Hurricanes and global warming

T

tinfoil

Banned
Kerry Emanuel, the guy who came up with the idea to link global warming and hurricanes, now says other factors are more important in determining frequency of cyclones. If you read the actual paper you'll see that they feel cyclonic activity actually warms the ocean and traps heat through surface and sub-surface mixing (during cyclonic events). They show that the heat may be trapped for periods longer than a year and that further cyclonic activities in subsequent years may lead to to a feedback effect and even could be responsible for some climate variability.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/hurricanes-global-warming-47041302

http://www.ess.uci.edu/~cpasquer/papers/pasquero_emanuel_JC07.pdf
 
tinfoil said:
Consensus!!!
Click to expand...

You have a very unhealthy obsession with this issue; so much so that you tend to put a ton of weight on evidence that might be considered an anomoly, while ignoring mountains of evidence to the contrary. Do you notice that you do that? It's because you've become fixated on the people - or "kind of people" - who talk about global warming & the environment. You're obsessed with them, and you feel contempt for them, so you have completely lost your objectivity on this issue.

A few years ago, I have no doubt that you would have given your best "LOL" if someone had predicted food riots or water shortages. You're the idiot who is proven wrong with each passing year & decade. I hope you're not wrong about the next 10-20 years, but unfortunately, I know that you are.
 
Last edited:
Onceler said:
You have a very unhealthy obsession with this issue; so much so that you tend to put a ton of weight on evidence that might be considered an anomoly, while ignoring mountains of evidence to the contrary. Do you notice that you do that? It's because you've become fixated on the people - or "kind of people" - who talk about global warming & the environment. You're obsessed with them, and you feel contempt for them, so you have completely lost your objectivity on this issue.

A few years ago, I have no doubt that you would have given your best "LOL" if someone had predicted food riots or water shortages. You're the idiot who is proven wrong with each passing year & decade. I hope you're not wrong about the next 10-20 years, but unfortunately, I know that you are.
Click to expand...

Please do not pretend the food riots have anything to do with global warming. World production of grain is at its highest level....EVER. The reason for the riots is due to demand increasing at a faster pace than supply. Largely due to people like you who continue to ignore the consequences of using grain to produce ethanol. Almost 15% of the grain the US produces goes to ethanol production. That grain could be feeding those people.

But you don't care about that do you? You continue to play in your "global warming" is causing everything fantasy world. Where your kind predict year after year of increasing doom and gloom. Every time severe weather happens.... oh it is because of global warming. Lets just ignore that droughts/hurricanes/food shortages/floods etc... have all occured in the past.... long before mankind knew how to write.

Now what could be causing demand to grow at such a fast pace? oh yeah, those evil free trade agreements that have helped urbanize China and India. Those nations have become wealthier and as they urbanize more, they eat more meat.... which require higher grain consumption. Not to mention the ethanol plants that those countries are continuing to put into production.

You want to be concerned? Stop the use of grain for ethanol production. perhaps then we won't continue to see the deforestation of the planet all for the sake of more "environmentally friendly" fuel. Grain based ethanol takes more energy to make than it produces. It is a net loser.... without counting the negative effect it has on world grain supplies.

But oh yeah.... that doesn't matter because it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to use ethanol.... regardless of the damage it does to the environment.
 
Onceler said:
You have a very unhealthy obsession with this issue; so much so that you tend to put a ton of weight on evidence that might be considered an anomoly, while ignoring mountains of evidence to the contrary. Do you notice that you do that? It's because you've become fixated on the people - or "kind of people" - who talk about global warming & the environment. You're obsessed with them, and you feel contempt for them, so you have completely lost your objectivity on this issue.

A few years ago, I have no doubt that you would have given your best "LOL" if someone had predicted food riots or water shortages. You're the idiot who is proven wrong with each passing year & decade. I hope you're not wrong about the next 10-20 years, but unfortunately, I know that you are.
Click to expand...



Wow. it's so lame that you can't talk about the subject and instead try to impugn my integrity. and for what? Pointing out an article and posting a new study that's peer reviewed.

You are a joke lorax.
 
Damocles said:
He's right, Lorax. Ad Hominem is a bit weak. If you have something give it.
Click to expand...

You're ridiculous. Tinfoil is nothing but ad hominen w/ me usually, but there is never a peep out of you at those times. Oh, I know, I know - you're trying to "balance" the board by sticking up for conservatives only.

I wasn't talking about this post specifically with tinfoil. I was talking about his whole m.o., which I'm sure you know well. There is no "debate" with him; any legit point is met with a goofy "LOL" or mocking "consensus!". My post on this thread is accurate; he is obsessed with the environmental left, not the facts of their cause. He has contempt for them, and it drives his agenda.
 
Onceler said:
You're ridiculous. Tinfoil is nothing but ad hominen w/ me usually, but there is never a peep out of you at those times. Oh, I know, I know - you're trying to "balance" the board by sticking up for conservatives only.

I wasn't talking about this post specifically with tinfoil. I was talking about his whole m.o., which I'm sure you know well. There is no "debate" with him; any legit point is met with a goofy "LOL" or mocking "consensus!". My post on this thread is accurate; he is obsessed with the environmental left, not the facts of their cause. He has contempt for them, and it drives his agenda.
Click to expand...
Honestly, it has to do with this topic. It seems to be all the left has.

Righty: (Posts an interesting article).

Lefty: You are a Neanderthal, I can't believe you don't understand the <insert Angel Voices here> Consensus!

Righty: Posts a point about the article, asks a question, inserts a small insult.

Lefty: Dolt! You are just obsessed!

Righty: Why don't you answer my question?
 
Damocles said:
Honestly, it has to do with this topic. It seems to be all the left has.

Righty: (Posts an interesting article).

Lefty: You are a Neanderthal, I can't believe you don't understand the <insert Angel Voices here> Consensus!

Righty: Posts a point about the article, asks a question, inserts a small insult.

Lefty: Dolt! You are just obsessed!

Righty: Why don't you answer my question?
Click to expand...


Funny, whenever I try to rationally respond to these kinds of posts, all I get are claims that I'm screaming "consensus!", when I haven't even used the word. Oh, sure...usually I'll get an "LOL", as well, but mostly, it's "you keep screaming consensus!"
 
Onceler said:
Funny, whenever I try to rationally respond to these kinds of posts, all I get are claims that I'm screaming "consensus!", when I haven't even used the word. Oh, sure...usually I'll get an "LOL", as well, but mostly, it's "you keep screaming consensus!"
Click to expand...
So you think that its time to whine and ad hominem instead?
 
Damocles said:
So you think that its time to whine and ad hominem instead?
Click to expand...

Like I said, my first response on this thread is entirely accurate. Though I use the term "idiot", I wouldn't describe the entire spirit of that response as "ad hominen."

My 2nd response is simply a parody of tinfoil. If you search "LOL" on this site, you will see what I mean.
 
I see you have nothing to say about the study. Whatever. I don't believe CO2 drives climate and my obsession with AGW is about stopping it before the energy taxes are put in place and we all get scammed in perpetuity. You are obviously too stupid to understand my motivations despite my having described them numerous times. It has nothig to do with political ideologies. It might for you, but not for me.
 
Onceler said:
Like I said, my first response on this thread is entirely accurate. Though I use the term "idiot", I wouldn't describe the entire spirit of that response as "ad hominen."

My 2nd response is simply a parody of tinfoil. If you search "LOL" on this site, you will see what I mean.
Click to expand...
Your response was, "this is an anomaly, follow the consensus".

Just because you didn't use the word 'consensus', doesn't mean it isn't what you meant.

If I said, "That thing on the wall that you can move up or down to turn on or off the lights."

Then swore up and down I wasn't talking about a switch you'd tell me I was doublespeaking.

It is what you are trying now.

Consensus is what it is. Many scientists believe that human genesis global warming is reality. However, when questioning that consensus leads to ad hominem and attempts to silence people we are no longer in the realm of science and have reached into the religion arena.
 
Well, you can't read, and I can't help you with that, Damo. I talked about evidence; that's a far different thing from consensus. Yes, consensus is based largely on evidence, but the the mocking cries of "consensus" from fools like tinfoil & Superfreak are presented only to make environmentalists look like sheep. That is why I don't rely on "consensus" so much, and talk more about actual evidence.

I have stated many times that I think the jury is still out on the extent of man's contribution to global warming, but I do think evidence is mounting in favor of that. I advocate for alternatives for a wide variety of reasons, including pollution, national security & the economy. I'm tired of the argument still getting bogged down on whether or not we're actually warming, or whether or not we need to do anything to change our ways; that argument is over as far as I'm concerned, and time spent on it is wasteful & driven by purely ideological reasons.
 
Onceler said:
Well, you can't read, and I can't help you with that, Damo. I talked about evidence; that's a far different thing from consensus. Yes, consensus is based largely on evidence, but the the mocking cries of "consensus" from fools like tinfoil & Superfreak are presented only to make environmentalists look like sheep. That is why I don't rely on "consensus" so much, and talk more about actual evidence.

I have stated many times that I think the jury is still out on the extent of man's contribution to global warming, but I do think evidence is mounting in favor of that. I advocate for alternatives for a wide variety of reasons, including pollution, national security & the economy. I'm tired of the argument still getting bogged down on whether or not we're actually warming, or whether or not we need to do anything to change our ways; that argument is over as far as I'm concerned, and time spent on it is wasteful & driven by purely ideological reasons.
Click to expand...
You and I agree on advocating for alternatives for a variety of reasons. There are far more reasons than global warming to attempt to find emissionless sources of energy.
 
Onceler said:
Well, you can't read, and I can't help you with that, Damo. I talked about evidence; that's a far different thing from consensus. Yes, consensus is based largely on evidence, but the the mocking cries of "consensus" from fools like tinfoil & Superfreak are presented only to make environmentalists look like sheep. That is why I don't rely on "consensus" so much, and talk more about actual evidence.

I have stated many times that I think the jury is still out on the extent of man's contribution to global warming, but I do think evidence is mounting in favor of that. I advocate for alternatives for a wide variety of reasons, including pollution, national security & the economy. I'm tired of the argument still getting bogged down on whether or not we're actually warming, or whether or not we need to do anything to change our ways; that argument is over as far as I'm concerned, and time spent on it is wasteful & driven by purely ideological reasons.
Click to expand...

Top isn't right about much, but one thing I will give him is that he was right months ago when he said he wasn't going to "kick the guy in the wheelchair' by arguing with the mentally handicapped over stuff like this. And it is true.

You can find people on here who will argue with you over whether smoking really causes lung cancer, whether the earth is really over 6,000 years old...you name it, some fool will argue about it.

It's a waste of time and energy. They're the same fools who believe that "wmds really were found in Iraq". They would have been arguing that the world was flat and you could fall off the edge not that long ago. They are to me, one big shrug. Who cares?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top