|
OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
Report links global warming, storms
Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer Tuesday, September 12, 2006 Printable Version Email This Article Scientists say they have found what could be the key to ending a yearlong debate about what is making hurricanes more violent and common -- evidence that human-caused global warming is heating the ocean and providing more fuel for the world's deadliest storms. For the past 13 months, researchers have debated whether humanity is to blame for a surge in hurricanes since the mid-1990s or whether the increased activity is merely a natural cycle that occurs every several decades. Employing 80 computer simulations, scientists from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and other institutions concluded that there is only one answer: that the burning of fossil fuels, which warms the climate, is also heating the oceans. Humans, Ben Santer, the report's lead author, told The Chronicle, are making hurricanes globally more violent "and violent hurricanes more common" -- at least, in the latter case, in the northern Atlantic Ocean. The findings were published Monday in the latest issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Hurricanes are born from tropical storms fueled by rising warm, moist air in the tropics. The Earth's rotation puts a spin on the storms, causing them to suck in more and more warm, moist air -- thus making them bigger and more ferocious. In that regard, the report says, since 1906, sea-surface temperatures have warmed by between one-third and two-thirds of a degree Celsius -- or between 0.6 and 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit -- in the tropical parts of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, which are hurricane breeding grounds. Critics of the theory that greenhouse gases are making hurricanes worse remained unconvinced by the latest research. Chris Landsea, a top hurricane expert, praised the Proceedings paper as a worthwhile contribution to science, but said the authors failed to persuasively counter earlier objections -- that warmer seas would have negligible impact on hurricane activity. Landsea, science and operations officer at the U.S. National Hurricane Center in Miami, noted that modern satellite observations have made hurricanes easier to detect and analyze, and that could foster the impression of long-term trends in hurricane frequency or violence that are, in fact, illusory. The surge in hurricane activity since the mid-1990s is just the latest wave in repeating cycles of hurricane activity, he said. Philip Klotzbach, a hurricane forecaster at Colorado State University, said that "sea-surface temperatures have certainly warmed over the past century, and ... there is probably a human-induced (global warming) component." But his own research indicates "there has been very little change in global hurricane activity over the past 20 years, where the data is most reliable." Researchers report in the Proceedings paper an 84 percent chance that at least two-thirds of the rise in ocean temperatures in these so-called hurricane breeding grounds is caused by human activities -- and primarily by the production of greenhouse gases. Tom Wigley, one of the world's top climate modelers and a co-author of the paper, said in a teleconference last week that the scientists tried to figure out what caused the oceans to warm by running many different computer models based on possible single causes. Those causes ranged from human production of greenhouse gases to natural variations in solar intensity. Wigley said that when the researchers reviewed the results, they found that only one model was best able to explain changing ocean temperatures, and it pointed to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The most infamous greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, a product of human burning of fossil fuels in cars and factories. Wigley estimated the odds as smaller than 1 percent that ocean warming could be blamed on random fluctuations in hurricane activity, as some scientists suggest. The debate among scientists was triggered in August 2005, a few weeks before Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, when hurricane expert Kerry Emanuel of MIT wrote an article for the journal Nature proposing that since the 1970s, ocean warming had made hurricanes about 50 percent more intense in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Later, two scientific teams, both at Georgia Tech, estimated that warmer sea-surface temperatures were boosting both hurricane intensity and the number of the two worst types of hurricanes, known as Category 4 and Category 5 storms. Nineteen scientists from 10 institutions were involved in the Proceedings paper. In addition to Lawrence Livermore, other U.S. institutions included Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, NASA, UC Merced, Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla (San Diego County), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Santer's co-authors included six Livermore colleagues -- Peter J. Gleckler, Krishna AchutaRao, Jim Boyle, Mike Fiorino, Steve Klein and Karl Taylor -- and 12 other researchers from elsewhere in the United States and from Germany and England. Assuming that warmer water equals more bad hurricanes, scary times could be ahead for inhabitants of hurricane-prone regions. That's because "the models that we've used to understand the causes of (ocean warming) in these hurricane formation regions predict that the oceans are going to get a lot warmer over the 21st century," Santer said in a statement. "That causes some concern." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How Hurricanes form in the Atlantic Ocean Hurricanes are born in far western Africa, where modest windstorms known as tropical disturbances pick up moisture from the warm sea and begin to whirl. As atmospheric pressures drop, tropical depressions form with wind speeds up to 38 mph. As they speed westward they become tropical storms, lashing the ocean with sheets of rain and winds blowing up to 70 mph or more, finally building into hurricanes with winds exceeding 100 mph. -- Tropical disturbance -- Tropical depression -- Tropical storm -- Hurricane Source: NOAA, The New York Times Joe Shoulak / The Chronicle |
OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On 12 Sep 2006 05:04:33 -0700, "basskisser" wrote: Report links global warming, storms Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer Have you seen the research that states, quite unequivocally I might add, that the reason there are more bigger storms is that the technology allowing for better eyeballing and dissecting storms has caused over reporting of their strength. The reverse of this is that storms before the advent of the technological edge were under estimated as to their strength, size and power - even in the number as satellites has given the modern forecaster and scientist a tool to watch storms born, live and die in remote areas of the earth. Interesting concept. Interesting, yes, but full of holes, so to speak. When the storm hits an area that has weather instruments, even simple ones such as a barometer and wind speed indicator, it is what it is. |
OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On 12 Sep 2006 06:05:35 -0700, "basskisser" wrote: Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On 12 Sep 2006 05:04:33 -0700, "basskisser" wrote: Report links global warming, storms Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer Have you seen the research that states, quite unequivocally I might add, that the reason there are more bigger storms is that the technology allowing for better eyeballing and dissecting storms has caused over reporting of their strength. The reverse of this is that storms before the advent of the technological edge were under estimated as to their strength, size and power - even in the number as satellites has given the modern forecaster and scientist a tool to watch storms born, live and die in remote areas of the earth. Interesting concept. Interesting, yes, but full of holes, so to speak. When the storm hits an area that has weather instruments, even simple ones such as a barometer and wind speed indicator, it is what it is. Well that's not really true for, say ten years or so ago, but that still doesn't address the main issue - how severe were the historical storms of record. Some studies say that that's it's about 70/30 over estimating the actual severity of any particular storm. Others are in the 50/50 category - basically a wash. There has been quite accurate barometric pressure indicators as well as wind speed indicators for many, many years You also have to take into consideration building codes and locations of major population centers for historical storms - current codes are much safer in higher winds and water situations. Damage in, say a Cat 1 storm is hardly noticeable where in historical storms, it would be much more severe. Well, yes and no. Large buildings, before the vast knowledge we have today in the engineering field were often over designed. With the advancement of structural modeling, the goal was to make a structure as economical as possible and still resist the forces applied. There is also an effect from sun spots. The current cycle has been much more active than previous cycles and it's pretty much a proven fact that all that energy does affect our atmosphere in extreme ways and in ways not fully understood as of yet. Yes, that is true. So to just patently say that storm severity and frequency is increasing and it's global warming as a cause is not only short sighted but lousy science. What is true is true. No one is saying that storm severity and frequency is 100% because of man, at least as far as I've seen. I'm not, anyway. Consider this year's cycle. By the global warming model, we were all about to be screwed, blued and tattooed - as many as 14 hurricanes and 17 named storms or some such. So far, two and seven. Ain't happened has it? Again, there are more variables. You are just trying to take one and say that it hasn't done anything. If you really want to swallow the global warming Kool Aid There is overwhelming science that man has contributed to global warming. Only Bush has told you that that isn't the case. |
OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com... No one is saying that storm severity and frequency is 100% because of man, at least as far as I've seen. I'm not, anyway. But, it's more patriotic to pretend someone said that, and then say nasty things about them. You are being watched. |
OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
Almost had a boating related post. (Hurricanes). Too bad you couldn't avoid screwing it up with political diarrhea in the header. |
OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
Chuck Gould wrote: Almost had a boating related post. (Hurricanes). Too bad you couldn't avoid screwing it up with political diarrhea in the header. Chuck, have you ever posted anything political here? |
OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... No one is saying that storm severity and frequency is 100% because of man, at least as far as I've seen. I'm not, anyway. But, it's more patriotic to pretend someone said that, and then say nasty things about them. You are being watched. Amen!!! Anytime now I'll be accused of all sorts of things that has never happened...you watch! |
OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
basskisser wrote: Chuck Gould wrote: Almost had a boating related post. (Hurricanes). Too bad you couldn't avoid screwing it up with political diarrhea in the header. Chuck, have you ever posted anything political here? Not for a long time. In fact, if you'd stop staring in the mirror and take a good look at the NG, you'll see that almost *nobody* is posting political crap here anymore. Makes it a better group. With very rare exceptions: NOYB has stopped. Harry has stopped. I have stopped. John H has stopped jps has stopped "Smithers" has stopped Bert has stopped JimH has pretty well stopped Doug Kanter has pretty well stopped or cut back a lot Don White has pretty well stopped or cut back a lot And the list goes on. Some of the non-boaters who used to lurk here looking for a political fist fight have disappeared, and more actual boaters are participating. That may or may not suit you, but I think that's a great thing for a boating NG. And, once again we devolve, (with your question "have you ever posted anything political here?") to you setting standards for your personal behavior based on the worst examples you can find. Why don't you ask yourself how *you* would like to define yourself? If you want to post political crap and personal attacks here all the time, at least have the stones to say "Screw you, ya *******. I'll post this off topic and inflammatory stuff because it pleases me to do so and to keep things in a turmoil!" That would earn you more respect than "But that little boy over there spit first!" There must be 1000 newsgroups. Just because a guy goes fishing a couple of times a year shouldn't give him license to f*** up the boating newsgroup with "BUSHCO" bait. |
OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
Chuck Gould wrote:
snip...take a good look at the NG, you'll see that almost *nobody* is posting political crap here anymore. Makes it a better group. With very rare exceptions: snip Don White has pretty well stopped or cut back a lot And the list goes on. Does this mean my 'Wanted Poster' will be recalled and the bounty removed from my head? |
OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
Chuck Gould wrote: basskisser wrote: Chuck Gould wrote: Almost had a boating related post. (Hurricanes). Too bad you couldn't avoid screwing it up with political diarrhea in the header. Chuck, have you ever posted anything political here? Not for a long time. In fact, if you'd stop staring in the mirror and take a good look at the NG, you'll see that almost *nobody* is posting political crap here anymore. Makes it a better group. With very rare exceptions: NOYB has stopped. Harry has stopped. I have stopped. John H has stopped jps has stopped "Smithers" has stopped Bert has stopped JimH has pretty well stopped Doug Kanter has pretty well stopped or cut back a lot Don White has pretty well stopped or cut back a lot And the list goes on. You can include me in the stopped or cut back and pretty well stopped catagory. |
OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
|
OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
Interesting, yes, but full of holes, so to speak. When the storm hits
an area that has weather instruments, even simple ones such as a barometer and wind speed indicator, it is what it is. Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: Well that's not really true for, say ten years or so ago Oh come on. There have been accurate weather instruments (barometer, anemometer, thermometer) for over 150 years. And the U.S. set up a weather collecting & analyzing service around 1885. Historical records of storm strength would as reliable and accurate as anything nowadays. What they didn't have was satellites to get real-time data and such a huge plethora of data collection points. You also have to take into consideration building codes and locations of major population centers for historical storms - current codes are much safer in higher winds and water situations. Damage in, say a Cat 1 storm is hardly noticeable where in historical storms, it would be much more severe. That's true. In fact it kind of is a double whammy because now coastal building are tenable in conditions that previously would have been *obviously* unsafe. And it leads people to build in places that are entirely unsuitable. I mean, it's great if your house can withstand a Cat 5+ hurricane but if the land it's on washes away, where are you then? There is also an effect from sun spots. The current cycle has been much more active than previous cycles and it's pretty much a proven fact that all that energy does affect our atmosphere in extreme ways and in ways not fully understood as of yet. So to just patently say that storm severity and frequency is increasing and it's global warming as a cause is not only short sighted but lousy science. Huh Don't take this personally, but going by your statements in the past your opinion about science is profoundly suspect. Aren't you the guy who wants to take biological science back to the 1500s? For another thing, I'd be very surprised if any scientists really said that. 250 years after Newton they are still calling gravity just a theory. If you really want to swallow the global warming Kool Aid Oh, global warming is really happening. The cause is uncertain, but before I started huffing & puffing about how humans can't possibly be the cause, I would at least do a slight amount of math. How many million barrels of oil a day are burned in just the U.S.? How many BTUs is that? DSK |
OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... Consider this year's cycle. By the global warming model, we were all about to be screwed, blued and tattooed - as many as 14 hurricanes and 17 named storms or some such. So far, two and seven. I'm still waiting for the actuaries to readjust my insurance premiums downwards as quickly as they adjusted them upwards. |
OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net... "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... Consider this year's cycle. By the global warming model, we were all about to be screwed, blued and tattooed - as many as 14 hurricanes and 17 named storms or some such. So far, two and seven. I'm still waiting for the actuaries to readjust my insurance premiums downwards as quickly as they adjusted them upwards. DO hold your breath. Just you, though. |
OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... Consider this year's cycle. By the global warming model, we were all about to be screwed, blued and tattooed - as many as 14 hurricanes and 17 named storms or some such. So far, two and seven. I'm still waiting for the actuaries to readjust my insurance premiums downwards as quickly as they adjusted them upwards. DO hold your breath. Just you, though. Thanks, that was fun. But next time warn me to put a pillow and blankets on the floor to cushion the fall. |
OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
DSK wrote: Interesting, yes, but full of holes, so to speak. When the storm hits an area that has weather instruments, even simple ones such as a barometer and wind speed indicator, it is what it is. Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: Well that's not really true for, say ten years or so ago Oh come on. There have been accurate weather instruments (barometer, anemometer, thermometer) for over 150 years. And the U.S. set up a weather collecting & analyzing service around 1885. Historical records of storm strength would as reliable and accurate as anything nowadays. What they didn't have was satellites to get real-time data and such a huge plethora of data collection points. You also have to take into consideration building codes and locations of major population centers for historical storms - current codes are much safer in higher winds and water situations. Damage in, say a Cat 1 storm is hardly noticeable where in historical storms, it would be much more severe. That's true. In fact it kind of is a double whammy because now coastal building are tenable in conditions that previously would have been *obviously* unsafe. And it leads people to build in places that are entirely unsuitable. I mean, it's great if your house can withstand a Cat 5+ hurricane but if the land it's on washes away, where are you then? There is also an effect from sun spots. The current cycle has been much more active than previous cycles and it's pretty much a proven fact that all that energy does affect our atmosphere in extreme ways and in ways not fully understood as of yet. So to just patently say that storm severity and frequency is increasing and it's global warming as a cause is not only short sighted but lousy science. Huh Don't take this personally, but going by your statements in the past your opinion about science is profoundly suspect. Aren't you the guy who wants to take biological science back to the 1500s? For another thing, I'd be very surprised if any scientists really said that. 250 years after Newton they are still calling gravity just a theory. If you really want to swallow the global warming Kool Aid Oh, global warming is really happening. The cause is uncertain, but before I started huffing & puffing about how humans can't possibly be the cause, I would at least do a slight amount of math. How many million barrels of oil a day are burned in just the U.S.? How many BTUs is that? DSK But BushCo's way of thinking is that we negate the amount of heat transfer to the air because of all the ice we make!!!! |
OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On 12 Sep 2006 09:25:59 -0700, "basskisser" wrote: There is overwhelming science that man has contributed to global warming. Only Bush has told you that that isn't the case. Of course. Oh well, rational is not one of your strong points. Yeah, I guess if believing Bush over good science is irrational, so be it. |
OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
"NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... Consider this year's cycle. By the global warming model, we were all about to be screwed, blued and tattooed - as many as 14 hurricanes and 17 named storms or some such. So far, two and seven. I'm still waiting for the actuaries to readjust my insurance premiums downwards as quickly as they adjusted them upwards. Downward? ROTF! Sure, when hell freezes over! |
OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:58:17 GMT, Don White wrote: Chuck Gould wrote: snip...take a good look at the NG, you'll see that almost *nobody* is posting political crap here anymore. Makes it a better group. With very rare exceptions: snip Don White has pretty well stopped or cut back a lot And the list goes on. Does this mean my 'Wanted Poster' will be recalled and the bounty removed from my head? No, but that's just because you are Canadian. On the other hand...I don't know why I should worry... we don't allow bounty hunters and the sheriffs up here simply escort prisoners around (to & from court from the lockup etc) Now if we had a US Marshall in here enforcing the peace I'd probably watch myself, as I'm sure they have some kind of exchange agreement with our Mounties. |
OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:22:33 -0400, DSK wrote: Interesting, yes, but full of holes, so to speak. When the storm hits an area that has weather instruments, even simple ones such as a barometer and wind speed indicator, it is what it is. Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: Well that's not really true for, say ten years or so ago Oh come on. There have been accurate weather instruments (barometer, anemometer, thermometer) for over 150 years. And the U.S. set up a weather collecting & analyzing service around 1885. Historical records of storm strength would as reliable and accurate as anything nowadays. What they didn't have was satellites to get real-time data and such a huge plethora of data collection points. Or reporting ocean buoys, drop sonds and Hurricane Hunters. As to instruments, are you truly of the belief that a barometer from 1885 is the equal of, say, a barometer of 1985 vintage? Consider that the mercury barometer wasn't correlated accurately with air pressure changes until 1860 or there about even though mercury barometers had been used earlier by surveyors to determine heights. The modern aneroid barometer wasn't placed into wide use until the early 1900s and have been improved on since. Consider this: In 1806, (200 years ago by my reckoning) Beaufort developed his famous scale which was based on observation of the movement of a frigate (generally a three master) in various sea states. The Admiralty adopted it officially in 1838, but it needed changing again because in the change of ship's technology to motion of waves and trees. Almost 100 years later (I think exactly, but my memory fails and I'm too lazy to look it up) it was changed again to more accurately reflect depth of water, fetches, states of swells and types of trees because not all trees are effected by wind in the same way. I believe, and I may not be correct here, that accurate records, albeit limited in scope, didn't start on a regular basis until 1890 in the US. To put paid to this part of the argument, while the Beaufort Scale was accurate for it's time, it certainly was changed as sea science improved and the physics of ocean currents and movements became more exact. You can't expect a report using the scale of 1838 to be as accurate as the scale of 1938 - it could be off be a surprising factor. Add to that weather logs, as part of ships and station keeping logs, were highly stylized and individual prior to Beaufort's Scale, your assertion that the instruments of the time were all that was needed is, while understandable, viewed with the eye of a technically oriented age rather than the eye of a technologically limited participant. You also have to take into consideration building codes and locations of major population centers for historical storms - current codes are much safer in higher winds and water situations. Damage in, say a Cat 1 storm is hardly noticeable where in historical storms, it would be much more severe. That's true. In fact it kind of is a double whammy because now coastal building are tenable in conditions that previously would have been *obviously* unsafe. And it leads people to build in places that are entirely unsuitable. I mean, it's great if your house can withstand a Cat 5+ hurricane but if the land it's on washes away, where are you then? Good point There is also an effect from sun spots. The current cycle has been much more active than previous cycles and it's pretty much a proven fact that all that energy does affect our atmosphere in extreme ways and in ways not fully understood as of yet. So to just patently say that storm severity and frequency is increasing and it's global warming as a cause is not only short sighted but lousy science. Huh Don't take this personally, but going by your statements in the past your opinion about science is profoundly suspect. Coming from you I'll take that as a compliment. Upon reading, I can see how you might interpret that which is not how I intended it. Allow me to rephrase. To wit: So to just patently say that storm severity and frequency is increasing and THAT global warming IS THE SOLE cause is not only short sighted but lousy science Better now? Hey, I was typing fast, was hanging on the phone waiting for a client to finish another call and listening to the Deion Branch controversy at the same time. I'm a lousy multi-tasker. :) Aren't you the guy who wants to take biological science back to the 1500s? Nope. Earlier. :) I want to go back to the days of cabbage patches, oggy boogy magic and fertility gods. For another thing, I'd be very surprised if any scientists really said that. 250 years after Newton they are still calling gravity just a theory. Isn't it? Seriously - isn't it still just a theory? :) What with all the quantum nonsense they've been doing lately, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that the only thing keeping us on the face of the planet was really teeny tiny itsy bitsy blue and green caterpillars. Itsy Bitsy? Teeny? Excuse me but those words are permanently assigned to describe just one thing (insert weenie after teenie)................a 'Yellow Polka Dot Bikini'! Blasphemy! Sing along with me......... (Paul Vance and Lee Pockriss) She was afraid to come out of the locker She was as nervous as she could be She was afraid to come out of the locker She was afraid that somebody would see One, two, three, four, tell the people what she wore It was an itsy, bitsy, teenie, weenie, yellow polka-dot bikini That she wore for the first time today An itsy, bitsy, teenie, weenie, yellow polka-dot bikini So in the locker she wanted to stay Two, three, four, stick around we'll tell you more She was afraid to come out in the open And so a blanket around she wore She was afraid to come out in the open And so she sat bundled up on the shore Two, three, four, tell the people what she wore It was an itsy, bitsy, teenie, weenie, yellow polka-dot bikini That she wore for the first time today An itsy, bitsy, teenie, weenie, yellow polka-dot bikini So in the blanket she wanted to stay Two, three, four, stick around we'll tell you more Now she is afraid to come out of the water And I wonder what she's gonna do Now she is afraid to come out of the water And the poor little girl's turning blue Two, three, four, tell the people what she wore It was an itsy, bitsy, teenie, weenie, yellow polka-dot bikini That she wore for the first time today An itsy, bitsy, teenie, weenie, yellow polka-dot bikini So in the water she wanted to stay (From the locker to the blanket) (From the blanket to the shore) (From the shore to the water) Yes, there isn't any more |
OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 18:54:31 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message . .. Consider this year's cycle. By the global warming model, we were all about to be screwed, blued and tattooed - as many as 14 hurricanes and 17 named storms or some such. So far, two and seven. I'm still waiting for the actuaries to readjust my insurance premiums downwards as quickly as they adjusted them upwards. Keep on waiting - I'm sure they will be adjusted shortly. Like maybe in the next Century. Whoever coined the phrase "what goes up, must come down" didn't know a damn thing about gas prices nor insurance premiums. |
OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
"NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 18:54:31 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... Consider this year's cycle. By the global warming model, we were all about to be screwed, blued and tattooed - as many as 14 hurricanes and 17 named storms or some such. So far, two and seven. I'm still waiting for the actuaries to readjust my insurance premiums downwards as quickly as they adjusted them upwards. Keep on waiting - I'm sure they will be adjusted shortly. Like maybe in the next Century. Whoever coined the phrase "what goes up, must come down" didn't know a damn thing about gas prices nor insurance premiums. It is happening right now with insurance premiums. The commercial insurance market is currently in a soft mode, meaning it is a buyers market and your business will see a stability or reduction in pricing, especially if you market it through your agency. We had been in a hard market for several years since 9-11. The soft market started late last year. Time to market your business insurance Doc. You will be pleasantly surprised with the new premiums being quoted. ;-) |
OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message . .. "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 18:54:31 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message m... Consider this year's cycle. By the global warming model, we were all about to be screwed, blued and tattooed - as many as 14 hurricanes and 17 named storms or some such. So far, two and seven. I'm still waiting for the actuaries to readjust my insurance premiums downwards as quickly as they adjusted them upwards. Keep on waiting - I'm sure they will be adjusted shortly. Like maybe in the next Century. Whoever coined the phrase "what goes up, must come down" didn't know a damn thing about gas prices nor insurance premiums. It is happening right now with insurance premiums. The commercial insurance market is currently in a soft mode, meaning it is a buyers market and your business will see a stability or reduction in pricing, especially if you market it through your agency. We had been in a hard market for several years since 9-11. The soft market started late last year. Time to market your business insurance Doc. You will be pleasantly surprised with the new premiums being quoted. ;-) I just shopped it a month ago. I'm with Cincinnati in a packaged policy designed for dentists (professional liability and business insurance in one). I bought the policy 7 years ago, and nobody has been able to touch it. |
OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
basskisser wrote: You can include me in the stopped or cut back and pretty well stopped catagory. Good news. More boats and less bull**** makes a better newsgroup. We know for a fact that political posts, personal attack posts, religious posts, etc just start a bunch of fights that nobody ever wins and cast a bad smell over everything else around. Folks who aren't trying to be a deliberately disruptive pain in the butt will exercise restraint and avoid dumping items like that into the mix. |
OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
As to instruments, are you truly of the belief that a barometer from 1885 is the equal of, say, a barometer of 1985 vintage? Sure, why wouldn't it? It's a very simple instrument, just two columns of non-volatile fluid to compare ambient air pressure to a vacuum. Modern instruments are more sophisticated, sure. You can accurately measure all kinds of other things that an 1885 meteorologist would barely be able to guess. Anemometers back then were a bit kludgy, for example. I believe, and I may not be correct here, that accurate records, albeit limited in scope, didn't start on a regular basis until 1890 in the US. Sounds right to me. .... You can't expect a report using the scale of 1838 to be as accurate as the scale of 1938 - it could be off be a surprising factor. Or it could be pretty close. When you go back a bit further, you have much wider variation in instruments and much fewer recorded data anyway. If you go past the 1790s there is pretty much nothing... so it ramps up and more recent is better. On that, I'm not disagreeing. I'm just trying to point out that they weren't cavemen back then. Allow me to rephrase. To wit: So to just patently say that storm severity and frequency is increasing and THAT global warming IS THE SOLE cause is not only short sighted but lousy science Better now? Yes, much, thanks... in fact I'd go a step further and say that it isn't science at all. The only problem I have with your statement above is that it's a straw man. Nobody (AFAIK) is saying that hurricanes ARE absolutely increasing in frequency & severity; and this is caused SOLELY by global warming. It has been suggested that the two are linked. I'm a lousy multi-tasker. :) Me too. For another thing, I'd be very surprised if any scientists really said that. 250 years after Newton they are still calling gravity just a theory. Isn't it? Seriously - isn't it still just a theory? :) Actually, gravity has been disproven. Ain't no such thing! What with all the quantum nonsense they've been doing lately, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that the only thing keeping us on the face of the planet was really teeny tiny itsy bitsy blue and green caterpillars. No, what holds us all to the ground is the invisible, undetectable, and un-knowable residue of the slime-god of boogers who sneezed on the shell of the primordial turtle Bfikkly-Tog on whose back we ride across the inky sky. Science doesn't know or care why. Science only measures and predicts. I don't disagree that there is impact from greenhouse gases - I don't think I've ever actually disagreed that global warming has some effect on the environment. My mistake, I thought you had said in the past that global warming wasn't happening. However, I actually refuse to believe that global warming is the sole cause of environmental change in terms of supposedly increased severity and frequency of storms. I don't believe that either. I don't believe that one can just categorically state that global warming is the sole cause - there are lots of different factors that enter into the equation and we're not anywhere near being able to model it accurately. Wait a minute, I thought we were arguing about something else... dammit where' my prgram... can't tell the players without a program... DSK |
OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
No, what holds us all to the ground is the invisible,
undetectable, and un-knowable residue of the slime-god of boogers who sneezed on the shell of the primordial turtle Bfikkly-Tog on whose back we ride across the inky sky. Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: The turtle's name is Great A'tuin and the world is supported by four elephants - Berilia, Tubul, Great T'Phon and Jerakeen, and the whole assemblage is circled by the small discworld sun and moon. Blashpemy! Smite the heretic!! DSK |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com