Pietro Sommavilla wrote:

Bill Habr wrote:

"Pietro Sommavilla" wrote in message
roups.com...

Bill Habr wrote:


"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
...

How are these cycles known? Geez, you GW denialists are claiming we

can't

even know temp. 100 years ago, and now you're saying we know the

strength

of hurricanes 100 years ago?


Fact: The earth has been warming since the maximum of the past

glaciation.

(around 18000 years ago)

Fact: The frequency of observed hurricanes went through a cycle.

Point: Notice that I am talking about observed hurricanes.

Fact: Since we now have better observation now, the number of hurricanes

of

past hurricanes could be GREATER but will NOT be less.

Fact: The strength could be underestimated or overestimated before 1970.


Sorry, but I'm not convinced.
I think mother nature's trying desperately prove a point to people.

I mean, I'm not a scientist but I have readed many articles about on
the global warming issue.

According to some scientists the rising levels of green house gases
could triple the number of category 5 hurricanes.
http://www.realclimate.org/
(Hurricanes derive their power in part from warm water)

Problem:

Rita strengthened to the 3rd strongest Atlantic hurricane
in Gulf waters that were just about average.
The Gulf is normally a big bathtub this time of year.

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SS....9.19.2005.gif

A pattern of reduced vertical shear has been in place for the
last ten years making it a strong suspect in the recent
storm increases.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2484.htm

But even the increases (likely also due to shear ) occurred before
in the 1945-1970 period.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/gifs/atlhist_lowres.gif

Is the weather around the world crazy or is it me?

I'd say you're both crazy.

In article .com,
wrote:
Raw Data He Strongest tropical systems on record. Actually 1990's
and 1970 had the greatest numbers. 1950's had some of the highest
numbers. Global warming will create more tropical cyclones throughout
the world. It simply has not happened.

Let's see, researchers publishing in Science says it has. You, posting on
Usenet, says it hasn't. Whom to believe...


Year Typhoon Pressure Location
1979 Tip 870 WP
1992 Gay 872 WP
1997 Ivan 872 WP
1997 Joan 872 WP
1975 June 876 WP
1958 Ida 877 WP
1973 Nora 877 WP
1978 Rita 878 WP
1992 Yvette 878 WP
1997 Keith 878 WP
1998 Zeb 878 WP
2000 Damrey 878 WP
1984 Vanessa 879 WP
1995 Angela 879 WP
2001 Faxai 879 WP
2004 Chaba 879 WP
1961 Nancy 882 WP
1961 Violet 882 WP
1953 Nina 883 WP
1983 Forrest 883 WP
1959 Joan 884 WP
1971 Irma 884 WP
1990 Mike 885 WP
1991 Yuri 885 WP
2003 Maemi 885 WP
2004 Dianmu 885 WP
1979 Judy 887 WP
1983 Abby 888 WP
1988 Gilbert 888 AT
1967 Gilda 890 WP
1969 Elsie 890 WP
1980 Wynne 890 WP
1987 Betty 891 WP
1987 Nina 891 WP
1990 Flo 891 WP
2003 Lupit 891 WP
1991 Ruth 892 WP
1992 Elsie 892 WP
1997 Isa 892 WP
1997 Ginger 892 WP
2002 Fenshen 892 WP
1935 Key 892 AT
1973 Patsy 893 WP
1981 Elsie 893 WP
1964 Sally 894 WP
1970 Hope 895 WP
1971 Amy 895 WP
1976 Louise 895 WP
1982 Mac 895 WP
1959 Vera 896 WP
1983 Marge 896 WP
1962 Karen 897 WP
1985 Dot 897 WP
2005 Rita 897 AT

In article ,
"Bill Habr" wrote:

"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Bill Habr" wrote:

"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Bill Habr" wrote:

"Demosthenes" wrote in message
. ..

Like the Catholic Church of Galileo's day, the Bush
Administration makes decision based on faith, not on reality.


So, lookin' at only part of the record is reality?

Sport Pilot wants to look at (1) only Atlantic storms that (2) hit the
US.
The Science study looked at all storms since 1970. You tell me which
is
looking at "only part of the record."

So? Apparently it has escaped your notice that I am not Sport Pilot.

I'll have to explain, but before I do I have to ask you some questions so
I
can know what to explain.

Are you aware the sun is a variable star?

Not under the definition used by astronomers.


And the effect this has on the
climate of the earth?

Yes. Apparently you are not.

Are you? Apparently not! Apparently you are unaware that when the sun
produces more radiation the earth recieves more radiation.

As I said, you are unaware of the research here showing solar activity cannot
account for more than 1/3 of the current warming.





Are you aware of plate tectonics?

Are you aware of quantum mechanics? Both as relevant to the current
warming.


Are they? Can we assume that you think that the climate would be the same
today if the continents didn't drift?


How far have they drifted in the past 120 years?



And are you aware of approximately how
long ago the continents arrived at roughly their current positions? And
are
you aware of why the current continental positions affect the climate
differently than previous positions?


Are you aware of what the universe was like 1 sec after the Big Bang?
Again,
just as relevant.

Are they? Can we assume that you think that the climate would be the same
today if the continents didn't drift?

See above.




Are you aware of the past climate (before 1970)?

Are you aware of the past anything (before 1970)?

There are many more questions but that will do for a start.


But we don't have (good enough) data for the whole record, or so the
claim
goes.

How do you prove that Atlantic hurricanes are getting more numerous
and
stronger due to global warming?

You can't. But you can prove they're getting stronger, and you know
their
fuel is warm water. I assume you can put 2 and 2 together.


Is the water warmer than it was in the 1940s?

Since the earth is, it follows that the water is too.


Is the water warmer than it was in the 1720?

See above.



How do you prove it is due to global warming

I'm sorry, I discounted Klingons or magic beans.


( which by the by, you seem to
mean only how humans affect global warming) and not due to other factors
such as climate cycles? But if there is no before 1970 then there are no
cycles, right?

What climate cycle would account for 120 years of warming at unprecedented
rates?

And why do you continue to deny the effects CO2 has?




I haven't why do you continue to insist I have?

Why do you continue to insist that is the ONLY variable in climate change?

(1) It's the biggest one.
(2) It's the only one we can do something about.





Do you refrain from explaining to politicians all the reasons for
global
warming?

Why did we have a lull in Atlantic hurricane activity and strength
from
about 1970 to 1995, global cooling?

We didn't. Next question.

Before 1970 did we have the same number and strength of Atlantic
hurricanes?

After 1995 did we have the same number and strenght of Atlantic
hurricanes?

So you haven't looked at the article yet.




When we have a lull in activity in about 20 years what are you going
to
say
to the politicians?




What happens if we have several El Nino years in a row during this
cycle?
How do you explain it to others, shrug your shoulders?




What are you going to say to future politicians when the earth starts
cooling again? Or do you just hope you'll be dead by then and won't
have
to
explain it?

That we averted a catastrophe?

Even if we humans do nothing to avert it?

In article ,
"Bill Habr" wrote:

"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Bill Habr" wrote:

"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Bill Habr" wrote:

"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
...
In article ,

Fact: You're not published in Science, so bugger off.


So one can only comment if published in Science?



If one wants to refute an article published there, one should get his
refutation published too. That's how science works, not "I don't like
the
theory so it must be wrong." That's what creationists say.




You seem to have me confused with someone else, someone using the name
'Lloyd Parker' who says "I don't like your questions so you must be
wrong".






No, it's "I don't like your ignorance of the facts and ignorance of
science
being spouted here as refutation of science."

I don't like your ignorance of the facts and ignorance of science being
spouted as science.

I am not refuting science, I am trying to make you understand that science
didn't begin in 1970.





The scientific paper used data beginning then, as satellite data started then.

"Coby Beck" wrote in message
news:A0IYe.270182$tt5.138393@edtnps90...
"Bill Habr" wrote in message
t...

"Coby Beck" wrote in message
news:EoiYe.258373$HI.78732@edtnps84...
"Bill Habr" wrote in message
m...

Fact: The earth has been warming since the maximum of the past
glaciation.
(around 18000 years ago)

Hi Bill,

I was wondering if I could see a source for this claim. As far as I am
aware, it is incorrect.


Which fact do you want to know about, the maximum of the last glaciation
or
that the earth has been warming since?

"the earth has been warming since the maximum of the past glaciation
(around
18000 years ago)"

Please note that this is a very different statement than "the earth is now
warmer than it was 18000 years ago" and in this difference lies the
deception (feel free to provide evidence that I am incorrect at this
point).

My understanding is that the planet climbed out of the last glacial period
that was at its lowest temperature about 20-18000 yrs ago as you say. It
slowly climbed over the next ~8000 yrs into the current inter-glacial
period. Then from about 10,000yrs ago until about 150 yrs ago it remained
fairly stable, perhaps trending generally down a bit. This can not be
reasonably characterized as warming for 18,000 yrs.

My understanding is supported by the Volstok ice cores and all the latest
temperature reconstructions. A good one-stop shop for these studies is
he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record

I am happy to reevaluate my opinion if you can provide some reasonable
references that contradict it, I expect you would like to revise yours
after
reviewing the information I have provided.

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")



Coby, I'm impressed


When I start discussing something I never know how much people know so I
throw a few curveballs to find out.

I wonder what is going to happen in 15 to 25 years when the North Atlantic
cycle shifts to fewer and weaker hurricanes.

Will AGW be ignored because so much was made of AGW at this point in the
North Atlantic cycle?

Will scientists be ignored because so much was made of AGW at this point in
the North Atlantic cycle?

Will scientists be ignored because of things like the idiot that calls
himself "grampa bush" running around like chicken little?

There won't be any civiliaztion left in 25 years. Unless the behavior
changes occur in this decade the results will be too destructive to
survive two decades from now.

Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz wrote:
There won't be any civiliaztion left in 25 years. Unless the behavior
changes occur in this decade the results will be too destructive to
survive two decades from now.

You're wrong. How much would you care to wager?
--
St. John

How am I going to collect when we are both dead and so is monetary
value as civiliation crumbles around us?

Tremendous amounts of data that shows that climate change is real and
happening. For every one 'scientist' that claims it is not real, there
are a thousand with the proof that it is real. Those claiming that
climate change is not real have been unable to publish their results in
peer-reviewed journals. Instead, they rely on the Cato Institute and
Rush Limbaugh to deliver their 'data' to the unsuspecting public. There
really should be no mention of a 'scientist' in the popular press who
believes that climate change is not real. Consider that many of the
same scientists who believe climate change is not real also believe in
intelligent design and a geocentric universe.
I am earning my Ph.D. at Penn State where there are scientists whom
have data showing that climate change is real and occurring. It is not
a matter of believing in science (including evolution and climate
change), science requires no belief, either something is real, or it is
not. The right wing is attempting to reduce science to a belief, like
religion. Science is not religion. Science is self-correcting. If the
data is wrong, it will be discovered in peer review or soon afterward.
I am not a climate scientist, so I will not discuss the specifics. I do
not wish to credential monger like those at the Cato Institute and
others on the right. I urge everyone with a mind to look at the facts
of climate change. Real scientists, thousands of them world wide, have
data showing that climate change is real. Meanwhile there are a tiny
percentage of people, many without credentials, telling us that they
believe climate change is not happening and that we should believe
them. I do not believe anything. I am a scientist.
By the way, I am an atheist against Bush. How any thinking person,
never mind an atheist, could be for Bush or believe his lies is
flabbergasting. Atheist 4 Bush is either a troll or a fool, but no
atheist.
Heath

When was the climate not changing?



wrote in message
ups.com...
Tremendous amounts of data that shows that climate change is real and
happening. For every one 'scientist' that claims it is not real, there
are a thousand with the proof that it is real. Those claiming that
climate change is not real have been unable to publish their results in
peer-reviewed journals. Instead, they rely on the Cato Institute and
Rush Limbaugh to deliver their 'data' to the unsuspecting public. There
really should be no mention of a 'scientist' in the popular press who
believes that climate change is not real. Consider that many of the
same scientists who believe climate change is not real also believe in
intelligent design and a geocentric universe.
I am earning my Ph.D. at Penn State where there are scientists whom
have data showing that climate change is real and occurring. It is not
a matter of believing in science (including evolution and climate
change), science requires no belief, either something is real, or it is
not. The right wing is attempting to reduce science to a belief, like
religion. Science is not religion. Science is self-correcting. If the
data is wrong, it will be discovered in peer review or soon afterward.
I am not a climate scientist, so I will not discuss the specifics. I do
not wish to credential monger like those at the Cato Institute and
others on the right. I urge everyone with a mind to look at the facts
of climate change. Real scientists, thousands of them world wide, have
data showing that climate change is real. Meanwhile there are a tiny
percentage of people, many without credentials, telling us that they
believe climate change is not happening and that we should believe
them. I do not believe anything. I am a scientist.
By the way, I am an atheist against Bush. How any thinking person,
never mind an atheist, could be for Bush or believe his lies is
flabbergasting. Atheist 4 Bush is either a troll or a fool, but no
atheist.
Heath