Apparently "human caused" global warming "expert" John Kerry thinks this season's high number of tornadoes is a result of "global warming" :
http://freemarketproject.net/articles/2008/20080206170159.aspx

I wonder how global warming "expert" John Kerry would explain this season's unusually cool temperatures ?

this season's unusually cool temperatures ?Just now, I'm wondering how you would explain: "unusually cool" temperatures...

They probably are. It's hard to tell, human settlement has intruded in the way of historically active tornado areas. But global warming will result in more frequent and violent storms.

But global warming will result in more frequent and violent storms.You remind me of the guy from Idiocracy saying, "But it's got what plants crave!"

You remind me of the guy from Idiocracy saying, "But it's got what plants crave!"

electrolites?

Just now, I'm wondering how you would explain: "unusually cool" temperatures...



Some parts of the globe had an unusually cool April. e.g. (http://www.albertafarmexpress.ca/issues/ISArticle.asp?id=83596&PC=FBC&issue=04282008)

Some parts of the globe had an unusually cool April. e.g. (http://www.albertafarmexpress.ca/issues/ISArticle.asp?id=83596&PC=FBC&issue=04282008)

That's just a side effect of global warming, don't let Mother Nature fool you. :)

Apparently "human caused" global warming "expert" John Kerry thinks this season's high number of tornadoes is a result of "global warming" :
http://freemarketproject.net/articles/2008/20080206170159.aspx

I wonder how global warming "expert" John Kerry would explain this season's unusually cool temperatures ?

What are you talking about ? Unusually cool ??
It has been more than 10 degrees Celsius above average here for the last couple of months.

Global warming may cause greater numbers of earthquakes too.

Global warming may cause greater numbers of earthquakes too.

For the Netherlands it will mean more rain, more storms, hot summers and warm winters. They say..
Global warming can have an array of effects depending on the geography.
How does the earthquake thing work ? I think I heard something about that, but I can't remember the arguments.

Increased or decreased rainfall would cause changing pressure on the continental plates.

Increased or decreased rainfall would cause changing pressure on the continental plates.

Yikes ! And the Netherlands is already tilting since the end of the last ice-age.
The removal of gas in the north of the Netherlands also caused a sinking of the land.

GW the new age scape goat for all that is "natural"....if there is a problem in nature.....it must be GW! (Bush?!) lol

I heard even butterflies have an effect...

Apparently "human caused" global warming "expert" John Kerry thinks this season's high number of tornadoes is a result of "global warming" :
http://freemarketproject.net/articles/2008/20080206170159.aspx

I wonder how global warming "expert" John Kerry would explain this season's unusually cool temperatures ?

He'd probably do what he did in that report - ask the US weather service to provide him with the answer

:sleep:

Some parts of the globe had an unusually cool April. e.g. (http://www.albertafarmexpress.ca/issues/ISArticle.asp?id=83596&PC=FBC&issue=04282008)

This is "within the 95% confidence limits of the expected trend of global warming."

At least if you constantly move the goal posts and making it meaningless.

This is "within the 95% confidence limits of the expected trend of global warming."

At least if you constantly move the goal posts and making it meaningless.

That's the problem with the "human caused" global warming movement; now they come out with hundreds of different predictions and tailored model predictions to cover their asses in any event that may happen. "Well it was predicted by this model", "Well it was predicted by that model", etc.....:rolleyes:
There's about as much real science in their movement as their is in the Christian "Scientists"....

It's not a movement, it's scientific consensus.

It's not a movement, it's scientific consensus.

There was a consensus the Earth was flat 600+ years ago too....

I'm not saying "human caused" global warming theories are dead wrong, but I think there's more eco-politics involved in it than real science. Just like in the 1970s when "human caused" global cooling "experts" predicted that temperatures would be decreasing in the future.....

Not true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_mythology

Most people accepted that the Earth was spherical since the Greeks first started thinking about it. Ptolemy's view was used for navigational reference since the 4th century, although there was a minority of dissenters, mostly for ideological reasons.

Just like then, they minority of objections to human-caused global warming are based on ideology, this time of a political nature. Your accusations are the typical projection of right-wing cranks.

Not true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_mythology

Most people accepted that the Earth was spherical since the Greeks first started thinking about it. Ptolemy's view was used for navigational reference since the 4th century, although there was a minority of dissenters, mostly for ideological reasons.

Just like then, they minority of objections to human-caused global warming are based on ideology, this time of a political nature. Your accusations are the typical projection of right-wing cranks.

While you're article proves the opposite, touche, it is commonly presented in movies, books, and in schools that "people hundreds of years ago thought the Earth was flat". You can't deny that.
I think even Carl Sagan in his "Cosmos" series mentioned once that during Columbus' time, they thought the Earth was flat.
So it is a common myth that's fooled many people.
That doesn't prove "human caused" global warming is a fact......

Just like then, they minority of objections to human-caused global warming are based on ideology, this time of a political nature. Your accusations are the typical projection of right-wing cranks.

It's hard to prove on both sides of the issue how much is political and how much is science. At least I'm willing to admit that, would you or Al Gore be willing to admit that ?

While you're article proves the opposite, touche, it is commonly presented in movies, books, and in schools that "people hundreds of years ago thought the Earth was flat". You can't deny that.
I think even Carl Sagan in his "Cosmos" series mentioned once that during Columbus' time, they thought the Earth was flat.
So it is a common myth that's fooled many people.
That doesn't prove "human caused" global warming is a fact......

um the world was proved to be round in greek or roman times

It's hard to prove on both sides of the issue how much is political and how much is science. Not really. The peer-reviewed papers and arguments in the journals are science. The PR marketing and complicit media amplification of dishonesties like "400 scientists sign petition etc" and "they have models that predict everything, just so they can get funding from the government for their research no matter what happens" is political.

It's hard to prove on both sides of the issue how much is political and how much is science. At least I'm willing to admit that, would you or Al Gore be willing to admit that ?

You mean be fair and balanced like Fox News? NO, there is a clear scientific consensus, just as there was with the Spherical Earth Hypothesis. The majority of people back then that doubted it did so for theological reasons. Magellan knew the Earth was a sphere, which he why he tried to sail around it. He also used an ancient calculation as to it's circumference, which happened to have a substantial error that was equivalent to the Pacific Ocean.

You mean be fair and balanced like Fox News? NO, there is a clear scientific consensus, just as there was with the Spherical Earth Hypothesis. The majority of people back then that doubted it did so for theological reasons. Magellan knew the Earth was a sphere, which he why he tried to sail around it. He also used an ancient calculation as to it's circumference, which happened to have a substantial error that was equivalent to the Pacific Ocean.

People on these threads have already given scientific evidence from scientists showing global warming isn't necessarily "human caused". You just turn a blind to it because you're stubborn.
Same with Fox News, it drives left-wing radicals crazy because along comes a news source that provides BOTH sides of a story, after decades of left-wing news media 100% dominance. If Fox "lied" about their news (not commentary), they'd suffer the same fate Dan Rather did.
The global warming debate is a perfect reflection of the Fox News debate, the radical left refuses to look at both sides. They only want their side, everything else is dead wrong.

I don't turn a blind eye to it, it's just that the minority view (a tiny minority) is less compelling than the mass of scientists who think otherwise. There isn't always two sides to a story.

There isn't always two sides to a story.

Especially when you want the other side shut down.....

Well, let's have the terrorist's POV too. Would that be balanced?

People on these threads have already given scientific evidence from scientists showing global warming isn't necessarily "human caused". Everyone knows that, without evidence.

But the evidence presented to base doubts on has been very weak - and much of it misleadingly presented, with bogus claims about what it shows. This further reduces confidence in the claims of its presenters and originators.

People on these threads have already given scientific evidence from scientists showing global warming isn't necessarily "human caused". You just turn a blind to it because you're stubborn.
Same with Fox News, it drives left-wing radicals crazy because along comes a news source that provides BOTH sides of a story, after decades of left-wing news media 100% dominance. If Fox "lied" about their news (not commentary), they'd suffer the same fate Dan Rather did.
The global warming debate is a perfect reflection of the Fox News debate, the radical left refuses to look at both sides. They only want their side, everything else is dead wrong.

fox news has been repeatly been proven to spout bullshit. fox news tells one side of the story and what they want you to think the other side thinks. AND FOR THE LAST GOD DAMN TIME THE MEDIA HAS A CONSERVATIVE BIAS

Does anyone have pictures of horrible storms in action or is everyone just making it up? Mail me pictures of lightning, that would freak me out, that people take pictures of to scare people like me.

-Ulalame

The global warming debate is a perfect reflection of the Fox News debate, the radical left refuses to look at both sides.Yes, FUX is a well-practised bullshitter when it comes to presenting "both sides". It actually presents a denigrated negative version of the "side" it disagrees with, and paints the other "side" in the best possible light; brings in "experts" and commentators who agree with the FUX spin on the story, and to introduce the notion of being "fair and balanced", has some commmentators or experts from the "other side", who get asked completely pointed (or pointless) questions like: "so you don't agree that our version of the story is the correct point of view, huh? What, you're some kind of radical leftist, or terrorist sympathiser? You want us to cut and run from a dangerous situation?"

Then spends at least 15% of on-air time telling you how "fair and balanced" FUX news is. How you get "the real story"; how FUX has to endlessly self-promote it's own (dare I say radical) agenda, which appears to follow something like: "we can't fool all of the people all of the time, but we're gonna try to fool as many of the ignorant SOBs as we can, or die trying".

It's good for a giggle though. But it's pretty FUXed.

fox news has been repeatly been proven to spout bullshit. fox news tells one side of the story and what they want you to think the other side thinks. AND FOR THE LAST GOD DAMN TIME THE MEDIA HAS A CONSERVATIVE BIAS


I suppose if you were a radical leftists, most news media would appear to have a "conservative bias" to you.....

I suppose if you were a radical leftists, most news media would appear to have a "conservative bias" to you.....

no its called objective and rational thought but i guess thats what makes me a radical leftist.

About that consensus, the number of deniers (http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080506/EDITORIAL/404827900/1013) is about 32,000 (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/17/32-000-deniers.aspx).

You need a lot more tar and feathers to get them all character murdered.

I suppose if you were a radical leftists, most news media would appear to have a "conservative bias" to you.....

the reverse is true if you are a radical conservative you wouldn't see the bias as bias if it were conservative.

fox news has been repeatly been proven to spout bullshit. fox news tells one side of the story and what they want you to think the other side thinks. AND FOR THE LAST GOD DAMN TIME THE MEDIA HAS A CONSERVATIVE BIAS

Well, no. Actually it has a liberal or leftward bias if anything.

But the issue is global warming, which the overwhelming weight of science supports, and which is exceedingly plausible. Is there a clear definition of the alternative?

Well, no. Actually it has a liberal or leftward bias if anything. That's ridiculous. If those words have anything resembling the meanings they had last generation, anyway.

Witness the coverage of labor issues and news from that perspective in the Iraq Occupation, or even in the NAFTA controversies (such as Colombia trade issues).

Name a major economic issue that's been covered with a left bias by the major US media in the past thirty years.
About that consensus, the number of deniers is about 32,000. The two links you posted were to carefully hedged and qualified matters such as "catastrophic heating" and the Kyoto accord.

And they were bereft of concrete examples and arguments relevant to the major scientific issues. After investigating the past few such links you have posted - such as the "400 scientists" who turned out to lobbyists and crackpots when they weren't simply being lied about - we need a little more in the way of specifics.

We are not talking about a scientific consensus on whether Kyoto is a good idea, or whether the more likely climate effects of the CO2 boost should be called "catastrophic" or not. We are talking about a scientific consensus that the large and apparently accelerating human boosting of CO2 and other greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere is a risk to the current climate regime, and in all probability already having serious effects.

Name a major economic issue that's been covered with a left bias by the major US media in the past thirty years.

Kyoto and Iraq. :shrug:

Name a major economic issue that's been covered with a left bias by the major US media in the past thirty years.
”
Kyoto and Iraq. If that's the closest, I rest my case. Labor issues ? Influence of capitalism as a system? Discussion of mercenary vs government military from a labor perspective ? Analysis of cap and trade for its influence on the role of labor mobility, bluecollar wages, public health care ? Discussion of relative economic costs and benefits differentiated by degree of socialist organization in the industry or country ? Even a perfunctory attempt at economic class analysis of the impact of either of those issues, with a few days of headlines and maybe contrasting personal interest accounts ? Any of this stuff even present, let alone dominating the headlines ?

Not even a moderate instance of left bias in one major issue, let alone the dozens of extreme left propaganda dispensations that would be necessary to balance the rightist stuff and bring things to center overall.

I don't think you can bring up labour in that sense. Are you saying unions get no fair coverage in the US? And what's "mercenary vs government military from a labor perspective" meant to mean? Blackwater or something?

It's possible it's different to Canada or Britain of course; most of my experience is there.

This study (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9YzbkbPjYwP_3-9wZhTNbMcZSAQD90OGDV80) says that GW is not worsening hurricanes. But I'm sure our spin doctor iceaura will have an explanation that Tom Knutsen is actually a member of the secret Flat Earth Society, of which Freeman Dyson, one of the 32000 deniers, is also a member.

BTW here's a counter list of prominent climatologists believing Global Warming is man made. I'm sure iceaura feels more comfortable with these names.

Celebrities

Al Gore, B.A. Government (no science degree)
Alanis Morissette, High School Diploma
Bill Maher, B.A. English (no science degree)
Bono (Paul Hewson), High School Diploma
Daryl Hanna, B.F.A. Theater (no science degree)
Ed Begley Jr., High School Diploma
Jackson Browne, High School Diploma
Jon Bon Jovi (John Bongiovi), High School Diploma
Oprah Winfrey, B.A. Speech and Drama (no science degree)
Prince Charles of Whales, B.A. (no science degree)
Sheryl Crow, B.A. Music Education (no science degree)
Sienna Miller, High School Diploma

ABC - Sam Champion, B.A. Broadcast News (no science degree, not a meteorologist)
CBS - Harry Smith, B.A. Communications and Theater (no science degree)
CBS - Katie Couric, B.A. English (no science degree)
CBS - Scott Pelley, College Dropout
NBC - Ann Curry, B.A. Journalism (no science degree)
NBC - Anne Thompson, B.A. American studies (no science degree)
NBC - Matt Lauer. B.A. Communications (no science degree)
NBC - Meredith Vieira, B.A. English (no science degree)

Al Sharpton, College Dropout
Alicia Keys, College Dropout
Alicia Silverstone, High School Dropout
Art Bell, College Dropout
Ben Affleck, College Dropout
Ben Stiller, College Dropout
Billy Jean King, College Dropout
Brad Pitt, College Dropout
Britney Spears, High School Dropout
Bruce Springsteen, College Dropout
Cameron Diaz, High School Dropout
Cindy Crawford, College Dropout
Diane Keaton, College Dropout
Drew Barrymore, High School Dropout
George Clooney, College Dropout
Gwyneth Paltrow, College Dropout
Jason Biggs, College Dropout
Jennifer Connelly, College Dropout
Jessica Simpson, High School Dropout
John Travolta, High School Dropout
Joshua Jackson, High School Dropout
Julia Louis-Dreyfus, College Dropout
Julia Roberts, College Dropout
Kanye West, College Dropout
Keanu Reeves, High School Dropout
Kevin Bacon, High School Dropout
Kiefer Sutherland, High School Dropout
Leonardo DiCaprio, High School Dropout
Lindsay Lohan, High School Dropout
Ludacris (Christopher Bridges), College Dropout
Madonna (Madonna Ciccone), College Dropout
Matt Damon, College Dropout
Matthew Modine, College Dropout
Michael Moore, College Dropout
Nicole Richie, College Dropout
Neve Campbell, High School Dropout
Olivia Newton-John, High School Dropout
Orlando Bloom, High School Dropout
Paris Hilton, High School Dropout
Pierce Brosnan. High School Dropout
Queen Latifah (Dana Elaine Owens), College Dropout
Richard Branson, High School Dropout
Robert Redford, College Dropout
Rosie O'Donnell, College Dropout
Sarah Silverman, College Dropout
Sean Penn, College Dropout
Ted Turner, College Dropout
Tommy Lee (Thomas Lee Bass), High School Dropout
Uma Thurman, High School Dropout
Willie Nelson, High School Dropout

Politicians:

John McCain, B.S. (Graduated 894th out of 899 in his class)
Newt Gingrich, Ph.D. Modern European History (no science degree) (Hypocrite)
Pat Robertson, B.A., J.D., M.A. Divinity (no science degree)
Robert F. Kennedy Jr, B.A. Government, J.D. Law (no science degree, 'recovered' Heroin addict)

Scientists:

Bill Nye, B.S. Mechanical Engineering (Bill Nye the Science Guy)
Gavin Schmidt, B.A. Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (RealClimate.org)
James Hansen, B.A. Physics and Mathematics, M.S. Astronomy, Ph.D. Physics (NASA, Gavin Schmidt's Boss)
James Lovelock, Ph.D. Medicine, D.Sc. Biophysics
Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Sciences
Michael Mann, A.B. Applied Math, Physics, M.S. Physics, Ph.D. Geology & Geophysics (RealClimate.org)
Michael Oppenheimer, S.B. Chemistry, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D. Meteorology
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics

Social Scientists:

Ronald Bailey, B.A. Philosophy and Economics (Science Correspondent, Reason Magazine)

This study (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9YzbkbPjYwP_3-9wZhTNbMcZSAQD90OGDV80) says that GW is not worsening hurricanes. But I'm sure our spin doctor iceaura will have an explanation that Tom Knutsen is actually a member of the secret Flat Earth Society, of which Freeman Dyson, one of the 32000 deniers, is also a member.

BTW here's a counter list of prominent climatologists believing Global Warming is man made. I'm sure iceaura feels more comfortable with these names.

um said study said that they would be and i quote from your link wetter and fiercer to me that would be worse.

um said study said that they would be and i quote from your link wetter and fiercer to me that would be worse.um dude, did you actually read my message? I wrote: "This study says that GW is not worsening hurricanes."

While storms might become fiercer, this study argues "against the notion that we've already seen a really dramatic increase in Atlantic hurricane activity resulting from greenhouse warming."

This study says that GW is not worsening hurricanes. But I'm sure our spin doctor iceaura will have an explanation that Tom Knutsen is actually a member of the secret Flat Earth Society, I've been casually following the various and heated arguments within the climate theorist community about the effects of the CO2 boosting on hurricanes, and IIRC I posted a link to Knutsen's actual study (rather than a Washington Post typical confusion) here on this forum.

Or maybe it was to one of the others that have suggested the same conclusion. It was only recently that the planetary scale models were loaded with actual model hurricanes - it takes some doing to include such small phenomena in them - and such modelings have been anticipated for a while by the various factions.

There's been a more hurricanes and stronger faction; a more hurricanes but weaker; a fewer hurricanes but stronger; and a fewer hurricanes and weaker.

That last faction has been a minority one (probably, the more but weaker was the smallest minority) and may grow now.

Because there have always been various factions. It's been an active argument. There has been no consensus on hurricane and storm predictions. Sometimes scientists even switch factions, change their minds, become persuaded one way or another in the course of scientific argument. Probably this study of Knutsen's will change some minds. Probably, because the matter is not settled yet, others will remain persuaded or doubtful otherwise. That seems hard for reactionary political types to understand.

What there has not been is a faction of serious climate theorists who think that humans can double the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere without seriously affecting the weather patterns of the planet. It's a greenhouse gas, it traps heat, and that affects thing like hurricanes. Knutsen takes that for granted, and includes the likely effects of CO2 boosting in his models and predictions. He is not a denialist, and he never has been.

And it wouldn't matter if he were. His models and predictions include major CO2 boost heat trapping effects.

Meanwhile, we note the speed with which some people who profess deep skepticism about climate modeling will embrace its results sometimes.

Word to the wise: models do not become more reliable due to the nature of their predictions. Knutsen's predictions, like those of the other modelers and alarmists and global warming groupthink community that's all worried about this stuff, may be wrong.

I don't think global warming is a result of green house gas. Its a result of humans running millions of internal combustion engines everyday which let off billions of B.T.U.'s. A result of anything man made that creates heat. That is my personal theory, and it I think it should be obvious to our brainiac scientists but no one else seams to see it. That heat has to go somewhere.

For me it was not so important whether Knutsen's models are wrong or right and whether I embrace them. The interesting point is that Knutsen until now saw a link between GW and increasing hurricanes which opinion seems to have changed in his last report. A new trend under climate modelers, perhaps?

Looking at the progression climate modelers made during the last 20-30 years then there's every reason to be sceptical and who of us is going to check them out 40-50 or even 100 years from now? It's easy to predicit that the Dolphins will win the Superbowl in 2045.

The interesting point is that Knutsen until now saw a link between GW and increasing hurricanes which opinion seems to have changed in his last report. You seem to have misread the study, or been fooled by the headline on the Post story you linked.

Knutsen's model includes strong linkages between global warming and hurricanes, and his conclusion is that there will be fewer, and fewer making landfall on the Americas, but with more rain and stronger winds in the ones that do, directly because of greenhouse gas heat trapping over the Atlantic ocean.

That is consistent with much of his earlier work and opinions. At most he has moved from the "more and stronger" to the "fewer but stronger" faction.

And Knutson said this study significantly underestimates the increase in wind strength.

You seem to have misread the study, or been fooled by the headline on the Post story you linked.

Knutsen's model includes strong linkages between global warming and hurricanes, and his conclusion is that there will be fewer, and fewer making landfall on the Americas, but with more rain and stronger winds in the ones that do, directly because of greenhouse gas heat trapping over the Atlantic ocean.

That is consistent with much of his earlier work and opinions. At most he has moved from the "more and stronger" to the "fewer but stronger" faction.Since you pretend to know how to interpet Knutson, you might want to read his answer to Mann on RC here... (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/climate-change-and-tropical-cyclones-yet-again/#comment-87469)

Since you pretend to know how to interpet Knutson, you might want to read his answer to Mann on RC here...


Statement (i), that "the warming [of the tropical Atlantic Ocean] is likely in large part anthropogenic." is reasonable, taking “anthropogenic” to mean “greenhouse gas”, given the work of Santer et al (2006, PNAS), Knutson et al (2006, J. Clim.), and Gillett et al (2008, G.R.L.). To quote from Gillett et al:

…our results indicate that greenhouse gas increases are indeed likely the dominant cause of [tropical Atlantic] warming…

My point is that Knutsen now and in the past has accepted, agreed with, argued from, and been incorporating in his models and predictions, global warming due to the human boosting of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Knutsen, like essentially every other reputable scientist working in the field, thinks that significant increase in the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is going to have significant effects on global climate regimes in general, and hurricanes in particular.

He disagrees on the chain of cause and effect, and the major factors whose influence is important for predictions. He thinks just looking at a warmer ocean and predicting it will breed more hurricanes is over-simplified to the point of being wrong. So do many others - it's a matter of discussion, debate, argument, etc.

Your point is what, exactly ?

um dude, did you actually read my message? I wrote: "This study says that GW is not worsening hurricanes."

While storms might become fiercer, this study argues "against the notion that we've already seen a really dramatic increase in Atlantic hurricane activity resulting from greenhouse warming."

yeah i read your message. the study said that global warming was not the cause of increase amounts of hurricanes it said that the hurricanes that do happen would be wetter and fiercer(worse).

For the Netherlands it will mean more rain, more storms, hot summers and warm winters. They say..
Global warming can have an array of effects depending on the geography.


Yes, it is. In the Netherlands it is at this moment 10 degrees warmer than last year, same date.

In the future, the global heating will have as a effect that the Netherlands comes under the sea level, due to that the Netherlands is on a low level on the earth scale. :eek:

There was a consensus the Earth was flat 600+ years ago too....

I'm not saying "human caused" global warming theories are dead wrong, but I think there's more eco-politics involved in it than real science. Just like in the 1970s when "human caused" global cooling "experts" predicted that temperatures would be decreasing in the future.....

How do you then explain that at this moment such nature related occurings
often take place (earthquakes, tornados, increasing temparature and sea level)?