Heavy Precipitation Over the US: Has it Increased as Some have Predicted it Should?

[Saigon]

Flac -

And yet I can post another ten articles which all cite the same impacts of climate change on vineyards both in Australia, Argentina, Spain and South Africa.

And dozens more citing similar problems with horticulture in countries like Spain, Italy and large parts of Africa.

You can deny until you are blue in the face - and of course you will - but the evidence is simply overwhelming.

"Climate change affects agriculture more directly and profoundly than most other economic sectors. The Washington Post's Brad Plumer has pointed out that while it's hard to pinpoint climate change by itself as the cause of any particular drought, it's certainly a big factor in how severe it gets. Meanwhile the danger from climate change-fueled droughts will only increase as America dithers about and polluting special interests continually block solutions."

Donald Carr: Drought-Stricken Farmers Pay the Price for Failed Climate Bill


The unprecedented drought that has parched northern Mexico — and stretched into Arizona, New Mexico and Texas — has been as good for these scavengers as it has been calamitous for the region’s ranchers and farmers.

Over the last 12 months, 350,000 head of cattle have starved to death here in Chihuahua, Mexico’s largest state, according to El Barzon, a national association that represents the owners of small and medium-sized farms.

“Northern Mexico has always been arid, and there have often been droughts,” he said. “But what is strange is the duration of this drought, and the fact that it has been preceded by other droughts. Is it really a drought, or the region’s new climate?”

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/mexico/120716/drought-farms-climate-change

How much evidence will you need before you accept that farmers like those in Australia are facing economic ruin from climate change?

 

[RollingThunder]

Flac -

I did take your statement out of context, and I did not follow your entire conversation with Old Rocks - it just seemed strange to me that you would cite as authorities two organisations who both cite human activity as being partially responsible for climate change.

Are they credible authorities, or not?

Those agencies MAKE NO STATEMENTS about current weather events being undeniably due to Global Warming. And that was my point. That YOU and the alarmists have no basis for making such claims..

And here's that old braindead denier cult ignorance and stupidity at play. Fecalhead has no idea what he's talking about so he just makes shit up to supposedly 'support' his moronic anti-science denier cult myths. He is very obviously so stupid that he imagines that he can lie like this and no one will catch him even though all it took was a 2 second google search. This post of fecalhead's actually exemplifies very well the denier cultists' main tactics of debate - i.e., lie your ass off and hope your audience is as stupid and confused as you are. Watch carefully now as he performs some mental gymnastics to try to make black look like white, pretend his lies weren't really lies and then moves on without any acknowledgement that he was wrong when he claimed that: "Those agencies [NASA & NOAA] MAKE NO STATEMENTS about current weather events being undeniably due to Global Warming". LOLOLOLOL

NASA Study Links Extreme Weather Events to Global Warming
August 20, 2012
(excerpts)

A NASA study has found that recent extreme weather events, including last year’s Texas heat wave and the Russian heat wave of 2010, are very likely to be the consequence of global warming. The findings, published last week in the scientific paper Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, analyze mean summer temperatures since 1951 and show that the odds have increased over the years for “hot”, “very hot” and “extremely hot” summers. From the period between 1951 and 1980, the study shows how extremely hot temperatures covered less than 0.2% of the planet, whereas today those temperatures cover about 10% of the land area. NASA climatologists have long collected data on global temperature anomalies, which describe how much warming or cooling regions of the world have experienced when compared with the 1951 to 1980 base period. In this study, the researchers employ a bell curve to illustrate how those anomalies are changing.

Led by one of NASA’s principal climate scientists, James. E. Hansen says: “This is not a climate model or a prediction but actual observations of weather events and temperatures that have happened. Our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change.” Hansen says this summer is shaping up to fall into a new category, as statistics from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), show July 2012 to be the single hottest month ever recorded in the United States. He says: “Such anomalies were infrequent in the climate prior to the warming of the past 30 years, so statistics let us say with a high degree of confidence that we would not have had such an extreme anomaly this summer in the absence of global warming.”

NOAA links extreme weather to climate change
July 10, 2012
(excerpts)

(CBS News) On Tuesday, for the first time, government scientists are saying recent extreme weather events are likely connected to man-made climate change. It's the conclusion of a report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The report says last year's record drought in Texas was made "roughly 20 times more likely" because of man made climate change, specifically meaning warming that comes from greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide. The study, requested by NOAA, looked at 50 years of weather data in Texas and concluded that man-made warming had to be a factor in the drought. The head of NOAA's climate office, Tom Karl, said: "What we're seeing, not only in Texas but in other phenomena in other parts of the world, where we can't explain these events by natural variability alone. They're just too rare, too uncommon."

Aside from the Texas drought, NOAA called the entire year of 2011 the year of extreme weather events, starting in Joplin, Missouri. All told, there were seven tornado outbreaks in America last year that caused a billion dollars or more in damages. There were increased hurricanes in the North Atlantic, unprecedented flooding in Australia but widespread drought in East Africa, and all of that was caused by La Nina. Typically La Nina is marked by a sharp cooling in the Pacific, but last year's La Nina was the warmest ever, and again the government concluded that global climate change played a role. "What's happening is, these normal fluctuations between El Nino and La Nina events that lead to some of the extreme conditions, become more extreme, more intense than they otherwise might have been because we've got increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere leading to a warmer planet," Karl said. NOAA made a point of saying in their study that the climate change they've identified is man-made. Going back 50 years, they know what temperature and dryness conditions are associated with Texas drought. When they put that in the computer, nothing explained the intensity and duration of what we saw last year in Texas until they factored in the added heat coming from climate change.

 

[flacaltenn]

If you read what I wrote Princess --- I made the exception of the Hansen report for NASA.. He's ONE scientist and one biased report that MIGHT have some validity.. These are all VERY RECENT (and probably desparate attempts) to get the AGW mojo back.

OTH -- OldieRocks has been losing his pants here for YEARS screaming about the damages we've already seen from Global Warming..

The NOAA statement is new and I wasn't aware of it. But there's no way I'm buying the conclusion until I actually SEE the NOAA report and who did it.. The CBS news analysis of it sounds completely retarded..

Going back 50 years, they know what temperature and dryness conditions are associated with Texas drought. When they put that in the computer, nothing explained the intensity and duration of what we saw last year in Texas until they factored in the added heat coming from climate change. You're going to see a lot of scientists criticizing this as a guess, but NOAA for the first time is arguing that this is science.

"They put that into the computer.... " Dead giveaway to the clueless..

 

[RollingThunder]

If you read what I wrote Princess --- I made the exception of the Hansen report for NASA.. He's ONE scientist and one biased report that MIGHT have some validity.. These are all VERY RECENT (and probably desparate attempts) to get the AGW mojo back.

OTH -- OldieRocks has been losing his pants here for YEARS screaming about the damages we've already seen from Global Warming..

The NOAA statement is new and I wasn't aware of it. But there's no way I'm buying the conclusion until I actually SEE the NOAA report and who did it.. The CBS news analysis of it sounds completely retarded..

Going back 50 years, they know what temperature and dryness conditions are associated with Texas drought. When they put that in the computer, nothing explained the intensity and duration of what we saw last year in Texas until they factored in the added heat coming from climate change. You're going to see a lot of scientists criticizing this as a guess, but NOAA for the first time is arguing that this is science.

"They put that into the computer.... " Dead giveaway to the clueless..

LOLOLOLOL.....see....

Watch carefully now as he performs some mental gymnastics to try to make black look like white, pretend his lies weren't really lies and then moves on without any acknowledgement that he was wrong when he claimed that: "Those agencies [NASA & NOAA] MAKE NO STATEMENTS about current weather events being undeniably due to Global Warming". LOLOLOLOL

NASA Study Links Extreme Weather Events to Global Warming
August 20, 2012

NOAA links extreme weather to climate change
July 10, 2012

 

[flacaltenn]

If you read what I wrote Princess --- I made the exception of the Hansen report for NASA.. He's ONE scientist and one biased report that MIGHT have some validity.. These are all VERY RECENT (and probably desparate attempts) to get the AGW mojo back.

OTH -- OldieRocks has been losing his pants here for YEARS screaming about the damages we've already seen from Global Warming..

The NOAA statement is new and I wasn't aware of it. But there's no way I'm buying the conclusion until I actually SEE the NOAA report and who did it.. The CBS news analysis of it sounds completely retarded..

Going back 50 years, they know what temperature and dryness conditions are associated with Texas drought. When they put that in the computer, nothing explained the intensity and duration of what we saw last year in Texas until they factored in the added heat coming from climate change. You're going to see a lot of scientists criticizing this as a guess, but NOAA for the first time is arguing that this is science.

"They put that into the computer.... " Dead giveaway to the clueless..

LOLOLOLOL.....see....

Watch carefully now as he performs some mental gymnastics to try to make black look like white, pretend his lies weren't really lies and then moves on without any acknowledgement that he was wrong when he claimed that: "Those agencies [NASA & NOAA] MAKE NO STATEMENTS about current weather events being undeniably due to Global Warming". LOLOLOLOL

Actually -- the NOAA linkfart was from barely 50 days ago.. Prior to that point, my statements were true and are STILL true until there is scientific corraboration. That's how this science thingy works..

Certainly --- they correctly identified Nina/Nino cycles as the PRIMARY cause. The speculation on it being amplified by global warming are yet to be verified. Considering the WORSE Texas droughts on record in the past 100 years all occurred a long time ago.. This is gonna be harder than you might think to prove..

But if you wanted to score actual debate points --- instead of playing your usual toolish troll role -- you could FIND the actual NOAA statements and let us all read and decide for ourselves.. Instead of relying on juvenile reporting from CBS news which is worse than the most amatuer science blog sites..

 

[RollingThunder]

lolololol.....see....

Watch carefully now as he performs some mental gymnastics to try to make black look like white, pretend his lies weren't really lies and then moves on without any acknowledgement that he was wrong when he claimed that: "Those agencies [NASA & NOAA] MAKE NO STATEMENTS about current weather events being undeniably due to Global Warming". LOLOLOLOL

NASA Study Links Extreme Weather Events to Global Warming
August 20, 2012

NOAA links extreme weather to climate change
July 10, 2012

actually -- the noaa linkfart was from barely 50 days ago.. Prior to that point, my statements were true and are still true until there is scientific corraboration(sic).

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL........ROTFLMAO..........see what I mean......

 

[CrusaderFrank]

NOAA and NASA need to explain why they each support the false notion of "Ocean acidification"

 

[Saigon]

NOAA and NASA need to explain why they each support the false notion of "Ocean acidification"

Because they understand the issue more than you do.

Would you like to man up and actually discuss the issue, or are you going to just concede this debate, too?

 

[Saigon]

You're posting the SAME 2008 ARTICLE I just DEBUNKED???????

How crazy are you man? Unfunking believable..

This did make me laugh.

We know for a fact that:

- there were catastrophic droughts in 2008. There were also droughts in 2009.

- thousands of winemakers were forced to buy water

- some winemakers ploughed their grapes under as a result of the drought

- experts conclude that climate change is making winemaking uneconomic in some areas


So which of these points did you "debunk"?

Let's be clear here - you did not debunk this sotry - you denied it. There is a big difference.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

NOAA and NASA need to explain why they each support the false notion of "Ocean acidification"

Because they understand the issue more than you do.

Would you like to man up and actually discuss the issue, or are you going to just concede this debate, too?

They do not. They are lying. We've been over this, the "Ocean acidification" is simply not occurring, it's a lie.

I've conceded NOTHING to you. You have failed to present any scientific evidence in any prior discussion of the topic, you've failed every time

 

[Saigon]

Frank -

That's ok - I did figure you would concede defeat.

Excellent posting, btw, I think you really convince a lot of people with these authorative and well argued positions.

 

[Peach]

Massive rain this summer in north Florida, and TS N ______ is forming off of Cape Verde as we write. 11-15 was the prediction, N will be 14.

 

[RollingThunder]

NOAA and NASA need to explain why they each support the false notion of "Ocean acidification"

Because they understand the issue more than you do.

Would you like to man up and actually discuss the issue, or are you going to just concede this debate, too?

They do not. They are lying. We've been over this, the "Ocean acidification" is simply not occurring, it's a lie.

What is actually "simply not occurring" is any sign of intelligence in your posts, CrazyFruitcake.

Here's an informative article on this subject, written for the layman, from a popular national news magazine. I offer this one to you, Crazyfruitcake, only because I was unable to find any articles written specifically for retards. It is possible, I suppose, barely possible, that you could manage to comprehend this article, or at least, let's hope so.

First Direct Evidence of Ocean Acidification
US News and World Report
January 22, 2010
(excerpts)
TAMPA, Fla.—Seawater in a vast and deep section of the northeastern Pacific Ocean shows signs of increased acidity brought on by manmade carbon dioxide in the atmosphere--a phenomenon that carries with it far-reaching ecological effects--reports a team of researchers led by a University of South Florida College of Marine Science chemist. The scientists, whose results are published in the American Geophysical Union's journal Geophysical Research Letters, analyzed Pacific seawater between Oahu, Hawaii, and Kodiak, Alaska by comparing pH readings from 1991 and from 2006. This study provides the first direct measurements of basin-wide pH changes in the ocean's depths and at its surface and has produced the first direct evidence of acidification across an entire ocean basin, the investigators said. Principal investigator Robert Byrne, a USF seawater physical chemistry professor, said the study leaves no doubt that growing CO2 levels in the atmosphere are exerting major impacts on the world's oceans. "If this happens in a piece of ocean as big as a whole ocean basin, then this is a global phenomenon," Byrne said. Adding carbon dioxide to seawater makes it more acidic, and each year the world's oceans absorb about one-third of the atmospheric CO2produced by human activities.

"The pH decrease is direct evidence for ocean acidification of a large portion of the North Pacific Ocean," said Richard Feely. "These dramatic changes can be attributed, in most part, to anthropogenic CO2uptake by the ocean over a 15-year period." The implications for sea life and the world's food web are serious, Byrne said. When seawater becomes more acidic, lower concentrations of carbonate result. Because the protective shells of sea organisms are made of calcium and carbonate, more acidic waters make it more difficult for many organisms to make their shells and thrive. That affects not only the food web, but also many important processes essential for healthy marine ecosystems, such as coral reef formation, Byrne said. Over the next millennium, the global oceans are expected to absorb approximately 90 percent of the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere, says Christopher Sabine, chief scientist for the first leg of the cruise. "It is now established from models that there is a strong possibility that dissolved carbon dioxide in the ocean surface will double over its pre-industrial value by the middle of this century, with accompanying surface ocean pH decreases that are greater than those experienced during the transition from ice ages to warm ages," Sabine said. "The uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide by the ocean changes the chemistry of the oceans and can potentially have significant impacts on the biological systems in the upper oceans."

"Estimates of future atmospheric and oceanic CO2 concentrations, based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emission scenarios and general circulation models, indicate that by the middle of this century atmospheric CO2 levels could reach more than 500 ppm, and near the end of the century they could be over 800 ppm. Current levels are near 390 ppm, and preindustrial levels were near 280 ppm," Feely said. Corresponding models for the oceans indicate that surface water pH would drop approximately 0.4 pH units, and the carbonate ion concentration would decrease almost 50 percent by the end of the century. This surface ocean pH would be lower than it has been for more than 20 million years. Byrne and many other scientists expect that even if substantial reductions are made in the pace at which humans produce carbon dioxide, ocean acidification will continue for hundreds of years to come. "The bad news is it takes many hundreds of years for self-correcting factors to occur," he said. "That leaves many centuries of ugly consequences."

Copyright © 2012 U.S.News & World Report LP All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

[skookerasbil]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7m7Q9VwYqw]Peter Gabriel - Red Rain (Live) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank -

That's ok - I did figure you would concede defeat.

Excellent posting, btw, I think you really convince a lot of people with these authorative and well argued positions.

What acid is causing this "ocean acidification"? Carbonic acid? What happens when Carbonic acid touches water? Any idea?

What is the volume of the ocean (you claim there is an "Average pH" so we must take the entire volume of the oceans)

What's the pH of this CO2 based acid and what quantity would it take to acidify the ocean?

NASA and NOAA got caught drinking the AGW Kool Aid, just like you

 

[Saigon]

NASA and NOAA got caught drinking the AGW Kool Aid, just like you

But of course you know more than they do, Frank. You are really too modest.

They do not have the access to scientific data, the education or the basic intelligence that you do.

Alternatively, perhaps start with this:

Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Old Rocks]

The basic weather prediction from global warming was and continues to be "wider and wilder swings with an overall warming".

And have we seen that in spades in the last few years. 2011, the Missouri and Mississippi in flood stage from March to September. This year, parts of the Mississippi closed to river trafic because of low water. And each year we are seeing significant extreme weather impacts on our crops and infrastructure. This year, a significant portion of the corn and soy crop in the US lost because of the drought, in Russia, a significant portion of the grain crops lost to drought. You will be seeing the results in higher food prices at the supermarket.

 

[NoNukes]

From reports given by legitimate meterologists, we are entering the same kind of cycle that we were in during the 40s and 50s, which is increased hurricane activity in the Carribean. Just like experts in California are predicting an increase in earthquake activity after a period of quiet.

The problem with liberals is that everything is brand new, it never happened before. It's global warming and if it's cold, it's climate change because its cold.

These meteorologists are the same people who 'predict' the weather, but now you want to hold them up as expert.

 

[Old Rocks]

NOAA and NASA need to explain why they each support the false notion of "Ocean acidification"

AGW Observer

Ocean acidification reduces induction of coral settlement by crustose coraline algae

Ocean acidification reduces induction of coral settlement by crustose coraline algae – Webster et al. (2012)

Abstract: “Crustose coralline algae (CCA) are a critical component of coral reefs as they accrete carbonate for reef structure and act as settlement substrata for many invertebrates including corals. CCA host a diversity of microorganisms that can also play a role in coral settlement and metamorphosis processes. While the sensitivity of CCA to ocean acidification (OA) is well established, the response of their associated microbial communities to reduced pH and increased CO2 was previously unknown. Here we investigate the sensitivity of CCA-associated microbial biofilms to OA and determine whether OA adversely affects the ability of CCA to induce coral larval metamorphosis. We experimentally exposed the CCA Hydrolithon onkodes to four pH/pCO2 conditions consistent with current IPCC predictions for the next few centuries (pH: 8.1, 7.9, 7.7, 7.5, pCO2: 464, 822, 1187, 1638 μatm). Settlement and metamorphosis of coral larvae was reduced on CCA pre-exposed to pH 7.7 (pCO2 = 1187 μatm) and below over a six week period. Additional experiments demonstrated that low pH treatments did not directly affect the ability of larvae to settle, but instead most likely altered the biochemistry of the CCA or its microbial associates. Detailed microbial community analysis of the CCA revealed diverse bacterial assemblages that altered significantly between pH 8.1 (pCO2 = 464 μatm) and pH 7.9 (pCO2 = 822 μatm) with this trend continuing at lower pH/higher pCO2 treatments. The shift in microbial community composition primarily comprised changes in the abundance of the dominant microbes between the different pH treatments and the appearance of new (but rare) microbes at pH 7.5. Microbial shifts and the concomitant reduced ability of CCA to induce coral settlement under OA conditions projected to occur by 2100 is a significant concern for the development, maintenance and recovery of reefs globally.”

Citation: N.S. Webster, S. Uthicke, E. Botté, F. Flores, A.P. Negri, Global Change Biology, DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12008.

 

[skookerasbil]

The basic weather prediction from global warming was and continues to be "wider and wilder swings with an overall warming".

And have we seen that in spades in the last few years. 2011, the Missouri and Mississippi in flood stage from March to September. This year, parts of the Mississippi closed to river trafic because of low water. And each year we are seeing significant extreme weather impacts on our crops and infrastructure. This year, a significant portion of the corn and soy crop in the US lost because of the drought, in Russia, a significant portion of the grain crops lost to drought. You will be seeing the results in higher food prices at the supermarket.

Now Ray........do I need to go post up my link on weather history once again? You know the link Im talkin about. That link that illustrates extreme flooding and drought over the last 200 years?

Not going to waste my time........reasonable people know that extreme weather, indeed, catastropic weather events, have been happening long, long, long, long before 1998.


The "wider and wilder swings with an overall warming". has become the new talking point for the environmental alarmist contingent for the past 3 years or so when all the other crap backfired.


But nobody is caring...........





From CNNMoney................2035 projections on energy.............

Oil, coal to continue as dominate energy sources: forecast - Nov. 9, 2010