Last decade is snowiest on record!!!

[cnm]

Ummm, no. That's what they did. Not me.

No, the authors explained, you cherry picked. Fair enough, it's what deniers do.

 

[Kosh]

Ummm, no. That's what they did. Not me.

No, the authors explained, you cherry picked. Fair enough, it's what deniers do.

Yes the AGW cult are the true deniers of science..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

3. A ha! Just as predicted by our 100% Accurate Retroactive Model, DENIER!!!

So what do you reckon, Frank, is specific humidity in the lower atmosphere increasing or not?

Let's see: it's increasing because of Global Warming, it's decreasing because of Global Warming

So that's a don't know, run away.

Fair enough, the classic Crusader tactic. Allah akubah.

In Al Gores peer reviewed Bible "Earth in the Balance", he said that water vapor was responsible for the warming and that a wisp of CO2 magically made more water vapor. He was understandably very short on specifics.

Consider this a teachable moment and enlighten us as to how this hapoens

 

[rdean]

When did they start stating that? Show me a link!

I am wrong, my apologies. Both more and heavier precipitation has been predicted.

Does record snowfall disprove global warming?​

Record snowfall

As climate warms, evaporation from the ocean increases. This results in more water vapour in the air. Globally, atmospheric water vapour has increased by about 5% over the 20th century. Most of the increase has occurred since 1970 (IPCC AR4 3.4.2.1). This is confirmed by satellites that find the total atmospheric moisture content has been increasing since measurements began in 1988 (Santer 2007).

The extra moisture in the air is expected to produce more precipitation, including more extreme precipitation events. Observations bear this out. A study of precipitation trends over the United States found that heavy precipitation events (over 50mm in a day) have increased 20% over the 20th Century (Groisman 2004). Most of this increase occured after 1970. Various analyses of precipitation over the globe have similarly found a widespread increase in heavy precipitation days since 1950 (Alexander 2006, Groisman 2006).

Snowstorms can occur if temperatures are in the range of -10°C to 0°C. Global warming decreases the likeliness of snowstorm conditions in warmer, southern regions. However, in northern, colder regions, temperatures are often too cold for very heavy snow so warming can bring more favourable snowstorm conditions (Kunkel 2008). This is borne out in observations. Over the last century, there has been a downward trend in snowstorms across the lower Midwest, South and West Coast. Conversely, there's been an increase in snowstorms in the upper Midwest East, and Northeast with the overall national trend also upwards (Changnon 2006).

​

As well as less and lighter precip. Funny how the global warmers always take both sides of an argument. Then, they claim "well, it will behave differently in different areas". Which sounds logical, but how then is that any different from what is already occurring?

That's the problem when you trot out a non testable hypothesis. You rapidly paint yourself into a corner....




I find this line hilarious for instance.....

"The decreased mean precipitation, on the other hand, is associated with less frequency for almost every rain events, except for very heavy and light rain events.
http://www.ntnu.edu.tw/acad/rep/r99/f990004-1.pdf



And you call this science!

United States Drought Monitor Home

 

[rdean]

I was just thinking this morning when I woke up to 10 degrees, WHERE THE FUCK IS MY GLOBAL WARMING?!?!

I think the way it works is that higher temperatures - and this decade has been the warmest on record - mean that more moisture is held in the atmosphere, which then translates to more precipitation/snow when temperatures drop. So one would expect increased snow levels with increased global temperatures.

Well holy AGW Batman! It's snowy!

And, if water vapor didn't have a residence time of 9 days you might have had a point. However, from the time the "warm" days have passed is weeks, if not months. And of course it's cold as hell. So, that "theory" don't hunt.

Are you saying that water and snow have no connection?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I was just thinking this morning when I woke up to 10 degrees, WHERE THE FUCK IS MY GLOBAL WARMING?!?!

I think the way it works is that higher temperatures - and this decade has been the warmest on record - mean that more moisture is held in the atmosphere, which then translates to more precipitation/snow when temperatures drop. So one would expect increased snow levels with increased global temperatures.

Well holy AGW Batman! It's snowy!

And, if water vapor didn't have a residence time of 9 days you might have had a point. However, from the time the "warm" days have passed is weeks, if not months. And of course it's cold as hell. So, that "theory" don't hunt.

Are you saying that water and snow have no connection?

CO2 makes more water?

Yeah?

 

[jc456]

When did they start stating that? Show me a link!

I am wrong, my apologies. Both more and heavier precipitation has been predicted.

Does record snowfall disprove global warming?​

Record snowfall

As climate warms, evaporation from the ocean increases. This results in more water vapour in the air. Globally, atmospheric water vapour has increased by about 5% over the 20th century. Most of the increase has occurred since 1970 (IPCC AR4 3.4.2.1). This is confirmed by satellites that find the total atmospheric moisture content has been increasing since measurements began in 1988 (Santer 2007).

The extra moisture in the air is expected to produce more precipitation, including more extreme precipitation events. Observations bear this out. A study of precipitation trends over the United States found that heavy precipitation events (over 50mm in a day) have increased 20% over the 20th Century (Groisman 2004). Most of this increase occured after 1970. Various analyses of precipitation over the globe have similarly found a widespread increase in heavy precipitation days since 1950 (Alexander 2006, Groisman 2006).

Snowstorms can occur if temperatures are in the range of -10°C to 0°C. Global warming decreases the likeliness of snowstorm conditions in warmer, southern regions. However, in northern, colder regions, temperatures are often too cold for very heavy snow so warming can bring more favourable snowstorm conditions (Kunkel 2008). This is borne out in observations. Over the last century, there has been a downward trend in snowstorms across the lower Midwest, South and West Coast. Conversely, there's been an increase in snowstorms in the upper Midwest East, and Northeast with the overall national trend also upwards (Changnon 2006).

​

As well as less and lighter precip. Funny how the global warmers always take both sides of an argument. Then, they claim "well, it will behave differently in different areas". Which sounds logical, but how then is that any different from what is already occurring?

That's the problem when you trot out a non testable hypothesis. You rapidly paint yourself into a corner....




I find this line hilarious for instance.....

"The decreased mean precipitation, on the other hand, is associated with less frequency for almost every rain events, except for very heavy and light rain events.
http://www.ntnu.edu.tw/acad/rep/r99/f990004-1.pdf



And you call this science!

United States Drought Monitor Home

nice graph, it looks normal for the region. What is it we're supposed to do with this?

 

[rdean]

When did they start stating that? Show me a link!

I am wrong, my apologies. Both more and heavier precipitation has been predicted.

Does record snowfall disprove global warming?​

Record snowfall

As climate warms, evaporation from the ocean increases. This results in more water vapour in the air. Globally, atmospheric water vapour has increased by about 5% over the 20th century. Most of the increase has occurred since 1970 (IPCC AR4 3.4.2.1). This is confirmed by satellites that find the total atmospheric moisture content has been increasing since measurements began in 1988 (Santer 2007).

The extra moisture in the air is expected to produce more precipitation, including more extreme precipitation events. Observations bear this out. A study of precipitation trends over the United States found that heavy precipitation events (over 50mm in a day) have increased 20% over the 20th Century (Groisman 2004). Most of this increase occured after 1970. Various analyses of precipitation over the globe have similarly found a widespread increase in heavy precipitation days since 1950 (Alexander 2006, Groisman 2006).

Snowstorms can occur if temperatures are in the range of -10°C to 0°C. Global warming decreases the likeliness of snowstorm conditions in warmer, southern regions. However, in northern, colder regions, temperatures are often too cold for very heavy snow so warming can bring more favourable snowstorm conditions (Kunkel 2008). This is borne out in observations. Over the last century, there has been a downward trend in snowstorms across the lower Midwest, South and West Coast. Conversely, there's been an increase in snowstorms in the upper Midwest East, and Northeast with the overall national trend also upwards (Changnon 2006).

