More Climate BS...

#3,301
#3,301
EasternVol said:
That's true. And @OrangeTsar should consider the effects of climate change before he dismisses them.
Click to expand...
Did not seem he was dismissive of climate change. In fact, I believe he has been like a lot of us: "yeah, climate changes, deal with it." He's dismissive of the crowd who keep making preposterous predictions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, StarRaider, marcusluvsvols and 4 others
#3,303
#3,303
OHvol40 said:
Really? Because it looks like a generalized statement to me, and nothing that refutes the effects of rising atmospheric CO2 levels.
Click to expand...
Did you not appeal to authority? Some report from 2023 or something? If not, then I misread your post. @OrangeTsar offered a refutation of all the climate crowd's predictions. I made a similar comment about Punxsutawny Phil being more accurate than Al Gore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#3,305
#3,305
OHvol40 said:
If Joe (or anyone for that matter) can successfully rebut the latest multi-agency climate report (NCA5 if you need something searchable) then I’m all ears… but ruminating does not equal climate science.
Click to expand...
it starts out with the same old tired assumptions. for some reason (probably because the report is locked) I can't crtl+C crtl+V quotes here:

But Page 2-4 right in the introduction it notes that we are two degrees (in freedom units) warmer than we were in the late 1800s. and says there is no known natural process for this. That quote, nor at least the first two citations, even note that we were in a mini-Ice Age before that period. and it seems lazy AF to say there is no natural process that causes the earth to warm.

even in the citations they point out the limitations of what they are looking at. they point out that ONE natural system is likely not the cause of temperature increases, and then just jumps to man made causes. nothing in between. there are apparently only two POSSIBLE causes. "As highlighted in Chapters 2 to 4 of this Report, it is likely that there have been observational changes in the extratropical jets and mid-latitude jet meandering (Section 2.3.1.4.3 and Cross-Chapter Box 10.1). There is low confidence in possible effects of Arctic warming on mid-latitude temperature extremes (Cross-Chapter Box 10.1). A large portion of the multi-decadal changes in extreme temperature remains after the removal of the effect of these modes of variability, and can be attributed to human influence (Kamae et al., 2017b; Wan et al., 2019). " https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-11/

in that reports Chapter 3, they dismiss TWO natural causes. and says volcanic activity is not a cause for long term change when we know it has been in the past. and even one of their citations states as much.
"These findings indicate that volcanism is a major cause for the deviations between the actual and predicted [Flato et al., 2013] global warming since year 2000."

I certainly don't have time to read the 1800 pages of NCA5, nor all of its citations, but it seems like it starts off with the same assumptions, and ignores the parts of its citations that doesn't fit that predetermined assumption.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, marcusluvsvols and McDad
#3,306
#3,306
OrangeTsar said:
Make a testable prediction based on the hypothesis of man made climate change and see if it happens or not. That’s how „science“ works.
„Bad weather will happen“ is not a testable prediction. Because bad weather has ALWAYS happened.
Click to expand...
I suggest you actually read the latest report. 1 billion dollar disasters (adjusted for inflation in today’s dollars) used to happen every 82 days in 1980, now they happen every 19.

Don’t take my word for it though, ask the city leaders of Miami who have to find 5.3 billion in budget to construct their system to combat “rainy day flooding.” Or look at the pentagon’s requests. They can’t afford to have their head in the sand like you, they have to be honest with themselves: “
The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) requested approximately
$3.1 billion for climate-related investments in its FY2023 budget, focusing on installation resilience ($2B), technology ($807M), and operational energy ($247M). This is a significant increase from the $617 million identified in the FY2022 budget.“

I know you would like it to be everyone’s job to convince you of something that you’re determined never to be convinced of, but I won’t be spinning my wheels.
 
#3,307
#3,307
LouderVol said:
it starts out with the same old tired assumptions. for some reason (probably because the report is locked) I can't crtl+C crtl+V quotes here:

But Page 2-4 right in the introduction it notes that we are two degrees (in freedom units) warmer than we were in the late 1800s. and says there is no known natural process for this. That quote, nor at least the first two citations, even note that we were in a mini-Ice Age before that period. and it seems lazy AF to say there is no natural process that causes the earth to warm.

even in the citations they point out the limitations of what they are looking at. they point out that ONE natural system is likely not the cause of temperature increases, and then just jumps to man made causes. nothing in between. there are apparently only two POSSIBLE causes. "As highlighted in Chapters 2 to 4 of this Report, it is likely that there have been observational changes in the extratropical jets and mid-latitude jet meandering (Section 2.3.1.4.3 and Cross-Chapter Box 10.1). There is low confidence in possible effects of Arctic warming on mid-latitude temperature extremes (Cross-Chapter Box 10.1). A large portion of the multi-decadal changes in extreme temperature remains after the removal of the effect of these modes of variability, and can be attributed to human influence (Kamae et al., 2017b; Wan et al., 2019). " https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-11/

in that reports Chapter 3, they dismiss TWO natural causes. and says volcanic activity is not a cause for long term change when we know it has been in the past. and even one of their citations states as much.
"These findings indicate that volcanism is a major cause for the deviations between the actual and predicted [Flato et al., 2013] global warming since year 2000."

I certainly don't have time to read the 1800 pages of NCA5, nor all of its citations, but it seems like it starts off with the same assumptions, and ignores the parts of its citations that doesn't fit that predetermined assumption.
Click to expand...
We can track the level of industrialization and the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. They directly correlate. We can track roughly how much greenhouse gases each polluter (vehicles, coal fired plants, etc) release into the atmosphere. We live in a finite container. This isn’t difficult to figure out. There ARE natural process that change the climate, but none that are releasing greenhouse gases like humans do in a matter of decades. If you know of any, I would love to hear about them and point to where the massive release of CO2 into our atmosphere is coming from.
 
#3,308
#3,308
OHvol40 said:
I suggest you actually read the latest report. 1 billion dollar disasters (adjusted for inflation in today’s dollars) used to happen every 82 days in 1980, now they happen every 19.

Don’t take my word for it though, ask the city leaders of Miami who have to find 5.3 billion in budget to construct their system to combat “rainy day flooding.” Or look at the pentagon’s requests. They can’t afford to have their head in the sand like you, they have to be honest with themselves: “
The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) requested approximately
$3.1 billion for climate-related investments in its FY2023 budget, focusing on installation resilience ($2B), technology ($807M), and operational energy ($247M). This is a significant increase from the $617 million identified in the FY2022 budget.“

I know you would like it to be everyone’s job to convince you of something that you’re determined never to be convinced of, but I won’t be spinning my wheels.
Click to expand...
are the storms getting that much worse, or is there that much more volume of development? and has the value of said development increased?

all these report assume the only reason we are seeing more billion dollar events is because we are having more events. they never factor in the other reasons.

I am willing to bet we aren't seen a huge marked difference, somewhere around some average, in the "events". we are just more aware of them, go back even 100 years and there was no real way of tracking storms except to physically witness them. and we are covering more of the earth, so those same storms are more likely to hit humans now than they did in the past.

all of these studies assume the big storm events were in the "normal" range before our modern tech tells us what is happening today. there is no way to really say if it was indeed "normal/average". we could be returning to the mean.
 
  • Like
Reactions: walkenvol, marcusluvsvols and GroverCleveland
#3,309
#3,309
OHvol40 said:
I suggest you actually read the latest report. 1 billion dollar disasters (adjusted for inflation in today’s dollars) used to happen every 82 days in 1980, now they happen every 19.

Don’t take my word for it though, ask the city leaders of Miami who have to find 5.3 billion in budget to construct their system to combat “rainy day flooding.” Or look at the pentagon’s requests. They can’t afford to have their head in the sand like you, they have to be honest with themselves: “
The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) requested approximately
$3.1 billion for climate-related investments in its FY2023 budget, focusing on installation resilience ($2B), technology ($807M), and operational energy ($247M). This is a significant increase from the $617 million identified in the FY2022 budget.“

I know you would like it to be everyone’s job to convince you of something that you’re determined never to be convinced of, but I won’t be spinning my wheels.
Click to expand...

In that report did they take into account new development and rise in costs?

The pentagon funding request isn't alarming, I'd be more alarmed if the pentagon didn't jump on the bandwagon for additional funding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, Vol since 77, McDad and 1 other person
#3,310
#3,310
OHvol40 said:
We can track the level of industrialization and the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. They directly correlate. We can track roughly how much greenhouse gases each polluter (vehicles, coal fired plants, etc) release into the atmosphere. We live in a finite container. This isn’t difficult to figure out. There ARE natural process that change the climate, but none that are releasing greenhouse gases like humans do in a matter of decades. If you know of any, I would love to hear about them and point to where the massive release of CO2 into our atmosphere is coming from.
Click to expand...
whats funny is you are ignoring one of the "symptoms" of global warming to say there is no natural process. I don't think there is too much CO2 from this, but there are plenty of methane traps being opened up as ice/permafrost melts.

that just shows how much of an assumption science has made about what is actually "normal". if we don't observe it, the creation of the methane trapped by permafrost, we assume it didn't happen. so when it suddenly happens its "new", when in reality it was always around, we just weren't aware.
 
#3,311
#3,311
hog88 said:
In that report did they take into account new development and rise in costs?

The pentagon funding request isn't alarming, I'd be more alarmed if the pentagon didn't jump on the bandwagon for additional funding.
Click to expand...
don't worry seed bullets will save the environment. because science says so, it must be worthwhile.
 
#3,312
#3,312
OHvol40 said:
I suggest you actually read the latest report. 1 billion dollar disasters (adjusted for inflation in today’s dollars) used to happen every 82 days in 1980, now they happen every 19.

