Denial isn't just a river . . . . It's a flood.

[eccieuser9500]

'We All Owe Al Gore An Apology': More People See Climate Change In Record Flooding



https://www.npr.org/2019/06/08/73045...r-will-that-me

In late May and early June, NPR asked nearly two dozen people in Oklahoma and Arkansas who were experiencing the ongoing flooding about climate change. All of them said they believed that the climate was changing, even if they didn't directly associate the raining and floods with it or agree on the cause. (Six people said they believed God was driving the change.)

https://m.accuweather.com/en/weather...-dead/70008498

[The_Waco_Kid]

[eccieuser9500]

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Feel how cold and wet it is to be on the outside.

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

[CENTER][B]'We All Owe Al Gore An Apology

This is for you, Uncle Al and everyone's favorite AOC!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO04VXBIS0M

Live life to the fullest...we only got 12yrs. left!!

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

It's not global warming any longer...it's CLIMATE CHANGE...as if climate change is a apocalyptic event!!

[The_Waco_Kid]

https://www.investors.com/politics/e...warming-scare/


https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...redistribution


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...eneration.html

[bb1961]

What I feel confident about is this flooding will off set the cataclysmic droughts. Half a dozen of one six of another.

[eccieuser9500]

Blind and dumb?





https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/weather-vs-climate

As global climate changes, weather patterns are changing as well. While it’s impossible to say whether a particular day’s weather was affected by climate change, it is possible to predict how patterns might change.

[The_Waco_Kid]

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-e...eally-is-quite


Yes, NOAA must adjust data — but its climate record really is quite wrong

By S. Fred Singer, opinion contributor — 03/29/18 02:00 PM EDT 189 The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is the official U.S. government custodian of information on weather and climate. NOAA monitors both, and keeps records of both, and also tries to predict future changes. Climate is generally defined as a time average of weather, extending over at least a few weeks.

NOAA does a reasonable job on the weather, but has been subject to much criticism for its handling of climate and is often accused of “cooking the data” for ideological reasons, related to energy policy.

Once it is realized that CO2 has only minor effects, if any, on climate change, some of the criticism will disappear.
It is important for the public to gain some perspective on such changes before indulging in wild accusations. Equally important, NOAA must use more transparency and not only announce data adjustments, but explain them so that reasonable people of goodwill will understand.

Much of the current criticism is clearly unfair. NOAA must adjust climate data for many reasons.
When a weather station is moved, its prior values have to be adjusted and this extends at times to neighboring stations.

Another non-ideological reason for adjusting data is the poor location of some of the stations. Meteorologists Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts have documented such examples; NOAA tries to keep track of them.

Some of the changes occur naturally. For example, trees grow up or are cut down, and the wind pattern changes at the weather station thermometer. Or, an airport opens up nearby and the traffic pattern changes in the vicinity.

On the other hand, some of the criticism is justified. I cite two instances:

First, there has been no change reported in surface temperatures since about the year 2000, indicating no current warming. This so-called “pause” (or hiatus) has generated much controversy. It suggests that CO2 has little influence on the planet’s climate change, and it affects energy policy in a profound way.

In June 2015, just weeks before the Paris Conference and before the U.S. presidential election, NOAA produced a “scientific paper” that suggested the so-called temperature “pause” was an illusion. The National Climate Data Center (NCDC), part of NOAA, published a paper in Science magazine that attempted to explain away the existence of the temperature “pause.”

Not many people really believed that NCDC’s work was correct. But, the editor of Science went to great lengths to promote the paper, issuing a press release and giving the NCDC paper special handling.

All this is history. The Paris Climate Accord negotiated in December 2015 and signed in April 2016 had no teeth and may be considered a failure. Now the United States under President Trump has officially withdrawn from the Paris Accord.

Science magazine had “egg on its face.” Its editor went on to another prestigious position, as president of the National Academy of Sciences. While the NCDC paper could be considered “a tempest in the teapot,” it had no lasting effect. Any criticism of NOAA was automatically transferred to criticism of President Trump.

More serious, perhaps, is the continued failure of NOAA to recognize that its climate record is really quite wrong. This official record shows a warming at the beginning of the 20th century and also at the end. The first warming is genuine, the second warming is an artifact, based on an incomplete analysis of all of the available data.

Second, while the warming may exist in the surface record of weather stations, it does not exist in the atmospheric record. In fact, the gap between model results based on increasing CO2 and the atmospheric observations is continuing to grow. Scientists are at a loss in trying to explain the puzzling ineffectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Could it be that CO2 is not warming the climate at all? It is a topic that bears investigation. NOAA has not tackled this problem, likely because of ideological reasons. NOAA probably considers CO2 as a “pollutant.” It has been slow to change, in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary.

There is still a discrepancy and disagreement between NOAA’s surface record and all other records of temperature in the last decades of the 20th century.

NOAA’s own radiosonde network shows no warming. All other data — including proxy data, such as tree rings, ice cores, ocean and lake sediments — show no warming between 1977 and 1997. NOAA does analyze the atmospheric temperature data as obtained by NASA satellites, but has taken no action to explain the deficiencies of the surface record.

We conclude that the reported surface warming does not really exist but is an artifact of instrumentation changes. We can summarize this essay by stating that NOAA does a reasonable job on weather — although some would argue that point — but they can do a much better job on climate.

S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of the University of Virginia and a senior fellow with The Heartland Institute. He was among the first prominent scientists speaking out against global warming alarmism. An atmospheric and space physicist, he headed the U.S. Weather Satellite Service [now part of NOAA], founded the Science and Environmental Policy Project and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.

[kehaar]

Every 20 years or so, the midwest has a major flood.

Every 20 years.

If the pseudo scientist who claim that this year's weather was caused by manmade global warming applied statistical analysis to data, they would find that they are substantially stupid.

There are pictures just like the op posted from the

1920's

1940's

1950's
1970's

1990's

This isn't the most severe flooding recorded in the last 100 years, much less in the last 1000.

The other thing is that weather events are not normally distributed. Because of the nature of the chaotic systems that govern weather, there will be "significant" weather events recorded in locals for the forseeable future.

The OP just illustrated himself to be utterly unscientific.

My diagnosis is that he is a fascist, and doesn't care about the truth. ?He just want "change he can believe in". You know, the religious kind.

[I B Hankering]

Mississippi Flood of 1927, U.S. Route 51 between Mounds, Illinois, and Cairo, Illinois. (NOAA photo library)





Desha County, Nebraska, 1927 Flood

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Some of the changes occur naturally. For example, trees grow up or are cut down, and the wind pattern changes at the weather station thermometer. Or, an airport opens up nearby and the traffic pattern changes in the vicinity.

Where the HELL in this universe is it natural for an airport to open?

[The_Waco_Kid]

https://reason.com/2019/02/07/alexan...en-new-deal-2/


Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal Aims to Eliminate Air Travel

Sorry, Hawaii.

Joe Setyon | 2.7.2019 5:10 PM
423
Kristin Callahan/ACE Pictures/NewscomDemocratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.)

today introduced a House resolution outlining her long-awaited Green New Deal. The resolution, as Reason's Ron Bailey reported earlier today, cites climate change concerns as justification for a plan that would remake the U.S. economy over the next 10 years.

The resolution's aims include "overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and 19 greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible." According to an overview of the resolution, this will be accomplished, in part, by "build[ing] out highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary."

In other words, the Green New Deal wants to make commercial air travel obsolete. Is this in any way feasible? The short answer is no. "It's actually probably even dumber than it seems," says Baruch Feigenbaum, assistant director of transportation policy at the Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes this website.

Paul Blair, director of strategic initiatives at Americans for Tax Reform, was even blunter. "The Green New Deal reads like word vomit from a 13-year-old child asked to scribble out their bold new thoughts for a radically different America than we have today," Blair said in a email to Reason. "This includes the phasing out of American air travel."

