Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Things are Starting to Heat Up - Part VII 21
- Thread starter dik
- Start date
BridgeSmith
Structural
Cairo was there many hundreds of years before the dam was built.
Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10
Exactly my point; so who decided to build and not plan Cairo there without any consideration for NOT building Aswan hundreds years later? No one did, which is why Aswan had to be built to avoid moving or rebuilding the entirety of the largest city in the country.
My wife made a similar comment about our local Costco; "They should have planned for a larger parking lot 20 years ago to accommodate all the people today."
Doh!
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
TugboatEng
Marine/Ocean
The sea wall is due for it's routine rebuild but if they can blame the need on climate change they get outside funding, which they don't need.
BridgeSmith
Structural
I don't follow your logic on that. The Nile valley has been flooding regularly for thousands of years. How did "the entirety" of Cairo suddenly end up in the flood plain, requiring the construction of a dam?
That aside, my point stands. Building the dam destroyed the Nile river valley. The city that relied on the fertile soil for it's existence, now has nothing, because of a dam that was built to 'save' it. Every time we try to outsmart nature, we screw up nature and screw ourselves.
That brings us back once again to the subject - trying to control, or even affect, the climate is a fool's errand. We don't know which direction the global temperature will go next year, much less in next century. A trend is only a trend until it's not. The next generation may look back and think us mighty foolish, especially if the global average temperatures start dropping again.
Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10
TugboatEng
Marine/Ocean
Or the climate improves as temperatures rise...
- Thread starter
- #26
I've noticed that in the last several years, it's gotten a whole lot better... there must be a list of the thousand year events, somewhere. ![[pipe]](/data/assets/smilies/pipe.gif "[pipe] [pipe]")
-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates
-Dik
-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates
-Dik
- Thread starter
- #27
"water, water, everywhere..." with apologies to S.T.Coleridge
Added
and another...
-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates
-Dik
Added
and another...
-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates
-Dik
TugboatEng
Marine/Ocean
It's the worst storm we've had in 5 years.
It takes a storm to end a drought.
It takes a storm to end a drought.
- Thread starter
- #29
![[ponder]](/data/assets/smilies/ponder.gif "[ponder] [ponder]")
TugboatEng
Marine/Ocean
California is on a 20 year weather cycle. There have been storms like this regularly. This is not our biggest storm. This storm has not exceeded our 1983 storms. This storm is nowhere near the devastation of our 1861 storm. The current flooding, except for one town, is entirely caused by a lack of housekeeping, not special weather events.
Our seasons have ALWAYS been less severe since 1861.
Our seasons have ALWAYS been less severe since 1861.
enginesrus
Mechanical
dik (Structural)
(OP)
8 Jan 23 05:45
...so, how many 1000 year events can you get in a week? ponder
-------------------------------------------------------
As many as they wish to create. Geo Engineering to the max.
BridgeSmith
Structural
Statistically speaking, it's only limited by the length of time for a single event. However, since we have only a couple hundred years' worth of actual data to work with, I would think definitions would probably need to adjusted.
Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10
- Thread starter
- #34
GregLocock
Automotive
Meanwhile the pesky satellites are claiming the computer models are wrong, and the more recent ones are worse than the older ones.
Ignore the purple dashed trend line, that's someone trying to pick a trend from too little data. Bear in mind that the first 15 years of that plot was part of the real data used to train the models, therefore up to 1990 it merely indicates how well trained they are, not how good they are at predicting.
Why is CMIP6 doing such a bad job? Generally too little spatial resolution, but the fundamental model seems to be
(1)Ignoring Oceans -the 1 degree anomaly anomaly in 40 years is equivalent to 0.001 deg C of ocean warming.
(2)Ignoring Clouds
(3)Ignoring Secondary effects from changes in solar output
(4)Conscious or unconscious selection of worst case design decisions. You don't get grants if you predict there isn't a problem, and you don't get published if you go against the zeitgeist.
(5)over and underestimating feedback loops (clouds again)
(6)etc
Basically if you think CO2 is THE thermostat then you get this sort of result, because you assign all the other changes in the world since 1880 lumped in and correlated with the monotonic rise in CO2.
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
Ignore the purple dashed trend line, that's someone trying to pick a trend from too little data. Bear in mind that the first 15 years of that plot was part of the real data used to train the models, therefore up to 1990 it merely indicates how well trained they are, not how good they are at predicting.
Why is CMIP6 doing such a bad job? Generally too little spatial resolution, but the fundamental model seems to be
(1)Ignoring Oceans -the 1 degree anomaly anomaly in 40 years is equivalent to 0.001 deg C of ocean warming.
(2)Ignoring Clouds
(3)Ignoring Secondary effects from changes in solar output
(4)Conscious or unconscious selection of worst case design decisions. You don't get grants if you predict there isn't a problem, and you don't get published if you go against the zeitgeist.
(5)over and underestimating feedback loops (clouds again)
(6)etc
Basically if you think CO2 is THE thermostat then you get this sort of result, because you assign all the other changes in the world since 1880 lumped in and correlated with the monotonic rise in CO2.
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
- Thread starter
- #37
- Thread starter
- #38
Somebody seems to be 'catching on'...
-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates
-Dik
-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates
-Dik
BridgeSmith
Structural
What do you mean 'catching on'? NPR has been on the 'man-made climate change is destroying the planet' bandwagon from the beginning.
Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10
Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10
TugboatEng
Marine/Ocean
Can you please define what worse means when it comes to storms? It seems the worse a storm is the more beneficial it is. It takes big storms to end droughts.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question