okie wrote: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?
Bingo.
On various other boards I have posted a plan that could be used to combat global warming by reducing out carbon output. But when I say I support this plan because it can promote national security by reducing our dependence on energy imports from hostile countries while promoting societal cohesion by discouraging urban sprawl and saving money in general and that I don't believe in global warming because the theory is not subject to the scientific method (experimentation with both a control and experimental group), the Left has a hissy fit. I don't accept the Left's environmentalist dogma, thus the hostility from the likes of Parados.
flaja wrote:Can you refresh my memory: what was the last hurricane forecast for 2007?
Sure. Here's the outlook for 2007
from NOAA, issued May 22nd:
Quote:NOAA's 2007 outlook for the eastern Pacific hurricane season calls for 12-16 tropical storms (average is 15-16), with 6-9 becoming hurricanes (average is 9), and 2-4 becoming major hurricanes (average is 4-5). This outlook reflects the ongoing multi-decadal climate signal that has been acting to suppress eastern Pacific hurricane activity since 1995, combined with the strong likelihood of either ENSO neutral or La Niña conditions during much of the season. The ongoing reduction in eastern Pacific hurricane activity since 1995 is coincident with generally above-normal Atlantic hurricane activity.
flaja wrote:Did even this forecast, which had been revised downward in mid-season, come close to matching reality?
Well,
let's see, shall we:
Quote:As a whole, the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season produced a total of 14 named storms, including six hurricanes, two of which became major hurricanes.
I think that answers your question with a "yes."
okie wrote: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.
I live in north Florida. So far I have had frost in my yard at least 3 times since last spring- some mornings I wasn't outside early enough to see frost even though it had been cold enough the night before for frost to form. This many episodes of frost before the end of January is very uncommon for here and the frost we had last April came with the coldest April in 30 years.
Uh-oh I just realized that 30 years ago was 1977 and the winter of 1977-1978 is the coldest on record and we were in an energy crisis then as we are now. I hope that history isn't about to repeat itself.
okie wrote: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
True. Somebody's been f*cking around with wikipedia.
flaja wrote: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.
Not familiar, but I doubt his claim, just by using common sense. The Grand Canyon probably formed during uplift of the Colorado Plateau during the past few million years. The rocks exposed in the canyon are of course much older. The path taken by the river probably was determined by fracture patterns and uplift patterns. It should be obvious that periodic flooding greatly facilitated downcutting of the canyon as uplift occurred, such as 100 year floods, 500 year floods, 1,000 year floods, and 10,000 year floods. The study of geology clearly demonstrates the existence of extreme weather throughout geologic history.
Rivers have been known to change course, sometimes drastically, as the Unaweep Canyon south of Grand Junction, Colorado, thought to have been the path of the Colorado River, but now the river flows northwest from Grand Junction.
okie wrote: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.
All the more reason why a scientist who disagrees with conventional thinking cannot get any support from his peers. Getting grants and other money is dependent in part on whether or not the public believes what scientists publish. So naturally one academician will agree with what another says so they can both appear to be right and thus the public will give them both money.
flaja wrote:okie wrote: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.
I live in north Florida. So far I have had frost in my yard at least 3 times since last spring- some mornings I wasn't outside early enough to see frost even though it had been cold enough the night before for frost to form. This many episodes of frost before the end of January is very uncommon for here and the frost we had last April came with the coldest April in 30 years.
Uh-oh I just realized that 30 years ago was 1977 and the winter of 1977-1978 is the coldest on record and we were in an energy crisis then as we are now. I hope that history isn't about to repeat itself.
I am warning you, flaja, that somebody, such as Parados, will chastise you for using anecdotal evidence. They will say it isn't evidence. Of course, then watch the mainstream media run pictures of disasters and then talk about global warming, implying there is a connection, all of it anecdotal evidence.
okie wrote: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
Plus 2 of the named storms were named as "sub-tropical" storms because they had the necessary wind speed, but formed outside of tropical regions. The one that formed off the coast in May would have been known as a noreaster in my part of the country and a freak noreaster since it formed in the spring and not the fall/winter -if it hadn't been for global warming. Noreasters we get in October and November usually do far more damage than any hurricane would due to quirk of geography. Usually the first few storms of a season go into the Gulf of Mexico and by the time they start aiming at the Eastern Seaboard in September we usually have cold fronts coming from the west that push any storm to the north of here.
old europe wrote:okie wrote: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
True. Somebody's been f*cking around with wikipedia.
Relax oe, you were quoting the prediction for the Eastern North Pacific.
okie wrote:Relax oe, you were quoting the prediction for the Eastern North Pacific.
True.
NOAA predicted 13 to 17 named storms, with seven to 10 becoming hurricanes, of which three to five could become major hurricanes.
However, the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season produced 14 named storms, including six hurricanes, and two became major hurricanes.
I have been embarrassed before too by jumping to a conclusion, so I won't pile on.
No worries. I can admit when I've been wrong.
I don't remember right off which book Morris made the claim in, and I don't remember the details he gave. But how someone views the Grand Canyon depends on their world view. Darwinists naturally see the Canyon as ages old with the younger layers on top with the Canyon being formed as the river cut through solid rock that had accumulated over millions of years. Young Earth Creationists generally see the entire structure as being laid down as sediment by Noah's Flood with the canyon part of it being carved while the sediment was still soft.
Personally I haven't examined much of the Creationists claims about the Grand Canyon, and I am not inclined to see all of it as a product of Noah's Flood. At the same time I reject uniformitarianism in favor of catastrophism- meaning I don't think it took millions of years for something like the Grand Canyon to form. I cannot say right out how many catastrophes there have been either regionally or globally, but I doubt that Noah's Flood has been the only one.
okie wrote:flaja wrote:okie wrote: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.
I live in north Florida. So far I have had frost in my yard at least 3 times since last spring- some mornings I wasn't outside early enough to see frost even though it had been cold enough the night before for frost to form. This many episodes of frost before the end of January is very uncommon for here and the frost we had last April came with the coldest April in 30 years.
Uh-oh I just realized that 30 years ago was 1977 and the winter of 1977-1978 is the coldest on record and we were in an energy crisis then as we are now. I hope that history isn't about to repeat itself.
I am warning you, flaja, that somebody, such as Parados, will chastise you for using anecdotal evidence. They will say it isn't evidence. Of course, then watch the mainstream media run pictures of disasters and then talk about global warming, implying there is a connection, all of it anecdotal evidence.
Call it observation- the scientist's first and most important tool.
old europe wrote:okie wrote:Relax oe, you were quoting the prediction for the Eastern North Pacific.
True.
NOAA predicted 13 to 17 named storms, with seven to 10 becoming hurricanes, of which three to five could become major hurricanes.
However, the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season produced 14 named storms, including six hurricanes, and two became major hurricanes.
I don't think you can use hurricane predictions for this discussion. Even excluding the last few years where they missed badly, hurricane predictors have never had ANY success at predicting hurricanes. A couple of years ago I pulled the data for Feb. predictions from the famous Dr. Gray and compared it to reality for number of hurricanes, major hurricanes, hurricane days, etc and compared it to reality. There was no correlation at all. To use the ability to predict hurricanes to discuss global warming, you have to assume we have the ability to predict hurricanes.
engineer wrote:I don't think you can use hurricane predictions for this discussion.
Why? Isn't an increase in the frequency of severe weather one of the hypotheses in the global warming theory? So why isn't observed data regarding the occurrence of severe weather not part of the discussion of global warming? Again you want to massage and manipulate and ignore data that are contradictory to your global warming dogma.
Quote:Even excluding the last few years where they missed badly, hurricane predictors have never had ANY success at predicting hurricanes.
But yet some scientists can forecast melting glaciers, rising sea levels and increased temperatures with certainty because of global warming.
Flaja, you are correct, increased extreme weather events is one of the often repeated effects of global warming proponents, and we are often hit with this insinuation almost everytime something unusual happens. It is almost entirely anecdotal evidence, and in fact I have yet to see any credible study that indicates extreme weather has experienced any drastic upturn in frequency that can be correlated with global warming.
Just as extreme weather is similar to almost anything else statistically, there is no such thing as normal, but instead we can calculate averages for the natural variations and cycles. Almost everything in nature is variable and cyclical, and I would defy anyone to produce good examples of anything in nature that isn't, be it seasons, days, years, wildlife populations, precipitation, reproductive cycles, crops, health, lifespan, disease, whatever.
okie wrote:Flaja, you are correct, increased extreme weather events is one of the often repeated effects of global warming proponents, and we are often hit with this insinuation almost everytime something unusual happens. It is almost entirely anecdotal evidence, and in fact I have yet to see any credible study that indicates extreme weather has experienced any drastic upturn in frequency that can be correlated with global warming.
Just as extreme weather is similar to almost anything else statistically, there is no such thing as normal, but instead we can calculate averages for the natural variations and cycles. Almost everything in nature is variable and cyclical, and I would defy anyone to produce good examples of anything in nature that isn't, be it seasons, days, years, wildlife populations, precipitation, reproductive cycles, crops, health, lifespan, disease, whatever.
There is no way we can determine trends in the frequency of bad weather because we have so little long-term data to worth with. We had no way to monitor the number or severity of hurricanes before the advent of hurricane flights (roughly the end of WWII) and weather satellites (roughly the late 1960s to early 1970s). If a storm didn't hit a populated area of land or a ship at sea (which survived to reach port) we didn't know about it.
okie wrote:Flaja, you are correct, increased extreme weather events is one of the often repeated effects of global warming proponents, and we are often hit with this insinuation almost everytime something unusual happens. It is almost entirely anecdotal evidence, and in fact I have yet to see any credible study that indicates extreme weather has experienced any drastic upturn in frequency that can be correlated with global warming.
Just as extreme weather is similar to almost anything else statistically, there is no such thing as normal, but instead we can calculate averages for the natural variations and cycles. Almost everything in nature is variable and cyclical, and I would defy anyone to produce good examples of anything in nature that isn't, be it seasons, days, years, wildlife populations, precipitation, reproductive cycles, crops, health, lifespan, disease, whatever.
An increase in extreme weather has nothing to do with our ability to FORECAST extreme weather. Just because we do a bad job at forecasting these storms doesn't mean that the quantity of actual storms is not increasing.
Has there been a rise in hurricanes in the last 50 years? 100?
A quote from the following:
"Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore."
"Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust." (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement."
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
