"Hundred year <weather>"

This should be a discussion of the science, upon which we all agree.
Oh wait, it is, except for all the dogma thrown in.

 

I like the sound of that, but I was usurped by the current king

 

Come on, surely that's enough lyrics to get the song going ......

To the Tune of Queen we will rock you ......

We will, We will, argue ... boom boom, boom boom, We will, We will argue .... boom boom, boom boom,

Take it away from there

T1 Terry

 

Just drop P.F. Sloan's song

EVE OF DESTRUCTION

in and we are all covered.

kris

 

I grew up on certain doom around every corner. We weren't expected to make it another 25 years; it was either nuclear war, the population explosion or pollution. Maybe even the End Times were at hand.

Forgive me if I got a tiny bit skeptical.

 

This was the only one I could find

same or different?

Should this line be "you don't believe, we're on the eve of a depression?"

T1 Terry

 

Seems like it covers all the points

 

We are a doom-loving species.
Some call it, "fear-porn."

 

Some accept that they will die, others seem to think they'll live for ever .... I'm in the second group, so far, so good

T1 Terry

 

You don't need to convince yourself you'll die to keep yourself alive. I prefer reality over self-delusion.

 

Ummmm.......

T1 Terry

 

The whole thing about hundred-year flods, or any other (long time-frame)/(event) is not murky as some may suppose. It has two parts.

First is the math, and there are several procedures available for Exceedance Analysis. They differ a lot in structure, but little in results. I know of 4 textbooks published since 2001 on the subject. It seems to have been first considered by statistics superstar RA Fischer in 1928. No one ‘into’ math questions it and (importantly) no distinctly different approach has been put forward.

Second is the central presumption of Stationarity. Can be applied to past or future. For past, it presumes that magnitude and frequency of (whatever) events that have been measured for decades with technology are same as magnitude and frequency of (whatever) events that occurred earlier without such recording. Should be obvious this can be shaky ground. Climates have changed in the past, and floods, droughts, heatwaves, snowmageddons and all the rest of it have as well. If two ‘hundred-year’ floods occur within a decade, our first concern is that longer past might be different. Or …

Stationarity can be applied to the future. It is particularly derailed by directional climate change resulting from anthropogenic modification of atmospheric infrared absorption. It might require decades of additional data to convince Exceedance Analysis that Stationarity has been violated. Meanwhile, since floods or whatever are already happening, the rational thing is to harden infrastructure against them. The cautious thing is to prepare for worse.

The distractions are to assert that all this is hoax, cloudy math, or money grubbing by science.

==

Statistics in general is counting. We all learned to count numbers which are discrete values. Statistics counts distributions of numbers, not discrete values. It's just the next step, and not all take it.

 

I can state with perfect confidence that for about half of the entire 4.5 billionish years of the earth's history, the climate has warmed. It has cooled for about the other half.
Forgive my lack of hysteria.

 

done

 

And so it has, although not as consecutive super eras. Some of the major ups have corresponded to mass extinction events. Perhaps not coincidence. Some of the major downs have corresponded to more subtle extinction events.

To repeat what I've said around here before, Human agriculture has flourished within a narrow range of climate. Human 'tech' over shorter time within a still narrower range of climate. Surely we can work to expand our range of resilience, and almost surely we'll need to.

 

I'm thinking, we won't have a choice if we wish to continue to exist as a species. The numbers show, we have already passed the tipping point, the temperature has already exceeded the 2.5*C increase since pre industrial records, just the average is over a very long period, so the average hasn't increased above the 2.5*C ...... when it does, the actual temperature rise will be a lot higher than 2.5*C but by then, it will be stating the obvious ..... the sea level rises, ice melt and changing weather events will be impossible for anyone but the pig-headed to ignore .... but they will be in the minority by then, so their nonsense will be the stuff the corner preacher pumps out .....

As far as I see it, we won't stop the climate rise now, we might be able to slow it and reduce the peak, therefore shorten the duration, but the planet will bring itself back into balance for what ever manages to survive ...... maybe intelligent humans will, the others .... let's see what the short term financial gains can buy you when push comes to shove .... there are a lot more don't haves' than there are those that have and want even more ..... when survival requires joint cooperation, money won't buy that, resilience and those with basic hand skills will be what is required to survive .....

Sound like a dooms day prepper ..... they might have it right after all .....

T1 Terry

 

The human animal's core strength is adaptability, which is a fairly useful trait given the fact that the known history of the earth includes periods where it has been MUCH warmer and MUCH colder.
IF we're to survive as a species we are going to have to DEAL with the fact that the "climate" has been changing...a LOT.

Ya gotta wait 'till Doomsday to find out!

 

I'm not denying that our disruption of the carbon cycle is unsustainable; far from it, We must stop emitting carbon into the atmosphere as soon as possible. We need to transition to clean energy

No matter how much you want to create the straw man argument that I am a climate denier; I am not.

But I do not think that we need to employ alarmist panic to achieve that end. We are capable of effecting great change when the need arises. But the need is not so great that we need to shock people to change.

I feel bad for the polar bears too, but I doubt they will go extinct. They have been through far worse in the past. We have caused many extinctions through our activities, but many thousands of extinctions would have occurred had we not existed. All species eventually go extinct, or spawn new species, but nothing remains the same.

The notion that we can micromanage climate change, and create a static climate (that has never existed) is a daft one, And unachievable. We are here, all 8 billion of us, and we have a big footprint, but we can't have everything. But we should take credit for all the positive stewardship we have done for the planet. We can do so much more, and we will. In a few hundred years, the earth will be more like a garden than it is now.

 

What positive stewardship has the human race done for planet earth?

T1 Terry

 

Many species have been saved from extinction so far. When I was younger, lead was used in paints, mercury was used as a pesticide, and most waste was released directly into watercourses. This no longer happens, and far more than this has been accomplished.
Pretending that we have done nothing, is not helpful to the cause.