Costs of Climate Change Denial Start to Roll In

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Ok so if Atlantic hurricanes are proof of climate change getting worse then why have about 2/3 of major hurricanes hit in the 45 years between 1885 and 1930 and about 1/3 made land fall between 1930 and now, which is 70 years?
If it was getting worse it should be the other way around. Right?
Just to warn you this is a trap, I have asked this question all over the Internet for the last 8 years, gotten a lot of stupid answers and you have about 0 chance of giving an original answer.
 
Oilpan4 said:
How about all that climate saving alternative energy in California, looks like it's working out well for them. I wonder how long the power has to be turned off for all climate change support to drop to 0. I guess we'll find out. I bet its only a few hours.
Click to expand...
I understand the outages started when a natural gas plant went off line last Friday. Maybe it is the FF that is unreliable?
OK that and the CAISO called for load reduction with about 9% reserve when the expected standard is closer to 3.5%. Poor management?

Then Newsom is outspoken about these issues and the reluctance to serve the customer even with increased costs. The next day but some miracle the CAISO website is showing and extra 4,000 MW of supply reflecting the change to service over profit.

The sooner we can oust the old cronies of FF the better is my opinion. Yes CA has a long way to go but I believe we are on the right path.
 
Oilpan4 said:
Ok so if Atlantic hurricanes are proof of climate change getting worse then why have about 2/3 of major hurricanes hit in the 45 years between 1885 and 1930 and about 1/3 made land fall between 1930 and now, which is 70 years?
If it was getting worse it should be the other way around. Right?
Just to warn you this is a trap, I have asked this question all over the Internet for the last 8 years, gotten a lot of stupid answers and you have about 0 chance of giving an original answer.
Click to expand...
Is that weighted for strength? Certainly it gets more attention now as the cost is higher due to exponential increase in improvements getting destroyed.
 
Oilpan4 said:
Ok so if Atlantic hurricanes are proof of climate change getting worse then why have about 2/3 of major hurricanes hit in the 45 years between 1885 and 1930 and about 1/3 made land fall between 1930 and now, which is 70 years?
If it was getting worse it should be the other way around. Right?
Just to warn you this is a trap, I have asked this question all over the Internet for the last 8 years, gotten a lot of stupid answers and you have about 0 chance of giving an original answer.
Click to expand...

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutgloss.shtml
Major Hurricane:
A hurricane that is classified as Category 3 or higher.
Click to expand...

https://web.archive.org/web/20200814073229/https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/All_U.S._Hurricanes.html

I count 27 between 1885 and 49 between 1930 and now. Sure, slightly less than twice, but this year isn't over. Feel free to check my count.

So how about you document your claim?
 
Oilpan4 said:
Ok so if Atlantic hurricanes are proof of climate change getting worse then why have about 2/3 of major hurricanes hit in the 45 years between 1885 and 1930 and about 1/3 made land fall between 1930 and now, which is 70 years?
If it was getting worse it should be the other way around. Right?
Just to warn you this is a trap, I have asked this question all over the Internet for the last 8 years, gotten a lot of stupid answers and you have about 0 chance of giving an original answer.
Click to expand...

I'd begin by questioning your data. What is your criteria for "making landfall" and why do you think that is relevant to climate change vs. the number and intensity of storms themselves?
Atlantic_Storm_Count.jpg
 
Nubo said:
I'd begin by questioning your data.
Click to expand...

And I should also question the interval.

Why 1885 to 1930 compared with 1931 to 2020? Is there something special about those years?

Is that a cherry I see being picked?
 
And I should question the threshold. Why cat 3 and above? A cherry of a choice, eh?

Cat 5 hurricanes landfalling in the USA are a total of 4. None before 1935, the half way point in the record.

