According to NOAA the winds are 20mph in San Diego.
The tropical storm Hilary is a media circus. But where’s the beef?
https://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?lat=32.7157&lon=-117.1617
2 Likes
You are looking at the wrong area. Look further inland. Flooding in desert.
In Palm Springs, a local state of emergency was declared due “unprecedented rainfall and flooding of local roadways and at least one swift water rescue,” according to officials.
“Palm Springs police and fire continue to urge residents to stay home and avoid driving during these dangerous conditions,” a statement from the city said.
UCLA climate scientist Daniel Swain posted on social media Sunday afternoon that Palm Springs “recorded its heaviest hourly rainfall on record, and intense tropical downpours could continue for hours in the Coachella Valley.”
The desert resort city so far received more than a half-year’s worth of rain in less than a day. As of early evening, the NWS recorded 2.64 inches since early morning. The city only sees an average of 0.14 inches each August and 4.61 inches a year. No monthly average exceeds 1.15 inches.
Sunday already set a record for the wettest August day in history for Palm Springs. The previous record has been held since 1930. And more rain is on the way. The FOX Forecast Center calls for 3 to 5 inches total for the city before Hilary departs.
Pick and choose the news you want. But sensational news is biased and counterproductive. The storm was not a tropical storm when it landed in the US. Was not even as much rain as last March.
The continued mantra of climate change falls on deaf ears to those of us that have been around a long time. The deserts flood when it rains… nothing new. 2.6 inches of rain is a good thing for Palm Springs …. the storm is basically over… in the 70s when I was a surfer we always looked forward to Mexican hurricanes… the famous south swells coming from Mexico were eagerly waited for. The cold waters on the California coast kills off hurricanes.
https://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?lat=34.06076&lon=-118.23510
1 Like
Good article destroying the GW narrative. Hopefully science prevails here but I am doubtful that will happen in today’s environment.
Any climate change advocates that don’t embrace massive buildup of nuclear power plants are hypocrites at best and murderers at worst.
This “crisis” would have been averted if these same zealots hadn’t shut down nuclear power options in the 70s post 3 mile island… if we are forced to all go electric for everything, where is the power coming from now … not 50 years in the future hopefully when batteries actually are efficient and effective
European emissions have risen faster than ours. A lot of that is due to Germany shutting down its nukes. Some of it is due to former combloc countries getting to the point where their people can enjoy a decent standard of living.
“All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data,” they stated. “The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.”
Wow. I feel like someone here said that a little bit ago.
“They present CO2 and temperature data indicating much higher levels of both CO2 and temperatures than today, with little correlation between the two. They also argue that current CO2 levels are historically at a low point.”
Yeah, but that doesn’t fit the agenda.
1 Like
Reminds me of the doctors who said horse medicine will cure Covid. Or doctors who said vaccines cause autism. They are doctors so they must be right.
There are cranks in every profession. What matters is the “consensus” of scientists in the field. What do most climate scientists say? Just like in the horse medicine case. Do most doctors and people in medical science agree horse medicine cures Covid?
Oh these two guys aren’t even climate scientists? Never mind then.
Heat index. Kansas cooking at 123 degrees.
What matters is who funds the scientists.
Are you disputing the math of their comparison between the climate models and actually temperatures over multiple decades? The models are wrong. No one can debate or dispute that.
We also have historical CO2 levels. Are you saying that data is wrong?
1 Like
That’s not even remotely close to accurate.
I guess prior high CO2 periods were man made too?
Climate science is a new field. Models are constantly being improved. Any update to this chart of yours since 2015?
Not sure taking an average of all models (over 100 of them) is indicative of the field’s progress. Aren’t we supposed to get rid of the inaccurate ones and consolidate on the more accurate ones?
You don’t need the model to tell you the observed temperature has a clear uptrend.
The biggest drop in the piece is the saturation effect.
Try finding anything about THAT in the NYT or WP.
Wonder if Manch invests based on consensus or actual data.
Consensus of scientists informs what the long term secular trend is gonna be.
You can ignore them all you want. I don’t.
If you don’t know what temperatures have done since 2015, then you aren’t qualified to be in the conversation. The models are all garbage. No one has proved causation between CO2 and temperature yet either.