Another sub-par hurricane season

[Royd 0]

Question for you. Do you believe that it has ever been warmer that it is right now? If so, what were the results?

[idrankwhat 0]

What you're forgetting Bill is that 160 mph hurricanes only count if they hit the US. And deniers beat their chests when they think they can play out the small picture to their benefit while ignoring the big one. It's not that much different than when they were crowing about "unprecedented home ownership levels" or "being greeted as liberators". Appearance is most important, regardless of the liberal bias with which reality is burdened.

[normiss 798]

in modern day man "time" of what we think we see?
or in time as the planet sees things????

[Amazon 7]

Quote

And everyone awaits you parking your boat (not selling is cause someone else will use it) and you sand buggy to help the cause

Fuck that....

I am planning on buying all the gasoline I can afford and burning it to help the warming along so FUCKTARD deniers can finally hear me say.....

I TOLD YOU SO

Enjoy your desert

[kallend 2,026]

Let's not forget that Flossie clipped Hawaii this August. Just when I was there!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,990]

>Do you believe that it has ever been warmer that it is right now?

Yes. When the earth was first forming ~5 billion years ago, it was thousands of degrees on the surface. 55 million years ago, there was a sudden warming (called the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum.)

More recently, about 125,000 years ago (i.e. the Eemian Interglacial) the temperature rose pretty significantly (3C or so) due to the latest Milankovitch cycle.

>If so, what were the results?

Initially - the formation of a planet.

55,000,000 years ago - a mass extinction event.

140,000 years ago - extinction of a large percentage of species on the earth.

[btvr 0]

No. It was the dinosaurs with their car emissions that led to their extinction!

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

>Do you believe that it has ever been warmer that it is right now?

Yes. When the earth was first forming ~5 billion years ago, it was thousands of degrees on the surface. 55 million years ago, there was a sudden warming (called the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum.)

More recently, about 125,000 years ago (i.e. the Eemian Interglacial) the temperature rose pretty significantly (3C or so) due to the latest Milankovitch cycle.

>If so, what were the results?

Initially - the formation of a planet.

55,000,000 years ago - a mass extinction event.

140,000 years ago - extinction of a large percentage of species on the earth.

HAHAHA! That's just crazy Bill. You and I both know the earth is only 6000 years old. If you can't come up with any more recent examples than that you will have to admit that this whole line of argument is faulty.

[speedy 0]

Quote

> After all the Global Warming/more hurricanes hubbub following Katrina,
>I thought we'd see some major activity the last two hurricane seasons.

Quick quiz. Will global warming:

1) make every hurricane stronger and every season worse than the last?

2) make every day warmer?

3) melt all the ice in Antarctica?

4) swamp Manhattan by 2030?

5) make it rain everywhere?

6) cause a drought everywhere?

Answer to all the above - no. It will make temperatures _slightly_ warmer. It will make the hottest days a bit warmer. It will make summer last a little longer. It will make some ice melt. It will make your average hurricane a bit stronger. In areas where high temperatures lead to drought, it will make droughts a bit worse. In areas where high temperatures mean more ocean evaporation and thus more rain, floods will be a bit worse.

That's something that people on both sides of the argument consistently miss. It's not just like "The Day After Tomorrow" and it's not "all hot air." The climate is warming, and our emissions have a huge small influence on how much it warms. We can not rely on what weather patterns used to be like; they will change. (And yes, they would have changed anyway - but they're going to change a lot bit faster now.) But that doesn't mean the world is ending.

There Bill, I only needed to change 2 words in your post and we are in full agreement

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

With fewer and fewer liberals breading and those that kill off their young, this alone should reduce Global Warming.

Breading? Damn...and all this time I've been eating them plain!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Religious zealots don't embrace the end of the world

John Hagee does ... are you in his flock?

Quoting sample size of 1 used as argument for a future debate...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

No, there's no global warming. Just the first two landfalling hurricanes were cat 5's. (Never happened before) And it's 90 in October in Baltimore and the enitre southern half of CA is on fire. But I have it on good authority from GOP HQ that there is no global warming.

And in 2000? 2001? I don't recall, there was the largest amount of snow cover recorded in recent history - while your data points are accurate, your conclusion is not.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[NCclimber 0]

LOL It is funny to watch all the AGW hysterics scramble when their alarmist forecasts fall flat.

"So tell us, Chicken Little, why do you think the sky is falling?"

"It hit me on the head, cluck, cluck."

[PLFXpert 0]

I'm disappointed. A good hurricane or two would have been nice.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[normiss 798]

I haven't had a hurricane party in a loooong time!

[PLFXpert 0]

We call them foam parties here at the beach.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[Tink1717 2]

What conclusion is that? That the GOP is in denial of global warming?

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

What conclusion is that?

That the events you describe are positively caused by global warming.

Quote

That the GOP is in denial of global warming?

Possibly... or possibly that they're listening to some of the scientists that are now coming forward and saying that just MAYBE it's not all caused by man.

It's already apparent what flavor Kool-aid you're drinking.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,990]

>It is funny to watch all the AGW hysterics scramble when their alarmist
>forecasts fall flat.

It's even more fun to watch the denier hyperbole become increasingly heated and overblown as the science continues to pile up. Heck, now we even have conspiracy theories about all the evil pro-global-warming scientists making money off this! "Maybe if we make enough noise, people will think the science is 'unsettled' - because I certainly am!"

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>It is funny to watch all the AGW hysterics scramble when their alarmist
>forecasts fall flat.

It's even more fun to watch the denier hyperbole become increasingly heated and overblown as the science continues to pile up. Heck, now we even have conspiracy theories about all the evil pro-global-warming scientists making money off this! "Maybe if we make enough noise, people will think the science is 'unsettled' - because I certainly am!"

"As the science continues to pile up"

Like the science that showed that the temperature corrections being used were wrong?

Or maybe like the science that shows a closer correlation between sunspots and temperature than CO2 and temperature?

Science like that, perhaps?

Oh, wait, I'm sorry - forget all that stuff, folks... it hasn't been approved by 'The Consensus' yet...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,990]

>Like the science that showed that the temperature corrections
>being used were wrong?

Yes. And the result? No change in the trend. Add to that the hundreds of peer-reviewed papers that have come out supporting what's happening, and yes, it's piling up.

When the best you can do is talk about a dataset that supported global warming before the error was discovered, and supports global warming after it's been corrected - you are digging pretty deep.

>Or maybe like the science that shows a closer correlation between
>sunspots and temperature than CO2 and temperature?

There is indeed some correlation between sunspots and temperature, because sunspots go on an 11-year cycle. It peaked in 2000; it has been dropping ever since. So your argument proves the opposite - that we are warming the climate DESPITE the reduced solar output.

But fear not; it will begin to rise soon, and will peak in 2011. So deniers will have four years of being able to say "IT'S ALL THE SUN!" Then as solar output declines again, but the climate keeps warming, they will retreat to "solar cycles mumble mumble sunspots something I forget."

So in a way there's an even stronger correlation between sunspot activity and denier frenzy.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>It is funny to watch all the AGW hysterics
>scramble when their alarmist forecasts fall flat.

It's even more fun to watch the denier hyperbole become increasingly heated and overblown as the science continues to pile up. Heck, now we even have conspiracy theories about all the evil pro-global-warming scientists making money off this! "Maybe if we make enough noise, people will think the science is 'unsettled' - because I certainly am!"

Thanks for the illustration.

[mnealtx 0]

Yes, the dataset corrected an ERROR in the GW hysteric's calculations. The odd thing is that ANY error in a GW skeptic's data and you doubt their entire work, while errors in GW proponent's data is treated as "it supported GW before the correction and still does, so no biggie".

Just a bit of hypocrisy going on there...

"reduced solar output"

Scientists at the Institute of Astronomy in Zurich disagree with you. They say that sunspots and solar activity have been increasing over the last century.

Their data seems supported by the correlation between the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age as well as other data they are examining, which shows that the Sun is more active over the last 60 years than any other point in the roughly 1000 years they are examining.

Of course, the GW proponent's answer is "it's not been reviewed by the consensus".

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

They say that sunspots and solar activity have been increasing over the last century.

say it with me..

"They say that sunspots and solar activity have been increasing over the last century...due to man made global warming"

now, can we all get along?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,990]

>The odd thing is that ANY error in a GW skeptic's data and you doubt
> their entire work, while errors in GW proponent's data is treated as "it
> supported GW before the correction and still does, so no biggie".

?? If an error goes uncorrected, then yes, the data is in doubt. If it is corrected, then it is not much in doubt.

If you were to fly in a Caravan, and the pilot told you the engine had known mechanical problems, would you fly in it? If he told you the engine had been fixed and tested by an A+P, would that change your opinion?

>Scientists at the Institute of Astronomy in Zurich disagree with you.
>They say that sunspots and solar activity have been increasing over the
>last century.

I assume you are talking about the Fligge-Solanki paper of 2000. If so:

It has been increasing over the last three centuries, actually. Three centuries ago we had something called the Maunder Minimim, a period of unusually low solar output. Sunspot activity peaked in 1950, during the Modern Maximum, and has been gradually declining since. (See attached.)

Mike Lockwood (of the University of Southampton) and Claus Fro (Meteorlogical Observatory of Davos, Switzerland) recently confirmed their work. The summary of their paper mentions that "over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures."

So yes, two more papers that add to the weight of science that some other mechanism is not causing the recent warming we've been seeing.