Australian Politics Forum - Insurers say climate change is real, expensive

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476

Re: Insurers say climate change is real, expensive
Reply #30 - Jan 9^th, 2012 at 6:28pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2012 at 9:12pm:

Which is the point...the variations are between glaciation and interglaciation..
Simply put, there seems to be a far greater temperature swing in the temperate and arctic zones between glacial and interglacial periods than there is in tthe equatorial regions......
So much the same would logically follow in a warming event....more significant increases in the sub-polar regions than at the equator...

I don't see why it would logically follow at all, gizmo.

A glacial period features large ice masses in the polar regions which would significantly increase reflectivity in the arctic zones. The equatorial zones don't have the ice masses so continue to absorb radiation (sunlight) more or less unchanged. In fact, thinking about it, they may actually get greater sunlight exposure due to less cloud cover (on average) thanks to so much water being trapped in ice at the poles.

During an interglacial period, although the ice caps remain they are smaller and there is far more exposed land and sea area to absorb radiation, especially during the summer months.

Therefore I'd expect the temperature in the arctic zones to drop further than in the equatorial zone during a glacial period compared to an interglacial period. But I can't see the same would necessarily follow if you're comparing interglacial periods to one another.

Mind you, this is just poorly informed conjecture on my part.

Back to top

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)

IP Logged

Gist Gold Member Offline I am not a sock, I am a human being! Posts: 5476	Re: Insurers say climate change is real, expensive Reply #31 - Jan 9^th, 2012 at 6:30pm Infarction wrote on Jan 9^th, 2012 at 5:35am: I'm not covered if nuclear war breaks out? Uh oh.. Haven't you ever heard of "duck and cover"? You have to provide your own cover.
Back to top	"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration) IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Insurers say climate change is real, expensive
Reply #32 - Jan 9^th, 2012 at 6:46pm

Gist wrote on Jan 9^th, 2012 at 6:28pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2012 at 9:12pm:

Which is the point...the variations are between glaciation and interglaciation..
Simply put, there seems to be a far greater temperature swing in the temperate and arctic zones between glacial and interglacial periods than there is in tthe equatorial regions......
So much the same would logically follow in a warming event....more significant increases in the sub-polar regions than at the equator...

I don't see why it would logically follow at all, gizmo.

A glacial period features large ice masses in the polar regions which would significantly increase reflectivity in the arctic zones. The equatorial zones don't have the ice masses so continue to absorb radiation (sunlight) more or less unchanged. In fact, thinking about it, they may actually get greater sunlight exposure due to less cloud cover (on average) thanks to so much water being trapped in ice at the poles.

During an interglacial period, although the ice caps remain they are smaller and there is far more exposed land and sea area to absorb radiation, especially during the summer months.

Therefore I'd expect the temperature in the arctic zones to drop further than in the equatorial zone during a glacial period compared to an interglacial period. But I can't see the same would necessarily follow if you're comparing interglacial periods to one another.

Mind you, this is just poorly informed conjecture on my part.

Which is the point Gist....Storm fornts are caused by temperature differences between low and high pressure cells or fronts, so there'd be more temperature difference under the glacial periods, than under an interglacial warming period...so more frequent and more severe storm activity...

If the polar and temperate regions vary more from the equatorial regions during a glacial event than during a warming event...then there must be a steeper gradient during a cooling period than durng a warming period...

And the steeper the gradient, the worse the storms...

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 9^th, 2012 at 6:52pm by gizmo_2655 »

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476

Re: Insurers say climate change is real, expensive
Reply #33 - Jan 9^th, 2012 at 7:08pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2012 at 6:46pm:

Which is the point Gist....Storm fornts are caused by temperature differences between low and high pressure cells or fronts, so there'd be more temperature difference under the glacial periods, than under an interglacial warming period...so more frequent and more severe storm activity...

If the polar and temperate regions vary more from the equatorial regions during a glacial event than during a warming event...then there must be a steeper gradient during a cooling period than durng a warming period...

And the steeper the gradient, the worse the storms...

Yes, I understand pressure gradients and yes, based on that alone I'd agree we would expect more storm fronts during a glacial period than during an interglacial period.

But you keep comparing those two. As I said at the outset - we're not in a glacial period. We're in an interglacial period. Have been for quite a long time. You're proposing that storms could decrease as the poles warm up more than the equator because that's what happens between a glacial and an interglacial event.

