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.
Ever notice how the Climate Change Deniers, are usually
Notice how easily the Global Whatever fanatics substitute "Climate Change" for the actual issue, "Manmade climate change" when trying to pretend people dispute it?
Does it matter? I'm sure global warming has and global cooling been around before any of were born. They used to be palm trees near where Chicago is now, what, a few 1000 years ago?
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,169,902 times
Reputation: 8105
That's a good question, Packard. I think it depends on how adaptable we humans are ..... crops especially will have to be changed around a lot even though we're having trouble growing enough for everyone as it is. People in equatorial regions might be forced to move away from there. There will be coastal flooding, requiring Dutch fixes for the big cities. All that won't matter much in our lifetimes, but it's time right now to start steering our huge ship. And eventually the big storms WILL increase, that goes along with climate instability, and they will become a more constant drain on the economy.
You seem to have an interest in NOAA's opinion, Ferd, so lets see what they actually have to say. That's part of what they say on their FAQ page at Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions
Oh, and what about Pielke? It turns out that he DOES believe in AGW, even though he doesn't link it at this time to hurricanes and tornadoes:
You have me a little bit wrong Woof. I don’t care a hoot about NOAA's "opinion". I don’t care about Roger Pielke Sr. opinion either... he is a skeptic by the way.
What I care about is hard science and where that leads.
What I know for a FACT is that NOAA does takes the hard data on tornadoes and provides an actual count. what I know is that count shows NO RISE in tornado patterns over the period we recognize as a warming period. All the while guys like Jim Hansen and some NOAA scientists have told us that we are seeing more tornadoes.
As for Roger Pielke Jr. Yes he is a luke warmer. And he is a solid scientist. Weither or not he beleives in CAGW or not is not relevent to the actual hard science. MY point is the preachers of the gospel of CAGW say weather is getting worse. The hard data shows that is a lie. This thread is about Sandy being CAGW product. That is a measurable lie and RPJr. says so because he, like me is interested in truth not fiction.
Their data doesn’t match their Opinion. Gimme their data any day.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,169,902 times
Reputation: 8105
Well I already said that you couldn't link any particular hurricane such as Sandy to global warming, and maybe the effects of AGW aren't showing up yet in a devastating way in the US. But there's no question among scientists nowadays that AGW is a problem, and will eventually lead to climate destabilization. There aren't any scientific experts who are skeptics about that ..... I've read that even the oil companies are starting to admit to it, even though they've been funding the deniers.
Well I already said that you couldn't link any particular hurricane such as Sandy to global warming, and maybe the effects of AGW aren't showing up yet in a devastating way in the US. But there's no question among scientists nowadays that AGW is a problem, and will eventually lead to climate destabilization. There aren't any scientific experts who are skeptics about that ..... I've read that even the oil companies are starting to admit to it, even though they've been funding the deniers.
you push what scientific experts agree on. I have linked to a story that describes the "97%" stat and where it comes from. you can from there find the paper that is the source and see the story is accurate.
I agree with that 97% based on the study that was the source.
AGW is real. CAGW has not been shown as an effect anywhere. CAGW has been claimed by a few who have made solid predictions and been proven vastly wrong.
I have linked to original sources that are either Peer Reviewed papers or National Data from NOAA that PROVE beyond any doubt that while we have seen warming, we have seen none of the accompanying catastrophic weather events that these CAGW proponent “scientists” and politicians claim ARE ALREADY HERE.
The hard science tells us beyond any doubt that these guys are wrong. The politicians may be incorrect because they believe what they are told. But the scientists? This is what these guys do for a living! James Hansen does nothing else but this. and he says we are seeing more floods, more hurricanes, and more tornadoes. HE is LYING to you.
If these scientists are lying about this, what else are they lying about and why prey tell are they lying in the first place???? They are supposed to be scientists for goodness sake!
My understanding is that Sandy becoming a super storm was caused by a hurricane moving up from the tropics, colliding with a strong frontal system in the mid-latitutdes, with the normal westerly movement of such a storm away from the NE coast blocked by a high pressure system over Greenland. The storm surge was enhanced by a full moon (and resultant higher tides). Whether or not you agree that the climate is changing, it seems like a serious reach to assume that climate change caused this convergence. Note that the three weather events I mentioned above are completely independent of each other but not uncommon at this time of year. Random variation is enough to explain that they may (on rare occasions) happen at the same time. The only climate change argument for the large magnitude of the storm damage that I accept is that sea-levels have risen because the average temperature of the globe has increased over the last 50 years.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,169,902 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
you push what scientific experts agree on. I have linked to a story that describes the "97%" stat and where it comes from. you can from there find the paper that is the source and see the story is accurate.
I agree with that 97% based on the study that was the source.
AGW is real. CAGW has not been shown as an effect anywhere. CAGW has been claimed by a few who have made solid predictions and been proven vastly wrong.
I have linked to original sources that are either Peer Reviewed papers or National Data from NOAA that PROVE beyond any doubt that while we have seen warming, we have seen none of the accompanying catastrophic weather events that these CAGW proponent “scientists” and politicians claim ARE ALREADY HERE.
The hard science tells us beyond any doubt that these guys are wrong. The politicians may be incorrect because they believe what they are told. But the scientists? This is what these guys do for a living! James Hansen does nothing else but this. and he says we are seeing more floods, more hurricanes, and more tornadoes. HE is LYING to you.
If these scientists are lying about this, what else are they lying about and why prey tell are they lying in the first place???? They are supposed to be scientists for goodness sake!
CAGW: The CAGW hypothesis is that a) The Earth’s climate is warming, b) The warming is substantially a result of human emissions of CO2 and, c) The magnitude of the warming will be enough to have significant effects, and d) The net effects of the warming will be harmful, and e) The harm caused by the warming will be great enough to be worth the net costs of politically-coerced mitigation.
You can't evaluate the "hard science" because you are not a climatologist a person who has studied ALL the evidence. What you've done is what cranks have done endlessly, you focus on a bit of data that you feel doesn't fall in place with the current hypotheses and make up your own poorly supported ones.
If you want YOUR opinion to outweigh the consensus of climatologists, then you should go back to school and get a degree in climate science. Then you will have to learn ALL the evidence, and most likely won't call Hanson and all the other scientists liars.
The only people who don't believe in global warming are US conservatives.
Some (of the conservatives) probably don't believe it, but all of them don't want to pay for it. To own up to it takes a willingness to invest in new energy sources, regulate devastating procedures like hydrofracking as well as nuclear, and serious bipartisan scientific research (science??).
It takes government regulation (for who/what else would be regulating anything?—King of Deregulation = Reagan, their hero). Addressing global warming costs money they do not want to spend. In John Wayne country, no one looks out for their neighbor.
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.
