dseagull

Honest question, which is not in any way accusatory or meant to spark climate debate. First, let me begin with a statement. NOAA AND NHC are now seemingly willing to name storms which up until the mid 90s, would have never been closely watched and/or named. With satellite tech. advancing exponentially, and more funding being allocated towards meteorology in the public sector, this is understandable. However, it is a fact that benign storms that have little impact on any landmass other than PERHAPS a ground swell, and mainly just shipping interests, are now often named. There are plenty of examples of non-comvective swirls being named, only to dissipate within 24 hours. Prior to the 90s, only professionals would ever know of these tropical or extratropical systems. Now to my questions.... Is it disingenuous to use these "named storm" stats within historical data that is used for climatological trends? Correlation and causation are convoluted as a result of "named storm" statistics. I'm sure this is a topic that some people have addressed. Unfortunately, the general population is unaware of this topic. They focus solely on headlines and "scary" numbers and perceived trends. I'd love to hear some feedback, as it's a question my father and I often have discussion about.

Rates finally picked up in Southern Ocean County on Barnegat Bay. Just got back from the marina to check on my tow boats and make sure the 30AMP shore power cords were covered at the terminals.... Now it's time to get my dog ready for another fun bird hunt in the snow. Thinking we will wind up with around 3.5 if these rates continue long enough. Enjoy the day all.

It's an extremely concerning example of the level of propaganda consumption and delusional hysteria. Sadly, climate change is only one facet of this mental health epidemic. Even worse, is that the narrative is ever-changing, and excuses for weather events (whether it's today's snowfall or maybe an above average seasonal snowfall next year,) are easily developed if they don't fit the agenda. It's sad, because many people take the bait, hook/line/sinker...

Coastal ocean County, Barnegat Bay. A balmy 42. Decent gusts to 45 knots. I thought a tree fell on my roof in the middle of the Night. Turns out it was just my dog being a weenie and banging his head on the wall.

Fascinating article. Equally terrifying if it were to verify. Unfortunately, most of us have read and consumed a myriad of similar "scary" articles that have not verified over the past 3-5 decades. While this could be the tipping point, this article is only highlighting one of many potential studies that have resulted in any number of potentially devastating outcomes. This is where sensationalism comes into play. There also exists a tipping point for where people no longer pay attention to every single prediction or publication. CNN is still somewhat mainstream, although part of a dying type of "journalism." Similar to the "boy who cried wolf," many media outlets have overplayed their hands with sensationalism (in an effort to gain clicks or views for advertising profits,) and as a result, reach fewer and fewer members of an audience that is growing skeptical. Having offered that perspective, I will admit that I am inclined to believe that ocean currents and the rate at which gyres are able to reach and maintain stability, PROBABLY have the most rapid and drastic effects on the climate of our earth. Our oceans (as sinks,) and mediums of thermal energy, are responsible for the vast majority of weather on earth. When the red flags go up, we need to invest resources to determine all possible outcomes. This sudden of a climate disaster is more in line with other types of geological extinction events. Many scientists have always theorized that this very scenario is responsible for most of the sudden climate swings, not unlike an impact from a large meteor or other space object. If this sort of cataclysmic even were to verify, there is unlikely any way to prepare for it effectively. The tipping point, would ultimately become an extinction event for a large swatch of the world's population. Or... this could be just another sensational study and article, following a host of others. This doest mean that we should write it off, but rather delve into the scenario, and scrutinize it carefully. It has very meaningful merit, regardless.

Sir, with all due respect... I'm not sure what you are asking me to respond to. You initiated dialogue by responding, "trump lost," to one of my posts. You then went on to insult my intelligence. Immediately after, you either accused me of making statements which I didn't make, or you did not take the time to read my prior posts. This was quickly followed by more insults. Then, you explained why you were "puting me down," by lazily insulting me further. Finally, you purposely attempted to antagonize someone who clearly stated that they no longer wished to have unproductive conversation. Against my better judgment, I will bluntly and politely offer my suggestion to you one final time. Share the transcript of our conversation with someone who you associate with in-person. If you are married, perhaps share it with your wife. You are displaying not only incredibly rude behavior, but you are also incoherent in your attempt to argue against points which I had never posted on this forum. Your attempts to inject politics and political affiliation with my very broad assertions (which I said could be wrong,) are foolish, presumptive, and juvenile. You are displaying multiple levels of detachment from the reality of what I hoped would be a polite conversation. You don't know me. I CERTAINLY DON'T KNOW YOU. I can only judge a complete online stranger by how they choose to conduct themselves and communicate with me. With what I have witnessed thus far, I do not wish to continue a conversation. Politely sir, you seem like you need to address some mental health issues. If I am wrong, you should at least consider treating those who you do not know with a little bit of respect. I am embarrassed for you, but wish you the best.

Again... you seem to be arguing with yourself and pointlessly insulting someone that you do not know. A good way to avoid this (because it will limit opportunities in life,) is to think before you post. Ask yourself if you would converse this way in a face to face situation. You don't know me. I don't know you. It's a psychological phenomenon, the way people tend to communicate with others through their keyboards. Sincerely, good luck.

Good luck sir. Have a nice existence. Address your own internal issues, and try to get past presidents off your mind. Your immediate health is much more important than insulting complete strangers over the internet that are trying to have civil discussions.

...Also, I have stated many times that anthropogenic global warming is real. I argue that it is not the primary driver. I also argue that we cannot allow the solution to these problems to be worse than the problem itself. We can adapt. I'm not sure what your mental state is or what is going on in your life, but you should read closely before replying. You are doing yourself a disservice, allowing your emotions to dictate your words.

Arguing with angry people that are not interested in having conversations is generally a waste of time. I do hold a degree in oceanography, correct. I never insinuated that I am a "scientist," nor did I argue that my views are settled science or absolutely correct. I would suggest that you educate yourself about the carbon cycle that has repeated itself many times since the formation of our planet. Like i said previously, I won't insult you. I wish you the best as a fellow American, and wish you all of the luck over the next few years.

Huh? Trump? What are you even talking about a former president for? Sounds like the man is living in your head rent free. As for the education, I can assure you that I am well educated. I can also assure you that many other scientists that have opposing views are also incredibly educated. In essence, you have proven my point for me. Those who believe climate change is primarily anthropogenic in form, generally seem to insult others with opposing views, rather than discuss the issues with them. To these people, it is "settled science," which quite simply does not exist. It goes against the premise of science. I won't insult you, but I do suggest you diagnose why you mentioned a former president in this forum. It's not a good look, but also a common theme among those who have allowed politics to enter every facet of their lives. You also seem to forget that "fossil fuels" have allowed humans to advance. Without this form of energy, we may still be in the stone age. Convenient facts to omit. We tend to do better as a species when we use facts, rather than emotions to form arguments or have polite debate.

Yes you did. Clearly and concisely, without useless insults. More than likely falling on deaf ears, but well said.

Aren't you supposed to be in a locked and padded room without food and water? I'm supposed to die with my entire generation and "climate denial" (which may be the dumbest descriptor I have ever heard.) Its difficult to have a conversation with individuals who would rather fling insults than have a productive debate.

Proven fact that physical ignition (arson) is responsible for nearly 70 percent of forrest fires. The vast majority of the remainder is mostly caused by humans, neither "climate change" or weather related ignition. According to NJ.gov, 99 percent of forest fires are caused by humans, with 52.9% caused BY ARSON. (Remember, this has risen in recent times... due mostly to social media and traditional media broadcasting "Red flag warnings." There are sick individuals. That's a given. There are also politically motivated individuals. Thankfully, controlled burns are now being conducted in a safer manner and more frequently, to avoid worse wildfires..) Here is a link to the official government site.... https://www.nj.gov/pinelands/infor/educational/curriculum/pinecur/cffnj.htm (I have fought plenty of fires. I have gone to many conferences, concerning the matter. Please do not blame forrest fires on climate change. This argument failed in both the great Australian fires and the recent Canadian fires to a lesser extent, mainly due to the Canadian censorship and lack of free press.) People set fires.... There are many ways to mitigate disasters from wildfires that are willfully ignored. Some governing bodies even propose legislation that all but ensures worse fires and more harm to human life and property. Again, a people problem...not a climate problem. We possess the ability to ensure these wildfire events either do not occur or do not get out of control. Arson will ALWAYS get worse when agendas exist.

Propaganda has been terrifyingly effective since the dawn of mankind. We adapt. ....or we dont... That's science. The cure can't be worse than the problem. For some reason, mankind cannot seem to work past that. Having said that, our biggest enemy is ourselves and division (only second to those who wish to use perceived "crisis" for control.)