NASA predicts Megadroughts

[IlarMeilyr]

You don't think there is global warming? How do you explain the melting of the polar ice caps then?

Well, the poles aren't melting. The Antarctic has been increasing in ice cover for three years now. It is currently at record levels. The Arctic is within the error bars for the 20 year average and the volume is increasing thus setting the stage for a rapid increase in Arctic ice cover.

Interesting, because I've read just the opposite. Who to believe? Do you have a link?

Research it yourself. The data is there.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

Uh, yeah, I'm not a scientist or anything, so these maps and charts don't really help me out much. I was hoping for something in laymen's terms?

You have eyes yes? You have a brain yes? All it takes is a pair of eyes looking at the graphs and looking at the photo and seeing where the ice has exploded beyond the 20 year average line and it is obvious. You need not be a scientist to understand these graphs. My 8 year old daughter understands them. You will too if you only look.

If the ice has expanded beyond the 20 year average, and ice expands when it gets colder, then

The GLOBE is having a FEVER caused by man's use of carbon based fossil fuels!

 

[westwall]

If the weather involves absolute fucking freezing weather the likes of which we haven't seen for 65 years, then the GlowBull Warmer consensus crowd (it's a FAITH!) point to it as "proof" of GlowBull Warmering.

Of course, if, we are later in the midst of a summer heat wave or drought or hurricane, then the GlowBull Warmerer Faithists will proclaim THAT is also "proof" of man-caused GlowBull Warmerererering.

Logically, it is very likely that we will be in periods of either increased heat or increased drought or increased storms or decreased heat.

Therefore, per the "logic" of the GlowBull Warmererists, the fault lies with humankind. FAITHERS put the "A" in "AGW."

It may be non-falsifiable and, therefore, demonstrably non-scientific, but that's ok. Because?

Class? Bueller?

That's right. Because -- CONSENSUS!

Consider it an article of faith.

Well, from different things that I've read, they say that what happens during global warming is that the polar ice caps melt, which in turn plays havoc with the weather in general. That has always been my understanding of it anyway. This I gleaned from different articles by climatologists that I've read.

Falsifiability is the cornerstone of science. If a scientist tells you that warming causes both ice to melt, and ice to grow, he has presented you with a observation that is NOT falsifiable. Thus it is a pseudo science the same as astrology, palm reading and phrenology.

 

[ChrisL]

You don't think there is global warming? How do you explain the melting of the polar ice caps then?

Well, the poles aren't melting. The Antarctic has been increasing in ice cover for three years now. It is currently at record levels. The Arctic is within the error bars for the 20 year average and the volume is increasing thus setting the stage for a rapid increase in Arctic ice cover.

Interesting, because I've read just the opposite. Who to believe? Do you have a link?

Research it yourself. The data is there.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

Uh, yeah, I'm not a scientist or anything, so these maps and charts don't really help me out much. I was hoping for something in laymen's terms?

You have eyes yes? You have a brain yes? All it takes is a pair of eyes looking at the graphs and looking at the photo and seeing where the ice has exploded beyond the 20 year average line and it is obvious. You need not be a scientist to understand these graphs. My 8 year old daughter understands them. You will too if you only look.

There is NO need to be rude. No, I don't understand your graphs and charts. Sorry if you are offended by that. I would prefer a link with text that I can read. I never was any good with graphs and charts.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

If the weather involves absolute fucking freezing weather the likes of which we haven't seen for 65 years, then the GlowBull Warmer consensus crowd (it's a FAITH!) point to it as "proof" of GlowBull Warmering.

Of course, if, we are later in the midst of a summer heat wave or drought or hurricane, then the GlowBull Warmerer Faithists will proclaim THAT is also "proof" of man-caused GlowBull Warmerererering.

Logically, it is very likely that we will be in periods of either increased heat or increased drought or increased storms or decreased heat.

Therefore, per the "logic" of the GlowBull Warmererists, the fault lies with humankind. FAITHERS put the "A" in "AGW."

It may be non-falsifiable and, therefore, demonstrably non-scientific, but that's ok. Because?

Class? Bueller?

That's right. Because -- CONSENSUS!

Consider it an article of faith.

Well, from different things that I've read, they say that what happens during global warming is that the polar ice caps melt, which in turn plays havoc with the weather in general. That has always been my understanding of it anyway. This I gleaned from different articles by climatologists that I've read.

The correct answer is:

if it gets "hot," then it's obviously AGW!

but if it gets "Cold," then that's just a paradoxical effect of AGW.

And surely it will usually get hotter or colder and therefore --

AGW!!!!

No, that is not it at all. It is that the ice caps melt, which in turn cools the ocean, which in turn creates terrible storms, from hurricanes to blizzards. Hey, I'm not a scientist. These are just things that I've read about global warming.

You are talking about desalinization of the oceans causing a disruption of the oceanic conveyor belts which, of course, yields disruptions in the climate.

And that means that humankind MUST be to blame.

It's so obvious.

You know, from what you've read.

 

[ChrisL]

If the weather involves absolute fucking freezing weather the likes of which we haven't seen for 65 years, then the GlowBull Warmer consensus crowd (it's a FAITH!) point to it as "proof" of GlowBull Warmering.

Of course, if, we are later in the midst of a summer heat wave or drought or hurricane, then the GlowBull Warmerer Faithists will proclaim THAT is also "proof" of man-caused GlowBull Warmerererering.

Logically, it is very likely that we will be in periods of either increased heat or increased drought or increased storms or decreased heat.

Therefore, per the "logic" of the GlowBull Warmererists, the fault lies with humankind. FAITHERS put the "A" in "AGW."

It may be non-falsifiable and, therefore, demonstrably non-scientific, but that's ok. Because?

Class? Bueller?

That's right. Because -- CONSENSUS!

Consider it an article of faith.

Well, from different things that I've read, they say that what happens during global warming is that the polar ice caps melt, which in turn plays havoc with the weather in general. That has always been my understanding of it anyway. This I gleaned from different articles by climatologists that I've read.

Falsifiability is the cornerstone of science. If a scientist tells you that warming causes both ice to melt, and ice to grow, he has presented you with a observation that is NOT falsifiable. Thus it is a pseudo science the same as astrology, palm reading and phrenology.

That's not what I said at all. I said the melting of the caps cools the ocean. The ocean controls a lot of our weather systems from what I understand.

The Ocean Climate Control

 

[ChrisL]

If the weather involves absolute fucking freezing weather the likes of which we haven't seen for 65 years, then the GlowBull Warmer consensus crowd (it's a FAITH!) point to it as "proof" of GlowBull Warmering.

Of course, if, we are later in the midst of a summer heat wave or drought or hurricane, then the GlowBull Warmerer Faithists will proclaim THAT is also "proof" of man-caused GlowBull Warmerererering.

Logically, it is very likely that we will be in periods of either increased heat or increased drought or increased storms or decreased heat.

Therefore, per the "logic" of the GlowBull Warmererists, the fault lies with humankind. FAITHERS put the "A" in "AGW."

It may be non-falsifiable and, therefore, demonstrably non-scientific, but that's ok. Because?

Class? Bueller?

That's right. Because -- CONSENSUS!

Consider it an article of faith.

Well, from different things that I've read, they say that what happens during global warming is that the polar ice caps melt, which in turn plays havoc with the weather in general. That has always been my understanding of it anyway. This I gleaned from different articles by climatologists that I've read.

The correct answer is:

if it gets "hot," then it's obviously AGW!

but if it gets "Cold," then that's just a paradoxical effect of AGW.

And surely it will usually get hotter or colder and therefore --

AGW!!!!

No, that is not it at all. It is that the ice caps melt, which in turn cools the ocean, which in turn creates terrible storms, from hurricanes to blizzards. Hey, I'm not a scientist. These are just things that I've read about global warming.

You are talking about desalinization of the oceans causing a disruption of the oceanic conveyor belts which, of course, yields disruptions in the climate.

And that means that humankind MUST be to blame.

It's so obvious.

You know, from what you've read.

Well, I don't know if humans are to blame or if it is just a natural thing. We have had ice ages and warming trends in the past.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

* * * *
Well, I don't know if humans are to blame or if it is just a natural thing. We have had ice ages and warming trends in the past.

