193 dead from extreme weather

[wirebender]

Well, Bro, what evidence can you present that AGW is not a fact? Or are you just going to stand in left field doing a braindead neener, neener?

Asking that skeptics prove a negative? You really are off the deep end. It is you and yours who are claiming imminent disaster. The onus sits upon your shoulders to provide hard observed proof. Frustrating, isn't it, that none exists in all the anals of science?

 

[IanC]

Old Rocks doesnt understand that individual weather events are not climate. he also doesnt understand that changing climate (and it is always changing) doesnt mean that mankind is responsible. and he doesnt understand that if you predict everything then you have to be right occasionally.

 

[Old Rocks]

So, you get your science from Newsweek. Hardly surprising, and it certainly shows in the depth of your intellect.

Climate myths: They predicted global cooling in the 1970s - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

Update: A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, Bro, what evidence can you present that AGW is not a fact? Or are you just going to stand in left field doing a braindead neener, neener?

Asking that skeptics prove a negative? You really are off the deep end. It is you and yours who are claiming imminent disaster. The onus sits upon your shoulders to provide hard observed proof. Frustrating, isn't it, that none exists in all the anals of science?

Now Bender, 97% of the currently practicing and publishing climate scientists state the AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.

All a sceptic would have to do to prove AGW false, is show a source of warming other than the present GHGs. And don't start yapping about the sun, the last few years have seen a lowering of the TSI.

Or one could show that the present retreat of nearly all the glaciers worldwide is not a fact. Same for the losses of ice from Greenland and Antarctica.

But nobody has been able to do that.

 

[Old Rocks]

Old Rocks doesnt understand that individual weather events are not climate. he also doesnt understand that changing climate (and it is always changing) doesnt mean that mankind is responsible. and he doesnt understand that if you predict everything then you have to be right occasionally.

Love your avatar, Ian. Shows what a fool you are as you post further proof of your foolishness.

Now let's look at that graph. Note the period from 2002 to 2007. The running mean is higher than all the previous high points save that of 1998. And look at the two lows since 1998. The go only slightly lower than the highs previous to 1998.

But you are stupid enough to yap on about a cooling since 1998 when your own avatar is demonstrating the foolishness of your yapping.

 

[wirebender]

So, you get your science from Newsweek. Hardly surprising, and it certainly shows in the depth of your intellect.

You aren't very bright are you? I didn't believe the cooling scare in the 70's any more than I believe the warming scare today. The man asked for a reference. I gave him one.


As to the recent tornadoes, Dr Roy Spencer says:

"It is well known that strong to violent tornado activity in the U.S. has decreased markedly since statistics began in the 1950s, which has also been a period of average warming. So, if anything, global warming causes FEWER tornado outbreaks…not more. In other words, more violent tornadoes would, if anything, be a sign of “global cooling”, not “global warming”.

Anyone who claims more tornadoes are caused by global warming is either misinformed, pandering, or delusional."

Misinformed, pandering and delusional. He is batting 1000 where you are concerned.

 

[Two Thumbs]

So, you get your science from Newsweek. Hardly surprising, and it certainly shows in the depth of your intellect.

You aren't very bright are you? I didn't believe the cooling scare in the 70's any more than I believe the warming scare today. The man asked for a reference. I gave him one.


As to the recent tornadoes, Dr Roy Spencer says:

"It is well known that strong to violent tornado activity in the U.S. has decreased markedly since statistics began in the 1950s, which has also been a period of average warming. So, if anything, global warming causes FEWER tornado outbreaks…not more. In other words, more violent tornadoes would, if anything, be a sign of “global cooling”, not “global warming”.

Anyone who claims more tornadoes are caused by global warming is either misinformed, pandering, or delusional."

Misinformed, pandering and delusional. He is batting 1000 where you are concerned.

I have to wait to rep you again.

 

[Dr.House]

So, you get your science from Newsweek. Hardly surprising, and it certainly shows in the depth of your intellect.

You aren't very bright are you? I didn't believe the cooling scare in the 70's any more than I believe the warming scare today. The man asked for a reference. I gave him one.


As to the recent tornadoes, Dr Roy Spencer says:

"It is well known that strong to violent tornado activity in the U.S. has decreased markedly since statistics began in the 1950s, which has also been a period of average warming. So, if anything, global warming causes FEWER tornado outbreaks…not more. In other words, more violent tornadoes would, if anything, be a sign of “global cooling”, not “global warming”.

Anyone who claims more tornadoes are caused by global warming is either misinformed, pandering, or delusional."

Misinformed, pandering and delusional. He is batting 1000 where you are concerned.

I have to wait to rep you again.

I got him for ya...

 

[westwall]

My, my, Thumbolina, stating that the event fit the pattern that was predicted by the scientists in the Copenhagen Diagnosis is hardly politisizing it. Well, of course for someone with your intellectual disabilities, all science is political.

But for sane people, stating that an event that fits a particular prediciton, whether that event is benign or catastrophic, is simply an observation, an opinion. In this case, even a qualified opinion.

You are one sick arrogant fuck.

They have been calling for worse and worse storms for 11 years.

finally in the 11th year they got it right.

filthy bag of shit, you are supporting guess work.

My, my, Thumbolina, you are capable of sounding like an adolescent. Pretty good for someone with a fourth graders mentality.

If you don't like the predictions coming to pass, that is your problem. Does not affect the reality one whit.

What predictions? Anytime you begin a prediction with "may" or "might" you have entered the realm of psychics. It "may" rain 20 dollar gold coins tomorrow....but I kind of doubt it.

 

[Immanuel]

You are one sick arrogant fuck.

They have been calling for worse and worse storms for 11 years.

finally in the 11th year they got it right.

filthy bag of shit, you are supporting guess work.

My, my, Thumbolina, you are capable of sounding like an adolescent. Pretty good for someone with a fourth graders mentality.

If you don't like the predictions coming to pass, that is your problem. Does not affect the reality one whit.

What predictions? Anytime you begin a prediction with "may" or "might" you have entered the realm of psychics. It "may" rain 20 dollar gold coins tomorrow....but I kind of doubt it.

Hey, if you happen to get a fix on where that might happen, can you slip me a PM please?

Immie

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, you get your science from Newsweek. Hardly surprising, and it certainly shows in the depth of your intellect.

You aren't very bright are you? I didn't believe the cooling scare in the 70's any more than I believe the warming scare today. The man asked for a reference. I gave him one.


As to the recent tornadoes, Dr Roy Spencer says:

"It is well known that strong to violent tornado activity in the U.S. has decreased markedly since statistics began in the 1950s, which has also been a period of average warming. So, if anything, global warming causes FEWER tornado outbreaks…not more. In other words, more violent tornadoes would, if anything, be a sign of “global cooling”, not “global warming”.

Anyone who claims more tornadoes are caused by global warming is either misinformed, pandering, or delusional."

Misinformed, pandering and delusional. He is batting 1000 where you are concerned.

And to this very day there is not one single repeatable laboratory experiment showing how a 200PPM increase in CO2 does ANY of the things its supposed to do.

That's not science, that's not even a theory, it's a hunch; it's somewhere between phrenology and palmistry

 

[wirebender]

Now Bender, 97% of the currently practicing and publishing climate scientists state the AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.

That statement in and of itself is either a bald faced lie on your part or a deliberate deception. In my short experience of you, it is undeniable that you are perfectly capable and willing to do both.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

An examination of your 97% consensus reveals that it is, in reality, a survey of only 75 scientists and they are self selected.

All a sceptic would have to do to prove AGW false, is show a source of warming other than the present GHGs. And don't start yapping about the sun, the last few years have seen a lowering of the TSI.

I am still waiting for even one shred of hard, observed evidence that proves unequivocally that the activities of man are responsible for the changing global climate. If AGW is a fact as you claim, then the hard observed evidence should be easy to provide and yet, you seem to be completely unable to do it.

Lets see the evidence. Actual observed evidence as opposed to the blogs and computer models you always refer to.

Or one could show that the present retreat of nearly all the glaciers worldwide is not a fact. Same for the losses of ice from Greenland and Antarctica.

Once more, your colossal ignorance shines through. The fact of melting ice is not evidence that man is responsible, unless of course, you believe that you can prove that the ice has never melted before man invented the internal combustion engine. The inconvenient (for you) fact is that if one looks at the history of the earth, one sees that in the grand scheme, ice on earth is an anomoly, not the norm.

Again I ask, do you have any actual proof that man is responsible for the changing climate?

But nobody has been able to do that.

And you remain unable to prove your claims. Your inability to provide any hard observed proof that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing climate relieves me of any burden to prove anything as it is you who is claiming imminent disaster. All I need do is prove that the present climate is within the known normal range within the history of the planet and that is no problem at all.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's that time again!

Let's play everyone favorite Game:

Wheel of Climate Change!!

What's ManMade Global Warming doing today, Vanna?

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Bender, 97% of the currently practicing and publishing climate scientists state the AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.

