Your own link disagrees with your contention that rainfall has not increased: "[31] The spatial distribution of the annual mean precipitation anomaly trends estimated from CMIP5 models for the 21st century (2006–2100) shows that the models agree with each other in most of the positive trend regions (blue areas of Figure 9). Over the land, the increasing trends appear in the eastern and western North America, eastern and southern Asia, and northern Europe. In the tropical oceans, the precipitation in the 21st century shows a significant positive trend in the Pacific and Indo‐Pacific equatorial regions. In the subtropics, significant negative trends appear in the eastern basin in the Southern Hemisphere where climatological precipitation is low. Positive trends in the Northern Hemisphere subtropical regions are weaker. Also, significant positive trends exist over the entire Southern Ocean. The Northern Hemisphere high‐latitude regions are dominated by positive trends as well." Did you even read the article you linked or did you just post the graph because they appeared flat to you - which in fact they are not. Here's more from the conclusion and another chart from your link: "Significant increasing trends of global mean precipitation were found in both the reconstruction and the model simulations, and the zonal means of the trends over the oceans in both the reconstruction and models consistently show increasing trends in the equatorial and subpolar regions and decreasing trends in the subtropics. The degree of agreement between the reconstruction and model simulations in both the mean change and its latitudinal distribution over the oceans increases confidence in both, and is an initial step toward the validation of regional climate simulations of changes in precipitation." https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jgrd.50212 Here is some more data for you: https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/defaul...necting-Extreme-Weather-to-Climate-Change.pdf Even if we just take the US which leaves out extreme rainfall events in the rest of the world which are also increasing: "And it’s clear that such storms are carrying more moisture than they used to. The moisture in the air changes depending on temperature: heat that air by 1 °C, and it can hold approximately 7% more water. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that many parts of the world are already seeing increases in heavy precipitation, thanks to human-induced climate change. “It’s just basic physics,” says Kenneth Kunkel, an atmospheric scientist at North Carolina State University in Asheville. “Big storms with large amounts of rainfall are limited by the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. As we increase water vapour in the atmosphere, we can increase the amount of rainfall in these extreme precipitation events.” But the precipitation story turns out to be more complicated than that. A thunderstorm is essentially a tower of upward-moving winds that feed themselves by sucking in warm air from nearby. When the air rises high enough, it cools and condenses into rain. Storms can generate their own weather, such as creating cold pools of air near the ground that trigger more convection. And climate change can amplify these effects, causing updrafts to grow stronger and wider, which pulls in more warm air from surrounding regions and leads to more rain. This apparently happened in Hurricane Harvey — the rainiest storm in US history, which drowned much of Houston and south Texas in a $125-billion disaster in August last year. Three separate studies have concluded that Harvey’s heaviest rains could not be explained simply by the increase of water vapour in the atmosphere1–3. Climate change made it even wetter than that. At NCAR, Pendergrass is working with global climate models to pin down what this might mean for extreme events in the future — and especially, where they might occur. She analyses how climate change is altering how heat and energy flow in the atmosphere, which changes how precipitation is spread around the globe. Last year, she and her colleagues reported on three computer simulations showing that precipitation is likely to become more variable across almost all land areas if temperatures rise through the rest of the century4. In other words, weather will get crazier: wet periods will give way to dry periods more erratically, and vice versa, across nearly all the continents. Now, she has drilled down to study the unevenness of precipitation — that is, the difference between a light drizzle and a torrential downpour. She and Reto Knutti, an atmospheric scientist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETH Zurich) in Switzerland, analysed global rainfall records between 1999 and 2014. For the median of all locations in the study, it took only 12 days for half of the year’s rain to fall5. “Things that are considered extreme contribute a lot to the total precipitation, more than a lot of my colleagues may realize,” she says." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07447-1 So if you know anything about physics, you know that a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture and has more energy. I ask again are you disputing that the Earth and it's oceans are warming or are you just saying it is not us causing it and we don't need to worry about it? It is an important distinction in understanding why you are so eager to suggest that all the world's climate scientists are wrong and you, a guy on the internet are right and know more than they do about climate.
A good portion of them anyhow. There are more than enough people. We do not need anymore, which is why I whole heatedly support abortion on demand, regardless if a woman can afford it or not. Why bring more children into the world, especially unwanted ones.
Ride your bicycle. It is a heck of a lot less expensive than driving a car, it saves on the environment and adds years to your active life span.
I don't think so . . . "Extinct’ bird species reappeared on Indian Ocean island after 30,000-year gap, Brit researchers discover. The flightless white-throated rail seemed to go extinct then bizarrely reappeared. The rate of extinction is happening faster than at any time in human history and perhaps faster than any of the other great extinctions with the possible exception of the asteroid that wiped out dinosaurs 65 million years ago" We'll have dinosaurs 'reappearing' next??
I sure am glad that you are posting what you are posting. It is a refreshing change. This past winter, when most the country was being hit by snowstorms, the Pacific Northwest was not. In 2016, in January, there were days when it was warmer in Seattle than Miami. In the seventies, there were credible scientists who objected that water vapor would prevent too much warming. The idea was that as temperatures rose more water vapor would enter the atmosphere, and that water vapor would shade the earth. It is now a discredited idea. Mainly because water vapor can hold even more heat (energy) than CO2. I spent most of my life living high in Colorado Rockies, were it is cool and dry, with sunny skies. It wasn't until I moved to Oregon about 15 years ago, that I came to appreciate the power of clouds. In Oregon, it is not at all unusual for clouds to roll in at night, and the temperatures rise. All of which goes to show that it is not sunlight directly that determines air temperatures, but the interactions between the surface and atmospheric particles, which is also why the hottest part of the day is around 4 or 5.
A new UN report. That’s all you need to know. So now more rain is seen as a negative? Wow, there isn’t anything weather wise they won’t claim is a bad thing.
We could unleash every nuclear device in the world simultaneously and it would not reduce the life span of the planet by even a microsecond. The earth will either die when consumed by our sun or when hit by massive asteroid. The use of hysterical language such as "save the planet" serves no other purpose other than to make you look foolish.
Oh really?? Then how come I went 19 days without electricity this winter after a winter snowstorm? The longest period without electricity in the past 50 years.
They Malthusians are alive and well. Nothing but speculation based on computer models in the above. Please provide a list of the species that have gone extinct to date as the result of the global warming which started in ~ 1850. And of course ignored in all the alarmism is that global warming is beneficial.
What human made extinction event ?? Please provide a list of species which have gone extinct due to global warming.
I don't doubt thatcwe have serious issues to deal with but thoes serious about the issues Need to bring solutions to the table otherwise they are just complainers.
You just proven my point with these possible canard articles. A couple of claims made by you and the articles: Less water for Hydro power: My brother is a Hydro Electrical Engineer for Pacific Power. This weekend, I had him read the article you posted. he said "who ever made the statement that there is less water throughout the year because of less snow pack and early melting does not know what they are talking about or hydro power is created. The claims made might apply to certain areas of the country at one time or another, but it does not apply to all areas of the PNW, at all times...or even the same areas over multiple years". In my brother's area, snow pack varies from year to year, and he does agree that the snow pack average of an area, when measured over a specific period, may show a decrease. However, that decrease is not necessarily an anomaly. Areas will have times of low snow pack....and they will have times of higher than average snow pack. In the end, the "average" remains fairly consistent.....or close enough that the change is not significantly noticeable and certainly does not currently impact the creation of hydro power. Beetle kill: Beetle kill has been an issue in Oregon (mainly Eastern Oregon) for over 200 years. It has became a larger issue over the last few years because of lack of forest management. I remember 40 years ago, where almost all of the Lodge Pole Pines in the LaPine area had to be logged because of beetle kill. With proper forest management, timber stands that are experiencing beetle infestation, or are acceptable to beetle infestation, are logged and the area is burnt shortly after logging. The logging denies beetles of their food and home source and the burning kills off excess beetles and removes the woody material from the forest floor. Without proper forest management, the forest floor accumulates down woody debris as tree get old and die or where the beetle infestation increases and kills the trees. This woody material on the forest floor is what makes these forest very susceptible to fires and uncontrolled beetle infestation. A tree does not burn easily by itself. It takes a high tinder point to start a healthy tree on fire. A lightning strike may start 1 or 2 trees on fire, but without a fuel source around the base of the tree, a neighboring tree will likely not catch. Increase the woody material on the forest floor = increase the fire risk. Now before you dismiss me as a climate change denier, let me state that this is not the case. I fall under the "I don't know" category. What I do know....and my whole point....is that these articles that people like you throw around, often "speculate" as to the cause and impact on other things. Things like "climate change is causing a larger beetle kill issue". While beetle kill might be impacted by climate change, it is just one component in the many factors of beetle infestation....and it CAN be managed with proper forest management. Too often these "scientist" point at something that is changed because of climate change and state that "this is proof". However, these "scientists", though they may be experts on climate, often do not know what they are talking about when explaining how climate change is impacting another industry. Kind of like Chicken Little claiming the sky is falling after an acorn hit him on the head. Chicken Little may have known all about acorns, but he knew little about the sky. What I do find suspicious is that the main "solution" proposed is an economic solution and not a scientific solution.
