Global Warming Causes Stronger Hurricanests
- Thread starter QUICKRYDE
- Start date
MaynardMeek
Well-known member
it all goes in cycles. this link will provide you with information show how odd the earth can be IE a storm that reach NJ with over 200mph winds etc... i do not and am not trying to argue the aspect of global warming.. it happens.. if humans are doing it or not, it will happen anyway.. we have to keep in mind that hurricanes are hitting our pockets more because we idiot humans are building more on shore lines prone to these storms
anyway.. here is the link Invalid Link Removed
anyway.. here is the link Invalid Link Removed
QUICKRYDE
Member
Well, a growing number of scientist say different and I rather go with their thoughts on this subject. I remember watching the nature channel, regarding Global warming about a couple years back and I have to say...that show convince me. The weather is changing all over the planet.
MaynardMeek said:
MaynardMeek
Well-known member
i agree, it is going on.. look at nasa photos of our ice caps as well as pics of our ocean water's temps... but i still have YET to grasp that this wouldn't be happening if humans were not causing it ...
poopypants
Banned
humans nothing im with the rabbi:clap2:
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Ahhh the monster of Global Warming that feeds on everyones fears.
August 20, 2005
There She Blows
by Patrick J. Michaels
Invalid Link Removed is Cato Institute senior fellow for Invalid Link Removed and author of Invalid Link Removed.
Given the recent claims that hurricanes are getting dramatically worse because of global warming, it's too bad we’ve already exhausted the letter "G" for this hurricane season. "Gasbag" would have been a pretty good moniker for the next storm.
In case you’ve missed the hype, MIT's Kerry Emanuel has a paper in the online version of Nature magazine saying that hurricanes are becoming dramatically more powerful as a result of global warming.
Merely venturing into the discussion of hurricanes and global warming is more dangerous than most tropical cyclones. About Emanuel's article, William Gray of Colorado State University -- the guy who issues the annual hurricane forecast that grabs headlines every summer -- told the Boston Globe, "It's a terrible paper, one of the worst I've ever looked at."
There's also nastiness if you say hurricanes aren't getting worse. A month ago, University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke, Jr., posted a paper that was accepted in the Bulletin of The American Meteorological Society concluding there is little if any sign of global warming in hurricane patterns. In a pre-emptive strike, Kevin Trenberth from the federally funded National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, told the local newspaper, "I think he [Pielke] should withdraw his article. This is a shameful article."
Six months earlier, Christopher Landsea of the National Hurricane Research Laboratory, another federal entity, quit the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Landsea is probably the world's most respected hurricane scientist. He was furious that Rajenda Pauchari, director of the panel, condoned Trenberth's statements that hurricanes were worsening because of global warming.
What is going on here? Nothing unusual. Behavior like this takes place every day at faculty meetings across academia. But global warming and hurricanes are hot topics right now, so the bickering spills over into the press.
What is unusual is the especially shoddy nature of the current scientific review process on global warming papers.
Consider the recent Nature article. If hurricanes had doubled in power in the last few decades as Emanuel claims, the change would be obvious; you wouldn't need a weatherman to know which way this wind was blowing. All of these feuding scientists would have agreed on the facts long ago.
Damages caused by doubling the strength of hurricanes would be massive and increasing dramatically. Figures on this are pretty easy to come by, at least in the United States. The insured value of property from Brownsville, Texas to Eastport, Maine -- our hurricane prone Atlantic Coast -- is greater than a year of our Gross Domestic Product. If hurricanes had actually doubled in power, the losses in the insurance industry would be catastrophic.
Pielke has studied this, and his work is well known. Hurricanes are causing greater dollar damages because more and more people are building increasingly expensive beachfront monstrosities that have financially appreciated during the recent real-estate bubble. Account for these and there is no significant change in hurricane expenses along our coast. Illinois climatologist Stanley Changnon has also studied this for non-hurricane weather damage over the entire country with similar results.
Pielke told me that, "analysis of hurricane damage over the past century shows no trend in hurricane destructiveness, once the data are adjusted to account for the dramatic growth along the nation's coasts."
You would think that reviewers of Emanuel’s paper at Nature would have thought to ask whether, in fact, there was evidence for increasingly powerful storms.
But they didn't. There is just no incentive in the scientific community to kill the remarkably fertile global warming goose, a beast that feeds on public fears.
The federal outlay on climate research is now $4.2 billion per year, roughly the same amount given to the National Cancer Institute. The climate research community sees a grave threat when research shows there's no threat from the climate. So papers that hawk climate disaster get superficial reviews and uncritical headlines, while those that argue otherwise are "shameful."
This article appeared on Reason.com on August 17, 2005.
August 20, 2005
There She Blows
by Patrick J. Michaels
Invalid Link Removed is Cato Institute senior fellow for Invalid Link Removed and author of Invalid Link Removed.
Given the recent claims that hurricanes are getting dramatically worse because of global warming, it's too bad we’ve already exhausted the letter "G" for this hurricane season. "Gasbag" would have been a pretty good moniker for the next storm.
In case you’ve missed the hype, MIT's Kerry Emanuel has a paper in the online version of Nature magazine saying that hurricanes are becoming dramatically more powerful as a result of global warming.
Merely venturing into the discussion of hurricanes and global warming is more dangerous than most tropical cyclones. About Emanuel's article, William Gray of Colorado State University -- the guy who issues the annual hurricane forecast that grabs headlines every summer -- told the Boston Globe, "It's a terrible paper, one of the worst I've ever looked at."
There's also nastiness if you say hurricanes aren't getting worse. A month ago, University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke, Jr., posted a paper that was accepted in the Bulletin of The American Meteorological Society concluding there is little if any sign of global warming in hurricane patterns. In a pre-emptive strike, Kevin Trenberth from the federally funded National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, told the local newspaper, "I think he [Pielke] should withdraw his article. This is a shameful article."
Six months earlier, Christopher Landsea of the National Hurricane Research Laboratory, another federal entity, quit the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Landsea is probably the world's most respected hurricane scientist. He was furious that Rajenda Pauchari, director of the panel, condoned Trenberth's statements that hurricanes were worsening because of global warming.
What is going on here? Nothing unusual. Behavior like this takes place every day at faculty meetings across academia. But global warming and hurricanes are hot topics right now, so the bickering spills over into the press.
What is unusual is the especially shoddy nature of the current scientific review process on global warming papers.
Consider the recent Nature article. If hurricanes had doubled in power in the last few decades as Emanuel claims, the change would be obvious; you wouldn't need a weatherman to know which way this wind was blowing. All of these feuding scientists would have agreed on the facts long ago.
Damages caused by doubling the strength of hurricanes would be massive and increasing dramatically. Figures on this are pretty easy to come by, at least in the United States. The insured value of property from Brownsville, Texas to Eastport, Maine -- our hurricane prone Atlantic Coast -- is greater than a year of our Gross Domestic Product. If hurricanes had actually doubled in power, the losses in the insurance industry would be catastrophic.
Pielke has studied this, and his work is well known. Hurricanes are causing greater dollar damages because more and more people are building increasingly expensive beachfront monstrosities that have financially appreciated during the recent real-estate bubble. Account for these and there is no significant change in hurricane expenses along our coast. Illinois climatologist Stanley Changnon has also studied this for non-hurricane weather damage over the entire country with similar results.
Pielke told me that, "analysis of hurricane damage over the past century shows no trend in hurricane destructiveness, once the data are adjusted to account for the dramatic growth along the nation's coasts."
You would think that reviewers of Emanuel’s paper at Nature would have thought to ask whether, in fact, there was evidence for increasingly powerful storms.
But they didn't. There is just no incentive in the scientific community to kill the remarkably fertile global warming goose, a beast that feeds on public fears.
The federal outlay on climate research is now $4.2 billion per year, roughly the same amount given to the National Cancer Institute. The climate research community sees a grave threat when research shows there's no threat from the climate. So papers that hawk climate disaster get superficial reviews and uncritical headlines, while those that argue otherwise are "shameful."
This article appeared on Reason.com on August 17, 2005.
The Doberman
New member
BS...hurricanes have been going on for millions of years. Ice caps melting is nothing new. Remeber the Ice Age? no cars around then.
The lefties are just trying to capitalize on tragedy (as they always do) to further their agenda.
The lefties are just trying to capitalize on tragedy (as they always do) to further their agenda.
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Agreed, Category 5s have been going since the begining of time... they didnt just start recently.The Doberman said:
Adams
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
Well, yes...some scientists believe that global warming is effecting weather right now, but many do not. I get to hear both sides of the story all the time...QUICKRYDE said:
I personally believe our rate of CO2 production is a problem; CO2 is the chemical largely responsible for the debate over global warming. Now, the problem is, is the inrease in CO2 enough to make a difference?
Even though the percentage of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere has risen dramatically, that does not mean it is ENOUGH to cause global warming. The percentage of CO2 (as a part of our atmosphere) is VEEEEEEEEEERY SMALL.
This is where the debate lies.
Yes, an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere WILL trap in heat from the sun, which will lead to this global warming phenomenon WHEN it gets to a critical point. BUT, has it happened yet? Is there enough excess CO2 in our atmosphere to produce this phenomenon? These are the questions that we cannot yet answer.
I fully believe we are at least on our way to a average earth temperature hot enough to start causing major problems. However, i also KNOW that our Earths weather has cyclical patterns.
Right now, i'm not convinced that these hurricanes are a result of global warming as opposed to normal cyclical patterns.
I.E. We have 1.5 months left in the gulf-coasts storm season, and we are 3 MAJOR storms from breaking a 76 year old major storm record of 22 storms. So, techically, these storms are not abnormal. And, we had a season as bad or worse almost 100 years ago, when the increase in CO2 was negligible and global warming was 100% a non-issue.
Right now global warming cannot be proven to be the cause for this phenomenon, especially considering we have similar events on record within a century--keep in mind, a century is a very short amount of time on our planet.
I'm not saying its not the cause, just that you cannot jump to conclusions because nothing as of late is completely abnormal. And, the global warming issue is still a problem regardless, because if we don't stop burning fossil fuels (how we get most of our excess CO2) we're going to eventually have a problem--that's a given.
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Then why dont we attribute any weather phenomenon to the 10 minute earth quake that not only caused the Tsunami last december, not only cause seismic activity through the earth, but also caused a few centimeter change in the earths orbit?Matthew D said:
Adams
Invalid Link Removed
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Wow... that conspiricy theory takes the cake.Beelzebub said:
Adams
MaynardMeek
Well-known member
Invalid Link Removed
and something to make you laugh is this
Invalid Link Removed
and something to make you laugh is this
Invalid Link Removed
JonesersRX7
Registered User
The facts to back up what Matt is saying about the 3 cat 5's.Matthew D said:
Invalid Link Removed
What was Rita when she made landfall? Tropical storm or Hurricane?
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
I believe Rita was a Category 3 hurricane when she made landfall.JonesersRX7 said:
Katrina was a category 4 when she hit.
MaynardMeek
Well-known member
Contracts that need bids take too long to be done.. these no bid contracts are given to a company / or many that can get the job done... and also if you think its all just bush feeding his own.. the second company that got a no bid deal for this recovery is in league with the democrate gov of L.A.
sometimes red tape is good, other times, it should be avoided IE in situations of disaster and war
sometimes red tape is good, other times, it should be avoided IE in situations of disaster and war
Nabeshin
Registered User
Anyone who believes that we are the cause global warming needs to explain the Invalid Link Removed. Anyone who believes that a consensus of scientists constitutes proof needs to explain why Invalid Link Removed and, especially, Invalid Link Removed are exempt from this logic. Anyone who believes that "greenhouse gasses" should still be controlled, for whatever reason, needs to figure out what we should do about Invalid Link Removed. Anyone who can't figure out what to do about volcanoes, but still thinks we should regulate ourselves because we can, needs to make a concrete value proposition. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
Well...there are a few differences.
The CFC's that were killing our atmosphere are different. I believe chlorine is the destructor of ozone, and volcanoes release MUCH more chlorine with every reaction....BUT that chlorine doesn't make it into the ozone, as it does with the CFC's.
So, that is a very different scenario.
Global warming can be caused naturally or induced by humans. Just because it can occur naturally (due to some phenomenon), doesn't mean that a human induced phenomenon cannot occur.
In this instance, the CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere eventually WILL cause global warming, but that doesn't mean its happened already.i personally don't believe it IS in the works, so to speak, but rather, is on the way.
The CFC's that were killing our atmosphere are different. I believe chlorine is the destructor of ozone, and volcanoes release MUCH more chlorine with every reaction....BUT that chlorine doesn't make it into the ozone, as it does with the CFC's.
So, that is a very different scenario.
Global warming can be caused naturally or induced by humans. Just because it can occur naturally (due to some phenomenon), doesn't mean that a human induced phenomenon cannot occur.
In this instance, the CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere eventually WILL cause global warming, but that doesn't mean its happened already.i personally don't believe it IS in the works, so to speak, but rather, is on the way.
Nabeshin
Registered User
Nyet. From the article I linked:kwyckemynd00 said:
The effects of the eruption were felt worldwide. It injected large amounts of Invalid Link Removed into the Invalid Link Removed—more than any eruption since that of Invalid Link Removed in Invalid Link Removed. The aerosols formed a global layer of Invalid Link Removed haze over the following months. Global temperatures dropped by about 0.5 Invalid Link Removed (0.9 Invalid Link Removed), and Invalid Link Removed destruction increased substantially.
And my other points still stand.
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
That was "one" instance...
School is in session
School is in session
Invalid Link RemovedDr. Ken Rubin said:
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Reaping the Hurricane
by Patrick J. Michaels
Invalid Link Removed is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Invalid Link Removed (2004).
Dr. Christopher Landsea, a scientist at the Hurricane Research Division of the U.S. Department of Commerce and one of the world's foremost experts on hurricanes, has publicly resigned from authorship of an upcoming United Nations report on climate change. Landsea charged that the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is "both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."
He has a point. The IPCC is more of a political body than a scientific authority. Its members are selected by their respective governments and approved by the UN Secretariat. This is not an unbiased, blind process.
Remember those press conferences last fall where esteemed scientists blamed the severity of the 2004 hurricane season on global warming? One of them was another federal employee, Kevin Trenberth. According to Landsea, Trenberth hasn't "performed any research on hurricane variability." Nonetheless, he is the U.N.'s designated "Lead Author" for the chapter of the report that discusses hurricanes and global warming, and as a result would supervise Landsea's contributions.
According to Landsea, "Given Dr. Trenberth's role as the IPCC's Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity."
Indeed, there is absolutely no evidence that hurricane frequency or severity has increased because of global warming. In fact, the only detectable change in Atlantic hurricanes is a decline in average maximum wind speed, as shown in Landsea's own published scientific writing.
Trenberth also advocates the position that global warming will make "El Nino" stronger, with very little scientific evidence. El Ninos are periodic reversals of Pacific trade winds that change storm tracks thousands of miles away. They also destroy Atlantic hurricanes. If global warming actually did make El Ninos more frequent or stronger, hurricane intensity should decrease.
Landsea appealed to the head of the UN's climate panel, Rajenda Pachauri, to uphold genuine scientific inquiry.
He should have known better. Pachauri penned the foreword to the 2004 report, "Up in Smoke," distributed by environmental activists including Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund. Referring to hurricanes, it said "in a world in which global warming is already happening, such severe weather events are likely to be more frequent, and extreme."
Pachauri dismissed Landsea's complaint out of hand, which led to the scientist's principled resignation.
If elements of this story trigger a sense of déjê vu, then readers have been paying attention. There was a minor stir last fall when two government scientists predicted a slight (6 percent) increase in hurricane strength over the next century, due to global warming.
They arrived at this prediction by using a computer model that assumed carbon dioxide will leach into the atmosphere at a rate that is twice what has been observed in recent decades. The model fails miserably when it attempts to forecast hurricanes in the real world, because it assumes no changes in hurricane environments as the planet warms. Critical scientists knew about the model's shortcomings, but they held their peace.
This is becoming a pattern. Scientists, or people claiming the mantle of science, advance terribly flawed claims that the sky is falling; climate scientists who understand that this is false say next to nothing.
Why?
There are several reasons. Just as medical doctors care about human suffering, environmental scientists are often philosophically concerned about what they judge to be environmental degradation. Neither concern is "scientific" in the sense that it is concerned with testing theories against available evidence, but they do influence the way scientists behave.
Then there's the money. Climatology used to be very un-cool, and largely un-funded. It was an impoverished backwater until global warming came along. Now it's a tremendous sink hole for tax dollars.
The next federal budget is likely to propose around $4 billion for research on climate change. That money will only be allocated if global warming is presented as a severe threat to our health and well-being on the level of AIDS or cancer. So we end up with under-funded voices of sanity and a lot of well-funded Chicken Little-types.
So far, this level of distortion has carried no cost to the prestige of the dissemblers. The United Nations now passes itself off as the world's authority on the effects of climate change and tropical cyclones while keeping a propagandist on the payroll. Perhaps President Bush, who ultimately must approve U.S. members for the panel, should approve none, effectively withdrawing his government from this pseudoscientific charade.
by Patrick J. Michaels
Invalid Link Removed is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Invalid Link Removed (2004).
Dr. Christopher Landsea, a scientist at the Hurricane Research Division of the U.S. Department of Commerce and one of the world's foremost experts on hurricanes, has publicly resigned from authorship of an upcoming United Nations report on climate change. Landsea charged that the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is "both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."
He has a point. The IPCC is more of a political body than a scientific authority. Its members are selected by their respective governments and approved by the UN Secretariat. This is not an unbiased, blind process.
Remember those press conferences last fall where esteemed scientists blamed the severity of the 2004 hurricane season on global warming? One of them was another federal employee, Kevin Trenberth. According to Landsea, Trenberth hasn't "performed any research on hurricane variability." Nonetheless, he is the U.N.'s designated "Lead Author" for the chapter of the report that discusses hurricanes and global warming, and as a result would supervise Landsea's contributions.
According to Landsea, "Given Dr. Trenberth's role as the IPCC's Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity."
Indeed, there is absolutely no evidence that hurricane frequency or severity has increased because of global warming. In fact, the only detectable change in Atlantic hurricanes is a decline in average maximum wind speed, as shown in Landsea's own published scientific writing.
Trenberth also advocates the position that global warming will make "El Nino" stronger, with very little scientific evidence. El Ninos are periodic reversals of Pacific trade winds that change storm tracks thousands of miles away. They also destroy Atlantic hurricanes. If global warming actually did make El Ninos more frequent or stronger, hurricane intensity should decrease.
Landsea appealed to the head of the UN's climate panel, Rajenda Pachauri, to uphold genuine scientific inquiry.
