OT...Here comes 'Frankenstorm'

[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.

[witpqs]

A few weeks ago, Antarctic sea ice set a record for greatest since records have been kept. Such news not being consistent with the Global Warming meme it was not a favored story. Polar sea ice has been seen to oscillate between the poles, with sea ice around one pole shrinking as the other grows in decades long cycles.

[witpqs]

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]

Here's some stuff that goes back further. "Before Al Gore invented Global Warming." [:D]

[warspite1]

This is the sort of %^&* that makes people doubt the Global Warming circus. If man made Co2 is the reason for global warming, why the need to lie, and cheat about it??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14969399

[obvert]

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/

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: obvert

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/

Those statements are false. [8D]

[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.

[font="Trebuchet MS"]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;[/font]

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.

[font="Trebuchet MS"]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.[/font]

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

[warspite1]

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.

[font="Trebuchet MS"]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;[/font]

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.

[font="Trebuchet MS"]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.[/font]

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

warspite1

Really? And which ones did they ask? And who were they employed by? Lies, damned lies and statistics. And the Global Warming Circus have repeatedly been found to be lying and telling half truths and what not.

[obvert]

Read the article. It tells you all you want to know, and raises exactly the same concerns you have, but with some semblance of method.

The issue is huge and complex. The outcome will be a mystery until we all find out sooner or later through experience what actually is happening.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: obvert

The issue is huge and complex.

warspite1

Well that's true enough.

[Sredni]

Attempts to tie sandy to global warming seem particularly cynical and suspect when looking back through weather history. Sandy doesn't seem particularly unusual or exceptional when considering that storms like it happen regularly and fairly often on the scale of time weather should be measured to.

[Panther Bait]

The only things particularly exceptional about Sandy were that 1) it was a fairly large (area-wise) hurricane and 2) it happened to move over an area susceptible to storm-surge flooding that also happened to have a very large human population.  GW might possibly had some small part of item 1.  It obviously has nothing at all to do with item 2.
 
Mike

[Kwik E Mart]

...just finished reading this thread...reminded me of Crichton's book "State of Fear"...he took a lot of heat from the academic world, but that doesn't surprise me if the below assersions that were claimed to have been made by him in the story are true...the second one is especially galling to me...

(from Wikipedia)
Various assertions appear in the book, for example:

- The science behind global warming is so incomplete that no reasonable conclusions can be drawn on how to solve the "problem" (or if the "problem" even exists).
- Elites in various fields use either real or artificial crises to maintain the existing social order, misusing the "science" behind global warming.
- As a result of potential conflicts of interest, the scientists conducting research on topics related to global warming may subtly change their findings to bring them in line with their funding sources.

[crsutton]

I believe in global warming and that it is caused by humans. Of course, I realize that some doubt that this is true. And realize that in a complicated matter such as this there is valid evidence to raise doubt.

However, I look at it like I would a game of poker. The first rule is that you never gamble more than you can afford to lose. If you are 100% flat out sure that global warming is not happening then I can't really say much to you. My questions is how many of you only just "doubt" that global warming is an issue.

My point here is that if you are wrong-even if there is only a 5% chance you are wrong, then you are accepting a %5 risk of a calamity of biblical proportions. Even a 1% risk of this sort of disaster is out of the question in my mind.

I for one am not 100% convinced about global warming, but I am convinced enough that I think we have to take action before it is too late.

[frank1970]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I believe in global warming and that it is caused by humans. Of course, I realize that some doubt that this is true. And realize that in a complicated matter such as this there is valid evidence to raise doubt.

However, I look at it like I would a game of poker. The first rule is that you never gamble more than you can afford to lose. If you are 100% flat out sure that global warming is not happening then I can't really say much to you. My questions is how many of you only just "doubt" that global warming is an issue.

My point here is that if you are wrong-even if there is only a 5% chance you are wrong, then you are accepting a %5 risk of a calamity of biblical proportions. Even a 1% risk of this sort of disaster is out of the question in my mind.

I for one am not 100% convinced about global warming, but I am convinced enough that I think we have to take action before it is too late.

Crsutton,
There is 0 evidence, that CO2 has anything to do with warming. There is 0 evidence, that there is manmade global warming at all (not the last 16 years at least!). There is plenty of evidence, that warming is something normal, eg the medieval warmtime. There is plenty of evidence, that temperature on earth is depending on clouds and sun activity.
So, no. There is not even a 0,04% chance, that warming is manmade. It is just a way to make people do what some ecoterrorists want us to do: give them or money and stop living a somehow luxury lifestyle. those peole are sick. They hate mankind.
Don´t let you fool by those thugs!

[frank1970]

Just read the news on the net and watched news on TV. Horrible, how some people suffer from the results of this storm.
Is there something I can do? Is there some community member who needs help?

[US87891]

Wow, Somebody pushed JWE's button:
"Of course there is climate change. Is the globe warming? Very likely. Archeo-sociologists have determined that the 800-1100AD period was much warmer than today form contemporary Norse and Medieval monastic records (Greenland, Vinland, Alps, Appenines), and inferences from China (Mongol increase). And the Beaker culture in 3000 BC flourished in regions that are today considered marginal. But Sociologists are not allowed to talk to Climatologists, in this day and age because the Danes, Monks, Chinese and Beakers, didn’t record temperatures. Doesn’t matter that they recorded specific crops that only grew in certain temperature zones, because, hey, crops ain’t temps.

Yep, climate is changing. Might be getting warmer. Has a ways to go till it gets to written history extremes, to say nothing of the warming period both before and after the last major ice age. How in the world does one expect a migrating peoples to cross a land bridge between SIBERIA and ALASKA if it’s COLD? And how does one explain the neolithic cave drawings of hunted species that just don’t thrive in very cold climates.

Dude, we have been here before, many times before. It is a fact of life in a dynamic model of the Solar system, of which we happen to be a part.

So here’s the political part that I won’t mind if matrix burns. I was a Physicist and my profs told me to go private because I wouldn’t make squat as a “scientist” except in a University. And even then I’d have to tweak my research to conform to the Grant parameters. I couldn’t do what I thought right, only what was considered appropriate.

There is no room, today, for a climatologist/planetologist who cannot develop grants, and there are no grants available to those climatologists/planetologist s who do not conform to the political imperitives of the govt in power.

And that’s just what we got; an entire class of environmental scientists that are funded solely by govt and who must, simply must, spout the govt line or lose all their funding. These people have wives and children and no place else to go, so it’s either play along or work at MacDonalds. Great choice, don’t ya think?

Why is Global Warming so significant in Western politics? I think Frank has a good take on that. Politicians will always work to increase their power. Even though there is nothing that can do about it, they can nevertheless create and institute massive beaucratic infrastructures, with many high level positions, that they can award to their political supporters.

Cynical? You bet your bippy! Real? Doubt I’m cynical enough!"

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Frank
Is there something I can do?

Hi Frank,

I think the International Red Cross or the American Red Cross are actively soliciting donations to support their efforts in helping victims of Sandy. Nice of you to think about helping out from so far away.

[JohnDillworth]

Got power, lights and Internet back. Out since Monday. Long Island got roughed up. Even after a week public transportation is down to 45%, 300,000 without heat or power, gas is next to impossible to find and local law enforcement has to keep the peace when a tanker shows up. The 2 counties that make up Long Island lost 100,000 homes and businesses, gone. The South Shore took a huge tidal surge that moved or breached many of the barrier Islands, the North Shore, more heavenly wooded, lost tens of thousands of trees. A bit of bad behavior, but the vast majority have been wonderful, offering hot meals, showers, phone charges and whatever else. Getting back to normal will take a bit but we are on our way

[Canoerebel]

John, can you clarify the "lost 100,000 homes and businesses" in Long Island's two counties? That can't be right. I can understand hundreds of homes being badly damaged or destroyed, but 100,000?