Climate Change Drives Bigger, Wetter Storms -- Storms Like Florence (npr.org) 270
Rebecca Hersher, reporting for NPR: Hurricane Florence is moving relentlessly toward the Southeastern U.S. It's a large, powerful cyclone that will likely bring storm surge and high winds to coastal communities. But climate scientists say one of the biggest threats posed by Florence is rain. "Freshwater flooding poses the greatest risk to life," explains James Kossin, an atmospheric scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Wisconsin, Madison. And Florence could cause extensive freshwater flooding for two reasons. First, Florence is moving slowly, and could all but stop when it reaches land. "The storm could be over North Carolina and traveling incredibly slowly -- on the order of just a few miles per hour," explains Kossin, who says an official from the city of Charlotte, N.C., contacted him about rainfall projections for that city.
If Florence stalls over the Southeast, it would be reminiscent of Hurricane Harvey, which spent days dumping rain on the Houston region last year. Some areas ended up with more than 60 inches, a catastrophic amount of water that shut down the entire region and resulted in at least 93 deaths. Slow-moving storms like Harvey are getting more common. A study published earlier this year by Kossin found that tropical cyclones around the world have slowed down 10 percent in the last 70 years. "We're seeing that in every ocean basin except the northern Indian Ocean," says Kossin, possibly because climate change is causing the wind currents that hurricanes ride to slow down. If Florence slows down and stalls when it hits land, it will the latest example of that trend. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., says global warming also affects the size and intensity of storms like Florence.
If Florence stalls over the Southeast, it would be reminiscent of Hurricane Harvey, which spent days dumping rain on the Houston region last year. Some areas ended up with more than 60 inches, a catastrophic amount of water that shut down the entire region and resulted in at least 93 deaths. Slow-moving storms like Harvey are getting more common. A study published earlier this year by Kossin found that tropical cyclones around the world have slowed down 10 percent in the last 70 years. "We're seeing that in every ocean basin except the northern Indian Ocean," says Kossin, possibly because climate change is causing the wind currents that hurricanes ride to slow down. If Florence slows down and stalls when it hits land, it will the latest example of that trend. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., says global warming also affects the size and intensity of storms like Florence.
Weatherbug says otherwise (Score:5, Interesting)
Weatherbug doesn't want to trigger rightwingers (Score:5, Interesting)
And no matter if it's well supported, the politics of the rightwing does not allow AGW to be real. So lots of places won't dare to mention climate change as being the cause of ANYTHING, because the only things AGW deniers will allow climate to do is "change" in such a way that we don't do it. It sure as shit isn't allowed to DO anything. Just change.
Re:Weatherbug doesn't want to trigger rightwingers (Score:4, Insightful)
I remember, back in the day, we had back to back cat 4 and cat 5 hurricanes including Rita, Wilma and Katrina. Al Gore made a movie of it saying that this will happen from now on due to global warming. Then we had a 10 year span of no major hurricanes striking the east coast. We get one in a decade and all of a sudden the sky is falling again.
Re: (Score:3)
A cat 4 or cat 5 hurricane not hitting the east coast but moving north and turning out to outer sea, is stillma hurricane. ...
And a taifune is just the same thing as an hurricane anyway. Ever looked on a global weather map, recently? We have about 15 active hurricanes/typhoons/fropical storms at the moment
Re: (Score:3)
And no matter if it's well supported, the politics of the rightwing does not allow AGW to be real. So lots of places won't dare to mention climate change as being the cause of ANYTHING, because the only things AGW deniers will allow climate to do is "change" in such a way that we don't do it. It sure as shit isn't allowed to DO anything. Just change.
This is true but what also is true is the left is waiting for a bad hurricane so they can scream global warming and demand business controls, controls denied them when class warfare became a loser at the polls.
In both cases, follow the money. Do not be a cog in either side.
Global warming is a few percent in energy increase, and thus a percent of a percent in strength or number. It will take decades just to demonstrate a tiny increase in hurricane power or number.
Re: (Score:3)
and thus a percent of a percent in strength or number. It will take decades just to demonstrate a tiny increase in hurricane power or number.
Rofl, again stpidity rules the world.
Due to heating of the ocean, the hot area becomes bigger, do tue being hot more early, the storms form earlier in the year, which also means farer away from the coast, during the time they aproach, which is more time, because they form farer away, they have more time to grow.
So, a 1% change in "global" energy levels easy increase t
Re:Weatherbug doesn't want to trigger rightwingers (Score:5, Insightful)
You lose the argument when you refer to others as "moron deniers". If you are not intellectually honest enough to allow others to have alternate points of view
Hey Anonymous Coward - People who believe the earth is flat or we didn't go to the moon or evolution isn't real may very well have "alternate points of view" but it doesn't mean they're not morons.
Same deal here.
Re: (Score:3)
Weatherbug was pretty careful not to make the leap that Florence is a result of climate change. They had an article speculating that the reason Florence became so strong is the result of a Bermuda high which is in an unusual position for the year.
How do they/you square that belief with the report from Accuweather about Climate Change Impacting the Bermuda High [accuweather.com], causing it "intensify"?
Re:Weatherbug says otherwise (Score:4, Funny)
Weatherbug was pretty careful not to make the leap that Florence is a result of climate change. They had an article speculating that the reason Florence became so strong is the result of a Bermuda high which is in an unusual position for the year.
How do they/you square that belief with the report from Accuweather about Climate Change Impacting the Bermuda High [accuweather.com], causing it "intensify"?
A short play with a metaphor for how climate discussions will look for the near future:
Person A: "The house is flooding because of the rain pouring in".
Person B:"Think it's because of the hole in the roof?"
Person A:"I can't speculate on that."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Idiot lefty - Huge hurricane this year, must be global warming! Panic!
One thing is for sure is you're never going to get idiots stop confusing weather with climate.
Weather - Snow, Hurricane, Rain, etc
Climate - Arid, Tropical, etc
Re: (Score:2)
One thing is for sure is you're never going to get idiots stop confusing weather with climate. Weather - Snow, Hurricane, Rain, etc Climate - Arid, Tropical, etc
Would you not agree though that, as climate shifts (or changes), weather will inevitably change as a result? So therefore significant, unusual, or unprecedented changes in weather could very well indicate shifts in climate?
Re: (Score:2)
Hurricanes are neither unusual, nor unprecedented.
Hurricanes are not, but the GP even states that this current hurricane is being affected by conditions that are.
Re: Weatherbug says otherwise (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that everyone focuses on possible negative repercussions and ignores any which mat have been positive. If there is a 10 year lull in hurricanes, will anyone do a study to see if climate change is responsible? If such a study, by some miracle, actually gets done, will the news breathlessly report that climate change has caused a reduction in hurricanes?
Re: Weatherbug says otherwise (Score:5, Insightful)
. If there is a 10 year lull in hurricanes, will anyone do a study to see if climate change is responsible?
Of course they would. Your entire point is predicated on the assumption that scientists are probably shit.
Re: (Score:2)
If there is a 10 year lull in hurricanes, will anyone do a study to see if climate change is responsible?
Considering that multiple studies were done on it, it's pretty safe to say such studies would be done.
The answer, btw, was "These climate-change things might have caused it, or maybe not. No way to know for sure."
Re: Weatherbug says otherwise (Score:4, Informative)
So it's actually a below-average hurricane season, but the media is taking advantage of the lone major hurricane heading towards the U.S. to push stories about how storms are getting worse. It's pretty naked confirmation bias [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Which part of: we are at the beginning of september, and stil nearly 3 month to go, till end of the hurrican season, did you not grasp yet?
Re: (Score:2)
No no one is going to do a study on such a thing.
Adding energy to a system is never going to result in a less turbulent system. That's basic laws of thermodynamics. No one needs to be evaluating if pumping huge amounts of energy into a system reduces the activity of that system.
