Seven states running out of water

The United States is currently engulfed in one of the worst droughts in recent memory. More than 30% of the country experienced at least moderate drought as of last week's data.

In seven states drought conditions were so severe that each had more than half of its land area in severe drought. Severe drought is characterized by crop loss, frequent water shortages, and mandatory water use restrictions. Based on data from the U.S. Drought Monitor, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the states with the highest levels of severe drought.

In an interview, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) meteorologist Brad Rippey, told 24/7 Wall St. that drought has been a long-running issue in parts of the country. "This drought has dragged on for three and a half years in some areas, particularly (in) North Texas," Rippey said.

While large portions of the seven states suffer from severe drought, in some parts of these states drought conditions are even worse. In six of the seven states with the highest levels of drought, more than 30% of each state was in extreme drought as of last week, a more severe level of drought characterized by major crop and pasture losses, as well as widespread water shortages. Additionally, in California and Oklahoma, 25% and 30% of the states, respectively, suffered from exceptional drought, the highest severity classification. Under exceptional drought, crop and pasture loss is widespread, and shortages of well and reservoir water can lead to water emergencies.

Drought has had a major impact on important crops such as winter wheat. "So much of the winter wheat is grown across the southern half of the Great Plains," Rippey said, an area that includes Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, three of the hardest-hit states. Texas alone had nearly a quarter of a million farms in 2012, the most out of any state, while neighboring Oklahoma had more than 80,000 farms, trailing only three other states.

In the Southwest, concerns are less-focused on agriculture and more on reservoir levels, explained Rippey. In Arizona, reservoir levels were just two-thirds of their usual average. Worse still, in New Mexico, reservoir stores were only slightly more than half of their normal levels. "And Nevada is the worst of all. We see storage there at about a third of what you would expect," Rippey said.

The situation in California may well be the most problematic of any state. The entire state was suffering from severe drought as of last week, and 75% of all land area was under extreme drought. "Reservoirs which are generally fed by the Sierra Nevadas and the southern Cascades [are] where we see the real problems," Rippey said. Restrictions on agricultural water use has forced many California farmers to leave fields fallow, he added. "At [the current] usage rate, California has less than two years of water remaining."

The U.S. Drought Monitor is produced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the seven states with the highest proportions of total area classified in at least a state of severe drought as of May 13, 2014. We also reviewed figures recently published by the USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service as part of its 2012 Census of Agriculture.

These are the seven states running out of water.
7. Texas

> Pct. severe drought: 56.1%

6. Oklahoma

> Pct. severe drought: 64.5%

5. Arizona

> Pct. severe drought: 76.3%

4. Kansas

> Pct. severe drought: 80.8%

3. New Mexico

> Pct. severe drought: 86.2%

2. Nevada

> Pct. severe drought: 87.0%

1. California

> Pct. severe drought: 100.0%
> Pct. extreme drought: 76.7% (the highest)
> Pct. exceptional drought: 24.8% (2nd highest)

California had the nation's worst drought problem with more than 76% of the state experiencing extreme drought as of last week. Drought in California has worsened considerably in recent years. Severe drought conditions covered the entire state, as of last week. Governor Jerry Brown declared a state of emergency earlier this year as the drought worsened. California had 465,422 hired farm workers in 2012, more than any other state. Farm workers would likely suffer further if conditions persist. The shortage of potable water has been so severe that California is now investing in long-term solutions, such as desalination plants. A facility that is expected to be the largest in the Western hemisphere is currently under construction in Southern California, and another desalination facility is under consideration in Orange County.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/06/01/states-running-out-of-water/9506821/
==========================================
For all Actions & In-actions, there are Consequences!

The period ahead will confirm that WE have pushed nature to far & that nature will now push us in return!

Der, its population water usage, not climate change. Its drought, not climate change.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 1^st, 2014 at 11:01pm:

Der, its population water usage, not climate change. Its drought, not climate change.

::) :P :P :P :P :P

I re-post the following here, as it is relevant -


perceptions_now wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 1:44pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 2:26pm: Fact 1 - Both major Economic theories (Keynesian & Austrian) have been applied & applied successfully, during the modern Economic era, at the appropriate time/s during the Economic cycle/s! Fact 2 - Both major Economic theories (Keynesian & Austrian) are now failing & both will continue to FAIL in the near to medium term future, BECAUSE the underlying Factors which have driven Economic Growth over much of the last 200 years or so, are now in Decline and there is nothing that either Economic theory can do to alter the outcomes, which are now set in concrete, for at least the next 2 to 3 decades! Fact 3 - The most major factors now driving Global Economy are - a) Demographics - primarily via the rapid Aging & slowing Growth of the Population. b) Energy - primarily via the slowing Growth of Energy Supply & substantial increases in Energy Pricing. c) Climate Change - primarily via Global Warming, But also via some areas becoming less wet (causing more severe droughts) and other areas becoming more wet (causing more sever floods), all of which is driving Agriculture towards lower Food Production & some areas towards a lack of Drinking water to support their growing Population.   Fact 4 - A combination of "all of the above", plus the "obsessive compulsive disorder" of ALL POLITICIANS to look after their own interests NOW & those of "their supporters", to the detriment what is good for the longer term interests of the entire Public, ha seen Global Debt spiral beyond redemption. Fact 5 -     These factors have actually been lining up for quite some time and the combined logical/likely outcome are now pretty much set in concrete, so whilst the final outcomes MAY be realigned "a little", IF REAL ACTIONS ARE TAKEN, it seems unlikely that the Political arena (in general) is actually going to take actions that are remotely likely to change the real direction of events. So, I suggest we relax & enjoy ourselves, whilst that is possible AND WE AWAIT FOR THE STRETCHING RUBBER BAND TO FINALLY BREAK AND WE WILL THEN START TO REALISE WHAT HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED & WHAT WILL HAPPEN!

Climate change is real.

How much to attribute to CO2?

The IPCC says temperatures rose .35C prior to 1970, before AGW. That is natural variation.
The IPCC says temperatures have risen .55C since AGW.
If we assume natural variation remained at .35C then CO2 caused .2C warming.
Not the dominant forcing since 1970 let alone last century.

lee wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 3:10pm:

Climate change is real. How much to attribute to CO2? The IPCC says temperatures rose .35C prior to 1970, before AGW. That is natural variation. The IPCC says temperatures have risen .55C since AGW. If we assume natural variation remained at .35C then CO2 caused .2C warming. Not the dominant forcing since 1970 let alone last century.

Why do you believe there was no AGW before 1970, Lee?

MOTR wrote on Jul 7^th, 2014 at 9:24am:

Why do you believe there was no AGW before 1970, Lee?

Perhaps I should have been more specific. No AGW due to GHG emissions. Certainly AGW overall from land clearing etc.

'There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.[6] {2.2}

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.[7] It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4). {2.4} '

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html

lee wrote on Jul 7^th, 2014 at 11:26am:

MOTR wrote on Jul 7th, 2014 at 9:24am: Why do you believe there was no AGW before 1970, Lee? Perhaps I should have been more specific. No AGW due to GHG emissions. Certainly AGW overall from land clearing etc. 'There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.[6] {2.2} Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.[7] It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4). {2.4} ' http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html

like wtbugger  :) :)

http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/

The above link shows a map of the current US Drought situation.

With much of the Western & Southern parts of the US now in a serious drought, this has ramifications for the Food & Water supply of a great number of people.

This also highlights that the current Climate Change relates to the current unfolding situation and how it will play out in the decades & centuries ahead, not how it relates to what happened in the past, particularly in the distant past, prior to humanities existence.

That said, there is ample evidence, for those who look with open minds, that man has certainly impacted what is currently happening and
in the years, decades & centuries ahead we shall reap what we have sown!

Or, more to the point, we shall not reap enough of what we have sown, to feed our hungry Billions! 

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 11:56am:

With much of the Western & Southern parts of the US now in a serious drought, this has ramifications for the Food & Water supply of a great number of people.

Drought in the South and West has a strong correlation to El Nino/La Nina conditions. There have been longer periods of drought prior to white settlement.

lee wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 12:31pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 26th, 2014 at 11:56am: With much of the Western & Southern parts of the US now in a serious drought, this has ramifications for the Food & Water supply of a great number of people. Drought in the South and West has a strong correlation to El Nino/La Nina conditions. There have been longer periods of drought prior to white settlement.

when?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 27^th, 2014 at 3:39am:

when?

'Through studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers have documented multiple droughts in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years -- compared to the mere three-year duration of the current dry spell. The two most severe megadroughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years. '

http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_24993601/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more

History of extreme weather California since settlement

http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/impacts/hydrology/state_fd/cawater1.html

lee wrote on Jul 27^th, 2014 at 12:08pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 27th, 2014 at 3:39am: when? 'Through studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers have documented multiple droughts in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years -- compared to the mere three-year duration of the current dry spell. The two most severe megadroughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years. ' http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_24993601/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more History of extreme weather California since settlement http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/impacts/hydrology/state_fd/cawater1.html

wow, some serious science going on there  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Who can believe it though?   :o

Yeah, you possibly can't believe the US government.

'A 1,200-year perspective of 21st century drought in southwestern North America'

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/50/21283.full

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/50/21283/F1.medium.gif

Blue is precipitation, Brown is temperature.

lee wrote on Jul 27^th, 2014 at 1:36pm:

Yeah, you possibly can't believe the US government.

..or science  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

.
BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 28^th, 2014 at 12:36pm:

.or science

PNAS -

http://www.pnas.org/local/img/nav/headline.png

Is a Scientific Organisation with a warmist bent. You need to get out more.

Megadrought: Huge Surge of Pacific Heat Fails to Start El Nino, Heats Planet to 3 Warmest Months

Chances of a western north America megadrought of an intensity not seen since before the arrival of European explorers just went up. The largest surge of heat ever recorded moving west to east in the Pacific ocean along the equator just dissipated heating the planet to the warmest 3 months in history, but failing to produce an El Nino. Strong El Nino events intensify the jet stream across the Pacific, bringing rain to California and the southwestern U.S. Although a number of climate models still predict an El Nino, the chance of a drought breaking strong El Nino has gone way down with the passing of this huge Kelvin wave.

One hundred percent of California is in severe or worse drought. The failure of this Kelvin wave to trigger a strong El Nino means that there is no end in sight to this drought. The liklihood of drought worsening across the southwestern U.S. has gone up because a strong El Nino would likely bring rains from California to Texas. Instead of a warm tropical Pacific  pulling the jet stream down, warm water in the subtropics and temperate zones has pushed north in the northern hemisphere. This movement of heat will tend to move the jet stream poleward, leaving California and the southwest in drought.

Global ocean temperatures were the highest ever measured for June. According to NOAA the global sea surface temperature anomaly was the highest in history. At the end of July the oceans continue to be very hot and the temperature anomaly may be even higher.

For the ocean, the June global sea surface temperature was record warm, at 0.64°C (1.15°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F). This marks the first time that the monthly global ocean temperature anomaly was higher than 0.60°C (1.08°F) and surpasses the previous all-time record for any month by 0.05°C (0.09°F); the previous record of +0.59°C (1.06°F) was first set in June 1998 and tied in October 2003, July 2009, and just last month in May 2014. Similar to May, scattered sections across every major ocean basin were record warm. Notably, large parts of the western equatorial and northeastern Pacific Ocean and nearly all of the Indian Ocean were record warm or much warmer than average for the month.

All the heat that built up in the equatorial Pacific in the Kelvin wave was blown away from the equator by stronger than normal winds in the southern hemisphere. The strong winds may be part of a natural weather cycle in the southern hemisphere but anthropogenic climate change may be having an effect. Deepwater formation around Antarctica has declined in response to freshening waters caused by massive melting of Antarctic glaciers. Therefore, less warm water is flowing near the surface towards Antarctica. Coastal Antarctica has been colder than normal this winter while warm water has heated up in the temperate waters from Australia to south America. Winds and currents have sped up as this ring around Antarctica has tightened up. Interaction of these strengthening westerly winds and with the high Andes barrier in south America has intensified the trade winds and the cold Humboldt current that runs along the coast of south America. Warm water has been pushed by the winds, currents and weather into a huge pool east of New Zealand. The pool has so much heat that sea level has risen about 4 inches above normal over an area of the Pacific ocean the size of the United States according to NOAA's GODAS model.

The global oceans are stunningly warm now, smashing previous records for anomalous heat.

The implications for California and the southwest are dire. The largest Kelvin wave ever seen in the equatorial Pacific was apparently consumed by an increase in heat in the southern ocean north of the Antarctic circumpolar current. This could be a pattern that reinforces itself leading to drought patterns not seen since the ancient Pueblo people in the southwest were forced to migrate after decades of continuous drought.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/30/1317666/-Megadrought-Huge-Surge-of-Pacific-Heat-Fails-to-Start-El-Nino-Heats-Planet-to-3-Warmest-Months

'Climate Change Could Double Likelihood of Super El Ninos'

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-could-make-super-el-ninos-more-likely-16976


perceptions_now wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2014 at 7:05pm:

Megadrought: Huge Surge of Pacific Heat Fails to Start El Nino, Heats Planet to 3 Warmest Months

Global warming fails to start El Nino as predicted, greater drought predicted.

Obviously El Nino fails to heed the IPCC.

Was it really only a couple of months ago they were confidently predicting a super El Nino?

THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY’S RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE

WITH CLIMATE CHANGE A CLEAR AND PRESENT THREAT TO
THE COMMERCIAL VIABILITY OF THE GLOBAL INSURANCE INDUSTRY, THE DELAY IN THE SECTOR FORMING A CONSENSUS VIEW ON THE ISSUE HAS ASTONISHED MANY. BUT HAVING NOW ACCEPTED THE MAN-MADE CAUSES OF GLOBAL WARMING THE INDUSTRY IS NOW MOBILISING IN WAYS UNHEARD OF ONLY TWO YEARS AGO.

Having now largely accepted the science, risks and impacts of global warming, the industry globally is now an active and essential participant in dealing effectively with the problem – a leadership role which it is innately qualified to perform.

https://www.theinstitute.com.au/journals/risk_responsibility_and_reward.pdf
==========================================
The fact is that, "ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, the insurance industry is putting their money behind "the best advice now available", not the money coming from other sectors, such as the "Fossil Fuel industry".

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2014 at 4:07pm:

THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY’S RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE A CLEAR AND PRESENT THREAT TO THE COMMERCIAL VIABILITY OF THE GLOBAL INSURANCE INDUSTRY, THE DELAY IN THE SECTOR FORMING A CONSENSUS VIEW ON THE ISSUE HAS ASTONISHED MANY. BUT HAVING NOW ACCEPTED THE MAN-MADE CAUSES OF GLOBAL WARMING THE INDUSTRY IS NOW MOBILISING IN WAYS UNHEARD OF ONLY TWO YEARS AGO. Having now largely accepted the science, risks and impacts of global warming, the industry globally is now an active and essential participant in dealing effectively with the problem – a leadership role which it is innately qualified to perform. https://www.theinstitute.com.au/journals/risk_responsibility_and_reward.pdf ========================================== The fact is that, "ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, the insurance industry is putting their money behind "the best advice now available", not the money coming from other sectors, such as the "Fossil Fuel industry".

Yeah....nah

Everyone was chicken little back in April 2009. Is that all you got?

Gravy train for charging extra premium for the fraud of Alarmist nonsense.

Rider wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2014 at 4:40pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 3rd, 2014 at 4:07pm: THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY’S RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE A CLEAR AND PRESENT THREAT TO THE COMMERCIAL VIABILITY OF THE GLOBAL INSURANCE INDUSTRY, THE DELAY IN THE SECTOR FORMING A CONSENSUS VIEW ON THE ISSUE HAS ASTONISHED MANY. BUT HAVING NOW ACCEPTED THE MAN-MADE CAUSES OF GLOBAL WARMING THE INDUSTRY IS NOW MOBILISING IN WAYS UNHEARD OF ONLY TWO YEARS AGO. Having now largely accepted the science, risks and impacts of global warming, the industry globally is now an active and essential participant in dealing effectively with the problem – a leadership role which it is innately qualified to perform. https://www.theinstitute.com.au/journals/risk_responsibility_and_reward.pdf ========================================== The fact is that, "ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, the insurance industry is putting their money behind "the best advice now available", not the money coming from other sectors, such as the "Fossil Fuel industry". Yeah....nah Everyone was chicken little back in April 2009. Is that all you got? Gravy train for charging extra premium for the fraud of Alarmist nonsense.

Call it what you want, BUT insurers will retreat or withdraw from certain areas of high risk and high loss &/or charge increasingly higher rates relevant to other areas not so climate susceptible.

Those areas may include situations more prone to Flooding, rising sea water, Droughts and more!

All of which will change what we do, where we do it, how much it costs & where we live.

So, believe or not, change is coming!

Warren Buffett on insurance- Mar 3 2014-

'The effects of climate change, "if any," have not affected the insurance market, billionaire Warren Buffett told CNBC on Monday—adding he's not calculating the probabilities of catastrophes any differently.

While the question of climate change "deserves lots of attention," Buffett said in a "Squawk Box" interview, "It has no effect ... [on] the prices we're charging this year versus five years ago. And I don't think it'll have an effect on what we're charging three years or five years from now." He added, "That may change ten years from now."

He said the U.S. has been "remarkably free of hurricanes" in the past five years with only slightly more tornadoes.


"The public has the impression that because there's been so much talk about climate that events of the last 10 years from an insured standpoint and climate have been unusual," he continued. "The answer is they haven't."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101460458#.

If insurance companies put up prices to maximise profits- that's an entirely different thing.

lee wrote on Aug 4^th, 2014 at 11:49am:

Warren Buffett on insurance- Mar 3 2014- 'The effects of climate change, "if any," have not affected the insurance market, billionaire Warren Buffett told CNBC on Monday—adding he's not calculating the probabilities of catastrophes any differently. While the question of climate change "deserves lots of attention," Buffett said in a "Squawk Box" interview, "It has no effect ... [on] the prices we're charging this year versus five years ago. And I don't think it'll have an effect on what we're charging three years or five years from now." He added, "That may change ten years from now." He said the U.S. has been "remarkably free of hurricanes" in the past five years with only slightly more tornadoes. "The public has the impression that because there's been so much talk about climate that events of the last 10 years from an insured standpoint and climate have been unusual," he continued. "The answer is they haven't." http://www.cnbc.com/id/101460458#. If insurance companies put up prices to maximise profits- that's an entirely different thing.

Yes, this is of course a very solid point indeed !!

Property Insurance Rates Skyrocketing in Florida

Florida is known for being a disaster-prone state, and insurance companies are always quick to point out the many hurricanes that have ravished the state in past years. However, residents of Central Florida have been seeing massive increases in their property insurance rates over the last couple months.

Some individuals have suffered homeowners-insurance premiums that have risen more than 50 percent in the last year, and many Central Floridians now pay insurance premiums that are higher than most of the state and most of America. One of the factors that significantly affects your insurance rates is the cost of “reinsurance”, which companies buy to cover their own losses. In essence, “reinsurance” is insurance for insurance companies. These costs are skyrocketing because the industry recently decided to reorganize the way it calculated storm risk. This new approach determined that inland Florida rates need to go up, and reinsurance increases are estimated to increase up to 80% in some areas of the state.

More than a few insurance companies in the United States are pulling out of weather-challenged states and are refusing to write new homeowner policies. Some companies are also refusing to renew contracts with current policyholders. In fact, the Consumer Federation of America studied industry data and came to the conclusion that insurance companies have methodically and significantly decreased their financial responsibility for weather catastrophes like hurricanes, floods and tornados in recent years.

Because more and more private insurers are refusing to write policies in Florida, the state has had to step in and cover around 1.5 million properties through its publicly funded corporations.

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=26288
===========================================
There is the Reality and that Reality will become more pronounced as the years roll on!

Oh & it should be noted that IF/AS Governments step in to cover what the insurance market will not, that won't solve the long term problem, it will simply expose Government & therefore all Tax Payers to greater Liabilities, as Climate Change effects worsen!

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 4^th, 2014 at 1:20pm:

Property Insurance Rates Skyrocketing in Florida

That article appears to be about 4 years old. Established 1997, over 13 years experience- so less than 14.

My reference is this year.

Who do you believe the guy who sells it or the lawyer who wants to sue the insurance company for you?

lee wrote on Aug 4^th, 2014 at 4:07pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 4th, 2014 at 1:20pm: Property Insurance Rates Skyrocketing in Florida That article appears to be about 4 years old. Established 1997, over 13 years experience- so less than 14. My reference is this year. Who do you believe the guy who sells it or the lawyer who wants to sue the insurance company for you?

Whom to believe?

A Lawyer?
An Insurance Salesman?
Or, perhaps a Politician?

Trust me, there's not much of a choice amongst them!

I would still opt for the best advice, from those who should know best, The Scientists!

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 4^th, 2014 at 11:26pm:

Whom to believe? A Lawyer? An Insurance Salesman? Or, perhaps a Politician? Trust me, there's not much of a choice amongst them! I would still opt for the best advice, from those who should know best, The Scientists!

I totally agree on insurance salesmen, lawyers and politicians.

In IPCC AR5  technical summary at page 110 the lead authors say that they have low confidence in -

'Increases in intensity and/or duration of drought.'

'Increases in intense tropical cyclone activity.'

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf

Though it shows as page 78 of 84 in my reader.

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2014 at 5:39pm:

Rider wrote on Aug 3rd, 2014 at 4:40pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 3rd, 2014 at 4:07pm: THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY’S RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE A CLEAR AND PRESENT THREAT TO THE COMMERCIAL VIABILITY OF THE GLOBAL INSURANCE INDUSTRY, THE DELAY IN THE SECTOR FORMING A CONSENSUS VIEW ON THE ISSUE HAS ASTONISHED MANY. BUT HAVING NOW ACCEPTED THE MAN-MADE CAUSES OF GLOBAL WARMING THE INDUSTRY IS NOW MOBILISING IN WAYS UNHEARD OF ONLY TWO YEARS AGO. Having now largely accepted the science, risks and impacts of global warming, the industry globally is now an active and essential participant in dealing effectively with the problem – a leadership role which it is innately qualified to perform. https://www.theinstitute.com.au/journals/risk_responsibility_and_reward.pdf ========================================== The fact is that, "ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, the insurance industry is putting their money behind "the best advice now available", not the money coming from other sectors, such as the "Fossil Fuel industry". Yeah....nah Everyone was chicken little back in April 2009. Is that all you got? Gravy train for charging extra premium for the fraud of Alarmist nonsense. Call it what you want, BUT insurers will retreat or withdraw from certain areas of high risk and high loss &/or charge increasingly higher rates relevant to other areas not so climate susceptible. Those areas may include situations more prone to Flooding, rising sea water, Droughts and more! All of which will change what we do, where we do it, how much it costs & where we live. So, believe or not, change is coming!

oops warmist insurance industry attempts to ratchet up premiums flops on the fraud of catastrophic global warming - facts talk PeaNut and bullsh1t walks.

Zurich Insurance Group shuts down climate office that was opened in 2008

By Sebastian Lüning, Fritz Vahrenholt

The Zurich Insurance Group is closing the climate office it had opened in 2008, a Zurich spokeswoman confirmed to E&E Publishing. Over the past several weeks and months Zurich Office Director Lindene Patton had been actively promoting the idea of the climate catastrophe to the US Senate. Patton had also co-wrote the US National Climate Assessment, which flopped completely thanks to the alarmist tendencies of her colleagues.

Apparently the Zurich has slammed on the brakes because the lobbying efforts closely tied to the IPCC are no longer getting acceptance from the public and parts of US politics. In general the insurance business is suspected of using extreme weather warnings to peddle their products to customers and to justify high premiums.

- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.R5JnZJFj.dpuf

Rider wrote on Aug 11^th, 2014 at 6:21am:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 3rd, 2014 at 5:39pm: Rider wrote on Aug 3rd, 2014 at 4:40pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 3rd, 2014 at 4:07pm: THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY’S RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE A CLEAR AND PRESENT THREAT TO THE COMMERCIAL VIABILITY OF THE GLOBAL INSURANCE INDUSTRY, THE DELAY IN THE SECTOR FORMING A CONSENSUS VIEW ON THE ISSUE HAS ASTONISHED MANY. BUT HAVING NOW ACCEPTED THE MAN-MADE CAUSES OF GLOBAL WARMING THE INDUSTRY IS NOW MOBILISING IN WAYS UNHEARD OF ONLY TWO YEARS AGO. Having now largely accepted the science, risks and impacts of global warming, the industry globally is now an active and essential participant in dealing effectively with the problem – a leadership role which it is innately qualified to perform. https://www.theinstitute.com.au/journals/risk_responsibility_and_reward.pdf ========================================== The fact is that, "ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, the insurance industry is putting their money behind "the best advice now available", not the money coming from other sectors, such as the "Fossil Fuel industry". Yeah....nah Everyone was chicken little back in April 2009. Is that all you got? Gravy train for charging extra premium for the fraud of Alarmist nonsense. Call it what you want, BUT insurers will retreat or withdraw from certain areas of high risk and high loss &/or charge increasingly higher rates relevant to other areas not so climate susceptible. Those areas may include situations more prone to Flooding, rising sea water, Droughts and more! All of which will change what we do, where we do it, how much it costs & where we live. So, believe or not, change is coming! oops warmist insurance industry attempts to ratchet up premiums flops on the fraud of catastrophic global warming - facts talk PeaNut and bullsh1t walks. Zurich Insurance Group shuts down climate office that was opened in 2008 By Sebastian Lüning, Fritz Vahrenholt The Zurich Insurance Group is closing the climate office it had opened in 2008, a Zurich spokeswoman confirmed to E&E Publishing. Over the past several weeks and months Zurich Office Director Lindene Patton had been actively promoting the idea of the climate catastrophe to the US Senate. Patton had also co-wrote the US National Climate Assessment, which flopped completely thanks to the alarmist tendencies of her colleagues. Apparently the Zurich has slammed on the brakes because the lobbying efforts closely tied to the IPCC are no longer getting acceptance from the public and parts of US politics. In general the insurance business is suspected of using extreme weather warnings to peddle their products to customers and to justify high premiums. - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.R5JnZJFj.dpuf

Maybe it has something to do with the fraudsters not be able to manipulate temperature data any higher than they already have, to make a dent in the pause and the arctic is back to absolute normal.

2014. Green showing ice extent now compared to same time in 2012 after the hurricane hit the ice
https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/screenhunter_1840-aug-10-06-55.jpg

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 11^th, 2014 at 6:52am:

Rider wrote on Aug 11th, 2014 at 6:21am: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 3rd, 2014 at 5:39pm: Rider wrote on Aug 3rd, 2014 at 4:40pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 3rd, 2014 at 4:07pm: THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY’S RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE A CLEAR AND PRESENT THREAT TO THE COMMERCIAL VIABILITY OF THE GLOBAL INSURANCE INDUSTRY, THE DELAY IN THE SECTOR FORMING A CONSENSUS VIEW ON THE ISSUE HAS ASTONISHED MANY. BUT HAVING NOW ACCEPTED THE MAN-MADE CAUSES OF GLOBAL WARMING THE INDUSTRY IS NOW MOBILISING IN WAYS UNHEARD OF ONLY TWO YEARS AGO. Having now largely accepted the science, risks and impacts of global warming, the industry globally is now an active and essential participant in dealing effectively with the problem – a leadership role which it is innately qualified to perform. https://www.theinstitute.com.au/journals/risk_responsibility_and_reward.pdf ========================================== The fact is that, "ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, the insurance industry is putting their money behind "the best advice now available", not the money coming from other sectors, such as the "Fossil Fuel industry". Yeah....nah Everyone was chicken little back in April 2009. Is that all you got? Gravy train for charging extra premium for the fraud of Alarmist nonsense. Call it what you want, BUT insurers will retreat or withdraw from certain areas of high risk and high loss &/or charge increasingly higher rates relevant to other areas not so climate susceptible. Those areas may include situations more prone to Flooding, rising sea water, Droughts and more! All of which will change what we do, where we do it, how much it costs & where we live. So, believe or not, change is coming! oops warmist insurance industry attempts to ratchet up premiums flops on the fraud of catastrophic global warming - facts talk PeaNut and bullsh1t walks. Zurich Insurance Group shuts down climate office that was opened in 2008 By Sebastian Lüning, Fritz Vahrenholt The Zurich Insurance Group is closing the climate office it had opened in 2008, a Zurich spokeswoman confirmed to E&E Publishing. Over the past several weeks and months Zurich Office Director Lindene Patton had been actively promoting the idea of the climate catastrophe to the US Senate. Patton had also co-wrote the US National Climate Assessment, which flopped completely thanks to the alarmist tendencies of her colleagues. Apparently the Zurich has slammed on the brakes because the lobbying efforts closely tied to the IPCC are no longer getting acceptance from the public and parts of US politics. In general the insurance business is suspected of using extreme weather warnings to peddle their products to customers and to justify high premiums. - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.R5JnZJFj.dpuf Maybe it has something to do with the fraudsters not be able to manipulate temperature data any higher than they already have, to make a dent in the pause and the arctic is back to absolute normal. 2014. Green showing ice extent now compared to same time in 2012 after the hurricane hit the ice https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/screenhunter_1840-aug-10-06-55.jpg

Stunning isn't it? How the useful idiots have been played by these so called 'green' shysters is hilarious  :)

lee wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 3:10pm:

Climate change is real. How much to attribute to CO2? The IPCC says temperatures rose .35C prior to 1970, before AGW. That is natural variation. The IPCC says temperatures have risen .55C since AGW. If we assume natural variation remained at .35C then CO2 caused .2C warming. Not the dominant forcing since 1970 let alone last century.

Hello all  :)

Statistics lie.. depending on what you choose to select, and how you choose to apply them .
I'll keep on reading..

hmm not very informative.. altho.. the 'insurance' angle is interesting.

Not unreasonable to look to models produced by multi.nats who look at the probabilities from a totally profit motive.


My personal obsv' s ...  this is probably the 'drought we had to have'..  before new patterns assert themselves.

Here in SEQ we are praying for rain.

The conditions remind me very much of a time approx.  15 yrs ago.. in this ,  my very space,  and time.. 

that drought ..  lasted a long time.

This one.. which we are experiencing right now.. I hope will be more short - term...   the change in weather patterns means,  I hope, ( for my personal sake)  that the cycles will occur much more quickly.

I hope for huge rains in SEQ soon. OK the forecasters say it'll happen for a day or two...  SOON..  AND THERE ARE SOME NATURAL POINTERS.. oops ..

IF  .. I repeat IF..  I get 100+ mm in the next week I will be ecstatic .. but I'm waiting....................

Emma wrote on Aug 13^th, 2014 at 8:37pm:

hmm not very informative.. altho.. the 'insurance' angle is interesting. Not unreasonable to look to models produced by multi.nats who look at the probabilities from a totally profit motive. My personal obsv' s ...  this is probably the 'drought we had to have'..  before new patterns assert themselves. Here in SEQ we are praying for rain. The conditions remind me very much of a time approx.  15 yrs ago.. in this ,  my very space,  and time..  that drought ..  lasted a long time. This one.. which we are experiencing right now.. I hope will be more short - term...   the change in weather patterns means,  I hope, ( for my personal sake)  that the cycles will occur much more quickly. I hope for huge rains in SEQ soon. OK the forecasters say it'll happen for a day or two...  SOON..  AND THERE ARE SOME NATURAL POINTERS.. oops .. IF  .. I repeat IF..  I get 100+ mm in the next week I will be ecstatic .. but I'm waiting....................

Well that would be incredibly optimistic dont you think, you know, given that the you live in a summer dominant rainfall area and you can't expect a mean monthly rainfall of above 100mm till December........

But I guess that looking at recorded historic data isnt as sexy as making up nonsense about how the 'climate is changing'  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Some real science-
An experiment loosely based on Bill Nye's and Al Gore's experiment on CO2.

Abstract-
'Classroom experiments that purport to demonstrate the role of carbon dioxide’s far-infrared
absorption in global climate change are more subtle than is commonly appreciated. We show, using
both experimental results and theoretical analysis, that one such experiment demonstrates an entirely
different phenomenon: The greater density of carbon dioxide compared to air reduces heat transfer
by suppressing convective mixing with the ambient air. Other related experiments are subject to
similar concerns. Argon, which has a density close to that of carbon dioxide but no infrared absorption, provides a valuable experimental control for separating radiative from convective effects. A simple analytical model for estimating the magnitude of the radiative greenhouse effect is presented, and the effect is shown to be very small for most tabletop experiments.'

full paper- http://rtobin.phy.tufts.edu/Wagoner%20AJP%202010.pdf

Perhaps they need to review what they think they know about ECS, that part of the function that crosses between the physics (science) and the estimations (guesses), from where they gain how much temperature will spike.

lee wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 11:55am:

Some real science- An experiment loosely based on Bill Nye's and Al Gore's experiment on CO2. Abstract- 'Classroom experiments that purport to demonstrate the role of carbon dioxide’s far-infrared absorption in global climate change are more subtle than is commonly appreciated. We show, using both experimental results and theoretical analysis, that one such experiment demonstrates an entirely different phenomenon: The greater density of carbon dioxide compared to air reduces heat transfer by suppressing convective mixing with the ambient air. Other related experiments are subject to similar concerns. Argon, which has a density close to that of carbon dioxide but no infrared absorption, provides a valuable experimental control for separating radiative from convective effects. A simple analytical model for estimating the magnitude of the radiative greenhouse effect is presented, and the effect is shown to be very small for most tabletop experiments.' full paper- http://rtobin.phy.tufts.edu/Wagoner%20AJP%202010.pdf Perhaps they need to review what they think they know about ECS, that part of the function that crosses between the physics (science) and the estimations (guesses), from where they gain how much temperature will spike.

Estimation is science: you don't understand the uncertainty principle much do you fella!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 1:14pm:

lee wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 11:55am: Some real science- An experiment loosely based on Bill Nye's and Al Gore's experiment on CO2. Abstract- 'Classroom experiments that purport to demonstrate the role of carbon dioxide’s far-infrared absorption in global climate change are more subtle than is commonly appreciated. We show, using both experimental results and theoretical analysis, that one such experiment demonstrates an entirely different phenomenon: The greater density of carbon dioxide compared to air reduces heat transfer by suppressing convective mixing with the ambient air. Other related experiments are subject to similar concerns. Argon, which has a density close to that of carbon dioxide but no infrared absorption, provides a valuable experimental control for separating radiative from convective effects. A simple analytical model for estimating the magnitude of the radiative greenhouse effect is presented, and the effect is shown to be very small for most tabletop experiments.' full paper- http://rtobin.phy.tufts.edu/Wagoner%20AJP%202010.pdf Perhaps they need to review what they think they know about ECS, that part of the function that crosses between the physics (science) and the estimations (guesses), from where they gain how much temperature will spike. Estimation is science: you don't understand the uncertainty principle much do you fella!

And it sounds like you don't either..

Rider wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 5:16am:

Emma wrote on Aug 13th, 2014 at 8:37pm: hmm not very informative.. altho.. the 'insurance' angle is interesting. Not unreasonable to look to models produced by multi.nats who look at the probabilities from a totally profit motive. My personal obsv' s ...  this is probably the 'drought we had to have'..  before new patterns assert themselves. Here in SEQ we are praying for rain. The conditions remind me very much of a time approx.  15 yrs ago.. in this ,  my very space,  and time..  that drought ..  lasted a long time. This one.. which we are experiencing right now.. I hope will be more short - term...   the change in weather patterns means,  I hope, ( for my personal sake)  that the cycles will occur much more quickly. I hope for huge rains in SEQ soon. OK the forecasters say it'll happen for a day or two...  SOON..  AND THERE ARE SOME NATURAL POINTERS.. oops .. IF  .. I repeat IF..  I get 100+ mm in the next week I will be ecstatic .. but I'm waiting.................... Well that would be incredibly optimistic dont you think, you know, given that the you live in a summer dominant rainfall area and you can't expect a mean monthly rainfall of above 100mm till December........ But I guess that looking at recorded historic data isnt as sexy as making up nonsense about how the 'climate is changing'  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Wot  I  said yeah??

IF  .. I repeat IF..  I get 100+ mm in the next week I will be ecstatic ..

Well that would be incredibly optimistic dont you think,


err  well didn't I just indicate that..?

Hope Springs Eternal. :-?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 1:14pm:

Estimation is science: you don't understand the uncertainty principle much do you fella!

But estimation is only as good as the available data, it is not set in concrete. More/newer data should be reflected in the estimation. There doesn't seem to be a significant reduction in the error bands of ECS in the last 30 years.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 2:20pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 1:14pm: lee wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 11:55am: Some real science- An experiment loosely based on Bill Nye's and Al Gore's experiment on CO2. Abstract- 'Classroom experiments that purport to demonstrate the role of carbon dioxide’s far-infrared absorption in global climate change are more subtle than is commonly appreciated. We show, using both experimental results and theoretical analysis, that one such experiment demonstrates an entirely different phenomenon: The greater density of carbon dioxide compared to air reduces heat transfer by suppressing convective mixing with the ambient air. Other related experiments are subject to similar concerns. Argon, which has a density close to that of carbon dioxide but no infrared absorption, provides a valuable experimental control for separating radiative from convective effects. A simple analytical model for estimating the magnitude of the radiative greenhouse effect is presented, and the effect is shown to be very small for most tabletop experiments.' full paper- http://rtobin.phy.tufts.edu/Wagoner%20AJP%202010.pdf Perhaps they need to review what they think they know about ECS, that part of the function that crosses between the physics (science) and the estimations (guesses), from where they gain how much temperature will spike. Estimation is science: you don't understand the uncertainty principle much do you fella! And it sounds like you don't either..

wow, you're a hard hitter pal  ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 16^th, 2014 at 6:43pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 2:20pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 1:14pm: lee wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 11:55am: Some real science- An experiment loosely based on Bill Nye's and Al Gore's experiment on CO2. Abstract- 'Classroom experiments that purport to demonstrate the role of carbon dioxide’s far-infrared absorption in global climate change are more subtle than is commonly appreciated. We show, using both experimental results and theoretical analysis, that one such experiment demonstrates an entirely different phenomenon: The greater density of carbon dioxide compared to air reduces heat transfer by suppressing convective mixing with the ambient air. Other related experiments are subject to similar concerns. Argon, which has a density close to that of carbon dioxide but no infrared absorption, provides a valuable experimental control for separating radiative from convective effects. A simple analytical model for estimating the magnitude of the radiative greenhouse effect is presented, and the effect is shown to be very small for most tabletop experiments.' full paper- http://rtobin.phy.tufts.edu/Wagoner%20AJP%202010.pdf Perhaps they need to review what they think they know about ECS, that part of the function that crosses between the physics (science) and the estimations (guesses), from where they gain how much temperature will spike. Estimation is science: you don't understand the uncertainty principle much do you fella! And it sounds like you don't either.. wow, you're a hard hitter pal  ;D

Thanks, I do my best

so far have had maybe .>??? 30 mm.. (err perhaps thats an exaggeration )
Unusual for this time of yr,,? Yes..

will wait till I've talked to my neighbor... who keeps a rain gauge ..  when it stops ..


RAINING..!!!  oh Bliss..!! To hear the rain ..
a bit of real rain... is wonderful. 

Do hope it keeps going.   :)  Currently..  yes.. its raining..  :)

Emma wrote on Aug 16^th, 2014 at 9:05pm:

so far have had maybe .>??? 30 mm.. (err perhaps thats an exaggeration ) Unusual for this time of yr,,? Yes.. will wait till I've talked to my neighbor... who keeps a rain gauge ..  when it stops .. RAINING..!!!  oh Bliss..!! To hear the rain .. a bit of real rain... is wonderful.  Do hope it keeps going.   :)  Currently..  yes.. its raining..  :)

How elemental is that pleasure  - hearing rain.
All my forebears would have been pleased, just like me, by that sound. What a wonderful way to plug into an eternal sentiment.

It has eased now,  and I have been outside..
listening to the night and the sounds of the water, 
the trilling as the water flows over the land.. the sounds of release as the high leaves shower down their abundance..
  the myriad sounds.. frogs. .drips..  the split splat splot ... water  and life


please  please send more ..mother

ahhhh      love the sound of rain on a tin roof.

:) :) :) :) :) :)

well well Got 66 mm of rain in the gauge..!!

One day and it was gone.

Unheard of  ::) ::) ::) ::)

Would have preferred 100+  ..  and now they say some more showers..??
Frogs sound positive.. kookas are calling.. fingers crossed ..

for more unseasonal rainfall.  :) :)

Emma wrote on Aug 16^th, 2014 at 9:05pm:

so far have had maybe .>??? 30 mm.. (err perhaps thats an exaggeration ) Unusual for this time of yr,,? Yes.. will wait till I've talked to my neighbor... who keeps a rain gauge ..  when it stops .. RAINING..!!!  oh Bliss..!! To hear the rain .. a bit of real rain... is wonderful.  Do hope it keeps going.   :)  Currently..  yes.. its raining..  :)

If the ground is dry the rain doesn't make it to catchment.. if desertification takes hold it is an irreversible process!!

aye well there's the rub.

it has been raining lightly here.. (  :) :) :) :) ) for the last 12 hrs + ... not going to get 66 mm thats for sure  BUT...!

It is soaking in nicely .. and I might even get some more rungs filled in my water tank.  It is just so wonderful to hear the rain on the roof,  in the trees,  and feel the moister air.

I'm happy for my trees.  :)

and still I hear this impossible... unseasonal,! :)  .. rain .. in the driest month of the yr... historically.!   ... falling gently and so sweetly on my corrugated iron roof.

Ahh 

life is sweet.

Emma wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2014 at 12:00am:

and still I hear this impossible... unseasonal,! :)  .. rain .. in the driest month of the yr... historically.!   ... falling gently and so sweetly on my corrugated iron roof. Ahh  life is sweet.

Must have a weird smell ?!!?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 21^st, 2014 at 5:12pm:

Emma wrote on Aug 16th, 2014 at 9:05pm: so far have had maybe .>??? 30 mm.. (err perhaps thats an exaggeration ) Unusual for this time of yr,,? Yes.. will wait till I've talked to my neighbor... who keeps a rain gauge ..  when it stops .. RAINING..!!!  oh Bliss..!! To hear the rain .. a bit of real rain... is wonderful.  Do hope it keeps going.   :)  Currently..  yes.. its raining..  :) If the ground is dry the rain doesn't make it to catchment.. if desertification takes hold it is an irreversible process!!

YES

which is why development at any cost is simply wrong.

The land needs TREES

not concrete and cars

SEQ ??  PUKE .. :P

  developers run the govt here..and/or Govt-run bodies
like Energex,  crap all over the way it SHOULD be.

TREES 
not
politically backed developers.   >:( >:(

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2014 at 2:03am:

Emma wrote on Aug 23rd, 2014 at 12:00am: and still I hear this impossible... unseasonal,! :)  .. rain .. in the driest month of the yr... historically.!   ... falling gently and so sweetly on my corrugated iron roof. Ahh  life is sweet. Must have a weird smell ?!!?

Weird..?  No ..not at all..  a familiar smell ?
Yes..

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!! :)

It is STILL raining...  not as heavy,  but light and re-invigorating.  It is soaking in.. and my tanks is getting more rain than when we had 66mm..  relatively.  (The gutters aren't overflowing.. they are catching it all.. :)
Have had a further 13.5 mm to 9 am   .. since then??? Light but sweetest ... 

So  ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..... :)

The frogs are singing again..  have been noticeably absent in the sounds of the bush here for too many months now..

Go frogs..!!   :)

And the recording is likely to be 'under'  because the rain gauge is surrounded by  very tall trees...  the open area is limited... and the wind... has been quite ferocious..  eased now.

SO

a very UNUSUAL, but very welcome weather event.   :) ;D

Who knows..?  I'm already feeling so much better...  but  i could get  100+    :o :o :o

IMAGINE THAT eh..?? 

As long as you're happy I'm happy  8-)

I'm happy...  :)

Quick someone call the ipcc it has rained in Qld, the evidence is in, the science is settled.... ;D ;D ;D  97% of Qlders agree it has rained, it's a consensus  ;D ;D

another city dude...  couldn't find his ah in the dark..

Emma wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2014 at 8:45pm:

another city dude...  couldn't find his ah in the dark..

Try nth nsw, Central nsw, far north qld - gulf, western Qld, western nsw, bris & Melbourne, you have nothing.

ohh??

I have lived on the spot I still live on NOW... for 29yrs.. more or less..   :)  Hey I been all over too,, in younger yrs. 


NOW??

I have observed the changes.. over this time.

bear with me .. bear  DOWN  boy.. :)

'cos  I have observed real change.. and only in this last 50 yrs,, has the RATE of CHANGE in the natural world... speeded up..to such a degree as to be  recognisable in realtime. !!

THAT IS BAD.

AND.. that is in response to the obscene and increasing AMOUNTS OF CRAP.. that we humans produce.

I don't see how any consciously connected human being could say anything else.

Emma wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2014 at 9:25pm:

ohh?? I have lived on the spot I still live on NOW... for 29yrs.. more or less..   :)  Hey I been all over too,, in younger yrs.  NOW?? I have observed the changes.. over this time. bear with me .. bear  DOWN  boy.. :) 'cos  I have observed real change.. and only in this last 50 yrs,, has the RATE of CHANGE in the natural world... speeded up..to such a degree as to be  recognisable in realtime. !! THAT IS BAD. AND.. that is in response to the obscene and increasing AMOUNTS OF CRAP.. that we humans produce. I don't see how any consciously connected human being could say anything else.

Nice rant. Moronic waffle of course. Enjoy your rain, it's not unprecedented and not even unusual.
We had blue skies and a tad over 20 degrees in Melbourne today...must be some man made warming rates of change or some other laughable tosh  ;D

ah  Melbourne  .. I remember living there.. so sad for you.. but it does not equate.................. YOU SAY   Enjoy your rain, it's not unprecedented and not even unusual.
We had blue skies and a tad over 20 degrees in Melbourne today...must be some man made warming rates of change or some other laughable tosh .. 

CITY FOLK..!! :) ::) ::) ::) ::) 

NO CLUE.

Emma wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2014 at 10:12pm:

ah  Melbourne  .. I remember living there.. so sad for you.. but it does not equate.................. YOU SAY   Enjoy your rain, it's not unprecedented and not even unusual. We had blue skies and a tad over 20 degrees in Melbourne today...must be some man made warming rates of change or some other laughable tosh ..  CITY FOLK..!! :) ::) ::) ::) ::)  NO CLUE.

LOL hell Emma, Don't you know AGW is REALLY....AL Gore said so, he wouldn't fib.

Emma wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2014 at 9:25pm:

'cos  I have observed real change.. and only in this last 50 yrs,, has the RATE of CHANGE in the natural world... speeded up..to such a degree as to be  recognisable in realtime. !!

And yet it is not unprecedented. The rate of change is similar 1910-1940 as it is 1970-2000.

lee wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2014 at 11:05am:

Emma wrote on Aug 23rd, 2014 at 9:25pm: 'cos  I have observed real change.. and only in this last 50 yrs,, has the RATE of CHANGE in the natural world... speeded up..to such a degree as to be  recognisable in realtime. !! And yet it is not unprecedented. The rate of change is similar 1910-1940 as it is 1970-2000.

lol why don't you just say it again and again and again and again until it becomes the truth...  ::)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2014 at 10:54pm:

lee wrote on Sep 2nd, 2014 at 11:05am: Emma wrote on Aug 23rd, 2014 at 9:25pm: 'cos  I have observed real change.. and only in this last 50 yrs,, has the RATE of CHANGE in the natural world... speeded up..to such a degree as to be  recognisable in realtime. !! And yet it is not unprecedented. The rate of change is similar 1910-1940 as it is 1970-2000. lol why don't you just say it again and again and again and again until it becomes the truth...  ::)

Yeaarrse   say it often enough and the fools will believe it.

I don't know what we're arguing about. Climate change is always real. It was real 10,000 years ago and long before that.

bogarde73 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2014 at 10:49am:

I don't know what we're arguing about. Climate change is always real. It was real 10,000 years ago and long before that.

I agree, but whether or not we're artifically inflating its effects.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 4^th, 2014 at 10:53am:

bogarde73 wrote on Sep 4th, 2014 at 10:49am: I don't know what we're arguing about. Climate change is always real. It was real 10,000 years ago and long before that. I agree, but whether or not we're artifically inflating its effects.

Ah, well that's where we get to a philosophical divide between those who rank the power of man above the power of the natural cycle and those who don't.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2014 at 10:54pm:

lol why don't you just say it again and again and again and again until it becomes the truth..

And yet slope on a graph is rate of change. So you do not even believe the graphs- including those from the IPCC? How bizarre.

bogarde73 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2014 at 2:29pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 4th, 2014 at 10:53am: bogarde73 wrote on Sep 4th, 2014 at 10:49am: I don't know what we're arguing about. Climate change is always real. It was real 10,000 years ago and long before that. I agree, but whether or not we're artifically inflating its effects. Ah, well that's where we get to a philosophical divide between those who rank the power of man above the power of the natural cycle and those who don't.

Perhaps you are right about a philosophical divide... but really that doesn't matter.. does it? ... in the scheme of things.

Because what happens ... happens,..   ::)  regardless of our  philosophical view.  We as individuals can have any opinion ... it has NO IMPACT  on the real world.

and frankly.. I find anyone who says that we have no real impact  to be a fool.

And I'm sure that most of you deniers happily fly around the world,  spewing filth from those high flyers.. Who cares..??

NOT YOU.. obviously. :(

Emma wrote on Sep 4^th, 2014 at 11:50pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Sep 4th, 2014 at 2:29pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 4th, 2014 at 10:53am: bogarde73 wrote on Sep 4th, 2014 at 10:49am: I don't know what we're arguing about. Climate change is always real. It was real 10,000 years ago and long before that. I agree, but whether or not we're artifically inflating its effects. Ah, well that's where we get to a philosophical divide between those who rank the power of man above the power of the natural cycle and those who don't. Perhaps you are right about a philosophical divide... but really that doesn't matter.. does it? ... in the scheme of things. Because what happens ... happens,..   ::)  regardless of our  philosophical view.  We as individuals can have any opinion ... it has NO IMPACT  on the real world.

But the philosophical divide is about what our response should be.
IF the current warming is man-made, then there may be something we could do to slow it, or stop it.

However, IF the current warming is natural, or mostly natural, then adapting to the change is the only option, and worrying about how to reverse it is a waste of time, money and effort.

Emma wrote on Sep 4^th, 2014 at 11:52pm:

And I'm sure that most of you deniers happily fly around the world,  spewing filth from those high flyers.. Who cares..??

Well I guess Al Gore in his private plane does; doesn't he?

does he??

The climate has always changed for millions of years. There is nothing wrong with it. 

Tell that to your children. See what they think... because they,  and subsequent generations  are the ones who are really going to suffer.

This is the last of the Golden yrs for Humans... 
unless we find another planet to destroy ....  and REALLY SOON.

Why don't you go and climb back into the trees...  while there is still time. ?

Emma wrote on Sep 5^th, 2014 at 9:11pm:

Tell that to your children. See what they think... because they,  and subsequent generations  are the ones who are really going to suffer. This is the last of the Golden yrs for Humans...  unless we find another planet to destroy ....  and REALLY SOON. Why don't you go and climb back into the trees...  while there is still time. ?

Yep, my kids will be the ones laughing at you, when the AGW thing comes crashing down.

you are so sure you are correct??  What would it take for you to BELIEVE.??

UMM  a super cyclone..??   Snow in Summer..??  seen that already.

you sneer and deny one lot, whilst wholly embracing the other lot.

why??  if one is suspect... BOTH are suspect.  Where does that leave you..?? The science  ??  well no.. 'cos you don't believe it.  You believe those who tell you what you want to hear. 

You believe one .. but not the other.  The ONE is presented by real science... the OTHER by zealots who claim science as their background... 
yet NO DOUBT  .. they believe in religion.....   a fanciful con .. the biggest in human history.

What  is that term coined by the fanatics,,creationists ?? / ummm not um  Darwinism..  whats it called again.. you know that religious garbage seeking to prove the unprovable..?? 

oo  oh  is it  Creative design..??  damn  can't remember.. it is so facile and biased I can't recall it cos its such a farce. 

Emma wrote on Sep 5^th, 2014 at 9:47pm:

you are so sure you are correct??  What would it take for you to BELIEVE.?? UMM  a super cyclone..??   Snow in Summer..??  seen that already. you sneer and deny one lot, whilst wholly embracing the other lot. why??  if one is suspect... BOTH are suspect.  Where does that leave you..?? The science  ??  well no.. 'cos you don't believe it.  You believe those who tell you what you want to hear.  You believe one .. but not the other.  The ONE is presented by real science... the OTHER by zealots who claim science as their background...  yet NO DOUBT  .. they believe in religion.....   a fanciful con .. the biggest in human history. What  is that term coined by the fanatics,,creationists ?? / ummm not um  Darwinism..  whats it called again.. you know that religious garbage seeking to prove the unprovable..??  oo  oh  is it  Creative design..??  damn  can't remember.. it is so facile and biased I can't recall it cos its such a farce.

What would it take for me to believe??...Hmmm how about something that HASN'T happened at least once in pre-Industrial history??

And although some of the skeptics and skeptical scientists may be believers in religion, or at least have 'spiritual' beliefs, the number isn't any greater than for pro warming people and scientists.


And the Creationist thing you're trying to think of is Intelligent Design.

so then you somehow know that super cyclones occurred  back then..?? 

How..??  You have historical references which show this..?? 

Emma wrote on Sep 5^th, 2014 at 10:56pm:

so then you somehow know that super cyclones occurred  back then..??  How..??  You have historical references which show this..??

How do you know they didn't??

And what 'super cyclones' do you refer to?

So.. you can only say.. how do I know they didn't..?? 

Well that just explains it all doesn't it.?  eh?? 

Super cyclones.??  there have been a few lately.
Don't you watch the news.??

Emma wrote on Sep 5^th, 2014 at 11:15pm:

So.. you can only say.. how do I know they didn't..??  Well that just explains it all doesn't it.?  eh??  Super cyclones.??  there have been a few lately. Don't you watch the news.??

Yes I do watch the news.....and what is called a 'Super Cyclone' in Indian or a Super Typhoon at the Joint Typhoon Warning Centre, is a ordinary Category 5 Cyclone here in Australia. And Australia had it's first recorded Cat 5 Cyclone in 1899.

According to the various weather agencies, the last couple of years have been very quiet, in terms of tropical storm frequency and power.

In fact, there was a study published in Nature Journal in January this year that found 'that current seasonal cyclone activity is at its lowest level in Western Australia since 500 AD and since about 1400 AD in Queensland. That decline began about 40 years ago.'

did they say that??  WOW..  I wonder how they know that .. 500AD  ?? really?

I am referring to the last few yrs..  the size
and occurrence of cyclones ....  may not have hit US just  yet.. we have had some large ones.. but not in highly populated regions..  thankfully. 

I'd refer you also to the tornadoes.. not just in the States.. but here as well.  The mid-west of the United States has seen unprecedented tornado activity. Damnation Alley.

Seems you imagine it was always like this,  but I'd suggest the number and severity has shown a real increase,  in real terms of damage and loss of life.

After all?  who was recording these in Australia in 500AD?
No one..  thats who.  Make it up as you go along.. thats the way to go..

Emma wrote on Sep 5^th, 2014 at 11:39pm:

did they say that??  WOW..  I wonder how they know that .. 500AD  ?? really? I am referring to the last few yrs..  the size and occurrence of cyclones ....  may not have hit US just  yet.. we have had some large ones.. but not in highly populated regions..  thankfully.  I'd refer you also to the tornadoes.. not just in the States.. but here as well.  The mid-west of the United States has seen unprecedented tornado activity. Damnation Alley. Seems you imagine it was always like this,  but I'd suggest the number and severity has shown a real increase,  in real terms of damage and loss of life. After all?  who was recording these in Australia in 500AD? No one..  thats who.  Make it up as you go along.. thats the way to go..

Apparently something to do with isotopes in limestone cave stalagmites.

http://theconversation.com/tropical-cyclone-frequency-falls-to-centuries-low-in-australia-but-will-the-lull-last-20814

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7485/full/nature12882.html

The link to the conversation is probably a little easier to understand than the second link to the actual article. (which is behind a pay wall, I just noticed)

Emma wrote on Sep 5^th, 2014 at 9:47pm:

you are so sure you are correct??  What would it take for you to BELIEVE.?? UMM  a super cyclone..??   Snow in Summer..??  seen that already. you sneer and deny one lot, whilst wholly embracing the other lot. why??  if one is suspect... BOTH are suspect.  Where does that leave you..?? The science  ??  well no.. 'cos you don't believe it.  You believe those who tell you what you want to hear.  You believe one .. but not the other.  The ONE is presented by real science... the OTHER by zealots who claim science as their background...  yet NO DOUBT  .. they believe in religion.....   a fanciful con .. the biggest in human history. What  is that term coined by the fanatics,,creationists ?? / ummm not um  Darwinism..  whats it called again.. you know that religious garbage seeking to prove the unprovable..??  oo  oh  is it  Creative design..??  damn  can't remember.. it is so facile and biased I can't recall it cos its such a farce.

You need to hide under your doona. Oh the scary super duper wooper cyclone is gonna get you.....

Do you have any concept of just how stupid you sound.

No  and don't care either...  any idea how utterly clueless YOU sound.?? 

Hard to beat..!!!

Tornadoes F3 and above USA

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/EF3-EF5-t.png

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/extreme-events/us-tornado-climatology/trends

Top ten deadliest tornadoes

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/extreme-events/us-tornado-climatology/deadliest

nice graph..  im not reading links..

but most violent  = deadliest..??   
seems 1974 was a bad yr for lots of folks.. as was 2010.2011  ..don't we know it.. here in Qld. 

one graph means nothing .. sorry..  if you are trying to show proof...
you must realise surely that anything you trawl out will be met by just as big,  or an even bigger,  net.
Media does NOT inform us on this issue...  we, as it were, the general public.. get fed all sorts of tripe.. YUK.. Some love it...  I can't swallow it..  I make up my own mind..   

Only hard reality will convince some.. so .. for example,,..... when your house floods..  altho its never flooded before  in living memory..  think about it. :o :o


so  I refer you to someone prev who thought isotopes recorded on caves in WA proved cyclones were stronger then. more than 1000 yrs ago.

I mean.. guys really.. I'm not saying that is wrong... 

it is SIMPLY IRRELEVANT.

We are in a whole new game here.. and relying on old stats is foolhardy in the extreme.
Everyone has an axe to grind.. it seems..

Mine is not for cutting down trees.

Emma wrote on Sep 11^th, 2014 at 8:08pm:

nice graph..  im not reading links.. but most violent  = deadliest..??    seems 1974 was a bad yr for lots of folks.. as was 2010.2011  ..don't we know it.. here in Qld.  one graph means nothing .. sorry..  if you are trying to show proof... you must realise surely that anything you trawl out will be met by just as big,  or an even bigger,  net. Media does NOT inform us on this issue...  we, as it were, the general public.. get fed all sorts of tripe.. YUK.. Some love it...  I can't swallow it..  I make up my own mind..    Only hard reality will convince some.. so .. for example,,..... when your house floods..  altho its never flooded before  in living memory..  think about it. :o :o so  I refer you to someone prev who thought isotopes recorded on caves in WA proved cyclones were stronger then. more than 1000 yrs ago. I mean.. guys really.. I'm not saying that is wrong...  it is SIMPLY IRRELEVANT. We are in a whole new game here.. and relying on old stats is foolhardy in the extreme. Everyone has an axe to grind.. it seems.. Mine is not for cutting down trees.

Living memory is only a very short time frame (up to about 80 years). In recorded history is better example, eg floods in the same area as your house, 150 years ago.
However, the best measure is just 'in history' which is since the world formed.

As an example, the loss of the Greenland ice sheet is used as definitive proof of man-made global warming, right??
So how do you explain the Viking settlements, where they cut down the 4 to 6 metre tall birch trees and grazed their livestock on the grass, in the 10th century AD??

Emma wrote on Sep 11^th, 2014 at 8:08pm:

nice graph..  im not reading links.. but most violent  = deadliest..??    seems 1974 was a bad yr for lots of folks.. as was 2010.2011  ..don't we know it.. here in Qld. one graph means nothing .. sorry..  if you are trying to show proof... you must realise surely that anything you trawl out will be met by just as big,  or an even bigger,  net. Media does NOT inform us on this issue...  we, as it were, the general public.. get fed all sorts of tripe.. YUK.. Some love it...  I can't swallow it..  I make up my own mind..    Only hard reality will convince some.. so .. for example,,..... when your house floods..  altho its never flooded before  in living memory..  think about it. Shocked Shocked so  I refer you to someone prev who thought isotopes recorded on caves in WA proved cyclones were stronger then. more than 1000 yrs ago. I mean.. guys really.. I'm not saying that is wrong... it is SIMPLY IRRELEVANT. We are in a whole new game here.. and relying on old stats is foolhardy in the extreme. Everyone has an axe to grind.. it seems.. Mine is not for cutting down trees.

So the stats from a US Gov't Agency don't count. You don't look at the links. The top 10 deadliest shows 2011 the latest and then goes back to 1953, as the next deadliest by time.

But you don't want to know that because you are safely cocooned in your own perceptions. Facts don't matter.

they may well be facts as you say..  whether they have any relevance ..//  remember the very wise words of Samuel S Clemens  ..   and....given the number of other factors which apply in this time frame.. the graph is basically meaningless. .. in isolation.  OH  I know you are answering one of my prev posts re tornadoes..  whatever. ::)

I think the next 10yrs will show you all the proof you will ever need to see.

Time will prove it... 

I'm not hoping you're right. And I don't think you are.

Just think if a sceptic disbelieved government data, they would be labelled a 'conspiracy nut'.

Emma wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 6:21pm:

they may well be facts as you say..  whether they have any relevance ..// remember the very wise words of Samuel S Clemens  ..   and....given the number of other factors which apply in this time frame.. the graph is basically meaningless. .. in isolation.  OH  I know you are answering one of my prev posts re tornadoes..  whatever. ::) I think the next 10yrs will show you all the proof you will ever need to see. Time will prove it...

Yeah, and the 'wise words' of Samuel Clemens are
crap..

you know what ??

I couldn't be bothered arguing about this any more.

Emma wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 7:38pm:

you know what ?? I couldn't be bothered arguing about this any more.

Good, that mea

Emma wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 7:38pm:

you know what ?? I couldn't be bothered arguing about this any more.

Good, that meas you are learning..

The graph of course has a timeframe of 60 years. So much longer than AGW.

'The mid-west of the United States has seen unprecedented tornado activity. '

But the graph shows otherwise.

Merely because local news agencies report tornadoes from the USA more, doesn't actually make them more common.

You are 'making up my (your) own mind'; just not from data.