Global Warming is over.

[onesecond]

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs...l-temperature/

Ultimately, even if this is a temporary spike, over a 50-200 year time scale, it very likely that it will be extremely detrimental to human life as we know it in the next 50-80 years, not to mention the rest of the planet, and if we have the ability push it the other way (using tech to adapt the planet to our needs like we do), or not make the situation worse why should we not at least try?

This is what I find crazy, by at least trying we are creating jobs and new technologies and therefor even economically its beneficial. The worst part though is that the earth will be fine at the end of this, the only thing we are doing is killing ourselves.

[roguetoaster]

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

This current iteration of data presentation was organized at the end of the last administration, and similar data sets have been readily available online since around 2004 from NASA.

Basically, while spikes in temp/melting/CO2 are ABSOLUTELY NORMAL over a huge time scale we are clearly seeing a significantly larger spike than usual in the last ~50 years. Could this be temporary, sure. Does it seem likely that it is based on the data we have, no so much.

Remember, we are also in the midst of a normal cyclical spike, the problem is, that spike probably doesn't end for at least a few hundred years.

Ultimately, even if this is a temporary spike, over a 50-200 year time scale, it very likely that it will be extremely detrimental to human life as we know it in the next 50-80 years, not to mention the rest of the planet, and if we have the ability push it the other way (using tech to adapt the planet to our needs like we do), or not make the situation worse why should we not at least try?

[nando]

I was just playing devils advocate here, since I don't think there's anyone else who posts here on this side of the isle in regards to this topic... and it's fun to see what people have to say, but my advocacy has elicited butthurt rather than discourse.

No, you're right, there's nobody spewing climate science denial anywhere on the internet. I hadn't even thought of that. My bad.

I'll just leave this here..

[E30 Wagen]

I can also say that there plenty of evidence contrary to what you believe is true, because there is.

Let's see it.

[MrBurgundy]

Nah. I don't need links, I can just look outside. Arguing with people like you is a waste of time anyway, which is why this thread died. You've pre-decided your conclusions despite tons of evidence to the contrary. I'm sure the record low reservoir levels, water restrictions, dried up lake beds, melted glaciers and extremely dry conditions in the forests resulting in the largest fires in recorded history are caused by *too much* rain. Yep... makes perfect sense.

I can say the same about you? I can also say that there plenty of evidence contrary to what you believe is true, because there is.

It's so easy to just say, "oh, the info is out there, this is a waste of time, blah blah blah." Lot's of people deflect the burden of truth about their own position on the person they're arguing with. Probably, because they're afraid to find out they might be incorrect about things they deeply believe in, or they just don't have anything to refute what's being said. It's an easy way to squash a conversation/argument, because you know, especially in person that they cannot do that and that in this online one, that I'm probably not going to do that either.

Yeah, look out your window and let me know how the climate is changing. Your 40 years of anecdotal evidence is good enough, right?

I was just playing devils advocate here, since I don't think there's anyone else who posts here on this side of the isle in regards to this topic... and it's fun to see what people have to say, but my advocacy has elicited butthurt rather than discourse.

[m3clutch]

m3clutch thanks for bumping this... I miss P&R

I just, miss all the discussion, I've been a lurker since I was a teenager. in 2011, I probably had very little perspective on things...it's crazy how these boards allow us to travel back in time, word for fking word. Just wish the photo would load :P

[roguetoaster]

har har har

yes- rain bad

maybe listen to the song? idk

I haven't spent the time to look into recent weather/wildfire data in the PNW, but I'll take a look, or maybe you've got some reading material for me?

Rain bad, desertification good?

I am ready to fight the near future sand worms so the P&R may flow, but my eyes aren't CGI blue, so I might get eaten.

[nando]

Nah. I don't need links, I can just look outside. Arguing with people like you is a waste of time anyway, which is why this thread died. You've pre-decided your conclusions despite tons of evidence to the contrary. I'm sure the record low reservoir levels, water restrictions, dried up lake beds, melted glaciers and extremely dry conditions in the forests resulting in the largest fires in recorded history are caused by *too much* rain. Yep... makes perfect sense.

[MrBurgundy]

OK. I've lived in the PNW for over 40 years. Let me tell you how many years we had months of insufferable smoke prior to 2015.... the answer is zero. Now it's so common, people think it's normal. No, no, no - it's not normal at all.

Having extreme swings of heavy rain and drought is exactly the point. Trying to blame the worst wildfire years on record, all of which occurred recently, on too much rainfall? give me a break.

Most of southern California has a Mediterranean-like climate, with warm and dry summers, mild and wet winters, where cool weather and freezing temperatures are rare. Southern California contains other types of climates, including semi-arid, desert and mountain, with infrequent rain and many sunny days. Summers are hot or warm, and dry, while winters are mild, and rainfall is low to moderate depending on the area. Although heavy rain can occur, it is unusual. This climatic pattern was alluded to in the hit song "It Never Rains (In Southern California)". While snow is very rare in lower elevations, mountains above 5,000 feet (1,500 m) receive plentiful snowfall in the winter.

har har har

yes- rain bad

maybe listen to the song? idk

I haven't spent the time to look into recent weather/wildfire data in the PNW, but I'll take a look, or maybe you've got some reading material for me?

[roguetoaster]

m3clutch thanks for bumping this... I miss P&R

I don't miss it, but I do long for more content on r3v.

[2mAn]

m3clutch thanks for bumping this... I miss P&R

[nando]

California is usually on fire and hot, so nothing has really changed here.

If it's hot and dry, like it's supposed to be here in socal, we usually have mild fire seasons, but when we get a good year of rain, like 15-20 inches, be ready to see millions of acres burn up w the vegetation that grows in w all the supplied water.

All our major fire seasons come after above average rain fall, followed by more typical winter and we've been having those above average rainy seasons more frequently (past 60 years)

It's more rain, rather than hotter and dryer

in 2012, we had bad fires, since 2011 was above average w rainfall

The terrible fire in malibu 2018 was after an above average 2017 rain season

2020 was also terrible, one of the worst ever and that was after TWO back to back above average rain seasons.

These anomalies cause our "average" rainfall to go up like crazy. Then we have people telling us that, "oh, were under our average another year in a row!" global warming blah blah blah

Yeah, it's actually just not a rainy region.

When looking at yearly rainfall in California, almost no year is close to the 'average' line.

The under average years are much closer to that line then those gnarly years when it rains like crazy.

http://www.laalmanac.com/images3/chart_rainfall_LA_1887_2020.jpg

OK. I've lived in the PNW for over 40 years. Let me tell you how many years we had months of insufferable smoke prior to 2015.... the answer is zero. Now it's so common, people think it's normal. No, no, no - it's not normal at all.

Having extreme swings of heavy rain and drought is exactly the point. Trying to blame the worst wildfire years on record, all of which occurred recently, on too much rainfall? give me a break.

[2mAn]

What Nando was sarcastically saying was that gone are the days in PNW when 88 is hot considering it has been over 100 quite a bit up there.

I was up there ~10 days ago and it was hotter in Seattle than it was in LA...

[MrBurgundy]

ah, back in 2011, when the entire west coast wasn't on fire all summer long, it rained more than 0.20" from June to September, and 88 degrees was considered a hot streak in the PNW..

But don't worry. No warming here!

California is usually on fire and hot, so nothing has really changed here.

If it's hot and dry, like it's supposed to be here in socal, we usually have mild fire seasons, but when we get a good year of rain, like 15-20 inches, be ready to see millions of acres burn up w the vegetation that grows in w all the supplied water.

All our major fire seasons come after above average rain fall, followed by more typical winter and we've been having those above average rainy seasons more frequently (past 60 years)

It's more rain, rather than hotter and dryer

in 2012, we had bad fires, since 2011 was above average w rainfall

The terrible fire in malibu 2018 was after an above average 2017 rain season

2020 was also terrible, one of the worst ever and that was after TWO back to back above average rain seasons.

These anomalies cause our "average" rainfall to go up like crazy. Then we have people telling us that, "oh, were under our average another year in a row!" global warming blah blah blah

Yeah, it's actually just not a rainy region.

When looking at yearly rainfall in California, almost no year is close to the 'average' line.

The under average years are much closer to that line then those gnarly years when it rains like crazy.

http://www.laalmanac.com/images3/chart_rainfall_LA_1887_2020.jpg

[MrBurgundy]

It's been 10 years since this comment was made. Does it still stand ?

Depends who you're talking to- still..

Since r3v is dead af, may as well tarnish my seemly low reputation more so by adding things of little to no value here in P&R hehe.