Take a look at all the records of climate change for 2013..

page: 3
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by 727Sky
 




The last major hurricane to strike the US was Hurricane Wilma during late October of that record-breaking year of 2005


I'm confused by this assertion.

Wasn't Hurricane Sandy a 'major hurricane'?

(from Wikipedia)

Hurricane Sandy was the deadliest and most destructive hurricane of the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season, as well as the second-costliest hurricane in United States history. Classified as the eighteenth named storm, tenth hurricane and second major hurricane of the year, Sandy was a Category 3 storm at its peak intensity when it made landfall in Cuba.


A quick summary of Hurricane seasons since 2005 (all from Wikipedia; search '20yy Atlantic Hurricane Season):




  • The 2006 Atlantic hurricane season was significantly less active than the record previous season. It marked the first since 2001 in which no hurricanes made landfall in the United States, and was the first since 1994 that no tropical cyclones formed during October.
  • The 2007 Atlantic hurricane season was an active Atlantic hurricane season that produced 17 tropical cyclones, 15 tropical storms, six hurricanes, and two major hurricanes.
  • The 2008 Atlantic hurricane season was a very active hurricane season with sixteen named storms formed, including eight that became hurricanes and five that became major hurricanes.
  • The 2009 Atlantic hurricane season was a below-average Atlantic hurricane season that produced eleven tropical cyclones, nine named storms, three hurricanes, and two major hurricanes.
  • The 2010 Atlantic hurricane season was the third most active Atlantic hurricane season on record, tying with the 1887, 1995, 2011, and 2012 Atlantic hurricane seasons. It had the most number of named storms since the 2005 season and also ties with the 1969 Atlantic hurricane season for the second largest number of hurricanes. In addition, the activity in the north Atlantic in 2010 exceeded the activity in the northwest Pacific Typhoon season. The only other known time this event happened was in 2005.
  • The 2011 Atlantic hurricane season is tied with 1887, 1995, 2010, and the following 2012 season for the third highest number of named storms since record-keeping began in 1851...During the month of September, Tropical Storm Lee and Hurricane Nate moved into the central United States Gulf Coast and central Mexico, respectively; the former led to 18 deaths, and the latter 5 deaths. As an extratropical cyclone, Lee caused significant damage in the form of flooding across the Northeast United States, especially in New York and Pennsylvania.
  • The 2012 Atlantic hurricane season was extremely active, tied with 1887, 1995, 2010, and 2011 for having the third-most named storms on record...Impact during the 2012 season was widespread and significant. In mid-May, Beryl moved ashore the coastline of Florida, causing 3 deaths. In late June and early August, Tropical Storm Debby and Hurricane Ernesto caused 10 and 13 deaths after striking Florida and the Yucatán, respectively. In mid-August, the remnants of Tropical Storm Helene killed two people after making landfall in Mexico. At least 41 deaths and $2.39 billion[nb 1] were attributed to Hurricane Isaac, which struck Louisiana on two separate occasions in late August. However, by far the costliest and deadliest cyclone of the season was Hurricane Sandy, which formed on October 22. After striking Cuba at Category 3 intensity on the Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale, the hurricane moved ashore the southern coastline of New Jersey. Sandy left 286 dead and $68 billion worth of damage in its wake, making it the second-costliest Atlantic hurricane on record, behind only Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Collectively, the season's storms caused at least 355 fatalities and nearly $70.9 billion in damage, making 2012 the deadliest season since 2008 and the costliest since 2005.



(it looks like the author of the articles stopped identifying 'major hurricanes' in the summary in 2010)

How in blazes can the assertion that no 'major hurricane has struck the U.S. since 2005' be justified? Somebody is trying to pull somebody's leg here.




posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 02:22 AM
link   
With snow in China last month, and snow in Bavaria, plus South Dakota, I'm thinking a cold winter is on its way, so I am stocking up on food once more, global warming, global cooling, climate change, climate warming, climate cooling,
whatever, I blame on hot air people keep expelling over CO2, too much, too little, cows farting (which they don't, they belch, due to FOUR stomachs) There is no absolute proof either way.



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 

They defined major hurricane as being cat 3,4, or 5


Finally, another interesting stat with respect to hurricanes has to do with the fact that we are currently in the longest period since the Civil War Era without a major hurricane strike in the US (i.e., category 3, 4 or 5). The last major hurricane to strike the US was Hurricane Wilma during late October of that record-breaking year of 2005 - let’s hope this historic stretch continues. By the way, just as a point of comparison, in 1954 the US was hit by 3 major hurricanes in less than 10 weeks.



