Slashdot Mirror
Atlantic Hurricane Season 30 Percent Stronger Than Normal
MatthewVD writes "The National Hurricane Center reported today that the combined energy and duration of all the storms in the Atlantic basin hurricane season was 30 percent above the average from 1981 to 2010. At Weather Underground, Dr. Jeff Masters blogs that record low levels of arctic ice could have caused a 'blocking ridge' over Greenland that pushed Hurricane Sandy west. Meanwhile, Bloomberg BusinessWeek says, 'it's global warming, stupid.'"
...and 20% cooler!
But then they limited the dates didnt they....to fit their narrative.
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/021813.html
Seems they limited their dates so they could leave out all those in the 50's. Here are their paths. http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/021813.html
It's interesting to know that this season was 30% above the mean, but what's the variance over that same time period?
Because for all I know from the summary, half of those years had storm season that were 30% more active than the average.
Maybe 30% above the mild seasons we've had since Katrina. You know, the "OMGWEREALLGONNADIE" hurricane seasons were supposed to start having due to global warming. Now we have a storm that briefly peaked at CAT2, and did most of its damage as a CAT1, and the chicken littles are out in force again.
They limited their dates to 1981 onwards. You'd have had a point if they'd gone back to 1961, but they didn't even get close to this alleged period they supposedly removed from the stats.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
nt
That sucking sound you hear is my bandwidth.
If the hurricanes are more powerful, that means they are using more energy, right? And my less than great understanding is that less energy equates to cooler temperatures (for a system), so does this mean the hurricanes are helping to cool the earth by converting excess heat into... well... something that's not heat( e.g. motion or water, wind, etc.)?
Note: I hope this doesn't descend into a flame-war about global warming; the main question is: whatever the temperature, does the energy dissipated by hurricanes ultimately cool the system they are in?
2005 (Hurricane Katrina): "It's global warming, stupid"
2006 Not a single hurricane makes landfall on the US mainland: "Well duh, that's just weather, global warming wouldn't have an impact on weather.
2012: (Hurricane Sandy): "It's global warming, stupid"
Really, can you guys just stop? Seriously, have NONE of you ever read Peter and the Wolf?
-Styopa
Yeah, back in the 1970's the Citigroup Center in New York needed an emergency retrofit due to a design flaw in bolts used to hold the building together. Basically, wind-shear from.. wait for it... a hurricane could topple the building. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup_Center)
So in the 1970's it was common knowledge that New York could and would be hit by hurricanes and it was considered a real enough threat that the engineers went on an emergency retrofitting job to fix the problem once it was discovered. In 2012 a CAT 1 Hurricane actually hits New York, which was 100% expected, and frankly weaker than predicted hurricanes that could hit New York. Of course these inconvenient facts won't deter the alarmist conclusion: GLOBAL WARMING!!!
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Sure do cause heated debate on Slashdot.
... or even more onerous laws and regulations.
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
From Dr. Jeff Masters blog at wunderground.com:
April 5, 2012 - "Expect one of the quietest Atlantic hurricane seasons since 1995 this year, say the hurricane forecasting team of Dr. Phil Klotzbach and Dr. Bill Gray of Colorado State University (CSU) in their latest seasonal forecast issued April 4. They call for an Atlantic hurricane season with below-average activity"
>> Bloomberg BusinessWeek says
This is the guy who just banned large sodas, right? Go on...
So cyclonic storms are in the October just past are stronger than the average over a short 30 year time period. Notable, but not surprising, as all weather is cyclical.
It could suggest a more active season or it could be an outlier month. Since we have solar cycles that indeed control the total energy into the surface of the planet, I would suspect that plays the dominant role, but a single data set on only one item, the hurricanes and their strength, is not very significant.
In other words, is this worth a "story", or just more hype of recent data points.
Compare hurricanes for Oct 2012 with the October 1780 atlantic hurricanes and then tell us that. Bloomberg is hot air, stupid.
Sandy was a category 1 hurricane. In 1938, landfall was made by a category 3 hurricane. So is global warming making the hurricanes weaker?
would those be the people who died or are currently without power or heat around NYC you are referring to?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Unfortunately, sea level has risen 15 cm since 1950. The flooding from the storm surge is what causes most of the damage, not the wind. Attributing a single storm to global warming may be uncertain, but there is no uncertainty about the increased damage from the higher storm surge due to global warming.
What's the average deviation? Last time I heard expert meteorologists talking like this, it was right after Katrina, predicting the next year would be severe, too, which it wasn't, demonstrating complete ignorance of statistics, regression to the mean, and chaos theory.
Given it was attempts to simulate and predict weather that lead to the discovery of chaos theory and the butterfly effect, this is particularly shameful.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I had global warming in my pants this morning.
It's NOT global warming stupid. This has happened before. For example:
In **1938** the New England Hurricane - aka "Long Island Express" hit New York as a Cat 3. Wind was around 120mph, and the storm surge was 18 feet (4+ feet higher than Sandy). Thousands of boats and nearly 10,000 houses were destroyed. There were ~60 deaths recorded, and hundreds of injuries. As the storm progressed, it killed over 600 people in New England and destroyed 50,000+ homes. Total property loss/damage is estimated at ~$5 billion (today's dollars).
New York has felt the impact of hurricanes, to a greater or lesser extent, over 90 times since 1804. Nothing new here... move along (and send help to the people up there who are suffering right now - they need food, fuel and water - regardless of what nonsense the media is telling you).
These nut jobs who proclaim global warming and cite all kinds of fabricated or exaggerated "evidence" are the same nut jobs who were proclaiming a global ice age when I was growing up. Wake up people, what we are experiencing is the cyclical nature of nature. Some day we will experience intense heating, and some day we will experience another ice age, and us puny little peons (humans) are completely powerless to cause it or stop it.
Sediments indicate that more and stronger hurricanes made landfall in the area in the 13th and 15th century than at any time since European settlement of New England.
Nothing about Sandy has anything to do with climate change. It was to be expected and people have been warned, though all warnings fell on deaf ears just as in New Orleans. Now, the established procedure is repeated, people moan, complain and blame climate change instead of their incompetent politicians failing to do anything about lack of storm protection for half a century and more - despite the threat being absolutely obvious to anyone daring to have a look at history.
Unfortunately, the USA is a country that collectively doesn't dare to look back into its own history and is thus constantly surprised by every single repetition of things that happened several times before.
Has anyone researched what the seasonal effects of massive solar flares have on long term weather patterns.
The experts at the NHC can't reliably forecast a given hurricane's strength 3 days in advance, even for the killer systems that undergo rapid intensification, a process which requires massive amounts of energy in a small and narrow zone of the atmosphere (read: should be easy to forecast from their spot atmospheric measurements but is not), yet armchair scientists can somehow surmise that a specific storm did what it did based on the sparse influences of a 100 year global warming weather pattern. It's beyond laughable.
If you ignore the date range given in TFS, then sure go with that if it makes you feel better.
As they keep telling us: Weather is not climate.
So we can then reply: These 30 to 100 year comparisons are nonsense. We won't know if your assertions are correct for at least another 800 years. Very little accurate or human measured info is available for more than the past 50 years, only tree rings, core samples, etc. How about all the ice ages, etc.?
They reply: All mankind will die if you don't do what we say, now.
We reply: Over 99.9% of all species that have lived on the Earth are now extinct. Why do the proudly atheistic scientists think mankind deserves some special privileges? They may or may not be right, but the shrill voices about AGW are not reasonable or thoughtful befitting a scientist. How about if they come up with some practical answers, and not the carbon sequestration crazy talk?
Even a Cat 1 hurricane that turns inland around NY happens maybe once a century. (Three times, now, two in the last two years.) They generally go up the coast. If that weren't concerning enough, we have the storm surge, together with the threat of rising oceans. It's not we're-all-gonna-die territory. But it's not good, and NY should be spending billions building seawalls capable of holding back the ocean.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
No, we all know its Carbon Dioxide that is responsible for global warming, it has nothing to do with the big glowing ball of gas in the sky. The interweb ignores the fact that global warming seems to coincide with the point in the millennial solar cycle it at highest energy output because we have only recorded weather in 'modern" times for the last 100 years or so. 100 years of a global warming trend which happens to coincide with an increase CO2 output means we have done it to ourselves, nature cannot possibly affect the planet in this way.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
North Carolina is not the NE. Hurricanes don't turn inland at NY. Except when they do. Which is almost never.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Lol. No you're right. Also evolution is a conspiracy.
Favourite quote:
“We can’t say that steroids caused any one home run by Barry Bonds, but steroids sure helped him hit more and hit them farther. Now we have weather on steroids.”
Does it strike anyone else as odd that they chose 1981 as the arbirtrary date in history where they choose to stop looking back? Wonder what happened before that? It's not like we have historical data before that...
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastall.shtml
We've been building up a lot of energy in the latent heat in the oceans over the last few decades of global warming. Now that the temperatures are no longer rising that energy is going to get spit back out into space somehow, somewhere. This time it happened in Manhattan.
As long as global cooling continues we are going to see some big storms. The atmosphere is a heat engine. When there is a temperature difference work can get done. This "work" in the atmosphere presents itself as wind and rain. The greater the temperature difference the more work can get done.
I have my theory. Global warming means calmer weather and smaller storms. Global cooling means bigger storms. I'm no meteorologist but trends tell me we are going to see a very cold and dry winter followed by a wet summer with relatively mild temperatures. I also suspect another big hurricane sometime around Christmas this year.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
In Long Island/New York, people are dumpster diving for food, shitting the hallways, thugs are going around robbing homes dressed as ConEd repairmen, gas lines are a mile long and it costs $6 a gallon, people are pissed, still trapped and crying for help.
This time during Katrina, Slashdot was in flames condemning Bush and FEMA for being slow and "letting people die".
But now, the only concern is whether Sandy is proof of Global Warming.
Pathetic
The practical answers is to tack on a punitive carbon tax to fossil fuel.e.g. an extra $4 per gallon for gas and rising.
Direct all the revenue from this to basic research into fossil-fuel-free energy and transportation technologies.
Preferably focus on research into technologies other than conventional nuclear, since it's already had 70 years of government research funding.
The reason the voices backing the science side of the debate become shrill is in response to your side's refusal to allow these sort
of effective measures to take place. You have to yell pretty loud to get through to people with their head in the sand and people with their hands clamped over
their ears repeating "la la la" over and over to themselves.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Hurricane season has a season. As in it ends. As in it has a peak season and an off season.
What months were those and how do they compare to the end of October and the peak of the hurricane season?
Not even a half truth here.
The Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale only measures a hurricane's maximum wind speed. While this is reasonably correlated with the damage a hurricane inflicts, it is far from a complete picture. Notably, it disregards:
Storm size - Sandy was a very wide hurricane, and so the damage was more widespread
Storm surge - Sandy had a very large storm surge, and hit an area that is poorly protected from flooding
Rainfall - Hurricanes that drop enough water quickly enough can cause flash floods
Storm speed - SSHS only measures the wind speed relative to the storm. If the storm itself advances rapidly, it can cause significantly more damage than it would otherwise
This study used an alternative measurement - the total kinetic energy of the storm. This is a relatively good measure of the power of a hurricane season.
PS: We've had "mild" seasons since Katrina? News to me, considering 2007 had multiple Category 5s, 2010 is the third-most active season on record, and most of the other years were at best "average". 2006 was actually the only one to be below average.
climate change is not a communist plot.
It's a fascist plot to allow the banksters to get even richer via cap'n'trade arbitrage and derivatives.
Realistically speaking there is practically NOTHING that can be done about it. Unless a dictator conquers the planet and rules with an iron fist (not what I would want!) the chances of reducing carbon emissions radically enough to make a difference is practically zero.
On the one hand, we've got the world's largest reinsurance agency, Munich Re, frankly describing not only how global warming has increased the severity of weather in North America including heatwaves, droughts, floods, and tropical cyclones, but also the trend of weather related losses. Their report goes on to describe the stark risks insurers will need to address in the new earth climate.
On the other, we've got snotty ignoramuses and John Birch conspiracy theorists that can't even be bothered to RTFA.
Guess we'll never know who's right.
Eh, I think we should just be glad that the extra energy is being accounted for... I'd be more worried if there was all this extra energy and it was disappearing somewhere to be unleashed later.
And while both Katrina and Sandy were somewhat strong as hurricanes come, the main reason that they did lots of damage was that they actually hit densely populated areas.
And for all the people whining about climate change "raising taxes" to encourage people to "conserve energy" (hey, I though getting more done with less was always a central tenet of conservatism), you're definitely going to see it in your insurance premiums already.
The wind speed might have only reached a cat 2 but it was among the strongest storms ever for storm surge intensity and the lowest pressure storm to ever make landfall north of Cape Hatteras. In fact Sandy packed the second highest total energy (IKE) of any storm in modern history.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
This leaves no doubt in my mind that Harold Camping was right! /s
"NY should be spending billions building seawalls capable of holding back the ocean"
No. No, they shouldn't. Ok, if you think that you're welcome to pay for it. Personally if I lived in New York I'd move further inland.
It's like in LA where they keep rebuilding a city that's 20ft below sea level (with the taxpayer's money of course). MOVE!!!!
The beach is a place you drive to when the weather is nice and enjoy the sun and scenary. You don't put your house there. At least you don't if you don't want to watch it float away every 20 years or so. If you insist on putting your house at the beach then emotionally (and financially) prepare yourself for what is going to inevitably happen.
Using similar arguments, how do we know where we are in the 'millennial solar cycle' or it's historical output levels?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Or Obama used information gathered since 2008 by the US military for the "Hurricane Aerosol and Microphysics Program (HAMP)" to create an event influence the elections... https://ams.confex.com/ams/29Hurricanes/techprogram/paper_168336.htm "The Department of Homeland Security asked NOAA/ESRL in Boulder to organize a workshop on possible new scientific theory and approaches to hurricane modification in February, 2008. Nearly two dozen scientists from around the world attended and there were a number of hypotheses and new ideas presented. We shall summarize the workshop results here and the development of the new DHS-funded HAMP Program that arose from the Workshop. HAMP is only the first Phase in a planned three-phase program. There will be no actual seeding trials unless one or more of the modification hypotheses is confirmed in Phase 1, through an interactive program of high-resolution coupled models and new aircraft observations. HAMP will focus on the effects of aerosols on cloud microphysics within the hurricane and on the effects of aerosols on hurricane structure and behavior, especially changes in hurricane intensity. " I'll put on my tin-foil hat, tin-foil rain coat and tin-foil rain boots ;-)
Insert signature here...
I heard the main hurricane watch group, can't remember what it is, saying they don't believe that Katrina was an indication that hurricanes would start getting worse. Heretics dared contradict the proclamations of His Holiness Al Gore.
No such thing as murder. There were people dying before I got here.
And forest fires abounded in the age of the dinosaurs, so don't you tell me arsonists caused some fires in California that killed people and destroyed homes! That's crazy-talk!
how is that? Sea level has been rising at a fairly constant rate - with a slight decrease in recent years. It has been rising since the last ice age. if you meant to say the sea is rising because the globe warmed since the last ice age, then yeah, you have a point.
They're saying this happened because the storm system was blocked from going into the Atlantic because of the melting ice in Greenland.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/rights/was-sandy-caused-years-record-ice-melt
Thing is, we knew this was going to happen. NASA said so a month or so ago:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html - 07.24.12
"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data."
Need Mercedes parts ?
Fine, eccept that the money obtained from that tax will just go into the back pockets of "climate researchers" who push exactly this kind of flawed, self serving research in the first place! How about instead we fund the SCEPTICS for a change so they can flesh out exactly all the millions of problems that have already been found in the global warming hoax.
The practical answers is to tack on a punitive carbon tax to fossil fuel.e.g. an extra $4 per gallon for gas and rising.
And watch the entire country collapse.
Practical? You're clueless. The majority of the country doesn't make bullshit IT worker salaries. Expect to be wheeled up to the town square in a cart and mercifully beheaded in front of the cheering peasants when they find out your derpshit ideas are the reason they can't afford to eat or get to work.
but there is no uncertainty about the increased damage from the higher storm surge due to global warming.
If there's no "uncertainty", then how much extra damage is due to that extra 10 cm?
Why is this marked insightful? If we expect storms of strength X, and we are getting storms of strength X * .30, that alone suggests something is afoot. The nature of Sandy, not its hurricane category, is what made it so powerful and unusual. It was a large storm that hit under a pressure front producing a storm some are calling historic. The idea is that climate change would ... change the weather. It already has, and the effect is accelerating. Do you want to wait until the death toll is higher, the economic damage exceeds the billions Sandy already caused, and there is no way to reverse the damage? I can't see why that viewpoint is given any credibility.
Hazel in 53 wiped Montreal out. There's lots of these if you actually look.
The book "How to lie with statistics" is very handy to show things that aren't. Spin that data anyway youcan! Keep you're eyes off Fukushima and the Gulf, there's bogeyman to tax!
Need Mercedes parts ?
Have a look at the sea level rise page in that bastion of non-partisan factuology: Wikipedia. To say "sea level rise is xxx" is patently false on inspection; that is, it's not that simple.
Need Mercedes parts ?
1953: Hurricane Hazel. Montreal.
Need Mercedes parts ?
The practical answers is to tack on a punitive carbon tax to fossil fuel.e.g. an extra $4 per gallon for gas and rising.
...and watch the cost of social aid programs increase by the same percentage. $8 a gallon might not be a big deal for someone in an office job, but if you have to work two of your eight hour shift just to afford getting there the next day, living off the government seems pretty good.
The practical answers is to tack on a punitive carbon tax to fossil fuel.e.g. an extra $4 per gallon for gas and rising.
Why in the world do you think that is "practical"? At current gasoline consumption in the US alone, that's roughly $3-4 trillion per year. There are plenty of other taxable fossil fuel-derived fuels as well. Obviously, as a "punitive" tax, it'd greatly reduce demand, but even so I think it likely that this tax would bring in several trillion a year. And what are you going to spend that on? Some renewable energy crap. That's a massive distortion of the economy.
But if we don't do this, we just have to deal in a century or two with the modest consequences of global warming, some increase in sea level, global temperature, and a slight acidification of the oceans.
It doesn't make a bit of sense to advocate such self-destructive measures when the "la la la" strategy works so much better.
Hurricanes don't turn inland at NY. Except when they do. Which is almost never.
Each such storm is different, there will always be something, such as your observation above, that will make each storm unique. Seizing upon that difference as something significant is just a case of confirmation bias.
There's nothing that stops them doing it. But if Global Warming is true, then they will lose money time and time again and go bankrupt if they pretend it doesn't exist.
If they pretended it existed when it doesn't, then someone else will undercut them and they'll lose custom and go out of business or stop pretending.
When I examine the wikipedia article for Montreal or History of Montreal, I find no absolutely no mention of Hazel, much less that Hazel "wiped Montreal out". Nor do I find any mention of Montreal under the entry "Hurricane Hazel".
Maybe instead of plugging the book "How to lie with Statistics" you should really be plugging "How to lie by just making shit up" since that's apparently the book you're really fond of.
2012: Slashdot commenter rs79. Total Bullshit.
... and that negates his point how? It doesn't.
Haven't you heard about the fossil fuel needle? We have been at the very tip for the last several years. The problem will go away when there is no more carbon to burn, which should happen soon.
As an aside, we are not creating carbon, we are only releasing it. You can more or less say there is a constant amount of carbon on Earth in various forms at various times. How did it get into the trees from where coal was formed? (the air)
I have closely followed alternate fuel tech for over 40 years. Billions have been spent and thousands of researchers have worked on it, but still very little progress. It is not for lack of money or trying. But don't worry, I am not a denier, just a pragmatist.
As a History graduate, I approve of this message. ;)
then when the major storm hits, the idiots DON'T LEAVE and blame the gubmint/ evil science/ liberals for not giving them fair warning, and the sue them
what happens if they cry wolf?
then when the major storm hits, the idiots DON'T LEAVE because the gubmint/ evil science/ liberals are just hyping their global warming agenda
so the idiots are never going to leave, no matter what experts or the media say
so you cover your ass from frivolous lawsuits and make dire warnings
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The practical answers is to tack on a punitive carbon tax to fossil fuel.e.g. an extra $4 per gallon for gas and rising.
I wish they would. That would force all the serfs who drive 20 miles to clean toilets or push papers every day to take public transport instead so I, who can afford that extra $4/gallon without blinking can have free run of the roads in my V8 sports car.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Well, as a history graduate, you should have checked your sources and pointed out, that 1816 should be 1815 and that there was a hurricane in 1635 but not in 1645. Oups.
No, you're missing the entire point of the story. And forget about The Boy Who Cried Wolf because that story isn't even relevant.
The story we should be discussing is The Boy Who Cried 'Global Warming is going to dramatically increase the likelihood of severe weather events, including the possibility of hurricanes that could devastate Manhattan and New Jersey' and then was proven exactly fucking right but a bunch of obstinate disphits still wanted to keep their heads shoved up their own asses rather than acknowledge the climate disruption caused by greenhouse gas emissions."
Hahaha. Well US History wasn't my area of focus.. I guess I should have clarified that I approve of the message put forth in the last sentence of the parent post. People in this country can't even look back 15 years to recognize a cyclical pattern, much less 400...
Try looking at 1882 to 2012 for a more representative sample. For comparison, it has snowed in Tampa FL only once in that time, but in the years before, it snowed about once every 11 years.
I was kidding.
It's quite true. Just look at the way people think about Iran having weapons of mass destruction: The last time anybody used weapons of mass destruction was against Iran by Iraq under Saddam Hussein fighting on the side of the USA who delivered those WMDs, the possesion which was then used as a reason to invade said great ally of the USA in 2003.
Today, the USA has those great allies in Pakistan whom it trusts implicitly not to bomb the USA, but insufficiently to not carry out terror attacks (sorry: shock and awe ... erm ... moral bombing!) with drones - inflicting more casualties on Pakistan than 9/11 did on the USA.
And then, of course, there is Rambo III, dedicated to those gallant people of Afghanistan (the Mujahideen) who were fighting on the side of the USA against their common enemy the Soviet Union.
Well, USA preventing Soviet missles from being stationed in Cuba since 1962.
Or to quote the people watching Space Shuttle Endeavor being towed to the junkyar^h^h^h^museum:
USA USA USA USA USA!!!!!
Oddly enough, if you use the oldest continuously monitored sea level measure, run by the Royal Navy for over 250 years, you see that sea levels have not risen more than 1 cm over the last century.
However, as everybody knows, once you give any data to a climatologist, even say, average kangaroo penis sizes in Queensland, they will manage to massage it into proving their AGW catastrophism.
"No I don't believe the warming is all from humans."
Since we can conclude that it would be getting COOLER because of orbital changes overall, we're doing more than 100% of the warming.
Why do you think it is only part? Where is the rest coming from when all that is there can be explained by the physics and the product that you can calculate from the production reports of the mining industries how much we put there?
"Yes the earth has had warmer spans in it's past history before humans"
Yup, from CO2 which humans are putting up there now.
" Ice cores from Greenland prove this."
No. Ice melts.
You use Oxygen isotope analysis in lake bed sediments for the older stuff.
"No the far left won't acknowledge the earth was warmer in the past"
No, they do. They say it's got fuck all to do with today.
"No the far left won't include weather history before the year 1900."
1880.
Then again, you haven't kept world records (the American Indian didn't keep a weather diary), so you only have weather reports from Europeans which were not global.
In asserting the definite world temperature you need global.
You seem to be pretending that the left are doing things you think they would do, not what they actually do.
We can file that lie away with your attempt to compare the number of hurricanes and storms in Oct 2012 with Jan-Dec 2011.
Filed in the circular filing box.
But if we don't do this, we just have to deal in a century or two with the modest consequences of global warming, some increase in sea level, global temperature, and a slight acidification of the oceans.
...and the fact that there is little oil left in the ground. And none that is practical to extract.
As a matter of fact, I am suggesting that a hurricane causing devastating flooding and disabling the Northeast corridor of the United States is, as you say, "out of the norm". Nor I am persuaded otherwise by your insipid list of plagerized factoids such as "the weak tropical depression of 1886 which caused no known damage".
It's alright. Don't fret about it. I too, often confuse Montreal and Toronto
And before anyone else points it out, the atmosphere masses 5,000,000 billion tons, not 5,000 billion. Every other number was quoted from the relevant citation, but that one i tried to convert from 5x10^18 kg to tons by hand and screwed up =P
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Let us know how that inland harbor thing works out for you.
...if hurricane season is 30% weaker than that same average, can I declare global warming over?
But if we don't do this, we just have to deal in a century or two with the modest consequences of global warming, some increase in sea level, global temperature, and a slight acidification of the oceans.
...and the fact that there is little oil left in the ground. And none that is practical to extract.
Then we switch. And we'll be much wealthier and capable of making the switch because we didn't cripple our economy for a few decades. I suppose my viewpoint comes from a study of US economic history. There is a long history of resource depletion and switching to substitute goods over many centuries. I see no evidence that this will somehow work differently for the US's current reliance on fossil fuels.
For example, if we switch to alternatives in 50 years, then we'll have 50 years of wealth built up to help fund that change and any other needs we happen to have at the time (please keep in mind that there are more serious harms out there than global warming, such as poverty, disease, and desertification).
Keep in mind that every economy out there is growing over the long term several percent per year. That wealth so created is being used to improve our lives. When you propose a massive tax on fossil fuels, you are throwing a wrench into the primary tool by which we are elevating everyone on the planet from poverty.
For example, suppose, adjusted for inflation, that the US economy grows by 2.7% a year (as it has since 1973). A trillion dollar cost now becomes roughly $3.8 trillion adjusted for inflation in 50 years. In 200 years, which is about the time frame of significant global warming harm, that money has grown to about $200 trillion adjusted for inflation. That would buy a lot of AGW mitigation.
As a result, you should have very good reasons for such things because there's going to be a huge opportunity cost involved. Not some vague worry, like tropical cyclones might be slightly more powerful and harmful than they've been in the past.
Dear Snotty Sarcastic Skeptic,
Here is a graph of Solar Irradiance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar-cycle-data.png
Here is a graph of CO2: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg&page=1
Here is a graph of Mean Global Temperature: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_(NASA).svg&page=1
Notice how the temperature tracks with the CO2 concentration and not at all with the solar irradiance?
Sorry, Bloomberg, but your comments on the hurricane or AGW are just more political hot air. Maybe you should concentrate on getting NYC working again and leave topics you know nothing about to the "experts."
BTW, I seriously question your judgement in allowing the NY marathon to continue when you have people without food, water, electricity, gasoline, or shelter.
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
except hazel didn't turn inland at NY, but rather followed a more traditional hurricane track.
Fine, consider NYC exclusively:
Hurricane Hazel
1953: Hurricane Hazel. Montreal.
Uh, are you maybe confusing Montreal with Toronto?
Hazel was particularly destructive in Toronto, as a result of a combination of a lack of experience in dealing with tropical storms and the storm's unexpected retention of power. Hazel had traveled 1,100 km (680 mi) over land, but while approaching Canada, it had merged with an existing powerful cold front. The storm stalled over the Greater Toronto Area, and although it was now extratropical, it remained as powerful as a category 1 hurricane. To help with the cleanup, 800 members of the military were summoned, and a Hurricane Relief Fund was established that distributed $5.1 million (2009: $41.7 million) in aid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Hazel
Watch this Heartland Institute video
For a summary of the "debate" linking Sandy to global warming see: http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/scientifically-ignorant-tabloid-climatologists-blame-sandy-climate-change In a mad rush to prove who can put out the most inane press release, various warm-mongers, news hacks and climate alarmists have gone on a predictable spree, trying to blame Hurricane Sandy and the resulting disaster in the US Northeast on CO2 levels. Who are these clowns? Even the IPCC issued a statement saying that global warming was not to blame. Have none of these empty headed blatherskites noticed that it has been more than seven years since a major hurricane struck the US, the longest such period since the Civil War? Evidently not, since they continue to spew unscientific twaddle and the news media continues to lap it up like a dog eating its own vomit.
That's what they did in London and in Holland.
But as the UK is slowly tipping down into the sea at the lower end, they may need to build a new barrier in the future.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Like those liberals who say this won't cost much, just 1 cent in every dollar. They don't realize that some people are only saving 5 cents in every dollar. Then four more special interest groups want the same funding.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
We have historical evidence of weather and climate going back 200 years. We have ice cores going back 400,000 years. Geologic evidence from sedimentary deposits going back many millions of years. Scientists do their best to correlate many sources of data and use mathematical models to predict what is happening and what is going to happen. The majority of people actually studying these forces agree that things are different and that it is due to the effects mankind. None of them claim they know exactly how or when but they are worried that the climate will change for the worse.
It's like your doctor telling you to stop smoking and you are giving him the middle finger. Remember, smoking used to be thought of as safe and tobacco company's paid a few researchers and lawyers big bucks to hide the truth for decades. The same thing is happening now.
That article contains no mention of Montreal. Your claim that Hazel "wiped out" Montreal is total bullshit.
Please take your religious posts somewhere else. This is a site for science not doomsday fetish cults.
Wow, a two-fer! Church of AGW member AND a peak oil hysteric! Do you find that people at parties actively flee when you arrive?
You cannot downvote me into oblivion...it's Obama controlling the weather to take the spotlight off of him. It's HAARP!
sea level has risen 15 cm since 1950
Living on part of the US where subduction is taking place 60 miles to the west, along the pacific coast, how much of that 15 cm is due to the rise or fall of the land mass itself? [also refer to the last major earthquake in japan where the land mass sunk due to the relase of a subduction zone]
The Mississippi Delta has a sinking problem, but I am unaware of any such problem in the NorthEast.
I have to ask, where did these 15cm of sea level come from? That's not explicitly from global warming, not necessarily.
* different precipitation patterns may have resulted in less precipitation falling on the poles (ie climate change). Weather patterns are constantly changing.
* it's well known that pole ice pack has actually increased in depth over the last several years.
* the magnetic north pole has been rapidly shifting towards siberia over the past 50 years (which might impact weather, since the earth is essentially a giant magnet)
* all the while, the world's glaciers are still melting at roughly the same rate they have for the last millennia
* the past 50 years have seen copious amounts of water pumped from aquifers for use in industrial processes and general human consumption.
Here's a hint: when your model data keeps changing and taking drastically different perspectives on the same information, all with constantly disproven hypothesis, maybe the premise you reached before studying things is wrong, and you're missing something important. There are different hypothesises which explain the "higher sea level" scenario, but climatologists are unwilling to entertain them for purely dogmatic reasons, dismissing them purely out of hand.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
the material lost is roughly balanced by the formation of new (oceanic) crust along divergent margins by seafloor spreading. In this way, the total surface of the globe remains the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
It has struck a lot of people who don't check what standard practice is.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
15cm is 6 inches.
The difference between high and low tide in New York is more like 6 feet. A normal tide, not a full moon one.
Storms in the past have far outstripped this one.
This one was just unlucky enough to happen at high tide during a full moon.
And, I have no idea if the chart you linked to even accounted for the mitigating effect of land rebound. That 6 inches might be more like 4 in actuality.
Like all climate change posts on /., this one is riddled with morons arguing that they know more about climate science than the climate scientists.
"What about the sun!!!???" they gleefully ask, breathlessly expecting the scientists to have forgotten about the only non-negligible SOURCE of energy in the system.
"What about the clouds!!!???" they shrilly ask, fretfully expecting the scientists to have forgotten about atmospheric phenomena in their modeling of atmospheric phenomena.
"Yeah, well, there's no warming," they say, defensively, ignoring decades of evidence.
"And back in the 70s we were told to buy more jackets because of global cooling," they whine, even though they weren't even alive and the publication record doesn't support them.
"And if there is warming, it's not due to carbon dioxide because CO2 isn't the strongest gas," they sternly remind these scientists.
"And if it is due to CO2, it's not because of humans, it's because of...cows farting," they protest, forgetting that cow farts are more methane than CO2.
"And it was warmer in the past and life continued," they petulantly remind the scientists who did the work to demonstrate what the temperatures were in the past and today, and forgetting that the time scale for temperature changes is as important as the magnitude of temperature changes.
"Yeah, well, they should share these so-called data," they say, pretending to know how to analyze data, and forgetting that all of the data they could want are readily available.
"Well, I'm not going to give up my car so that some Chinese can get ahead of me," they finally admit, after running out of arguments about why climate change isn't happening.
What all of these self-appointed skeptics—who tend to be the opposite of skeptical—forget is that they're not smarter than the scientists doing the work, they're not cleverer, and they're not better informed.
Take the hurricane discussion as an example. ALL North Atlantic storm data since 1850 are available for free from the NOAA. Those data can easily be analyzed by anyone with a modicum of statistical and scientific analysis (which basically rules out most of the self-named skeptics on this and other sites). Once those data are analyzed by responsible parties, certain things become clear.
For example, the number of storms that would be named during a given season has steadily increased since the 1850s. But, there's a legitimate argument that not all storms were observable in the 1850s, so the 1970s, when satellites became tools of climate science is a better metric. Yes, even since then, the number of storms that would be named has (on average) been increasing. So has the number of hurricanes, and the number of major hurricanes.
But, a better metric is the energy dissipated during the hurricane season, which not only can be measured from direct observation of a storm, but also from its effects on beaches and from other markers. Since the 1850s, the total energy dissipated by large storms (tropical storms and larger) has increased since the 1850s. It's a cyclic pattern, but the 5-, 10-, and 30-year running averages have ALL increased over time.
Another way to look at it is to consider the average and standard deviation ACE since, say 1968 (why 1968? Because that was in the middle of the last peak in energy dissipation, so we get two peaks and a trough, so we're not biasing the analysis with either too-low or too-high values). The mean ACE since 1968 is ~95. The standard deviation is ~61. Since 1968 (43 seasons), there have been 10 seasons (23%) with ACEs above 155, gaussian distribution would expect only 16%; there have been 7 seasons below the mean-1sigma value (16%, as expected for a gaussian distribution). There have been 3 (~7%) seasons above 216 ACE, the mean+2-sigma value, whereas we would expect only 2.5% of seasons to be above the mean+2-sigma.
Anyway you (honestly) look at it, you're going to see that the oceans have warmed since
Uh huh. I bet it's the biggest one in the last several billion years of this planet. Have you looked back about 150 years? And 300? And 450?
Need Mercedes parts ?
Why is this marked insightful? If we expect storms of strength X, and we are getting storms of strength X * .30, that alone suggests something is afoot.
Or it could mean we aren't 100% accurate predicting the weather.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Sorry, I should have pointed out a friend was there and it made a big mess. But you got the point right, minor details notwithstanding?
Need Mercedes parts ?
Now how do you explain that this only happens in NYC and area? Have you seen what it is in other areas?
Maybe if the part they're measuring from is sinking, but most places have one mm a year. Hard to imagine how New York gets such a different amount given it's the same ocean.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Also note the buried comment below: "Oddly enough, if you use the oldest continuously monitored sea level measure, run by the Royal Navy for over 250 years, you see that sea levels have not risen more than 1 cm over the last century."
Need Mercedes parts ?
That way there be dragons. If you put a price on carbon then under that framework it is possible to charge people for growing plants.
Sounds absurd I know, but in a world that charges people for the water on their on their own land...
As kids we used to joke that one day they'd charge for air. You get free air at your gas station?
If you make something possible, some jerk will do it one day. As the single most important nutrient to plants you never want to put a price on carbon, ever. Try taxing heavy metals, phenols, dioxins, unburned hydrocarbons, nobody ever dumps pure CO2 into the air.
Need Mercedes parts ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Hazel
"Hurricane Hazel was the deadliest and costliest hurricane of the 1954 Atlantic hurricane season. The storm killed as many as 1,000 people in Haiti before striking the United States near the border between North and South Carolina, as a Category 4 hurricane. After causing 95 fatalities in the US, Hazel struck Canada as an extratropical storm, raising the death toll by 81 people, mostly in Toronto. As a result of the high death toll and the damage Hazel caused, its name was retired from use for North Atlantic hurricanes."
Sorry about the confusion with Montreal, a friend of mine was on a boat in Montreal at the time this started and the trouble for her began then and that's how I remember it. Point is, you think of hurricanes as Florida, but they have in fact always been a threat, albeit less of a one, on the wilds of the neo arctic up here.
Need Mercedes parts ?
That's ok, logic and numbers aren't for everyone, some people enjoy the warm fuzzy love that is informal logic, which we call rhetoric. May is serve you well.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Also, the claim that Sandy meeting the Western trough was unprecedented and unpredictable seems odd in light of Hazels behaviour: "Hazel had traveled 1,100 km (680 mi) over land, but while approaching Canada, it had merged with an existing powerful cold front. The storm stalled over the Greater Toronto Area, and although it was now extratropical, it remained as powerful as a category 1 hurricane. To help with the cleanup, 800 members of the military were summoned, and a Hurricane Relief Fund was established that distributed $5.1 million (2009: $41.7 million) in aid." (Wiki)
It's the exact same thing.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Also: "Hazel had traveled 1,100 km (680 mi) over land, but while approaching Canada, it had merged with an existing powerful cold front. The storm stalled over the Greater Toronto Area, and although it was now extratropical, it remained as powerful as a category 1 hurricane. To help with the cleanup, 800 members of the military were summoned, and a Hurricane Relief Fund was established that distributed $5.1 million (2009: $41.7 million) in aid." (ibid)
It's the same pattern as Sandy exactly, yet we were told this behaviour was a freak one time atypical occurrence. Dollars to donuts it's happened more than twice in the last four billion years, too.
Need Mercedes parts ?
It sure as hell didn't do Toronto any good!
It negates his point 100%. Claim: scientists reached conclusion by cherry picking data. Fact: No, they didn't.
... my favorite prof Scott Aaronson has been taking on the stupid.
His most salient point: You cannot attribute any single lung cancer death statistically to smoking, just like you cannot do the same for any particular storm event.
Yet, anybody looking at the accumulated data has to be willfully ignorant to maintain that smoking does not contribute to lung cancer.
While fortunately the tobacco industry and their lobby are widely shunned the global warming deniers still get a pass.
Link to Scott's blog got swallowed:
http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1148
You mean like the Port of South Louisiana? Ports are a lot more automated than they used to be. They don't need nearly as many people to work. New Orleans itself is not particularly essential to the function of the port; most of the facilities are located upriver from the city. If you look at one of the sources cited in that article (here, though data are from 2004), you'll note that the ports of Baton Rouge, Plaquemines, South Louisiana, and New Orleans added together (reasonable, because they are all physically contiguous) account for almost three times the shipping volume of the Port of NY/NJ.
The entirety of your evidence that Montreal was "wiped out" was some random friend's recollection? I rest my case.
It should be beyond dispute that man made pollution is intensifying the weather systems. Especially on a site like Slashdot (I would hope).
Eyes Open Self-Hypnosis for Victory: Summon the Warrior
All humans are like that, not just Americans. Europe is fast slipping back into the greedy paws of fascism and socialism again, and no-one is doing a thing to stop it. History be droppin mad rhymes, yo.
I think he meant Toronto. Not sure how you could have missed this is you researched Hurricane Hazel.
No, it was not the melting of ice in Greenland, it was the record low Arctic sea ice around nearly the whole basin that exposed a lot of extra sea water to the atmosphere that probably helped exacerbate the blocking high by changing the jet stream.
As far as the Greenland summit melting, the 150 year average is over the last 10,000 years but if you look at this chart you'll notice that most of the events were concentrated from 4,000 to 8,000 years ago and before the 1889 event it had been 700 years since the previous one. In fact in the last 2,000 years there have only been 6 of the events, an average of one every 333 years.
Now with 30% more sprinkles.
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
Oddly enough sea level is far more complex than a single station can measure.
It's not the same behavior, albeit similar in many respects. North Carolina is not New York--the coast is a different shape, the weather patterns are different, and the chance of a storm going inland are different. This was New York, where storms are much less likely to turn inland.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Fair, although the observation has been made about highly destructive hurricanes in the past, and is a result of certain established weather patterns and geography. When those weather patterns change and two years in a row of hurricanes do something which has always been unusual, it's enough to take notice.
The hurricane that came in in the forties was disasterous--a woman swam across the sound and announced long island was sinking. A man went to the post office to return his new barometer, which he though twas defective, and while he was gone his house blew away. The National Weather Service thought the storm wouldn't be any problem because it left Miami relatively unscathed, and then downtown Providence was under water.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
"It's a fascist plot to allow the oil industry to get even richer"
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
OK, so you're saying, let me understand you correctly, that rather than pick a representative sample of years, say, the last 30, the sample should have included some cherry picked periods from the 1950s in order to make everything look A-OK (presumably, though, you'd be against including the prior 30 years, in case that diluted the 1950s figures that make the past look like such a hell hole?)
Here's a better idea, let's be intellectually honest, rather than cherry picking data and then having the nerve to complain the scientists who actually did the results cherry picked because they didn't include your cherry picked data.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Right, because the imaginary line between Greenland and "the Arctic" causes a physical difference in the real world. Not.
Whatever numbers you use is fine, point is that ice melts periodically. Note also a large amout of it was deposited after the 1940s cooling period: http://news.ku.dk/all_news/2012/2012.5/glaciers_greenland_photos/
If NASA says this melt was right on time I'd say that melt this was predictable.
Need Mercedes parts ?
What case? My friend arrived by boat into Montreal the day Hazel hit. She was going to Toronto. I explained this already. How many times do you need me to apologize for the error?
The points stands, these sort of things are anything but unprecedented.
New England Hurricanes
Aug. 25,1635: The Great Colonial Hurricane was the first historical record of an intense hurricane in the region. Some refer to it as America’s first recorded natural disaster. The storm’s eye is believed to have passed between Boston and Plymouth causing at least 46 casualties.
Sept. 23, 1815: The Great September Gale was the first major hurricane to impact New England in 180 years. After crossing Long Island, N.Y., the storm came ashore at Saybrook, Conn., funneling an 11-foot storm surge up Narragansett Bay. There, it destroyed 500 houses, 35 ships and flooded Providence, R.I.
Sept. 21, 1938: The Great Hurricane. This Category 5 was the first major hurricane to strike New England since 1869. The Blue Hill Observatory, outside of Boston, measured sustained winds of 121 mph, with gusts of 183 mph. Providence, R.I., reported sustained winds of 100 mph, gusting to 125 mph. Rainfall of 10 to 17 inches caused severe flooding in Western Massachusetts. In all, 600 deaths were attributed to the storm.
Sept. 14-15, 1944: The Great Atlantic Hurricane produced 140-mph winds and caused over $100 million in damage, as well as 390 deaths, mostly at sea.
Aug. 21, 1954: Hurricane Carol, a compact, but powerful, borderline Category 3 battered New England, killing 68. With 100 mph winds, gusting up to 135 mph, Carol caused over $460 million in damage, destroying 4,000 homes, 3,500 cars, and over 3,000 boats. This was arguably the most destructive storm to hit Southern New England since 1938.
Aug. 17-19, 1955: Hurricane Diane dropped up to 20 inches of rain, setting flood records throughout the region. Diane was recognized as the wettest tropical cyclone to impact New England and was blamed for nearly 200 deaths.
Sept. 12, 1960: Hurricane Donna recorded 160 mph winds with gusts up to 200 mph. Donna hit New England in Southeast Connecticut with sustained winds of 100 mph, gusting to 125-130 mph, cutting diagonally through the region to Maine. The storm killed 364, and caused more than $500 million in damage.
Sept. 27, 1985: Hurricane Gloria hugged the coastline; as it made its way north, Gloria crossed Long Island, making landfall at Milford, Conn. The storm left more than 2 million people without power.
Aug. 19, 1991: Hurricane Bob made landfall in New England near New Bedford with 115 mph winds. The damage total for Southern New England was set at $1 billion, with $2.5 billion overall damage.
Sept. 16-17, 1999: Hurricane Floyd’s worst impact was flooding, with mudslides in the Berkshires and road closures.
Aug. 28, 2011: Tropical Storm Irene slammed into the Northeast leaving badly damaged homes and roads in its wake. Federal aid in Berkshire County topped $30 million.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Keep in mind that every economy out there is growing over the long term several percent per year.
Why? Because humanity has been exploiting fossil fuels. The industrial revolution was powered with coal, now it's reliant on oil and gas too. Trouble is we're at peak oil now, and the ever increasing extraction of it cannot continue. Exponential growth relying on a finite resource is not sustainable. There isn't 50 years of growth left. Most of that 50 years will feature decline in global petroleum.
Your proposal of procrastination until the brink is reached will not work, regardless of AGW.
Not some vague worry, like tropical cyclones might be slightly more powerful and harmful than they've been in the past.
It's not some vague worry, its already happening.
I really can't see what difference it makes if a hurricane gets to Toronto via sea or land. Is that few hundred miles really important. And despite the claims that this is unprecedented, it's relaly not.
New England Hurricanes
Posted on November 1, 2012
Aug. 25,1635: The Great Colonial Hurricane was the first historical record of an intense hurricane in the region. Some refer to it as America’s first recorded natural disaster. The storm’s eye is believed to have passed between Boston and Plymouth causing at least 46 casualties.
Sept. 23, 1815: The Great September Gale was the first major hurricane to impact New England in 180 years. After crossing Long Island, N.Y., the storm came ashore at Saybrook, Conn., funneling an 11-foot storm surge up Narragansett Bay. There, it destroyed 500 houses, 35 ships and flooded Providence, R.I.
Sept. 21, 1938: The Great Hurricane. This Category 5 was the first major hurricane to strike New England since 1869. The Blue Hill Observatory, outside of Boston, measured sustained winds of 121 mph, with gusts of 183 mph. Providence, R.I., reported sustained winds of 100 mph, gusting to 125 mph. Rainfall of 10 to 17 inches caused severe flooding in Western Massachusetts. In all, 600 deaths were attributed to the storm.
Sept. 14-15, 1944: The Great Atlantic Hurricane produced 140-mph winds and caused over $100 million in damage, as well as 390 deaths, mostly at sea.
Aug. 21, 1954: Hurricane Carol, a compact, but powerful, borderline Category 3 battered New England, killing 68. With 100 mph winds, gusting up to 135 mph, Carol caused over $460 million in damage, destroying 4,000 homes, 3,500 cars, and over 3,000 boats. This was arguably the most destructive storm to hit Southern New England since 1938.
Aug. 17-19, 1955: Hurricane Diane dropped up to 20 inches of rain, setting flood records throughout the region. Diane was recognized as the wettest tropical cyclone to impact New England and was blamed for nearly 200 deaths.
Sept. 12, 1960: Hurricane Donna recorded 160 mph winds with gusts up to 200 mph. Donna hit New England in Southeast Connecticut with sustained winds of 100 mph, gusting to 125-130 mph, cutting diagonally through the region to Maine. The storm killed 364, and caused more than $500 million in damage.
Sept. 27, 1985: Hurricane Gloria hugged the coastline; as it made its way north, Gloria crossed Long Island, making landfall at Milford, Conn. The storm left more than 2 million people without power.
Aug. 19, 1991: Hurricane Bob made landfall in New England near New Bedford with 115 mph winds. The damage total for Southern New England was set at $1 billion, with $2.5 billion overall damage.
Sept. 16-17, 1999: Hurricane Floyd’s worst impact was flooding, with mudslides in the Berkshires and road closures.
Aug. 28, 2011: Tropical Storm Irene slammed into the Northeast leaving badly damaged homes and roads in its wake. Federal aid in Berkshire County topped $30 million.
Need Mercedes parts ?
And then lingered over Ontario for a week. This is considered "unusual". If it happened today we'd blame it on global warming. Hell, any time there's any sort of freak weather it's blamed on global warming, whether it's true or not.
A little less religion and a little more science would nice.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/ff_apocalypsenot/all
Need Mercedes parts ?
The truth is clearly not for you.
You aren't beaten because we have better rhetoric than you. You're beaten because you lied.
When those weather patterns change and two years in a row of hurricanes do something which has always been unusual, it's enough to take notice.
Except that those weather patterns, while infrequent, aren't unusual. The claims about extreme weather have always been some of the shakiest stuff coming out of the AGW advocacy.
