Slashdot Mirror
What's Causing The Hurricanes? (yahoo.com)
An anonymous reader quotes AFP:
Hurricane Irma, now taking aim at Florida, has stunned experts with its sheer size and strength, churning across the ocean with sustained Category 5 winds of 183 miles per hour (295 kilometers per hour) for more than 33 hours, making it the longest-lasting, top-intensity cyclone ever recorded. Meanwhile Jose, a Category 4 on the Saffir Simpson scale of 1 to 5, is fast on the heels of Irma, pummeling the Caribbean for the second time in the span of a few days. Many have wondered what is contributing to the power and frequency of these extreme storms. "Atlantic hurricane seasons over the years have been shaped by many complex factors," said Jim Kossin, a NOAA hurricane scientist at the University of Wisconsin. "Those include large scale ocean currents, air pollution -- which tends to cool the ocean down -- and climate change"...
Some think a surge in industrial pollution after World War II may have produced more pollutant particles that blocked the Sun's energy and exerted a cooling effect on the oceans. "The pollution reduced a lot of hurricane activity," said Gabriel Vecchi, professor of geosciences at Princeton University's Environmental Institute. Pollution began to wane in the 1980s due to regulations such as the Clean Air Act, allowing more of the Sun's rays to penetrate the ocean and provide warming fuel for storms. Vecchi said the "big debate" among scientists is over which plays a larger role -- variations in ocean currents or pollution cuts. There is evidence for both, but there isn't enough data to answer a key question...
The burning of fossil fuels, which spew greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and warm the Earth, can also be linked to a rise in extreme storms in recent years. Warmer ocean temperatures yield more moisture, more rainfall, and greater intensity storms. "It is not a coincidence that we're seeing more devastating hurricanes," climatologist Michael Mann of Penn State University told AFP in an email. "Over the past few years, as global sea surface temperatures have been the warmest on record, we've seen the strongest hurricanes -- as measured by peak sustained winds -- globally, in both Southern and Northern Hemisphere, in both Pacific and now, with Irma, the open Atlantic," he added. "The impacts of climate change are no longer subtle. We're seeing them play out in real time, and the past two weeks have been a sadly vivid example."
Some think a surge in industrial pollution after World War II may have produced more pollutant particles that blocked the Sun's energy and exerted a cooling effect on the oceans. "The pollution reduced a lot of hurricane activity," said Gabriel Vecchi, professor of geosciences at Princeton University's Environmental Institute. Pollution began to wane in the 1980s due to regulations such as the Clean Air Act, allowing more of the Sun's rays to penetrate the ocean and provide warming fuel for storms. Vecchi said the "big debate" among scientists is over which plays a larger role -- variations in ocean currents or pollution cuts. There is evidence for both, but there isn't enough data to answer a key question...
The burning of fossil fuels, which spew greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and warm the Earth, can also be linked to a rise in extreme storms in recent years. Warmer ocean temperatures yield more moisture, more rainfall, and greater intensity storms. "It is not a coincidence that we're seeing more devastating hurricanes," climatologist Michael Mann of Penn State University told AFP in an email. "Over the past few years, as global sea surface temperatures have been the warmest on record, we've seen the strongest hurricanes -- as measured by peak sustained winds -- globally, in both Southern and Northern Hemisphere, in both Pacific and now, with Irma, the open Atlantic," he added. "The impacts of climate change are no longer subtle. We're seeing them play out in real time, and the past two weeks have been a sadly vivid example."
There, I said it.
I tend to rant.
Hawker, later known as Hawker-Siddeley. Also responsible for typhoons and tempests.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
for the feeble minded.
We've had very quiet hurricane seasons these past years, which makes this year's normal season seem like some type of outlier. Yes Irma was a very strong storm, the strongest ever in the Atlantic by recorded standards, but it's not the strongest ever hurricane even in just the northern hemisphere. What causes hurricanes is the same as what's always caused hurricanes.
So because the air is cleaner with less particulates it rains less and because it rains less there's more moisture in the air which makes the storms larger. Well time to remove the scrubbers from those coal power plants then. No wait. Like a couple dozen people might die with the hurricane compared to the hundreds of thousands (or millions) who would get a reduced lifespan from the particulate pollution. Great.
12 years without a major hurricane landfall. Where were the front page slashdot posts talking about how extreme that was?
We've had very quiet hurricane seasons these past years, which makes this year's normal season seem like some type of outlier. Yes Irma was a very strong storm, the strongest ever in the Atlantic by recorded standards, but it's not the strongest ever hurricane even in just the northern hemisphere. What causes hurricanes is the same as what's always caused hurricanes.
Maybe.
We haven't had two Cat 4 hurricanes hit for more than a century. The increase in water temp is increasing the power of the storms, and we should expect this to continue. That doesn't mean every storm will be Cat 4/5 or that every season will be worse than the last. Just that the frequency of high-power storms will increase. Again, we haven't had landfall of two Cat 4 storms in 100 years, so Harvey and Irma are definitely unusual.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/09/hurricane-irma-harvey-season-climate-change-weather/
Yes, we've had "very quiet" hurricane seasons these past years, because our metric for what counts as a hurricane is arbitrary therefore it looks like we've had a drought.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00185.1
Credit Twitter
2006: "Hurricanes are going to be worse and more frequent!"
2007:
2008:
2009:
2010:
2011:
2012:
2013:
2014:
2015:
2016:
2017: "Told you so!"
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Obviously it's politics causing the storm. Oh and Trump caused it too, and in turn the reason why Mexico had an earthquake is because they're not paying for the wall and illegals are still crossing.
I think I've got all the crazy shit I've seen in the last week in there.
Om, nomnomnom...
People have short memories when it comes to weather, unless it's something really weird. We had a really nasty winter a couple of years ago, and people were freaking out about it. "This is the worst I've ever seen!" I remember winters from 20 years ago that were much worse, but it seems like most other people do not. I think the difference is that I like to ski, and it seems like skiers, being outside more often in the winter, recall the particulars about winter weather more than most.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
A century isn't a particularly long period of time. So far, Irma has busted two (known) records but data for these have only been collected for a couple of decades.
The *big* issue is not what the hurricanes are doing, it is what mankind has managed to splop down right in front of said hurricanes - lots of people, lots of expensive infrastructure and a whole bunch of video cameras. Build it and they will come. And expect the federal government (or somebody with more money then they have) to bail them out from some bad investment choices.
Moral hazard. It's what's for dinner.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
But the world is ending! With each passing day, we are one day closer to the end of the world!
Oh you meant an actual, pretty soon-ish date? No idea about that.
#DeleteFacebook
A butterfly flapped it wings and it create a hurricane.
Lots of energy to fuel them without crosswinds from El Nino to rip the apart.
Graphs of energy, and totals here.
The number of tropical storms has increased since 1970. //policlimate.com/tropical/
The number of major hurricanes has increased since 1970.
There is a cycle - not every year is up- but the bottoms are higher and the highs are higher.
Plus population on the coasts has increased tremendously since that's where the jobs are.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Thoroughly debunked by the distinguished scientists at Mark Steyn Enterprises? We should all be so lucky.
You obviously don't know how science works. Here you go:
1) When you have unusually hot or volatile weather, that's evidence of man-made climate change.
2) When things are cool or calm then weather is not the same as climate, therefore it doesn't offer evidence against man-made climate change.
3) If the weather is unusually hot or unusually cold, or anywhere in between, that's clear evidence of man-made climate change.
Don't listen to critics who say Global Warming has become a religion. Religion is completely irrational and has nothing to do with science. For example, religions believe irrational things like:
1) If child recovers from a terminal illness, that's a miracle and is evidence of God's divine hand.
2) If a child doesn't recover from a terminal illness and dies, that's clearly not God's fault. It's just life.
3) If good or bad things happen to a child, or anything in between, that's all part of God's larger plan.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Again, we haven't had landfall of two Cat 4 storms in 100 years
Landfall isn't really the correct metric. What is the frequency of cat 4 or cat 5 hurricanes, regardless of where they happen to go? A hurricane or typhoon that expends itself over the ocean or a relatively unpopulated area just doesn't make big news.
Have gnu, will travel.
Millennials KNOW that the world is ending.
They have ARRIVED, and it's time for a CHANGE!
Apparently it's actually due to the lack of an El Nino. The formation of the hurricane started 6 months ago and grew be because there wasn't a lot of wind sheer to stop it from forming. Maybe the better question is why wasn't there an El Nino?
-
Ugh, this is the worst Slashdot clickbait. Future Slashdot headlines:
You won't believe what MS-DOS looks like now!!
Tim Cook finds Linux on his laptop and his reaction is priceless!!
Family warns others to learn from their tragic Android mistake!!
And there wasn't as much 'development' on the low-quality land prone to storm damage.
We need Congress to pass the "You Dumb Fucks No More Disaster Relief Act."
in 2012, cause I'm guessing the folks who got hit by it didn't.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Nice cherry pick! Yes, two cat 4s a long time ago until now. And just 12 years ago - 2005 - we have FOUR cat 3s make US landfall... And all FOUR of those cat 3 hurricanes (Dennis, Katrina, Rita and Wilma) packed winds higher than Harvey, the cat 4 that flooded Texas. I'd say that 2005 was LOT worse, and much more unusual - we've been on a downswing since then, even this year is a major downswing from 2005...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
2006: "Hurricanes are going to be worse and more frequent!"
2007:
2008:
2009:
2010:
2011:
2012: Sandy
2013:
2014:
2015:
2016:
2017: "Told you so!"
There's also a lot of Hurricanes that just aren't making landfall so they're not getting coverage. And yes, we should care about the ones that don't make landfall since eventually one of them will, and if they're worse so are the ones that hit us.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
hurray
I think the solar eclipse last month caused some spinning masses of air that grew in the Atlantic Ocean and are now coming back.
The problem with linking global warming to Atlantic hurricanes is that hurricane activity isn't necessarily predicted to increase in the Atlantic from global warming. In the north Pacific, sea surface temperatures will warm and vertical wind shear is predicted to weaken. This favors an increase in hurricane activity in the north Pacific. While the water in the north Atlantic basin is predicted to get warmer due to global warming, vertical wind shear is expected to increase. It's not entirely clear which of these opposing factors will have the greater impact, so it's not certain that hurricane activity will increase in the north Atlantic.
There is a naturally occurring wave called the Madden Julian Oscillation (MJO) that can either enhance or suppress tropical convection. The phase of the MJO has likely helped to enhance Harvey, Irma, Jose, and perhaps even Katia. La Nina also enhances convection in the north Atlantic basin, generally results in a moister atmosphere, and weakens the vertical wind shear. All of these are favorable for hurricane activity. It's also the peak of the Atlantic hurricane season, when the waters are warm and vertical wind shear is still rather weak.
The main reason Harvey produced so much rain over Texas and Louisiana was that it sat over that area for several days. It's not that the rain rates were souch more extreme, but that it just sat over the same area. While rain rates might be enhanced a little due to global warming, the main reason Harvey was so extreme was because it was almost stationary for days. That is not a consequence of global warming, just an unusual weather event.
I also tend to view Irma and Jose as another unusual weather event, but not necessarily linked to global warming. It just doesn't match up with the predictions for the north Atlantic, and so I hesitate to blame global warming for those storms. It's possible that when the shear abates due to the weather, warmer water might result in stronger Atlantic hurricanes at those times. However, the overall increased shear will likely limit hurricane activity more at other times. One hypothesis is that global warming might result in fewer Atlantic hurricanes, but the storms that do occur will tend to be stronger. I understand the logic of that, but I'm just not convinced that Irma and Jose are significantly linked to global warming. There just isn't enough scientific evidence to support that link.
... then you don't know.
We know climate change is happening and we know that humans are not helping the situation, but we don't know the percentage of human/nature.
Humans don't actually give a shit until it's personal.
By then it's too late.
The solution is to migrate as needed.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
"For more than a century". - so what you are actually saying is that this is not unprecedented at all.
No. He's saying that a century ago weather satellites didn't exist, instrumentation was more primitive, and we just don't know how big the storms were. The first time aircraft were used to monitor a hurricane before it came ashore was the 1935 Labor Day Hurricane.
Conservatives are so worried about regulations and getting taxed because of the "liberal hoax" of global warming.
But what they don't think of is that all those mulitmillion dollar homes that were smashed are gonna be covered by the US taxpayer.
More subsidizing the rich.
Regardless of one's beliefs, it's coming out of our pockets and our way of life is going to change.
"Maybe. We haven't had two Cat 4 hurricanes hit for more than a century."
Really?? More than a century for 2 cat 4??
Maybe. How about 4 category 5s in one year?
And I didn't realize 2005 was more than a century ago.
Emily - July 2005 - Category 5
Katrina - August 2005 - Category 5
Rita - September 2005 - Category 5
Wilma - October 2005 - Category 5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season
Well, considering that the Trumpies just rolled back all of the revisions to the flood insurance risk assesment maps implemented under the Obama admin, there is now even more incentive to build in high risk areas than there was a year ago.
Thanks, Obama! Oh, wait....
Naturally, Hawker-Siddeley was part of UTDC who built Toronto's streetcars and the "lozenge" commuter-rail cars now built by Bombardier, a Canadian corporation, whilst Tempest is/was an NSA computer security specification. Thus we demonstrate: A nefarious plot between Canada and the NSA causes hurricanes.
The last time two Cat 4+ storms made landfall in the North Atlantic was 2008. Gustav hit Cuba as a Cat 4. And Ike hit Great Inagua Island and Grand Turk Island as a Cat 4. (Paloma hit Cat 4 just south of Cuba, but dropped to a Cat 2 before landfall.)
If you mean landfall in the U.S., well the U.S. lies at the extreme northern edge of hurricane territory. So you're basically just counting outliers if you're only counting U.S. hurricanes. They're too infrequent and random to draw reliable stats from. With modern satellite coverage and flights into major storms to get precise measurements, there's no reason not to use the entire database of every storm that forms in the North Atlantic.
And those trying to tie hurricanes in with climate change invariably focus on the North Atlantic because that's the storm basin whose recent history fits their desired narrative. Meanwhile, storm frequency in the East Pacific is flat. The West Pacific is mostly flat with a recent slight downward trend. The South Pacific is down, as is the North Indian Ocean.
We will be using the bricks from destroyed Mexican buildings to construct the wall.
Beware of the Leopard.
Any hypothesis about hurricane frequency has to account for the last eleven years of very low activity. Now we have an active year, like 2005. What is different his time?
So "air pollution which tends to cool the oceans" and air pollution which causes global warming and warmer ocean temperatures.
And then you wonder why people don't believe the global warming narrative.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Morons on both sides of the divide caused a lots of damage to our perception of how weather is changing and why. It is the same with politics at some point nobody is believing shit and choosing the team based on on color of their carriages (as it were in Roman empire). For the way small change in the way our civilization impacts nature and its effects on weather just google weather after 9/11. There was measurable change in temperature caused by stop on flying over US back then. This means that the normal operation has a measuerable impact too. In this particular case it the effect of comtrails is cooling. What I wanted to say the effects are plenty and not always consistent with expectation and the local weather being a result of global climate is difficult to predict even few days in advance. Too complex for our silly AIs. We make progress but it is not as good as to show much. We just know that changes are there. Yet one side claims it knows it all and tries to sell us some (hardly working but surely expensive) solutions and the other sells business a usual claiming no change is caused by 7.5b humans.
I'd say we shall work on some version of Zika as humans all over the globe esp. in Africa and Middle East are not going to give up their procreation habits just because we say so and the biggest effect so far had one protective measure that was not even aimed at climate - one child policy of Chinese commies.
Alternatively we shall prepare for increasing sea levels as this seems to be really happening. With more and more people living at the sea shores this is bound to cause massive trouble. It is in any case better than discuss things that nobody is believing anymore.
Another thing pointing to failure of free people to act together - if you look at Haiti and DomRep you will see that protective policies of Papa Doc actually saved lives and still do every time hurricane strikes - more people dies on one side of the island due to mad slides and flooding than on the other. This is not a coincidence.
That doesn't make sense. Category 3 is 112-129 mph sustained. Category 4 is 130-156 mph. It's in the DEFINITION of the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale.
Nice straw mans you got there.
You want to know how real science works? The oceans are warming at an unprecedented rate as well as global average air temperatures. Polar icecaps are melting at an unprecedented rate too. CO2 in the atmosphere is rising at an unprecedented rate.
Are you too fucking stupid to understand these very simple facts?
To punish all those that claim the climate is not changing
Hurricane Dennis was 150 MPH. Katrina was 175 MPH. Rita was 180 MPH. And Wilma was 185 MPH. Yet those were all category 3 - not the category 4 of Harvey at 130 MPH. Irma did reach Wilma-speeds though of 185 - yet Irma is a cat 4 and Wilma was a cat 3... Go figure! It's almost like someone wants to mislead the public...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Comparing Atlantic and Pacific storms is a little unfair - much less space for an Atlantic storm to develop in.
Yes, Irma is just an outlier, and storms like the 1935 labor day storm were probably even worse. Nothing to see in this one particular storm, move along, take your CO2 emissions with you.
What is certain, however, is that there is a Hurricane season, and it comes when the waters are warmer. So, anyone who is thinking in the back of their mind: "So what if we get global warming, won't that make things better in some places?" Sure, especially if you love extended hurricane seasons, more bigger storms on average, and things like the death of the Great Barrier Reef (yes, basically all of it), then, yeah, go for some more climate change, open the northwest passage - maybe pump up some of that sweet arctic crude and see just how far we can push this warming trend.
http://www.chasingcoral.com/
The sample size for hurricane numbers is just too small to win any statistical arguments, either way, both sides can dig in and call "fluke."
You know, for a mere 20% increase in the cost of construction, houses in Florida could be made to withstand these storms... it's what's done in the islands, but that would be bad for the construction industry, so we build with sticks and paper instead.
Strongest hurricanes to hit the USA (based on the metric of lowest barometric pressure):
1) Florida (Keys) 1935, 26.35 inches
2) Camille (Miss., Louisiana), 1969, 26.84
3) Katrina (Louisiana, Miss.) 2005, 27.17
4) Andrew (Florida, Louisiana) 1992, 27.23
5) Texas (Indianola), 1886, 27.31
6) Florida (Keys, Texas), 1919, 27.37
7) Florida (Lake Okeechobee), 1928, 27.43
8) Donna (Florida, Eastern Coast), 1960 27.46
9) Florida (Miami, Miss., LA) 1926, 27.46
10) Carla (Texas) 1961, 27.49
Only three of those (not counting Irma) happened in the last half century. My opinion: The same mechanisms that have sporadically caused big hurricanes every 15-20 years is still causing big hurricanes every 15-20 years. But then again I don't have an agenda to push, otherwise the "facts" would be quite different.
Better known as 318230.
It's not just the houses. It is power / water / sewer / police / fire and now, likely Internet service as one of the core components of civilization. (Boy does that hurt to say.) It is flood control systems. Rebuilding hospitals and nursing homes.
Yes, you COULD make an area flood proof. But it's going to cost a lot more than 20%.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
The hurricanes are caused by too much butt sex:
http://metro.co.uk/2017/09/06/...
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/...
You are welcome on my lawn.
No Coriolis effect, no spin, no hurricanes.
I'm starting a campaign to stop the earth's rotation. Who's with me?
What is causing such terrible hurricanes?
Short memories, poor education, and confirmation bias.
The simple fact is that hurricanes are neither more intense nor more frequent than "usual", the only thing that makes us think there are is that "we"are stupid.
In fact, the relative dearth of hurricanes in the U.S. Is probably the major cause of this ignorance.
-Styopa
You are conflating Category at landfall and Category at peak.
Priceless! I'd totally click. (No I wouldn't)
Very short historic records except of the ones that made landfall. Shorter than one cycle.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You are comparing wind speed at landfall this year to maximum wind speed in 2005. For example, Katrina made landfall in AL with winds of 125 mph, not 175 mph. Irma sustained 185 mph wind speeds longer than any of those hurricanes. On the other hand it never reached as low of a pressure as some of those storms. So it really depends on what metric you pick to measure, but you've got to at least compare the SAME metric.
That's all.
Trump is at fault — blame his recklessly reversing Obama's Executive Order banning hurricanes.
And then there are the well-meaning witches seeking to end Trump's Presidency ASAP — well-meaning, but clumsy and unprofessional, miscasting their spells...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Except they're Russian butterflies. You know the kind--tattoos and wife-beaters, heavy drinkers and smokers -- the whole lot of 'em!
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
But the world is ending! With each passing day, we are one day closer to the end of the world!
Calm down. Trump just tweeted that everything is fine.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I think that we have evidence that the higher temperatures, increased atmospheric CO2, etc. are clearly not unprecedented. The issue is that those higher temperatures, then and now, are not so conducive to human life.
We can be reasonably certain that the rate of increase is unprecedented.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
No. He's saying that a century ago weather satellites didn't exist, instrumentation was more primitive, and we just don't know how big the storms were
Given that we've only had weather satellites for about 50 years, that's exactly why it's impossible to make apples-to-apples comparisons over the past 100.
Perhaps because category at landfall doesn't tell us anything about climate, while category at peak does.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
For comparison, check that Mexico just had the largest earthquake in a century.
Weather is not climate, and you can always find patterns and 'signs' in random sequences of events.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
We haven't had two Cat 4 hurricanes hit for more than a century.
Other than being an interesting bit of statistical trivia, what meaningful information does that really give us about whether there has been an overall change in frequency over time? Are you saying that the act of one hurricane making landfall in the U.S. at Cat 4 decreases the odds that any other hurricane that season will reach the U.S. as a Cat 4?
"[W]e use a diatom record from El Junco Lake, Galápagos, to produce a calibrated, continuous record of sea surface temperature in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean at subdecadal resolution, spanning the past 1,200 years. Our reconstruction reveals that the most recent 50 years are the warmest 50-year period within the record."
J. L. Conroy, et al., "Unprecedented recent warming of surface temperatures in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean", Nature Geoscience, vol. 2, pp. 46-50, 2009.
"We provide updated estimates of the change of ocean heat content and the thermosteric component of sea level change of the 0–700 and 0–2000 m layers of the World Ocean for 1955–2010. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 1022 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09C."
S. Levitus, et al, "World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0–2000 m), 1955–2010," Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 39(10), L10603, 2009.
"We use four of the world's longest calibrated daily time series to show that trends in surface temperatures in the North and Baltic Seas now exceed those at any time since instrumented measurements began in 1861 and 1880. Temperatures in summer since 1985 have increased at nearly triple the global warming rate, which is expected to occur during the 21st century and summer temperatures have risen two to five times faster than those in other seasons."
B. R. Mackenzie and D. Schiedek, "Daily ocean monitoring since the 1860s shows record warming of northern European seas", Global Change Biology, vol. 13(7), pp. 1335–1347, 2007.
"Here, we use the TEX86 temperature proxy, the weight per cent of biogenic silica and charcoal abundance from Lake Tanganyika sediment cores to reconstruct lake-surface temperature, productivity and regional wildfire frequency, respectively, for the past 1,500 years. We detect a negative correlation between lake-surface temperature and primary productivity, and our estimates of fire frequency, and hence humidity, preclude decreased nutrient input through runoff as a cause for observed periods of low productivity. We suggest that, throughout the past 1,500 years, rising lake-surface temperatures increased the stratification of the lake water column, preventing nutrient recharge from below and limiting primary productivity. Our records indicate that changes in the temperature of Lake Tanganyika in the past few decades exceed previous natural variability."
J. E. Tierney, et al., "Late-twentieth-century warming in Lake Tanganyika unprecedented since AD 500", Nature Geoscience, vol. 3, pp. 422-425, 2010.
These are only a subset of the hundreds of articles through which I've read over the years. All of these studies analyze different data modalities and come to the same conclusions; you could do a meta-analysis to quantitatively show that this is true. Moreover, the period of time in which these studies consider ranges from decades to centuries and even to multiple millennia.
It's therefore not a stretch to conclude that your claims are wrong: there has been unprecedented warming in the past hundred years when compared to the past several millennia.
Actually climate change models are mixed with respect to the intensity and frequency of Atlantic cyclones. Hurricanes are extremely complex entities and models just can't predict how many will end up in Texas or Florida in some future year.
What's worrying about AGW and hurricanes is the more tractable complicating factors: sea level rise and atmospheric moisture. High winds destroy property, but it's storm surge and flooding that kills people. Yet another predictable factor is development; there are more people moving into the paths of hurricanes in places like coastal Texas and South Florida.
So while we can't point to Harvey and Irma as (additional) proof that anthropogenic climate change is here, they are a harbinger of things to come.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Massive deforestation is not being considered? Seriously.
indeed. A fascinating image of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere here: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/g...
The thing to look at is not merely the carbon dioxide being emitted from the northern hemisphere-- it's fascinating to look at the plume of carbon-dioxide depleted air wafting off of the rain forests of south America.
One unit of burnt coal or gas produces 1 unit of CO2 and one of H2O! Yes, water is a greenhouse gas.
Indeed, water is a greenhouse gas. But.
But water precipitates out of the atmosphere very very fast, so the water actually emitted by humans doesn't really contribute for very long. The carbon dioxide, on the other hand, sticks around for an estimated lifetime of about a hundred years. More to the point, the hundred and fifty million square miles of ocean surface evaporates so much water into the atmosphere that the amount emitted by humans really is, in this case, trivial-- the equilibrium water content of the atmosphere is driven by evaporation, not by direct emission.
For the most part, the humidity in the atmosphere is driven by the temperature, not vice versa.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
You obviously don't know how science works. Here you go:
1) When you have unusually hot or volatile weather, that's evidence of man-made climate change.
No. One hot summer (in one place) or one warm winter (in one place) is not due to climate change. Say this over and over, this is important. Climate change is real, but it is global and it is long term.
No single event, no single warm summer, is evidence of climate change (nor is a single cool summer evidence against it.)
A continuous series of record breaking temperature, on the other hand, might be something to point at. But, again, even there, look for global temperatures-- regional temperatures (even regional temperature records) are just weather.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
That's simply not true. Our proxies of the past do not have the resolution nor the certainty required to make that kind of claim.
Proxies, with lower resolution (orders of magnitude less than our current daily and hourly temperature data, for example), and higher uncertainties, and of course, famously divergent with the modern record, simply cannot be seen as equivalent to direct instrumental observation.
Trees are not thermometers, and ice cores are not CO2-meters :)
As usual, you can't expect the media to get the science right. Particulate matter in the smoke blocks light and cools the world. CO2 in the smoke increases the greenhouse effect and warms it. Both are real effects that cancel each other out.
The problem is, particulate matter is heavier than air, so quickly precipitating out of the atmosphere. Since we've stopped allowing factories to pump out tons and tons of black smoke (because that was giving everyone lung cancer), there is less and less particulate matter flying around.
CO2 on the other hand, only leaves when something on the surface absorbs it, whether that's trees or algae or ocean water. That happens much more slowly, over the course of thousands of years. So we're stuck with the warming.
Please read this page very carefully:
https://climate.nasa.gov/evide...
Also the other tabs.Causes, Effects, Scientific Consensus...
Or, simply not build in an area, because you can't afford the flood insurance at actual market value. You know, the kind of market value determined by an actuary and not a politician.
...gay people!
P.S. It's a joke!
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
Except this article you're adding comments to is suggesting Hurricane Irma is directly related to climate change (amongst other things).
The article is wrong. No single extreme event can be attributed to climate change.
The article should have listened to the real climate scientists, and, more importantly, paid attention to all the qualifying words.
And in my experience, this happens every single time there's a weather event that matches the climate change narrative.
Exactly. That's why I am so adamant at repeatedly saying no, it's not. Climate change is long term and global.
But whenever there's a weather event (or lack thereof) that doesn't match the narrative, people are quick to point out it's a global system and you have to look at it in the aggregate.
Exactly. A weather event doesn't fit the narrative, whether it's a hot summer or a cold summer.
You can't have both ways.
And the correct statement is: No single extreme event-- hot nor cold, hurricane nor lack of hurricanes-- can be attributed to climate change.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Communication is essential. Telephony was a core component in the past which is why it had its own battery backup systems. Internet access is a *part* of that. You need communication for emergency services, and all the other systems you mentioned use the Internet for their operations. Facebook isn't a core component of civilization, but phone and Internet communication is.
My uncle swears it is...
True, but sometimes there is a plausible mechanism to explain or even predict the changes.
That's not enough, it's a classic "correlation is not causation." For example, for years scientists thought that eating saturated fat caused heart disease, because elevated levels of saturated fat in the blood correlates with saturated fat. It turns out that's not true: despite having a reasonable explanation, we now know that eating saturated fat doesn't cause heart disease.
More specifically in your case, the statistical analysis is woefully incomplete. You haven't even answered basic questions like, "what is the probability of two large hurricanes hitting in a single year?" "What is the mean? What is the standard deviation?" Any article that doesn't answer questions like that is not scientific, it's just spouting propaganda it heard somewhere.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The Cyclones were created by Man. They rebelled.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
I doubt your numbers or the logic behind them.
For an extra 20% you can provide ~12' stilts for a home, but withstanding the storms also requires extra treatment-- deep protected underground utilities, water storage, backup power, proper windows and shutters, etc. Once you go to ~16-18' stilts you are looking at a 30% premium on construction and can still have other issues. Usually the money is better spent with about 6' of fill plus 12' stilts.
You can build disaster-proof (/tolerant) homes, but they generally cost about 80-120% more. (If you can't occupy in the rough the disaster then you have only solved a small part of the problem.)
Burning coal does not produce water.
The little bit of water that is result from burning natural gas is just a grain of sand in relation to the amount of water vapour that is produced by the sun and raising from the oceans.
Get a perspective, man ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Bad for the construction industry? How in the world would adding 20% cost to a product you are making be bad for business, assuming it is mandatory and all your competitors have to do it too?
Industry loves regulation like that. By making it mandatory consumers will all buy something that they otherwise may or may not choose to buy. The real problem is government subsidized flood insurance. If mortgage holders forced home buyers to purchase un-subsidized flood insurance based on location and construction this problem would have been solved decades ago.
Even if house prices would increase by 100% it still would be 30% cheaper than rebuilding the whole house 2 times (and that does not even include the saved cost for new furniture,TV, computer etc. )
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
...
Just a wild guess here.
Glad I could help.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
We've had very quiet hurricane seasons these past years, which makes this year's normal season seem like some type of outlier.
Hear, hear!
Just YESTERDAY we had a front page story claiming a failed El Nino is the reason for the storms.
Yet I don't see any mention of that here.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Coal does not contain hydrogen ... ...
You should have figured that by now
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Per NOAA, Irma was category 3 when it made landfall (120 MPH sustained winds). So I guess we can say that 2017's dual cat 4s really didn't happen, did they?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Whilst coal is mostly carbon, it is not entirely so, hence coal used to be used to create town gas, a.k.a coal gas. Hydrogen is the second most abundant element in coal, after carbon.
We haven't had two Cat 4 hurricanes hit for more than a century.
Not according to my memory and a few weather places. 2005 - Most Category 5 hurricanes: 4 (Emily, Katrina, Rita, and Wilma). You can check weather.com or https://www.wunderground.com/h... for details.
No. He's saying that a century ago weather satellites didn't exist, instrumentation was more primitive, and we just don't know how big the storms were
We also didn't know how many storms spun up and died out that never saw land. Today, we count them. Years ago, we couldn't. Take Jose as example: it's central pressure a few days ago was 938 mb, so strong. The winds made it a Cat 4. Newsworthy by any standards - except it hasn't, and may not, come close to shore.
And those trying to tie hurricanes in with climate change invariably focus on the North Atlantic because that's the storm basin whose recent history fits their desired narrative. Meanwhile, storm frequency in the East Pacific is flat. The West Pacific is mostly flat with a recent slight downward trend. The South Pacific is down, as is the North Indian Ocean.
It should be noted that most climate change models currently don't predict a significant increase in the number of hurricanes in a season. This was not true in the past but we get better with modeling over time so its not surprising. Most do however predict that the storms will be larger on average. That part seems to be holding worldwide.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
Trump already explained it, it is a Chinese hoax. All this talk about hurricanes is fake news!
Mexican Muslims that use them to smuggle drugs and rapists.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
So if less particulate matter is flying around, then that means the greenhouse effect caused by said particles also decreases, again, cancelling each other out.
The problem is that we don't yet understand what drives either cooling or warming effects on climate and on a geological scale human effects can't really be quantified. We tend to point blame at something that's immediately visible instead of trying to figure out the cause. I do work in a research department so I am fully aware of the effects publishing papers quickly and immediately digestible by the press has on grant money but climate works, as you said, on geological time scales and trying to fuck around with "solutions" seems counterintuitive.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Look, I subscribe to the idea that climate change exists and man is a significant contributor to the effects; however, anyone who goes spouting off "moar hurricanes b/c climate change" or "werse hurricanes b/c climate change" undermines the climate conservation movement.
To make an allusion to the commercial markets, the changes can only appreciably be measured over years and decades. Case in point would be to look at the Accumulated Cyclone Energy tracked by Weather Underground. The trend is certainly up over a 3 decade sample, but small when averaged out over the sample. Compared to the hurricane cost trends, there is something of a mismatch. The line drawn between hurricanes and climate change does not match the when "the big one" swings through the US, but only in media clickbait. Scientist, at the same time have to politely tamp down their advocates because the selling point us unattainable. Namely: Hurricanes have existed long before humans messed with the environment and will continue to exist long after we (hopefully) stop. The cause is tied to the cost of the damage, and the damage is the result of our housing, city planning, and insurance policies that have supported risky investments in coastal areas. The US appears to be the only 1st world country that cannot seem to get its act together in matching planning and policy with the threat and impact of ANY disaster based on my travels through Asia, Canada, and Europe. The won't be a "Dust Bowl" moment for climate change so we need to stop chasing them. While US climate refugees are a small cost today, this will be an ever-increasing cost and we can make the economical argument today without all the other squawking.
Mod me down, I shall become more off-topic than you could possibly imagine.
Grant gamers and computer gamers learn to adjust their models to avoid embarrassment...
Sorry. I'll try to cut back.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Sunday: Repent sinners! Just like like Revelations says, there will be a devastating hurricane to hit Gaaawwwds one and only country. Now let as sing "Down By The River" while we pass the offering. Monday-Friday: It's global warming and it's all Trump's fault! Saturday: On Discovery Channel, "According to Nostradamus..." And this cycle of bullshit to milk ratings from people's ignorance and despair will repeat for the next few months.
Let's be clear about the facts here, greenhouse effect is caused by CO2, not particulate matter. Particulates only block out sunlight and make it cooler.
No, it's cooling after the Holocene Optimum.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
we don't yet understand what drives either cooling or warming effects on climate and on a geological scale human effects can't really be quantified.
Either you are uninformed or deliberately lying.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
"The increase in water temp is increasing the power of the storms...
Yes, we've had 'very quiet' hurricane seasons these past years, because our metric
for what counts as a hurricane is arbitrary therefore it looks like we've had a drought."
I'm missing s.t. in your argument about the metric. You seem to be saying on the one hand that given fifty-odd years of global warming, there should be some stronger hurricanes now (first line above). On the other hand, our metric is arbitrary (second quoted line above)...which means what? Obviously it doesn't mean that we don't count storms that are stronger than hurricanes, because we haven't had any of those, regardless of your metric. So the only other thing it can mean is that we don't count storms that are weaker than "category 1 hurricanes". But that only makes sense if you're claiming that those are increasing in number, which you don't; instead you're saying that storms should be getting stronger, not that there will be more (relatively) weak storms.
Lord Xenu of Geekattack - Flaming Butt Volcano Warrior Princess. He of the hydrogen bomb enema.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
We are seeing regression toward the mean, and next year will have few, if any, storms, and those will not be monsters.
E Proelio Veritas.
Pshaw, what's 20 years. Why when I was a boy in Illinois, we had three feet of snow from December through March, and school was uphill both ways.
--
My Other Computer is a CDC 170-750. And you set the boot loader with toggle switches.
INCORRECT, first time that 2 FORM from the ATLANTIC. The US gets hurricanes that form in the Gulf of Mexico also. Funny I was talking to my wife about the news trying to slant the news saying some idiot will now say this is the first time two cat 4 hit the US. forgetting the entire "from/ form in the Atlantic" part.
The news is hyping it up, this is the first time 2 FORMED in the Atlantic, just everyone seems to miss that part but I partly blame the news for trying to hype it. up.
Note their simulations show a decrease in the numbers hurricanes and storms through the 21st for global warming scenarios, but an increase in the amount of rainfall.
You know, for a mere 20% increase in the cost of construction, houses in Florida could be made to withstand these storms... it's what's done in the islands, but that would be bad for the construction industry, so we build with sticks and paper instead.
Indeed. I Iived in Hong Kong for a while where they have regular Typhoons (Asian word for Hurricane) and the place doesn't skip a beat because of the higher building standards created specifically to deal with them.
but they generally cost about 80-120% more.
So let's settle on 100%. You're saying that to construct a building in a place where the building is likely to be wiped away and rebuilt, It's better to build it twice for half the cost than once properly?
And that's not taking into account the issues of displacement, loss of life, income etc.
We'll have more insight into why Jupiter has so many storms and be able to terraform it! Or we could just say the nature of the universe is chaotic which is what the evidence suggests and get over it. I'm reminded of the Bad Religion song "Better off Dead":
I'm sorry about the sun
How could I know that you would burn?
And I'm sorry about the moon
How could I know that you'd disapprove?
And I'll never make the same mistake
The next time I create the universe
I'll make sure we communicate at length
Oh yeah
Anyone who exists is lucky to exist and be aware of it. We are only here for a short time and for that we should be thankful. I'm tired of hearing incessant complaining about life not meeting people's expectations.
We'll make great pets
Coal does not contain hydrogen ... ...
You should have figured that by now
Seriously? You couldn't be bothered to at least look it up before making such a stupid statement?
Just another day in Paradise
Well, if you find coal that contains hydrogene inany meaningfull amount message me. ... perhaps you want to look that up?
Coal is basically pure carbon
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Nuclear testing in the atmosphere. We didn't have these storms until we stopped our nuclear tests. Direct evidence of cause and effect.
What makes hurricanes? For the love of God what a pin head question. What has happened to Slashdot?
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
Damn, you just set a new low bar for stupid. Congratulations.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Two storms, One week. This is not yet a trend.
I've walked 5 times in a softball game, and for my troubles got the shortstop to yell at me 'Don't you ever swing?" My answer was "If your pitcher threw me a strike, I would swing". He did not like that. Despite batting .953 that season, he's convinced. We go to extra innings, they strike out (yes, 2 strikeouts, consecutively, hwo do you do that?), and I stand in, single to right field, the runner sprints home. Our seventh championship in a row.
Which of these are trends, which are merely events, which indicate normal processes?
- I don't walk a lot, but I virtually never swing at the first pitch, despite softball being a hitter's game. .996, and hit every ball where he said he would. His bat was illegal, but no one figured it out for 5 or 6 seasons.
- Some pitchers cannot pitch to lefties. I do not know why.
- Some players complain about everything. They are sometimes not right even twice a day.
- If I had not batted in that run, the man behind me in the order would. He batted
- Blaming the other team for striking out? That's funny.
- Two Cat 5 hurricanes within days of each other. SO the hurricane nursery out there in the Atlantic was working. I'm looking for the third to appear tomorrow. Past this Friday, anecdotal. Let ti go.
- Global Warming evidence is under credible assault, despite the believers' insistence otherwise. The numbers are not accurate, so why are we going to blindly follow these questionable studies, rather than force disclosure? Oh, right, err on the side of caution. So long as it's not your money, sure.
- I seem to recall twice, in 2004 and 2005, Florida got hit with Cat 3 hurricanes, terrible. In 1932, 1933, 1961, 2005, and 2007, Cat 5 hurricanes were spawned, though not all made landfall as Cat 5, and not all hit the US. Powerful storms are not common, but not rare either.
- September is far aw away the month with the most storm activity in the Atlantic hurricane zone. Multiple storms are more common in September than other months.
Anecdotal. I'm looking for the third storm.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
But I couldn't find any. Is he out of shape?
Repent, - this is the solution.
That means there's a glut of high power vacuum cleaners which can't be sold/imported etc. We should ship 'em all over to the gulf and have you all just suck up the next hurricane
Actually you should ship them to the US. High-power vacuums are absolutely critical for sucking up standing water inside building. Helps keep water borne pests down, reduces the chance of mold starting in buildings too. It's very easy to convert them to wet/dry as well. Lot of houses use lumber resistant to rot, and in areas known to flood repeatedly, houses are designed to be quick-gutted down to the frames. There's a big market there, not even kidding for both FL and TX right now.
Om, nomnomnom...
Point me at a set of scientific studies that show sudden warming above previous peaks on the geological time scales.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Exactly this. "ever recorded" is also under 200 years in a planet that has been around for 2 billion.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Just look up Hog Island NY. You'll see a hurricane back in 1893 was so bad it removed that island. Nothing new, it's not man. Anyone saying it is doesn't know what they're talking about.
As a late friend and literal rocket scientist used to say, "it's not like turning up the thermostat, it's pumping more energy into a heat engine."
I'm old enough to be farther, or grandfather, to most slashdotters, and I have *NEVER* seen three hurricanes, much less Cat 4, in three weeks, or even in a season.
But as long as you're making money from petrochemicals, you'll deny reality. And if you're not making money... you're a sucker.
..and you know what? I really don't even give a shit anymore. I got enough to worry about day-to-day without continually arguing with morons who INSIST that it couldn't possibly be their SUV and burning coal in power plants that's causing it, among other things. I've only got about another 30 or so years of life left; I'll be long DEAD by the time it's so bad that it can't be stopped, and you can't live with it anymore unless you move to the Arctic or Antarctica, so screw all of you deniers. I'll keep saying that it's our fault this is happening, but YOUR KIDS and GRANDKIDS are the ones who will suffer. Act accordingly. Oh, memo to you Dominionists: Jesus Chirst was just a MAN, there are no GODS of any kind, you're all DELUDED, I know what your plans and agenda are, and I hope you all get shot in the head for your trouble. Humans need to evolve past all this superstitious nonsense like religion and gods and ghosts and other nonsense. Seriously just get over it already.
/rant
Why don't we instead point you to the experiments of Tyndall regarding the heat properties of atmospheric gases, and those of Keeling showing that the composition of the atmosphere is changing. If you increase the partial pressure of CO2, the atmosphere must retain more heat. This isn't rocket surgery. It's not like there's more than one way for IR to escape to space.
That said, if there were some sort of non-nonsensical interpretation of your comment then I'm sure I would be happy to find you research. Generally in researching the climatic effects of past volcanic events the work of Terrence Gerlach of the USGS have been pretty valuable, and probably also the most relevant to the topic. A good search term would be 'large igneous provinces' (LIPs) which have been responsible for the largest outgassings in Earth's history. If you would also like information about Milankovitch cycles, solar output, or the climatic effects of the positions of the continents we can find those too. The idea that people have been researching climate for nearly 200 years and are unaware of the major drivers is, again, either the product of total ignorance or a malicious disregard for truth.
Incidentally, what you'll find in the research is that, modulo the aforementioned other drivers, changes in volcanism have historically been the major driver for different climatic periods of Earth. You will also find that the largest outgassing events correlate well (but not perfectly) with mass extinction events, and that the most extreme example of this released something like three orders of magnitude more CO2 than humanity has to date, and that the Earth has indeed continued to spin since that calamity. You will also note that we are on track to equal that level of emissions in less than a tenth of the time it took for Mother Nature to do her thing, and that our rate of emissions continues to increase. There is a near-zero chance that we will actually reach that goal, but it won't be for lack of trying, and we've definitely beat all previous records for the rate of emissions. Human CO2 output is equivalent to about two Pinatubo-sized eruptions per day, or one or more Yellowstone-supervolcano-sized events per year. Now ask yourself honestly, what sort of effect do you think that is likely to have?
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Eh, that's not the way my chemistry prof described it: there's so much water in the atmosphere that the spectrum that water absorbs is essentially absorbed completely. Thus, more water doesn't make any difference.
The effect turns out to be logarithmic. So, the more you add, indeed, the less effect each additional increment has. But the effect is still not zero.
But, to a large extent your point has merit: Since there is more water vapor IR absorption to start with, adding more has less effect than if you'd been starting from a dry atmosphere.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I've seen several news reports that islands in the Caribbean are facing up to a 90% destruction of buildings and infrastructure, so I'm not sure the added 20% cost is providing the value you claim.
As someone who actually lived in Florida for nearly a decade (1990-1999) and weathered a number of hurricanes (e.g. Andrew), what makes you think they're not already spending that money?
For instance, contrary to your claims that they're building with "sticks and paper", all of the homes around where we lived (along the Atlantic Coast in south Florida, pretty much in the path of every storm) were required to be cinderblock construction with steel reinforcement, rather than the wood frame construction that's common in the rest of the country. The roofs on the homes were designed with reduced eaves, few gables, steel ties to the framing, and low slopes in order to prevent hurricanes from getting a grip that'd let them rip the roof off. To reduce the risk of high winds knocking over walls, they'd break up the geometry of exterior walls so that no one surface would receive excessive force. Where there were tall walls or gables, codes required them to be structurally reinforced (e.g. our home had a reinforced chimney). Homes were built with an interior room, typically a bathroom or closet under the stairs, that was reinforced with plumbing or other structural elements to act as a shelter in case the rest of the home fell apart. As we were leaving, I believe that windows were being required to use the glass that can take a direct hit from a 2x4 at hurricane speeds.
To put it bluntly, all new homes were built like bunkers.
But therein lies the crux: all new homes. Much of Florida was built before those codes were in place, so it's only after a big storm clears a path that new homes go up or old homes are brought up to code. Once that occurs, these sorts of problems tend to stop happening.
Ask yourself: if they decided to run with your idea starting today, would things actually look any different in 20 years? 40 years? Or would we instead still be seeing occasional reports of old homes being destroyed when a major storm hits an area that tends not to get hit often, just like we see today?
All of which is to say, unless you're suggesting that we should forcibly evict people so we can tear down and rebuild their old homes (which I don't think your "mere 20%" estimate took into account), you're not saying anything new. Quite the opposite, in fact, since Florida officials beat you to the punch by several decades and put the codes in place way back then to ensure that people would build things appropriately.
You really need to put a Poe's Law warning on your post, since I nearly mistook it for the real deal.
What national event has occurred in the last twenty years that the left has not politicized?
really. Name ONE... News Flash Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
Murphy was an optimist
Global Warming is the Cause for Hurricanes http://facebook.com/1665784546...
How much is meaningful? For the highest quality coal it's about 4.5-5.5% hydrogen and it's generally a higher percentage for lower quality coal.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
You mean water.
Or do you really mean hydrogen?
From what should hydrogen get into coal? Hu?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Coal is 99% carbon and the rest is the dirt it was formed in.
Perhaps you should read and try to comprehend the link you gave.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
"Massive deforestation is not being considered? Seriously.
One unit of burnt coal or gas produces 1 unit of CO2 and one of H2O! Yes, water is a greenhouse gas. What we see is rainfall and storms moving north/south"
Considering that the U.S. is more is forested today than in 1900, not much of an issue there. There is an issue with warped weather due to micro climate issues caused by excessive urban areas causing monstrous heat thermals. But, overall, forestation is not an issue in the country. Once you get away from the urban blight it's all copacetic.
And, if you can believe the Greenpeace study of the Amazon Rain Forest; the higher CO2 percentage in the atmosphere has increased the growth rate of the canopy by 7% (2010 measurements compared to a baseline check in the late 1970s)
A higher CO2 percentage causes an increase in green plant growth.
NRRPT/RCT
You mean water. Or do you really mean hydrogen? From what should hydrogen get into coal? Hu? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Coal is 99% carbon and the rest is the dirt it was formed in. Perhaps you should read and try to comprehend the link you gave.
From the link I gave:
I'm sorry that I have overestimated your intelligence, yet again.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
bituminous coal
You know what that is?
That is not the coal the is burned in power plants.
And which part of "regardless how many hydrogen coal contains: it is completely irrelevant for water vapour creation" did you not get?
If you would look at the numbers you quote: you would realize they make no real sense anyway ... up to you.
If there is hydrogen in the coal it is already bound to something, probably the oxygen, hence the moisture, rofl.
I'm sorry that I have overestimated your intelligence, yet again.
No problem. I try hard not to underestimate the stupidity of other people, but I fail still so often.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Coal does not contain hydrogen ...
You should have figured that by now ...
Ohhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal Dude! you're going to get pilloried of that. I'll be nice and let you look at the link.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
You mean water. Or do you really mean hydrogen? From what should hydrogen get into coal? Hu? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Coal is 99% carbon and the rest is the dirt it was formed in. Perhaps you should read and try to comprehend the link you gave.
Have the grace to at least admit when you are plain completely wrong. When you say it doesn't contain Hydrogen, to wit:
"Coal does not contain hydrogen ... You should have figured that by now."
We all make mistakes. Adults admit it when they do.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Impossible? No, just hard. Even with the technology of marks on sticks, you can measure some things (storm surge) at shore locations, and barometric pressure/windspeed/wind direction can map out a storm path adequately. It isn't three-color motion picture information, but it's enough to rate a significant number of landfall-of-a-hurricane events.
Nowdays, we observe a lot more storms, in some detail, and the frequency of named-and-measured storms went up markedly with satellites. Since 'Jose' is the tenth this year, it's safe to say that hundreds of storms have had the satellite treatment. We know of landfall storms going back a century or two (dozens, at least). That's enough data to make comparisons.
Sticks aren't just good measuring tools for storms, they're GREAT.
Bullshit. Water is the major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
Correct. And water goes into the atmosphere in the form of evaporation, and leaves the atmosphere in the form of precipitation. This is known as "weather". It's the major factor accounted for in climate science.
CO2 makes up only 4% or greenhouse gasses, and of that 4%, only 4% is attributed to man.
Basically: wrong. Here's the graph of measured change in carbon dioxide since 1958: https://climate.nasa.gov/syste...
The rise is a lot more than "4%".
It's not a mystery why CO2 and temperatures have shown no correlation.
Again: wrong. Here's a graph of carbon dioxide and temperature over the last fifty years: https://www.e-education.psu.ed...
And here's a graph of carbon dioxide and temperature over the last four hundred thousand years: http://www.dokimiscience.com/u...
Your claim "no correlation" is silly. Get some facts before posting, Mr. Coward.
But it's not politically expedient to point out the obvious.
But it does seem to be politically correct to post false facts if you're an anonymous coward.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Global and Long Term -- Got it.
Can we take into account the last 19 years that show no warming?
We could... if the last 19 years had shown no warming. But the last 19 years show lots of warming. 2016 was the warmest year on record, beating the previous record of global temperature set in 2015, which had beat the previous record set in 2014.
Here's the graph:
https://3c1703fe8d.site.intern...
Get some facts before posting, Mr. Coward.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Sorry, I don't get your aggressive nitpicking.
Which part of "coal is 99% carbon" and the rest is the dirt it is buried in, don't you get? That lignite is only 50% carbon and 50% dirt?
Coal as in "coal" as we name "coal" and not "bitumen" which is super hard OIL does NOT contain hydrogen.
Regardless what you believe. Sorry to bold some words.
But perhaps americans have a strange definition of coal, just to find ways to argue with Europeans?
Anthrazit, hard coal, lignite and the various stages between them: don't contain hydrogen. And regardless of yours and the parents believes: it would not matter at all if they had 5% hydrogen regarding cloud building or moisture in the atmosphere.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
except of the ones that made landfall
Ships' logs. Not as detailed as records from on land. But a few hundred years worth.
Have gnu, will travel.
They fire their beams down here for fun, its easier to make hurricanes near the equador, but they have fun everywhere, its theirs f* airsoft. They used them on 911 too!