• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Thanks to Global Warming and Man's impact Tornadoes set a record in the USA this year.

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
https://www.lmtonline.com/news/article/2018-will-be-the-first-year-with-no-violent-13491861.php
In the whirlwind that is 2018, there has been a notable lack of high-end twisters.We're now days away from this becoming the first year in the modern record with no violent tornadoes touching down in the United States. Violent tornadoes are the strongest on a 0 to 5 scale, or those ranked EF4 or EF5.




It was a quiet year for tornadoes overall, with below normal numbers most months. Unless you're a storm chaser, this is not bad news. The low tornado count is undoubtedly a big part of the reason the 10 tornado deaths in 2018 is also vying to be a record low.
While we still have several days to go in 2018, and some severe weather is likely across the South to close it out, odds favor the country making it the rest of the way without a violent tornado.
If and when that happens, it will be the first time since the modern record began in 1950.

Remember, the hotter mother gaia get's and the more CO2, the more extreme violent weather happens! This is not to be questioned! It is settled Science! (except when ya know, the opposite happens, then it's actually big oil spreading fake news)
 
https://www.lmtonline.com/news/article/2018-will-be-the-first-year-with-no-violent-13491861.php


Remember, the hotter mother gaia get's and the more CO2, the more extreme violent weather happens! This is not to be questioned! It is settled Science! (except when ya know, the opposite happens, then it's actually big oil spreading fake news)

Yes indeed, weather in "Tornado Alley" which is the United States east of the Rockies is getting milder.

This map of maximum temperatures

10er3ps.gif


Shows that Maximum temperatures May through October in tornado alley have declined.
The temperature increase that we hear so much about is occurring in the colder months.
The result is a milder climate for much of the U.S.A. So far to their credit, the Washington
Post has run this story. Our local left-wing liberal Democrat rag doesn't have anything so far.
Tomorrow will tell the tale if they choose to publish it or continue to ignore such stories as
has been their practice in the past. I called their editor the day the so-called climate gate
emails were leaked November 2009 - they didn't say a peep about it for two weeks.

OK I digressed sue me.
 
[FONT=&quot]tornadoes[/FONT]
[h=1]2018 will be the first year with no violent tornadoes in the United States[/h][FONT=&quot]From LMT Online In the whirlwind that is 2018, there has been a notable lack of high-end twisters. We’re now days away from this becoming the first year in the modern record with no violent tornadoes touching down in the United States. Violent tornadoes are the strongest on a 0 to 5 scale, or those…
[/FONT]
 
... Our local left-wing liberal Democrat rag doesn't have anything so far. Tomorrow will
tell the tale if they choose to publish it or continue to ignore such stories as has been
their practice in the past....

Nothing this morning either. Maybe they're saving it for "The Year In Review" article
that always runs in papers on January 1st.
 
You guys seem to really put intermittent weather events that are inherently highly variable on 2% of the earths surface area on a major pedestal.

But.. deniers gonna deny.
 
I don't know if AGW theory is right or not. Let's just assume it is. It STILL isn't the most serious problem we have. In fact, it is trivial compared to its root cause: Global Overpopulation. Global Overpopulation isn't even debated. We all know that the current population growth rate is unsustainable. This is the issue everyone should be concerned about. Correct the population problem and AGW will abate as well.
 
I don't know if AGW theory is right or not. Let's just assume it is. It STILL isn't the most serious problem we have. In fact, it is trivial compared to its root cause: Global Overpopulation. Global Overpopulation isn't even debated. We all know that the current population growth rate is unsustainable. This is the issue everyone should be concerned about. Correct the population problem and AGW will abate as well.

Not really.

Overpopulation doesn’t seem like a long term problem.

How Big Of A Problem Is Overpopulation?

AGW, however, clearly seems like a long term problem... a potential catastrophic problem, actually.

UN Says Climate Genocide Coming. But It?s Worse Than That.
 
