I'm in Sardinia right now and one of the larger fires was about 50 km to my south. There was a good bit of smoke here yesterday and last night but it's been put under control now.
This is my 24th summer in a row coming here. I've witnessed fires every one of those summers, and in 2011 one such fire damaged a lot of my in-laws' land. This is part and parcel of Sardinia and always has been. Every summer the vegetation is yellow-brown as there's practically no rain from May to September. The vast majority of fires are started maliciously. This year is no different. We haven't had record temperatures. There hasn't been a record drought. Just a standard Mediterranean summer, so what point are you trying to make?
I see Channel 4 is now the new Guardian and has decided that cataclysmic climatic hyperbole is the way to go. Normal weather events are sucked up into the frenzy vortex and somehow put forward as evidence, regardless of the facts.
It’s called convection, which coincidentally looks a bit like an upside down funnel
jesus If I was talking to anyone else I’d think this was a fair question but you act like you’re a super PHD in weather physics
I mean you must be because you know better than the thousands of climate scientists and the vast majority of published research that you think is wrong because you haven’t been able to find a flaw in Ray Bates papers yet..
or the Connolly brothers absolute nonsense now that I think of it
more energy causes warmer air which causes more moisture in the air which causes more energy released from convection which fuels storms so that a 7% increase in moisture per c warming can have a much bigger than 7% increase in precipitation intensity
tell me which part of what I just said is wrong
If it’s so easy to calculate it, then you can post it here whenever you get the chance
we can discuss your results afterwards
I note that Danno has not provided an example. If Danno really cares about deforestation in Brazil, can they tell me what mechanism they would use to bring about a change?
I advocate using the urgency around climate change to highlight deforestation and implement mechanisms within the global trade system to incentivize protection of the rainforests, because the issues are linked. What is your proposal?
Jesus we've been hearing about the end of the planet for years now and yet here we are still alive. Everyone is sick to death of the climate fanatics.
@Akrasia Right, so you come up with the freaky phantom funnel concept and yet it's on me to calculate it out for you? I never thought I'd ever do this, but if I may borrow a quote from one of the great philophers of our time, Banana republic, "Your [sic] full of shīte'.
People living or remaining to live beside highly flammable forests where no firebrakes have been added, are they slow or thick?
The planet won’t end for another 4 billion years, when the sun expands and consumes it. Are we doing or upmost to make inhospitable for all living things in the mean time, yes!
You said you were done hear but it seems like flip flops are back in fashion.
Yet again you didn’t watch the video.
"more energy causes warmer air which causes more moisture in the air which causes more energy released from convection which fuels storms so that a 7% increase in moisture per c warming can have a much bigger than 7% increase in precipitation intensity"
1986 was one of the coldest years of the of the 2nd half of the 20th century and yet, as per the table I posted above which you conveniently ignored, two of the highest 24 hr rainfall on record in this county occurred in it. Warm advection is going to take place regardless of the temperature profile of the planet; in fact, moisture from that warm air will be squeezed out all the more because cold fronts will naturally be stronger due to tighter thermal gradients.
Not the hardest concept to understand.
Yes I did.
They did not mention Sardinia in the clip only in the headline.
To quote myself "tell me which part of what I just said is wrong". The fact that you ignored this and just decided to insult me, which is against the charter by the way, speaks volumes
Climate change denial 101
It's your fault your house burned down because you live near something flammable
It's your fault your house got flooded because you live near something wet
It's your fault your house got destroyed in a landslide because you live near a slope
It's your fault you got heat stroke and died because you live somewhere.... well I would have said tropical but canada doesn't fit that description
Its your fault you're thirsty because.. eg, because you live somewhere that used to rain but doesn't anymore, so you should have moved by now
and as Atlantic Dawn so eloquently put it, people are either 'slow or thick' for not migrating away from places that are too dangerous to live anymore. but whenever I say that climate refugees will become a problem, or resource shortages could cause or escalate wars, I get called 'an alarmist'
I have not accused you, personally, of agreeing with the Mercosur deal, however - the liberal and green wings of government rubber stamped this deal so therefore are in agreement with the outcomes of such a deal. The destruction of the Amazon will now be encouraged and escalated by such a deal while Irish farmers will go to the wall buried under further red tape that Bolsonaro's farmer friends will not have to deal with.
As for my proposal: Ban south American beef. End of. We can produce it here, in a more carbon efficient manner. Why are the so called self appointed saviours of the planet Green Party sitting in Government approving this?
And why would they mention it anywhere? Because it allows nice alliteration and people at this stage are conditioned to accept every weather event as manmade catastrophes.
I notice you have absolutely no problem with the personal insults and other tripe posted by Banana Republic. I wonder why that is...
I didn't ignore your first post, my reply was to both of your posts. Pretty much all of what you said is wrong. You have not been able to show how extra moisture from a larger area gets funneled into a small area. How is it different to today? You seem to be implying there's a non-linear relationship between latent heat release and mixing ratio. I've yet to see that one.
The Mercosur deal has not been ratified yet and it is not in force. And ratification is far from guaranteed in large part because of opposition from the Green movement in Europe. Ireland has also expressed opposition to the deal.
If you want to stop this deal, you should be supporting the campaigns to block this deal because of environmental and climate change impacts. The EU approached this as a trade deal, but environmental and human rights activists are putting pressure on the EU to use this as an opportunity to prove that we are committed to stopping climate change and are no longer compartmentalising things into 'trade' or 'green' issues, sustainability should be a red line issue for all aspects of economic and political decision making across the EU
The greens were not in government when the deal was signed in 2019 and they came out in opposition to it at the time, so I don't get where the 'green and liberals' 'rubberstamped' it. Can you point to a single action from the Greens where they 'rubberstamped' this deal?
I am not a moderator on this thread so I do not engage in back seat modding
Regarding your lack of understanding on how moisture gets funnelled by convection, here's what Nature have to say
" A thunderstorm is essentially a tower of upward-moving winds that feed themselves by sucking in warm air from nearby. When the air rises high enough, it cools and condenses into rain. Storms can generate their own weather, such as creating cold pools of air near the ground that trigger more convection. And climate change can amplify these effects, causing updrafts to grow stronger and wider, which pulls in more warm air from surrounding regions and leads to more rain.
"If you want to stop this deal, you should be supporting the campaigns to block this deal because of environmental and climate change impacts."
Danno has already told you why he opposes this deal.. because it impacts on Irish farmers. Just another real world consequence that 'climate activists' know or care little about, and why would they, when all their little comforts in life are provided to them by people who actually have to use their hands for a living.
Climate 'activism' is just another manifestation of class politics. An useless, unproductive and overvalued class who contribute nothing to society pontificating to those that do.
You're still missing the point. Current convective systems spawn daughter cells. It's nothing new. These systems don't, however, suck all the moisture back into the central core, concentrating it all in one place, the way you try to make out. The offspring cells dump rain over a wider area. You still have to explain how this mechanism will change in a warmer world. It has not been explained in that article, which leads me to confirm that it doesn't actually work that way. Of course they mention the old reliable stalling hurricanes and how they dumped record rain. If you leave a plugged sink tap running overnight it's going to lead to one big mess. Likewise, a storm stalled over an area. We see it several times a year in Ireland when a pivoting front - with unspectacular instantaneous rain rates- can lead to large storm total rainfall amounts but only due to its movement.
The rains which brought those floodings to western Germany was mostly stratiform in nature. No doubt some embedded convectiveness but all this occurred under cooler than average polar maritime conditions, an air mass which occluded fronts are formed in... which is what makes them occluded.
I have at no stage posted the first and or second stomach of a cow on this thread. Stop acting like a child who has dropped his ice cream cone.
I never said that all the rain is concentrated on a single place. I said the storms suck in moisture from outside the immediate areas where they are precipitating, so when you take into account the 7% extra moisture per degree of warming, as well as the extra heat from the latent heat as the vapour condenses which fuels the system further and sucks in more moisture, it is clear how the net increase in rainfall is more than 7% per degree c. And this is what more and more research papers are saying as more and more evidence is piling in that extreme precipitation events are becoming more common
Your original question was why would 7c increased moisture content fuel rainfall intensity of greater than 7%, this is how. and it's not theoretical, it's been observed in real storm systems, and modelled in the most sophisticated weather and climate models.
The models also predict more erratic weather, where there will be unusually dry periods punctuated by extremely wet periods
Well that's how I read it when you said this below.
A rain event doesn’t just take the water from the air immediately over the point where it is raining, the moisture from a wide area is precipitated onto a small area, so if each cubic meter of air holds 7% extra moisture the actual impact of this could be a much bigger increase in the amount and intensity of rain
Actually, you're right, most of what you post is from the other end of the animal's digestive system. I may disagree with Akrasia but at least he puts forward some thoughtful and coherent arguments. You, on the other hand...
In 1804 mankind had produced almost no CO2 worth speaking about and in 1910 only negligible amounts of the gas. These people with their high-sounding academic titles and their fuss with complicated computer models act as if they could predict the future for decades or even centuries. The alarmists did not see it coming 48 hours out, they sure as hell don't know about 10 or 50 years in the future.
Frequency Trend Analysis of Heavy Rainfall Days for Germany
Although the trend variability depended on the chosen exceedance threshold, a general long-term trend for the whole of Germany was consistently not evident.
Nationaler Klimareport (2020)
The chapter on precipitation starts on page 20. The conclusion is on page 22 - no statistically relevant change since the 1950s.
In Bezug auf besondere Niederschlagsereignisse gibt es zwei zu betrachtende Seiten: ein Zuviel und ein Zuwenig. Wird die Anzahl der Tage von mindestens 10 mm Niederschlag ausgezählt, so werden bei gleich-zeitig großen jährlichen Schwankungen im Mittel über ganz Deutschland 21 Tage beobachtet. Diese Zahl hat sich in den letzten 66 Jahren kaum verändert. Es ist je doch ein klares Nord-Süd-und West-Ost-Gefälle in der Häufigkeit zu beobachten, mit den wenigsten Ereignissen im Nord osten (Mittel weniger als 13 Tage) und den meisten in Süddeutschland mit mehr als 27 Tagen. Für Niederschlagsmengen von mehr als 20 mm pro Tag ist keine Änderung der Anzahl seit den 1950er-Jahren festzustellen. Die Variabilität der Anzahl der Starkniederschlagsereignisse von Jahr zu Jahr ist sehr hoch und insgesamt ist die Anzahl der Ereignisse mit 5 Tagen pro Jahr im Mittel über ganz Deutschland relativ selten. Die regionalen Unterschie de sind hingegen sehr groß. In Nordostdeutschland und an den Küsten gibt es drei oder weniger Ereignisse im Jahr, in Süddeutschland und allen Gebirgsregionen mehr als 7 Tage pro Jahr.
Three Rules For Accepting Climate “Event Attribution” Studies (2020)
If you are curious you can read article for a discussion of the the rules. . .
When it comes to many types of extreme events the IPCC has for decades been unable to conclusively detect changes in their frequency or intensity. For instance, the IPCC has reported increases in heat waves and in heavy precipitation, but not tropical cyclones (including hurricanes), floods, tornadoes or drought.
The rise of individual “event attribution” studies coincides with frustration that the IPCC has not definitively concluded that many types of extreme weather had become more common.
Try and find any weather event that the World Weather Attribution have "investigated" that they concluded was just natural variability . . . So we are clear the agenda behind the World Weather Attribution group in Ms Otto own words. . .
Lawsuit-Supporting Academic: Attribution Science Was Designed Specifically To Bolster Climate Litigation (2021)
Climate litigation supporters have claimed that attribution science should serve as objective evidence in lawsuits against major energy companies, as it purportedly links a specific amount of greenhouse gas emissions to specific operators, thus providing an avenue by which a court could assign damages to companies. Yet, as University of Oxford climate expert and litigation supporter Friederike Otto told E&E News, attribution science was created solely to bolster these lawsuits. As the article notes:
“But Friederike Otto, a climate expert at the University of Oxford who has worked with [Myles] Allen, said her efforts to link extreme weather events to climate change have always been tied to the possibility of legal action. ‘Unlike every other branch of climate science or science in general, event attribution was actually originally suggested with the courts in mind,’ she said.” (emphasis added)
This stunning admission from Otto undercuts any claim that attribution science should be viewed as a neutral or objective resource by courts of law or policymakers. In fact, Otto herself has relied on climate attribution work to support climate lawsuits as a 2019 E&E News story mentions:
“Friederike Otto, a climate expert at the University of Oxford and lead scientist at the World Weather Attribution project, said she talks ‘a lot with lawyers’ about how attribution science could be used as a litigation tool.” (emphasis added)
To bolster the point here are Elisabeth A. Lloyd and Naomi Oreskes pushing the lie that instead of evidence-based attribution "the community" ought to adopt their new "storyline" approach.
Climate Change Attribution: When Is It Appropriate to Accept New Methods? (2018)
your interpretation was wrong, I think everything I said since then is fully compatible with this statement
List three examples of this!