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: No, i'm just reading what scientists write, i know i should only read what exxon mobile funded researchers say... | |
|
Author: jw |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 19:32:38 03/07/07 Wed In reply to: Oropan 's message, "Are you just making this up?" on 15:58:06 03/05/07 Mon Your link is from 2004, a bit dated, considering the amount of research done since then, even then the data showed an increase in atlantic hurricanes during comparitive periods in the north atlantic oscillation cycle, which has been going on since 1995, previously from around 1930 - 1970. There has been no run of years in the record going back to 1886 like we have seen since 1995, and this corresponds to a warming trend in the atlantic waters. Posted on : Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:13:01 GMT | Author : Science News Editor News Category : Science (Technology) New ( News Alerts by Email click here ) MADISON, Wis., Feb. 28 U.S. atmospheric scientists say they have found new evidence to support the theory that global warming produces stronger Atlantic Ocean hurricanes. However, the researchers say the trend is confined to the Atlantic Ocean and apparently does not occur in any of the world's other oceans. Scientists from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the U.S. National Climatic Data Center say their research should help resolve some of the controversy concerning global warming and the onset of increasingly intense hurricanes. The debate is not about scientific methods but instead centers around the quality of hurricane data, said lead author James Kossin, a research scientist at University of Wisconsin-Madison ' s Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies. Working with global satellite data from 1983-2005, the researchers simplified newer and technologically advanced satellite information and aligned it with older records. The data says the Atlantic has been trending upwards in hurricane intensity quite a bit, he said. But the trends appear to be inflated or spurious everywhere else, meaning that we still can't make any global statements.The scientists detail their findings in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. Copyright 2007 by UPI > >If you read this you will see that the number is not >increasing! > > >href="http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html">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 ] |