Slashdot Mirror
For Overstated Claims, Gore, Tesla Upbraided By NWS, NHTSA Respectively
barlevg writes "In a recent interview, former Vice President and environmental activist Al Gore made a bold claim, that man-made global warming was causing hurricanes to be formed of such severity that 'they're adding a 6' to the hurricane scale, going on to say that 'The fingerprint of man-made global warming is all over these storms and extreme weather events.' In response, the National Weather Service has responded that they have no plans to add a 'doomsday Category 6' to their rating scale: 'No, we're not pursuing any such change. I'm also not sure who VP Gore means by "they,"' also noting that 'Category 5 has no ceiling: it includes hurricanes with top sustained winds of 157 mph and higher.'
Furthermore, a recently leaked United Nations climate assessment claims only 'low confidence' of a link between human activity and increased hurricane severity and that this is likely due to increased human settlement in coastal areas and other regions vulnerable to natural disasters."
Along similar lines, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says that Tesla's Model S, no matter how safe it is, doesn't get any special grade inflation: there's no "5.4" score (as the company did in a press release this week), because that's just not how the NHTSA keeps score. (Hat tip to reader cartechboy.)
I'm surprised that the inventor of The Internet would make such erroneous claims.
-=You might be a geek if your computer is worth more than your car=-
My category scale goes to 11
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
Tu quoque's don't get us anywhere. Just point out that there are political pricks who're douchebags, which we already know. Yes, that includes Al Gore. No, that does not change the science of climate change. Yes, his stupid documentary made me want to vomit. Science should be explained by scientists, not those with agendas.
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
The Category system only measures wind speed, not storm surge, track, or the velocity of the storm system, or even how much rain it will dump. A Category 1 coming ashore during a full-moon high tide can do a lot more damage than a hurricane with higher winds.Arguably, Sandy was not even a hurricane when it came ashore. And a year before there was Irene that deluged inland areas of New York and North Jersey with amazing amounts of rainfall. It came ashore with winds similar to Sandy in almost the same part of NJ, but did very little damage to that area.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
There's a bit of a difference between "should be", and "they're adding a..." There's no need to reflexively defend Gore. AGW is real. Gore being an asshole is also real.
Yes, there can be bigger hurricanes and they should have a higher Cat 6 level.
Yes, Cat6. More twists per inch and you can't strip back as far when you punch one down into a patch block.
arguing over minor semantics. Yes, they may not add a "Category 6" but that doesn't mean that storms might not be powerful enough that such a classification might be useful the layman in describing something that something is 'off the chart.' Similarly, Tesla's Model S outperformed NHTSA's tests, and is getting special treatment whether they wish to acknowledge it or not.
Writing analysis says this was typed by the same person who typed
Yes, there can be bigger hurricanes and they should have a higher Cat 6 level. More water vapor and more CO2 can influence these storms by how much thermal energy and pressure differences there are in the atmosphere.
Tesla's Model S is just hot. Why would you want to crash it?
Nice trolling submission.
Yes. But it was in New York so it actually mattered.
(If you didn't see the sarcasm there, you're probably a New Yorker).
I don't know...have you ever been brought to your ankles? If something brings you to your knees, you can just stand right back up again. But roll an ankle, and man, that's like a week of limping and constant pain!
Everything is better with chainsaws.
Open ended doesn't mean there isn't room for another category. Category is based on damage to a home. SO Cat 5 means 'highly likely to destroy a house'.
also takes out most the windows in a high rise building..
But what happens when they start making high rises uninhabitable and need to be torn down?
That would mean they would need to add a category.
It's science. If new data or events start to happen the science with adjust to fit the data.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/sshws_table.pdf
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That's two different subjects.
Editors: is this a news aggregation site, or are we now making new articles here?
Don't be so hasty, the man is very important.
Without him, we wouldn't have the Algore-rithm that he invented while attending Harvard.
Where would computer science be without the Algorithm?
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
If a Hurricane is strong enough to tip over a Tesla model S, then it should get a Category 6 rating . . .
We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
How frustrating that the NHTSA caps at 5/5, as if that makes a car perfectly safe. There's ALWAYS room for improvement, and as far as I can tell, Tesla extrapolated the 5.4 score to reflect measurable stats that the NHTSA provided.
It reminds me of 20 watt CFL light bulbs which have an 'A' rating. At least in the UK, it stops there; you can't get better than an A no matter how well a device performs (11 watt LED bulbs are apparently almost twice as efficient at 11 watt compared to 20). It's an artificial limitation which limits product innovation and efficiency. If you are going to use letters than at least go from A forwards through the alphabet, or even better, report the actual efficiency as lumens per watt rather than a blind, backwards system which can't imagine that the future could get any better.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Apparently, it's capped at 5. However, that doesn't mean a car can't score higher, it's just it's reported as 5.
The reason for the "5.4" is that they keep the raw scores - they occasionally have to reset all the scores because cars were basically passing the current criteria. So they reset the meanings to make 5 a harder goal still. Of course, since you can't compare a 5 from the past to a 5 today, they reassess all the scores and give them new ratings based on what the current rating system is. So yesterday's 5 might be today's 4.
They keep raw values because you can't obviously re-test obsolete vehicles, but you still need to be able to compare.
The other way, of course, is to add further ratings - so 5 stars today is 5 stars tomorrow - you see this with some ranking systems, e.g., Windows Experience Index where the max value is raised (5 in Vista, 7.9 in 7, I don't know what 8 has).
It's just that today, Tesla's Model S exceeds current safety ratings (they had to "cheat" to get it to roll over because there was no standard test maneuver they could do to roll it over, and I think on the roof crush test, it broke the machine).
Of course, tomorrow when people make even safer cars, the Model S might score a 4 with the new criteria.
OP here. And my Ph.D and career take issue with your "non-scientist" characterization. My point in submitting the story (based on articles written by meteorologists) was not to "gratify" climate change deniers. On the contrary. It was to call out a man making stupid (and blatantly false) assertions. When climate change supporters exaggerate claims (like with that arctic methane bomb a few weeks back) or falsify data, it HURTS their (OUR) case rather than helping it. One of the biggest criticisms I (and other liberals) have of many conservatives is that they make shit up, bend "facts" to serve political agendas and completely ignore reality even it's staring them in the face. When Al Gore says that man is causing "category six" hurricanes when a UN report says there's no conclusive evidence that man is causing stronger hurricanes, and the NWS says there's nothing past Category Five, he's being alarmist, irrational and no better than the "deniers" he's giving ammunition to.
That was actually my point exactly in posting this article. In order to support the argument that climate change deniers are the ones who disregard reality, we need to make sure that climate change awareness "advocates" don't go around doing the exact same shit.
ManBearPig is real, you deniers!!!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Meh, Cat 5e is good enough for gigabitch storm systems. If you want to push any more than that, might was well go fiber. MMmm... multimode storms... with fricken' lasers.
Requiring reporters to do investigations is asking them to do work, which is an insult to the traditions of their profession.
Yes, his stupid documentary made me want to vomit. Science should be explained by scientists, not those with agendas.
Well it's a real shame no scientist with data supporting climate change ever tried to explain it to the public, then. They all figured a vice president would come along, so why bother before that?
Scientists have been saying this for decades. Not enough people cared. Nothing happened, long after it was obvious a change needed to be made. Better PR was needed. And that still didn't solve it. Even had there not been powerful interests in carbon taxes, I don't think the public would have overcome it's inertia and demanded reducing carbon emissions, they hear it's not going to happen tomorrow and it isn't sex or movies, and ignore it.
What's wrong with Gore anyway? Agenda? Who the hell DOESN'T have an agenda? I've heard he was in on a scheme to get rich from selling carbon credits. So what? Is that a reason not to fight climate change? There are a lot more people who are a lot more evil than Gore getting insanely wealthy off us NOT taxing carbon. Like, OPEC. Gore seems unlikely to take his carbon money and fund it towards suppressing human rights and terrorism, which is not true of oil money. The coal industry isn't quite as bad as OPEC, but there's a lot of terrible people there too.
I'm sure those that are skeptics (or like me think the "solutions" that they are attempting to ram down our throats are just a giant reverse robin hood cash grab by Gore and pals) love the hell out of the Al Gore, after all the more times he's caught just outright pulling the "facts" from his rectum the easier it is to get more folks to be skeptical.
In a way he makes me think of another Al, Al Sharpton, in that even if he has some facts on his side he has to go so far out with his rhetoric that even if he originally had a point he quickly becomes a recruitment tool for the other side. With both Als the facts are never enough, they ALWAYS have to go overboard with the bullshit and spin until it gets to the point if they said it was raining you'd want a second opinion.
Those that believe in AGW frankly ought to do everything they can to distance themselves from al Gore and his hypocritical bullshit, his farting around in a Lear jet or a fleet of limos while claiming he is carbon neutral because he gets credits from HIS OWN COMPANY (this would be like me moving money from my left to right pocket and getting cheers and a tax credit for "wealth redistribution") just makes the entire platform look like a giant scam cooked up by a bunch of greedy spoiled pigs that want to stuff their pockets selling snake oil. If there HAS to be a public face to AGW I have the perfect candidate...Ed Begley Jr. That man not only talks the talk he walks the walk, living in a modest house and driving a small electric vehicle and living as lightly as he can to minimize his footprint, makes a hell of a lot better example than the Rev Al Gore and his McMansion with indoor basketball court and AC blasting.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.