atmospheric CO2 and floods

[Old Rocks]

Once again the scientists nail it with a correct prediction, 6 thousand year floods in 30 days in the US alone. Of course, the dumb fuck denialists will not read the article, as it might damage their willful ignorance. Gotta maintain that Dunning-Kruger.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9cb8/f3ccdd21ad2f87e8637b0fa4a4c6c955820b.pdf

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the term "1,000-year flood" is a colloquial way of stating that a flood of a certain magnitude has around a 1 in 1,000 chance of happening in a given year.

Doesn't mean it can't happen more often. Doesn't mean their estimate is correct.
Doesn't mean AGW caused it. Doesn't mean you're not a whiney twat.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Once again the scientists nail it with a correct prediction, 6 thousand year floods in 30 days in the US alone. Of course, the dumb fuck denialists will not read the article, as it might damage their willful ignorance. Gotta maintain that Dunning-Kruger.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9cb8/f3ccdd21ad2f87e8637b0fa4a4c6c955820b.pdf

Gaia be praised indeed, oh faithful one...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A direct consequence of rising CO2 is increasingly devastating flooding, because deciduous plants deploy fewer stomates each year as the atmospheric CO2 supplies more carbon for photosynthesis. When plants transpire less, more water runs off in streams and floods. Here we quantify this effect with high resolution observations of changing density and size of stomates of a mesic tree, Ginkgo, since 1754. The observed decline in maximum potential transpiration corresponds with rising water levels in the Mississippi River and represents a potential transpiration decline from 1829 to 2015 of 18 mL s–1 m–2: a reduction of 29%. Rising atmospheric CO2 and declining transpiration promote flooding, which handicaps lowland cultivation and renders irrelevant insurance and zoning concepts such as the 100-year flood

Plants transpire less, so more water runs into the streams and causes floods.
But with less plant transpiration there is less water vapor and so less rain.

This is how CO2 can cause more floods and more drought at the same time.

 

[Rigby5]

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the term "1,000-year flood" is a colloquial way of stating that a flood of a certain magnitude has around a 1 in 1,000 chance of happening in a given year.

Doesn't mean it can't happen more often. Doesn't mean their estimate is correct.
Doesn't mean AGW caused it. Doesn't mean you're not a whiney twat.

It does mean such flooding was very unlikely normally, if not for increased CO2.
If does mean their estimate due to increased CO2 is likely the cause since they predicted it before it happened.
So it does mean AGW is most likely.
And we then should be whining in order to reduce the odds of it getting worse.
Making less CO2 harms no one, but instead reduces the money we waste on fossil fuels.
For example, we could and should all have commuter cars getting over 80 mpg.
Europe and Asia already do have them.
The US won't let them into the country due to the EPA using criminally absurd Parts Per Million ratings that favor larger, low mileage vehicles instead.

 

[Rigby5]

Gaia be praised indeed, oh faithful one...

Scientific prediction has nothing to do with faith.

 

[Rigby5]

A direct consequence of rising CO2 is increasingly devastating flooding, because deciduous plants deploy fewer stomates each year as the atmospheric CO2 supplies more carbon for photosynthesis. When plants transpire less, more water runs off in streams and floods. Here we quantify this effect with high resolution observations of changing density and size of stomates of a mesic tree, Ginkgo, since 1754. The observed decline in maximum potential transpiration corresponds with rising water levels in the Mississippi River and represents a potential transpiration decline from 1829 to 2015 of 18 mL s–1 m–2: a reduction of 29%. Rising atmospheric CO2 and declining transpiration promote flooding, which handicaps lowland cultivation and renders irrelevant insurance and zoning concepts such as the 100-year flood

Plants transpire less, so more water runs into the streams and causes floods.
But with less plant transpiration there is less water vapor and so less rain.

This is how CO2 can cause more floods and more drought at the same time.

Wrong.
Plants transpire MORE when CO2 is higher, and plant transpiration is insignificant in regards to atmospheric humidity usually. Atmospheric humidity is caused by higher temperatures evaporating more from open bodies of water, like oceans and lakes.

The way CO2 can cause more floods and drought at the same time, is by altering previous weather constrains.
Normally weather can not move fast enough, compared to the spin of the planet, to be able to leave one of the 6 normal convention belts around the planet.
When you add more CO2, that makes temperature hotter, which energized weather with enough energy to expand outside the normal 6 convection belts.
That allows cold polar air to reach areas it could not get to before.
That can make pole warmer but cooler weather at the equator.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It does mean such flooding was very unlikely normally, if not for increased CO2.
If does mean their estimate due to increased CO2 is likely the cause since they predicted it before it happened.
So it does mean AGW is most likely.
And we then should be whining in order to reduce the odds of it getting worse.
Making less CO2 harms no one, but instead reduces the money we waste on fossil fuels.
For example, we could and should all have commuter cars getting over 80 mpg.
Europe and Asia already do have them.
The US won't let them into the country due to the EPA using criminally absurd Parts Per Million ratings that favor larger, low mileage vehicles instead.

It does mean such flooding was very unlikely normally,

Right. But they have no clue how frequent is "normal". They're guessing.

If does mean their estimate due to increased CO2 is likely the cause since they predicted it before it happened.

They predicted this flood was going to happen because CO2 levels are what they are?
I don't believe you.
At this level, why don't these floods happen every year?

So it does mean AGW is most likely.

Show me.

Making less CO2 harms no one, but instead reduces the money we waste on fossil fuels.

Forcing me to reduce my CO2 harms me.

For example, we could and should all have commuter cars getting over 80 mpg.

How?

Europe and Asia already do have them.

They have the equivalent of 80 mpg CAFE standards? Link?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Scientific prediction has nothing to do with faith.

All this cooling is proof of glowbull warming - Gaia be praised....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wrong.
Plants transpire MORE when CO2 is higher, and plant transpiration is insignificant in regards to atmospheric humidity usually. Atmospheric humidity is caused by higher temperatures evaporating more from open bodies of water, like oceans and lakes.

The way CO2 can cause more floods and drought at the same time, is by altering previous weather constrains.
Normally weather can not move fast enough, compared to the spin of the planet, to be able to leave one of the 6 normal convention belts around the planet.
When you add more CO2, that makes temperature hotter, which energized weather with enough energy to expand outside the normal 6 convection belts.
That allows cold polar air to reach areas it could not get to before.
That can make pole warmer but cooler weather at the equator.

Plants transpire MORE when CO2 is higher,

A direct consequence of rising CO2 is increasingly devastating flooding, because deciduous plants deploy fewer stomates each year as the atmospheric CO2 supplies more carbon for photosynthesis. When plants transpire less, more water runs off in streams and floods.

The study says you're wrong.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Gee. Maybe someone should talk to China about their pollution.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

FACT: it has never been scientifically proven that that man made co2 causes climate change

 

[Yarddog]

flooding is also worse because of encroachment on natural buffer zones like swampland and tree thickets. You pave all that over and then move people up along river banks and your going to have devastating consequences

 

[Rigby5]

It does mean such flooding was very unlikely normally,

Right. But they have no clue how frequent is "normal". They're guessing.

If does mean their estimate due to increased CO2 is likely the cause since they predicted it before it happened.

They predicted this flood was going to happen because CO2 levels are what they are?
I don't believe you.
At this level, why don't these floods happen every year?

So it does mean AGW is most likely.

Show me.

Making less CO2 harms no one, but instead reduces the money we waste on fossil fuels.

Forcing me to reduce my CO2 harms me.

For example, we could and should all have commuter cars getting over 80 mpg.

How?

Europe and Asia already do have them.

They have the equivalent of 80 mpg CAFE standards? Link?

They are not guessing when it comes to past flooding because they have the historic record to go by.
In areas where there is no written record, they can go by tree rings, sedimentary layers, etc.

They did not predict the flooding from increased CO2 levels alone, but also from higher temperatures, rising ocean levels from melt off, etc.
They are saying the floods will now start happening more often, possibly every year.
Here is a graph of ocean water levels over time.

This should explain how the warming has increased open water and caused more rain and flooding.

Forcing you to reduce CO2 harms no one.
If we restrict bad mileage cars, then we all save fuel costs and benefit instead of causing harm.
Of course those with farms or businesses will still be able to buy trucks however.
They just will have to show need.

Europe and Asia have always had 100 mpg, small displacement, turbo diesels.

Electric vehicles guide - EV charging, models and costs UK 2023 - Zapmap

Electric vehicles guide - What to consider when buying, EV costs, charging and models. Find out here in your complete guide from Zapmap.

www.nextgreencar.com

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Once again the scientists nail it with a correct prediction, 6 thousand year floods in 30 days in the US alone. Of course, the dumb fuck denialists will not read the article, as it might damage their willful ignorance. Gotta maintain that Dunning-Kruger.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9cb8/f3ccdd21ad2f87e8637b0fa4a4c6c955820b.pdf

caused by a Cat 6 or 7 hurricane?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Once again the scientists nail it with a correct prediction, 6 thousand year floods in 30 days in the US alone. Of course, the dumb fuck denialists will not read the article, as it might damage their willful ignorance. Gotta maintain that Dunning-Kruger.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9cb8/f3ccdd21ad2f87e8637b0fa4a4c6c955820b.pdf

Where have you been anyway? Happy Thanksgiving

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They are not guessing when it comes to past flooding because they have the historic record to go by.
In areas where there is no written record, they can go by tree rings, sedimentary layers, etc.

They did not predict the flooding from increased CO2 levels alone, but also from higher temperatures, rising ocean levels from melt off, etc.
They are saying the floods will now start happening more often, possibly every year.
Here is a graph of ocean water levels over time.

This should explain how the warming has increased open water and caused more rain and flooding.

Forcing you to reduce CO2 harms no one.
If we restrict bad mileage cars, then we all save fuel costs and benefit instead of causing harm.
Of course those with farms or businesses will still be able to buy trucks however.
They just will have to show need.

Europe and Asia have always had 100 mpg, small displacement, turbo diesels.

Electric vehicles guide - EV charging, models and costs UK 2023 - Zapmap

Electric vehicles guide - What to consider when buying, EV costs, charging and models. Find out here in your complete guide from Zapmap.

www.nextgreencar.com

They are not guessing when it comes to past flooding because they have the historic record to go by.
In areas where there is no written record, they can go by tree rings, sedimentary layers, etc.

Cool story, bro!

Pick an area in the US, show what the definition of "1000 year flood" is and tell me the years they had them over the last 2000 years.

They are saying the floods will now start happening more often, possibly every year.

Possibly every month.

Forcing you to reduce CO2 harms no one.

It harms me.

If we restrict bad mileage cars, then we all save fuel costs and benefit instead of causing harm.

You're going to harm me by restricting my car?

Europe and Asia have always had 100 mpg, small displacement, turbo diesels.

Thanks for the list of cars that topped out at 63 MPG.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They are not guessing when it comes to past flooding because they have the historic record to go by.
In areas where there is no written record, they can go by tree rings, sedimentary layers, etc.

They did not predict the flooding from increased CO2 levels alone, but also from higher temperatures, rising ocean levels from melt off, etc.
They are saying the floods will now start happening more often, possibly every year.
Here is a graph of ocean water levels over time.

This should explain how the warming has increased open water and caused more rain and flooding.

Forcing you to reduce CO2 harms no one.
If we restrict bad mileage cars, then we all save fuel costs and benefit instead of causing harm.
Of course those with farms or businesses will still be able to buy trucks however.
They just will have to show need.

Europe and Asia have always had 100 mpg, small displacement, turbo diesels.

Electric vehicles guide - EV charging, models and costs UK 2023 - Zapmap

Electric vehicles guide - What to consider when buying, EV costs, charging and models. Find out here in your complete guide from Zapmap.

www.nextgreencar.com

Here is a graph of ocean water levels over time.

That graph has CO2 on the y-axis and thousands of years before today on the x-axis. DURR

 

[ReinyDays]

Once again the scientists nail it with a correct prediction, 6 thousand year floods in 30 days in the US alone. Of course, the dumb fuck denialists will not read the article, as it might damage their willful ignorance. Gotta maintain that Dunning-Kruger.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9cb8/f3ccdd21ad2f87e8637b0fa4a4c6c955820b.pdf

You seem to be reading more into this single paper than warranted ... please point to where they discuss correlation between flooding and carbon dioxide ...

Also, we need 1,000 years of empirical evidence to claim "thousand year flood events" ... so your math is wrong ... typically ... perhaps you don't know how to calculate this value ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

Warmer air causes more rain ... which in turn can cause more flooding ... and this has to be balanced with the overall reduction of convective forces which reduces the likelihood of powerful low pressure systems ... we don't know where this balance is ... so far, it hasn't appeared in the data ... the opposite is drought and powerful high pressure systems ... these do not have the advantage of condensing water vapor, so they receive no benefit from warmer wetter conditions ... the slow down of the convective flow is all and this reduces drought probabilities ... again, the data isn't showing any changes ... so we honestly don't know ... not past 72 hours into the future ...

HEY STUPID ... the warmer world will be wetter ... and only because the world is warmer ... has nothing to do with stomate size ...
HEY STUPID ... deforestation is a part of AGW Theory too ... if we cut down all the trees in Indiana, there won't be many Oak trees left to flood the Ohio River now is there? ... stupid motherfucker ...

 

[Crick]

You seem to be reading more into this single paper than warranted ... please point to where they discuss correlation between flooding and carbon dioxide ...

Also, we need 1,000 years of empirical evidence to claim "thousand year flood events" ... so your math is wrong ... typically ... perhaps you don't know how to calculate this value ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

Warmer air causes more rain ... which in turn can cause more flooding ... and this has to be balanced with the overall reduction of convective forces which reduces the likelihood of powerful low pressure systems ... we don't know where this balance is ... so far, it hasn't appeared in the data ... the opposite is drought and powerful high pressure systems ... these do not have the advantage of condensing water vapor, so they receive no benefit from warmer wetter conditions ... the slow down of the convective flow is all and this reduces drought probabilities ... again, the data isn't showing any changes ... so we honestly don't know ... not past 72 hours into the future ...

HEY STUPID ... the warmer world will be wetter ... and only because the world is warmer ... has nothing to do with stomate size ...
HEY STUPID ... deforestation is a part of AGW Theory too ... if we cut down all the trees in Indiana, there won't be many Oak trees left to flood the Ohio River now is there? ... stupid motherfucker ...

Would you mind elucidating the relationships you mention here between global warming and a reduction in convective forces. I am wondering not only why we don't know "where this balance is" but why anyone believe there should be a balance in the first place.