Forbes: Global Warming: Hot Sensations versus Cold Facts

[Skins24]

I would have no issues with you writing "negligible". You wrote "absolutely nothing to do with it".

I was talking in generalities, nevertheless...

"Negligible: Not significant or important enough to be worth considering"

I wrote it had absolutely nothing to do with it...because simply....it had nothing to do with it. What exactly are you disputing and why?

Those words mean different things.

No they don't. Well, at least in this case they don't.

Being on the same page about the meaning of words is what allows people to engage in a meaningful communication. Looks like you and I are not destined to engage in that.

That is because you refuse truth or facts if it doesn't align with your beliefs. Instead of listening to people who know what they're talking about you would rather believe a propaganda video (even though in this case there is no video or article or anything that is disputing what I said...only you. You're doing it simply because I believe something different that you even though facts are presented.) You rejecting something that's truthful simply because it came from someone with different beliefs than you shows your willingness to engage in meaningful conversation.

**

"Hey Skins24, aren't you doing the same thing!?"

lol, not at all.

My whole issue as far as gw and gcc is the ridiculous predictions and stuff being made based on nothing but conjectures. The earth is able to recover from natural disasters of historic proportions. Though it may take a little longer in very few cases (nukes, nuclear accidents,) it also recovers from manmade disasters of historic proportions which are no where near the energy, destruction, and environmental impact caused by natural disasters. I have yet to see any evidence the earth will not be able to withstand or recover from any impact humans are having on our environment.

Yes for the sake of biospheric health and safety we should minimize our impact as much as we can! But that's where the discussion should end. Thinking the Earth will start spinning upside down or switching places with Mars or whatever the current global warming theories are, because of what we're doing, is ridiculous.

[alexey]

I was talking in generalities, nevertheless...

...

Thinking the Earth will start spinning upside down or switching places with Mars or whatever the current global warming theories are, because of what we're doing, is ridiculous.

Great stuff. I am not interested in talking in generalities with somebody who is not even aware of the current state of climate change science.

[Skins24]

Great stuff. I am not interested in talking in generalities with somebody who is not even aware of the current state of climate change science.

What are you talking about? Did you even read my post? I'm not even quite sure how to respond because it doesn't make sense.

I was saying in general there are many things that make "global climate change" negligible, then I was more specific in saying (getting to the subject we were discussing) that La Nina and El Nino are a couple of those things.

Where do you get I'm not aware of the current state of climate change science? Is it because I threw facts your way and not a propaganda video??

You my friend, are hilarious

You are picking and choosing words trying to create an unnecessary argument. Funny stuff. I am curious to know why but don't stop. It's entertaining.

[PeterMP]

I was talking in generalities, nevertheless...

"Negligible: Not significant or important enough to be worth considering"

I wrote it had absolutely nothing to do with it...because simply....it had nothing to do with it. What exactly are you disputing and why?

The world negligible is context dependent.

The difference between driving 62 and 64 MPH in a 55 MPH zone might be negligible (i.e. there is no significant difference) with respect to the odds of me getting a speeding ticket. However, with respect to a specific accident, those 2 MPH might be the difference between having the accident and avoiding it.

In this case, I'm not sure what the context of negligible is as you are using it. In terms of the differences between the 2009 and 2010 hurricane season, then the effect of warming is very likely negligible as the overwhelming difference was ENSO related.

[alexey]

What are you talking about? Did you even read my post? I'm not even quite sure how to respond because it doesn't make sense.

I was saying in general there are many things that make "global climate change" negligible, then I was more specific in saying (getting to the subject we were discussing) that La Nina and El Nino are a couple of those things.

You said "absolutely nothing". If you were trying to say "negligible", then you misspoke.

Where do you get I'm not aware of the current state of climate change science? Is it because I threw facts your way and not a propaganda video??

You must have been "talking in generalities" again when you wrote all that nonsense about "whatever the current global warming theories are". You are either unaware of what the science has to say, or you are intentionally misrepresenting it.

Do you agree with the following statement:

anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century

You are picking and choosing words trying to create an unnecessary argument. Funny stuff. I am curious to know why but don't stop. It's entertaining.

I prefer picking and choosing words over "speaking in generalities".

[Burgold]

Alexey,

You're trying to argue science and the language of scientific rhetoric where facts, rigor and exactness is respected. Skins24 is trying to argue politics and the language of science via political rhetoric (though I'm not convinced he's conscious of that) where scoring points through exaggeration and manipulation matters most.

And you're wondering why you two can't communicate?

[alexey]

Alexey,

You're trying to argue science and the language of scientific rhetoric where facts, rigor and exactness is respected. Skins24 is trying to argue politics and the language of science via political rhetoric (though I'm not convinced he's conscious of that) where scoring points through exaggeration and manipulation matters most.

And you're wondering why you two can't communicate?

The Earth is about to start spinning upside down and he won't think of the childrens!!!

Thanks for that perspective. I sometimes get carried away when trying to put some boundaries around all the bull****. Oh well. The earth will recover.

[Burgold]

The Earth is about to start spinning upside down and he won't think of the childrens!!!

Thanks for that perspective. I sometimes get carried away when trying to put some boundaries around all the bull****. Oh well. The earth will recover.

Sure, it might take a few dozen generations after we are extinct, but the Earth will recover.

[Thiebear]

Sure, it might take a few dozen generations after we are extinct, but the Earth will recover.

The discovery channel shows its pretty quick, will happen within 1 probably, they've been waiting at the edges this whole time waiting their extinction turn as we did.

[Burgold]

I think that would be kind of depressing if the Earth could take our best shot and dust itself off and completely forget about us in twenty years. I think our scarring, shortsightedness, and out right destructive malice ought to ripple longer than that. Heck, Egypt is still a desert a thousand years after humans sucked it dry.

[NavyDave]

The EPA is okay with pushing the CO2 scam and other MMGW emissions hoaxes at the expense our health, with the potential hazards thanks to the mandated use of those Mercury filled light bulbs.

I bet California comedians like those on TMZ will think twice about the snow jokes they recently made. Who would have thunk that with all of the global warming going on that Vegas would come close to breaking their snow record the first few days in 2011?

---------- Post added January-3rd-2011 at 03:46 PM ----------

The Earth supposedly went through two Ice Ages. What CO2 increasing methods did Ugg and Dan the Caveman use to alter the climate to the "pristine level" it was before the destructive USA ,with their evil Capitalists, was born?

[Skins24]

The world negligible is context dependent.

The difference between driving 62 and 64 MPH in a 55 MPH zone might be negligible (i.e. there is no significant difference) with respect to the odds of me getting a speeding ticket. However, with respect to a specific accident, those 2 MPH might be the difference between having the accident and avoiding it.

In this case, I'm not sure what the context of negligible is as you are using it. In terms of the differences between the 2009 and 2010 hurricane season, then the effect of warming is very likely negligible as the overwhelming difference was ENSO related.

Precisely. And because the overwhelming difference was ENSO related, GCC had absolutely nothing to do with the past two hurricane season. This is not that difficult.

You said "absolutely nothing". If you were trying to say "negligible", then you misspoke.

How so? Please inform us how the two phrases are unrelated or in any way different?

Because El Nino and La Nina made the effects of GCC negigible, then GCC had absolutely nothing to do with the past two hurricane seasons. I'm not sure how to put it in a more simple way.....

You must have been "talking in generalities" again when you wrote all that nonsense about "whatever the current global warming theories are". You are either unaware of what the science has to say, or you are intentionally misrepresenting it.

You're kidding right? I was obviously being sarcastic in using gross exaggerations, though those exaggerations are really no more "out there" than the current GCC predictions.

Do you agree with the following statement:

anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century

I honestly don't know. If you would tell me what the average global temperature is and how they came about that number, then I could give you an answer.

(and please note, if I don't know something, I'm not afraid to say I don't know. You should maybe practice this sometimes )

I prefer picking and choosing words over "speaking in generalities".

What are you talking about and why do you keep saying that?

When I said I was speaking in general, this was the only thing I was talking about:

There are many things that make any effects of GCC negligible as they are simply more powerful or overwhelming than GCC.

Those many things.

So please tell me, what are you talking about?

Bur

You're trying to argue science and the language of scientific rhetoric where facts, rigor and exactness is respected.

Oh I beg of you to please show me where alex has argued anything scientific at all. I obviously missed it, but would love to see this!

The only thing I saw was him quote something that had absolutely nothing to do with global climate change or anything we were discussing. I think he also posted a couple of videos, but not understanding the science behind the videos.

Other than that, the "scientific rehtoric" he's being using has consisted of using the word "bull****" alot

Skins24 is trying to argue politics and the language of science via political rhetoric (though I'm not convinced he's conscious of that) where scoring points through exaggeration and manipulation matters most.

So...please inform me where I have brought up anything political at all so I can go and edit that post.

The only thing I've done is explain El Nino and La Nina.

[Burgold]

It's hard to believe you don't understand the difference when speaking technically between "absolute zero" and "neglible"

The argument you two have been having which is tangential to thread itself is about the precise use of language. In scientific terms, absolutely nothing means... 0. Neglible could mean a variety of things from a very limited impact, to significantly insignificant, to a series of very infrequent outliers.

Neglible does not equal absolute zero... I think that was his main point of contention with you especially since it has been proven (proven using scientific rigor) that the temperature of the water impacts the intensity of a hurricane's strength. If that effect occurs, hotter weather makes hurricanes more powerful and cooler weather makes them weaker, than the change in temperature's effect is not "absolutely nothing," but rather has a statistically speaking significant effect.

[Skins24]

It's hard to believe you don't understand the difference when speaking technically between "absolute zero" and "neglible"

The argument you two have been having which is tangential to thread itself is about the precise use of language. In scientific terms, absolutely nothing means... 0. Neglible could mean a variety of things from a very limited impact, to significantly insignificant, to a series of very infrequent outliers.

Neglible does not equal absolute zero... I think that was his main point of contention with you especially since it has been proven (proven using scientific rigor) that the temperature of the water impacts the intensity of a hurricane's strength. If that effect occurs, hotter weather makes hurricanes more powerful and cooler weather makes them weaker, than the change in temperature's effect is not "absolutely nothing," but rather has a statistically speaking significant effect.

I've explained what I mean as best I can.

When El Nino and La Nina events occur, they rule. Period. They are the driving forces of our climate. As a result, any climate change we may have been seeing becomes negligible (I've already posted the definition of negligible I'm using so any confusion is on you alls part.) Zip. Zero. Nada. It ceases to exist as a driving force or any force. And because El Nino and La Nina events are so strong rendering "climate change" negligible any effects we may have been seeing due to climate change also disappears.

A (climate change) causes B (the effects of climate change). C (el nino, la nina) comes in and causes A to disappear. Without A there is no B.

Since there was no B, then B had absolutely nothing to do with D (the 2009, 2010 hurricane seasons).

Hotter weather does NOT necessarily cause stronger hurricanes. This is exactly what I'm talking about. This is why climate change had absolutely no effect on the hurricane seasons otherwise we would have seen the complete opposite of what happened. El Ninos are what warm the water off the coast of SA. The result? The Atlantic sees LESS hurricanes. Those warmer waters cause stronger wind shear over the Atlantic which hinders hurricanes. Hurricane activity is NOT only ruled by the temperature of the air or water. They are many other factors.

La Ninas COOL the waters off the coast of SA and we see MORE hurricanes.

(Even beyond the last two years we have seen pretty quiet hurricane activity in recent years? Since you all know so much I'll let you all tell me why this is )

[Burgold]

I've explained what I mean as best I can.

When El Nino and La Nina events occur, they rule. Period. They are the driving forces of our climate. As a result, any climate change we may have been seeing becomes negligible (I've already posted the definition of negligible I'm using so any confusion is on you alls part.) Zip. Zero. Nada. It ceases to exist as a driving force or any force. And because El Nino and La Nina events are so strong rendering "climate change" negligible any effects we may have been seeing due to climate change also disappears.

A (climate change) causes B (the effects of climate change). C (el nino, la nina) comes in and causes A to disappear. Without A there is no B.

Since there was no B, then B had absolutely nothing to do with D (the 2009, 2010 hurricane seasons).

Hotter weather does NOT necessarily cause stronger hurricanes.

I think you are wrong in this. From everything that I've read the temperature of the water does have an effect on hurricane strength. Now, I'll happily admit that I am not a scientist or climatologist, but I've heard and read that many times. So, the zip, zero, nada stuff I can't buy.

Here's an answers.com version--

sea tempreature or a large area of water such as oceans are were hurrricanes form. a hurricane gains its energy from warmness and humidty(moist) on an area. if the sea tempreature is high or warm the hurricane will be stronger. the the tempreature is low it will be weak and cause low damage.

The Sea must be at least 25 degrees c for a hurricane to form that's why Britain doesn't hurricanes hitting the land because it's sea is to cold for the hurricane to travel that far.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/'what_is_the_effect_of_sea_temperature_on_hurricane'

Here's another... again, nothing definitive, but it does suggest relationships. (Heck, if it was definitive we might not be having this conversation)

The Effects of Global Warming on Hurricanes: Summary

There has been a noted increase in the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico since the mid-1990's. The long term average is that ten tropical storms will form per year, of which about six will become hurricanes. Since the mid-1990s the average has been fifteen tropical storms, of which eight have become hurricanes. There has also been an upward trend in the concentration of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide due to mans activities over the past 100 years. During this time, hurricanes have gone through cycles where they have been more numerous, such as the cycle that we are in now. Some scientists have drawn a one to one correlation between the Earth's temperature increase and the number of hurricanes and their intensity. As we have noted, the number one factor in tropical cyclone intensity is related to the atmospheric wind shear profile. There is even some research that suggests that higher temperatures could actually increase the wind shear profile resulting in a decrease in hurricane activity.

The upward cycle in hurricane numbers is expected to continue for several more years. If this trend were to continue for a considerably longer period, only then could one draw a conclusion that warmer temperatures have played some part to cause an increase in tropical cyclone formation.

http://www.tropicalweather.net/global_warmings_effects_on_hurricanes.htm

[PeterMP]

Precisely. And because the overwhelming difference was ENSO related, GCC had absolutely nothing to do with the past two hurricane season. This is not that difficult.

In relation to one another (i.e. 2009 vs. 2010), but not necessarily in all context (i.e. 2010 vs. 1998).

[alexey]

How so? Please inform us how the two phrases are unrelated or in any way different?

Because El Nino and La Nina made the effects of GCC negigible, then GCC had absolutely nothing to do with the past two hurricane seasons. I'm not sure how to put it in a more simple way.....

See Burgold's post for an explanation of this.

I honestly don't know. If you would tell me what the average global temperature is and how they came about that number, then I could give you an answer.

I know that you do not know. That was my point all along.

[Skins24]

I know that you do not know. That was my point all along.

You don't get it.

In order for there to be global warming there would have to be a starting point. An average temperature. Otherwise, how would we know we're above "normal?"

Since neither I nor any scientist in the world knows what the average temperature of earth is supposed to be I can't answer that question. Neither can they.

If that question was more specific in asking has human activity caused us to be above the 19th century or early 20th century average, then you can answer that.

See Burgold's post for an explanation of this.

Always deflecting, never answering....

I think you are wrong in this. From everything that I've read the temperature of the water does have an effect on hurricane strength. Now, I'll happily admit that I am not a scientist or climatologist, but I've heard and read that many times. So, the zip, zero, nada stuff I can't buy.

It DOES have an effect, but that has nothing to do with what we're talking about here.

Did you read the rest of my post? Or did you all even remotely understand the part you quoted?

I'll wait for your answer because the part you quoted and the rest of my post explain in child like terms the effects of El Nino and La Nina on hurricane seasons. Which part of that don't you understand?

---------- Post added January-4th-2011 at 09:59 AM ----------

In relation to one another (i.e. 2009 vs. 2010), but not necessarily in all context (i.e. 2010 vs. 1998).

Not sure what you're saying. The 1998 hurricane season was a La Nina season as well....

[PeterMP]

Not sure what you're saying. The 1998 hurricane season was a La Nina season as well....

1997 vs. 2010 then.

[alexey]

You don't get it.

In order for there to be global warming there would have to be a starting point. An average temperature. Otherwise, how would we know we're above "normal?"

Since neither I nor any scientist in the world knows what the average temperature of earth is supposed to be I can't answer that question. Neither can they.

If that question was more specific in asking has human activity caused us to be above the 19th century or early 20th century average, then you can answer that.

I asked you if you agree with the following statement:

"anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century"

This statement happens to come from a peer reviewed study from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, a study which concluded that 98-97% of climate scientists do agree with that statement. The study is here:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

I care about your thought process about as much as I care about the thought process of little Jimmy who's trying to reason whether there is really a Santa Claus.

[Skins24]

1997 vs. 2010 then.

Still not sure what you're trying to get at. 1997 was an El Nino year. We saw very little hurricane activity as is typical of El Nino years.

2010 was a La Nina hurriane season and we saw increased activity as is typical in La Nina years.

In either case GCC was still irrelevant.

[PeterMP]

Still not sure what you're trying to get at. 1997 was an El Nino year. We saw very little hurricane activity as is typical of El Nino years.

2010 was a La Nina hurriane season and we saw increased activity as is typical in La Nina years.

In either case GCC was still irrelevant.

Okay.

In the context of 2010 vs. 2009, the warming effect is negligible because the overwhelming difference is ENSO related.

However, as the ENSO conditions of 1998 vs. 2010 are similar, then the differences between are partly due to the result of other climate variables, including AGW.

[Skins24]

Okay.

In the context of 2010 vs. 2009, the warming effect is negligible because the overwhelming difference is ENSO related.

However, as the ENSO conditions of 1998 vs. 2010 are similar, then the differences between are partly due to the result of other climate variables, including AGW.

That is beyond reaching.

1) Just because the ENSO conditions are similar does not negate the fact that they still render any warming effect negligble. C still negates A so B doesn't occur no matter how similar or different the conditions are.

2) This is weather and climate we're talking about. This is the earth we're talking about. Nothing....absolutely nothing occurs the same way twice. Nor can it. If you had the exact same water and air temperatures in both '98 and '10, the exact same amount of wind shear, etc., you would NOT get the same results. So to say AGW had anything to do with the differences (especially since any GCC - maninduced or not - was negated by the ENSO conditions) is more wishful thinking than anything.

[PeterMP]

That is beyond reaching.

1) Just because the ENSO conditions are similar does not negate the fact that they still render any warming effect negligble. C still negates A so B doesn't occur no matter how similar or different the conditions are.

2) This is weather and climate we're talking about. This is the earth we're talking about. Nothing....absolutely nothing occurs the same way twice. Nor can it. If you had the exact same water and air temperatures in both '98 and '10, the exact same amount of wind shear, etc., you would NOT get the same results. So to say AGW had anything to do with the differences (especially since any GCC - maninduced or not - was negated by the ENSO conditions) is more wishful thinking than anything.

Except that there is no evidence that ENSO events negate AGW. To do that, they would somehow have to be involved in transferring energy into space.

[Skins24]

Except that there is no evidence that ENSO events negate AGW. To do that, they would somehow have to be involved in transferring energy into space.

What do you mean there's no evidence? AGW isn't even remotely powerful enough or at a rate to have any impact during a El Nino or La Nina event.

Transferring energy into space? :whoknows:

ENSO events shift wind patterns if that's what you're talking about....

Mainly though, I'm talking about the effects. They negate the effects of climate change period. They are themselves climate changing events far more poweful than anything humans are even remotely capable of and cause changes AGW never will be able to (well hopefully, that would be a scary day when humans have the technology to do what ENSO events do. And that certainly would require new technologies as greenhouses gases alone won't come close)