But I'm putting to you that a warming within an interglacial period (which is the accepted current situation) is a very different circumstance to what you propose and doesn't necessarily follow. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Back to top

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Insurers say climate change is real, expensive
Reply #34 - Jan 9^th, 2012 at 7:18pm

Gist wrote on Jan 9^th, 2012 at 7:08pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2012 at 6:46pm:

Which is the point Gist....Storm fornts are caused by temperature differences between low and high pressure cells or fronts, so there'd be more temperature difference under the glacial periods, than under an interglacial warming period...so more frequent and more severe storm activity...

If the polar and temperate regions vary more from the equatorial regions during a glacial event than during a warming event...then there must be a steeper gradient during a cooling period than durng a warming period...

And the steeper the gradient, the worse the storms...

Yes, I understand pressure gradients and yes, based on that alone I'd agree we would expect more storm fronts during a glacial period than during an interglacial period.

But you keep comparing those two. As I said at the outset - we're not in a glacial period. We're in an interglacial period. Have been for quite a long time. You're proposing that storms could decrease as the poles warm up more than the equator because that's what happens between a glacial and an interglacial event.

But I'm putting to you that a warming within an interglacial period (which is the accepted current situation) is a very different circumstance to what you propose and doesn't necessarily follow. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Yes, and THAT is the point...a rise in artic/temperate/subtropical temperatures would decrease the difference between high and lower pressure systems (warmer arctic (etc) air is closer to subtropic and tropic temps) whereas cooler arctic and temperate temps would lead to a greater difference...

Think of an aqua duct....if it's closer to level...then the water flows slower....drop the low end and the water flows faster.....now substitute pressure cells for water..The BIGGER the incline, the more severe the storm....

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476

Re: Insurers say climate change is real, expensive
Reply #35 - Jan 9^th, 2012 at 7:35pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2012 at 7:18pm:

Yes, and THAT is the point...a rise in artic/temperate/subtropical temperatures would decrease the difference between high and lower pressure systems (warmer arctic (etc) air is closer to subtropic and tropic temps) whereas cooler arctic and temperate temps would lead to a greater difference...

Think of an aqua duct....if it's closer to level...then the water flows slower....drop the low end and the water flows faster.....now substitute pressure cells for water..The BIGGER the incline, the more severe the storm....

You keep telling me that that is the point while never understanding the point yourself. If you want to use your aquaduct example - you claim that global warming is balancing up the aquaduct to make it more level. Why would that happen?

If you mention anything about glacial and interglacial periods then you have NOT understood what I am talking about. Please go back and read my posts again.

Back to top

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Insurers say climate change is real, expensive
Reply #36 - Jan 9^th, 2012 at 7:56pm

Gist wrote on Jan 9^th, 2012 at 7:35pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2012 at 7:18pm:

Yes, and THAT is the point...a rise in artic/temperate/subtropical temperatures would decrease the difference between high and lower pressure systems (warmer arctic (etc) air is closer to subtropic and tropic temps) whereas cooler arctic and temperate temps would lead to a greater difference...

Think of an aqua duct....if it's closer to level...then the water flows slower....drop the low end and the water flows faster.....now substitute pressure cells for water..The BIGGER the incline, the more severe the storm....

You keep telling me that that is the point while never understanding the point yourself. If you want to use your aquaduct example - you claim that global warming is balancing up the aquaduct to make it more level. Why would that happen?

If you mention anything about glacial and interglacial periods then you have NOT understood what I am talking about. Please go back and read my posts again.

I DO see the point you are making Gist...

Quote:

But I'm not sure how it applies to the current situation given you're comparing temperatures probably hundreds of thousands of years apart. We're not in a glacial period, we're in an interglacial period and there are no signs of that changing in the next couple of years.

Quote:

A glacial period features large ice masses in the polar regions which would significantly increase reflectivity in the arctic zones. The equatorial zones don't have the ice masses so continue to absorb radiation (sunlight) more or less unchanged. In fact, thinking about it, they may actually get greater sunlight exposure due to less cloud cover (on average) thanks to so much water being trapped in ice at the poles.

And both these points are relevant...

Point one: I was talking about the difference BETWEEN glacial and interglacial temperatures in each zone...i.e in the equatorial zone, there is a far smaller variation between glacial (ice age) and interglacial (now) temperatures than exists in arctic and sub-arctic zones.....so (as an example) the temperatures in Alaska fluctuated much more between the ice age temps compared to the later (holcene) 'current' temps than did the equatorial temps...

