The Question Is, Will AOC Follow Suit?

[Rightguide]

Exactly, its a chart of rainfall amounts year over year.

IT doesn't require charting former years, it requires charting month by month rainfall. I didn't say much about the last 3 years because its irrellevant. I get it though, you call me stupid because you hope like hell people will read that and think you're intelligent but you're common garbage I've been dealing with here for almost twenty years.

Sean is one of the few people who can be intellectually run through and not know it. Youre dead, so fall over.

 

[Sean Renaud]

ITs okay, nobody thought you won RG. That's what it is to be a conservative unable to think critically on any level. You really lost when I mentioned that ten inches over ten months is much different than ten inches over three months. You didn't address it because you can't address it. I get it, part of your life is dedicated to hating science.

 

[Rightguide]

ITs okay, nobody thought you won RG. That's what it is to be a conservative unable to think critically on any level. You really lost when I mentioned that ten inches over ten months is much different than ten inches over three months. You didn't address it because you can't address it. I get it, part of your life is dedicated to hating science.

Sean, you're too dumb to post. Take a nap.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

I love these Rightgoon threadfails.

 

[HisArpy]

Sean is one of the few people who can be intellectually run through and not know it. Youre dead, so fall over.

He's literally trying to say that a chart of annual rainfall doesn't show rainfall data because it doesn't record the rainfall on a month to month basis.

The reality is he got busted for being stupid then doubled down on insipid in order to try and cover up his idiocy.

 

[HisArpy]

ITs okay, nobody thought you won RG. That's what it is to be a conservative unable to think critically on any level. You really lost when I mentioned that ten inches over ten months is much different than ten inches over three months. You didn't address it because you can't address it. I get it, part of your life is dedicated to hating science.

We don't HAVE a ten month rain season, we have a FOUR MONTH "monsoon" season (Mid-Dec, Jan, Feb, Mar, Mid-Apr). Thus, the majority of rainfall occurs in that 4 month window.

As it's doing this year. Just like all the other years when we weren't in a drought. And, amazingly, the rainfall totals for this season are in line with the annual totals from other years when we weren't in a drought.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Keep smoking that good shit. You are correct we have a roughly 4 month rain period but it is very, very rarely anything like this. Even in rainy years and really month by month wasn't accurate, I more meant day by day. Now like ten years back it rained for Feburary and that was absolute fucking hell. This year has been absurd by any standard. You guys can pretend otherwise for whatever reason as if we're the only people getting slammed.

 

[Lazaran]

P

Keep smoking that good shit. You are correct we have a roughly 4 month rain period but it is very, very rarely anything like this. Even in rainy years and really month by month wasn't accurate, I more meant day by day. Now like ten years back it rained for Feburary and that was absolute fucking hell. This year has been absurd by any standard. You guys can pretend otherwise for whatever reason as if we're the only people getting slammed.

Harpy must have missed this:

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/graphics/2023/01/21/rainfall-totals-california/11026775002/

And this:

https://www.axios.com/2023/03/15/california-storm-atmospheric-river-rainfall-record-flooding

Harpy

 

[Britva415]

It has to do with denying reality for the sake of profits.

So what does that have to do with the climate?

https://i-download.imgflip.com/7f8554.gif
You might not personally believe that profit is what motivates government's and industry's denial of the dangers of fossil fuels. I get that.

But by pretending to not even be aware that the primary argument against doing anything about it is "it's bad for profits", you have got to be just playing dumb.

Unless you're in the Tim Walberg camp, who say we shouldn't do anything about climate change because for one thing it's God's will and for another thing if it becomes a problem He'll take care of it.

This would explain the complete disconnection from the rest of the conversation - both sides of it.

 

[HisArpy]

Keep smoking that good shit. You are correct we have a roughly 4 month rain period but it is very, very rarely anything like this. Even in rainy years and really month by month wasn't accurate, I more meant day by day. Now like ten years back it rained for Feburary and that was absolute fucking hell. This year has been absurd by any standard. You guys can pretend otherwise for whatever reason as if we're the only people getting slammed.

So now you've gone from "annual rainfall doesn't show how much rain we get" to "month to month shows the true annual rainfall totals" to "day by day rainfall totals are more accurate" in your quest to somehow escape from the hole you've dug for yourself.

Meanwhile, we still get annual rainfall totals (on that chart I posted) which prove beyond a doubt that you're full of shit.

When I was young the rivers here would run bank to bank full in the spring. The storm waves would rip the pier the shreds. And it would do this every year until the late 1970's. Then the rivers would run only half full some years and be nearly dry in other years. Then the 1980's came around and the rivers were dry almost every year with the occasional wet year. By the 1990's the riverbeds were basically dry each year every year. By 2000 most people believed that it never rains in Southern California. This year's rainfall is more normal than abnormal but only you dipshit johnny come latelys think it isn't.

 

[Rightguide]

Keep smoking that good shit. You are correct we have a roughly 4 month rain period but it is very, very rarely anything like this. Even in rainy years and really month by month wasn't accurate, I more meant day by day. Now like ten years back it rained for Feburary and that was absolute fucking hell. This year has been absurd by any standard. You guys can pretend otherwise for whatever reason as if we're the only people getting slammed.

California snow totals: 2023 season already among top 10 snowiest Sierra winters recorded​

See how this year's season compares with previous seasons.​

https://kubrick.htvapps.com/htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/htv_default_image/site_branding/kcra.png
Updated: 11:10 AM PDT Mar 20, 2023
Infinite Scroll Enabled

Hilda Flores

Atmospheric rivers since the start of 2023 have dropped massive piles of snow in the Sierra, making for the snowiest season the region has seen since the 2010-2011 season.

As of March 20, the Central Sierra Snow Lab recorded 56.4 feet this season — the sixth snowiest winter on record.


The highest-ever amount of snowfall recorded in California was hit in 1938 at 68.24 feet.

Take a look at the chart below for a closer look at the top 10 snowiest seasons, as well as an overall look at the snowfall each year since 1879.


Go here and see the charts for rainfall and snow in CA history and make sure mom tucks you in tonight and leaves a light on:

https://www.kcra.com/article/califo...son-sierra-snow-totals-chart-by-year/43329630

 

[Sean Renaud]

Thank you for proving my point. I mean I had moved on but I appreciate the honesty and due dillegence.

 

[Rightguide]

Thank you for proving my point. I mean I had moved on but I appreciate the honesty and due dillegence.

The info disproves your point. The present weather that's hitting CA isn't unprecedented in CA history.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The info disproves your point. The present weather that's hitting CA isn't unprecedented in CA history.

It literally says its in the top fucking 10. You literally did my work for me. And I thanked you. Accept the compliment.

 

[Rightguide]

It literally says its in the top fucking 10. You literally did my work for me. And I thanked you. Accept the compliment.

So it isn't out of the ordinary historically speaking.

 

[DeluxAuto]

It literally says its in the top fucking 10. You literally did my work for me. And I thanked you. Accept the compliment.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExZGM2MGM2YTA4MmI0ZGNkMzA0ZDEzY2M0NzA4ODUzYmE3ZTAwNjkxMyZjdD1n/htiVRuP7N0XK/giphy.gif

 

[DeluxAuto]

The info disproves your point. The present weather that's hitting CA isn't unprecedented in CA history.

You'd look far less stupid if you ever read the entirety of your links.

But please don't. The entertainment value is priceless.

 

[YDB95]

It literally says its in the top fucking 10. You literally did my work for me. And I thanked you. Accept the compliment.

It's amazing how often he does that.

 

[HisArpy]

It literally says its in the top fucking 10. You literally did my work for me. And I thanked you. Accept the compliment.

To you being in the top 10 means that it's never happened before?

And of course that chart I posted shows that there are years which spike higher than other years. That doesn't make those spikes "abnormal" or the result of climate change.


In the end you originally decided to buy into the bullshit and be a gullible moron and now you won't let it go despite the evidence which shows you to be a fucking idiot about the whole thing. It's that plain and simple.

 

[Rightguide]

To you being in the top 10 means that it's never happened before?

And of course that chart I posted shows that there are years which spike higher than other years. That doesn't make those spikes "abnormal" or the result of climate change.


In the end you originally decided to buy into the bullshit and be a gullible moron and now you won't let it go despite the evidence which shows you to be a fucking idiot about the whole thing. It's that plain and simple.

As I suggested the other day, zombie Sean doesn't know when he's been run through and bled out.

 

[Sean Renaud]

To you being in the top 10 means that it's never happened before?

And of course that chart I posted shows that there are years which spike higher than other years. That doesn't make those spikes "abnormal" or the result of climate change.


In the end you originally decided to buy into the bullshit and be a gullible moron and now you won't let it go despite the evidence which shows you to be a fucking idiot about the whole thing. It's that plain and simple.

Maybe I mispoke, but where did I say it had never happened vs not normal?

 

[Lazaran]

Maybe I mispoke, but where did I say it had never happened vs not normal?

There has been HISTORIC rain and snow in California after a HISTORIC drought.

It’s almost like the climate change models that predict such extreme weather patterns are right.

I think this article might be of some help to climate change deniers (Harpy). - Or not.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/jet-stream-is-climate-change-causing-more-blocking-weather-events/

Hope that ^ helps Harpy.

Harpy

 

[HisArpy]

Maybe I mispoke, but where did I say it had never happened vs not normal?

Ok, then let ME rephrase...

How in the fuck does being in the top 10 mean that this years rainfall isn't within the norms for annual rainfall over the past 100 years?


See it works like this: If you're going to say something unusual is occurring you need data which isn't backed up by the historical record and is instead outside the record data set. Climate change in this instance doesn't seem to be outside the historical record because the record encompasses the current weather cycle. In fact, there are years where this year's rainfall would be LESS than SoCal received in those years. That alone proves that your statement is false.

You can't even claim that the drought we've been experiencing is because of "climate change" because that TOO is within the climate cycle based on the historical record.


What it comes down to is you swallowed the bullshit, parroted it because you're a dipshit, got slapped in the face by facts, and now are backpeddling like a mad bastard to try and CYA the situation.

 

[HisArpy]

As I suggested the other day, zombie Sean doesn't know when he's been run through and bled out.

Many members only post for the dopamine hit they receive when they get a reply.

 

[AceDesSpades]

Many members only post for the dopamine hit they receive when they get a reply.

Here's your morning hit!