|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Whatever happened too....???
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Whatever happened too....???
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| NCMike06 |
Global Warming !!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
Quote: Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.
The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.
This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory. |
The alarmists (including Ozone Al) have some explaining to do....But I am sure that the next time an ice cube melts, they will declare global warming a man made disaster, and demand the earnings of all workers to combat the problem..... :rolleyes: |
|
|
| flamslam64 |
| Speaking of Ozone Al. Whatever happened to that huge hole in the Ozone several years ago in the Antarctic? You never hear about it. I do not say that as a stance on my position on global warming |
|
|
| zimmie |
| Al is probably staring at a glacier somewhere waiting for a chunk to fall off. With that on tape, he can cash in on the morons.. |
|
|
| booybob |
Do you mean this global warming. The warming that stopped a decade ago??
Scientists question global warming as world temperatures drop
Daily Mail
Friday, April 4, 2008
Worldwide temperatures will drop this year due to the La Nina current in the Pacific, prompting some scientists to ask if global warming really exists.
China has suffered extreme blizzards and record low temperatures, while Australia has had torrential rain due to La Nina - one of the Pacific's two great natural currents.
(Article continues below)
Weather experts say La Nina will last into the summer - meaning world temperatures will not have risen since 1998.
A minority of scientists have argued this might mean the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted.
FULL STORY: CLICK HERE |
|
|
| booybob |
What about the massive hurricans that global warming was supposed to create??
Experts: No link between hurricanes, warming
MARTIN MERZER
Miami Herald
Friday, April 4, 2008
ORLANDO -- We're in a busy period of hurricane activity that will inflict unimaginable damage, but global warming is not the cause, leading researchers told the nation's foremost forecasters and other experts Friday.
Chris Landsea, a respected researcher and the National Hurricane Center's science officer, told attendees of the National Hurricane Conference that there is no conclusive evidence that global warming has significantly enhanced or otherwise affected the number or intensity of hurricanes.
''Any trend we see due to global warming has very little impact, has caused very tiny changes and might actually be slightly reducing the activity we see in the Atlantic,'' Landsea told the group, which numbered 2,100 earlier in the week, though some left before the global warming session began.
(Article continues below)
He noted that former vice president Al Gore's award-winning An Inconvenient Truth, which has galvanized attention to global warming, is promoted by a book cover and movie poster that show a hurricane emerging from a smokestack -- and spinning in the wrong direction.
''So you might conclude that the hurricane science depicted in Mr. Gore's book just might have some inaccuracies,'' Landsea said.
William Gray of Colorado State University, another leading hurricane researcher, called any link between global warming and hurricanes ``an absolutely phony thing.''
The issue has cleaved much of the hurricane research community, with one group of scientists reporting strong relationships between global warming and recent storm activity.
That contingent asserts that hurricanes have been forming twice as often as they did a century ago, mostly because of global warming caused at least partially by humans. Those researchers also say that hurricane intensity has been growing.
''When you look at the numbers and the strong relationship to sea surface temperatures and the reality of global warming, you end up with a causal link that can't be denied,'' Greg Holland, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., said last year.
Another group -- largely led by Landsea -- refutes those assertions, saying they are based on faulty data. Like census takers who work only one side of the street, these critics say, Holland and other proponents of the theory simply missed many storms of the past.
The main problem, this contingent says, is that many far-from-land storms escaped detection before hurricane hunter flights began in the 1940s and satellite observations began in the 1970s, so historical comparisons cannot be trusted.
''Our ability to monitor the Atlantic was much more limited than it is now,'' Thomas Knutson, a research meteorologist at a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration laboratory in Princeton, N.J., told the group.
The dispute has become so noteworthy and occasionally toxic that some are making fun of it.
Earlier this week, Jeff Masters, a former federal hurricane researcher who now serves as chief meteorologist of the Weather Underground, published a blog item that began:
``A stunning new breakthrough in hurricane research has conclusively settled the matter: global warming is making Atlantic hurricanes and tropical storms more frequent.''
He said the research was accepted for publication ''later this millennium in The Journal of Irreproducible Results.'' Masters' lengthy satire was published Tuesday -- April Fool's Day.
FULL STORY: CLICK HERE |
|
|
| booybob |
Is this the same global warming that will turn us into cannibals?
Ted Turner: Global warming could lead to cannibalism
Billionaire environmentalist says world has too many people
MIKE MORRIS
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Failure to address global warming will have us all dead or eating each other by mid-century.
