Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Houston area flooding
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Free bird Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 92
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 2
I Root For: Utsa
Location:
Post: #61
RE: Houston area flooding
(08-29-2017 07:45 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 05:33 PM)Free bird Wrote:  The question that needs to be answered is, do humans cause changes to the climate that is significant enough to cause significant climate changes? Right now people are saying that humans affect the environment and therefore are responsible for any natural disasters and temperature changes. Because there is no conclusive data, the other arguement is how do we know that any natural disasters or temperature changes are not caused naturally? Nothing is conclusive yet on the topic. You continue to research and educated yourself with the literature.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...17300426#!
In a nutshell "Most global warming is natural and even if there had been no Industrial Revolution current global temperatures would be almost exactly the same as they are now".
(I'm not saying one study is conclusive evidence btw).

Instead, you should find out what scientists say. 97% of all climate-related articles submitted in the last 20 years (over 11,000) insist that Climate Change is real and is predominantly man-made.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific...ate_change
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-...ediate.htm
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientists-agree-g...aYLG8aQyJA
https://www.aaas.org/news/intersocietyclimateletter2016

I'm sure you have heard the expression that correlation does not mean causation. And that is exactly where the literature is currently at. Even the articles on the website you referenced indicates that scientists only concede that humans are the cause. Agreeing does not prove causation which is also acknowledged with the opposing disagreeing scientists. So if you are claiming this topic as a fact based on scientists coming to an agreement, that is an inaccurate statement. Instead of relying on someone's huntch or feelings, you should review the meta studies which shows inconclusive findings. Anyways, this isn't going anywhere so I'm out.
Oh and just a pointer, never use Wikipedia as a reliable source for an arguement.
08-29-2017 08:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hood-rich Offline
Smarter Than the Average Lib

Posts: 9,300
Joined: May 2016
I Root For: ECU & CSU
Location: The Hood
Post: #62
RE: Houston area flooding
(08-29-2017 03:50 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 03:43 PM)pilot172000 Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 01:30 PM)owlcountry40 Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 05:07 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  
(08-28-2017 11:05 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  It has been pretty conclusive. Both the frequency of hurricanes and the temperature data itself. Which is why it enjoys a 97% consensus in scientific world.

No it hasn't. You've simply been duped into believing a lie.
Just remember most people who deny this stuff and require more evidence believe things like the bible and Donald Trump tell the truth.
It says everything you need to know about them. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

I believe in the Bible and I trust Trump more than Billary or The DNC. Standing on the back of "Science" in one post only to take a politically motivated pot shot in the next is below you. You are better than that.

I would never ever admit to trust Trump, but, to each his/her own, I suppose.

Regardless, there is a reason EVERY scientific society (otherwise known as people who matter in terms of scientific inquiry) agrees that Climate Change is real, most likely man-made, and is getting worse.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
it's called gov't funding / justifying your exiatence.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app
08-29-2017 08:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hood-rich Offline
Smarter Than the Average Lib

Posts: 9,300
Joined: May 2016
I Root For: ECU & CSU
Location: The Hood
Post: #63
RE: Houston area flooding
(08-29-2017 07:45 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 05:33 PM)Free bird Wrote:  The question that needs to be answered is, do humans cause changes to the climate that is significant enough to cause significant climate changes? Right now people are saying that humans affect the environment and therefore are responsible for any natural disasters and temperature changes. Because there is no conclusive data, the other arguement is how do we know that any natural disasters or temperature changes are not caused naturally? Nothing is conclusive yet on the topic. You continue to research and educated yourself with the literature.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...17300426#!
In a nutshell "Most global warming is natural and even if there had been no Industrial Revolution current global temperatures would be almost exactly the same as they are now".
(I'm not saying one study is conclusive evidence btw).

Instead, you should find out what scientists say. 97% of all climate-related articles submitted in the last 20 years (over 11,000) insist that Climate Change is real and is predominantly man-made.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific...ate_change
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-...ediate.htm
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientists-agree-g...aYLG8aQyJA
https://www.aaas.org/news/intersocietyclimateletter2016

yet you can't predict tomorrow's weather with 97% accuracy.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app
(This post was last modified: 08-29-2017 08:46 PM by Hood-rich.)
08-29-2017 08:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Dawgxas Offline
#FreeDeb025

Posts: 6,874
Joined: Jan 2015
I Root For: Louisiana Tech
Location:
Post: #64
RE: Houston area flooding
Ok back to the actual situation.

Is the Rice campus flooded?
08-29-2017 09:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cr11owl Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,717
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation: 29
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #65
RE: Houston area flooding
(08-29-2017 09:18 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  Ok back to the actual situation.

Is the Rice campus flooded?

Nope. Street and parking lot flooding only according to email updates.
08-29-2017 10:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
owlcountry40 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,147
Joined: Mar 2009
Reputation: 15
I Root For: FAU
Location:
Post: #66
RE: Houston area flooding
(08-29-2017 08:46 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 07:45 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 05:33 PM)Free bird Wrote:  The question that needs to be answered is, do humans cause changes to the climate that is significant enough to cause significant climate changes? Right now people are saying that humans affect the environment and therefore are responsible for any natural disasters and temperature changes. Because there is no conclusive data, the other arguement is how do we know that any natural disasters or temperature changes are not caused naturally? Nothing is conclusive yet on the topic. You continue to research and educated yourself with the literature.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...17300426#!
In a nutshell "Most global warming is natural and even if there had been no Industrial Revolution current global temperatures would be almost exactly the same as they are now".
(I'm not saying one study is conclusive evidence btw).

Instead, you should find out what scientists say. 97% of all climate-related articles submitted in the last 20 years (over 11,000) insist that Climate Change is real and is predominantly man-made.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific...ate_change
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-...ediate.htm
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientists-agree-g...aYLG8aQyJA
https://www.aaas.org/news/intersocietyclimateletter2016

yet you can't predict tomorrow's weather with 97% accuracy.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app
Maybe, but do you ignore the weather? If they say big chance of thunderstorms most of an afternoon do you plan a picnic in the park?

I really wish people who deny climate change (mostly people who fall on the Christian right) would look at religion with the same skeptical eye they do science.
"I don't know about all that data, but ill tell you this a man definitely rose from the dead because it's in book written by kings thousands of years ago.''03-banghead
08-30-2017 08:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
eagle04 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,639
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation: 62
I Root For: Southern Miss
Location:
Post: #67
RE: Houston area flooding
You ding-dongs have successfully taken a thread discussing the direct issues in Houston, specifically on Rice's campus, and turned it into a global warming pissing match.
08-30-2017 08:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,540
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #68
RE: Houston area flooding
(08-30-2017 08:06 AM)owlcountry40 Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 08:46 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 07:45 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 05:33 PM)Free bird Wrote:  The question that needs to be answered is, do humans cause changes to the climate that is significant enough to cause significant climate changes? Right now people are saying that humans affect the environment and therefore are responsible for any natural disasters and temperature changes. Because there is no conclusive data, the other arguement is how do we know that any natural disasters or temperature changes are not caused naturally? Nothing is conclusive yet on the topic. You continue to research and educated yourself with the literature.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...17300426#!
In a nutshell "Most global warming is natural and even if there had been no Industrial Revolution current global temperatures would be almost exactly the same as they are now".
(I'm not saying one study is conclusive evidence btw).

Instead, you should find out what scientists say. 97% of all climate-related articles submitted in the last 20 years (over 11,000) insist that Climate Change is real and is predominantly man-made.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific...ate_change
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-...ediate.htm
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientists-agree-g...aYLG8aQyJA
https://www.aaas.org/news/intersocietyclimateletter2016

yet you can't predict tomorrow's weather with 97% accuracy.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app
Maybe, but do you ignore the weather? If they say big chance of thunderstorms most of an afternoon do you plan a picnic in the park?

I really wish people who deny climate change (mostly people who fall on the Christian right) would look at religion with the same skeptical eye they do science.
"I don't know about all that data, but ill tell you this a man definitely rose from the dead because it's in book written by kings thousands of years ago.''03-banghead


I am not a very good Christian, haven't been to church except for weddings and funerals since 1990. Definitely not a Bible-thumper,, as I have the same concerns about the Bible you allude to.

My skepticism is based on history,, common sense, and science(!). Certainly we know the Earth has had periods of warming and cooling. The most recent ones were called interglacials and glaciations, and happened before there was a significant human presence on this globe, indeed, before we knew it was a globe. I see no reason to presume these cycles stopped and we entered into a period of climate stability around 1350 (the end of the Medievel Warming Period) that was recently upset by people driving cars and using deodorant.

So we are warming. I think it utterly stupid to assign Man 100% of the blame, and I also think it is unreasonable to assign Nature 100%. So the question becomes not whether or not Man has a hand in it, but to what extent? Once that is answered, the next question is "What can we do about it"?

I think it crazy to try and turn the clock back to some unspecified time when all was right. What's the target? In any case, if man is, say, 30% responsible, and we can pass laws reversing 30% of our damage, doesn't that just mean we can slow the process by 9%? Not stop it, not reverse it, just slow it?

It didn't use to matter much. If the sea level rose, you moved the camp back 40 feet. If the growing period got too hot, you moved north or changed crops. But now we are industrialized. Hard to move Miami. Hard to get Nebraska farmers to plant cotton instead of corn. Especially since they would lose that subsidy.

So, while we are hard at work slowing the advance by 9% or so, let us prepare for a world with warmer temperatures and higher sea levels. That is the prudent thing to do, not a frantic effort to turn the clock back to 1875.

Specifically, on hurricanes, yes, there may well be more bad ones than in, say, 1250-1275. How the heck would we know? But we still need to prepare for them.

so it really doesn't matter to me if 97% or .97% of scientists say Man is somewhat to blame (there is no consensus on the degree of blame, is there?). Time to prepare to figure out ways to provide food and water to a growing population.
08-30-2017 08:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
THUNDERStruck73 Offline
Complete Jackass
*

Posts: 13,166
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation: 981
I Root For: Herd, Our Lady, & Heels
Location: Huntington, WV
Post: #69
RE: Houston area flooding
(08-30-2017 08:39 AM)eagle04 Wrote:  You ding-dongs have successfully taken a thread discussing the direct issues in Houston, specifically on Rice's campus, and turned it into a global warming pissing match.

You got that right. Ridiculous. This thread needs locked or moved, period.
08-30-2017 08:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goliath74 Offline
5318008
*

Posts: 8,945
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 558
I Root For: FAU, FSU
Location: Hollywood, Florida
Post: #70
RE: Houston area flooding
(08-30-2017 08:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(08-30-2017 08:06 AM)owlcountry40 Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 08:46 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 07:45 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 05:33 PM)Free bird Wrote:  The question that needs to be answered is, do humans cause changes to the climate that is significant enough to cause significant climate changes? Right now people are saying that humans affect the environment and therefore are responsible for any natural disasters and temperature changes. Because there is no conclusive data, the other arguement is how do we know that any natural disasters or temperature changes are not caused naturally? Nothing is conclusive yet on the topic. You continue to research and educated yourself with the literature.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...17300426#!
In a nutshell "Most global warming is natural and even if there had been no Industrial Revolution current global temperatures would be almost exactly the same as they are now".
(I'm not saying one study is conclusive evidence btw).

Instead, you should find out what scientists say. 97% of all climate-related articles submitted in the last 20 years (over 11,000) insist that Climate Change is real and is predominantly man-made.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific...ate_change
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-...ediate.htm
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientists-agree-g...aYLG8aQyJA
https://www.aaas.org/news/intersocietyclimateletter2016

yet you can't predict tomorrow's weather with 97% accuracy.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app
Maybe, but do you ignore the weather? If they say big chance of thunderstorms most of an afternoon do you plan a picnic in the park?

I really wish people who deny climate change (mostly people who fall on the Christian right) would look at religion with the same skeptical eye they do science.
"I don't know about all that data, but ill tell you this a man definitely rose from the dead because it's in book written by kings thousands of years ago.''03-banghead


I am not a very good Christian, haven't been to church except for weddings and funerals since 1990. Definitely not a Bible-thumper,, as I have the same concerns about the Bible you allude to.

My skepticism is based on history,, common sense, and science(!). Certainly we know the Earth has had periods of warming and cooling. The most recent ones were called interglacials and glaciations, and happened before there was a significant human presence on this globe, indeed, before we knew it was a globe. I see no reason to presume these cycles stopped and we entered into a period of climate stability around 1350 (the end of the Medievel Warming Period) that was recently upset by people driving cars and using deodorant.

So we are warming. I think it utterly stupid to assign Man 100% of the blame, and I also think it is unreasonable to assign Nature 100%. So the question becomes not whether or not Man has a hand in it, but to what extent? Once that is answered, the next question is "What can we do about it"?

I think it crazy to try and turn the clock back to some unspecified time when all was right. What's the target? In any case, if man is, say, 30% responsible, and we can pass laws reversing 30% of our damage, doesn't that just mean we can slow the process by 9%? Not stop it, not reverse it, just slow it?

It didn't use to matter much. If the sea level rose, you moved the camp back 40 feet. If the growing period got too hot, you moved north or changed crops. But now we are industrialized. Hard to move Miami. Hard to get Nebraska farmers to plant cotton instead of corn. Especially since they would lose that subsidy.

So, while we are hard at work slowing the advance by 9% or so, let us prepare for a world with warmer temperatures and higher sea levels. That is the prudent thing to do, not a frantic effort to turn the clock back to 1875.

Specifically, on hurricanes, yes, there may well be more bad ones than in, say, 1250-1275. How the heck would we know? But we still need to prepare for them.

so it really doesn't matter to me if 97% or .97% of scientists say Man is somewhat to blame (there is no consensus on the degree of blame, is there?). Time to prepare to figure out ways to provide food and water to a growing population.

But, you see, the main problem is that we have a lot of people who say that man had nothing to do with this. And, because of that, we can not pass any legislation combatting global warming.

Secondly, while the warming and cooling of the climate are things that do happen naturally, they do not happen so quickly and what we do is only exacerbating the situation.

Scientists, a great majority of them (and, ultimately, it is not relevant whether it is 97% or, say, only 92%), assign a large amount of the blame to humans.

It is physics, remedial physics. Do we produce more greenhouse gases? yes. What happens to them in the atmosphere? Do they just disappear like a fart in the wind (which, btw, does not disappear either, but that is the subject of a different debate)? So, the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has to lead to a hike in temperature. that is remedial physics. What (or, who, in this case) produces greenhouse gases and why are they out of balance?

So, if your argument is whether it is fair to assign 100% blame for global warming - fine, we can discuss it. And, what if it is just 90%, does that change anything?
08-30-2017 02:49 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,540
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #71
RE: Houston area flooding
(08-30-2017 02:49 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  But, you see, the main problem is that we have a lot of people who say that man had nothing to do with this. And, because of that, we can not pass any legislation combatting global warming.
I don't think we have "a lot" of people who say man has "nothing" to do with it. Not nearly as many as say that man is the cause. and I see now you decided to avoid the idea that the main ones against it are religious kooks.
Quote:Secondly, while the warming and cooling of the climate are things that do happen naturally, they do not happen so quickly and what we do is only exacerbating the situation

Well, yeah, so what?
Quote:Scientists, a great majority of them (and, ultimately, it is not relevant whether it is 97% or, say, only 92%), assign a large amount of the blame to humans.

