Jump to content

ConConfounder

Member
  • Content Count

    490
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. And just more of the same tired old denier cult twaddle and pseudo-science from ol' BeACretin, as he desperately tries to push his already debunked meme. No, cities do not significantly increase total precipitation across the country or around the world. Higher temperatures alliwing more water vapor in the air is what increases total precipitation. The science is clear.....but it challenges the fraudulent myths of the reality-challenged cult of anthropogenic global warming denial that the fossil fuel industry propagandists ginned up to be their 'useful idiots'. As usual when trying to debate a troll like BeACretin, you reach a point where you've debunked his denier cult bullcrap with actual science over and over, and kicked his ignorant troll azz to the curb, but he is too stupid (or is getting paid) to admit that, and just keeps repeating the same old debunked drivel. BORING!!! So, you ignore the same endlessly repeated nonsense and move on. Then the troll will crow that he "won" because you "ran". LOLOLOLOLOL. NOBODY "runs" from these denier cult trolls. People just get totally bored with the same old crappola over and over, and can't be bothered to waste any more time on ignorant fools.
  2. Well....thanks for once again proving my point, BIGTURD, by so thoroughly demonstrating what a complete idiot you are, and how pathetically little you are able to comprehend science. You only make yourself look absurd when you moronically try to make science look absurd. But you're too retarded to be able to see that.
  3. Only rightwing retards like yourself imagine that science itself is "liberal" or conservative. Perhaps though, your confusion partly stems from this fact (plus, of course, your severe retardation)..... Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll
  4. And, as always, Phuckhead615 reveals himself to be far too retarded to understand science.....or even a single simple sentence, like "The continental US just had the wettest 12 months in the 124 years on record"......which is self contained and has nothing whatsoever to with any previous period of time, let alone his irrelevant and very idiotic: "how long has man been here" nonsense.......
  5. No, it means that you are too stupid and ignorant to understand science or complexity, BIGTURD. Too bad you're so terribly retarded. In the real world..... It’s a well-known scientific principle that warmer air holds more water vapor. In fact, the amount of moisture that can be held in air grows very rapidly as temperatures increase. So, it’s expected that in general, air will get moister as the Earth warms – provided there is a moisture source. This may cause more intense rainfalls and snow events, which lead to increased risk of flooding. But warmer air can also more quickly evaporate water from surfaces. This means that areas where it’s not precipitating dry out more quickly. In fact, it’s likely that some regions will experience both more drought and more flooding in the future (just not at the same time!). The dry spells are longer and with faster evaporation causing dryness in soils. But, when the rains fall, they come in heavy downpours potentially leading to more floods. The recent flooding in California – which followed a very intense and prolonged drought – provides a great example.  Okay so what have we observed? It turns out our expectations were correct. Observations reveal more intense rainfalls and flooding in some areas. But in other regions there’s more evaporation and drying with increased drought. Some areas experience both. (Excerpts from Global warming is increasing rainfall rates)
  6. No, little retard, the 4to 5 thousand official rain gauges in America are scattered all across the country. Quite a few are at airports, and many are at rural weather stations. Here's what the National Weather Service has to say about the placement of rain gauges.... "The exposure of a rain gage is very important for obtaining accurate measurements. Gages should not be located close to isolated obstructions such as trees and buildings, which may deflect precipitation due to erratic turbulence. Gages should not be located in wide-open spaces or on elevated sites, such as tops of buildings, because of wind and the resulting turbulence problems. The best location for a gage is where the gage is uniformly protected in all directions, such as in an opening in a grove of trees. The height of the protection should not exceed twice its distance from the gage." In reality, the 'uban heat island effect' does not significantly "change the amount of rain falling on rainfall measurement stations" Those are just some the crackpot anti-science myths of your astro-turfed cult of reality denial, BeACretin. And no again to your really crackpot paranoid conspiracy myth about rain gauges being removed for nefarious reasons. Jeez, you're gullible. That statement alone proves that John Abraham is a dishonest hack..... Oh, and by the way pogorocks, you claimed John Abraham is a prominent climate scientist? That's a LIE. He's a mechanical engineer. Nope! You bullshyt just proves that you are a lying denier cult troll, BeACretin. Your fraudulent BS is unsupported by any science and comes from the propaganda pushers for the fossil fuel industry. Dr. John Abraham's statement is entirely correct and is supported by all of the evidence, and all of the science, and virtually the entire world community of climate scientists. And he is exactly who and what I said he was, you silly retard. A Professor of Thermal Science at a School of Engineering........who has, since 2009, been heavily involved with the scientific rebuttal of the misinformation, pseudo-science and lies of the AGW deniers. He has done research in climate monitoring. Dr John Abraham is a professor of thermal sciences at the University of St. Thomas School of Engineering, Minnesota. He researches in climate monitoring and renewable energy generation. He has published over 200 papers in journals and conferences. ***** Abraham felt it was necessary to respond to a talk given to the Minnesota Free Market Institute in October 2009 by a well-known denier of human-caused global warming,[8] Christopher Monckton. He thought "this guy is a great speaker and he is very convincing. If I didn’t know the science, I would believe him. Frankly, the nonscientists in the audience didn’t have a chance. They had no way of knowing what he said was not true. I felt Monckton took advantage of them and he knew he was taking advantage of them." In the following months he carried out research, contacting scientists cited by Monckton, and in late May 2010 he posted online an 83-minute video rebutting Monckton's statements. This attracted little attention at first, until it was highlighted by an article George Monbiot published in The Guardian.[6][9][10] Abraham's presentation and the response from Monckton[11] subsequently received world-wide attention.[12][13][14][15][16][17]More recently, Abraham and a number of colleagues including Michael E. Mann submitted a document to the US Congress which set out to refute nine errors in Christopher Monckton's May 6, 2010, testimony.[18][19][20][21] In November 2010, Abraham (and two colleagues, Professor Scott Mandia and Dr. Ray Weymann) launched the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, to provide rapid, high-quality scientific information to the media and government decision makers. The intention of this group is to enable scientists to share their work directly with the general public. This effort has been covered by many media outlets.[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] The effort has an online page for media to submit their questions.[34] Abraham estimated early in 2012 that since beginning his rebuttal he had put around 1,000 unpaid hours into work on climate change and the controversy. He has given numerous speeches to publicize global warming issues, but does not accept funding for climate research or ask for an honorarium for speeches: if payment is given he asks that it goes to St. Thomas or to charity.[6]
  7. Looks like ol' Taipooooo is losing his shyt.....but then, "poor, southern, redneck" white trash are always losing their shyt over somrpething..... Hey, Taipooooo......Hello from the other side of the IQ bell curve!
  8. No, BeACretin, what people see is you squirming desperately and getting even more ridiculous as you cite material that continus to support my position and refutes your own, as.your anti-science twaddle gets thoroughly debunked. You are hilariously insane, BeACretin. All the cherry-picked science that you are stupid enough to imagine supports your denier cult bullshyt, actually supports what I have been saying. The urban heat island effect only shifts where rainfall would naturally occur to over the city or downwind of the city, rather than other rural areas around the city. The tall buildings in cities break up and disrupt the wind patterns, causing warm air to rise over the city, thus cooling the air and inducing rainfall. But it is just rain that falls there instead of elsewhere. That doesn't increase the total amount of rainfall over the whole area. Your second quote says that, fool. Quote "The urbanisation of Houston made Hurricane Harvey dump even more water on the city – because the tall buildings pushed air upwards and caused more rain to fall. " There was only a fixed amount of water vapor being carried by Hurricane Harvey when it made landfall, so the city effect caused more rain to fall locally on and around the city but that meant less water was available in the clouds to fall as rain elsewhere. It did not change the total amount of rainfall in the region. In your first quote, you actually highlighted this bit of science: "Very heavy and extreme rainfall events showed increased trends over both urban and rural areas...", which demonstrates the general increase in rainfall caused by global warming. The rest of your quotes also just talk about an increase in rainfall over and downwind of cities but they do not indicate any increase in total rainfall over a region.... "the UHI increased summer rain over and downwind of major cities." ""urban heat-islands" create more summer rain over and downwind of major cities..." "an analysis of a 108-year rain-gauge dataset of rainfall patterns around Phoenix, Arizona...found that the urban heat island circulation over the city may interact with air flowing down a nearby mountain to generate extra rain in a suburb northeast of the city." Cities only cover 3% or less of the total land area, and have very little influence on rainfall over the vast majority of the total land surface. The only thing that actually increases precipitation over the whole country, or world, is an increase in atmospheric water vapor. Which the world is now experiencing because human caused global warming has increased the average temperature of the atmosphere, which then can hold over 4% more water vapor for every degree of temperature increase. As NASA says: Since the 1880s, the average global surface temperature has risen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius). Here's a good article, written by a prominent climate scientist, confirming what I've said. Global warming is increasing rainfall rates A new study looks at the complex relationship between global warming and increased precipitation The Guardian John Abraham - Dr John Abraham is a professor of thermal sciences at the University of St. Thomas School of Engineering, Minnesota. He researches in climate monitoring and renewable energy generation. He has published over 200 papers in journals and conferences. Wed 22 Mar 2017 (excerpts) The world is warming because humans are emitting heat-trapping greenhouse gases. We know this for certain; the science on this question is settled. Humans emit greenhouse gases, those gases should warm the planet, and we know the planet is warming. All of those statements are settled science. Okay so what? Well, we would like to know what the implications are. Should we do something about it or not? How should we respond? How fast will changes occur? What are the costs of action compared to inaction? These are all areas of active research. Part of answering these questions requires knowing how weather will change as the Earth warms. One weather phenomenon that directly affects humans is the pattern, amount, and intensity of rainfall and the availability of water. Water is essential wherever humans live, for agriculture, drinking, industry, etc. Too little water and drought increases risk of wild fires and can debilitate societies. Too much water and flooding can occur, washing away infrastructure and lives. It’s a well-known scientific principle that warmer air holds more water vapor. In fact, the amount of moisture that can be held in air grows very rapidly as temperatures increase. So, it’s expected that in general, air will get moister as the Earth warms – provided there is a moisture source. This may cause more intense rainfalls and snow events, which lead to increased risk of flooding. But warmer air can also more quickly evaporate water from surfaces. This means that areas where it’s not precipitating dry out more quickly. In fact, it’s likely that some regions will experience both more drought and more flooding in the future (just not at the same time!). The dry spells are longer and with faster evaporation causing dryness in soils. But, when the rains fall, they come in heavy downpours potentially leading to more floods. The recent flooding in California – which followed a very intense and prolonged drought – provides a great example. Okay so what have we observed? It turns out our expectations were correct. Observations reveal more intense rainfalls and flooding in some areas. But in other regions there’s more evaporation and drying with increased drought. Some areas experience both. Traditionally, we have related precipitation events to the local average temperature. However, it’s clear that there’s a strong relationship between the peak temperature and the precipitation rates. In fact, relations reveal that precipitation rates are increasing between 5 and 10% for every degree C increase. The expected rate of increase, just based on thermodynamics is 7%. The authors find that in some parts of the globe, the relationship is even stronger. For instance, in the tropics, there’s more than a 10% increase in precipitation for a degree Celsius increase in temperature. This is not unexpected because precipitation releases latent heat, which can in turn invigorate storms. From a practical standpoint, this helps us plan for climate change (it is already occurring) including planning resiliency. In the United States, there has been a marked increase in the most intense rainfall events across the country. This has resulted in more severe flooding throughout the country. In my state, we have had four 1000-year floods since the year 2000! Two years ago, Minneapolis, Minnesota had such flooding that people were literally fishing in the streets as lakes and streams overflowed and fish escaped the banks. No joke, I actually observed fish swimming past me as I waded up a street. This occurrence is being observed elsewhere in my country and around the world.
  9. Taipoooooo strikes again......ROTFLMFAO........and "Coulter"???.......quoted exclusively by inbred brainless racist white trash everywhere.....
  10. What’s worse, Trump, or his followers’ eagerness to join him in lies? A tough choice......ol' Taipoooo obviously wants us to believe that it is "his followers".......and he inadvertently makes a good case for that choice.
  11. And you try not to have a nervous breakdown when the Trumpster goes to jail for his many crimes and treasonous betrayal of America. At this point, that is far more likely than that con-man's re-election. 'Landslide proportions': New poll shows Biden crushing Trump - Washington Examiner 2 days ago · A new nationwide poll has President Trump losing by a large margin when pitted against Joe Biden in a theoretical matchup. The Quinnipiac poll asked voters who they would choose in a ...
  12. What a fine thread for racists to masturbate themseves to death with. Of course, conflating some college students with all liberals just shows that the rightwingretards secretly recognize what uneducated, anti-intellectual morons they all are.
  13. The forum's utter cretin, Phuckhead615, and his endless series of completely vacuous posts that all seem like something a retarded third grader would write. He exemplifies the worst of what the OP is talking about. Moronically partisan and morally corrupt to the core.
  14. BeACretin is so retarded that he can't even understand what he himself posts. Hilarious! I have been citing the science and evidence that supports the fact that global warming has increased precipitation because warmer air can hold more water vapor. Pretty straight science, and well supported by physucs and the obsevational evidence. The CrackpotCretin has tried to dismiss all of the science and evidence supporting this increase in rainfall and snowfall amounts by citing article that talk about the Urban Heat Island Effect changing rainfall patterns around the cities (which, BTW, cover only a relatively tiny land area compatpred to the total square miles of all the States). I pointed out that these changes don't actually affect the total amounts of rainfall over a whole region, but only shift the area where rain falls slightly. So he just tried to refute this by posting excerpts from articles that say "urbanization tends to increase rainfall in the urban areas as opposed to rural areas", and "the majority of research has agreed there is a noticeable increase in precipitation at locations downwind of urban centers”. it's always fun to watch when the anti-science retards, who try to cherry-pick tidbits of science to support their insanity, without the slightest ability to comprehend the science, so they end up destroying their own moronic arguments. Watch now as the troll comes back with someting inane and irrelevant that he moronically imagines is clever.
  15. And the BIGTURD gibbers out some more complete insanity, as usual. "American Thinker" is a piece of rancid cat shyt compared to just about any actual newspaper in the country. Full of the lies and rightwingnut propaganda that pollutes the tiny minds of BIGTURD and his retarded ilk.
×