Author Topic: Water accumulation in your neighboorhood  (Read 5482 times)

JR561

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
    • Boynton Beach, Florida 33437 10b
    • View Profile
Re: Water accumulation in your neighboorhood
« Reply #75 on: May 31, 2023, 05:00:00 AM »
CeeJay Calusa you guys are wasting a ton of energy arguing your points on here.

Last time Im ever making any comments on any left/right subjects online.

tru

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
    • Texas
    • View Profile
Re: Water accumulation in your neighboorhood
« Reply #76 on: May 31, 2023, 06:06:42 AM »
the ozone layer was not a problem that just went away.

Fixing the ozone layer happened because of The Montreal Protocol and later Kigali Agreement; it was and still is the single greatest show of global cooperation we have  ever seen in the history of humanity.

It is a huge deal that the ozone layer is being healed, and won’t be completely repaired until 2040.

Global warming, increased storm activity, insect populations, rising oceans, coral reef activity, melting glaciers, the laws of physics, … these are all factual, measurable, verifiable phenomenon. They are happening.

Calling global warming political IS political. Y’all scaring me..

instagram @trumansacco

johnb51

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4803
    • USA Deerfield Beach, FL Zone 11a
    • View Profile
Re: Water accumulation in your neighboorhood
« Reply #77 on: May 31, 2023, 07:05:47 AM »
CeeJay Calusa you guys are wasting a ton of energy arguing your points on here.

Last time Im ever making any comments on any left/right subjects online.
It shouldn't be a left/right issue. However, no one EVER changes his mind when presented with an argument. It only increases resistance and makes him dig his heels in deeper. The process happens gradually over time with the right approach. Ya can't just call him an idiot and expect an instant conversion even if you present all the best, most rigorous scientific information.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2023, 03:27:59 PM by johnb51 »
John

bussone

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
    • Philadelphia, PA (7a)
    • View Profile
Re: Water accumulation in your neighboorhood
« Reply #78 on: May 31, 2023, 09:20:31 AM »
Is anyone seeing a lot of (or more than in the past) water accumulation in your neighborhood?  My street never had this issue before, I specifically bought a house that wasn't in a flood zone, but this rainy season is different.  Huge puddles are flooding the streets.  It seems like climate change is here.  Also the cold weather today is strange for this time of year.

You could be.
Miami is built on pavement built over a drained swamp on a sandbar over a shallow calcium water table next to an ocean. You've got water coming at you from four directions (five, if there is a hurricane), and that's when the ground doesn't just collapse underneath you. There's a reason no one lived there until 1896.

Unless you are beachfront, I suspect your issue is one of drainage and/or increased runoff.

Seanny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1131
    • Garden Grove, Orange County, California, 10B
    • View Profile
Re: Water accumulation in your neighboorhood
« Reply #79 on: May 31, 2023, 12:12:06 PM »
You'd figure a bunch of misplaced tropical fruit growers would be excited about global warming

We, the tropical fruit growers, have been praying for global warming so that we could grow more tropical fruits at our locations.
We’ve been doing that for over 3 decades.
It’s not happening in our lifetime.

Very disappointing.

Calusa

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 331
    • St Petersburg, Florida 10a
    • View Profile
Re: Water accumulation in your neighboorhood
« Reply #80 on: May 31, 2023, 12:20:48 PM »
Don't worry, it's just around the corner. Any day now. Hold on tight and buy an EV.

CeeJey

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 185
    • Arizona 9b
    • View Profile
Re: Water accumulation in your neighboorhood
« Reply #81 on: May 31, 2023, 03:53:32 PM »
CeeJay Calusa you guys are wasting a ton of energy arguing your points on here.

Last time Im ever making any comments on any left/right subjects online.

It's not a "right/left" issue, it's a "people who are literate at higher than a fourth grade level and are able to do basic critical thinking vs. willfully illiterate hooting clown" issue, and the "clown" side happens to line up in this thread with a bunch of people who happen to be right-wing.

And I don't even mean "clown" in an insult kind of way, I mean... all they're doing is clowning. Look at their posts. They don't know what they're talking about, so they just mock stuff they don't understand and laugh about stuff that isn't true. The last four or five of their posts are just repeating the same "jokes" that anybody with two brain cells to rub together can see are stupid.

It's like talking to a chimp. It doesn't know what words mean, it just throws crap and eats bananas and thinks it's cage is the entire planet.

Luckily most people in here seem to know up is up and down is down, and if four or five flat-earthers happen to be hanging out as well, oh well. No real skin off my nose.

It shouldn't be a left/right issue. However, no one EVER changes his mind when presented with an argument. It only increases resistance and makes him dig his heels in deeper. The process happens gradually over time with the right approach. Ya can't just call him an idiot and expect an instant conversion even if you present all the best, most rigorous scientific information.

I'm well aware of the backfire effect, but it actually doesn't matter in this case. There's a number of different studies that most folks can't have their minds changed once they get to this point of denial of reality, because it's basically a religious belief for them rather than anything rational. All you can do is take apart their talking points and explain how the propaganda works for other people who might be on the fence.

There's no point that Calusa or dwfl or I (after the first one or two posts) were trying to change each others' minds; I'm just picking apart their b.s. so it doesn't spread as easy, and they're just making fun of me for it and mocking stuff that they didn't read and don't understand. Like, read back through the thread, there's no good faith over there and hasn't been since the start. They're just being a-holes for giggles.

I did post a larger science-based rebuttal last night to some of the last batch of bad faith trash the yokels dropped off, but I deleted it when I realized that I have better things to do (like repot about two dozen jaboticaba that are waiting patiently for me) than argue with old men clearly suffering cognitive decline and other people who are so dumb they don't even understand their own links that they post. What are you gonna do with that level of stupidity? Seriously, they don't even read or understand their own talking points. You can't argue against that. There's nothing to argue against, and you can't change a mind if there's no mind.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2023, 04:14:54 PM by CeeJey »

dwfl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 612
    • Bokeelia
    • View Profile
Re: Water accumulation in your neighboorhood
« Reply #82 on: May 31, 2023, 05:55:16 PM »
If we're going to have hammerhead sharks breeding in our backyards it would be appreciated if you didn't delete your large science-based rebuttal. Please re-type it and at least PM it to anybody you assume to be a flat-earther here.

More on-topic: I'd like to hear an update at some point on if/how the drainage issue gets resolved. Drains can get clogged and it could be a while before they fix it unless it's brought to their attention.

CeeJey

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 185
    • Arizona 9b
    • View Profile
Re: Water accumulation in your neighboorhood
« Reply #83 on: May 31, 2023, 09:08:41 PM »
If we're going to have hammerhead sharks breeding in our backyards it would be appreciated if you didn't delete your large science-based rebuttal. Please re-type it and at least PM it to anybody you assume to be a flat-earther here.

Okay, since you asked. I'm going to actually take the time to write out a proper response to this like I'm talking to somebody who hasn't been openly mocking me when I hadn't said anything to you to provoke you first, for the last however many pages, and I would appreciate a similar consideration. If you don't agree with me, fine, just say so and we'll both move on like adults, okay?

I actually had something to say in response to your snow comment yesterday but first one thing: your hammerhead comment here is an example of the disconnect between your opinion and my opinion (and that of some other people in here). You have a habit in this thread of using big examples for emphasis that nobody here has actually been arguing. No one here is saying Florida's going to be underwater or something, the only reason that it was brought up at all is that there's a general understanding that sea level rise and more frequent storms, IF they are happening (and the sea level rise is measurably happening there, the local universities have been measuring it for decades: https://climatecenter.fsu.edu/topics/sea-level-rise), would cause more frequent and more severe local floods because Miami's drainage situation is already a shitshow. Not city underwater. Yes possible problems for local fruit growers.

The people who are saying climate change is real in this thread are talking about trends and averages that cause effects that are expensive and difficult but not apocalyptic within anybody's lifetime here and probably not afterward either. I get why you're doing it, but is disingenuous to paint the arguments as such. I don't believe Florida's going to be underwater, the OP doesn't believe that, nobody commenting here believes that, or at least if they do I think they're wrong too. Based on hard data. Well previous to this discussion I've looked at worst-case 6-degree-warmer-globally projections of sea level rise where all the polar ice caps and permafrost would be melted all year, and most of Florida is still above water even then. Probably even if that happened, engineers could figure something out. Seems like they're already trying to (https://miami-dade-county-sea-level-rise-strategy-draft-mdc.hub.arcgis.com/)

Similar issue with the snow comment, which actually is an issue in my back yard. Let's take a look at that for a second because that was one thing I was originally responding to last night:

Careful now! The "Snow is a thing of the past" and "Children just won't know what snow is" predictions were quickly shot down by reality so they've gone from instilling fear of Global warming to instilling fear of Climate change.

Okay. So here's the issue I think. You're responding here to a big batch of headlines that I've seen too over the last however many years talking about "snowless winters". Here's one of the usual for reference, pretty much the usual clickbait crap: https://brightly.eco/blog/scientists-warn-winter-without-snow-is-coming

That article is trash, it's full of the kind of overblown over-simplistic takes you've been making fun of, and so are most of the articles writing about that subject, because headline writers don't typically read science papers either even when they're referencing them. Their job is to get people to pass around ragebait on social media.

That said, let's actually look at the scientific study most of these articles have been referencing when they say "no snow" for a second. Most of these breathless "no snow" articles (including the one that I linked to, which again is garbage) have either been referencing this study or one of the studies that it is analyzing: https://rdcu.be/cAivm

It's a 20 page article which is full of jargon but they tried to sum up the main points at the beginning. If you look at "Key Points" on page two, that is a really far cry from what comes to mind when most people think "no snow". It's one study, looking at one area (Western US), and the only actual prediction is 25% less snowpack average by 2050.

Again, this is the actual science article that all those dumb headlines have been referencing (either that or New York and the East Coast seeing less snow on average over the last hundred years, but unlike the Western United States that isn't likely to impact the food supply so f' it).

Just to be fair to your comment, I *did* go hunting for any research at all in the past that predicted no-snow winters being common or the norm by 2023 or earlier (that paper I linked puts them at anywhere from 2035 to 2090 or not at all), but they don't exist as far as I can tell. If somebody ever told you that we'd be seeing "no snow" by now (which needs qualifiers, like, where? What states? Etc), they weren't a scientist or citing any actual science. I can absolutely believe some idiot newspaper writer might have churned out something like that once, though.

Anyway. 25% reduction is both way less than "no snow ever again", BUT ALSO it's a huge amount of decrease for us regionally. Most of those projections are based on the average over the last 70 years, in which we've seen a 15%-25% decrease which has been enough to drop Lake Powell and Lake Mead (major water resevoirs and power generation) to less than 25%. Someone else referenced that earlier in thread.

The problem isn't one dry year. We could have no water all year for a year, probably for a few years, as a freak act of god, and we would recover. It's that trendline that keeps going down down down for over seventy years now. The reverse is also true, big freak snow years don't fix it. We had a TON of snow this year in areas that feed the Colorado River (150% above twenty year average), which is the center of the entire water infrastructure of the west of the country, and those major resevoirs went from about 23% to... 26% full. Record snow, literal drop in the bucket. But I'm still hearing people (not here, but elsewhere) say things like "well since it snowed so much I guess the drought's over". It isn't yet. Check again in ten years.

And like the flooding thing, this isn't about some apocalypse scenario in anybody's lifetime. It is potentially about trillions of taxpayer dollars completely reworking the water distribution in the western united states, it's about higher food costs, and it's about water cost increases and potential water rationing that's going to make it harder for (to bring this back around to the forum here) people in the southwest and California subtropics to take advantage of our otherwise somewhat favorable climates to grow anything besides cactus. That sucks. I don't want to deal with that. Nobody wants to deal with that.

Anyway, my central point here is that actual science that those stupid clickbait headlines are mangling are actually about slow but measurable changes that we can see (rising sea levels worse in some areas than others, decreasing snowpack decade by decade), and that are making areas with certain vulnerabilities have non-apocalyptic problems. And most of the people in here who don't believe in climate change are, instead of responding to that, talking about overblown apocalypse-like scenarios that they probably heard on the news ten years ago. That disconnect makes it hard to talk about current reality.

I'm willing to blame a lot of this disagreement on the news media, honestly. Left, right and center. They've all done a garbage job of communicating, or even intentionally obfuscated, what is ACTUALLY being measured and what people are doing their best to predict based on those measurements. Instead, they're all running stupid b.s. headlines and making fun of the other side's stupid headlines and framing difficult systemic issues (I don't think "just stop using petroleum, bro" is as easy or feasible as some people wish it was) as either nonexistent or simple to fix by just buying a Prius and turning off the water while you brush your teeth.

And just for the record, at no point did I actually have anything positive to say about that stupid racism news article that Calusa linked, even though you referenced me when making fun of it. I actually went and read that thing and the central idea was actually "hotter temps and systemic breakdowns of things like water supplies are going to effect poor people and people at the equator more, and there's a whole lot of darker-skinned poor people at the equator", which is kind of like "well no s*** sherlock". I don't want to debate that since I don't agree with a bunch of other conclusions in there either and it isn't relevant to what we do here except distantly so, I'm just repeating what is actually in there. Just because I believe in carbon-driven climate change based on the research made available to me, doesn't mean I uncritically accept every scrap of editorial ragebait that somebody slaps a dumb headline on. And that's probably true of everyone else in here who's expressed a belief in climate change in this thread, too.

TLDR: People in here who believe in climate change are mostly expressing concern about trends causing small but significant or expensive changes that mess up our ability to grow stuff, I don't believe that any actual scientist has ever said children are going to forget what snow looks like and so I don't think that's been disproven, the actual science is usually not saying what headlines are saying, and also the news sucks at actually informing people.

I'll be glad to respond calmly to anything that's an actual critique of anything I actually said as opposed to mockery, otherwise I'm pretty much done with this subject aside from congratulating Julie when the city fixes her issue. I've said everything I wanted to say.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2023, 09:26:20 PM by CeeJey »

johnb51

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4803
    • USA Deerfield Beach, FL Zone 11a
    • View Profile
Re: Water accumulation in your neighboorhood
« Reply #84 on: June 01, 2023, 05:47:16 AM »
Thanks, CeeJey, for all your hard work in responding so thoroughly. I hope it helps a few people to discern where the truth lies. On the right, denial/mockery of climate change is simply a war against government control and any (weak) agenda coming from Democrats to try to do something about it.  Strangely enough, in other areas they want more government control.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2023, 06:07:46 AM by johnb51 »
John

Jordan321

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 38
    • Melbourne, Florida. 9b
    • View Profile
Re: Water accumulation in your neighboorhood
« Reply #85 on: June 01, 2023, 09:58:07 AM »
Alright, I'll respond for poor Ceejay's sake. Y'all are keeping it entertaining, but poking him just to poke ain't very nice.
I don't claim to know much about anything. And even less about this post. (4 days and 4 pages. I've lost the plot a little). I am somebody you would probably consider "on the right," though I don't actually play for one of the teams and disagree with most of their decisions. Maybe I'm the exception, but I don't think so.  John, you said denial/mockery of climate change is based on being against government control, and I think you're right there.  For real people (as opposed to the media), it's a question of how much warming, how catastrophic that warming is, what role humans play in it, and what the reaction to it should be. There is real fear of more government control and interference. To me, that fear is totally legitimate. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I for one do not want more government in any area I can think of. I've got a rock solid belief that government screws up everything it touches.
But before I draw myself off, in my reading, ya'll haven't actually touched anything that hits those points at which we actually disagree. I agree with a lot of what you said in that last post, without any real struggle. Truthfully, I don't have a lot to add, just felt you'd earned a response from the "other side."
I did wonder from the Exxon chart (your climate files link). Bottom right shows Exxon's estimate of temp change stretching back 150k years overlaid in red with "simulated change". Any thoughts on the disparity between the pre"today" temps? Advances in core drilling and interpreting maybe? Or just years of additional sampling maybe? ... Not really an argument for or against anything, just interesting.

Calusa

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 331
    • St Petersburg, Florida 10a
    • View Profile
Re: Water accumulation in your neighboorhood
« Reply #86 on: June 01, 2023, 11:06:09 AM »
There is real fear of more government control and interference. To me, that fear is totally legitimate.

It's not just a legitimate fear, it's happening as we speak. The Leftist/Globalists in charge in America (currently = the Biden administration) have declared war on petroleum, and they have exaggerated and weaponized climate change to help them put the petroleum producers out of business. Biden announced his contempt for petroleum during his 2020 campaign, and whoever is in charge in the White House is carrying through with it.

They don't care one bit that the price of gasoline at the pump has tripled in some areas since 2020, and more than doubled everywhere else. They tell Americans to buy $75,000 electric cars when most Americans are doing well to hold onto the ICE car they've been driving for years. Now it's gas lawn tools, gas stoves, gas grills and gas heating for homes they want to outlaw.

They want us to believe that climate change, which I believe in, is due to the burning of fossil fuels, which is a lie. They don't want us to notice that "green energy" isn't so green after all when you consider the fact that solar panels and batteries contain heavy metals and other toxic waste for which they haven't figured out how to get rid of when the solar panels and batteries have expired. I do know that millions of tons of it is continually being dumped in Africa, because America hasn't figured out what to do with it. Yet more and more of it is being manufactured and sold.

So when I speak with or read the ad nauseum copy/pastes from people who have bought into this absurdity, I don't mind one bit calling them out as sheep who are too blind to see what is really at play or to know when an agenda is being pushed up their dirt chute. They appear to be fond of being controlled, told what is and what isn't. I'm not one of them and I'm proud of it.

kalan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 340
    • FL Broward Zone 10b southwest ranches
    • View Profile
Re: Water accumulation in your neighboorhood
« Reply #87 on: June 01, 2023, 11:39:55 AM »
Just wanted to thank CeeJay and johnb51 for fighting the good fight here, but it's unlikely to change any minds. For political reasons, many people have decided "academia is bad" and "big business is good" and until the leaders of their wing of politics finally accept what every good-faith scientist in the world has long since accepted, they will continue to spout the same denialist conspiracy theories their leaders are spouting.

Agreed. Thank you CeeJay for compiling a series of level-headed, empirical retorts to the oft heard claims from the "do your own research" and "deny the life-long academics" crowd who generally have strong opinions that, unironically, tend to coincide with conspiratorial thinking. It's exhausting.

Climate change IS happening: come see Haulover marina next King Tide. You should have see what Alton Road looked like a few years back before they got the pumps put it. See Brickell after a medium sized downpour? This didn't happen 30 years ago. I've been in South Florida for over 50 years, and what we are seeing in low lying costal areas is evidence enough - they experience such phenomena regularly.

The problem worth discussing is what we DO about it. That's the political sphere. And the politics should be debated. The science shouldn't. Except for those qualified to do so. We live in a world where someone reading WebMD for 20 minutes feels their opinion is equivalent to 10 years of medical schooling based off of decades of medical research by some of the brightest minds on the planet. It's the very definition of hubris (or maybe Dunning-Kruger).

palmcity

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 829
    • Martin County, Fl zone10a
    • View Profile
Re: Water accumulation in your neighboorhood
« Reply #88 on: June 01, 2023, 11:59:29 AM »
Rise and fall of ocean levels is interesting as is how to get a mango tree to grow and taste best as a lot of factors often totally different than the other factors are affecting both.

Interesting to consider plate tectonic movement as one of the possible variations of land above and below sea level. It seems satelites monitoring curvature of the earth and land mass above sea level would be helpful and they probably are today by some. Also many many stationary points around the land portion with gps etc. should belp with an idea of is more land above sea level or not.

I could see big cracks possibly forming deeper oceans with more land. I could also see the reverse... lol... Have AI solve the riddle...

In a video I just watched showing someones view of the earth billons of years ago seems to inititally have less land, then as time nears current time they project more land, but in the future they turn around and project less land again with a lot of ocean water in the amazon basin and North Americas great lakes region.... Not sure why initially land was rising and future projection for oceans rising due to which factors is not presented in video as the world turns with time lol...

CeeJey

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 185
    • Arizona 9b
    • View Profile
Re: Water accumulation in your neighboorhood
« Reply #89 on: June 01, 2023, 12:07:36 PM »
Thanks, CeeJey, for all your hard work in responding so thoroughly. I hope it helps a few people to discern where the truth lies. On the right, denial/mockery of climate change is simply a war against government control and any (weak) agenda coming from Democrats to try to do something about it.  Strangely enough, in other areas they want more government control.

Thanks John. Actually part of what I deleted last night was about the partisan divide and how it's... weird, in the US. According to the best research available (Pew Research, they're the gold standard for public opinion research, they've surveyed hundreds of thousands of people about this over the last few decades), it's about 1 in 2 people who lean or identify as Rep who believe in anthropogenic climate change and about 1 in 4 who think it's a serious threat to their way of life within their lifetimes: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/18/for-earth-day-key-facts-about-americans-views-of-climate-change-and-renewable-energy/

Results actually show more of an age divide, so it's not "right vs left" but "mostly-older-mostly-right vs. most everyone else". So it's not necessarily that it's a right/ left issue, it's that the people who are still dug in that it isn't real are almost entirely made up of a subset of one political party. And they're actually a significant minority in the US, but I think they believe they're representative of a bigger group than they actually are (at least half their own party disagrees with them at least somewhat). The age gap also shows up on the left lean side in what to do about it; older folks who lean or are Dem are less likely to support more sweeping policy changes. Also, lots of people on both sides have a bunch of nuanced views about it, and that's been lost in that crap news reporting I mentioned. I have more research on this but the link I posted covers most of  it.

Personal opinion: I think this has to do with historical factors and who got targeted with the lobbying. Conservation and environmentalism as government policy has been hitched to the Democrat party wagon since Teddy Roosevelt and John Muir started hanging out, and it predates our modern concepts of "left vs. right". So later, imagine you're an oil company in the 80's, you know that public perception is swinging against you*: which political party are you going to lobby and target with a massive barrage of tailored research and talking points? The one that's had an environmentalist lobbying wing since the turn of the freaking century and through the flower-power 60's? No you do not, you focus mostly on the other one.

Alright, I'll respond for poor Ceejay's sake. Y'all are keeping it entertaining, but poking him just to poke ain't very nice. For real people (as opposed to the media), it's a question of how much warming, how catastrophic that warming is, what role humans play in it, and what the reaction to it should be. There is real fear of more government control and interference. To me, that fear is totally legitimate. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I for one do not want more government in any area I can think of. I've got a rock solid belief that government screws up everything it touches.

Thank you for the reply, I appreciate it. I actually feel like your fear is valid and share it to a degree that is probably higher than you would suspect.

I'm in the boat where I think this is a problem, but I don't know what to do about it. I DO know that the snowpack decline that I mentioned is necessitating MORE government interference (see the recent fight between the Colorado River states about who gets how much water) than previous to sort out the effects, and if our entire water network starts to collapse out here then there's very definitely going to be even more of that. Although that's maybe a bad example since I don't think we can stop or reverse the snowpack issue in time to not have to make a bunch of changes out, based on the trendline and how much it would take to reverse it now (10-15 years of winters like this one maybe?). It's changing too fast.

I think one of the things, and this is a larger topic maybe that I don't have proper time to address here, is that there are some problems that specifically impact public health or safety or commerce or the existence of government itself (like, the ability to have a country that CAN make choices about who runs what) that are difficult to address without a central body of some kind.

With a regulatory body, I agree that you get all sorts of b.s. that we could probably both name a bunch of examples of, without it, you get whoever has the most money running the table to an even greater degree than they already do. An example just we're on the same page would be something like dealing with herbicides, say atrazine as a pertinent example. It causes SERIOUS reproductive harm to every species studied (including to us) at low doses, and is one of the most potent destroyers of wetland plants (which causes those systems to collapse) from run-off, BUT it's also one of the best selective herbicides on the market for some types of crops (corn, sorghum, sugarcane).

Obviously the companies that make atrazine want to sell more of it, and farmers who want to maximize their crop yields want to use the best and cheapest methods to do so including herbicide deployment as necessary. Meanwhile, it's absolutely not in the interests of having a society at all to hose down two of staple food sources with an unrestricted amount of a chemical that literally shrinks the gonads of every animal it has ever been studied on, right? It's also bad if wetlands collapse ecologically (something relevant to Florida, certainly), but just to focus on the "gonad shrinking poison" part for a second, you know, we're already seeing population decline and don't require more help with that.

I guess, without government interferance, how do you address situations like that where the needs and wants of multiple groups are not sympatico? In this case, the amount of atrazine that can be used and who can use it is regulated by the EPA. I personally think they were allowing too much of it even before regulations were loosened in 2017. The corn lobby probably disagrees with me, and I understand why they do, although again I think "ball-shrinking poison loose in the human food supply" is something that ALSO impacts them or will eventually.

For me, I don't want to need to know all this. I don't want to have to think thoughts like "how much ball-shrinking frog-sex-changing poison was sprayed on this corn cob before I put it in my mouth?". I'm a busy person, you know? I want someone else who is a specialist in this kind of crap to take care of it so that I can handle things in MY wheelhouse. I don't trust the companies or lobbying groups to self-regulate because observable reality, history, and even the law (public companies are legally bound to serve their shareholders, not the public) says that they will absolutely not. So what do we do?

I'm using atrazine as an example because it's something that's easier to look at multiple angles from, the harm is very clearly spelled out, and it isn't as politically charged, but that same situation with the balance of multiple competing interests (including threats to society as a functional entity that CAN make decisions) is tied up in the global warming issue. And again, I don't know what is right here. I acknowledge that it is complicated.

I did wonder from the Exxon chart (your climate files link). Bottom right shows Exxon's estimate of temp change stretching back 150k years overlaid in red with "simulated change". Any thoughts on the disparity between the pre"today" temps? Advances in core drilling and interpreting maybe? Or just years of additional sampling maybe? ... Not really an argument for or against anything, just interesting.

That's a good question, let me take a close look at that later when I have a few more spare minutes (I'm trying to take advantage of an ironically-unseasonably-cold summer day to fix some irrigation to the new trees I planted), and I'll try to have a response for you later.

It's not just a legitimate fear, it's happening as we speak. The Leftist/Globalists in charge in America (currently = the Biden administration) have declared war on petroleum, and they have exaggerated and weaponized climate change to help them put the petroleum producers out of business. Biden announced his contempt for petroleum during his 2020 campaign, and whoever is in charge in the White House is carrying through with it.

I appreciate you writing out a serious take on this, for what it's worth, although I still disagree with you for the most part. I do have some replies to some of what you said here that AREN'T entirely at odds (particularly on the waste issues with green tech) or at least aren't a direct rebuttal but I have to go take care of my trees right now while I have a day off.

For the record, I can't speak for anybody else, but haven't copy-pasted crap. I go, and look up research and read it. I read the article YOU posted all the way through. I probably came in swinging harder than I should have initially rather than asking questions like why do think what you think, which I apologize for for what it's worth. But whoever you think the "average" climate person is, the imaginary people you're yelling at, I don't think is representative of the people here in the forum including me.

Look, you say you believe in climate change just not that it's human-controlled, okay. Look at who's posting in here who DOES believe that: people in Miami, Vegas, Phoenix, desert-ish parts of California. We're almost all in marginal environments that have various water-related issues and are seeing changes that concern us, okay? I don't want to argue with you or anybody else about why Lake Mead is dry or whether or not this area out here being the driest it has ever been in a thousand years is human-caused or the result of natural weather patterns, but I will if people just say I'm full of shit for even pointing out that stuff is happening. It's a problem even if it is not human-caused. So is observable, measurable sea-level rise in Miami even if it is the result of the natural cycles. Please understand that the people who are posting about things like that here are doing so because we have skin in the game and not to score political points or because they're uncritical "sheep", okay? I'll try to do better about listening to you guys and responding without being a dick.

roblack

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3111
    • Miami, FL 11A
    • View Profile
Re: Water accumulation in your neighboorhood
« Reply #90 on: June 01, 2023, 03:15:19 PM »
Impressed with how ya'll have turned this thread around. Has evolved into a reasonable climate debate.

Validating someone with different ideas is the key to getting them to listen to you. We have to see where each other make sense, rather than discredit.

Ya'll have brightened my day, although we may all be doomed, lol =)

Time to eat some mangoes, and call 311 to get the flooding in the road in front of our home addressed.

achetadomestica

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2275
    • FLORIDA 9b
    • View Profile


johnb51

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4803
    • USA Deerfield Beach, FL Zone 11a
    • View Profile
Re: Water accumulation in your neighboorhood
« Reply #93 on: June 01, 2023, 03:54:45 PM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1e5HAZo4iw
See NATE HAGENS YouTube channel if you really want to hear the brightest minds in the world discuss these issues with zero b.s. and minimal politics.
John

CeeJey

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 185
    • Arizona 9b
    • View Profile
Re: Water accumulation in your neighboorhood
« Reply #94 on: June 01, 2023, 05:27:51 PM »
I did wonder from the Exxon chart (your climate files link). Bottom right shows Exxon's estimate of temp change stretching back 150k years overlaid in red with "simulated change". Any thoughts on the disparity between the pre"today" temps? Advances in core drilling and interpreting maybe? Or just years of additional sampling maybe? ... Not really an argument for or against anything, just interesting.

Okay, I finally got a minute out of the heat with a cup of fresh coffee to look at this. I kind of want to talk to a scientist about this (I have a couple of acquaintances who are forest ecology scientists who could probably point me at a climate scientist colleague), but I'm guessing that it's not as big of a disparity as it looks since what they're looking for is a broad trend match; you want to see dips and rises in about the same places even if by different amounts to tell if that last complete divergence is just a statistical fluke or not

I have to imagine that modeling has improved by now based on forty additional years of data collection and better collection methods, but I admit I don't know as much about the specifics of climate modeling as I would like to. I do understand that part of it also has to do with vastly enhanced computer processing, and very recently deployment of AI. Ironically to this conversation, two recent AI simulations that were trained on all available climate data in the world put us relatively close to Exxon's worst-case-likely projection (2C rise by 2050-2060, which is... not great) than to other more optimistic independent researchers that were probably assuming more would be done by now to sink or reduce carbon output.

I'll let you know if I get an answer back from the climate scientist, I'm curious too now.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1e5HAZo4iw

Thanks, I was going to say something about that. The Epoch Times is not a trustworthy source for info and they do not have the best interests of anybody but their inner group as a guiding principle. Also they won't stop spamming my parents after they signed up for one mailing list, once.

I did actually watch the first half of that video just to be fair and it has some serious issues. It's conflating predictions by news outfits and PR groups with scientific predictions (I think I mentioned this earlier, but you can't use news article content as proof of the science it is referencing, and that was apparently true in the 50's as well as now), and they just outright lied about the thickness of the arctic ice caps being basically the same when they've actually decreased by a significant and accelerating amount per decade (https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/). And Arctic Shipping HAS increased drastically as a result of new lanes opening up as the permafrost recedes (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230427173544.htm). Like... that prediction IS in the process of coming true.

EDIT: Okay I rewatched part of it and there are definitely some other issues: AOC is not a climate scientist and her being hyperbolic doesn't prove anything about the science, the Doomsday Clock has ALWAYS been a PR stunt to raise awareness of existential threats to humanity like nuclear war and not a prediction of when the world would actually end, Paul Erlich was a nutbag biologist whose wild predictions outside his area of expertise were widely decried at the time that book was published by other scientists ALTHOUGH we DID avoid a famine in parts of the developing world after WW2 due to the Green Revolution.

And I looked up the actual paper that he referenced about the Ice Age and actually that was fascinating. It's true that climate scientists Rasool and Schneider predicted that a global mini-ice-age was possible (their paper is here: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ra00600k.html) due to a massive increase in aerosols. Ars Technica does a better non-technical write-up of WHY they thought that but basically it came down to a math and assumption error: https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-myth-did-climate-science-really-call-for-a-coming-ice-age/. By ten years later when better models were available, it was clear that aerosols didn't have more of a cooling effect than the warming effect of the greenhouse gasses (this was mentioned again in those oil company papers I originally linked). I'd understood that this was a fringe theory but the actual specifics are interesting.

Also this is important for illustrating that modeling has improved over time, actually, which I don't think is what the people making this video want people to think. I mean, if you're like "yeah seatbelts were way worse in the 1970s than now", my thought isn't "well seatbelts are inherently untrustworthy".

Anyway, I don't have more time to watch but yeah that bit was interesting at least. Full of inaccuracies and important omitted context, but interesting.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2023, 06:04:04 PM by CeeJey »

K-Rimes

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2145
    • Santa Barbara
    • View Profile
Re: Water accumulation in your neighboorhood
« Reply #95 on: June 01, 2023, 06:40:54 PM »
Regardless of what or who "caused" climate change, I've been seeing its effects play out in real time over the decade I've lived where I do in California, and at home in BC, Canada. My place in CA is in a very unusual location right where two climate zones meet (inland valley meeting coastal shore at 2200'). For the first few years (2014-2018) it was pretty nice overall, relatively comfortable temperatures, didn't need the AC much but a brutal drought where our well level plummeted. Then, things started to get kind of wonky and the frequency of these events seems to be accelerating and worsening.

My landlord who moved up there in 1958 (RIP 2019) said that the climate had completely changed from when she moved in. It used to rain once a week, even in summer she recalled - we'd go almost the whole year without rain for some of the years I was there. It used to never crack 100f - it was cracking 100f for a week at a time. The well was always plentifully refilled annually - those brutal drought years didn't recharge it. The plants she had installed before died of heat, or died of deep cold. It never hailed - then it started to be an annual multiple time experience. Then, the heat turned up and we had 117f one year, 118f the next for 3 different days. Even the native oaks and native plants burnt to a crisp. Then the INSANE rains arrived this year and we had 300%+ of annual rainfall, including one 24 hour with 18.3". It was like the sound of chicken frying in a pot of oil pouring out of the gutters. These extremes are exactly what climate change scientists forecasted. It's not that everyday is always hotter (although there is some truth to that), it's that the highs are higher and the lows are lower, and you'll get 100 year storms every 10 years if things change. I admit, it's kind of spooky to think of what it'll be like in 50 or 100 years if this trend continues.

I'm a lifelong petrolhead and drive sports cars, motorcycles, and drive a diesel truck to tow all the gear... But I'd still buy an electric car when it comes time to get a new one. At a recent autocross event, the damn Tesla smoked everyone by 3 seconds on a 1 min course - even the $250k Porsche. :( They're just flat out more efficient, and once charging infrastructure improves and so does charging speeds - heck yeah man, let me take 15-20 minutes to stretch my legs, drink and eat every 300 miles. I do that anyways when I'm haulin'. Solar panels? Sheeesh! Sign me up! I get to blast my AC on all those blitzing hot sunny days for free?! I don't need to breathe exhaust fumes from my massive leaf blower cause the battery tech has enough minutes for my yard full of oak leaves? Again, sign me up.

I dunno man, what if all we got was cleaner air, more efficient vehicles and engines, and it didn't change the future prospect of climate change? Doesn't seem that bad to me. I don't think it's an agenda by big government - I think it's capitalism at work. Building better cooler stuff that makes consumers want to buy it.

The well is full, the plants are kicking ass after 84" of rain, I had some zone pushing losses with the once in 30 year snows and frosts... But it's cool. I'm still growing. Sorry about all your flooding FL folks, bet you'll be begging for rain in a few years when you see the other side of the extremes.




kapps

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
    • Florida, Zone 10A
    • View Profile
Re: Water accumulation in your neighboorhood
« Reply #96 on: June 01, 2023, 06:51:36 PM »
K-Rimes, I can’t “like” your post enough times.

-A fellow fruit-growing petrolhead who cares about the environment

achetadomestica

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2275
    • FLORIDA 9b
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: June 01, 2023, 07:42:52 PM by achetadomestica »

dwfl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 612
    • Bokeelia
    • View Profile
Re: Water accumulation in your neighboorhood
« Reply #98 on: June 01, 2023, 08:23:24 PM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJv1IPNZQao


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


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI&t=119s

Good stuff.

It is funny how we like to set up shop in certain areas and then blame issues on oil.

"I live in a desert city and am concerned about water needs. Where is my rain??? Must be all these darn gas guzzlers."

"I own a condo on the shore and we just received a 100-year storm. Must be them petrol boys."

"Where are all my California Grizzly bears? It couldn't be because people didn't want them around. Must be the same thing that caused that Labor day storm down in Florida! That darn 1760 industrial revolution."

I will admit that I also love a good battery tool.

K-Rimes

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2145
    • Santa Barbara
    • View Profile
Re: Water accumulation in your neighboorhood
« Reply #99 on: June 01, 2023, 09:08:44 PM »
Quote
I will admit that I also love a good battery tool.

Me too. My electric leaf blower I use for little jobs is adequate for 95% of the jobs, but yeah, I cannot move 1' of wet oak leaves with the e-blow. I use the 5hp Stihl Magnum. Did I need the Magnum? Nah, but it's bad-ass and gets the job done REAL quick. There's value in the right tool for the job.

The absolute most important thing to realize is that while each individual person's emission contributions would ideally be reduced, it really doesn't matter what we do with corporations producing 70% of emissions. If there is more demand for air flights, you can be sure that more Airbuses and Boeings will be in the air to service them and that will KO any one person's veganism, e-car, or so on handily.

Where I draw the line is where someone doesn't want to do something to reduce their consumption if possible - cause at that point you're just wasting your money and increasing contributions for what, a flex? Today's diesel trucks are absolutely mental, even with def, EGR, and DPF emissions systems attached all over them they are 500hp,1000tq and get very reasonable MPG for their size. Trading in your '93 straight pipe coal rolling Cummins that leaks oil from every orifice is definitely worthwhile for the environment if you can afford it, production of vehicle emissions aside.

It is easy enough to lay a NOX and CO2 chart on top of global temperature charts and draw a direct conclusion between them, but ignore that and look at the absolutely irrefutable link between breathing fumes and instances of cancer. I'd much rather not have to breathe exhaust fumes driving around, working in the yard, or cooking food in my house - seems kinda reasonable?





 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk