Show me evidence of it running out.
What can we do about Climate Change?
- Thread starter MarquisBlack
- Start date
- Status
that's easy... there is not an infinite amount of oil.
If you continue to use a finite resource it will run out.
Logic simply isn't your strong suit, is it.
there is no mechanism by which oil could be being replaced as fast as we are using it. your premise is as ridiculous as most of the drivel you assert.
lmao @ the earth is making more oil as fast as we are burning it... lmao @ oil wells can never run dry... lmao...
There is a finite amount of water available to us as well, Einstein.
Says who? You? pfffft....
LMAO... burning oil does not compare to evaporating water.
Do you even understand how oil is formed? (rhetorical question, since your assertions make it obvious you don't)
New research out of Kuwait, using a new method of calculating the crude oil production potential of 47 of the world’s largest oil producing countries, has found that peak oil — the period in time when oil production reaches a maximum and then begins to decline — will come much sooner than expected… 2014 to be exact.
Peak oil is an important concept to fully understand in our modern world, given that we are so heavily dependent on petroleum products for everything from transportation to plastic. With the onset of peak oil, many expect that governments, economies, and cultures will start systematically collapsing as demand for crude oil overwhelms supply — unless we can do something to wean ourselves off of it before then.
Over the last few decades, much has been debated about peak oil and when it will come. However the majority of petroleum scientists in this area of research have consistently said that it will arrive some time past 2020, perhaps even as far away as 2050. Although 2050 sounds like some far off date, those 40 years may be just barely enough to reduce our petroleum dependence enough to avoid catastrophe. So, when scientists from one of the most oil rich nations on earth start saying that peak oil will come in 2014… it causes a bit of alarm.
The scientists’ new method for evaluating world peak oil timing stems from the well-tested, popular and generally accurate Hubbert method — which was the first model to accurately predict when oil supply would peak from United States oil fields in the 1970’s. However, the Hubbert model has been scrutinized as not accurately depicting individual, widely-varying, country-specific items such as changing technology and politics. To address these criticisms, the researchers modified the Hubbert model to calculate oil production trends that also include individual variations from country to country, and then applied it to the 47 largest oil producing countries in the world.
Not only did the researchers find that world crude oil production would peak in 2014, they discovered that the world is already depleting its oil reserves at a rate of 2.1% per year. Although these findings are alarming, the researchers are clear to point out that their conclusions are only made with the best available information:
“Forecasting is not accomplished by consulting a crystal ball or a mystic of some sort, but by appraising the past, inspecting present conditions, and projecting these into the future based on the best available information. It is well-known that the ultimate oil recovery of any field in the world is only determined when the production management decides to abandon the field for good. This does not occur until the projected oil revenues fall below expected costs and human ingenuity is unable to reverse this relationship.”
“Therefore, it is not a sin to acknowledge that the economic production life of any field is almost impossible to predict efficiently. Hence, forecasts should be flexible to adjustment whenever additional information becomes available or as conditions change. Even though it is inevitable to preclude the possibility of minor inaccurate forecasting results, still it is of paramount importance that the forecast be conducted. Without the forecast, a valid decision or public policy debate on a national or global scale cannot be made.” —Nashawi et. al, 2009
If you are of the scientific type, and have the interest, you can read the whole paper for yourself on the next page. http://gas2.org/2010/03/10/kuwaiti-scientists-say-peak-oil-will-arrive-in-2014/2/
Peak oil is an important concept to fully understand in our modern world, given that we are so heavily dependent on petroleum products for everything from transportation to plastic. With the onset of peak oil, many expect that governments, economies, and cultures will start systematically collapsing as demand for crude oil overwhelms supply — unless we can do something to wean ourselves off of it before then.
Over the last few decades, much has been debated about peak oil and when it will come. However the majority of petroleum scientists in this area of research have consistently said that it will arrive some time past 2020, perhaps even as far away as 2050. Although 2050 sounds like some far off date, those 40 years may be just barely enough to reduce our petroleum dependence enough to avoid catastrophe. So, when scientists from one of the most oil rich nations on earth start saying that peak oil will come in 2014… it causes a bit of alarm.
The scientists’ new method for evaluating world peak oil timing stems from the well-tested, popular and generally accurate Hubbert method — which was the first model to accurately predict when oil supply would peak from United States oil fields in the 1970’s. However, the Hubbert model has been scrutinized as not accurately depicting individual, widely-varying, country-specific items such as changing technology and politics. To address these criticisms, the researchers modified the Hubbert model to calculate oil production trends that also include individual variations from country to country, and then applied it to the 47 largest oil producing countries in the world.
Not only did the researchers find that world crude oil production would peak in 2014, they discovered that the world is already depleting its oil reserves at a rate of 2.1% per year. Although these findings are alarming, the researchers are clear to point out that their conclusions are only made with the best available information:
“Forecasting is not accomplished by consulting a crystal ball or a mystic of some sort, but by appraising the past, inspecting present conditions, and projecting these into the future based on the best available information. It is well-known that the ultimate oil recovery of any field in the world is only determined when the production management decides to abandon the field for good. This does not occur until the projected oil revenues fall below expected costs and human ingenuity is unable to reverse this relationship.”
“Therefore, it is not a sin to acknowledge that the economic production life of any field is almost impossible to predict efficiently. Hence, forecasts should be flexible to adjustment whenever additional information becomes available or as conditions change. Even though it is inevitable to preclude the possibility of minor inaccurate forecasting results, still it is of paramount importance that the forecast be conducted. Without the forecast, a valid decision or public policy debate on a national or global scale cannot be made.” —Nashawi et. al, 2009
If you are of the scientific type, and have the interest, you can read the whole paper for yourself on the next page. http://gas2.org/2010/03/10/kuwaiti-scientists-say-peak-oil-will-arrive-in-2014/2/
Head, you are a very rude individual that is too smart by half.
And you are just about to show us another example of it when you explain how oil is formed. This should be rich, really.
You really are a fucking piece of work.
Peak Oil — that most controversial and elusive of concepts. Everybody seems to have their own opinion. There are experts on both sides who alternately claim we have at least 30 years before we reach it and those who claim we’ve already reached it.
So, for a top-level official in an agency with the respect of the IEA to state that we’ll reach an oil supply plateau around 2020 is pretty substantial news — especially considering that his own agency has previously stated that the date was 2030.
Here are his exact words, courtesy of The Guardian:
“In terms of non-OPEC [countries outside the big oil producers' cartel], we are expecting that in three, four years’ time the production of conventional oil will come to a plateau, and start to decline. In terms of the global picture, assuming that OPEC will invest in a timely manner, global conventional oil can still continue, but we still expect that it will come around 2020 to a plateau as well, which is, of course, not good news from a global-oil-supply point of view.”
Not good news indeed. And sure to be quite controversial, even among his fellow coworkers. I wonder if he cleared that sentiment with HQ.
So, for a top-level official in an agency with the respect of the IEA to state that we’ll reach an oil supply plateau around 2020 is pretty substantial news — especially considering that his own agency has previously stated that the date was 2030.
Here are his exact words, courtesy of The Guardian:
“In terms of non-OPEC [countries outside the big oil producers' cartel], we are expecting that in three, four years’ time the production of conventional oil will come to a plateau, and start to decline. In terms of the global picture, assuming that OPEC will invest in a timely manner, global conventional oil can still continue, but we still expect that it will come around 2020 to a plateau as well, which is, of course, not good news from a global-oil-supply point of view.”
Not good news indeed. And sure to be quite controversial, even among his fellow coworkers. I wonder if he cleared that sentiment with HQ.
How oil is formed should be common knowledge.
It is a damn shame that common knowledge is so uncommon.
I'm rude? weren't you the one who brought up donkey felatio?
too smart by half, and still twice as smart as you.
Petroleum literally means “rock oil,” from the Latin terms petra, meaning rock, and oleum, which means oil. What surprises many people is that oil is actually formed from the remains of small organisms, such as algae, plankton and vegetation which lived tens or hundreds of millions of years ago in oceans and lakes. When these ancient organisms pass away, their remains settle on the bottoms of the oceans or lakes, and are covered by mud and sediment. The presence of oxygen with time helps organisms decay, but the small percentage of these dead organisms that will go on to form oil become compressed into oxygen deprived mud and rock. Over thousands of years, this layer of mud and sediment containing the organic matter is covered by many more layers created in the same manner, with pressure and heat exerted on the original layer becoming increasingly intense. Eventually, the sediment under intense pressure forms a solid rock, with the organic matter still contained within it. This rock is called the source rock.
Intense pressure and heat exerted on the source rock helps to turn the organic matter into a form of oil or natural gas. Oil is forced from the source rock into reservoir rocks, which are porous rocks such as sandstone that have room inside to “soak up” the oil and hold it. In order for oil to collect in concentrated area from which it can be extracted by humans, movements in the earth must enclose the porous rocks containing the oil with non-porous rock through which the oil does not pass. You may think of this impermeable rock, called “cap” or “trap” rock, as being the “walls” and “ceilings” of the area of oil accumulation.
Through this process, oil and natural gas form deep within the earth over millions of years.
Oil deposits need vast carbon reserves and long time periods to form.
These vast carbon reserves come from mass extinction events.
Analysis of the geologic records occurring before and after the affected ages are that onsets are rapid and so are recoveries. Both sets of data suggests that a sudden climate threshold or tipping point occurs at about four times the Earth's mean carbon dioxide levels relative to the baseline concentrations of about 280 ppmv in circa 1750. This date is significant in that it is regarded as the beginning of the Industrial age. Strata analysis suggests that in the era when Earth had a predominantly overheated climate, with heavy daily rains and violent storms, the relatively fierce global climate resulted in far heavier erosion which in turn fed more nutrients into the world's waters. At the same time it caused deep water circulation between the poles and the equator to stop in a cataclysmic fashion. This obstruction in oceanic circulation led to 'death in the depths' from oxygen deprivation. The stagnation caused by this lack of circulation could not be offset by natural processes and became a source of mildly poisonous hydrogen sulfides. The stratified waters would support life in the oxygenated surface layer but the deeper layers became a lethal mixture where life was impossible. The toxic lower layers halted scavenger activity along the organically rich ooze, or sapropel, and all creatures that died in it drifted down and accumulated on the abyssal basins and bottoms. All these life forms unwarily drifting into the anoxic or toxic layers would have died and contributed to the continual accumulation of unicellular microorganisms. The surface layer benefited from an explosion in life, spurred by the increased nutrients from the super-greenhouse conditions, which was then killing itself in waste products. Ironically these deposits of sedimentary organic materials may have accumulated into lipid rich deposits. It is now widely believed that most of today's fossil oil reserves formed in several distinct anoxic events in earth's geologic history.
This is a recent understanding. This picture was only pieced together during the last three decades. The handful of known and suspected anoxic events have been tied geologically to large-scale production of the world's oil reserves in worldwide bands of black shale in the geologic record. Likewise the high relative temperatures believed linked to so called "super-greenhouse events" Oceanic anoxic events were in all likelihood caused or stimulated by extreme episodes of volcanic outgassing. These events contributed to the characteristic elevated carbon dioxide levels four to six times current levels that are attributed to these periods. At even a few degrees warmer, rain forests are extremely vulnerable to fire hazards. These forests have little natural resistance to fires, and some conjecture a critical tipping point. Practically overnight the increase of temperature might have been reached and triggered a huge burn-off of planetary forests. This would have released unprecedented amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. With a change of mean temperatures of three degrees Celsius, the ice caps melted. This triggered a runaway effect. In the super-greenhouse ecologies—the term meaning average temperature rose to or beyond six degrees above today—the seas were so warm, it is believed the water temperatures at the two poles were in the lower 80s°F (i.e. above 27 °C). The Cretaceous and Jurassic eras world ecologies were essentially ice free, had massive storms driven by warm oceans, and were dying from the double hit of lack of oxygen and toxic hydrogen sulfide accumulations at lower layers because of a shut down in the ocean conveyor belts. In this time, most of the world would experience the highly noxious scent of rotten eggs and the seas would have slowly acquired a deep green hue from the high amounts of algae.
...
Another, economically significant consequence of oceanic anoxic events is the fact that the prevailing conditions in so many Mesozoic oceans has helped produce most of the world's petroleum and natural gas reserves. During an oceanic anoxic event, the accumulation and preservation of organic matter was much greater than normal, allowing the generation of potential petroleum source rocks in many environments across the globe. Consequently some 70 percent of oil source rocks are Mesozoic in age, and another 15 percent date from the warm Paleogene: only rarely in colder periods were conditions favorable for the production of source rocks on anything other than a local scale.
Intense pressure and heat exerted on the source rock helps to turn the organic matter into a form of oil or natural gas. Oil is forced from the source rock into reservoir rocks, which are porous rocks such as sandstone that have room inside to “soak up” the oil and hold it. In order for oil to collect in concentrated area from which it can be extracted by humans, movements in the earth must enclose the porous rocks containing the oil with non-porous rock through which the oil does not pass. You may think of this impermeable rock, called “cap” or “trap” rock, as being the “walls” and “ceilings” of the area of oil accumulation.
Through this process, oil and natural gas form deep within the earth over millions of years.
Oil deposits need vast carbon reserves and long time periods to form.
These vast carbon reserves come from mass extinction events.
Analysis of the geologic records occurring before and after the affected ages are that onsets are rapid and so are recoveries. Both sets of data suggests that a sudden climate threshold or tipping point occurs at about four times the Earth's mean carbon dioxide levels relative to the baseline concentrations of about 280 ppmv in circa 1750. This date is significant in that it is regarded as the beginning of the Industrial age. Strata analysis suggests that in the era when Earth had a predominantly overheated climate, with heavy daily rains and violent storms, the relatively fierce global climate resulted in far heavier erosion which in turn fed more nutrients into the world's waters. At the same time it caused deep water circulation between the poles and the equator to stop in a cataclysmic fashion. This obstruction in oceanic circulation led to 'death in the depths' from oxygen deprivation. The stagnation caused by this lack of circulation could not be offset by natural processes and became a source of mildly poisonous hydrogen sulfides. The stratified waters would support life in the oxygenated surface layer but the deeper layers became a lethal mixture where life was impossible. The toxic lower layers halted scavenger activity along the organically rich ooze, or sapropel, and all creatures that died in it drifted down and accumulated on the abyssal basins and bottoms. All these life forms unwarily drifting into the anoxic or toxic layers would have died and contributed to the continual accumulation of unicellular microorganisms. The surface layer benefited from an explosion in life, spurred by the increased nutrients from the super-greenhouse conditions, which was then killing itself in waste products. Ironically these deposits of sedimentary organic materials may have accumulated into lipid rich deposits. It is now widely believed that most of today's fossil oil reserves formed in several distinct anoxic events in earth's geologic history.
This is a recent understanding. This picture was only pieced together during the last three decades. The handful of known and suspected anoxic events have been tied geologically to large-scale production of the world's oil reserves in worldwide bands of black shale in the geologic record. Likewise the high relative temperatures believed linked to so called "super-greenhouse events" Oceanic anoxic events were in all likelihood caused or stimulated by extreme episodes of volcanic outgassing. These events contributed to the characteristic elevated carbon dioxide levels four to six times current levels that are attributed to these periods. At even a few degrees warmer, rain forests are extremely vulnerable to fire hazards. These forests have little natural resistance to fires, and some conjecture a critical tipping point. Practically overnight the increase of temperature might have been reached and triggered a huge burn-off of planetary forests. This would have released unprecedented amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. With a change of mean temperatures of three degrees Celsius, the ice caps melted. This triggered a runaway effect. In the super-greenhouse ecologies—the term meaning average temperature rose to or beyond six degrees above today—the seas were so warm, it is believed the water temperatures at the two poles were in the lower 80s°F (i.e. above 27 °C). The Cretaceous and Jurassic eras world ecologies were essentially ice free, had massive storms driven by warm oceans, and were dying from the double hit of lack of oxygen and toxic hydrogen sulfide accumulations at lower layers because of a shut down in the ocean conveyor belts. In this time, most of the world would experience the highly noxious scent of rotten eggs and the seas would have slowly acquired a deep green hue from the high amounts of algae.
...
Another, economically significant consequence of oceanic anoxic events is the fact that the prevailing conditions in so many Mesozoic oceans has helped produce most of the world's petroleum and natural gas reserves. During an oceanic anoxic event, the accumulation and preservation of organic matter was much greater than normal, allowing the generation of potential petroleum source rocks in many environments across the globe. Consequently some 70 percent of oil source rocks are Mesozoic in age, and another 15 percent date from the warm Paleogene: only rarely in colder periods were conditions favorable for the production of source rocks on anything other than a local scale.
You have provided us with a perfect example of your skewed sense of reality.
See, you have it in your head that how oil is formed is common knowledge. You go find some wiki link that explains it all to you in plain English, and you grasp the concept provided to you...which you should, since you probably don't drag your knuckles when you waddle...But you have the concept down. You then fail to research further to find out that what you were provided with was nothing more than hypothetical speculation. Many times these explanations you read on the internet are geared for middle school children, and are big time generalities of others stated hypothesis.
Many times these general hypothesis are provided by folks who actually are in higher learning situations, and those who read them tend to think they must know what they are talking about...so they buy off on it, and actually use the authors as backup for their arguments with other less-than-learned folks.
Hell, the authors themselves may well have their own brains convinced that their hypothesis must be spot on, as they often find themselves intellectually above all others.
You do the same thing with AGW as you have just done with OIL. You take the writings of others as the gospel.
Thing is when it comes to the formation of crude oil, scientists have no idea how it was/is formed, how long it took, or how much there actually may be. These are undeniable facts that somehow escaped your research.
It is NOT common knowledge of how oil is formed, and of late there have been some advanced findings that tend to dispel some of the former hypothesis floating around.
What you should really do is take a reality pill. You seem to think you are quite an intellectual individual, yet when you show research and debate that is based on middle school material, and make statements that clearly show your lack of exposure on the topics, it shows me you are like I have been saying all along..way too fucking smart by half.
On a side...how many learned individuals from academia and various other environmental activist organizations provided us with their hypothesis about the disaster of the recent gulf oil leak? And how many of these credible scientists look like they are buffoons with few real clues about petroleum now?
I suggest all of you read through the 5000bbl day oil spill thread...it is very enlightening. Just read it all and take in what everyone had to say, and then match it up with what is reality.
Very telling.
LMFAO @ hoosie... I've known the basics of how oil forms for nearly 40 years, since 3rd grade or so.
Damn, common knowledge has grown uncommon. So scientists do not know every detail of the formation of the oil, the basics are pretty well established. You should have slept through class less, You're way too undereducated by double. you should see all the rep messages I get LOLing your asinine assertions.
Oil and natural gas are formed by the anaerobic decomposition of dead plants and animals.
Google "how oil is formed" and you'll find nothing remotely credible that is not in agreement with me.
Damn, common knowledge has grown uncommon. So scientists do not know every detail of the formation of the oil, the basics are pretty well established. You should have slept through class less, You're way too undereducated by double. you should see all the rep messages I get LOLing your asinine assertions.
Oil and natural gas are formed by the anaerobic decomposition of dead plants and animals.
Google "how oil is formed" and you'll find nothing remotely credible that is not in agreement with me.
Last edited:
So now...
Big shot...
Since you, yet again, fail miserably at your attempt to discredit me...
Back up some of your asinine assertions.
I've asked you to plenty of times, but you never do, you simply move on to the next unsupportable contrarian asinine assertion, which you will also fail miserably to substantiate.
Name these credible climate scientist who dissent.
Provide evidence that the earth is replenishing oil as fast as we are using it.
back up your bullshit, boy. Unsubstantiated claims, and irrelevant rhetorical questions ain't gonna cut it, either.
back up your bullshit... or I'll just continue to lol at unrealistic asinine assertions.
hoosier = fail
Big shot...
Since you, yet again, fail miserably at your attempt to discredit me...
Back up some of your asinine assertions.
I've asked you to plenty of times, but you never do, you simply move on to the next unsupportable contrarian asinine assertion, which you will also fail miserably to substantiate.
Name these credible climate scientist who dissent.
Provide evidence that the earth is replenishing oil as fast as we are using it.
back up your bullshit, boy. Unsubstantiated claims, and irrelevant rhetorical questions ain't gonna cut it, either.
back up your bullshit... or I'll just continue to lol at unrealistic asinine assertions.
hoosier = fail
Visitors are stalking Britain's rural communities in unsuitable footwear, offering farmers the deal of a lifetime. They're not pushing a wonder fertilizer or trying to side-step their local farmers' market in the hunt for a new superfood, but offering help to cash in on the new gold rush - solar power.
Since April, when the Government brought in new subsidies to promote the development of renewable energy, farmers have found they hold the key to a secure investment.
"The county is swarming with people in suits and shiny shoes looking for a few acres to shove a solar panel in," says Stephen Frankel of Carhart Mill near Wadebridge in Cornwall.
It's potentially great news for farmers who saw income drop nearly 7pc last year as commodity prices fell. Tom Hind, head of economics at the National Farmers Union (NFU), says that although farmers saw a pick up in income in 2007 and 2008 after a decade of falling trade, many farmers are "treading a fine line" in terms of survival. Many are reliant on money from the EU to turn a profit.
"Investment in renewables and developing new income streams from land and buildings is part of the defence against volatile commodity prices," says Mr Hind.
Farmer Frankel has already installed a small 3kW solar system on the barn roof at his rare breeds pig and cattle farm, earning him £1,700 of income a year. But all the farmers contacted by The Sunday Telegraph for this article said they were inundated with calls and correspondence from investors wanting to engage them in solar projects.
So does this unprecedented solar push really offer a viable extra revenue stream to our rural economy? And what can history teach us about Government-backed energy initiatives for farmers?
The Government's so-called feed-in-tariffs offer guaranteed cash back for the next 25 years on every unit of electricity generated by a solar panel, wind turbine or biomass energy technology such as anaerobic digestion.
What's more, the tariff system is designed to offer an 8pc to 10pc rate of return on all scales of project, making it more attractive for investors than a bank account and more reliable than the stock market.
Since the feed-in-tariff scheme began, there have been 3,721 installations in the
UK, 98pc of which were solar panels, according to the latest figures from Ofgem, the energy regulator. While many of those are on homes, farmers could be among the biggest beneficiaries.
The average barn roof could generate as much as £20,000 of income a year if devoted to so-called photovoltaic solar panels, which generate electricity. Meanwhile, large field-based projects promise income of several million pounds a year, with the potential to secure and diversify farmers' income.
Since April, when the Government brought in new subsidies to promote the development of renewable energy, farmers have found they hold the key to a secure investment.
"The county is swarming with people in suits and shiny shoes looking for a few acres to shove a solar panel in," says Stephen Frankel of Carhart Mill near Wadebridge in Cornwall.
It's potentially great news for farmers who saw income drop nearly 7pc last year as commodity prices fell. Tom Hind, head of economics at the National Farmers Union (NFU), says that although farmers saw a pick up in income in 2007 and 2008 after a decade of falling trade, many farmers are "treading a fine line" in terms of survival. Many are reliant on money from the EU to turn a profit.
"Investment in renewables and developing new income streams from land and buildings is part of the defence against volatile commodity prices," says Mr Hind.
Farmer Frankel has already installed a small 3kW solar system on the barn roof at his rare breeds pig and cattle farm, earning him £1,700 of income a year. But all the farmers contacted by The Sunday Telegraph for this article said they were inundated with calls and correspondence from investors wanting to engage them in solar projects.
So does this unprecedented solar push really offer a viable extra revenue stream to our rural economy? And what can history teach us about Government-backed energy initiatives for farmers?
The Government's so-called feed-in-tariffs offer guaranteed cash back for the next 25 years on every unit of electricity generated by a solar panel, wind turbine or biomass energy technology such as anaerobic digestion.
What's more, the tariff system is designed to offer an 8pc to 10pc rate of return on all scales of project, making it more attractive for investors than a bank account and more reliable than the stock market.
Since the feed-in-tariff scheme began, there have been 3,721 installations in the
UK, 98pc of which were solar panels, according to the latest figures from Ofgem, the energy regulator. While many of those are on homes, farmers could be among the biggest beneficiaries.
The average barn roof could generate as much as £20,000 of income a year if devoted to so-called photovoltaic solar panels, which generate electricity. Meanwhile, large field-based projects promise income of several million pounds a year, with the potential to secure and diversify farmers' income.
The floods battered New England, then Nashville, then Arkansas, then Oklahoma — and were followed by a deluge in Pakistan that has upended the lives of 20 million people.
The summer’s heat waves baked the eastern United States, parts of Africa and eastern Asia, and above all Russia, which lost millions of acres of wheat and thousands of lives in a drought worse than any other in the historical record.
Seemingly disconnected, these far-flung disasters are reviving the question of whether global warming is causing more weather extremes.
The collective answer of the scientific community can be boiled down to a single word: probably.
“The climate is changing,” said Jay Lawrimore, chief of climate analysis at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. “Extreme events are occurring with greater frequency, and in many cases with greater intensity.”
He described excessive heat, in particular, as “consistent with our understanding of how the climate responds to increasing greenhouse gases.”
Theory suggests that a world warming up because of those gases will feature heavier rainstorms in summer, bigger snowstorms in winter, more intense droughts in at least some places and more record-breaking heat waves. Scientists and government reports say the statistical evidence shows that much of this is starting to happen.
