Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,236
    That's how weather works. Chaotic weather is a sign of global warming. Currently, cold in northern Europe but hot in southern Europe, how do you explain? And record rainfall causing floods in Australia, how do you explain?

    There is always extreme in temperature. Winter may be very cold in certain area of the world but very hot in other areas of the world. Winter may be cold today but come summer, it may be much warmer. This is according to the Law of Energy Transfer which basically means that energy is never lost or gained; a good example is the fridge, it requires hot energy to produce ice. Same as the earth, it requires the power of the sun to create winter and summer but the same amount of energy from the sun is never lost or gain but will be used in other forms; if it is cold somewhere, it will be warm somewhere.

    Energy transfers within food webs are governed by the first and second laws of thermodynamics. The first law relates to quantities of energy. It states that energy can be transformed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. This law suggests that all energy transfers, gains, and losses within a food web can be accounted for in an energy budget.

    The second law relates to the quality of energy. This law states that whenever energy is transformed, some of must be degraded into a less useful form.


    http://science.jrank.org/pages/2507/...food-webs.html


    Here is an article that explains the chaotic weather patterns which is a sign of global warming. Average world temperature do shows that the world is getting warmer....or were all the weather scientists and leaders at Cancun wrong?

    http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ...waves-47082601

    Many Blessings.
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheow Wee Hock View Post
    That's how weather works. Chaotic weather is a sign of global warming. Currently, cold in northern Europe but hot in southern Europe, how do you explain? And record rainfall causing floods in Australia, how do you explain?
    Chaotic weather is not a sign of global warming. Weather always has been and always will be "chaotic." Indeed, weather patterns are the archetype of chaotic systems. The complexity of the weather makes it unpredictable and chaotic. The impossibility of long-range prediction of weather is mentioned in almost any discussion of chaos theory. Here is an entry from the article on CHAOS THEORY on Wikipedia:
    Sensitivity to initial conditions is popularly known as the "butterfly effect", so called because of the title of a paper given by Edward Lorenz in 1972 to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C. entitled Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas? The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale phenomena. Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different.
    A consequence of sensitivity to initial conditions is that if we start with only a finite amount of information about the system (as is usually the case in practice), then beyond a certain time the system will no longer be predictable. This is most familiar in the case of weather, which is generally predictable only about a week ahead.
    This is yet another example of the ludicrous ignorant pseudo-science propagated by global warming alarmists. Another obvious example is when they used Hurricane Katrina as "proof" of global warming and now they are "very quiet" about that because hurricanes have been at a 30 year low for quite a while.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheow Wee Hock View Post
    There is always extreme in temperature. Winter may be very cold in certain area of the world but very hot in other areas of the world. Winter may be cold today but come summer, it may be much warmer. This is according to the Law of Energy Transfer which basically means that energy is never lost or gained; a good example is the fridge, it requires hot energy to produce ice. Same as the earth, it requires the power of the sun to create winter and summer but the same amount of energy from the sun is never lost or gain but will be used in other forms; if it is cold somewhere, it will be warm somewhere.
    Your explanation is not correct. Energy in the earth's climate system is lost by radiation into space. The balance between energy in and energy out determines the average temperature. Greenhouse gasses reduce the rate of the flow of energy out, and that's why they cause the temperature to increase. The question is how much will an increase in CO2 cause the temperature to increase? The alarmists warn that there might be a positive feedback with water vapor, and that this might cause a larger increase than the CO2 alone. They might be right. Or they might be wrong. Nobody knows yet. There is a good chance that the system is self-regulating so that when the temp goes up a bit, there will be more clouds which will cause it to cool. This would be the effect of a negative water vapor feedback.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheow Wee Hock View Post
    Here is an article that explains the chaotic weather patterns which is a sign of global warming. Average world temperature do shows that the world is getting warmer....or were all the weather scientists and leaders at Cancun wrong?

    http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ...waves-47082601

    Many Blessings.
    That article was written in 2009. What does it have to do with the scientists in Cancun?

    Now let me repeat. I think the efforts to stop pollution, stop habit destruction, move to sustainable fuels, and so on are all extremely important and should be among our first priorities. But creating an anti-scientific doomsday cult is not the way to accomplish those important tasks. On the contrary, the global warming doomsday cult is counter-productive.

    All the very best,

    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

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,236
    One of the cause of the chaotic weather is that the jet strweam has moved further south resulting in snowing in Australia and Europe but warm in Greenland:

    Freak diversion of jet stream is paralyzing the globe with freezing conditions
    The News - Climate-Environment
    December 23, 2010
    It's snowing in Australia and California yet 'warm' in Greenland
    The freezing conditions that have blasted Britain are being blamed on a series of weather patterns that are bringing Arctic temperatures to much of western Europe, California and even Australia.

    One of the main factors is a change in the position of the jet stream - the fast-moving current of air that moves from west to east, high in the atmosphere.

    Changes in the jet stream's path can cause massive changes in weather conditions across the globe and may be why Australians are now shivering their way through summer and the current freezing conditions in California.

    In a normal British winter - when conditions are mild and soggy - the jet stream lies over northern Europe, at an altitude of between 35,000 to 50,000 fee. [ DAILY MAIL UK ]


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz18yTIkPfp

    Many Blessings and Merry Christmas
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheow Wee Hock View Post
    One of the cause of the chaotic weather is that the jet strweam has moved further south resulting in snowing in Australia and Europe but warm in Greenland:

    Freak diversion of jet stream is paralyzing the globe with freezing conditions
    The News - Climate-Environment
    December 23, 2010
    It's snowing in Australia and California yet 'warm' in Greenland
    The freezing conditions that have blasted Britain are being blamed on a series of weather patterns that are bringing Arctic temperatures to much of western Europe, California and even Australia.
    Hey Cheow,

    Did you understand my last post that explained that weather is a chaotic system?

    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

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Do scientist know what part of the Milankovitch cycle the earth is presently in?

    Rose
    Hi Rose,

    The Milankovitch cycles are actually composed of 3 different cycles, each of which affects how solar radiation is distributed during the earth's annual cycle around the sun. It is important to note that the stage of the cycle it is in does not change the total amount of solar radiation that is received during the year only how it is distributed around the earth. The 3 cycles are:

    1. The first of the three Milankovitch Cycles is the Earth's eccentricity. Eccentricity is, simply, the shape of the Earth's orbit around the Sun. This constantly fluctuating, orbital shape ranges between more and less elliptical (0 to 5% ellipticity) on a cycle of about 100,000 years. These oscillations, from more elliptic to less elliptic, are of prime importance to glaciation in that it alters the distance from the Earth to the Sun, thus changing the distance the Sun's short wave radiation must travel to reach Earth, subsequently reducing or increasing the amount of radiation received at the Earth's surface in different seasons.

    Today a difference of only about 3 percent occurs between aphelion (farthest point) and perihelion (closest point). This 3 percent difference in distance means that Earth experiences a 6 percent increase in received solar energy in January than in July. This 6 percent range of variability is not always the case, however. When the Earth's orbit is most elliptical the amount of solar energy received at the perihelion would be in the range of 20 to 30 percent more than at aphelion. Most certainly these continually altering amounts of received solar energy around the globe result in prominent changes in the Earth's climate and glacial regimes. At present the orbital eccentricity is nearly at the minimum of its cycle.

    2. Axial tilt, the second of the three Milankovitch Cycles, is the inclination of the Earth's axis in relation to its plane of orbit around the Sun. Oscillations in the degree of Earth's axial tilt occur on a periodicity of 41,000 years from 21.5 to 24.5 degrees. Today the Earth's axial tilt is about 23.5 degrees, which largely accounts for our seasons. Because of the periodic variations of this angle the severity of the Earth's seasons changes. With less axial tilt the Sun's solar radiation is more evenly distributed between winter and summer. However, less tilt also increases the difference in radiation receipts between the equatorial and polar regions.

    One hypothesis for Earth's reaction to a smaller degree of axial tilt is that it would promote the growth of ice sheets. This response would be due to a warmer winter, in which warmer air would be able to hold more moisture, and subsequently produce a greater amount of snowfall. In addition, summer temperatures would be cooler, resulting in less melting of the winter's accumulation. At present, axial tilt is in the middle of its range.

    3. Today the Earth's axial tilt is about 23.5 degrees, which largely accounts for our seasons. Because of the periodic variations of this angle the severity of the Earth's seasons changes. With less axial tilt the Sun's solar radiation is more evenly distributed between winter and summer. However, less tilt also increases the difference in radiation receipts between the equatorial and polar regions.

    One hypothesis for Earth's reaction to a smaller degree of axial tilt is that it would promote the growth of ice sheets. This response would be due to a warmer winter, in which warmer air would be able to hold more moisture, and subsequently produce a greater amount of snowfall. In addition, summer temperatures would be cooler, resulting in less melting of the winter's accumulation. At present, axial tilt is in the middle of its range. Due to this wobble a climatically significant alteration must take place. When the axis is tilted towards Vega the positions of the Northern Hemisphere winter and summer solstices will coincide with the aphelion and perihelion, respectively. This means that the Northern Hemisphere will experience winter when the Earth is furthest from the Sun and summer when the Earth is closest to the Sun. This coincidence will result in greater seasonal contrasts. At present, the Earth is at perihelion very close to the winter solstice.

    I got this information at the following link:
    http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geo...1/milankov.htm

    It has diagrams that illustrate the 3 cycles.

    Clifford

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Chaotic weather is not a sign of global warming. Weather always has been and always will be "chaotic." Indeed, weather patterns are the archetype of chaotic systems. The complexity of the weather makes it unpredictable and chaotic. The impossibility of long-range prediction of weather is mentioned in almost any discussion of chaos theory. Here is an entry from the article on CHAOS THEORY on Wikipedia:
    Sensitivity to initial conditions is popularly known as the "butterfly effect", so called because of the title of a paper given by Edward Lorenz in 1972 to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C. entitled Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas? The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale phenomena. Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different.
    A consequence of sensitivity to initial conditions is that if we start with only a finite amount of information about the system (as is usually the case in practice), then beyond a certain time the system will no longer be predictable. This is most familiar in the case of weather, which is generally predictable only about a week ahead.
    This is yet another example of the ludicrous ignorant pseudo-science propagated by global warming alarmists. Another obvious example is when they used Hurricane Katrina as "proof" of global warming and now they are "very quiet" about that because hurricanes have been at a 30 year low for quite a while.


    Your explanation is not correct. Energy in the earth's climate system is lost by radiation into space. The balance between energy in and energy out determines the average temperature. Greenhouse gasses reduce the rate of the flow of energy out, and that's why they cause the temperature to increase. The question is how much will an increase in CO2 cause the temperature to increase? The alarmists warn that there might be a positive feedback with water vapor, and that this might cause a larger increase than the CO2 alone. They might be right. Or they might be wrong. Nobody knows yet. There is a good chance that the system is self-regulating so that when the temp goes up a bit, there will be more clouds which will cause it to cool. This would be the effect of a negative water vapor feedback.


    That article was written in 2009. What does it have to do with the scientists in Cancun?

    Now let me repeat. I think the efforts to stop pollution, stop habit destruction, move to sustainable fuels, and so on are all extremely important and should be among our first priorities. But creating an anti-scientific doomsday cult is not the way to accomplish those important tasks. On the contrary, the global warming doomsday cult is counter-productive.

    All the very best,

    Richard
    Hi Richard,

    Chaotic weather is not a sign of global warming. Weather always has been and always will be "chaotic." Indeed, weather patterns are the archetype of chaotic systems. The complexity of the weather makes it unpredictable and chaotic. The impossibility of long-range prediction of weather is mentioned in almost any discussion of chaos theory
    I think Cheow might have meant was more variability in the weather is a sign of global warming. Some climate models show that global warming will cause greater variability in the weather. I think its probably due to the fact that warming is taking place faster in the higher northern latitudes than elsewhere. This would increase the temperature gradient between the higher northern latitudes and the equator. This temperature gradient is what causes the jet stream that circles the globe at mid-latitudes and the stronger the gradient the stronger that jet stream. Since most storm system form along or near the jet stream and are carried along by it a stronger jet stream could push a storm system further south, thus bringing colder air further south than normal. This is what has been happening in Europe lately. A huge blocking high over Greenland is sending the jet stream much further south than normal, hence all the cold and snow in Great Britain and France.

