Members banned from this thread: SmarterthanYou, USFREEDOM911, cancel2 2022, PostmodernProphet, Legion, Truth Detector, Granule, canceled.2021.1, Boris The Animal, canceled.2021.2, MAGA MAN, iewitness, Irish, CFM, Ralph, Bigdog, TTQ64, Getin the ring, zymurgy, Superfreak, PraiseKek, Eagle_Eye, katzgar, countryboy, volsrock, The Ugly Truth, BodyDouble, Mitchthomas20172017, coolzone, rhym3pays and LV426


Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 4567891011 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 152

Thread: Global Warming Sends Us Another Major Hurricane. Florence Strongest Storm To Hit Caro

  1. #106 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Anchorage, AK. Waikoloa, HI
    Posts
    18,754
    Thanks
    6,477
    Thanked 11,417 Times in 7,536 Posts
    Groans
    17
    Groaned 270 Times in 253 Posts
    Blog Entries
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    This storm has become so massive that it is going to affect a large area no matter where the eye goes.
    Usually the case with hurricanes before man started driving cars.
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    And it looks like it might slow down and pummel the coast.
    And it might not.
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Rainfall totals could be really high.
    Usually the case with hurricanes before man started driving cars. But then again there's the off chance rainfall totals could be really low.

  2. #107 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello anonymoose,

    Originally Posted by PoliTalker:
    "And it looks like it might slow down and pummel the coast."
    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    And it might not.
    What? It already did.

    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    Usually the case with hurricanes before man started driving cars. But then again there's the off chance rainfall totals could be really low.
    And again I am wondering if you have been following the news. Rainfall totals are already high.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  3. The Following User Groans At PoliTalker For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (09-17-2018)

  4. #108 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Anchorage, AK. Waikoloa, HI
    Posts
    18,754
    Thanks
    6,477
    Thanked 11,417 Times in 7,536 Posts
    Groans
    17
    Groaned 270 Times in 253 Posts
    Blog Entries
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Rainfall totals are already high.
    Aren't they always in hurricanes? Even during Global Cooling of the '70's?

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to anonymoose For This Post:

    cancel2 2022 (09-17-2018)

  6. #109 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello anonymoose,

    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    Aren't they always in hurricanes? Even during Global Cooling of the '70's?
    I meant high for a hurricane. All hurricanes do not have the same amount of rain associated with them. A fast moving hurricane typically does not drop as much total rainfall as a slow moving one. Florence became a slow-mover, so rainfall totals are high. Flooding is still going on. Rivers have not crested yet.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  7. The Following User Groans At PoliTalker For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (09-17-2018)

  8. #110 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Anchorage, AK. Waikoloa, HI
    Posts
    18,754
    Thanks
    6,477
    Thanked 11,417 Times in 7,536 Posts
    Groans
    17
    Groaned 270 Times in 253 Posts
    Blog Entries
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello anonymoose,



    I meant high for a hurricane. All hurricanes do not have the same amount of rain associated with them. A fast moving hurricane typically does not drop as much total rainfall as a slow moving one.
    does GW cause hurricanes to be slow moving?

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to anonymoose For This Post:

    cancel2 2022 (09-17-2018)

  10. #111 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,784
    Thanks
    30,519
    Thanked 12,926 Times in 11,513 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello anonymoose,



    I meant high for a hurricane. All hurricanes do not have the same amount of rain associated with them. A fast moving hurricane typically does not drop as much total rainfall as a slow moving one. Florence became a slow-mover, so rainfall totals are high. Flooding is still going on. Rivers have not crested yet.
    Actually, they generally do. They just drop that rain over a larger area.

  11. #112 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,784
    Thanks
    30,519
    Thanked 12,926 Times in 11,513 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Grugore,



    Actually all of the predicted changes are happening right now.
    These 'predicted changes' either come from cherry picking data, or from outright bad mathematics.

    Here's why I say this:

    The first and most important number is of course the temperature of the Earth. Without that, the entire argument falls down. The trouble is, it's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

    NASA claims the use of 7500 thermometers in their system which they use to measure the Earth's temperature. These thermometers are primarily located in cities and are not uniformly spread over the surface of the Earth. Since location introduces bias in the data, that factor must be eliminated. Cooked data is not allowed in a statistical analysis, so the thermometers must be uniformly scattered across the surface of the Earth. In addition, the Earth spins, weather moves, fronts, move, temperatures change constantly, so time is also a biasing factor. To eliminate that factor, the readings must be taken at the same time (which generally happens anyway).

    Among the require calculation for any statistical analysis is the the margin of error. This calculation is taken from the possible variance, not from the data itself. I have personally seen temperature gradients as steep as 20 deg F per mile on several occasions.

