rigorousintuition.ca

tazmic wrote:

Burnt Hill wrote:

Extreme summer temperatures occur more frequently

http://click.mail.advantagebusinessmedi ... 3f8cf5b73a

"The observed increase in the frequency of previously rare summertime-average temperatures is more consistent with the consequences of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations than with the effects of natural climate variability," said Duffy, who is the lead author of a report in Climatic Change. "It is extremely unlikely that the observed increase has happened through chance alone."

16 different models correlating the increase in the frequency of previously rare summertime-average temperatures with the global increase of bad music would lead to the same 'results' and 'conclusions' that Duffy has outlined here.

I particularly like "This supports the conclusion that extreme summertime temperatures [already observed to occur more frequently] are already occurring more frequently." Why does Duffy need a model to confirm 'observations'?

So, it's not happening by chance. Good to know. Not very helpful.

Their sponsors must be disappointed:

Changing Horizons Fund of the Rockefeller Family Fund
Flora Family Foundation
Foundation for Environmental Research
Google.org
Island Foundation
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
NASA Headquarters
NASA Langley
National Institutes of Health via Johns Hopkins University
National Science Foundation via Columbia University
National Science Foundation via George Mason University
NOAA CICS (Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites) via North Carolina State University
Northrup Grumman
Peter T Paul Foundation
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation via Pepperwood Preserve

Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Saul D Levy Foundation
The David & Lucille Packard Foundation
The Dixon Family Fund
The Robert & Ellen Gutenstein Foundation
The Schmidt Family Foundation
Town Creek Foundation
Turner Foundation, Inc.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Department of Energy
University of Tennessee
The Winslow Foundation
The World Bank via The Nature Conservancy

wintler2 wrote:Just another study among thousands that confirms AGW

eyeno wrote:
Agenda 21 stooges never cease to amaze me. Look at the damn Agenda 21 map. You see green in Magnolia, Arkansas? We have a multi trillion dollar operation there. Yes, fly over country. You never cease to amaze me with your lack of sight.

Iamwhomiam wrote:

eyeno wrote:
Agenda 21 stooges never cease to amaze me. Look at the damn Agenda 21 map. You see green in Magnolia, Arkansas? We have a multi trillion dollar operation there. Yes, fly over country. You never cease to amaze me with your lack of sight.

The ever helpful eyeno ~ no links to any scary Agenda 21 Maps.

Just this:
See the scary GREEN on THE map?!!

Eyeno says he has a Multi-Trillion dollar operation going on there, in Magnolia, Arkansas!!
(thanks, though. I had to google the term "Agenda 21" as I've never heard of it before)

So what are you involved in down there Eyeno?

Utterly unsustainable and dirtier than coal Biomass burning?

"Burning wood from whole trees and residues to generate electricity in the southeastern United States may cut greenhouse gas emissions in the long run, but in the next 35 to 50 years, it will only hasten the consequences of climate change, environmental groups say.

The Southern Environmental Law Center, Forest Guild, National Wildlife Federation and Biomass Energy Resource Center released a study (3.1MB.pdf) yesterday, composed of a literature review on the supply of biomass and an atmospheric study of greenhouse gas emissions from 22 biomass-burning facilities in seven Southeastern states -- Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia."

So what is this mysterious Agenda 21?
Here's wiki on Agenda 21: Be forewarned those with weak hearts, this is shocking, shocking, I say again:

“The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the Earth Summit)” in Brazil in 1992 adopted “An action plan of humankind for sustainable development : Agenda 21.”

Agenda 21 describes in many parts the importance of information for decision-making to appropriately cope with global environmental challenges. Especially geospatial information is regarded to be critical.

Absolutely terrifying! They're gonna get me, oh no!

eyeno wrote:

I think the mods should clean this fucking house out so people can speak of real issues. Not just about this bogus climate change shit but all the other stuff too. This house is so stuffy I can't breathe. I am trying to stay but damn....it is hard to breathe. I can feel this forum breathing with every post, in and out, in and out, in and out. It is a battle between that which is and that which is not. I know Jeff and the mods feel it and so do I. I don't know what the answer is. I know traffic counts, but damn.....the left hand has the upper hand and its no fun anymore............Yes I know jack, I can just haul my ass out of here. I'm trying not to, but I can.....and i will

this is the last place i ever thought the anti-fascist fascist would push me out, but they have, i'm trying to stay, but damnnn... its hard

Klondike Gold baby. Stand back, get out of the way, we have no idea how big this is going to get. It is so big even we cannot comprehend it yet. All I can say is WOW. Stay tuned.

Iamwhomiam....."i am the greatest humanitarian that ever lived, nobody can defeat my great knowledge...blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah if you don't believe it just ask the dude stupid enough to put 2 in his name......blah blah blah blah blah blah

Damn it, if you sell bullshit, don't put bullshit on your label. It tastes bad, and we notice. Multi trillion dollar in south arkansas. You bet sister. You ain't seen nothing yet. Be careful.

JoeH wrote:Your kidding right?

Environmentalism will usher in the police state and one world govt ...

Earth to dumbfuck Texas renecks - the police state is in place, you don't need an environmental movement now as a precursor to it. Its already here.

Simulist wrote:That's a bulls-eye quote, Wintler2.

(From our own Joe Hillshoist, I assume?)

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs38.pdf
Bureau of Meteorology
SPECIAL CLIMATE STATEMENT 38
Australia's wettest two-year period on record; 2010–2011. Frequent heavy rain events from spring 2010 to autumn 2011, and again in late 2011, lead to Australia's wettest two-year period on record. Averaged across Australia, total rainfall for 2011 was 705 mm, making it the second-wettest year on record (behind 1974 with 760 mm), and ahead of 2010 (third-wettest) with 703 mm. Back-to-back La Niña events resulted in a two-year rainfall total for 2010–2011 of 1409 mm, surpassing the old record of 1407 mm set during 1973–1974.

The exceptional rainfall was heavily influenced by La Niña conditions. The period from 2010 into early 2011 saw one of the strongest La Niña events in history. While this La Niña event declined through winter 2011, a weaker event re-emerged in spring and persisted into the summer months of 2012. These conditions, coupled with very warm sea surface temperatures to the north of Australia and in the eastern Indian Ocean, contributed to making 2010–2011 Australia's wettest two-year period on record. ..

As wet as it has been, the longer term averages still show much of Australia to have received below-average rainfall. Dry conditions have persisted across both southwestern and southeastern Australia in recent decades. The drought conditions can be characterised in a number of different ways. Perhaps the most statistically significant rainfall changes that have occurred are a 10–20% reduction in autumn and winter rainfall across the southeast since 1996, and a similar decline in winter rainfall across the southwest since around 1970.

eyeno wrote:Sometimes when I drink I think I am more funny than I really am.