amazing. thanks for the read.Originally Posted by coastal
amazing. thanks for the read.
BATFLIP!
coastal (11-01-2012)
It's probably junk science to point to any one storm/hurricane and say that it's because of global warming. A storm is a weather event and global warming is a climate issue. I'm not a scientist, but I'm pretty sure that to document global warming you have to look at trends, not individual events. There are also several other factors at work in determining the frequency and severity of hurricanes. One is the well known pattern of El Nino/La Nina. El Nino results in a west to east upper air wind pattern in the lower latitudes that tends to rip appart tropical systems before they have a chance to develop. La Nina tends to produce lighter upper air flows in the tropics which allows tropical cyclones to develop more easily. So, even if you've got global warming, you're not going to get a lot of hurricanes in an El Nino year, especially with a strong El Nino. Conversely, you don't need a lot of global warming to have a lot of hurricanes in a La Nina year. Moreover, you can have a lot of hurricanes yet with none of them hitting the US mainland. Or you can have a deadly hurricane hit the US mainland in a year with very few hurricanes. Hurricane Andrew hit south Florida in an Ell Nino year when there were relatively few named storms.
In 2012 we started out with a fairly weak El Nino, but it never really developed, and I think has more or less fizzled. That's why we've had quite a few named storms. There haven't been a lot of major hurricanes however. Personally, I think Sandy was kind of a fluke. It got to be a fairly strong hurricane before hitting Cuba, but after that it was a minimal hurricane for a while. What happened is that it hit a blocking pattern in the atmosphere that prevented it from taking a more typical turn out into the Atlantic. Instead, it turned west and merged with a frontal system that energized it even as it lost a lot of its tropical characteristics. The thing is, weather in the northern temperate zones has always had occasional blocking patterns. That's not a global warming phenomenon. They can happen anywhere, but they not so common that hurricanes run into them all the time. It was very similar to "The Perfect Storm" of movie fame, except that one happened at sea and didn't produce the devastation on land that this one did. Did global warming cause Sandy to be stronger than it would have been without it? Maybe a little, but it would be just about impossible to prove. Take a look at hurricane and tropical storms in 20 year chunks and maybe you'll see a trend that supports the notion of global warming, but that's the only way you'll get data that can really indicate something is going on.
Last edited by TigerJ; 11-01-2012 at 09:53 PM.
I've made up my mind. Don't confuse me with the facts.
A wise man doesn't waste effort telling the world he's wise. If it's true, it will be self-evident.
mysticsoto (11-02-2012)
Hey, if I can have 80 degrees every year on my March birthday, I will gladly trade off one east coast hurricane in October.
How else are these cities going to ever get cleaned up?
YardRat (11-02-2012)
And what about when trends are presented and dismissed with all sorts of buffoonery?
The old saying goes, "Two wrongs don't make a right." Applied here, "Junk science on one side and junk science on the other side is still junk science." And actually a lot of people who don't want to blame human activity for global warming do concede that it is still happening. I think they are wrong to excuse the human race. We have had a measurable effect on the environment in all kinds of ways, including, of course, carbon dioxide levels. Even if you don't think there is a smoking gun in the hand of the human race, it's pretty naive to go on assuming human activity has nothing to do with global warming.
JATMtheJATM (11-02-2012),mysticsoto (11-02-2012)
Republican.
Historian (11-05-2012)
That's so cold.
And from my own personal physician too....
The thing is there really isn't junk science on both sides, but thanks for admitting man is "contributing".
You're right...it's not necessary to have junk science on both sides when one is already inundated with it.
Long you live and high you fly And smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry And all you touch and all you see Is all your life will ever be.
I have no ****ing idea what your point is.
I was agreeing with you...kind of.
I'm begging u to clarify...
I just like how they stopped calling it global warming and now call it climate change so they can blame everything on it. Not so "inconvenient" Mr. Gore.
Global warming is a scare tactic to try and push political agenda.
The Earth goes in warming and cooling cycles.
YardRat (11-04-2012)
And the bills are going to draft a QB in the 1st round and our problems will be solved.
Last edited by coastal; 11-03-2012 at 07:22 AM.
Historian (11-05-2012)
Climate change has been the term used by most in the scientific community for 20+ years.
I said you need to strive to better than everyone else. I didn't say you needed to be better than everyone else. But you gotta try. That's what character is. It's in the try.
Not like this one. Not at this pace.
Every previous occurrence has documented reasons as to why. Can you present scientific reasons as to why we are warming at the rate we are currently then? Can you present evidence that CO2 in the atmosphere does NOT have a greenhouse effect - even though every smaller experimental version of experiments w/CO2, not to mention a planetary scale real life example indicates that the resultant effect is that of warming up?
Or are you, like pretty much every skeptic out there, going to just talk out of your ass without really knowing what you're talking about?
And full moons and high tides!
Patti
- - - Updated - - -
You can explain to us why it was warmer in the Middle Ages.
Patti
I've posted this before, but like anything that doesn't agree with skeptics...they ignore it and keep spouting the same lies and misconceptions repeatedly...
Or...if skeptics weren't so intellectually lazy on this topic, they could just read about it just about anywhere including wikipedia instead of continually spreading falsehoods: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_PeriodThe Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomenon. Warmer conditions were concentrated in certain regions. Some regions were even colder than during the Little Ice Age. To claim the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today is to narrowly focus on a few regions that showed unusual warmth. However, when we look at the broader picture, we see that the Medieval Warm Period was a regional phenomenon with other regions showing strong cooling. What is more, and as can be seen in Figure 4, globally, temperatures during the Medieval Period were less than today.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/medi...termediate.htm
Last edited by mysticsoto; 11-05-2012 at 08:10 AM.
gebobs (11-05-2012)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
