One in ten will live in climate hotspots by 2100

Jul 01, 2013

One out of 10 people on Earth is likely to live in a climate impact hotspot by the end of this century, if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated. Many more are put at risk in a worst-case scenario of the combined impacts on crop yields, water availability, ecosystems, and health, according to a study now published online by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

It identifies the Amazon region, the Mediterranean and East Africa as regions that might experience severe change in multiple sectors. The article is part of the outcome of the Intersectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISI-MIP) that will be featured in a special issue of PNAS later this year.

"Overlapping in different sectors have the potential to interact and thus multiply pressure on the livelihoods of people in the affected regions," says lead-author Franziska Piontek of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. "This is why we focus on multisectoral impacts around the world, which turn out to be felt in developed as well as developing countries."

The study is the first to identify hotspots across these sectors while being based on a comprehensive set of both for climate change and for the impacts it is causing. Modelling groups from all over the world collaborated under the roof of the ISI-MIP project to generate consistent data. This is an unprecedented community effort of researchers worldwide to elucidate the risks that humankind is running. It aims at laying a new foundation for future analyses of the consequences of global warming.

"Now we looked for instance into the water availability during the last thirty years," says co-author Qiuhong Tang of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. "We took as the threshold the water availability only undercut by the three driest years. When the average in our projections under global warming sinks below this threshold, we call this severe. So what today is considered extreme could become the new normal." This is the case in the Mediterranean.

The combination of multiple different impact and climate models increases—even though this at first glance seems to be a contradiction in terms—both the robustness and the spread of results. "We get a broader range in projections of future crop yields, for example, when we recognize assumptions in both the climate and the impact model processes. However, locations with strong agreement among model approaches are more reliable hotspots than those identified by a projection based on just one model with all its underlying assumptions," says co-author Alex Ruane of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "It allows for a risk management perspective—in the hotspot parts of Africa, for instance, even small temperature rises can lead to additional losses that many small farmers simply cannot afford."

The study takes a conservative approach with regard to model agreement. To make allowance for the large spread of results, the scientists also computed a worst case-scenario, based on the most worrying 10 percent of computer runs. This assessment shows a large additional extent of multisectoral climate impacts overlap, with almost all the world's inhabitated areas affected.

Explore further: New water balance calculation for the Dead Sea

More information: Piontek, F., Müller, C., Pugh, T.A.M, et al. (2013): Multisectoral climate impacts in a warming world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (early online edition) DOI:10.1073/pnas.1222471110

Related Stories

World Bank warns global warming woes closing in

Jun 19, 2013

The World Bank on Wednesday warned that severe hardships from global warming could be felt within a generation, with a new study detailing devastating impacts in Africa and Asia.

How do you feed 9 billion people?

Jun 09, 2013

An international team of scientists has developed crop models to better forecast food production to feed a growing population – projected to reach 9 billion by mid-century – in the face of climate change.

Recommended for you

New water balance calculation for the Dead Sea

1 hour ago

The drinking water resources on the eastern, Jordanian side of the Dead Sea could decline severe as a result of climate change than those on the western, Israeli and Palestinian side. This is the conclusion ...

Studying wetlands as a producer of greenhouse gases

7 hours ago

(Phys.org) —Wetlands are well known for their beneficial role in the environment. But UConn Honors student Emily McInerney '15 (CAHNR) is studying a less widely known role of wetlands – as a major producer ...

User comments : 59

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (17) Jul 01, 2013
Another study using conservative estimates, meaning their forecasts are probably underestimated. If only the denialists would realize they are not going to be really affected by the coming changes, their children and more so, their grandchildren will be.

How stupid and selfish such people are! The only possible win is the hope that their stupidity will die with them before their genes get passed on.
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (23) Jul 02, 2013
If they're too stupid to grasp relatively simple facts re. GW then there's a reasonable chance that they're too stupid to use contraceptive measures as well. :(
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (22) Jul 02, 2013
Another study using conservative estimates, meaning their forecasts are probably underestimated.
Would this be anything like the IPCC conservative predictions for global temperature increases, which have failed?

