Climate Change Drives Bigger, Wetter Storms -- Storms Like Florence (npr.org)

Rebecca Hersher, reporting for NPR: Hurricane Florence is moving relentlessly toward the Southeastern U.S. It's a large, powerful cyclone that will likely bring storm surge and high winds to coastal communities. But climate scientists say one of the biggest threats posed by Florence is rain. "Freshwater flooding poses the greatest risk to life," explains James Kossin, an atmospheric scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Wisconsin, Madison. And Florence could cause extensive freshwater flooding for two reasons. First, Florence is moving slowly, and could all but stop when it reaches land. "The storm could be over North Carolina and traveling incredibly slowly -- on the order of just a few miles per hour," explains Kossin, who says an official from the city of Charlotte, N.C., contacted him about rainfall projections for that city.

If Florence stalls over the Southeast, it would be reminiscent of Hurricane Harvey, which spent days dumping rain on the Houston region last year. Some areas ended up with more than 60 inches, a catastrophic amount of water that shut down the entire region and resulted in at least 93 deaths. Slow-moving storms like Harvey are getting more common. A study published earlier this year by Kossin found that tropical cyclones around the world have slowed down 10 percent in the last 70 years. "We're seeing that in every ocean basin except the northern Indian Ocean," says Kossin, possibly because climate change is causing the wind currents that hurricanes ride to slow down. If Florence slows down and stalls when it hits land, it will the latest example of that trend. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., says global warming also affects the size and intensity of storms like Florence.

Comments

Weatherbug says otherwise

[DaMattster]

Weatherbug was pretty careful not to make the leap that Florence is a result of climate change. They had an article speculating that the reason Florence became so strong is the result of a Bermuda high which is in an unusual position for the year. The article's author felts that the blocking high was keeping Florence over warmer water so it could strengthen. Typically September hurricanes turn back out to sea.

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[drinkypoo]

Weatherbug was pretty careful not to make the leap that Florence is a result of climate change. They had an article speculating that the reason Florence became so strong is the result of a Bermuda high which is in an unusual position for the year.

How do they/you square that belief with the report from Accuweather about Climate Change Impacting the Bermuda High, causing it "intensify"?

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[cayenne8]

I'm trying to figure this out....they're saying that global warming is going to cause this large storm to stall and dump rain?

I mean, it is moving about 15mph or so now, and is forecast to slow to like 3-7mph once it makes landfall....and somehow this slowdown is caused by global warming?

I mean, that is the reason they're worried about rain fall flooding.....

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[Nidi62]

Weatherbug was pretty careful not to make the leap that Florence is a result of climate change. They had an article speculating that the reason Florence became so strong is the result of a Bermuda high which is in an unusual position for the year.

How do they/you square that belief with the report from Accuweather about Climate Change Impacting the Bermuda High, causing it "intensify"?

A short play with a metaphor for how climate discussions will look for the near future:

Person A: "The house is flooding because of the rain pouring in".

Person B:"Think it's because of the hole in the roof?"

Person A:"I can't speculate on that."

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[owlaf]

I really do think climate change is a real concern, but do hope people are a bit more cautious when to point finger of an event caused by it. If it turns out not to be so, it is just ammunition for the persistent deniers

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[93 Escort Wagon]

Yeah, I heard the NPR report and the reporter made a few leaps which were her “value addeds” and weren’t based on the scientist’s comments... like climate change leading to warmer tropical waters (not really - models show warming away from the tropics, with the biggest jump in arctic areas).

The possible link to large scale wind circulation changes - and slower storms because of it - is interesting though.

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

"Climate" and "Change" are both "C" words...

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[Richard Dick Head]

Idiot righty - Big snow this year must be global warming! Ha Ha
Idiot lefty - Huge hurricane this year, must be global warming! Panic!

One thing is for sure is you're never going to get idiots stop confusing weather with climate.

Weather - Snow, Hurricane, Rain, etc
Climate - Arid, Tropical, etc

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

Cookie Monster? Is that you?

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

Your "god" is a faerie tale character. Climate change is naturally occurring due to the Earth's continuously changing orbit, spin, tilt and the sun's fluctuating output.

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[hey!]

In situations like this, people want an answer (or more accurately prefer an answer) to what is in itself a meaningless question: did climate change cause this.

The way this argument is heading is fairly typical: people lining up behind sources that support the answer they want, without asking what the question actually means.

If I am not mistaken, the biggest destructive effects of this storm will not be to wind (which is how hurricanes are graded on the Saffir-Simpson scale) but to rainfall, and the models predict greater rainfall more unambiguously than they predict greater wind intensity.

But even given all that, you still can't say that greenhouse gases "caused" this without getting into a dense thicket of philosophical (the Wikipedia article on causality is actually worth reading here) and geophysical technicalities.

It's a pointless argument anyway. What we're really struggling over is whether this event means we should do something about greenhouse gas emissions. And for that causality is certainly a sufficient justification, but it's not strictly speaking necessary. It just has to be representative of the likely consequences of greenhouse gas emissions.

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[Nidi62]

One thing is for sure is you're never going to get idiots stop confusing weather with climate. Weather - Snow, Hurricane, Rain, etc Climate - Arid, Tropical, etc

Would you not agree though that, as climate shifts (or changes), weather will inevitably change as a result? So therefore significant, unusual, or unprecedented changes in weather could very well indicate shifts in climate?

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[mixed_signal]

There is a difference between something "causing a storm" and "making storms more severe." There are few people if any saying climate change drives or causes new storms that wouldn't have occurred otherwise. But it's pretty obvious, and has been discussed for a long time now, that global warming means more heat and therefore more water and more energy in the atmosphere, which make storms more severe.

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

The part that is being blamed on climate change though is also the lack of wind shear. Normally wind shear would have been growing and that either tears the storm up or it doesn't allow it to strengthen. You can check the solid Ars Technica article on it for details.

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

Hurricanes are neither unusual, nor unprecedented. Cite the trend. Oh yeah, it doesn't match the narrative

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[quantaman]

Weatherbug was pretty careful not to make the leap that Florence is a result of climate change. They had an article speculating that the reason Florence became so strong is the result of a Bermuda high which is in an unusual position for the year. The article's author felts that the blocking high was keeping Florence over warmer water so it could strengthen. Typically September hurricanes turn back out to sea.

Think of a coin that's kinda weird aerodynamically so when you flip it it will land heads 70% of the time.

Then you flip the coin 10 times and it lands heads 8 times. That's unlikely with an unbiased coin, but not impossible.

So do you say the bias caused it to land heads 8/10? Do you say it contributed? Do you say we can't really comment at all?

That's the basic discussion climate scientists are having right now.

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

The official narrative was more storms and greater intesinty. How are you going to ignore that and a say "There are few people if any saying climate change drives or causes new storms that wouldn't have occurred otherwise."?

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[smooth wombat]

What we're really struggling over is whether this event means we should do something about greenhouse gas emissions.

Let's put it this way. The con artist doesn't believe in climate change and his next big step is to curtail methane gas emission regulations.

That said, he also used global warming (his words) as the excuse to build a sea wall for his failing Irish golf course:

"If the predictions of an increase in sea level rise as a result of global warming prove correct, however, it is likely that there will be a corresponding increase in coastal erosion rates not just in Doughmore Bay but around much of the coastline of Ireland. In our view, it could reasonably be expected that the rate of sea level rise might become twice of that presently occurring. ... As a result, we would expect the rate of dune recession to increase."

"As with other predictions of global warming and its effects, there is no universal consensus regarding changes in these events," it states. "Our advice is to assume that the recent average rate of dune recession will not alter greatly in the next few decades, perhaps as far into the future as 2050 as assumed in the [government study] but that subsequently an increase in this rate is more likely than not."

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

Atmospheric instability will cause harsher rains, droughts, hurricanes, floods, and tornado. Big systematic issues are difficult to pin down to exact causes. So this natural vs. man-made argument weather is a waste of breath. Please just stop this baseless argument on blame and cause. We should be planning for the future, making things energy efficient, and hardening our infrastructure.

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[Nidi62]

Hurricanes are neither unusual, nor unprecedented.

Hurricanes are not, but the GP even states that this current hurricane is being affected by conditions that are.

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

Your "god" is a faerie tale character. Climate change is naturally occurring due to the Earth's continuously changing orbit, spin, tilt and the sun's fluctuating output.

Don't forget tidal forces between the Earth and the Moon.

But trapping infrared in the Earth's atmosphere means more water evaporation which is what these storms thrive on. So yeah, tell me how man isn't involved. I mean, we are moving more earth than nature would naturally.

Re: Weatherbug says otherwise

[c6gunner]

The problem is that everyone focuses on possible negative repercussions and ignores any which mat have been positive. If there is a 10 year lull in hurricanes, will anyone do a study to see if climate change is responsible? If such a study, by some miracle, actually gets done, will the news breathlessly report that climate change has caused a reduction in hurricanes?

Re: Weatherbug says otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

Category 5 hurricanes certainly are!

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[riverat1]

I'm trying to figure this out....they're saying that global warming is going to cause this large storm to stall and dump rain?

I mean, it is moving about 15mph or so now, and is forecast to slow to like 3-7mph once it makes landfall....and somehow this slowdown is caused by global warming?

I mean, that is the reason they're worried about rain fall flooding.....

The effect of global warming in the Arctic is much greater than in the tropics (see Arctic amplification). This reduces the temperature differences going south to north which is one of the major drivers of wind. So the wind has slowed down which slows down the movement of weather phenomena embedded in the wind.

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

Record highs reported across the world. Record lows, mostly absent.

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[hey!]

You know, I think the thing I hate most about the Trump presidency is how *everything* has to be about the Trump presidency.

Re: Weatherbug says otherwise

[serviscope_minor]

. If there is a 10 year lull in hurricanes, will anyone do a study to see if climate change is responsible?

Of course they would. Your entire point is predicated on the assumption that scientists are probably shit.

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[ExaltedCyclop]

This storm is basically nothing, we have had much stronger and bigger storms than this here in the Carolinas. If you would look at the past records you will see there has been a decline of these storms, so it rains we need the rain to refill lakes and water supplies/tables up.

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[ExaltedCyclop]

You really should stop using WikiPedia as a resource for material. Even WikiPedia states as much because a article can be edited by anyone at anything with an Internet connection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... "Most colleges and universities (Especially in some high schools and private schools) have a policy that prohibits students from using Wikipedia as their source for doing research papers, essays, or anything equivalent. This is because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any moment. Although when an error is recognized, it is usually fixed. However, because Wikipedia cannot monitor thousands of edits made everyday, some of those edits could contain vandalism or could be simply wrong and left unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years." https://www.theguardian.com/ed...

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[ClickOnThis]

Exactly - God drives the climate, not man. If He wants a hurricane to hit the USA, it'll hit. I'll be surprised if He does, though, what with Trump and all. The USA is turning from its Satanic ways.

Trump will build a wall to keep the hurricane out. And make God pay for it.

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[ExaltedCyclop]

What's trapping the infrared that you mentioned is the water vapor that is in the atmosphere, it makes up the biggest portion of what is called greenhouses gases certainly not some plant nutrient. Besides before there was a "global warming" there was a "global cooling" back in the 70s, no body believed them then nobody believes them now politics has nothing to do with it. Even UN officials have said all this "scare" about climate change has nothing at all to do with the environment, it is about the transfer of wealth. http://www.investors.com/polit...

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiot righty - Big snow this year must be global warming! Ha Ha

Big snow caused by warmer ocean / more energy in atmosphere => Chinese Hoax.

Idiot lefty - Huge hurricane this year, must be global warming! Panic!

Huge hurricane caused by warmer ocean / more energy in atmosphere => Chinese Hoax.

It's Chinese hoaxes all the way down.

Re: Weatherbug says otherwise

[jeff4747]

If there is a 10 year lull in hurricanes, will anyone do a study to see if climate change is responsible?

Considering that multiple studies were done on it, it's pretty safe to say such studies would be done.

The answer, btw, was "These climate-change things might have caused it, or maybe not. No way to know for sure."

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[commodore64_love]

This study shows hurricanes have NOT increased in size (contrary to the title): https://www.wunderground.com/c...

"Tropical cyclone size does not appear to have changed significantly over the past 35 years."

Graph (it's a flat line): https://s.w-x.co/wu/storm-size...

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[commodore64_love]

That study is interesting, but so too is this one, which shows Atlantic Hurricanes have NOT increased in size for the last 30 years:

Graph (it's a flat line): https://s.w-x.co/wu/storm-size...

Original Link:
https://www.wunderground.com/c...

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[riverat1]

Ok, here are a couple of non-Wikipedia sources on Arctic amplification:

Arctic amplification dominated by temperature feedbacks in contemporary climate models

Processes and impacts of Arctic amplification: A research synthesis

Re: Weatherbug says otherwise

[Solandri]

The bias is actually worse than that. The 2018 Atlantic hurricane season is actually slightly below average.

• Predicted at 12 named storms, 5 hurricanes, 1 major hurricane.
• Currently it's at 9 named storms, 5 hurricanes, 1 major hurricane.
• Average is 12 named storms, 6 hurricanes, 3 major hurricanes.

So it's actually a below-average hurricane season, but the media is taking advantage of the lone major hurricane heading towards the U.S. to push stories about how storms are getting worse. It's pretty naked confirmation bias.

Re: Weatherbug says otherwise

[rahvin112]

No no one is going to do a study on such a thing.

Adding energy to a system is never going to result in a less turbulent system. That's basic laws of thermodynamics. No one needs to be evaluating if pumping huge amounts of energy into a system reduces the activity of that system.

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[Joce640k]

If you'd like to point out where the errors are, I'll correct them for you.

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing is for sure is you're never going to get idiots stop confusing weather with climate.

Weather - Snow, Hurricane, Rain, etc

Climate - Arid, Tropical, etc

Would you not agree though that, as climate shifts (or changes), weather will inevitably change as a result? So therefore significant, unusual, or unprecedented changes in weather could very well indicate shifts in climate?

I don't know what the effect of pollution is on the global climate. I suspect it is quite bad, and we should limit CO2 to avoid the risk that things go very badly for our ability to grow food. But we will lose the argument for this position if people abandon the scientific method just to score political points with bogus arguments like the one you pose.

There is certain to be some change. The change may be large or small. If the change is small, this is a non-issue.

As an example of how more CO2 might not be an issue: Suppose that more CO2 raises the temperature, and that increased temperature increases the area of land on which plants can grow. The increased biomass of plants absorbs a significant amount of CO2. Increasing the CO2 in the air by N units leads to N/10 more units of CO2 in the air, and 9/10*N units of CO2 trapped in plants that would not have grown without the new CO2. In that case, the change in climate would be small.

A better argument would be: Changing the climate carries some risk that the change will cause some sort of positive feedback loop which makes farming food or obtaining drinkable water very expensive. If that happens, many humans will starve. We have no real way to quantify this risk. Until we do, lets limit how far we push the system in any dimension. Even a 1% risk of killing billions of people is not one we should take.

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[Actually, I do RTFA]

It's not just size, it's also speed. Slowly moving over cities, dropping tons of rain.

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[angel'o'sphere]

Typical weather patterns belong to climate. E.G you never will have a hurricane in the center of the US or Canada or Siberia or China.

Climate change most certainly leads to more tropical storms that evolve into hurricanes and taifoons. After all the only fuel a hurricane needs is warm water above 26.5C!

The more often you have that, the more often you have a hurricane. The bigger the afea, the bigger the storm. The higher the water temperature the higher the wind speed and speed of forming.

All no brainers ...

Re: Weatherbug says otherwise

[angel'o'sphere]

Which part of: we are at the beginning of september, and stil nearly 3 month to go, till end of the hurrican season, did you not grasp yet?

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[angel'o'sphere]

There was no "global cooljng", albeit the SOx emissions that had accumulated till that time hadba cooling effect.

The reason that global warming is not already completely out of control is the imense mount of SOx we produce with the shipping industry.

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[jwhyche]

I've never understood why there is much of a debate at all on this subject. Global warning is ether real or it isn't. If its real then it is being driven by fossil fuels and that must be stopped. I've listened to idiots on both sides of the debate and it seems to me the answer is quiet clear.

Fossil fuels are a major source of pollution and a major health hazard. They destroy out infrastructure and natural environments, and this is proven. Their use must be stopped because of this alone.

Fossil fuels are a scarce resource that have a limit. Over time it will be harder to find new sources that can meet our ever increasing needs. This dictates that new sources of energy must be found.

Both of these reasons alone dictate that better and cleaner sources of energy must be found. The argument on global warming is just a distraction to me.

Our dependence on fossil fuels will end. This is a fact. We will ether poison ourselves by continuing to use them or we will run out. One way or another their use will end.

Of course I guess going extinct or falling back to the stone age is also an option.

Re: Weatherbug says otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, climate change is real, the causation is what is up for debate.

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

That actually a fairly valid point of view, which never get brought up. Some fuels are limited, so we should use them wisely. Less dependence on foreign fuel = greater stability for the US. I think a lot of people on both side can agree on this.

What gets me is that nukes seem to need to be part of the mix at least for a while at least, but as soon as it is suggested the same people that are so afraid of climate change say hell no.

Re: Weatherbug says otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

No no one is going to do a study on such a thing.

Adding energy to a system is never going to result in a less turbulent system. That's basic laws of thermodynamics. No one needs to be evaluating if pumping huge amounts of energy into a system reduces the activity of that system.

Since we know all the basic laws and their effects, time to defend science! It's a waste of time to study things we already know. You agree right?

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

We aren't moving shit. We are barely a speck compared to the entire planet.

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

It changes according to various factors, including orbit, spin, tilt, but this does not preclude other factors. Most people die from infectious diseases, but a surfeit of lampreys is not impossible. Variation of the sun's output is not really much of a factor, as it doesn't vary much over a span of decades, hundreds of years, or even hundreds of decades.

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

There has been terrible hurricanes since the early 1900s at least, but they are better reported now. In New England there was the '38 hurricane which was probably cat 4. In 1954 there were 2 major ones and a ton of other ones so hurricanes are not new, even powerful one

Re: Weatherbug says otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

Nevermind that there was never a 10 year lull in hurricanes, just a 10 year lull in hurricanes that affected America. Typically a right winger would admit that they don't care about storms that don't hit America, but I don't think any of them would have attempted to pretend that those storms that didn't hit America simply didn't happen. I think I've seen the lowest in intellectual dishonesty I've ever seen on /.

Thank you c6gunner, for dredging a new low for righties everywhere.

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[Mal-2]

Use a cylinder, then declare the side landings to be "heads". You have a three-sided coin, and by shortening or lengthening the cylinder, you can make it less or more likely to land on its side. No aerodynamic trickery is required, so this "three-sided coin" will work anywhere it has a flat, level surface to fall onto.

But wait, that's not the same thing as messing with climate.

If you can't distinguish between a heads landing and a side landing (they somehow look the same from outside), then it starts to look more similar. Maybe the analogy breaks here, or maybe there is a "middle state" in the climate which gathers more events with the input of more energy. These events would have happened anyhow, but they would not have had the energy -- evaporation, tracking speed, angular momentum -- to get as big, go as far, or do as much damage.

We're messing with the length of the cylinder. Some people insist on being surprised that it matters, because they assume we're flipping coins and want so badly for their simple understanding to work that they would rather watch the world burn than play the percentages.

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[outlander]

According to the Weather Channel, the last cat 4 to hit the Carolinas was 1954, so it's been a bit.
Damned if I care what caused it* - the main thing is that the flooding and such will hurt a lot of people.
Let's get ready to help them; they're going to need it.

* I am emphatically NOT a climate skeptic, but that isn't germane when people are at risk bc of severe weather. Help the people and then work on the problem.

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[outlander]

That is, alas, one of those mathematical errors which fee off the fallacy of large numbers, which was also the underlying mimetic behind the old 'Dilution is the solution to pollution' memes in the 1960s. We're not so small and insignificant as your comment implies - humanity has had an enormous effect on the planet.

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[commodore64_love]

It is true hurricanes move slower, but I was mostly debunking the "hurricanes are bigger" claim in the title and elsewhere.

They are the same size as 30 years ago.

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

>Global warning is ether real or it isn't. If its real then it is being driven by fossil fuels

Your conclusion doesn't follow the premise.

Re: Weatherbug says otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

So when we had a record downturn in hurricanes... why are we seeing articles saying that that's just weather, and climate change is still responsible for "more and bigger" hurricanes?

Since, you know, there have been fewer and smaller...

Re: Weatherbug says otherwise

[c6gunner]

Of course they would. Your entire point is predicated on the assumption that scientists are probably shit.

Nonsense. I'm a fan of science and scientists in general; they're the only ones really doing the work to pull us out of the darkness. My entire point is predicated on the fact that scientists are human and prone to some of the same cognitive biases as the rest of us. I'm sure there's a handful of scientists out there who randomly think to themselves "hrm, the weather is nice today. I better find out why!" but those individuals are few and far between, and are unlikely to find nearly as much funding as the guys who want to go looking at why there are suddenly more hurricanes.

This problem is, of course, massively compounded by the fact that the news media and the average person on the street are even less rational and more prone to being misled by cognitive biases than are scientists. Even if scientists themselves were magically free from all of our failings as a species, it wouldn't stop everyone else from taking their findings out of context.

Re: Weatherbug says otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

We are more like virus infecting Flatland. The planet is not in jeapordy. Flatland is.

Re: Weatherbug says otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

You will have to find a 10 year lull in hurricanes first.
After you have picked and chosen the 'correct years' to 'study' you can pretend to do 'science' just like all the other deniers.

