Climate change thread of despair


This is BS. The only planes that were damaged were those that were unable to fly out due to maintenance issues.

The structures that were damaged and destroyed are decades old.


More to touch on that the US military has conducted studies around the impacts of climate change and found many of their installations at risk. The military has understood and been warned by external oversight to contend with the risks. As conditions change the threats multiply absent changes and so do the costs.


The military games every possible scenario and all facilities are at risk and always have been.

We’ve had numerous bases in the gulf and up and down the east coast heavily damaged or destroyed by hurricanes for as long as we’ve had those bases and yards.

This was one of the quietest gulf and east coast hurricane seasons on record.

The money doesn’t exist to build all of our military facilities to withstand a cat 3 or higher level storm.


Appears as if the arctic is notching out all time recorded lows for sea ice extent for this time of year.


That is absolutely insane.

That’s 3 billion dollars worth of airplanes left to ride out a ■■■■■■■ hurricane.

Heads need to roll over this.


Sure, and the military lost the game in this scenario who have chosen to base a third of the most expensive fighter planes ever developed that are no longer produced in structures incapable of handling or protecting said hardware against strong hurricanes in an area where there are strong hurricanes. It’s a legitimate question what other odds are rising that tips the scales against gamed outcome probabilities.


You words will not matter, those people will keep reciting the same lies and distortions for decades, because they work with the uninformed masses.


If you are talking about the process of carbon sequestration from the burning of fossil fuels, it’s still experimental. It’s also highly dangerous to pump CO2 into the earth, because you never know where it might seep out, to kill plants, animals, or humans.


This graph is more meaningful:


Sorry, that image did not download quite right. The image can be found here:


What is more meaningful about that graph?


It’s more complete.




It seems less complete to me. It only includes data from, what, 6-7 years? Doesn’t seem very complete.


More series than the initial chart. Though, since here on Hannity we all like to argue minutiae, the initial chart summarizes statistically the wad of series the second chart I posted. It also makes apparent that recent years are beyond the norm and the artic is plumbing new depths of historic ice cover for a given time. The trend is Santa’s home at the North Pole is melting.


There’s far better graphs out there including some 3 axis renderings and spiral graphs that better convey the changes over time.


Yeah the spiral ones are pretty depressing.


And nospaces initial graph only contained two years of plotted data, 2012 and 2018, which led him to the erroneous conclusion that the current ice cover is at a record low for this date. The rest of the data was normalized making it useless to assist him in making the right conclusion, which is that the ice cover on this date is virtually tied with 2016. The normalized data is informative, but it does not give as accurate picture of ice coverage on a particular date as does the plots of consecutive individual years.


“Virtually tied”?

Or is it lower. It looks lower to me. Seems the conclusion was correct and your graph confirms. Thanks for the extra data.

The overal trend is undeniable whether you agree with the above statement or not. Try not to get too nit picky.


So complete that at the scale presented, it is impossible to use to select comparisons between years on a particular date

The original graph you posted probably used 2012 as the comparison year for the current state of ice cover because that was the year when the coverage was at its record lowest for the season since satellite observations began. But as can be seen on the graph I posted, the ice recovered faster as the winter approached that year than in 2016 and this year.