Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
joker
seeker



Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 7141 | TRs
Location: state of confusion
joker
seeker
PostSun Nov 12, 2017 3:03 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
On another  note, I just read this  article about how increased CO2 appears to increase the  level of carbohydrates  and decrease the  levels of  other  nutrients in food crops. The good news just keeps piling up!
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 4323 | TRs

gb
Member
PostSun Nov 12, 2017 4:14 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Humptulips wrote:
Spare  me the BS. You watched 2 minutes. Very open minded of you.

Why would anybody watch your political bs when there are many many studies that would completely refute your political statement.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
pimaCanyon
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 1266 | TRs
Location: at the bottom of the map
pimaCanyon
Member
PostMon Nov 13, 2017 1:21 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Humptulips wrote:
Spare  me the BS. You watched 2 minutes. Very open minded of you.

75 minutes is long time for someone to spend looking at what appears to be an illogical, unscientific, and unsupported documentary.

If you are convinced that the science in the video is solid, that it's backed up with solid data and solid logic, how about posting a quick summary here?  Something we all can read in a few minutes.  If your post sounds logical and if there's data to back it up, you will tweak the interests of several of us here and we'll give the video a full look and listen.

If you can't do that, then why are you surprised that no one wants to spend 75 minutes of their life watching a video that's not logical, not based on true science.  The evidence of AGW at this point is overwhelming.  It's up to the deniers to present data and logic that support their denial.  The ball is in your court, not ours.

--------------
It's never too late to have a happy childhood
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1194 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostMon Nov 13, 2017 2:34 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
By the way, I did do a web search on "CO2 does not follow temperature" and ran into a bunch of denier posts about the well-known lag in the ice core record and that's why I added that paragraph to my previous post.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 8284 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((>
PostMon Nov 13, 2017 5:12 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
two minutes is about all it takes to realize it's just a propaganda piece. if they had valid and cogent arguments they wouldn't have needed the flash-frame editing and blow-you-out-of-your-chair background sound.
some people are more easily fooled than others.

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 4323 | TRs

gb
Member
PostTue Nov 14, 2017 3:29 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
New study forecasts many times higher likelihood of extreme rainfall events similar to Harvey in Texas in a global warming climate by the end of this century: MIT study
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger
Armchairing



Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1230 | TRs
Location: Sparkwood & 21
Doppelganger
Armchairing
PostTue Nov 14, 2017 3:49 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Humptulips wrote:
Not willing to listen to the answer though.

I have nothing against disagreeing but the fact that you will not explore both sides of an issue pretty much ruins your credibility

That's the problem. There are not two sides here. There are facts, and the are proven lies such as what you have posted. These statements should be given no credence once proven false. It's so strange to see this viewpoint espoused here, are we seeing a mini version of Russian tampering here at NW Hikers? I mean, MG had always been a little cranky but this last couple of months it's been off the charts.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 5082 | TRs
Location: Greenlake
RandyHiker
Snarky Member
PostTue Nov 14, 2017 4:53 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 402 | TRs

thunderhead
Member
PostWed Nov 15, 2017 10:00 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
from gb's nonsensical link:

Quote:
During this historical period, he calculated that the probability of a Harvey-like storm producing at least 500 millimeters of rain in Houston was around once in 2,000 years.

LOL.  Emanuel is, as usual, a total idiot.  Prime hurricane coast locations will exceed 20 inches of rain only once in two thousand years?  Ahahaha.  For every crank on the right posting 75 minutes of youtube drivel, you have a crank on the left publishing absurdly idiotic things like that.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 402 | TRs

thunderhead
Member
PostWed Nov 15, 2017 10:04 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Quote:
Looking at historical records of extreme rainfall will not provide much insight into the future, Emanuel says.


Then he immediately goes on to say... we will add low confidence model forecasts to an already low confidence data set, and get results you can trust.  LOL.  good one.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 4323 | TRs

gb
Member
PostWed Nov 15, 2017 1:01 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
from gb's nonsensical link:

Quote:
During this historical period, he calculated that the probability of a Harvey-like storm producing at least 500 millimeters of rain in Houston was around once in 2,000 years.

LOL.  Emanuel is, as usual, a total idiot.  Prime hurricane coast locations will exceed 20 inches of rain only once in two thousand years?  Ahahaha.  For every crank on the right posting 75 minutes of youtube drivel, you have a crank on the left publishing absurdly idiotic things like that.

You are a total idiot if you think anyone would take your position compared to Emanuel's. And you misread the reference to the study. Houston received somewhere around 35" of rain and that is the rare event. The study on the other hand used 500mm as a threshold amount.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 4323 | TRs

gb
Member
PostWed Nov 15, 2017 1:05 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
Quote:
Looking at historical records of extreme rainfall will not provide much insight into the future, Emanuel says.


Then he immediately goes on to say... we will add low confidence model forecasts to an already low confidence data set, and get results you can trust.  LOL.  good one.

Apparently you can't read, he didn't say that, rather it is you misconstruing the study, dunderhead/goat.

Be sure to send Emanuel your critique, I am sure he is waiting for your Meterology 101 critique.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 402 | TRs

thunderhead
Member
PostWed Nov 15, 2017 1:50 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Do you think it is reasonable to claim the climate baseline on a hurricane coast is only one 20 inch(or greater) rain event per 2000 years?

If not then, you must agree that Emanuel is an idiot.


I especially like the fact that he set the "climate baseline" at 1 20+ inch event in 2000 years when Houston has actually had 2 much worse events in the last 16 years.

Those extremists(on either side) that howl loudest are not very good at math, it seems.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1194 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostThu Nov 16, 2017 7:07 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
LOL.  Emanuel is, as usual, a total idiot.  Prime hurricane coast locations will exceed 20 inches of rain only once in two thousand years?  Ahahaha.  For every crank on the right posting 75 minutes of youtube drivel, you have a crank on the left publishing absurdly idiotic things like that.

According to the study, since 1899, only 11 hurricanes have dropped rain of that magnitude on any single location in the entire United States. Thus I think saying that one specific city might get it once in 2000 years doesn't sound so odd. People forget that once hurricanes hit land, they tend to speed up (Harvey stalled, the opposite), which prevents the amount of rain in any particular place from accumulating so much. Harvey was not a very strong hurricane, it was a modest hurricane that lacked steering currents to keep it moving.

How could Houston have had "2 much worse events" in the last 16 years if Harvey set the records? Were they hurricanes? The study is only looking at tropical storm events. Anyway, that might partly prove his case since the climate during the last 16 years is not the same climate.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 402 | TRs

thunderhead
Member
PostThu Nov 16, 2017 9:55 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Harvey and Allison were much worse than Emanuel's baseline 500mm value.

I agree that the return time of such storms is almost certainly greater than 16 years... but at the same time it is almost certainly not 2000 years.

Quote:
only 11 hurricanes have dropped rain of that magnitude on any single location in the entire United States.

I would argue the actual value is larger, due to the lack of sampling of all locations, especially further back in time.  However I suspect the true value is not massively larger.  So lets go with that 10 events per 100 years, across our hurricane coast.  The Houston metro area represents a significant chunk of our hurricane coast, and a prime spot at that.  Only the tips of South Florida and Cape Hatteras are more likely to get hit.

With 1 such event every 10 years somewhere, and Houston's high ranking on the list of targets, there's just no way to get to only 1 in 2000.  Its not even close.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday i8seattle, MrDobalina907, PLC92084!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy