I think I speak for all of us when I say...Huh?PureFodder wrote:
This has nothing to do with whether or not we're causing global warming. Anyone who thinks it does is simply showing a lack of understanding about the topic.
This is to do with the predicted results of global warming, a very different topic.
YesFEOS wrote:
Really? The UK been hit by one recently?
Not for me.Moo? Si! wrote:
I think I speak for all of us when I say...Huh?PureFodder wrote:
This has nothing to do with whether or not we're causing global warming. Anyone who thinks it does is simply showing a lack of understanding about the topic.
This is to do with the predicted results of global warming, a very different topic.
Last edited by sergeriver (2008-01-24 11:39:29)
Was that an actual hurricane?
Another thing I saw on Discovery is that there are less hurricanes in America when there are more sandstorms in the Sahara, something to do with heat they produce and that stimulates the growth of algae.Kmarion wrote:
Warm water is the fuel for Hurricanes.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22790698/ VS http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8245668/
I guess I'll just stop trying to understand...lol
Kmarion wrote:
Was that an actual hurricane?
According to the article, hurricane force winds were recorded. But is there a difference between a 'hurricane' and hurricane-force winds?Hurricane force winds and heavy rain battering the South East have caused flooding and travel chaos, with dozens of calls to the emergency services.
In East Sussex, gusts of 87mph were recorded at Fairlight, near Hastings.
Hurricanes form over warm tropical waters also. 87 mph is still strong though. At about 75 it gets difficult to stand upright.FEOS wrote:
Yes. A hurricane is a type of storm. Hurricane-force winds are just winds that hit a certain speed threshold and may not be associated with a storm at all.
You claimed this showed a hole in the global warming argument, ie. the theory that man made pollutants are changing the global average temperature. This research is concerned with the question, 'given a increase in the global average temperature by any means, what will the results be.' Two very different things.Moo? Si! wrote:
I think I speak for all of us when I say...Huh?PureFodder wrote:
This has nothing to do with whether or not we're causing global warming. Anyone who thinks it does is simply showing a lack of understanding about the topic.
This is to do with the predicted results of global warming, a very different topic.
Last edited by PureFodder (2008-01-24 16:45:18)
Actually, I do find that rather odd. I supposed 'enhanced' is a rather complex word.M.O.A.B wrote:
Global Warming is real, but overhyped. Global Warming is the natural version, Enhanced Global Warming is human contribution, strange how its always portrayed using the natural title.
Actually, I said there are holes in the global warming argument, this appears to be one of them, not "the smoking gun". As another person posted, I was merely making an observation.PureFodder wrote:
You claimed this showed a hole in the global warming argument, ie. the theory that man made pollutants are changing the global average temperature. This research is concerned with the question, 'given a increase in the global average temperature by any means, what will the results be.' Two very different things.Moo? Si! wrote:
I think I speak for all of us when I say...Huh?PureFodder wrote:
This has nothing to do with whether or not we're causing global warming. Anyone who thinks it does is simply showing a lack of understanding about the topic.
This is to do with the predicted results of global warming, a very different topic.
To put it in different terms, it's the same difference between studying how computers work and studying the social changes caused by comptuers. Showing that predictions about the changes caused by widespread computer use in society were wrong wouldn't prove that transistors don't exist.
Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2008-01-25 01:10:38)
Did you actually read the second site?[TUF]Catbox wrote:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57605
http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html
Globull warming... it's a business...
No, it's not one of them. If the temperature increases we are seeing are due to us or natural cycles is utterly irrelevant to whether or not a global temperature rise causes more or less hurricanes. This has no relevance to the question of whether we are causing the global average temperature to rise due to our polluting of the atmosphere.Moo? Si! wrote:
Actually, I said there are holes in the global warming argument, this appears to be one of them, not "the smoking gun". As another person posted, I was merely making an observation.PureFodder wrote:
You claimed this showed a hole in the global warming argument, ie. the theory that man made pollutants are changing the global average temperature. This research is concerned with the question, 'given a increase in the global average temperature by any means, what will the results be.' Two very different things.Moo? Si! wrote:
I think I speak for all of us when I say...Huh?
To put it in different terms, it's the same difference between studying how computers work and studying the social changes caused by comptuers. Showing that predictions about the changes caused by widespread computer use in society were wrong wouldn't prove that transistors don't exist.