Record-breaking heavy rainfall events increased under global warming

Originally posted by humy
"source of information" of what? That greater variation in rainfall doesn't mean less droughts?

If so, the "source" of information is just plain old basic logic that even a halfwit can understand. How does greater variation in rainfall logically imply less droughts? What it the logical contradiction in there being greater variation in rainfall and more droug ...[text shortened]... t is contradicted by the link and quote exactly where in the link it does so and exactly how so.

Read your own link. It doesn't say "greater variation" and your assertion that it doesn't mean less droughts is contrary to your own link. It says a global increase in rainfall of 12%. If you can show that droughts have increased by all means give your source of information.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Read your own link. It doesn't say "greater variation" and your assertion that it doesn't mean less droughts is contrary to your own link. It says a global increase in rainfall of 12%. If you can show that droughts have increased by all means give your source of information.

Read your own link. It doesn't say "greater variation"

So?
I never implied it did.
Greater variation in rainfall is what is predicted by global warming theory, not that link. That link spoke of "Record-breaking heavy rainfall events increased under global warming", which is one thing that is predicted by that predicted greater variation in rainfall and the link doesn't need to mention that prediction of greater variability in rainfall for us to know this as it is just relatively common knowledge amongst us who have read much about global warming.

I read about the prediction (and in some cases observed ) of greater variation in rainfall due to global warming theory in various other links including:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021213062719.htm
and
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1907.html

and your assertion that it doesn't mean less droughts is contrary to your own link.

Nope. EXACTLY where does my link contradict that? I challenge you to give the actual quote where it does. It mentions "drought" only once and doesn't say/imply anything about there being less drought so how can it be contrary to what I said?

+, just as I explained before with the rules of very basic logic that even a halfwit can understand, it is just a matter of deduction that greater variation in rainfall doesn't mean (i.e. logically imply ) less droughts; but I guess you are just too stupid to get that.

It says a global increase in rainfall of 12%.

NO, it doesn't. I challenge you to quote where it does! Can't you read?
It firsts speaks of “Record-breaking heavy rainfall events” and then says:
“The average increase is 12 percent globally “
thus it is CLEARLY referring to a 12% increase in record-breaking heavy rainfall events, NOT a 12% increase in global rainfall i.e overall global rainfall. You could have without contradiction a decrease in overall global rainfall (I am not implying that there has been or will be such a decrease and I am unaware of any decrease ) and yet, thanks to greater variability, still have a global increase in record-breaking heavy rainfall events. Therefore the two clearly don't equate.

Originally posted by humy

Read your own link. It doesn't say "greater variation"

So?
I never implied it did.
Greater variation in rainfall is what is predicted by global warming theory, not that link. That link spoke of "Record-breaking heavy rainfall events increased under global warming", which is one thing that is predicted by that predicted greater variati ...[text shortened]... obal increase in record-breaking heavy rainfall events. Therefore the two clearly don't equate.

"Greater variation in rainfall is what is predicted by global warming theory"

Theory, not fact. Any idiot can have a theory. It doesn't mean it has credibility.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"Greater variation in rainfall is what is predicted by global warming theory"

Theory, not fact....

In science, a theory can also be a fact; and often is.
In this case, as some links show, the theory has so far already been observed to hold true; powerful evidence to backup the theory.

you haven't answered any of my questions:

where, according to you, does it say in that link that there has been a "global increase in rainfall of 12%"? (your quote )
("rainfall" as opposed to record-breaking high rainfall events; do I really need to explain to you the difference? )

Exactly where does that link, according to you, does it contradict what I said?
Say the exact quote in that link and exactly which statement I made which you say that quote contradicts....
I take your silence on this to mean you made that up i.e. lied.

Originally posted by humy
In science, a theory can also be a fact; and often is.
In this case, as some links show, the theory has so far already been observed to hold true; powerful evidence to backup the theory.

you haven't answered any of my questions:

where, according to you, does it say in that link that there has been a "global increase in rainfall of 12%"? (your quote )
( ...[text shortened]... say that quote contradicts....
I take your silence on this to mean you made that up i.e. lied.

"In this case, as some links show, the theory has so far already been observed to hold true; powerful evidence to backup the theory."

I don't believe you at all. I think you are making it up. What is your source of information?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"In this case, as some links show, the theory has so far already been observed to hold true; powerful evidence to backup the theory."

I don't believe you at all. I think you are making it up. What is your source of information?

Is your mouse broken? You can't do a simple google search yourself? Instead setting things up so it would seem WE, who are not climate scientists, have to provide proof for you. That is pure laziness. You can google just as well as we.

Here is some news from Exxon: they knew climate change was going on in 1981 and funded climate change deniers for the past 27 years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3156373/Exxon-knew-climate-change-1981-funded-deniers-27-years.html

Originally posted by sonhouse
Is your mouse broken? You can't do a simple google search yourself? Instead setting things up so it would seem WE, who are not climate scientists, have to provide proof for you. That is pure laziness. You can google just as well as we.

Here is some news from Exxon: they knew climate change was going on in 1981 and funded climate change deniers for the pa ...[text shortened]... dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3156373/Exxon-knew-climate-change-1981-funded-deniers-27-years.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/us/exxon-led-group-is-giving-a-climate-grant-to-stanford.html

Originally posted by Metal Brain
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/us/exxon-led-group-is-giving-a-climate-grant-to-stanford.html

Sure, give a bone to the opposition while the real money goes to the deniers.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Sure, give a bone to the opposition while the real money goes to the deniers.

Once again you are completely wrong. Unlike you I checked into that. Next time do your homework.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Once again you are completely wrong. Unlike you I checked into that. Next time do your homework.

So now Exxon can do no wrong? They are perfectly on the up and up, total transparency?

"Four big international companies, including the oil giant Exxon Mobil, said yesterday that they would give Stanford University $225 million over 10 years for research on ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming."

They seem to be admitting there is global warming. You do realize 10 million a year is a drop in the bucket for a company as large as Exxon?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So now Exxon can do no wrong? They are perfectly on the up and up, total transparency?

"Four big international companies, including the oil giant Exxon Mobil, said yesterday that they would give Stanford University $225 million over 10 years for research on ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming."

They seem to be admitting ...[text shortened]... rming. You do realize 10 million a year is a drop in the bucket for a company as large as Exxon?

Since they gave less to skeptics your point is mute. Less that a drop in the bucket for skeptics.

I should also point out that My link showed where Exxon put there money and your link does not. Who are these skeptics that Exxon sent money to? E-mails can be fabricated, so I don't put a lot of faith into a mere allegation based on an e-mail that may or may not have existed.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Since they gave less to skeptics your point is mute. Less that a drop in the bucket for skeptics.

I should also point out that My link showed where Exxon put there money and your link does not. Who are these skeptics that Exxon sent money to? E-mails can be fabricated, so I don't put a lot of faith into a mere allegation based on an e-mail that may or may not have existed.

BTW, more evidence about global warming: Forest fires are up 35% in the last few years:

http://phys.org/news/2015-07-wildfire-season.html

Originally posted by sonhouse
BTW, more evidence about global warming: Forest fires are up 35% in the last few years:

http://phys.org/news/2015-07-wildfire-season.html

That isn't evidence at all. More people lighting fires mean more wildfires. Any weather differences are probably temporary. I remember when people blamed the lower water levels of the great lakes on global warming, now they are increasing. It is called weather!

When people want to find something they do until it is proved to be merely temporary. Droughts pass sooner or later and with 7 billion people and rising more man made fires are to be expected. Your critical thinking skills are very poor.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
That isn't evidence at all. More people lighting fires mean more wildfires. Any weather differences are probably temporary. I remember when people blamed the lower water levels of the great lakes on global warming, now they are increasing. It is called weather!

When people want to find something they do until it is proved to be merely temporary. Droug ...[text shortened]... and rising more man made fires are to be expected. Your critical thinking skills are very poor.

Droughts have killed many civilizations in the past. The latest one is in the west, like Lake Mead is down 17% and will only be able to supply LA and that area for a couple more years. There has been a drought there for 5 years and counting. There is also no end in sight, no signals the drought is even at max. Just how long does a drought have to last before you would consider it a problem? 10 years? 20 years? 100 years? What will you be saying when Lake Mead dries up?

Ah, sorry, the drought has already lasted 15 years:

http://ecowatch.com/2015/06/09/lake-mead-critical-low-drought/

Take a close look at that white stuff on the rocks, even you might be able to see where the water level used to be.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Droughts have killed many civilizations in the past. The latest one is in the west, like Lake Mead is down 17% and will only be able to supply LA and that area for a couple more years. There has been a drought there for 5 years and counting. There is also no end in sight, no signals the drought is even at max. Just how long does a drought have to last befor ...[text shortened]... t that white stuff on the rocks, even you might be able to see where the water level used to be.

Droughts are nothing new. They are caused by weather. Climate change is not causing droughts. You are just another alarmist that blames natural weather on climate change. I remember when there was an unusually hot summer here in Michigan. People tried to blame it on climate change. It was ridiculous, nobody can notice the slow rate of climate change. That didn't keep people from making a mountain out of a molehill though. People are stupid. This is nothing new.