Global warming's effect on hurricane strength disputed in new report

bootlegger10

suffragette wrote:

The Great Lakes are losing water. Lake Erie will soon look like it did when the first settlers arrived. Global warming baby.

I don't get your point here. Have we been part of "Global Cooling" since the settlers came? If we are where we were at when the settlers came, why is that a big deal?

world

Too many cave fires caused the first ice age. Those cavemen were warned by "Thor Gore" and his cave paintings that proved that Cave Fire = Ice soon. Nobody listened to him because he lost the last cave election to the cave drunk, had no friends, and talked with a cave-whisp. After that they had an Ice Age.

Bu2

by Jeff Long.

Just do it.

Thanks, peace, out.

Bu2

but it was still a good read....

What I meant to say was: Read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton, instead.

know1

EvilToasterElf wrote:

Measuring the strength of hurricanes in the ocean, hundreds of miles from any equipment, and checking the mercury on a thermometer are completely different things.

But measuring temperature all around the globe is probably just a wee bit more consistent now than it was 100 years ago. And before that...it's all just a guess. And 100 years ain't a really good scientifically relevant sample.

world

I tend to go against the herd of sheeple. If I see Hollywood and MTV warning us that global warming is our fault, I will question that. I guess im a little more skeptic then most people. No matter how many movies are made.

Just like after F9/11 was released. Sure, I think Bush is a retard, but it doesnt mean I should trust a propaganda flick to be all truth. I think Bush is a jackass, but it doesnt mean I cant think Moore is a jackass too.

Abookamongstthemany

world wrote:

I tend to go against the herd of sheeple. If I see Hollywood and MTV warning us that global warming is our fault, I will question that. I guess im a little more skeptic then most people. No matter how many movies are made.

Just like after F9/11 was released. Sure, I think Bush is a retard, but it doesnt mean I should trust a propaganda flick to be all truth. I think Bush is a jackass, but it doesnt mean I cant think Moore is a jackass too.

just a different group of sheeple, as far as i can see.

EvilToasterElf

know1 wrote:

But measuring temperature all around the globe is probably just a wee bit more consistent now than it was 100 years ago. And before that...it's all just a guess. And 100 years ain't a really good scientifically relevant sample.

The processes involved are overpopulation and industrialization - we didn't start taxing the limits of our resources before 200 years ago - the mechanisms for the massive amounts of pollutants and chemicals spewed into the air weren't around 100 years ago - so the fact that we can measure an increase - according to data from samples around the world unaffected by human pollution in the deep sea beds and ice core samples in fact make it extremely relevant.

Of course there will always be doubt, we don't have processers powerful enough to track every air molecule on Earth yet, but the temperature readings are simple and sound, it's not taking an entire Earth temperature - it's collecting specific readings from thousands if not hundreds of thousands of places around the globe and scientifically analyzing the data to find an indisputable warming trend for 100 years which is unparalelled in any samples we've found dating back hundreds of thousands of years

sourdough

know1 wrote:

I believe the fact tha we're measuring differently now contributes to those so-called warmest years on record.

Valid point, but we do have a record of CO2 that goes back 650000 years and they by using other types of evidences ie. glacier activity, tree ring analysis, core samples etc, we can get a pretty decent idea of the the fluxuations in temperature.

sourdough

world wrote:

I tend to go against the herd of sheeple. If I see Hollywood and MTV warning us that global warming is our fault, I will question that. I guess im a little more skeptic then most people. No matter how many movies are made.

Just like after F9/11 was released. Sure, I think Bush is a retard, but it doesnt mean I should trust a propaganda flick to be all truth. I think Bush is a jackass, but it doesnt mean I cant think Moore is a jackass too.

So are you asserting that those scientists collecting the data are also just sheep who's research is shaped by Hollywood? If you can dispute the science or have a problem with its findings, than that is a valid reason for being a skeptic, but because so and so said something so you must believe the opposite is not persuasive. I've studied the phenomenon and read the studies and this is where I get informed. I don't even have a TV, so I'm not sure how I'm a sheep.

world

sourdough wrote:

So are you asserting that those scientists collecting the data are also just sheep who's research is shaped by Hollywood? If you can dispute the science or have a problem with its findings, than that is a valid reason for being a skeptic, but because so and so said something so you must believe the opposite is not persuasive. I've studied the phenomenon and read the studies and this is where I get informed. I don't even have a TV, so I'm not sure how I'm a sheep.

Well, I see a movie poster that has an image of a smoke-stack creating a hurricane. Then I see a information on the AP from the National Hurricane Center that increased strength of hurricanes over recent years to global warming have been false.

hmmm, trust the AP/National Hurricane Center or trust a movie?

monkey spanker

"trust the AP/National Hurricane Center or trust a movie?"

well if you look at it like that..sure. but its a movie by a big liberal, and he hates bush, and the movie is negative about the U.S....so it has to be right.