- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
09 Dec 14
"The persistent weather pattern over the past several years has featured a warm, dry ridge of high pressure over the eastern north Pacific Ocean and western North America. Such high-pressure ridges prevent clouds from forming and precipitation from falling.
The study notes that this ridge — which has resulted in decreased rain and snowfall since 2011 — is almost opposite to what computer models predict would result from human-caused climate change."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/12/08/california-drought-cause-noaa/20095869/
09 Dec 14
Originally posted by JS357i just ate, so this whole talk about some people starving must be a hoax.
"The persistent weather pattern over the past several years has featured a warm, dry ridge of high pressure over the eastern north Pacific Ocean and western North America. Such high-pressure ridges prevent clouds from forming and precipitation from falling.
The study notes that this ridge — which has resulted in decreased rain and snowfall since 2011 — is a ...[text shortened]... ge."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/12/08/california-drought-cause-noaa/20095869/
09 Dec 14
Originally posted by JS357Interesting. What really seems to be standing out, is that our knowledge of climate is really quite limited, and that try as we may, we can't yet predict tomorrow's weather never mind predict the next hundred years, or know exactly why change is what it is, or what if any response we ought to try.
"The persistent weather pattern over the past several years has featured a warm, dry ridge of high pressure over the eastern north Pacific Ocean and western North America. Such high-pressure ridges prevent clouds from forming and precipitation from falling.
The study notes that this ridge — which has resulted in decreased rain and snowfall since 2011 — is a ...[text shortened]... ge."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/12/08/california-drought-cause-noaa/20095869/
09 Dec 14
Originally posted by normbenignwe also know the causes of climate change. 97% of the scientific community agree it is real and we should bloody do something about it before it's too late.
We actually know the causes of famines. It is usually related to government actions, with some dictator/warlord/king seeing to it that those opposing him aren't going to eat.
your problem is that you watch too much fox news where bill o'reilly, an obvious dumbass (or playing a dumbass) always brings one climate change denier and one who is for, and gives them equal chance (if he is feeling magnanimous, otherwise he is ridiculing the real scientist) to speak.
john oliver did it better. in order to have a fair climate change debate, you need to have 3 climate change deniers educated by 97 scientists who aren't in the pockets of big companies/actually know what they are talking about.
09 Dec 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziI never watch O'Reiley, but I do watch some other shows on Fox News channel.
we also know the causes of climate change. 97% of the scientific community agree it is real and we should bloody do something about it before it's too late.
your problem is that you watch too much fox news where bill o'reilly, an obvious dumbass (or playing a dumbass) always brings one climate change denier and one who is for, and gives them equal chanc ...[text shortened]... scientists who aren't in the pockets of big companies/actually know what they are talking about.
We know that on several occasions the climate change (global warming) boys have been caught with their pants down, admitting to altering computer models when the data did not support their preconceived notions.
The data for the last decade doesn't support global warming whatsoever, this the term climate change. Then there is no agreement on what if anything we can do to change things, other that the suggestion to tax the hell out of producers.
Whose pockets are your 97 in? Politicians who want more taxes and greater control over our lives.
09 Dec 14
Originally posted by JS357If the scientists are all wrong, then we are okay. The Koch family wealth is secure. The value of their oil will remain high.
"The persistent weather pattern over the past several years has featured a warm, dry ridge of high pressure over the eastern north Pacific Ocean and western North America. Such high-pressure ridges prevent clouds from forming and precipitation from falling.
The study notes that this ridge — which has resulted in decreased rain and snowfall since 2011 — is a ...[text shortened]... ge."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/12/08/california-drought-cause-noaa/20095869/
If the scientists are largely correct then we are in serious doodah and need to act. If we do nothing, the Koch family wealth is secure with continued high values for their assets but the people of the world are in terrible difficulty.
If we act, the people of the world benefit greatly but the value of the Koch family assets is dramatically reduced (because if we stop burning their oil the value of their deposits must fall radically).
If we accept the cobblers put about by Koch funded climate change deniers, then we benefit the Koch family but harm everyone else.
Gosh what should we do - how do we assess these risks and probabilities?
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by normbenignoh no, some scientist wants to get fame and fortune so he falsifies some data to get it and now the entire field he tried to fraud his way into is invalidated.
I never watch O'Reiley, but I do watch some other shows on Fox News channel.
We know that on several occasions the climate change (global warming) boys have been caught with their pants down, admitting to altering computer models when the data did not support their preconceived notions.
The data for the last decade doesn't support global warming wh ...[text shortened]... ose pockets are your 97 in? Politicians who want more taxes and greater control over our lives.
yep, we all know how the entire field of medicine was proven invalid because of what kevorkian or the psychos that lobotomized people in the 50's did. no wait, it didn't. they were proven wrong, some were even punished, and the world didn't start seeing witch doctors because they lost faith in real MDs
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by normbenign"Politicians who want more taxes and greater control over our lives."
I never watch O'Reiley, but I do watch some other shows on Fox News channel.
We know that on several occasions the climate change (global warming) boys have been caught with their pants down, admitting to altering computer models when the data did not support their preconceived notions.
The data for the last decade doesn't support global warming wh ...[text shortened]... ose pockets are your 97 in? Politicians who want more taxes and greater control over our lives.
politicians elected by people who would rather not have more taxes are secretly manipulating the entire scientific community to raise taxes, of which these politicians would hardly see a cent.
i am sure the big industry giants can't possibly hope to buy off these greedy politicians.
yes, seems totally logical.
"The data for the last decade doesn't support global warming whatsoever, this the term climate change"
97% of the scientific community begs to differ
"other that the suggestion to tax the hell out of producers."
... who do not invest in cleaner, safer ways to produce crap. that would cut in their profits though, we can't have that.
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by finneganNo-one is denying climate change, the oldest, most tired, clichéd strawman in the book.
If we accept the cobblers put about by Koch funded climate change deniers, then we benefit the Koch family but harm everyone else.
What is your point here, that the 'findings' are skewed by funding? Which side of the argument get's the most funding and which side is likely to get more funding the bigger the scare story they can fabricate?
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by WajomaThe Koch family invests a lot of money to produce idiots like you.
No-one is denying climate change, the oldest, most tired, clichéd strawman in the book.
What is your point here, that the 'findings' are skewed by funding? Which side of the argument get's the most funding and which side is likely to get more funding the bigger the scare story they can fabricate?