Extreme weather

[LesPalenik]

It's about changing behavior, perhaps even more than spending money.
Stopping the denial is a start. Getting off one's butt is a start.

+1
It seems to be harder for the deniers, but there are many small ways to do something about it.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

You're still stuck. Oh well.

It seems to be you who's stuck.
It's not about cost, it's about action.

[Alan Klein]

It seems to be you who's stuck.
It's not about cost, it's about action.

It's always about cost.  If you want to understand stuff, follow the money.  There's only so much to go around.  If you spend it here, than there's not enough for there.  So everyone fights over where the budget money goes.  If it's about action, why are the Chinese refusing to set goals before 2030? 

[Ray]

It's always about cost.  If you want to understand stuff, follow the money.  There's only so much to go around.  If you spend it here, than there's not enough for there.  So everyone fights over where the budget money goes.  If it's about action, why are the Chinese refusing to set goals before 2030?

Indeed it is. However, money can become nearly worthless if the economy is seriously mismanaged. In my view, there are things that are more fundamental than money, and which underpin all economies. Those are;
(1) A reliable supply of energy.
(2) The actual, true cost of that energy, in terms of labor, machinery and the infrastructure required to produce it.
(3) The innovative, productive and efficient ways in which we use that energy, for the benefit of societies.

Low cost energy combined with the innovative and efficient use of that energy is the basis of China's rapid and extraordinary economic development.

However, China's rapid economic development through the use of cheap energy from fossil fuels (as well as cheap labor), did have an uncalculated hidden cost, which is the health costs of the 'real' pollution from vehicles and coal-fired power stations with inadequate emission controls.

China has been tackling that problem for a number of years by decommissioning the older, polluting power stations, and replacing them with the modern Ultra-Supercritical type, as well as renewable energy. Here's an interesting news item about the current construction of such a plant in Poland. The 1,000 megawatt plant will be operational in 2023.
https://www.ge.com/reports/ultra-super-critical-thinking-high-tech-turbines-giving-coal-new-lease-life/

The main problem with these Ultra-Supercritical coal plants is that CO2 has been mischaracterized as a 'pollutant', therefore most alarmist laypersons do not see them as 'pollution free' because CO2 is still emitted, although in lower quantities per unit of energy produced.

Carbon capture and storage is too expensive, but how about a synergistic option which capitalizes on the undeniable benefits of CO2. Farmers have been pumping CO2 into their Greenhouses for decades because they know that it increases crop growth substantially, although the amount of increased growth can vary according to plant type and other conditions. Here's an article that addresses the benefits of various Greenhouse techniques.
https://www.edaphic.com.au/5-reasons-why-co2-levels-are-controlled-at-night/

My proposal, which I think is very sensible and practical, is that all new coal-fired power stations should be of the Ultra-supercritical variety, which should also include state-of-the-art emission controls of chemicals which are harmful to human health, and that such coal-fired plants should be surrounded by large Greenhouses.

All the CO2 emissions from the coal power-plants should be funneled into the Greenhouses. Nominate me for a Nobel Prize if you wish. 

[Rob C]

Indeed it is. However, money can become nearly worthless if the economy is seriously mismanaged. In my view, there are things that are more fundamental than money, and which underpin all economies. Those are;
(1) A reliable supply of energy.
(2) The actual, true cost of that energy, in terms of labor, machinery and the infrastructure required to produce it.
(3) The innovative, productive and efficient ways in which we use that energy, for the benefit of societies.

Low cost energy combined with the innovative and efficient use of that energy is the basis of China's rapid and extraordinary economic development.

However, China's rapid economic development through the use of cheap energy from fossil fuels (as well as cheap labor), did have an uncalculated hidden cost, which is the health costs of the 'real' pollution from vehicles and coal-fired power stations with inadequate emission controls.

China has been tackling that problem for a number of years by decommissioning the older, polluting power stations, and replacing them with the modern Ultra-Supercritical type, as well as renewable energy. Here's an interesting news item about the current construction of such a plant in Poland. The 1,000 megawatt plant will be operational in 2023.
https://www.ge.com/reports/ultra-super-critical-thinking-high-tech-turbines-giving-coal-new-lease-life/

The main problem with these Ultra-Supercritical coal plants is that CO2 has been mischaracterized as a 'pollutant', therefore most alarmist laypersons do not see them as 'pollution free' because CO2 is still emitted, although in lower quantities per unit of energy produced.

Carbon capture and storage is too expensive, but how about a synergistic option which capitalizes on the undeniable benefits of CO2. Farmers have been pumping CO2 into their Greenhouses for decades because they know that it increases crop growth substantially, although the amount of increased growth can vary according to plant type and other conditions. Here's an article that addresses the benefits of various Greenhouse techniques.
https://www.edaphic.com.au/5-reasons-why-co2-levels-are-controlled-at-night/

My proposal, which I think is very sensible and practical, is that all new coal-fired power stations should be of the Ultra-supercritical variety, which should also include state-of-the-art emission controls of chemicals which are harmful to human health, and that such coal-fired plants should be surrounded by large Greenhouses.

All the CO2 emissions from the coal power-plants should be funneled into the Greenhouses. Nominate me for a Nobel Prize if you wish. 

Instead, how about just keeping well away from stones?

;-)

[Ray]

Instead, how about just keeping well away from stones?

;-)

Thankfully, I'm anonymous. 

[Ray]

The recent hurricane Dorian which devastated the Bahamas, is very tragic, and my sympathies go out to everyone affected.

However, after such an extreme weather event occurs I often do some research on the internet to find out if it really was an unprecedented event and possibly the worst on record. What I find is that it is very rarely the worst on record, in terms of storm intensity, but it might be the worst in terms of the economic cost of destroyed property, due to increased populations and urbanization.

The following Wikipedia article lists all the hurricanes since 1804 that have affected the Bahamas. I was amazed that the number is 56. That works out to one hurricane every 3.8 years, on average. Sometimes there's a gap of several years with no hurricanes, and sometimes there are 2 consecutive hurricanes in 2 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hurricanes_in_the_Bahamas

The number of Category 5 hurricanes to hit the Bahamas during the 20th and 21st centuries is 4. Two of them were between 1932 and 1933, so I don't think one can surmise that hurricanes in this area have been increasing due to CO2 emissions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_Bahamas_hurricane

"To date, it is one of four Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes to make landfall in the Bahamas at that intensity, the others having occurred in 1933, 1992, and 2019."

Here are some other links to intense hurricanes of the past.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_Atlantic_hurricanes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hurricane_of_1780

What I find truly disturbing, and far more disturbing than the very uncertain and unpredictable risk of 'runaway, catastrophic climate change', is the idiocy of building homes and infrastructure in areas that have a history of frequent floods and hurricanes, without ensuring that such homes can withstand the force of  such previous, known events.

This is crazy. 'Hey! folks. We have the ability to control the climate, because of the marvelous advances in science and technology, but we don't have the ability to protect you from the normal, extreme weather events that we know have occurred regularly throughout history. All we can do is reduce CO2 emissions in the hope that it will stop any increases in such extreme weather events.

In the meantime, you'll just have to accept the destruction and loss of life from natural, extreme weather events, because the priority is to tackle the uncertain risk that such extreme events will become worse, even though the IPCC has not been able to provide any sound evidence that extreme weather events have increased, globally, since 1950.'

Crikey! We're doomed; not from climate change, but from idiocy. 

[Rob C]

Were it only limited to the obvious risk islands, but we know it's not. Britain has its generous share of flood plane buildings too, and only when insurance companies stop offering cover does the gigantic penny drop.

That said, with the islands, what's the solution? Can they ask Donald to make them American so that they can up sticks and, along with Florida, Louisiana, Texas etc., move into Arizona? Considering many Bahamians went there precisely to get out of America, taking their workers with them, that might be an alternative less attractive to holding their breath and going under for a while. The banks would veto that, anyway.

Rob

[Ray]

That said, with the islands, what's the solution?

Here's one solution.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-27/village-built-for-fijis-poor-survives-cyclone-winston-unscathed/7204826

"Cheap, sturdy houses designed by an Australian man have survived Fiji's devastating cyclone with barely a scratch and provide a potential blueprint for reconstruction efforts.
The houses could be built in five days for $13,000 each, Mr Drysdale says."

For those interested in more luxurious and esthetically pleasing houses, here's another solution.
https://www.force10global.com.au/testimonials/

“The Category 5 cyclone was an absolute doozy. Very scary 8 hours and I honestly thought that the Force 10 units would sustain much damage in the morning when we came out to check. However, we were very happy to see only some minor damage.
All in all, I would say a very satisfying result. There were properties that were near us that lost complete roofs. We heard some horror stories about people that were in beautiful, solid cement block construction housing that lost their complete roofs very early in the cyclone. But our Force 10 units were in great condition given the size of the cyclone. As you may know we faced the teeth of the cyclone for 7 hours. One gust at the airport was registered at 382 Kms/hr. So you can imagine some of the gusts that we faced.”    

[Alan Klein]

The recent hurricane Dorian which devastated the Bahamas, is very tragic, and my sympathies go out to everyone affected.

However, after such an extreme weather event occurs I often do some research on the internet to find out if it really was an unprecedented event and possibly the worst on record. What I find is that it is very rarely the worst on record, in terms of storm intensity, but it might be the worst in terms of the economic cost of destroyed property, due to increased populations and urbanization.

The following Wikipedia article lists all the hurricanes since 1804 that have affected the Bahamas. I was amazed that the number is 56. That works out to one hurricane every 3.8 years, on average. Sometimes there's a gap of several years with no hurricanes, and sometimes there are 2 consecutive hurricanes in 2 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hurricanes_in_the_Bahamas

The number of Category 5 hurricanes to hit the Bahamas during the 20th and 21st centuries is 4. Two of them were between 1932 and 1933, so I don't think one can surmise that hurricanes in this area have been increasing due to CO2 emissions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_Bahamas_hurricane

"To date, it is one of four Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes to make landfall in the Bahamas at that intensity, the others having occurred in 1933, 1992, and 2019."

Here are some other links to intense hurricanes of the past.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_Atlantic_hurricanes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hurricane_of_1780

What I find truly disturbing, and far more disturbing than the very uncertain and unpredictable risk of 'runaway, catastrophic climate change', is the idiocy of building homes and infrastructure in areas that have a history of frequent floods and hurricanes, without ensuring that such homes can withstand the force of  such previous, known events.

This is crazy. 'Hey! folks. We have the ability to control the climate, because of the marvelous advances in science and technology, but we don't have the ability to protect you from the normal, extreme weather events that we know have occurred regularly throughout history. All we can do is reduce CO2 emissions in the hope that it will stop any increases in such extreme weather events.

In the meantime, you'll just have to accept the destruction and loss of life from natural, extreme weather events, because the priority is to tackle the uncertain risk that such extreme events will become worse, even though the IPCC has not been able to provide any sound evidence that extreme weather events have increased, globally, since 1950.'

Crikey! We're doomed; not from climate change, but from idiocy. 

For the heck of it, I picked one of the early storms to see how much info your link had. 1806 Great Coastal Hurricane. It hit the Bahamas and went up the US coast to Massachusetts then Nova Scotia.   21 people drown in a ship off New Jersey where I live and 36" (91cm) of rain fell in Mass.  OF course, being 1806, this was long before there were any substantial CO2 due to the industrial revolution.  SO the whole argument Dorian was casued by global warming is just hysteria and fake news. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1806_Great_Coastal_hurricane

[Alan Klein]

Were it only limited to the obvious risk islands, but we know it's not. Britain has its generous share of flood plane buildings too, and only when insurance companies stop offering cover does the gigantic penny drop.

That said, with the islands, what's the solution? Can they ask Donald to make them American so that they can up sticks and, along with Florida, Louisiana, Texas etc., move into Arizona? Considering many Bahamians went there precisely to get out of America, taking their workers with them, that might be an alternative less attractive to holding their breath and going under for a while. The banks would veto that, anyway.

Rob

May I remind you that the Bahamas was owned by Great Britain, not America.   Maybe the Bahamians should request GB to make them British again.  America provided at least $10 million in governmental aid plus much rescue and recovery and medical and food help after Dorian.  I don;t know how much private charity was given by individual Americans. But it too was substantial. In any case, just dumping on America and our president isn't appreciated.  It's become a knee-jerk reaction from many here.

[Ray]

For the heck of it, I picked one of the early storms to see how much info your link had. 1806 Great Coastal Hurricane. It hit the Bahamas and went up the US coast to Massachusetts then Nova Scotia.   21 people drown in a ship off New Jersey where I live and 36" (91cm) of rain fell in Mass.  OF course, being 1806, this was long before there were any substantial CO2 due to the industrial revolution.  SO the whole argument Dorian was casued by global warming is just hysteria and fake news. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1806_Great_Coastal_hurricane

But wasn't that only a category 2 hurricane, Alan? Go back further to 1780 and there was a devastating category 5 hurricane in the approximate region.

"The Great Hurricane of 1780, also known as Huracán San Calixto, the Great Hurricane of the Antilles, and the 1780 Disaster, is the deadliest Atlantic hurricane on record. Between 22,000 and 27,501 people died throughout the Lesser Antilles when the storm passed through them from October 10–16.

The hurricane struck Barbados likely as a Category 5 hurricane, with at least one estimate of wind speeds as high as 200 mph"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hurricane_of_1780

[Alan Klein]

But wasn't that only a category 2 hurricane, Alan? Go back further to 1780 and there was a devastating category 5 hurricane in the approximate region.

"The Great Hurricane of 1780, also known as Huracán San Calixto, the Great Hurricane of the Antilles, and the 1780 Disaster, is the deadliest Atlantic hurricane on record. Between 22,000 and 27,501 people died throughout the Lesser Antilles when the storm passed through them from October 10–16.

