No, I've read them and understand them thoroughly. Can you make the same claim? I'm guessing not, otherwise you'd not have posted that as they raise substantive points not addressed, that is, ignored, by the AGW crowd.
I keep a collection of links and questions on this matter and have for years, which I can prove using archive.org.
Can you prove you've read them? Or even looked at them? Or are you criticizing a body of work you haven't examined, that is, you don't know what it is but know it's wrong. That's the logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance and renders your statement not true.
As for "plagerized" - when somebody posts some text and a link, that isn't "plagerized". Plagerized means it's uncredited.
I don't think I'm really going to have a substantive discussion with somebody that doesn't even understand the words they use but you're free to prove me wrong.
That's a bit disingenuous. Mesopotamia sits between two rivers, an it rains twice a year, spring and fall, the rest of the year, da nada for rain, so they built irrigation channels from the rivers.
It was hot then, really hot, hotter than the worse case way past the end of the horribly flawed hockey stick graph and the amount of water now required to irrigate was so much mineral salt deposits and erosion wrecked the area. Before it got really really hot it wasn't as much of a problem.
"deniers" is a piece of rhetoric ("informal logic") used to associate the nazi holocaust with a scientifc school of thought you don't agree with. It is in appropriate. However, calling the AGW crowd "alarmists" is appropriate for two reasons:
1) the large number of gw predictions that turned out to be false. 2) their own admission: ""James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace." (emph mine - rjs) http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite
If you think the opposing camp simply denies all the wonderful facts you think you have, you're wrong, there are other theories, but without the commercial impetus of a carbon market, they get zero traction, even though they explain whats happening more accurately. You didn't know this, which led you to the fallacy the argument from ignorance therefore your statement is not true.
If you want to know how this would possibly happen, see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmUzwRCyTSo (Century of the Self, Adam Curtis, 4 hrs. Curtis explores how Freud's theories when used by powerful people subvert democracy and convince the masses of absolutely anything)
Protip: criticize something after you've read it, not before. I really don't care how much you think you hate asparagus.
Please. I went to one of two universities in the world that has a math faculty; I was a math student.
If you go there today and wander the halls of the stats department... you know that thing that profs do where they post obscure funny things on their doors? 2 of the 5 profs there had IPCC math which they shredded with annotations like "you can't do this!" and "impossible!", to make their joke. It's that bad.
These guys suck at match, they suck as biology, they suck at astrophysics. If they were any damn good at any real sceince they'd do that instead of having to make up an area of study and pretend to give it legicimacy by taking on "science" to the word; so far Climate Science looks an awful lot like Creation Science. Ignore or block (actively!) any opposing views, and never change your conclusion because of your faith in it's correctness. Hint: putting "Democratic" in the name of your country doesn't make you a democracy either (yes I'm looking at you North Korea and Congo).
If you swallow this agw shit, you haven't read enough. Keep trying.
Katrina was so bad because it had a high velocity. That's what's written anyway. Sandy wasn't especially fast and you can't compare the damage of the two.
Development implies cutting down trees. The impact of this on, well, everything is unimaginable. Given the IPCC isn't even aware trees eat Co2 do really wonder why there's skeptics?
"8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise" http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
"Skepticism where people can't be bothered to look up basic facts is "good"? Somebody gravely mischaracterizing the position of the scientific community is "part of the process"?"
That's what you're saying, I'm not. Strawman argument.
Any theory that doesn't explain physical events isn't a theory worth keeping.
NASA/NOAA had to point out the IPCC model is horribly flawed as it doesn't take into account the fact that plants eat CO2. You'd sorta think guys that had built their career on CO2 would know what it does in nature, but apparently not.
That's not true at all. Look at the historical graphs around glaciation events, it rises very suddenly then. These are in turn linked to magnetic pole reversal, that is CO2 follows these, and does not cause them.
And then lingered over Ontario for a week. This is considered "unusual". If it happened today we'd blame it on global warming. Hell, any time there's any sort of freak weather it's blamed on global warming, whether it's true or not.
A little less religion and a little more science would nice.
I really can't see what difference it makes if a hurricane gets to Toronto via sea or land. Is that few hundred miles really important. And despite the claims that this is unprecedented, it's relaly not.
New England Hurricanes
Posted on November 1, 2012 Aug. 25,1635: The Great Colonial Hurricane was the first historical record of an intense hurricane in the region. Some refer to it as America’s first recorded natural disaster. The storm’s eye is believed to have passed between Boston and Plymouth causing at least 46 casualties.
Sept. 23, 1815: The Great September Gale was the first major hurricane to impact New England in 180 years. After crossing Long Island, N.Y., the storm came ashore at Saybrook, Conn., funneling an 11-foot storm surge up Narragansett Bay. There, it destroyed 500 houses, 35 ships and flooded Providence, R.I.
Sept. 21, 1938: The Great Hurricane. This Category 5 was the first major hurricane to strike New England since 1869. The Blue Hill Observatory, outside of Boston, measured sustained winds of 121 mph, with gusts of 183 mph. Providence, R.I., reported sustained winds of 100 mph, gusting to 125 mph. Rainfall of 10 to 17 inches caused severe flooding in Western Massachusetts. In all, 600 deaths were attributed to the storm.
Sept. 14-15, 1944: The Great Atlantic Hurricane produced 140-mph winds and caused over $100 million in damage, as well as 390 deaths, mostly at sea.
Aug. 21, 1954: Hurricane Carol, a compact, but powerful, borderline Category 3 battered New England, killing 68. With 100 mph winds, gusting up to 135 mph, Carol caused over $460 million in damage, destroying 4,000 homes, 3,500 cars, and over 3,000 boats. This was arguably the most destructive storm to hit Southern New England since 1938.
Aug. 17-19, 1955: Hurricane Diane dropped up to 20 inches of rain, setting flood records throughout the region. Diane was recognized as the wettest tropical cyclone to impact New England and was blamed for nearly 200 deaths.
Sept. 12, 1960: Hurricane Donna recorded 160 mph winds with gusts up to 200 mph. Donna hit New England in Southeast Connecticut with sustained winds of 100 mph, gusting to 125-130 mph, cutting diagonally through the region to Maine. The storm killed 364, and caused more than $500 million in damage.
Sept. 27, 1985: Hurricane Gloria hugged the coastline; as it made its way north, Gloria crossed Long Island, making landfall at Milford, Conn. The storm left more than 2 million people without power.
Aug. 19, 1991: Hurricane Bob made landfall in New England near New Bedford with 115 mph winds. The damage total for Southern New England was set at $1 billion, with $2.5 billion overall damage.
Sept. 16-17, 1999: Hurricane Floyd’s worst impact was flooding, with mudslides in the Berkshires and road closures.
Aug. 28, 2011: Tropical Storm Irene slammed into the Northeast leaving badly damaged homes and roads in its wake. Federal aid in Berkshire County topped $30 million.
What case? My friend arrived by boat into Montreal the day Hazel hit. She was going to Toronto. I explained this already. How many times do you need me to apologize for the error?
The points stands, these sort of things are anything but unprecedented.
New England Hurricanes
Aug. 25,1635: The Great Colonial Hurricane was the first historical record of an intense hurricane in the region. Some refer to it as America’s first recorded natural disaster. The storm’s eye is believed to have passed between Boston and Plymouth causing at least 46 casualties.
Sept. 23, 1815: The Great September Gale was the first major hurricane to impact New England in 180 years. After crossing Long Island, N.Y., the storm came ashore at Saybrook, Conn., funneling an 11-foot storm surge up Narragansett Bay. There, it destroyed 500 houses, 35 ships and flooded Providence, R.I.
Sept. 21, 1938: The Great Hurricane. This Category 5 was the first major hurricane to strike New England since 1869. The Blue Hill Observatory, outside of Boston, measured sustained winds of 121 mph, with gusts of 183 mph. Providence, R.I., reported sustained winds of 100 mph, gusting to 125 mph. Rainfall of 10 to 17 inches caused severe flooding in Western Massachusetts. In all, 600 deaths were attributed to the storm.
Sept. 14-15, 1944: The Great Atlantic Hurricane produced 140-mph winds and caused over $100 million in damage, as well as 390 deaths, mostly at sea.
Aug. 21, 1954: Hurricane Carol, a compact, but powerful, borderline Category 3 battered New England, killing 68. With 100 mph winds, gusting up to 135 mph, Carol caused over $460 million in damage, destroying 4,000 homes, 3,500 cars, and over 3,000 boats. This was arguably the most destructive storm to hit Southern New England since 1938.
Aug. 17-19, 1955: Hurricane Diane dropped up to 20 inches of rain, setting flood records throughout the region. Diane was recognized as the wettest tropical cyclone to impact New England and was blamed for nearly 200 deaths.
Sept. 12, 1960: Hurricane Donna recorded 160 mph winds with gusts up to 200 mph. Donna hit New England in Southeast Connecticut with sustained winds of 100 mph, gusting to 125-130 mph, cutting diagonally through the region to Maine. The storm killed 364, and caused more than $500 million in damage.
Sept. 27, 1985: Hurricane Gloria hugged the coastline; as it made its way north, Gloria crossed Long Island, making landfall at Milford, Conn. The storm left more than 2 million people without power.
Aug. 19, 1991: Hurricane Bob made landfall in New England near New Bedford with 115 mph winds. The damage total for Southern New England was set at $1 billion, with $2.5 billion overall damage.
Sept. 16-17, 1999: Hurricane Floyd’s worst impact was flooding, with mudslides in the Berkshires and road closures.
Aug. 28, 2011: Tropical Storm Irene slammed into the Northeast leaving badly damaged homes and roads in its wake. Federal aid in Berkshire County topped $30 million.
When a hypothesis is promoted by who believes it instead of obvious succint facts, you know it's in trouble.
We didn't need the UN to endorse F=mA or E=MC**2.
The fact there are gaping holes a mile wide in the CO2 hypothesis of impending doom from the likes of NASA and CERN should raise a few red flags, but hey, enjoy your religion while it lasts.
Also: "Hazel had traveled 1,100 km (680 mi) over land, but while approaching Canada, it had merged with an existing powerful cold front. The storm stalled over the Greater Toronto Area, and although it was now extratropical, it remained as powerful as a category 1 hurricane. To help with the cleanup, 800 members of the military were summoned, and a Hurricane Relief Fund was established that distributed $5.1 million (2009: $41.7 million) in aid." (ibid)
It's the same pattern as Sandy exactly, yet we were told this behaviour was a freak one time atypical occurrence. Dollars to donuts it's happened more than twice in the last four billion years, too.
Also, the claim that Sandy meeting the Western trough was unprecedented and unpredictable seems odd in light of Hazels behaviour: "Hazel had traveled 1,100 km (680 mi) over land, but while approaching Canada, it had merged with an existing powerful cold front. The storm stalled over the Greater Toronto Area, and although it was now extratropical, it remained as powerful as a category 1 hurricane. To help with the cleanup, 800 members of the military were summoned, and a Hurricane Relief Fund was established that distributed $5.1 million (2009: $41.7 million) in aid." (Wiki)
We're told it's because of the melting Greenland ice pack that caused a "block" in the Atlantic.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data"
If it happens every 150 years it's not really unprecedented is it? Keep in mind that ice grew in there in the cooling period following the 1940s.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I've read them and understand them thoroughly. Can you make the same claim? I'm guessing not, otherwise you'd not have posted that as they raise substantive points not addressed, that is, ignored, by the AGW crowd.
I keep a collection of links and questions on this matter and have for years, which I can prove using archive.org.
Can you prove you've read them? Or even looked at them? Or are you criticizing a body of work you haven't examined, that is, you don't know what it is but know it's wrong. That's the logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance and renders your statement not true.
As for "plagerized" - when somebody posts some text and a link, that isn't "plagerized". Plagerized means it's uncredited.
I don't think I'm really going to have a substantive discussion with somebody that doesn't even understand the words they use but you're free to prove me wrong.
That's a bit disingenuous. Mesopotamia sits between two rivers, an it rains twice a year, spring and fall, the rest of the year, da nada for rain, so they built irrigation channels from the rivers.
It was hot then, really hot, hotter than the worse case way past the end of the horribly flawed hockey stick graph and the amount of water now required to irrigate was so much mineral salt deposits and erosion wrecked the area. Before it got really really hot it wasn't as much of a problem.
"deniers" is a piece of rhetoric ("informal logic") used to associate the nazi holocaust with a scientifc school of thought you don't agree with. It is in appropriate. However, calling the AGW crowd "alarmists" is appropriate for two reasons:
1) the large number of gw predictions that turned out to be false.
2) their own admission: ""James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace." (emph mine - rjs)
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite
If you think the opposing camp simply denies all the wonderful facts you think you have, you're wrong, there are other theories, but without the commercial impetus of a carbon market, they get zero traction, even though they explain whats happening more accurately. You didn't know this, which led you to the fallacy the argument from ignorance therefore your statement is not true.
If you want to know how this would possibly happen, see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmUzwRCyTSo (Century of the Self, Adam Curtis, 4 hrs. Curtis explores how Freud's theories when used by powerful people subvert democracy and convince the masses of absolutely anything)
Protip: criticize something after you've read it, not before. I really don't care how much you think you hate asparagus.
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite
"FWIW, I don't find either to be an acceptable candidate, so I'm going to vote for someone else. I'll agree that it hardly matters who, "
Men say that. Women don't Bring on the coathangers and transvaginal probes.
It matters very much and they are world apart. If you had daughters you'd get this.
You think Godwin invented that? Cool, there's two things you don't know. See how easily you can have commercial opinions replace facts?
(he didn't, I did. look it up)
Please. I went to one of two universities in the world that has a math faculty; I was a math student.
If you go there today and wander the halls of the stats department... you know that thing that profs do where they post obscure funny things on their doors? 2 of the 5 profs there had IPCC math which they shredded with annotations like "you can't do this!" and "impossible!", to make their joke. It's that bad.
These guys suck at match, they suck as biology, they suck at astrophysics. If they were any damn good at any real sceince they'd do that instead of having to make up an area of study and pretend to give it legicimacy by taking on "science" to the word; so far Climate Science looks an awful lot like Creation Science. Ignore or block (actively!) any opposing views, and never change your conclusion because of your faith in it's correctness. Hint: putting "Democratic" in the name of your country doesn't make you a democracy either (yes I'm looking at you North Korea and Congo).
If you swallow this agw shit, you haven't read enough. Keep trying.
Katrina was so bad because it had a high velocity. That's what's written anyway. Sandy wasn't especially fast and you can't compare the damage of the two.
Development implies cutting down trees. The impact of this on, well, everything is unimaginable. Given the IPCC isn't even aware trees eat Co2 do really wonder why there's skeptics?
"8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
"Forests play a larger role in Earth's climate system than previously suspected for both the risks from deforestation and the potential gains from regrowth, a benchmark study released Thursday has shown."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j2BAdNIG5Q2FJlEdac1l-KXiTSCA?docId=CNG.dfe97e07f144a2d29eb615412e0c12be.a81
Good god - trees eat Co2. Why this isn't what we previously suspected at all!
Ie, the missed their grade 6 science class.
It is happening, it isn't man made. This has not been proven. Stop pretending it has been.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/ff_apocalypsenot/all
"Skepticism where people can't be bothered to look up basic facts is "good"? Somebody gravely mischaracterizing the position of the scientific community is "part of the process"?"
That's what you're saying, I'm not. Strawman argument.
Any theory that doesn't explain physical events isn't a theory worth keeping.
When NASA/NOAA is skeptical of the IPCC model and calls them out on it, I do that that seriously.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
NASA/NOAA had to point out the IPCC model is horribly flawed as it doesn't take into account the fact that plants eat CO2. You'd sorta think guys that had built their career on CO2 would know what it does in nature, but apparently not.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
Also, the world is cooling, not warming per this recent paper: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589.html
Either that or you're panicking. Again.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/ff_apocalypsenot/all
Didn't watch it. No response. This happens every time.
"Show me your evidence!"
"Ok, look at this."
"No way! I know what's happening, I'm not gonna read your crap".
That's not science, that's religion.
Watch this: http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/poles/ it tempers things a bit.
That's not true at all. Look at the historical graphs around glaciation events, it rises very suddenly then. These are in turn linked to magnetic pole reversal, that is CO2 follows these, and does not cause them.
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/poles/
And then lingered over Ontario for a week. This is considered "unusual". If it happened today we'd blame it on global warming. Hell, any time there's any sort of freak weather it's blamed on global warming, whether it's true or not.
A little less religion and a little more science would nice.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/ff_apocalypsenot/all
I really can't see what difference it makes if a hurricane gets to Toronto via sea or land. Is that few hundred miles really important. And despite the claims that this is unprecedented, it's relaly not.
New England Hurricanes
Posted on November 1, 2012
Aug. 25,1635: The Great Colonial Hurricane was the first historical record of an intense hurricane in the region. Some refer to it as America’s first recorded natural disaster. The storm’s eye is believed to have passed between Boston and Plymouth causing at least 46 casualties.
Sept. 23, 1815: The Great September Gale was the first major hurricane to impact New England in 180 years. After crossing Long Island, N.Y., the storm came ashore at Saybrook, Conn., funneling an 11-foot storm surge up Narragansett Bay. There, it destroyed 500 houses, 35 ships and flooded Providence, R.I.
Sept. 21, 1938: The Great Hurricane. This Category 5 was the first major hurricane to strike New England since 1869. The Blue Hill Observatory, outside of Boston, measured sustained winds of 121 mph, with gusts of 183 mph. Providence, R.I., reported sustained winds of 100 mph, gusting to 125 mph. Rainfall of 10 to 17 inches caused severe flooding in Western Massachusetts. In all, 600 deaths were attributed to the storm.
Sept. 14-15, 1944: The Great Atlantic Hurricane produced 140-mph winds and caused over $100 million in damage, as well as 390 deaths, mostly at sea.
Aug. 21, 1954: Hurricane Carol, a compact, but powerful, borderline Category 3 battered New England, killing 68. With 100 mph winds, gusting up to 135 mph, Carol caused over $460 million in damage, destroying 4,000 homes, 3,500 cars, and over 3,000 boats. This was arguably the most destructive storm to hit Southern New England since 1938.
Aug. 17-19, 1955: Hurricane Diane dropped up to 20 inches of rain, setting flood records throughout the region. Diane was recognized as the wettest tropical cyclone to impact New England and was blamed for nearly 200 deaths.
Sept. 12, 1960: Hurricane Donna recorded 160 mph winds with gusts up to 200 mph. Donna hit New England in Southeast Connecticut with sustained winds of 100 mph, gusting to 125-130 mph, cutting diagonally through the region to Maine. The storm killed 364, and caused more than $500 million in damage.
Sept. 27, 1985: Hurricane Gloria hugged the coastline; as it made its way north, Gloria crossed Long Island, making landfall at Milford, Conn. The storm left more than 2 million people without power.
Aug. 19, 1991: Hurricane Bob made landfall in New England near New Bedford with 115 mph winds. The damage total for Southern New England was set at $1 billion, with $2.5 billion overall damage.
Sept. 16-17, 1999: Hurricane Floyd’s worst impact was flooding, with mudslides in the Berkshires and road closures.
Aug. 28, 2011: Tropical Storm Irene slammed into the Northeast leaving badly damaged homes and roads in its wake. Federal aid in Berkshire County topped $30 million.
What case? My friend arrived by boat into Montreal the day Hazel hit. She was going to Toronto. I explained this already. How many times do you need me to apologize for the error?
The points stands, these sort of things are anything but unprecedented.
New England Hurricanes
Aug. 25,1635: The Great Colonial Hurricane was the first historical record of an intense hurricane in the region. Some refer to it as America’s first recorded natural disaster. The storm’s eye is believed to have passed between Boston and Plymouth causing at least 46 casualties.
Sept. 23, 1815: The Great September Gale was the first major hurricane to impact New England in 180 years. After crossing Long Island, N.Y., the storm came ashore at Saybrook, Conn., funneling an 11-foot storm surge up Narragansett Bay. There, it destroyed 500 houses, 35 ships and flooded Providence, R.I.
