 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Astro - Amateur Forum » Good news on the weather front... |
|
Page 1 of 9 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| S. Caro... |
 Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Of course, some may think this is bad news.
- North Atlantic Hurricane Season slowest since 1997
- Global and Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity
remains near 30-year historical lows -- three years in a row
now of considerably below-average activity globally.
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
But don't worry! This is only because of La Nana/El Nino and NOTHING
else. We know this because the IPCC climate models are absolutely
infallible. The scientists who created the models know everything
there is to know about planet wide climate. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| yourmommycalled... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 10:13 am, "S. Caro" <sc... at (no spam) muxnet.com> wrote:
[quote]Of course, some may think this is bad news.
- North Atlantic Hurricane Season slowest since 1997
- Global and Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity
remains near 30-year historical lows -- three years in a row
now of considerably below-average activity globally.
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
But don't worry! This is only because of La Nana/El Nino and NOTHING
else. We know this because the IPCC climate models are absolutely
infallible. The scientists who created the models know everything
there is to know about planet wide climate.
[/quote]
Rather than reading the ramblings of a disgraced TV news reader, I
suggest the following papers which document what scientists have said
about the relationship between hurricanes and global warming
Emanuel, K. Environmental Factors Affecting Tropical Cyclone Power
Dissipation, 2007 Journal of Climate
DOI: 10.1175/2007JCLI1571.1
Vecchi, G, and T. Knutson, On Estimates of Historical North Atlantic
Tropical Cyclone Activity, 2008, Journal of Climate DOI:
10.1175/2008JCLI2178.1
Simulated reduction in Atlantic hurricane frequency under twenty-first-
century warming conditions, Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo202
The IPCC report states that the link between hurricanes and global
warming is tenuous, but possible. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris L Peterson... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:13:50 -0600, "S. Caro" <scaro at (no spam) muxnet.com> wrote:
[quote]Of course, some may think this is bad news.
- North Atlantic Hurricane Season slowest since 1997
- Global and Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity
remains near 30-year historical lows -- three years in a row
now of considerably below-average activity globally.
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
But don't worry! This is only because of La Nana/El Nino and NOTHING
else. We know this because the IPCC climate models are absolutely
infallible. The scientists who created the models know everything
there is to know about planet wide climate.
[/quote]
If you actually followed the scientific papers, you would know two
things: hurricane activity _does_ correlate with the El Nino
oscillation, and climate researchers are very uncertain as to whether
global warming will increase or decrease the North Atlantic hurricane
pattern. There is a complex interaction between sea surface temperatures
in different parts of the world, and subtle changes in models produce a
wide range of outputs: more strong hurricanes, more weak hurricanes,
fewer hurricanes but stronger, and fewer hurricanes but weaker. You
won't find climate _scientists_ making unequivocal statements about
global warming and hurricane patterns. (What all agree on is that even
small increases in sea level will result in greater economic harm from
hurricanes, however.)
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Uber Buble... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Take your horse blinders off..there has been 3 typoons (S. pacific for
HURRICANES) already that pounded the phillipines and vietnam. Global
warmong and it's effects apply to the whole earth, not just the US !!
"S. Caro" <scaro at (no spam) muxnet.com> wrote in message
news:YeWdnb8qYfQkLnDXnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d at (no spam) supernews.com...
[quote]Of course, some may think this is bad news.
- North Atlantic Hurricane Season slowest since 1997
- Global and Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity
remains near 30-year historical lows -- three years in a row
now of considerably below-average activity globally.
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
But don't worry! This is only because of La Nana/El Nino and NOTHING
else. We know this because the IPCC climate models are absolutely
infallible. The scientists who created the models know everything
there is to know about planet wide climate.
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
S. Caro wrote:
[quote]Of course, some may think this is bad news.
- North Atlantic Hurricane Season slowest since 1997
- Global and Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity
remains near 30-year historical lows -- three years in a row
now of considerably below-average activity globally.
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
But don't worry! This is only because of La Nana/El Nino and NOTHING
else. We know this because the IPCC climate models are absolutely
infallible. The scientists who created the models know everything
there is to know about planet wide climate.
[/quote]
<laughing>
Here's 5 cents -- Get an education, kid. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| oriel36... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 3:24 am, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
[quote]Peter Webb wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:VVqHm.117546$la3.47464 at (no spam) attbi_s22...
Peter Webb wrote:
Gee, the person who I responded to believes:
1. That AGW is correct.
2. That AGW does *not* predict more intense hurricanes.
3. That hurricanes have *not* increased (indeed, we are at a 30 year
low)
4. Therefore AGW is correct.
You seem to believe:
1. That AGW is correct
2. That AGW predicts more intense hurricanes
3. There is evidence that hurricanes have increased in intensity
4. Therefore AGW is correct.
Is that the situation?
