[OrangeBlossomBaby]

TrapX:

Musicians can all perform music. Most of them can even tell you which key the music sheet was written for. But most of them can't recreate a specific note when asked to, on demand, without the benefit of hearing someone play that note for them. It's called perfect, or absolute pitch, and it's incredibly rare. Even most gifted, formally trained professional musicians can't do it. Does that mean their ability to perform music is invalid? Does that make their vocals sung in the key of c less melodious? No. They're still the best at their craft, and you benefit from it either directly or indirectly. (aside: I am not a professional musician. But I do have absolute pitch. It's not something you can learn - you either have it, or you don't. And you don't need to be a musician to have it. You just have to know what each note sounds like - precisely.)

The same for weather folks. Being 100% accurate is not a reasonable expectation. They have graphs and trends and computers and technology to help them figure it out, but the weather will do what the weather does.

[jaj523]

I believe I read that the hole in the ozone layer you mentioned is actually closing up!!

[jaj523]

Since most of the countries on earth that make up the majority of the earth's surface (Russia, China, India, etc.) do nothing about hydrocarbon emissions and continue to mine for coal, oil, natural gas with abandon, why do we think that bankrupting our country with half measures (wind, solar, and hydro) is going to have any effect on global warming? We buy oil from Russia and other countries, with their out-dated polluting refinery systems, and then ship it to our country in oil tankers that are fueled by oil that can leak into the ocean. We pay money and support the economies of these countries that hate us. To me this is the height of insanity when we can be energy independent and produce our own oil, etc. far more cheaply and efficiently, using refining systems we have worked hard to improve.

[tuccillo]

There are a lot of things that are incorrect in this post. I’ll just hit the highlights. Climate scientists do not predict short term weather events. While short and medium range (typically up to about 15 days) forecast are derived from numerical models that are fundamentally the same as the models used for longer term climate scenarios (N-S fluid equation plus radiative transfer, turbulence, phase change of moisture, and heat, momentum, and moisture exchange with the surface of the earth), the application is entirely different. Short and medium range forecasts are concerned with deterministic events while climate simulations are concerned with running various CO2 scenarios to compute quantities such as, but not limited to, global means. You cannot simulate deterministic events more than a week or two in advance so don’t pretend that anyone (who actually knows what they are doing) is trying to do that. Climate and weather simulations are two different endeavors.

Two days in advance, Ian was very well simulated and the landfall was very close. Some of the longer term simulations had landfall anywhere from the panhandle of Florida to the Keys. With the hurricane approaching from the south and the Florida coastline oriented north-south, slight differences in the simulated tracks can result in large geographic differences in landfall. This was a much different geometry than if Ian was approaching land from a right angle. Regardless, similarly to many complex fields, what is really being forecasted is a probability function. The atmosphere is inherently chaotic and slight differences in the initial state can produce differences in the simulations. That is the reason why ensembles, both with different initial states and different models, are run. Essentially, an envelope of possible outcomes is created. Large spreads in the ensembles is an indicator of the inherent predictability of the event. This event had fairly large variations in the results until about 2 days before landfall. Some events are more predictable than others. Numerical Weather Prediction is a difficult problem because it is a unsteady fluid problem with an enormous number of degrees of freedom.

Originally Posted by TrapX

Climate scientists didn't predict hurricane Ian 30 days in advance.
Climate scientists predicted a direct hit to Tampa 2 days in advance. They evacuated to be safe from total destruction.
Climate scientists didn't predict the location for the eye to hit until it was only a few miles away from land.

Their models were close, but very wrong and incomplete. I'm glad they are as good as they are, but realize there are many factors that cannot be predicted.

So climate scientists... What is the exact date when the next hurricane will hit Florida? And where will it hit? How strong? What will the high and low temperatures be on that day?
Climate scientists didn't even predict the 15deg drop in daytime high temperatures until after Ian passed and it was happening.

And now try to convince me that you all know what will happen 100 years from now?

But wait. I can predict the next hurricane. I'll write it down, seal it in an envelope. I'll open it the day it happens to prove I am better at predicting than you. Of course I will predict every combination of a hurricane to hit for every day, impacting every city, and for every intensity. Thousands of prediction envelopes. One WILL be right. That's the one I'll pull out and show the world how great I am.
Analyzing data points to predict the future is a lot like that scenario. Pick the data points you want to use that show your sponsor's theories are spot on. Ignore the rest. Extrapolate into the future.

[BigHoss18]

Originally Posted by Arctic Fox

No, because we listened to the vast majority of scientists who believed in the seriousness of it and the World got together and severely limited the use of chlorofluorocarbons which were causing the hole so, since then, the hole has significantly reduced in size.

Call me old-fashioned but I prefer to take my climate advice from the 80+% of scientists who now believe that climate change is a result of mankind's actions than from some rabid TV news program. Act now and we can reverse it. Keep kicking the can down the road and your grandchildren will look back in 20 years and think what selfish idiots we were when all of the evidence was telling us exactly what we needed to do to start cleaning up our mess but we opted to ignore it just so we could continue to live our wasteful lifestyles.

I'm curious, seriously, about your statements. Can you provide us a list of all the changes you've made in your life to reduce your carbon footprint? Do you ride a bicycle instead of driving a car? Maybe you purchased an electric vehicle (climate-saving fallacy)? Is your house covered in solar panels made in China? Do you have a wind turbine generating your electrical power? Or are you one of those types that condemn the "rest of us", like celebrities, that fly all over the world willie-nille driving gas-guzzling show-off vehicles? IMHO, climate change/global warming believers/activists are self-aggrandizing hypocrites. Just calling it the way I see it.

[djplong]

Originally Posted by CSB1228

Let's not forget "The Dust Bowl" in the 1930's. Was that global warming??

No, that was a drought that would have been weathered were it not for the disastrous farming techniques of the time that stripped the land of it's ability to hold together.

Discoveries made during the Dust Bowl on how to farm land more responsibly are still being used to this day.

[djplong]

Originally Posted by BigHoss18

I'm curious, seriously, about your statements. Can you provide us a list of all the changes you've made in your life to reduce your carbon footprint? Do you ride a bicycle instead of driving a car? Maybe you purchased an electric vehicle (climate-saving fallacy)? Is your house covered in solar panels made in China? Do you have a wind turbine generating your electrical power? Or are you one of those types that condemn the "rest of us", like celebrities, that fly all over the world willie-nille driving gas-guzzling show-off vehicles? IMHO, climate change/global warming believers/activists are self-aggrandizing hypocrites. Just calling it the way I see it.

You don't see very much.

I'll answer your questions, though, and I'll be honest about them.

Yes, I drive an EV. While it DID cost more initially, I've saved a BUNDLE on fuel, insurance and maintenance. I honestly can't explain how I managed to save on insurance as most people pay MORE when they replace a 20 year old car with a new, more expensive one. Virtually everything about my car is recyclable. And I'm not worried about the battery dying since I still get almost the same range now as I did 4 1/2 years and 75,000 miles ago. Vehicle maintenance is almost non-existent. I've paid for tires and windshield washer fluid. I'm not lying - even my brakes are like new since my car does regenerative braking with the electric motor. I barely ever need the 'legacy' braking system.

Solar panels? Funny you should mention that. The recent passage of the Inflation Reduction Act combined with Putin's war in Ukraine that shot up natural gas prices around the world made solar an option for us. I signed the papers 3 days ago. Even though I use a LOT of electricity (even before I got an EV), I'd signed up for 'green' supplier plans. Combined with the trees on my lot, solar was a no-go. With the events I just mentioned, it just became cost effective. I'll be paying $245/mo on my solar loan for a system that will cover all my usage compared to $250-$535/mo for electricity BEFORE the price hikes that I'm about to see (and pay for until my system goes live - probably in the spring).

This past year, we had an energy audit done and had a lot of work performed on the house with a rebate from the gas company - and our natural gas usage (heat, hot water, oven) has gone down over 30%.

And I don't "condemn" people. Very often, people are using outdated information because, to be honest, things have been changing FAST - and you can't expect everyone to keep up on every development going on in so many places.

So if you're REALLY interested in learning "where we are" today and what's coming next, I'm more than happy to engage in a conversation.

Am I perfect? No. I'd LIKE to be able to replace my natural gas usage even though we just reduced it by quite a chunk - but that's out of the question for now. My electric bill had to take precedence.

I *suspect* your opinion of climate change activists is colored by the lens through which it's presented to you. And if that's all the information you have, then, to be honest, I don't blame you for having your opinion.

[tuccillo]

You are not asking the correct questions.

1) How much of the climate change is naturally occurring (we have been in an interglacial period for about 12,000 years) and how much is anthropogenic?

2) Do we have a “problem”?

3) If we do have a “problem”, can we do anything about it?

Some of the warming is anthropogenic. We know that increases in CO2 creates some warming and land use changes also creates changes. How much? This is hard to quantify since our direct measurements are limited and have been homogenized to some degree. I suspect it is not as much as you think.

Do we have a problem? Also hard to say. Predictions are based on numerical modeling scenarios. Unfortunately, activists, politicians, and the media have latched onto the 8.5 scenario. Perhaps it is not the most likely scenario. We do know from radiative transfer calculations that CO2 increases causes warming but the dire predictions require positive feedbacks from the CO2 forced warming. This is hard to get correct in a numerical model. This is still an area of active research and it isn’t clear to me that the modeling is sufficiently advanced to be used as a tool for developing public policy.

If we have a “problem”, can we do anything about it? Yes, but it is not what you think. Reducing CO2 emissions to a large degree is not really possible because of developing countries. Migration from impacted areas is probably what will need to be done. This has been common throughout history. Dikes for water control in low lying areas may become more common as sea levels will continue to rise, regardless of the anthropogenic warming perturbation on the natural warming (because we are in an interglacial period).

Originally Posted by Arctic Fox

No, because we listened to the vast majority of scientists who believed in the seriousness of it and the World got together and severely limited the use of chlorofluorocarbons which were causing the hole so, since then, the hole has significantly reduced in size.

Call me old-fashioned but I prefer to take my climate advice from the 80+% of scientists who now believe that climate change is a result of mankind's actions than from some rabid TV news program. Act now and we can reverse it. Keep kicking the can down the road and your grandchildren will look back in 20 years and think what selfish idiots we were when all of the evidence was telling us exactly what we needed to do to start cleaning up our mess but we opted to ignore it just so we could continue to live our wasteful lifestyles.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by jaj523

Since most of the countries on earth that make up the majority of the earth's surface (Russia, China, India, etc.) do nothing about hydrocarbon emissions and continue to mine for coal, oil, natural gas with abandon, why do we think that bankrupting our country with half measures (wind, solar, and hydro) is going to have any effect on global warming? We buy oil from Russia and other countries, with their out-dated polluting refinery systems, and then ship it to our country in oil tankers that are fueled by oil that can leak into the ocean. We pay money and support the economies of these countries that hate us. To me this is the height of insanity when we can be energy independent and produce our own oil, etc. far more cheaply and efficiently, using refining systems we have worked hard to improve.

So very true and well said

[Two Bills]

Originally Posted by jaj523

Since most of the countries on earth that make up the majority of the earth's surface (Russia, China, India, etc.) do nothing about and continue to mine for coal, oil, natural gas with abandon, why do we think that bankrupting our country with half measures (wind, solar, and hydro) is going to have any effect on global warming? We buy oil from Russia and other countries, with their out-dated polluting refinery systems, and then ship it to our country in oil tankers that are fueled by oil that can leak into the ocean. We pay money and support the economies of these countries that hate us. To me this is the height of insanity when we can be energy independent and produce our own oil, etc. far more cheaply and efficiently, using refining systems we have worked hard to improve.

Top 10 countries for hydrocarbon emissions.
(in million metric tons, 2019 data)

1. China — 9,877.
2. United States — 4,745
3. India — 2,310
4. Russia — 1,640
5. Japan — 1,056
6. Germany — 644
7. South Korea — 586
8. Iran — 583
9. Canada — 571
10. Saudi Arabia — 495

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Two Bills

Top 10 countries for hydrocarbon emissions.
(in million metric tons, 2019 data)

1. China — 9,877.
2. United States — 4,745
3. India — 2,310
4. Russia — 1,640
5. Japan — 1,056
6. Germany — 644
7. South Korea — 586
8. Iran — 583
9. Canada — 571
10. Saudi Arabia — 495

Have to wonder how many of those countries report accurately

[chet2020]

Originally Posted by Steve

For those blaming "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" for the severity of Hurricane Ian here is a listing of the 10 most intense Florida hurricanes since record keeping of that nature began (not including Ian, of course).

Six were in the years1919-1960, long before 'Climate Change" or "Global Warming" were today's hot topic. They just happened because conditions were right.

The top three as far as loss of life is concerned were in 1919, 1926 and 1928.

Most Intense Hurricanes In Florida’s History
(From worldatlas.com)
Rank System Season Estimated Casualties
1 "Labor Day" 1935 400
2 Michael 2018 74
3 Andrew 1992 65
4 "Florida Keys" 1919 600-900
5 "Okeechobee" 1928 2,500
6 "Great Miami" 1926 372–539
7 Donna 1960 438
8 Irma 2017 134
9 "Florida" 1948 13
10 Charley 2004 35

The warming of the earth has happened at least once before that we know of. I think they called it the "Ice Age" where the earth cooled to the point it covered most of the planet with a sheet of ice killing off the dinosaurs, etc. But then it warmed up again and the glaciers that covered the earth receded...and it wasn't because of "greenhouse gases". We are still in that warming cycle and there's not an electric car in the world that can change that.

So your premise is that all hurricanes hit Florida, and therefore listing all hurricanes that have hit Florida is representative of global hurricane activity? Hurricanes that hit Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Cuba, Puerto Rico should not be considered in your argument? The overall severity of hurricanes is increasing. That is a fact.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by chet2020

So your premise is that all hurricanes hit Florida, and therefore listing all hurricanes that have hit Florida is representative of global hurricane activity? Hurricanes that hit Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Cuba, Puerto Rico should not be considered in your argument? The overall severity of hurricanes is increasing. That is a fact.

It is???????? So, we have data on hurricane severity for say the last 5,000 years???? Because it would take that long to have an accurate assessment on a hurricane severity trend----looking at the last 20 years is completely useless.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

What have you been drinking?

I think it may have been the recent head trauma...

[Keefelane66]

Originally Posted by Steve

For those blaming "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" for the severity of Hurricane Ian here is a listing of the 10 most intense Florida hurricanes since record keeping of that nature began (not including Ian, of course).

Six were in the years1919-1960, long before 'Climate Change" or "Global Warming" were today's hot topic. They just happened because conditions were right.

The top three as far as loss of life is concerned were in 1919, 1926 and 1928.

Most Intense Hurricanes In Florida’s History
(From worldatlas.com)
Rank System Season Estimated Casualties
1 "Labor Day" 1935 400
2 Michael 2018 74
3 Andrew 1992 65
4 "Florida Keys" 1919 600-900
5 "Okeechobee" 1928 2,500
6 "Great Miami" 1926 372–539
7 Donna 1960 438
8 Irma 2017 134
9 "Florida" 1948 13
10 Charley 2004 35

The warming of the earth has happened at least once before that we know of. I think they called it the "Ice Age" where the earth cooled to the point it covered most of the planet with a sheet of ice killing off the dinosaurs, etc. But then it warmed up again and the glaciers that covered the earth receded...and it wasn't because of "greenhouse gases". We are still in that warming cycle and there's not an electric car in the world that can change that.

You are missing an awful lot of hurricanes here's another one
Hurricane Hazel was the deadliest, second costliest, and most intense hurricane of the 1954 Atlantic hurricane season. The storm killed at least 469 people in Haiti before striking the United States near the border between North and South Carolina as a Category 4 hurricane.
Hurricane Gloria was a powerful hurricane that caused significant damage along the east coast of the United States and in Atlantic Canada during the 1985 Atlantic hurricane season.
1944 Great Atlantic hurricane
The 1944 Great Atlantic hurricane was a destructive and powerful tropical cyclone that swept across a large portion of the United States East Coast in September 1944
Hurricane Camille
Hurricane Camille was the second most intense tropical cyclone on record to strike the United States, behind the 1935 Labor Day hurricane.
I can go further I listed to Tucker he also said something similar.