[Kazan]

how old is the plant? and we only have 100 years of records.

i was only counting direct observations - we can infer the global temperature record back several billion years based on indirect evidence found in ice cores, fossils, rock formations, etc


none of the global warming detractors has yet put forward their own theory explaining all the facts and taking into account that the atmosphere has 150% of the carbon it had before the industrial revolution and is retaining 6*10^21 Joules.

[Kazan]

Your position: political
Their Position: scientific

I take issue with your claim that all scientists in all the related fields support Glow-Bell Warning.  In fact, if that was the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

using name calling is really furthering your position

You can take issue with the claim all you want, but unless I accidentally forgot to I always prefix that with "Respectable"

just because some oil-industry-paid right-wing fanatic who got a science degree says "no! all the top experts in the field are wrong!" doesn't make it so.

Global warming is happening, evidence strongly suggests that humans are playing a major roll in it.

The Solution? Don't be just polluting jackasses


I don't really get what the right-wing has against admitting that we're ****ing up our environment

oh right... because then corporations would have to take some responsibility for their actions.

[jr2]

Your position: political
Their Position: scientific

I take issue with your claim that all scientists in all the related fields support Glow-Bell Warning.  In fact, if that was the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

using name calling is really furthering your position
Are you seeing things?

And yes, the right-wingers don't want the corporations to take responsibility for their actions.  And the lefties want everything so choked with government regulations as to make a living impossible, freedom a joke, and the USSR a tea party.

Or perhaps those are the extremes.

Hmm...

[WeatherOp]

Interesting link I found.

http://www.nysun.com/article/70114

Warming May Curb Hurricane Landfalls in U.S.

By Bloomberg News
January 24, 2008
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T

The warming of the world's oceans may reduce the number of Atlantic hurricanes that make landfall in America, government researchers found.

Scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration analyzed Atlantic storms between 1854 and 2006. They found that higher ocean temperatures increase the vertical wind shear of a system, or the rate at which wind speeds vary with altitude, NOAA said in a statement on its Web site. That, in turn, correlated with a decrease in the number of storms that strike land.

"We found a gentle decrease in the trend of U.S. land-falling hurricanes when the global ocean is warmed up," an oceanographer at the center, Chunzai Wang, said in the statement. "This trend coincides with an increase in vertical wind shear over the tropical North Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico." The study, which appeared yesterday in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, may influence future predictions of how global warming will affect America. Scientists with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said last year that rising temperatures will cause storms to intensify. Hurricane Katrina, which devastated New Orleans in 2005, caused more than $41.1 billion in insured damage.

[Kosh]

Scientists with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said last year that rising temperatures will cause storms to intensify. Hurricane Katrina, which devastated New Orleans in 2005, caused more than $41.1 billion in insured damage.

Meaning that when they hit, they will hit a lot harder, causing much more damage than they normally would.

[WeatherOp]

Scientists with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said last year that rising temperatures will cause storms to intensify. Hurricane Katrina, which devastated New Orleans in 2005, caused more than $41.1 billion in insured damage.

Meaning that when they hit, they will hit a lot harder, causing much more damage than they normally would.

Not necessarily true. In that article the NOAA suggests GW will reduce the number of hurricanes, but strengthen the existing storms. Their reasoning is IMO much more clear than say Al Gore's reasoning. All in all it would make a lot more sense considering with a changing climate would likely create more shear thus destroying more hurricanes or reducing the strength of most of them by a good bit, but possibly strengthening the ones that get through the cracks of shear with the higher water temps.

Now if we take in account the past two years of hurricane activity in the Atlantic, 2006 was nearly normal, below in some cases, 2007 on the other hand had more than average storms, but most of them were crap, the only two big storms were Dean and Felix. So in essence, if we use the past two years as an analog it supports their theory. However if we use the years 2003-2005 we had far more storms, both major and crap. Which would go against their reasoning.

However, it is easy to see their reasoning is much different than Al Gore's who says GW will increase the number of hurricanes. So I'm interested in which way most people on this forums lean, is GW(whether man made or not) increasing hurricane activity or decreasing it.

[Bobboau]

one would think it would increase it, but the (infinitesimally small amount of) data suggests otherwise.

[WeatherOp]

Winter is hoter here in oklahoma, I'm not sure if it's normal but 60 to 70 degree every so often almost every other week.

obviously i was talking about long term trends there.. it also increases short term instability (an even greater amount)

like.. it'll be -12 tonight but 36 on sunday here

A little late, but I see extremely little proof that short term variability means either for or against global warming.

Personally, I've seen it be in the 30's one day and then have 60's or 70's next with Svr weather. Why did that happen? Low pressure system spun up, a 60kt LLJ at 850mb flooded us with WAA. Along and north/south of a warm front, temp changes can be massive. All that massive temp changes over a short period show is a system forming nearby. If this is not normal, that just shows a local change(trough a little deeper, warm/cold air a little thicker) or maybe a short-term synoptic scale pattern caused by something like an La Nina or El Nino.

PST:

More energy in a meteorological system=> More instability => Greater thermal extreme delta => colder winters, warmer summers

just exactly what we're seeing.

Also not entirely true, obviously a temp increase at the sfc will mean little to the main pattern as the "weather makers" sit much higher up in the atmosphere. The Jet Stream sits at 200-300mb and the most common way of forecasting troughs and ridges is by looking at the charts at the 500mb level. So adding energy=>variability is not always the case.

[Fearless Leader]

how old is the plant? and we only have 100 years of records.

i was only counting direct observations - we can infer the global temperature record back several billion years based on indirect evidence found in ice cores, fossils, rock formations, etc


none of the global warming detractors has yet put forward their own theory explaining all the facts and taking into account that the atmosphere has 150% of the carbon it had before the industrial revolution and is retaining 6*10^21 Joules.

Before the industrial revolution? How do we measure that? What methods are used, and was the same equipment used?

How do you infer information? it should be able to speak for its self, that is  IF it holds any proof.

Inferring is not scientific

[Mefustae]

Before the industrial revolution? How do we measure that? What methods are used, and was the same equipment used?

How do you infer information? it should be able to speak for its self, that is  IF it holds any proof.

i was only counting direct observations - we can infer the global temperature record back several billion years based on indirect evidence found in ice cores, fossils, rock formations, etc

Deciphering paeleoclimates is very possible, as Kaz described. First-hand observations are certainly not required in measuring climate over thousands or millions of years, you just need to know where to look. You're just being anal if you believe there is a major difference between measuring climate first hand and measuring climate by looking at its effects on the surrounding environment.

[karajorma]

You mean back when the other ones were whining about global cooling?  Nah.  Don't think so.

I mean when global warming was just getting started. I even saw programs from these people claiming that the world wasn't actually getting any warmer. After another 10 years the evidence became overwhelming and their position switched from "Global Warming - Doesn't exist" to "Global Warming - Exists but we aren't doing it."

So if you're going to make claims about credibility I suggest you apply the same standards to those people saying the argument you (mistakenly) choose to believe.

Besides the stuff about a new ice age has been explained several times on this page.  It's blown out of proportion by idiots who can't tell the difference between Earth cooling in 20,000 years and Earth cooling in 10 years.

[TrashMan]

There's only one thing I need to know:

Fox News claims we ain't doing it. (and IIRC; before that it claimed that GW was a sham)
Ergo, we MUST be doing it then.

Fox news simply can't be right. They never have been.

[Hippy]

Trashman's logic is impecable.

However, be fair dude, FOX News produces excellent news that is actually fair, balanced and unbiased. It's just that there's only 5 minutes of it a day and the rest is unsubstantiated opinion.

[Kazan]

it's my fault for allowing this side subject to start

let's get back on track

jr2... how exactly do you explain the information right in front of our face

Fearless: Ice cores are EXCELLLENT for measuring atmospheric carbon load because they actually have bubbles of atmosphere trapped in them that cannot interact with the free atmosphere - so you get samples of "old air" - they can date this air using it's contents and the contents of the ice surrounding it (yay radioisotopes)

just because you don't understand the science doesn't mean the science is invalid.

[jr2]

it's my fault for allowing this side subject to start

let's get back on track

jr2... how exactly do you explain the information right in front of our face

Fearless: Ice cores are EXCELLLENT for measuring atmospheric carbon load because they actually have bubbles of atmosphere trapped in them that cannot interact with the free atmosphere - so you get samples of "old air" - they can date this air using it's contents and the contents of the ice surrounding it (yay radioisotopes)

just because you don't understand the science doesn't mean the science is invalid.

Do you understand the science that says that the rest of the planets in our Solar System are warming, as well?  Have we somehow polluted the sun, and made it produce too much heat?

[TrashMan]

Do you understand the science that says that the rest of the planets in our Solar System are warming, as well?  Have we somehow polluted the sun, and made it produce too much heat?

IIRC, 3-4 planets are warming, the others are cooling. And let's not forget that we know jack s*** about the climate shifts on other planets.
Solar influence has been dismissed by scientists as a large factor in GW.

[Flipside]

And many of the warming planets have long, highly elliptical orbits that are bringing them to their closest point to the Sun, we have an almost circular orbit compared to the outer planets.

[Kazan]

And many of the warming planets have long, highly elliptical orbits that are bringing them to their closest point to the Sun, we have an almost circular orbit compared to the outer planets.

 

try again jr2

[Mefustae]

So far, he's bounced from one cliche anti-Global Warming argument to another, so I doubt he's got any real reasoning behind his opposition for us to debate. It's like whack-a-mole!

[Kazan]

exactly

Jr2 can you put forward any valid reason for your objection, and any valid alternative explaination that hasn't already been considered and found lacking