What I "believe" is unimportant. The science indicates that the
current global warming correlates with the fossil fuel burning
that came with the industrial revolution.
"Correlates".
There is a (positive, FWIW) correlation between electricity consumption
and car ownership (as both correlate positively with income), this
doesn't prove that buying a car increases your electricity consumption,
or even vica versa.
The source of heating doesn't matter to hurricanes... the higher
global temperatures are likely to increase hurricane frequency and
intensity.
So you say the person who said AGW does NOT predict an increase in the
intensity of cyclones is wrong?
Recent changes in a remote Arctic lake are unique within the past
200,000 years
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106
Yarrow Axforda,1, Jason P. Brinerb, Colin A. Cookec, Donna R.
Francisd, Neal Micheluttie, Gifford H. Millera,f, John P. Smole,
Elizabeth K. Thomasb, Cheryl R. Wilsone and Alexander P. Wolfec
Abstract
The Arctic is currently undergoing dramatic environmental
transformations, but it remains largely unknown how these changes
compare with long-term natural variability. Here we present a lake
sediment sequence from the Canadian Arctic that records warm periods
of the past 200,000 years, including the 20th century. This record
provides a perspective on recent changes in the Arctic and predates by
approximately 80,000 years the oldest stratigraphically intact ice
core recovered from the Greenland Ice Sheet. The early Holocene and
the warmest part of the Last Interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage or MIS
5e) were the only periods of the past 200,000 years with summer
temperatures comparable to or exceeding today's at this site.
Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the past three
interglacial periods were characterized by similar trajectories in
temperature, lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of which tracked
orbitally-driven solar insolation. In recent decades, however, the
study site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern and has
entered an environmental regime that is unique within the past 200
millennia.
Arctic Sediments Show That 20th Century Warming Is Unlike Natural
Variation
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm
"There are periods of time reflected in this sediment core that
demonstrate that the climate was as warm as today," said Briner, "but
that was due to natural causes, having to do with well-understood
patterns of the Earth's orbit around the sun. The whole ecosystem has
now shifted and the ecosystem we see during just the last few decades
is different from those seen during any of the past warm intervals."
So, couldn't find anything about hurricanes, so in typical crank style
just decided to change the topic?
We're not talk'n cars and electricity... we are talking about recent
changes in a remote Arctic lake are unique within the past 200,000 years
that indicate the changes are due to human activity in the form of CO2
from fossil fuel burning.
[/quote]
The temperature drop in places like New York over the next few months
will be many magnitudes greater than any temperature spike due to
global warming.None of you can explain using planetary dynamics why
that temperature drop occurs or you rely on inclination to solar
radiation based on 'tilt' to the Sun or orbital plane.How,for goodness
sake,can an entire group of people miss out on the orbital dynamic
behind seasonal changes yet influence human behavior so much by
creating a fuss over pollution and labeling 'climate change' ?.This
beats me,the climate has always changed on the planet due to some
causes that are known and some that are not and here we have a society
'combating' something that occurs anyway and is vital to explain
astronomical and geological features and factors.
Somewhere in the back of their heads a few scientists must know this
carbon dioxide temperature dial is intellectual suicide for excluding
all else for the sake of raising taxes or some other social
concern,all avenues relating to rapid or long term temperature spikes
and dips are shut down.Of course it is all due to love of predictions
rather than interpretation of celestial and terrestrial phenomena and
that all goes back to the original error of the Ra/Dec convenience
which tries to explain planetary dynamics using the rotation of the
constellations around Polaris.
I have never seen in any human endeavor a level of complicity
remotely close to this truly desperate situation centering around
planetary dynamics and basic planetary facts,almost an enjoyment of
doing something spectacularly wrong just because nobody is around to
object but this diminishes our race and rots our civilisation from
within.I do not know how any of you do it,even allowing for the
original error and silly conclusion by Flamsteed in attempting to turn
Ra/Dec into a predictive tool for planetary dynamics but 'climate
change' exposes something far more insidious and dangerous than global
warming,it exposes the human condition is a pretty bad state. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| oriel36... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 6:02 am, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
[quote]oriel36 wrote:
The temperature drop in places like New York over the next few months
will be many magnitudes greater than any temperature spike due to
global warming.
That's right Gerald--Too many people confuse weather and seasonal
changes with global climate change. The typical benchmark for global
climate change is what happens globally over a thirty year interval.
[/quote]
Unreal !.
Global climate is the effect of two major causes - distance from the
Sun and planetary dynamics,weather patterns are a secondary effect of
global climate due to multiple factors such as proximity to
oceans ,landmass and events which arise from both such as volcanic
activity or cyclical ocean warming.
