Jump to content

Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem


Recommended Posts

We are talking about weather. There are ALWAYS times when natural weather variability results in events which are far from the average. Such events are NORMAL aspects of weather. If you wish to establish that the events are ABNORMAL you have to compare the current event to past events when the precipitation deviated from average.

Exactly. And the number of severe weather events has been higher than "normal" and we're on our second "one-in-300-year" flood in three years. You don't need a lot of data to determine that "unprecedented" is "abnormal."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And the number of severe weather events has been higher than "normal" and we're on our second "one-in-300-year" flood in three years.

Where is the data to support that assertion?

BTW - your reference to 1 in 300 events implicitly acknowledges that waldo's picture did not provide the evidence required to establish your claim. so the question becomes: why did you think it did?

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have representatives from your (claimed) country actively involved in the ongoing lead-up negotiations to COP21-Paris... are those your "alarmists"?

I'm not sure what you mean about "claimed." And as far as the U.S. having representatives they represent Obama and almost no one else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you mean about "claimed." And as far as the U.S. having representatives they represent Obama and almost no one else.

Yes...somebody else claiming to represent 'Americans' and what 'Americans' believe for his/their own alarmist agenda. Canada believed in it so much, the government bailed on the Kyoto treaty.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are talking about weather. There are ALWAYS times when natural weather variability results in events which are far from the average. Such events are NORMAL aspects of weather. If you wish to establish that the events are ABNORMAL you have to compare the current event to past events when the precipitation deviated from average. If the current events are roughly the same as past events then you cannot claim that the current events are abnormal (technically this is measured by the statistical variance). If you don't provide the data that allows such a comparison then you are making an unsubstantiated claim.

that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada graphic speaks to Precipitation Compared to Historical Distribution... the values presented are precipitation percentile conditions based on the frequency of their occurence ... an alternate method that, typically, avoids pitfalls/weaknesses that your apparently favoured percent of average suggestion can be subject to. For the selected time period shown, the graphic presents deciles to report precipitation conditions by relating how the current conditions compare to historical accumulated values for each weather station over the respective station's monitoring and data gathering history... per the government source, that time period for all stations lies between 49 years (at the shortest time period interval) to 91 years (at the longest time period interval).

WTF?? When the data says the precipitation is "very" high, "extremely" high, and "record" high, what do you think they are comparing it to? How could something that is "extreme" and "record" possibly not be "unusual" or "abnormal"?

Clearly these are well-defined scientific terms. *sarcasm*

I'm sure this is at least the 3rd time (that I recall), you've had trouble actually reading/interpreting graphics! Perhaps you need to sharpen your razor - yes? *sarcasm* That percentile class description shown within the graphic is one long established by Agriculture Canada:

Percentile class       Description
<10                      Extremely low
10 to 20               Very low
20 to 40               Low
40 to 60               Mid range
60 to 80               High
80 to 90               Very high
90 to 100             Extremely high

.

Edited by waldo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as far as the U.S. having representatives they represent Obama and almost no one else.

I realize it's a tough pill to swallow... even for a many times claimed "progressive" as yourself... but those Americans involved in the current and lead-up UNFCCC COP negotiations are representing the U.S. government... and, accordingly by extension, U.S. citizens (even those claiming to be progressive, but not really)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes...somebody else claiming to represent 'Americans' and what 'Americans' believe for his/their own alarmist agenda. Canada believed in it so much, the government bailed on the Kyoto treaty.

huh! Kyoto again... just out of the blue, Kyoto again? Why, that's a long established pattern you have there, hey! What's the word for you doing that again? Why... per the following, you just did it a short number of days ago - again, out of the blue, completely off topic and out of context. What's the word for you doing that again?

Well...look at the bright side...Canada's colossal climate change KYOTO FAIL is now looking like a stroke of brilliance. The Americans knew better from the 'git go, never falling for the IPCC circle jerk.

out of the blue, out of context, you once again bring forward KYOTO.... as you've done many, many times in the past. What's the word for doing that again? Given the past effect of your repeated claim/statement, you do so simply to incite, to inflame. It's what you do; it's what you're about... nothing more, nothing less. As stated before, the American KYOTO FAIL begins with U.S. commitments made to the world community... commitments that ultimately shaped the treaty... the Kyoto treaty that the U.S. refused to ratify. The U.S. signs it, get world nations to align around the U.S. involvement, get the treaty structured around U.S. involvement... and then the U.S. completely turns it's back on the treaty, on the world community, and on it's commitment. That sir, that is the ultimate KYOTO FAIL.

care to speak to what the IPCC had to do with the KYOTO treaty? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure this is at least the 3rd time (that I recall), you've had trouble actually reading/interpreting graphics! Perhaps you need to sharpen your razor - yes? *sarcasm* That percentile class description shown within the graphic is one long established by Agriculture Canada:

Percentile class       Description
<10                      Extremely low
10 to 20               Very low
20 to 40               Low
40 to 60               Mid range
60 to 80               High
80 to 90               Very high
90 to 100             Extremely high

Thank you for providing information that I already knew. It is very helpful. *sarcasm*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still haven't explained that drive-by smear, to use your favorite expression.

Being skeptical of unverifiable information is not a "smear"

Thank you for providing information that I already knew. It is very helpful. *sarcasm*

Then why did you question the term extreme when you knew it had a defined "scientific" basis?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being skeptical of unverifiable information is not a "smear"

Then why did you question the term extreme when you knew it had a defined "scientific" basis?

Percentiles are clearly defined.

But the terms 'very high', 'extremely high', etc. do not generally have a common accepted & well-defined definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Percentiles are clearly defined.

But the terms 'very high', 'extremely high', etc. do not generally have a common accepted & well-defined definition.

WTF? You sarcastically told Waldo you already knew that those terms were linked to percentiles. It's commonly accepted that terms are well defined when there is a key to define them. Either you understand how keys work or you don't. Which is it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's commonly accepted that terms are well defined when there is a key to define them. Either you understand how keys work or you don't. Which is it?

He does but I am guessing you don't. The assignment of descriptive words to percentile bands is an arbitrary and unscientific process. That is what he was mocking. Creating a key with arbitrary and unscientific mappings does not make them any less an arbitrary and unscientific.

The other issue which is being ignored: the chart provides no information would allow one to establish your original assertion. You acknowledged this when you started talking about 1 in 300 year floods (a probabilistic measure that has no relation to the percentiles in the chart). I asked you to support your claims of the probabilistic measures with data.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He does but I am guessing you don't. The assignment of descriptive words to percentile bands is an arbitrary and unscientific process. That is what he was mocking.

The one-in-300 year flood description has been widely used based on probabilities from previously recorded data. I agree that those probabilities are now out the window as we enter a different climatic environment.

But applying descriptive words to percentage bands is worthy of ridicule now? Did you mock your teacher when she described a 20% science test score as poor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one-in-300 year flood description has been widely used based on probabilities from previously recorded data.

I have seen it the media - not the data. Where is the data to support that claim?

And even if the data supports that - a 1 in 300 event is NOT evidence of abnormality - just evidence of weather.

I agree that those probabilities are now out the window as we enter a different climatic environment.

You have absolutely no evidence to support that claim.

I am asking that you provide evidence. So far you are just avoiding the question.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am asking that you provide evidence. So far you are just avoiding the question.

The one-in-300-year probability was based on historical data for previous high-water events. Page 35 of the attached link provides data on previous high-water events on the Assiniboine. Curious that we've had two record-breaking floods in 4 years, and both of them have been caused by rain events in the summer, not the historical spring melt. But I guess that, rather than accept that things are changing, we can also deny, deny, deny.

http://www.ijc.org/rel/pdf/rannie35-58.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curious that we've had two record-breaking floods in 4 years, and both of them have been caused by rain events in the summer, not the historical spring melt.

Your own data shows MANY examples of multiple floods occurring within a 3-5 years. This is enough to establish that two floods in 4 years is not abnormal

But I guess that, rather than accept that things are changing, we can also deny, deny, deny.

Wanting to believe something does not make it true no matter how much you want it. In this case, the null hypothesis is we are seeing normal weather variations. If you want to claim it is abnormal you have to show evidence. So far all you have provided is a subjective report which suggests that flooding we are seeing is well within the expected weather variations. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your own data shows MANY examples of multiple floods occurring within a 3-5 years. This is enough to establish that two floods in 4 years is not abnormal

But these are unprecedented floods in the amount of water and unusual in that they are happening in the summer. Previous floods were from spring melt, not rain events.

All the evidence demonstrates it is certainly abnormal based on historical records. Wanting to believe it is normal does not make it true no matter how much you want it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But these are unprecedented floods in the amount of water and unusual in that they are happening in the summer. Previous floods were from spring melt, not rain events.

All the evidence demonstrates it is certainly abnormal based on historical records. Wanting to believe it is normal does not make it true no matter how much you want it.

If you just listened to the sensationalist media stories - you would be right. But of course, the facts usually tell a different story..... Needing to believe it is unprecedented does not make it true no matter how much you want it. <_<

............But it’s left many living in the city’s floodplains wondering: Could this happen again? And how often do floods of this magnitude happen in the area? Could it have been worse?

THE STATS

To answer those questions, you have to look at the past. Continuous water flow records of the Bow River in Calgary began in 1911. Before this year’s flood, the highest recorded instantaneous flow level was 1,520 m3/s, set in 1932. In other words, this year’s peak water flow of 1,740 m3/s is the highest in the city’s recorded history.

So this was rare, right? Only happens once a century, if that? Well, maybe not.

Although continuous records began in 1911, Calgary’s earlier history unearths some of the city’s worst floods. Three major floods occurred in the decades prior to 1911. And in fact, until this year, Calgary’s eight worst floods in history had all occurred before 1933.

Two floods in particular – in 1879 & 1897 – were unprecedented, with river flows 50 percent higher than the 1932 flood event. Best estimates put each of those two floods at about 35 per cent worse than this year’s devastating flood.

Link: http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/calgary-floods-it-could-happen-again/8295/

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But these are unprecedented floods in the amount of water and unusual in that they are happening in the summer.

The one this year is late - 2011 was spring. You are twisting facts to suit your desired narrative.

Previous floods were from spring melt, not rain events.

Floods always result from above average precipitation either in the winter or the spring. There is no data to support your claim that the timing if the above average precipitation is outside of historical norms. This entire argument sounds like is more fabrications to support your pre-determined views.

All the evidence demonstrates it is certainly abnormal based on historical records.

Historical records show that flooding occurs at regular intervals and that multiple large floods do occur within a period of a few years. To establish that it is abnormal you have to show that the current flooding is outside of historical norms. Simply setting a record is not enough because if nothing changes we would expect a 1 in 300 flood once per 300 years and we don't have records for 300 years. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But these are unprecedented floods in the amount of water and unusual in that they are happening in the summer. Previous floods were from spring melt, not rain events.

All the evidence demonstrates it is certainly abnormal based on historical records. Wanting to believe it is normal does not make it true no matter how much you want it.

Dude, this may suprise you but the Earth is a really really big place. Every year you are likely to get a once in 300 year flood somewhere on Earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, what are the odds of two one-in-300 year floods in four years?

Sounds like you missed my previous post so here it is again....

If you just listened to the sensationalist media stories - you would be right. But of course, the facts usually tell a different story..... Needing to believe it is unprecedented does not make it true no matter how much you want it. <_<

............But it’s left many living in the city’s floodplains wondering: Could this happen again? And how often do floods of this magnitude happen in the area? Could it have been worse?

THE STATS

To answer those questions, you have to look at the past. Continuous water flow records of the Bow River in Calgary began in 1911. Before this year’s flood, the highest recorded instantaneous flow level was 1,520 m3/s, set in 1932. In other words, this year’s peak water flow of 1,740 m3/s is the highest in the city’s recorded history.

So this was rare, right? Only happens once a century, if that? Well, maybe not.

Although continuous records began in 1911, Calgary’s earlier history unearths some of the city’s worst floods. Three major floods occurred in the decades prior to 1911. And in fact, until this year, Calgary’s eight worst floods in history had all occurred before 1933.

Two floods in particular – in 1879 & 1897 – were unprecedented, with river flows 50 percent higher than the 1932 flood event. Best estimates put each of those two floods at about 35 per cent worse than this year’s devastating flood.

Link: http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/calgary-floods-it-could-happen-again/8295/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, what are the odds of two one-in-300 year floods in four years?

Basic Probability.

For one location in one year, the probability of having a one-in-300 year flood is 1/300.

The probability of then having at least one one-in-300 flood in one of the next 3 years is 1 - (299/300)^3. So that means the probability of having two of these events in 4 years is 3.32 x 10^-5.

But, you aren't choosing your starting year randomly, you are picking it based upon already having observed a flood. Like if you observed these two flood events occurring like, a year, two years or even a decade earlier, you would probably still claim that such an observation supports your dogma. For that reason, the probability should be multiplied by at least a factor of 10, giving 3.32 x 10^4.

Now if there are at least 10000 locations on earth to look for these one-in-300 year floods (and there are easily fare more than this), then the probability of observing at least one of these events is 1 - (1 - 3.32 x 10^4)^10000 = 96.4%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,742
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    CrazyCanuck89
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • DACHSHUND went up a rank
      Rookie
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      First Post
    • aru earned a badge
      First Post
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...