Weather to the Xtreme

Weather IS proof of AGW if it bolsters the AGW argument, but not the other way around. Havent you guys figured this out by now?
 
Heat = energy

More heat = more energy into the climate equation = more extreme weather fluctuations.

It's not rocket science, but some people do seem to have trouble with common sense.

On a local level afternoon heating can cause popcorn thunderstorms in the summer, and more intense t-storms prior to frontal passage during spring/fall.

On a global level, more heat can lead to more intense high pressure and ergo more intense low pressure. (see the article linked in original post)
 
"On a local level afternoon heating can cause popcorn thunderstorms in the summer, and more intense t-storms prior to frontal passage during spring/fall."

.....causing clouds to form and rain causing cooler temps.

you can thank La Nina this season for the US variations.
 
It certainly has been extreme heat in Texas this year. The drought they say is already one of the worst documented. The heat in the south has kept the moisture in the north and caused much of the extreme weather events we have seen this year including tornadoes and massive flooding.

As to the other remarks, I will just say that I will stick by the scientific consensus regarding climate change and global warming.
 
you can thank La Nina this season for the US variations.
__________________________________________________

There have been multiple similar weather patterns that have occured throughout the last century and before weather recordings for billions of years. Historically, we happen to probably be toward the end of an extremely mild climate cycle that has lasted a few thousand years. tough break for those that are afraid or the those living in fantasy land that think cutting back co2 will actually reduce the weather/climate fluctuations.
 
the website does nothing more than post extreme weather patters. well, there are some extreme weather conditions out there. it has happened before, we could be entering a new climate pattern on this planet. we are due for one. im still looking for the part that says cutting co2 will reverse the trend.
 
From the article"

"Any one of the extreme weather events of 2010 or 2011 could have occurred naturally sometime during the past 1,000 years. But it is highly improbable that the remarkable extreme weather events of 2010 and 2011 could have all happened in such a short period of time without some powerful climate-altering force at work. The best science we have right now maintains that human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases like CO2 are the most likely cause of such a climate-altering force."

This is jr. high level analysis.
 
General, what do you know about the role that CO2 plays as a greenhouse gas?
__________________________________________________

Quite a bit.
 
Oh good Lord! The average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 0.03% to 0.04% over the last 300 years. My knowledge of chemical engineering tells me that the increase in global energy absorption from CO2 is too small to be measured. Fact: CO2 and CH4 are gases that are slightly better absorbers of radiant heat than N2 and O2, but are still very poor heat absorbers because they are invisible gases. Fact: Concrete, brick, and steel are good absorbers of radiant heat - much, much, much better than than any invisible gas. Since there is a lot more concrete and steel exposed to the sun than there was 300 years ago in the world, is it likely that the solid, visible material is responsible for any increase in measured temperature, or is an invisible gas that has increased by 0.01% responsible for any measured increase?

I know, I know. The great scientist Albert Gore, Jr. has concluded that the gas is responsible, and all liberal celebrities agree. Still I think the science is clear to any serious scientist, not currently going after a government grant.
 
When lightening strikes a river
Click to expand...

I don't think that's lightning. I think that is tannerite and the thing is a hoax. You can see the fuse fire on the left. If lightning hits water, it dissipates over the surface of the water, it doesn't go underneath to the bottom.
 
The angle of the strike made me question the authenticity of it. Also, every other water strike I have seen did not result in explosive displacement of any water.
 
Sangre Naranjada said:
Also, every other water strike I have seen did not result in explosive displacement of any water.
Click to expand...

That's what didn't make sense to me, either. I don't think electricity would cause basically an explosion, nor would it turn water yellow. I do get all the thrashing around afterward, which I assume would be all the fish being electrocuted, but I'm curious how localized that effect would be.

It looked cool, I'll give it that.
 
USDA told to refer to climate change as "weather extremes".

ccording to emails obtained by The Guardian, officials told staffers in the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to change the way they discuss climate change in their work.

According to the office, climate change would become “weather extremes.” Climate change adaptation should instead be “resilience to weather,” and efforts to “reduce greenhouse gases” should instead be deemed as ways to “build soil organic matter, increase nutrient use efficiency.”
Click to expand...

Build soil organic matter and increase nutrient use efficiency = reduce greenhouse gases?
 
Seattle Husker said:
Build soil organic matter and increase nutrient use efficiency = reduce greenhouse gases?
Click to expand...

Yes. Actually it does. It is a mass balance situation. I don't think this is a way to reduce CO2 back to 300 ppm, but soil is one storage place for organics ( which are made with CO2).
 
Monahorns said:
Yes. Actually it does. It is a mass balance situation. I don't think this is a way to reduce CO2 back to 300 ppm, but soil is one storage place for organics ( which are made with CO2).
Click to expand...

One is the problem you are trying to address, the other 2 are potential solutions to the problem. If you presuppose a solution rather than discussing the actual problem then you are closing off other potential solutions. Just my $.02.
 
I am not closing off anything. I simply stated that building soil organic matter has an affect on atmospheric CO2 levels. Not trying to say it is a solution or not. But that is how the science of it works.

Increasing nutrient use efficiency is a way to improve crop yields. Not sure how that affects CO2. Depending on the nutrients being included, it could. But that is a very vague statements. Where as building organic matter in soil is a well understood specific way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top