patrick.net

Dan8267 says

I guess we're experience time dilation, not climate change.

Clearly, Jesus is sticking his toe in the water before coming back. He might wait for it to warm up a bit, though, before giving us another once in a 6000 year storm.

Hmm, how to tilt the hyperbole so it sounds convincing to the masses of ignorant, but not so outlandish that it induces howling laughter in the knowledgeable.

Ceffer says

the knowledgeable

If the knowledgeable had more influence in public opinion, there would be no debate about whether to decrease CO2 omissions and shift as fast as reasonably possible to "green" energy. The fact that science doesn't fully and perfectly understand all aspects of complex climate change dynamics, and the fact that climate scientists best models may be incorrect would be irrelevant to policy decisions.

A fuzzy risk assessment is enough to act on. The propagandists and lobbyists paid by big energy somehow manage to overrule the obvious risk assessment (as probabilistic and imperfect as it may be) and they get a bunch of dimbulbs on the right to back them up.

please edit this and post just one video at a time, thanks

Have to break up post due to buggy new site.

Irma is most likely going to hit Miami and then go north.
www.youtube.com/embed/GA-Ct46xL7k

If Florida is lucky, the hurricane eye will stay off the east coast. The strongest winds are on the east side of the eye. If the eye goes over land, everyone east of the eye will see terrible, terrible damage.

www.youtube.com/embed/ZDRbjGqXDLI
Some 90% of the Barbuda's buildings are destroyed.

Irma's so big that it will cover all of Florida and it's threatening Georgia and both Carolinas as well.

Irma Could Leave Puerto Rico Without Electricity For 6 Months
www.youtube.com/embed/VWVHB7eTHPY

Hurricane Irma Destroys 90 Percent of Structures, Vehicles on Barbuda
www.youtube.com/embed/xpXuuTXepJI

Can we just fucking admit already that Al Gore was right and climate change is serious? Is your identity politics really more important than this shit? Chuck the tribalism and start dealing with scientific facts. We are getting multiple "once-in-500-years" storms in a single year. This isn't subtle. This is the consequence of climate change, and it's expensive. Damn expensive.

Every time someone told you that stopping the pollution that causes climate change would wreck the economy, they were lying to you. Not stopping that pollution is wrecking the economy. Climate change is terrible for business, jobs, the economy, and crime.

You will pay a lot of your income on climate change consequences, far more than you would have paid to prevent climate change.

As for me, I'm having a fucking hurricane party! Enjoy. Yours truly, Lt. Dan.

www.youtube.com/embed/WyEmNlYL6qE

https://www.ventusky.com/?p=21.45;-72.53;8&l=wind&t=20170908/03

Irma's not even close to done and another hurricane is battering the Caribbean.

https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/video/hurricane-jose-nears-already-battered-islands

Dan8267 says

Can we just fucking admit already that Al Gore was right and climate change is serious?

Why isn't there a single storm right now in the Pacific if All Gore was right? Maybe because your whole Global Warming hype is just a scam.

Only fools and liars say that climate change or global warming are scams. There is more evidence of both than that the U.S. Civil War happened.

Dan8267 says

Irma's not even close to done and another hurricane is battering the Caribbean.

https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/video/hurricane-jose-nears-already-battered-islands

We had many years now without any major storms or hurricanes that even the meteorologists were wondering about what was going on. So you should put that year into perspective. Al Gore was certainly wrong with this hockey stick and the time-frame of complete melting, doesn't mean that he was wrong about being proactive wrt climate change or at least take it somewhat seriously. Btw. what's the latest stats/prediction of where 2017 will end temperature wise?

mell says

We had many years now without any major storms or hurricanes

I'm sorry, can you point out all these years without any major storms or hurricanes because I can't find them. https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/hurrarchive.asp

bob2356 says

I'm sorry, can you point out all these years without any major storms or hurricanes because I can't find them.

Pretty obvious unless you want to be obtuse. There are 2 more years left, but likely this will end up being a decade of lower activity.

mell says

Al Gore was certainly wrong with this hockey stick and the time-frame of complete melting, doesn't mean that he was wrong about being proactive wrt climate change or at least take it somewhat seriously.

Wrong again. The inconvenient truth showed the best case scenario, the worst case scenario, and the most expected scenario. Reality has been worse than both the best case scenario and the most expected scenario.

Want to repeat any more debunked lies? How about the lie about Al Gore claiming to have invented the Internet?

jazz_music says

This thread is well on its way to having the record number of dislikes by right wingnuts!

