On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 09:35:45 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:

>> Sometimes the inability of a system to keep up with new perturbations
>> leads, not to compensation for the changes, but to the opposite: an
>> acceleration in the changes. This is "positive feedback," because the
>> net effect is to keep adding to the changes (which is one case in which
>> something that is "positive" is a bad thing). The global climate has
>> been able to compensate for comparatively small increases in temperature
>> since the industrial revolution, but we're nearing the tipping point
>> from negative feedback to positive feedback, and that's why climate
>> scientists are worried.
>
>Good post. But I'd have thought that unreliability of long-range
>weather forecasts is due not to non-linearity but rather to simple
>multiplication of cascading possibilities.

Both actually particularly in the higher latitudes where there is more
seasonal effects than near the equator.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

>. . .

>Geology tells us climate change has ALWAYS been with us long before
>mankind but haa been connected to 'great extinction' events a minimum
>of five times in geologic history. Some of these have involved the
>extinction of 90-95% of species on Earth. Most of these have required
>hundreds of thousands of years (if not millions) to correct. To me
>that's a problem different for most to grasp. They don't know how long
>the extinction of the dinosaurs took but it was under 10000 years (how
>much under is unknown) which in geologic terms is the wink of an eye.

Everybody knows Adric killed the dinosaurs.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 05:05:44 +0000 (UTC),
> MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>
>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 17:51:36 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> That's true and certain, as is the eventual heat death of the
>>>> universe.
>>>> But scientific consensus says that AGW makes surviving the remaining
>>>> century a more immediate concern.
>>>
>>> I'm not prepared to believe any particular percentage of global
>>> warming is caused by mankind but with the population 20x what it was
>>> 500 years ago there is bound to be SOME effect and if science tells us
>>> anything it's that a lot of things don't change in a linear manner.
>>
>> In some ways, the percentage contribution of human activity to global
>> warming is just an interesting side note. Even if 100% of it were due
>> to "natural causes," the amount and the effects are alarming, and should
>> point to a human desire to alter the results. There are plenty of
>> things that nature does that are disadvantageous to humans, and that we
>> take active measures to alter, and this would be no different,
>> particularly given how once the problem has tipped past a certain point,
>> it's not something that can be undone by flipping a switch.
>
> Yup - I definitely understand about tipping points and how they're
> usually one way. (i.e. you can seldom go back)
>
>> You like to often say how much you've studied mathematics and how well
>> you did at doing so. Obviously, anyone who's studied differential
>> equations knows about nonlinearity, and therefore how local weather
>> prediction gets very inaccurate past about 7-10 days because small
>> variations in initial conditions can lead to enormous variations in
>> outcome the further out that time goes on. But did you also study
>> control theory, in which the math tells us that while positive feedback
>> may be great when you're getting a review on Yelp, it can spell disaster
>> in a complex system?
>
> I don't believe I've ever discussed my grades but yes my undergraduate
> degree is math with a minor in statistics. (Followed by an MBA in
> finance and systems a few years later)
>
> You are totally right about nonlinearity. As for control theory yes
> though it was before Yelp (actually before the internet which was just
> barely starting when I competed my MBA). I started on the BBS circuit
> in 1983 and within 5 years had gone to the internet by 1988 though the
> earliest Usenet posting I've ever been able to document was April 94.
> (Can't do it now that Deja News aka Google Groups is defunct)
>
>> Some systems are homeostatic, which means that the way they're set up
>> allows them to compensate for small changes. E.g., up to a point, the
>> temperature of the human body is homeostatic. If you get cold, you'll
>> shiver and your surface capillaries will contract, which brings your
>> body temperature back up. If you get hot, you'll sweat and your surface
>> capillaries will relax and swell up with blood, which brings your body
>> temperature back down. Mathematically, subtracting out the effects of
>> these small changes is known as "negative feedback" (because of the
>> subtraction), and in most systems that humans are concerned with, this
>> is considered a good thing.
>
> I'm writing this during a break from a Youtube video on the origin of
> skin color. I'm about 2/3 of the way through and like it a lot - it's
> NOT political and is done by a professor in evolutionary biology
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc4OFcT5m1Y
>
> The sort of thing you're discussing plays a big part in her video.
>
>> But it's possible to put so much change into a system that it ceases being
>> able to compensate. For example, you can put a human body into an
>> environment so cold that its efforts to keep the core temperature high
>> enough causes blood to cease to flow properly in the extremities, leading
>> to frostbite. You can put a human body into an environment so hot that
>> its efforts to keep the core and the brain cool enough can lead to
>> dehydration. There's only so much change that the body can handle.
>
> Very definitely - if you take too much sweet foods your body will
> urinate more than usual to attempt to get rid of it. Too much overload
> produces diabetes and one of the symptoms of diabetes is regular
> thirst to give the body the liquid to urinate away the excess sugars.
>
>> Sometimes the inability of a system to keep up with new perturbations
>> leads, not to compensation for the changes, but to the opposite: an
>> acceleration in the changes. This is "positive feedback," because the
>> net effect is to keep adding to the changes (which is one case in which
>> something that is "positive" is a bad thing). The global climate has
>> been able to compensate for comparatively small increases in temperature
>> since the industrial revolution, but we're nearing the tipping point
>> from negative feedback to positive feedback, and that's why climate
>> scientists are worried.
>
> Yup - and it really doesn't matter whether the anthropomorphic portion
> is 20%, 40%, 60% or some other number - it's an existential problem
> mankind has to deal with. Nobody knows where the tipping point is but
> one look at Venus demonstrates there is such a point. Obviously a
> runaway greenhouse effect like Venus would be catastrophic for life on
> earth.
>
> (Do we really want our grandchildren living in mine shafts?
> ObDocStrangelove reference)
>
> Geology tells us climate change has ALWAYS been with us long before
> mankind but haa been connected to 'great extinction' events a minimum
> of five times in geologic history. Some of these have involved the
> extinction of 90-95% of species on Earth. Most of these have required
> hundreds of thousands of years (if not millions) to correct.

Those were all natural processes-- nature doing its thing-- and therefore
weren't something that needed 'correcting'.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 22:51:00 -0600, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>> Geology tells us climate change has ALWAYS been with us long before
>> mankind but haa been connected to 'great extinction' events a minimum
>> of five times in geologic history. Some of these have involved the
>> extinction of 90-95% of species on Earth. Most of these have required
>> hundreds of thousands of years (if not millions) to correct.
>
>Those were all natural processes-- nature doing its thing-- and therefore
>weren't something that needed 'correcting'.

I get that - my point was 'we already have these examples of how
things can go sideways WITHOUT our "help" - we need to be active and
not asleep at the switch'

However I do think there is no hope of serious change for the better
as long as China and India get a free pass while the rest of us do
what ALL of us (including them) need to be doing. I'd probably feel
different if the holdouts were Monaco and Upper Volta but China and
India are both top 10 emitters.

While it was once true, I don't think anybody in 2021 can seriously
argue that these two are still "developing countries" deserving of
special treatment.

On 2021-12-15, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> However I do think there is no hope of serious change for the better
> as long as China and India get a free pass while the rest of us do
> what ALL of us (including them) need to be doing.

Just what is it that you think ALL of us need to be doing?

I'm not willing to do *anything*. CO2 is *not* a pollutant. There is no
"climate crisis" being caused by human activity. This is nothing more
than a continuation of the lies and phony crises being purveyed by the
environmentalist movement for over 50 years. I refuse to do anything to
reduce my own CO2 output. I will not drive an electric car. I will not
install solar panels on my roof. I will not replace my old light bulbs
with LEDs. I will not replace my good old energy-hungry applicances with
short-lived and functionally-deficient energy-efficient models. I'm not
doing any of it. Rest assured that I am not alone in this.

I submit that the environazis that think we ALL need to be doing
something and intend to force us to do so should lead by example
and reduce their own CO2 output by offing themselves.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
There is no "climate crisis" -- https://climatedepot.com
Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Monday, 29 November 2021 at 00:31:54 UTC-5, RichA wrote:
> Why, it's like mid-summer there!
>
> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-59450984

Again, more hypocrisy from the global warming cult, they've tried to blame it for the tornado outbreak in Kansas.

RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 29 November 2021 at 00:31:54 UTC-5, RichA wrote:
>> Why, it's like mid-summer there!
>>
>> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-59450984
>
> Again, more hypocrisy from the global warming cult, they've tried to
> blame it for the tornado outbreak in Kansas.

And it's a provable lie, pure Warmist propaganda.

Tornado frequency in the U.S. has been on a downward trend since at least
the 1960s.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vuw88ie2ap2up1k/Tornadoes.jpg?dl=0

Average Number of Tornado per Year

1954-1985 55.9 tornadoes/year

1986 - 2018 33.8 tornadoes/year

And 2018 set a record for the lowest number of tornadoes since NOAA started
keeping records.

On 12/16/2021 9:26 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, 29 November 2021 at 00:31:54 UTC-5, RichA wrote:
>>> Why, it's like mid-summer there!
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-59450984
>>
>> Again, more hypocrisy from the global warming cult, they've tried to
>> blame it for the tornado outbreak in Kansas.
>
> And it's a provable lie, pure Warmist propaganda.
>
> Tornado frequency in the U.S. has been on a downward trend since at least
> the 1960s.
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/vuw88ie2ap2up1k/Tornadoes.jpg?dl=0
>
> Average Number of Tornado per Year
>
> 1954-1985 55.9 tornadoes/year
>
> 1986 - 2018 33.8 tornadoes/year
>
> And 2018 set a record for the lowest number of tornadoes since NOAA started
> keeping records.

----------------
Climate change and tornadoes: Any connection?

As greenhouse gases shuffle the atmospheric deck, where and when
twisters happen is changing.
----------------

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/07/climate-change-and-tornadoes-any-connection/

moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> On 12/16/2021 9:26 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, 29 November 2021 at 00:31:54 UTC-5, RichA wrote:
>>>> Why, it's like mid-summer there!
>>>>
>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-59450984
>>>
>>> Again, more hypocrisy from the global warming cult, they've tried to
>>> blame it for the tornado outbreak in Kansas.
>>
>> And it's a provable lie, pure Warmist propaganda.
>>
>> Tornado frequency in the U.S. has been on a downward trend since at least
>> the 1960s.
>>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/vuw88ie2ap2up1k/Tornadoes.jpg?dl=0
>>
>> Average Number of Tornado per Year
>>
>> 1954-1985 55.9 tornadoes/year
>>
>> 1986 - 2018 33.8 tornadoes/year
>>
>> And 2018 set a record for the lowest number of tornadoes since NOAA started
>> keeping records.
>
> ----------------
> Climate change and tornadoes: Any connection?
>
> As greenhouse gases shuffle the atmospheric deck, where and when
> twisters happen is changing.
> ----------------
>
> https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/07/climate-change-and-tornadoes-any-connection/

"Fortunately, human-warmed climate isn't making violent U.S. tornadoes any
more frequent."

On 12/16/2021 6:26 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, 29 November 2021 at 00:31:54 UTC-5, RichA wrote:
>>> Why, it's like mid-summer there!
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-59450984
>>
>> Again, more hypocrisy from the global warming cult, they've tried to
>> blame it for the tornado outbreak in Kansas.
>
> And it's a provable lie, pure Warmist propaganda.
>
> Tornado frequency in the U.S. has been on a downward trend since at least
> the 1960s.
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/vuw88ie2ap2up1k/Tornadoes.jpg?dl=0
>
> Average Number of Tornado per Year
>
> 1954-1985 55.9 tornadoes/year
>
> 1986 - 2018 33.8 tornadoes/year
>
> And 2018 set a record for the lowest number of tornadoes since NOAA started
> keeping records.
>
But they're getting stronger. How many F4 tornadoes have there been?

On 12/16/2021 10:33 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> On 12/16/2021 9:26 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Monday, 29 November 2021 at 00:31:54 UTC-5, RichA wrote:
>>>>> Why, it's like mid-summer there!
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-59450984
>>>>
>>>> Again, more hypocrisy from the global warming cult, they've tried to
>>>> blame it for the tornado outbreak in Kansas.
>>>
>>> And it's a provable lie, pure Warmist propaganda.
>>>
>>> Tornado frequency in the U.S. has been on a downward trend since at least
>>> the 1960s.
>>>
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/vuw88ie2ap2up1k/Tornadoes.jpg?dl=0
>>>
>>> Average Number of Tornado per Year
>>>
>>> 1954-1985 55.9 tornadoes/year
>>>
>>> 1986 - 2018 33.8 tornadoes/year
>>>
>>> And 2018 set a record for the lowest number of tornadoes since NOAA started
>>> keeping records.
>>
>> ----------------
>> Climate change and tornadoes: Any connection?
>>
>> As greenhouse gases shuffle the atmospheric deck, where and when
>> twisters happen is changing.
>> ----------------
>>
>> https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/07/climate-change-and-tornadoes-any-connection/
>
> "Fortunately, human-warmed climate isn't making violent U.S. tornadoes any
> more frequent."

Yes, I saw that ...along with other stuff I thought interesting.

On 2021-12-16 15:55:25 +0000, suzeeq said:
> On 12/16/2021 6:26 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, 29 November 2021 at 00:31:54 UTC-5, RichA wrote:
>>>> Why, it's like mid-summer there!
>>>>
>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-59450984
>>>
>>> Again, more hypocrisy from the global warming cult, they've tried to
>>> blame it for the tornado outbreak in Kansas.
>>
>> And it's a provable lie, pure Warmist propaganda.
>>
>> Tornado frequency in the U.S. has been on a downward trend since at least
>> the 1960s.
>>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/vuw88ie2ap2up1k/Tornadoes.jpg?dl=0
>>
>> Average Number of Tornado per Year
>>
>> 1954-1985 55.9 tornadoes/year
>>
>> 1986 - 2018 33.8 tornadoes/year
>>
>> And 2018 set a record for the lowest number of tornadoes since NOAA started
>> keeping records.
>>
> But they're getting stronger. How many F4 tornadoes have there been?

Please don't confuse them with actual facts, ;-)

Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> On 2021-12-16 15:55:25 +0000, suzeeq said:
>> On 12/16/2021 6:26 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Monday, 29 November 2021 at 00:31:54 UTC-5, RichA wrote:
>>>>> Why, it's like mid-summer there!
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-59450984
>>>>
>>>> Again, more hypocrisy from the global warming cult, they've tried to
>>>> blame it for the tornado outbreak in Kansas.
>>>
>>> And it's a provable lie, pure Warmist propaganda.
>>>
>>> Tornado frequency in the U.S. has been on a downward trend since at least
>>> the 1960s.
>>>
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/vuw88ie2ap2up1k/Tornadoes.jpg?dl=0
>>>
>>> Average Number of Tornado per Year
>>>
>>> 1954-1985 55.9 tornadoes/year
>>>
>>> 1986 - 2018 33.8 tornadoes/year
>>>
>>> And 2018 set a record for the lowest number of tornadoes since NOAA started
>>> keeping records.
>>>
>> But they're getting stronger. How many F4 tornadoes have there been?
>
> Please don't confuse them with actual facts, ;-)

Well, I'd hate to confuse you with actual facts, but the strongest, most
destructive, and deadliest (695 fatalities) tornado on record was in 1925
(Missouri). It also holds the record for the longest path (219 miles),
longest duration (3.5 hours), and fastest travel speed (73 mph).

And all before evol SUVs were invented. Imagine that.

The 1896 St. Louis–East St. Louis tornado incurred the most damages
adjusted for wealth and inflation, at an estimated $4.6 billion (2019 USD),
which also can't be attributed to evol SUVs.

Then there was the 1974 Super Outbreak, which affected a large area of the
central United States and southern Canada. A time span of 18 hours saw 148
tornadoes touch down, with an unprecedented number of them violent; seven
were of F5 intensity.

And this was during the time when we were being assured that the 'science
is settled' and we needed to prepare for the coming Ice Age.

