The Environment Thread

[Mark F]

fires in california one city burned down, Malibu now evacuated. The entire Malibu area, including the city and nearby unincorporated areas, was placed under mandatory evacuation late Friday morning. The zone was vast, extending more than 10 miles along the coast and about 10 miles inland to the 101 Freeway. In all, some 75,000 homes in Ventura and Los Angeles counties were under mandatory evacuations on Friday morning, r

 

Edited November 9, 2018 by Mark F

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

On 2018-11-08 at 12:00 PM, pigseye said:

The thread title asks why so many science deniers?

If you choose to disregard a scientific study or observational data, you should at least be able to counter it with facts to back your position unless you are just too lazy to bother, in which case don't bother replying please. 

The thing is... it's tiring.... when we have posted rebuttles to your cherry picking... backed with data and well thought out argument... to be met with silence initially... then you post some other odd cherrypicked data point from the same discredited web site completely unrelated.... and the rinse and repeat.... at some point you just treat that behaviour the same as someone who continues to falsely peddle flatearthness.

[Mark F]

32 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

to be met with silence initially..

 

The whole core idea of it, is absurd. That tens of thousands of climate scientists, are lying, to get grants. 

It's comically ridiculous.

 I agree with Jcon, I'm not bothering to respond to any of his  posts anymore. 

 

 

 

Edited November 9, 2018 by Mark F

[pigseye]

49 minutes ago, Mark F said:

 

The whole core idea of it, is absurd. That tens of thousands of climate scientists, are lying, to get grants. 

It's comically ridiculous.

 I agree with Jcon, I'm not bothering to respond to any of his  posts anymore. 

 

 

 

You just posted a vid of the southern California wildfires when in fact, climate scientist already admit that climate change isn't affecting wild fires in southern California. They have said that climate change could be effecting the wild fire season in northern California however.

I have no problem with climate scientists but I do have a problem with people posting alarmist reports about things that have nothing to do with climate change. They should at least get educated about what they are posting. 

[pigseye]

1 hour ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

The thing is... it's tiring.... when we have posted rebuttles to your cherry picking... backed with data and well thought out argument... to be met with silence initially... then you post some other odd cherrypicked data point from the same discredited web site completely unrelated.... and the rinse and repeat.... at some point you just treat that behaviour the same as someone who continues to falsely peddle flatearthness.

You argued about a study I posted from NOAA...........

There is no getting through to you no matter where the study or data comes from, your minds are closed and I will continue to hammer on them until they at least open up. 

[Wideleft]

44 minutes ago, pigseye said:

You argued about a study I posted from NOAA...........

There is no getting through to you no matter where the study or data comes from, your minds are closed and I will continue to hammer on them until they at least open up. 

The problem is, you can't even be honest about what you're posting.  There's a difference between a NOAA study and a study by a retired NOAA employee who's using his study to try and get movie rights to his sh***y novel based on his nutty study.  I will agree that the title of this thread should not have been worded to encourage the scientifically illiterate to participate.

Edited November 9, 2018 by Wideleft

[Mark F]

28 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

I will agree that the title of this thread should not have been worded to encourage the scientifically illiterate to participate.

or worse, to encourage people who intentionally spread misinformation,   with every single comment.

 

That's what we have here, with this person.

It'll never end,  just stop responding to him. Unless you enjoy doing it. I don't.

Edited November 9, 2018 by Mark F

[JCon]

Seriously, I encourage you to use the ignore function in your profile. You don't even see the posts, unless someone quotes it. 

[Mark F]

Just now, JCon said:

Seriously, I encourage you to use the ignore function in your profile. You don't even see the posts, unless someone quotes it. 

my ignore doesn't work, so I just skip his drivel.

[pigseye]

31 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

The problem is, you can't even be honest about what you're posting.  There's a difference between a NOAA study and a study by a retired NOAA employee who's using his study to try and get movie rights to his sh***y novel based on his nutty study.  I will agree that the title of this thread should not have been worded to encourage the scientifically illiterate to participate.

No, this one was right from NOAA and some still tried to discredit the results.

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/

 

[JCon]

1 minute ago, Mark F said:

my ignore doesn't work, so I just skip his drivel.

I thought that of mine too. But, if you go into the ignore, you need to check off what you're ignoring - it doesn't do it automatically.

Honestly, I lived with the comments for a long time, thinking my ignore didn't work either. 

[Mark F]

36 minutes ago, pigseye said:

No, this one was right from NOAA and some still tried to discredit the results.

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/

 

nobody discredited the results of NOAA, (except no doubt you somewhere or other)

I discredited you, as usual saying something about the study that wasn't true, ie that the NOAA study  was contrary to what you thought scientists had been saying. 

"that there would be more Atlantic hurricanes"

Of course, since that was coming from you, that was wrong. 

that's not what the science was saying. 

Increased frequency of storms  was an open question. Not hard to understand.

It says it right in the bloody report.

however, it's now been shown that hurricane intensity, as predicted, is increasing, as shown for instance by Michael, which was one of three category five hurricanes in history, to hit the US.

but what me worry, only the entire city of Panama beach Florida reduced to rubble.

you misrepresent everyhing.

 

 

Edited November 9, 2018 by Mark F

[Mark F]

29 minutes ago, JCon said:

I thought that of mine too. But, if you go into the ignore, you need to check off what you're ignoring - it doesn't do it automatically.

Honestly, I lived with the comments for a long time, thinking my ignore didn't work either. 

thanks will try that, I really can't tolerate this ass.

[Mark F]

31 minutes ago, JCon said:

I thought that of mine too. But, if you go into the ignore, you need to check off what you're ignoring - it doesn't do it automatically.

Honestly, I lived with the comments for a long time, thinking my ignore didn't work either. 

Worked!

Thanks a lot!

[pigseye]

12 minutes ago, Mark F said:

nobody discredited the results of NOAA, (except no doubt you somewhere or other)

I discredited you, as usual saying something about the study that wasn't true, ie that the NOAA study  was contrary science had been saying. 

"that there would be more Atlantic hurricanes"

Of course, since that was coming from you, that was wrong. a fabrication.

that's not what the science was saying. 

Increased frequency of storms  was an open question. Not hard to understand, if you are interested in the truth. It says it right in the bloody report.

however, it's now been shown that hurricane intensity, as predicted, is increasing, as shown for instance by Michael, which was one of three category five hurricanes in history, to hit the US.

but what me worry, only the entire city of Panama beach Florida reduced to rubble.

you misrepresent everyhing.

 

 

Mark, you hear but you don't listen, read the actual study from NOAA yourself.

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

Quote

 

In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts over the past 120+ yr support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic. While one of our modeling studies projects a large (~100%) increase in Atlantic category 4-5 hurricanes over the 21st century, we estimate that such an increase would not be detectable until the latter half of the century, and we still have only low confidence that such an increase will occur in the Atlantic basin, based on an updated survey of subsequent modeling studies by our and other groups.

Therefore, we conclude that despite statistical correlations between SST and Atlantic hurricane activity in recent decades, it is premature to conclude that human activity–and particularly greenhouse warming–has already caused a detectable change in Atlantic hurricane activity. (“Detectable” here means the change is large enough to be distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes.) However, human activity may have already caused some some changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observation limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).

 

• Quote

  The global proportion of tropical cyclones that reach very intense (Category 4 and 5) levels will likely increase due to anthropogenic warming over the 21st century.  There is less confidence in future projections of the global number of Category 4 and 5 storms, since most modeling studies project a decrease (or little change) in the global frequency of all tropical cyclones combined.

   

Edited November 9, 2018 by pigseye
added to

[Mark F]

https://activenorcal.com/camp-fire-becomes-the-most-destructive-fire-in-californias-history/?fbclid=IwAR0xeVEXGJZ0xqjWKqgnpfqI4JMDvyGD9qJ8bEs-NHCWYxlHhKwDxU9dVrs

 

The numbers are still piling in, but as of right now, there are 6,453 homes and 260 commercial buildings burned to the ground. 23 fatalities have also been recorded, but even more are feared. In just over 36 hours, the Camp Fire surpassed the Tubbs Fire of 2017, which destroyed 5,636 structures. The fire remains 5 percent contained with 90,000 acres burned.

 110 missing.  now  200.

Edited November 12, 2018 by Mark F

[Mark F]

After a very wet October, heavy precipitation has continued in parts of Arabian Gulf.

#Kuwait received nearly its total annual average rainfall in 6 hours Friday.

Meteorological services in #SaudiArabia, #Jordan, #UAE and other countries also issued alerts for storms and floods

 

Wind turbines generated the equivalent of 98% of all Scotland’s electricity demand in October, according to new analysis.

WWF Scotland said that National Grid demand for the month was 1,850,512 MWh and that almost all of this could have been provided by wind turbines, which provided record levels of power.

Turbines generated the equivalent of 98% of all Scotland’s electricity demand or enough to power nearly five million homes last month, the group said.

Demand that day was 45,274.5MWh and wind generation was 234% of that.

Dr Sam Gardner, acting director at WWF Scotland, said: “What a month October proved to be, with wind powering on average 98% of Scotland’s entire electricity demand for the month, and exceeding our total demand for a staggering 16 out of 31 days.

 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Mark F

[pigseye]

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/11/12/nunavut-draft-plan-says-there-are-actually-too-many-polar-bears-in-territory_a_23587264/?utm_hp_ref=ca-politics

😂 once again crap science doesn't conform to the reality. 

[Mark F]

10 :40 A.M. Paradise fire. 

 

 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

15 hours ago, pigseye said:

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/11/12/nunavut-draft-plan-says-there-are-actually-too-many-polar-bears-in-territory_a_23587264/?utm_hp_ref=ca-politics

😂 once again crap science doesn't conform to the reality. 

