Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,111
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Elarey7
    Newest Member
    Elarey7
    Joined

Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change


donsutherland1
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 8/19/2021 at 10:14 AM, ChescoWx said:

Hi Tip - the point is even in our current warming cycle of climate change - the apparent lessening of extreme (if 95 degrees is extreme?) may support the idea that the warming is derived more from the higher min temps than the high temps - supporting the increasing average temps.

For fun I did 5-year running averages for each month's diurnal temp range here, not a long sample (periods 1999-03 thru 2016-20 so just an 18-year sample) and it revealed what I think are significant changes during that short period.  The average yearly diurnal range has decreased by 1.8° over the period.  One month, the low-range November (only DEC's is smaller) actually increased by 0.5° but the other 11 months all showed at least 1.0° decreased ranges, led by the 3.4° for October.  My place was in the woods when we moved here in May 1998 and that has not changed.  The increased atmospheric moisture appears to be buffering both extreme highs and extreme lows.

Raindancewx:
The tree ring sample caught my eye.  I've been skeptical of the value of dendrochronology as analog for temp change, except at the cold-climate edge of a tree species' range.  Having measured nearby trees' diameter growth at 2-week intervals for a number of years, I've found that spring temps can alter the commencement of growth (2020 and 2021 provided major contrasts) but the annual increment is affected far more by precipitation/soil moisture than by temperature - probably by an order of magnitude.  

Edit:  And I like eating meat too, but my favorite is deer meat and since I hunt on my woodlot with a rifle made in 1964, the GHG impact is minimal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/20/2021 at 1:38 AM, raindancewx said:

https://bitesizevegan.org/environment/everything-wrong-with-environmentalism-in-11-minutes-or-less/

Any of you ever see this? It's pretty well sourced. I basically agree with her that it's asinine to pretend to care about the environment and eat meat. I love meat, but I also don't pretend to be an environmentalist. The figures she cites for meat production per acre line up pretty well with what ranchers tell me. 

you also should eat much less meat for health reasons

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/eat-more-plant-based-proteins-to-boost-longevity

 

They analyzed 32 studies about protein intake that included more than 715,000 people, with follow-up periods ranging from three-and-a-half years to over three decades. Combining data from multiple studies, the researchers calculated that getting 3% more of total calories in the form of plant protein (like beans, nuts, and whole grains) lowered people's risk for premature death by 5%. Another study, published online July 13, 2020, by JAMA Internal Medicine, looked at the survival rates of more than 416,000 people who'd reported their diet and lifestyle information 16 years earlier (when they were 50 to 71 years old). In this study, shifting just 3% of calorie intake from animal protein (meat, poultry, fish, or dairy products) to plant protein corresponded with a 10% decrease in death from any cause over that period, for both men and women. In particular, replacing eggs and red meat with plant proteins appeared to reduce death risk by as much as 24% in men and 21% in women — especially in people with high intake of eggs and red meat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/20/2021 at 1:38 AM, raindancewx said:

https://bitesizevegan.org/environment/everything-wrong-with-environmentalism-in-11-minutes-or-less/

Any of you ever see this? It's pretty well sourced. I basically agree with her that it's asinine to pretend to care about the environment and eat meat. I love meat, but I also don't pretend to be an environmentalist. The figures she cites for meat production per acre line up pretty well with what ranchers tell me. 

also major moral and health reasons for avoiding factory farmed BS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, tamarack said:

For fun I did 5-year running averages for each month's diurnal temp range here, not a long sample (periods 1999-03 thru 2016-20 so just an 18-year sample) and it revealed what I think are significant changes during that short period.  The average yearly diurnal range has decreased by 1.8° over the period.  One month, the low-range November (only DEC's is smaller) actually increased by 0.5° but the other 11 months all showed at least 1.0° decreased ranges, led by the 3.4° for October.  My place was in the woods when we moved here in May 1998 and that has not changed.  The increased atmospheric moisture appears to be buffering both extreme highs and extreme lows.

Raindancewx:
The tree ring sample caught my eye.  I've been skeptical of the value of dendrochronology as analog for temp change, except at the cold-climate edge of a tree species' range.  Having measured nearby trees' diameter growth at 2-week intervals for a number of years, I've found that spring temps can alter the commencement of growth (2020 and 2021 provided major contrasts) but the annual increment is affected far more by precipitation/soil moisture than by temperature - probably by an order of magnitude.  

Edit:  And I like eating meat too, but my favorite is deer meat and since I hunt on my woodlot with a rifle made in 1964, the GHG impact is minimal.

well I'm glad you avoid the monstrosity of the factory farming cartels

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2021 at 7:24 PM, LibertyBell said:

like 95 degree high temps in the CONUS has anything to do with WORLDWIDE climate change - I find it hilarious!

 

Great thread on Twitter today explaining why those charts comparing past heatwaves to today are misleading.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, bluewave said:

Great thread on Twitter today explaining why those charts comparing past heatwaves to today are misleading.

 

Thanks, good example of the "sociology" of climate change. If your world view is that it isn't warming or that warming is insignificant, then misinformation is readily accepted.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, bluewave said:

Great thread on Twitter today explaining why those charts comparing past heatwaves to today are misleading.

 

This is also why the NOAA makes adjustments as necessary e.g., through its homogenization process. Otherwise, data would not really be consistent or comparable.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately it boils down to the fact that station moves, instrument changes, time-of-observation changes, etc. all contaminate the record with known biases. These biases must be addressed. It is that simple. It is unethical at best to use the unadjusted data when reporting climatic information like the warming rate, heat waves, etc. given these documented biases especially if you have been notified of the existence of the issue.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/21/2021 at 6:59 PM, bluewave said:

Great thread on Twitter today explaining why those charts comparing past heatwaves to today are misleading.

 

Definitely shows how all "data" isn't created equal.

Didn't the great Mark Twain have a quote about statistics that has stood the test of time?

 

Also, while you're here Chris, how much ocean water usage (desalination) would we need to neutralize sea level rise and solve all our drought and wild fire problems?
 

Tell you what, with sea level rise happening, these ugly high dew points and droughts and wild fires in the West, I would seriously consider more efficient desalinization machines being built so we can use the water from the oceans.  It would be a muscular move to solve multiple problems at once- if we were able to use enough ocean water at a high enough rate we could solve our drought problems and negate sea level rise at the same time.  The question is how long it will be when we have machines powerful enough to desalinate water from the oceans and use it and take it out fast enough to negate sea level rise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm absolutely convinced that those of you in the Northeast are only capable of posting in this thread when unusual things happen in the wide wide world of not-New Jersey. At the end of the day 3 inches of rain in an hour is way more impressive than the west beating old highs by a small amount for five minutes a day whether you want to admit it or not.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/24/2021 at 9:47 PM, LibertyBell said:

Definitely shows how all "data" isn't created equal.

Didn't the great Mark Twain have a quote about statistics that has stood the test of time?

 

Also, while you're here Chris, how much ocean water usage (desalination) would we need to neutralize sea level rise and solve all our drought and wild fire problems?
 

Tell you what, with sea level rise happening, these ugly high dew points and droughts and wild fires in the West, I would seriously consider more efficient desalinization machines being built so we can use the water from the oceans.  It would be a muscular move to solve multiple problems at once- if we were able to use enough ocean water at a high enough rate we could solve our drought problems and negate sea level rise at the same time.  The question is how long it will be when we have machines powerful enough to desalinate water from the oceans and use it and take it out fast enough to negate sea level rise.

Good morning Liberty. It’s early and my cup of penance is half empty. I read your post/question and now I’m almost fully awake. With my aged brain cells working through this I, admittedly, am not having an easy time. If we could desalinate and move water from the oceans to world wide areas, in need, what would the results be? Deserts disappear, water table/aquifer rises, precipitation patterns changes? Will the ocean levels be significantly lowered if this movement was possible? Once the land sponge effect ends does sea level stabilize in the ocean/atmosphere/land cycle. What is done with all the extracted salt? Well, Liberty, I’m fully awake now. My silent prayer is that Tip doesn’t reply to your post. I doubt my ‘between the ears’ would survive reading it. As always ……

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, raindancewx said:

I'm absolutely convinced that those of you in the Northeast are only capable of posting in this thread when unusual things happen in the wide wide world of not-New Jersey. At the end of the day 3 inches of rain in an hour is way more impressive than the west beating old highs by a small amount for five minutes a day whether you want to admit it or not.

Yes the rains this week were impressive, humidity/moisture could be a better local indicator of summer climate change than temperature

humid.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, rclab said:

Good morning Liberty. It’s early and my cup of penance is half empty. I read your post/question and now I’m almost fully awake. With my aged brain cells working through this I, admittedly, am not having an easy time. If we could desalinate and move water from the oceans to world wide areas, in need, what would the results be? Deserts disappear, water table/aquifer rises, precipitation patterns changes? Will the ocean levels be significantly lowered if this movement was possible? Once the land sponge effect ends does sea level stabilize in the ocean/atmosphere/land cycle. What is done with all the extracted salt? Well, Liberty, I’m fully awake now. My silent prayer is that Tip doesn’t reply to your post. I doubt my ‘between the ears’ would survive reading it. As always ……

Those are some excellent questions, my friend!  I suspect we could make good use of the salt and other minerals in the water.  I think we would have to use a lot of water, maybe more than we would currently be capable of to reduce ocean levels by a lot,  but you never know, we already use more resources than the planet is capable of replenishing (we passed that point in the 70s, right now we are using the resources of 1.7 earths, meaning we are spending more than we have the resources to buy.....)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New York City’s 1.50” hourly precipitation cases (1889-present). Notice the disproportionate share of such events that have occurred 2000 or later. This is consistent with what one would expect from climate change, as a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture and extreme events are non-linear in nature relative to precipitation averages.

image.jpeg.04dea007a8fdcd036bd118429c53d7f9.jpeg

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, raindancewx said:

I'm absolutely convinced that those of you in the Northeast are only capable of posting in this thread when unusual things happen in the wide wide world of not-New Jersey. At the end of the day 3 inches of rain in an hour is way more impressive than the west beating old highs by a small amount for five minutes a day whether you want to admit it or not.

Accept that the heat in the Pac NW and lower B.C., which rightfully started the monitoring focus… killed ~400 people - 

and by the way regionally, New Jersey’s part of the Northeast US… just sayn’

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Accept that the heat in the Pac NW and lower B.C., which rightfully started the monitoring focus… killed ~400 people - 

and by the way regionally, New Jersey’s part of the Northeast US… just sayn’

If you included the necessary prior conditions to the immediate trigger for the recent flooding, you'd have Henri and all the other flash flood events from the near record wet Summer in Boston and NYC in there, and I'd expect you'd end up a lot closer to 400.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

New York City’s 1.50” hourly precipitation cases (1889-present). Notice the disproportionate share of such events that have occurred 2000 or later. This is consistent with what one would expect from climate change, as a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture and extreme events are non-linear in nature relative to precipitation averages.

image.jpeg.04dea007a8fdcd036bd118429c53d7f9.jpeg

But then to play devil's advocate Don, why is the west drying out while the east is getting wetter?  What is driving the discrepancy and as the world warms up even more will the moisture make it all the way to the west coast and will they start getting excessive rainfall eventually too?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

But then to play devil's advocate Don, why is the west drying out while the east is getting wetter?  What is driving the discrepancy and as the world warms up even more will the moisture make it all the way to the west coast and will they start getting excessive rainfall eventually too?

 

Both outcomes are on the climate models. What was unexpected in the West was that the air holds less moisture despite the warming. The possibility exists that heat and drought are feeding back there in a self-reinforcing cycle to an extent that there’s less moisture available. 
 

The expansion of the Hadley cell has shifted storm tracks northward. That and the greater moisture content in the warmer air has produced an increase in annual precipitation and excessive rainfall events here. In NYC, all 8 years with 60” or more of rain have occurred after 1970. None occurred 1869-1970. A disproportionate share of very wet years throughout the Northeast has occurred in 2000 or later.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

Both outcomes are on the climate models. What was unexpected in the West was that the air holds less moisture despite the warming. The possibility exists that heat and drought are feeding back there in a self-reinforcing cycle to an extent that there’s less moisture available. 
 

