LehighValleyBlizzard Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 At least one climate scientist now wants to attribute specific events to "global warming". This has traditionally been largely off limits. It looks as though the next stage in the "global warming" hysteria is being initiated!! http://www.scienceda...10607102626.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 At least one climate scientist now wants to attribute specific events to "global warming". This has traditionally been largely off limits. It looks as though the next stage in the "global warming" hysteria is being initiated!! God help us! http://www.scienceda...10607102626.htm Just another wacko. Like the folks on Fox News claiming we are experiencing global cooling because the upper Midwest had a well below normal winter a couple years ago. God stop it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k*** Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Lizard Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stellarfun Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 At least one climate scientist now wants to attribute specific events to "global warming". This has traditionally been largely off limits. It looks as though the next stage in the "global warming" hysteria is being initiated!! God help us! http://www.scienceda...10607102626.htm And where in the ScienceDaily article is there a mention of "global warming"? There is none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 And where in the ScienceDaily article is there a mention of "global warming"? There is none. Yeah there's no mention of global warming whatsoever. He just says "a change in weather patterns." The article is sort of vague. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 From the article: Extreme examples of weather have not been isolated to tornadoes. Heat waves, blizzards and severe storms have been increasingly more frequent or more severe according to U.S. data, Harrington said. These changes can be attributed to changes in the climate system. Why do people have a problem with the idea that climate can change? Even skeptics use the argument that climate changes all the time, so why worry. What is so different about current climate change? The difference is that current climate change is mostly man made, but what if it is just all naturally caused? The guy does not mention AGW specifically, only changes to the climate system. This reveals a not so subtle inconsistency in skeptics thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Just another wacko. Like the folks on Fox News claiming we are experiencing global cooling because the upper Midwest had a well below normal winter a couple years ago. God stop it! Actually, the upper Midwest/northern plains has been well below normal for the past 4 winters. But that's due to the -PDO phase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LehighValleyBlizzard Posted June 15, 2011 Author Share Posted June 15, 2011 And where in the ScienceDaily article is there a mention of "global warming"? There is none. "These changes can be attributed to changes in the climate system." Last sentence, third to last paragraph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k*** Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Talk about overreacting to an article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Talk about overreacting to an article ???? Quotes from the Science Daily article, link above. A Kansas State University climate expert attributes the increase in the number and severity of tornadoes and severe storms in 2011 to a change in weather patterns. Extreme examples of weather have not been isolated to tornadoes. Heat waves, blizzards and severe storms have been increasingly more frequent or more severe according to U.S. data, Harrington said. These changes can be attributed to changes in the climate system. The increase in severe weather events is drawing attention, he said. "We have these good historical precedents for specific synoptic events, but they're starting to come more frequently together. That's what is very interesting, is that this weather system seems to be getting more variable." So he doesn't say "Global Warming", but rather "Climate Changes". But, I agree that it is a pretty poorly written article. "Change in Weather Patterns causing tornadoes". Is that the reason that more tornadoes happen in the spring when the weather is changing from winter to summer than at any other time during the year? Are we talking about annual annual seasonal changes in weather? Changes in weather due to El Niño/La Niña, PDO, AMO, AO, etc? Changes due to climate warming? The whole article is pretty open ended. And, like many Science Daily articles, they make big statements without providing much actual data or sources to back them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aslkahuna Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Go back to 1950's- there were lots of nasty tornadoes (especially in 1953) and hurricanes and every one was convinced that it was all due to the dad blamed atom bomb testing! Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Go back to 1950's- there were lots of nasty tornadoes (especially in 1953) and hurricanes and every one was convinced that it was all due to the dad blamed atom bomb testing! Steve We humans like to think we're the reason for everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stellarfun Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 If one read the ScienceDaily article carefully, there was this note at the bottom: The above story is reprinted (with editorial adaptations by ScienceDaily staff) from materials provided by Kansas State University. So who knows what the professor actually said; no link to source articles. I use the plural as ScienceDaily used the plural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 We humans like to think we're the reason for everything. So true. I was reading the other day that we were responsible for the extinction of several species of animals such as the Tasmanian Tiger and the Passenger Pigeon. The hubris of these people is pretty damn huge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aslkahuna Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 So true. I was reading the other day that we were responsible for the extinction of several species of animals such as the Tasmanian Tiger and the Passenger Pigeon. The hubris of these people is pretty damn huge. Both animals were hunted into extinction (as the Bison nearly was) so there's a pretty clear indication as to who was to blame. It's more of a human trait to explain things as caused by things poorly understood by Joe Sixpack and overhyped in the media. In the 1990's it was all due to the El Niño. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Both animals were hunted into extinction (as the Bison nearly was) so there's a pretty clear indication as to who was to blame. It's more of a human trait to explain things as caused by things poorly understood by Joe Sixpack and overhyped in the media. In the 1990's it was all due to the El Niño. Steve Just for the record, I wasn't being serious. The record is quite clear on how badly Humanity has had an effect on many parts of the earth and I get quite tired of people acting as though we can't have huge effects on the planet when the past 150 years says otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aslkahuna Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I'm very much aware of the hash we've made of this Planet and on more than one occasion have pointed out how much better off it would be without us. However, we DO need to separate the sheep from the goats and really THINK about how climate change could affect the synoptic events. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Just for the record, I wasn't being serious. The record is quite clear on how badly Humanity has had an effect on many parts of the earth and I get quite tired of people acting as though we can't have huge effects on the planet when the past 150 years says otherwise. There is a big difference between thinking humans aren't responsible for anything (obviously we have caused plenty of destruction) and thinking humans are responsible for everything. As if everything on earth that happens has to be traced back to an action on our part. Mainly if it's something bad or destructive that happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 There is a big difference between thinking humans aren't responsible for anything (obviously we have caused plenty of destruction) and thinking humans are responsible for everything. As if everything on earth that happens has to be traced back to an action on our part. Mainly if it's something bad or destructive that happens. That may be because most of the dramatic, rapid changes to the Earth's environment have been associated with human activity. Those changes which take place at a pace less than a single human lifetime are dominated by human activity in this day and age. Everywhere we go and everything we do extends to impact most everywhere on the planet in one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 That may be because most of the dramatic, rapid changes to the Earth's environment have been associated with human activity. Those changes which take place at a pace less than a single human lifetime are dominated by human activity in this day and age. Everywhere we go and everything we do extends to impact most everywhere on the planet in one way or another. If you are talking about destruction of the rain forest or other land/terrain changes, then I agree. But this planet has always been a turbulent, changing, often violent place. There is a reason that natural disasters are called natural disasters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mencken_Fan Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Go back to 1950's- there were lots of nasty tornadoes (especially in 1953) and hurricanes and every one was convinced that it was all due to the dad blamed atom bomb testing! Steve The blaming of bad weather on atomic tests was not limited to the 1950s; it continued well into the '60s. Being born in 1951, I remember this first hand - and can tell you the proposition was accepted only by wackos; the same people who today believe in "chemtrails", "HAARP weather modification", "solar flare induced earthquakes" and what have you. I hope no one here believes the idea was anywhere near universally accepted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.