Here is a reason the Man Made Global Warming Crowd needs to move so fast.

[DJL 235]

DirtyChai

***It's amazing how many scientists we have here that disagree with the real scientists that have spent years on the issue of global warming.

Harvey formed during the peak of hurricane season, in a hurricane hot spot. It would've formed regardless of climate change, and there is no real scientist on the face of the planet that would try convincing you otherwise.

However, they would then break it all down and try to determine how climate change may have intensified the effects of this hurricane.

For example, higher sea levels could cause more damage during a storm surge.

Warmer than usual temps in the gulf might explain why Harvey actually strengthened as it approached landfall, which is relatively unusual. Higher wind speeds = more damage.

However, when it comes to the amount of rainfall for this particular storm, any meteorologist will tell you that it has more to do with the current high pressure systems in that region than it does with climate change. Without that pressure, Harvey would've most likely continued northward, dissipating over the midwest/southeast.

Unfortunately tho, this type of "over-analysis" isn't convenient enough for those who habitually limit themselves to 140 characters or less.

It's shortsighted for anyone to look at a particular instance and say "See look, global warming." What really happens is that there are more instances of the contributing elements that cause storms to be more severe or more frequent.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 3,090]

Quote

However, when it comes to the amount of rainfall for this particular storm, any meteorologist will tell you that it has more to do with the current high pressure systems in that region than it does with climate change. Without that pressure, Harvey would've most likely continued northward, dissipating over the midwest/southeast.

Correct.

AGW didn't cause Harvey or cause it to stall. It just meant that they got more rain than they otherwise would.

Likewise, AGW doesn't cause heat waves; it just results in them being warmer. It doesn't cause droughts; it just means that a given drought will be worse. It doesn't cause tornadoes; it just means that conditions favorable to their formation are more likely.

[rushmc 23]

The bill is coming and it will need to get paid.


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/28/wind-power-some-basic-facts/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DJL 235]

rushmc

The bill is coming and it will need to get paid.


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/28/wind-power-some-basic-facts/

Ah yes, more wattsup. Rush, tell the truth, you're getting kick-backs for clicks on that website, aren't you.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[DirtyChai 0]

DJL

It's shortsighted for anyone to look at a particular instance and say "See look, global warming."

And that shortsightedness is what seems to predominate social media. "OMG, unprecedented flooding! 40 inches of rain! We've never seen anything like this! This is what AGW looks like!

There is an alarmist twitter-storm of anger directed at nonconformists, as if this hurricane is their fault. And by nonconformist, I don't just mean your typical denier. These people will shout down even the most reasonable climate change proponents that dare to provide even the slightest bit of perspective on the issue.

If you're not in lock-step with their propaganda, then forget about any kind of "rational" discourse. It's like, if you don't believe with all of your heart, and confess with your mouth that Harvey is the embodiment of the Lord God AGW here on earth, then you might as well be a conservative Trump loving neo-nazi type I denier.

If people were honest, they'd limit their AGW arguments to contributing factors based on the merit of that which is actually quantifiable in this particular instance, such as slightly larger storm surges due to higher sea levels, and the extra 5 mph of wind upon landfall due to warmer gulf temperatures, but those aren't alarming enough! Why should they let a good hurricane go to waste? It might be another 15 years before we see something like this again!

So, therefore, they are going to take every drop of rain, every flooded house, every destroyed building, every death, and use it to shove their political agenda as far up our collective ass as they possibly can.

[DirtyChai 0]

billvon

AGW didn't cause Harvey or cause it to stall.

You're a terrible alarmist!

The AGW twitter storm would swallow you up and spit you out in Charlottesville for saying something like that!

billvon

It just meant that they got more rain than they otherwise would.

Ok, fair enough, I can see that. But how much more rain? And please, don't tell me the typical "30% more" that people have been trained to say, especially during a storm that has stalled over a particular area for days, and then pushed back into the gulf by high pressure, allowing it to suck up even more moisture to dump on the gulf coast.

We've already determined that the stall had nothing to do with AGW, and if it wasn't for the High pressure system, it would've already dissipated, leaving rainfall totals of only 15-25 inches instead of the predicted 50 inches to come.

It would seem like any practical amount of rainfall attributed to AGW would be negligible given the severity of the stall.

[billvon 3,090]

>It would seem like any practical amount of rainfall attributed to AGW would be
>negligible given the severity of the stall.

Given that water temperatures determine the amount of water evaporated into a hurricane, and that the Gulf at the beginning of Harvey was five degrees warmer than average, that's not really a good assumption. A rule of thumb is that for every degree C increase you add 7% more moisture to the air, so using that alone (and note that there are far more things that affect rainfall than that) you are looking at 20% more moisture in the storm from the outset due to warmer waters.

[normiss 874]

Flood denialism

Interesting piece.

[DJL 235]

DirtyChai

***
It's shortsighted for anyone to look at a particular instance and say "See look, global warming."

And that shortsightedness is what seems to predominate social media. "OMG, unprecedented flooding! 40 inches of rain! We've never seen anything like this! This is what AGW looks like!

There is an alarmist twitter-storm of anger directed at nonconformists, as if this hurricane is their fault. And by nonconformist, I don't just mean your typical denier. These people will shout down even the most reasonable climate change proponents that dare to provide even the slightest bit of perspective on the issue.

If you're not in lock-step with their propaganda, then forget about any kind of "rational" discourse. It's like, if you don't believe with all of your heart, and confess with your mouth that Harvey is the embodiment of the Lord God AGW here on earth, then you might as well be a conservative Trump loving neo-nazi type I denier.

If people were honest, they'd limit their AGW arguments to contributing factors based on the merit of that which is actually quantifiable in this particular instance, such as slightly larger storm surges due to higher sea levels, and the extra 5 mph of wind upon landfall due to warmer gulf temperatures, but those aren't alarming enough! Why should they let a good hurricane go to waste? It might be another 15 years before we see something like this again!

So, therefore, they are going to take every drop of rain, every flooded house, every destroyed building, every death, and use it to shove their political agenda as far up our collective ass as they possibly can.

It's because newspapers want to simplify their headline, "Global Warming Causes Mass Devastation!" It's too difficult to explain that it's more like if you're pouring a bucket of water on something but that bucket of water is a little fuller or it's poured from a little higher. The bucket of water was always being poured and we always has our defenses (flood control) set for that quantity without much margin. Water overflowing a levy system is almost indistinguishable from that levy not being there at all and the devastation will be more pronounced.

That simplification in the article heading turns it into a very oversimplified argument that is indefensible from any viewpoint.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[Phil1111 1,149]

normiss

Flood denialism

Interesting piece.

From the story:
"This is total madness. Taxpayers who habitually bail out the NFIP are almost literally throwing money into the ocean,...

The program is currently $24.6 billion in debt to the Treasury."

Katrina damages were $108 Billion and

Hurricane Harvey may inflict as much as $30 billion in damages on homeowners, according to preliminary estimates. But only 40 percent of that total may be covered by insurance — and of that, the federal government will bear the biggest liability.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/business/dealbook/flood-insurance-harvey.html?mcubz=3

There goes the trump wall...er Mexico wall. Another $18 billion from Harvey will bring the NFIP to $42 billion.

[normiss 874]

God hates Texas AND Trump.

[Phil1111 1,149]

Well Texas is certainly hurting. Despite federal flood funding. Much of the damage will not be covered. Commercial insurers aren't burdened by the stupidity of climate denial. Everything has a price and some areas of Florida, Texas, etc. are no longer covered.

For home-buyers it means CASH. As mortgage lenders want protected assets.

[normiss 874]

Flood zone and level maps are inaccurate and unreliable, making the insurance rates hard to impossible to make sense of, especially for the insurance companies.

[billvon 3,090]

Best denier argument EVER from right wing talk radio guy Mark Levin:

================
Aristotle, Archie-medes, Galileo, Tesla, Faraday, Newton, Pasteur, Einstein and Edison. What do they all have in common? Not a single one of them ever wrote about man-made climate change. Not a single one of them ever wrote about man-made climate change. Because ladies and gentlemen, man-made climate change is not about science. It’s not about evidence. It’s not about knowledge. It’s not about facts. It’s about an ideology, imported in the United States from Europe, like Marxism itself.
=================

Up next - Tesla never wrote about the Moon landings, therefore they were all hoaxes.

[Stumpy 284]

billvon

Best denier argument EVER from right wing talk radio guy Mark Levin:

================
Aristotle, Archie-medes, Galileo, Tesla, Faraday, Newton, Pasteur, Einstein and Edison. What do they all have in common? Not a single one of them ever wrote about man-made climate change. Not a single one of them ever wrote about man-made climate change. Because ladies and gentlemen, man-made climate change is not about science. It’s not about evidence. It’s not about knowledge. It’s not about facts. It’s about an ideology, imported in the United States from Europe, like Marxism itself.
=================

Up next - Tesla never wrote about the Moon landings, therefore they were all hoaxes.

Oh wow. That's as dumb as the banana creationist argument.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[DJL 235]

billvon

Best denier argument EVER from right wing talk radio guy Mark Levin:

================
Aristotle, Archie-medes, Galileo, Tesla, Faraday, Newton, Pasteur, Einstein and Edison. What do they all have in common? Not a single one of them ever wrote about man-made climate change. Not a single one of them ever wrote about man-made climate change. Because ladies and gentlemen, man-made climate change is not about science. It’s not about evidence. It’s not about knowledge. It’s not about facts. It’s about an ideology, imported in the United States from Europe, like Marxism itself.
=================

Up next - Tesla never wrote about the Moon landings, therefore they were all hoaxes.

