Miscellaneous Rumbles

Irma…Hurricanes in general

251

Proving my point even more....

Where are all these "Cat 5's every 3 or 4 years" F107 is talking about? In his mind?

– ruger9

Rule of thumb: there is a cat 4 or 5 on average every 3 or 4 years. We might go a buncha years and not get any, we may go a year or two with two or three. El Nino and La Nina weather patterns historically help control the numbers of storms as well. Thanx to global warming driven Climate Change, the number of total storms seems to be going .....down(!) However, due to warming of the Seas and warming of the Air, storms are getting stronger and will continue to get stronger with increasing temperatures. This isn't Rocket Science. Hot water makes stronger storms, warmer air contains more moisture.

It is what it is. We've had 19 cat 5s since the year 2000. 11 in the Atlantic. And 24 cat 4 in the Atlantic.

252

"Rule of thumb: there is a cat 4 or 5 on average every 3 or 4 years. We might go a buncha years and not get any, we may go a year or two with two or three."

Oh, so:
more storms/stronger storms = climate change,
and less storms/weaker storms = climate change,
and "a buncha years and not get any" = climate change!

How convenient.

253

Cart, meet horse... A great pairing, but it only works when the right one is in front.

What I took from his note is that climate change is responsible in part for the change in the stormy weather, not the other way around. "Thanks to global warning driven climate change..." while the actual numbers are down, the warmer water and air mean increased moisture, which begats stronger storms.

(How'd I do, teach? Was I close?)

254

So I guess there WAS NO climate change 2005-2016. Hmm...

255

"Rule of thumb: there is a cat 4 or 5 on average every 3 or 4 years. We might go a buncha years and not get any, we may go a year or two with two or three."

Oh, so:
more storms/stronger storms = climate change,
and less storms/weaker storms = climate change,
and "a buncha years and not get any" = climate change!

How convenient.

– ruger9

Nobody has ever said there are more storms due to Climate Change. (I shouldn't say "nobody", there's always "Alternative Facts" to ponder) In the real world there are Stronger Storms due to global warming. What I said was, it's beginning to look like the total number of storms MAY be decreasing due to new weather patterns such as shifting in the Jet Stream and the inclusion of the Polar Vortex. Increasing water and air temps are affecting El nino and La nina as well. The weather rules are changing and the goal posts are wandering. Two years after the next leap year we may see more storms, but with warmer temps, those storms will only get stronger. Stay tuned.

256

So I guess there WAS NO climate change 2005-2016. Hmm...

– ruger9

No. There was. However, climate change does not automatically mean more or stronger storms, it is merely one piece of a much greater puzzle.

What climate change does mean is that when those storms arise, the warmer, moister air above the warmer sea will be more prone to violence because it is warmer.

257

Cart, meet horse... A great pairing, but it only works when the right one is in front.

What I took from his note is that climate change is responsible in part for the change in the stormy weather, not the other way around. "Thanks to global warning driven climate change..." while the actual numbers are down, the warmer water and air mean increased moisture, which begats stronger storms.

(How'd I do, teach? Was I close?)

– Kevin Frye

Pretty darn close!

The fuel for a storm is the heat, primarily the sea temps, but air temp sure helps too! The main contribution of the air temp is it's capability to absorb water. 7% more water for each one degree C. So hot water makes a storm stronger and hot air gives the storm more water to dump ashore! Double Wammy!

258

So I guess there WAS NO climate change 2005-2016. Hmm...

– ruger9

I musta missed the memo. My understanding is Climate Change continued thru those years because the latest data shows that water temps continued to rise and air temps continued to rise.

There are two things that happened about that time that adds to potential confusion. The seas continued to be a sink for higher temps by absorbing heat while the air almost leveled off until the seas reached equilibrium then the air temps returned to rising again as before. At about the same time the method of gathering air temps was inaccurate for a short number of years and the inaccurate plots allowed folks in Congress to draw up graphs using a high point at the low side and the end of the under reported data at the high side and it "Almost" made it look like a cooling trend was happening at that time. The folks in Congress were ceremoniously given Pinocchio Noses and their trousers were set ablaze.

259

No. There was. However, climate change does not automatically mean more or stronger storms, it is merely one piece of a much greater puzzle.

What climate change does mean is that when those storms arise, the warmer, moister air above the warmer sea will be more prone to violence because it is warmer.

– Kevin Frye

Bingo & thank you for the 1st paragraph: a year of stronger storms means ZILCH.

As for the 2nd paragraph: we are back to "climate change exists, but how much of it, if any, is caused by man?" Because that is ALWAYS the underlying causative in all this stuff... the climate change religion/dogma.

As for the "much greater puzzle", I agree it's a GREAT puzzle, indeed.... too bad so many seem to think they've got it figured out...

260

"There are two things that happened about that time that adds to potential confusion. The seas continued to be a sink for higher temps by absorbing heat while the air almost leveled off until the seas reached equilibrium then the air temps returned to rising again as before. At about the same time the method of gathering air temps was inaccurate for a short number of years and the inaccurate plots allowed folks in Congress to draw up graphs using a high point at the low side and the end of the under reported data at the high side and it "Almost" made it look like a cooling trend was happening at that time. The folks in Congress were ceremoniously given Pinocchio Noses and their trousers were set ablaze."

LOL... always answer, isn't there? Again, how convenient.... I believe this is called "confirmation bias"...

261

Bingo & thank you for the 1st paragraph: a year of stronger storms means ZILCH.

Not what I said at all, Ruge. There are many reasons a storm rises, and while all of the alchemy is a little beyond me at the moment, I do know that climate change is but one of them. However, because the air and the sea are getting warmer, when a storm does arise, then the chances of it being stronger are greater.

As for the 2nd paragraph: we are back to "climate change exists, but how much of it, if any, is caused by man?" Because that is ALWAYS the underlying causative in all this stuff... the climate change religion/dogma.

Does it matter in the end if the car that ran over your guitar was blue or green? In the end, all you have is firewood. Same for climate change. I fall into the mildly skeptical group as to causes, but into the believers bunch that it is actually happening. So for the purpose of discussing storms, whether or not one beleives it to be human caused is simply a distraction. The facts remain- Climate Change is one of the factors bringing us these stronger and more dangerous storms.

As for the "much greater puzzle", I agree it's a GREAT puzzle, indeed.... too bad so many seem to think they've got it figured out...

Nah. very few have it right yet. On either side of the puzzle. But rest assured there are thousands working on it!

262

"Nah. very few have it right yet. On either side of the puzzle. "

On this we totally agree. Unfortunately, that's not what the dogma preaches.

263

Bingo & thank you for the 1st paragraph: a year of stronger storms means ZILCH.

As for the 2nd paragraph: we are back to "climate change exists, but how much of it, if any, is caused by man?" Because that is ALWAYS the underlying causative in all this stuff... the climate change religion/dogma.

As for the "much greater puzzle", I agree it's a GREAT puzzle, indeed.... too bad so many seem to think they've got it figured out...

– ruger9

Look up the effects of La Nina and El Nino, you'll see that the frequency of storms and whether they clump or desert us for a few years has nothing to do with Climate Change as it exists today. Global Warming effects Climate Change, Global Warming and Climate Change affect the severity of the storms. Climate Change as it progresses may affect the number of storms but Global Warming will always make them stronger.

How much of it is caused by Man? We are going away from an ice age. We had a couple of mini ice ages and a few hot spells over the last few thousand years. The record is clear and open to all who care to look, but we are marching away from an ice age. We had a few volcanoes that added some CO2 into the air and we can measure it by looking at ice cores and stuff. We can look back and see the last time CO2 was above 400 PPM and see what the climate was like four million years ago. At the rate we're dumping in CO2 we'll hit 500 in 50 years or less. Brain functioning becomes even more sluggish if we get there. To put it n perspective, in 1960 it was about 315 PPM, it's between 400 and 410 today. When we Humans showed up on the scene CO2 was about 300PPM. As we add more CO2, the temp will continue to rise. If it rises much more, even MORE Methane will be released from the permafrost and as every fifth grader knows, Methane is a bunch times worse than CO2. (Gimme a break, I was in the fifth grade a long time ago!)

264

"Nah. very few have it right yet. On either side of the puzzle. "

On this we totally agree. Unfortunately, that's not what the dogma preaches.

– ruger9

Is it Dogma to suggest that Airplanes can fly? Is it dogma to suggest that breathing is important? Is it dogma to suggest that a piece of Plastic and Glass can make you look like a God in the eyes of folks who live away from society and have never seen an iPhone? Is it dogma to suggest we landed folks on the Moon half a Century ago?

Why is it dogma to look at the data and see trends in the weather and the Climate and do the gozintas and see that we'uns are screwing up our Environment? I believe it's dogma to continue to believe those who have trillions of dollars to lose if their precious fossil fuels remain burred in the ground and are never used. The whole darned World is looking us and calling us stupid for not opening our eyes and seeing the Roses, or rather opening our noses. Seems to me, that if I got a trillion dollars at stake, I'm gonna lie thru my teeth and pay others to swear by my lies so I can get that trillion. It's not personal, it's just business. Dogmatic Climate Deniers are the expendable pawns of the Fossil Industry and their purveyors of Alternative Facts.

It's so damned obvious! You're worshiping a gold leafed calf of well oiled coal.