Dislikes are proportional to truth. When you hit a nerve, the right wing nuts get triggered.

www.youtube.com/embed/H7tsWpFe_Fg

Miami is now literally a sanctuary city.

www.youtube.com/embed/ttKYHnW8kmo

Just another day in Miami. Where's that wall, Trump? Oh, it's not going to be built. It was just another bait and switch.
www.youtube.com/embed/kLjBLXDq8IA

Dan8267 says

Only fools and liars say that climate change or global warming are scams

You didn't answer the question. If global warming causes hurricanes, why aren't there any other storms across the globe? Does global warming only affect the USA?

Dan8267 says

Wrong again. The inconvenient truth showed the best case scenario, the worst case scenario, and the most expected scenario. Reality has been worse than both the best case scenario and the most expected scenario.

Want to repeat any more debunked lies? How about the lie about Al Gore claiming to have invented the Internet?

Funny how you're so sure, The general consensus is that Gore's predictions failed and the movie had lots of inaccuracies, even a British court labeled it as misleading because of those. It doesn't mean that the climate science behind is necessarily wrong, he just came to alarmist conclusions.

null says

If global warming causes hurricanes, why aren't there any other storms across the globe?

The climate is a complex system. It does not behave like a linear system. Read On the Logic of Failure.

Hurricanes are heat engines. Do you deny this? Global warming has greatly increase the heat in the ocean. Do you deny that? Where do you think hurricanes get their energy from? It's from the ocean. Do the math. It's not hard. Eight-year-olds understand this.

mell says

The general consensus is that Gore's predictions failed and the movie had lots of inaccuracies

No, that's not the general consensus, and it's irrelevant anyways. ALL, not just most, but ALL evidence demonstrates that man made climate change is having an impact right now. Al Gore is irrelevant. The fact is that all you climate change deniers are engaging in identity politics. It pisses you off that Al Gore was right for god knows what reason, and you just can't admit a scientific fact if it means your stupid team was wrong. So you'll pay through the nose for the consequences of climate change instead of paying far less to stop making the situation worse. That's far more crazy identify politics than anything on the left. At least social justice warriors aren't destroying billions of dollars of property and endangering the lives of tens of millions.

The hurricane won't hit my area until Sunday, but the winds have just started to pick up. I can now hear them from inside my house. That only happens with storms.

When it goes north, all of Florida is getting hit. Some areas will be much worse than others, but the whole state is getting hit because this hurricane is bigger than Florida.



And it's edge is about on me.

www.youtube.com/embed/cbWsFjuTg94

And for tomorrows lesson, we will go over the peculiarities of 2 + 2...

Dan8267 says

The hurricane won't hit my area until Sunday, but the winds have just started to pick up. I can now hear them from inside my house. That only happens with storms.

This is pretty close to mainstream right thinking:

I don't believe Hurricane Harvey is God's punishment for Houston electing a lesbian mayor. But that is more credible than "climate change." https://t.co/K7d7mopY5Q

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) August 29, 2017

mell says

Pretty obvious unless you want to be obtuse. There are 2 more years left, but likely this will end up being a decade of lower activity.

You didn't say lower activity. You didn't say likely. You said without hurricanes and major storms. Without means none. The term is unequivocal.

Did you read what the little line on the bottom of the chart says. Affecting the country. As in making landfall. The number of hurricanes in the atlantic for the 2010's is not low at all. I can't post the graphic but going back from 2010's the numbers are 41,73,64,47,49,61,66,50,49. The numbers are higher in the 90's and 2000's, not lower in the 2010's which has 30% of the decade left since 2017 isn't in the numbers. Calculate out 3 more seasons and you come up to 57 for the 2010's which is higher than half of the last 8 decades.

Pretty obvious unless you want to be obtuse. Why do you suppose your chart only looks at hurricanes that made landfall in the US rather than the total hurricanes in the atlantic? Just a little dishonest I would say. (or as bob ueker says in major league "just a bit outside").
www.youtube.com/embed/Jdv2Wp9MzY0

I notice you don't source where the chart comes from so we can see who made it or more importantly who paid to make it.

Did you look at the much higher numbers in the pacific or indian oceans for the 2010 decade? They are easily available if you click the tab on the chart I posted (which is sourced). The total number of cyclonic storms is what matters. It's not some algebraic formula that in x years you get y hurricanes in z area. The factors for storm formation around the globe varies from year to year. Formation in the pacific has been much higher for the 2010's.

BlueSardine says

And for tomorrows lesson, we will go over the peculiarities of 2 + 2...

By tomorrow the dan287 account might be available to someone else if he's dumb enough to still be in south florida.

Dan8267 says

And it's edge is about on me.

Learn from Houston and leave. Take a 4 day vacation to Georgia.

YesYNot says

This is pretty close to mainstream right thinking:

I don't believe Hurricane Harvey is God's punishment for Houston electing a lesbian mayor. But that is more credible than "climate change." https://t.co/K7d7mopY5Q

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) August 29, 2017

The climate change fundamentalists turn natural skeptics like myself into extreme doubters. Here's what I know for sure: 1) We as humans need to do a far better job protecting our planet. 2) Government organizations who take on this mandate almost always steal from the taxpayers to help the ruling class.

The biggest question is how do we reconcile #1 and #2.

Climate change itself is an extremely complex model. I do not study climate change but I do build models. Anyone who says they KNOW what will happen without explaining the assumptions and range of variability of their predictions is lying to you (or just a bad scientist).

CBOEtrader says

The climate change fundamentalists turn natural skeptics like myself into extreme doubters. Here's what I know for sure: 1) We as humans need to do a far better job protecting our planet.

You can call yourself a skeptic if you do not deny the possibility of climate change, but merely reject the notion that the world is very likely (like greater than 90%) on a multi-decade warming trend. However, the reason that we do things like pull out of Paris accord and resist making any significant change to our behavior is because people are arguing that the risk of damage is small. If the risk of significant problems from global warming were big (like greater than 20%), it would be logical to try to prevent it. People arguing against action really are better described as deniers than skeptics. That is not a judgement on whether they used logic or faith to get to their position. It just describes how much risk they think is involved.

CBOEtrader says

2) Government organizations who take on this mandate almost always steal from the taxpayers to help the ruling class.

Acting on climate change is going to cost money. So, taxpayers (really all people) will have to pay. On the other hand, if we do nothing, taxpayers will likely have to pay more when the problems come home to roost. Doing nothing in the face of obvious risk only saves money until the day that it costs more than it saves, and that day always comes.

YesYNot says

Acting on climate change is going to cost money.

The entire 3rd world is rising out of grinding poverty into more of a low end working class level. This equals billions of new gasoline consumers. No Paris climate type deal can handle this. We need a revolutionary technology that can replace gasoline in cars/tractors/planes or we're fucked. This will not happen by government mandate. This will only happen via innovation. The goal of most climate change researchers seems to be to give the goverment bodies more power to stifle innovation.

Tell me what I'm missing here.

Dan8267 says

The hurricane won't hit my area until Sunday, but the winds have just started to pick up. I can now hear them from inside my house. That only happens with storms.

Are you seriously sticking around? To each their own, but I'd be the fuck out of there. Good excuse for a vacation.

I genuinely wish you good luck and hope it doesn't get TOO bad by you (it's going to be bad). Stay safe. Same goes for TPB, but something tells me he doesn't care how this plays out. I got friends in St. Augustine, FL and they stayed for Matthew. It ended up staying East, but the whole area was a shit show for weeks. Not having running water and electricity is way worse than most people realize.

CBOEtrader says

We need a revolutionary technology that can replace gasoline in cars/tractors/planes or we're fucked.

I agree that technological innovation is needed. The republican party / religious establishment pact of denying the risks of climate change are obstructing this development. IMO, that is a major problem. Hands off capitalism encourages incremental growth, but it is not always best for big innovations like space travel, nuclear energy / weapons, or alternative energy.
The reality is that even with major revolutionary technology, much of the readily available coal and other fossil fuels will still be used unless there is a collective will to pay a little more for other technologies. After all, some coal and oil is nearly free to take out of the ground, and the infrastructure to convert it to energy is already there (so using it is nearly free). Also, if the 'developing' world continues to lower the economic development gap, and populations continue as expected, the demand for energy is going to be through the roof in 100 yrs. We need revolutionary technology just to meet demand without displacing any fossil fuels.

CBOEtrader says

government mandate.

Governments are developing goals just like the semiconductor roadmap. Government funding helped develop solar panels and efficient wind turbines. The energy industry did not do that on it's own. Trump hired Perry for the DOE for fuck's sake. Perry wanted to eliminate the DOE a few years ago. He had no idea what it did, but knew it funded research that could help put his oil buddies out of business one day. The Trump admin has proposed slashing science budgets across the board.

CBOEtrader says

The goal of most climate change researchers seems to be to give the goverment bodies more power to stifle innovation.

Tell me what I'm missing here.

The goal of climate scientists is to do exactly what you suggested they do: CBOEtrader says

Climate change itself is an extremely complex model. I do not study climate change but I do build models. Anyone who says they KNOW what will happen without explaining the assumptions and range of variability of their predictions is lying to you (or just a bad scientist).

Climate scientists are explaining their assumptions and putting a range of variability based on those assumptions on their predictions.

A rational response to those models would be to fund innovative science research. The public response has been a big fuck you to those scientists. How you figure that climate scientists are trying to give government the power to stifle innovation is beyond me. Please explain.

Dan8267 says

Hurricanes are heat engines. Do you deny this? Global warming has greatly increase the heat in the ocean. Do you deny that? Where do you think hurricanes get their energy from? It's from the ocean.

So, you're saying currently there is no warm ocean water in Asia and the Pacific and that's the reason there are no storms there now?