The expansion of the Hadley cell has shifted storm tracks northward. That and the greater moisture content in the warmer air has produced an increase in annual precipitation and excessive rainfall events here. In NYC, all 8 years with 60” or more of rain have occurred after 1970. None occurred 1869-1970. A disproportionate share of very wet years throughout the Northeast has occurred in 2000 or later.

Good morning Don. Is it possible that all the water usage/redirection/ground pumping is affecting the air moisture content? After reading and rereading these two paragraphs, ‘worry’ about how much snow you may be blessed with in the cold season seems to pale in the level of concern. As always "…

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, raindancewx said:

If you included the necessary prior conditions to the immediate trigger for the recent flooding, you'd have Henri and all the other flash flood events from the near record wet Summer in Boston and NYC in there, and I'd expect you'd end up a lot closer to 400.

There's no 'contest' there ...  ?

The point is, the significance of the climate impact can be ubiquitously shared, and no one region particularly "deserves" special attention.

But that's just an opinion, but one I'm pretty certain you'll find IS ubiquitously shared among the general ambit of climate scientists et al. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Both outcomes are on the climate models. What was unexpected in the West was that the air holds less moisture despite the warming. The possibility exists that heat and drought are feeding back there in a self-reinforcing cycle to an extent that there’s less moisture available. 
 

The expansion of the Hadley cell has shifted storm tracks northward. That and the greater moisture content in the warmer air has produced an increase in annual precipitation and excessive rainfall events here. In NYC, all 8 years with 60” or more of rain have occurred after 1970. None occurred 1869-1970. A disproportionate share of very wet years throughout the Northeast has occurred in 2000 or later.

This fits in with the idea that extremes become more extreme.  A naturally dry climate becomes much drier.  A naturally wet climate becomes much wetter.  Both as a result of feedback.

 

And now to something which absolutely enrages me.....

 

These companies need to be set on fire just like they've done to the planet.

And yes I mean literally.....they need to be burned to the ground by people since our politicians are dont have the spine to do what needs to be done.

Take no prisoners, as they say......

 

Did you read about this Don?

https://twitter.com/i/events/1434178344271192067

 

A huge oil spill in the wake of Ida that they were trying to cover up and which the New York Times just exposed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, rclab said:

Good morning Don. Is it possible that all the water usage/redirection/ground pumping is affecting the air moisture content? After reading and rereading these two paragraphs, ‘worry’ about how much snow you may be blessed with in the cold season seems to pale in the level of concern. As always "…

I do know that farming uses way too much water in the West.....they're drilling it right out of the ground making the water table issues even worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

There's no 'contest' there ...  ?

The point is, the significance of the climate impact can be ubiquitously shared, and no one region particularly "deserves" special attention.

But that's just an opinion, but one I'm pretty certain you'll find IS ubiquitously shared among the general ambit of climate scientists et al. 

Yes two things can be true simultaneously.  This shouldn't be that hard to grasp should it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

This fits in with the idea that extremes become more extreme.  A naturally dry climate becomes much drier.  A naturally wet climate becomes much wetter.  Both as a result of feedback.

 

And now to something which absolutely enrages me.....

 

These companies need to be set on fire just like they've done to the planet.

And yes I mean literally.....they need to be burned to the ground by people since our politicians are dont have the spine to do what needs to be done.

Take no prisoners, as they say......

 

Did you read about this Don?

https://twitter.com/i/events/1434178344271192067

 

A huge oil spill in the wake of Ida that they were trying to cover up and which the New York Times just exposed?

I did see about that oil leak. Companies should be required to pay the full costs of remediation and to continuously monitor all of their infrastructure as long as it exists. Their obligations don’t end simply when they abandon their infrastructure. Indeed, at the end of the pipeline’s useful life, the source should have been plugged and the pipe removed. All of this may well be expensive, but society should not wind up covering these costs. Society didn’t install the infrastructure. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...