African Dust Storms Stifle Hurricanes, Study Suggests

ballz2wallz · 10-10-2006, 08:08 PM

Ok, first off, for those that totally blasted me for saying that we're not having any hurricanes this season; can I say 'I told you so' yet or are you going to pull the 'it's not over yet'?

Anyway, I thought this was hilarious, and completely predictable. Might they be insinuating the reason we didn't have hurricanes this year is because of global warming? Surely they think we'll connect the Sahara desert getting bigger with global warming.

I also found this tidbit amusing:

"These findings are important because they show that long-term changes in hurricanes may be related to many different factors," said study team member Jonathan Foley of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Really?! Multiple factors influence the weather?!!! NO WEI!!

I thought this was a cool pic though

Anyway, just got a kick out of this article.

6SpeedTA95 · 10-10-2006, 10:35 PM

Thats a sweeeeeet pic...lots of freakin sand holy crap

Diamond Cross · 10-10-2006, 11:00 PM

It's too easy to dismiss this stuff on a case for case basis just as it's too easy to go ALARM GLOBAL WARMING on a case by case basis.

Most scientists agree there is global warming, but they disagree on the mechanics, whether it's human caused or caused by nature, or a mix of both.

People just have to watch out for the politics involved.

Pro Street · 10-11-2006, 12:02 AM

the frequency of hurricanes natural, global warming had nothing to do with it... I dunno why the population makes shit up like that

Diamond Cross · 10-11-2006, 12:50 AM

It's not just the hurricanes alone, but a part of many things happening. For example, the Polar Bears are dieing off because their primary food source, seals, are hard to get to because the ice packs are melting quicker and earlier in the year.

motivez · 10-11-2006, 01:13 AM

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of scientific research points to humans as a cause for global warming.

There are some who disagree, but perhaps not suprisingly seemingly all of them have ties to big oil in one way or another.

WickedLou9 · 10-11-2006, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of scientific research points to humans as a cause for global warming.

There are some who disagree, but perhaps not suprisingly seemingly all of them have ties to big oil in one way or another.

People like ballz just like to find stuff like this and then claim that Global Warming isn't happening. Even though the articles that he cites claim nothing of the sort. he draws his own conclusions based on a keyhole picture of whatever he is reading about.

Scrum · 10-11-2006, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

People like ballz just like to find stuff like this and then claim that Global Warming isn't happening. Even though the articles that he cites claim nothing of the sort. he draws his own conclusions based on a keyhole picture of whatever he is reading about.

It's pretty cold outside this morning, amirite?

ballz2wallz · 10-11-2006, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

People like ballz just like to find stuff like this and then claim that Global Warming isn't happening. Even though the articles that he cites claim nothing of the sort. he draws his own conclusions based on a keyhole picture of whatever he is reading about.

People like ballz understand science enough to know that a few things that 'suggest' humans may have 'some influence' because of coincidental trends or very controlled experiments show very little about what really goes on in the complexities of the world and natural environment. Why does ballz know this? Because the science of weather is just like any other science; too complex for us to understand completely.

6SpeedTA95 · 10-11-2006, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

People like ballz understand science enough to know that a few things that 'suggest' humans may have 'some influence' because of coincidental trends or very controlled experiments show very little about what really goes on in the complexities of the world and natural environment. Why does ballz know this? Because the science of weather is just like any other science; too complex for us to understand completely.

Understand completely? Shit we can't even get daily temperatures right

ballz2wallz · 10-11-2006, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Understand completely? Shit we can't even get daily temperatures right

Exactly.

I liken it to cancer and our ideas about what causes it. We believe and have believed that cancer is due to mutations in our DNA. But how do we know? In our group here, we're starting to realize that DNA damage, while possibly a contributing factor, it may not in fact be the main factor. These are a bunch of theories that support conincidences that have yet to be fully established and directly proven. Nobody has yet to show that a DNA lesion or adduct causes a mutation that causes cancer. Nobody. Can we? I really have no idea.

The point is, things are too complex and too difficult to make such simplistic assertions that are made about cancer, just as it is global warming. Global warming has been blown way out of proportion, has completely turned into a political tool, and I'll be damned if I buy into the bullshit that spouted about global warming incessantly on the internet and on the TV. It's completely unfounded, unscientific, and the few studies that people show to 'prove' it barely even break the surface of the complexity of the situation. Criticize 'people like ballz' all you want.

WickedLou9 · 10-11-2006, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

People like ballz understand science enough to know that a few things that 'suggest' humans may have 'some influence' because of coincidental trends or very controlled experiments show very little about what really goes on in the complexities of the world and natural environment. Why does ballz know this? Because the science of weather is just like any other science; too complex for us to understand completely.

Have you alerted the news media to your findings? I mean you seem to have some sort of proof that goes against the current consensus on global warming. You could be a millionaire.

WickedLou9 · 10-11-2006, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Understand completely? Shit we can't even get daily temperatures right

So if we don't understand it completely that means that we know nothing about it and shouldn't try and draw conclusions from what we do know.

I see.

ballz2wallz · 10-11-2006, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Have you alerted the news media to your findings? I mean you seem to have some sort of proof that goes against the current consensus on global warming. You could be a millionaire.

I don't have to alter anything. Don't forget, there was a consensus at one point that the world is flat. A consensus means nothing.

ballz2wallz · 10-11-2006, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

So if we don't understand it completely that means that we know nothing about it and shouldn't try and draw conclusions from what we do know.

No, it means we shouldn't react by politicizing the subject to instill fear or laws that are just plain uncalled for.

We instead should strive to figure out what is really going on, if anything at all. But it is my opinion that Mother Nature is more powerful than we humans can ever be.

6SpeedTA95 · 10-11-2006, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

So if we don't understand it completely that means that we know nothing about it and shouldn't try and draw conclusions from what we do know.

I see.

What? where did I say that or even imply that. I simply was pointing to the fact that weather is a phenomon that we know little about in the grand scheme of things. Basic things like temperature prediction are still difficult with all of our modern technology. To think we have a firm grasp on weather and how variables affect it would be false. Scientists are scrambling to come up with reasons as to why the hurricane season was a flop because really itwasn't expected to be this slow. Why? They dont really know there's a whole host of theories that make sense as to why it was slow but the truth is we dont relaly know. Shit it wasn't until the 80s that we realized sea surface temperature greatly affect the ability of tropical cyclones to develope. We then extrapolated this into a fairly good TCHP measure. All of this just within the last 2 decades. We have a LOT to learn.

WickedLou9 · 10-11-2006, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I don't have to alter anything. Don't forget, there was a consensus at one point that the world is flat. A consensus means nothing.

The fact that there was an incorrect consensus in the past has no effect on anything.

ballz2wallz · 10-11-2006, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

The fact that there was an incorrect consensus in the past has no effect on anything.

It means it means nothing. I don't care what the consensus on global warming is right now. It doesn't mean they are right.

WickedLou9 · 10-11-2006, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

No, it means we shouldn't react by politicizing the subject to instill fear or laws that are just plain uncalled for.

We instead should strive to figure out what is really going on, if anything at all. But it is my opinion that Mother Nature is more powerful than we humans can ever be.

We have effected mother nature in the past and we continue to do so now. We have caused the extinction of entire species. We have changed our own environment in a drastic manner.
Dust Bowl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The idea that we can do whatever we want to the environment and not ever change it is not only wrong but it's a dangerous proposition.

WickedLou9 · 10-11-2006, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz