Quiet Hurricane Season: Is Global Warming Now Under Control

[KMAN]

Since we were told that global warming causes more hurricanes and more violent hurricanes does this mean that global warming is under control? Or is global warming now responsible for less violent and less frequent hurricanes? and if so, why is that a bad thing?

Quiet Atlantic hurricane season a boon for insurers | U.S. | Reuters

 

[Old Rocks]

Who is responsible for your lack of brains?

Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States - Home

This web page will introduce and lead you through the content of the most comprehensive and authoritative report of its kind. The report summarizes the science and the impacts of climate change on the United States, now and in the future. It focuses on climate change impacts in different regions of the U.S. and on various aspects of society and the economy such as energy, water, agriculture, and health. It’s also a report written in plain language, with the goal of better informing public and private decision making at all levels.

In addition to discussing the impacts of climate change in the U.S., the report also highlights the choices we face in response to human-induced climate change. It is clear that impacts in the United States are already occurring and are projected to increase in the future, particularly if the concentration of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continues to rise. So, choices about how we manage greenhouse gas emissions will have far-reaching consequences for climate change impacts. Similarly, there are choices to be made about adaptation strategies that can help to reduce or avoid some of the undesirable impacts of climate change. This report provides many of the scientific underpinnings for effective decisions to be made – at the national and at the regional level.

 

[Elutherian]

Global Warming has to do with the sun... ain't got nothing to do with "Greenhouse gasses". Carbon Dioxide is a good thing... plants feed off that shit and give us oxygen. The more carbon means more plant growth and a warmer planet... this leads to better conditions for life.
"Climate Change" is natural, and it has nothing to do with what we do in our daily lives.

Pollution is a problem... but Global Warming is just natural, and it ain't man made. There's no real crisis going on, just more excuse for the Government to get more control over our lives.

 

[Old Rocks]

Look 'E', the physics of global warming was established in 1896. Here is where you can read the history of the investigation of GHGs;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

This is an American Institute of Physics site, not some bloggers post.

As far as it being the sun, with a long solar minimum, and a strong and persistant La Nina, we should have had some very cold years for 2007, 2008, and 2009. Instead they all placed in the top ten warmest on record.

Also, commenting on science, one should give one's sources. So what is the scientific source for your opinion?

 

[Oddball]

Doesn't matter which way you go, the gullible warming Luddites will always press on with their predictions of planetary doom.

All of the things blamed on anthropogenic gullible warming

 

[Old Rocks]

It doesn't matter what subject one post's on, Dooodee, will post his vaucous opinion.

 

[Oddball]

Not my opinion, dipshit....The linked list is quite comprehensive.

BTW, remind us when you decide to have an independent analytical thought on anything.

 

[Elutherian]

Look 'E', the physics of global warming was established in 1896. Here is where you can read the history of the investigation of GHGs;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

This is an American Institute of Physics site, not some bloggers post.

As far as it being the sun, with a long solar minimum, and a strong and persistant La Nina, we should have had some very cold years for 2007, 2008, and 2009. Instead they all placed in the top ten warmest on record.

Also, commenting on science, one should give one's sources. So what is the scientific source for your opinion?

Global Warming Not Man-Made Phenomenon

You got to learn to follow the money... if a Government Scientist says anything, my first thought is: "I wonder what political cause they're preparing people to accept."

 

[keee keee]

Bunch of crap is all global warming is!!!! snowing here in October, no warm weather in midwest during last summer. coldest winter in years. Global warming my ASS!!!!! Just another tax grabbing scheme to me!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

Look 'E', the physics of global warming was established in 1896. Here is where you can read the history of the investigation of GHGs;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

This is an American Institute of Physics site, not some bloggers post.

As far as it being the sun, with a long solar minimum, and a strong and persistant La Nina, we should have had some very cold years for 2007, 2008, and 2009. Instead they all placed in the top ten warmest on record.

Also, commenting on science, one should give one's sources. So what is the scientific source for your opinion?

Global Warming Not Man-Made Phenomenon

You got to learn to follow the money... if a Government Scientist says anything, my first thought is: "I wonder what political cause they're preparing people to accept."

Svante Arrhenius was a professor of physics in Sweden. He demonstrated the influence of CO2 on climate in 1896. In 1903, he won the Nobel prize in Chemistry for his work in electolytic dissociation. Are you saying that he was an employee of the US Government, publishing in 1896 to influence the US public in 2009? Elutherian meet Eots, Eots meet Elustherian.

So you have two scientists in Isreal stating that GHGs have nothing to do with global warming, but all of the Scientific Societies in the world, representing millions of scientists in ful consensus that the anthropogenic GHGs are the primary cause of the warming we observe.

Yes, I do believe the you and Eots will get along famously.

 

[garyd]

And we've learned more about the climate now and then in the last 20 years than in the whole preceeding history of humankind most of what people thought was correct 100 years ago is now consider bunkum. Increasing population and changing land use especially in Europe which is fast becoming just one very large urban heat island has far more to do with any warming almost all of which is driven by European urban heat island effects and according to one study on the City of Vienna urban heat island effects are understated by at least 25% in current models.

 

[Old Rocks]

And we've learned more about the climate now and then in the last 20 years than in the whole preceeding history of humankind most of what people thought was correct 100 years ago is now consider bunkum. Increasing population and changing land use especially in Europe which is fast becoming just one very large urban heat island has far more to do with any warming almost all of which is driven by European urban heat island effects and according to one study on the City of Vienna urban heat island effects are understated by at least 25% in current models.

Many claims, no links. Hmmm..............

 

[Andrew2382]

It's not called Global warming anymore...since the planet has been cooling it's now called "Climate Change"

I haven't heard the term Global Warming in a long time

 

[garyd]

And you link to self serving hypocrites, rocks, what's the difference?

Urban Heat Islands: Hotter Cities (ActionBioscience)

 

[Old Rocks]

From your site;

Urban Heat Islands: Hotter Cities (ActionBioscience)

Do urban heat islands affect global climate?
Urban heat islands themselves are not responsible for global warming because they are small-scale phenomena and cover only a tiny fraction of the Earth’s surface area. However, there are some urban to global scale connections that are worth noting:

Urban heat islands are models for climate change research.Approximately half of the world’s population currently lives in cities, and this value is expected to increase to 61% by 2030.16 The high rate of urbanization, particularly in the tropics, means that increasing numbers of people will be exposed to impacts resulting from heat islands in the future.

Urban areas have historically been the site of some of the earliest established observation stations that are used to help construct the global surface temperature record used to document large scale climate changes. The effects of urbanization, and consequently urban heat islands, on these stations over time can lead to some “contamination” of the temperature record. The ability to fully remove these influences remains the subject of some debate since changes can occur independently of population17 and current techniques used to remove urban effects may be inadequate.17-19

Most greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global climate change come from urban areas. These emissions therefore contribute to both local and global scale weather and climate modification.20 Further urbanization will increase emissions originating from cities. Investigation of the larger scale impacts of urban emissions is seen as an important area of future research.20

The climate modifications that have occurred in large cities over the past century show similarities in terms of the rates and magnitude expected with projected future climate changes. Therefore cities may serve as a model for assessing the impacts of, and adaptation strategies to, climate change on both local and global scales.4

 

[garyd]

Trouble is dummy Europe is now an urban heat island and it isn't small. Check the population density of western Europe. You're looking at densities in excees of 500people per square mile every where north of Spain, south Poland and West of the line Greece to Rumania.

 

[Elutherian]

Look 'E', the physics of global warming was established in 1896. Here is where you can read the history of the investigation of GHGs;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

This is an American Institute of Physics site, not some bloggers post.

As far as it being the sun, with a long solar minimum, and a strong and persistant La Nina, we should have had some very cold years for 2007, 2008, and 2009. Instead they all placed in the top ten warmest on record.

Also, commenting on science, one should give one's sources. So what is the scientific source for your opinion?

Global Warming Not Man-Made Phenomenon

You got to learn to follow the money... if a Government Scientist says anything, my first thought is: "I wonder what political cause they're preparing people to accept."

Svante Arrhenius was a professor of physics in Sweden. He demonstrated the influence of CO2 on climate in 1896. In 1903, he won the Nobel prize in Chemistry for his work in electolytic dissociation. Are you saying that he was an employee of the US Government, publishing in 1896 to influence the US public in 2009? Elutherian meet Eots, Eots meet Elustherian.

So you have two scientists in Isreal stating that GHGs have nothing to do with global warming, but all of the Scientific Societies in the world, representing millions of scientists in ful consensus that the anthropogenic GHGs are the primary cause of the warming we observe.

Yes, I do believe the you and Eots will get along famously.

Dude, now your just out and out lying. Thousands of scientists disagree with the so-called "consensus". Science ain't about reaching a consensus, it's about trying to find the truth. 100 years ago we didn't know time and space was relative... I'm sure they had a consensus before Einstein came along.

The man who started this theory may not have been on the Government payroll, but the people advocating now sure as hell are. Why give up on a theory that's getting you paid?

All Liberals want to do is control other people... being "green" just gives them a lame excuse. "Do what I say, or you'll kill the planet!"

 

[Old Rocks]

Energy consumption is loosely correlated with gross national product, but there is a large difference even between the most highly developed countries, such as Japan and Germany with 6 kW per person and United States with 11.4 kW per person. In developing countries such as India the per person energy use is closer to 0.7 kW. Bangladesh has the lowest consumption with 0.2 kW per person.

World energy resources and consumption - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Europe is about 10 million square kilometers in size, North America about 24 1/2 million square kilometers in size. So they are using about the same amount of energy per square kilometer as we are, they they use about half a much energy per capita as we do.

 

[Old Rocks]

Global Warming Not Man-Made Phenomenon

You got to learn to follow the money... if a Government Scientist says anything, my first thought is: "I wonder what political cause they're preparing people to accept."

Svante Arrhenius was a professor of physics in Sweden. He demonstrated the influence of CO2 on climate in 1896. In 1903, he won the Nobel prize in Chemistry for his work in electolytic dissociation. Are you saying that he was an employee of the US Government, publishing in 1896 to influence the US public in 2009? Elutherian meet Eots, Eots meet Elustherian.

So you have two scientists in Isreal stating that GHGs have nothing to do with global warming, but all of the Scientific Societies in the world, representing millions of scientists in ful consensus that the anthropogenic GHGs are the primary cause of the warming we observe.

Yes, I do believe the you and Eots will get along famously.

Dude, now your just out and out lying. Thousands of scientists disagree with the so-called "consensus". Science ain't about reaching a consensus, it's about trying to find the truth. 100 years ago we didn't know time and space was relative... I'm sure they had a consensus before Einstein came along.

The man who started this theory may not have been on the Government payroll, but the people advocating now sure as hell are. Why give up on a theory that's getting you paid?

All Liberals want to do is control other people... being "green" just gives them a lame excuse. "Do what I say, or you'll kill the planet!"

One hundred years ago we knew that time and space were differant than Newtonian Physics stated. For the Special Theory of Relativity was published in 1905 by Einstein.

In fact, the people that are presenting the evidence are on many government payrolls. Those of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and about every other nation you care to mention. And many of them are on university payrolls in countries all over the Earth. Many are on private companies payrolls, such as the petroleum geologists that forced their Scientific Society to change it's statement.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


American Association of Petroleum Geologists
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Position Statement on climate change states that "the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models."[71]

Prior to the adoption of this statement in June 2007, the AAPG was the only major scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human influence on recent climate, according to a statement by the Council of the American Quaternary Association.[72] Explaining the plan for a revision, AAPG president Lee Billingsly wrote in March 2007 that "Members have threatened to not renew their memberships... if AAPG does not alter its position on global climate change.... And I have been told of members who already have resigned in previous years because of our current global climate change position.... The current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members."[73]

 

[Sinatra]

Svante Arrhenius was a professor of physics in Sweden. He demonstrated the influence of CO2 on climate in 1896. In 1903, he won the Nobel prize in Chemistry for his work in electolytic dissociation. Are you saying that he was an employee of the US Government, publishing in 1896 to influence the US public in 2009? Elutherian meet Eots, Eots meet Elustherian.

So you have two scientists in Isreal stating that GHGs have nothing to do with global warming, but all of the Scientific Societies in the world, representing millions of scientists in ful consensus that the anthropogenic GHGs are the primary cause of the warming we observe.

Yes, I do believe the you and Eots will get along famously.

Dude, now your just out and out lying. Thousands of scientists disagree with the so-called "consensus". Science ain't about reaching a consensus, it's about trying to find the truth. 100 years ago we didn't know time and space was relative... I'm sure they had a consensus before Einstein came along.

The man who started this theory may not have been on the Government payroll, but the people advocating now sure as hell are. Why give up on a theory that's getting you paid?

All Liberals want to do is control other people... being "green" just gives them a lame excuse. "Do what I say, or you'll kill the planet!"

One hundred years ago we knew that time and space were differant than Newtonian Physics stated. For the Special Theory of Relativity was published in 1905 by Einstein.

In fact, the people that are presenting the evidence are on many government payrolls. Those of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and about every other nation you care to mention. And many of them are on university payrolls in countries all over the Earth. Many are on private companies payrolls, such as the petroleum geologists that forced their Scientific Society to change it's statement.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


American Association of Petroleum Geologists
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Position Statement on climate change states that "the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models."[71]

Prior to the adoption of this statement in June 2007, the AAPG was the only major scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human influence on recent climate, according to a statement by the Council of the American Quaternary Association.[72] Explaining the plan for a revision, AAPG president Lee Billingsly wrote in March 2007 that "Members have threatened to not renew their memberships... if AAPG does not alter its position on global climate change.... And I have been told of members who already have resigned in previous years because of our current global climate change position.... The current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members."[73]

Another Old Rocks post fatality...