contrex wrote:Because global warming leads to extremes of weather (rain, cold, heat). Are you a global warming denier?
I just read the first two posts on this thread, and has anyone yet proven the above simpleton assumption, as to the reason why we have extreme weather? Since when has extreme weather not been around? Has anyone been to the Grand Canyon?
This should be good.
Just what the Hell does the Grand Canyon have to do with extreme weather?
Sounds like a good subject for research for you, Setanta, go figure it out. Take a geology class somewhere.
Setanta wrote:Just what the Hell does the Grand Canyon have to do with extreme weather?
Easy.
If you haven't been to the Grand Canyon, it means there's no global warming.
parados wrote:Oh, look. It's data from before the corrected MSU.
Now you've gone and used data as singular. He'll be all over you any second.
Sorry to rain on your parade here, but I doubt very seriously that floods are only a recent phenomena.
okie wrote:Sorry to rain on your parade here, but I doubt very seriously that floods are only a recent phenomena.
Aaah! That was funny: rain, floods!? Great!
But you should really pay attention, you know, because phenomena, you know, is, like, plural.
The emotional attachment by some over a fraction of a degree C in the last 100 years is absolutely astounding. Is it some kind of religion or what?
Wonderful entertainment value, no?
flaja wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Amazing, if the world's climatologists had only consulted with you, this whole thing would have been figured out long ago...
Cycloptichorn
Do you deny that heat moves in the manner in which I describe or that wind and oceanic currents develop for the reasons I gave?
What makes you an expert on heat apart from the hot air that comes out of your mouth?
I agree, cyclops, it would have saved alot of angst and wasted money, and it would save us from having to listen to Algore and his screaming fits. I think Flaja has it pretty well figured out.
Absolutely astounding. Yes.
okie wrote:I think Flaja has it pretty well figured out.
I think so, too.
Especially the bit about New York being colder than Florida because it's further away from the sun.
Amazing.
Then again, he's a scientist.
And aren't you so disappointed the temperatures aren't going up, and in fact the average ocean temperature in November, 2007 at 16.05 C is about the same as it was in 1979. I can't wait for December and January's readings, and I can only imagine how happy you can be too, after all, you won't have to wring your hands so severely, right?
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabsOcean.html
If things continue to moderate or cool off, watch the sky is falling crowd concoct a new theory to worry over, count on it.
Walter Hinteler wrote:flaja wrote:
If all of the peers accept the same dogma, what good does peer review do? If a scientist wants to believe in global warming, what chance is there that he will disagree with a colleague's data or conclusions that support global warming?
Since you are a scientist, you certainly have published some articles in peer reviewed magaiznes, too, or even reviewed other authors.
So you certainly know better than shown in your above response how peer reviewing works.
Since when is publishing anything a requisite for being a scientist?
okie wrote:contrex wrote:Because global warming leads to extremes of weather (rain, cold, heat). Are you a global warming denier?
I just read the first two posts on this thread, and has anyone yet proven the above simpleton assumption, as to the reason why we have extreme weather? Since when has extreme weather not been around? Has anyone been to the Grand Canyon?
Can you refresh my memory: what was the last hurricane forecast for 2007? Did even this forecast, which had been revised downward in mid-season, come close to matching reality? Based on the initial forecasts I was half-way expecting 2007 to be one of the worst hurricane seasons on record. I would venture that it ended up being one of the mildest. But I guess that's global warming.
During my experience in a scientific field, most people that published were professors or government personnel that had time on their hands to spend time writing papers to publish, besides their employers wanted them to do it so that their university would be noticed and gain grant money, etc. And publishing stuff is generally part of the job of government scientists, as what good is their work if nobody knows the results of their work?
Other people in a scientific discipline that were out there actively applying their skills in industry had little time to publish, a few did, but most of their time was spent working, actually testing the working scientific models in the field and many of these people discovered the actual applications of their trade before the government and professor types did, and knew more things about various aspects of their trade than those sitting around in an office someplace writing papers.
okie wrote:Sorry to rain on your parade here, but I doubt very seriously that floods are only a recent phenomena.
Are you familiar with the Creationist Henry Morris? Morris was a hydrological engineer, and in one of his books he claimed that a river could not cut into solid rock at the same time it is moving left to right on the rock's surface. If the Grand Canyon is the result of the Colorado River eroding solid rock the resulting canyon would be a straight line. But the River could cut a zig-zag canyon if it had started out moving through soft sediment. Imagine the flood needed.
flaja wrote:okie wrote:contrex wrote:Because global warming leads to extremes of weather (rain, cold, heat). Are you a global warming denier?
I just read the first two posts on this thread, and has anyone yet proven the above simpleton assumption, as to the reason why we have extreme weather? Since when has extreme weather not been around? Has anyone been to the Grand Canyon?
Can you refresh my memory: what was the last hurricane forecast for 2007? Did even this forecast, which had been revised downward in mid-season, come close to matching reality? Based on the initial forecasts I was half-way expecting 2007 to be one of the worst hurricane seasons on record. I would venture that it ended up being one of the mildest. But I guess that's global warming.
This site indicates at the beginning of the season around 13 to 17 named storms, 7 to 10 hurricanes, and 3 to 5 major ones would strike. What actually happened were 15 storms, 6 hurricanes, and 2 major, so it definitely fell short. The 2 major hurricanes were less than average for the past 50 years. The last forecast in October was 17, 7, and 3, so the final tally fell short of that as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Pre-season_forecasts