On 12/16/2021 1:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> On 2021-12-16 15:55:25 +0000, suzeeq said:
>>> On 12/16/2021 6:26 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, 29 November 2021 at 00:31:54 UTC-5, RichA wrote:
>>>>>> Why, it's like mid-summer there!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-59450984
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, more hypocrisy from the global warming cult, they've tried to
>>>>> blame it for the tornado outbreak in Kansas.
>>>>
>>>> And it's a provable lie, pure Warmist propaganda.
>>>>
>>>> Tornado frequency in the U.S. has been on a downward trend since at least
>>>> the 1960s.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/vuw88ie2ap2up1k/Tornadoes.jpg?dl=0
>>>>
>>>> Average Number of Tornado per Year
>>>>
>>>> 1954-1985 55.9 tornadoes/year
>>>>
>>>> 1986 - 2018 33.8 tornadoes/year
>>>>
>>>> And 2018 set a record for the lowest number of tornadoes since NOAA started
>>>> keeping records.
>>>>
>>> But they're getting stronger. How many F4 tornadoes have there been?
>>
>> Please don't confuse them with actual facts, ;-)
>
> Well, I'd hate to confuse you with actual facts, but the strongest, most
> destructive, and deadliest (695 fatalities) tornado on record was in 1925
> (Missouri). It also holds the record for the longest path (219 miles),
> longest duration (3.5 hours), and fastest travel speed (73 mph).

Not any longer. This last tornado had a longer path- 240-250 miles -
lasted over 4 hours. I haven't heard what its speed was.

>
> And all before evol SUVs were invented. Imagine that.
>
> The 1896 St. Louis–East St. Louis tornado incurred the most damages
> adjusted for wealth and inflation, at an estimated $4.6 billion (2019 USD),
> which also can't be attributed to evol SUVs.
>
> Then there was the 1974 Super Outbreak, which affected a large area of the
> central United States and southern Canada. A time span of 18 hours saw 148
> tornadoes touch down, with an unprecedented number of them violent; seven
> were of F5 intensity.
>
> And this was during the time when we were being assured that the 'science
> is settled' and we needed to prepare for the coming Ice Age.
>
This one is probably going into the record books as the worst tornado
though.

On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 02:39:39 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
<rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:

>On 2021-12-15, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>> However I do think there is no hope of serious change for the better
>> as long as China and India get a free pass while the rest of us do
>> what ALL of us (including them) need to be doing.
>
>Just what is it that you think ALL of us need to be doing?
>
>I'm not willing to do *anything*. CO2 is *not* a pollutant. There is no
>"climate crisis" being caused by human activity. This is nothing more
>than a continuation of the lies and phony crises being purveyed by the
>environmentalist movement for over 50 years. I refuse to do anything to
>reduce my own CO2 output. I will not drive an electric car. I will not
>install solar panels on my roof. I will not replace my old light bulbs
>with LEDs. I will not replace my good old energy-hungry applicances with
>short-lived and functionally-deficient energy-efficient models. I'm not
>doing any of it. Rest assured that I am not alone in this.
>
>I submit that the environazis that think we ALL need to be doing
>something and intend to force us to do so should lead by example
>and reduce their own CO2 output by offing themselves.

When I said "ALL" I meant that reducing emissions is somethat that
needs to be done to reduce warming and that that "ALL" very definitely
DOES need to include both India and China in reducing emissions if
there is any serious hope of controlling them.

In my books any "solution" that exempts those two countries is a
non-solution and most unlikely to be effective worldwide at least
within the timeframe we are told is needed.

On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 15:46:41 -0600, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>Then there was the 1974 Super Outbreak, which affected a large area of the
>central United States and southern Canada. A time span of 18 hours saw 148
>tornadoes touch down, with an unprecedented number of them violent; seven
>were of F5 intensity.
>
>And this was during the time when we were being assured that the 'science
>is settled' and we needed to prepare for the coming Ice Age.

It's well known that the most easiest and most effective way to reduce
the global temperature would be to detonate 100 Hiroshima sized nukes
in nortnern Siberia and Canada (basically far northern areas north of
70N that don't involve glaciers) a year for the next generation.

Obviously neither the Russian or Canadian governments are keen to
"step up" on this matter!

But no question, if the goal is to keep global warming under +1.5
degrees celsius that's an effective method!

On 12/16/2021 6:28 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 15:46:41 -0600, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Then there was the 1974 Super Outbreak, which affected a large area of the
>> central United States and southern Canada. A time span of 18 hours saw 148
>> tornadoes touch down, with an unprecedented number of them violent; seven
>> were of F5 intensity.
>>
>> And this was during the time when we were being assured that the 'science
>> is settled' and we needed to prepare for the coming Ice Age.
>
> It's well known that the most easiest and most effective way to reduce
> the global temperature would be to detonate 100 Hiroshima sized nukes
> in nortnern Siberia and Canada (basically far northern areas north of
> 70N that don't involve glaciers) a year for the next generation.
>
> Obviously neither the Russian or Canadian governments are keen to
> "step up" on this matter!
>
> But no question, if the goal is to keep global warming under +1.5
> degrees celsius that's an effective method!

How does that reduce temps? 'Nuclear winter'?

On 12/16/2021 8:26 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, 29 November 2021 at 00:31:54 UTC-5, RichA wrote:
>>> Why, it's like mid-summer there!
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-59450984
>>
>> Again, more hypocrisy from the global warming cult, they've tried to
>> blame it for the tornado outbreak in Kansas.
>
> And it's a provable lie, pure Warmist propaganda.
>
> Tornado frequency in the U.S. has been on a downward trend since at least
> the 1960s.
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/vuw88ie2ap2up1k/Tornadoes.jpg?dl=0
>
> Average Number of Tornado per Year
>
> 1954-1985 55.9 tornadoes/year
>
> 1986 - 2018 33.8 tornadoes/year
>
> And 2018 set a record for the lowest number of tornadoes since NOAA started
> keeping records.

I studied engineering, so I actually know how to be analytical. There
are two components: frequency and intensity. There's also an X factor,
such as when Minnesota had it's first tornado in December in history
yesterday. Ditto for hurricanes and other extreme weather events. The
vast majority of scientists agree on what is happening, whereas right
wing shitbag propagandists do not. Do you know which one you are, shitbag?

On 2021-12-16 23:42:49 +0000, moviePig said:
> On 12/16/2021 6:28 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 15:46:41 -0600, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Then there was the 1974 Super Outbreak, which affected a large area of the
>>> central United States and southern Canada. A time span of 18 hours saw 148
>>> tornadoes touch down, with an unprecedented number of them violent; seven
>>> were of F5 intensity.
>>>
>>> And this was during the time when we were being assured that the 'science
>>> is settled' and we needed to prepare for the coming Ice Age.
>>
>> It's well known that the most easiest and most effective way to reduce
>> the global temperature would be to detonate 100 Hiroshima sized nukes
>> in nortnern Siberia and Canada (basically far northern areas north of
>> 70N that don't involve glaciers) a year for the next generation.
>>
>> Obviously neither the Russian or Canadian governments are keen to
>> "step up" on this matter!
>>
>> But no question, if the goal is to keep global warming under +1.5
>> degrees celsius that's an effective method!
>
> How does that reduce temps? 'Nuclear winter'?

It would likely wipe out most, if not all, humans too, so that would
definitely help solve the planet's problems. :-)

On 12/16/2021 9:33 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> On 12/16/2021 9:26 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Monday, 29 November 2021 at 00:31:54 UTC-5, RichA wrote:
>>>>> Why, it's like mid-summer there!
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-59450984
>>>>
>>>> Again, more hypocrisy from the global warming cult, they've tried to
>>>> blame it for the tornado outbreak in Kansas.
>>>
>>> And it's a provable lie, pure Warmist propaganda.
>>>
>>> Tornado frequency in the U.S. has been on a downward trend since at least
>>> the 1960s.
>>>
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/vuw88ie2ap2up1k/Tornadoes.jpg?dl=0
>>>
>>> Average Number of Tornado per Year
>>>
>>> 1954-1985 55.9 tornadoes/year
>>>
>>> 1986 - 2018 33.8 tornadoes/year
>>>
>>> And 2018 set a record for the lowest number of tornadoes since NOAA started
>>> keeping records.
>>
>> ----------------
>> Climate change and tornadoes: Any connection?
>>
>> As greenhouse gases shuffle the atmospheric deck, where and when
>> twisters happen is changing.
>> ----------------
>>
>> https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/07/climate-change-and-tornadoes-any-connection/
>
> "Fortunately, human-warmed climate isn't making violent U.S. tornadoes any
> more frequent."

And again the intensity of the storms isn't mentioned by Derpshit? Who
the fuck do you think you're fooling, fuckhead?

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2956/how-climate-change-may-be-impacting-storms-over-earths-tropical-oceans/

On 12/16/2021 9:55 AM, suzeeq wrote:
> On 12/16/2021 6:26 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, 29 November 2021 at 00:31:54 UTC-5, RichA wrote:
>>>> Why, it's like mid-summer there!
>>>>
>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-59450984
>>>
>>> Again, more hypocrisy from the global warming cult, they've tried to
>>> blame it for the tornado outbreak in Kansas.
>>
>> And it's a provable lie, pure Warmist propaganda.
>>
>> Tornado frequency in the U.S. has been on a downward trend since at least
>> the 1960s.
>>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/vuw88ie2ap2up1k/Tornadoes.jpg?dl=0
>>
>> Average Number of Tornado per Year
>>
>> 1954-1985     55.9 tornadoes/year
>>
>> 1986 - 2018   33.8 tornadoes/year
>>
>> And 2018 set a record for the lowest number of tornadoes since NOAA
>> started
>> keeping records.
>>
> But they're getting stronger. How many F4 tornadoes have there been?

Look at that, Derpshit, Hall monitor suzee saw right through your
fucking bullshit.

On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 18:42:49 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:

>> But no question, if the goal is to keep global warming under +1.5
>> degrees celsius that's an effective method!
>
>How does that reduce temps? 'Nuclear winter'?

Yup - plenty of radiation N of 70N but an end to rising sea levels due
to glacier melting.

Admittedly it's a "modest proposal" type "solution" on a par with
Doctor Strangelove's mineshafts - but it WOULD end global warming.

(No question the other implications might be "interesting" - can't
remember where I first heard this one - might have been one of Jerry
Pournelle's columns)

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 05:05:44 +0000 (UTC),
> MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:

>> Mathematically, subtracting out the effects of these small changes is
>> known as "negative feedback" (because of the subtraction), and in
>> most systems that humans are concerned with, this is considered a
>> good thing.
>
> I'm writing this during a break from a Youtube video on the origin of
> skin color. I'm about 2/3 of the way through and like it a lot - it's
> NOT political and is done by a professor in evolutionary biology
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc4OFcT5m1Y
>
> The sort of thing you're discussing plays a big part in her video.

I'm going to cheat and ask you: does she subscribe to the vitamin D
theory? That melanin protects the skin at the equator, but that less of
it was a favorable mutation as groups of people migrated away from
the equator and started getting less vitamin D from direct exposure to
the sun?

>> Sometimes the inability of a system to keep up with new perturbations
>> leads, not to compensation for the changes, but to the opposite: an
>> acceleration in the changes. This is "positive feedback," because
>> the net effect is to keep adding to the changes (which is one case in
>> which something that is "positive" is a bad thing). The global
>> climate has been able to compensate for comparatively small increases
>> in temperature since the industrial revolution, but we're nearing the
>> tipping point from negative feedback to positive feedback, and that's
>> why climate scientists are worried.
>
> Yup - and it really doesn't matter whether the anthropomorphic portion
> is 20%, 40%, 60% or some other number - it's an existential problem
> mankind has to deal with. Nobody knows where the tipping point is but
> one look at Venus demonstrates there is such a point. Obviously a
> runaway greenhouse effect like Venus would be catastrophic for life on
> earth.

The effects are already accelerating now, with more record-breaking
weather events in the last 20 years than in the previous decades since
human meteorological data started being kept (and which jibes with the
geologicial records such as ice core samples, living tree core samples,
and tree core fossils).

> Geology tells us climate change has ALWAYS been with us long before
> mankind but haa been connected to 'great extinction' events a minimum
> of five times in geologic history. Some of these have involved the
> extinction of 90-95% of species on Earth. Most of these have required
> hundreds of thousands of years (if not millions) to correct. To me
> that's a problem different for most to grasp. They don't know how long
> the extinction of the dinosaurs took but it was under 10000 years (how
> much under is unknown) which in geologic terms is the wink of an eye.

What we're looking at now is much, much, much faster, taking place in
the space of a few generations of human lives, and some of those
generations are already behind us.

-Micky

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 09:35:45 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> wrote:

>> Micky DuPree wrote:

>>> Sometimes the inability of a system to keep up with new
>>> perturbations leads, not to compensation for the changes, but to the
>>> opposite: an acceleration in the changes. This is "positive
>>> feedback," because the net effect is to keep adding to the changes
>>> (which is one case in which something that is "positive" is a bad
>>> thing). The global climate has been able to compensate for
>>> comparatively small increases in temperature since the industrial
>>> revolution, but we're nearing the tipping point from negative
>>> feedback to positive feedback, and that's why climate scientists are
>>> worried.
>>
>> Good post. But I'd have thought that unreliability of long-range
>> weather forecasts is due not to non-linearity but rather to simple
>> multiplication of cascading possibilities.

If it were just a multiplicative factor, then it would be a linear
process, like all the arithmetic functions, and therefore predictable.
You're getting warmer with the word 'cascading.' Nonlinearity has to do
with effects that are potentially out of linear proportion to the
causes. It's the chaotic principle behind a butterfly flapping its
wings and causing a hurricane across the globe. That doesn't mean that
killing butterflies would prevent hurricanes. But it does mean that
without an impossible degree of knowledge about everything that's going
on in a system when you want to start your weather simulation and
prediction algorithm, the small details that you can't possibly take
into account are going to throw off the accuracy of your prediction the
further away you get from your starting point. This can also be
expressed as, "Small differences in initial conditions can lead to large
and unpredictable differences in the results."

> Both actually particularly in the higher latitudes where there is more
> seasonal effects than near the equator.

Yeah, closer to the equator, it's more about rainy and dry. The
temperature variation doesn't tend to go through the expansions and
contractions of the temperate zones.

-Micky

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 22:51:00 -0600, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:

>> The Horny Goat wrote:

>>> Geology tells us climate change has ALWAYS been with us long before
>>> mankind but haa been connected to 'great extinction' events a
>>> minimum of five times in geologic history. Some of these have
>>> involved the extinction of 90-95% of species on Earth. Most of
>>> these have required hundreds of thousands of years (if not millions)
>>> to correct.
>>
>> Those were all natural processes-- nature doing its thing-- and
>> therefore weren't something that needed 'correcting'.
>
> I get that - my point was 'we already have these examples of how
> things can go sideways WITHOUT our "help" - we need to be active and
> not asleep at the switch'

Exactly. Deadly pathogens are entirely natural, yet we still take
"unnatural" measures not to die from them. Nature does potentially
deadly things all the times, but we take artificial steps to correct our
situation and not die from these things. Everyone in this conversation
has admitted to vaccinating against natural pathogens. It doesn't
matter if it's Nature causing climate change. We still need to take
active measures to mitigate or even stop it.

> However I do think there is no hope of serious change for the better
> as long as China and India get a free pass while the rest of us do
> what ALL of us (including them) need to be doing. I'd probably feel
> different if the holdouts were Monaco and Upper Volta but China and
> India are both top 10 emitters.

It would nevertheless help enormously if the U.S., with its economic and
political clout, set a better example and encouraged others to follow
suit. It strikes me as an enormous political opportunity to counter the
goodwill game of the Chinese, who have been trying to get all the
developing nations on their side, if the U.S. would not only lead by
example in transitioning to renewables faster, but also make it easier
for developing nations to do so.

> While it was once true, I don't think anybody in 2021 can seriously
> argue that these two are still "developing countries" deserving of
> special treatment.

Definitely not China. I think it would be diplomatically advantageous
to continue to treat India as a developing nation, but also to help it
transition to renewables.

-Micky