So says Ted Turner, the restaurateur, environmentalist and former media mogul whose controversial comments have earned him the nickname "Mouth of the South."
30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow," Turner said during a wide-ranging, hour-long interview with PBS's Charlie Rose that aired Tuesday.
(Article continues below)
"Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals," said Turner, 69. "Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state — like Somalia or Sudan — and living conditions will be intolerable."
One way to combat global warming, Turner said, is to stabilize the population.
"We're too many people; that's why we have global warming," he said. "Too many people are using too much stuff."
Turner suggested that "on a voluntary basis, everybody in the world's got to pledge to themselves that one or two children is it."
Admitting that he's "always suffered from foot-in-the-mouth disease," Turner added, "I've gotten a lot better, though. It's been a long time since anybody caught me saying something stupid."
FULL STORY: CLICK HERE |
|
|
| salafibrigades |
| Ted Turner is a piece of shit eugenist. He is always calling on huge population reductions. Fuck him, the Queen, the Prince, Bertrand Russell and Margaret Sanger. |
|
|
| iatebethO |
Dream on you fucking sheep.
I love how republicans are smarter than scientists.
Who's your "go to" guy on science? George W Bush?
if you want to really examine the science in detail - go to the comprehensive Fourth Assessment of the International Panel on Climate Change (release February 2007). Its conclusion? Climate change is real, its happening, and its caused by human activity:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ |
|
|
| zimmie |
Quote: Originally posted by iatebethO
Dream on you fucking sheep.
I love how republicans are smarter than scientists.
Who's your "go to" guy on science? George W Bush?
if you want to really examine the science in detail - go to the comprehensive Fourth Assessment of the International Panel on Climate Change (release February 2007). Its conclusion? Climate change is real, its happening, and its caused by human activity:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ |
you mean the smart scientists at ipcc?
From their site:
"The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters."
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAH |
|
|
| JTProcess |
 |
|
|
| IWJATST |
Quote: Originally posted by JTProcess
[IMGarty.jpg[/IMG] |
nice family portrait of the bush family.... sr, w & barbara smoking the pole waiting for a new pearl necklace :D :D |
|
|
| Bist Meshugeh |
Quote: Originally posted by salafibrigades
Ted Turner is a piece of shit eugenist. He is always calling on huge population reductions. Fuck him, the Queen, the Prince, Bertrand Russell and Margaret Sanger. |
He should start with himself. |
|
|
| Bist Meshugeh |
Quote: Originally posted by iatebethO
Dream on you fucking sheep.
I love how republicans are smarter than scientists.
Who's your "go to" guy on science? George W Bush?
if you want to really examine the science in detail - go to the comprehensive Fourth Assessment of the International Panel on Climate Change (release February 2007). Its conclusion? Climate change is real, its happening, and its caused by human activity:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ |
If you were as smart as a thermometer and had some simple math skills, like how to figure out averages, you would not bring shame to yourself. |
|
|
| iatebethO |
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
you mean the smart scientists at ipcc?
From their site:
"The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters."
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAH |
Zimmie the moron. Thanks for taking the Ipcc Mandate out of context:
"The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage."
Too many words for you to comprehend? |
|
|
| iatebethO |
Quote: Originally posted by Bist Meshugeh
If you were as smart as a thermometer and had some simple math skills, like how to figure out averages, you would not bring shame to yourself. |
Really? Simple averages will disprove global climate change?
I didn't know such brilliance existed here on SFN. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by iatebethO
Dream on you fucking sheep.
I love how republicans are smarter than scientists.
Who's your "go to" guy on science? George W Bush?
if you want to really examine the science in detail - go to the comprehensive Fourth Assessment of the International Panel on Climate Change (release February 2007). Its conclusion? Climate change is real, its happening, and its caused by human activity:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ |
Ballsack, this has NOTHING to do with Republicans...it has to do with the average global temperature, as measured by SCIENTISTS.....not rising since 1998.....
Given that your 'go to guy' is Al Gore, hypocrite in chief, you are hardly one to talk about anyone else in this arena. I guess Ted Turner is your first alternate??? :burst:
There are many peer reviewed studies which fly in the face of the global alarmist religion. Maybe you and your boy Ted should not be hypocrites and start reducing the world population by removing yourselves from it.... |
|
|
| JTProcess |
Quote: Originally posted by booybob
Is this the same global warming that will turn us into cannibals?
|
 |
|
|
| iatebethO |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Ballsack, this has NOTHING to do with Republicans...it has to do with the average global temperature, as measured by SCIENTISTS.....not rising since 1998.....