1935, 1969, 1992, 2018
 
smkettner said:
Oilpan4 said:
How about all that climate saving alternative energy in California, looks like it's working out well for them. I wonder how long the power has to be turned off for all climate change support to drop to 0. I guess we'll find out. I bet its only a few hours.
Click to expand...
I understand the outages started when a natural gas plant went off line last Friday. Maybe it is the FF that is unreliable?
OK that and the CAISO called for load reduction with about 9% reserve when the expected standard is closer to 3.5%. Poor management?

Then Newsom is outspoken about these issues and the reluctance to serve the customer even with increased costs. The next day but some miracle the CAISO website is showing and extra 4,000 MW of supply reflecting the change to service over profit.

The sooner we can oust the old cronies of FF the better is my opinion. Yes CA has a long way to go but I believe we are on the right path.
Click to expand...

A natural gas plant dropping out occasionally is not expected. But they cut power to so many people it could be from just 1 natural gas plant going off line.

I think new mexico is on the right path. The cheapest or 2nd cheapest electricity in the nation. Have a lot of wind power installed, going to close the last coal plant in the state by 2024. All the new demand is being met with wind, ect, ect, ect.
We're not going to virtue signal by sitting in the dark and sweating our asses off.

For me I'm not going to have a power bill about 8 to 10 months of the year on account of the solar panels.
 
WetEV said:
Nubo said:
I'd begin by questioning your data.
Click to expand...

And I should also question the interval.

Why 1885 to 1930 compared with 1931 to 2020? Is there something special about those years?

Is that a cherry I see being picked?
Click to expand...

Well cherry pick the range years that suits you.
Wana divide it down the middle 1885-1952 vs 1953 to 2019. That's even worse.
I think it shows an enormous difference between the state of the ocean, atmosphere and cryospheres between recent decades and what they were like around a century ago.
It definitely shows climate change.
Just not the climate change you were hoping for?
I first saw it on the weather channel about 2012 and I'm presenting the way I saw it on the weather channel segment.
 
WetEV said:
And I should question the threshold. Why cat 3 and above? A cherry of a choice, eh?

Cat 5 hurricanes landfalling in the USA are a total of 4. None before 1935, the half way point in the record.

1935, 1969, 1992, 2018
Click to expand...

Basic day 1 statistics tells us we can't draw conclusions from 4 data points.
You want to include cat 2?
It's more data points which, which way do you think will tip the scales?
 
Here's something that's fresh.
https://scitechdaily.com/how-cold-was-the-last-ice-age-researchers-have-now-mapped-the-temperature-differences-across-the-globe/

Kind of makes worrying about a 1.5C increase seem pretty stupid.
 
Oilpan4 said:
WetEV said:
And I should question the threshold. Why cat 3 and above? A cherry of a choice, eh?

Cat 5 hurricanes landfalling in the USA are a total of 4. None before 1935, the half way point in the record.

1935, 1969, 1992, 2018
Click to expand...

Basic day 1 statistics tells us we can't draw conclusions from 4 data points.
You want to include cat 2?
It's more data points which, which way do you think will tip the scales?
Click to expand...
Want to include oranges? Picking cherries is just intended to waste everyone's time. More data points, if you include bananas. Pointless useless data points, as are cat 2 hurricanes for this discussion.

Your "basic day 1" statistics is just wrong, or at least confused. Or you are just trying to confuse. Do they teach statistics in Sith Troll school?

Bayesian prior and posterior probability?

Two conclusions found by modeling hurricanes in a warmer world. There likely will be be fewer hurricanes, but the hurricanes that happen will be more intense.

Cat 2 storms are not more intense, they are less intense. So are oranges. So are pineapples. And your favorite, cherries.

Cat 5, on the other hand...

Four events don't prove the case, of course.

As does a tiny database looking at only a tiny corner of the world. We might be "special". And the quality of the database isn't constant.

