Global Warming Driving Extreme Weather

[Schneibster]

The US has just surpassed the record year for billion-dollar weather disasters with Irene. That makes 10, breaking the record from 2008, and we're not even done with hurricane season yet.

Butttheresnoglobalwarming.

Read all about it. Mainstream media and everything. USA Today used to be a conservatroid rag; still is, AFAIK. Guess even conservatroids eventually have to admit the truth when it starts flensing chunks out of one of their butt cheeks.

[Animavore]

The seventh seal has been broken.

[Schneibster]

Gonna git ugly, man. Arab Spring x100. Folks're gonna start gettin' hungry, and India and Pakistan have nukes. Real ugly.

[Tigger]

[Tyrannical]

Too hot? Blame Global Warming.
Too cold? Blame Global Warming.
Too wet? Blame Global Warming.
Too dry? Blame Global Warming.

[Schneibster]

Too hot? Blame Global Warming.
Too cold? Blame Global Warming.
Too wet? Blame Global Warming.
Too dry? Blame Global Warming.

Ummm, guess you don't know much about weather, either.

ETA: Heat drives storms. More heat, more storms, stronger storms. Just that simple. It's not rocket science.

You denying the graph at the beginning of the thread, or just talkin' out your hat?

[Pensioner]

Too hot? Blame Global Warming.
Too cold? Blame Global Warming.
Too wet? Blame Global Warming.
Too dry? Blame Global Warming.

Ummm, guess you don't know much about weather, either.

ETA: Heat drives storms. More heat, more storms, stronger storms. Just that simple. It's not rocket science.

You denying the graph at the beginning of the thread, or just talkin' out your hat?

True that. Scientists predicted that western Europe would have wetter summers and colder winters, and the reason, Global warming.

[Schneibster]

And the US would have stronger hurricanes, and more snow, and more floods, and more mesocyclones. And we do.

[Clinton Huxley]

It's very muggy in my neck of the woods today.

[JimC]

Crumple has hacked into Tigger's account!

But yes, things quite likely heading to more extremes. In Oz, more bushfires and droughts at one extreme, and more tropical cyclones and floods on the other.

I shall respond in the only rational way possible, by growing more vegetables...

[mistermack]

Of course, no mention of the fact that billion dollar events are BOUND to increase, because the costs rise every year? More people make bigger insurance claims? What a stupid parameter to choose.
And no mention of the milder weather up north? And the benefits that brings?

And no mention of the fact that more PEOPLE means more bush fires?

I love global warming. It's bollocks that the results are all negative. Here we've been having later winters, earlier springs. ( Even though it's not yet as warm as the medieval warm period here). GIve me a choice, I'd keep it this way, thanks. And so would an awful lot of people.

More of the same please.

[Pensioner]

Of course, no mention of the fact that billion dollar events are BOUND to increase, because the costs rise every year? More people make bigger insurance claims? What a stupid parameter to choose.
And no mention of the milder weather up north? And the benefits that brings?

And no mention of the fact that more PEOPLE means more bush fires?

I love global warming. It's bollocks that the results are all negative. Here we've been having later winters, earlier springs. ( Even though it's not yet as warm as the medieval warm period here). GIve me a choice, I'd keep it this way, thanks. And so would an awful lot of people.

More of the same please.

I think you should try and separate political ideology and economics from science. The fact is that this planet of ours is warming. The why question is the important one, is it not? Look at the scientific evidence, at least look at those scientists who are not in the pay of the oil companies and right wing libertarian think tanks.

[mistermack]

I think you should try and separate political ideology and economics from science. The fact is that this planet of ours is warming. The why question is the important one, is it not? Look at the scientific evidence, at least look at those scientists who are not in the pay of the oil companies and right wing libertarian think tanks.

Warming yes. But that's what climate does. It shoots up and down. The question why is beyond current science. The models from ten years ago don't match the climate of the last ten years.

Imagine what would have been claimed if the medieval warm period was happening now. When they were growing grapes as far north as Sheffield.
And imagine all of the theories that would be coming out, if we were having something like the little ice age, and the Thames was freezing over, and they were holding fairs on the ice every year?

There would be climate models closely matching it all, and doom and gloom. Both eras righted themselves without any input from man. And there is no reason to suppose that this one won't as well.

As far as who gets paid for what and by whom, you have to remember that climate science is a huge employer now. Very few of those people would have their jobs, if it wasn't for the AGW theory.
There are vested interests on both sides of the argument.

[Schneibster]

Of course, no mention of the fact that billion dollar events are BOUND to increase, because the costs rise every year?

Never mind that they're scientists and used constant, equivalent money to define "billion dollar event."

Don't make up lies. It's not going to get you anywhere. I'd think you'd have figured that out by now. It's a waste of time. What's happening to you right now is what's going to happen every time.

[Schneibster]

I think you should try and separate political ideology and economics from science. The fact is that this planet of ours is warming. The why question is the important one, is it not? Look at the scientific evidence, at least look at those scientists who are not in the pay of the oil companies and right wing libertarian think tanks.

Warming yes. But that's what climate does. It shoots up and down. The question why is beyond current science.

I prefer the word of scientists on what's beyond science, thanks.

Considering the number of papers out there about it, they seem to disagree with you. See Oreskes 2004.

Just sayin'.