This is getting pretty damn scary!!

[bluesmoke]

I think everybody believes in climate change. But climate changes don't mean we're going into the next ice age or that NYC will one day be underwater due to any actions by mankind.

Mother Nature is invincible.

Yes, Mother Nature is invincible. After the human species is gone, Mother Nature will remain. Until then, we have no choice than to move vertically, build walls and more to combat climate change.

 

[VanceMack]

4 Cat 5s at once in 1893, is extreme! How big was Exxon in 1893?

People forget that Katrina was just one of 5 extreme weather events in 2005...and not even the biggest or strongest. They also ignore that the hurricane seasons post 2005 were much milder than normal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FastPace]

Yes, it happens, and there can be natural causes. HOWEVER, in this particular instance, if you look at what the factors are and the components that are causing the earths climate to become warmer at this point in it, it is overwhelmingly human activity, in specific the use of fossil fuels in heating, transportation and manufacturing.

Not pavement and urban sprawl? Like... on a very hot day in New York City when it's in the 90s Fahrenheit if laid on the green grass (and soil under it) in New York's Central Park it would emanate as much heat upward into my skin as the pavement on a Brooklyn outdoor basketball court would if I laid down flat on it?



No one remembers when London was a forest. No one probably remembers how dirty it was in the 1800s with all its factories and slums. That was long before I was born. In both cases. The irony is God so said he shall keep in place the curse upon the dark skinned people of the world by making Global Warming only a problem once their countries wanted to develop an infrastructure and material life on par with those in London, Paris, Western Europe and the cities of the USA in general.

Maybe it's not so bad one of my sports coats was made in a factory--paying the workers peanuts--in Vietnam. Unless that factory is causing hurricanes in Florida, so, maybe its better we had kept the Vietnamese subsistence farmers. It would have kept the temperatures cool in Northern Canada and in Vietnam too--like a nice Fall day in Southern Michigan.

By my perception (and as we all know my perception is always infallible and pinpoint accurate) there does seem to be a warming around the Midwestern region. Not in astronomical high tempts nor of the complete ending of snowy, icy winter. Rather there seem to be more warm days throughout the traditional winter period. But "warm" in this context is still "cold" to me, say... more days that are 40 degrees or 30 degrees Fahrenheit. But this is a good thing to me. I would like it if the tempt year round never fell below 50 degrees. And I would probably enjoy seeing New York sink into the ocean. But I'm kind of guessing I will not be so lucky to live to see either. Just because I want something doesn't mean its going to happen.

 

[Moderate Right]

The birth rate does have an effect, mainly because of the resources yes, but how those resources are being utilized with heating, transportation and manufacturing is what is causing the increase of green house gasses. And, how do you propose 'cutting the worlds population'?? Well, the damage to the environment might do that as an unintended side effect.. but I don't like the idea of having famine and disease do that. It's a good goal, but the issue is 'how do we get there from here'. of course, that is the issue with any of the potential solutions too. Let's face it. Man is greedy, and short sighted. Any solution that gets implemented will be because someone is making more money providing the function/service for cheaper than using fossil fuels. The carbon dioxide of people breathing is just a small small amount of the CO2 that is being put into the atmosphere.

Each person exhales about 2.3 pounds of co2 per her, multiply that by 8 billions, and that is less 920M tones of Co2 a year. other human activity, mostly from transportation, energy production and manufacturing puts out 24 BILLION tons a year.

You're full of ****. All you have is a bunch of guesses and conjectures. Please show proof that global warming can actually be reversed. You have none. Global warming will get worse and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it, even if the world spent infinite quintillions of dollars and shut down every business, automobile, etc. in the world.

 

[RAMOSS]

You're full of ****. All you have is a bunch of guesses and conjectures. Please show proof that global warming can actually be reversed. You have none. Global warming will get worse and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it, even if the world spent infinite quintillions of dollars and shut down every business, automobile, etc. in the world.

You are pulling things out of no where, and coming to like, weird statements that have nothing to do with what I said. Where did I say it 'can be reversed'. I said 'Any solution to using fossil fuels would have to because it's cheaper and more effective than fossil fuels' Then, fastpace made some unwarranted assumptions, which I was responding to, that I pointed out was incorrect, because, you know, I actually looked at the numbers??

How about actually making a response to something I actually said, rather than going off and complaining about things I never said. Your entire response was one big straw man, because you are arguing against a point that I didn't make.

 

[bluesmoke]

People forget that Katrina was just one of 5 extreme weather events in 2005...and not even the biggest or strongest. They also ignore that the hurricane seasons post 2005 were much milder than normal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Katrina is an example of the failure of man to protect damage prone areas like New Orleans. It was an example of how a hurricane of less strength than others can cause more damage because man decimated natural coastline protection against extreme weather events, such as hurricanes.

Your claim “…hurricane seasons post 2005 were much milder than normal.” is absolute falsehood. Not only do you not provide data to back up your claim, the data shows just the opposite:
For years 1852 – 2015:

https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/hurrarchive.asp

For year 2016:

2016 Atlantic Hurricane Season Fast Facts - CNN

You do the math.

Another example of a poster making a claim without any fact/data to back up their own words.

 

[VanceMack]

Katrina is an example of the failure of man to protect damage prone areas like New Orleans. It was an example of how a hurricane of less strength than others can cause more damage because man decimated natural coastline protection against extreme weather events, such as hurricanes.

Your claim “…hurricane seasons post 2005 were much milder than normal.” is absolute falsehood. Not only do you not provide data to back up your claim, the data shows just the opposite:
For years 1852 – 2015:

https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/hurrarchive.asp

For year 2016:

2016 Atlantic Hurricane Season Fast Facts - CNN

You do the math.

Another example of a poster making a claim without any fact/data to back up their own words.

Come now...did you actually read your own site? Did you read the numbers between 1995-2005 and 2006-2015?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Moderate Right]

You are pulling things out of no where, and coming to like, weird statements that have nothing to do with what I said. Where did I say it 'can be reversed'. I said 'Any solution to using fossil fuels would have to because it's cheaper and more effective than fossil fuels' Then, fastpace made some unwarranted assumptions, which I was responding to, that I pointed out was incorrect, because, you know, I actually looked at the numbers??

How about actually making a response to something I actually said, rather than going off and complaining about things I never said. Your entire response was one big straw man, because you are arguing against a point that I didn't make.

The left pulls things out of nowhere. There are any number of reasons why global warming is getting worse now. We're producing more M&M's now than we have ever before. It is obvious that the more M&M's we produce, the worse global warming gets. Therefore, all we need to do is outlaw M&M's and global warming will no longer be an issue.

 

[RAMOSS]

The left pulls things out of nowhere. There are any number of reasons why global warming is getting worse now. We're producing more M&M's now than we have ever before. It is obvious that the more M&M's we produce, the worse global warming gets. Therefore, all we need to do is outlaw M&M's and global warming will no longer be an issue.

When you have a real argument, I'll respond. Your response is not coherent or rational.

 

[Moderate Right]

When you have a real argument, I'll respond. Your response is not coherent or rational.

Exactly! When the left has a coherent or rational argument instead of connecting a bunch of dots based solely on their partisan beliefs and coming to conclusions based on nothing but theories then we can talk. Until then the M&M example is just as coherent as anything the left has.

 

[bluesmoke]

Come now...did you actually read your own site? Did you read the numbers between 1995-2005 and 2006-2015?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your claim was based on post 2005 (a year you conveniently eliminated that had a then record high), not just years 1995 to 2015. You also conveniently eliminate 2016, another record high year. Believe it or not, science is a matter of historical context. Not just the years you disingenuously choose to make your case.

 

[Port & Starboard]

https://qz.com/1072166/irma-jose-and-katia-three-hurricanes-in-one-satellite-image/?utm_source=qzfb
Three hurricanes in a row. Wonder if a fourth or even fifth will form once these move to the west. Is this just normal or might it have something to do with climate change. Of course a lot of you don't believe in climate change, especially those who live in the Southern parts of our country. Well as the saying goes, wake up and smell the coffee.

There is nothing unusual about 3 active hurricanes in the Atlantic. Go look or yourself.

 

[Dirt Sands]

Will somebody please make the argument that the world is Cooling... We'll call it global cooling.

Since that won't happen because it's not will somebody please explain to me why the defense that global warming is not happening is so vigorous. Are you so sure that it's not happening? It is defended as though it were a first born child.


Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

 

[Slingshot Bob]

https://qz.com/1072166/irma-jose-and-katia-three-hurricanes-in-one-satellite-image/?utm_source=qzfb
Three hurricanes in a row. Wonder if a fourth or even fifth will form once these move to the west. Is this just normal or might it have something to do with climate change. Of course a lot of you don't believe in climate change, especially those who live in the Southern parts of our country. Well as the saying goes, wake up and smell the coffee.

