Climate change could lead to threefold increase in powerful storms across Europe and North America

November 26, 2018, University of Exeter
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Powerful storms that cause extreme weather conditions such as flooding across Europe and North America, with the potential to wreak social and economic havoc, could increase threefold by the end of the 21st century due to climate change.

Pioneering new research, led by Dr. Matt Hawcroft from the University of Exeter, has shown new and detailed information on projections of the frequency of extratropical cyclones.

The research shows that unless there is a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, there will be a stark increase in their frequency across large swathes of the Northern Hemisphere.

Crucially, the impact on could be severe, with more intense and extreme storms leading to greater large-scale flooding events—similar to those experienced across Somerset in 2013/14, Cumbria in 2015 and Gloucestershire in 2007.

The research is published in the journal Environmental Research Letters on Tuesday, November 27 2018.

Dr. Hawcroft, a Research Fellow in Exeter's Mathematics department said: "It is expected that precipitation extremes will increase in intensity and frequency in a warmer climate. In this work, we have attributed those changes to the events which bring much of our large-scale rainfall and flooding. This additional information, on the dynamical nature of changes, is important since it provides clear information on the nature and impact of the changes in precipitation that can be used, for example, in policymaking and adaptation planning."

Extratropical cyclones, which are steered by the jet stream, play a key role in day-to-day weather variability across large parts of North America and Europe. They are characterised by areas of low atmospheric pressure in the storm's centre, with air drawn cyclonically (anti-clockwise) around the low pressure.

This leads to warm air being drawn from the south and cold air from the north. At the interface of cold and warm air, fronts form which can induce heavy rainfall. The most extreme storms are responsible for much large-scale flooding in North America and Europe.

A key piece of information for policymakers and governments looking to mitigate against such is the ability to project where and how often these storms may occur in the future. However, current climate model projections are affected by huge uncertainties.

In this new study, the researchers analysed the behaviour of present day and future storms using state-of-the-art modelling and storm tracking techniques. By approaching the analysis in a ' centred' framework, the team were able to evaluate changes in the frequency and intensity of these extratropical cyclones with more consistency than previous studies have suggested.

Importantly, the team were able to show that models project there would be a threefold increase in the number of the most intensely precipitating extratropical cyclones in both Europe and North America by the end of the century.

Dr. Hawcroft added: "Due to the complexity of the circulation response to warming, there is much uncertainty in regional patterns of . Given this uncertainty, it is important to be able to distil clear information where that is available. Here we show that in spite of these complexities, we are still able to provide large and consistent projections of change in these highly impactful events."

Explore further: What is causing more extreme precipitation in the Northeast?

More information: Significantly increased extreme precipitation expected in Europe and North America from extratropical cyclones is published in Environmental Research Letters.

Related Stories

What is causing more extreme precipitation in the Northeast?

July 31, 2018

From Maine to West Virginia, the Northeast has seen a larger increase in extreme precipitation than anywhere else in the U.S. Prior research found that these heavy rain and snow events, defined as a day with about two inches ...

Climate simulations project wetter, windier hurricanes

November 14, 2018

New supercomputer simulations by climate scientists at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) have shown that climate change intensified the amount of rainfall in recent hurricanes ...

More sting jet storms likely due to global warming

March 20, 2018

The UK could be hit by more than double the number of storms with exceptional windspeeds, like the one that caused mayhem across south east England in October 1987, if global warming continues, scientists have warned.

Australia facing increased intense rain storms

July 30, 2018

Landmark study shows how heavy, short rain storms are intensifying more rapidly than would be expected with global warming. Researchers say this is likely to lead to increasing flash floods and urban flooding.

Recommended for you

The long dry: global water supplies are shrinking

December 13, 2018

A global study has found a paradox: our water supplies are shrinking at the same time as climate change is generating more intense rain. And the culprit is the drying of soils, say researchers, pointing to a world where drought-like ...

New climate model to be built from the ground up

December 13, 2018

Facing the certainty of a changing climate coupled with the uncertainty that remains in predictions of how it will change, scientists and engineers from across the country are teaming up to build a new type of climate model ...

84 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Thorium Boy
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 27, 2018
We heard this same nonsense after Katrina. Then we had decade of nothing.
Shootist
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2018
Climate change could lead to threefold increase in powerful storms across Europe and North America


Or not. The climate changes. It's what chaotic systems do.
guptm
1 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2018
Also provide confidence level in IPCC terminology: i.e.

Virtually certain (0.99-100%)
Very likely (90-100%)
Likely (66-100%)
About as likely as not (33-66%)
Unlikely (0-33%)
Very unlikely (0-10%)
Exceptionally unlikely (0-1%)

Otherwise, saying "could be" is not meaningful at all.
rrwillsj
2.8 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2018
Ahh, the three blind mice squeaking out their disgruntlement that the doomsday clock is starting to peal it's final warning.

Before they can run away and cower in their burrows. All nicely nestled with their cat masters of the Carbon/ICE cartel.
Truly, a marriage made in hell!
zz5555
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2018
Also provide confidence level in IPCC terminology

As always, the articles here are little more than press releases and don't contain much scientific information. A perusal of the comments here (note the first two incompetent comments here) indicate that certainly many of the readers of this site aren't capable of much more than they get here. If you want the full science you need to look at the actual paper. Normally, there's a link in he article here, but that's missing in this article. But the paper's not difficult to track down and is open access. Here's a link: http://iopscience...ed59/pdf . You'll find nice error bars and confidence intervals there for the precipitation increase. If you really want to understand the science you need to work for it, no one will spoon feed it to you. But that's always been the case.
philstacy9
1 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2018
theredpill
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2018
"If you really want to understand the science you need to work for it,"

If you really understood it you would agree with the first three posters.

