Dude, where are my hurricanes?

[airdvr 210]

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

Thanks.

You could have just started with that, and you know, not said the other things.

OK.  Let's start with that then.

[airdvr 210]

41 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

The trust that republicans have in science has dropped from 72% to 46% over the last 46 years."Republicans' lack of trust in science opens up the possibility of their being more vulnerable to influence by ideas that lack scientific support, especially if those ideas are advanced by political conservatives they implicitly trust."

The Reason Some Republicans Mistrust Science: Their Leaders Tell Them To

“One of the things we know from studies about how people respond to news is that nobody likes science or empiricism when it conflicts with their deeply held views.  " Not everybody gets a vote on how to fly the plane,” said Nichols, who wrote about the trend in a 2017 book, “The Death of Expertise.” In the pandemic, “This rejection of science and of expertise [has] become [a] demonstration of political loyalty. That’s the part I didn’t expect — that there would be an entire political movement, led by the president of the United "States, to basically disavow science.”

So for those who disavow science. Its just a matter of being loyal. To the tribe. Its been going on in America since the 70's. So arguing fact, will most likely be unsuccessful.

 

For me it's much more realist v. political.  I'm old enough to remember all of the cause de celebre that turned out to be bullshit.  Maybe I'm just a cynical old fuck.  I'm sure Van Gogh wouldn't have minded a little soup for the cause.

[billvon 3,110]

2 hours ago, airdvr said:

Here’s a breakdown of all the human activities that produce greenhouse gases. Getting to zero means zeroing out every one of these categories:

Nope.  Getting to net zero means getting close to zero production of CO2 and also creating processes that extract CO2 from the environment.  (Both sides of the equation matter.)

But we don't need to get to net zero.  We just need to reduce the amount of CO2 we emit to the point that the planet's existing regulation system can handle the excess CO2.

[billvon 3,110]

3 hours ago, airdvr said:

Funny when someone shits on the cost of things you all consider green the response is always "it will get better". 

More like "it is in reality getting better."  Solar has dropped in price by a factor of 20 in the past 20 years.  That's actual dollars, not adjusted dollars - in adjusted dollars it's closer to 50x.

Quote

You'll never build enough wind and solar to replace coal and gas fired power plants.

I've done it.

[airdvr 210]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

More like "it is in reality getting better."  Solar has dropped in price by a factor of 20 in the past 20 years.  That's actual dollars, not adjusted dollars - in adjusted dollars it's closer to 50x.

I've done it.

So you're making concrete and steel at your home?  Excellent.

[billvon 3,110]

2 minutes ago, airdvr said:

So you're making concrete and steel at your home?  Excellent.

Nope.  I built enough solar/storage to replace coal and gas fired power plants - for my needs.

[airdvr 210]

4 minutes ago, billvon said:

Nope.  I built enough solar/storage to replace coal and gas fired power plants - for my needs.

You live in a mud hut?  I'm assuming your home has a foundation...maybe a steel beam holding up the first floor.

[billvon 3,110]

47 minutes ago, airdvr said:

You live in a mud hut? 

Nope.

You are trying really, really hard to misunderstand your own posts.  Good luck with that.

[airdvr 210]

6 minutes ago, billvon said:

Nope.

You are trying really, really hard to misunderstand your own posts.  Good luck with that.

Quit being obtuse.  You know what I'm saying.  Your home probably has a concrete foundation and maybe a steel beam.

I know you generate your own power.  Until you generate your own concrete and steel you are not 100% self reliant.

[billvon 3,110]

1 minute ago, airdvr said:

Quit being obtuse.  You know what I'm saying. 

OK maybe you're really not following the conversation.

You: "You'll never build enough wind and solar to replace coal and gas fired power plants."
Me: "I've done it."

I replaced my need for coal and gas fired power plants.  Not for cement kilns.  Not asphalt.  Not plastic.  Not lubricants.  Just power plants - which is what you yourself said.

[airdvr 210]

Just now, billvon said:

OK maybe you're really not following the conversation.

You: "You'll never build enough wind and solar to replace coal and gas fired power plants."
Me: "I've done it."

I replaced my need for coal and gas fired power plants.  Not for cement kilns.  Not asphalt.  Not plastic.  Not lubricants.  Just power plants - which is what you yourself said.

A little arrogant to think that statement applied to just you.  The world will never build enough wind and solar to replace coal and gas fired power plants.  Happy now?

[jakee 1,594]

7 hours ago, airdvr said:

Hehe.  When you get a bit older the money factor becomes more obvious.  No, I'm not a scientist but I would challenge you to name one mostly government funded program that isn't rife with corruption.

 Nice to hear you have such a high opinion of America’s men and women in uniform.

 

But look, for ‘follow the money’ to work you have to follow it from the source, not just to the destination. Where is the money source intent on paying people to confirm global warming? It can’t be political, because in the USA for the past 30 years no matter who controls the WH, House and Senate the science has said broadly the same thing. It’s not just an American thing, because in every country the science says broadly the same thing.

