New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

California fires "New Norm" due to Climate Change------OMG

EatTheRich

President
That doesn't stop California from letting them vote. How do you think Clinton won the popular vote?
She got a lot more votes from legally registered citizens. If she had gotten millions of votes from "illegals," the evidence (people caught, impersonated voters turned away at the polls, statistical anomalies) would have been overwhelming; instead it is nonexistent.
 
how could anyone NOT see this BS claim coming?

drought of 2015-16? due to global warming!

record winter snows of 2016-2017? due to global warming

record rains in the summer of 2017? due to global warming!

failure of the state of California to make use of those rains, to reinforce their water infrastructure, to take prudent steps (controlled burns) to reduce the fuel for catastrophic fires? due to global warming.

Excuses from politicians like Jerry Brown, over their failure to do their jobs? The new normal - same as the old normal.
 

EatTheRich

President
Wellll.....

Unfortunately for your hypothesis, "illegal aliens" are ALSO not permitted to BE HERE!

Yet here we always are discussing them. WTH?
Apples and oranges. They are not legally supposed to be here ... but they are allowed to be here by the powers that be ... in fact, the functioning of American capitalism requires their presence in large numbers.

They are not allowed to vote by the powers that be. We know this because if they were we'd unavoidably see all sorts of statistical evidence to this effect and such evidence is entirely lacking.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
2017 is the 2nd-hottest year on record. It being unseasonably cold in one part of the world for a few days doesn't change that.
Look, Gorebal Warming supposedly destroying the world, making glaziers melt, seas rise.......well, seas will now rise due to melting snow............

Liberalism is a disease
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
how could anyone NOT see this BS claim coming?

drought of 2015-16? due to global warming!

record winter snows of 2016-2017? due to global warming

record rains in the summer of 2017? due to global warming!

failure of the state of California to make use of those rains, to reinforce their water infrastructure, to take prudent steps (controlled burns) to reduce the fuel for catastrophic fires? due to global warming.

Excuses from politicians like Jerry Brown, over their failure to do their jobs? The new normal - same as the old normal.
Gorebal Warming wouldn't allow state to cut trees or clear brush that fuels fires......
 

Arkady

President
http://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017/12/1032134-official-california-gov-jerry-brown-says-raging-wildfires-new-normal-blames-climate-change/?

Proof Liberalism is a disease that only cure is death......

I hope the 6" of snow we just got in FALL isn't the New Norm, Gorebal Warming my ass
If you're interested, here's the most recent global temperature record:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201710

Here's what the YTD temperature anomaly data looks like graphed against prior years to date:

upload_2017-12-11_12-26-7.png

As you can see, this is the third-warmest YTD since 1880, at least (beaten only by 2015 and 2016, when there was a strong El Nino). So far this year, we've been 0.86 degrees Celsius warmer than the average temperature between 1910 and 2000.
 

Arkady

President
Snow in the southern states and Texas, but the world is warming!! Lol!
You seem to have confused weather for climate. Here's a way to think about the difference, in probabilistic terms.

Let's say you think of the weather as a role of the dice, where the temperature on a given day is found by rolling a bunch of dice and adding up the result. At first, you start with 16 six-sided dice. So, you can have snow if the temp is 32 degrees or less -- meaning you just have to roll a 2 or a 1 on all of them..... that won't happen much, with one roll per day, it'll happen every few years. Now, what happens if you add another die? Well, it'll still be possible to roll 32 or under. In fact, you could roll as low a 17, in theory. It's entirely possible to set a new record low, even rolling with the extra die. But, the more dice you add, the less likely it becomes, and the more likely that you'll roll a record high, while the average for the year will tend to rise.

Obviously, that's not a perfect analogy, since a better model would have the number of dice in your hand changing based on the time of the year, and since none of it is random. But the concept is the important thing. The concept is that on any given day in any given place, you could have temps that are much colder or hotter than normal, while at the same time the big picture probabilities will tend to move one way or the other. Over time, the probability of getting an unusually low temperature has been falling globally, while the probability of getting an unusually high one has been rising, such that on average temps are up about a degree Celsius relative to where they were a century ago.
 
If you're interested, here's the most recent global temperature record:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201710

Here's what the YTD temperature anomaly data looks like graphed against prior years to date:

View attachment 37965

As you can see, this is the third-warmest YTD since 1880, at least (beaten only by 2015 and 2016, when there was a strong El Nino). So far this year, we've been 0.86 degrees Celsius warmer than the average temperature between 1910 and 2000.
a record of the earth's long term temperature (below) completely reassures that we are not in the midst of any man made calamity - other than huckster/alarmism . . .

 

Arkady

President
a record of the earth's long term temperature (below)
That graph isn't any use for observing AGW, based on scale. That graph is is about 515 pixels wide and covers a span of 800,000 years. So, the entire history from 1800 to today, covering the entire period of mass human contributions of greenhouse gases, would cover approximately one-seventh of a single pixel on that graph. In other words, it wouldn't show up at all on that graph.
 

Arkady

President
That graph isn't any use for observing AGW, based on scale. That graph is is about 515 pixels wide and covers a span of 800,000 years. So, the entire history from 1800 to today, covering the entire period of mass human contributions of greenhouse gases, would cover approximately one-seventh of a single pixel on that graph. In other words, it wouldn't show up at all on that graph.
In case the point isn't clear from what I just wrote, think of it this way. If you have one data point on that graph per horizontal pixel (the maximum data points that can be displayed at that scale) then each data point would be the average temperature over a period of approximately 1553 years. So, the period of rapid warming we've seen from the early 20th century to today would be only a small factor in that final pixel's average, washed out by many centuries of pre-industrial data. When that very last pixel started, the Western Roman Empire hadn't even fallen.
 
Last edited:

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
In case the point isn't clear from what I just wrote, thing of it this way. If you have one data point on that graph per horizontal pixel (the maximum data points that can be displayed at that scale) then each data point would be the average temperature over a period of approximately 1553 years. So, the period of rapid warming we've seen from the early 20th century to today would be only a small factor in that final pixel's average, washed out by many centuries of pre-industrial data. When that very last pixel started, the Western Roman Empire hadn't even fallen.
Posting to self!
"thing of it this way"

OK
 
Top