Is US media really ignoring the fires? It was all over the UK news until Iran blew up a couple days ago, and even now it runs as the second of third lead story.
Is US media really ignoring the fires? It was all over the UK news until Iran blew up a couple days ago, and even now it runs as the second of third lead story.
183 people arrested for arson related crimes in late 2019 / early 2020 lol ...
Because 97% of climate scientists agree that man made global warming is real....
But they mostly agree it’s not a catastrophe, but you can believe the Gores and Thunbergs if you want to.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexeps.../#55d832ca3f9f
That 97% number is so laughable lol ...Originally Posted by Texter
Jesus Christ.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
Technically, a “consensus” is a general agreement of opinion, but the scientific method steers us away from this to an objective framework. In science, facts or observations are explained by a hypothesis (a statement of a possible explanation for some natural phenomenon), which can then be tested and retested until it is refuted (or disproved).
As scientists gather more observations, they will build off one explanation and add details to complete the picture. Eventually, a group of hypotheses might be integrated and generalized into a scientific theory, a scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.
The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.
Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1
Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.
The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.3
But no,
Last edited by duped_samaritan; 01-08-2020 at 10:40 PM.
No, they're not. It's been on the font page of the NYTime several times in the past week. The Main Stream Media is covering it at least hourly. But half the country considers those sources fake news and think climate change is a hoax because A) Trump said it was, B) Conservative Media told them it was and C)
Comments
MumblesBadly: Thank you, climate change-denying rightwing-promoting major media concentration.
This is a stretch, mumbles.
I think it's got a lot to do with the impending death of print media here.
Easier and cheaper to employ monkeys who can cut and paste media releases, and whatever else that they can pinch from associates OS.
Investigative journalism is old school and rare here.
I'm sure there is folks on all sides that have an agenda, blaming the right is a bit far fetched.
WOW ONLY TOOK SOME CUCK 5 POSTS TO MAKE THIS FIRE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WORLD ABOUT TRUMP. LESS IF WE INCLUDE MUMBLES NONSENSICAL RIGHT WING MEDIA MENTION (LIKE UHHH WHAT?).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chaps' 2017-18 NFL $$ Thread
Are you saying that you doubt Druff’s superhuman ability to detect, record, and statistically evaluate potential changes in climate conditions better than legions of climate scientists armed with a plethora of data collected from a vast number of meteorological instruments and professionally subject to the grueling peer review process that doesn’t care about their feelings?No, they're not. It's been on the font page of the NYTime several times in the past week. The Main Stream Media is covering it at least hourly. But half the country considers those sources fake news and think climate change is a hoax because A) Trump said it was, B) Conservative Media told them it was and C)
_____________________________________________
I have lived in So Cal for several decades. It definitely seems warmer and drier than I remembered, ESPECIALLY in August-October (when all the fires have been happening). I don't remember it being so brutally hot and dry during these months growing up. The Dodgers played 2 recent World Series and had games each year where it was 100+ deg F that day. I definitely don't remember 100+ degree days in late October growing up.
I actually just thought of a bet me and Druff should do, to see how strong his climate change convictions are. I'll find out the average average monthly temperature of Los Angeles over the last 100 years for each month, and then we can bet each month if it is going to be over or under. I will take the over and he can take the under.
$100/month. As an example, I will find out the average of the last 100 January's and then we can bet if this January will be over or under.
Sound good Druff?
It's the same mentality that allows one to think polls are worthless and they figured out another method to determine the political opinion of ~150 million people and are very confident in those results.Are you saying that you doubt Druff’s superhuman ability to detect, record, and statistically evaluate potential changes in climate conditions better than legions of climate scientists armed with a plethora of data collected from a vast number of meteorological instruments and professionally subject to the grueling peer review process that doesn’t care about their feelings?
Good job answering my posts as if I'm denying that climate change has occurred overall. I didn't, and I never have. You're purposely taking my words out of context.No, they're not. It's been on the font page of the NYTime several times in the past week. The Main Stream Media is covering it at least hourly. But half the country considers those sources fake news and think climate change is a hoax because A) Trump said it was, B) Conservative Media told them it was and C)
I was referring to whether or not the climate has changed severely enough in southern CA in order to cause a massive increase in fires. It hasn't. A slight increase in average temperature s not going to cause a tremendous difference in fire danger. Notice that this is a thread about fires, not climate change.
Referring to the coverage of the fires, it has been under-covered in the US media in general. Look at CNN. Sometimes it's there, sometimes it's not, but it's not a major story there either way. Many Americans are barely aware of the fires because of the lack of coverage here. Just because the NY Times is covering it doesn't mean that everyone else is.
This January is already above average temperature for the first 9 days, so of course you'd have an edge on such a bet.
If you asked me to make the same bet on January 9, 2019, I would have been begging you to wager huge sums of money with me, because we had 9 straight days of well-below-average temperatures.
You're remembering incorrectly.
August/September/October have always been dry (especially August and September), and Aug/Sept are the two hottest months of the year historically in southern California.
It's a phenomenon called "seasonal lag", so the average hottest day of the year in Los Angeles is around September 1, whereas in most areas of the country (including Las Vegas), it's mid-July.
Every year I run into people remarking how "unusually hot" it is in early September, and I tell them that early September is actually the hottest time of the year. They look at me like I'm from another planet.
The 100 degree October days are unusual, but they come from the Santa Ana conditions, which occur randomly throughout the year. They even occur in winter sometimes, which is why you'll occasionally see 86 degree days in January. You can recognize them when it's windy, unusually hot, and unusually dry. They're not related to global warming.
To show you how little things have changed in southern CA rainfall-wise, take a look here for LAX Airport stats since 1944: http://www.laalmanac.com/weather/we09a.php
In the past 19 seasons, we've had 6 above average rain years and 13 below average rain years. Before you scream "omg climate change", in the period from 1969-1991, 14 out of 22 years were below average, yet in the '90s, we got above-average precipitation.
Temperature-wise, southern CA has been an enigma. Temperatures gradually rose from the 1940s through the 1980s, but then started declining in the 1990s, which baffled scientists who thought they had it all figured out. From 2014-2018, the temperature rose again, only to fall back cooler again in 2019. There has to be more at work here than standard global warming, or otherwise we wouldn't have seen a cooling trend which lasted for about 25 years.
http://www.laalmanac.com/weather/we04a.php
One theory is that it's not garden variety global warming at work, but rather the replacement of undeveloped/agricultural land with concrete and asphalt, which both absorb heat. However, this still wouldn't explain why we had a cooling trend for 25 years or so.
Global warming refers to the entire world warming. It's gone up less than ~1.5 degree celcius in the past 100 years, and there is variance in weather. No human could just 'feel' this type of change, and data from a single point on earth couldn't prove or disprove it.
The actual temperature where you live being a few degrees above or below average does not mean that the fires all around you have nothing to do with global warming.
There are a bunch of other factors that has led most scientists to agree that there is a very high chance that the earth is warming at an alarming rate, the rate is going to increase dramatically over the next several decades, humans are causing it, and the effect will be higher sea levels, stronger more frequent storms, and more wild fires.
Trying to come up with theories on your own to scientifically disprove a theory that scientists around the world have been focusing on for decades and have come to a consensus now is just silly.
You're the one being silly.Global warming refers to the entire world warming. It's gone up less than ~1.5 degree celcius in the past 100 years, and there is variance in weather. No human could just 'feel' this type of change, and data from a single point on earth couldn't prove or disprove it.
The actual temperature where you live being a few degrees above or below average does not mean that the fires all around you have nothing to do with global warming.
There are a bunch of other factors that has led most scientists to agree that there is a very high chance that the earth is warming at an alarming rate, the rate is going to increase dramatically over the next several decades, humans are causing it, and the effect will be higher sea levels, stronger more frequent storms, and more wild fires.
Trying to come up with theories on your own to scientifically disprove a theory that scientists around the world have been focusing on for decades and have come to a consensus now is just silly.
We are discussing a local phenomenon here -- the increased number and severity of fires in California in recent years. To my knowledge, you haven't ever lived in California.
I am stating that climate change isn't causing the fires, and I'm giving statistical examples about southern CA weather (both temperature and precipitation) to show that nothing has significantly changed recently. Roughly the same precipitation pattern, and a temperature pattern which has been seemingly warming and cooling back and forth for the past century.
This has nothing do to with global climate change, so I don't know why you're attempting to debate it with me.
Say tomorrow I went out to run 6 miles, and wasn't able to do so. I then state, "Well, this has to be climate change at work. It's warmer and drier than when I last ran 6 miles in 1988. Back then, I did it every day with no problem. Today, I couldn't do it. Obviously climate change must be the reason."
You'd correctly point out that I'm 32 years older and a lot heavier than I was in 1988, so that's the obvious reason.
If I came back trying to still insist that it's due to climate change, and that your refusal to acknowledge it makes you a climate change denier, you would call me an idiot.
That's basically what's going on here. I am not discussing global climate change in this thread, so stop trying to argue it with me. It's a ridiculous strawman you've created.
We can start the bet February 1st. Also maybe you didn’t understand me correctly. We are going to bet EVERY month. I say we lock in 2 years. So that is 24 $100 bets. Sound good?This January is already above average temperature for the first 9 days, so of course you'd have an edge on such a bet.
If you asked me to make the same bet on January 9, 2019, I would have been begging you to wager huge sums of money with me, because we had 9 straight days of well-below-average temperatures.
Also, I have done zero work on this. I just know climate Change is real, It is hotter on average than it used to be, and I am massive +EV. And I suspect you know I am right and your position is BS, so you won’t take the bet.
I might actually take you up on this. However, we would have to find a mutually agreed source for data, and I also want to see how the month of January plays out.We can start the bet February 1st. Also maybe you didn’t understand me correctly. We are going to bet EVERY month. I say we lock in 2 years. So that is 24 $100 bets. Sound good?
Also, I have done zero work on this. I just know climate Change is real, It is hotter on average than it used to be, and I am massive +EV. And I suspect you know I am right and your position is BS, so you won’t take the bet.
I have noticed some years that if it's a cold January, it's also a cold February, and vice versa. Like last year, after that freezing January, I would have 100% bet that Feb would be below average, even without seeing a forecast for the first week of it.
FYI you're not the favorite that you think you are. It's actually very random. There was consistent warming from the 40s through the 80s, then consistent cooling from the early 90s through 2013, and then consistent warming from 2014-2018. Then 2019 was cold. So as you see, 2020 is by no means a lock to be warm.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
