NASA predicts Megadroughts

[CrusaderFrank]

There are many results which are easily predictable about global warming. One is that those that depend on snowpacks and glacial melt for their summer irrigation water will soon be having difficult years, as both are rapidly decreasing. Another is that the affect on the jet stream from the open water in the Arctic is going to cause even more extreme weather. A third is that the oceans are going to rise fast enough to cause major problems with our port infrastructure.

All of these are happening right now and will get worse as the century progresses. We have two clear choices. Ignore reality, and pay the cost, or start addressing the issue now. The latter will be expensive. The former, vastly more expensive.

Riiiiiiiiiight. Because snow is a thing of the past.

 

[Old Rocks]

It is one reason why I believe we should advance fusion (an energy with a future) so that we may address both global sea rising and mega droughts, at the same time; ostensibly so that supply side economics may supply us with getter governance at lower cost.

ROLFLMAO....

Better Government at LOWER COST....???? Socialism is failure on every front..

Oh my. So our National Park System is a failure? After all, saving the very best and most unique for the enjoyment of all citizens is the epitome of socialism.

 

[Old Rocks]

There are many results which are easily predictable about global warming. One is that those that depend on snowpacks and glacial melt for their summer irrigation water will soon be having difficult years, as both are rapidly decreasing. Another is that the affect on the jet stream from the open water in the Arctic is going to cause even more extreme weather. A third is that the oceans are going to rise fast enough to cause major problems with our port infrastructure.

All of these are happening right now and will get worse as the century progresses. We have two clear choices. Ignore reality, and pay the cost, or start addressing the issue now. The latter will be expensive. The former, vastly more expensive.

Riiiiiiiiiight. Because snow is a thing of the past.

So your hollow moon is full of Greys that will take you there when you die. See, I can put words you never said in your mouth, also.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There are many results which are easily predictable about global warming. One is that those that depend on snowpacks and glacial melt for their summer irrigation water will soon be having difficult years, as both are rapidly decreasing. Another is that the affect on the jet stream from the open water in the Arctic is going to cause even more extreme weather. A third is that the oceans are going to rise fast enough to cause major problems with our port infrastructure.

All of these are happening right now and will get worse as the century progresses. We have two clear choices. Ignore reality, and pay the cost, or start addressing the issue now. The latter will be expensive. The former, vastly more expensive.

Riiiiiiiiiight. Because snow is a thing of the past.

So your hollow moon is full of Greys that will take you there when you die. See, I can put words you never said in your mouth, also.

Dam, that was good. Gotta give you credit for that

 

[bripat9643]

It is one reason why I believe we should advance fusion (an energy with a future) so that we may address both global sea rising and mega droughts, at the same time; ostensibly so that supply side economics may supply us with getter governance at lower cost.

ROLFLMAO....

Better Government at LOWER COST....???? Socialism is failure on every front..

Why? What makes you believe that? Socialism already took us to the moon and back; capitalism is still trying to find a profit motive.

Who built the Saturn V rocket?

 

[danielpalos]

It is one reason why I believe we should advance fusion (an energy with a future) so that we may address both global sea rising and mega droughts, at the same time; ostensibly so that supply side economics may supply us with getter governance at lower cost.

ROLFLMAO....

Better Government at LOWER COST....???? Socialism is failure on every front..

Why? What makes you believe that? Socialism already took us to the moon and back; capitalism is still trying to find a profit motive.

Who built the Saturn V rocket?

The socialism of command economics. Capitalism had no profit motive without it.

 

[bripat9643]

It is one reason why I believe we should advance fusion (an energy with a future) so that we may address both global sea rising and mega droughts, at the same time; ostensibly so that supply side economics may supply us with getter governance at lower cost.

ROLFLMAO....

Better Government at LOWER COST....???? Socialism is failure on every front..

Why? What makes you believe that? Socialism already took us to the moon and back; capitalism is still trying to find a profit motive.

Who built the Saturn V rocket?

The socialism of command economics. Capitalism had no profit motive without it.

Private companies built it, numskull. It's true they wouldn't have built unless government paid for it. However, all that means is that American consumers didn't really want it.

 

[danielpalos]

It is one reason why I believe we should advance fusion (an energy with a future) so that we may address both global sea rising and mega droughts, at the same time; ostensibly so that supply side economics may supply us with getter governance at lower cost.

ROLFLMAO....

Better Government at LOWER COST....???? Socialism is failure on every front..

Why? What makes you believe that? Socialism already took us to the moon and back; capitalism is still trying to find a profit motive.

Who built the Saturn V rocket?

The socialism of command economics. Capitalism had no profit motive without it.

Private companies built it, numskull. It's true they wouldn't have built unless government paid for it. However, all that means is that American consumers didn't really want it.

Yes, socialism bailed out capitalism due to our (social) Space Race.

 

[danielpalos]

I still believe we should be advancing fusion (an energy with a future) in order to help with both, global sea level rising and mega-droughts.

 

[bripat9643]

ROLFLMAO....

Better Government at LOWER COST....???? Socialism is failure on every front..

Why? What makes you believe that? Socialism already took us to the moon and back; capitalism is still trying to find a profit motive.

Who built the Saturn V rocket?

The socialism of command economics. Capitalism had no profit motive without it.

Private companies built it, numskull. It's true they wouldn't have built unless government paid for it. However, all that means is that American consumers didn't really want it.

Yes, socialism bailed out capitalism due to our (social) Space Race.

Socialism never bailed out shit in the entire history of socialism. It doesn't have any money of its own, so how can it bail anything out?

 

[jc456]

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.

Excuse my interruption here, but huh? how do you know this? You admitted not being anything related to climate knowledge. It is quite obvious that there is ice in polar regions. That is hard to miss. Each Pole will have melt every single year, that is normal. So, it seems you are worried about something you have no idea why to be worried. funny stuff what you write.

 

[jc456]

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 find it interesting that you believe and not question what you hear, but question the rebuttal presented here by folks who have knowledge of it. I find that silliness.

 

[jc456]

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.

and not proven.

 

[ChrisL]

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 find it interesting that you believe and not question what you hear, but question the rebuttal presented here by folks who have knowledge of it. I find that silliness.

You find it silly to listen to experts as opposed to anonymous people on the internet, huh?

 

[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.

Excuse my interruption here, but huh? how do you know this? You admitted not being anything related to climate knowledge. It is quite obvious that there is ice in polar regions. That is hard to miss. Each Pole will have melt every single year, that is normal. So, it seems you are worried about something you have no idea why to be worried. funny stuff what you write.

What is your expertise in this area? Oh, probably NADA. Lol. If you don't have anything to add of importance or anything interesting at all, then get lost.

 

[jc456]

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.

guaranteed money. Lots and lots of money. Money that comes from us the people of the US. No where else in the world, just us. Ask the warmer alarmists why that is and they will tell you it is due to our over use, yet, they won't concede that the US has adjusted. They are evil people who want human kind to die. They hate humans. They look for solutions to lose human life. Tax credits is one such move.

 

[jc456]

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.

Excuse my interruption here, but huh? how do you know this? You admitted not being anything related to climate knowledge. It is quite obvious that there is ice in polar regions. That is hard to miss. Each Pole will have melt every single year, that is normal. So, it seems you are worried about something you have no idea why to be worried. funny stuff what you write.

What is your expertise in this area? Oh, probably NADA. Lol. If you don't have anything to add of importance or anything interesting at all, then get lost.

I read, and I read. I read opposing views as well as the position I have. I learned. It is all over the place. And yes, the experts are corrupt. Michael Mann is one, Hansen is another, they take money produce fake results and sell it off as fact. And that has been proven. There are emails that were found and made public. Now go ask Mr. Mann for his data and he will reject you. At least that is what has happened to those who have. He was even taken to court, but the court is not making him produce his work. And is the stalemate the skeptics have faced. Go read about him on Wikipedia. And Hansen. Go to Watts Up With That and read about those who have researched the crap out of this fallacy. If you are logical, then you will see what we're saying.

If you believe just because someone said some people are experts and Gods and not worthy of question, then so be that as well. your choice and no one is forcing you to think one way or another. But understand when you come to a message board, there are sides and there reasons for the sides.

And read up on the experts who are skeptics, they exist you know? Judith Curry is one. Read up on her.

And finally, ask for proof, experiment that proves the theory that is used in the lie. Ask for it, and you will never get it. I have one, Herr Koch 1901. Proves the point I believe. And, the warmers have no rebuttal, except to say it is in error, with which again, they can't prove. it is funny all of this sky is falling and then you ask for evidence and I'm told I should just believe. Nope I ain't like that, it has to be logical and everything I've read, heard and observed has failed their theory.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Excuse my interruption here, but huh? how do you know this? You admitted not being anything related to climate knowledge. It is quite obvious that there is ice in polar regions. That is hard to miss. Each Pole will have melt every single year, that is normal. So, it seems you are worried about something you have no idea why to be worried. funny stuff what you write.

What is your expertise in this area? Oh, probably NADA. Lol. If you don't have anything to add of importance or anything interesting at all, then get lost.

I read, and I read. I read opposing views as well as the position I have. I learned. It is all over the place. And yes, the experts are corrupt. Michael Mann is one, Hansen is another, they take money produce fake results and sell it off as fact. And that has been proven. There are emails that were found and made public. Now go ask Mr. Mann for his data and he will reject you. At least that is what has happened to those who have. He was even taken to court, but the court is not making him produce his work. And is the stalemate the skeptics have faced. Go read about him on Wikipedia. And Hansen. Go to Watts Up With That and read about those who have researched the crap out of this fallacy. If you are logical, then you will see what we're saying.

If you believe just because someone said some people are experts and Gods and not worthy of question, then so be that as well. your choice and no one is forcing you to think one way or another. But understand when you come to a message board, there are sides and there reasons for the sides.

And read up on the experts who are skeptics, they exist you know? Judith Curry is one. Read up on her.

And Gods? What are you talking about? I stated some things in the thread that I had read about and asked some other people some questions. That is all.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

guaranteed money. Lots and lots of money. Money that comes from us the people of the US. No where else in the world, just us. Ask the warmer alarmists why that is and they will tell you it is due to our over use, yet, they won't concede that the US has adjusted. They are evil people who want human kind to die. They hate humans. They look for solutions to lose human life. Tax credits is one such move.

"Evil people who hate humans." Lol. Yes, you sound like someone who has his shit together. Look, I'm not interested in the partisan bickering. K? I had some questions and I had them answered. I don't what your problem is.

 

[jc456]

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 find it interesting that you believe and not question what you hear, but question the rebuttal presented here by folks who have knowledge of it. I find that silliness.

You find it silly to listen to experts as opposed to anonymous people on the internet, huh?

I find it silly you believe without any thought.