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.
This does not say what the thread title claims. The title claims GW has reduced hurricanes, but the article says US has been fortunate we have not seen many land falls, but other countries have not been as fortunate.
Something lost in the noise about hurricanes is that they are a worldwide phenomenon, and that the numbers of hurricanes in any one particular region is of no particular significance in the grand scheme of things.
For example, in the Year of Katrina there were 14 hurricanes in the Atlantic region. There have been nowhere near that number in the Atlantic since then.
There were more hurricanes worldwide in 2013 than there were in 2012, despite the fact that there were only two hurricanes in the Atlantic region that year.
Subject to conditions we do not fully understand yet, there are more or less the same numbers of hurricanes worldwide annually. More here mean fewer there. To many, AGW believers and skeptics both, tend to look at the numbers in one place or another and then claim those particular numbers as proof of one point of view or another.
Just another voice in the wilderness, trying to point out that the reason many of us are skeptics is precisely the lack of real data used in these arguments. Funny how it is the AGW side who can make their claims based upon who knows what, then claiming the "science is settled" and so there can be no further discussion.
So the surface of the ocean is getting cooler, but the deeper you go, the warmer it is?
Our recent ability to measure deep water ocean depths is limited. There is no long term record for a controlled set of data points for deep water temps, the ocean mechanics are complicated and not understood, so there is no way to determine the natural cycles, much less blame any observations on CO2.
Are you accepting some of the claims that the heat is trapped in the deep oceans, and one day is going to rise up and heat the planet?
The problem with you guys is you use sea surface temps to promote your man-made global warming theory, and when the sea surface cools, you just look for some other straw to grab on to. You also use the high surface temps from an El Nino event, to promote CO2 as the cause. CO2 can not be said to cause the formation of an El Nino, can it.
Tell that to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, our government, over at climate.gov:
The “pause” in global warming observed since 2000 followed a period of rapid acceleration in the late 20th century. Starting in the mid-1970s, global temperatures rose 0.5 °C over a period of 25 years. Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero.
I'll ask you again, are we supposed to still be in the Little Ice-Age of the last century? Was human-induced CO2 at the turn of the century, the cause for warming the planet out of the LIA?
There is no pause in global warming.... The heat content of the oceans is growing and growing. That means that the greenhouse effect has not taken a pause and the cold sun is not noticeably slowing global warming.
NOAA posts regularly updated measurements of the amount of heat stored in the bulk of the oceans.
Again. You are a hypocrite who does the exact same thing you accuse others of doing.
No, I don't try to pretend denialist blogs are scientific publications then whine and cry about liberals when I get called on it. I can't imagine why you think I pretend denialist blogs are scientific publications then whine and cry about liberals.
Hey, aren't you the denialist who tried to pretend a guy who says global warming can't be real because Jesus was a "highly regarded scientist"? Why should I care what you think of me or take anything you say seriously? Do I owe you a favour or something?
No, I don't try to pretend denialist blogs are scientific publications then whine and cry about liberals when I get called on it. I can't imagine why you think I pretend denialist blogs are scientific publications then whine and cry about liberals.
How come you didn't include my entire quote in your post? So you could take it out of context and claim I said something I didn't?
Here is what I said:
Quote:
Again. You are a hypocrite who does the exact same thing you accuse others of doing. Whenever there is mention of a skeptical scientist, you and the other warmists immediately deride them and accuse them of being in the pocket of big oil or being a religious nut. The only science and scientists you care about are those who support your dogma.
I was responding to this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
Yet you ignore more current research. Also, you seem to think it supports your claim of fraud when it does no such thing. Your own citations are supposed to support your claims, not make you look the buffoon even more.
Again, you believe scientists when you think their findings support Republican garbage, but accuse them of fraud when their findings contradict the lies of Republican garbage. You lack any sort of intellectual integrity.
The point I was making is that you are the hypocrite who lacks any sort of intellectual integrity since it is YOU who do the same things you accuse others of doing. Namely, yelling fraud at the skeptical scientists and blindly agreeing with the alarmist ones.
Hey, aren't you the denialist who tried to pretend a guy who says global warming can't be real because Jesus was a "highly regarded scientist"? Why should I care what you think of me or take anything you say seriously? Do I owe you a favour or something?
I don't know if this is addressed at me or not, but if it is, I am an atheist and about as non-religious as one can get.
How come you didn't include my entire quote in your post
Because I didn't care to respond to it. I only cared to respond to your accusation that I post links to denialist blogs, pretending they have scientific merit.
When we are discussing climate...including whether it is changing in some way...looking at a few years is not really relevant to determining patterns over time.
Just because it snowed in December doesn't mean the climate isn't changing.
I don't know exactly what you mean here but the fact it snowed in December and is warm out now does point to climate change and it changes 4 times a year where I live. There is nothing unnatural about it as it has done so since I have been alive.
Because I didn't care to respond to it. I only cared to respond to your accusation that I post links to denialist blogs, pretending they have scientific merit.
Wrong again. No surprise there.
I never said that. I said you yell fraud at the skeptical scientists and blindly agree with the alarmist ones.
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.