The Arctic is missing some ice. Of course, we were all told that it wouldn't have ANY ice by now, so something obviously needs to be re-thought. If you look closely at the graphic below, you'll see a line on the right which is where, on average, sea ice has been over the last forty years or so. The whole rest of the ice cap looks more or less normal. Next year, if the trend continues, the cap may even be BIGGER than average - in which case I expect that these images will no longer be available.
N_daily_extent_hires.jpg
 
Last edited:
Overpopulation is the cause of AGW. Without it, the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases being put into the atmosphere would drop enormously. Moreover, if the earth's population continues doubling approximately every 60 years, there is NOTHING that can be done to curb emissions. Nothing.
 
Last edited:
The Arctic is missing some ice. Of course, we were all told that it wouldn't have ANY ice by now, so something obviously needs to be re-thought. If you look closely at the graphic below, you'll see a line on the right which is where, on average, sea ice has been over the last forty years or so. The whole rest of the ice cap looks more or less normal. Next year, if the trend continues, the cap may even be BIGGER than average - in which case I expect that these images will no longer be available.

Oh Yawn. Not Al Gore again. Al Gore is not a scientist. Anyway, this is what Gore ACTUALLY said at the Copenhagen conference in 2009. Anyone can go watch the video themselves:

"These are figures that are fresh. I don’t know when they were released. I just got them yesterday from Dr Waslow Maslowski at the Naval Post Graduate School and this is a volumetric record of the ice. And uh some of the models suggest to Dr Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap during summer, during some of the summer months. could be completely ice-free within the next 5 to 7 years. Bob used a figure of 2030. And the volumetric analysis leads this Dr Maslowski to make that projection. We will find out."

Gore said that one scientist (Maslowski) thought that there might be a 75% chance that the north polar ice-cap could be ice-free in some summer months in the "next 5 to 7 years" and another scientist 'Bob' - Robert Corell) said 2030.


But climate truthers grab at any low hanging fruit they can find and even then, they have to lie about it - or in most cases, just mindlessly parrot someone else who lied about it.
 
I don't know if AGW theory is right or not. Let's just assume it is. It STILL isn't the most serious problem we have. In fact, it is trivial compared to its root cause: Global Overpopulation. Global Overpopulation isn't even debated. We all know that the current population growth rate is unsustainable. This is the issue everyone should be concerned about. Correct the population problem and AGW will abate as well.

You first.
 
The Scientific Method consists of: 1) Make an observation. 2) Ask a question. 3) Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation. 4) Make a prediction based on the hypothesis. 5) Test the prediction. 6) Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions. Upon multiple failures of the predictions, the theory should have been junked and replaced with new hypotheses and predictions. It wasn't. That means that believers in the same AGW that was around in 2000 are not scientists. They're the faithful. They're devotees to a religion.
 
Ha ha ha. That's funny. Do you have anything useful to say?
 
Climate change "believers" need to disavow Al Gore. He is still the movement's most widely-embraced champion and all of his predictions were wrong. They also need to publicize some predictions that were made to test the theory, that were right and that strongly support the theory. Pointing to a retreating glacier and saying "This means Climate Change is happening" is not going to do the trick. A glacier is local, not global, and I can as easily point to a glacier that is NOT retreating and say that "This means Climate change is not happening." The truth is, CO2 is a very weak Greenhouse gas and its actual impact on our atmosphere and oceans in the quantities that are present is clearly NOT understood. If it were, the proven predictions would be out there for all to see.
 
*** PART 1 of 2 *****

I don't grab at low hanging fruit. I have questions pertaining to the theory that need to be addressed before I will be convinced. Nobody seems to want to do that. They just want me to believe, keep quiet and pay higher taxes. Unfortunately, I'm kind of stubborn that way. I came up with the following list years ago. Most of the questions still need to be answered.

