Anonymous #2 10w

more than one factor can contribute to natural disasters. climate change HAS caused more extreme weather patterns in an area. Combined with unwise construction choices, you’ll get more bad outcomes

18

Anonymous #1 10w

There is no evidence in the IPCC that remotely suggests that.

-4

Anonymous #1 10w

And cite where if true, USING THE IPCC.

-5

Anonymous #2 10w

https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/

12

Anonymous #2 10w

That was easy.

10

Anonymous #2 10w

Section 2.2 talks entirely abt the effect of the changing climate and how it directly impacts land

9

Anonymous #1 10w

China has actually fixed a lot of their cities, changing cities covered in smog to beautiful cities

5

Anonymous #4 10w

Yeah this isn’t talked abt enough. China realized they had a problem and swiftly built the largest solar farm, leads the world in wind power and in EVs. Kinda crazy what can happen when an entire country backs a known issue

7

Anonymous #3 10w

Kinda crazy that the world’s most successful country is communist 💀💀. China will definitely surpasss America in our lifetime

3

Anonymous #4 10w

They already have if we are realistic

3

Anonymous #3 10w

Agreed

1

Anonymous #1 10w

IPCC defines disaster risk as hazard × exposure × vulnerability. You’re locked on hazard and ignoring the rest. Terrain, development, and drainage failures are core drivers of flood impact. Climate may load the dice, but bad design plays the hand. Learn the framework before reciting synthesized findings.

1

Anonymous #3 10w

“Impacts are caused by climate hazards interacting with the exposure and vulnerability of affected human and natural systems. Changes in the magnitude and frequency of climate hazards affect impacts but do not solely determine them.” — IPCC AR6 SPM.B.2.1

1

Anonymous #1 10w

tRuSt ThE sCiEnCe

1

Anonymous #2 10w

U are quite literally proving our point

5

Anonymous #3 10w

Not quite. Your claim was that climate change caused this flood. The IPCC says impact = hazard ∩ exposure ∩ vulnerability. You cited a global hazard trend, ignored regional attribution, and skipped the infrastructure variable entirely. You’re confusing ∪ correlation with ∩ causation.

0

Anonymous #3 10w

Also, “ongoing warming is projected to result in new, hot climates in tropical regions and to shift climate zones poleward in the mid- to high latitudes and upward in regions of higher elevation. Ecosystems in these regions will become increasingly exposed to temperature and rainfall extremes beyond the climate regimes they are currently adapted to.” Special report: Climate change and land, Chapter 2 Executive Summary

3

Anonymous #2 10w

My claim was never that climate change solely is to blame. It is in agreement with #1.

2

Anonymous #3 10w

Sorry, try again. What you just cited is with regards to long-term ecological stress, not sudden flood impacts or attribution. Again, you’re posting a climate ∪ ecosystems projection to answer a hydrology ∩ infrastructure ∩ exposure problem. Completely separate domains.

0

Anonymous #2 10w

The domains cross over. Long term climate changes can lead to an increase in water retention due to a hotter atmosphere. This in turn leads to greater rainfall. This combined with your original claim leads to the claim #1 and I made.

3

Anonymous #3 10w

“Increases in heavy precipitation and Olivia flooding have been observed and are projected to become more frequent in many regions, especially in NA” technical summary, AR6 WGI

3

Anonymous #2 10w

“In the central and eastern parts of NA, there is high confidence in observed and projected increases in heavy precipitation” Chapter 12: climate change information for regional impact and risk assessment

3

Anonymous #3 10w

Closer, but you still need you still need Local hydrological anomalies, Attribution modeling, and Infrastructure vulnerability.

0

Anonymous #2 10w

Yeah I’ve already stated that climate change alone wasn’t the cause. It is, however, one of the largest drivers of this flood

6

Anonymous #3 10w

Yeah, without those, you can't claim anything, let alone make a causal inference.

1

Anonymous #2 10w

What? I cited multiple pieces from the IPCC which contradicted exactly what u stated “no evidence states [climate change has caused more extreme weather patterns in an area]”. You are just lying now.

3

Anonymous #4 10w

Communism is for degenerates

-2

Anonymous #3 10w

I’ll concede you identified a corollary variable of increased regional precipitation. But it doesn’t operate in a vacuum. Without local hydrology, exposure, infrastructure, and attribution modeling, your reference describes conditions, not causes. This is multivariable calculus, not connect-the-dots.

0

Anonymous #2 10w

well, the website you demanded be our *only* source just doesn’t have enough documentation on it to provide the comprehensive profile of hydrology, exposure, etc that you’re looking for. It doesn’t go that in depth for *any* particular region. That doesn’t mean valuable research supporting it doesn’t exist.

1

Anonymous #2 10w

If you want multivariable calculus, don’t demand we use only a 10-digit calculator.

1

Anonymous #1 10w

No — I’m not the one restricting you to a 10-digit calculator. I asked for the standard components of attribution, specifically regional hydrology, exposure modeling, vulnerability analysis. You answered with global trends and correlations. If the IPCC isn’t granular enough, then citing it doesn’t prove what you think it does.

0

Anonymous #2 10w

You didn’t ask for this in your initial post. You are moving the goal posts. You asked for evidence that climate change can be a driver in the flooding in Texas. I gave you multiple sources and you are upset that I proved you wrong. I’m not going to debate your further point because I agree that this is a multi-faceted problem. However, climate change was a direct driver in the flood

5

Anonymous #3 10w

According to climameter, meteorological conditions from 1950-1986 compared to present day are 7% wetter currently. Additionally they concluded that climate change “locally intensified” the extreme rainfall

5

Anonymous #5 10w

Seems to work for the Chinese

1

Anonymous #3 10w

So does this guy think Climate change is real or not? Like im confused. Is it ONLY bad construction/infrastructure that causes worsening natural disasters or is it maybe construction/infrastructure AND climate change and ecological destruction

3

Anonymous #6 10w

Like youre saying it was multiple things, but his original comment was implying that he thinks climate change (aka the ecological destruction of our atmosphere) isnt real but that ecological destruction via construction IS real… couldnt it be… both??

3

Anonymous #6 10w

Like he said you were only focusing on the hazard thing, but isnt he doing the SAME thing with another factor AND you werent even saying it was just atmospheric change that is causing worse hurricanes

2

Anonymous #6 10w

You are exactly right. He’s using chatgpt I think. They give me the same arguments when I propose it to them.

3

Anonymous #3 10w

Sometimes i like to come up with an idiotic argument and tell GPT to “convince me” that its true. It really illuminates how these people think… or maybe how theyre making AI argue for them lmao

2

Anonymous #6 10w

If you use the words “convince me” GPT will saying ANYTHING to make you believe it, including coming up with bogus goalposts and inventing fake sources

3

Anonymous #6 10w

I’ve never had anyone debate me with that kind of language before. I had to reread a few of his comments because it was word vomit

3

Anonymous #3 10w

Bro broke out the word equations

3

Anonymous #6 10w

They used dashes like Grok too lol

3

Anonymous #6 10w

He probably thinks the reason you had to reread is bc hes smarter than you lol

2

Anonymous #6 10w

The dashes weren’t the issue lol. It was the weird thing between correlation and causation I’ve only seen that in my physics classes and with chat

3

Anonymous #3 10w

Im starting to believe at least half the internet is just bots coded to argue with whatever the post is about

3

Anonymous #3 10w

Sorry, I have a job and funny enough, job has me in a lab. That said, it’s clear if you dont ∪ or ∩ have on your keyboard(let alone know what they mean) you dont understand basic statistics, let alone geophysics or complex systems analysis.

1

Anonymous #3 10w

And my point is, climate change is real, but it’s not the crisis you’re making it out to be. And if you can’t grasp the difference between trend correlation and causal inference, you’re not ready for the conversation. But have fun with whatever you do.

1

Anonymous #2 10w

I do understand what they mean but I never see anyone use them was my point. Your perspective of climate change is valid but with the overwhelming amount of statistics out there that proves that it is a crisis then idk what to tell you. I have proven that there is a causal inference but you refuse to accept it even when I went out of my way with the restricted source you gave me

3

Anonymous #2 10w

Also, you just did a causal and correlation with your use of the union and intersection symbols

2

Anonymous #3 10w

Maybe you don’t understand the difference between them

2

Anonymous #4 10w

…yes china with their one communist party and the same president for 12 years. the capitalist vs communist argument is so stale. countries have moved on to hybrid economies. even china’s private sector now makes up around 70% of their gdp

1