111–120 of 150 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I present to you a person who thinks that because we can't tell for certain that it's going to rain next Wednesday, we're have no idea if next summer will be hotter than next winter.
Not a very charitable interpretation of the comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
=> more water in the air => increased greenhouse effect => rising temperatures => even more water in the air
Yes. And the greenhouse effect overall is mostly due to water in the air. But water content is very sensitive to temperature. And when CO2 level increases, that also increases water content. So water is like an amplifier for CO2 changes. Edit: Maybe someone thinks that this is a GCC-denial argument. It's not. Water vapor is in fact the major greenhouse gas: 36% (in dry areas) to 72% (in humid areas) of total greenhou…
One of the other things that scares me is weather is chaotic. Patterns repeat year over year. But global warming could cause those patterns to change. Possibly permanently as far as human civilization goes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, any layman can easily construct a reasonable sounding explanation tying any of these odd patterns to climate change. It doesn’t matter whether or not they are actually caused by climate change. It’s a level of annoying to me similar to when my dad uses a cold winter as evidence that there is no warming going on.
Except increased rainfall is actually linked by scientists to global warming.
I feel like everyones making different assumptions when building their climate models, so you end up with a model that show more intense A & B but not C, and than another model showing more intense A & C but no change in B, and a third mentions only a change in B and something about D, but by the time it makes it to the general populace the only thing anyone sees is that climate change is causing A, B, C, D, E, and F. Not to their fault, but with complex models like climate, a small change can butterfly wildly.
What if rather than doom we get global tropical paradise
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, heating is usually more efficient than cooling, because energy is usually produced with some kind of heat output. All though agriculture is a serious concern; you might starve several million people in africa.
Surprisingly this is not true. A watt of energy can only produce a watt of heat, but can remove several watts of heat from a space. That said, we're much better setup to increase total entropy in the atmosphere than decrease it (via heat sinks eg)
Does anyone know where to get data for macro weather trends like these? I am curious what regions will have the most ideal weather in the next few years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Are you trying to imply that global warming isn't happening?
No, trying to understand whenever someone sees "it rained alot" and equates it to death of the world and reconcile it with a basis in science. Interested in long term climate change and how the latest is impacting what we see. Not blindly accepting internet rants, trying to think of it scientifically instead of "rain = we dying" Know any good resources to get more info?
Some areas in the US already have a short growing season as it is. If excessive rains in say, Montana, push back the planting times of wheat and other grains the plants might not be ready to harvest before Fall and Winter weather kills them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surprisingly this is not true. A watt of energy can only produce a watt of heat, but can remove several watts of heat from a space. That said, we're much better setup to increase total entropy in the atmosphere than decrease it (via heat sinks eg)
Those displaced Joules are just moved somewhere nearby and are joined by the energy spent moving them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
125 years is still a very small amount of time to assess climate, and the quality of the data 125 years ago isn’t very good. Considering all “solutions” to the “problem” of climate change involve a radical remaking of society, it’s not unreasonable or unserious to ask for more data.
Reminds me of the an article a while back talking about how via studying tree rings and sediment, that scientists think California experienced back-to-back 200 year droughts starting around the year 850.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're not talking about vague shifting definitions of "normal." We're talking about "the wettest 12 months ever recorded," in the 125 years we have data for.
And you know there wasnt something wetter 150 years ago how?
But we compare to things that we know about, instead of guessing.