This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
No commentary necessary.
- advertisements -
Sucks but it's par for the course of the history of civilization.
Gods people were spared.
When we moved to North Carolina. Finished your thought.
Can someone explain that swath of white coming up out of New Orleans, most of Miss., NW Alabama, and the eastern two thirds of Tennessee?
I don't remember many hurricanes carrying moisture that way this year...
Something's fishy about this data. Notice too how the drought seems to obey state boundaries in many places.
I agree. I can tell you from personal viewing, that western Ohio(especially NW Ohio) is just as bad as anything in Indiana where I live. As far as corn and soybean fields that is.
Another factor to consider:
I've personally been across the Miss. River in the last month and a half at two points(Burlington, IA, and St. Louis metro area I-255) farther north than where the article talks about, and I could definitely tell it was much lower than normal even then. I can see this would be a problem for barge traffic.
Here is some real data; from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
It says that the last 16 years include the 15 HOTTEST years on record.
Hogwash. NOAA fudges their temp records. Egg Harbor, WI was recorded by NOAA as having a noon temp of 600 degrees F on July 4, 2010. They're onboard the AGW train and they don't let a little thing like truth get in their way.
And do you really think that reading is in the data that is used for analysis?
Hey, be a little paranoid but not everything is a conspiracy....
Actually yes it is - or was. They were notified of the error shortly after it happened, but refused to change it. The same day they recorded a two or four hundred (I forget which) degree temp. out on Lake MI... and refused to change that one either. The name of the game is AVERAGES. (Also known as aggregate temperatures.) That's how they get the crap about "the warmest 15 years ever!" (And they don't even have the decency to say "in human times" yet we all know it was warmer than that back in the dinosaur times.)
You are a consummate bullshiter....
but then no one was keeping records back when scotland had vinyards and "Greenland" was so named.
Anybody prefer shitloads of ice everywhere? We live in an INTERGLACIAL period, a short period of time between loooooong ice ages. We should consider burning everything that burns if that looks like the best way to prevent an ice age.
So the fact that we have blown through the boundaries of the past 800,00 years of glacial episodes doesn't mean anything...
What's this "WE " crap?
So are you admitting that you are not anthropognic???
Then why don;t you shuffle back to District 9 or whereever it is you hail from...
Maryland farmers are getting record high prices for their produce.
Some suffer....some benefit.
And you shall not lie sexually with your neighbor’s wife and so make yourself unclean with her. You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech (or anything like Planned Parenthood), and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.“Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you (for the people of the land, who were before you, did all of these abominations, so that the land became unclean), lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. ~GOD
or ~Head of a patriarchal order?
But, judgment of any system or a priori relation of phenomena exists in any rational or metaphysical or at least epistemological contradiction to an abstracted empirical concept such as being or to be or to occur in the thing itself or of the thing itself.
At least that's what they say in Boise.
Actually Moses, not Abraham. But the patriarchal order doesn't have much use for the Tanakh nor the prophets.
What I meant was that, from one point of view, God Himself is the head of a patriarchal order of His followers on Earth.
This, and HAARP pretty much knocked our asses in the dust...
Listen to me. You have to consider the possibility that God doesn’t like you, he never wanted you. In all probability, he hates you. This is not the worst thing that can happen.
I'm unsure if my irony detector's broken or if that site's for real.
On the contrary, the God of the bible is a god of immense love. The god of which you speak is Talmudic.
Which half of the bible would that be?
Actually, the god of which he speaks is Palahniukian.
Yeah, I knocked you. The argument for God's favor or punishment can be applied in either direction. These words you quote are men's words. If there is a God, she doesn't speak to you in English. Listen, to the trees and water, forget the words.
If there is a God, she doesn't speak to you in English.
There is a God and the Bible wasnt written in English, so no one is suggesting that HE did.
Were God female, we would know it from the monthly thousands of volcanoes, earthquakes and global hurricanes as nature itself would reflect the Creators nature. Since that is not the case, we know God is not female.
we also would know because then every man would be broke.
So god is definitely male? This has a lot of implications. Do continue.
God's maleness is why Beer is so good, not to mention Petrone, why we have Viagra, and NFL football on Sunday so He can watch also.
I rest my case.
What is PMS for?
To give men an excuse to leave the house to run "errands", duh. When the PMS meter is in the red, I suddenly find I have lots of errands to run. Most of which involve Bud longnecks in my favorite sports bar. ;)
There is a God/Creator of course, because by rights NOTHING should exist otherwise, not a single atom....
There is no "reason" for existence otherwise....no raw material...no impulse...NO THING.
Who created the Creator?
That's what makes God "God".
Why would God be limited by gender (or anything else for that matter)
Why would God need a cosmic schlong anyway?
That's just Dude projection....
You're welcome, atheists
The flow of time is not infinitely regressive. It is simply mathematically impossible.
Just as you cannot count to an infinite sum, you also cannot count down to 0 from an infinite sum.
The latter makes it plain why the flow of time cannot have an infinite regression.
So something eternal exists, and the Greek Rationalists like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle figured it out with simple reason.
You have no excuse.
What about that 'judge not'- "cast the first stone" thingy?
Can I lie with someone's other than my neighbour wife? their daughter? Can I rendezvous with evangelicals in public restrooms and engage in accidental touching? Do I have to listen to this religilous nonsense or can I vomit it out before me?
Seems like you have a lot of choices to make
See Minnesota! God's Scandinavian people were spared as well!
Some record crops and high prices at that. Many farmers are going to cash in BIG time!
And if God didn't spare Minnesota, a socialist farm welfare program like CRP or ethanol or outright federal bailout certainly would have.
But the run of the mill small businessman, saver, or investor: throw 'em to the wolves.
And Michigan, except for all those heathens on the Southern border.
And one red dot right over my house!
Have you been to Idaho? The area affected is where all there crops are... The rest is forest.
No, i farm in Idaho. The counties affected on the map are mostly desert. Crops here are stressed but not threatened.
though delaware shows as being in the drought area, i can assure you that the drought is over here...i'm mowing the lawn every third to fourth day here
I figured the reason why Delaware is red and all alone way over there in non-drought country probably has something to do with Joe Biden using his "pull" to fraudulantly get extra aid for his state.
G-d's Chosen People do not mostly live in Idaho. They may own Idaho, but they don't care to live there.
that "god" didn't build Idaho...
Of course not. Idaho is widely reputed to be anti-semetic and racist, although most people here don't know what anti-semetic means.
Or how to spell anti-semitic, even.
i rest my case
I watched a documentary about Global Dimming. Made sense to me..Google it.
Is this about our education system?
Why....Why come you don't have a tattoo??
That one little, tiny yellow spot in Texas is my front yard. God loves me!
r we all gunna die?
Yes, and some sooner than others.
and others not soon enough...
On a long enough timeline...
"r we all gunna die?"
The statistics on death are alarming; one out of every one person dies.
God's self appointed representative says if we send God money -- the preacher has graciously agreed to handle the money -- we will not die. Ask Willard Mitt. He'll affirm the truth of this. And Willard Mitt wouldn't lie. Would he?
FeralSerf, you do know the preacher is talking about spiritual death, right?
You were joking, weren't you?
Now THAT was the laugh of the day.....Thanks.
Just curious, but here in Tampa, we have no drought. Yet, if I go with that graphic, we do.
This picture represents farms, so maybe you aren't specifically experiencing a drought but agriculture in Tampa is.
I guess that's possible, because prior to June we had almost no rainfall, so it could be considering the crop year (which may begin much earlier, I imagine). But we've had so much June/July rain (with one weekend tropical storm dumping 25 inches!!) that all our water restrictions are gone.
Isnt agriculture in Tampa basically a guy growing weed?
....that's Oregon. Wine and weed.
Other coast, dude. You're confusing Florida with the other state used to grow oranges but now mostly grows weed.
I'm in NW FL, and we have had 15 inches of rain the last two weeks. That map is very inaccurate.
Apparently, Tyler, commentary was needed. As I read it, the map indicates areas where, at some point during the current calendar year, a "drought incident" occured. That doesn't mean that it is happening, but that it happened. Also, a clear definition of what makes a "drought incident" would be nice.
Here in north texas we have a similar issue. 66% higher rainfall than average yet we are in "stage 2 water conservation". basically the water infrastructure is buckling under the load from all the extra population. It is important to realize there are two aspects to drought - lack of water OR overuse of existing water resources.
Here in Palm Harbor, if it rains one more day in a row I am going with the Ark deal.
I'm feeling a bit parched myself
And global warming is a hoax - right...
Global warming is real; it's the human-caused global warming that's the hoax.
And your climate science credentials are what? You watched something on Fox News about it? Odd that something like 99% of those with actual climate science credentials strongly disagree with you. But what do they know, eh?
And the idiot replies will start in 3...2...1...
Apparently he wasn't watching the TV show you get your info from.
And there you are, right on cue.
Climategate, oh wise one
Here you go, and this took about 45 seconds to find.
Debunked, and now you got nuthin'.
The link uses a lot of 'Appeal to Authority' method of persuasion. "Official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing"
Now I feel better! Official investigations cleared the scientists, so there! No more thinking needs to be done on my part, thank God!
Well if you followed the details and read the original material, not the crap sifted through by the blogosphere, you would see what a nothing burger Climategate really was....
Would you like an example of deceptive practices and outright misrepresentation of results in presentations to the US Congress and Senate?
I can dig out more examples of "skeptics" editing graphs and what not if you like...
Official investigators declared that Jon Corzine is an honorable man.
Good God, are you still trotting out that discredited nonsense??
Hell, I would not be surprised if Rupert's crew from NOTW was behind the e-mail hacking....That should be a tell on their credibility and motives....
"And your climate science credentials are what?"
Perhaps he read, as did I, about the team that found fossils of tropical plants from the tertiary epoch north of the Artic Circle. Global warming existed then but man did not.
Finally, someone that knows what he's talking about. And you studied climate science where, sir?
"And you studied climate science where, sir?"
That's my whole point. I didn't. I freely admit that I don't know fuck all about climate science. Just like I don't know a damned thing about medicine, how to do my company tax returns, or how to fix the engine on my car.
Which has everthing to do with why I defer to the judgment of people that actually know what the fuck they're talking about when I don't, and in this case, those people are almost unanimous in calling you people dumb asses.
I could have guessed, or listened to people who told me what I wanted to hear because it discredits the politicians I hate the most. But this was important enough that I figured I should listen to people with qualified opinions.
Well then ... just what gives you the special ability to determine which set of climate scientists are correct? How can you tell, that one scientist is correct and the other one isnT?
Hopefully I'm smart enough to know what ''an overwhelming number of experts'' means, and that's the group I'm going with.
If 9 doctors tell you your kid needs an operation, and the tenth one says no, just feed him his special herbal tea and he'll be fine, which way...never mind. I can see it coming already.
oh, now i get it:
science is a democracy!
"Hopefully I'm smart enough to know what ''an overwhelming number of experts'' means, and that's the group I'm going with."
Did you know that once upon a time ''an overwhelming number of experts'' maintained that the sun revolves around the earth?
One scientist disagreed.
Well, the equivalent of those Catholic Church guys that Galileo had issues with would be the likes of the Heartland Institute and similarly ideologically driven people that are driving denialism....
So you got it backwards, Mann and Hansen and otheres are the modern scientific equivalent of Galileo....
Then again, I am not surprised by your faux arguement, the standard meme of the denialistas is to twist everything out of context....
What about those fossils?
What about them??? Do you think humans could flourish in that climatic regime?
Hey 4.5 billion years ago, give or take, the earth was pretty much molten and the sun was a lot cooler... BFD...
Church doctrine, agreed to under the threat of death. And what will you hear from evangelical leaders today about science, global warming and evolution? That one guy didn't get there without a hell of a fight with them, did he now?
But you make a good point. Over time, we learn, and now consensus on global warming is right where it is on the earth revolving around the sun. You just haven't gotten there yet, but you will.
Like I said below, that was then, this is now.... The globe was not a suitable habitat for H. Sapiens during that era.
Are you arguing that you don't mind about 98% of us not coming along for the ride? Let me guess, you see yourself (and/or your descendents) as part of that 2% (because you know *you* are *special*)
The fossil record is clear. Climate change on a global scale has been happening since the beginning.
Are you special enough to think you have an effect on the globe?
Well... so you do agree that the climate is changing.... good, that is a start.
Remind me again what the the temperature range has been over the history of H. Sapiens???
Also remind me what is driving the current change? After all, we have blown through the range in the last 800,000 years or so in the past 150....
"Also remind me what is driving the current change?"
The same thing that has always driven it. The only difference is that now you're going to get the blame and be taxed for it.
Sorry... you have to do better than that...
What is the cause of the current energy imbalance?
Hint: It aint the sun.... we've measured that puppy very well and it doesn't explain what is going on....
Let's just leave it at this: I'll believe that I have no affect on the weather and you can hold your breath.
So in other words you are admitting that you are way over your head and don't know what you are talking about...
"It ISN'T the Sun"
Really? Which cycle are you saying isn't responsible? The 11 (+/-) year cycle? The 1500 year cycle? ... And FYI we haven't measured much about the Sun. We're still learning HEAPS every year that we didn't know before! Like in the last couple of years they just started to figure out why and how the solar flares happen. (Probably the result of sub-surface flow patterns that cause the surface disruptions.) And it wasn't too long ago that they finally figured out exactly what Solar flares and CMEs ARE, and how they work. And did you know that the Sun's surface rotates at different rates depending on the latitude of the band being observed. (Like rings of rotating lava that are not moving together.)
The surface of the Sun is MUCH cooler than the atmosphere above it, and the core is orders of magnitude hotter than that.
And don't forget the great "North Atlantic conveyor" that affects climate patterns, and El Nino, and La Nina and THEIR cycles (Maybe God is a female afterall?). Weather and climate are hugely complex... and we still are pretty ignorant about it all.
And for all the supposed "proof" of current temps compared to global climate history that I hear morons commenting about, it wasn't until very recently that we began to consider the possible effects of the seas and oceans on the subject. We have almost NO meaningful data for all but a very recent period of what was going on climate-wise for 70% of the Earth's SURFACE, much less what was going on BELOW that surface! NONE of the climate modeling done by the IPCC even considers the Oceans. So make a model and leave out 70% of the data and tell me how accurate youj're result will be.
Global warming? Insufficient data. Anthropogenic Global Warming? Absolutely NO data. Not enough time has elapsed to be able to even GUESS at the issue.
My what an outpouring of verbal diarrhea....
You might start here:
This is one good one...
This are good as welll
Sorry. I don't use Wiki's for science.
It is pretty clear you don't get your science from anywhere....
Thank you for that. +100
Once upon a time, scientists also believed that the earth was flat, that malaria was caused by "bad night air", and that chest pains could be cured by keeping a piece of coral in one's mouth.
That's the thing about science...one guy states an opinion and the rest of the crew jumps on the bandwagon until one person takes a look at the data and says "I don't think so." I trust the judgment of the person who is skeptical of the so-called "evidence" much more than the 5,000 scientists who read a journal article and take it as the gospel.
"One scientist disagreed."
Exactly. Science is not validated by concensus, but by irrefutable PROOF, and by replicatable experimentation. I threw out the AGW idea when the IPCC said "the science is settled." REAL science is NEVER "settled!" EVER! It may be conditionally and temporarily granted credence, but it's never "settled."
So at that point I concluded that the IPCC hacks had some kind of scam going and had left the scientific community.
Explain what part of thermodynamics is not sufficiently settled in your opinion...
How do you determine? As always, follow the money!
Back to those fossils. bob . . . .
Could you remind me how many humans were around then? Do you really think we would thrive in the conditions of the PETM? What was that about mass extinctions then???
I studied Meterology in Des Moines... which makes me almost as educated in the subject as the founder of the IPCC who is a meterology person.
Personally I challenge the idea that meterology is a science. If it were, then all the TV weather hacks would have the exact same forecast all the time as their results would match. Science, REAL science can be replicated.
Have any of you actually read any of the IPCC "reports"? They're a hoot! Like first, they estimated that "solar forcing" (warming caused by the Sun) would be responsible for 50% of temperature rises... based on absolutely NO data or studies. Then they decided that that would be too much, again based on NO data, and changed their "estimate" to 25%.
And when they decided how data was to be collected, they set up different levels of collection... like if you live in a civilized country you're supposed to actually measure things. If you live in a jungle you can sit in your office with the A/C on and "estimate" how much CO2 is in the air and what the temp is out there in Crocodile Alley.
AGW - Great scam! Wish I'd thought of it!
Do you just make shit up because you like how it sounds?
Read IPCC Report #1 and #2 smart ass. I did. Or is the science beyond you? And make sure you read the footnotes too. Like a Corporate annual report, you can often find skeletons buried in the footnotes.
They are online in searchable format... show me the links that back up your claims....
Suprise me and show me you are not full of shit...
I told you where the information is. It's YOUR responsibility to follow the trail. Oh... wait. I'm sorry. You cite Wikis as proof of scientific claims. You're probably not up to actually reading a paper and interpreting the information there. Does your mommy still hold your dick when you pee? I said it - I provided the source. It's YOUR responsibility to disprove it by looking up the cited source and quoting it if necessary... which you can't do because what I said is factual.
Blah, blah, blah....
Wake me when you have something of substance....
actually from my observation, the more intense the study and the more prestigious the institution where the study took place is inversely correlated with a person's ability to think for themselves or think logically. "Science" has for most institutions and people become a religion. There are exceptions of course but in general this rule is true.
P.S. I studied economics at Princeton (I didn't really) therefore I know that the Bernank will save the day, we need more QE and centrally planned markets by my colleagues.
The fact you took Econ tells me that you don't do well when heavy lifting is called for....
And you clearly know fuck all about what academia is, at least in the sciences....
Flakmeister, I just came back from working on a farm, my arms, legs and back ache and then checked in to ZH for some fun. I didn't study economics at uni, I thought that was clear from my above post, apologies if it wasn't, I should have put a sarc tag in there somewhere.
My point is we need to conserve, but more importantly we need to get back to basics and that is understanding how to look after ourselves procure more of our own food and energy. If you believe that mankind is making the world warmer then you may have a valid point, you may be right, but that's not science.
Roll a can of condenced soup down a ramp next to a ready to eat one, the condenced one will win. What temperature will water boil at? That is science. Stats when one can't account for or understand all the variables is not science and anybody that peddles a theory as scientific fact when they don't understand or know all the variables is a charlatan.
Well... we agree on lots of things but you fail to realize that AGW is merely the bootstraping of all those things you take be "science", so either you accept AGW or you throw out Thermodynamics and Quantum Mechanics...
Please take the time to read this
Pay very close attention to the last figure that shows the first IR spectrum satellite meausurement and the predicted shape... That was in 1969 and is the experimental proof of the Greenhouse effect....
I am against any solution that involves humans actively engineering the weather/climate. I am against any solution that extends the reach of government into every aspect of our daily lives, which is what taxing carbon will lead to.
Ok.... what do you propose then?
How is taxing carbon so invasive?
Sorry Flak, I have no horse in this race, I have a VERY open mind, but you gotta admit:
1. THIS GOVERNMENT CANNOT BE TRUSTED WITH ANYTHING.
2. The corporations will turn it into a money making Ponzi scam.
3. Taxation is invasive by definition. If I don't pay, you put me in prison.
THe issue of the gubbmint is a very different one....
If only the debate here was how to best address the problem....
And, I will add that Corporations cannot be trusted with anything either...
Pick your poison...
We agree there!
I feel like we could do an end run around the whole thing and talk pollution, instead. All the things we would do to cut down or eliminate pollution, would deal with this GW thing (if it is indeed influenced by us). Focus on GW is a mistake. Fouling our nest is the real issue.
Good luck with getting info from the comments section. You won't find much admissoin of personal responsibility from a narcissistic personality disorder.
Narcissistic personality disorder...you find anybody working in academia with that (sarc).
I am an academic, I vouch for this sarcasm.
....and, just where was that land mass 60 million years ago? where was the magnetic North Pole?
The magnetic North Pole was in Poland where he belongs!!! And he's a Hell of a nice guy!
60 million years ago?...
How much bigger was the sun with 60 miilion "years" of fuel in / on it? How much hotter do you suppose it must've been if it was 60 million years of fuel bigger? Makes me wonder if it's always burned at the same rate, the actual surface area would've have to be so much larger that the heat being sent from it would've toasted the earth's surface at the distance we're currently orbitting of what's left of it now.
Please tell me that you are trying to make a funny....
So, I guess another bit of science you've never run across is plate tectonics (continental drift).
I wonder, can you confirm for me whether ignorance is bliss?
I would think you could help with that one for sure.
sure about that are you?
maybe you should google the othe side of the argument by thousands of scientists
again .0039% of atmosphere is co2
humans are responsible for up to 5% of that for a grand total of .00195% of the atmosphere
its the sun stupid
thats why its cooler in the shade
thats why the temperature actually goes down at night
call me when you can go outside and detect an unusually high co2 day
because its easy to detect a high humidity day and no ones bitching about water vapor
vacuous agw fool
Right you are! Now I get it.
How could I have missed that it's fucking cooler in the shade! Or that it's hotter when the sun is up! That certainly explains a lot, and I'm sure those thousands of actual climate scientists will be impressed, and change their minds right away.
I wonder how they missed those amazing observations? And your credentials, sir?
Or if you just give me a hint where I can find work by those thousands of scientists taking the other side of the argument?
you can get a google search engine for free and do what most people do and look it the fuck up!
thats how i got those numbers i put up
from fucking NOAA
Scientists that work in climatology all tend to believe AGW.
Scientists in other fields tend to be critical of the idea that its entirely (important word) the fault of human-produced CO2. CO2? Entirely?
I tend to be skeptical of the idea that politicians know how to do something about it, because lets face it, they are dying to use something like this to extend their power, influence and reach into the everday lives of EVERYONE on the planet.
BTW, climatologists all believe in AGW because thats where the gov't funding is. Tough to be a climatologist and work for free, ya know.
Most of the climate science funding is not related to AGW... Think hurricanes, drought monitoring etc....
You are not allowed to make shit up....
"climate science funding is not related to AGW"
You are talking about something else entirely. Scientists that forecast hurricanes and monitor drought are getting "climate science funding"? Or are they getting weather forecasting and scientific monitoring funding? There is a difference.
It is basically the same pot of money....
File a FOIA to see what NASA GISS budget is.... you might be surprised....
BTW, Monitoring and the like *is* climate science... sorry if you don;t like what the data tells you...
Monitoring and the like *is* climate science
Monitoring and the like *is* climate science
Incorrect. That's weather/meterology. CLIMATE science is the study of weather over long periods... like thousands of years. I'm always amused when it's hot the "climate scientists" scream "GLOBAL WARMING! SEE WE TOLD YOU SO!" but when it's -20 F outside and someone pings them about it, they say, "Oh... that's just weather, not climate." ;-D
Tips: tips [ at ] zerohedge.com
General: info [ at ] zerohedge.com
Legal: legal [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertising: ads [ at ] zerohedge.com
Abuse/Complaints: abuse [ at ] zerohedge.com
Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide
Notice on Racial Discrimination.