The global warming thread. Is it for real?

[itfitzme]

•*"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

• "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

*- Albert Einstien

 

[itfitzme]

Climate change's heat intensifies drought in the USA

"While drought has several causes, climate scientists say global warming is a long-term contributor that could be exacerbating current conditions, especially in the already-arid Southwest. They say it will likely do more damage in the future. Why? Higher temperatures cause more water to evaporate, and unless there's enough rain to offset it, the ground dries up.

More heat is on the way, too. U.S. temperatures are expected to rise 3 to 10 degrees by 2100, partly because of the heat-trapping greenhouse gases emitted in the burning of fossil fuels, according to a draft copy of the third National Climate Assessment, a federal report compiled by hundreds of government and academic scientists. As a result, the report expects summer droughts to intensify in most U.S. regions as well as enduring water shortages in the Southwest, Southeast and Hawaii."

USA TODAY

 

[SSDD]

Climate change's heat intensifies drought in the USA

"While drought has several causes, climate scientists say global warming is a long-term contributor that could be exacerbating current conditions, especially in the already-arid Southwest. They say it will likely do more damage in the future. Why? Higher temperatures cause more water to evaporate, and unless there's enough rain to offset it, the ground dries up.

More heat is on the way, too. U.S. temperatures are expected to rise 3 to 10 degrees by 2100, partly because of the heat-trapping greenhouse gases emitted in the burning of fossil fuels, according to a draft copy of the third National Climate Assessment, a federal report compiled by hundreds of government and academic scientists. As a result, the report expects summer droughts to intensify in most U.S. regions as well as enduring water shortages in the Southwest, Southeast and Hawaii."

USA TODAY

Can you offer any proof that the climate change you reference is due to the activites of man? That's the $64 dollar question and the answer is that you can not.

 

[itfitzme]

Another liberal university climate change presentation - University of Arizona

"Average annual temperature in the Southwest has mimicked the global pattern. Seasonal patterns are also important as some processes respond to climate of specific periods. For example, snow melt in the spring, and observed increases in this season’s temperatures have caused the peak in streamflow to occur earlier in the year and the amount of snow measured on April 1 to decline.

Changes in precipitation are also discernable. Since 1958, average annual precipitation has decreased in most of Arizona but has increased in New Mexico (Figure 2).

There also have been indications that the strong westerly jet stream that directs storms in the Southwest during the winter has shifted north in the spring since the 1970s. Less precipitation and warmer conditions worsen drought, which is natural and common to the area. A comparison of the drought experienced in the early 1950s to the recent drought period between 2000 and 2003, for example, suggests that a major difference is that temperatures in the spring and early summer are warmer in the 2000s, which more rapidly parches the landscape and primes it for fires, among other potential impacts.

Indicators of changes in the climate range from shifts in the timing of flower blooms to the amount of water continue in snowpack to the number of heat waves and days with temperatures that exceed 100 degrees F."

Damn you, University Of Arizona.

Climate Change in the Southwest | Climate Assessment for the Southwest

Coincidence or preponderance of evidence? You decide...

 

[Oddball]

The planet's climatic history didn't begin in 1958, Corky.

 

[flacaltenn]

ItFitzMe:::

Changes in precipitation are also discernable. Since 1958, average annual precipitation has decreased in most of Arizona but has increased in New Mexico (Figure 2).

Gee.. There's no actual limit to what that miniscule amount of CO2 can do --- is there?

Moving the rain from Arizona to New Mexico.. What? Not enough SUVs or beer in New Mexico?

Hysterical shit.. And it smells of desperation...

Go read about prolonged droughts in the SW being a FEATURE of that area.. And "Drought" in the desert, means it rained 3 times -- instead of the normal 4 times that year..

 

[PMZ]

Another liberal university climate change presentation - University of Arizona

"Average annual temperature in the Southwest has mimicked the global pattern. Seasonal patterns are also important as some processes respond to climate of specific periods. For example, snow melt in the spring, and observed increases in this season’s temperatures have caused the peak in streamflow to occur earlier in the year and the amount of snow measured on April 1 to decline.

Changes in precipitation are also discernable. Since 1958, average annual precipitation has decreased in most of Arizona but has increased in New Mexico (Figure 2).

There also have been indications that the strong westerly jet stream that directs storms in the Southwest during the winter has shifted north in the spring since the 1970s. Less precipitation and warmer conditions worsen drought, which is natural and common to the area. A comparison of the drought experienced in the early 1950s to the recent drought period between 2000 and 2003, for example, suggests that a major difference is that temperatures in the spring and early summer are warmer in the 2000s, which more rapidly parches the landscape and primes it for fires, among other potential impacts.

Indicators of changes in the climate range from shifts in the timing of flower blooms to the amount of water continue in snowpack to the number of heat waves and days with temperatures that exceed 100 degrees F."

Damn you, University Of Arizona.

Climate Change in the Southwest | Climate Assessment for the Southwest

Coincidence or preponderance of evidence? You decide...

Even before the AGW induced drought started affecting the refill rate of the aquifers that our agriculture depends on, we were overdrawing from that account.

Groundwater depletion, USGS water science

 

[PMZ]

ItFitzMe:::

Changes in precipitation are also discernable. Since 1958, average annual precipitation has decreased in most of Arizona but has increased in New Mexico (Figure 2).

Gee.. There's no actual limit to what that miniscule amount of CO2 can do --- is there?

Moving the rain from Arizona to New Mexico.. What? Not enough SUVs or beer in New Mexico?

Hysterical shit.. And it smells of desperation...

Go read about prolonged droughts in the SW being a FEATURE of that area.. And "Drought" in the desert, means it rained 3 times -- instead of the normal 4 times that year..

"Miniscule" means way too small to effect. That is apparently not true of 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2.

 

[PMZ]

Climate change's heat intensifies drought in the USA

"While drought has several causes, climate scientists say global warming is a long-term contributor that could be exacerbating current conditions, especially in the already-arid Southwest. They say it will likely do more damage in the future. Why? Higher temperatures cause more water to evaporate, and unless there's enough rain to offset it, the ground dries up.

More heat is on the way, too. U.S. temperatures are expected to rise 3 to 10 degrees by 2100, partly because of the heat-trapping greenhouse gases emitted in the burning of fossil fuels, according to a draft copy of the third National Climate Assessment, a federal report compiled by hundreds of government and academic scientists. As a result, the report expects summer droughts to intensify in most U.S. regions as well as enduring water shortages in the Southwest, Southeast and Hawaii."

USA TODAY

Can you offer any proof that the climate change you reference is due to the activites of man? That's the $64 dollar question and the answer is that you can not.

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

 

[PMZ]

Just so nobody expects the science deniers to go away soon.

The first proposals that the earth was spheroidal were made in the fourth century BC, about 2400 years ago. There are still people disagreeing with that.

Flat Earth Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Based on that, mankind should have no problem completely mitigating the problem that we've caused well befor the last science denier dies off.

 

[Oddball]

The flat-Earfers are the warmerist fundamentalists. who claim that all the sages and elites within the church have all the knowledge, while the peasants are mere knaves, unable to comprehend the greatness and profundity of their eminence.

Good example of projection and transference, though, Dudley.

 

[itfitzme]

Just so nobody expects the science deniers to go away soon.

The first proposals that the earth was spheroidal were made in the fourth century BC, about 2400 years ago. There are still people disagreeing with that.

Flat Earth Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Based on that, mankind should have no problem completely mitigating the problem that we've caused well befor the last science denier dies off.

They all seem to agree with Slacksack, that plants get carbon from diamonds, coal, and pencil lead in the ground. So it's kinda hard to take them seriously. Obviously, actual science is secondary.

 

[gslack]

Just so nobody expects the science deniers to go away soon.

The first proposals that the earth was spheroidal were made in the fourth century BC, about 2400 years ago. There are still people disagreeing with that.

Flat Earth Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Based on that, mankind should have no problem completely mitigating the problem that we've caused well befor the last science denier dies off.

They all seem to agree with Slacksack, that plants get carbon from diamonds, coal, and pencil lead in the ground. So it's kinda hard to take them seriously. Obviously, actual science is secondary.

The fact you lie about what I said continually, despite the fact I have repeated it several times to both of your personas and on multiple threads, shows what a pathetic liar and troll you are..

 

[SSDD]

Climate change's heat intensifies drought in the USA

"While drought has several causes, climate scientists say global warming is a long-term contributor that could be exacerbating current conditions, especially in the already-arid Southwest. They say it will likely do more damage in the future. Why? Higher temperatures cause more water to evaporate, and unless there's enough rain to offset it, the ground dries up.

More heat is on the way, too. U.S. temperatures are expected to rise 3 to 10 degrees by 2100, partly because of the heat-trapping greenhouse gases emitted in the burning of fossil fuels, according to a draft copy of the third National Climate Assessment, a federal report compiled by hundreds of government and academic scientists. As a result, the report expects summer droughts to intensify in most U.S. regions as well as enduring water shortages in the Southwest, Southeast and Hawaii."

USA TODAY

Saw an update on the "permanant drought" in the southwest this morning.

Up to 600% of the normal precipitation is predicted this week. Let me guess....in climate science bizarro world, permanant drought causes more rain.

 

[SSDD]

"Miniscule" means way too small to effect. That is apparently not true of 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2.

That isn't at all what minuscule means. I find myself having to provide definitions for you quite often for very common words. Do you always just make up definitions to suit your needs?

Can you say how much warming might be expected from an increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm...and can you say how much of that increase is directly due to man...and how much temperature increase is directly due to man's contribution?

If you expect to be believed, these are very basic questions and should have ready answers...and if the answers prove wrong, then the hypothesis, of course is wrong.

 

[SSDD]

Climate change's heat intensifies drought in the USA

"While drought has several causes, climate scientists say global warming is a long-term contributor that could be exacerbating current conditions, especially in the already-arid Southwest. They say it will likely do more damage in the future. Why? Higher temperatures cause more water to evaporate, and unless there's enough rain to offset it, the ground dries up.

More heat is on the way, too. U.S. temperatures are expected to rise 3 to 10 degrees by 2100, partly because of the heat-trapping greenhouse gases emitted in the burning of fossil fuels, according to a draft copy of the third National Climate Assessment, a federal report compiled by hundreds of government and academic scientists. As a result, the report expects summer droughts to intensify in most U.S. regions as well as enduring water shortages in the Southwest, Southeast and Hawaii."

USA TODAY

Can you offer any proof that the climate change you reference is due to the activites of man? That's the $64 dollar question and the answer is that you can not.

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

The fact that you rely on skeptical science for your info sums up what sort of person you are. They talk up our contribution of atmospheric CO2 in pretty scary terms that are designed to scare the uneducated. Clearly you are scared. Science, real science that is isn't meant to be used to scare school children and uneducated luddites. Real science is meant to bring people closer to understanding the world around them.

Here is how a real scientist (as opposed to a fear monger) presents that same information without the completely fabricated fear factor. So now show me the hard proof that our 14 parts per million contribution to the atmospheric CO2 is responsible for any climate change at all...and then tell me how much change, you believe is due to that 14 parts per million.

 

[gslack]

It's rained everyday this month and the last week of june here in my neck of the woods. It's pretty much state wide, and I remember a lot of rain up in canada recently as well.. Yet at the same time there was a drought in the southwest .. And that's proof of AGW??? LOL, like a friend of mine says,if it's hot it's warming, if it's cold it's warming, rain, warming, drought, warming...LOL

 

[SSDD]

It's rained everyday this month and the last week of june here in my neck of the woods. It's pretty much state wide, and I remember a lot of rain up in canada recently as well.. Yet at the same time there was a drought in the southwest .. And that's proof of AGW??? LOL, like a friend of mine says,if it's hot it's warming, if it's cold it's warming, rain, warming, drought, warming...LOL

Know what you mean....I haven't put 300 miles on my motorcycle this summer....sure be glad when this drought is over so the sun can start shining.

 

[PMZ]

The flat-Earfers are the warmerist fundamentalists. who claim that all the sages and elites within the church have all the knowledge, while the peasants are mere knaves, unable to comprehend the greatness and profundity of their eminence.

Good example of projection and transference, though, Dudley.

"who claim that all the sages and elites within the church have all the knowledge, while the peasants are mere knaves, unable to comprehend the greatness and profundity of their eminence."

A clear indication that numb nuts here is unable to distinguish between the role of scientists in science vs laypeople and political entertainers.

 

[PMZ]

"Miniscule" means way too small to effect. That is apparently not true of 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2.

That isn't at all what minuscule means. I find myself having to provide definitions for you quite often for very common words. Do you always just make up definitions to suit your needs?

Can you say how much warming might be expected from an increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm...and can you say how much of that increase is directly due to man...and how much temperature increase is directly due to man's contribution?

If you expect to be believed, these are very basic questions and should have ready answers...and if the answers prove wrong, then the hypothesis, of course is wrong.

You've been given all of that data and information many times. You know that. You hope that if you keep asking, someone will be fooled into thinking otherwise. I think that it's more likely that they will think that you're functionally illiterate.