Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

1326 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
 
2012-10-31 01:26:07 PM  
[HERO]
 
2012-10-31 01:29:29 PM  
Yet people are biatching because he's "making political speeches" during this time of crisis. Because an unprecedented tidal surge is not something that should make people start thinking about the merest inkling crossing their mind of the possibility of a chance the climate is farked up.
 
2012-10-31 01:32:38 PM  
Is this man made? I really don't give a crap. It's here and it's real. And it's going to fark us up. Plan and adapt, or die.
 
2012-10-31 01:35:41 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Is this man made? I really don't give a crap. It's here and it's real. And it's going to fark us up. Plan and adapt, or die.


Chris Hayes summed it up yesterday.

Whether climate changed "caused" Sandy isn't the point. The point is a) carbon emissions are producing a climate with more extreme weather

- Christopher Hayes (@chrislhayes) October 30, 2012

b) with more extreme weather will come more extreme weather events *like Sandy* c) extreme weather events will disrupt our lives

- Christopher Hayes (@chrislhayes) October 30, 2012

<con't> and cause tremendous economic damage, death and human misery. We are presently doing essentially nothing to prepare for this

- Christopher Hayes (@chrislhayes) October 30, 2012

The scale of what needs to change is mind-boggling: a) re-engineering infrastructure b) revolutionizing our energy sources and transmission

- Christopher Hayes (@chrislhayes) October 30, 2012

And yet our elites and the beltway are *obsessed* with the nation's budget projections for 2050 (!) and say almost nothing about this threat

- Christopher Hayes (@chrislhayes) October 30, 2012
 
2012-10-31 01:46:22 PM  
The extreme right wing denying reality?

That would certainly be a new event that was unforeseeable and unprecedented.
 
2012-10-31 03:46:28 PM  
Look, there's not! I don't care about facts! I don't care about the weather! Nothing is different, and I don't care what you say! The Bible says things don't change, and that's good enough for me! Plus, China and India, so there!
 
2012-10-31 03:46:35 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: [HERO]


This.
 
2012-10-31 03:49:56 PM  
I guess we need a few more hurricanes to quell the "skeptics" who are still being politically cautious dipsh*ts before this gets taken seriously.
 
2012-10-31 03:50:15 PM  
Reality, what a concept.
 
2012-10-31 03:50:35 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: PC LOAD LETTER: Is this man made? I really don't give a crap. It's here and it's real. And it's going to fark us up. Plan and adapt, or die.

Chris Hayes summed it up yesterday:


In non-obnoxious, untweetified format:
Whether climate changed "caused" Sandy isn't the point. The point is
a) carbon emissions are producing a climate with more extreme weather
b) with more extreme weather will come more extreme weather events *like Sandy*
c) extreme weather events will disrupt our lives and cause tremendous economic damage, death and human misery. We are presently doing essentially nothing to prepare for this

The scale of what needs to change is mind-boggling: a) re-engineering infrastructure b) revolutionizing our energy sources and transmission And yet our elites and the beltway are *obsessed* with the nation's budget projections for 2050 (!) and say almost nothing about this threat
-Christopher Hayes October 30, 2012 via twitter

/I know it's an amazing technology, STOP
//but god damnit do I find the telegraph style communication annoying STOP
///We need to define a notation for referencing tweets STOP
////Preferably one that doesn't look so much like... twitter. STOP
 
2012-10-31 03:50:43 PM  

Freudian_slipknot: The extreme right wing denying reality?

That would certainly be a new event that was unforeseeable and unprecedented.


fail.brm.sk
 
2012-10-31 03:51:19 PM  

MyEnamine: Dusk-You-n-Me: [HERO]

This.


The media cannot label a democrat a "hero" because that would mean they are part of liberal MSM and cannot be trusted. The term "hero" can only be applied to Republicans.
 
2012-10-31 03:51:40 PM  
It almost seems like people are waking up way too late into the game.
 
2012-10-31 03:51:55 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: PC LOAD LETTER: Is this man made? I really don't give a crap. It's here and it's real. And it's going to fark us up. Plan and adapt, or die.

Chris Hayes summed it up yesterday.

Whether climate changed "caused" Sandy isn't the point. The point is a) carbon emissions are producing a climate with more extreme weather- Christopher Hayes (@chrislhayes) October 30, 2012

b) with more extreme weather will come more extreme weather events *like Sandy* c) extreme weather events will disrupt our lives- Christopher Hayes (@chrislhayes) October 30, 2012

<con't> and cause tremendous economic damage, death and human misery. We are presently doing essentially nothing to prepare for this- Christopher Hayes (@chrislhayes) October 30, 2012

The scale of what needs to change is mind-boggling: a) re-engineering infrastructure b) revolutionizing our energy sources and transmission- Christopher Hayes (@chrislhayes) October 30, 2012

And yet our elites and the beltway are *obsessed* with the nation's budget projections for 2050 (!) and say almost nothing about this threat- Christopher Hayes (@chrislhayes) October 30, 2012


I know Hayes has passion for this subject but everytime I see that MSNBC commercial with him riding a bike, I just think to myself "god what a dork".
 
2012-10-31 03:52:13 PM  
It's fun to watch humans' greatest flaw become exposed like this. We are so hosed.

\interesting times
 
2012-10-31 03:52:40 PM  

BeesNuts: /I know it's an amazing technology, STOP
//but god damnit do I find the telegraph style communication annoying STOP
///We need to define a notation for referencing tweets STOP
////Preferably one that doesn't look so much like... twitter. STOP


Hey I'm with you on this. Every other website has tweet-box rendering built in. Nice and clean. Not sure why Fark is lagging. Or maybe it's not up to them, I'm not a web designer.
 
2012-10-31 03:54:38 PM  
Um, odd weather events like this are rare. But not unprecedented.

In 1703, a hurricane hit the UK full-force.

The "little ice age" was still going on. We don't have a perfect understanding of these things and how they work. We're getting better, but saying that these things are a result of Man's Evil Capitalist Ways is pretty much the same as the reactions in 1703 (we have offended the Lord). There's no calculation to point to, just a feeling.
 
2012-10-31 03:58:17 PM  

whidbey: I guess we need a few more hurricanes to quell the "skeptics" who are still being politically cautious dipsh*ts before this gets taken seriously.


It's one thing to be "politically cautious."

It's another thing to completely deny the evidence and say that anyone who "believes" it is "part of the conspiracy".

/Lord Bugeye is not being "politically cautious."
 
2012-10-31 03:58:26 PM  

JohnAnnArbor: Um, odd weather events like this are rare. But not unprecedented.

In 1703, a hurricane hit the UK full-force.

The "little ice age" was still going on. We don't have a perfect understanding of these things and how they work. We're getting better, but saying that these things are a result of Man's Evil Capitalist Ways is pretty much the same as the reactions in 1703 (we have offended the Lord). There's no calculation to point to, just a feeling.


^^^^^^A Major Part of the Problem^^^^^
 
2012-10-31 03:58:33 PM  

JohnAnnArbor: Um, odd weather events like this are rare. But not unprecedented.

In 1703, a hurricane hit the UK full-force.

The "little ice age" was still going on. We don't have a perfect understanding of these things and how they work. We're getting better, but saying that these things are a result of Man's Evil Capitalist Ways is pretty much the same as the reactions in 1703 (we have offended the Lord). There's no calculation to point to, just a feeling.


Way to miss the point.

It's not that we're having the most extreme weather ever... it's that we're having extreme weather a lot more often.
 
2012-10-31 03:58:34 PM  

JohnAnnArbor: but saying that these things are a result of Man's Evil Capitalist Ways


We are saying that. You got a problem with it?
 
2012-10-31 03:59:43 PM  
A friend of mine who lives in NYC posted this on Facebook this morning:

This is absolutely climate change. How can a child who is not even two years old already have been through two hurricanes in NYC?
 
2012-10-31 04:00:21 PM  

JohnAnnArbor: Um, odd weather events like this are rare. But not unprecedented.

In 1703, a hurricane hit the UK full-force.

The "little ice age" was still going on. We don't have a perfect understanding of these things and how they work. We're getting better, but saying that these things are a result of Man's Evil Capitalist Ways is pretty much the same as the reactions in 1703 (we have offended the Lord). There's no calculation to point to, just a feeling.


You a farking moron, and people like you are going to get all of us killed.

fark you.
 
2012-10-31 04:02:38 PM  

IlGreven: whidbey: I guess we need a few more hurricanes to quell the "skeptics" who are still being politically cautious dipsh*ts before this gets taken seriously.

It's one thing to be "politically cautious."

It's another thing to completely deny the evidence and say that anyone who "believes" it is "part of the conspiracy".

/Lord Bugeye is not being "politically cautious."


Yeah but you know what? That is still the reason why we're not seeing confident action.

Hell, even the governor of my blue state was in bed with a Canadian coal company.
 
2012-10-31 04:03:20 PM  

Evil High Priest: JohnAnnArbor: Um, odd weather events like this are rare. But not unprecedented.

In 1703, a hurricane hit the UK full-force.

The "little ice age" was still going on. We don't have a perfect understanding of these things and how they work. We're getting better, but saying that these things are a result of Man's Evil Capitalist Ways is pretty much the same as the reactions in 1703 (we have offended the Lord). There's no calculation to point to, just a feeling.

You a farking moron, and people like you are going to get all of us killed.

fark you.


Facts? Or just invective?
 
2012-10-31 04:03:26 PM  

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


I don't:

i47.tinypic.com

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.
 
2012-10-31 04:05:02 PM  

JohnAnnArbor: Um, odd weather events like this are rare. But not unprecedented.

In 1703, a hurricane hit the UK full-force.

The "little ice age" was still going on. We don't have a perfect understanding of these things and how they work. We're getting better, but saying that these things are a result of Man's Evil Capitalist Ways is pretty much the same as the reactions in 1703 (we have offended the Lord). There's no calculation to point to, just a feeling.


My Aunt Sarah once had a huge-boil on her butt that the doctor had to lance and stitch-up. Long story short, I don't feel smoking is necessarily bad for your health.
 
2012-10-31 04:05:24 PM  

JohnAnnArbor: Facts? Or just invective?


You're the one ignoring the bulk of scientific consensus.

Yeah it isn't science, it's a "feeling." That's an insult to intelligence, and you deserve what's coming to you here.
 
2012-10-31 04:06:04 PM  

Evil High Priest: JohnAnnArbor: Um, odd weather events like this are rare. But not unprecedented.

In 1703, a hurricane hit the UK full-force.

The "little ice age" was still going on. We don't have a perfect understanding of these things and how they work. We're getting better, but saying that these things are a result of Man's Evil Capitalist Ways is pretty much the same as the reactions in 1703 (we have offended the Lord). There's no calculation to point to, just a feeling.

You a farking moron, and people like you are going to get all of us killed.

fark you.


No you a farking moron!

//see what I did there?
 
2012-10-31 04:06:29 PM  

ddam: JohnAnnArbor: Um, odd weather events like this are rare. But not unprecedented.

In 1703, a hurricane hit the UK full-force.

The "little ice age" was still going on. We don't have a perfect understanding of these things and how they work. We're getting better, but saying that these things are a result of Man's Evil Capitalist Ways is pretty much the same as the reactions in 1703 (we have offended the Lord). There's no calculation to point to, just a feeling.

Way to miss the point.

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


Again, no calculation to point to. $$$ doesn't count; our coastlines are a LOT more built up than a few decades ago, so each hurricane causes more damage, naturally (with some counter-effect of better construction methods).
 
2012-10-31 04:06:33 PM  
If we'd only listen to enviroalarmists, we could have an unvarying climate for the rest of eternity. Yet here we sit, not allowing them the authority to restructure the economy and all of society to attain this end. Tragic.
 
2012-10-31 04:06:44 PM  

JohnAnnArbor: Um, odd weather events like this are rare. But not unprecedented.

In 1703, a hurricane hit the UK full-force.

The "little ice age" was still going on. We don't have a perfect understanding of these things and how they work. We're getting better, but saying that these things are a result of Man's Evil Capitalist Ways is pretty much the same as the reactions in 1703 (we have offended the Lord). There's no calculation to point to, just a feeling.



Ah, another "needs more study" concern troll.
 
2012-10-31 04:06:49 PM  
Because NYC being hit by a Hurricane is unprecedented.

OMG! There's bad weather - it's da global warming!

/maybe if stupid people didn't build cities on barrier islands you wouldn't have this problem.
 
2012-10-31 04:08:02 PM  
Bah, you liberals, with your facts, and your reality.

/reality can haz liberal bias
 
2012-10-31 04:08:11 PM  

beta_plus: Because NYC being hit by a Hurricane is unprecedented.


Congrats, you won an argument with yourself.
 
2012-10-31 04:08:50 PM  

JohnAnnArbor: Um, odd weather events like this are rare. But not unprecedented.

In 1703, a hurricane hit the UK full-force.

The "little ice age" was still going on. We don't have a perfect understanding of these things and how they work. We're getting better, but saying that these things are a result of Man's Evil Capitalist Ways is pretty much the same as the reactions in 1703 (we have offended the Lord). There's no calculation to point to, just a feeling.


The vast majority of climate scientists, including the father of skepticism, Richard Lindzen, say that it's getting warmer, and that it's even our fault. Lindzen departs from many of his colleagues in saying this is a self-correcting system. But neither the notion climate is getting warmer and therefore will result in extreme weather events, nor that it is caused by humans, is anything other than a majority view.

We might ask if mitigation is less expensive than prevention, and the null-hypothesis should be that it is more expensive, but I also expect few studies have examined this nor are they likely give us a definitive answer to whether we can choose to do nothing.

The problem is partly that our economy is totally farked because of this. We just aren't willing to admit it yet. Half of us think we can grow our way out of this with green energy. The other half cling to the hope that mitigation will be inexpensive enough that it will either not be ruinous or so far into the future that it won't affect us, or that we will be able to avoid responsibility for mitigation.

We're doomed. Our golden age was the '90s, and I doubt anyone alive now will see humanity's next golden age. (China's just hoping to get one before it all comes crashing down - they still need a Great Person.)
 
2012-10-31 04:09:01 PM  

JohnAnnArbor: ddam: JohnAnnArbor: Um, odd weather events like this are rare. But not unprecedented.

In 1703, a hurricane hit the UK full-force.

The "little ice age" was still going on. We don't have a perfect understanding of these things and how they work. We're getting better, but saying that these things are a result of Man's Evil Capitalist Ways is pretty much the same as the reactions in 1703 (we have offended the Lord). There's no calculation to point to, just a feeling.

Way to miss the point.

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

Again, no calculation to point to. $$$ doesn't count; our coastlines are a LOT more built up than a few decades ago, so each hurricane causes more damage, naturally (with some counter-effect of better construction methods).


We're not talking about damage here. We're talking about number of severe storms per year. And that has been documented and I'm sure people have pointed this to you before but you choose to ignore it.
 
2012-10-31 04:09:04 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: JohnAnnArbor: Um, odd weather events like this are rare. But not unprecedented.

In 1703, a hurricane hit the UK full-force.

The "little ice age" was still going on. We don't have a perfect understanding of these things and how they work. We're getting better, but saying that these things are a result of Man's Evil Capitalist Ways is pretty much the same as the reactions in 1703 (we have offended the Lord). There's no calculation to point to, just a feeling.

Ah, another "needs more study" concern troll.


I think you mean "Study it out."
 
2012-10-31 04:09:49 PM  

mrshowrules: My Aunt Sarah once had a huge-boil on her butt that the doctor had to lance and stitch-up. Long story short, I don't feel smoking is necessarily bad for your health.


You're suppose to put cigarettes in your mouth. Unless you like having a "Yo Dawg" experience
 
2012-10-31 04:10:32 PM  
Oooh, a Halloween Climate Change Thread! Between the popcorn and the rugrats' leftover candy, I'm gonna be hurlin' tonight!
 
2012-10-31 04:11:12 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 04:12:33 PM  

Ricardo Klement: JohnAnnArbor: Um, odd weather events like this are rare. But not unprecedented.

In 1703, a hurricane hit the UK full-force.

The "little ice age" was still going on. We don't have a perfect understanding of these things and how they work. We're getting better, but saying that these things are a result of Man's Evil Capitalist Ways is pretty much the same as the reactions in 1703 (we have offended the Lord). There's no calculation to point to, just a feeling.

The vast majority of climate scientists, including the father of skepticism, Richard Lindzen, say that it's getting warmer, and that it's even our fault. Lindzen departs from many of his colleagues in saying this is a self-correcting system. But neither the notion climate is getting warmer and therefore will result in extreme weather events, nor that it is caused by humans, is anything other than a majority view.

We might ask if mitigation is less expensive than prevention, and the null-hypothesis should be that it is more expensive, but I also expect few studies have examined this nor are they likely give us a definitive answer to whether we can choose to do nothing.

The problem is partly that our economy is totally farked because of this. We just aren't willing to admit it yet. Half of us think we can grow our way out of this with green energy. The other half cling to the hope that mitigation will be inexpensive enough that it will either not be ruinous or so far into the future that it won't affect us, or that we will be able to avoid responsibility for mitigation.

We're doomed. Our golden age was the '90s, and I doubt anyone alive now will see humanity's next golden age. (China's just hoping to get one before it all comes crashing down - they still need a Great Person.)


...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 figuring them out, but we've got a long way to go with both.
 
2012-10-31 04:12:47 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: beta_plus: Because NYC being hit by a Hurricane is unprecedented.

Congrats, you won an argument with yourself.


Using facts to make liberals look stupid isn't fair, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
 
2012-10-31 04:14:42 PM  

JohnAnnArbor: The point is: we don't know.


You're making a very good point--for the Flat Earthers.
 
2012-10-31 04:16:17 PM  

ddam: We're talking about number of severe storms per year.


Yes, there's been a change. Downward. We've been told "new normal" since Katrina. Seven years ago.

Anybody here old enough to remember the 1950s? 10 (t-e-n) major hurricanes hit the east coast between New England and the Carolinas just from '54 to '60. Irene and Sandy? Two points might make a line in geometry class, but they don't establish, well, whatever the fark chief scientist Cuomo is saying.
 
2012-10-31 04:17:00 PM  
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?
 
2012-10-31 04:17:22 PM  

JohnAnnArbor: ddam: JohnAnnArbor: Um, odd weather events like this are rare. But not unprecedented.

In 1703, a hurricane hit the UK full-force.

The "little ice age" was still going on. We don't have a perfect understanding of these things and how they work. We're getting better, but saying that these things are a result of Man's Evil Capitalist Ways is pretty much the same as the reactions in 1703 (we have offended the Lord). There's no calculation to point to, just a feeling.

Way to miss the point.

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

Again, no calculation to point to. $$$ doesn't count; our coastlines are a LOT more built up than a few decades ago, so each hurricane causes more damage, naturally (with some counter-effect of better construction methods).


The original calculations were done by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. It is now 2012.

For the record, his assumptions were optimistic compared to what we now know.
 
2012-10-31 04:17:34 PM  
*sigh*

Weather isn't climate. Just because we have a few weird storms now and then doesn't mean a thing. "Frankenstorm" Sandy means nothing--during the depths of the Little Ice Age they had record heat waves and killer droughts, one of which set up the Great Fire of London. Sandy was a strange confluence of a tropical storm and a cold nor'easter coming together. That's weather.

Climate is different. Climate is what makes weather. As the climate changes globally, it may or may not impact the weather locally--but what it does do is change things long-term. There MAY be more intense storms, or there may not; but what there will be for sure is things like shorter growing seasons, or extended periods of drought or rain, or decades where winters are a couple of degrees colder than they have been. Those are things we need to worry about, not occasional bad storms or more tornadoes than usual. One or two very cold winters are not bad; a couple of Cat 5 hurricanes are not bad. What IS bad is ten years in a row when the snow pack melts in mid-January instead of mid-February, and then the runoff is gone in May instead of June; then there's no water for irrigation by August and farmers lose the third wheat crop; then food prices go up. THAT is why climate change is a problem. Or if the permafrost in Canada starts to thaw, and we get a huge influx of mosquitoes, and we start seeing West Nile virus moving north.

Not these storms. Weather isn't a problem Climate is.
 
2012-10-31 04:19:40 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 04:20:58 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Sandy was a strange confluence of a tropical storm and a cold nor'easter coming together. That's weather.


The key word being "strange confluence."

Science really isn't regarding it as "strange" anymore, and it's hardly in the minority to indicate that climate change is causing "strange confluences" like Sandy.
 
2012-10-31 04:22:31 PM  
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.
 
2012-10-31 04:22:37 PM  

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 figuring them out, but we've got a long way to go with both.


Except there's no serious scientific evidence to suggest that's going on at all. You may as well blame it on gamma ray bursts. We understand the climate enough to understand that it's getting warmer AND that it's our fault. I might agree that we can't know beyond that just what it means, precisely how the environment will react and for how long it will change, but change it will.

And we're pretty comfortable with what we've got now. To pretend otherwise is just an attempt to justify doing nothing.
 
2012-10-31 04:26:31 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 04:28:24 PM  
So a catagory one storm during hurricane season is evidence of global warming now?

Frankenstorm indeed.
 
2012-10-31 04:28:43 PM  

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?
 
2012-10-31 04:31:17 PM  

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 ...
 
2012-10-31 04:34:07 PM  

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?
 
2012-10-31 04:36:06 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 04:39:23 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 04:42:30 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 04:42:32 PM  

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


Where in the article does Cuomo, or anyone, say a hurricane in NY is unprecedented?

I don't think you know what deflecting means.
 
2012-10-31 04:44:59 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 04:45:26 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 04:47:52 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 04:50:34 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 04:50:44 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 04:52:00 PM  
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?
 
2012-10-31 04:52:40 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 04:55:01 PM  

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
 
2012-10-31 04:57:45 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 04:57:59 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 05:01:23 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 05:06:06 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 05:08:00 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 05:10:32 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 05:17:41 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 05:20:21 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 05:21:14 PM  
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.
 
MFL
2012-10-31 05:24:03 PM  
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.
 
2012-10-31 05:25:15 PM  

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?
 
2012-10-31 05:26:56 PM  

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
 
2012-10-31 05:27:19 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 05:46:51 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 05:47:55 PM  
Brave Sir beta_plus.
 
2012-10-31 05:49:46 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 05:53:08 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 05:54:51 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 05:55:07 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 05:57:01 PM  

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?
 
2012-10-31 06:00:43 PM  
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.
 
2012-10-31 06:03:16 PM  

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?
 
2012-10-31 06:12:04 PM  
Koch-funded climate change skeptic reverses course

Link
 
2012-10-31 06:33:36 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 06:34:10 PM  
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
 
2012-10-31 06:35:41 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 06:43:29 PM  

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?
 
2012-10-31 06:45:42 PM  

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


i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-31 06:48:59 PM  

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

Link


he never doubted AGW
 
2012-10-31 06:49:06 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 06:50:39 PM  

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.
 
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?
 
2012-11-01 01:03:37 AM  

Evil High Priest: That is the problem with humans, right there. There is consensus among the experts. Yet, there will always be deniers.


Well to be fair, it's important that we are careful who we call experts and that the consensus is among opinions based on independent scientific investigations and not just a consensus of opinions.

Remember, at one point in time the consensus of experts said the world was most certainly flat.

I'm not a denier, but imagine the egg on the face of science if in 50 years we figure out it was all caused by a combination of solar activity and some other earthly phenomenon. I don't think that will never happen, but important to always invite dissenting opinion and let the science decide.

So, if we are discussing the consensus of many serious scientific investigations, great.

If we are discussing the consensus of politicians like Cuomo that just happened to have their state get whacked by a storm... it doesn't (shouldn't) even enter into the discussion.
 
2012-11-01 01:09:12 AM  

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.


Porn?

/didn't actually google it
//but it's the internet.
 
2012-11-01 01:18:05 AM  

HK-MP5-SD: . 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?


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.
 
2012-11-01 03:53:35 AM  

common sense is an oxymoron: 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 image 600x450]

and one for worldwide disasters:

[www.intechopen.com image 800x489]


That's re-insurance loss claims, tard, not total disasters. A 50 square mile drought in Kansas would now qualify, whereas it would not in 1982, because the loss would not have fallen to re-insurance then. By this metric, the numbers will ALWAYS go up, no matter what weather. And if re-insurers went under, the number would drop to zero immediately. Problem solved.

Way to pick an apples-to-mountains comparison.
 
2012-11-01 10:33:04 AM  
If this hurricane hit florida it would be normal weather but because it followed a non traditional track and made landfall on nj it has to be man made global homicide weather.
 
2012-11-01 01:23:24 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: StoneColdAtheist: 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.


Define "like". Number of deaths? Meh...Sandy:74 vs Katrina:1200. Money? Not even close! NY metro area? Sheesh...NYC getting hit is the weather equivalent of "pretty blond girl kidnapped". The ONLY thing that distinguishes Sandy is the coincidence in time of the contributing factors.
 
2012-11-01 02:43:33 PM  

StoneColdAtheist: common sense is an oxymoron: StoneColdAtheist: 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.

Define "like". Number of deaths? Meh...Sandy:74 vs Katrina:1200. Money? Not even close! NY metro area? Sheesh...NYC getting hit is the weather equivalent of "pretty blond girl kidnapped". The ONLY thing that distinguishes Sandy is the coincidence in time of the contributing factors.


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 appearr.
 
2012-11-01 03:02:43 PM  
Still pretty quiet in here..
 
2012-11-01 03:29:20 PM  
Is the globe seeing any changes in the length of the growing seasons? Are we seeing areas that have become nonarable due to global warming....even a slight change in what we can grow and how big a window we have to grow it? No? But but sandy? Really? Thats all you got is that a boadwalk washed away?
 
2012-11-01 04:15:18 PM  
Yes. To all of this. We'll have more, and more severe droughts, destroying more crops. More flooding leading to more erosion and loss of topsoil. We'll have more seawater flooding in low areas, meaning no farming there. Rising ocean levels mean millions of people will be displaced. So. Yeah. All of that and more.

Is the globe seeing any changes in the length of the growing seasons? Are we seeing areas that have become nonarable due to global warming....even a slight change in what we can grow and how big a window we have to grow it?
 
2012-11-01 07:16:44 PM  

SevenizGud: common sense is an oxymoron: 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 image 600x450]

and one for worldwide disasters:

[www.intechopen.com image 800x489]

That's re-insurance loss claims, tard, not total disasters. A 50 square mile drought in Kansas would now qualify, whereas it would not in 1982, because the loss would not have fallen to re-insurance then. By this metric, the numbers will ALWAYS go up, no matter what weather. And if re-insurers went under, the number would drop to zero immediately. Problem solved.

Way to pick an apples-to-mountains comparison.



The second graph is indeed of claims due to disasters worldwide.

The first graph, however, is of events, although the data is for the US only. Upon further searching, though, I was able to find the corresponding worldwide graph:

lh3.ggpht.com

And regardless of how you want to split hairs over how to define an "event," you've given me no reason to believe you instead of the people with the most to lose if their forecasts are wrong.
 
2012-11-02 12:19:32 AM  

beta_plus: Because NYC being hit by a Hurricane is unprecedented.

OMG! There's bad weather - it's da global warming!

/maybe if stupid people didn't build cities on barrier islands you wouldn't have this problem.


Maybe if even stupider (yes I said it) people stopped farking up the environment and making climate change worse, there might not even be a problem.
"Why don't you just move?"... the questionable mindset of cowards who would rather run away like little b*tches than solve the farking problems they created. 

As was explained earlier in the thread... it's not that severe weather events are happening, it's that they're happening more often. More droughts, more blizzards, more hurricanes, more huge storms, more floods, more dumbasses who don't believe until it's too farking late.
 
Displayed 162 of 162 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report