VABills Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 http://www.cnn.com/2006/WEATHER/10/03/hurr...t.ap/index.html Now they expect less hurricanes then normal. Make up your minds.
slothrop Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 I believe that the theory is that global warming does not effect frequency of storms, rather global warming makes existing storms more intense. Frequency of storms involves a variety of factors including whether El Nino exists or not. I may be wrong though.
erynthered Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 Predicting storms is always, guess high, you can always come down. Mark'em up to mark'em down. Its like walking into a Jewelry store. STOREWIDE SALE 75% OFF EVERYTHING. With El Nino and the storms over North Africa, they changed their predictions. Though, I read about this a month ago.
VABills Posted October 3, 2006 Author Posted October 3, 2006 I believe that the theory is that global warming does not effect frequency of storms, rather global warming makes existing storms more intense. Frequency of storms involves a variety of factors including whether El Nino exists or not. I may be wrong though. 794085[/snapback] And again, read the story, the intensity is down as well. There goes that theory.
slothrop Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 And again, read the story, the intensity is down as well. There goes that theory. 794113[/snapback] And you obtained your PhD in meteorology from where? Limbaugh's institute for Conservative Studies? Way to extrapolate from a cnn article. You convieniently forgot this part: "August was inactive, but September had above-average activity," Klotzbach said. "We expect October to have below-average activity largely due to developing El Nino conditions in the central and eastern Pacific. November activity in El Nino years is very rare."
John Adams Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 http://www.cnn.com/2006/WEATHER/10/03/hurr...t.ap/index.html Now they expect less hurricanes then normal. Make up your minds. 793938[/snapback] Based on your thinking, we'll see 48 interference with the opportunity to make a fair catch calls this season.
meazza Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 And you obtained your PhD in meteorology from where? Limbaugh's institute for Conservative Studies? Way to extrapolate from a cnn article. You convieniently forgot this part: 794142[/snapback] no silly, it's the VaBills school of logic.
TPS Posted October 5, 2006 Posted October 5, 2006 I'm sure it's only liberal groups who believe in this global warming crap... climate change?
VABills Posted October 5, 2006 Author Posted October 5, 2006 My point is there seems to lots of articles saying that GW is getting worse and is the cause of hurricane frequency and stregth. So now scientists seem to be backing off that since their bold predictions of a worse season then last year didn't occur. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1099102,00.html Whether GW is true or not, I am not debating, I am debating the sensationalism that the tree hugging crowd, Goreits, etc... like to constantly orate about, and then when things are different, they have another excuse to dismiss their earlier findings.
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 5, 2006 Posted October 5, 2006 My son goes to school with a kid who's father raises american buffalo (bison)... He said that you can't believe how much of a coat the baby bison already have this year... Much, much longer than he can ever remember. You make the call! LET IT SNOW BABY!!!!
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 5, 2006 Posted October 5, 2006 Stronger winters and less hurricanes is also a sign of global warming. Global warming=More extreme and volatile weather! That doesn't mean JUST hurricanes...
VABills Posted October 5, 2006 Author Posted October 5, 2006 Stronger winters and less hurricanes is also a sign of global warming. Global warming=More extreme and volatile weather! That doesn't mean JUST hurricanes... 796214[/snapback] So basically you're saying what most everyone says. No matter the weather it's GW.
TPS Posted October 5, 2006 Posted October 5, 2006 My point is there seems to lots of articles saying that GW is getting worse and is the cause of hurricane frequency and stregth. So now scientists seem to be backing off that since their bold predictions of a worse season then last year didn't occur. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1099102,00.html Whether GW is true or not, I am not debating, I am debating the sensationalism that the tree hugging crowd, Goreits, etc... like to constantly orate about, and then when things are different, they have another excuse to dismiss their earlier findings. 796186[/snapback] I think people sensationalize it because it's not something you can reverse or slow in a short period: something has to be done now before we pass the tipping point. Fortunately, businessmen/investors have to be pragmatic, and they know which side is spinning the issue.
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 5, 2006 Posted October 5, 2006 So basically you're saying what most everyone says. No matter the weather it's GW. 796237[/snapback] No. Don't put words in my mouth... I can do that just fine without your help... I am saying that there IS global warming and it has a negative impact. GW and his ilk's problem is that they want to just say: "Weather or not, there will be weather."
VABills Posted October 5, 2006 Author Posted October 5, 2006 No. Don't put words in my mouth... I can do that just fine without your help... I am saying that there IS global warming and it has a negative impact. GW and his ilk's problem is that they want to just say: "Weather or not, there will be weather." 796304[/snapback] No, no, no. Not GW as in Bush bad. GW as in Global Warming. As in, if the winter is bad, it's Global warming. If it's good it's global warning, if it's sunny and hot, its GW.
Wacka Posted October 5, 2006 Posted October 5, 2006 I think people sensationalize it because it's not something you can reverse or slow in a short period: something has to be done now before we pass the tipping point. Fortunately, businessmen/investors have to be pragmatic, and they know which side is spinning the issue. 796238[/snapback] Tipping point- the new eco-freak buzzword.
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 5, 2006 Posted October 5, 2006 No, no, no. Not GW as in Bush bad. GW as in Global Warming. As in, if the winter is bad, it's Global warming. If it's good it's global warning, if it's sunny and hot, its GW. 796444[/snapback] Okay, then yes. Here is the reason for me. Because of the extremes and swings in weather... Things don't appear to staying consistent... I think the experts would say that it is the volatility of those swings that appear to be caused by a global warming trend.
VABills Posted October 5, 2006 Author Posted October 5, 2006 Okay, then yes. Here is the reason for me. Because of the extremes and swings in weather... Things don't appear to staying consistent... I think the experts would say that it is the volatility of those swings that appear to be caused by a global warming trend. 796541[/snapback] And while I worry about industrial pollution, I haven't seen enough evidence that isn't politically or economimically movivated to have me believe that GW is as bad as some think. If you look at the history of the world there have been some major swings in weather over just the last 10K years, and for the "experts" to blame it on mankind is disingenuous at best. My concern is more with industrial pollution and the slow posining of ourselves and children.
slothrop Posted October 6, 2006 Posted October 6, 2006 And while I worry about industrial pollution, I haven't seen enough evidence that isn't politically or economimically movivated to have me believe that GW is as bad as some think. If you look at the history of the world there have been some major swings in weather over just the last 10K years, and for the "experts" to blame it on mankind is disingenuous at best. My concern is more with industrial pollution and the slow posining of ourselves and children. 796703[/snapback] What science have you looked at? Cite me the scientific research that you point to that states humans have not caused/accelerated global warming.
VABills Posted October 6, 2006 Author Posted October 6, 2006 What science have you looked at? Cite me the scientific research that you point to that states humans have not caused/accelerated global warming. 796731[/snapback] How's about the opinions of one of the 11 scientists from the National Academy of Science who was asked to review the basis for the Kyoto Treay? http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/OpEds/LindzenWSJ.pdf http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
Recommended Posts