Sept. 21, 1938: The Great Hurricane. This Category 5 was the first major hurricane to strike New England since 1869. The Blue Hill Observatory, outside of Boston, measured sustained winds of 121 mph, with gusts of 183 mph. Providence, R.I., reported sustained winds of 100 mph, gusting to 125 mph. Rainfall of 10 to 17 inches caused severe flooding in Western Massachusetts. In all, 600 deaths were attributed to the storm.
Sept. 14-15, 1944: The Great Atlantic Hurricane produced 140-mph winds and caused over $100 million in damage, as well as 390 deaths, mostly at sea.
Aug. 21, 1954: Hurricane Carol, a compact, but powerful, borderline Category 3 battered New England, killing 68. With 100 mph winds, gusting up to 135 mph, Carol caused over $460 million in damage, destroying 4,000 homes, 3,500 cars, and over 3,000 boats. This was arguably the most destructive storm to hit Southern New England since 1938.
Aug. 17-19, 1955: Hurricane Diane dropped up to 20 inches of rain, setting flood records throughout the region. Diane was recognized as the wettest tropical cyclone to impact New England and was blamed for nearly 200 deaths.
Sept. 12, 1960: Hurricane Donna recorded 160 mph winds with gusts up to 200 mph. Donna hit New England in Southeast Connecticut with sustained winds of 100 mph, gusting to 125-130 mph, cutting diagonally through the region to Maine. The storm killed 364, and caused more than $500 million in damage.
Sept. 27, 1985: Hurricane Gloria hugged the coastline; as it made its way north, Gloria crossed Long Island, making landfall at Milford, Conn. The storm left more than 2 million people without power.
Aug. 19, 1991: Hurricane Bob made landfall in New England near New Bedford with 115 mph winds. The damage total for Southern New England was set at $1 billion, with $2.5 billion overall damage.
Sept. 16-17, 1999: Hurricane Floyd’s worst impact was flooding, with mudslides in the Berkshires and road closures.
Aug. 28, 2011: Tropical Storm Irene slammed into the Northeast leaving badly damaged homes and roads in its wake. Federal aid in Berkshire County topped $30 million.
When a hypothesis is promoted by who believes it instead of obvious succint facts, you know it's in trouble.
We didn't need the UN to endorse F=mA or E=MC**2.
The fact there are gaping holes a mile wide in the CO2 hypothesis of impending doom from the likes of NASA and CERN should raise a few red flags, but hey, enjoy your religion while it lasts.
Right, because the imaginary line between Greenland and "the Arctic" causes a physical difference in the real world. Not.
Whatever numbers you use is fine, point is that ice melts periodically. Note also a large amout of it was deposited after the 1940s cooling period: http://news.ku.dk/all_news/2012/2012.5/glaciers_greenland_photos/
If NASA says this melt was right on time I'd say that melt this was predictable.
Also: "Hazel had traveled 1,100 km (680 mi) over land, but while approaching Canada, it had merged with an existing powerful cold front. The storm stalled over the Greater Toronto Area, and although it was now extratropical, it remained as powerful as a category 1 hurricane. To help with the cleanup, 800 members of the military were summoned, and a Hurricane Relief Fund was established that distributed $5.1 million (2009: $41.7 million) in aid." (ibid)
It's the same pattern as Sandy exactly, yet we were told this behaviour was a freak one time atypical occurrence. Dollars to donuts it's happened more than twice in the last four billion years, too.
Also, the claim that Sandy meeting the Western trough was unprecedented and unpredictable seems odd in light of Hazels behaviour: "Hazel had traveled 1,100 km (680 mi) over land, but while approaching Canada, it had merged with an existing powerful cold front. The storm stalled over the Greater Toronto Area, and although it was now extratropical, it remained as powerful as a category 1 hurricane. To help with the cleanup, 800 members of the military were summoned, and a Hurricane Relief Fund was established that distributed $5.1 million (2009: $41.7 million) in aid." (Wiki)
It's the exact same thing.
We're told it's because of the melting Greenland ice pack that caused a "block" in the Atlantic.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html
"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data"
If it happens every 150 years it's not really unprecedented is it? Keep in mind that ice grew in there in the cooling period following the 1940s.
You can't really compare the body count to other ones, or the level of damage. I think we got off pretty light from Sandy all things considered.
Have you read this? http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/ff_apocalypsenot/all