Given that your 'go to guy' is Al Gore, hypocrite in chief, you are hardly one to talk about anyone else in this arena. I guess Ted Turner is your first alternate??? :burst:
There are many peer reviewed studies which fly in the face of the global alarmist religion. Maybe you and your boy Ted should not be hypocrites and start reducing the world population by removing yourselves from it.... |
Obviously you are not in the sciences, or else you would know there are no peer reviewed studies that dispute global climate change.
Dream on, moron. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by iatebethO
Obviously you are not in the sciences, or else you would know there are no peer reviewed studies that dispute global climate change.
Dream on, moron. |
Obviously you have not been paying attention...as there are many. And by global warming, I am talking about the religion which states that man is somehow responsible for the small bit of warming that had occurred in the 100 years prior to 1999.
Oooops, wrong again. |
|
|
| iatebethO |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Obviously you have not been paying attention...as there are many. And by global warming, I am talking about the religion which states that man is somehow responsible for the small bit of warming that had occurred in the 100 years prior to 1999.
Oooops, wrong again. |
Peer reviewed? Not peer reviewed by a whore financed by the energy industry, but peer reviewed by the scientific community.
Just for fun, post a few links to these peer reviewed studies that dispute man's effect on global climate change.
Not wrong yet by any means. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Ballsack, this has NOTHING to do with Republicans...it has to do with the average global temperature, as measured by SCIENTISTS.....not rising since 1998..... |
actually it is about global climate - not temperature readings...but why do you think there is a lack of scientific consensus to support your simplistic conclusion? |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Ballsack, this has NOTHING to do with Republicans.. |
except that is exactly who chimed in to agree with:
do you find that curious? :burst: |
|
|
| Kill Van Kull |
This has everything to do with republicans/politics!
When you read science articles, the ones where politics is not anywhere in sight, there is never any question as to global climate change.
It is accepted by all of the different scientific disciplines as a matter of fact.
Now to save corporate profits, inject some political fantasy, the moonbat righties crazy kool-aid swilling self-hating brainwashed conspiracy theories and all of a sudden, there's a question as to it's validity?
I don't think so. Use your head, shit don't work like that.
:D :D |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by iatebethO
Peer reviewed? Not peer reviewed by a whore financed by the energy industry, but peer reviewed by the scientific community.
Just for fun, post a few links to these peer reviewed studies that dispute man's effect on global climate change.
Not wrong yet by any means. |
Enjoy, dumbass.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...70801175711.htm
Quote: In the mid-1970s, a climate shift cooled sea surface temperatures in the central Pacific Ocean and warmed the coast of western North America, bringing long-range changes to the northern hemisphere.
After this climate shift waned, an era of frequent El Ninos and rising global temperatures began...
By studying the last 100 years of these cycles' patterns, [the authors] find that the systems synchronized several times.
Further, in cases where the synchronous state was followed by an increase in the coupling strength among the cycles, the synchronous state was destroyed. Then. a new climate state emerged, associated with global temperature changes and El Nino/Southern Oscillation variability.
The authors show that this mechanism explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century |
http://www.springerlink.com/content...b5184282eb&pi=0
| Quote: The late-twentieth century, however, is not exceptionally warm in the new record: On decadal-to-centennial timescales, periods around ad 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were equally warm, or warmer. The 200-year long warm period centered on ad 1000 was significantly warmer than the late-twentieth century (p < 0.05) and is supported by other local and regional paleoclimate data. The new tree-ring evidence from Torneträsk suggests that this “Medieval Warm Period” in northern Fennoscandia was much warmer than previously recognized. |
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/20...6GL028492.shtml
| Quote: Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904–2003. These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously. Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 |
Here are a few more:
http://bowfell.geol.ucl.ac.uk/~lidu...papers/djw3.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/20...6GL026510.shtml
I can post LOTS more if you like...suffice to say, you don't have a fucking clue as to what you are talking about. Now is about the time, you go and hide for awhile, as your bullshit has been completely exposed...again . |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Kill Van Kull
This has everything to do with republicans/politics!
When you read science articles, the ones where politics is not anywhere in sight, there is never any question as to global climate change.
It is accepted by all of the different scientific disciplines as a matter of fact.
