Seriously though, the people who say there's not enough evidence yet annoy me more than the people who ignore the evidence and stick with their bibles. The latter are admitting to being ignorant rubes, while the former claim to want to conform to the rules of evidence but don't actually do so.

At least the second group is honest.

ManRay: Hundreds of hurricanes hit the Gulf/Southren States. Cuomo does not say a thing.
One hurricane hits NYC and he's talking about dramatic changes in the weather patterns? How self centered can this guy be?

Yeah, I hate to publicly disagree with a future POTUS for whom I intend to vote, but him using HS as evidence of *global warming* is very weak sauce.

1. The US averages one hurricane making landfall on the East Coast every three years in October
2. The jetstream dips south each year about this time
3. Cold fronts move in from Canada about once a week at this time of the year

A similar confluence of events happened in the spring of 1962, and no one took it as apocalyptic. They just got on with cleaning up the mess, which is what I suggest the Honorable Governor concentrate on right now.

So a catagory one storm during hurricane season is evidence of global warming now?

Frankenstorm indeed.

StoneColdAtheist: ManRay: Hundreds of hurricanes hit the Gulf/Southren States. Cuomo does not say a thing.
One hurricane hits NYC and he's talking about dramatic changes in the weather patterns? How self centered can this guy be?

Yeah, I hate to publicly disagree with a future POTUS for whom I intend to vote, but him using HS as evidence of *global warming* is very weak sauce.

1. The US averages one hurricane making landfall on the East Coast every three years in October
2. The jetstream dips south each year about this time
3. Cold fronts move in from Canada about once a week at this time of the year

A similar confluence of events happened in the spring of 1962, and no one took it as apocalyptic. They just got on with cleaning up the mess, which is what I suggest the Honorable Governor concentrate on right now.

Again, science is on his side. Why do you feel the need to give into the "we need more study" bullshiat?

Dusk-You-n-Me: beta_plus: Using facts to make liberals look stupid isn't fair, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

You used a fact to argue against a point no one else in the thread, liberal or otherwise, made. Maybe it makes you feel better about yourself, going online and declaring victory against imaginary liberal arguments. I don't get it. But go you.

LOL! I was addressing the article. But nice try at deflecting there.

/every time I think that I have met the dumbest liberal on fark ...

whidbey: StoneColdAtheist: ManRay: Hundreds of hurricanes hit the Gulf/Southren States. Cuomo does not say a thing.
One hurricane hits NYC and he's talking about dramatic changes in the weather patterns? How self centered can this guy be?

Yeah, I hate to publicly disagree with a future POTUS for whom I intend to vote, but him using HS as evidence of *global warming* is very weak sauce.

1. The US averages one hurricane making landfall on the East Coast every three years in October
2. The jetstream dips south each year about this time
3. Cold fronts move in from Canada about once a week at this time of the year

A similar confluence of events happened in the spring of 1962, and no one took it as apocalyptic. They just got on with cleaning up the mess, which is what I suggest the Honorable Governor concentrate on right now.

Again, science is on his side. Why do you feel the need to give into the "we need more study" bullshiat?

Because more study is how you do science.

LasersHurt: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: So a catagory one storm during hurricane season is evidence of global warming now?

Frankenstorm indeed.

Is it fun to pretend to be ignorant?

You tell me. You believe it to be evidence I suppose. You must be scared.

LibertyHiller: Because more study is how you do science.

OK, then you're welcome to show evidence that, given the consensus, that there isn't enough study to determine that climate change is causing the kind of events like Sandy.

Yes, I would like a link.

sprawl15: dittybopper: Yes, I Morse while driving. In the last week or so, I've made contacts to places like Tatakoto Atoll in French Polynesia, Edmond Oklahoma, Riihimaki Finland, Elektrogouli Russia, and Havana Cuba using Morse code from my car.

You can contact places all over the world that have shiatty cell phone reception.

Like America.

F*cking AT&T.

Ricardo Klement: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: So a catagory one storm during hurricane season is evidence of global warming now?

Frankenstorm indeed.

Remember: hurricane categories measure one thing and one thing only: wind-speed. It does not capture energy of the system, how much moisture it carries, nor even how big the system is.

Good point. But tropical cyclones collidiing with other weather systems and forming well, ah....."the perfect storm" is not that unusual and cannot be put forth as evidence of global warming any more than the sudden increase in air pressure in my pants when I fart.

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Good point. But tropical cyclones collidiing with other weather systems and forming well, ah....."the perfect storm" is not that unusual and cannot be put forth as evidence of global warming any more than the sudden increase in air pressure in my pants when I fart.

Flat-Earther detected.

whidbey: Again, science is on his side.

No, science is NOT on his side. Three perfectly normal events coincided to produce a giant clusterfark...that's all. What he said undermines real science.

Fark is a perfect microcosm of the shiatstew we find ourselves in. Our species is just not particularly good at very long term planning. And apparently, we suck at empathy and sympathy as well.

For the birther-level denialists here: What, exactly, would constitute conclusive evidence for you? Is such a thing even feasible?

StoneColdAtheist: whidbey: Again, science is on his side.

No, science is NOT on his side. Three perfectly normal events coincided to produce a giant clusterfark...that's all. What he said undermines real science.

The intensity of precipitation events will likely increase on average. This will be particularly pronounced in tropical and high-latitude regions, which are also expected to experience overall increases in precipitation. [4]
The strength of the winds associated with tropical storms is likely to increase. The amount of precipitation falling in tropical storms is also likely to increase. [5]


From the link I posted above. Fark: it's an incredibly easy Google

whidbey: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Good point. But tropical cyclones collidiing with other weather systems and forming well, ah....."the perfect storm" is not that unusual and cannot be put forth as evidence of global warming any more than the sudden increase in air pressure in my pants when I fart.

Flat-Earther detected.

You convinced me. I now believe that global warming was a significant contributor. Congratulations.

JohnAnnArbor:
...or the sunspots disappear for a century starting five years from now and we have to worry about cold. The point is: we don't know. The Earth is complex. So is the Sun. We're getting a LOT better at fig ...

Sunspots are not the driving factor in current global warming conditions. See here for a decent graph illustrating it, as well as supporting science. Some really interesting discussion in the comments at that site.

Regrettably, the unpredictability of a significantly more energetic weather system is the largest issue. Predictable would be awesome. Unpredictable means it might not be so bad, but it has a much higher chance of being extremely bad, due to loss of crop growing area (rainfall pattern change, seasonal variance), loss of drinking water in some areas of the world as human population continues to go upward, and other war and famine causing issues like that.

You and I, assuming you aren't in your early teens, are unlikely to see any of the genuinely bad effects in our lifetime. This limiting factor in perceived danger makes it so many people are willing to simply deny what may be an existential threat to our species, or at the least, to our current level of civilization. The idea of accepting an expense to our current lifestyle so that future generations can suffer less is simply alien to most people, without absolute ironclad proof, and that too is often not accepted.

In short, the introduction of higher levels of variability into a chaotic system is bad when we, as a species, are dependent upon that system staying within observable and currently favorable boundaries.

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: whidbey: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Good point. But tropical cyclones collidiing with other weather systems and forming well, ah....."the perfect storm" is not that unusual and cannot be put forth as evidence of global warming any more than the sudden increase in air pressure in my pants when I fart.

Flat-Earther detected.

You convinced me. I now believe that global warming was a significant contributor. Congratulations.

I don't care what you believe. just pointing out what you attitude makes you look like.

Ricardo Klement: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Ricardo Klement: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: So a catagory one storm during hurricane season is evidence of global warming now?

Frankenstorm indeed.

Remember: hurricane categories measure one thing and one thing only: wind-speed. It does not capture energy of the system, how much moisture it carries, nor even how big the system is.

Good point. But tropical cyclones collidiing with other weather systems and forming well, ah....."the perfect storm" is not that unusual and cannot be put forth as evidence of global warming any more than the sudden increase in air pressure in my pants when I fart.

Well, this certainly mimics "the perfect storm" from the '90s in a lot of ways. It's hard to prove this is actually the result of global warming. But if the frequency of extreme events has increased, one should probably be concerned.

To measure the frequency of extreme events, one has to have a sufficient sampling of events. Being these events are 20, 50, 100 year events, and our reliable records measuring storm strength only go back a couple of hundred years, there is simply no basis for measuring frequency, much less put forth the frequency as evidence.

whidbey: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: whidbey: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Good point. But tropical cyclones collidiing with other weather systems and forming well, ah....."the perfect storm" is not that unusual and cannot be put forth as evidence of global warming any more than the sudden increase in air pressure in my pants when I fart.

Flat-Earther detected.

You convinced me. I now believe that global warming was a significant contributor. Congratulations.

I don't care what you believe. just pointing out what you attitude makes you look like.

Good. Then it's settled. I don't care what you think I look like.

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: whidbey: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: whidbey: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Good point. But tropical cyclones collidiing with other weather systems and forming well, ah....."the perfect storm" is not that unusual and cannot be put forth as evidence of global warming any more than the sudden increase in air pressure in my pants when I fart.

Flat-Earther detected.

You convinced me. I now believe that global warming was a significant contributor. Congratulations.

I don't care what you believe. just pointing out what you attitude makes you look like.

Good. Then it's settled. I don't care what you think I look like.

I'm not the only one here calling you out.

whidbey: LibertyHiller: Because more study is how you do science.

OK, then you're welcome to show evidence that, given the consensus, that there isn't enough study to determine that climate change is causing the kind of events like Sandy.

Yes, I would like a link.

"Cause" is a mighty strong word; I agree that events like Sandy are influenced by climate, which certainly does change over time.

I'm all for studying the effects of humans on climate; what I'm against is basing decisions that have far-reaching economic impacts on data samples that aren't terribly complete. We have a couple hundred years of temperature records at best; there's a lot of inferring from tree rings and ice cores, but the story those tell is far from complete.

I'm not saying climate change isn't happening, or saying that human actions can't possibly affect the climate, because that would be stupid; what I'm saying is "Let's keep studying it, and take some sensible measures along the way."

If you have a problem with that view, then... thank heaven I have no influence on policy, I guess. But because it [bearsbearsbears.jpg], I'll repeat myself for those who missed it the first time:

"More study" is how you do science.

"More study" is how you do science.

"More study" is how you do science.

LibertyHiller: I'm not saying climate change isn't happening, or saying that human actions can't possibly affect the climate, because that would be stupid; what I'm saying is "Let's keep studying it, and take some sensible measures along the way."

They're going to "keep studying it." But right now, there is enough evidence that storms like Sandy are what we're going to be having to address. It doesn't help to say there isn't.

My home town in the Uk has had 3 hundred year floods this year. Three.

There's been 5 in the last 4 years.

And nothing even close to that before that for 120 years.

It's not right, Jim.

Whenever the words "reality" or "fact", comes out of the mouth of a progressive, get ready for it to be followed by some serious bullshiat and then a reason to for them to control more of your capital....for the sake of humanity.

LibertyHiller: LibertyHiller:

"More study" is how you do science.

"More study" is how you do science.

"More study" is how you do science.

I'll ask again, directly: What, exactly, would constitute enough proof for you to accept far-reaching economic impacts to mitigate global climate change?

MFL: Whenever the words "reality" or "fact", comes out of the mouth of a progressive, get ready for it to be followed by some serious bullshiat and then a reason to for them to control more of your capital....for the sake of humanity.

lol

MFL: Whenever the words "reality" or "fact", comes out of the mouth of a progressive, get ready for it to be followed by some serious bullshiat and then a reason to for them to control more of your capital....for the sake of humanity.

Believe me, if there were a way to let only your lot drown, I would. Unfortunately, we have to share this planet.

whidbey: LibertyHiller: I'm not saying climate change isn't happening, or saying that human actions can't possibly affect the climate, because that would be stupid; what I'm saying is "Let's keep studying it, and take some sensible measures along the way."

They're going to "keep studying it." But right now, there is enough evidence that storms like Sandy are what we're going to be having to address. It doesn't help to say there isn't.

whidbey, you're too intelligent and well informed to make careless statements like this, unless it's purposeful political posturing.

Sandy was *barely* a hurricane, and quit being one before (or about as) it hit landfall. Had it been some sort of superstorm for its time of year, you might have a point, but it was a boring, everyday late October hurricane. They happen practically every year at this time.

Likewise with the jetstream and the cold front moving down from Canada, not to mention the once a month full moon high tide. There was NOTHING unusual or out of the ordinary about any of Sandy's components, except their coincidence in time and the fact that they hit the Big Apple.

Climate change is serious enough as it is without stretching it to include such ordinary but infrequent events as Sandy. Doing so just undermines real science in general and climate science in particular.

StoneColdAtheist: Climate change is serious enough as it is without stretching it to include such ordinary but infrequent events as Sandy. Doing so just undermines real science in general and climate science in particular.

Great.

Then it should be easy for you to find either a statement from the IPCC or from some other credible scientific source that backs up your contention.

We'll wait.

whidbey: StoneColdAtheist: Climate change is serious enough as it is without stretching it to include such ordinary but infrequent events as Sandy. Doing so just undermines real science in general and climate science in particular.

Great.

Then it should be easy for you to find either a statement from the IPCC or from some other credible scientific source that backs up your contention.

We'll wait.

No, you're the one who is arguing the positive assertion. The proving is yours to do.

StoneColdAtheist: We'll wait.

No, you're the one who is arguing the positive assertion. The proving is yours to do.


I posted an easily Googled link above, and then quoted from it.

You're stalling because you have nothing to back up what you've said.

And the interesting thing is that you appear to believe in man-made climate change.

whidbey: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: whidbey: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: whidbey: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Good point. But tropical cyclones collidiing with other weather systems and forming well, ah....."the perfect storm" is not that unusual and cannot be put forth as evidence of global warming any more than the sudden increase in air pressure in my pants when I fart.

Flat-Earther detected.

You convinced me. I now believe that global warming was a significant contributor. Congratulations.

I don't care what you believe. just pointing out what you attitude makes you look like.

Good. Then it's settled. I don't care what you think I look like.

I'm not the only one here calling you out.

No. You're the only childish one.

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: No. You're the only childish one.

Oh so I'm "childish" because more than a few of us have called you out.

Got nothing much?

Any serious climate researcher would politely point out that in this case the Honorable Mr. Coumo is in error. 95% of the damage in New York was caused because the North West quadrant of the storm, where the storm surge is strongest struck the city during the perigean spring tide. The storm wasn't particularly strong, It did not occur at an unusual time. There were some other unusual aspects of the storm which created strange effects elsewhere. But in New York it was just wind, storm surge and a extremely large tide which caused the damage.

Global warming may be real. It may be man made. But it cannot alter the orbit of the moon and the alignment of the Earth, Sun, and Moon. It is rare for this to happen, but it only rare because there are only 4 perigean spring tides a year, only 2 of which are during hurricane season. Basically, there are only about 4 hours a year when this can happen. Only about 4 hurricanes a year make landfall in the 4 month season. If you add in the chances of it striking a densely populated area of the coast, and the sector of the storm with the strongest storm surge striking the populated area, you will find that on average this should only occur every 100-120 years.

HK-MP5-SD: Any serious climate researcher would politely point out that in this case the Honorable Mr. Coumo is in error.

OK, great.

So it should be very easy for you to post a link from the IPCC or some other credible source that says that there is not enough study to warrant whether man-made climate change is causing storms like Sandy to appear.

Very simple task on your part.

Global warming may be real. It may be man made

It "may be," huh?

Koch-funded climate change skeptic reverses course

Link

Evil High Priest: LibertyHiller: LibertyHiller:

"More study" is how you do science.

"More study" is how you do science.

"More study" is how you do science.

I'll ask again, directly: What, exactly, would constitute enough proof for you to accept far-reaching economic impacts to mitigate global climate change?

A lot more than an ex-hurricane's storm surge coinciding with an extra high tide, which as SCA pointed out, is a once-in-a-century-and-then-some event.

Hurricanes are fueled by hot ocean surface temperatures. The Atlantic Ocean is about five degrees Fahrenheit hotter than usual this fall, and as Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech University has noted, about 15 percent of this extra heat is directly due to global warming. The flooding unleashed by Sandy is especially destructive, Hayhoe adds, because global warming has caused sea levels in the New York region to rise by one foot over the past century.

Hurricane Sandy as Greek Tragedy

Link

LibertyHiller: A lot more than an ex-hurricane's storm surge coinciding with an extra high tide, which as SCA pointed out, is a once-in-a-century-and-then-some event.

whidbey: So it should be very easy for you to post a link from the IPCC or some other credible source that says that there is not enough study to warrant whether man-made climate change is causing storms like Sandy to appear.

Still waiting.

LibertyHiller: Evil High Priest: LibertyHiller: LibertyHiller:

"More study" is how you do science.

"More study" is how you do science.

"More study" is how you do science.

I'll ask again, directly: What, exactly, would constitute enough proof for you to accept far-reaching economic impacts to mitigate global climate change?

A lot more than an ex-hurricane's storm surge coinciding with an extra high tide, which as SCA pointed out, is a once-in-a-century-and-then-some event.

Yes, I get that. The point is, there will be more severe, and more frequent, unusually destructive events going forward. Majority of climate scientists now agree that this is the case, and that it is in part human caused. Do you disagree with any of that?

StoneColdAtheist: whidbey, you're too intelligent and well informed to make careless statements like this

Evil High Priest: Koch-funded climate change skeptic reverses course

Link

he never doubted AGW

jigger: StoneColdAtheist: whidbey, you're too intelligent and well informed to make careless statements like this

[i.imgur.com image 300x562]

This coming from someone who doesn't even believe in man-made climate change.

Nice personal attack, though.

Evil High Priest: LibertyHiller: Evil High Priest: LibertyHiller: LibertyHiller:

"More study" is how you do science.

"More study" is how you do science.

"More study" is how you do science.

I'll ask again, directly: What, exactly, would constitute enough proof for you to accept far-reaching economic impacts to mitigate global climate change?

A lot more than an ex-hurricane's storm surge coinciding with an extra high tide, which as SCA pointed out, is a once-in-a-century-and-then-some event.

Yes, I get that. The point is, there will be more severe, and more frequent, unusually destructive events going forward. Majority of climate scientists now agree that this is the case, and that it is in part human caused. Do you disagree with any of that?

That's a two-part question. To the second, no; to the first, time will tell. Until then, let's not make things worse by wetting our beds in fear of ManBearPig.