[WRnative]

Originally Posted by kokonutty

Not to agree or disagree but can anyone find, from a scientific point of view, a problem with the quoted language, highlighted and colorized above?

Yes. It's perplexing why you highlighted the language, as if you had some point to make about the summary statement from the NOAA press release about the annual coastal flooding report.

Surely you must realize that projections of something as complex as coastal flooding, or of hurricane intensity and frequency, are never exact but certainly are useful, especially when they provide historical comparisons.

[kokonutty]

Originally Posted by WRnative

Yes. It's perplexing why you highlighted the language, as if you had some point to make about the summary statement from the NOAA press release about the annual coastal flooding report.

Surely you must realize that projections of something as complex as coastal flooding, or of hurricane intensity and frequency, are never exact but certainly are useful, especially when they provide historical comparisons.

Five qualifiers in a single sentence do not enhance the credibility of such an article. Certainly accurate reporting of actual statistics or even focused theories would be more convincing. Why is questioning the verbal inadequacies of a purported scientific conclusion perplexing to anyone? I believe most readers expect much more precision in what is apparently intended to be an objective rather than subjective report.

[WRnative]

Originally Posted by kokonutty

Five qualifiers in a single sentence do not enhance the credibility of such an article. Certainly accurate reporting of actual statistics or even focused theories would be more convincing. Why is questioning the verbal inadequacies of a purported scientific conclusion perplexing to anyone? I believe most readers expect much more precision in what is apparently intended to be an objective rather than subjective report.

You didn't quote the linked article in my original post, but an NOAA PRESS RELEASE. It was an NOAA press release that accurately summarized the findings of a linked report which discussed flooding data from across the entire nation in an historical context.

Unlike you, I'm not disturbed about qualifiers when discussing projections and historical findings about flooding levels ACROSS THE ENTIRE COUNTRY WITH VARYING CONDITIONS, such as tidal impacts. Your demand for "more precision" is preposterous.

IMO, your goal seems to be to discredit the entire report by arguing that there are "verbal inadequacies," and indeed other inadequacies in your opinion, when there are NONE. You didn't substantiate your false insinuation that the press release lacked "accurate reporting." The actual report, linked in the press release, did contain actual statistics.

You demand "focused theories" from a report providing detailed historical empirical data for the entire nation and projections based on derived models considering such factors as estimated "El Nino" impacts, which vary locally. Your critique isn't even a sophomoric criticism, but apparently rather just more man-made climate change denier obfuscation.

Here's the summary, first paragraph from the actual report, which is linked in the press release:

<<June 6, 2018 -- People living on the coast may see flooded sidewalks and streets more frequently this year due, in part, to El Nino conditions that are predicted to develop later this year, and from long-term sea level rise trends. The projected increase in high tide flooding in 2018 may be as much as 60 percent higher across U.S. coastlines as compared to typical flooding about 20 years ago, according to NOAA scientists. >>

http://www.noaa.gov/news/coastal-com...days-last-year

Do you also find fault this summary paragraph?

The rest of the report contains data supporting the summary. Did you click on this link when you read the original post in order to read the actual report???

Why would anyone criticize such a report as a "purported scientific conclusion" unless the critic was a man-made climate change denier, seeking to discredit or even suppress the collection and reporting of such historical, empirical data? You apparently believe that Florida residents, especially those living on the coasts, aren't interested in historical coastal flooding data, nor the outlook for 2018.

Demanding "more precision" from a press release summarizing a linked report is laughable.

Intentionally or not, this IMO is just another unfair attempt to discredit the collection and reporting of empirical data documenting the onslaught of man-made climate change.

My worry is that similarly minded individuals in the Trump administration will suppress the production of this report in future years. Heaven forbid that we, contrary to your ridiculous criticism, actually focus on the measured impacts of man-made climate change.

[sinatras]

Pinellas County beaches today. Toxic diarrhea water and death everywhere.

[kokonutty]

Originally Posted by WRnative

You didn't quote the linked article in my original post, but an NOAA PRESS RELEASE. It was an NOAA press release that accurately summarized the findings of a linked report which discussed flooding data from across the entire nation in an historical context.

Unlike you, I'm not disturbed about qualifiers when discussing projections and historical findings about flooding levels ACROSS THE ENTIRE COUNTRY WITH VARYING CONDITIONS, such as tidal impacts. Your demand for "more precision" is preposterous.

IMO, your goal seems to be to discredit the entire report by arguing that there are "verbal inadequacies," and indeed other inadequacies in your opinion, when there are NONE. You didn't substantiate your false insinuation that the press release lacked "accurate reporting." The actual report, linked in the press release, did contain actual statistics.

You demand "focused theories" from a report providing detailed historical empirical data for the entire nation and projections based on derived models considering such factors as estimated "El Nino" impacts, which vary locally. Your critique isn't even a sophomoric criticism, but apparently rather just more man-made climate change denier obfuscation.

Here's the summary, first paragraph from the actual report, which is linked in the press release:

<<June 6, 2018 -- People living on the coast may see flooded sidewalks and streets more frequently this year due, in part, to El Nino conditions that are predicted to develop later this year, and from long-term sea level rise trends. The projected increase in high tide flooding in 2018 may be as much as 60 percent higher across U.S. coastlines as compared to typical flooding about 20 years ago, according to NOAA scientists. >>

Coastal communities saw record number of high tide flooding days last year | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Do you also find fault this summary paragraph?

Yes.

And I'm running out of colors.

[WRnative]

Originally Posted by kokonutty

Yes.

And I'm running out of colors.

What can I say? You are indeed a "nutty" obfuscator eager to ridiculously belittle empirical evidence and reasoned projections employing this empirical evidence. As is typical with man-made climate change deniers, you don't dispute the empirical data.

So are you a man-made climate change denier? Despite the overwhelming evidence, do you deny that the oceans are rising and increasingly flooding U.S. coastal areas???

The linked NOAA report focuses on flooding in Miami Beach, even with maps (see Figure 4 link provided in post 207). Isn't this sufficiently "focused" for you?

Are national security issues and the cost of flooding naval bases also an amusement to you???

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ment-military/

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-...-bases-report/

Maybe you also would like to highlight your objections to word choices in the above articles.

Pathetic.

[kokonutty]

Originally Posted by WRnative

What can I say? You are indeed a "nutty" obfuscator eager to ridiculously belittle empirical evidence and reasoned projections employing this empirical evidence. As is typical with man-made climate change deniers, you don't dispute the empirical data.

So are you a man-made climate change denier? Despite the overwhelming evidence, do you deny that the oceans are rising and increasingly flooding U.S. coastal areas???

The linked NOAA report focuses on flooding in Miami Beach, even with maps (see Figure 4 link provided in post 207). Isn't this sufficiently "focused" for you?

Are national security issues and the cost of flooding naval bases also an amusement to you???

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ment-military/

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-...-bases-report/

Maybe you also would like to highlight your objections to word choices in the above articles.

Pathetic.

If the situation was a fraction as cut and dried as you insinuate, the producers of the documents you hail would be able to couch the preface to the report in much more concrete terms without a handful of qualifiers. The fact that you seem to be unable, or at least unwilling, to understand that tells me that you are convinced without qualifications - even those supplied by the scientists. I am not amused.

I would also note that while you have provided two links here they present no new data, in fact the second is merely a reference to the first - did you even realize that? The first being produced by an organization that purports to be scientific in nature but was formed a half century ago as a lobbying organization by students and faculty at Yale. I choose to put my faith in scientific data produced by actual scientists rather than agenda-driven organizations who have never met a worst case scenario they did not embrace.

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by WRnative

Negative impacts on the environment include more than just man-made climate change. Releasing detrimental chemicals into the environment and toxic algal blooms are among other environmental concerns. Anyone reading this thread would know that Rick Scott and his administration have gutted regulations protecting the environment and engaged in obfuscation about their actions. Didn't you read just post 203?

Trump's administration similarly is gutting the environment.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...e-environment/

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-reversed.html

As for man-made climate change, apparently like you, both Scott and Trump are deniers, dismissive of empirical evidence and dire warnings by reputable climate change scientists. Your claim that the environment always changes is classical climate change denying obfuscation, dismissing mankind's impact on the environment even though it's obvious to anyone with a minimal amount of intelligence. E.g., the by-products of massive fossil fuel burning don't just magically disappear.

Anyway who doubts the reality of man-made climate change certainly would find a plethora of objective information just in this thread. And the thread well documents how Florida will pay a high price in the future for its support and tolerance of climate change deniers and their ignorance, obfuscation, and/or disingenousness (take your pick).

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by WRnative

I refuse to believe that the majority of humans are eager to plunge over a cliff to their own extinction led by greedy individuals who deny science and a general hope for a better future, among the best qualities of the human species.

Agreed!

[sinatras]

Redington Shores yesterday