" no one will spoon feed it to you. But that's always been the case."
But look at how the masses gobbled up the spoon fed BS that CO2 can warm the earths entire atmosphere despite it's miniscule presence.

The scientific method regarding CO2 and it's purported heat retention capabilities was never followed, because the first line of business in science would have been to ascertain said ability via experiment in a closed system that can be controlled to eliminate any noise. Think about this carefully, any scientist out to prove that CO2 retains heat that effects our entire planet would have first, following the scientific method, set out to verify that it can DIRECTLY.

This is why articles like the above are referred to as a dog and pony show, or fear mongering.

The great climate swindle...great watch.

theredpill
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2018
"The great climate swindle...great watch."

It's actually called the Great global warming swindle.

rrwillsj
5 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2018
It is only called that by the conartists paid ro be deniershills. the dlatirepillock is just a sockpuppet for the corrupt.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2018
@redp
If you really understood it you would agree with the first three posters
except that the first two posters typically don't know jack-sh*t about the science
But look at how the masses gobbled up the spoon fed BS that CO2 can warm the earths entire atmosphere despite it's miniscule presence
and yet, when presented with the requested studies that directly prove this (and was under experiment and investigation back in 1896!) you were completely silent
https://phys.org/...igh.html

you requested evidence "Directly proving CO2's heat retention ability" and you got it
so that issue is no longer debatable as it's a repeatedly proven scientific fact, and you can find multiple references not only in the mentioned studies, but also in the courses I linked to you that are *free* and you can take to understand the science being discussed

feel free to provide equivalent refute if you like
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2018
@redpill cont'd
The scientific method regarding CO2 and it's purported heat retention capabilities was never followed, because the first line of business in science would have been to ascertain said ability via experiment in a closed system that can be controlled to eliminate any noise
blatantly false claim
not only was the experiment done to eliminate noise, but it's been validated more times than you can count
https://phys.org/...igh.html

It's actually called the Great global warming swindle
irrational conspiracist ideation

the "globe" can't agree on the tastiness of bacon or fundamental rights of individuals, but somehow they've come together to swindle or commit fraud without pay?

you do realise the scientists doing the work are paid sh*t wages, right?
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2018
''investigation back in 1896!) ''

stumpers should know since he is the sciencey expert that in 1896 [ actually i think it was 1900 ] Angstrom discovery was that of CO2 saturation and they lost interest in CO2 as a concern..

much later when they realized it wasn't saturated higher up it became a moral panic

theredpill
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2018
"stumpers should know since he is the sciencey expert "

I really hope this is sarcasm. He claims to have provided "direct evidence" of CO2's heat retention capabilities when he clearly doesn't understand what is required to prove it. Based on his appeals to authority and denial of the scientific method I can definitely conclude he's no expert on science. My very first post on this forum was about the type of observation required in order to make the studies he feels are valid, actually valid. Biggest problem with claiming you can measure CO2's IR absorption for earth is that we cannot monitor the entire earth. And, as mentioned several times which he does not appear to comprehend, there is only one way to prove CO2 can heat the earths atmosphere, you have to experimentally show it, not attribute a bunch of environmental observations to it and claim that is science.

"you do realise the scientists doing the work are paid sh*t wages, right?"

No excuse for shoddy work.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2018
@snoose
stumpers should know since he is the sciencey expert that in 1896 [ actually i think it was 1900 ] Angstrom discovery was that of CO2 saturation and they lost interest in CO2 as a concern..
did you not read the comments or quotes?

you know, if you learn how to read, you will understand more
try this http://readingbear.org/

to explain, using smaller words:

the argument was that "The scientific method regarding CO2 and it's purported heat retention capabilities was never followed"

this is blatantly false

moreover, the challenge from redp was to produce evidence "Directly proving CO2's heat retention ability" which started as far back as 1896 and continued for decades, including continued validation in various classrooms still today

lastly, I provided a link that demonstrates the fallacy of "no one had proved CO2's heat retention" and that the scientific method is still followed

need more explaining?
theredpill
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2018
"irrational conspiracist ideation"

Well, it was a bunch of accredited "experts" disagreeing with the statement that CO2 causes global warming. It is an appeal to authority, just like you make Captain Stumpy.

"the "globe" can't agree on the tastiness of bacon or fundamental rights of individuals, but somehow they've come together to swindle or commit fraud without pay?"

So you don't understand global economic drivers or engineered means of extracting cash from a population either. Which means the psychology of fear is probably out of bounds for you as well. No worries, I don't expect to change your mind about your beliefs but you appear to think your opinion is *more valid* than mine because of them.

A measured heat retention in a volume of atmosphere containing CO2 @ 400PPM when compared with the same volume of atmosphere devoid of CO2. Show me this has been done and how, and that it proved CO2 can do what is claimed. Or we can keep bouncing our opinions off each other.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2018
@redp
He claims to have provided "direct evidence" of CO2's heat retention capabilities when he clearly doesn't understand what is required to prove it
we're talking a hundred years of repeated validation with experiment, so what, exactly, is your complaint?

because those studies that isolated CO2 as a GHG and not only demonstrated it's heat retention but allowed it to be observed, measured and a mathematical equation to be established which accurately reflected this?
And, as mentioned several times which he does not appear to comprehend, there is only one way to prove CO2 can heat the earths atmosphere, you have to experimentally show it,
you mean like the FACE studies?
Ainsworth, Long 2004 and Kimball 2010 both address this

not only experiment, but observed and validated

you ignored those studies as well

I love it when you ignore the evidence that proves you wrong

thanks
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2018
@redp
Well, it was a bunch of accredited "experts" disagreeing with the statement that CO2 causes global warming
actually, no, it wasn't
it was an opinion or attitudinal statement from snooze ( http://www.auburn...ion.html )
It is an appeal to authority, just like you make
I've appealed to the evidence, especially that which is repeatedly validated
completely different argument and no authority is involved

