California's First Tropical Storms in 84 Years

[stearmandriver]

You’re late to the party. When the warming part of global warming turned out to be less true than advocates liked it was rebranded as climate change years ago. It’s tougher to disprove climate change and more opportunities abound for government funded research, so it’s a win all the way around.

This isn't exactly true (actually, it's false.). The shift to using the "climate change" wording happened not because warming was slower than forecast (it's actually remained well within the IPCC's "most likely" forecast). It's because "climate change" is actually a more accurate term for what warming means.

Anyone with any meteorology background knows that all weather on the planet is ultimately driven by the sun. Thermal gradients, coupled with the planet's rotation, create every wx phenomenon in existence. More latent heat means steeper gradients, which means more - and more severe - weather of all types, from heat waves and droughts to severe Arctic storms spreading farther south.

As OzPiper noted, we're seeing an increase in all types of severe wx these days. For sure, one event like this storm in CA isn't evidence of anything, but we have long term trends of increasing frequency of outlier weather now... Which is exactly what we've always expected to see with a warming climate.

It's almost like the science actually works.

 

[sablebrush52]

I disagree with the premise that "climate change" is real and that coal is the enemy, so personally I do not think expansion of nuclear is a good idea given the extreme long term vigilance required to maintain and monitor and deal with the waste.

I would much rather see more focus on developing alternatives such as various forms of hydrogen use, which have been intentionally suppressed and ignored over the years IMO.

Given the deplorable state of our decaying infrastructure in general, aging nuke plants are disasters waiting to happen IMO. The world of Idiocracy is not a good place for such facilities.

Just because the half life of Plutonium is about 20,000 years and it takes about 250,000 years for reactor waste to become non lethal why worry? What could go wrong?
Just because the Diabolo Canyon Reactor was built over an active fault line, why worry, not to mention the building itself becoming radioactive after about 50 years. What could go wrong in 250,000 years?

 

[ashdigger]

Just because the half life of Plutonium is about 20,000 years and it takes about 250,000 years for reactor waste to become non lethal why worry? What could go wrong?
Just because the Diabolo Canyon Reactor was built over an active fault line, why worry, not to mention the building itself becoming radioactive after about 50 years. What could go wrong in 250,000 years?

Technology.

Everyone measures nuclear power like it’s a Model A Ford.

Weird

 

[buckaroo]

Spent the day swimming in the rain and enjoying cigars with relatives. It was nice. Those not swimming felt the quake a bit.

 

[georged]

This isn't exactly true (actually, it's false.). The shift to using the "climate change" wording happened not because warming was slower than forecast (it's actually remained well within the IPCC's "most likely" forecast). It's because "climate change" is actually a more accurate term for what warming means.

Anyone with any meteorology background knows that all weather on the planet is ultimately driven by the sun. Thermal gradients, coupled with the planet's rotation, create every wx phenomenon in existence. More latent heat means steeper gradients, which means more - and more severe - weather of all types, from heat waves and droughts to severe Arctic storms spreading farther south.

As OzPiper noted, we're seeing an increase in all types of severe wx these days. For sure, one event like this storm in CA isn't evidence of anything, but we have long term trends of increasing frequency of outlier weather now... Which is exactly what we've always expected to see with a warming climate.

It's almost like the science actually works.

All of which begs the question, then, of WHY the "science actually working" didn't happen at the beginning? It would have made any changes in terminology unnecessary.

Here is a long, scrolling list of actual magazine articles and newspaper stories that will (implicitly) answer that question. It's that the "science actually works" argument has been the claim since day one.

i.e. "We know we've been wrong before, but FINALLY, meaning NOW, we understand things well enough to make a reliable prediction!"


It's not a report or an editorial, just photos:

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions - Competitive Enterprise Institute

Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true. What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and...

cei.org

 

[brian64]

All of which begs the question, then, of WHY the "science actually working" didn't happen at the beginning? It would have made any changes in terminology unnecessary.

Here is a long, scrolling list of actual magazine articles and newspaper stories that will (implicitly) answer that question. It's that the "science actually works" argument has been the claim since day one.

i.e. "We know we've been wrong before, but FINALLY, meaning NOW, we understand things well enough to make a reliable prediction!"


It's not a report or an editorial, just photos:

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions - Competitive Enterprise Institute

Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true. What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and...

cei.org

 

[Servant King]

I wonder if the lock will rust from all the rain. You know, when this thread gets the treatment that it almost seems predestined for.

@stearmandriver Meterology is the study of effects, not causes. It deliberately confounds cause and effect, because it cannot divulge the real cause of climate patterns, which is atmospheric energies. However, one would need to be fluent in the highly suppressed field of Reichian orgonomy to fully understand this concept.

 

[gubbyduffer]

View attachment 241564

Reuters fact checking website says the above 1977 Time magazine cover text is made up. Many websites claim the cover is fabricated including Time magazine itself.

 

[brian64]

Reuters fact checking website says the above 1977 Time magazine cover text is made up. Many websites claim the cover is fabricated including Time magazine itself.
View attachment 241565

Ok, fine...I don't know for certain about that cover (but I sure don't trust the so-called "fact checkers" generally speaking).

