Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-15-2017, 07:29 AM
 
4,279 posts, read 1,898,327 times
Reputation: 1266

Advertisements

Oh look, more idiot climate "scientists".

Anthropogenic Warming Impacts on California Snowpack During Drought - Berg - 2017 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Quote:
Abstract

Sierra Nevada climate and snowpack is simulated during the period of extreme drought from 2011 to 2015 and compared to an identical simulation except for the removal of 20th century anthropogenic warming. Anthropogenic warming reduced average snowpack levels by 25%, with mid-to-low elevations experiencing reductions between 26-43%. In terms of event frequency, return periods associated with anomalies in 4-year April 1 SWE are estimated to have doubled, and possibly quadrupled, due to past warming. We also estimate effects of future anthropogenic warmth on snowpack during a drought similar to that of 2011 – 2015. Further snowpack declines of 60-85% are expected, depending on emissions scenario. The return periods associated with future snowpack levels are estimated to range from millennia to much longer. Therefore, past human emissions of greenhouse gases are already negatively impacting statewide water resources during drought, and much more severe impacts are likely to be inevitable.

Snow Water Equivalents

Quote:
NORTH
Data For: 14-Mar-2017
Number of Stations Reporting 28
Average snow water equivalent 41.9"
Percent of April 1 Average 149%
Percent of normal for this date 152%

CENTRAL
Data For: 14-Mar-2017
Number of Stations Reporting 42
Average snow water equivalent 51.3"
Percent of April 1 Average 176%
Percent of normal for this date 183%

SOUTH
Data For: 14-Mar-2017
Number of Stations Reporting 27
Average snow water equivalent 45.6"
Percent of April 1 Average 171%
Percent of normal for this date 179%

STATEWIDE SUMMARY
Data For: 14-Mar-2017
Number of Stations Reporting 97
Average snow water equivalent 47.0"
Percent of April 1 Average 167%
Percent of normal for this date 173%

Printable Version of Current Data
Yep, Climate activism is a mental illness.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-15-2017, 08:11 AM
 
58,749 posts, read 27,080,924 times
Reputation: 14186
Quote:
Originally Posted by G1.. View Post
Do you read the links you put up?

Do you know what "Op Ed" means?

Do you know what an "Editorial" is?


"Peter Fox, the editor of Powder magazine, suggested “The End Of Snow?” in a February 2014 op-e

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/14/flashback-ny-times-predicted-the-end-of-snow-in-2014/#ixzz4bOgWMahF"
So, you post all kinds of editorial opinion stories and make like they are "Gospel".

NOW you want to attack someone else who posts an editorial opinion article.

OH, the hypocrisy!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2017, 08:15 AM
 
58,749 posts, read 27,080,924 times
Reputation: 14186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. In-Between View Post
Why do conservatives keep making themselves look foolish by posting links to articles they haven't even read?

Newsflash, conservatives - the headline is not the entire article. 3 or 4 seconds to read the headline is not enough. You have to take at least 30 seconds to read the whole article, and hey- if you still don't understand what it says, ask a liberal to help you. If we're too busy, we'll send our pre-schooler over to explain it to you.
Why do posters make THEMSELVES look foolish when theyclaim the "other" party does it" when their OWN party people do the EXACTLY same thing?

And of course t the never ending juvenile name calling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2017, 08:18 AM
 
Location: Caverns measureless to man...
7,588 posts, read 6,602,681 times
Reputation: 17966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
So, you post all kinds of editorial opinion stories and make like they are "Gospel".

NOW you want to attack someone else who posts an editorial opinion article.

OH, the hypocrisy!
Again - did you even bother reading the article, or for that matter taking the trouble to pay a kindergartner 25 cents to read it to you and explain it?

It is a speculative piece about climate changes that some scientists suggest may happen in 2100.

This is 2017.

Do you understand the mathematical significance of those two numbers? Are you just pretending that this is so far over your head, or... are you really that... mmm... well, let's just say, lacking.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
Why do posters make THEMSELVES look foolish when theyclaim the "other" party does it" when their OWN party people do the EXACTLY same thing?

And of course t the never ending juvenile name calling.
What other party? I don't belong to any parties.

But I assume you're referring to liberals in general, so hey - let's just go with that for the sake of discussion.

You go find a thread somewhere in this forum where you have a bunch of liberals who are too stupid to comprehend the difference between the date "2017" and the date "2100," and then you come back here and wave it under my nose. And maybe then you'll have a point.

But until then, I am sorry - but there is just no other word to describe it, other than "stupid."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2017, 08:30 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,513 posts, read 37,057,177 times
Reputation: 13985
I figured this snow storm would bring out the members of the denial cult in droves since they don't seem to know the difference between climate and weather.....Science has never claimed that there will be an end to cold and snow..... https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...arsher-winter/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2017, 08:38 AM
 
4,279 posts, read 1,898,327 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
I figured this snow storm would bring out the members of the denial cult in droves since they don't seem to know the difference between climate and weather.....Science has never claimed that there will be an end to cold and snow..... https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...arsher-winter/
LOL


We understand climate quite well. We understand it is cyclical, and why people look funny every cycle switching from "Its a hotter than EVA, a historical drought and it's permanent, snow is a thing of the past!" only to turn around when that cycle turns to heavy precipitation and snow as a cycle to claim "its just weather /derp!"

Climate activism is filled with very very stupid people who couldn't hack the hard science fields.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2017, 09:13 AM
 
Location: Kent, Ohio
3,429 posts, read 2,723,455 times
Reputation: 1667
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtGen View Post
Climate activism is filled with very very stupid people who couldn't hack the hard science fields.
A great many of the activists are, in fact, scientists. Are you?
And most of them are climatologists, who specialize in precisely the type of scientific work needed to penetrate the complex issues. Are you a climatologist?

And if you are going to be an activist who does not personally understand the science, would you rather be an activist who follows actual scientists, or an activists who ignores the actual scientists and proclaims the scientists wrong because they are saying things that your political ideologues don't want to hear?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2017, 09:32 AM
 
Location: Del Rio, TN
39,809 posts, read 26,403,608 times
Reputation: 25705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. In-Between View Post
They're also talking about a hypothetical scenario for the year 2100 - which, according to my calculator, is something like 83 years from now.

What part of that sailed over your head?

Jesus christ. Do you people even know how to read, or is it just that you think it is an unimportant detail?
The NYT decides to publish an opinion piece from the editor of a skiing magazine as if it provides support for the hypothesis of global warming. The NYT is another clueless blog. The data provided in the article indicates the opposite of what the editorial did. You might actually want to read the link before commenting.

The NYT should best stick with publishing cartoons, crossword puzzles and fashion articles. They long since ceased to be a news source. Perhaps they could look up the definition of weather while they are at it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2017, 09:44 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,513 posts, read 37,057,177 times
Reputation: 13985
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtGen View Post
LOL


We understand climate quite well. We understand it is cyclical, and why people look funny every cycle switching from "Its a hotter than EVA, a historical drought and it's permanent, snow is a thing of the past!" only to turn around when that cycle turns to heavy precipitation and snow as a cycle to claim "its just weather /derp!"

Climate activism is filled with very very stupid people who couldn't hack the hard science fields.
Actually, I don't think you understand much of anything, particularly science, even when it is explained to you in terms even a child could comprehend...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2017, 11:02 AM
 
Location: Kent, Ohio
3,429 posts, read 2,723,455 times
Reputation: 1667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake View Post
The NYT decides to publish an opinion piece from the editor of a skiing magazine as if it provides support for the hypothesis of global warming.
First of all, yes, it is an opinion piece, not a news article. Why wouldn't the opinion of a skiing magazine editor be of interest? Nothing is being presented as science here - just the opinion of someone who probably has had some first-hand, up-close experience with mountain snow over the past decade or two. So how does the publishing of this article lead to your conclusion that
Quote:
The NYT is another clueless blog.
?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:22 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top