The same thing happened 12 years ago, if it were climate change why the relatively quite 12 years?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

The same thing happened 12 years ago, if it were climate change why the relatively quite 12 years?

Because climate change also works with other climatic cycles. Like El Nino and La Nina. As I understand it Hurricanes have their own 50-60 year cycle (

The number and strength of Atlantic hurricanes may undergo a 50–70*year cycle, also known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.[67] Nyberg et al. reconstructed Atlantic major hurricane activity back to the early eighteenth century and found five periods averaging 3–5 major hurricanes per year and lasting 40–60*years, and six other averaging 1.5–2.5 major hurricanes per year and lasting 10–20*years. These periods are associated with the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation. Throughout, a decadal oscillation related to solar irradiance was responsible for enhancing/dampening the number of major hurricanes by 1–2 per year.[68]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_hurricane#Trends

 

[VanceMack]

Your claim was based on post 2005 (a year you conveniently eliminated that had a then record high), not just years 1995 to 2015. You also conveniently eliminate 2016, another record high year. Believe it or not, science is a matter of historical context. Not just the years you disingenuously choose to make your case.

:lamo

The numbers showed that the 10 years AFTER 2005 were milder than the previous 10 years and your comment completely destroys the global warming ohmigawdwereallgonnnaodiiiieeeeeee rhetoric. Because on that you are correct. An anomaly, or even a year, does not 'prove' ****. Congrats. You successfully kicked your own ass in one post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dirt Sands]

:lamo

The numbers showed that the 10 years AFTER 2005 were milder than the previous 10 years and your comment completely destroys the global warming ohmigawdwereallgonnnaodiiiieeeeeee rhetoric. Because on that you are correct. An anomaly, or even a year, does not 'prove' ****. Congrats. You successfully kicked your own ass in one post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Knew somebody would say the world was Cooling. He just didn't say the world was cooling but that's what I meant

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

 

[bluesmoke]

:lamo

The numbers showed that the 10 years AFTER 2005 were milder than the previous 10 years and your comment completely destroys the global warming ohmigawdwereallgonnnaodiiiieeeeeee rhetoric. Because on that you are correct. An anomaly, or even a year, does not 'prove' ****. Congrats. You successfully kicked your own ass in one post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The ten years you so selectively choose, 2006 – 2015 inclusive, had a total of 63 hurricanes. The previous ten years had 63, also. Your claim is outright false. As I said, science does not base itself on such short periods of time. Through history, hurricanes are on the rise. You disingenuously eliminate 2005, at 15 hurricanes, and 2016, at 16. The most ever recorded. How disingenuous can you be?

 

[VanceMack]

The ten years you so selectively choose, 2006 – 2015 inclusive, had a total of 63 hurricanes. The previous ten years had 63, also. Your claim is outright false. As I said, science does not base itself on such short periods of time. Through history, hurricanes are on the rise. You disingenuously eliminate 2005, at 15 hurricanes, and 2016, at 16. The most ever recorded. How disingenuous can you be?

I didn't disingenuously ignore anything. I went in 10 year increments using 2005...the year of Katirna...as a base. In point of fact YOUR SOURCE stopped at 2015. Or didnt you bother reading what you posted?

And there WERE 63 Hurricanes between 2006 and 2015. There were 82 from 1996 to 2005. You either suck at math or are intentionally lying.

 

[Slingshot Bob]

Because climate change also works with other climatic cycles. Like El Nino and La Nina. As I understand it Hurricanes have their own 50-60 year cycle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_hurricane#Trends

So it is normal, did you know a Cat. 3 moved up the coast all the way to NY before the great depression!

 

[bluesmoke]

The ten years you so selectively choose, 2006 – 2015 inclusive, had a total of 63 hurricanes. The previous ten years had 63, also. Your claim is outright false. As I said, science does not base itself on such short periods of time. Through history, hurricanes are on the rise. You disingenuously eliminate 2005, at 15 hurricanes, and 2016, at 16. The most ever recorded. How disingenuous can you be?

“I didn't disingenuously ignore anything. I went in 10 year increments using 2005...the year of Katirna...as a base. In point of fact YOUR SOURCE stopped at 2015. Or didnt you bother reading what you posted?”
You selectively chose after 2015 so as to eliminate that year’s record hurricane number or 15. Then, you selectively eliminated the 2016 hurricanes of 16.

“And there WERE 63 Hurricanes between 2006 and 2015. There were 82 from 1996 to 2005. You either suck at math or are intentionally lying.”

Let me repeat myself: “The ten years you so selectively choose, 2006 – 2015 inclusive, had a total of 63 hurricanes. The previous ten years had 63, also. Your claim is outright false. As I said, science does not base itself on such short periods of time. Through history, hurricanes are on the rise. You disingenuously eliminate 2005, at 15 hurricanes, and 2016, at 16. The most ever recorded. How disingenuous can you be?”

My math is totally correct. You are giving selective time periods that, as I said, are not scientifically in order compared to the greater time span I gave. I do not dispute your figures. I just say that they are selective and out of order to the greater context of history that scientifically determined outcomes. Or, do you just not believe in science?

 

[VanceMack]

“I didn't disingenuously ignore anything. I went in 10 year increments using 2005...the year of Katirna...as a base. In point of fact YOUR SOURCE stopped at 2015. Or didnt you bother reading what you posted?”
You selectively chose after 2015 so as to eliminate that year’s record hurricane number or 15. Then, you selectively eliminated the 2016 hurricanes of 16.

“And there WERE 63 Hurricanes between 2006 and 2015. There were 82 from 1996 to 2005. You either suck at math or are intentionally lying.”

Let me repeat myself: “The ten years you so selectively choose, 2006 – 2015 inclusive, had a total of 63 hurricanes. The previous ten years had 63, also. Your claim is outright false. As I said, science does not base itself on such short periods of time. Through history, hurricanes are on the rise. You disingenuously eliminate 2005, at 15 hurricanes, and 2016, at 16. The most ever recorded. How disingenuous can you be?”

My math is totally correct. You are giving selective time periods that, as I said, are not scientifically in order compared to the greater time span I gave. I do not dispute your figures. I just say that they are selective and out of order to the greater context of history that scientifically determined outcomes. Or, do you just not believe in science?

Apparently you suck at citing posts as well as math. Or did you cite your own post hoping I wouldn't see it and you could have the final word? Look...Ima give you the final word after this because your **** is just boring. YOU cited the article showing hurricane activity up to 2015. YOUR source. I used YOUR SOURCE to count the hurricanes that we were told would be INCREASING both in frequency and intensity Post Katrina as proof of global warming. YOUR source shows there LESS hurricanes From 2006 to 2015 (the 10 years AFTER) than there were the previous 10 years.

And since this has gone back and forth now several times...few free to repeat your dishonest comments one last time. We are done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dittohead not!]

Will somebody please make the argument that the world is Cooling... We'll call it global cooling.

Since that won't happen because it's not will somebody please explain to me why the defense that global warming is not happening is so vigorous. Are you so sure that it's not happening? It is defended as though it were a first born child.


Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

It's called "confirmation bias." Once a person has made up his mind, it's very difficult to convince him/her that the conclusion was wrong. People tend to dismiss evidence that counters their beliefs, and hold on to what does confirm beliefs.

Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias,[Note 1] is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.[1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs.

source

 

[Moderate Right]

“I didn't disingenuously ignore anything. I went in 10 year increments using 2005...the year of Katirna...as a base. In point of fact YOUR SOURCE stopped at 2015. Or didnt you bother reading what you posted?”
You selectively chose after 2015 so as to eliminate that year’s record hurricane number or 15. Then, you selectively eliminated the 2016 hurricanes of 16.

“And there WERE 63 Hurricanes between 2006 and 2015. There were 82 from 1996 to 2005. You either suck at math or are intentionally lying.”

Let me repeat myself: “The ten years you so selectively choose, 2006 – 2015 inclusive, had a total of 63 hurricanes. The previous ten years had 63, also. Your claim is outright false. As I said, science does not base itself on such short periods of time. Through history, hurricanes are on the rise. You disingenuously eliminate 2005, at 15 hurricanes, and 2016, at 16. The most ever recorded. How disingenuous can you be?”

My math is totally correct. You are giving selective time periods that, as I said, are not scientifically in order compared to the greater time span I gave. I do not dispute your figures. I just say that they are selective and out of order to the greater context of history that scientifically determined outcomes. Or, do you just not believe in science?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/immediacy-threat-climate-change-exaggerated-175817468.html

 

[Deuce]

I think everybody believes in climate change. But climate changes don't mean we're going into the next ice age or that NYC will one day be underwater due to any actions by mankind.

Mother Nature is invincible.

Erm it's the people who aren't invincible, Maggie.