In point of fact, it's why you cannot find an equivalent refute except to just state your opposition and present a blatantly false claim as proof
Which means the psychology of fear is probably out of bounds for you as well
actually, this is why I'm studying people like you
to understand your irrational fear of science I need you to expound more about your beliefs, which you regularly do by posting here, like above

it speaks volumes about the mental gymnastics required to cling to your belief
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2018
@redp
I don't expect to change your mind about your beliefs but you appear to think your opinion is *more valid* than mine because of them
except that I don't have an "opinion"

everything I've presented is either a scientific fact or, as in the conspiracist ideation comments, demonstrated by your actions
http://www.auburn...ion.html

I can also change my mind if the facts are presented
Not your claims, mind you, but something that can be verified and validated
Scientific evidence

making the claim doesn't make you correct, and repeating your claims doesn't make them truer

I require evidence that can be validated
Show me this has been done and how
already done
already ignore by you

repeating your request when you won't address the studies is part of your gymnastics attempting to distract from your failure to comprehend the science
theredpill
2 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2018
"we're talking a hundred years of repeated validation with experiment, so what, exactly, is your complaint?"

Nobody has ever shown CO2's capacity to heat a volume of air as is claimed, that is the simplest way I can put it. Yes CO2 as a molecule retains heat itself...so when I first started researching my first issue was how it can transfer the heat to the air around it, first red flag is the mandatory requirement for kinetic release of the heat it stores. Second red flag, random release vector for the IR photon when this interaction takes place. Third red flag, the kinetic release must occur with another CO2 molecule...at 400PPM these reactions are few and very far between. Elephant in the room, the first thing I said above, nobody has shown it has the ability to conserve heat in an entire volume of air in which it is only present @ 400PPM.

you are talking 100 years of creative math which dances around the issue, can it act like a furnace?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2018
@redp
Nobody has ever shown CO2's capacity to heat a volume of air as is claimed, that is the simplest way I can put it
you mean except for Ainsworth, Long 2004 and Kimball 2010 and the rest of the FACE studies
so when I first started researching my first issue was how it can transfer the heat to the air around it, first red flag is
instead of giving me "red flag" comments, how about some studies that demonstrate your argument?

you know, like I've presented to you?
equivalent to the scientific method and with experiment, observation, etc?
you are talking 100 years of creative math which dances around the issue
no, I'm not
I'm talking about a century of observation that validated the maths to its current known state within the error margins presented, hence the links to the courses I left you

IOW - the scientific method in action

your argument from self-authority doesn't trump a century of evidence to the contrary
theredpill
2 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2018
"to understand your irrational fear of science "

My love of science is why I hate to see what it is being used to fabricate.
"I've appealed to the evidence,"
And I have appealed to lack of the only evidence required to end this debate. Do you not agree that if an experiment were ran which demonstrated that 400PPM of CO2 can heat a volume of air that it would do so? Nobody could argue any of the "other" evidence if this was backing it all up...
"it speaks volumes about the mental gymnastics required to cling to your belief "

When one easily performed experiment could dispel my "belief", and silence all of the naysayers, what are we waiting for?
"I require evidence that can be validated"
Me too, we appear to have different ideas of what that is, you appear to believe that quantity over quality will suffice, I just need the one study done that confirms the claims...not a bunch of statistical gymnastics and a stated conclusion based on said gymnastics.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2018
@redp
My love of science is why I hate to see what it is being used to fabricate
then why can't you prove it's "fabricating" anything?
You're ignoring a century of science and observed, validated findings because they state something you disagree with...
And I have appealed to lack of the only evidence required to end this debate
except that you're wrong and just don't know about the evidence

stop getting your info from political sites and stick to the science
Do you not agree that if an experiment were ran which demonstrated that 400PPM of CO2 can heat a volume of air that it would do so?
you mean like Ainsworth, Long 2004 and Kimball 2010 and the rest of the FACE studies showed?
what are we waiting for?
for you to read the science, like Ainsworth, Long 2004 and Kimball 2010
you appear to believe that quantity over quality will suffice
actually, no
quality is important

I understand the levels of evidence whereas you do not
theredpill
2 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2018
"can put it
you mean except for Ainsworth, Long 2004 and Kimball 2010 and the rest of the FACE studies"

So you are saying one the above performed an experiment which demonstrated CO2 caused an enclosed volume of air to maintain a higher temperature than the same volume of air minus the CO2? Otherwise, more appeals to your authority presenting your version of evidence...all of the above names had papers written around CO2 uptake in plants, I couldn't find any wehre the experiment I have been relating has been performed.

round and round we go. you could link every paper anyone has written about this topic, if it doesn't prove CO2 is a furnace in a controlled environment, it's bunk.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2018
@redp
"I require evidence that can be validated"
Me too, we appear to have different ideas of what that is
the problem, as I see it, is that you require your ideology to be validated

you've *literally* ignored studies that give you the information you requested and want

that, my friend, is mental gymnastics - you don't want to accept the findings of CO2 because you have a vested interest in it being wrong, be it financial or ideological in nature
I just need the one study done that confirms the claims
1- then do it yourself

2- then read the studies I suggested which lead from the 1896 beginning of experiments on CO2 and up to the atmospheric mixing in FACE

3- use that education link I provided to learn about the facts - history of the science included
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2018
@redp
So you are saying one the above performed an experiment which demonstrated CO2 caused an enclosed volume of air to maintain a higher temperature than the same volume of air minus the CO2?
FACE grew from the laboratory setting where they "performed an experiment which demonstrated CO2 caused an enclosed volume of air to maintain a higher temperature than the same volume of air minus the CO2" - all referenced in various FACE studies

FACE went the further step of CO2 enrichment of open-air environs which also demonstrated temperature differences - actual Earth atmosphere experiments
Otherwise, more appeals to your authority presenting your version of evidence...
and again: I am not the authority
I am presenting the evidence

you're ignoring it because of your ideological beliefs

PS - as I've stated in the past: I was also sceptical of CO2 when I started here at PO
the evidence changed my mind

evidence = keyword
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2018
interesting bit of history;

https://www.armst...he-most/
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2018
@redp
round and round we go. you could link every paper anyone has written about this topic, if it doesn't prove CO2 is a furnace in a controlled environment, it's bunk
this is bunk and nonsensical

I am appealing to your literacy skills and self-proclaimed scientific ability
I couldn't find any wehre the experiment I have been relating has been performed
so, you read no references in the FACE studies?

not even in the About 1,950,000 results (0.08 sec) from the search for CO2 experiments heat retention located on Google Scholar?

not even the About 111,000 results (0.09 sec) of CO2 gas experiments heat retention?
or the About 60,100 results (0.12 sec) for CO2 atmospheric gas heat retention experiments?

tell me honestly: where are you looking for your evidence?
theredpill
2 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2018
So, is that a "no" on the experiment in a closed environment? You keep trying to tell me your opinions on what the people you referred to above did without actually saying what they did, is that because you know the criteria for an experiment which could leave no doubt have never been met?

You keep referencing YOUR trusted science but cannot answer questions about YOUR trusted science other than to say that you are satisfied with it and thus I should be. Link me the exact paper about the experiment where one volume of CO2 laden air cooled more slowly than the same volume of air without it, it will end this.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2018
stump, can you provide a link to the FACE study you refer ? all i can find is FACE = plant growth

Ainsworth, Long 2004 and Kimball 2010 search = nothing
theredpill
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2018
"stump, can you provide a link to the FACE study you refer ? all i can find is FACE = plant growth

Ainsworth, Long 2004 and Kimball 2010 search = nothing "

I did the same search and had the same result. Then again, I have searched for this specific study for a long time and never found it, if he can provide a link I would be grateful and say thank you. I don't care if I am wrong, it wouldn't be the first time. These philosophical debates go nowhere. The base claim around which all of these articles posit their assertions is that CO2 can heat air, logic follows that the first order of business would be to prove it does that without any other forcings or variables at play.

My opinion is that the reason this study doesn't exist is because it has been tried but did not prove what is claimed....

theredpill
2 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2018
https://www.bnl.g...Long.pdf

FACE is short for "Free air CO2 enrichment", the experiments have nothing to do with measuring CO2's ability to heat air, and nowhere in the above link could I find: "FACE grew from the laboratory setting where they "performed an experiment which demonstrated CO2 caused an enclosed volume of air to maintain a higher temperature than the same volume of air minus the CO2" - all referenced in various FACE studies"

Where did you pull this quote from? I would love to read that paper!

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2018
Yeah, like the storms the Trumpster fire claimed on Twitter were "proof there's no global warming."

Guess the denier bots' controllers don't know what "precipitation" is. New Clue™: Snow is precipitation.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2018
@redp
So, is that a "no" on the experiment in a closed environment?
so, is that a "i get all my information from watts or some other denier site"?
is that because you know the criteria for an experiment which could leave no doubt have never been met?
blatantly false claim, otherwise you would be able to easily falsify every CO2 experiment out there

given that you're not able to and neither are your well-funded suppliers and you still can't actually falsify any science...
Link me the exact paper
here are a few:
Langly, 1883, Rubens and Aschkinasa, 1989, Coblentz, 1905, Burmeister, 1913, Martin, Barker 1932, J Mascetti, M Tranquille 1988

you might notice that these experiments are not only regarding CO2, but they also examined other gasses

Hence your experiment is not only undertaken, but it shed light on the infrared absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide and other gases, or vrs other gases

these are included in the link I left you from MIT
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2018
@snooze
stump, can you provide a link to the FACE study you refer ? all i can find is FACE = plant growth

Ainsworth, Long 2004 and Kimball 2010 search = nothing
[url]https://scholar.google.com/[/url]

@redp
I did the same search and had the same result. Then again, I have searched for this specific study for a long time and never found it
that's because neither of you is using google scholar or searching the journals, which is a fundamental problem we seem to be having because it's the only place to get the science and skip the bullsh*t political idiocy

They publish in Wiley, USDA, NIH, New Phytologist and Science Magazine - you can see that for yourself here: [url]https://scholar.google.com/[/url]
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2018
@redp
My opinion is that the reason this study doesn't exist is because it has been tried but did not prove what is claimed....
except you're wrong: https://scholar.g...ng+2004+

Where did you pull this quote from? I would love to read that paper!
1- if you will note, I am using your own words

2- I got the information from the reference material of several studies, including Ainsworth, and it's paraphrased as studies of how plants respond to these projected future levels [of CO2] began in earnest some 30 years ago, initially with glasshouse and controlled environment studies

it's from just one of those studies that don't exist because you're not looking for them
theredpill
2 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2018
CaptainStumpy, you linked a google scholar search screen not the article you claim exists, because it can't...and those are not my words, as at no point did I say the experiment had been done which is what your quote states. However, putting it succinctly from a physics standpoint. CO2 absorbs and transmits IR wavelengths that are transparent to the rest of the atmosphere, think about this. CO2 cannot heat the air. When you read anything claiming temperatures will rise due to CO2 they are talking about atmospheric temperature, that is what thermometers read. So how can something not capable of heating "air" cause air temperature to rise? The physics says that the energy transmitted earthward by CO2 makes it back to the earth without being absorbed by the atmosphere...every single article written claiming atmospheric temperature rise due to CO2 is a flat out lie because CO2 cannot physically heat air. This is physics plain and simple.

