NASA's Jim Hansen in a radio interview
Roger Coppock
(Click on the item under the "mpeg" column on the right.)
http://www.archive.org/details/EcoTalk821
http://www.archive.org/details/EcoTalk8212
Jim McGinn
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1143739984....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I listened to these. As expected Hansen fails to discuss the uncertainty
of the climatic models and instead focusses on the drama underlying the
scenarios that assume AGW. Hansen said nothing that didn't involve
speculation based on conjecture based on uncertainty. The facts are that
there is no smoking gun form GW any more than there was a smoking gun for
the the climatologists 30 years ago that predicted the climate would be
plunged into another ice age.
Speculation base on conjecture based on uncertainty.
Jim
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> The facts are that
> there is no smoking gun form GW any more than there was a smoking gun for
> the the climatologists 30 years ago that predicted the climate would be
> plunged into another ice age.
Global Warming Smoking Gun: Hurricanes ARE INCREASING in Frequency and
Intensities. http://tinyurl.com/acsnd
The above link leads to a webpage which examines government records on
hurricanes and tropical storms between 1850 and 2004. A copy of a chart
of annual activity taken from a NOAA website is displayed, then
dissected.
There are thirteen illustrations stripping away least significant data.
When the distractions have been reduced it shows conclusively that the
last decade is significantly different from all other decades in a
number of important parameters.
The number of mild years is disappearing and has been disappearing
increasingly for 50 years. The numbers of mild year intervals is at an
all time low. The density of years with more severe weather is
increasing -- less chance to catch a breath between bad years than ever
before.
The density of more years with more severe storms has increased tenfold
over the earliest 99 years of the time period.
The density of busiest hurricane years is seven of the last ten
compared to only four out of ten for the turbulent 50's.
Things have gotten worse in both ways: storms have grown from smaller
to larger which never used to grow larger as often, and storms of
harsher punishment are coming back to back more often.
These are the facts revealed from the government record of tropical
Atlantic storms from 1850 through 2004.
The debate is OVER. Global Warming is HERE NOW, and it is pounding
society to death now.
* The most recent decade had 9.9 times the the busyness of intense
storms from the first 99 years of the average decade of the time
period.
* It had more busy peak years back-to-back than any of 14 earlier
decades.
* From 1850 through 1940 there were 28 mild years without any
hurricanes above catagory 2. There have only been four mild years since
then. The average jumped from one mild year ever 2.8 years to one mild
year every 16 years.
* There have been only two periods out of 154 years with high density
powerful storms continuously every year containing more than one strong
hurricane above cat 2. One of them is the recent ten year stretch.
* When you look at the record, only one decade had 9 out of 10 years
with more than 2 strong hurricanes -- the recent decade.
* Only one decade had seven busy years out of ten, of more than six
hurricanes in a year. The next closest was the turbulent 50's with only
four busy years.
GLOBAL WARMING is HERE NOW, not someday by and by. The data is on the
NOAA website is you know how to parse it out of the noise. Subtract
away less significant common denominators, until the evidence is
staring you in the face.
This is not the time to go into denial because you wanted Global
Warming to wait until later. The data can't be denied without severing
links to reality. That is called insanity.
11 of 12 most expensive hurricanes for a century since 1989
http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/26/news/rita_damages/
Data in sidebar illustration.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/26/news/rita_damages/costly_hurricanes.gif
--- Rankings (insured losses only) ---
Katrina 2005 $60,000,000,000 ???
Andrew 1992 $22,000,000,000
Charlie 2004 $7,800,000,000
Ivan 2004 $7,700,000,000
Rita 2005 $7,690,000,000 ????????
Hugo 1989 $7,650,000,000
Frances 2004 $6,200,000,000
Jeanne 2004 $3,900,000,000
Georges 1998 $3,850,000,000
Betsy 1965 $2,200,000,000
Opal 1995 $2,100,000,000
Floyd 1999 $2,000,000,000
Republican-Libertarians promoting soviet-style centralized command &
control from the Wall Street Kremlin have been turning wealth into
storm debris since 1989.
Let's go back to the chart:
Global Warming Smoking Gun: Hurricanes ARE INCREASING in Frequency and
Intensities. http://tinyurl.com/acsnd
Brown is Strong, cat 3,4,5 = B
Green is Weak, cat 1,2 = G
Brown and Green = Hurricanes
Yellow is named Tropical Storms.
1) 1928 - 1B, 3G
2) 1929 - 1B, 2G
3) 1930 - 1B, 1G
4) 1931 - 1B, 1G
5) 1932 - 4B, 2G
6) 1933 - 5B, 5G
7) 1934 - 0B, 6G
8) 1935 - 3B, 2G
9) 1936 - 1B, 7G
10)1937 - 0B, 3G
------------ 10 years -------
11)1938 - 2B, 2G
------------ 11 years -------
The numbers of Strong for 10 years is:
1+1+1+1+4+5+0+3+1+0 = 17 Strong
The numbers for Weak for 10 years is:
3+2+1+1+2+5+6+2+7+3 = 32 Weak
The numbers of Strong for 11 years is:
1+1+1+1+4+5+0+3+1+0+2 = 19 Strong
The numbers for Weak for 11 years is:
3+2+1+1+2+5+6+2+7+3+2 = 34 Weak
1) 1995 - 5B, 6G
2) 1996 - 6B, 3G
3) 1997 - 1B, 2G
4) 1998 - 3B, 7G
5) 1999 - 5B, 3G
6) 2000 - 3B, 5G
7) 2001 - 4B, 5G
8) 2002 - 2B, 2G
9) 2003 - 3B, 4G
10)2004 - 6B, 3G
------------ 10 years -------
11)2005 - ??, ??
------------ 11 years -------
The numbers of Strong for 10 years is:
5+6+1+3+5+3+4+2+3+6 = 38 Strong
The numbers for Weak for 10 years is:
6+3+2+7+3+5+5+2+4+3 = 40 Weak
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season
Hurricane DENNIS was cat 4, landed US cat 3
Hurricane EMILY was cat 4/5, landed Mexico cat 4
Hurricane IRENE cat 2, no landfall
Hurricane KATRINA was cat 5, landed US cat 4
Hurricane MARIA cat 3, no landfall
Hurricane NATE cat 1, no landfall
Hurricane OPHELIA cat 1, no landfall
Hurricane PHILIPPE cat 1, no landfall
Hurricane RITA was cat 5, landed cat 3/4
Hurricane STAN cat 1 landfall Mexico
Tropical Storm (? Hurricane) Tammy, landfall Florida
The numbers of Strong for 11 years is:
5+6+1+3+5+3+4+2+3+6+5 = 38+5 Strong
The numbers for Weak for 11 years is:
6+3+2+7+3+5+5+2+4+3+? = 40+5 Weak
=========================
Compare: 1928-1937 = 10 years
17 Strong Hurricanes
32 Weak Hurricanes
Compare: 1995-2004 = 10 years
38 Strong Hurricanes
40 Weak Hurricanes
123% more Strong Hurricanes 1995-2004
25% more Weak hurricanes 1995-2004
=========================
=========================
Compare: 1928-1938 = 11 years
19 Strong Hurricanes
34 Weak Hurricanes
Compare: 1995-2005 = 11 years
43 Strong Hurricanes
45 Weak Hurricanes
126% more Strong Hurricanes 1995-2005
29% more weak hurricanes 1995-2005
=========================
Totals Weak + Strong
1928-1937 = 49
1995-2004 = 78
59% more TOTAL hurricanes 1995-2004
1928-1938 = 53
1995-2005 = 88
66% more TOTAL hurricanes 1994-2005
It's getting worse (2005 is not over).
1) 1950 - 8B, 3G
2) 1951 - 5B, 3G
3) 1952 - 3B, 3G
4) 1953 - 4B, 2G
5) 1954 - 2B, 6G
6) 1955 - 2B, 2G
7) 1956 - 2B, 1G
8) 1957 - 5B, 2G
9) 1958 - 2B, 5G
10)1959 - 2B, 2G
------------ 10 years -------
11)1960 - 7B, 1G
------------ 11 years -------
8+5+3+4+2+2+2+5+2+2 = 35 Strong 10 yrs.
3+3+3+2+6+2+1+2+5+2 = 29 Weak 10 yrs
8+5+3+4+2+2+2+5+2+2+7 = 42 Strong 11 yrs.
3+3+3+2+6+2+1+2+5+2+1 = 30 Weak 11 yrs
=========================
Compare: 1950-1959 = 10 years
35 Strong Hurricanes
29 Weak Hurricanes
64 TOTAL Hurricanes
Compare: 1995-2004 = 10 years
38 Strong Hurricanes
40 Weak Hurricanes
78 TOTAL Hurricanes
8% more Strong Hurricanes 1995-2004
37% more Weak hurricanes 1995-2004
22% MORE TOTAL Hurricanes
=========================
1) 1960 - 7B, 1G
2) 1961 - 1B, 2G
3) 1962 - 2B, 5G
4) 1963 - 6B, 0G
5) 1964 - 1B, 3G
6) 1965 - 3B, 4G
7) 1966 - 1B, 5G
8) 1967 - 0B, 5G
9) 1968 - 5B, 7G
10)1969 - 2B, 3G
------------ 10 years -------
11)1970 - 1B, 5G
------------ 11 years -------
7+1+2+6+1+3+1+0+5+2 = 28 Strong 10 years
1+2+5+0+3+4+5+5+7+3 = 35 Weak 10 years
7+1+2+6+1+3+1+0+5+2+1 = 29 Strong 11 years
1+2+5+0+3+4+5+5+7+3+5 = 40 Weak 11 years
=========================
Compare: 1960-1969 = 10 years
28 Strong Hurricanes
35 Weak Hurricanes
63 TOTAL Hurricanes
Compare: 1995-2004 = 10 years
38 Strong Hurricanes
40 Weak Hurricanes
78 TOTAL Hurricanes
36% more Strong Hurricanes 1995-2004
14% more Weak hurricanes 1995-2004
24% MORE TOTAL Hurricanes
=========================
Try the Rightard Sneak, add an extra year...
Compare: 1950-1960 = 11 years
8+5+3+4+2+2+2+5+2+2+7 = 42 Strong 11 yrs.
3+3+3+2+6+2+1+2+5+2+1 = 30 Weak 11 yrs
72 TOTAL Hurricanes
Compare: 1960-1970 = 11 years
7+1+2+6+1+3+1+0+5+2+1 = 29 Strong 11 years
1+2+5+0+3+4+5+5+7+3+5 = 40 Weak 11 years
69 TOTAL Hurricanes
Compare: 1995-2005 = 11 years
5+6+1+3+5+3+4+2+3+6+5 = 43 Strong
6+3+2+7+3+5+5+2+4+3+4 = 45 Weak
88 TOTAL Hurricanes
2% More Strong That the 50s
43% More Weak than the 50s
22% MORE TOTAL Hurricanes than 50s
48% More Strong than the 60s
15% More Weak than the 60s
27% MORE TOTAL Hurricanes than the 60s
And ALL of the other decades or sequences of successive years are even
worse than these most turbulent periods of yesteryear record-keeping.
There were air monitoring of storms throughout the 50s and 60s and
onwards, so NOBODY can claim there were stealth hurricanes that never
got counted.
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> The facts are that
> there is no smoking gun form GW any more than there was a smoking gun for
> the the climatologists 30 years ago that predicted the climate would be
> plunged into another ice age.
Global Warming Smoking Gun: Hurricanes ARE INCREASING in Frequency and
Roger Coppock
knows more about climate than Dr. Hansen. What a
jerk!
Jim McGinn
> Gee, Jim McGinn actually has the hubris to think he
> knows more about climate than Dr. Hansen. What a
> jerk!
>
No, but I do know more about the limitations of computing (and statistics)
than Dr. Hansen.
H2-PV NOW
Post your published works anywhere and the educational institution that
graduted you and gave you those intials after your name.
You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an
ORGANIZED CRIME FELONY FRAUD operation, that you have joined in an
"enterprise" as defined by law, have committed one or more acts of
fraud using WIRES or U.S. Mail in collaboration with the illegal
enterprise. From this date forward any further actions on your part to
aid this enterprise are legally considered prima facia premeditated,
willful intent to violate FEDERAL LAW.
SEPPtic Tank is an ORGANIZED CRIME front operation headed by lifelong
career-criminal S. Fred Singer.
In 1994 Singer wrote a science hoax piece for big tobacco. The piece
was submitted to RJ Reynolds lawyers pre-publication. The piece was
short some "peer-reviewers" so a request was made for some names of
tame "whitecoats" willing to lie for money to sign off on the document.
Ultimately a bunch of names appeared on this science hoax document, as
well as inside it's pages. The whole thing became evidence in the
FEDERAL trial of the Big Seven Tobacco Companies in the late 1990s. The
documents were produced by subpoena (a turm meaning "under pain", like
we will hurt you bad if you don't comply). The evidence passed due
process of law in a trial admitted as evidence. The judge ordered the
evidence posted online for 10 years at Big Tobacco's expense -- oh,
year, the Tobacco Companies also agreed to pay $246,000,000,000.00 too.
Fred Singer is corrupt and I have seen the evidence from the trial that
proved he is corrupt. He is an ORGANIZED CRIME figure who uses science
hoaxes for corporate clients to falsify the state of knowledge on
subjects his clients need confused and obfuscated.
SEPP was organized in the premises of a Sun Myung Moon-owned office
suite. Moon is also a career criminal who was convicted of tax evasion
and money laundering, sent to FREDERAL PRISON, and is a known felon
convict.
FRED SINGER's SEPPtic Tank moved to the offices of Charles G. Koch
Summer Fellows Program at the Koch-owned George Mason University.
Killer Charles G. Koch and brother Killer David Koch operate KOCH
INDUSTRIES, which itself has been convicted of the largest fine in
corporate history -- $35,000,000.00 for pollution of air, lands and
waters of six states.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2000/January/019enrd.htm
http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/mojo_400/51_koch.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37628-2004Jul8.html
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/981d17e5ab07246f8525686500621079?OpenDocument
Charges G. Koch co-founded CATO Inst., David Koch sits on it's board
watching the family interests, and SINGER, MILLOY, MICHAELS, LINDZEN &
BALLING are all organized crime figures on the payrolls of a known
ORGANIZED CRIME ring founded by known ORGANIZED CRIME Lords.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=361
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html
http://www.atlasusa.org/highlight_archive/1995/H1995-02-Environment.html
Dr. Singer. SEPP's address is 4084 University Drive, Suite 101,
Fairfax, VA 22030 (Tel. 703-934-6932).
http://snipurl.com/og9j
Results about 172 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA
22030 Koch.
http://snipurl.com/og9o
Results about 92 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA
22030 SEPP.
http://snipurl.com/og9s
Resultsabout 149 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA 22030
IHS | "Institute for Humane Studies"
http://snipurl.com/oga1
Results about 581 for Fred Singer Koch IHS | "Institute for Humane
Studies".
http://snipurl.com/ogai
Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Nightline.html
Documenting the Corruption of S. Fred Singer
http://snipurl.com/ogay
Results about 333 for "Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A
Critical Examination".
Roger Coppock
Fossil fools always have an exaggerated view of their own
qualifications; it's phenotypical for the species.
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
>news:1143739984....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> NASA's Jim Hansen in a radio interview
>> (Click on the item under the "mpeg" column on the right.)
>>
>> http://www.archive.org/details/EcoTalk821
>> http://www.archive.org/details/EcoTalk8212
>>
>
>I listened to these. As expected Hansen fails to discuss the uncertainty
>of the climatic models and instead focusses on the drama underlying the
>scenarios that assume AGW.
Does Sepp or Cato discuss the uncertainty of their pronouncements?
> Hansen said nothing that didn't involve
>speculation based on conjecture based on uncertainty.
You're just too stupid to understand it.
>The facts are that
>there is no smoking gun form GW any more than there was a smoking gun for
>the the climatologists 30 years ago that predicted the climate would be
>plunged into another ice age.
You're really stupid.
>
>Speculation base on conjecture based on uncertainty.
>
>Jim
>
>
is your content.