Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Climate Change Unchained Climate Change Unchained

02-15-2014 , 11:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zikzak
California has a $2.4 billion budget surplus.

Try again.
uhhhhh?

http://www.ibtimes.com/top-5-most-in...ates-us-758031

http://xfinity.comcast.net/slideshow...es/california/

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacrament...-load-132.html
02-16-2014 , 12:47 AM
old sources
The state's budget has come a long way in the past three years

Quote:
Being in debt is the result of a deficit in funds. Having a deficit then result in debt causing borrowing money which the government likes to so nicely call selling bonds. Buy our deficit and we will pay you interest. Debt. Eventually, when the bond hits maturity, we will be paying you interest past the amount you payed for the deficit (bond). We will continue paying you interest until you turn in the bond after it's maturity and we will pay you back a much larger sum than you paid for the bond.

Last edited by yeSpiff; 02-16-2014 at 01:07 AM.
02-16-2014 , 01:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeSpiff
old sources
The state's budget has come a long way in the past three years
The points in the articles are valid. A huge financial issue for California has been, is still and will continue to be there unfunded pension liabilities. No way, no how will California avoid cutting those benefits.

Last edited by adios; 02-16-2014 at 02:04 AM.
02-16-2014 , 02:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeSpiff
Take a break and consider this; who else?

The lack of rainfall has emptied the Sierra Mountain snowpack responsible for a majority of the California state’s water, is now pitting farmers against fishermen, north against south and, of course, Democrats against Republicans.

How state and federal lawmakers respond to the crisis could offer a window into how the United States writ large will react to climate events in real time—and so far, the politics appear too small for the task.

"The drought shows that even the most responsible steward of the environment will suffer without a global effort."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
LOL there isn't a shred of evidence that any lack of rainfall in California would have been ameliorated by any government action. Pure bull ****.
02-16-2014 , 02:38 AM
Well that is true. We should have seen this coming a long time ago.

Better to start late than not at all. I admit I'm not very knowledgeable about this topic, but as I understand it is exponentially getting worse.
02-16-2014 , 04:11 AM
02-16-2014 , 12:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeSpiff
Well that is true. We should have seen this coming a long time ago.

Better to start late than not at all. I admit I'm not very knowledgeable about this topic, but as I understand it is exponentially getting worse.
example #23412342 of weather being climate when convenient.

It's ok though you won't be mocked as thoroughly as if you had said, 'where's the agw it's -5 right now?'
02-16-2014 , 03:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikestoys
It's ok though you won't be mocked as thoroughly as if you had said, 'where's the agw it's -5 right now?'
02-16-2014 , 03:11 PM
lol what trolly? provin my point nicely though
02-16-2014 , 03:12 PM
hey, if you can't trust a med student to know everything about climate science, who can you trust?
02-16-2014 , 03:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roonil Wazlib
hey, if you can't trust a med student to know everything about climate science, who can you trust?
Pretty sure I'm not using my 'elite' status as a med student to laugh at the stupidity of pointing to the drought in california as an example of agw. Weather is not climate yo. This is a really easy concept that people tend to forget when talking about warming/bad climate events, but quickly remembered when people talk about cold events.
02-16-2014 , 03:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikestoys
lol what trolly? provin my point nicely though
You're supposedly on Team Mainstream Science, but you've never once ever called out any of the climate change denialists on their ****ty arguments ever. Nobody reads what Yespliff writes because he's Lirva Jr. Your "point" is just pure firetruckonfire.jpg
02-16-2014 , 03:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
You're supposedly on Team Mainstream Science, but you've never once ever called out any of the climate change denialists on their ****ty arguments ever. Nobody reads what Yespliff writes because he's Lirva Jr. Your "point" is just pure firetruckonfire.jpg
Yeah, your first assertion is false, and you guys pile on everybody just fine all on your own. The stupidity of linking weather to warm events is not limited to weirdos like yespliff either. You know this, I know this. You're wrong.
02-16-2014 , 06:11 PM
But you can link climate change to extreme weather trends.

Quote:
There was an old mill that really did grind corn with two millers,
a great big pond with swans on it, a sandpit, a wonderful dell with flowers, a few old-fashioned village houses and,
further away, a stream with another mill. I always knew it would go - and it did.
02-16-2014 , 06:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeSpiff
But you can link climate change to extreme weather trends.
To trends.... maybe. What you absolutely 100% cannot do is relate them to events, which is what you're doing here.
02-16-2014 , 06:19 PM
No I wasn't, I pointed out that current politicians is not capable to dealing with the issue.
02-16-2014 , 06:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeSpiff
No I wasn't, I pointed out that current politicians is not capable to dealing with the issue.
Not going to work, but it's nice to see you back off.
02-16-2014 , 07:26 PM
I'm not, and it did.
The 'we should have seen this coming a long time ago' was not directed at California, but history.
02-16-2014 , 07:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeSpiff
I'm not, and it did.
The 'we should have seen this coming a long time ago' was not directed at California, but history.
Some commentary on the latest IPCC report:
Quote:
More specifically, the report’s June draft shows “similar” temperature rises to the earlier reports, at about 1.0-3.7oCelsius by the end of the century. For sea-level rise, the IPCC now includes modeling of glacier responses of 3-20 centimeters, leading to a higher total estimate of 40-62 cm by century’s end – much lower than the exaggerated and scary figure of 1-2 meters of sea-level rise that many environmental activists, and even some media outlets, bandy about.

Similarly, the IPCC has allowed for lower temperature rises by reducing the lower end of its estimate of so-called climate sensitivity. It is also less certain now that humans have caused hurricane and drought events since 1950. In the 2007 report, it was more than 50% certain that they have; now it is less than 21% certain.

Yet these sensible and moderate findings will be met with a predictable wall of alarmism. Many will mimic the blogger Joe Romm, who has declared that “this ultra-conservative and instantly obsolete report ignores the latest science,” and continues to claim 5º C temperature rises and six-foot (1.83 meters) sea-level rises. Romm and many others made similar arguments following the release of the 2007 IPCC report, claiming that the latest, much more alarming, research had been left out.

The bigger problem for the IPCC is that global temperature has risen little or not at all in the last 10-20 years. To be clear, this slowdown does not mean that there is no global warming – there is; but it does call into question how much.

To its credit, the IPCC admits that “models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in the surface warming trend over the last 10–15 years.” This matters, because if the models overshoot for recent decades, the century-long forecasts are open to doubt.

Compared to the actual temperature rise since 1980, the average of 32 top climate models (the so-called CMIP5) overestimates it by 71-159% (see graph). A new Nature Climate Change study shows that the prevailing climate models produced estimates that overshot the temperature rise over the last 15 years by more than 300%.
Btw CO2 emissions in the USA declined in 2012 and IIRC in 2013.
02-16-2014 , 07:49 PM
Quote your quote:

Quote:
To be clear, this slowdown does not mean that there is no global warming – there is!
I don't claim to know much on the topic and not going to bother trying to go into details.
02-16-2014 , 10:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeSpiff
Quote your quote:



I don't claim to know much on the topic and not going to bother trying to go into details.
Technically, the globe is still warming, it's just that more of the heat is being partitioned into the deep ocean rather than air temps.
02-17-2014 , 10:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeSpiff
Quote your quote:



I don't claim to know much on the topic and not going to bother trying to go into details.
Standard
02-17-2014 , 01:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adios
Standard
No reason to doubt the years of rigorous research.
What trolly posted I've heard before and its most likely correct.

The Donald Trumpets conspiracies have their motives, so why bother?

Also, just because you can not prove weather isn't affected, does not make it not true.
02-18-2014 , 07:52 PM
It is a positive feedback. Kind of a duh one too.

      
m