[bootlegga]

uwish uwish:

bootlegga bootlegga:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Yup. Almost all of the Democrats running for President are parroting this line about how we "only have eight to nine years left" and then the world as we know it will end and it will be replaced by a chaotic hell on par with a nuclear apocalypse.

Yet no one can say where this talking point came from.

I know you don't have kids, but I do and I'd like to know that mine will grow up in a world not beset by extreme weather, famine, war, and death.

don't be so pessimistic, there has never been a better time to be alive as a human. All the matrix are moving in the right direction, despite what the alarmists want you to believe there is no extreme weather, Tornado's are dropping

...

and one of the longest periods in human history of 'relative' peace.

Good times!

I meant during their lifetimes, so I suppose I should have said 'live in' instead of 'grow up in' a world not beset by extreme weather, famine, war, and death.

I'm not talking about life in 2020, or 2025 or 2030, or even 2040.

My children (still very young) should still be alive in 2080 (assuming current lifespans are at least maintained, if not extended), and by that time, the most serious effects of climate change are predicted to begin (if not earlier).

[uwish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

uwish uwish:

The actual number of server weather events in flat or decreasing..

No, it's not. Unfortunately, the NOAA is doing maintenance, or I'd show you the exact opposite of your claims.

$1:

Please note: Due to scheduled maintenance, many NCEI systems will be unavailable during the week of 11/25/2019 - 11/29/2019.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-infor ... eme-events

here read this..

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/29/if-hurricanedorian-hits-as-a-cat4-still-no-long-term-trends-in-florida-major-hurricanes/

"But increasing storm damage does not mean increasing storminess."

[DrCaleb]

uwish uwish:

lucky for you let me help

https://ibb.co/8Dzr1QN

direct quote from the 2016 IPCC report "Numerous studies towards and beyond AR5 have reported a decreasing trend in the global number of tropical cyclones and /or the globally accumulated cyclonic energy"

from your own source "In the past 30 years, the total number of storms has remained about the same in the tropics, said lead study author Jim Kossin, a climate scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center"

you really are starting to make yourself look foolish..

https://ibb.co/p6qd0P0

Goes on to say more about other events like flooding and droughts

"there is low agreement in this evidence, and thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of these changes"

from the IPCC reports 2016

Like I wrote, you are cherry picking. The IPCC report you quoted for example does not say that there are fewer floods, it says there is low agreement because there are fewer reliable measurements.

And a lower instance of tropical cyclones does not mean they are less intense. And the link I posted shows, they are increasing in intensity and becoming more costly in damage because of it. Also, fewer cyclones does not mean fewer tornadoes, or floods or fires . . .

And which IPCC report from 2016 are you quoting? Let's see if the actual context matches your claim.

https://www.ipcc.ch/search/?search=2016+report

[DrCaleb]

uwish uwish:

here read this..

I am not interested in the opinion of a meteorologist being paid to deny the facts.

[uwish]

my position was storms are not increasing in their numbers..period you claim they are..your OWN source verifies they are NOT increasing in number.

Wind speeds are not increasing..even your own sources say that. Your claim is they are and they are not.

Now we can argue about 'severity' to humans? sure damage done now in 2019 etc is significantly more costly than say a decade ago.. absolutely you will get NO disagreement from me on that. But damage doesn't mean 'worse' storms or 'more storms it just means more cost associated with clean up.

[uwish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

uwish uwish:

here read this..

I am not interested in the opinion of a meteorologist being paid to deny the facts.

how is that better than a government body who's mission was to find a link to man made global warming?


I think the only one denying any facts is you, you can plot the data yourself and see a flat or slightly downward trend in the data. You just don't like it because you don't want to believe it.

That data for the US is available I have plotted it and to me it is flat, if you filter for Cat 3 storms or greater the trend is negative. Those are the facts, storms are NOT more frequent so you can lie all you want to yourself but if that is best you can do..then it's the best you can do.

[Martin15]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

uwish uwish:

here read this..

I am not interested in the opinion of a meteorologist being paid to deny the facts.

Yes you are, just meteorologists being paid to lie in your favour. Nothing more than that.

[CharlesAnthony]

Martin15 Martin15:

Geez, I thought glowbushit warming (TM) was supposed to give 50 hurricanes a year killing tens of thousands by now.

You are only partly correct.
You forgot the part where it is all your fault! The rich people are not to blame! Poor people must pay more taxes!

Martin15 Martin15:

Not a good year for the panic driven Chicken Little tax thieves.

No! It is a great year! The little GREEN THUG BRAT convinced all of the men-who-see-little-girls-as-ahem-intellectual-equals that the climate-shit is all your fault and you have to pay for the shit that old rich men fucked up for future generations!

Get with the program! Ask the hysterical-climate-liars the 93zillion dollar question: "How can I grift off of the scam too???"

[DrCaleb]

uwish uwish:

my position was storms are not increasing in their numbers..period you claim they are..

Quote me where I wrote that.

[bootlegga]

Martin15 Martin15:

bootlegga bootlegga:

I'd like to know that mine will grow up in a world not beset by extreme weather, famine, war, and death.

Really ?

Only a few countries got those benefits in the past 75 years.


The rest of the world got lots of famine, war and death.
And normal weather, which killed a few million over the years.

True enough, and let's be honest, in Canada, we've never really had to deal with the sorts of conflict, famine, etc other parts of the world have. But 50 years of drought, extreme weather, and other issues caused by climate change WILL bring those problems to our doorsteps, either due to shortages here in Canada (it can be difficult to grow food in the middle of winter) or waves of migration that come crashing over us.

It wasn't climate change that did in the Roman Empire, but it was many of the same problems, mass migration of tribes across the steppes brought conflict to their borders, disease to their population, as well as droughts causing food shortages that eventually caused the collapse of the Empire.

Imagine if a massive typhoon hits Bangladesh and kills a few million people and floods half the country - those refugees will pour across borders and destabilize neighbouring countries. Then suddenly those countries have problems and send out their own waves of refugees. Eventually, those refugees will wind up here, unless Canadians are willing to sink ships/shoot down planes. I don't think even the most cold-hearted amongst us would support that.

Same goes for waves of migrants from Latin America. Think of all the consternation that one little caravan caused this summer. Imagine five or ten millions heading north because drought has killed their crops and they have nothing left. They destabilize countries as they approach the US border. Again, unless the Americans are willing to massacre thousands of people, they could pour into the US and severely weaken it.

Or what happens when the US southwest runs out of water in a couple decades? What do those millions of Americans do? Do they move to Idaho and Montana? Or do they demand Canada allows them to build some massive project like like NAWAPA or GRAND?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Ame ... r_Alliance

There are literally hundred of possible future scenarios where climate change could impact Canadians. I'm not sure who said it, but I think it was an American politician who said of Al Qaeda, "We're better off fighting them over there instead of over here."

That holds true for the world's poor - it's easier to help them where they live instead of trying to bring them all to the West.

Martin15 Martin15:

uwish uwish:

don't be so pessimistic, there has never been a better time to be alive as a human. All the matrix are moving in the right direction, despite what the alarmists want you to believe there is no extreme weather, Tornado's are dropping

Did we even have any serious hurricanes this year ?

Maybe we didn't have that many major storms this year in the Caribbean, but you should take a look at the Pacific and read up on the shit-kicking Asia (including Japan) took this year.

[DrCaleb]

uwish uwish:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

uwish uwish:

here read this..

I am not interested in the opinion of a meteorologist being paid to deny the facts.

how is that better than a government body who's mission was to find a link to man made global warming?

Their mission was never to find such a link. They recorded the weather, the same time every day for 200 years in many locations.

The data is what showed that warming. And since then, something like 12,500 different and independent methods have been used to show exactly the same trend. That is incontrovertible evidence of a trend.

[DrCaleb]

Martin15 Martin15:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

uwish uwish:

here read this..

I am not interested in the opinion of a meteorologist being paid to deny the facts.

Yes you are, just meteorologists being paid to lie in your favour. Nothing more than that.

Data doesn't lie, and meteorologists are no more climate scientists than gas pump jockies are red seal mechanics.

[uwish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

uwish uwish:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I am not interested in the opinion of a meteorologist being paid to deny the facts.

how is that better than a government body who's mission was to find a link to man made global warming?

Their mission was never to find such a link. They recorded the weather, the same time every day for 200 years in many locations.

The data is what showed that warming. And since then, something like 12,500 different and independent methods have been used to show exactly the same trend. That is incontrovertible evidence of a trend.

IPCC was founded in 1988 hard to be around for 200 years when they formed in 1988, so don't claim they have been collecting data for hundreds of years. And I am challenging your claim that 12,500 independent methods have been used. There just are not that many methods with only 3 sets of data.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/02/UNGA43-53.pdf

The original article of incorporation if you read it there is a clear outline to link human activity with climate, that was their mandate.

[uwish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Martin15 Martin15:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I am not interested in the opinion of a meteorologist being paid to deny the facts.

Yes you are, just meteorologists being paid to lie in your favour. Nothing more than that.

Data doesn't lie, and meteorologists are no more climate scientists than gas pump jockies are red seal mechanics.

at least they have some credentials....unlike someone..

[uwish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

uwish uwish:

my position was storms are not increasing in their numbers..period you claim they are..

Quote me where I wrote that.

dodge..weave...

I showed the plot clearing demonstrating no increase in storm speeds. They are not intensifying period.