speedy 0 #1 April 12, 2007 I am glad the global warming has not affected hurricanes otherwise things would be really bad for you guys across the pond. From http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/ 1. The 1886 hurricane season has been analyzed to be the busiest on record for the continental United States 2. Extremely busy Decade for the U.S. Atlantic seaboard: The 1890s were one of the busiest decades on record for the Atlantic seaboard of the United States 3. Longest lasting hurricane on record: Storm #3 (also known as the "San Ciriaco" hurricane for its impact in Puerto Rico in 1899 And all this before we had any major increase of CO2. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #2 April 12, 2007 After watching the "Great Global Warming Swindle" pieces that someone posted, it was a CBC production, I'm a lot less sympathetic to the fringe environmentalists. CO2 is being overrated. The Sun is the real power player here. Having said that, I still believe that we should use the awareness at the very least to advance technologies across the board to develop more environmentally responsible systems.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #3 April 12, 2007 QuoteCO2 is being overrated. The Sun is the real power player here. Having said that, I still believe that we should use the awareness at the very least to advance technologies across the board to develop more environmentally responsible systems. Ditto.... but whatever is causing it man or the sun... it will affect us and making investments in a more sustainable source of energy than the finite sources we use now.. is just a smart investment for our planet... which is the only place we as a species can live at the moment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #4 April 12, 2007 >CO2 is being overrated. The Sun is the real power player here. CO2 forcing: 1.5 W/m² Direct solar forcing: 0.3 W/m² Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #5 April 12, 2007 Quote>CO2 is being overrated. The Sun is the real power player here. CO2 forcing: 1.5 W/m² Direct solar forcing: 0.3 W/m² Maybe Gawain has got it wrong based on watts per square meter. But maybe your figures are wrong on true forcing. The 0.3 W/m² is real forcing, the CO2 forcing of 1.5 W/m² is based on something different. It's not as simple as you make out. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #6 April 12, 2007 >The 0.3 W/m² is real forcing, the CO2 forcing of 1.5 W/m² is based >on something different. Do you understand what the term "forcing" means? >It's not as simple as you make out. So the .3w/m2 is real and simple, but the 1.5w/m2 is wrong, complicated and unreal? Do you have anything to back up your assertion? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #7 April 13, 2007 Quote>The 0.3 W/m² is real forcing, the CO2 forcing of 1.5 W/m² is based >on something different. Do you understand what the term "forcing" means? >It's not as simple as you make out. So the .3w/m2 is real and simple, but the 1.5w/m2 is wrong, complicated and unreal? Do you have anything to back up your assertion? What I really wanted to say was, it should be fairly easy to measure the energy the sun is putting out. Trying to measure how the atmosphere reacts to this energy is more complicated. So, yes, I don't understand what forcing means, apart from the fact I cannot force my suitcase shut if there is too much stuff in it. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
twibbles 0 #8 April 14, 2007 Just thinking out loud here... Carbon dioxide doesn't generate heat on it's own, It traps heat in atmosphere. And Solar forcing depends partly on the atmosphere to trap heat. Unless you're measuring the wattage absorbed on bare rock without an overlying atmosphere, what do they use as standard for measuring solar forcing? Blackbody absorption? Feel free to poke holes in my thinking... Eugene "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #9 April 14, 2007 Quote>The 0.3 W/m² is real forcing, the CO2 forcing of 1.5 W/m² is based >on something different. Do you understand what the term "forcing" means? >It's not as simple as you make out. So the .3w/m2 is real and simple, but the 1.5w/m2 is wrong, complicated and unreal? Do you have anything to back up your assertion? If what you post was all that was involved the debate (and the science) would be over. It is not.........is it."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #10 April 14, 2007 QuoteQuote>The 0.3 W/m² is real forcing, the CO2 forcing of 1.5 W/m² is based >on something different. Do you understand what the term "forcing" means? >It's not as simple as you make out. So the .3w/m2 is real and simple, but the 1.5w/m2 is wrong, complicated and unreal? Do you have anything to back up your assertion? If what you post was all that was involved the debate (and the science) would be over. It is not.........is it. There are always unscrupulous people willing to make whores of themselves - even among scientists.www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html If you read peer reviewed journals instead of politically motivated editorials (aka "follow the money"), there's no doubt that now the reputable scientists are dotting the i's and crossing the t's.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #11 April 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote>The 0.3 W/m² is real forcing, the CO2 forcing of 1.5 W/m² is based >on something different. Do you understand what the term "forcing" means? >It's not as simple as you make out. So the .3w/m2 is real and simple, but the 1.5w/m2 is wrong, complicated and unreal? Do you have anything to back up your assertion? If what you post was all that was involved the debate (and the science) would be over. It is not.........is it. There are always unscrupulous people willing to make whores of themselves - even among scientists.www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html If you read peer reviewed journals instead of politically motivated editorials (aka "follow the money"), there's no doubt that now the reputable scientists are dotting the i's and crossing the t's. Bull shit There are just as many on the other side. There is doubt despite you and yours best attempts at silencing the debate"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #12 April 14, 2007 Quote There are always unscrupulous people willing to make whores of themselves - even among scientists.www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html If you read peer reviewed journals instead of politically motivated editorials (aka "follow the money"), there's no doubt that now the reputable scientists are dotting the i's and crossing the t's. Smearing people who disagree with you on an issue is no better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #13 April 15, 2007 >If what you post was all that was involved the debate (and the science) would be over. It would be. If people were interested in just what happened to the World Trade Center, rather than sexy conspiracy theories, then what happened on September 11, 2001 would be an open and shut case. But there are people who really want to believe in complex conspiracy theories - so there is a lot of debate, Weekly World News articles and conspiracy videos. If people were interested in just biology, then there would really be no debate over the science of evolution. But people feel their religion is being threatened by this particular facet of science, and they feel they must defend it. Thus creationism, "intelligent design" and its myriad variants create a "debate" so that religious extremists can claim "no one can agree if the theory of evolution is valid or not!" Likewise, if people were interested in the science of climate change, there would be no nonsense articles about how people are "disproving" global warming. (Nor would there be articles about how the world is going to end tomorrow.) But many people desperately need to see "their side win" and to protect the most lucrative money sources on the planet - the oil companies. So a debate is manufactured. As you have said many times, follow the money. See whether the scientific articles published in peer-reviewed journals claim "global warming is all a bunch of hooey." Now check out what the articles in oil company sponsored websites claim. See a difference? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #14 April 15, 2007 Bill those comparisons don't all line up with the topic, but I know what you mean. The debate could be just as simple as: Forecasting the weather more than a week out is next to impossible, and local forecasts within a week are still, often less than accurate in many instances. Having said that, how can anyone, with absolute certainty say they can determine global weather behavior over the next 100 years, with any accuracy.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #15 April 15, 2007 >Having said that, how can anyone, with absolute certainty say they >can determine global weather behavior over the next 100 years, with >any accuracy. No one can! All we can do is forecast trends. We can't predict the weather on April 14th of next year with any accyracy, but the Farmer's Almanac will do a pretty good job of telling you what is _likely_ to happen. Likewise, we can't predict exactly what the weather will be like worldwide in 2100, but we know it will be a bit warmer overall - and we can predict what is _likely_ to happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #16 April 15, 2007 Quote>Having said that, how can anyone, with absolute certainty say they >can determine global weather behavior over the next 100 years, with >any accuracy. No one can! All we can do is forecast trends. We can't predict the weather on April 14th of next year with any accyracy, but the Farmer's Almanac will do a pretty good job of telling you what is _likely_ to happen. Likewise, we can't predict exactly what the weather will be like worldwide in 2100, but we know it will be a bit warmer overall - and we can predict what is _likely_ to happen. I found these charts from http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/ Some don't show much of a pattern. The most telling is the 1Myr, which represents the past 1M, 150K, 16K, and 150 years, I had to crop out the 1M year part, for size consideration, but you have the link... Anyway, if you had to choose a pattern...which way do you see it going? Especially the 150 thousand year chart...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #17 April 15, 2007 Quote>Having said that, how can anyone, with absolute certainty say they >can determine global weather behavior over the next 100 years, with >any accuracy. No one can! All we can do is forecast trends. Quote And look at history. Cycles over and over"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,119 #18 April 15, 2007 >Anyway, if you had to choose a pattern...which way do you see it going? I see temperatures changing pretty slowly with time, with a few exceptions. The 1Myr graph misses many of the "big" events like the K-T extinction event, which was associated with a rapid temp change. Caused extinction of around 90% of the species on the planet. (That one was due to a massive meteor impact.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #19 April 15, 2007 From a type I right wing politicaly motivated man made global warming denier. For your consideration and comment. http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #20 April 15, 2007 How about this one from an NPR debate. three links on the page http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/03/intelligence-squared-climate-debate.html"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites speedy 0 #21 April 16, 2007 QuoteIf you read peer reviewed journals instead of politically motivated editorials (aka "follow the money"), there's no doubt that now the reputable scientists are dotting the i's and crossing the t's. So here's one of your peer reviewed journals from 2006 about recent ocean cooling -“Recent cooling of the upper ocean” Strange that only a year later they must release - “Correction to ‘Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean’” Even though the correction removes the cooling, it still doesn't show the warming that the climate models expect and upon which the IPCC has based it's latest report.. To me this means there is more work involved than dotting the i's and crossing the t's. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #22 April 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteIf you read peer reviewed journals instead of politically motivated editorials (aka "follow the money"), there's no doubt that now the reputable scientists are dotting the i's and crossing the t's. So here's one of your peer reviewed journals from 2006 about recent ocean cooling -“Recent cooling of the upper ocean” Strange that only a year later they must release - “Correction to ‘Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean’” Even though the correction removes the cooling, it still doesn't show the warming that the climate models expect and upon which the IPCC has based it's latest report.. To me this means there is more work involved than dotting the i's and crossing the t's. That IS dotting i's and crossing t's. Tidying up the details.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites speedy 0 #23 April 16, 2007 Quote Quote Quote If you read peer reviewed journals instead of politically motivated editorials (aka "follow the money"), there's no doubt that now the reputable scientists are dotting the i's and crossing the t's. So here's one of your peer reviewed journals from 2006 about recent ocean cooling -“Recent cooling of the upper ocean” Strange that only a year later they must release - “Correction to ‘Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean’” Even though the correction removes the cooling, it still doesn't show the warming that the climate models expect and upon which the IPCC has based it's latest report.. To me this means there is more work involved than dotting the i's and crossing the t's. That IS dotting i's and crossing t's. Tidying up the details. A difference of 1.0 W/m² over 70% of the planets surface is dotting i's and crossing t's ? Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #24 April 16, 2007 Hell I hate cold water.. lets warm it all up....BORING weather SUCKS... its much more newsworthy when we have "EXCITING" weather.....I was working on my boat with the twin 350's in it this weekend....Just doing my part of warmin g up the water... at .75 MPG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #25 April 16, 2007 Is anyone (in the US) having a warmer than average Spring? How about up in New England? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 1 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
billvon 3,119 #18 April 15, 2007 >Anyway, if you had to choose a pattern...which way do you see it going? I see temperatures changing pretty slowly with time, with a few exceptions. The 1Myr graph misses many of the "big" events like the K-T extinction event, which was associated with a rapid temp change. Caused extinction of around 90% of the species on the planet. (That one was due to a massive meteor impact.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #19 April 15, 2007 From a type I right wing politicaly motivated man made global warming denier. For your consideration and comment. http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #20 April 15, 2007 How about this one from an NPR debate. three links on the page http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/03/intelligence-squared-climate-debate.html"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #21 April 16, 2007 QuoteIf you read peer reviewed journals instead of politically motivated editorials (aka "follow the money"), there's no doubt that now the reputable scientists are dotting the i's and crossing the t's. So here's one of your peer reviewed journals from 2006 about recent ocean cooling -“Recent cooling of the upper ocean” Strange that only a year later they must release - “Correction to ‘Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean’” Even though the correction removes the cooling, it still doesn't show the warming that the climate models expect and upon which the IPCC has based it's latest report.. To me this means there is more work involved than dotting the i's and crossing the t's. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #22 April 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteIf you read peer reviewed journals instead of politically motivated editorials (aka "follow the money"), there's no doubt that now the reputable scientists are dotting the i's and crossing the t's. So here's one of your peer reviewed journals from 2006 about recent ocean cooling -“Recent cooling of the upper ocean” Strange that only a year later they must release - “Correction to ‘Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean’” Even though the correction removes the cooling, it still doesn't show the warming that the climate models expect and upon which the IPCC has based it's latest report.. To me this means there is more work involved than dotting the i's and crossing the t's. That IS dotting i's and crossing t's. Tidying up the details.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #23 April 16, 2007 Quote Quote Quote If you read peer reviewed journals instead of politically motivated editorials (aka "follow the money"), there's no doubt that now the reputable scientists are dotting the i's and crossing the t's. So here's one of your peer reviewed journals from 2006 about recent ocean cooling -“Recent cooling of the upper ocean” Strange that only a year later they must release - “Correction to ‘Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean’” Even though the correction removes the cooling, it still doesn't show the warming that the climate models expect and upon which the IPCC has based it's latest report.. To me this means there is more work involved than dotting the i's and crossing the t's. That IS dotting i's and crossing t's. Tidying up the details. A difference of 1.0 W/m² over 70% of the planets surface is dotting i's and crossing t's ? Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #24 April 16, 2007 Hell I hate cold water.. lets warm it all up....BORING weather SUCKS... its much more newsworthy when we have "EXCITING" weather.....I was working on my boat with the twin 350's in it this weekend....Just doing my part of warmin g up the water... at .75 MPG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #25 April 16, 2007 Is anyone (in the US) having a warmer than average Spring? How about up in New England? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
