Is Water Redistribution To Control Climate Change A Viable Option ?

[Woodznutz]

That was a bit mis-worded ... 25 inches is normal in a Tropical Storm ... the Upper Midwest doesn't get Tropical Storms ...

17 inches in a day in Illinois ... "The Chicago Tribune called the city's [July 18th] 1996 rainstorm the second greatest Illinois natural disaster while noting "the deluge in Aurora was considered a 1-in-1,000-year event." Eight residents died during the torrential rains, and almost half of the homes in Aurora flooded. The one-day storm caused an estimated $600–$700 million in damage." {Cite} ...

The point is ... if it's happened before, then it's not "unprecedented" ... 42 inches in a single day ... see the above citation ...

What is unprecedented is the sheer number of such storms happening all over the place lately.

 

[ReinyDays]

What is unprecedented is the sheer number of such storms happening all over the place lately.

How so? ... tropical cyclones are easy to count ... the data is widely available ... there's been no noticeable change in frequency over the Age of Satellites ... and it's rather easy to slice-and-dice the data into a "less intense" result ... fun with statistics eh? ...

If a hurricane knocks a strangers house down ... it's sad ...
If a hurricane knocks your cousin's house down ... it's tragic ...
If a hurricane knocks your house down ... it's a disaster ...

Outside of Houston City Limits ... this is a rare event ... how many places along the Atlantic have never been hit with a hurricane? ...

 

[EMH]

Have you calculated this by total rainfall globally? Regardless of drought in some regions we are seeing unprecedented rainfall all over the place. And do we know how much rain is falling over the oceans?

You see, before the Co2 FRAUD, Earth had periods of actually WARMING.... and we have data on those periods...

https://www.google.com/search?q=jurassic+warmer+wetter&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS1119US1119&oq=jurassic+warmer+wetter&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCTQzNDlqMGoxNagCBLACAQ&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

During the Jurassic Period, the Earth's climate was much warmer and wetter than it is today



And that really isn't hard to understand. Earth today has almost 9 million cubic miles of ice on it. During Jurassic, it had maybe a max of 1 during the entire period.

Warm water and presto=== more H2O ends up in the atmosphere....

Cool the water and presto === LESS H2O in the atmosphere


WARMER = WETTER = LESS FIRES

 

[EMH]

What is unprecedented is the sheer number of such storms happening all over the place lately.

That is complete 100% bullshit


In 1938, Cat 5 hit Long Island. No other Cat 5 has been that far north since....

Record decade for canes 1940s, second place 1890s....


YOU ARE A SICK LIAR

 

[Crick]

how many places along the Atlantic have never been hit with a hurricane? ...

The southern coast of Morocco.

 

[ding]

The southern coast of Morocco.

Africa? Really? You might have well raised a white flag of surrender.

 

[Crick]

Africa? Really? You might have well raised a white flag of surrender.

Surrender to what?

 

[ding]

Surrender to what?

To RD’s point.

 

[Crick]

Outside of Houston City Limits ... this is a rare event ... how many places along the Atlantic have never been hit with a hurricane? ...

Ding thinks by answering you with Morocco, I had acceded to some point of yours. What point are you trying to make with this comment? That increasing temperatures won't affect storm intensity or frequency? If so, please explain the logic, because we've been having storms like these since the planet first formed an ocean.

 

[ding]

What point are you trying to make with this comment?

That hurricanes are common occurrences along the US Atlantic coast due to wind currents.

 

[Crick]

That hurricanes are common occurrences along the US Atlantic coast due to wind currents.

Did ReinyDays communicate that to you by DM?

Have I or anyone in mainstream science ever suggested otherwise?

 

[ding]

Did ReinyDays communicate that to you by DM?

Have I or anyone in mainstream science ever suggested otherwise?

No. Deductive logic.

Your Morocco comment seemed to suggest you did suggest otherwise.

 

[Crick]

No. Deductive logic.

Your Morocco comment seemed to suggest you did suggest otherwise.

Well, once again, you have made a mistake.

 

[ding]

Well, once again, you have made a mistake.

You are so politicized you couldn't even concede that it's common for hurricanes to strike the US east coast. Instead you side stepped that and answered Morocco like an idiot. You never acknowledge true things that go against your political dogma. You are no lover of science. You are a lover of the Democratic Party and their political platform.

You seem to have forgotten that science is supposed to challenge convention.

 

[Crick]

You are so politicized you couldn't even concede that it's common for hurricanes to strike the US east coast. Instead you side stepped that and answered Morocco like an idiot. You never acknowledge true things that go against your political dogma. You are no lover of science. You are a lover of the Democratic Party and their political platform.

You seem to have forgotten that science is supposed to challenge convention.

Wrong. Science is supposed to increase our knowledge about how the universe works . There is no mandate that science challenge convention. Another of your mistakes.

 

[ding]

Wrong. Science is supposed to increase our knowledge about how the universe works . There is no mandate that science challenge convention. Another of your mistakes.

Which requires convention to be challenged.

You are so political and so threatened by what I am saying you are throwing science under the bus.

 

[Crick]

Which requires convention to be challenged.

You are so political and so threatened by what I am saying you are throwing science under the bus.

Wrong. Challenging some theory or understanding simply because its "convention" is as idiotic as rejecting accepted theories with no valid reason but only because you believe it will make you look more intelligent and follows with the political leanings of your crowd. You double down on your mistakes.

 

[ding]

Wrong. Challenging some theory or understanding simply because its "convention" is as idiotic as rejecting accepted theories with no valid reason but only because you believe it will make you look more intelligent and follows with the political leanings of your crowd. You double down on your mistakes.

Every new discovery challenged convention. Say it with me.

 

[Crick]

Then the new discovery became convention. When do you stop?

 

[ding]

Then the new discovery became convention. When do you stop?

Never. Science is never settled. Everything is subject to change whether it be new evidence or new understanding.