Hey, whatever keeps Casper Matress and Goldline paying for his airtime... I listen to his show on my late drive home, he plays to the anti-intellectualism crowd and this doesn't surprise me at all.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[Stumpy 284]

Iago

However, if you don't agree with man-made climate change you don't get research grants and funding, you don't get peer reviewed and published, and you are finished as a researcher/scientist for not signing on with the Great Cult of Man-made Climate Change.

You don't really understand how science works do you?

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Phil1111 1,149]

Stumpy

***
However, if you don't agree with man-made climate change you don't get research grants and funding, you don't get peer reviewed and published, and you are finished as a researcher/scientist for not signing on with the Great Cult of Man-made Climate Change.

You don't really understand how science works do you?

Why do people like you insist on ruining the narrative of Breitbart and FOX. Complex checks, quantifiable study sets, scientific peer review of quantifiable data and analysis. Is much, much easier to understand when corruption and politics drives the agenda.

[kallend 2,121]

Iago

However, if you don't agree with man-made climate change you don't get research grants and funding, you don't get peer reviewed and published, and you are finished as a researcher/scientist for not signing on with the Great Cult of Man-made Climate Change.

How do you know this? Are you a professional scientist, or did you hear about it from wattsupwiththat or Breitbart?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,090]

>Do the weather patterns of the planet change over centuries? Absolutely. We know that
>from history, ice cores, and geological research. Is it OUR fault? Jury is still out, but I lean
> towards NO.

Is it our fault that weather patterns change? No.

Is it our fault that we've increased the levels of AGW gases in the atmosphere and thus warmed the planet? Yes. The jury is not still out; 97% of working climate scientists agree. (On a 12 person jury that would mean that 12 people would agree.)

>We would be suffering from the more immediate impacts of pollution (and have in the
>past which led to environmental regs) long before we could significantly shift the overall
>planet.

We were. Google Donora, PA, London killer fogs and LA smog. How did we deal with those problems? We outlawed gross polluters. We passed CARB laws and the EPA passed laws requiring power plants to clean up. We switched from all coal to more nuclear and natural gas, and now renewables. That's why you're no longer seeing so much pollution in the US.

But up until very recently, CO2 was not regulated, because CO2 doesn't make you sick until you get up to about 2000ppm. Right now we are at 400ppm and rising - enough to increase the amount of heat the atmosphere retained, but not enough to make you sick.

>China isn't shifting the climate, but they are killing themselves breathing that crap.

China is shifting the climate - in fact they are now doing it more than we are.

>However, if you don't agree with man-made climate change you don't get research grants
>and funding, you don't get peer reviewed and published, and you are finished as a
>researcher/scientist for not signing on with the Great Cult of Man-made Climate Change.

If you, as a scientist, could prove that CO2 did not contribute to climate change, then you would be guaranteed a Nobel prize and your choice of jobs and funding. That's how science works.

[kallend 2,121]

billvon

>planet.

We were. Google Donora, PA, London killer fogs and LA smog. How did we deal with those problems? We outlawed gross polluters. We passed CARB laws and the EPA passed laws requiring power plants to clean up. We switched from all coal to more nuclear and natural gas, and now renewables. That's why you're no longer seeing so much pollution in the US.

I am old enough to remember the London killer fogs (I was 7 in 1952). And I remember how quickly they became a thing of the past once the pollution regulations were enacted.

Unfortunately CO2 won't purge from the atmosphere as quickly as soot particles did.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,090]

>Given enough data I can prove that the increasing sale of condoms is driving
>climate change.

If you could prove condom sales rather than anthropogenic greenhouse gases were driving warming, you would win a Nobel prize. The problem is not "getting enough data" the problem is proving something that is untrue, which all the data in the world won't help with. (If it's valid data, of course.)

You're exhibiting a pretty common misconception - that science is fundamentally wrong, that if you have enough money you can make it say whatever you want. That's simply not true. If it was true, we wouldn't be able to build integrated circuits, spacecraft, electron microscopes, hard drives, MRI scanners and A380's. We can build those things because science makes accurate predictions about how the natural world works, and those predictions are constantly refined.

That's why we now understand AGW - because of several decades of work, predictions and validations of those predictions. Want to disprove it? You might be able to, and like I said, if you could you'd win a Nobel. But it will take a LOT more than some quotes from Wattsupwiththat to do so.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Have you ever been a Graduate or Doctoral candidate?

Have you? What field?

- Dan G

[kallend 2,121]

DanG

Quote

Have you ever been a Graduate or Doctoral candidate?

Have you? What field?

He posts anonymously - he can claim to be a Nobel laureate and we'd have no way of verifying.

Anonymous posters have little credibility beyond being trolls.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GeorgiaDon 379]

DanG

Quote

Have you ever been a Graduate or Doctoral candidate?

Have you? What field?

I'd guess reverse biofuels technology.
Biofuels: converting bullshit into ethanol.
Reverse biofuels: I'm sure people can figure it out.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)