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.
The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday released a long-suppressed report by George W. Bush administration officials who had concluded -- based on science -- that the government should begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions because global warming posed serious risks to the country.
That's a political write up over the differences between the administrations statements. How does that confirm or deny his mention concerning hurricane activity?
At least be a bit more involved with the article, I mean it is not difficult to see there is a rebuttal column in that article itself suggesting that the articles focus is too narrow and does not signify a trend.
Did you even read what he posted or even what you posted?
During El Nino years we don't get many hurricanes in the Atlantic, but they got a whooping 32 cyclones/typhoons in the Pacific this year. I don't know if you follow the news from that area, but there were quite a few casualties, especially in the Phillippines.
During El Nino years we don't get many hurricanes in the Atlantic, but they got a whooping 32 cyclones/typhoons in the Pacific this year. I don't know if you follow the news from that area, but there were quite a few casualties, especially in the Phillippines.
And so the conclusion is?
You may have contested the OP's suggestion of a trend, but none of you here have dealt with the fact that neither side of the argument has the ability to prove either "conclusion" wrong, yet they can point out errors in the assessments made in a particular set of research.
OP - Where are the storms? I would say the western Pacific region for this Typhoon season and for the last month. Now a remnant of one of those is flooding California.
That's a political write up over the differences between the administrations statements. How does that confirm or deny his mention concerning hurricane activity?
At least be a bit more involved with the article, I mean it is not difficult to see there is a rebuttal column in that article itself suggesting that the articles focus is too narrow and does not signify a trend.
Did you even read what he posted or even what you posted?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
And so the conclusion is?
You may have contested the OP's suggestion of a trend, but none of you here have dealt with the fact that neither side of the argument has the ability to prove either "conclusion" wrong, yet they can point out errors in the assessments made in a particular set of research.
The conclusion I believe is... there is none.
Of course I read both articles, did you?
Look Nomander, my sole reason for posting what I posted was to illustrate the very point that you are making...
I tend to believe that global warming is a real threat...however I am not yet totally convinced.
During El Nino years we don't get many hurricanes in the Atlantic, but they got a whooping 32 cyclones/typhoons in the Pacific this year. I don't know if you follow the news from that area, but there were quite a few casualties, especially in the Phillippines.
So, judging by this list from the past 9 hurricane seasons. Every year but 2005 was an El nino?
During El Nino years we don't get many hurricanes in the Atlantic, but they got a whooping 32 cyclones/typhoons in the Pacific this year. I don't know if you follow the news from that area, but there were quite a few casualties, especially in the Phillippines.
I would not declare 32 typhoons to be whopping amount since the 50 year average is 31 typhoons/year.
Look Nomander, my sole reason for posting what I posted was to illustrate the very point that you are making...
I tend to believe that global warming is a real threat...however I am not yet totally convinced.
Time to put you back on ignore
Well, that is one way to evade answering to my contest to your claim. You didn't explain as to why your article conflicted with his. His article is an observed comment in relation to the mention of global warming and yours was simply a political banter about the Bush administration and Obama administrations stance on the issue.
But ignore is a good place to put me on if you wish to evade answering to my question. Saves me the trouble of placing you there due to the very reason you refused to answer my question.
Oh, but that is WHOPPING! 1 whole typhoon above average! Anytime the number is NOT normal, it is global warming that caused it to vary wildly.
Enough of bringing in that complicated math science stuff, there are more important issues here to deal with! *chuckle*
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.