That statement in and of itself is either a bald faced lie on your part or a deliberate deception. In my short experience of you, it is undeniable that you are perfectly capable and willing to do both.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

An examination of your 97% consensus reveals that it is, in reality, a survey of only 75 scientists and they are self selected.

All a sceptic would have to do to prove AGW false, is show a source of warming other than the present GHGs. And don't start yapping about the sun, the last few years have seen a lowering of the TSI.

I am still waiting for even one shred of hard, observed evidence that proves unequivocally that the activities of man are responsible for the changing global climate. If AGW is a fact as you claim, then the hard observed evidence should be easy to provide and yet, you seem to be completely unable to do it.

Lets see the evidence. Actual observed evidence as opposed to the blogs and computer models you always refer to.

Or one could show that the present retreat of nearly all the glaciers worldwide is not a fact. Same for the losses of ice from Greenland and Antarctica.

Once more, your colossal ignorance shines through. The fact of melting ice is not evidence that man is responsible, unless of course, you believe that you can prove that the ice has never melted before man invented the internal combustion engine. The inconvenient (for you) fact is that if one looks at the history of the earth, one sees that in the grand scheme, ice on earth is an anomoly, not the norm.

Again I ask, do you have any actual proof that man is responsible for the changing climate?

But nobody has been able to do that.

And you remain unable to prove your claims. Your inability to provide any hard observed proof that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing climate relieves me of any burden to prove anything as it is you who is claiming imminent disaster. All I need do is prove that the present climate is within the known normal range within the history of the planet and that is no problem at all.

LOL. If you were not such a dumb fuck, you would realize that you have already killed your case. Yes, the present rapid warmup is well within the range that is known from Geological history. It is as fast, or faster, than the changes that preceded several extinction periods.

As for proof of the effect of the GHGs, once again, here is what the American Institute of Physics has to say;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Of course, the American Institute of Physics is just a scientific society, and you are a so much smarter than they anonamouis poster on a very Conservative internet message board.

Not that I expect you to actually read what the scientists have to say. You get all the science you need from an obese junkie of a radio jock.

 

[rdean]

Let me guess.... this is the fault of the GOP, right?

I'm pretty sure it's Gawd punishing the Republicans for attacking the Middle Class.

 

[skookerasbil]

Been a few months since we did an Environmental Forum Scoreboard check................

Lets see...............

w0w........the k00ks have actually lost points if you can believe it!! Most likely has to do with the emergence of Polar as a force on this forum..........also, that dope Chris is back at posting up shit for the 400th time!!! All in all.........an excellent first 4 months for the sceptics!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Sowell on "Global warming is a methodical hoax hashed up by intellectuals". The best part here is when he references the reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeal longshot of a global warming denier coming onto a university campus and making it = a snowballs change in hell.

This is supposed to be science. So..........how can this possibly be? How?


Brilliant stuff here.............( that is unless you reject common sense )

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rweblFwt-BM&feature=fvwrel]YouTube - Thomas Sowell: Global Warming Manufactured by Intellectuals?[/ame]

 

[wirebender]

LOL. If you were not such a dumb fuck, you would realize that you have already killed your case. Yes, the present rapid warmup is well within the range that is known from Geological history. It is as fast, or faster, than the changes that preceded several extinction periods.

Poor rocks. Why tell lies when you have to know that you are going to be called out on them?

Tell me rocks, have you ever actually researched anything? Even once? Your claim that the present change is as fast or faster than that of extinction periods is simply a lie. One need research no further than the Vostok ice core data to prove that your claims are fantasy.

Here, have a look at the temperature record for the past 450 thousand years. The temperatures during this period are well below the average mean when earth history is considered, and there are certainly no extiinction events during this period and yet, we see multiple time frames when the temperature rise was considerably faster than the present.

As to your claims of present temperatures resembling past extinction events; you have clearly never actually looked at the subject. You are either simply making it up as you go or are taking your que from someone else who is simply making it up as they go. In either case, you should try actually looking up the facts before you say something that is going to bring yet more public humiliation upon you.

Your claim that the present temperature increase is similar to increases that preceeded extinction events is yet another shining example of your ignorance. In the first place, no record exists further back than the Vostok ice core data (450K years) that can provide a high enough resolution of temperature changes to even begin to compare the past with the present when short term temperature changes are the issue. That said, you have no clue what the short term temperature changes looked like during any extinction event.

If you believe you do, I would be very interested in seeing the data source.

If you ever actually took the time to actually learn something about the major extinction events, you would know off hand that your claim was BS.

The most recent extinction event was the KT event about 65 million years ago. The average global mean temperature at the time was about 25 degrees C and had been for about 80 million years when the event took place. Compare 25 degrees C to the present 13.9 degrees C and that alone is enough to tell you that the sort of temperature change we are experiencing was not the cause of the extinction. Scientists theorize that the KT extinction was the result of an impact event, volcanic activity, sea level drop, or perhaps a combination of the two. If it was due to impact events or volcanoes, then the extinction would have been the result of temperature decrease.

The triassic - jurassic extinction also took place during a time when the average mean temperature on earth was about 25 degrees C and had been for about 80 million years. This suggests that when the earth's mean temp reaches 25 degrees C and remains so for about 80 million years, an event that probably won't have anyting to do with climate change may kill us. Contact me when the earth as been at 25 degrees C for 79 million years or so.

The next extinction event was the permian triassic event. Once more, the suspected causes of this event are varied. Some sort of super volcanic activity with associated hydrogen sulfide emissions and anoxia are the most reasonable culprits. Certainly not due to any temperature change even faintly resembling what we are experiencing today. Again, at the time of the permian - triassic extinction, the mean temperature of the earth was at least 10 degrees C higher than the present.

The late denovian extinction is next on the list. The late denovian saw a signifigant mean temperature drop of about 4 degrees C. Global cooling, not warming is the most likely cause of the extinction.

Travel on back and the next extinction event. Among the most likely causes of that event are a burst of gamma radiation resulting from a supernova about 6,000 light years from earth or volcanoes. In either event, it was not due to any temperature shift even remotely resembling the present.

You are full of crap rocks. I suggest that you either stop lying, or find better research materials as you are being lied to. Doing so will result in less public humiliation.

As for proof of the effect of the GHGs, once again, here is what the American Institute of Physics has to say;

I have asked you to point out what part of that essay you believe constitutes proof. As I predicted, you are unable as you clearly don't understand the material. Where in that essay is any observed, experimental proof? I see nothing more than a rambling discussion of a pretty poor hypothesis. It is science we are talking about. Where is the proof. Where is the observed experimental evidence?

Not that I expect you to actually read what the scientists have to say. You get all the science you need from an obese junkie of a radio jock.

I read the essay completely whichi is why I can ask you which part you believe constitutes proof of the greenhouse gas hypothesis with complete confidence that you will be unable to answer the question. No part of that essay represents proof of any sort. It is an essay describing the evolution of a hypothesis over the years. A hypothesis, I might add, that has not managed to become convincing enough to be called a theory. A hypothesis that doesn't have one shred of observed, experimental evidence in its support.

So again I ask, where is the proof? Your essay doesn't even come close. Got anything else?

 

[Old Rocks]

Dumb ass. Since when has there been a major extinction period in the last 650,000 years, excepting the one we are in right now?

The Permian-Triassic Boundary

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey Rocks..........chew on this s0n................from NewScience

Why have so many tornadoes hit the US this month?

April 2011 by Michael Marshall

The US has borne the brunt of two spates of tornadoes in the past month. Between 14 and 16 April, storms swept through several states, with North Carolina the hardest hit. In the past few days a new wave has struck. Alabama's governor Robert Bentley said today that 131 people were confirmed dead in the state, and the number is expected to rise. New Scientist explains what is happening.

How many tornadoes have there been?
There have probably been 600 in April, according to Harold Brooks of the National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL) in Norman, Oklahoma. That is more than any month since records began in 1950.

What is causing the onslaught?
For a tornado to form, cold air must sit above warm, moist air, and the wind needs to go in different directions at different heights, creating shear forces. "One thing that brings those things together is a strong jet stream," says Brooks, "especially if it comes from the west or south-west, over the Rockies."

That is exactly what has been happening throughout April. The jet stream has dipped south over the south-western US, sending strings of storms over the southern states for weeks on end. According to Brooks, such a sustained pattern happens only two or three times a century.

Is it over?
NSSL's forecasters think the stormy weather is likely to calm down over the next few days as the warm, moist air currently trapped over the southern states moves away and conditions become less favourable for tornadoes. But the laboratory is unsure what will happen next week: its different models are forecasting different outcomes.

Is climate change to blame?
There's no way of knowing for sure. There have been claims that tornado numbers have increased over the past few decades, but because records are less reliable further back in time, we cannot be sure.

"Some ingredients that are favourable to tornadoes will increase in a warming world, others will decrease," Brooks says. How that will balance out is anyone's guess.

Why have so many tornadoes hit the US this month? - environment - 28 April 2011 - New Scientist




Information will set you free s0n!!!!