1) Is the Earth's temperature actually rising?
2) How do we know?
3) ASSUMING THE ANSWER IS YES, by how much?
4) Will it continue to do this, or will forces, natural or unnatural, halt or reverse the process? (As has happened countless times in the past.)
5) What will a warmer Earth be like?
6) How do we know that?
7) Is that bad or good?
8 ) How do we know that?
9) What should be done about the rising temperature?
10) How much will doing this cost?
11) Who should foot the bill?
12) Does the world have that much money?
13) What will spending this much money do to our quality of life? In other words, what will our lives be like?
14) Does it make any sense to make the recommended changes when far larger polluters such as China aren't doing so?
15) Could doing this make the problem WORSE instead of better? (Letting a starving man stuff himself will KILL him.)
16) Could Global Warming just be a political tool, not a real threat?
17) Why are politicians on ONE SIDE using Global Warming to enhance their careers and fortunes?
18 ) Why are scientists who disagree about Global Warming being "taken out"?
19) Why are civilians who disagree about Global Warming taunted?
20) Why isn't it a HUGE story that, per #18, scientists are pressured to behave in a very unscientific manner... namely, to treat Global Warming as
fact? (Oregon’s chief meteorologist was fired by the governor because he “denied” Global Warming. NASA’s chief denied it, created a firestorm, then
abruptly backed off of the claim. I could go on.) There’s less pressure these days on deniers of RELATIVITY.
21) Since Global Warming is supposed to cause climate change, why are stories about heat, dryness and fire getting all the publicity, instead of stories of
cold, rain and blizzard?
22) Why is the New York Times printing articles about Virginia oceanside towns that are going underwater… and attributing it to Global Warming...
when we all know that the ocean rise has been insignificant. Besides, if the oceans had risen,
all such towns would be going underwater equally. So, why is the NYT printing such things?
23) Why are Global Warming stories that have since been proven false not commonly known? (The polar bear population is actually INCREASING, etc.)
24) Why is Global Warming so focused on the North Pole, where ice is decreasing, and not on the South Pole, where most of the world's ice is located?
25) Why is ice at the South Pole INCREASING?
26) Could the Sun actually be the cause of Global Warming?
27) How much of Global Warming could be due to the increased sunspot activity (which affects cloud formation)
28 ) Why is Global Warming Occurring?
29) Is Man responsible?
30) How do we know that?
31) Why are the ice caps on Mars decreasing?
32) Why is a WEAK greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, getting the blame? Water vapor is a far better greenhouse gas. Methane is vastly better still.
 
Last edited:
***** PART 2 of 2 *****

33) Based on studies of Antarctic ice, CO2 levels are today 94 ppm higher than they were 650,000 years ago. That means there is less than one
additional CO2 molecule for every TEN THOUSAND other molecules of air. The information comes from here – a global warming
site: Carbon Dioxide – Think Global Green . I've studied chemistry. There are NO significant systemic changes that occur with chemical
introductions at those levels. Any comments?
34) Why isn’t Al Gore being crucified by scientists (and, actually, by everyone else) for his claim three years ago that oceans would rise TWO HUNDRED AND
TWENTY FEET (67 metres) between 2014 and 2019?
35) Has he lost his credibility because of this, in your view?
36) Are there any concerns by the left that Al Gore's exaggerations and fear-mongering have made him one of the Uber-wealthy that they claim to despise?
37) MIGHT, just MIGHT, that have been Al's real motive?
38 ) Where is the liberal outrage of the ENORMOUS carbon footprints generated by some of the Global Warming proponents best known politicians? (Al
Gore, Nancy Pelosi, John Edwards, to name just a few.)
39) Ray Kurzweil, one of the world's visionary geniuses (he's the premier authority on voice recognition, among many, many other things), sides with you that
the Earth IS warming. However, he is certain that it is an utter waste of time and money to do anything about it today since, within 30 years, nanotechnology will
have advanced to the point that carbon-eating nanobots will be readily available to deal with "the problem" for practically no cost. And today, we don't have
the technology to deal with the problem at all. WHY ISN'T THIS BEING DISCUSSED?
40) Why has the left zeroed in on Global Warming, and not the Earth’s other huge environmental problems –some of which we all acknowledge to
be real. What makes Global Warming more important than:
• The expanded ozone hole
• Depletion of the rain forests
• Pollution of the oceans
• Population growth
• Insufficient food production
• The water crisis
• The energy crisis
• Proliferation of nuclear weapons.
41) If Global Warming is such an open and shut phenomenon, why are there so many world class (and Nobel prize winning) physicists, chemists and
meteorologists who have stuck their necks out to denounce the weakness of the evidence, the contradictory evidence, and the theory's many flaws?

