Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Field research? Nope, but understanding and doing on-line research of my own, I can make my own decision, unlike you, apparently....
Study the hockey stick, then get back with us....
Reading conspiracy blogs is not what I would call 'on-line research'.
If you had indeed done any real research (eg, a search of the literature in peer-reviewed science Journals) you would not find anything about Mann's Hockey stick graph being 'debunked'. In fact, just the opposite. It has been supported by multiple independent lines of evidence.
"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years."
Sorry the way to become a SKEPTIC is to read the scientific lit pushed by the IPCC, look at their predictions going back 15 years or so then look at reality.
In fact in the last 6 months or so there have been a good half dozen peer reviewed papers that clearly demonstrate the IPCCs understanding of climate sensitivity is vastly overstated.
When you look at sea ice in the Arctic and understand that in the 1930’s there was a similar reduction in sea ice area as we are seeing now. Then you see the breathless predictions that turn out to be off by a huge amount….
When you hear claims that weather is getting worse, then you understand that the data just does not support that notion. NOAA will tell you that tornadoes are neither more frequent, nor more powerful. The peer review record PROVES that there is zero trend in global flooding…yet we get reports from the Warmists that rain storms are worse. We hear that hurricanes are more and bigger. But the data does not support that at all.
Then in the most recent hearing in the Senate, one of the Warmists champions actually said “if you look for a CAGW signal on the global level you won’t find it. You have to look regionally” She actually said that! LOL
Seeing all THAT is how you become a skeptic. Sorry but the CAGW freakout crowd is losing eyes are opening. Australia just kicked out its CAGW made party and is correcting course as we speak…..
"The peer review record"? That phrase doesn't even make sense. It just shows you don't understand what peer review means.
Sounds like you are just blindly parroting conspiracy blogs like Watts Up With That or Climate Audit. They like to post misrepresentations and straw man arguments then gleefully knock them down while high-fiving each other like school boys. Just like the misrepresentations you made in your post.
I tend to go by what actual scientists & researchers have to say about the subject matter. Are you a scientist?
actual scientists are split three ways on the subject. those with a liberal agenda say man made global warming is real, those with a conservative agenda say man made global warming is rubbish. the rest say that we just dont know enough to truly say one way or the other as there are far too many variables to take into account at this point in time. the third group is the ones i listen to most, though i also take into account what the second group says as well.
It is premature to conclude that human activities--and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming--have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet properly modeled (e.g., aerosol effects).
Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the numbers of very intense hurricanes in some basins—an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm numbers is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical storms.
Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes, with a model-projected increase of about 20% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center.
[
Then in the most recent hearing in the Senate, one of the Warmists champions actually said “if you look for a CAGW signal on the global level you won’t find it. You have to look regionally†She actually said that! LOL
Too short a period for hurricanes but 2 major hurricanes hitting the northeast within 2 years is unheard of in recent history.
Storms with surges similar to Sandy hit in '58 and '38. Two larger storms 3 years apart in 1635 and 1638 according to the geological record. Also keep in mind Sandy came ashore at the worst possible time and the surge may have been increased by 20% becsue of the tide.
By two storms I'm assuming you mean the Blizzard as the other one, as recently as '93 and '96 we had blizzards like that and there is certainly many records of those types of storms occurring throughout history.
There is nothing extraordinary or special about these storms. While on the topic consider this, the geological record indicates that massive flooding hits the west coast every 500 years on average and they are way overdue. The indications are when this type of flooding occurs again it's going to be of epic proportions as far as disasters go as in the largest natural disaster in US history. Do you think that will blamed on AGW or will it be considered in a historical context?
Are we using climate change or global warming these days, I don't know...
I believe the newest scientific term according to the Linked article is "LUCK", with a "fluke" and "chance" thrown in for good measure.
Quote:
Experts agree
Other experts agreed that the drought was mostly a matter of chance and didn't reflect some deep underlying pattern. "One of the biggest factors is luck," McNoldy said.
"It's just a fluke, and good luck," said Jason Samenow, a meteorologist with the Washington Post's Capital Weather Gang blog.
Reading conspiracy blogs is not what I would call 'on-line research'.
If you had indeed done any real research (eg, a search of the literature in peer-reviewed science Journals) you would not find anything about Mann's Hockey stick graph being 'debunked'. In fact, just the opposite. It has been supported by multiple independent lines of evidence.
"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years."
So, you tell me I'm wrong, and you provide nothing to back up your claim except that I'm only reading conspiracy blogs?
Also, if you will read the entire thread, I have stated that yes, I do believe it is happening, but not at the break neck speed the sky is falling blah blah blah crap the left has been putting out. Polar bears are dieing because we breath to much CO2.
"The peer review record"? That phrase doesn't even make sense. It just shows you don't understand what peer review means.
Sounds like you are just blindly parroting conspiracy blogs like Watts Up With That or Climate Audit. They like to post misrepresentations and straw man arguments then gleefully knock them down while high-fiving each other like school boys. Just like the misrepresentations you made in your post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
Reading conspiracy blogs is not what I would call 'on-line research'.
If you had indeed done any real research (eg, a search of the literature in peer-reviewed science Journals) you would not find anything about Mann's Hockey stick graph being 'debunked'. In fact, just the opposite. It has been supported by multiple independent lines of evidence.
"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years."
If denialists have to blatantly lie and misrepresent others to support their opinions, it doesn't say much for their opinions.
Then when you go back and correct your buddy "northnut" for calling storm Sandy a hurricane, then you will gain some credibility. Or do you believe lying and making something seem worse than it actual is to scare people, is a good thing?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
