patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Irma's not even close to done and another hurricane is battering the Caribbean.

https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/video/hurricane-jose-nears-already-battered-islands

We had many years now without any major storms or hurricanes that even the meteorologists were wondering about what was going on. So you should put that year into perspective. Al Gore was certainly wrong with this hockey stick and the time-frame of complete melting, doesn't mean that he was wrong about being proactive wrt climate change or at least take it somewhat seriously. Btw. what's the latest stats/prediction of where 2017 will end temperature wise?

mell says

We had many years now without any major storms or hurricanes

I'm sorry, can you point out all these years without any major storms or hurricanes because I can't find them. https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/hurrarchive.asp

bob2356 says

I'm sorry, can you point out all these years without any major storms or hurricanes because I can't find them.

Pretty obvious unless you want to be obtuse. There are 2 more years left, but likely this will end up being a decade of lower activity.

mell says

Al Gore was certainly wrong with this hockey stick and the time-frame of complete melting, doesn't mean that he was wrong about being proactive wrt climate change or at least take it somewhat seriously.

Wrong again. The inconvenient truth showed the best case scenario, the worst case scenario, and the most expected scenario. Reality has been worse than both the best case scenario and the most expected scenario.

Want to repeat any more debunked lies? How about the lie about Al Gore claiming to have invented the Internet?

jazz_music says

This thread is well on its way to having the record number of dislikes by right wingnuts!

Dislikes are proportional to truth. When you hit a nerve, the right wing nuts get triggered.

www.youtube.com/embed/H7tsWpFe_Fg

Miami is now literally a sanctuary city.

www.youtube.com/embed/ttKYHnW8kmo

Just another day in Miami. Where's that wall, Trump? Oh, it's not going to be built. It was just another bait and switch.
www.youtube.com/embed/kLjBLXDq8IA

Dan8267 says

Wrong again. The inconvenient truth showed the best case scenario, the worst case scenario, and the most expected scenario. Reality has been worse than both the best case scenario and the most expected scenario.

Want to repeat any more debunked lies? How about the lie about Al Gore claiming to have invented the Internet?

Funny how you're so sure, The general consensus is that Gore's predictions failed and the movie had lots of inaccuracies, even a British court labeled it as misleading because of those. It doesn't mean that the climate science behind is necessarily wrong, he just came to alarmist conclusions.

null says

If global warming causes hurricanes, why aren't there any other storms across the globe?

The climate is a complex system. It does not behave like a linear system. Read On the Logic of Failure.

Hurricanes are heat engines. Do you deny this? Global warming has greatly increase the heat in the ocean. Do you deny that? Where do you think hurricanes get their energy from? It's from the ocean. Do the math. It's not hard. Eight-year-olds understand this.

mell says

The general consensus is that Gore's predictions failed and the movie had lots of inaccuracies

No, that's not the general consensus, and it's irrelevant anyways. ALL, not just most, but ALL evidence demonstrates that man made climate change is having an impact right now. Al Gore is irrelevant. The fact is that all you climate change deniers are engaging in identity politics. It pisses you off that Al Gore was right for god knows what reason, and you just can't admit a scientific fact if it means your stupid team was wrong. So you'll pay through the nose for the consequences of climate change instead of paying far less to stop making the situation worse. That's far more crazy identify politics than anything on the left. At least social justice warriors aren't destroying billions of dollars of property and endangering the lives of tens of millions.

The hurricane won't hit my area until Sunday, but the winds have just started to pick up. I can now hear them from inside my house. That only happens with storms.

When it goes north, all of Florida is getting hit. Some areas will be much worse than others, but the whole state is getting hit because this hurricane is bigger than Florida.



And it's edge is about on me.

www.youtube.com/embed/cbWsFjuTg94

And for tomorrows lesson, we will go over the peculiarities of 2 + 2...

Dan8267 says

The hurricane won't hit my area until Sunday, but the winds have just started to pick up. I can now hear them from inside my house. That only happens with storms.

This is pretty close to mainstream right thinking:

I don't believe Hurricane Harvey is God's punishment for Houston electing a lesbian mayor. But that is more credible than "climate change." https://t.co/K7d7mopY5Q

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) August 29, 2017

mell says

Pretty obvious unless you want to be obtuse. There are 2 more years left, but likely this will end up being a decade of lower activity.

You didn't say lower activity. You didn't say likely. You said without hurricanes and major storms. Without means none. The term is unequivocal.

Did you read what the little line on the bottom of the chart says. Affecting the country. As in making landfall. The number of hurricanes in the atlantic for the 2010's is not low at all. I can't post the graphic but going back from 2010's the numbers are 41,73,64,47,49,61,66,50,49. The numbers are higher in the 90's and 2000's, not lower in the 2010's which has 30% of the decade left since 2017 isn't in the numbers. Calculate out 3 more seasons and you come up to 57 for the 2010's which is higher than half of the last 8 decades.

Pretty obvious unless you want to be obtuse. Why do you suppose your chart only looks at hurricanes that made landfall in the US rather than the total hurricanes in the atlantic? Just a little dishonest I would say. (or as bob ueker says in major league "just a bit outside").
www.youtube.com/embed/Jdv2Wp9MzY0

I notice you don't source where the chart comes from so we can see who made it or more importantly who paid to make it.

Did you look at the much higher numbers in the pacific or indian oceans for the 2010 decade? They are easily available if you click the tab on the chart I posted (which is sourced). The total number of cyclonic storms is what matters. It's not some algebraic formula that in x years you get y hurricanes in z area. The factors for storm formation around the globe varies from year to year. Formation in the pacific has been much higher for the 2010's.

BlueSardine says

And for tomorrows lesson, we will go over the peculiarities of 2 + 2...

By tomorrow the dan287 account might be available to someone else if he's dumb enough to still be in south florida.

Dan8267 says

And it's edge is about on me.

Learn from Houston and leave. Take a 4 day vacation to Georgia.

YesYNot says

This is pretty close to mainstream right thinking:

I don't believe Hurricane Harvey is God's punishment for Houston electing a lesbian mayor. But that is more credible than "climate change." https://t.co/K7d7mopY5Q

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) August 29, 2017

The climate change fundamentalists turn natural skeptics like myself into extreme doubters. Here's what I know for sure: 1) We as humans need to do a far better job protecting our planet. 2) Government organizations who take on this mandate almost always steal from the taxpayers to help the ruling class.

The biggest question is how do we reconcile #1 and #2.

Climate change itself is an extremely complex model. I do not study climate change but I do build models. Anyone who says they KNOW what will happen without explaining the assumptions and range of variability of their predictions is lying to you (or just a bad scientist).

CBOEtrader says

The climate change fundamentalists turn natural skeptics like myself into extreme doubters. Here's what I know for sure: 1) We as humans need to do a far better job protecting our planet.

You can call yourself a skeptic if you do not deny the possibility of climate change, but merely reject the notion that the world is very likely (like greater than 90%) on a multi-decade warming trend. However, the reason that we do things like pull out of Paris accord and resist making any significant change to our behavior is because people are arguing that the risk of damage is small. If the risk of significant problems from global warming were big (like greater than 20%), it would be logical to try to prevent it. People arguing against action really are better described as deniers than skeptics. That is not a judgement on whether they used logic or faith to get to their position. It just describes how much risk they think is involved.

CBOEtrader says

2) Government organizations who take on this mandate almost always steal from the taxpayers to help the ruling class.

Acting on climate change is going to cost money. So, taxpayers (really all people) will have to pay. On the other hand, if we do nothing, taxpayers will likely have to pay more when the problems come home to roost. Doing nothing in the face of obvious risk only saves money until the day that it costs more than it saves, and that day always comes.

YesYNot says

Acting on climate change is going to cost money.

The entire 3rd world is rising out of grinding poverty into more of a low end working class level. This equals billions of new gasoline consumers. No Paris climate type deal can handle this. We need a revolutionary technology that can replace gasoline in cars/tractors/planes or we're fucked. This will not happen by government mandate. This will only happen via innovation. The goal of most climate change researchers seems to be to give the goverment bodies more power to stifle innovation.

Tell me what I'm missing here.

Dan8267 says

The hurricane won't hit my area until Sunday, but the winds have just started to pick up. I can now hear them from inside my house. That only happens with storms.

Are you seriously sticking around? To each their own, but I'd be the fuck out of there. Good excuse for a vacation.

I genuinely wish you good luck and hope it doesn't get TOO bad by you (it's going to be bad). Stay safe. Same goes for TPB, but something tells me he doesn't care how this plays out. I got friends in St. Augustine, FL and they stayed for Matthew. It ended up staying East, but the whole area was a shit show for weeks. Not having running water and electricity is way worse than most people realize.

CBOEtrader says

We need a revolutionary technology that can replace gasoline in cars/tractors/planes or we're fucked.

I agree that technological innovation is needed. The republican party / religious establishment pact of denying the risks of climate change are obstructing this development. IMO, that is a major problem. Hands off capitalism encourages incremental growth, but it is not always best for big innovations like space travel, nuclear energy / weapons, or alternative energy.
The reality is that even with major revolutionary technology, much of the readily available coal and other fossil fuels will still be used unless there is a collective will to pay a little more for other technologies. After all, some coal and oil is nearly free to take out of the ground, and the infrastructure to convert it to energy is already there (so using it is nearly free). Also, if the 'developing' world continues to lower the economic development gap, and populations continue as expected, the demand for energy is going to be through the roof in 100 yrs. We need revolutionary technology just to meet demand without displacing any fossil fuels.

CBOEtrader says

government mandate.

Governments are developing goals just like the semiconductor roadmap. Government funding helped develop solar panels and efficient wind turbines. The energy industry did not do that on it's own. Trump hired Perry for the DOE for fuck's sake. Perry wanted to eliminate the DOE a few years ago. He had no idea what it did, but knew it funded research that could help put his oil buddies out of business one day. The Trump admin has proposed slashing science budgets across the board.

CBOEtrader says

The goal of most climate change researchers seems to be to give the goverment bodies more power to stifle innovation.

Tell me what I'm missing here.

The goal of climate scientists is to do exactly what you suggested they do: CBOEtrader says

Climate change itself is an extremely complex model. I do not study climate change but I do build models. Anyone who says they KNOW what will happen without explaining the assumptions and range of variability of their predictions is lying to you (or just a bad scientist).

Climate scientists are explaining their assumptions and putting a range of variability based on those assumptions on their predictions.

A rational response to those models would be to fund innovative science research. The public response has been a big fuck you to those scientists. How you figure that climate scientists are trying to give government the power to stifle innovation is beyond me. Please explain.

The worst part of the hurricane is after, when it's 90F, 90% Humidity and no A/C.

That being said, Looks like it's not hitting Miami directly.

If so, it'll be 25 years since a major hurricane hit Miami, long overdue and not at all a sign of worsening weather. I remember around 2005 there were two that hit north of Miami but were Cat 2s.

Global cooling - the difference in the colder Atlantic water vs. the North African desert heat - is what makes hurricanes bad. Notice the 40s and 50s, during global cooling, had the most frequent and high strength hurricanes. Since the 70s, they've been less frequent and less powerful.


Warmer temperatures actually reduce the contrast between the Ocean and the Desert, reducing the frequency and power of hurricanes.

Invest in real estate along the Athabaska and Lena Rivers in the two countries with the most land mass that will surely benefit from Global Warming. All that sub-arctic turf, ready for growing seasons! There's a lot more potential arable land in Canada and Russia than along the Equator.

Go North, Young Man!
http://en.arkadia.com/gxgz-t33/

Dan8267 says

Hurricanes are heat engines. Do you deny this? Global warming has greatly increase the heat in the ocean. Do you deny that? Where do you think hurricanes get their energy from? It's from the ocean.

So, you're saying currently there is no warm ocean water in Asia and the Pacific and that's the reason there are no storms there now?

YesYNot says

Acting on climate change is going to cost money. So, taxpayers (really all people) will have to pay. On the other hand, if we do nothing, taxpayers will likely have to pay more when the problems come home to roost.

How are you going to get countries like China, India and others who are MAJOR contributors of CO2 to pay their fair share?

Obligatory:

I see that Irma is currently a category 3 Hurricane.

I also see that SEVENTY (70) category 4 hurricanes have terrorized the Gulf and Atlantic since 1950. ELEVEN (11) more were Category 5. If you value mathematics, you may notice that they average more than once every year, but that it has been uncharacteristically quiet for the past dozen years. Yep, Katrina was 12 whole years ago.

The categories of Katrina and Harvey were not the reason those two hurricanes were so devastating

null says

CO2 to pay their fair share?

what do you propose is a fair share?

BlueSardine says

And for tomorrows lesson, we will go over the peculiarities of 2 + 2...

@Patrick, this is exactly why you need to bring back ban, or at least perma-ban Shrek and all his alts. He adds nothing to a conversation and only seeks to derail each thread. What possible value is there in tolerating this troll?

YesYNot says

This is pretty close to mainstream right thinking:

I don't believe Hurricane Harvey is God's punishment for Houston electing a lesbian mayor. But that is more credible than "climate change." https://t.co/K7d7mopY5Q

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) August 29, 2017

A perfect example of why Ann Coulter is either a complete dumb ass or, more likely, a con artist taking advantage of complete dumb asses by saying and writing whatever they want to hear in order to make money off said dumb asses.

CBOEtrader says

Learn from Houston and leave.

If I were to learn from Texas, I'd think evolution was fake and god put dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden. I don't think anyone was ever learned from Texas.

WookieMan says

Are you seriously sticking around?

Florida has a population of 20.61 million people, most in South Florida. It's impossible to evacuate even 10% of this. The roads simply won't handle that kind of traffic and the entire system would not move at all. And even if you could, all stations have been out of gas all week due to hording.

Sometimes hunkering down is the only viable option you have.

CBOEtrader says

We need a revolutionary technology that can replace gasoline in cars/tractors/planes or we're fucked.

Waiting for a technological miracle before taxing the shit out of greenhouse gases and using the revenue to fight pollution is just plain dumb. The world got a revolution in computing. It never got a revolution in energy. We don't have jet backs because of that. There is absolutely no reason to believe that anytime in the next century some miracle technology will provide ten times the energy we currently produce without pollution. This is a pipe dream.

If you believe in free markets at all, then either all pollution should be banned since it's theft or all pollution should be taxed for the cleanup of said pollution so that production that pollutes isn't subsidized by production that doesn't. The free market solution is to either ban or fully tax and then let the market react to how much coal we should burn. Do you not believe in free markets?

Furthermore, doing either of these things makes it much more likely that clean, high energy producing technology will be developed. The market does not allocate resources to develop technologies when massive subsidies, which is exactly what allowing pollution is, makes coal far cheaper to the producers. The fact that coal is far more expensive to society is irrelevant to those producing or those purchasing energy. Ever hear of the tragedy of the commons? You don't get effeciency without cooperation.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Skeptical Science: link between hurricanes and global warming

There is increasing evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger due to global warming.

The current research into the effects of climate change on tropical storms demonstrates not only the virtues and transparency of the scientific method at work, but rebuts the frequent suggestion that scientists fit their findings to a pre-determined agenda in support of climate change. In the case of storm frequency, there is no consensus and reputable scientists have two diametrically opposed theories about increasing frequencies of such events.

What do the records show? According to the Pew Centre, “Globally, there is an average of about 90 tropical storms a year”. The IPCC AR4 report (2007) says regarding global tropical storms: "There is no clear trend in the annual numbers [i.e. frequency] of tropical cyclones."

But this graph, also from the Pew Centre, shows a 40% increase in North Atlantic tropical storms over the historic maximum of the mid-1950, which at the time was considered extreme:


But while the numbers are not contested, their significance most certainly is. Another study considered how this information was being collected, and research suggested that the increase in reported storms was due to improved monitoring rather than more storms actually taking place.

And to cap it off, two recent peer-reviewed studies completely contradict each other. One paper predicts considerably more storms due to global warming. Another paper suggests the exact opposite – that there will be fewer storms in the future.

But we do know there is extra energy in the system now, so could it have any other effects on tropical storms? Here, the science is far less equivocal, and there is a broad consensus that storms are increasing in strength, or severity. This attribute, called the Power Dissipation Index, measures the duration and intensity (wind speed) of storms, and research has found that since the mid-1970s, there has been an increase in the energy of storms.

Recent research has shown that we are experiencing more storms with higher wind speeds, and these storms will be more destructive, last longer and make landfall more frequently than in the past. Because this phenomenon is strongly associated with sea surface temperatures, it is reasonable to suggest a strong probability that the increase in storm intensity and climate change are linked.

So there you have it. It's not about the number of storms. That's irrelevant because lots of small storms don't do shit damage anyway. It's about the severity of the storms. That's why we've been getting multiple one-in-500-years storms. The storms are getting worse, and all the evidence confirms this. The very laws of thermodynamics stated that this would happen. Hurricanes are heat engines. They feed on heat. I cannot dumb this down any further than that. Global warming is supercharging hurricanes like nitro does to cars.

@Patrick, looks like new image posts are broken. It looks like a URL redirect problem.

For example,
http: //patrick.net/uploads/2017/09/2217%3Ci%3Ebqbte00iuaaz3xu.png
gets mapped to
http: //patrick.net/postbytitle/content

anonymous says

TwoScoops - Along with the worst parts after the hurricane you mentioned above wait until those affected and not affected in Florida and probably every other state get hit with rate increases to keep the insurance companies "profitable" at the levels they are accustomed to.

I would run for Senate or State Gov under the "F Your Insulting My Intelligence with your Bullshit Party." or possibly the "ApocalypseFuck Party"

I'd say in the hearings "You fuckfaces got a long repreive without a serious Hurricane. How much of a REBATE are you going to offer customers, given you were gifted so many brilliantly profitable years between payouts, as mana from Heaven?"

It's amazing how nobody in the Media or in the State Legislature knows the most elementary facts about actuarial science.

Just wait until the Boomers start dropping and they start lying about THOSE payouts.

YesYNot says

CO2 to pay their fair share?

what do you propose is a fair share?

You're the one who wants to tax everyone out the wahoo to pay for this scam, you tell me what it should be.

null says

Hurricanes are heat engines. Do you deny this? Global warming has greatly increase the heat in the ocean. Do you deny that? Where do you think hurricanes get their energy from? It's from the ocean.

So, you're saying currently there is no warm ocean water in Asia and the Pacific and that's the reason there are no storms there now?

Did i miss your answer? Why aren't there multiple cyclones in Asia right now if global warming of the ocean causes these storms?