Define terms (Score:4, Insightful)
One thing is for sure is you're never going to get idiots stop confusing weather with climate.
True but here's the thing. If you string enough weather events together it becomes climate. If the weather tomorrow is 70F and sunny, that is weather. If the weather for most of the next 500 days is 70F and sunny, that's climate. (also that's San Diego) If the accumulated weather events change enough to be statistically different than previous patterns then that is climate change. The only question is what number of accumulated weather events does it take to make a climate and what magnitude over what time period constitutes climate change? The problem is that there is no simple sound bite answers to those questions so idiots keep arguing about it because there is no standard definition in play.
Re: (Score:2)
Typical weather patterns belong to climate. E.G you never will have a hurricane in the center of the US or Canada or Siberia or China.
Climate change most certainly leads to more tropical storms that evolve into hurricanes and taifoons. After all the only fuel a hurricane needs is warm water above 26.5C!
The more often you have that, the more often you have a hurricane. The bigger the afea, the bigger the storm. The higher the water temperature the higher the wind speed and speed of forming.
All no brainers ..
Re:Weatherbug says otherwise (Score:4)
I've never understood why there is much of a debate at all on this subject. Global warning is ether real or it isn't. If its real then it is being driven by fossil fuels and that must be stopped. I've listened to idiots on both sides of the debate and it seems to me the answer is quiet clear.
Fossil fuels are a major source of pollution and a major health hazard. They destroy out infrastructure and natural environments, and this is proven. Their use must be stopped because of this alone.
Fossil fuels are a scarce resource that have a limit. Over time it will be harder to find new sources that can meet our ever increasing needs. This dictates that new sources of energy must be found.
Both of these reasons alone dictate that better and cleaner sources of energy must be found. The argument on global warming is just a distraction to me.
Our dependence on fossil fuels will end. This is a fact. We will ether poison ourselves by continuing to use them or we will run out. One way or another their use will end.
Of course I guess going extinct or falling back to the stone age is also an option.
Re: (Score:3)
That study is interesting, but so too is this one, which shows Atlantic Hurricanes have NOT increased in size for the last 30 years:
Graph (it's a flat line): https://s.w-x.co/wu/storm-size... [w-x.co]
Original Link:
https://www.wunderground.com/c... [wunderground.com]
Re:Weatherbug says otherwise (Score:4, Informative)
It's not just size, it's also speed. Slowly moving over cities, dropping tons of rain.
Re: (Score:3)
It is true hurricanes move slower, but I was mostly debunking the "hurricanes are bigger" claim in the title and elsewhere.
They are the same size as 30 years ago.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I heard the NPR report and the reporter made a few leaps which were her “value addeds” and weren’t based on the scientist’s comments... like climate change leading to warmer tropical waters (not really - models show warming away from the tropics, with the biggest jump in arctic areas).
The possible link to large scale wind circulation changes - and slower storms because of it - is interesting though.
Re:Weatherbug says otherwise (Score:5, Insightful)
In situations like this, people want an answer (or more accurately prefer an answer) to what is in itself a meaningless question: did climate change cause this.
The way this argument is heading is fairly typical: people lining up behind sources that support the answer they want, without asking what the question actually means.
If I am not mistaken, the biggest destructive effects of this storm will not be to wind (which is how hurricanes are graded on the Saffir-Simpson scale) but to rainfall, and the models predict greater rainfall more unambiguously than they predict greater wind intensity.
But even given all that, you still can't say that greenhouse gases "caused" this without getting into a dense thicket of philosophical (the Wikipedia article on causality [wikipedia.org] is actually worth reading here) and geophysical technicalities.
It's a pointless argument anyway. What we're really struggling over is whether this event means we should do something about greenhouse gas emissions. And for that causality is certainly a sufficient justification, but it's not strictly speaking necessary. It just has to be representative of the likely consequences of greenhouse gas emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's put it this way. The con artist doesn't believe in climate change and his next big step is to curtail methane gas emission regulations.
That said, he also used global warming (his words) as the excuse to build a sea wall for his failing Irish [politico.com] golf course [washingtonpost.com]:
"If the predictions of an increase in sea level rise as a result of global warming prove correct, however, it is likely
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I think the thing I hate most about the Trump presidency is how *everything* has to be about the Trump presidency.
Re:Weatherbug says otherwise (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Weatherbug was pretty careful not to make the leap that Florence is a result of climate change. They had an article speculating that the reason Florence became so strong is the result of a Bermuda high which is in an unusual position for the year. The article's author felts that the blocking high was keeping Florence over warmer water so it could strengthen. Typically September hurricanes turn back out to sea.
Think of a coin that's kinda weird aerodynamically so when you flip it it will land heads 70% of the time.
Then you flip the coin 10 times and it lands heads 8 times. That's unlikely with an unbiased coin, but not impossible.
So do you say the bias caused it to land heads 8/10? Do you say it contributed? Do you say we can't really comment at all?
That's the basic discussion climate scientists are having right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Use a cylinder, then declare the side landings to be "heads". You have a three-sided coin, and by shortening or lengthening the cylinder, you can make it less or more likely to land on its side. No aerodynamic trickery is required, so this "three-sided coin" will work anywhere it has a flat, level surface to fall onto.
But wait, that's not the same thing as messing with climate.
If you can't distinguish between a heads landing and a side landing (they somehow look the same from outside), then it starts to l
Re:Weatherbug says otherwise (Score:5, Informative)
This study shows hurricanes have NOT increased in size (contrary to the title): https://www.wunderground.com/c... [wunderground.com]
"Tropical cyclone size does not appear to have changed significantly over the past 35 years."
Graph (it's a flat line): https://s.w-x.co/wu/storm-size... [w-x.co]
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, it is moving about 15mph or so now, and is forecast to slow to like 3-7mph once it makes landfall....and somehow this slowdown is caused by global warming?
I mean, that is the reason they're worried about rain fall flooding.....
Re:Weatherbug says otherwise (Score:5, Informative)
I'm trying to figure this out....they're saying that global warming is going to cause this large storm to stall and dump rain?
I mean, it is moving about 15mph or so now, and is forecast to slow to like 3-7mph once it makes landfall....and somehow this slowdown is caused by global warming?
I mean, that is the reason they're worried about rain fall flooding.....
The effect of global warming in the Arctic is much greater than in the tropics (see Arctic amplification [wikipedia.org]). This reduces the temperature differences going south to north which is one of the major drivers of wind. So the wind has slowed down which slows down the movement of weather phenomena embedded in the wind.
Re:Weatherbug says otherwise (Score:5, Informative)
Ok, here are a couple of non-Wikipedia sources on Arctic amplification:
Arctic amplification dominated by temperature feedbacks in contemporary climate models [nature.com]
Processes and impacts of Arctic amplification: A research synthesis [sciencedirect.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If you'd like to point out where the errors are, I'll correct them for you.
Re: (Score:3)
According to the Weather Channel, the last cat 4 to hit the Carolinas was 1954, so it's been a bit.
Damned if I care what caused it* - the main thing is that the flooding and such will hurt a lot of people.
Let's get ready to help them; they're going to need it.
* I am emphatically NOT a climate skeptic, but that isn't germane when people are at risk bc of severe weather. Help the people and then work on the problem.
Two Decades of Fail (Score:2, Insightful)
The Alarmists have been predicting a Hurricane Season like this one apparels to be shaping up as for two decades and failed every fucking year.
There will be no end of the, "See! I told you so!" and celebrating their record of 1 and 20...IF that train of storms in the Atlantic all develop into hurricanes and make landfall.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly - God drives the climate, not man. If He wants a hurricane to hit the USA, it'll hit. I'll be surprised if He does, though, what with Trump and all. The USA is turning from its Satanic ways.
Trump will build a wall to keep the hurricane out. And make God pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
There was no "global cooljng", albeit the SOx emissions that had accumulated till that time hadba cooling effect.
The reason that global warming is not already completely out of control is the imense mount of SOx we produce with the shipping industry.
Re: (Score:2)
That is, alas, one of those mathematical errors which fee off the fallacy of large numbers, which was also the underlying mimetic behind the old 'Dilution is the solution to pollution' memes in the 1960s. We're not so small and insignificant as your comment implies - humanity has had an enormous effect on the planet.
Movemet not due to warming (Score:5, Informative)
The slow movement of Florence and possibility it stalls are not related to global warming to rather simply to the location of high pressure systems north of the storm preventing it from turning northward.
The size of the storm could be argued to be greater due to warming, but its a statistical discussion about averages over time, not one of any particular storm.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The slow movement of Florence and possibility it stalls are not related to global warming to rather simply to the location of high pressure systems north of the storm preventing it from turning northward.
Gee, I wonder what's affected the location of those high pressure systems [robertscribbler.com].
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I believe there was a paper that said climate change could result in hurricanes moving slower. However, it is important to note that, as per Wikipedia, out on the most severe storms only 2 are from this century. In almost every metric the past century is worst then this one. If hurricanes are getting progressively worst you would think that records would be consistently broken.
The only area in witch modern storms win is in monetary damage caused which is obvious when you realize how many more people live in
Re: (Score:2)
The slow movement of Florence and possibility it stalls are not related to global warming to rather simply to the location of high pressure systems north of the storm preventing it from turning northward.
And it is believed that we are facing an unusual situation with the Bermuda High that may be caused by climate change that is doing this.
Re: (Score:3)
You're the moron. Climate is about global changes over time. Weather is about local events. Sure, one can drive the other to greater extremes, but you cannot pin a single storm on a specific change in the climate. The storm would probably have happened in much the same way as it is now, the question is what difference the size, speed and pattern would've made - eg. 20 deaths or 70 deaths; $50M damage vs $1.5B damage.
Not so sure about this claim either ..... (Score:4)
I live in the Northeast and every time a reporter starts showing the people putting up sandbags and preparing, and they get interviewed? They say the same kinds of things. "Been through this a number of times before." The shop owners in places like Annapolis will show you how high flood waters have been, decades ago compared to the last few times they dealt with flooding. And predictions for this one seem to be, at most, somewhat equivalent to one of the higher water levels they saw long ago.
This article talks about a worldwide slowdown of 10% noted in the last 70 years for hurricane movement? Might be completely true, but does that really signify man-made climate change as the culprit? Or would you see at least a 10% variance one way or the other, if you were tracking their speeds of travel in different time periods further back than the last 70 years? Either way, 10% doesn't seem like a huge difference? Assuming the amount of rainfall is directly related to how long the storm sits in a given area, or how much time it has to pick up ocean water as it travels? Wouldn't that mean it accounts for only 6 inches of extra rain from a 60 inch rainfall?
Re: (Score:2)
Back when I visited Hawai'i in the '70s it wasn't at all unusual for there to be lines painted on the sides of buildings showing the high water marks for various tsunami. I'm surprised that the people in places like Annapolis haven't done the same thing, unless I've misunderstood what you posted.
Re:Not so sure about this claim either ..... (Score:5, Insightful)
They say the same kinds of things. "Been through this a number of times before."
When disaster approaches, people say things to comfort themselves. It helps when you're worried about your life being annihilated in a couple days, and there's little you can do about it.
Also, "100-year" storms are a thing. The fact that there were "100-year" storms in the past doesn't mean much. What means something is the "100-year" storms now appear to be happening more like every 20 years.
Wouldn't that mean it accounts for only 6 inches of extra rain from a 60 inch rainfall?
Doesn't sound like much, does it?
Now remember that 6 inches is over 1000 square miles. That's a hell of a lot of water.
Now run all that water through the relatively small channels we call "rivers". That's a metric fuckton more flooding, because those 6 inches are concentrated into a relatively small area.
A hurricane stalling overhead is an extremely bad thing.
Really? (Score:2, Troll)
When we point to cooler summers or warmer winters or a near-complete absence of tornadoes, the reply is "WEATHER ISN'T CLIMATE, YOU FUCKING DENIER"
But somehow everytime there's a hurricane, we see posts and news stories about how this is driven by climate change.
Funny.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
It's sort of the opposite of how religious people thank God for everything good that happens in their lives, but don't seem to blame him when things go terribly wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd agree that's a good analogy. Both groups are zealots uninterested in anything but flogging their particular creed to every passer-by.
If there was such a thing as God, he's clearly a sadistic motherfucker.
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument seems to be "someone on the internet said something stupid ergo global warming isn't happening".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
It was never global cooling in the '70s, despite one or two magazine covers. And they weren't wrong about ozone. And they aren't wrong about global warming. We have more than enough data to be sure of that.
Re: (Score:2)
The paleoclimate record shows that for the past ~3 million years, the earth warms spectacularly quickly about once every 120-140,000 years after which it settles back to the Holocene Optimal we all love. This has happened at least 15 times. The last was about 120,000 years ago.
For the current warming to be anthropogenic or even majority-anthropogenic, both
a) the previous cycle would have to be stopped, and
b) the new mechanism driven by SUVs and Republicans would have had to replace it in almost *precisely
Re: (Score:2)
the earth warms spectacularly quickly about once every 120-140,000 years
And we know the mechanism for it (Milankovitch cycles). But 'spectacularly quickly' in that context is about an order of magnitude slower than we've seen in the last 200 years, and currently we are in the point in the cycle during which it should be (and was) cooling. This was proposed in the 1920s, but it took until the 1960s and work on corals and ice cores to finally prove it.
Please explain how that happened.
It's anthropogenic. See above.
And then, while you're at it, please explain how whatever mechanism drove those extremes of climate back toward the Holocene Optimal wouldn't work this time.
We're not in that part of the cycle. See above.
I can't get an actual climatologist to reply.
The problem is you are claiming that something should
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, you're wrong.
As a HS physics and math teacher during the 1970's I remember very well the alarmist warnings about the planet freezing due to natural cooling. Those alarmists were usually the sames ones who were spouting "nuclear winter" if we weren't more agreeable with the USSR concerning arms control. I include a link to a PDF of a Newsweek article
http://www.denisdutton.com/new... [denisdutton.com]
because it contains a graph by the gov's NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research) which showed the aver
Re: (Score:3)
When I was a kid in the 1970's it was global cooling
No it fucking wasn't. You're an utter fool if you think that's the case and not just ignorant but wilfully ignorant.
Then it was ozone.
Yes that was a real thing and it actually happened. It got better becase of a massive coordinated international effort to curb CFCs. How you think that's an argument against reducing carbon emissions I really can't guess at.
until we /understand/ more
We do nuderstand. We understand the globe is warming and as a result the cli
First it was fast and violent storms, now it's.... (Score:3, Funny)
slow moving and steady storms? C'mon climate "science" purveyors, get your shit straight and stop attributing EVERY weather event to 'climate change.' Want to know why intelligent people outside of your funding....er... "science" circles don't believe? (Just in case your science doesn't work out, that is called a rhetorical question).
Science needs to be repeatable and provable, but nothing being trotted about as climate science is anything but half-assed theories and wild fear mongering. I genuinely want to know what are and are not effects of climate change, but I haven't seen anything beyond awful correlations based on fudged data. Call me when you have something based in, well, science.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
C'mon climate "science" purveyors, get your shit straight and stop attributing EVERY weather event to 'climate change.'
You're just paying attention to the wrong people. If you listened to actual climate scientists about the subject they don't attribute every weather event to climate change. They just say that when a weather event is embedded in a changing climate that is going to affect them.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Because you should always run a control on a second planet, or it's not science!
NPR and another Study (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm sorry.
