| Mark Probert 2005-09-28, 9:42 am |
| jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>
>
>
> "Naming" is a human artifact, and says nothing about
> any natural phenomenon.
Irrelevant. The purpose of name is a means to keep count. Thus, a higher
number of named hurricanes means that there are more hurricanes. Thus,
"Katrina Devastates New Orleans" reads better, for some people, than
"Eleven Devastates New Orleans". The methodology is not the point.
>
> Sez you. The climatologists say the hurricane activity
> waxes and wanes, for decades, and recent activity
> is just another normal phase.
Some do, some don't. I am not using any one particular point in my
analysis.
> If you want to go against the climatologists, you have
> to provide reasons, rationale, data, or something.
> E.g. post the hurricane activity for 1915 and
> prove it is significantly different from 2005.
Of course, hurricane categorization was not performed in the same manner
in 1915 as it is today, thus a comparison is quite difficult. Further,
we have far better data today than 90 years ago.
> Or point out why the climatologists would have a
> hidden stake in trying to stop increased
> funding for climatology (that they would otherwise
> get to help stave off this imminent "global
> warming" catastrophe.)
>
> On a personal note, I informally checked with older people
> rather than dig through lots of weather data.
> (Yes, I know small sample sizes and possible errors in
> memory could cause such information to be very untrustworthy.)
> I discovered similar anomalies occurred in the New England
> region earlier as well (runs of warmer weather years, many
> bitter cold seasons, and so on.) So despite everything,
> "unusual" weather patterns usually do occur...
Again, a datapoint, but I was discussing the aggregate of several.
> So all in all, right now, I have to take the global warming
> alarms with a bit of sea salt.
Global warming is not just hot air.
|