• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ – Bel

Re: NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ –

Since Co2 is a well mixed gas, and the Physics that supposedly causes the greenhouse warming is based on the
amount of CO2, why would you think it would be different.
As for Citation,
They go all the way back to Arrhenius in 1896
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
Table VII page 266.

Because climate is different in different areas of the globe?
Because Antarctica is generally substantially below freezing, and bringing temperatures up dramatically to just below freezing will not melt ice?
Because climate science is a whole lot more complex than you reading a paper that uses the phrase 'well mixed gas' and then pretending that sounds scientific or something?
Because the citation I was asking for was the claim that CO2 has no effect, only particulates, when its pretty much scientific consensus that warming is causing glacier melt worldwide?
 
Re: NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ –

Mother Nature and Comey - get with the talking points man!!!

Wow... What a man... to be friends with Mother Nature!
 
Re: NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ –

(Citation needed - other than citations randomly pulled out of your ass)

There are several papers on the effects.

Haven't you read any, or do you only read the material the alarmist pundits present?
 
Re: NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ –

Because climate is different in different areas of the globe?
Because Antarctica is generally substantially below freezing, and bringing temperatures up dramatically to just below freezing will not melt ice?
Because climate science is a whole lot more complex than you reading a paper that uses the phrase 'well mixed gas' and then pretending that sounds scientific or something?
Because the citation I was asking for was the claim that CO2 has no effect, only particulates, when its pretty much scientific consensus that warming is causing glacier melt worldwide?
Lets evaluate what was said and see.
In post #24, You responded to LOP statement ,
Originally Posted by Lord of Planar
The influence of CO2 is equal at each pole, at least equal regarding the extra back radiation from the emitted radiation. The problem is that the warmers like to assign the northern melt to CO2, when it is actually insignificant. Aerosols are the leading problem.
by saying
(Citation needed - other than citations randomly pulled out of your ass)
LOP correctly stated that the influence of CO2 is equal at each pole, in regards to the extra back radiation caused from CO2's greenhouse effect.
He further went on to describe why he thought the asymmetry exists between the poles, when the physics says CO2's effect should be the same.
He would be correct in stating that something other than CO2 is responsible for the asymmetry, as the CO2 levels are the same in both places,
I.E. CO2 is a well mixed gas.
The principal point of LOP statement is that the CO2 effects should be the same at both poles,
In support of that I cited Arrhenius's 1896 paper showing that very finding.
 
Re: NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ –

See why I don't waste time with Goofs...
 
Re: NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ –

There are several papers on the effects.

Haven't you read any, or do you only read the material the alarmist pundits present?

I'm sure there are.

But I guarantee that there is NO paper that says that they are the predominant effects, and/or that AGW has no role.

There are also loads of papers on the fact that AGW is playing a major role in glacial melt. But I guess you dont subscribe to those journals. Cause you only get one. Or two. Maybe a half dozen, but up to 50. Somewhere in there.
 
Re: NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ –

Lets evaluate what was said and see.
In post #24, You responded to LOP statement ,

by saying

LOP correctly stated that the influence of CO2 is equal at each pole, in regards to the extra back radiation caused from CO2's greenhouse effect.
He further went on to describe why he thought the asymmetry exists between the poles, when the physics says CO2's effect should be the same.
He would be correct in stating that something other than CO2 is responsible for the asymmetry, as the CO2 levels are the same in both places,
I.E. CO2 is a well mixed gas.
The principal point of LOP statement is that the CO2 effects should be the same at both poles,
In support of that I cited Arrhenius's 1896 paper showing that very finding.

No. His principal point is that CO2 has the same effect on both poles, so therefore it has nothing to do with glacial melt.

Thats an absurd statement.
 
Re: NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ –

No. His principal point is that CO2 has the same effect on both poles, so therefore it has nothing to do with glacial melt.

