The World’s Water Supply Could Dip Sharply in 15 Years

They claim global warming will lead to droughts worldwide. But – as we all know – more heat – more evaporation. More evaporation means more rain. I’d have less of a problem with this claim if they were warning of floods and storms. But warmer is wetter. World wide higher temps means more rain – not less. This gives science a bad name.

To be clear, we do have climate issues and burning carbon is a bad idea and something we should greatly reduce. The good news is that whether or not or believe the extreme climate change hype – Elon has the problem under control. Solar and new batteries are going to change how we get and use power, and the sooner we get there the sooner we can end this argument about the end of the world. I’m as tired of the liberal apocalypse as I am of the Christian apocalypse.



  1. bobbo, AGW is Anthropormorphic Global Warming. Its why yeast stops growing in any confined space: they reproduce and consume until they die in their own shit. says:

    With my switch from Comcast to DishTV, I’ve been watching more doom and gloom programs. Christopher Hedges “Myth of Human Progress and Collapse of Complex Societies” just played. A complete bummer.

    So……………..HEY MARC!!!!!!=====YOU KNOW…. AGW is science stuff. As much a scientist as you are, how do you feel qualified to opine on this subject………………at all?

    But………..from a purely rhetorical analysis…. good example of arguing by ignorance.

    Now…………….we is all ignoramus, including myself. High School chemistry and after that, just casual reading. Can this minimum knowledge base make any sense of the Headlines?

    I do assume its correct that its getting warmer….and that should mean it rains more? But maybe that actually is modeled out to it will snow more? Snow and rain over the ocean rather than land?==Hey…..theres as issue right there….the “water” we think of is river water into lakes behind dams. Or maybe its concentrations? You know===whole lot of rain in short time periods (aka “seasons”) and so more water runs off quicker leaving net collected water?

    But, from a rhetorical/english/language/common usage standpoint…I’d guess the headline “means” to say that areas that used to be wet (like California?) will get drier, while areas normally drier will get wetter? Haven’t heard any increased wet weather predictions….. but if the headline is correct, and the predictions are correct…doesn’t it have to be one or more and something else rather than: “Its wrong?”

    Hmmmm…the headline you provide doesn’t say droughts…its says “supply.” THATS DIFFERENT!!!! Population going up and all………

    Maybe we could all read the dictionary every once in awhile?

    • Marc Perkel says:

      Yes – rain and snow more. Hotter means more water goes up – more water comes down.

    • NewFormatSux says:

      So coming up with guesses to why Perkel could be wrong, but you have no idea.

    • Cousin_Vinny says:

      You idiots. Global warming is real. Don’t be drones and use your scientific brains for once in your pathetic lives. Yes, there are entities who wish to monetarily benefit form such a crisis, but that does not mean that it isn’t happening. Pull your collective heads out of your arses.

  2. bobbo, AGW is Anthropormorphic Global Warming. Its why yeast stops growing in any confined space: they reproduce and consume until they die in their own shit. says:

    “Last Call at the Oasis” on DishTV–California has one year of dam water left….after that we are LITERALLY praying for rain..and continuing the overpumping of ground water.

    Surprisingly, if I heard it right, at current consumption, we have about 50 years of ground water in california. That doesn’t sound right to me….unless it means drilling to China while the land subsides 100’s of yards with the bay area breaking through all the way to Bakersfield?

    Food crops….almonds were mentioned….already pulled out of the ground from lack of water. Farmers having to change what they grow.

    One of the shows said that when Lake Mead falls to 1050 (?) its electrical generation ability will stop. Now………….first time I heard of that. Kinda cool? Enough water to drink I suppose…but no dinky to fill up the water towers?

    I’ve posted a few times about what will be the “first event” that will get political agreement AGW is “here.” Closing Lost Wages due to no electricity could be a major hit???

    Looks like I was wrong….I AM GOING TO LIVE into the first waves of AGW changing society.

    CONTRA: While one speaker said we were “currently” at the tipping point for societal destruction re AGW, he also said we were also at the tipping point for solutions/alternatives===IE GREEN ENERGY to save us from the consequences. Then he listed how many coal plants were not built in the USA over the last 20 years because of the Sierra Club activities. Around 300 depending on what list you add up.

    Kinda ignored the fact that China is building and using a new coal plant every week?—and who know what India is doing???

    Yes, kiddies……………………WE ARE GOING TO LIVE INTO AGW cat tast rophe. Grab your socks. I’m going to stock up on wine yeast cultures so my future won’t be totally bleak as I live off the creek water…. (WATER>>>>ha, ha….its a drainage ditch from the golf course…..shit!!!!!). Christ….we are all doomed!!!

    • NewFormatSux says:

      Tell California to stop giving out cheap water to grow rice.

      • bobbo, AGW is Anthropormorphic Global Warming. Its why yeast stops growing in any confined space: they reproduce and consume until they die in their own shit. says:

        Yeah….we stopped growing rice and cotton (now almonds…I wonder what else?) in the central valley because of water. Still grow it farther north where I have assumed water was plentiful enough it made sense if you didn’t care if fish didn’t spawn.

        If you have the water…I see no reason not to grow rice or cotton or any other annual crop. Its grapes and nuts and whatever else that take 5-10 years of watered growth before they produce where the water variability takes a hit.

        Like everything else STOOPID HOOMANS do….why we have allowed grass lawns in Ca is beyond me…same with re-use/multiple use of water streams.

        We live in the fricken desert…. pretend we don’t.

        REALITY: that which punches you in the nose when you think nothing is there.

        AGW======>its here………………and we still pretend its not

        …………………….because we can’t tell the different between a prognosis of shortages given increasing demand vs calling for drought.

        Thats how blind we are.

        • NewFormatSux says:

          Think the farmers are paying market rate for water?

        • jpfitz says:

          Green lawns in the southwest deserts are draining lake Meade, lake Powell and the Colorado river. Eventually drinking water will be fought over.

          The thought that higher temps will bring more rain to the southwest is a gamble. The change in the climate has been seen as more rain in the northeast and Pacific northwest.

          Marc is correct that the rise in temps will produce more humidity in the atmosphere, but droughts will be long if the current weather pattern persists.

          “These trends are widely thought to be associated with the fact that warmer air temperatures fuel more evaporation, which leads to a wetter atmosphere. Scientists have measured a significant increase in specific humidity (the volume of water vapor) over the Earth’s surface, which is consistent with the long-term warming trend in our planet’s average surface temperature.”

          http://climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/heavy-downpours-more-intense-frequent-warmer-world

          To add to the water problem the fresh water glaciers are melting into the oceans faster then the winter snow can replenish.

  3. bobbo, AGW is Anthropormorphic Global Warming. Its why yeast stops growing in any confined space: they reproduce and consume until they die in their own shit. says:

    http://climatehotmap.org/global-warming-effects/rain-and-snow.html

    One page quickie confirming what Marc said: climate disruption is the effect of global warming. That causes food and water supply disruption. Which causes life disruptions.

    But you know—it WAS hotter 2.3 Billion years ago………………and it was cold last night…… so, who you gonna believe?

    • Marc Perkel says:

      I’m sure some place will be drier but more heat more precipitation. World wide rain increases.

      • bobbo, AGW is Anthropormorphic Global Warming. Its why yeast stops growing in any confined space: they reproduce and consume until they die in their own shit. says:

        C’mon Marc………………………..READ!

        The amount of rain is only one element in the equation of drought…or flood.

        Very, very—simple stuff.

        When intelligent people post stupidly===look for the underlying emotions. Only you can do that.

  4. Headlines Explain Nothing says:

    And the United Nations is credible because… ?

    • Marc Perkel says:

      When scientists lie is discredits science.

      • Lex says:

        It’s important to factor in our innate inclination to lie when telling the truth can lead to a decrease in our employment. Even scientists have families to support, mortgages, car loans, credit card debt, etc. Just because a group of scientists claim something does not make it true. It’s actually far more likely to be a lie. IMO the real, valid scientific claims end up being proven by engineers when they apply scientific research to tangible products.

        People lie to protect their interests. Groups lie to protect their interests. Telling the truth can also protect the interests of an entity but the gratification is usually not as instant as the gratification that comes from lying.

  5. Mr Diesel says:

    I used to care about what happened to the Earth but I don’t any more.

    Some people think that it is the religious nut jobs believing in the rupture or whatever or the dreaded 12 inman or that rot but in my case it isn’t.

    This world gets everything that it deserves. I had a lot of hope until Obobbo was elected and then the 7 years of recession just keeps piling on and wages receding faster than my hairline.

    Fuck it. I don’t give a shit about California or Vegas. I’ll miss them about as much as a pimple on my ass.

    New York City can go as well and for goodness sake take D.C. with them.

    I’ll probably live long enough to see the beginning of the end since a lot began in Nov ’08 with the erection of the magic mulatto.

    • Jeremiah's Johnson says:

      You are sooo right. I’m also beaten into submission. We put up with the likes of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and top it off with electing bHo *twice*! The human race deserves to go extinct – we earned it.

      I just hope I live long enough to see all the major shithole-cities wiped out first.

    • jpfitz says:

      NYC will be under water in the not too distant future, if that makes you happy. You are just gonna give up and look the other way like the rest of the lemmings of this current generation and the older cranky generation of yours.

      Things can always be better, I agree with you. Since ’01 the world has changed. I for one will not be giving up on the America I was born in. Something funny just came to me while typing, I was talking to my Father in-law who is a healthy 95. I asked what will happen to the human race if the planet, as predicted, becomes arid or uninhabitable.

      The answer I heard shocked me, my Father in-law said to me “We will take spaceships to another planet and have the technology by then to colonize.” So if a 95 year old can have the fortitude to be optimistic, maybe you can. Cheer up.

      • NewFormatSux says:

        Sea level has been rising a few mm per year for centuries. New York City will continue to handle it as it has. Those skyscrapers won’t be underwater.

        • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

          If the sea level keeps rising ((and why would it not?)) how is it possible that “eventually” NYC, after most of Florida where sea level rise is illegal, won’t be underwater?

          You know—-installing plugs at the entrance to subway stations to avoid damage from high tides/storms does not avoid the sea level rise issue driving that issue.

          Is it non-think or magical thinking that prompts such isolated avoidance of what your own brain can figure out?

          Anti-Science Deniers want to know.

          • Neo says:

            Thank you. Eventually under water also does not mean the skyscrapers will be under the tide, most likely just the downtown area first, in the future.

      • NewFormatSux says:

        To believe New York underwater stories like Scientific American publishes means that you think water level will follow along this chart:

        https://climatesanity.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/battery-sea-level-rise-extended-4.png?w=450&h=309

        • Neo says:

          I see the barrier islands off the coast of southern Long Island slowly being washed away, and the sea completely crossing the barrier island in some places. The town has to replace sand that was lost every year.

          One particular beach numbered 5, is the only nude beach around. That beach was washed away, so, no more sun where the sun don’t shine.

  6. gracie says:

    Learn to differentiate between potable and non- potable groundwater. Been a long time since so many ignorant experts on science who don’t read a damned bit of science – clustered in one tiny corner.

    Including Marc, unfortunately.

  7. Hmeyers says:

    Some of you like to argue whether or not this is science.

    Well, none of you are right. You aren’t even wrong.

    Companies, universities and the UN make big money on the propaganda. It isn’t about science or being right or being wrong.

    It is lawyers chasing ambulances.
    It is hobos dancing for their dinner.

    Except instead of lawyers, it is the climate groups and researchers that need the funding for their continued paychecks.

    They aren’t seeking answers or solutions, if this stuff were solved tomorrow they would be out of a job.

    • Proper Ganda says:

      You are correct!

      They all spin the story that makes the most money. Then they invest the money to wield power and commanding control over the masses. Shampoo, rinse, repeat.

      Beware the disingenuous power seekers. They will smile, gain your confidence, and laugh all the way to the bank of Switzerland!

  8. Dave J. says:

    This post was about as bright as Inhofe bringing a snowball into the Senate.

    Your one minute thought-experiment (oow, rain comes from evaporation) does not trump days and years of real science.

  9. ± says:

    “This gives science a bad name.”

    Any statement the UN makes has as much to do with science as anvils are soft. Science has nothing to worry about from them.

  10. eideard says:

    If any of you – including Marc – care to use a legitimate starting point dealing with climate science, I suggest http://www.realclimate.org

    Reading actual science can be enjoyable as well as informative. If you’d like to try it.

    • NewFormatSux says:

      I agree. I love sending people to RealClimate, as after awhile, people can see they are being lied to. I suspect the site ‘creates more skeptics than it destroys.’

      Example, one guy was arguing at CliamteAudit against skeptics, while posting to RealClimate saying they were using upside-down data and they needed to correct it. The responses from the two sites were substantially different.

    • bobbo, AGW is Anthropormorphic Global Warming. Its why yeast stops growing in any confined space: they reproduce and consume until they die in their own shit. says:

      eideard==first time I have noticed you make a reply to a thread. You care about AGW.

      As our society/civilization/species/fauna is heading towards the cliff of worldwide extinction…all we are doing is stomping down on the accelerator harder. A notion so terrible that on some level it still doesn’t stick to my brain.

      …………but its what we are doing, with cheer leaders.

      I vote for parallel/multi-verses. I get to live in my universe….. and the AGW science deniers get to die in theirs.

      ………………………………if there was a god in heaven.

  11. Mr Anderson says:

    Only, it’ll be wetter where people die in floods and dryer where people die of thirst.

    • Neo says:

      “Do not try and bend the spoon—that’s impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth.”

  12. Chicken Warmer says:

    Once again, I feel it necessary to post this. Anyone interested in Global Warming really needs to watch this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlgJJgKs-iA

    (We’ll just see if old Mister Censor allows this comment…)

    • ± says:

      What makes you think this may have been censored? (obviously it hasn’t been)

    • Jeremiah's Johnson says:

      Guy’s reasoning is faulty. In column A both choices lead to horrible dystopia. The economic collapse happens in either case because of the cost *and* he’s assuming that the changes actually made a difference.

      If it’s not real and we do nothing we have a good outcome. In all 3 other cases the outcome is bad, so why bring on a bad outcome on purpose?

      • ± says:

        Did you send him your refutation as he implored people to do? If so, I imagine he’s about to post a retraction.

    • NewFormatSux says:

      That is just a stupid argument. Basically, because some people came up with scare stories, so we should do what they tell us.

      At least he is willing to acknowledge there is a great cost, and not saying things like ‘green jobs’.

      Now this great cost, vs the benefits gained. He thinks it is high, but there is no reason to think that.

      On top of that, the reality in which we live is that there is no proposed action that would reduce global warming.
      Even if the Greens were 100% right, their plans won’t work, since it is the developing world that is responsible for CO2 emissions.

  13. NewFormatSux says:

    Mark more storms caused by global warming is also bogus.
    The IPCC has even acknowledged it.

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/03/handy-bullshit-button-on-disasters-and.html

    • Marc Perkel says:

      If you have global warming then you have more storms. If you don’t have more storms then you don’t have global warming. Heat = more storms.

      • NewFormatSux says:

        Nice logic there. Another reason for scientists to not lie, as it allows their claims to be disproved with basic logic.

  14. NewFormatSux says:

    The IPCC in its previous report in 2007 said the best estimate of global warming was 3.0C. However, if you read the latest report, you find that there is no best estimate presented. If you run the numbers you find that the best estimate of global warming was 1.64C, pretty much nothing to worry about.
    http://climateaudit.org/2014/09/24/the-implications-for-climate-sensitivity-of-ar5-forcing-and-heat-uptake-estimates-2/

    Yet instead the scientists at IPCC decided not to present the number.

  15. NewFormatSux says:

    This will probably go up there with the claim that in ten years children just won’t know what snow is. Made over ten years ago.

  16. bobbo, AGW is Anthropormorphic Global Warming. Its why yeast stops growing in any confined space: they reproduce and consume until they die in their own shit. says:

    Friends……………………….lets us visit “textual analysis” for just a bit?

    Its valuable as an analytical tool. What it does is remove any bias or politcal slant by looking a words neutrally. Its becoming more popular these days with word clouds and such but its been around for years.

    Heres another example. Anyone—-including Marc====>go to the link and do a word search on “drought” and see that there is no hit for this word. So…………………neutrally, analytically, TRUTHFULLY………Marc’s comment/”belief system” is not supported by his link. He reads one thing, and interprets it as something else.

    The argument/position could still be rhetorically valid but more dots and connections would have to be made.

    Marc===make those connections or simply admit you are wrong.

    Grow….. as a scientist, even as a person. “Why do we think the way we do, and how do we change? How can we think better?” Accepting what your own brain can see for itself goes a long way…if you will get your emotions out of the way.

    Yea, verily!

    • NewFormatSux says:

      Except ‘they’ have made such claims. I’ve heard Michael Mann say it in person.

    • NewFormatSux says:

      Yea, they don’t mention drought, just irregular rainfall. wonder what causes drought?

      • bobbo, AGW is Anthropormorphic Global Warming. Its why yeast stops growing in any confined space: they reproduce and consume until they die in their own shit. says:

        Ha, ha……………….read a dictionary.

        Irregular does not mean drought.

        ………………very, very……………….simple.

  17. jamson says:

    Marc- a warming planet does not mean more water where people need it or once had it, which is the basis of the report. Receding snow/ice packs which can be found on many peaks world-wide aren’t being re-stocked. Those places are still drying, despite having a string of overall warmest on record years over the past decade or two.

  18. NewFormatSux says:

    Looks like they had a story, and then they threw climate change into the mix, just blame all bad things on global warming.

    • bobbo, AGW is Anthropormorphic Global Warming. Its why yeast stops growing in any confined space: they reproduce and consume until they die in their own shit. says:

      Try a little textual analysis: copy and paste from the link where they discuss “all bad things” or even “global warming.”

      You create in your mind two issues that are not even discussed and then link them and then criticize the effort to make a universally dumb statement.

      Lack of reading comprehension and the failure to think that follows is, like AGW, fully on display.

      You did so well otherwise in fits and starts.
      Silly Hooman.

      • NewFormatSux says:

        Try reading the article. They mention a bad thing, then in the end, throw in that this is because of global warming.

      • NewFormatSux says:

        Perhaps you shouldn’t constantly operate from the motive of ‘let’s call the other side stupid.’ Generally good advice, even more so when you have posted so many incorrect things in just one thread. For example, check the dictionary.

        • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

          Well, your tragedy of stuck in the mud non think continues: copy and paste where I said, or even implied, that you or anyone else is stupid.

          If you or anyone else, other than Peedro and Alfie, were stupid, you wouldn’t be posting.

          No………..the issue is how do we make errors in thinking (nay…reading) that can be recognized, overcome, thereby making us “even better.”

          Using textual analysis is only one techique to get to the end goal of actually understanding what we read.

          Just ……………….. look.

  19. Hmeyers says:

    Climate change is caused by humans using resources.

    More humans = more climate change.

    The poorest people breed a lot. And receive government money.

    Require birth control for them in exchange for the money.

    Viola! Liberals and conservatives unite!

    • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

      Kinda close……..I suppose.

      Climate change is caused by humans BURNING SEQUESTERED CARBON…..among many other various causes including those not involving man’s activities.

      And while I know you are joshing us all, the poorer you are, the more mimimum your contribution to climate change….. use of water resources too to link into the actual subject of the OP: the increasing use/need for water in the future.

      I think I read that off the shelf desalinization “only” costs about 3 times what dam or pumped water costs. However true that is, the water shortage does not concern me as there are answers and solutions to it. Not like AGW at all.

      As TedtheFlamingTeaTard is saying: Imagine weather chemistry/physics have cause and effect separated by 30 or 50 years. You do something today, or over the past 200 years that if/when you stop the effects continue for antoher 30 or 50 years. Then you have tipping points where what you directly do on purpose results in something you do not intend and do not want at all.

      So……….the death of all oxygen breathing organisms (or–just 99% of them/us) is achieved when the earth warms enough to release its methane reserves…something that will happen during that 30 to 50 year lag time.

      You see the issue????

      Just…………………………read.

  20. NewFormatSux says:

    Careful, Marc, you might get sued by the likes of Andrew Weaver, who is a major doommonger and also Canada’s top climate scientist. He sued the National Post for criticizing him.

    • NewFormatSux says:

      Also, Michael Mann sued over the use of the word bogus, and a federal judge agreed, declaring that to call his work bogus is tantamount to declaring him a fraud.

      • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

        Thanks for reminding us of this legal issue.

        Its still in the Courts being litigated to a ruling.

        I assume like the Scopes Trial and the Creationist trial, even when the court rules “as a matter of law” that Science establishes the truth of a matter, the religiously convinced will still give full throat to their firmly held beliefs.

        A good review is here. I’d bet money Mann wins….while the Hooman Race continues to choke on its own industrial refuse.

        Somewhat surprising to me that “the Scientists” are more strident in raising the alarm. Thats the trouble with egg heads….. they ain’t emotional enough.

        http://blog.ucsusa.org/michael-mann-responds-to-misleading-filings-in-climate-change-lawsuit-641

  21. Jeremiah's Johnson says:

    The greatest humor is the uselessness of these debates. Real or not, the one incontrovertible fact is that AGW is *irrelevant*. Why? Because no one has yet proposed a possible solution that does not harm the American standard of living.

    Any solution that makes it harder for Americans to have large houses with 3 car garages containing 4x4s that they drive a lot is a non-starter and basically a crime against humanity to even propose. I have yet to see anyone propose a reasonable, sane solution.

    • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

      A moon shot for renewable green energy.

      Just…………….look.

      The dull wits will just have to be pulled along….. as always.

      ………..except…..whatever the lag time and tipping points actually are………….aren’t we all doomed?

      Anyone have a link/insight/conclusion regarding our actual demise?

      Every expert I here now says words to the effect that it is already too late to avoid the impact of AGW and yet that we still should “do” something. Nothing more specific than that.

      Lots of nascent anti-carbon movements are in evidence…but just too little too late. A “real” effort needs to be made, and as you note: it just ain’t gonna happen, even if the Big Corps relying on quarterly profit statements weren’t an element.

      Hoomans…………….what you gonna do?

      • NewFormatSux says:

        You know, that actually is the only viable solution, if there were a problem. James Hansen has suggested large scale nuclear power.
        Either way, the policies of rebates and mandates from which St Elon makes his money will not solve the problem, as any green energy has to made cheap enough so that other countries will flock to it.

        • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

          What solution is that? Harmonizing private profit incentives with the market place to reduce carbon output?

          The largest carbon emitters, coal power plants, cars/transport, home and office heating are all easily regulated===>as they are highly concentrated, the decentralized characteristic of green energy being another advantage folks don’t fully appreciate. Tax carbon usage or have carbon trading etc and the market will respond.

          I recall decades ago during the gas embargo with Jimmy Carter putting on a sweater…I thought it was a “shame” that a 5 cent per year increase in gas tax to bring us up to European Standards was not imposed===> if for no other reason than National Security. That was pre-AGW but even then doing nothing in view of trade deficits made being energy independent a common sense response.

          We didn’t do it of course, because………………

          • NewFormatSux says:

            The vast majority of carbon emissions are in countries that are more interested in cheap energy than reducing CO2. Scientists are calling for a 90% cut in emissions. So the math.

          • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

            I was going to ask what your point was but decided to google instead. Most hits say scientists/reports recommend 80% reduction…but I fell upon the tipping point for disaster I have not found before:

            http://planetextinction.com/documents/Methane,%20the%20Gakkel%20Ridge%20and%20human%20survival.pdf

            Seems we are “at the tipping point” right now! Little bit confusing to me if the Earth needs to heat another 5C now to release the methane, or if the methane can be released right now that will raise the temp 5C which will create another round/level of releases…. or both?

            Anyhoo–what with the Siberian Tundra heating up and currently releasing methane and the world planning only on releasing even more carbon…I’m thinking we’re cooked…not to pun too much.

            So…will we see a methane burp in Siberia that rases temps 5 degrees in 13 years. Evidently we are all dead at some time before the 13 year period is reached.

            Hmmmmm….am I not getting a clear picture of the timing because it is poorly written, or because I can’t deal with it emotionally???

            ……………Dayum!!! So much beer I wanted to drink………………

          • NewFormatSux says:

            “It’s easier to fool people than to convince people they have been fooled.”

  22. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

    http://natureworldnews.com/articles/5487/20131231/global-average-temperatures-set-to-rise-by-4-degrees-celsius-by-2100.htm

    Still looking for a clear guestimate of when Global Catasstrophe will occur. If its a rise of 5 C it may not arrive until 2100 or later. Always hard to tell: is this modeling of temperature rise taking into account only the co2 component, only the air temp…or is the Methane/Calthrayte Gun also included?

    Short article above re increaed temps/humidity/cloud formation. Marc==turns out its more complicated than warmer=more rain.

    Imagine that?

    • NewFormatSux says:

      4c by 2100, when the last sixth of a decade shows warming of .07C. So they are going for a 10x increase.

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

        1/6 x .07= .017 (your stat)

        .017 x 10=.17 (the decadal effect)

        .17 x 8.5= .99 (cumulative to 2100)

        4C / .99 = 4 fold higher level than your stat indicates.

        “Real Science” includes ranges of possibilities. Not hard single numbers.

        Got any link at all?

        Won’t read it again…my link said warming would be from 3 to 5 C ((they used a range)) but by recollection, they put their thumb on the 5C number.

        Like arguing about the song that was played while the Titanic sank?

        • NewFormatSux says:

          Bad math by you. You should have said 1/6 of decade is .07 C, so 1 decade is .42C, 1 century is 4.2C.
          I meant sixth of a century is .07C, in NASA Gistemp. That’s why the record warmest is irrelevant. Peak to peak, there just isn’t a lot of warming.

          • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

            Well………thats embarassing. I’m wrong, you are right…on simple math.

            RATS!!!…but I laugh at myself.

            …..so, at least math is something that can be “proven.” In fact, is the very and only definition of proof according to mathmeticians………..

            But this peak to peak thing is also math. How much “heat” there is would be the area beneath the curve/straight line from peak to peak.

            Involves some definitions, so more open to political agendas and confirmation bias?

        • NewFormatSux says:

          Have you ever been tested for dyslexia? It’s one thing to have bad math, but then I noticed further down,
          .17*8.5 =.99

          That’s not right either. Looks like you did .17 * 5.8

          • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

            NFS==thats an excellent catch….thank you. I don’t think I have dyslexia and I did run the calculations thru the google search bar, so…I think it is a case of bad typing and then not looking at the screen close enough as I “know” what I’m after. I think my fingers have a muscle memory of their own with the left/right hand out performing the other from time to time?

            I used to do all math in my head and was quite good at simple problems. I could even “image” a slide rule in my head to get a ballpark calculation to the end result to check decimal placement. Those days are gone….. and its getting worse?

            Math is so objective. I wish there was a process to check all the other mental processes???

            Pedro==thanks to you too. Quite the lexicon you present today. Just add self deprecation, humility, search for truth, sense of humor. You know…the rest of the world does not have such a close personal relationship to donkeys and other farm yard animals as you demonstrate. See yourself in other people, but don’t assume it as a certainty.

            Its great to be alive.

          • NewFormatSux says:

            what you’ve described sounds like dyslexia.

    • NewFormatSux says:

      1979-1998 19 years, warming of .56 C, from 5 to 61 years around 79 are 15 and 12

      1998 to 2014 16 years .06 C
      Yet somehow the former is considered the long term trend and the latter is declared a blip.

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

        The trend is based on the acceptance that if you keep putting green house gas into the atmosphere that the earth will continue to warm. So, you compare performance to the model and lower numbers would be a dip….until/unless you update the model.

        Consistent with this, you DO set the trend based on the longer time period. If the dip continues and sets/resets the longer time period, then you have an updated trend.

        Still going up.

        Still disaster if we don’t REVERSE the trend, rather than reset its upward trajectory.

        Any such dip will set the stage for an accelerated rise later…all things being equal. -or- The ocean loads up with its heat capture and then the trend continues pursuant to the physics involved.

        xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

        Like dyslexia, there are some basic brain malfunctions going on in the science denying anti-AGW crowd. Cherry picking the info, bias confirmation, magical thinking, taking any error as invalidation of the theory, LACK of alternative theories…..put them all together.

        Our grandkiddies are dead.

        Thank you science deniers.

      • NewFormatSux says:

        >until/unless you update the model.

        but they don’t do that. The latest IPCC report said some of the models were kind of close, so all the models were considered valid, and they continued to use the multimodel mean as representative. If a drug company did this, they would be shut down.
        Indeed, one Russian model that was thrown out of the IPCC selection as an outlier seems to be the best performing. We will see how it doe going forward.

        Looking at the IPCC report, we can see that the ocean heat is also not a valid explanation for slowdown in global warming. It was just ‘confirmation bias, magical thinking, cherry picking. taking any error as invalidation’.
        https://s.yimg.com/hd/answers/i/f72c0a95954d4a8ca0bc75d1f9e10bd2_A.jpeg?a=answers&mr=0&x=1427508143&s=1ed928cad506552ac57bbf865f78804c

  23. Jeremiah's Johnson says:

    If you insist on trying to “solve” the problem, we need to direct the solutions in the correct direction.

    A good start might be to cut all funding for social programs and direct that money toward the construction of 300 new nuclear plants (construction to begin tomorrow) while simultaneously making it illegal to manufacture a vehicle smaller than a Chevy Colorado.

    Also, remove all subsidies from any form of mass transit. Make it so people gravitate toward private vehicles. Europe and the rest of the world can do what they want, but America deserves better.

    Research into alternate vehicle fuels is fine, but you can’t actually deploy it in go-karts, only vehicle s worthy of Americans.

  24. Glenn E. says:

    In my area, our city has a decade old unpaid water bills from large corporations, that the governing democratic state officials have simply allowed to go uncollected. The total now runs into the tens of millions of dollars. But no corporate foreclosures, or tax sales of their properties. Meanwhile the City threatens to foreclosure on home owners for being only $350 behind in their water bills. So apparently this isn’t a matter of humans using up the valuable water supply. It’s about how much of a bribe, public officials can get from deadbeat corporations, to look the other way, on their water use bills. I suspect at some point they’ll default on these bills, or the State will forgive their debt (for a really big bribe).

  25. Glenn E. says:

    I remember when I was growing up. And the topic of what the earth must have been like, during the time of Adam and Eve. It was that the earth was like a tropical rain forest. Very warm. Trees everywhere. And much more humidity and moisture in the air. So at some point the earth cooled down, a lot. And the “tropics” receded to within 23 degrees of the Equator. As it is today. And I don’t see the tropics creeping back northward, in my lifetime.

    Back when the Global Warming scare first stated. They were claiming that the Killer Bees would come farther north, because of the warming. Along with more disease carrying mosquitoes. Well I hate to break it to the UN. But insects like those, need moisture too. So warming up, without the rainfall, will simply stop those insects dead. And BTW, whatever to that Kill Bee invasion? Another man-caused environmental scare gone bust?

    • Neo says:

      The poor defenseless bees died from the effects of Monsanto and The Dow Chemical corps control of the seed and chemicals spread across the planet.

      Or, maybe, the bees were stopped at the border since DHS was created.

  26. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

    In the space of just last week, here in Califortomato==we had “at record cold” and within 5 days “record heat.”

    I wonder if that is a record for a flip flop?

    Anyhoo….yes as one of my links stated: a general result is that dry places will get drier, and wet places will get wetter. An overall shift to the North with an expanding tropic zone.

    Killer Bees have spread North from one escaped colony to all over South America. How silly to critique AGW from how accurate the spread of Killer Bees will be?

    Kinda like evolution being denied because no one can show when one new species “springs” from another. IE++++++really stupid science deniers want immediate proof of something that by definition takes time.

    You might call Stoopid Hoomans temporally constipated………if you grok my meaning.

  27. kollpip says:

    I love what you have done so far and would love if you could add all the twitter cards too with granular choice!

  28. NewFormatSux says:

    “Maybe it’s because I was raised as a Protestant and became an environmentalist, but I’ve long been struck by the spiritual kinship of environmentalism and New England Puritanism. Both belief systems are haunted by the feeling that simply to be human is to be guilty. In the case of environmentalism, the feeling is grounded in scientific fact. Whether it’s prehistoric North Americans hunting the mastodon to extinction, Maori wiping out the megafauna of New Zealand, or modern civilization deforesting the planet and emptying the oceans, human beings are universal killers of the natural world. And now climate change has given us an eschatology for reckoning with our guilt: coming soon, some hellishly overheated tomorrow, is Judgment Day. Unless we repent and mend our ways, we’ll all be sinners in the hands of an angry Earth.”
    Jonathan Franzen

  29. deowll says:

    I have more faith in Thorium reactors but the toxic greens hear the word nuclear and flitter all over themselves.

    • NewFormatSux says:

      Then they tell us global warming is a threat to civilization as we know it.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5306 access attempts in the last 7 days.