Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations KootK 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 XIV 1

dik

Structural
Apr 13, 2001
25,752

For earlier threads, see:

For earlier threads, see:
[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.eng-tips.com/threads/things-are-starting-to-heat-up-part-xii.512015/[/URL]
 
Last edited:
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Things are starting to look up...

"CEO of Denver-based Liberty Energy, Wright is a vocal advocate of oil and gas development, including fracking, a key pillar of Trump’s quest to achieve U.S. “energy dominance” in the global market.

Wright has been one of the industry’s loudest voices against efforts to fight climate change, and could give fossil fuels a boost, including quick action to end a year-long pause on natural gas export approvals by the Biden administration.

Frequently criticising what he calls a “top-down” approach to climate by liberal and left-wing groups, Wright has argued that the climate movement around the world is “collapsing under its own weight.” He has never served in government, but has written that more fossil fuel production is needed around the globe to lift people out of poverty."
Yep. A great pick. It is Energy Secretary, not Climate Change Secretary, after all.
 
Threads don't have infinite page length anymore. You can stop creating new threads.
 
Last edited:
I think this pilot has some clout on this forum for his level headed takes. He has a discussion on the bomb cyclone that is about to hit the PNW.


Pilots need to be acutely aware of weather. He says there is nothing unusual about the current weather. What is really interesting is that he mentioned what it used to be called, the Pineapple Express. These types of language changes cause "researchers" to think everything is unprecedented because their meta analysis doesn't account for the terminology shift.
 
Greg -

Yes, these are the quotes that demonstrate the false hype / hysteria related to climate change. That was 24 years ago.

We also had the "world will end in 12 years" comment from AOC. That was 6 years ago. I don't think world CO2 emissions have gone down, have they? Yet, we don't appear to be any closer to the end of the world than we were back then.

 
CO2 continues to gently rise, as it has for 140 years, making directly detecting the CO2 signal in the climate record very difficult, since temperatures are also rising as we come out of the Little Ice Age. Even worse, many other anthropogenic inputs to the climate system follow a similar curve to CO2, so often we are seeing CO2+other stuff, rather than the pure effect of CO2. Even worser, a fair bit of the temperature rise we see is due to the urban heat island effect, partly because terrestrial thermometers are often in or near cities or airports (this where the scare stories of 'record high temperature in UK yesterday' usually comes from). To be fair, the UHI is detectable from satellites, so it does get correctly accounted for in the satellite record.

The fundamental reason we don't see much effect from this 1.5 degree rise other than in conurbations is that most of the warming is in the Arctic, which is a long way from my backyard. The scary stuff is predicted from models, and as para 1 explained, calibrating them is going to be a statistical nightmare. If they were based on physics and so on then they wouldn't correlate, as we simply don't know enough, yet, but at least they wouldn't be just made up from the whole cloth. As someone or other said with 4 variables I can draw an elephant, with 5 I can waggle his trunk. https://www.eng-tips.com/threads/curve-fitting-an-elephant.435848/
 
Last edited:
GregLocock: Even worse, many other anthropogenic inputs to the climate system follow a similar curve to CO2, so often we are seeing CO2+other stuff, rather than the pure effect of CO2
Yeah, my Dad was a prominent "Energy Economist" for much of his career. In his retirement years, he made Global Warming his area of interest. In particular, he talked about this concept. He was talking specifically about "atmospheric carbon" which skyrocketed during the industrial revolution, but has since gone down due to tighter environmental regulations on coal power plant emissions and such. But, I'd add in the effects of natural gas, CFCs, and all kinds of other pollutants (or human caused) emissions.

It's kind of amusing that the international community is so focused on CO2..... Like what do you really think you can do about CO2 emissions world wide? It might be considered virtuous for individual wealthy countries to reduce their CO2 emissions. But, that's not going to have a major effect worldwide as more and more 2nd and 3rd world countries are using fossil fuels to raise their populations out of poverty.
 
The Bomb Cyclone, was really just another winter storm. Barely even blew the last leaves off our maple tree. But it did knock down enough trees to kill power across the region. Just like it did 5 years ago, and 7 years ago, and 15 years ago...and, and. Was born during the Big Storm of Sixty-something, according to my Mom, and it was the talk of the town. Until the bigger storm when I was 5 or 6, and so on. There's a big chunk of open ocean out west of us, and stuff comes across it and blows our trees down. Better now than it used to be, at least the satellites can help us see it coming.
 
Yet, we don't appear to be any closer to the end of the world than we were back then.

This is why ordinary storms and weather patterns are now being reclassified as "extreme weather." When their dire predictions fall short, they resort to framing normal variations as evidence of catastrophe. A recent example in Sydney highlights this trend, where typical 30-40 degree temperatures which you see in any summer period are now labeled as an extreme "heatwave."
 
This is why ordinary storms and weather patterns are now being reclassified as "extreme weather."
The storms, etc. are getting more intense and doing so in less time. If you don't think things are heating up, look at the website for most places on earth... more heat, more extreme weather.


1732867949973.png
 
Last edited:
So dik thinks a plot of temperature indicates something or other to do with the frequency or intensity of storms.

So, on the dik fatuousness scale

Irrelevant 10
No source 10
No logic 10

Wow 30/30

Well done dik - a perfect post. Keep it up.
 
Yup... I'm glad you appreciate it. For you... a sign of things to come? Note the RHS of the BAR chart. [pipe]

1732906751210.png
 
Why stop at 2010? Surely there has been more data added in the last 15 years.
 
Why stop at 2010? Surely there has been more data added in the last 15 years.
...or stop at 1900 and the changes would be even greater. I thought it was a good place to show what was happening over the last few years. Just move the abscissa downwards, and there would be more red.
 
A temperature graph (especially without a source given (are the temps from terrestrial sources or satellites?), proves nothing in regard to your assertion about storms:
The storms, etc. are getting more intense and doing so in less time.
Where's your evidence for that? Do you have supporting scientific documentation that excludes the effect of substantially improved observational techniques?
 
In ref to BridgeSmth's post: How is the science of climatology able to say storms are intensifying more rapidly compared to historical storms? Modern storm tracking with satellites allows observation in ways previously unavailable. How is speed of build for older storm known? Just a single case in point: the 1900 Galveston Hurricane wreaked havoc mass destruction and is listed as a major storm of record and what is known about it is its path after landfall but how quickly this storm developed is unknown. Similar situation for all historical storm rcords prior to satellite obsevation. Prior to satellite observation storm development and timing was not possible. The hurricane plane flights developed in the 60's/70's could not cover every storm system that developed and only after the storm front was clearly formed. Am I wrong on this? A solid explanation will be greatly appreciated.
 
Problem is that the IPCC says it has low confidence that there is any connection between global warming and any change in hurricanes, and as I've posted many times, there's no trend in the graphs.

  • There is no strong evidence of century-scale increasing trends in U.S. landfalling hurricanes or major hurricanes. Similarly for Atlantic basin-wide hurricane frequency (after adjusting for changing observing capabilities over time), there is not strong evidence for an increase since the late 1800s in hurricanes, major hurricanes, or the proportion of hurricanes that reach major hurricane intensity.

The Yale site is just regurgitating the output of the sciencey sounding stuff generated by the Carbon Brief /weather Attribution /Climate central and the rest of the cut and paste crowd, whose mission is to inject scary climate news into the brains of gullible fools and the mass media. The general approach is 'attribution science', which while it looks like science, is not science according to either Popper or Feynman.
 
Last edited:

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor