MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Global Warming (Geophysics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 58, 59, 60
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

As you know, since you have been doing it yourself, both sides assume the other is acting in bad faith

Yes you are quite right. Reading back through these posts, it became obvious that my unconscious assumptions were rather misplaced. I noticed very quickly what had triggered my reaction.

It must be the right ball park if everyone is in it but that should not affect ourselves, the ballpark inspectors.

Could not agree more.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Have any of the big predictions, ie the Great Barrier Reef will be dead in 6 months (1971), been true?

Nice one. It goes alongside our "Has any conspiracy theory turned out to be true?" and "When will the thirty years of oil we have left begin?" You forgot to mention that the Domesday Clock has just been moved up a smidgeon. It's been at a minute to midnight since the late fifties but I did not catch how many seconds it was this time.

In theory it's not only one for us but one for us to do from our armchairs since, in theory, both sides ought to have been fact-checking their opponents like mad and all we have to do is cut, paste and compare. But my guess is that for some reason neither side has done this. That reason being, as we AE-ists say, "Cognitive dissonance, projective identification variant."
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Friday, one of the most remarkable moments in recent meteorological history opened a window to our future. A strengthening swirl of clouds spinning in the central Atlantic earned the name Tropical Storm Wilfred — exhausting the list of 21 alphabetical names given to Atlantic tropical cyclones by the Miami-based National Hurricane Center on the earliest date in history.

And then Subtropical Storm Alpha was born off the coast of Portugal. At the same time, a “‘”medicane” — a Mediterranean hurricane — was approaching the Greek islands. And then, just a few hours later and 6,000 miles away, Tropical Storm Beta was named in the western Gulf of Mexico, forecasted to bring days of deluge to storm-weary shores. At no point in the 170 years of Atlantic basin weather history have so many strong storms formed so quickly.

Everyone, except climate deniers, are agreed this is because of global warming but opnion is divided as to how the two phenomena are linked. Orthodoxy is adamant they haven't got a clue. Since their model requires water to be evaporated willy-nilly from the world's oceans, they cannot explain why these storms are increasing. "Iss global warmin, innit," is how they put it in academese.

M J Harper and (some) members of his cult do have an explanation. They believe the oceans are in evaporative equilibrium and therefore no forms of precipitation derive from the oceans. Except when locally the equilibrium is upset, notably by increased water temperature. When that happens, hurricanes, typhoons and tropical storms are the result. And even resultier when global warming is warming them even more.

Everyone will know we were right when the seas begin to boil and all precipitation is in the form of hurricanes, typhoons and tropical storms. But Stockholm will be underwater by then so forget about any Nobel Prizes. Unless they do Nobel Prizes by sub-aqua electronic transfer. Does anyone know?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
M J Harper and (some) members of his cult do have an explanation. They believe the oceans are in evaporative equilibrium and therefore no forms of precipitation derive from the oceans. Except when locally the equilibrium is upset, notably by increased water temperature. When that happens, hurricanes, typhoons and tropical storms are the result. And even resultier when global warming is warming them even more.


I will allow no abrogation of the law. AE allows no more than one cause to each effect. As water enters the air in significant supply via plants, that's the only way water enters the air in significant supply.

Therefore; I conclude that hurricanes and Typhoons occur when there are too many plants---and thus too much water in the air. Hurricanes trace a path back to the source of the water that falls from them, where they may even destroy plants through flooding.

That's my pet hypothesis.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Scientists studying our forests are concerned about the impact of drought, not just in California, but also around the world. "Now what we are starting to worry about is whether these droughts are somehow interrelated, and linked at a global scale." There are a lot of forests in the world in trouble, droughts putting pressure on them. "We don't know exactly how much of the global forest cover is at risk, but we're in the process now of finally getting the measurements we need to make those predictions." Techknow, Al-Jazeera.

But will the penny drop? Anyone who thinks getting rid of busted paradigms is harder than saving the planet, should emigrate.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 58, 59, 60

Jump to:  
Page 60 of 60

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group