Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

[flack]

Space-based solar farms power up

Russia calls for united meteor defense

This is how Dennis Tito plans to send people to Mars

[mememine69]

Science only agrees climate change is real, but not a real crisis. Deny that!
Show us one single IPCC warning of climate crisis that says it "WILL" happen or is "imminent", not just "might be" and "could be" a climate crisis. If it were a crisis they would have said so by now after 27 years of research so how close to unstoppable warming will science take us before they confirm it will actually be a coming climate crisis, not just maybe a crisis. Help my planet could be on fire maybe?
Science says comet hits are imminent but not climate change. Science didn't lie YOU fear mongering believers did. So the only thing you believers have to worry about is your grandkids asking why grandpa bullied the kids with CO2 death threats.
YOU are part of a Reefer Madness. Nice job girls.

[litesong]

flack wrote:

A lot of it has to do with the direction of the wind...... I've lived here 25 years and all that is bullshit. Most of Norfolk is built on filled in swamp...... A lot of it is below sea level...... If there is any reason why it floods more is because more people have built where flooding occurs...... The other reason is they've filled in all the low lying area so the water has nowhere to go.

You've mentioned the reasons Norfolk floods more...... except one, AGW. Just like a good little toxic topix AGW denier.

[mememine69]

Ice-breaking planned for Lake Erie, Maumee Bay
DETROIT (AP)— The U.S. Coast Guard in Detroit is warning that ice on western Lake Erie and the Maumee Bay Channel should be considered unsafe Monday during ice-breaking operations.

A Coast Guard cutter will be in the area for most of Monday while escorting a tugboat and a barge down the Detroit River to Toledo, Ohio. Everyone is advised to stay clear of the area.
March 2 2013

[SpaceBlues]

mememine69 wrote:

Science only agrees climate change is real, but not a real crisis. Deny that!
Show us one single IPCC warning of climate crisis that says it "WILL" happen or is "imminent", not just "might be" and "could be" a climate crisis. If it were a crisis they would have said so by now after 27 years of research so how close to unstoppable warming will science take us before they confirm it will actually be a coming climate crisis, not just maybe a crisis. Help my planet could be on fire maybe?
Science says comet hits are imminent but not climate change. Science didn't lie YOU fear mongering believers did. So the only thing you believers have to worry about is your grandkids asking why grandpa bullied the kids with CO2 death threats.
YOU are part of a Reefer Madness. Nice job girls.

Memorize these definitions:

Climate variability

Climate variability refers to variations in the mean state and other statistics (such as standard deviations, the occurrence of extremes, etc.) of
the climate at all spatial and temporal scales beyond that of individual weather events.

Variability may be due to natural internal processes within the climate system (internal variability), or to variations in natural or anthropogenic external forcing (external variability). See also Climate change.

Climate change

A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.1 See also Climate variability and Detection and attribution.

Detection and attribution

Climate varies continually on all time scales. Detection of climate change is the process of demonstrating that climate has changed in some defined statistical sense, without providing a reason for that change. Attribution of causes of climate change is the process of establishing the most likely causes for the detected change with some defined level of confidence.

[flack]

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
You've mentioned the reasons Norfolk floods more...... except one, AGW. Just like a good little toxic topix AGW denier.

Sheep dip!!! It's funny there is no increased flooding in Chesapeake, Virginia Beach, Portsmouth, or Suffolk! Nor is there any increased flooding in Newport News or Hampton. All on the same waterways. You people are nuts! If anything the land is rising as it rebounds from the meteorite strike that formed the Chesapeake Bay just off Cape Charles. Learn something before you spout your nonsense.

[mememine69]

Science didn’t lie, YOU did!
Only you remaining fear mongers of climate blame belief and you lazy copy and paste news editors and you pandering politicians are saying it WILL be a crisis. Science only says it "could be" a crisis and has NEVER said it is imminent, only “likely”.
Science didn't commit the climate change hoax, YOU did Doomer!

[gcaveman1]

flack wrote:

<quoted text> Sheep dip!!! It's funny there is no increased flooding in Chesapeake, Virginia Beach, Portsmouth, or Suffolk! Nor is there any increased flooding in Newport News or Hampton. All on the same waterways. You people are nuts! If anything the land is rising as it rebounds from the meteorite strike that formed the Chesapeake Bay just off Cape Charles. Learn something before you spout your nonsense.

You need to go tell all those folks they're wrong.

Show them your tide gauges and calculations before they waste all that money on something that isn't happening. In fact, you might want to advise them on how they may adapt to the Navy docks rising from the sea while you're at it.

[kristy]

gcaveman1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Doesn't much matter if the poles continue to warm. All that snow will do what snow does when the air warms. Let me explain. It melts.
But thanks for apprising us of Anthony Watts' latest spin.

Well the scientists need to make up their minds...first it was this:

As the sea ice and snow cover retreat, we’re losing bright, highly reflective surfaces, and increasing the area of darker surfaces — both land and ocean — exposed to sunlight. This increases the capacity to store heat within the Arctic system, which enables more melting — a self-reinforcing cycle.”

Now we hear that the snow cover will increase in the Arctic, but now somehow that is bad and will increase the melt. What happened to snow cover giving the Arctic a bright reflective surface? So only in the science of global warming can increased snow be a bad thing and decreased snow also be a bad thing.

So the Arctic will defy physics and all that snow will do nothing to reflect the sunlight. So it doesn't much matter what happens at the Arctic, it can only be bad it seems.

It seems the poles are defying the scientists.

From 2007:

Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. "So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

[kristy]

gcaveman1 wrote:

UXBRIDGE, Canada, Feb 27 2013 (IPS)- Killer heat waves, floods and storms are increasingly caused by climate change, new research reveals.
Scientists in Germany say they have found how greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels are helping to trap the jet stream, resulting in extraordinary weather such as the 2010 Pakistan flood and the 2011 heat wave in the United States.
Human-driven climate change repeatedly disturbs the flow of atmospheric waves around the globe’s Northern hemisphere, said lead author Vladimir Petoukhov of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in Germany.
Giant atmospheric waves called Rossby waves are meanders in the strong, high-altitude winds known as jet streams and have a major influence on weather. These wave movements are caused by the difference in temperatures between the cold air from the Arctic and hot air from the tropics.
When the waves shift north, they suck warm air from the tropics to Europe, Russia, or the U.S., and when they swing down, they do the same thing with cold air from the Arctic, said Petoukhov.
“During several recent extreme weather events, these planetary waves almost freeze in their tracks for weeks,” he said.“So instead of bringing in cool air after having brought warm air in before, the heat just stays.”
This unnatural pattern is due to human heating of the climate through emissions of greenhouse gases that result from burning fossil fuels, according to the study published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
However, this heating of the atmosphere is wildly uneven. The Arctic is warming two to three times faster than the global temperature rise of 0.8C and that affects the Rossby waves and is slowing the jet stream.
- See more at: http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/02/killer-heat-wa...

From your article, it states this:

"This UNNATURAL pattern is due to human heating of the climate through emissions of greenhouse gases that result from burning fossil fuels."

Wat do you mean this is unnatural? Is this pattern contrary to nature and has never happened before?

[Fair Game]

kristy wrote:

It seems the poles are defying the scientists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

Obviously reading the article as a whole was beyond you.

Professor Maslowski's group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing modelled dates that are in advance of other teams.

These other teams have variously produced dates for an open summer ocean that, broadly speaking, go out from about 2040 to 2100.

Pick an outlier an call it representative.

Devious. Disingenuous. Dishonest.

Point out how the outlier prediction was too extreme, while failing to point out that Arctic melt has exceeded by far the predictions of most models.

http://www.realclimate.org/images/Stroeve_toS...

Devious. Disingenuous. Dishonest.

Deniers are liars.

[Fair Game]

kristy wrote:

<quoted text>
From your article, it states this:
"This UNNATURAL pattern is due to human heating of the climate through emissions of greenhouse gases that result from burning fossil fuels."
Wat do you mean this is unnatural? Is this pattern contrary to nature and has never happened before?

It happened before*.

*x hundreds of thousands/million/billion years ago when the Earth and all life on it was completely different and nothing human beings would find recognisable or hospitable.

Deniers are liars.

And dumb, or at least they think you're dumb.

Don't fall for it.

Read the small print.

[kristy]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
Obviously reading the article as a whole was beyond you.
<quoted text>
Pick an outlier an call it representative.
Devious. Disingenuous. Dishonest.
Point out how the outlier prediction was too extreme, while failing to point out that Arctic melt has exceeded by far the predictions of most models.
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Stroeve_toS...
Devious. Disingenuous. Dishonest.
Deniers are liars.

This is good to know. Now could you please tell the devious, disingenuous, and dishonest posters (homosapienlapto and gcaveman1) to stop posting such drivel? Homosapienlapto first posted that the Arctic summer could be ice free by 2030 (post 34441) and then gcaveman1 posted this (post 34446):

The "official" estimate for when the Arctic Ocean would be ice-free in September used to be 2050, then 2040, then 2030. Now it's 2020. But look at the raw volume data & it looks like it'll be gone by 2016 or 2017.

Was gcaveman1 being devious, disingenuous, and dishonest when he posted that this is the “official” estimate?

[kristy]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
It happened before*.
*x hundreds of thousands/million/billion years ago when the Earth and all life on it was completely different and nothing human beings would find recognisable or hospitable.
Deniers are liars.
And dumb, or at least they think you're dumb.
Don't fall for it.
Read the small print.

Does your post make you a denier and a liar and dumb? From NOAA on the 2010 Russia heat wave:

The heat wave was due primarily to a NATURAL phenomenon called an atmospheric “blocking pattern”, in which a strong high pressure system developed and remained stationary over western Russian, keeping summer storms and cool air from sweeping through the region and leading to the extreme hot and dry conditions. While the blocking pattern associated with the 2010 event was unusually intense and persistent, its major features were similar to atmospheric patterns associated with prior extreme heat wave events in the region since 1880, the researchers found.

And then what about the US in the 1930s. Was that millions and millions years of ago?

The 1936 blocking ridge happened several times in that year & had occurred in 1934, as well. By comparison, record-breaking warmth occurred in March 1986, only to return in mid April with 88-93 setting records. Past data has shown that these blocking ridges tend to perpetuate into the year. So, if history serves us well, another period of such blocking & record heat may occur this spring &/or this summer.

Interestingly, when such an upper ridge occurs in the North Atlantic & Greenland, it causes a blocking that keeps the eastern U.S. in cold & snow. This happened during multiple years in the 1960s & especially late 1970s to early 1980s. We just didn’t have ONE SINGLE HORRIBLE WINTER in the 1960s, 1970s or early 1980s, there were consecutive horrible winters as the Greenland block set in. They bathed in unprecedented winter mildness, while we shivered, dug out & had an energy crisis.

http://blogs.wlfi.com/2012/03/20/55894/ #

So when someone posts that the blocking is an UNNATURAL pattern due to the burning of fossil fuels, I have to say they are being devious, dishonest, and a denier.

[litesong]

krusty wrote:

devious, disingenuous, and dishonest.......

krusty got some vocabulary lessons & thinks he knows more than AGW scientists.

[Fair Game]

kristy wrote:

<quoted text>
This is good to know. Now could you please tell the devious, disingenuous, and dishonest posters (homosapienlapto and gcaveman1) to stop posting such drivel? Homosapienlapto first posted that the Arctic summer could be ice free by 2030 (post 34441) and then gcaveman1 posted this (post 34446):
The "official" estimate for when the Arctic Ocean would be ice-free in September used to be 2050, then 2040, then 2030. Now it's 2020. But look at the raw volume data & it looks like it'll be gone by 2016 or 2017.
Was gcaveman1 being devious, disingenuous, and dishonest when he posted that this is the “official” estimate?

Their posts are accurate: the consensus has come down a lot recently, and some are predicting end of the decade.

Maslowski's prediction may not come true, but remember sea ice crashed last year- if it does again this year, he could be right.

His prediction of rapid loss was more realistic than the consensus of long term loss at the time, and of course a lot more accurate that the predictions of denier idiots made in this thread for sea ice recovery post 2007.

[Fair Game]

kristy wrote:

<quoted text>
Does your post make you a denier and a liar and dumb? From NOAA on the 2010 Russia heat wave:
The heat wave was due primarily to a NATURAL phenomenon called an atmospheric “blocking pattern”, in which a strong high pressure system developed and remained stationary over western Russian, keeping summer storms and cool air from sweeping through the region and leading to the extreme hot and dry conditions. While the blocking pattern associated with the 2010 event was unusually intense and persistent, its major features were similar to atmospheric patterns associated with prior extreme heat wave events in the region since 1880, the researchers found.
And then what about the US in the 1930s. Was that millions and millions years of ago?
The 1936 blocking ridge happened several times in that year & had occurred in 1934, as well. By comparison, record-breaking warmth occurred in March 1986, only to return in mid April with 88-93 setting records. Past data has shown that these blocking ridges tend to perpetuate into the year. So, if history serves us well, another period of such blocking & record heat may occur this spring &/or this summer.
Interestingly, when such an upper ridge occurs in the North Atlantic & Greenland, it causes a blocking that keeps the eastern U.S. in cold & snow. This happened during multiple years in the 1960s & especially late 1970s to early 1980s. We just didn’t have ONE SINGLE HORRIBLE WINTER in the 1960s, 1970s or early 1980s, there were consecutive horrible winters as the Greenland block set in. They bathed in unprecedented winter mildness, while we shivered, dug out & had an energy crisis.
http://blogs.wlfi.com/2012/03/20/55894/ #
So when someone posts that the blocking is an UNNATURAL pattern due to the burning of fossil fuels, I have to say they are being devious, dishonest, and a denier.

Blocking is not unnatural. The increased frequency of blocking events is, and very clearly linked to the burning of fossil fuels by science.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/...

[Fair Game]

As Caveman's link makes clear:

This unnatural pattern is due to human heating of the climate through emissions of greenhouse gases that result from burning fossil fuels, according to the study published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/02/killer-heat-wa...

From the original Guardian article:

"The jet stream is clearly weaker," said Francis. That means weather systems, be it rain or dry conditions, are slow to move on and last longer. Ultimately this can result in "blocking" events, such as the conditions that produced the terrible heatwave in western Russia during the summer of 2010, she said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/se...

Yes folks, science says global warming weakens the jet stream and causes more blocking events; deniers say blocking events have happened before.

Deniers are liars.

And dumb, or think you are.

Look behind the lies and see the fallacies.

[PHD]

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
krusty got some vocabulary lessons & thinks he knows more than AGW scientists.

There you go again poster "pinheadlitesout" has diarrhea, incontinence issues and another diaper rash.

[gcaveman1]

kristy wrote:

<quoted text>
Well the scientists need to make up their minds...first it was this:
As the sea ice and snow cover retreat, we’re losing bright, highly reflective surfaces, and increasing the area of darker surfaces — both land and ocean — exposed to sunlight. This increases the capacity to store heat within the Arctic system, which enables more melting — a self-reinforcing cycle.”
Now we hear that the snow cover will increase in the Arctic, but now somehow that is bad and will increase the melt. What happened to snow cover giving the Arctic a bright reflective surface? So only in the science of global warming can increased snow be a bad thing and decreased snow also be a bad thing.
So the Arctic will defy physics and all that snow will do nothing to reflect the sunlight. So it doesn't much matter what happens at the Arctic, it can only be bad it seems.
It seems the poles are defying the scientists.
From 2007:
Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. "So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

Olympian nit-picking and straw-grabbing. But, there's no OFFICIAL competition for those.

"Now we hear..." does not tell us who you heard it from. But assuming your source is right and isn't Anthony Watts, did you think about it at all?

Snow is not as durable as ice, especially if you are talking about 2 feet of snow compared to six feet of ice. With warming temperatures in the Arctic, which will last longer? Your failure to analyze shows a lack of logical thinking ability.

You have no tools to effectively debate what is happening. Fair Game has answered you for all of us.

You're devious. You're dishonest. Are you dumb as well?