OT: 2019 Weather Thread

[Stylizer1]

if you notice, you're not the only one sharing your opinion in this thread...and you don't see me being upset with them so the opinion you have has nothing to do with me being "upset"

and if you feel so passionate about this debate, feel free to start a thread in the Off-Topic forums where you can talk about this with other fanbases

What did I do to you? Why are you bullying me?

 

[oilers'72]

It's June 6th.

"3:30 PM MDT Thursday 06 June 2019
Snowfall warning in effect for:

• Banff Nat. Park near Banff
• Banff Nat. Park near Lake Louise
• Banff Nat. Park near Saskatchewan River Crossing
• Clearwater Co. near Siffleur Wilderness Area
• Kananaskis Improvement District near Highwood House
• Kananaskis Improvement District near Kananaskis Village
• M.D. of Bighorn near Canmore Exshaw and Ghost Lake
• M.D. of Bighorn near Ghost River Wilderness

Snowfall with total amounts of about 10 cm is expected.

A pacific weather system developing in southern Alberta overnight will bring an area of snow to the mountain parks regions. Banff and northern parts of Kananaskis expected to see the highest snowfall amounts.

Although this system may not actually bring 10 cm of accumulated snowfall, the heavy, wet snow may cause tree branches to break and have significant impacts on people camping and travelling though the mountain parks regions.
Be prepared to adjust your driving with changing road conditions. Surfaces such as highways, roads, walkways and parking lots may become difficult to navigate due to accumulating snow. If visibility is reduced while driving, slow down, watch for tail lights ahead and be prepared to stop.

Please continue to monitor alerts and forecasts issued by Environment Canada. To report severe weather, send an email to [email protected] or tweet reports using #ABStorm."

 

[oilers'72]

I had mentioned earlier that it could snow in the American Rockies but there haven't been any warnings listed on the NOAA weather site. However, there are freeze warnings for the south central area of Oregon and the very northeast corner of California, with temperatures possibly hitting 25F (-4C) tonight.

 

[5 Mins 4 Ftg]

Global warming......HAH.

 

[Frank the Tank]

What did I do to you? Why are you bullying me?

It's natural to be skeptical of the Lyle Lanleys on HFBoards.

 

[Stylizer1]

It's natural to be skeptical of the Lyle Lanleys on HFBoards.

very sad.

 

[Stylizer1]

The earth is very old and has had different temperature spikes all the while. We could just be in a cycle that comes around every 200, 2000, or 20,000 years. No matter what we do to clean up what ever it is we think the problem is a natural event can change everything in a blink or 2 of an eye. The human species has survived much greater cataclysms before.

 

[Frank the Tank]

very sad.

You've been polite and responsive, but posting relatively unsupported scientific ideas as one's introduction to HFOil invites caution. Stick around, talk some Oilers hockey, and convince us you're not trying to sell us a Monorail... then you'll have an argument that you're not just here trying to stir the pot.

 

[Bryanbryoil]

....and located not that far from Chernobyl!?!?!

Significantly mutated previously extinct viruses? Sign me up!

 

[5 Mins 4 Ftg]

Significantly mutated previously extinct viruses? Sign me up!

Maybe they will be able to clone a Mastodon though. Oh wait,... more methane.

 

[Frank the Tank]

The earth is very old and has had different temperature spikes all the while. We could just be in a cycle that comes around every 200, 2000, or 20,000 years. No matter what we do to clean up what ever it is we think the problem is a natural event can change everything in a blink or 2 of an eye. The human species has survived much greater cataclysms before.

Yes, the Earth is old and has a history of cataclysmic events. How do you know that? Peer-reviewed evidence collected by expert scientists using many different methods over decades. So why not trust the same group of scientists following the same scientific processes who have presented significant amount of data that the current warming trend isn't a "natural" event?

 

[MoontoScott]

The earth is very old and has had different temperature spikes all the while. We could just be in a cycle that comes around every 200, 2000, or 20,000 years. No matter what we do to clean up what ever it is we think the problem is a natural event can change everything in a blink or 2 of an eye. The human species has survived much greater cataclysms before.

Some good points, please stick around the boards and post on the threads. You sound like an intelligent person.

And the thing is, no matter what the topic here on the HF boards there is always the utmost respect for our fellow man and differing opinions. A cake walk for posters, assuming that you have the hide of a rhino.

 

[Stylizer1]

Yes, the Earth is old and has a history of cataclysmic events. How do you know that? Peer-reviewed evidence collected by expert scientists using many different methods over decades. So why not trust the same group of scientists following the same scientific processes who have presented significant amount of data that the current warming trend isn't a "natural" event?

Can peer reviewed evidence be wrong?

 

[Fmrnuckfan95]

Is it snowing around high level?

 

[booyakasha]

Is it snowing around high level?

maybe if they tax us hard eneuogh, the government will finally make it snow?

 

[Frank the Tank]

Can peer reviewed evidence be wrong?

Yes, that's the whole point of the scientific method - to continue measuring data, testing it against one's current theories, and revise when the data requires one to do so. However, the more significant revisions require more significant data.

 

[Stylizer1]

Yes, that's the whole point of the scientific method - to continue measuring data, testing it against one's current theories, and revise when the data requires one to do so. However, the more significant revisions require more significant data.

Data is one thing, unpredictable variables are another which humans are.

 

[Frank the Tank]

Data interpretations are one thing, unpredictable variables are another which humans are.

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are quite predictable. So are the associated temperature changes in the Holocene, as confirmed by the BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature) study.

 

[RipsADrive]

Industrial methane emissions are 100 times higher than reported, researchers say | Cornell Chronicle

Dance around in circles if you want. Somethings gotta give and I'm not betting against the Earth in the long run.

You seem to want people to be open to changing their mind.

Are you?

 

[doulos]

Who could be surprised that you would respond with something like that.

If you were interested in anything beyond scoring cheap laughs on the internet with your less than subtle brand of sarcasm, there are multiple places where you could educate yourself. I know you won’t bother, but here’s a link to help get you started. It suggests some possible factors that could influence a decrease in precipitation over various regions of the globe resulting in the drier conditions that can lead to forest fires etc.

You will note that as I stated in the post that prompted your simplistic ridicule, there is little firm knowledge of and/or agreement among scientists regarding the many complex factors affecting the environment of our planet and how they in turn may/may not work together to impact the weather we experience. You will further note that phrases such as ‘there have been many arguments’ and ‘there is little agreement’ litter any scholarly publication on this matter. It’s only among the Gores and Trumps of the world that you find the sort of dogmatism and ignorance that demands possession of the facts for their ‘side’ alone.

Dr Rind states it much more succinctly ... ‘Rarely are there simple answers to climate problems, as the multiple feedbacks can lead to a variety of results. Therefore, to understand what has happened in the past, and what will happen as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere, requires a familiarity with the various aspects of the system, utilizing everything we have available — observations, theory, and computer modeling. It requires interacting with atmospheric scientists, oceanographers, specialists in polar processes, cloud physicists, hydrologists, land surface biologists, atmospheric chemists, computer scientists, etc. To understand the potential impacts of climate change requires further interactions, with agronomists, economists, demographic specialists, etc. As you can see, the climate system and climate change is a great integrator of knowledge, and requires a multi-disciplinary approach.’

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Do Variations in the Solar Cycle Affect Our Climate System?

Yes it's complicated. Hopefully we can both agree that it's not an excuse to not take every possible action to control the very real factors that we can control, and the very real things that we can change. This is a crisis of the utmost importance, and while I do honestly fear that we are both too late, and too stupid as a species, to actually change what's coming, I refuse to simply give up - thankfully many others believe the same and won't give up either. Hope you're on board with the idea, but if you're not, that's just too bad, because change is coming whether you want it to or not.

 

[Frank the Tank]

Yes it's complicated. Hopefully we can both agree that it's not an excuse to take every possible action to control the very real factors that we can control, and the very real things that we can change. This is a crisis of the utmost importance, and while I do honestly fear that we are both too late, and too stupid as a species, to actually change what's coming, I refuse to simply give up - thankfully many others believe the same and won't give up either. Hope you're on board with the idea, but if you're not, that's just too bad, because change is coming whether you want it to or not.

Yep, whatever entity can develop grid-scale, consistent energy storage systems at a cost of less than $100/kWh will be both change the world and be very wealthy.

 

[harpoon]

1. while I do honestly fear that we are both too late, and too stupid as a species, to actually change what's coming, 2. I refuse to simply give up - thankfully many others believe the same and won't give up either. 3. Hope you're on board with the idea, but if you're not, that's just too bad, because change is coming whether you want it to or not.

Against my better judgement .... the first part of this is pretty much what I said. The second part is what you should have replied with instead of 'durr ... lets burn tires'. The final part is unclear. What change do you imagine is coming?

Here you talk about weather (and a discrete phenomenon like rainfall) and in your previous post you refer to climate. To which one do you refer when you write, "little firm knowledge of and/or agreement among scientists."

This is the 'weather' thread. I think when we have posters talking about cartoon characters, bigfoot etc, I'm staying on topic. Weather is a product of climate. Scientists don't know much about either. I understand this won't stop them from patting one another on the back and talking down to folks without a PhD.

 

[McDraekke]

Against my better judgement .... the first part of this is pretty much what I said. The second part is what you should have replied with instead of 'durr ... lets burn tires'. The final part is unclear. What change do you imagine is coming?
This is the 'weather' thread. I think when we have posters talking about cartoon characters, bigfoot etc, I'm staying on topic. Weather is a product of climate. Scientists don't know much about either. I understand this won't stop them from patting one another on the back and talking down to folks without a PhD.

What does climate change have to do with you believing that scientists are arrogant assholes who look down on uneducated people? Your point made sense about you staying on topic until then.

Guess what? Some scientists are arrogant pricks. But at the same time, every god damn group of people has the same problem. But if the arrogant pricks have reinforced data, research that 95% of the scientific community agrees upon, that climate change is man made (or that the rate at which it is changing dramatically is human-caused) and now irreversible because of our own actions (or at least to the point that humanity is concerned, sure Mother Nature might reverse it all given enough time, but nature’s timeline is a hell of a lot longer than ours is), I think they should be looking down upon those who disagree with them. Sure there are thing scientists don’t know. But on the topics that they are researching, they know a f*** of a lot more than the rest of us do.

 

[Jimmi McJenkins]

Nice to see continued rain, maybe it will stabilize things for a couple months.

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

Nice to see continued rain, maybe it will stabilize things for a couple months.

the next complaint will be the mosquitoes