Now for the really funny part.
theredpill
2 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2018
All of the instrumentation we use to monitor, measure, study and catalogue atmospheric CO2 content was paid for by public money. So we have been paying for "science" to tell us we should be taxed on "polluting" with CO2 based on the premise of catastrophic warming of the atmosphere, which it physically cannot do as per all of the science regarding it's absorption/emission spectra.

https://scied.uca...adiation

This is why I keep harping on proving that it can heat a room full of air, the physics says it is IMPOSSIBLE for CO2 to heat air.

Any "study" that claims Atmospheric temperatures will rise because of CO2 is NOT science, it is propaganda dressed up as science, the physics doesn't lie, people do....like Captain Stumpy did above when he claimed to be quoting me by adding an 8 word prefix to my words.

Do you feel that is acceptable because the nonscience you support has no problem with it?
Ojorf
5 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2018
This is why I keep harping on proving that it can heat a room full of air, the physics says it is IMPOSSIBLE for CO2 to heat air.

You keep harping on this because you are stupid.
Filling a room with CO2 will not heat it up.
Forget about your stupid room analogy, it doesn't work that way.
That is NOT how CO2 causes global warming.
Learn the science.
theredpill
2 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2018
"You keep harping on this because you are stupid.
Filling a room with CO2 will not heat it up."

I know, that is why it cannot heat our atmosphere.

"Forget about your stupid room analogy, it doesn't work that way."

It doesn't "work" PERIOD.

"That is NOT how CO2 causes global warming."

There is no way for CO2 to cause global warming.

"Learn the science"

I posted it above, the IR absorption/emission spectra of CO2 is transparent to the atmosphere, that IS THE SCIENCE...whatever you think is science, if it says CO2 can warm the atmosphere isn't science...it is propaganda. Anyone who understands how to heat something knows this is correct, you called me stupid for harping on this....It's evident who the stupid one is that you would even try to argue this , it's pure physics and it tells you your religion is about to die a deserved death...and hopefully it takes anyone stupid enough to think CO2 can heat air when the physics of CO2 says it can't along with it.

snoosebaum
1 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2018
stump, u r unable to back your claim

redpill , the AGW claim actually is that CO2 acts as an insulator starting at the tropopause . so perhaps an analogy to your room experiment would be,, is a box filled with insulation warmer than an empty box under equal conditions ?

i think a better approach is to ask if the stratosphere is already co2 saturated . a recent paper on this site said they have found big stratospheric circulation ANd one study i found [ they r hard to find ] said strat. co2 was 380 in 2005 . When it is saturated how long to equilbrium ?
theredpill
2 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2018
"redpill , the AGW claim actually is that CO2 acts as an insulator starting at the tropopause . so perhaps an analogy to your room experiment would be,, is a box filled with insulation warmer than an empty box under equal conditions ? "

LOL...I hear you. It's the same non science presented as science. But when you read what is supposedly a peer reviewed paper saying CO2 will warm the earths temperature, which is air temperature as far as thermometers go, but the physics of CO2 says it can never emit heat that the atmosphere can absorb...I mean how do you claim to be student of physics, or have a degree in physics, and not object to this kind of claim? At that point the rest of CO2's heat retention is a moot point, IR can bounce back and forth between the earth and Co2 all it wants and it can't ever make our atmosphere "warmer" because it cannot affect the rest of the atmosphere. And we, the public bought and paid for this crap...

hat1208
5 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2018
interesting bit of history;

https://www.armst...he-most/


So you link to a site that is trying to sell the idea that you can make money if you invest properly concerning CO2 and the environment. You are fuller of shit than redpill
theredpill
2 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2018
" You are fuller of shit than redpill"

And you have to be a complete idiot to attempt to argue that CO2 can heat the atmosphere...physics says no. So you are going to use peer reviewed propaganda???LMAO.

I mean I know it is a religion and I am saying your God doesn't exist and all, but seriously...what else have you got? I am looking for a physicist to attempt to refute this physically, the opinions of cult members who are limited to their narrow understanding and chosen sources of information will just make themselves look foolish here son....this is actual physics.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2018
Redpill, don't get too happy because the two box model doesn't account for heat that is coming and going , obviously the insulated box will retain more heat. Back to the question with stumps , can you measure any difference using co2 as an insulation? perhaps we should ask the greenhouse operators if their heating bills are reduced as they use a lot of CO2 . a brief google search didn't turn up anything but there is this

https://www.ars.u...eenhouse[Article].pdf

no mention of co2 warming , i would imagine any effect is too small to measure
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2018
@redp
you linked a google scholar search screen not the article you claim exists, because it can't...
Now for the really funny part.
1- it was in the top 10 studies in the link because it does exist which demonstrated the fact that either you are choosing not to read it or ...???
2- it was also validated by multiple other studies (more than 23) in the top 100
3- that link also had more information that was relevant, hence my choice to link it
and those are not my words, as at no point did I say the experiment had been done
I didn't say you said it had been done, I said that what you quoted had been done, though perhaps not on the arbitrary and subjective "room" scale which you still haven't quantified
CO2 cannot heat the air.
no one claimed otherwise
So how can something not capable of heating "air" cause air temperature to rise?

https://en.wikipe...ouse_gas

this is where Lacis comes in, mind you

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2018
@redp cont'd
with CO2 based on the premise of catastrophic warming of the atmosphere, which it physically cannot do as per all of the science regarding it's absorption/emission spectra.

https://scied.uca...adiation
from your own link
This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons.
physics says you're wrong
your link says you're wrong
I say you're wrong

but you say you're not wrong because... erm...why, exactly?

