Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 236

Thread: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

  1. #126
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,259

    Default Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

    Quote Originally Posted by Eindar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I understand what percentages mean. What I'm saying is they look at their model, it says that 5 days from now, it's 80% likely that the weather out West will hit us. And I believe in that number. But what I'm saying is that we're not at the point where we can say anything about the weather 5 days from now with 100% certainty, meaning, our regional models aren't that precise/accurate, how are we supposed to be able to zero in on a worldwide trend? The model becomes exponentially more complicated and harder to predict/analyze on that kind of scale.

    I guess what I'm saying is that those who claim Global Warming is a major problem are claiming that with 100% certainty, yet the simplified version of weather analysis, your local forecast, never, ever, ever claims to 100% know what the weather is going to be like.
    They haven't. In fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that were 90% sure that "global warming since 1950 has been driven mainly by the buildup of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, and that more warming and rising sea levels are on the way." The same group said they were 60% sure a decade ago.
    http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/21/news/climate.php

  2. #127
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,480

    Default Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

    The real deal?
    Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists
    Lawrence Solomon, National Post
    Published: Friday, February 02, 2007


    Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.

    Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.

    Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.

    Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.

    Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.

    "In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."

    Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.

    All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.

    "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."

    The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.

    Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."

    The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.

    In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.

    CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.

    "I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."

    http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...6fef8763c6&k=0
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  3. #128
    All is full of Orange! Mourning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Bilthoven, The Netherlands
    Age
    38
    Posts
    9,024

    Default Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

    Quote Originally Posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    And of course then there's the whole issue of whether global warming's actually a bad thing or not - if you live on a coastline it is, potentially. If you live anywhere else it probably isn't - up to a point (if you take air pollution out of the equation).
    Well ... given that by far the majority of my country and an even bigger part of its population lies beneath sea level and that the expected sea level rise is expected to be higher then average elsewhere (around 80-85cm) you might have an idea what some of my thoughts are about some of the bigger nations on planet earth which are polluting it by far the most and seem to care the least (US, PRC, India, Russia) or atleast not as much as they should.

    I don't care if the percentage of all this due to man made action is a little lower, I care about actually doing something about it. Even though the report isn't flawless or whatever, there's been so many reports and instances before this one. We are trying to do reduce pollution and stricter rules basically apply every year here, which is hard given the territory and location we have, yet so many powerfull countries don't give a *****.

    Regards,

    Mourning
    2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

  4. #129
    All is full of Orange! Mourning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Bilthoven, The Netherlands
    Age
    38
    Posts
    9,024

    Default Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

    Quote Originally Posted by Bball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The real deal?
    Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists
    Lawrence Solomon, National Post
    Published: Friday, February 02, 2007


    Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.

    Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.

    Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.

    Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.

    Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.

    "In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."

    Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.

    All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.

    "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."

    The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.

    Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."

    The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.

    In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.

    CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.

    "I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."

    http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...6fef8763c6&k=0
    That's what I mean, nothing going wrong, proceed as usual, please.

    Oh, btw I'm sure the Oil industry is going to be really helpfull in aiding the efforts of getting things such as cars that don't run on oil. I'm sure they won't be using lobby groups to try to work against that.

    Regards,

    Mourning
    2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

  5. #130
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,259

    Default Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

    Why do a few WAY out of the mainstream scientists get as much weight as BY FAR the majority of scientists in the field? There will and should always be scientists who disagree with majority. That is how everyone is kept honest. But you don't make policy decisions based on a tiny number of dissenters.

  6. #131
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,984

    Default Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

    The fact of the matter is the media has made up their mind on this issue, so any scientific evidence to support the media's belief is trumpeted, while any dissenting scientific evidence to the contrary is reported as a couple of loons.

  7. #132
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Frankfort, IN
    Posts
    9,136

    Default Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

    Quote Originally Posted by Mourning View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Well ... given that by far the majority of my country and an even bigger part of its population lies beneath sea level and that the expected sea level rise is expected to be higher then average elsewhere (around 80-85cm) you might have an idea what some of my thoughts are about some of the bigger nations on planet earth which are polluting it by far the most and seem to care the least (US, PRC, India, Russia) or atleast not as much as they should.

    I don't care if the percentage of all this due to man made action is a little lower, I care about actually doing something about it. Even though the report isn't flawless or whatever, there's been so many reports and instances before this one. We are trying to do reduce pollution and stricter rules basically apply every year here, which is hard given the territory and location we have, yet so many powerfull countries don't give a *****.

