One of the biggest climate change threats -- Rain

[Schmelzer]

An extreme event is when rainfall for a given day is equal to or in excess of 150mm ( >0r= 150mm per 24hours )
The average daily rainfall is stated as being about 8.1mm per 24 hour day ( seasonal )
Do you agree?
Do you appreciate that we are talking about events that deliver in excess of or equal to 150mm of rain in a day?

https://www.eldoradoweather.com/climate/world-maps/images/world-rainfall-map.png one can expect 1000-3000 mm/year in a large part of India, in extreme parts up to 7000. It is concentrated in the monsoon season, one-third of the year, thus, we have 10-30mm per day. So, their heavy rain events, >150mm/day, is the expected average rain of one-two weeks in one day. That's heavy but not really extremal, in extremal regions it is the rain of 2-3 days. Just to illustrate: In Europe, nobody would be impressed by a rain which gives the two weeks average in one day. Simply because there are many days without rain, so, the average rainy day gives a lot more than the average.

Imagine 6 extreme rain events a year in the same region and what that actually means to the agriculture on the ground.

The graph states quite clearly that in 1950 the average frequency of Extreme events was 2 and that in 2015 the average frequency of EXTREME events 6. ... Do you agree?

I'm not really impressed. Compare it with the numbers I have extracted out of my head simply based on common sense about the magnitude of events named "widespread extreme rainfall events", I could not have guessed better.

And learn to read. Your question "Do you deny this stat?" I have answered with "no".

By the way, the "widespread extreme rainfall event" in the paper may be quite local events:

3100 stations ... (76°–86° E, 19°–26° N)
... Rainfall events which exceed a threshold of 150 mm day−1 (in a 0.25 × 0.25° grid point) are counted as extreme rainfall events
... we define widespread extreme rainfall events as those days with extreme events occurring simultaneously on ten or more grid points

So we have 10x7x4x4 = 1120 grid points, that means the "widespread extreme rainfall event" may have covered in principle even less than 1%. So, not much base for expecting 6 such events at the same locality.

Imagine 6 extreme rain events a year in the same region and what that actually means to the agriculture on the ground.

If it comes in torrents, it destroys agriculture.

It depends on the infrastructure. With appropriate infrastructure, there would be no problem at all. Infrastructure is appropriate, essentially by definition, if extremal events which can be expected to happen once a year are completely unproblematic.

There are always political factors for you to blame.
So local crop failures are big problems, and not just for local farmers (the crop failures in Syria, for example, have involved four nuclear powers in a civil war)

No, not always. And your example is clearly wrong, the Syrian crop failures have only made it easier for the US to start this war, they had tried that in other countries too, independent of local crop failures, thus, it was certainly not the crop failures which have "involved" the US. But, ok, this is what has to be expected from US propagandists - they will use even crop failures to justify their support of terrorists.

AGW researchers have found that AGW will probably increase the frequency and severity of blights as well as other causes of crop failure. If you paid attention to AGW research, you would know that.

That's the point that bad plants/animals will also gain from the improved climate. So far correct, and predicted by common sense too. It is well-known because the alarmists like to use it, "forgetting" that the good plants/animals will gain in the same way. But if the good plants simply move toward the Poles, the bad plants will do the same, and there is no base to predict an increase of the resulting blights and so on which would not correspond to a similar increase of the crops remaining healthy too. If you have other evidence, give it - but don't forget, simply some illness distributing toward the Poles does not count.

Where they will replace the landscape production already there, incurring a loss.

Maybe, maybe not. The crops replaced are, in the average situation, crops adapted to lower temperatures / less precipitation by those adapted to higher temperatures / higher precipitation. Not plausible that the replacement will give less food on the average.

You normally don't "name" your sources, as far as anyone can tell you don't know what they are, so you not naming things is just you posting.

In the Syrian thread, because they are Russian/Syrian, thus, worthless for the readers here. In general political discussions, I also use a lot of foreign language sources. Here because the base of the argumentation is my own decision to apply common sense to the climate hysteria. If my common sense arguments fail, as sometimes has to be expected, my opponents will present me scientific evidence if they are reasonable people. That would be nice, I would learn something new, no problem. If nothing is presented, fine, in this case, it strengthens my general position that common sense is much more powerful than one usually assumes.

Meanwhile: You have declared the information they provide to be "propaganda".

First of all, not - what I have named propaganda are mass media. Then, it is quite irrelevant, given that I'm used to extracting information from propaganda sources.

Every article or report I linked, you dismissed as biased and propaganda. Every time I passed on some information from those journals you declared it to be propaganda, and handled it accordingly.

This may be formally correct only if one accepts that naming zero out of zero reports you linked "propaganda" as "everything". You have consistently not posted any scientific papers to support your claims. Given that you hardly have in mind this case, it is a lie.

And every time you describe your method of extracting information from propaganda, as you just did again in this thread, you include the scientific journals involved.

That's simply a lie, I do not include scientific journals into propaganda sources. (Again, exception for pseudo-sciences.)

That one can apply the methods which allow extracting information even from propaganda also if one extracts information from scientific papers is another question. But extracting information from scientific papers is much easier. Even if scientific research is under political pressure, it does not have a great effect on the content. The most dangerous effect is that research which is expected to give politically incorrect results simply will not be done. The other is that politically incorrect content is moved away from visibility title -> abstract -> intro -> main text -> footnotes. But this does not yet make scientific papers propaganda.

 

[Schmelzer]

this is 1 single events of hundreds of events of houses being blown up by old leaking gas lines that the companys wont replace and the government wont force them to replace.

I'm sorry for the victims of bad infrastructure in the US, but I have never argued it is good. So, what does this all have to do with me?

You post the stupidest things with the most confidence of anyone on this forum.

Feel free to give arguments why a 300% increase of rain in the Sahara would be something worth to be mentioned.

Except the damage it would still do to the agriculture, utilities, transportation systems, and so forth.

If your transportation system is unable to handle a heavy rain, you should care about improving your transportation system.

And very few places have drainage systems capable of handling what AGW is predicted to deliver - certainly Florida does not, or other areas along the Gulf Coast and Tennessee River valley, or some of the more important agricultural regions in California. And the Philippines are basically a tragedy waiting to happen, along with the Yangtze River valley.

Means, you have to improve the infrastructure. At least the Chinese do a lot in this direction.
And, again, I have never questioned that adaption to the new climate may be expensive. And the faster the warming, the higher the costs.

That distinction (between ordinary heavy rainfall and damaging torrential events) was the exact topic discussed in the early journal articles that first reported on this feature of AGW's influence on rainfall distribution. The researchers pointed out that the issue was unexpected and overlooked, so there was no consensus in how it should be reported or described in the research and analysis, and that tended to muddy the analysis. It's a long discussion - but iirc they did settle on a set of criteria for reporting research findings, so everybody would know what had been discovered and how to analyze it.

Scientists, doing science. Knowing what they are talking about. It's a pleasure to read their reports and analyses.

You should read up on the research. You might post with more of a clue.

If you think so, why don't you post some link to some papers which describe the results of that long discussion?

Another case for "One ghost driver? Hundreds, hundreds ...":

Like the rest of your tribe, you can't use "ad hominem argument" correctly in a sentence.

That's a standard phrase used by iceaura many times, without showing even a single time an actual error in the application of "ad hominem". The probability that iceaura at least uses sometimes some AI software to answer is increasing.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Schmelzer,

A three fold increase in extreme rain events over a 65 year period means nothing to you?
perhaps you would care to focus your comments on the the actual issue?
"the deteriorating weather situation - aka climate change"
Do you have any idea what 12 extreme rain events in a single year means? ( year 2006/7ísh)
What would you predict for the future based on the graph?
I really don't care about other stats at this point I just want to see if you can handle one data set in a reasonable fashion. Whether the graph is an accurate account or not is not the point...if you can not deal with one crappy graph then how are you going to deal with any other graph?
There are literally thousands of graphs out there all suggesting the same sort of thing...
I would love, I mean really love to see graphs that shows the extreme weather situation to be improving over a 50 or so year time period... got any?


What do you see when you read this graph?

 

[iceaura]

It depends on the infrastructure. With appropriate infrastructure, there would be no problem at all. Infrastructure is appropriate, essentially by definition, if extremal events which can be expected to happen once a year are completely unproblematic.

There is no such "appropriate infrastructure" available in most agricultural regions.

No, not always. And your example is clearly wrong, the Syrian crop failures have only made it easier for the US to start this war,

As you illustrate: always. There are always political factors for you to blame, and you always blame them.

If my common sense arguments fail, as sometimes has to be expected, my opponents will present me scientific evidence if they are reasonable people.

You don't post common sense arguments. You post ignorant and false assertions invented by US Republican Party media professionals, without argument.

The crops replaced are, in the average situation, crops adapted to lower temperatures / less precipitation by those adapted to higher temperatures / higher precipitation. Not plausible that the replacement will give less food on the average.

Your fantasies about what will replace what are not serious.
It is a well-established fact. It takes many decades to adapt agriculture to a new and different landscape, weather, light, soil, etc, and the net losses of moving and replacement take even longer to make up for - if it can even be done.
If you don't find established facts "plausible", you have discovered a serious problem with your evaluation methods.

That's the point that bad plants/animals will also gain from the improved climate. So far correct, and predicted by common sense too. It is well-known because the alarmists like to use it, "forgetting" that the good plants/animals will gain in the same way.

According to the research, the good plants/animals will not gain "in the same way" very often - not nearly as often as the bad ones.
Once again, you label scientific researchers "alarmists" for publishing their findings in scientific journals. You do that a lot.

First of all, not - what I have named propaganda are mass media.

What you have named propaganda is often the findings of AGW research.

That's simply a lie, I do not include scientific journals into propaganda sources

Yes, you do. That's what you are doing when you label the contents of scientific journals "propaganda" - which is something you do frequently and repeatedly.
Your problem is that you don't know that you are labeling the contents of scientific journals, because you have no idea what those contents are. So you don't recognize them, when they show up in front of your face.

Then, it is quite irrelevant, given that I'm used to extracting information from propaganda sources.

You are unable to extract information from propaganda about AGW, because you can't tell what's propaganda and what isn't. That's why you always - always - end up parroting the US Republican Party's media feed.

So we have 10x7x4x4 = 1120 grid points, that means the "widespread extreme rainfall event" may have covered in principle even less than 1%.

That's a large area.

Here because the base of the argumentation is my own decision to apply common sense to the climate hysteria.

That's impossible, for you. For starters, you have no idea what "climate hysteria" looks like - what you label hysteria is as often as not the contents of scientific journal reports of some AGW research.

And that is the case with essentially all AGW deniers. They have all these labels, but no idea what AGW is or what its hazards etc are. So we get all this bizarre crap about "hysteria" and "catastrophization" and the like, every time some bad news shows up in the research.

It turns out that - most likely, almost certainly - the extra rainfall predicted from AGW will fall as very heavy additional rain in otherwise existing storms, rather than as increased frequency of ordinary rainstorms or light additions/extensions of ordinary storms. In other words, as damaging torrents rather than beneficial drizzles. This is not hysteria, propaganda, political agenda, or anything of the kind. It's simply an analysis and application of theory checked against the available data.

 

[iceaura]

Feel free to give arguments why a 300% increase of rain in the Sahara would be something worth to be mentioned.

Your claim is the nonsense that needs an argument from evidence.

If your transportation system is unable to handle a heavy rain, you should care about improving your transportation system

Nobody's transportation system can handle what the AGW researchers say is likely to be coming, and very few can afford such"improvements" - raising all the vulnerable roads in Missouri ten feet, for example, would be too expensive http://traveler.modot.org/map/

That's a standard phrase used by iceaura many times, without showing even a single time an actual error in the application of "ad hominem".

The error that motivated the observation was quoted every time. Every. Single. Time.

In general, every time you use the term you get it wrong. If you can use it correctly, you have yet to prove that (I will do you the favor of providing you with often useful rules of thumb: if you can't use the complete term, which is "ad hominem argument", and make sense, you are using it wrong. If you can replace the term with the word "insult" or any synonym of "insult", you are using it wrong. If you made a plural of "hominem", you are probably (90%) using it wrong)

 

[billvon]

If your transportation system is unable to handle a heavy rain, you should care about improving your transportation system.

Sure, we can do that to our transportation system. (And our agriculture, and our power plants, and our housing etc etc.) Who is going to pay for that? You?

And, again, I have never questioned that adaption to the new climate may be expensive. And the faster the warming, the higher the costs.

That's fine. Those costs should be passed onto the people responsible, like yourself.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Of general interest:
The world record 24 hour rainfall: 1825mm. Cyclone Denise. 07-Jan-1966
The world record 1 minute rainfall: 31.2 mm. Maryland. 04-July-1956


a few sources...

 

[Schmelzer]

A three fold increase in extreme rain events over a 65 year period means nothing to you?
Do you have any idea what 12 extreme rain events in a single year means? ( year 2006/7ísh)
What would you predict for the future based on the graph?

It means 12 events, covering at least 1% of the territory each. Without additional information about the real size of the area covered, that means nothing but a good chance that everywhere were has been at least one such event. I have explained in detail why I consider such statistics as not very informative, and iceaura's suggestion to consider changes in this even less meaningful. What one can reasonable extract from such data is that there is, indeed, an increase in the number of extreme weather events.

I would love, I mean really love to see graphs that shows the extreme weather situation to be improving over a 50 or so year time period... got any?

No, I don't expect there are such, but have not looked for them. This line seems to suggest that I have doubt that such extreme weather situations will increase if there is warming. I have no such doubt. Once there was warming during that time, it is reasonable to expect also a rising number of extreme weather situations. That paper supports that there really was such an increase, that's all.

What do you see when you read this graph?

An increase in the number of such extreme events. Given that I have never questioned that there will be such an increase because the prediction itself is plausible, I'm not even surprised.

What would you predict for the future based on the graph?

If I would make predictions based on that graph, I would predict that there will be an increase during the next hundred years too. To specify further details, say, an increase of the same size (6-2 = 4, which would give at the end 10) or the same 300%, which would give 18, or even more, if what is extremal before a climate change becomes normal, which would give even higher numbers, would be unjustified based on that graph.

There is no such "appropriate infrastructure" available in most agricultural regions.

Maybe, maybe not. If it is not, it has to be built if necessary. The techniques of how to do this are well-known from Ancient times.

It is a well-established fact. It takes many decades to adapt agriculture to a new and different landscape, weather, light, soil, etc, and the net losses of moving and replacement take even longer to make up for - if it can even be done.

Not plausible.

According to the research, the good plants/animals will not gain "in the same way" very often - not nearly as often as the bad ones.
Once again, you label scientific researchers "alarmists" for publishing their findings in scientific journals. You do that a lot.

Feel free to support this claim with links to such research. Up to now, I label only iceaura an alarmist.

What you have named propaganda is often the findings of AGW research.

No. Only your fantasy claims about what you imagine research has found. Not any real research presented and discussed.

That's what you are doing when you label the contents of scientific journals "propaganda" - which is something you do frequently and repeatedly.

I don't do this.

Your problem is that you don't know that you are labeling the contents of scientific journals, because you have no idea what those contents are.

Feel free to link the particular scientific papers, we will see if I will name the content propaganda.

So you don't recognize them, when they show up in front of your face.

What shows up in front of my face are claims made by one particular alarmist. Who is known for not supporting any of his claims about what research has shown by any link to real research.

You are unable to extract information from propaganda about AGW, because you can't tell what's propaganda and what isn't.

Claims about what research has shown, which are not supported by references to that research, despite many requests, are easily identified as propaganda.

That's a large area.

Yes, but only 1% of the area considered in the study. Which was what was relevant in the context.

This is not hysteria, propaganda, political agenda, or anything of the kind. It's simply an analysis and application of theory checked against the available data.

If it would be, you would simply post a link to that analysis. Once you refuse to do this, there are reasons. And the reasons are simple to guess. Either that research result does not exist at all or the results are something very different, as one can easily find out once it is linked.

 

[Schmelzer]

Sure, we can do that to our transportation system. (And our agriculture, and our power plants, and our housing etc etc.) Who is going to pay for that? You?

You, once it is your infrastructure. And once you will gain if you improve it.

That's fine. Those costs should be passed onto the people responsible, like yourself.

I'm responsible because I recommend you to care about your infrastructure, instead of investing in weapons to conquer the whole world and fighting Russia and China?

Your claim is the nonsense that needs an argument from evidence.

If you think it needs evidence that an increase of 300% of the rain in the Sahara is something which requires evidence, that's funny. 300% of nothing is nothing if you are not aware of this. And 300% of something very small remains very small.

Nobody's transportation system can handle what the AGW researchers say is likely to be coming, and very few can afford such"improvements" - raising all the vulnerable roads in Missouri ten feet, for example, would be too expensive http://traveler.modot.org/map/

What that map is supposed to show is beyond me, I have seen there only one road closed because of flooding, with a nearby bigger road not closed, in such a situation there is not really a necessity to do something, given that the effect is only local.

The error that motivated the observation was quoted every time. Every. Single. Time.

But it was never explained why you think it was an error.

(I will do you the favor of providing you with often useful rules of thumb: if you can't use the complete term, which is "ad hominem argument", and make sense, you are using it wrong. If you can replace the term with the word "insult" or any synonym of "insult", you are using it wrong. If you made a plural of "hominem", you are probably (90%) using it wrong)

Fine, that's already an improvement. Now it remains to apply this to particular examples when I use this, and, moreover, to show not only that I violated your thumb rules, but that the particular use is really wrong.

 

[Quantum Quack]

t means 12 events, covering at least 1% of the territory each. Without additional information about the real size of the area covered, that means nothing but a good chance that everywhere were has been at least one such event. I have explained in detail why I consider such statistics as not very informative, and iceaura's suggestion to consider changes in this even less meaningful. What one can reasonable extract from such data is that there is, indeed, an increase in the number of extreme weather events.

Oh I agree the graphs provided have a certain vagueness to them. However I wonder what you interpret from the words "Frequency of Widespread events". In particular the word "widespread"?
The preceding graph (E) talks of "frequency of extreme events" and is not the graph in question here. The graph in question here is to do with Graph F which relates to widespread events.

• What is your interpretation of the difference in meaning between "frequency of extreme events" and "frequency of wide spread extreme events" ?

To me it is saying that the events are widespread and extreme. That is to say the events cover a significant region ( area) in a way that would be considered as widespread.

A bit like saying Berlin experiences an extreme event and then saying Germany experienced a widespread extreme rain event... the amount of water involved in both cases is significantly different.

I am just concerned that you may be interpreting the English incorrectly or in a way that is untypical of the audience the author of that article/graphs intended.
here is the set of graphs again.

The graphs are used to support a case that extreme WIDESPREAD rain events have increase by 300% ( Graph F) and not (graph E)
The area involved is indicated in the first two graphs, I believe.... ( and they are hard to decipher IMO)
BTW that dark blue spot at the top right of the maps probably relates to Mawsynram, the wettest place on the planet...14,200mm in 2010 - that's a whopping 38mm per 24 hours average.

 

[Schmelzer]

However I wonder what you interpret from the words "Frequency of Widespread events". In particular the word "widespread"?

Simple. I have looked into the article, how "widespread events" have been defined. After this, I have made simple computations and found that the criterion appears to be roughly more than 1% of the whole area studied. See http://www.sciforums.com/threads/on...hange-threats-rain.162169/page-8#post-3595673 for the details.

What is your interpretation of the difference in meaning between "frequency of extreme events" and "frequency of wide spread extreme events" ?

It is not my interpretation of, but what was explicitly written in the article about the methods. 1-9 grid points out of 1120 is an extreme event, starting with 10 out of 1120 (that means less than 1%) it is widespread.

BTW that dark blue spot at the top right of the maps probably relates to Mawsynram, the wettest place on the planet...14,200mm in 2010 - that's a whopping 38mm per 24 hours. ( not even close to being the 150mm extreme lol)

It means the extreme event is the average rain of 3-4 days coming down in 1 day, and this without taking into account the dry season. I recommend you to count the number of rainy days in your home, and divide it by 365, to get a factor for how much the average rainy day gives in comparison with the average over the year. Of course, that's not applicable to Mawsynram, where it essentially rains every day. But there will be nonetheless large variations in the amount of rain coming down in days with not much rain and days with a lot of rain.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I find it easier when confronted with a mash of words to bullet point the sentences. And add comments if relevant.

• " A threefold rise in widespread extreme rain events over central India
• Abstract (partial)
• Socioeconomic challenges continue to mount for half a billion residents of central India because of a decline in the total rainfall and a concurrent rise in the magnitude and frequency of extreme rainfall events.
  
• Alongside a weakening monsoon circulation, the locally available moisture and the frequency of moisture-laden depressions from the Bay of Bengal have also declined.
• Here we show that despite these negative trends, there is a threefold increase in widespread extreme rain events over central India during 1950–2015.*
• Trends in summer mean and extreme precipitation during 1950–2015.
  
• Observed trend in summer a mean precipitation anomalies (mm day−1 66 year−1) and
  
• b the frequency (66 year−1) of extreme precipitation events (precipitation ≥ 150 mm day−1).
  
• Mean precipitation for the season is 8.1 mm day−1.
  
• Time series of c of precipitation (mm day−1),
  
• d specific humidity (1000–200 hPa) anomalies (g kg−1), and the number of days with low-pressure systems over central India and
  
• e frequency of extreme rain events (number of grid cells exceeding 150 mm day−1 per year) over central Indian subcontinent (75°–85° E, 19°–26° N, inset boxes in a, d).
• f Time series of the frequency of widespread extreme events (number of days when the extreme events simultaneously cover ten grid cells or more**).
  
• Stippling indicates trend values significant at 95% confidence level.
• The trend lines shown in the figures are significant at 95% confidence level.
  
• The smoothed curves on the time series analyses represent 10-year moving averages.
  
• The entire analysis is for the northern summer (June-September), for the years 1950–2015.
  
• The precipitation and cyclone data is based on IMD observations, and the specific humidity is based on NCEP reanalysis. See the “Methods” section for more information regarding the data "

The most important bit of information that you and I both missed, I think, is that the entire analysis is for the Northern Summer, June to September, that is only 4 months of every year from 1950-2015

It means the extreme event is the average rain of 3-4 days coming down in 1 day, and this without taking into account the dry season. I recommend you to count the number of rainy days in your home, and divide it by 365, to get a factor for how much the average rainy day gives in comparison with the average over the year.

• How does the fact that the statistical period is only about 120 days and not 365 days, effect your assessment?
• How does the fact that there is a decline in total regional rainfall yet a 300% increase in extreme widespread rain events effect your assessment?
• How does the reference to 10 grid points or more limit your assessment to only 10 grid points?
  
• How does the knowledge that it only takes one extreme event to do enormous damage to agriculture, homes, infrastructure and life that has longer than one season impacts, effect your understanding about the long term impacts of extreme rain events even if randomly localized?
• Why are you assuming that the events being recorded are only 150mm per 24 hours when the stats are about events that are greater than or equal to 150 mm per day and could be far greater in precipitation than 150mm per day?

Example:
It's like saying that the hurricane was a cat. 5 when you know that the cat5. is the highest the scale goes to.
So a hurricane with energy/winds, rain 2 times a normal cat 5 still gets labelled a cat 5. ( at the moment... but they are thinking about using 6 and 7 as the need arises.)
The extreme rain events they are referring to could be 300 mm or more per 24 hours as far as we can tell from the information provided.

Notes:
The average widespread rain for the monsoon Summer season ( 4 months) is only 8.1mm per 24 hour period.

It means the extreme event is the average rain of 3-4 days coming down in 1 day, and this without taking into account the dry season

• How does 3to4 times 8.1mm equal in excess of 150mm?

"Verging on drought with intermittent and extreme rainfall (flooding)" is what I see...and not only in India but around the globe generally...


Do you see what I see? or have I got it entirely wrong?

 

[Schmelzer]

The most important bit of information that you and I both missed, I think, is that the entire analysis is for the Northern Summer, June to September, that is only 4 months of every year from 1950-2015

You may have missed it, I have mentioned several times that only the monsoon season matters. Because during the other time there simply is no rain at all, neither a little bit nor extreme. It means, to compute the relation of the extreme event to the average rain per day we also have to divide the rain for the whole year only by the number of days in the rainy season.

How does the fact that there is a decline in total regional rainfall yet a 300% increase in extreme widespread rain events effect your assessment?

I was also surprised by this, but looking a the pictures a and b I see that this is simply a strange fact about the average. The regions which are blue in a (precipitation decreasing) are white/slightly blue in b (no increasing frequency) and what is red in b (increasing frequency) is, with a few exceptions, yellow/brown in a.

How does the reference to 10 grid points or more limit your assessment to only 10 grid points?

It doesn't. Learn to read. I think that I have never omitted the > resp. "at least" or so.

How does the knowledge that it only takes one extreme event to do enormous damage to agriculture, homes, infrastructure and life that has longer than one season impacts, effect your understanding about the long term impacts of extreme rain events even if randomly localized?

I have no such knowledge. If an extremal event creates big damage or not depends on many factors. The most important one is if the people living there are prepared, know what to do if something like that happens, or if it is completely unexpected. But even if quite unexpected, it may appear harmless, if the infrastructure is good enough. If something happens once every two-three years, people, even poor people, will know about this and have preparations for this. In the worst case, they know that they have to expect a total loss of the crops every three years or so, and have ways to survive this.

Why are you assuming that the events being recorded are only 150mm per 24 hours when the stats are about events that are greater than or equal to 150 mm per day and could be far greater in precipitation than 150mm per day?

I don't.

The average widespread rain for the monsoon Summer season ( 4 months) is only 8.1mm per 24 hour period.

My rough expectation based on looking at the map was greater, but my lower bound was 10, not far away.

How does 3to4 times 8.1mm equal in excess of 150mm?

With the help of your incompetence. Learn to read, in particular, try to find out the context of the 3to4 time number. Hint: That context you find in the quoted text above the 3to4 times number, which contains a number 38.

"Verging on drought with intermittent and extreme rainfall (flooding)" is what I see...and not only in India but around the globe generally...
Do you see what I see? or have I got it entirely wrong?

I see that this claim of declining rainfall combined with increased frequency suggests this picture. But, as explained above, I cannot see it in the pictures.

Thinking again about this, I see a simple statistical trick on how to fake this. Imagine Nature makes no such focus, increasing precipitation in the average means more volatility and therefore more extremal events, and less means less. Then find a region with a decrease in precipitation and no extreme events, and a region with an increase and some extreme events. Fit the size so that in the average the precipitation is decreasing. What happens with the extremal events? Zero remains zero in the first region, but there will be an increase in the second. So, there will be an increase in the average. I don't want to suggest that there was any intention of manipulation, it was probably simply by accident. Whatever, this wrong correlation is clearly an artifact, given the pictures.

 

[Quantum Quack]

With the help of your incompetence. Learn to read, in particular, try to find out the context of the 3to4 time number. Hint: That context you find in the quoted text above the 3to4 times number, which contains a number 38.

But still there is the problem that an extreme rain event IS occurring in one day and that means that 150mm or more rain is falling in that single day. You have stated that 4*8.1 mm of rain is no thing major to worry about. All you have done is smooth over an average of extreme events over 120 days.

In 2006ish 12 events occurred in that season. that means that a single extreme event >=150mm occurred on average every 120/12 = 10 days.

There is a reason I am so focused on this situation in India.
The monsoonal rains are essential to equatorial/tropical agriculture and according to wiki a reduction of only a mere 10% is considered a state of drought. Also most equatorial/tropical economies are rural/agriculturally dependent with inferior infrastructure and capacity to adapt.
We are seeing, and the graphs support this, a serious reduction in annual rainfall yet simultaneously a serious increase in extreme rainfall events.

A "feast" or "famine" situation/cycle that can only continue if one survives the famine and the feast. ( human perspective)
Every time this cycle occurs the chances of survival lessen. Especially if the cycle dynamics are increasing.
Because the chances of survival for the next cycle are lessened every time, thus the cycle of feast or famine eventually kills off all participating observers or forces mass migration..
The numbers of humans directly implicated is massive. Over a billion people may be forced to migrate in the next few years....as a way of adaptation.
The apparent degradation of the monsoonal season is a litmus test for the rest of the world. IMO

 

[Quantum Quack]

What an extreme rain event looks like:
Flooding in Pakistan: (12-Aug-2019)
https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/pak...-as-rains-create-havoc-in-pakistan-1.65774213
Rainfall over 2 days approximately 200mm
looks like this:

Dubai: As Karachi becomes a 'disaster zone' after two days of rains during Eid holidays, Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan has finally stepped in to ease the woes of people in the largest city of Pakistan after at least two dozen people were killed in rain-related incidents.
Out of total 12 killed on Sunday, at least nine people were electrocuted due to messed up electricity supply lines during one of the heaviest downpours in decades making life ‘hell’ in the mega city of more than 20 million people.​

 

[Quantum Quack]

