Eeyore wrote:

Eric Swanson wrote:

"To put this development in perspective, no tropical cyclone in the
historical record has ever reached this intensity at a faster rate near
landfall. It would be nice to know, someday, why this happened,''
Franklin said.

Weather does weird stuff.

Right, those bathwater warm waters had nothing to do with it.

Got it. Thanks!


--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

Eeyore wrote:

David wrote:

raylopez99 wrote:
But you're right: GW's effects are overstated by the strong AGW
advocates--a mere 2 inches mean sea level rise over the next 100 years
is the lower bound of the IPCC 2007 report--i.e., trivial.

That's an old prediction. The minimum is more like 25 cm now. It'll
probably hit that in the next 15 years.

Typical alarmism.

Talk like that is cheap.

So the recent near doubling of measured sea level rise, from 1.8 mm/yr
to 3.2 mm/yr has nothing to do with it.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

On Sep 14, 10:43 am, kT wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Eric Swanson wrote:

"To put this development in perspective, no tropical cyclone in the
historical record has ever reached this intensity at a faster rate near
landfall. It would be nice to know, someday, why this happened,''
Franklin said.

Weather does weird stuff.


Right, those bathwater warm waters had nothing to do with it.

Cite? No exaggerating three, eh?

On Sep 13, 8:53 pm, (Eric Swanson) wrote:
Humberto didn't exist until late Wednesday afternoon, and wasn't even a
tropical storm until almost midday, strengthening from a tropical
depression with 35-mph winds to a hurricane with 85-mph winds in just 18
hours, senior hurricane specialist James Franklin said at the National
Hurricane Center in Miami.

"To put this development in perspective, no tropical cyclone in the
historical record has ever reached this intensity at a faster rate near
landfall. It would be nice to know, someday, why this happened,''
Franklin said.

-----
More at:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5128029.html
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

So now it isn't the strength of the storm or the number of storms but
how quickly they develop that proves global warming. I get it now.

But I'll bet dollars to donuts that when a storm becomes very strong,
that will be proof of global warming. And when a storm is weak, that
will be proof. And when there are a lot of storms in a season, that
will be proof. And when there are no storms, that will be proof. And
when a bird flies into my living room window with a thud, the thud
will be proof of global warming. And when the bird doesn't run into my
window, that will be proof of global warming. And when
___________________ (enter naturally occurring phenomenon) happens,
that will be proof of global warming. And when ___________________
(enter naturally occurring phenomenon) doesn't happen, that will be
proof of global warming.


Anyone getting tired of this infantile and unscientific game yet?

kT wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

David wrote:

raylopez99 wrote:
But you're right: GW's effects are overstated by the strong AGW
advocates--a mere 2 inches mean sea level rise over the next 100 years
is the lower bound of the IPCC 2007 report--i.e., trivial.

That's an old prediction. The minimum is more like 25 cm now. It'll
probably hit that in the next 15 years.

Typical alarmism.

Talk like that is cheap.

So the recent near doubling of measured sea level rise, from 1.8 mm/yr
to 3.2 mm/yr has nothing to do with it.

Being as the moon effect the ocean level, I imagine these test were at 1
year intervals so the moon was back at the same position. But then the
other planets were all different. We could wait 80,000 years for them to
all line up back in the right position, I suppose.

--
http://OutSourcedNews.com
I suppose I could buy meteor insurance too, to help rebuild on that
impact crater, destined to be where my house is.


Our constitution protects criminals, sexual deviants and U.S. Senators.
Which at times are, one and the same...

The problem with the global warming theory, is that a theory is like a
bowl of ice-cream, it only takes a little dab of bull**** to ruin the
whole thing. - Gump That -

How to outsmart Global Warming -- Plant your corn when the oak leaves
are as big as a squirrels ear.

Insanity is only synapses deep.
It's not if, it's just when, No one gets out alive.

kT wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

David wrote:

raylopez99 wrote:
But you're right: GW's effects are overstated by the strong AGW
advocates--a mere 2 inches mean sea level rise over the next 100 years
is the lower bound of the IPCC 2007 report--i.e., trivial.

That's an old prediction. The minimum is more like 25 cm now. It'll
probably hit that in the next 15 years.

Typical alarmism.

Talk like that is cheap.

So the recent near doubling of measured sea level rise, from 1.8 mm/yr
to 3.2 mm/yr has nothing to do with it.

Is the glass half empty or half full?

--
http://OutSourcedNews.com
I suppose I could buy meteor insurance too, to help rebuild on that
impact crater, destined to be where my house is.


Our constitution protects criminals, sexual deviants and U.S. Senators.
Which at times are, one and the same...

The problem with the global warming theory, is that a theory is like a
bowl of ice-cream, it only takes a little dab of bull**** to ruin the
whole thing. - Gump That -

How to outsmart Global Warming -- Plant your corn when the oak leaves
are as big as a squirrels ear.

Insanity is only synapses deep.
It's not if, it's just when, No one gets out alive.

Talk-n-Dog wrote:

I suppose.

That's what crackpots like you do. You're good at it.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

kT wrote:
Talk-n-Dog wrote:

I suppose.

That's what crackpots like you do. You're good at it.

I need a a bit more context to figure where I might have written this.

--
http://OutSourcedNews.com
I suppose I could buy meteor insurance too, to help rebuild on that
impact crater, destined to be where my house is.


Our constitution protects criminals, sexual deviants and U.S. Senators.
Which at times are, one and the same...

The problem with the global warming theory, is that a theory is like a
bowl of ice-cream, it only takes a little dab of bull**** to ruin the
whole thing. - Gump That -

How to outsmart Global Warming -- Plant your corn when the oak leaves
are as big as a squirrels ear.

Insanity is only synapses deep.
It's not if, it's just when, No one gets out alive.

On 14 Sep, 05:02, john fernbach wrote:-

Humberto is a fairly puny story, just a Category 1,
even if it killed somebody in East Texas, and even if it grew from
virtually nothing into a full hurricane in just 12 hours.

Nevertheless, according to a report I read it was the fastest
developing hurricane ever recorded.
So, it would be unwise to dismiss this observation as unimportant.

In article m.com, says...

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:01:41 -0700, Tunderbar wrote:

On Sep 13, 8:53 pm, (Eric Swanson) wrote:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5128029.html --

So now it isn't the strength of the storm or the number of storms but how
quickly they develop that proves global warming. I get it now.

But I'll bet dollars to donuts that when a storm becomes very strong, that
will be proof of global warming. And when a storm is weak, that will be
proof. And when there are a lot of storms in a season, that will be proof.
And when there are no storms, that will be proof. And when a bird flies
into my living room window with a thud, the thud will be proof of global
warming. And when the bird doesn't run into my window, that will be proof
of global warming. And when ___________________ (enter naturally occurring
phenomenon) happens, that will be proof of global warming. And when
___________________ (enter naturally occurring phenomenon) doesn't happen,
that will be proof of global warming.


Anyone getting tired of this infantile and unscientific game yet?

Yeah. We should require that for anecdotal proof to be valid, it must at
least be interesting or funny.

With all the sockhead clowns posting these days, the laughter is deafening.
Where is there any mention of a connection between Humberto and AGW?
The apparent lack of reading comprehension is simply astounding.

ROTFLMHO!

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------