Do current storms prove your stance on Man Mad Global Warming?

RacerX.ksr

New member
Sep 17, 2004
132,592
26,415
0
And this is exactly why us 'idiots' don't post here anymore. Don't wanna be part of your circle jerk. Why would we want to argue with people who don't believe in facts or science?
I am not the one who doesn't believe in facts or science. That would be you and those like you who believe consensus equals science. Read this and then give me your rebuttal.

“1) That temperature is increasing;
2) That this increase is due to increased CO2;” (and more generally).
All precise scientific work to address those two questions have been done. Problem is, results are ignored. I can’t be persuaded to believe in AGW because:
1) For climate record we need trust-able, non-controversial, studied, examined and re-studied sources. We have them: ice core data. Precise, published, reviewed. By it, we are indeed warming in the last 200+ years. However, it is scientific to ask “from what initial conditions” and “how this compares with long term past”. There is a catch: we are warming since Little Ice Age period, the coldest period in last 12000 years (pro-AGW people would try to insinuate that we are warming from some eternal average). How it compares is also important: all ice core records show frequent, fast, dramatic climate changes. Up and down. Many faster than the current one. Even more importantly-despite 200+ years of warming, current temperatures according to ice core records are BELOW 10000 year average. Example from recent really warm period: medieval warming shifted the main wine growing belt to… Scotland, archaeological remains of extensive farming communities from that time are just emerging from retreating glaciers on Greenland… Don’t believe ice-core records, see history and archaeology.
2) But, this warming coincides with higher human input of CO2 into the atmosphere, is it due to us? AGW/CO2 warming theory is based on one fundamental assumption/mechanism: greenhouse effect. Claim is that CO2 greenhouse effect overwhelms all other Earth temperature controlling mechanisms. Enter 1985-1999 NASA ERBS (Earth Radiation Balance Satellite) results. Precise results by highly competent and trusted institution, published reviewed,… ignored. By coincidence this period is one during which both CO2 rise and temperature rise were strongest in the recent history. Results?-Year after year proportion of energy Earth sent back to space to what it received from it… INCREASED, while warming. This result makes CO2 (or any other known or even unknown greenhouse causing source) greenhouse effect impossible as a source of observed warming. Not maybe, not further study, not plausible,… absolutely completely excluded as greenhouse effect behaves in the exactly opposite manner. We know that Earth is not warming from CO2 greenhouse effect with certainty to the legal and scientific level.
Side note: what is mainly causing warming/cooling of the Earth? CERN 2011 Cloud Experiment gave the answer: it is not total energy received by the Earth but proportion of higher energy particles in the incoming radiation. Because water vapor in Earth atmosphere is way more efficient in warming Earth by higher energy particles. This type of warming, based on increased efficiency, also causes what ERBS have observed. (EX. Earth receiving 100 energy units from 100 particles of energy 1 will be cooler than Earth receiving 100 energy units from 50 particles of energy 1 and 5 particles of energy 10).
 

ScrewDuke1

Well-known member
Jul 29, 2016
40,233
9,215
113
It also says a lot about these organizations when they agree even after proof of data tampering originally to alter the results. Money drives the train and we were paying the bills for most around the world.
I don't know how anyone can still believe in it after the massive data tampering that was exposed a few years back. I believe there was data tampering exposed in another country recently too.

If its real there should be no need to fake the numbers.
 

ScrewDuke1

Well-known member
Jul 29, 2016
40,233
9,215
113
And this is exactly why us 'idiots' don't post here anymore. Don't wanna be part of your circle jerk. Why would we want to argue with people who don't believe in facts or science?

All I will say is that while there's no proof climate change causes a hurricane, the increased temperatures and moisture in the air make them stronger and wetter.
Liberals: A man with a penis is a woman

Also liberals: Why do those darn right wingers hate science so much?
 

Ukbrassowtipin

New member
Aug 12, 2011
82,110
3,051
0
There were 3 hurricanes concurrently in 2009 in the same area, and before that there were 3 and a tropical storm in the 90s. If global warming was much worse why does it wait every 10 years or so to do the same thing.
 

dgtatu01

New member
Sep 21, 2005
8,673
506
0
Actually I would think with rapidly meting polar ice that the Atlantic water should be too cool to spawn a hurricane of Irma's magnitude, that's just me though.
 

Crushgroove

New member
Oct 11, 2014
7,331
1,961
0
There were...
two in 2016
one in 2014
two in 2012
one in 2011
three in 2008
one in 2007
six in 2005

That's 16, in the 12 years that preceded this year, which would be years 2005-2016
OMG! You mean hurricanes didn't cease to exist!

Lol... landfall in US, Hoss. Try to keep up.
 

wildcatwelder_rivals

Well-known member
Jul 28, 2006
11,156
2,126
113
While I think the Earth is warming, I do not believe man has a significant hand in it; it's a pattern the globe goes through.
 
Mar 23, 2012
23,493
1,384
0
OMG! You mean hurricanes didn't cease to exist!

Lol... landfall in US, Hoss. Try to keep up.
They did make landfall in the US, wiseguy.

2005
Dennis - landfall in Florida
Katrina - Florida, Louisiana
Rita - Louisiana
Wilma - Florida
Cindy - Louisiana
Ophelia - eye never made landfall but the other parts went over eastern parts of the US

2007
Humberto - Texas

2008
Gustav - Louisiana
Dolly - Texas
Ike - Texas

2011
Irene - North Carolina

2012
Isaac - Louisiana
Sandy - New Jersey

2014
Arthur - North Carolina

2016
Hermine - Florida
Matthew - South Carolina

Take a few laps and think and figure out how to become informed about the world.
 

Bill Derington

Well-known member
Jan 21, 2003
21,323
2,132
113
I'm going to assume he meant major hurricane made landfall since 05.

I don't think Matthew actually made landfall in South Carolina. I believe it skirted the coast.

I was lucky enough to ride Matthew out in the Bahamas.
 

RacerX.ksr

New member
Sep 17, 2004
132,592
26,415
0
Hurricane intensity, location, damage, or any other attribute has nothing to do with proving man made global warming.

Real science tells us that CO2 levels lag behind temperature changes. Consensus science is the science of the uneducated or the charlatan who has duped him.
 

Ron Mehico

New member
Jan 4, 2008
15,475
2,062
0
So if you don't believe in man made global warming does that mean you are against policy that wants us to use cleaner energy? Are we against clean energy? I mean what the hell is the argument and how did this GD topic become so political?
 

Crushgroove

New member
Oct 11, 2014
7,331
1,961
0
They did make landfall in the US, wiseguy.

2005
Dennis - landfall in Florida
Katrina - Florida, Louisiana
Rita - Louisiana
Wilma - Florida
Cindy - Louisiana
Ophelia - eye never made landfall but the other parts went over eastern parts of the US

2007
Humberto - Texas

2008
Gustav - Louisiana
Dolly - Texas
Ike - Texas

2011
Irene - North Carolina

2012
Isaac - Louisiana
Sandy - New Jersey

2014
Arthur - North Carolina

2016
Hermine - Florida
Matthew - South Carolina

Take a few laps and think and figure out how to become informed about the world.
I love how triggered you are. You're like a poodle... I can snap my fingers and you start shaking...
 

RacerX.ksr

New member
Sep 17, 2004
132,592
26,415
0
So if you don't believe in man made global warming does that mean you are against policy that wants us to use cleaner energy? Are we against clean energy? I mean what the hell is the argument and how did this GD topic become so political?
I'm against policy based on knee jerk reactions to problems that don't exist and have no remedy if they do.

I'm against policy that places financial burden on Americans while allowing other countries to continue on unabated. If it's a "global" problem that is going to kill the Earth, why not pay for China to clean up immediately?

It became political because the people pushing this ruse the hardest happen to be the same people who champion wealth redistribution.

If all you've done in the way of research is to read the IPCC report, then you haven't done any research at all.

Even if it were true that 97% of scientists agree on AGW, that would in no way prove it exists. Readings from NASA's own satellites, soil studies, ice core studies, all prove that the Earth is experiencing a normal, gradual warming period. The oceans aren't rising any faster than they have for many years. Some places are actually experiencing a drop in water levels. Some places have experienced a drop in temperature.

Global has a specific meaning.
 

Free_Salato_Blue

New member
Aug 31, 2014
4,475
922
0
 

Ron Mehico

New member
Jan 4, 2008
15,475
2,062
0
What financial burden? I don't see a clean energy item on my ridiculous tax bill every year, I'm sure I'm paying a thousand times more in stupid social security taxes. What is our financial burden for wanting to go cleaner? What am I paying? 5 dollars a year?
 

RacerX.ksr

New member
Sep 17, 2004
132,592
26,415
0
I was referring to the financial burden of reckless policy that demonizes fossil fuels. There is plenty of money in the private sector to develop and market alternative energy.

Ron, you are probably too young to remember when the air was dirty and rivers caught on fire. We aren't advocating returning to those days.
 

Ron Mehico

New member
Jan 4, 2008
15,475
2,062
0
I was referring to the financial burden of reckless policy that demonizes fossil fuels.


So help me god I'm not trying to be a smartass, but I have no clue what this means. I really don't. What financial burden? To whom?
 

RacerX.ksr

New member
Sep 17, 2004
132,592
26,415
0
So help me god I'm not trying to be a smartass, but I have no clue what this means. I really don't. What financial burden? To whom?
Cap and trade, increased gas prices, increased electric bills, increased taxes...

For everyone.
 

Ron Mehico

New member
Jan 4, 2008
15,475
2,062
0
Increased gas prices have been linked to us trying to use clean energy? Those have been increasing for last 15 years, what does us wanting to cause less emissions have anything to do with that? Hasn't that led to more electric and hybrid vehicles that causes us to use less gas? My electric bill has been exactly the same in my house for the last 7 years, any increase has been nominal for me. What taxes? That's what I originally asked? What am I paying more in taxes? 5 dollars? Where?
 

RacerX.ksr

New member
Sep 17, 2004
132,592
26,415
0
Increased gas prices have been linked to us trying to use clean energy? Those have been increasing for last 15 years, what does us wanting to cause less emissions have anything to do with that? Hasn't that led to more electric and hybrid vehicles that causes us to use less gas? My electric bill has been exactly the same in my house for the last 7 years, any increase has been nominal for me. What taxes? That's what I originally asked? What am I paying more in taxes? 5 dollars? Where?
Looks like you've given this lots of thought.
 

Ron Mehico

New member
Jan 4, 2008
15,475
2,062
0
Ok, cool, whatever. I'll just chalk it up to what I figured it was - stupid political BS based on basically nothing.
 

Tskware

Well-known member
Jan 26, 2003
24,850
1,556
113
Damn, are you guys still in here talking to yourself? Are you schizophrenic? It is just a baiting thread, and now two pages of so far of echo chamber.
 

RacerX.ksr

New member
Sep 17, 2004
132,592
26,415
0
If you're paying attention to Irma you'll see it is still being listed as a Cat 4. To be a legitimate Cat 4 on the Saffir Simpson scale there would need to be sustained winds of at least 130mph measured 33 feet above the ground for a period of one minute. The speeds are averaged. The highest reported gust I've seen so far is 120mph in the Keys.

Why the need to exaggerate wind speed and category? Same thing happened with Harvey.

Quick research shows that the number of Atlantic hurricanes is down for the century average. This is counter to global warming models. They can't exaggerate the number of hurricanes so therefore the intensity must increased with the same disregard for accuracy as the historical and current temperature record.

This manufactured intensity increase for landfall hurricanes is being blamed on Anthropogenic Global Warming. Or ******** if you will.

Here's an excerpt from this presumptuous article from Bloomberg.
2. How hot is the ocean?
Hotter than at any previous moment in recorded history, thanks to human-driven climate change. The global average sea-surface temperature for July was 1.24 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century average, making it the third-hottest July for oceans, behind 2016 and 2015. The waters where Irma was born were about 2 degrees Fahrenheit above normal or 1 degree Celsius.

If you don't understand how any of this works, or you just don't have time to be bothered, do us all a favor and don't have enough time to vote either.
 

RacerX.ksr

New member
Sep 17, 2004
132,592
26,415
0
And there you go. Just heard the Weather Channel say this is the first time we've had two Cat 4 hurricanes hit land in the same season.

I have no choice but to change my mind about AGW now. Can't argue with settled science like that.
 

ScrewDuke1

Well-known member
Jul 29, 2016
40,233
9,215
113
What if Irma doesn't want to identify as a hurricane? What if Irma wants to identify as a snow storm? You weather bigots make me sick.
 

RacerX.ksr

New member
Sep 17, 2004
132,592
26,415
0
A lot of the rain that is falling in Irma was snow at one time. It underwent a phase change operation.
 

Bill Derington

Well-known member
Jan 21, 2003
21,323
2,132
113
And there you go. Just heard the Weather Channel say this is the first time we've had two Cat 4 hurricanes hit land in the same season.

I have no choice but to change my mind about AGW now. Can't argue with settled science like that.

This is the part that really bothers me. What is the purpose of intentionally upgrading these storms? These guys know how hurricanes are graded, why are they trying to overinflated the categories?

I was watching the weather channel Friday night when Irma was hitting Cuba. It jumped from a 4 to a 5 while part of the eye was over land. I'm no meteorologist buts that's impossible.