Thats an absurd statement.
It is not glacial melt, but actual observed temperatures.
The warming caused from CO2's greenhouse effect should be the same at both poles,
because the level of CO2 is the same at both poles.
Yet the observed warming is vastly different in the polar regions, Even GISS says so.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt
Let's see,
64N to 90N average of 1880 to 1890 to 2005 to 2015 average = 2.99C of warming
64S to 90S average of 1880 to 1890 to 2005 to 2015 average = .304 C of warming
Gee, the northern polar region warmed over 9 times faster then the southern polar region with the same increase in CO2 levels.
If as Arrhenius showed in his 1896 paper CO2 should have an almost equal effect at the poles,
then something other than CO2 must be causing the greater than 9 times asymmetry between the two.
 
Re: NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ –

I'm sure there are.

But I guarantee that there is NO paper that says that they are the predominant effects, and/or that AGW has no role.

There are also loads of papers on the fact that AGW is playing a major role in glacial melt. But I guess you dont subscribe to those journals. Cause you only get one. Or two. Maybe a half dozen, but up to 50. Somewhere in there.

OK, we disagree.

Can you link us just one paper I disagree with? How many times must I ask you guys that claim I disagree with the scientists?

Again, it's how the pundits you listen to that I disagree with. Not the actual papers.

Please either "put up, or shut up."
 
Re: NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ –

No. His principal point is that CO2 has the same effect on both poles, so therefore it has nothing to do with glacial melt.

Thats an absurd statement.

LOL...

You lack of comprehension is so damn comical!
 
Re: NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ –

It is not glacial melt, but actual observed temperatures.
The warming caused from CO2's greenhouse effect should be the same at both poles,
because the level of CO2 is the same at both poles.
Yet the observed warming is vastly different in the polar regions, Even GISS says so.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt
Let's see,
64N to 90N average of 1880 to 1890 to 2005 to 2015 average = 2.99C of warming
64S to 90S average of 1880 to 1890 to 2005 to 2015 average = .304 C of warming
Gee, the northern polar region warmed over 9 times faster then the southern polar region with the same increase in CO2 levels.
If as Arrhenius showed in his 1896 paper CO2 should have an almost equal effect at the poles,
then something other than CO2 must be causing the greater than 9 times asymmetry between the two.

I have no faith that he will ever understand science...
 
Re: NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ –

OK, we disagree.

Can you link us just one paper I disagree with? How many times must I ask you guys that claim I disagree with the scientists?

Again, it's how the pundits you listen to that I disagree with. Not the actual papers.

Please either "put up, or shut up."

Wait.

YOU claim that particulates are the main source of glacial melt, and cite your 'extensive reading' of articles.

And now you whine that I'm not producing articles you disagree with.

Why not support your pulled-out-of-your-ass statements first?
 
Re: NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ –

Wait.

YOU claim that particulates are the main source of glacial melt, and cite your 'extensive reading' of articles.

And now you whine that I'm not producing articles you disagree with.

Why not support your pulled-out-of-your-ass statements first?

Because I have provided several links in the past already on the norther melting of ice. Several on the ice around Antarctica. Geothermal hotpots, soot, etc.

You claim I disagree with the scientists.

I say I don't. If I disagree with the scientists, it should be easy for you to link a paper I disagree with.

I think it's your turn to link an actual paper, instead of the main page of the IPCC.
 
Re: NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ –

Because I have provided several links in the past already on the norther melting of ice. Several on the ice around Antarctica. Geothermal hotpots, soot, etc.

You claim I disagree with the scientists.

I say I don't. If I disagree with the scientists, it should be easy for you to link a paper I disagree with.

I think it's your turn to link an actual paper, instead of the main page of the IPCC.

Can't support your position.

Noted.
 
Re: NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ –

Can't support your position.

Noted.

I refuse your attempts to make me feel insane.

As many here know, one definition of insanity include repeating the same actions over and over trying to get different results.

Why should I keep providing papers you will ignore? You have ignored all I have presented in the past. I most certainly don't expect you to do anything but continue to be a denier of science.

That's why I ask you to show me a paper I disagree with. It's a different tactic, which you are proving once again... you are flaking out of.

That's OK.

I don't expect anything reasonable from you.
 
Re: NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ –

I refuse your attempts to make me feel insane.

As many here know, one definition of insanity include repeating the same actions over and over trying to get different results.

Why should I keep providing papers you will ignore? You have ignored all I have presented in the past. I most certainly don't expect you to do anything but continue to be a denier of science.

That's why I ask you to show me a paper I disagree with. It's a different tactic, which you are proving once again... you are flaking out of.

That's OK.

I don't expect anything reasonable from you.

You were asked to show a paper that states particulates were the major cause of glacial melt.

You can't do it.

So you whine about something else.

Noted.
 
Re: NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ –

You were asked to show a paper that states particulates were the major cause of glacial melt.

You can't do it.

So you whine about something else.

Noted.
LOL...

Whatever.
 
Re: NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ –

You were asked to show a paper that states particulates were the major cause of glacial melt.

You can't do it.

So you whine about something else.

Noted.
There have been a few studies on Black Carbon.
Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon : Abstract : Nature Geoscience
emissions of black carbon are the second strongest contribution to current global warming, after carbon dioxide emissions.
In the Himalayan region, solar heating from black carbon at high elevations may be just as important as carbon dioxide in the melting of snowpacks and glaciers.
 
Re: NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ –

In other words, black carbon is NOT the primary driver of glacier melt.
Actually we do not have a quantifiable way of measuring what is responsible for the observed warming, or the glacial melt.
 
Re: NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ –

Actually we do not have a quantifiable way of measuring what is responsible for the observed warming, or the glacial melt.

Yet you just posted this sentence:
emissions of black carbon are the second strongest contribution to current global warming, after carbon dioxide emissions.

as evidence!!
 
Re: NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ –

Yet you just posted this sentence:


as evidence!!
The researchers have ideas, our ability to actually have a measurable cause and effect relationship establish is very limited.
The CO2 warming should effect both poles the same, that is what the physics says.
So since the northern pole is warming at more than 9 times the rate of the southern pole, other effects are at play.
 
Re: NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ –

Yet you just posted this sentence:


as evidence!!

That is the words of the IPCC, which we all know are wrong about several things, favoring CO2 as the culprit over almost everything else.
 
Re: NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ –

That is the words of the IPCC, which we all know are wrong about several things, favoring CO2 as the culprit over almost everything else.

As opposed to the real scientists with no formal education and who 'analyze' other peoples data from their armchairs?
 
Re: NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ –

But that's not the case.

Glaciers are melting, some quite rapidly. Hurricane intensity is increasing worldwide- The deniers pretend the only hurricanes that exist are ones that make US landfall.

Tornados are somewhat down- the numbers in the OP reflect a guess as to how much, but that's what happens with short term runs of uncommon weather events.

The predictions are pretty spot on overall, but I guess when you can pretend the outlier predictions are the standard, you can rationalize anything to yourself and your denier buddies.

Nope.

Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity: Geophys. Res. Lett. (2011), Abstract:

Tropical cyclone accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) has exhibited strikingly large global interannual variability during the past 40-years. In the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low. Here evidence is presented demonstrating that considerable variability in tropical cyclone ACE is associated with the evolution of the character of observed large-scale climate mechanisms including the El Nino Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. In contrast to record quiet North Pacific tropical cyclone activity in 2010, the North Atlantic basin remained very active by contributing almost one-third of the overall calendar year global ACE.

Since this was published ACE has returned to somewhat above the 60 year mean while frequency is down a bit.
 

Attachments

  • global_major_freq.jpg
    global_major_freq.jpg
    21.9 KB · Views: 19
Back
Top Bottom