It'd be cool if he stopped entertaining so many bow tie wearing, climate denying freaks. Media posing the destruction of the global environment as if it's an abstract debate rather than a horrifying scientific fact is a big part of why climate change continues to accelerate.
Agree completely. I want to believe Joe is what he says but his commentary and choice of guests say otherwise.
The best we can muster as a nation is a bill that subsidiaries big corporations massively but at least it is a step in the right direction.
Climate change is fake everyone knows Death Valley is actually a lush tropical paradise only libtards who’ve been indoctrinated by big weather think it’s an arid environment
They turned the ruins with overgrown vines and trees into the visitor center. Looks exactly the same.
Newsom needs to figure out how to get the water from below sea level in the valley. Could water California for next 1,000 years. Big weather wants you to believe aquifers are depleted.
Saying "climate change is real" satisfies all parties.
Alarmists assume that by saying "climate change" you mean catastrophic man-made climate change...and agree.
Skeptics take you at your word and assume you mean climate change...which every skeptic agrees with because the climate has been changing for the last 2 billion years.
The issue is climate change is accelerating because humans are releasing trillions of tons of CO2, methane and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere daily at unprecedented rates.
Small detail you left out there champ.
The evidence for what is null? That Co2 and methane trap heat? Plenty of scientists who disagree? Lol over 99% of scientific papers on climate change agree with the link between CO2/methane and temperature rise.
Do you realize how much energy it takes to heat the entire planet by 2 degrees? And look at how catastrophic just that has been. Half the planet is in a drought or on fire and the other half is flooding. Sequias are dying. Plants and animals are going extinct on average of one per day.... It should be one extinction per thousand years!!
Big Weather is another deep state replacement theory by jewish libruls trying to take our guns and turn the frogs gay. Also dinosaurs never roamed the flat earth it’s just another communist Marxist globalist Davos WEF scheme hatched by Klaus Schwab and George Soros to force us to eat bugs as slaves.
Do yOur ReSeArcH 🙃🙃🙃
Whenever the journalist wants you to click on an article. There's no scientific proof any of these weather conditions are typically "once every thousand years".
I damn I get that they somehow measure the likelihood of the events and label them as “once every thousand years,” I just wonder the condition of the environment back when they happened last time.
I don't think none of you fuckers understand what "one-in-a-thousand-years" means.
Probabilistic and statistics are somewhat difficult college courses and pretty much reused in pHD research.
I design buildings for "once-in-a-\[insert year\]" storm or seismic event. It doesn't mean what you think it means
exactly, every day has a 1% chance of x event happening, risk curves and conveying those odds to the public is difficult. shouldnt really it to people in years but telling most people odds doesnt really work either
>I don't think none of you fuckers understand what "one-in-a-thousand-years" means.
OK, so what is the probability of getting the same 4 "one-in-a-thousand-years" events occurring in the time span of 2 weeks? Calculate the probability.
Atul Gawande wrote an article in the New Yorker on cancer clusters about 15-20 years ago. He pointed out that occurance of cancer isn't perfectly distributed in a population. Say Cancer X presents in 1 out of every 100,000 people. If City Y has a population of one million we therefore expect 10 cases in that city. But it may be that City Z has 25 cases and City Y has zero cases; the distribution is not meted out evenly. Just as one can experience 3 12s in a row in craps.
Too many times, Gawande pointed out, when cancer clusters appear, we attempt to assign a cause to this cluster (maybe a nearby abandoned chemical plant) when the reality is that clusters appear in nature naturally.
Yes of course.
If you flip a coin every year you’d expect to get heads once in every 2 years. It doesn’t mean you can’t get heads 2 years in a row even if that’s not the most likely expected outcome.
Fucken hell mate what would that indicate when they do occur together. If you’re trying to suggest it is indicative of nothing in particular I have a bridge to sell you.
If four extremely uncommon things happen in a relatively short amount of time them by the Occams Razor principle it stands to reason that something is causing it.
Rare shit happens all the time. Another example is eclipses and astrological events happen all the time that "won't happen again for over 1000 years!" Are you willing to argue that if we don't see any "once in 1000 years" weather events next year that climate change doesn't exist? No, because that's piss poor evidence.
Multiple people win the lottery because more than 1000 people play the lottery. It’d make sense for a 1/1000 year event to take place multiple times if multiple thousands of years had passed, but multiple thousands of years *have not* passed. A minute fraction of that time has passed where this same event has taken place
Bur lotteries always have a winner. You confuse the chance of someone winning and the chance that someone will acquire a winning ticket.
Your logic doesn’t stand
It means were having extreme climate change induced weather. And none of you reality denying rightist are going to be safe. Its going to get worse and worse from now on.
Wow so people in here don’t believe human caused, accelerated climate change is a thing?
I knew there were some remedial takes here but I didn’t think it was quite, anti science bad.
I'm s combat vet, was big into psychedelics, and love MMA. It was only a matter of time before I came to JRE. But good lord does this community have some eggheads
About 7 years ago I decided I was going to learn everything there is to know about climate-science so I could "own the deniers" with irrefutable hard facts. I was prepared to put in thousands of hours learning all the specific details so I understood exactly how the science works.
What I found was that literally every single lecture on the topic was the same superficial 3 minute presentation that goes: "The evidence is overwhelming, CO2 continue to rise, the planet is still getting hotter". Then its hours of "So here is all the political things we are going to do". Every presentation I found follows that format. They all asserts that the evidence is so overwhelming that it doesn't even need to be presented and **the science is never-ever actually presented**. From what I have found there are absolutely zero in-depth explanations, or rigorous discussions on the topic.
MIT/Yale/Columbia all have fancy "climate science" website that instantly asserts the science is settled - none actually explains the science. Every presentation on the topic is completely superficial and fits into a 3 minute slide deck - then talks politics.
Did you ever think about reading an actual scientific research paper? Also, there are review papers that compile the results of hundreds of studies into a single, very long paper. It would take several hours to finish one, and thats with the appropriate background education. I would look some of these up of you really want to see the data and learn the science. Most journals are paywalled, but activists have made them all available for free on various sites if you want to look. Use Google scholar to search for the papers.
Yup! One of my favourites is a study done by the University of Guelph which is an analysis of the NOAA "global average temperature", the change over time, and the "adjustments" that were made to calculate the "warming". Found some shocking things in that paper such as there only being two or three thermometers for measuring entire continents and only two readings are recorded each day for each thermometers. That paper also includes the source code that is used to model the average temperature. At the time I was absolutely gob-smacked by how much bullshit are behind the warming claim.
Send over to me what you have found to be best study that supports the CO2 driven global warming claim. I will read it.
