Longer heatwaves driven by ‘turbo-charged’ climate change, say scientists

submitted by ActuallyNot from theguardian.com

all 6 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]GuyWhite 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Too hot? Climate change. Too cold? Climate change. Drought? Climate change. Hurricane? Climate change. Tornadoe? Climate change. Flood? Climate change.

It’s a self fulfilling prophecy.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Too hot? Climate change

Yes it certainly contributes.

Too cold? Climate change.

Much less common. It's possible for the Gulf-Stream to lose current if Greenland is melting fast enough, because the current sinks there, and all the fresh water is more boyant. And that cools Europe because the you get less water from the tropics showing up in the North Atlantic.

But generally, global warming causes warming.

Drought? Climate change.

Yep, in traditionally dry parts of the world. More energy into hadley cells means that the deserts adjacent to the tropic will see expansion polewards, and an increase in the length and intensity of dry periods.

Tornadoe? Climate change.

The trends here varies place to place. The change in wind shear is inconsistent. There may be some areas where the increase is attributable to anthropogenic global warming, but there are some areas where the incidence is dropping.

Flood? Climate change.

Yep. There's a few mechanisms there.

The atmosphere can hold about 7% more moisture per degree (Celsius) of warming. So precipitation can be faster.

And the increased energy in the Hadley cells mentioned above, means more rainfall in the tropics.

And increased temperatures mean that there's parts of the world were precipitation that would traditionally be more snow falls as rain. Which releases the water much more quickly.

It’s a self fulfilling prophecy.

It's a science with well studied mechanisms.

[–]chadwickofwv 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

You're full of shit.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

All of it?

You think global warming doesn't increase the temperature?

So you've got your own personal understanding of what "temperature" is?

And you think that warm air can't carry more water than cool air?

So you've got your own physics of clouds?

Or are clouds a conspiracy theory from those cartels controlling sunlight and wind?

[–]chedca2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

anthropogenic climate change is a farce, evaporated ocean water makes up the near total majority of greenhouse effect that we're supposed to worry about. emissions barely make a dent. (from the newspaper today; https://imgur.com/a/pcWvid3)

climate is changing and it certainly feels like there are fewer bugs in the boonies these days but that may be more attributable to solar cycles than the minute effect of our carbon output

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

anthropogenic climate change is a farce

You don't believe that the increase in CO2 is due to human activity?

Or you don't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

evaporated ocean water makes up the near total majority of greenhouse effect that we're supposed to worry about

"near total" is wrong.

But it is a very significant greenhouse gas.

However, the process by which water leaves the atmosphere is not limited by anything. If it gets cold enough it will precipitate out and fall. The mean life of water in the atmosphere is 10 days.

So if you add water to the atmosphere, you do get increased greenhouse effect for a very short period, but mostly what you get is rain in the following week or two. And the water is now gone.

CO2 lasts for 300-1000 years. So when you put that in the atmosphere, you get a change in climate.

climate is changing

yes it is.

that may be more attributable to solar cycles

Nope, not solar cycles.

than the minute effect of our carbon output

The warming is bang on the nose of what was predicted to be from out carbon output 35 years ago. So it's only as minuscule as is observed.