[Al_U_Card]

Compared to DT, will Hillary

a - spend more on useless stuff
b - spend more on defence
c - spend more on banking bail-outs

[Al_U_Card]

Another poll question might be:

Comparing DT to W would he be;

a - more intelligent but less caring
b - less obedient but more inspiring
c - as ineffectual because of the situation in Congress
d - too busy filling the trough to notice

[Al_U_Card]

Compared to Genghis Khan, is DT

a-more cultured
b-more rapacious
c-more inclined to fire his cabinet

[Zelandakh]

Were the string of poll questions at the top of page 8 designed to mask the ignorance posted at the bottom of page 7?

[alok c]

Ido not understand why there is a pet peeve in denying global warming with some obscure logic & data ! The taste of pudding is in it's eating.As global warming also brings substantive climate changes,you only need to follow the recent drastic changes worldwide to draw your own conclusion.

[Al_U_Card]

Hopefully most will miss it and carry on blissfully trying to save the world by handing over money and control to their betters/masters/scammers.
" P®ay now and the Lord will send rain! " Elmer Gantry aka R. Pachauri/Ban Ki Moon/name your climate alarmist.
Hopefully when they fix the weather, they will choose something nice and clement and not those nasty storms and droughts that never happened at CO2 less than 350 ppm.

[Al_U_Card]

alok c, on 2016-August-25, 12:39, said:

Ido not understand why there is a pet peeve in denying global warming with some obscure logic & data ! The taste of pudding is in it's eating.As global warming also brings substantive climate changes,you only need to follow the recent drastic changes worldwide to draw your own conclusion.

Such as?
ACE index (hurricanes) is no higher (if not lower) than since they started measuring.
Precipitation is generally the same over the last 100 years or so (lately some tendency to more copious individual events but that is under study...)
Temperatures are within 1C of the last 100 years and less if you go a bit further back to medieval times.
Insurance losses based on actual per/capita events are lower than ever.
Hmmmn, what else? Oh, tornadoes are at a lull since peaks in the 50's and 70's.
Total sea-ice is about the same as since 1980 with less in the N and more in the S.
Fewer heat-waves now than in the 1930's (all time records).
But we are at the crest of a seemingly somewhat beneficial warming trend.
So, conclusion is?

[Al_U_Card]

Zelandakh, on 2016-August-25, 12:12, said:

Were the string of poll questions at the top of page 8 designed to mask the ignorance posted at the bottom of page 7?

Important comes before amusing except in the dictionary. I will place it in the CC thread so that no one will have to avert their eyes...

[Cyberyeti]

Al_U_Card, on 2016-August-25, 13:23, said:

Insurance losses based on actual per/capita events are lower than ever.
So, conclusion is?

This may be true in the UK but if it is, it's because many people now can't get flooding insurance that used to be able to

[Al_U_Card]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-August-25, 14:44, said:

This may be true in the UK but if it is, it's because many people now can't get flooding insurance that used to be able to

I gather that some of that flooding has a lot to do with green efforts to degrade the flood control systems to meet EU requirements. The recent alarmist warnings from RCP scenarios produce increased insurance premiums or reduced coverage despite being based on unrealistic conditions. Warren Buffet is happy so...?

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on 2016-August-25, 14:57, said:

I gather that some of that flooding has a lot to do with green efforts to degrade the flood control systems to meet EU requirements. The recent alarmist warnings from RCP scenarios produce increased insurance premiums or reduced coverage despite being based on unrealistic conditions. Warren Buffet is happy so...?

I'm willing to bet a lot more has to do with an increase in the amount of water vapor in the air...

(Same thing that lead to that 1,000 year flood in Louisiana...)

[Cyberyeti]

Al_U_Card, on 2016-August-25, 14:57, said:

I gather that some of that flooding has a lot to do with green efforts to degrade the flood control systems to meet EU requirements. The recent alarmist warnings from RCP scenarios produce increased insurance premiums or reduced coverage despite being based on unrealistic conditions. Warren Buffet is happy so...?

Err what green efforts to degrade flood control ? and a lot of flood control on rivers just moves the problem somewhere else.

The actual problem is a lot more rain falling in a shorter time plus a bit of building on flood plains. We are getting rain events that are "once in 150 years" about every 2 years atm.

[Al_U_Card]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-August-25, 16:25, said:

Err what green efforts to degrade flood control ? and a lot of flood control on rivers just moves the problem somewhere else.

The actual problem is a lot more rain falling in a shorter time plus a bit of building on flood plains. We are getting rain events that are "once in 150 years" about every 2 years atm.

On July 25-26, 1979, Tropical Storm Claudette dropped 43 inches of rain on Alvin, Texas. [CO2] was at 350 ppm or so IIRC and that wasn't quite 1000 yrs ago or even 100...

As for the recent flooding in the UK, a start

Building on flood plains is a cause of increased losses but 150 yr events usually happen every 150 yrs on average.

[Cyberyeti]

Al_U_Card, on 2016-August-25, 19:55, said:

On July 25-26, 1979, Tropical Storm Claudette dropped 43 inches of rain on Alvin, Texas. [CO2] was at 350 ppm or so IIRC and that wasn't quite 1000 yrs ago or even 100...

As for the recent flooding in the UK, a start

Building on flood plains is a cause of increased losses but 150 yr events usually happen every 150 yrs on average.

It was well explained by the experts here that lack of dredging in most cases was not because of any EU directive, it was because it was thought it wouldn't help and was also not cost effective if weather was normal.

Several places have received many months rain in a couple of days more times in the last few years than in the previous several hundred. The Cumbria one in 2015 Some places got 405mm in 2 days where average monthly rainfall is 20-40% of that (and this was not the first such incident in the last few years, there was one 6 months before and another a year or two before that).

Don't go by a single event, and we don't get tropical storms over here in the same way.

[Al_U_Card]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-August-26, 03:27, said:

It was well explained by the experts here that lack of dredging in most cases was not because of any EU directive, it was because it was thought it wouldn't help and was also not cost effective if weather was normal.

Several places have received many months rain in a couple of days more times in the last few years than in the previous several hundred. The Cumbria one in 2015 Some places got 405mm in 2 days where average monthly rainfall is 20-40% of that (and this was not the first such incident in the last few years, there was one 6 months before and another a year or two before that).

Don't go by a single event, and we don't get tropical storms over here in the same way.

So we are talking weather events and regional effects. Didn't they predict barbeque summers and snow being a thing of the past a few years back based on the model projections?

The CET values for temperature go back several hundred years and show no big change over time. I wonder what they show for precip?

[Cyberyeti]

Al_U_Card, on 2016-August-26, 04:18, said:

So we are talking weather events and regional effects. Didn't they predict barbeque summers and snow being a thing of the past a few years back based on the model projections?

The CET values for temperature go back several hundred years and show no big change over time. I wonder what they show for precip?

I'm not sure we're actually getting more rain overall, but it's coming in more extreme events. Britain is not used to getting several inches of rain in a few hours very often, but now it seems to be happening much more frequently.

A lot of the upland Cumbrian flooding has been all to do with the volume of rain, and nothing to do with dredging or building on flood plains. In the towns and the York/Somerset events it's more difficult to clearly assign blame.

[Al_U_Card]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-August-26, 06:32, said:

I'm not sure we're actually getting more rain overall, but it's coming in more extreme events. Britain is not used to getting several inches of rain in a few hours very often, but now it seems to be happening much more frequently.

A lot of the upland Cumbrian flooding has been all to do with the volume of rain, and nothing to do with dredging or building on flood plains. In the towns and the York/Somerset events it's more difficult to clearly assign blame.

When I go over the precip records for NA, despite lots of wiggles, it is mostly flat for just about every location on the continent for the last century or so. Observed (unadjusted) temperatures are pretty much the same except for the peak in the 1930s.
This speaks to the divergence issue with plant-based proxies, to say nothing of the statistics side of selection and analysis.
I barely remember some 50 years ago there being long hot summers with big storms in July and dry heat in August. Round these parts, we had our coldest winter 2 years ago and it was coldest since 1934 (which had the hottest summer on record here as well).
It also seems that gardens and lawns are greener and lusher than I remember but is that age, CO2 increase or ...

[Vampyr]

Good, we needed another climate change thread. The single denier cannot possibly function with only one.

[kenrexford]

The funny thing is that the hijacking of the thread is proving a point that I made earlier. I mentioned at one point that I thought environmentalism was the explanation behind a particular decision. Tada!

[Winstonm]

olegru, on 2016-August-24, 12:52, said:

It is true.
97% of climate scientists believe humans are causing global warming.
By the way, not less then 97% of priests believe in existence of God. Could we consider it as a proof or closer look maybe useful?

Why is it that the religious seem to religiously rely on this apples and oranges comparison as some kind of vindication of their blind faith in legend?

Science=our best guess based on current evidence and knowledge.
Religion=faith in the reliability of word-of-mouth