Climate change: July set to be world's warmest month on record

[Yellowtail]

4 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

I used to live in Mexico. Hurricanes on the east coast were occasional, hurricanes hitting the west coast were rare.

 

Most hurricanes in the eastern Pacific drift out to the west.

Oh, so when you stated as fact that: "Severe hurricanes in the eastern Pacific used to be rare." it was just based on your own anecdotal observations of the last fifty years, got it. 

 

I grew up in California and have been to Mexico countless times and do not remember any hurricanes that made land but we had to run from a few while on the water, so I doubt they are that unusual.

Hurricane Pauline - Wikipedia

 

 

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Oh, so when you stated as fact that: "Severe hurricanes in the eastern Pacific used to be rare." it was just based on your own anecdotal observations of the last fifty years, got it. 

 

I grew up in California and have been to Mexico countless times and do not remember any hurricanes that made land but we had to run from a few while on the water, so I doubt they are that unusual.

Hurricane Pauline - Wikipedia

 

 

You are making my point for me. Big hurricanes are rare in the eastern Pacific, less so those that make landfall.

[Danderman123]

5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Oh, so when you stated as fact that: "Severe hurricanes in the eastern Pacific used to be rare." it was just based on your own anecdotal observations of the last fifty years, got it. 

 

I grew up in California and have been to Mexico countless times and do not remember any hurricanes that made land but we had to run from a few while on the water, so I doubt they are that unusual.

Hurricane Pauline - Wikipedia

 

 

13 over the last 100 years is about right.

[placeholder]

On 10/29/2023 at 2:24 PM, Yellowtail said:

Oh, so when you stated as fact that: "Severe hurricanes in the eastern Pacific used to be rare." it was just based on your own anecdotal observations of the last fifty years, got it. 

 

I grew up in California and have been to Mexico countless times and do not remember any hurricanes that made land but we had to run from a few while on the water, so I doubt they are that unusual.

Hurricane Pauline - Wikipedia

 

 

There's a huge problem with this statistic. It measures deaths, not the severity of the storms. The fact is that as communications have become better and hurricane forecasts improve as well, it's possible for people to get out of the way of hurricanes much more effectively than they have in the past.

https://www.iweathernet.com/tropical/lives-saved-by-hurricane-forecasting-advancements

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/29/2023 at 1:54 PM, Danderman123 said:

Severe hurricanes in the eastern Pacific used to be rare.

You are not proving that human activity caused them. Just repeating the same thing over and over is not actual proof of human causation.

[thaibeachlovers]

Just to say something different, if I accept your claim that humans caused the hurricanes, what is your solution to such?

I may have missed it, but I have no recollection of any post from you saying what you think might change the climate, or what you want it changed to.

I await your suggestions of a solution that is acceptable, affordable and effective.

[Danderman123]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Just to say something different, if I accept your claim that humans caused the hurricanes, what is your solution to such?

I may have missed it, but I have no recollection of any post from you saying what you think might change the climate, or what you want it changed to.

I await your suggestions of a solution that is acceptable, affordable and effective.

I tend not to discuss mitigation strategies with climate change deniers. For obvious reasons.

[Yellowtail]

On 10/30/2023 at 8:25 PM, placeholder said:

There's a huge problem with this statistic. It measures deaths, not the severity of the storms. The fact is that as communications have become better and hurricane forecasts improve as well, it's possible for people to get out of the way of hurricanes much more effectively than they have in the past.

https://www.iweathernet.com/tropical/lives-saved-by-hurricane-forecasting-advancements

 

What's the problem with it? I think the huge problem with it is you thinking it's something other than a data table. 

 

I never said anything about severity, you just threw that in as some kind of silly "gotcha". 

 

Rather just lazily positing a link, why not read it, pull out a few pertinent quotes and comment on them? That would make for a much better discussion. 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

I tend not to discuss mitigation strategies with climate change deniers. For obvious reasons.

Yeah, because you either don't have one or it falls apart under scrutiny. Best to just discuss them with other climate change alarmists, that way you don't have to answer any questions, you can just pat each other on the back. 

 

[placeholder]

11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

What's the problem with it? I think the huge problem with it is you thinking it's something other than a data table. 

 

I never said anything about severity, you just threw that in as some kind of silly "gotcha". 

 

Rather just lazily positing a link, why not read it, pull out a few pertinent quotes and comment on them? That would make for a much better discussion. 

 

 

Here's your reply to Danderman12 in its entirety:

"Oh, so when you stated as fact that: "Severe hurricanes in the eastern Pacific used to be rare." it was just based on your own anecdotal observations of the last fifty years, got it. 

 

I grew up in California and have been to Mexico countless times and do not remember any hurricanes that made land but we had to run from a few while on the water, so I doubt they are that unusual."

 

If you don't want the purpose of your data to be misunderstood, then you need to be a lot more clear with your wording. You specifically challenged Danderman's remark that "Severe hurricanes in the eastern Pacific used to be rare."

[Yellowtail]

11 hours ago, placeholder said:

Here's your reply to Danderman12 in its entirety:

"Oh, so when you stated as fact that: "Severe hurricanes in the eastern Pacific used to be rare." it was just based on your own anecdotal observations of the last fifty years, got it. 

 

I grew up in California and have been to Mexico countless times and do not remember any hurricanes that made land but we had to run from a few while on the water, so I doubt they are that unusual."

 

If you don't want the purpose of your data to be misunderstood, then you need to be a lot more clear with your wording. You specifically challenged Danderman's remark that "Severe hurricanes in the eastern Pacific used to be rare."

Where did I say anything about the severity? Nothing. Please quit making things up. 

 

What I "challenged" was that he was making a statement of fact, with only his own limited observations.

 

So, he claimed they used to be rare. He did not claim they were getting more severe, or more frequent or anything else. I stated nothing as fact, nor did I say he was wrong. I merely posted a data table and commented that I've been in situations offshore at least twice in the eastern Pacific where we had to run from hurricanes, so I doubted they are that unusual.

 

You apparently agree with dandyman, but you've said nothing that would support his claim. 

 

So what is it you're claiming? That hurricanes used to be "rare"? If that's the case, I think you should provide a definition of rare, show that they are no longer rare, and provide some data to back up your claim. 

 

But again, rather just lazily positing a link to some zealot's article, why find a study, read it, pull out a few pertinent quotes and comment on them? That would make for a much better discussion. Until then, you have nothing. 

 

[placeholder]

22 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Where did I say anything about the severity? Nothing. Please quit making things up. 

 

What I "challenged" was that he was making a statement of fact, with only his own limited observations.

 

So, he claimed they used to be rare. He did not claim they were getting more severe, or more frequent or anything else. I stated nothing as fact, nor did I say he was wrong. I merely posted a data table and commented that I've been in situations offshore at least twice in the eastern Pacific where we had to run from hurricanes, so I doubted they are that unusual.

 

You apparently agree with dandyman, but you've said nothing that would support his claim. 

 

So what is it you're claiming? That hurricanes used to be "rare"? If that's the case, I think you should provide a definition of rare, show that they are no longer rare, and provide some data to back up your claim. 

 

But again, rather just lazily positing a link to some zealot's article, why find a study, read it, pull out a few pertinent quotes and comment on them? That would make for a much better discussion. Until then, you have nothing. 

 

More nonsense from you. I never said that hurricanes were getting more severe. You, questioned ihs assertion,

 

"Oh, so when you stated as fact that: "Severe hurricanes in the eastern Pacific used to be rare." it was just based on your own anecdotal observations of the last fifty years, got it."

 

 and then posted data that included loss of lives. Why did you even copy that mortality data if it was irrelevant to the point you were making? Why not simply post a list of hurricanes with dates if that was the only issue you were addressing? 

 

And if your definition of "zealot" is a climatologist  then I'm guilty as charged. If you're referring to another class of person, please share the evidence that I've done that. Good luck with finding that.  But I won't accuse of you lying because, as you now finally know, lying goes to intent. And you may just be badly confused.

Edited November 1, 2023 by placeholder

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

I tend not to discuss mitigation strategies with climate change deniers. For obvious reasons.

Sooooo, you don't have any then. 55555555555555

 

 

BTW I'm not a climate change denier ( whatever that even means ), as I absolutely agree that climate changes.

 

Next.

[Danderman123]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sooooo, you don't have any then. 55555555555555

 

 

BTW I'm not a climate change denier ( whatever that even means ), as I absolutely agree that climate changes.

 

Next.

You deny that climate is changing due to human pollution.

[Yellowtail]

12 hours ago, placeholder said:

More nonsense from you. I never said that hurricanes were getting more severe. You, questioned ihs assertion,

 

"Oh, so when you stated as fact that: "Severe hurricanes in the eastern Pacific used to be rare." it was just based on your own anecdotal observations of the last fifty years, got it."

 

 and then posted data that included loss of lives. Why did you even copy that mortality data if it was irrelevant to the point you were making? Why not simply post a list of hurricanes with dates if that was the only issue you were addressing? 

 

And if your definition of "zealot" is a climatologist  then I'm guilty as charged. If you're referring to another class of person, please share the evidence that I've done that. Good luck with finding that.  But I won't accuse of you lying because, as you now finally know, lying goes to intent. And you may just be badly confused.

So what is it you're claiming? That hurricanes used to be "rare"? If that's the case, I think you should provide a definition of rare, show that they are no longer rare, and provide some data to back up your claim. 

 

But again, rather just lazily positing a link to some zealot's article, why find a study, read it, pull out a few pertinent quotes and comment on them? That would make for a much better discussion. Until then, you have nothing. 

[placeholder]

Once again, you make the unsubstantiated claim that I've been quoting some zealot or zealots. Honorable people back up their claims with evidence when called to account. You on the other hand just continue with touting a falsehood. 

What I did claim was that you were using faulty evidence to show that hurricanes hadn't gotten more severe in the eastern Paciific. I took no position on the issue.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 11/2/2023 at 2:37 PM, Danderman123 said:

You deny that climate is changing due to human pollution.

 

Making it up again!

I say that it's not proven that human activity is causing it in any significant way.

I also say that I've seen no solutions to the problem that are affordable, doable and affordable.

So far the tax tax tax mantra is BS IMO.

 

I've asked you for your solutions, but you never give me any and then you complain when I don't answer your questions on a different subforum.

 

[Danderman123]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

Making it up again!

I say that it's not proven that human activity is causing it in any significant way.

 

 

The amount of CO2 in the lower atmosphere has increased from 280 to 400+ parts per million over the last 40 years.

 

Via isotopic analysis, scientists know that this increase in CO2 is due to human pollution.

 

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the lower atmosphere. As a result of this trapped heat, the planet is warming.

 

This, of course, is widely understood except by some people with weak scientific backgrounds, or scientists paid for by the oil industry.

 

 

Edited November 4, 2023 by Danderman123

[Danderman123]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

So far the tax tax tax mantra is BS IMO.

 

 

Flood damage requires spending tax money, but you never seem to worry about that.

[VincentRJ]

43 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Flood damage requires spending tax money, but you never seem to worry about that.

 

The tax money should be spent on preventing the flood damage occurring, by building more dams and creating better drainage systems. We have the knowledge and technology to do that.

 

But instead, there is this absurd political idea, supported by scientisits on the gravy train, that we can prevent the flood damge occurring by spending trillions of dollars, world-wide, on reducing atmospheric CO2 levels. 🤣

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Flood damage requires spending tax money, but you never seem to worry about that.

If people are allowed to build in a flood zone that is on the idiots that allowed it, and if they built on flood zones because there wasn't enough safe land to build on it's because there are too many people.

 

The obvious answer is to stop building on flood zones and reduce the population.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 

The tax money should be spent on preventing the flood damage occurring, by building more dams and creating better drainage systems. We have the knowledge and technology to do that.

 

But instead, there is this absurd political idea, supported by scientisits on the gravy train, that we can prevent the flood damge occurring by spending trillions of dollars, world-wide, on reducing atmospheric CO2 levels. 🤣

You nailed it, but some on here will believe that if they keep saying "humans caused it" over and over enough, the problem will go away. 

Despite me asking for their solutions I always get no response about any solutions that are affordable, effective and acceptable.

Governments love those that want more tax for them to waste.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

The amount of CO2 in the lower atmosphere has increased from 280 to 400+ parts per million over the last 40 years.

 

Via isotopic analysis, scientists know that this increase in CO2 is due to human pollution.

 

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the lower atmosphere. As a result of this trapped heat, the planet is warming.

 

This, of course, is widely understood except by some people with weak scientific backgrounds, or scientists paid for by the oil industry.

 

 

Soooo, there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, whoopy doo.

What are governments doing about it? you'll have to tell me because I don't see anything being done about it that is affordable, effective and acceptable.

 

In NZ we just got rid of the stupid government that wanted to tax farmers into bankruptcy because cows belch methane, and good riddance to the idiots.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

But instead, there is this absurd political idea, supported by scientisits on the gravy train, that we can prevent the flood damge occurring by spending trillions of dollars, world-wide, on reducing atmospheric CO2 levels

Actually it's not absurd at all. It takes money out of poor pockets and gives it to the 1%. They are happy- job done.

Given that the 1% still fly around in private planes they obviously don't think it's a problem worth worrying about, and there is a certain US president that bought beach front property in Hawaii, so he obviously doesn't think it's a crisis.

However, the 1% need to keep the sheeple occupied with irrelevant things so they don't start asking awkward questions, and man made climate change is as good a diversion as there could be.

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If people are allowed to build in a flood zone that is on the idiots that allowed it, and if they built on flood zones because there wasn't enough safe land to build on it's because there are too many people.

 

The obvious answer is to stop building on flood zones and reduce the population.

The problem is that climate change is producing new flood zones.

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Soooo, there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, whoopy doo.

What are governments doing about it? you'll have to tell me because I don't see anything being done about it that is affordable, effective and acceptable.

 

In NZ we just got rid of the stupid government that wanted to tax farmers into bankruptcy because cows belch methane, and good riddance to the idiots.

The significant of additional CO2 from human pollution is that more heat is trapped in the lower atmosphere, resulting in warming.

 

 

[Danderman123]

17 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 

The tax money should be spent on preventing the flood damage occurring, by building more dams and creating better drainage systems. We have the knowledge and technology to do that.

 

But instead, there is this absurd political idea, supported by scientisits on the gravy train, that we can prevent the flood damge occurring by spending trillions of dollars, world-wide, on reducing atmospheric CO2 levels. 🤣

I thought you were against tax dollars being spent on global warming......

[Danderman123]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If people are allowed to build in a flood zone that is on the idiots that allowed it, and if they built on flood zones because there wasn't enough safe land to build on it's because there are too many people.

 

The obvious answer is to stop building on flood zones and reduce the population.

Potato Harvest Worst in Recent Memory

 

Crop disaster due to heavy rains.

 

You can tell them to stop growing potatoes in Ireland.

[placeholder]

11 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Actually it's not absurd at all. It takes money out of poor pockets and gives it to the 1%. They are happy- job done.

Given that the 1% still fly around in private planes they obviously don't think it's a problem worth worrying about, and there is a certain US president that bought beach front property in Hawaii, so he obviously doesn't think it's a crisis.

However, the 1% need to keep the sheeple occupied with irrelevant things so they don't start asking awkward questions, and man made climate change is as good a diversion as there could be.

More regurgitation of right wing memes.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 11/5/2023 at 2:56 PM, Danderman123 said:

The problem is that climate change is producing new flood zones.

Proof?