deju vu all over again

[bripat9643]

Point is, if this keeps up, and, unfortunetly, I think that it will, this will be the third year in a row in which we are seeing major infrastructure and agriculteral damage from a substancial increase over the norm in extreme weather events. How many years and how extreme does the damage have to become before the wingnuts admit that there is a problem that needs addressing?
**************************************************************
I imagine the ten states hit in the last day, and the tornado watch now where I am, will NEVER convince them.It hit 83 here today, high tomorrow forecast to be 62; third time in a little over a week we have seen 20+ degree changes on ONE day. It is unusual; no conclusions as the Tornado Watch continues. But, I'm a LONG way from Indiana.

PS The print on the Board just got much smaller.

One of those "extreme weather events" is the coldest winter in over 100 years in Europe. And you think that supports the claims of the AGW cultists?

No matter what happens, nutbugers will claim it's proof of global warming. There simply is no kind of weather that would disprove the theory of AGW in their eyes. That's how we know AGW is a cult and not science.

 

[Peach]

Point is, if this keeps up, and, unfortunetly, I think that it will, this will be the third year in a row in which we are seeing major infrastructure and agriculteral damage from a substancial increase over the norm in extreme weather events. How many years and how extreme does the damage have to become before the wingnuts admit that there is a problem that needs addressing?
**************************************************************
I imagine the ten states hit in the last day, and the tornado watch now where I am, will NEVER convince them.It hit 83 here today, high tomorrow forecast to be 62; third time in a little over a week we have seen 20+ degree changes on ONE day. It is unusual; no conclusions as the Tornado Watch continues. But, I'm a LONG way from Indiana.

PS The print on the Board just got much smaller.

One of those "extreme weather events" is the coldest winter in over 100 years in Europe. And you think that supports the claims of the AGW cultists?

No matter what happens, nutbugers will claim it's proof of global warming. There simply is no kind of weather that would disprove the theory of AGW in their eyes. That's how we know AGW is a cult and not science.

Bripat, the term is CLIMATE CHANGE, I believe. I am not stating the cause is human activity. However, with the amount of chemicals which go into the atmosphere, today, as opposed to 100 years ago, it is a sensible QUESTION. Think of population growth, the Industrial Age, and the fact we DO have mass communications; (as someone shrugged before ONLINE......"weather was just weather".) The mass communications require POWER sources. It may be a natural change in the earth. WHY MAKE IT WORSE?

 

[skookerasbil]

As Ive posted up a number of times in here........the HISTORY OF WORLD FLOODING. NOT GONNA BOTHER NOW........GO GOOGLE IT. Lots of links of floods going back 100's of years...........epic floods that killed upwards of tens of thousands. I notice that not one AGW cultist has ever commented on the post.

 

[skookerasbil]

Point is, if this keeps up, and, unfortunetly, I think that it will, this will be the third year in a row in which we are seeing major infrastructure and agriculteral damage from a substancial increase over the norm in extreme weather events. How many years and how extreme does the damage have to become before the wingnuts admit that there is a problem that needs addressing?
**************************************************************
I imagine the ten states hit in the last day, and the tornado watch now where I am, will NEVER convince them.It hit 83 here today, high tomorrow forecast to be 62; third time in a little over a week we have seen 20+ degree changes on ONE day. It is unusual; no conclusions as the Tornado Watch continues. But, I'm a LONG way from Indiana.

PS The print on the Board just got much smaller.

One of those "extreme weather events" is the coldest winter in over 100 years in Europe. And you think that supports the claims of the AGW cultists?

No matter what happens, nutbugers will claim it's proof of global warming. There simply is no kind of weather that would disprove the theory of AGW in their eyes. That's how we know AGW is a cult and not science.

Bripat, the term is CLIMATE CHANGE, I believe. I am not stating the cause is human activity. However, with the amount of chemicals which go into the atmosphere, today, as opposed to 100 years ago, it is a sensible QUESTION. Think of population growth, the Industrial Age, and the fact we DO have mass communications; (as someone shrugged before ONLINE......"weather was just weather".) The mass communications require POWER sources. It may be a natural change in the earth. WHY MAKE IT WORSE?

Cant just go whack the industrial age sweets.........and no sicentist has ever considered the matter of degree's with respect to this shit. So they go for the hail mary pass of course = stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow.......run the whole world on a gigantic windmill. So really........the whole debate has become irrelevant.

Think China is going to stop its economic ascent due to some unprovable theory? So........what......... should we go back to candlelight?

 

[Peach]

One of those "extreme weather events" is the coldest winter in over 100 years in Europe. And you think that supports the claims of the AGW cultists?

No matter what happens, nutbugers will claim it's proof of global warming. There simply is no kind of weather that would disprove the theory of AGW in their eyes. That's how we know AGW is a cult and not science.

Bripat, the term is CLIMATE CHANGE, I believe. I am not stating the cause is human activity. However, with the amount of chemicals which go into the atmosphere, today, as opposed to 100 years ago, it is a sensible QUESTION. Think of population growth, the Industrial Age, and the fact we DO have mass communications; (as someone shrugged before ONLINE......"weather was just weather".) The mass communications require POWER sources. It may be a natural change in the earth. WHY MAKE IT WORSE?

Cant just go whack the industrial age sweets.........and no sicentist has ever considered the matter of degree's with respect to this shit. So they go for the hail mary pass of course = stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow.......run the whole world on a gigantic windmill. So really........the whole debate has become irrelevant.

Think China is going to stop its economic ascent due to some unprovable theory? So........what......... should we go back to candlelight?

Ok, the weather is the weather. Disease is disease. War is inevitable. We quit worrying about all of the problems that plague the human race. Brip, the NWS in the US has charts that go back a few decades before 1974.

 

[starcraftzzz]

1) Tropical storms have increased by 100% because of global warming
^Tropical storms stepping up with climate change - environment - 30 July 2007 - New Scientist
6,000 people die each year due to global warmings’ increase in tropical storms
^Crisis Prevention & Recovery | UNDP
Global warming’s effect on tropical storms cost the economy 60 billion dollars each year.
(Total increase in American cost x [total tropical storms/total Atlantic storms] = total cost)
http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/hurr_122106a.pdf

2) Droughts. Droughts have increased by 300% since 1970 because of global warming.
Global Warming Linked to Increasing Drought
Drought's Growing Reach: NCAR Study Points to Global Warming as Key Factor - News Release
The increase in droughts due to global warming kills 23,000 people and costs 45 billion every year.
http://www.wateryear2003.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=5137&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
^
How Bad is the Texas Drought? "In Austin, They are Praying for a Hurricane" | ThinkProgress
His State In Record Heat Wave, Inhofe Bails On Climate Denier Conference: 'I Am Under The Weather' | ThinkProgress
^In 2011 Texas, Oklahoma and the southwest go through the worst drought in the area ever recorded.
^
"Worst Food Crisis of the 21st Century" Driven by "Worst Drought in 60 Years" in East Africa, as Climate Change Makes Reduced Rainfall a "Chronic Problem" | ThinkProgress
^2011 sees the worst drought in east Africa in 60 years.

3) Floods have increased by 500%
^Number of Disasters per Year | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Maps & Graphics library
The increase in floods due to global warming kills 20,000 people, and costs the economy 45 billion each year.
^http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001512/151208e.pdf
^
Mississippi Flood Causes Billions In Damage, While Representatives Deny Climate Pollution Threat | ThinkProgress
^Mississippi’s 2011 floods caused billions in damages.
^
AFP: Australian flood costs top $6.3 billion
^Flooding in 2010 in Australia expected to cost over 6 billion dollars.
^
Landsat satellite images reveal extent of historic North Dakota flooding
^In 2011 the Dakotas a mid-west have record and massive flooding.

4)
Corn & Soybean Meal Weekly Prices - 30th April
Facts About Corn
Warming Dents Corn And Wheat Yields - Science News
Environmental changes to blame for drop in yield of 'miracle rice'
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...sg=AFQjCNEFleKAglPMoWU4QED93hUFJXhXQQ&cad=rja
^Hotter nights/Global warming, and air pollution are linked to a 15% decline in rice yields.
^Farms produced 3.8% less corn, and 5.5% less wheat then they could of during 1980-2008 due to slightly higher temperatures. This increased corn prices by 6.4% and wheat by 18.9%.
^Global warming cost 21 billion a year in 2009 due to decreased corn yields.
^Global warming cost 40 billion a year in 2009 due to decreased wheat yields.
^Global warming cost 20 billion in the year 2009 due to decreased rice yields
^
Food Security Wanes As World Warms - Science News
^Global warming/climate change responsible for a decline in food yields such as cereals in The Former Soviet Union. Future warming/climate change will result in a decline in food yields and a spike in food costs.
^
August 12 News: Heat Wave Reduces Crop Harvests; Senate Democrats Urge White House to Act on Smog Rule | ThinkProgress
^The unprecedented heat wave that occurred in the United State in 2011caused corn yields to fall by 4.1%, soybeans by 5.2%, and wheat by 5.2%.
^
Breeding ozone-tolerant crops
^Scientists find that if current trends of ground level Ozone (which occurs due to fossil fuel emissions reacting with Carbons and sunlight) stay it will reduce soybean yields by 23% by 2050
^
Record Heat Causes Peanut Butter Prices to Skyrocket: "I Don't Remember A Year" We Had "So Little Moisture" | ThinkProgress
^Climate change in 2010-2011 caused peanut prices to increase by over 50%

5)
BBC News - Nitrogen pollution 'costs EU up to £280bn a year'
^Nitrogen pollution is estimated to cost Europe 100-500 billion dollars yearly. Extrapolating that data means that Nitrogen pollution costs America 100-500 billion yearly. And costs the world around 400-2000 billion each year.

6)
STUDY SAYS COAL PLANT POLLUTION KILLS 30,000 A YEAR
^Coal pollution kills as much as 30,000 people each year in America extrapolating means coal kills around 100,000 people each year in the world.

7)
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/publications/mccarthy/tor30yrs.pdf
^Number of tornadoes has increased by 30% due to global warming.
Tornadoes are formed when hot air collides with cold air.
Usually when the hot air is below the cold air, when the hot air rises and the cold air falls it causes tornadoes to form.
^
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/geo_tor_tot_cos_of_dam-geography-tornadoes-total-cost-damage
^Total yearly cost to America of Global warming increase in tornadoes is over 7 billion yearly
^
When and Where Do Tornadoes Occur?
^America accounts for around 25% of all Tornadoes meaning worldwide global warming increase in tornadoes costs around over 20 billion.
^
Tornadoes fatalities statistics - states compared - Geography data on StateMaster
^Tornadoes kill 4,000+ Americans yearly extrapolating means tornados kill 16,000 people yearly, meaning that global warming’s increase in tornadoes kills 4,000 yearly.
^*****
Tornado Season Breaks National, Local Records - Louisville News Story - WLKY Louisville
^Using data from 2008-2011 shows that tornado frequency has increased by more than 30%, possibly as high as 70%. This would mean that tornado activity due to global warming would now cost the world 30 billion dollars a year and kill 6,000 lives each year.
^
Southern tornadoes hit an economy already hurting | OregonLive.com
^Unprecedented tornadoes occur throughout the southern United States in 2011 killing over 300 people and costing billions of dollars.
^
Joplin: Deadliest Single Twister In 58 Years - Kansas City News Story - KMBC Kansas City
^Tornadoes hit Joplin damaging 30% of the city, killing almost 100 people.
^
‘Major Tornado Outbreak’ in Nine Central States Adding to Insurance Losses - Bloomberg
^Major tornado outbreaks occur in the Midwest.
^
Daily Kos: Tornado Outbreak Déjà Vu -- PDS Tornado Watch For STL East To KY -- Updated x17
^More tornadoes go through the south including through KY
^
BBC News - Massachusetts emergency after tornadoes kill four
^Unprecedented tornadoes sweep through New England.

8)
THE GROWING COST OF WILDFIRES
^Global warming’s increase in wildfires costs 1.2 billion yearly.
^
Where Wildfire Fatalities Occur | Who Dies in a Wildfire
^Global warming’s increase in wild fires causes tens of people to die.
^
Increasing number of wildfires is caused by global warming, study finds - The Boston Globe
^Since 1986 wildfires have increased by 400%, and acres burned has increased by 650%.
^
Large Trees Declining In Yosemite National Park, U.S.
^Global warming responsible for decline in size of trees, because it decreases snowpack which provides most of the water for growth.
^Smaller trees are less fire-resistance. The results are more and worse wildfires.
^
Bill McKibben: Wildfires And Spills In The Canadian Tar Sands | ThinkProgress
^Wildfires in Alberta cause the evacuation of several towns
9)
/4) Health care.
Study: zero emission vehicles could save $142 billion in health care costs
About Transportation & Climate Change: Transportation’s Role in Climate Change: Overview - DOT Transportation and Climate Change Clearinghouse
CO2 Emissions statistics - Countries compared - NationMaster
^Greenhouse gas emissions cause damage to lungs costing billions in health care costs.
Total greenhouse gas emissions cost America 150 billion dollars each year, and kill 2,400 Americans a year.
Total greenhouse gas emissions cost the world 600 billion each year, and kill around 10,000 people each year. (This only include lung disease)

10)
Global Warming Likely Causing More Heat Waves, Scientists Say
^Global Warming has increased the odds of heat waves by 6 times.
^
The Watchers - Deadly heatwaves will be more frequent in coming decades
^Europe’s 2003/2010 heat wave destroyed crops and killed tens of thousands of people.
^Russia’s heat wave in 2009 killed 50,000 people, and cost the nation 15billion dollars.
^Global warming increase in heat waves likely costs 60,000 people every year and likely costs the global economy over 15 billion dollars a year.

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL.......evidently, we have a new k00k on the forum!!! Cool..........never enough to abuse around here!!!

 

[bripat9643]

LOL.......evidently, we have a new k00k on the forum!!! Cool..........never enough to abuse around here!!!

Yeah, this guy is a 200 proof moron. he believes every stupid idea a liberal ever uttered, and he believes it to the hilt.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL.......evidently, we have a new k00k on the forum!!! Cool..........never enough to abuse around here!!!

Yeah, this guy is a 200 proof moron. he believes every stupid idea a liberal ever uttered, and he believes it to the hilt.

He provided links to the scientists making the predictions. All you have done is flap a very stupid yap.

 

[Old Rocks]

Point is, if this keeps up, and, unfortunetly, I think that it will, this will be the third year in a row in which we are seeing major infrastructure and agriculteral damage from a substancial increase over the norm in extreme weather events. How many years and how extreme does the damage have to become before the wingnuts admit that there is a problem that needs addressing?

What is the problem and what do you propose to do to address it?

The problem is that we have an infrastructure, private and government, built for a time when there were an order of magnitude less extreme weather events.

Addressing it requires engineering, both public and private, the infrastructure for a more violent world.

 

[bripat9643]

Point is, if this keeps up, and, unfortunetly, I think that it will, this will be the third year in a row in which we are seeing major infrastructure and agriculteral damage from a substancial increase over the norm in extreme weather events. How many years and how extreme does the damage have to become before the wingnuts admit that there is a problem that needs addressing?

What is the problem and what do you propose to do to address it?

The problem is that we have an infrastructure, private and government, built for a time when there were an order of magnitude less extreme weather events.

Addressing it requires engineering, both public and private, the infrastructure for a more violent world.

It requires massive amounts of government spending?

How did everyone know you were going to say that?

 

[IanC]

Point is, if this keeps up, and, unfortunetly, I think that it will, this will be the third year in a row in which we are seeing major infrastructure and agriculteral damage from a substancial increase over the norm in extreme weather events. How many years and how extreme does the damage have to become before the wingnuts admit that there is a problem that needs addressing?

What is the problem and what do you propose to do to address it?

The problem is that we have an infrastructure, private and government, built for a time when there were an order of magnitude less extreme weather events.

Addressing it requires engineering, both public and private, the infrastructure for a more violent world.

?????

you do understand that an order of magnitude means 10x, right? you would have a difficult time showing that there has been any increase in extreme weather events, let alone a tenfold increase. typical exaggeration from the CAGW alarmists.

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL.......evidently, we have a new k00k on the forum!!! Cool..........never enough to abuse around here!!!

Yeah, this guy is a 200 proof moron. he believes every stupid idea a liberal ever uttered, and he believes it to the hilt.

Yup.......half the links are from THINKPROGRESS...............

Its an offshoot for John Podesta's Center of American Progress. Check out the funding and lobbying.

John D. Podesta - SourceWatch


Hard core lefties. And Podesta is a total k00k..........about 10 years ago was calling for a complete reorganization of the government..........a Club of Rome guy and very much an Obama insider.

 

[code1211]

Point is, if this keeps up, and, unfortunetly, I think that it will, this will be the third year in a row in which we are seeing major infrastructure and agriculteral damage from a substancial increase over the norm in extreme weather events. How many years and how extreme does the damage have to become before the wingnuts admit that there is a problem that needs addressing?
**************************************************************
I imagine the ten states hit in the last day, and the tornado watch now where I am, will NEVER convince them.It hit 83 here today, high tomorrow forecast to be 62; third time in a little over a week we have seen 20+ degree changes on ONE day. It is unusual; no conclusions as the Tornado Watch continues. But, I'm a LONG way from Indiana.

PS The print on the Board just got much smaller.

One of those "extreme weather events" is the coldest winter in over 100 years in Europe. And you think that supports the claims of the AGW cultists?

No matter what happens, nutbugers will claim it's proof of global warming. There simply is no kind of weather that would disprove the theory of AGW in their eyes. That's how we know AGW is a cult and not science.

Bripat, the term is CLIMATE CHANGE, I believe. I am not stating the cause is human activity. However, with the amount of chemicals which go into the atmosphere, today, as opposed to 100 years ago, it is a sensible QUESTION. Think of population growth, the Industrial Age, and the fact we DO have mass communications; (as someone shrugged before ONLINE......"weather was just weather".) The mass communications require POWER sources. It may be a natural change in the earth. WHY MAKE IT WORSE?

How is anything man is doing making it wars and how do you propose to stop the worsening?

 

[code1211]

LOL.......evidently, we have a new k00k on the forum!!! Cool..........never enough to abuse around here!!!

Yeah, this guy is a 200 proof moron. he believes every stupid idea a liberal ever uttered, and he believes it to the hilt.

He provided links to the scientists making the predictions. All you have done is flap a very stupid yap.

He seems to have conveniently omitted the Dust Bowl. Droughts happen. Always have and always will.

 

[code1211]

Point is, if this keeps up, and, unfortunetly, I think that it will, this will be the third year in a row in which we are seeing major infrastructure and agriculteral damage from a substancial increase over the norm in extreme weather events. How many years and how extreme does the damage have to become before the wingnuts admit that there is a problem that needs addressing?

What is the problem and what do you propose to do to address it?

The problem is that we have an infrastructure, private and government, built for a time when there were an order of magnitude less extreme weather events.

Addressing it requires engineering, both public and private, the infrastructure for a more violent world.

Good. No addressing the voodoo of the CO2.

In terms of the normal discussion of this topic, the buildings blown down are typically the results of the problem, not the problem itself.

 

[skookerasbil]

at the end of all the posts by the AGW truthers, you always see "we need to address the problem"...........

Notice something though.................


There are two critical questions that ALL of the AGW true believers always ignore with respect to the higlighted sentence above.........................

1) At what cost?

AND

2) As compared to what?



Because when the AGW true believers have to go there, their entire argument gets blown to shit!!!


UN Claims Going Green to Cost $76 Trillion | Media Research Center

 

[Peach]

One of those "extreme weather events" is the coldest winter in over 100 years in Europe. And you think that supports the claims of the AGW cultists?

No matter what happens, nutbugers will claim it's proof of global warming. There simply is no kind of weather that would disprove the theory of AGW in their eyes. That's how we know AGW is a cult and not science.

Bripat, the term is CLIMATE CHANGE, I believe. I am not stating the cause is human activity. However, with the amount of chemicals which go into the atmosphere, today, as opposed to 100 years ago, it is a sensible QUESTION. Think of population growth, the Industrial Age, and the fact we DO have mass communications; (as someone shrugged before ONLINE......"weather was just weather".) The mass communications require POWER sources. It may be a natural change in the earth. WHY MAKE IT WORSE?

How is anything man is doing making it wars and how do you propose to stop the worsening?

MASSIVE amounts of chemicals in the atmosphere are likely to an effect, would they not? As for anything that can be done to halt the change; that is a hard row to hoe. As has been written, China is unlikely to stop increasing industrial production, and the US hasn't the money to bribe THAT nation. Nor can the US suddenly become independent of the sources of our chemical emissions either. Increasing alternate fuels is the best option NOW, and in the future. Shame we didn't start sooner.

THINK of vehicles that did not exist 100 years ago, factories, household products, medications, cleaning products, business waste, and the rest of the endless list of chemicals used daily.

 

[code1211]

Bripat, the term is CLIMATE CHANGE, I believe. I am not stating the cause is human activity. However, with the amount of chemicals which go into the atmosphere, today, as opposed to 100 years ago, it is a sensible QUESTION. Think of population growth, the Industrial Age, and the fact we DO have mass communications; (as someone shrugged before ONLINE......"weather was just weather".) The mass communications require POWER sources. It may be a natural change in the earth. WHY MAKE IT WORSE?

How is anything man is doing making it wars and how do you propose to stop the worsening?

MASSIVE amounts of chemicals in the atmosphere are likely to an effect, would they not? As for anything that can be done to halt the change; that is a hard row to hoe. As has been written, China is unlikely to stop increasing industrial production, and the US hasn't the money to bribe THAT nation. Nor can the US suddenly become independent of the sources of our chemical emissions either. Increasing alternate fuels is the best option NOW, and in the future. Shame we didn't start sooner.

THINK of vehicles that did not exist 100 years ago, factories, household products, medications, cleaning products, business waste, and the rest of the endless list of chemicals used daily.

However, the question is related to changing climate. There must be a connection to the climate in order for any corrective action affecting climate to, well, affect climate.

With the Acid Rain corrected in the past, there was a pretty straight line connection: burn high sulfur coal in quantity and acid that had never fallen before was falling. They stopped the burning and the acid rain stopped.

The current warming pre-dates the Industrial Revolution and has now seemed to stall for ten years despite ever increasing CO2 in the air.

The Straight line cause effect is not so clear here. Add to this that CO2 seems to be a pretty weak driver of climate and that there are at least ten other drivers of climate that routinely push CO2 out of the way and the case for blaming CO2 weakens further.

Suddenly prescribing a cure is not so obvious if the cause is utterly unknown. How do you treat the sickness in a dog if you don't know what will cure it and what will make it worse?

Correcting a cause is only possible if the cause is known and understood. This cause is neither known nor is it understood. Correcting it, whatever "it" may be, in this circumstance is not an easy thing to do.

 

[Si modo]

So, Rocks talks about weather to try to make a point about climate?