NASA Study Projects Warming-Driven Changes in Global Rainfall

Looks like this could become pretty bad. This could seriously affect the food chain, as well as farms, towns prone to floods, and many other things.

If towns do start to get seriously flooded because of all the rain, which of course, was indirectly caused by us, people might have to evacuate their homes and leave to other places. Not to mention all the droughts that might happen.

The study shows for the first time how rising carbon dioxide concentrations could affect the entire range of rainfall types on Earth.

Analysis of computer simulations from 14 climate models indicates wet regions of the world, such as the equatorial Pacific Ocean and Asian monsoon regions, will see increases in heavy precipitation because of warming resulting from projected increases in carbon dioxide levels. Arid land areas outside the tropics and many regions with moderate rainfall could become drier

www.nasa.gov...

So I am curious. How much does NASA activities add to global warming? Take every dollar spent by them and every rocket launched and add up the carbon. How about making their fuel, how much carbon.

Maybe it's time to set up for some more hydroelectric power plants in the region. As well, think about rain farming. More rain, more opportunity, maybe it will create more jobs lol.

With these forecasts, maybe some of these people might think about moving?

And here I thought Global Warming caused drought.

Do I have to buy a boat that can travel across desert?

reply to post by charles1952


What Global Warming causes is climate change. Exacerbated and intensified weather which is the likely cause of the long cold spring experienced by western europe and north mid west US, a very warm spring in other places, intensified rain/snow, droughts, wind, tornado's, hurricanes.

The different manifestations of climate change only seems contradictory from the outside.

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity


If the military would stop conducting weather modification experiments, like dropping carbon under the Erie Lake, that would help our climate to stop being messed up. Seems to me NASA is here studying the effectiveness of some technology. Until now, the main focus of worldwide militaries is to induce/reduce rainfall, see 2025 Report - Owning the Weather in 2025.

Only few people realize that NASA is owned by the Navy.

Originally posted by rickymouse
So I am curious. How much does NASA activities add to global warming? Take every dollar spent by them and every rocket launched and add up the carbon. How about making their fuel, how much carbon.

A negligible amount. NASA is a tiny fraction of US government expenditure. Blaming NASA is a bit like punching out your Doctor when he tells you that you have terminal cancer. You'll still die.

If you want to see it in reality take a tour of the Hoover Dam and talk to the tour guides. The evidence in the sustained drop in water levels is right there in the exposed dam walls.

reply to post by justwokeup


Level drop... isn't that consistent with global cooling model? The glaciers freezes water, which worldwide levels drops, and rivers slowly stop flowing because the mountain ice stops melting?

reply to post by Kali74


Yup heat is energy, the more heat the faster things move, this is physics 101...

Global warming was a very bad name due how the media presented the issue, but it is sane as it signifies the elevation of the global medium temperature across a time-frame (not strictly region specific), but not all is heat it is speed of change, strength of wind, higher evaporation ratio (dryer soils), increased plant growth, etc...

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by justwokeup

 

Level drop... isn't that consistent with global cooling model? The glaciers freezes water, which worldwide levels drops, and rivers slowly stop flowing because the mountain ice stops melting?

Its more complicated. Thats why the modelling is difficult. To be honest nobody knows with any certainty what is going to happen exactly. It unlikely to be uniform. Some will drown while others go thirsty, others may find their local climate becomes more agreeable.

If the predictions discussed in the OP are correct the southwestern USA will enter a prolonged period of drought. There are predictions showing a 50% reduction in rainfall in the region. That there is stress on the water system of the southwestern states already is obvious. Its going to get worse.

reply to post by justwokeup


And places like Saudi Arabia (desert) are experiencing their second year of heavy rains and flooding.

The people of Saudi Arabia have been witnessing a shocking phenomenon, namely that of heavy rainfall which has caused flooding leading to deaths, injuries, and damages to buildings and public infrastructure. This requires us to reflect on the severe climactic fluctuations we are witnessing and link these to past events in order to get to grips with our country’s “new reality.” The heavy rainfall that has lashed Jeddah for two consecutive years, resulting in deaths, injuries, and material damage, is a warning that what is happening is not an exception, but the result of severe climate change. The current heavy rainfall being experienced in the kingdom merely reinforces this fact.

Source

All along climate science has been saying global warming will cause chaotic weather I guess they also should have noted the other effects of global warming on peoples eyes and ears. That would be funny if weren't so damn tragic.

Originally posted by rickymouse
So I am curious. How much does NASA activities add to global warming? Take every dollar spent by them and every rocket launched and add up the carbon. How about making their fuel, how much carbon.

I'm thinking NASA is being a little naughty here. CO2 at ground level, (ground based motor vehicles) will still be on the ground and converted by a water agent, rivers, lakes, Oceans and fecking puddles into carbonic acid and we probably drink that stuff day and daily, CO2 doesn't fly very well either, its' path will be always downward, even more so when it rains and is no longer CO2. Maybe I'm wrong, but you could say that rain itself is a double agent because in itself it is a good albedo, and also knocks out CO2.
This is probably a NASA advert to say that we got summit in jet exhaust to make rain.

I do not believe in global warming... The Earth, has released more co2, on its own then we ever have....



I do not mean to LOL at these studies, but um, until We can understand our SUN, aka Fusion energy, and how it effects the solar system, as in warming the planets more or less at times and the how and why on it, then I might consider global warming but in a nut shell NASA has no idea How the sun even does what it does, NASA, can analyse it and make logic out of its nature, but NASA does not understand HOW it works..



I think Politics are involved with global warming sadly...

I myself think the weather throughout all the planets in our solar system has to do with the Nature of the sun....

The little bit of an effect we put on the atmosphere is not enough in my opinion to ruin the world, do not misunderstand either thou, I think it is important to take care of the planet, I just do not agree with the notion we can release more co2, then volcano's since the beginning of the Earth.. Weather is changing thou, at an alarming rate, also the Sun, is doing some weird stuff as well the past decades...

Just saying..

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by justwokeup

 

Source

All along climate science has been saying global warming will cause chaotic weather

Not as I recall,

www.stanford.edu...

1995, and there are much earlier suggestions.

reply to post by smurfy


The Hoover Institute looks to find ways to capitalize on Global Warming, specifically to find ways to navigate the changing Arctic in order to secure resources for private American interests via the US Navy.

Link

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by justwokeup

 

Level drop... isn't that consistent with global cooling model? The glaciers freezes water, which worldwide levels drops, and rivers slowly stop flowing because the mountain ice stops melting?

No, cooling doesn't account for it (and the average temperatures have been going up.)

Under global cooling we would not see:
* the retreat or disappearance of glaciers (there was a Nat Geo special last night called "Chasing Ice" about James Balog's documentation of glaciers.
* increasing longer and hotter wildfires

The level drop IS consistent with drought. I'm monitoring lakes and ponds here in Dallas, where the drought (which people think is over) still is impacting things... our ponds still are a foot and more below previous normal levels. Cities are still asking people to not water, we're braced for another mosquito season, and water issues are now the source of a lot of town hall meetings.

While cold could cause changes in the pattern of rain, the water would still be there in the form of snow packs and ice packs on mountains (and there would be a lot more of it.) Snow levels in Colorado are 92% of the average. I don't ski, so I haven't tracked snowpack, but I know that skiing "seasons" are ending a bit earlier according to some reports.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by smurfy

 

The Hoover Institute looks to find ways to capitalize on Global Warming, specifically to find ways to navigate the changing Arctic in order to secure resources for private American interests via the US Navy.

Link

Your kidding me?
The Russians and Americans have been on this for most of the 20th century, when they deliberately wanted to heat up the Arctic and utilize the enormous land area see here,

blogs.smithsonianmag.com...

Do you think that idea has ever gone away...naaah, they ain't looking for ways to capitalize, they already know since last century at least, but first you have to warm it up, then everybody and their granny can walk on it.
Then it is no longer 'pristine' even better for the Russians their permafrost lands will also be able to be utilized.
So whadda you know, all of a sudden, along comes global warming.

reply to post by Byrd

* the retreat or disappearance of glaciers (there was a Nat Geo special last night called "Chasing Ice" about James Balog's documentation of glaciers.

So National Geographic says glaciers are melting? Hm.

www.canadafreepress.com... reports growth in Himalay mountains system, which holds thousands of glaciers.
www.iceagenow.com... Again, glacier growth, not melt.
rense.com... On-the ground drilling in Antartica shows ice sheet is growing in most parts of Antartica.

I wouldn't consider National Geogrphic Entertainment as a very reliable source for factual data. It is full of pseudoscience shows, with a lot of sensationalism, and which is very biased in reaching to this anarchist new-agey demographic which is growing in North America. Many shows did I watched in there and discussed with my fellow physicists and even them agreed that NG was full of absurd pseudo-informations, including heavy misinterpretations of quantum theory and mistakes about the meaning of Entropy.

This is our **dramatic** global warming:



Sorry Al Gore, your sensationalist predictions were kinda slightly disconnected from reality. That tends to happen when science becomes a tool for political parties. The politics seized on a small warming around 2002, probably to push elections or some other agenda, and then when the temperature dropped back, controversies started showing up. To avoid losing their face politics have to promote GW even though it doesn't happen anymore. But I am guessing that they'll slowly admit their mistakes before it becomes too obvious. As a matter of fact, that's already happening as we speak: news.investors.com...
online.wsj.com...
www.dailygalaxy.com...
www.newsmax.com...

The level drop IS consistent with drought. I'm monitoring lakes and ponds here in Dallas, where the drought (which people think is over) still is impacting things... our ponds still are a foot and more below previous normal levels. Cities are still asking people to not water, we're braced for another mosquito season, and water issues are now the source of a lot of town hall meetings.

This level drop is due to the fact glaciers are retaining this water instead of melting. Global Warming predicts glaciers will melt, thus rising all sea levels. Water cannot disappear.

* increasing longer and hotter wildfires

Yes, less liquid water will mean more droughts, and thus more wildfires. In the last Ice Age, deserts were actually covering more areas (due to drought effect) than now. And... Seas level were alot lower than now. That's the cooling scenario, not the warming one.







reply to post by smurfy


Exactly.