Stop subsidizing multi-million dollar properties being built in flood plains or areas subject to storm surge. You have no way to change the weather and its habits. You could begin mass sterilization of third world countries too if it makes you feel better.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, flood insurance was supposed to be temporary, to give people to move to a new home.
Settled? (Score:2)
If it's "settled" it is not science, if it is science it is not settled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
It is known (Score:2)
We know this already. Is this the new Slashdot? Rehashing the same worn out tales?
Re:bullshit (Score:4)
This article is pure bullshit and conjecture.
The parent was down voted. Although it was rather short and blunt, I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment. The article talks about what Hurricane Florence *might* do, then jumps to what Hurricane Harvey did do, to bolster the pure speculation about what Hurricane Florence might do?
I'm interested in seeing if a pattern develops in hurricane activity along the eastern seaboard of the US, especially since a prediction of much worse hurricane seasons was made in relation to observed global warming/climate change. It seems a little early to act as if that hypothesis is already confirmed, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Cat 3s and less are minor for Florida. I listed 4, 5. Pattern, don't live in Florida just after WW2. Pattern is LESS powerful hurricanes as time goes on. So you provide a link that shows the OPPOSITE of what you claim it does.
If you AGW bullshit people told the truth, AGW would go away. Of course you have to lie, because the truth shows there isn't a problem. The only problem is your credibility.
Cat 5s
1935 - "Labor Day"
1992 - Andrew
That's it
Cat 4s
2017 - Irma
2004 - Charlie
1960 - Donna
1950 - King
1949 -
Re: (Score:2)
Entire island nations are sinking due to the rising water and you're STILL not convinced? The real question is how many more times must it be proven before you'll get off your ass and stop fighting for the faster and faster march off a hypothetical cliff.
I happen to believe the reports that global temperatures, on average, are rising, and I'm aware that there has been measurable rise in sea levels (not island nations sinking, though). I'm even inclined to believe (although it isn't my field of expertise) that a significant factor in this rise is human activity, including carbon outgassing. I do not believe that the hypothesis "global warming will lead to ever more violent/destructive hurricanes along the eastern seaboard of the US" has been proven (yet).
Re: (Score:2)
I am interested in understanding both the positive as well as the negative aspects of global warming.
I understand. You're looking at this from an intellectual point of view employing intellectual honesty in seeking some answers for a seldom-asked but insightful question.
What you seem to be missing is that by pointing out that there actually are positives to warming, you might contribute to people deciding to make plans to adapt to inevitably-rising average temperatures instead of wasting their resources on attempting to control the global climate (and every nation's contribution to warming), thus leaving t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is how many more times must it be proven before you'll get off your ass and stop fighting for the faster and faster march off a hypothetical cliff.
That will never happen.
They'll insist climate change is not real until it is causing severe problems. Then they will insist it is too late to do anything and continue making it worse.
Re: (Score:2)
AGW is bullshit, and they still don't have an answer to why Phil Jones deleted data requested under FOIA requests. Or why he only deleted it when a judge was going to finally force him to release it.
No, your claim is bullshit. The data in question was deleted in the 1980s, long before anyone made any FOIA requests.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Models should stick to looking pretty and walking down the runway.
Re:If you believe the models... (Score:5, Informative)
What drives storms? Temperature differences.
This is nonsense. Hurricanes are not driven by temperature differences between the tropics and temperate regions. They are driven by vertical differences in temperature and pressure.
Warm seas cause warm humid air near the surface. Warm air is lighter, and high humidity makes it lighter still. So it rises, creating a low pressure region, and drawing in more surface winds that pick up heat and humidity as they move to the center of the storm. When the air in the center rises, it spreads out and cools, condensing the humidity that falls as rain. The cooler dryer air then descends on the edge of the storm.
Warmer seas cause stronger storms. Cooler water weakens the storm as it travels north, the opposite of what you are claiming.
