Another global warming prediction comes true

C

coffman

CAGiversary!
One of the predictions of global warming is that hurricanes will become more common and more powerful. The third category 5 hurricane of the season has formed (Hurricane Wilma), and measurements indicate it is the most powerful hurricane ever recorded. The next step in further validating the effects of global warming will be hurricanes that exceed 200 mph in sustained wind speeds.
 
screaming.gif


* Bout to go insane because of threads like this *

I know you might wanna have a normal discussion about global warming , but i cant. Because it dont exist, storms happens, just a normal day in this life.
 
[quote name='U2K Tha Greate$t']
screaming.gif


* Bout to go insane because of threads like this *

I know you might wanna have a normal discussion about global warming , but i cant. Because it dont exist, storms happens, just a normal day in this life.[/QUOTE]

care to explain to me why its 80 degrees here outside in the last part of october when normally it would be 20 to 25 degrees cooler?
 
I love how all these armchair climatologists think we can accurately measure and model planetary weather conditions of billions of years with 150 years of recorded history and a bunch of junk science that has taken the place of communism as the main threat to capitalism.

Here's my question, could we, if we set out to do it, completely eliminate the atmosphere? I want to know if we have the capability to turn this planet into a de facto moon.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Bring me science that's not mixed with socialist underpinnings and laced with anti-capitalism and I'll be happy to consider it.[/QUOTE]

Find me the science that is.
 
[quote name='U2K Tha Greate$t']
screaming.gif


* Bout to go insane because of threads like this *

I know you might wanna have a normal discussion about global warming , but i cant. Because it dont exist, storms happens, just a normal day in this life.[/QUOTE]


No, you can't because, as your mastery of the English language illustrates, you are an ignorant person.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I love how all these armchair climatologists think we can accurately measure and model planetary weather conditions of billions of years with 150 years of recorded history and a bunch of junk science that has taken the place of communism as the main threat to capitalism.

Here's my question, could we, if we set out to do it, completely eliminate the atmosphere? I want to know if we have the capability to turn this planet into a de facto moon.[/QUOTE]


what I love is how you never question the science or technology that benefits you. You dont ask if there is a need for a faster shooting gun, you probably except that the meds you take will cure you, you believe everything that microsoft says about your lil 360. But when science goes against something you believe its garbage, its fake, it has a political agenda. I'm sorry if you cant believe in global warming, evolution, or the benefits of stem cells, but guess what the scientific community does and I can pretty much say for certain you are not a member of the scientific community. So go back to sitting in your computer chair and complain ing about things that you will never believe in till it bites you and everyone else on the ass.
 
Science is a liberal invention, dumbasses.

Math is, too. I mean, how can you measure the area under a curve with only TWO numbers???
 
If global warming is communism, call me McCarthy, cause Im outing all those who believe in it. Ran through hurricanes A-Z, haven't changed the combustion engine since the 20's, industry allowed to prefusely pollute with a quite forgiving president, and overpopulation is rampant. All facts, do some research, and stop being ignorant.

Captalism does have its end, because most of it depends on the environment. Real estate (running out of land), fossil fuels, logging, agriculture, livestock, electricity...ALL DEPENDS ON A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I love how all these armchair climatologists think we can accurately measure and model planetary weather conditions of billions of years with 150 years of recorded history and a bunch of junk science that has taken the place of communism as the main threat to capitalism.

Here's my question, could we, if we set out to do it, completely eliminate the atmosphere? I want to know if we have the capability to turn this planet into a de facto moon.[/QUOTE]

Well, I may not be a climatologist, but I am an engineer with extensive training in chemistry and physics. Plus, I perform volunteer work which requires me to be up to date on global warming, fuel efficiency, etc. Also, there are actually hundreds of millions of years of "recorded" history, as core samples can reveal climate conditions very accurately. The current warming trend started exactly at the beginning of the industrial revolution. That should tell you something. If it doesn't, I'm sorry your schools failed you.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']what I love is how you never question the science or technology that benefits you. You dont ask if there is a need for a faster shooting gun, you probably except that the meds you take will cure you, you believe everything that microsoft says about your lil 360. But when science goes against something you believe its garbage, its fake, it has a political agenda. I'm sorry if you cant believe in global warming, evolution, or the benefits of stem cells, but guess what the scientific community does and I can pretty much say for certain you are not a member of the scientific community. So go back to sitting in your computer chair and complain ing about things that you will never believe in till it bites you and everyone else on the ass.[/QUOTE]

This is what happens when you "assume" things about people. 25 years ago the rage in the environmental community was global cooling, not warming. Now, how did the scientific community become so convinced the planet was in a cooling stage that was going to be marked by a return of the ice age, snow, glaciers and blizzards that would drop down to Kansas putting half the country in a perpetual ice age for 1,000's of years as well as most of the northern hempisphere in general?

Evolution? Like I've said numerous times. It's a theory. It's certainly plausable but until it can go back and explain how life went from space dust to amoeba, bacteria to multi-celled, invertibrate and vertibrate lifeforms it's a theory. While it may realisticly account for millions of years of life on a planet of 4 billion years it explains next to nothing. It's like me telling you how the day went by measuring what happens from 11:59:45PM until midnight.

You won't hear me argue stem cell research from a moral perspective. The embryos wasted by fertility clinics alone would be an ample source of material without ever having to resort to the BS argument of abortion doctors putting their "work" into petri dishes for research purposes.

BTW, you cannot make a faster shooting gun than currently exists using powder propellent. Any advances will be through elctromagnetic propulsion, what most would know as a rail gun. Firing and cyclical rates really can't be improved due to the limits of temperature tolerences of gun barrels. Sure you can make a gun that can spew out 5,000 rounds a minute. However the heat melts the rifling of the barrel and renders accuracy and hence, the weapon, useless.

You'd also be hard pressed to find a majority of medicines that will cure you. Other than antibiotics most medications limit symptoms not provide a cure.

EDIT: Also while everyone likes to assume man has the power to destroy the atmosphere by driving a car no one has been able to tell me how we could possibly destroy the atmosphere if we tried to do it deliberately. Also, my biggest reason for doubting global warming and/or cooling is caused by man's activity is scientific; the Milankovitch Theory.

The tilt of the earth relative to its plane of travel about the sun is what causes seasons. The hemisphere "pointing toward" the sun is in summer, while the opposite hemisphere is in winter. The earth makes one full orbit around the sun each year. The northern hemisphere is in summer in the left image, while 6 months later, the southern hemisphere has summer, as in the center image. If the earth's axis were "straight up and down" relative to the orbital plane, as in the right-hand image, there would be no seasons, since every point on the earth would receive the same amount of sun each day of the year.

Changes in the "tilt" of the earth can change the severity of the seasons - more "tilt" means more severe seasons - warmer summers and colder winters; less "tilt" means less severe seasons - cooler summers and milder winters. The earth wobbles in space so that its tilt changes between about 22 and 25 degrees on a cycle of about 41,000 years. It is the cool summers which are thought to allow snow and ice to last from year to year in high latitudes, eventually building up into massive ice sheets. There are positive feedbacks in the climate system as well, because an earth covered with more snow reflects more of the sun's energy into space, causing additional cooling. In addition, it appears that the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere falls as ice sheets grow, also adding to the cooling of the climate.

The earth's orbit around the sun is not quite circular, which means that the earth is slightly closer to the sun at some times of the year than others. The closest approach of the earth to the sun is called perihelion, and it now occurs in January, making northern hemisphere winters slightly milder. This change in timing of perihelion is known as the precession of the equinoxes, and occurs on a period of 22,000 years. 11,000 years ago, perihelion occurred in July, making the seasons more severe than today. The "roundness", or eccentricity, of the earth's orbit varies on cycles of 100,000 and 400,000 years, and this affects how important the timing of perihelion is to the strength of the seasons. The combination of the 41,000 year tilt cycle and the 22,000 year precession cycles, plus the smaller eccentricity signal, affect the relative severity of summer and winter, and are thought to control the growth and retreat of ice sheets. Cool summers in the northern hemisphere, where most of the earth's land mass is located, appear to allow snow and ice to persist to the next winter, allowing the development of large ice sheets over hundreds to thousands of years. Conversely, warmer summers shrink ice sheets by melting more ice than the amount accumulating during the winter.

What is The Milankovitch Theory? The Milankovitch or astronomical theory of climate change is an explanation for changes in the seasons which result from changes in the earth's orbit around the sun. The theory is named for Serbian astronomer Milutin Milankovitch, who calculated the slow changes in the earth's orbit by careful measurements of the position of the stars, and through equations using the gravitational pull of other planets and stars. He determined that the earth "wobbles" in its orbit. The earth's "tilt" is what causes seasons, and changes in the tilt of the earth change the strength of the seasons. The seasons can also be accentuated or modified by the eccentricity (degree of roundness) of the orbital path around the sun, and the precession effect, the position of the solstices in the annual orbit.

What does The Milankovitch Theory say about future climate change?

