Jump to content

Weather events


Reacher

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, IUFLA said:

It's really not about politics or opinions at all...it's about using undeniable facts to substantiate a position rather than basing the transition (and there will be a transition eventually...not all the way in my opinion, but there will come a time where renewables account for a majority of our needs) on supposition or scare language...

Ok...well, I still say Pluto is a dog.   

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, IUFLA said:

Climate is weather for a specific region averaged over a period of time...

A long period of time, where as if we are talking about the weather on a given day or forecasting weather 10 days out, that's a short period of time.

Climate would be like saying IU is one of the the best 5 or so programs in the history of basketball. Weather would be like saying they're one of the worst because of how the past couple seasons has gone. People that think they can debunk climate change by talking about the weather would be like someone who said Duke is a crappy program (climate) because they had a bad year last year.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

A long period of time, where as if we are talking about the weather on a given day or forecasting weather 10 days out, that's a short period of time.

 

And by that we have been keeping track of the weather for how long?  And by keeping track I am talking documented weather conditions.  I would say that we have had "proof" of the weather in this country for perhaps 150 years.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

People that think they can debunk climate change by talking about the weather would be like someone who said Duke is a crappy program (climate) because they had a bad year

Where did anyone try to "debunk" climate change?

@FKIM01 said

"I got news for you, peeps...the climate has been changing since the dawn of time." 

And I agreed with him. That certainly doesn't sound like he's trying to " debunk" anything.

My point on weather was, if you use today as a baseline for predicting weather, you can be pretty accurate. The farther you get away from that baseline into the future, the less accurate your going to be predicting the weather and subsequently the overall climate. That's a fact. 

I said my 2 issues with the whole thing are people who have no background in science saying if we don't address climate change, the world will end in 12 year. I might expect something like that from a cult leader or a carnival barker, but not someone who is supposed to be a leader in this country. Using scare language like that is irresponsible and dangerous.

My other point was the climate accord we reentered. China is the world's leading producer of CO2 gas. Yet we're supposed to comply with with requirements and suffer burdensome regulations years before they do. It puts the US at a disadvantage both economically and militarily. And I think it's a dangerous time to do that. Giving China a 10 year head start on compliance is simply stupid.

Of course, by the time that 10 year period is over Mother Earth only has 2 years to go anyway...

Edited by IUFLA
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am of the firm belief that the weather is cyclical.  Now determining how these cycles work is anybody's guess as of now that is why I alluded to documentation above.  History of weather events in this country, or the world for that matter, is relatively "young."  How do we know that the same thing happening with the climate now didn't happen 500 years ago?  1000 year ago?  Etc.  

It does make for great discussion and tbh I am fascinated by it.  I can tell you this first hand as an avid icefisherman.  It was only 8 years ago that I was drilling through the most ice I had ever seen around here.  Lake Wawasee was a parking lot with trucks parked on it a day I fished.  I had to cut through 36"s to get a hook in the water.  At the time I said "global warming my ass."  Remember the global warming rhetoric from just a few short years ago?  Now it has morphed into climate change.

I got a few more things I could add dealing with this "crisis" but it will probably get us(me) onto a different tangent.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To think humans have had a profound affect on climate in roughly 250 years of industry on a planet that is probably 6 billion years old is ridiculous and a pompous.

Also, don't raise my energy costs and steal my money while China and India can freely pollute the environment.  I don't work to subsidize foreign countries greenhouse emissions.

Edited by mrflynn03
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jv1972iu said:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

And Pluto is a dog.   😊

 

If "Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal", how do you explain this- https://strangesounds.org/2021/08/next-20-30-years-will-be-cold-and-thats-worst-than-global-warming-climate-scientist-warns.html ? If global warming supports more food creation, is it even a bad thing? I could go on forever here.

Having been to Alaska and Glacier National Park, I have an interest in the glaciers and seeing more of them. My next big trip is hopefully to Iceland in a few years. Lets remember https://weather.com/science/environment/video/glacier-national-park-swaps-out-signs-predicting-no-glaciers-by-2020. Yes, some glaciers are retreating, but others are growing. Retreating glaciers are uncovering ancient forests so we know this isn't a new phenomenon. Polar bears are thriving, not dying, etc. 

Both sides have ample "evidence" to support their conclusions as one can twist the stats to support any narrative, or just change the data, to fit that narrative.

This trip down memory lane shows a bunch of examples of failed past projections which is why many are doubtful of the latest dire projection of the day- https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

As much as I would love to debate this topic, lets save the climate debate for another thread, or private messages, and keep this one focused on the (micro climate) weather events.

Thanks!

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Reacher said:

If "Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal", how do you explain this- https://strangesounds.org/2021/08/next-20-30-years-will-be-cold-and-thats-worst-than-global-warming-climate-scientist-warns.html ? If global warming supports more food creation, is it even a bad thing? I could go on forever here.

Having been to Alaska and Glacier National Park, I have an interest in the glaciers and seeing more of them. My next big trip is hopefully to Iceland in a few years. Lets remember https://weather.com/science/environment/video/glacier-national-park-swaps-out-signs-predicting-no-glaciers-by-2020. Yes, some glaciers are retreating, but others are growing. Retreating glaciers are uncovering ancient forests so we know this isn't a new phenomenon. Polar bears are thriving, not dying, etc. 

Both sides have ample "evidence" to support their conclusions as one can twist the stats to support any narrative, or just change the data, to fit that narrative.

This trip down memory lane shows a bunch of examples of failed past projections which is why many are doubtful of the latest dire projection of the day- https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

As much as I would love to debate this topic, lets save the climate debate for another thread, or private messages, and keep this one focused on the (micro climate) weather events.

Thanks!

 

 

Love the post.

As far as the last paragraph...meh, this is the weather thread.  Jmo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Reacher said:

If "Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal", how do you explain this- https://strangesounds.org/2021/08/next-20-30-years-will-be-cold-and-thats-worst-than-global-warming-climate-scientist-warns.html ? If global warming supports more food creation, is it even a bad thing? I could go on forever here.

Having been to Alaska and Glacier National Park, I have an interest in the glaciers and seeing more of them. My next big trip is hopefully to Iceland in a few years. Lets remember https://weather.com/science/environment/video/glacier-national-park-swaps-out-signs-predicting-no-glaciers-by-2020. Yes, some glaciers are retreating, but others are growing. Retreating glaciers are uncovering ancient forests so we know this isn't a new phenomenon. Polar bears are thriving, not dying, etc. 

Both sides have ample "evidence" to support their conclusions as one can twist the stats to support any narrative, or just change the data, to fit that narrative.

This trip down memory lane shows a bunch of examples of failed past projections which is why many are doubtful of the latest dire projection of the day- https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

As much as I would love to debate this topic, lets save the climate debate for another thread, or private messages, and keep this one focused on the (micro climate) weather events.

Thanks!

 

 

Not interested in debating.  I just wanted to share this information.  You do that from time to time regarding the coronavirus...right?   😊

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I'm good with a friendly climate debate in a weather thread.  Like a lot of subjects today, it's challenging keeping politics out of it because so many subjects have been weaponized to push agendas.  My take is simple and @Reacher nailed it nicely...of course the climate is changing and regardless of what we think or do, it will continue to change.  We can influence things like climate and the economy, but it's arrogant and silly to think we can control them.  The future of climate change is a long way from settled science.  We just need to stop pretending we have all the answers, because the link in Reacher's reply makes it abundantly clear that the smartest scientists in the world are routinely incorrect.  The mark of a good scientist is continuing to seek the right answer, rather than pretending he/she knows what is to come.  I don't pretend to have all the answers (and I won't put little laughing emogis on replies I disagree with), but a mature and polite debate is fine by me.

The last person I'll believe on matters of science is a politician. 😂

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, IUFLA said:

Take a minute to read this...

Applies not only common sense but scientific theory to our debate. Look up the guy that wrote that...definitely not a lightweight...

I'm not exactly looking to argue, but he didn't refute anything. He pretty much just stated he's a skeptic but should be treated differently than other "deniers" (his words, not mine) but gave no evidence to refute the overwhelmingly accepted position of climatologists. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...