From both a financial and practical standpoint, replacing planes with high-speed rail lines makes little sense. For one thing, "high-speed rail projects cost billions and billions," Feigenbaum says. Consider the proposed Texas line between Dallas and Houston, which could cost as much as $20 billion. Both cities, notably, are in the same state, separated by less than 300 miles. Replacing air travel with high-speed rail would mean lines connecting every major city in the country, at least. "The amount of money you'd actually need to build these lines would be so far in the trillions, I don't see how you would possibly get it done," Feigenbaum says.

Ocasio-Cortez, though, doesn't seem to care about the Green New Deal's fiscal cost. She told Business Insider last month that Modern Monetary Theory—which says the government can essentially print and spend as much money as it wants, regardless of budget deficits or national debt—should "absolutely" be "a larger part of our conversation" about paying for her plan.

Putting this dubious reasoning to the side, her goal of eliminating air travel still makes no sense. "The reason why people take air travel is generally because it's fast," Feigenbaum says, explaining that there are very few corridors where rail travel could realistically compete with planes. "If you're going across the country," he adds, then "obviously high-speed rail is not going to be compatible with air travel."

And it certainly wouldn't be too effective if you wanted to travel to, say, Hawaii. A high-speed rail between the West Coast and Hawaii would require underground tunneling, which would itself cost an astronomical amount. "I can't think of a number that's high enough," Feigenbaum says. "You're talking about more than trillions, I think, in order to build a line."

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D–Hawaii) seems to realize the impracticality of ending air travel. "That would be pretty hard for Hawaii," she said of Ocasio-Cortez's plan, according to Fox News' Chad Pergram.

There's another issue. Truly replacing air travel with high-speed rail lines would require connecting all the countless cities in the U.S. that, while they wouldn't be classified as major, still have airports. Feigenbaum pointed to Casper, Wyoming, and Provo, Utah. Both have populations under 500,000. "Are we really going to build high-speed rail to places like [these]?" wonders Feigenbaum.

In fact, there are more than 5,000 public airports in the U.S. It's hard to imagine the planning and money that would go into connecting even half of them with high-speed rail lines, or serving the hundreds of millions of people who fly in the U.S. each year. "To suggest that it's even remotely possible to transition our transportation system in this way, to handle not only the capacity of air travel but get near its efficiency is a pipe dream," says Blair.

Considering that California officials have proven themselves incompetent when it comes to constructing a high-speed line through that state, a similar project on a much larger scale would probably be disastrous. The California rail is "a waste of money" that's "ruining farms and highways, and will never work," Blair explains.

"That's what Democrats want to take national," he adds, "the abysmal failure of boondoggles that shackle taxpayers to the pipe dreams of socialists with no concern for its failures right here in America."

Ocasio-Cortez has admitted that completely eliminating air travel within the next 10 years might not be possible.

Still, Feigenbaum suggests Ocasio-Cortez and her allies in Congress have shown their ignorance in this area. "The folks who are proposing [the Green New Deal] don't really know much about transportation," he says. "It's more designed for political purposes than it is for actual implementation."

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by kehaar

Every 20 years or so, the midwest has a major flood.

Every 20 years.

If the pseudo scientist who claim that this year's weather was caused by manmade global warming applied statistical analysis to data, they would find that they are substantially stupid.

There are pictures just like the op posted from the

1920's

1940's

1950's
1970's

1990's

This isn't the most severe flooding recorded in the last 100 years, much less in the last 1000.

The other thing is that weather events are not normally distributed. Because of the nature of the chaotic systems that govern weather, there will be "significant" weather events recorded in locals for the forseeable future.

The OP just illustrated himself to be utterly unscientific.

My diagnosis is that he is a fascist, and doesn't care about the truth. ?He just want "change he can believe in". You know, the religious kind.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

https://reason.com/2019/02/07/alexan...en-new-deal-2/


Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal Aims to Eliminate Air Travel

Sorry, Hawaii.

Joe Setyon | 2.7.2019 5:10 PM
423
Kristin Callahan/ACE Pictures/NewscomDemocratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.)

today introduced a House resolution outlining her long-awaited Green New Deal. The resolution, as Reason's Ron Bailey reported earlier today, cites climate change concerns as justification for a plan that would remake the U.S. economy over the next 10 years.

The resolution's aims include "overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and 19 greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible." According to an overview of the resolution, this will be accomplished, in part, by "build[ing] out highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary."

In other words, the Green New Deal wants to make commercial air travel obsolete. Is this in any way feasible? The short answer is no. "It's actually probably even dumber than it seems," says Baruch Feigenbaum, assistant director of transportation policy at the Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes this website.

Paul Blair, director of strategic initiatives at Americans for Tax Reform, was even blunter. "The Green New Deal reads like word vomit from a 13-year-old child asked to scribble out their bold new thoughts for a radically different America than we have today," Blair said in a email to Reason. "This includes the phasing out of American air travel."

From both a financial and practical standpoint, replacing planes with high-speed rail lines makes little sense. For one thing, "high-speed rail projects cost billions and billions," Feigenbaum says. Consider the proposed Texas line between Dallas and Houston, which could cost as much as $20 billion. Both cities, notably, are in the same state, separated by less than 300 miles. Replacing air travel with high-speed rail would mean lines connecting every major city in the country, at least. "The amount of money you'd actually need to build these lines would be so far in the trillions, I don't see how you would possibly get it done," Feigenbaum says.

Ocasio-Cortez, though, doesn't seem to care about the Green New Deal's fiscal cost. She told Business Insider last month that Modern Monetary Theory—which says the government can essentially print and spend as much money as it wants, regardless of budget deficits or national debt—should "absolutely" be "a larger part of our conversation" about paying for her plan.

Putting this dubious reasoning to the side, her goal of eliminating air travel still makes no sense. "The reason why people take air travel is generally because it's fast," Feigenbaum says, explaining that there are very few corridors where rail travel could realistically compete with planes. "If you're going across the country," he adds, then "obviously high-speed rail is not going to be compatible with air travel."

And it certainly wouldn't be too effective if you wanted to travel to, say, Hawaii. A high-speed rail between the West Coast and Hawaii would require underground tunneling, which would itself cost an astronomical amount. "I can't think of a number that's high enough," Feigenbaum says. "You're talking about more than trillions, I think, in order to build a line."

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D–Hawaii) seems to realize the impracticality of ending air travel. "That would be pretty hard for Hawaii," she said of Ocasio-Cortez's plan, according to Fox News' Chad Pergram.

There's another issue. Truly replacing air travel with high-speed rail lines would require connecting all the countless cities in the U.S. that, while they wouldn't be classified as major, still have airports. Feigenbaum pointed to Casper, Wyoming, and Provo, Utah. Both have populations under 500,000. "Are we really going to build high-speed rail to places like [these]?" wonders Feigenbaum.

In fact, there are more than 5,000 public airports in the U.S. It's hard to imagine the planning and money that would go into connecting even half of them with high-speed rail lines, or serving the hundreds of millions of people who fly in the U.S. each year. "To suggest that it's even remotely possible to transition our transportation system in this way, to handle not only the capacity of air travel but get near its efficiency is a pipe dream," says Blair.

Considering that California officials have proven themselves incompetent when it comes to constructing a high-speed line through that state, a similar project on a much larger scale would probably be disastrous. The California rail is "a waste of money" that's "ruining farms and highways, and will never work," Blair explains.

"That's what Democrats want to take national," he adds, "the abysmal failure of boondoggles that shackle taxpayers to the pipe dreams of socialists with no concern for its failures right here in America."

Ocasio-Cortez has admitted that completely eliminating air travel within the next 10 years might not be possible.

Still, Feigenbaum suggests Ocasio-Cortez and her allies in Congress have shown their ignorance in this area. "The folks who are proposing [the Green New Deal] don't really know much about transportation," he says. "It's more designed for political purposes than it is for actual implementation."