..but I do know that global cooling, coming ice age, etc, was the mantra circa the '70s, prior to the warming propaganda...so the cover isn't something that would be immediately suspect and unbelievable.

 

[jmill208]

The Earth is 4.5 Billion+- (with a B) years old and I f***ed it all up with my can of spray-on Right Guard and my Silverado 2500. I’m ashamed of myself.

 

[jpberg]

Reuters fact checking website says the above 1977 Time magazine cover text is made up. Many websites claim the cover is fabricated including Time magazine itself.
View attachment 241565

Because Reuters.

 

[georged]

The Earth is 4.5 Billion+- (with a B) years old and I f***ed it all up with my can of spray-on Right Guard and my Silverado 2500. I’m ashamed of myself.

Exactly.

More thoughts along the same line from a year ago:

Pipe Smoking Thought For the Day :: General Discussion

Every human alive today would fit into a building slightly over one cubic kilometer in volume. Meaning, unless you knew exactly when and where to look down and used binoculars, the BHE (building holding everyone) couldn't even be seen if you flew over it in a commercial airliner at cruising...

pipesmagazine.com

 

[telescopes]

Here is a simple experiment anyone can do. Take two sealed jars; one with nitrogen, one with O2 and put them under a heat lamp. Record the temperature.

Now, add less than .01 per cent of CO2. Put them under a heat lamp and record them.

The experiment speaks for itself. Carbon dioxide is a molecule that transfers solar heat to O2 and Nitrogen, which otherwise would be transparent to the solar heat. CO2 is a catalyst or at least acts like one. It doesn't take much.

Regardless of where you stand on the issues...

The issue is not that the climate is warming. It is and it will naturally. We are coming out of an ice age after all. The question is rather how does our CO2 and methane immersions impact the rate of change?

That aside, there is every reason for our populace to look for cleaner ways that are more eco friendly to create energy. Coal, oil, and everything else should remain on the table - I wouldn't argue to disregard them. But, I would argue that we should look at more eco friendly means to create energy when and where possible. Clean breathable air and clean drinkable water should be an expectation, not a whoops, I guess we better clean it up after the fact situation.

 

[AJL67]

Reuters fact checking website says the above 1977 Time magazine cover text is made up. Many websites claim the cover is fabricated including Time magazine itself.
View attachment 241565

Doesn't matter they were pushing ice age on us, I and several other people here remember it and all you have to do is google it. For some reason everything is always "in 12 yrs" lol

 

[telescopes]

Ok, fine...I don't know for certain about that cover (but I sure don't trust the so-called "fact checkers" generally speaking).

..but I do know that global cooling, coming ice age, etc, was the mantra circa the '70s, prior to the warming propaganda...so the cover isn't something that would be immediately suspect and unbelievable.

I recall the talk quite clearly. It was real.

 

[anotherbob]

“OMFG! Drought! Fires!”

“OMFG! Rain!”

You Leftist Coasters are never satisfied, are you?

yeah and we still live in a dangerous place. Winter is like the killer in a slasher film picking one or two people off at a time. Oh your car hit some ice or tree fell on your head oh mother nature hates us.

 

[alsatmem]

Tropical storm? I spend half the year in Florida and the other half in New Jersey. Wake me up when you get rivers of blood, pestilence walks the land, and darkness reigns supreme.

Here in Memphis, we call that, Tuesday.

 

[telescopes]

Here in Memphis, we call that, Tuesday.

My tree did land on the neighbor's house. But otherwise, this storm should never be compared to what the other side of the country gets.

 

[woodsroad]

yeah and we still live in a dangerous place. Winter is like the killer in a slasher film picking one or two people off at a time. Oh your car hit some ice or tree fell on your head oh mother nature hates us.

As my late father used to say, “There’s places where people were never meant to live”.

 

[brian64]

Here is a simple experiment anyone can do. Take two sealed jars; one with nitrogen, one with O2 and put them under a heat lamp. Record the temperature.

Now, add less than .01 per cent of CO2. Put them under a heat lamp and record them.

The experiment speaks for itself. Carbon dioxide is a molecule that transfers solar heat to O2 and Nitrogen, which otherwise would be transparent to the solar heat. CO2 is a catalyst or at least acts like one. It doesn't take much.

Regardless of where you stand on the issues...

The issue is not that the climate is warming. It is and it will naturally. We are coming out of an ice age after all. The question is rather how does our CO2 and methane immersions impact the rate of change?

That aside, there is every reason for our populace to look for cleaner ways that are more eco friendly to create energy. Coal, oil, and everything else should remain on the table - I wouldn't argue to disregard them. But, I would argue that we should look at more eco friendly means to create energy when and where possible. Clean breathable air and clean drinkable water should be an expectation, not a whoops, I guess we better clean it up after the fact situation.

I agree that we should have had cleaner and more efficient forms of energy by now, and I believe we would have if not for intentional manipulation and suppression. But I don't buy the table top CO2 experiment you're describing, simply because it doesn't come anywhere near duplicating the conditions and variables involved with the Earth's atmosphere and ecosystem. You would have to account for the effect of trees for example, just to name one thing. CO2 is essential to plant life and a key part of the Earth's lifecycle.