| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 10:15 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Since you have crafted a response that is closer to your pre-election persona, I will respond in kind.......and then call it a day.
| coboardhead wrote: | | Does that mean you don't have another source that will agree with Dr. Curry? I have read a couple of similar opinions to her's. So, if this stooge can find it, so can you. |
Most credible commentary I read agreed with Dr. Curry that Harvey's impact could not reliably be linked to global warming. It is pointless posting them because their opinions will be dismissed and their integrity will be impugned just as Dr. Curry's was.
| coboardhead wrote: | | I think it is also worth mentioning that the evacuation order came from the Governor of Florida, not CNN. He was doing the responsible thing given the size of the storm and the unpredictable nature it had already exhibited. |
Scott had no choice. Neither did the evacuees. The information he was receiving, and the relentless media coverage, made it impossible to do otherwise. When the governor tells you that "the water will be above your house", based on advice from weather experts, and repeatedly endlessly by the Weather Channel et al, you get out. When you return and find it wouldn't have been above your ankles, you understandably begin to doubt the credibility of those sources. That's my point.
| coboardhead wrote: | | So, here's the thing Mrgybe. You can continue to argue that we don't have increased risk of stronger storms because of climate change. |
I have never argued that. However, I do react to the irony exhibited by the most strident voices who dismiss, for example, any record cold temperature as "weather", but jump on Harvey as proof that their belief in global warming is validated, despite the absence of such events since 2005.
| coboardhead wrote: | | The way we do that is to revise building codes so people like me, who are real experts at some things, can do our jobs. To revise those codes and enforce those codes, we need to engage government. To do that, we need to recognize that we have a problem to work to a solution. |
I completely agree. However, in my view, the problem is not the storms.......it's called the Hurricane season for a reason.........it is that huge numbers have elected to live in the path of those storms.
All of this is interesting, but incidental to my point which was.......for the last time.......that the huge disparity between the dire predictions of the experts and the reality, will cause some who have been seriously inconvenienced to be less willing to heed their advice in future. That has been the experience on the Outer Banks which is as prone to this type of weather as anywhere in the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Another view point on this year's storms:
| Quote: |
Yes, this hurricane season has been worse than usual
Doyle Rice, USA TODAY Published 3:06 p.m. ET Sept. 18, 2017 | Updated 9:49 a.m. ET Sept. 19, 2017
The already-catastrophic 2017 hurricane season shows no signs of letting up: Hurricane Maria is roaring through some of the same Caribbean islands ravaged by Irma, just as Hurricane Jose stirs up trouble along the U.S. East Coast.
And we still have more than two months to go.
The ferocity of the Atlantic storm season isn't just in your imagination. Thanks primarily to monsters such as Harvey and Irma, it's one of the worst in years by various meteorological standards.
For example: The hurricanes that have formed this year — seven so far — are about double the average to date, as is the energy generated by the storms. This is a statistic known as "Accumulated Cyclone Energy," and the number in 2017 is the highest it's been since 2005, the year Hurricane Katrina hit, according to Colorado State University meteorologist Phil Klotzbach.
There have also been 30 days this year in which hurricanes have been spinning in the Atlantic — which is also more than double the average and the most since 2004, he said.
Another stunning record set in 2017: For the first year in recorded hurricane history, which dates to 1851, two Category-4 hurricanes (Harvey and Irma) slammed into the United States the same year.
In fact, there have already been four major (Category 3 and above) hurricanes this season — the first time since 2010 we've had four by Sept. 18, according to Klotzbach. The average as of this date is less than two.
Hurricanes Irma and Harvey have reignited discussions about the link between global warming and extreme weather, with climate scientists now saying they can show the connections between the two phenomena better than ever before. As for the reasons for the active season, one of the factors is likely a lack of dust blowing across the Atlantic from Africa, which tends to have a drying effect on developing storms, according to AccuWeather. The lack of an El Niño — and its shearing winds that can tear apart nascent storms — is also playing a role.
Blast from the past?
Yet, as bad as it's been, some of this season's intensity is really just a blast from the past. Irma, for instance, was "reminiscent of the great hurricanes that unleashed their fury on Florida in the first seven decades of the 20th century ... and then for the most part disappeared," said Weather Channel meteorologist Bryan Norcross before the storm hit.
"Mother Nature’s hurricane-output cycle has its ups and downs," he added, "and a lull came along in the 1970s, 80s, and early 1990s — Hurricanes Frederic, Hugo and Andrew notwithstanding."
Meanwhile, especially in typically hurricane-prone states such as Florida, a race to build along the shore went unfettered.
Americans became older, richer and more conspicuous consumers, Norcross said. "The net result was exponential growth along the coastline — a construction frenzy, mostly without hurricanes in mind.
"Add in the expensive cars and gadgets of modern life, and the damage potential has skyrocketed."
And even beyond whatever destruction Maria or Jose wreak, looking ahead to the rest of the season, concern remains. A large area of high pressure centered near Bermuda is forecast to continue pumping warm, humid air northward from the Gulf of Mexico and the western Atlantic, AccuWeather said. Tropical storms and hurricanes that brew will get caught up in the flow around this high-pressure area. "When we get a pattern such as this, we usually have two to three named storms in October and can have one in November or December," AccuWeather hurricane expert Dan Kottlowski.
The Atlantic hurricane season officially lasts until Nov. 30, but hurricanes have been recorded as late as New Year's Eve, such as Hurricane Alice, in 1954. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
A few bits of straw in a whole host of horseshit. Let's go through the arguments--and the elisions.
| Quote: | | Most credible commentary I read agreed with Dr. Curry that Harvey's impact could not reliably be linked to global warming. It is pointless posting them because their opinions will be dismissed and their integrity will be impugned just as Dr. Curry's was. |
Mrgybe again fails to deal with water temperatures, which are fundamental to the physics of hurricane intensity. Could his unwillingness to actually post a link about what he considers "credible commentary" be because that commentary is from people linked to the denier industry and lacking peer reviewed publications? Perhaps.
| Quote: | | Scott had no choice. Neither did the evacuees. The information he was receiving, and the relentless media coverage, made it impossible to do otherwise. When the governor tells you that "the water will be above your house", based on advice from weather experts, and repeatedly endlessly by the Weather Channel et al, you get out. When you return and find it wouldn't have been above your ankles, you understandably begin to doubt the credibility of those sources. That's my point. |
Gybe again ignores the evidence of substantially greater surge from substantially smaller storms. There are certainly reasons that the surge that was feared did not occur, and time--and credible science-- will reveal those causes.
| Quote: | | I completely agree. However, in my view, the problem is not the storms.......it's called the Hurricane season for a reason.........it is that huge numbers have elected to live in the path of those storms. |
Finally we arrive at a bit of straw, but without either understanding or context. Many years ago, buildings on the barrier islands of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts were generally small. At times they were on skids that could be pulled back from direct attack by waves. But that has dramatically changed, and the reasons for those changes are well documented. The real estate industry has successfully lobbied for lax building codes, tax deductions for second home mortgages, a Federal insurance system that underestimates risk and subsidizes insurance. That tax system also allows deduction of uninsured losses.
Coastal management efforts to deal with these problems, notably in South Carolina, faced legal challenges, and the fundamental reality that the horse has already left the barn. The barrier islands are subdivided into small lots and developed. We are far from a system where the market reflects risk--as it did about 80 years ago.
Given those circumstances, we have only a few tools left in our kit. First, strengthen building codes. Second, identify flood prone areas with accuracy--including those subject to flood and sea level rise--and develop evacuation plans. Third, try to modify flood insurance programs to more accurately reflect risk in rates, and prevent multiple payouts.
Of course, I would also argue for continued research on climate change, and holding off on snap conclusions about how much of the storm intensity was caused by global warming, and why the feared storm surge did not materialize. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is credible commentary simply one that agrees with your biases? Or does it matter how you ask the question. Anticipating mrgybe spin, he could probably produce sources, that I would agree with, indicating that neither Harvey nor Irma were caused by global warming.
Of course, knowing that I would check the credentials of his credible commentators, he has chosen to go all Iso on us and withhold them. But I couldn't find any in a quick source. Instead I found this, which is exactly the point:
| Quote: | | “Hurricane Irma, following so closely after Tropical Storm Harvey and other extreme weather emergencies, has prompted questions about the role of climate change." said Dann Mitchell, NERC Research Fellow at the University of Bristol’s Cabot Institute. "The question of whether climate change 'caused' any particular weather event is the wrong one; instead, we must probe how climate change alters extreme weather. Aside from the warming atmosphere, rising sea level and surface ocean warming have likely contributed to the impact of both Irma and Harvey." |
Dann has a Phd in stratospheric dynamics and does research that is on point.
You can find dissents--from the Cato Institute's economist Alan Reynolds. Waiting for someone with some peer reviewed literature on point to agree with mrgybe's "credible" but anonymous sources. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You can find another non-credible source, Nicolas Loris--another economist, this time with the Heritage Foundation. Hardly persuasive, much less inspirational.
To be fair, I did find some actual information on the site of a known denier, Cliff Mass, cited by Loris--probably because he is a prominent skeptic. It can be found here: http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2017/08/global-warming-and-hurricane-harvey.html
...and he actually discusses temperatures. His bias hurts him, and I find his discussion of trends misleading--it is the wrong question. He also uses different temperature values than I have seen before, but he presents his data. His conclusion is that there is a mild increase in intensity due to warming. Hardly no leg to stand on, and hardly the last word. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