Orbital changes occur over thousands of years, and the climate system may also take thousands of years to respond to orbital forcing. Theory suggests that the primary driver of ice ages is the total summer radiation received in northern latitude zones where major ice sheets have formed in the past, near 65 degrees north. Past ice ages correlate well to 65N summer insolation (Imbrie 1982). Astronomical calculations show that 65N summer insolation should increase gradually over the next 25,000 years, and that no 65N summer insolation declines sufficient to cause an ice age are expected in the next 50,000 - 100,000 years ( Hollan 2000, Berger 2002).
Link

This makes infinitely more sense as our planet has had hundreds of cooling and heating cycles before man existed and will have after man exists. To think man can change the course of nature itself is pure arrogance and hubris. We have no such power.
 
That's a pretty persuasuve argument. The issue I think at hand isn't that the earth warms and cools, it's that we could be having an effect increasing the warming this time.

I think the fact of the matter is, that the earth is going to warm whether we try to stop it or not. No treaty, protocol, bill, law, executive order, can stop, or even have a measurable effect on it.

This is nearly identical to the ozone hole of the 80's. We discovered an ozone hole over Antartica, and it was growing. CFCs broke down ozone compounds in the atmosphere, so obviously we created this hole, right? Wrong. The hole now has been shrinking for the last few years, desipte the fact that CFCs take 20-50 years to arrive and do the damage. Our usage, or ceasing the usage of CFCs had no measurable effect on the hole. In fact, I postulate that the hole has always been there. That could be one reason the region is so desolate.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']This is what happens when you "assume" things about people. 25 years ago the rage in the environmental community was global cooling, not warming. Now, how did the scientific community become so convinced the planet was in a cooling stage that was going to be marked by a return of the ice age, snow, glaciers and blizzards that would drop down to Kansas putting half the country in a perpetual ice age for 1,000's of years as well as most of the northern hempisphere in general?[/QUOTE]

Maybe as cars have become more prominent in our every day life, as oil has become an even more coveted comodity and as usage increases all the time, the green house effects of CO2 and other green house gasses have over come the cooling effects that scientists looked at between 1948 and 1968?

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'] Evolution? Like I've said numerous times. It's a theory. It's certainly plausable but until it can go back and explain how life went from space dust to amoeba, bacteria to multi-celled, invertibrate and vertibrate lifeforms it's a theory. While it may realisticly account for millions of years of life on a planet of 4 billion years it explains next to nothing. It's like me telling you how the day went by measuring what happens from 11:59:45PM until midnight.[/QUOTE]

Scientists have created amino acids and proteins in gaseous chambers. While not the same environmental conditions, as Early earth's, there are plenty of experiments and results coming up all the time. This experiment also showed that one does not need a God to create the building blocks of life.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']EDIT: Also while everyone likes to assume man has the power to destroy the atmosphere by driving a car no one has been able to tell me how we could possibly destroy the atmosphere if we tried to do it deliberately. Also, my biggest reason for doubting global warming and/or cooling is caused by man's activity is scientific; the Milankovitch Theory.[/QUOTE]

Nitrogen Dioxide is the component in car exhaust that destroys the Ozone. Theoretically, if man desire to destroy the Ozone, it would just need to pump copious amounts of N O2 into the atmosphere. One could also detonate many different Nuclear bombs or missles in the atmosphere near the Ozone. The resulting IR radiation would destroy part of the Ozone (there would have to be a lot of explosions to accomplish this, however).
 
[quote name='onetrackmind']care to explain to me why its 80 degrees here outside in the last part of october when normally it would be 20 to 25 degrees cooler?[/QUOTE]

Um, GOD is in direct control of the weather, so he makes it warm when he feels like it. Just like if i pray for rain or pray and ask GOD to make it warm all week, well in due time those prayers comes true.

See, Global warming dont exist, because GOD is in direct control of the weather. Its really not that hard to understand.
 
[quote name='U2K Tha Greate$t']Um, GOD is in direct control of the weather, so he makes it warm when he feels like it. Just like if i pray for rain or pray and ask GOD to make it warm all week, well in due time those prayers comes true.

See, Global warming dont exist, because GOD is in direct control of the weather. Its really not that hard to understand.[/QUOTE]

:rofl: I love this shit. God is in complete control of the weather and he uses it so benevolently... with catagory 5 hurricanes to kill people.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I love how all these armchair climatologists think we can accurately measure and model planetary weather conditions of billions of years with 150 years of recorded history and a bunch of junk science that has taken the place of communism as the main threat to capitalism.

Here's my question, could we, if we set out to do it, completely eliminate the atmosphere? I want to know if we have the capability to turn this planet into a de facto moon.[/QUOTE]


Wow, I can't believe I'm gonna say this but I agree with you PAD, wholeheartedly in fact.

Of course this exact same argument went on last week and I said the exact same thing about making assumptions on the planetary cycle based on 150 years of recorded climate history but once again no one wanted to listen to that. In fact, its the one thing in the other thread that NEVER had any kind of retort.
 
[quote name='U2K Tha Greate$t']Um, GOD is in direct control of the weather, so he makes it warm when he feels like it. Just like if i pray for rain or pray and ask GOD to make it warm all week, well in due time those prayers comes true.

See, Global warming dont exist, because GOD is in direct control of the weather. Its really not that hard to understand.[/QUOTE]

Shouldn't you be bombing a clinic or something?
 
[quote name='onetrackmind']care to explain to me why its 80 degrees here outside in the last part of october when normally it would be 20 to 25 degrees cooler?[/QUOTE]

Here is a wonderful chart to clear up your misconceptions:

http://ggweather.com/climate/extremes_us.htm

As you can see, temperatures vary from year to year, sometimes by a lot. It may be very warm for this time of year this year, but in a couple of years perhaps it will be very cold. Judging a temperature trend over millions of years by data from one month (or "the last part" of a month) is incredibly ignorant of the natural variance in temperature.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Here is a wonderful chart to clear up your misconceptions:

http://ggweather.com/climate/extremes_us.htm

As you can see, temperatures vary from year to year, sometimes by a lot. It may be very warm for this time of year this year, but in a couple of years perhaps it will be very cold. Judging a temperature trend over millions of years by data from one month (or "the last part" of a month) is incredibly ignorant of the natural variance in temperature.[/QUOTE]

haha thanks for making look like an douchebag... seriously though thanks for the explaination.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']:rofl: I love this shit. God is in complete control of the weather and he uses it so benevolently... with catagory 5 hurricanes to kill people.[/QUOTE]

I plan on making a thread about this in the future, so get ready. :cool:
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Wow, I can't believe I'm gonna say this but I agree with you PAD, wholeheartedly in fact.

Of course this exact same argument went on last week and I said the exact same thing about making assumptions on the planetary cycle based on 150 years of recorded climate history but once again no one wanted to listen to that. In fact, its the one thing in the other thread that NEVER had any kind of retort.[/QUOTE]

No, I believe I did respond to what you stated. Global warming predictions are not based on just the past 150 years, but on the previous 150+ million years. Carbon dioxide levels from prehistoric times can be calculated from ice cores taken in Antarctica. It is a simple process and is extremely accurate. It shows that the current warming trend is more than just a cycle. People tend to think of the earth as having infinite resources, but the atmosphere is finite. It is a closed system. We are beginning to have a significant impact on that system.
 
[quote name='U2K Tha Greate$t']I plan on making a thread about this in the future, so get ready. :cool:[/QUOTE]

Go away. I wipe my ass with your bible.
 
[quote name='coffman']No, I believe I did respond to what you stated. Global warming predictions are not based on just the past 150 years, but on the previous 150+ million years. Carbon dioxide levels from prehistoric times can be calculated from ice cores taken in Antarctica. It is a simple process and is extremely accurate. It shows that the current warming trend is more than just a cycle. People tend to think of the earth as having infinite resources, but the atmosphere is finite. It is a closed system. We are beginning to have a significant impact on that system.[/QUOTE]

Okay, so now you're taking into account 150 million years of uncertain climatology out of 4,000,000,000 years. You've accounted for less than 4% of Earth's history.

Now instead of telling me how the weather was from 11:59:45PM until midnight reflects a day you've told me how the weather was from 11:05PM until midnight. Now, is that reflective of planetary climatological changes for the other 3.85 billion years?
 
[quote name='evanft']Go away. I wipe my ass with your bible.[/QUOTE]
Dude, that is wrong. Bible paper is too thin, you would get crap on your hand even if you used 5 layers!
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Now instead of telling me how the weather was from 11:59:45PM until midnight reflects a day you've told me how the weather was from 11:05PM until midnight. Now, is that reflective of planetary climatological changes for the other 3.85 billion years?[/QUOTE]

It's hard to say, since the earth was quite unstable and still quite volatile in a sort of forming process that long ago. With thousands of active volcanoes spewing sulphur ash and whatnot, it can be quite difficult to ascertain what is causing the weather.
 
[quote name='evanft']Go away. I wipe my ass with your bible.[/QUOTE]

Try new PAD Brand Koran two-ply. The writings of Mohammed are surprisingly absorbent.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Okay, so now you're taking into account 150 million years of uncertain climatology out of 4,000,000,000 years. You've accounted for less than 4% of Earth's history.

Now instead of telling me how the weather was from 11:59:45PM until midnight reflects a day you've told me how the weather was from 11:05PM until midnight. Now, is that reflective of planetary climatological changes for the other 3.85 billion years?[/QUOTE]

Consider that earth's atmosphere 4 billion years ago was nothing like today's atmosphere. I don't remember how long scientists believe it took to get to a breathable atmosphere, but I believe it was in excess of 2 billion years. It probably took another billion years to form an O2/N2/CO2 ratio similar to what we have today. So now we can account for at least 15% of the relevant time period. The actual amount would be dependant upon the length of time ice was covering Antarctica.
 
[quote name='evanft']Science is a liberal invention, dumbasses.

Math is, too. I mean, how can you measure the area under a curve with only TWO numbers???[/QUOTE]

:lol:
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Try new PAD Brand Koran two-ply. The writings of Mohammed are surprisingly absorbent.[/QUOTE]

You have to wipe in the opposite direction, though.



*crickets*
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Nitrogen Dioxide is the component in car exhaust that destroys the Ozone. Theoretically, if man desire to destroy the Ozone, it would just need to pump copious amounts of N O2 into the atmosphere. One could also detonate many different Nuclear bombs or missles in the atmosphere near the Ozone. The resulting IR radiation would destroy part of the Ozone (there would have to be a lot of explosions to accomplish this, however).[/QUOTE]

[quote name='coffman']
No, I believe I did respond to what you stated. Global warming predictions are not based on just the past 150 years, but on the previous 150+ million years. Carbon dioxide levels from prehistoric times can be calculated from ice cores taken in Antarctica. It is a simple process and is extremely accurate. It shows that the current warming trend is more than just a cycle. People tend to think of the earth as having infinite resources, but the atmosphere is finite. It is a closed system. We are beginning to have a significant impact on that system.[/QUOTE]

So which gas exatly is the problem then?

Before someone says it YES I do realize that these two posts are talking about two different things here (ozone vs. global warming) but what's interesting is how its almost a bit of a shell game when it comes to this issue.

Furthermore, its quite obvious to me that CO2 levels are going to be lower back 150+ million years ago because there was significently less of ALL organisms, not just humans. Additionally, so there was less CO2 in the atmosphere 150+ million years ago, what does that tell us about the climate though? I fail to see where the connection is made, I'm not saying its not there, I just don't see it.
 
[quote name='evanft']You have to wipe in the opposite direction, though.



*crickets*[/QUOTE]

It's then side to side, not up and down. Yes, I know the Koran is read from back to front, right to left, bottom to top.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']It's then side to side, not up and down. Yes, I know the Koran is read from back to front, right to left, bottom to top.[/QUOTE]

I wipe front to back because I don't want shitty balls.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Before someone says it YES I do realize that these two posts are talking about two different things here (ozone vs. global warming) but what's interesting is how its almost a bit of a shell game when it comes to this issue.[/QUOTE]

I was just responding on how one could potentially destroy the atmosphere, which is what PAD asked for. Since Ozone is part of the atmosphere, I thought it was a reasonable response.
 
[quote name='onetrackmind']haha thanks for making look like an douchebag... seriously though thanks for the explaination.[/QUOTE]

Heh, no problem. I think a lot of people have these sorts of misconceptions, like people who say hey, we've had a lot of hurricanes this year, it must be because of global warming! There is just a lot of natural variance in the weather and something like global warming is looking at very long (geologic time) temperature trends. People are unfortunately way too quick to judge on this based on too little evidence.

What we do know is that temperatures are increasing. What we don't know is how much of that, if any, is caused by human activity. That's not to say perhaps some or all of it is, just that things aren't so definite when you look at the evidence. I feel the same way about evolutionary theory, but that's getting off topic. Perhaps I am too cynical or cautious about these theories, but given the history of people being wrong before I tend to err on the side of wanting more evidence -- especially from scientists who go into this field of study with a preexisting opinion that temperature increases are due to human activity.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Heh, no problem. I think a lot of people have these sorts of misconceptions, like people who say hey, we've had a lot of hurricanes this year, it must be because of global warming! There is just a lot of natural variance in the weather and something like global warming is looking at very long (geologic time) temperature trends. People are unfortunately way too quick to judge on this based on too little evidence.

What we do know is that temperatures are increasing. What we don't know is how much of that, if any, is caused by human activity. That's not to say perhaps some or all of it is, just that things aren't so definite when you look at the evidence. I feel the same way about evolutionary theory, but that's getting off topic. Perhaps I am too cynical or cautious about these theories, but given the history of people being wrong before I tend to err on the side of wanting more evidence -- especially from scientists who go into this field of study with a preexisting opinion that temperature increases are due to human activity.[/QUOTE]

The hurricane issue has some validity, but most don't just don't know why. It's not because there are more of them, but the hurricans that are there are stronger. That's why a link has been made with global warming, their strength.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']The hurricane issue has some validity, but most don't just don't know why. It's not because there are more of them, but the hurricans that are there are stronger. That's why a link has been made with global warming, their strength.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I wasn't discounting that part of it as a possibility. Most people just say "oh, there have been so many hurricanes this year, it must be global warming!" Given natural variance that is a dumb thing to say.
 
The hurricane issue has some validity, but most don't just don't know why. It's not because there are more of them, but the hurricans that are there are stronger. That's why a link has been made with global warming, their strength.
Click to expand...

No, the hurricane theory has no validity at all. Measuring co2 levels in ice cores has much more basis in reality.

Think about the weather measuring devices 50 years ago. 100 years ago. 150 years ago. Do you think they had weather stations every 100 miles to pinpoint temperature, wind velocity, humidity, pressure readings and integrate them into realtime databases? Think their devices had the same resolution as our modern ones? Think they had doppler radar or satilite storm tracking?

Do you think there were population densities 100 years ago compared to today that would have caused the same proportional damage from hurricanes? No, they didn't. There is no possible way to compare weather patterns and trends to anything before 60 years ago becuase the data is simply incomplete and incompatible with today's more comprehensive and detailed information.
There could have been worse hurricanes 100 years ago, we just didn't have the technology to measure them and record them for posterity.

It's funny how people always think they live in the worst of times and have no historical perspective beyond the era of their own life
 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172949,00.html

Wilma Is Not Global Warming
Thursday, October 20, 2005
By Steven Milloy

It’s shaping up as an “extreme” week for global warming junk science. On Monday, the media reported about a new global warming study with headlines like UPI’s “More Extreme Weather Predicted.”

By Wednesday, Hurricane Wilma was labeled as the “strongest Atlantic hurricane ever reported,” which no doubt will fuel claims that global warming is causing more intense hurricanes.

We can, however, weather such global warming alarmism with the pertinent facts.

Monday’s news was generated by a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Purdue scientists who used a combination of mathematical models, historical weather data and local climate systems to supposedly predict that the interaction of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and local geographic features will increase the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, such as floods and heat waves.

The first red flag, here, is the Purdue researchers’ reliance on a mathematical model of global climate — essentially the Purdue scientists’ crude guess as to how our exceedingly complex climate system works.

While scientists and engineers often can use mathematics to successfully explain how many natural and artificial systems function — where success can be determined by how well the model’s results match up to real-world data — successful climate modeling has so far proved to be too difficult to achieve. Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, says that the models fail to correctly describe the behavior of clouds, which may cause predictions of higher temperatures to be three times too high.

In fact, no mathematical climate model has ever been validated against the historical temperature record. So why would anyone believe that climate models can predict future climate with any reasonable certainty?

Although the Purdue study claims that increasing greenhouse gas emission levels will lead to more extreme weather events, a look at the historical record seems to refute the claim.

During the 20th century, for example, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide reportedly have increased by about 25 percent, from roughly 295 parts per million (ppm) to 370 ppm, with about two-thirds of the increase occurring after 1950. Based on the Purdue researchers’ claims, we should then have expected to observe more extreme weather in the U.S. after 1950. But this hasn’t been true in terms of temperatures.

During the 20th century, 26 states recorded their record low temperatures before 1950. Only 17 states recorded record high temperatures after 1950. So the post-1950 acceleration in greenhouse gas concentrations doesn’t seem to have any effect on the occurrence of extreme temperatures.

There’s little reason, then, to have confidence in the claims of the Purdue researchers.

Turning to Wilma — and the inevitability that some will try to link her with the dreaded global warming — real-life data again ought to defuse the alarmism.

Since it’s generally agreed by climate researchers that manmade greenhouse gas emissions haven’t caused an increase in the frequency of hurricanes, global warming advocates now claim that manmade greenhouse gas emissions will lead to stronger, or more “intense” hurricanes. Such claims have been made most recently in studies by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Kerry Emanuel (Nature, Aug. 4) and the Georgia Institute of Technology’s Peter Webster (Science, Sep. 16).

Emanuel claimed in his paper that hurricane strength doubled over the last few decades. But as Virginia state climatologist Pat Michaels recently pointed out, if Emanuel’s claim were true, then “the change would be obvious; you wouldn't need a weatherman to know which way this wind was blowing. All of these feuding scientists would have agreed on the facts long ago.”

National Hurricane center expert Chris Landsea told the Chronicle of Higher Education (Sept. 8) that Emanuel’s results are an artifact of the mathematical procedure he used to derive his claims. When looked at properly, the hurricanes of the past two decades aren’t unprecedented, according to Landsea.

Webster claims in his paper that the number of severe hurricanes (Categories 4 and 5) has just about doubled since 1970. But Michaels looked under the pre-1970 stone and found that Webster was only telling half the story.

Michaels says that during the 25-year period before 1970 the trend was toward fewer strong storms.

“When taken as a whole, the pattern appears to be better characterized as being dominated by active and inactive periods that oscillate through time, rather than being one that indicates a temporal trend,” wrote Michaels.

And as far as Wilma being the “strongest” hurricane on record, chief meteorologist for weatherunderground.com and former Hurricane Hunter flight meteorologist Jeff Masters told Reuters that similar storms could have occurred before the 1960s.

“Back then we didn't have satellites and we didn't have aircraft reconnaissance. So it's quite possible that a lot of those hurricanes [were as strong, or stronger than Wilma].We just weren't around there to see,” said Masters.

If global warming science were like the kids’ game Rock-Paper-Scissors, real-life climate data would trump crystal ball-like mathematical climate models every time. We just need to be on guard so that hysteria isn’t allowed to trump the facts.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']No, the hurricane theory has no validity at all. Measuring co2 levels in ice cores has much more basis in reality.

Think about the weather measuring devices 50 years ago. 100 years ago. 150 years ago. Do you think they had weather stations every 100 miles to pinpoint temperature, wind velocity, humidity, pressure readings and integrate them into realtime databases? Think their devices had the same resolution as our modern ones? Think they had doppler radar or satilite storm tracking?

Do you think there were population densities 100 years ago compared to today that would have caused the same proportional damage from hurricanes? No, they didn't. There is no possible way to compare weather patterns and trends to anything before 60 years ago becuase the data is simply incomplete and incompatible with today's more comprehensive and detailed information.
There could have been worse hurricanes 100 years ago, we just didn't have the technology to measure them and record them for posterity.

It's funny how people always think they live in the worst of times and have no historical perspective beyond the era of their own life[/QUOTE]

Actually, it is very valid. Hurricanes are fueled by warm ocean water. The warmer the water, the stronger the hurricane. As global warming increases the ocean temperature, one can expect stronger storms.
 
[quote name='coffman']Faux news is not real news, but should be labeled as entertainment.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='coffman']
Actually, it is very valid. Hurricanes are fueled by warm ocean water. The warmer the water, the stronger the hurricane. As global warming increases the ocean temperature, one can expect stronger storms.[/QUOTE]

Fox news had citations and references for their information, you on the other hand, did not. Who's Faux news now?
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Fox news had citations and references for their information, you on the other hand, did not. Who's Faux news now?[/QUOTE]


Well, for information I stated earlier regarding ice core samples, along with warming ocean waters, check out the following scientific article:

http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/cenear/951127/pg1.html

I have a chemical engineering degree, so I figured this would be an excellent reference. Note that it also touches on stronger hurricanes due to warmer oceans.

Here are some excellent articles on the subject:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9429241
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines05/0916-11.htm
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']This is what happens when you "assume" things about people. 25 years ago the rage in the environmental community was global cooling, not warming. Now, how did the scientific community become so convinced the planet was in a cooling stage that was going to be marked by a return of the ice age, snow, glaciers and blizzards that would drop down to Kansas putting half the country in a perpetual ice age for 1,000's of years as well as most of the northern hempisphere in general?

Evolution? Like I've said numerous times. It's a theory. It's certainly plausable but until it can go back and explain how life went from space dust to amoeba, bacteria to multi-celled, invertibrate and vertibrate lifeforms it's a theory. While it may realisticly account for millions of years of life on a planet of 4 billion years it explains next to nothing. It's like me telling you how the day went by measuring what happens from 11:59:45PM until midnight.

You won't hear me argue stem cell research from a moral perspective. The embryos wasted by fertility clinics alone would be an ample source of material without ever having to resort to the BS argument of abortion doctors putting their "work" into petri dishes for research purposes.

BTW, you cannot make a faster shooting gun than currently exists using powder propellent. Any advances will be through elctromagnetic propulsion, what most would know as a rail gun. Firing and cyclical rates really can't be improved due to the limits of temperature tolerences of gun barrels. Sure you can make a gun that can spew out 5,000 rounds a minute. However the heat melts the rifling of the barrel and renders accuracy and hence, the weapon, useless.

You'd also be hard pressed to find a majority of medicines that will cure you. Other than antibiotics most medications limit symptoms not provide a cure.

EDIT: Also while everyone likes to assume man has the power to destroy the atmosphere by driving a car no one has been able to tell me how we could possibly destroy the atmosphere if we tried to do it deliberately. Also, my biggest reason for doubting global warming and/or cooling is caused by man's activity is scientific; the Milankovitch Theory.

The tilt of the earth relative to its plane of travel about the sun is what causes seasons. The hemisphere "pointing toward" the sun is in summer, while the opposite hemisphere is in winter. The earth makes one full orbit around the sun each year. The northern hemisphere is in summer in the left image, while 6 months later, the southern hemisphere has summer, as in the center image. If the earth's axis were "straight up and down" relative to the orbital plane, as in the right-hand image, there would be no seasons, since every point on the earth would receive the same amount of sun each day of the year.

Changes in the "tilt" of the earth can change the severity of the seasons - more "tilt" means more severe seasons - warmer summers and colder winters; less "tilt" means less severe seasons - cooler summers and milder winters. The earth wobbles in space so that its tilt changes between about 22 and 25 degrees on a cycle of about 41,000 years. It is the cool summers which are thought to allow snow and ice to last from year to year in high latitudes, eventually building up into massive ice sheets. There are positive feedbacks in the climate system as well, because an earth covered with more snow reflects more of the sun's energy into space, causing additional cooling. In addition, it appears that the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere falls as ice sheets grow, also adding to the cooling of the climate.

The earth's orbit around the sun is not quite circular, which means that the earth is slightly closer to the sun at some times of the year than others. The closest approach of the earth to the sun is called perihelion, and it now occurs in January, making northern hemisphere winters slightly milder. This change in timing of perihelion is known as the precession of the equinoxes, and occurs on a period of 22,000 years. 11,000 years ago, perihelion occurred in July, making the seasons more severe than today. The "roundness", or eccentricity, of the earth's orbit varies on cycles of 100,000 and 400,000 years, and this affects how important the timing of perihelion is to the strength of the seasons. The combination of the 41,000 year tilt cycle and the 22,000 year precession cycles, plus the smaller eccentricity signal, affect the relative severity of summer and winter, and are thought to control the growth and retreat of ice sheets. Cool summers in the northern hemisphere, where most of the earth's land mass is located, appear to allow snow and ice to persist to the next winter, allowing the development of large ice sheets over hundreds to thousands of years. Conversely, warmer summers shrink ice sheets by melting more ice than the amount accumulating during the winter.

What is The Milankovitch Theory? The Milankovitch or astronomical theory of climate change is an explanation for changes in the seasons which result from changes in the earth's orbit around the sun. The theory is named for Serbian astronomer Milutin Milankovitch, who calculated the slow changes in the earth's orbit by careful measurements of the position of the stars, and through equations using the gravitational pull of other planets and stars. He determined that the earth "wobbles" in its orbit. The earth's "tilt" is what causes seasons, and changes in the tilt of the earth change the strength of the seasons. The seasons can also be accentuated or modified by the eccentricity (degree of roundness) of the orbital path around the sun, and the precession effect, the position of the solstices in the annual orbit.

What does The Milankovitch Theory say about future climate change?

Orbital changes occur over thousands of years, and the climate system may also take thousands of years to respond to orbital forcing. Theory suggests that the primary driver of ice ages is the total summer radiation received in northern latitude zones where major ice sheets have formed in the past, near 65 degrees north. Past ice ages correlate well to 65N summer insolation (Imbrie 1982). Astronomical calculations show that 65N summer insolation should increase gradually over the next 25,000 years, and that no 65N summer insolation declines sufficient to cause an ice age are expected in the next 50,000 - 100,000 years ( Hollan 2000, Berger 2002).
Link

This makes infinitely more sense as our planet has had hundreds of cooling and heating cycles before man existed and will have after man exists. To think man can change the course of nature itself is pure arrogance and hubris. We have no such power.[/QUOTE]

The predicted "ice age" of the 1970's was never backed up by any scientific data (unlike the current predictions for global warming). In fact, the data used to predict the oncoming ice age at that time is rather unclear and incomplete. The following link goes into much greater detail about this subject:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top