That didn't take long, after Cyclone Nargis (cat 3) hit Myanmar and killed perhaps 10,000+ people, "global warming" is already being suspected as a culprit.......... :rolleyes:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hmntRFM_YGeh_Ar7T2AK2uQF7FIQ

Hmmm, imagine if that Cat 3 cyclone had hit a few hundred miles off course, and killed far less people. I doubt "global warming" would have even been brought up......

Global warming activists will cherry pick hurricanes that kill lots of people and do lots of damage to use as "further proof" of "human caused" global warming.....

How about this as an explanation. As the human population increases, especially near oceans, and more and more buildings are built in hurricane zones, we'll see worse damage and more deaths in the future when hurricanes hit. Hmmmm, that's a no brainer, and it didn't take "global warming" to explain the obvious.........

Well of course cyclones and severe weather did not happen before cable and stellite television. (i shoouldnt make joke about this, i am sorry- can someone call me a bad name?)

Also, i read that an estimated 22,000 perished and 44,000 missing and leaving over a million people homeless. And news reports are sketchy but it appears that they are just putting dead bodies in the river for disposal purposes. Anyone can confirm this?

....they are just putting dead bodies in the river for disposal purposes...

are they supposed to rot there or are the gators eating them?

I dont know. But if the bodies get into the waterways the fish will eat them. I think about this all the time a disaster hppens.

can the fish eat that many bodies?

Probably.

Taking all asian seafood off grocery lists for a year.

LOL, good point.

Global warming activists will cherry pick hurricanes that kill lots of people and do lots of damage to use as "further proof" of "human caused" global warming.....

Actually, climatologists (the scientists) look at all anomolous weather events; not just the ones that affect people. The media, OTOH, likes to focus on tragedy.

The latest climate model (of many) and one of the first to attempt to deal with hurricanes, predicts fewer of them worldwide, but occasionally stronger ones and in unusual places, if the climate continues to warm.

So while this big typhoon was building and heading for shore, my news media was doing what, exactly, on the "weather trivia" pages ?

Taking all asian seafood off grocery lists for a year.

I read that on the internet, it said a river anyway. The main thing is that they get help. They need food there too.:(

The latest climate model (of many) and one of the first to attempt to deal with hurricanes, predicts fewer of them worldwide, but occasionally stronger ones and in unusual places, if the climate continues to warm.

That's the thing with these global warming "experts". They produce all kinds of models to cover there asses. I remember rather clearly after "human caused" Hurricane Katrina, global warming "experts" predicted MORE and MORE INTENSE hurricanes in the Atlantic ocean for 2006 & 2007. And how many hurricanes did we get blasted with in 2006 & 2007 ? ZERO
Oh wait, global warming "expert" John Doe in this country predicted less hurricanes, I guess the global warming theory still holds.... :rolleyes:

That's the thing with these global warming "experts". They produce all kinds of models to cover there asses. I remember rather clearly after "human caused" Hurricane Katrina, global warming "experts" predicted MORE and MORE INTENSE hurricanes in the Atlantic ocean for 2006 & 2007 Some did, some didn't. If you only listened to half of an ongoing discussion, that's your own fault.

This latest model actually incorporates model hurricanes into its planetary weather generator - a first.

Once again Cazzo's Climate Change Conspiracy Charges (nice alliteration there if I do say so myself) bite the dust - and once again it hinges on the fact that she hasn't actually read (or has at least failed to understand) what the article actually states.

The article talks about how both sides of the argument in terms of a connection with climate change is being fiercely discussed by scientists, and how many quite rightly say that a single event cannot be taken out of context to prove a trend or indeed a connection.

So much for Casso's claim that discussion of the issue is suppressed.

Really Cazzo - do you not get tired of me doing this to you every time?

Have you not thought, after embarassing yourself so comprehensively in 2 previous threads, that you might actually READ beyond the headline in one of the articles you post for a change?

:yawn:

"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful." (George E.P. Box)

Once again Cazzo's Climate Change Conspiracy Charges (nice alliteration there if I do say so myself) bite the dust - and once again it hinges on the fact that she hasn't actually read (or has at least failed to understand) what the article actually states.

The article talks about how both sides of the argument in terms of a connection with climate change is being fiercely discussed by scientists, and how many quite rightly say that a single event cannot be taken out of context to prove a trend or indeed a connection.

So much for Casso's claim that discussion of the issue is suppressed.

Really Cazzo - do you not get tired of me doing this to you every time?

Have you not thought, after embarassing yourself so comprehensively in 2 previous threads, that you might actually READ beyond the headline in one of the articles you post for a change?

Nor did I "embarass" myself on the other two threads.........

:yawn:


You haven't done anything except put words in my mouth to "win" an arguement. I merely pointed out that some global warming "experts" were quick to point out a possible connection. Nowhere did I state the article's purely about that 1 side of the issue...........:rolleyes:

Hurricanes, cyclones, typhoons, etc, are supposed to form because there is a temperature gradient between the sea surface (warm) and the upper atmosphere (cooler). In the case of Nargis, the gradient was there, a very cool lower troposphere and a cooler than normal sea surface (by -0.5 to -1.0ºC) according to this SST graph from NCEP, as seen in the area colored light green and indicated by the red arrow, the area where Nargis was formed on April 28th.

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/images-21/nargis-temp-map.png


The lower troposphere had cooled strongly during the last 16 months, as shown in this graph (also from MSU data) more than the SST did, increasing the temperature gradient:

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/images-21/nargis-lower-troptemp.gif


So the responsibility for Nargis is not on the shoulders of “anthropogenic global warming” but on the shoulders of “natural global cooling”. Both sea surfaces and atmosphere had cooled. Get used to it. This will be a much cooler year than 2007 --but not as cold as 2009 and those in the next two decades. :bawl:

Don't you just love the way AGW deniers claim that all those IPCC guys must be all wrong because it's far too complicated for anyone to understand.

Then they tell you how easy it is to understand and explain as a natural variation. And that we're going to have a cold year, thanks to sea surface cooling because this is a well understood climate pattern - by them anyway.

Uh huh.

Don't you just love the way AGW deniers claim that all those IPCC guys must be all wrong because it's far too complicated for anyone to understand.

Then they tell you how easy it is to understand and explain as a natural variation. And that we're going to have a cold year, thanks to sea surface cooling because this is a well understood climate pattern - by them anyway.

Uh huh.

If there is something far too complicated for you to understand in the climate issue, then it’s your problem. All those “IPCC guys” are merely bureaucrats writing a report using work supplied by scientists –but with information conveniently modified, distorted, clipped and chopped. It has been proven beyond doubt.

You are confusing cause with effect. We are going to have a cool year not because the oceans have cooled (did you see data from those 3000 Argos buoys in the world’s seas?), but because the sun’s activity has reached all time low activity since the end of the Little Ice Age. Moreover warmers have never showed a single proof or evidence for their claims on AGW –only model projections and prophecies based on their flawed science, dubious correlations and a stubborn dismissal of contrary factual evidences.

What I love is how “solar activity” and “natural change” deniers claim mankind is responsible of climate change based solely in results of their PlayStation® climatology. Expensive video games that are finally showing the last window: “GAME OVER”.

In the “denial game” you must provide facts, not wishful thinking.

Ho, ho. :rolleyes:

Don't you just love the way AGW deniers claim that all those IPCC guys must be all wrong because it's far too complicated for anyone to understand.

Then they tell you how easy it is to understand and explain as a natural variation. And that we're going to have a cold year, thanks to sea surface cooling because this is a well understood climate pattern - by them anyway.

Uh huh.

I think AGW skeptic is a more accurate discription, instead of "denier".

...the sun’s activity has reached all time low activity since the end of the Little Ice Age.As far as I can tell, predictions of a cooling trend "over the next few decades" are not based on anything resembling science, so where did this prediction come from? Is it one of those complicated things that no-one really understands (except you)?

I haven't found a thing that corroborates this cooling, in fact NASA is predicting more sunspots for cycle 24, which starts real soon now. We are, of course, currently at the bottom of the 11-year cycle, so that solar activity is at a minimum.

And that prediction - of more activity, not less, is based on some fairly solid observational methods.