Point two: YES, the albedo from the ice cover has a much higher reflecion index, so the temperatures over the ice sheets would be far lower, compared to the temperatures around the equator....( Norway was MUCH colder than New Guinea)..but NOW the temperatures (in the interglacial period) are closer between Norway and New Guinea.......

The basic idea is the closer the temperature..the LESS severe the storm cells....

In a nutshell...an icecube melts slower in cold water than it does in hot water....

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476

Re: Insurers say climate change is real, expensive
Reply #37 - Jan 9^th, 2012 at 8:15pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2012 at 7:56pm:

The basic idea is the closer the temperature..the LESS severe the storm cells....

Yes, probably from the ideal gas laws:

dP.V = nK.dT

n, K are constant and V would be near-constant (constrained by earth's gravity) so a change in temperature results in a change in pressure.

Quote:

but NOW the temperatures (in the interglacial period) are closer between Norway and New Guinea.......

That's fine when comparing current temperatures to the last ice age. But let's say that 100 years ago the mean annual temperature in New Guinea was (say) 30 degrees and 10 degrees in Norway.

Now let's say that today the mean annual temperature in New Guinea is 31 degrees. Why would you expect the mean annual temperature in Norway to be anything other than 11 degrees?

Back to top

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Insurers say climate change is real, expensive
Reply #38 - Jan 9^th, 2012 at 8:44pm

Gist wrote on Jan 9^th, 2012 at 8:15pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2012 at 7:56pm:

The basic idea is the closer the temperature..the LESS severe the storm cells....

Yes, probably from the ideal gas laws:

dP.V = nK.dT

n, K are constant and V would be near-constant (constrained by earth's gravity) so a change in temperature results in a change in pressure.

Quote:

but NOW the temperatures (in the interglacial period) are closer between Norway and New Guinea.......

That's fine when comparing current temperatures to the last ice age. But let's say that 100 years ago the mean annual temperature in New Guinea was (say) 30 degrees and 10 degrees in Norway.

Now let's say that today the mean annual temperature in New Guinea is 31 degrees. Why would you expect the mean annual temperature in Norway to be anything other than 11 degrees?

But the point is, I'm NOT comparing current temps with the last Ice Age..I'm comparing the temperature ranges between the the last ice age and the last interglacial....with the temps between the last interglacial and now...

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Insurers say climate change is real, expensive
Reply #39 - Jan 9^th, 2012 at 9:08pm

Gist wrote on Jan 6^th, 2012 at 10:14am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2012 at 9:55am:

I didn't take my comments out of context.....the cause of severe storms is high pressure (warm air) meeting low pressure (cooler/cold air)....The greater the difference, the more powerful the storm.
So, a general warming over the entire planet would reduce the difference and therefore reduce the severity of the storms...

Without wanting to buy into the rest of the debate...

I'd just like to point out that the highlighted statement assumes that the arctic regions would warm more than the tropics. If there was a general warming over the entire planet then the difference in temperature between arctic and tropic would be unchanged. Cool

LOL, this get's complicated one might say!

No wonder they call them complex systems!! Cheesy

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476

Re: Insurers say climate change is real, expensive
Reply #40 - Jan 9^th, 2012 at 9:16pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2012 at 8:44pm:

But the point is, I'm NOT comparing current temps with the last Ice Age..I'm comparing the temperature ranges between the the last ice age and the last interglacial....with the temps between the last interglacial and now...

Yes, you are. And I am saying that the glacial/interglacial variation isn't relevant. What I asked was what was the temperature variation between the polar and equatorial zones in interglacial periods?

Back to top

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Insurers say climate change is real, expensive
Reply #41 - Jan 9^th, 2012 at 9:19pm

Gist wrote on Jan 9^th, 2012 at 8:15pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2012 at 7:56pm:

The basic idea is the closer the temperature..the LESS severe the storm cells....

Yes, probably from the ideal gas laws:

dP.V = nK.dT

n, K are constant and V would be near-constant (constrained by earth's gravity) so a change in temperature results in a change in pressure.

Quote:

but NOW the temperatures (in the interglacial period) are closer between Norway and New Guinea.......

That's fine when comparing current temperatures to the last ice age. But let's say that 100 years ago the mean annual temperature in New Guinea was (say) 30 degrees and 10 degrees in Norway.

[highlight]Now let's say that today the mean annual temperature in New Guinea is 31 degrees. Why would you expect the mean annual temperature in Norway to be anything other than 11 degrees[/highlight]?

Ok, so even if the difference between Norway and New Guinea was 30 degrees and Norway 10 degrees.....Is there any real difference between New Guinea at 35 degrees and Norway at 15 degrees??.....what about the difference between New Guinea at 31 degrees and Norway at 20 degrees???

Is that less or more than 31 degrees and and 25 degrees???

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476

Re: Insurers say climate change is real, expensive
Reply #42 - Jan 9^th, 2012 at 9:34pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2012 at 9:19pm:

Gist wrote on Jan 9^th, 2012 at 8:15pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2012 at 7:56pm:

The basic idea is the closer the temperature..the LESS severe the storm cells....

Yes, probably from the ideal gas laws:

dP.V = nK.dT

n, K are constant and V would be near-constant (constrained by earth's gravity) so a change in temperature results in a change in pressure.

Quote:

but NOW the temperatures (in the interglacial period) are closer between Norway and New Guinea.......

That's fine when comparing current temperatures to the last ice age. But let's say that 100 years ago the mean annual temperature in New Guinea was (say) 30 degrees and 10 degrees in Norway.

[highlight]Now let's say that today the mean annual temperature in New Guinea is 31 degrees. Why would you expect the mean annual temperature in Norway to be anything other than 11 degrees[/highlight]?

Ok, so even if the difference between Norway and New Guinea was 30 degrees and Norway 10 degrees.....Is there any real difference between New Guinea at 35 degrees and Norway at 15 degrees??.....what about the difference between New Guinea at 31 degrees and Norway at 20 degrees???

Is that less or more than 31 degrees and and 25 degrees???

30-10 = 35 - 15 = 20 degrees in both cases. No difference. That's what I'm saying. If the equator heats up 5 degrees, why wouldn't the poles? And if they both heat up about the same then there'd be no reduction in storm frequency.

31-20 = 11 degrees = fewer storms. Which is what you are saying. And I am asking why the poles would heat up more than the equator.

Back to top

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Insurers say climate change is real, expensive
Reply #43 - Jan 9^th, 2012 at 9:43pm

Gist wrote on Jan 9^th, 2012 at 9:34pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2012 at 9:19pm:

Gist wrote on Jan 9^th, 2012 at 8:15pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2012 at 7:56pm:

The basic idea is the closer the temperature..the LESS severe the storm cells....

Yes, probably from the ideal gas laws:

dP.V = nK.dT

n, K are constant and V would be near-constant (constrained by earth's gravity) so a change in temperature results in a change in pressure.

Quote:

but NOW the temperatures (in the interglacial period) are closer between Norway and New Guinea.......

That's fine when comparing current temperatures to the last ice age. But let's say that 100 years ago the mean annual temperature in New Guinea was (say) 30 degrees and 10 degrees in Norway.

[highlight]Now let's say that today the mean annual temperature in New Guinea is 31 degrees. Why would you expect the mean annual temperature in Norway to be anything other than 11 degrees[/highlight]?

Ok, so even if the difference between Norway and New Guinea was 30 degrees and Norway 10 degrees.....Is there any real difference between New Guinea at 35 degrees and Norway at 15 degrees??.....what about the difference between New Guinea at 31 degrees and Norway at 20 degrees???

Is that less or more than 31 degrees and and 25 degrees???

30-10 = 35 - 15 = 20 degrees in both cases. No difference.That's what I'm saying. [highlight]If the equator heats up 5 degrees, why wouldn't the poles? And if they both heat up about the same then there'd be no reduction in storm frequency.
31-20 = 11 degrees = fewer storms. Which is what you are saying. And I am asking why the poles would heat up more than the equator.

YES...That is exactly what I'm saying....there would be NO difference between 30 -10 or 35 -15.....
So even if there is a 5 degree increase across the world...it won't make any difference to the frequency or severity of storms...

So,an increase in average temps will NOT cause an increase in the frequency or severity of storms, floods or earthquakes...

An UNbalanced change might be a problem...but ONLY if it's an increase in both the top and bottom range....in other words, only if the hot areas get hotter, and the cold areas get colder....

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 9^th, 2012 at 9:57pm by gizmo_2655 »

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476

Re: Insurers say climate change is real, expensive
Reply #44 - Jan 9^th, 2012 at 9:50pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2012 at 9:43pm:

Oh for the gods sake....IF the poles heat up by 10 degrees, and the equator heats up by 5 degrees wouldn't that make more difference than if the poles heats up by 10 degrees and the equator heats by by 8 degrees???

And for the umpteenth time - YES! But

WHY

WOULD

THAT

HAPPEN??

Back to top

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)

IP Logged