another hurricane...

[cableguy]

sorry, i should have perhaps included the word "meaningful" in that post... what a miserable existance, having to point out the smallest flaws in everything... i am glad i am not your housekeeper...

it saddens me that you cant seem to mention some folks without some outdated (if ever accurate at all) name calling... it does fit the liberal mold of attacking the person when no ration and substantive argument can be made to counter reality and truthfulness... i do feel sorry for you..

 

[Iceberg]

wilma didnt destroy anything of signifigance in the USA... there will be NO discernable economic impact from it... it came through, it left, it hit nothing important... rather typical, really...

You call killing 21 Americans "nothing really?" You actually worry about economic impacts before the lives, LIVES, of civilians? What kind of person are you?

a truly devastating hurricane is STILL a fluke event

No, it isn't. It is the result of several meteorological and oceanic factors coming together at the right moment, which occurs several times per decade. (Normally, that is. After climate change, this will most likely rise.)

historically and economically insignifigant... i say now again, the gulf is done with hurricanes of any signifigance for this season... there may be more than a month left, but i am confident that nothing of note will happen...

Likely incorrect. My prediction is four more named storms. That gets us up to Zeta. The minimum will be Epsilon (two more), but Zeta looks like it is the last of the season.

sounds bad, but it isnt, unless you happen to be the owner or dweller of one of those buildings... it came, it pissed itself away in a rather insignifigant way, it damaged some things, destroyed some other things, and was done...

Wrong again. Remember Hurricane Mitch? Category 5 on landfall, and it shoved Honduras and Guatemala back 10 years of development. The banana crops were destroyed, making it impossible for some to make any living whatsoever. The Honduran athletic team couldn't even field anyone to come to the Pan-Am Games in 1999 because of the catastrophe. A Category 2 or 3 storm, as Beta was on landfall, would reverse the development of a Central American nation three to five years, not killing many initially, but many will die from starvation and poor living conditions.

Come on, man, have a heart!

 

[mindido]

Ice,

"Come on, man, have a heart!"

It seems to me, given the statements cartman (limbaugh) has made over time, that he lost that (if he ever really had one) a long tiime ago.

 

[cableguy]

iceberg, a hurricane that kills 21 people must be put in perspective... for those 21, and their families and acquaintences, it sucks, but if you compare hurricane deaths to nearly any other category, you find a statistically insignifigant number... i know that you and yours would love to tax everyone at 100% and remove any and all risk from society, but it simply doesnt work that way... bad things happen, sometimes to good people... the end...

a named storm doesnt make a storm signifigant... massive damage and loss of life do... in extremely rare cases, enough damage is caused to effect the entire economy... bottom line, these do not happen frequently...

i do not recall mitch, and if it hit guatemala and honduras and set them back 10 years, what does that mean?? seriously... a non technological society can be set back 10 years, 2 years, or 50 years, and be roughly in the exact same place it was before whatever caused the rollback... it sounds harsh, but mud and straw arent exactly state-of-the-art building materials...

*****EDIT*****

seems a tornado tore up parts of indiana and kentucky, killing 22 people... want to throw that on the "huge disasters we will be lucky to recover from" pile as well?? it killed more people than wilma did (at least in the US)... how is this related to your holy grail of global warming?? surely you can find a relationship somehow...

 

[mindido]

Ice,

Need any more proof cartman doesn't have a heart?

And cartman,

The relationship is simple. Tornados are very rare in November. I heard some statistics the other day that normally you can expect a November tornado once in ten years. But over the last ten years there have been eight. No correlation?

 

[Iceberg]

how is this related to your holy grail of global warming?? surely you can find a relationship somehow...

The relationship is simple. Tornados are very rare in November. I heard some statistics the other day that normally you can expect a November tornado once in ten years. But over the last ten years there have been eight. No correlation?

True, mindido, especially for the region hit by the twister. Also, it looks like Hamilton, Ontario was hit by a tornado today, which is highly improbable this late in the year.

November tornadoes aren't unheard of. However, they usually affect states like Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Florida, and Georgia and not Ohio, Kentucky, and other Midwest states.

It is a likely sign of the northward migration of severe weather predicted in CLIMATE MODELS, which the IPCC has used many times in their research.

