Bad Hurricane Season or No?

[Red Tail 444]

All it takes is one hurricane on your front door to make it a bad season. Out here in Minnesota, we've never had a bad hurricane season, those tools at NOAA have no clue, apparently.

[storch]

Originally posted by Red Tail 444
All it takes is one hurricane on your front door to make it a bad season. Out here in Minnesota, we've never had a bad hurricane season, those tools at NOAA have no clue, apparently.

as always gainsie manages put things all into perspective.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by lazs2
I can't answer as to what causes hurricanes or if there will be more or less of them this year or next or why that may be. Unlike your "man made global warming"... er... "scientists"..  I don't even try.  

[/b]
Oh, I think we all knew that already lasz.

 My point is that the same people who claim they know all about global warming claim that it, and man, is the reason for increased hurricane activity.. they predict hurricane frequency based on their "models" that are also telling us that the ice caps will melt in 10 or 20 years and drown 90% of the population just before we all die of either starvation or burn to a cinder because we drive the wrong car or don't give enough money to the UN.

[/b]
Actually those are not the same people at all. People who research historical climate (the ones going over the ice cores) are not the same guys as the ones who predict hurricane frequency (I suppose that would be the meteorologists).

The ones telling you what car to drive or where to give your money are yet of a third kind, we can call them "politicians" or "activists".

Complicated stuff eh Lasz...

I am saying that... based on their current ability as scientists... they can't predict next weeks weather... they can't predict next years hurricanes and... they can't tell us when we will go into a global cooling cycle or if we will have one or not (unless they study sun spot activity of course)

[/b]
Here we get the consequences of your inability to understand the difference between different areas of science. See, we can be absolutely  sure that our ice-core guys are correct when they tell us what the weather was like in the past. We can be absolutely certain that increased amounts of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere will lead to a global warming. Even the cucoo-crackpot-scientists who are on your side agree on that.  

I am saying that if they predict the worst hurricane season ever...  enough times that the odds are... someday they will be right.. so far tho.. the worst gambler has better luck than these scientists when it comes to predicting doom and gloom.

[/b]
Actually they are not saying "this will be the worst hurricane season ever" what they are saying is "the likelyhood of extreme weather condition increases".

And they are proven right since extreme weather is far more often occurring now than earlier. You can get dozens, even hundreds of examples of that only in the past few years.

And like I have shown with my question that you still havent tried to answer...they are correct. We KNOW that surface temperature is a factor when it comes to hurricane strength. We also KNOW that the average surface temperature of the ocean is increasing. These two known facts means that the likelyhood of stronger hurricanes have increased.

I say they don't have the ability.   It's time to take a look behind the curtain for some of you acolytes.

[/b]
Id say that your credibility to question or even comment on any sort of scientific argument is too low for anyone to really pay any attention to your statements.

so far as global warming...

ITS THE SUN STUPID

[/b]
See above.

so far as predicting long term weather?   get a farmers almanac.. they do better.

[/b]
See above.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by storch
surface water temperature is indeed one of the factors which directly affect hurricane strength.  

[/b]
Indeed. One interesting point to note here is that this one sentence of yours is the only thing in your post that is relevant to my question. You are also avoiding the second part of my question, and the conclusions to be drawn from it. Instead we get...

I was reading an article written by lonnie thompson a glaciologist with ohio state university and possibly the premier glaciologist today.  thompson is documenting glacial ice in retreat in both hemispheres simultaneously.  according to thompson, since 1960 the global area covered by glaciers has been reduced by approximately 5% and their volume by more than 7% or approximately 90 cubic miles.  thats enough water to fill lake erie.  

this water is of course cold water, near freezing cold and furthermore it is also fresh water which is far denser tha salt water.  our planet's climate is controlled by the earth's water conveyor system in the great oceans.  this cold water flowing into the atlantic, pacific, and indian oceans sinking to great depths threatens to disrupt the ocean conveyor system.

...this. Which is all true and frightening, but completely irrelevant to the question I was posting.

Then...after that short burst of insight and truth. We get...

 some scientists believe that a partial shut down will gradually decrease the global atmospheric temperatures ushering in another mini iceage.  

there is great dissention within the scientific community regarding global warming and it's potential effects.  in other words the facts aren't in yet.

...lies, half-truths and crap. The facts are in...some people are desperately trying to close their eyes to those facts however.

  there is wild speculation a lot of which is simply envy of the united states on the part of europeans and the availability of grant money from organizations with a one world government agenda who are not above a by any means necessary approach to accomplish their goals is driving some scientists with huge ego problems to post questionable hypothesies for their paymasters.

Here, you are just being silly. I shall not dignify it with an answer.

there is significant evidence that the global carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are considerably higher than they were prior to the start of the industrial revolution.  

LOL have you any idea how stupid it makes you look when you post this two paragraphs after you posted in other words the facts arent in yet?

But here you are correct.

according to paleoclimatologist maureen raymo of boston university water traps carbon dioxide and dissolves the gas in the atmosphere which then comes down as acid rain which then reacts with rocks to become more stable carbon compounds.  with increased hurricanes comes increased rain which more rapidly increases the catalyzation of atmospheric CO2 into acid rain which could actually bring about global cooling and more iceages.

here are but two examples of global warming creating the conditions which will usher in global cooling down the road.  these swings in global temperatures are documented in those great timecapsules called glaciers.  core samples from glaciers from both hemispheres document that the earth has wild swings in temperature.

True. What you fail to take into consideration though is that everything you see around you right now in terms of human civilization is built in THIS climate. Change the climate, and you pull out the rug from under this civilization of ours.

personally I see no reason why we should halt our economy allowing the chinese and the indians to catch up because some europeans and american liberal one worldists say so.

Who has said anything about halting the economy?

the use of alternative methods for fueling our societies will be developed just as soon as we consume all the fossil fuels on the planet.

now excuse me as I fire up my my 13mpg SUV for a drive into my greenhouse gas producing shop so that I can earn a living.

And here you eloquently tell us why it is completely pointless to discuss this topic with you.

[Maverick]

Originally posted by Curval
So, acid rain is a good thing I suppose?

Acid rain is not necessarily related to global warming. It IS related to the amount of sulphur that is released into the atmosphere. Sulphur when heated is very reactive with water bonding to it and creating sulphuric acid, hence the acid rain situation. That is something that was very common in the 70's and is far less so now.

C'mon, the mantra today is green house gases, not sulphur. Get with it.

[Mace2004]

Originally posted by Hortlund
See, we can be absolutely  sure that our ice-core guys are correct when they tell us what the weather was like in the past. We can be absolutely certain that increased amounts of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere will lead to a global warming. Even the cucoo-crackpot-scientists who are on your side agree on that.  

Debatable.  A major source of atmospheric CO2 is coming from melting permafrost (think Siberia).  The increased CO2 in this case is the result of warming, not the cause.

they are proven right since extreme weather is far more often occurring now than earlier. You can get dozens, even hundreds of examples of that only in the past few years.

Another debatable "fact".  Extreme weather occurs more frequently now than when exactly?  Last year?  Ten years ago?  100 years ago?  REPORTING of extreme weather is up but that doesn't prove the numbers are up and even if they are what does that mean?  Many "extreme"weather conditions that are regularly reported now would probably not even be observed even as short as 50 years ago (i.e, before weather satellites) so there is no way of accurately making the claim you do.  For instance, there have been numerous hurricane/tropical storm seasons over the past 150 years where the counted storms were almost as high as the past five years but we also didn't have the modern storm tracking systems we have now so how many went unreported?  Same for tornados.  Wide coverage by doppler radar means we detect far more of the tornados than before, that doesn't mean there are more.  

What you're saying is similar to past crime reporting.  In the 1990's reporting of violent crime in the US skyrocketed 800% while the violent crime rate dropped 40%.  If all you did was read the headlines you'd think the US was going to hell.  Same thing now.  Someone has a tornado or doesn't have snow and the next thing you hear is some breathless proclamation by some numbnuts that it's proof of man-made global warming.  A lot of this is driven by the 24hour news cycle and a lot by the small scope of human experience and imagination.

We also KNOW that the average surface temperature of the ocean is increasing. These two known facts means that the likelyhood of stronger hurricanes have increased.

Again, another debatible fact.  We may have observed some rise in average surface temperatures but we also know that the average surface temperature constantly varies.  The past two years have shown a decline in average surface temps.  By the definition of "average," in some years the temps will be higher and in others lower than average.  What do we make of that?  It's the same for droughts, snowfall, and other weather effects but the Global Warmingists want things both ways.  If a summer is hotter than "normal" it's global warming.  If the winter is colder than "normal" it's global warming.  Trying to take some observations over a few years or even decades and then declaring a global trend is absolute nonsense when you're talking about a global weather system in which trends can only be determined over the course of centuries.   It's like measuring the slope of a 10 foot spot in the Alps and then claiming you know the height of the Matterhorn and the depth of the Med.  The trend for the past 700 years has been warming so there are no surprises here.

[Mace2004]

Originally posted by Hortlund
True. What you fail to take into consideration though is that everything you see around you right now in terms of human civilization is built in THIS climate. Change the climate, and you pull out the rug from under this civilization of ours.[/B]

These are the two assumptions at the bottom of the globalwarmingist theology (ignoring for now their propensity to believe that man is inherently bad for the Earth); that change can be controlled and that change is inevitably destructive.   First, the only constant about the Earth is that it constantly changes, it takes enormous naivety (or perhaps vanity?) to think you can stop it.  The Earth will never, ever be constant, get used to it.  Second, we're not wedded to a single climate.  Even now we're a unique species in that we have been able to adapt and thrive in every climate the Earth provides.  We can even survive for extended periods of time under water and in space.  If things cool, we'll adapt.  If things warm, we'll adapt.  Civilization will not end.  As a matter of fact here's a good question for you.  Who says that the climate as it exists now is the "best"?

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Mace2004
Debatable.  A major source of atmospheric CO2 is coming from melting permafrost (think Siberia).  The increased CO2 in this case is the result of warming, not the cause.

Actually what I said was that we are sure that an increased amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere leads to global warming. What you are talking about is the effect of said warming...that is the thawing of the permafrost, releasing methane into the atmosphere.

Im not really sure what you think is "debatable" here?

Another debatable "fact".  Extreme weather occurs more frequently now than when exactly?  Last year?  Ten years ago?  100 years ago?  

Ten years ago.

REPORTING of extreme weather is up but that doesn't prove the numbers are up and even if they are what does that mean?  

No, its not just the reporting. By looking at historical records we can also confirm that it is more common now than 10 years ago, or 50 years ago, or how far back the reliable historical records go (depends on city/area/nation).

Many "extreme"weather conditions that are regularly reported now would probably not even be observed even as short as 50 years ago (i.e, before weather satellites) so there is no way of accurately making the claim you do.

Here you are adding your own qualifiers and then arguing against your own position. Normally that type of argument is called a strawman, and generally such type of behavior on a forum is frowned upon.

Example, yesterday it snowed in Rio de Janeiro. It is the first time that snow has been recorded there since 1918. That is an example of extreme weather.

 For instance, there have been numerous hurricane/tropical storm seasons over the past 150 years where the counted storms were almost as high as the past five years but we also didn't have the modern storm tracking systems we have now so how many went unreported?  Same for tornados.  Wide coverage by doppler radar means we detect far more of the tornados than before, that doesn't mean there are more.  

What you're saying is similar to past crime reporting.  In the 1990's reporting of violent crime in the US skyrocketed 800% while the violent crime rate dropped 40%.  If all you did was read the headlines you'd think the US was going to hell.  Same thing now.  Someone has a tornado or doesn't have snow and the next thing you hear is some breathless proclamation by some numbnuts that it's proof of man-made global warming.  A lot of this is driven by the 24hour news cycle and a lot by the small scope of human experience and imagination.

Fascinating...yet completely irrelevant since you are arguing against your own strawman.

Again, another debatible fact.

LOL not really.

 We may have observed some rise in average surface temperatures but we also know that the average surface temperature constantly varies.

LOL no ****? So you mean average temperature is not a constant?

  The past two years have shown a decline in average surface temps.  By the definition of "average," in some years the temps will be higher and in others lower than average.  What do we make of that?

We note that the average surface temperature has risen. It has risen if we look at it on a 5 year scale, a 25 year scale or a 50 year scale.

 It's the same for droughts, snowfall, and other weather effects but the Global Warmingists want things both ways.  If a summer is hotter than "normal" it's global warming.  If the winter is colder than "normal" it's global warming.

Like I said in an earlier post, the likelyhood of extreme weather increases when the climate changes. Hotter than normal summers, colder than normal winters, drier than normal droughts or wetter than normal rain-periods are all examples of that.  

 Trying to take some observations over a few years or even decades and then declaring a global trend is absolute nonsense when you're talking about a global weather system in which trends can only be determined over the course of centuries.   It's like measuring the slope of a 10 foot spot in the Alps and then claiming you know the height of the Matterhorn and the depth of the Med.  The trend for the past 700 years has been warming so there are no surprises here.

The observations we have taken span several hundred thousand years (ice cores)

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Mace2004
These are the two assumptions at the bottom of the globalwarmingist theology (ignoring for now their propensity to believe that man is inherently bad for the Earth); that change can be controlled and that change is inevitably destructive.   First, the only constant about the Earth is that it constantly changes, it takes enormous naivety (or perhaps vanity?) to think you can stop it.  The Earth will never, ever be constant, get used to it.

We can obviously change the amount of CO2 that we release into the atmosphere, since we have gone from practically nil 200 years ago, to millions of tonnes today.

 Second, we're not wedded to a single climate.  Even now we're a unique species in that we have been able to adapt and thrive in every climate the Earth provides.  We can even survive for extended periods of time under water and in space.  If things cool, we'll adapt.  If things warm, we'll adapt.  Civilization will not end.  As a matter of fact here's a good question for you.  Who says that the climate as it exists now is the "best"?

If you read more closely you will note that I said that our current civilization is based on this climate. Sure we as a species can survive a climate change, this civilization of ours can not though. It is based on some very basic stuff, like food and water. If we change the climate, areas that are now land will become sea, areas that are now fertile will become infertile, areas with access to drinking water will be without access to drinking water.

All these changes will have consequences. People living in areas that are flooded will have to move. People living in areas without food or water will have to move.

[Curval]

Originally posted by Maverick
Acid rain is not necessarily related to global warming.

I never said it did.  I was responding to Stich.

[McFarland]

Well, if you want proof the Earth is warming: When me papaw was growing up, it snowed in Knoxville every winter, and very much. It was on the ground most of the year. We actually had white Christmases. Now, we usually start getting cold weather aboot January, and maybe one rarely two snows a year. These usually last one day or less, and are maybe and inch deep. I can see that the Earth is warming. I can also see that the global climate is changing. Just from the last 50 years. I know that many species have went extinct in that amount of time. Is this not sending up red flags? Many of these species have went away due to habitat loss, and a few due to non native species. But many have gone because of unknown reasons, and we have found now that some of those reasons are warmer temperatures, causing many processes to change. Global warming is occuring, and as it occurs, it gets faster. The reason being stated above, the permafrosts melting, releasing methane and CO2, and it gets warmer, melting more permafrosts, releasing more gases, and it continues in this way. But humans are contributing to these affects by adding more CO2 from the fuels we burn, and making these changes occur dramatically faster. Is global warming occuring? Yes, it is. Is this extremely evident? Not yet, but it will become more so as time goes on, and very soon. Even the scientists who once denounced global warming are beleiving it now, just as everybody with some sense and the ability to think are.

[lazs2]

mcfarland... there was a 30 odd year period of global cooling from 1940 to 1976 or so... at the time it was the consensus of "scientists" that we were headed for an ice age by the year 2000.. this was a "man made"  ice age (of course) and caused by particulates in the air.


either the scientists didn't/don't know as much as they claim or...  we humans have done the right thing and averted this ice age disaster.


Your dad may have been experiancing this unusual cooling.  The suns activity changes and as it changes so does the global climate.   It seems to be in about 37 year cycles... we are about due for a cooling trend brought on by lowered solar activity

your children will be worried about scientists predictions of the new "man made global cooling" and call everyone who doesn't believe it a fool because their paw told them of how there was hardly ever any snow in knoxville and that now it is snow everywhere.

When bird went to the north pole a lot of the area that is now covered with ice was barren.

I think you are being duped.   I think that it is always a good idea to not pollute any more than need be but to think that we can change the climate of the globe is arrogant in the extreme.  

hell..  we don't even know if butter is good for us or bad for us.

we can't even put out a forest fire and we can't predict next weeks weather.

lazs

[Maverick]

If people are the cause of global warming, who is responsible for the numerous ice and warming ages before industrial man came about?

[FBBone]

Originally posted by Maverick
If people are the cause of global warming, who is responsible for the numerous ice and warming ages before industrial man came about?

Heretic.  

[Fury]

Originally posted by Maverick
If people are the cause of global warming, who is responsible for the numerous ice and warming ages before industrial man came about?

That's easy.  Past Global Warming and Global Cooling was Natural, and I wasn't around to cause it.  Now that I'm enlightened and aware of my surroundings, I can see that I am the cause of the current crisis.

If I can't be in control of my surroundings, then I am afraid.  It's in my nature to be in control - I don't want to be afraid all the time.  In fact, not being able to contol things makes me really no better than the ignorant beasts below me.  I'm darn smart and should be able to figure out and fix, or explain away, any problem that comes my way.  And if I can't figure something out, then in the end, someone has to take the blame.  Heaven forbid that things happen and I can't figure out the reason.  There's got to be a reason for everything, and in the end, every trail will lead back to me.

Not that I'm egocentric or anything.  Not that I enjoy spreading guilt.