The hurricane struck Barbados likely as a Category 5 hurricane, with at least one estimate of wind speeds as high as 200 mph"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hurricane_of_1780

Yes there were worse storms than the one I randomly picked. What's interesting, it seems that property damage has gone up while deaths have gone down over the centuries.  I suppose weather forecasting has helped people prepare or leave for safer areas.  Of course, the homes and other property are stuck to ride out the storm.   If I recall correctly, even the IPCC says that storms haven't been affected by "warming".  Maybe you have more current info on this. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I suppose weather forecasting has helped people prepare or leave for safer areas...

Indeed. The whole Alabama evacuated at a mere hint from the Meteorologist-In-Chief 

[Alan Klein]

Indeed. The whole Alabama evacuated at a mere hint from the Meteorologist-In-Chief 

He needs some Alabamians to move further west into high electoral vote Texas before the next election to assure he wins the Lone Star state. . 

[Ray]

If I recall correctly, even the IPCC says that storms haven't been affected by "warming".  Maybe you have more current info on this.

Not quite, Alan. There's great uncertainty about the issue, due to a lack of evidence and due to the great complexity of numerous influencing factors.

The 6th IPCC assessment report is still a work in process, but the following link, dealing with climate extremes, is dated 2018, so I presume the information is reasonably up to date.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX-Chap3_FINAL-1.pdf

The following quote, from page 111, addresses one of my main concerns.

"Many weather and climate extremes are the result of natural climate variability (including phenomena such as El Niño), and natural decadal or multi-decadal variations in the climate provide the backdrop for anthropogenic climate changes. Even if there were no anthropogenic changes in climate, a wide variety of natural weather and climate extremes would still occur." 

This should be very obvious, from the historical record, so why aren't governments addressing this issue which is more certain than the possibility that increased CO2 levels will result in more frequent and/or more intense floods and storms?

Another quote from the summary addresses the type of tropical cyclone that recently landed on the Bahamas.

"The uncertainties in the historical tropical cyclone records, the incomplete understanding of the physical mechanisms linking tropical cyclone metrics to climate change, and the degree of tropical cyclone variability provide only low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences. Attribution of single extreme events to anthropogenic climate change is challenging."

[Alan Klein]

Ray, Many hurricanes form off of the east coast of Africa.  SInce surface temperatures affect their formation, haven't there been studies that try to see of there's a relationship between the two.  Are surface temps changing?  Also, studies of similar areas in the Pacific for typhoons?

[Ray]

Ray, Many hurricanes form off of the east coast of Africa.  SInce surface temperatures affect their formation, haven't there been studies that try to see of there's a relationship between the two.  Are surface temps changing?  Also, studies of similar areas in the Pacific for typhoons?

Alan,
Read the IPCC summary that I posted. There are dozens of studies listed at the end of the report. I haven't got the time to read them. It's the IPCC's job to do that. 

I think it's generally accepted that we're in a warming phase and that surface temperatures, on average, are slowly rising, but not rising equally across the planet. There will be some regions that are actually cooling.

Likewise with extreme weather events, there will be some regions where droughts are increasing and other regions where precipitation is increasing; some regions where storms and hurricanes are increasing and other regions where storms are decreasing, and so on.

The greatest degree of certainty in the recent IPCC reports is that heat waves are increasing globally, precipitation is increasing globally, and sea levels are very slowly rising, globally. Everything else seems to be mostly 'low confidence' or 'medium confidence'.

[Alan Klein]

Ray, what the variability and low confidence tells me is that there are many factors affecting climate.  I think focusing on one - CO2 - is a mistake.  It may tern out to be more coincidental that tempos are rising at the same time CO2 levels are increasing.

What's also interesting is that more CO2, more precipitation, and more heat generally increases the amount of land that vegetation, man and other creatures could use to expand their populations.  That's the main indicator of successful species.  While higher levels of sea water will cause long-term problems for coastal areas, countries will have to just spend more for ameliorating those areas as they have in the past.  We may be forced to move out from those areas, something that has very often happened in history due to environmental changes. 

[LesPalenik]

Ray, what the variability and low confidence tells me is that there are many factors affecting climate.  I think focusing on one - CO2 - is a mistake.  It may tern out to be more coincidental that tempos are rising at the same time CO2 levels are increasing.

What's also interesting is that more CO2, more precipitation, and more heat generally increases the amount of land that vegetation, man and other creatures could use to expand their populations.  That's the main indicator of successful species.  While higher levels of sea water will cause long-term problems for coastal areas, countries will have to just spend more for ameliorating those areas as they have in the past.  We may be forced to move out from those areas, something that has very often happened in history due to environmental changes.

Plastics and Methane pollution may turn out to be a greater problem than the CO2.  And they are not the such great indicators of successful species.