On another note, it looks as though the hurricane season is winding down. However, sea surface temperatures (SSTs as the scientists call it) are still higher than normal and higher than what is required for hurricane formation, so the areas affected aren't out of the woods yet.

 

[cableguy]

with minimal effort, i found that a tornado happened november 11, 1911... i also found a couple from december... 1887 and 1908... rare, but they do happen, have happened, and will continue to happen... kindly explain these events of over 90 years ago, and how they also proove global warming...

when are you goofballs going to take a random and rare occurrance for what it is, rather than looking for someone to blame for bad luck and poor planning???

because i know who you are and the way you think/feel, i feel it necessary to point out that tornadoes are among the very few things that are difficult to plan for... tornadoes happen in at least 48 states, and are rather random in appearance... building properly is not always a sure bet, and no structure i am aware of is "tornado proof." HOWEVER, having proper insurance and emergency food and water are a must regardless of where one lives... no one is surprised by a hurricane, while everyone is surprised by a tornado...

micro, someday you might realize that all the kind thoughts, mushiness, caring, and even love in the world cannot alter the laws of science and mathematics... shit happens, and everything is scaleable... i have no idea how old you are, but you werent around 100 years ago... you also werent around 1000 years ago, or even further back than that... to prove your case, you must proove that what we are seeing is a first... ever... that at no point in the history of this planet has there been a warming cycle, that at no point in the history of this planet has there been an active period of storms, including strong hurricanes in groups and late season tornadoes...

i look forward to reading about any such evidence... i expect the question will be either ignored or brushed aside as irrellevent... im not the one demanding a global change in the way we do things, so once again, it falls to you to provide a compelling reason to make such changes... until such time as you can show that what we are seeing has NEVER happened, kindly look elsewhere for your "evidence" that is supposed to panic the populace...

 

[mindido]

lumbaugh,

"i expect the question will be either ignored or brushed aside as irrellevent.."

Get an education lumbaugh, and say something that isn't spouted by an uneducated idiot. Then maybe you'll be taken seriously.

 

[Iceberg]

tornadoes happen in at least 48 states, and are rather random in appearance...

They have now happened in all 50 states. (The first one on record in Alaska occurred earlier this year, another sign that climate change is happening, bringing storm zones further north.)

Tornadoes are by no means random. They need to have the right mechanisms in place, mechanisms which are becoming more likely to align themselves than ever before.

These mechanisms are:

-Sufficient heat at the surface
-Cooler temperatures aloft than at the surface
-Sufficient moisture (usually supplied in the Great Plains by winds from the Gulf of Mexico)
-Appropriate vertical wind profiles

Neither of the latter three are becoming more pronounced with climate change. However, the first one IS increasing as a result of global warming, which makes it even more likely severe weather will strike the US.

As for the sufficient moisture requirement, the Alaskan tornado likely got that from the warmer-than-normal waters of the Gulf of Alaska during the period.

with minimal effort, i found that a tornado happened november 11, 1911... i also found a couple from december... 1887 and 1908... rare, but they do happen, have happened, and will continue to happen... kindly explain these events of over 90 years ago, and how they also proove global warming...

I never said November tornadoes were rare in the continental US, especially in states south of the Mason-Dixon Line. Tornadoes occur in Alabama during January. November tornadoes are rare, however, in the northern states.

Also the tornado which struck Hamilton, Ontario was only the third to strike Ontario in November. It was also rated an F1, which can (and did) do some notable damage.

 

[cableguy]

f1 is the baby of tornadoes... fortunately, it wasnt stronger... you are correct, tornadoes are not random, but unlike hurricanes, you cant put your finger on a map (where tornadoes DO occur) and say with any degree of accuracy that a tornado is likely or not likely to form... hurricanes form and travel in predictable areas, at predictable times of the year... the gulf coast, eastern seaboard, caribbean, and atlantic coast of central america have regular visits from hurricanes...

as for rarity, what i was trying to point out is that, though rare, these things can and do happen, and not just recently...

point of interest, everyone involved in the great "global warming" debate should read michael crichtons "state of fear." im about 1/4 through it, and though it is a work of fiction, it is annotated with genuine facts... facts that, so far, seem rather inconvenient for the global warming theory defenders... in any case, it is proving to be a good read...

 

[Iceberg]

you are correct, tornadoes are not random, but unlike hurricanes, you cant put your finger on a map (where tornadoes DO occur) and say with any degree of accuracy that a tornado is likely or not likely to form...

Not entirely true. The Storm Prediction Center in Norman, OK is able to predict, to some degree, the likelihood and location of a tornado. Heck, in 1948, before sophisticated Doppler Radar and detailed radiosonde data (weather balloons), two AFB staffers were able to forecast one's occurrence.

http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/GoldenAnniversary/

As for this:

point of interest, everyone involved in the great "global warming" debate should read michael crichtons "state of fear." im about 1/4 through it, and though it is a work of fiction, it is annotated with genuine facts... facts that, so far, seem rather inconvenient for the global warming theory defenders... in any case, it is proving to be a good read...

I completely disagree. Read it if you wish, but take your brain out of your head, because little of what Crichton says is true. See below:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=76

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=188

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

From your links provided: "The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science."

Then goes on to say: "Today we witnessed a rather curious event in the US Senate"...

Poking fun of course, but since you realize that a large part of conservatives say the sun is a large cause of this dreaded half degree periodically challenged increase in the temperature, then why not prove them wrong by explaining that the heat of the sun is constant? When i bring this up you brush it aside. What excuse could they have then? Wasn't it like 1969 or 70 when the largest solar flare ever recorded happened? Now in the past 5 -7 years i know of 3 instances where the US alone was warned of electrical shutdown from these flares. That's just the US. I know Japan was warned the year before last so who knows all the times this happens. Luckily though the flares happened, nothing major occured because of it that i know of. I know these things are supposed to happen, but are they more frequent? Are they more severe? If so wouldn't it show unstability higher than normal? Doesn't the time frame between GW and these major flares show a coincidence that shouldn't be ignored? I don't know, I'm not the scientist or claim to be, all i'm saying is that since the sun is the source of our heat AND the source of the reason conservatives use as an excuse, why not study the source and clear the smoke. Maybe you can post a quick link that will instantly make me look like an idiot i don't know<---too easy save the jokes! All i'm saying is that im interested and haven't ran across anything about it through searches. I want to know why global warming enthusiasts never speak on the sun. I ask because i am truthfully curious.

 

[Iceberg]

Three articles on RealClimate regarding solar radiation connections to surface temperature:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=171

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=153

They can, especially the first one, better explain that solar activity is not the reason, or even really a part of the reason, for the increase in surface temperatures.

Solar activity is, obviously, not absolutely constant, but cannot be cited as the reason for this temperature change, since far more forces are at work here.

ETA: Duke, if "a large part of conservatives" believe variations in solar radiation are responsible for this temperature increase, then "a large part of conservatives" are ignorant of the facts and have only relied upon industry-shrills on FOX News and have not listened to or read reports by scientists. If this is true, then "a large part of conservatives" are in need of an education in this discipline.

 

[cableguy]

berg, kindly tell us what towns will be hit by tornadoes next year... actually, give me a list of ten... there will be far more than 10 tornadoes next year, and you have just claimed you can predict where they will hit... a list of ten towns, please, that will experience tornadic activity in 2006...

i am always amused by a vigorous and hostile refutation of a work of fiction... well, this makes twice now... "da vinci code" (which i havent yet read) was the first... perhaps something struck a nerve???

the absolute worst anyone can accuse crichton of in regards to the FACTUAL data noted in the footnotes and bibliography, is cherry picking data... naturally, anyone doing so is open to the exact same claim... more to the point, this book, with some of the FACTS listed, seems to expose some conventional wisdoms as falsehoods or outright lies... equally disturbing was a point made in the book, which i have been saying for years; that now, EVERY severe weather anything is trumpet as a result of global warming, an as yet unproven theory...

iceberg, please read the book... it disagrees with you, but has a few characters that strongly resemble you... also, the authors observations (not dealt with in any of your links) are worth a look as well... if you dont want to buy the book, find someone who has it and borrow it, or make use of a library... it was a 2 day read for me, and only that long because i had other committments... you might find yourself surprised... it is certainly a page-turner...

 

[Iceberg]

Yet another flurry of storms on November 15. Look at the results:

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/051115_rpts.html

berg, kindly tell us what towns will be hit by tornadoes next year... actually, give me a list of ten... there will be far more than 10 tornadoes next year, and you have just claimed you can predict where they will hit... a list of ten towns, please, that will experience tornadic activity in 2006...

That statement displayed your ignorance of the subject. There is a difference between weather and climate. Climate is "average weather," which minimises significantly the chaos of the system. Weather is chaotic and, in month-prior forecasts, cannot be predicted, unless within a week or two. Our understanding of meteorological dynamics pales in comparison to climatological dynamics. Therefore, it is possible to predict what the climate will be years into the future, but not weather.

Cable, have you actually read any of the RealClimate stuff I've posted here? With your statements here, I doubt it.

 

[cableguy]

i said tornadoes cannot be predicted as to the time or place, you said they could be... i simply asked for justification of that... i do know the difference between climate and weather, and since you do as well, you should jolly well quit pointing to weather as evidence of anything, much less a climatological change... we also dont know much about climatological changes.. 150 years or so of tracking WEATHER does not make us experts in climate... sure, certain evidence points us in a certain way, but there isnt much known about the whys of climate change... we just know that we live in a climate that is very much dynamic...

i quit reading the realclimate stuff a while back, because it simply is a rehash of previously stated things, and it is based on a premise that i do not accept...

http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

also, if you live in minnesota, here is a list of stations that sell gas with NO ethanol... its bad for engines...

http://www.msra.com/NonOxygenatedFuel/NonOxygenated%20Fuel%20List%2010.01.05.pdf

anyways, ice, there are a few things for you to chew on, including hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scientists, listed by name, who think this global warming hype is simply crap... you asked for scientists a while back, here is a partial list...

 

[mindido]

Well, the numbers are starting to come in. What a mess. The bureaucracy says it has spent about $48 billion of which only about 5% is actually making it to Gulf coast contractors. Insurance companies seem to be doing everything they can to not pay a dime (they're calling virtually everything flood damage). And even if you had flood insurance, more than likely, you haven't seen a penny as the federal flood insurance program is claiming they're broke. And now this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051201/ap_on_re_us/katrina_mortgaged_ruins

Seems most people were given a 3 month grace period after the storm from paying their mortgages but only a very few have jobs and fewer have the homes they're supposed to be paying on. This should be interesting to watch. Many banks going belly up???

 

[Iceberg]

Likely incorrect. My prediction is four more named storms. That gets us up to Zeta. The minimum will be Epsilon (two more), but Zeta looks like it is the last of the season.

Looks like my "forecast" from a month ago (Nov. 4) has almost been fulfilled. We're at Epsilon now. We'll have to wait and see if Zeta develops. :headbang:

 

[cableguy]

and they have done precisely fuck-all... oh, and the US economy is doing just fine, even after those storms hit... few surprises here, after all...

 

[cableguy]

anyone relying on the government is a fool... beaurocracies are inefficient at best, and as their only purpose in life is to self-perpetuate, no one should be surprised that PRIVATE contributions work far better than government payouts...

flood vs. storm... this one is simple... wind damage is covered, water damage is not... it seems rather clear to me... why are the insurance companies so evil for simply doing what they are supposed to do, in accordance with the agreed upon policies?? almost everything there IS flood damage, and as such should be treated as flood damage...

not many banks should fold, if any... again, i question your desire for businesses to provide handouts at the expense of a healthy bottom line... bills, including mortgages, must be paid... arrangements can usually be made if payments are short... that was also mentioned in your yahoo article...

i am sick and tired of anyone who had something bad happen to them expecting a handout from uncle sugar... i am also sick and tired of those same people complaining about what they get from private contributions... donor fatigue?? try whining fatigue...

to the people displaced by katrina, you had a bad bit of luck, but nothing you shouldnt have known was likely to happen at some point... shit happens, and you should be prepared for it... you have had 3 months now, which is more than enough time to find a new job wherever you are, and to find housing... while i am sorry you experienced this loss, it is time you pull yourselves together and start acting like responsible adults... many of you are, and i congratulate you on that... it is three months past the hurricane, it is time to stop whining, and get some work done... move elsewhere or rebuild, help your family, neighbors and friends to rebuild, and get on with your lives...