Bummer: ‘Climate Change’ To Make Thunderstorms Larger And More Frequent

You know what this soothsaying by the AP’s resident hyper-Warmist Seth Borenstein means, right? That thunderstorm activity is going to immediately become much, much less

(News-Press Now)  Summer thunderstorms in North America likely will be larger, wetter and more frequent in a warmer world, dumping 80 percent more rain in some areas and worsening flooding, a new study says.

Future storms also will be wilder, soaking entire cities and huge portions of states, according to a federally-funded study released Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change.

The U.S. in recent years has experienced prolonged drenchings that have doused Nashville in 2010, West Virginia and Louisiana in 2016 and Houston this year. The disasters cost about $20 billion a year in damage.

By the end of century if emissions aren’t curbed, these gully washers will be much worse because they will get bigger, said Andreas Prein, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, who led the study.

First, they still can’t prove this is mostly/solely man-caused/linked. Second, this is just another prognostication for which they cannot provide proof. These same as all the others. They can’t, and won’t attempt to, tell you what the weather will be like in the short term. But they’re sure in a bit over 80 years! When no one can backcheck them. It’s all such bullshit.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

13 Responses to “Bummer: ‘Climate Change’ To Make Thunderstorms Larger And More Frequent”

  1. Jeffery says:

    they still can’t prove this is mostly/solely man-caused/linked.

    You mention frequently that there is no proof, so you must have an idea what evidence would be a “proof”.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Read and learn something, m’kay, little guy?

      proof

      noun
      1. evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
      “you will be asked to give proof of your identity”
      synonyms: evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification, documentation, validation, attestation, substantiation
      ——————-
      assumption

      noun
      1. a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
      “they made certain assumptions about the market”
      synonyms: supposition, presumption, belief, expectation, conjecture, speculation, surmise, guess, premise, hypothesis; conclusion, deduction, inference; rareillation, notion, impression

      See the difference, little guy?

    • Jeffery says:

      Anyone? What evidence would you need to see to prove that human generated CO2 is causing the Earth to warm? Easy question. If your answer is that there is no evidence that could ever possibly convince you then you are not evaluating scientifically.

      • drowningpuppies says:

        You’ve just made two more assumptions, little guy…

        Evidence that you don’t really want answers.

      • Jeffery says:

        No takers? No idea what evidence you’re looking for?

        • Jeffery says:

          Let’s try a different approach.

          Five years ago, almost every “skeptic” (e.g., Tony WUWT) denied that the Earth was warming, but now almost every “skeptic” (except jl) concedes that the Earth is warming. What evidence did you see over the past five years that persuaded you that the Earth is warming?

          • drowningpuppies says:

            Now you’re making false assumptions, little guy.

            More proof you are dishonest.

          • Jeffery says:

            What if it was shown that infrared radiation at the wavelengths re-emitted from Earth is retained in the atmosphere by direct interaction with molecules of CO2?

            What if it was shown that the heat content of the oceans was steadily increasing, consistent with the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2?

  2. Jl says:

    It’ll go down just like the hurricane “scare”. They predict it, nothing happens for ten yrs, then a yr with several severe hurricanes. “See, we told you so!” Junk science

  3. Some Hillbilly in St Louis says:

    “Now you’re making false assumptions, little guy.

    More proof you are dishonest.”

    Occam’s razor tells us that the simplest answer is usually correct -Jeffery isn’t dishonest per se, he’s just a retard.

  4. o0Nighthawk0o says:

    Of course Jeffy knows that there is not a single thing we could point to as proof of AGW. It is actually a combination of many things.

    Maybe if the models were accurate we would tend to accept the AGW theory. As it stands, the models that all the doom and gloom is predicted by have failed. If they can’t accurately model the known past how can we accept that they can accurately model the distant future?

    Maybe if they could tell us what temp the Earth should be. Who’s to say that the Earth isn’t unusually cool right now? After all, we are emerging from what is called the little ice age.

    They also can’t say what CO2 levels are optimum. When all plant life needs greater than 170ppm CO2 to survive I would think that lowering CO2 to levels close to that would be dangerous for all life. Even at the miniscule concentration now plant life is flourishing.

    It is also known that most all life survives and flourishes more in warmer temps. There is a reason no one lives at the North or South Poles.

    So no, it’s not really proof that we want. It’s more because of decades of failed predictions, massaged data and outright lies from the warming crowd that makes us skeptics. Take you for example. You drone on about infrared reflection and heat in the oceans but provide nothing that says this is anything but natural variation.

    • Jeffery says:

      Nightie,

      What I’m asking if for you to identify what evidence you would find compelling.

      it’s not really proof that we want.

      You say you don’t require proof, that your “feelings” have to be satisfied. Got it.

  5. Jl says:

    Skeptics have over a thousand peer-reviewed papers contradicting the premise that CO2is the primary driver of the climate. Sufficient evidence would be a natural world that functioned in a manner where there’d be no data available for those contradictory papers to be written. Good luck.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5753 access attempts in the last 7 days.