OT--Hurricanes not a result of global warming
 

"Black Dog" wrote in message
.. .
wrote:
NOYB wrote:

NOAA ATTRIBUTES RECENT INCREASE IN HURRICANE ACTIVITY
TO NATURALLY OCCURRING MULTI-DECADAL CLIMATE VARIABILITY

Nov. 29, 2005 - The nation is now wrapping up the 11th year of a new era
of
heightened Atlantic hurricane activity. This era has been unfolding in
the
Atlantic since 1995, and is expected to continue for the next decade or
perhaps longer. NOAA attributes this increased activity to natural
occurring
cycles in tropical climate patterns near the equator. These cycles,
called
"the tropical multi-decadal signal," typically last several decades (20
to
30 years or even longer). As a result, the North Atlantic experiences
alternating decades long (20 to 30 year periods or even longer) of above
normal or below normal hurricane seasons. NOAA research shows that the
tropical multi-decadal signal is causing the increased Atlantic hurricane
activity since 1995, and is not related to greenhouse warming.

http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag184.htm


NOAA studies atmospheric conditions, period. What do you say about the
study that shows that for 65,000 years, the co2 levels in the air
remained quite stable, then started an upward trend during the
industrial age that correlates with warming trends?


I saw a study that says we have the highest CO2 levels in 650,000 years.
But as for the upward trend during the industrial age correlating with
warming trends? Not a scientific conclusion. We don't have any accurate
temperature data older than about 130 years. We don't know except in very
indirect ways (tree rings come to mind) what the temperatures were 650,000
years ago. So we only have half the graph filled in.

We know we have had some very cold spells (the so-called "mini-ice-age"
when the Thames froze over and underwear was invented - just watch James
Burke) and very warm times when crops grew in Greenland, within historical
records. So far, all the data I've seen correlates better with sun-spot
cycles than with atmospheric CO2 content but I haven't actually seen the
new CO2 ice-core data.

Why is it so hard to accept that these hurricanes are part of natural
cycle? I realize the people whose grants rely on the study of climate
change/global warming were probably ****ing themselves with glee when yet
another tropical storm started up over the Atlantic today, but don't you
feel just a little better knowing that New Orleans disappearing really
isn't your fault or fault of your SUV driving neighbour?

"Ancient Bubbles" coming out of Kevin bath water have been studied by
scientists.

Their extensive tests show that although they smell like something 650,000
years old they are nothing more than beer farts but devastating enough to be
contributing greatly to global warming. ;-)

OT--Hurricanes not a result of global warming
 

wrote in message
ups.com...

NOYB wrote:
NOAA ATTRIBUTES RECENT INCREASE IN HURRICANE ACTIVITY
TO NATURALLY OCCURRING MULTI-DECADAL CLIMATE VARIABILITY

Nov. 29, 2005 - The nation is now wrapping up the 11th year of a new era
of
heightened Atlantic hurricane activity. This era has been unfolding in
the
Atlantic since 1995, and is expected to continue for the next decade or
perhaps longer. NOAA attributes this increased activity to natural
occurring
cycles in tropical climate patterns near the equator. These cycles,
called
"the tropical multi-decadal signal," typically last several decades (20
to
30 years or even longer). As a result, the North Atlantic experiences
alternating decades long (20 to 30 year periods or even longer) of above
normal or below normal hurricane seasons. NOAA research shows that the
tropical multi-decadal signal is causing the increased Atlantic hurricane
activity since 1995, and is not related to greenhouse warming.

http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag184.htm



NOAA studies atmospheric conditions, period.



Kevin, I suggest that you give them a call and tell them to stop these
projects immediately:

http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/rsch/erie/

How dare they!

You should start a campaign to get the "O" (Oceanic) out of their name.

OT--Hurricanes not a result of global warming
 

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
wrote in
ups.com:


NOYB wrote:
NOAA ATTRIBUTES RECENT INCREASE IN HURRICANE ACTIVITY
TO NATURALLY OCCURRING MULTI-DECADAL CLIMATE VARIABILITY

http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag184.htm

NOAA studies atmospheric conditions, period.

Apparently you don't even know what the "O" in "NOAA" stands for.

Idiot.


Damn it Fred. I just posted something similar.........but I was going back
and forth while making dinner and it took me 10 minutes to post it!

Great minds think alike.

OT--Hurricanes not a result of global warming
 

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:45:47 -0500, Black Dog wrote:

wrote:
NOYB wrote:

NOAA ATTRIBUTES RECENT INCREASE IN HURRICANE ACTIVITY
TO NATURALLY OCCURRING MULTI-DECADAL CLIMATE VARIABILITY

Nov. 29, 2005 - The nation is now wrapping up the 11th year of a new era of
heightened Atlantic hurricane activity. This era has been unfolding in the
Atlantic since 1995, and is expected to continue for the next decade or
perhaps longer. NOAA attributes this increased activity to natural occurring
cycles in tropical climate patterns near the equator. These cycles, called
"the tropical multi-decadal signal," typically last several decades (20 to
30 years or even longer). As a result, the North Atlantic experiences
alternating decades long (20 to 30 year periods or even longer) of above
normal or below normal hurricane seasons. NOAA research shows that the
tropical multi-decadal signal is causing the increased Atlantic hurricane
activity since 1995, and is not related to greenhouse warming.

http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag184.htm


NOAA studies atmospheric conditions, period. What do you say about the
study that shows that for 65,000 years, the co2 levels in the air
remained quite stable, then started an upward trend during the
industrial age that correlates with warming trends?


I saw a study that says we have the highest CO2 levels in 650,000 years.
But as for the upward trend during the industrial age correlating with
warming trends? Not a scientific conclusion. We don't have any
accurate temperature data older than about 130 years. We don't know
except in very indirect ways (tree rings come to mind) what the
temperatures were 650,000 years ago. So we only have half the graph
filled in.

We know we have had some very cold spells (the so-called "mini-ice-age"
when the Thames froze over and underwear was invented - just watch James
Burke) and very warm times when crops grew in Greenland, within
historical records. So far, all the data I've seen correlates better
with sun-spot cycles than with atmospheric CO2 content but I haven't
actually seen the new CO2 ice-core data.

Why is it so hard to accept that these hurricanes are part of natural
cycle? I realize the people whose grants rely on the study of climate
change/global warming were probably ****ing themselves with glee when
yet another tropical storm started up over the Atlantic today, but don't
you feel just a little better knowing that New Orleans disappearing
really isn't your fault or fault of your SUV driving neighbour?

You've missed the point, although your comments are very rational.

The point is that global warming (whether or not it exists and is due to
mankind) is George Bush's fault!
--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Self-obsessed Hypocrite]