Official Global Warming thread (merged)

gs, I've explained Mars' climate before to you. Search and you'll find it. We also discussed Saturn and Pluto.

RealClimate: Global warming on Mars?

regarding the quote you used from that article. I have no problem acknowledging global warming, or even climate change, what I don't subscribe to is the theory that man is causing or even exacerbating it.

AGW skeptics point to Mars because it represents climate change on another planet where there are no humans.

btw, wasn't this supposed to be another banner year for hurricanes? Five named storms so far and none of them have even approached hurricane strength.
 
regarding the quote you used from that article. I have no problem acknowledging global warming, or even climate change, what I don't subscribe to is the theory that man is causing or even exacerbating it.

AGW skeptics point to Mars because it represents climate change on another planet where there are no humans.

btw, wasn't this supposed to be another banner year for hurricanes? Five named storms so far and none of them have even approached hurricane strength.

fracking tornadoes have been ripping us apart though...and earthquakes.
 
btw, wasn't this supposed to be another banner year for hurricanes? Five named storms so far and none of them have even approached hurricane strength.

Are you just throwing that out there, or do you have any data to support the point?

First, while it seems fairly straightforward to conclude that higher temperatures equal higher ocean temperatures and that higher ocean temperatures equal more energy for hurricanes, the true relationship is a matter of ongoing study. Even Kerry Emanuel, who famously published a paper on the link between global warming and increased hurricanes just before Hurricane Katrina has since published that potential correlation is difficult to pin down. A common thought is that hurricane intensity may increase, but frequency is a big uncertainty.

Second, and more importantly.....this year was forecast with a 65% probability to be an above normal year and a 25% probability to be an average year with respect to tropical activity. The climate prediction center forecast (produced in May) was:

12-18 Named Storms,
6-10 Hurricanes
3-6 Major Hurricanes

So far, we have had 5 named storms and 0 hurricanes. If you look at the historical record (Table 1) you will see that as of August 1st, the historical average for named storms is two and hurricanes is 0. By August 13th, the historical average would be 3 named storms and 1 hurricane, but 0 major hurricanes. In other words, as of August 1st, we were 3 named storms ahead of an average year (and at 0 hurricanes, which is still average).

The most active time for Atlantic hurricanes is from late August through September. The likelihood of a major hurricane coming anytime before late August (or a Cat 1 or Cat 2 hurricane before early-to-mid-August) is very small. This year may end up being below normal in tropical activity - but the data do not support making such an assertion at this point. The data support that this is an above-normal year so far.
 
I think that the predictions I was citing were for Atlantic basin storms.

So there is no AGW in the Pacific basin?

polar%252520bear%252520crap%25255B3%25255D.jpg
 
Had a storm roll through this morning. Scientists say that global warming causes this sort of thing.
 
Are you just throwing that out there, or do you have any data to support the point?

just throwing it out there because since 2005, many of the less-rational AGW alarmists point to any change in historical patterns as "caused by, or exacerbated by, AGW".

btw, did you hear about some crackpot theory that China's pollution is actually helping to cool the earth? First it was snow in Siberia reflecting sunlight back into space, now it's Chinese pollution.
 
just throwing it out there because since 2005, many of the less-rational AGW alarmists point to any change in historical patterns as "caused by, or exacerbated by, AGW".

btw, did you hear about some crackpot theory that China's pollution is actually helping to cool the earth? First it was snow in Siberia reflecting sunlight back into space, now it's Chinese pollution.

Search posts by me that mention sulphates. This isn't new. I love how we run in circles with skeptics franticly searching for a "gotcha.".
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
By the way mg, it was demonstrated that your comment considering this a below avg hurricane year was wrong. Your response? "just saying.". You don't care about facts or the truth. Your view is clearly emotionally and politically informed, so quit acting like there can ever be evidence that convinces you. I've asked for years what sort of evidence skeptics would need to see to change their mind. Never got an answer. It's because the evidence they will want already exists, or what they ask for will show fundamental ignorance of what anthropogenic climate theory is.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
I don't think the theory is entirely crackpot, but I also don't think that the global effect is probably all that significant. We know that sulfur particles can cause appreciable drops in surface temperatures. But, this is usually associated with violent volcanic eruptions that send the particles high into the atmosphere (see Mt. Pinatubo (sp?) ). For emissions, it would seem like the effects would be more regional since the lifetime of the particles, before they rain out into acid rain, is not all that long. So, that is why I am a bit dubious of gobal impacts. I haven't looked at the modeling though.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Search posts by me that mention sulphates. This isn't new. I love how we run in circles with skeptics franticly searching for a "gotcha.".
Posted via VolNation Mobile