    The Earth's surface is some 790 million square miles. This means 7500 thermometers spread over the surface of the Earth results in one thermometer for every 105,333 square miles. Even if you we ten times the number that NASA (which is the larger figure between NASA and NOAA), you get one thermometer every 10,533 square miles.

    There is no other way to put it than to say they are guessing.

    But wait, I hear people cry, satellites can do it! Trouble is, satellites cannot measure temperature.They only measure light. To convert that to temperature requires the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which assumes knowing accurately the temperature of the Earth to measure the emissivity constant. Such satellites are great at measuring relative temperatures, but they suck at measuring absolute temperature, which is what you need if you are going to measure the temperature of the Earth. Further, satellites move. They cannot take any kind of reading at the same time, required for the statistical analysis.

    As a result, anyone that tells you the temperature of the Earth is making stuff up. The same thing applies to measuring the global CO2 content (CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere), or the total amount of snow and ice on Earth.

    For global sea levels, it's even worse. There is no valid reference point. All tidal stations, altimeter beacons, etc. are sitting on land that moves. Land even has a tide, like the oceans, just not as pronounced.

    All the data about Earth's temperature, it's precipitation, the global CO2 content, the global contend of snow and ice, or the global ocean levels; is all manufactured data. We just don't have the capability to obtain any of these values.

    This is a mathematical problem, not a scientific one. No one, not even NASA or NOAA can measure this stuff.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Into the Night For This Post:

    PoliTalker (09-18-2018)

  13. #113 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello anonymoose,

    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    does GW cause hurricanes to be slow moving?
    I don't know. But if the frequency of all hurricanes is greater, then the frequency of slow moving hurricanes is also greater.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  14. #114 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Into the Night,

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    Actually, they generally do. They just drop that rain over a larger area.
    Which reduces the severity of flooding and subsequent loss of life.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  15. #115 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Into the Night,

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    These 'predicted changes' either come from cherry picking data, or from outright bad mathematics.

    Here's why I say this:

    The first and most important number is of course the temperature of the Earth. Without that, the entire argument falls down. The trouble is, it's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

    NASA claims the use of 7500 thermometers in their system which they use to measure the Earth's temperature. These thermometers are primarily located in cities and are not uniformly spread over the surface of the Earth. Since location introduces bias in the data, that factor must be eliminated. Cooked data is not allowed in a statistical analysis, so the thermometers must be uniformly scattered across the surface of the Earth. In addition, the Earth spins, weather moves, fronts, move, temperatures change constantly, so time is also a biasing factor. To eliminate that factor, the readings must be taken at the same time (which generally happens anyway).

    Among the require calculation for any statistical analysis is the the margin of error. This calculation is taken from the possible variance, not from the data itself. I have personally seen temperature gradients as steep as 20 deg F per mile on several occasions.

    The Earth's surface is some 790 million square miles. This means 7500 thermometers spread over the surface of the Earth results in one thermometer for every 105,333 square miles. Even if you we ten times the number that NASA (which is the larger figure between NASA and NOAA), you get one thermometer every 10,533 square miles.

    There is no other way to put it than to say they are guessing.

    But wait, I hear people cry, satellites can do it! Trouble is, satellites cannot measure temperature.They only measure light. To convert that to temperature requires the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which assumes knowing accurately the temperature of the Earth to measure the emissivity constant. Such satellites are great at measuring relative temperatures, but they suck at measuring absolute temperature, which is what you need if you are going to measure the temperature of the Earth. Further, satellites move. They cannot take any kind of reading at the same time, required for the statistical analysis.

    As a result, anyone that tells you the temperature of the Earth is making stuff up. The same thing applies to measuring the global CO2 content (CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere), or the total amount of snow and ice on Earth.

    For global sea levels, it's even worse. There is no valid reference point. All tidal stations, altimeter beacons, etc. are sitting on land that moves. Land even has a tide, like the oceans, just not as pronounced.

    All the data about Earth's temperature, it's precipitation, the global CO2 content, the global contend of snow and ice, or the global ocean levels; is all manufactured data. We just don't have the capability to obtain any of these values.

    This is a mathematical problem, not a scientific one. No one, not even NASA or NOAA can measure this stuff.
    An interesting argument.

    Deflated:

    Nothing is perfect. In lieu of perfection we go with the best we can manage. I accept what science has done.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  16. #116 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Into the Night,

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    These 'predicted changes' either come from cherry picking data, or from outright bad mathematics.

    Here's why I say this:

    The first and most important number is of course the temperature of the Earth. Without that, the entire argument falls down. The trouble is, it's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

    NASA claims the use of 7500 thermometers in their system which they use to measure the Earth's temperature. These thermometers are primarily located in cities and are not uniformly spread over the surface of the Earth. Since location introduces bias in the data, that factor must be eliminated. Cooked data is not allowed in a statistical analysis, so the thermometers must be uniformly scattered across the surface of the Earth. In addition, the Earth spins, weather moves, fronts, move, temperatures change constantly, so time is also a biasing factor. To eliminate that factor, the readings must be taken at the same time (which generally happens anyway).

    Among the require calculation for any statistical analysis is the the margin of error. This calculation is taken from the possible variance, not from the data itself. I have personally seen temperature gradients as steep as 20 deg F per mile on several occasions.

    The Earth's surface is some 790 million square miles. This means 7500 thermometers spread over the surface of the Earth results in one thermometer for every 105,333 square miles. Even if you we ten times the number that NASA (which is the larger figure between NASA and NOAA), you get one thermometer every 10,533 square miles.

    There is no other way to put it than to say they are guessing.

    But wait, I hear people cry, satellites can do it! Trouble is, satellites cannot measure temperature.They only measure light. To convert that to temperature requires the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which assumes knowing accurately the temperature of the Earth to measure the emissivity constant. Such satellites are great at measuring relative temperatures, but they suck at measuring absolute temperature, which is what you need if you are going to measure the temperature of the Earth. Further, satellites move. They cannot take any kind of reading at the same time, required for the statistical analysis.

    As a result, anyone that tells you the temperature of the Earth is making stuff up. The same thing applies to measuring the global CO2 content (CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere), or the total amount of snow and ice on Earth.

    For global sea levels, it's even worse. There is no valid reference point. All tidal stations, altimeter beacons, etc. are sitting on land that moves. Land even has a tide, like the oceans, just not as pronounced.

    All the data about Earth's temperature, it's precipitation, the global CO2 content, the global contend of snow and ice, or the global ocean levels; is all manufactured data. We just don't have the capability to obtain any of these values.

    This is a mathematical problem, not a scientific one. No one, not even NASA or NOAA can measure this stuff.
    An interesting argument.

    Deflated:

    Nothing is perfect. In lieu of perfection we go with the best we can manage. I accept what science has done.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  17. #117 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Anchorage, AK. Waikoloa, HI
    Posts
    18,754
    Thanks
    6,477
    Thanked 11,417 Times in 7,536 Posts
    Groans
    17
    Groaned 270 Times in 253 Posts
    Blog Entries
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello anonymoose,



    I don't know. But if the frequency of all hurricanes is greater, then the frequency of slow moving hurricanes is also greater.
    We recently had a catastrophic hurricane drought. Worst in 150 yrs.

  18. #118 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,784
    Thanks
    30,519
    Thanked 12,926 Times in 11,513 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello anonymoose,



    I don't know. But if the frequency of all hurricanes is greater, then the frequency of slow moving hurricanes is also greater.
    You might actually check with the National Hurricane Center historical data. That data shows no increase in the frequency or intensity of storms. It also shows no increase in how 'slow' the storms are moving (yes, they do track that).

  19. #119 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    183,528
    Thanks
    71,923
    Thanked 35,503 Times in 27,049 Posts
    Groans
    53
    Groaned 19,565 Times in 18,156 Posts
    Blog Entries
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    You might actually check with the National Hurricane Center historical data. That data shows no increase in the frequency or intensity of storms. It also shows no increase in how 'slow' the storms are moving (yes, they do track that).
    link

  20. #120 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,784
    Thanks
    30,519
    Thanked 12,926 Times in 11,513 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Into the Night,



    An interesting argument.

    Deflated:

    Nothing is perfect. In lieu of perfection we go with the best we can manage. I accept what science has done.
    This isn't a science problem. It's a math problem.

    Science is even involved here. Science is not data. It is a set of falsifiable theories. Both observations and the data generated by them are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are evidence only.

    The problem here is there is no data in the first place. Mathematically, it is not possible to produce such data using the instrumentation we have today.

Similar Threads

  1. APP - even some global warming doubters want preparations for stronger storm surges
    By Don Quixote in forum Above Plain Politics Forum
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 10-23-2023, 09:33 AM
  2. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 08-23-2018, 01:42 AM
  3. Replies: 36
    Last Post: 08-10-2018, 04:03 PM
  4. Global warming's effect on hurricane strength disputed in new report
    By MasterChief in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-02-2017, 07:24 PM
  5. Replies: 56
    Last Post: 10-31-2007, 03:59 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •