Global Warming is over.

[nando]

which is what?

[Jon325i]

We're predicted to have a massive El Nino winter, which means more rain and warmer temps for us in the PNW. So likely not a great ski season :(

https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...-update-and-qa

While I sympathize your winter situation, here in California we are very low on water supplies in our lakes, reservoirs, and rivers thanks to several years of drought conditions. We need rain....like really bad. Where I live we have been mandated to lawn watering just 1 day a week (and neighbors have a hotline number to call if they spot violators....which results in a fine to said violator). A couple weeks ago I took a bike ride to Beal's Point @ Folsom Lake. This is what it looks like now...



The waters' edge should be about 20-25 feet from the bench in the photo. Now you need to walk/ride/drive to get to the water. This is just one example.....other lakes in California are in similar shape. Regardless if it's warm rain or cold rain.....just let it rain. A lot.


Jon

[nando]

I've seen other pictures of that lake and others where thing that have been underwater for 100+ years have come back to the surface. old bridges built in the gold rush days, whole towns, etc. it's creepy.

[gwb72tii]

this is for nando so you can feel comfortable burning fossil fuels this Christmas season to keep your family warm and to heat up the mulled wine

record global cooling

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/12/met-office-data-confirms-record-drop-of-global-temperatures/

and in before your rebuttal, the website doesn't believe in CAGW, but is only reporting official NASA/Met office/satellite data

[nando]

yay, another link to a science denial website I'm supposed to read - hurray for your echo chamber huh?

You're right, it reports official data - by cherry picking what fits their previous beliefs and reporting it with their oil-industry-funded slant.

Funny how they always start in 1995 (the start of the warmest ever el ninio previous to last year). Also funny how even in their cherry picked data, the overall trend line of warming still holds.

[BraveUlysses]

this is for nando so you can feel comfortable burning fossil fuels this Christmas season to keep your family warm and to heat up the mulled wine

record global cooling

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/12/met-office-data-confirms-record-drop-of-global-temperatures/

and in before your rebuttal, the website doesn't believe in CAGW, but is only reporting official NASA/Met office/satellite data

once again, you need a refresher on how to read a source and critically evaluate it:

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/553/03/

> Read the preface--What does the author want to accomplish? Browse through the table of contents and the index.This will give you an overview of the source. Is your topic covered in enough depth to be helpful? If you don't find your topic discussed, try searching for some synonyms in the index.
> Check for a list of references or other citations that look as if they will lead you to related material that would be good sources.
> Determine the intended audience. Are you the intended audience? Consider the tone, style, level of information, and assumptions the author makes about the reader. Are they appropriate for your needs?
> Try to determine if the content of the source is fact, opinion, or propaganda. If you think the source is offering facts, are the sources for those facts clearly indicated?
> Do you think there's enough evidence offered? Is the coverage comprehensive? (As you learn more and more about your topic, you will notice that this gets easier as you become more of an expert.)
> Is the language objective or emotional?
> Are there broad generalizations that overstate or oversimplify the matter?
> Does the author use a good mix of primary and secondary sources for information?
> If the source is opinion, does the author offer sound reasons for adopting that stance? (Consider again those questions about the author. Is this person reputable?)
> Check for accuracy.
> How timely is the source? Is the source twenty years out of date? Some information becomes dated when new research is available, but other older sources of information can be quite sound fifty or a hundred years later.
> Do some cross-checking. Can you find some of the same information given elsewhere?
> How credible is the author? If the document is anonymous, what do you know about the organization?
> Are there vague or sweeping generalizations that aren't backed up with evidence?
> Are arguments very one-sided with no acknowledgement of other viewpoints?


because the daily mail is goddamned joke


you're a hack, stop pretending to have any understanding about things that you have none

[Wschnitz]

>Almost 2017
>still not believing in Climate Change.

[gwb72tii]

yup just what i thought
anthro climate change is dead btw

[nando]

uh huh

and the earth is flat..

[gwb72tii]

yes and anyone that says the science is settled is not a scientist and doesn't understand science
you guys really don't get it do you. you think the world is coming to an end because of co2 yet all the available data contradicts CAGW
can't wait for the new admin. the gravy train of funding the lunatics of the left is over.

[nando]

George, the keyboard climate scientist!

tell me, where did you get your PHD in climatology? Trump University? ;)

[mbonder]

yes and anyone that says the science is settled is not a scientist and doesn't understand science
you guys really don't get it do you. you think the world is coming to an end because of co2 yet all the available data contradicts CAGW
can't wait for the new admin. the gravy train of funding the lunatics of the left is over.

No one said the world was coming to an end, I think this is part of the issue here. People concerned with the environment get labeled as fatalists for the near-term destruction of the world. The world will be here for millions of years beyond today, the conversation is more about the state it will be in going forward.

If you're so scientific, why not show the people who believe in the dangers of climate change any scientific information showing any point in the global past when the temperature rose so rapidly over such a short period of time that wasn't part of a volcanic eruption or an asteroid hitting the earth. You'll be searching for a while. So for those that seem to push the argument that the earth naturally warms and cools, yes it does, that's true, but the rate at which it does so isn't this rapid, because there is a catalyst, humans.

[BraveUlysses]

yes and anyone that says the science is settled is not a scientist and doesn't understand science
you guys really don't get it do you. you think the world is coming to an end because of co2 yet all the available data contradicts CAGW
can't wait for the new admin. the gravy train of funding the lunatics of the left is over.

lyin' george is back at the top of his game

[Kershaw]

He's like the guy that says a theory is "only a theory."

[nando]

like gravity - don't try to test whether it's "just a theory" though. ;)

also, if we are in fact in a short term "cooling" period due to la-niña - thank goodness. That just buys us time to fix our shit. It's not going to change the overall trend though.