What debate? There is no debate. The only debate brewing is how to slow down the inevitable destruction of the entire planet and everything in it including soonerdawg.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Printable View
What debate? There is no debate. The only debate brewing is how to slow down the inevitable destruction of the entire planet and everything in it including soonerdawg.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
thanks for proving my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
ark bob, are you keeping track of the CO2 levels in the atmosphere? Are they still going up? When do you think that they start to go down?Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Remember, increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere means higher average global temperatures.
ARBob, Even God believes in Global Warming and it's effects on hurricanes. He even told Pat Robertson about it.
http://www.wftv.com/news/9235304/detail.html
remember, increasing levels of co2 are only a small piece of what determines global temperatures.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
wow, robertson just gets kookier and kookier every day. now that he believes in global warming, i know he's really lost it. :icon_winkQuote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Quote: "a small piece".
Hmmmm. Maybe you will be willing to tell us what the "big pieces" are?
I bet you didn't know this..Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Watervapor accounts for 80% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Watervapor is also more potent than CO2 in terms of holding in heat.
CO2 levels have risen from 280 ppm to 370 ppm in over 100 years. The people who say it's a man made cause point to the increasing amount of an isotope of CO2 that is not produced naturally, but by burning fossil fuels. If you look at the readings they indicate that CO2 levels have risen more sharply in the last 10 years, but the isotope that scientists look at has not risen in the same correlation.
Let's not forget that 35 years ago, the same magazine, Newsweek that is telling us today that we're about to be fried like eggs, said we'd be in for a major ice age.
100 years of climate observations is not enough time to predict that a global climate catastrophe is imminent when temperatures in the year 1000-1200 AD were considerably warmer than today.
You can cherry pick your data to match whatever argument that you want, but if you look at the big picture (which liberals can never do) then you'll understand that the only hubbub being created are from people who need attention.
i think mj did a decent job of that. the only thing i would add is that the greenhouse effect is not all there is to global temperatures, either. intensity of solar radiation, clouds, and volcanic activity are only a few of the other factors.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
thanks, mjrod. but i doubt if hearing the same thing from someone different will do anything to change his mind. any weather phenomena at all can be used as "evidence" of global warming (including cold weather!). no amount of scientific evidence will ever convince him (or others like him) otherwise.
if you haven't already, salty, please read my new signature. it is pretty good advice to the folks that want to shut up the anti-global-waming scientists.
Having studied meteorology as a hobby for many years and understanding climate, there are many processes we still have no idea how they work. Most climate models that are used in predicting global warming do very little prediction about cloud cover. People still don't understand how cloud cover plays a role. Wanna see evidence of that?
The National Hurricane Center uses some 10 different climate modeling programs to help track a course of a hurricane. In many cases, the models diverge greatly as to predicted strength, landfall, size, etc, and so the predictors "average" them out. The models have gotten so much better over the last decade that their accuracy in predicting a hurricane's characteristics, course, etc, 5 days out has improved to almost 30%.
Here's a couple more for ya..
On MSNBC, the director of the National Hurricane Center was asked, point blank, "Is Global Warming the cause of the increase in intensity of hurricanes?"
His answer was not only no, but that this type of activity has been predicted and is based on a 50 year cycle of hurricane activity. We're about to enter a period where the number and intensity are increasing.. but it's not because of global warming, but a climate cycle.
On CNN, they were reporting on the iceberg that broke off Antartica and a specialist from Univ. of Wisconsin Milwaukee was asked "Is Global Warming the reason the iceberg broke off?"
She said unequivocally "No, these are happening because the ice sheet is trying to remain a stable size. It's a natural process."
Ooops..
Water vapor is a positive feedback to rising CO2 levels. Doubling the CO2 level from 280 ppm to 560 ppm causes the average global temperature to rise 1.2 C. A warmer atmosphere produces and holds more water vapor so the feedback to the increase in CO2 levels actually increases global average temperatures to more than double to 2.5 C.Quote:
Originally Posted by mjrod
The carbon cycle moves CO2 from the atmosphere to the oceans to the biomass in a long-term and constant exchange. It is a fact that burning fossil fuels dumps more than 6 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Some of it stays in the atmosphere but about half goes into the oceans and biomass which also releases CO2 back into the atmosphere. So I think that any "talk" about CO2 isotopes is not very convinving. Maybe you can provide a link?
Nobody knows what the average global temperature was from 1000 to 1200 AD. Your assertion is based on reports that Europe was warmer than usual during that period. Probably it was colder than normal during that period somewhere else on the planet. The question you need to ask yourself is were atmospheric CO2 levels rose during that period and the answer is a definite "no."
Who gives a rat's ass what Newsweek said 30 years ago or today. That is one of the weakest arguments I have ever read.
Neo-con wing-nuts rely on junk science to justified their head-in-the-sand positions on climate change.
You can count the number of anti-global warming scientists with your hands and toes. The only scientists who don't think global warming is taking place are usually getting a fat paycheck from Big Oil.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
So you been watching the evening TV weather reports for a few years. Seems to me that you don't have a very good handle on the process of climate change.Quote:
Originally Posted by mjrod
Everybody knows that global warming will not significantly increase the number of hurricanes so much as it will increase the number of the really big storms.
As far as cloud cover is concerned, whether the feedback is positive or negative depends upon the type of cloud, water or ice, thick or thin, average size of cloud particle, and height.
Check out the melting of the Greenland ice sheet for some "more on the point" information about the affect the current level of increasing average global temperature is having on polar ice.
Get em' salty!
National Hurricane Center Predicts a Calmer Season Than Last Year's Record Storm Count
By LAURA WIDES-MUNOZ, Associated Press Writer
MIAMI -- A hectic, above-normal tropical storm season could produce between four and six major hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico this year, but conditions don't appear ripe for a repeat of 2005's record activity, the National Hurricane Center predicted Monday.
There will be up to 16 named storms, the center predicted, which would be significantly less than last year's record 27. Still, people in coastal regions should prepare for the possibility of major storms, said Max Mayfield, the National Hurricane Center director.
"One hurricane hitting where you live is enough to make it a bad season," Mayfield told reporters.
Last year, officials predicted 12 to 15 tropical storms, seven to nine of them becoming hurricanes, and three to five of those hurricanes being major, with winds of at least 111 mph.
But the season turned out to be much busier, breaking records that had stood since 1851. Last season there were 15 hurricanes, seven of which were Category 3 or higher.
In the center's detailed 2006 prediction report, meteorologists said water in the Atlantic is not as warm as it was at this stage in 2005. Warm water is a key fuel for hurricane development.
Also, it is not clear whether atmospheric conditions that helped produce the 2005 storms will repeat again this year, forecasters said. And, it appears that the Pacific Ocean water conditions known as El Nino and La Nina will not have any impact on the Atlantic hurricane season this year, forecasters said.
The Atlantic seasons were relatively mild from the 1970s through 1994. Since then, all but two years have been above normal. Experts say the world is in the midst of a 20-year-cycle that will continue to bring strong storms.
Between 1995 and 2005, the Atlantic season has averaged 15 named storms, just over eight named hurricanes and four major hurricanes, according to the National Hurricane Center. Before this latest above-normal cycle, from 1971 to 1994, there were an average of 8.5 named storms, five hurricanes and just over one major hurricane.
The Atlantic hurricane season runs from June 1 to Nov. 30.