Migrant Caravan

[petros]

I think we're about done with this. Continuing would just be an exercise in displaying you're lack of knowledge or comprehension. The weather in the last 2 (arguably 3) years is behaving significantly differently than the normal range of behavior and we're seeing things not seen before with some regularity. So when you say you've "seen all this before', it's about as accurate as, well, claiming you've seen "hurricane freda".

You're buying into propaganda. What today's storm or temperatures are you referring to that we haven't seen in the past? Floods? Inland heat outflows to coast regions in the opposite direction? A reduction in the frequency and intensity of storms. Far less forest fires? Record cold? A return of real winter to the BC coast? What exactly do you believe is different than what was experienced in the past without CO2? Do you truly believe this is the first time there was an extended la Nina?

 

[pgs]

And once again that mirror is your favorite toy Sorry about your lack of comprehension.

Funny little man . Doesn’t understand that weather is just that , sometimes extreme sometimes moderate and sometimes in between . And anything that is happening now has happened before .

 

[Ron in Regina]

Try typhoon Frida or Freda. It might have been in the Pacific.

This might not be whatever you’re all talking about but:

Columbus Day storm of 1962 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/archives-typhoon-freda-1962-1.3806345

Remembering Typhoon Freda • British Columbia Magazine

What was expected to be a tropical storm ended up causing millions of dollars in damage and killing seven people – Typhoon Freda, the whirlwind that hit the southern BC coast on Oct. 12, 1962. The typhoon originated in Hawaii, and as it approached BC it was downgraded to a tropical storm...

www.bcmag.ca

 

[pgs]

This might not be whatever you’re all talking about but:

Columbus Day storm of 1962 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/archives-typhoon-freda-1962-1.3806345

Remembering Typhoon Freda • British Columbia Magazine

What was expected to be a tropical storm ended up causing millions of dollars in damage and killing seven people – Typhoon Freda, the whirlwind that hit the southern BC coast on Oct. 12, 1962. The typhoon originated in Hawaii, and as it approached BC it was downgraded to a tropical storm...

www.bcmag.ca

Still took shingles off our roof .

 

[The_Foxer]

Try typhoon Frida or Freda. It might have been in the Pacific.

Could be, there's about 5 of them. God knows what he's referring to. As pointed out it doesn't really matter anyway. One unusual storm isn't really an indication of much of anything - you get that same unusual storm again and again where it was extremely rare before, or you get storms where there hasn't been storms historically, etc etc - that's a different story. The weather patters we've seen here over the last 2 (arguably 3) years represent a pretty substantial change, not just a single event.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Could be, there's about 5 of them. God knows what he's referring to. As pointed out it doesn't really matter anyway. One unusual storm isn't really an indication of much of anything - you get that same unusual storm again and again where it was extremely rare before, or you get storms where there hasn't been storms historically, etc etc - that's a different story. The weather patters we've seen here over the last 2 (arguably 3) years represent a pretty substantial change, not just a single event.

This year was a pretty quiet year on the Atlantic for hurricanes. Each summer always has a few storms that are unusual. You are looking at this year fresh and your memories of past years are glossed over. You would have to quantify the storms in some fashion that made sense and run that for the last 50 years to see if there was any real trends. Of course the method of quantification would be a way to stack the data to reach your own conclusions.

 

[The_Foxer]

This year was a pretty quiet year on the Atlantic for hurricanes. Each summer always has a few storms that are unusual. You are looking at this year fresh and your memories of past years are glossed over. You would have to quantify the storms in some fashion that made sense and run that for the last 50 years to see if there was any real trends. Of course the method of quantification would be a way to stack the data to reach your own conclusions.

Sure, although it's not terribly difficult to create reasonable criteria if you're just measuring the intensity of storms. And you could take smaller time slices such as a decade or two at a time to look at the variances to establish an average variance or the like.

But it gets a little more interesting and challenging when you are looking at overall change. For example - the size of storms may not change but what if there were suddenly twice as many? And what if that happened for three seasons running instead of just one? Or what if there were types of storms not previously seen or ones that were very rarely seen but suddenly were common. What if there were slightly more storms and they were slightly more severe - but there was also heat waves and below average freezing events and so on at the same general time frame?

It starts to get more interesting. One metric that's interesting to use is damage to buildings, at least in winter. There's a pretty consistant number of buildings who experience damage each year for the most part from bad winter weather or related to that weather. Roofs fail, drains misbehave, etc etc. There's always some and the causes are for the most part common and predictable. So if there's suddenly 5 times as many buildings reporting damage and the damage is from an unusual source (especially for that building) that's a pretty good indication that something unusual has happened. If that kind of thing happens several years in a row that's an indication that something longer term is happening. Now - there's no guarantee that just because it happened three years in a row it'll happen a fourth, perhaps the change is temporary due to something else like la nina or el nino or whatever. But - it would still mean something had changed and something out of the ordinary had happened.

 

[pgs]

Sure, although it's not terribly difficult to create reasonable criteria if you're just measuring the intensity of storms. And you could take smaller time slices such as a decade or two at a time to look at the variances to establish an average variance or the like.

But it gets a little more interesting and challenging when you are looking at overall change. For example - the size of storms may not change but what if there were suddenly twice as many? And what if that happened for three seasons running instead of just one? Or what if there were types of storms not previously seen or ones that were very rarely seen but suddenly were common. What if there were slightly more storms and they were slightly more severe - but there was also heat waves and below average freezing events and so on at the same general time frame?

It starts to get more interesting. One metric that's interesting to use is damage to buildings, at least in winter. There's a pretty consistant number of buildings who experience damage each year for the most part from bad winter weather or related to that weather. Roofs fail, drains misbehave, etc etc. There's always some and the causes are for the most part common and predictable. So if there's suddenly 5 times as many buildings reporting damage and the damage is from an unusual source (especially for that building) that's a pretty good indication that something unusual has happened. If that kind of thing happens several years in a row that's an indication that something longer term is happening. Now - there's no guarantee that just because it happened three years in a row it'll happen a fourth, perhaps the change is temporary due to something else like la nina or el nino or whatever. But - it would still mean something had changed and something out of the ordinary had happened.

And around and around he goes . Records are what 150 years or so at most , yet every year at some point or another , and temperatures are provided as below or above normal , so normal is always changing . Still weather is just that .

 

[The_Foxer]

Records are what 150 years or so at most

Oh - sorry are you still here being butthurt? ROFLMAO - nobody's talking to you at the moment kiddo. And sure - weather cycles NEVER change in just a mere 150 years. Maybe they changed after "hurricane freda'?

 

[pgs]

Oh - sorry are you still here being butthurt? ROFLMAO - nobody's talking to you at the moment kiddo. And sure - weather cycles NEVER change in just a mere 150 years. Maybe they changed after "hurricane freda'?

You are the one who is Butt hurt . No body believes you . Lol . Sad little man .

 

[Serryah]

This year was a pretty quiet year on the Atlantic for hurricanes. Each summer always has a few storms that are unusual. You are looking at this year fresh and your memories of past years are glossed over. You would have to quantify the storms in some fashion that made sense and run that for the last 50 years to see if there was any real trends. Of course the method of quantification would be a way to stack the data to reach your own conclusions.

Quite maybe, but Fiona and Nicole caused enough problems when they did hit - especially Fiona - that it should hit home that the Maritimes are no longer that "Hurrican/Post Tropical" safe. The Gulf Stream isn't carrying the storms away anymore.

 

[Taxslave2]

Sorry it just isn't. I mean sure it might very well be in some cases, but when a building that's been there for 20 years has a problem that it's never experienced before that has nothing to do with wear and tear, you can't really blow that off as just 'bad engineering'. And certainly not inspections. And when hundreds of buildings are having new problems at the same time that haven't been seen before - again. Sorry that just isn't the case for the most part. This isn't a case of poor design for our usual weather and has zero to do with inspections.


It's not about the winters being 'harsh'. This isn't just 'moar' winter, this is different winter.

I wasn’t referring to the buildings so much as the infrastructure. The reason so much of the Fraser Valley flooded last year is because of a lack of dike maintenance. Likewise the Cocahalla problems were mostly caused by poor, or in many cases nonexistent drainage maintenance compounded by zero erosion control done after the summer fires. Riprap on creeks that has been in place since the mid 80s didn’t all of a sudden fail on their own.

 

[pgs]

I wasn’t referring to the buildings so much as the infrastructure. The reason so much of the Fraser Valley flooded last year is because of a lack of dike maintenance. Likewise the Cocahalla problems were mostly caused by poor, or in many cases nonexistent drainage maintenance compounded by zero erosion control done after the summer fires. Riprap on creeks that has been in place since the mid 80s didn’t all of a sudden fail on their own.

Drive from Hope to Cache Creek and the evidence of past flooding is readily visible . It shows last years storms were not a one off

 

[Taxslave2]

When was that exactly? Not in the recorded history of the lower mainland for example - so when was that precisely?


As i've explained, it wasn't really about the cold per se. However taking that one point this year did in fact break records for cold in many areas, and so did 2021.

But it's more than cold. What we're experiencing in the last couple of years simply doesn't happen in the lower mainland, and that's 2 years running. Now, it'd be easy to blow off a single event as just a rare extreme. Given enough time obviously you're going to have unusually hot or cold days here and there or days with more rain or less, or whatever. But the sheer volume of it and the nature of it is well beyond a single event. And the nature of what is happening is different, not just a 'little more cold' or a 'little more hot'. I see it in the nature of the damage done to buildings and property literally by the hundreds.

1948. Might have been before the truthers started counting, but that was a major flood year. Fraser River reached the steps of the Royal Hotel in Chilliwack.

 

[Taxslave2]

Funny how when i ask "when have you seen this" you have no answer.

And normal is the average range of weather activity seen in a region for a specified time. It's really not a hard concept to grasp. Weather events can step outside of the normal range in intensity, frequency, duration or a combination. For example, its "normal" that we'd hit 0 degrees in greater vancouver. it would not be normal for it to remain at that temperature for 6 months of the year. That would be very abnormal. And yet you would sit here and say "well... i've seen 0 degrees before so it's normal". No - it would still be abnormal for it to last for half a year. etc etc. IT's a pretty simple answer.

The last two years have not been normal. The weather has been outside of the normal ranges in several categories and the damages done to property have been radically higher than normal as a result. This indicates a change to the weather patterns. That might be temporary, might not be.

But you'd have to be pretty silly to call it normal and then claim you don't know what normal is. This is outside of the range of activity we've seen in the last 90 years. Sooooo... yeah.

Your range is too short. Last year and this year do not make an average. You have to think in geological time, not news cycles.

 

[The_Foxer]

You are the one who is Butt hurt . No body believes you . Lol . Sad little man .

Still working that mirror i see

 

[The_Foxer]

I wasn’t referring to the buildings so much as the infrastructure. The reason so much of the Fraser Valley flooded last year is because of a lack of dike maintenance.

Ahh - my bad then, i mistook your meaning. But in fairness i wasn't refering to the flood when discussing damages. However - while i'm sure there's quite a bit of truth in the 'failed infrastructure' critique it doesn't change the volume of the storm, the scale of it across the province, or the like. Which in isolation isn't all that much, as i've said many times a single event can be an outlier easy enough. However, add to it the heat dome earlier that year, add to it the very unusual freezing conditions which followed it including ice rain the likes of which haven't really been seen, the extreme temp swings, then the fall drought the next year and the very unusual freeze and warming we just had (with more ice rain) and suddenly it's not just a single incident, but a long string of very extreme events some of which are unique and haven't been issues before on a large scale, and that DOES point to an unusual weather pattern. As the saying goes, roll double 6 once and it's luck, roll it 6 times and the dice are loaded

 

[The_Foxer]

Drive from Hope to Cache Creek and the evidence of past flooding is readily visible . It shows last years storms were not a one off

Who said they were? Oh and how's that hurricane research coming?

 

[The_Foxer]

Your range is too short. Last year and this year do not make an average. You have to think in geological time, not news cycles.

Nobody's looking for an average. The time frame works fine if you have an average and you're trying to see if something doesn't fit it. For example, if we know that on average we have an unusually severe weather event of some kind every 10 years, and then we notice 6 within a one year period, we don't need any more than that to say 'this is outside the normal variances'.

I mean, honestly - how long does weather patterns have to be outside the norm before they can be said to be outside the norm?

And this isn't rare. There have been plenty of times where the weather has changed pretty radically on short notice, both temporarily and longer, The weather in europe changed practically overnight between the 1200's and 1300's, leading to massive famines and hardship for a good hunk of that century. No warning, no reason (i'm sure the global warming crowd would claim cow farts or the like), it just changed and that was that. It happens. Anyone who doesn't think that weather changes over time is just being silly.

 

[pgs]

1948. Might have been before the truthers started counting, but that was a major flood year. Fraser River reached the steps of the Royal Hotel in Chilliwack.

Yes but the river is being dredged more extensively since and with the addition of wing dams trains the river to discharge faster . We will need a much larger flood to swamp Chilliwack .