PDA

View Full Version : To those screaming "GLOBAL WARMING!" this we



LWW
11-01-2012, 03:58 PM
Hurricane Sandy is not only not unprecedented, it isn't even out of the ordinary or unpredictable.

The upper northeast gets lobbered by a storm such as this every 70-75 years ... and this one certainly wasn't the most powerful or the most deadly.

When science and history meet, moonbattery is exposed for what it truly is ... spoon fed nonsense from the evil to the gullible.

>>>CLICK HERE TO LEARN ABOUT THE 1938 LONG ISLAND EXPRESS<<< (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_Hurricane_of_1938)

>>>CLICK HERE TO LEARN ABOUT THE GREAT COLONIAL HURRICANE OF 1635<<< (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Colonial_Hurricane_of_1635)

>>>CLICK HERE TO LEARN ABOUT THE MORE THAN NINETY KNOWN HURRICANES THAT HAVE HIT NEW YORK<<< (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Colonial_Hurricane_of_1635)

cushioncrawler
11-01-2012, 04:39 PM
I think i agree.
Even i know that scientists know that GW haznt yet and probly wont (for a long time yet) make a big difference to atlantic storms. Computer simulation shows this too i beleev.
And this iz one area of the ipcc reports that iz in error, defying the real experts.
mac.

LWW
11-02-2012, 02:57 AM
Even the leftists on AZB are laughing at those bleating about GW causing Sandy.

cushioncrawler
11-02-2012, 04:47 AM
There are a few bad scientists around, u havta be carefull.
One iz an indian scientist, a team leader on the ipcc, who wrote lies re glaciers melting due to GW.
One woz on the ipcc allso and wrote krapp re atlantic hurricanes and GW.
One woz named Mr Einstein. A fake and a fraud who wrote a lot of krapp about space and time and gravity and light, but didnt write anything about GW.
mac.

Qtec
11-02-2012, 05:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">scientists know that GW haznt yet and probly wont (for a long time yet) make a big difference to atlantic storms. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, as promised: If you still don’t believe scientists, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>then believe insurance giant Munich Re.</span> In her October 29 post at the The New Yorker, writer Elizabeth Kolbert notes:

Munich Re, one of the world’s largest reinsurance firms, issued a study titled “Severe Weather in North America.” According to the press release that accompanied the report, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>“Nowhere in the world is the rising number of natural catastrophes more evident than in North America.”</span> … While many factors have contributed to this trend, including an increase in the number of people living in flood-prone areas, the report identified global warming as one of the major culprits: <span style='font-size: 17pt'>“Climate change particularly affects formation of heat-waves, droughts, intense precipitation events, and in the long run most probably also tropical cyclone intensity.”</span>

Insurers, scientists and journalist are beginning to drop the caveats and simply say that climate change is causing big storms.<u> As scientists collect more and more data over time, more of them will be willing to make the same data-based statements.</u> </div></div>

The model predicts extreme weather. Exactly what we are seeing in the USA.

BTW, here is the Australian weather forecast. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

LMAO (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5Z9xZ6wEGc)



Q

Gayle in MD
11-02-2012, 07:49 AM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Check out one of our local reports. Hilarious!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_hhoL0PCZE&feature=related

Soflasnapper
11-02-2012, 09:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Even the leftists on AZB are laughing at those bleating about GW causing Sandy. </div></div>

Causing? No. Worsening? Likely.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In the mid-Atlantic region, the coastal seas have risen about eight inches since 1900–and about a foot in New York Harbor. “That means,” notes Lemonick, “the storm tides from Sandy are that much higher than they would have been if the identical storm had come along back then.” </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Unlike New Orleans, New York City is above sea level. Yet the city is second only to New Orleans in the number of people living less than four feet above high tide — nearly 200,000 New Yorkers …

With higher seas, a common storm could prove as damaging as the rare big storm or hurricane is today, scientists say. Were sea levels to rise four feet by the 2080s, for example, 34 percent of the city’s streets could lie in the flood-risk zone, compared with just 11 percent now, a 2011 study commissioned by the state said.

You can see how a combination of rising sea levels, tides, and storms could affect different parts of the United States with this helpful GIS mapping tool from Climate Central. For New York City, the map shows just a small chance of a major six-foot surge by 2020—it takes a rare storm like Sandy and high tides to pull it off. But as the world warms and sea levels rise, the odds of a big storm surge increase. Suddenly, that freak event won’t be so rare anymore. </div></div>

Link to GIS mapping tool at original article location, here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/29/yes-hurricane-sandy-is-a-good-reason-to-worry-about-climate-change/)

cushioncrawler
11-02-2012, 05:03 PM
“Climate change particularly affects formation of heat-waves, droughts, intense precipitation events, and in the long run most probably also tropical cyclone intensity.”

THIS CONFIRMS WHAT I SAYD.
IT SAYS IN THE LONG RUN.
IT SAYS PROBLY.
ITS WHAT I SAYD.
MAC.

Soflasnapper
11-04-2012, 12:59 PM
Hurricane Sandy is not only not unprecedented, it isn't even out of the ordinary or unpredictable.

The upper northeast gets lobbered by a storm such as this every 70-75 years ... and this one certainly wasn't the most powerful or the most deadly.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Based on pressure readings, it's likely to be the strongest storm to make landfall north of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, CNN senior meteorologist Dave Hennen said. The benchmark storm, the 1938 "Long Island Express" Hurricane, contained a low pressure reading of 946 millibars; Sandy had a minimum pressure of 943 millibars. Generally speaking, the lower the pressure, the stronger the storm.</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In New York, lower Manhattan's Battery Park recorded nearly 14-foot tide, smashing a record set by 1960's Hurricane Donna by more than 3 feet. </div></div> Here (http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/29/us/tropical-weather-sandy/index.html)

So your claim, undoubtedly repeated from the spoon from wherever your material comes from, is that although the high tide prior record was shattered by 3 feet, and although the prior record low level of atmospheric pressure for the '38 Long Island Express was also beaten, in no way was this out of the ordinary or unpredictable.

Except for these records being broken, you mean? LOL!

LWW
11-04-2012, 02:53 PM
North Carolina is certainly not the upper NE, nor is NYC the entire region.

Back to ... and I understand you loathe this ... the facts about the LONG ISLAND EXPRESS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_Hurricane_of_1938):

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The majority of the storm damage was from storm surge and wind. Damage is estimated at $6 billion (2004 US$),[9] making it among the most costly hurricanes to strike the U.S. mainland. It is estimated that if an identical hurricane struck today it would cause $39.2 billion (2005 USD) in damage.[10]
Approximately 600 people died in the storm in New England, most in Rhode Island, and up to 100 people elsewhere in the path of the storm.[11] An additional 708 people were reported injured.[12]
In total, 4,500 cottages, farms, and other homes were reported destroyed. An additional 25,000 homes were damaged. Other damages included 26,000 automobiles destroyed, and 20,000 electrical poles toppled. The hurricane also devastated the forests of the Northeast, knocking down an estimated 2 billion trees in New York and New England ...

New York City received a glancing blow from the hurricane. Wind gusts up to 75 m.p.h. blew throughout Manhattan causing the East River to flow three blocks inland. The wind reportedly caused the Empire State Building to sway. Brooklyn, Queens, and Nassau counties, located on the western end of Long Island, were hammered with wind gusts in excess of 100 m.p.h., but escaped the worst of the wind and storm surge due to being on the storm's weaker west side.[2] Power was lost throughout the city.

Eastern Long Island experienced the worst of the storm. The Dune Road area of Westhampton Beach was obliterated, resulting in 29 deaths. A cinema in Westhampton was also swept out to sea; about 20 people at a matinee, and the theater — projectionist and all — landed two miles (3 km) into the Atlantic and drowned.[15] There were 21 other deaths through the rest of the East End of Long Island. The storm surge temporarily turned Montauk into an island as it flooded across the South Fork at Napeague and obliterated the tracks of the Long Island Rail Road. As a result of the hurricane, the Westhampton Beach School District changed its school's nickname from the Green Wave to the Hurricanes. ...

The storm surge hit Westerly, Rhode Island at 3:50 pm EDT, resulting in 100 deaths there alone.[17]

The tide was even higher than usual because of the Autumnal Equinox and full moon. The hurricane produced storm tides of 14 to 18 feet (5 m) across most of the Long Island and Connecticut coast, with 18- to 25-foot (8 m) tides from New London east to Cape Cod. The storm surge was especially violent along the Rhode Island shore, sweeping hundreds of summer cottages out to sea. As the surge drove northward through Narragansett Bay, it was restricted by the Bay's funnel shape and rose to nearly 16 feet (15.8) feet above normal spring tides ...
</div></div>

OH NOES!

cushioncrawler
11-04-2012, 03:23 PM
I like the story about the guy who lived on the beach who opened hiz mail and hiz new mailorder barometer had its needle stuck on hurricane so he went straight back to the post office to send the barometer back and he never saw hiz house again.
mac.

Soflasnapper
11-04-2012, 06:20 PM
I agree that other storm was a killer, and powerful.

This one was more powerful by low pressure measure.

But you say North Carolina is certainly not the upper NE, nor is NYC the entire region

No it isn't, nor is that what was said, but the difference that makes doesn't help your case. That area mentioned covers all the NE and still more (anything with landfall north of N Carolina-- i.e., the total northeastern seaboard and more, to the south).

LWW
11-05-2012, 04:48 AM
Dance some more for us ...

Soflasnapper
11-05-2012, 07:04 PM
I thought you would have heard Shep Smith state for the record 'the biggest storm on record' and taken his company's inerrant reputation to show it must be true.

???

I guess you didn't hear it.

Solomon Grundy
11-06-2012, 12:16 AM
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/156413_484984954868779_925030358_n.jpg

LWW
11-06-2012, 05:59 AM
You havesn excellent case ... other than each point is a risible spoon fed lie.

LWW
11-06-2012, 06:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I thought you would have heard Shep Smith state for the record 'the biggest storm on record' and taken his company's inerrant reputation to show it must be true.

???

I guess you didn't hear it. </div></div>

You thought wrong ... but you usualy do.

Soflasnapper
11-14-2012, 12:10 PM
I'm not sure if you're saying you did hear Shep Smith say that, or whether you have the sense to not take what he says as always true.

In any case, who else said it was the biggest storm on record, and if so, in what regard?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Hurricane Sandy's huge size: freak of nature or climate change?</span>

Posted by: Dr. Jeff Masters, 1:10 PM GMT on November 13, 2012

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Hurricane Sandy was truly astounding in its size and power. At its peak size, twenty hours before landfall, Sandy had tropical storm-force winds that covered an area nearly one-fifth the area of the contiguous United States.</span> Since detailed records of hurricane size began in 1988, only one tropical storm (Olga of 2001) has had a larger area of tropical storm-force winds, and no hurricanes has. Sandy's area of ocean with twelve-foot seas peaked at 1.4 million square miles--nearly one-half the area of the contiguous United States, or 1% of Earth's total ocean area. Most incredibly, ten hours before landfall (9:30 am EDT October 30), the total energy of Sandy's winds of tropical storm-force and higher peaked at 329 terajoules--the highest value for any Atlantic hurricane since at least 1969. This is 2.7 times higher than Katrina's peak energy, and is equivalent to five Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs. At landfall, Sandy's tropical storm-force winds spanned 943 miles of the the U.S. coast. No hurricane on record has been wider; the previous record holder was Hurricane Igor of 2010, which was 863 miles in diameter. Sandy's huge size prompted high wind warnings to be posted from Chicago to Eastern Maine, and from Michigan's Upper Peninsula to Florida's Lake Okeechobee--an area home to 120 million people. Sandy's winds simultaneously caused damage to buildings on the shores of Lake Michigan at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, and toppled power lines in Nova Scotia, Canada--locations 1200 miles apart!

[...]

For Katrina [a huge cat 5 hurricane], winds over 65 kilometers per hour stretched about 500 kilometers (300 miles) from edge to edge. For Sandy, winds of that intensity spanned an region of ocean three times as great--1,500 kilometers (900 miles). Katrina was able to generate a record-height storm surge over a small area of the Mississippi coast. Sandy generated a lower but highly destructive storm surge over a much larger area, due to the storm's weaker winds but much larger size. </div></div>

Here (with great graphical comparisons) (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2293)

LWW
11-14-2012, 03:12 PM
That 1988 to 2012 time range equals roughly 0.0000004% of the age of the Oit.

That is the scientific equivalent of taking the highest temperature in a 0.000347061 second time period and then claiming that it simply has to be the high temperature of the year.

Are you sure you want to endorse such junk science?

Soflasnapper
11-14-2012, 05:38 PM
All claims of 'biggest ever' and things of that sort are automatically meant to indicate 'since records have been kept.' (Obviously enough, I should think.)

Which is probably not much beyond 200 years for accurate record measuring and keeping.

Your claim was that this storm was not especially large nor strong.

Hurricane Sandy is not only not unprecedented, it isn't even out of the ordinary or unpredictable.

The upper northeast gets lobbered by a storm such as this every 70-75 years ... and this one certainly wasn't the most powerful or the most deadly.

It was what you say it wasn't, at record levels ('since records have been kept'), in very significant ways. Not in all measures, thankfully especially not in deaths. But in several ways significant enough that you duck defending your prior claim and revert to arguing the age of the earth timescale?

Thanks for the tacit concession.