Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Clifford View Post
    Hi Richard,

    After doing a little research on this it is evident that no firm consensus can be made whether global warming is causing an increase in the frequency of hurricanes or their intensity. I read several studies that said they found a correlation between global warming and the frequency of hurricanes, especially in the Atlantic and other studies that say there is no correlation.

    However, even the quote above you used from the Consensus Statements by International Workshop on Tropical Cyclones indicates that global warming in theory will cause an increase in intensity of tropical cyclones.


    This is just an example of people who take something that is true (global warming) and use it for their own purposes, whether for political reasons or researchers wanting to get more grant money so they can do more research. If they said global warming was not going to cause some major catastrophe their research would probably not get funded.
    Hey there Clifford,

    It's good to have you reviewing the evidence. Intuitively, it seems to make sense that both the frequency and intensity of cyclones would increase with Global Warming because warm water drives them. I am guessing that's why the Global Warming folks simply assumed they were increasing. And the fact they cause "disasters" made them very "sexy" for the alarmists, so it was pretty much impossible for them to resist using them (especially after Katrina) as proof that Global Warming was already causing disasters.

    And I agree with you that funding is an important motivation that impacts the scientific study of Global Warming. We have both POLITICS and MONEY corrupting the process. And it's on both sides of the issue. The Oil Companies have plenty of vested interests here! It's the "perfect storm" since Big Oil is typically aligned with the Right and Environmentalism is typically aligned with the Left, so polarization of this issue along the political lines of Left/Right seems inevitable.


    Quote Originally Posted by Clifford View Post
    I like how you used the term pop-science publications to discredit the article they published that indicated the number of Atlantic hurricanes has been increasing. It looked like a legitimate study by two qualified scientists to me. I have read other studies that support that conclusion, but there are also studies that don't support it, so I think for now the jury is still out.
    That was a mistake on my part. I don't know if the publisher of that article is properly identified as "pop-science." Sorry.

    I agree the jury is out on this issue. And that's why the wide-spread GW alarmist propaganda, such as that put forth by Al Gore and his followers, is so very egregious.


    Quote Originally Posted by Clifford View Post
    Even though I believe that global warming is real and is partly caused by people, I don't subscribe to all the alarmist propaganda that says we are heading for catastrophe unless we stop human caused warming. Some parts of the world will benefit from global warming due to longer growing seasons and more precipitation, while other parts of the world it will have a negative impact by causing drought conditions etc. This has always been the case throughout earth's history where the climate has always been changing. The only difference this time is humans are adding to it. I agree that there are more important things to focus on then global warming. I am sure if you were around during the last ice age you would have appreciated some human caused global warming.

    Clifford
    Excellent summary.

    But I'm still very concerned about the related issues of habitat destruction, poverty, pollution, and war. I know those are problems caused by people, and there are workable solutions that we should be focusing on. I don't have the same belief about Global Warming.

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Hey there Clifford,

    It's good to have you reviewing the evidence. Intuitively, it seems to make sense that both the frequency and intensity of cyclones would increase with Global Warming because warm water drives them. I am guessing that's why the Global Warming folks simply assumed they were increasing. And the fact they cause "disasters" made them very "sexy" for the alarmists, so it was pretty much impossible for them to resist using them (especially after Katrina) as proof that Global Warming was already causing disasters.

    And I agree with you that funding is an important motivation that impacts the scientific study of Global Warming. We have both POLITICS and MONEY corrupting the process. And it's on both sides of the issue. The Oil Companies have plenty of vested interests here! It's the "perfect storm" since Big Oil is typically aligned with the Right and Environmentalism is typically aligned with the Left, so polarization of this issue along the political lines of Left/Right seems inevitable.



    That was a mistake on my part. I don't know if the publisher of that article is properly identified as "pop-science." Sorry.

    I agree the jury is out on this issue. And that's why the wide-spread GW alarmist propaganda, such as that put forth by Al Gore and his followers, is so very egregious.



    Excellent summary.

    But I'm still very concerned about the related issues of habitat destruction, poverty, pollution, and war. I know those are problems caused by people, and there are workable solutions that we should be focusing on. I don't have the same belief about Global Warming.

    Richard
    Hi Richard,

    It's good to have you reviewing the evidence. Intuitively, it seems to make sense that both the frequency and intensity of cyclones would increase with Global Warming because warm water drives them. I am guessing that's why the Global Warming folks simply assumed they were increasing. And the fact they cause "disasters" made them very "sexy" for the alarmists, so it was pretty much impossible for them to resist using them (especially after Katrina) as proof that Global Warming was already causing disasters.
    I have read a couple of studies that said the frequency would actually decrease due to global warming, because warming would cause wind shear aloft to increase which is detrimental to hurricane development. But they then went on to say the intensity of those hurricanes that did develop would increase.

    Another study I read said that hurricane intensity and frequency are increasing but currently are below detectable levels so that is why we don't see any upward trends yet.

    Another reason some claim they have detected upward trends is since the advent of satellite observations in the 1960s it is easier to detect tropical storms whereas before some storms went undetected. They claim they try to take this into account, but it would still be hard to come up with reliable numbers it seems to me.

    What also gets confusing when some say they have found an upward trend and others don't is what part of the world are they are looking at. Some studies were only done in the Atlantic while other were looking at the whole globe. When you look at the Atlantic there seems to be an increase in the last 50 to 100 years, but in the Pacific there has been a decrease recently, so when you look at the globe as a whole there doesn't seem to be any increase.

    So it doesn't seem to be as simple as warmer water will equal more tropical storms and greater intensities. Warming also creates other consequences or feedbacks that would inhibit development.

    Clifford

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Hey Clifford,

    Have you read this article?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/op...=1&ref=opinion

    It goes through a long and convoluted hypothetical explanation as to why the extreme cold over much of the globe is caused by global warming.

    I think it is very instructive. First, it shows how the some folks seem desperate to prove Global Warming no matter what the evidence suggests. And whether the explanation is true or false, it shows that climate scientists don't really have a clue how to make long term predictions about the climate. It seems they don't know if more CO2 will ultimately lead to higher or lower temps. It seems to me that's a pretty serious lack of knowledge, given the ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY OF DOOM with which the alarmists speak.

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,113
    It seems to me that's a pretty serious lack of knowledge, given the ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY OF DOOM with which the alarmists speak.

    Richard
    Must be Dispensationalists.....
    Brother Les

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Hey Clifford,

    Have you read this article?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/op...=1&ref=opinion

    It goes through a long and convoluted hypothetical explanation as to why the extreme cold over much of the globe is caused by global warming.

    I think it is very instructive. First, it shows how the some folks seem desperate to prove Global Warming no matter what the evidence suggests. And whether the explanation is true or false, it shows that climate scientists don't really have a clue how to make long term predictions about the climate. It seems they don't know if more CO2 will ultimately lead to higher or lower temps. It seems to me that's a pretty serious lack of knowledge, given the ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY OF DOOM with which the alarmists speak.

    Richard
    Hi Richard,

    In fact I just read that article yesterday.

    It goes through a long and convoluted hypothetical explanation as to why the extreme cold over much of the globe is caused by global warming.
    If the hypothesis is true it would explain why some areas are experiencing such cold temperatures. The recent cold snap in western Europe was cause by a similar situation. A large blocking high over Greenland diverted the jet stream northward, then when it headed southward on the other side of the blocking high it brought cold arctic air with it.

    But did you notice he used global warming as the reason for the increased snow in Siberia. The melting of the arctic ice put more water vapor into the atmosphere so it caused more snow over Siberia.

    I think it is very instructive. First, it shows how the some folks seem desperate to prove Global Warming no matter what the evidence suggests. And whether the explanation is true or false, it shows that climate scientists don't really have a clue how to make long term predictions about the climate. It seems they don't know if more CO2 will ultimately lead to higher or lower temps. It seems to me that's a pretty serious lack of knowledge, given the ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY OF DOOM with which the alarmists speak.
    Short term climate changes don't prove or disprove global warming. They could just be caused by natural variability. Global warming just means the average global temperature is warming. This could happen even though a particular region is experiencing colder than normal temperatures for a period of time. Some climate models show global warming causing greater variability in the weather. Climate models show that with increased CO2 temperatures will increase. But that is an average over a long period time. That would not preclude a colder than normal winter in a particular area, but the long term trend would be for increasing temperatures.

    The people who are skeptical of global warming always cite cold snaps as evidence that global warming is not real. But they are silent when record setting heatwaves occur like what happened is Russia last summer.

    Of course increased CO2 causing increasing temperatures would cause more evaporation which might in turn cause more clouds which would reflect solar energy back into space which would counteract some of the warming and might even halt it. There is a lot of uncertainty in trying to predict what will be the dominate influence in future climate ,whether natural variability or human caused warming, or what will be the effects of all the different feedback mechanisms, so any credible scientist cannot speak with a great deal of certainty about future climate change in my opinion.

    Clifford

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    201

    Failed doomsday climate predictions

    Hey Richard,

    Did you see this article about 8 failed environmental predictions? It just shows the global warming doomsayers have little credibility. But I'm sure it won't stop them from making more failed predictions, just like the futurists, and many people will continue to believe them.

    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...est=latestnews

    Have a happy New Year,

    Clifford

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Clifford View Post
    Hey Richard,

    Did you see this article about 8 failed environmental predictions? It just shows the global warming doomsayers have little credibility. But I'm sure it won't stop them from making more failed predictions, just like the futurists, and many people will continue to believe them.

    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...est=latestnews

    Have a happy New Year,

    Clifford
    Great link Clifford!

    Thanks for the New Year's present.

    Happy New Year to you too.

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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