 

If the money is so obvious to you then tell me where it’s coming from, not just where it’s going.

Edited October 15, 2022 by jakee

[jakee 1,594]

4 hours ago, airdvr said:

You asked me for my conclusion.  So my conclusion is we're getting fleeced by a subset of the scientific community whose motivation is more dollars for continued research.

Then how come no government, regardless of political affiliation, has seen through it before?

 

I have this general sanity check that I like to apply. If you think you’ve come up with an incredibly obvious idea/solution and it seems like no one whose job it is to think about these things has ever thought of it before….. there’s probably a good reason for that.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

6 hours ago, airdvr said:

name one mostly government funded program that isn't rife with corruption.

Name me one privately funded program that isn't rife with corruption.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

6 hours ago, airdvr said:

Getting to zero means zeroing out every one of these categories:

lol, tell me you have zero clue what the fuck you are talking about without telling me you have absolutely zero clue what you are talking about.

[airdvr 210]

3 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

lol, tell me you have zero clue what the fuck you are talking about without telling me you have absolutely zero clue what you are talking about.

I guess you'd have to ask Bill Gates

[billvon 3,110]

5 hours ago, airdvr said:

A little arrogant to think that statement applied to just you. 

Wow you are really not following the conversation here.

Your reply to me: "You live in a mud hut?  I'm assuming your home has a foundation..."

I was answering you.  You used a personal pronoun, which means you directed your comment at me, not the whole world.

Quote

The world will never build enough wind and solar to replace coal and gas fired power plants.  Happy now?

Literally true, just as the world has never (and never will) build enough coal and natural gas power plants to replace renewable energy.  The goal is replacing all carbon-intensive power sources with low carbon or zero carbon sources.

[JoeWeber 2,936]

7 hours ago, billvon said:

Wow you are really not following the conversation here.

Your reply to me: "You live in a mud hut?  I'm assuming your home has a foundation..."

I was answering you.  You used a personal pronoun, which means you directed your comment at me, not the whole world.

Literally true, just as the world has never (and never will) build enough coal and natural gas power plants to replace renewable energy.  The goal is replacing all carbon-intensive power sources with low carbon or zero carbon sources.

You have to wonder if a world without easily accessible carbon based fuels could initiate complex life as we know it here.

I have zero disagreement with climate science or that CO2 is warming the planet to what will someday be unfortunate consequences. But looking around I see a lot of reasons to not believe we are a long lived species. It's harsh but if you knew it was better to work on your bucket list than frustrate over your recycling I'm thinking it would be irrational to do otherwise. Seems to me.

[gowlerk 2,274]

7 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

It's harsh but if you knew it was better to work on your bucket list than frustrate over your recycling I'm thinking it would be irrational to do otherwise. Seems to me.

Which is exactly what almost everyone is doing for the most part. We all live our lives and make small nearly meaningless adjustments. Like putting recycle bins at our DZs while burning as much fuel as possible.

[Phil1111 1,173]

3 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Which is exactly what almost everyone is doing for the most part. We all live our lives and make small nearly meaningless adjustments. Like putting recycle bins at our DZs while fulfilling our bucket lists as much as possible.

FIFY

[brenthutch 444]

Meanwhile in the Atlantic
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/

 

At odds with the predictions by the climate experts 

https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/noaa-predicts-above-normal-2022-atlantic-hurricane-season

“NOAA’s outlook for the 2022 Atlantic hurricane season, which extends from June 1 to November 30, predicts a 65% chance of an above-normal season, a 25% chance of a near-normal season and a 10% chance of a below-normal season.

For the 2022 hurricane season, NOAA is forecasting a likely range of 14 to 21 named storms (winds of 39 mph or higher), of which 6 to 10 could become hurricanes (winds of 74 mph or higher), including 3 to 6 major hurricanes (category 3, 4 or 5; with winds of 111 mph or higher). NOAA provides these ranges with a 70% confidence.”

 

Edited October 18, 2022 by brenthutch

[olofscience 492]

 

6 hours ago, brenthutch said:

At odds with the predictions by the climate experts 

You need to go and look up what probability is.

 

Meanwhile in the Pacific, there's been cyclone after cyclone.

Edited October 18, 2022 by olofscience

[jakee 1,594]

10 hours ago, brenthutch said:

NOAA provides these ranges with a 70% confidence.”

Sounds like the experts are saying this stuff is really difficult to predict.

[gowlerk 2,274]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

Sounds like the experts are saying this stuff is really difficult to predict.

Doesn't 70% confidence mean that 3 times out of ten it will be wrong? 

[brenthutch 444]

16 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Doesn't 70% confidence mean that 3 times out of ten it will be wrong? 

Flipping a coin would have been more economical.

BTW they gave only a 10% chance of a below average season.  Average is six hurricanes we have had only four.

Edited October 18, 2022 by brenthutch