Not some vague worry, like tropical cyclones might be slightly more powerful and harmful than they've been in the past.
It's not some vague worry, its already happening.
An opinion which remains unsullied by hard evidence. AGW theories of extreme weather remain one of the two most unscientific parts of the AGW belief complex (the other being the catastrophic version of AGW).
If one looks at actual history rather than peak oil hysteria
There's no hysteria, only the fact of peak oil. Attempted growth in extraction of a finite resource will at some point reach a peak and then decline. It's already been observed in multiple countries. For the US, peak oil happened in 1970. There is no question that it also happens globally. And that it's happening round about now. One can argue about whether it's already past, or if it's a few years in the future. But it's certainly not decades off.
one sees a remarkable ability to adapt.
Yes. The thing is I'm on the side of people who are adapting. You want to put off change for 50 years.
An opinion which remains unsullied by hard evidence.
Bury your head in the sand if you want. Your denial is irrelevant.
There is a fundamental difference between the Arctic sea ice that is floating on the ocean and the Greenland ice sheet that is sitting on land. When sea ice, typically 1-2 meters thick, melts out it exposes the underlying ocean water to the atmosphere. When a little ice melts off the top of a mile thick sheet of ice it's still ice, just slightly lower in elevation. If you're not perceptive enough to understand the difference that's not my problem.
Now look a the graph of historical glaciation superimposed with CO2.
Once you see this you know it can't be CO2.
Need Mercedes parts ?
There's no hysteria, only the fact of peak oil.
Sure, there is. You're demonstrating it right now. What is the rush? Why have peak oil now when we can have it in twenty or forty years and be wealthier and more capable when we do have it?
Yes. The thing is I'm on the side of people who are adapting. You want to put off change for 50 years.
Absolutely. And I bet we can do it.
An opinion which remains unsullied by hard evidence.
Bury your head in the sand if you want. Your denial is irrelevant.
You should heed your own advice. Come back with real, hard evidence. Then we'll have something to talk about.
Thank you for regurgitating Scott's blog. It is indeed vomit. With the subset data presented that is a valid conclusion, but only so when you look at that limited subset of data. It's not denialism to point out bad math.
But, even the alarmists have admitted to being alarmist:
"James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace."
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/james-lovelock-the-earth-is-about-to-catch-a-morbid-fever-that-may-last-as-long-as-100000-years-523161.html
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite
Need Mercedes parts ?
'Gaia Theory', good thing you put it into quotes. This BS is as much theory as intelligent design, just another pseudo-religion catering to a different demographics.
Sure, you say that now, but he's been held up as the figurehead for all this. When we said "he's not a scientist" your crowd babbled on about CO2 and how the facts mattered not the presenter. Now he admits he's lied and you throw him under a bus.
How bout the long string of failed alarmist predictions, how do you write those off?
Need Mercedes parts ?
You say that hurricanes cool the oceans by about 3 degrees C.
Heat escaping the ocean to the atmosphere is similar to heat escaping the atmosphere to space.
Does anyone know how much extra heat escapes into space as a result of a hurricane stirring the atmosphere compared to if the same area was calm?
The satelite images seem to show extra heat escaping. Does it? If so, How much?
I ask because if it's a significant amount, then maybe we could use atmospheric vortex engines to create artificial hurricanes. Then we could generate energy (like a solar updraft tower without glass) and cool the Earth at the same time. Maybe we could put AVE's above the ocean gyres and filter the microplastic out of the water as it moves under the hurricane too.
My crowd?
I haven't even heard of Lovelock before he got back into the limelight with his back-paddling. Certainly heard the hippie Gaia talk before. Always thought that was flower power nonsense. Now I know whom to blame.
But if it helps you to separate the world in two groups around this question ...
Not really. The oceans are all linked, and a rise in one part would imply a rise in another part. Sure it might take a few days or weeks for the rise to show up in different parts of the world, but this is not something that is very hard to measure either.
It's only complex if you are a climate "science" fan, and wish to attempt to confuse the issue using the usual bag of tricks. One single, known good seal level monitoring station is much more useful than a large number of unknown stations run by unknown people with a clear politico-social agenda, who then take their raw data, adjust it in any number of secret ways, and then throw out the original data.
Or are you somehow asserting that the sea level (remember the seas and oceans are all linked) can rise in one place and not another? That would be funny to see - a section of ocean that is a giant, permanent bulge or bump on the face of the planet.
Can you find evidence that something like this can last for more than a few hours, if that?
Seriously, you're being an ass. I've read through this page of threads, and you've made numerous posts including mistakes of judgment that come across as lies; and then you insult your potential audience. You may have good points, but they are lost or devalued by your tone and approach. Simply as a style of argumentation, your posts wind up more alienating than convincing. This is not the way to bring people over to your way of thinking.
For others, this video evidence that rs79 posted in the GP is a talk hosted by the Sydney Institute. The Sydney Institute itself may or may not be pushing a conservative anti-AGW agenda; at any rate, Gerard Henderson is Executive Director and his wife is the Deputy Director (staff roster), with some online commentators describing them as "neocon" in their views. Gerard Henderson was an adviser to former Australian PM John Howard, whose general political leanings were quite close to those of George W. Bush.
In short, the source is a bit suspect.
The talk itself is about an hour long. I haven't listened to the whole thing yet, but the speaker is Murry Salby, professor of environmental science at Macquarie University in Australia and the university's Climate Chair (university staff page). His basic argument is that global temperature controls CO2 levels, not the other way around. His views are somewhat controversial, perhaps unsurprisingly, and are discussed and refuted to some extent in numerous articles at Skeptical Science, among other places.
...
In all fairness, I could probably dissect most arguments similarly and dig up links to this or that refutation. However, my point here is not to try to claim that Salby is wrong -- I don't know that, and I don't have the educational background to make that judgment. My point, instead, is that Salby's views do not appear to be the authoritative end-all-and-be-all slam-dunk finishing end to the argument of whether humans are responsible for global warming.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Not really. The oceans are all linked, and a rise in one part would imply a rise in another part.
Sure, that's what common sense would tell you. But when it comes to a single station you have to account for the rise or fall of the land it's on. The gravitational attraction of things like mountain ranges and ice sheets affect local sea level. Changes in the prevailing winds or ocean currents also affect sea level. I found this article on the subject that talks about it. It's really a pretty fascinating subject, to me at least.
The land under question is not rising or falling, and certainly not in time to rising or falling sea levels. That's ridiculous and so is the Yale article. Of course you can try to explain away the facts with imaginary problems, which is why you have gridded temperature data, weather stations under air conditioning hot air exhaust vents, and all the other blatantly unreliable science coming out from the so-called "climatologists" out there.
The jig is up.
You'll forgive me if I have more confidence in the people who are actively studying a subject than I do in someone like you. Over the years I've seen too many instances where a cursory examination of something leads to the wrong conclusions. Your conclusion that a rise at one measuring site for sea level means and equal rise all around the world ocean is demonstrably wrong as physical oceanographers would tell you.