Texas blaming national weather service

dbjork6317

Active member
Dec 3, 2009
17,176
335
83
Texas officials are blaming national weather service for poor forecasting ahead of the record flooding.

Hm, wonder who just made massive cuts to the NWS that left them understaffed and with fewer resources for these exact scenarios?

Almost as if government agencies provide extremely important services and taking a chainsaw to them might not have been a great idea.

Sounds like Texas got what they voted for.
 

fatpiggy

Well-known member
Aug 18, 2002
19,326
947
113
Texas officials are blaming national weather service for poor forecasting ahead of the record flooding.

Hm, wonder who just made massive cuts to the NWS that left them understaffed and with fewer resources for these exact scenarios?

Almost as if government agencies provide extremely important services and taking a chainsaw to them might not have been a great idea.

Sounds like Texas got what they voted for.
Already been debunked. Save yourself the embarrassment
 
  • Like
Reactions: Allornothing

fatpiggy

Well-known member
Aug 18, 2002
19,326
947
113
And there were several warnings put out.

The problem was the storm hit at 4:30am. No one got the warnings because everyone was asleep.

Pretty ****** to try and make that political. You are better than that.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DW4_2016

fatpiggy

Well-known member
Aug 18, 2002
19,326
947
113
Texas officials are blaming national weather service for poor forecasting ahead of the record flooding.

Hm, wonder who just made massive cuts to the NWS that left them understaffed and with fewer resources for these exact scenarios?

Almost as if government agencies provide extremely important services and taking a chainsaw to them might not have been a great idea.

Sounds like Texas got what they voted for.
 

southerncaltiger

Active member
Mar 16, 2006
8,895
261
83
Given the amount of technology available to the science of Meteorology (data, sophisticated numerical models, AI, etc.) tell me again why in 2025, their ability to predict weather events, even a few hours ahead of time, seems to be so poor?

Their level of inaccuracy would be deemed unacceptable in so many other science or engineering fields.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls

southerncaltiger

Active member
Mar 16, 2006
8,895
261
83
Just perused the requirements for CBM/CCM; didn’t see any requirements for annual continuing education (it’s done at 5 year intervals) once the certification is achieved OR any requirements/minimum thresholds for forecasting accuracy.
 

Dadar

Active member
Dec 21, 2003
3,208
109
63
Given the amount of technology available to the science of Meteorology (data, sophisticated numerical models, AI, etc.) tell me again why in 2025, their ability to predict weather events, even a few hours ahead of time, seems to be so poor?

Their level of inaccuracy would be deemed unacceptable in so many other science or engineering fields.
Do you agree climate change is a problem?
 

Weapon_X

Member
Jul 28, 2018
516
245
43
Texas officials are blaming national weather service for poor forecasting ahead of the record flooding.

Hm, wonder who just made massive cuts to the NWS that left them understaffed and with fewer resources for these exact scenarios?

Almost as if government agencies provide extremely important services and taking a chainsaw to them might not have been a great idea.

Sounds like Texas got what they voted for.
More disingenuous lying from the left.

1751835656023.png1751835629739.png1751835608021.png
 

southerncaltiger

Active member
Mar 16, 2006
8,895
261
83
Do you agree climate change is a problem?
Yes. I retired from the electric utility industry in California—I’ve seen the results first hand. Even if I didn’t agree it was a problem, we were FORCED to account for it on items like the Coastal Commission permit for the spent fuel storage facility at San Onofre. So I won’t get into a pissing contest about the causes, but it’s been a problem for me for years.

I also teamed with our own internal meteorologists on fire mitigation measures, so I know these changes can be accounted for.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dadar

Dadar

Active member
Dec 21, 2003
3,208
109
63
Yes. I retired from the electric utility industry in California—I’ve seen the results first hand. Even if I didn’t agree it was a problem, we were FORCED to account for it on items like the Coastal Commission permit for the spent fuel storage facility at San Onofre. So I won’t get into a pissing about the causes, but it’s? been a problem for me for years.

I also teamed with our own internal meteorologists on fire mitigation measures, so I know these changes can be accounted for.
From what I read, it seems like the only effective way to have been effective for the timings would be sirens or some in home alarm alert
 

fatpiggy

Well-known member
Aug 18, 2002
19,326
947
113
Timeline of warnings. They were many different war ings issued. Don’t let the facts get in the way.

 

southerncaltiger

Active member
Mar 16, 2006
8,895
261
83
lol, no.

define climate change.

Of course the climate changes. This is obvious to everyone. It is not a problem at all though.

floods have been happening since the beginning of time.
Correct. This is where the arguments start—defining Climate Change vs. shorter term cyclic changes in weather patterns. Climate has never been constant over geologic time.
 

Clemson Goat

Active member
Dec 11, 2004
15,239
172
63
The relationship between biodiversity and climate change is not one-way. Climate change impacts biodiversity, and biodiversity loss can further exacerbate climate change. For example, deforestation, a major driver of biodiversity loss, also reduces the planet's capacity to absorb carbon dioxide, contributing to further warming.

We have lost hundreds and hundreds of acres of forests /green space over the last 5 years to new homes and businesses being built near my area. I can't imagine how much has been lost in the upstate.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rock -on

fatpiggy

Well-known member
Aug 18, 2002
19,326
947
113
Correct. This is where the arguments start—defining Climate Change vs. shorter term cyclic changes in weather patterns. Climate has never been constant over geologic time.
And if the climate does change is that a bad thing? Humans have adapted and survived through all types of climate

The whole “the oceans are going to rise” is pure BS. Just look at satellite pictures from decades ago, almost no change. Coastal real estate properties remain the most valuable.


What is the goal that the climate science people want? The climate to stop changing? You can’t define it, can’t say what the goal is, and you can’t measure it. But somehow we need extravagant amounts of money for it.

Huge scam.
 

fatpiggy

Well-known member
Aug 18, 2002
19,326
947
113
The relationship between biodiversity and climate change is not one-way. Climate change impacts biodiversity, and biodiversity loss can further exacerbate climate change. For example, deforestation, a major driver of biodiversity loss, also reduces the planet's capacity to absorb carbon dioxide, contributing to further warming.

We have lost hundreds and hundreds of acres of forests /green space over the last 5 years to new homes and businesses being built near my area. I can't imagine how much has been lost in the upstate.
So is global warming you are concerned about?
 

Clemson Goat

Active member
Dec 11, 2004
15,239
172
63
So is global warming you are concerned about?
I am concerned about biodiversity which I feel has more to do with climate change than fossil fuels.

Deforestation, a major driver of biodiversity loss, also reduces the planet's capacity to absorb carbon dioxide, contributing to further warming.
 

Dadar

Active member
Dec 21, 2003
3,208
109
63
lol, no.

define climate change.

Of course the climate changes. This is obvious to everyone. It is not a problem at all though.

floods have been happening since the beginning of time.
Do you disagree with science

 

rock -on

Member
Jun 30, 2025
30
32
13
The relationship between biodiversity and climate change is not one-way. Climate change impacts biodiversity, and biodiversity loss can further exacerbate climate change. For example, deforestation, a major driver of biodiversity loss, also reduces the planet's capacity to absorb carbon dioxide, contributing to further warming.

We have lost hundreds and hundreds of acres of forests /green space over the last 5 years to new homes and businesses being built near my area. I can't imagine how much has been lost in the upstate.
Don't even get started on the Amazon Rain Forest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clemson Goat

Allornothing

Well-known member
Dec 21, 2001
9,297
744
113
And there were several warnings put out.

The problem was the storm hit at 4:30am. No one got the warnings because everyone was asleep.

Pretty ****** to try and make that political. You are better than that.
“You are better than that”. No IT is not.

You always have to remember, politics is their religion because they don’t believe in GOD.
 

Allornothing

Well-known member
Dec 21, 2001
9,297
744
113
Given the amount of technology available to the science of Meteorology (data, sophisticated numerical models, AI, etc.) tell me again why in 2025, their ability to predict weather events, even a few hours ahead of time, seems to be so poor?

Their level of inaccuracy would be deemed unacceptable in so many other science or engineering fields.
For your local weather forecast you’re better off listening to a farmer, the Farmer’s almanac, or a Native American.

Either one of those 3 has a higher percentage of being right than the folks that get paid to talk about it on TV.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: southerncaltiger

Allornothing

Well-known member
Dec 21, 2001
9,297
744
113
Do you agree climate change is a problem?
NO!
And if the climate does change is that a bad thing? Humans have adapted and survived through all types of climate

The whole “the oceans are going to rise” is pure BS. Just look at satellite pictures from decades ago, almost no change. Coastal real estate properties remain the most valuable.


What is the goal that the climate science people want? The climate to stop changing? You can’t define it, can’t say what the goal is, and you can’t measure it. But somehow we need extravagant amounts of money for it.

Huge scam.
“Huge scam”. Without a doubt it is a scam.

Otherwise people like Osama with all the info he had (yes, I spelled it right) wouldn’t buy ocean front property, Al Gore wouldn’t spend enough on power to light up half of Tennessee, and John “Lurch” Kerry would not take private planes everywhere.

I just named those 3, but there are plenty more on “both sides”. That’s what the libs like to hear. Problem is, their homes don’t have mirrors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fatpiggy

fatpiggy

Well-known member
Aug 18, 2002
19,326
947
113
Do you disagree with science

I disagree with pseudo science. Which is exactly what climate change science is.

it’s like saying “trust the experts”. lol -Who are the experts? 99% of the time they are paid shills.

“Experts say we need two weeks to stop the spread.” “Experts say get vaccinated to stop the spread.””Cholesterol is bad for you””the food pyramid”

You could go on and on when “experts” were dead wrong. You can find a “study” to back almost any conclusion you draw.


Climate science is a pseudo science. There are no clear definitions. There are no clear measurements. There are no clear goals.

We already have one poster above that has jumped from climate change to global warming.

What is the most clear definition of climate change?

And then why is that a bad thing?
 

fatpiggy

Well-known member
Aug 18, 2002
19,326
947
113
I am concerned about biodiversity which I feel has more to do with climate change than fossil fuels.

Deforestation, a major driver of biodiversity loss, also reduces the planet's capacity to absorb carbon dioxide, contributing to further warming.
Are you trying to say that as the planet gets warmer, biodiversity goes down? As the temperature rises, there will be less species on the planet?

Because when I look around me, life tends to thrive with heat.
 

firegiver

Well-known member
Sep 10, 2007
71,521
1,589
113
Are you trying to say that as the planet gets warmer, biodiversity goes down? As the temperature rises, there will be less species on the planet?

Because when I look around me, life tends to thrive with heat.
The oceans warming will kill off most of the coral reefs, this will cause a collapse in the ecosystems in the ocean.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dpic73

fatpiggy

Well-known member
Aug 18, 2002
19,326
947
113
The oceans warming will kill off most of the coral reefs, this will cause a collapse in the ecosystems in the ocean.
And at what temperature will that happen?

Heck, let’s start with what is the ocean temperature now?
 

Dadar

Active member
Dec 21, 2003
3,208
109
63
If you have any basic understanding of science, how can anyone logically argue that we are not experiencing climate change? If you have not noticed, we have been getting some extreme weather events that defy any design standards from the 20th century. The greenhouse effects from man's presence and effects on the environment are real.

Sure there have and will in all probability be unavoidable events that originate from outside the atmosphere at some unknown future time, but choosing to deny this is just ignorant if one considers where this is trending
 
  • Like
Reactions: flotiger and dpic73

MTTiger19

Active member
Sep 10, 2008
2,814
248
63
If you have any basic understanding of science, how can anyone logically argue that we are not experiencing climate change? If you have not noticed, we have been getting some extreme weather events that defy any design standards from the 20th century. The greenhouse effects from man's presence and effects on the environment are real.

Sure there have and will in all probability be unavoidable events that originate from outside the atmosphere at some unknown future time, but choosing to deny this is just ignorant if one considers where this is trending
CO2 makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. Of that 0.04%, humans have an impact on about 3% globally. Of that 3%, Americans are responsible for about 11%. Stop your nonsense.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: fatpiggy

Clemson Goat

Active member
Dec 11, 2004
15,239
172
63
Are you trying to say that as the planet gets warmer, biodiversity goes down? As the temperature rises, there will be less species on the planet?

Because when I look around me, life tends to thrive with heat.
What I am saying when we lose forest , rain forests , green space (trees , grass, weeds, ) anything that removes Co2 and replace these areas with new homes, businesses buildings, concrete, asphalt, temperature tends to go up.

Reduced Absorption & Increased Emissions:
  • Forests and rainforests are vital carbon sinks, meaning they absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and store it in their biomass (trees, roots, leaves) and soils.
  • When trees are cut down, they stop absorbing CO2.
  • Furthermore, when deforested trees are burned or decompose, the stored carbon is released back into the atmosphere, primarily as CO2. This creates a "double whammy" effect – less CO2 is being removed, and more is being released.
2. Impact on Global Carbon Fluxes:
  • Between 2001 and 2019, forests absorbed roughly twice as much CO2 as they emitted.
  • Specifically, forests absorbed around 16 billion metric tonnes of CO2 per year, while deforestation and other disturbances released an average of 8.1 billion metric tonnes annually.
  • This meant that forests provided a net carbon sink of about 7.6 billion metric tonnes of CO2 per year during that period.
  • The net effect of tree cover loss is that some of this CO2 removal capacity is lost.
3. Turning Carbon Sinks into Sources:
  • In some regions, like Southeast Asia, tropical rainforests have already become a net source of CO2 emissions due to deforestation.
  • In the Amazon, deforestation and warming are causing parts of the forest to transition from a carbon sink to a carbon source.
  • Between 2015 and 2017, tropical forest loss worldwide released 10 billion tonnes of CO2, almost 10% of annual human CO2 emissions.
4. Additional Factors Reducing Carbon Removal:
  • Forest degradation, which affects the structure and function of forests without decreasing their area, also contributes to reduced carbon sequestration.
  • Deforestation-induced climate change leads to regional warming and drying, further reducing the carbon storage capacity of remaining forests and making them more vulnerable to fires.
In summary, deforestation directly reduces the amount of CO2 removed from the atmosphere by eliminating trees that would otherwise absorb it. Furthermore, it releases stored carbon, adding to the problem. This can lead to significant reductions in forests' capacity to act as a carbon sink and, in some cases, can turn them into net carbon sources.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dadar

fatpiggy

Well-known member
Aug 18, 2002
19,326
947
113
If you have any basic understanding of science, how can anyone logically argue that we are not experiencing climate change? If you have not noticed, we have been getting some extreme weather events that defy any design standards from the 20th century. The greenhouse effects from man's presence and effects on the environment are real.

Sure there have and will in all probability be unavoidable events that originate from outside the atmosphere at some unknown future time, but choosing to deny this is just ignorant if one considers where this is trending
No one denies the climate changes.

Do we need to throw money at the climate because it changes? Absolutely not. The climate changed well before humans and it will continue to change well after humans are here. Humans are a very adaptable species and we will adapt.

Can anyone give us the basics? Where are we starting, what is the goal, and how will we get there?

What is the baseline ocean temperature? What is the ideal ocean temperature?

No one can answer those questions because climate science is a pseudo science that can not be measured. "Just trust us bro" is not science.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DW4_2016

dpic73

Well-known member
Jul 27, 2005
21,837
520
113
This maga congessional candidate knows the deal. This was dEeP sTaTe manipulated weather.




Readers added context they thought people might want to know
Hurricane Helene wasn’t caused by cloud seeding or geo engineering. It was a natural phenomenon formed due to natural conditions in the ocean and atmosphere, not human interventions. No technology exists to create or steer hurricanes. noaa.gov/news/fact-chec… science.feedback.org/humans-do-not-…. rand.org/pubs/commentar…
Do you find this helpful?
 

DW4_2016

Active member
Jan 25, 2010
8,413
357
83
No one denies the climate changes.

Do we need to throw money at the climate because it changes? Absolutely not. The climate changed well before humans and it will continue to change well after humans are here. Humans are a very adaptable species and we will adapt.

Can anyone give us the basics? Where are we starting, what is the goal, and how will we get there?

What is the baseline ocean temperature? What is the ideal ocean temperature?

No one can answer those questions because climate science is a pseudo science that can not be measured. "Just trust us bro" is not science.
No one denies the climate changes.

 

flotiger

Member
Dec 24, 2011
1,465
28
48
NO!

“Huge scam”. Without a doubt it is a scam.

Otherwise people like Osama with all the info he had (yes, I spelled it right) wouldn’t buy ocean front property, Al Gore wouldn’t spend enough on power to light up half of Tennessee, and John “Lurch” Kerry would not take private planes everywhere.

I just named those 3, but there are plenty more on “both sides”. That’s what the libs like to hear. Problem is, their homes don’t have mirrors.
Just when I thought you couldn't sound more ignorant.....lol.