[Kerrigan]

My perception of Global Warming has been changed since the recent hurricane in Louisiana. But not in the way you would think.

Time and again I have heard people make the connection between Global Warming and hurricanes, and yet the New York Times sums up scientists' expert opinions quite well: there is no connection.

Whenever there is a natural disaster, like the tsunamis or hurricanes, countless pundits will come out and give us the vague explanation that the world's weather is becoming "less predictable" despite the fact that most actual meteorologists disagree.

It is becoming evident that Global Warming is a one-size-fits-all catchphrase that can explain any natural disaster.

More worrying to me is the similarity between Global Warming and superstition. It used to be that people would blame floods and earthquakes and tidalwaves on some made-up god, and they would offer sacrifices to appease it and make the disasters stop.

Today, whenever disaster strikes, the chattering classes instantly assume that it must be caused by Global Warming, and they say that we must sacrafice or cut down part of our consumption in order to make it go away. The same illusion of causality is there, only this time man thinks he can avoid the wrath of nature by voting for certain politicians and giving up some of his luxuries to appease Global Warming.

Is this how far we've come?

[OreoCookie]

Summing up expert opinion? Only two experts are mentioned and they have opposite opinion. Your conclusion that `there is no connection' is not even supported by the article you cite.

The first scientist only mentions the frequency which showed no increase whereas the second does not disagree, but states that the total energy has increased.

If you want to find out more, Emanuel was interviewed the last two days and explicitly makes the connection between the increase in total energy and global warming.

[Kerrigan]

do you need some more sources? Just run a search in Google news, and look at any story from a credible source like the ones I have cited (New York Times, CNN, etc)

None of them say that Katrina had anything to do with global warming.

Even the scientists who believe in global warming concede that the effects won't be seen for another 100 years or so, and even then that the changes supposedly caused by man will be overshadowed by other natural weather cycles in the pacific and elsewhere.

So whichever way you look at it, global warming has nothing to do with these hurricanes. Maybe 100 years down the line there will be a 5% increase in the average windspeed, we will check back then and see if you are right.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

If you want to find out more, Emanuel was interviewed the last two days and explicitly makes the connection between the increase in total energy and global warming.

Yes but with regards to Katrina, he says:

The total power dissipated by tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic and North Pacific increased 70 to 80 percent in the last 30 years, [Emanuel] wrote.

But even that seemingly large jump is not what has been pushing the hurricanes of the last two years, Dr. Emanuel said, adding, "What we see in the Atlantic is mostly the natural swing."

There is no connection between the hurricanes we are now seeing and global warming. How many times do you have to hear this?

[budster101]

I'm ready for Global Warming. I just bought a bunch of shorts.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

who believe in global warming concede that the effects won't be seen for another 100 years or so, and even then that the changes supposedly caused by man will be overshadowed by other natural weather cycles in the pacific and elsewhere.

which pacific natural weather cycles? cyclones? typhoons? good thing those are not hurricanes!

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

So whichever way you look at it, global warming has nothing to do with these hurricanes.

but everything to do with typhoons and cyclones!

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

do you need some more sources? Just run a search in Google news, and look at any story from a credible source like the ones I have cited (New York Times, CNN, etc)

None of them say that Katrina had anything to do with global warming.

Even the scientists who believe in global warming concede that the effects won't be seen for another 100 years or so, and even then that the changes supposedly caused by man will be overshadowed by other natural weather cycles in the pacific and elsewhere.

So whichever way you look at it, global warming has nothing to do with these hurricanes. Maybe 100 years down the line there will be a 5% increase in the average windspeed, we will check back then and see if you are right.

You have misunderstood the first article you cited and the additional sources do not change that. Take the time to watch Emanuel's interview (one of the two professors quoted in your initial article), he says that most of the developments can be attributed to natural cycles. But globally, the effect is much larger according to him and global warming has effects on hurricane activity. Your articles are only concerned with the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

which pacific natural weather cycles? cyclones? typhoons? good thing those are not hurricanes!

but everything to do with typhoons and cyclones!

Weather patterns like El Niño, not typhoons

Sorry, try again.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Weather patterns like El Niño, not typhoons

Sorry, try again.

you're right, i will try and be more comprehensive next time in my list of pacific weather phenomena. el nino totally slipped my mind!

but, no typhoons? really? you have me confused too!

but oreocookie is right, you've failed to disprove global warming by citing only atlantic examples and have actually managed to shore up support for it in later posts!

what were your views on global warming before katrina btw?

[Kerrigan]

Before Katrina I believed that global warming was a plausible scientific theory which should be dealt with for our own sake.

Now, thanks to Katrina and the political frenzy around it linking the government to natural disasters, I've seen that global warming is politics first, science second. Qui bono? Who benefits from increased awareness of global warming? Interest groups and politicians, not the environment.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Before Katrina I believed that global warming was a plausible scientific theory which should be dealt with for our own sake.

Now, thanks to Katrina and the political frenzy around it linking the government to natural disasters, I've seen that global warming is politics first, science second. Qui bono? Who benefits from increased awareness of global warming? Interest groups and politicians, not the environment.

(Sorry to repeat myself from the other thread.)
I think you believe global warming to be synonymous to antropogenic global warming which is not the case. Global warming in the aforementioned sense is a fact and AFAIK not really disputed. What is disputed is how much of that can be attributed to mankind.

