Playa del Carmen, Mexico's virtual guidebook written by locals
 

Go Back   www.Playa.info > Off Topic Stuff > General Off-Topic Stuff
FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-10-2018   #46 (permalink)
aņejo
 
beerbreath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: South Florida
Posts: 10,536
Most all major weather records were broken in the 2000's.
beerbreath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2018   #47 (permalink)
tmc
aņejo
 
tmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: LI, NY
Posts: 3,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalifGuy View Post
Damn, so NASA is spreading nonsense, I always suspected those pictures from the moon were faked.
Metrology is clearly not your strong suit.
tmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2018   #48 (permalink)
tmc
aņejo
 
tmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: LI, NY
Posts: 3,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by beerbreath View Post
People including Trump need to get educated about the difference between weather and climate.
Perhaps you could educate yourself on the accuracy of thermometers, their placement and the resultant variations over time due to external factors apart from temperature, the failure to have adequate world-wide coverage of temperature gathering sources to reflect, to the point it is even possible to do so, the "average world" temperature (an idiotic claim if ever there was one) to two decimal places of accuracy.
tmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2018   #49 (permalink)
tmc
aņejo
 
tmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: LI, NY
Posts: 3,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by beerbreath View Post
Most all major weather records were broken in the 2000's.
To which records do you refer? Are you trying to claim that the last 15 or so years are the warmest in the history of the world? Even someone with as limited knowledge as you have displayed on the topic are not seriously seeking to make such a claim, are you?
tmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2018   #50 (permalink)
aņejo
 
PlayadelSolDos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 3,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmc View Post
To which records do you refer? Are you trying to claim that the last 15 or so years are the warmest in the history of the world? Even someone with as limited knowledge as you have displayed on the topic are not seriously seeking to make such a claim, are you?
I am pretty sure he is going to take that leap. Even if you point to the pile of dog droppings, he will step right in it.
PlayadelSolDos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2018   #51 (permalink)
aņejo
 
PlayadelSolDos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 3,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by beerbreath View Post
Most all major weather records were broken in the 2000's.
But you say some need to educate themselves on the difference between climate and weather yet you want to cite "major" (whatever that means) weather records as proof of manmade climate change. Are you confusing yourself? WTF is a "major weather record?" Are there "minor" ones too. If
so, how do we distinguish?
PlayadelSolDos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2018   #52 (permalink)
aņejo
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,948
Seven out of the ten largest snowstorms ever recorded in nyc occurred since 2000.

There were a total of 26 hurricanes in nyc in the 19th century. That's 0.26/year.

There were as many from 1900 to 1972. That's 0.36/year.

There were as many from 1972 to 2000. That's 0.92/year.

There were 32 since 2000. That's 1.88/year.

The likelihood of two major Typhoons hitting Tokyo at the same time has been increased by the Japanese government to 15% in any given year, from 6% which has been a stable number for 100 years, and the likelihood of three of them hitting at the same time (which will mean even our gigantic drainage system will overflow) is now at 5%.

These are not locations that lack a history of accurate measurement.

In addition, the number of extremely damaging weather events across the entire US has increased dramatically - this is harder to analyze as population growth and infrastructure such as oil rigs makes it difficult to compare, but the figures should leave little room for doubt that change is afoot.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events/US/1980-2017
ProfessorPibil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2018   #53 (permalink)
tmc
aņejo
 
tmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: LI, NY
Posts: 3,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProfessorPibil View Post
Seven out of the ten largest snowstorms ever recorded in nyc occurred since 2000.

There were a total of 26 hurricanes in nyc in the 19th century. That's 0.26/year.

There were as many from 1900 to 1972. That's 0.36/year.

There were as many from 1972 to 2000. That's 0.92/year.

There were 32 since 2000. That's 1.88/year.

The likelihood of two major Typhoons hitting Tokyo at the same time has been increased by the Japanese government to 15% in any given year, from 6% which has been a stable number for 100 years, and the likelihood of three of them hitting at the same time (which will mean even our gigantic drainage system will overflow) is now at 5%.

These are not locations that lack a history of accurate measurement.

In addition, the number of extremely damaging weather events across the entire US has increased dramatically - this is harder to analyze as population growth and infrastructure such as oil rigs makes it difficult to compare, but the figures should leave little room for doubt that change is afoot.
Not difficult, impossible. How can you use cost as a measure of damage when for 99.99% of the time in this planet's history there were no structures extant on the pieces of land you identified? How do structural damage figures to man-made objects translate to actual environmental destruction? Events that happen over densely populated areas can magnify the "cost" of such events, even though the actual strength of a storm may be significantly less than a storm that came through that same area in the past when the area was less densely occupied. The figure you identified don't do anything to make the case "that change is afoot".
Are you a "Young Earther"? You describe a history of weather activity, not climate, that extends back a few hundred years, at most, for a planet most people believe has a history of a few billion years.
tmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2018   #54 (permalink)
aņejo
 
beerbreath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: South Florida
Posts: 10,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmc View Post
Not difficult, impossible. How can you use cost as a measure of damage when for 99.99% of the time in this planet's history there were no structures extant on the pieces of land you identified? How do structural damage figures to man-made objects translate to actual environmental destruction? Events that happen over densely populated areas can magnify the "cost" of such events, even though the actual strength of a storm may be significantly less than a storm that came through that same area in the past when the area was less densely occupied. The figure you identified don't do anything to make the case "that change is afoot".


Are you a "Young Earther"? You describe a history of weather activity, not climate, that extends back a few hundred years, at most, for a planet most people believe has a history of a few billion years.
Are you kidding me?Are you completely brain dead?
beerbreath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2018   #55 (permalink)
aņejo
 
CalifGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 5,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmc View Post
To which records do you refer? Are you trying to claim that the last 15 or so years are the warmest in the history of the world? Even someone with as limited knowledge as you have displayed on the topic are not seriously seeking to make such a claim, are you?
History of the world. Do you possibly think he may be referring to the modern history of temperature record taking, BTW, which is some what less than the history of the world.

It is not that the earth has never endured these extremes in temperature, it is that in ancient time these changes occurred over eons, changes that are now occurring over a few hundred years or less. Actually less, more pointedly since the dawn of the industrial revolution.

Last edited by CalifGuy; 01-11-2018 at 01:55 AM..
CalifGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2018   #56 (permalink)
aņejo
 
CalifGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 5,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmc View Post
Metrology is clearly not your strong suit.
What, you think NASA can't figure things out to two decimal points.
CalifGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2018   #57 (permalink)
aņejo
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmc View Post
Not difficult, impossible. How can you use cost as a measure of damage when for 99.99% of the time in this planet's history there were no structures extant on the pieces of land you identified? How do structural damage figures to man-made objects translate to actual environmental destruction? Events that happen over densely populated areas can magnify the "cost" of such events, even though the actual strength of a storm may be significantly less than a storm that came through that same area in the past when the area was less densely occupied. The figure you identified don't do anything to make the case "that change is afoot".


Are you a "Young Earther"? You describe a history of weather activity, not climate, that extends back a few hundred years, at most, for a planet most people believe has a history of a few billion years.
Do you agree that over the past 200 years there has been a huge increase in extreme weather events in the US northeast, and that the rate of increase seems to be increasing as well?

Why do you want me to prefer the explanation that this is due to random fluctuation and not due to the simultaneous increase in surface temperature by nearly 4 degrees (again measured in locations with a history of accurate measurements)?
ProfessorPibil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2018   #58 (permalink)
life=playa
 
Sogno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 961
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProfessorPibil View Post
Do you agree that over the past 200 years there has been a huge increase in extreme weather events in the US northeast, and that the rate of increase seems to be increasing as well?

Why do you want me to prefer the explanation that this is due to random fluctuation and not due to the simultaneous increase in surface temperature by nearly 4 degrees (again measured in locations with a history of accurate measurements)?
Your question was not directed at me, but I'll answer that.

It's because there is a segment of society that believes temperature and weather are not static, they are always changing. Further, some of us feel that the entire Al Gore spawned Global Warming, er climate change, or whatever name of the week it is is nothing but a farce. To believe that mankind has influenced the planet is, well refer back to Mr. Carlin. He can explain it far kinder than me. Suffice to say, we don't buy it. Never have, never will. We can agree to disagree. Get over it.
Sogno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2018   #59 (permalink)
Canada Dry
 
Rissask's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 56,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalifGuy View Post
History of the world. Do you possibly think he may be referring to the modern history of temperature record taking, BTW, which is some what less than the history of the world.

It is not that the earth has never endured these extremes in temperature, it is that in ancient time these changes occurred over eons, changes that are now occurring over a few hundred years or less.
Actually less, more pointedly since the dawn of the industrial revolution.

I hate to point this out, but this is 100% incorrect....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrupt_climate_change

https://www.wunderground.com/resourc...uptclimate.asp

Quote:
Ocean and lake sediment data from places such as California, Venezuela, and Antarctica have confirmed that these sudden climate changes affected not just Greenland, but the entire world. During the past 110,000 years, there have been at least 20 such abrupt climate changes. Only one period of stable climate has existed during the past 110,000 years--the 11,000 years of modern climate (the "Holocene" era). "Normal" climate for Earth is the climate of sudden extreme jumps--like a light switch flicking on and off.

Is it any wonder this is such a controversial subject, with both extreme 'sides' spouting inaccuracies left and right?

Last edited by Rissask; 01-11-2018 at 08:03 AM..
Rissask is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2018   #60 (permalink)
aņejo
 
beerbreath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: South Florida
Posts: 10,536
So all the crap we have put into the air has no effect on the planet?
beerbreath is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:35 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.