If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Newsday)   Gov. Cuomo: "There has been a series of extreme weather incidents. That is not a political statement. That is a factual statement. Anyone who says there's not a dramatic change in weather patterns, I think is denying reality"   (newsday.com) divider line 162
    More: Scary, Andrew Cuomo, political statement  
•       •       •

1325 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Oct 2012 at 3:44 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



162 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-31 06:51:57 PM  

LibertyHiller: Until then, let's not make things worse by wetting our beds in fear of ManBearPig.


Are you going to back up your earlier contention or not?

Making fun of South Park making fun of Al Gore doesn't really count.
 
2012-10-31 06:55:36 PM  

StoneColdAtheist: 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.


He's proved it. Didn't you read his link from the EPA that used some variant of "This might happen" in damn near every sentence?
 
2012-10-31 06:57:53 PM  

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

Link

he never doubted AGW


So he was just some sort of paid shill? Gross.
 
2012-10-31 07:05:50 PM  

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

Link

he never doubted AGW

So he was just some sort of paid shill? Gross.


He was also a professor of physics, which, whether he believed climate change was real or not, isn't a qualification.
 
2012-10-31 07:11:05 PM  

whidbey: 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.


Your behavior in this thread is evidence enough that you are indeed not too intelligent or well informed to make stupid statements such as the ones you made.

And, as if it matters, what I "believe" is of no consequence to the climate. Of course humans can and have affected the climate. People like you keep making doomsday predictions and the only way to avert the wrath of the gods is penance and sacrifice. The planet is doomed unless we all DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW. It's completely irrational.

You can have the last word. I know it'll make you feel better.
 
2012-10-31 07:12:45 PM  

whidbey: LibertyHiller: Until then, let's not make things worse by wetting our beds in fear of ManBearPig.

Are you going to back up your earlier contention or not?

Making fun of South Park making fun of Al Gore doesn't really count.


I've made a few in this thread; which one are you latched onto?

* That more study is what drives science.
* That events like Sandy are influenced by climate, which does change over time.
* That humans can affect the climate, but the degree to which that happens is the crux of the debate.
* That we have at best a few hundred years of temperature records.
* That studies beyond that point involve inferring from tree rings and ice cores.
* That the story those tell is far from complete.
* That it would be unwise to make far-reaching decisions based on short-term events.

Now it's my turn to ask a question: what point do you think I'm trying to make?
 
2012-10-31 07:13:24 PM  

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

[i.imgur.com image 300x562]


No, you completely misinterpret my comment. I respect and generally agree with whidbey, but as a long ago ABD in applied math (simultaneous non-linear equations) I have enough training as a scientist to recognize unfounded statements when I see them. whidbey's EPA link makes the case that things like Sandy can be caused by climate change, but says nothing about whether Sandy was. Had any one or more of Sandy's components been unusual in any way, except for their coincidence in time, I'd concede the point, but I don't see it.
 
2012-10-31 07:14:40 PM  

jigger: And, as if it matters, what I "believe" is of no consequence to the climate. Of course humans can and have affected the climate. People like you keep making doomsday predictions and the only way to avert the wrath of the gods is penance and sacrifice. The planet is doomed unless we all DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW. It's completely irrational.


I've never made such claims. Ever. Just clearing that up.
 
2012-10-31 07:18:35 PM  

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

Link

he never doubted AGW

So he was just some sort of paid shill? Gross.


No, he wasn't a shill. Well, not that I know of. He did have problems with Michael Mann's proxy studies (Hockey Stick graph) and accused the team of being dishonest and doing poor science. So he then proceeded to gather funds and organization to begin his own study...that had nothing to do with proxy studies. His team just did their own statistical study of the instrumental records. I dunno. Make of that what you will, but the man was never a AGW doubter.
 
2012-10-31 07:19:17 PM  

LibertyHiller: Now it's my turn to ask a question: what point do you think I'm trying to make?


I think you're avoiding the fact that science is on board with what Cuomo is saying.

And if you are familiar with scientific literature, then you know that they very rarely ever state that something is 100% certain, that indeed they use terms like "likely" and "they may do _____."

I mean, I'm not trying to dump on you, I would really like to see something from IPCC or some other credible source that tells us we "need more study" and that there is not enough evidence that climate change is going to bring storms like Sandy to the northern hemisphere.

The link I produced supports that there is enough evidence.
 
2012-10-31 07:23:40 PM  

whidbey: 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?


Yes, as your ever present d-baggery continuously exemplifies. Sorry to break the news to you there, chief.
 
2012-10-31 07:25:31 PM  

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: whidbey: 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?

Yes, as your ever present d-baggery continuously exemplifies. Sorry to break the news to you there, chief.


Yes, personal attacks are your trump card which bring you to the front of the line in an argument. Of course.
 
2012-10-31 07:31:54 PM  

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

[i.imgur.com image 300x562]

No, you completely misinterpret my comment. I respect and generally agree with whidbey, but as a long ago ABD in applied math (simultaneous non-linear equations) I have enough training as a scientist to recognize unfounded statements when I see them. whidbey's EPA link makes the case that things like Sandy can be caused by climate change, but says nothing about whether Sandy was.


Yeah, I got all that.

StoneColdAtheist: Had any one or more of Sandy's components been unusual in any way, except for their coincidence in time, I'd concede the point, but I don't see it.


Even then, just because one component might be unusual doesn't necessarily mean it was caused by GW, unless that's what causes full moon tides and cold fronts from Canada.
 
2012-10-31 07:32:34 PM  

StoneColdAtheist: 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.


Wrong. A storm like Sandy has NEVER occurred in the historical record of the US.

Although it was "barely a hurricane" in terms of wind speed, its central pressure was that of a Cat 3 hurricane, and its storm surge (in terms of the total mass of water on the move) was the most severe on record.

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.

Except for the atmospheric blocking pattern which prevented Sandy from recurving to the northeast and instead resulted in an unprecedented turn to the west. If not for the messed-up jet stream (itself a likely product of Arctic ice melt), Sandy might well have remained just another October hurricane.

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.

Says the poster who refuses to cite any scientific evidence to support his argument.
 
2012-10-31 07:34:08 PM  

LibertyHiller: * That we have at best a few hundred years of temperature records.


Observationally. We can reconstruct much older data from observing the effect.
 
2012-10-31 07:37:14 PM  

StoneColdAtheist: I respect and generally agree with whidbey, but as a long ago ABD in applied math (simultaneous non-linear equations) I have enough training as a scientist to recognize unfounded statements when I see them. whidbey's EPA link makes the case that things like Sandy can be caused by climate change, but says nothing about whether Sandy was


First of all, why thank you, but I am a bit taken aback by our exchange.

This is what I'm trying to understand:

Is there a consensus in science that says that we need to study weather phenomena like Sandy before we come to any conclusions about whether AGW is what's causing them?

I say there isn't. I have seen no articles where leading scientists are making that case, or any mention of a published paper to that effect.

I mean, again, it should be a simple find.
 
2012-10-31 07:42:47 PM  
"According to a new Berkeley Earth study released today (July 29, 2012), the average temperature of the Earth's land has risen by 1.5 °C over the past 250 years. The good match between the new temperature record and historical carbon dioxide records suggests that the most straightforward explanation for this warming is human greenhouse gas emissions."

Link

Muller said his team's analysis suggested there would be 1.5 degrees of warming over land in the next 50 years, but if China continues its rapid economic growth and its vast use of coal then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years.
 
2012-10-31 07:45:09 PM  

whidbey: LibertyHiller: Now it's my turn to ask a question: what point do you think I'm trying to make?

I think you're avoiding the fact that science is on board with what Cuomo is saying.


Sure, it's the conventional wisdom, which used to say that flying machines were impossible.

And if you are familiar with scientific literature, then you know that they very rarely ever state that something is 100% certain, that indeed they use terms like "likely" and "they may do _____."

I have no problem with using such terms, because we don't know what's going to happen, but we can make some educated predictions. My problem is when laypeople start interpreting those as being "This is definitely going to happen."

I mean, I'm not trying to dump on you, I would really like to see something from IPCC or some other credible source that tells us we "need more study" and that there is not enough evidence that climate change is going to bring storms like Sandy to the northern hemisphere.

Storms like Sandy are brought to the Northern Hemisphere by the Coriolis effect and pressure gradients. That much we know. Climate change might make them more frequent or more powerful, but I don't think we can account for all of the variables at this point.

The link I produced supports that there is enough evidence.

That's where we disagree, it seems.
 
2012-10-31 07:50:03 PM  

LibertyHiller: That's where we disagree, it seems.


You can disagree all you like. My point all along concerns what science is saying.

How many times do I have to keep repeating that? It shouldn't have taken that many.
 
2012-10-31 08:04:38 PM  
That is the problem with humans, right there. There is consensus among the experts. Yet, there will always be deniers.
 
2012-10-31 08:17:12 PM  

whidbey: LibertyHiller: That's where we disagree, it seems.

You can disagree all you like. My point all along concerns what science is saying.

How many times do I have to keep repeating that? It shouldn't have taken that many.


We have to assume that science is correct until it's proven wrong, in which case we have a new correct. Science has been wrong before, and it will be wrong again. But every time this happens we get closer to the truth, right?

My point is that our knowledge of how this stuff works is about where physics was in the mid-19th century. We're groping in the right direction, but there are many things we don't understand yet.

Now, if you still think I'm a dipshiat because I don't line up with you on this, that's fine too; do both of us a favor and click that little grey "no" symbol in the header of this comment, and you'll never see me again. I'll get over it.
 
2012-10-31 08:26:29 PM  

LibertyHiller: Now, if you still think I'm a dipshiat because I don't line up with you on this, that's fine too; do both of us a favor and click that little grey "no" symbol in the header of this comment, and you'll never see me again. I'll get over it.


You haven't done anything to deserve that.

My point is that our knowledge of how this stuff works is about where physics was in the mid-19th century. We're groping in the right direction, but there are many things we don't understand yet.

OK, noted.

Still doesn't disprove anything I've offered up.
 
2012-10-31 08:26:55 PM  

LibertyHiller: We're groping in the right direction, but there are many things we don't understand yet.


Excellent! Now we're getting somewhere. Here's the question again: How much further in the right direction do we have to move before action is warranted? How much more do the majority of climatologists have to agree before you would be satisfied?
 
2012-10-31 08:31:16 PM  

Evil High Priest: How much more do the majority of climatologists have to agree before you would be satisfied?


Obviously he wants more than 97%.
 
2012-10-31 08:32:46 PM  
The biggest problem currently facing global climate change proponents is not the flat-out deniers, because they'll NEVER believe it. It's the ones who tentatively believe it, but insist we "need more evidence" before we make any changes. The problem is that, for these tentative accepters, there can never be quite enough evidence.

Weather and climate are, I believe, a five-level equation (I could be wrong as to the degree of uncertainty but I don't feel like getting out my books). It's theoretically possible to predict exactly what the weather will be, but chaos theory prevents it because a change as small as .00001 results in a completely different result. However, it's close enough that we're PRETTY sure over the long term. So saying something like "Well, we don't know 'for sure' what might happen because xyz," is merely being disingenuous (at best) and willfully ignorant (at worst) because it ignores the fact that weather and climate prediction theories and computer modeling have advanced exponentially over the last 30 years.

When climatologists and meteorologists predict that the climate is getting warmer and we could see more extreme weather, they're not guessing. They're not making predictions by sticking a damp finger out the window. It's based on running data through sophisticated computer models that correct for all kinds of possible errors and then run for centuries. You don't think they've considered things like "Well, what if sunspot activity increases? Or decreases? Or stays the same?"

And yet, people who want "more evidence" insist that somehow the people who specialize in this kind of thing must have forgotten it; whereas they, who are not professional climate researchers, somehow figured it all out. Or else they just don't like the idea that maybe we do need to change things. Like tobacco executives who wanted a 50-year, 300,000 person longitudinal study before they would accept that smoking causes lung cancer, fence-sitters on global climate change no doubt would prefer a 100-year 75-nation daily temperature graph showing morning and evening atmospheric and oceanic readings before they will accept that the average temperature is changing. However, that's not going to help us prevent or ameliorate any changes BEFORE they become irreversible.
 
2012-10-31 08:42:34 PM  

dittybopper: Dusk-You-n-Me: //but god damnit do I find the telegraph style communication annoying STOP

I don't:

[i47.tinypic.com image 640x480]

That's my home straight key. I don't have an image of the one in my car.

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. 

/Used to use Morse professionally.
//Google "ditty bopper" to see what I used to do.


My Dad, who just passed, was an Advanced Class Amateur, and he went to his grave pissed off over the FCC dropping code requirements for amateur licenses. I kept his keys and an old Heath Apache transmitter, couldn't sell them off with the rest of his Ham stuff. If I do get into it, I will go back an learn my code again - had 5wpm when I was young as I was trying for a Tech license, but forgot all about it when I discovered boobs and beer.

CW FTW
 
2012-10-31 08:43:47 PM  

Gyrfalcon: The biggest problem currently facing global climate change proponents is not the flat-out deniers, because they'll NEVER believe it. It's the ones who tentatively believe it, but insist we "need more evidence" before we make any changes. The problem is that, for these tentative accepters, there can never be quite enough evidence.

Weather and climate are, I believe, a five-level equation (I could be wrong as to the degree of uncertainty but I don't feel like getting out my books). It's theoretically possible to predict exactly what the weather will be, but chaos theory prevents it because a change as small as .00001 results in a completely different result. However, it's close enough that we're PRETTY sure over the long term. So saying something like "Well, we don't know 'for sure' what might happen because xyz," is merely being disingenuous (at best) and willfully ignorant (at worst) because it ignores the fact that weather and climate prediction theories and computer modeling have advanced exponentially over the last 30 years.

When climatologists and meteorologists predict that the climate is getting warmer and we could see more extreme weather, they're not guessing. They're not making predictions by sticking a damp finger out the window. It's based on running data through sophisticated computer models that correct for all kinds of possible errors and then run for centuries. You don't think they've considered things like "Well, what if sunspot activity increases? Or decreases? Or stays the same?"

And yet, people who want "more evidence" insist that somehow the people who specialize in this kind of thing must have forgotten it; whereas they, who are not professional climate researchers, somehow figured it all out. Or else they just don't like the idea that maybe we do need to change things. Like tobacco executives who wanted a 50-year, 300,000 person longitudinal study before they would accept that smoking causes lung cancer, fence-sitters on global climate chang ...


Yup. That thing there.

Welcome to greenland.
 
2012-10-31 08:45:18 PM  

whidbey: LibertyHiller: Now, if you still think I'm a dipshiat because I don't line up with you on this, that's fine too; do both of us a favor and click that little grey "no" symbol in the header of this comment, and you'll never see me again. I'll get over it.

You haven't done anything to deserve that.

My point is that our knowledge of how this stuff works is about where physics was in the mid-19th century. We're groping in the right direction, but there are many things we don't understand yet.

OK, noted.

Still doesn't disprove anything I've offered up.


Was that what I was trying to do?

Evil High Priest: LibertyHiller: We're groping in the right direction, but there are many things we don't understand yet.

Excellent! Now we're getting somewhere. Here's the question again: How much further in the right direction do we have to move before action is warranted?


That depends on where that direction takes us.

How much more do the majority of climatologists have to agree before you would be satisfied?

It doesn't really matter to you if I'm satisfied, does it?

I don't know what it would take; maybe when Lewis Page of The Register gives up on the subject, maybe something else, maybe never.
 
2012-10-31 08:48:34 PM  

LibertyHiller: maybe never.


That was my guess.
 
2012-10-31 09:16:55 PM  
Quiet in here..

Let's see what these hacks have to say:

If you've followed the U.S. news and weather in the past 24 hours you have no doubt run across a journalist or blogger explaining why it's difficult to say that climate change could be causing big storms like Sandy. Well, no doubt here: it is.

Link
 
2012-10-31 09:35:23 PM  
You know, even if you storm out of the UN meeting, it goes on without you..

From that link up there, from those hacks:

Climate change amps up other basic factors that contribute to big storms. For example, the oceans have warmed, providing more energy for storms. And the Earth's atmosphere has warmed, so it retains more moisture, which is drawn into storms and is then dumped on us.

These changes contribute to all sorts of extreme weather. In a recent op-ed in the Washington Post, James Hansen at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York blamed climate change for excessive drought, based on six decades of measurements, not computer models: "Our analysis shows that it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather and to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change. To the contrary, our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change."

He went on to write that the Russian heat wave of 2010 and catastrophic droughts in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 could each be attributed to climate change, concluding that "The odds that natural variability created these extremes are minuscule, vanishingly small. To count on those odds would be like quitting your job and playing the lottery every morning to pay the bills."
 
2012-10-31 09:47:25 PM  
From those same hacks:

If you still don't believe scientists, then believe insurance giant Munich Re. In her October 29 post at the The New Yorker, writer Elizabeth Kolbert notes:

Munich Re, one of the world's largest reinsurance firms, issued a study titled "Severe Weather in North America." According to the press release that accompanied the report, "Nowhere in the world is the rising number of natural catastrophes more evident than in North America." ... While many factors have contributed to this trend, including an increase in the number of people living in flood-prone areas, the report identified global warming as one of the major culprits: "Climate change particularly affects formation of heat-waves, droughts, intense precipitation events, and in the long run most probably also tropical cyclone intensity."

Insurers, scientists and journalist are beginning to drop the caveats and simply say that climate change is causing big storms. As scientists collect more and more data over time, more of them will be willing to make the same data-based statements.
 
2012-10-31 09:47:53 PM  
Well, The Long Island Express back in the early part of the 20th century was the result of several things happening to occur at the same time and combine to create a deadly hurricane that tore up the northeast. It IS possible for something to be a freak occurrence or a rare conglomeration.
 
2012-10-31 09:56:12 PM  
Because dumbocraps are the only people too stupid to understand confirmation bias, or even recognize it when they spout off their derp.
 
2012-10-31 10:00:12 PM  

ddam: It's not that we're having the most extreme weather ever... it's that we're having extreme weather a lot more often.


False premise and false conclusion. Congratulations, you just batted for the bicycle of derp.
 
2012-10-31 10:03:36 PM  
By what percent have extreme weather events gone up in the last 10 years?

What? What's that? Ohhhhh, you don't have any measurements, and instead rely on anecdotal events and gut feeling on things, and the completely nebulous notion of increased severe weather. I see.

Science done where the hypothesis is unfalsifiable by evidence for the loss.
 
2012-10-31 10:07:30 PM  
Reality would like a word

stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com 

But please, by all means, continue to run around screaming the sky is falling.
 
2012-10-31 10:13:48 PM  
policlimate.com

But it SEEMS like it's getting worse, and THAT'S WHAT'S IMPORTANT!!!eleventy
 
2012-10-31 10:19:29 PM  
Calm down, SevenizGud, you're starting to be like GeneralJim. Is that really what you want?
 
2012-10-31 10:27:31 PM  

whidbey: 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?


Could global warming be causing storms like Sandy? Sure it is a possibility. Could a storm like sandy be created without global warming? Absolutely. Sandy occurred during the portion of the year referred to as "Hurricane season". The period acquired this name, oddly enough because this is when hurricanes happen more frequently. The time frame that constitutes "Hurricane Season" has been pretty much the same since Europe began settling the western hemisphere in the 16th century. In the east, the existence of cyclonic storms and a season where those storms are more common is documented as far back as the 5th century. That season has also not changed. you will note that in both cases the existence of a season where cyclonic storms is more common predates the invention of the internal combustion engine by many hundreds of years.

So was Sandy Unusually powerful as hurricanes go? Well, no. Sandy was a category one hurricane, Any weaker and it would not have been a hurricane at all. Did it occur unusually late in the season..... once again no. Hurricane season continues for another month. The only things remarkable about Sandy is that it struck the most densely populated are of the country, and it struck during the highest tides possible. Even a category one hurricane is nothing to fark with, and if it hits a metropolitan area it will make a bloody mess.

So to sum up you feel that a hurricane that is not particularly powerful, occurring during the portion of the year when hurricanes are most likely, striking an area of the country that has been struck by hurricanes repeatedly in the past is evidence that the word's climate is changing radically, and you are attacking me for stating that global warming is not unnecessary for these events to occur. Do you also feel that the fact that your alarm clock goes off the same time everyday is evidence of an impending catastrophic failure of the space-time continuum?
 
2012-10-31 11:18:25 PM  

SevenizGud: By what percent have extreme weather events gone up in the last 10 years?

What? What's that? Ohhhhh, you don't have any measurements, and instead rely on anecdotal events and gut feeling on things, and the completely nebulous notion of increased severe weather. I see.

Science done where the hypothesis is unfalsifiable by evidence for the loss.



I'll trust the statisticians at the big reinsurance companies over your cherry-picked data, tyvm. Here's Munich Re's graph showing US disasters:

thinkprogress.org

and one for worldwide disasters:

www.intechopen.com
 
2012-10-31 11:23:11 PM  

Gyrfalcon: The biggest problem currently facing global climate change proponents is not the flat-out deniers, because they'll NEVER believe it. It's the ones who tentatively believe it, but insist we "need more evidence" before we make any changes. The problem is that, for these tentative accepters, there can never be quite enough evidence.


Then they're not "tentative accepters"; they're denier concern trolls.
 
2012-10-31 11:26:55 PM  

HK-MP5-SD: The only things remarkable about Sandy is that it struck the most densely populated are of the country, and it struck during the highest tides possible. Even a category one hurricane is nothing to fark with, and if it hits a metropolitan area it will make a bloody mess.


No, the remarkable thing about Sandy was that it was a fierce hybrid hurricane/frontal cyclone when it struck the coast. There was a ~940 mb minimum sea level pressure near landfall; had that been a fully tropical system you'd be talking about a category 4 hurricane. Instead, you get category 1-2 winds spread out over an area 1/3 the size of the continent. This thing was forcing ~20 foot waves on Lake Michigan while it was simultaneously busy putting the northeast coast under several feet of water.

"Frankenstorm", while a goofy reference to the storm's appearance around Halloween, carries more scientific cache than even the person who coined the term realized. It was an unholy terror stitched together from the worst parts of a hurricane and a frontal cyclone.
 
2012-10-31 11:28:20 PM  

HK-MP5-SD: whidbey: 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?

Could global warming be causing storms like Sandy? Sure it is a possibility. Could a storm like sandy be created without global warming? Absolutely. Sandy occurred during the portion of the year referred to as "Hurricane season". The period acquired this name, oddly enough because this is when hurricanes happen more frequently. The time frame that constitutes "Hurricane Season" has been pretty much the same since Europe began settling the western hemisphere in the 16th century. In the east, the existence of cyclonic storms and a season where those storms are more common is documented as far back as the 5th century. That season has also not changed. you will note that in both cases the existence of a season where cyclonic storms is more common predates the invention of the internal combustion engine by many hundreds of years.

So was Sandy Unusually powerful as hurricanes go? Well, no. Sandy was a category one hurricane, Any weaker and it would not have been a hurricane at all. Did it occur unusually late in the season..... once again no. Hurricane season continues for another month. The only things remarkable about Sandy is that it struck the most densely populated are of the country, and it struck during the highest tides possible. Even a category one hurricane is nothing to fark with, and if it hits a metropolitan area it will make a bloody mess.

So to sum up you feel that a hurricane that is not particularly powerful, occurring during the portion of the year when hurricanes are most likely, strikin ...



Repeated for your personal benefit:

common sense is an oxymoron: StoneColdAtheist: 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.


Wrong. A storm like Sandy has NEVER occurred in the historical record of the US.

Although it was "barely a hurricane" in terms of wind speed, its central pressure was that of a Cat 3 hurricane, and its storm surge (in terms of the total mass of water on the move) was the most severe on record.

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.

Except for the atmospheric blocking pattern which prevented Sandy from recurving to the northeast and instead resulted in an unprecedented turn to the west. If not for the messed-up jet stream (itself a likely product of Arctic ice melt), Sandy might well have remained just another October hurricane.
 
2012-10-31 11:33:15 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: Except for the atmospheric blocking pattern which prevented Sandy from recurving to the northeast and instead resulted in an unprecedented turn to the west. If not for the messed-up jet stream (itself a likely product of Arctic ice melt), Sandy might well have remained just another October hurricane.


The blocking pattern and jet structure was more forced by Sandy than the other way around. I've seen trajectory analysis that showed air pumped from the convection around Sandy's center being fed into that blocking ridge. And the westward turn was more caused by the trough to Sandy's west that interacted with and eventually was ingested into the cyclone.
 
2012-10-31 11:48:27 PM  
There have ALWAYS been series of extreme weather incidents. To deny THAT is to deny reality. FTFY Mr. Coumo. Sensationalism... how does that work? How quickly we forget history. There have been other monster storms, other "perfect storms", much more destructive hurricanes. Been happening for millenia and will continue to happen. Earth goes through warming and cooling trends and always has. Man may have influenced the climate to a degree but we ALSO may just be in one of those warming cycles.
 
2012-10-31 11:56:17 PM  
It's funny. Watching the weather channel yesterday one of their field guys was saying this was a '1000 year event", meaning something like this comes along every 1000 years. 5 minutes later the same field guy was blaming it all on AGW. Which is it?
 
2012-11-01 12:06:19 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: common sense is an oxymoron: Except for the atmospheric blocking pattern which prevented Sandy from recurving to the northeast and instead resulted in an unprecedented turn to the west. If not for the messed-up jet stream (itself a likely product of Arctic ice melt), Sandy might well have remained just another October hurricane.

The blocking pattern and jet structure was more forced by Sandy than the other way around. I've seen trajectory analysis that showed air pumped from the convection around Sandy's center being fed into that blocking ridge. And the westward turn was more caused by the trough to Sandy's west that interacted with and eventually was ingested into the cyclone.


It's possible that outflow from Sandy may have amplified the ridge somewhat, but the rex block was in place while Sandy was still in the Caribbean.
 
2012-11-01 12:16:08 AM  

Savage Belief: It's funny. Watching the weather channel yesterday one of their field guys was saying this was a '1000 year event", meaning something like this comes along every 1000 years. 5 minutes later the same field guy was blaming it all on AGW. Which is it?


It depends on whether or not these "1000-year events" are now recurring on shorter time scales. And as I've posted above, the professionals who risk billions of dollars based on the accuracy of their forecasts say that they are.
 
2012-11-01 12:20:50 AM  

arobb00: There have ALWAYS been series of extreme weather incidents. To deny THAT is to deny reality. FTFY Mr. Coumo. Sensationalism... how does that work? How quickly we forget history. There have been other monster storms, other "perfect storms", much more destructive hurricanes. Been happening for millenia and will continue to happen. Earth goes through warming and cooling trends and always has. Man may have influenced the climate to a degree but we ALSO may just be in one of those warming cycles.


How should the response to Sandy in particular, and to climate change in general, be any different if the change is natural versus anthropogenic?
 
Displayed 50 of 162 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report