|What Makes a Catastrophic Flood? And Is Climate Change Causing More of Them?24-03-2019 00:32|
|Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆
|Into the Night★★★★★
|Define 'catastrophic flood' and 'climate change'.|
Into the Night wrote:
This is the big question. I find that the warmizombies have chipped away at the meaning of "catastrophe" for decades with hype at every opportunity that it is now a completely different word.
I think about how the word "catastrophe" was applied to Offutt AFB during their recent flood, as it was applied to Keesler AFB after Katrina. I remember thinking in both cases "Yes, this base got some standing water but it won't be shutting down. Heck, their operations will simply be affected for several days then they'll be back to normal."
How long before rain puddles qualify as a measure of "catastrophe"?
Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Edited on 24-03-2019 14:23
|Floods are natural and normal, how we perceive these events, is a catastrophe. Property and monetary loses don't qualify, as it's a gamble any way, sometimes you lose, but you can't win, if you don't play the game (life). When an event happen suddenly, without warning, lot of lives lost, it's catastrophic.|
Floods can't be completely prevented, but storm water can be managed better, to reduce the catastrophic events. There is almost alway, enough warning, that these measures might fail, and people have plenty of time to evacuate, with much of what they value most. Unfortunately, too many people get so attached to replaceable things, they'd rather die, than replace them eventually. Homes can be repaired or rebuilt, and everything in them replaced, if you survive...
People are greedy though, and don't like to spend money on stuff, that doesn't directly profit them. Storm water management costs money, every year. Needs to be maintained, needs constant upgrades, as the surrounding lands are developed, or altered. Storm water has to go some place, and most people are happy, when that water isn't on 'their' land. Once they go their own flooding problem managed, that water becomes someone else's problem. Given time, and enough open space, much of that water would seep into the ground, or evaporate. But, people want dry land, so they try to raise it up above the flood level, and divert the water else where. That water has to go some where, and ditches and pipes get overgrown, clogged up. Rivers don't just carry water, they erode the banks, and carry rocks, sand, and silt, which settles in the calmer areas. Rivers get shallower over time, reduces the volume of water they can carry, before overflowing the banks.
Basically, floods are natural, the catastrophe is man-made, and not CO2 related...
|What makes IPCC scientists sure warmer air hundreds of millions of years ago due to||71||06-06-2019 23:39|
|This makes no sense...||12||17-05-2019 13:46|
|What makes IPCC thinks CO2 is better than O2 at trapping heat?||0||28-04-2019 15:40|
|15 ppm O3 capture 98% of UV so what makes IPCC think 15 ppm CO2 don't capture 98% of those 3 bands of||0||19-04-2019 16:27|
|What makes IPCC thinks N2, O2, O3 are not as good at capturing and retaining heat than CO2 can?||2||18-04-2019 20:57|