By golly! Yes! We HAVE had ice ages. And they came long BEFORE humankind crafted the first SUV

or factory.

Thus we might safely conclude that human industry has no established effect on global climate change BUT

global climate change can occur (and HAS occurred) WITHOUT any freaking human input or causation.

 

[ChrisL]

* * * *
Well, I don't know if humans are to blame or if it is just a natural thing. We have had ice ages and warming trends in the past.

By golly! Yes! We HAVE had ice ages. And they came long BEFORE humankind crafted the first SUV

or factory.

Thus we might safely conclude that human industry has no established effect on global climate change BUT

global climate change can occur (and HAS occurred) WITHOUT any freaking human input or causation.

Calm the hell down, will you. This is just a discussion.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Uh, yeah, I'm not a scientist or anything, so these maps and charts don't really help me out much. I was hoping for something in laymen's terms?

So lets put this in laymans terms...

One graph at a time...

The legend in the bottom right corner of this graph is the road map.

The light blue line and type in the legend are the winter of 2014-2015. this is the current amount of sea ice

The Green line is the lowest recorded sea ice amount since record keeping started which happened in 2011-2012 winter.

The grey shaded area is the + or - 2 standard deviations

The dark grey line is the average over 20 years.

The last two are related as the STD is 2% of the average.

SO this graph shows the current ice status is within the normal range of the average.. eg: natural variation..

 

[westwall]

If the weather involves absolute fucking freezing weather the likes of which we haven't seen for 65 years, then the GlowBull Warmer consensus crowd (it's a FAITH!) point to it as "proof" of GlowBull Warmering.

Of course, if, we are later in the midst of a summer heat wave or drought or hurricane, then the GlowBull Warmerer Faithists will proclaim THAT is also "proof" of man-caused GlowBull Warmerererering.

Logically, it is very likely that we will be in periods of either increased heat or increased drought or increased storms or decreased heat.

Therefore, per the "logic" of the GlowBull Warmererists, the fault lies with humankind. FAITHERS put the "A" in "AGW."

It may be non-falsifiable and, therefore, demonstrably non-scientific, but that's ok. Because?

Class? Bueller?

That's right. Because -- CONSENSUS!

Consider it an article of faith.

Well, from different things that I've read, they say that what happens during global warming is that the polar ice caps melt, which in turn plays havoc with the weather in general. That has always been my understanding of it anyway. This I gleaned from different articles by climatologists that I've read.

The correct answer is:

if it gets "hot," then it's obviously AGW!

but if it gets "Cold," then that's just a paradoxical effect of AGW.

And surely it will usually get hotter or colder and therefore --

AGW!!!!

No, that is not it at all. It is that the ice caps melt, which in turn cools the ocean, which in turn creates terrible storms, from hurricanes to blizzards. Hey, I'm not a scientist. These are just things that I've read about global warming.

There has never been a period in Earths history where these things have not happened. Google ANY year you wish and add storm to the search. You will find that nothing is different now than back in the past. Well, that's not exactly true. The worst storms that man has experienced were in the past. In 1862 there was a storm that lasted for 4 weeks and flooded California's central valley. That whole area in blue that you see on the map below was under water. Sacramento figured out the only way to deal with it was to raise the city. So that's what they did.

There has not been a storm like that in the US since. But there will be another.....and it won't have the slightest thing to do with man.

"The Pacific slope has been visited by the most disastrous flood that has occurred since its settlement by white men. From Sacramento northward to the Columbia River, in California, Nevada Territory, and Oregon, all the streams have risen to a great height, flooded the valleys, [inundated towns, swept away mills, dams, flumes, houses, fences, domestic animals, ruined fields and effected damage, estimated at $10,000,000. All Sacramento City, save a small part of one street, part of Marysville, part of Santa Rosa, part of Auburn, part of Sonora, part of Nevada, and part of Napa, not to speak of less important towns, were under water.

