|
Post by missouriboy on Apr 22, 2019 17:50:06 GMT
"is deserving of increased attention" It seems like it's a requirement for each point to end the same way as well....they have got this circle of funding thing figured out! You have to if you want a shot at tenure. Teaching comes second to "money" in today's academia ... and has for some time now.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 22, 2019 17:54:46 GMT
I have always found that the assumptions are where the major errors are made...
AS Mark Twain said: "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Apr 22, 2019 22:18:14 GMT
"is deserving of increased attention" It seems like it's a requirement for each point to end the same way as well....they have got this circle of funding thing figured out! If I ever read a paper that doesn't end with the equivalent of more research is needed, I'll start a new thread so we can make a list.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Apr 22, 2019 22:29:21 GMT
First sentence of the summary: "It is now well established that rising temperatures are increasing precipitation extremes. "It is? I have seen no research showing greater extremes in precipitation indeed the opposite appears to be the case.Anything Please notice that the assumption is in passive voice, i.e. "It is now well established ..." The technical term for this is "weasel wording." As long as it is "well established" in one person's mind then the statement is true. Since it is well established in the author's mind, it is true. It is also complete garbage. Dismissed.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Apr 22, 2019 23:02:58 GMT
First sentence of the summary: "It is now well established that rising temperatures are increasing precipitation extremes. "It is? I have seen no research showing greater extremes in precipitation indeed the opposite appears to be the case.Anything Please notice that the assumption is in passive voice, i.e. "It is now well established ..." The technical term for this is "weasel wording." As long as it is "well established" in one person's mind then the statement is true. Since it is well established in the author's mind, it is true. It is also complete garbage. Dismissed. Is weasel wording included in the manual/glossary?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 28, 2019 19:00:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 28, 2019 22:31:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 29, 2019 1:33:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 29, 2019 22:29:56 GMT
First sentence of the summary: "It is now well established that rising temperatures are increasing precipitation extremes. "It is? I have seen no research showing greater extremes in precipitation indeed the opposite appears to be the case. It's a sop to the climate industry. The paper's title is "If Precipitation Extremes Are Increasing, Why Aren't Floods?" .... questioning the orthodoxy. The "well established" and "despite evidence" - in the FIRST sentences - are required to give the paper a chance of publication. Abstract Despite evidence of increasing precipitation extremes, corresponding evidence for increases in flooding remains elusive. If anything, flood magnitudes are decreasing despite widespread claims by the climate community that if precipitation extremes increase, floods must also. In this commentary we suggest reasons why increases in extreme rainfall are not resulting in corresponding increases in flooding. Among the possible mechanisms responsible, we identify decreases in antecedent soil moisture, decreasing storm extent, and decreases in snowmelt. We argue that understanding the link between changes in precipitation and changes in flooding is a grand challenge for the hydrologic community and is deserving of increased attention.
Plain Language Summary It is now well established that rising temperatures are increasing precipitation extremes. This has led many to believe that flood magnitude and hence risk are also increasing, while observational evidence suggests otherwise. This commentary outlines the reasons for this dichotomy and presents mechanisms that may be contributing to it. The implications of increasing precipitation extremes leading to reducing flood magnitudes are discussed, and an argument is made that understanding this changing link between the two is deserving of increased attention.Gotta keep adding to the dialogue! Gov Brown here in California had been preaching climate change DROUGHT for 8 years. Now after a record setting rainfall season they had to enlist somebody to start the "increased precipitation" dialogue. Gotta keep all the bases covered man!
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Apr 29, 2019 23:28:24 GMT
It's a sop to the climate industry. The paper's title is "If Precipitation Extremes Are Increasing, Why Aren't Floods?" .... questioning the orthodoxy. The "well established" and "despite evidence" - in the FIRST sentences - are required to give the paper a chance of publication. Abstract Despite evidence of increasing precipitation extremes, corresponding evidence for increases in flooding remains elusive. If anything, flood magnitudes are decreasing despite widespread claims by the climate community that if precipitation extremes increase, floods must also. In this commentary we suggest reasons why increases in extreme rainfall are not resulting in corresponding increases in flooding. Among the possible mechanisms responsible, we identify decreases in antecedent soil moisture, decreasing storm extent, and decreases in snowmelt. We argue that understanding the link between changes in precipitation and changes in flooding is a grand challenge for the hydrologic community and is deserving of increased attention.
Plain Language Summary It is now well established that rising temperatures are increasing precipitation extremes. This has led many to believe that flood magnitude and hence risk are also increasing, while observational evidence suggests otherwise. This commentary outlines the reasons for this dichotomy and presents mechanisms that may be contributing to it. The implications of increasing precipitation extremes leading to reducing flood magnitudes are discussed, and an argument is made that understanding this changing link between the two is deserving of increased attention. Gotta keep adding to the dialogue! Gov Brown here in California had been preaching climate change DROUGHT for 8 years. Now after a record setting rainfall season they had to enlist somebody to start the "increased precipitation" dialogue. Gotta keep all the bases covered man! The "rope-a-dope" of modern climate science? Where do the dopes stand?
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on May 1, 2019 16:44:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by walnut on May 1, 2019 16:52:55 GMT
Sea level has risen maybe 7 inches since 1900. But somehow it is expected to rise 19 inches over the next 30 years. I'd like to take some of that ocean front real estate off their hands for a reasonable price if they are ready to abandon it.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 1, 2019 18:22:57 GMT
Sea level has risen maybe 7 inches since 1900. But somehow it is expected to rise 19 inches over the next 30 years. I'd like to take some of that ocean front real estate off their hands for a reasonable price if they are ready to abandon it. All the local government people have bought the ocean front properties
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 2, 2019 15:16:10 GMT
So many questions ... Perhaps the pay-walled article definitively explains the "science" that establishes the signal and "robustly" eliminates other possibilities? Why do I doubt that? In recent decades (1981 to present), the signal of greenhouse gas forcing is present but not yet detectable at high confidence.
What are the components of this signal? And why would they be absent in a period of increasing human emissions? Observations and reconstructions differ significantly from an expected pattern of greenhouse gas forcing around mid-century (1950–1975), coinciding with a global increase in aerosol forcing. So the signal is suppressed in a period of cooling, where data may have actually been adjusted upward? In the first half of the century (1900–1949), however, a signal of greenhouse-gas-forced change is robustly detectable.
This is amazing. The effects of "disease" are robustly detectable in its early stages, but disappear in its "terminal phase". Perhaps I am missing something. Could someone please help me?
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on May 2, 2019 18:28:18 GMT
So many questions ... Perhaps the pay-walled article definitively explains the "science" that establishes the signal and "robustly" eliminates other possibilities? Why do I doubt that? In recent decades (1981 to present), the signal of greenhouse gas forcing is present but not yet detectable at high confidence.
What are the components of this signal? And why would they be absent in a period of increasing human emissions? So the signal is suppressed in a period of cooling, where data may have actually been adjusted upward? In the first half of the century (1900–1949), however, a signal of greenhouse-gas-forced change is robustly detectable.
This is amazing. The effects of "disease" are robustly detectable in its early stages, but disappear in its "terminal phase". Perhaps I am missing something. Could someone please help me? Missouriboy, the statement that "Observations and reconstructions differ significantly from an expected pattern of greenhouse gas forcing around mid-century (1950–1975), coinciding with a global increase in aerosol forcing." could be paraphrased to say "The Models are wrong. That wouldn't be of interest to the devotees of CAGW including those who fund the studies.
|
|