Super typhoon via GW???

Thing1 said:
Who knows?

If GW is playing a factor...what can we do about it?
Click to expand...

Well...... Every HONEST scientist will tell you that the earth is warming. Some say it is an earth cycle, others say it is man induced.

If it is an earth cycle, we can't do much other then not contribute to it. If it is man induced then we have to do something about air pollution. Either way, the answer is to reduce air pollution.
 
wiseones2cents said:
Well...... Every HONEST scientist will tell you that the earth is warming. Some say it is an earth cycle, others say it is man induced.

If it is an earth cycle, we can't do much other then not contribute to it. If it is man induced then we have to do something about air pollution. Either way, the answer is to reduce air pollution.
Click to expand...

Even scientists who argue AGW say that even if man went cold turkey on emissions - which is impossible - it would likely be over 1,000 years, and perhaps much longer, before we'd see any difference.

So, how is reducing pollution any kind of answer to GW? I"m all for reducing pollution for reducing pollution's sake, but I think it's time that people stop pretending it will make an iota of difference w/ regard to GW.
 
Superfreak said:
1) It 'may be' the strongest ever recorded (to hit land) http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/08/world/asia/philippines-typhoon-haiyan/?hpt=hp_t1
2) How far back do records go? 100 years? 200 years?
3) How old is the earth?
4) Do you have any evidence at all that GW (which has not increased in the past decade plus) is behind the strength of this storm?
Click to expand...

Regardless of these hypothetical questions? The major FACTS are that we have had a HUGE increase in natural disasters and any scientist will tell you that the unprecedented rate and strength of these natural disasters are related to UNNATURALLY HIGH contrasting weather fronts. Well above average Global temperatures.

Now if it is indeed a "earth cycle"? The only thing that could cause that was another supernova star or our actual sun heating up. Which is the worst news possible.
 
Last edited:
Thing1 said:
Even scientists who argue AGW say that even if man went cold turkey on emissions - which is impossible - it would likely be over 1,000 years, and perhaps much longer, before we'd see any difference.
Click to expand...

Really? You have a link to back that up? That's ridiculous.

So, how is reducing pollution any kind of answer to GW? I"m all for reducing pollution for reducing pollution's sake, but I think it's time that people stop pretending it will make an iota of difference w/ regard to GW.
Click to expand...

Anyone that understands greenhouse gases will tell you that they trap heat, which results in increased Atmospheric temperatures. Reduce greenhouse gases and you automatically decrease temperatures. Which will slow down Glacier thawing, and thus sustain ocean levels. When ocean levels rise, so does the rate of evaporation. Reducing the rate of thaw would reduce torrential rainfall and thus flooding. Not to mention all the health benefits of the human race. Respiratory illnesses have skyrocketed due to poor air quality. It's a no brainer! Clean up the planet!
 
wiseones2cents said:
Really? You have a link to back that up? That's ridiculous.



Anyone that understands greenhouse gases will tell you that they trap heat, which results in increased Atmospheric temperatures. Reduce greenhouse gases and you automatically decrease temperatures. Which will slow down Glacier thawing, and thus sustain ocean levels. When ocean levels rise, so does the rate of evaporation, that would reduce torrential rainfall and thus flooding. Not to mention all the health benefits of the human race. Respiratory illnesses have skyrocketed due to poor air quality. It's a no brainer! Clean up the planet!
Click to expand...

So, as soon we reduce emissions, there is an immediate reduction in temperatures as a result?

That's a fallacy. Check the latest IPCC report. Emissions & their effects last for centuries at a minimum. Nothing we do now - and certainly nothing America does without Japan, China, India, et al. on board - will make a difference. Certainly not token restrictions on emissions that cost jobs or anything.

I'm all for transitioning to green technology & getting off of fossil fuels, but not at the expense of jobs, and not under the false pretense of "reducing global warming."
 
wiseones2cents said:
Well...... Every HONEST scientist will tell you that the earth is warming. Some say it is an earth cycle, others say it is man induced.

If it is an earth cycle, we can't do much other then not contribute to it. If it is man induced then we have to do something about air pollution. Either way, the answer is to reduce air pollution.
Click to expand...

REDUCE AIR POLLUTION...EDUCATE A REPUBLICAN!
 
Thing1 said:
So, as soon we reduce emissions, there is an immediate reduction in temperatures as a result?
Click to expand...

I believe so. At the very least, stop fueling GW.

That's a fallacy. Check the latest IPCC report. Emissions & their effects last for centuries at a minimum. Nothing we do now - and certainly nothing America does without Japan, China, India, et al. on board - will make a difference. Certainly not token restrictions on emissions that cost jobs or anything.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that goes against logic. Trees(vegetation) will deal with most of the carbon dioxide(as long as we address deforestation). It's the other bi-products that may linger.

I'm still waiting for a link to back your assertions. And even if the emissions last for centuries, even better reason to get started and save the future of the earth.

I'm all for transitioning to green technology & getting off of fossil fuels, but not at the expense of jobs, and not under the false pretense of "reducing global warming."
Click to expand...

Therefore your selfishness is more important then the future of humanity? That false pretense is a fact. Your in denial.
 
wiseones2cents said:
I believe so. At the very least, stop fueling GW.



Sorry, that goes against logic. Trees(vegetation) will deal with most of the carbon dioxide(as long as we address deforestation). It's the other bi-products that may linger.

I'm still waiting for a link to back your assertions. And even if the emissions last for centuries, even better reason to get started and save the future of the earth.



Therefore your selfishness is more important then the future of humanity? That false pretense is a fact. Your in denial.
Click to expand...

You "believe so?" Maybe you should check into it. That belief is not scientifically supported, by anyone.

I said, check the latest IPCC report.

As for my "selfishness," I happen to care about the middle class, and their jobs. To me, unless you can demonstrate how what we do can affect global warming one iota, I'd rather preserve those jobs. Selfish ol' me.
 
Thing1 said:
You "believe so?" Maybe you should check into it. That belief is not scientifically supported, by anyone.

I said, check the latest IPCC report.

As for my "selfishness," I happen to care about the middle class, and their jobs. To me, unless you can demonstrate how what we do can affect global warming one iota, I'd rather preserve those jobs. Selfish ol' me.
Click to expand...

The fact is known by everyone who knows anything about the matter, as indeed you too know.
 
wiseones2cents said:
Well...... Every HONEST scientist will tell you that the earth is warming. Some say it is an earth cycle, others say it is man induced.
Click to expand...

The earth most certainly did warm in the later part of the 20th century. It has remained at those high levels for the first part of this century, but has not seen a statistically significant increase in temps in the past 15 years. That is what an HONEST scientist will tell you.

If it is an earth cycle, we can't do much other then not contribute to it. If it is man induced then we have to do something about air pollution. Either way, the answer is to reduce air pollution.
Click to expand...

Air, water and land pollution should be reduced as much as possible regardless of whether or not they are causing global warming. IF they are, then reducing them is a plus for GW as well. If they are NOT causing global warming, they are still causing other issues that need to be resolved such as health of us as individuals as well as for other species. That said, proclaiming CO2 a 'pollutant' based on nonsense is hurting the cause of a cleaner environment. It is causing the environmental movement to take a step backwards as they continually look foolish in their fear mongering proclamations. To date there has been no evidence of increased severity in weather patterns due to GW. (at least none that I have seen at this point... so if there is a recent one, I would love to see it).
 
wiseones2cents said:
Regardless of these hypothetical questions? The major FACTS are that we have had a HUGE increase in natural disasters and any scientist will tell you that the unprecedented rate and strength of these natural disasters are related to UNNATURALLY HIGH contrasting weather fronts. Well above average Global temperatures.
Click to expand...

There is NO evidence the above is true with regards to an increase in natural disasters. If you feel otherwise, please link us up.

The 'well above average' numbers always tend to be based on the past 120 years. Which conveniently eliminates the little Ice age and the Medieval warming period.

Now if it is indeed a "earth cycle"? The only thing that could cause that was another supernova star or our actual sun heating up. Which is the worst news possible.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Aoxomoxoa said:
Oh God, there is always some clown that wants to link any event with global warming. If anything those events are getting less not more. This has been the quietest hurricane season in decades. As for being the worst ever, I guess Cyclone Nargis

Cyclone Nargis

Cyclone Nargis has been forgotten already.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/...orida-hurricanes-decreased-in-last-600-years/

http://www.ifrc.org/en/news-and-med...yanmar-cyclone-nargis-2008-facts-and-figures/

Cyclone Nargis
Click to expand...

God bless America and all her brainwashed serfs! About climate consult climatologists, not bumsuckers!
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Oh God, there is always some clown that wants to link any event with global warming. If anything those events are getting less not more. This has been the quietest hurricane season in decades. As for being the worst ever, I guess Cyclone Nargis

Cyclone Nargis

Cyclone Nargis has been forgotten already.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/...orida-hurricanes-decreased-in-last-600-years/

http://www.ifrc.org/en/news-and-med...yanmar-cyclone-nargis-2008-facts-and-figures/

Cyclone Nargis
Click to expand...

You are making a basic mistake. When they say 'the worst storm in the history of mankind' they mean 'in the last couple of years'.
 
Thing1 said:
You "believe so?" Maybe you should check into it. That belief is not scientifically supported, by anyone.

I said, check the latest IPCC report.
Click to expand...

I'm not doin your work. Still waiting for the link.

As for my "selfishness," I happen to care about the middle class, and their jobs. To me, unless you can demonstrate how what we do can affect global warming one iota, I'd rather preserve those jobs. Selfish ol' me.
Click to expand...

I care more about their health then their paychecks. Switching t nuclear power would not jeopardize their jobs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top