• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback

  • Country

    United States

Everything posted by billvon

  1. So you are saying that the only reason people want lots of money is for hookers and blow (or similarly banal pursuits) and no one has higher aspirations for their money? Wow. I am glad there are people who don't hold that opinion; if you thought about it, you would be too.
  2. So you don't know what the bill says or whether it's any good. But you disagree with people who take positions on it. And when Pelosi does something, she deserves to be outed. But when the GOP does the same thing, it's just "politics." You sure you're not a Trump supporter?
  3. 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.
  4. 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. ====================================
  5. More "winning" for BH: ======================= Climate change is drying up the Colorado River, putting millions at risk of 'severe water shortages' Many communities in the Southwest will suffer if the river continues to decline. WQAD Updated: 6:43 PM CST February 22, 2020 The Colorado River -- which provides water to more than 40 million people from Denver to Los Angeles -- has seen its flow dwindle by 20 percent compared to the last century, and scientists have found that climate change is mainly to blame. The researchers found that more than half of the decline in the river's flow is connected to increasing temperatures, and as warming continues, they say the risk of "severe water shortages" for the millions that rely on it is expected to grow. For each 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit of warming averaged across the river's basin, the study found that its flow has decreased by nearly 10%. Over the course of the 20th and early 21st centuries, the region has already warmed by an average of roughly 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit. . . . . Global warming is taking a severe toll on the snowpack that feeds the river, the scientists found. As temperatures increase, snow cover in the region is declining, meaning less energy from the sun is reflected back into space and more warms the ground as heat. =====================
  6. 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.
  7. And pushing all that confusion and anger on that poor president.
  8. I know, right? Who can forget when FOX News caused all the terror on 9/11? On the plus side, the NYT did land us on the Moon. So they've got that going for them.
  9. Thanks for the reference. Nothing about an "impractical" wet bulb temp in there though. It was neat to see at least one poster from back then who has since come to understand climate change.
  10. Not sure what "an impractical wet bulb temp" is. Impractical or not, they will be a bigger deal in the future.
  11. Woah, now that's NOT funny. You should be ashamed of yourself!
  12. But just imagine you hate Obama with every fiber of your being. Then it's funny. Mussolini and Obama on the same page, even if they have nothing to do with each other? Hilarious!
  13. I imagine I sound the same as the people who claimed you could have affluence and poverty in the same country - or the people who said that you'd get more extremes of weather as AGW has continued. Or the people who claim that eating too much of the wrong sort of food can leave you malnourished. I'm OK being lumped in with those people, and I understand that you can't comprehend that.
  14. You just called a rich guy a "twisted cruel fucktard" and you are now asking why people say extreme things? Perhaps some people have priorities beyond hookers and blow?
  15. I will never have any influence on you or people like you. I am OK with that. Nor will I ever "look good" to the really green liberals, with my stances on nuclear power and natural gas. I am also OK with that. I'm not here to win any popularity contests. 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, and not even Trump himself is going to convince an uneducated anti-science voter that their house is not literally on fire. The whole "it's not warming! It's natural! There's no consensus!" worked when there were no visible signs of the warming; that's not true any more. So in the long run the deniers will lose. In the short term they can do a lot of damage, of course, but if that's how they want to spend their time . . .
  16. Thus limiting the damage the government can do. They've achieved a long-standing Republican goal - reduce the federal government's role. Go democrats!
  17. I am fine if you think I have "such comprehension problems." That's like Andrew Wakefield telling me I don't understand the risks of vaccines, or Stephen Rizzone telling me I don't understand wireless power. I'd take those as a compliment. Meanwhile, you are posting in a thread entitled "There is a problem with global warming - it stopped in 1998!"
  18. You didn't even read what you posted, did you. There's a funny phenomenon here - people posting stuff that actually refutes their point. It seems like a given that they didn't read it. But if so, why did they post it? Perhaps they just read something on a denier site, posted by a clueless climate change denier, and copy and paste without thinking?
  19. Interesting study as reported by the Guardian. It can be easy to read social media and think that there are a lot of climate change deniers out there - and that due to their numbers they are influential. Turns out a significant fraction of them are bots. So the next time you see a bunch of tweets or Facebook posts from someone that looks like a climate change denier, consider that it might well be a paid effort to make it LOOK like there are a lot of people who support climate change denial.
  20. Yes he does! Let's see how he's doing: 2016: .5T 2019: 1T So he has plenty of time left to get the deficit above $2 trillion - but he's heading in the right direction for that.
  21. Because some people want to hear her speak. I advise you to not attend if you don't want to hear her talk.
  22. A rich and successful one. Which means you must . . . hate him?
  23. Thanks for posting that graph which shows declining Arctic ice extent.
  24. Yep. But fewer all the time - and it's melting earlier and earlier, resulting in drought conditions late in the season. Which are also pesky facts.