In response to 26" of rain in 6 to 8 hours meteorology professor Jason Furtado states: "One-day downpours have “increased in frequency and magnitude over the last several decades and will continue to increase in both in the coming decades. These heavy rainfall events coupled with sea level rise on the Florida coast need to serve as significant ‘wake up calls’ for the residents of South Florida about the severe risks that climate change poses to them.” More pics and details: https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2023/04/14/a-florida-downpour-just-wouldnt-stop-heres-why/ Ft. Lauderdale airport:
So climate change causes droughts and wildfires in California ( never mind they're lack of forestry or water management skills ) Causes flooding and hurricanes, snow storms and heat waves and cold waves.
Well duh. They can't actually tell you how climate change is supposed to work with any rationality so one expects them to give consistent answers about expected outcomes? "Climate change is bad so expect dang near anything (that suits us at the moment)!"
Sure we can. It gets hotter. What part about "global warming" is confusing you so much? Remember, don't project. We're not like your cult, which just makes everything up.
Greenhouse gases. Because of these magical devices called "thermometers" which measure temperature. This is basic stuff. If you don't know it, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.
This is pure denialism. The general mechanism involves the balance between solar radiation causing warming and heat departing earth, which allows cooling. Greenhouse gasses slow solar radiation very little, but definitely slowi heat, which is a different wave length, from departing earth. The imbalance results in warming. There are various cycles, such as solar cycles, la/el nino, etc., but the above is a constant pressure toward warming.
Again, we're talking about 0.04% of the atmosphere. Even if what you say happens to be true, there is so little of it, any heat slowed would disipate back to equilibrium so fast it wouldn't be detectable. And that's pretty much thermodynamics if you're not familiar with it. Which is why so much of climate science is involved in coming up with ever increasing multipliers to make the models work. Or sort of work. At least until the projected dates actually show up and their projections are blown up again in the light of reality.
This is a fallacy about small numbers. The problem is that equilibrium has changed toward allowing Earth to collect more heat. It doesn't take a large amount of change in our atmosphere to do that. Think of a balance - two elephants on a kid's see saw. There can be in perfect balance, and even so, a small amount of weight on one side will completely change that balance. The amount needed to change the balance has nothing to do with the weight of the elephants. Similarly, the factors that cause change in the balance between arriving solar radiation and departing heat radiation can be disrupted by small amounts of change in atmospheric composition. It doesn't have to be significant compared to the total arriving or total departing heat or to the size of the change in atmospheric chemistry.
Again, you're just ignoring thermodynamics. A better example: think of a screen door. With a normal screen, bugs can't get in and are "trapped" on one side of the screen. Now replace the screen with a single wire. This is roughly equivalent to the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And now the bugs can come and go as they like by simply avoiding that one wire. Sorry, global warming is a myth designed to "reduce the surplus population" as Scrooge would say.
Let's remember that climate scientists, in all aspects that broad field, have advanced degrees. I think we can assume they can pass high school physics, RIGHT??? Or, are you disagreeing with that?
LOL!!! That's not even close to being a good example! There is already an atmosphere that reduces heat radiation while allowing solar wavelengths to pass. The issue is in the balance of arriving heat and departing heat. Adding more greenhouse gas simply makes the screen slightly less penetrable to heat radiation - while allowing solar radiation wavelengths to pass through.
Thanks for illustrating my point. You still cling to the "denialist" idiocy. Nobody, read that again NOBODY, denies climate change. IF you had read the books and articles I referred to, you understand climate science is far more complex than the idiotic binary choice you guys embrace. Our climate system and what effects it is far more complex than how much CO2 we pump into the atmosphere; there are literal dozens of influences working in non-linear, coupled and chaotic ways, at differingtiming, intensity and cyclic ways; sun cycles, our orientation to the sun, ocean current oscillations, and many others. Taking away everyone's gas stoves, SUVs and barbecue grills won't help.
Yes, the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, universities, science in other countries all point to a good number of causes. That is WELL known. Cycles are known, too, but all too often they get used to dispute the fact that Earth is warming - every time there is a downward trend in solar cycles we see people claiming that warming is over and we're going to be cooling. But, the catch is that CO2 is the gorilla in the room, because it is a major contributor AND it is one that is caused by humans AND we have a potential of addressing that cause more than some of the others. Yes, there is no single solution. Silver bullets are hard to come by when addressing aspects of nature and human behavior. Having no single solution does NOT imply that we should ignore the problem.
NO ONE IS DENYING THE EARTH IS WARMING <-- read this as often as necessary until you understand it. And NO, CO2 is NOT the gorilla in the room; nor like the gnat; its contribution amounts to a few percent of the 0.13C per decade, or less, that we're actually seeing. Think about it. There are eight and a half BILLION people on the planet AND modern society has reduced abject poverty to a few percent; which means more and more people re demanding paved roads, modern communications, adequate food, medical services, electricity and contact with the rest of the world - how could CO2 NOT increase? Bottom line is there is no hard evidence of ANY drastic increase in CO2, but there IS a big demand for the benefits of modern society thoroughout the world. If you know anything about the history of science you'll know that progress has rarely been achieved by following the "consensus" open; progress has happened when a single person or group has QUESTIONED the consensus and forged NEW science. So your, and others, praise of the organizations above may be impeding progress rather than encouraging it.
There's nothing to ignore. The hottest day in Fort Lauderdale was 99, a few days ago. This beat the record of 98, in 1924. The floods in Ft Lauderdale are not unprecedented. Not even close. This could be as bad a hurricane season as 1924. Bad weather is not being caused by not paying more taxes.
Yes, you focus on writing off the warming as too small to matter. And, that is another "small number" fallacy. You actually have to show that it doesn't matter. The fact that people want energy is one aspect of the problem of warming. You can't wield the fact of that need as if it means the problem is irrelevant. It means the problem is MORE relevant, as well as being more serious. Yes, if some new science shows a new way, that will be great. But, whoever works that out is going to have to bring it. Ignoring the current situation on the grounds that there might be better understanding in the future is a total CRAP idea concerning how to create policy.
Not ignoring anything - just doing a little research beyond the pap the media wants to feed us. You seem to prefer the opposite; blind acceptance of what ever your masters tell you.
