Jump to content

Global warming caused by CFCs, not carbon dioxide, study says


Recommended Posts

This is interesting … file it under The Science ISN'T Settled. :D

https://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/global-warming-caused-cfcs-not-carbon-dioxide-study-says

WATERLOO, Ont. (Thursday, May 30, 2013) - Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide, according to new research from the University of Waterloo published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B this week.

CFCs are already known to deplete ozone, but in-depth statistical analysis now shows that CFCs are also the key driver in global climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

"Conventional thinking says that the emission of human-made non-CFC gases such as carbon dioxide has mainly contributed to global warming. But we have observed data going back to the Industrial Revolution that convincingly shows that conventional understanding is wrong,” said Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry in Waterloo’s Faculty of Science. “In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming.”

"Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What’s striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined – matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere,” Professor Lu said. “My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline.”

20130528%20-%20CFCs%20Climate%20Change1.

The findings are based on in-depth statistical analyses of observed data from 1850 up to the present time, Professor Lu’s cosmic-ray-driven electron-reaction (CRE) theory of ozone depletion and his previous research into Antarctic ozone depletion and global surface temperatures.

“It was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth's ozone layer was depleted by the sun's ultraviolet light-induced destruction of CFCs in the atmosphere,” he said. “But in contrast, CRE theory says cosmic rays – energy particles originating in space – play the dominant role in breaking down ozone-depleting molecules and then ozone.”

Lu’s theory has been confirmed by ongoing observations of cosmic ray, CFC, ozone and stratospheric temperature data over several 11-year solar cycles. “CRE is the only theory that provides us with an excellent reproduction of 11-year cyclic variations of both polar ozone loss and stratospheric cooling,” said Professor Lu. “After removing the natural cosmic-ray effect, my new paper shows a pronounced recovery by ~20% of the Antarctic ozone hole, consistent with the decline of CFCs in the polar stratosphere.”

By proving the link between CFCs, ozone depletion and temperature changes in the Antarctic, Professor Lu was able to draw almost perfect correlation between rising global surface temperatures and CFCs in the atmosphere.

“The climate in the Antarctic stratosphere has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact. The change in global surface temperature after the removal of the solar effect has shown zero correlation with CO2 but a nearly perfect linear correlation with CFCs - a correlation coefficient as high as 0.97.”

20130528%20-%20CFCs%20Climate%20Change2.

Data recorded from 1850 to 1970, before any significant CFC emissions, show that CO2 levels increased significantly as a result of the Industrial Revolution, but the global temperature, excluding the solar effect, kept nearly constant. The conventional warming model of CO2, suggests the temperatures should have risen by 0.6°C over the same period, similar to the period of 1970-2002.

The analyses indicate the dominance of Lu’s CRE theory and the success of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

“We’ve known for some time that CFCs have a really damaging effect on our atmosphere and we’ve taken measures to reduce their emissions,” Professor Lu said. “We now know that international efforts such as the Montreal Protocol have also had a profound effect on global warming but they must be placed on firmer scientific ground.”

“This study underlines the importance of understanding the basic science underlying ozone depletion and global climate change,” said Terry McMahon, dean of the faculty of science. “This research is of particular importance not only to the research community, but to policy makers and the public alike as we look to the future of our climate.”

Professor Lu’s paper, Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change, also predicts that the global sea level will continue to rise for some years as the hole in the ozone recovers increasing ice melting in the polar regions.

“Only when the effect of the global temperature recovery dominates over that of the polar ozone hole recovery, will both temperature and polar ice melting drop concurrently,” says Lu.

The peer-reviewed paper published this week not only provides new fundamental understanding of the ozone hole and global climate change but has superior predictive capabilities, compared with the conventional sunlight-driven ozone-depleting and CO2-warming models.


Very interesting.

Watts comments …

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/30/study-says-global-warming-caused-by-cfcs-not-carbon-dioxide/

While plausible, due to the fact that CFC’s have very high GWP numbers, their atmospheric concentrations compared to CO2 are quite low, and the radiative forcings they add are small by comparison to CO2. This may be nothing more than coincidental correlation. But, I have to admit, the graph is visually compelling. But to determine if his proposed cosmic-ray-driven electron-reaction mechanism is valid, I’d say it is a case of “further study is needed”, and worth funding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is interesting file it under The Science ISN'T Settled.

 

https://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/global-warming-caused-cfcs-not-carbon-dioxide-study-says

 

Lu previous attempts in 2009 and 2010 to push his poorly supported theory were demolished by a number of other scientists.

 

Do cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions impact stratospheric ozone depletion and global climate change?

Atmospheric Environment 45 (2011) 3508e3514

Abstract

Recently, the cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reaction mechanism (CRE) was introduced to explain polar ozone depletion and surface temperature change. It was proposed that the dissociation of chlo- rofluorocarbons (CFCs) on ice surfaces of polar stratospheric clouds plays the dominant role in forming the ozone hole. Efforts have been made to predict polar ozone loss in future years. It was further proposed that CFCs and cosmic-ray-driven ozone depletion may control global surface temperatures. These assertions challenge the fundamental understanding of Antarctic stratospheric ozone loss and global warming. Here we show that these arguments based on the CRE mechanism are inconclusive. First, correlations of satellite data of CFC-12, N2O and CH4 from ACE-FTS show no evidence of significant loss of CFC-12 as predicted by the CRE mechanism. Second, conclusions drawn about a possible CRE impact on the atmosphere, based on correlations of different observed atmospheric parameters, do not have a physical basis. Finally, predictions on the future development of the atmosphere based on these correlations are not reliable for either the ozone hole or global surface temperatures.

 

(selected excerpts)

 

First, it should be noted that the scientific findings about stratospheric ozone depletion outlined in the introduction are supported by strong evidence based on a combination of laboratory work, field measurements and atmospheric modelling (WMO, 2011). In contrast, many assumptions presented by Lu (2010a) are based only on correlations of two parameters. These correlations, however, can only give an indication of a cause-and-effect chain. They are no proof of a theory. Below, we discuss in detail different aspects of the CRE mechanism proposed by Lu (2010a) as the causes for the correlations shown based on the current state of scientific knowledge.

 

Moreover, regarding the future trend of the ozone hole, self- contradictory statements are made by Lu (2010a). On the one hand, quantitative predictions are reported, for example: .the CRE model will predict the three-month (OctobereDecember) average zonal mean total O3 values over Antarctica (60e90S) in 2009 to be 219 ` 5 DU. On the other hand, Lu (2010a) states: Although atmospheric dynamics and meteorological conditions could cause large total O3 fluctuations from year to year [.], a long-term trend of the polar O3 loss is predictable. The latter statement implies that accurate predictions for a particular year based on Eq. 8 of Lu (2010a) are not possible, but nonetheless such predictions are reported.

 

Also, as pointed out earlier (Müller and Grooß, 2009), the absolute value of the ozone column average is not correctly calcu- lated by Lu (2009). This is also the case for the ozone averages reported by Lu (2010a). The October average zonal mean total O3 over Antarctica (60e90S) in 2006 derived from OMI data should be 211 DU, not 181 DU as stated in the first paragraph of Section 7 of Lu (2010a). Therefore, predictions of future polar total ozone values based on Eqs. 7 and 8 of Lu (2010a) cannot be considered meaningful.

 

3.3. Simulations of the ozone hole in numerical models

Lu (2010a) also implicitly criticises the ozone simulations of chemistry-climate models (CCMs). There are known problems with

the polar ozone simulations of CCMs (Eyring et al., 2006) that have been gradually improved recently and great efforts are being invested in validating and improving the performance of models in predicting ozone depletion (Austin et al., 2010; Eyring et al., 2010). Chemistry-climate models, results from which are displayed in Fig. 15b of Lu (2010a), do not use observed temperatures and winds and can therefore only calculate temperatures and ozone in a climatological sense. Therefore, statements about particular years of CCM results (as in the caption of Fig. 15b of (Lu, 2010a) are not meaningful. Chemistry transport models (CTMs), in which simu- lations are based on observed temperatures and winds, allow the observed ozone to be reproduced much better (e.g., Chipperfield, 2003; Grooß and Müller, 2007).

 

3.5. Chlorofluorocarbons and climate change

Lu (2010a) further extends the analysis to surface temperatures. He reports that a time series of the surface temperature is corre- lated with EESC. This is the case to a certain extent as both chlorine source gases and CO2 concentrations over the last century had a similar increase (however, the onset of CFC increase is somewhat later). In order to illustrate how easily different conclusions may be derived from correlations such as those shown in Fig. 21 of Lu (2010a), we show in Fig. 3 the relation between surface tempera- tures and stratospheric halogen loading (left panel) as well as surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations (right panel). The inspection of this figure (in the same way as Fig. 21 of Lu (2010a) is interpreted) could suggest that surface temperatures are equally well (or perhaps better) correlated with CO2 concentrations than with EESC. Clearly, this should not be considered as a proof that CO2 increases cause an increase in surface temperatures. In the same way, showing a correlation between EESC and surface temperatures in Fig. 21 of Lu (2010a) does not proof that EESC is the cause of the observed global warming.

 

Instead, the globally averaged surface temperatures are controlled by a combination of multiple effects, most prominently the increase in emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, but also changes in sulfate aerosol, cloud cover, the El Niño southern oscillation (ENSO) index and solar activity (see e.g., Solomon et al., 2007b).

 

In a more recent publication, Lu (2010b) continues these argu- ments by showing correlations between CO2, halocarbons and global surface temperature anomalies. He argues that CFCs show a larger greenhouse effect than CO2 on the basis of a simplified radiation model calculation, looking at transmitted radiation at the surface and claims that the CO2 lines would be saturated, which would represent a process not considered in the analyses reported in the IPCC report (Solomon et al., 2007b). This argument was already rebutted by Plass (1956) on the basis of the fundamentals of atmospheric radiation processes, arguments which are still valid although the state of radiation modelling has been greatly advanced since then (Plass et al., 2010). Briefly, the CO2 lines in the centre of the absorption at the surface are indeed saturated but this is not the case in the wings of the lines nor at higher altitudes. The additional proposed CO2 emissions indeed cause the major part of radiative forcing as it was extensively shown in the latest IPCC report (Solomon et al., 2007b).

 

Lu (2010a) further points to the recent drop in surface temper- atures since about the year 2000. It has been shown that the climate over the 21st century may include periods of about a decade where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longer- term warming (Easterling and Wehner, 2009). A plausible expla- nation for the recent decrease of surface temperatures is a combi- nation of low El Niño index, low solar activity, and the Kasatochi volcano eruption in 2008 (Schönwiese et al., 2010). Further, Solomon et al. (2010) find that because stratospheric water vapour concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000 the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000e2009 slowed down by about 25% compared to what would have occurred due to increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases alone. While the details of these issues are still being debated, all known projections show that the trend of global warming will continue as long as CO2 increases in the atmosphere (Solomon et al., 2007b). Indeed, because the recovery of the atmosphere from an anthro- pogenic CO2 perturbation will take place on time scales of centuries or longer, the climate change that takes place due to anthropogenic CO2 increases will be largely irreversible for 1000 years after emissions have stopped (Archer and Brovkin, 2008; Solomon et al., 2009).

 

4. Conclusions

By analysing the ACE-FTS data, we demonstrated that there cannot be significant CFC decomposition besides photolytic decomposition in the stratosphere by the proposed CRE effect (Lu, 2010a). We further demonstrated that the methods of analysing ozone and global temperature data used by Lu (2010a) which are based solely on correlations of parameters, are not conclusive to explain the complex processes both of ozone depletion and surface temperature development. Thus, meaningful predictions based on the correlation of EESC and temperature anomalies cannot be drawn. The strong conclusions for climate models put forward by Lu (2010a) do not have a physical basis. The finding of the IPCC that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed rises in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (Solomon et al., 2007b) remains unchallenged by the analysis of Lu (2010a).

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a theory based on statistical analysis but nowhere did I see an actual theory for how ozone depletion, caused by CFC's, causes or adds to global warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a theory based on statistical analysis but nowhere did I see an actual theory for how ozone depletion, caused by CFC's, causes or adds to global warming.

 

Still, it did produce a pretty remarkable agreement with data:

 

20130528%20-%20CFCs%20Climate%20Change2.

 

Without calling forth the God of CO2. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Still, it did produce a pretty remarkable agreement with data:

[img=http://uwaterloo.ca/news/sites/ca.news/files/styles/body-500px-wide/public/uploads/images/20130528%20-%20CFCs%20Climate%20Change2.png]

Without calling forth the God of CO2.

LOLOLOL.....there is a principle in science that the denier cultists don't really comprehend, even though they quote it quite a lot, or rather, mis-quote it. 'Correlation does not necessarily equal causation'. There are certainly times when there is indeed a causal link between two different phenomena that have a strong correlation but in those cases, there is an observable physical mechanism linking the two. There are many other cases where even a very strong correlation between two things does not mean that one is causing the other. BeACretin, the Dunning-Kruger Effect afflicted denier cultist (or DKE-head), has, many times in the past on this forum, denied various parts of the evidence for AGW by protesting that "correlation does not equal causation", even when a causal link has been clearly established by the scientific research, so it is pretty amusing to watch him do a 180 degree flip and basically assert that a correlation between the (supposed) increase in CFC's and the global increase in temperatures, that Lu came up with, is indicitive of a causal link between the two.

 

As the authors of the scientific paper that I cited said:

 

Here we show that these arguments based on the CRE mechanism are inconclusive. First, correlations of satellite data of CFC-12, N2O and CH4 from ACE-FTS show no evidence of significant loss of CFC-12 as predicted by the CRE mechanism. Second, conclusions drawn about a possible CRE impact on the atmosphere, based on correlations of different observed atmospheric parameters, do not have a physical basis. Finally, predictions on the future development of the atmosphere based on these correlations are not reliable for either the ozone hole or global surface temperatures.

 

In contrast, many assumptions presented by Lu (2010a) are based only on correlations of two parameters.

 

Lu (2010a) further extends the analysis to surface temperatures. He reports that a time series of the surface temperature is correlated with EESC. This is the case to a certain extent as both chlorine source gases and CO2 concentrations over the last century had a similar increase (however, the onset of CFC increase is somewhat later). In order to illustrate how easily different conclusions may be derived from correlations such as those shown in Fig. 21 of Lu (2010a), we show in Fig. 3 the relation between surface temperatures and stratospheric halogen loading (left panel) as well as surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations (right panel). The inspection of this figure (in the same way as Fig. 21 of Lu (2010a) is interpreted) could suggest that surface temperatures are equally well (or perhaps better) correlated with CO2 concentrations than with EESC. Clearly, this should not be considered as a proof that CO2 increases cause an increase in surface temperatures. In the same way, showing a correlation between EESC and surface temperatures in Fig. 21 of Lu (2010a) does not proof that EESC is the cause of the observed global warming.

 

Instead, the globally averaged surface temperatures are controlled by a combination of multiple effects, most prominently the increase in emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, but also changes in sulfate aerosol, cloud cover, the El Niño southern oscillation (ENSO) index and solar activity (see e.g., Solomon et al., 2007b).

 

We further demonstrated that the methods of analysing ozone and global temperature data used by Lu (2010a) which are based solely on correlations of parameters, are not conclusive to explain the complex processes both of ozone depletion and surface temperature development. Thus, meaningful predictions based on the correlation of EESC and temperature anomalies cannot be drawn. The strong conclusions for climate models put forward by Lu (2010a) do not have a physical basis. The finding of the IPCC that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed rises in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (Solomon et al., 2007b) remains unchallenged by the analysis of Lu (2010a).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOLOLOL.....oh, you poor deluded retard.... that is so funny......you start a thread with some bunk that gets immediately debunked, you come back with a post that basically suggests that correlation equals causation, which is then soundly mocked, so you come back with completely off-topic (on a thread you started) loony nonsense from the WattsUpMyButt propaganda website. The graph shows the very real upward trend in temperatures that overlies the natural variations created by factors like the ENSO and solar cycles. Adding a spurious red arrow that has nothing to do with the actual data on the graph and claiming that's how the so-called (by deniers) "alarmists see global warming" is beyond pathetic. Very typical for that silly half-wit Watts though, and for the retarded denier cultists who follow him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global warming ain't happening, sorry you are such a failure in life, boxorocks.



 

 

I know. Where ARE those hurricanes we were promised? :D

 

The warmers promised those were going to happen.

 

 

OOOOOOOPPPPPPSSSSSS, more theory that never happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As dumb as this sounds it still did one thing , you agree the earth is warming , that's a start

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like bushes reasons , to many cow farts .

Global warming started with the industrial revolution .

Did you know the Bush administration considered outlawing BBQ? In fact every type of campfire or outside cooking .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know. Where ARE those hurricanes we were promised?

 

ROTFLMAO....too funny.....you start a thread and go off-topic on your own topic every time your BS gets debunked....BTW, nobody "promised" you anything, DKE-head. Various results of global warming, including stronger storms, were considered probable but still subject to annual variations due to natural causes. Further research indicates that global warming is making the oceans warmer, which in turn makes it more likely for hurricanes, when they do form, to become stronger and more destructive, while simultaneously GW is also causing more high altitude wind shear which can put the brakes on storms and prevent them from becoming hurricanes. So the actual predictions at this point are that the world will possibly see fewer hurricanes but more intense hurricanes when they do form.

 

Of course, you and ol' CrimsonButt are so ignorant, you seem to imagine that only the hurricanes that hit the US count.

 

The only difference between a hurricane, a cyclone, and a typhoon is the location where the storm occurs

NOAA

Hurricanes, cyclones, and typhoons are all the same weather phenomenon; we just use different names for these storms in different places. In the Atlantic and Northeast Pacific, the term hurricane is used. The same type of disturbance in the Northwest Pacific is called a typhoon and cyclones occur in the South Pacific and Indian Ocean.

 

The ingredients for these storms include a pre-existing weather disturbance, warm tropical oceans, moisture, and relatively light winds. If the right conditions persist long enough, they can combine to produce the violent winds, incredible waves, torrential rains, and floods we associate with this phenomenon.

*****

 

Here are some of the 'killer' storms you may have missed.

 

Philippine death toll rises to 902 after Typhoon Bopha; 80,000 homeless

 

Typhoon Bopha killed more than 900 people and left almost 80,000 others homeless in the Philippines, the government said Thursday, a week and a half after the storm devastated large parts of the southeast Asian island nation. The death toll, which the government set Thursday at 902, is likely to rise significantly, as 934 other people remained unaccounted for. More than 2,600 people were injured. Bopha tore through the main southern island of Mindanao on Dec. 3, 2012, before crossing the central Philippines and stalling over the South China Sea. Most of the deaths were in the Compostela Valley and Davao Oriental province on Mindanao. Ten days later, almost 80,000 people remained in evacuation centers scattered across the islands, because Bopha destroyed 61,000 homes and seriously damaged 88,000 others, the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council reported.

 

Philippines Typhoon Washi death toll reaches 1,249

 

A total of 1,249 people are now known to have died in flash floods that struck the southern Philippines more than a week ago. Officials say more bodies had been found in the waters south of the island of Mindanao. Typhoon Washi struck from 16 to 18 December, 2011, devastating the cities of Cagayan de Oro and Iligan. Many of those who died were sleeping as Typhoon Washi caused rivers to burst their banks, leading to landslides. Entire villages were washed away.

 

Typhoon Megi

 

Typhoon Megi made landfall early on Oct. 18, 2010, in the Philippines and was one of the strongest typhoons on record. Spanning more than 370 miles (600 kilometers), the mega-storm sustained winds of 178 mph (287 km per hour), according to the United States' Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC).

 

Megi, which is Korean for "catfish," became a "super typhoon" when its wind speeds reached 150 mph (241 km per hour) this is what designates a super-typhoon in the northwestern Pacific, according to the JTWC. A tropical cyclone must reach winds of at least 74 mph (119 kph) in order to be considered a typhoon.

 

Megi killed 69 people across the Philippines and Taiwan.

 

Hurricane Ike 2008

 

Ike was a long-lived and major Cape Verde hurricane that caused extensive damage and many deaths across portions of the Caribbean and along the coasts of Texas and Louisiana. It originated from a well-defined tropical wave that moved off the west coast of Africa on August 28 and then became a tropical depression on September 1 about 775 miles west of the Cape Verde Islands. The depression quickly strengthened to a tropical storm later that day. Ike became a hurricane on September 3, and Ike reached an estimated peak intensity of 145 mph (Category 4) on September 4 when it was located 550 miles northeast of the Leeward Islands. After weakening briefly, Ike regained Category 4 status just before moving across the Turks and Caicos Islands on September 7. Ike then passed over Great Inagua Island in the southeastern Bahamas at Category 3 strength.

 

Ike turned westward and made landfall along the northeast coast of Cuba in the province of Holguin early on September 8 with maximum sustained winds estimated near 135 mph (Category 4). Ike made a second landfall in Cuba over the extreme southeastern part of the province of Pinar del Rio on September 9, with winds of 80 mph (Category 1). It moved into the southeastern Gulf of Mexico later that day.

 

Ike developed a large wind field as it moved northwestward across the Gulf of Mexico over the next 3 days, with tropical-storm-force winds extending up to 275 miles from the center and hurricane-force winds extending up to 115 miles from the center. The hurricane gradually intensified as it moved across the Gulf toward the Texas coast. Ike made landfall over the north end of Galveston Island in the early morning hours of September 13 as a Category 2 hurricane with maximum sustained winds of 110 mph. The hurricane weakened as it moved inland across eastern Texas and Arkansas and became extratropical over the middle Mississippi Valley on September 14. It then moved rapidly through the Ohio valley and into Canada, producing wind gusts to hurricane force along the way.

 

Grand Turk Island reported sustained winds of 116 mph as the center of Ike crossed the island. Storm surges of 15-20 feet above normal tide levels occurred along the Bolivar Peninsula of Texas and in much of the Galveston Bay area, with surges of up to 10 feet above normal occurring as far east as south central Louisiana. Storm total rainfalls from Ike were as much as 19 inches in southeastern Texas and 14 inches in Cuba.

 

Ike left a long trail of death and destruction. It is estimated that flooding and mud slides killed 74 people in Haiti and 2 in the Dominican Republic, compounding the problems caused by Fay, Gustav, and Hanna. The Turks and Caicos Islands and the southeastern Bahamas sustained widespread damage to property. Seven deaths were reported in Cuba. Ike's storm surge devastated the Bolivar Peninsula of Texas, and surge, winds, and flooding from heavy rains caused widespread damage in other portions of southeastern Texas, western Louisiana, and Arkansas. Twenty people were killed in these areas, with 34 others still missing. Property damage from Ike as a hurricane is estimated at $19.3 billion. Additionally, as an extratropical system over the Ohio valley, Ike was directly or indirectly responsible for 28 deaths and more than $1 billion in property damage.

 

2008: Cyclone Nargis devastates Myanmar

 

Cyclone Nargis swept over Myanmar (Burma) on May 2, 2008, with 120 mph winds and a tidal surge that smashed through coastal towns and cities. Survivors were jammed onto small boats in the wake of the storm. Entire villages in Myanmar's Irrawaddy Delta were flooded for days, and it was difficult for aid workers to gain access to the military-ruled Southeast Asian country. The death toll was estimated at more than 130,000.

 

2007: Cyclone Sidr rakes Bangladesh

 

Tropical Cyclone Sidr slammed into southwest Bangladesh on Nov. 15, 2007, with peak sustained winds of 135 mph. Hundreds of thousands of homes were damaged, much-needed crops were destroyed, and an estimated 3,500 people lost their lives. The death toll would have been much higher if the government hadn't evacuated more than 1.5 million people from low-lying villages before the storm made landfall. Pictured here, a boy waits for food with others at a relief distribution center.

 

2005: Katrina gives U.S. one-two punch

 

The infamous Hurricane Katrina hit the United States with a one-two punch. The storm first crossed southern Florida on Aug. 23, 2005, as a Category 1 soaker that caused several deaths. When it passed over the Gulf of Mexico, the storm, pictured here, blew up to one of the strongest on record a rare Category 5 with maximum sustained winds of 175 mph. When Katrina made landfall on Aug. 29, the storm had weakened slightly but was no less costly. At least 1,836 people were killed. New Orleans was swamped, and much of the Gulf Coast was devastated.

 

1999: Tidal surge swamps India

 

The super cyclone pictured here swept into the northeastern state of Orissa, India, on Oct. 29, 1999, with 155 mph winds. At least 10,000 people died in the storm. A 20-foot-high tidal wave traveled 12 miles inland across low-lying plains. Nearly 7,000 square miles of crops were destroyed. Torrential rains and record-breaking floods made roads impassable. Millions were left homeless.

 

1998: Mitch devastates Central America

 

Hurricane Mitch unleashed a furry of wind and torrential rain as it raked across Central America from Oct. 29 to Nov. 3, 1998. At least 11,000 deaths in Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala and Belize are attributed directly to the storm, and perhaps several thousand more perished in the aftermath. More than 3 million people were displaced as several feet of rain sent mud racing down hillsides and wiped out entire villages, such as the one pictured here in Honduras. Before Mitch made landfall, the hurricane reached maximum sustained winds of 180 mph. Gusts topped 200 mph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global warming ain't happening, sorry you are such a failure in life, boxorocks.

 

Global warming is indeed happening, as the world scientific community almost unanimously affirms. Sorry you're such an ignorant brainwashed retard, CrimsonButt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, nobody "promised" you anything, DKE-head.

 

Oh really?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/22/global-warming-to-bring-s_n_471227.html

 

Global Warming To Bring Stronger Hurricanes, Scientists Predict

 

2/21/10

 

 

:P

 

Further research indicates that global warming is making the oceans warmer, which in turn makes it more likely for hurricanes, when they do form, to become stronger and more destructive, while simultaneously GW is also causing more high altitude wind shear which can put the brakes on storms and prevent them from becoming hurricanes. So the actual predictions at this point are that the world will possibly see fewer hurricanes but more intense hurricanes when they do form.

 

And yet the data isn't showing that happening.

 

hurricane_frequency.png

 

hurricane-frequency-us.gif

 

 

Despite the fact that CO2 is now is at the magic 400 ppm level.

 

How high does it need to get before we start to see this effect you claim, Truther?

 

 

Of course, you and ol' CrimsonButt are so ignorant, you seem to imagine that only the hurricanes that hit the US count.

 

The only difference between a hurricane, a cyclone, and a typhoon is the location where the storm occurs

 

Typhoons and cyclones don't show any sign of what you are claiming either:

 

typhoon-frequency.gif

 

In fact,

 

Sunetal20112b.gif

 

Sunetal2011b.gif

 

China_TCs_fig2.JPG

 

nt-frequency.png

 

Tropical-Cyclone-Frequency.png

 

20121028-hurricane-b.png

 

In fact, just the opposite.

 

Just keep blowing smoke, Truther.

 

We're all laughing at you now. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global Warming To Bring Stronger Hurricanes, Scientists Predict

 

So scientists predict global warming will bring stronger hurricanes and you cry: "they're wrong because it hasn't happened in the past". Do you even comprehend what the words 'prediction' and 'will bring' actually mean, DKE-head?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So scientists predict global warming will bring stronger hurricanes and you cry: "they're wrong because it hasn't happened in the past". Do you even comprehend what the words 'prediction' and 'will bring' actually mean, DKE-head?

Wait, you post storms from 1998, attributed them to global warming and now you're going to claim that an increase in the data due to global warming hasn't happened yet?

Wow, that's pretty dishonest, even for you.

 

Can you tell me how many times we've already passed AlGore and Hansen's "tipping point", where if we don't "do something" about global warming, that it will be too late? I'm thinking it's been 3, maybe 4 times.

 

And yet the data isn't showing that happening.

Despite the fact that CO2 is now is at the magic 400 ppm level.

How high does it need to get before we start to see this effect you claim, Truther?

Typhoons and cyclones don't show any sign of what you are claiming either:

 

In fact, just the opposite.

Pogo will claim he believes science and the data, right up until the data and proof from scientists don't agree with his bias, then he'll claim that we're still waiting for global warming to show up, and categorically dismiss all the data.

Can you spell "hypocrite" boys and girls? I know you can! It's spelled p.o.g.o.r.o.c.k.s.!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...