​

As well as less and lighter precip. Funny how the global warmers always take both sides of an argument. Then, they claim "well, it will behave differently in different areas". Which sounds logical, but how then is that any different from what is already occurring?

That's the problem when you trot out a non testable hypothesis. You rapidly paint yourself into a corner....




I find this line hilarious for instance.....

"The decreased mean precipitation, on the other hand, is associated with less frequency for almost every rain events, except for very heavy and light rain events.
http://www.ntnu.edu.tw/acad/rep/r99/f990004-1.pdf



And you call this science!

United States Drought Monitor Home

nice graph, it looks normal for the region. What is it we're supposed to do with this?

You said: nice graph, it looks normal for the region. What is it we're supposed to do with this?

All of California, including the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valley's way past San Francisco and the Sierra Nevada's and the in a drought is normal? What are we supposed to do with this???? Pray? That's what Rick Perry suggests.



I give up. These people can't learn.

 

[jc456]

When did they start stating that? Show me a link!

I am wrong, my apologies. Both more and heavier precipitation has been predicted.

Does record snowfall disprove global warming?​

Record snowfall

As climate warms, evaporation from the ocean increases. This results in more water vapour in the air. Globally, atmospheric water vapour has increased by about 5% over the 20th century. Most of the increase has occurred since 1970 (IPCC AR4 3.4.2.1). This is confirmed by satellites that find the total atmospheric moisture content has been increasing since measurements began in 1988 (Santer 2007).

The extra moisture in the air is expected to produce more precipitation, including more extreme precipitation events. Observations bear this out. A study of precipitation trends over the United States found that heavy precipitation events (over 50mm in a day) have increased 20% over the 20th Century (Groisman 2004). Most of this increase occured after 1970. Various analyses of precipitation over the globe have similarly found a widespread increase in heavy precipitation days since 1950 (Alexander 2006, Groisman 2006).

Snowstorms can occur if temperatures are in the range of -10°C to 0°C. Global warming decreases the likeliness of snowstorm conditions in warmer, southern regions. However, in northern, colder regions, temperatures are often too cold for very heavy snow so warming can bring more favourable snowstorm conditions (Kunkel 2008). This is borne out in observations. Over the last century, there has been a downward trend in snowstorms across the lower Midwest, South and West Coast. Conversely, there's been an increase in snowstorms in the upper Midwest East, and Northeast with the overall national trend also upwards (Changnon 2006).

​

As well as less and lighter precip. Funny how the global warmers always take both sides of an argument. Then, they claim "well, it will behave differently in different areas". Which sounds logical, but how then is that any different from what is already occurring?

That's the problem when you trot out a non testable hypothesis. You rapidly paint yourself into a corner....




I find this line hilarious for instance.....

"The decreased mean precipitation, on the other hand, is associated with less frequency for almost every rain events, except for very heavy and light rain events.
http://www.ntnu.edu.tw/acad/rep/r99/f990004-1.pdf



And you call this science!

United States Drought Monitor Home

nice graph, it looks normal for the region. What is it we're supposed to do with this?

You said: nice graph, it looks normal for the region. What is it we're supposed to do with this?

All of California, including the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valley's way past San Francisco and the Sierra Nevada's and the in a drought is normal? What are we supposed to do with this???? Pray? That's what Rick Perry suggests.



I give up. These people can't learn.

dude, if you'd like to learn, then please go to a library and look up regional climate. See, this is all normal for the region. now how much more stupid would you like to post on here, because you are running neck and neck with the other deniers posting stupid. But please, at least read about the region. BTW, here a quick lesson on the region:

Hmmm desert conditions. Maybe you should also read up on how a desert develops. Holy crap!!!!

 

[jc456]

When did they start stating that? Show me a link!

I am wrong, my apologies. Both more and heavier precipitation has been predicted.

Does record snowfall disprove global warming?​

Record snowfall

As climate warms, evaporation from the ocean increases. This results in more water vapour in the air. Globally, atmospheric water vapour has increased by about 5% over the 20th century. Most of the increase has occurred since 1970 (IPCC AR4 3.4.2.1). This is confirmed by satellites that find the total atmospheric moisture content has been increasing since measurements began in 1988 (Santer 2007).

The extra moisture in the air is expected to produce more precipitation, including more extreme precipitation events. Observations bear this out. A study of precipitation trends over the United States found that heavy precipitation events (over 50mm in a day) have increased 20% over the 20th Century (Groisman 2004). Most of this increase occured after 1970. Various analyses of precipitation over the globe have similarly found a widespread increase in heavy precipitation days since 1950 (Alexander 2006, Groisman 2006).

Snowstorms can occur if temperatures are in the range of -10°C to 0°C. Global warming decreases the likeliness of snowstorm conditions in warmer, southern regions. However, in northern, colder regions, temperatures are often too cold for very heavy snow so warming can bring more favourable snowstorm conditions (Kunkel 2008). This is borne out in observations. Over the last century, there has been a downward trend in snowstorms across the lower Midwest, South and West Coast. Conversely, there's been an increase in snowstorms in the upper Midwest East, and Northeast with the overall national trend also upwards (Changnon 2006).

​

As well as less and lighter precip. Funny how the global warmers always take both sides of an argument. Then, they claim "well, it will behave differently in different areas". Which sounds logical, but how then is that any different from what is already occurring?

That's the problem when you trot out a non testable hypothesis. You rapidly paint yourself into a corner....




I find this line hilarious for instance.....

"The decreased mean precipitation, on the other hand, is associated with less frequency for almost every rain events, except for very heavy and light rain events.
http://www.ntnu.edu.tw/acad/rep/r99/f990004-1.pdf



And you call this science!

United States Drought Monitor Home

Hmmmmm looks like desert region!!! BTW, did you know that the Mojave desert is the hottest place on earth? Wow, come on, post some more stupid for us to laugh at.

 

[jc456]

When did they start stating that? Show me a link!

I am wrong, my apologies. Both more and heavier precipitation has been predicted.

Does record snowfall disprove global warming?​

Record snowfall

As climate warms, evaporation from the ocean increases. This results in more water vapour in the air. Globally, atmospheric water vapour has increased by about 5% over the 20th century. Most of the increase has occurred since 1970 (IPCC AR4 3.4.2.1). This is confirmed by satellites that find the total atmospheric moisture content has been increasing since measurements began in 1988 (Santer 2007).

The extra moisture in the air is expected to produce more precipitation, including more extreme precipitation events. Observations bear this out. A study of precipitation trends over the United States found that heavy precipitation events (over 50mm in a day) have increased 20% over the 20th Century (Groisman 2004). Most of this increase occured after 1970. Various analyses of precipitation over the globe have similarly found a widespread increase in heavy precipitation days since 1950 (Alexander 2006, Groisman 2006).

Snowstorms can occur if temperatures are in the range of -10°C to 0°C. Global warming decreases the likeliness of snowstorm conditions in warmer, southern regions. However, in northern, colder regions, temperatures are often too cold for very heavy snow so warming can bring more favourable snowstorm conditions (Kunkel 2008). This is borne out in observations. Over the last century, there has been a downward trend in snowstorms across the lower Midwest, South and West Coast. Conversely, there's been an increase in snowstorms in the upper Midwest East, and Northeast with the overall national trend also upwards (Changnon 2006).

​

As well as less and lighter precip. Funny how the global warmers always take both sides of an argument. Then, they claim "well, it will behave differently in different areas". Which sounds logical, but how then is that any different from what is already occurring?

That's the problem when you trot out a non testable hypothesis. You rapidly paint yourself into a corner....




I find this line hilarious for instance.....

"The decreased mean precipitation, on the other hand, is associated with less frequency for almost every rain events, except for very heavy and light rain events.
http://www.ntnu.edu.tw/acad/rep/r99/f990004-1.pdf



And you call this science!

United States Drought Monitor Home

nice graph, it looks normal for the region. What is it we're supposed to do with this?

You said: nice graph, it looks normal for the region. What is it we're supposed to do with this?

All of California, including the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valley's way past San Francisco and the Sierra Nevada's and the in a drought is normal? What are we supposed to do with this???? Pray? That's what Rick Perry suggests.



I give up. These people can't learn.

here is a map of the NA climate...

would you take a look at that? Climate. You do know what climate is right?

 

[rdean]

I am wrong, my apologies. Both more and heavier precipitation has been predicted.

Does record snowfall disprove global warming?​

Record snowfall

As climate warms, evaporation from the ocean increases. This results in more water vapour in the air. Globally, atmospheric water vapour has increased by about 5% over the 20th century. Most of the increase has occurred since 1970 (IPCC AR4 3.4.2.1). This is confirmed by satellites that find the total atmospheric moisture content has been increasing since measurements began in 1988 (Santer 2007).

The extra moisture in the air is expected to produce more precipitation, including more extreme precipitation events. Observations bear this out. A study of precipitation trends over the United States found that heavy precipitation events (over 50mm in a day) have increased 20% over the 20th Century (Groisman 2004). Most of this increase occured after 1970. Various analyses of precipitation over the globe have similarly found a widespread increase in heavy precipitation days since 1950 (Alexander 2006, Groisman 2006).

Snowstorms can occur if temperatures are in the range of -10°C to 0°C. Global warming decreases the likeliness of snowstorm conditions in warmer, southern regions. However, in northern, colder regions, temperatures are often too cold for very heavy snow so warming can bring more favourable snowstorm conditions (Kunkel 2008). This is borne out in observations. Over the last century, there has been a downward trend in snowstorms across the lower Midwest, South and West Coast. Conversely, there's been an increase in snowstorms in the upper Midwest East, and Northeast with the overall national trend also upwards (Changnon 2006).

​

As well as less and lighter precip. Funny how the global warmers always take both sides of an argument. Then, they claim "well, it will behave differently in different areas". Which sounds logical, but how then is that any different from what is already occurring?

That's the problem when you trot out a non testable hypothesis. You rapidly paint yourself into a corner....




I find this line hilarious for instance.....

"The decreased mean precipitation, on the other hand, is associated with less frequency for almost every rain events, except for very heavy and light rain events.
http://www.ntnu.edu.tw/acad/rep/r99/f990004-1.pdf



And you call this science!

United States Drought Monitor Home

nice graph, it looks normal for the region. What is it we're supposed to do with this?

You said: nice graph, it looks normal for the region. What is it we're supposed to do with this?

All of California, including the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valley's way past San Francisco and the Sierra Nevada's and the in a drought is normal? What are we supposed to do with this???? Pray? That's what Rick Perry suggests.



I give up. These people can't learn.

dude, if you'd like to learn, then please go to a library and look up regional climate. See, this is all normal for the region. now how much more stupid would you like to post on here, because you are running neck and neck with the other deniers posting stupid. But please, at least read about the region. BTW, here a quick lesson on the region:

Hmmm desert conditions. Maybe you should also read up on how a desert develops. Holy crap!!!!

Hellooo. Knock knock. Do you see all of California is GREEN? Duh. Because the Sierra Nevada's block moisture from getting to the Nevada desert. But between the mountains and the ocean, your map is green. Mine shows it to be in a severe drought. That's the point.

I've been warned I'm too severe on Republicans, but come on. They print a map that shows exactly what I'm talking about and can't even see what their own map is showing them. This is what's called "determined ignorance".

 

[jc456]

As well as less and lighter precip. Funny how the global warmers always take both sides of an argument. Then, they claim "well, it will behave differently in different areas". Which sounds logical, but how then is that any different from what is already occurring?

That's the problem when you trot out a non testable hypothesis. You rapidly paint yourself into a corner....




I find this line hilarious for instance.....

"The decreased mean precipitation, on the other hand, is associated with less frequency for almost every rain events, except for very heavy and light rain events.
http://www.ntnu.edu.tw/acad/rep/r99/f990004-1.pdf



And you call this science!

United States Drought Monitor Home

nice graph, it looks normal for the region. What is it we're supposed to do with this?

You said: nice graph, it looks normal for the region. What is it we're supposed to do with this?

All of California, including the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valley's way past San Francisco and the Sierra Nevada's and the in a drought is normal? What are we supposed to do with this???? Pray? That's what Rick Perry suggests.



I give up. These people can't learn.

dude, if you'd like to learn, then please go to a library and look up regional climate. See, this is all normal for the region. now how much more stupid would you like to post on here, because you are running neck and neck with the other deniers posting stupid. But please, at least read about the region. BTW, here a quick lesson on the region:

Hmmm desert conditions. Maybe you should also read up on how a desert develops. Holy crap!!!!

Hellooo. Knock knock. Do you see all of California is GREEN? Duh. Because the Sierra Nevada's block moisture from getting to the Nevada desert. But between the mountains and the ocean, your map is green. Mine shows it to be in a severe drought. That's the point.

I've been warned I'm too severe on Republicans, but come on. They print a map that shows exactly what I'm talking about and can't even see what their own map is showing them. This is what's called "determined ignorance".

come on man, don't be that stupid. Just don't, I asked you if you knew the region. You obviously didn't go and read up on weather in California, did ya? You know, it's a shame that minds go to waste like yours.

Edit, BTW, you were warned to go and learn about the region.

 

[westwall]

As well as less and lighter precip. Funny how the global warmers always take both sides of an argument. Then, they claim "well, it will behave differently in different areas". Which sounds logical, but how then is that any different from what is already occurring?

That's the problem when you trot out a non testable hypothesis. You rapidly paint yourself into a corner....




I find this line hilarious for instance.....

"The decreased mean precipitation, on the other hand, is associated with less frequency for almost every rain events, except for very heavy and light rain events.
http://www.ntnu.edu.tw/acad/rep/r99/f990004-1.pdf



And you call this science!

United States Drought Monitor Home

nice graph, it looks normal for the region. What is it we're supposed to do with this?

You said: nice graph, it looks normal for the region. What is it we're supposed to do with this?

All of California, including the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valley's way past San Francisco and the Sierra Nevada's and the in a drought is normal? What are we supposed to do with this???? Pray? That's what Rick Perry suggests.



I give up. These people can't learn.

dude, if you'd like to learn, then please go to a library and look up regional climate. See, this is all normal for the region. now how much more stupid would you like to post on here, because you are running neck and neck with the other deniers posting stupid. But please, at least read about the region. BTW, here a quick lesson on the region:

Hmmm desert conditions. Maybe you should also read up on how a desert develops. Holy crap!!!!

Hellooo. Knock knock. Do you see all of California is GREEN? Duh. Because the Sierra Nevada's block moisture from getting to the Nevada desert. But between the mountains and the ocean, your map is green. Mine shows it to be in a severe drought. That's the point.

I've been warned I'm too severe on Republicans, but come on. They print a map that shows exactly what I'm talking about and can't even see what their own map is showing them. This is what's called "determined ignorance".

Helloooo, knock knock, do you understand that ALL of Southern California is desert? It's only green because they take water from Northern California, and from the Colorado River system, and the Owens River valley area and transport it hundreds of miles south to LA and all the other SoCal cities and towns?

You did know that, didn't you?

I thought you were all about science and stuff, and you don't even know that one, simple, basic fact?

 

[skookerasbil]

As well as less and lighter precip. Funny how the global warmers always take both sides of an argument. Then, they claim "well, it will behave differently in different areas". Which sounds logical, but how then is that any different from what is already occurring?

That's the problem when you trot out a non testable hypothesis. You rapidly paint yourself into a corner....




I find this line hilarious for instance.....

"The decreased mean precipitation, on the other hand, is associated with less frequency for almost every rain events, except for very heavy and light rain events.
http://www.ntnu.edu.tw/acad/rep/r99/f990004-1.pdf



And you call this science!

United States Drought Monitor Home

nice graph, it looks normal for the region. What is it we're supposed to do with this?

You said: nice graph, it looks normal for the region. What is it we're supposed to do with this?

All of California, including the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valley's way past San Francisco and the Sierra Nevada's and the in a drought is normal? What are we supposed to do with this???? Pray? That's what Rick Perry suggests.



I give up. These people can't learn.

dude, if you'd like to learn, then please go to a library and look up regional climate. See, this is all normal for the region. now how much more stupid would you like to post on here, because you are running neck and neck with the other deniers posting stupid. But please, at least read about the region. BTW, here a quick lesson on the region:

Hmmm desert conditions. Maybe you should also read up on how a desert develops. Holy crap!!!!

Hellooo. Knock knock. Do you see all of California is GREEN? Duh. Because the Sierra Nevada's block moisture from getting to the Nevada desert. But between the mountains and the ocean, your map is green. Mine shows it to be in a severe drought. That's the point.

I've been warned I'm too severe on Republicans, but come on. They print a map that shows exactly what I'm talking about and can't even see what their own map is showing them. This is what's called "determined ignorance".

nobody is caring about the science s0n!!

Volumes of proof,..........go take a gander at the scores of links posted up in the PROOF THE SKEPTICS ARE WINNING thread.......the epic and dominating thread in this forum!!! All the AGW stuff dies in a few days........because its the same old rehashed shit nobody cares about in 2014.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ummm, no. That's what they did. Not me.

No, the authors explained, you cherry picked. Fair enough, it's what deniers do.

Yes the AGW cult are the true deniers of science..

Ah yes, since all of the Scientific Societies, all of the National Academies of Science and and all of the major Universities state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger, them thar pointy headed librul scientists are deniers of science.

You guys remind me of the hayseed that sits in the back of the class in grade school, commenting 'Pi aren't square, pi are round, hiyuck, hiyuch".

 

[cnm]

In Al Gores peer reviewed Bible "Earth in the Balance", he said that water vapor was responsible for the warming and that a wisp of CO2 magically made more water vapor. He was understandably very short on specifics.

Consider this a teachable moment and enlighten us as to how this hapoens

The question was 'So what do you reckon, Frank, is specific humidity in the lower atmosphere increasing or not?' If you are too scared to answer, that is considered perfectly reasonable and understandable from a crusader.

Allah akubah!

 

[westwall]

Ummm, no. That's what they did. Not me.

No, the authors explained, you cherry picked. Fair enough, it's what deniers do.

Yes the AGW cult are the true deniers of science..

Ah yes, since all of the Scientific Societies, all of the National Academies of Science and and all of the major Universities state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger, them thar pointy headed librul scientists are deniers of science.

You guys remind me of the hayseed that sits in the back of the class in grade school, commenting 'Pi aren't square, pi are round, hiyuck, hiyuch".

What exactly does this drivel have to do with the OP? How many times are you going to try and foist off your logic fail of a pathetic argument? When, oh when are you going to have an original thought? C'mon olfraud. We expect better of you "sciency types". You claim you're better than sceptics, and so much smarter. Why then do you merely spew the same failed arguments?

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, Southern California is a desert. But even deserts have periods of more and less water than normal. And Southern California has had far less than normal.

California Drought

 

[westwall]

Yes, Southern California is a desert. But even deserts have periods of more and less water than normal. And Southern California has had far less than normal.

California Drought

Wow, really? Tell us olfraud what classifies an area as a desert?