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by 727Sky
 




Antarctica set a third All-Time Record for sea ice extent while the US federal government was “shutdown”. Data here.

Extent of sea ice. That means the area of sea ice grew. How thick is that sea ice? How much mass? How much of the total mass of ice does Antarctic sea ice make up? Does it approach the amount of land ice?


Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year−1, respectively.

www.sciencemag.org...
The ice mass in East Antarctica increased by 14 gigatons. The ice mass in West Antarctica and the Antarctic Penninsula decreased by a total of 85 gigatons. A net loss of 71 gigatons. 71 billion tons of ice from three regions of Antarctica. Gone.


Estimates of recent changes in Antarctic land ice (see above) range from losing 100 gigatons/year to over 300 gigatons/year. Because 360 gigatons/year represents an annual sea level rise of 1 mm/year, recent estimates indicate a contribution of between 0.27 mm/year and 0.83 mm/year coming from Antarctica. There is of course uncertainty in the estimations methods but multiple different types of measurement techniques (explained here) all show the same thing, Antarctica is losing land ice as a whole, and these losses are accelerating quickly.

www.wunderground.com...
Between 100 and 300 billion tons of land ice melting a year. What's the mass of that sea ice that "grew"? I bet if you look you can find out. I bet if you look you can find out whether there is a net loss or gain of ice in the Antarctic. I bet you're not going to look.
edit on 10/19/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by 727Sky
 


They defined major hurricane as being cat 3,4, or 5
So. Have there been any major hurricanes which did not strike the US in that time period? Or is it only the US which is of concern? Is there some agenda behind the cherry picking?
edit on 10/19/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by saintsfan
 


I'm sure you're right saintsfan, the planet will survive almost unscathed.
A few hundred years after we've wiped ourselves out by polluting the air, soil and water, earth will be healed of our infestation.

mistersmith.

PS. "Global Warming" is a silly phrase, places like England are NOT getting warmer, but colder and wetter in summer, milder and wetter in winter. "Climate Change" is a better term.



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Just to echo what Phage said, when people are talking about sea ice, you have to remember there is a key difference between 'extent' and 'mass'. Yes, the extent of sea ice is up this year on last year, but all of that ice is incredibly thin and will vanish in the first big storm of the season. The mass readings all continue to drop off dramatically.

You cannot say 'sea ice extent has increased therefore there is no global warming', because the mass is dropping, ergo, there is warming.



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Phage
And let's not forget that the summer of 2012 was the hottest summer on record for the USA, by a long shot.

What year was the previous record? Was it used as evidence for climate change? And what about the record before that, was that used as climate change? and what about the one before that......

Records are proof of nothing because the earth has been creating records since day one!



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by 727Sky
 


They defined major hurricane as being cat 3,4, or 5
So. Have there been any major hurricanes which did not strike the US in that time period? Or is it only the US which is of concern? Is there some agenda behind the cherry picking?
edit on 10/19/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


I thought of that too. The typhoons this year have been big massive affairs; but do they fall out of a hockey stick graph like the temps did with a long ago IPCC temp forecast that some would rather forget?.

The sea ice thickness is another thing that needs to be weighed (pun) when area is discussed. There are many variables that one can grasp if the point is to cherry pick. If an ice age is coming ( some have said it is since the 60s- 70s ) then as I pointed out in another thread the consequences will be much more dire for humankind.

One thing most can agree on is, climate is not static, but in our record keeping memory it still falls within certain parameters with the dust bowl, droughts and flooding being all part of an occasional extreme cycle.

The IPCC report kinda leaves a bad taste when considered due to reported shenanigans and incomplete data fed to computer models from the very first report until the last. Is it a big oil conspiracy; I have read it both ways?

Climate Study: Evidence Leans Against Human-Caused Global Warming


On Tuesday, a group of 50 international scientists released a comprehensive new report on the science of climate change that concluded that evidence now leans against global warming resulting from human-related greenhouse gas emissions. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, or NIPCC, which produced the report, is described as "an international panel of scientists and scholars who came together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change." Unlike the "United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is government-sponsored, politically motivated, and predisposed to believing that climate change is a problem in need of a U.N. solution," NIPCC "has no formal attachment to or sponsorship from any government or governmental agency" and is "wholly independent of political pressures and influences and therefore is not predisposed to produce politically motivated conclusions or policy recommendations."


This stuff is like going to one fire and brimstone church that says everyone else who is not of their faith is going to hell.. You will never know anything else as long as it is the only church you go to. In other words if all is read comes from pro climate change articles you will feel safe in your beliefs even if they are wrong. Many disparaging voices outside the IPCC..


In Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, which The Heartland Institute published and released on Tuesday, lead authors Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer worked with a team of scientists to produce a 1,200-page report that is "comprehensive, objective, and faithful to the scientific method." They found that even "if the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide were to double," whatever "warming may occur would likely be modest and cause no net harm to the global environment or to human well-being."


Don't worry though the Global Warming/Climate change folks at the U.N. will find something else to blame on man if man made CO2 effects are proven wrong. It will take your money to fix too.


NIPCC's findings "point toward several policy recommendations quite different from those that have come from the IPCC and its related agencies, bureaus, and commissions at the United Nations," and they include: taking into account "long-term trends" in climate science; seeking out advice from "independent, nongovernment organizations and scientists who are free of financial and political conflicts of interest"; allowing individual nations to "take charge of setting their own climate policies based upon the hazards that apply to their particular geography, geology, weather, and culture"; and recognizing "the theoretical hazard of dangerous human-caused global warming is but one small part of a much wider climate hazard," which is as much a "geological as it is a meteorological issue."

The study's authors conclude that "atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is a mild greenhouse gas that exerts a diminishing warming effect as its concentration increases" and even "doubling the concentration of atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial level, in the absence of other forcings and feedbacks, would likely cause a warming of ~0.3 to 1.1°C, almost 50% of which must already have occurred." Further, the study found that "a few tenths of a degree of additional warming, should it occur, would not represent a climate crisis" because, over recent geological time, the earth's "temperature has fluctuated naturally between about +4°C and -6°C with respect to twentieth century temperature. A warming of 2°C above today, should it occur, falls within the bounds of natural variability."

In light of these findings, which are "stated plainly and repeated in thousands of articles in the peer-reviewed literature" that are not "fringe," the authors emphasize that policymakers "should resist pressure from lobby groups to silence scientists who question the authority of the IPCC to claim to speak for 'climate science.'"

www.breitbart.com... rming



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by 727Sky
 



Weather is the state of the atmosphere, to the degree that it is hot or cold, wet or dry, calm or stormy, clear or cloudy.[1] Most weather phenomena occur in the troposphere,[2][3] just below the stratosphere. Weather generally refers to day-to-day temperature and precipitation activity, whereas climate is the term for the average atmospheric conditions over longer periods of time.[4]


Climate is the pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods. Climate can be contrasted to weather, which is the present condition of these variables over shorter periods.



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by 727Sky
 


When are people going to realize that the Earth is in a precarious state!? The planet has a fever, and if we don't love our mother, we will wipe ourselves out!

The only solution is for us all to pay more taxes, because as we all know, the best way to alleviate a fever is to throw money at it ( or more accurately, at the Global warming activists). Once we have paid more money in taxes, MUCH more than we currently do, and have been forced by federal law to purchase carbon credits (primarily from Al Gore), the planet will then begin to heal. It is so obvious!

It has been scientifically proven that money, when taken from the working class of the world (mostly those of the United States), causes a change in the core of the planet, which will then permeate throughout the entire Earth, making the atmosphere clean itself and close all holes in the Ozone Layer.

The repaired Ozone Layer will, in turn, shower happy sparkles around the globe, reducing hate crime and the urge to purchase firearms, which will lead to less war and more understanding among humans, as well as priority mailed solutions to all of our personal issues within 6 to 8 weeks.

In fact, Al Gore's personal wealth has been linked directly with the health of the planet; the richer he becomes, the healthier the Earth is. There's no point in debating it, it's science.

Each earthquake, volcanic eruption and hurricane have been PROVEN to be the demands of the Earth for more money. If we don't meet those demands, we're doomed.

It is time to face the facts, people. The sky IS falling, and we need to listen to Chicken Little before it's too late.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm going to buy carbon credits and then email my Congressional representatives to get them to force through all Eco-Bills immediately, then I'll get rid of all of my personal belongings and move into a cave (as long as the cave is not already inhabited by one of our brethren, the animals) and avoid any temptation to go back to my evil ways.



/Sarcasm



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 




Records are proof of nothing because the earth has been creating records since day one!

Yes and for the past 60 there have been far more all time high temperature records set than all time low temperatures.

Not proof, but it (along with other things) tends to point toward a warming trend.



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by 727Sky
 


i think these numbers are misleading. i know people want simple answers but climate isn't simple.

there may be fewer tornadoes but what about the overall strength? where is that data?

fewer wildfires.... sure, okay.... but the ones we had were the most destructive. it was like multiple fires at once. you can say there were fewer fires but a large building burning down is not the same as a small shack burning down.

sorry, i'm not buying your numbers as proof that climate change isn't happening.



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by pasiphae
 


It would be interesting to see how much farther out from norms of previous years as well. Of course scorched ground from previous years won't burn. I think the data is fine but it is very selective data used to paint an obfuscated picture.

And Sky, just a heads up... you should check on all the contributing scientists of the IPCC and see if it fits what denier blogs want you to think about the IPCC.



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by pasiphae
 


It would be interesting to see how much farther out from norms of previous years as well. Of course scorched ground from previous years won't burn. I think the data is fine but it is very selective data used to paint an obfuscated picture.

And Sky, just a heads up... you should check on all the contributing scientists of the IPCC and see if it fits what denier blogs want you to think about the IPCC.


Explain what you mean about scorched ground from previous years not burning, please. Every year they burn off the old growth in the Flint Hills. That scorched ground burns just fine. They also burn off the stubble from fields. That burns just fine year after year, too. If you're talking about the massive build up of deadfall that those wildfires burn off that accumulates through years of forestry mismanagement, then I would agree with you that those kinds of build-ups can only burn once in a blue moon as they accumulate.

And "deniers"? That's close to a slur the way it often gets used. I don't think anyone of any intelligence can deny that climate changes over time. The real quibble is what if any mankind's overall contribution to the global party may be and if it's significant enough to warrant deconstructing and obstructing sectors of the global economy to the detriment of mankind as a whole as well as the type of social engineering that hasn't worked at a national level let alone on a global one as is being proposed. Every time it has been tried, millions have suffered and died for it.



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by 727Sky
 

The NIPCC refutes five “claims” of the IPCC. These are, in fact, straw man arguments.

IPCC Claim #1: Unusual melting is occurring in mountain glaciers, Arctic sea ice and polar icecaps.
No. The IPCC says nothing about whether the decrease is “unusual” or ‘unnatural”. It says that the rate of ice loss has increased in the past four decades. The IPCC makes it quite clear that in some cases the loss of ice is not well understood while in others, it is. The IPCC says that it likely that the loss of ice is due in great part to human influences. It does not deny that there are also natural factors.
 


IPCC Claim #2: Global sea level is rising at an enhanced rate and swamping tropical coral atolls.
No. The IPCC makes no claim that global sea levels are rising “at an enhanced rate”. It does discuss regions of enhanced sea level increase due to changes in ocean circulation. It distinguishes these changes from those caused by thermal expansion and loss of land ice.
The IPCC does not claim that coral atolls are being swamped.
 


IPCC Claim #3: Droughts, floods, and monsoon variability and intensity are increasing.
No. The IPCC does not claim that. The IPCC has low confidence that there has been an increase in intensity and/or duration of drought in the past decades. The IPCC does not address flooding at all but it does find that heavy precipitation events have increased. The IPCC has low confidence that monsoon variability and intensity have increased.
 


IPCC Claim #4: Global warming is leading to more, or more intense, wildfires, rainfall, storms, hurricanes, and other extreme weather events.
No. The IPCC makes no such claim.
 


IPCC Claim #5: Unusual melting of Boreal permafrost or sub-seabed gas hydrates is causing warming due to methane release.
No. The IPCC makes no such claim.
 

So what’s the deal? Why does the “NIPCC” have to make things up about what the IPCC actually says? Didn’t they read the report?



nipccreport.com...
www.climatechange2013.org...



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 




And "deniers"? That's close to a slur the way it often gets used. I don't think anyone of any intelligence can deny that climate changes over time.


You understand that scientific consensus is that global warming induced climate change is manmade, a person that disagrees is denying the consensus. I'm not sure why that offends anyone. It's also a quick way to define a position since, oddly enough there's more than one position to have on this issue.

Sincerely,
Libtard
Alarmist
Globalist
AGW Faithful
Greenie Weenie


The real quibble is what if any mankind's overall contribution to the global party may be and if it's significant enough to warrant deconstructing and obstructing sectors of the global economy to the detriment of mankind as a whole as well as the type of social engineering that hasn't worked at a national level let alone on a global one as is being proposed. Every time it has been tried, millions have suffered and died for it.


NOTHING warrants being used as an economic weapon. A government or governments choosing to use something as such does not make it unreal and if thought about in larger terms than Al Gore personally raising your taxes to build churches to himself... you might see that doing nothing is in fact the greater economic weapon, that climate change much like every other negative social state of being (starvation, slavery, crime etc...) disportionately affects the poor, now factor that out to third world nations and see where I'm going with this.

Oh and I meant areas that have been burned to the ground, which may smolder and even ignite but won't be a raging wildfire or count toward measured acreage... afaik know anyway.
edit on 19-10-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2013 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by 727Sky
 


Sandy was Category 3.





top topics
 
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join