Global cooling

[nw30]

Gotta love #7, and it is still held as truth to many.
Since when did the Earth retire from making crude, and depositing silt into the oceans, making giant deltas all over the world, and creating under sea seamounts, some being so tall that they make new islands, and blowing off mega tones of pollutants via volcanos, since when did the Earth retire?

The Earth and the Sun has us by the balls, and always will, but the warmers think that we are the ones in charge. How arrogant.

[GURGLETROUSERS]

Just to put human ego into perspective. The sun, a main sequence star of a bit smaller than average size, is about halfway through its evolutionary cycle towards its red giant expansion phase. (About 4+ billion years so far.)

In line with all main sequence stars its radiation output (heat and size) is slowly but steadily increasing. The fascinating thing is that the so called Goldilocks, or narrow habitable zone which the earth currently fits into, must steadily have been migrating outwards.

Two billion years ago Venus, earth like in size and composition, must have been firmly within that zone. Would it be fanciful to suppose that, with liquid water and an atmosphere, life could have taken a foothold, and started its long evolutionary journey? Now, of course, it is a vision of hell as the habitable zone moved towards our earth, and the heat seared Venus to death.

It is estimated that within another two billion years the Earth will suffer a similar fate, as that narrow zone moves on outwards towards Mars. But when the sun really does go bananas and rapidly lose it (the red giant uncontrolled rapid expansion phase) The earth itself will be molten and probably cease to exist at all. Perhaps the moons of Jupiter will then be inhabitable.

It's a finely balanced calculation when the sun has expanded almost to the orbital path of the earth, whether it will be blown outwards by the fierce solar wind, or slowed and dragged into its grasp by the suns outer atmosphere. Either way, I'm glad I won't be around to face it.

Isn't cosmology (and geology) fascinating!

[mac]

They're back, those hundred year Texas floods. A year later. Could it be?

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/08/13/3691423/study-manmade-climate-change-texas-floods/

[techno900]

Just some statistics for Houston and rainfall. Typically, one of the areas of Texas that floods somewhat frequently. I guess climate change caused the below normal rainfall for 6 of the last 8 years, just like it caused above normal rainfall for the last year (2016 to be determined).

Actually, I am not a denier, but when every anomaly is the result of climate change, I can't help but feel like we are the victims of a continuing "snow job".

"30 yr average - 49.7"

2016 - 21"
2015 - 70
14 - 43
13 - 38
12 - 42
11 - 24
10 - 42
09 - 47
08 - 53
07 - 65
06 - 57
05 - 41
04 - 65
03 - 45
02 - 59
01 - 71
00 - 47

[mac]

Just a hint. When you want to play amateur hydrologist, you might start by realizing that rainfall intensity, not annual rainfall, is what causes flooding. Just saying...

[techno900]

I might add that "intensity" without volume does nothing, so don't ignore the annual totals.

Having lived in Texas for 49 years, significant "intensity" is a given during typical storms, and that hasn't changed from my recollection. Flooding is common in many areas of south east Texas. River flooding happens frequently, but Houston's issue is amplified because it's very flat and doesn't have adequate storm sewers, so the water just accumulates in any and all low areas. Their issue is volume and intensity because the water is slow to run off.

Mac, is it possible for you to contribute information without derogatory comments? I wonder if you treat the kids you teach/help with the same demeaning dialogue?

[mac]

There's far more hope for kids. This is the second time you have tried to use statistics--snow was the last time--that you misused without demonstrating any comprehension of the underlying science. Commentary that misunderstands the fundamental physics is not meaningful. But if you want to try to make quick rebuttals--that lack science--go right ahead, I'll play.

[mrgybe]

Anyone possessing a passing familiarity with Houston knows it has experienced enormous growth in recent years. Large areas of wetlands that previously allowed rainfall to filter into the ground have now been paved over without adequate compensating infrastructure. That is a significant factor in the flooding. For the endlessly sneering, however, it's much easier to blame global warming than to be burdened with the real contributing causes.........and then to proclaim that others are just too dumb to understand.

[nw30]

[mac]

Very funny. I have no idea whether the current Texas flooding is arguably a result of global warming, nor does anyone. The link I posted was an analysis of the 2015 flooding, which concluded that there was a link between Texas flooding and climate change. Without appearing to read it, Techno and mrgybe give different reasons for Houston flooding--giving global warming a pass.

I often put up a zinger just to see what kinds of bizarre stuff you folks will come up with, and where it comes from, to absolve big carbon from the dramatic changes occurring in climate. Most of the climate models predict an increase in the chaotic nature of weather, with more dry spells and more intense rain--exactly what has happened in Texas over the past decade. Simple explanations abound--although not in Murdoch "journalism." http://www.nature.com/news/severe-weather-linked-more-strongly-to-global-warming-1.17828

I see that Trump has repurposed Damn Yankees, and the famous song now goes:

Whatever Exxon wants, Exxon gets, Whatever Chevron wants, Chevron gets, and whatever the Kochs want, the Koch's get. Let's cook the planet faster.

It is entirely possible that flooding--and deaths--have occurred in Texas because local officials, who oppose zoning and regulation, have allowed developers to put homes in risky places. It may have nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with foolish governance. But it certainly has nothing to do with annual rainfall totals.