patrick.net

Yes you did....you did...

Dan8267 says

Looks like I triggered Shrek again with the truth. He's throwing a pissy ROTFLOL fit.

BlueSardine says

Yeah, I never would have thought about making a comment like that without your tutelage...
Thanks for the lesson you petty despicable hypocrite...

Dan8267 says

BlueSardine says

Has the water risen to your doorstep yet? I have champagne on ice...

Ah, the nature of the conservative right is revealed once again. You are petty and despicable.

Rin says
Hey Blue Sardine, have you ever thought about dying of natural causes, since it's illegal for me to advocate suicide?

Dan says
Does auto-erotic asphyxiation count as natural causes? Because I've got a bet on that in the dead pool.

Ironman is looting Georgie's. Dan went down to cut him down with a sawed off shotgun.

YesYNot says

Some enterprising conservatives will no doubt find particular sites where the number of intense hurricanes has decreased, and use that to make a crappy case that global warming decreases hurricane intensity.

That site would be NOAA, are they a conspiracy site? They have posted that there is no definite connection of global warming and hurricanes being stronger because of it. BTW, it's hurricane season (that comes every year).

Dan8267 says

And yes, it is a scientific fact that hurricanes are more severe due to global warming. Only idiots deny that. Do you even know anything about thermodynamics? Christ, you should have learned that shit in high school.


https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.

It's dans way of tithing to his church...

Ceffer says

Ironman is looting Georgie's. Dan went down to cut him down with a sawed off shotgun.

anonymous says

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.

Are you accepting NOAA as an accurate source of information on climate change? If so, #lawyered.

First, from the article you cherry picked.

It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).

Left that part out I see.

Second,

Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.

So they confirm the seriousness of man-made climate change on making storms much worse. Already you lose. And this is the paragraph immediate after the fragment you quoted. And then there is the next paragraph.

There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclone in some basins–an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones.

And the one after that.

Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day ones, with a model-projected increase of about 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center.

In fact the entire article confirms the significance of climate change, specifically global warming, on severe weather events like hurricanes and cyclones.

And here's the kicker.

The strongest hurricanes in the present climate may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the earth’s climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Although we cannot say at present whether more or fewer hurricanes will occur in the future with global warming, the hurricanes that do occur near the end of the 21st century are expected to be stronger and have significantly more intense rainfall than under present day climate conditions. This expectation (Figure 11) is based on an anticipated enhancement of energy available to the storms due to higher tropical sea surface temperatures.

Once more, science trumps the stupid, foolish political agenda of the conservative right.

Dan8267 says

human activities may have

will lead

is projected

will likely cause

may be upstaged

Is that what you call "science"? The quote I brought is in the present tense, and does not involve any could may will in the future when the auther is retired.

Come back when you have smay be upstagedomething of substance. Oh, and and educate yourself on what science is:www.youtube.com/embed/OL6-x0modwY

Climate change science isn't vague, and Richard Feynman would consider you an idiot. The consequences of climate change are already happening and confirmed.

National Geographic

Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years.

The proof is empirical and undeniable.

The war on terror is vague. Climate change is not.

$200 billion in damages from Irma. That's $1640 per U.S. tax payer, and it's just for Irma. That's your climate change tax, and it's going up. Already climate change is costing you more money than taxing pollution would have. Penny wise, pound foolish.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/10/news/economy/hurricane-irma-harvey-economic-damage/index.html

You're right, Dan. Before industrialization, there were no hurricanes. In fact, the word hurricane is certainly NOT from the Arawak language, a tribe of Caribbean dwellers that pre-date Columbus. Unless, of course, the people of pre-Colombian America were gross carbon polluters?

Climate change science isn't vague

Will, is likely, may be, is projected. Not vague at all.

The proof is empirical and undeniable.

ROTFLMAO. Do you even know what 'empirical' means? From wikipedia, "empirical knowledge ... is the knowledge received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation." When was the last time climate scientists ran an experiment? When was the last time climate scientists adjusted their theories to fit the data?

Although to be fair, the most recent IPCC report is less alarmist than the previous one, ECS to doubling of CO2 was lowered from 5.5 to 2 degrees, etc -- but alarmists such as yourself ignore it.

That's $1640 per U.S. tax payer, and it's just for Irma.

Were you a bit smarter, you wouldn't double down on hurricanes -- increased frequency and strength of extreme weather events is a typical alarmist prediction that did not come true.

Dan8267 says

The proof is empirical and undeniable.

Any true scientist would know that correlation does not equal causation.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/19/delingpole-climate-alarmists-finally-admit-we-were-wrong-about-global-warming/
And now, acclaimed climate scientists admit their models were very wrong. CO2 doesn't have nearly as much affect on climate as thought.
Whoops!

Quigley says

You're right, Dan. Before industrialization, there were no hurricanes.

This is a false comparison. Before industrialization once in 500 years storms came once in 500 years. Today we had three in a single year. There's your comparison.

Your false analysis is logically equivalent to this: terrorism existed before Islam, therefore Islam cannot create or increase terrorism. See where you went wrong?

Quigley says

Dan8267 says

The proof is empirical and undeniable.

Any true scientist would know that correlation does not equal causation.

And no one is doing that. Here's how science works. A prediction is made by a theory and it is either confirmed or discredited by observation. Climate change has been confirmed. Empirical evidence is the cornerstone of the scientific method, and it fucking works.

Again, your logic is equivalent to this: Islam has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism because correlation does not equal causation. Just because 99% of the terrorist attacks occurring nearly daily are committed by Muslims doesn't mean Islam has anything to do with terrorism.

Do you see where you went wrong again?

Perhaps you should think of climate change as terrorism and pollution as Islam. It might help you think straight since you can only comprehend threats from neighboring tribes.

Quigley says

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/19/delingpole-climate-alarmists-finally-admit-we-were-wrong-about-global-warming/
And now, acclaimed climate scientists admit their models were very wrong.

Breitbart is a blatant propaganda mill. Citing it completely destroys the credibility of anyone doing so. It reveals the person citing it as a right-wing nut job. You might as well cite InfoWars and Fox News as your expert sources. Actually Breitbart is even worse.

. Before industrialization once in 500 years storms came once in 500 years. Today we had three in a single year.

Irma at landfall comes in 7th-8th behind 1935 Labor Day storm.
Other storms stronger than Irma (at landfall): 1969 Camille, 2005 Katrina, 1992 Andrew, 1886 Indianola, 1919 Floria Keys, 1928 Lake. And yes, Klotzbach is a mainstream climatologist.

Breitbart is a blatant propaganda mill.

Quote a few newspapers have cited this paper today. The original publication is in Nature Geographic.

a1232

What do you say when the "blatant propaganda mill" is just reporting facts same as any other newspaper? Are these facts somehow wrong, somehow tainted by association with a nationalistic news source? No wonder your grasp on science is so flimsy. You don't even know how to evaluate facts!
Explains a lot.

anonymous says

Irma at landfall comes in 7th-8th behind 1935 Labor Day storm.

Catastrophic storms, once rare, are almost routine

“As long as the climate isn’t changing, you can define these things reasonably well,” Trenberth said. “With climate change … what used to be a 500-year event is becoming a 70-year event or a 50-year event. It doesn’t mean that they’re common, but they’re no longer anything like as rare.”

“That’s what the changing climate has done,” Trenberth added. “It means the extremes are greater — and if we don’t adapt to these, if we don’t take them into account, if we don’t build more resilience, we will suffer the consequences.”

Hurricane Harvey And The New Normal

There’s very little doubt among scientists that climate change has ratcheted up the potential intensity of hurricanes and other large storms, Mann says. “There’s now a pretty solid consensus that … the strongest storms will be stronger.”

To understand how that happens, we can think of hurricanes as “heat engines.” At the start of a hurricane, warm air near the surface of the ocean rises, leaving a pocket of lower pressure air below. Other air from surrounding areas fills that pocket, and in turn warms and rises. As this cycle continues, “new” air swirls as it replaces the air that rises from the pocket. Meanwhile, the warm, moist air in the sky then forms a system of clouds, which spins and grows like an engine feeding off heat.

The contrast in surface and aloft temperatures drives that engine, and, thanks to global warming, surface temperatures are rising significantly. “It’s making those heat engines more efficient,” says Mann. And with more efficient heat engines come more intense storms.

“The old rules don’t apply anymore,” said Mann. “We’re no longer talking about chance alone. We’ve loaded the dice. We’ve loaded the weather dice by warming the planet and intensifying these storms and raising sea levels to the point where a storm that we’ve called a 1000-year event … is now a storm that we expect to happen once in maybe 20 or 30 years.”

Piggy, you are just plain wrong. Science has the final word.

Piggy, you are just plain wrong

Dude, I just showed you that you lied (or were "plain wrong") in the very title of the post. You referred to Irma as "strongest ever" -- and it was eighth out of the ones recorded. Still you insist, and even resort to insults? You only make a greater fool out of yourself.

As for the quotes by Trenberth and Mike Hide-the-Decline Mann (from the interview published in latimes), I will present NOAA's opinion: there is no evidence to link hurricanes and climate change. I present it for the second time -- the first time you chose to ignore it, running insead for your favorite 'may be, is likely, is projected' FUD porn.

So science indeed has the final word.

a1232

anonymous says

Dude, I just showed you that you lied (or were "plain wrong") in the very title of the post.

You showed no such thing. Unlike to you, lying serves absolutely no purpose to me.

The title of this thread, "Hurricane Irma: Strongest ever Atlantic storm causes 'major damage' in Caribbean - latest news", is the exact text copy and pasted without edit from the title of the CNN article linked at the time of the original post. The content of the link has been changed by CNN as the link was to live coverage, but the title of the that coverage was used as the title of this thread. Titling a thread after the webpage or article title being referenced by that thread is a perfectly reasonable and common practice. It does not make the statement my own. That's your first mistake.

Your second mistake is that Irma is not the strongest ever Atlantic storm. There is evidence of this. Here's a link, dumb ass.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/06/hurricane-irma-latest-live-news-strongest-ever-atlantic-storm/
Christ, right in the URL it states "strongest ever Atlantic storm". Here's a quote from the page.

The most powerful Atlantic Ocean storm in recorded history is sweeping across the Caribbean leaving destruction in its wake.

Even your fucking Fox News calls it "the strongest Atlantic Ocean hurricane ever recorded". Are you calling Fox News a liar?www.youtube.com/embed/kEeNc3IorPU

It is clearly you who is lying.

Once more piggy demonstrates that climate change deniers are liars.

Recorded history spans about 40 years. Nothing to hang your hat on against 4.54 billion of existence.
But then again, libbies are known to freak out due to their various mind altering habits...

Dan8267 says

The most powerful Atlantic Ocean storm in recorded history

Only an idiot thinks that the measurable increase in severity of hurricanes is unfounded. Scientists are damn good at what they do. They are certainly better at science than a random Internet idiot.

Who said that?
Dan8267 says

Only an idiot thinks that the measurable increase in severity of hurricanes is unfounded

If the locusts go rabid on us its all over...

anonymous says

Anyone else notice there was a major earthquake in Mexico today the same time Maria is doing it's thing and when Irma was churning, there was a major earthquake in Mexico. Coincidence or something more ?

Dan8267 says

$200 billion in damages from Irma. That's $1640 per U.S. tax payer, and it's just for Irma.

So tell us, old wise one, what could have been done with climate change to prevent this tropical wave from coming off of the African coast in the first place?

You do know that 100's of tropical waves come off that coast EVERY year but only a couple turn into hurricanes, right?

anonymous says

Coincidence or something more ?

Hurricanes are heat engines and heat is, by definition, increased with global warming. It's not hard to follow that trail. The laws of thermodynamics demand that global warming makes hurricanes more severe.

Earthquakes are caused by plate tectonics, which have nothing to do with global warming. False comparison.

Dan8267 says

said Mann.

Mann and his hockeystick have been debunked

".Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann commits contempt of court in the ‘climate science trial of the century.’ Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination."

https://twitter.com/philklotzbach/status/906881395057844225Dan8267 says

You showed no such thing.

OMFG Do you have reading comprehension issues? I gave you a list of storms stronger than Irma, but you simply ignore it. Here it is again:

1969 Camille, 2005 Katrina, 1992 Andrew, 1886 Indianola, 1919 Floria Keys, 1928 Lake. The list is not from a newspaper -- it is from a twit by Philip Klotzbach, Meteorologist at CSU specializing in Atlantic basin seasonal hurricane forecasts. It is not from a journalist, it is as direct from a scientists as we can possibly get.
https://twitter.com/philklotzbach/status/906881395057844225

the exact text copy and pasted without edit from the title of the CNN article linked at the time of the original post.

Even your fucking Fox News

My Fox News. LOL. I don't watch either FN or CNN, but answer this. You love to exclaim "Science FFS!" -- how come you rely only on the quotes journalists who intefviewed scientists give you, rather than actually reading official scientific reports? NOAA says -- on their official website -- that there is no evidence to link hurricanes and climate change. Which makes all your newspaper references irrelevant.

Come to think of it, there is a patter here. All those climate scientists talk with absolute certainty about Very Bad Things that Will Happen only in interviews. When it comes to papers or offical reports, they are far more cautious, surrounding their predicitions with weasel words, if making them at all.

anonymous says

A groundbreaking study shows that earthquakes, including the recent 2010 temblors in Haiti and Taiwan, may be triggered by tropical cyclones.

That's news to me. I haven't heard of the study. If studies can prove the link or provide substantial evidence for it, then fine, but I'll remain skeptical by default until then.

I just read the article on the study.

Very wet rain events are the trigger," said Wdowinski, associate research professor of marine geology and geophysics at the UM Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science. "The heavy rain induces thousands of landslides and severe erosion, which removes ground material from the Earth's surface, releasing the stress load and encouraging movement along faults."

The hypothesis is that heavy rains cause surface material to move off some fault lines lessening the weight holding down the plates along those fault lines, and causing the earthquake to come sooner rather than later. This is sort of like loosing the grip of a vice preventing two magnets with like sides facing each other from separating.

Even if this hypothesis is true, it is not necessarily a bad thing for two reasons.
1. This might not increase the number of earthquakes but simply cause them to happen sooner rather than later.
2. If this does increase the number of earthquakes, then it should also decrease the severity of those earthquakes because the potential energy is being more often and won't build up as much. Lots of small earthquakes is better than a few large earthquakes.

However, based on what the article says, I doubt this is at all significant as the hypothesis only applies to a narrow set of fault lines.