    As far as hurricanes go global warming predicts the number of more intense hurricanes will increase, not necessarily the total number of hurricanes will increase. I will check into this more.

    Clifford

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Clifford View Post
    Hi Richard,

    I think Cheow might have meant was more variability in the weather is a sign of global warming. Some climate models show that global warming will cause greater variability in the weather. I think its probably due to the fact that warming is taking place faster in the higher northern latitudes than elsewhere. This would increase the temperature gradient between the higher northern latitudes and the equator. This temperature gradient is what causes the jet stream that circles the globe at mid-latitudes and the stronger the gradient the stronger that jet stream. Since most storm system form along or near the jet stream and are carried along by it a stronger jet stream could push a storm system further south, thus bringing colder air further south than normal. This is what has been happening in Europe lately. A huge blocking high over Greenland is sending the jet stream much further south than normal, hence all the cold and snow in Great Britain and France.

    As far as hurricanes go global warming predicts the number of more intense hurricanes will increase, not necessarily the total number of hurricanes will increase. I will check into this more.

    Clifford
    Hey there Clifford,

    It's great to have a meteorologist amongst us!

    Your explanation of the change in the jet stream makes sense as an hypothesis, but I have no way to know if there is any evidence to support it. The problem is that we don't know what range of "normal variability" because we have had the ability to monitor the jet stream for only a few decades. This is an extremely short "sample" from which to draw conclusions.

    As for hurricanes, many good scientists have been very cautious in using hurricanes (cyclones) as proof of Global Warming:
    Consensus Statements by International Workshop on Tropical Cyclones-VI:
    1. Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point.
    2. No individual tropical cyclone can be directly attributed to climate change.
    3. The recent increase in societal impact from tropical cyclones has largely been caused by rising concentrations of population and infrastructure in coastal regions.
    4. Tropical cyclone wind-speed monitoring has changed dramatically over the last few decades, leading to difficulties in determining accurate trends.
    5. There is an observed multi-decadal variability of tropical cyclones in some regions whose causes, whether natural, anthropogenic or a combination, are currently being debated. This variability makes detecting any long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity difficult.
    6. It is likely that some increase in tropical cyclone peak wind-speed and rainfall will occur if the climate continues to warm. Model studies and theory project a 3-5% increase in wind-speed per degree Celsius increase of tropical sea surface temperatures.
    On the other hand, many Global Warming alarmists, especially the "pop" alarmists who are really polarized Left-Wing political activists, saw a great opportunity to capitalize on Katrina to manipulate ignorant folks into believing that both the frequency and the intensity of hurricanes would increase due to Global Warming. And there are pop-science publications that pushed the same idea. For example, here is an article from the ScienceDaily:
    ScienceDaily (Aug. 1, 2007) — About twice as many Atlantic hurricanes form each year on average than a century ago, according to a new statistical analysis of hurricanes and tropical storms in the north Atlantic. The study concludes that warmer sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and altered wind patterns associated with global climate change are fueling much of the increase.

    The study, by Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and Peter Webster of Georgia Institute of Technology, will be published in Philosophical
    Transactions of the Royal Society of London."

    These numbers are a strong indication that climate change is a major factor in the increasing number of Atlantic hurricanes," says Holland.
    They connected an increasing frequency with climate change. This was a common doctrine propagated by the Global Warming alarmists. Why do you think that Al Gore had many simultaneous hurricanes photoshopped onto the cover of his book? This was the post-Katrina dogma: Global Warming = more frequent and more powerful hurricanes and we are ALL GONNA DIE! But now the data directly contradicts their predictions, so they changed their predictions, now it is only the "intensity" but not the "frequency." This is why the "hype" can never be trusted, especially when it is lifted straight from the headlines of recent disasters like Katrina. It is pure psychological manipulation like any cult.

    Now don't get me wrong. I believe that CO2 causes some warming. But the focus on that issue is entirely political and it distracts from the real problems that are not controversial like habitat destruction, pollution, poverty, and war. It is absurd to think that we can make any progress by restricting the emission of CO2 if we can't even agree to quit spending trillions of dollars to destroy trillions of dollars of infrastructure of other nations. Consider the carbon footprint of war! Both in the process of destruction, and then the process of reconstruction, and the horrible living conditions of the folks displaced by war. Focusing on CO2 is like rearranging the chairs on the Titanic, or asking Hitler to please ensure that the Jews have proper dental care before he gassed them. It's all politics, politics, politics.

    All the best,

    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

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,236
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Hey there Clifford,

    It's great to have a meteorologist amongst us!

    Your explanation of the change in the jet stream makes sense as an hypothesis, but I have no way to know if there is any evidence to support it. The problem is that we don't know what range of "normal variability" because we have had the ability to monitor the jet stream for only a few decades. This is an extremely short "sample" from which to draw conclusions.

    As for hurricanes, many good scientists have been very cautious in using hurricanes (cyclones) as proof of Global Warming:
    Consensus Statements by International Workshop on Tropical Cyclones-VI:
    1. Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point.
    2. No individual tropical cyclone can be directly attributed to climate change.
    3. The recent increase in societal impact from tropical cyclones has largely been caused by rising concentrations of population and infrastructure in coastal regions.
    4. Tropical cyclone wind-speed monitoring has changed dramatically over the last few decades, leading to difficulties in determining accurate trends.
    5. There is an observed multi-decadal variability of tropical cyclones in some regions whose causes, whether natural, anthropogenic or a combination, are currently being debated. This variability makes detecting any long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity difficult.
    6. It is likely that some increase in tropical cyclone peak wind-speed and rainfall will occur if the climate continues to warm. Model studies and theory project a 3-5% increase in wind-speed per degree Celsius increase of tropical sea surface temperatures.
    On the other hand, many Global Warming alarmists, especially the "pop" alarmists who are really polarized Left-Wing political activists, saw a great opportunity to capitalize on Katrina to manipulate ignorant folks into believing that both the frequency and the intensity of hurricanes would increase due to Global Warming. And there are pop-science publications that pushed the same idea. For example, here is an article from the ScienceDaily:
    ScienceDaily (Aug. 1, 2007) — About twice as many Atlantic hurricanes form each year on average than a century ago, according to a new statistical analysis of hurricanes and tropical storms in the north Atlantic. The study concludes that warmer sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and altered wind patterns associated with global climate change are fueling much of the increase.

    The study, by Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and Peter Webster of Georgia Institute of Technology, will be published in Philosophical
    Transactions of the Royal Society of London."

    These numbers are a strong indication that climate change is a major factor in the increasing number of Atlantic hurricanes," says Holland.
    They connected an increasing frequency with climate change. This was a common doctrine propagated by the Global Warming alarmists. Why do you think that Al Gore had many simultaneous hurricanes photoshopped onto the cover of his book? This was the post-Katrina dogma: Global Warming = more frequent and more powerful hurricanes and we are ALL GONNA DIE! But now the data directly contradicts their predictions, so they changed their predictions, now it is only the "intensity" but not the "frequency." This is why the "hype" can never be trusted, especially when it is lifted straight from the headlines of recent disasters like Katrina. It is pure psychological manipulation like any cult.

    Now don't get me wrong. I believe that CO2 causes some warming. But the focus on that issue is entirely political and it distracts from the real problems that are not controversial like habitat destruction, pollution, poverty, and war. It is absurd to think that we can make any progress by restricting the emission of CO2 if we can't even agree to quit spending trillions of dollars to destroy trillions of dollars of infrastructure of other nations. Consider the carbon footprint of war! Both in the process of destruction, and then the process of reconstruction, and the horrible living conditions of the folks displaced by war. Focusing on CO2 is like rearranging the chairs on the Titanic, or asking Hitler to please ensure that the Jews have proper dental care before he gassed them. It's all politics, politics, politics.

    All the best,

    Richard
    Hey there RAM,

    It's great to have a politician amongst us!

    There were 100 over countries attending the Cancun climate change conference together with reknown climate scientists from all over the world. If I do not believe them, I wonder who do I believe? ...Politicians? They are among the least trustworthy lots. Don't tell me those VIPs from the countries that attended the Cancun conference and those renown scientists were all hookwinked by politicians to accept climate change as real?

    Clifford said it right, I mean variability of climate not chaos. Of course, the chaos theory, energy theory, jet stream, CO2, solar etc. may be right but I believe it is a varety of factors that leads to the variability in the climate that we are experiencing nowadays. If not, how do you explain the "It's snowing in Australia and California (now flooding) yet 'warm' in Greenland" phenomena?

    Many Blessings and Merry Christmas.
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheow Wee Hock View Post
    Hey there RAM,

    It's great to have a politician amongst us!
    Hey Cheow,

    Let's keep this above the belt. Calling me a "politician" is mighty rude!

    (Just kidding ... sorta ... I'm really NOT a politician you know.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheow Wee Hock View Post
    There were 100 over countries attending the Cancun climate change conference together with reknown climate scientists from all over the world. If I do not believe them, I wonder who do I believe? ...Politicians? They are among the least trustworthy lots. Don't tell me those VIPs from the countries that attended the Cancun conference and those renown scientists were all hookwinked by politicians to accept climate change as real?
    Who should you believe? Believe the scientists, like the ones I quoted from NOAA:
    Consensus Statements by International Workshop on Tropical Cyclones-VI:
    1. Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point.
    2. No individual tropical cyclone can be directly attributed to climate change.
    3. The recent increase in societal impact from tropical cyclones has largely been caused by rising concentrations of population and infrastructure in coastal regions.
    Do you agree with those scientists or not????



    Quote Originally Posted by Cheow Wee Hock View Post
    Clifford said it right, I mean variability of climate not chaos. Of course, the chaos theory, energy theory, jet stream, CO2, solar etc. may be right but I believe it is a varety of factors that leads to the variability in the climate that we are experiencing nowadays. If not, how do you explain the "It's snowing in Australia and California (now flooding) yet 'warm' in Greenland" phenomena?

    Many Blessings and Merry Christmas.
    What do you mean "the variability in the climate that we are experiencing nowadays"? Do you know what weather was like just a hundred years ago? There were huge cold snaps like we have now, and there were very warm times when it did not snow in winter much at all. I was reading novel called The Great Gatsby, written in 1925. There was a scene set in summer and it was so hot that one of the characters said it was because the earth was moving closer to the sun. Global Warming back in 1925? Nah ... just normal VARIABILITY.

    That's how I explain the current WEATHER. Normal variability. And that's how the scientists think too. Look again at the quote above from NOAA which says that "No individual tropical cyclone can be directly attributed to climate change." Exactly the same thing goes for all weather events. The idea of "Global Warming" is that the overall temp of the entire globe is slowly rising. In the last fifty years, it's gone up about .6C. This is not enough to worry anyone. The only issue is if the temp continues to increase a LOT and then causes a LOT of melting of the ice and the consequent sea level increase. But even then, that's just an inconvenience because we have cities on the coast. It has absolutely nothing to do with the "survival" of the human race as a whole. No one in their right mind is suggesting a general extinction of the human race or all life. Of course, they are talking about lots of species going extinct, but that's already happening because of habitat destruction. That's why we should be focusing on stopping habitat destruction, pollution, poverty and war. Focusing on CO2 emissions is not helping.

    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

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Hey there Clifford,

    It's great to have a meteorologist amongst us!

    Your explanation of the change in the jet stream makes sense as an hypothesis, but I have no way to know if there is any evidence to support it. The problem is that we don't know what range of "normal variability" because we have had the ability to monitor the jet stream for only a few decades. This is an extremely short "sample" from which to draw conclusions.

    As for hurricanes, many good scientists have been very cautious in using hurricanes (cyclones) as proof of Global Warming:
    Consensus Statements by International Workshop on Tropical Cyclones-VI:
    1. Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point.
    2. No individual tropical cyclone can be directly attributed to climate change.
    3. The recent increase in societal impact from tropical cyclones has largely been caused by rising concentrations of population and infrastructure in coastal regions.
    4. Tropical cyclone wind-speed monitoring has changed dramatically over the last few decades, leading to difficulties in determining accurate trends.
    5. There is an observed multi-decadal variability of tropical cyclones in some regions whose causes, whether natural, anthropogenic or a combination, are currently being debated. This variability makes detecting any long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity difficult.
    6. It is likely that some increase in tropical cyclone peak wind-speed and rainfall will occur if the climate continues to warm. Model studies and theory project a 3-5% increase in wind-speed per degree Celsius increase of tropical sea surface temperatures.
    On the other hand, many Global Warming alarmists, especially the "pop" alarmists who are really polarized Left-Wing political activists, saw a great opportunity to capitalize on Katrina to manipulate ignorant folks into believing that both the frequency and the intensity of hurricanes would increase due to Global Warming. And there are pop-science publications that pushed the same idea. For example, here is an article from the ScienceDaily:
    ScienceDaily (Aug. 1, 2007) — About twice as many Atlantic hurricanes form each year on average than a century ago, according to a new statistical analysis of hurricanes and tropical storms in the north Atlantic. The study concludes that warmer sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and altered wind patterns associated with global climate change are fueling much of the increase.

