Hodad Posted January 24, 2023 Report Posted January 24, 2023 33 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said: That whole post is so rife with little contextual errors it would take ten pages to begin to cover it. But let's just start here. If I understand your stance correctly you're saying what you're now suggesting "climate change" is the believe that man's use of fossil fuels is causing or will cause calamities on earth so severe the survival of man is in jeopardy. And you say you have a nearly unanimous consensus of scientists who are willing to put their reputations to it. Very well, produce it. Sure it is. ? What happens to humans ultimately is largely outside the purview of climate science. How we adapt and attempt to survive, and to what degree we are successful is the realm of futurists. What climate science can do is to study the data of climate, track the changes that are happening and attempt to model the ways in which climate change may disrupt ecosystems and habitats--including those upon which humans rely. Anyone who has spent more than a half hour researching the matter can tell you that scientists aren't divided on the matter. There are piles of polls and surveys of the scientific community, but the peer-reviewed work is most telling. Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Quote Abstract While controls over the Earth's climate system have undergone rigorous hypothesis-testing since the 1800s, questions over the scientific consensus of the role of human activities in modern climate change continue to arise in public settings. We update previous efforts to quantify the scientific consensus on climate change by searching the recent literature for papers sceptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming. From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset. We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature. 1 Quote
Rebound Posted January 24, 2023 Report Posted January 24, 2023 1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said: Weather, Buddy. Look it up. There was the pacific ocean equivalent of a hurricane that hit Seattle and Vancouver in the 60s. It's never happened since. We were told Atlantic landfall hurricanes were going to mightily increase immediately after one IPCC conference. They went quiet for over a decade. Then they started up again. Has to do with wind shear and ocean confluences. Has nothing to do with how much oil you use to heat your home in the winter. There's no support for the idea anything listed has never happened before. Even your historical temperature record only covers 150 years. And the 30,000 years old glaciers that are melting have been melting for 30,000 years. If a 30,000 year old glacier has been melting for 30,000 years, wouldn’t it be fully melted by now? They can carbon date ice to determine when it froze. Quote @reason10: “Hitler had very little to do with the Holocaust.”
Rebound Posted January 24, 2023 Report Posted January 24, 2023 1 hour ago, Hodad said: You are unbelievably dumb. It beggars belief. Like, this can't be a real person. It's performance art, right? The planets of our solar system have been "discovered" and identified since ancient times. Well.. Neptune was discovered in the late 1700’s, and Pluto in the 20th century, but the other planets have been known for a very long time. And… Pluto got a raw deal. But the existence of Pluto hasn’t changed. 1 1 Quote @reason10: “Hitler had very little to do with the Holocaust.”
Hodad Posted January 24, 2023 Report Posted January 24, 2023 23 minutes ago, Rebound said: Well.. Neptune was discovered in the late 1700’s, and Pluto in the 20th century, but the other planets have been known for a very long time. And… Pluto got a raw deal. But the existence of Pluto hasn’t changed. I did not know Neptune was quite as recent. That is good learning. Thanks! Quote
Rebound Posted January 24, 2023 Report Posted January 24, 2023 9 minutes ago, Hodad said: I did not know Neptune was quite as recent. That is good learning. Thanks! You should take an intro Astronomy class sometime. It’s mind-blowing. Quote @reason10: “Hitler had very little to do with the Holocaust.”
Infidel Dog Posted January 24, 2023 Report Posted January 24, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, Hodad said: Anyone who has spent more than a half hour researching the matter can tell you that scientists aren't divided on the matter. There are piles of polls and surveys of the scientific community, but the peer-reviewed work is most telling. Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. You're going to have to trust me on this. Over the decade or so I've been interested in this topic I've spent more than a half hour reading both sides of the discussion. There are more than a few of the study cataloguing papers like the one you offered. They generally have questionable methodology and in the final analysis don't say what you want them to. For example here's somebody who looked closely at yours: " Plain text: only 19 out of 3000 examined works quantify the human influence on the climate. The rest obviously do not make quantifiable statements. And even those 19 works do not analyze how the influence was quantified. A quantification of 50% anthropogenic share would already be evidence of the so-called consensus, but in other contexts it would already contradict the IPCC and the judgment of the climate opponent. Although the 2104 works are relevant and describe climate change, they do not even make implicit statements about the human cause. Why not? To speak of a far-reaching consensus of over 99% is truly brazen!" https://philo.servin.de/wahrheit-und-konsens-2/ And I'm not sure where you got the idea the paper you cite is peer reviewed. The studies he catalogued were peer reviewed but according to what IOP tells me to look for to see if a paper is peer reviewed at their site yours doesn't seem to be. https://publishingsupport.iopscience.iop.org/questions/peer-review-models-on-iop-journals/ And if we're running true to form the next thing a Climate Alarmist would do would be to tell me my cite can't be considered because he considers them big, fat poopy-heads. Something like that anyway. Very well show me in your cited reference then where it says a consensus of scientists say climate doom is coming. This is important because if you're wrong (and you are) 99% of climate scientists aren't telling us Warmageddon is coming so why do we need all the new regulations, restrictions, governance and societal upheavals? I'll answer that one for you. We don't. Edited January 24, 2023 by Infidel Dog Quote
Infidel Dog Posted January 24, 2023 Report Posted January 24, 2023 1 hour ago, Rebound said: And… Pluto got a raw deal. But the existence of Pluto hasn’t changed. No but what we consider it to exist as has. And that was my point. Scientific understanding isn't static. It's changing throughout history all the time. Quote
Infidel Dog Posted January 24, 2023 Report Posted January 24, 2023 1 hour ago, Rebound said: If a 30,000 year old glacier has been melting for 30,000 years, wouldn’t it be fully melted by now? They can carbon date ice to determine when it froze. Ok when heat lands on the edge of a glacier it melts. You've got that bit down. Now let's guess what happens when snow lands in the interior. Overall though the melting generally, in most cases, gradually but eventually wins out. There are cases of exceptions though where the odd glacier is actually increasing. Quote
Rebound Posted January 24, 2023 Report Posted January 24, 2023 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said: Ok when heat lands on the edge of a glacier it melts. You've got that bit down. Now let's guess what happens when snow lands in the interior. Overall though the melting generally, in most cases, gradually but eventually wins out. There are cases of exceptions though where the odd glacier is actually increasing. You’re just making this up. The reality is that glaciers on Antarctica and Greenland, and interior glaciers as well, are all melting at extreme rates, which will increase sea level. This will make hurricanes even more destructive to the coasts. The NOAA has been tracking both glaciers and the seasonal extents of the Arctic ice caps for decades, and the warming trend is very clear. And it is dangerous to humankind. The reason you don’t believe this is simple: You don’t WANT to believe it. Your TEAM doesn’t want to believe it. It’s part of your social identity. You can’t be on the TEAM if you merely believe these basic scientific facts. AND IT WILL HURT YOU AND YOUR FAMILY ONE DAY. Liberals aren’t saying these things to “win.” I don’t win any more than anyone else. The simple truth is that we need to accelerate our use of renewable electricity generation and transition quickly to electric vehicles. Edited January 24, 2023 by Rebound Quote @reason10: “Hitler had very little to do with the Holocaust.”
Hodad Posted January 24, 2023 Report Posted January 24, 2023 53 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said: You're going to have to trust me on this. Over the decade or so I've been interested in this topic I've spent more than a half hour reading both sides of the discussion. There are more than a few of the study cataloguing papers like the one you offered. They generally have questionable methodology and in the final analysis don't say what you want them to. For example here's somebody who looked closely at yours: " Plain text: only 19 out of 3000 examined works quantify the human influence on the climate. The rest obviously do not make quantifiable statements. And even those 19 works do not analyze how the influence was quantified. A quantification of 50% anthropogenic share would already be evidence of the so-called consensus, but in other contexts it would already contradict the IPCC and the judgment of the climate opponent. Although the 2104 works are relevant and describe climate change, they do not even make implicit statements about the human cause. Why not? To speak of a far-reaching consensus of over 99% is truly brazen!" https://philo.servin.de/wahrheit-und-konsens-2/ And I'm not sure where you got the idea the paper you cite is peer reviewed. The studies he catalogued were peer reviewed but according to what IOP tells me to look for to see if a paper is peer reviewed at their site yours doesn't seem to be. https://publishingsupport.iopscience.iop.org/questions/peer-review-models-on-iop-journals/ And if we're running true to form the next thing a Climate Alarmist would do would be to tell me my cite can't be considered because he considers them big, fat poopy-heads. Something like that anyway. Very well show me in your cited reference then where it says a consensus of scientists say climate doom is coming. This is important because if you're wrong (and you are) 99% of climate scientists aren't telling us Warmageddon is coming so why do we need all the new regulations, restrictions, governance and societal upheavals? I'll answer that one for you. We don't. I didn't say that article was peer reviewed. I said the peer reviewed work is more telling, and that article provides a snapshot of the peer reviewed work. Though I think you and your german blogger misunderstand the point of the article. The article isn't an exhaustive survey or catalog of hard climate science papers. It's a random sample review that provides insight into how scientists treat the notion of anthropogenic climate change in their actual published, peer reviewed work. Get it. Like if you randomly pick up 3K papers with keyword hits for climate change, does it feel like there is a debate about warming or mankind's role in warming? The answer is no. There is virtually zero debate among scientists on those fundamental facts. Get it? 19 of those papers were attempting to quantify the impact, but the majority of papers were not. But regardless of whether a papers was attempting to quantify mankind's effect, many of them include that fact as a starting premise or part of their understanding of reality. Whereas there is almost no sentiment to the contrary. That's the point of such a review: to see the scientific sentiment as reflected in actual peer-reviewed work. 1 Quote
robosmith Posted January 24, 2023 Report Posted January 24, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, reason10 said: Shut the fck up, TROLL. She's RIGHT and YOU'RE the TOP TROLL who doesn't know the difference between CO2 from biological processes and fossil fuels. Here's a clue for YOU: biological CO2 like that from termites, is continually RECYCLED and DOES NOT increase the concentration in the atmosphere like burning fossil fuels does. Bet you STILL don't understand the difference. LMAO Edited January 24, 2023 by robosmith Quote
robosmith Posted January 24, 2023 Report Posted January 24, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, reason10 said: A chairman of WHAT? Does his company specialize in climate technology? I may know science better than some rich bitcch who is probably just trying to impress the liberal chick who is currently blowing him. Imagine living in a blue state with inferior public schools and graduating a total IGNORAMUS who doesn't know anything? Wait a minute? YOU ARE. As a successful Florida substitute teacher, it is not my job to foist my opinions of any lesson plan. I merely present the plan, keep order in the class, grade papers and take attendance. Oh, by the way BAT GUANO FOR BRAINS what in the name of ZEUS'S BUTTHOLE does my profession have to do with the subject of this thread? Are you just so FCKING STUPID that you can't think of anything else other than to go after my job? Are you REALLY THAT FCKING IGNORANT? (I suppose I could attack your profession, but it might seem a little silly attacking your parents for allowing you to live in their basement while cashing your welfare checks and filling their pantry with stuff bought by your food stamp, BEETCH.) If you actually KNEW about science you'd have a much better job doing research than substitute teaching public schools. LMAO Thing is you just keep demonstrating how ignorant you are in your POSTS HERE. Edited January 24, 2023 by robosmith Quote
robosmith Posted January 24, 2023 Report Posted January 24, 2023 4 hours ago, reason10 said: Gee! You get a participation trophy for correctly identifying the substance CO. I guess you'll probably want a college degree for announcing that we are CARBON BASED LIFE FORMS. This is why so many people laugh at you every time you open that Woke pie hole. You've NEVER actually had to THINK of anything. I have presented REAMS of evidence proving that (a) 95-57 percent of all greenhouse gasses are WATER VAPOR, and (b) all combined human production of CO released into the atmosphere is a FRACTION of what is released by TERMITES. And so you found the word CARBON. Do you want a cookie for all that hard work? No, I want a cookie for schooling you in ACTUAL SCIENCE and YOUR IGNORANCE. Quote
robosmith Posted January 24, 2023 Report Posted January 24, 2023 4 hours ago, reason10 said: What does RACE have to do with this discussion? (Boys and girls, this has got to stop. I know you children are mostly a bunch of uneducated moe rons, but when you lose an argument you don't look any smarter by calling your superior a racist.) You have the reading comprehension of a blue stater, so for all I know you probably think my observations AND THE LINKS I PROVIDED are in another language. How about getting off your lazy, unproductive entitled Woke ass and actually READ the thread and READ the reliable links I have provided. Come back to class when you can keep up. Florida third graders have better reading comprehension. Too bad their substitute teacher DOES NOT. LMAO Quote
robosmith Posted January 24, 2023 Report Posted January 24, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, Infidel Dog said: Weather, Buddy. Look it up. There was the pacific ocean equivalent of a hurricane that hit Seattle and Vancouver in the 60s. It's never happened since. We were told Atlantic landfall hurricanes were going to mightily increase immediately after one IPCC conference. They went quiet for over a decade. Then they started up again. Has to do with wind shear and ocean confluences. Has nothing to do with how much oil you use to heat your home in the winter. There's no support for the idea anything listed has never happened before. Even your historical temperature record only covers 150 years. And the 30,000 years old glaciers that are melting have been melting for 30,000 years. Do you have ANY idea what powers a hurricane? ㊙️ It's warm OCEAN WATER. When the OCEAN gets HOTTER, Hurricanes GET STRONGER. Strongest hurricanes may have not struck North American land for a decade but they certainly didn't "go quiet." Here is the list for the last 30 years. Quote South-West Indian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 14 11 4 Edwina 20 Australian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 9 8 5 Oliver 2 Oliver, Polly, Roger, Naomi South Pacific(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 10 8 4 Prema 2 $60 million Prema, Rewa Worldwide 110 78 44 Koryn 1,928 $4.3 billion 6 1994 Atlantic 12 7 3 Florence 1,189 $1.93 billion Eastern Pacific 22 20 10 Gilma 4 $20 million Tied for most Category 5 hurricanes (with 2002 and 2018) Included John, the longest lasting tropical cyclone on record Western Pacific 52 36 19 Melissa and Seth 1,287 $8.14 billion North Indian 5 4 2 BOB 02 418 $240 million South-West Indian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 15 12 9 Geralda 484 $165 million Australian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 11 10 6 Theodore Pearl, Sharon, Annette South Pacific(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 6 5 3 Theodore Worldwide 120 91 50 Geralda 3,279 $10.3 billion 3 1995 Atlantic 21 19 11 Opal 182 $12.3 billion Luis, Marilyn, Opal, Roxanne Tied for fifth most active season on record Eastern Pacific 11 10 7 Juliette 124 $31 million Ismael Record inactivity for tropical depressions Western Pacific 47 24 8 Angela 1,314 $1.2 billion North Indian 8 3 2 BOB 07 554 $46.3 million South-West Indian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 12 10 5 Marlene Australia(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 11 9 8 Chloe 8 $8.5 million Violet, Warren, Agnes, Gertie South Pacific(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 1 1 0 William 2 $2.5 million William Featured record inactivity in the basin Worldwide 110 76 41 Angela 2,184 $13.5 billion 9 1996 Atlantic 13 13 9 Edouard 248 $6.5 billion Cesar, Fran, Hortense Eastern Pacific 14* 9* 5* Douglas 46 Western Pacific 52 31 16 Herb 935 $6.8 billion North Indian 9 5 2 BOB 05 2,075 $1.9 billion South-West Indian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 13 9 5 Bonita 109 $50 million Australia(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 21 17 6 Olivia 1 $57 million Barry, Celeste, Ethel, Kirsty, Olivia, Fergus Included Olivia, which produced the world's highest non-tornadic winds on record South Pacific(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 8 6 2 Beti 2 $5.6 million Beti Worldwide 130 87 44 Bonita 3,416 $15.3 billion 10 1997 Atlantic 9 8 3 Erika 12 $111 million Included one subtropical storm Eastern Pacific 24 19 9 Linda 261 $551 million Pauline, Paka Western Pacific 47 28 16 Ivan and Joan 4,181 $4.59 billion Most Category 5's on record North Indian 10 4 1 BOB 01 1,197 South-West Indian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 14 7 3 Helinda 275 $50 million Australia(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 12 12 6 Pancho 34 $190 million Rachel, Justin, Rhonda, Sid South Pacific(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 19 16 7 Gavin 59 $143 million Drena, Gavin, Hina, Keli, Martin, Osea Worldwide 108 89 44 Linda 6,019 $5.6 billion 12 1998 Atlantic 14 14 10 Mitch 12,010 $21.1 billion Georges, Mitch Second deadliest season on record Featured Mitch, the deadliest storm in the basin since 1780 Eastern Pacific 16 13 6 Howard 54 $760 million Western Pacific 30 16 8 Zeb 924 $951 million North Indian 12 6 3 ARB 02 10,212 $3 billion South-West Indian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 20 5 1 Anacelle 88 Australia(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 13 11 6 Thelma 3 $8 million Katrina South Pacific(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 18 12 6 Ron and Susan 35 $33.6 million Martin, Osea, Ron, Susan Worldwide 117 77 40 Zeb, Ron, and Susan 23,326 $25.8 billion 5 1999 Atlantic 16 12 8 Floyd 195 $8.2 billion Floyd, Lenny Eastern Pacific 14 9 6 Dora 16 Western Pacific 45 20 5 Bart 976 $18.4 billion North Indian 8 4 3 BOB 06 15,780 $5 billion Included the strongest tropical cyclone on record in the Bay of Bengal South-West Indian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 11 7 2 Evrina 2 $800 million Australia(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 12 9 6 Gwenda 6 $250 million (AUD) Rona, Elaine, Gwenda, John Included the strongest tropical cyclone on record in the basin South Pacific(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 20 7 3 Dani Worldwide 117 62 32 Gwenda 16,975 $32.6 billion 6 2000 Atlantic 19 15 8 Keith 79 $1.2 billion Keith Included one subtropical storm Eastern Pacific 22 19 6 Carlotta 27 $84 million Western Pacific 51 23 13 Bilis 467 $7.11 billion North Indian 6 5 2 BOB 05 238 $185 million South-West Indian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 16 8 4 Hudah 1,044 $800 million Included one subtropical depression with gale-force winds Australia(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 13 12 7 Paul 0 $150 million (AUD) Steve, Tessi, Rosita, Sam South Pacific(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 19 6 4 Kim 1 Worldwide 121 85 42 Hudah 1,856 $9.5 billion 5 2001 Atlantic 17 15 9 Michelle 105 $7.1 billion Allison, Iris, Michelle Eastern Pacific 19 15 8 Juliette 13 $401 million Adolph Western Pacific 45 26 16 Faxai 1,287 $2.3 billion Vamei North Indian 6 4 1 ARB 01 108 $104 million South-West Indian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 13 8 4 Ando 4 Australia(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 13 10 2 Walter Abigail South Pacific(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 10 6 2 Waka 8 $52 million Paula, Sose, Trina, Waka Worldwide 119 82 42 Faxai 1,525 $9.9 billion 10 2002 Atlantic 14 12 4 Isidore 53 $2.6 billion Isidore, Lili Eastern Pacific 21 16 8 Kenna 7 $101 million Kenna Tied for most Category 5 hurricanes (with 1994 and 2018) Western Pacific 44 26 15* Fengshen 725 $9.5 billion Chataan, Rusa, Pongsona North Indian 7 4 0 BOB 04 182 $25 million South-West Indian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 15 13 10 Hary 106 $290 million Australia(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 10 8 3 Chris 19 $1 million (AUD) Chris South Pacific(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 16 4 2 Zoe Zoe Worldwide 124 80 40 Zoe 1,092 $12.5 billion 8 2003 Atlantic 21 16 7 Isabel 92 $4.4 billion Fabian, Isabel, Juan Eastern Pacific 17 16 7 Nora 23 $129 million Western Pacific 45 21 14 Maemi 360 $5.7 billion Yanyan, Imbudo, Maemi North Indian 7 3 1 ARB 06 358 $163 million South-West Indian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 13 12 7 Kalunde 115 $3 million Included one subtropical depression with hurricane-force winds Australia(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 12 11 5 Inigo 60 $12 million Erica, Inigo, Included the cyclone tied for the most intense in the Australian basin South-West Indian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 16 9 7 Erica 23 $293 million Ami, Beni, Cilla, Heta Worldwide 131 88 48 Inigo 1,031 $10.7 billion 12 2004 Atlantic 16 15 9 Ivan 3,100+ $60.1 billion Charley, Frances, Ivan, Jeanne Included one subtropical storm Eastern Pacific 18 12 6 Javier Western Pacific 45 29 19 Chaba 2,428 $18.1 billion Sudal, Tingting, Rananim North Indian 9 4 1 BOB 01 587 $130 million First season with named cyclonic storms South-West Indian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 18 9 5 Gafilo 396 $250 million Included the strongest cyclone on record in the basin Australia(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 10 9 3 Fay $22 million (AUD) Monty, Fay South Pacific(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 15 3 1 Ivy 15 $7.8 million Ivy South Atlantic 1 1 1 Catarina 3 $350 million First hurricane on record to strike Brazil Worldwide 129 80 44 Gafilo 6,529 $78.9 billion 10 2005 Atlantic 31 28 15 Wilma 2,280+ $180 billion Dennis, Katrina, Rita, Stan, Wilma Second costliest hurricane season on record Second most storms Tied (with 2020) for most hurricanes and major hurricanes Most tropical cyclones and Category 5's (4) in one season Most retired names Only year to use the Greek alphabet until 2020. Featured Wilma, the strongest storm on record in the basin Featured Katrina, tied as costliest storm on record Included 1 subtropical storm and 1 subtropical depression Eastern Pacific 17 15 7 Kenneth 6 $12 million Western Pacific 33 24 13 Haitang 436 $7.6 billion Matsa, Nabi, Longwang North Indian 12 3 0 Pyarr 273 $21.4 million South-West Indian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 19 8 3 Juliet 78 Australia(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 14 10 6 Ingrid Harvey, Ingrid South Pacific(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 17 8 5 Percy $55 million Meena, Nancy, Olaf Worldwide 141 94 49 Wilma 3,073 $188 billion 13 2006 Atlantic 10 10 5 Gordon and Helene 14 $500 million Eastern Pacific 25 19 11 Ioke 14 $355 million Ioke Western Pacific 40* 24* 15* Yagi 3,886 $14.4 billion Chanchu, Bilis, Saomai, Xangsane, Durian North Indian 12 3 1 Mala 623 $6.7 million South-West Indian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 11 8 3 Carina 59 Australian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 16 11 7 Glenda 1 $808 million Clare, Larry, Glenda, Monica South Pacific(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 20 7 5 Xavier Worldwide 132 80 46 Yagi & Glenda 4,597 $16 billion 10 2007 Atlantic 17 15 6 Dean 423 $3 billion Dean, Felix, Noel Included one subtropical storm Includes two Category 5 Hurricanes (Dean and Felix) that made landfall Eastern Pacific 15 11 4 Flossie 42 $80 million Western Pacific 34 24 14 Sepat 388 $7.5 billion North Indian 11 4 2 Gonu 16,248 $9.7 billion South-West Indian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 17 11 6 Dora and Favio 172 $337 million Included the 2nd wettest tropical cyclone on record Australia(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 13 9 4 George 152 $87.1 million George, Guba South Pacific(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 12 5 1 Daman 4 Cliff, Daman Worldwide 115 87 37 George 17,429 $20.7 billion 7 2008 Atlantic 17 16 8 Ike 1,047 $49.5 billion Gustav, Ike, Paloma Only year on record in which a major hurricane existed in every month from July through November Eastern Pacific 19 17 7 Norbert 45 $152 million Alma Western Pacific 40 22 11 Jangmi 1,936 $5.9 billion North Indian 10 4 1 Nargis 138,927 $14.7 billion Second-costliest North Indian cyclone season on record Included 6th deadliest tropical cyclone on record South-West Indian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 12 10 9 Hondo 123 $38 million Australian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 14 7 3 Billy 1 $22.4 million Helen South Pacific(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 13 7 1 Funa 12 $64.2 million Gene Worldwide 124 83 40 Jangmi 142,091 $70.3 billion 6 2009 Atlantic 11 9 3 Bill 9 $58 million Eastern Pacific 23 20 8 Rick 16 $188 million Western Pacific 41* 22 13 Nida 2,348 $10.5 billion Morakot, Ketsana, Parma North Indian 8 4 0 Aila 421 618 million South-West Indian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 15 11 4 Cleo 29 Australian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 17 9 3 Hamish 2 $123 million Hamish, Laurence South Pacific(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 14 5 0 Lin and Mick 6 $64.2 million Mick Worldwide 126 78 31 Nida 2,831 $11.5 billion 6 2010 Atlantic 21 19 12 Igor 314 $4.53 billion Igor, Tomas Tied for fifth most active season on record Tied for second most hurricanes in a season on record Eastern Pacific 13* 8 3 Celia 268 $1.62 billion Least active Pacific hurricane season on record tied with 1977 Western Pacific 29 14 7 Megi 384 $2.96 billion Fanapi Quietest Pacific typhoon season on record North Indian 8 6 5 Giri 402 $2.99 billion South-West Indian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 11 7 4 Edzani 85 Australia(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 15 9[nb 3] 3 Ului 4 $758 million Magda South Pacific(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 12 7 Atlantic 20 19 7 Ophelia 114 $18.6 billion Irene Tied for fifth most active season on record Eastern Pacific 13 11 10 Dora 43 $204 million Western Pacific 39 21 8 Songda 3,111 $7.18 billion Washi North Indian 10 2 1 Thane 360 $277 million South-West Indian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 11 4 2 Bingiza 77 Included one subtropical depression with gale-force winds Australia(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 26 10 6 Yasi 3 $3.52 billion Carlos South Pacific(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 17 7 5 Wilma 13 $33 million Vania, Wilma, Yasi, Atu South Atlantic 1 1 Worldwide 132 72 39 Songda 3,721 $29.8 billion 7 2012 Atlantic 19 19 10 Sandy 354 $78 billion Sandy Tied for fifth most active season Tied (with 2016 and 2020) for most active season before July Record tying 8 named storms forming in August Eastern Pacific 17 17 10 Emilia 8 $27.9 million Western Pacific 35 25 14 Sanba 2,487 $20.5 billion Vicente, Bopha Second costliest season ever recorded North Indian 5 2 0 Nilam 128 $56.7 million South-West Indian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 15 13 4 Funso 164 Included one subtropical depression with gale-force winds Australia(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 19 7 2 Lua 16 $230 million Heidi, Jasmine, Lua South Pacific(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 24 7 5 Jasmine 27 $333 million Cyclone Evan, Cyclone Freda Worldwide 131 89 45 Sanba 3,184 $99 billion 8 2013 Atlantic 15 14 2 Humberto 47 $1.51 billion Ingrid Included one subtropical storm Tied (with 1982) for fewest hurricanes since 1930 Eastern Pacific 21 20 9 Raymond 181 $4.2 billion Manuel Costliest Eastern Pacific hurricane season on record Western Pacific 49 31* 13 Haiyan 8,513 $25.7 billion Sonamu, Utor, Fitow, Haiyan Deadliest season since 1975 Featured Haiyan, the second strongest storm to make landfall on record North Indian 10 5 3 Phailin 323 $1.5 billion South-West Indian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 10 10 7 Bruce 137 $89.2 million Australia(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 18 11 6 Narelle 20 $2.2 billion Oswald, Rusty South Pacific(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 22 3 2 Sandra Worldwide 139 67 41 Haiyan 9,221 $35.2 billion 8 2014 Atlantic 9 8 6 Gonzalo 21 $439 million Eastern Pacific 23 22 16 Marie 49 $1.6 billion Odile Tied for record number of hurricanes with 1990, 1992 and 2015 Western Pacific 32* 23* 11* Vongfong 576 $12.4 billion Rammasun North Indian 8 3 2 Nilofar 183 $3.4 billion Tied for record earliest (with 2019) South-West Indian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 15 10 3 Hellen 8 Australia(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 17 9 4 Ita 22 $1.15 billion Ita South Pacific(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 19 6 2 Ian 12 $48 million Ian, Lusi Worldwide 121 78 42 Vongfong 871 $19 billion 5 2015 Atlantic 12 11 4 Joaquin 89 $732 million Erika, Joaquin Eastern Pacific 31 26 16 Patricia 44 $565 million Patricia Record number of tropical depressions Tied for record number of hurricanes with 1990, 1992 and 2014 Featured Patricia, the strongest hurricane in the Western Hemisphere Western Pacific 39* 27* 18* Soudelor 350 $14.8 billion Soudelor, Mujigae, Koppu, Melor North Indian 12 4 2 Chapala 363 $379 million South-West Indian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 12 11 3 Eunice 111 $46 million Record number of very intense tropical cyclones Australia(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 14 7 6 Marcia 2 $732 million Lam, Marcia South Pacific(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 19 8 2 Pam 17 $360 million Pam, Ula Worldwide 136 92 49 Patricia 976 $17.6 billion 11 2016 Atlantic 16 15 7 Matthew 748 $16.1 billion Matthew, Otto Tied (with 2012 and 2020) for most active season before July Featured Matthew, the first Category 5 in 9 years Eastern Pacific 23* 22* 13 Seymour 11 $95.8 million Earliest season on record Western Pacific 51 26 13 Meranti 972 $18.9 billion Meranti, Sarika, Haima, Nock-ten North Indian 9 4 1 Vardah 401 $717 million South-West Indian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 8 6 3 Fantala 13 $4.5 million Included one subtropical depression with gale-force winds Australia(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 19 4 0 Stan Featured record inactive season South Pacific(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 16 6 4 Winston 49 $1.4 billion Winston Costliest season on record Featured Winston, the strongest storm on record in the Southern Hemisphere Worldwide 140 81 41 Winston 2,194 $43.7 billion 7 2017 Atlantic 18 17 10 Maria 3,364 $282 billion Harvey, Irma, Maria, Nate Costliest hurricane season on record Highest rainfall produced by a tropical cyclone in the United States and its territories First-ever three Category 4 U.S. hurricane landfalls in a single season Second season to feature multiple Category 5 landfalls after 2007 Featured Harvey, tied as most costly storm on record Eastern Pacific 20 18 9 Fernanda 45 $69 million Western Pacific 41 27 11 Lan 860 $14.3 billion Hato, Kai-tak, Tembin North Indian 10 3 1 Ochki 834 $3.65 billion South-West Indian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 8 5 3 Enawo 449 $272 million Australia(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 28 11 3 Ernie 57 $2.82 billion Debbie South Pacific(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 20 4 2 Donna 3 $48 million Cook, Donna Worldwide 141 85 39 Maria 2,698 $303 billion 10 2018 Atlantic 16 15 8 Michael 173 $49.9 billion Florence, Michael Included one subtropical storm Eastern Pacific 26 23 13 Walaka 52 $1.57 billion Tied for most Category 5 hurricanes (with 1994 and 2002) Western Pacific 44* 29* 13 Kong-rey & Yutu 771 $18.4 billion Rumbia, Mangkhut, Yutu North Indian 14 7 3 Mekunu 343 $4.3 billion South-West Indian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 13 12 8 Cilida 35 $59 million Australia(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 27 11 3 Marcus 1 $190 million Marcus South Pacific(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 16 8 3 Gita 11 $337 million Gita, Josie, Keni Worldwide 150 104 51 Kong-rey & Yutu 1,497 $74.9 billion 8 2019 Atlantic 20 18 6 Dorian 98 $12 billion Dorian Included Hurricane Dorian, tied for the highest sustained winds at landfall Eastern Pacific 21 19 7 Barbara 7 $16.1 million Latest date for the first depression to form since reliable records began in 1971 Western Pacific 52 29 17 Halong 388 $34.1 billion Lekima, Faxai, Hagibis, Kammuri, Phanfone Costliest season on record. North Indian 12* 8* 6 Kyarr 173 $11.5 billion Tied for record earliest (with 2014) Featured record number of very intense tropical cyclones Featured Cyclone Kyarr, the strongest tropical cyclone on record in the Arabian Sea South-West Indian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 15* 13* 11 Ambali 1,095 $2 billion Record storms, cyclones, and intense tropical cyclones in a single season Costliest season Australia(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 16 8 5 Veronica 14 $1.72 billion Trevor, Veronica South Pacific(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 11 6 3 Pola $1.43 million South Atlantic 2 2 0 Iba Worldwide 143 105 56 Halong 2,090 $60.6 billion 2020 Atlantic 31 30 14 Iota 417 $51.146 billion Laura, Eta, Iota Most active Atlantic hurricane season in recorded history Tied (with 2012 and 2016) for most active season on record before July Most amount of storms forming in September on record (10) Eastern Pacific 21 17 4 Marie 47 $250 million Featured the earliest recorded tropical cyclone east of 140W Western Pacific 32 23 10 Goni 457 $4.06 billion Vongfong, Linfa, Molave, Goni, Vamco Includes Goni, the strongest storm to make landfall on record. North Indian 9 5 3 Amphan 269 $15.8 billion Included the costliest storm on record in the basin South-West Indian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 7 7 3 Ambali 46 $25 million Australia(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 15 7 3 Damien 28 $4.3 million Damien, Harold, Mangga South Pacific(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 7 4 3 Yasa 34 $132 million South Atlantic 3 3 0 Kurumí 70 Unknown Mediterranean tropical-like cyclone 1 1 1 Ianos 4 $100 million Worldwide 122 95 36 Goni 1,386 $71.5 billion 2021 Atlantic 21 21 7 Sam 158 >$55.178 billion Third most active season on record Eastern Pacific 12 12 4 Felicia 5 $100 million Featured the earliest recorded tropical storm east of 140W Western Pacific 25 12 3 Surigae 503 $2.04 billion North Indian 3 2 2 Tauktae 194 $4.94 billion South-West Indian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 10 7 3 Faraji 34 $11 million Australia(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 22 8 3 Niran 272 $519 million Seroja South Pacific(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 10 4 2 Niran 7 $448 million South Atlantic 3 3 0 Raoni 70 Unknown Worldwide 127 90 36 Surigae 1332 $79.1 billion 2022 Atlantic 16 14 8 Fiona 337 >$56.65 billion Eastern Pacific 19* 19* 10* Orlene 26 >$54.2 million Western Pacific 36 25 10 Nanmadol 490 $3.384 billion North Indian 15 3 0 Asani 79 Unknown South-West Indian(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 17* 15* 6* Darian 376 $312 million Australia(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 30* 9* 3 Darian 4 >$75 million South Pacific(Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.) 11* 5* 2* Dovi 2 >$105 million South Atlantic 1 1 0 Yakecan 2 $50 million Worldwide 42 20 13 Nanmadol 1,316 >$60.6302 billion Please point out the decade YOU BELIEVE "went quiet." Edited January 24, 2023 by robosmith Quote
Rebound Posted January 24, 2023 Report Posted January 24, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, reason10 said: o: September 23, 1846 p: November 13, 1846 Neptune 13th Planet (1846)[a] 8th Planet (1851) Galle and Le Verrier[29][30] o: October 10, 1846 p: November 13, 1846 Triton Neptune I Lassell[31] o: September 16, 1848 p: October 7, 1848 Hyperion Saturn VII Bond, Bond,[32]Lassell[33] 1850s o: October 24, 1851 Ariel Uranus I Lassell[26] Umbriel Uranus II 1870s o: August 12, 1877 Deimos Mars II Hall[34][35][36] o: August 18, 1877 Phobos Mars I 1890s o: September 9, 1892 p: October 4, 1892 Amalthea Jupiter V Barnard[1][37] i: August 16, 1898 o: March 17, 1899 Phoebe Saturn IX Pickering[38][39] Those are the time lines for the discoveries of the planets I mentioned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_discovery_of_Solar_System_planets_and_their_moons You provided a list of MOONS, not planets. You shouldn’t be teaching children if you can’t read a simple table. The only planet on your list is Neptune. As I explained, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Saturn and Jupiter are easily visible with the naked eye and have been known for thousands of years. Venus is brighter than any star in the sky by relative magnitude and is so bright that it will cast a shadow on a moonless night. But Jupiter, Mars and Saturn are also very bright and easy to see if you’ve got decent vision. Hint: Mars is the red one. Edited January 24, 2023 by Rebound 1 Quote @reason10: “Hitler had very little to do with the Holocaust.”
Michael Hardner Posted January 24, 2023 Report Posted January 24, 2023 1 hour ago, Hodad said: Whereas there is almost no sentiment to the contrary. Legitimate scientists that are cited published most of their work more than 20 years ago. There was a turnaround in temperatures predicted, which obviously did not happen. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
taxme Posted January 25, 2023 Report Posted January 25, 2023 On 1/23/2023 at 3:24 PM, reason10 said: And this is from a major corporation that the Democrats probably IGNORE when it comes to tax laws. https://www.foxnews.com/media/davos-speaker-one-billion-people-stop-eating-meat-innovation-environment Davos speaker calls for one billion people to 'stop eating meat' for 'innovation' and the environment Siemens AG chairman said the future will bring proteins that are zero carbon, healthier and tastier than meat A speaker at the World Economic Forum (WEF) called on one billion people to "stop eating meat" to combat climate change. "If a billion people stop eating meat, I tell you, it has a big impact. Not only does it have a big impact on the current food system, but it will also inspire innovation of food systems," Siemens AG Chairman Jim Hagemann told the WEF crowd in Davos, Switzerland, on Wednesday. He was "inspired" by his 24-year-old daughter who asked him how he could advocate for "zero carbon value chains" and still eat meat products. To bring you up to speed on this ignorant hack, here are the talking points: 1. There is no climate change. (For climate change, there has to be MAJOR changes in local weather conditions, which is the very definition of climate change) 2. Termites produce more C02 in the atmosphere than all human activity combined. 3. The largest concentration of greenhouse gasses (which keeps the surface of the earth from resembling the surface of the moon) is WATER VAPOR, which is 97 percent of all greenhouse gasses. (Makes sense, since THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH IS WATER). Only 29 percent of the ENTIRE surface of the earth is land. (including continents and islands) https://bettermeetsreality.com/how-much-land-is-there-on-earth-what-is-it-used-for/ 4. Out of that 29 percent, HALF of that is used for ALL agriculture. (Growing food.) That means 14.5 percent of the earth's land surface produces ALL agriculture, FEEDING EVERYONE. https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture Out of that 14.5 percent, 77 percent of that is dedicated to cattle production. That means ELEVEN PERCENT OF THE ENTIRE EARTH'S SURFACE IS DEDICATED TO RAISING MEAT. The numbers don't lie. But that retard from Siemens (who I guarantee you has a succulent T-bone steak every night for dinner) somehow thinks 11 percent of the earth's surface is somehow outpacing the 97 percent of all greenhouse gasses and somehow changing the climate. When the WEF globalist elite ilk and our butt kissing politicians decide that they will eat bugs only instead of meat, well, that would help out a lot for the climate. There are a hell of a lot of globalists and their supporters out there that if they would stop eating meat and start eating bugs, then the planet could be saved from HA-HA climate change. Just leave the meat for the peasants. But we should all know by now that it will be meat for the elite and bugs for the peasants. The globalist ilk will be flying around the world in their private gas guzzling private jets and they will still be driving their gas guzzling hummers. Like covid 19, climate change is just another radical pile of nonsense and sadly many fools out there will do as they are told. If you want to start eating bugs, live in a cashless society, and be able to ride a bicycle to work one day, then just continue to sit back and do nothing. That is just what the globalists and our useless politicians want us to do. Just like the John Kennedy assassination, the Twin Towers, covid 19, and now climate change they were all just part of a global conspiracy of many conspiracies that goes on every day in the world. Tomorrow, the globalists, our politicians, and the MSM will soon have another crises that they will create in order to try and keep us peasants on their hook. Quote
Aristides Posted January 25, 2023 Report Posted January 25, 2023 Of course he is right but I still like meat. What to do? Quote
Aristides Posted January 25, 2023 Report Posted January 25, 2023 7 hours ago, reason10 said: o: September 23, 1846 p: November 13, 1846 Neptune 13th Planet (1846)[a] 8th Planet (1851) Galle and Le Verrier[29][30] o: October 10, 1846 p: November 13, 1846 Triton Neptune I Lassell[31] o: September 16, 1848 p: October 7, 1848 Hyperion Saturn VII Bond, Bond,[32]Lassell[33] 1850s o: October 24, 1851 Ariel Uranus I Lassell[26] Umbriel Uranus II 1870s o: August 12, 1877 Deimos Mars II Hall[34][35][36] o: August 18, 1877 Phobos Mars I 1890s o: September 9, 1892 p: October 4, 1892 Amalthea Jupiter V Barnard[1][37] i: August 16, 1898 o: March 17, 1899 Phoebe Saturn IX Pickering[38][39] Those are the time lines for the discoveries of the planets I mentioned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_discovery_of_Solar_System_planets_and_their_moons FFS did you even read the link you posted Quote Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn were identified by ancient Babylonian astronomers in the 2nd millennium BC.[7] They were correctly identified as orbiting the Sun by Aristarchus of Samos, and later in Nicolaus Copernicus' heliocentric system[8] (De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, 1543) Quote
Infidel Dog Posted January 25, 2023 Report Posted January 25, 2023 (edited) 5 hours ago, Rebound said: You’re just making this up. The reality is that glaciers on Antarctica and Greenland, and interior glaciers as well, are all melting at extreme rates, which will increase sea level. This will make hurricanes even more destructive to the coasts. The NOAA has been tracking both glaciers and the seasonal extents of the Arctic ice caps for decades, and the warming trend is very clear. And it is dangerous to humankind. The reason you don’t believe this is simple: You don’t WANT to believe it. Your TEAM doesn’t want to believe it. It’s part of your social identity. You can’t be on the TEAM if you merely believe these basic scientific facts. AND IT WILL HURT YOU AND YOUR FAMILY ONE DAY. Liberals aren’t saying these things to “win.” I don’t win any more than anyone else. The simple truth is that we need to accelerate our use of renewable electricity generation and transition quickly to electric vehicles. Currently the sea level rise is about 7 inches per hundred years. That can be easily adapted to. When exactly were you expecting to see this massive flooding of the coast land caused by this Greenland/Antarctic glacial melt? We've been hearing these scare stories since Gore. Who by the way bought ocean front property with his global warming windfall money. As did say another true believer of the the democrat party named Biden with wherever his found millions came from. Oh yeah, and Obama. What do they know about Greenland/Antarctic melt that they don't fear drowning in their new multi million dollar beach bungalows? Edited January 25, 2023 by Infidel Dog Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 25, 2023 Report Posted January 25, 2023 21 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said: Currently the sea level rise is about 7 inches per hundred years. That can be easily adapted to. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says: "Sea level along the U.S. coastline is projected to rise, on average, 10 - 12 inches (0.25 - 0.30 meters) in the next 30 years (2020 - 2050), which will be as much as the rise measured over the last 100 years (1920 - 2020)."https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/sealevelrise-tech-report.html Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Infidel Dog Posted January 25, 2023 Report Posted January 25, 2023 We've been hearing scary climate predictions since the 80s. None of them ever happen. If models could really predict the future modelers would quit the modeling game and make a killing at the track. At current rate of sea level rise the oceans are rising at a rate of 7 inches per 100 years. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 25, 2023 Report Posted January 25, 2023 19 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said: 1. We've been hearing scary climate predictions since the 80s. None of them ever happen. 2. If models could really predict the future modelers would quit the modeling game and make a killing at the track. 3. At current rate of sea level rise the oceans are rising at a rate of 7 inches per 100 years. 1. If you cherry pick the crazy ones, as often happens, and quote those back then yes they don't happen. I looked at a few sources - not blogs but research organizations have indicated that while temperature predictions are aligning, sea level rise is outpacing predicitions. 2. You CAN make a killing at the track. Bet the favourite to show. You're welcome. 3. What is your cite on that one ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Infidel Dog Posted January 25, 2023 Report Posted January 25, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: 1. If you cherry pick the crazy ones, as often happens, and quote those back then yes they don't happen. I looked at a few sources - not blogs but research organizations have indicated that while temperature predictions are aligning, sea level rise is outpacing predicitions. First, on the track...you don't have a clue what you're talking about and I'm not getting into why I do, but you should take my word for it. It's one of the four five topics I know more than the average guy about. Betting the favourite to show will give you a pleasant Sunday at the track where you might make enough to buy yourself a cheese burger and a beer. And if you lose it won't be enough to hurt. That's not the way professionals bet though and they are around. Too bad you're not R&R I'd tell you to take out a second mortgage and take your genius idea to the track to get rich. Now on sea level rise... If you use the last hundred years of real world data you're going to get Six years per century to Eight using a period from 1993 . At one time I used to just see 7 per century as the estimate of current rise but those seem to have disappeared. Nevertheless 6 to 8 remains seven as far as I'm concerned. Edited January 25, 2023 by Infidel Dog Quote
Recommended Posts
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.