But consider that total hurricanes from 1851 to 1934 was 158 and from 1935 to now was 137.
Cat 2 and stronger hurricanes from 1851 to 1934 was 89 and from 1935 to now was 85.
Cat 3 and stronger hurricanes from 1851 to 1934 was 45 and from 1935 to now was 46.
Cat 4 and stronger hurricanes from 1851 to 1934 was 11 and from 1935 to now was 18.
Cat 5 and stronger hurricanes from 1851 to 1934 was 0 and from 1935 to now was 4.

The record supports the modeling conclusion, but doesn't prove it. Too much data quality issues. Not enough data, and not enough of the world covered by the data. Quantization error. Oh, and too many Sith Lord Trolls.
 
Oilpan4 said:
Here's something that's fresh.
https://scitechdaily.com/how-cold-was-the-last-ice-age-researchers-have-now-mapped-the-temperature-differences-across-the-globe/

Kind of makes worrying about a 1.5C increase seem pretty stupid.
Click to expand...
Suppose we burn all of the available fossil fuels. Any guess how hot the climate would get?
 
Then to say there were no cat 5 hurricanes landfalling falling before 1930s ridiculous. If up to 35 years between them is normal then it is possible a once in a generation storm was missed? What about the previous 200 or 300 years before that, we can only speculate. With 4 data points we can't even really speculate. All we can maybe say for sure is we shouldn't get 2 in a year, or 2 in 2 years and we probably shouldn't see much more than 50 or 60 years between them.
It is entirely possible one or more of those cat 4s made it to cat 5 and we just didn't know or anyone who did know didn't live to tell about it. Even using steel and concrete hurricane Laura was called "unsurvivable" by the national Weather service and it was only a cat 4.
1885 is used because the gaps along the coast were filled in enough and people had good enough instrumentation to make such determinations.

I will agree there's data quality issues the further time goes back.

I guarantee there will be fewer stronger storms. 2017 proved the link between solar activity and cyclone formation. With less solar activity, fewer tropical storms will develop allowing heat to build in the oceans then when storms do spin up they will be stronger.
 
Oilpan4 said:
Then to say there were no cat 5 hurricanes landfalling falling before 1930s ridiculous.
Click to expand...
No, no cat 5 hurricanes is likely the case for 1851 to 1934. Likely, not proven. Missing data, poor coverage, etc.

And four cat 5 hurricanes after 1935 is fairly well documented.

Of course, there are far better quality records showing the entire Earth for shorter period of time and showing the strongest hurricanes are getting stronger as the climate warms. But you would never look for such, never read such, and never report on such.

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/22/11975
 
I think it would be great to know if there were any cat fives back then or not.

Would it be unreasonable to say there was one and it was not cataloged as such?
 
How can climate change be blamed for the California fires when the California fire martial says the areas with the worst fires haven't burned in over 60 years?
Climate change didn't stop those areas from naturally burning every 10 to 25 years.
 
Oilpan4 said:
How can climate change be blamed for the California fires when the California fire martial says the areas with the worst fires haven't burned in over 60 years?
Climate change didn't stop those areas from naturally burning every 10 to 25 years.
Click to expand...
Some places naturally burn every 10 or so years. Look for grasslands and low shrubs, and an arid climate. Eastern Washington. East of LA.

Not everywhere is like that.

Some areas burn every 100 years or so. Lodge pole pine forests, for example. Lodge pole pine has evolved to burn.

Some areas burn only when something unusual happens. Like Puget Sound lowlands. Major fires over the past 2,000 years were all within a few years after major earthquakes.

Some areas will likely never burn. Pacific Coast rain forests. Too wet, year round.

All unless the climate changes, of course. Get steady rain and cool temperatures on grasslands, and they would stop burning... and get invaded by trees. Dry out a rain forest, it will burn, and the trees will eventually be replaced with fire tolerant trees or even grasses.

We are changing the climate. In California winters are wetter, summers are drier and hotter. Grow more fuel, burn it. Places that would rarely if ever burn... will burn more often.

We have also made the situation worse by moving into the countryside, in the path of likely future fires.

We have also made the situation worse by suppressing fires in grassland and shrublands.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top