Brr
- Thread starter us56456712
- Start date
Help Support Rat Rod Bikes Bicycle Forum:
And of course, mixed in with the speeders are those who approach a side street uphill at 3 mph and end up sideways unable to make it, or even go back down, blocking the way and forcing others to stop.Ain't it the truth. We have a couple of nearby interstates with increased 70 mph speed limits and some go much faster, and they don't let bad weather slow them down.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2013
- Messages
- 4,295
- Reaction score
- 9,472
My neighbor. The snow on his roof is up to his waist and it's not even winter yet. They guy across the road shoveled his off about 10 days ago.
absolutely crazy 
MattiThundrrr
Rattus All Terrainus
Yeppers, odd climate patterns, including unusual winters, are the new normal. And unusual is just the start.
Although people tend to use these terms interchangeably, global warming is just one aspect of climate change. “Global warming” refers to the rise in global temperatures due mainly to the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. “Climate change” refers to the increasing changes in the measures of climate over a long period of time – including precipitation, temperature, and wind patterns.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2013
- Messages
- 4,295
- Reaction score
- 9,472
The weather man said we are having a March weather pattern right now, warm for this time of year. Because we had a record early snow there is still plenty of that but it is dirty looking and mostly knee deep and icy. It was too mushy to ride a bike in but today it is 32F and just like an ice rink so I enjoyed riding my ice bike. Hard today and not mush.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2013
- Messages
- 4,295
- Reaction score
- 9,472
Grrrr
I get annoyed when a weather report declares a day the hottest or coldest in recorded history. We aren't talking 1000s of years here...recorded history for weather temps essentially started in the 1850s .
.
MattiThundrrr
Rattus All Terrainus
Dude, that's 170 years. 62,092 days. If you entered a race with 62,092 competitors and won, would you be "meh" about it? This is serious, you might be annoyed about it because it's happening so often. There were 820 natural catastrophes in 2019, slightly below the previous year but well above the long-term average of 520. Hurricanes, wildfires and floods cost the world $150 billion in 2019 and losses for business and the economy are only expected to increase, because of a decade-long rise in natural catastrophes with direct links to climate change.
Last edited:
MattiThundrrr
Rattus All Terrainus
Reading the history of apocalyptic prediction is good for a few laughs.
"After his 1260 prediction failed, the followers of Joachim of Fiore rescheduled the end of the world to 1290 and then again to 1335."
"The same astrologers who predicted the deluge of 1 February 1524 recalculated the date to 100 years later after their first prophecy failed"
At least there'll be a schedule...
This guy: "Sabbati Zevi proclaimed that the Messiah would come during that year. Later claimed to be the Messiah. Following his failed prediction of 1648, Zevi recalculated the end of the Earth for 1666"
"Christopher Columbus claimed that the world was created in 5343 BCE, and would last 7000 years. Assuming no year zero, that means the end would come in 1658" Science!
Also science, 1780 edition (this one is a little familiar):
"The sky turning dark during the day was interpreted as a sign of the end times. The primary cause of the event is believed to have been a combination of smoke from forest fires, a thick fog, and cloud cover."
Maybe I shouldn't say this is the end of the everything...
"After his 1260 prediction failed, the followers of Joachim of Fiore rescheduled the end of the world to 1290 and then again to 1335."
"The same astrologers who predicted the deluge of 1 February 1524 recalculated the date to 100 years later after their first prophecy failed"
At least there'll be a schedule...
This guy: "Sabbati Zevi proclaimed that the Messiah would come during that year. Later claimed to be the Messiah. Following his failed prediction of 1648, Zevi recalculated the end of the Earth for 1666"
"Christopher Columbus claimed that the world was created in 5343 BCE, and would last 7000 years. Assuming no year zero, that means the end would come in 1658" Science!
Also science, 1780 edition (this one is a little familiar):
"The sky turning dark during the day was interpreted as a sign of the end times. The primary cause of the event is believed to have been a combination of smoke from forest fires, a thick fog, and cloud cover."
Maybe I shouldn't say this is the end of the everything...
I would be 'meh' if I won a competition against a half dozen local competitors and was then declared World Champion. Too small of a sample to make that claim remotely true.
170 years is .000004% of the Earth's existence.
170 years is 1.4% of Civilization.
170 years is ~2.4% of recorded history.
Too small of sample size to support the claims that are made.
In addition, the quality of the data isn't the same as a 150…100…50 years ago. We have weather satellites that map temperatures all over the planet regardless of whether any one lives there or not. 150 years ago, there wasn't a guy stationed every square mile with a thermometer and a notebook tracking every high and low
.The Middle East and Saharan Africa weren't always just giant sand boxes...but they became sand boxes long before industrialization.
We had a tornado a few years ago strike a town ~40miles north of us. I was blown away...I've lived in Oregon nearly 50 years and never heard of a tornado! Well, a little research turned up the tidbit that Oregon averages 2-3 tornadoes a year. Usually on the Eastern half of the state that is vast, and very lightly populated. Most happen without a single witness...but, now we have the eyes in the sky, and they miss nothing
.
This is a funny take on it, but much like your end of times info...the climate doomsday folks (I'm talking credentialed, at one time respected, scientists...not complete whack-jobs) have been constantly moving the goal posts.
They were also basing their estimations on the climate and weather data they had, the contemporary situation (in terms of population demands, agriculture, consumption, pollution, etc.) that has changed subsequently in many ways nobody could predict, and using their old technology to predict something with a simply incredible number of variables (look at the variables a sniper uses just to make a shot a few thousands yards then multiply that on a global level and add in far more variables and long term trends with incomplete data, never mind that we don't even have the quantum computers that would maybe have a chance of undertaking this with data that might still be incomplete and might be missing some factor(s) that nobody's thought of yet). Someone interested in the truth re-evaluates theory based on changing evidence and that's why climate models and predictions have changed (though, really, it's been fairly consistent on a macro level). A person locked into a belief regardless of the change in evidence (or completely ignoring it) is not someone I would ever listen to because they're not looking for the truth, they're looking for control. Also, climate models don't rely purely on weather reports (as they're not the same thing and they do incorporate weather data predating the 19th Century in terms of localized records from earlier sources, like the logs of ship captains, monks, and lighthouse keepers to see a trend and refine models), they use historical, archaeological, and geological evidence from core samples and rock strata, plus probably some things I don't even know about. I'm nowhere near 170 years old, but I've still observed quite a change over my lifetime—especially in the last 20 years—with a shift of seasons and more extreme weather in New England. With the constant breaking of records globally and locally that had previously stood for decades becoming almost annual, I'd say that change isn't contained to New England. Even the Pentagon recognizes climate change (both direct and indirect effects) as one of the greatest threats they face in spite it being counter to the Executive branch's official policy because the military has to deal with facts to predict likely futures that they need to plan ahead for and prioritize, not politics and pleasing mega donors with sizable interests in maintaining their profitable status quo. It's not the climatologists that are the ones rolling in money.
There is no doubting climate change. Much of the world was covered in ice 12000 years ago. There is definitely a big heating/cooling cycle...as well as many shorter heating/cooling cycles within the big one. The question is...are these heating/cooling cycles affected by the actions of mankind. If so, by how much. If so, by how much can we reverse/halt/slowdown through additional actions. I don't think the first has been definitively answered...and we wouldn't know if it had because that kind of information (whichever direction) is above our paygrades (global warming/coooling/climate change is big money business and big power business).
The movements being pushed are ludicrous...electric cars being pushed on to a public that already has borderline power grid capacity that is SHRINKING every year. The Green New Deal that after analysis will cost each US Citizen ~$75k the first year and ~$65k thereafter to sustain it...anyone want to chime up what the average income is in the US? Hint, it is below $75k...it is below $65k.
The climate is definitely different than when I was a kid (not much...I remember more lightning storms, more rain, cooler summers and warmer winters). But what does that really mean. The climate has been changing constantly for as long as we know (as mentioned, histories, archaeology, geology...all agree...stuff changes). Whole civilizations have been brought down by fluctuations in climate.
The movements being pushed are ludicrous...electric cars being pushed on to a public that already has borderline power grid capacity that is SHRINKING every year. The Green New Deal that after analysis will cost each US Citizen ~$75k the first year and ~$65k thereafter to sustain it...anyone want to chime up what the average income is in the US? Hint, it is below $75k...it is below $65k.
The climate is definitely different than when I was a kid (not much...I remember more lightning storms, more rain, cooler summers and warmer winters). But what does that really mean. The climate has been changing constantly for as long as we know (as mentioned, histories, archaeology, geology...all agree...stuff changes). Whole civilizations have been brought down by fluctuations in climate.
MattiThundrrr
Rattus All Terrainus
Do all those old historical records show any wildfires that killed over half a billion animals in a month? How about all the unnoticed hurricanes in NYC in the last hundred seventy years? If you deny the human impact on climate, you are burying your head in the sand.
This is from NASA
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
"Temperature data showing rapid warming in the past few decades, the latest data going up to 2018. According to NASA data, 2016 was the warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. The 10 warmest years in the 139-year record all have occurred since 2005, with the five warmest years being the five most recent years. "
Ten warmest in 170 seems more like a champion, no?
Yes, "quality of the data isn't the same as a 150…100…50 years ago", that's why we know that this is happening. To claim that we were less capable before, and that's why we don't know now doesn't really make sense
This is from NASA
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
"Temperature data showing rapid warming in the past few decades, the latest data going up to 2018. According to NASA data, 2016 was the warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. The 10 warmest years in the 139-year record all have occurred since 2005, with the five warmest years being the five most recent years. "
Ten warmest in 170 seems more like a champion, no?
Yes, "quality of the data isn't the same as a 150…100…50 years ago", that's why we know that this is happening. To claim that we were less capable before, and that's why we don't know now doesn't really make sense
