Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ] |
| Subject: Are you just making this up? | |
|
Author: Oropan |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 15:58:06 03/05/07 Mon In reply to: jw 's message, "Re: We went through this whole discussion in late 2005" on 09:50:13 03/05/07 Mon If you read this you will see that the number is not increasing! http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html It seems to go in cycles but there is no huge increase in any period and we don't even probably have an accurate count of hurricanes until the last 60 or 70 years so there was probably hurricanes that didn't get count many years ago. Something sank all the Spanish treasure ships!!! BTW, I'll bet you don't know that thousands of Spanish ships were lost in hurricanes. I doubt they were talking about global warming back then. > The facts are that during the last 15 years, the >atlantic hurricanes are more active than ever >recorded, and this correspondes to record warm waters >in the atlantic. The pacific and indian oceans show >no increase in hurricanes, but they do show increased >intensity of hurricanes, probably because they have >alot more hurricanes than the atlantic. The record of >pacific and indian ocean hurricanes is very unreliable >until recent decades, so critics claim that we do not >know if there is an increase in the power of pacific >and indian ocean storms, but that also means we don't >know that the number of these storms is not >increasing, we only know that the data is not reliable >until recent decades, leaving us with the atlantic >data as the only reliable data, and the atlantic >storms are increasing in number and power. > > The atlantic storms are more frequent and powerful >than they were from 1930 - 1970, when the atlantic was >in an active cycle, we are comparing similar phases of >the cycle. > > Hurricanes are powered by heat, winter hurricanes >are rare, it is almost certain that increased global >temps will increase these storms, and most likely that >the warmer atlantic temps causes the increase in the >last 15 years. > > there are a hand full of scientists paid by >industry who deny these facts, just like there were a >few scientists paid off by industry to deny that >smoking causes cancer, seatbelts are not safe and will >make cars unaffordable, pollution control will make >cars unaffordable, dioxin is safe, one scientist even >offered to drink dioxin to prove it. The reason big >business can't get enough scientists to deny global >warming or that smoking causes cancer it because they >don't pay the scientists enough, the CEO crook is >making tens of millions a year, and the scientists get >grants of only 10,000 dollars to disprove global >warming! > >>The simple FACTS are that hurricanne numbers have been >>below normal for quite some years now. It runs in >>cycles and is due for an upturn....which still hasn't >>materialized. Go back to the polar bear argument, you >>get more people interested with that nonsense one! >>BTW, polar bear numbers have increased five fold in >>the last fifty years.....kinda like those caribo >>around the pipeline on the North Slope! >>Good luck with your "sky is falling" stuff Chicken >>Little! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> The waters of the gulf were 1 - 2 degrees above >>>normal last summer, the el nino smothered hurricane >>>development in the atlantic, still the season was >near >>>normal, with no major landfalls. For a few months >>>this winter the gulf waters were at or below normal >>>because there were alot of storms in the gulf of >>>mexico, but the temperatures are now rising fast and >>>have returned to being 1 - 2 degrees above normal, as >>>it has been for much of the decade, it is possible >>>that water temps in the gulf and atlantic may reach >>>near the record levels of 2005, there will be some >>>forecasts comming out soon on this. >>>>BTW, what happened to those warm waters in 2006? >They >>>>went away in one year? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> It is almost certain that there will be another >2 >>>>>degrees of global warming, most likely during the >>>next >>>>>40 years. The reason we can kill the american gulf >>>>>coast good bye is because the hurricane season of >>>2005 >>>>>was powered by atlantic waters that were 2 - 4 >>>degrees >>>>>above historic temps. Most recent years have seen >>>>>these waters 1 - 2 degrees above historic levels, >so >>>>>another 2 degrees will make the atlantic waters as >>>>>warm as the record hurricane season of 2005 every >>>>>year, there will be many more katrinas, ritas, >>dennis >>>>>and wilmas. All the gulf coast states are >>>>>red-republican, it will be america's gain! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>INTERVIEW-EU likely to miss global warming goal-UN >>>>>>expert >>>>>>02 Mar 2007 15:05:30 GMT >>>>>>Source: Reuters >>>>>> >>>>>> By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent >>>>>> >>>>>>OSLO, March 2 (Reuters) - The European Union is >>>>>>unlikely to meet the goal of a maximum 2 degree >>>>>>Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) rise in temperatures >which >>>>it >>>>>>views as a threshold for dangerous climate change, >>a >>>>>>leading U.N. climate official said on Friday. >>>>>> >>>>>>"It clearly seems very, very difficult to limit it >>>to >>>>>>below 2 degrees," Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of >>the >>>>>>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), >>>>told >>>>>>Reuters in a telephone interview. >>>>>> >>>>>>"But who knows? It's not beyond the capabilities >of >>>>>>the human race to come up with actions," he said. >>>>>> >>>>>>The EU, outsiders such as Norway and many >>>>>>environmentalists see a 2C rise in temperatures >>over >>>>>>pre-industrial times as a trigger for dangerous >>>>>>changes such as rising sea levels, droughts, heat >>>>>>waves and floods. >>>>>> >>>>>>An IPCC report last month, based on the work of >>>2,500 >>>>>>climate scientists, blamed human activities more >>>>>>clearly than ever for global warming. It said >>>>>>greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels were >>>>mainly >>>>>>responsible. >>>>>> >>>>>>It projected a "best estimate" that temperatures >>>>would >>>>>>rise by between 1.8C and 4.0C (3.2F and 7.8F) this >>>>>>century alone. >>>>>> >>>>>>Pachauri said temperatures had already risen by >>>0.74C >>>>>>(1.3F) since the Industrial Revolution in the 18th >>>>>>century and would keep rising by 0.1C (0.2F) per >>>>>>decade for coming decades even if emissions were >>>kept >>>>>>at current levels. >>>>>> >>>>>>An EU Commission proposal on Jan. 10, entitled >>>>>>"Limiting Global Climate Change to 2C", called for >>a >>>>>>20-percent cut in EU emissions by 2020 or a >>>>30-percent >>>>>>cut if other industrialised countries were willing >>>to >>>>>>go further. >>>>>> >>>>>>ALMOST OUT OF REACH >>>>>> >>>>>>Former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern, >>>who >>>>>>issued a report last year concluding that it was >>far >>>>>>cheaper to act to combat climate change rather >than >>>>>>suffer the consequences, said this week that the >2C >>>>>>goal was "almost out of reach". >>>>>> >>>>>>Pachauri, an Indian, said he would like the world >>to >>>>>>agree what dangerous climate change meant.A 1992 >>>U.N. >>>>>>Climate Convention set an overriding goal of >>>averting >>>>>>dangerous human interference with the climate >>system >>>>>>but gave no definition. >>>>>> >>>>>>"The question is 'dangerous for whom?'," Pachauri >>>>>said. >>>>>> >>>>>>"If you look at the most vulnerable regions of the >>>>>>world and ask them what dangerous is, they will >say >>>>>>they have reached that threshold already -- the >>>small >>>>>>island states, regions severely affected by >>droughts >>>>>>and floods," he said. >>>>>> >>>>>>He quoted independence leader Mahatma Gandhi as >>>>>>saying: "You must always look at the effect of our >>>>>>actions on the most dispossessed, the last man, >the >>>>>>one who is the least fortunate." >>>>>> >>>>>>By that yardstick, he said, dangerous had already >>>>been >>>>>>reached. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| Subject | Author | Date |
| No, i'm just reading what scientists write, i know i should only read what exxon mobile funded researchers say... | jw | 19:32:38 03/07/07 Wed |