What an extreme rain event looks like:
Flooding in Pakistan: (12-Aug-2019)
https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/pak...-as-rains-create-havoc-in-pakistan-1.65774213
Rainfall over 2 days approximately 200mm
looks like this:
View attachment 2712

Dubai: As Karachi becomes a 'disaster zone' after two days of rains during Eid holidays, Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan has finally stepped in to ease the woes of people in the largest city of Pakistan after at least two dozen people were killed in rain-related incidents.
Out of total 12 killed on Sunday, at least nine people were electrocuted due to messed up electricity supply lines during one of the heaviest downpours in decades making life ‘hell’ in the mega city of more than 20 million people.​

Correction needed.
The previous posts states that it is an example of an extreme rain event when only 100mm per 24 hours is being considered. An extreme rain event (>150mm) is considerably more than 100mm per 24 hours

 

[Schmelzer]

What an extreme rain event looks like:

This is what some particular extreme rain event looked like at a particular place. This is a type of argumentation I expect from alarmists. I'm sure some particular places may look like this even for 100mm.

You have stated that 4*8.1 mm of rain is no thing major to worry about.

Learn to read - I have not.

The monsoonal rains are essential to equatorial/tropical agriculture and according to wiki a reduction of only a mere 10% is considered a state of drought. Also most equatorial/tropical economies are rural/agriculturally dependent with inferior infrastructure and capacity to adapt.
We are seeing, and the graphs support this, a serious reduction in annual rainfall yet simultaneously a serious increase in extreme rainfall events.

No, we have not seen. I have explained you how such a statistical fluke appears out of an inadequate averaging, and that the maps a, b, show a different picture, namely the expected one: more rain - more extreme rain events.

A "feast" or "famine" situation/cycle that can only continue if one survives the famine and the feast. ( human perspective)
Every time this cycle occurs the chances of survival lessen. Especially if the cycle dynamics are increasing.
Because the chances of survival for the next cycle are lessened every time, thus the cycle of feast or famine eventually kills off all participating observers or forces mass migration..

Sorry, but this argument is nonsense. Even if there would be many deaths in a famine (not really plausible), there would be no danger of survival, but at worst a reduction of the population. Those who survive can make more stocks during the "feast", given that they have more land after the reduction of the population. So, they will be able to survive the next famine better.

The numbers of humans directly implicated is massive. Over a billion people may be forced to migrate in the next few years....as a way of adaptation.

Typical alarmism. Let's consider what Idia has to expect if the is everything ideal, no change at all.

Rural population India now 66%, similar to the world in 1960. In 50 years, it was reduced worldwide down to 48% in 2010. In industrial countries, f.e. in Germany it is now less than 25% (here). Employed in agriculture are much less, it reduced in India in 1991-2018 from 63% to 43%, in China from 60% to 27%, in Germany from 3.3% to 1.3%, worldwide from 44% to 28% (here). Despite the low numbers, Germany exports more foodstuffs than it imports (here).

A similar reduction of the rural population can be predicted for India too, even without any warming or whatever. This reduction was not caused by catastrophic events, and also not related to a survival problem for those who had to migrate. It happened because the nations became richer, and living in the city is more comfortable, more jobs, higher wages and so on. Compare China with India - in the past comparable, it is considered to be actually much more successful, but has reduced the workers in agriculture even more radical. So, there will be a heavy reduction of the rural population anyway, and how it works is clear too - the smallest, least efficient producers will go bankrupt and move into the cities, becoming richer. The remaining farmers have a larger territory to use and can invest in appropriate infrastructure. If Indians have not enough money for such investments, foreigners have. And we have already now all the technology which allows 1% of the population to feed the other 99%. No revolution in biotechnology even necessary. (But it happens nonetheless.)

What changes here if there is warming? The bankrupcies will happen during the years where we have crop failures (as they already do and always did) and blamed on climate change even if they would have to happen anyway if India would like to reach living standards of Europe/US.

 

[iceaura]

Those who survive can make more stocks during the "feast", given that they have more land after the reduction of the population. So, they will be able to survive the next famine better.

Not after AGW has ruined the productivity of that land, and its suitability for human habitation.

. This reduction was not caused by catastrophic events, and also not related to a survival problem for those who had to migrate. It happened because the nations became richer, and living in the city is more comfortable, more jobs, higher wages and so on.
- -
the smallest, least efficient producers will go bankrupt and move into the cities, becoming richer. The remaining farmers have a larger territory to use and can invest in appropriate infrastructure.

According to the most likely forecasts by the people who know what they are talking about: Under AGW there will be "reduction" caused by catastrophic events; there will be survival problems for those who flee; the afflicted regions will become poorer and their cities less comfortable, with fewer jobs and lower wages; the more efficient and better farmers will be the ones who can most easily migrate; there will be fewer and poorer farmers remaining on the ruined land, and neither money or role for "infrastructure".

What changes here if there is warming?

Among other likely changes:
Human civilization becomes much more difficult in the afflicted regions, and the refugees come into conflict with people already impoverished and approaching desperation in their now overpopulated communities.