And maybe the most important:
42) Why do its advocates treating Global Warming like a religion, to be accepted with faith, to not be challenged?

Proceeding to tackle Global Warming without satisfactory answers to nearly all of these questions... and so many others... is sheer stupidity since it will mean that we won’t know what we’re doing … or why ... but are spending the money and possibly doing harm in the process.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if AGW theory is right or not. Let's just assume it is. It STILL isn't the most serious problem we have. In fact, it is trivial compared to its root cause: Global Overpopulation. Global Overpopulation isn't even debated. We all know that the current population growth rate is unsustainable. This is the issue everyone should be concerned about. Correct the population problem and AGW will abate as well.

Severe global population and preservation of environment are issues intertwined with the AGW climate change issue. That's why AGW climate change isn't a science.

The ideology of AGW climate change is basically the preservation of the environment. The AGW climate change ideologist doesn't believe in evolution, either, because they want to keep the environment the same.
 
Last edited:
The Scientific Method consists of: 1) Make an observation. 2) Ask a question. 3) Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation. 4) Make a prediction based on the hypothesis. 5) Test the prediction. 6) Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions. Upon multiple failures of the predictions, the theory should have been junked and replaced with new hypotheses and predictions. It wasn't. That means that believers in the same AGW that was around in 2000 are not scientists. They're the faithful. They're devotees to a religion.

e8ec708cac85ef85ce685617ea440d8c.jpg
 
Ha ha ha. That's funny. Do you have anything useful to say?

You know better than all the worlds scientists... but are unable to grasp how to use the ‘quote’ feature.

That’s very ‘on brand’ for deniers around here, you’re gonna fit in just fine.
 
I'm brand new here. I have no problem with admitting that I don't know everything. I'm far from being a know-it-all. But how about you? You "believe" without knowing for yourself? Hey, if all the world's scientists said something was true but it didn't sit right with me, I *still* wouldn't believe. That's like saying that if I lived in Iran, I'd believe in Allah. Guess what? I probably wouldn't.

You obviously cave under peer pressure. Otherwise, you'd be concerned that there were aspects of your Global Warming faith that don't add up.

Now, I know FOR A FACT that the scientific method requires predictions support a theory before it should be accepted. If all the world's scientists fail to do this, they are wrong. It's as simple as that.

BTW, nothing like "all the world's scientists" support Anthropogenic Global Warming. The oft-touted "97%" figure is a myth. It was derived by soliciting a group of self-proclaimed climate scientists, then throwing out all the responses that were "Unsure" about AGW. Nearly all the responses were "Unsure." Of those who said they WERE sure about AGW - and I think it was something like 50 people - 97% said AGW was real.
 
With regard to the oft-quoted "97% of all Climate Scientists agree with AGW" claim - here are some of the criticisms from participants in the Cook survey - which is one of the sources thought to have originated the claim. ( And it's fascinating that "97%" is constantly repeated but NOBODY is positive where that number originated! They can only speculate. But why bother challenging something that's supporting your position, eh?)

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”
—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”
—Dr. Nicola Scafetta
 
Last edited:
I'm not a "denier." I'm a skeptic.

Both "deniers" and "believers" claim to have the answers. They should be able to prove their point but, so far, cannot. Only skeptics remain open-minded.
 
I'm not a "denier." I'm a skeptic.

Both "deniers" and "believers" claim to have the answers. They should be able to prove their point but, so far, cannot. Only skeptics remain open-minded.

And I have explained things rather well when I had the time to.
 
Back
Top Bottom