But the averages do not necessarily make it easier to link specific weather events, like a given flood or hurricane or heat wave, to climate change. Most climate scientists are reluctant to go that far, noting that weather was characterized by remarkable variability long before humans began burning fossil fuels and releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
“If you ask me as a person, do I think the Russian heat wave has to do with climate change, the answer is yes,” said Gavin Schmidt, a climate researcher with NASA in New York. “If you ask me as a scientist whether I have proved it, the answer is no — at least not yet.”
In Russia, that kind of scientific caution might once have been embraced. Russia has long played a reluctant, and sometimes obstructionist, role in global negotiations over limiting climate change, perhaps in part because it expected economic benefits from the warming of its vast Siberian hinterland.
But the extreme heat wave, and accompanying drought and wildfires, in normally cool central Russia seems to be prompting a shift in thinking.
“Everyone is talking about climate change now,” President Dmitri A. Medvedev told the Russian Security Council this month. “Unfortunately, what is happening now in our central regions is evidence of this global climate change, because we have never in our history faced such weather conditions in the past.”
Thermometer measurements show that the earth has warmed by about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since the Industrial Revolution, when humans began pumping enormous amounts of carbon dioxide, a heat-trapping greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. For this January through July, average temperatures were the warmest on record, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported Friday.
The warming has moved in fits and starts, and the cumulative increase may sound modest. But it is an average over the entire planet, representing an immense amount of added heat, and is only the beginning of a trend that most experts believe will worsen substantially.
If the earth were not warming, random variations in the weather should cause about the same number of record-breaking high temperatures and record-breaking low temperatures over a given period. But climatologists have long theorized that in a warming world, the added heat would cause more record highs and fewer record lows.
The statistics suggest that is exactly what is happening. In the United States these days, about two record highs are being set for every record low, telltale evidence that amid all the random variation of weather, the trend is toward a warmer climate.
Climate-change skeptics dispute such statistical arguments, contending that climatologists do not know enough about long-range patterns to draw definitive links between global warming and weather extremes. They cite events like the heat and drought of the 1930s as evidence that extreme weather is nothing new. Those were indeed dire heat waves, contributing to the Dust Bowl, which dislocated millions of Americans and changed the population structure of the United States.
But most researchers trained in climate analysis, while acknowledging that weather data in parts of the world are not as good as they would like, offer evidence to show that weather extremes are getting worse.
A United States government report published in 2008 noted that “in recent decades, most of North America has been experiencing more unusually hot days and nights, fewer unusually cold days and nights, and fewer frost days. Heavy downpours have become more frequent and intense.”
The statistics suggest that the Eastern United States may be getting wetter as the arid West dries out further. Places that depend on the runoff from spring snow melt appear particularly vulnerable to climate change, because higher temperatures are making the snow melt earlier, leaving the ground parched by midsummer. That can worsen any drought that develops.
“Global warming, ironically, can actually increase the amount of snow you get,” said Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. “But it also means the snow season is shorter.”
In general, the research suggests that global warming will worsen climate extremes across much of the planet. As in the United States, wet areas will get wetter, the scientists say, while dry areas get drier.
But the patterns are not uniform; changes in wind and ocean circulation could cause unexpected effects, with some areas even cooling down in a warmer world. And long-established weather patterns, like the periodic variations in the Pacific Ocean known as El Niño, will still contribute to unusual events, like heavy rains and cool temperatures in normally arid parts of California.
Scientists say they expect stronger storms, in winter and summer, largely because of the physical principle that warmer air can hold more water vapor.
Typically, a storm of the sort that inundated parts of Tennessee in May, dumping as much as 19 inches of rain over two days, draws moisture from an area much larger than the storm itself. With temperatures rising and more water vapor in the air, such storms can pull in more moisture and thus rain or snow more heavily than storms of old.
It will be a year or two before climate scientists publish definitive analyses of the Russian heat wave and the Pakistani floods, which might shed light on the role of climate change, if any. Some scientists suspect that they were caused or worsened by an unusual kink in the jet stream, the high-altitude flow of air that helps determine weather patterns, though that itself might be linked to climate change. Certain recent weather events were so extreme that a few scientists are shedding their traditional reluctance to ascribe specific disasters to global warming.
After a heat wave in Europe in 2003 that killed an estimated 50,000 people, the worst such catastrophe for that region in the historical record, scientists published detailed analyses suggesting that it would not have been as severe in a climate uninfluenced by greenhouse gases.
And Dr. Trenberth has published work suggesting that Hurricane Katrina dumped at least somewhat more rain on the Gulf Coast because the storm was intensified by global warming.
“It’s not the right question to ask if this storm or that storm is due to global warming, or is it natural variability,” Dr. Trenberth said. “Nowadays, there’s always an element of both.”
The summer’s heat waves baked the eastern United States, parts of Africa and eastern Asia, and above all Russia, which lost millions of acres of wheat and thousands of lives in a drought worse than any other in the historical record.
Seemingly disconnected, these far-flung disasters are reviving the question of whether global warming is causing more weather extremes.
The collective answer of the scientific community can be boiled down to a single word: probably.
“The climate is changing,” said Jay Lawrimore, chief of climate analysis at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. “Extreme events are occurring with greater frequency, and in many cases with greater intensity.”
He described excessive heat, in particular, as “consistent with our understanding of how the climate responds to increasing greenhouse gases.”
Theory suggests that a world warming up because of those gases will feature heavier rainstorms in summer, bigger snowstorms in winter, more intense droughts in at least some places and more record-breaking heat waves. Scientists and government reports say the statistical evidence shows that much of this is starting to happen.
But the averages do not necessarily make it easier to link specific weather events, like a given flood or hurricane or heat wave, to climate change. Most climate scientists are reluctant to go that far, noting that weather was characterized by remarkable variability long before humans began burning fossil fuels and releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
“If you ask me as a person, do I think the Russian heat wave has to do with climate change, the answer is yes,” said Gavin Schmidt, a climate researcher with NASA in New York. “If you ask me as a scientist whether I have proved it, the answer is no — at least not yet.”
In Russia, that kind of scientific caution might once have been embraced. Russia has long played a reluctant, and sometimes obstructionist, role in global negotiations over limiting climate change, perhaps in part because it expected economic benefits from the warming of its vast Siberian hinterland.
But the extreme heat wave, and accompanying drought and wildfires, in normally cool central Russia seems to be prompting a shift in thinking.
“Everyone is talking about climate change now,” President Dmitri A. Medvedev told the Russian Security Council this month. “Unfortunately, what is happening now in our central regions is evidence of this global climate change, because we have never in our history faced such weather conditions in the past.”
Thermometer measurements show that the earth has warmed by about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since the Industrial Revolution, when humans began pumping enormous amounts of carbon dioxide, a heat-trapping greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. For this January through July, average temperatures were the warmest on record, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported Friday.
The warming has moved in fits and starts, and the cumulative increase may sound modest. But it is an average over the entire planet, representing an immense amount of added heat, and is only the beginning of a trend that most experts believe will worsen substantially.
If the earth were not warming, random variations in the weather should cause about the same number of record-breaking high temperatures and record-breaking low temperatures over a given period. But climatologists have long theorized that in a warming world, the added heat would cause more record highs and fewer record lows.
The statistics suggest that is exactly what is happening. In the United States these days, about two record highs are being set for every record low, telltale evidence that amid all the random variation of weather, the trend is toward a warmer climate.
Climate-change skeptics dispute such statistical arguments, contending that climatologists do not know enough about long-range patterns to draw definitive links between global warming and weather extremes. They cite events like the heat and drought of the 1930s as evidence that extreme weather is nothing new. Those were indeed dire heat waves, contributing to the Dust Bowl, which dislocated millions of Americans and changed the population structure of the United States.
But most researchers trained in climate analysis, while acknowledging that weather data in parts of the world are not as good as they would like, offer evidence to show that weather extremes are getting worse.
A United States government report published in 2008 noted that “in recent decades, most of North America has been experiencing more unusually hot days and nights, fewer unusually cold days and nights, and fewer frost days. Heavy downpours have become more frequent and intense.”
The statistics suggest that the Eastern United States may be getting wetter as the arid West dries out further. Places that depend on the runoff from spring snow melt appear particularly vulnerable to climate change, because higher temperatures are making the snow melt earlier, leaving the ground parched by midsummer. That can worsen any drought that develops.
“Global warming, ironically, can actually increase the amount of snow you get,” said Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. “But it also means the snow season is shorter.”
In general, the research suggests that global warming will worsen climate extremes across much of the planet. As in the United States, wet areas will get wetter, the scientists say, while dry areas get drier.
But the patterns are not uniform; changes in wind and ocean circulation could cause unexpected effects, with some areas even cooling down in a warmer world. And long-established weather patterns, like the periodic variations in the Pacific Ocean known as El Niño, will still contribute to unusual events, like heavy rains and cool temperatures in normally arid parts of California.
Scientists say they expect stronger storms, in winter and summer, largely because of the physical principle that warmer air can hold more water vapor.
Typically, a storm of the sort that inundated parts of Tennessee in May, dumping as much as 19 inches of rain over two days, draws moisture from an area much larger than the storm itself. With temperatures rising and more water vapor in the air, such storms can pull in more moisture and thus rain or snow more heavily than storms of old.
It will be a year or two before climate scientists publish definitive analyses of the Russian heat wave and the Pakistani floods, which might shed light on the role of climate change, if any. Some scientists suspect that they were caused or worsened by an unusual kink in the jet stream, the high-altitude flow of air that helps determine weather patterns, though that itself might be linked to climate change. Certain recent weather events were so extreme that a few scientists are shedding their traditional reluctance to ascribe specific disasters to global warming.
After a heat wave in Europe in 2003 that killed an estimated 50,000 people, the worst such catastrophe for that region in the historical record, scientists published detailed analyses suggesting that it would not have been as severe in a climate uninfluenced by greenhouse gases.
And Dr. Trenberth has published work suggesting that Hurricane Katrina dumped at least somewhat more rain on the Gulf Coast because the storm was intensified by global warming.
“It’s not the right question to ask if this storm or that storm is due to global warming, or is it natural variability,” Dr. Trenberth said. “Nowadays, there’s always an element of both.”
The world's leading climate scientists will gather this week in the United States to hammer out plans to set up an early warning system that would predict future meteorological disasters caused by global warming.
The meeting, in Boulder, Colorado, has been arranged at diplomatic level amid fears that storms, hurricanes, droughts, flooding and other extreme weather events now threaten to trigger widespread devastation in coming decades. A series of meteorological catastrophes have dominated headlines in recent weeks, while scientists have warned that figures so far for this year suggest 2010 will be the hottest on record.
Recent events include a record-breaking heatwave that has seen Moscow blanketed with smog from burning peatlands, the splintering of a giant island of ice from the Greenland ice cap, and floods in Pakistan that have claimed the lives of at least 1,600 people and left 20 million homeless.
Scientists say events like these will become more severe and more frequent over the rest of the century as rising greenhouse gas emissions trap the sun's heat in the lower atmosphere and bring change to Earth's climate and weather systems. However, their ability to pinpoint exactly where and when the worst devastation will occur is still limited. The aim of the Colorado meeting is to develop more precise predictive techniques to help pinpoint the location and severity of droughts, floods, and heatwaves before they happen and so save thousands of lives.
"The events in Moscow and Pakistan are going to focus our minds very carefully when we meet in Colorado," said Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring at the UK Met Office. "On both sides of the Atlantic we have been monitoring what has been going on with the aim of understanding their precise causes so that we can provide better warnings of future disasters."
The meeting in Boulder will be the first full session of Ace, the Attribution of Climate-related Events, which has been set up by scientists from the world's three leading meteorological organisations: the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), the UK Met Office and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The aim, said Stott, would be to develop a modelling package that would allow scientists to forecast the kind of events that the world has been witnessing over the past few weeks – before they struck. The fact that the Foreign Office has been closely involved in setting up Ace reveals how seriously the issue is taken by politicians.
Meteorologists have developed remarkably effective techniques for predicting global climate changes caused by greenhouse gases. One paper, by Stott and Myles Allen of Oxford University, predicted in 1999, using temperature data from 1946 to 1996, that by 2010 global temperatures would rise by 0.8C from their second world war level. This is precisely what has happened.
But although meteorologists have developed powerful techniques for forecasting general climatic trends – which indicate that weather patterns will be warmer and wetter in many areas – their ability to predict specific outcomes remains limited. It is this problem that will be tackled, as a matter of urgency, at the Ace meeting in Boulder.
An example of the complexity that faces meteorologists is provided by the weather system that scorched Moscow, said Stott. "Moscow has a stable high pressure system over it, much like the one that brought a heatwave to Europe in 2003. However, for a while the land around the city acted as a natural air conditioner, keeping the air cool through evaporation of moisture from the ground. But the land eventually dried out and there was no more cooling. Hence the soaring temperatures."
To forecast an event like that, scientists need to be able to quantify all the variables involved and also develop a very precise model of the land surface, added Stott.
"These are the sorts of things we need to understand. We need to be able to forecast events weeks or months ahead of their occurrence so people can mitigate their worst impacts. We also need to consider the longer-term context and see if we need to build better sea defences at a particular location and assess how high dykes or walls need to be. Certainly, one thing is clear: there is no time to waste. The effects of global warming are already upon us."
The meeting, in Boulder, Colorado, has been arranged at diplomatic level amid fears that storms, hurricanes, droughts, flooding and other extreme weather events now threaten to trigger widespread devastation in coming decades. A series of meteorological catastrophes have dominated headlines in recent weeks, while scientists have warned that figures so far for this year suggest 2010 will be the hottest on record.
Recent events include a record-breaking heatwave that has seen Moscow blanketed with smog from burning peatlands, the splintering of a giant island of ice from the Greenland ice cap, and floods in Pakistan that have claimed the lives of at least 1,600 people and left 20 million homeless.
Scientists say events like these will become more severe and more frequent over the rest of the century as rising greenhouse gas emissions trap the sun's heat in the lower atmosphere and bring change to Earth's climate and weather systems. However, their ability to pinpoint exactly where and when the worst devastation will occur is still limited. The aim of the Colorado meeting is to develop more precise predictive techniques to help pinpoint the location and severity of droughts, floods, and heatwaves before they happen and so save thousands of lives.
"The events in Moscow and Pakistan are going to focus our minds very carefully when we meet in Colorado," said Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring at the UK Met Office. "On both sides of the Atlantic we have been monitoring what has been going on with the aim of understanding their precise causes so that we can provide better warnings of future disasters."
The meeting in Boulder will be the first full session of Ace, the Attribution of Climate-related Events, which has been set up by scientists from the world's three leading meteorological organisations: the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), the UK Met Office and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The aim, said Stott, would be to develop a modelling package that would allow scientists to forecast the kind of events that the world has been witnessing over the past few weeks – before they struck. The fact that the Foreign Office has been closely involved in setting up Ace reveals how seriously the issue is taken by politicians.
Meteorologists have developed remarkably effective techniques for predicting global climate changes caused by greenhouse gases. One paper, by Stott and Myles Allen of Oxford University, predicted in 1999, using temperature data from 1946 to 1996, that by 2010 global temperatures would rise by 0.8C from their second world war level. This is precisely what has happened.
But although meteorologists have developed powerful techniques for forecasting general climatic trends – which indicate that weather patterns will be warmer and wetter in many areas – their ability to predict specific outcomes remains limited. It is this problem that will be tackled, as a matter of urgency, at the Ace meeting in Boulder.
An example of the complexity that faces meteorologists is provided by the weather system that scorched Moscow, said Stott. "Moscow has a stable high pressure system over it, much like the one that brought a heatwave to Europe in 2003. However, for a while the land around the city acted as a natural air conditioner, keeping the air cool through evaporation of moisture from the ground. But the land eventually dried out and there was no more cooling. Hence the soaring temperatures."
To forecast an event like that, scientists need to be able to quantify all the variables involved and also develop a very precise model of the land surface, added Stott.
"These are the sorts of things we need to understand. We need to be able to forecast events weeks or months ahead of their occurrence so people can mitigate their worst impacts. We also need to consider the longer-term context and see if we need to build better sea defences at a particular location and assess how high dykes or walls need to be. Certainly, one thing is clear: there is no time to waste. The effects of global warming are already upon us."
I
In~Plain~Site
The most recent report from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says, "Global warming is undeniable," and it's happening fast. NOAA's study, an in-depth analysis of ten key climate indicators, all point to marked and accelerating warming. This disturbing consistency should scare policy makers -- if they were listening. As Derek Arndt, head of NOAA's Climate Monitoring Branch clearly put it, "This is like going to the doctor and getting your respiratory test and circulatory test and your neurosystem test...It's testing all the parts, and they're all in agreement that the same thing's going on."
That "thing" is accelerating climate change.
Those few extreme policy makers and pundits who continue to deny the realities of climate change often point to "uncertainty" in the observations, models, and climate system itself that make perfect predictions impossible. Of course, climate scientists also talk about uncertainty all of the time -- it is a characteristic of the science, not an excuse for politicians to avoid taking action. What the deniers don't cop to, in a great example of selective one-sided argumentation, is that uncertainty cuts both ways. As Stephen Schneider, one of the world's greatest climate scientists and communicator regularly pointed out, while there is always a possibility that climate changes will fall on the less severe end of the scale, there is a comparable probability that climate changes will be far worse than we expect, with far more serious consequences to the planet.
And this lopsidedness works in another important way. If we act to slow climate change, and the impacts turn out to be less severe than we predict, all we've done is reduce our emissions of pollutants, cut our economic dependence on fossil fuels from countries that fund extremism and terror, and boosted our economy with new green technologies and jobs. But if we do nothing, and climate changes turn out to be more severe than we fear, we've made things far worse than they needed to be.
And that's what's happening.
There is growing evidence from the real world that climate changes are accelerating faster than we originally feared and that impacts -- already appearing -- will be more widespread and severe than expected. This makes the arguments against taking actions against climate change not just wrong, but dangerous. We cannot expect climate deniers to change their tune: they've made up their minds, despite all new evidence. As Epictetus said, "It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows."
But to be a climate denier these days means sticking in earplugs, covering your head with a pillow, and then burying your head deeper and deeper in the sand. Why? Because new physical evidence comes in every day that climate extremes are piling up. I know it is harder and harder to find real news anymore. You often don't get it from the cable "news" shows, which in a perfect world would be the gold standard on this issue. But there is climate news. And it is bad. And it is consistent with or even worse than what the climate models have been predicting.
So, I have a new proposal. Henceforth, just as we give names to hurricanes, I propose we name climate disasters after those who deny the reality of climate change in the face of incontrovertible scientific evidence. After all, why use generic names and tarnish all future Andrews, Betsys, Charleys, and Katrinas when we can remind ourselves that without these individuals' stubborn opposition in the face of all evidence, we and our children could have lived in a world where these events were far less prevalent. And just for fun, I have some modest examples here:
The Inhofe Lake Mead Bathtub Ring: Water levels in Lake Mead on the Colorado River have dropped to levels not seen since the reservoir was first filled in the 1930s, threatening water supplies throughout the southwest, and exposing whitened rock rings around the lake's edge. Over the last decade, the Southwest has suffered the sharpest temperature increase in North America, rapidly diminishing snowpack, loss of vegetation, expansion of forest pests, and rampant wildfires.
The Michaels Pakistani Floods: This summer has seen the heaviest monsoon rains on record in Pakistan.
The Monckton Russian Heat and Fires: It's been the hottest summer ever recorded in Russia, with Moscow temperatures topping 100 degrees Fahrenheit for the first time, unprecedented wildfires in their forest and peat fields, a reduction in Russia's wheat harvest by a third, and a big jump in heat-related deaths.
The Morano Greenland Ice Floe: A 100-square-mile ice island calved off from the Petermann Glacier - the largest ice island to break away in the Arctic in a half-century of observation.
The Ebell Ice-Free Arctic: satellite data show the Arctic Ocean area covered by ice this summer to be the second-lowest ever recorded - and the lowest was just a few years ago.
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Heat Wave: The east coast of the U.S. experienced record-breaking temperatures this summer, again. It seems like we're breaking these records at record-breaking speed.
Of course, climate deniers can't take full credit or blame for each of these problems, but we'll run out of names and associations of those promulgating misinformation about climate change long before we'll run out of climate disasters. Though there are a lot of names in Congress we can use.
Peter Gleick
That "thing" is accelerating climate change.
Those few extreme policy makers and pundits who continue to deny the realities of climate change often point to "uncertainty" in the observations, models, and climate system itself that make perfect predictions impossible. Of course, climate scientists also talk about uncertainty all of the time -- it is a characteristic of the science, not an excuse for politicians to avoid taking action. What the deniers don't cop to, in a great example of selective one-sided argumentation, is that uncertainty cuts both ways. As Stephen Schneider, one of the world's greatest climate scientists and communicator regularly pointed out, while there is always a possibility that climate changes will fall on the less severe end of the scale, there is a comparable probability that climate changes will be far worse than we expect, with far more serious consequences to the planet.
And this lopsidedness works in another important way. If we act to slow climate change, and the impacts turn out to be less severe than we predict, all we've done is reduce our emissions of pollutants, cut our economic dependence on fossil fuels from countries that fund extremism and terror, and boosted our economy with new green technologies and jobs. But if we do nothing, and climate changes turn out to be more severe than we fear, we've made things far worse than they needed to be.
And that's what's happening.
There is growing evidence from the real world that climate changes are accelerating faster than we originally feared and that impacts -- already appearing -- will be more widespread and severe than expected. This makes the arguments against taking actions against climate change not just wrong, but dangerous. We cannot expect climate deniers to change their tune: they've made up their minds, despite all new evidence. As Epictetus said, "It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows."
But to be a climate denier these days means sticking in earplugs, covering your head with a pillow, and then burying your head deeper and deeper in the sand. Why? Because new physical evidence comes in every day that climate extremes are piling up. I know it is harder and harder to find real news anymore. You often don't get it from the cable "news" shows, which in a perfect world would be the gold standard on this issue. But there is climate news. And it is bad. And it is consistent with or even worse than what the climate models have been predicting.
So, I have a new proposal. Henceforth, just as we give names to hurricanes, I propose we name climate disasters after those who deny the reality of climate change in the face of incontrovertible scientific evidence. After all, why use generic names and tarnish all future Andrews, Betsys, Charleys, and Katrinas when we can remind ourselves that without these individuals' stubborn opposition in the face of all evidence, we and our children could have lived in a world where these events were far less prevalent. And just for fun, I have some modest examples here:
The Inhofe Lake Mead Bathtub Ring: Water levels in Lake Mead on the Colorado River have dropped to levels not seen since the reservoir was first filled in the 1930s, threatening water supplies throughout the southwest, and exposing whitened rock rings around the lake's edge. Over the last decade, the Southwest has suffered the sharpest temperature increase in North America, rapidly diminishing snowpack, loss of vegetation, expansion of forest pests, and rampant wildfires.
The Michaels Pakistani Floods: This summer has seen the heaviest monsoon rains on record in Pakistan.
The Monckton Russian Heat and Fires: It's been the hottest summer ever recorded in Russia, with Moscow temperatures topping 100 degrees Fahrenheit for the first time, unprecedented wildfires in their forest and peat fields, a reduction in Russia's wheat harvest by a third, and a big jump in heat-related deaths.
The Morano Greenland Ice Floe: A 100-square-mile ice island calved off from the Petermann Glacier - the largest ice island to break away in the Arctic in a half-century of observation.
The Ebell Ice-Free Arctic: satellite data show the Arctic Ocean area covered by ice this summer to be the second-lowest ever recorded - and the lowest was just a few years ago.
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Heat Wave: The east coast of the U.S. experienced record-breaking temperatures this summer, again. It seems like we're breaking these records at record-breaking speed.
Of course, climate deniers can't take full credit or blame for each of these problems, but we'll run out of names and associations of those promulgating misinformation about climate change long before we'll run out of climate disasters. Though there are a lot of names in Congress we can use.
Peter Gleick
Yeah, all you did was state that I was wrong and you were right, and that makes me a failure. Get a grip douche bag.
Another display of the skewed mentality of the progressive mindset.
Others need to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, they need to simply make the assertion.
See, you are into an area you have no fucking clues about...and to state that you knew what was up 40 years ago reinforces the fact that you have absolutely no real clues. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt with the middle school, but you state it's third grade material.
And pasting up shit...loads of lathered shit...does nothing but waste the ASCII provided by this site.
more empty rhetorical bullshit spin from hoosier pyle... surprise surprise surprise.
damn shame third grade material goes over your head...
you are not smarter than a 5th grader, though you may have alot in common with foxworthy.
Funny how you ignored the important half of the post you quoted.
So you have NOTHING to offer in evidence, nothing tangible to substantiate your lies, just hollow contrarian derision...
latest in the long line of hoosierfails...
cool.
damn shame third grade material goes over your head...
you are not smarter than a 5th grader, though you may have alot in common with foxworthy.
Funny how you ignored the important half of the post you quoted.
So you have NOTHING to offer in evidence, nothing tangible to substantiate your lies, just hollow contrarian derision...
latest in the long line of hoosierfails...
cool.
- Status