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, we absolutely are insignificant. Idiots and insecure people are always trying to make humanity out as being much more influential than we ever will be because you're scared to admit that we are so powerless. We aren't changing the planet. We couldn't even change a moon. We couldn't even change an asteroid. We couldn't even change a SMALL asteroid. We aren't ever going to leave this planet. We aren't going to have any kind of legacy. We aren't ever going anywhere but oblivion and no other beings in the universe will ever know that we existed. Humanity is impotent shit and you think far too much of yourself.

Re: Weatherbug says otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess they forgot about Hugo?

Re: Weatherbug says otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

There is money to be made, goods to be sold....

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

Only an idiot would argue that climate change caused a particular storm. Climate change causes general pattern changes, not individual events.

Did climate change contribute to this storm growing larger (warmer waters) or it's slowed movements (slower jet stream currents, etc.)? Possibly it did, but maybe it had nothing to do with it. Hell, theoretically, it could have even made it less severe, somehow (butterfly effect and all).

The way to look at the effects of climate change are not to look at single events, but to look at general trends. On average, are hurricanes more frequent, larger, more powerful, etc. than they were in the past? I'm sure someone has done that research, I just don't care to hunt it down.

Re:Weatherbug says otherwise

[terjeber]

You and Weatherbug are right on this one. Everyone who claims this is caused by climate change should be hanged, dragged and quartered. Not because AGW is not real, but because there is no scientific support for this notion. In fact, over the past 15 years or so, the US has been at a "hurricane drought".

Movemet not due to warming

[Anonymous Coward]

The slow movement of Florence and possibility it stalls are not related to global warming to rather simply to the location of high pressure systems north of the storm preventing it from turning northward.

The size of the storm could be argued to be greater due to warming, but its a statistical discussion about averages over time, not one of any particular storm.

Re: Movemet not due to warming

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. This type of speculative crap pumped out anytime there's a big weather event is what fuels climate change denial.
Ya, the climate is warming, but our tools and models and climate science in general are still extremely crude.

Re:Movemet not due to warming

[drinkypoo]

The slow movement of Florence and possibility it stalls are not related to global warming to rather simply to the location of high pressure systems north of the storm preventing it from turning northward.

Gee, I wonder what's affected the location of those high pressure systems.

Re:Movemet not due to warming

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe there was a paper that said climate change could result in hurricanes moving slower. However, it is important to note that, as per Wikipedia, out on the most severe storms only 2 are from this century. In almost every metric the past century is worst then this one. If hurricanes are getting progressively worst you would think that records would be consistently broken.

The only area in witch modern storms win is in monetary damage caused which is obvious when you realize how many more people live in south Flordia when compared to 50 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlantic_hurricane_records

Re:Movemet not due to warming

[Anonymous Coward]

The slow movement of Florence and possibility it stalls are not related to global warming to rather simply to the location of high pressure systems north of the storm preventing it from turning northward.

Gee, I wonder what's affected the location of those high pressure systems.

I'm not sure how ignorant you need to be to tie that article to the location of the high pressure fronts keeping Florence from turning northward. That article is talking about something completely different. But hey, just link to anything, even a blog post from an unqualified person posting from his mom's basement, because you at least look like you tried.

Re:Movemet not due to warming

[jeff4747]

The slow movement of Florence and possibility it stalls are not related to global warming to rather simply to the location of high pressure systems north of the storm preventing it from turning northward.

And it is believed that we are facing an unusual situation with the Bermuda High that may be caused by climate change that is doing this.

Re:Movemet not due to warming

[Anonymous Coward]

The slow movement of Florence and possibility it stalls are not related to global warming to rather simply to the location of high pressure systems north of the storm preventing it from turning northward.

Yes, and having that high pressure there is extremely unusual when looking at the historical record, yet has been happening more and more frequently in recent years.

Gee, I wonder what could be causing that? Lemme guess; it's a "random variation" that just happens to match global warming models, just like all the other coincidental weather changes we've seen this century, amiright?

bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

This article is pure bullshit and conjecture.

Re:bullshit

[anegg]

This article is pure bullshit and conjecture.

The parent was down voted. Although it was rather short and blunt, I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment. The article talks about what Hurricane Florence *might* do, then jumps to what Hurricane Harvey did do, to bolster the pure speculation about what Hurricane Florence might do?

I'm interested in seeing if a pattern develops in hurricane activity along the eastern seaboard of the US, especially since a prediction of much worse hurricane seasons was made in relation to observed global warming/climate change. It seems a little early to act as if that hypothesis is already confirmed, though.

Re:bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Although it was rather short and blunt

More like short and sweet! But yes, speaking clearly and directly is frowned upon here. "Climate change" is just making people more ~sensitive~... Everybody is getting so frail and easily triggered

Re:bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, its global warming this one year. Before last year Florida went 13 years without a hurricane hit, but that was just "weather".

AGW is bullshit, and they still don't have an answer to why Phil Jones deleted data requested under FOIA requests. Or why he only deleted it when a judge was going to finally force him to release it. That is the base data ALL AGW and IPCC reports use, and I claim it is completely false and made up. Prove me wrong by supplying the original data that Jones deleted rather than "risk someone peer reviewing his work".

AGW is a falsehood and they know it and that is why they delete data because peer review would show different. That is why IPCC predictions are 100% wrong (cue the people that show predictions revised 15 years after they were made to match todays climate)

Re:bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that there is already a pattern you folks seem to be ignoring. Wikipedia even has a list. Hurricanes especially off the coast of Florida are increasing in strength on average year over year. The table makes it quite easy to see as it is color coded to the strength of the hurricane. Seriously, there is a reason there is scientific consensus that global warming is real and impacting weather patterns now.

Entire island nations are sinking due to the rising water and you're STILL not convinced? The real question is how many more times must it be proven before you'll get off your ass and stop fighting for the faster and faster march off a hypothetical cliff.

Re:bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Cat 3s and less are minor for Florida. I listed 4, 5. Pattern, don't live in Florida just after WW2. Pattern is LESS powerful hurricanes as time goes on. So you provide a link that shows the OPPOSITE of what you claim it does.

If you AGW bullshit people told the truth, AGW would go away. Of course you have to lie, because the truth shows there isn't a problem. The only problem is your credibility.

Cat 5s
1935 - "Labor Day"
1992 - Andrew
That's it

Cat 4s
2017 - Irma
2004 - Charlie
1960 - Donna
1950 - King
1949 - Unnamed
1948 - Unnamed
1947 - Unnamed

Re:bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

If I go out in my backyard (in the middle of the US) and dig far enough I can find fossils of fish and organisms that only lived in the sea. What's your point about Island nations losing some shoreline? Do you think the geology of the earth is static?

Re:bullshit

[anegg]

Entire island nations are sinking due to the rising water and you're STILL not convinced? The real question is how many more times must it be proven before you'll get off your ass and stop fighting for the faster and faster march off a hypothetical cliff.

I happen to believe the reports that global temperatures, on average, are rising, and I'm aware that there has been measurable rise in sea levels (not island nations sinking, though). I'm even inclined to believe (although it isn't my field of expertise) that a significant factor in this rise is human activity, including carbon outgassing. I do not believe that the hypothesis "global warming will lead to ever more violent/destructive hurricanes along the eastern seaboard of the US" has been proven (yet). I am interested in understanding both the positive as well as the negative aspects of global warming.

Re:bullshit

[LynnwoodRooster]

Not to mention that Harvey came in from a different body of water, and was trapped by a high pressure ridge to the North, and mountains to the East and West. Florence is coming in to a completely different area with high pressure to the North and mountains to the West only. Using Harvey as an example of what Florence will do is like saying the fact Michael Jordan was MVP multiple times means that Ferrari will win next year's F1 championship.

Re:bullshit

[LynnwoodRooster]

Accumulated Cyclone Energy is statistically flat, and potentially falling.

Re:bullshit

[riverat1]

AGW is bullshit, and they still don't have an answer to why Phil Jones deleted data requested under FOIA requests. Or why he only deleted it when a judge was going to finally force him to release it.

No, your claim is bullshit. The data in question was deleted in the 1980s, long before anyone made any FOIA requests.

Re:bullshit

[jeff4747]

The real question is how many more times must it be proven before you'll get off your ass and stop fighting for the faster and faster march off a hypothetical cliff.

That will never happen.

They'll insist climate change is not real until it is causing severe problems. Then they will insist it is too late to do anything and continue making it worse.

Re:bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

No, your claim is bullshit. The data in question was deleted in the 1980s, long before anyone made any FOIA requests.

Your counterclaim is bullshit. The dataset in question was initially created in the 1980s and deleted when it looked like a judge was going to order it's release in the course of FOIA hearings.

Re:bullshit

[BlueStrat]

I am interested in understanding both the positive as well as the negative aspects of global warming.

I understand. You're looking at this from an intellectual point of view employing intellectual honesty in seeking some answers for a seldom-asked but insightful question.

What you seem to be missing is that by pointing out that there actually are positives to warming, you might contribute to people deciding to make plans to adapt to inevitably-rising average temperatures instead of wasting their resources on attempting to control the global climate (and every nation's contribution to warming), thus leaving them helpless, frightened, & desperate when their efforts inevitably fail and they haven't the resources left to adapt, and extremely vulnerable for any political strong-man or any political Party to take total control that tells them "Come with me (us) if you want to live! Only I (We) can save you!".

It's the same sort of tactics that Marxists and Communists have always used, simply on a global instead of a national/regional scale.

Strat

Re: bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

The real scam is how climates are better today than any time before the late fifties. If I was a crazy person making stuff up, why won't they release the satellite date from prior to the sixties?

Now for baseless attacks from the chills who will claim that "NASA didn't even exist then", because there suckers who don't realize the NASA website can say anything NASA wants it to say.

Wake up sheeple!

If you believe the models...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you believe the models, they say that as the Earth warms, the poles will warm more than the tropics. This means that the temperature difference between the poles and tropics will decrease. What drives storms? Temperature differences. The bigger the difference, the stronger the storm. So, if you believe the models, the intensity of storms will *decrease* due to global warming, not increase as everyone keeps saying. If you believe the models.

Re:If you believe the models...

[Anonymous Coward]

Models should stick to looking pretty and walking down the runway.

Re:If you believe the models...

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG! It's a storm! It's big! The earth's temperature has increased! They must be related! Break out the hurricane-cam! Wake the kids! Phone the neighbors! Don't tell me the odds!

Re:If you believe the models...

[ShanghaiBill]

What drives storms? Temperature differences.

This is nonsense. Hurricanes are not driven by temperature differences between the tropics and temperate regions. They are driven by vertical differences in temperature and pressure.

Warm seas cause warm humid air near the surface. Warm air is lighter, and high humidity makes it lighter still. So it rises, creating a low pressure region, and drawing in more surface winds that pick up heat and humidity as they move to the center of the storm. When the air in the center rises, it spreads out and cools, condensing the humidity that falls as rain. The cooler dryer air then descends on the edge of the storm.

Warmer seas cause stronger storms. Cooler water weakens the storm as it travels north, the opposite of what you are claiming.

If the oceans were uniformly warm, would we still have hurricanes? Yes, and they would be stronger, bigger, and last longer.

Re:If you believe the models...

[XxtraLarGe]

If you believe the models, they say that as the Earth warms, the poles will warm more than the tropics. This means that the temperature difference between the poles and tropics will decrease. What drives storms? Temperature differences. The bigger the difference, the stronger the storm. So, if you believe the models, the intensity of storms will *decrease* due to global warming, not increase as everyone keeps saying. If you believe the models.

The great thing about an amorphous hypothesis like Global Warming/Climate Change is that it can be said to be causing whatever's going on right now. Hurricanes? Climate Change! Tornadoes? Climate Change! Volcanoes? Climate Change! Roger Federer losing the U.S. Open? Climate Change!

Re: If you believe the models...

[Anonymous Coward]

the models are only as good as our understanding of the modeled phenomena.

Re:If you believe the models...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct that hurricanes are not driven by the release of baroclinic instability and form in environments that are somewhat close to equivalent barotropic. Hurricanes are driven by latent heat release in the deep moist convection in the core, especially the eyewall storms. Air spirals in near the surface, ascends in the deep moist convection while releasing latent heat, and spirals outward in an anticyclone aloft. Hurricanes are warm core storms meaning that there is low pressure at the surface and high pressure aloft. You can see this in satellite images as the cirrus outflow aloft rotates anticyclonically, opposite of the storms in the rain bands and the inner core. I use the term "deep moist convection" rather than "thunderstorms" because there just isn't a lot of lightning in the inner core of tropical cyclones. However, lightning in the inner core can be associated with rapid intensification.

When the storm is over warmer water, the low-level inflow will be warmer and moister, resulting in more instability and stronger deep moist convection. The persistent release of latent heat causes high pressure aloft, which evacuates mass from the top of the storm in the outflow. The result of removing the mass aloft is that the pressure falls at lower levels including the surface. Vertical wind shear spreads the energy from latent heat release over a wider area, decreasing the strength of the upper-level anticyclone and causes less outflow at the top of the storm.

The horizontal component of Coriolis, or planetary vorticity, is weaker in the tropics and is zero at the equator, Persistent vertical motion in the deep convection stretches the planetary vorticity and causes hurricanes to spin. The same thing happens in persistent mid-latitude thunderstorms, which can start to spin. The result is called a mesoscale convective vortex. The process in mid-laittude storms is quicker in part because the horizontal component of Coriolis is stronger, but more because the vertical motion in those storms is stronger, resulting in more rapid stretching of planetary vorticity.

While the temperature difference between the tropics and poles does not significantly contribute to hurricane formation, it certainly could affect tropical cyclone behavior. Stronger temperature gradients in the lower and middle troposphere result in larger pressure differences aloft, which drives stronger upper-level winds. Weaker winds in the upper troposphere should generally result in tropical cyclones that move slower.

Re:If you believe the models...

[riverat1]

An excellent explanation. +1 Informative.

Re:If you believe the models...

[jeff4747]

Your explanations of meteorology are like an 80-year-old's luddite's explanation of how a computer works.

Re:If you believe the models...

[cmdr_klarg]

be stronger, bigger, and last longer

Yes!!! Global warming will be better than viagra!

Re:If you believe the models...

[Anonymous Coward]

The vertical difference creates the hurricane. the gradient going North MOVES the hurricane. without the prevailing winds it would sit still.

Harvey rainfall

[Anonymous Coward]

The over 60" of rainfall number sounds impressive, but it is deceptive. The gauges with over 51 inches were uncalibrated. The calibrated gauges like Cedar Bayou recorded less (that one is the highest official total).

No doubt a destructive storm but it is not clear of any connection to global warming since total cyclonic energy and total rainfall have been less overall. It takes decades to get a pattern for climate and using one or two storms to make a point is also deceptive.

Re:Harvey rainfall

[Anonymous Coward]

Right on, brother! Own those Lib-tards.

Hey, let's make them scy-n-testers take the next hundred years to collect their "data" (?) on "climate" (if that's even a real thing, 'm I right?). We can just keep saying "Gosh, we don't have enough information to make a decision." That'll trigger 'em.

In the mean time, can I interest you in some flood/sever storm/drought/wild fire insurance?

Weatherbug doesn't want to trigger rightwingers

[Anonymous Coward]

And no matter if it's well supported, the politics of the rightwing does not allow AGW to be real. So lots of places won't dare to mention climate change as being the cause of ANYTHING, because the only things AGW deniers will allow climate to do is "change" in such a way that we don't do it. It sure as shit isn't allowed to DO anything. Just change.

Re:Weatherbug doesn't want to trigger rightwingers

[Anonymous Coward]

Those strawmen you assembled sure are easy to beat up!

Re:Weatherbug doesn't want to trigger rightwingers

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, the definition of strawman in an argument is "make up an EASIER clam to debunk". I just used the ACTUAL arguments of you moron deniers.

Re:Weatherbug doesn't want to trigger rightwingers

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like you have a vested interest in AGW. Too bad AGW has no evidence to support it so you have to rely upon propaganda, indoctrination and FUD.

Re:Weatherbug doesn't want to trigger rightwingers

[Anonymous Coward]

You lose the argument when you refer to others as "moron deniers". If you are not intellectually honest enough to allow others to have alternate points of view, points for which they also have data to back up, then you have shown yourself to be a closed-minded zealot.

Re:Weatherbug doesn't want to trigger rightwingers

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember, back in the day, we had back to back cat 4 and cat 5 hurricanes including Rita, Wilma and Katrina. Al Gore made a movie of it saying that this will happen from now on due to global warming. Then we had a 10 year span of no major hurricanes striking the east coast. We get one in a decade and all of a sudden the sky is falling again.

Re:Weatherbug doesn't want to trigger rightwingers

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

And no matter if it's well supported, the politics of the rightwing does not allow AGW to be real. So lots of places won't dare to mention climate change as being the cause of ANYTHING, because the only things AGW deniers will allow climate to do is "change" in such a way that we don't do it. It sure as shit isn't allowed to DO anything. Just change.

This is true but what also is true is the left is waiting for a bad hurricane so they can scream global warming and demand business controls, controls denied them when class warfare became a loser at the polls.

In both cases, follow the money. Do not be a cog in either side.

Global warming is a few percent in energy increase, and thus a percent of a percent in strength or number. It will take decades just to demonstrate a tiny increase in hurricane power or number.

Re:Weatherbug doesn't want to trigger rightwingers

[ExaltedCyclop]

Yep that about sums it up for the Alarmist, to them the sky is always falling.

Re:Weatherbug doesn't want to trigger rightwingers

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I deny there are morons.

Re:Weatherbug doesn't want to trigger rightwingers

[CohibaVancouver]

You lose the argument when you refer to others as "moron deniers". If you are not intellectually honest enough to allow others to have alternate points of view

Hey Anonymous Coward - People who believe the earth is flat or we didn't go to the moon or evolution isn't real may very well have "alternate points of view" but it doesn't mean they're not morons.

Same deal here.

Re:Weatherbug doesn't want to trigger rightwingers

[angel'o'sphere]

A cat 4 or cat 5 hurricane not hitting the east coast but moving north and turning out to outer sea, is stillma hurricane.
And a taifune is just the same thing as an hurricane anyway. Ever looked on a global weather map, recently? We have about 15 active hurricanes/typhoons/fropical storms at the moment ...

Re:Weatherbug doesn't want to trigger rightwingers

[angel'o'sphere]

and thus a percent of a percent in strength or number. It will take decades just to demonstrate a tiny increase in hurricane power or number.
Rofl, again stpidity rules the world.

Due to heating of the ocean, the hot area becomes bigger, do tue being hot more early, the storms form earlier in the year, which also means farer away from the coast, during the time they aproach, which is more time, because they form farer away, they have more time to grow.

So, a 1% change in "global" energy levels easy increase the size of a hurricane by 50% and its strength to unknown hights.

Re:Weatherbug doesn't want to trigger rightwingers

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, we all know global warming, aka climate change, is a hoax by democrats. My president told me so, and he's a scientist and has never told a lie.

Re:Weatherbug doesn't want to trigger rightwingers

[nasch]

And a taifune is just the same thing as an hurricane anyway.

That's spelled "typhoon".

Re:Weatherbug doesn't want to trigger rightwingers

[labnet]

Dear Strawman,
When California had their recent fires, the media was climate change this and climate change that. But, the area of forest burned per annum is much less than a century ago.
Climate change is so political, its hard to see the science anymore... even from the scientists.

Re:Weatherbug doesn't want to trigger rightwingers

[youngone]

Funny how it's always that Anonymous Coward fellow with the anti-climate change views.

Re:Weatherbug doesn't want to trigger rightwingers

[angel'o'sphere]

In American yes.
In language of origin it is Taifun, so my typo is the extra e ...
But thanks for the advice, I will try to remember to use the english term when writing english :D

Re:Weatherbug doesn't want to trigger rightwingers

[Anonymous Coward]

Except you can very easily verify the moon, spherical earth, and evolution all on your own. With climate change you absolutely must rely on decades and decades of difficult to analyze data. Then at the end of the day all we can really say is "climate is changing, and it's changing a lot faster than it should". No root cause (other than the assumption that it's CO2, which is a good hypothesis, but it could very well be a lot more complicated than that), no solutions in sight. We could reduce emissions to zero tomorrow and there's no guarantee that things will be "fixed" (for whatever definition you use).

So you have this ethereal problem a group of people well known for promoting hysterical hype have been hammering on for what, 15 years? And you expect Joe Blow from Minnesota to just believe you after the most vocal people on climate change have made wild predictions which have simply fallen flat. Joe doesn't real scientific literature. Joe doesn't study oceanic conditions. Joe cracks a beer on Friday night, watches some asshole yell about how climate change will kill you next week, and Joe laughs. He laughs because he's heard this for years, and in his eyes the climate oracles have always been wrong.

Science: A
Message Delivery: D- (see me after class!)

And climate can't change the pressure zones...

[Anonymous Coward]

because to any moron denier, climate can't DO anything, just change to no effect. Tell me, WHY do you deniers think that weather patterns such as high pressures form? Is it ALL just mystic forces to you idiots?

Re:And climate can't change the pressure zones...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is mystic forces, like being gay is genetic and wanting to fuck a tranny in the ass is natural. I do understand why your mom likes it up the ol' pooper though, there is a LOT of consensus there!

Re:And climate can't change the pressure zones...

[guruevi]

You're the moron. Climate is about global changes over time. Weather is about local events. Sure, one can drive the other to greater extremes, but you cannot pin a single storm on a specific change in the climate. The storm would probably have happened in much the same way as it is now, the question is what difference the size, speed and pattern would've made - eg. 20 deaths or 70 deaths; $50M damage vs $1.5B damage.

Re:And climate can't change the pressure zones...

[Anonymous Coward]

because to any moron denier, climate can't DO anything, just change to no effect. Tell me, WHY do you deniers think that weather patterns such as high pressures form? Is it ALL just mystic forces to you idiots?

I happen to believe CO2 emissions from humans are a grave risk to human life, and we should do something about it. Sadly, people like you are causing our side to lose the debate by being immature and anti-science.

Stop calling people "morons", "deniers", "moron deniers", "idiots", etc. Using name calling in an argument makes it clear to everyone that you have no valid argument.

You don't seem to be making an argument. For example, you seem to be saying that high pressure weather patterns form due to climate change. A rational person would ask how you know that the high pressure system is caused by human action, what mechanism caused it, what needs to change to stop it,. etc. It did not seem to occur to you to ask these basic questions, and it makes you look foolish.

Re:Scientific Consensus?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

There's scientific consensus that life begins at conception? It was my understanding that the scientific consensus was that life had been here for billions of years and propagated through germ lines.

Re:Scientific Consensus?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you would be wrong then. https://www.acpeds.org/the-col...

Re:Scientific Consensus?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shill group here, social-conservative morons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And what drives hurricanes? Water evaporation

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess what increases when the temperature rises? Water evaporation. You only listen to what weather makes AGW nonexistent, never the whole of reality.

Re:And what drives hurricanes? Water evaporation

[LynnwoodRooster]

Water evaporation is essentially zero for temperatures below freezing. The poles warming from -15 deg C to -10 deg C will not increase the water vapor content of air in any measurable amount.

Re:And what drives hurricanes? Water evaporation

[riverat1]

Water evaporation is essentially zero for temperatures below freezing. The poles warming from -15 deg C to -10 deg C will not increase the water vapor content of air in any measurable amount.

Actually it will increase the water vapor content. Maybe you've heard of something called sublimation.

Re:And what drives hurricanes? Water evaporation

[LynnwoodRooster]

Why yes, I have! And if you actually look at how much water vapor can be contained in air versus temperature you will see it's a logarithmic function and essentially zero at temperatures at or below freezing. Sublimation or not.

Re:And what drives hurricanes? Water evaporation

[CaffeinatedBacon]

You are aware that hurricanes don't form at the poles, but over tropical waters...

Re:And what drives hurricanes? Water evaporation

[riverat1]

I agree it's very low at cold temperatures but it's not zero* until you get down to below -30 deg C. The third graph on that page is the only one that has enough detail to show it. At -15 deg C (5 deg F) the air holds about 0.1 lbs of water per 1000 cubic feet of air. At -10 deg C (14 deg F) the air holds 0.14 lbs of water per 1000 cubic feet of air. So obviously it does change the amount of water vapor in a measurable amount. At freezing the air holds about 0.3 lbs of water per 1000 cubic feet, about double what it holds at -10 deg C.

*Actually it's probably still measurable below that even.

Re:And what drives hurricanes? Water evaporation

[LynnwoodRooster]

Now, go back up this thread, to where I said it is essentially zero (which it is at the poles, when you compare it to a 'global temperature' of 16 deg C), and where there was a discussion about temperature differences and water content between the poles and the tropics. The water held in the tropics (30 deg C+) is an order of magnitude larger than that at a -10 deg C pole. Sublimation is essentially zero at the poles - water held in the air at the poles is essentially zero, compared to what is held world-wide.

Re:Scientific Consensus?

[Muros]

Point out the relevant line please. And no, "when an individual human life begins" is not the same thing.

Why can't we see the positives?

[Anonymous Coward]

With all this free fresh water falling from the skies, why can't be place huge buckets on the ground and gather it all up and sell it to Saudi Arabia? Sounds like it would be much cheaper than towing an ice berg there.

Nathan

Re:Why can't we see the positives?

[serviscope_minor]

We need a new variant of Poe's law:

Without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of inane views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of inanity.

Not so sure about this claim either .....

[King_TJ]

I live in the Northeast and every time a reporter starts showing the people putting up sandbags and preparing, and they get interviewed? They say the same kinds of things. "Been through this a number of times before." The shop owners in places like Annapolis will show you how high flood waters have been, decades ago compared to the last few times they dealt with flooding. And predictions for this one seem to be, at most, somewhat equivalent to one of the higher water levels they saw long ago.

This article talks about a worldwide slowdown of 10% noted in the last 70 years for hurricane movement? Might be completely true, but does that really signify man-made climate change as the culprit? Or would you see at least a 10% variance one way or the other, if you were tracking their speeds of travel in different time periods further back than the last 70 years? Either way, 10% doesn't seem like a huge difference? Assuming the amount of rainfall is directly related to how long the storm sits in a given area, or how much time it has to pick up ocean water as it travels? Wouldn't that mean it accounts for only 6 inches of extra rain from a 60 inch rainfall?

Re:Not so sure about this claim either .....

[techno-vampire]

The shop owners in places like Annapolis will show you how high flood waters have been...

Back when I visited Hawai'i in the '70s it wasn't at all unusual for there to be lines painted on the sides of buildings showing the high water marks for various tsunami. I'm surprised that the people in places like Annapolis haven't done the same thing, unless I've misunderstood what you posted.

Re:Not so sure about this claim either .....

[jeff4747]

They say the same kinds of things. "Been through this a number of times before."

When disaster approaches, people say things to comfort themselves. It helps when you're worried about your life being annihilated in a couple days, and there's little you can do about it.

Also, "100-year" storms are a thing. The fact that there were "100-year" storms in the past doesn't mean much. What means something is the "100-year" storms now appear to be happening more like every 20 years.

Wouldn't that mean it accounts for only 6 inches of extra rain from a 60 inch rainfall?

Doesn't sound like much, does it?

Now remember that 6 inches is over 1000 square miles. That's a hell of a lot of water.

Now run all that water through the relatively small channels we call "rivers". That's a metric fuckton more flooding, because those 6 inches are concentrated into a relatively small area.

A hurricane stalling overhead is an extremely bad thing.

Re:Not so sure about this claim either .....

[King_TJ]

I'm sure there are places where the high water marks were put on buildings.... But I know in many cases, you just have shopkeepers showing you such things as, "water that once reached the level of where my business name is painted on the window glass".

Well, they do have a point.

[Anonymous Coward]

And conservatives should also realize that Global Warming is causing abortions, people turning gay, mass shootings and the desire to ban guns.

Every truly conservative candidate should be harping on the evils of fossils fuels and pollution! Or your fine young son could turn gay!

Re:Well, they do have a point.

[Anonymous Coward]

And conservatives should also realize that Global Warming is causing abortions, people turning gay, mass shootings and the desire to ban guns.

No, those are symptoms of degeneracy and moral decay/flexibility.

Re:Well, they do have a point.

[Anonymous Coward]

Story about Chicago's increased shootings because of global warming.

I'm sure you were attempting to make the most ridiculous joke you could, but they actually already have made that claim for the last 6 years.

Is there ANYTHING Climate Change can't Do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Climate change turned me in to a Newt!

Is there anything Climate Change CAN Do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or is it going to be EVERY time that AGW does anything YOU whine about how it "does EVERYTHING"???
Got a list of what AGW is allowed to do?

Re:Scientific Consensus?

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.princeton.edu/~pro... - How about Princeton? Not exactly a conservative bastion, eh? I love watching you libtards twist your panties up around this! Douchelord hypocrites!

Really?

[argStyopa]

When we point to cooler summers or warmer winters or a near-complete absence of tornadoes, the reply is "WEATHER ISN'T CLIMATE, YOU FUCKING DENIER"

But somehow everytime there's a hurricane, we see posts and news stories about how this is driven by climate change.

Funny.

Re:Really?

[Dutch Gun]

It's sort of the opposite of how religious people thank God for everything good that happens in their lives, but don't seem to blame him when things go terribly wrong.

Re:Really?

[mixed_signal]

Yeah, but people say all sorts of stuff. That has nothing to do with accumulating and analyzing data, comparing models to history, making predictions, etc.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

>but don't seem to blame him when things go terribly wrong.
Are you forgetting "God dammit!"? :)

Re:Really?

[ai4px]

When we point to cooler summers or warmer winters or a near-complete absence of tornadoes, the reply is "WEATHER ISN'T CLIMATE, YOU FUCKING DENIER"

But somehow everytime there's a hurricane, we see posts and news stories about how this is driven by climate change.

Funny.

When I was a kid in the 1970's it was global cooling and we'd have to sprinkle black coal dust on the icecaps to melt them. Then it was ozone. Then global warming. They've been wrong so many times, it is not simply called "climate change" which is pretty pathetic. Pick a side... but they can't because, to be fair, their data set it too small. How's about stop running around like your heads are cut off and the sky is falling until we /understand/ more.... until we have /more/ /data/.

Re:Really?

[religionofpeas]

It was never global cooling in the '70s, despite one or two magazine covers. And they weren't wrong about ozone. And they aren't wrong about global warming. We have more than enough data to be sure of that.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would be more convincing if the people making the claims moved away from coastal areas they claim will be flooded.

Would you trust Trump if he claimed China is going to bomb the White House but refuses to leave it?

Re:Really?

[argStyopa]

The paleoclimate record shows that for the past ~3 million years, the earth warms spectacularly quickly about once every 120-140,000 years after which it settles back to the Holocene Optimal we all love. This has happened at least 15 times. The last was about 120,000 years ago.

For the current warming to be anthropogenic or even majority-anthropogenic, both
a) the previous cycle would have to be stopped, and
b) the new mechanism driven by SUVs and Republicans would have had to replace it in almost *precisely* the same manner, frequency, and magnitude.

Please explain how that happened.

And then, while you're at it, please explain how whatever mechanism drove those extremes of climate back toward the Holocene Optimal wouldn't work this time.

I can't get an actual climatologist to reply - not on open climate boards, not on Reddit AMAs, never.

Re:Really?

[argStyopa]

I'd agree that's a good analogy. Both groups are zealots uninterested in anything but flogging their particular creed to every passer-by.

If there was such a thing as God, he's clearly a sadistic motherfucker.

Re:Really?

[Jerry]

Sorry, you're wrong.

As a HS physics and math teacher during the 1970's I remember very well the alarmist warnings about the planet freezing due to natural cooling. Those alarmists were usually the sames ones who were spouting "nuclear winter" if we weren't more agreeable with the USSR concerning arms control. I include a link to a PDF of a Newsweek article
http://www.denisdutton.com/new...
because it contains a graph by the gov's NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research) which showed the average temperature decline from 1940 to 1970. The graph is significant because this year NASA released their "data" for the same period and they have conveniently eliminated the 30 year drop in temperatures.
https://realclimatescience.com...

There was no Internet back then, as you should know, so mass communication was done through newspapers and periodicals. Those sources were about evenly divided politically, and editors filtered letters to the editor, sometimes making them appear just the opposite of what the writer actually wrote (from personal experience).

Most trusted were the talking heads of the TV news casts. In the early 1980s 8' satellite TV dishes were set up in villages and at farm houses in rural areas because city based cable TV companies would not string cable out to those locations for economic reasons. When properly aligned (installing and aligning them was part of my business) the viewer could swing across the sky to tune in channels transmitted by 5watt transponders (thus the need for 8' dishes) on various satellites. One satellite was Westar IV, which contained the ABC news feeds. Folks would watch Max Robinson and Frank Reynalds discuss how they would present the news. One could watch the live feed, which was never broadcast and didn't include ads, then watch the actual news cast which was later broadcast. The difference between what one saw watching the live feed versus what the two talking heads said had happened destroyed my faith in the integrity of the evening news broadcasts. They had an agenda and they didn't mind lying about the news to spread it.

Folks in the rural areas began protesting to local TV affiliates, especially with tape recordings comparing what actually happened with what was presented. One I remember very clearly was President Reagan arriving at a NOW convention. He walked onto the stage and got a 10 minute standing ovation. He spoke for about 20-30 minutes and, as was customary with Reagan, he interspersed about a dozen jokes. All but one received raucous laughter. He got another 5 minute standing ovation as he left the stage. That's what I saw. The 5pm ABC World News Tonight started off with "Reagan received mixed approval at the NOW convention", played the video clip where the woman didn't laugh at that one joke, and then followed it with a 1 minute and 47 second rant by Eleanor Smeal about how Reagan was going to drag women by the hair back into the stone age. If Reynolds and Robinson were to be believed Reagan barely got out of the NOW convention alive. So it was with every political story, always slanted to favor the Democrats.

The national TV corporations began encrypting their transponder signals so the common folk could not see the ACTUAL news for themselves and make up their own minds. The response was a brief market in decryption chips, which Congress made illegal to make, sell or buy in the US, following intensive lobbying by the broadcasting companies. So, rural folks have not trusted national news for the last 30-40 years, which explains, in part, why rural areas are conservative. That big cities got their info from slanted news casts explains why they are mostly "Liberal".

With the Internet the big corporations and social websites do not control ALL of the news. Local news shows (radio or TV) and videos taken by

Re:Really?

[q_e_t]

the earth warms spectacularly quickly about once every 120-140,000 years

And we know the mechanism for it (Milankovitch cycles). But 'spectacularly quickly' in that context is about an order of magnitude slower than we've seen in the last 200 years, and currently we are in the point in the cycle during which it should be (and was) cooling. This was proposed in the 1920s, but it took until the 1960s and work on corals and ice cores to finally prove it.

Please explain how that happened.

It's anthropogenic. See above.

And then, while you're at it, please explain how whatever mechanism drove those extremes of climate back toward the Holocene Optimal wouldn't work this time.

We're not in that part of the cycle. See above.

I can't get an actual climatologist to reply.

The problem is you are claiming that something should be happening (warming due to Milankovitch) when we are in the cooling phase, so climatologists are not going to take you seriously. However, on many climate science boards, climate scientists do take the time to reiterate the relevant points if they think you genuinely don't understand and are not being obtuse.

Re:Really?

[serviscope_minor]

Your argument seems to be "someone on the internet said something stupid ergo global warming isn't happening".

Re:Really?

[serviscope_minor]

When I was a kid in the 1970's it was global cooling

No it fucking wasn't. You're an utter fool if you think that's the case and not just ignorant but wilfully ignorant.

Then it was ozone.

Yes that was a real thing and it actually happened. It got better becase of a massive coordinated international effort to curb CFCs. How you think that's an argument against reducing carbon emissions I really can't guess at.

until we /understand/ more

We do nuderstand. We understand the globe is warming and as a result the climate is changing. We know why. We also know that you're a denialist idiot.

Re:Really?

[Dutch Gun]

I actually believe global warming is a thing. But as you can see by my "offtopic" mod, it's become a fucking religion to some people. Any hint of dissension is responded to with a vehement effort to *silence* any dissension. On this particular forums, that takes the form mod-bombing, or people like you making assumptions that I've fallen from the true path.

So yeah, I believe global warming is happening, and I'm a supporter of efforts to convert to a more carbon neutral lifestyle. But I've also come to absolutely loathe the Church of Global Warming's acolytes.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

hahaha you got spanked.

Re:Really?

[serviscope_minor]

But as you can see by my "offtopic" mod, it's become a fucking religion to some people.

Some people, perhaps? However, you're replying in a somewhat affirative manner to a known denialist (read some of his other posts). Not only that you're supporting the point often used to discredit climate change which is to muddy the waters by mixing in bad journalism with goos science and painting them as all bad.

Given the context, it's not surprising that people are treating you as denier.

And that's the thing, it is off topic. The topic is whether or not the globe is warming. And it is. Even if there was some srt of reasoned debate to be had here about it, it wouldn't include muddying the water by bringing the opinions of idiots on the internet because that is irrelevant to the science.

Any hint of dissension is responded to with a vehement effort to *silence* any dissension.

You have a right to speak. You don't have the right to force others to listen. Your "dissention" loked to the outside like denying something that's a scientific fact. Most people have better things to do than "debate" a denialist on it.

The point that you weren't denying it was completely lost because you looked and acted that way albeit temporarily.

Re:Really?

[ai4px]

Wow... wish I had mod points... great story about the slant on the news. Now we get weather channel reporters faking terrible winds in addition to the selective reporting.

Re:Really?

[ai4px]

Way to end the debate dude... resort to name calling. I'm a fucking idiot because I remember seeing stories on the evening news talking about sprinkling coal dust on the north pole to help melt ice? Even when i was 8 years old in the late 70's I thought coal dust on the poles was a worthless endeavor.

Hey, you'll probably never see this, but I'll ask anyway.... I'm not debating climate change... the earth has a history of ice ages and warmer times... even a mini ice age in the 1600's.... but how much of it do you think is caused by man kind's activities? Mt Pinatubo in the philippines put out more CO2 than all of mankind in 7 days time. To say we collectively can make a dent in Earth's natural cycles is to think you can fill the ocean by pissing in it.

Re:Scientific Consensus?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just an opinion piece, not a statement from Princeton itself. You DO know that, despite your Faux News Echo Chamber belief that only liberals get in to college because of the "libertardian take over" of education, there ARE conservatives go to college.

First it was fast and violent storms, now it's....

[Oh really now]

slow moving and steady storms? C'mon climate "science" purveyors, get your shit straight and stop attributing EVERY weather event to 'climate change.' Want to know why intelligent people outside of your funding....er... "science" circles don't believe? (Just in case your science doesn't work out, that is called a rhetorical question).

Science needs to be repeatable and provable, but nothing being trotted about as climate science is anything but half-assed theories and wild fear mongering. I genuinely want to know what are and are not effects of climate change, but I haven't seen anything beyond awful correlations based on fudged data. Call me when you have something based in, well, science.

Re:Did you know

[Anonymous Coward]

My doctor said I have Cancer. It was bad news I refused to believe, so I kept going to different doctors until I found one that said I didn't have Cancer. I always knew there was nothing to worry about!!

*dies of Cancer*

Re:Did you know

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot trickle down economics.

Re: Scientific Consensus?

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like a scientist!

Nope, it is from an opinion piece.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's form the GROUP of students "Princeton Pro Life". Moron. And no, the papers just say the embryo starts development, FUCK ALL about "life starts at conception" you shiteating turdvomiting liar.

Re:Nope, it is from an opinion piece.

[Anonymous Coward]

No shit! I mean development doesn't mean something is alive. Stupid tards think something has to be alive to grow.

Re:Nope, it is from an opinion piece.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, aren't you two sensitive little turd-burglers!

Nuclear power or it's all bullshit

[blindseer]

If global warming from carbon emissions are bringing us all these terrible storms, with all the death and destruction they cause, then we should do everything in our power to reduce our CO2 footprint. As nuclear power is the one energy source we have today with the lowest CO2 output per energy produced then we should be building nuclear power plants as quickly as we can. Anyone standing in the way of nuclear power development is by inaction killing people and destroying property.

I'm sure someone will shout, "but nuclear power is not safe!!" Is it? Less safe than hurricanes? I call bullshit. Nuclear power is the safest energy source we have existing today, look it up. In fact here's a web page to get you started:
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...

If CO2 is the problem then we need to look at solutions with the lowest CO2 output. That means nuclear power. It also means more wind and hydro but not many people oppose those. If you oppose nuclear power based on the threat it poses to humanity then I must assume you are ignorant or believe global warming is no real threat.

I personally believe that global warming is no real threat but I advocate nuclear power for many reasons, one of them being to get the global warming alarmists to SHUT THE FUCK UP!! If global warming is a problem then it only remains a problem because we stopped building nuclear power plants in the USA.

Re:Nuclear power or it's all bullshit

[avandesande]

or we could just stop government subsidized insurance for low lying coastal regions

Re:Nuclear power or it's all bullshit

[religionofpeas]

If you oppose nuclear power based on the threat it poses to humanity then I must assume you are ignorant or believe global warming is no real threat.

Or you believe it's a threat, but you don't care. Or you think that renewables are better. Or you think that we'll end up burning all the easy carbon anyway, even if there's nuclear.

Re:Scientific Consensus?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shill group here, social-conservative morons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Remember, always resort to name calling to get your point across.

Re:First it was fast and violent storms, now it's.

[mixed_signal]

You sound very sure of yourself. One counter point: The dips in the jet stream that are called "the polar vortex" were predicted a few years before they started happening. Maybe you should read up on or or talk with people in the climate science field and see what they are really up to.

Re:Did you know

[Bodhammer]

You forgot that being gay was hereditary...

Yet another 'study'

[DigressivePoser]

Go back a couple of decades and you'll find studies that said climate change causes more hurricanes, climate change causes fewer hurricanes, climate change does affect the number of hurricanes, and now this one - fewer but stronger hurricanes. One of these studies will surely hit the nail on the head.

Oh and I love the use of the sentence in the summary "Hurricane Florence is moving relentlessly toward the Southeastern U.S.". You ought to be worried, it will continue to increase in intensity until it hits land as a category 9 storm. To hell with physics. This storm is gonna get you and get you real good.

Re:Yet another 'study'

[DigressivePoser]

Dammit. Edit 1st paragraph:

Go back a couple of decades and you'll find studies that said climate change causes more hurricanes, climate change causes fewer hurricanes, climate change does not affect the number of hurricanes

so homes are built as badly as 50 years ago?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or do you think that pert of that expense increase is to build to withstand storms like this, making the chance of destruction or damage much lower, meaning a lower cost per storm per household? Weird how those playing down the problems ALWAYS pick up a factor that does so but entirely ignore every single option for making the effect worse?

American storms are wet...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but German storms are Wetter.

Re: Weatherbug doesn't want to trigger rightwinger

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you're an expert at interpreting positions that you strongly oppose.

Re:Did you know

[Anonymous Coward]

So, raises, job hirings, and newly opening branches of an expanding business don't exist? Because that's what trickle down actually consists of, and is one of the tenants of capitalism.

Re:First it was fast and violent storms, now it's.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, those spaghetti models are all over the place, those scientist obviously cant even predict whether even a week in advance. Plus those models are based on Neural Networks which aint real science as they don't know exactly how they work.

NPR and another Study

[Virtucon]

Yeah, I'm sorry.

Stop subsidizing multi-million dollar properties being built in flood plains or areas subject to storm surge. You have no way to change the weather and its habits. You could begin mass sterilization of third world countries too if it makes you feel better.

Re:NPR and another Study

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Yeah, flood insurance was supposed to be temporary, to give people to move to a new home.

Re:NPR and another Study

[Anonymous Coward]

" You could begin mass sterilization of third world countries too if it makes you feel better."

Yes, it would make me feel better. I despise mud people. They dwell in stick and mud shacks on the left tail of the Bell Curve. Their highest ambition in life is to acquire some Nike sport shoes with the "swoosh" logo. That's the alpha and omega of it.

It's all about economics.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would read this and chill-out

A 2014 analysis by the financial advisory firm Lazard captures the economics holding back nuclear expansion. Lazard pegs the cost of building nuclear capacity in the United States at $5.4 million to $8.4 million per megawatt. Adding operating, maintenance, and fuel costs yields an average lifetime cost of $92 to $132 for every megawatt-hour generated. That is far above the unsubsidized costs of utility-scale solar power ($72 to $86 per megawatt-hour) and onshore wind ($37 to $81 per megawatt-hour).

[Nuclear] is a plausible scenario only if governments, reactor suppliers, and plant operators deliver on a long list of proposed policy changes and performance improvements.

In a nutshell, nuclear sucks compared to everything else.

Re:It's all about economics.

[blindseer]

In a nutshell, nuclear sucks compared to everything else.

If you actually read the Lazard report they make it very clear that it's dangerous to compare costs of reliable energy sources, like nuclear and natural gas, with unreliable energy, like from wind and sun. Storage and backup costs money, a cost not included in that report from Lazard. Costs that, again, Lazard warns should be included when making honest comparisons of energy sources. Nuclear "sucks" only if you are being dishonest and disingenuous.

Oh, and later Lazard reports point out that solar thermal and rooftop PV are exceedingly expensive. Utility scale solar might seem cheap at first but only if, again, not taking into account the need for storage and/or backup power.

Re:It's all about economics.

[Anonymous Coward]

Costs that, again, Lazard warns should be included when making honest comparisons of energy sources

And that is why nuclear sucks - with honest comparisons, it's too expensive.

And if nuclear was really that cost effective, utilities would be jumping on it. This "environmentalist hippies are stopping it" is total nonsense. They WISH they had that kind of power.

The fact is the nuclear requires huge capital outlays and the ROI just isn't there - it's usually negative and no business in their right mind is going to shell out billions to lose money. And going to the regulatory authorities and saying that we'll build a nuke but the utility rates will skyrocket never passes muster - because that's what always happens.

The French did it and it required massive government subsidies - and that will not happen in our political climate.

Face it, nuke is just too expensive and not cost effective compared to renewables.

And the only one being dishonest is you.

Re:It's all about economics.

[blindseer]

And if nuclear was really that cost effective, utilities would be jumping on it.

That was covered in that Lazard report. Natural gas is cheaper than everything. What happens when natural gas prices come back up? My guess is another boom in nuclear power, much like what was seen in the 1970s and 1980s.

What few people seem to realize is that even though new nuclear power construction effectively stopped 40 years ago the output we've seen from nuclear power kept increasing. Improved techniques raised the capacity factor from less than 50% in the 1970s to over 90% today. Upgrades and a better understanding on how the reactors worked allowed for increases in maximum power ratings. This brought down the costs.

Had we not stopped building nuclear power then we would not have seen the loss in experienced technicians and engineers. It's been long enough now that if these people are not retired (or senile, or dead) then they've found work elsewhere. Finding people to build nuclear power at the rate we did 40 years ago will be expensive. At least it will at first.

Nuclear power is expensive because we decided it was expensive. That's it. Once we decide it's not expensive then the price will come back down. It's that simple.

The French did it and it required massive government subsidies - and that will not happen in our political climate.

Haven't you heard? The climate is changing.

Only morons would make that claim.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, "moron deniers" makes FUCK ALL difference to my point and only morons would insist it does.
A moron who is also liable to LOVE trump's inane insulting of EVERYONE who dares not verbally or physically fellate him.
Moron deniers ARE an "alternative view", moron.

Mother Nature Gonna Mother Nature

[Anonymous Coward]

Film at 11...

Re:First it was fast and violent storms, now it's.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what theory is also based on correlations and fudged data? Gravity. They even claim that a pound of lead and a pound of feathers will fall at the same speed. Have they ever tried that? Of course not! I did, and let me tell you (a) they don't fall at the same speed, and (b) those feathers are a bitch to clean up afterwards. So this gravity theory is clearly just a scam, and certainly not repeatable or provable.

It's all fake

[PopeRatzo]

I saw that the failing New York Times, the failing Washington Post and the failing MSNBC are all reporting that a hurricane is heading toward the East Coast. So it must be fake news. Fellow Trump supporters, don't fall for it. Stay where you are, there's no hurricane coming. In fact, you might want to take that camping trip later this week.

Re:It's all fake

[RaygunsRock]

Nope, it's no good, you left out the word relentlessly Ratzo. MSNBC won't be calling you back, you weren't yelling enough. By the way, is it true you have received funding in the past from the big-cyclone industry?

Re:It's all fake

[PopeRatzo]

Nope, it's no good,

Hey, welcome to Slashdot! I see you just made your account today. Have you read our EZ-Guide to Posting On Slashdot? You can find it at the Customer Assistance Center by following the links or type "help" into the Slashdot Mobile App (available for Android and Blackberry OS). Also, be sure to check out the "So, You've Finally Decided To Make An Account" FAQ.

And remember, we want you to have a great experience here on Slashdot. We're committed to your satisfaction. If you have any problems and want to speak to a Customer Experience Concierge, call the 800 number at the bottom of the page or click "Online Chat". And thanks for joining Slashdot.

Re:It's all fake

[Mal-2]

1-800-382-5968.

(That's FUCK-YOU to those who didn't learn to text on telephone keypads.)

Re:It's all fake

[RaygunsRock]

Thanks Ratzo! I used to have a slashdot account way back in the old days.

Re:It's all fake

[PopeRatzo]

Thanks Ratzo! I used to have a slashdot account way back in the old days.

Yeah, that's what they all say. It generally means they either A) never had an account, or B) burned out their account so badly that all their posts started at -1, and now they want to farm mod points to down-vote the libs.

Which are you? If you had an account in the "old days", you could have recovered the password, you know.

Nukes are dangerously unreliable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whilst weather is well predicted for 5 days in advance, meaning there's plenty of time to work out when any site will "fail" to produce, whilst nukes not merely having 20% of the time out for "routine maintenance" not counted in your availability figures, also goes out 20% of the time for unplanned stoppages. Ask France.
Not forgetting that ONE failure mode is BOOM.
Solar/PV much lower on the BOOM scale.

Re:Nukes are dangerously unreliable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whilst weather is well predicted for 5 days in advance, meaning there's plenty of time to work out when any site will "fail" to produce, whilst nukes not merely having 20% of the time out for "routine maintenance" not counted in your availability figures, also goes out 20% of the time for unplanned stoppages. Ask France.
Not forgetting that ONE failure mode is BOOM.
Solar/PV much lower on the BOOM scale.

With nuclear power the outages, planned or not, are not correlated with each other. With solar when the sun goes down all the PV produces nothing.
When the sun goes down how much does that solar power cost? I'm guessing France knows that as well.

You say that solar power just uses storage to go through the night? Well, then we can use storage to manage the nuclear power outages as well. You think the batteries care if they are charged with solar or nuclear power?

Solar/PV is higher on the death count. All those nuclear power plants going "BOOM" included.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/01/25/natural-gas-and-the-new-deathprint-for-energy/#416b70e85e19

Why should we bother with solar power when nuclear power is so much better?

Re:Nukes are dangerously unreliable.

[RaygunsRock]

If safety is your thing, then you should be for Nuclear. Nuclear power is far safer than photovoltaic solar. You are way more likely to die due to photovoltaic power than nuclear power. Residential solar is crazy dangerous. Having people climbing around on your roof is dangerous. So while things like Fukushima may get the headlines, the actual number of deaths and serious injuries is far far lower than the number of deaths and serious injuries in the same year from people falling off the roof while installing solar.

Define terms

[sjbe]

One thing is for sure is you're never going to get idiots stop confusing weather with climate.

True but here's the thing. If you string enough weather events together it becomes climate. If the weather tomorrow is 70F and sunny, that is weather. If the weather for most of the next 500 days is 70F and sunny, that's climate. (also that's San Diego) If the accumulated weather events change enough to be statistically different than previous patterns then that is climate change. The only question is what number of accumulated weather events does it take to make a climate and what magnitude over what time period constitutes climate change? The problem is that there is no simple sound bite answers to those questions so idiots keep arguing about it because there is no standard definition in play.

Re:Define terms

[Anonymous Coward]

The only question is what number of accumulated weather events does it take to make a climate and what magnitude over what time period constitutes climate change?

At least one solar cycle or ElNino cycle whichever is bigger. That would mean solar cycle at around 12 years. Speculating about climate below 12 year average is moot.

Free energy

[Anonymous Coward]

Storms are just free energy in the form of wind n such.

Harness it, baby.

Two Decades of Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

The Alarmists have been predicting a Hurricane Season like this one apparels to be shaping up as for two decades and failed every fucking year.

There will be no end of the, "See! I told you so!" and celebrating their record of 1 and 20...IF that train of storms in the Atlantic all develop into hurricanes and make landfall.

Re:Two Decades of Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

"apparels to be shaping up"? At least use something resembling English when trolling

Climate "Change" is real...

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that "change" is the only constant in our universe, OF COURSE IT IS.

What alarmists are describing is a "climate bubble" or some such, which has not come to pass. Some even go one further and arrogantly try to blame ourselves for it. A long view of history shows conclusively what the alarmists and profiteers completely miss, or wish to hide:

In geologic timescales, we're in a relatively cool and very dry period, by comparison a veritable DESERT from what Earth's historical "norm" would be.
Humans could not have survived the conditions present during MOST of Earth's history...we're here for a short-lived set of favorable conditions, and when Earth changes out from under us, she does. She's done it countless times to countless other species...and she will again.

She owes you nothing, and neither does society.

Re:Climate "Change" is real...

[Anonymous Coward]

Denying ^THIS is the true "Denial".

Settled?

[Jerry]

If it's "settled" it is not science, if it is science it is not settled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Settled?

[NikeHerc]

If it's "settled" it is not science, if it is science it is not settled.

If that's original, I salute your originality, sir!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I'd never heard of Tony Heller. Thanks for the link. He is one more data point on how biased and untruthful the NYTimes is these days.

Running with Linux daily since September, 1996.

Climate Change Makes Florence Wet.

[Anonymous Coward]

Makes a lot of climate scientists bigger and wetter too, for their respective bio-genders.

Re:First it was fast and violent storms, now it's.

[RaygunsRock]

That's a terrible analogy. Gravity is easily detectable by even a toddler. If the toddler releases grip on a toy, the toy falls. If the toddler loses balance, the toddler falls. Proving a hurricane has behaved differently due to global warming is far more difficult. If it was as easy to detect as gravity, nobody would dispute it.

Re:First it was fast and violent storms, now it's.

[riverat1]

C'mon climate "science" purveyors, get your shit straight and stop attributing EVERY weather event to 'climate change.'

You're just paying attention to the wrong people. If you listened to actual climate scientists about the subject they don't attribute every weather event to climate change. They just say that when a weather event is embedded in a changing climate that is going to affect them.

regardless, humans are to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

and not engaging in the seven deadly sins, or breaking any of the ten commandments, and following the golden rule, and and and....

Every hurricane is now due to climate change!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is like ancient religion where every plague and famine was the result of sinners pissing off God.

Re:Scientific Consensus?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Yeah, that's exactly the case of humans again trying to draw neat lines where there aren't any. Life doesn't "begin", it simply continues in a very fuzzy way that confuses a lot of people.

Re:First it was fast and violent storms, now it's.

[Anonymous Coward]

The polar vortex abnormalities have very likely been "happening" for a long, long time. They'd finally figured out the mechanics of the pattern that was causing abnormally cold winters in various places in the north every several years. They didn't "predict it before it started happening". Now that they know what to look for and have the proper instrumentation in place they can watch it happen, however they cannot go back in the past and definitively tell that expressly that was happening in any particular winter, but they fully believe that it was happening in the past and was responsible for several extremely cold winters in the past several decades.

Climate Change is real!

[Anonymous Coward]

When all the indigenous Americans who used to do large scale burning to hunt and clear land died during colonization of the New World it caused the "little ice age" in Europe were temperatures fell. Of course "noble savages" causing global warming doesn't fit the current narrative.

Re:Scientific Consensus?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

"Princeton Pro-Life is a student-run organization"

That should be enough of a warning to everyone.

"...the thousands pre-born people aborted every day, some of whom would have been here at Princeton with us now, had they been allowed to live."

Oh, fuck off. Without abortions, their numbers would be almost exactly the same. And "pre-born"? I guess those students must be pre-smart! :-p

It is known

[duke_cheetah2003]

We know this already. Is this the new Slashdot? Rehashing the same worn out tales?

Re:It is known

[iggymanz]

No it is not known, assertions about storm size and climate warming are made without proof. Attributing every major storm's strength to climate change is junk science.

Re:Scientific Consensus?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to go ahead and tell you the truth. This particular question has been so overwhelmed with politics that there's no point asking it anymore. More people are willing to say what sounds good than walk through the actual steps to reason it out. I can say this about both sides so boo.

Re:First it was fast and violent storms, now it's.

[RaygunsRock]

The problem is that the crazies are the ones who yell the loudest, and the media in the constant rush for ratings has fueled the fire. Having a scientist say something like "Measuring the climate of the earth is incredibly difficult" doesn't get ratings. Finding a scientist who will shout "WE ARE ALL SCREWED UNLESS WE DO X RIGHT NOW!" gets ratings. Westerners often don't think about things long-term. They are focussed on the present, the now. Look at energy policy. It's a shambles. Regardless of political views, it's sane and rational to study the climate. It's sane and rational to try and understand how we affect the environment. It's also sane and rational to improve efficiency and reduce waste. None of those things is a bad thing to do. You can argue for them on both conservative and liberal principles.

Re: Scientific Consensus?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing like a slashdot related weather article to remind me how stupid people are and how fucked the human race is.

Telling a Lie enough times does not the Truth make

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you want to believe the Global Warming dogma, doesn't make it the truth. There us little to no proof storms are bigger or wetter because of man. The hubris.

Re:First it was fast and violent storms, now it's.

[Anonymous Coward]

*looks at post*
*looks at headline*
*looks at summary*
*looks at other posters*

Please provide a source by which some "actual climate scientist" condemns the misapplication of their reports. If the overwhelming flood of information states one thing, and you insist that that flood of information is not "real", provide support for your claim.

The only actual climate scientist arguing for a tempered approach to the subject was tha long-form letter from one of those who made the original hockeystick mistake decades ago and has come to regret his initial panic (which I should've saved, or at least kept a link to it).

How we know Climate Change is BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time there's a storm on the way, Climate Change is to blame.

Re:First it was fast and violent storms, now it's.

[Mal-2]

Yeah. Because you should always run a control on a second planet, or it's not science!

Yep, and pay no attention to the mountains...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mountains of evidence that says Climate Change is BS made up to effect political change.

Nuh-UH!

[Anonymous Coward]

No it doesnt... my imaginary friend said he will save us all and his magic-daddy will end the world soon using his magical god powers, he will whisk all the believers to magic fairy goodness land where we will all live and laugh and love perfectly forever while all you disgusting sodomites and Prius drivers and other gay tree-hugging hippies will stay here or be sucked down into magic evil goblin bad-land with fiery lakes and torture and burning because of the global warming lies you believed.

- Everyone who thinks Anyhropogenic Global Climate Change is an anti-freedom, anti-gun, pro-abortion, anti-prayer, pro-Gay-Agenda, UN Hobbit Hole Home conspiracy. (Or put more simply, gullible morons.)

Go ahead and mod me down, Darth. I will become more powerful than... etc., you know the rest of it.

F word you

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly

Climate Change

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there anything it canâ(TM)t do?

And what did you ACTUALLY say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck all. The change in climate at the poles will cause a greater drift of jet stream, causing more static weather. That's climate change, idiot.

And that change in climate will affect EVERY storm.

Idiot.

HAARP

[Anonymous Coward]

Noticed noone is brave enough to name the system which is modifying the weather and bring woe onto America in a predictable manner for the last 10+ years - HAARP with fixed stations located in Alaska, Antarctica as well as Australia with many mobile stations all about.

We've known about weather modification since the 60's and it even featured as a plot for a James Bond film. It is also a power card in the iLLUMINATI card game.

Knowing this one can predict that next year we'll see the same or greater number of hurricanes. Americans are held hostage for European Bankers. What a wonderful world we live in.

Look it up and stop blaming plant fertilizer.

it must be climate change

[Anonymous Coward]

we never had a hurricane before Donald trump ruined the climate with his bad tan and hate for iillegal immigrants

Re:it must be climate change

[ole_timer]

+1

Fake News, folks.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's fake news, folks. There's no collusion between the weather and the climate, despite that magnificent electoral victory that everyone said was impossible. We have the best people and the best words and the best tax breaks which will boost the economy irregardless of the rain.

These storms are all the fault of the failing New York Times and crooked Hillary. If we could find her emails, they would prove it. As long as there's no more talk of impeachment, we're good for this term and the next.

Trump 2020, Don Jr 2024, Eric 2040

You don't know

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not what that phrase means. The person exclaiming God Dammit is asking God to damn whatever piece of shit they're cussing at to a horrible life of torture in Hell. They are NOT cursing God. That is a cardinal sin.

CLIMATE CHANGE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hurricanes of this magnitude and frequency have never occurred in recorded or pre-recorded, or geological history. Gotta be climate change because climate never changes.

Re:CLIMATE CHANGE!

[Uberbah]

Boilderplate denialist dumbfuckery. The point isn't that powerful storms haven't occurred in the past. The point is that warmer weather makes for more frequent and/or more powerful storms.

Re:First it was fast and violent storms, now it's.

[riverat1]

They didn't say that Hurricane Florence was caused by climate change, just that it may be wetter and moving more slowly because of the effects of climate change.

As my last sentence implies every weather event is affected by climate change, not caused by it.

Re: Scientific Consensus?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pre-tarded.

STRAW MAN

[Anonymous Coward]

No clue how you could get moded insightful for that.

You transferred argument from "Is evidence for AGW strong enough to consider people denying it foolish" to "Is evidence for round earth (moon landing, evolution) strong enough to consider people denying it foolish".

It is not the same deal. It is a textbook example of straw man.

Re:STRAW MAN

[CohibaVancouver]

It is not the same deal. It is a textbook example of straw man.

It is exactly the same deal, Anonymous Coward.

While morons may disagree, the fact remains that all are proven science.

Beacuse it's either Russia or climate change

[fygment]

If the storms were drier and more focused ... that's because "climate change".
If the storms were fewer and weaker ... that's because "climate change".
If the storms disappeared ... that's because "climate change".
If the storms were pink with balloons ... that's because "climate change".
Temperatures up or down or sideways ... that's because "climate change".
Everything is ... that's because "climate change".
Everything else ... that's because "Russia".
"Russia" and "climate change" the two most effective, fear-inspiring scapegoats for just about anything.

Re: Scientific Consensus?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really the Vulcans had it figured out ages ago. A nice dusty surface and two giant poles arms. Bam, resolution on most issues can be solved with a quick trip to the âoediscourse pit.â

Re: Weatherbug doesn't want to trigger rightwinger

[Anonymous Coward]

Source? Hurricanes in the atlantic form quite a ways away from these localized warm spots. A recent article attributes saharan sand for suppressing or enabling hurricane formation, which was apparently a new addition to formation theory. That being said, I think you are jumping to conclusions that arent hard science.

Here is that source

https://earthdata.nasa.gov/user-resources/sensing-our-planet/saharan-dust-versus-atlantic-hurricanes

Re:First it was fast and violent storms, now it's.

[Anonymous Coward]

Still waiting for any source on an "actual climate scientist" commenting about how the panic is misleading the public and/or that people should be more reserved with their stories.

Re: Weatherbug doesn't want to trigger rightwinger

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean i would have to say it is easily because of improved monitoring and response compared to a century ago, along with higher populations, increased tax revenue going to prevention and response, etc.

Thats a terrible argument you had there.

Lying again, huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, the USA had zero landfall hurricanes of Cat 4 or 5. But it had several killer storms that were hurricanes, several that never fell on land and LOADS not in the USA. There IS a world other than the fucking USA, moron.

It isn't essentially zero.

[Anonymous Coward]

If it were, there would be no snow. idiot.

Re:First it was fast and violent storms, now it's.

[RaygunsRock]

You might hear more comments if their funding wasn't tied up in a game of political football.

Re: Weatherbug doesn't want to trigger rightwinger

[nasch]

I didn't know that - interesting, thanks!

Definitions and standards

[sjbe]

At least one solar cycle or ElNino cycle whichever is bigger.

That's a completely arbitrary time scale based on nothing in particular which sort of illustrates my point. Climate scientists have been worrying about consensus when they should be worrying about definitions and standards. You don't convince people over the long run with opinions, particularly people who are disinclined to believe you.

Speculating about climate below 12 year average is moot.

There are plenty of examples of climates (particularly micro-climates) changing fairly dramatically in less than 12 years. Usually this is due to some external event. Asteroid, volcanism, etc but there are occasional exceptions to that too. While as a general proposition you are correct that we're typically talking about time scales of decades to centuries or longer, that's not universally true which is what causes the problem I'm talking about. People don't understand the difference between climate and weather and there is no bright line convention for when accumulated weather events equals a climate so it's difficult to even have a coherent conversation on the topic.