265

I'm on the fence about the causes of climate change as well. A good friend of mine, a geology professor has explained it all and lent me many books on the subject.I get it. But having been near a university town these last 40 yr's and knowing at least 6-7 prof's well, and having been to many get togethers many times with their peers, let me tell you there is a very lopsided political slant (far left) that exists, which causes a very narrow keyhole view of the world. Every time I mentioned a contrary scientist's view it's always "yes, but look at who they work for, big business". I get that. What the Prof's don't or won't admit is they are dependent on the coffers of the state for their continued funding. You don't suppose would you that going against the current group think might be bad for business, err ,I mean research? As an example, many of us remember the tobacco arguments in the past. The consensus is that tobacco and it alone is the cause of lung cancer. A consensus. Yet I know of three people who have lung cancer who have never smoked, were not around secondhand smoke and radon was ruled out. It got me to research some of the science that big tobacco hired paid specialists put out. Alt facts if you will. They said basically that the insane above ground nuke tests being done back in the day blew s%itloads of radiation high in the atmosphere where it slowly rains down on us daily. If you smoke, the tars and such from tobacco make it more likely to cause a stray particle to stick in your lung than in a non smoker. Is it true, is it partly true,I don't know. Seems plausible to me, but because of the origin of the funding the research behind it is squelched.But my point is if it is, three country's decisions decades ago may be as much to blame as the tobacco companies. And now the research funded by these same government entities (and others) is to be taken verbatum? I believe science can reach the truth, but unfortunately scientists tend to be all too human. I think it always in our best interests to view anything the authorities say with a pragmatic scepticism.

266

We live in two Worlds. There is the World of Global Warming and there is the World of American Warming.

The World knows that Global Warming exists and is actively doing something about it. America isn't sure, but market forces are happy to build Wind Farms and Solar Facilities and push Coal outta the market cuz it makes financial good sense.

There are how many trillions of dollars still waiting underground? How much is actually being spent to "Prove" that Global Warming exists? Today, nothing is being spent to prove it. The thermometers have been in place for a long time and they are read and tabulated automatically. Satellites are already in space and their data is automatic as well.

History doesn't matter. What's spent is already spent.

So what is the bottom line today if we follow the money? There are trillions of dollars worth of fossil fuels underground waiting to be harvested for massive profits. The damage to the air if we burn all that stuff is incalculable, according to the rest of the World, ....but not so much, according to us.

Who says that Global Warming is a Political issue and why? Do folks who lean right have better lungs and better heat rejection than folks who lean left?

267

"It's so damned obvious! You're worshiping a gold leafed calf of well oiled coal."

LOL you're a funny dude.

268

"It's so damned obvious! You're worshiping a gold leafed calf of well oiled coal."

LOL you're a funny dude.

– ruger9

Humor is fun! Originally I wanted to call the Dogma of Climate Change Denial "Golden calf worship of a Gold leafed Gassy Calf of Well Oiled Coal" but I left out the "Gassy".

269

First day of autumn. 80 degrees. Must be global warming.

270

Nope, just today's weather. It was 88 here.

....actually, 80, when plotted among tons of other temps from this year compared to many years past, just might show a trend at that.

271

Nope, just today's weather. It was 88 here.

....actually, 80, when plotted among tons of other temps from this year compared to many years past, just might show a trend at that.

– F107plus5

SEE ?!?!?!?!?!?!

272

SEE ?!?!?!?!?!?!

– ruger9

Confusing? You bet! The poor Planet too! It really doesn't know what to think!

Here it was cruising right along circling the Sun moving thru the Galaxy and Wam! The atmosphere begins to warm cuz of new CO2 causing heat to bounce back to Earth warming the place up. Just not consistently over the entire Planet.

The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the average of everywhere else and while that might be a max to avg. condition, there are min to avg. too! Parts of the upper midwest here in the US are actually cooling while most, but not all, of the rest are heating up.

Sometimes the Jet Stream and the usually colder air at the Arctic gets displaced during attempts at equilibrium, and we get that goofy Polar Vortex bringing unusual cold weather way down south. Fascinating!

273

What happened to K and L ? We went from Jose to Maria...

– ruger9

"L" is the goofy one. it disappeared. ....and dancing Katia was erased from Some of our Memories! (thanx, sleepy!)

Lee's Baaaaack!

Something else goofy.

Storms doing the Do sa do aren't exactly rare, actually, they sorta are, but Lee is doing the dance in the Atlantic right now and so is Jose. This is Jose's second Do sa do this year. And Harvey kinda did the Houston Do sa do there over south Texas the other day.

So the question is, is this simply an event this season only, or is it the early years of a new trend?

Stay tuned!

EDIT: Kinda sad though, Congress went out of it's way to help Texas as soon as they could, (Great!) but the three million American citizens stranded in Puerto Rico are on their own with a possibility of a major Dam failure and maybe no power thru much of the Island for the next half year or so. It's early though, they may have a special session of Congress Monday morning. Or maybe a Tweet of support at any time.

....the Virgin Islands have been screwed by the Weather so much this summer they may even wanna change their name.

274

Well, looking at the 11:00 update, it looks as though Maria won't be a problem for the US Mainland like it was for US Territory Puerto Rico. Good news!

I was wondering how Congress and the WH would react to Puerto Rico's distress and so far it looks like a request will find it's way to Congress long about the middle of next month. Foreign ships will not be allowed to help with immediate needs as they were in Texas and Florida, for some reason, and tweets seem to insist that while Texas and Florida are doing great, Puerto Rico must square their debts with Wall Street and the Banks first.

275

Strange New World!

I've been worried about Florida mostly, and the rest of Central and North America more generally, but in the few decades that I've been tracking Hurricanes, this is the FIRST time that I have been worried about IRELAND!


Register Sign in to join the conversation