extreme weather forecast

Would a flat earther believe in the extreme weather forecast like hurricanes, storms, floods, heatwaves, etc. that have the calculations done with earth curvature, earth's rotation, and the force of gravity in it? What does a flat earther do when NOAA or the MET office warns of Hurricanes or Heat waves? Do they ask the public not to believe the weather forecast agencies because the numerical and mathematical models have everything that flat earthers are trying to refute?

When a hurricane is heading my way I stock up on food, water, and batteries.

It'd be pretty easy to fake; come up with a method for FE weather modeling, find predictions, then work backwards to find the model for an RE that would provide similar results. Either way, if you live in a hurricane area, you stock up if there's a warning, no questions asked. If it doesn't hit you, now you have groceries for the next month or so.

It'd be pretty easy to fake; come up with a method for FE weather modeling, find predictions, then work backwards to find the model for an RE that would provide similar results. Either way, if you live in a hurricane area, you stock up if there's a warning, no questions asked. If it doesn't hit you, now you have groceries for the next month or so.

And where could we find the codes of these FE models? Do the FE scientists have a public github repository for those? Why do they not publish scientific papers on how the RE models have been reverse engineered to duplicate results from FE models?

And where could we find the codes of these FE models? Do the FE scientists have a public github repository for those? Why do they not publish scientific papers on how the RE models have been reverse engineered to duplicate results from FE models?

You wouldn't? Why would they give the public access to any of those things if they're trying to keep the conspiracy going?

You wouldn't? Why would they give the public access to any of those things if they're trying to keep the conspiracy going?

Weather prediction is a multiple 100+ thousand person task.

The amount of people onto the secret is actually, 7 Billion, minus a few people who we are fooling.

I recommend round Earth believers to get themselves a good flat map (Fact is, all maps are Flatty maps). You can then track hurricanes as they approach your area.

I am also experienced with hurricane preparation and survival. The water, food, batteries and flat map are essentials in the survival kit.

People do know that globes are sold in toy stores for all the right reasons (fakery), so delegate those to the children for play while the adults consult maps.

Would a flat earther believe in the extreme weather forecast like hurricanes, storms, floods, heatwaves, etc. that have the calculations done with earth curvature, earth's rotation, and the force of gravity in it? What does a flat earther do when NOAA or the MET office warns of Hurricanes or Heat waves? Do they ask the public not to believe the weather forecast agencies because the numerical and mathematical models have everything that flat earthers are trying to refute?

Oh hey.

Guess what? The climate change scientists often deliberately suppress data that contradicts their theory, making weather appear far more extreme than it actually is.

https://www.voanews.com/a/un-panel-to-investigate-claims-climate-change-scientists-suppressed-data-78607887/416199.html

Suppose I wanted to force people to buy my damned electric cars and build more goddamned solar panels (bulldozing thousands of trees to make room, as they tried to do in my area).  I claim that the average temperature is going up, up, up, by removing days where the temperature is lower or altering the results. The average is changed and climate fanatics say, "See? See?!? We told you."

Only, they've been wrong for 50 years. Kinda. Sorta.





Blue steam? And where's this ice age?





Looks like they keep pushing back the date.



Cooling trend?



Nope.



Warming trend?



Nope.



"Children won't know what snow is..."



But it's also gonna be super-cold, apparently.



And so on.

Purveyors of Gloom have been wrong for years, and will continue to be wrong.

I recommend round Earth believers to get themselves a good flat map (Fact is, all maps are Flatty maps). You can then track hurricanes as they approach your area.

Fun fact, some people live in the southern hemisphere.

We dont get hurricanes.

The flat earth is completely unworkable with a Southern Hemisphere. Not many flatties here.

Quote from: oceanographer_rai on June 06, 2023, 07:58:55 AM

Would a flat earther believe in the extreme weather forecast like hurricanes, storms, floods, heatwaves, etc. that have the calculations done with earth curvature, earth's rotation, and the force of gravity in it? What does a flat earther do when NOAA or the MET office warns of Hurricanes or Heat waves? Do they ask the public not to believe the weather forecast agencies because the numerical and mathematical models have everything that flat earthers are trying to refute?

Oh hey.

Guess what? The climate change scientists often deliberately suppress data that contradicts their theory, making weather appear far more extreme than it actually is.

https://www.voanews.com/a/un-panel-to-investigate-claims-climate-change-scientists-suppressed-data-78607887/416199.html

Suppose I wanted to force people to buy my damned electric cars and build more goddamned solar panels (bulldozing thousands of trees to make room, as they tried to do in my area).  I claim that the average temperature is going up, up, up, by removing days where the temperature is lower or altering the results. The average is changed and climate fanatics say, "See? See?!? We told you."

Only, they've been wrong for 50 years. Kinda. Sorta.





Blue steam? And where's this ice age?





Looks like they keep pushing back the date.



Cooling trend?



Nope.



Warming trend?



Nope.



"Children won't know what snow is..."



But it's also gonna be super-cold, apparently.



And so on.

Purveyors of Gloom have been wrong for years, and will continue to be wrong.

It appeared to me that you doubt the capability of current numerical and theoretical models of the current Earth System that earth scientists in NOAA (in the US), MET office (in the UK), and Bureau of Meteorology(in Australia) use. Or similar models that people in academia use. There are several such models, perhaps around a hundred, but you can easily get the codes of such models, which are publicly available. Here is one of them in this link. https://github.com/ESCOMP/CESM  Please try using it.

These models may not accurately predict a far future in the order of decades because the system is non-linear. The solution of mathematical models of non-linear systems depends on the initial and boundary conditions. Even a tiny deviation of the boundary and initial condition will provide diverging solutions. For an earth system model to accurately predict, we should be able to measure the variables like temperature, wind velocity, ocean surface temperature, earth's elevation, etc., with extremely high accuracy. We may need measurements every 1 meter on the earth's surface every 1 hour, which is impossible with current technology. So what do the scientists do? They take the measurements at the highest resolution of space and time, give them as boundary and initial conditions to these models, and try to forecast the future. These forecasts are very reliable, approximately up to 10 days ahead. The forecast is more reliable if it is for more near time. The 1-hour weather forecast is more reliable than the 7-day forecast.

If you want to see if the measurements are available for the public to use, they are. Here is one of the hundreds of thousands of repositories. https://marine.copernicus.eu/access-data

But why do the scientists talk about the climate (not weather) of decades and millennials later?
The same models I talked about earlier are run by nudging the initial and boundary conditions over a wide range, and they obtain thousands of solutions (forecasts) for decades and millenniums. They take the ensemble average, use statistical tools and provide the most probable forecast for such time.

Such decade and millennial forecasts may be off in time, space, or magnitude. For, eg if the warming was predicted after 50 years, it may happen after 40 or 60 years. If the warming was predicted in the tropics, it might happen in the subtropics. If the warming of 5 degrees was predicted, a warming of 4 degrees or 6 degrees is possible.

Predicting climate is somewhat like trying to answer how many heads you would get if you tossed a coin 100 times. The scientists are just saying it is most likely to get 45 to 55 heads if you toss a coin 100 times. They also acknowledge that you cannot say with 100% certainty that you would get 50 heads if you tossed a coin 100 times. But the most likely number is indeed 50, with 49 and 51 being slightly less likely. The least probable result is getting all 100 heads or all 100 tails. 

I find none of your arguments enough for you to reach your conclusion that the earth is flat. There remain several questions and ambiguities. For example, what is the height of the sky? Is the height of the sky and the cloud the same? Are you trying to say the tropopause? This has been a trivial question for the scientific community today; please google the formation of clouds and their types. This will provide you with the threads to several pieces of literature. Despite all that, thank you for the drawings and cartoons. Also, showing the materials that show the disagreement of a few scientists.

It appeared to me that you doubt the capability of current numerical and theoretical models of the current Earth System that earth scientists in NOAA (in the US), MET office (in the UK), and Bureau of Meteorology(in Australia) use. Or similar models that people in academia use. There are several such models, perhaps around a hundred, but you can easily get the codes of such models, which are publicly available. Here is one of them in this link. https://github.com/ESCOMP/CESM  Please try using it.

These models may not accurately predict a far future in the order of decades because the system is non-linear. The solution of mathematical models of non-linear systems depends on the initial and boundary conditions. Even a tiny deviation of the boundary and initial condition will provide diverging solutions. For an earth system model to accurately predict, we should be able to measure the variables like temperature, wind velocity, ocean surface temperature, earth's elevation, etc., with extremely high accuracy. We may need measurements every 1 meter on the earth's surface every 1 hour, which is impossible with current technology. So what do the scientists do? They take the measurements at the highest resolution of space and time, give them as boundary and initial conditions to these models, and try to forecast the future. These forecasts are very reliable, approximately up to 10 days ahead. The forecast is more reliable if it is for more near time. The 1-hour weather forecast is more reliable than the 7-day forecast.

If you want to see if the measurements are available for the public to use, they are. Here is one of the hundreds of thousands of repositories. https://marine.copernicus.eu/access-data

But why do the scientists talk about the climate (not weather) of decades and millennials later?
The same models I talked about earlier are run by nudging the initial and boundary conditions over a wide range, and they obtain thousands of solutions (forecasts) for decades and millenniums. They take the ensemble average, use statistical tools and provide the most probable forecast for such time.

Such decade and millennial forecasts may be off in time, space, or magnitude. For, eg if the warming was predicted after 50 years, it may happen after 40 or 60 years. If the warming was predicted in the tropics, it might happen in the subtropics. If the warming of 5 degrees was predicted, a warming of 4 degrees or 6 degrees is possible.

Predicting climate is somewhat like trying to answer how many heads you would get if you tossed a coin 100 times. The scientists are just saying it is most likely to get 45 to 55 heads if you toss a coin 100 times. They also acknowledge that you cannot say with 100% certainty that you would get 50 heads if you tossed a coin 100 times. But the most likely number is indeed 50, with 49 and 51 being slightly less likely. The least probable result is getting all 100 heads or all 100 tails. 

If scientists are taking (relatively) rough measurements as absolute for predictions, then that's bad science. And also, not how weather forecasting works. The way forecasts work is that rather than one set of data, you plug in a bunch of data with minor variances. Wind speed is a bit higher in this one, in this one it rained an extra 1/8th of an inch. Then this data is aggregated. That's why you can have someone say "There's an 89% chance of rain." So no, it's not theorizing about flipping a coin, it's flipping a bunch of slightly differently weighted coins, to come to the conclusion that heads is probably about 49% likely to come up.

I do think climate change is real, but these scientists are trying to garner support in the worst way: cherry-picking. They take one simulation from that big batch, and say that this simulation is going to* happen, with that asterisk meaning anything from maybe to it's technically possible. As for the politicians, they're politicians. Lying is expected at this point.

It appeared to me that you doubt the capability of current numerical and theoretical models of the current Earth System that earth scientists in NOAA (in the US), MET office (in the UK), and Bureau of Meteorology(in Australia) use. Or similar models that people in academia use. There are several such models, perhaps around a hundred, but you can easily get the codes of such models, which are publicly available. Here is one of them in this link. https://github.com/ESCOMP/CESM  Please try using it.

No, I doubt the "appeal to experts" fallacy that you seem to use.

Weather people being weather people are right some of the time. But you know, this year, they predicted snow a couple of times in my area. For the seven-day forecast. When it came to the three-day forecast, they had drastically lowered the chances of snow. Almost as if, it's safe to make a crappy forecast as long as it is several days in advance, but the information is only fairly accurate about three days ahead.

https://scijinks.gov/forecast-reliability/

The short answer:
A seven-day forecast can accurately predict the weather about 80 percent of the time and a five-day forecast can accurately predict the weather approximately 90 percent of the time. However, a 10-day—or longer—forecast is only right about half the time.

And this article runs on a (faulty) RE assumption, and is about 10% higher for five day and seven day than I would say. More like 90% for three-day, 80% for five-day, 70% for seven day, and past that, we're operating at crapshoot levels.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2018/05/18/climate-models-accuracy/

What is a Climate Model?

Essentially, climate models are an extension of weather forecasting. But whereas weather models make predictions over specific areas and short timespans, climate models are broader and analyze long timespans.

So how accurate do you think massive climate catastrophe models are? Oh wait, not at all. If weather cannot be predicted over 7 days, then even with analyzing long patterns, there is no way to accurately predict much of anything. Especially when you have bias. Guess what? Climate scientists all have bias towards the conclusion of climate change. So they will always tilt their predictions against the idea that climate goes in cycles and instead push the idea that things are on linear progression towards more extreme.

In 1798 Thomas Robert Malthus famously predicted that short-term gains in living standards would inevitably be undermined as human population growth outstripped food production, and thereby drive living standards back toward subsistence. We were, he argued, condemned by the tendency of population to grow geometrically while food production would increase only arithmetically.

For 200 years, Malthus has been wrong. Nevertheless, his cronies pushed for smaller families. We've seen the result in China with the one-child system. Nowadays, many of China's women are in America. It has trouble filling its schools, and is now trying to adjust by a three-child policy. Dude, just leave it alone. Two children is average, and it works itself out, so long as you don't have woke feminism.

Predictions don't work. They extend probability math into fuzzy areas by belief that trends continue. They don't. Patterns simply don't have the energy to continue indefinitely.

Btw. The weather today predicted only 15% chance of rain. Midway through chores, I decided to pass on mowing the lawn. Now there is rumbling in the sky and it's gotten darker. I think that 15% is probably lowball. And now I hear thunder and see rain. My hunches are better than their "science."

No, I doubt the "appeal to experts" fallacy that you seem to use.

Well, accusations like  "appeal to experts", "claim to be an expert," or "doubt the expert," etc, do lead nowhere. Why not discuss the expert's works? But, I really appreciate you decided to look into NOAA's and Columbia University's websites regarding weather models.

Weather people being weather people are right some of the time. But you know, this year, they predicted snow a couple of times in my area. For the seven-day forecast. When it came to the three-day forecast, they had drastically lowered the chances of snow. Almost as if, it's safe to make a crappy forecast as long as it is several days in advance, but the information is only fairly accurate about three days ahead.

https://scijinks.gov/forecast-reliability/

Quote

The short answer:
A seven-day forecast can accurately predict the weather about 80 percent of the time and a five-day forecast can accurately predict the weather approximately 90 percent of the time. However, a 10-day—or longer—forecast is only right about half the time.

And this article runs on a (faulty) RE assumption, and is about 10% higher for five day and seven day than I would say. More like 90% for three-day, 80% for five-day, 70% for seven day, and past that, we're operating at crapshoot levels.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2018/05/18/climate-models-accuracy/

Quote

What is a Climate Model?

Essentially, climate models are an extension of weather forecasting. But whereas weather models make predictions over specific areas and short timespans, climate models are broader and analyze long timespans.

So how accurate do you think massive climate catastrophe models are? Oh wait, not at all. If weather cannot be predicted over 7 days, then even with analyzing long patterns, there is no way to accurately predict much of anything. Especially when you have bias. Guess what? Climate scientists all have bias towards the conclusion of climate change. So they will always tilt their predictions against the idea that climate goes in cycles and instead push the idea that things are on linear progression towards more extreme.

I can understand your argument that if the numerical models cannot forecast beyond 7 days, why do they use them for forecasting decades and 100 years later? So, let me talk about weather and climate a little bit. Weather is highly dominated by the nature of the fluid being turbulent, which has been one of the hardest problems of classical physics to be solved. But the climate is slightly different, and we can forecast them accurately. For example, we may not be able to tell how much it rains in 10 days accurately, but we can say with 100% certainty that there will be summer followed by autumn, winter, and spring next year. There are weather systems like El Nino and La Nina cycle in the Pacific, which influence the weather of Australia and West America that can be forecasted with very high accuracy. Other examples of such cycles are Artic Oscillation and Madden-Julian Oscillations.,Similarly, there are high-pressure systems and low-pressure systems that bring warm-wet and cold-dry weather. These have been well-identified, and scientists have discovered how these systems work. So, like we know that next summer will be next year but can't pinpoint the highest temperature, we know warm-wet or cold-dry weather is coming to a particular location but not exact rainfall, temperature, and humidity. And I think everyone thinking rationally would agree on this. But yes, how much the intrinsic variabilities due to the turbulent nature of the fluids affect these systems has been an open question in the scientific community, and people are trying to answer it.

Quote

In 1798 Thomas Robert Malthus famously predicted that short-term gains in living standards would inevitably be undermined as human population growth outstripped food production, and thereby drive living standards back toward subsistence. We were, he argued, condemned by the tendency of population to grow geometrically while food production would increase only arithmetically.

For 200 years, Malthus has been wrong. Nevertheless, his cronies pushed for smaller families. We've seen the result in China with the one-child system. Nowadays, many of China's women are in America. It has trouble filling its schools, and is now trying to adjust by a three-child policy. Dude, just leave it alone. Two children is average, and it works itself out, so long as you don't have woke feminism.

Predictions don't work. They extend probability math into fuzzy areas by belief that trends continue. They don't. Patterns simply don't have the energy to continue indefinitely.

Btw. The weather today predicted only 15% chance of rain. Midway through chores, I decided to pass on mowing the lawn. Now there is rumbling in the sky and it's gotten darker. I think that 15% is probably lowball. And now I hear thunder and see rain. My hunches are better than their "science."

I think Chinese women in the US, the Chinese one-child policy, round earth, and weather prediction are unrelated. The one-child policy should not have brought Chinese women to the US, nor did the freedom to have any number of children bring Indian, Bangladeshi, Mexican, or European women to the US. Economics is as chaotic as turbulence, if not less!  So it is hard to pinpoint exactly what policy will bring what to the economy. But, like climate, we can at least forecast the aggregate of what will happen, like raising interest to control inflation. Forecasting has been working for a long time; trying to understand how it works and building better models (weather or economic) is what I think should be the way. Maths gives what it gives, regardless of what the mathematician believes, and I am pretty sure many mathematicians' beliefs are shattered by the maths they do. Some day maths will also shatter the belief of the remaining flat earthers because it has been doing so for centuries. A couple of thousand years ago, everyone was flat earther.

I can understand your argument that if the numerical models cannot forecast beyond 7 days, why do they use them for forecasting decades and 100 years later? So, let me talk about weather and climate a little bit. Weather is highly dominated by the nature of the fluid being turbulent, which has been one of the hardest problems of classical physics to be solved. But the climate is slightly different, and we can forecast them accurately.

Accurately? You clearly didn't take a look at that page's many predictions.

But that's already up, so let's talk about the so-called environmental solutions.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2021/01/11/bill-gates-backed-climate-solution-gains-traction-but-concerns-linger/?sh=2c422d8a793b
A Bill Gates Venture Aims To Spray Dust Into The Atmosphere To Block The Sun. What Could Go Wrong?

Oh wait, isn't that the plot of Snowpiercer?

Oh hey, we need clean energy, but let's bulldoze alot of trees to mine rare earth metals for solar or to supply. Solar power is clean (only it's not). Electric cars are clean, only they're not.

https://news.energysage.com/should-you-cut-down-trees-to-go-solar/
https://www.dw.com/en/tesla-can-cut-down-german-forest-for-gigafactory-court-rules/a-52385115
https://redstate.com/bradslager/2021/12/07/new-report-shows-push-for-electric-cars-is-actually-killing-rainforests-n488088



The land is ravaged to mine for these materials.



Forests are bulldozed to build these stupid solar plants.

And nevermind that trees actually purify the air and regulate temperature. Let's get rid of them to make room for large open plains where we get direct sunlight. If you want to understand why Earth is warming, it has more to do with making way for "green progress" than some guy in the forest burning (gasp) wood. For 2 million years, humans have burnt wood. Other trees know how to break down smoke provided it isn't too much and there aren't too few trees.

Suppose I wanted to force people to buy my damned electric cars and build more goddamned solar panels (bulldozing thousands of trees to make room, as they tried to do in my area).  I claim that the average temperature is going up, up, up, by removing days where the temperature is lower or altering the results. The average is changed and climate fanatics say, "See? See?!? We told you."

For a supposed free thinker, you’re exactly parroting a bunch of talking points and cherry picked bollocks peddled by the fossil fuel lobby.  A multi trillion dollar industry with a very vested interest in casting doubt on the reality of climate change to protect their own business model. 

And so on.

This one is especially funny.  The “500 days to avoid disaster” was the time left to settle the Paris agreement, emphasizing the need for international commitment.  No one ever said that climate disaster was 500 days away.

Presenting that as any kind of failed prediction just shows how full of shit the liars you believe unquestioningly are.

For 2 million years, humans have burnt wood. Other trees know how to break down smoke provided it isn't too much and there aren't too few trees.

Jesus H Christ!
The Papua New Guinean Fore used the same argument about eating their ancestors brains, until it was proven that doing so had bought about Kuru disease.

What's a little Kuru disease between friends?

Anyway, sorry, but this and that do not relate.

"Why not?" you ask. Simple. Kuru disease has a specific set of symptoms:

• Tremors
• Loss of coordination
• Unsteady walk
• Slurred speech
• Mood changes
• Dementia
• Random laughing or crying
• Inability to grasp objects

I also suspect that it is similar to mad-cow disease, in that the whole of the body is not the culprit, just eaing brains (where some of the zombie lore came from).

Meanwhile, burning wood has alleged symptoms... from satellite imagery. In other words, all of this crap came about because someone discovered a hole in the ozone layer. Golly, how could have done that?

Oh wait, it was people from the same gang as NASA, scientists who were in the "South Pole".  But you know, even if we were to accept their crap story, you know what actually affected  this ozone hole? CFCs, not wood burning. That's right, damage to the environment is from modern chemicals, not thousands of years of burning things. London "fog" was indeed from burning coal. But there are cleaner coals than the ones burned in London. In other words, when you burn low quality coal, it gives off creosote through coal tar. Anthracites do not have that, however.

The EPA’s highest-paid employee and a leading expert on climate change was sentenced to 32 months in federal prison Wednesday for lying to his bosses and saying he was a CIA spy working in Pakistan so he could avoid doing his real job.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/climate-change-expert-sentenced-32-months-fraud-says-lying-was-flna2D11768995

Or was he lying? In any case, your government at work. Set up agencies with no oversight, and the employees loaf about and collect money while claiming to be there to save the environment. Truth is, we can do just fine without their intervention and have for centuries. Meanwhile, new chemicals and technology we invent to solve the problems of "climate change" actually do damage to the Earth.

This is verifiable. Were all humans to burn a small amount of gas or wood each day, trees could still turn CO² into oxygen (climate change hysterics have resorted to denying photosynthesis takes place to support their insane theories). Meanwhile, electrics cars (like everything the woke left supports) sound good on paper, but require clearing large tracts of land for energy.

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~emcd/ElectricMadness.pdf

Just where is all this power to come from anyway?
The Climate Change Act requires that by 2050 all gas heating be replaced by
electric heating and all cars be electric. Besides the stupidity of turning huge
amounts of electricity back into heat, clearly no one in government has done the
maths. The results are horrendous!
Electric HGVs anyone?
Drax power station in Yorkshire
4 gigaWatt = 4,000,000 kiloWatt
17 million gas using households @ 30kW
(to replace gas boiler)
17 million chargers for electric cars @ 8kW
38kW
Were these to be run on biomass (woodchips) as 50% of Drax already is,
Plus we will need to dig up every street to lay much bigger cables.
(assuming only one car per household)
all needed at peak domestic demand (5pm-10pm):
38kW × 17,000,000 = 646,000,000 kW
÷ 4,000,000
= 160 Drax sized power stations
this would consume, annually, four times the total annual timber harvest of the USA!

Not only that, you must in turn clear land for mining.

For every tree gone, purifying the air is that much more difficult. Meanwhile, as we burn wood to clear brush, I can clearly tell you that not one tree needs to be burned. You can build a fire with just leaves and branches!

One of us understand how to get energy without mining and clearing large tracts of land. The other is delusional and supports pie-in-the-sky "environmentalism" when it has already failed in California. Or don't you remember that California apparently forced people to stop charging at one point or so? Aside from shortages in gas, no gas station ever halts completely. Nor is quick charging a real thing, as even the fastest takes thirty or forty minutes (and btw ruins the battery). The slowest takes 20+ hours. There were also wildfires in California. You wanna try leaving a fast-moving fire in an area when you run out of energy and have to recharge? Seriously, that's like a dumb decision in a horror movie. If we're equating the fire with the monster, everyone fails to outrun it and gets murdered.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/08/777752175/with-blackouts-californias-electric-car-owners-are-finding-new-ways-to-charge-up

Levee is one of hundreds of thousands of electric car drivers in California, many of whom are caught in a state-wide struggle for electric power. As flames rip through rural and urban areas, utilities are cutting about a million customers off the grid. The blackouts sometimes last for days at a time, forcing some electric car owners to find alternative ways to charge up.

It's an ironic conundrum in a state that's home to more electric cars than any other other. California has just under half of the electric cars in sold in the U.S., according to EV Volumes, a group that tracks electric car sales.

In Levee's case, he didn't expect to be away from his house for so long. Normally, he'd pull into his garage and connect to a solar-powered battery. But that was impossible. Instead, he tried to hit up a nearby public charger that he remembered driving past a couple of times. But when he got there, it was broken.

Dreaded "range anxiety" set in. If he didn't plug in soon, he could end up stranded.

Pie-in-the-sky. Meanwhile, my big scary polluting car makes a few small puffs of smoke, and only if the muffler is bad. Your clean energy (which btw uses power from plants that are anything from clean, such as coal) car knocks out the grid.

Meanwhile, burning wood has alleged symptoms... from satellite imagery. In other words, all of this crap came about because someone discovered a hole in the ozone layer.

You sure love making up BS.
Who said that burning wood was making a hole in the ozone layer?
Burning wood is fairly benign.

Were all humans to burn a small amount of gas or wood each day, trees could still turn CO² into oxygen (climate change hysterics have resorted to denying photosynthesis takes place to support their insane theories).

And more crap.
The question is how much CO2 can these trees handle.
Including not only the CO2 from humans burning a little gas or wood; but also from all the animals and other life which live, consuming oxygen and putting out CO2; the trees which live over night, or during dark enough days that they actually produce CO2.

The trees cannot process all the CO2 currently being produced, so the levels of CO2 are rising.

Just where is all this power to come from anyway?

Plenty of options. Wind, solar, biomass, etc.

I can clearly tell you that not one tree needs to be burned. You can build a fire with just leaves and branches!

And burning the leaves will mean the tree isn't consuming CO2.
Instead, it needs to rebuild all its leaves.
Leaving a stump behind isn't any better than removing the tree.

Quote

Plenty of options. Wind, solar, biomass, etc.

I can clearly tell you that not one tree needs to be burned. You can build a fire with just leaves and branches!

Quote

And burning the leaves will mean the tree isn't consuming CO2.
Instead, it needs to rebuild all its leaves.
Leaving a stump behind isn't any better than removing the tree.

Are deliberately not paying attention or just that stupid?

1. Did you miss the point where they talked about how it would take 4x the yearly lumber of America to supply the electric car usage they listed? The biomass thing would involve redirecting absolutely huge amounts of biomass to supply the power. Ditto for solar or wind. You would have to clear large forests. Here's a fun fact: Plants are sentient. They do more than just convert carbon dioxide. They regulate temperature.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/forest-trees-reduce-global-warming-climate-cooling-carbon
2. So ummm, there's this thing called autumn. Leaves fall off of trees. These leaves fall and are not a part of the tree. Also, storms knock down tree branches without hurting the tree. You can burn those sustainably. You would know this if you were actually exposed to real nature, but it is easy for climate change jackasses to fool you because you live in a Buddha's paradise (e.g. kept away from knowledge of the world in a clean and cloistered area).
https://www.learnreligions.com/the-life-of-the-buddha-449997
And yes, plants DO photosynthesize in the winter.
https://forestsociety.org/something-wild/photosynthesis-winter

“Photosynthesis can happen in plant tissues other than leaves,” as Scott Ollinger, a professor of Natural Resources at UNH tells us. Though it is weather reliant, for example trees “can’t do this if the temperatures are below freezing for extended periods of time.” And those tissues other than leaves he’s talking about? He means bark.

All during fall, the plant is photosynthesizing using its bark. Burning its leaves is just fine. Even if it weren't, you don't seem to understand that some trees are evergreen. I didn't learn about bark photosynthesis, but I sorta knew it anyway.  Even without being told this, I knew for a fact that I wasn't gasping for air when we burned leaves. 

Climate change is a front for rampant immigration (which is blamed on changing temperatures).
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20221117-how-borders-might-change-to-cope-with-climate-migration
Actually, we have seasons. Some are warmer than the previous year. Some are colder. But this isn't an excuse for woke immigration policies.

Consider this: You could support Heifer to give people under hard conditions in other countries working farms. You could kill terrorist regimes like Al Qaeda using the military. You could use Red Cross to help people struggling under disease. Do this enough times, and the immigration requirement goes down. People live peacefully in their own countries and do not need to become immigrants.
Instead our "humanitarian" idea is to take these people (not at all seeking to use them for work or for votes... why, that would be too cynical!) bulldozing virgin forests to house all of them, yet the number of immigrants never goes down because the root cause is never addressed. So as our beautiful country goes from prime forests and farms enough to feed the world by export to fucking Haiti in terms of deforestation, and you slowly gasp for air because of now-legit climate change that you caused, I will enjoy watching from the afterlife as you struggle to breathe from a problem that you and your allies caused.

The actual most devastating thing you can do to the world is not burning fuel. It's cutting down the one thing able to purify it, and have no intention to replant, because you are convinced your "renewable energy" can do it better. The only solar cells that should exist should be placed on already existing structures (rooftops, telephone poles, even trees), never ever bulldozing existing trees

in order to make room for them. And wind turbines need some kind of protective screen around them before I'd even consider them bird-friendly and not a blending device. Like you have around fans.

No? Then stop talking like you're some kinda savior when you have bird blood and tree sap on your hands, you nature killer.

Are deliberately not paying attention or just that stupid?

Or am I paying attention, and you are just that stupid?

1. Did you miss the point where they talked about how it would take 4x the yearly lumber of America to supply the electric car usage they listed?

Did I say that should be the sole fuel source? No.

Here's a fun fact: Plants are sentient.

That isn't a fact. It is more delusional BS from you.

They do more than just convert carbon dioxide. They regulate temperature.

They help regulate temperature, but they don't do it by themselves.

2. So ummm, there's this thing called autumn.

Which varies in effect depending on tree type.
For some trees, it doesn't mean much, and they keep their leaves.
For others, the trees fall off and dye.

But if you are planning on waiting for that, you aren't going to have a good supply.

And yes, plants DO photosynthesize in the winter.

The issue isn't if they do. The issue is how much they do, and therefore how much CO2 they consume, vs how much CO2 the expel from staying alive.

Plants aren't magic that just draw in CO2 and never release it.

Climate change is a front

No it isn't. Climate change is quite clearly demonstrated.

Immigration has nothing to do with the topic unless you just want to claim immigration makes climate change worse.

The actual most devastating thing you can do to the world is not burning fuel. It's cutting down the one thing able to purify it, and have no intention to replant, because you are convinced your "renewable energy" can do it better.

That is highly dependent upon the location.
But if you need power, then solar panels or other renewables can be much better than biomass.

in order to make room for them. And wind turbines need some kind of protective screen around them before I'd even consider them bird-friendly and not a blending device. Like you have around fans.

The big difference is that the wind turbines are driven by the wind, while the fans are powered.

Tree murderer. Bird murderer.

Quit making excuses.

Tree murderer. Bird murderer.

Quit making excuses.

I can't believe you willingly burn dinosaurs just so you don't have to get in an electric box on rails. For shame.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 19, 2023, 04:54:05 AM

Tree murderer. Bird murderer.

Quit making excuses.

I can't believe you willingly burn dinosaurs just so you don't have to get in an electric box on rails. For shame.

I'd rather burn the dinosaurs directly then lie to myself knowing the amount of dinos that were burned to create my massive battery and charge it.

more like a normal weather forecast

When a hurricane is heading my way I stock up on food, water, and batteries.

would that be teh mercator map of african winds heading to florida?

are FE allowed to use mercator?

Dinosaurs are not real.

No dinosaurs are harmed in my burning fossil fuels. Nor do long dead animals mind me using then for fuel.

By electric box on rails, are you referring to a trolley?

Cuz nobody wants to do the trolley problem.

By electric box on rails, are you referring to a trolley?

Cuz nobody wants to do the trolley problem.

Well, if you're in a train, only the conductor has to do the trolley problem. In a car, you'll have to do it too. I'd prefer to let the professional handle it than a teenager who just got their liscense.

I just meant that whole group p of transit. Trains, trolleys, lite-rail, etc.

Dinosaurs were real.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 21, 2023, 05:58:38 PM

By electric box on rails, are you referring to a trolley?

Cuz nobody wants to do the trolley problem.

Well, if you're in a train, only the conductor has to do the trolley problem. In a car, you'll have to do it too. I'd prefer to let the professional handle it than a teenager who just got their liscense.

I just meant that whole group p of transit. Trains, trolleys, lite-rail, etc.

Actually the onlookers also get to do the trolley problem. In some versions, there's some really fat dude who might slow down the trolley. And if we're being honest, those 50 ppl in the main path should stop standing like a sheep herd and scatter.

I think there's the entire matter that the few is usually someone precious like a lover and one's mother, and fifty people you don't know and don't know you, and teachers who suck often use this opportunity to tell students that the "right answer" is some sort of Marxist crap about the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few.

No. No, that's psychotic. Value random strangers, who when COVID hit, all cooperated in keeping you oppressed, and would switch the rails to kill your loved ones were the situation reversed?!? They even told me that. Everyone else in the class volunteered to kill my gf and my mother.

Besides, if the path of least resistance is the same as caring for loved ones, this means the natural thing to do is care for people you care about, and it is somehow artificial (read: murder) to kill loved ones in order to save strangers. If they're all too stupid to get out of the way, especially after the first person in the crowd gets hit, they deserve what they get.

Not to say that the few always matter more, or we'd have alot lower population.

The point of that is to stop calling things in this problem the right answer. And to stop going on streets that have trolleys. Trolleys suck.

Getting rid of electrical boxes like trolleys is the actual right answer.

Alot of trains use gas (or coal) so you can just stop feeding them fuel and they slow. They also don't go downhill like trolleys, so there's no angular momentum.

Trolleys must go, especially since they tend to be in woke cities like San Francisco. This is the way.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on June 06, 2023, 10:34:50 AM

When a hurricane is heading my way I stock up on food, water, and batteries.

would that be teh mercator map of african winds heading to florida?

are FE allowed to use mercator?

Do you think there's an FE superboss telling flat earthers which maps they are allowed to use?