California suffering through SEVERE climate change

[SwimExpert]

Did you not just read, in this very thread, the list of effects credited to an el Nino? Dry here, wet there, hot here, cold there. All from a single cause.

And you think that compares, don't you? You really are a shallow mind, aren't you?

Not shallow enough to be entertained by an animated emoticon.

If you blow on a candle, it goes out. If you blow on another fire, it could fuel the flame. Those are particular circumstances, i.e. independent events.

No, they are not. All those effects can and will be produced by a single el Nino. That is the normal course of events.

Trying to use that as justification for your shitstorm of sloppy and contradictory thinking where every and anything that happens, even if it contradicts your predictions, is spun into "evidence" in support of your hypothesis.

I never suggested any of that was evidence for anything. I was responding to the contention that global warming would produce more and more droughts worldwide.

In science, effective experimentation requires identifying a specific hypothesized outcome, and testing that hypothesis. If your prediction pans out, the experiment supports your hypothesis.

Hypothesized outcomes can be produced by experiments or observed in the environment. In the study of the Earth's climate - a system far too complex and chaotic to reproduce in a lab setting - you either get to watch what happens outside your door or try to simulate it with a GCM inside a computer. Reality's not always so tidy.

If it your prediction does not prove true, then the results indicate a need for an alternative hypothesis.

Predictions of the behavior of a system as complex as the Earth's climate are never going to "prove true" or false.

That's how things work in the scientific process.

Science almost NEVER involves proof. Far more often, it simply involves evidence that must be weighed.

But in Crick's world of dogma, it's an entirely different story.

I'm not demanding proof.

You start out with an assumption, you claim a certain result will come to pass, and when it doesn't happen you claim to have learned a whole new consequence of global warming.

I've done no such thing. If you believe I have, show it to us.

There is absolutely nothing that can happen that you won't attribute to global warming.

This statement is false. And stupid.

You'll hoot and holler all thread long about how a regional drought is caused by global warming, but then when increased precipitation in another area is shown you say that's global warming too.

Perhaps you should review the discussion. We were talking about the effects of el Ninos which DO cause reduced precipitation in some regions and increased precipitation in others. Then we had the comment that global warming would cause global droughts, with which I took exception.

I'd think you'd want to get a good grip on what has actually happened here before wasting two pages of obloquy chastizing me for things I have not done (and which everyone here has witnessed me 'not doing'.)

If precipitation on the rest of the country were normal, that would be global warming too. If a particular day is really hot, you'll say that's global warming. And then you'll have the absurdity to say that when someone points to an extra cold winter day as contrary evidence they're confusing weather vs. climate.

Let us know when you're done blathering.

....







You're trolling, right? I mean, you can't honestly believe that any of that was a meaningful or intelligent reply to what I said. It's like you doubled down on stupidity in the hope that I might confuse being confounded by your complete failure to address what I said with the belief that I might be confused with the actual subject.

You're like a politician who is asked about creating jobs and responds with a diatribe about how Obama is allegedly from Kenya.

 

[mamooth]

You're trolling, right?

He gave a reply you couldn't address, so you're cutting and running. What, you thought it wasn't obvious?

Stop telling that big lie about how everything supposedly proves global warming. You deniers are the only ones who ever say such a crazy thing, and you deserved to be castigated for constantly using that lie. If you could address the actual issues, you wouldn't have to always fabricate that strawman.

 

[Crick]

Did you not just read, in this very thread, the list of effects credited to an el Nino? Dry here, wet there, hot here, cold there. All from a single cause.

And you think that compares, don't you? You really are a shallow mind, aren't you?

Not shallow enough to be entertained by an animated emoticon.

If you blow on a candle, it goes out. If you blow on another fire, it could fuel the flame. Those are particular circumstances, i.e. independent events.

No, they are not. All those effects can and will be produced by a single el Nino. That is the normal course of events.

Trying to use that as justification for your shitstorm of sloppy and contradictory thinking where every and anything that happens, even if it contradicts your predictions, is spun into "evidence" in support of your hypothesis.

I never suggested any of that was evidence for anything. I was responding to the contention that global warming would produce more and more droughts worldwide.

In science, effective experimentation requires identifying a specific hypothesized outcome, and testing that hypothesis. If your prediction pans out, the experiment supports your hypothesis.

Hypothesized outcomes can be produced by experiments or observed in the environment. In the study of the Earth's climate - a system far too complex and chaotic to reproduce in a lab setting - you either get to watch what happens outside your door or try to simulate it with a GCM inside a computer. Reality's not always so tidy.

If it your prediction does not prove true, then the results indicate a need for an alternative hypothesis.

Predictions of the behavior of a system as complex as the Earth's climate are never going to "prove true" or false.

That's how things work in the scientific process.

Science almost NEVER involves proof. Far more often, it simply involves evidence that must be weighed.

But in Crick's world of dogma, it's an entirely different story.

I'm not demanding proof.

You start out with an assumption, you claim a certain result will come to pass, and when it doesn't happen you claim to have learned a whole new consequence of global warming.

I've done no such thing. If you believe I have, show it to us.

There is absolutely nothing that can happen that you won't attribute to global warming.

This statement is false. And stupid.

You'll hoot and holler all thread long about how a regional drought is caused by global warming, but then when increased precipitation in another area is shown you say that's global warming too.

Perhaps you should review the discussion. We were talking about the effects of el Ninos which DO cause reduced precipitation in some regions and increased precipitation in others. Then we had the comment that global warming would cause global droughts, with which I took exception.

I'd think you'd want to get a good grip on what has actually happened here before wasting two pages of obloquy chastizing me for things I have not done (and which everyone here has witnessed me 'not doing'.)

If precipitation on the rest of the country were normal, that would be global warming too. If a particular day is really hot, you'll say that's global warming. And then you'll have the absurdity to say that when someone points to an extra cold winter day as contrary evidence they're confusing weather vs. climate.

Let us know when you're done blathering.

You're trolling, right?

No. I'm defending myself from your patently false accusations.

I mean, you can't honestly believe that any of that was a meaningful or intelligent reply to what I said.

That is exactly what I believe. And I believe that what you're doing now is counting on people not opening all those quotes to actually read what was said and realize how incredibly dishonest you're willing to get attempting to defend yourself.

It's like you doubled down on stupidity in the hope that I might confuse being confounded by your complete failure to address what I said with the belief that I might be confused with the actual subject.

Since you've accused me of doing something I did not do, there has never been any reason that I should address your nonsense other than to identify it as such. It is patent nonsense resulting either from your lack of comprehension or lack of honesty. Anyone here can go back up the thread (and I heartily invite all to do so) where they will find that I have accurately described my own behavior while you have not. At all.

You're like a politician who is asked about creating jobs and responds with a diatribe about how Obama is allegedly from Kenya.

From my amateur perspective, I have to worry about your sanity.

 

[SwimExpert]

He gave a reply you couldn't address, so you're cutting and running.

No, he gave a reply that completely failed to comprehend anything I said in the first place. Gee, you mean to tell me that an El Nino can both blow out birthday candles and feed a wildfire? Holy shit, I had no idea!

 

[SwimExpert]

I mean, you can't honestly believe that any of that was a meaningful or intelligent reply to what I said.

That is exactly what I believe.

Well that says it all. You have no idea how absolutely stupid your response was. You think it was intelligent.

And I believe that what you're doing now is counting on people not opening all those quotes to actually read what was said

I hope they do. Starting with yourself. Because you didn't even comprehend what I was saying in the first place.

 

[Dot Com]

State Senate advances sweeping climate change legislation - LA Times

 

[mamooth]

No, he gave a reply that completely failed to comprehend anything I said in the first place. Gee, you mean to tell me that an El Nino can both blow out birthday candles and feed a wildfire? Holy shit, I had no idea!

Why are you babbling about candles so much? You don't come across as rational.

There are different areas on the earth, and warming or an El Nino can affect different areas differently. A third grader could grasp that. Why can't you?

It's difficult to have discussions with you when you can't successfully reason at even a grade-school level. It's hard to believe you could actually screw up such a simple concept so badly, which is why we think you're being deliberately obtuse, all so you can justify your big flaming lie about "you say everything proves warming."

 

[flacaltenn]

You might want to let all these folks know:

Worst Drought in 1 000 Years Predicted for American West

NASA Megadroughts to scorch American West for decades - CNN.com

A megadrought will grip U.S. in the coming decades NASA researchers say - The Washington Post

The worst droughts in 1 000 years may be on the horizon for the American West Public Radio International

U.S. Droughts Will Be the Worst in 1 000 Years - Scientific American

History Travel Arts Science People Places Smithsonian

Drought in the American West Is the Worst Yet to Come Yale Climate Energy Institute

Warming Pushes Western U.S. Toward Driest Period in 1 000 Years - The Earth Institute - Columbia University

Take the last one.. Follow it back to the original study. ALL drought deficits meaningfully predicted are for 2050 and beyond. NOT TODAY.. and I need you to find the corresponding predicted range of temperature anomalies that these models produced for 2050.. IF you can find those in this study, we can chat. Otherwise its not reproducible science and merely a bunch of assertions made without specific description......
Unprecedented 21st century drought risk in the American Southwest and Central Plains Science Advances
The study is here..., dont hurt yourself. Time for all the cut and pasters to sweat a bit.

 

[skookerasbil]

The OP is full of shit >>>> [URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/drought-1929-1978-b-3.png.html][/URL]

Drought in California ( and everywhere else ) has come and gone since the beginning of time. The AGW fraudsters want you to think this is some kind of new phenomenon. Because that's what they do!!

 

[skookerasbil]

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Modern-Day-Noahs-Ark.jpg.html][/URL]

 

[Uncensored2008]

No doubt this makes you leftists cry.

Strong El Ni o growing in likelihood drought relief hoped for San Diego Sun Times

 

[jc456]

I have never denied that there has been a hiatus in surface warming. I have consistently denied and continue to deny that their has actually been a hiatus in global warming.

holy crap is that a bunch of pebbles thrown in the water.

 

[jc456]

Did you not just read, in this very thread, the list of effects credited to an el Nino? Dry here, wet there, hot here, cold there. All from a single cause.

And you think that compares, don't you? You really are a shallow mind, aren't you?

Not shallow enough to be entertained by an animated emoticon.

If you blow on a candle, it goes out. If you blow on another fire, it could fuel the flame. Those are particular circumstances, i.e. independent events.

No, they are not. All those effects can and will be produced by a single el Nino. That is the normal course of events.

Trying to use that as justification for your shitstorm of sloppy and contradictory thinking where every and anything that happens, even if it contradicts your predictions, is spun into "evidence" in support of your hypothesis.

I never suggested any of that was evidence for anything. I was responding to the contention that global warming would produce more and more droughts worldwide.

In science, effective experimentation requires identifying a specific hypothesized outcome, and testing that hypothesis. If your prediction pans out, the experiment supports your hypothesis.

Hypothesized outcomes can be produced by experiments or observed in the environment. In the study of the Earth's climate - a system far too complex and chaotic to reproduce in a lab setting - you either get to watch what happens outside your door or try to simulate it with a GCM inside a computer. Reality's not always so tidy.

If it your prediction does not prove true, then the results indicate a need for an alternative hypothesis.

Predictions of the behavior of a system as complex as the Earth's climate are never going to "prove true" or false.

That's how things work in the scientific process.

Science almost NEVER involves proof. Far more often, it simply involves evidence that must be weighed.

But in Crick's world of dogma, it's an entirely different story.

I'm not demanding proof.

You start out with an assumption, you claim a certain result will come to pass, and when it doesn't happen you claim to have learned a whole new consequence of global warming.

I've done no such thing. If you believe I have, show it to us.

There is absolutely nothing that can happen that you won't attribute to global warming.

This statement is false. And stupid.

You'll hoot and holler all thread long about how a regional drought is caused by global warming, but then when increased precipitation in another area is shown you say that's global warming too.

Perhaps you should review the discussion. We were talking about the effects of el Ninos which DO cause reduced precipitation in some regions and increased precipitation in others. Then we had the comment that global warming would cause global droughts, with which I took exception.

I'd think you'd want to get a good grip on what has actually happened here before wasting two pages of obloquy chastizing me for things I have not done (and which everyone here has witnessed me 'not doing'.)

If precipitation on the rest of the country were normal, that would be global warming too. If a particular day is really hot, you'll say that's global warming. And then you'll have the absurdity to say that when someone points to an extra cold winter day as contrary evidence they're confusing weather vs. climate.

Let us know when you're done blathering.

Let us know when you're done blathering, holy crap, that's all that post was. BTW this comment:
' If precipitation on the rest of the country were normal, that would be global warming too. If a particular day is really hot, you'll say that's global warming. And then you'll have the absurdity to say that when someone points to an extra cold winter day as contrary evidence they're confusing weather vs. climate"

This is spot fricken on my friend spot fricken on. You may not like that, but dude, that is a fricken fact.

Now anytime you wish to actually present any snow flake of data from your mountain let me know.

 

[SeaPony]

California Facing Worst Drought on Record | NOAA Climate.gov

The most populated state in the country is facing what may be its worst drought in a century of record-keeping. On January 20, the governor of California declared a state of emergency, urging everyone to begin conserving water. Water levels in all but a few reservoirs in the state are less than 50% of capacity, mountains are nearly bare of snow except at the highest elevations, and the fire risk is extreme. In Nevada, the situation is much the same.

Wonder why that could be

Completely nothing to do with 'climate change' even if it was real. Californians are using too much water since the population of CA has sky-rocketed and they have not built a new reservoir since 2003 because the trendy people want to 'protect the environment'. There would be hardly no problems if they carried on building reservoirs but they stopped it.

 

[Crick]

California may have too many people and may have failed to properly design their water system, but they are most assuredly suffering a drought and that drought was made more likely and likely to be more severe by climate change.

 

[SeaPony]

California may have too many people and may have failed to properly design their water system, but they are most assuredly suffering a drought and that drought was made more likely and likely to be more severe by climate change.

So you believe in that nonsense? This drought would not be 100th of what it is if alarmists like you would of let the construction of new reservoirs go ahead. Droughts have happened since the beginning of time why are you contributing any extreme of weather to climate change? Because TV told you so?

 

[Crick]

A drought is a shortage of precipitation. Period. Check your dictionary if you don't want to believe me. The only thing humans have done that might have affected it, is emit gigatonnes of GHGs. BTW, reservoirs don't make it rain and they don't keep people away.

 

[SeaPony]

A drought is a shortage of precipitation. Period. Check your dictionary if you don't want to believe me. The only thing humans have done that might have affected it, is emit gigatonnes of GHGs. BTW, reservoirs don't make it rain and they don't keep people away.

Reservoirs store water for when there is a shortage of rain? Over use of the underground water systems and over farming are why there is a problem. Your propaganda climate lies are unreal.

 

[Crick]

Again, if you will simply access the dictionary of your choice, you will find that the term "drought" describes a weather condition - not a water shortage on the ground. If someone were to drain all the reservoirs in, say, Indiana, it would not be creating a drought. Regardless how much reservoir capacity the Californians might have, the drop in PRECIPITATION they have been suffering is a DROUGHT.

And you seem to be new here. I would advise you getting your ducks in a longer and straighter row before taking the step of calling someone a liar.

 

[SeaPony]

A small drought, droughts have happened before humans existed but the drought has been worsened by 200X due to over farming and the lack of reservoir building.
You seem to enjoy accepting state doctrine? Why is that?