Now to save corporate profits, inject some political fantasy, the moonbat righties crazy kool-aid swilling self-hating brainwashed conspiracy theories and all of a sudden, there's a question as to it's validity?
I don't think so. Use your head, shit don't work like that.
:D :D |
I don't know if there has EVER been a bigger pile of horseshit posted on this board than that which you just posted. It is strikingly clear that you are not up on the issue, cannot discuss it intelligently, and can only recite chapter and verse of debunked alarmist talking points. In short, on this (as with most others) you are a complete moron. |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
| Hey Mikey... It's "To" not "Too." |
|
|
| mingmen |
rather than cherry-picking - why don't you address the issue of scientific consensus? |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
It is strikingly clear that you are not up on the issue, cannot discuss it intelligently, and can only recite chapter and verse of debunked alarmist talking points. In short, on this (as with most others) you are a complete moron. |
please address the issue of scientific consensus :burst: :burst: :burst: |
|
|
| Anogram |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
please address the issue of scientific consensus :burst: :burst: :burst: |
You don't need so called scientific facts or consensus when you have Bush on your side. |
|
|
| iatebethO |
Jesus Christ, not even fucking close.
Did you even read any of these? |
|
|
| sixsixsix666 |
| global warming is cool... |
|
|
| zimmie |
Quote: Originally posted by iatebethO
Zimmie the moron. Thanks for taking the Ipcc Mandate out of context:
"The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage."
Too many words for you to comprehend? |
Three words disolve any credibility they have. Their affliation with
"Ozone Al Gore"
My wife's b'day is coming soon. Do you know where I can buy a couple of carbon credits for her? |
|
|
| iatebethO |
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
Three words disolve any credibility they have. Their affliation with
"Ozone Al Gore"
My wife's b'day is coming soon. Do you know where I can buy a couple of carbon credits for her? |
Buy her a fucking vibrator, she might enjoy some warming in her frozen zone. |
|
|
| zimmie |
Quote: Originally posted by iatebethO
Buy her a fucking vibrator, she might enjoy some warming in her frozen zone. |
The only thing frozen is your brain for buying into Ozone Al's bullshit |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by iatebethO
Jesus Christ, not even fucking close.
Did you even read any of these? |
Yes, as a matter of fact. Not even close??? Not even close to what??? Are you that much of a pea brain that you are waiting for some all encompassing Global warming report or study??? That doesn't exist on either side. The issue is much too complex for something like that. Especially when you consider that we have no clue as to all the factors which might effect the global climate. Nor can we come close to fully explaining past periods of much more significant climate change. Finally, the hallmark of the global alarmist movement is the models which predict future disaster. The problem is that you can feed actual data into those models from 50-75 years ago, and still cannot come out to today's actual readings...meaning...if the models are flawed with real data, what makes you think they will even come close with projected data...
THere are many other peer reviewed studies and articles which debunk the global alarmist nonsense. (remember, you said there were NONE....but you were proven false) Piece by piece, the house of cards that is the man made global warming theory is falling apart. You have not been paying attention..and I would argue, you don't care to know the truth beyond what Ozone Al tells you. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Yes, as a matter of fact. Not even close??? Not even close to what??? Are you that much of a pea brain that you are waiting for some all encompassing Global warming report or study??? That doesn't exist on either side. The issue is much too complex for something like that. Especially when you consider that we have no clue as to all the factors which might effect the global climate. Nor can we come close to fully explaining past periods of much more significant climate change. Finally, the hallmark of the global alarmist movement is the models which predict future disaster. The problem is that you can feed actual data into those models from 50-75 years ago, and still cannot come out to today's actual readings...meaning...if the models are flawed with real data, what makes you think they will even come close with projected data...
THere are many other peer reviewed studies and articles which debunk the global alarmist nonsense. (remember, you said there were NONE....but you were proven false) Piece by piece, the house of cards that is the man made global warming theory is falling apart. You have not been paying attention..and I would argue, you don't care to know the truth beyond what Ozone Al tells you. |
still no answer to the problem of scientific consensus. btw - this situation is exactly the reason scientific consensus is utilized :idea: |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
THere are many other peer reviewed studies |
there you guy NCDike - post one of those. not this fragmentary hodgepodge :yes:
double dog dare ya :burst: |
|
|
| booybob |
Stop global warming, SAVE THE EARTH, STARVE ITS PEOPLE.
I wonder if the lefties care more about saving the earth from a non existent problem by using more and more of our food as fuel. Or do they care more about the people and push to find and fund more oil supplies,nuclear energy wind and solar power. Biofuels will starve the poor all over the planet.
UN chief calls for review of biofuels policy
· Ban Ki-moon speaks out amid global food shortage
· 33 countries facing unrest as families go hungry
* Julian Borger, diplomatic editor
* The Guardian,
* Saturday April 5 2008
* Article history
About this article
Close
This article appeared in the Guardian on Saturday April 05 2008 on p16 of the International section. It was last updated at 00:05 on April 05 2008.
The UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, has called for a comprehensive review of the policy on biofuels as a crisis in global food prices - partly caused by the increasing use of crops for energy generation - threatens to trigger global instability.
"We need to be concerned about the possibility of taking land or replacing arable land because of these biofuels," Ban told the Guardian in Bucharest while attending this week's Nato summit. But he added: "While I am very much conscious and aware of these problems, at the same time you need to constantly look at having creative sources of energy, including biofuels. Therefore, at this time, just criticising biofuel may not be a good solution. I would urge we need to address these issues in a comprehensive manner."
Climate change has been a priority for Ban since he took over from Kofi Annan, and he has embraced the potential of biofuels, derived from plants, as a long-term substitute for fossil fuels. But as food prices have soared - driven by rising demand, high fuel costs, and climate change - the cultivation of biofuels has come under fire for diverting fertile land from food production.
Some of the loudest criticism has come from within UN food agencies, which are struggling to keep up with commodity prices. Last month the World Food Programme issued an emergency $500m appeal to donors to help it meet its existing commitments to the world's hungry.
WFP officials say 33 countries in Asia and Africa face political instability as the urban poor struggle to feed their families.
There are also mounting concerns over the benefits of biofuels to the environment. They generally burn cleaner than fossil fuels, but fuels such as grain-based ethanol are energy-intensive to produce, and tropical rainforests have been cleared to produce palm oil for use as a fuel.
The role of biofuels is under review in Britain pending an inquiry into the indirect impact of their cultivation by the Renewable Fuels Agency.
Against this backdrop some senior UN officials are pushing for a change of policy, and attack Ban in private. "Ban is just out of touch," one said. "He doesn't know what is really going on in our agencies."
The UN's own special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, called biofuels "a crime against humanity", and called for a five-year moratorium.
Ban rejected that proposal. "At this time I wouldn't make any definitive judgment or definitive plans, in particular vis-_-vis these biofuels," he said. "I know there are some concerns raised by certain quarters about biofuels. But biofuels are a renewable source of energy when we are experiencing extreme difficulties [with] resources."
But Ban conceded that there was a food supply problem and said the primary Millenium Development Goal of halving global hunger by 2015 looked harder to reach than ever. "This steeply rising food price is a new phenomenon," he said. "We have only seven years left to meet the target of 2015. This is very serious."
He said he was overseeing a multi-agency investigation of the issue involving the UN Energy Programme, the UN Development Programme, the Department of Economic and Social Affairs and the World Food Programme. "They are all working on this issue," the secretary-general said. |
|
|
| booybob |
| figures that none of the global warming crowd will respond or care about the starving people. |
|
|
| HotShotMagic |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Global Warming !!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
The alarmists (including Ozone Al) have some explaining to do....But I am sure that the next time an ice cube melts, they will declare global warming a man made disaster, and demand the earnings of all workers to combat the problem..... :rolleyes: |
Did you read the article you linked to? Here's the stuff you missed:
Quote:
But this year's temperatures would still be way above the average - and we would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases.
The WMO points out that the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.
"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.
"La Nina is part of what we call 'variability'. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up; the climate on average is warming even if there is a temporary cooling because of La Nina."
|
FAIL :rolleyes: |
|
|
| NickNuke |
Does anyone know where I can purchase some of those Carbon Credits?
I took such a huge shit this morning, that I feel guilty about my contribution to global warming... |
|
|
| NickNuke |
| Sorry, "Offsets" |
|
|
| nikkyo |
Quote: Originally posted by booybob
What about the massive hurricans that global warming was supposed to create??
Experts: No link between hurricanes, warming
MARTIN MERZER
Miami Herald
Friday, April 4, 2008
ORLANDO -- We're in a busy period of hurricane activity that will inflict unimaginable damage, but global warming is not the cause, leading researchers told the nation's foremost forecasters and other experts Friday.
Chris Landsea, a respected researcher and the National Hurricane Center's science officer, told attendees of the National Hurricane Conference that there is no conclusive evidence that global warming has significantly enhanced or otherwise affected the number or intensity of hurricanes.
''Any trend we see due to global warming has very little impact, has caused very tiny changes and might actually be slightly reducing the activity we see in the Atlantic,'' Landsea told the group, which numbered 2,100 earlier in the week, though some left before the global warming session began.
(Article continues below)
He noted that former vice president Al Gore's award-winning An Inconvenient Truth, which has galvanized attention to global warming, is promoted by a book cover and movie poster that show a hurricane emerging from a smokestack -- and spinning in the wrong direction.
''So you might conclude that the hurricane science depicted in Mr. Gore's book just might have some inaccuracies,'' Landsea said.
William Gray of Colorado State University, another leading hurricane researcher, called any link between global warming and hurricanes ``an absolutely phony thing.''
The issue has cleaved much of the hurricane research community, with one group of scientists reporting strong relationships between global warming and recent storm activity.
That contingent asserts that hurricanes have been forming twice as often as they did a century ago, mostly because of global warming caused at least partially by humans. Those researchers also say that hurricane intensity has been growing.
''When you look at the numbers and the strong relationship to sea surface temperatures and the reality of global warming, you end up with a causal link that can't be denied,'' Greg Holland, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., said last year.
Another group -- largely led by Landsea -- refutes those assertions, saying they are based on faulty data. Like census takers who work only one side of the street, these critics say, Holland and other proponents of the theory simply missed many storms of the past.
The main problem, this contingent says, is that many far-from-land storms escaped detection before hurricane hunter flights began in the 1940s and satellite observations began in the 1970s, so historical comparisons cannot be trusted.
''Our ability to monitor the Atlantic was much more limited than it is now,'' Thomas Knutson, a research meteorologist at a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration laboratory in Princeton, N.J., told the group.
The dispute has become so noteworthy and occasionally toxic that some are making fun of it.
Earlier this week, Jeff Masters, a former federal hurricane researcher who now serves as chief meteorologist of the Weather Underground, published a blog item that began:
``A stunning new breakthrough in hurricane research has conclusively settled the matter: global warming is making Atlantic hurricanes and tropical storms more frequent.''
He said the research was accepted for publication ''later this millennium in The Journal of Irreproducible Results.'' Masters' lengthy satire was published Tuesday -- April Fool's Day.
FULL STORY: CLICK HERE |
FINE PRINT Republican administrators chose Landsea over another scientist in the NOAA to speak to the media about the link between hurricanes and climate change after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans |
|
|
| flamslam64 |
| I seriously asked this before is the hole in the ozone layer talked about years ago still there? |
|
|
| bt908 |
Quote: Originally posted by flamslam64
I seriously asked this before is the hole in the ozone layer talked about years ago still there? |
I think the ban on CFC's has worked, last I heard the ozone layer was coming back. |
|
|
| NoName |
| There is NO GLOBAL WARMING??!! Look, the stupidity is getting ALARMING on this site. If you are not voting for Obama, that's one thing, but to say that burning fossil fuels into the atmosphere does not cause problems is moronic at best! FACT: Gulf of Mexico is 5 degrees warmer then it was 25 years ago. That makes the hurricanes more powerful (Warm water is like gasoline for hurricanes ) I know that a few of you like to be the Devil's advocate and argue a point even though you may secretly agree but there is a hole in the ozone layer the size of Australia. A piece of the Antarctic (10X the size of Manhattan) fell into the ocean a couple of weeks ago. Skin cancer is on the rise. Please stop, you sound retarded and there is no way a retard can turn on a computer. If your I.Q. is over 50 then you should be smart enough to close your mouth and realize that you may hate the Jews, Arabs, Blacks, Whites, etc., etc. but we need the EARTH or it is impossible to survive. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by HotShotMagic
Did you read the article you linked to? Here's the stuff you missed:
FAIL :rolleyes: |
LOL....
Lets examine the piece you pulled out:
Quote: But this year's temperatures would still be way above the average - and we would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases.
The WMO points out that the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.
"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.
"La Nina is part of what we call 'variability'. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up; the climate on average is warming even if there is a temporary cooling because of La Nina." |
First of all, the entire Global alarmist scare is based on a short period.... 'Warmest on Record' only means the warmest in the past 130 ish years. The earth is millions of years old. Explain the MWP (which was warmer than today) and then we can talk.
Secondly, the .74 C rise in temp rise since the beginning of the 20th Century mostly occurred pre 1940.... And when was the most significant period of Atmospheric CO2 growth?? post 1950..... This fits a pattern which recent studies have confirmed....historically, warming periods PRECEDE atmospheric CO2 increases.... WHich of course you would understand mans that CO2 is NOT the main driver of global temperature....
Failed indeed...... |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by NoName
There is NO GLOBAL WARMING??!! Look, the stupidity is getting ALARMING on this site. If you are not voting for Obama, that's one thing, but to say that burning fossil fuels into the atmosphere does not cause problems is moronic at best! FACT: Gulf of Mexico is 5 degrees warmer then it was 25 years ago. That makes the hurricanes more powerful (Warm water is like gasoline for hurricanes ) I know that a few of you like to be the Devil's advocate and argue a point even though you may secretly agree but there is a hole in the ozone layer the size of Australia. A piece of the Antarctic (10X the size of Manhattan) fell into the ocean a couple of weeks ago. Skin cancer is on the rise. Please stop, you sound retarded and there is no way a retard can turn on a computer. If your I.Q. is over 50 then you should be smart enough to close your mouth and realize that you may hate the Jews, Arabs, Blacks, Whites, etc., etc. but we need the EARTH or it is impossible to survive. |
It is anecdotal 'evidence' and stories like in this post which the house of cards that is the global alarmist movement is built on. |
|
|
| Bist Meshugeh |
Quote: Originally posted by NoName
There is NO GLOBAL WARMING??!! Look, the stupidity is getting ALARMING on this site. If you are not voting for Obama, that's one thing, but to say that burning fossil fuels into the atmosphere does not cause problems is moronic at best! FACT: Gulf of Mexico is 5 degrees warmer then it was 25 years ago. That makes the hurricanes more powerful (Warm water is like gasoline for hurricanes ) I know that a few of you like to be the Devil's advocate and argue a point even though you may secretly agree but there is a hole in the ozone layer the size of Australia. A piece of the Antarctic (10X the size of Manhattan) fell into the ocean a couple of weeks ago. Skin cancer is on the rise. Please stop, you sound retarded and there is no way a retard can turn on a computer. If your I.Q. is over 50 then you should be smart enough to close your mouth and realize that you may hate the Jews, Arabs, Blacks, Whites, etc., etc. but we need the EARTH or it is impossible to survive. |
All those hurricanes in O7 were a bitch, how did we ever survive all 0 of them that hit the USA.
You should have gotten on the tornado band wagon, but then it was mostly crackers that got killed by them so why would you give a shit?
:oy: |
|
|
| thoroldjames |
it's a fucking scam to steal my money
I assume this of everything, and so far I've yet to be wrong :(
me being right is never good |
|
|
| NoName |
Quote: Originally posted by Bist Meshugeh
All those hurricanes in O7 were a bitch, how did we ever survive all 0 of them that hit the USA.
You should have gotten on the tornado band wagon, but then it was mostly crackers that got killed by them so why would you give a shit?
:oy: |
Well, I'm a so-called cracker but I give a shit about the HUMAN RACE! Tornadoes do not go over water, they are powered by land. Thank God we didn't have a powerful hurricane on '07 because we still haven't taken care of the people of Katrina! |
|
|
| NoName |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
It is anecdotal 'evidence' and stories like in this post which the house of cards that is the global alarmist movement is built on. |
You are a racist and I assume that you are under 30 which is MORE ALARMING! It's really hard to take you seriously. But unlike "your kind" I think you have the right to be ignorant and stupid I will always fight for your right to be that way! |
|
|
| Zoomies |
Quote: Originally posted by NoName
Well, I'm a so-called cracker but I give a shit about the HUMAN RACE! Tornadoes do not go over water, they are powered by land. Thank God we didn't have a powerful hurricane on '07 because we still haven't taken care of the people of Katrina! |
I just had to comment on this. First of all tornadoes do happen over water. They are called water spouts they are not powerd by land. Your statement is erroneous. Secondly what happened in New Orleans was a tragedy but people are living there at their own risk. It was common knowledge the storm system was set up for no more than a Cat 3 hurricane I know I used to live there. |
|
|
|
|
|
