Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ...
5
6
7
8
LastLast
  1. #121
    The Lightbringer Kyphael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    3,429
    It's mother nature. It's unpredictable and chaotic. We think we run this planet until it bitch slaps us with a landslide, tsunami, earthquake or 11 days of tornadoes. Only thing we can do is survive and move on.

  2. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by Kapadons View Post
    So Trump did pew pew them out with his tornado gun??

    - - - Updated - - -



    Climate change denier!!!! Trump did this with the Russians !!!

    It’s almost like when you look at the overall data you see an increasing trend... weird how you’re not a denier but you’re bumping denier bullshit(framing data using specific subsets to support your point instead of the big picture).
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Got to earn his turnips.
    Quote Originally Posted by freefolk View Post
    Okay. I'll stop sharing my views.

  3. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post

    It’s almost like when you look at the overall data you see an increasing trend... weird how you’re not a denier but you’re bumping denier bullshit(framing data using specific subsets to support your point instead of the big picture).
    It’s true that climate change was worse in 2004, 2008 and 2010 than 2016.....( why does your graph proving “tHiS iS sO mUcH wOrSe ThIS yEaR” stop in 2016?)

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyphael View Post
    It's mother nature. It's unpredictable and chaotic. We think we run this planet until it bitch slaps us with a landslide, tsunami, earthquake or 11 days of tornadoes. Only thing we can do is survive and move on.

    Climate change denier!!!!!
    People working 2 jobs in the US (at least one part-time) - 7.8 Million (Roughly 4.9% of the workforce)

    People working 2 full-time jobs in the US - 360,000 (0.2% of the workforce)

    Average time worked weekly by the US Workforce - 34.5 hours

  4. #124
    climate catastrophe going on keep on denying it and you will have more of this

  5. #125
    The Lightbringer Kyphael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    3,429
    Quote Originally Posted by Kapadons View Post

    Climate change denier!!!!!
    And proud of it!!!

    This isn't our planet, we just live on it like fleas on a dog.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by araine View Post
    climate catastrophe going on keep on denying it and you will have more of this
    Oh boo fucking hoo. Early cave men survived an ice age. Stop your bitching and buy an umbrella and Mary Poppins the fuck out of those tornadoes or get swept up in them. This planet is survival of the fittest, not survival of the crybabies.

  6. #126
    Anung un Rama Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    58,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Kapadons View Post
    It’s true that climate change was worse in 2004, 2008 and 2010 than 2016.....( why does your graph proving “tHiS iS sO mUcH wOrSe ThIS yEaR” stop in 2016?)
    Even schoolkids know that climate isn't about yearly averages. This is why people sometimes call you a denier; you keep making arguments that rely solely on their disinformation.

  7. #127
    Is this not related to the grand solar minimum? If so, we would be in for a drop in global temp. Not sure if this can 100% be pinned on climate change, at least not yet.

  8. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    It is a mixture of both Climate Change but also in the case of the United States, too much land has been settled West of the Mississippi in a region that is already normally prone to for example long and brutal droughts that can last a century. A lot of this oweing to earlier areas of high flying optimism about the ability to cultivate and irrigate the largely arid western half of the continental United States and other beliefs such as "Rain follows the Plow" which no joke helped propel and justify westward expansion.

    The book Dead Pool: Lake Powell, Global Warming, and the Future of Water in the West covers this in great detail. Much of the West was settled with incorrect assumptions about average rainfall patterns. A whole regime of water rights and river law was built around assumptions that were completely wrong and will soon be wrong anyway. One of the big challanges will be as reservours like Lake Powell dry up, much of the West will be filled with these "Dead Pools", resevours so shallow and weak that they don't even generate enough power to pump water around. The other issue is the entire Western US is dependent on vast hydrology projects needed to keep these places irrigated or provide drinking water for bustling metropolis'. Another great example is the sinking of the California Central Valley as water is drained out the Valley floor sinks by about a half foot a year. And it takes centuries to restore water tables, and you have to remember the California Central Valley was once vast bog land and forested swamp before the Spanish and Anglo-Americans arrived.
    No one in their right mind is going to abandon farming in Central Valley. Even at the height of the drought (2014 – 2016) the region produced 81 percent of U.S.-grown carrots, 95 percent of broccoli, 86 percent of cauliflower, 74 percent of raspberries, 91 percent of strawberries, 100% of garlic, and on and on.

    The region has the largest expanse of the most productive Class 1 (alluvial) soil in the world. Year-round growing season, predictable weather (unlike the Midwest) and the most productive farm lands on per acre basis. The only region in the world capable of producing over 420 different kind of crops. If the US government is smart, they would build pipelines to transport excess water from the Midwest to California farmlands.

  9. #129
    The Insane DeltrusDisc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    18,751
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    Isn't Illinois considered to be within the tornado alley? The first time I saw a tornado was when I came to Fithian in Illinois to meet my wife's grandparents.
    It is, but compared to some states (looking at Oklahoma very harshly) we hardly see tornados.