Imagine Nature makes no such focus, increasing precipitation in the average means more volatility and therefore more extremal events, and less means less.

Instead of indulging one's imagination in that incompetent and silly fashion, consult the research into AGW.

I don't want to suggest that there was any intention of manipulation, it was probably simply by accident

It did not happen.
Your imagination was not consulted by the researchers and analysts of AGW - they adopted their statistical techniques from elsewhere.

The most important one is if the people living there are prepared, know what to do if something like that happens, or if it is completely unexpected.

And so even you can see what some of the implications of "greater variability", "wider variance", "more extremes", and so forth, as AGW is predicted to create, are: they make it much more difficult to expect and prepare.
Because what to do "if something like that happens" is almost irrelevant: what to do now, before any of the several possible "things happen", is the critical matter.
So the entire US State of Missouri, for example, would have to prepare now for several consecutive years of torrential rain and flooding, and also prepare for several consecutive years of extreme drought and desertification, either one involving the onset of a temperature regime unsuited to any of the current staple crops grown at that latitude (sunlight regime) anywhere - and still changing. Rapidly.

In the worst case, they know that they have to expect a total loss of the crops every three years or so, and have ways to survive this.

The already predicted likely cases of torrential rain events include total loss of crops for three or more consecutive years in some afflicted areas, and ruination of the soil - so your imaginary "worst case" does not even include what is already predicted as likely.

According to the research as published: the afflicted now face worse than you imagine, they are not prepared, and nobody knows how they could be prepared. In the US, many of the most threatened do not even acknowledge the threat - like you, they are confident in what they are told by Republican Party AGW deniers, and so they are unwilling to make preparations even if they could.

But even if quite unexpected, it may appear harmless, if the infrastructure is good enough.

Nobody's infrastructure is good enough to handle the high end predictions of AGW, and nobody knows how to make it good enough. Everyone will have to be lucky.

 

[Schmelzer]

Not after AGW has ruined the productivity of that land, and its suitability for human habitation.

Which may happen sometimes, but seldom. Such things are plausible only if the infrastructure is completely inadequate.

According to the most likely forecasts by the people who know what they are talking about:

That's an interesting point: iceaura does not claim here, as usual, that this alarmist nonsense has been shown by scientific research. Maybe because of my permanent insistence on links to that research? Not implausible because it will help. I know that there are 100500 of alarmist pages so that it would be easy to link some of them. But they are also completely uninteresting for me.

And so even you can see what some of the implications of "greater variability", "wider variance", "more extremes", and so forth, as AGW is predicted to create, are: they make it much more difficult to expect and prepare.

No. The variability, variance, the probability of extremes are things known, part of the information which all people have about the climate of the region they live in. So, they can, and do, prepare.

Of course, their preparations will never be sufficient to prevent all bad things. Extremal events which happen once in 20 or 100 years will likely always cause serious harm because people are not sufficiently prepared. And because they have stupid and corrupt governments where the money necessary to prepare for such events are stolen. Such is life. But for extremes happening several times a year they will be prepared.

So the entire US State of Missouri, for example, would have to prepare now for several consecutive years of torrential rain and flooding, and also prepare for several consecutive years of extreme drought and desertification, either one involving the onset of a temperature regime unsuited to any of the current staple crops grown at that latitude (sunlight regime) anywhere - and still changing. Rapidly.

They would, first of all better care about getting reasonable predictions, instead of alarmists predictions which predict all bad things imaginable at the same time. After this, one can see what one can do. The US is certainly rich enough to invest in the infrastructure.

According to the research as published:

My hope above was premature. So, back to the usual request: Give the links to that research. Claims to research without links are alarmist fantasies.

 

[iceaura]

Claims to research without links are alarmist fantasies.

No, they aren't. They are just research findings you have never checked out.

My hope above was premature. So, back to the usual request: Give the links to that research.

Why do you insist on putting me in charge of your education? Not my job.

Of course, their preparations will never be sufficient to prevent all bad things.

Or the half dozen worst things that research and analysis indicates are most likely. Yep - AGW is trending toward disaster, partly because it has been and is likely to continue too rapid to allow adequate preparation. Look at Houston after Harvey - thirty or more years warning, they had. According to the AGW research, they probably won't get another thirty - five or ten, for the next one.

They would, first of all better care about getting reasonable predictions, instead of alarmists predictions which predict all bad things imaginable at the same time.

Those are the reasonable predictions - the research supported and fact based conclusions of sound theoretical and statistical analysis. That's what anyone who wants to be prepared - as you repeatedly assert is important - must be prepared for.

But for extremes happening several times a year they will be prepared.

To get ready for what's coming in with AGW, they would have to have begun their massive preparation efforts already - back when the AGW researchers began publishing direct warnings, and pointing out that there wasn't much time.
They have not.
The best they can do now is slow things down enough for partial mitigation - a similarly massive effort not yet undertaken;

but even the ones with enough money are still in denial thanks to the media feed and political reactions you help promulgate - so badly handicapped, their chances are not good.