-
00
-
RRRR wrote:
Mountain Master wrote:
You might want to keep this in mind: Just because it's happening here doesn't mean it's happening everywhere.
Texas is hot right now because:
1. It's summer.
2. It can get very hot in Texas during the summer.
If it was cold in Texas right now then you might be able to claim it was because of climate change - because that would be weird. But heat in Texas during the summer is to be expected. You might want to google that.
BTW, it's been raining like crazy in NC. There isn't a drought here.
People generally treat climate change like they do politics. They are in one camp or the other. I doubt anyone could convince you that climate change is real, since you already have your mind made up.
I grew up in Texas and have lived here my whole life. This is the hottest that nights have been that I can remember, which means that running in the early morning is not the reprieve that it usually is:
Maybe stop looking at scary clickbait articles, because the data doesn't reveal any major changes in average temperature in Texas over the past 100 years. I'm not denying that you're experiencing a heat wave, but that the heat you're experiencing probably isn't due to spooky climate changes.10 -
Well, ok then wrote:
Now google "Little Ice Age" and see if you can figure out how starting the temperature data in 1850 might make the warming look bigger than it actually is.
If science had the climate figured out the climate models wouldn't all be garbage.
Yet they are.
There's a reason.
71 -
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
Well, ok then wrote:
Now google "Little Ice Age" and see if you can figure out how starting the temperature data in 1850 might make the warming look bigger than it actually is.
If science had the climate figured out the climate models wouldn't all be garbage.
Yet they are.
There's a reason.
The above is intended to address your false assertion, "Why can't a single scientist alive calculate the percentage of warming that's attributable exclusively to human activity?"
That you don't believe them is something entirely different and not particularly interesting.
13 -
Well, ok then wrote:
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
Now google "Little Ice Age" and see if you can figure out how starting the temperature data in 1850 might make the warming look bigger than it actually is.
If science had the climate figured out the climate models wouldn't all be garbage.
Yet they are.
There's a reason.
The above is intended to address your false assertion, "Why can't a single scientist alive calculate the percentage of warming that's attributable exclusively to human activity?"
That you don't believe them is something entirely different and not particularly interesting.
The "normal" temperature they've decided to use a basis for comparison is a LOW temperature from the Little Ice Age.
The fact that you can't understand why that matters makes your completely uninformed opinion uninteresting.
44 -
RRRR wrote:
People generally treat climate change like they do politics. They are in one camp or the other. I doubt anyone could convince you that climate change is real, since you already have your mind made up.
I grew up in Texas and have lived here my whole life. This is the hottest that nights have been that I can remember, which means that running in the early morning is not the reprieve that it usually is:
"I doubt anyone could convince you that climate change is real, since you already have your mind made up."
I never made a statement as to whether or not I think climate change is real. Thus, you've made it clear that you don't know what you are talking about. For the record, only an idiot thinks the climate isn't changing. It's been changing for 4.5 billion years.
As far as the Texas heat wave indicating that the climate is changing, it isn't. The high temperature in Houston this month is 99 degrees according to Weather Underground. According to the National Weather Service, 99 degrees was tied or exceeded in Houston in June of 1902, 1903, 1906, 1911, 1918, 1978, 1980, 1998, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2022.
All the current heat wave indicates is that it gets hot in Texas during the summer. Duh.
41 -
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
Well, ok then wrote:
The above is intended to address your false assertion, "Why can't a single scientist alive calculate the percentage of warming that's attributable exclusively to human activity?"
That you don't believe them is something entirely different and not particularly interesting.
The "normal" temperature they've decided to use a basis for comparison is a LOW temperature from the Little Ice Age.
The fact that you can't understand why that matters makes your completely uninformed opinion uninteresting.
Attribution studies are primarily done in the period "since 1950" when the relevant observations are more complete per the second paragraph of the linked article.
See for instance the second figure in the article giving a central estimate of the anthropogenic contribution to global warming as about 110% of observed warming.
In any case, I'm not so much expressing an opinion, informed or otherwise. Rather, I'm pointing out that your assertion that these estimates haven't been done is contradicted by reality.
00 -
Well, ok then wrote:
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
The "normal" temperature they've decided to use a basis for comparison is a LOW temperature from the Little Ice Age.
The fact that you can't understand why that matters makes your completely uninformed opinion uninteresting.
Attribution studies are primarily done in the period "since 1950" when the relevant observations are more complete per the second paragraph of the linked article.
See for instance the second figure in the article giving a central estimate of the anthropogenic contribution to global warming as about 110% of observed warming.
In any case, I'm not so much expressing an opinion, informed or otherwise. Rather, I'm pointing out that your assertion that these estimates haven't been done is contradicted by reality.
If they actually understood the climate well enough to actually produce correct figures they would be able to produce accurate climate models.
They cannot.
41 -
I used to run at like 7pm on Buffalo Bayou and Memorial Park in Houston. Probably the lowest humidity of the day. Sun is moving down so it's not bearing down on you. You aren't going to run 10 miles every day but 3-5 in the heat will toughen you up and stress your body. As others have said, I would prefer Houston summers to cold dark winters. October - May are pretty good running months although humidity can spike every once in a while.
Non-stop sweating could be a problem if have to drive to your running loop. Never found a solution for that but always lived close to the Bayou.
20 -
TKTKTK wrote:
Mountain Master wrote:
Is it too hot because of climate change or because it's summer in a state that always has hideous summers?
BTW, I live in North Carolina and it has been unusually cool this spring and summer. Is that because of climate change?
Anthropogenic climate breakdown has made the chances of a heat-dome like the one Texas, Mexico, and a growing number of Plains and southeastern states are experiencing five times more likely, according to experts. Please use Google.
And yes, climate change is a global phenomenon. The slight bit of cooling NC has enjoyed so far this year--accompanied by drought conditions in all but the tiniest far western corner of the state--is part of the overall matrix of weather events precipitated, enabled, or made more likely by climate collapse.
Weather is complicated and weather will continue, even in this era of climate breakdown. Some days will be cooler than others; some regions will be cooler when others are much, much hotter. But the overall global trend of higher temperatures, more extreme heat waves and precipitation events, more widespread forest and grass fires, and more wildlife die-offs will continue.
There's a good saying that you would do well to keep in mind: "Just because it isn't happening here doesn't mean it isn't happening."
It's man's fault right?
00 -
Texas governor and repubs in Texas don't want you taking water breaks.....WTH?
20 -
458777 wrote:
Texas governor and repubs in Texas don't want you taking water breaks.....WTH?
Use common sense when you read please.
11 -
lemme guess again wrote:
458777 wrote:
Texas governor and repubs in Texas don't want you taking water breaks.....WTH?
Use common sense when you read please.
Reading is fundamental
21 -
11
-
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
Well, ok then wrote:
Attribution studies are primarily done in the period "since 1950" when the relevant observations are more complete per the second paragraph of the linked article.
See for instance the second figure in the article giving a central estimate of the anthropogenic contribution to global warming as about 110% of observed warming.
In any case, I'm not so much expressing an opinion, informed or otherwise. Rather, I'm pointing out that your assertion that these estimates haven't been done is contradicted by reality.
If they actually understood the climate well enough to actually produce correct figures they would be able to produce accurate climate models.
They cannot.
02 -
Timothy Foyle wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
If it is "climate change" why was it called Global warming for so many years and the only they started calling it climate change when in 1998 the Earth quit warming? They had to change the name to fit their liberal agenda. Just shameful.
And the winner in the overall stup!dity division is . . . Sally (again :-( )
Congratulations!
The EPA for years called it Global Warming on its website. It was not called Climate Change until around 2005 after the Earth had not warmed since 1998. Can you understand that?
30 -
2:18 at the casino and back on the grid... wrote:
Rerederrrr wrote:
In the 70s they said we had 15 years until the world would burn from "climate change". you have been brainwashed, but you probably deserve it
Not true. 60 minutes did a segment on global cooling back in the late 70s or early 80s. We now know that it could be cycles. One thing for sure is we are destroying our ozone layer.
They said we were destroying our ozone years decades ago. Our Ozone zone has been (not sure of correct wording) revitalized.
10 -
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
Timothy Foyle wrote:
And now, in our "unable to understand the difference between 'local' and global'" category, we have two winners.
What do we have for these winners, Johnny?
And every time any severe weather event occurs somewhere locally people like you declare it was caused by climate change.
The lack of self awareness you anti-science snobs have is staggering.
If we have a dry spell it is Global Warming.
If we have a freezing spell it is Global Warming.
If we have an increased number of hurricanes it is Global Warming.
If we see a dearth of hurricanes it is Global Warming.
40 -
Well, ok then wrote:
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
If they actually understood the climate well enough to actually produce correct figures they would be able to produce accurate climate models.
They cannot.
The data does not support your position.
You're literally doing what you're accusing me of doing.
I'm not declaring I'm right. I'm saying if the science was sound the models would reflect it.
They do not.
Science is decades away from being able to model the climate accurately because they don't understand it yet.
Picking the end of a little ice age as your baseline for "normal" temperatures is not scientific.
22 -
Why would any of you take horribly hot, humid weather over Midwest winters? You can at least bundle up in the cold. After 5 minutes you feel fine. It's just your extremities that need to be protected. Good trail running shoes would do the trick, and maybe some crampons for deep snow.
But if you're hot, then you're hot.
11
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/dmn/C5TNNXCEHTR7W2K2H4Q2EEDWDU.jpg)