Oh I read it. You might note that the models it interjects presupposes much. It admits that really the only actual data we have is from 1995 forward. There is no accurate "pre-satellite" data. The measured increase? From 0.1mm to 0.13mm per day. That's an annual global increase of 36.5mm or about 1.4-1.5 inches per year. What's the global rainfall average? About 40 inches a year. So you're talking less than a 2% increase....in computer models. Regardless, these models don't prove anything, other than climate on earth changes over geologic time. Was it AGW that caused the huge increases in sea level (measured in meters, not mm) 8-10 thousand years ago? No. Ice ages? No. Was the earth uninhabitable when the planet was 22C hotter with 5500 ppm more of CO2? No. So Hurricane Harvey dumped more water than the Great Hurricane of 1780? The Galveston Hurricane of 1900? Hurricane Flora in 1963? Pointe-à-Pitre Bay Hurricane in 1776? Great Miami, Newfoundland blah blah blah? Prove it. I question everything science puts in front of us. That's called science. Otherwise what you have is a religion.
Less expensive? I've known 4 or 5 people who's bicycle was more expensive than their car. You should check out bike prices theses days. Are you suggesting AOC's New Green Deal is a legitimate solution? No cars? No planes? Gonna ride your bicycle across the ocean?
It is so dry here in BC again this year. The fires are starting already west of Prince George and near Kamloops and it's not even June yet. I fear without significant rain we are in for another summer like the last two. And we live in a rainforest. Just shows that warming Pacific is effecting different areas differently but everywhere the climate system is out of equilibrium. Send us some rain!!!!
So I'm putting you down as no we don't have the political will to save this little jewel of a planet. What hysterical language? I cited a UN report on the rate we are losing biodiversity and species that are threatened with extinction. We definitely have the ability to exterminate ourselves as a species and take an large portion of the planet's biodiversity with us. You want to see the Earth reduced to a Permo-Triassic cinder unable to support complex life that's your business but discounting a UN report that cited over 15,000 scientific studies seems a little more foolish to me.
NO!! You can't even get people to come to the table right now for the betterment of Humans, you think they'll care about anything else.
I wish you guys would work on your attention to detail. This thread is not about global warming it is about a UN report on the rate we are losing biodiversity due to human activity including but not exclusive to climate change. Here is a brief summary that may get the thread back on topic: "The IPBES Report is based on a detailed and systematic review of about 15,000 scientific papers and government reports that assess changes over the past five decades. These documents were complied and analyzed by 145 experts, with additional input from another 310 contributing authors, from 50 countries over three years. The Report, which is 1,500 pages long, provides an exhaustive expert analysis of what is known about the relationships between economic development and the loss of species (Figure 5). To ensure that its findings are plain for all to see and understand, and can be used to support policy-level decision-making to remedy this desperate situation, the Report’s authors ranked the top five drivers for biodiversity extinctions (Figure 2). By a wide margin, the top two are (1) land and sea use, including development, logging, mining and harvesting, and (2) hunting and fishing for food or for trade in body parts. Perhaps surprisingly, global climate change is third on this list, but considering that, since 1980, greenhouse gas emissions have doubled, and thereby raised average global temperatures by at least 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.3 degrees Fahrenheit), its damaging impacts are expected to move up the list in importance -- and very quickly. Already we know that climate change is aggravating the damaging effects of overfishing, pesticide use, pollution, and urban expansion into natural spaces. The Report documented that warming climate is impacting nature at all levels, from ecosystems to genetics -- and those impacts are expected to increase dramatically over the coming decades." https://www.forbes.com/sites/grrlsc...t-species-at-risk-of-extinction/#ddcdbe5fa307 But in partial answer to your question, lots of species are threatened by climate change from coral reefs to Killer Whales and many in between. Your statement that global warming is beneficial is the kind of ridiculous pap you get from denier websites. We are already seeing the kind of consequences we can expect from a warming planet but still, this thread is not specifically about climate change.