The rainy season commenced on the 8th of November, and for four weeks, with scarcely any intermission, the rain continued to fall very gently in San Francisco, but in heavy showers in the interior. According to the statement of a Grass Valley paper, nine inches of rain fell there in thirty-six hours on the 7th and 8th inst. Whether, it is possible that so much rain could fall in thirty-six hours I will not decide; but it is certain that, the amount was great, for the next day the river-beds were full almost to the hilltops. The North Fork of the American River at Auburn rose thirty-five feet, and in many other mountain streams the rise was almost as great. On the 9th the flood reached the low land of the Sacramento Valley. "
THE GREAT FLOOD IN CALIFORNIA. - Great Destruction of Property Damage 10 000 000. - NYTimes.com

 

[westwall]

Well, the poles aren't melting. The Antarctic has been increasing in ice cover for three years now. It is currently at record levels. The Arctic is within the error bars for the 20 year average and the volume is increasing thus setting the stage for a rapid increase in Arctic ice cover.

Interesting, because I've read just the opposite. Who to believe? Do you have a link?

Research it yourself. The data is there.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

Uh, yeah, I'm not a scientist or anything, so these maps and charts don't really help me out much. I was hoping for something in laymen's terms?

You have eyes yes? You have a brain yes? All it takes is a pair of eyes looking at the graphs and looking at the photo and seeing where the ice has exploded beyond the 20 year average line and it is obvious. You need not be a scientist to understand these graphs. My 8 year old daughter understands them. You will too if you only look.

There is NO need to be rude. No, I don't understand your graphs and charts. Sorry if you are offended by that. I would prefer a link with text that I can read. I never was any good with graphs and charts.

I wasn't trying to be rude, so please forgive me if that was the impression you got. Never is a long time. All a graph requires you to do is read it. You are smart. You sell yourself short when you state otherwise.

 

[jon_berzerk]

If the weather involves absolute fucking freezing weather the likes of which we haven't seen for 65 years, then the GlowBull Warmer consensus crowd (it's a FAITH!) point to it as "proof" of GlowBull Warmering.

Of course, if, we are later in the midst of a summer heat wave or drought or hurricane, then the GlowBull Warmerer Faithists will proclaim THAT is also "proof" of man-caused GlowBull Warmerererering.

Logically, it is very likely that we will be in periods of either increased heat or increased drought or increased storms or decreased heat.

Therefore, per the "logic" of the GlowBull Warmererists, the fault lies with humankind. FAITHERS put the "A" in "AGW."

It may be non-falsifiable and, therefore, demonstrably non-scientific, but that's ok. Because?

Class? Bueller?

That's right. Because -- CONSENSUS!

Consider it an article of faith.

Well, from different things that I've read, they say that what happens during global warming is that the polar ice caps melt, which in turn plays havoc with the weather in general. That has always been my understanding of it anyway. This I gleaned from different articles by climatologists that I've read.

The correct answer is:

if it gets "hot," then it's obviously AGW!

but if it gets "Cold," then that's just a paradoxical effect of AGW.

And surely it will usually get hotter or colder and therefore --

AGW!!!!

No, that is not it at all. It is that the ice caps melt, which in turn cools the ocean, which in turn creates terrible storms, from hurricanes to blizzards. Hey, I'm not a scientist. These are just things that I've read about global warming.

You are talking about desalinization of the oceans causing a disruption of the oceanic conveyor belts which, of course, yields disruptions in the climate.

And that means that humankind MUST be to blame.

It's so obvious.

You know, from what you've read.

Well, I don't know if humans are to blame or if it is just a natural thing. We have had ice ages and warming trends in the past.

We have had ice ages and warming trends in the past.

without human involvement

 

[IlarMeilyr]

* * * *
Well, I don't know if humans are to blame or if it is just a natural thing. We have had ice ages and warming trends in the past.

By golly! Yes! We HAVE had ice ages. And they came long BEFORE humankind crafted the first SUV

or factory.

Thus we might safely conclude that human industry has no established effect on global climate change BUT

global climate change can occur (and HAS occurred) WITHOUT any freaking human input or causation.

Calm the hell down, will you. This is just a discussion.

I have been and I remain quite calm. You urgently need to adhere to your own advice, dear.

The fact that it's just a discussion doesn't alter the FACT that the proponents of this AGW bullshit have been highly emotional and dishonest in the "discussion."

They whinny and bray about the lack of scientific acumen by the "deniers" even though THEY can't even be bothered with the importance of falsifiability. They even pretend that "consensus" has jack shit to do with scientific method.

What I see is that they REPEAT their bullshit and you read it (like a gullible shill) and lap it up. "From what you have read ..." means little since the important thing is to UNDERSTAND.

You don't.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This graph shows the amount of ice exceeds the + or - 2 deviations or is being caused by something other than natural deviation (if you believe the CAGW crowd) The problem is we are near the end of the interglacial we are currently in.

Our polar caps are far from melting away. Even if they do when the earth deems it is time to glaciate it will irrespective of what we want or do to try and stop it..

Globally speaking, we are above average for total ice coverage on earth for an interglacial period.

 

[westwall]

If the weather involves absolute fucking freezing weather the likes of which we haven't seen for 65 years, then the GlowBull Warmer consensus crowd (it's a FAITH!) point to it as "proof" of GlowBull Warmering.

Of course, if, we are later in the midst of a summer heat wave or drought or hurricane, then the GlowBull Warmerer Faithists will proclaim THAT is also "proof" of man-caused GlowBull Warmerererering.

Logically, it is very likely that we will be in periods of either increased heat or increased drought or increased storms or decreased heat.

Therefore, per the "logic" of the GlowBull Warmererists, the fault lies with humankind. FAITHERS put the "A" in "AGW."

It may be non-falsifiable and, therefore, demonstrably non-scientific, but that's ok. Because?

Class? Bueller?

That's right. Because -- CONSENSUS!

Consider it an article of faith.

Well, from different things that I've read, they say that what happens during global warming is that the polar ice caps melt, which in turn plays havoc with the weather in general. That has always been my understanding of it anyway. This I gleaned from different articles by climatologists that I've read.

Falsifiability is the cornerstone of science. If a scientist tells you that warming causes both ice to melt, and ice to grow, he has presented you with a observation that is NOT falsifiable. Thus it is a pseudo science the same as astrology, palm reading and phrenology.

That's not what I said at all. I said the melting of the caps cools the ocean. The ocean controls a lot of our weather systems from what I understand.

The Ocean Climate Control

If the weather involves absolute fucking freezing weather the likes of which we haven't seen for 65 years, then the GlowBull Warmer consensus crowd (it's a FAITH!) point to it as "proof" of GlowBull Warmering.

Of course, if, we are later in the midst of a summer heat wave or drought or hurricane, then the GlowBull Warmerer Faithists will proclaim THAT is also "proof" of man-caused GlowBull Warmerererering.

Logically, it is very likely that we will be in periods of either increased heat or increased drought or increased storms or decreased heat.

Therefore, per the "logic" of the GlowBull Warmererists, the fault lies with humankind. FAITHERS put the "A" in "AGW."

It may be non-falsifiable and, therefore, demonstrably non-scientific, but that's ok. Because?

Class? Bueller?

That's right. Because -- CONSENSUS!

Consider it an article of faith.

Well, from different things that I've read, they say that what happens during global warming is that the polar ice caps melt, which in turn plays havoc with the weather in general. That has always been my understanding of it anyway. This I gleaned from different articles by climatologists that I've read.

Falsifiability is the cornerstone of science. If a scientist tells you that warming causes both ice to melt, and ice to grow, he has presented you with a observation that is NOT falsifiable. Thus it is a pseudo science the same as astrology, palm reading and phrenology.

That's not what I said at all. I said the melting of the caps cools the ocean. The ocean controls a lot of our weather systems from what I understand.

The Ocean Climate Control

Yes, the oceans do moderate temperature. They are enormous heat sinks. However, CO2 lags warming trends by hundreds of years. Thus CO2 can have no effect on global temps. That is a theory that has been shown to be false.

 

[ChrisL]

If the weather involves absolute fucking freezing weather the likes of which we haven't seen for 65 years, then the GlowBull Warmer consensus crowd (it's a FAITH!) point to it as "proof" of GlowBull Warmering.

Of course, if, we are later in the midst of a summer heat wave or drought or hurricane, then the GlowBull Warmerer Faithists will proclaim THAT is also "proof" of man-caused GlowBull Warmerererering.

Logically, it is very likely that we will be in periods of either increased heat or increased drought or increased storms or decreased heat.

Therefore, per the "logic" of the GlowBull Warmererists, the fault lies with humankind. FAITHERS put the "A" in "AGW."

It may be non-falsifiable and, therefore, demonstrably non-scientific, but that's ok. Because?

Class? Bueller?

That's right. Because -- CONSENSUS!

Consider it an article of faith.

Well, from different things that I've read, they say that what happens during global warming is that the polar ice caps melt, which in turn plays havoc with the weather in general. That has always been my understanding of it anyway. This I gleaned from different articles by climatologists that I've read.

The correct answer is:

if it gets "hot," then it's obviously AGW!

but if it gets "Cold," then that's just a paradoxical effect of AGW.

And surely it will usually get hotter or colder and therefore --

AGW!!!!

No, that is not it at all. It is that the ice caps melt, which in turn cools the ocean, which in turn creates terrible storms, from hurricanes to blizzards. Hey, I'm not a scientist. These are just things that I've read about global warming.

There has never been a period in Earths history where these things have not happened. Google ANY year you wish and add storm to the search. You will find that nothing is different now than back in the past. Well, that's not exactly true. The worst storms that man has experienced were in the past. In 1862 there was a storm that lasted for 4 weeks and flooded California's central valley. That whole area in blue that you see on the map below was under water. Sacramento figured out the only way to deal with it was to raise the city. So that's what they did.

There has not been a storm like that in the US since. But there will be another.....and it won't have the slightest thing to do with man.

"The Pacific slope has been visited by the most disastrous flood that has occurred since its settlement by white men. From Sacramento northward to the Columbia River, in California, Nevada Territory, and Oregon, all the streams have risen to a great height, flooded the valleys, [inundated towns, swept away mills, dams, flumes, houses, fences, domestic animals, ruined fields and effected damage, estimated at $10,000,000. All Sacramento City, save a small part of one street, part of Marysville, part of Santa Rosa, part of Auburn, part of Sonora, part of Nevada, and part of Napa, not to speak of less important towns, were under water.

The rainy season commenced on the 8th of November, and for four weeks, with scarcely any intermission, the rain continued to fall very gently in San Francisco, but in heavy showers in the interior. According to the statement of a Grass Valley paper, nine inches of rain fell there in thirty-six hours on the 7th and 8th inst. Whether, it is possible that so much rain could fall in thirty-six hours I will not decide; but it is certain that, the amount was great, for the next day the river-beds were full almost to the hilltops. The North Fork of the American River at Auburn rose thirty-five feet, and in many other mountain streams the rise was almost as great. On the 9th the flood reached the low land of the Sacramento Valley. "
THE GREAT FLOOD IN CALIFORNIA. - Great Destruction of Property Damage 10 000 000. - NYTimes.com

Well, the one thing that causes me to doubt global warming is not really weather patterns, but would be the fact that volcanoes and other natural processes also contribute to green house gases. BUT, why would all of those climatologists lie? What would they have to gain by lying to us? This is the question. There is pretty much a consensus amongst them that global warming is real.

 

[ChrisL]

This graph shows the amount of ice exceeds the + or - 2 deviations or is being caused by something other than natural deviation (if you believe the CAGW crowd) The problem is we are near the end of the interglacial we are currently in.

Our polar caps are far from melting away. Even if they do when the earth deems it is time to glaciate it will irrespective of what we want or do to try and stop it..

I agree with that, if you had read my posts. I said that if there is global warming, then we are screwed and no carbon credits are going to help us.

 

[ChrisL]

* * * *
Well, I don't know if humans are to blame or if it is just a natural thing. We have had ice ages and warming trends in the past.

By golly! Yes! We HAVE had ice ages. And they came long BEFORE humankind crafted the first SUV

or factory.

Thus we might safely conclude that human industry has no established effect on global climate change BUT

global climate change can occur (and HAS occurred) WITHOUT any freaking human input or causation.

Calm the hell down, will you. This is just a discussion.

I have been and I remain quite calm. You urgently need to adhere to your own advice, dear.

The fact that it's just a discussion doesn't alter the FACT that the proponents of this AGW bullshit have been highly emotional and dishonest in the "discussion."

They whinny and bray about the lack of scientific acumen by the "deniers" even though THEY can't even be bothered with the importance of falsifiability. They even pretend that "consensus" has jack shit to do with scientific method.

What I see is that they REPEAT their bullshit and you read it (like a gullible shill) and lap it up. "From what you have read ..." means little since the important thing is to UNDERSTAND.

You don't.

I am being calm. You are the one using your caps and swearing and throwing about insults. Now, if you can't have a discussion without freaking out, then I'm not interesting in talking with you about this.

 

[westwall]

If the weather involves absolute fucking freezing weather the likes of which we haven't seen for 65 years, then the GlowBull Warmer consensus crowd (it's a FAITH!) point to it as "proof" of GlowBull Warmering.

Of course, if, we are later in the midst of a summer heat wave or drought or hurricane, then the GlowBull Warmerer Faithists will proclaim THAT is also "proof" of man-caused GlowBull Warmerererering.

Logically, it is very likely that we will be in periods of either increased heat or increased drought or increased storms or decreased heat.

Therefore, per the "logic" of the GlowBull Warmererists, the fault lies with humankind. FAITHERS put the "A" in "AGW."

It may be non-falsifiable and, therefore, demonstrably non-scientific, but that's ok. Because?

Class? Bueller?

That's right. Because -- CONSENSUS!

Consider it an article of faith.

Well, from different things that I've read, they say that what happens during global warming is that the polar ice caps melt, which in turn plays havoc with the weather in general. That has always been my understanding of it anyway. This I gleaned from different articles by climatologists that I've read.

The correct answer is:

if it gets "hot," then it's obviously AGW!

but if it gets "Cold," then that's just a paradoxical effect of AGW.

And surely it will usually get hotter or colder and therefore --

AGW!!!!

No, that is not it at all. It is that the ice caps melt, which in turn cools the ocean, which in turn creates terrible storms, from hurricanes to blizzards. Hey, I'm not a scientist. These are just things that I've read about global warming.

There has never been a period in Earths history where these things have not happened. Google ANY year you wish and add storm to the search. You will find that nothing is different now than back in the past. Well, that's not exactly true. The worst storms that man has experienced were in the past. In 1862 there was a storm that lasted for 4 weeks and flooded California's central valley. That whole area in blue that you see on the map below was under water. Sacramento figured out the only way to deal with it was to raise the city. So that's what they did.

There has not been a storm like that in the US since. But there will be another.....and it won't have the slightest thing to do with man.

"The Pacific slope has been visited by the most disastrous flood that has occurred since its settlement by white men. From Sacramento northward to the Columbia River, in California, Nevada Territory, and Oregon, all the streams have risen to a great height, flooded the valleys, [inundated towns, swept away mills, dams, flumes, houses, fences, domestic animals, ruined fields and effected damage, estimated at $10,000,000. All Sacramento City, save a small part of one street, part of Marysville, part of Santa Rosa, part of Auburn, part of Sonora, part of Nevada, and part of Napa, not to speak of less important towns, were under water.

The rainy season commenced on the 8th of November, and for four weeks, with scarcely any intermission, the rain continued to fall very gently in San Francisco, but in heavy showers in the interior. According to the statement of a Grass Valley paper, nine inches of rain fell there in thirty-six hours on the 7th and 8th inst. Whether, it is possible that so much rain could fall in thirty-six hours I will not decide; but it is certain that, the amount was great, for the next day the river-beds were full almost to the hilltops. The North Fork of the American River at Auburn rose thirty-five feet, and in many other mountain streams the rise was almost as great. On the 9th the flood reached the low land of the Sacramento Valley. "
THE GREAT FLOOD IN CALIFORNIA. - Great Destruction of Property Damage 10 000 000. - NYTimes.com

Well, the one thing that causes me to doubt global warming is not really weather patterns, but would be the fact that volcanoes and other natural processes also contribute to green house gases. BUT, why would all of those climatologists lie? What would they have to gain by lying to us? This is the question. There is pretty much a consensus amongst them that global warming is real.

They lie because their professional reputations and grant money funding stream are dependent on maintaining the fraud. The politicians are desperate to maintain the fraud because they wish to tax you for the very air you breath. Tell me a politician who isn't grasping for every possible revenue stream.

 

[jon_berzerk]

If the weather involves absolute fucking freezing weather the likes of which we haven't seen for 65 years, then the GlowBull Warmer consensus crowd (it's a FAITH!) point to it as "proof" of GlowBull Warmering.

Of course, if, we are later in the midst of a summer heat wave or drought or hurricane, then the GlowBull Warmerer Faithists will proclaim THAT is also "proof" of man-caused GlowBull Warmerererering.

Logically, it is very likely that we will be in periods of either increased heat or increased drought or increased storms or decreased heat.

Therefore, per the "logic" of the GlowBull Warmererists, the fault lies with humankind. FAITHERS put the "A" in "AGW."

It may be non-falsifiable and, therefore, demonstrably non-scientific, but that's ok. Because?

Class? Bueller?

That's right. Because -- CONSENSUS!

Consider it an article of faith.

Well, from different things that I've read, they say that what happens during global warming is that the polar ice caps melt, which in turn plays havoc with the weather in general. That has always been my understanding of it anyway. This I gleaned from different articles by climatologists that I've read.

The correct answer is:

if it gets "hot," then it's obviously AGW!

but if it gets "Cold," then that's just a paradoxical effect of AGW.

And surely it will usually get hotter or colder and therefore --

AGW!!!!

No, that is not it at all. It is that the ice caps melt, which in turn cools the ocean, which in turn creates terrible storms, from hurricanes to blizzards. Hey, I'm not a scientist. These are just things that I've read about global warming.

There has never been a period in Earths history where these things have not happened. Google ANY year you wish and add storm to the search. You will find that nothing is different now than back in the past. Well, that's not exactly true. The worst storms that man has experienced were in the past. In 1862 there was a storm that lasted for 4 weeks and flooded California's central valley. That whole area in blue that you see on the map below was under water. Sacramento figured out the only way to deal with it was to raise the city. So that's what they did.

There has not been a storm like that in the US since. But there will be another.....and it won't have the slightest thing to do with man.

"The Pacific slope has been visited by the most disastrous flood that has occurred since its settlement by white men. From Sacramento northward to the Columbia River, in California, Nevada Territory, and Oregon, all the streams have risen to a great height, flooded the valleys, [inundated towns, swept away mills, dams, flumes, houses, fences, domestic animals, ruined fields and effected damage, estimated at $10,000,000. All Sacramento City, save a small part of one street, part of Marysville, part of Santa Rosa, part of Auburn, part of Sonora, part of Nevada, and part of Napa, not to speak of less important towns, were under water.

The rainy season commenced on the 8th of November, and for four weeks, with scarcely any intermission, the rain continued to fall very gently in San Francisco, but in heavy showers in the interior. According to the statement of a Grass Valley paper, nine inches of rain fell there in thirty-six hours on the 7th and 8th inst. Whether, it is possible that so much rain could fall in thirty-six hours I will not decide; but it is certain that, the amount was great, for the next day the river-beds were full almost to the hilltops. The North Fork of the American River at Auburn rose thirty-five feet, and in many other mountain streams the rise was almost as great. On the 9th the flood reached the low land of the Sacramento Valley. "
THE GREAT FLOOD IN CALIFORNIA. - Great Destruction of Property Damage 10 000 000. - NYTimes.com

Well, the one thing that causes me to doubt global warming is not really weather patterns, but would be the fact that volcanoes and other natural processes also contribute to green house gases. BUT, why would all of those climatologists lie? What would they have to gain by lying to us? This is the question. There is pretty much a consensus amongst them that global warming is real.

consensus is not science

at one time there was a consensus that the world was flat