Don’t take my word for it though, ask the city leaders of Miami who have to find 5.3 billion in budget to construct their system to combat “rainy day flooding.” Or look at the pentagon’s requests. They can’t afford to have their head in the sand like you, they have to be honest with themselves: “
The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) requested approximately
$3.1 billion for climate-related investments in its FY2023 budget, focusing on installation resilience ($2B), technology ($807M), and operational energy ($247M). This is a significant increase from the $617 million identified in the FY2022 budget.“

I know you would like it to be everyone’s job to convince you of something that you’re determined never to be convinced of, but I won’t be spinning my wheels.
Click to expand...
I know you are well intentioned but this is such a bad stat to cite as evidence we need to be concerned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77 and GroverCleveland
#3,313
#3,313
LouderVol said:
whats funny is you are ignoring one of the "symptoms" of global warming to say there is no natural process. I don't think there is too much CO2 from this, but there are plenty of methane traps being opened up as ice/permafrost melts.

that just shows how much of an assumption science has made about what is actually "normal". if we don't observe it, the creation of the methane trapped by permafrost, we assume it didn't happen. so when it suddenly happens its "new", when in reality it was always around, we just weren't aware.
Click to expand...
Why is the permafrost melting dude? Lol
 
#3,315
#3,315
OHvol40 said:
I suggest you actually read the latest report. 1 billion dollar disasters (adjusted for inflation in today’s dollars) used to happen every 82 days in 1980, now they happen every 19.

Don’t take my word for it though, ask the city leaders of Miami who have to find 5.3 billion in budget to construct their system to combat “rainy day flooding.” Or look at the pentagon’s requests. They can’t afford to have their head in the sand like you, they have to be honest with themselves: “
The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) requested approximately
$3.1 billion for climate-related investments in its FY2023 budget, focusing on installation resilience ($2B), technology ($807M), and operational energy ($247M). This is a significant increase from the $617 million identified in the FY2022 budget.“

I know you would like it to be everyone’s job to convince you of something that you’re determined never to be convinced of, but I won’t be spinning my wheels.
Click to expand...
During 2023 and 2024, the average time between billion-dollar disasters was just 12 days.
Click to expand...

I would love to see their list of "disasters". I can't imagine we have a billion dollar weather disaster every two weeks
 
#3,317
#3,317
OHvol40 said:
No need for denigration, explain…
Click to expand...
Denigration??? You were criticized or belittled in my post? I don't see it. My "well intentioned" is sincere.

Damage at 1B or more adjusted for inflation is not only related to weather events. The weather isn't the only variable. Other variables off the top of my head are:
- population. I think the population has doubled in the Metro Miami area. More people, more property, more businesses all contribute to increased cost of damage.
- property valuations. The cost of real estate being damaged is higher now than in 1980. I don't know if those values are adjusted for inflation like the 1B stat is. Essentially the 1B adjusted doesn't go as far as it used to.
- Codes and zoning are more stringent today than 1980. Not saying that is a bad thing especially for a city at sea level built on a 'sandbar'. But those regulations add considerably to the cost of damage repair compared to 1980.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
#3,319
#3,319
OHvol40 said:
Why is the permafrost melting dude? Lol
Click to expand...
Hasn't it been melting since the last glacial maximum? Speaking of, I've always thought it amusing if our civilization had risen just before the glaciers started retreating back from Minnesota, Canada, etc. Can anyone imagine the freakout by the Apocalypticism crowd? 'We're all going to die if Montana is uncovered!'
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider, marcusluvsvols and hog88
#3,320
#3,320
OHvol40 said:
Why is the permafrost melting dude? Lol
Click to expand...
the permafrost is melting because we aren't in a global cooling period, dude. until or unless someone actually addresses the mini-Ice Age and the impact that would have on our assumed "norms" we have purposefully skewed data.

I guess you just skipped over the second part of my statement. that methane wasn't new, and it wasn't due to man. the methane was there and due to nature. science just didn't factor it into their "natural" side of things because it ever so slightly skews the numbers away from it being a man made thing. its very likely, see I avoid the absolutes the "scientists" cling to, that the natural warming would have exposed that methane, or really never trapped it, with or without man.

but because man exists, and we are greater than all things natural, the only allowable assumption is that man caused everything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, marcusluvsvols, Vol since 77 and 2 others
#3,324
#3,324
McDad said:
Permafrost isn't permanent. Animals, even extinct ones, are commonly found in permafrost. Which means at one time the perma frost was not frozen...at least to me. Perhaps i've got my wires crossed on it.
Click to expand...
shhh, we are seeing the new age creationists at work. the world is only a couple thousand years old, and it has been exactly as we see it today in the 21st century. any type of change must be because of the evils of man, and not part of some natural processes playing out that lead to world around us today.
 
#3,325
#3,325
OHvol40 said:
Read the report lol
Click to expand...
I see a lot of variance in the report. The most expensive year was 2017. The next most expensive year was 2005, followed by 2022.

Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Summary of U.S. billion-dollar weather and climate related disaster research, methodology, and data sources
www.ncei.noaa.gov www.ncei.noaa.gov

The most violent tornado outbreak in the USA ever was 1974 (I lived through this, I know it well). Over 2 days there were 149 tornados. Damage was only $4billion in today's dollars. Today repairs would cost far more I'm sure.

en.wikipedia.org

1974 Super Outbreak - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top