0
billvon

Climate change denial perceptions

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

A heat index of 165F would seem to fall in the meaningless, theoretical nonsense portion of the chart.

 

That's like saying that diving to 300 feet on regular air isn't dangerous because the dive tables only go down to 130 feet.   That table doesn't show indexes any higher than that because, until recently, it was very rare to _see_ numbers like that.

But here's an exercise.  In 2003, temperatures hit 108F in Dharan, Saudi Arabia, with a relative humidity of 75%.  Use the table to calculate a heat index for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
15 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound when you say floods and droughts in the same sentence?  Just like when you guys say that global warming will cause less snow while simultaneously cause more snow. 

 

You get that these things can happen simultaneously in different parts of the world, right? Because the world is, you know, big.

It’s raining here and sunny in Delhi today. I doubt that sounds ridiculous to you, does it?

 

You continue to make the most ludicrous arguments to support your point of view.

Edited by yoink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, yoink said:

You get that these things can happen simultaneously in different parts of the world, right? Because the world is, you know, big.

It’s raining here and sunny in Delhi today. I doubt that sounds ridiculous to you, does it?

 

You continue to make the most ludicrous arguments to support your point of view.

No I am talking about the same area of the world.  Low water level in the Great Lakes?  Climate change!  High water level in the Great Lakes?  Climate change!  Dry summer in the Mid-West? Climate change!  Wet summer? Climate Change.  No snow in the Rockies?  Climate change!  Lots of snow in the Rockies? Climate change!  It is the "heads I win, tails you loose" school of prediction. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, billvon said:

That's like saying that diving to 300 feet on regular air isn't dangerous because the dive tables only go down to 130 feet.   That table doesn't show indexes any higher than that because, until recently, it was very rare to _see_ numbers like that.

But here's an exercise.  In 2003, temperatures hit 108F in Dharan, Saudi Arabia, with a relative humidity of 75%.  Use the table to calculate a heat index for that.

Bill, 

I didn't want to announce this until I had sufficient data but I've been measuring the distance between these Caribbean Islands for several years and I have to tell you there has been no change. Nada. The whole continental drift thing is proven hocus pocus. So maybe, just maybe, Brent is right about climate change. Afterall, the tides come in and the tides go out; they're just sloshing around like water in the tub, situation normal. Unless you're willing to believe our tiny little moon with a smirking face is pulling us around like a little red wagon, that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

No I am talking about the same area of the world.  

But your retort was about what BILL posted. Not what YOU said.... And he's not stupid enough for his sentence to mean what you want it to. Which means you're deliberately taking it wrongly to try and ridicule the entire argument so you can say 'how ridiculous you sound'.

"But the reason that more people are coming to accept climate change is not that anyone is going to convince them - but because they have seen the flooding and the droughts and the fires," is what he said... At no point does that post indicate that he's talking about the same locations or even the same point in time.

There might be flooding in typically dry areas, and vice versa. And these events don't have to happen simultaneously for that sentence to still be valid.

 

So not only is your argument grammatically incorrect as there are any number of sentences in which 'flooding' and 'droughts' can be used in the same sentence without being ridiculous, it's also a fallacy based upon your deliberate and dishonest misunderstanding of the post. So like I said, a ludicrous argument to support your point of view...

Try harder next time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yoink said:

But your retort was about what BILL posted. Not what YOU said.... And he's not stupid enough for his sentence to mean what you want it to. Which means you're deliberately taking it wrongly to try and ridicule the entire argument so you can say 'how ridiculous you sound'.

"But the reason that more people are coming to accept climate change is not that anyone is going to convince them - but because they have seen the flooding and the droughts and the fires," is what he said... At no point does that post indicate that he's talking about the same locations or even the same point in time.

There might be flooding in typically dry areas, and vice versa. And these events don't have to happen simultaneously for that sentence to still be valid.

 

So not only is your argument grammatically incorrect as there are any number of sentences in which 'flooding' and 'droughts' can be used in the same sentence without being ridiculous, it's also a fallacy based upon your deliberate and dishonest misunderstanding of the post. So like I said, a ludicrous argument to support your point of view...

Try harder next time.

 

In previous posts Bill claimed that the fire that destroyed Paradise California was due to climate change.  (you know, warmer, drier conditions making things ripe for a fire)  I pointed out that the area was in a ZERO drought condition and the temperatures were in the mid 70s and that the area had one of the wettest springs on record.  He quickly pivoted and said it was the wet conditions in the spring that led to lots of growth that provided the fuel for the fire. See, either way it is climate change.  BTW Airdvr asked an important question.  Are these floodroughts a recent phenomenon? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

In previous posts Bill claimed that the fire that destroyed Paradise California was due to climate change.  (you know, warmer, drier conditions making things ripe for a fire)  I pointed out that the area was in a ZERO drought condition and the temperatures were in the mid 70s and that the area had one of the wettest springs on record.  He quickly pivoted and said it was the wet conditions in the spring that led to lots of growth that provided the fuel for the fire. See, either way it is climate change.  BTW Airdvr asked an important question.  Are these floodroughts a recent phenomenon? 

I’m not arguing climate change with you. I don’t talk religion with fanatics either. I’m talking grammar and communication. 

 

You stated that it’s ridiculous to have ‘drought and flood’ in the same sentence. You’re simply wrong in that statement.

Edited by yoink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

In previous posts Bill claimed that the fire that destroyed Paradise California was due to climate change.  (you know, warmer, drier conditions making things ripe for a fire)  I pointed out that the area was in a ZERO drought condition and the temperatures were in the mid 70s and that the area had one of the wettest springs on record.  

The fire took place during a Red Flag condition, which is a condition (taking into account winds, temperatures, humidity and fuel load) that means it's very likely to result in a fire.  Temperatures at the nearest official weather station were in the mid 70's - where the fire actually started, miles away, there were easterly winds with a much higher temperature.   In fact, PG+E started warning people two days before the actual fire because winds and temperatures were forecast to be high.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say on the topic:

=====================================

Conditions immediately leading up to and during the fire combined to create a highly combustible fuel load:

  • Heavy grass cover due to a wet spring
  • An unusually dry fall
  • Decreased humidity due to several recent wind events (23% dropping to 10%)
  • Unusually dry fuel (5% 1,000-hr. moisture level)
  • Hot, dry, sustained and gusting high winds (25-35 mph), including a Red Flag Warning on the day of the fire, similar to the Diablo wind or the Santa Ana winds of the California Coast Ranges.

The day of the fire, the fuel energy release component was above the historic record for November 8; the first fall rain is normally before November 1. . . .Combined, the conditions formed a recipe for a firestorm.

=========================================

So yes, the higher temperatures brought about by AGW absolutely played a role - no matter how much pro-fossil fuel types try to deny it.  From Quartz:

========================================

Camp Fire, the devastating blaze raging across the Sierra Nevada foothills, has become the most destructive wildfire in California’s history. By the evening of Nov. 10, it had scorched 105,000 acres of land and killed 23 people, with more than 100 people still unaccounted for.

 . . .

In all likelihood, it’s a scenario that climate change helped to create, according to Daniel Swain, a researcher at University of California-Los Angeles’ Center for Climate Science. . Swain walked through the conditions that contributed to the fires now burning across the state, and the research showing how climate change made them possible.

====================================

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Bill, 

I didn't want to announce this until I had sufficient data but I've been measuring the distance between these Caribbean Islands for several years and I have to tell you there has been no change. Nada. The whole continental drift thing is proven hocus pocus. So maybe, just maybe, Brent is right about climate change. Afterall, the tides come in and the tides go out; they're just sloshing around like water in the tub, situation normal. 

Tides go in, tides go out.  Never a miscommunication.  You can't explain that!  You can't explain why the tide goes in and out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, billvon said:

Tides go in, tides go out.  Never a miscommunication.  You can't explain that!  You can't explain why the tide goes in and out.

I'm beginning to understand Brents frustration with you. I assume you can read a graph, yes?

Water Sloshing Explained.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

I'm beginning to understand Brents frustration with you. I assume you can read a graph, yes?

Water Sloshing Explained.png

I'm sorry to argue, Joe, but this graph is meaningless, unless you add data from the paleolithic up to 2065.  Without that data, you won't be able to prove anything to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I'm sorry to argue, Joe, but this graph is meaningless, unless you add data from the paleolithic up to 2065.  Without that data, you won't be able to prove anything to me.

I don't take it as an argument, you're right. I totally missed that. I'll redo it when I get some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

I'm sorry to argue, Joe, but this graph is meaningless, unless you add data from the paleolithic up to 2065.  Without that data, you won't be able to prove anything to me.

Turtle, thanks for pointing out the errors. 

Water Sloshing Explained.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2020 at 11:51 AM, billvon said:

But here's an exercise.  In 2003, temperatures hit 108F in Dharan, Saudi Arabia, with a relative humidity of 75%.  Use the table to calculate a heat index for that.

Ya, that's the one we were talking about in those other threads.  Back then you said it was a Heat index of like 178F, now the calculator is saying 195F, so which one is it?  Does it even matter?  Because at those levels the only thing the heat index is measuring is one's stupidity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2020 at 4:56 PM, JoeWeber said:

Bill, 

I didn't want to announce this until I had sufficient data but I've been measuring the distance between these Caribbean Islands for several years and I have to tell you there has been no change. Nada. The whole continental drift thing is proven hocus pocus. So maybe, just maybe, Brent is right about climate change. Afterall, the tides come in and the tides go out; they're just sloshing around like water in the tub, situation normal. Unless you're willing to believe our tiny little moon with a smirking face is pulling us around like a little red wagon, that is.

Which islands?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Ya, that's the one we were talking about in those other threads.  Back then you said it was a Heat index of like 178F, now the calculator is saying 195F, so which one is it?  Does it even matter? 

Well, since you will die pretty quickly in those temperatures - it matters to the people who live there.  I agree, to you it doesn't matter.

Quote

Because at those levels the only thing the heat index is measuring is one's stupidity.

One's stupidity in . . . living there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, billvon said:
2 hours ago, Coreece said:

Ya, that's the one we were talking about in those other threads.  Back then you said it was a Heat index of like 178F, now the calculator is saying 195F, so which one is it?  Does it even matter? 

Well, since you will die pretty quickly in those temperatures

That's the point, you won't typically die pretty quickly at 108F at 75% humidity regardless of your theoretical bullshit.   That's why NOAA says that those levels are meaningless and won't even list them in their chart.  If you honestly think that a theoretical heat index of 195F is like living in an environment that is actually 195F, then you are either a fucking idiot, or an alarmist trying to scare the shit out of other idiots.

  

On 2/23/2020 at 11:51 AM, billvon said:

that's like saying blah, blah, blah  isn't dangerous. . .

I didn't say it wasn't dangerous, just not 195F dangerous.

BTW do you remember all those pics I posted of families with their kids at the beach enjoying the "Quick and the Deadly "165F" Heat Index?"

Edited by Coreece

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Coreece said:

If you honestly think that a theoretical heat index of 195F is like living in an environment that is actually 195F, then you are either a fucking idiot, or an alarmist trying to scare the shit out of other idiots.

Hopefully you know this, but just to clarify, I honestly didn't mean that to sound as personal as it does.  I really was speaking generally, but should have phrased it differently.  I guess that's just how I talk.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

0