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 Holocene climatic optimum was reached 8000 years ago, and since then there has been a very gradual cooling... at least until the 20th century, when the temperature suddenly shot up.
...
And would you prefer that to the temperatures suddenly shooting downwards?
Hurricanes feed off warm ocean water. In the ocean's hurricane nurseries, heat rising from the ocean turns into water vapor.
Let me correct you a bit. The heat input from the sun provides the latent heat of vaporization that is needed to add water vapor to the air. Warmer air caries more water vapor than cooler air does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
As the vapor rises and cools, it condenses into rain. This releases heat, which helps strengthen circulating tropical cyclones.
The vertical movement of air in the eye wall draws in air from the bottom outside and also the central downdraft or eye. More heat in the Ocean makes for stronger hurricanes. The Ocean has a stinking large thermal mass and it takes thousands of years to heat up. The surface doesn't have as much thermal mass and so reacts faster.
Tornado warning systems weren't accurate until 1948, and have improved a lot since then.
When did NASA start homogenizing deaths??? (and why wasn't that data included in the footnotes?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
Actually climate activists, unlike deniers, rely on NASA and science for our "drivel"...Deniers rely on propaganda, or their own uneducated opinions....
Propaganda, even when wrapped in the good name of NASA, is still propaganda.
You are grasping at straws.......In 1900, communication was very limited, hurricane forecasts didn't exist, neither did evacuation notices. Warnings, if there were any would be too late....You cannot compare the horse and buggy days to modern times....
You are grasping at even more straws. You cannot compare statistics today to 100 and more years ago when there were lots of tornadoes and hurricanes that nobody saw or recorded. You also cannot compare temperatures today with 100 - 200 years ago when there were very few weather stations, poor record keeping and technology. So I agree, "You cannot compare the horse and buggy days to modern times" but that hasn't stopped the AGW alarmists from doing so.
Still on this topic....I see the usual mudslinging from the cultists towards people that don't buy their lies. You global warmers/climate change cultists have a real bad track record, mostly for lying, and what you say will happen never materializes.
Climate models often underestimate the occurrence of these clouds, thus limiting their ability to predict Arctic climate change and other phenomena. This new research suggests this kind of cloud is present about 30 percent to 50 percent of the time over both Greenland and across the Arctic, said Ralf Bennartz, lead author of the study and an atmospheric physicist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.
Quote:
"A very narrow range of cloud thickness allows for amplification of surface warming," Bennartz told OurAmazingPlanet. "This shows how well we have to understand individual components of the climate system, such as clouds, in order to accurately understand the system as a whole."
A small error in underlying assumptions can lead to a large error in results. I tend to agree with the AGW crowd that man caused global warming is happening although what we should do about it is an open question.
One of the cross links said more melt water in 2012 than in an year from when they started keeping records 30 years ago.
Adding fresh water to the sea water there tends to cool the winters off. So the cooler than average winter on the east coast could have been affected by that melt water.
Actually climate activists, unlike deniers, rely on NASA and science for our "drivel"...Deniers rely on propaganda, or theirown uneducated opinions....
I like that one.
I really do. But then again I'm not a denier so you couldn't have been talking about me.
You are grasping at even more straws. You cannot compare statistics today to 100 and more years ago when there were lots of tornadoes and hurricanes that nobody saw or recorded. You also cannot compare temperatures today with 100 - 200 years ago when there were very few weather stations, poor record keeping and technology. So I agree, "You cannot compare the horse and buggy days to modern times" but that hasn't stopped the AGW alarmists from doing so.
So why did you make the comparison then? Weather has been recorded a lot longer than you think....
I really do. But then again I'm not a denier so you couldn't have been talking about me.
But I could have been talking about your opinions.....
Last edited by sanspeur; 03-07-2015 at 03:25 PM..
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.
Thin clouds help melt Greenlands Ice sheet.
