NASA predicts Megadroughts

[Old Rocks]

Bullshit. Show me where I or anyone else stated that drought was going to end the world. You lying little asses are sure flap yapping stupidity lately.

 

[jc456]

Bullshit. Show me where I or anyone else stated that drought was going to end the world. You lying little asses are sure flap yapping stupidity lately.

show me where 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures. Show me you fool! you and yours always want, and you never ever provide your side of an argument with the facts.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Bullshit. Show me where I or anyone else stated that drought was going to end the world. You lying little asses are sure flap yapping stupidity lately.

The problem is Chicken Little, you and the other idiot AGW cultists have been making predictions of doom for 35 years, and they have consistently failed. You use a computer model that is statistically less accurate and predicting climate trends than the original Wolfenstien 3D was. Anyone with and IQ above 70 openly laughs at you.

 

[Old Rocks]

Really working to prove what a damned idiot you are, Un?

Really Sciency What Hansen et al got right decades ago.

In summary, Hansen et al;

• Was right about the 1980s warming, even though this was just after the media frenzy about a coming ice age.
• Was right about erosion of ice sheets, rising sea levels and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage – a pretty good call.
• Was right about warming at higher latitudes being greater than the global mean.
• Was right about the increased growing season.
• Was right about increased snow fall and net ice sheet growth – yet 'skeptics' today still use this as an argument against global warming.
• Was right about a partly ice free Arctic modifying neighbouring continental climates – if the most recent research about lack of ice causing a shift to the jet stream, and making colder winters is accepted – another good call.
• Appears to be right about 2C warming being reached within a century and that temperature being the accepted limit before irreversible and detrimental effects occur.

There is nothing obviously incorrect in this paper. All this was predicted using models that according to 'skeptics', are not supposed to work, over 30 years ago in 1981, the year IBM released it’s first PC with Microsoft MS DOS.

You have got to give this man and his team some credit for saying all this when most people thought we were still expecting an ice age. This is either good science or, if you reject AGW, they must have been very, very lucky. Personally I think I know why they were employed by NASA.

 

[jc456]

Really working to prove what a damned idiot you are, Un?

Really Sciency What Hansen et al got right decades ago.

In summary, Hansen et al;

• Was right about the 1980s warming, even though this was just after the media frenzy about a coming ice age.
• Was right about erosion of ice sheets, rising sea levels and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage – a pretty good call.
• Was right about warming at higher latitudes being greater than the global mean.
• Was right about the increased growing season.
• Was right about increased snow fall and net ice sheet growth – yet 'skeptics' today still use this as an argument against global warming.
• Was right about a partly ice free Arctic modifying neighbouring continental climates – if the most recent research about lack of ice causing a shift to the jet stream, and making colder winters is accepted – another good call.
• Appears to be right about 2C warming being reached within a century and that temperature being the accepted limit before irreversible and detrimental effects occur.

There is nothing obviously incorrect in this paper. All this was predicted using models that according to 'skeptics', are not supposed to work, over 30 years ago in 1981, the year IBM released it’s first PC with Microsoft MS DOS.

You have got to give this man and his team some credit for saying all this when most people thought we were still expecting an ice age. This is either good science or, if you reject AGW, they must have been very, very lucky. Personally I think I know why they were employed by NASA.

manipulated data is what we got to fit the model. Manipulated DATA!!!!!!

Actual data proves the models wrong, and it has been shown to you and your peers over and over in here. You wish to cycle through it all again.

 

[mamooth]

And so when presented with the data he asks for, jc auto-declares it's all faked.

That's standard cultist behavior. And it's now the behavior of all of the deniers. They literally have nothing now except their conspiracy theories.

Go on deniers. Rage some more. When you're done, the whole planet will still think of you as conspiracy cultists, and you'll still be nobodies shaking your tiny fists at the sky.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Really working to prove what a damned idiot you are, Un?

Really Sciency What Hansen et al got right decades ago.

In summary, Hansen et al;

• Was right about the 1980s warming, even though this was just after the media frenzy about a coming ice age.
• Was right about erosion of ice sheets, rising sea levels and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage – a pretty good call.
• Was right about warming at higher latitudes being greater than the global mean.
• Was right about the increased growing season.
• Was right about increased snow fall and net ice sheet growth – yet 'skeptics' today still use this as an argument against global warming.
• Was right about a partly ice free Arctic modifying neighbouring continental climates – if the most recent research about lack of ice causing a shift to the jet stream, and making colder winters is accepted – another good call.
• Appears to be right about 2C warming being reached within a century and that temperature being the accepted limit before irreversible and detrimental effects occur.

There is nothing obviously incorrect in this paper. All this was predicted using models that according to 'skeptics', are not supposed to work, over 30 years ago in 1981, the year IBM released it’s first PC with Microsoft MS DOS.

You have got to give this man and his team some credit for saying all this when most people thought we were still expecting an ice age. This is either good science or, if you reject AGW, they must have been very, very lucky. Personally I think I know why they were employed by NASA.

Self-serving bullshit. Mann and Hansen have been proven wrong at every turn.

 

[jc456]

And so when presented with the data he asks for, jc auto-declares it's all faked.

That's standard cultist behavior. And it's now the behavior of all of the deniers. They literally have nothing now except their conspiracy theories.

Go on deniers. Rage some more. When you're done, the whole planet will still think of you as conspiracy cultists, and you'll still be nobodies shaking your tiny fists at the sky.

it is truly amazing how little you know. Cult, lmao. hey pot how's kettle? you can't prove one thing from your cult and I laugh at you everyday here.

 

[RKMBrown]

yawn... bring on the warming we need more rain not more ice...

 

[Crick]

Move to the other half of the planet.

 

[bripat9643]

Now Pattycake, you silly little lying ass, no one has said a drought is going to end the world. What is being said is that the things that the area in drought normally produce are going to become more expensive.

Well, that's different. Cheaper tomatoes: now that's a good reason to spend $35 trillion.

NOT!

 

[Old Rocks]

The loss from the present California drought is already in the billions. And we are going to spend those trillions of dollars on energy infrastructure, whatever energy source we use. It would be wise to use what will get us the most energy for the money. And that will be renewables.

 

[bripat9643]

The loss from the present California drought is already in the billions. And we are going to spend those trillions of dollars on energy infrastructure, whatever energy source we use. It would be wise to use what will get us the most energy for the money. And that will be renewables.

No it will not be much cheaper and more reliable then so-called renewables.

 

[danielpalos]

We should be advancing fusion (an energy with a future).

 

[Uncensored2008]

The loss from the present California drought is already in the billions. And we are going to spend those trillions of dollars on energy infrastructure, whatever energy source we use. It would be wise to use what will get us the most energy for the money. And that will be renewables.

California is on a 7 year cycle. The drought is over - we have had greater than normal rainfall this season. It is not enough to replenish water supplies, that will happen next year. Followed by an average year, then 4 years of drought.

It's California.

 

[Uncensored2008]

We should be advancing fusion (an energy with a future).

Have you perfected that, then?

 

[danielpalos]

We should be advancing fusion (an energy with a future).

Have you perfected that, then?

I am trying to convince our elected representatives that we have a Commerce Clause and not any form of war on drugs clause, and to use those funds to advance fusion (an energy with a future), so that California can be at the fore-front of helping ameliorate global sea level rising and any mega-droughts on our future event horizon.

It is what income transfers should be good for in modern times.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I am trying to convince our elected representatives that we have a Commerce Clause and not any form of war on drugs clause, and to use those funds to advance fusion (an energy with a future), so that California can be at the fore-front of helping ameliorate global sea level rising and any mega-droughts on our future event horizon.

It is what income transfers should be good for in modern times.

Why fusion? Why not fairy dust?

After all, cold fusion is just as realistic as fairy dust at this point.

 

[danielpalos]

I am trying to convince our elected representatives that we have a Commerce Clause and not any form of war on drugs clause, and to use those funds to advance fusion (an energy with a future), so that California can be at the fore-front of helping ameliorate global sea level rising and any mega-droughts on our future event horizon.

It is what income transfers should be good for in modern times.

Why fusion? Why not fairy dust?

After all, cold fusion is just as realistic as fairy dust at this point.

Simply because it is fusion (an energy with a future so bright, we all have to wear shades).

 

[jc456]

I am trying to convince our elected representatives that we have a Commerce Clause and not any form of war on drugs clause, and to use those funds to advance fusion (an energy with a future), so that California can be at the fore-front of helping ameliorate global sea level rising and any mega-droughts on our future event horizon.

It is what income transfers should be good for in modern times.

Why fusion? Why not fairy dust?

After all, cold fusion is just as realistic as fairy dust at this point.

Simply because it is fusion (an energy with a future so bright, we all have to wear shades).

I don't know, I'd go with the fairy dust. It has many more uses.