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2018
@redp cont'd
This is why I keep harping on proving that it can heat a room full of air, the physics says it is IMPOSSIBLE for CO2 to heat air.
no one is saying that CO2 "heats" the air
they're saying that it absorbs IR and traps it for a period (the whole "greenhouse gas" thingy I mentioned, repeatedly, in various threads, and is mentioned in your link, as well as most of my studies)

GHG's are one of those pesky things that keep us from being a frozen wasteland, but they're a double edged sword as well
It doesn't "work" PERIOD
except that the studies, experiments and observation prove otherwise, from FACE to the earliest tests with CO2 I referenced

observation trumps your belief
There is no way for CO2 to cause global warming
except even your acar.edu link said otherwise, as well as the MIT link I gave, and the rest of the experiments I linked... and observation, and...

again: observation and experimentation trump belief
theredpill
2 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2018
Snoosebaum, the two box model was a lead in to demonstrate the flaw in the "science" of atmospheric heating via CO2, and by natural progression demonstrate that any study claiming it is going to happen isn't based on physics...or by extension, valid science. That's why I keep referring to that "science" as statistical gymnastics. The only way to claim the atmosphere can be heated by CO2 would be to couple them via some catalyst. In my opinion, the only scientific way to measure CO2's heat contribution would be earthbound sensors which absorb the same IR wavelengths CO2 works off...but we would need a baseline without CO2 in it because teasing the miniscule contribution 400PPM could provide with a maximum 50% earthbound transmission rate out from solar irradiance would be almost impossible, and at that point we are still only talking ground heating...that may get you a bit more water vapour in the air, but it still cannot directly heat it.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2018
@snooze
stump, u r unable to back your claim
u r unable to read else you would be able to see that I backed my claim
go here: http://readingbear.org/

Back to the question with stumps , can you measure any difference using co2 as an insulation? perhaps we should ask the greenhouse operators if their heating bills are reduced as they use a lot of CO2 .
and yet Ainsworth, Long 2004 directly contradict your claims with experiment and observation validating Drake et al., 1997

Since FACE studies are all pretty much open access, including the mentioned above, this means you're lying again and ya got caught at it (again)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2018
@redp
the two box model was a lead in to demonstrate the flaw in the "science" of atmospheric heating via CO2, and by natural progression demonstrate that any study claiming it is going to happen isn't based on physics...or by extension, valid science
obviously someone missed the memo because if this were true the oil and power industries would have latched onto it decades ago, especially when Bill Nye did his now famous experiment with CO2 and regular atmosphere in jars

moreover, your own links directly refute your claims about CO2, it being a GHG and trapping heat, etc

just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it aint true - and repeating your political dogma isn't going to make it truer either
theredpill
2 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2018
Captain Stumpy, you are the one espousing belief. And somehow, you don't understand what the atmosphere is. It is the air that cannot be heated by the IR wavelengths CO2 absorbs. Read my comment to Snoosbaum and stop with appeals to the authority that are blatantly not science.

What are picturing when you say "traps it"? It holds the photon, then lets it go? That photon either leaves earth or goes back to earth and does nothing in between unless it hits another surface which can absorb it.
CO2 cannot heat the air:
"no one claimed otherwise"

Wow, that you would actually type the above on this forum...do you know how many articles have been published here claiming catastrophic temperature rise of the atmosphere due to CO2 "warming". Again, Thermometers measure air temp, not IR photons. If it can't heat the air, what do your papers say it is heating that does heat the air?

snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2018
stump, just show me the friggen article i'm not reading all that stuff to find it ,

like,as in is this the one ?
https://www.ncbi....15377233

that says nothing about warming its about plant growth and they could have just asked the greenhouse operators

Bill Nye did his now famous experiment with CO2 lol [ famous debunked experiment ]

BILL NYE THE SCIENCE GUY ! hahaha
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2018
@redp
you are the one espousing belief
the belief that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? your own link validated that claim, yet you claim it's not true, despite the overwhelming evidence proving you're wrong

that isn't belief on my part
you don't understand what the atmosphere is
An atmosphere (from Modern Greek ἀτμός (atmos), meaning 'vapour', and σφαῖρα (sphaira), meaning 'sphere') is a layer or a set of layers of gases surrounding a planet or other material body, that is held in place by the gravity of that body
I am discounting stellar atmosphere as you didn't add the qualifier

more to the point: that definition proves your argument of " It is the air that cannot be heated by the IR wavelengths"
and stop with appeals to the authority that are blatantly not science.
I'm still not appealing to the authority of anyone
I am appealing to the evidence, which even your own links demonstrate that you're wrong
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2018
@redp cont'd
What are picturing when you say "traps it"?
your link had an excellent graphic explaining it, which, BTW, was also included in more than a couple of my references
Wow, that you would actually type the above on this forum...do you know how many articles have been published here claiming catastrophic temperature rise of the atmosphere due to CO2 "warming"
1- colour used to elucidate a problem isn't science

2- if you read the studies, not the article or press releases, you will see specific information that designates CO2 as a GHG and the technical aspects of how GHG's and CO2 works

3- than you for validating my point about you not knowing or reading the science

just because you can find a political site that caters to your fears and makes you feel better about denying the physics doesn't mean you're being factual, hence my intentional linking of the *free MIT* education where you can learn where you're going wrong
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2018
This is why I keep harping on proving that it can heat a room full of air, the physics says it is IMPOSSIBLE for CO2 to heat air.

You keep harping on this because you are stupid.
Filling a room with CO2 will not heat it up.
Forget about your stupid room analogy, it doesn't work that way.
That is NOT how CO2 causes global warming.
Learn the science.
Depends on the irradiation the room is receiving, and the size of the room, but generally you are correct. It might be interesting to discuss how much irradiation the room needs to receive and how big it needs to be.

Hint, it might need a stratosphere to see what we see. That's just for amusement though. Suddenly the room needs to be 50 miles high. Snicker.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2018
@snooze
stump, just show me the friggen article i'm not reading all that stuff to find it
ok, here is the reason I gave you the link to scholar instead of to the direct article

1- I've linked the article to you more than a few times in the past - you ignored it and then denied it

2- those links contain considerable information that is easily searched allowing you to see that the information is validated in multiple studies

3- you're the one making the claim that the science is wrong or that [x] isn't demonstrated. I've proven you wrong with multiple references.

the burden of proof is on you to prove your religious-like beliefs are correct, not on the overwhelming science that demonstrates you're wrong
that says nothing about warming its about plant growth
if only there were a way to actually search documents for keywords!
Hmmm... what do do!
what to say!
[hyperbole and satire]
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2018
stump ,well that makes sense the other links were 404 , keyword search good , u do it and show me

redpill ; i think you are making an arguement about language , if they had said co2 ' retains ' heat it would have been better CO2 heats the air sounds more alarming i guess
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2018
there is this , but i'm not sure it settles the arguement judging from the comments

https://www.youtu...d5GT0v0I
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2018
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2018
@snooze
well that makes sense the other links were 404
what other links were 404?
the first two links to Google Scholar on this page? they were simply to https://scholar.google.com

or did you mean the first two links in the search page I sent you? because neither were 404 to me, so perhaps your computer has a problem? especially considering my computer limits the BS sites and pseudoscience sites ability to phish or steal info...
keyword search good , u do it and show me
I did it and it worked fine

Showing you now - try this: open a study
use "ctrl" + f to open a search function in that page
type in words you want to search for
*win*
redpill ; i think you are making an arguement about language
I don't think so
he doesn't understand how CO2 is a GHG - explained above with his "furnace" analogy
He's assuming it creates heat whereas not one person has ever said that in any study that I'm aware of
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2018
ainworth et al , meh ? they just assume all the IPCC models are correct , they may well be but i'm being a critic based on my utter distrust of our unelected leaders.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2018
@snooze
they may well be but i'm being a critic based on my utter distrust of our unelected leaders.
dafuq?

did you just say you're denying the science because you distrust your elected leaders?

their position has absolutely nothing to do with the science, especially when the science is global

that *literally* makes no sense to me at all
seriously
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2018
That's gonna make deniers popular.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2018
unelected
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2018
@snooze
unelected
your comment makes less sense with "unelected", especially in light of your comments or support

you *literally* are espousing anti-AGW science because of your "unelected" leaders who are (again, *literally*) promoting anti-science agenda

so your comment that "i'm being a critic based on my utter distrust of our unelected leaders" is *literally* delusion because *your unelected leaders* in the wattsupwiththat (and your other groups) are pushing known pseudoscience, false claims and outright *fraud*

http://www.drexel...nge.ashx
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2018
maybe i like to think for myself , unlike you, apparently

http://www.bom.go...month=04

pick any place, time, stat.

ps you do know ?? you have unelected leaders , a good example, the on the road to ruin EU
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Dec 01, 2018
@snooze
maybe i like to think for myself
that is why I gave you links to learn the science required to understand - in the hopes that you would actually start thinking for yourself instead of clinging to your denier rhetoric from your "leaders"
pick any place, time, stat.
1- "Data may not have completed quality control..."

2- global means the entire globe
this: https://www.unive...ntic.jpg

not this: https://geology.c...-map.gif

you do know ?? you have unelected leaders
you do; I don't

I follow no person
only the evidence

it really pisses off the wife sometimes, but that's the price you pay for marrying an investigator
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2018
@snoose

you know, our conversations tend to have the exact same format

so, if I don't "think for myself" and you do, then why do you deny the facts?
why do you deny physics? experiments? validated studies?

Honest questions here

I really want to know why, in your mind, your appeals to spencer/watts/curry are more valid than the [x] thousands of studies and scientists that debunk their claim?

Seriously!

If they provide scientific evidence of [x]
and they utilise the scientific method
and scientists compete to prove each other wrong and welcome scepticism

then why can't they actually provide validated studies proving their point?

why do you think your seriously minuscule minority of deniers without actual provable validated evidence is superior to the *global* scientific community?

is it because you think for yourself?
or is it because, as you've admitted, you don't understand the science?
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2018
stump , thanks for your reasonable question

re; science etc , i think your position is reasonable enough, even critics agree there is some warming but its a very comlpex subject [rabbit holes all over] there is no certainty nor will there ever be any clear answers . cooler temps if they happen will be blamed on CO2

re; my critical stance , its just my life observing MSM [ or our leaders elected or not] lie about evey important issue . The louder they speak the bigger the lie If climate science and AGW was being iignored i would likely be a vocal supporter. You can't erase that experince and especially so given the reaction against Trump

re evidence ; ''why can't they actually provide validated studies proving their point?'

because they are starting from the the presumption that the basic premise is true and dissenting voices are silenced

snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2018
cont'd


it might be a moral panis . It started that way in the 70'80' s. I[we] were concerned about huamn degredation of the landscape global warming was seen as the ultimate weapon in the fight . The idea that we as humans are deeply flawed and one of those flaws will lead to some sort of doom is an observed phenomenen.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2018
@snoose
even critics agree there is some warming but its a very comlpex subject [rabbit holes all over] there is no certainty nor will there ever be any clear answers
ok - some feedback

there is definitely truth to the subject being complex, however, there is some certainty and clear answers so that the latter part of that comment is not true

there really are some certainties we can determine, which brings me to this
cooler temps if they happen will be blamed on CO2
locally cooler *weather*? yes

This is the *prediction* from Francis, Vavrus that we are *literally* seeing the past few decades due to the destabilisation of the jet stream

mind you, this is one of those validated claims I talked about with you
it was predicted, subsequently observed, and it's demonstrated that the reasons in the studies were valid and match observation

this is the power of the scientific method and why it's trusted over unfounded proclamations

