Category 6 hurricanes?

2,534 Views | 12 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by Cal88
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/15/hurricane-category-6-this-is-how-world-ends-book-climate-change?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
calbearinamaze
How long do you want to ignore this user?
6??????

There is, of course, no such thing as climate change.Therefore, it's
baffling that the categorization of hurricanes is going to 11.







If you believe in forever
Then life is just a one-night stand
If there's a rock and roll heaven
Well you know they've got a hell of a band
calbearinamaze
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is concentrating a bit more on rising sea levels and design of cities:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/weather/2015/12/12/climate-change-sea-level-rise-van-dam-cnni-nr-lklv.cnn
(It is "fake news" but.....)

Some US cities know that something has to done sooner or later:
https://www.businessinsider.com/miami-floods-sea-level-rise-solutions-2018-4

CAL has a course that seems pretty on-point:
https://data.berkeley.edu/time-series-analysis-sea-level-rise-and-coastal-flooding

Any prevention efforts, etc. come under infrastructure (I had to look it up, thinking
it might be, uh, "outfrastrutre".

So we have climate change (not acknowledged by the Trumps), probable economic
impact to tourism etc. (Not good, but), huge impact on public health and safety (but,
those numbers are made up by Democrats), infrastructure (what happened to those jobs
anyway? )

The bigger question is: how in the hell did CAL give up 23 points to Idaho State?





If you believe in forever
Then life is just a one-night stand
If there's a rock and roll heaven
Well you know they've got a hell of a band
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/15/hurricane-category-6-this-is-how-world-ends-book-climate-change?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

The author is a fiction writer and a political operative, his credentials are about as flimsy as Al Gore's, who has the same alarmist spiel, and whose off-the-wall predictions made in the last few decades have never come even close to materializing.


On the subject of sea level rise: according to Judith Curry, who was head of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech before she was pushed out for political reasons,

"Sea level has been rising for the last ten thousand years, since the last Ice Age. The question is whether sea level rise is accelerating owing to human caused emissions. It doesn't look like there is any great acceleration, so far, of sea level rise associated with human warming. These predictions of alarming sea level rise depend on massive melting of the big continental glaciers Greenland and Antarctica. The Antarctic ice sheet is actually growing. Greenland shows large multi-decadal variability... There is no evidence so far that humans are increasing sea level rise in any kind of a worrying way." Dr. Judith Curry

The question of sea level rise comes up at the 7:00 mark in this interview:



10,000 years ago NYC was sitting under a kilometer of ice, most of the North Sea was dry land (Doggerland), and Britain was not an island.



The rise in sea level has been dramatic over the recent millennia, as we were coming out of the ice age and the great ice sheets over the northern hemisphere land mass were melting.



the recent rate has been steady for the last century, and as mentioned above by Curry, there is no indication of acceleration in sea level rise over the past century and several decades:





Places like Miami or Houston are extremely vulnerable to flooding not because of a recent rise in sea level (which has been under 3" in the past 30 years in Miami according to the tidal gauge recods), but because they are built on low-lying areas that have historically been very prone to flooding.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/07/miamis-vice/

concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Let's say I accepted your assertion that our activities are meaningless.
Are you saying we should just do nothing other than carry on as normal?
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What about endangered species, coral reef die-off, the burning down of rain forest habitat for low grade cattle farming, cancer causing pollution entering the food cycle, smoggy air?











What is your take on such issues?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Uday and Qusay are taking care of the endangered species issue.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
calbearinamaze
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OK, bearister, I had to look that one up. The almost nuclear melt-down orange glow emanating
from 1600 Penn. is a bit disconcerting, but that's no excuse.
If you believe in forever
Then life is just a one-night stand
If there's a rock and roll heaven
Well you know they've got a hell of a band
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

Let's say I accepted your assertion that our activities are meaningless.
Are you saying we should just do nothing other than carry on as normal?

What about endangered species, coral reef die-off, the burning down of rain forest habitat for low grade cattle farming, cancer causing pollution entering the food cycle, smoggy air?
Our activities are far from being meaningless, as far as their environmental impact. But the notion that the rise in CO2 concentration due to human activity is going to bring about a massive rise in global temperatures and melt the Antarctic ice sheet, resulting in massive sea water levels, that notion is not supported by recent data. It is based on speculative models like the IPCC's, which have been constantly proven to be overly alarmist.



As well the idea that global warming (which has slowed down the last two decades) is threatening species is unfounded. Polar bear populations for instance have been thriving, they are not an endangered species, contrary to what your graphic above indicates.

Quote:

Executive summary
Global polar bear numbers have been stable or risen slightly since 2005, despite the fact that summer sea ice since 2007 hit levels not expected until mid-century: the predicted 67% decline in polar bear numbers did not occur.
....
Overly pessimistic media responses to recent polar bear issues have made heartbreaking news out of scientifically insignificant events, suggesting an attempt is being made to restore the status of this failed global warming icon.


The loss of ecological habitat in places like Sumatra or the Amazon, plastic waste in the ocean, overfishing, air pollution: those are real environmental problems that need to be addressed. One of my beefs with the global warming alarmism is that it sucks off the air out of these environmental issues.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I see cal88 is up to his old tricks.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Lack of substance and ad hominem jabs aren't part of my register though.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

Lack of substance and ad hominem jabs aren't part of my register though.
No, your oevre is pretty clearly dry, repetitive misinformation.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?

We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

Cal88 said:

Lack of substance and ad hominem jabs aren't part of my register though.
No, your oevre is pretty clearly dry, repetitive misinformation.
It's "oeuvre", monsieur Unit Deux.

You qualify the content in my posts on the subject of AGW as misinformation, yet you are unable to refute simple data points I put forth here that happen to dispel MSM narratives, for example the fact that polar bears are nowhere near endangered, in fact their population has been thriving.

Quote:

We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN
12 years ago, we had 12 years. Maybe this time they really mean it?

Don't make me look up the UN/IPCC "we have 12 years" alarmist reports from the 1990s-00s.

...OK, since you insist, here's a good vintage UN statement circa 1982:

Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN Environment Program (UNEP), warned on May 11, 1982, that the "world faces an ecological disaster as final as nuclear war within a couple of decades unless governments act now." According to Tolba, lack of action would bring "by the turn of the century, an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust."

Later that decade, in 1989, article in the San Jose Mercury News, Noel Brown, the then-director of the New York office of UNEP was warning of a "10-year window of opportunity to solve" global warming. "A senior U.N. environmental official said entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of 'eco-refugees,' threatening political chaos."


Actually. the world's major crops have gone up steadily, rice, wheat, corn and soy productions and inventories are at record levels, despite high growth in world demand, with the emergence of large middle classes in places like China or India. Part of the reason is that crop yields have risen due to higher levels of CO2, which is a powerful plant fertilizer, increasing the efficiency of photosynthesis and reducing plant water loss.



Quote:

a leaked draft report from Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted that man-made climate change would reduce global agricultural production yields by up to two percent per decade throughout the twenty-first century.

Lester Brown's Earth Policy Institute has long been a predictor of agricultural collapse. His website states, "climate change is heightening the likelihood of weather extremes, like heat waves, droughts, and flooding, that can so easily decimate harvests." Even the USDA warns that man-made climate change threatens US agriculture.

Yet, one must wonder when the climate-damaging effects on agriculture will appear. The IPCC states that 1983-2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period in the Northern Hemisphere of the last 1,400 years. Certainly we should have seen some negative agricultural impact by now?

Maybe rising agricultural production is like rising polar bear populations, the decline begins tomorrow.

Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.