Previous :: Next Topic |
Author |
Message |
joker seeker
Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 7953 | TRs | Pics Location: state of confusion |
|
joker
seeker
|
Sun Nov 12, 2017 4:03 pm
|
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
gb Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010 Posts: 6310 | TRs | Pics
|
|
gb
Member
|
Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:14 pm
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
pimaCanyon Member
Joined: 13 Jul 2007 Posts: 1304 | TRs | Pics Location: at the bottom of the map |
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
It's never too late to have a happy childhood
|
Back to top |
|
|
drm Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:34 pm
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
Ski ><((((°>
Joined: 28 May 2005 Posts: 12832 | TRs | Pics Location: tacoma |
|
Ski
><((((°>
|
Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:12 pm
|
|
|
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."
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
|
Back to top |
|
|
gb Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010 Posts: 6310 | TRs | Pics
|
|
gb
Member
|
Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:29 pm
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
Doppelganger
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Randito Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008 Posts: 9513 | TRs | Pics Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Tue Nov 14, 2017 5:53 pm
|
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
thunderhead Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2015 Posts: 1519 | TRs | Pics
|
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 |
|
|
thunderhead Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2015 Posts: 1519 | TRs | Pics
|
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 |
|
|
gb Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010 Posts: 6310 | TRs | Pics
|
|
gb
Member
|
Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:01 pm
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
gb Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010 Posts: 6310 | TRs | Pics
|
|
gb
Member
|
Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:05 pm
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
thunderhead Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2015 Posts: 1519 | TRs | Pics
|
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 |
|
|
drm Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:07 am
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
thunderhead Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2015 Posts: 1519 | TRs | Pics
|
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 |
|
|
|