COP24 - Global catastrophe - climate change

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Quantum Quack, Dec 3, 2018.

  1. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,405
    The severity of the storms is getting worse, it seems. The cause is still considered undetermined, but I think as the world continues to warm, the storms will get worse. There have been an increase in hail storms, too. :/
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,120
    It's sort of puzzling....
    there must be millions of qualified mathematicians, climate scientists etc who could easily estimate the increasing tonnage of water vapor being absorbed by our atmosphere by the minute, hour, week, year due to increased ocean temperatures.
    There should be a mass of data out there un-censored by politics or vested interest corporations that would show this. But there isn't. I wonder why?
    If I had the math skills I could do it my self. It would not be that hard.
    About 75% of the world surface area is water. The water is getting hotter every day. It's evaporation rate is increasing every minute.
    It wouldn't take too much nous to work out that the storms and precipitation rates are certainly not going to get milder.

    The only question is how bad will it get and how soon... IMO

    Perhaps in merely a couple of years the mid USA may not be able to be rebuilt and will have to be generally abandoned due to extreme weather constantly knocking down any repairs or building that might be done.
    Repeat world wide and you can see that the situation globally could get pretty tough pretty quickly.

    Yet no math has come out that I can find to support the premise that water uptake by the atmosphere is increasing rapidly... so it is puzzling....

    (note : Water vapor is the most significant green house gas (65%?))
    The math people here at sciforums, would find it easy to work out a rough estimate.. but they don't or they haven't.... puzzling...
    Obviously my concerns must be misplaced....
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2019
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,327
    There is.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,120
    What search terms are you using?
     
  8. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,327
    climate change data
     
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,120
    Searched... nothing found relating directly to the puzzle mentioned... do you have a specific link that might help?
     
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,120
    Global ocean surface area: 361.1 million square kilometers.
    Approx. 0.1 deg C increase over last 100 years (disputed due to inherant error margins)
     
  11. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,327
    I don't know what specifics you want. I haven't researched evaporation in particular, but when I typed "evaporation of oceans, a ton of sites came up dealing with the water cycle
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,500
    Not so easy.

    If you just compare evaporation rates under the same conditions then it's pretty easy. For example, 1000 sq m of water at 20C, dry air at 20C blowing at .5m/s - going from 20C to 21C air temperature increases evaporation rate from 168 kg/hr to 203 kg/hr.

    But the water is warmer from climate change. But the surface water is also cooler due to the heat energy of evaporation. Do they cancel out? Hard to tell since you have to measure temperatures with _very_ fine detail to figure that out.

    And if the evaporated water causes winds to decrease, due to lower air density? Then it goes down. Does it cause cloud formation during the day? Then heating goes down and less water evaporates. Does it create a lot of storm activity? Then air speed goes up.
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  13. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,640
    add in the effect of salt?

    It seems that when seawater evaporates, it leaves the salt behind making the remaining water more salty
    and the more salty the water the slower the evaporation
    ergo
    diminishing returns?
    ....................
    except at or below 32 degrees f?
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2019
  14. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,405
    I'm not sure why there is reluctance to report these tornadoes and other storms as being directly, or in part directly related to global warming. Hmm.

    If I was a conspiracy theorist....
     
  15. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,327
    Nobody needs to conspire with a government policy driven by special interests - it's all one voice, one "mind".
     
  16. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,640
    OK
    I'll bite
    If you wuz a conspiracy theorist..........................................................................(fill in the blank)

    ................................................
    anecdote:
    circa 1932-33?
    a tornado took the old barn shortly after my uncle bought the farm
    (curious phrase that---"bought the farm" ) anyway
    circa 1952 another tornado took the house
    circa 1960-3? another tornado took the barn he had built about 30 years previous(or maybe it was the same tornado that really had a grudge against my uncle?).
    (my cousin lost the farm during the crisis of the 1980s)
    .................................
    (conspiracy theory)-----It seems likely that the federal reserve orchestrated that crisis?
     
  17. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,405
    Nope. My conspiracy theory is that the current US administration doesn't want to admit that the surge in stronger tornadoes (and other storms) is directly related to global warming.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    These storms have been violent.
     
  18. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,640
    The local meteorology pundits claimed that we have had two 100 year floods and one 500 year flood in the past 26 years
    yeh but
    ain't no records that go back that far
    (from what I've found, there is no archaeological evidence for those claims either)
    so..............................................................................................................?
    .............................

    also: Climate science has become far too politicised, and, sadly, will likely remain so.
    ............'
    Are politics and science ever a good mix?
     
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,500
    Yep. Except that we have centuries to go before that is even measurable. There's a lot of water in the ocean.
    Gaussian curves, my good man, Gaussian curves.
     
  20. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,640
    and...........................................
    care t0 flesh that out some?
    .................
    unfortunately: Usgs tree ring data shows a much worse flood, than anything we've had recently, in the 1820s

    so
    if your gonna choose/set parameters for normal distribution, where do you find the parameters?
     
  21. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,327
    Sooooo-
    four tornadoes one and two decades apart has the same level of probability as 100 tornadoes in under two weeks?
    Only when government takes scientific facts seriously enough to protect its citizens from predictable harm.
    Like as in the inspection of meat, bridges and airplanes.
     
  22. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,640
    don't forget eugenics laws
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,500
    Sure. Probability distribution functions are a very widely used statistical tool. The Gaussian curve, or normal curve, is a very common one since many natural processes express a normal distribution. It provides a way to estimate the odds of a specific event.

    For example, let's say you have a bunch of floods. They all fall on points along a Gaussian distribution. In other words, a year that sees peak floodwater volumes of 20,000 cfs might be average. You graph those volumes year after year - and the flow rate of the flood each year falls along a Gaussian distribution to a high degree of accuracy. Once you see that you don't need to have a "100 year flood" to calculate the odds of that happening - it is apparent from the distribution of the curve.
    See above.
     

Share This Page