    The study, by Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and Peter Webster of Georgia Institute of Technology, will be published in Philosophical
    Transactions of the Royal Society of London."

    These numbers are a strong indication that climate change is a major factor in the increasing number of Atlantic hurricanes," says Holland.
    They connected an increasing frequency with climate change. This was a common doctrine propagated by the Global Warming alarmists. Why do you think that Al Gore had many simultaneous hurricanes photoshopped onto the cover of his book? This was the post-Katrina dogma: Global Warming = more frequent and more powerful hurricanes and we are ALL GONNA DIE! But now the data directly contradicts their predictions, so they changed their predictions, now it is only the "intensity" but not the "frequency." This is why the "hype" can never be trusted, especially when it is lifted straight from the headlines of recent disasters like Katrina. It is pure psychological manipulation like any cult.

    Now don't get me wrong. I believe that CO2 causes some warming. But the focus on that issue is entirely political and it distracts from the real problems that are not controversial like habitat destruction, pollution, poverty, and war. It is absurd to think that we can make any progress by restricting the emission of CO2 if we can't even agree to quit spending trillions of dollars to destroy trillions of dollars of infrastructure of other nations. Consider the carbon footprint of war! Both in the process of destruction, and then the process of reconstruction, and the horrible living conditions of the folks displaced by war. Focusing on CO2 is like rearranging the chairs on the Titanic, or asking Hitler to please ensure that the Jews have proper dental care before he gassed them. It's all politics, politics, politics.

    All the best,

    Richard

    Hi Richard,

    As for hurricanes, many good scientists have been very cautious in using hurricanes (cyclones) as proof of Global Warming:
    Consensus Statements by International Workshop on Tropical Cyclones-VI:
    [LIST=1][*]Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point.


    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.

    It is likely that some increase in tropical cyclone peak wind-speed and rainfall will occur if the climate continues to warm. Model studies and theory project a 3-5% increase in wind-speed per degree Celsius increase of tropical sea surface temperatures.
    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.

    On the other hand, many Global Warming alarmists, especially the "pop" alarmists who are really polarized Left-Wing political activists, saw a great opportunity to capitalize on Katrina to manipulate ignorant folks into believing that both the frequency and the intensity of hurricanes would increase due to Global Warming.
    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.

    And there are pop-science publications that pushed the same idea. For example, here is an article from the ScienceDaily:
    ScienceDaily (Aug. 1, 2007) — About twice as many Atlantic hurricanes form each year on average than a century ago, according to a new statistical analysis of hurricanes and tropical storms in the north Atlantic. The study concludes that warmer sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and altered wind patterns associated with global climate change are fueling much of the increase.

    The study, by Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and Peter Webster of Georgia Institute of Technology, will be published in Philosophical
    Transactions of the Royal Society of London."

    These numbers are a strong indication that climate change is a major factor in the increasing number of Atlantic hurricanes," says Holland.
    They connected an increasing frequency with climate change.
    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.

    Now don't get me wrong. I believe that CO2 causes some warming. But the focus on that issue is entirely political and it distracts from the real problems that are not controversial like habitat destruction, pollution, poverty, and war. It is absurd to think that we can make any progress by restricting the emission of CO2 if we can't even agree to quit spending trillions of dollars to destroy trillions of dollars of infrastructure of other nations. Consider the carbon footprint of war! Both in the process of destruction, and then the process of reconstruction, and the horrible living conditions of the folks displaced by war. Focusing on CO2 is like rearranging the chairs on the Titanic, or asking Hitler to please ensure that the Jews have proper dental care before he gassed them. It's all politics, politics, politics.
    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

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
  •