    Regards,

    Mourning
    Actually, your country's in better shape than almost anyone - you already know how to deal with the situation and you can build the seawalls a bit higher. The US East coastline though ...

    Since I happen to not put a lot of stock in the global warming "scientists" and what they have to say, this doesn't concern me.

    But if I did, I wouldn't buy any ground that's below 50' above sea level. Why? Because rising greenhouse gas levels is an unfixable problem. For all the "turn off your lights when you leave the room buy a hybrid unplug your chargers when the light turns green buy new light bulbs" advice that's out there, it doesn't change the baseline facts.

    Those facts are that the industrial world is based on coal-fired power. Converting can be done - except nobody has the money to shut those down and/or to convert to clean energy - and nobody has the political will anyway. Agriculture is intensive and extremely counter to the natural processes of the Earth - and pretty much nothing can be done about that either.

    These minor adjustments are all nice but even with them greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise for at least the next half-century. Heck, if you believe the "scientists" we could shut off every emitter and they'd rise anyway because of a positive feedback loop.

    Fix it? Kill half the population of the world so you can instantly transform society to become less industrial and utilize less intensive agriculture. But since I don't believe the "scientists" have much of a clue anyway, I'm a long way from buying into the apocalypse.

    I really shouldn't post on these threads - my soapbox is so big it doesn't even fit into the room.
    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

  8. #133
    Member Knucklehead Warrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    874

    Default Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

    I didn't read all this thread and don't intend to. This is an issue that divides between what someone believes and whoever disagrees is an idiot. I've long been a sceptic of global warming, but I'm less convinced now.

    For those of you who are mathmatically inclined, do as I just did and calculate the size of the glacier that has to melt for the level of the oceans to rise even one stinking inch. No, a handheld calculator won't do. Perhaps you will be as surprised as I at how humongous a thing that is. Think in hundreds of miles and you get the idea. Of course this doesn't take into consideration that there are places on earth where ice is getting bigger.

    One thing I do know. Things happen very slowly on planet earth. Nobody's going to be under water in our lifetimes. That said, it does appear to be happening relatively quickly.
    Don't thank me, I'll kill ya.

  9. #134
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,480

    Default Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

    Moving a little quickly with that delete axe I see....

    I don't recall anything that myself or 3Ball said that was over the line. Surely 3Ball didn't take offense... I know I didn't...

    -Bball
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  10. #135
    Tree People to the Core! indygeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Cumberland
    Posts
    15,359
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

    As a Geology minor 25 years ago I was taught that there was going to be a cataclysmic earthquake along the coast of California within 50 years. 100% certainty...where's the hue and cry over the possibility of millions dying and billions of $ being wasted? Where's the event???

    It's all fuzzy science. As I tell my school teacher wife, anytime somebody writes a PhD thesis somebody else gloms onto it as the "New Math" or the next greatest way to assure everybodies kid will be a genius. It is tabloid science coupled with tabloid journalism. Remember the scientists that assured us the way to lower pollution was to put catalytic converters on cars and convert CO2 emissions to SO2. Only problem is SO2 in the presence of water (H2O) converts to Sulfuric acid....also known as Acid Rain.
    Geologic events take 10's of thousands of years to develop (except the cataclysmic events) and within these time periods variations occur.
    1950 to 2007, 57 years to develop an atmospheric model???? Yeah right. OK, 1900 to 2007....107 years...big whoopie.
    If you get to thinkiní youíre a person of some influence, try orderiní somebody elseís dog around..

  11. #136
    Tree People to the Core! indygeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Cumberland
    Posts
    15,359
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

    Quote Originally Posted by Mourning View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Well ... given that by far the majority of my country and an even bigger part of its population lies beneath sea level and that the expected sea level rise is expected to be higher then average elsewhere (around 80-85cm) you might have an idea what some of my thoughts are about some of the bigger nations on planet earth which are polluting it by far the most and seem to care the least (US, PRC, India, Russia) or atleast not as much as they should.

    I don't care if the percentage of all this due to man made action is a little lower, I care about actually doing something about it. Even though the report isn't flawless or whatever, there's been so many reports and instances before this one. We are trying to do reduce pollution and stricter rules basically apply every year here, which is hard given the territory and location we have, yet so many powerfull countries don't give a *****.

    Regards,

    Mourning

    Mourning
    With all due respect sir, could you explain this statement, I thik I must be misreading it.
    Thank you
    If you get to thinkiní youíre a person of some influence, try orderiní somebody elseís dog around..

  12. #137
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,259

    Default Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

    Quote Originally Posted by indygeezer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    As a Geology minor 25 years ago I was taught that there was going to be a cataclysmic earthquake along the coast of California within 50 years. 100% certainty...where's the hue and cry over the possibility of millions dying and billions of $ being wasted? Where's the event???

    It's all fuzzy science. As I tell my school teacher wife, anytime somebody writes a PhD thesis somebody else gloms onto it as the "New Math" or the next greatest way to assure everybodies kid will be a genius. It is tabloid science coupled with tabloid journalism. Remember the scientists that assured us the way to lower pollution was to put catalytic converters on cars and convert CO2 emissions to SO2. Only problem is SO2 in the presence of water (H2O) converts to Sulfuric acid....also known as Acid Rain.
    Geologic events take 10's of thousands of years to develop (except the cataclysmic events) and within these time periods variations occur.
    1950 to 2007, 57 years to develop an atmospheric model???? Yeah right. OK, 1900 to 2007....107 years...big whoopie.
    I get your point, Geezer, but I think your logic is flawed. First, we aren't talking about the work of a single unverified thesis by one or two scientists. There are thousands of scientists working on various aspects of this issue in institutions all over the world.

    Assume that the vast majority of scientists studying the problem are right: human activity is warming that earth, and this could prove dangerous in a huge number of ways. If that makes sense to you, then it's obvious we have to make changes. But if they are wrong, then was it worth it to take precautions?

    Let's take the example of y2k. It has often been remarked that we spent all this money fixing computers and such to avoid y2k, but it didn't even happen! Well, I think there is good evidence that big problems were avoided precisely BECAUSE we spent money to fix up old problematic code. And even if that wasn't the case, were we not better off knowing the problem was there and taking precautions rather than doing nothing and hoping for the best? We will never know what would have happened if nobody had realized y2k was a potential problem, but I'm satisfied that we, as a country, took it seriously.

    With ANY prediction there are uncertainties, and with any precaution taken, there is a cost. I know exactly what it will cost each month to make sure my wife can pay off our mortgage if I die unexpectedly. I don't expect to die, but I take precautions.

    With doing what needs to be done to address global warming, we are taking steps to reduce emissions. Will this cost money? Yes, it will. But look, even if global warming turns out to be completely off, how much would we have lost? A few percentage points of growth? And in the mean time we would have potentially reduced a pollution problem that is an environmental disaster for plenty of other reasons, reduce our demand for oil from the middle east, and funded a lot of research into alternative sources of energy. In the worst case scenario, that sounds like a worthwhile exercise to me. And, if perchance the vast majority of scientists is close to right on this, we would potentially have done that much more good.

    I think even in the worst possible terms, we would be much better off acting with caution rather than reckless abandon. That kind of thinking has gotten us into way too much trouble lately.

  13. #138
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,480

    Default Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

    An interesting article that touches on (and expands) things mentioned in this thread.
    ---------

    An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change

    Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged



    When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months? time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

    The small print explains ?very likely? as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain?s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

    Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

    Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter?s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adťlie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

    So one awkward question you can ask, when you?re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is ?Why is east Antarctica getting colder?? It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you?re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it?s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

    That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

    Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.

    The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm.

    What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.

    Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun?s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

    He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun?s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

    The only trouble with Svensmark?s idea ? apart from its being politically incorrect ? was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

    In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.

    Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark?s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it ?A new theory of climate change?.

    Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.

    The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark?s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature?s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1363818.ece
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  14. #139
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

    That was an eye-opening read for me. Thanks for posting it!

  15. #140
    Old school Dab or new Dab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Gosport
    Age
    42
    Posts
    889
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

    I, myself, am quite divided on the issue, which would go against my stereotype and makes me a little bit of a pariah to some of my "green" friends, but it's my favorite hippie who's twisted my head on the issue.

  16. #141
    All is full of Orange! Mourning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Bilthoven, The Netherlands
    Age
    38
    Posts
    9,024

    Default Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

    Quote Originally Posted by indygeezer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Mourning
    With all due respect sir, could you explain this statement, I thik I must be misreading it.
    Thank you
    You don't have to call me "sir" . What I meant is that the expected sea level rise on our part of the world is going to be higher then average. Not everywhere the rise will be the same.

    And though we maybe one of the best prepared nations in the world with regards to stuff like this doesn't mean we like to pump in billions of Euro's to keep it safe, because others like to keep in puffing CO2 into the air without regard to make some extra $$$. Just my opinion.

    Regards,

    Mourning
    2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

  17. #142
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    1,085

    Default Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

    Quote Originally Posted by 3Ball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I get your point, Geezer, but I think your logic is flawed. First, we aren't talking about the work of a single unverified thesis by one or two scientists. There are thousands of scientists working on various aspects of this issue in institutions all over the world.

    Assume that the vast majority of scientists studying the problem are right: human activity is warming that earth, and this could prove dangerous in a huge number of ways. If that makes sense to you, then it's obvious we have to make changes. But if they are wrong, then was it worth it to take precautions?
    3Ball, the whole problem I have with citing "thousands of scientists" in support of claimed consensus on the issue is that it not only is a substitute for a genuine argument about objective facts, it actually seems to have become the main argument in favor of global warming. In other words, many -- and to an extent, you, in your response to Geezer here -- are simply making the argument that "most (or at least thousands of) scientists agree", rather than discussing the underlying data.

    If there is a genuine dispute concerning underlying factual date (see the NYT headlines quoted below to illustrate such disputes), why should Geezer or anyone else be persuaded by the argument that "thousands" of scientists agree with (mushy-headed) conclusions? Mushy-headed, of course, because the conclusions make no answer to, or outright ignore, countervailing factual data?

    In fact there is enormous disagreement between scientists on global warming and climate change, and simply making the argument that "thousands" are on one side of the issue ignores the question of how many are on the other side of it -- and in any event the question of scientific FACT should not be determined by opinion poll numbers of scientists, but by the underlying scientific data upon which those opinions are supposed to be based. And the underlying data is inconclusive at best (and has been for centuries).

    As summarized by everyones' favorite PD source, Mark Steyn, in today's editorial on this very topic,

    Not all of us are quite so hung up on credentialization. But, if you are, you might want to read the December issue of the Journal Of Atmospheric And Solar-Terrestrial Physics in which Cornelis de Jager of the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research and Ilya Usoskin of the Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory in Finland test the validity of two current hypotheses on the dependence of climate change on solar energy -- the first being that variations in the tropospheric temperature are caused directly by changes of the solar radiance (total or spectral), the other that cosmic ray fluctuations, caused by the solar/heliospheric modulation, affect the climate via cloud formation. The Finn and the Dutch guy from the A-list institutions with the fancypants monikers writing in the peer-reviewed journal conclude that the former is more likely -- that tropospheric temperatures are more likely affected by variations in the UV radiation flux rather than by those in the CR flux.
    In other words, at least according to the Finn and Dutch (high five Mourning! No need to raise the levees just yet! ) studies just cited, "Our Global Warming-Denying Scientists Can Beat Your Global-Warming-Claiming Scientists."

    Such factual arguments are the way to evaluate the merits of the arguments or the facts, not by citing the number of scientists who favor one side or the other.

    The bigger problem on the question of climate change, as Steyn notes, is that

    "Most of us aren't reading the science, or even a precis of the science. We're just reading a constant din from the press that "the science is settled," and therefore we no longer need to think about it: The thinking has been done for us."

    See http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/2...teyn11.article

    Quote Originally Posted by 3Ball
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    With ANY prediction there are uncertainties, and with any precaution taken, there is a cost. I know exactly what it will cost each month to make sure my wife can pay off our mortgage if I die unexpectedly. I don't expect to die, but I take precautions.

    With doing what needs to be done to address global warming, we are taking steps to reduce emissions. Will this cost money? Yes, it will. But look, even if global warming turns out to be completely off, how much would we have lost? A few percentage points of growth?
    Quote Originally Posted by 3Ball
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    And in the mean time we would have potentially reduced a pollution problem that is an environmental disaster for plenty of other reasons, reduce our demand for oil from the middle east, and funded a lot of research into alternative sources of energy. In the worst case scenario, that sounds like a worthwhile exercise to me. And, if perchance the vast majority of scientists is close to right on this, we would potentially have done that much more good.

    I think even in the worst possible terms, we would be much better off acting with caution rather than reckless abandon. That kind of thinking has gotten us into way too much trouble lately.
    Dismissing as mere "uncertainties" the extremely expensive "precautions" recommended, and recommended to be born disproportionately by Americans, seems to me to be a dodge. You made mention of your own individual economic analysis: if you die prematurely, it is good that your wife can rely on insurance to pay off the mortgage. That is fine, and because of it you feel sufficiently comfortable to spend OPM (that is, Other Peoples' Money) to take steps that you believe might help ameliorate global warming. With respect, your personal financial well being should not be the determinant on this question.

    For example, what about the poor schmoes who happen to live in depressed factory or industrial towns, hoping to attrack new industries -- think Gary, Anderson, Marion, Kokomo, or outside Indiana, in perhaps Youngstown, Bethlehem or Buffalo -- who are unable to attract new industries because of cost-prohibitive Kyoto-type protocols and costs? If anything is certain about the question of global warming, it is that the proposed steps to ameliorate it -- whether those steps can be effective or not -- are or would be outrageously expensive. And of course, many scientist think that those steps probably will have no impact on warming. In other words, taking such Kyoto-type steps would be economic suicide.

    On these PD threads, posters have routinely and recently lamented the various economic woes of their geographic regions, constrasting job opportunities in Central Indiana to Chicago or LA (to take a few recent examples), or the economically depressed northeast (e.g. Buffalo, NY) versus this or that region, all of which illustrate how fragile some regional economies can be, yet we often get posters who opine confidently about how small the relative costs and how ultimately "worth it" it would be to inact global warming legislation. If you are living in an area with a healthy, growing, vibrant economy, good for you, but please recognize that for some people living in less healthy or even stagnant economies, the notion of adding costs to businesses, especially concerning "uncertainties" such as global warming legislation, can be an economic killer.

    Given the claimed certainties of global warming propounded by the major media, it is useful to remind people of what the New York Times has written about global warming in the past 80 years or so. These NYT headlines, from a book on global warming quoted in Steyn's column linked above, shows by date "the Times' shifting position on the issue":

    "MacMillan Reports Signs Of New Ice Age" (Sept. 18, 1924)

    "America In Longest Warm Spell Since 1776: Temperature Line Records A 25-Year Rise" (March 27, 1933)

    "Major Cooling Widely Considered To Be Inevitable (May 21, 1975)

    "Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons To Relax About Global Warming" (Dec. 27, 2005)"

    Of course, the NYTimes is no less certain of its own opinion of the certainty of global warming now than it was certain of its own opinion of global cooling in 1924 and again in 1975. But we should pretend the NYT should do our thinking for us?

    As Steyn further notes, "Climate change isn't like predicting Italian coalition politics. There are only two options, so, whichever one predicts, one has a 50 percent chance of being right. The planet will always be either warming or cooling." But for an entire century, of (alleged) catastrophic temperature change, we have had a remarkably stable change of only one degree Fahrenheit.

    The expensive legislation proposed would be, in all likelihood, a colossal waste of money, an economy killer, and an expenditure that would have no real impact on the naturally occurring phenomenon of global climate change. As Steyn summarizes,

    In the course of the 20th century, the planet's temperature supposedly increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius, which (for those of you who want it to sound scarier) is a smidgeonette over 1 degree Fahrenheit. Is that kinda sorta staying the same or is it a dramatic warming trend?

    And is nought-point-seven of an uptick worth wrecking the global economy over? Sure, say John Kerry and Al Gore, suddenly retrospectively hot for Kyoto ratification. But, had America and Australia signed on to Kyoto, and had Canada and Europe complied with it instead of just pretending to, by 2050 the treaty would have reduced global warming by 0.07C: a figure that would be statistically undectectable within annual climate variation. And, in return for this meaningless gesture, American GDP in 2010 would be lower by $97 billion to $397 billion -- and those are the U.S. Energy Information Administration's somewhat optimistic models.

    And now Jerry Mahlman of the National Center for Atmospheric Research says "it might take another 30 Kyotos" to halt global warming: 30 x $397 billion is . . . er, too many zeroes for my calculator.

    So, faced with a degree rise in temperature, we could destroy the planet's economy, technology, communications and prosperity. And ruin the lives of millions of people.

    Or we could do what man does best: adapt.

    You do the math.
    I do not know if we are in the midst of catastrophic global climate change. Scientists on both sides of the issue are in strong disagreement, and until one side makes persuasive factual arguments that defeat the other side's neither I nor you will know the answer to that question.

  18. #143
    International Counter bellisimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Budapest, Hungary
    Age
    32
    Posts
    9,113

    Default Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

    something I ran into the other day...I rather agree with this....last time I checked we weren't the ones that caused the ICE AGE...nor were we the ones that caused the MELTING....

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Typically, "global warming" activists will show us graphs and charts like the one below, which appears to show a stable climate until the start of the industrial revolution early in the 20th century. Then, in the past several decades, it's really taken off. Alarming! We're all going to burn to a crisp as temperatures soar, polar ice caps melt, then sea levels rise and if we don't burn, we'll all drown. Surely this must be due to industrial pollution and gas guzzling automobiles.



    Some might even take us back 1000 years and show us an alarming graphic like this.



    But wait... If we look back over the past 140,000 years we see a sharp increase in global temperatures 120,000 years ago, but how do we account for that? Maybe the mythical civilization of Atlantis caused it? The peak mean temperature then was higher than it is today. Well, we can say maybe there was excessive volcanic activity that threw green house gasses into the atmosphere and caused it.



    We could say that, but it wouldn't be true. If we go back 1 million years we can see that there have been many such warm peaks occurring at regular intervals. Today, we are approaching the next peak in the cycle but we're not there yet. It's going to get warmer and yes, the earth's atmosphere is warming, but it's not because of anything man is doing. Our contribution to this warming is minimal, perhaps about 2 to 5%. This warming will occur with or without us.



    Why does this occur? Mainly because about every 100,000 years, the Earth's orbit around the sun changes from spherical to elliptical and for half of each year, the Earth is further from the sun by about 3 million miles, receiving less heat. During those times, the Earth falls into an ice age. In fact, the temperatures we are seeing today and for the past 10,000 years are not the normal average temperature of the planet, the average over the past 160,000 years has actually been about 3 degrees lower. But it sure is a lot more comfortable for us now than it was during the average temperature cycle periods.

    If we look at the actual average global temperature change over the last century, we find that the global temperature has risen about 0.6 degrees but this is not unusual. 0.5 and 0.6 degree temperature shifts during warm and cold periods are quite normal throughout history. The real global climate shifts involve average temperature changes of as much as 5 degrees. To put things into perspective, I have scaled the global warming alarmists' 0.6 degree shift to the actual climate shifts occurring over the past 60,000 years in the graphic below. Doesn't seem such a big problem when seen in perspective.


    The 0.6 degree temperature rise shown above represents the total change caused by both natural and man made influences. The 2 to 5 percent of that contributed by man is so small that I can't even show it here. But if you imagine a 100 story building represented by the area in red, man's contribution to this temperature change would be between 2 and 5 stories high.

    Now what about all this talk about greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide (CO2) The following graph shows the various greenhouse gasses and their relationship to one another in the atmosphere.



    The chart below shows how much each gas contributes to the "Greenhouse effect".


    Naturally, the burning of fossil fuels contributes to the CO2 content in the air, but how much? And will adding man made CO2 really cause "global warming"? Of course that is what Al Gore wants you to think but when they show you these graphs, they always leave something out - water vapor. As you can see in the graph below, it is water vapor that is the main player in warming the earth and of course, that occurs naturally. The effect of CO2 on global warming is reduced to about 3.6%


    Of that 3.6% contribution by CO2 to global warming, only 3.225% of that is man made through industry, automobile usage, airplanes, boats, trains, and everything else man powers with oil and gas.


    If man's contribution to the greenhouse effect is only 0.001161% of the total and the rest is natural sources, then how can man be causing global warming? What's more important is how can man reverse it or even effect it by eliminating the burning of fossil fuel?



    There is another consideration we should realize and be aware of. Historically, atmospheric temperatures have been taken with ground based equipment. These reading can be effected by terrain conditions such as urban sprawl that encroaches on their previously rural locations with concrete and asphalt which tend to retain more heat than natural earth and radiate it to surrounding areas. This could account for ground based readings showing a rise over the past 40 years. In the past 18 years, orbiting weather satellites with an accuracy of 0.1% have shown no change in the temperature of our atmosphere since they've been monitoring it. Al Gore and the MSM don't tell you that.


    Another thing the Goreys don't tell you is that there is ample data from the National Climatic Data Center, NOAA, that shows no real rise in global temperatures at all. Perhaps this data comes from more remotely located sensors not effected by urban sprawl.



    Charts and data for this article were provided by

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html and

    http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF.../ice_ages.html


    and other internet sources. For more complete information on this topic, visit the urls above.

  19. #144
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,480

    Default Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

    Why is it so much easier for me to get behind what Bellisimo has posted than the "Global Warming" hysteria I see on the other side?

    I suppose part of it is I know that the earth suffered an ice age AND a warming period melting that ice age away and man had nothing to do with that.

    Also, there seems to be a mass hysteria in the media over any warming/hot spell and want to tie that to the 'Global Warming' argument but blizzards, cold snaps, etc are disregarded (in making that connection). Nobody uses these things to counter 'Global Warming' per se'.

    Well... somewhat... I have noticed that the term 'Global Warming' is slowly being changed to "Climate Change". That way, it encompasses any extremes and allows them to be pulled into the fold under some giant umbrella.

    It's hard to sell "Global Warming" to the midwest during a blizzard. But maybe if you can somehow blame that blizzard on the same movement (just give it a new name) then more converts for the faith!

    It doesn't help that the media gets all excited about these things and makes rather normal occurences seem like such never before seen happenings. Cold spells happen. Tornados happen. Hurricanes happen. Blizzards happen. Floods happen. Sometimes I wonder if the real story isn't how much these things happen but really how rare they are overall in the grand scheme of things.

    -Bball
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  20. #145
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Frankfort, IN
    Posts
    9,136

    Default Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

    Well, a couple of brief edits to what Bellisimo posted.

    First, the nearly steady graph shows US temperatures - not temps world-wide so it can't be argued for a lack of global warming.

    EXCEPT for the fact that most of the long-term temperature data world-wide that we would consider reliable shows the same sort of pattern - a minimal increase. It's when we start using data from regions of the world (3rd world mostly) that hasn't been as rigorously monitored over time that we get the big increases.

    We also know that the 1st half of the 19th century was a cool period, that it has been significantly warmer than it is right now in the past thousand years, and that from about 900-1300 AD the Greenland Ice Sheet was substantially smaller than it is now - the Vikings were able to grow wheat and some other crops in S Greenland when they first settled there.

    We also know that during the warmest point of an interglacial period global temps are 3.5 to 5.5 degrees warmer than it is now. So no matter what people do, global warming should occur anyway.

    That said, I don't know if there's man-made global warming going on because the science has been so lousy. It may be happening but there is not a single proposed model that has stood up to actual empirical evidence. Now models are never 100% accurate - they're a predictor of future events and nothing gets it completely right. But these models have performed abysmally. If you had a broker who predicted future stock performance this badly you'd fire him - and he'd be out looking for another career.

    If the scientific community would rediscover its standards and apply it to global warming research we'd at least have some hope of figuring out what's going on - eventually. Instead it accepts these flawed models which use goofy assumptions (see the hurricane model which attributed a factor of 80% for sea surface temps influencing hurricane strength when it should be about 10%) or even equations ensuring that the only possible result is the one the model builder intends (see the Mann "hockey-stick" model).

    Lousy science.
    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

  21. #146
    Tree People to the Core! indygeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Cumberland
    Posts
    15,359
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

    My gosh, was it really 30 years ago the the arguement was whether we were entering a cold period or a hot period? Both blamed on air pollution, BTW.

    DO NOT get me wrong! I have no problem with the efforts to reduce particulates in the air.......let's cut back a few Jumbo Jet take offs each day and see what effect that would have on particulates and carbon based fuel consumption.

    I DO have a problem with the politicization of the so called "problem". I also have a problem with the scientists who are racing to publish their findings for their own glory/ gain.

    3Ball, in the altruistic sense your arguements are worthwhile, unfortunately the politicians and grant seeking scientists are out beating the popular drum for their own gain.

    I'll beat my own pet drum for a moment if I may. Jet airliners. Watch their take-offs and landings. Note the pollution from each plane and then note that Indy International is on the west side of town...UPWIND so that the particulates spread out over Indy like a blanket. Note also that MANY MANY landing approaches and lift off patterns take the planes around the perimeter of downtown or just barely north of the downtown area. Again depositing particulate pollutants in the sky over Indy. And yet whenever EPA reading are too high there is talk of how we are going to be required to inspect auto emissions and put more controls in place. Again...fuzzy science ignoring a major part of the puzzle.

    [\off soapbox]
    If you get to thinkiní youíre a person of some influence, try orderiní somebody elseís dog around..

  22. #147
    Tree People to the Core! indygeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Cumberland
    Posts
    15,359
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

    Quote Originally Posted by Mourning View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You don't have to call me "sir" . What I meant is that the expected sea level rise on our part of the world is going to be higher then average. Not everywhere the rise will be the same.

    And though we maybe one of the best prepared nations in the world with regards to stuff like this doesn't mean we like to pump in billions of Euro's to keep it safe, because others like to keep in puffing CO2 into the air without regard to make some extra $$$. Just my opinion.

    Regards,

    Mourning

    How is that possible? Nature abhors imbalance...water seeks a level and if your area raised more than the rest of the world, nature would make sure the water flowed away until all oceans/seas were again at the same level. Any change in depth must be due to underlying structure change and that is a measurement from the ocean floor which does vary because of topography, and yet world over the water levels will remain level. Only in an enclosed area such as The Great Salt Lake could the water level be different than the sea level without it rushing to level itself. Not sure if my example is clear but that is the best I can do at the moment.
    Try this, half fill a bathtub with water....now dump a saucepan of water into one end of the tub. Does that area of the tub raise while the rest of the tub remains at the level it was? No, nature seeks a level and forces the water to flow out and become level in the tub. Same with all the oceans and seas of the world...they level out globally. I fear somebody in your area of the world is trying to put the fear of nature in you.
    If you get to thinkiní youíre a person of some influence, try orderiní somebody elseís dog around..

  23. #148
    Fear my small avatar Gyron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    6,366

    Default Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

    The one thing that could have an effect on that geez is, I think....as the polar ice caps melt, that puts more water into the ocean versus it just balancing out....

    But thats the only theory I could some up with that may explain that.

  24. #149
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Frankfort, IN
    Posts
    9,136

    Default Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

    Quote Originally Posted by indygeezer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    How is that possible?
    It actually is possible though I don't see how global warming alone could do it.

    Frex - in the equatorial regions sea levels are a couple of feet higher on the west than east coasts - frex in the Indonesia or Brazil as opposed to Chile and West Africa, respectively. This is due to persistent easterly winds in the equatorial region pushing water to the West. In fact a lessening of these winds is a major contributor to El Nino as it pushes less of the warmer surface water away which reduces the upwelling of cooler waters.

    So there could be another factor at work - maybe a projected increase in Baltic Sea/English Channel currents due to melting or a reduction or increase in Gulf Stream Flow. I don't know the specifics though.
    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

  25. #150
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,480

    Default Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

    Minnesota Public Radio Presents "Global Warming: The Home Front," a Public Insight Forum

    February 20, 2007


    WHAT: "Global Warming: The Home Front," a Public Insight Forum moderated by Morning Edition host Cathy Wurzer

    WHEN: Thursday, March 1, 7‚??8:30 p.m.

    WHERE: The UBS Forum at Minnesota Public Radio, 480 Cedar Street, St. Paul

    TICKETS: This event is sold out.

    MEDIA: Print, broadcast and internet journalists are welcome to attend. Please contact Jennifer Haugh at (651) 290-1369 or jhaugh@mpr.org for accommodations, including a media mult box.

    Minnesota Public Radio presents "Global Warming: The Home Front," a Public Insight Forum moderated by Morning Edition host Cathy Wurzer on Thursday, March 1 starting at 7 p.m. in the UBS Forum.

    Concern about global warming is increasing in American households as warnings of a potential climate change catastrophe are proliferating in the media. Consumers are becoming more interested in sustainable products ranging from the laundry detergent they use to the cars they drive. In the end, can a change in consumers‚?? behavior alter the course of global warming?

    This Public Insight Forum will bring together consumers to discuss their concerns about climate change and if it is leading them to change their behavior. A group of experts ranging from economists to climate experts will help inform the discussion. This event is sold out.

    Minnesota Public Radioģ operates a 37-station radio network serving virtually all of Minnesota -snip-www.mpr.org and www.americanpublicmedia.org.

    http://access.minnesota.publicradio....lwarming.shtml

    ---------------------------

    Why did I post that....
    Because it was cancelled due to a blizzard!

    -Bball
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •