"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".

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.

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

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:47:42 GMT, "Bill Habr"
wrote:

Are you aware the sun is a variable star? And the effect this has on the
climate of the earth?

Are you aware of plate tectonics? 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 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.

Apparantly not.

Is the water warmer than it was in the 1940s?
Is the water warmer than it was in the 1720?
How do you prove it is due to global warming ( 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?
Before 1970 did we have the same number and strength of Atlantic hurricanes?

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

Even if we humans do nothing to avert it?

Your attempt to frame a reply with nothing but childish questions (and
assumptions of answers that would support your position) reflects on
your lack of knowledge about AGW in general and hurricane issues
specifically.

However,

The Sun is about as stable as it gets, with only a very tiny variable
natu http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/reid00/node2.html

The 11-year sunspot activity and a weaker signal within can go as far
as contributing to a debatable global increase and decrease (the MWP
and the LIA).

Your question about awareness should be addressed to your bathroom
mirror.

Yes, the water is much warmer now - record highs (coral bleaching
increases in the last three decades). It is warmer than the 1940s and
the 1720s.

There's no requirement to 'prove' it was due to AGW. There's no need
to find the chicken or the the egg or 'prove' cause and effect.

Recognize the chemistry and physics of AGW and factor a contribution.
If you say it's not involved, the onus is on you to proviide natural
and/or cyclic explanations. There's nothing in your response that
does anything better than say 'nya nya can't make me.' Childish.

Your focus on the the Atlantic Basis as the sole issue for hurricanes
has already been dubunked. Give it up.

"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.




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?



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?



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?




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?

"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.

"owl" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:47:42 GMT, "Bill Habr"
wrote:

Are you aware the sun is a variable star? And the effect this has on the
climate of the earth?

Are you aware of plate tectonics? 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 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.

Apparantly not.

Is the water warmer than it was in the 1940s?
Is the water warmer than it was in the 1720?
How do you prove it is due to global warming ( 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?
Before 1970 did we have the same number and strength of Atlantic
hurricanes?

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

Even if we humans do nothing to avert it?

Your attempt to frame a reply with nothing but childish questions (and
assumptions of answers that would support your position) reflects on
your lack of knowledge about AGW in general and hurricane issues
specifically.

However,

The Sun is about as stable as it gets, with only a very tiny variable
natu http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/reid00/node2.html

The 11-year sunspot activity and a weaker signal within can go as far
as contributing to a debatable global increase and decrease (the MWP
and the LIA).

Your question about awareness should be addressed to your bathroom
mirror.

Yes, the water is much warmer now - record highs (coral bleaching
increases in the last three decades). It is warmer than the 1940s and
the 1720s.

There's no requirement to 'prove' it was due to AGW. There's no need
to find the chicken or the the egg or 'prove' cause and effect.

Recognize the chemistry and physics of AGW and factor a contribution.
If you say it's not involved,


I haven't said it wasn't involved.

I have merely implied that there are other factors, factors you seem to
deny.


Pehaps you should ask Lloyd why he thinks the ONLY possible alternatives are
Kingons or magic beans.

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:51:18 GMT, "Bill Habr"
wrote:


"owl" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:47:42 GMT, "Bill Habr"
wrote:

Are you aware the sun is a variable star? And the effect this has on the
climate of the earth?

Are you aware of plate tectonics? 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 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.

Apparantly not.

Is the water warmer than it was in the 1940s?
Is the water warmer than it was in the 1720?
How do you prove it is due to global warming ( 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?
Before 1970 did we have the same number and strength of Atlantic
hurricanes?

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

Even if we humans do nothing to avert it?

Your attempt to frame a reply with nothing but childish questions (and
assumptions of answers that would support your position) reflects on
your lack of knowledge about AGW in general and hurricane issues
specifically.

However,

The Sun is about as stable as it gets, with only a very tiny variable
natu http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/reid00/node2.html

The 11-year sunspot activity and a weaker signal within can go as far
as contributing to a debatable global increase and decrease (the MWP
and the LIA).

Your question about awareness should be addressed to your bathroom
mirror.

Yes, the water is much warmer now - record highs (coral bleaching
increases in the last three decades). It is warmer than the 1940s and
the 1720s.

There's no requirement to 'prove' it was due to AGW. There's no need
to find the chicken or the the egg or 'prove' cause and effect.

Recognize the chemistry and physics of AGW and factor a contribution.
If you say it's not involved,

I haven't said it wasn't involved.

Fer cryin' out loud.

I wonder it these Chicken Littles realize the damage they do with
their constant "the sky is falling' refrain?

You would also know that this matters because at present those
temperatures do not seem to be higher than they would be because of
human activity.

Oh wait, that would show a dip in activity from 1970 to 1995 and
wouldn't show the dramatic increase but would show a fluctuation from
high to low and back to high.

Since there are at least 2 known cycles, a century cycle overlaid with
a multi-decade cycle, it will take several HUNDRED years before you
have meaningful data.


All those are yours. All those, and the rest of your sludge, fishes
for anything and everything that diminishes the science and the
evidence.

I have merely implied that there are other factors, factors you seem to
deny.

I've denied no such thing. Quit with the fantasies and inventions.
Your response is only further evidence that you don't have the basics
under your belt so you try to dumb the conversation down.

Pehaps you should ask Lloyd why he thinks the ONLY possible alternatives are
Kingons or magic beans.

Perhaps you should quit pretending that questions are statements.

"owl" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:51:18 GMT, "Bill Habr"
wrote:


"owl" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:47:42 GMT, "Bill Habr"
wrote:

Are you aware the sun is a variable star? And the effect this has on
the
climate of the earth?

Are you aware of plate tectonics? 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 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.

Apparantly not.

Is the water warmer than it was in the 1940s?
Is the water warmer than it was in the 1720?
How do you prove it is due to global warming ( 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?
Before 1970 did we have the same number and strength of Atlantic
hurricanes?

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

Even if we humans do nothing to avert it?

Your attempt to frame a reply with nothing but childish questions (and
assumptions of answers that would support your position) reflects on
your lack of knowledge about AGW in general and hurricane issues
specifically.

However,

The Sun is about as stable as it gets, with only a very tiny variable
natu http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/reid00/node2.html

The 11-year sunspot activity and a weaker signal within can go as far
as contributing to a debatable global increase and decrease (the MWP
and the LIA).

Your question about awareness should be addressed to your bathroom
mirror.

Yes, the water is much warmer now - record highs (coral bleaching
increases in the last three decades). It is warmer than the 1940s and
the 1720s.

There's no requirement to 'prove' it was due to AGW. There's no need
to find the chicken or the the egg or 'prove' cause and effect.

Recognize the chemistry and physics of AGW and factor a contribution.
If you say it's not involved,

I haven't said it wasn't involved.

Fer cryin' out loud.

I wonder it these Chicken Littles realize the damage they do with
their constant "the sky is falling' refrain?

Do you realize everytime someone thoughtlessly invokes global warming the
damage the do to science?
Do you think the constant "it's global warming" doesn't get to be a "the sky
is falling" refrain?



You would also know that this matters because at present those
temperatures do not seem to be higher than they would be because of
human activity.

Oh wait, that would show a dip in activity from 1970 to 1995 and
wouldn't show the dramatic increase but would show a fluctuation from
high to low and back to high.


In the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s there was more North Atlantic hurricane
activity per decade than from 1970 to 1995.

Since there are at least 2 known cycles, a century cycle overlaid with
a multi-decade cycle, it will take several HUNDRED years before you
have meaningful data.


Since it was argued that we ONLY have accurate data from 1970 on then the
statement is correct.


All those are yours. All those, and the rest of your sludge, fishes
for anything and everything that diminishes the science and the
evidence.

I have merely implied that there are other factors, factors you seem to
deny.

I've denied no such thing. Quit with the fantasies and inventions.
Your response is only further evidence that you don't have the basics
under your belt so you try to dumb the conversation down.

Pehaps you should ask Lloyd why he thinks the ONLY possible alternatives
are
Kingons or magic beans.

Perhaps you should quit pretending that questions are statements.

Perhaps you should learn to read.

Melchizedek wrote:

Don't be the last idiot to accept the facts plain as day (although
somebody has to be the "last idiot").

A charter member of the club, were you...?

Drum roll... The Envelope Please... We have a winner, ladies and
gentlemen, and the Winner of the Last Idiot in the Whole World to Learn
Global Warming is Real is... BOB HARRINGTON!