How large? Are they in consensus how large? Do you have a number, or just "large"?
Quote:It is physics, remedial physics. Do we produce more greenhouse gases? yes. What happens to them in the atmosphere? Do they just disappear like a fart in the wind (which, btw, does not disappear either, but that is the subject of a different debate)? So, the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has to lead to a hike in temperature. that is remedial physics. What (or, who, in this case) produces greenhouse gases and why are they out of balance?


So what do you want to do, and how will it solve the problem?
Quote:So, if your argument is whether it is fair to assign 100% blame for global warming - fine, we can discuss it. And, what if it is just 90%, does that change anything?

What if it is 4%, or 40%? why do you choose to assign the lion's share to man, when this is not the first time this has happened but it is the first time we have been a part of it. And once more, what do you want to do, and how will it solve the problem.

let's use your figures.It it is 90% man-cause, and we can eliminate 90% of our portion, that will slow it down by 81%, but it will not stop it. Now what?

Since this is about hurricanes, how do you propose we get back to the peaceful days when (supposed) we had no bad hurricanes, because the Earth was in balance? How do we overcome the natural, normal change that is happening? Talk about farting in the wind.
08-30-2017 03:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #72
RE: Houston area flooding
(08-28-2017 02:55 PM)usm99 Wrote:  Not sure how much of it is true or if they're photoshopped but I saw some pictures that had gas over $8 a gallon along other pictures showing a case of basic/generic bottled water going for $25-$40 a case (FWIW, this same water you can get at Walmart/Sams for under $5 a case in Hattiesburg). Like I said, not sure how valid those pictures were but if true that is straight up a shame for the people in the Houston area

It happened at several places. But to be fair, these were cases of water designed to be sold as singles (nicer thicker plastic bottle with pop up caps). So the price was $1.89 a bottle. or so. They were never designed to be sold as 24 packs and werent priced that way in the computers. So the employees were pricing the cases at 1.89 x 24. I dont think most of these chains were trying to price gouge (at least no more than normal). The truth is, single water pricing is basically price gouging all the time. The case price was just mostly due to low level employees not having any ability to independently use common sense.
08-30-2017 06:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
usm99 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,027
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 240
I Root For: Southern Miss
Location:
Post: #73
RE: Houston area flooding
(08-30-2017 06:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-28-2017 02:55 PM)usm99 Wrote:  Not sure how much of it is true or if they're photoshopped but I saw some pictures that had gas over $8 a gallon along other pictures showing a case of basic/generic bottled water going for $25-$40 a case (FWIW, this same water you can get at Walmart/Sams for under $5 a case in Hattiesburg). Like I said, not sure how valid those pictures were but if true that is straight up a shame for the people in the Houston area

It happened at several places. But to be fair, these were cases of water designed to be sold as singles (nicer thicker plastic bottle with pop up caps). So the price was $1.89 a bottle. or so. They were never designed to be sold as 24 packs and werent priced that way in the computers. So the employees were pricing the cases at 1.89 x 24. I dont think most of these chains were trying to price gouge (at least no more than normal). The truth is, single water pricing is basically price gouging all the time. The case price was just mostly due to low level employees not having any ability to independently use common sense.

Thanks for the clarification. After experiencing Katrina I know it'll take weeks and months if not years to fully recover so hopefully you guys are getting started with that process now that the waters are starting to recede. Best of luck to all Houston area towns and cities.
08-30-2017 06:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goliath74 Offline
5318008
*

Posts: 8,945
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 558
I Root For: FAU, FSU
Location: Hollywood, Florida
Post: #74
RE: Houston area flooding
(08-30-2017 03:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
Goliath74 Wrote:Secondly, while the warming and cooling of the climate are things that do happen naturally, they do not happen so quickly and what we do is only exacerbating the situation

Well, yeah, so what?

So what? That means something needs to be done.

(08-30-2017 03:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
Goliath74 Wrote:Scientists, a great majority of them (and, ultimately, it is not relevant whether it is 97% or, say, only 92%), assign a large amount of the blame to humans.

How large? Are they in consensus how large? Do you have a number, or just "large"?

Well, had you chosen to read some of the links I had provided, you would have seen that there are several estimates. Majority are in the 92% to 97% range. Not a single estimate lays below 82%.

(08-30-2017 03:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
Goliath74 Wrote:It is physics, remedial physics. Do we produce more greenhouse gases? yes. What happens to them in the atmosphere? Do they just disappear like a fart in the wind (which, btw, does not disappear either, but that is the subject of a different debate)? So, the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has to lead to a hike in temperature. that is remedial physics. What (or, who, in this case) produces greenhouse gases and why are they out of balance?


So what do you want to do, and how will it solve the problem?

That's a different question. But there are many things that the world (except for us) is already doing - reducing fossil fuel consumption, increasing renewables, etc.

(08-30-2017 03:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
Goliath74 Wrote:So, if your argument is whether it is fair to assign 100% blame for global warming - fine, we can discuss it. And, what if it is just 90%, does that change anything?

What if it is 4%, or 40%? why do you choose to assign the lion's share to man, when this is not the first time this has happened but it is the first time we have been a part of it. And once more, what do you want to do, and how will it solve the problem.

It's actually the simplest thing to answer. What other factor do we have that causes a significant production of greenhouse gases? We are not experiencing a higher volcanic or seismic activity today versus 150 years ago, so who's responsible for such a stupendous increase in greenhouse gases? With all the other variables being pretty much unchanged in the last 150 years, it is obvious that we, the humans, are responsible for most if not almost all increase in greenhouse gases. You see, when you suggest things like 4% or 40%, you need to explain what other factor is responsible in ways that are significantly different from, say, 1850s.

(08-30-2017 03:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  let's use your figures.It it is 90% man-cause, and we can eliminate 90% of our portion, that will slow it down by 81%, but it will not stop it. Now what?

Since this is about hurricanes, how do you propose we get back to the peaceful days when (supposed) we had no bad hurricanes, because the Earth was in balance? How do we overcome the natural, normal change that is happening? Talk about farting in the wind.

There is nothing normal about what is going on today. Yes, from time to time we got hit by powerful hurricanes. The estimates are that we had a category 5 hurricane in the Atlantic about once in 20 years until 1900s. Now, there is at least one category 5 hurricane almost every year. Which part of it is normal?

2016 was the hottest year on the record. 2015 was also the hottest, until the 2016. And before that it was the 2014. 14 of the last 16 are in the top 15 hottest years on record. And 2017 is on its way to being, at least a top 3 hottest year on record. So, what here is normal?

Besides, your math is wrong. If we remove 90% of our effect, we will remove about 81% (if we were to accept my very conservative estimate of 90% of blame falling to our feet)
(This post was last modified: 08-30-2017 06:53 PM by goliath74.)
08-30-2017 06:50 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goliath74 Offline
5318008
*

Posts: 8,945
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 558
I Root For: FAU, FSU
Location: Hollywood, Florida
Post: #75
RE: Houston area flooding
And since we are, indeed, talking about effects of a hurricane, it makes sense to offer evidence that it is, indeed, climate change that may have made the effects of Harvey much more significant. Studies are predicting this behavior for hurricanes and such extraordinary rainfall only supports the climate change models.

https://www.livescience.com/60269-did-cl...0170830-ls
08-30-2017 07:04 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #76
RE: Houston area flooding
(08-30-2017 07:04 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  And since we are, indeed, talking about effects of a hurricane, it makes sense to offer evidence that it is, indeed, climate change that may have made the effects of Harvey much more significant. Studies are predicting this behavior for hurricanes and such extraordinary rainfall only supports the climate change models.

https://www.livescience.com/60269-did-cl...0170830-ls

To be fair, this storm wasn't differnt in any way. It was quite typical. What made it so devastating is that it stayed in one place close enough to the coast to keep regeneratiing its moisture. Unless global warming caused 2 high pressure systems block the storms path over a major city for days---then climate change wasnt really a factor. Go back and look at the radar, Beaumont was getting alot of rain before the last 2 days. Basically, thier drainage system was already stressed before the storm moved in because of the days it spent as stationary storm near Houston.
(This post was last modified: 08-30-2017 08:10 PM by Attackcoog.)
08-30-2017 08:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goliath74 Offline
5318008
*

Posts: 8,945
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 558
I Root For: FAU, FSU
Location: Hollywood, Florida
Post: #77
RE: Houston area flooding
(08-30-2017 08:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-30-2017 07:04 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  And since we are, indeed, talking about effects of a hurricane, it makes sense to offer evidence that it is, indeed, climate change that may have made the effects of Harvey much more significant. Studies are predicting this behavior for hurricanes and such extraordinary rainfall only supports the climate change models.

https://www.livescience.com/60269-did-cl...0170830-ls

To be fair, this storm wasn't differnt in any way. It was quite typical. What made it so devastating is that it stayed in one place close enough to the coast to keep regeneratiing its moisture. Unless global warming caused 2 high pressure systems block the storms path over a major city for days---then climate change wasnt really a factor. Go back and look at the radar, Beaumont was getting alot of rain before the last 2 days. Basically, thier drainage system was already stressed before the storm moved in because of the days it spent as stationary storm near Houston.

This is not the first storm to meander around (heck, from my porch in South Florida, I have seen a few of those)

What made this storm different is the amount of moisture it had. It set a record. Nay, it obliterated the record. Quite an elegant data point in support of climate change. All kinds of very new animals we have seen coming ashore in South Florida. Katrina (it hit us before it hit NO) crossed the peninsula on land without weakening, Wilma which actually strengthened over land, etc. And, don't talk to me about failing drainage. Here, in South Florida it floods after a drizzle.
(This post was last modified: 08-30-2017 08:28 PM by goliath74.)
08-30-2017 08:27 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #78
RE: Houston area flooding
(08-30-2017 08:27 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  
(08-30-2017 08:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-30-2017 07:04 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  And since we are, indeed, talking about effects of a hurricane, it makes sense to offer evidence that it is, indeed, climate change that may have made the effects of Harvey much more significant. Studies are predicting this behavior for hurricanes and such extraordinary rainfall only supports the climate change models.

https://www.livescience.com/60269-did-cl...0170830-ls

To be fair, this storm wasn't differnt in any way. It was quite typical. What made it so devastating is that it stayed in one place close enough to the coast to keep regeneratiing its moisture. Unless global warming caused 2 high pressure systems block the storms path over a major city for days---then climate change wasnt really a factor. Go back and look at the radar, Beaumont was getting alot of rain before the last 2 days. Basically, thier drainage system was already stressed before the storm moved in because of the days it spent as stationary storm near Houston.

This is not the first storm to meander around (heck, from my porch in South Florida, I have seen a few of those)

What made this storm different is the amount of moisture it had. It set a record. Nay, it obliterated the record. Quite an elegant data point in support of climate change. All kinds of very new animals we have seen coming ashore in South Florida. Katrina (it hit us before it hit NO) crossed the peninsula on land without weakening, Wilma which actually strengthened over land, etc. And, don't talk to me about failing drainage. Here, in South Florida it floods after a drizzle.

There is a rule of thumb. Divide 100 by the speed of a hurricane and the number you get is a remarkably accurate estimate of what the rainfall will be. That formula still works. Nothing has really changed. This storm was basically stationary for much of its time near Houston--but I bet if you took an hour by hour look at the storm's speed and did an avergage---I bet it comes out to about 2 miles an hour.
(This post was last modified: 08-30-2017 10:47 PM by Attackcoog.)
08-30-2017 10:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.