It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Harvey, now proof that AGW is real? Stupid GOP.

page: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 11:48 AM
a reply to: fnpmitchreturns

You are looking at things from a very narrow perspective. Not even 10% of hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico ever make landfall in the US. The vast majority of them born, live their lives, die in the ocean. Just because there hasn't been a big hurricane landing on America doesn't mean their frequency of occurrence decreased.

posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 12:34 PM

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: ScepticScot

I'd have to ask then, what caused the severity of storms in the 1800's? There were a few of them, and they were certainly quite aggressive.

The climate scientists, the same ones who say things like what you mentioned, have been saying that AGW will cause more hurricanes and stronger storms. Yet, that doesn't seem to be the case.

It’s been nearly 12 years, or 4,253 days, since the last major hurricane made landfall in the U.S., which is the longest such period on record.

link to source

There are a lot of factors that affect frequency and severity of storms. Climate change is just one which may or may not have a significant impact on any given storm.

Land fall of 1 category of storm in a relatively short time period is a poor way of understanding the impact. My understanding is that there is some evidence of increased frequency and increased severity but over a fairly short time period due to variance in historical records.

The position of mist climatologists I believe is that it will have an impact as global warming continues but that we are relatively early in this process.

It just seems to me that, there is no actual observable "climate" change happening. Ice caps were supposed to be gone by 2012, remember? Now it's "early in the process?"

Taking a sample from the last +/- 75 years is a really short period, so it would stand to reason that using data collecting in the last +/- 75 years would lead to a poor understanding of climate. So to be clear, record keeping didn't all start at the same time everywhere on earth, nor was there a standard for how the records should be recorded and by which instruments and so on.

So we really only have about 50 years of what should be considered reliable data, but that too is being manipulated by those with financial interest in pushing a narrative. If the planet were getting warmer, it would be getting warmer. Saying it's warmer because you saw a trend of an uptick of 1-3 degrees over an average of the planet is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. Warming temps are all well within standard variance, some years are hotter, some are colder, some have half the globe a few degrees higher than the other half of the globe, then you average the whole globe and that makes the cold places "warmer" when they weren't.

Bottom line is, a few degrees is normal variance, period. Global Cooling turned into Global Warming which then turned into Climate Change, why do you think in the last 40 years this is so?

Because the data set is too small to draw any conclusions, and the variance in actual temperature too small to really quantify. 30 years ago, New York was the same temperature it is today, and so was Florida. It doesn't really matter where you live, you won't have noticed a temperature difference.

Temperature is mainly the product of the distance to the star any given planet is, which as you know -- changes. It's not green house gasses, is our physical position in space and the tilt of the earth. The earth wobbles -- as the earth wobbles different sections become closer to the sun. The Equator is the hottest place on the earth because it's usually the closest to the sun and because of the camber of the earth, more light from the sun, which carries heat, will fall upon it.

Now it's precisely this, for why we went from preaching global cooling, to global warming, and now we just call it Climate Change. To think man is responsible is quite honestly laughable, especially when the scientists who say man is responsible simply ignore all the record high temps from the pre-industrial era that they also acknowledge as true, but offer no explanation for.
edit on 1-9-2017 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 01:11 PM

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: ScepticScot

This is certainly an argument with respect to this particular storm in terms of increased moisture in the atmosphere leads to a greater rainfall than expected.

When you consider the amount of rain that has fallen in Texas you can't simply dismiss this argument - which is of course not the same as saying climate change causes hurricanes (which would be nonsense).

What? You think it's non-sense that climate change would cause hurricanes?

Hurricanes are intense low pressure areas that form over warm ocean waters in the summer and early fall. Their source of energy is water vapor which is evaporated from the ocean surface.

Water vapor is the "fuel" for the hurricanes because it releases the "latent heat of condensation" when it condenses to form clouds and rain, warming the surrounding air. (This heat energy was absorbed by the water vapor when it was evaporated from the warm ocean surface, cooling the ocean in the process.) - NASA

So climate change is "melting the ice caps and warming our oceans!!!!" right? I mean that's what AGW is saying, correct? Hurricanes don't form over cold water, so warm water is the first condition required to start a hurricane. So if AGW was real, it would most certainly increase the frequency and potency of hurricanes. This is why Global Warmists predicted in the early 00's that we'd be having what they call "Super Hurricanes" today -- we haven't had one, and the frequency of which hurricanes form has decreased, and the amount that make land fall plummeted.

For those who want to argue "we have the same or more hurricanes they just don't make land fall" -- that argument is self defeatist. Hurricanes travel the direction they do because of water current and wind current systems, which really don't change. Therefor, if the hurricanes aren't making it to landfall, it's because they aren't as strong, if AGW were true -- they would be stronger because the water would be warmer. I mean this is science, like actual science.

It’s been nearly 12 years, or 4,253 days, since the last major hurricane made landfall in the U.S., which is the longest such period on record. On a global level, accumulated cyclone energy is at its lowest level on record, according to Colorado State University hurricane expert Philip Klotzbach.

12 years. Lowest CYCLONE ENERGY EVER RECORDED GLOBALLY. As we just learned the science into what causes cyclone energy, we can definitively say that Global Warming is NOT occurring. This, is observable and factual. Global Warming is not observable, is not factual, and requires "adjusted" and "averaged" temperatures in order to show any warming at all.

You can't really compare storms from the 1800s in that many areas were new to mass settlement. In simple terms, people at that stage didn't know where was safer to build, etc. They also didn't have long range weather forecasts, satellite data and the like. These factors all lead to greater damage and loss of life.

As if storms are measured by the damage they do? That's not science.
edit on 1-9-2017 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 01:15 PM
CO2 will likely rise to 435 ppm in another decade. That's 55% increase since pre industrial warm era peak of 280 ppm. Warm era peak 280 ppm is 55% increase over glacial era peak of 180 ppm.

posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 01:21 PM

originally posted by: zikzak
CO2 will likely rise to 435 ppm in another decade. That's 55% increase since pre industrial warm era peak of 280 ppm. Warm era peak 280 ppm is 55% increase over glacial era peak of 180 ppm.

You also know what's funny about that -- is that it's only a 55% increase, and the only reason you "likely" predict that to happen [it won't] is because you're comparing glacial era to warm era, which had nothing to do with man at all, and was 55%. So ever since man has created fire, man has been adding C02 to the atmosphere. You want to get the C02 out of the atmosphere? Stop killing all the trees.

Deforestation is the permanent destruction of forests in order to make the land available for other uses. An estimated 18 million acres (7.3 million hectares) of forest, which is roughly the size of the country of Panama, are lost each year, according to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Man producing C02 isn't warming the globe, regardless, if it WERE warming the globe, it's still not the production of C02 that's at fault, it's the destruction of the forests, the natural C02 scrubbers. C02 gets consumed by trees guys. C02 isn't a bad gas.

The answer isn't to stop producing C02, it's to plant more trees.
edit on 1-9-2017 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 02:01 PM
So many scientists...

new topics

top topics
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in