So... which cap science and which reality are you talking about? 

You  didn't even make an argument.

Please defend your stance with excerpts from the article. If you are just drive-by denying, then I'm just gonna have to put you on ignore.

 

I suspect you didn't even read the article in it's entirety. I such an ass- why do I keep getting suckered by you? 

Edited November 14, 2018 by wanna-b-fanboy

[Mark F]

7 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

I such an ass- why do I keep getting suckered by you? 

use ignore, works well.

good article with science, about california fires.

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2018/11/the-many-ways-climate-change-worsens-california-wildfires/

" a climate scientist says the reality on the ground is surpassing what a government report projected just months ago in assessing the links between climate change and an increasing frequency and severity of wildfires in the state.

After a dry summer and fall, powerful winds over the past week swept flames through the town of Paradise in Northern California, killing at least 42  (50 now) people and destroying more than 6,500 (7600now) homes, officials said Tuesday. Two more fires near Los Angeles chased more than 200,000 people from their homes as the flames quickly spread, adding to a string of fires that have caused billions of dollars in damage this year.

"I think what we have been observing has consistently been outpacing what we've been predicting," said LeRoy Westerling, professor of management of complex systems at the University of California, Merced, who modeled the risk of future wildfires as part of the California Climate Change Assessment released in August."

that is.....the predicitions are on the low side.

Calgary 1000 year flood, Ft McMurray, BC record fires.

Edited November 14, 2018 by Mark F

[pigseye]

8 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

So... which cap science and which reality are you talking about? 

You  didn't even make an argument.

Please defend your stance with excerpts from the article. If you are just drive-by denying, then I'm just gonna have to put you on ignore.

 

I suspect you didn't even read the article in it's entirety. I such an ass- why do I keep getting suckered by you? 

Don't bother, I'm done in this thread, enjoy the upcoming solar grand minimum, I hope you own long underwear you're going to need it. 

 

[Wideleft]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/andrew-wheeler-epa-fossil-fuel-agenda-755332/

"Wheeler’s second method of undermining the regulatory powers of the EPA is through changing the way the costs and benefits of environmental regulations are assessed. You can see echoes of this in the latest rhetoric of climate deniers like Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who argue that, yes, climate change is real, and humans might be responsible, but it’s too expensive to do anything about it. This is an obvious lie — look at California, where the economy is booming but carbon pollution is in sharp decline. In fact, the economic and human impacts of a rapidly changing climate dwarf any costs associated with cutting carbon pollution. If cost were the real criteria for action, fossil fuels would have been outlawed a decade ago. But that’s not what this is about. It’s about protecting the empires of Big Coal and Big Oil."

 

 

[Mark F]

Renewable energy jobs is one of the fastest growing sectors in the US. But don't let that get in the way of a good campaign contribution. ( Rubio... it’s too expensive to do anything about it.) 

anyway.

somewhat hopeful article about the chances of averting the worst of a warming planet.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/the-essential-front-in-the-climate-battle-altering-public-attitudes

"Major shifts in attitude and behavior have occurred time and again in the social and economic spheres. Think, for example, of the transformation that occurred with respect to cigarettes, as near-universal social acceptance gave way to smokers being relegated to sidewalks or cordoned-off smoking rooms. Consider the rapid shift in thinking we have seen on same-sex marriage or about what is happening right now in regard to sexual harassment and the #Me Too movement. These are different kinds of issues, to be sure, and decarbonizing the global economy is clearly a challenge on a vastly larger scale. Still, all these issues come down to human attitudes. And when norms change, they can change decisively and drive political action with them. Recall that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both opposed same-sex marriage in their 2008 primary battle. A few years later, that would have been unthinkable, because attitudes and expectations had changed."

Read another article about this, that something seems unlikely to happen/change, then suddenly, it's done.

Edited November 19, 2018 by Mark F

[Mark F]

good summary of things

https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/October-2018-Earths-2nd-Warmest-October-Record?cm_ven=cat6-widget

October 2018 was the planet's second-warmest October since record keeping began in 1880, said NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) on Tuesday. The only warmer October came in 2015. NASA also rated October 2018 as the second-warmest October on record behind 2015. Minor differences in rankings between NASA and NOAA can arise because of how they handle data-sparse regions such as the Arctic, where few surface weather stations exist.

Global ocean temperatures during October 2018 were the second warmest on record, and land temperatures were also the second warmest on record, according to NOAA.

it is increasingly likely that the five warmest years on record globally will be 2014 through 2018. If an El Niño event develops this winter, as predicted, 2019 will have a very good chance of giving us six straight years that are each among the top six warmest years on record, barring a massive climate-cooling volcanic eruption in the tropics.

Signs of hope, there seem to finally be some people elected in the States who are not going to shrug this off in exchange for oil money.

 

Edited November 21, 2018 by Mark F