If only the denialists would realize they are not going to be really affected by the coming changes, their children and more so, their grandchildren will be.
And my great. great. (multiple greats), ...grandfather Oog lived in an ice cave. So what?

How stupid and selfish such people are! The only possible win is the hope that their stupidity will die with them before their genes get passed on.
I'm so glad Grandpa Oog's climate changed. Aren't you? Maybe you think climate is inherently stable?

That's the problem with AGWite doomsayers. They can't see past their own life experience without envisioning a calamity. Change scares them. They probably all wear the same clothing and hairstyles they did in high school.

deepsand
3.2 / 5 (22) Jul 02, 2013
UTuba's clings to the argument that climate is naturally subject to change, while refusing to acknowledge that the same holds true for the causes of such.

UTba is an intellectual fraud.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (22) Jul 02, 2013
UTuba's clings to the argument that climate is naturally subject to change, while refusing to acknowledge that the same holds true for the causes of such.
When did I supposedly say or imply that climate is naturally subject to change, but the causes for change can't vary?

It's the AGWites who believe cause can't vary. They think the sole driver is human activity, and refuse to entertain any other possibilities.

UTba is an intellectual fraud.
Deepsand is a fraud, period (intellect has nothing to do with it).

So how are those parachute pants working out for you?

Neinsense99
3 / 5 (18) Jul 02, 2013
UTuba's clings to the argument that climate is naturally subject to change, while refusing to acknowledge that the same holds true for the causes of such.
When did I supposedly say or imply that climate is naturally subject to change, but the causes for change can't vary?

It's the AGWites who believe cause can't vary. They think the sole driver is human activity, and refuse to entertain any other possibilities.

UTba is an intellectual fraud.
Deepsand is a fraud, period (intellect has nothing to do with it).

So how are those parachute pants working out for you?


Tenor, tone, and tactics more appropriate to playing in the sand box than with Deepsand.
geokstr
1.9 / 5 (19) Jul 02, 2013
Another study using conservative estimates, meaning their forecasts are probably underestimated. If only the denialists would realize they are not going to be really affected by the coming changes, their children and more so, their grandchildren will be.

Yes, and I'm sure that you are just as concerned about the insane, monstrous deficit spending by not only the US, but every country on the planet, because the effects will mainly hit your children and grandchildren, causing world-wide impoverishment for all people except the nomenklatura.

Maybe you won't be around for it, but don't bet on it. The official numbers for the debt are really conservative, because they don't include unfunded liabilities, estimated as over 100 TRILLION dollars for just the US. When the US system collapses it will take the world down with it. If the Euro system collapses first, same thing.

Make sure you keep calling for energy and economic policies that will make it worse.
VENDItardE
1.2 / 5 (20) Jul 02, 2013
more absolute and total BS
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (15) Jul 02, 2013
Yes, and I'm sure that you are just as concerned about the insane, monstrous deficit spending by not only the US, but every country on the planet, ...blah blah blah...
Make sure you keep calling for energy and economic policies that will make it worse.

Really, are you that shallow? What do you think the costs will be if a third of the population of this planet has to move to avoid rising seas, or desertification, or just to find enough food to feed themselves and their children? NYC ALONE has already committed $20 BILLION (thats 9 zeros behind the 20!) to deal with rising ocean levels. And they consider this a bargain compared to the cost of rebuilding in the event of another storm surge.
Are you blind to the economics? The cost of doing nothing will FAR exceed the cost of mitigation.
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (15) Jul 02, 2013
"Would this be anything like the IPCC conservative predictions for global temperature increases, which have failed?" - UbVonTard

Poor UbVonTard. He has been repeatedly shown that current temperature trends are within the error bars of the IPCC estimates.

Yet he continues to lie and say it isn't so.

He is a well known and long proven, Congenital liar.

http://www.skepti...1880.png
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 02, 2013
"more absolute and total BS" - VendiTardE

Tardlie boy don't do science. It makes his brain cell hurt.
VendicarE
4 / 5 (12) Jul 02, 2013
"Yes, and I'm sure that you are just as concerned about the insane, monstrous deficit spending by not only the US, but every country on the planet," - GeoksTard

Absolutely. You can't afford to live sustainably, so you will have to die through unsustainable living.

Why not just off yourself and remove your stupidity from the gene pool?

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (20) Jul 02, 2013
UTuba's clings to the argument that climate is naturally subject to change, while refusing to acknowledge that the same holds true for the causes of such.
When did I supposedly say or imply that climate is naturally subject to change, but the causes for change can't vary?

It's the AGWites who believe cause can't vary. They think the sole driver is human activity, and refuse to entertain any other possibilities.

UTba is an intellectual fraud.
Deepsand is a fraud, period (intellect has nothing to do with it).

So how are those parachute pants working out for you?


Tenor, tone, and tactics more appropriate to playing in the sand box than with Deepsand.
LOL. I've ripped deepsand up and down numerous times for getting the science wrong. That's why he's resorted to these inane one-liners. He's afraid to discuss the science, because he's afraid of exposing his ignorance!

So what's your excuse?

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (20) Jul 02, 2013
"Would this be anything like the IPCC conservative predictions for global temperature increases, which have failed?" - Uba

Poor Uba. He has been repeatedly shown that current temperature trends are within the error bars of the IPCC estimates.

Yet he continues to lie and say it isn't so.

He is a well known and long proven, Congenital liar.
I suppose it's easy for a liar like you to lie by calling someone else a liar.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/IPCC_FAR_Since_1880.png
This graph is easily proven false, as it shows continued warming where there hasn't been any.

And looky, I can do graphs too:

http://clivebest....omp1.png

deepsand
3.1 / 5 (21) Jul 02, 2013
UTuba's clings to the argument that climate is naturally subject to change, while refusing to acknowledge that the same holds true for the causes of such.

When did I supposedly say or imply that climate is naturally subject to change, but the causes for change can't vary?

Does that mean that I missed your having recanted your long held position that CO2 is irrelevant to current conditions?

It's the AGWites who believe cause can't vary. They think the sole driver is human activity, and refuse to entertain any other possibilities.

That, of course, is a blatant lie.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (14) Jul 03, 2013
Ah Dumdum, you're back! And lookit you putting up another graph you don't understand and can't explain! Isn't it amazing how you've managed to be wrong about every single aspect of global warming?

You've "ripped deepsand down" have you! How's that Dumdum, because he got tired of your constant use of zombie arguments? And how would you even know if he got the science wrong? You don't understand the science!

Still trying to figure out the difference between GLOBAL warming and SURFACE temperature I see. It's really not that hard Dumdum, what you see outside your window is not indicative of CLIMATE. GLOBAL warming means warming ALL OVER the GLOBE. C'mon I know you can get it.
deepsand
3 / 5 (21) Jul 03, 2013
I've ripped deepsand up and down numerous times for getting the science wrong. He's afraid to discuss the science, because he's afraid of exposing his ignorance!

ROTFLMAO.

UTuba likes to pretend that his failures are really victories.

Not only does he deny AGW, but the unpleasant realities of his own life as well.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (19) Jul 03, 2013
more absolute and total BS

One wearies of your constant pecking at one aspect of a subject like an insane woodpecker looking for a grub in a block of concrete.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Jul 03, 2013
UTuba's clings to the argument that climate is naturally subject to change, while refusing to acknowledge that the same holds true for the causes of such.
When did I supposedly say or imply that climate is naturally subject to change, but the causes for change can't vary?
Does that mean that I missed your having recanted your long held position that CO2 is irrelevant to current conditions?
When did I supposedly say that?

It's the AGWites who believe cause can't vary. They think the sole driver is human activity, and refuse to entertain any other possibilities.
That, of course, is a blatant lie.
Nope, that's the lie.

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Jul 03, 2013
Ah Dumdum, you're back! And lookit you putting up another graph you don't understand and can't explain! Isn't it amazing how you've managed to be wrong about every single aspect of global warming?
Like what?

You've "ripped deepsand down" have you! How's that Dumdum, because he got tired of your constant use of zombie arguments? And how would you even know if he got the science wrong? You don't understand the science!
Says the idiot whose strongest argument is childish name-calling.

Still trying to figure out the difference between GLOBAL warming and SURFACE temperature I see. It's really not that hard Dumdum, what you see outside your window is not indicative of CLIMATE. GLOBAL warming means warming ALL OVER the GLOBE. C'mon I know you can get it.
But didn't you just claim (in another thread) that global warming was only occurring in the deep ocean? LOL!

antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (18) Jul 03, 2013
If they're too stupid to grasp relatively simple facts re. GW then there's a reasonable chance that they're too stupid to use contraceptive measures as well. :(

Wow, the AGW Alarmist turds have descended on this piece of propaganda, like the way flies descend on them. As usual their "contribution", is to all take delight in vomiting filth, like the quote above.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (19) Jul 04, 2013
UTuba's clings to the argument that climate is naturally subject to change, while refusing to acknowledge that the same holds true for the causes of such.

When did I supposedly say or imply that climate is naturally subject to change, but the causes for change can't vary?

Does that mean that I missed your having recanted your long held position that CO2 is irrelevant to current conditions?

When did I supposedly say that?

Having another of your famous memory lapses, are you?

It's the AGWites who believe cause can't vary. They think the sole driver is human activity, and refuse to entertain any other possibilities.

That, of course, is a blatant lie

Nope, that's the lie.

Yes; but, it's your lie.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (19) Jul 04, 2013
If they're too stupid to grasp relatively simple facts re. GW then there's a reasonable chance that they're too stupid to use contraceptive measures as well. :(

Wow, the AGW Alarmist turds have descended on this piece of propaganda, like the way flies descend on them. As usual their "contribution", is to all take delight in vomiting filth, like the quote above.

Time to have your mommy wipe the feces from yor mouth and change your diaper.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (19) Jul 04, 2013
Ah Dumdum, you're back! And lookit you putting up another graph you don't understand and can't explain! Isn't it amazing how you've managed to be wrong about every single aspect of global warming?
Like what?

You've "ripped deepsand down" have you! How's that Dumdum, because he got tired of your constant use of zombie arguments? And how would you even know if he got the science wrong? You don't understand the science!
Says the idiot whose strongest argument is childish name-calling.

Still trying to figure out the difference between GLOBAL warming and SURFACE temperature I see. It's really not that hard Dumdum, what you see outside your window is not indicative of CLIMATE. GLOBAL warming means warming ALL OVER the GLOBE. C'mon I know you can get it.
But didn't you just claim (in another thread) that global warming was only occurring in the deep ocean? LOL!

Either your memory fails you or that is a deliberate misrepresentation of what Maggnus said.
Neinsense99
2.9 / 5 (15) Jul 04, 2013
more absolute and total BS

Your promise to continue posting is most heartening.
Neinsense99
3 / 5 (14) Jul 04, 2013
Ah Dumdum, you're back! And lookit you putting up another graph you don't understand and can't explain! Isn't it amazing how you've managed to be wrong about every single aspect of global warming?
Like what?

You've "ripped deepsand down" have you! How's that Dumdum, because he got tired of your constant use of zombie arguments? And how would you even know if he got the science wrong? You don't understand the science!
Says the idiot whose strongest argument is childish name-calling.

Still trying to figure out the difference between GLOBAL warming and SURFACE temperature I see. It's really not that hard Dumdum, what you see outside your window is not indicative of CLIMATE. GLOBAL warming means warming ALL OVER the GLOBE. C'mon I know you can get it.
But didn't you just claim (in another thread) that global warming was only occurring in the deep ocean? LOL!


Preparing for the Miss Represent contest?
VENDItardE
1.7 / 5 (18) Jul 04, 2013
Either your memory fails you or that is a deliberate misrepresentation of what Maggnus said.

Sorry deepsand(or maggnus or neinsense or vendicarE or whatever sockpuppet you are logged in as)
I accidentally gave you a 2 when it was supposed to be a 1. Sorry, my bad.
Neinsense99
3.1 / 5 (17) Jul 04, 2013
Either your memory fails you or that is a deliberate misrepresentation of what Maggnus said.

Sorry deepsand(or maggnus or neinsense or vendicarE or whatever sockpuppet you are logged in as)
I accidentally gave you a 2 when it was supposed to be a 1. Sorry, my bad.

Your projection of sock puppetry says more about your tendencies than the identities of others, but if that's how you pretend to be less of a fringe player than you actually are, keep on truckin'. Who am I to say you can't reduce your cognitive dissonance through misleading representations?
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (18) Jul 05, 2013
Either your memory fails you or that is a deliberate misrepresentation of what Maggnus said.

Sorry deepsand(or maggnus or neinsense or vendicarE or whatever sockpuppet you are logged in as)
I accidentally gave you a 2 when it was supposed to be a 1. Sorry, my bad.

You can make up for that mistake by remaining silent.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (18) Jul 05, 2013
@Neinsense99

But didn't you just claim (in another thread) that global warming was only occurring in the deep ocean? LOL!
- Uba
Preparing for the Miss Represent contest?
- Neinsense99
From the other thread:

"the deep oceans are warming and the turnover of the warm surface ocean to the deep and the rise of the cooler ocean water from the deep is what is keeping SURFACE temperatures at a lower level than predicted."
- Maggnus

And:

"the ocean circulation that is transporting the warm surface water to the deep and cycling up the cooler water, thus causing a reduction in the predicted surface temperatures across the globe STILL MEANS THE SYSTEM IS WARMING!!"
- Maggnus

So Neinsense99, shall I be expecting your apology?

deepsand
3.5 / 5 (19) Jul 05, 2013
There is absolutely nothing in the cited posts of Maggnus that is contradictory.

It is you, UTuba, who should be apologizing for your continued and egregious display of sophistry.

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (18) Jul 05, 2013
There is absolutely nothing in the cited posts of Maggnus that is contradictory.
Apparently, you either lost the context, or don't understand the definition of "contradictory."

It is you, UTuba, who should be apologizing for your continued and egregious display of sophistry.
More and more it appears you're the new AGWite spambot.

Can you read and spell correct the following sentence:

Da qwick bro-wn phocks jumpt o-ver de la-Z dawg.
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (20) Jul 06, 2013
UTuba's problem is that he has trouble keeping track of both the facts and the lies that he's used in vain attempts at refuting them.
Neinsense99
3 / 5 (16) Jul 06, 2013
@Neinsense99

But didn't you just claim (in another thread) that global warming was only occurring in the deep ocean? LOL!
- Uba
Preparing for the Miss Represent contest?
- Neinsense99
From the other thread:

"the deep oceans are warming and the turnover of the warm surface ocean to the deep and the rise of the cooler ocean water from the deep is what is keeping SURFACE temperatures at a lower level than predicted."
- Maggnus

And:

"the ocean circulation that is transporting the warm surface water to the deep and cycling up the cooler water, thus causing a reduction in the predicted surface temperatures across the globe STILL MEANS THE SYSTEM IS WARMING!!"
- Maggnus

So Neinsense99, shall I be expecting your apology?


I apologize to myself for wasting time on your garbage.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 06, 2013
Trying to misrepresent me I see Uba the Dumdum. And failing hilariously. The two quotes you used are perfectly complimentary, which both deepsand and neinsense picked up on immediately. You're too stupid to realize that though.

What a maroon!
Neinsense99
3.2 / 5 (18) Jul 06, 2013
Trying to misrepresent me I see Uba the Dumdum. And failing hilariously. The two quotes you used are perfectly complimentary, which both deepsand and neinsense picked up on immediately. You're too stupid to realize that though.

What a maroon!

Dunning-Kruger effect.
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2013
"UTuba's problem is that he has trouble keeping track of both the facts and the lies that he's used in vain attempts at refuting them." - DeepSand

Yup. He is a chronic liar, as has been well documented.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Jul 06, 2013
There is absolutely nothing in the cited posts of Maggnus that is contradictory.
Apparently, you either lost the context, or don't understand the definition of "contradictory."

It is you, UTuba, who should be apologizing for your continued and egregious display of sophistry.
More and more it appears you're the new AGWite spambot.

Can you read and spell correct the following sentence:

Da qwick bro-wn phocks jumpt o-ver de la-Z dawg.
UTuba's problem is that he has trouble keeping track of both the facts and the lies that he's used in vain attempts at refuting them.
So you admit you couldn't pass the test?

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Jul 06, 2013
@Neinsense99

But didn't you just claim (in another thread) that global warming was only occurring in the deep ocean? LOL!
- Uba
Preparing for the Miss Represent contest?
- Neinsense99
From the other thread:

"the deep oceans are warming and the turnover of the warm surface ocean to the deep and the rise of the cooler ocean water from the deep is what is keeping SURFACE temperatures at a lower level than predicted."
- Maggnus

And:

"the ocean circulation that is transporting the warm surface water to the deep and cycling up the cooler water, thus causing a reduction in the predicted surface temperatures across the globe STILL MEANS THE SYSTEM IS WARMING!!"
- Maggnus

So Neinsense99, shall I be expecting your apology?
I apologize to myself for wasting time on your garbage.
AGWites. Dishonest to their last breath.

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (18) Jul 06, 2013
Trying to misrepresent me I see Uba the Dumdum. And failing hilariously. The two quotes you used are perfectly complimentary, which both deepsand and neinsense picked up on immediately. You're too stupid to realize that though.

What a maroon!
Complimentary to each other, as you made the same claim twice, but not complimentary to your claim here that, "GLOBAL warming means warming ALL OVER the GLOBE."

So which is it? Are the, "SURFACE temperatures at a lower level than predicted." with, "a reduction in the predicted surface temperatures across the globe" or is it, "GLOBAL warming means warming ALL OVER the GLOBE."

Do you still not see the contradiction?

(Of course this wouldn't surprise me, as AGWites notoriously only see what they want to see.)

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Jul 06, 2013
Trying to misrepresent me I see Uba the Dumdum. And failing hilariously. The two quotes you used are perfectly complimentary, which both deepsand and neinsense picked up on immediately. You're too stupid to realize that though.

What a maroon!
Dunning-Kruger effect.
LOL. Ad hominems instead of an apology. Is that the best of who you are?

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (18) Jul 06, 2013
"UTuba's problem is that he has trouble keeping track of both the facts and the lies that he's used in vain attempts at refuting them." - DeepSand

Yup. He is a chronic liar, as has been well documented.
LOL. This, coming from the long documented spambot.

So, how weak are the AGWites when they can't support their own arguments on their merits, so instead they employ ad hominem spewing spambots?

Propaganda much?

anti-geoengineering
1.3 / 5 (16) Jul 07, 2013
Climate change/Geoengineering=same thing.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (17) Jul 07, 2013
There is absolutely nothing in the cited posts of Maggnus that is contradictory.
Apparently, you either lost the context, or don't understand the definition of "contradictory."

It is you, UTuba, who should be apologizing for your continued and egregious display of sophistry.
More and more it appears you're the new AGWite spambot.

Can you read and spell correct the following sentence:

Da qwick bro-wn phocks jumpt o-ver de la-Z dawg.
UTuba's problem is that he has trouble keeping track of both the facts and the lies that he's used in vain attempts at refuting them.
So you admit you couldn't pass the test?

Non sequitur.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (17) Jul 07, 2013
@Neinsense99

But didn't you just claim (in another thread) that global warming was only occurring in the deep ocean? LOL!
- Uba
Preparing for the Miss Represent contest?
- Neinsense99
From the other thread:

"the deep oceans are warming and the turnover of the warm surface ocean to the deep and the rise of the cooler ocean water from the deep is what is keeping SURFACE temperatures at a lower level than predicted."
- Maggnus

And:

"the ocean circulation that is transporting the warm surface water to the deep and cycling up the cooler water, thus causing a reduction in the predicted surface temperatures across the globe STILL MEANS THE SYSTEM IS WARMING!!"
- Maggnus

So Neinsense99, shall I be expecting your apology?
I apologize to myself for wasting time on your garbage.
AGWites. Dishonest to their last breath.

I find his apology most sincere. Perhaps you have a sensor failure.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (18) Jul 07, 2013
Trying to misrepresent me I see Uba the Dumdum. And failing hilariously. The two quotes you used are perfectly complimentary, which both deepsand and neinsense picked up on immediately. You're too stupid to realize that though.

What a maroon!
Complimentary to each other, as you made the same claim twice, but not complimentary to your claim here that, "GLOBAL warming means warming ALL OVER the GLOBE."

So which is it? Are the, "SURFACE temperatures at a lower level than predicted." with, "a reduction in the predicted surface temperatures across the globe" or is it, "GLOBAL warming means warming ALL OVER the GLOBE."

Do you still not see the contradiction?

(Of course this wouldn't surprise me, as AGWites notoriously only see what they want to see.)

Jeez; what an idiot you are.

"All over" means "in the totality."

But, you already knew that, didn't you. You just pretend otherwise for the sake of being argumentative.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (17) Jul 07, 2013
Trying to misrepresent me I see Uba the Dumdum. And failing hilariously. The two quotes you used are perfectly complimentary, which both deepsand and neinsense picked up on immediately. You're too stupid to realize that though.

What a maroon!
Dunning-Kruger effect.
LOL. Ad hominems instead of an apology. Is that the best of who you are?

You should be the one apologizing for continually and deliberately misrepresenting the statements of others, for evading those facts which do not well comport with your desired conclusions, for habitually cherry picking data so as to confirm your own bias, etc.; in short, for persisting in playing the sophist.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (18) Jul 07, 2013
"UTuba's problem is that he has trouble keeping track of both the facts and the lies that he's used in vain attempts at refuting them." - DeepSand

Yup. He is a chronic liar, as has been well documented.
LOL. This, coming from the long documented spambot.


Documented? PROOF REQUIRED.

So, how weak are the AGWites when they can't support their own arguments on their merits, so instead they employ ad hominem spewing spambots?

Your claim; your burden of proof.
Neinsense99
3 / 5 (16) Jul 07, 2013
Climate change/Geoengineering=same thing.

How many milliseconds did you need to come up with that little bromide?
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (16) Jul 07, 2013
There is absolutely nothing in the cited posts of Maggnus that is contradictory.
Apparently, you either lost the context, or don't understand the definition of "contradictory."

It is you, UTuba, who should be apologizing for your continued and egregious display of sophistry.
More and more it appears you're the new AGWite spambot.

Can you read and spell correct the following sentence:

Da qwick bro-wn phocks jumpt o-ver de la-Z dawg.
UTuba's problem is that he has trouble keeping track of both the facts and the lies that he's used in vain attempts at refuting them.
So you admit you couldn't pass the test?
Non sequitur.
LOL. And thus the deepspambot is outed.

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (16) Jul 07, 2013
Complimentary to each other, as you made the same claim twice, but not complimentary to your claim here that, "GLOBAL warming means warming ALL OVER the GLOBE."

So which is it? Are the, "SURFACE temperatures at a lower level than predicted." with, "a reduction in the predicted surface temperatures across the globe" or is it, "GLOBAL warming means warming ALL OVER the GLOBE."

Do you still not see the contradiction?

(Of course this wouldn't surprise me, as AGWites notoriously only see what they want to see.)
Jeez; what an idiot you are.

"All over" means "in the totality."

But, you already knew that, didn't you. You just pretend otherwise for the sake of being argumentative.
LOL. The deepspambot lost the context, again.

Spambots, spambots, and more spambots. The AGWites can't win on the merits of their claims, so instead it's nothing but ad hominem spewing spambots.

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (17) Jul 07, 2013
Trying to misrepresent me I see Uba the Dumdum. And failing hilariously. The two quotes you used are perfectly complimentary, which both deepsand and neinsense picked up on immediately. You're too stupid to realize that though.

What a maroon!
Dunning-Kruger effect.
LOL. Ad hominems instead of an apology. Is that the best of who you are?

You should be the one apologizing for continually and deliberately misrepresenting the statements of others, for evading those facts which do not well comport with your desired conclusions, for habitually cherry picking data so as to confirm your own bias, etc.; in short, for persisting in playing the sophist.
Projection much? This appears to be your shtick.

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (16) Jul 07, 2013
"UTuba's problem is that he has trouble keeping track of both the facts and the lies that he's used in vain attempts at refuting them." - DeepSand

Yup. He is a chronic liar, as has been well documented.
LOL. This, coming from the long documented spambot.
Documented? PROOF REQUIRED.

So, how weak are the AGWites when they can't support their own arguments on their merits, so instead they employ ad hominem spewing spambots?
Your claim; your burden of proof.
"Asked and answered." LOL

deepsand
3.4 / 5 (17) Jul 07, 2013
There is absolutely nothing in the cited posts of Maggnus that is contradictory.
Apparently, you either lost the context, or don't understand the definition of "contradictory."

It is you, UTuba, who should be apologizing for your continued and egregious display of sophistry.
More and more it appears you're the new AGWite spambot.

Can you read and spell correct the following sentence:

Da qwick bro-wn phocks jumpt o-ver de la-Z dawg.
UTuba's problem is that he has trouble keeping track of both the facts and the lies that he's used in vain attempts at refuting them.
So you admit you couldn't pass the test?
Non sequitur.
LOL. And thus the deepspambot is outed.

Non sequitur.
JohnGee
3.3 / 5 (16) Jul 07, 2013
Climate change deniers using dirty tricks from 'tobacco wars'

'Fossil fuel companies have been funding smear campaigns that raise doubts about climate change, writes John Sauven in the latest issue of Index on Censorship magazine.

Environmental campaigner Sauven argues: "Some of the characters involved have previously worked to deny the reality of the hole in the ozone layer, acid rain and the link between tobacco and lung cancer. And the tactics they are applying are largely the same as those they used in the tobacco wars. Doubt is still their product."'

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (15) Jul 07, 2013
Complimentary to each other, as you made the same claim twice, but not complimentary to your claim here that, "GLOBAL warming means warming ALL OVER the GLOBE."

So which is it? Are the, "SURFACE temperatures at a lower level than predicted." with, "a reduction in the predicted surface temperatures across the globe" or is it, "GLOBAL warming means warming ALL OVER the GLOBE."

Do you still not see the contradiction?

(Of course this wouldn't surprise me, as AGWites notoriously only see what they want to see.)
Jeez; what an idiot you are.

"All over" means "in the totality."

But, you already knew that, didn't you. You just pretend otherwise for the sake of being argumentative.
LOL. The deepspambot lost the context, again.

Spambots, spambots, and more spambots. The AGWites can't win on the merits of their claims, so instead it's nothing but ad hominem spewing spambots.

Non sequitur.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (15) Jul 07, 2013
Trying to misrepresent me I see Uba the Dumdum. And failing hilariously. The two quotes you used are perfectly complimentary, which both deepsand and neinsense picked up on immediately. You're too stupid to realize that though.

What a maroon!
Dunning-Kruger effect.
LOL. Ad hominems instead of an apology. Is that the best of who you are?

You should be the one apologizing for continually and deliberately misrepresenting the statements of others, for evading those facts which do not well comport with your desired conclusions, for habitually cherry picking data so as to confirm your own bias, etc.; in short, for persisting in playing the sophist.
Projection much? This appears to be your shtick.

Non sequitur.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (14) Jul 07, 2013
"UTuba's problem is that he has trouble keeping track of both the facts and the lies that he's used in vain attempts at refuting them." - DeepSand

Yup. He is a chronic liar, as has been well documented.
LOL. This, coming from the long documented spambot.
Documented? PROOF REQUIRED.

So, how weak are the AGWites when they can't support their own arguments on their merits, so instead they employ ad hominem spewing spambots?
Your claim; your burden of proof.
"Asked and answered." LOL

But NOT PROVED.
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2013
"Idiot spambot. That's only true if you're measuring isolated parts of the system. The whole system's temperature increases." - UbVonTard

Wrong again, my little Conservative Moron. The temperature of the system of boiling water remains static while the water turns to steam.

It is a property of phase transitions that 11 year olds know, and you are clueless about.

What a shame you never graduated from grade 6.

Look at it this way, dung for brains, if the steam were hotter than the water it would cool by heating the water, thereby negating the implied reason for it's existence.

Poor Dung for Brains UbVonTard. He knows less about how the world works than an 11 year old.