The one fact you can all be certain of is that the study and
appreciation of planetary dynamics for any purposes,global climate
especially, is non existent and this is why there is no clear
distinction between global climate and weather patterns for the latter
is a secondary effect of the former whereas you numbskulls have
weather running into climate.Of course you want to use the same
procedure as predicting short range weather patterns by extending it
to climate but that is both silly and irresponsible.
Continue on with this 'climate change' question begging exercise but
it would be nice to meet somebody for a change who is actually
interested in climate minus human pollution with particular interest
in what actually causes seasonal temperature drops and rises with
greater variations away from the Equator. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Webb... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Chris L Peterson" <clp at (no spam) alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:vqdre51t3a74j2dll1dlb4q3ugn4j7jk2q at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:13:50 -0600, "S. Caro" <scaro at (no spam) muxnet.com> wrote:
Of course, some may think this is bad news.
- North Atlantic Hurricane Season slowest since 1997
- Global and Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity
remains near 30-year historical lows -- three years in a row
now of considerably below-average activity globally.
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
But don't worry! This is only because of La Nana/El Nino and NOTHING
else. We know this because the IPCC climate models are absolutely
infallible. The scientists who created the models know everything
there is to know about planet wide climate.
If you actually followed the scientific papers, you would know two
things: hurricane activity _does_ correlate with the El Nino
oscillation, and climate researchers are very uncertain as to whether
global warming will increase or decrease the North Atlantic hurricane
pattern. There is a complex interaction between sea surface temperatures
in different parts of the world, and subtle changes in models produce a
wide range of outputs: more strong hurricanes, more weak hurricanes,
fewer hurricanes but stronger, and fewer hurricanes but weaker. You
won't find climate _scientists_ making unequivocal statements about
global warming and hurricane patterns.
[/quote]
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes
"It is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the coming
century to be more intense on average and have higher rainfall rates than
present-day hurricanes."
That's NOAA, folks.
Just another prediction of climate science that has so far been proved to be
incorrect.
I note that: "In related news, Al Gore has dropped the [hurricane frequency]
related slide in his traveling PowerPoint show."
(http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/22/global-warming-more-hurricanes-still-not-happening/).
Are their any specific predictions of global warming that you believe to be
true, and that we can use as a test of the theory? Or do the predictions of
"climate science" change so quickly that there are no specific predictions
that believers in AGW have that can be used to test the theory?
(What all agree on is that even
[quote]small increases in sea level will result in greater economic harm from
hurricanes, however.)
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter Webb wrote:
[quote]
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes
"It is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the
coming century to be more intense on average and have higher rainfall
rates than present-day hurricanes."
That's NOAA, folks.
Just another prediction of climate science that has so far been proved
to be incorrect.
[/quote]
Actually there is data supporting that prediction. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Webb... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<SNIP>
The IPCC report states that the link between hurricanes and global
warming is tenuous, but possible.
_____________________________________
No it doesn't. This is what it states:
"Based on a range of models, it is likely that future
tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will
become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds
and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing
increases of tropical sea surface temperatures."
Page 15 of the IPCC summary report.
I guess that now you know what it actually says, you must think the IPCC
report is wrong, as it is in clear conflict with the other links you posted
which said there was no connection.
What else in the IPCC report do you consider incorrect? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter Webb wrote:
[quote]
SNIP
The IPCC report states that the link between hurricanes and global
warming is tenuous, but possible.
_____________________________________
No it doesn't. This is what it states:
"Based on a range of models, it is likely that future
tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will
become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds
and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing
increases of tropical sea surface temperatures."
Page 15 of the IPCC summary report.
I guess that now you know what it actually says, you must think the IPCC
report is wrong, as it is in clear conflict with the other links you
posted which said there was no connection.
What else in the IPCC report do you consider incorrect?
[/quote]
Nice to see you supporting the IPCC report, Peter. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris L Peterson... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 11:42:13 +1100, "Peter Webb"
<webbfamily at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
[quote]http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes
"It is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the coming
century to be more intense on average and have higher rainfall rates than
present-day hurricanes."
That's NOAA, folks.
Just another prediction of climate science that has so far been proved to be
incorrect.
[/quote]
If you would actually read the paper you quote (from which you have
provided a single, out-of-context snippet), you'd see that it is
considering considerably higher warming levels than we have seen so far.
It is a prediction based on good work, but which remains speculative- a
point that the author is careful to emphasize in his conclusions.
Climate research papers generally provide level of confidence values for
their predictions, which range from very high (for example, the
predictions for actual temperature increases), to much lower (as in this
case).
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Webb... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1 at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:J%pHm.111332$5n1.60474 at (no spam) attbi_s21...
[quote]Peter Webb wrote:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes
"It is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the coming
century to be more intense on average and have higher rainfall rates than
present-day hurricanes."
That's NOAA, folks.
Just another prediction of climate science that has so far been proved to
be incorrect.
Actually there is data supporting that prediction.
[/quote]
Gee, the person who I responded to believes:
1. That AGW is correct.
2. That AGW does *not* predict more intense hurricanes.
3. That hurricanes have *not* increased (indeed, we are at a 30 year low)
4. Therefore AGW is correct.
You seem to believe:
1. That AGW is correct
2. That AGW predicts more intense hurricanes
3. There is evidence that hurricanes have increased in intensity
4. Therefore AGW is correct.
Is that the situation?
Any of you other AGW believers out there?
If so, do you believe that:
1. AGW predicts an increase in the intensity of hurricanes.
2. These have increased.
3. Therefore AGW is correct
*** OR ****
1. AGW does *not* predict an increase in the intensity of hurricanes
2. Their intensity has *not* increased.
3. Therefore AGW is correct.
C'mon, speak up! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter Webb wrote:
[quote]
Gee, the person who I responded to believes:
1. That AGW is correct.
2. That AGW does *not* predict more intense hurricanes.
3. That hurricanes have *not* increased (indeed, we are at a 30 year low)
4. Therefore AGW is correct.
You seem to believe:
1. That AGW is correct
2. That AGW predicts more intense hurricanes
3. There is evidence that hurricanes have increased in intensity
4. Therefore AGW is correct.
Is that the situation?
[/quote]
What I "believe" is unimportant. The science indicates that the
current global warming correlates with the fossil fuel burning
that came with the industrial revolution.
The source of heating doesn't matter to hurricanes... the higher
global temperatures are likely to increase hurricane frequency and
intensity.
Recent changes in a remote Arctic lake are unique within the past 200,000 years
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106
Yarrow Axforda,1, Jason P. Brinerb, Colin A. Cookec, Donna R. Francisd, Neal Micheluttie,
Gifford H. Millera,f, John P. Smole, Elizabeth K. Thomasb, Cheryl R. Wilsone and Alexander
P. Wolfec
Abstract
The Arctic is currently undergoing dramatic environmental transformations, but it remains
largely unknown how these changes compare with long-term natural variability. Here we
present a lake sediment sequence from the Canadian Arctic that records warm periods of the
past 200,000 years, including the 20th century. This record provides a perspective on
recent changes in the Arctic and predates by approximately 80,000 years the oldest
stratigraphically intact ice core recovered from the Greenland Ice Sheet. The early
Holocene and the warmest part of the Last Interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage or MIS 5e)
were the only periods of the past 200,000 years with summer temperatures comparable to or
exceeding today's at this site. Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the
past three interglacial periods were characterized by similar trajectories in temperature,
lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of which tracked orbitally-driven solar insolation. In
recent decades, however, the study site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern
and has entered an environmental regime that is unique within the past 200 millennia.
Arctic Sediments Show That 20th Century Warming Is Unlike Natural Variation
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm
"There are periods of time reflected in this sediment core that demonstrate that the
climate was as warm as today," said Briner, "but that was due to natural causes, having to
do with well-understood patterns of the Earth's orbit around the sun. The whole ecosystem
has now shifted and the ecosystem we see during just the last few decades is different
from those seen during any of the past warm intervals." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris L Peterson... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:18:42 +1100, "Peter Webb"
<webbfamily at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
[quote]Any of you other AGW believers out there?
[/quote]
I wouldn't use the word "believer". Everybody who understands the
science knows that AGW is occurring. Calling somebody an "AGW believer"
is like calling somebody an "evolution believer" or a "heliocentricism
believer". It's a misuse of the word.
[quote]If so, do you believe that:
1. AGW predicts an increase in the intensity of hurricanes.
2. These have increased.
3. Therefore AGW is correct
*** OR ****
1. AGW does *not* predict an increase in the intensity of hurricanes
2. Their intensity has *not* increased.
3. Therefore AGW is correct.
[/quote]
Neither. Different climate models currently produce different
predictions about how global warming will impact the intensity and
frequency of North Atlantic hurricanes. There is good work supporting
the prediction that intensity will increase with an increase in sea
surface temperatures, but it remains uncertain whether sea surface
temperatures will increase, because global warming also impacts ocean
currents. Thus, the model predictions are not considered very reliable
yet. This remains one of the most active areas of study.
Nobody would ever use these predictions to determine if "AGW is
correct". That's pretty much a given, based on actual observation. The
point of the models is to ascertain what effects we can expect from it
in the future, given a range of responses (from none to aggressive).
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:33 am
|
|