent rise in the magnitude and frequency of extreme rainfall events. Alongside a weakening monsoon circulation, the locally available moisture and the frequency of moisture-laden depressions from the Bay of Bengal have also declined. Here we show that despite these negative trends, there is a threefold increase in widespread extreme rain events over central India during 1950–2015. The rise in these events is due to an increasing variability of the low-level monsoon westerlies over the Arabian Sea, driving surges of moisture supply, leading to extreme rainfall episodes across the entire central subcontinent. "
Which is referenced here : http://www.climate.rocksea.org/research/widespread-extreme-rainfall-india/,
and here : https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news...nge-has-increased-flood-events-in-india-65649
The " 300% increase " you refer to seems to be over 65 years (1950 - 2015) NOT 14 years.
In your own Post #104, Quantum Quack, you Posted:
From 1901 to 2015 is 114 years, Quantum Quack, NOT 14 years.
Ergo, I would expect that Schmelzer, and indeed anyone else, should Deny the "stat" : "A three fold increase in extreme rain events over 14 years is a 300% increase on what was already a serious issue for India." ?!
Your tactics of utilizing "stats" remind me of something I read years ago : "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
The Quote above has been attributed to many, including Lord Courtney, Sir Charles Dilke, Sir Robert Giffen, Arthur James Balfour, Cornelia Augusta Hewitt Crosse, Benjamin Disraeli and also Mark Twain.
Sigh, that makes me sad.
If it comes in torrents, it destroys agriculture.
There are always political factors for you to blame.
So local crop failures are big problems, and not just for local farmers (the crop failures in Syria, for example, have involved four nuclear powers in a civil war)
AGW researchers have found that AGW will probably increase the frequency and severity of blights as well as other causes of crop failure. If you paid attention to AGW research, you would know that.
If they can be.
Where they will replace the landscape production already there, incurring a loss.
And which will reduce yields, increase blights and other diseases, and require heavy investment from people with little money to spare - the best soil and light and climate and so forth do not exist at higher latitudes. More loss.
You normally don't "name" your sources, as far as anyone can tell you don't know what they are, so you not naming things is just you posting.
Meanwhile: You have declared the information they provide to be "propaganda". You have described how in your world view financial pressure from deep state agents and world government promoters biases their research and reports toward promoting AGW. Every article or report I linked, you dismissed as biased and propaganda. Every time I passed on some information from those journals you declared it to be propaganda, and handled it accordingly. And every time you describe your method of extracting information from propaganda, as you just did again in this thread, you include the scientific journals involved.
Your basic problem is ignorance - you have no source of physical fact or information, and insist on that to the point of actively refusing to read linked and referenced sources, with the net result that your entire world is built from what you have assumed is propaganda from what you have assumed are different "sides". That's how you get played so easily by the US Republican media pros.
No, they don't. They indicate that the relevance is immediate and significant.
Or, if they were attempting honest discussion, simply amend an apparent typo to a threefold increase in extreme rain events over 65 years. That would have the advantage of not denying any of the reality involved.
Ands if really curious, and wanting to make a stronger argument, they could look up the trend and acceleration. How much of that 300% happened in the last 20 years of the 65? If more than a third, evidence of an emergency incoming. If less than a quarter, good news.
Note to any one reading this Thread :
For the sake of honest discussion, it should be apparent that Quantum Quack meant to type the number "65", but through a simple typo, instead typed the number "14" by mistake, twice, in Post #107 and again in Post #110.
There can be no denying any of the reality involved in making such a simple error as it is apparent that the numbers "1" and "4" are very close to and very similar to the numbers "6" and "5" on most keyboards and number pads.
No... you are quite right. I misread the 1901 as being 2001 but even so the stats are still damning...
300% increase over 114 years....with out any sign of reversal....
Another example of paranoia hey DMOE?
Another example for the file thanks...
Frankly, I would rather be called out on a mistake even if done with hostility than to have the mistake over looked or put aside... so thank you for your effort...
Perhaps you could have a go at how Schmelzer did a duck and dodge on the stats, strawmaning to famine and population numbers instead... you know ... for the sake of honest discussion...
Last edited:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08...res-arctic-pollution-travel-research/11416188
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/deep-ocean-wonders-and-pollution.162258/
https://www.sciencealert.com/plasti...hould-all-be-ashamed-mariana-trench-pollution
A new study analysing over 30 years' worth of data on human-made trashfound in the deepest parts of the ocean reveals almost 3,500 pieces of plastic and other debris have been discovered littering these remote, fragile ecosystems.
TheMariana Trench is the deepest part of the entire ocean – home to distant, alien forms ofmarine life we know next to nothing about– but its remote, almost unreachable location doesn't mean we haven't found ways to carelessly spoil it.
Even sadder.....Sigh, that makes me sad.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/deep-ocean-wonders-and-pollution.162258/
https://www.sciencealert.com/plasti...hould-all-be-ashamed-mariana-trench-pollution
A new study analysing over 30 years' worth of data on human-made trashfound in the deepest parts of the ocean reveals almost 3,500 pieces of plastic and other debris have been discovered littering these remote, fragile ecosystems.
TheMariana Trench is the deepest part of the entire ocean – home to distant, alien forms ofmarine life we know next to nothing about– but its remote, almost unreachable location doesn't mean we haven't found ways to carelessly spoil it.
Yes, Quantum Quack, you could say that "the stats are still damning..."
paranoia?
file?
I Posted nothing about any paranoia.
I Posted nothing about any file.
I simply responded to your Post #110 :
and Post #115 by iceaura :
The post I made had it's references included. here is the link again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floods_in_India
It was a wiki article that I quoted on the fly and mistakenly read the time frame involved in the stats.
As I later posted ... an example of paranoia perhaps? (mine - ours)
Last edited: