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.
So you don't think we have some responsibility to SLOW DOWN what we're causing unnaturally, simply because "nature could make worse things happen one day, anyway?" Isn't that sort of like the "everyone dies eventually, who cares if we kill people" argument? Also, a slow, gradual rise in sea level (neglecting the occurence of floods, hurricanes, etc. which are expected to increase) doesn't mean a slow, gradual climb of the tide up the beach, unless the beach is slanted vertically.
Well, yeah, everybody will die eventually anyway. But that is beside the point.
Even if the worse case scenarios were going to come true, it would be better to try and react to the changes than to prevent them.
More floods and hurricanes than before? Please. That is nonsense alarmism hard at work. We have more humans in more places with the means to measure and record data. More things will be recorded and shown to people than ever before. But people totally discount the reasoning for this is our technology and ability to instantly report and analyze everything. Record numbers of tornadoes? Yes, the number of tornadoes recorded is a new record. Means nothing in respect to how many have occured previously when population density was much lower, no radars were available for confirming tornadoes, and many tornadoes that touched down in the middle of nowhere went unreported. The more the empty spaces fill up, and the more our ability to track and analyze weather improves, the more we will hear about bad weather. To say it is a new phenomona that is unprecedented is simply absurd.
Like I said, the vast majority of those articles merely assert that there are other factors that affect the climate besides human activity. Nobody is arguing otherwise. Nobody is saying that the sun doesn't affect the earth's climate, or that previous ice ages weren't caused by people. And most people aren't saying that greenhouse gases are the ONLY factor causing global warming right now, are they? No, they're not. Mann's "hockey stick" wasn't "junk science," either. McIntyre said it was, the people who reviewed McIntyre's work disagreed but agreed that Mann had some minor methodological errors that didn't significantly effect the final outcome.
Most of the 6 or 7 articles that are actually skeptical are written by McIntyre, Lindzen, Idso, Singer... energy company people. And there's no way of knowing (without access to the actual journals) whether the few published articles actually survived the peer review process. I already went over this, though.
No they disprove various aspects of the alarmist positions in relation to man-made CO2 driving climate change. And all you can do is smear them because you don't like their scientific opinion. Well that is just too bad.
Oh you bet your ass Mann's Hockey Stick is junk science:
"4) With respect to methods, the committee is showing reservations concerning the methodology of Mann et al.. The committee notes explicitly on pages 91 and 111 that the method has no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless.
[...] Thus, the public perception that the hockeystick as truthfully describing the temperature history was definitely false.
7) We find it disappointing that the method of Mann et al. was not sufficiently described in the original publication, and thus not peer-reviewed prior to publication, and that no serious efforts were made to allow independent researchers to check the performance of the methods and of the data used." - NAS
Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance (http://www.climate2003.com/pdfs/2004GL012750.pdf - broken link) (Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L03710, 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
"Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shaped first principal component (PC1)"
Reply to comment by Huybers on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.huybersreply.pdf - broken link) (Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L20715, 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
Reply to comment by von Storch and Zorita on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.vz.reply.pdf - broken link) (Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L20714, 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf - broken link) (Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
It was found to be such junk that the NAS discredited it! It does not even appear in the 4th IPCC report but that doesn't stop Al Gore from putting it in his movie.
There's no need for 2 pages. You keep posting all these articles that don't say what you say they're saying. And articles that say what you say they're saying, but they're all either written by Steve McIntyre or not peer-reviewed.
And from your Wall Street Journal article (notice the bolded sentences):
Quote:
"It's a very difficult technical question, one that not even most people in climate research would understand," says Eduardo Zorita, a climate scientist at the GKSS Research Centre in Germany. He, too, now agrees that Mr. McIntyre has identified a statistical snafu in the hockey-stick math. What he says isn't yet clear is whether it could invalidate Dr. Mann's final result."
Quote:
"The main punch line still appears in many other studies," says Jonathan Overpeck, a climate specialist at the University of Arizona. He shares some other scientists' concern that critics have unfairly singled out Dr. Mann's work. A variety of critics appear to be "on some kind of witch hunt," Dr. Overpeck says.
Quote:
When Messrs. McIntyre and McKitrick pointed this out to Nature, the journal that first published the hockey-stick graph, Dr. Mann and his two co-authors had to publish a partial correction. In it, they acknowledged one wrong date and the use of some tree-ring data that hadn't been cited in the original paper, and they offered some new details of the statistical methods. The correction, however, stated that "none of these errors affect our previously published results."
Quote:
As the IPCC revisits the warming issue -- and the hockey stick -- it is taking account of all views, including Mr. McIntyre's, say the group's leaders.
Last edited by fishmonger; 11-19-2007 at 01:14 PM..
About the past: "There is observational evidence for an increase of intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, correlated with increases of tropical sea surface temperatures.
Amazing! Would this happen to be anything like the spike in the 1930's? Hmmm....what was that 20-30 year lull all about?
But Hurricane Wilma was the most powerfull hurricane ever recorded, so we do have proof that hurricanes now are stronger than ever. Except we've only had the ability to measure central pressure accurately for about 50 years, and we've only flown weather planes to hurricanes on an every 4 hour schedule for far less than 50 years. Hurricane Camille could have possibly been stronger than Wilma, considering those peaks in intensity only last for a couple of hours. So maybe we missed Camille's true peak. What about the great Colonial hurricane? Wonder how strong that was?
(Christopher W. Landsee)"Researchers cannot assume that the Atlantic tropical cyclone database presents a complete depiction of frequency of events before the advent of satellite imagery in the mid-1960s. Moreover, newly available advanced tools and techniques are also contributing toward monitoring about one additional Atlantic tropical cyclone per year since 2002. Thus large, long-term ‘trends’ in tropical cyclone frequency are primarily manifestations of increased monitoring capabilities and likely not related to any real change in the climate in which they develop."
(William M. Gray)"Global hurricane frequency and/or intensity has not been observed to undergo any significant trends as a result of the global warming of the last 30 years for frequency and for the last 20 years for intensity"
(World Meteorological Organization - 2006)"A consensus of 125 of the world’s leading tropical cyclone researchers and forecasters says that no firm link can yet be drawn between human-induced climate change and variations in the intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones."
QUOTE (NOAA)"...until organized reconnaissance began in 1944, the two major sources of information on tropical cyclones were land stations and ships at sea. Undoubtedly, during this early period some storms went undetected."
Amazing! Would this happen to be anything like the spike in the 1930's? Hmmm....what was that 20-30 year lull all about?
But Hurricane Wilma was the most powerfull hurricane ever recorded, so we do have proof that hurricanes now are stronger than ever. Except we've only had the ability to measure central pressure accurately for about 50 years, and we've only flown weather planes to hurricanes on an every 4 hour schedule for far less than 50 years. Hurricane Camille could have possibly been stronger than Wilma, considering those peaks in intensity only last for a couple of hours. So maybe we missed Camille's true peak. What about the great Colonial hurricane? Wonder how strong that was?
And I'm sure the people who study hurricanes take all that into account when attempting to predict future frequency, wouldn't you think?
And I'm sure the people who study hurricanes take all that into account when attempting to predict future frequency, wouldn't you think?
Not sure.
I do sometimes wonder exactly what variables they use to forecast, considering they usually are off the mark by quiet a bit even for the current season.
But its cool...current season forecasts are harder to predict because its weather. Predicting 50-100 years out is much more accurate because its climate.
(Christopher W. Landsee)"Researchers cannot assume that the Atlantic tropical cyclone database presents a complete depiction of frequency of events before the advent of satellite imagery in the mid-1960s. Moreover, newly available advanced tools and techniques are also contributing toward monitoring about one additional Atlantic tropical cyclone per year since 2002. Thus large, long-term ‘trends’ in tropical cyclone frequency are primarily manifestations of increased monitoring capabilities and likely not related to any real change in the climate in which they develop."
(William M. Gray)"Global hurricane frequency and/or intensity has not been observed to undergo any significant trends as a result of the global warming of the last 30 years for frequency and for the last 20 years for intensity"
(World Meteorological Organization - 2006)"A consensus of 125 of the world’s leading tropical cyclone researchers and forecasters says that no firm link can yet be drawn between human-induced climate change and variations in the intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones."
QUOTE (NOAA)"...until organized reconnaissance began in 1944, the two major sources of information on tropical cyclones were land stations and ships at sea. Undoubtedly, during this early period some storms went undetected."
What's the point of posting 20 more links than anyone on earth would ever have the time or desire to read? That makes no sense, it's like you're trying to bludgeon people into submission with information overload. Anybody can do that. I'm not saying there isn't debate about the relationship between global warming and hurricane frequency, just that for now most of the verified studies appear to show a link. Here's where I demonstrate my amazing link-bludgeoning, information overload powers.
EO News: Atlantic Hurricane Frequency Doubles - July 29, 2007 (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2007/2007072925417.html - broken link)
EDIT: Actually I didn't notice that some of those links were to the same study, but the environmental defense link that you can sift through using your amazing light-speed research powers also contains links/references to additional studies not linked to by my own linking skills. I deleted some of the repeats.
I do sometimes wonder exactly what variables they use to forecast, considering they usually are off the mark by quiet a bit even for the current season.
But its cool...current season forecasts are harder to predict because its weather. Predicting 50-100 years out is much more accurate because its climate.
Obviously long-term trends are easier to predict than individual occurences.
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.
