Is Man Made Climate Change Contributing to Extreme Tropical Storms?

[Lord of Planar]

Yes, it's raising the temperature of the water that hurricanes feed on and heating up the high air that feeds tornadoes. It's the particulate matter in the air pollution (our part) that traps the UV rays and heats up the planet.

Then how do you explain as intense storms several decades past?

 

[jet57]

Then how do you explain as intense storms several decades past?

Products of things like el ninos etc: they were far and few between. The warming of the earth is causing bigger storms, with more frequency and higher temperatures.

Texas has decided that it's time to start talking about global warming, so they are finally getting on board. All we have to do is clean up the air the way 1970s Los Angeles finally had to won up and clean up their air; they've done well at it. China is a huge problem now and even they are beginning to see the light, so maybe we can get on the stick and slow this down before we reach the tipping point.

We're gettin cooked.

 

[Middleground]

Let's see...you sent this one after the first one...so I take it you actually bothered to google it, found I was right about them altering historical data, so you just shifted to a NEW tack in order to blindly defend the indefensible. Right? Because...at the end of the day...you are so bought in on the 'cause' you abandon all critical thinking.

Defend the indefensible.

Seriously....it's kinda embarrassing to watch you.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn't because there was no need. You seem to have a tendency to try to put words and actions onto others. It might serve you better to just try to deal with your own.

 

[VanceMack]

I didn't because there was no need. You seem to have a tendency to try to put words and actions onto others. It might serve you better to just try to deal with your own.

Really...cuz that seems like what you did. You demanded proof...then shifted gears like you had proof and instead came up with another excuse.

You SURE thats not what happened?

I bet thats what happened.

 

[Middleground]

Really...cuz that seems like what you did. You demanded proof...then shifted gears like you had proof and instead came up with another excuse.

You SURE thats not what happened?

I bet thats what happened.

You're wrong.

 

[VanceMack]

You're wrong.

If you say so.

 

[Media_Truth]

It MAY come in the future, you have no way of knowing that. Data exists only when it exists. You cannot make predictions about the future when you have no data at present to work with and we have seen, consistently, that people who make doom and gloom predictions about future climate have been wrong time and time again. That's why they have to keep revising their models because their models simply do not accurately represent reality. And that's one of the hallmarks of valid scientific theories, that they make accurate and testable predictions. Climate change has not done that. And you wonder why people are skeptical?

Actually, the models have been very accurate. According to the National Climate Assessment:

It is notable that as these data records have grown longer and climate models have become more comprehensive, earlier predictions have largely been confirmed. The only real surprises have been that some changes, such as sea level rise and Arctic sea ice decline, have outpaced earlier projections.

Overview | National Climate Assessment

 

[blackjack50]

But the most effective solution to the problem is what Moderate Right said. Get rid of 75% of humans and we will have reduced a huge part of the problem. You just don't like the solution, and I don't blame you, but it is the best solution that exists. So you're trying to use stop gap measures that will ultimately fail because it isn't the real problem you're addressing, you're going after the symptoms. The problem is how many people there are.

No. Not true. The other solution is to donate huge sums of money and votes to democrats. That will make climate change go away.



(Sarcasm)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bubbabgone]

Then how do you explain as intense storms several decades past?

Products of things like el ninos etc: they were far and few between.

The warming of the earth is causing bigger storms, with more frequency and higher temperatures.

Texas has decided that it's time to start talking about global warming, so they are finally getting on board. All we have to do is

clean up the air the way 1970s Los Angeles finally had to won up and clean up their air

; they've done well at it. China is a huge problem now and even they are beginning to see the light, so maybe we can get on the stick and slow this down before we reach the tipping point.

We're gettin cooked.

Those "far and few between" [sic] oscillations were and are normal, recurring, cyclical, and have been for thousands of years.
But THIS time, oh yes, THIS time THESE hurricanes were caused by humans.
Call in the anarchists.

And as for Los Angeles, that was air pollution, not CO2.
CO2 is only a pollutant in the Obama EPA world.
Antifa will take care of it.

 

[bubbabgone]

Actually, the models have been very accurate. According to the National Climate Assessment:

It is notable that as these data records have grown longer and climate models have become more comprehensive, earlier predictions have largely been confirmed. The only real surprises have been that some changes, such as sea level rise and Arctic sea ice decline, have outpaced earlier projections.

Overview | National Climate Assessment

How'd they all miss the decade+ warming pause that began around 2000?

 

[apdst]

NASA and NOAA sure think so.

NASA and NOAA have been caught faking the data, so...

Climate change whistleblower alleges NOAA manipulated data to hide global warming 'pause' - Washington Times

 

[apdst]

Ahhhh no, they did not.




Isn't that what scientists do? They find different methods, different clues, more evidence....why is that a problem to you?



LOL.... only when one wears a tin foil hat. Otherwise, there is zero evidence of this.




Wow, Vance... you know it happens all the time, right? Words get twisted and context changes.

Scientists alter historical facts? There's a word for that.

 

[longview]

Oh yeah? Can you send me link that is not from a garbage site like Watt Up with that bull****.

Would MIT work?
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf
Dr. Richard Lindzen, an early IPCC researcher testified before the Senate about how the IPCC
had been editing the Scientist results to imply a higher level of certainty and risk exists.
Lindzen goes into great detail and gives examples IPCC misrepresentations.

 

[apdst]

Would MIT work?
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf
Dr. Richard Lindzen, an early IPCC researcher testified before the Senate about how the IPCC
had been editing the Scientist results to imply a higher level of certainty and risk exists.
Lindzen goes into great detail and gives examples IPCC misrepresentations.

That makes AGW a lie.

 

[Media_Truth]

How'd they all miss the decade+ warming pause that began around 2000?

Your data is from where???

 

[Media_Truth]

Scientists alter historical facts? There's a word for that.

Yeah, it's a big conspiracy. The fossil fuel industry is the only one that can be trusted.:lamo

 

[apdst]

Yeah, it's a big conspiracy. The fossil fuel industry is the only one that can be trusted.:lamo

What are your thoughts on Middleground's claim that scientists alter historical fact?

 

[Media_Truth]

What are your thoughts on Middleground's claim that scientists alter historical fact?

Oil industry propaganda.

I've posted this before. Here is a list of the authors and reviewers of the National Climate Assessment report of 2014. Looks to me like they are intentionally getting a lot of extra involvement, to fend off the exact type of remarks that you and others throw out there.

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/overview/overview
The National Climate Assessment summarizes the impacts of climate change on the United States, now and in the future. A team of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee produced the report, which was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

[apdst]

Oil industry propaganda.

I've posted this before. Here is a list of the authors and reviewers of the National Climate Assessment report of 2014. Looks to me like they are intentionally getting a lot of extra involvement, to fend off the exact type of remarks that you and others throw out there.

Overview | National Climate Assessment
The National Climate Assessment summarizes the impacts of climate change on the United States, now and in the future. A team of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee produced the report, which was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.

Middleground said it. You'll have to take that up with her.

 

[Middleground]

Scientists alter historical facts? There's a word for that.

Yes. Sometimes a better understanding happens. Scientists can draw very different meanings from the same data, I would think. It's called progress.

PS. You're not familiar with "alternate facts?" :lamo

 

[apdst]

Yes. Sometimes a better understanding happens. Scientists can draw very different meanings from the same data, I would think. It's called progress.

PS. You're not familiar with "alternate facts?" :lamo

So, you admit that scientists lie to achieve a desired outcome? And you wonder why we call global warming a hoax? :lamo

 

[Middleground]

So, you admit that scientists lie to achieve a desired outcome? And you wonder why we call global warming a hoax? :lamo

No, I did not.

 

[apdst]

No, I did not.

You said they alter historical fact. Altering the facts is what's commonly known as a lie.

 

[jet57]

Those "far and few between" [sic] oscillations were and are normal, recurring, cyclical, and have been for thousands of years.
But THIS time, oh yes, THIS time THESE hurricanes were caused by humans.
Call in the anarchists.

And as for Los Angeles, that was air pollution, not CO2.
CO2 is only a pollutant in the Obama EPA world.
Antifa will take care of it.

Your post is ridiculous. You know nothing about big storms thousands of years ago. The science is in: global warming is real phenomenon and our part in it is effecting the latitude where we live.

I defy you to prove otherwise.

 

[Moderate Right]

Your post is ridiculous. You know nothing about big storms thousands of years ago. The science is in: global warming is real phenomenon and our part in it is effecting the latitude where we live.

I defy you to prove otherwise.

I defy you to definitely prove that man is a major player in global warming. All you have is circumstantial evidence. Just because it's been getting worse over the last few decades may only be coincidental to fossil fuel emissions and you can't prove what percentage man is responsible for. As I said in another post, we have many more M&M's over the last few decades. Does that prove that M&M's are the cause of global warming? The left jumps to conclusions to serve their own agenda.