Printable View
i understand the cycle, dawgbitten. from your statements on previous threads about carbon dioxide, you believe that we have more of those "lush plants that absorb c02" than we used to have. what makes you think the controls that kept the cycle going back then won't work now? earth can take care of herself. God has equipped her very well to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Those "controls" have been taken down and the lands turned into farm land, cities, roads, drug crops in Columbia. While the trees are made into furniture, paper, houses, etc. A nice little ragweed plant or corn stalk is no subsitute for a 50 year old oak tree. Mother Nature is trying it's best to control, but we have left her very few tools to work with.
Its almost impossible to review any media the past couple of weeks without seeing or hearing some reference to increased hurricane activity and increased hurricane intensity and then blame it on global warming. Well, the most complete set of data, over a century of it, compiled by the National Hurricane Center, shows that premise to be completely unfounded! (Perhaps it started with those reporters who published the untrue stories of all the rapes, murders, etc. in the Super Dome and then got parroted by all their clueless compatriots ) Heres the data.
Hurricanes Hitting US Coastlines by Decade
Period ..Major .All
.. ...(3,4,5)
1901-1910....4 .18
1911-1920 .7 21
1921-1930 ..5 .13
1931-1940 .8 19
1941-1950 .10 .24
1951-1960 ..8 . 17
1961-1970 6 ..14
1971-1980 .4 .12
1981-1990 ..5 15
1991-2000 ..5 .14
2001-2005 6 12 .(through Sept 26)
Source: National Weather Service, National Hurricane Center
Its clear that there is no significant upswing in the number or intensity of the storms in recent years. As for the closeness of Katrina and Rita, William Gray, a leading hurricane expert at Colorado State University, notes that there were 2 category 5s within 6 weeks of each other that hit the Gulf Coast in 1915.
Its also important to note that there has been a slight decrease in typhoons in the Pacific and Indian Oceans in recent years. Since those basins account for over 80% of major storm activity, it would be logical to assume that if global warming was causing more storms, we should see a big increase there, but we dont.
It seems that no one seems to be reporting on a known cause of warming waters in the North Atlantic. According to Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC, a major cause for this is a natural multidecadal cycle in the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation , an oceanic conveyor belt, that pulls warm water form the tropics toward the British Isles.
Bob, you need to study astronomy a little bit more.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env202.htm
Johnny, glad to have you on board even though I know you are joking about Bush and Michael Moore.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
sorry i had to take a break from the conversation. my yard was lush with carbon dioxide-absorbing plants and i had to put an end to that, in so doing, burning some fossil fuels and making more carbon dioxide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
as for your assertion, what makes you think that a 50-year-old oak tree is any match for a patch of ragweed taking up the same area? from what i understand, it is very difficult to measure how much carbon dioxide a plant absorbs. knowing how photosenthesis works, however, i know that it should be roughly proportional to the amount of mass that plant puts on. ragweed grows very fast and thick. then it dies and its place is taken by some other fast growing seasonal weed. an oak tree grows very slowly. i know that it takes a large amount of mass for an oak to grow just a little bit, but it seems to me that a patch of weeds could photosenthesize just about as much in a growing season. also, a large amount of slow-growing hardwood forest in north america has been replaced by fast growing pines that are harvested and replanted each generation. one would think that these new managed forests would do a good job of taking up some of the slack. i don't know. but no one has even proved that co2 actually causes greenhouse effect, so this is all just rhetorical anyway.
and salty, if you have an article about the earth's tilt being the sole cause of historical climate cycle, please post it. but don't waste my time with stuff that has nothing to do with the argument.
naw, man, he's dead serious.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
johnny, are you going to grow a scraggily beard and wear glasses, and start dressing like a homeless guy, to emulate your new hero? :D
Are you callin' me fat?!?!?!?! Okay, I'm fat. I haven't shaved since the A-Town water hit the skidz. I already wear glasses and, unless I've gotta go to work, I look very much like a hobo. Now all I have to do is make up a bunch of stories (most of which have to do with GW and a goat, cocaine, and a hooker...oh, and Saudi Arabia). I'm almost there.Quote:
Originally Posted by sik-m-boi
:laugh: wow, i had no idea that you "moore-love" had gotten this advanced.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Bob, here is a discussion on the relationship of global warming to hurrican intensity, you might find interesting.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181
I"ll get a link for the tilt/climate relationship later.
I wouldn't call it moore-love...I'm in a weird transition now between being the stud of my youth and my eventual transformation to Winston Churchill.Quote:
Originally Posted by sik-m-boi
Bob, here is a link for you that describes the relationship between long-term climate changes and the tilt of the Earth's axis. Hope it is of sufficient scientific merit for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
http://www.whoi.edu/mr/pr.do?id=3638
once again, your links don't provide the evidence advertised. the first one says there's no way to prove that katrina was or was not caused by global warming, which is pretty much common sense. the second makes an attempt to explain the 10,000-year glacial cycle. this is far from your claim:Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
the glacial cycle is only a small part of the very complex global climate cycle. but of course the main mistake made by global warming advocates is that of oversimplification.Quote:
Secondly, change in the Earth's climate occur because of changes both in tilt of the Earth's axis as well as variations in the Earth's orbit of the Sun. These changes are fixed and we know when in the Earth's history it got warmer or cooler because of these changes because the ice cores tell us how much CO2 is in the atmosphere as well as climate.
I know I'm going to have a tough time convincing anyone about GW who doesn't accept that there is a relationship between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature.
Anyway, GW's affect on hurricanes is very gradual and we will see more evidence as this century goes forward. By the end of this century, hurricanes will be something to write home about.
you're exactly right about the co2 and temperature thing. and the only reason you are convinced is because some scientist said so. i'm sorry, but "some scientists said so" is not a good enough reason to send our economy back to the 1820's. as long as reputable scientists disagree, it is not worth the tremendous cost the enviro-nuts would have us pay. and any time scientists try to convince you that every reputable scientist agrees with them, rather than opening it up for debate, that is usually a good sign that their case is not nearly as convincing as they would have you believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
as for hurricanes, gw scientists will find a new poster child in 20 years when the cycle is back on the low end.