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
25,774

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

I don't understand the claim that warming will cause drought. It seems that climate scientists are unaware or the fact that heat is required to bring moisture into the atmosphere.
 
The absence of water.
Now we're getting somewhere. Do we really need to connect the rest of the dots for you. Here, I'll get you started. Increased temperatures increase evaporation from the land and the oceans. You do know how the water cycle operates, right? Apply some engineering analysis; you'll get there.
 
There's a little more to it than that. There's a pile of water out there in the oceans (most of the earth's surface) that is also heating up. This huge pile of energy may come into play affecting climate and may cause some havoc.

Getting somewhere? I knew this 5 years ago....
 
'may' renders the entire sentence devoid of any usefulness. It means as much as This huge pile of energy may not affect climate and may not cause any havoc.

Here's the IPCC in AR6

Trends in precipitation are not a main driver in affecting global-scale trends in drought (medium confidence), but have induced increases in meteorological droughts in a few AR6 regions (NES: high confidence; WAF, CAF, ESAF, SAM, SWS, SSA, SAS: medium confidence). Increasing trends in agricultural and ecological droughts have been observed on all continents (WAF, CAF, WSAF, ESAF, WCA, ECA, EAS, SAU, MED, WCE, WNA, NES: medium confidence), but decreases only in one AR6 region (NAU: medium confidence). Increasing trends in hydrological droughts have been observed in a few AR6 regions (MED: high confidence; WAF, EAS, SAU: medium confidence). Regional-scale attribution shows that human-induced climate change has contributed to increased agricultural and ecological droughts (MED, WNA), and increased hydrological drought (MED) in some regions (medium confidence). {11.6, 11.9}

medium confidence being a coin flip, either everybody agree it should happen but there is little evidence, or half the people agree and there's some evidence, or there's loads of evidence but nobody agrees as to why it happened.
 
Last edited:
Getting somewhere? I knew this 5 years ago....
It does not seem you have figured it out yet. You indicated with your response to TugboatEng that you think warming temperatures do indeed cause an increase in droughts.
 
Fror political purposes you are right, weaselly statements are fine. But for engineering and science you need to write in a way that includes testable outcomes, so claiming that something may happen by some non specific future date is untestable, and hence not science. Or as Popper said Scientific theories are characterized by possessing potential falsifiers—that is, that they make claims about the world that might be discovered to be false. If these claims are, in fact, found to be false, then the theory as a whole is said to be falsified. Non-scientific theories, by contrast, do not have any such potential falsifiers—there is literally no possible observation that could serve to falsify these theories.
 
Fror political purposes you are right, weaselly statements are fine.
Not at all the case... If I absolutely know the answer, I will state it. If I don't know for certain, I will state that, too.

Does God exist? I believe there's a God, but like many things, I don't know for certain.
 
I think the point here has always been that the climate change alarmists have been wrong over and over and over again. Yet, many people still treat their predictions as if they actually matter. They do NOT matter at all. Because, there is no way to stop it without implementing some sort of horrible, murderous global authoritarian regime. The only way to stop CO2 emissions (presuming that this is the sole cause of warming) is to prevent 2nd and 3rd work countries from climbing out of abject poverty. And, to force 1st world countries into poverty like they haven't seen since the great depression.

Frankly, the world is beginning to wake up to this fact. That's not to say that there ISN'T going to be warming. But rather, to realize that any warming which occurs will almost certainly not be catastrophic. And, even if it catastrophic in some locations, the most economically efficient way to deal with it is through relocation and adaptation..... As human kind has been doing for thousands of years through very serious climate changes (ice ages and such).
 
Yes dik, but you are making sciencey sounding statements that aren't science, or engineering. That's politics and oratory.
 
Sorry Greg... in Grade 7, I scored a perfect paper in the School and College Aptitude Test (SCAT) and scored only 99... I was p*ssed... I was informed that for statistical reasons you could not score 100. I guess some things are not all that certain.
 
That's not to say that there ISN'T going to be warming. But rather, to realize that any warming which occurs will almost certainly not be catastrophic.
I sure hope you are correct. We're going to have to wait and find out what the extent will be, and hope it's not too late. Based on recent weather it could get really interesting.
 
Here we go again. Absolute zero information. Please try falsifying what you have just written. You can't. It's not science it is blather. Gum flapping.

One observation commonly made by skeptics is that the climate cult seems more like a religion than science.
 
Hence the use of the term "Climatologist". It's a rip on the religion of Scientology.
 
Sorry Greg... in Grade 7, I scored a perfect paper in the School and College Aptitude Test (SCAT) and scored only 99... I was p*ssed... I was informed that for statistical reasons you could not score 100. I guess some things are not all that certain.
Maybe you only got a 99 because you got the name of the test wrong? I see there is a School and College Ability test in the USA and a Canadian Scholastic Altitude test in that other country.
 
Maybe you only got a 99 because you got the name of the test wrong?
99 was the highest you could score. The person that gave the test explained that statistically 99 was the max value. That was 65 years back.
 

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor