Vergent Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 Obviously I do, but you seem to not understand that it affects the climate globally. For when though? Now? If so that is a faulty graph for your point of reference which is before satellite. Slipping up the slippery slope of global warming. Lousey argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Slipping up the slippery slope of global warming. Lousey argument. We are talking about hurricanes and you transitioned to this? I made a point about hurricanes, I have no stake in the global warming argument. Also the earth has been around longer than 1950. Lastly it is spelled lousy... not lousey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 We are talking about hurricanes and you transitioned to this? I made a point about hurricanes WHERE? , I have no stake in the global warming argument. Also the earth has been around longer than 1950. Lastly it is spelled lousy... not lousey http://www.flmnh.ufl...5/head_lice.htm http://www.urbandict...php?term=lousey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 WHERE? http://www.flmnh.ufl...5/head_lice.htm http://www.urbandict...php?term=lousey Honestly I am not going to reply to your posts anymore, as you clearly can not read when 3 Mets come in here and all make points denouncing your claims about the tropical North Atlantic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 WHERE? http://www.flmnh.ufl...5/head_lice.htm http://www.urbandict...php?term=lousey Are you going for the louseiest title? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 Honestly I am not going to reply to your posts anymore, as you clearly can not read when 3 Mets come in here and all make points denouncing your claims about the tropical North Atlantic. first of all the north Atlantic is not tropical. Second of all Mets are not climate experts. Third of all, you are a troll, spouting talking points from the troll de jour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 Define the "tropical North Atlantic" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 Honestly I am not going to reply to your posts anymore, as you clearly can not read when 3 Mets come in here and all make points denouncing your claims about the tropical North Atlantic. TROLL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 first of all the north Atlantic is not tropical. Second of all Mets are not climate experts. Third of all, you are a troll, spouting talking points from the troll de jour. 1. Yes North Atlantic has tropical regions... Hense why it is called a North Atlantic tropical cyclone... 2. No they aren't but I would trust a Mets expertise over someone who is just posting wrong graphs and misspelling words 3. See 1 and 2 also realize I am not trolling just posting correct information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 1. Yes North Atlantic has tropical regions... Hense why it is called a North Atlantic tropical cyclone... Oh, this is so hard to decipher The tropical cyclones migrate north, out of the tropics. They keep the tropical handle,. 2. No they aren't but I would trust a Mets expertise over someone who is just posting wrong graphs and misspelling words OHH, Yes, if someone misspells a word, they must be wrong. Good Science!!! 3. See 1 and 2 also realize I am not trolling just posting correct information.] Whell, where is that information? wuwt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 Must be a louse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Oh, this is so hard to decipher The tropical cyclones migrate north, out of the tropics. They keep the tropical handle,. 2. No they aren't but I would trust a Mets expertise over someone who is just posting wrong graphs and misspelling words OHH, Yes, if someone misspells a word, they must be wrong. Good Science!!! 3. See 1 and 2 also realize I am not trolling just posting correct information.] Whell, where is that information? wuwt? Honestly how hard is it to understand, North Atlantic Tropics and South AtlanticTropics. the ocean is split in half in this reference. No one honestly thinks I am talking about Tropical systems up near Greenland... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 Honestly how hard is it to understand, North Atlantic Tropics and South AtlanticTropics. the ocean is split in half in this reference. No one honestly thinks I am talking about Tropical systems up near Greenland... You do, you think you are actually talking about Greenland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 Have you ever been there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Vergnt I think stebo is refering to ENSOs affect on wind shear by the affect the ssts have on The Westerlies. Not the global temp record. Iirc, seasons after 2005 had a juicy Atlantic from 15-30N but shear was robust in being a larger driver to TC formation than OHC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocoAko Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Vergent, you do know there is a South Atlantic, right? Everything above the Equator in the Atlantic is considered the "North Atlantic". So yes, there is a tropical component within the North Atlantic. Why are 4th-grade geography lessons being lost here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Vergent: The exponential extinction chart you posted was clearly some sort of extrapolation since there was no variability in it, and you didn't even cite/know what it was based on. You started the thread with a chart that was rapidly increasing since they were plotting cumulative departures, which is misleading, as I explained in a long post that you didn't respond to. Now you are telling everyone we had a magic way to document every significant tropical cyclone since shipping began, even though the strongest TC winds and lowest pressure are in the core and CANNOT be estimated from a distance accurately with sfc measuring devices. Additionally, you're claiming global warming is causing more tropical cyclones from another misleading chart that uses a running average. There's obviously debate on that issue, but not the points you are debating! And the tropical north atlantic does exist. You sir are everything that's wrong with sensationalists who try to dip their toes into the science. Fortunately, in real life meteorologists/climatologists wouldn't let anything you say into the literature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Slipping up the slippery slope of global warming. Lousey argument. Vergent, Slow down a bit. You're on the right track but missing a few details. I think you are trying to show the logic behind tropical development and a warmer world. The graphic shows 2011 to be the warmest Nina year in the record. Over time ENSO has become warmer as the oceans have warmed due to global warming. The thing is though, Ninos increase wind shear in the mid levels of the atmosphere over the tropical North Atlantic. A healthy tropical cyclone has a very well developed vertical structure. Excess wind shear high up in the storm disrupts that structure and tears the storm apart from top to bottom. Nino years are not optimal for development of Atlantic basin tropical cyclones even though the Atlantic waters may be very warm. If one does get going during a period of lesser shear, then watch out. Global warming favors not necessarily more frequent storms, but of those that do form under better conditions, their average intensity should become slightly greater due to warmer SSTs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Could we perhaps agree that wherever accurate data is found an increase in abnormal variances has been observed? I've checked the data regarding tornadoes in Ontario - In part because as a youth they were something that we knew of as occurring regularly far south from here, and also because the first recorded death from one occurred here in Galt in 1829. My list is subjective in that I attempted to only include areas that I knew to have been settled through the whole period of observation, and I also counted what was actually a series of discreet events as a singularity. In the 1940's 2 tornadoes - both coincidentally on the year I was born. In the 1950's 3 tornadoes In the 1960's 1 (but it caused a million dollars damage) In the 1970's 5 one of which was a "super outbreak" that killed 9 in the 1980's 4 although two of these were multiple's that struck many areas on the same day In the 1990's 10 with a few "clusters" In the 2000's 23 which is equal to the number in the last 50 years In 2010 4 In 2011 8 While detection methods may have improved and my lumping of events occurring on one calender day is crude, the increase in events is undeniable. While no one could notice an increase of a degree or two in temperature, other changes are easy to note. BTW Still no snow in this part of Canada - this is not anywhere near normal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Could we perhaps agree that wherever accurate data is found an increase in abnormal variances has been observed? I've checked the data regarding tornadoes in Ontario - In part because as a youth they were something that we knew of as occurring regularly far south from here, and also because the first recorded death from one occurred here in Galt in 1829. My list is subjective in that I attempted to only include areas that I knew to have been settled through the whole period of observation, and I also counted what was actually a series of discreet events as a singularity. In the 1940's 2 tornadoes - both coincidentally on the year I was born. In the 1950's 3 tornadoes In the 1960's 1 (but it caused a million dollars damage) In the 1970's 5 one of which was a "super outbreak" that killed 9 in the 1980's 4 although two of these were multiple's that struck many areas on the same day In the 1990's 10 with a few "clusters" In the 2000's 23 which is equal to the number in the last 50 years In 2010 4 In 2011 8 While detection methods may have improved and my lumping of events occurring on one calender day is crude, the increase in events is undeniable. While no one could notice an increase of a degree or two in temperature, other changes are easy to note. BTW Still no snow in this part of Canada - this is not anywhere near normal! The increase in tornadoes from improved observations is well documented. It is not possible to show with much certainty that the real # of tornadoes has been increasing, similar to hurricanes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 Vergent: The exponential extinction chart you posted was clearly some sort of extrapolation since there was no variability in it, and you didn't even cite/know what it was based on. You started the thread with a chart that was rapidly increasing since they were plotting cumulative departures, which is misleading, as I explained in a long post that you didn't respond to. Now you are telling everyone we had a magic way to document every significant tropical cyclone since shipping began, even though the strongest TC winds and lowest pressure are in the core and CANNOT be estimated from a distance accurately with sfc measuring devices. Additionally, you're claiming global warming is causing more tropical cyclones from another misleading chart that uses a running average. There's obviously debate on that issue, but not the points you are debating! And the tropical north atlantic does exist. You sir are everything that's wrong with sensationalists who try to dip their toes into the science. Fortunately, in real life meteorologists/climatologists wouldn't let anything you say into the literature. So, you think that extinction is a two way door? If there are thousands of species going extinct, there must be thousands of species going unextinct? I get 6,000,000 hits on "tropical storm" "north atlantic". https://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS289&q=%22tropical+storm%22+%22north+atlantic%22&oq=%22tropical+storm%22+%22north+atlantic%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=843l24761l0l25448l33l33l0l0l0l0l600l5908l3.19.10.5-1l33l0 Tropical storms reach the north atlantic frequently. More frequently recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 So, you think that extinction is a two way door? If there are thousands of species going extinct, there must be thousands of species going unextinct? Things in real life don't follow curves, they oscillate about a curve in a chaotic way. That's all there is to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 Things in real life don't follow curves, they oscillate about a curve in a chaotic way. That's all there is to it. How can extinctions oscillate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 How can extinctions oscillate? More extinctions one year and less the next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocoAko Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 How can extinctions oscillate? Turtle's point is that the graph you posted was perfect in the sense that each data point fit a "perfect" exponential. The chances of that happening in the real world instead of chaotically forming a general trend is extremely minimal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 More extinctions one year and less the next. Yes that is exactly what is happening. Only without the less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocoAko Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Yes that is exactly what is happening. Only without the less. This is not how graph fitting works at all. Ugh. Your graph shows data points that fit a perfect curve. That does not happen in nature. When you draw the line in, it is made to "fit" the data. Therefore you would never draw a line that was consistently below your data points. You're really misunderstanding something elementary here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 Speciation happens on the million year scale. Extinction on the decade scale. We are loosing whole ecosystems. Madagascar, the arctic, sub-Saharan Africa, and numerous atolls. Not to mention the north American prairie, the american climax forests, and tropical rain forests. And we haven't even mentioned the lakes, rivers and oceans. Can you name a river on planet earth that you can safely drink from? The animals do not have indoor plumbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 This is not how graph fitting works at all. Ugh. Your graph shows data points that fit a perfect curve. That does not happen in nature. When you draw the line in, it is made to "fit" the data. Therefore you would never draw a line that was consistently below your data points. You're really misunderstanding something elementary here. [/color] http://www.bioone.or...CD%5D2.0.CO%3B2 I have already posted a peer reviewed paper to support the graph. If current estimates of amphibian species in imminent danger of extinction are included in these calculations, then the current amphibian extinction rate may range from 25,039–45,474 times the background extinction rate for amphibians. It is difficult to explain this unprecedented and accelerating rate of extinction as a natural phenomenon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Who is talking about the need to move Manhattan or San Francisco in our lifetimes? Some of the figures that I have seen were around a 1 meter rise by 2100. This is true.. sea level rise this century will probably be .5 to 2 meters. Most of that will be in the latter third of the century and it will continue to accelerate thereafter. Sea level rise over the next 300 years will likely exceed 10 meters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.