They claimed more hurricanes and more powerful hurricanes since 2004 that has not happenedQuote:
Originally Posted by Bowerbird
http://finance.townhall.com/columnis...ked/page/full/
Printable View
They claimed more hurricanes and more powerful hurricanes since 2004 that has not happenedQuote:
Originally Posted by Bowerbird
http://finance.townhall.com/columnis...ked/page/full/
The problem with warmers is taking the last 100 or so years, when actual temperatures are being measured and applying it to a system that is millions of years in the making is a problem. There are problems with the measurements, such as found in ARGO, and there are problems applying them to proxy data from the past (proxy data is like assuming temperature by things like tree rings).
That is why I look at the long term pattern and ask the question, what will happen when this interglacial ends? If someone wants to cry about trying to keep the climate the same from now on, try fighting glaciers moving south.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptif219
Like I said before, from the article:
Quote:
In a work published in late November and carefully labeled an “opinion” piece on the site for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration- which is quick to distance itself from the conclusions reached by Landsea, who makes very clear that he subscribes to the theory man of man-made global warming- concludes that “the overall impact of global warming on hurricanes is currently negligible and likely to remain quite tiny even a century from now.”
In the rarefied atmosphere of climate politics this is enough to get you labled as a "climate skeptic," perhaps enough to get you excommunicated as a "climate denier." Landsea resigned from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2005 because he felt it had become politicized and was ignoring the science.
Oh, I didn't realize that the laws of physics had changed in the last 100 years. Or even in the last 100 million years. Which ones, pray tell? And why is it invalid to apply what we know to past events, present events, or future events?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoosier8
Those problems have been solved. See my previous posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoosier8
What problems?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoosier8
And what answer did you come up with?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoosier8
If we had never started burning fossil fuels, the next ice age wouldn't have started for another 60,000 years. Why is a climate catastrophe 60,000 years from now more important than an avoidable climate catastrophe that is happening right now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoosier8
Then it says thisQuote:
Originally Posted by Hoosier8
Quote:
Yet somehow he remains the leading hurricane expert in the US, despite his "shoddy" science.
Landsea attacked three specific datasets that are often used by global warming alarmists to show that the warming of the earth will have terrible consequences for human-kind: 1) the frequency of storms; 2) the intensity of storms and; 3) the economic damage of storms.
In each data subset he showed that apparent increases in storm activity or effect can be ascribed to advances in technology or development that skew the data rather than a real increased frequency or effect of storms.
For example, Landsea shows that as we have gotten better at monitoring the number of storms over the last 100 years because of new technology like satellites, the number of storms that we have been able to observe has gone up, not the number of storms as a whole.
“In 1911, there were no satellites, no aircraft reconnaissance, no radar, no buoys and no automated weather stations,” writes Landsea. “Indeed, it was only two years previous, that the very first ship captain stuck in a hurricane aboard his ship was able to use a two-way radio to let people back at the coast know that a hurricane was out over the ocean.”
Prior to that hurricane monitoring relied on a few ships in the Atlantic and the Caribbean so “[i]t would appear that the hurricane database would have some very large gaps in both numbers of cyclones and their peak winds as one went further back in time.”
To test the theory Landsea looked at storm data from the “Open Atlantic” where satellites and air reconnaissance would better be able to count storms and at storms that were very short-lived-called “shorties”- which were likely missed previously.
Both sets of data tended to confirm that storm data is more incomplete the farther back you reach in time.
“So removing the shorties and adding in the estimated number of missed medium-to-long lived storms reveals quite a different picture regarding the long-term changes,” says Lansea, “Instead of a doubling in the number, the frequency of these storms is flat over the time period of a century as seen in the blue trend line.”
Additionally, Landsea points out that the severity of storms is likely to be negligible as well as a result of global warming: “the increase in hurricane winds are on the order of 1-2 mph” for a Category Five hurricane like Katrina.
Unfortunately for you, history tells a different story. This interglacial is about 11,000 years old and the last one did not last much longer than that, so we are at near end of the interglacial ready for a new ice age, which is a misnomer since we have been in an ice age for 2.5 million years and the last "ice age" was just a cooler period in the cycle. The cold spells last between 60,000 and 100,000 years where the mild interglacials, like now, only last about 15,000 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poor Debater
So what should we do to get ready for the next glacial period which would be much worse than any warming.
What does the law of physics have to do with true believers? Even the IPCC report only states that CO2 itself would be responsible for 1 degree of warming but the rest is all supposed to come about by multiplying agents, of which many people disagree. So one scientists guesswork based on limited data can lead people like you as lemmings to the slaughter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poor Debater
As pointed out before, if you are not on the current bandwagon, you can be ostracized from the scientific community, even if you are right or have a great theory in opposition to the accepted political norm.
In the past 100 years global temperature has increased approx. 0.7C (about .007C per year). This is well within a statistical margin of error even when NOT considering that calibration, human charting, computer modeling, faulty satellite data, bad station placement and throwing out so called 'bad' data have all been part-and-parcel of the climate research industry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoosier8
Looking at that 'warming' data, one is hard-pressed to see any significant warming at all.
So you're basing your belief on numerology rather than science? Why am I not surprised?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoosier8
What paleoclimatology tells us is that an inter-glacial ends, and ice sheet formation begins, when summer insolation at latitude 65° N drops below a critical threshold level. At 280 ppmv of CO2 (typical pre-industrial inter-glacial concentration), that critical level is about 455 W/m˛.
What astronomy tells us is that those levels won't be seen again for another 60,000 years. That's because Earth's orbit is becoming more circular right now, and Earth's axial tilt is becoming more upright too. In other words, we're due for a pause in the glacial/interglacial cycle just by a chance occurance in Milankovitch cycles.
I referred you (again) to Archer & Ganopolski 2005.
Numerology? LOL, try the historic record of interglacials. The pattern is pretty well defined back 450 thousand years no matter what some scientist decides to theorize, and yes, it could change as things changed and the earth cooled and plunged us into this 2.5 million year ice age but what you are talking about is what I am talking about, how natural forces will trump anything we think we can do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poor Debater