Ida Banter

[Prospero]

 

On 9/3/2021 at 10:37 AM, Windspeed said:

Climate change is real. Too much scientific evidence to support that anthropogenic influences are leading to events being amplified....

I am definitely a strong believer that we are amplifying the changes. I said, "But maybe the climate is changing anyway as it always has." But I don't believe it.

I was just pondering what might happen if the planet starts to need more than hurricanes to self-regulate it's ocean temperature. Maybe more science fiction that reality, but maybe not.

[Windspeed]

I'd been under the impression that very sharp climate swings were the norm, as evidenced by the very abrupt temperature changes during the most recent ice age and the 'Younger Dryas' cold snap. 

There are several natural catalysts that can explain the Younger Dryas though. We do not have a natural catalyst for the ongoing rapid changes we are seeing at present. I am impressed that you referenced it. I love reading about all the potential hypothesis and some which have been presented in journals as corresponding theory. Was it an impact event? Rapid glacial rebound due to a swift decrease in salinity? Volcanic fallout? Aliens? (joking).. At any rate, current changes are none of these. Well maybe it's aliens.

Edit: I might also add that the Younger Dryas still took several thousand years to unfold, not ~200. What occurred then is still noteworthy compared to gradual change, but compared to the recent history is still a much longer drawn out period of change. We are seeing unprecedented changes unfolding at present, compared even to interglacial spikes and glacial spikes. Also, rapid changes are cold spikes after a long duration warming trend due to a natural catalyst. We are swinging warm rapidly at present without a natural catalyst. This may be jumping way off topic even for a banter thread about anything/everything, but it was referenced above for the tropical landfall event. I digress...

[etudiant]

56 minutes ago, Windspeed said:

Edit: I might also add that the Younger Dryas still took several thousand years to unfold, not ~200. 

I don't believe that that is true.

Afaik, the actual swings in temperature are so fast that they are mushed by the process of ice forming and melting , with the associated gas diffusion.

Basically, the cores show very abrupt changes, which we are struggling to understand. 

[Windspeed]

I don't believe that that is true.
Afaik, the actual swings in temperature are so fast that they are mushed by the process of ice forming and melting , with the associated gas diffusion.
Basically, the cores show very abrupt changes, which we are struggling to understand. 

The sudden warming interval began around 14,700 years ago. The cold reversal didn't occur until around 12,800 years ago. That's almost 2000 years of warming that led into the potential salinity driven cold spike. But it was rapid back to cold, yes. But even at that, the rapid cold swing can be explained by several hypothesized natural phenomenon. Where as right now at present, the warm spike in ~200 years is pretty astonishing.

[Floydbuster]

On 9/4/2021 at 9:49 AM, sojitodd said:

smh.

 

What did I say that was incorrect? I gave several points about how for atleast one or two decades, hurricane experts have told me that natural Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillations are responsible for hurricane activity. Thus the bursts of busy years followed by bursts of inactive years. For example: 0 Major hurricanes hit US in a 12 yr period of 2005-2017, but in the 4 years since 2017, the US has seen 6. (Harvey, Irma, Michael, Laura, Zeta, Ida).

I would think my multi-paragraph arguments would illicit more than a three letter acronym. 

[Witness Protection Program]

On 8/26/2021 at 11:49 AM, CheeselandSkies said:

Agreed, an embarrassing number of recon issues lately. We'll have to resort to assessing TC intensity by surveying after the fact like with tornadoes.

They don't call them that anymore.

[sojitodd]

On 9/5/2021 at 9:38 PM, Floydbuster said:

 

What did I say that was incorrect? I gave several points about how for atleast one or two decades, hurricane experts have told me that natural Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillations are responsible for hurricane activity. Thus the bursts of busy years followed by bursts of inactive years. For example: 0 Major hurricanes hit US in a 12 yr period of 2005-2017, but in the 4 years since 2017, the US has seen 6. (Harvey, Irma, Michael, Laura, Zeta, Ida).

I would think my multi-paragraph arguments would illicit more than a three letter acronym. 

It was the climate change denial part. The first paragraph was problematic. Also things have changed and more evidence has accumulated since 2005. It was only a "smh" for that part-the climate denial stuff. There is more to AGW and climate change than hurricane activity in a given location.

 

I probably should have specified what the "smh" was directed at. It was just for part of the first paragraph. I did remove the "weenie" I gave the post since I did not have a problem with the rest of it.