I don't now if AGW affected Sandy's strength

[MannyIsGod]

In fact I doubt it, but I know for a fact it affected the impact.

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/battery.jpg

[Nbadan]

Whoa.....living life on the edge.......

[DarrinS]

So sea level was rising linearly well before mass production of autos. Thanks

[DarrinS]

Good thing this 1938 storm didn't hit

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_New_England_hurricane


160 mph winds. 600 to 800 dead

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

You can even admit AGW caused sea level rise as a factor in the flooding. So good.

PS Made this thread just for you, Darrin. Thanks for living up to my expectations. :tu

PPS CO2 emissions and AGW didn't begin with the car.

[DarrinS]

That part of the country was overdue for this kind of storm, based on historical data. Did SUV's and cow farts make it worse? Who knows. The error is pretending to know.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Darrin doesn't deny that the Earth is warming but rather just every logical effect of a warming Earth. What hmmm. more heat applied to ice......

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

So predictable.

[Wild Cobra]

Still, nobody has proved the levels of AGW vs. natural warming.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/10/31/frankenstorm-sandy-stitched-together-from-elements-both-natural-and-unnatural/

[Wild Cobra]

I hope you aren't responding to me, as saying that a guest blog is proof...

[Jacob1983]

Does this mean Kevin Costner is going to save us?

[Wild Cobra]

Does this mean Kevin Costner is going to save us?
He already has:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/Sorcerers_apprentice_poster.jpg

[Sec24Row7]

Sea level has been rising certainly since the end of the last ice age...

But It's not just that... It's higher on the east coast by 3 to 4 times than the world average

How all of this relates to people... I have no idea... but whatever... that's never stopped the people that have made these arguments before...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/climate-change/why-new-yorks-sea-level-is-rising-faster-than-the-worlds

Why New York's Sea Level Is Rising Faster Than the World's
Sea level is rising around the world, but in many places on the U.S. East Coast, it's rising considerably faster than elsewhere. An oceanographer studying this phenomenon explains.
By Amanda DeMatto
Comments
6

Share





July 9, 2012 12:00 PM TEXT SIZE: A . A . A
A team of U.S. Geological Survey scientists recently discovered that the sea level along the East Coast of the United States, particularly a 600-mile stretch from Cape Hatteras, N.C., to Boston, has risen at an annual rate three to four times faster than the global average since 1990.

When the global sea level rose by 2 inches, Norfolk, Va., saw a rise of 4.8 inches, Philadelphia answered with 3.7 inches, and New York City 2.8 inches, according to the study, which was published in the journal Nature Climate Change. Peter Howd, an oceanographer and co-author of the study for the U.S. Geological Survey, helped illuminate just why the East Coast is in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's complicated, but the short version is: The Gulf Stream might be slowing down.

Ocean Currents

Early European explorers didn't cut straight across the Atlantic Ocean in their quest for the New World because it was impossible, for the same reasons that flight paths destined for the United States from Europe are northward and curvilinear. The Earth's spin and temperature gradients cause the winds that travel over the Northern Atlantic Ocean to move in a clockwise pattern, dragging the waters below along a similar pathway.

Because of the Earth's rotation and friction in the water column, Howd says, water on the ocean's surface is transported approximately 90 degrees to the right of the direction the wind is blowing. This rerouting of the water toward the center of the ocean basin is called Ekman transport. If the wind is blowing to the north alongside the East Coast, for example, the water transport will be to the east. For winds blowing westward from North America to Europe, the water will move to the south. For winds blowing south along the European coastline to Africa, the water moves west, and so on.

The result of this physical churning might defy human imagination: It creates a huge pile of water, roughly 700 miles wide and 2000 miles long, that stands about 3 feet taller than the waters in coastal areas. "This pile of water roughly coincides with the Sargasso Sea," Howd says. The Sargasso, located in the middle of the Atlantic, is the only sea without a shoreline; it's created by these ocean currents and accumulates a high concentration of non-biodegradable plastic waste, similar to the Great Garbage Patch in the Pacific.

It seems counterintuitive for the ocean to have a big hump out in the middle. So what's keeping that pile of water in the center of the ocean and away from our coastlines is a fine balance between the velocity of the circular ocean currents and the Coriolis effect, which describes how objects move as a result of the earth's spin. "Water likes to be flat," said Dr. Howd. "As gravity pulls that water down and tries to get that bump to smooth out, Coriolis takes over. Water will want to flow downhill to the East Coast, but Coriolis will divert its flow to the north, producing a western boundary current known as the Gulf Stream."



You've no doubt seen the Gulf Stream on TV weather maps. It's a fast plume of warm water that moves from its starting point in the Caribbean northward along the eastern coast of the United States and tapers out near Newfoundland, heading in the general direction of Europe. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Gulf Stream flows 300 times faster than the Amazon River. The flow is fastest near the surface, peaking at 5.6 mph, and reaching 4 mph on average. It transports 4 billion cubic feet of water per second, surpassing all the rivers in the world combined.

The Gulf Stream is a powerful shield for the East Coast. The faster it moves, the more water will get deflected to the Sargasso Sea and sucked away from the coast. But if the Gulf Stream slows down—and scientists believe this is happening as climate change progresses—then more water will travel down from the Sargasso Sea to that 600-mile swath of coastline from North Carolina to Boston. Howd says the slowing of the Gulf Stream is a major reason East Coast sea levels have been rising at an annual rate three to four times faster than global averages.

The pile of water in the center of the North Atlantic Ocean Basin is more or less at the mercy of global temperature distribution, which drives wind speeds and wind circulation patterns, Howd says. "If the temperature goes up, it results in enough changes that the Gulf Stream slows down, surprisingly enough, and sea level will rise on the East Coast as a result."

Bouncing Back

Another reason that the East Coast is a victim of accelerated sea level rise is because the land is still readjusting from the Last Glacial Maximum. About 20,000 years ago, an ice sheet that was up to 2 miles thick in some places covered most of Canada, extended over much of the Midwest, and stretched east all the way to New York City. "The weight of that ice pushed coastal New England down. When it went down, the area to the south went up. It's kind of like squeezing a water balloon," Howd says.

Relieved of that ice-sheet load, the land is puffing itself back out in some regions north of New York City and settling back down in locales south of the city. Howd says this glacial isostatic adjustment is still occurring along the East Coast, inviting accelerated sea level rise, "stress on salt marshes and on areas with chronic beach erosion problems," and more frequent "winter storm flooding from the ocean." The simultaneous rise in sea level and sinking of the landmass south of New York City may account for this accelerated rate of change.


Read more: Why New York's Sea Level Is Rising Faster Than the World's - Popular Mechanics

[boutons_deux]

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/842700/original.jpg

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/01/bloomberg-businessweek-hurricane-sandy-controversy-stupid_n_2056407.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=110112&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

[MannyIsGod]

Its pretty much impossible to say that a good amount of sea level rise is not the direct result of anthropogenic heating due to melting of land ice and thermal expansion of the seas. Sandy was a strong - and probably once in a lifetime - storm but as sea level rises you will get Sandy type flooding with even weaker storms. This is a very real aspect of climate change that has serious implications for coastal cities going forward. You can talk all you want about global climate models and what the changes will actually be but this one is absolutely undeniable.

[SnakeBoy]

Whoa.....living life on the edge.......

Yeah it's pretty scary. At the current rate New York city will be underwater in 3500 years.

[MannyIsGod]

Dupe.

[leemajors]

He already has:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/Sorcerers_apprentice_poster.jpg

that's Nick Cage.

[DarrinS]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204840504578089413659452702.html?m od=googlenews_wsj




Hurricane Sandy left in its path some impressive statistics. Its central pressure was the lowest ever recorded for a storm north of North Carolina, breaking a record set by the devastating "Long Island Express" hurricane of 1938. Along the East Coast, Sandy led to more than 50 deaths, left millions without power and caused an estimated $20 billion or more in damage.

But to call Sandy a harbinger of a "new normal," in which unprecedented weather events cause unprecedented destruction, would be wrong. This historic storm should remind us that planet Earth is a dangerous place, where extreme events are commonplace and disasters are to be expected. In the proper context, Sandy is less an example of how bad things can get than a reminder that they could be much worse.

In studying hurricanes, we can make rough comparisons over time by adjusting past losses to account for inflation and the growth of coastal communities. If Sandy causes $20 billion in damage (in 2012 dollars), it would rank as the 17th most damaging hurricane or tropical storm (out of 242) to hit the U.S. since 1900—a significant event, but not close to the top 10. The Great Miami Hurricane of 1926 tops the list (according to estimates by the catastrophe-insurance provider ICAT), as it would cause $180 billion in damage if it were to strike today. Hurricane Katrina ranks fourth at $85 billion.

To put things into even starker perspective, consider that from August 1954 through August 1955, the East Coast saw three different storms make landfall—Carol, Hazel and Diane—that in 2012 each would have caused about twice as much damage as Sandy.

While it's hardly mentioned in the media, the U.S. is currently in an extended and intense hurricane "drought." The last Category 3 or stronger storm to make landfall was Wilma in 2005. The more than seven years since then is the longest such span in over a century.

Flood damage has decreased as a proportion of the economy since reliable records were first kept by the National Weather Service in the 1930s, and there is no evidence of increasing extreme river floods. Historic tornado damage (adjusted for changing levels of development) has decreased since 1950, paralleling a dramatic reduction in casualties. Although the tragic impacts of tornadoes in 2011 (including 553 confirmed deaths) were comparable only to those of 1953 and 1964, such tornado impacts were far more common in the first half of the 20th century.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that drought in America's central plains has decreased in recent decades. And even when extensive drought occurs, we fare better. For example, the widespread 2012 drought was about 10% as costly to the U.S. economy as the multiyear 1988-89 drought, indicating greater resiliency of American agriculture.

There is therefore reason to believe we are living in an extended period of relatively good fortune with respect to disasters. A recurrence of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake today, for example, could cause more than $300 billion in damage and thousands of lives, according to a study I co-published in 2009.

So how can today's disasters, even if less physically powerful than previous ones, have such staggering financial costs? One reason: There are more people and more wealth in harm's way. Partly this is due to local land-use policies, partly to incentives such as government-subsidized insurance, but mostly to the simple fact that people like being on the coast and near rivers.

Even so, with respect to disasters we really do make our own luck. The relatively low number of casualties caused by Sandy is a testament to the success story that is the U.S. National Weather Service and parallel efforts of those who emphasize preparedness and emergency response in the public and private sectors. Everyone in the disaster-management community deserves thanks; the mitigation of the impacts from natural disasters has been a true national success story of the past century.


But continued success isn't guaranteed. The bungled response and tragic consequences associated with Hurricane Katrina tell us what can happen when we let our guard down.

And there are indications that we are setting the stage for making future disasters worse. For instance, a U.S. polar-satellite program crucial to weather forecasting has been described by the administrator of the federal agency that oversees it—the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—as a "dysfunctional program that had become a national embarrassment due to chronic management problems." The lack of effective presidential and congressional oversight of this program over more than a decade can be blamed on both Republicans and Democrats. The program's mishandling may mean a gap in satellite coverage and a possible degradation in forecasts.

Another danger: Public discussion of disasters risks being taken over by the climate lobby and its allies, who exploit every extreme event to argue for action on energy policy. In New York this week, Gov. Andrew Cuomo declared: "I think at this point it is undeniable but that we have a higher frequency of these extreme weather situations and we're going to have to deal with it." New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg spoke similarly.

Humans do affect the climate system, and it is indeed important to take action on energy policy—but to connect energy policy and disasters makes little scientific or policy sense. There are no signs that human-caused climate change has increased the toll of recent disasters, as even the most recent extreme-event report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finds. And even under the assumptions of the IPCC, changes to energy policies wouldn't have a discernible impact on future disasters for the better part of a century or more.

The only strategies that will help us effectively prepare for future disasters are those that have succeeded in the past: strategic land use, structural protection, and effective forecasts, warnings and evacuations. That is the real lesson of Sandy.

Mr. Pielke is a professor of environmental studies and a fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado.

[ChumpDumper]

While it's hardly mentioned in the media, the U.S. is currently in an extended and intense hurricane "drought." The last Category 3 or stronger storm to make landfall was Wilma in 2005. The more than seven years since then is the longest such span in over a century.Yes, the absence of hurricanes is big news. Romney should be reminding us every day. It's a winning strategy.

[boutons_deux]

"Humans do affect the climate system, and it is indeed important to take action on energy policy"

oops, did Darrin mean to post this? :lol

"effective forecasts"

For Representative Ryan’s plans for NOAA in the FY 2013 budget, see here (http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/ryan-budget-would-cut-more-from-nasa-noaa-budget-functions):

NOAA’s programs are in function 300, Natural Resources and Environment, along with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and a range of conservation and natural resources programs. In the near term, function 300 would be 14.6 percent lower in 2014 in the Ryan budget according to the Washington Post. It quotes David Kendall of The Third Way as warning about the potential impact on weather forecasting: “‘Our weather forecasts would be only half as accurate for four to eight years until another polar satellite is launched,’ estimates Kendall. ‘For many people planning a weekend outdoors, they may have to wait until Thursday for a forecast as accurate as one they now get on Monday. … Perhaps most affected would be hurricane response. Governors and mayors would have to order evacuations for areas twice as large or wait twice as long for an accurate forecast.’”

http://www.economonitor.com/blog/2012/10/romneyryan-on-fema-and-noaa/

[MannyIsGod]

Humans do affect the climate system, and it is indeed important to take action on energy policy

Oops

[DarrinS]

[COLOR=#000000]"Humans do affect the climate system, and it is indeed important to take action on energy policy"

oops, did Darrin mean to post this? :lol





Who says humans DON'T affect the climate system?

[Wild Cobra]

that's Nick Cage.
Ooops. Shows how much I watch movies.

[Wild Cobra]

Its pretty much impossible to say that a good amount of sea level rise is not the direct result of anthropogenic heating due to melting of land ice and thermal expansion of the seas. Sandy was a strong - and probably once in a lifetime - storm but as sea level rises you will get Sandy type flooding with even weaker storms. This is a very real aspect of climate change that has serious implications for coastal cities going forward. You can talk all you want about global climate models and what the changes will actually be but this one is absolutely undeniable.

So what do you consider a good amount? About half the sea rise if from thermal expansion. The ocean is absorbing more energy than it is releasing and I would say primarily because of solar variations. We still don't have any close pinned down numbers for anthropogenic warming vs. natural warming. I would suggest that as much as 1/4 of the sea rise can be attributed to anthropogenic warming. No more, and I would say it's much less than that.

[boutons_deux]

Who says humans DON'T affect the climate system?

VRWC/ALEC/oilco propaganda.

[DarrinS]

VRWC/ALEC/oilco propaganda.

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/safety_climate.aspx
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle800.do?categoryId=9036321&contentId=7067103
http://www.shell.com/home/content/environment_society/environment/climate_change/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Who says humans DON'T affect the climate system?

I think a better question is 'who said humans don't affect climate change 2 years ago and now says that human contribution is insignificant?'

Some especially conservatives like to talk about the slippery slope. I like to call the above phenomenon the stupid slope.

[DarrinS]

I think a better question is 'who said humans don't affect climate change 2 years ago and now says that human contribution is insignificant?'

link?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

link?

So you deny that you claimed that the Earth was not warming even as little as a year ago? Are you really going to make me go look up that 'temp hasn't changed in ten years' graph you spammed for 6 months?

[DarrinS]

So you deny that you claimed that the Earth was not warming even as little as a year ago? Are you really going to make me go look up that 'temp hasn't changed in ten years' graph you spammed for 6 months?

Woah, hold the phone. I can say there has been statistically insignicant warming in a 10-15 year window and still acknowledge that is has warmed in the past century. Don't get things twisted there, Spanky.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are a Romney disciple, Darrin, and tbh reading through your shit over the last 5 years I really do think you are a shill.

You make claims on generalities but when asked about specifics you resort to your deceptive bullshit. This is what I get from the first couple of pages of a search.


Global warming "deniers" -- LOL


Yes, indeed, the climate is changing. Interestingly enough, it will do this with or without the existence of human beings.


What would you say to scientists who co-authored IPCC reports that disagree with this assertion?

Following is from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm

As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) puts the finishing touches to its final report of the year, two of its senior scientists look at what the panel is and how well it works. Here, a view from a leading researcher into temperature change.


The IPCC is a framework around which hundreds of scientists and other participants are organised to mine the panoply of climate change literature to produce a synthesis of the most important and relevant findings.

These findings are published every few years to help policymakers keep tabs on where the participants chosen for the IPCC believe the Earth's climate has been, where it is going, and what might be done to adapt to and/or even adjust the predicted outcome.

While most participants are scientists and bring the aura of objectivity, there are two things to note:

this is a political process to some extent (anytime governments are involved it ends up that way)
scientists are mere mortals casting their gaze on a system so complex we cannot precisely predict its future state even five days ahead
The political process begins with the selection of the Lead Authors because they are nominated by their own governments.

Thus at the outset, the political apparatus of the member nations has a role in pre-selecting the main participants.

But, it may go further.

Unsound bites

At an IPCC Lead Authors' meeting in New Zealand, I well remember a conversation over lunch with three Europeans, unknown to me but who served as authors on other chapters. I sat at their table because it was convenient.

After introducing myself, I sat in silence as their discussion continued, which boiled down to this: "We must write this report so strongly that it will convince the US to sign the Kyoto Protocol."

Politics, at least for a few of the Lead Authors, was very much part and parcel of the process.

And, while the 2001 report was being written, Dr Robert Watson, IPCC Chair at the time, testified to the US Senate in 2000 adamantly advocating on behalf of the Kyoto Protocol, which even the journal Nature now reports is a failure.
Follow the herd

As I said above - and this may come as a surprise - scientists are mere mortals.

The tendency to succumb to group-think and the herd-instinct (now formally called the "informational cascade") is perhaps as tempting among scientists as any group because we, by definition, must be the "ones who know" (from the Latin sciere, to know).


You dare not be thought of as "one who does not know"; hence we may succumb to the pressure to be perceived as "one who knows".

This leads, in my opinion, to an overstatement of confidence in the published findings and to a ready acceptance of the views of anointed authorities.

Scepticism, a hallmark of science, is frowned upon. (I suspect the IPCC bureaucracy cringes whenever I'm identified as an IPCC Lead Author.)

The signature statement of the 2007 IPCC report may be paraphrased as this: "We are 90% confident that most of the warming in the past 50 years is due to humans."

We are not told here that this assertion is based on computer model output, not direct observation. The simple fact is we don't have thermometers marked with "this much is human-caused" and "this much is natural".

So, I would have written this conclusion as "Our climate models are incapable of reproducing the last 50 years of surface temperatures without a push from how we think greenhouse gases influence the climate. Other processes may also account for much of this change."
Slim models

To me, the elevation of climate models to the status of definitive tools for prediction has led to the temptation to be over-confident.

Here is how this can work.

Computer models are the basic tools which are used to estimate the future climate. Many scientists (ie the mere mortals) have been captivated by an IPCC image in which the actual global surface temperature curve for the 20th Century is overlaid on a band of model simulations of temperature for the same period.


The observations seem to fit right in the middle of the model band, implying that models are formulated so capably and completely that they can reproduce the past very well.

Without knowing much about climate models, any group will be persuaded by this image to believe models are quite precise.

However, there is a fundamental flaw with this thinking.

You see, every modeller knew what the answer was ahead of time. (Those groans you just heard were the protestations of my colleagues in the modelling community - they know what's coming).

In my view, on the other hand, this persuasive image is not a scientific experiment at all. The agreement displayed is just as likely to do with clever software engineering as to the first principles of science.
The proper and objective experiment is to test model output against quantities not known ahead of time.

Complex world

Our group is one of the few that builds a variety of climate datasets from scratch for tests just like this.

Since we build the datasets here, we have an urge to be sceptical about arguments-from-authority in favour of the real, though imperfect, observations.

In these model vs data comparisons, we find gross inconsistencies - hence I am sceptical of our ability to claim cause and effect about both past and future climate states.

Mother Nature is incredibly complex, and to think we mortals are so clever and so perceptive that we can create computer code that accurately reproduces the millions of processes that determine climate is hubris (think of predicting the complexities of clouds).

Of all scientists, climate scientists should be the most humble. Our cousins in the one-to-five-day weather prediction business learned this long ago, partly because they were held accountable for their predictions every day.

Answering the question about how much warming has occurred because of increases in greenhouse gases and what we may expect in the future still holds enormous uncertainty, in my view.

Explosive view

How could the situation be improved? At one time I stated that the IPCC-like process was the worst way to compile scientific knowledge, except for all the others.

Improvements have been adopted through the years, most notably the publication of the comments and responses. Bravo.

I would think a simple way to let the world know there are other opinions about various aspects emerging from the IPCC font would be to provide some quasi-official forum to allow those views to be expressed.


These alternative-view authors should be afforded the same protocol as the IPCC authors, ie they themselves are their own final reviewers and thus would have final say on what is published.

At that point, I suppose, the blogosphere would erupt and, amidst the fire and smoke, hopefully, enlightenment may appear.

I continue to participate in the IPCC (unless an IPCC functionary reads this missive and blackballs me) because I not only am able to contribute from my own research, but there are numerous opportunities to learn something new - to feed the curiosity that attends a scientist's soul.

I can live with the disagreements concerning nuances and subjective assertions as they simply remind me that all scientists are people, and do not prevent me from speaking my mind anyway.

Wise teachings

Don't misunderstand me.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase due to the undisputed benefits that carbon-based energy brings to humanity. This increase will have some climate impact through CO2's radiation properties.

However, fundamental knowledge is meagre here, and our own research indicates that alarming changes in the key observations are not occurring.

The best advice regarding scientific knowledge, which certainly applies to climate, came to me from Mr Mallory, my high school physics teacher.

He proposed that we should always begin our scientific pronouncements with this statement: "At our present level of ignorance, we think we know..."

Good advice for the IPCC, and all of us.


John R Christy is Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, US

He has contributed to all four major IPCC assessments, including acting as a Lead Author in 2001 and a Contributing Author in 2007


Point out ONE SINGLE piece of objective evidence that proves, or even quantifies, the human contribution to the whopping 0.74 degree C increase of the last 100 years.


Problem is, no such piece of evidence exists.


I never questioned the science of "global warming"/"climate change" until Al Gore started telling everyone that the science was settled and the debate was over. If the science is truly settled, then there's really no need to make these statements. Someone saying "the science of gravity is settled" would be patently absurd. And the whole "concensus" issue is ridiculous. It only takes one scientist and one set of inconvenient data to prove a theory wrong. For example, a theory that "all swans are white" could be falsified by the discovery of a single black swan.


Except for when he admitted that human CO2 emissions causing global warming was a "guess".


http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4086143&postcount=20


Absolutely not. Climate is a chaotic dynamical system that we don't fully understand.


AGW stands on two pillars that are very flimsy:

1) The warming of the 20th century is unprecedented

2) The 3% that humans contribute to a trace gas CO2 (that makes up only 3% of our atmosphere) has caused this unprecedented warming


Two things no one is debating:

1) The earth has warmed
2) Humans play a role


The issue is whether the warming of the last century is unprecedented and whether any future change will be catastrophic.

I think you should watch this video, by liberal Philip Stott.

Like me, he is a firm believer in climate change. Unlike global warmers, we don't think climate change is unusual.

KtPDuZzfzhw


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-halted-Thats-happened-warmest-year-record.html

What happened to the 'warmest year on record': The truth is global warming has halted


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204394804577012014136900828.html

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Darrin: 'i don't deny it but I do."

[MannyIsGod]

Darrin: 'i don't deny it but I do."

[TeyshaBlue]

That search function is a heartless bitch.:lol

[MannyIsGod]

That search function is a heartless bitch.:lol

Not really. Darrin doesn't give a shit. He's not embarrassed by his idiocy or he'd have stopped it a long ass time ago. And its not like anyone actually gives him any credit anymore.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not really. Darrin doesn't give a shit. He's not embarrassed by his idiocy or he'd have stopped it a long ass time ago. And its not like anyone actually gives him any credit anymore.

It's that behavior that makes me suspect he is a shill. When I was reading those quotes I was thinking to myself either that he is schizophrenic or is intentionally trying to mislead people. There were a lot more too but you cannot quote from the first climate denial is pseudoscience thread so i just stopped.

[DarrinS]

That search function is a heartless bitch.:lol

Not when it proves my point. If the goal was to prove I said the earth hasn't warmed and humans haven't contributed to it, then his use of the search feature was an epic failure.

[DarrinS]

It's that behavior that makes me suspect he is a shill. When I was reading those quotes I was thinking to myself either that he is schizophrenic or is intentionally trying to mislead people.


Yeah, you'd have to be a real schizo to question climate sensitivity or human contribution vs natural varibity.

[DarrinS]

By the way, that video is from a debate that the non-alarmists won.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Darrin: 'I don't deny it but I do."

You will just say whatever Darrin. Those quotes were an example of how you speak out of both sides of your mouth ie saying that there is no evidence that there is a human contribution and then claiming you do not dispute that there is a human contribution.

You're a sophist shill and it's obvious.

[Jacob1983]

http://www.blogto.com/upload/2012/06/201261-waterworld.jpg

[Nbadan]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mct8clfA0C1rk5d6vo1_1280.jpg

“The era of procrastination, of half measures, of soothing, and baffling expedience of delays is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences."

- Winston Churchill

[Nbadan]

What about the climate Mitt?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MjNe9LsYpU4

[Wild Cobra]

You are a Romney disciple, Darrin, and tbh reading through your shit over the last 5 years I really do think you are a shill.

You make claims on generalities but when asked about specifics you resort to your deceptive bullshit. This is what I get from the first couple of pages of a search.
Multiple quotes by Darrin...

Really Fuzzy?

Not a single one of these multiple quotes of DarrinS' indicate what you accused him of.

You keep getting more pathetic as the days go by.

[Wild Cobra]

Not when it proves my point. If the goal was to prove I said the earth hasn't warmed and humans haven't contributed to it, then his use of the search feature was an epic failure.
Absolute fail, but then should we expect anything else from The Fuzzy Troll?

[Wild Cobra]

What about the climate Mitt?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MjNe9LsYpU4
Was he really suppose to answer a boisterous ass?

[mouse]

Science knows with great detail how the Earth was formed "4 Billion" years ago and yet they still don't know about weather?

The water damage done in 48 hours was devastating I can imagine what 40 days and nights can do.

http://yabbedoo.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/grand-canyon1-yabbedoo.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Point out ONE SINGLE piece of objective evidence that proves, or even quantifies, the human contribution to the whopping 0.74 degree C increase of the last 100 years.


Problem is, no such piece of evidence exists.


Two things no one is debating:

1) The earth has warmed
2) Humans play a role

Now think real hard, dumbass.

[DarrinS]

Now think real hard, dumbass.

I have not been inconsistent. Keep trying -- apparently, you have spare time.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

Yes Darrin, everyone knows that you must not have any spare time at all. You actually have to pay someone to find stupid youtubes for you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There is no proof that humans contribute to warming.
I don't deny humans contribute to warming.
I am not inconsistent.

There is no proof that humans contribute to warming.
I don't deny humans contribute to warming.
I am not inconsistent.

There is no proof that humans contribute to warming.
I don't deny humans contribute to warming.
I am not inconsistent.

There is no proof that humans contribute to warming.
I don't deny humans contribute to warming.
I am not inconsistent.

There is no proof that humans contribute to warming.
I don't deny humans contribute to warming.
I am not inconsistent.

There is no proof that humans contribute to warming.
I don't deny humans contribute to warming.
I am not inconsistent.

There is no proof that humans contribute to warming.
I don't deny humans contribute to warming.
I am not inconsistent.

NzlG28B-R8Y

[DarrinS]

Fail

[Cry Havoc]

Its pretty much impossible to say that a good amount of sea level rise is not the direct result of anthropogenic heating due to melting of land ice and thermal expansion of the seas. Sandy was a strong - and probably once in a lifetime - storm but as sea level rises you will get Sandy type flooding with even weaker storms. This is a very real aspect of climate change that has serious implications for coastal cities going forward. You can talk all you want about global climate models and what the changes will actually be but this one is absolutely undeniable.

If the Long Island Express hit again, though, it would be really bad as well. It's not like this storm was a once-off that wasn't going to happen. NYC has been hit before by strong 'canes.The idea that we can just keep pumping so much shit into the air without repercussion is fucking ridiculous.

[Cry Havoc]

I have not been inconsistent. Keep trying -- apparently, you have spare time.

:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

The fuzzy Troll has lost it.

Doesn't surprise me.

Surprise anyone?

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao
Darrin hasn't been inconsistent. In order for you guys to fabricate that concept, you have to mix his short term and long term statement.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Point out ONE SINGLE piece of objective evidence that proves, or even quantifies, the human contribution; no such piece of evidence exists.
no one is debating humans play a role
I have not been inconsistent.

Point out ONE SINGLE piece of objective evidence that proves, or even quantifies, the human contribution; no such piece of evidence exists.
no one is debating humans play a role
I have not been inconsistent.

Point out ONE SINGLE piece of objective evidence that proves, or even quantifies, the human contribution; no such piece of evidence exists.
no one is debating humans play a role
I have not been inconsistent.

Point out ONE SINGLE piece of objective evidence that proves, or even quantifies, the human contribution; no such piece of evidence exists.
no one is debating humans play a role
I have not been inconsistent.

Point out ONE SINGLE piece of objective evidence that proves, or even quantifies, the human contribution; no such piece of evidence exists.
no one is debating humans play a role
I have not been inconsistent.

Fail

x-2ZeTIPkMY

[Wild Cobra]

You fail for out of context troll...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The fuzzy Troll has lost it.

Doesn't surprise me.

Surprise anyone?

I expect you will get the same response that I do when I ask if anyone thinks you are not an idiot.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You fail for out of context troll...

I am sure Darrin is very pleased he has you as his champion. I know if you were the only person to come to my defense that it would be unto salvation.

[DarrinS]

I am sure Darrin is very pleased he has you as his champion. I know if you were the only person to come to my defense that it would be unto salvation.

I don't need to be defended. I don't think it has warmed all that much and I question the amount humans have contributed vs natural variability. If you think you've "got me" with some poorly-worded old post, so be it. But, don't misrepresent my opinions.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't need to be defended. I don't think it has warmed all that much and I question the amount humans have contributed vs natural variability. If you think you've "got me" with some poorly-worded old post, so be it. But, don't misrepresent my opinions.

:lol misrepresent. I quoted you exactly.

And see WC he has demonstrated how much he appreciates you.

[ErnestLynch]

Just a few milimeters make big difference I guess. Somehow I think this wrong but I don't know for sure. It just seem wrong to me.

[MannyIsGod]

millimeters huh?

You excel at reading charts.