Hurricane Sandy thread

[Jenksismyhero]

they're not 100 year storms anymore. they're happening every year. we're in a period of climate activity where storms like this - along with other extreme weather - are going to be the norm for the next 20+ years.

 

Lol, you are ridiculous.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

The less the state government does, the better. The whole notion of state by state governance becomes more obsolete by the day.

 

Which is incredibly sad and pathetic.

[Reddy]

<!--quoteo(post=2720651:date=Oct 30, 2012 -> 05:15 PM:name=Reddy)-->

<!--quotec-->they're not 100 year storms anymore. they're happening every year. we're in a period of climate activity where storms like this - along with other extreme weather - are going to be the norm for the next 20+ years.

 

Lol, you are ridiculous.

 

wait wait wait...

 

are you STILL denying climate change? STILL? SERIOUSLY?

 

lol that's rich.

[Jenksismyhero]

wait wait wait...

 

are you STILL denying climate change? STILL? SERIOUSLY?

 

lol that's rich.

 

I was making fun of your ridiculous claim that these storms "happen every year." The Day After Tomorrow isn't a documentary.

[Reddy]

I was making fun of your ridiculous claim that these storms "happen every year." The Day After Tomorrow isn't a documentary.

um. Irene was last year.

[Jenksismyhero]

um. Irene was last year.

 

And it wasn't on a scale like this at all. And what was the big storm in 2010? And 2009? And on and on. These storms happen every few decades or longer. You're buying into that bulls*** Inconvenient Truth hype that more storms and stronger storms would become the norm. That's not denying that global warming exists. It's denying that humans can change weather patterns to the degree you're suggesting.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[bmags]

um. Irene was last year.

 

LOL, sure.

 

(southpark clip).

[StrangeSox]

And it wasn't on a scale like this at all. And what was the big storm in 2010? And 2009? And on and on. These storms happen every few decades or longer. You're buying into that bulls*** Inconvenient Truth hype that more storms and stronger storms would become the norm. That's not denying that global warming exists. It's denying that humans can change weather patterns to the degree you're suggesting.

 

More energy (warmer) = bigger, stronger, more frequent storms. That's pretty basic.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2008/02..._hurricanes.htm

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70830105911.htm

 

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=110825

 

etc.

 

Make sure you're not focusing exclusively on the US! For 2010, there was this in Mexico:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Atlantic_hurricane_season

Most of the damage in the season occurred in Mexico. The first hurricane, Hurricane Alex, was the wettest tropical cyclone in the state of Nuevo León, producing 35.04 in (890 mm) on the mountains in the outskirts of Monterrey.[16][17] Heavy damage was reported in the state, totaling $16.9 billion (2010 MXN; 1.35 billion USD).[18] In Tamaulipas where it made landfall, Alex and its ensuing floods damaged at least 6,000 homes, 202 schools, and 500 businesses,[19] leaving damage of around $1.084 billion (2010 MXN; 83.8 million USD).[20] There were at least 12 deaths in the country

 

there were also the major floods in Pakistan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Pakistan_floods

The 2010 Pakistan floods began in late July 2010, resulting from heavy monsoon rains in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Sindh, Punjab and Balochistan regions of Pakistan and affected the Indus River basin. Approximately one-fifth of Pakistan's total land area was underwater, approximately 796,095 square kilometres (307,374 sq mi).[3][4][5] According to Pakistani government data the floods directly affected about 20 million people, mostly by destruction of property, livelihood and infrastructure, with a death toll of close to 2,000.[1]

 

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had initially asked for US$460 million (€420 million) for emergency relief, noting that the flood was the worst disaster he had ever seen. Only 20% of the relief funds requested had been received as of 15 August 2010.[6] The U.N. had been concerned that aid was not arriving fast enough, and the World Health Organization reported that ten million people were forced to drink unsafe water.[7] The Pakistani economy was harmed by extensive damage to infrastructure and crops.[8] Damage to structures was estimated to exceed US$4 billion (€2.5 billion), and wheat crop damages were estimated to be over US$500 million (€425 million).[9] Total economic impact may have been as much as US$43 billion (€35 billion).

 

As with any individual case of lung cancer and smoking, you can't prove direct causation for any given storm or event. NOAA has a good resource for worldwide weather events

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/weather-events.html

Edited October 31, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Reddy]

And it wasn't on a scale like this at all. And what was the big storm in 2010? And 2009? And on and on. These storms happen every few decades or longer. You're buying into that bulls*** Inconvenient Truth hype that more storms and stronger storms would become the norm. That's not denying that global warming exists. It's denying that humans can change weather patterns to the degree you're suggesting.

 

the only reason Irene wasn't on the scale of this was because it happened to circle around NYC instead of hitting it. we got lucky last year.

[Reddy]

More energy (warmer) = bigger, stronger, more frequent storms. That's pretty basic.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2008/02..._hurricanes.htm

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70830105911.htm

 

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=110825

 

etc.

 

Make sure you're not focusing exclusively on the US! For 2010, there was this in Mexico:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Atlantic_hurricane_season

 

 

there were also the major floods in Pakistan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Pakistan_floods

 

 

As with any individual case of lung cancer and smoking, you can't prove direct causation for any given storm or event. NOAA has a good resource for worldwide weather events

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/weather-events.html

 

i'm so glad i can rely on awesome people like you to have all the resources at hand.

[StrangeSox]

(my 'resource' is www.google.com )

[Jenksismyhero]

More energy (warmer) = bigger, stronger, more frequent storms. That's pretty basic.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2008/02..._hurricanes.htm

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70830105911.htm

 

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=110825

 

etc.

 

Make sure you're not focusing exclusively on the US! For 2010, there was this in Mexico:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Atlantic_hurricane_season

 

 

there were also the major floods in Pakistan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Pakistan_floods

 

 

As with any individual case of lung cancer and smoking, you can't prove direct causation for any given storm or event. NOAA has a good resource for worldwide weather events

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/weather-events.html

 

Wake me when Katrina happens annually as was previously predicted but never came true. We've had horrific storms in the past, and we'll have them in the future. To claim this stuff happens annually on such a massive scale is ludicrous. Yeah, s*** happens around the globe, and that's been happening for hundreds of thousands of years. It's called weather!

[Steve9347]

And it wasn't on a scale like this at all. And what was the big storm in 2010? And 2009? And on and on. These storms happen every few decades or longer. You're buying into that bulls*** Inconvenient Truth hype that more storms and stronger storms would become the norm. That's not denying that global warming exists. It's denying that humans can change weather patterns to the degree you're suggesting.

Katrina 2005, Sandy 2012. Um, no.

 

Wake me when Katrina happens annually as was previously predicted but never came true. We've had horrific storms in the past, and we'll have them in the future. To claim this stuff happens annually on such a massive scale is ludicrous. Yeah, s*** happens around the globe, and that's been happening for hundreds of thousands of years. It's called weather!

No one said annually; but the frequency is increasing, and the close-calls are increasing. How can you state that these storms "happen every few decades or longer" when empirical evidence is being thrown right in your face?

[StrangeSox]

Wake me when Katrina happens annually as was previously predicted but never came true. We've had horrific storms in the past, and we'll have them in the future. To claim this stuff happens annually on such a massive scale is ludicrous. Yeah, s*** happens around the globe, and that's been happening for hundreds of thousands of years. It's called weather!

 

Man, if only people could use math and science to see if intensity and frequency are increasing. I guess we'll never know!

 

No one has predicted annual Katrinas that I know of. What they've observed and predicted is increased intensity and frequency in weather systems worldwide because there's more energy in the system. This is really, really basic science and you look pretty silly saying "it's called weather!" and posting South Park clips.

[StrangeSox]

Katrina 2005, Sandy 2012. Um, no.

 

And, given that it's a called Global Warming for a reason, it's silly to focus only on storms that happen to hit the US. 2011 was a relatively calm year (there were pretty massive tornado outbreaks here), but 2010 was most definitely not.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_25%E2%8...ornado_outbreak

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Joplin_tornado

Edited October 31, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

Katrina 2005, Sandy 2012. Um, no.

 

 

No one said annually; but the frequency is increasing, and the close-calls are increasing. How can you state that these storms "happen every few decades or longer" when empirical evidence is being thrown right in your face?

 

Because storms happen frequently. FREAKY, HISTORICAL storms do not. Did you guys not watch 5 minutes of coverage of Sandy? How every meteorologist called this the worst storm EVER in the region? That the last time this happened to NYC on a scale anything like this was 1938?

 

Giving me a couple of examples from around the world is not evidence of this stuff happening more frequently than 100 years ago. The reporting of these major natural disasters just got better.

[Reddy]

(my 'resource' is www.google.com )

time is a resource.

[Jenksismyhero]

Man, if only people could use math and science to see if intensity and frequency are increasing. I guess we'll never know!

 

No one has predicted annual Katrinas that I know of. What they've observed and predicted is increased intensity and frequency in weather systems worldwide because there's more energy in the system. This is really, really basic science and you look pretty silly saying "it's called weather!" and posting South Park clips.

 

Give me some data that shows the frequency and intensity has increased as compared to a hundred years ago or 50 years ago. And NOT just because the reporting of those events has gotten better and i'll concede that you're right.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

Give me some data that shows the frequency and intensity has increased as compared to a hundred years ago or 50 years ago. And NOT just because the reporting of those events has gotten better and i'll concede that you're right.

 

I already gave you multiple links, to which you replied "It's called weather!"

 

[LittleHurt05]

Give me some data that shows the frequency and intensity has increased as compared to a hundred years ago or 50 years ago. And NOT just because the reporting of those events has gotten better and i'll concede that you're right.

 

A big factor too is that there is so much more to be damaged nowadays than there was in the past. More population, more buildings, cities expanding outward and upward. Of course the financial damage nowadays will be dramatically increased.

[Jenksismyhero]

I already gave you multiple links, to which you replied "It's called weather!"

 

You pointed me to some storms in the last 10 years. That doesn't say anything about (1) how those storms compare to each other, (2) how those storms compare to a few decades ago. That can all be explained by better reporting/data gathering.

 

Here's a good piece on Sandy and climate change and what the almighty science has told us: basically, it might play a part, but no one knows! So stop pretending like what you're arguing is fact when it's not. My point wasn't to deny that climate change might alter weather patterns, but to point out Reddy's (and others) overreaction, much like that in the South Park clip.

 

http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/...hurricane-sandy

 

"There have not been studies done showing links between storm sizes and climate change," Freedman wrote in an email to Popular Science. "[T]here is anecdotal evidence suggesting that purely tropical storms/hurricanes could be expanding in size, but how that might be tied to climate change is unclear."

 

"tudies of storm intensity/frequency in a warming world show changes on the order of 5 to 10 percent several decades from now," Freedman says.

 

Compared to other sets of climate data, historical knowledge of hurricanes is weak.

Tree growth rings, ice cores, weather stations, and other continuous, land-based sources of data help researchers study the effects of natural vs. human contributions to climate change.

 

Unfortunately, says Freedman, "A big impediment to making firmer conclusions on the link between hurricanes and climate change is that the historical record is not very reliable prior to the 1950s or so, when hurricane reconnaissance missions became more commonplace."

 

"If you go back to the 19th and early 20th centuries, if a storm missed land and didn't affect many ships, it probably went undetected. That means that scientists don't have a very long record of good data with which to detect trends."

 

Scientists haven't given up on recovering what ocean-based records they can. One effort called Old Weather , for example, asks people with spare time to translate ships' logbooks and extract weather data, which researchers can then use to both understand historic weather patterns and model future ones.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

You pointed me to some storms in the last 10 years. That doesn't say anything abut (1) how those storms compare to each other, (2) how those storms compare to a few decades ago. That can all be explained by better reporting/data gathering.

 

No, I gave you links to (press releases for) a couple of papers that examined the mechanisms that would increase intensity and frequency.

 

Here's a good piece on Sandy and climate change and what the almighty science has told us: basically, it might play a part, but no one knows! So stop pretending like what you're arguing is fact when it's not. My point wasn't to deny that climate change might alter weather patters, but to point out Reddy's (and others) overreaction, much like that in the South Park clip.

 

http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/...hurricane-sandy

 

Actually, they know that it plays a part in increased intensity and they have a decent understanding of the actual mechanisms. What they can't know, like I said earlier, is direct causation for any individual storm. Just like you can't know that any particular smoker got lung cancer from their cigarettes. If you want to say that some peoples' reaction is a little hyperbolic, ok, but you were denying that global warming could even increase these sorts of things and said some ignorant stuff yourself. Your own link says otherwise.

Edited October 31, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

No, I gave you links to (press releases for) a couple of papers that examined the mechanisms that would increase intensity and frequency.

 

Actually, they know that it plays a part in increased intensity and they have a decent understanding of the actual mechanisms. What they can't know, like I said earlier, is direct causation for any individual storm. Just like you can't know that any particular smoker got lung cancer from their cigarettes. If you want to say that some peoples' reaction is a little hyperbolic, ok, but you were denying that global warming could even increase these sorts of things and said some ignorant stuff yourself. Your own link says otherwise.

 

You gave me links explaining theories as to how increased temperatures could increase the severity of those storms. That's great and all, but I asked for proof that storms generally, not individually, are increasing in frequency and intensity. I'm not asking you to tell me if your lung cancer was caused by smoking, i'm asking you to show me that smoking causes an increase in lung cancer rates. I'm saying these freakish storms occur - and have occurred - for a long time. They're "storms of the century" that have been reported for hundreds of years. Not every hurricane is a direct result of global warming. Hurricanes happen routinely. Freakish ones, like Sandy, do not.

 

And please cite to where I denied global warming could increase these sorts of things. I never said anything like that. I poked fun at the overreaction.

 

Lastly, stop being a dick with these "ignorant stuff" lines. You've been doing that for a while now and it's getting old. I disagree with you on just about everything, but at least I respect the fact that you have a differing opinion than me. I don't make it a point to be an asshole and comment on how dumb I think your comments are.

 

[StrangeSox]

And please cite to where I denied global warming could increase these sorts of things. I never said anything like that.

 

You're buying into that bulls*** Inconvenient Truth hype that more storms and stronger storms would become the norm.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yeah, again, tell me where i'm denying global warming would have any effect. I'm saying it's not the end of the world prophecy that was predicted.

 

Edit: And feel free to ignore my post on this very page in which I said my point wasn't to deny the impact, but to poke fun at the overreaction.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Jenksismybitch