This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Summarizing America's Record Drought In One Picture
»
- 20087 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Contact Information:
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
Suggested Reading:
Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide
It would be very wise of you to study our disclaimer, our privacy policy and our (non)policy on conflicts / full disclosure. Here's our Cookie Policy.
Tell that to the UAH and RSS people (among many, many others)....
Do you practice at being a fool or does that come naturally??
I'm sure I could take lessons from you, the expert. The UAH and RSS people only measure PART of the global data - excluding the polar regions. And anthing that passes through NOAA before it sees daylight is highly suspect since they refuse to correct or even admit to obvious errors in their data. So tell us, Mr Scientist. If the amount of time under consideration is not at issue, what is the difference between global weather and climate?
What range does UAH and RSS cover? 50% 85%, 100%??
I would say that 97-98% of the globe is pretty good coverage....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset
So NOAA is a big conspiracy, eh? How about the BEST studies that just came out?
Do you always make shit up and try to pass it off?
I'll check later to see if you have anything of real content to add, as it stands it is safe to say that you are completely ignorable....
Here, you can educate yourself with this commentary on the most recent Hansen et al. paper...
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/hansen-et-al-2012/
You have absolutely NO idea of what you're talking about. The satellites are "look down" and their orbits make the polar regions unavailable, thus out of the dataset because of the angles. Stop reading and believing the crap put out by the fraud Hansen and you might learn some REAL science.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/08/putting-a-myth-about-uah-and-rss-s...
So neither of the polar regions are indluded in the readings. A total of about 10 degrees of latitude are excluded.
Alright hotshot, compute the corresponding surface area excluded and compare it the total SA of the earth...
Hint integrate d phi d cos theta over the appropriate range...
start with computing cos(85).....
and note the corolation to the sun.....try that shade thing for yourself...it works
if it didnt, then co2 as an explanation would have a chance
its simple common sense
get some
Solid, you looked up some data. But do you have any real idea what it means? You studied this stuff where?
at least i looked up some data and i'm not parroting an opinion i heard on cnn
your turn....you look up some data, i cant do it all for you
and you didnt study it at all, and at least i've spent the time required to form my own opinion
i watched al's movie to....and i was horrified until i learned it was all propaganda
i never studied economics either, but i understand it well enuf to be an automechanic who was able to invest wisely and retire in 2007 at age 42
Well then, I stand corrected. You certainly could hold your own in a group of actual climate experts. And given that you seem to have the time, why not look some up and get in the conversation, and let us all know how it goes, okay?
i actually went to a symposium on the subject in 2009
crowd was split pretty much 60/40 for agw
but i was still able to learn alot
it went well, and thanks for asking
Well then, consider yourself a qualified expert. You should write someothing and submit it to a scientific journal. You have much to add to the conversation! Let us know how that goes, okay?
Bob,
Fuck off.
You may be right, I don't know, but the way you argue is a huge turn off. You sound like you are talking off a list, and honestly, you are rude for no good/productive reason.
Did any of the AGW crowd explain how CO2 causes Global Warming when CO2 rises LAG temperature rises?
C02 does indeed lag when the Sun is primary driver of any radiative imbalance. Problem is that the Sun is no longer the primary driver....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiative-forcings.svg
Bullshit.
Sigh...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html
which is summarized here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-temp-lag.html
You should be aware of this as well:
http://www.clim-past.net/8/251/2012/cp-8-251-2012.html
bobnoxy, our ridiculous waste of energy to produce a whole bunch of crapola no doubt has a negative effect on humanity and our environment, but to think that we can stretch that to some sort of "scientific" understanding of the earth's climate is ridiculous and say that x is happening or that y is going to happen can only occur when we understand every variable that goes into climate. We simply don't know what all the variables are and have been over the history of this earth. Not only will we not know all the variables or understand them, we'll never be able to replecate them for real scientific study. Climate science is akin to economic or social science-trendy theories.
Sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about....
He sounds sensible to me. Chaos theory backs him up there. There will be a strange attractor/constellation of movement where you can plot where something will be in n-dimensions, (not perfect prediction) but he is right, you can't know all the variables, and changing the decimal place that you measure it to when you enter the variable into your model will change the plot.
Also there is that matter of how you define a variable. If the definition changes, it may over lap something else in your model (thus mucking up the plot). Definitions change from study to study, never mind they change over time as paradigms change.
He sounds like he is very sensible to me.
Sorry... we know a lot more that what he is implying and while making *weather* predictions is difficult because of things like chaos theory, that does not apply to the global climate, in particular estimates of the global temperature... Things like El Ninos are hard to predict and model, understanding the cumulative effect of radiative forcings is not so...
John,
I'm impressed. You may not be a climate scientist, but you care and have a lot on the ball. If what you say is true, you have more invested in this topic than most of us.
He studied it the same place you did, ... on the Net.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
til you get a chance to download google
In 1997, the conservative think tank Citizens for a Sound Economy surveyed America's 48 state climatologists on questions related to climate change.[1] Of the 36 respondents, 44% considered global warming to be a largely natural phenomenon, compared to 17% who considered warming to be largely man-made. 89% agreed that "current science is unable to isolate and measure variations in global temperatures caused ONLY by man-made factors," and 61% said that historical data do not indicate "that fluctuations in global temperatures are attributable to human influences such as burning fossil fuels." though the time scale for the next glacial period was not specified
1997 is relatively a long time ago; would be nice if they did the survey again now and compared results.
15 years ago, but 7 years after the kyoto protocal
A conservative think tank funded by who? And I'm sure they've learned nothing in the ensuing 15 years, right? Are you really that easy? Was that from the same conservative think tank that told you the Bush tax cuts would produce boodles of jobs?
And which marxist organization funds your understanding?
so if 44% didn't then 66% did--and 17% said man made-= 83% --and if 89% agree then 11% don't so 83% + 11% = 94% and 61% say no so 39% agree and thats 94% + 39% = 139% so it should be obvious to any fool that 139% of the "experts" agree that your SUV caused all the baby seals and baby bears and little baby pelicans and all the other little babies to die--- you hateful person you--probably pick your nose --don't ya-- na na na na--so there --proved it.
Hey, you can believe anything you want to. It's no skin off my ass. If those people got funding from the like minded people that put our research showing cigarettes were safe, who cares, right?
I'm sure all that Koch funded ''science'' will convince anyone who wants to be convinced. And there you are. Believe what you will. Teach it to your kids. Don't worry, there's little value in a real education these days. Won't hurt them a bit.
"If those people got funding from the like minded people that put our research showing cigarettes were safe, who cares, right?"
Do your climate scientists smoke Camels?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCMzjJjuxQI
What about the fossils, bob?
Yeah, the only important thing is, it's getting warmer! yeah!! I can wear shorts and tank tops more often!! yeah!! And the girls, oh boy oh boy, they are wearing less too! yeah!!
Who cares how and why? And ... if humans can affect the climate, then ... well ...
turn up the damn heat!
Bobby just needs a hug and a nap is all. Don't worry little man you will feel better when I wake you up for dinner.---Your Mommie
As I understand it, there are actually less than 60 dedicated AGW "scientists" who are driving the issue and who absolutely control who gets published and who does not. Many of the rest of the "3000" have complaints that when they were asked to "review" an article. Their comments about problems in the material were ignored.
Well your understanding is flawed...
All I see is more baseless assertions....
Can you point us to supressed work that should have passed peer review?
Can you tell the difference between relevant stuff and crap?
Troll.
Sorry.... given the evidence, you are a better fit for the accepted definition...
Did you sort out that surface area integral yet???
While I am certain that the primary cause of climate change is changes in solar output as the sun goes through its cycles, Anthropogenic Climate Change (or whatever the label of the week is) is a lot more than just carbon dioxide emmisions.
Methane is 20 times more potent over a 100 year period, and more like 75 times more potent over 20 years. Oxides of Nitrogen are, what, 50 times? The gases used to make solar panels are something like 200,000 times. The gases in Plasma TVs are massive quantities as well.
The emissions themselves are only a portion of the man-made causes; deforestation, desertification, urbanization, industrial farming, introduction of invasive species, nitrates and phosphates leaking into the water causing algae blooms and oxygen-free dead zones, oil spills, corexit dumps, filling the ocean with massive amounts of floating plastic garbage, among other issues all contribute to changes in average daily temperature. A city is 5 degrees hotter than a forest during the day.
i agree with some of what you are saying for sure
we have created an ecological disaster as a species
yet seem to be focused on a non-sequitor of agw
its the very least of our problems
yet thats the useless thing they choose to focus on
so they can institute a tax scam at a global level combined with cap and trade to once again syphon the little guy dry while achieveing nothing
and thats the point
they dont need to achieve anything because thats not the problem
if they focused on any other bit of the destruction of our planet they would actually have to set goals and do something
Guys the correlation between the sun and global temps went AWOL 30 years ago....
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm
And you have to quit with the argumentative fallacy "Arguing from Consquences"....
I am truly sorry if you don't the smell of the shit we dumped in our own crib....
And so apparently did the relationship between CO2 and temperature:
http://simpleclimate.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/edc.jpg
Could you refresh our memories on what the last year of the ice core data in your figure is?
Go ahead, make my day....
Hey JQ,
Are you still peddling that nonsense?
Please answer the following:
What fraction of the atmosphere is GHG?
What would the temperature be without any Greenhouse effect?
How much have GHG concentrations changed in the last 150 years?
Answer the above simple questions factually and we might just then give some creedence to your posts.....
.
.
I find it odd, that only 1% disagree with you. They must be the very-most elite scientists.
NOW you've done it!
Release the Flakken!
Climate change is real and natural. Global Warming is not. Surface temperature peaked at about 1998.
You sound pretty sure of yourself. I'm sure you wouldn't have such a strong opinion about somehting you know nothing about. So, where did you get your information on this so I can check it out and learn something?
climates change. thats what they do. hot. cold and back to hot again. the real myth is that a warm planet is a bad thing.
Thank God for Global Warming or all of Europe and half of North America would be under a 1 mile thick sheet of ice. (and will be again someday in the future)
Now that's pure science, and how can anyone disagree with that? That ceratinly trumps the thousands of pages of actual scientific research and observation done by thousands of qualified climate scientists world wide! Solid, and well played by you, sir!
and who's payroll are said scientists on?
a valid question
originator of agw is in big oil...start there
So do you think that humans will be able to evolve in about 200 years to deal with the changes in the biosphere?
only if they mate with roaches---which means science will have to come up with a cooler spandex--
Bob,
Here, from the mouth of one of the Hockey Stick proponents. Under oath, he had to fess up.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
"Global warming is real; it's the human-caused global warming that's the hoax."
Global warming might be real; it's the human-caused global warming that's the hoax.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Right, because droughts have never happened before. And I guess there is no possible way that a drought that's worse than the last one can be anything but the result of human action; because not nature, but HUMANS will decide where the natural ceiling in drought heat or frequency is.
Probably using high-frequency-temperature models (HFT) , right?
That the climate patterns all over the world are changing cannot be denied. That humans have severely damaged the environment in many areas and created unhealthy living conditions in the bigger cities also cannot be denied. That humans are the cause of the entire changing climate patterns isn't very clear, but my gut instinct says it's most likely not true. That government can solve the problem of the changing climate is absolutely absurd and only people with some serious delusional beliefs would believe it.
It's easy to "solve" global warming:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_management
"As early as 1974, Russian expert Mikhail Budyko suggested that if global warming became a problem, we could cool down the planet by burning sulfur in the stratosphere, which would create a haze. Paul Crutzen suggests that this would cost 25 to 50 billion dollars per year."
But is it actually a problem if Earth warms or is full of CO2, a plant food? There is evidence that our forests are growing vigorously.
And is Earth actually warming? There's been no significant warming in the last 15 years. And for the oceans - which have 1000x the heat capacity of the atmosphere - there is little historical data.
The real crisis is that the pseudoscientists' climate model predictions are proven false again and again and again. They'll keep tweaking their models, massaging and deleting their data, and spewing hysterical propaganda until they get the "science" right, I guess.
Climate Change is more than just Global Warming. Percipatation amounts and distributions is another major part of it. How would this sulfer technique affect rainfall and humidity?
There is a volcano in Iceland called Grimsvotn, it has a fissure called Laki, after a small mountain close to it.
This fissure erupted 1783-1784 and caused major climate change in a large part of the world.
It produced ca 14 km3 of material and one of the main toxic material was sulfur dioxide.
This caused abnormal weather in a very large area for quite some time, both extreme heat and cold.
This is a documentary about this event http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrfcsxP3feI
I think its not a good idea to mess with something we dont understand, like the weather systems.
So dumping Sulfur into the stratosphere will fix everything, eh?
So you have complete faith in the models that we would use to study this??
>So dumping Sulfur into the stratosphere will fix everything, eh?
It will probably cause side effects we don't understand. But it might save us in a pinch, like say if the weather gets 1 degree hotter 200 years from now.
>So you have complete faith in the models that we would use to study this??
I don't have faith in any of it: God requires faith, but science needs evidence.
Until the climate pseudoscientists produce computer models with predictions that are borne out by reality, their "science" is not to be believed.
They don't even use accepted principles of forecasting.
Chew on this:
From 1975 no less....
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwarming75.pdf
Here is one from 1981....
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html
So cut with the bullshit rhetoric....
Well, you are the idiot that claims dumping Sulfur will fix everything.... did it occur to you that they rely on the same models that you bitch about?
PS The models work for aerosols:
http://www.newswise.com/articles/pinatubo-validates-climate-model
They have been tested. You know, the same models that describe on C02 is causing GW...
Do you think that there might be other side-effects not considered?
You are a fucking two-faced hypocrite....
Even a blind squirrel gets a nut now and then. Congrats on your google skills. But did these same models also predict the absence of statistically significant warming during the past 15 years? AFAIK this remains unexplained.
Which prediction do you maintain is trustworthy now that we can come back and see falsified in another 15 years? Remember, you have to predict correctly in advance, not dig up cherry-picked, old predictions.
>Do you think that there might be other side-effects not considered?
Do you need a remedial reading class? Or did you not read what I wrote in my post above?
>You are fucking hypocrite....
You are mesmerized by scientism. You can't distinguish it from actual science.
Some people seek truth. Dressing themselves up in scientistic or orthodox trappings isn't enough for them.
So, you now claim that the warming stopped in 10 or so years ago (hint, you are thinking of 1998, an intense El Nino year)....
How much data (in years) is needed to have statistically significant trend given the true underlying trend and the intrinsic variability of the data?
The above is a purely mathematical question and the answer is here:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/how-long/
And a little color commentary here
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/trend-and-noise/
---
You claim you are smart...why do you use such lousy and transparent arguments?
Wow! That's pretty slick! they think they can detect a trend after only 24 years with 95% certainty. that's only about two solar short cycles, and 1/62 of a long cycle! Looks more like guesstimation than science. sorry. to achieve a good hard estimate of trend with ANY certainty at all would require CENTURIES of data - which just don't yet exist. (FYI - the first reliable thermometer wasn't invented until 1714. Too bad they didn't keep detailed records of global temperatures back then!)
Sigh...
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022
How far back does the Sunspot number record go back? (Hint I gave it to you above)
Are you are aware that the Solar flux can also be measured by variation in C14 ratios....
Whadda ya know, hre is a discussion from 1969:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19690024196_1969024196.pdf
Well, fuck me, here is somthing going back 2500 years....
http://lss.fnal.gov/conf2/C990817/s3_6_40.pdf
chemtrails?
When Eyjafjallajokull volcano erupted 2010 and people were worried about the possible length of the eruption, some Russian experts came up with the idea of filling the volcano with concrete.
They said they could stop the eruption for 1 bn $. Of course no one took this seriously.
There are always all kinds of experts pithcing ideas, for a reasonable fee :)
Some of them are stupid and funny like the one above, some are stupid and dangerous, like this sulfur idea.
>some are stupid and dangerous, like this sulfur idea.
Agreed. But it's no more stupid or dangerous than handicapping the world economy so the government can control the weather 100 years from now.
And these usually last for a few years.....sometimes 10 years as in the Great Depression....
solar cycles
They last about 11 years.
You got the 11 years right...
Could you describe the range of radiative forcing over a full solar cycle and compare it to these
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
You really should be aware of this
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm
Take a good look at figure 2
And be sure to check out the linked data for the solar intensity here
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/
Any one want to decipher this sentence from the noaa link above:
"only the direct forcing has been included. Model-dependent feedbacks, for example, due to water vapor and ozone depletion, are not included"
It means exactly what it says....
Why don't you google it up and learn or go to RealClimate.com and submit a question on their open thread...
Hell, Michael Mann himself might even point you in the right direction...
In context, it means that they cherry picked what data they decided to include, and what to exclude.
I like this sentence...
What that means is that they consider the later part and end of the Little Ice Age as "normal" and count "warming" from there. Arbitrary my ass...
Don't light that match!
I've been through the desert on a horse with no name...
MINNESOTA (^_^)y
I live in Contiguous Designation, FL
aka Camp Fema 6
Looks like the map of the election night results with the GOP red
disclaimer
not a fan of either one O or Mitt
but sure would love to see Obama LOSE his job
Doesnt matter to be honest, it's all fucked either way. This year, consider voting for yourself.... by bailing and moving overseas to a sane country.
Where would that be?
Surely he's not suggesting China!
Heard it said kinda like when the raiders play dallas, too bad one of them has to win.
Nothing to worry about. T. Boon Pickens and alike are positioning themselves between the peasants and the nations fresh water supply. Such a generous act of philanthropy!
And they couldn't have done it without the government's help in creating an insane body of laws, statutes, regulations, ordinances, and codes regarding water-use rights by the land owner. Just like minerals and oil. Can't let the plebs own their own land.
It only needs 5 yellow stars them there is the American province of People's republic of China! Hooray
Next year's news: "We need a New New Deal, a total overhaul of farming and agriculture, power generation and delivery, ranching and animal husbandry, irrigation, water delivery and sanitation" says President Obama.
Who would honestly be surprised?
Why do all of the counties in the state of Delaware have a disaster designation but none of the rest of the eastern seaboard around it have one? Could it be a voluntary honor-system based request for federal funds? Hmm........
Some of my friends have been haarping on this damn drought issue for awhile......
Reason for food prices in the US to keep going up.
Even if food prices doubled from here it would be no issue. Wall Street traders will ramp prices much further if they can.
Help Bernanke and the Fed out with it's effort to massively inflate. Raise those prices big time!
like a couple other comments....in S FL, there is no drought, very normal readings per the papers.... this map looks a little 'hype-y' to me.
but of course the more areas considered 'disaster' the more federal dollars can be claimed...out of the normal budget, so no impact on the deficit, natch...
it's irrelevent if there is a drought or not...in the publics mind there will be...can be re-inforced with the futures markets which are suppressed...it's part of the final plan devaluation of the dollar.
All roads lead to Israel and we know it...keep building that wall boys,,,your gonna fcking need it.
Lake levels in Texas are pathetic. At least we had a very wet spring to make up for the insane summer of 2011 that made this summer look mild.
http://www.finviz.com/futures_charts.ashx?t=GRAINS
Hadn't noticed, here in Nevada it is always pretty much a drought.
Go out to Lake Mead and you'll notice......
could be increased use -- elec in calif? might not be lack of snowcap. just saying--
"Make Room, Make Room....."
Looks like Hell ;-)
The map is accurate for Arizona. Phoenix has matched or broken 6 temperature records in the last 10 days. NOT what you want in Phoenix. Last night the LOW temperature was 93 degrees. Breaking a record. Year to date, Phoenix has had an incredible 1.36 inches of rain.
WTF is it with this new drought narrative? Many parts of that map are well over the effects of earlier droughts. Much of the west has gotten far more rain than usual. Yes the drought is really bad in the heartland, but this map is a crapper.
Noticed that too. See my post below.
There is a drought on, is what. Crops have failed. Rain did not come. It is too hot. The map is the map. You cannot say it is not so and have it be not so. Reality doesn't work that way.
We are a land of bullshitters. Whatever is coming, bring it. It needs to burn to be believed.
The map was made up by the farmers--farm aid $400 billion subsidy is on the table.
lets hear it for the Farm Bill with one half being continuing appropriations --(didn't even get to say yes to the spending-- its just automatic).
Mark my words, the 'Rockefeller farmers' will (once again)be the biggest recipients of any current farm bill's 'aid.'
This was from 2004(think it's changed?):
Large Corporate Farms Still Getting Lion's Share of Taxpayer Subsidies
2002:
How Farm Subsidies Became America's Largest Corporate Welfare Programdisclaimer: I'm not a fan of the Heritage Foundation, but I think this quote from their article is 100% correct:
In my little corner of NW Missouri, last year this time we had 21.4" of rain. This year just 14". That 7" is the difference between growing food and killing trees. The leaves on trees less than 25 feet tall are turning yellow - which means the water table has dropped below their lowest roots. I have about 70 acres of trees that help hold the water table up. In '88 & '89 it was lots lower... but the summer isn't over yet. Even with watering, our little garden grew only grass, weeds, and a few beets. Only 1.2" of rain since the third week in June.
Anybody alive in there??
I grow oranges in Tulare Co, Calif and we have all the water we need from two wells and canal water. Not sure why that county is market RED. Perhaps because it looks good.
If your crops are watered by irrigation, there is not much of an issue.
The water you are using is either from previous rainy seasons (ground water) or imported from an area not as heavily affected by drought. Your county is red because it shows how much rain actually fell in your county.
#41
Or underground aquifers which will eventually run out. Although, ground water is apparently considered in the definition, from wiki:
A drought is an extended period of months or years when a region notes a deficiency in its water supply whether surface or underground water. Generally, this occurs when a region receives consistently below average precipitation. It can have a substantial impact on the ecosystem and agriculture of the affected region. Although droughts can persist for several years, even a short, intense drought can cause significant damage[1] and harm the local economy.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought
Someone actually thought that "drought" meant "there is no water at the tap"?
Must be really nice to live in a technological trap like that. You never have to worry about anything in the real world.
>You never have to worry about anything in the real world.
That's something to be proud of. It's called the division of labor. Without it you would have starved at age 3 or died from an infected cut sustained while picking grubs out of the dirt.
Some people actually worry about virtual worlds - they survive by farming video game items.
For weather watchers, here's a fine site with 3 minute updates every morning:
http://www.youtube.com/user/suspicious0bservers?feature=results_main
We've just been getting rain rain rain over here. I guess we ran out of jobs to steal from you and we're now holding the rain as collateral on the debt.
2/3 of the earth is covered with water. The other third is covered with dirtbags. Don't sweat the small stuff...
Got beef?
Stock up your freezer on beef as ranchers dump cattle before the high grain prices hit and beef goes way up.
and yet i get 10 Omaha Steak specials every day in my email
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/26/let-there-be-corn-reality-check-on-the-2012-drought-and-corn-yields-in-relation-to-droughts-of-the-past/
Damn those preppers and their rain collecting! Now we know why it's illegal.
God won't touch Ohio and the incredible Browns/Buckeyes season coming soon! (minus Toledo, but who gives a hell about them)
Let the rationing begin!!! Fuel rationing, food rationing, sugar and flour rationing! You can have a EBT card, but if you cant buy any food with it, things could get dicey!!
My gut instinct is, Americans wont take well to rationing in 2012-2013, quit like they did in 1930-1945!! Three generations makes a big difference in mentality!!!! I could be wrong, maybe we will all watch Extreme Country Makeover edition on ABC every week, and all wait in line quietly singing religious hymns and wait for our 10 gallons of gas and loafs of bread, FOR 5-10 YEARS, but I suspect NOT!!!!
Frack the drought or start a war against it-- seems to be the solution to things these days: just fuck it up some more.
They need more water in the river? Everyone just flush their toilet twice every time.
Of course this has NOTHING TO DO with blowing in the atmosphere huge ammounts of carbon which was stored underground for several geological ages. Oh, and did I mention that this smoking occured in a geological nanoseconds by little cancerous beings known as "men"? NOTHING TO SEE HERE. It's nobody's fault, keep consuming.
>little cancerous beings known as "men"... keep consuming
i.e. this person hates humankind. This misanthrope has some kind of sick, green ideology.
>Of course this has NOTHING TO DO with blowing in the atmosphere
News flash: droughts have happened for thousands of years. If you think there is some causal connection, let's see the evidence.
Cells that grown non stop killing the mother organism = check
units that consume above what they should depriving the rest of the system = check
Am I talking of Cancer or my "sick green" ideology? Keep on consuming. Don't let a breathe of air distract you and let you see the scientific studies on the effect of the geological nanosecond carbon smoking, how predictions based on those scientific models are becoming reality (including your own drought), or should it be cable repairmen saying they get the storm of the century each year... well, nothing to see here. Keep consuming.
I guess you weren't around when the Pittsburgh steel mills were operating. The air quality was about the same as central China is now. Moisture coalesses around particulates and forms drops large enough to overcome air currents and falls as rain. My $.02 worth.
>Cells that grown non stop killing the mother organism = check
Human beings are not cells; nor does there seem to be a "mother organism", whatever that is, that's dying.
>units that consume above what they should depriving the rest of the system = check
Tell us, how much "should" human beings consume? It is actually natural to consume as much as possible while pitilessly starving out every other being.
Humans are only units of a larger organism, in this case, the planet. Or the planet's ecosystem I should say.
It's natural to consume as much as possible starving out the rest. But nature had its laws regulating that. Humans managed to beat natural selection and all other backstops nature had in store for us to keep our numbers at a moderate level (a level which doesn't affect the whole system). Humans managed to escape those constraints. But with this new power came a new responsibility. Now that we escaped the limits of nature (some of them at least), we have to take into consideration what impact will have being outside those boundaries. Of course humans didn't care for that and continued to grow and consume like cancer. Now we've overshot, and nature has its own rules for that too. And this time there's no escape for nobody.
Whew, driving a 12mpg c02 spewing SUV, I felt responsible for a minute.
Then Obama said, "You didn't build that".
Hey I am right on the red edge....but it's coming my way!
Happy Chemtrails to you, until we meet again...
Happy Chemtrails to you, keep smilin' until then....
Who cares about the drought and the geoengineered weather?
Just sing a song and we can starve together....
Happy Chemtrails to you, 'till we meet again......
Do you know that the last 16 years include the 15 HOTTEST years (on record).
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=42682
Do you know that Mother Nature doesn't give a damn about you.
The scammers making money off global warming scare tactics are going to be burnt alive. Poetic justice. Al Gore and his ilk deserve hell.
Whats the matter? Can't handle the truth?
If there is a hell, it will be populated by the Kochs and their paid shills like Anthony Watts....
People of practical skills will survive the drought and all else.
The two-faced lying cheating money grubbing politicos and their cowardly corporatist herd will die. Those who bought bunkers in the mid-west, thinking their Trilateral Commission Agenda would spare them.
Good. The lowly liars die. Darwinism at its best.
From over Tamino's way....
I just had to pass it along...
Horatio Algeranon | August 15, 2012 at 9:40 pm |
“Imagine”
(This will undoubtedly seem like blasphemy to some. Horatio can only offer his sincere apologies to John Lennon, RIP)
Imagine there’s no warming
It’s easy if you try
No hell in summer
Above us cloudy sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today…
Imagine there’s no greenhouse
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to cut or change for
And no real CO2
Imagine all the people
Emitting carb’n in peace…
You may say I’m a denier
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will emit as one
Imagine no ice melting
I wonder if you can
No need for Cryosphere or JAXA
The brotherhood of Mann
Imagine all the people
Burning all the oil…
You may say I’m a denier
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will emit as one
I agree that this map looks a touch "off". While no doubt many of the areas in red are truly in trouble -- I'm in area of the FL Panhandle and we've had rain 30 out of the last 32 days. The tourists haven't been too happy.
<*sigh*> ... another 40 posts (so far!) from Flakmeister in a single thread. Talk about OCD!!!
What is it with these Sunstein Sock Puppets™ that they must keep posting until they fill a page!
Hey, Cass! ... Do us a favour, dude! ... Can you start paying them for quality rather than quantity, eh!?!
I didn't see you complaining about multiple posts from various commenters when they were dealing with PM trolls...
If you don't like the facts go hang out in the Ayn Rand appreciation circle jerk echo chamber....
This is fight club and I will take anyone on when it comes to AGW and PO....
BUSTED! "No commentary necessary." - You just gave one naimly 'No commentary necessary' which is a commentary in itself!
This is NOT a commentary and this is Not a love song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BGi8u8BtaA