So, you are probably more informed of the modeling. Do you think that a global impact makes sense given the lifetime of the particles? If we were talking depression of Asian temperatures, I would be quicker to buy in.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
I actually totally agree, TT. (with being skeptical of it's overall impact on warming-- should be regional at best) I'm just saying this has been a factor/phenomenon that has been discussed (sulphates causing cooling in regions of high coal consumption) for decades. It isn't some kooky excuse to cover for GCC-- mostly because GCC has been occurring within the range predicted by many of the models and doesn't even need an "excuse." Hell, we just had the hottest July ever recorded.

Where is Rasputin Vol with his weather reports and eye-rolling? I thought that was such damning evidence in December in January, when he was talking about daily lows in specific locations. Now we are having record monthly highs regionally and globally, and it doesn't warrant mentioning?

Again, Rasputin has an emotionally and politically informed view on the issue, and nothing that goes against it will be considered.
 
You made that your sig pretty quick. I guess you've got to jump on the good stuff. Oh, and you're ignorant for believing otherwise.
 
Thanks, IP. I just wanted to clarify your perspective. I agree that the cooling mechanism has been discussed in detail for some time and is not something new.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
By the way mg, it was demonstrated that your comment considering this a below avg hurricane year was wrong. Your response? "just saying.". You don't care about facts or the truth. Your view is clearly emotionally and politically informed, so quit acting like there can ever be evidence that convinces you. I've asked for years what sort of evidence skeptics would need to see to change their mind. Never got an answer. It's because the evidence they will want already exists, or what they ask for will show fundamental ignorance of what anthropogenic climate theory is.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

there's that condescending tone again

thanks
 
there's that condescending tone again

thanks

In his defense, it was a little odd to throw the hurricane comments out there without anything to back them up, and then basically be like, "oh well...", when I posted some data on the subject. I don't know if it was so much condescension on his part as exasperation at any effort to clarify issues...
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
In his defense, it was a little odd to throw the hurricane comments out there without anything to back them up, and then basically be like, "oh well...", when I posted some data on the subject. I don't know if it was so much condescension on his part as exasperation at any effort to clarify issues...
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I explained my reasoning in that I thought that the less rational of AGW alarmists will point to any variation of historical data as evidence of AGW without first seeking an explanation or even offering one. Their default position is that because it's hot in July or cold in December is due to man's release of naturally sequestered carbon.

The hurricane remark by me was a flippant one that was made without consulting any type of almanac.

My frustration with IP is that, while I don't doubt his credentials, his default position that anyone who voices an opinion, no matter how well informed, that is contrary to his own is either ignorant and emotional (me) or in the pockets of big oil (overseasorange2). If we are to take IP seriously, he is going to have to at least engage the debate from an intellectually honest perspective and not a rigid "settled science" stance.
 
I thought this was temperature not climate?

What are the rules on using a specific season's temperatures as evidence for or against GW? I'm asking seriously.

It would not be wise, IMO, to use any one season's temperature as any measure of GW, AGW or not. It just isn't statistically significant. If, over 5-10 years, you begin racking up record months, you can begin to assign more value to the data. With that said, I thought IP was just pointing out the hot July as sarcastic fodder against the record cold December crowd.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
MG- I agree that climate change seems to be the go-to answer to explain any unusual data. I would not connect this to hurricanes from a scientific community standpoint, but I'm sure you will hear it in the press if there are some big storms this year. It won't be accurate with scientific certainty, but that won't stop some from throwing it out there. The same thing goes for the Chinese emissions. I'm sure they could depress regional temperatures; however, without seeing convincing modeling or data to the contrary, I'm highly suspicious of any global impacts.

I understand you don't like IP's approach. He's taken a more hardline approach to this topic and the board in general. IMO, he has taken this approach to this subject in response to approach of many here. I try to remain intellectually honest about this, but I do carry some bias that isn't going to go away. However, my demeanor slips at times as I get frustrated as attempts to lay out the mechanisms at play in as intellectually honest of a way as I know how are countered by copy and paste blogs that aren't fully understood or general opinions and distrust that aren't necessarily founded in any data.

It's just a message board, so I try not to take things too seriously, but this topic always catches me on that. It's my Achilles, I guess.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 

Advertisement



Back
Top