• Agree-to-Disagree
    460
    There is a whole fucking video of justification, you complete cockwomble.unenlightened

    Have I touched a sore point?

    I gave plenty of evidence to support my view. Why don't you try to refute my evidence? The answer is obvious, you can't refute my evidence. So you respond with abusive name calling.
  • Agree-to-Disagree
    460
    Scientists use super computers to model the climate.frank

    Frank, I think that you have too much faith in "super computers". "Super computers" run programs that are designed and written by people, possibly scientists. If the people get something wrong then the "super computer" will still give the wrong answer, just like an ordinary computer. But the "super computer" will produce the wrong answer faster.

    What we really need are " super-duper infallible AI genius computers". :grin:
  • frank
    15.7k

    Just because they could be wrong doesn't mean they are wrong.
  • Agree-to-Disagree
    460
    Just because they could be wrong doesn't mean they are wrong.frank

    Just because they could be right doesn't mean they are right.

    I have been in the IT industry for the last 40 years. I have been a programmer, a senior programmer, an analyst, a systems programmer, and for the last 12 years I was responsible for testing software and hardware.

    It is very difficult to make complex computer software bug free. Climate models deal with systems that are complex and chaotic. Because they have many iterations a tiny bug can have a very large effect on the result. There is a lot of uncertainty in climate modelling and climate projections.

    Here is a good introduction to model uncertainty:
    https://www.jbarisk.com/news-blogs/modelling-and-uncertainty-the-extra-dimension
  • javi2541997
    5.8k
    Don't conclude climate change just because you can't think of anything else.frank

    I'm still waiting for answers on why the weather and even the surface and structure of my country have drastically changed in the past decades. As I said before, maybe climate change is not the only issue, but it is obvious that it is a feature that accelerates natural disasters.

    Well, I can't think of another main reason. Most of the studies and articles point to climate change as the cause of why Spain is becoming a desert and summer accelerates desertification. Check out this amazing web page by the government of The Netherlands (@Agree-to-Disagree would say they are wrong too, and we can't trust Dutch offices when they are one of the most advanced nations in the world :lol: ).

    Most of the graphics and studies show an increment in high temperatures and more frequency of extreme events. The red dots are high probability or natural disasters. Valencia has a red dot.

    Large changes in flood frequency mean that what is an extreme event today may become the norm by the end of the century in some locations. The frequency of coastal flooding events is estimated (Fig. 4) to increase by more than a factor of 10 in many European locations, and by a factor of more than 100 or even 1000 in some locations during the 21st century, depending on the emissions scenario.
    What are the climate change impacts in Spain?

    inundaciones.png

    That chart was published in 2020, and look at the mess and disaster of the past week. Just four years later. They predicted it, and they nailed it. Do you still have doubts? @Agree-to-Disagree

    Maps-1354749361.png
  • Agree-to-Disagree
    460
    Do you still have doubts? Agree-to-Disagreejavi2541997

    You posted the following quote from the report:

    Large changes in flood frequency mean that what is an extreme event today may become the norm by the end of the century in some locations. The frequency of coastal flooding events is estimated (Fig. 4) to increase by more than a factor of 10 in many European locations, and by a factor of more than 100 or even 1000 in some locations during the 21st century, depending on the emissions scenario.

    And you said that Valencia has a red dot on the map of "Projected changes in the frequency of coastal flooding".

    Barcelona, which is part of Catalonia, also has a red dot on the map. Both Valencia and Barcelona are on the coast of the Balearic Sea. I couldn't find flood frequency data for Valencia but I did find flood frequency data for Catalonia.

    From 1900 to 2011, 277 flood events, mainly flash floods, were recorded in Catalonia, and 61 of these events caused catastrophic damage.Journal of Hydrology

    From the beginning of 1900 to the end of 2011 is 112 years. Over this time period there were on average nearly 2.5 flood events per year. What would the frequency of flood events be if the frequency increased by a factor of 10? Answer, 25 flood events per year, or just over 2 flood events per month. What would the frequency of flood events be if the frequency increased by a factor of 100 or 1000?

    If we just look at the floods that caused catastrophic damage, there were 61 in 112 years. That is an average of just over 0.5 catastrophic floods per year (1 catastrophic flood every 2 years). What would the frequency of floods that caused catastrophic damage be if the frequency increased by a factor of 10? Answer, just over 5 catastrophic floods per year. What would the frequency of catastrophic floods be if the frequency increased by a factor of 100 or 1000?

    In summary, it appears that the "scientists" are not aware of the historical flood frequency, or they have overestimated the factor by which flood frequency will increase. What do you think about this? Do you believe that flood frequency will increase by a factor of 10 (or 100 or 1000)?
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    I gave plenty of evidence to support my view.Agree-to-Disagree

    You gave none.
  • Agree-to-Disagree
    460
    You gave none.unenlightened

    Perhaps you avoided my evidence because it disagrees with your narrow-minded prejudice. I will repeat my evidence here for you to read. Compare the statistics for the 2024 flood with the statistics for the 1879, 1957, and 1962 floods. There is only 5 years between the 1957 and 1962 floods. All 3 of these historical floods were similar to, or worse than, the 2024 flood.

    Shouldn't we take climate change more seriously from now on after the floods in Valencia (Spain)?javi2541997

    Scientists say climate change made Spanish floods worse

    “No doubt about it, these explosive downpours were intensified by climate change,” said Dr Friederike Otto, from Imperial College London, who leads an international group of scientists who try to understand the role that warming plays in these type of events.
    Matt McGrath - BBC

    It is a pity that "scientists" (including climate scientists) don't do a little bit of research about the history of floods in Spain before they make unproven statements about climate change.

    Background:
    A large number of floods have been recorded in Valencia, from 1321 to 1897. Up to 75 floods are estimated to have taken place in the seven centuries prior to the 1957 flood. This is an average of one flood every 9.33 years.

    For the October 2024 Spain floods:
    - caused the deaths of at least 161 people
    - Chiva saw nearly 500 millimetres (20 in) of rainfall during the day
    - Utiel recorded 200 mm (7.9 in) in rainfall
    - after the catastrophic 1957 flood a new riverbed for the Turia was built. This protected the city of Valencia proper from major damage in the October 2024 flood. But it caused severe flooding in municipalities further south due to a funnel effect.

    The flood of Santa Teresa took place on 15 October 1879:
    - it resulted in more than 1000 deaths and heavy material damage. It is the worst recorded flood in Murcia history
    - the rainfall that caused the flood was extremely heavy. It is estimated that at the head of the Guadalentín 600 mm fell in just one hour

    The 1957 Valencia flood was a natural disaster that occurred on 14 October 1957 in Valencia, Spain:
    - the flood caused the deaths of at least 81 people
    - in Valencia, there was torrential rainfall around midday on the 14th
    - The city as a whole was left without water, gas and electricity and around 75% of commercial and industrial activity was affected. Around 5,800 homes were destroyed, leaving approximately 3,500 families homeless
    - in response to the tragedy, the Spanish government devised and enacted the Plan Sur, which rerouted the city's main river, the Turia.

    The 1962 Vallès floods took place on 25 September 1962:
    - the official death toll was 617, but estimates imply between 800 and 1000 deaths
    - a precipitation of 212 liters per square meter (212 mm rain) occurred during a time period of less than three hours

    They’ll keep their heads in the sand till the bitter end. Like I said: just stupid, stupid people.Mikie

    The big question is, "will Mikie keep his head in the sand after he is shown the truth?" Just like Mikie said, people who ignore the evidence are just stupid, stupid people.
  • frank
    15.7k
    As I said before, maybe climate change is not the only issue, but it is obvious that it is a feature that accelerates natural disasters.javi2541997

    It's not obvious to climatologists. They use climate modeling to determine that anthropogenic global warming is happening. They don't just say, "Oh, it's got to be that." The climate is too complex for simple analysis. That's all I meant.
  • Mikie
    6.7k
    Well, I can't think of another main reason.javi2541997

    Again, why you bother with climate-denying imbeciles is a mystery.

    You can’t think of another reason because there is no other reason. Climate change isn’t true because of modeling, and the patterns we see aren’t due to some tilt of the earth’s axis, or el nino, or clouds, or volcanoes, or anything else people who know nothing about climate science want to claim it is.

    The evidence is overwhelming, for those who are interested in the real world. For those too frightened you face it, motivated reasoning and Dr. Google will be enough to find ways to believe nothing is happening, both generally and specifically.

    Don’t waste time— just get to work trying to replace fossil fuels and help brace for the disasters to come (of which there will be many more, and will only get worse).
  • javi2541997
    5.8k
    The climate is too complex for simple analysis. That's all I meant.frank

    Fair enough. I agree.

    Again, why you bother with climate-denying imbeciles is a mystery.Mikie

    I know. I know. I shouldn't have answered again. But I wanted to try using 'impartial' and 'non-tax-funded climate researchers' to provide a basic fact that climate change is clearly deteriorating, deserting, shaping, and destroying some parts of my country. Although weather studies and climate charts are complex, I personally believe that it is so damn clear the evolution in each graph. Jesus is like denying real life.

    The evidence is overwhelming,Mikie

    Exactly.
  • javi2541997
    5.8k
    Barcelona, which is part of Catalonia, also has a red dot on the map. Both Valencia and Barcelona are on the coast of the Balearic Sea. I couldn't find flood frequency data for Valencia but I did find flood frequency data for Catalonia.Agree-to-Disagree

    I was talking about Valencia, not Barcelona. Clever guy, trying to switch the topic when you feel trapped in your own views. Fine, let's talk about Catalunya and its desertification. But I think it is not worthy to keep up with this, because you would also say that the desertification in Barcelona (they are literally run of water in summer) is not a big deal, and the scientists of the European Commission and the Catalunya government are not entitled to point to climate change for that reason.
  • frank
    15.7k
    I'm sure you're aware that part of Spain's problem is poor agricultural practices. Something similar happened in the USA during the 1930s. What happens is that people get away with over farming and poor irrigation practices until a round of droughts.

    So climate induced drought is only part of the reason Spain is turning into a desert. In the USA, they called it the Dust Bowl.
  • javi2541997
    5.8k
    Yes, frank, I am fully aware of the countless things that the stupid politicians and businessmen did in my country for the last decades. They overexploded farms and soil, reducing lagoons, riverbanks, and springs to zero. This is the problem and effects that can be seen in Andalucía and most of the south of the peninsula. I could say that it was motivated by human factors rather than weather adverse situations.

    Nonetheless, this is part of the past. Farming and agriculture are mainly managed by the European Union. Yet Andalucian folks experience records of high temperatures each year. I think having 47°C in summer in Cordoba is a very serious thing that shows a constant change in our climate, thus climate change.

    On the other hand, it would be unfair to say that Galicia or Aragón had poor agriculture practices, and yet they are also experiencing an important drought. My idea is that desertification in Spain is caused by climate change, but sadly, human reckless management is also guilty. 
  • frank
    15.7k
    My idea is that desertification in Spain is caused by climate change, but sadly, human reckless management is also guilty.javi2541997

    It's both. If you look at the website I cited, it mentions that there are ways to rehabilitate the soil. Desertification is a sign that it's time to go ahead and make those changes. We shouldn't give up just because climate change is underway. The next generation could come up with some genius way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

    Is it something the EU would have to address?
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    “No doubt about it, these explosive downpours were intensified by climate change,” said Dr Friederike Otto, from Imperial College London, who leads an international group of scientists who try to understand the role that warming plays in these type of events.Matt McGrath - BBC

    And there is no doubt about it. The sea is warmer, so more moisture evaporates. There is no doubt. That doesn't mean that every disaster is a record breaker, or else climate change isn't happening. :roll:
  • javi2541997
    5.8k
    Is it something the EU would have to address?frank

    Absolutely. Firstly, because the EU is the only competent authority to address agriculture and farming, and secondly, it is a big problem that affects all EU zone countries equally.
    I remember there was a huge strike of farmers in Spain, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, etc. because of the European bureaucracy and the great amount of taxes they needed to pay. But they turn against the wrong authority. Most of the farmers were protesting in the doors of the Ministry of Agriculture in Madrid, and barely a group of them went to Brussels. I think only a few are really aware of the power of the EU in this issue. 

    The next generation could come up with some genius way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.frank

    I am optimistic about the present and future generations of people. 81% of Spaniards consider climate change, desertification, and CO2 serious issues, and we want to change the situation to better and live in a less polluted country. But I wonder whether we approached this issue too late or not. :meh:
  • frank
    15.7k
    I think only a few are really aware of the power of the EU in this issue.javi2541997

    We have a federal department of agriculture, and it has some authority, but it couldn't stop people from changing their practices. By the way, the US is also over farming its land. Bad news.
  • frank
    15.7k
    I am optimistic about the present and future generations of people. 81% of Spaniards consider climate change, desertification, and CO2 serious issues, and we want to change the situation to better and live in a less polluted country. But I wonder whether we approached this issue too late or not.javi2541997

    This is a case where blaming climate change exclusively is a problem. People need to recognize that the soil can be rehabilitated. Regulations need to change.
  • javi2541997
    5.8k
    This is a case where blaming climate change exclusively is a problem.frank

    Consider, please, that I don't blame climate change exclusively. But I disagree with "Agree-to-Disagree" on the way he approached Valencia's floods. I think the latter is a good example of how we could blame climate change mostly. I don't get why it is hard to accept. I wanted to share the charts and the last-week catastrophe because I thought it could be seen as a good example of climate change. The 2020 chart said that Valencia had a risk of increasing the sea level by 10% by floods, and it is astonishing how that graphic nailed what would happen four years later. That's all.
  • frank
    15.7k

    I see what you're saying. The climatologist I've studied the most said that this century will see more storms and more intense storms. That's a statement of statistics, so the whole century taken as a whole. But there was recently a hurricane here that destroyed several towns in the Appalachian Mountains. There's no record of that ever happening, so everyone is pretty sure it's due to climate change.
  • Agree-to-Disagree
    460
    I was talking about Valencia, not Barcelona. Clever guy, trying to switch the topic when you feel trapped in your own views.javi2541997

    I told you that I couldn't find flood frequency data for Valencia, but I did find flood frequency data for Catalonia

    Both Valencia and Catalonia are on the coast of the Balearic Sea. They are not very far apart, about 303 km. Do you know of any reason why flood frequency would be significantly different between Valencia and Catalonia?
  • Agree-to-Disagree
    460
    And there is no doubt about it. The sea is warmer, so more moisture evaporates. There is no doubt. That doesn't mean that every disaster is a record breaker, or else climate change isn't happening. :roll:unenlightened

    I fully accept that climate-change/global-warming (CC/GW) is happening. I don't accept that you can blame everything on CC/GW. When "scientists" blame CC/GW for something it is often hard to prove or disprove it. Many people accept everything that "scientists" say about CC/GW without questioning it.

    I think that the way that "scientists" blame everything on CC/GW has made many people skeptical about CC/GW. This probably partly explains why more is not being done about CC/GW.
  • Agree-to-Disagree
    460
    The 2020 chart said that Valencia had a risk of increasing the sea level by 10% by floods, and it is astonishing how that graphic nailed what would happen four years later.javi2541997

    Could you please explain what this statement means. In general the rain that falls causing a flood evaporated from the sea in the first place. So the system is a cycle. It would not increase the sea level.
  • Benkei
    7.7k
    Nice tu quoque fallacy there. What a tool you are.
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    https://www.thelancet.com/countdown-health-climate

    Another lamentation for you to download. Or just watch Sir Issac Newton and his pal Paul Beckwith break it all down for you below.


  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    I don't accept that you can blame everything on CC/GW. When "scientists" blame CC/GW for something it is often hard to prove or disprove it. Many people accept everything that "scientists" say about CC/GW without questioning it.

    I think that the way that "scientists" blame everything on CC/GW has made many people skeptical about CC/GW. This probably partly explains why more is not being done about CC/GW.
    Agree-to-Disagree

    Climate scientists have been saying for many many years in response to questions as to whether this or that weather event is caused by climate change, that it is impossible to say on a day to day scale what is or is not the result of climate change. This is obviously so because weather is chaotic and climate is the generalisation of weather. For example, climate talks about prevailing winds, whereas weather talks about the wind today, or tomorrow.

    But this careful talk has not persuaded you, because you have not been listening charitably to understand, but uncharitably to find fault. This is because you are unwilling to face the facts, or are unable to admit you have mistaken things, or you just like to be contrary, or some other motive.

    Your criticisms are without merit and serve no function in this discussion but to divert, confuse and impede the understanding of the readers.
  • Agree-to-Disagree
    460
    Those Who Do Not Learn History Will Think That Today's Climate Is Different To The Past

    New insights from Shakespeare’s England reveal striking parallels to contemporary climate change.

    Unprecedented storms and devastating drought. Flash floods and wildfires ignited by the air’s dry heat. This is the experience for many in our modern world. But it was also the experience for those living amid England’s Little Ice Age.

    While the causes of the climate change of today are well known, and likely different from that of the Little Ice Age, the experiences of living through both events are at times eerily similar.

    In the 16th century, severe rain storms were far more common than cold snaps.

    On Oct. 5, 1570, “a terrible tempest of wind and raine” caused flooding from Lincolnshire to London as rivers overflowed their banks, drowning towns, fields, crops and cattle. Storm surges inundated the coastline.

    Four years later, towns from Newport to St. Ives suffered “raging floods,” and a “giant sea fish” (whale) washed up in the Thames from a massive surge up river. In May 1594, “soddane showres of haile [and] raine” destroyed houses, iron mills, crops and cattle in Sussex and Surrey. September of that year saw another deluge, with bridges taken down in Cambridge and Ware.

    Fire and heat
    If colder, wetter weather was a new normal for 17th century Britons, the hot, dry spring of 1666 caught Londoners unprepared. The Great Fire of London was one of the worst disasters of the age, and diarist John Evelyn recounts that “the heate … had even ignited the aire,” a comment reminiscent of descriptions of wildfire spread today.

    Yet periods of extreme heat were surprisingly frequent during the previous century, especially in the England that Shakespeare knew. More than a dozen droughts were recorded across England in the 16th century, usually broken by extreme storms or floods. It never rained, it seems, but it poured. The Thames dried up completely in 1592.

    As Thomas Short wrote in his Chronological History of English Weather, “an excessive drought, great death of cattle from want of water; springs and brooks were dried up; horsemen could ride the Thames.” Locals went into the mud to retrieve items long lost to the river.

    Shakespeare’s hometown of Stratford-upon-Avon was nearly destroyed by fire twice, in 1594 and 1595, due to severe drought and heat. The warning signs were there for Londoners to beware of hot spells in the next century, but frost fairs and wet weather may have bred complacency.

    These quotes are taken from:
    https://theconversation.com/new-insights-from-shakespeares-england-reveal-striking-parallels-to-contemporary-climate-change-240755
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    Herewith, the future of energy, if we are smart.

bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.