The second part just deals with consequences of global warming, irrespective of the origin. So if ir was a `natural cycle' causing a rise in temperature or mankind, a possible link to total hurricane energies wouldn't really care.

If you take a good look at the situation in Louisiana, one thing is clear: increase in population density and decrease of natural storm barriers led to a larger damage compared to earlier storms in the 60s and 30s.

[Witness2005]

I believe that God does speak through nature and natural disasters to try and get our attention. In the Bible God sent earthquakes, plagues, wars, famine and floods in order to cause people to repent of their evil ways. The same is true today.

[Millennium]

Some believe that global temperature follows a cycle. At this point, that's not really possible to verify, as all known proposals place the cycles far longer than we're able to study right now. Some reject the theories on that basis; they're not provable with current technology.

However, it's well-known that hurricane activity follows a much shorter cycle than any of the global-temperature-cycle theories propose. There are periods of time when hurricane activity is greater than at other times, and although the cause is not directly known, the periods themselves have been mapped out pretty well. We are in an upswing, but not an unpredictable one.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Even the scientists who believe in global warming concede that the effects won't be seen for another 100 years or so, and even then that the changes supposedly caused by man will be overshadowed by other natural weather cycles in the pacific and elsewhere.

Which is BS if you would listen to what has been said in the other thread you participated. We can both see and measure the effects up here. We can see the glaciers melt, we notice that 20 years ago we had real winters in our capital but now that "winter" has been reduced to a couple of days of snow, we can see that the snow leaves the mountains during the summers (which in certain places hasn't happened for >70 years) and we can measure an increase in ocean temperatures (that will have a drastic effect on our economy and in the future climate).

But don't listen to us. Keep f*cking up this planet of ours until the sh*t hits you in the face. My nation will not be inhabitable by then but what do you care? You will only accept the fact when it has become too late. And by then you have already destroyed our lives.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

But don't listen to us. Keep f*cking up this planet of ours until the sh*t hits you in the face. My nation will not be inhabitable by then but what do you care? You will only accept the fact when it has become too late. And by then you have already destroyed our lives.

Wait... Your nation won't be habitable when there's less snow and less harsh Winters giving you the ability to grow more crops?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Wait... Your nation won't be habitable when there's less snow and less harsh Winters giving you the ability to grow more crops?

Think further. What effects has warmer weather and oceans on glaciers? Then think what will happen when the glaciers melt -> where the water goes? Then think of how that can affect the Gulf stream? Then think of what effect the Gulf Stream has at the moment both here and were you live (but it will effect us up here a lot more).

Global warming may sound all nice for you a bit more south but up here it will lead to our end.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

If you take a good look at the situation in Louisiana, one thing is clear: increase in population density and decrease of natural storm barriers led to a larger damage compared to earlier storms in the 60s and 30s.

Right on. Same with the tsunami in SE Asia - destruction of the coral reefs, deforestation, barrier dune depletion and the rise in coastal population all contributed to that disaster being worse than it should have been.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Think further. What effects has warmer weather and oceans on glaciers? Then think what will happen when the glaciers melt -> where the water goes? Then think of how that can affect the Gulf stream? Then think of what effect the Gulf Stream has at the moment both here and were you live (but it will effect us up here a lot more).

I still think that's a stretch...

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Global warming may sound all nice for you a bit more south but up here it will lead to our end.

...but it's a good job you've got passports, just in case, no?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I still think that's a stretch...

You mean something like this?

...but it's a good job you've got passports, just in case, no?

I'd prefer it if people could live where they have lived for generations. I'd prefer it if my children/grandchildren could live in the nation my generation and those before built up.

And it's actually quite disgusting to suggest that we should just move away from our nation because you don't want to change your way of life. But I've become used to such comments from you.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Wait... Your nation won't be habitable when there's less snow and less harsh Winters giving you the ability to grow more crops?

Excuse me? Global warming has a lot more consequences than just `being able to grow wheat in Island.' :eeh:

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

You mean something like this?

Great. I like snow.

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I'd prefer it if people could live where they have lived for generations. I'd prefer it if my children/grandchildren could live in the nation my generation and those before built up.

And it's actually quite disgusting to suggest that we should just move away from our nation because you don't want to change your way of life.

Poop happens.

And I guarantee that I use way less oil/resources than the vast majority of people. You probably use more of these resources in a week than I do in a day, so let's not start with pointing the blame finger, eh?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Great. I like snow.

It's pretty obvious from comments like that, that you really don't know what you are talking about.

Poop happens.

And I guarantee that I use way less oil/resources than the vast majority of people. You probably use more of these resources in a week than I do in a day, so let's not start with pointing the blame finger, eh?

Good for you. But how do you heat up your house and generate the electricity for your computer? How does your nation do that?

It doesn't matter what one individual does. What matters is how nations - continents - the whole world does.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

It's pretty obvious from comments like that, that you really don't know what you are talking about.

You're right. In fact, nobody knows what they're talking about with this. Observe the number of times the word "could" (instead of the word "will") is used in that article you linked to. Everyone's guessing - that's the only fact here.

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

It doesn't matter what one individual does.

But wait, in your last post you tried to blame my lifestyle for your upcoming problems. Make your mind up.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Doofy

You're right. In fact, nobody knows what they're talking about with this. Observe the number of times the word "could" (instead of the word "will") is used in that article you linked to. Everyone's guessing - that's the only fact here.

And now you show your lack of understanding of empirical science. What's next?

But wait, in your last post you tried to blame my lifestyle for your upcoming problems. Make your mind up.

Perhaps my English isn't as good as it once was but I thought "you" can also be a plural?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Right on. Same with the tsunami in SE Asia - destruction of the coral reefs, deforestation, barrier dune depletion and the rise in coastal population all contributed to that disaster being worse than it should have been.

No, an early warning surge detection was needed. Disasters happened yesterday, today, and they will continue to happen tomorow. They even happened before the Industrial age. We have to respect the forces at work and work around them. It is irresponsible to live on a coast and not have the absolute best technology available for knowing when a large one is coming. The west coast has one, SE Asia needed one, and our East coast needs a better one. The desire for money in developing this territory is human nature. It is also human nature to exploit tragedy for more research grants on the pulsating activity of the earth's climate. Industrialization began arguably in 1830. This is a speck of dust when considering the age of the earth and what other phenomena it has endured. I believe our lack of civility will end us far sooner than the effects of our Industrialization.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

And now you show your lack of understanding of empirical science.

Keep in touch. We'll come back in about 40 years and see who was right, who was guessing and who was hamming it up for the research grants.

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Perhaps my English isn't as good as it once was but I thought "you" can also be a plural?

Use of the word "you" in the plural sense in this context would imply that you meant everyone but yourself. Perhaps if you meant it in the plural sense it would have been better to use the word "we"?

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

No, an early warning surge detection was needed. Disasters happened yesterday, today, and they will continue to happen tomorow. They even happened before the Industrial age. We have to respect the forces at work and work around them. It is irresponsible to live on a coast and not have the absolute best technology available for knowing when a large one is coming. The west coast has one, SE Asia needed one, and our East coast needs a better one. The desire for money in developing this territory is human nature. It is also human nature to exploit tragedy for more research grants on the pulsating activity of the earth's climate. Industrialization began arguably in 1830. This is a speck of dust when considering the age of the earth and what other phenomena it has endured. I believe our lack of civility will end us far sooner than the effects of our Industrialization.

A early warning system would have allowed the residents to get out, it would not have prevented the destruction.

I guess your taking my comments as a blanket statement - something like if we had better environmental responsibility then these disasters would not happen. That's not my meaning. I don't disagree with your statement, natural disasters have and will always happen. However, some of the impact from them can be lessened through better environmental management.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

A early warning system would have allowed the residents to get out, it would not have prevented the destruction.

I guess your taking my comments as a blanket statement - something like if we had better environmental responsibility then these disasters would not happen. That's not my meaning. I don't disagree with your statement, natural disasters have and will always happen. However, some of the impact from them can be lessened through better environmental management.

I can't disagree with this RIRed. At some point we need to concern ourselves more with humanity and less with development. I believe it's irresponsible to develop dangerous territory w/o considering the humanitarian implication. We see this in New Orleans today. There was a massive false sense of security in those levies. There are those that are stuck in New Orleans out of need (I believe they said some 65,000 elderly and poor with no transportation), but there are a great many more who simply thought they'd weather the storm.

[smacintush]

Just do a search, global warming most certainly is NOT a fact. There are many conflicting views and contradictory evidence.

Global surface temperatures are up but atmospheric temperatures are on a downward trend.

CO2 is a huge concern in the greenhouse gas watch. 2001 figures have it up 31% globally in comparison to pre-industrial levels. Somehow the fact that CO2 is a tiny percentage of the greenhouse effect is ignored, water vapor is number one by a landslide. Not to mention the effect of this.

NASA says water vapor is our most important greenhouse gas, why is it that when I did a google for greenhouse gas the second link from the top lists water vapor under "others"? I smell agenda.

Man-made CO2 accounts for only 5% (or less by some estimates) of the worlds atmospheric CO2. That's 5% of of the roughly 4% to 8% effect that CO2 has as a greenhouse gas.

It's not all cut and dried. There is a distortion of the data on all sides of the issue, as there will be when someone has an agenda to advance.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Just do a search, global warming most certainly is NOT a fact. There are many conflicting views and contradictory evidence.

Global surface temperatures are up but atmospheric temperatures are on a downward trend.

CO2 is a huge concern in the greenhouse gas watch. 2001 figures have it up 31% globally in comparison to pre-industrial levels. Somehow the fact that CO2 is a tiny percentage of the greenhouse effect is ignored, water vapor is number one by a landslide. Not to mention the effect of this.

NASA says water vapor is our most important greenhouse gas, why is it that when I did a google for greenhouse gas the second link from the top lists water vapor under "others"? I smell agenda.

Man-made CO2 accounts for only 5% (or less by some estimates) of the worlds atmospheric CO2. That's 5% of of the roughly 4% to 8% effect that CO2 has as a greenhouse gas.

It's not all cut and dried. There is a distortion of the data on all sides of the issue, as there will be when someone has an agenda to advance.

There is more to it: just consider the fcch (flourine chlorine carbohydrates) used in fridges and spray cans a while ago. It was a small amount compared to other emissions, but nevertheless, it destroyed the ozone layer and is responsible for the hole near the poles.

If you look at all the factors separately, they seem small, but they do add up. CO2 emissions increase, but on the other hand the (rain) forests are cleared faster and faster. So the emitted CO2 cannot be reconverted as easily, although clearing of forests is not an emission.

CO2 and other emissions also have more unpleasant consequences (acid rain, smog, etc.).

The whole discussion reminds me of the tiresome evolution vs. creationism debate. If you combine all we know, there are a lot more advantages to reducing CO2 emissions than not to. Erring on the side of life, if you wish

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Keep in touch. We'll come back in about 40 years and see who was right, who was guessing and who was hamming it up for the research grants.



Use of the word "you" in the plural sense in this context would imply that you meant everyone but yourself. Perhaps if you meant it in the plural sense it would have been better to use the word "we"?

I had typed out a great (IMO) reply to this post of yours but this POS PC at work ate my post. I'll see if I have the patience to type it all out again later today.


In the meanwhile (to get a hint at what I meant) you could go to nationmaster and see the difference in how we get our energy (Iceland vs. UK). You could also search for Icelands decision to turn ourselves into a hydrogen economy by 2050 (if that's not too late). That should give you some idea of what I meant and also is basically what I was trying to say until the POS PC ate the post.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

There is more to it: just consider the fcch (flourine chlorine carbohydrates) used in fridges and spray cans a while ago. It was a small amount compared to other emissions, but nevertheless, it destroyed the ozone layer and is responsible for the hole near the poles.

If you look at all the factors separately, they seem small, but they do add up. CO2 emissions increase, but on the other hand the (rain) forests are cleared faster and faster. So the emitted CO2 cannot be reconverted as easily, although clearing of forests is not an emission.

CO2 and other emissions also have more unpleasant consequences (acid rain, smog, etc.).

The whole discussion reminds me of the tiresome evolution vs. creationism debate. If you combine all we know, there are a lot more advantages to reducing CO2 emissions than not to. Erring on the side of life, if you wish

The science linking CFC's to atmospheric ozone depletion is pretty weak. No offense, but your account of it makes it sound like you got your info from a Jennifer Aniston. interview.

Rainforests only cover 6% of the earth. They are important but as CO2 sinks they are pretty insignificant compared to oceans and the cumulative effects of the rest of the earth.

I understand your overall point of cumulative effects of different things adding up, but the MAN-MADE "ozone depleting" chemicals are MINISCULE compared to the natural ones. In order to buy the CO2 "crisis" I have to believe: The HIGHEST (read: fishy) estimate I have found on "green" web sites is that CO2 accounts for 20% of the overall greenhouse effect. (which contradicts my numbers from a previous post. I don't buy the 20%) As I said earlier man-made CO2 is about 5% of the over all. (another high estimate AFAIK) And finally oceans absorb HALF of the man-made CO2. This means that MANKIND is "devastating" the planet with half of a percent of the worlds CO2. This is the HIGH estimate! If I use the lower estimates it drops to .021%! With the current data out there I just don't buy that it's OUR FAULT.

[iLikebeer]

I'm still trying to understand why people equate Global Warming with destroying the planet. Like Kerrigan says, it's a superstition or the new bogeyman thrown around for many separate issues. I understand why von Wrangell would be mad if Iceland didn't exist one day because of it, but Iceland was underwater once before. There used to be seas in Utah after all, so obviously the earth was much warmer at one time.

All the CO2 we're releasing from burning oil was once free, although not all at the same time. Oil was a sink for CO2 and other forms of carbon, as it was trapped underground when animals died instead of being recycled into the atmosphere. Obviously we're going to have some effect on global temperature by turning a sink into a source, but how much is questionable. How much can the oceans take care of, and how much of it gets trapped in the ocean then deposited back to the ocean floor when algae and plankton die and are deposited on the ocean floor. How much temperature change is caused by the sun as it changes its solar output? There are still a lot of unknowns.

People try to make Global Warming into a coverall environmental issue, when it's really an issue about what we find acceptable as to our local climate and sea levels and how it affects people, not the planet. Imo, pollution from all human activity is a completely separate issue that I think everyone would like to reduce. But Global Warming is just a change that is not destroying the planet itself. It could possibly even be good for humanity over the very long term if cities and nations had to be relocated and nationalism lost power.

We had more snow last year in AZ than in decades, so keep up the good work as long as I live here. jk

[Y3a]

Von Wrangle stated:

"We can both see and measure the effects up here."

NO YOU CAN'T!!! You continue to be hoodwinked by the leftist mouthpieces. The weather/climate "Experts" can't even tell you with accuracy what the weather will be like 10 days from now much less 100 years from now. They are still studying weather because they still don't fully understand how it works. The bogus models they experiment with have bogus algorythms and are at best incomplete. They are just guessing on how much material the oceans and volcanoes put into the environment, and what changes the ash from volcanoes does to alter the jet stream. These are just a few parts they DON'T UNDERSTAND. Have you ever heard of the Dynamics Explorer program? What data did it tell us? I'm asking you because you speak like you know the subject. I say you DON'T! 20 years ago they were whining about a new Ice age coming if we didn't stop pollution. gee I guess they were wrong! But the Global warming guys are? LOL

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Von Wrangle stated:

"We can both see and measure the effects up here."

NO YOU CAN'T!!!

Both me and Hugi are old enough (but I think we are both under 30) to notice a difference. We both remember that the winters used to be real winters with snow for sustained periods of time. Now we are "lucky" if we get snow for a week. That's combined over the whole winter. This year was the fifth year in a row that the snow in one mountain around here melted completely. The first record of that happening was 1929 and from that time it was only a few summers that happened. Now it has happened 5 years in a row. This year was the first time ever on Iceland that the grass our farmers use to feed the animals quite literally was scorched by the heat and sun. That never has and never should happen here. Our glaciers are melting at a rate that has never been recorded before (and we have quite good records and estimates going back a thousand years). The ocean temperature is increasing which in turn has an effect on our fishing industry that creates about 40% of our exports.

We live by the nature and always have. Because of that we have very good records since the first settlers came here. When people as young as I are able to see a difference with my own eyes it is time to stop the political partisanship and try to find a solution.

You continue to be hoodwinked by the leftist mouthpieces. The weather/climate "Experts" can't even tell you with accuracy what the weather will be like 10 days from now much less 100 years from now. They are still studying weather because they still don't fully understand how it works.

This shows an appalling lack of knowledge of both meteorology and empirical science. The weather ten days from now can be estimated. But it cannot be completely predicted because the components that will decide exactly how the weather will be haven't been created yet.

And we don't understand anything fully. There's not a single thing we understand fully. Does that mean we should stop believing in the theory of gravity etc? Of course not.

But we are able to record and predict trends. Trends over long periods have been predicted. The warming that has been recorded was predicted. They just didn't predict the rate well enough. They underestimated it and not the other way around.

The bogus models they experiment with have bogus algorythms and are at best incomplete. They are just guessing on how much material the oceans and volcanoes put into the environment, and what changes the ash from volcanoes does to alter the jet stream. These are just a few parts they DON'T UNDERSTAND.

Since you're such a great scientists perhaps you could share with us what is so bogus about the models, what is so bogus about the algorythms and what is so incomplete about it? Even better, perhaps you should write to Nature or some publication and explain it. The scientists would love to be able to disprove the theory of global warming. The problem is that no one has been able to do it so far. <-- be careful before you go into this part of my post as you could expose your appalling lack of knowledge of how science work. Again.

Have you ever heard of the Dynamics Explorer program? What data did it tell us? I'm asking you because you speak like you know the subject. I say you DON'T! 20 years ago they were whining about a new Ice age coming if we didn't stop pollution. gee I guess they were wrong! But the Global warming guys are? LOL

Again, you show that you don't know what you are talking about. Global warming will mean an average increase in temperature on earth. That doesn't mean that some places won't cool down. Global warming will bring the next iceage upon Iceland, Scandinavia and possibly the UK and northern Central Europe. That can happen and still the average temperature on earth increase.

But this is nothing new with you guys. You are anti-science. You won't believe the best science available because you, with your amazing education in all the fields of biology, astronomy, archaeology and meteorology, know it much better than the scientists. Or so you believe while not even realising the basics of the meaning of a scientific theory, the scientific method or just simple things like understanding that disproving a theory is all that science is about. I could come up with the theory that you were the brightest and most talented meteorologist in the world. But every single person who works within the community of empirical science would be able to disprove it.

And the fact that you don't even understand these few basics is what prevents you and your anti-science community from ever being taken seriously. You can't and won't be able to disprove these theories because you lack the general knowledge required.

Now, I'm sorry I interrupted your name-calling session. Continue.........

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Both me and Hugi are old enough (but I think we are both under 30) to notice a difference. We both remember that the winters used to be real winters with snow for sustained periods of time. Now we are "lucky" if we get snow for a week.

Anecdotal crap like this means NOTHING. Weather is cyclical and secular. The weather changes you notice could be part of the larger warming trend that will (as they always do) change.

Even so, the argument isn't a matter of whether the surface temperature of the earth is warming up. It seems to be the case. The "science" of man causing the warming trend is what is sketchy. Why do people like you automatically reject any evidence that this is a natural occurrence?

The earth was indeed warmer before and that wasn't our fault. It's not our fault now. Our impact is MINISCULE compared with what nature does.

The science of global warming has become a fad science. Just like the "sky is falling" media circus about the ozone "hole" (which is not and never was a hole). Everyone was ready to condemn mankind for its devastating impact of the ozone, even passing laws and banning chemicals only to find out that…oops…the ozone ALWAYS does that. It's a natural cycle.

Everyday they find something they are wrong about but people like you have already swallowed the whole thing and are blind to the fact that they just don't know what they think they know.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

My perception of Global Warming has been changed since the recent hurricane in Louisiana. But not in the way you would think.

Time and again I have heard people make the connection between Global Warming and hurricanes, and yet the New York Times sums up scientists' expert opinions quite well: there is no connection.

Whenever there is a natural disaster, like the tsunamis or hurricanes, countless pundits will come out and give us the vague explanation that the world's weather is becoming "less predictable" despite the fact that most actual meteorologists disagree.

It is becoming evident that Global Warming is a one-size-fits-all catchphrase that can explain any natural disaster.

More worrying to me is the similarity between Global Warming and superstition. It used to be that people would blame floods and earthquakes and tidalwaves on some made-up god, and they would offer sacrifices to appease it and make the disasters stop.

Today, whenever disaster strikes, the chattering classes instantly assume that it must be caused by Global Warming, and they say that we must sacrafice or cut down part of our consumption in order to make it go away. The same illusion of causality is there, only this time man thinks he can avoid the wrath of nature by voting for certain politicians and giving up some of his luxuries to appease Global Warming.

Is this how far we've come?

Global warming being a weather thing and hurricanes being weather things as well I find it hard to believe there would be no connection.

What we need to know is what kind, what it is made of, and how strong a connection there is.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Von Wrangle stated:

"We can both see and measure the effects up here."

NO YOU CAN'T!!! You continue to be hoodwinked by the leftist mouthpieces. The weather/climate "Experts" can't even tell you with accuracy what the weather will be like 10 days from now much less 100 years from now. They are still studying weather because they still don't fully understand how it works. The bogus models they experiment with have bogus algorythms and are at best incomplete. They are just guessing on how much material the oceans and volcanoes put into the environment, and what changes the ash from volcanoes does to alter the jet stream. These are just a few parts they DON'T UNDERSTAND. Have you ever heard of the Dynamics Explorer program? What data did it tell us? I'm asking you because you speak like you know the subject. I say you DON'T! 20 years ago they were whining about a new Ice age coming if we didn't stop pollution. gee I guess they were wrong! But the Global warming guys are? LOL

WTF are you talking about? Do you have any ideas about modelling weather patterns? What it means to write a simulation predicting weather patterns?

Then you invoke the usual boogie man, the `left' and assume they have a whole bunch of meteorologists working for them to push their `agenda'. Whenever there's something you don't really understand you resort to this predictable pattern … 

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by smacintush

The science linking CFC's to atmospheric ozone depletion is pretty weak. No offense, but your account of it makes it sound like you got your info from a Jennifer Aniston. interview.

Rainforests only cover 6% of the earth. They are important but as CO2 sinks they are pretty insignificant compared to oceans and the cumulative effects of the rest of the earth.

I understand your overall point of cumulative effects of different things adding up, but the MAN-MADE "ozone depleting" chemicals are MINISCULE compared to the natural ones. In order to buy the CO2 "crisis" I have to believe: The HIGHEST (read: fishy) estimate I have found on "green" web sites is that CO2 accounts for 20% of the overall greenhouse effect. (which contradicts my numbers from a previous post. I don't buy the 20%) As I said earlier man-made CO2 is about 5% of the over all. (another high estimate AFAIK) And finally oceans absorb HALF of the man-made CO2. This means that MANKIND is "devastating" the planet with half of a percent of the worlds CO2. This is the HIGH estimate! If I use the lower estimates it drops to .021%! With the current data out there I just don't buy that it's OUR FAULT.

Your statement about the `shaky' connection between the depletion of the ozone layer and CFCs is plain wrong. No offense, but you make it sound like you're arguing for creationism.

I hate to do another wikipedia on you, but it also explains why the temperatures in the stratosphere decrease whereas the surface temperature increases. Also, the anthropogenic contribution is discussed and you can find out for yourself what most scientific bodies in the US and abroad have to say about the subject. A study on 928 recent papers written on the subject found that none of them was disputing an anthropogenic contribution to global warming.

How much clearer does it have to get?

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Von Wrangle stated:

"We can both see and measure the effects up here."

NO YOU CAN'T!!! You continue to be hoodwinked by the leftist mouthpieces. The weather/climate "Experts" can't even tell you with accuracy what the weather will be like 10 days from now much less 100 years from now. They are still studying weather because they still don't fully understand how it works. The bogus models they experiment with have bogus algorythms and are at best incomplete. They are just guessing on how much material the oceans and volcanoes put into the environment, and what changes the ash from volcanoes does to alter the jet stream. These are just a few parts they DON'T UNDERSTAND. Have you ever heard of the Dynamics Explorer program? What data did it tell us? I'm asking you because you speak like you know the subject. I say you DON'T! 20 years ago they were whining about a new Ice age coming if we didn't stop pollution. gee I guess they were wrong! But the Global warming guys are? LOL

Actually, right now weather forecasters have pretty good accuracy up to about 10 days. They add a day to accurate long term forecasting every 5-10 years, with better computer models, faster computers, and better understanding of weather.

Short term weather forecasting isn't done by amateurs plugging numbers into a computer. Usually it's done by people with a meteorology degree using:
1)Climatology of a region for the time of year
2)Persistence: what is happening now; use soundings, radar, and satellite data to see what the atmosphere is doing vertically, fronts, lows, highs, jet stream.....
3)trends: what triggers are there, where is the atmosphere destablizing....
4)Computer model guidance
This is a very, very brief summary of how they make a forecast, but there is a lot of knowledge and skill involved using many, many sources of information. Computer models only help to see the big picture of what's probably going on.

The models(of which there are many) might not be perfect, but they're getting closer all the time. I signed up for a bunch of meteorology classes at University of Utah before moving for flight degree with a meteorology minor, and 1 class i signed up for only had 3 other people in it. Turned out it was a weather computer model theory class. Every whiteboard was covered in more differential equations and variables than i ever saw through Calc I, II, and III.

Kind of off-topic, but short term wx forecasting isn't as bad as you make it out to be.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Before Katrina I believed that global warming was a plausible scientific theory which should be dealt with for our own sake.

Now, thanks to Katrina and the political frenzy around it linking the government to natural disasters, I've seen that global warming is politics first, science second. Qui bono? Who benefits from increased awareness of global warming? Interest groups and politicians, not the environment.

ding ding ding

we have a winner.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Now, thanks to Katrina and the political frenzy around it linking the government to natural disasters, I've seen that global warming is politics first, science second. Qui bono? Who benefits from increased awareness of global warming? Interest groups and politicians, not the environment.

the main people that would benefit from increased awareness of global warming would be, well, people. it sucks that the politicians are looking out for _them_. _they_ might even live other countries!

now can you tell me that car exhaust has had miraculous health benefits to the occupants of this earth, how burning of forests (man-made and natural) do wonders for the lungs for people who live downwind?

while anthropogenic CO2 may be a not-so-inconsequential fraction of natural CO2 levels, it is still more than the proverbial drop in the bucket. and speaking of water CO2 has a longer residence time in the atmosphere, so the little we add to the environment will stick around longer than the water vapor which is tempered by short-term natural cycles. the carbon sink that is, and will be, once, oil took millions of years to create and is being unleashed in a dramatically shorter period of time than it took to create.

the answer does lie in the not-so-distant future. once the world is forced off it's oil-based economy, scientists will have a good before-after picture. i look forward to reading about it.

</beer>

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Your statement about the `shaky' connection between the depletion of the ozone layer and CFCs is plain wrong. No offense, but you make it sound like you're arguing for creationism.

I hate to do another wikipedia on you, but it also explains why the temperatures in the stratosphere decrease whereas the surface temperature increases. Also, the anthropogenic contribution is discussed and you can find out for yourself what most scientific bodies in the US and abroad have to say about the subject. A study on 928 recent papers written on the subject found that none of them was disputing an anthropogenic contribution to global warming.

How much clearer does it have to get?

Yeah I read the wikipedia articles before. So what? If you wanna believe that it was the .00033% of the earth's CFC's that man created that went BACK IN TIME and caused damage at a time in the 50's when CFC's never existed, be my guest.

As far as scientific concensus, the vast majority of people bought MS Windows too but as we know greater numbers doesn't denote higher intelligence. Many of the scientific organizations mentioned in your article are POLITICAL in nature. Especially the IPCC. Deliberate manipulation to strengthen your case and suppress the opposing views SHOULD be a no-no, but when the IPCC does it no one seems to care. All for the greater good I suppose…

Here in something you should read about "consensus".

and here

and here

"Most of the 2,000-odd scientist cited in the ICPP report "are not conversant with the intricacies of atmospheric physics, although some may know a lot about forestry, fisheries or agriculture," writes atmospheric physicist Fred Singer, former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service and now president of The Science & Environmental Policy Project. "Most are social scientists -- or just policy experts and government functionaries."

"However, reality maintains that just as 2,500 zeros still equal zero, so the "consensus" of scientists who claim catastrophic global warming exists is an equally empty equation."

"This "consensus" was manufactured primarily by a small number of policy-makers and politically ambitious scientists. They were the ones who wrote the report's summary, which declares that global warming is an uncontested truth. According to Robert Reinstein, the State Department's chief negotiator at the 1990 Earth Summit, the wording of the summary was hammered out by diplomats and "must be considered purely a political document, not a scientific one.""

Remember Scientific Concensus also gave us: The Universe revolves around the Earth; Comets and other astronomical phenomena are prophetic signs from the gods; The Earth is 4000 years old; Thunder storms and other meteorological phenomena are caused by angry gods and "witches".

[OreoCookie]

Scientific consensus didn't give us `the universe revolves around the Earth', that was a political/religious consensus! `The Earth is 4000 years old' is yet another `religious consensus', so each and every example you give is really a counter-example to your own arguments. You try to allude that the majority of scientists and experts in that field has picked an irrational stance, although your examples are the exact opposite: scientists knew better and found out that the Earth is a sphere, that the Earth revolves around the sun in ellipsoid orbits, etc. Scientists took a `counter-intuitive' stand (at the time) and managed to convince the world. Looks as if you still believe the Earth which is no older than 4000 years is the center of the universe.

Then you say: oh, there isn't a consensus, it's a purely `political matter', but you keep forgetting what kind of people use that statement most: politicians! Politicians who don't like the idea of reducing cfcs, CO2, etc. in the form of a fixed treated. I took the time clicking in three of your links, and all of these do not seem to be scientists, but journalists (not what the `philosophy of Ayn Rand' is). So you quote journalists who think they know better than the majority of scientists?

Furthermore, you keep throwing around numbers without even understanding them properly. Keep no multiplying percentages and fractions with each other until the numbers are so small, you think they'll have no influence on the climate.

So unless the whole science community joined forced to `manufacture' a consensus for `a small number of politicians' and more importantly against the poor United States (somehow the rest of the world managed to persuade your rather small and uninteresting science community to do the world's bidding). If you really want to continue to believe that, well, then have fun on your pancake-shaped Earth.

[von Wrangell]

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Scientific consensus didn't give us `the universe revolves around the Earth', that was a political/religious consensus!

I guess that means you never heard of Ptolemy.

The Earth is 4000 years old' is yet another `religious consensus'

You are right, but before what we would call modern science the age of the earth was accepted by the days SCIENTISTS (such as they were) as determined by biblical texts.

scientists knew better and found out that the Earth is a sphere

I'll give you this one.

Looks as if you still believe the Earth which is no older than 4000 years is the center of the universe.

You are just being an ass.

Then you say: oh, there isn't a consensus, it's a purely `political matter', but you keep forgetting what kind of people use that statement most: politicians! Politicians who don't like the idea of reducing cfcs, CO2, etc. in the form of a fixed treated. I took the time clicking in three of your links, and all of these do not seem to be scientists, but journalists (not what the `philosophy of Ayn Rand' is). So you quote journalists who think they know better than the majority of scientists?

And your links went to an ONLINE ENCYCLOPEDIA and ONE real scientist. Yeah, I linked to articles written by journalists, how are they not allowed to write researched articles?

Here, is an interview with a real climate expert. Better? Here is another, same guy.

Here is something interesting concerning one of your links. (written by a REAL scientist)

Interesting article

Another

Another (Same guy as previous)

Another

Another

Of course I don't expect you'll READ ANY OF THEM. You seen to be more concerned with defending your position than the truth. There is a whole body of evidence explaining why the Global Warming theory is so questionable and how the "consensus" is comprised of few experts climate or even real scientists at all. (Start digging into who the IPCC really is and you may see…)

My WHOLE point has not been to disprove GW, it has been to simply point out that man-caused Global Warming is NOT settled, it is NOT fact. There are just too many things that don't make sense. (If it is the greenhouse effect causing the warming, the atmosphere would warm up first, in turn warming the surface, but this isn't happening…for example)

I think I have done what I intended.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Scientific consensus didn't give us `the universe revolves around the Earth', that was a political/religious consensus!

That was the birth of the scientific establishment OreoCookie. The Catholic establishment had the monopoly of 'minds'.

`The Earth is 4000 years old' is yet another `religious consensus', so each and every example you give is really a counter-example to your own arguments. You try to allude that the majority of scientists and experts in that field has picked an irrational stance, although your examples are the exact opposite: scientists knew better and found out that the Earth is a sphere, that the Earth revolves around the sun in ellipsoid orbits, etc. Scientists took a `counter-intuitive' stand (at the time) and managed to convince the world.

Actually, the debate was between the 'conventional wisdom' of the scientific establishment of the time facilitated through the Catholic monarchy against a fundamentalist Christian arguing the earth was not the center of the Universe. This teaching was deemed heresy by the establishment because of the lessening importance of our planet and the fear of societal implication this knowledge would beget. Both sides were religious interestingly.

Looks as if you still believe the Earth which is no older than 4000 years is the center of the universe.

I'm a little surprised by your vitriol and ridicule here. I've also noticed that you've mentioned Creationism being in the same vein. Why is it necessary to try to make this some type of debate that it is not? I mean, why are you even going there? Do you need to ridicule other schools of thought to prepare an argument for something completely unrelated?

Then you say: oh, there isn't a consensus, it's a purely `political matter', but you keep forgetting what kind of people use that statement most: politicians! Politicians who don't like the idea of reducing cfcs, CO2, etc. in the form of a fixed treated. I took the time clicking in three of your links, and all of these do not seem to be scientists, but journalists (not what the `philosophy of Ayn Rand' is). So you quote journalists who think they know better than the majority of scientists?

The US acknowledges the role it plays in greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the most comprehensive data you'll find on our consumption, you'll find among US sources of research. The US' hesitance in adherence to Kyoto policy can be summed up by it's "targeted stringency" on the US alone. We are responsible for the lions-share of greenhouse gas emissions to be sure, but then Canada has enjoyed a 25% increase in it's emissions from 81-2000 as well. Why? Increased population, increased prosperity, increased industrialization. Hell, even farming is to blame in increased stockyards and methane emissions. There are compelling similarities to growing economy and increased emissions. Smaller countries want to increase their prosperity and as a result, want less stringent environmental policy while increasing tension on US economics through more stringent environmental policy. It's a global concern and requires global action. Europe and the US are the most to blame and have already shown marked decrease in emissions' growth. Again, you're only going to slow growth of emissions, you'll not be able to realistically halt emissions. In short, it is highly political. We have to be able to separate concern for environment with "knocking the evil US back a peg economically." I find a great many favoring socialist leanings, a little more than bitter about US wealth. We have to separate the two and balance between the needs of humanity today, and the implications we pose for tomorrow. Too far in either direction will destabilize global economy and cause many more immediate socio-economic concerns today.

So unless the whole science community joined forced to `manufacture' a consensus for `a small number of politicians' and more importantly against the poor United States (somehow the rest of the world managed to persuade your rather small and uninteresting science community to do the world's bidding). If you really want to continue to believe that, well, then have fun on your pancake-shaped Earth.

There is absolutely no one who believes in a flat earth. No one. Not even the most staunch Creationist, Young-earth ID fanatic believes the earth is flat. Why does this continue to come up? Can you not make an argument that avoids this banter? When you do this, it in fact makes it seem as if you have some type of "anti" chip on your shoulder. What does the debate on the effects of greenhouse gases have to do with these other issues at all???

The UK has some thoughts to offer on the matter;

- evidence that since 1964 the interplanetary magnetic field has increased in strength by 40%.

- Evidence from before the space age suggests that the magnetic field is 2.3 times stronger than it was in 1901.

- Scientists do not doubt that the increased magnetic field results from a more energetic Sun. Their problem is that the effect of these increases on the Earth is unknown.

- The research is published in Nature and in the same journal Professor Eugene Parker, of the Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research, University of Chicago, comments that it could explain global warming.

- He notes that the increased solar activity has occurred in parallel with an increase in carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. And it may not be a coincidence, he says.

- Professor Parker suggests that the Sun's increased activity caused the Earth's global temperature to rise and that in turn warmed the oceans.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

It is becoming evident that Global Warming is a one-size-fits-all catchphrase that can explain any natural disaster.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

I better not come to find out you looted the above tele from Walmart!

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I better not come to find out you looted the above tele from Walmart!

...