Printable View
^ Humbert - that is a prediction, not a scientific fact. A prediction from a computer model no less, and how can you believe that that is likely to be correct when so many others of the computer model predictions have been wrong? Shit in, shit out... basically.
Another sheeple thought. It's funny how those that preach it, think the none believers of CC are destroying the planet, or accept it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Humbert
As I've mentioned to one poster, what do you do? As a none believe I have a an atmospheric water generator, partial solar power, LPG and LED lighting a around the home and I don't fall for the consumer BS. And you do what exactly?
Bought an energy saving LCD every year, change your smart phone when ordered to and a slightly more energy efficient car perhaps?
I wonder how many idiots have fallen for that trap!
^^ No it's not. When ocean temperatures reach 79 degrees Fahrenheit water vapor is given off into the atmosphere. When this occurs over large areas tropical storms are spawned. This is a scientific fact not a prediction. If the oceans start warming over vast areas due to a 5-7 C. degree overall temperature increase there is no other way for the oceans to create temperature equilibrium than by releasing energy through hurricanes, cyclones and typhoons.
INterestign - so why does all the official information on it say "predicts more storms" as opposed to "its a fact, the science is settled, we're all doomed by big arse storms that we have anyway".
Individual storms are predicted based on the optimum conditions occurring ie. vast tracts of heated water. Tropical storms are a reality, not a prediction. They occur when the conditions that create them are extant. If vast areas of the ocean are super heated due to a planetary rise in mean temperature there will be chaotic weather.
Right on cue! Speaks volumes about their brain dead attitude!
^So I guess you think weather is just a big mystery.
Read a paper a few years ago that proposed that hurricanes in the Jurrasic and Cretacous periods, when global temperature was 4C higher than now, were of a strength comparable to a projected 6 or possibly 7 on the hurricane scale used today.Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
It's not that hard to grasp, higher temperature equals increased energy which means more violent storms, ocean currents and winds as the energy is transferred from Equator to poles.
For a self-styled 'free-thinker' you sure do have a tendency to fall back on some hoary, hackneyed, logical fallacies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesus Jones
According to the Uk Met. Office data, much trumpeted by the climatic evangelists as being beyond reproach, the " global mean temperature values " over the past 25 years show on a graph published by the Canadian environmentalist Soloman that the increase of the " world " temperature has been a mere 0.08.
Scarcely grounds for even the most rabid of changers to wet their little knickers,eh?
Much data churned out by the lobbyists maintaining their seat on the bogus energy gravy train is skewed which of course results in daft anomalies, often glibly dismissed by the likes of,say, Zooheecock (aka Dan ) who simply can't explain why the temperature hasn't risen proportionate to the Co2 production.
The obvious answer is quite simply the man made influence upon climate change is grotesquely overcooked. But getting a man to accept he has been made to look a fool for so long has always been a challenge not least because pride always,always overcomes all.
Nowt so daft as folk and most cons only work because of the mark's stupidity.
What a ridiculous statement. Do you know nothing about Physics or Physical Chemistry?Quote:
Originally Posted by Humbert
You've just shown yourself to be so uneducated. No wonder Gore and his mob can get away with so much when they are preaching to people like you.
I guess you missed these subjects at school, so here is some homework for you:
Dalton's Law of partial pressures
Clausius–Clapeyron equation
I won't suggest any more as your brain will probably explode.
^^Cherry picking statistics from one 'environmentalist' is pretty flimsy evidence in support of your conclusion. However, as usual, full points for your dripping sarcasm.
According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and shown in this series of maps, the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.
But why should we care about one degree of warming? After all, the temperature fluctuates by many degrees every day where we live.
The global temperature record represents an average over the entire surface of the planet. The temperatures we experience locally and in short periods can fluctuate significantly due to predictable cyclical events (night and day, summer and winter) and hard-to-predict wind and precipitation patterns. But the global temperature mainly depends on how much energy the planet receives from the Sun and how much it radiates back into space—quantities that change very little. The amount of energy radiated by the Earth depends significantly on the chemical composition of the atmosphere, particularly the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
A one-degree global change is significant because it takes a vast amount of heat to warm all the oceans, atmosphere, and land by that much. In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age. A five-degree drop was enough to bury a large part of North America under a towering mass of ice 20,000 years ago.
World of Change: Global Temperatures : Feature Articles
Please give us your theory regarding the formation of tropical storms then if it has nothing to do with the heating of ocean waters?Quote:
Originally Posted by JetsetBkk
Here is a simple little primer on tropical storm creation for you that you might be able to wrap your brain around:Quote:
Originally Posted by JetsetBkk
Hurricanes - What Causes Hurricanes?
Common knowledge that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Humbert
But tell us why you think there are more Cat 5 & above storms now than in the past?
Haven't forgotten the big one that wiped out Galveston around the turn of the last century have you?
Given the earth has been in its current form, the Cenozoic era, for the past 65 million years, give or take the odd millenia or two, I rather think your sample of 130 years might reasonably appear to even the most whimsical of changers to be somewhat a cherry pick, don't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Humbert
The absurdity of the human condition knows no bounds but it's always entertaining if nothing else. In years to come I surmise our descendants will ponder the idiocy of this society in much the same way we wonder at our ancestors' attempts to understand their place in the Universe by plotting the course of Orion's Belt whilst ripping the hearts out of a thousand virgins.
Ah well, at least those wind farmers are making a fortune and the kicker is, who is paying for it?
Stupid is as stupid does. Unfortunately, nothing shy of a Korean nuclear conflagration will alter this mad obsession of western governments which will of course run and run as long as folk are making money out of it.
Makes the South Sea Bubble look like a reasonable punt.
Are you talking about weather or man made climate change? Make your damn mind up fool!Quote:
Originally Posted by Humbert
Never mind Ant, I'm sure you won't always be this petty!Quote:
Originally Posted by AntRobertsonFor a self-styled 'free-thinker' you sure do have a tendency to fall back on some hoary, hackneyed, logical fallacies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesus Jones
I guess your reading comprehension level is rather low. We were talking about the causation of tropical storms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesus Jones
Waiting on your answer to why you believe there are more violent storms recently than in the past?:chitown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Humbert
^I'm not going to be drawn into a debate about the weather with you boon me. If you want to assert that the planet is not warming please do so.
Was that too much dripping sarcasm for you, Humbert?
It's difficult to oppose foolishness and received orthodoxy when everyone you previously held in respect is telling you that you are wrong. The world is full of such nonsense but not everyone has the strength of character and wit to swim against a rising tide of the stupid and vainglorious.
Don't feel bad about being part of the herd following false prophets and their high priests. You're in good company.
Thats quite interesting, but with no context how are we to know that you not simple producing yet another piece of cherry picking, akin to saying that the stock market has not been rising in value over the last century and presenting data limited to periods of recession to prove it.Quote:
Originally Posted by thegent
Now someone would have to be rather gullible to fall for a con as simple and easy to spot as that, but as this thread has shown there's no shortage of people who will. So if you are up to it, I would be very interested in reading the article you got this information from.
to describe the met as being beyond reproach is hyperbole, but they have a lot of people working for them who demonstrably have a good understanding of what they are doing, certainly better than most of us. The same applies to the other groups producing climate models, and one cannot just dismiss what they are doing, glibly, one needs to make a reasoned argument as to how they have got it wrong.
And until last year there were quite a few very legitimate concerns that their predictions could be off because of the quality of the temperature data that they were all using. That was until global warming sceptic, Richard Muller did what differentiates the denier from the sceptic. he went out and did research to find out if these issues that the sceptics saw with the existing models compromised their results. He group did their number crunching with their own datasets and, somewhat to their surprise got very similar results to everyone else.
At some point in all scientific discoveries where sceptics with legitimate concerns morph into denialists that simply do not want to believe the evidence. for global warming, the publication of muller's results was that moment. The climate models all produce very similar results, those results predict the past and present well and as far as the future has become the present, it is found to fall within the range of futures predicted by these models.
And if you do look at whats left dening global warming, is a mix shills and the wilfully blind nd its going to go the way of Aids denailism, smokers lung cancer and asbestosis denalism, evolution, even pion denialism.
Hang on there Bert, you allege that we are seeing more violent weather due to MMGW I guess & I'm simply asking where do you get your facts for this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Humbert
Earth is warming no doubt but again, is it due to mankind's influence or the Sun or a combination of the two?
We have had violent weather throughout history and so far, I'm not seeing any thing that points to more now than before.
I didn't allege anything of the sort. I asserted that increased mean planetary temperatures would inevitably lead to more violent tropical storm activity. I am making no connection between recent events and global warming. The time spans are too short to assert that causation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee