New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

California drought has ended, climate change nuts.

RickWA

Snagglesooth
As the earth's atmosphere heats up there is a change in many things like evaporation of the oceans, warmth of the atmospheric layers, the poles putting more cold ( with resultant loss of polar cold ) in smaller areas and being pushed into new areas of the earth's atmosphere. Combined with the heating of the latitudes in the middle ranges of the north and south of the equator these put stress on the cold fronts and make them more severe.
As I noted, AGW is reflexively blamed for both “more” of things and “less” of things. There is no eventuality that is not pinned on AGW. Not one. A storm forms? AGW. A storm subsided? AGW. Bigger storm than average? AGW. Lesser storm than expected? AGW. Hurricanes are both intensified and reduced by AGW. I’ve read the reports myself. It could not be more circular.

It’s kinda like Trump. Does he suck? Yeah, on many fronts...but you guys get all frothed up, can’t control yourselves, and start blaming everything on him. Everything, everywhere.

It’s a fascinating psychology to witness.
 

redtide

Mayor
Global Warming
Climate Change
... try to define those terms!
... this isn't even science, it is more like political bumper stickers.
please lets not forget the cults original name which was Ice Age coming, it was even on the cover of Time mag in 1970.
At least most other cults come up with a name and stick to it.
 

EatTheRich

President
As I noted, AGW is reflexively blamed for both “more” of things and “less” of things. There is no eventuality that is not pinned on AGW. Not one. A storm forms? AGW. A storm subsided? AGW. Bigger storm than average? AGW. Lesser storm than expected? AGW. Hurricanes are both intensified and reduced by AGW. I’ve read the reports myself. It could not be more circular.

It’s kinda like Trump. Does he suck? Yeah, on many fronts...but you guys get all frothed up, can’t control yourselves, and start blaming everything on him. Everything, everywhere.

It’s a fascinating psychology to witness.
The theory makes specific detailed predictions that are confirmed far more often than they are disconfirmed.
 

EatTheRich

President
please lets not forget the cults original name which was Ice Age coming, it was even on the cover of Time mag in 1970.
At least most other cults come up with a name and stick to it.
Science is not a cult. In the 1970s ... the last decade there was a controversy within the scientific community about the net effect of human alteration of the environment (before the controversy was cleared up by the evidence), there were already 3 articles in the peer-reviewed journals about warming for every one about cooling,
 

RickWA

Snagglesooth
The theory makes specific detailed predictions that are confirmed far more often than they are disconfirmed.
That’s because the “predictions” cover ALL bases. Wet, dry, hot, cold, wind, doldrums, storms, calm. You want ice, you got it. You want no ice? You got it. Snow? Check. Rain. Check. No Snow, no rain? Check, check. Algae bloom? Check. No algae bloom? Check. Desertification? Check. Forestation? Check. Abundance here. Famine there. Check. Check. More wheat. Less wheat. More rice. Less rice. Water table down. Water table up. Check. Check. Check. Check. Check. Check.

Nostra-friggin-damus.

Everything that happens is because of AGW, no matter where, when, or what.

That is how you “settle” science. Rigid, doctrinaire, fundamentalist science...but science.
 

EatTheRich

President
That’s because the “predictions” cover ALL bases. Wet, dry, hot, cold, wind, doldrums, storms, calm. You want ice, you got it. You want no ice? You got it. Snow? Check. Rain. Check. No Snow, no rain? Check, check. Algae bloom? Check. No algae bloom? Check. Desertification? Check. Forestation? Check. Abundance here. Famine there. Check. Check. More wheat. Less wheat. More rice. Less rice. Water table down. Water table up. Check. Check. Check. Check. Check. Check.

Nostra-friggin-damus.

Everything that happens is because of AGW, no matter where, when, or what.

That is how you “settle” science. Rigid, doctrinaire, fundamentalist science...but science.
No, the scientists do not make predictions like “it will either rain more, or rain less.” They make predictions like “given a halved growth rate of global carbon emissions, we can expect average annual precipitation in California to decline by 8% over the next 20 years.”
 

Nostra

Governor
No, the scientists do not make predictions like “it will either rain more, or rain less.” They make predictions like “given a halved growth rate of global carbon emissions, we can expect average annual precipitation in California to decline by 8% over the next 20 years.”
And they are always wrong.:D
 

RickWA

Snagglesooth
No, the scientists do not make predictions like “it will either rain more, or rain less.” They make predictions like “given a halved growth rate of global carbon emissions, we can expect average annual precipitation in California to decline by 8% over the next 20 years.”
First off, scientists are not the singular consideration. Attribution of every bloody phenomenon to AGW has been made by some who call themselves scientists - but the rank and file alarmists and media sensationalist hacks are quite a spectacle.

As noted, everything, everywhere...AGW. :-/
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
No, the scientists do not make predictions like “it will either rain more, or rain less.” They make predictions like “given a halved growth rate of global carbon emissions, we can expect average annual precipitation in California to decline by 8% over the next 20 years.”
Science.........50% chance of snow which in reality mean it could or it could not
 

FakeName

Governor
As I noted, AGW is reflexively blamed for both “more” of things and “less” of things. There is no eventuality that is not pinned on AGW. Not one. A storm forms? AGW. A storm subsided? AGW. Bigger storm than average? AGW. Lesser storm than expected? AGW. Hurricanes are both intensified and reduced by AGW. I’ve read the reports myself. It could not be more circular.