He should have known better. Pachauri penned the foreword to the 2004 report, "Up in Smoke," distributed by environmental activists including Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund. Referring to hurricanes, it said "in a world in which global warming is already happening, such severe weather events are likely to be more frequent, and extreme."
Pachauri dismissed Landsea's complaint out of hand, which led to the scientist's principled resignation.
If elements of this story trigger a sense of déjê vu, then readers have been paying attention. There was a minor stir last fall when two government scientists predicted a slight (6 percent) increase in hurricane strength over the next century, due to global warming.
They arrived at this prediction by using a computer model that assumed carbon dioxide will leach into the atmosphere at a rate that is twice what has been observed in recent decades. The model fails miserably when it attempts to forecast hurricanes in the real world, because it assumes no changes in hurricane environments as the planet warms. Critical scientists knew about the model's shortcomings, but they held their peace.
This is becoming a pattern. Scientists, or people claiming the mantle of science, advance terribly flawed claims that the sky is falling; climate scientists who understand that this is false say next to nothing.
Why?
There are several reasons. Just as medical doctors care about human suffering, environmental scientists are often philosophically concerned about what they judge to be environmental degradation. Neither concern is "scientific" in the sense that it is concerned with testing theories against available evidence, but they do influence the way scientists behave.
Then there's the money. Climatology used to be very un-cool, and largely un-funded. It was an impoverished backwater until global warming came along. Now it's a tremendous sink hole for tax dollars.
The next federal budget is likely to propose around $4 billion for research on climate change. That money will only be allocated if global warming is presented as a severe threat to our health and well-being on the level of AIDS or cancer. So we end up with under-funded voices of sanity and a lot of well-funded Chicken Little-types.
So far, this level of distortion has carried no cost to the prestige of the dissemblers. The United Nations now passes itself off as the world's authority on the effects of climate change and tropical cyclones while keeping a propagandist on the payroll. Perhaps President Bush, who ultimately must approve U.S. members for the panel, should approve none, effectively withdrawing his government from this pseudoscientific charade.
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Debunking the Latest Hurricane Hype
by Patrick J. Michaels
Invalid Link Removed is a senior fellow in Invalid Link Removed at the Cato Institute and author of Invalid Link Removed (2004).
Last week, the New York Times delivered the worrisome news that a team of scientists has concluded that maximum hurricane winds will increase 6 percent by the 2080's, thanks to global warming. I was very upset to read that news, but not because I'm afraid my great-grandchildren will get blown away. My concern is what those scientists' work says about the state of climate science.
The researchers reached their conclusions using a series of climate models called General Circulation Models. They assumed that the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide--the main global warming gas--will increase by 1 percent per year, compounded yearly. That would warm the ocean, which would create slightly stronger storms.
But there's a problem: Any atmospheric scientist who is worth his or her salt knows that atmospheric carbon dioxide is not increasing at that rate and has not been doing so for decades. And that makes a real difference in the modeling results.
The increase has been about four-tenths of a percent per year, averaged over the last 30 years--not 1 percent. Charitably, throw in another tenth of a percent because of other human "greenhouse" emissions (though the two major ones, chlorofluorocarbons and methane, are declining or holding steady). That means that the researchers' models are envisioning twice the actual increase in carbon dioxide as has been occurring for decades.
The reason that carbon dioxide is growing so slowly is because the world is gradually becoming more energy-efficient as its people become more affluent. That results in both a reduction in per-capita emissions and a reduction in the number of "capits" that are born, as rich folks have fewer kids. Among big countries, this trend started in the United States. It is now spreading globally as the enriching world buys more-efficient cars and power plants.
This trend isn't going to change anytime soon. That means the growth rate in carbon dioxide over the next few decades is likely to be the same as the rate for the last few. Using the more realistic rate delays the time that hurricane winds will increase by 6 percent from the 2080's to the 2180's--175 years from now.
And it's pretty hard to speculate what impact humanity will have on nature over nearly two centuries in time. To understand that, let's go backwards in time 175 years, to 1830, and think about the changes in energy and technology that have occurred since then.
The fact is that, just as folks in 1830 could not possibly imagine the many technological changes we have today (cars, planes, rockets, nuclear bombs, computers and Viagra come to mind), so can we have absolutely no vision of 2185. The only reasonable bet is that it will be dramatically different than today, and our fossil fuel-powered society will seem as remote in the future as one driven by horses and slavery seems remote to us today. So why would anyone make a prediction of what effects humanity will have on the environment some two centuries from now, based on what we're doing today?
Or, in the case of the researchers' exaggerated percentage increase in carbon dioxide, what we're not doing today? That leads to an interesting question: Because carbon dioxide increases have been bouncing around four-tenths of a percent per year for three decades, why do climate modelers insist on using the wrong number? It seems peculiar that people who have the equivalent of doctorates in applied physics (which is what climate science is) would somehow be perfectly happy to do something they know is wrong.
I began asking that question at scientific meetings a decade ago. At that time, I asked Kevin Trenberth, a highly visible atmospheric scientist from the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, who often testifies to Congress on climate issues. He told me it was done because it was "convention."
That answer doesn't set well with me, because it's awfully easy to program a computer to increase a variable by half a percent instead of 1 percent per year.
That leads to the final, nagging question. There are literally hundreds of scientific papers out there in which climate models use this wrong number. Each of those papers gets sent to three outside peer-reviewers. The fact that 1 percent continues to be used only means one thing: when it comes to global warming, hundreds of scientists must prefer convention to truth.
But why? Is it because, when the real numbers are put in, there's no story for the New York Times to report?
This article was published on Foxnews.com, October 7, 2004.
by Patrick J. Michaels
Invalid Link Removed is a senior fellow in Invalid Link Removed at the Cato Institute and author of Invalid Link Removed (2004).
Last week, the New York Times delivered the worrisome news that a team of scientists has concluded that maximum hurricane winds will increase 6 percent by the 2080's, thanks to global warming. I was very upset to read that news, but not because I'm afraid my great-grandchildren will get blown away. My concern is what those scientists' work says about the state of climate science.
The researchers reached their conclusions using a series of climate models called General Circulation Models. They assumed that the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide--the main global warming gas--will increase by 1 percent per year, compounded yearly. That would warm the ocean, which would create slightly stronger storms.
But there's a problem: Any atmospheric scientist who is worth his or her salt knows that atmospheric carbon dioxide is not increasing at that rate and has not been doing so for decades. And that makes a real difference in the modeling results.
The increase has been about four-tenths of a percent per year, averaged over the last 30 years--not 1 percent. Charitably, throw in another tenth of a percent because of other human "greenhouse" emissions (though the two major ones, chlorofluorocarbons and methane, are declining or holding steady). That means that the researchers' models are envisioning twice the actual increase in carbon dioxide as has been occurring for decades.
The reason that carbon dioxide is growing so slowly is because the world is gradually becoming more energy-efficient as its people become more affluent. That results in both a reduction in per-capita emissions and a reduction in the number of "capits" that are born, as rich folks have fewer kids. Among big countries, this trend started in the United States. It is now spreading globally as the enriching world buys more-efficient cars and power plants.
This trend isn't going to change anytime soon. That means the growth rate in carbon dioxide over the next few decades is likely to be the same as the rate for the last few. Using the more realistic rate delays the time that hurricane winds will increase by 6 percent from the 2080's to the 2180's--175 years from now.
And it's pretty hard to speculate what impact humanity will have on nature over nearly two centuries in time. To understand that, let's go backwards in time 175 years, to 1830, and think about the changes in energy and technology that have occurred since then.
The fact is that, just as folks in 1830 could not possibly imagine the many technological changes we have today (cars, planes, rockets, nuclear bombs, computers and Viagra come to mind), so can we have absolutely no vision of 2185. The only reasonable bet is that it will be dramatically different than today, and our fossil fuel-powered society will seem as remote in the future as one driven by horses and slavery seems remote to us today. So why would anyone make a prediction of what effects humanity will have on the environment some two centuries from now, based on what we're doing today?
Or, in the case of the researchers' exaggerated percentage increase in carbon dioxide, what we're not doing today? That leads to an interesting question: Because carbon dioxide increases have been bouncing around four-tenths of a percent per year for three decades, why do climate modelers insist on using the wrong number? It seems peculiar that people who have the equivalent of doctorates in applied physics (which is what climate science is) would somehow be perfectly happy to do something they know is wrong.
I began asking that question at scientific meetings a decade ago. At that time, I asked Kevin Trenberth, a highly visible atmospheric scientist from the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, who often testifies to Congress on climate issues. He told me it was done because it was "convention."
That answer doesn't set well with me, because it's awfully easy to program a computer to increase a variable by half a percent instead of 1 percent per year.
That leads to the final, nagging question. There are literally hundreds of scientific papers out there in which climate models use this wrong number. Each of those papers gets sent to three outside peer-reviewers. The fact that 1 percent continues to be used only means one thing: when it comes to global warming, hundreds of scientists must prefer convention to truth.
But why? Is it because, when the real numbers are put in, there's no story for the New York Times to report?
This article was published on Foxnews.com, October 7, 2004.
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Sowing the Hurricane Whirlwind
by Patrick J. Michaels
Invalid Link Removed, senior fellow in Invalid Link Removed at the Cato Institute, is the author of Invalid Link Removed, to be released in October 2004.
News loves hurricanes. They usually form far, far away, providing at least a week of stories. And they often start with a bang. Down in the tropical Atlantic, young ones bomb out to amazingly low barometric pressures and outrageous sustained winds. Hurricane Ivan's lowest pressure, for example, would cause the needle on you home barometer to spin around twice. The resultant "eyewall" winds were a 20-mile wide tornado.
It's incredible stuff. But they usually weaken considerably by the time they get to the states, owing to our more northerly latitude and the fact that hurricanes don't do well when much of their circulation is over land, which has to happen when they approach North America.
That doesn't stop the hype machine. While we like to count up property damage and losses, no one mentions the fantastic revenue that these storms generate for the media, or that the constant drumbeat of Charley-Frances-Ivan, Charley-Frances-Ivan must have political repercussions.
And so, Tony Blair was just in Washington to visit John Kerry, where he conflated Hurricane Ivan with dreaded global warming.
I like just about everything about Tony Blair. He's smart, affable, and a real friend to a nation that needs some. But he's way off on global warming, and advising Kerry to bail out his campaign with apocalyptic climate hype invites a grilling by the climate truth squad, a rather large body of weather nerds in a weather-fixated country.
Blair's problem is that he listens to his science adviser, Sir David King, who is one of the most ill-informed hawks on climate change on this greening planet. King actually pronounced the goofy global warming flick "The Day After Tomorrow" as scientifically plausible, which should have completely blown away his credibility. Now he claims that this year's hurricane activity is a product of global warming and that warming will make hurricanes worse.
Here's the simplistic argument. Hurricanes require warm water. Global warming means more of that. Therefore, more hurricanes.
The fact is that there's plenty of warm water for hurricanes every year--virtually the entire tropical ocean is hot enough, and yet there are only about 10 per year in the Atlantic. The real research question on these storms is not why there are so many but, rather, why there are so few, given the massive expanse of warm water available to them.
And here's the real scientific inconvenience in Blair's story. The planet warmed slightly--much less than forecast by people like King--in the last half of the last century, but while that happened, maximum winds in Atlantic hurricanes DECLINED significantly.
Yep. As shown by scientist Chris Landsea of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, maximum winds measured by hurricane-hunter aircraft over the last 50 years have declined significantly.
Further, there's a logical (if lawyerly) argument that pins this salutary change on global warming. It goes like this: Atlantic hurricanes are much more delicate than their destruction suggests. One thing they cannot tolerate is a west wind blowing into them because it wrecks their symmetry. As a result, their maximum winds decline.
El Niño--another climate hype machine--generates precisely this type of wind over the Atlantic. That's why, in El Nino years, the forecast is for a weak hurricane season.
In the latter part of the last century, there were an unusual number of El Niño years compared to previous decades. Some scientists (like David King) claim that global warming is increasing the frequency of El Nino. But if that's the case, then global warming would be responsible for the decline in maximum hurricane winds.
How much could that be worth? The decline has been about 15 mph since 1950. That's not a small number because the force of a hurricane's wind goes up with the square of the velocity. In the high Category Three/low Four range, this change reduces the power by 25 percent. Given that the U.S. experiences about 15 strong hurricanes every decade, and that the average cost is now about $5 billion for one of those hits, you could, if you buy the El Niño argument (I don't but some others do), thank global warming saving about $13 billion per decade.
These numbers won't stop the hype machine on hurricanes. But you'd think that Great Britain's science adviser would have been sufficiently well informed that he would have kept his prime minister from asking John Kerry to sow the whirlwind.
by Patrick J. Michaels
Invalid Link Removed, senior fellow in Invalid Link Removed at the Cato Institute, is the author of Invalid Link Removed, to be released in October 2004.
News loves hurricanes. They usually form far, far away, providing at least a week of stories. And they often start with a bang. Down in the tropical Atlantic, young ones bomb out to amazingly low barometric pressures and outrageous sustained winds. Hurricane Ivan's lowest pressure, for example, would cause the needle on you home barometer to spin around twice. The resultant "eyewall" winds were a 20-mile wide tornado.
It's incredible stuff. But they usually weaken considerably by the time they get to the states, owing to our more northerly latitude and the fact that hurricanes don't do well when much of their circulation is over land, which has to happen when they approach North America.
That doesn't stop the hype machine. While we like to count up property damage and losses, no one mentions the fantastic revenue that these storms generate for the media, or that the constant drumbeat of Charley-Frances-Ivan, Charley-Frances-Ivan must have political repercussions.
And so, Tony Blair was just in Washington to visit John Kerry, where he conflated Hurricane Ivan with dreaded global warming.
I like just about everything about Tony Blair. He's smart, affable, and a real friend to a nation that needs some. But he's way off on global warming, and advising Kerry to bail out his campaign with apocalyptic climate hype invites a grilling by the climate truth squad, a rather large body of weather nerds in a weather-fixated country.
Blair's problem is that he listens to his science adviser, Sir David King, who is one of the most ill-informed hawks on climate change on this greening planet. King actually pronounced the goofy global warming flick "The Day After Tomorrow" as scientifically plausible, which should have completely blown away his credibility. Now he claims that this year's hurricane activity is a product of global warming and that warming will make hurricanes worse.
Here's the simplistic argument. Hurricanes require warm water. Global warming means more of that. Therefore, more hurricanes.
The fact is that there's plenty of warm water for hurricanes every year--virtually the entire tropical ocean is hot enough, and yet there are only about 10 per year in the Atlantic. The real research question on these storms is not why there are so many but, rather, why there are so few, given the massive expanse of warm water available to them.
And here's the real scientific inconvenience in Blair's story. The planet warmed slightly--much less than forecast by people like King--in the last half of the last century, but while that happened, maximum winds in Atlantic hurricanes DECLINED significantly.
Yep. As shown by scientist Chris Landsea of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, maximum winds measured by hurricane-hunter aircraft over the last 50 years have declined significantly.
Further, there's a logical (if lawyerly) argument that pins this salutary change on global warming. It goes like this: Atlantic hurricanes are much more delicate than their destruction suggests. One thing they cannot tolerate is a west wind blowing into them because it wrecks their symmetry. As a result, their maximum winds decline.
El Niño--another climate hype machine--generates precisely this type of wind over the Atlantic. That's why, in El Nino years, the forecast is for a weak hurricane season.
In the latter part of the last century, there were an unusual number of El Niño years compared to previous decades. Some scientists (like David King) claim that global warming is increasing the frequency of El Nino. But if that's the case, then global warming would be responsible for the decline in maximum hurricane winds.
How much could that be worth? The decline has been about 15 mph since 1950. That's not a small number because the force of a hurricane's wind goes up with the square of the velocity. In the high Category Three/low Four range, this change reduces the power by 25 percent. Given that the U.S. experiences about 15 strong hurricanes every decade, and that the average cost is now about $5 billion for one of those hits, you could, if you buy the El Niño argument (I don't but some others do), thank global warming saving about $13 billion per decade.
These numbers won't stop the hype machine on hurricanes. But you'd think that Great Britain's science adviser would have been sufficiently well informed that he would have kept his prime minister from asking John Kerry to sow the whirlwind.
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
:goodpost:
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
I just thing that the whole Global Warming thing is over hyped. Is it happening, Sure, but weather has been known to be cyclical, and what is or is going to happen would happen regardless. Man's effect on global warming is SO VERY negligable. The fear just gives more of a reason for people to buy a damn toyota Prius (sp?) over that Ford F350, or Nissan Titan that you really want. Gives reasons to jack the price of gas up, because less would be sold. If today man was consuming just as much gas as in the day of the 10 miles go a gallon carboruator, instead of the 50 MPG Hybrid, I believe gas prices would only rise with the economic inflation, not to the rate of insane adjustments felt today. Look at Europe period... they push the SMALL ass vehicles/ or hybrids like its no ones business... and gas is 1.25 EURO a liter... so about 5 Euro a gallon... or about 6 to 7 bux in US dollars.
Adams
Adams
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
Exactly my stance on the issue.
I "know" its happening (in the process), but I doubt its made an impact yet b/c the CO2 increase just isn't as drastic as is necessary yet.
I "know" its happening (in the process), but I doubt its made an impact yet b/c the CO2 increase just isn't as drastic as is necessary yet.
MaynardMeek
Well-known member
look we all know its my mom that causes global warming....I am sorry about all the mess :-(
Nabeshin
Registered User
From that article:kwyckemynd00 said:That was "one" instance...
School is in session
Invalid Link Removed
[/size]
The question you asked about volcanically-derived chlorine and the ozone layer is a good one, since this is an area of active debate (as are most issues related to the ozone layer).
And this individual's side of the debate comes without sources. When Mt. Pinatubo erupted, ozone levels were measurably "damaged." It kicked out more "greenhouse gasses" than humans did during the entire industrial revolution, and it cooled the globe by 1degC. Invalid Link Removed. Any de-explanations of the significance of volcanic activity must account for this.
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
I know...did you NOT read my post?Nabeshin said:
I said you brought up "one occasion" and you totally ignored that the expert declared that volcanic activity is most likely not the cause for the recent increase in ozone decay.
He specifically stated that volcanic cycles have not changed (as far as they know) for quite a while, yet the O3 decay has been significant. I'll leave the rest up to you to figure out
Nabeshin
Registered User
Just because he's an "expert" doesn't mean he gets a free pass. He has to prove his position. Positing that volcanic cycles have remained constant does not yield a corollary of non-causality of depletion of atmospheric O3. If you disagree, then prove it. Your "expert" did not.kwyckemynd00 said:I know...did you NOT read my post?
I said you brought up "one occasion" and you totally ignored that the expert declared that volcanic activity is most likely not the cause for the recent increase in ozone decay.
He specifically stated that volcanic cycles have not changed (as far as they know) for quite a while, yet the O3 decay has been significant. I'll leave the rest up to you to figure out
GREENFEATHER
Registered User
Just think about the dinosaurs, what did they do? Eat the trees, I figure when they had denuded enough forests the CO2 became a problem, not some stupid assed meteor. Now, fast forward to today. What are we doing? Felling trees at a rate faster than they can be replaced, we're headed for trouble at some point and time just like the dinosaurs.
ROB, always the skeptic
ROB, always the skeptic
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
And you're more of an expert I presume? You provided links to past events and claimed those events were more of a cause of the current [debated] global warming phenomenon. You provided your opinion and an encylopedia reference to events...hmm, which expert do I have more trust in? :lol:Nabeshin said:
Its an issue under debate for a reason, global warming that is.
The fact that volcanoes ARE NOT the cause of the current phenomenon is not an issue of debate. That's more like something I hear on the Sean Hannity show...LOL.
Doesn't look your volcano had much of a long term effect...I dont see any blips, do you?
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Now, take a close look at this graph...look at the huge increase during the 20th century...it looks like a straight up-and-down line because the scale is over the course of 400,000 years, please refer to the other scale above to get a good idea of when this happened.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Listen, its happening, its a problem. You can't deny it, and it can't be ignored.
I hate those damn environmentalist whacko's, and I don't believe myself to be a fool, so I like to do all of my own reading regarding the subject. Unfortunately, those crazy environmentalists are right on this one.
CO2 concentration in our atmosphere is insane and it is correlated with our burning of fossil fuels. Volcanic activity has been consistant, the only new variable is technology and its simply our fossil fuel technology that is causing the problem.
I've already provided a link that describes the difference between unstable Cl2 produced by volcanoes and the CFC's the providing a stable transport for them, so they are able to destroy O3. So, if you need to read it again, its there.
jmh80
Well-known member
I believe this theory of global warming causing stronger hurricanes is bunk.
The strongest storm ever recorded was Camille in 1969.
Hurricane Camille--Was the last Category Five Hurricane to make landfall over the United States before Hurricane Andrew did in August, 1992. Hurricane Camille landfall over Gulfport, Mississippi on August 18, 1969 with winds of 180 mph, and a record storm surge of 24.3 feet. It left about 250 people dead from Louisiana to Virginia, and was responsible for approximately $1.421 billion dollars in damage.
The strongest storm ever recorded was Camille in 1969.
Hurricane Camille--Was the last Category Five Hurricane to make landfall over the United States before Hurricane Andrew did in August, 1992. Hurricane Camille landfall over Gulfport, Mississippi on August 18, 1969 with winds of 180 mph, and a record storm surge of 24.3 feet. It left about 250 people dead from Louisiana to Virginia, and was responsible for approximately $1.421 billion dollars in damage.
Nabeshin
Registered User
I'm not one to place trust in somebody merely because they have been dubbed an expert. It's argumentum ad hominem in reverse, and I don't buy it. But if that is how you operate, then we must agree to disagree.kwyckemynd00 said:
If memory serves, I didn't state that volcanoes are the cause of our "current phenomenom." I further believe that I was interested in the effects of volcanic eruptions on ozone levels, not CO2 concentrations.
Nevertheless, I would like to point out the irony of your choice of source. It's one of my favorite sites that argues against the "theory" of global warming. It makes for an Invalid Link Removed, if you are so inclined.
And yes, I read your expert's post. If your implication is that when Mt. Pinatubo erupted, ozone levels weren't reduced, your implication is wrong.
CDB
Registered User
kwyckemynd00 said:
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/font]Dr. Richard S. Lindzen said:
I know you didn't recommend anything, Kwycke. This isn't direct at you, just the conversation here in general. I would recommend this paper: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Arthur Robinson. It's a good look from another view point.
More generally, CO2 as a percentage of atmospheric content was around 1% in the age of the dinosaurs. They were living quite well, it was a bit warmer then and plant and animal life were flourishing. What's it at now, .3% to .4%?
This excerpt from the begining of The Fascism of Evironmentalism sums it up perfectly for me:
Bernard Switalski said:
Bernard Switalski said:
Sound at all familiar to anyone?
The book is a great read and you can get the pdf for free on the Internet. It's a good look at why, even if you grant the premise that human action wil warm the Earth and have catestrophic effects, you should not listen to environmentalists.
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
My point is very simple.Nabeshin said:
Volcanoes destroying O3 is not an issue. Very rarely do Cl2 and other damaging molecules make it into the ozone layer. CFC's were an issue because they safely transported them to the ozone, where the Cl- ions wreak havoc on O3.
There is an unnatral rise in CO2, in ppm, in our atmosphere.
I DID NOT say that the concentration of green house gases, at this point, is enough to make significant changes in earth temperature outside of a natural cycle, but rather I proved (see my above post) that CO2 concentrations are increasing very fast, unnaturally, and will create a problem if we don't take care of it.
I dont know why you refuse to read what I write, but I never implied Mt. Pinatubo's eruption had no impact on the ozone. Obviously it had effects, and that's well documented. It was documented in the link I provided, as well as the link you provided.
I just said that volcanoes aren't the major contributing factor to the current situation.
It appears that you are arguing that the human race is not playing a role in the greenhouse effect, nor did we play a role in ozone depletion, yet, in the past 100 years, we've seen major and unnatural changes in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere (as was noted above on two different graphs) and that we were producing a force that was causing an unnatural and rapid reduction of the ozone layer, in the form of CFC's. Hell, after we passed some new environmental laws regulating CFC producing machinery, the increased size of the hole in the ozone layer began to close!
Just in case i didn't note the effect of human produced CFCs on the ozone, here is some info:
Invalid Link Removed
Last edited:
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
Probably not even that high, and earth will reach some sort of homeostasis at any given level. BUT the concern is the weather conditions and the living conditions we will have to endure as a result of changing our atmosphere.CDB said:
I'm not a dinosaur and I"m not sure if I can live in the same conditions as dinosaurs.
Those animals are all dead now, many animals have come and gone, and many of them as a result of radical changes in the earths climate.
Yes, there will be changes again, but do we really want to accelarate the process? <-- its that simple.
Nabeshin
Registered User
I am aware of your point regarding the insignificance of volcanic activity, you simply have yet to prove it. You also haven't proved that the rapid increase in CO2 will be a problem. Your statement about regulation of CFCs coinciding with increased ozone levels is also unproven.
If "expert opinion" is your proof, then we can't go further with this.
I'm sorry for misunderstanding your position vis-a-vis Pinatubo.
If "expert opinion" is your proof, then we can't go further with this.
I'm sorry for misunderstanding your position vis-a-vis Pinatubo.
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
Okay, then why do we even bother to argue?
I can say your position is unproven, and you can say mine is unproven...
Increased CO2 causing a radical weather pattern change epidemic is a debatable issue, CFCs being destructive to ozone is not.
And, I don't know why you're so hung up on that expert opinion thing...I made one reference to a guy being an expert in his field, and you blew that waaaay out of proportion.
But, when it comes to taking Nabeshin v. a professor in a relevant field's opinion, I'll go with the professor.
Oh well...agree to disagree.
I can say your position is unproven, and you can say mine is unproven...
Increased CO2 causing a radical weather pattern change epidemic is a debatable issue, CFCs being destructive to ozone is not.
And, I don't know why you're so hung up on that expert opinion thing...I made one reference to a guy being an expert in his field, and you blew that waaaay out of proportion.
But, when it comes to taking Nabeshin v. a professor in a relevant field's opinion, I'll go with the professor.
Oh well...agree to disagree.
Nabeshin
Registered User
As I said before, if your only proof is expert opinion, we must agree to disagree. I'm sorry if I've blown that out of proportion, it was not my intention. This reliance on expert opinion reocurring theme among those I debate in this matter, and when you feel as negatively about that "epistemology" as I do, you tend to seize on it.kwyckemynd00 said:
To explain why expert opinion should not be our guiding light is a bit off topic, but consider delving into pellagra and eugenics, as I mentioned early. Or, as a more relevant example, consider that it wasn't until the mid '90s that the official medical community finally acknowledged that AAS might have ergogenic effects.
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
Well, one link you provided made a good case against CO2 and its relation to global temperatures, I'll give you that. I just believe it failed at address the issue of is this adding to the mass of the atmosphere, or is it just changing in composition? Were previous levels of CO2 in our atmoshphere from a change in composition, or was there more atmospheric mass?
I think those are two issues that need to be addressed before one can conlclude that our 2% contribution (yearly) to greenhouse emissions are either harmful or not. If its an increase in atmospheric mass that results, I believe we do have to worry about the greenhouse effect. If its mostly a change in composition...no big deal. Its the molality of the atmosphere I am concerned about. Right now I don't think its a big deal, but if we change the atmosphereic concentration of molecules to volume ratio (in the form of an increased amount of molecules) I do see a legitimate concern, in the future, that we will have sped up the process of a major climate shift.
CFC's and thrashing the ozone is a non-debatable issue, however.
And, I understand that science and scientists can often be wrong, vis a vis the medical community and AAS.
I think those are two issues that need to be addressed before one can conlclude that our 2% contribution (yearly) to greenhouse emissions are either harmful or not. If its an increase in atmospheric mass that results, I believe we do have to worry about the greenhouse effect. If its mostly a change in composition...no big deal. Its the molality of the atmosphere I am concerned about. Right now I don't think its a big deal, but if we change the atmosphereic concentration of molecules to volume ratio (in the form of an increased amount of molecules) I do see a legitimate concern, in the future, that we will have sped up the process of a major climate shift.
CFC's and thrashing the ozone is a non-debatable issue, however.
And, I understand that science and scientists can often be wrong, vis a vis the medical community and AAS.
Nabeshin
Registered User
Invalid Link Removed You'll want to read that article from start to finish. It's written by a Randian Objectivist, and is very critical of reflexive skeptics who don't get their facts straight.kwyckemynd00 said:
To clarify my own position, I don't actually think that contemporary volcanic eruptions are that big of a deal. If I recall correctly, a volcano has to be particularly violent in order to get chlorine into the atmosphere, and then particularly chloric for that to even matter. This is not representative of the average volcanic eruption, and the effects of the exceptional ones seem to dissipate in about five years. I only mention volcanic activity to point out that if our climate was as sensitive as the hardline environmentalists purport, a single Katmai or El Chichon should leave us reeling.
I am adamant about proof for two reasons. The first reason is simple honesty. The other reason is that once you get truly facts oriented, the debate tends to resolve itself. I've previously settled debates with hardliners by having them inadvertently prove their own position wrong. I was hoping that you would prove the effects of the occasional exceptional eruption are insignificant, so that I could rightly call the improvements made by, e.g., Kyoto, insignificant.
You're not the hardliner I expected you to be, though, so my evil right wing agenda isn't applicable. :lol:
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
That article gave a good explanation as to why O3 depletion has been minimal "so far", but also says you need the right meteorolgical conditions for massive reduction in O3 to occur. Do you not see the problem there?
So, if these conditions take place and we've let CFC production go rampant, what's next?
And the article even states that most of chlorine in the stratosphere is from human production. So,
So, if that "not as well-defined vortex" becomes more well defined like the one over antarctica, rapid destruction of the ozone layer will ensue.
And you're assuring us with what evidence this can't happen?
And you speak about being adament of proof, but then you do the exact same thing I did.
I posted information written by an expert in that field, and you did the exact same thing! Then, you call me out for not having enough data....okie dokie. Whatever floats your boat.
I'm simply not convinced that packing CFC's in our poles is not dangerous because the arctics vortex has not been well defined. LOL. "Sure, lets just pack all kinds of Cl up there...I mean, what are the chances this vortex will actually pull itself together?"
So, if these conditions take place and we've let CFC production go rampant, what's next?
And, CFC's still cause major damage, regardless.
And the article even states that most of chlorine in the stratosphere is from human production. So,
So, if that "not as well-defined vortex" becomes more well defined like the one over antarctica, rapid destruction of the ozone layer will ensue.
And you're assuring us with what evidence this can't happen?
And you speak about being adament of proof, but then you do the exact same thing I did.
I posted information written by an expert in that field, and you did the exact same thing! Then, you call me out for not having enough data....okie dokie. Whatever floats your boat.
I'm simply not convinced that packing CFC's in our poles is not dangerous because the arctics vortex has not been well defined. LOL. "Sure, lets just pack all kinds of Cl up there...I mean, what are the chances this vortex will actually pull itself together?"