Climate Change Deniers are Almost Extinct

[Old Rocks]

Not talking about oblivion. More strawmen from a idiot. We are already seeing the shape of the damage. Increases in food prices, inconveniant for the industrial nations, a death sentence for many in the third world. Very expensive damage both to private and governmental infrastructure, worldwide. All of that represents money out of our pockets, and things that would have otherwise been done, left undone because of the spending on repairing damage from a changing climate.

This is a very good comment.

I mentioned earlier that much of the debate on this topic seems to be turning a corner, and I think this really makes that clear. We are starting to see evidence of climate change every time we buy groceries. Even holiday destinations are changing as increased heat, storms and drought make once-popular destinations less attractive.

Climate change will effect every one of us to some extent - even if the climate where we live has not yet shown any sign of dramatic change.

I don't think climate change will be utterly catastrophic or mean the end of human kind or anything like that (and I regret that there has been some wildly hysterical statements about that in some media)- but I do think it will be something that we experience on a day-to-day basis, even if not in the ways some people might have thought.

Global Warming causes monetary inflation too? Wow! Global warming makes ethanol too?

Science does not involve "Debates" that "turn a corner"

Really? You mean there was not a time when the fossil record became complete enough that evolution was obvious?

 

[Katzndogz]

Not talking about oblivion. More strawmen from a idiot. We are already seeing the shape of the damage. Increases in food prices, inconveniant for the industrial nations, a death sentence for many in the third world. Very expensive damage both to private and governmental infrastructure, worldwide. All of that represents money out of our pockets, and things that would have otherwise been done, left undone because of the spending on repairing damage from a changing climate.

You keep saying these things are due to global warming.

Are you ever going to prove it?

Oh, and just so's you know, because I don't think you do: Correlation does not imply causation.

The dust bowl of the 30s was global warming. When the drought ended it was climate change.

That's how it works.

 

[Old Rocks]

The rate of change, the number of droughts and floods are increasing every decade. Worldwide. Real time observations, not climate models. The people that insure the insurance companies have the numbers, and they are really daunting. They, Swiss Re and Munich Re, state unequivocally that we are seeing a major increase in extreme weather events.

 

[daveman]

Rather a flimsy hook to hang one's case on and then demand we cripple the economies of the entire Western world to fix that case.

I'm not sure who "demands" that - I am hearing much more about this driving economic development than crippling it. Potentially it is a massive export earner.

Do you think you maybe relying just a little too much on partisan "news" sources?

No, I'm relying on reality. Try it sometime.

 

[Saigon]

Daveman -

Please post facts, links and statistics to back up your claims - I doubt anyone is interested in mindless taunts.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Droughts AND floods

See how that works?

Drought agw

Flood agw

 

[Saigon]

Droughts AND floods

See how that works?

Drought agw

Flood agw

Yes, that is right.

Because different parts of the world experience different climates, thus climate becoming more extreme can mean that the aspects of climate they experience will become more intense.

Countries like Spain and Australia have more droughts.

Countries like Bangladesh and Holland have more floods.

Seriously man - why is that difficult to understand?

 

[RollingThunder]

Rather a flimsy hook to hang one's case on and then demand we cripple the economies of the entire Western world to fix that case.

I'm not sure who "demands" that - I am hearing much more about this driving economic development than crippling it. Potentially it is a massive export earner.

Do you think you maybe relying just a little too much on partisan "news" sources?

No, I'm relying on reality. Try it sometime.

LOLOLOLOL.....oh davedumb, your connection to reality is tenuous at best. You really have no f...ing idea what is going on, you poor deluded and bamboozled retard.

BTW, the scientific "case" for the reality of anthropogenic global warming is not at all "flimsy", it is actually rock solid, but you're too brainwashed and ignorant to ever comprehend that fact.

 

[daveman]

Daveman -

Please post facts, links and statistics to back up your claims - I doubt anyone is interested in mindless taunts.

Tell you what -- you post a link to back up your claim that Aussie grape growers are plowing under their vines due to global warming, and I'll prove my claims (yet again).

 

[daveman]

I'm not sure who "demands" that - I am hearing much more about this driving economic development than crippling it. Potentially it is a massive export earner.

Do you think you maybe relying just a little too much on partisan "news" sources?

No, I'm relying on reality. Try it sometime.

LOLOLOLOL.....oh davedumb, your connection to reality is tenuous at best. You really have no f...ing idea what is going on, you poor deluded and bamboozled retard.

BTW, the scientific "case" for the reality of anthropogenic global warming is not at all "flimsy", it is actually rock solid, but you're too brainwashed and ignorant to ever comprehend that fact.

Uh huh. You SUCK at convincing people.

"Agree with me, you retard!!"

 

[RollingThunder]

Daveman -

Please post facts, links and statistics to back up your claims - I doubt anyone is interested in mindless taunts.

Tell you what -- you post a link to back up your claim that Aussie grape growers are plowing under their vines due to global warming, and I'll prove my claims (yet again).

That's a hoot. You have never yet managed to even come close to substantiating any of your retarded denier cult "claims" with any real evidence, let alone actually "proving" them.

No, I'm relying on reality. Try it sometime.

LOLOLOLOL.....oh davedumb, your connection to reality is tenuous at best. You really have no f...ing idea what is going on, you poor deluded and bamboozled retard.

BTW, the scientific "case" for the reality of anthropogenic global warming is not at all "flimsy", it is actually rock solid, but you're too brainwashed and ignorant to ever comprehend that fact.

Uh huh. You SUCK at convincing people.

Oh davedumb, I long ago gave up on "convincing" clueless retards like you. Now I'm content with just mocking you for the ignorant moronic dupe that you are, as I debunk your denier cult myths and lies with the scientific facts.

 

[flacaltenn]

Daveman -

Please post facts, links and statistics to back up your claims - I doubt anyone is interested in mindless taunts.

Tell you what -- you post a link to back up your claim that Aussie grape growers are plowing under their vines due to global warming, and I'll prove my claims (yet again).

That's a hoot. You have never yet managed to even come close to substantiating any of your retarded denier cult "claims" with any real evidence, let alone actually "proving" them.

LOLOLOLOL.....oh davedumb, your connection to reality is tenuous at best. You really have no f...ing idea what is going on, you poor deluded and bamboozled retard.

BTW, the scientific "case" for the reality of anthropogenic global warming is not at all "flimsy", it is actually rock solid, but you're too brainwashed and ignorant to ever comprehend that fact.

Uh huh. You SUCK at convincing people.

Oh davedumb, I long ago gave up on "convincing" clueless retards like you. Now I'm content with just mocking you for the ignorant moronic dupe that you are, as I debunk your denier cult myths and lies with the scientific facts.

HOW SIGNIFICANT is the warming in the last decade Princess?

What month did P. Jones say that trend became "statistically significant"?

What's the 300 year trend (+1.2W/m2) for what your heroes call "insignificant solar influence"?

Why is it NOT OK for me to point out what the temp has done for only 10 years, but it's OK fine for you to quote what the sun has done only over the past 20 years?

How is the MWP "not Global" with dozens of studies finding evidence for it ON EVERY CONTINENT? [[And even more comical is why are local DROUGHTS and HEATWAVES proof of AGW, the the MWP -- no local event counts for Global Warming]]

Too many hypocrital outcomes.. That what I see..

You have not "debunked" crappola here. You've spammed. You've wasted space with personal attacks. You've demonstrated inabilities to read graphs, understand simple math, statistics and most other elementary science/math skills.. You've posted LARGE FONT links that have nothing to do with the current argument.

Me thinks your head and self-esteem is more swollen than your fonts.

If that's what you think this forum is for --- for you to repeatedly post the same PERSONAL ATTACKS on multiple people over and over and over and over again --- then BOTH of us are wasting time here. You've pretty gained the status of becoming ignored..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This is a very good comment.

I mentioned earlier that much of the debate on this topic seems to be turning a corner, and I think this really makes that clear. We are starting to see evidence of climate change every time we buy groceries. Even holiday destinations are changing as increased heat, storms and drought make once-popular destinations less attractive.

Climate change will effect every one of us to some extent - even if the climate where we live has not yet shown any sign of dramatic change.

I don't think climate change will be utterly catastrophic or mean the end of human kind or anything like that (and I regret that there has been some wildly hysterical statements about that in some media)- but I do think it will be something that we experience on a day-to-day basis, even if not in the ways some people might have thought.

Global Warming causes monetary inflation too? Wow! Global warming makes ethanol too?

Science does not involve "Debates" that "turn a corner"

Really? You mean there was not a time when the fossil record became complete enough that evolution was obvious?

Yeah, you may be right, AGW has that peppered moth and Piltdown Man quality to it

 

[RollingThunder]

...and I'll prove my claims (yet again).

That's a hoot. You have never yet managed to even come close to substantiating any of your retarded denier cult "claims" with any real evidence, let alone actually "proving" them.

Uh huh. You SUCK at convincing people.

Oh davedumb, I long ago gave up on "convincing" clueless retards like you. Now I'm content with just mocking you for the ignorant moronic dupe that you are, as I debunk your denier cult myths and lies with the scientific facts.

HOW SIGNIFICANT is the warming in the last decade Princess?

Very significant, Pea-Brain. Significant enough to make the last decade the warmest decade on record and to make nine of the ten warmest years since 1880 occur since 2000. Significant enough to cause most of the world's glaciers to melt 'significantly'. Significant enough to melt a good part of the Arctic ice cap and drive sea ice levels to the lowest point in many thousands of years. Significant enough to change seasonal timing and cause species migrations. I could go on but I know that you're far too stupid to comprehend this and way too lost in your deranged denier cult fantasies to accept the facts anyway.

What month did P. Jones say that trend became "statistically significant"?

The fact is, fecalhead, the current rising temperature trend that really started moving in the 70's has always been statistically significant if you use an appropriately lengthy time period and don't cherry-pick your start date in a particularly hot year. It is your total ignorance of science that makes this fact obscure to you.

2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade
NASA

Except for a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s, Earth's surface temperatures have increased since 1880. The last decade has brought the temperatures to the highest levels ever recorded. The graph shows global annual surface temperatures relative to 1951-1980 mean temperatures. As shown by the red line, long-term trends are more apparent when temperatures are averaged over a five year period. Image credit: NASA

 

[daveman]

Daveman -

Please post facts, links and statistics to back up your claims - I doubt anyone is interested in mindless taunts.

Tell you what -- you post a link to back up your claim that Aussie grape growers are plowing under their vines due to global warming, and I'll prove my claims (yet again).

That's a hoot. You have never yet managed to even come close to substantiating any of your retarded denier cult "claims" with any real evidence, let alone actually "proving" them.

Actually, I just shredded your claim that the climate models do a good job.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...e-have-predicted-it-should-5.html#post5942623

You will, of course, sputter and fume and call me names for no other reason than disagreeing with you -- you know, what you usually do.

LOLOLOLOL.....oh davedumb, your connection to reality is tenuous at best. You really have no f...ing idea what is going on, you poor deluded and bamboozled retard.

BTW, the scientific "case" for the reality of anthropogenic global warming is not at all "flimsy", it is actually rock solid, but you're too brainwashed and ignorant to ever comprehend that fact.

Uh huh. You SUCK at convincing people.

Oh davedumb, I long ago gave up on "convincing" clueless retards like you. Now I'm content with just mocking you for the ignorant moronic dupe that you are, as I debunk your denier cult myths and lies with the scientific facts.

Really? Where have you done that?

 

[RollingThunder]

...and I'll prove my claims (yet again).

That's a hoot. You have never yet managed to even come close to substantiating any of your retarded denier cult "claims" with any real evidence, let alone actually "proving" them.

Actually, I just shredded your claim that the climate models do a good job.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...e-have-predicted-it-should-5.html#post5942623

Uh huh. You SUCK at convincing people.

Oh davedumb, I long ago gave up on "convincing" clueless retards like you. Now I'm content with just mocking you for the ignorant moronic dupe that you are, as I debunk your denier cult myths and lies with the scientific facts.

Really? Where have you done that?

Oh....like right here where I debunk the thread you started that you just mentioned, you hopelessly confused retard.

Also pretty much every time I encounter your nonsensical drivel and bullshit on here, I give it a thorough debunking. Easy to do with the moronic anti-scientific crap you post.

 

[daveman]

That's a hoot. You have never yet managed to even come close to substantiating any of your retarded denier cult "claims" with any real evidence, let alone actually "proving" them.

Actually, I just shredded your claim that the climate models do a good job.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...e-have-predicted-it-should-5.html#post5942623

Oh davedumb, I long ago gave up on "convincing" clueless retards like you. Now I'm content with just mocking you for the ignorant moronic dupe that you are, as I debunk your denier cult myths and lies with the scientific facts.

Really? Where have you done that?

Oh....like right here where I debunk the thread you started that you just mentioned, you hopelessly confused retard.

Also pretty much every time I encounter your nonsensical drivel and bullshit on here, I give it a thorough debunking. Easy to do with the moronic anti-scientific crap you post.

See, now you're just lying. The OP is a summary of a paper published in Climate Dynamics journal -- not a blog.

Further, the two links you "disproved" the OP with are useless. The first contains data through 2005. The second references works published in the '90s.

The OP studied what actually happened versus the predictions.

The predictions were wrong.

Deal with it.

 

[RollingThunder]

Actually, I just shredded your claim that the climate models do a good job.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...e-have-predicted-it-should-5.html#post5942623



Really? Where have you done that?

Oh....like right here where I debunk the thread you started that you just mentioned, you hopelessly confused retard.

Also pretty much every time I encounter your nonsensical drivel and bullshit on here, I give it a thorough debunking. Easy to do with the moronic anti-scientific crap you post.

See, now you're just lying. The OP is a summary of a paper published in Climate Dynamics journal -- not a blog.

The link in your OP leads to a denier cult blog which cherry-picks, mangles and distorts the science it picks up from other sites. The interpretation they put on it has nothing to do with the actual science.

Further, the two links you "disproved" the OP with are useless.

No, you're just too retarded to comprehend the information in them.

The first contains data through 2005. The second references works published in the '90s.

The first one debunked your denier cult blog OP by pointing out that there is regional variability in precipitation changes. Temperate regions are showing increased rainfall and snowfall and the tropics are getting less rain. This results in global averages that don't show a trend.

"Globally-averaged land-based precipitation shows a statistically insignificant upward trend ... ...precipitation changes have been spatially variable over the last century. On a regional basis increases in annual precipitation have occurred in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and southern South America and northern Australia. Decreases have occurred in the tropical region of Africa, and southern Asia."

So you object to the fact that the second report I cited references studies from the nineties. And you imagine that the situation has reversed itself since then. LOL. OK, little retard, here's some more recent studies for you.

Increased flood risk linked to global warming
Likelihood of extreme rainfall may have been doubled by rising greenhouse-gas levels.
Nature
16 February 2011 | Nature 470, 316 (2011) | doi:10.1038/470316a
(excerpts)
Climate change may be hitting home. Rises in global average temperature are remote from most people's experience, but two studies in this week's Nature1,2 conclude that climate warming is already causing extreme weather events that affect the lives of millions. The research directly links rising greenhouse-gas levels with the growing intensity of rain and snow in the Northern Hemisphere, and the increased risk of flooding in the United Kingdom.

Increasing Trend of Heavy Rain Events in Northeast Confirmed by Study
The University of New Hampshire
Apr 5, 2010
(excerpts)
DURHAM, N.H. – Confirming what most people in the Northeastern United States are seeing out their windows these days and “consistent with projections of climate change associated with global warming,” a new study of precipitation in the region over the last 50 years indicates an increasing trend of heavy rain events. “Trends in Extreme Precipitation Events for the Northeastern United States 1948-2007” details precipitation data from 219 National Weather Service cooperative stations in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The report concludes that “all of the definitions for quantifying extreme precipitation events (frequency of accumulation, the 99th percentile of events, or recurrence intervals) indicate that the occurrences of these events, and the intensity of rainfall, are increasing” in the region. The report indicates annual precipitation also showed “predominantly positive increases from 1948-2007, with the most significant increases occurring most recently.” The increase in extreme precipitation events and in annual precipitation is occurring primarily during the spring and fall. Indeed, three separate downpours in this past March have set new rainfall records across the region.

The report notes that several detailed studies published in peer-reviewed literature conclude that the recent changes in precipitation patterns around the globe are due to an increase in global temperatures driven by enhanced levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which come from the burning of fossil fuels and land use changes. “Warmer temperatures lead to greater evaporation rates and allow air to have a higher capacity for water vapor, leading to a more active hydrological cycle. Because more water vapor is in the air, when the air rises and cools due to expansion under lower pressure, more water vapor gas is available to condense into liquid to form clouds and ultimately rainfall,” states the report. “Overall, the region is experiencing more extreme precipitation events, with the largest increase occurring in the spring and fall seasons. Several stations, especially in coastal regions of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, are experiencing twice the number of extreme precipitation events compared to 50 years ago,” says Wake. “This is of particular concern as development increases in our watersheds because the combined impacts of more impervious surfaces and increases in extreme precipitation will lead to more flooding in the future.”

I could easily post dozens more, davedumb, but you'd just find another way to deny reality.

Nothing that has happened since 2005 contradicts these observations. The OP studied what actually happened versus the predictions. The predictions were wrong. Deal with it.

LOLOLOL...oh davedumb, you are such a confused little retard.....
The denier cult blog crap in the OP was just trying to distort and spin one study into implying something it didn't actually say. The amount of rainfall and snowfall, the frequency of extreme precipitation events and the severity of such events have all been increasing. Many studies confirm this. The model predictions were right on. You deranged denier cultists are wrong. Deal with it, dumbass.

 

[flacaltenn]

I just had someone in Maine try to tell me on USMB that the Maine coast is in SEVERE DROUGHT and his pear orchard is drying up..

Kinda contradicts any weather observations from 2010 -- don'tcha think??

So lemme get this straight -- you're arguing with me on another thread that the 2011-2012 Texas drought is due to CO2 and the wet weather in New England from 2000 to 2007 is due to CO2.. Do I have that correct? And it was ALL predicted ahead of time?

You're gonna be a very princess defending every weather statement from the warmers. Sure you want this gig?

 

[RollingThunder]

I just had someone in Maine try to tell me on USMB that the Maine coast is in SEVERE DROUGHT and his pear orchard is drying up..

Kinda contradicts any weather observations from 2010 -- don'tcha think??

No, I don't think so and neither does anyone else with a functioning brain. I'm afraid the reason why is beyond your very limited comprehension, you poor deluded retard.

So lemme get this straight -- you're arguing with me on another thread that the 2011-2012 Texas drought is due to CO2 and the wet weather in New England from 2000 to 2007 is due to CO2.. Do I have that correct? And it was ALL predicted ahead of time?

Yes, dumbshit, CO2 induced global warming causes both increased precipitation and increased and more severe droughts, and yes, both were predicted by climate scientists decades ago. One example.

Droughts and flooding rains: climate change models predict increases in both
Barrie Pittock - Honorary Fellow, Marine and Atmospheric Research at CSIRO
24 February 2012
(excerpts)
Recent wet weather and flooding across eastern Australia has caused many to ask, wasn’t climate change supposed to cause more droughts, not floods? Critics of climate change science have suggested that the recent observed flooding shows the science, and especially the climate modelling, must be wrong. This is a misreading of what climate change scientists have repeatedly stated. Climate scientists have been saying for a long time that one of the effects of climate change is likely to be more intense rainfall and flooding. In 1989, at a presentation to the Prime Minister’s Science Council, Dr Graeme Pearman of CSIRO summarised a scenario of climate change for Australia in 2030. He said there would be:

"higher summer rainfall over northern Australia and extending further south.
possibly drier winters in southern Australia
more intense rainfall."​

CSIRO’s Climate Impact Group, in a report to the Northern Territory Government in 1992-93 wrote: “The above results suggest that wet season runoff may increase substantially by 2030 … the results strongly suggest that flood frequencies may increase significantly. If so, this would have a major impact on the urban environment … built infrastructure, agriculture and hydrological planning, including the management of tailings dams and other sources of water pollution.” Other reports to state governments contained similar conclusions. For example, CSIRO warned the NSW government in 1997-98 of “extreme daily rainfall intensity and frequency increases in many regions, particularly in summer and autumn”. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has made similar remarks regarding the increase in heavy rain events for Australia and other regions in its reports starting in 1990.

CSIRO-BoM set of projections in 2007:

“Models show an increase in daily precipitation intensity but also in the number of dry days. Extreme daily precipitation tends to increase in many areas but not in the south in winter and spring when there is a strong decrease in mean precipitation."​

In situations where there are no rain-bearing systems – such as in winter in northern Australia and summer in southern Australia – warmer conditions and a greater water-holding capacity of the air will lead to more rapid evaporation. This will lead to a more rapid onset of droughts, which will become more intense. The combination of heavier rains followed by more rapid onset of drought will likely lead to lots of drying fuel for bushfires, which are likely to become more frequent and intense. So, basic physics and climate models both suggest that a warmer Earth will likely see both more intense droughts and floods over Australia, with some regional differences. The succession of events in the last decade or so is consistent with this prognosis.