Matrix Games

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sredni

What I find sad about things like this is that nothing will change. A storm like this won't happen again for 50 years or a 100 years and in that time people will go back to ignoring the possibility of it happening at all. Then another "frankenstorm" will roll up and cause another 50 billion dollars (or however much that will inflate to) worth of damage with absolutely nobody prepared for it.

There have been 3 'Hundred Year events' in the last year in this area alone. Andrew Cumo has said that anyone that denies Global Warming now is either blind or ignorant. The Atlantic is 5 degrees fahrenheit warmer than it was last year at this time. The death toll according to AP is 60 and rising, the cost is over 50 billion in damage And bear in mind most of these people do not have flood insurance. Those homes destroyed by fire in Queens were the lucky ones, they are covered by home owners insurance. The guy across the street with water stains on the second floor is just SOL.

First of all, such as what?

Most importantly, the fact that things happened a hundred or two hundred years ago does not mean mean that this time it's our fault. The GW theory has some very specific projections that simply are not happening. One such is that the increased CO2 (which alone can not cause much warming) causes increased moisture in certain layers of the atmosphere, and that in turn causes the runaway warming. The increased moisture in those layers of the atmosphere simply has not happened.

the pronouncements of politicians really has no place here.

I believe I read when I posted this Irene, Sandy, and 1 other. Sorry, I don't copy every news article I come across. I found another reference, I will go with the local govenor as I live in Denver.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/01/seven-and-a-half-things-you-need-to-know_n_2055312.html

Thing One: Another Year, Another Hundred-Year Storm: "I'm never gonna use the phrase hundred-year storm again," New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said in a press conference yesterday, "because we've had three of those, three hundred-year storms, in the past three years."

Your ideas on GW only account for 1 view. I'll not get into an argument here over such simplistic thinking.

As for the pronouncement of politicians, sticking your head in the sand does nothing either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sredni

What I find sad about things like this is that nothing will change. A storm like this won't happen again for 50 years or a 100 years and in that time people will go back to ignoring the possibility of it happening at all. Then another "frankenstorm" will roll up and cause another 50 billion dollars (or however much that will inflate to) worth of damage with absolutely nobody prepared for it.

There have been 3 'Hundred Year events' in the last year in this area alone. Andrew Cumo has said that anyone that denies Global Warming now is either blind or ignorant. The Atlantic is 5 degrees fahrenheit warmer than it was last year at this time. The death toll according to AP is 60 and rising, the cost is over 50 billion in damage And bear in mind most of these people do not have flood insurance. Those homes destroyed by fire in Queens were the lucky ones, they are covered by home owners insurance. The guy across the street with water stains on the second floor is just SOL.

First of all, such as what?

Most importantly, the fact that things happened a hundred or two hundred years ago does not mean mean that this time it's our fault. The GW theory has some very specific projections that simply are not happening. One such is that the increased CO2 (which alone can not cause much warming) causes increased moisture in certain layers of the atmosphere, and that in turn causes the runaway warming. The increased moisture in those layers of the atmosphere simply has not happened.

the pronouncements of politicians really has no place here.

I believe I read when I posted this Irene, Sandy, and 1 other. Sorry, I don't copy every news article I come across. I found another reference, I will go with the local govenor as I live in Denver.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/01/seven-and-a-half-things-you-need-to-know_n_2055312.html

Thing One: Another Year, Another Hundred-Year Storm: "I'm never gonna use the phrase hundred-year storm again," New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said in a press conference yesterday, "because we've had three of those, three hundred-year storms, in the past three years."

Your ideas on GW only account for 1 view. I'll not get into an argument here over such simplistic thinking.

As for the pronouncement of politicians, sticking your head in the sand does nothing either.

quote:

Off-shore ocean racing sailors have been using bathymetric data, taken by NOAA and BODC for over 16 years, for use in their own weather forecasting algorithms. The surface temperature of the central Atlantic mass has not changed. The surface temperature of the Gulf Stream varies by +/- 2 degrees, on average, in any given year, depending on the specific heat content of the Gulf of Mexico, and the position of the upwelling center of the Atlantic mass. Average Gulf Stream temp hasn’t changed in approx. 130 years.

Recent newsworthy tropical lows have been less organized. The barometrics aren’t as bad as hard ‘cane, but they extend over a wider area. This gives more fetch and more surface pressure release, resulting in higher sea levels (i.e., a greater surge at the land interface). A true Cat-big Hurricane would very likely result in the same, or even lower surge levels because of its area concentration. Storm surge results from volumetric math; the area of a low times the mass released by the pressure delta at sea level. Area is radius “squared”. Delta pressure is “linear”. Cat 1/TS Sandy had a peak surge of 15 feet which was the same as the Cat 4 that destroyed Galveston in1900.

The present weather patterns are very similar to those of 1921 and 22 and even closer to the period of the great New England flood of 1927.

quote:

I'm not surprised the ECM Model had a better forecast. They look more at higher latitudes and later seasons, because that's what drives Euro weather. Sandy was at the bottom of their latitude look and at the beginning of their trendings but they saw the Canada Low 'cause that's what they look for. Sandy was at the top of our latitude look and the end of our tropical low trendings, and we just didn't think to pull down that Northern Low./quote]

(in reply to witpqs)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Edit: I just looked at Sulu's map and it wasn't "three or four days out." But the maps three or four (and even five) days out were right on target - showing landfall in southern New Jersey. I mean, they were right on target. That's incredible. There was a hurricane early this season that hit the Gulf Coast - the one that came right during the Republican convention in Tampa in August. The forecasters had trouble with that one, continually shifting it west. At first it was to glance by Tampa heading due north, but it ended up several hundred miles west, coming ashore at New Orleans.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

Sorry witpqs, we will have to agree to disagree. While your model takes in the atmospheric anomalies, it does not include thermo dynamics and it’s impact on thermohaline circulation. Your model is valid, but incomplete.

IMO

quote:

ORIGINAL: floydg

Just got my power back this afternoon. What a mess...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

We do get plagues of locusts. For any of you who have never been to the southeast USA coast in March and April, I encourage you to stay away from the barrier islands and salt marsh areas. The sand gnats aka "no-see-ums" are the most horrendous things of all time. I got stuck on Cumberland Island, Georgia, in late March of 1983, and those things ate me alive. I had to wait hours for the ferry, all the while being feasted on by clouds (no exaggeration - clouds) of those tormentors. Ouch.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

1954-1964 were interesting times for New Yorkers vis a vis Hurricanes:

1954 — Hurricane Hazel - wind gust of 113 mph at Battery Park, highest ever recorded in New York City.

August 31, 1954 — Hurricane Carol makes landfall on Long Island and produces wind gusts of 120 miles per hour (190 km/h) on Montauk Point.[3] On eastern Long Island near where Carol made landfall, a pressure of 960 mbar is recorded.[28] Winds on the island gust to 120 mph (195 km/h). The hurricane's storm surge covers the Montauk Highway in Montauk, effectively isolating eastern Long Island for a period of time. Due to the compact nature of the storm, most of Long Island is largely unaffected by the hurricane.[28] Specific damage totals for New York are unknown, although the storm in its entirety causes $460 million (1954 USD) in damage.[28]

September 10, 1954 — Hurricane Edna tracks to the east of Long Island producing 9 inches (230 mm) of rain.[3] Prior to the storm, New York City orders an emergency standby for the majority of its hospitals, and subways.[29]

August 13, 1955 — Hurricane Connie produces 13.24 inches (370 mm) of rain in Southeast New York, although damage is unknown.[30]

September 28, 1956 — Hurricane Flossy tracks to the south of Long Island, brushing it with light rainfall.[31]

October 1, 1959 — The remnants of Hurricane Gracie track into Central New York and drops up to 6 inches (150 mm) of rain.[32]

September 11, 1960 — Hurricane Donna makes landfall on Long Island as a Category 2 hurricane. Sustained winds of 100 mph (160 km/h) on eastern Long Island and 70 mph (110 km/h) winds on western Long Island are reported, and tides are 6 feet (2 m) above normal along most of the coast. Strong waves also cause beach erosion and several homes along the shore to be destroyed. Due to well-executed warnings, damages are extremely low, and it is reported that no deaths result from the storm.[33]

September 21, 1961 — Hurricane Esther causes $3 million (1961 USD, $20 million 2007 USD) in damage in Suffolk County as it tracks to the east of Long Island. Coastal areas of Long Island were flooded, as well as storm surge and wind gusts of 108 mph (173 km/h), which causes 260,000 homes to be left without power.[34]

October 8, 1962 — Hurricane Daisy tracks east of New England, producing light rainfall in extreme eastern portions of Upstate New York.[35]

September 23, 1964 — Beach erosion and moderate wind gusts are reported on Long Island as Hurricane Gladys tracks a couple hundred miles south of New York.[36]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Nature and weather are hugely, wildly cyclical. The earth gets warmer. The earth gets colder. There are flooding rains. There are tremendous droughts. Hurrianes come in waves. Hurricanes disappear for decades (Miami, Florida, didn't see a major hurricane from the mid 1960s until Andrew in 1992). Weird things happen.

One hundred years ago, people were growing citrus fruit on the Gulf Coast of Mississippi and Alabama (if you doubt me, see the reports of damage caused by 1969's Hurricane Camille, which hit the lingering remnants of these groves). Then, for thirty years from the '60s through the '90s, the American southeast was unusually cold. Now it's mostly unusually warm.

