https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/04/us/california-atmospheric-river-flooding/index.
html
Rich <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/04/us/california-atmospheric-river-flooding/index.html
It's been steadily raining here for two weeks now with more to come. The >drought mavens must be having a stroke, seeing their prospects for >controlling us over 'drought fears' this year evaporating before their
eyes.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Rich <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/04/us/california-atmospheric-river-flooding/index.html
It's been steadily raining here for two weeks now with more to come. The
drought mavens must be having a stroke, seeing their prospects for
controlling us over 'drought fears' this year evaporating before their
eyes.
Are you still flushing fresh water out to the ocean
or are you allowing
the reservoirs and shallow acquifer to recharge? I mean, the drought is
going to resume at some point.
Never mind. I know nothing is different.
On 2/4/24 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <4e6208e1-8b4c-4e6b-be85-5ff8ca3e98cen@googlegroups.com>,So the fact that you're having unprecedented weather extreme conditions
Rich <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/04/us/california-atmospheric-river-flooding/index.
html
It's been steadily raining here for two weeks now with more to come. The
drought mavens must be having a stroke, seeing their prospects for
controlling us over 'drought fears' this year evaporating before their
eyes.
is somehow NOT an indicator of climate change?
In article <4e6208e1-8b4c-4e6b-be85-5ff8ca3e98cen@googlegroups.com>,
Rich <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/04/us/california-atmospheric-river-flooding/index.html
It's been steadily raining here for two weeks now with more to come. The drought mavens must be having a stroke, seeing their prospects for controlling us over 'drought fears' this year evaporating before their
eyes.
On 2024-02-04 23:45:31 +0000, BTR1701 said:
On Feb 4, 2024 at 3:17:28 PM PST, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/4/24 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <4e6208e1-8b4c-4e6b-be85-5ff8ca3e98cen@googlegroups.com>,So the fact that you're having unprecedented weather extreme conditions >>> is somehow NOT an indicator of climate change?
Rich <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/04/us/california-atmospheric-river-flooding/index.
html
It's been steadily raining here for two weeks now with more to come. The >>>> drought mavens must be having a stroke, seeing their prospects for
controlling us over 'drought fears' this year evaporating before their >>>> eyes.
It's not unprecedented, dipshit.
Ever heard of an ARKstorm?
Basically, a massive rainstorm that lasts a month and drops 200 inches of >> rain
(10 to 20 feet), flooding the entire West Coast.
Another dire 'climate change' effect, you ask? Nope.
It's an historical cyclical storm pattern that has regularly inundated the >> West Coast many times in the past, long before SUVs and carbon footprints. >> The
most recent was the winter of 1861-1862.
Did you attempt to follow the article on the US Geological Survey
website that Fox got their story from, smart guy?
"ARkStorm addresses massive U.S. West Coast storms analogous to those
that devastated California in 1861-62 and with magnitudes projected to
become more frequent and intense as a result of climate change."
That winter, 1/4 of the homes in California were flooded, 1/3rd of the
taxable
land was destroyed and it bankrupted the state. The flooding was so bad, the
state capital had to be temporarily relocated out of Sacramento. The Central
Valley was essentially turned into a temporary inland sea, 40 miles wide and
150 miles long. There's no official number of the exact number of
casualties,
but the rough estimate is around 1% of the state's population (40,000 lives)
was lost.
If California were to experience an ARkStorm now, 1.5 million people would >> have to be evacuated and sent... somewhere. And if the storm killed 1% of >> the
current population, that would mean 400,000 people dead, easily the worst >> natural disaster in the nation's history. And since California grows the
majority of the nation's crops, there would be nationwide food shortages. >>
Tree rings and sediment layers in rocks indicate California has experienced >> six ARkStorms more severe than the 1862 storm in the last 1800 years,
suggesting they occur roughly every 200 years, which puts California in the >> crosshairs for another one anytime between now and 2060.
On Feb 4, 2024 at 3:17:28 PM PST, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/4/24 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <4e6208e1-8b4c-4e6b-be85-5ff8ca3e98cen@googlegroups.com>,So the fact that you're having unprecedented weather extreme conditions
Rich <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/04/us/california-atmospheric-river-flooding/index.
html
It's been steadily raining here for two weeks now with more to come. The >>> drought mavens must be having a stroke, seeing their prospects for
controlling us over 'drought fears' this year evaporating before their
eyes.
is somehow NOT an indicator of climate change?
It's not unprecedented, dipshit.
Ever heard of an ARKstorm?
Basically, a massive rainstorm that lasts a month and drops 200 inches of rain
(10 to 20 feet), flooding the entire West Coast.
Another dire 'climate change' effect, you ask? Nope.
It's an historical cyclical storm pattern that has regularly inundated the West Coast many times in the past, long before SUVs and carbon footprints. The
most recent was the winter of 1861-1862.
That winter, 1/4 of the homes in California were flooded, 1/3rd of the taxable
land was destroyed and it bankrupted the state. The flooding was so bad, the state capital had to be temporarily relocated out of Sacramento. The Central Valley was essentially turned into a temporary inland sea, 40 miles wide and 150 miles long. There's no official number of the exact number of casualties, but the rough estimate is around 1% of the state's population (40,000 lives) was lost.
If California were to experience an ARkStorm now, 1.5 million people would have to be evacuated and sent... somewhere. And if the storm killed 1% of the current population, that would mean 400,000 people dead, easily the worst natural disaster in the nation's history. And since California grows the majority of the nation's crops, there would be nationwide food shortages.
Tree rings and sediment layers in rocks indicate California has experienced six ARkStorms more severe than the 1862 storm in the last 1800 years, suggesting they occur roughly every 200 years, which puts California in the crosshairs for another one anytime between now and 2060.
https://www.foxweather.com/extreme-weather/arkstorm-california-floods-1861-8-weeks-atmospheric-rivers
On 2/4/24 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <4e6208e1-8b4c-4e6b-be85-5ff8ca3e98cen@googlegroups.com>,
Rich <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/04/us/california-atmospheric-river-flooding/index.html
It's been steadily raining here for two weeks now with more to come. The
drought mavens must be having a stroke, seeing their prospects for
controlling us over 'drought fears' this year evaporating before their
eyes.
Just because you see rain raining doesn't mean there's no drought.
B. It may be raining where you are, but might not be raining
where the water is needed (farms, water reservoirs, etc.).
On Sunday 4 February 2024 at 15:11:29 UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 4, 2024 at 11:46:13 AM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:Always. The stupidity never stops.
Rich <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/04/us/california-atmospheric-river-flooding/index.html
It's been steadily raining here for two weeks now with more to come. The >>>> drought mavens must be having a stroke, seeing their prospects for
controlling us over 'drought fears' this year evaporating before their >>>> eyes.
Are you still flushing fresh water out to the ocean
or are you allowing
the reservoirs and shallow acquifer to recharge? I mean, the drought is
going to resume at some point.
Never mind. I know nothing is different.
Rather than financial black holes like high-speed trains and such, they
could alter some of the storm drain systems to bring run off to
purification plants and build large storage areas (reservoirs) to hold
onto some of the water for intermittent dry spell and divert some to
places like the Salton Sea which for some reason they think would be a loss if it dries up.
On 2/4/24 10:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2/4/24 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <4e6208e1-8b4c-4e6b-be85-5ff8ca3e98cen@googlegroups.com>,
Rich <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/04/us/california-atmospheric-river-flooding/index.html
It's been steadily raining here for two weeks now with more to come. The >>>> drought mavens must be having a stroke, seeing their prospects for
controlling us over 'drought fears' this year evaporating before their >>>> eyes.
Just because you see rain raining doesn't mean there's no drought.
There's no drought because after last winter's weeks of rain-- there's
another of those precedents that Effa doesn't believe exist-- the state's
environmental scientists said California was officially no longer under
drought conditions.
B. It may be raining where you are, but might not be raining
where the water is needed (farms, water reservoirs, etc.).
It's raining literally everywhere.
Shouldn't that fucking tell you something?
THIS IS NOT NORMAL, no matter how deep you stick your head up your ass.
On 2/4/24 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <4e6208e1-8b4c-4e6b-be85-5ff8ca3e98cen@googlegroups.com>,
Rich <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/04/us/california-atmospheric-river-flooding/index.
html
It's been steadily raining here for two weeks now with more to come. The
drought mavens must be having a stroke, seeing their prospects for
controlling us over 'drought fears' this year evaporating before their
eyes.
So the fact that you're having unprecedented weather extreme conditions
is somehow NOT an indicator of climate change?
Do tell...
FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/4/24 10:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2/4/24 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <4e6208e1-8b4c-4e6b-be85-5ff8ca3e98cen@googlegroups.com>, >>>>> Rich <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/04/us/california-atmospheric-river-flooding/index.html
It's been steadily raining here for two weeks now with more to come. The >>>>> drought mavens must be having a stroke, seeing their prospects for
controlling us over 'drought fears' this year evaporating before their >>>>> eyes.
Just because you see rain raining doesn't mean there's no drought.
There's no drought because after last winter's weeks of rain-- there's
another of those precedents that Effa doesn't believe exist-- the state's >>> environmental scientists said California was officially no longer under
drought conditions.
B. It may be raining where you are, but might not be raining
where the water is needed (farms, water reservoirs, etc.).
It's raining literally everywhere.
Shouldn't that fucking tell you something?
Yes: that California is a dry, arid climate that's punctuated by infrequent but regular periods of intense seasonal rain and that this current bout of prolonged precipitation aligns closely with previous periods of similar weather stretching back centuries.
Otherwise known as... wait for it... precedent.
THIS IS NOT NORMAL, no matter how deep you stick your head up your ass.
Other than the fact that it's happened regularly in California over at
least the last millennium with startling regularity long before there were SUVs and carbon footprints.
It's literally the science. You know that thing you claim you always
follow? But now that the science is showing you precedent for something you claimed is unprecedented, the science must be ignored.
On 2/5/2024 3:10 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/4/24 10:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2/4/24 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <4e6208e1-8b4c-4e6b-be85-5ff8ca3e98cen@googlegroups.com>, >>>>>> Rich <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/04/us/california-atmospheric-river-flooding/index.html
It's been steadily raining here for two weeks now with more to come. The >>>>>> drought mavens must be having a stroke, seeing their prospects for >>>>>> controlling us over 'drought fears' this year evaporating before their >>>>>> eyes.
Just because you see rain raining doesn't mean there's no drought.
There's no drought because after last winter's weeks of rain-- there's >>>> another of those precedents that Effa doesn't believe exist-- the state's >>>> environmental scientists said California was officially no longer under >>>> drought conditions.
B. It may be raining where you are, but might not be raining
where the water is needed (farms, water reservoirs, etc.).
It's raining literally everywhere.
Shouldn't that fucking tell you something?
Yes: that California is a dry, arid climate that's punctuated by infrequent >> but regular periods of intense seasonal rain and that this current bout of >> prolonged precipitation aligns closely with previous periods of similar
weather stretching back centuries.
Otherwise known as... wait for it... precedent.
THIS IS NOT NORMAL, no matter how deep you stick your head up your ass.
Other than the fact that it's happened regularly in California over at
least the last millennium with startling regularity long before there were >> SUVs and carbon footprints.
It's literally the science. You know that thing you claim you always
follow? But now that the science is showing you precedent for something you >> claimed is unprecedented, the science must be ignored.
So, even if climate change is destroying the habitable Earth, we're okay
as long each weapon of destruction has some symptomatic precedent.
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 3:10 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/4/24 10:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2/4/24 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <4e6208e1-8b4c-4e6b-be85-5ff8ca3e98cen@googlegroups.com>, >>>>>>> Rich <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/04/us/california-atmospheric-river-flooding/index.html
It's been steadily raining here for two weeks now with more to come. The
drought mavens must be having a stroke, seeing their prospects for >>>>>>> controlling us over 'drought fears' this year evaporating before their >>>>>>> eyes.
Just because you see rain raining doesn't mean there's no drought.
There's no drought because after last winter's weeks of rain-- there's >>>>> another of those precedents that Effa doesn't believe exist-- the state's >>>>> environmental scientists said California was officially no longer under >>>>> drought conditions.
B. It may be raining where you are, but might not be raining
where the water is needed (farms, water reservoirs, etc.).
It's raining literally everywhere.
Shouldn't that fucking tell you something?
Yes: that California is a dry, arid climate that's punctuated by infrequent >>> but regular periods of intense seasonal rain and that this current bout of >>> prolonged precipitation aligns closely with previous periods of similar
weather stretching back centuries.
Otherwise known as... wait for it... precedent.
THIS IS NOT NORMAL, no matter how deep you stick your head up your ass. >>>Other than the fact that it's happened regularly in California over at
least the last millennium with startling regularity long before there were >>> SUVs and carbon footprints.
It's literally the science. You know that thing you claim you always
follow? But now that the science is showing you precedent for something you >>> claimed is unprecedented, the science must be ignored.
So, even if climate change is destroying the habitable Earth, we're okay
as long each weapon of destruction has some symptomatic precedent.
You'd have a long way to go to show that something that's been happening regularly since at least 1200AD has now suddenly become the work of
'climate change'.
Nevertheless, my challenge was to Effa's insistence that this rain storm is 'unprecedented', even after being presented with hard evidence of
substantial precedent.
(Because Effa is never wrong about anything, dontcha know...)
On 2/5/2024 12:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 3:10 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/4/24 10:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2/4/24 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:There's no drought because after last winter's weeks of rain-- there's >>>>> another of those precedents that Effa doesn't believe exist-- the
In article <4e6208e1-8b4c-4e6b-be85-5ff8ca3e98cen@googlegroups.com>, >>>>>>> Rich <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/04/us/california-atmospheric-river-floodiIt's been steadily raining here for two weeks now with more to come. >>>>>>> The drought mavens must be having a stroke, seeing their prospects >>>>>>> for controlling us over 'drought fears' this year evaporating before >>>>>>> their eyes.
ng/index.html
Just because you see rain raining doesn't mean there's no drought. >>>>>
state's environmental scientists said California was officially no >>>>> longer under drought conditions.
B. It may be raining where you are, but might not be raining
where the water is needed (farms, water reservoirs, etc.).
It's raining literally everywhere.
Shouldn't that fucking tell you something?
Yes: that California is a dry, arid climate that's punctuated by
infrequent but regular periods of intense seasonal rain and that this
current bout of prolonged precipitation aligns closely with previous
periods of similar weather stretching back centuries.
Otherwise known as... wait for it... precedent.
THIS IS NOT NORMAL, no matter how deep you stick your head up your ass. >>>Other than the fact that it's happened regularly in California over at >>> least the last millennium with startling regularity long before there
were SUVs and carbon footprints.
It's literally the science. You know that thing you claim you always
follow? But now that the science is showing you precedent for something >>> you claimed is unprecedented, the science must be ignored.
So, even if climate change is destroying the habitable Earth, we're okay >> as long each weapon of destruction has some symptomatic precedent.
You'd have a long way to go to show that something that's been happening regularly since at least 1200AD has now suddenly become the work of 'climate change'.
Nevertheless, my challenge was to Effa's insistence that this rain storm
is 'unprecedented', even after being presented with hard evidence of substantial precedent.
(Because Effa is never wrong about anything, dontcha know...)
Well, if you Google "california unprecedented weather" you'll find he's
not alone.
But you're right that if we go clear back to Earth's formation, few natural metrics are without precedent.
Of course, there may have been nobody around to register, say, extinction events...
In article <9Z9wN.295930$Wp_8.26761@fx17.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 12:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 3:10 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/4/24 10:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2/4/24 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:There's no drought because after last winter's weeks of rain-- there's >>>>>>> another of those precedents that Effa doesn't believe exist-- the >>>>>>> state's environmental scientists said California was officially no >>>>>>> longer under drought conditions.
In article <4e6208e1-8b4c-4e6b-be85-5ff8ca3e98cen@googlegroups.com>, >>>>>>>>> Rich <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/04/us/california-atmospheric-river-floodiIt's been steadily raining here for two weeks now with more to come. >>>>>>>>> The drought mavens must be having a stroke, seeing their prospects >>>>>>>>> for controlling us over 'drought fears' this year evaporating before >>>>>>>>> their eyes.
ng/index.html
Just because you see rain raining doesn't mean there's no drought. >>>>>>>
B. It may be raining where you are, but might not be raining
where the water is needed (farms, water reservoirs, etc.).
It's raining literally everywhere.
Shouldn't that fucking tell you something?
Yes: that California is a dry, arid climate that's punctuated by
infrequent but regular periods of intense seasonal rain and that this >>>>> current bout of prolonged precipitation aligns closely with previous >>>>> periods of similar weather stretching back centuries.
Otherwise known as... wait for it... precedent.
THIS IS NOT NORMAL, no matter how deep you stick your head up your ass. >>>>>Other than the fact that it's happened regularly in California over at >>>>> least the last millennium with startling regularity long before there >>>>> were SUVs and carbon footprints.
It's literally the science. You know that thing you claim you always >>>>> follow? But now that the science is showing you precedent for something >>>>> you claimed is unprecedented, the science must be ignored.
So, even if climate change is destroying the habitable Earth, we're okay >>>> as long each weapon of destruction has some symptomatic precedent.
You'd have a long way to go to show that something that's been happening >>> regularly since at least 1200AD has now suddenly become the work of
'climate change'.
Nevertheless, my challenge was to Effa's insistence that this rain storm >>> is 'unprecedented', even after being presented with hard evidence of
substantial precedent.
(Because Effa is never wrong about anything, dontcha know...)
Well, if you Google "california unprecedented weather" you'll find he's
not alone.
Yes, there seem to be a lot of people, both official and otherwise, that
seem to be invested in hyping this into something it's not. It's what's called lying to push an agenda.
But you're right that if we go clear back to Earth's formation, few natural >> metrics are without precedent.
Don't be ridiculous. We don't have to go back to the Triassic. We only
have to go to the 1800s to find storms that well exceed what we're experiencing now. Plus dozens of examples both before and after that of regular periods of wet weather in California that equal what we're experiencing now.
Of course, there may have been nobody around to register, say, extinction
events...
And despite having had many multiple periods of wet weather that equal
or exceed this weeks storms, curiously a grand total of none of them
have been extinction events or even come anywhere remotely close to such.
On 2/5/2024 2:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <9Z9wN.295930$Wp_8.26761@fx17.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 12:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
So, even if climate change is destroying the habitable Earth, we're okay >>>> as long each weapon of destruction has some symptomatic precedent.
You'd have a long way to go to show that something that's been happening >>> regularly since at least 1200AD has now suddenly become the work of
'climate change'.
Nevertheless, my challenge was to Effa's insistence that this rain storm >>> is 'unprecedented', even after being presented with hard evidence of
substantial precedent.
(Because Effa is never wrong about anything, dontcha know...)
Well, if you Google "california unprecedented weather" you'll find he's
not alone.
Yes, there seem to be a lot of people, both official and otherwise, that seem to be invested in hyping this into something it's not. It's what's called lying to push an agenda.
But you're right that if we go clear back to Earth's formation, few
natural metrics are without precedent.
Don't be ridiculous. We don't have to go back to the Triassic. We only
have to go to the 1800s to find storms that well exceed what we're experiencing now. Plus dozens of examples both before and after that of regular periods of wet weather in California that equal what we're experiencing now.
Of course, there may have been nobody around to register, say, extinction >> events...
And despite having had many multiple periods of wet weather that equal
or exceed this weeks storms, curiously a grand total of none of them
have been extinction events or even come anywhere remotely close to such.
Here are the four 'takeaways' atop NASA's climate page:
----------------
While Earth’s climate has changed throughout its history, the
current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "Since systematic scientific assessments began in the 1970s, the
influence of human activity on the warming of the climate system has
evolved from theory to established fact."1
Scientific information taken from natural sources (such as ice
cores, rocks, and tree rings) and from modern equipment (like satellites
and instruments) all show the signs of a changing climate.
From global temperature rise to melting ice sheets, the evidence of
a warming planet abounds.
----------------
Which of them do you believe to be false?
On Feb 4, 2024 at 3:17:28 PM PST, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/4/24 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <4e6208e1-8b4c-4e6b-be85-5ff8ca3e98cen@googlegroups.com>,So the fact that you're having unprecedented weather extreme conditions
Rich <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
is somehow NOT an indicator of climate change?
It's not unprecedented, dipshit.
Ever heard of an ARKstorm?
Basically, a massive rainstorm that lasts a month and drops 200 inches of rain >(10 to 20 feet), flooding the entire West Coast.
Another dire 'climate change' effect, you ask? Nope.
It's an historical cyclical storm pattern that has regularly inundated the >West Coast many times in the past, long before SUVs and carbon footprints. The >most recent was the winter of 1861-1862.
That winter, 1/4 of the homes in California were flooded, 1/3rd of the taxable >land was destroyed and it bankrupted the state. The flooding was so bad, the >state capital had to be temporarily relocated out of Sacramento. The Central >Valley was essentially turned into a temporary inland sea, 40 miles wide and >150 miles long. There's no official number of the exact number of casualties, >but the rough estimate is around 1% of the state's population (40,000 lives) >was lost.
https://www.foxweather.com/extreme-weather/arkstorm-california-floods-1861-8-weeks-atmospheric-rivers
On 2/4/24 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <4e6208e1-8b4c-4e6b-be85-5ff8ca3e98cen@googlegroups.com>,
Rich <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/04/us/california-atmospheric-river-flooding/index.html
It's been steadily raining here for two weeks now with more to come. The
drought mavens must be having a stroke, seeing their prospects for
controlling us over 'drought fears' this year evaporating before their
eyes.
Just because you see rain raining doesn't mean there's no drought.
A. After long dry spells, the ground hardens, so any rain that
comes along mostly just runs off again without soaking into
the ground.
B. It may be raining where you are, but might not be raining
where the water is needed (farms, water reservoirs, etc.).
Just today alone, the news said more than 15 billion gallons of water will >fall on L.A. County and be washed out to sea via the L.A. River-- which is >actually a giant concrete aquaduct, not a river; it's where they had the >famous car race in GREASE-- all water that could be captured and treated
and saved for a rainy day, pun intended, if we had a sane and functioning >government.
So, even if climate change is destroying the habitable Earth, we're okay
as long each weapon of destruction has some symptomatic precedent.
In article <2vbwN.303222$7sbb.138939@fx16.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 2:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <9Z9wN.295930$Wp_8.26761@fx17.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 12:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
Here are the four 'takeaways' atop NASA's climate page:So, even if climate change is destroying the habitable Earth, we're okay >>>>>> as long each weapon of destruction has some symptomatic precedent.
You'd have a long way to go to show that something that's been happening >>>>> regularly since at least 1200AD has now suddenly become the work of
'climate change'.
Nevertheless, my challenge was to Effa's insistence that this rain storm >>>>> is 'unprecedented', even after being presented with hard evidence of >>>>> substantial precedent.
(Because Effa is never wrong about anything, dontcha know...)
Well, if you Google "california unprecedented weather" you'll find he's >>>> not alone.
Yes, there seem to be a lot of people, both official and otherwise, that >>> seem to be invested in hyping this into something it's not. It's what's
called lying to push an agenda.
But you're right that if we go clear back to Earth's formation, few
natural metrics are without precedent.
Don't be ridiculous. We don't have to go back to the Triassic. We only
have to go to the 1800s to find storms that well exceed what we're
experiencing now. Plus dozens of examples both before and after that of
regular periods of wet weather in California that equal what we're
experiencing now.
Of course, there may have been nobody around to register, say, extinction >>>> events...
And despite having had many multiple periods of wet weather that equal
or exceed this weeks storms, curiously a grand total of none of them
have been extinction events or even come anywhere remotely close to such. >>
----------------
While Earth’s climate has changed throughout its history, the
current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
"Since systematic scientific assessments began in the 1970s, the
influence of human activity on the warming of the climate system has
evolved from theory to established fact."1
Scientific information taken from natural sources (such as ice
cores, rocks, and tree rings) and from modern equipment (like satellites
and instruments) all show the signs of a changing climate.
From global temperature rise to melting ice sheets, the evidence of
a warming planet abounds.
----------------
Which of them do you believe to be false?
Which of them do you think makes this week's rain in California
unprecedented despite oodles of precedent?
On 2/5/2024 4:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <2vbwN.303222$7sbb.138939@fx16.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 2:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <9Z9wN.295930$Wp_8.26761@fx17.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 12:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
Here are the four 'takeaways' atop NASA's climate page:So, even if climate change is destroying the habitable Earth, we're >>>>>> okayYou'd have a long way to go to show that something that's been
as long each weapon of destruction has some symptomatic precedent. >>>>>
happening
regularly since at least 1200AD has now suddenly become the work of >>>>> 'climate change'.
Nevertheless, my challenge was to Effa's insistence that this rain >>>>> storm
is 'unprecedented', even after being presented with hard evidence of >>>>> substantial precedent.
(Because Effa is never wrong about anything, dontcha know...)
Well, if you Google "california unprecedented weather" you'll find he's >>>> not alone.
Yes, there seem to be a lot of people, both official and otherwise, that >>> seem to be invested in hyping this into something it's not. It's what's >>> called lying to push an agenda.
But you're right that if we go clear back to Earth's formation, few
natural metrics are without precedent.
Don't be ridiculous. We don't have to go back to the Triassic. We only >>> have to go to the 1800s to find storms that well exceed what we're
experiencing now. Plus dozens of examples both before and after that of >>> regular periods of wet weather in California that equal what we're
experiencing now.
Of course, there may have been nobody around to register, say,
extinction
events...
And despite having had many multiple periods of wet weather that equal >>> or exceed this weeks storms, curiously a grand total of none of them
have been extinction events or even come anywhere remotely close to such. >>
----------------
While Earth’s climate has changed throughout its history, the
current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years. >>
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), >> "Since systematic scientific assessments began in the 1970s, the
influence of human activity on the warming of the climate system has
evolved from theory to established fact."1
Scientific information taken from natural sources (such as ice
cores, rocks, and tree rings) and from modern equipment (like satellites >> and instruments) all show the signs of a changing climate.
From global temperature rise to melting ice sheets, the evidence of >> a warming planet abounds.
----------------
Which of them do you believe to be false?
Which of them do you think makes this week's rain in California unprecedented despite oodles of precedent?
If I were obsessing over it, I suppose I'd need to know what the speaker meant by 'unprecedented'.
E.g.: ...during the life of the solar system?
...in living memory? ...beyond the scope of past experience? ...other?
On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 04:53:24 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
Just today alone, the news said more than 15 billion gallons of water will >fall on L.A. County and be washed out to sea via the L.A. River-- which is >actually a giant concrete aquaduct, not a river; it's where they had the >famous car race in GREASE-- all water that could be captured and treated >and saved for a rainy day, pun intended, if we had a sane and functioning >government.
So why don't they?
On Sun, 04 Feb 2024 23:45:31 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Feb 4, 2024 at 3:17:28 PM PST, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/4/24 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <4e6208e1-8b4c-4e6b-be85-5ff8ca3e98cen@googlegroups.com>, >>>> Rich <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:So the fact that you're having unprecedented weather extreme conditions
is somehow NOT an indicator of climate change?
It's not unprecedented, dipshit.
Ever heard of an ARKstorm?
Basically, a massive rainstorm that lasts a month and drops 200 inches of rain
(10 to 20 feet), flooding the entire West Coast.
Hmm - I'm on the west coast (though rather north of California) and we
got all over 5-6" of snow during our storm. Which meant shovelling but
not everything grinding to a halt.
In article <YjdwN.142000$taff.43414@fx41.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 4:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <2vbwN.303222$7sbb.138939@fx16.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 2:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <9Z9wN.295930$Wp_8.26761@fx17.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 12:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
Here are the four 'takeaways' atop NASA's climate page:So, even if climate change is destroying the habitable Earth, we're >>>>>>>> okayYou'd have a long way to go to show that something that's been
as long each weapon of destruction has some symptomatic precedent. >>>>>>>
happening
regularly since at least 1200AD has now suddenly become the work of >>>>>>> 'climate change'.
Nevertheless, my challenge was to Effa's insistence that this rain >>>>>>> storm
is 'unprecedented', even after being presented with hard evidence of >>>>>>> substantial precedent.
(Because Effa is never wrong about anything, dontcha know...)
Well, if you Google "california unprecedented weather" you'll find he's >>>>>> not alone.
Yes, there seem to be a lot of people, both official and otherwise, that >>>>> seem to be invested in hyping this into something it's not. It's what's >>>>> called lying to push an agenda.
But you're right that if we go clear back to Earth's formation, few >>>>>> natural metrics are without precedent.
Don't be ridiculous. We don't have to go back to the Triassic. We only >>>>> have to go to the 1800s to find storms that well exceed what we're
experiencing now. Plus dozens of examples both before and after that of >>>>> regular periods of wet weather in California that equal what we're
experiencing now.
Of course, there may have been nobody around to register, say,
extinction
events...
And despite having had many multiple periods of wet weather that equal >>>>> or exceed this weeks storms, curiously a grand total of none of them >>>>> have been extinction events or even come anywhere remotely close to such. >>>>
----------------
While Earth’s climate has changed throughout its history, the >>>> current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years. >>>>
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), >>>> "Since systematic scientific assessments began in the 1970s, the
influence of human activity on the warming of the climate system has
evolved from theory to established fact."1
Scientific information taken from natural sources (such as ice
cores, rocks, and tree rings) and from modern equipment (like satellites >>>> and instruments) all show the signs of a changing climate.
From global temperature rise to melting ice sheets, the evidence of >>>> a warming planet abounds.
----------------
Which of them do you believe to be false?
Which of them do you think makes this week's rain in California
unprecedented despite oodles of precedent?
If I were obsessing over it, I suppose I'd need to know what the speaker
meant by 'unprecedented'.
Unless he's lying, the speaker meant what the word means. That's why we
have words and definitions. Unprecedented: without precedent.
E.g.: ...during the life of the solar system?
...in living memory? ...beyond the scope of past experience? ...other?
If the speaker wishes the reader to understand such qualifications, he
should say them. Otherwise the meaning is clear: no precedent.
On 2/5/2024 7:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <YjdwN.142000$taff.43414@fx41.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 4:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <2vbwN.303222$7sbb.138939@fx16.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 2:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <9Z9wN.295930$Wp_8.26761@fx17.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 12:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
So, even if climate change is destroying the habitable Earth, we're >>>>>>>>> okayYou'd have a long way to go to show that something that's been >>>>>>>> happening
as long each weapon of destruction has some symptomatic precedent. >>>>>>>>
regularly since at least 1200AD has now suddenly become the work of >>>>>>>> 'climate change'.
Nevertheless, my challenge was to Effa's insistence that this rain >>>>>>>> storm
is 'unprecedented', even after being presented with hard evidence of >>>>>>>> substantial precedent.
(Because Effa is never wrong about anything, dontcha know...)
Well, if you Google "california unprecedented weather" you'll find he's >>>>>>> not alone.
Yes, there seem to be a lot of people, both official and otherwise, that >>>>>> seem to be invested in hyping this into something it's not. It's what's >>>>>> called lying to push an agenda.
But you're right that if we go clear back to Earth's formation, few >>>>>>> natural metrics are without precedent.
Don't be ridiculous. We don't have to go back to the Triassic. We only >>>>>> have to go to the 1800s to find storms that well exceed what we're >>>>>> experiencing now. Plus dozens of examples both before and after that of >>>>>> regular periods of wet weather in California that equal what we're >>>>>> experiencing now.
Of course, there may have been nobody around to register, say,
extinction
events...
And despite having had many multiple periods of wet weather that equal >>>>>> or exceed this weeks storms, curiously a grand total of none of them >>>>>> have been extinction events or even come anywhere remotely close to such.
Here are the four 'takeaways' atop NASA's climate page:
----------------
While Earth’s climate has changed throughout its history, the >>>>> current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years. >>>>>
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), >>>>> "Since systematic scientific assessments began in the 1970s, the
influence of human activity on the warming of the climate system has >>>>> evolved from theory to established fact."1
Scientific information taken from natural sources (such as ice >>>>> cores, rocks, and tree rings) and from modern equipment (like satellites >>>>> and instruments) all show the signs of a changing climate.
From global temperature rise to melting ice sheets, the evidence of
a warming planet abounds.
----------------
Which of them do you believe to be false?
Which of them do you think makes this week's rain in California
unprecedented despite oodles of precedent?
If I were obsessing over it, I suppose I'd need to know what the speaker >>> meant by 'unprecedented'.
Unless he's lying, the speaker meant what the word means. That's why we
have words and definitions. Unprecedented: without precedent.
E.g.: ...during the life of the solar system?If the speaker wishes the reader to understand such qualifications, he
...in living memory? ...beyond the scope of past experience? ...other? >>
should say them. Otherwise the meaning is clear: no precedent.
'Precedented' always includes some sort of qualification. (See, e.g.,
"You can't step in the same river twice.") Personally, depending on
whom I'm talking to and why, in informal discourse I might well call >'unprecedented' something occurring for the first time in 150 years.
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 22:55:23 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:
On 2/5/2024 7:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <YjdwN.142000$taff.43414@fx41.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 4:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <2vbwN.303222$7sbb.138939@fx16.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 2:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <9Z9wN.295930$Wp_8.26761@fx17.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 12:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
Well, if you Google "california unprecedented weather" you'll find he'sSo, even if climate change is destroying the habitable Earth, we're >>>>>>>>>> okayYou'd have a long way to go to show that something that's been >>>>>>>>> happening
as long each weapon of destruction has some symptomatic precedent. >>>>>>>>>
regularly since at least 1200AD has now suddenly become the work of >>>>>>>>> 'climate change'.
Nevertheless, my challenge was to Effa's insistence that this rain >>>>>>>>> storm
is 'unprecedented', even after being presented with hard evidence of >>>>>>>>> substantial precedent.
(Because Effa is never wrong about anything, dontcha know...) >>>>>>>>
not alone.
Yes, there seem to be a lot of people, both official and otherwise, that
seem to be invested in hyping this into something it's not. It's what's >>>>>>> called lying to push an agenda.
But you're right that if we go clear back to Earth's formation, few >>>>>>>> natural metrics are without precedent.
Don't be ridiculous. We don't have to go back to the Triassic. We only >>>>>>> have to go to the 1800s to find storms that well exceed what we're >>>>>>> experiencing now. Plus dozens of examples both before and after that of >>>>>>> regular periods of wet weather in California that equal what we're >>>>>>> experiencing now.
Of course, there may have been nobody around to register, say, >>>>>>>> extinction
events...
And despite having had many multiple periods of wet weather that equal >>>>>>> or exceed this weeks storms, curiously a grand total of none of them >>>>>>> have been extinction events or even come anywhere remotely close to such.
Here are the four 'takeaways' atop NASA's climate page:
----------------
While Earth’s climate has changed throughout its history, the >>>>>> current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
"Since systematic scientific assessments began in the 1970s, the
influence of human activity on the warming of the climate system has >>>>>> evolved from theory to established fact."1
Scientific information taken from natural sources (such as ice >>>>>> cores, rocks, and tree rings) and from modern equipment (like satellites >>>>>> and instruments) all show the signs of a changing climate.
From global temperature rise to melting ice sheets, the evidence of
a warming planet abounds.
----------------
Which of them do you believe to be false?
Which of them do you think makes this week's rain in California
unprecedented despite oodles of precedent?
If I were obsessing over it, I suppose I'd need to know what the speaker >>>> meant by 'unprecedented'.
Unless he's lying, the speaker meant what the word means. That's why we
have words and definitions. Unprecedented: without precedent.
E.g.: ...during the life of the solar system?If the speaker wishes the reader to understand such qualifications, he
...in living memory? ...beyond the scope of past experience? ...other? >>>
should say them. Otherwise the meaning is clear: no precedent.
'Precedented' always includes some sort of qualification. (See, e.g.,
"You can't step in the same river twice.") Personally, depending on
whom I'm talking to and why, in informal discourse I might well call >>'unprecedented' something occurring for the first time in 150 years.
Agreed. Often times people really just mean it hasn't happened within
their life time and so was an unexpected event.
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 22:55:23 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:
On 2/5/2024 7:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <YjdwN.142000$taff.43414@fx41.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 4:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <2vbwN.303222$7sbb.138939@fx16.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 2:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <9Z9wN.295930$Wp_8.26761@fx17.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
Well, if you Google "california unprecedented weather" you'll find >>>>>>> he's not alone.
Yes, there seem to be a lot of people, both official and otherwise, >>>>>> that seem to be invested in hyping this into something it's not. It's >>>>>> what's called lying to push an agenda.
But you're right that if we go clear back to Earth's formation, few >>>>>>> natural metrics are without precedent.
Don't be ridiculous. We don't have to go back to the Triassic. We only >>>>>> have to go to the 1800s to find storms that well exceed what we're >>>>>> experiencing now. Plus dozens of examples both before and after that >>>>>> of regular periods of wet weather in California that equal what we're >>>>>> experiencing now.
Of course, there may have been nobody around to register, say, >>>>>>> extinction events...
And despite having had many multiple periods of wet weather that equal >>>>>> or exceed this weeks storms, curiously a grand total of none of them >>>>>> have been extinction events or even come anywhere remotely close to >>>>>> such.
Here are the four 'takeaways' atop NASA's climate page:
Which of them do you believe to be false?
Which of them do you think makes this week's rain in California
unprecedented despite oodles of precedent?
If I were obsessing over it, I suppose I'd need to know what the speaker >>> meant by 'unprecedented'.
Unless he's lying, the speaker meant what the word means. That's why we
have words and definitions. Unprecedented: without precedent.
E.g.: ...during the life of the solar system?
...in living memory? ...beyond the scope of past experience?
...other?
If the speaker wishes the reader to understand such qualifications, he
should say them. Otherwise the meaning is clear: no precedent.
'Precedented' always includes some sort of qualification. (See, e.g.,
"You can't step in the same river twice.") Personally, depending on
whom I'm talking to and why, in informal discourse I might well call >'unprecedented' something occurring for the first time in 150 years.
Agreed. Often times people really just mean it hasn't happened within
their life time and so was an unexpected event.
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 22:55:23 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:
On 2/5/2024 7:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <YjdwN.142000$taff.43414@fx41.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 4:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <2vbwN.303222$7sbb.138939@fx16.iad>,If I were obsessing over it, I suppose I'd need to know what the speaker >>>> meant by 'unprecedented'.
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 2:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <9Z9wN.295930$Wp_8.26761@fx17.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
Unless he's lying, the speaker meant what the word means. That's why we
have words and definitions. Unprecedented: without precedent.
E.g.: ...during the life of the solar system?If the speaker wishes the reader to understand such qualifications, he
...in living memory? ...beyond the scope of past experience? ...other? >>>
should say them. Otherwise the meaning is clear: no precedent.
'Precedented' always includes some sort of qualification. (See, e.g.,
"You can't step in the same river twice.") Personally, depending on
whom I'm talking to and why, in informal discourse I might well call
'unprecedented' something occurring for the first time in 150 years.
Agreed. Often times people really just mean it hasn't happened within
their life time and so was an unexpected event.
Algore himself
On 2024-02-06 05:29:38 +0000, BTR1701 said:
Algore himself
BZZZZT!
Trite right wing reference to Al Gore.
Your opinion about climate change is not to be taken seriously (not
that anyone would).
On 2024-02-06 05:29:38 +0000, BTR1701 said:
Algore himself
BZZZZT!
Trite right wing reference to Al Gore.
They set new records, pig. That's what makes it unprecedented.
On 2/5/24 12:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Nevertheless, my challenge was to Effa's insistence that this rain storm
is 'unprecedented', even after being presented with hard evidence of substantial precedent.
(Because Effa is never wrong about anything, dontcha know...)
So, how many Category 6 storms have there been? Because
they're looking at a new Category for your Totally Normal Storms.
On 2024-02-06 04:31:11 +0000, shawn said:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 22:55:23 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:
On 2/5/2024 7:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:Agreed. Often times people really just mean it hasn't happened within
In article <YjdwN.142000$taff.43414@fx41.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 4:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <2vbwN.303222$7sbb.138939@fx16.iad>,If I were obsessing over it, I suppose I'd need to know what the speaker >>>> meant by 'unprecedented'.
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 2:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <9Z9wN.295930$Wp_8.26761@fx17.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
Unless he's lying, the speaker meant what the word means. That's why we >>> have words and definitions. Unprecedented: without precedent.
E.g.: ...during the life of the solar system?If the speaker wishes the reader to understand such qualifications, he >>> should say them. Otherwise the meaning is clear: no precedent.
...in living memory? ...beyond the scope of past experience? ...other? >>>
'Precedented' always includes some sort of qualification. (See, e.g.,
"You can't step in the same river twice.") Personally, depending on
whom I'm talking to and why, in informal discourse I might well call
'unprecedented' something occurring for the first time in 150 years.
their life time and so was an unexpected event.
Yeah he's bizarrely acting like 1862 was just a few years ago.
And when there was nowhere near the amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere as today.
On 2024-02-06 05:29:38 +0000, BTR1701 said:
Algore himself said it's okay to lie if it promotes the Warmist
agenda:
"Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a
problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to
have an over-exaggeration in factual presentations on how dangerous
it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what
the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve
this crisis."
BZZZZT!
Trite right wing reference to Al Gore.
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2024-02-06 05:29:38 +0000, BTR1701 said:
Algore himself
BZZZZT!
Trite right wing reference to Al Gore.
"Algore" was a Rush Limbaugh thing. They should have buried it with
him.
In article <upthse$ua5r$3@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/5/24 12:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Nevertheless, my challenge was to Effa's insistence that this rain storm >> > is 'unprecedented', even after being presented with hard evidence of
substantial precedent.
(Because Effa is never wrong about anything, dontcha know...)
So, how many Category 6 storms have there been? Because
they're looking at a new Category for your Totally Normal Storms.
The windspeeds in this storm haven't even reached tropical storm levels,
let alone category 1 hurricane strength. No one's calling this "category
6", you buffoon.
And yes, this sort of rain is totally normal. Every decade or so,
California gets drenched if it's not in a prolonged drought-- which also >aren't the result of 'climate change', considering California has had >droughts lasting centuries in the past. (E.g., California had a 500-year >drought between 700 and 1200AD.)
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
In article <upthse$ua5r$3@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/5/24 12:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Nevertheless, my challenge was to Effa's insistence that this rain storm >> > is 'unprecedented', even after being presented with hard evidence of
substantial precedent.
(Because Effa is never wrong about anything, dontcha know...)
So, how many Category 6 storms have there been? Because
they're looking at a new Category for your Totally Normal Storms.
The windspeeds in this storm haven't even reached tropical storm levels, >let alone category 1 hurricane strength. No one's calling this "category >6", you buffoon.
And yes, this sort of rain is totally normal. Every decade or so, >California gets drenched if it's not in a prolonged drought-- which also >aren't the result of 'climate change', considering California has had >droughts lasting centuries in the past. (E.g., California had a 500-year >drought between 700 and 1200AD.)
But they were still growing almonds and alfalfa using diverted Colorado
River water?
A Friend wrote:
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2024-02-06 05:29:38 +0000, BTR1701 said:
Algore himself
BZZZZT!
Trite right wing reference to Al Gore.
"Algore" was a Rush Limbaugh thing. They should have buried it with
him.
My recollection was that it was a caricature by a political cartoonist,
some sort of mythical beast. Limbaugh had no original thoughts.
I was Googing for the political cartoon but couldn't find it.
A Friend wrote:
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2024-02-06 05:29:38 +0000, BTR1701 said:
Algore himself
BZZZZT!
Trite right wing reference to Al Gore.
"Algore" was a Rush Limbaugh thing. They should have buried it with
him.
My recollection was that it was a caricature by a political cartoonist,
some sort of mythical beast. Limbaugh had no original thoughts.
I was Googing for the political cartoon but couldn't find it.
In article <upsjdp$o7hp$1@dont-email.me>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2024-02-06 04:31:11 +0000, shawn said:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 22:55:23 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:
On 2/5/2024 7:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:Agreed. Often times people really just mean it hasn't happened within
In article <YjdwN.142000$taff.43414@fx41.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 4:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <2vbwN.303222$7sbb.138939@fx16.iad>,If I were obsessing over it, I suppose I'd need to know what the speaker >>>>>> meant by 'unprecedented'.
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 2:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <9Z9wN.295930$Wp_8.26761@fx17.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
Unless he's lying, the speaker meant what the word means. That's why we >>>>> have words and definitions. Unprecedented: without precedent.
E.g.: ...during the life of the solar system?If the speaker wishes the reader to understand such qualifications, he >>>>> should say them. Otherwise the meaning is clear: no precedent.
...in living memory? ...beyond the scope of past experience? ...other? >>>>>
'Precedented' always includes some sort of qualification. (See, e.g., >>>> "You can't step in the same river twice.") Personally, depending on
whom I'm talking to and why, in informal discourse I might well call
'unprecedented' something occurring for the first time in 150 years.
their life time and so was an unexpected event.
Yeah he's bizarrely acting like 1862 was just a few years ago.
In terms of earth history and climate, it's the equivalent of a few
*seconds* ago.
And when there was nowhere near the amount of CO2 being pumped into the
atmosphere as today.
Which shows that storms like this occur without the 'climate change' boogeyman being the cause.
Thanks for unwittingly making my point for me.
On 2024-02-06 20:27:21 +0000, BTR1701 said:
In article <upsjdp$o7hp$1@dont-email.me>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2024-02-06 04:31:11 +0000, shawn said:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 22:55:23 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:
On 2/5/2024 7:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:Agreed. Often times people really just mean it hasn't happened within
In article <YjdwN.142000$taff.43414@fx41.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 4:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <2vbwN.303222$7sbb.138939@fx16.iad>,If I were obsessing over it, I suppose I'd need to know what the >>>>>> speaker
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 2:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <9Z9wN.295930$Wp_8.26761@fx17.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
meant by 'unprecedented'.
Unless he's lying, the speaker meant what the word means. That's why we >>>>> have words and definitions. Unprecedented: without precedent.
E.g.: ...during the life of the solar system?
...in living memory? ...beyond the scope of past experience?
...other?
If the speaker wishes the reader to understand such qualifications, he >>>>> should say them. Otherwise the meaning is clear: no precedent.
'Precedented' always includes some sort of qualification. (See, e.g., >>>> "You can't step in the same river twice.") Personally, depending on >>>> whom I'm talking to and why, in informal discourse I might well call >>>> 'unprecedented' something occurring for the first time in 150 years. >>>>
their life time and so was an unexpected event.
Yeah he's bizarrely acting like 1862 was just a few years ago.
In terms of earth history and climate, it's the equivalent of a few *seconds* ago.
And when there was nowhere near the amount of CO2 being pumped into the
atmosphere as today.
Which shows that storms like this occur without the 'climate change' boogeyman being the cause.
Thanks for unwittingly making my point for me.
I didn't make any of your points for you jackass
In article <upuhon$13vcu$1@dont-email.me>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2024-02-06 20:27:21 +0000, BTR1701 said:
In article <upsjdp$o7hp$1@dont-email.me>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2024-02-06 04:31:11 +0000, shawn said:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 22:55:23 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:
On 2/5/2024 7:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:Agreed. Often times people really just mean it hasn't happened within >>>>> their life time and so was an unexpected event.
In article <YjdwN.142000$taff.43414@fx41.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 4:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <2vbwN.303222$7sbb.138939@fx16.iad>,If I were obsessing over it, I suppose I'd need to know what the >>>>>>>> speaker
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 2:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <9Z9wN.295930$Wp_8.26761@fx17.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
meant by 'unprecedented'.
Unless he's lying, the speaker meant what the word means. That's why we >>>>>>> have words and definitions. Unprecedented: without precedent.
E.g.: ...during the life of the solar system?
...in living memory? ...beyond the scope of past experience?
...other?
If the speaker wishes the reader to understand such qualifications, he >>>>>>> should say them. Otherwise the meaning is clear: no precedent.
'Precedented' always includes some sort of qualification. (See, e.g., >>>>>> "You can't step in the same river twice.") Personally, depending on >>>>>> whom I'm talking to and why, in informal discourse I might well call >>>>>> 'unprecedented' something occurring for the first time in 150 years. >>>>>>
Yeah he's bizarrely acting like 1862 was just a few years ago.
In terms of earth history and climate, it's the equivalent of a few
*seconds* ago.
And when there was nowhere near the amount of CO2 being pumped into the >>>> atmosphere as today.
Which shows that storms like this occur without the 'climate change'
boogeyman being the cause.
Thanks for unwittingly making my point for me.
I didn't make any of your points for you jackass
You really did, you're just apparently not bright enough to realize it.
On 2024-02-07 01:22:57 +0000, BTR1701 said:
In article <upuhon$13vcu$1@dont-email.me>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2024-02-06 20:27:21 +0000, BTR1701 said:
In article <upsjdp$o7hp$1@dont-email.me>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
Yeah he's bizarrely acting like 1862 was just a few years ago.
In terms of earth history and climate, it's the equivalent of a few
*seconds* ago.
And when there was nowhere near the amount of CO2 being pumped into the >>>> atmosphere as today.
Which shows that storms like this occur without the 'climate change'
boogeyman being the cause.
Thanks for unwittingly making my point for me.
I didn't make any of your points for you jackass
You really did, you're just apparently not bright enough to realize it.
Nothing more dastardly than an anti-science prick pretending to use
science to back up his far-right political agenda.
Your views aren't supported by the overwhelming majority of reputable scientists today.
You think mother Earth gives a shit whether you conservative "drill
baby drill" nimrods survive or not?
In article <upvd2h$1bdc7$1@dont-email.me>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2024-02-07 01:22:57 +0000, BTR1701 said:
In article <upuhon$13vcu$1@dont-email.me>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2024-02-06 20:27:21 +0000, BTR1701 said:
In article <upsjdp$o7hp$1@dont-email.me>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
Yeah he's bizarrely acting like 1862 was just a few years ago.
In terms of earth history and climate, it's the equivalent of a few
*seconds* ago.
And when there was nowhere near the amount of CO2 being pumped into the >>>>>> atmosphere as today.
Which shows that storms like this occur without the 'climate change' >>>>> boogeyman being the cause.
Thanks for unwittingly making my point for me.
I didn't make any of your points for you jackass
You really did, you're just apparently not bright enough to realize it.
Nothing more dastardly than an anti-science prick pretending to use
science to back up his far-right political agenda.
Really? You can't think of *anything* more dastardly than that?
I guess we're back to you not being very bright.
Your views aren't supported by the overwhelming majority of reputable
scientists today.
My view that California has experienced regular storms as strong or
stronger than it's currently experiencing since long before SUVs, carbon footprints, and 'climate change' is a well-documented scientific fact.
If individual scientists do not recognize that fact, then they have no business calling themselves scientists.
You think mother Earth gives a shit whether you conservative "drill
baby drill" nimrods survive or not?
You and Mother Earth need to get on the same page because y'all keep predicting the apocalypse and she stubbornly refuses to play along.
On 2/7/2024 2:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <upvd2h$1bdc7$1@dont-email.me>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2024-02-07 01:22:57 +0000, BTR1701 said:
In article <upuhon$13vcu$1@dont-email.me>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2024-02-06 20:27:21 +0000, BTR1701 said:
In article <upsjdp$o7hp$1@dont-email.me>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
Nothing more dastardly than an anti-science prick pretending to useYeah he's bizarrely acting like 1862 was just a few years ago.
In terms of earth history and climate, it's the equivalent of a few >>>>>> *seconds* ago.
And when there was nowhere near the amount of CO2 being pumped into the
atmosphere as today.
Which shows that storms like this occur without the 'climate change' >>>>>> boogeyman being the cause.
Thanks for unwittingly making my point for me.
I didn't make any of your points for you jackass
You really did, you're just apparently not bright enough to realize it. >>>
science to back up his far-right political agenda.
Really? You can't think of *anything* more dastardly than that?
I guess we're back to you not being very bright.
Your views aren't supported by the overwhelming majority of reputable
scientists today.
My view that California has experienced regular storms as strong or
stronger than it's currently experiencing since long before SUVs, carbon
footprints, and 'climate change' is a well-documented scientific fact.
If individual scientists do not recognize that fact, then they have no
business calling themselves scientists.
You think mother Earth gives a shit whether you conservative "drill
baby drill" nimrods survive or not?
You and Mother Earth need to get on the same page because y'all keep
predicting the apocalypse and she stubbornly refuses to play along.
Scientists -- observers, not theorists -- say Earth's getting hotter
from CO2. Do you disbelieve them, or simply deny it's apocalyptic?
On Feb 7, 2024 at 12:27:49 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/7/2024 2:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <upvd2h$1bdc7$1@dont-email.me>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2024-02-07 01:22:57 +0000, BTR1701 said:
In article <upuhon$13vcu$1@dont-email.me>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2024-02-06 20:27:21 +0000, BTR1701 said:
In article <upsjdp$o7hp$1@dont-email.me>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
Nothing more dastardly than an anti-science prick pretending to useYeah he's bizarrely acting like 1862 was just a few years ago. >>>>>>>In terms of earth history and climate, it's the equivalent of a few >>>>>>> *seconds* ago.
And when there was nowhere near the amount of CO2 being pumped into the
atmosphere as today.
Which shows that storms like this occur without the 'climate change' >>>>>>> boogeyman being the cause.
Thanks for unwittingly making my point for me.
I didn't make any of your points for you jackass
You really did, you're just apparently not bright enough to realize it. >>>>
science to back up his far-right political agenda.
Really? You can't think of *anything* more dastardly than that?
I guess we're back to you not being very bright.
Your views aren't supported by the overwhelming majority of reputable >>>> scientists today.
My view that California has experienced regular storms as strong or
stronger than it's currently experiencing since long before SUVs, carbon >>> footprints, and 'climate change' is a well-documented scientific fact. >>> If individual scientists do not recognize that fact, then they have no >>> business calling themselves scientists.
You think mother Earth gives a shit whether you conservative "drill
baby drill" nimrods survive or not?
You and Mother Earth need to get on the same page because y'all keep
predicting the apocalypse and she stubbornly refuses to play along.
Scientists -- observers, not theorists -- say Earth's getting hotter
from CO2. Do you disbelieve them, or simply deny it's apocalyptic?
The percentage of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere is currently 0.04%.
Of that four hundredths of one percent, human contributions make up 3%.
So yeah, the idea that 12 ten-thousandths of one percent of the atmosphere is apocalyptic seems to stretch credibility a tad.
On 2/7/2024 10:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 7, 2024 at 12:27:49 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/7/2024 2:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <upvd2h$1bdc7$1@dont-email.me>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2024-02-07 01:22:57 +0000, BTR1701 said:
In article <upuhon$13vcu$1@dont-email.me>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2024-02-06 20:27:21 +0000, BTR1701 said:
In article <upsjdp$o7hp$1@dont-email.me>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
Yeah he's bizarrely acting like 1862 was just a few years ago. >>>>>>>>In terms of earth history and climate, it's the equivalent of a few >>>>>>>> *seconds* ago.
And when there was nowhere near the amount of CO2 being pumped into the
atmosphere as today.
Which shows that storms like this occur without the 'climate change'
boogeyman being the cause.
Thanks for unwittingly making my point for me.
I didn't make any of your points for you jackass
You really did, you're just apparently not bright enough to realize it.
Nothing more dastardly than an anti-science prick pretending to use >>>>> science to back up his far-right political agenda.
Really? You can't think of *anything* more dastardly than that?
I guess we're back to you not being very bright.
Your views aren't supported by the overwhelming majority of reputable >>>>> scientists today.
My view that California has experienced regular storms as strong or >>>> stronger than it's currently experiencing since long before SUVs, carbon
footprints, and 'climate change' is a well-documented scientific fact. >>>> If individual scientists do not recognize that fact, then they have no >>>> business calling themselves scientists.
You think mother Earth gives a shit whether you conservative "drill >>>>> baby drill" nimrods survive or not?
You and Mother Earth need to get on the same page because y'all keep >>>> predicting the apocalypse and she stubbornly refuses to play along.
Scientists -- observers, not theorists -- say Earth's getting hotter
from CO2. Do you disbelieve them, or simply deny it's apocalyptic?
The percentage of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere is currently
0.04%.
Of that four hundredths of one percent, human contributions make up 3%.
So yeah, the idea that 12 ten-thousandths of one percent of the atmosphere >> is
apocalyptic seems to stretch credibility a tad.
"You Asked: If CO2 Is Only 0.04% of the Atmosphere, How Does it
Drive Global Warming?"
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/30/co2-drives-global-warming/
On Feb 7, 2024 at 7:55:05 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/7/2024 10:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 7, 2024 at 12:27:49 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/7/2024 2:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <upvd2h$1bdc7$1@dont-email.me>,Scientists -- observers, not theorists -- say Earth's getting hotter >>>> from CO2. Do you disbelieve them, or simply deny it's apocalyptic?
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2024-02-07 01:22:57 +0000, BTR1701 said:
In article <upuhon$13vcu$1@dont-email.me>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2024-02-06 20:27:21 +0000, BTR1701 said:
In article <upsjdp$o7hp$1@dont-email.me>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
Yeah he's bizarrely acting like 1862 was just a few years ago. >>>>>>>>>In terms of earth history and climate, it's the equivalent of a few
*seconds* ago.
And when there was nowhere near the amount of CO2 being pumped into the
atmosphere as today.
Which shows that storms like this occur without the 'climate change'
boogeyman being the cause.
Thanks for unwittingly making my point for me.
I didn't make any of your points for you jackass
You really did, you're just apparently not bright enough to realize it.
Nothing more dastardly than an anti-science prick pretending to use >>>>>> science to back up his far-right political agenda.
Really? You can't think of *anything* more dastardly than that?
I guess we're back to you not being very bright.
Your views aren't supported by the overwhelming majority of reputable
scientists today.
My view that California has experienced regular storms as strong or >>>>> stronger than it's currently experiencing since long before SUVs, carbon
footprints, and 'climate change' is a well-documented scientific fact.
If individual scientists do not recognize that fact, then they have no
business calling themselves scientists.
You think mother Earth gives a shit whether you conservative "drill >>>>>> baby drill" nimrods survive or not?
You and Mother Earth need to get on the same page because y'all keep >>>>> predicting the apocalypse and she stubbornly refuses to play along. >>>>
The percentage of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere is currently >>> 0.04%.
Of that four hundredths of one percent, human contributions make up 3%. >>>
So yeah, the idea that 12 ten-thousandths of one percent of the atmosphere
is
apocalyptic seems to stretch credibility a tad.
"You Asked: If CO2 Is Only 0.04% of the Atmosphere, How Does it
Drive Global Warming?"
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/30/co2-drives-global-warming/
Nope, false premise. We're not talking about the natural CO2. We're talking about the amount humans contribute, which is 12 ten-thousands of of one percent.
On 2/4/24 9:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 4, 2024 at 6:18:34 PM PST, "super70s" <super70s@super70s.invalid>
wrote:
On 2024-02-04 23:45:31 +0000, BTR1701 said:
On Feb 4, 2024 at 3:17:28 PM PST, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 2/4/24 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
It's not unprecedented, dipshit.In articleSo the fact that you're having unprecedented weather extreme
<4e6208e1-8b4c-4e6b-be85-5ff8ca3e98cen@googlegroups.com>,
Rich <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
It's been steadily raining here for two weeks now with more to
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/04/us/california-atmospheric-river-flooding/index.
html
come. The
drought mavens must be having a stroke, seeing their prospects for >>>>>> controlling us over 'drought fears' this year evaporating before >>>>>> their
eyes.
conditions
is somehow NOT an indicator of climate change?
Ever heard of an ARKstorm?
Basically, a massive rainstorm that lasts a month and drops 200
inches of
rain
(10 to 20 feet), flooding the entire West Coast.
Another dire 'climate change' effect, you ask? Nope.
It's an historical cyclical storm pattern that has regularly
inundated the
West Coast many times in the past, long before SUVs and carbon
footprints.
The
most recent was the winter of 1861-1862.
Did you attempt to follow the article on the US Geological Survey
website that Fox got their story from, smart guy?
"ARkStorm addresses massive U.S. West Coast storms analogous to those
that devastated California in 1861-62 and with magnitudes projected to
become more frequent and intense as a result of climate change."
Of course. Everything's always predicted to get worse because of 'climate
change' and then never does.
Your lying eyes tell you that, or your lying ears?
Look around you. It's fucking obvious what's happening.
On 2/7/2024 11:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 7, 2024 at 7:55:05 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote: >>
On 2/7/2024 10:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 7, 2024 at 12:27:49 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> >>>> wrote:
On 2/7/2024 2:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:The percentage of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere is currently >>>> 0.04%.
In article <upvd2h$1bdc7$1@dont-email.me>,Scientists -- observers, not theorists -- say Earth's getting hotter >>>>> from CO2. Do you disbelieve them, or simply deny it's apocalyptic? >>>>
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2024-02-07 01:22:57 +0000, BTR1701 said:
In article <upuhon$13vcu$1@dont-email.me>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2024-02-06 20:27:21 +0000, BTR1701 said:
In article <upsjdp$o7hp$1@dont-email.me>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
Yeah he's bizarrely acting like 1862 was just a few years ago. >>>>>>>>>>In terms of earth history and climate, it's the equivalent of a few
*seconds* ago.
And when there was nowhere near the amount of CO2 being pumped into the
atmosphere as today.
Which shows that storms like this occur without the 'climate change'
boogeyman being the cause.
Thanks for unwittingly making my point for me.
I didn't make any of your points for you jackass
You really did, you're just apparently not bright enough to realize it.
Nothing more dastardly than an anti-science prick pretending to use
science to back up his far-right political agenda.
Really? You can't think of *anything* more dastardly than that? >>>>>>
I guess we're back to you not being very bright.
Your views aren't supported by the overwhelming majority of reputable
scientists today.
My view that California has experienced regular storms as strong or >>>>>> stronger than it's currently experiencing since long before SUVs, carbon
footprints, and 'climate change' is a well-documented scientific fact.
If individual scientists do not recognize that fact, then they have no
business calling themselves scientists.
You think mother Earth gives a shit whether you conservative "drill
baby drill" nimrods survive or not?
You and Mother Earth need to get on the same page because y'all keep
predicting the apocalypse and she stubbornly refuses to play along. >>>>>
Of that four hundredths of one percent, human contributions make up 3%. >>>>
So yeah, the idea that 12 ten-thousandths of one percent of the atmosphere
is
apocalyptic seems to stretch credibility a tad.
"You Asked: If CO2 Is Only 0.04% of the Atmosphere, How Does it
Drive Global Warming?"
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/30/co2-drives-global-warming/
Nope, false premise. We're not talking about the natural CO2. We're talking >> about the amount humans contribute, which is 12 ten-thousands of of one
percent.
This MIT article seems to disagree with your statistic, claiming that
we've increased atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to 424ppm.
On Feb 7, 2024 at 8:29:02 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/7/2024 11:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 7, 2024 at 7:55:05 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/7/2024 10:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:Nope, false premise. We're not talking about the natural CO2. We're talking
On Feb 7, 2024 at 12:27:49 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 2/7/2024 2:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:The percentage of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere is currently
In article <upvd2h$1bdc7$1@dont-email.me>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2024-02-07 01:22:57 +0000, BTR1701 said:
In article <upuhon$13vcu$1@dont-email.me>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2024-02-06 20:27:21 +0000, BTR1701 said:
In article <upsjdp$o7hp$1@dont-email.me>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
Yeah he's bizarrely acting like 1862 was just a few years ago.
In terms of earth history and climate, it's the equivalent of a few
*seconds* ago.
And when there was nowhere near the amount of CO2 being pumped into the
atmosphere as today.
Which shows that storms like this occur without the 'climate change'
boogeyman being the cause.
Thanks for unwittingly making my point for me.
I didn't make any of your points for you jackass
You really did, you're just apparently not bright enough to realize it.
Nothing more dastardly than an anti-science prick pretending to use
science to back up his far-right political agenda.
Really? You can't think of *anything* more dastardly than that? >>>>>>>
I guess we're back to you not being very bright.
Your views aren't supported by the overwhelming majority of reputable
scientists today.
My view that California has experienced regular storms as strong or
stronger than it's currently experiencing since long before SUVs, carbon
footprints, and 'climate change' is a well-documented scientific fact.
If individual scientists do not recognize that fact, then they have no
business calling themselves scientists.
You think mother Earth gives a shit whether you conservative "drill
baby drill" nimrods survive or not?
You and Mother Earth need to get on the same page because y'all keep
predicting the apocalypse and she stubbornly refuses to play along.
Scientists -- observers, not theorists -- say Earth's getting hotter >>>>>> from CO2. Do you disbelieve them, or simply deny it's apocalyptic? >>>>>
0.04%.
Of that four hundredths of one percent, human contributions make up 3%.
So yeah, the idea that 12 ten-thousandths of one percent of the atmosphere
is
apocalyptic seems to stretch credibility a tad.
"You Asked: If CO2 Is Only 0.04% of the Atmosphere, How Does it >>>> Drive Global Warming?"
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/30/co2-drives-global-warming/ >>>
about the amount humans contribute, which is 12 ten-thousands of of one >>> percent.
This MIT article seems to disagree with your statistic, claiming that
we've increased atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to 424ppm.
So MIT says we're now at 0.000424% of man-made carbon in the atmosphere. And that's worse than 0.0012% exactly how?
On 2/8/2024 3:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 7, 2024 at 8:29:02 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote: >>
On 2/7/2024 11:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 7, 2024 at 7:55:05 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> >>>> wrote:
On 2/7/2024 10:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 7, 2024 at 12:27:49 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:
On 2/7/2024 2:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <upvd2h$1bdc7$1@dont-email.me>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2024-02-07 01:22:57 +0000, BTR1701 said:
In article <upuhon$13vcu$1@dont-email.me>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2024-02-06 20:27:21 +0000, BTR1701 said:
In article <upsjdp$o7hp$1@dont-email.me>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
Yeah he's bizarrely acting like 1862 was just a few years ago.
In terms of earth history and climate, it's the equivalent of a few
*seconds* ago.
And when there was nowhere near the amount of CO2 being >>>>>>>>>>>>> pumped into the
atmosphere as today.
Which shows that storms like this occur without the 'climate change'
boogeyman being the cause.
Thanks for unwittingly making my point for me.
I didn't make any of your points for you jackass
You really did, you're just apparently not bright enough to >>>>>>>>>> realize it.
Nothing more dastardly than an anti-science prick pretending to use
science to back up his far-right political agenda.
Really? You can't think of *anything* more dastardly than that? >>>>>>>>
I guess we're back to you not being very bright.
Your views aren't supported by the overwhelming majority of reputable
scientists today.
My view that California has experienced regular storms as strong or
stronger than it's currently experiencing since long before >>>>>>>> SUVs, carbon
footprints, and 'climate change' is a well-documented scientific fact.
If individual scientists do not recognize that fact, then they have no
business calling themselves scientists.
You think mother Earth gives a shit whether you conservative "drill
baby drill" nimrods survive or not?
You and Mother Earth need to get on the same page because y'all keep
predicting the apocalypse and she stubbornly refuses to play along.
Scientists -- observers, not theorists -- say Earth's getting hotter
from CO2. Do you disbelieve them, or simply deny it's apocalyptic?
The percentage of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere is currently
0.04%.
Of that four hundredths of one percent, human contributions make up 3%.
So yeah, the idea that 12 ten-thousandths of one percent of the >>>>>> atmosphere
is
apocalyptic seems to stretch credibility a tad.
"You Asked: If CO2 Is Only 0.04% of the Atmosphere, How Does it >>>>> Drive Global Warming?"
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/30/co2-drives-global-warming/
Nope, false premise. We're not talking about the natural CO2. We're >>>> talking
about the amount humans contribute, which is 12 ten-thousands of of one >>>> percent.
This MIT article seems to disagree with your statistic, claiming that
we've increased atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to 424ppm.
So MIT says we're now at 0.000424% of man-made carbon in the atmosphere. And
that's worse than 0.0012% exactly how?
MIT says what I said they said, i.e., 280ppm to (a much worse) 424ppm.
The percentage of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere is currently 0.04%. >Of that four hundredths of one percent, human contributions make up 3%.
So yeah, the idea that 12 ten-thousandths of one percent of the atmosphere is >apocalyptic seems to stretch credibility a tad.
On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 03:38:15 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
The percentage of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere is currently
0.04%.
Of that four hundredths of one percent, human contributions make up 3%.
So yeah, the idea that 12 ten-thousandths of one percent of the atmosphere is
apocalyptic seems to stretch credibility a tad.
Fair enough but do we really know where the 'tipping point' is?
After all if nature has gone 98% of the way to the tipping point and
mankind adds 3% the result is basically the same if it's all created
by mankind.
In article <2vbwN.303222$7sbb.138939@fx16.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 2:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <9Z9wN.295930$Wp_8.26761@fx17.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 12:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
Here are the four 'takeaways' atop NASA's climate page:So, even if climate change is destroying the habitable Earth, we're okay >>>>>> as long each weapon of destruction has some symptomatic precedent.
You'd have a long way to go to show that something that's been happening >>>>> regularly since at least 1200AD has now suddenly become the work of
'climate change'.
Nevertheless, my challenge was to Effa's insistence that this rain storm >>>>> is 'unprecedented', even after being presented with hard evidence of >>>>> substantial precedent.
(Because Effa is never wrong about anything, dontcha know...)
Well, if you Google "california unprecedented weather" you'll find he's >>>> not alone.
Yes, there seem to be a lot of people, both official and otherwise, that >>> seem to be invested in hyping this into something it's not. It's what's
called lying to push an agenda.
But you're right that if we go clear back to Earth's formation, few
natural metrics are without precedent.
Don't be ridiculous. We don't have to go back to the Triassic. We only
have to go to the 1800s to find storms that well exceed what we're
experiencing now. Plus dozens of examples both before and after that of
regular periods of wet weather in California that equal what we're
experiencing now.
Of course, there may have been nobody around to register, say, extinction >>>> events...
And despite having had many multiple periods of wet weather that equal
or exceed this weeks storms, curiously a grand total of none of them
have been extinction events or even come anywhere remotely close to such. >>
----------------
While Earth’s climate has changed throughout its history, the
current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
"Since systematic scientific assessments began in the 1970s, the
influence of human activity on the warming of the climate system has
evolved from theory to established fact."1
Scientific information taken from natural sources (such as ice
cores, rocks, and tree rings) and from modern equipment (like satellites
and instruments) all show the signs of a changing climate.
From global temperature rise to melting ice sheets, the evidence of
a warming planet abounds.
----------------
Which of them do you believe to be false?
Which of them do you think makes this week's rain in California
unprecedented despite oodles of precedent?
On 2/5/24 3:10 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/4/24 10:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2/4/24 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <4e6208e1-8b4c-4e6b-be85-5ff8ca3e98cen@googlegroups.com>, >>>>>> Rich <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/04/us/california-atmospheric-river-flooding/index.html
It's been steadily raining here for two weeks now with more to
come. The
drought mavens must be having a stroke, seeing their prospects for >>>>>> controlling us over 'drought fears' this year evaporating before
their
eyes.
Just because you see rain raining doesn't mean there's no drought.
There's no drought because after last winter's weeks of rain-- there's >>>> another of those precedents that Effa doesn't believe exist-- the
state's
environmental scientists said California was officially no longer under >>>> drought conditions.
B. It may be raining where you are, but might not be raining
where the water is needed (farms, water reservoirs, etc.).
It's raining literally everywhere.
Shouldn't that fucking tell you something?
Yes: that California is a dry, arid climate that's punctuated by
infrequent
but regular periods of intense seasonal rain and that this current
bout of
prolonged precipitation aligns closely with previous periods of similar
weather stretching back centuries.
Otherwise known as... wait for it... precedent.
THIS IS NOT NORMAL, no matter how deep you stick your head up your ass.
Other than the fact that it's happened regularly in California over at
least the last millennium with startling regularity long before there
were
SUVs and carbon footprints.
It's literally the science. You know that thing you claim you always
follow? But now that the science is showing you precedent for
something you
claimed is unprecedented, the science must be ignored.
Sure. 300 mudslides for a single storm is normal, right?
Half a year's rain in one day is perfectly normal, too.
Half a year’s worth of rain – 10 inches – fell in Los Angeles and
surrounding areas on Monday.
Researchers have suggested that, due to ongoing climate change, some
tropical storms may now qualify for a hypothetical classification of
“cetegory 6”.
The study, published on Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences (PNAS), found that the Saffir-Simpson scale, which
measures a hurricane's wind speeds, doesn't adequately address the
hazards associated with extreme storms.
The hurrican scale currently runs from 1 to 5, and was created in the
early 1970s. Category 5 hurricanes having wind speeds of 156 mph or
stronger — enough to produce “catastrophic” damage.
“We find that a number of recent storms have already achieved this
hypothetical category 6 intensity and based on multiple independent
lines of evidence examining the highest simulated and potential peak
wind speeds, more such storms are projected as the climate continues
to warm,” and article in PNAS read.
Michael Wehner, lead author of the latest research, told CBS News that
there have been several hurricanes in recent years with winds that far
surpass 156 mph — and that it may warrant an entirely new category –
“category 6.”
Gee... a new category of storms. All perfectly normal in the Thannyverse.
On 2/8/24 9:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 8, 2024 at 5:29:17 PM PST, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 03:38:15 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
The percentage of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere is currently >>>> 0.04%.
Of that four hundredths of one percent, human contributions make up 3%. >>>>
So yeah, the idea that 12 ten-thousandths of one percent of the
atmosphere is
apocalyptic seems to stretch credibility a tad.
Fair enough but do we really know where the 'tipping point' is?
After all if nature has gone 98% of the way to the tipping point and
mankind adds 3% the result is basically the same if it's all created
by mankind.
A lot of the Warmists say that we've already reached and passed the
tipping
point, which means there's nothing we can do anymore. The apocalypse is
barreling toward us and there's no way to stop it. Which means,
there's no
point in doing any of the crazy enviro-kook crap they want us to do which
cripples our economy and destroys our standard of living. If doomsday
is on
the way, I want the last few years before it hits to be as comfortable as
possible.
Everybody dies someday, so why don't you kill yourself today?
That's not the smartest argument you've ever made, is it?
But, then, you don't have children or grandchildren, and only give a
shit about one person anyway, so I guess your argument makes perfect sense.
To a sociopath.
On Feb 8, 2024 at 5:29:17 PM PST, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 03:38:15 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
The percentage of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere is currently
0.04%.
Of that four hundredths of one percent, human contributions make up 3%.
So yeah, the idea that 12 ten-thousandths of one percent of the atmosphere is
apocalyptic seems to stretch credibility a tad.
Fair enough but do we really know where the 'tipping point' is?
After all if nature has gone 98% of the way to the tipping point and
mankind adds 3% the result is basically the same if it's all created
by mankind.
A lot of the Warmists say that we've already reached and passed the tipping point, which means there's nothing we can do anymore. The apocalypse is barreling toward us and there's no way to stop it. Which means, there's no point in doing any of the crazy enviro-kook crap they want us to do which cripples our economy and destroys our standard of living. If doomsday is on the way, I want the last few years before it hits to be as comfortable as possible.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 62:03:39 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Files: | 12,244 |
| Messages: | 5,355,894 |