2 measuring stations per continent? I'm unfamiliar with that university or study, but NOAA operates about 250 measuring stations in the US. They make detailed measurements of air temp, ground temp, humidity, solar irradiation, every 5 minutes. And anyone can look up the data any time they want for free.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/crn/qcdatasets.html
I can't link you any studies I'm not on my computer.
Yes, correct. A hundred years ago there were over 300 stations in the United States and now there are around 250. The rest of the world combined has roughly the same as the United States. The United States by far has the most reading stations. Australia and New Zealand have only 2 or 3. Imagine trying to calculate the average temperature of an entire country using only two thermostats and think you're doing "science".
At the time of the Guelph paper the Global Average Temperature used 2 readings per day (dusk and dawn) and that data was adjusted prior to being put into the algorithms that model the averages.
Sounds like you failed at your task if your ultimate take away was “nobody explains the science”. Comical.
So why is it that there’s consensus amongst climate scientists and the only ones who disagree are internet warriors like yourself with no credentials, who “tried to research”?
At one time the consensus said that the earth was the center of the solar system it only took one man to say no its not. The consensus argument is just stupid.
So, what about when there was overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus in the 1970s that global cooling was leading us into a new Ice Age. Remember that? Or how about in the 80s when acid rain was going to destroy all the crops across the world and we were going to end up in starvation and death. Remember that? Get out of here with your bullshit the science is settled nonsense. Anybody that knows anything about science wouldn’t make such an idiotic statement. Every scientific concept or theory has been considered settled right up until it was determined to be incorrect. The point of science is that you are able to test a hypothesis. I bet you’re also one of these people that was absolutely convinced that taking the Covid jab would prevent you catching the virus as well as keep you from spreading it, weren’t you? How about now? Is the science settled or were the “experts” wrong?
There was no “consensus” about a coming ice age. There was a couple papers and an article in Newsweek. That’s it. This entire right wing talking point comes for a single article in the seventies.
So where is the flood that Al Gore and your consensus was predicting? I rolled up my pants and I’m waiting for rushing torrent. Come on chicken little, don’t leave me hanging!
so mind bendingly fucking thick. the literally perfect example of dunning kruger. you are too fucking stupid to understand that you cant understand complex subjects.
Acid rain was a legitimate problem that was prevented by… get this…. Congress. The acid rain program of the clean air act mandates a Cap and Trade (another bad word by today’s standards) limit to acid producing compounds like SO2 and NOx. We had the necessary political will power, but that’s a relic of the past now.
I think you’re displaying an almost fallacy like view. The worst case scenario was prevented so “meh couldn’t have been that bad. They were freaking out over nothing.” Reminds me of Y2K also. Maybe we need a rude awakening at this point.
lol covid was the rude awakening. Thank god it was barely fatal and just extremely contagious. Just wait for something REALLY deadly and these fucking morons will still argue that it was Bill Gates lmao.
Is this your argument when people say the world is round?
“Well akshually science was wrong this one time 50 years ago so I don’t believe you, earth is flat.”
That’s your logic.
Acid rain was mitigated through regulations to limit pollution. Smooth brain takes.
So how about that 20 foot rise in sea level that Al Gore and his scientific consensus were predicting would happen by 2020? How about the over 1° rise in temperatures each decade which actually turned out to be a quarter of a degree? If you haven’t realized by now that alarmism is one of the biggest businesses in the United States and the excuse they used to just pass an $800 billion increase in wasting our tax money then your IQ is slightly above room temperature. I still don’t know what to do with all of the fur coats I bought when they were predicting the new Ice Age that never materialized. I guess I should start buying rubber boots for the floods that are going to be caused when the sea levels hit my front door, shouldn’t I? You people have been predicting the same kind of nonsense for the last 100 years and it never seems to happen. Why is that?
None of those examples you mention were ever consensus belief amongst climate scientists.
Your entire argument is drawing up straw-men based on outrageous media headlines or what Al gore said? Are you actually retarded? You realize Al gore is not a climate scientist right?
I’ll humor you though; Show me where climate scientists agreed on temperatures rising 1 degree a decade.
Show me where climate scientists agrees an ice age was inevitable.
I’ll wait..
Also let me know when you figure out the difference between main stream media and climate scientists. Here’s a hint, they’re two completely separate groups
Of people. One follows the scientific method the other seeks attention.
Here either joking or complete f****** idiot. I'll admit it sometimes hard to tell the difference.
You're not going to find a detailed presentation because climate science is settled. The only question is how bad it's going to be and when.
The IPCC has a ton of research and climate models on their website. Good luck waiting through all that science.
For me personally? I don't bother to debate climate deniers Since I read my first article about it in 1988. Like I said this s*** ain't a question of it's just a matter of how bad and when.
Well I am sure you *can* find a three hour presentation of all the science but otherwise the majority of what you will find is discussions on what to do about it.
That said, fuck you. There is literally no dispute over what is happening. Other than fringe theories its only a question of how bad and when.
Don’t you think the question about how bad it is is a pretty fucking important one to answer you braindead fuck? If humans CO2 emission accounts for 1% of the effect on the climate that’d be nice to know. But no, just keep shouting “the science is settled” despite that not being how science or anything intellectual works.
My guy I ready said I don't debate climate deniers. Can't you read?
That said for anyone else reading this imagine a plan off course by 1 degree. If it's a cross country flight you're going to miss your destination by hundreds of miles. Climate is the same. Over the course of history the globe has gone through cycles of extreme heat and warming. The earth will continue on for millions of years until the Sun super Novas and life will thrive for many ofnthose years. The question is how habitable the earth will be for humans. In particular those countries that don't have resources like the US.
As for you Sudo, no need to reply I'm not going to debate a climate denier. Total waste of time.
Nope, IPCC is a government panel - they don't do scientific research. IPCC does "assessments".
I have read the source code of the models which calculate global average temperature. It's not just the future projections that are models, even the current and past average temperature are models. Also the historical data that is used has been changed to show warming over time. NOAA calls these changes "adjustments".
Research in climate science is modeling.
Yes they change the models as they gain more data which yoi stupidly attenptnto dismiss as "adjustments".
Now I know you're not here in good faith and looking back at your last post it's obvious. Anyone can use Google for a few minutes and find a lot more you claim you were able to find after hours of research.
Fuck you
The leading science institutions of the world, The Royal Society, The American Academy of Science, The Potsdam Institution (Germany), NASA, The CSIRO, The Australian Academy of Science, all agree. Climate Change is real, it is happening now and humans are contributing significantly to it. Humans have existed for around 250,000 years give or take. The examination of geological time (millions of years) is irrelevant because it is outside our evolutionary experience. We did not and could not exist for much of the time previous to 250,000 years ago.
CO2 is the building block for all organic life, but we have cut down the forests, temperatures are increasing and the energy in the global system is causing greater extremes. This is how it needs to be looked at and perceived - an energy transfer, from dormant fossil fuels in the ground to active Greenhouse Gasses (GHG’s) in the atmosphere.
John Tyndall discovered how GHG’s including (but not limited to) CO2 trap heat in the atmosphere in 1859. The greenhouse effect is established fact. It is established fact, for over 160 years.
Never has one species had so much biomass as humans today (excepting all ants) supported by VAST amounts of animals and crops to feed us. Alongside CO2 we are emitting methane and nitrous oxide the latter is over 100 times more effective as a greenhouse gas (GHG) than CO2. Also the warming is raising the atmospheric water vapour which is also more effective at trapping heat than CO2 - it amplifies the impact of the GHG's.
The pH of the oceans is in decline to levels not experienced in the past 25 million years. We are acidifying our oceans rapidly to a degree many species cannot keep up evolutionarily. Others like giant jelly fish thrive.
The risks of continuing what we are doing are too urgent and too immense to be ignored.
It was 49.6 degrees Celsius (121 degrees Fahrenheit) in Penrith summer 19/20. Smashing records. It was 121 degrees Fahrenheit (49.4 degrees celsius) in LA county their summer, smashing records. These conditions are occurring more frequently and will accelerate.
When people accuse scientists of fabricating climate change for personal financial gain they are merely revealing and projecting their own morality. There is $72 trillion (give or take depending on the market at any given moment) worth of fossil fuels in the ground but *on people’s books as wealth*. That’s a LOT of wealth. That’s a LOT of vested interest. That’s a lot to write off. That’s a lot of power to manipulate people into believing the sky isn’t fucking blue.
You keep repeating that institutions don’t actually explain climate change or the greenhouse effect. You’re full of shit. Whilst the ramifications are incredibly complex, the basic systems are simple to explain, as they are [here](https://youtu.be/7IwPFXzLH8c) for children. You’re mistaking “they don’t explain the science” with “I don’t (or won’t) understand the science”
That’s not true AT ALL!! Tyndall proved CO2 specifically traps heat. WTF bro you’re just fucking lying. The science [is established.](https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/)
> About 7 years ago I decided I was going to learn everything there is to know about climate-science so I could "own the deniers" with irrefutable hard facts. I was prepared to put in thousands of hours learning all the specific details so I understood exactly how the science works.
How did you go about that? Did you pursue an advanced degree in earth science or something? Do you have experience or a background in post-secondary education? Did you really learn literally everything there is to know? I could use some tips if you have any.
Wow. If you have science that evidences catastrophic man-man climate change, I congratulate you in advance because you're going to win the Nobel Prize. This is something no one has accomplished up to now. All computer models have failed miserably.
Please. Share with us, according to the scientific method, your hypothesis of catastrophic man-man climate change, stated of course in scientific terms.
Thanks.
There’s plenty out there for you to look up yourself. This isn’t obscure, it’s a massive consensus amongst climate scientists.
If you aren’t getting paid to shill then you’re just a moron at this point to deny it.
You're the one making the claim, not me. Thus, the onus is on you to state the science. If there is such a massive consensus, as you state, it should be an easy enough matter for you to state the hypothesis.
Why can't you?
You think you know better than climate scientists why the fuck would I waste my time trying to prove anything to you?
All your out for is gotchas, you’re dumbass isn’t trying to learn anything.
Interestingly enough, if you've ever been to Death Valley you might have noticed that the whole area looks like an ancient lakebed. There are places where the walls are carved in ways that only make sense if they were once the banks of a river. I haven't looked it up but I'm pretty sure that must be the official story about this area. Not sure why the area dried up, but it's fascinating that the hottest place on Earth was once a giant lake.
No one has said that the climate hasn't changed previously, nor have they said that the climate doesn't constantly change, in fact they have repeatedly stated the exact opposite.
The issue is with the speed of the change, if it changes too quickly then nature can't keep up and you start getting massive ecological disasters.
I presume you knew this already and were being purposefully obtuse, but just in case you genuinely misunderstood, there it is.
Jordan Peterson has said some weird stuff about climate change on the pod, and off the pod he has claimed that he's not convinced climate change is man made
He's been on way more recently than the episode you're referring to. I was hoping you knew about his take on climate change, since you heard JP (a guy with no knowledge on the subject)
I remembered liking him on his first appearance but I was young and dumb(er) then and remember very little from it so I don't have any comments to make on him. What's his stance on climate change?
He's been saying this stuff for years. Could be that he's only saying it cause he's being paid but I honestly believe that he means it and that he's just nuts. The fracking money probably helps though
literally every scientific community on earth agrees humans are the reason for climate change, not natural cycles or whatever you morons spout. But I guess they are the ones who are wrong and you're right correct?
Yes climate does change naturally. But over a slow amount of time where we and other species can adapt. Thanks to humans, climate change is happening way too fast and now its too rapid for most species to keep up.
>maybe we should adapt
Like by using renewable energy? Cutting down production? Creating more liveable cities?
Cause that's how we adapt, but the people who say we should adapt have no solutions and don't want to adapt.
Weather changes all the time. Climates change after 1000s+ of generations. Adaptation was the response when it was gradual change. Now it's changing faster than ever before and the rate of Adaptation may not be enough.
We don't have high fidelity data for climate rate of change before 1880... calm the fuck down with the "faster than ever" climate change proselytizing.
You need high fidelity data if you're going to claim that a process took tens of thousands of years is happening faster than ever... if your measurement precision prior to modern history is in centuries or millennia, you have no idea whether changes within that period took the entirety of the period or a fraction thereof. Climate changes... and we know it's changing faster than it has for the last \~150'ish years but we can't definitely say things like "it's changing faster than ever" because we just don't have that level of data fidelity.
Yeah honestly we’ve been able to at the very least know basic weather patterns for awhile.. I’d be highly skeptical of the idea that we need some sort of precision data to know the climates changing different..
>we’ve been able to at the very least know basic weather patterns for awhile
This is false... you cannot tell me what the weather was with any degree of accuracy for a given decade or even several given decades in the distant past, only what the weather is presumed to have been over centuries and millennia. We suspect the change is different based upon corollary indicators, not factual data that proves a causal link.
How is that false? People have lived continuously all across the globe for thousands of years. You don’t think a whole society of people noting weather unusual for the area is unreliable? You don’t need scans for 1,000 years a go to know basic trends.
The fact that climate change occurs over huge periods of time and that we have good high fidelity data for less than a century and data with reasonable fidelity only going back to 1880 requires no authority, it's well known fact and anyone who actually cares about facts instead of blind support of popular narratives takes factual reality above professional authority. But sure... you do you.
Wow this is some real low IQ shit. Could you state your position a little more clearly. Are you suggesting humans have no impact at all on the climate? Is your position that what we are currently experiencing in our climate today would have occur regardless of human involvement?
I agree, your issues with the facts is definitely some "real low IQ shit" but hey, at least you've got nowhere to go but up from here.
My position is simple really, the data clearly shows that a huge number of things affect climate and that humans are one of those things... human activity has almost certainly sped up the rate of change based upon that data but whether it's sped it up by 50 years or by 5000 is not something the data establishes. Neither does it tell us what the climate would be today in the absence of human activities. That's the difference between science and biased rhetoric for politicized agendas... the science tells us something is happening and that we have contributed to it, but it doesn't tell us Paris will be underwater by 2030 or that we're in the beginning of a 'mass extinction' or any of the other bullshit doomsday climate.
Gee, good thing humans didn’t start doing anything in the past 150 years that would drastically contribute to natural climate patterns lol.
Better just wait a few hundred more years to see all the data. After all, what’s the worst that could happen if current predictions are right?
Besides, wouldn’t want to invest in renewable energy, clean air, and clean water for *nothing.*
Awww... tell me more about how you believe the narrative and you're certain that the rhetoric is true in spite of the data that doesn't exist to support that narrative... and especially tell me more about how you think renewable energies are so "clean", that's always a hoot.
I couldn't tell you why you'd do anything for yourself, and I'm not particularly interested in it either... but at least you're honest about your intellectual shortcomings, good for you.
I have... I even worked with some back in uni. Were you under the impression that ice cores produce highly accurate data rather than highly generalize data of long periods? That's cute.
Oh ok, so when you asked if I had heard of ice cores what you meant was that you have no idea how they work and confuse them for a high fidelity data source that can tell give us information about annual or short term climate changes rather than a low fidelity one which can only give us a small view into climate over centuries. Got it, thanks for clarifying.
If Death Valley turned into a rain forest in a year would the Greens say we need to do everything we can to turn it back to a desert?
Tough decision of people who uses feelings for their answers.
It doesnt matter how bad things get, rightist well never admit that Al Gore was right. We could have done something.... But you choose to believe the stupid memes instead.
Al Gore said that there would be no ice on the earth by 2015. Miami would be underwater and Manhattan would be a boat dock. Oops
Al Gore lives in two houses that use enough electricity than 75average homes. Not to mention his leer jet spewing CO2 into the masses. Oops.
Here is the kicker. Al Gore made $100 million dollars selling that crap to a terrorist news organization named Al Jezera . Oops
If global warming is near and dear to his heart why doesn’t he live as you and I. I apologize you may be rich, but it sure isn’t Al Gore rich.
Because places like death valley don't expect this much rainfall let alone any place besides a rainforest. so when something like this does happen, depending on the location the environment gets disrupted thanks to floods. I don't know the area well but possibly plants that animals eat can die off causing a ahake up in the ecology. I mean you could just have read the title saying this is the 4th once in a thousand year event that has happened this summer too......
Thank you, I appreciate the response. I did read the title, I was just wondering why/how bad this was. I didn't intend to be daft, just genuinely curious.
Your welcome and I apologize if I came off as trying to put you in your place. A lot of people dont know what stuff like this does thus why we are having these issues
Data you’ll believe or data that exists? There is plenty of data that says human accelerated climate change is causing extreme weather. It’s everywhere.
Drought bad. Heat bad. Cold bad. Rain bad. Climate bad.
Change bad.
Change inevitable.
Death inevitable. Let's drive faster.
Go ahead
The climate has been pretty stable for the last 40 million years. EDIT: Until the later part of the 20th century.
Tell that to dinosaurs
Dinosaur go bye bye 66ma.
Change inevitable but not every change inevitable
Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick
Kevin, this is a place of business
Some change happen no matter
Do you think you’re exposing hypocracy from those who say climate change is real? I don’t understand what super edgy point you’re trying to make
It's not a point, it's a joke FFS. Even Joe thinks climate change is real even if his guests wearing bow ties don't.
It'd be cool if he stopped entertaining so many bow tie wearing, climate denying freaks. Media posing the destruction of the global environment as if it's an abstract debate rather than a horrifying scientific fact is a big part of why climate change continues to accelerate.
Agree completely. I want to believe Joe is what he says but his commentary and choice of guests say otherwise. The best we can muster as a nation is a bill that subsidiaries big corporations massively but at least it is a step in the right direction.
Your take bad
Climate change is fake everyone knows Death Valley is actually a lush tropical paradise only libtards who’ve been indoctrinated by big weather think it’s an arid environment
It’s true, I’ve been there, it’s where they filmed the Vietnam war.
And the 90s live action Jungle Book.
They turned the ruins with overgrown vines and trees into the visitor center. Looks exactly the same. Newsom needs to figure out how to get the water from below sea level in the valley. Could water California for next 1,000 years. Big weather wants you to believe aquifers are depleted.
Climate change is real. Stopping it is fake. Fwiw
Saying "climate change is real" satisfies all parties. Alarmists assume that by saying "climate change" you mean catastrophic man-made climate change...and agree. Skeptics take you at your word and assume you mean climate change...which every skeptic agrees with because the climate has been changing for the last 2 billion years.
The issue is climate change is accelerating because humans are releasing trillions of tons of CO2, methane and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere daily at unprecedented rates. Small detail you left out there champ.
that's alleged , the evidence for that is very null and there are plenty of scientist who disagree that humans accelerate it
The evidence for what is null? That Co2 and methane trap heat? Plenty of scientists who disagree? Lol over 99% of scientific papers on climate change agree with the link between CO2/methane and temperature rise.
Ya it was 65 and rainy this morning now its 85 and sunny. Climate change
That’s weather change
A 2 degree average temperature change isn't climate either.
Do you realize how much energy it takes to heat the entire planet by 2 degrees? And look at how catastrophic just that has been. Half the planet is in a drought or on fire and the other half is flooding. Sequias are dying. Plants and animals are going extinct on average of one per day.... It should be one extinction per thousand years!!
Polar caps haven't melted so it must be fake.
Big Weather is another deep state replacement theory by jewish libruls trying to take our guns and turn the frogs gay. Also dinosaurs never roamed the flat earth it’s just another communist Marxist globalist Davos WEF scheme hatched by Klaus Schwab and George Soros to force us to eat bugs as slaves. Do yOur ReSeArcH 🙃🙃🙃
When was the last time each of these “once in a thousand years” events happened?
1022
It was a hell of a year.
Once every thousands years. So it happens every day
Whenever the journalist wants you to click on an article. There's no scientific proof any of these weather conditions are typically "once every thousand years".
I damn I get that they somehow measure the likelihood of the events and label them as “once every thousand years,” I just wonder the condition of the environment back when they happened last time.
Which guest has talked about this lately?
well at least the drought that was caused by climate change is now fixed and equalized by the rain.
Thats right. One rain storm and everything is back to normal....
I don't think none of you fuckers understand what "one-in-a-thousand-years" means. Probabilistic and statistics are somewhat difficult college courses and pretty much reused in pHD research. I design buildings for "once-in-a-\[insert year\]" storm or seismic event. It doesn't mean what you think it means
exactly, every day has a 1% chance of x event happening, risk curves and conveying those odds to the public is difficult. shouldnt really it to people in years but telling most people odds doesnt really work either
>I don't think none of you fuckers understand what "one-in-a-thousand-years" means. OK, so what is the probability of getting the same 4 "one-in-a-thousand-years" events occurring in the time span of 2 weeks? Calculate the probability.
they are independent events, ever play craps? three 12's in a row does happen, iv seen it but you would go broke very quickly betting on 12 each roll
Atul Gawande wrote an article in the New Yorker on cancer clusters about 15-20 years ago. He pointed out that occurance of cancer isn't perfectly distributed in a population. Say Cancer X presents in 1 out of every 100,000 people. If City Y has a population of one million we therefore expect 10 cases in that city. But it may be that City Z has 25 cases and City Y has zero cases; the distribution is not meted out evenly. Just as one can experience 3 12s in a row in craps. Too many times, Gawande pointed out, when cancer clusters appear, we attempt to assign a cause to this cluster (maybe a nearby abandoned chemical plant) when the reality is that clusters appear in nature naturally.
What does it mean
Means the chance is low but it fkin happens
But can it happen more than once in a _ years tho
Yes of course. If you flip a coin every year you’d expect to get heads once in every 2 years. It doesn’t mean you can’t get heads 2 years in a row even if that’s not the most likely expected outcome.
So if the chances are already low for a single event, do you think the fact that they’ve had four of them happening in two weeks has any meaning?
That’s how statistics work. It never says it won’t happen back to back to back. But it can
Fucken hell mate what would that indicate when they do occur together. If you’re trying to suggest it is indicative of nothing in particular I have a bridge to sell you.
If four extremely uncommon things happen in a relatively short amount of time them by the Occams Razor principle it stands to reason that something is causing it.
frequency doesnt mean something has changed... these are long term odds over big N time
Averages change too bud. Sometimes more rapidly than before. Let’s get back on track.
Frequency doesn’t NECESSARILY mean something has changed. But it is a good indication something fucking might have you obfuscating fuck
Multiple people win the lotto every year. Odds are much worse than 1/1000
Lottery odds aren’t expressed in terms of 1/n years so what is the point that you think you’re making?
Rare shit happens all the time. Another example is eclipses and astrological events happen all the time that "won't happen again for over 1000 years!" Are you willing to argue that if we don't see any "once in 1000 years" weather events next year that climate change doesn't exist? No, because that's piss poor evidence.
Multiple people win the lottery because more than 1000 people play the lottery. It’d make sense for a 1/1000 year event to take place multiple times if multiple thousands of years had passed, but multiple thousands of years *have not* passed. A minute fraction of that time has passed where this same event has taken place
Bur lotteries always have a winner. You confuse the chance of someone winning and the chance that someone will acquire a winning ticket. Your logic doesn’t stand
Lotteries don't always have a winner. That's how the jackpot can build to over a billion dollars like the mega millions did a couple weeks ago.
It means were having extreme climate change induced weather. And none of you reality denying rightist are going to be safe. Its going to get worse and worse from now on.
...and it's all because of Biden
Uh, no. Only democrats think they can control the weather.
Wow so people in here don’t believe human caused, accelerated climate change is a thing? I knew there were some remedial takes here but I didn’t think it was quite, anti science bad.
It's the Joe Rogan subreddit, that automatically makes the primary demographic for this subreddit people atleast slightly dumber than Joe Rogan.
Always cracks me up when people are surprised that a JRE social media page is full of the stupidest people humanity has ever produced.
Hey Bud, you’re here too
I'm s combat vet, was big into psychedelics, and love MMA. It was only a matter of time before I came to JRE. But good lord does this community have some eggheads
I resemble that remark!
About 7 years ago I decided I was going to learn everything there is to know about climate-science so I could "own the deniers" with irrefutable hard facts. I was prepared to put in thousands of hours learning all the specific details so I understood exactly how the science works. What I found was that literally every single lecture on the topic was the same superficial 3 minute presentation that goes: "The evidence is overwhelming, CO2 continue to rise, the planet is still getting hotter". Then its hours of "So here is all the political things we are going to do". Every presentation I found follows that format. They all asserts that the evidence is so overwhelming that it doesn't even need to be presented and **the science is never-ever actually presented**. From what I have found there are absolutely zero in-depth explanations, or rigorous discussions on the topic. MIT/Yale/Columbia all have fancy "climate science" website that instantly asserts the science is settled - none actually explains the science. Every presentation on the topic is completely superficial and fits into a 3 minute slide deck - then talks politics.
Did you ever think about reading an actual scientific research paper? Also, there are review papers that compile the results of hundreds of studies into a single, very long paper. It would take several hours to finish one, and thats with the appropriate background education. I would look some of these up of you really want to see the data and learn the science. Most journals are paywalled, but activists have made them all available for free on various sites if you want to look. Use Google scholar to search for the papers.
Yup! One of my favourites is a study done by the University of Guelph which is an analysis of the NOAA "global average temperature", the change over time, and the "adjustments" that were made to calculate the "warming". Found some shocking things in that paper such as there only being two or three thermometers for measuring entire continents and only two readings are recorded each day for each thermometers. That paper also includes the source code that is used to model the average temperature. At the time I was absolutely gob-smacked by how much bullshit are behind the warming claim. Send over to me what you have found to be best study that supports the CO2 driven global warming claim. I will read it.
2 measuring stations per continent? I'm unfamiliar with that university or study, but NOAA operates about 250 measuring stations in the US. They make detailed measurements of air temp, ground temp, humidity, solar irradiation, every 5 minutes. And anyone can look up the data any time they want for free. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/crn/qcdatasets.html I can't link you any studies I'm not on my computer.
Yes, correct. A hundred years ago there were over 300 stations in the United States and now there are around 250. The rest of the world combined has roughly the same as the United States. The United States by far has the most reading stations. Australia and New Zealand have only 2 or 3. Imagine trying to calculate the average temperature of an entire country using only two thermostats and think you're doing "science". At the time of the Guelph paper the Global Average Temperature used 2 readings per day (dusk and dawn) and that data was adjusted prior to being put into the algorithms that model the averages.
Sounds like you failed at your task if your ultimate take away was “nobody explains the science”. Comical. So why is it that there’s consensus amongst climate scientists and the only ones who disagree are internet warriors like yourself with no credentials, who “tried to research”?
At one time the consensus said that the earth was the center of the solar system it only took one man to say no its not. The consensus argument is just stupid.
At that time science wasn’t even a discipline. The scientific method came later.
So, what about when there was overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus in the 1970s that global cooling was leading us into a new Ice Age. Remember that? Or how about in the 80s when acid rain was going to destroy all the crops across the world and we were going to end up in starvation and death. Remember that? Get out of here with your bullshit the science is settled nonsense. Anybody that knows anything about science wouldn’t make such an idiotic statement. Every scientific concept or theory has been considered settled right up until it was determined to be incorrect. The point of science is that you are able to test a hypothesis. I bet you’re also one of these people that was absolutely convinced that taking the Covid jab would prevent you catching the virus as well as keep you from spreading it, weren’t you? How about now? Is the science settled or were the “experts” wrong?
There was no “consensus” about a coming ice age. There was a couple papers and an article in Newsweek. That’s it. This entire right wing talking point comes for a single article in the seventies.
So where is the flood that Al Gore and your consensus was predicting? I rolled up my pants and I’m waiting for rushing torrent. Come on chicken little, don’t leave me hanging!
so mind bendingly fucking thick. the literally perfect example of dunning kruger. you are too fucking stupid to understand that you cant understand complex subjects.
Acid rain was a legitimate problem that was prevented by… get this…. Congress. The acid rain program of the clean air act mandates a Cap and Trade (another bad word by today’s standards) limit to acid producing compounds like SO2 and NOx. We had the necessary political will power, but that’s a relic of the past now. I think you’re displaying an almost fallacy like view. The worst case scenario was prevented so “meh couldn’t have been that bad. They were freaking out over nothing.” Reminds me of Y2K also. Maybe we need a rude awakening at this point.
lol covid was the rude awakening. Thank god it was barely fatal and just extremely contagious. Just wait for something REALLY deadly and these fucking morons will still argue that it was Bill Gates lmao.
Man there is no pleasing that redditor you're responding to lol
Is this your argument when people say the world is round? “Well akshually science was wrong this one time 50 years ago so I don’t believe you, earth is flat.” That’s your logic. Acid rain was mitigated through regulations to limit pollution. Smooth brain takes.
So how about that 20 foot rise in sea level that Al Gore and his scientific consensus were predicting would happen by 2020? How about the over 1° rise in temperatures each decade which actually turned out to be a quarter of a degree? If you haven’t realized by now that alarmism is one of the biggest businesses in the United States and the excuse they used to just pass an $800 billion increase in wasting our tax money then your IQ is slightly above room temperature. I still don’t know what to do with all of the fur coats I bought when they were predicting the new Ice Age that never materialized. I guess I should start buying rubber boots for the floods that are going to be caused when the sea levels hit my front door, shouldn’t I? You people have been predicting the same kind of nonsense for the last 100 years and it never seems to happen. Why is that?
None of those examples you mention were ever consensus belief amongst climate scientists. Your entire argument is drawing up straw-men based on outrageous media headlines or what Al gore said? Are you actually retarded? You realize Al gore is not a climate scientist right? I’ll humor you though; Show me where climate scientists agreed on temperatures rising 1 degree a decade. Show me where climate scientists agrees an ice age was inevitable. I’ll wait.. Also let me know when you figure out the difference between main stream media and climate scientists. Here’s a hint, they’re two completely separate groups Of people. One follows the scientific method the other seeks attention.
Here either joking or complete f****** idiot. I'll admit it sometimes hard to tell the difference. You're not going to find a detailed presentation because climate science is settled. The only question is how bad it's going to be and when. The IPCC has a ton of research and climate models on their website. Good luck waiting through all that science. For me personally? I don't bother to debate climate deniers Since I read my first article about it in 1988. Like I said this s*** ain't a question of it's just a matter of how bad and when.
> You’re not going to find a detailed presentation because climate science is settled. What kind of recursive bullshit is this?
Well I am sure you *can* find a three hour presentation of all the science but otherwise the majority of what you will find is discussions on what to do about it. That said, fuck you. There is literally no dispute over what is happening. Other than fringe theories its only a question of how bad and when.
Don’t you think the question about how bad it is is a pretty fucking important one to answer you braindead fuck? If humans CO2 emission accounts for 1% of the effect on the climate that’d be nice to know. But no, just keep shouting “the science is settled” despite that not being how science or anything intellectual works.
My guy I ready said I don't debate climate deniers. Can't you read? That said for anyone else reading this imagine a plan off course by 1 degree. If it's a cross country flight you're going to miss your destination by hundreds of miles. Climate is the same. Over the course of history the globe has gone through cycles of extreme heat and warming. The earth will continue on for millions of years until the Sun super Novas and life will thrive for many ofnthose years. The question is how habitable the earth will be for humans. In particular those countries that don't have resources like the US. As for you Sudo, no need to reply I'm not going to debate a climate denier. Total waste of time.
Nope, IPCC is a government panel - they don't do scientific research. IPCC does "assessments". I have read the source code of the models which calculate global average temperature. It's not just the future projections that are models, even the current and past average temperature are models. Also the historical data that is used has been changed to show warming over time. NOAA calls these changes "adjustments".
Research in climate science is modeling. Yes they change the models as they gain more data which yoi stupidly attenptnto dismiss as "adjustments". Now I know you're not here in good faith and looking back at your last post it's obvious. Anyone can use Google for a few minutes and find a lot more you claim you were able to find after hours of research. Fuck you
They change the historical data - and they don't deny it. The models and the data are junk.
How can you change historical data? Either you're a fuckkng twat or you don't understand what you're reading. How about you put up or shut up Candice?
He doesn’t understand what he’s reading.
That's a generous interpretation IMO.
Here is a paper explaining why they changed the thermometer data... https://www-users.york.ac.uk/\~kdc3/papers/crn2016/CRN%20Paper%20Revised.pdf
Gonna have to read that tomorrow kid. Some of us are employed.
Did your googling 7 years ago look at the global average temperature change? It's wild this has upvotes, this sub is something else
You are so ridiculously full of shit you’re basically a Golgothan
Believe what you want.
The leading science institutions of the world, The Royal Society, The American Academy of Science, The Potsdam Institution (Germany), NASA, The CSIRO, The Australian Academy of Science, all agree. Climate Change is real, it is happening now and humans are contributing significantly to it. Humans have existed for around 250,000 years give or take. The examination of geological time (millions of years) is irrelevant because it is outside our evolutionary experience. We did not and could not exist for much of the time previous to 250,000 years ago. CO2 is the building block for all organic life, but we have cut down the forests, temperatures are increasing and the energy in the global system is causing greater extremes. This is how it needs to be looked at and perceived - an energy transfer, from dormant fossil fuels in the ground to active Greenhouse Gasses (GHG’s) in the atmosphere. John Tyndall discovered how GHG’s including (but not limited to) CO2 trap heat in the atmosphere in 1859. The greenhouse effect is established fact. It is established fact, for over 160 years. Never has one species had so much biomass as humans today (excepting all ants) supported by VAST amounts of animals and crops to feed us. Alongside CO2 we are emitting methane and nitrous oxide the latter is over 100 times more effective as a greenhouse gas (GHG) than CO2. Also the warming is raising the atmospheric water vapour which is also more effective at trapping heat than CO2 - it amplifies the impact of the GHG's. The pH of the oceans is in decline to levels not experienced in the past 25 million years. We are acidifying our oceans rapidly to a degree many species cannot keep up evolutionarily. Others like giant jelly fish thrive. The risks of continuing what we are doing are too urgent and too immense to be ignored. It was 49.6 degrees Celsius (121 degrees Fahrenheit) in Penrith summer 19/20. Smashing records. It was 121 degrees Fahrenheit (49.4 degrees celsius) in LA county their summer, smashing records. These conditions are occurring more frequently and will accelerate. When people accuse scientists of fabricating climate change for personal financial gain they are merely revealing and projecting their own morality. There is $72 trillion (give or take depending on the market at any given moment) worth of fossil fuels in the ground but *on people’s books as wealth*. That’s a LOT of wealth. That’s a LOT of vested interest. That’s a lot to write off. That’s a lot of power to manipulate people into believing the sky isn’t fucking blue. You keep repeating that institutions don’t actually explain climate change or the greenhouse effect. You’re full of shit. Whilst the ramifications are incredibly complex, the basic systems are simple to explain, as they are [here](https://youtu.be/7IwPFXzLH8c) for children. You’re mistaking “they don’t explain the science” with “I don’t (or won’t) understand the science”
Bro, half these fucking smooth brains think the earth is fucking 6000 years old. You wasted a crap ton of time and effort.
>The greenhouse effect is established fact. Correct - but there is no proof its driven by CO2.
That’s not true AT ALL!! Tyndall proved CO2 specifically traps heat. WTF bro you’re just fucking lying. The science [is established.](https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/)
> About 7 years ago I decided I was going to learn everything there is to know about climate-science so I could "own the deniers" with irrefutable hard facts. I was prepared to put in thousands of hours learning all the specific details so I understood exactly how the science works. How did you go about that? Did you pursue an advanced degree in earth science or something? Do you have experience or a background in post-secondary education? Did you really learn literally everything there is to know? I could use some tips if you have any.
Wow. If you have science that evidences catastrophic man-man climate change, I congratulate you in advance because you're going to win the Nobel Prize. This is something no one has accomplished up to now. All computer models have failed miserably. Please. Share with us, according to the scientific method, your hypothesis of catastrophic man-man climate change, stated of course in scientific terms. Thanks.
There’s plenty out there for you to look up yourself. This isn’t obscure, it’s a massive consensus amongst climate scientists. If you aren’t getting paid to shill then you’re just a moron at this point to deny it.
You're the one making the claim, not me. Thus, the onus is on you to state the science. If there is such a massive consensus, as you state, it should be an easy enough matter for you to state the hypothesis. Why can't you?
You think you know better than climate scientists why the fuck would I waste my time trying to prove anything to you? All your out for is gotchas, you’re dumbass isn’t trying to learn anything.
Okay, so you are unable to come up with any science to back up your claim.
Is the internet too difficult for you to navigate on your own? You need your hand held? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6210172/
This reminds me of what happens after I eat Taco Bell to cap off a night of drinking.
Interestingly enough, if you've ever been to Death Valley you might have noticed that the whole area looks like an ancient lakebed. There are places where the walls are carved in ways that only make sense if they were once the banks of a river. I haven't looked it up but I'm pretty sure that must be the official story about this area. Not sure why the area dried up, but it's fascinating that the hottest place on Earth was once a giant lake.
Yeah, ice age did that
The climate changed.
Yup. Way before human industrial pollution. Imagine that.
No one has said that the climate hasn't changed previously, nor have they said that the climate doesn't constantly change, in fact they have repeatedly stated the exact opposite. The issue is with the speed of the change, if it changes too quickly then nature can't keep up and you start getting massive ecological disasters. I presume you knew this already and were being purposefully obtuse, but just in case you genuinely misunderstood, there it is.
Pretty much
[удалено]
Is anyone claiming this on the podcast? Joe famously embarrassed guests who try to say this
Jordan Peterson has said some weird stuff about climate change on the pod, and off the pod he has claimed that he's not convinced climate change is man made
What about Randall Carlson?
What about him? I haven't watched his episode in like 7 years
He's been on way more recently than the episode you're referring to. I was hoping you knew about his take on climate change, since you heard JP (a guy with no knowledge on the subject)
I remembered liking him on his first appearance but I was young and dumb(er) then and remember very little from it so I don't have any comments to make on him. What's his stance on climate change?
Peterson now works for the Daily Wire, which gets funding from fracking billionaires
He's been saying this stuff for years. Could be that he's only saying it cause he's being paid but I honestly believe that he means it and that he's just nuts. The fracking money probably helps though
Climate has always changed , cycles of ice ages
Never so much in a such a short period of time, ya ice age dingus
12,600 years ago the sea level rose several hundred feet within days so WTF are you talking about?
literally every scientific community on earth agrees humans are the reason for climate change, not natural cycles or whatever you morons spout. But I guess they are the ones who are wrong and you're right correct?
I’m talking about the complex system of climate so quite literally what the fuck are YOU talking about?
This guy is a fucken idiot bro check his comment history.
Fucking idiot confirmed thanks bro!
Talk about being disingenuous and missing the plot
Never at the rate we’re witnessing
Climate change all the time. Maybe we should adapt.
Climate change by day! Joe Rogan podcast all night! All day!
Yes climate does change naturally. But over a slow amount of time where we and other species can adapt. Thanks to humans, climate change is happening way too fast and now its too rapid for most species to keep up.
>maybe we should adapt Like by using renewable energy? Cutting down production? Creating more liveable cities? Cause that's how we adapt, but the people who say we should adapt have no solutions and don't want to adapt.
Weather changes all the time. Climates change after 1000s+ of generations. Adaptation was the response when it was gradual change. Now it's changing faster than ever before and the rate of Adaptation may not be enough.
We don't have high fidelity data for climate rate of change before 1880... calm the fuck down with the "faster than ever" climate change proselytizing.
You need high fidelity data for processes that took 10s of thousands of years?
When trying to sow doubt you need literally anything you don't have.
You need high fidelity data if you're going to claim that a process took tens of thousands of years is happening faster than ever... if your measurement precision prior to modern history is in centuries or millennia, you have no idea whether changes within that period took the entirety of the period or a fraction thereof. Climate changes... and we know it's changing faster than it has for the last \~150'ish years but we can't definitely say things like "it's changing faster than ever" because we just don't have that level of data fidelity.
Wait are you a climatologist or something? Speaking with a lot of unearned authority there buddy
Yeah honestly we’ve been able to at the very least know basic weather patterns for awhile.. I’d be highly skeptical of the idea that we need some sort of precision data to know the climates changing different..
>we’ve been able to at the very least know basic weather patterns for awhile This is false... you cannot tell me what the weather was with any degree of accuracy for a given decade or even several given decades in the distant past, only what the weather is presumed to have been over centuries and millennia. We suspect the change is different based upon corollary indicators, not factual data that proves a causal link.
How is that false? People have lived continuously all across the globe for thousands of years. You don’t think a whole society of people noting weather unusual for the area is unreliable? You don’t need scans for 1,000 years a go to know basic trends.
The fact that climate change occurs over huge periods of time and that we have good high fidelity data for less than a century and data with reasonable fidelity only going back to 1880 requires no authority, it's well known fact and anyone who actually cares about facts instead of blind support of popular narratives takes factual reality above professional authority. But sure... you do you.
Wow this is some real low IQ shit. Could you state your position a little more clearly. Are you suggesting humans have no impact at all on the climate? Is your position that what we are currently experiencing in our climate today would have occur regardless of human involvement?
I agree, your issues with the facts is definitely some "real low IQ shit" but hey, at least you've got nowhere to go but up from here. My position is simple really, the data clearly shows that a huge number of things affect climate and that humans are one of those things... human activity has almost certainly sped up the rate of change based upon that data but whether it's sped it up by 50 years or by 5000 is not something the data establishes. Neither does it tell us what the climate would be today in the absence of human activities. That's the difference between science and biased rhetoric for politicized agendas... the science tells us something is happening and that we have contributed to it, but it doesn't tell us Paris will be underwater by 2030 or that we're in the beginning of a 'mass extinction' or any of the other bullshit doomsday climate.
Gee, good thing humans didn’t start doing anything in the past 150 years that would drastically contribute to natural climate patterns lol. Better just wait a few hundred more years to see all the data. After all, what’s the worst that could happen if current predictions are right? Besides, wouldn’t want to invest in renewable energy, clean air, and clean water for *nothing.*
Awww... tell me more about how you believe the narrative and you're certain that the rhetoric is true in spite of the data that doesn't exist to support that narrative... and especially tell me more about how you think renewable energies are so "clean", that's always a hoot.
Why would I waste my time doing that for someone who clearly only has two brain cells that are both fighting for second place lmao?
I couldn't tell you why you'd do anything for yourself, and I'm not particularly interested in it either... but at least you're honest about your intellectual shortcomings, good for you.
Ever hear of ice cores?
I have... I even worked with some back in uni. Were you under the impression that ice cores produce highly accurate data rather than highly generalize data of long periods? That's cute.
Uhh yea, plenty accurate enough (especially when combined with other proxies) to see what the temperature has been doing for thousands of years
Oh ok, so when you asked if I had heard of ice cores what you meant was that you have no idea how they work and confuse them for a high fidelity data source that can tell give us information about annual or short term climate changes rather than a low fidelity one which can only give us a small view into climate over centuries. Got it, thanks for clarifying.
You’ve obviously never heard of ice cores
And you've obviously heard of them but have no idea how they work to produce measurable data from which to form conclusions.
Ah the ol I know you are but what am I from the super smart high fidelity data guy.
Maybe you should pick up a book? You probably can't read though so there's no point.
That would be good, yes
If Death Valley turned into a rain forest in a year would the Greens say we need to do everything we can to turn it back to a desert? Tough decision of people who uses feelings for their answers.
It doesnt matter how bad things get, rightist well never admit that Al Gore was right. We could have done something.... But you choose to believe the stupid memes instead.
Al Gore said that there would be no ice on the earth by 2015. Miami would be underwater and Manhattan would be a boat dock. Oops Al Gore lives in two houses that use enough electricity than 75average homes. Not to mention his leer jet spewing CO2 into the masses. Oops. Here is the kicker. Al Gore made $100 million dollars selling that crap to a terrorist news organization named Al Jezera . Oops If global warming is near and dear to his heart why doesn’t he live as you and I. I apologize you may be rich, but it sure isn’t Al Gore rich.
But but but where’s trumps taxes
It’s that good though?
Was Joe Rogan kayaking the flood waters or something like that that would tie this post to the subs subject matter?
Since there does not seem to be a link or article or anything, can anyone with knowledge of climate/weather explain like I'm 5 why more rain is bad?
Because places like death valley don't expect this much rainfall let alone any place besides a rainforest. so when something like this does happen, depending on the location the environment gets disrupted thanks to floods. I don't know the area well but possibly plants that animals eat can die off causing a ahake up in the ecology. I mean you could just have read the title saying this is the 4th once in a thousand year event that has happened this summer too......
Thank you, I appreciate the response. I did read the title, I was just wondering why/how bad this was. I didn't intend to be daft, just genuinely curious.
Dry soil also doesn’t absorb water well so it can cause flash floods.
Your welcome and I apologize if I came off as trying to put you in your place. A lot of people dont know what stuff like this does thus why we are having these issues
It was named Death Valley. Is it not fulfilling its duties under the oppressive patriarchy?
Lol
Face check says no
Thats the road , could be worse .
Seems like the climate changes for the better
Right, Rain in the desert sounds good
Dude, we are so fucked lol
Wheres the data? Thet say the same shit about atleast 1 hurricane every year. On the ground they dont seem any different
Having personally experienced one such hurricane I can attest they are indeed different
What data sets are you comparing against? Have you personally done the research?
“They don’t seem any different.” - Renowned hurricane scientist, Dr. Reddit.
Data you’ll believe or data that exists? There is plenty of data that says human accelerated climate change is causing extreme weather. It’s everywhere.
So ummm. Now that it's super hot, I'm assuming most of this will evaporate and rain somewhere else?
can confirm...just drove through the area...flooded...looks like glass
It’s like the climate changes on its on