Anybody who doubts that nature is cyclical would be foolish, but I remain very skeptical of efforts to pin this on mankind. We are a wasteful, polluting, earth-moving bunch of hooligans, but the massive power of nature mocks our puny little effortst to influence something as awesomely powerful as weather.

It's really amazing that many manmade climate change scientists and politicans have moved beyond the "theory" stage to the "fact" stage and want to tar and feather anybody who disputes, questions, or doubts the theory. It's become a cult.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Nature and weather are hugely, wildly cyclical. The earth gets warmer. The earth gets colder. There are flooding rains. There are tremendous droughts. Hurrianes come in waves. Hurricanes disappear for decades (Miami, Florida, didn't see a major hurricane from the mid 1960s until Andrew in 1992). Weird things happen.

One hundred years ago, people were growing citrus fruit on the Gulf Coast of Mississippi and Alabama (if you doubt me, see the reports of damage caused by 1969's Hurricane Camille, which hit the lingering remnants of these groves). Then, for thirty years from the '60s through the '90s, the American southeast was unusually cold. Now it's mostly unusually warm.

Anybody who doubts that nature is cyclical would be foolish, but I remain very skeptical of efforts to pin this on mankind. We are a wasteful, polluting, earth-moving bunch of hooligans, but the massive power of nature mocks our puny little effortst to influence something as awesomely powerful as weather.

It's really amazing that many manmade climate change scientists and politicans have moved beyond the "theory" stage to the "fact" stage and want to tar and feather anybody who disputes, questions, or doubts the theory. It's become a cult.

People who really have looked into this and believe it's happening also believe that if we don't do something to change our behavior, the planet will not be the same for our children as it was for us. That is a serious concern for me. It is serious enough to do my own bit of searching, even if I was a sceptic. Hopefully scientists still use the term 'theory' because all of science is really still theoretical. Even plate tectonics is still a theory, though most of us accept it now as true even though it is a very recent idea.

There is a not a lot of dispute in the worldwide scientific community that nature is cyclical or that this current situation is outside known cyclical boundaries. The overwhelming majority of people who spend their lives studying this stuff believe global warming is happening and that it is at least assisted by the burning of fossil fuels. I'm no expert, but this TED talk is a very good illustration of what is happening to glacial areas of the world and shows at least briefly that while the fluctuations of the past were great, the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere currently are far outside any recorded, by a factor of almost a 1/3.

Before humans started taking oil out of the ground it didn't burn and send smoke into the atmosphere. The current spike in CO2 levels happens to coincide with the industrial revolution. But by no means am I an expert. Don't believe me, and please don't take offense. I'm only passing on the source. Have a look for yourself. If for nothing else, it has amazing time-lapse photography of receding and calving glaciers. All this shows visually is the proof of dramatic ice loss, but the research and the website for the organization has more data pointing to how this is related to human activity if you're interested.

http://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss.html

http://extremeicesurvey.org/

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert



In anticipation of a quick response without supporting data I did a 20 second search and found this article from Forbes. (I'm sure much more data is out there). It has a poll of scientists.

As with all polls, the answers you get depend on the questions you ask. We found that almost all climate scientists believe that the world has been warming: 97% agree that "global average temperatures have increased" during the past century. But not everyone attributes that rise to human activity. A slight majority (52%) believe this warming was human-induced, 30% see it as the result of natural temperature fluctuations and the rest are unsure.

When it comes to current conditions, however, the consensus in favor of human warming reemerges: 84% believe "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring, compared with only 5% who reject this conclusion. And 74% say the "currently available scientific evidence substantiates" its occurrence, while only 9% disagree. So global warming doubters are a genuinely small minority among American climate scientists;

It also states that scientists are naturally much less likely to make bold predictions than how the media portray them. Most say it's very difficult to 'predict' what the future will be like, but if 84% believe that humans are causing at least some of this now, isn't it worth looking into?

I find this section very telling. Danger is danger, no matter what the degree.

To get a more general sense of how climate experts feel about the risks of global warming, we asked them to rate the likely effects of climate change during the next 50 to 100 years along a spectrum ranging from "trivial" to "catastrophic." The result was widespread concern, along with considerable debate over how great that concern should be.

Only 13% saw relatively little danger (ratings of 1 to 3 on a 10-point scale); the rest were about evenly split between the 44% who see moderate to high danger (ratings of 4 to 7) and 41% who see very high or grave danger (ratings of 8 to 10). It is also notable that only 1% answered "don't know" to this question, a reminder that many scientists respond more cautiously about making specific scientific projections than about giving their personal opinions, a distinction that is sometimes lost on politicians.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/19/climategate-copenhagen-science-opinions-contributors-s-robert-lichter.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

The issue is huge and complex.