^haha

8/1/2009 6:28:38 PM

Quote :

"yes, but only one side is screaming that the sky is falling. The other side is, for the most part, saying that we don't fully comprehend the system. oh wait, isn't that what you just said?"

I fully 100% agree with you. The Nancy Pelosi's and Al Gore's are definitely screaming teh sky is falling with all this oceans flooding NYC, end of civilization, and category 5 storm increase rants. This does not mean though I believe we should not at least put research money to fully understand/research the issue, progressively advance to greener technology (as economically feasible, and that all of our emissions have no impact on the dynamics of the climate (which will be figured out with the first part of the sentence).

^ don't be a b00b

[Edited on August 1, 2009 at 7:54 PM. Reason : j]

8/1/2009 7:53:05 PM

I can get behind that

8/1/2009 7:54:58 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/nyregion/01hot.html?_r=2&hp

nyc didn't get to 90 degrees in june or july.

8/2/2009 5:10:02 AM

Great Lakes and New England states are actually expected to get colder as a result of global warming.

8/2/2009 10:06:56 AM

what about the nc region?

[Edited on August 2, 2009 at 12:39 PM. Reason : and texas and washington state and oregon?]

8/2/2009 12:38:58 PM

Quote :

"This post is an epic fail. Your Refridgerator, A/C, and room fan are far more detremental to your power factor than a few CFL bulbs in your house. Please leave the electrical analysis to the electrical engineers of TWW."

talk about an epic fail. Refridgerator and heat pump motors are designed to run at close to full load at all times so that their power factor remains high. In addition to this, energy star appliances have built-in run capacitors to correct power factor. for a refridgerator with a 70W average motor load and a power factor of 0.9, the VAR demand is less than the VAR demand of ONE 60W equivalent CFL. the analysis of a ceiling fan makes you statement even dumber.

the switched mode power supply in your computer draws as many VARS off the system as your refridgerator. that is, unless you shelled out the money for one of the newer energy-star power supplies with built-in PF correction to bring them to nearly unity PF.

Ignoring these facts, lets look at the absurdity of your statement. So because you have some other reactive loads in the house, you shouldn't bother to build more effecient CFLs? do you not see how the installation of large amounts of reactive load on the grid coming from devices with very little real load is a problem? If you're that fucking stupid, then maybe you should exit this thread and leave discussion to the real electrical engineers of TWW.

8/2/2009 4:02:41 PM

jesus fucking christ WHO CARES

lets fucking breed rodents to spin wheels and create energy for our alarm clocks



[Edited on August 2, 2009 at 4:11 PM. Reason : ]

8/2/2009 4:08:06 PM

Sounds like someone gots their panties in a bunch

8/2/2009 4:11:44 PM

just calling you out for rambling about shit you don't understand.

8/2/2009 4:12:28 PM

we thought about using bats to bomb japan

lets use hamsters to create energy for certain household appliances

and as long as they can reproduce, IT WONT COST THE TAXPAYER A DAMN THING ... lets do this

and mother nature would smile





[Edited on August 2, 2009 at 4:18 PM. Reason : ]

8/2/2009 4:16:52 PM

actually, this idea sounds better than about 80% of this pathetic bill

8/2/2009 4:42:07 PM

^hey now, keep the bill talk in the bill thread. This thread is about global warming, not the scheme for the gov't to expand in size and tax us more in the name of the environment.

Here's an interesting tid-bit:

Quote :

"STILL No Tropical Storms? Must Be Global Warming August 3rd, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. So, where are all of the news stories about the fact we’ve had no tropical storms yet this year? As can be seen in the following graphic, as of this date in 2005 we already had 8 named storms in the Atlantic basin. And tomorrow, August 4, that number will increase to 9. In 2005 we were even told to expect more active hurricane seasons from now on because of global warming. Of course, even though it is interesting that the 2009 tropical season is off to such a slow start, it may well have no significance in terms of long-term trends. But the lack of news coverage on the subject does show the importance of unbiased reporting when it comes to global warming. Let me explain. Let’s say we really were in a slow, long-term cooling trend. What if the media decided they would only do news stories when there are record high temperatures or heat waves, ignoring record cold, and would then attribute those events to human-caused global warming? This would end up making the public fearful of global warming, even if the real threat was from global cooling. The public expects – or used to expect – the media to report on all sides of important issues, so that we can be better informed on the state of the world. There have always been high temperature records set, and there have always been heat waves. In some sense, unusual weather is normal. It might not happen every day, but you can be assured, it will happen. But reporting on heat-related events while ignoring cold temperature records or events that do not support the claims of global warming theorists, will lead to a bias in the way the public views climate change. Of course, someone might come along and claim that global warming has disrupted tropical storm activity this year, and so an unusually quiet season will also be claimed as evidence of global warming. This has already happened to some extent with cold weather and more snow being blamed on global warming. But when the natural climate cycle deniers reach that level of desperation, they only appear that much more ridiculous to those of us who have not yet lost our ability to reason."

I'm not saying a lack of hurricanes is an argument against global warming. I'm just showing how biased the media is about this stuff. You also probably haven't heard how 2009 has been a very quiet year for tornadoes as well. ( http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iXqFI76rE6nnjueX9MWwFPbExEhwD99OVC184). Then there's the NY Times claiming that 2009 has been cooler than usual due to natural variability. But back in 2000 they had no problem claiming the heat was caused by Global Warming.

[Edited on August 3, 2009 at 1:36 PM. Reason : k]

8/3/2009 1:35:44 PM

Quote :

"Study: Better Observations, Analyses Detecting Short-Lived Tropical Systems August 11, 2009 A NOAA-led team of scientists has found that the apparent increase in the number of tropical storms and hurricanes since the late 19th and early 20th centuries is likely attributable to improvements in observational tools and analysis techniques that better detect short-lived storms. The new study, reported in the online edition of the American Meteorological Society’s peer-reviewed Journal of Climate, shows that short-lived tropical storms and hurricanes, defined as lasting two days or less, have increased from less than one per year to about five per year from 1878 to 2008. “The recent jump in the number of short-lived systems is likely a consequence of improvements in observational tools and analysis techniques,” said Chris Landsea, science and operations officer at NOAA’s National Hurricane Center in Miami, and lead author on the study. “The team is not aware of any natural variability or greenhouse warming-induced climate change that would affect the short-lived tropical storms exclusively.” ...When the researchers discounted the number of short-lived tropical storms and hurricanes and added the estimated number of missed medium- to long-lived storms to the historical hurricane data, they found no significant long-term trend in the total number of storms..."

Of course they still throw in a disclaimer at the bottom about global warming, but its good to see them coming around and dispelling one of Al Gore's AGW myths.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090811_tropical.html

[Edited on August 12, 2009 at 11:02 AM. Reason : f]

8/12/2009 11:01:26 AM

I, for one, would love to see this increased hurricane activity due to climate change. Sadly, this year I blame Chris Farley.

And they can go to hell with "since the late 19th and early 20th centuries" but that is for another day. Suffice to say Galveston in 1900 and the Keys in 1935 take exception to their hubris. . .

8/12/2009 12:23:57 PM

Remember, it's August, and we still haven't had a named storm in the Atlantic... Global cooling must be to blame!

8/12/2009 9:22:41 PM

Everytime I see AGW... I think Al Gore Warming.

8/12/2009 9:50:40 PM

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13570

Quote :

"By Tim Ball, Canada Free Press Critical Evidence Two pieces of evidence dominated recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports. They were instrumental in convincing the that world global warming due to humans was a scientifically indisputable fact. One was the graph known as the “hockey stick” because it purported to show little temperature change for approximately 1000 years then a sudden rise in the 20th century. The second was a global temperature increase of 0.6C (1F) in over 100 years, a rate claimed to be beyond any ‘natural’ increase. The first is now fully discredited thanks primarily to the work of Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. They carried out the standard scientific test of trying to reproduce the results obtained in the original work. They showed the almost flat line temperature of the hockey stick handle was artificially contrived. The second piece of evidence, the claim of temperature increase, continues to dominate and is presented in many places as the truth. The person primarily responsible for the number is P.D. Jones. He is currently Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England. In order to verify the number Warwick Hughes, an Australian climate researcher asked Jones how it was derived. He received the following reply on 21, February 2005. “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” Since then Jones has stonewalled every effort to obtain the information. But why is it so important? Surely, the raw data is available and all you have to do is use it to recreate the number. Global Temperature The first problem is the original temperature increase was actually given as 0.6C plus or minus 0.2C or a 66 percent error factor. It is a virtually meaningless number but still used to argue for warming. The raw data is retained by the originating country, which then submits modified data to central agencies such as the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN). Each year different groups calculate an annual global average including NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). There are also the data sets maintained jointly between the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit called HadCRUT3 and CRUTEM3. image When an annual average temperature is created each agency chooses different stations and modify the data for a variety of factors. The result is each produce different graphs as in Figure above. In this case results from two satellite studies are included. So what we need to know is which stations Jones used and how he adjusted the data to achieve his result. We need to be able to carry out the standard reproducible results test applied to the hockey stick data. He continues to refuse to provide the information. Withholding Information In recent attempts to obtain the information the United Kingdom Meteorological Office (UKMO) has become involved. As Steve McIntyre writes a bureaucrat was required to write the following in denying the information; Some of the information was provided to Professor Jones on the strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released and it cannot be determined which countries or stations data were given in confidence as records were not kept. They are talking about data obtained by weather stations funded by the public. How that can be limited in its availability to anyone is impossible to understand. It is weather data so what possible strategic or national security risk can possibly be compromised? The data providers are other nations who provide it under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) that require open access. Is there some proprietary right to how Jones has adjusted the data? Possibly, but surely that is offset by the fact that scientific work must be available to testing and confirmation by other scientists. It is the promoters of human induced global warming who have championed the need for peer review. I have spoken often about the two responsibilities with climate research. First is the scientific responsibility and Jones fails that by not revealing how the results were achieved. Then there is the social responsibility when you take your scientific findings public and they become the basis of policy. Jones fails that because his claimed temperature increase remains pivotal in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) argument. Now there is more disturbing evidence that Jones’ original data doesn’t bear examination. One of the major adjustments that vary considerably from station to station is for the urban heat island effect (UHIE). The IPCC refers to Jones et al. (1990) for its claim that the non-climatic bias due to urbanization is less than one-tenth of the global trend. In other words they have rejected what everyone has known for a long time. More important, if urban stations dominate those used the false warming signal is enhanced. Now Jones is acknowledging the UHIE is greater than he allowed at least in China. As Warwick Hughes notes, “Urban-related warming over China is shown to be about 0.1 degree per decade, hey that equates to a degree per century. Huge.” The Damage is Done If the UHIE is even half of this value for the rest of the world stations chosen by Jones then his claim of a 0.6C increase virtually disappears. And so does the claim that human produced CO2 is causing warming because there is virtually no warming over the post-industrial period. We can speculate on Jones’ motive without resolution, however, we know to which half of the world’s work it belongs. It is more important to question how and why Jones has been able to deny access to information for so long. Who is to hold him to account? A world threatened with draconian and unnecessary energy and economic policies because of his silence should ask questions. We should also reject his claims and the IPCC reports based on his findings because we are unable to verify his results with standard scientific measures."

I love the "why should I let you see my data when you want to debunk me." It's the hallmark of science, you know? being closed to peer-review.

8/12/2009 10:51:37 PM

That is not a valid source.

8/12/2009 10:59:35 PM

nice. attack the source, not the argument. Do you think they are lying about not being given the numbers? Seems like that would be a pretty easy lie to refute...

8/12/2009 11:14:38 PM

Quote :

"Australian Senate Rejects Rudd’s Cap and Trade Emissions Plan By Gemma Daley Aug. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Australia’s Senate rejected the government’s climate-change legislation, forcing Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to amend the bill or call an early election. Senators voted 42 to 30 against the law, which included plans for a carbon trading system similar to one used in Europe. Australia, the world’s biggest coal exporter, was proposing to reduce greenhouse gases by between 5 percent and 15 percent of 2000 levels in the next decade. "

Good news!!! Hopefully more ppl in their gov't will continue to come to their senses.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aHo_TW08Y3to

8/13/2009 9:11:55 AM

Quote :

"Remember, it's August, and we still haven't had a named storm in the Atlantic"

http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/research/Hurricane2009.html

They have predicted a less active hurricane season due to cooler sea surface temps or a possible El Nino event.

8/13/2009 1:34:49 PM

Well of course, natural events can suppress an active season. But when there are a lot of storms we can blame global warming

and nobody predicted a season this quiet, so let's try not to put a lot of authority in that statement.

[Edited on August 13, 2009 at 2:15 PM. Reason : keep in mind I'm full aware season ends in November.]

8/13/2009 2:14:49 PM

TKE,

Dude, why are you so obsessed with the link between global warming and storms? NO ONE in the scientific community has said that storm activity is evidence for climate change. Instead, some scientists have observed an increase in the strength of tropic storms in recent years and have suggested that global warming might be the cause.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1839281,00.html

Even if it turns out they are wrong that IS NOT evidence that Global Warming doesn't exist (the existence of global warming is supported by other evidence which you think is wrong). At worst, it means that scientists will have to come up with a new way to explain the measured increase in the strength of topical storms. So why do you care at all about Hurricane season? It doesn't refute any argument anyone is offering.

Please tell me you realize this and that you're just trolling a strawman of what you think climate change proponents actually believe.

[Edited on August 13, 2009 at 3:11 PM. Reason : ``]

8/13/2009 3:09:45 PM

I realize that storms have a natural cycle. Just like the climate of the earth.

But seriously man, the POSTER for Al Gore's BS movie has a hurricane on it front and center, lol. And he's one of the figureheads of the movement

Quote :

"Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment, was among several climatologists who made such claims. He said in 2004 that the intense hurricane season that year was "a harbinger of the future." His prediction prompted the resignation from the panel of Chris Landsea, science and operations officer at NOAA's National Hurricane Center, who said there was no basis to make such a prediction. Trenberth said in response to the latest study that hurricanes can be measured in different ways and by some measures activity is high. "What we expect on a theoretical basis is for duration to increase as well as size ... but there could be fewer storms," Trenberth said."

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2008-11-12-northern-hemisphere-hurricane-activity_N.htm

Quote :

"Hurricane expert reconsiders global warming's impact The hurricane expert, Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, unveiled a novel technique for predicting future hurricane activity this week. The new work suggests that, even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries. The research, appearing in the March issue of Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, is all the more remarkable coming from Emanuel, a highly visible leader in his field and long an ardent proponent of a link between global warming and much stronger hurricanes. His changing views could influence other scientists. "The results surprised me," Emanuel said of his work, adding that global warming may still play a role in raising the intensity of hurricanes. What that role is, however, remains far from certain. Emanuel's work uses a new method of computer modeling that did a reasonable job of simulating past hurricane fluctuations. He, therefore, believes the models may have predictive value for future activity. During and after the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons, which were replete with mega-storms and U.S. landfalls, scientists dived into the question of whether rising ocean temperatures, attributed primarily to global warming, were causing stronger storms. Among the first to publish was Emanuel, who — just three weeks before Hurricane Katrina's landfall — published a paper in Nature that concluded a key measurement of the power dissipated by a storm during its lifetime had risen dramatically since the mid-1970s. In the future, he argued, incredibly active hurricane years such as 2005 would become the norm rather than flukes."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/tech/news/5693436.html

[Edited on August 13, 2009 at 3:57 PM. Reason : but i guess it's just me?]

8/13/2009 3:47:02 PM

I'm fairly liberal

this is the "coolest" summer I can remember.

8/13/2009 4:02:40 PM

Quote :

"We have just four months. Four months to secure the future of our planet."

--UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/sgspeeches/statments_full.asp?statID=557

I have no idea what this means. We only have four months now?

RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!1

8/13/2009 4:09:38 PM

Yeah I saw that. Fucking hilarious, lol.

8/13/2009 4:13:40 PM

Quote :

"His prediction prompted the resignation from the panel of Chris Landsea, science and operations officer at NOAA's National Hurricane Center"

What a great last name if you work for NOAA.

[Edited on August 13, 2009 at 4:19 PM. Reason : s]

8/13/2009 4:18:53 PM

lol, so true.

anyone else want to laugh at this one:

Quote :

"Climate change could displace 25 million by 2010 June 10th, 2009 - 2:35 pm ICT by IANS - By Joydeep Gupta Bonn, June 10 (IANS) By next year - that’s how soon around 25-50 million people will be displaced by climate change as it unleashes more natural disasters and affects farm output, says a senior UN researcher. Northern India will be among the worst affected in the long term. “Climate change will displace 25-50 million people by next year. The situation will be the worst in the poorer countries,” says Koko Warner of the UN University’s Institute for Environment and Human Security. “Most people will seek shelter in their own countries while others (will) cross borders in search of better odds. “Societies affected by climate change may find themselves locked into a downward spiral of ecological degradation, towards the bottom of which social safety nets collapse while tensions and violence rise.” Warner has just completed a study on climate-induced migration in collaboration with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Columbia University, the World Bank and the NGO CARE. Warner and her colleagues have been pushing delegates from 182 countries gathered here for a meeting June 1-12 to include migration among the issues they consider as they prepare for a climate summit in Copenhagen this December. “As climate change increases the frequency and intensity of natural hazards such as cyclones, floods and droughts, the number of temporarily displaced people will rise,” Warner told IANS in an interview..."

That last bolded part is for Socks``

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/enviornment/climate-change-could-displace-25-million-by-2010-with-image_100203119.html

8/13/2009 4:29:12 PM

My point is that this is a question of how global warming will impact tropical storms. If it turns out tropical storms don't increase in strength in the future, that is not evidence against global warming.

if Al Gore's poster is the best evidence you have that anyone is making the argument that hurricanes are proof of global warming, I think you're clearly reaching on this.

8/13/2009 4:37:53 PM

It's a bunch of Paul Ehrlich-style Chicken Little bullshit. And when these type folks are proved wrong, they just spout something like, "IT DOESN'T MATTER! WE RAISED AWARENESS ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT, YOU EXXON NEOCON, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!"

8/13/2009 4:48:07 PM

HOw is it that you can so easily call this chicken-little bullshit, but when it comes time to discuss the birthers or the people screaming about death squads that visit old people, you barely mange to say " i don't support them"?

8/13/2009 5:18:56 PM

hooksaw

Let's do it this way:
Say you observe that the number of births spike 9 months after the super bowl. To explain this phenomena, you suggest that the super bowl increases mating activity (maybe it increases testosterone and sexual desire in men). However, one year, the super bowl is canceled. Yet, 9 months later, the number of births remains the same. This is bad news for people supporting the theory that the super bowl impacts the number of births. But it in no way shape or form suggests that the super bowl doesn't exist.

Do you see what I mean? Some scientists observed that the strength of topical storms had been increasing since the 1990s at the same time measured world temperatures were going up. So, they suggest that global warming was the cause. If it turns out that they were wrong and that there is no connection at all, that doesn't mean global warming doesn't exist.

Now, you may still think that climate change is a hoax perpetuated by lying liberal elites, but I don't see how the strength of tropical storms would influence that belief because no one is offering this as proof that global warming exists. Indeed, it's the other way around. Hope that helps.

[Edited on August 13, 2009 at 5:20 PM. Reason : ``]

8/13/2009 5:19:51 PM

Quote :

"At worst, it means that scientists will have to come up with a new way to explain the measured increase in the strength of topical storms."

What measured increase in strength? It has been soundly debunked that there is even an increase in the number of storms that differs from the observed cycles, much less any increase in intensity

8/13/2009 8:09:49 PM

^^ None of that changes the fact that some on the left, like Ehrlich and Gore, have a long history of scaremongering concerning environmental issues. When they are proved to be wrong in full or in part, they don't come out and take responsibility or apologize--they simply make excuses.

To make matters worse, many of these same leftists routinely accuse conservatives of scaremongering concerning potential terrorist attacks--except that we know for certain the terrorists really are out to get us. I simply can't stomach this.

8/13/2009 8:22:48 PM

^ Who said anything about the number of storms friend? haha. I'm talking about the strength of storms, which studied in an article last year in Nature.

Quote :

"Researchers led by James Elsner, a meteorologist at Florida State University, analyzed satellite-derived data of tropical storms since 1981 and found that the maximum wind speeds of the strongest storms have increased significantly in the years since, with the most notable increases found in the North Atlantic and the northern Indian oceans. They believe that rising ocean temperatures — due to global warming — are one of the main causes behind that change."

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1839281,00.html

Don't believe it? You googled a blog that totally refutes this?? lol Well....see my past three posts...

8/13/2009 8:26:49 PM

again, the increases that have been "seen" are not increases when looked at in the broader context of the already known hurricane cycle. It's completely disingenuous to paint this is any other context.

And, btw, a decrease or even just a lack of statistical increase in intensity of storms would go a long way to disproving global warming, as it has long been known that warmer waters lead to more intense hurricanes. Thus, if we don't see any statistically significant increase in intensity, it stands to reason that possibly the ocean temperatures have not increased. If ocean temperatures have not increased, then that should cast doubt on the hypothesis of global warming.

Now, could the oceans still warm yet not produce the expected intensity increase in hurricanes? Maybe, but that would require an effect on hurricane strength which is stronger than simply water temperatures alone, and I would think we would have at least discovered something of that sort by now.

Finally, as was posted earlier, one of the reasons we might have "counted" more storms in the past century is due to technology, not actual changes in the number of storms. It's more than likely that this same technical improvement allowed us better readings of wind speeds when compared to pre-satellite numbers.

8/13/2009 9:45:03 PM

^ Last I heard, Mr. Scientist, there would are more things influencing water temps than just the greenhouse effect. But hey...I don't have ANY training in climate science. Of course, **neither do you.**

But, then again, I'm sure you read some really great blog posts on the subject.

So i will defer to your expertise in the matter.

bbl

[Edited on August 14, 2009 at 12:33 AM. Reason : don't feed the trolls]

8/14/2009 12:31:20 AM

Um...why would we use the intensity of storms as a proxy for ocean temperature when one can just go out and measure ocean temperature? This is like the stupid argument that since Mars (or Titan or your favorite planetary body) appears to be warming than that means the total solar irradiance is increasing.

8/14/2009 12:53:47 AM

Quote :

"Say you observe that the number of births spike 9 months earth's temperature has been increasing after the super bowl at the same time CO2 concentration increases. To explain this phenomena, you suggest that the super bowl increases mating activity (maybe it increases testosterone and sexual desire in men) CO2 is driving the temperature increase. However, one several years in a row, the super bowl is canceled global average temp stays the same or decreases. Yet, 9 months later, the number of births remains the same CO2 concentration continues to increase. This is bad news for people supporting the theory that the super bowl impacts the number of births humans cause global warming. But it in no way shape or form suggests that the super bowl global warming doesn't exist."

interesting how that works out, eh?

8/14/2009 9:02:59 AM

^ Holy crap! You just illustrated that if there were evidence against AGW, that this would be bad news for supporter of AGW!!! congrats.

Now if only that evidence existed somewhere outside internet blogs and crackpot magazine articles.

Then you would really have something.

PS* Wintermute, lol good one. i like your point better than my point.

[Edited on August 14, 2009 at 9:22 AM. Reason : ``]

8/14/2009 9:21:07 AM

Quote :

"Climate change could displace 25 million by 2010"

This could be true but this is like saying Congress wastes $5 million dollars on fancy cars. 25 million is a big scary number
but in the wide scheme of things represents .3% of the worlds population. In all liklihood these 25 million are the overflowing scurge
of peoples inhabiting shit hole 3rd world countries that are barely above sea level like Bangledesh. Already whenever the wind blows the wrong
way you hear about 100,000 people getting washed away.

8/14/2009 9:35:26 AM

^^riiiiiight. I was modifiying your statement to show how weak of an argument it is. Evidence? It's everywhere. We have 30 years of satellite temperature measuring, and for 1/3rd of that time the temp has either stayed the same or dropped. Of course, I'm not a scientist so I'm not smart enough to read a temperature graphy. But by all means, feel free to drink the kool-aid.

^not only that, but just think of the logistics. There are only 5 months left in 2009. That's 5 million people fleeing per month (or 10 for the high side estimate).

8/14/2009 9:44:13 AM

Quote :

"Um...why would we use the intensity of storms as a proxy for ocean temperature when one can just go out and measure ocean temperature?"

You are correct. But we are talking about people insisting that an increase in storms proves AGW. As well, our measurement methods for ocean temperatures are as corrupted as most other common climate measurements. New technology has allowed us to be more accurate, so we aren't entirely comparing apples to oranges.

Quote :

"But hey...I don't have ANY training in climate science. Of course, **neither do you.**"

Then I guess we should both just shut up and have absolutely no opinion, right?

8/14/2009 10:40:47 AM

^

Quote :

"You are correct. But we are talking about people insisting that an increase in storms proves AGW."

And no scientist I've ever heard of has ever made that claim. Please paste quotes "these people" are making (I won't be surprised if they are quotes from chat rooms or political op-eds. ).

And you don't have to shut up, it would just be nice if you acted like a person that recognizes they can't know everything about everything. In the same way you're unqualified to speculate on string theory (which I've never seen you do), you're unqualified to speculate on the science of global warming.

Its really not an unreasonable request. I mean, think about it like going to the doctor. I have never seen a germ in my life (so I don't "really" know they exist) and I have no clue how these "germs" are supposed harm me. Yet, when the doc tells me I got the clap from your banging your mom i have an infection, I take his advice and take the antibiotics he says will cure it.

Do you see what I mean?

[Edited on August 14, 2009 at 11:36 AM. Reason : names redacted to protect parties involved ]

8/14/2009 11:23:04 AM

lmao

8/14/2009 11:33:37 AM

Quote :

"Global Warming ate my data We've lost the numbers: CRU responds to FOIA requests By Andrew Orlowski The world's source for global temperature record admits it's lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia - permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data. The CRU has refused to release the raw weather station data and its processing methods for inspection - except to hand-picked academics - for several years. Instead, it releases a processed version, in gridded form. NASA maintains its own (GISSTEMP), but the CRU Global Climate Dataset, is the most cited surface temperature record by the UN IPCC. So any errors in CRU cascade around the world, and become part of "the science". Professor Phil Jones, the activist-scientist who maintains the data set, has cited various reasons for refusing to release the raw data. Most famously, Jones told an Australian climate scientist in 2004: Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. In 2007, in response to Freedom of Information Act requests, CRU initially said it didn't have to fulfil the requests because "Information accessible to applicant via other means Some information is publicly available on external websites". Now it's citing confidentiality agreements with Denmark, Spain, Bahrain and our own Mystic Met Office. Others may exist, CRU says in a statement, but it might have lost them because it moved offices. Or they were made verbally, and nobody at CRU wrote them down. As for the raw station data, "We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data." Canadian statistician and blogger Steve McIntyre, who has been asking for the data set for years, says he isn't impressed by the excuses. McIntyre obtained raw data when it was accidentally left on an FTP server last month. Since then, CRU has battened down the hatches, and purged its FTP directories lest any more raw data escapes and falls into the wrong hands. McIntyre says he doesn't expect any significant surprises after analysing the raw data, but believes that reproducibility is a cornerstone of the scientific principle, and so raw data and methods should be disclosed. ®"

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/

8/14/2009 2:39:05 PM

Quote :

"when the doc tells me I got the clap from your banging your mom i have an infection"

Wait, so Socks got the clap from aaronburro banging aaronburro's mom? Socks, what have you and aaronburro been up to lately?

[Edited on August 14, 2009 at 3:37 PM. Reason : k]

8/14/2009 3:36:27 PM

That would certainly explain some of their quibbling in this thread.

8/14/2009 3:47:28 PM