@UNIMAN
I thought by 'hurting them' you meant their revenue. The difference should be added with the additional revenue. I would imagine the massive container ships are paying more. They are way larger. So, I do not think the ship traffic is as important as the container volume amount. But sure, all of that assumes normal fresh water supply. I am sure they accounted for drought times in their overall estimate; because that area has drought times. But yes, they knew for sure they would need the fresh water.
@thirdperson and its getting worse every freakn day
@KellyM_1964
By the minute, actually.
Climate change doesn't usually start fires. But it intensifies them, increasing the area they burn and making them more dangerous. In Maui wildfire, climate change has been a significant contributor to less precipitation since 1960s. Also warmer conditions increase the risk of large storms such as hurricane Dora. However Media matters report only 4% of national television news segments about Maui mention climate change.
@Raiders22
I was referring to fresh water usage. They had planned to increase the lake size to accommodate more water usage. With the lock expansion they were pushing the water usage to the limit, IMO. Add a drought and problems with fresh water supply come quicker. So maybe if they had not expanded the fresh water problems would be less at this point of their drought.
Less precipitation last 60 yrs on Maui cannot be connected to carbon in the atmosphere. Droughts have happened throughout human existence and before.
i.e.;
-A great drought in the American southwest occurred between 1276 and 1299. During this period occurred the abandonment of settlements in the Southwest United States, including those in Chaco Canyon and Mesa Verde. Tree ring analysis has identified a period of "no" rain between 1276 and 1299 in these areas.
-During the period 1580 to 1600, the western United States experienced one of its longest and most severe droughts in the last 500 years.
Here's a couple of scientists who have guts. Surprised their family hasn't been attacked or their homes burned to the ground.
Citing extensive data to support their case, William Happer, professor emeritus in physics at Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), argued that the claims used by the EPA to justify the new regulations are not based on scientific facts but rather political opinions and speculative models that have consistently proven to be wrong.
“The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule,” Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen stated. “None of the studies provides scientific knowledge, and thus none provides any scientific support for the Proposed Rule.”
“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.”
That was already an embarrassment in the ‘90s, when I was director of energy research in the U.S. Department of Energy,” he said. “I was funding a lot of this work, and I knew very well then that the models were overpredicting the warming by a huge amount.”
He and his colleague argued that the EPA has grossly overstated the harm from CO2 emissions while ignoring the benefits of CO2 to life on Earth.
“Increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere create more food for people worldwide, including more food for people in drought-stricken areas,” they stated. “Increases in carbon dioxide over the past two centuries since the Industrial Revolution, from about 280 parts per million to about 420 ppm, caused an approximate 20 percent increase in the food available to people worldwide, as well as increased greening of the planet and a benign warming in temperature.”
Radiation in the atmosphere is my specialty,” Mr. Happer said, “and I know more about it than, I would guess, any climate scientists.”
If you could double the amount of CO2 from 400 to 800, and that will take a long time, the amount that you decrease radiation to space is only one percent,” Mr. Happer said. “Very few people realize how hard it is for additional carbon dioxide to make a difference to the radiation to space. That’s what’s called saturation, and it’s been well known for a century.”
Interesting reading, and LOOK, it's on that slimy rightwing rag Zerohedge. 
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/two-princeton-mit-scientists-say-epa-climate-regulations-based-hoax
And about the 97% claim;
But Mr. Happer argues that consensus is not science, citing a lecture on the scientific method by renowned physicist Richard Feynman, who said, “if it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.”
“Science has never been made by consensus,” Mr. Happer said. “The way you decide something is true in science is you compare it with experiment or observations.
“It doesn’t matter if there’s a consensus; it doesn’t matter if a Nobel Prize winner says it’s true, if it disagrees with observations, it’s wrong,” he said. “And that’s the situation with climate models. They are clearly wrong because they don’t agree with observations.”
According to wikipedia, Happer is not a climate scientist. His past predictions have been proven wrong. Even Lindzen disagrees with him because increasing carbon dioxide does warm climate. Climate science watch has published a rebuttal of Happer claims. American physical society rejects his opposition to scientific consensus on man-made global warming. There is overwhelming scientific consensus worldwide because of overwhelming scientific evidences.
@thirdperson
What about all of the 'climate scientists' models that have been so wrong for years? What does Wikipedia say about them?
@thirdperson
Maybe this can help jumpstart you:
Climate change is a long-term phenomenon, driven by a combination of numerous factors at different locations during different eras. A single year’s spike in heatwaves is not evidence of long-term climate change; a steadily increasing trend in heatwaves would be, but that’s not what the evidence shows. Instead, data show that the warming of the past 150 to 170 years has not produced a trend of increasing heatwaves. As a result, the modest recent rise in global temperatures serves as a backdrop or baseline for the recent heatwave; it is not its cause.
It turns out a confluence of overlapping weather and meteorological events account for the pattern of persistent heatwaves in many locations.
One event contributing to a global rise in temperatures this year is the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha?apai volcanic eruption. Water vapor makes up 98 percent or more of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and the subsea Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha?apai eruption added an additional 10 to 13 percent to atmospheric water vapor. Scientists from NASA and the European Space Agency agree that this huge addition to the dominant atmospheric greenhouse gas is contributing significantly to this years’ temperatures.
In addition, El Niño is back, and it’s a strong one. Before the summer heatwave struck and the mainstream media focused on climate change as the reason behind it to the exclusion of almost every other factor, the media was warning that with the shift from La Niña to El Niño, hotter temperatures would result.
"Essentially, the atmosphere borrows heat out of the Pacific, and global temperatures increase slightly. This happened in 2016, the time of the last strong El Niño," commentary from The Conversation noted. "Global temperatures increased by about 0.25 F (0.14 C) on average, making 2016 the warmest year on record. A weak El Niño also occurred in 2019-2020, contributing to 2020 becoming the world’s second-warmest year."
One little discussed factor affecting this summer’s temperatures is the increasingly active sun. After a period of relative quiescence with little solar activity, the sun has become active again. An active sun has a direct, if modest, effect on the Earth’s temperatures.
Regionally, a variety of entirely natural weather patterns have also contributed to warming.
Across parts of the western and southeastern United States, and in southern and central Europe, heat domes or “blocking patterns” formed and persisted. As CNN described the situation, “an enormous, relentless stubborn ridge of high pressure has trapped air inside in a ‘heat dome’ resulting in extreme temperatures as the dome parks itself over areas.”
The blocking patterns in Europe trapped a heat dome there as it did in the western United States. In addition, in early July, the jet stream shifted. These two meteorological events combined to deliver colder than average, even fall like temperatures, in northern Europe and across the United Kingdom in July and into August, while locking-in, for an extended period of time, extreme summer temperatures in a large swath of southern European nations abutting or near the Mediterranean Sea.
Another factor contributing to hotter than average temperatures this summer is changes in the ocean circulation patterns in the North Atlantic.
it seems that sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic are unusually high this summer, due to significant changes in the North Atlantic Oscillation and weak surface winds. The resulting increase in Atlantic Ocean temperatures has been hyped in the media, but wrongly attributed to long-term climate change rather than localized, natural weather anomalies.
Fossil fuel use does not cause volcanic eruptions, oceanic and wind current shifts, or changes in solar activity, thus their use can’t be blamed for this summer’s heatwaves.
@thirdperson
These are good starts for you as well:
https://climateataglance.com/climate-at-a-glance-u-s-heatwaves/
Keep us posted on what you find out.
Scientists agree climate change is still the leading driver (80%) of 2023 summer heat from burning of fossil fuels according to Yale school of environment. Far more than volcano, El Nino and sun combined. NOAA found that Earth temperature has risen by average of 0.08 degree C per decade sisnce 1880. NASA say average global temperature has increased by at least 1.1 degree C since 1880. World weather attribution study reveals climate change is making heat waves more common. Without climate change, extreme weather would be rarer.
Let's break this post down;
1. According to wikipedia, Happer is not a climate scientist. Happer is a Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.
2. His past predictions have been proven wrong. Examples please? What predictions?
3. Even Lindzen disagrees with him because increasing carbon dioxide does warm climate. I have yet to find where Happer says CO2 does not slow radiation from escaping thereby retaining some heat. Where did he say carbon dioxide does not cause at least some warming? Show me. 
Terraforming is on the way! What is terraforming? Terraforming is the deliberate elimination of CO2 in the atmosphere. Photosynthesis is destroyed during the process. Plants will not grow. Planet earth will become uninhabitable should the mad scientists be successful. joe approves 1.2B or so for terraforming!
havenot caught up on the thread since yesterday but I wanted to take the time out to make sure we all recognize thirdperson for actually responding to others posts. Agree or disagree as I may I respect wholeheartedly that he/she/they have done so
Have you researched anything yet? Or are you just going to keep ignoring anything that contradicts what you want to promote?
There are many better sources than Wikipedia and Yale School of Environment. Look up some of the actual studies of scientists that disagree with this.
Not sure why NASA is being used here either. What exactly is their source from 1880? It was not their satellites. So, what is their agenda.
You still have not researched any of the other things yet? You still have not explained where the 97% number is coming from.
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