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Dec 01, 2018
@snoose cont'd
its just my life observing MSM [ or our leaders elected or not] lie about evey important issue
this is why you should ignore the news and focus only on the evidence presented in the science

mainstream media make their money on the drama - it's no different than a movie, TV show, play or concert in that regard: if they can find an audience, they will cater to it
If climate science and AGW was being iignored i would likely be a vocal supporter
[sic]
that makes no rational sense
You hear a lot in the news about mass shootings, and it can drag on for weeks for each event, so does that mean they don't exist?
and especially so given the reaction against Trump
politics are not the same thing as science
because they are starting from the the presumption that the basic premise is true and dissenting voices are silenced
nonsensical
dissent isn't silenced in science, it's what drives science to determine facts
2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Dec 01, 2018
@snoose cont'd
dissenting voices are silenced
one reason science is so capable is that there is dissent

Take any QM thread on PO alone and this is demonstrated by the different interpretations of QM and what they mean
global warming was seen as the ultimate weapon in the fight
not sure I agree as there were far, far more pressing weapons to use during the 70-80's, from pollution and acid rain to destruction of habitat
The idea that we as humans are deeply flawed and one of those flaws will lead to some sort of doom is an observed phenomenen
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - Santayana

there is considerable truth in that

snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Dec 01, 2018
''this is why you should ignore the news and focus only on the evidence presented in the science'

no , my point is the louder MSM screams the bigger the lie [ minor issues they mostly get right , mostly , lol ], just an observation

''nonsensical
dissent isn't silenced in science, it's what drives science to determine facts''

i think you are being naive / idealistic, but i understand your desire for rationality. Humans ain't always rational .
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Dec 01, 2018
@snoose
no , my point is the louder MSM screams the bigger the lie [ minor issues they mostly get right , mostly , lol ], just an observation
my point was: skip the news

you're not going to get "news" so much as a "show", therefore you will always see the stupidest drama shouted loudest

it's why the deniers still get so much news coverage
...Humans ain't always rational
I do desire rationality
it's what made me so bloody successful a what I did & do

I don't think it's naive or idealistic though
that would imply I'm not aware of the problems of science or people in general
I fully comprehend humans irrationality - it's what provides me with a paycheck

Science advances on the competition and dissent as it's what settles the accounts

if the "dissent" (secondary hypothesis) fails while the other succeeds, especially if it's validated, then it's evidence of a fact, not opinion

Dissent moves to next contest
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2018
''locally cooler *weather*? yes''

cold is always weather ,warm is always climate , no bias there eh ?

''it's why the deniers still get so much news coverage''

where [ fox ] where else ? , i don't see it

something i notice about you [and others here ] , you never concede a point .

Others who are like this are MSM news presenters and cult members.

i post on a 'denier '' facebook group the discussion there is more open and interesting . less polarized and yes lots of nonsense too.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2018
@snoose
cold is always weather ,warm is always climate , no bias there eh ?
weather is not the same thing as climate, regardless of who makes the claim
where [ fox ] where else ? , i don't see it
I don't watch the news
but almost any climate change article here has deniers linking blogs, news sources and other rhetoric sans science
something i notice about you [and others here ] , you never concede a point
actually, I do - but I won't concede a known false claim

I just don't believe in having an intellectual conversation with a fanatic who won't actually discuss the science as most deniers are wont to do, including ignoring reams of studies that invalidate their claim

it's why I am studying you and it's why you've seen several different tactics from me over the years here
i post on a 'denier '' facebook group the discussion there is more open and interesting
when I open a forum I will welcome challenges *with evidence*

I always have
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2018
@snoose cont'd
i post on a 'denier '' facebook group the discussion there is more open and interesting . less polarized and yes lots of nonsense too
[sic]
more on this: you can have open and honest discourse here on PO as well so long as you approach the conversation with evidence, science and honesty

the biggest problem with the denier camp is their unwillingness to actually accept validated science, such as CO2 is a GHG, or CO2 being toxic, etc

then there is a lack of comprehension about error margins or levels of evidence

Lastly, a denier has an agenda: advocating for their belief over the evidence (just like religion)
Science doesn't have an agenda - it simply seeks to explain the "why" of what is happening

I've never had a problem discussing the science, but I will not repeatedly show anyone the same bloody study a hundred times just to have the person show up a thread later and deny the same evidence

moderation would improve this site
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2018
yup , never concede a point .

less polarization would improve the site ,
by moderation u mean censorship , maybe you should move to China

''''the biggest problem with the denier camp is their unwillingness to actually accept validated science, such as CO2 is a GHG, or CO2 being toxic, etc''

co2 toxic lol

but the larger statement is untrue on other sites less polarized by your tactics

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2018
@snoose
yup , never concede a point
repeating a lie doesn't make it truer
less polarization would improve the site
that won't happen so long as deniers refuse to accept basic rules for evidence
for starters, learn what a fact is vs opinion
http://www.auburn...ion.html

then learn about the scientific method and why a blog or comment on the internet is not equivalent to the evidence presented in a study
https://en.wikipe...c_method

by moderation u mean censorship
nope
I mean accepting basic rules of debate about science, otherwise you will simply state "nuh-uh! I believe it's wrong" and that is all that is needed for rebuttal
IOW - you're essentially pulling a ken ham
co2 toxic lol
https://www.thoughtco.com/carbon-dioxide-poisoning-608396

by your tactics
so facts are bad?
just because it's on the interwebz doesn't mean its true or real
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 01, 2018
When the French start hanging climate deniers from lampposts, don't say I didn't warn you.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Dec 01, 2018
the french ? lol er , certain carbon tax riots going on ,,,,
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Dec 01, 2018
well stumps feel free to talk amongst yourselves
V4Vendicar
not rated yet Dec 03, 2018

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.