If the oceans were uniformly warm, would we still have hurricanes? Yes, and they would be stronger, bigger, and last longer.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You are correct that hurricanes are not driven by the release of baroclinic instability and form in environments that are somewhat close to equivalent barotropic. Hurricanes are driven by latent heat release in the deep moist convection in the core, especially the eyewall storms. Air spirals in near the surface, ascends in the deep moist convection while releasing latent heat, and spirals outward in an anticyclone aloft. Hurricanes are warm core storms meaning that there is low pressure at the surface an
Re: (Score:2)
An excellent explanation. +1 Informative.
Re: (Score:3)
be stronger, bigger, and last longer
Yes!!! Global warming will be better than viagra!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you believe the models, they say that as the Earth warms, the poles will warm more than the tropics. This means that the temperature difference between the poles and tropics will decrease. What drives storms? Temperature differences. The bigger the difference, the stronger the storm. So, if you believe the models, the intensity of storms will *decrease* due to global warming, not increase as everyone keeps saying. If you believe the models.
The great thing about an amorphous hypothesis like Global Warming/Climate Change is that it can be said to be causing whatever's going on right now. Hurricanes? Climate Change! Tornadoes? Climate Change! [livescience.com] Volcanoes? Climate Change! [ecowatch.com] Roger Federer losing the U.S. Open? Climate Change! [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Your explanations of meteorology are like an 80-year-old's luddite's explanation of how a computer works.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Water evaporation is essentially zero for temperatures below freezing. The poles warming from -15 deg C to -10 deg C will not increase the water vapor content of air in any measurable amount.
Actually it will increase the water vapor content. Maybe you've heard of something called sublimation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Scientific Consensus? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Shill group here, social-conservative morons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"Princeton Pro-Life is a student-run organization"
That should be enough of a warning to everyone.
"...the thousands pre-born people aborted every day, some of whom would have been here at Princeton with us now, had they been allowed to live."
Oh, fuck off. Without abortions, their numbers would be almost exactly the same. [sciencealert.com] And "pre-born"? I guess those students must be pre-smart! :-p
Re: (Score:2)
Point out the relevant line please. And no, "when an individual human life begins" is not the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you oppose nuclear power based on the threat it poses to humanity then I must assume you are ignorant or believe global warming is no real threat.
Or you believe it's a threat, but you don't care. Or you think that renewables are better. Or you think that we'll end up burning all the easy carbon anyway, even if there's nuclear.
Re: (Score:3)
In a nutshell, nuclear sucks compared to everything else.
If you actually read the Lazard report they make it very clear that it's dangerous to compare costs of reliable energy sources, like nuclear and natural gas, with unreliable energy, like from wind and sun. Storage and backup costs money, a cost not included in that report from Lazard. Costs that, again, Lazard warns should be included when making honest comparisons of energy sources. Nuclear "sucks" only if you are being dishonest and disingenuous.
Oh, and later Lazard reports point out that solar thermal
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And if nuclear was really that cost effective, utilities would be jumping on it.
That was covered in that Lazard report. Natural gas is cheaper than everything. What happens when natural gas prices come back up? My guess is another boom in nuclear power, much like what was seen in the 1970s and 1980s.
What few people seem to realize is that even though new nuclear power construction effectively stopped 40 years ago the output we've seen from nuclear power kept increasing. Improved techniques raised the capacity factor from less than 50% in the 1970s to over 90% today. Upgrades and a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, welcome to Slashdot! I see you just made your account today. Have you read our EZ-Guide to Posting On Slashdot? You can find it at the Customer Assistance Center by following the links or type "help" into the Slashdot Mobile App (available for Android and Blackberry OS). Also, be sure to check out the "So, You've Finally Decided To Make An Account" FAQ.
And remember, we want you to have a great experience here on Slashdot. We're committed to your satisfaction. If you have any pr
Re: (Score:2)
1-800-382-5968.
(That's FUCK-YOU to those who didn't learn to text on telephone keypads.)
Re: (Score:2)
We need a new variant of Poe's law:
Without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of inane views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of inanity.