Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Global Warming
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostMon Jul 08, 2019 9:36 pm 
Why would shorter term concerns de-legitimize longer term concerns? Flip the priority and pitch the same argument to the man in the mirror. I do find it interesting to see ultra conservative leaning family members investing in electric vehicles. I suspect the grandkids have an impact.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
Member
PostTue Jul 09, 2019 6:43 am 
Tom wrote:
Why would shorter term concerns de-legitimize longer term concerns?
Immediate concerns don't delegitimize long term concerns, but for rational people they do reprioritize them. It's nice that we have the first-world luxury of obsessing about problems that we struggle to even detect. And I'm probably no more concerned about my fellow man than the next guy, but the whinging about 'climate justice' and 'frontline communities' from the climate alarmists, and their faux concern for sea-level-rise- and future-drought-afflicted people of the world, does ring a little bit hollow when the alarmists won't admit that climate change is far down the priority list (for good reason) for many people of the world.

John
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
Member
PostTue Jul 09, 2019 7:01 am 
Annual change in the world's energy supply 2001-2018, from https://www.worldenergydata.org/world-energy-supply/ Note that last year's growth of energy from fossil fuels was about four times the growth in renewables, and trending up.
annual change world energy
annual change world energy

John
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6303 | TRs | Pics
gb
Member
PostTue Jul 09, 2019 3:15 pm 
Extreme flash flooding in Washington DC including Whitehouse Earlier (like 2 months ago) rains in the midwest were said to be 150-400% (CPC July Discussion) or more than normal; last year it was Pennsylvania. Hope I didn't leave anybody out.... Current language CPC:
Quote:
During the past week, CFS, GFS, and ECMWF model guidance have been in generally good agreement on a circulation transition towards the typical, climatological summer pattern across the United States. This summer pattern features mean 500-hPa long-wave trough axes near both the Pacific and the Atlantic Coasts, and a mean ridge axis near the High Plains. West-northwesterly low-amplitude flow aloft downstream of the ridge axis favors a pattern that is not as cool and not as wet across the north-central states, which have experienced excessive rainfall, saturated soils, and devastating floods during the past 30-45 days. While a reduction in precipitation seems reasonable compared to what has fallen during the past 30-45 days, it is important to remember that for this part of the Nation summertime is the primary time for the development of thunderstorm clusters. These clusters (known as Mesoscale Convective Systems, or MCS's) often develop at night, and may persist well past daybreak. About 40-45 percent of the annual precipitation received in this region typically falls during the warm season with these MCS's and frontal systems. Unfortunately, the record or near-record saturated soils currently across the North-Central CONUS has resulted in a substantial delay in the planting of various crops such as corn and soybeans. Elsewhere, over the Southwest/Four Corners region, July is when the western portion of the subtropical ridge (known as the Four Corner's High) builds over this part of the country, attended by the climatological onset of the Southwest Summer Monsoon. Given the weak El Nino this summer, it is thought that the Four Corner's High could be shifted somewhat northward of its climatological position, resulting in a delayed onset of the Monsoon.
Any predictions of economic impacts from GW are just pie in the sky. The events are extreme - beyond previously known records or situations. General effects like a 7% increase in atmospheric H2O per 1C increase are easy - but that has nothing to do with localized or regional effects or economic costs.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1511 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostWed Jul 10, 2019 8:30 am 
Ahh the hysterics are back in fashion i see. Some part of the Mississippi river or its tributaries always floods and minor segments of DC got a pretty modest flash flood from isolated slow moving thunderstorms... utterly normal. Now with New Orleans possibly flooding this weekend we are in for another end of the world media hypefest. Because a city built at and below sea level on the banks of a river that always floods and also on a tropical storm coast could never possibly flood on its own...

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1511 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostWed Jul 10, 2019 8:36 am 
RandyHiker wrote:
Well -- you in two posts earlier summarily dismissed any information from Skeptical Science-- so I followed your lead.
And todays lesson shall be... how to determine trustworthiness of sites on the internet 101. 1) If it ends in ".com" it is less likely to be reliable, especially when its main links are to other .coms and data is lacking. 2) if it ends in .gov or .edu it is more likely to be reliable, especially if it is a noted purveyor of scientific data in its field. Class dismissed.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Doppelganger





Doppelganger
PostWed Jul 10, 2019 9:23 am 

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
Member
PostWed Jul 10, 2019 10:14 am 
If you actually want a response from me you'll need to drop the snottiness.

John
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Doppelganger





Doppelganger
PostWed Jul 10, 2019 11:01 am 

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostWed Jul 10, 2019 2:14 pm 
thunderhead wrote:
RandyHiker wrote:
Well -- you in two posts earlier summarily dismissed any information from Skeptical Science-- so I followed your lead.
And todays lesson shall be... how to determine trustworthiness of sites on the internet 101. 1) If it ends in ".com" it is less likely to be reliable, especially when its main links are to other .coms and data is lacking. 2) if it ends in .gov or .edu it is more likely to be reliable, especially if it is a noted purveyor of scientific data in its field. Class dismissed.
Given that foxnews.com, MSNBC.com and WSJ.com all end in .com I think .com is insufficient evidence to evaluate the credibility of the information on a site. You out of hand dismissed the information on SkepticalScience.com because it was inconvenient to refute the actual data presented.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1511 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostWed Jul 10, 2019 2:36 pm 
RandyHiker wrote:
Given that foxnews.com, MSNBC.com and WSJ.com all end in .com I think .com is insufficient evidence to evaluate the credibility of the information on a site.
Not one of those 3 has the slightest shred of scientific credibility. The first 2 are worth absolutely nothing, and WSJ might be worth a very small amount for maybe getting some simple economic news right from time to time. So the point stands. .com is generally to be avoided if you want credibility.
RandyHiker wrote:
You out of hand dismissed the information on SkepticalScience.com because it was inconvenient to refute the actual data"
Lol there was data? Haha. Where amongst the nonsense blog posts and hysterical wolf crying was this so called data?

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1511 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostWed Jul 10, 2019 2:41 pm 
You know you have reached a totally bogus site when a tab is labelled "arguments" another is labeled "donate" and not one contains the word "data". Lol skepticalscience.com might as well be antivax-healingcrystals.com

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostWed Jul 10, 2019 2:51 pm 
thunderhead wrote:
You know you have reached a totally bogus site when a tab is labelled "arguments" another is labeled "donate" and not one contains the word "data". Lol skepticalscience.com might as well be antivax-healingcrystals.com
Again a simple broad brush dismal. I posted links to specific refutations of a number popular of Climate Change denial theories. You haven't refuted any of the specific cases. In reflecting on the various climate change denial theories posted in this thread by yourself, MtnGoat and others, I'm not recalling anything that isn't covered by SkepticalScience.com list of popular climate change denial theories. So it seems that there isn't a lot of original thinking or research going on...

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1511 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostWed Jul 10, 2019 3:06 pm 
You posted a link to a trash blog and I indeed dismissed the entire thing as trash, after a quick glance showed no data and multiple simple physics errors. Come back with something that isnt trash if you want me to give it any significant attention.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostWed Jul 10, 2019 3:12 pm 
Trash blog? Are you referring to Skeptical Science? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Science

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday noahk!
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