It’s kinda like Trump. Does he suck? Yeah, on many fronts...but you guys get all frothed up, can’t control yourselves, and start blaming everything on him. Everything, everywhere.

It’s a fascinating psychology to witness.
That is because a warming CLIMATE causes more extreme WEATHER.

That means more extreme droughts events and more extreme rain events. It includes more extreme heat and more extreme cold snaps.

It isn't that confusing for people who understand the difference between climate and weather.

And it is not "psychology" it is established science.
 

Days

Commentator
No, I’m saying that
1. The particular prediction in the OP needs to be quantified beyond the headline simplification to be falsifiable in the first place.
2. Assuming that is done, it may be right or wrong, which is one data point out of tens of thousands (at least) of predictions based on the theory of AGW that have been confirmed or disconfirmed.
3. When all the data points are considered, there is no question that it is one of the most successful theories in the history of science, which is why there is no scientific controversy over it.
The theory is nothing more than politics, it isn't even science. The nature of the theory is purely statistical method using the data base of surface temps, it isn't even based in the laws of thermodynamics, it is software modeling, nothing more. As such, it may be successful statistically speaking, but that doesn't make it real world science. There's a reason statisticians worry about the quality of their data, they are all just too aware that much of the data they work with doesn't mean anything in the real world. Hence, the old saying...
there are lies
there are damn lies
and there is this AGW theory.

You and this other kid here are pushing politics, not science.
 

Days

Commentator
please lets not forget the cults original name which was Ice Age coming, it was even on the cover of Time mag in 1970.
At least most other cults come up with a name and stick to it.
I've never heard where anyone in the cult has redressed their assertation that we have entered the next ice age. It just hangs out there, while they spew global warming nonsense on top of it.

Neither theory comprehends what real global warming was about or what caused real climate change... 12,000 years ago.
 

FakeName

Governor
... from the article in the top post that you failed to read before commenting.
Huh?

Dawg said your comment was sarcasm. You are actually saying it is true?

You said "It has rained, at least once a week, every week, for the past seven years. The California drought is over. Been over for 7 years. Everything is lush grean".

That is utter nonsense. Totally false. Obviously you are unfamiliar with California weather. It can rain an awful lot here in the winter. Other years not so much. But any rain at all is extremely rare in June July August and September.

Your claim of once a week for seven years is ridiculously false.
 

EatTheRich

President
First off, scientists are not the singular consideration. Attribution of every bloody phenomenon to AGW has been made by some who call themselves scientists - but the rank and file alarmists and media sensationalist hacks are quite a spectacle.

As noted, everything, everywhere...AGW. :-/
It is scientists whose position on global warming is relevant. If you want to criticize media misrepresentations of the science, feel free, but be aware the grossest misrepresentations are those, like yours, that act as if the science is controversial, it doesn’t have an excellent track record of accurate, bold predictions, or it doesn’t say unequivocally that human activity is almost certainly the major cause of the current warming and that that warming poses a very serious threat to our civilization.
 

EatTheRich

President
The theory is nothing more than politics, it isn't even science. The nature of the theory is purely statistical method using the data base of surface temps, it isn't even based in the laws of thermodynamics, it is software modeling, nothing more. As such, it may be successful statistically speaking, but that doesn't make it real world science. There's a reason statisticians worry about the quality of their data, they are all just too aware that much of the data they work with doesn't mean anything in the real world. Hence, the old saying...
there are lies
there are damn lies
and there is this AGW theory.

You and this other kid here are pushing politics, not science.
Nonsense. It is based on very simple physical principles which can be experimentally tested by you for $10 and an hour of your time. The measured increase in average temperatures is one of many sources of confirmation for the theory.
 

Days

Commentator
Nonsense. It is based on very simple physical principles which can be experimentally tested by you for $10 and an hour of your time. The measured increase in average temperatures is one of many sources of confirmation for the theory.
translation: It isn't statistical method, that's only part of it...

It is more than just part of it, it is the premise and foundation for the whole theory. All the non-science methods of heat creation were dreamed up to make the statistics real world. Bottom line: it is statistical method, it is NOT real world, and every attempt to make it real world employs physics that completely contradict real world physics. That's how you ended up saying heat doesn't rise. The theory is nonsensical and it isn't happening in the real world and I've proven that to you a dozen times over and you just stick with it CUZ you are pushing politics, not science.
 

Days

Commentator
Huh?

Dawg said your comment was sarcasm. You are actually saying it is true?

You said "It has rained, at least once a week, every week, for the past seven years. The California drought is over. Been over for 7 years. Everything is lush grean".

That is utter nonsense. Totally false. Obviously you are unfamiliar with California weather. It can rain an awful lot here in the winter. Other years not so much. But any rain at all is extremely rare in June July August and September.

Your claim of once a week for seven years is ridiculously false.
read the top post, I told you I got it from the top post...

copy/paste from the top post:


https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/c...fficially-over-after-more-seven-years-n983461
California drought officially over after more than seven years
The state experienced some form of drought for 376 consecutive weeks, the National Drought Mitigation Center said.


... you want to call the National Drought Mitigation Center a liar, have at it. This was their claim, not mine.
 
Top