I hear these guesstimates of the effects of global warming on our
planet. The guesstimates go from 50-100 years, then they change it to
100-200 years, even some articles mention 500 year effects.

Are these the same computer models that predicted recorded breaking
landfall hurricanes in 2006?

Also, I don't think I will be alive in 100-500 years from now.
I will be preparing and planning for a future I, nor even my
grandchildren will ever see.

Bio-Diesel, doesn't this use the things that would increase the amount
of cattle on earth?
Also, wouldn't it cause us to clear-cut trees for more land area to
grow things for bio-diesel?

I am a realist. Is this something science will find a cure for in the
future?

I will assume no reply is an acceptance that I am correct and that
everyone agrees with me.

"Bob Brown" . wrote in message
...
I hear these guesstimates of the effects of global warming on our
planet. The guesstimates go from 50-100 years, then they change it to
100-200 years, even some articles mention 500 year effects.

Are these the same computer models that predicted recorded breaking
landfall hurricanes in 2006?

1) No.

2) NOBODY predicted record breaking landfall hurricanes in 2006 (with the
possible exception of Joe *******i and Accuweather, who hyped a threat to
the US Northeast).

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 05:27:36 -0400, "John Krempasky"
wrote:


"Bob Brown" . wrote in message
.. .
I hear these guesstimates of the effects of global warming on our
planet. The guesstimates go from 50-100 years, then they change it to
100-200 years, even some articles mention 500 year effects.

Are these the same computer models that predicted recorded breaking
landfall hurricanes in 2006?

1) No.

No? No explanation?

2) NOBODY predicted record breaking landfall hurricanes in 2006 (with the
possible exception of Joe *******i and Accuweather, who hyped a threat to
the US Northeast).

You said "NOBODY" then said *******i did. Is it NOBODY or ONE?

If you do a news search on the number of stories about the 2006
Hurricane season their were thousands of stories and 99% quoted a
"scientist" about the landfall hurricane subject.

How did that happen?

"Bob Brown" . wrote in message
...


No? No explanation?

There are a number of groups that make seasonal Atlantic hurricane
predictions. In the US, the ones to by far get the most news publicity are
the predictions done by the Dr. William Gray group at Colorado State
University, and the US government predictions by NOAA (through the Climate
Prediction Center, Tropical Prediction Center, and Hurricane Research
division) led by someone that was a student of William Gray. They're two
seperate predictions which people unfortunately confuse, though given that
they rely on the same basic methods they rarely differ much from each other.

Neither of these predictions predicted "record-breaking hurricane" activity
in 2006. They did predict ABOVE-AVERAGE hurricane activity overall, which
turned out to be wrong, due to a quickly developing El Nino, which led to
2006 having slightly below-average Atlantic activity overall. Gray makes
only generalized % based predictions of US landfalling storms and NOAA
doesn't predict numbers of landfalling storms at all.

Both groups repeatedly emphasized they were predicting LESSactvity than the
recordbreaking activity of 2005.

There are a variety of lesser known groups in England, etc. that make
seasonal Atlantic hurricane activity predictions - NONE of these groups 2006
to be "recordbreaking" in terms of tropical actvity.

And most of the predictions don't really rely on computer "models" at all -
they're much simpler statistical correlation methods - thus, they have
absolutely NOTHING to do with world climate models predicting climate 100
years from now.

Also, Dr. William Gray is now perhaps the most famous global warming
OPPONENT in the meteorological community - he repeatedly attacks the idea
that Katrina or any of the hurricanes of 2004-2005 had anything to do with
Global Warming, rather than a natural cycle, and has gotten in screaming
matches at conferences over this. And most of the people involved in the
NOAA forecast also reject any connection between increased hurricane
activity in the last 10 years having anything to do with global warming,
including some that have published papers along those lines.

It's possible for someone to predict an above-average year for hurricanes
without the forecast being based on "global warming."


You said "NOBODY" then said *******i did. Is it NOBODY or ONE?

Even the *******i/AccuBlunder forecast wasn't for any sort of
record-breaking number of landfalls, but their forecast was unique in using
particularly ominous and hyped wording regarding the threat of strong
hurricanes hitting the Northeast US, which got them a lot of media
attention, which is all they care about. They'll keep forecasting that till
it happens. Even in 2005 right after Katrina *******i forecast that for the
rest of the season hurricane activity would shift from the Gulf to the East
Coast (which, of course, didn't happen, what with Rita, Wilma, etc.)
Accuweather and *******i are incompetent, lying buffoons, but seem to be
popular with morons, and they're good at getting media attention.


If you do a news search on the number of stories about the 2006
Hurricane season their were thousands of stories and 99% quoted a
"scientist" about the landfall hurricane subject.

And you won't find a single scientist predicting record-breaking landfalls
in 2006. You'll find a zillion stories where the record-breaking 2005 season
is mentioned in retrospect, and then predictions for an above-average 2006
season.

I'm intensely fascinated by the impression that "scientists" "predicted"
that 2006 would either have record-breaking hurricane activity or
record-breaking landfalls. I've seen huge numbers of imbeciles who
apparently can't read claim this on a wide variety of newsgroups and
bulletin boards, and can't quite figure out why.

John Krempasky wrote:

Also, Dr. William Gray is now perhaps the most famous global warming
OPPONENT in the meteorological community - he repeatedly attacks the idea
that Katrina or any of the hurricanes of 2004-2005 had anything to do with
Global Warming, rather than a natural cycle, and has gotten in screaming

Just a quick clarification--although Dr. Gray may be a global warming
opponent, merely saying that a particular phenomenon, such as Hurricane
Katrina, is not necessarily a result of global warming does not
constitute a denunciation of global warming as a whole. Stepping back
and looking at the effects of global warming carefully is a good way to
avoid the impression, popular among some people, that the global warming
people are nuts and Chicken Littles.

matches at conferences over this. And most of the people involved in the
NOAA forecast also reject any connection between increased hurricane
activity in the last 10 years having anything to do with global warming,
including some that have published papers along those lines.

It's possible for someone to predict an above-average year for hurricanes
without the forecast being based on "global warming."

Amen.

On Mar 12, 9:27?am, "John Krempasky"
wrote:
..

2) NOBODY predicted record breaking landfall hurricanes in 2006 (with the
possible exception of Joe *******i and Accuweather, who hyped a threat to
the US Northeast).

Liar.