    Also, look how long Illinois is from the northern part to the southern part.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    And it’s experiencing tornados north to south. One was just outside Chicago the other day.
    "Just outside"
    Yeah, I am aware.
    And it was south of the city, hardly got into the city limits.
    I am well north of the city.
    Currently playing Path of Exile: Synthesis
    i7-5820K 4.1GHz | Noctua NH-D15 | eVGA GTX 1080 Ti 2GHz FTW3 Hybrid | 32GB DDR4 | 256GB NVMe | 1.75TB SSD | 7TB HDD |
    ASUS x99 Deluxe | SeaSonic 750w 80+ Titanium PRIME | Fractal Design Define R4
    Samsung 34" 3440x1440 Curved | Schiit MODI 2 + ASGARD 2 + Buzz Off | Sennheiser HD 598 | Presonus Eris E5*2 | KRK 10S | Shure BETA 58A

    Canon 5D Mark IV | Canon 7D Mark II | 24-70mm f/2.8 L II IS USM | 70-200mm f/2.8 L II IS USM | 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM MACRO |
    Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 Art | Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Sport

  10. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    No one in their right mind is going to abandon farming in Central Valley. Even at the height of the drought (2014 – 2016) the region produced 81 percent of U.S.-grown carrots, 95 percent of broccoli, 86 percent of cauliflower, 74 percent of raspberries, 91 percent of strawberries, 100% of garlic, and on and on.

    The region has the largest expanse of the most productive Class 1 (alluvial) soil in the world. Year-round growing season, predictable weather (unlike the Midwest) and the most productive farm lands on per acre basis. The only region in the world capable of producing over 420 different kind of crops. If the US government is smart, they would build pipelines to transport excess water from the Midwest to California farmlands.
    Pipelines are costly, pumping water requires an egregious amount of electricity generation, much of which comes from hydro-electric dams. We really don't have the infrastructure if more resevours go stagnate or become unreliable. Transporting vast amounts of agriculturally useful water from the East of the Mississippi region across the Rocky Mountains, and the Sierra Nevada and the whole of the west is perhaps the most insanely expensive project as well as insane to maintain given the power generation necessary would be unfeasible. Even if we did do it, it would make the problems worse as Climate Change would be further empowered by the coal burning necessary to generate that much wattage of power to keep those hydroelectric pumps running.

  11. #131
    Anung un Rama Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    58,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Kapadons View Post
    Ohhhhhh!!!! So one year of bad tornados doesn’t demonstrably prove they are caused by Trump and his nearly 3 years of policies concerning climate change??? Thank you for proving my point to these smarmy fucks.


    Let the back tracking begin.
    What "back tracking"? You've started adding bullshit political wankery to propaganda disinformation. Why would I take back anything I've said, over that?

    All you're doing is demonstrating a failure to grasp basic principles.

    Quote Originally Posted by deceptacon1 View Post
    Is this not related to the grand solar minimum? If so, we would be in for a drop in global temp. Not sure if this can 100% be pinned on climate change, at least not yet.
    Solar variation is basically not relevant to climate change at all. The solar cycle doesn't provide nearly the effect we're seeing, and to boot, it's moving in the opposite direction than it would have to, were it contributing.

  12. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    Pipelines are costly, pumping water requires an egregious amount of electricity generation, much of which comes from hydro-electric dams. We really don't have the infrastructure if more resevours go stagnate or become unreliable. Transporting vast amounts of agriculturally useful water from the East of the Mississippi region across the Rocky Mountains, and the Sierra Nevada and the whole of the west is perhaps the most insanely expensive project as well as insane to maintain given the power generation necessary would be unfeasible. Even if we did do it, it would make the problems worse as Climate Change would be further empowered by the coal burning necessary to generate that much wattage of power to keep those hydroelectric pumps running.
    Moving water through pipelines requires a lot less energy than moving crude with the consistency ranging from peanut butter (Canadian Oil-Sand) to thick molasses (WTI-Brent).

  13. #133
    The Patient Darkynhalvos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by Hexian View Post
    Nebraska. Nothing ever happens there.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czaPk7OYEpg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Taz-F55omBg
    Last edited by Darkynhalvos; 2019-05-30 at 03:56 AM.

  14. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    Moving water through pipelines requires a lot less energy than moving crude with the consistency ranging from peanut butter (Canadian Oil-Sand) to thick molasses (WTI-Brent).
    We'd still be talking about a metric fuck ton of water, moved across a continent, across really radically changing elevations and funding keeping that pipeline running full stop, none stop, perpetually forever.

    Also, crude oil pipelines stay active and in-service only as long as there is oil to harvest. We are talking a water project to radically terraform the American West and drain the East of .... fuck Idk how much its water resources to keep the West in good shape. Even if its JUST the central valley, you still have everything between the Sierra Nevada and the Mississippi river that can't be sustained.

  15. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by Kapadons View Post
    The entire start of this was me jokingly stating douchy liberals wanting to claim any uptick in weather or natural disasters in a given day/month as “hurr durr climate change. Thanks a lot Trump” when by your own admission , one year that’s not even half way done is waaaaaaaayyyy to small a sample size to make assumptions about anything let alone anything that involves climate (not weather mind you) and you have stated yourself holds true


    Seeing as how you have now agreed with someone from “the other side” I knew it would be inevitable you would back track from that and add qualifiers. And you didn’t disappoint.

    Pointing to 11 tornadoes in X amount of days as a sign of proof of climate change is just as bad as some jackass claiming that because it’s snowing that global warming is a myth. You are both a group of idiots with limited grasp of the information or topic at hand and would be best if you just didn’t even comment.

    I know that that is nearly physically impossible for quipy douchy liberals (yourself most of all) who just have to get those jabs in to make yourselves feel better about your own failures and insignificant lives in an attempt to blame others for your failures. Not that I really blame you. You’ve been brainwashed into thinking all your ills are due to the rich evil corrupt white male corporations and the conservative politician that cater to them.
    I am not a tornado expert, but we are currently sitting at 500 filtered eyewitness tornado reports in 12 days. Only four periods in the official database ever exceed 500 observed tornadoes in 30 days: 2003, 2004, 2008, and 2011. Global warming, or otherwise, 2019 is developing into a very unusual year for tornadoes.

  16. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by DeltrusDisc View Post
    It is, but compared to some states (looking at Oklahoma very harshly) we hardly see tornados.

    Also, look how long Illinois is from the northern part to the southern part.

    - - - Updated - - -



    "Just outside"
    Yeah, I am aware.
    And it was south of the city, hardly got into the city limits.
    I am well north of the city.
    So you’re a whole 70 miles away! It’s a good thing they’re not moving further north and east as the years pass... wait a minute.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Got to earn his turnips.
    Quote Originally Posted by freefolk View Post
    Okay. I'll stop sharing my views.

  17. #137
    Anung un Rama Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    58,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Kapadons View Post
    The entire start of this was me jokingly stating douchy liberals wanting to claim any uptick in weather or natural disasters in a given day/month as “hurr durr climate change. Thanks a lot Trump” when by your own admission , one year that’s not even half way done is waaaaaaaayyyy to small a sample size to make assumptions about anything let alone anything that involves climate (not weather mind you) and you have stated yourself holds true
    It isn't being presented as a data set unto itself. It's presented as further items in a data set that continues to confirm the increasing trend.

    I'm not dealing with the rest, because you just dived straight into petty personal insults, which really says a lot.

  18. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    It’s almost like when you look at the overall data you see an increasing trend... weird how you’re not a denier but you’re bumping denier bullshit(framing data using specific subsets to support your point instead of the big picture).
    The ability to locate, predict, spot, and identify tornadoes has increased dramatically in a very short time, I'm not saying increasing temperatures aren't causing more tornadoes, but I'm absolutely certain that the numbers of tornadoes spotted from 2000 onward have been affected by improvements in computing, modeling, and radar.

    For example of this, over the past 30ish years, the lead-time for a tornado has gone from 3 minutes on average to 13 minutes.
    Last edited by jakeic; 2019-05-30 at 04:46 AM.

  19. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    We'd still be talking about a metric fuck ton of water, moved across a continent, across really radically changing elevations and funding keeping that pipeline running full stop, none stop, perpetually forever.

    Also, crude oil pipelines stay active and in-service only as long as there is oil to harvest. We are talking a water project to radically terraform the American West and drain the East of .... fuck Idk how much its water resources to keep the West in good shape. Even if its JUST the central valley, you still have everything between the Sierra Nevada and the Mississippi river that can't be sustained.
    The Trans-Alaska pipeline has been in operation for 45 years. Well past its service life. It does not appear that they are planning to replace it anytime soon.

    I don't expect the project will drain the Midwest of its water supply. By the look of it, they have more than enough to spare this year. Also, there will be decade where California agriculture won't need as much external water, if any. If 2017 and 2019 are any indication, it appears that California is entering a wetter than normal period. Also, agricultural water usage per acre is half of what it used to be in 2010. The drought has taught California farmers to be more efficient.

  20. #140
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Solar variation is basically not relevant to climate change at all. The solar cycle doesn't provide nearly the effect we're seeing, and to boot, it's moving in the opposite direction than it would have to, were it contributing.
    I don't pretend to be an expert, but I do admit I am interested in the grand solar minimum (more than climate change), but this is my understanding:

    Increase in galactic solar rays and galactic cosmic rays penetrate portions of the atmosphere during changes in solar cycles.

    These rays alter cloud cover which impacts rain volume and global temperature and potentially volcanic activity.

    If this were true then it could potentially explain the increase in rain volume that we see over the last 12 months. I'm not 100% sold on the idea, but it's worth exploring as far as I can tell.

    Just a couple of studies which potentially support this idea that I've read are here:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12459578
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5374846/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •