Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:07 pm
Page 1 of 2
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:21 am
But it's traditional. From the first shaman who predicted death to the tribe because of the passing of a comet, mankind has always been shivering in fear that each day will be the last and there have always been other men around to exploit that fear for their own personal gain. Global Warming is just the latest flavor of hysteria in a line of panic and profit stretching back into the dawn of history.
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:32 am
Why don't you just go ahead and deny the Holocaust while you're at it, you Halliburton-fellating Bush-lackey.
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:37 am
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:27 am
I'm still amused about how the guy who won the GENIUS AWARD was dead wrong about everything he said.
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:45 am
Maybe it's for his work on butterflies? 
Paul Ralph Ehrlich (born May 29, 1932 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) is currently the Bing Professor of Population Studies in the department of Biological Sciences at Stanford University. He received his Ph.D. in 1957 from the University of Kansas. He is a renowned entomologist specializing in Lepidoptera (butterflies).
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:52 am
I've noticed Stanford professors can be notoriously arrogant & self-righteous. Surpassed only by professors at M.I.T.
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:52 am
Looks like we need to give you a GENIUS AWARD.
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:58 pm
Speaking of global warming, hell of a hurricane season this year, huh? Worst ever on record!
Or, at least, that's what the predictions were this year and last. The reality? No real hurricanes to speak of outside of two in the Gulf of Mexico, but neither hit the U.S.
Still, I'd wager that next spring we'll see the exact same predictions again.
Or, at least, that's what the predictions were this year and last. The reality? No real hurricanes to speak of outside of two in the Gulf of Mexico, but neither hit the U.S.
Still, I'd wager that next spring we'll see the exact same predictions again.
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:00 pm
I actually saw some people trying to blame the LACK of hurricanes on global warming.
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:10 pm
We still have that article in Internet Links.
Global warming causes more and deadlier hurricanes, but also prevents them from forming?
I remember your headline of "Global Warming: Is there anything it can't do?"
Global warming causes more and deadlier hurricanes, but also prevents them from forming?
I remember your headline of "Global Warming: Is there anything it can't do?"
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:23 pm
Ha, I crack me up.
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:31 pm
IIRC, the things I've read on that state that we'll have fewer hurricanes, but they'll be far stronger.
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:34 pm
Doesn't make a lot of sense.... but I don't really wish to discuss it right now.
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:58 pm
Mexico would like to disagreeLeisher wrote:Speaking of global warming, hell of a hurricane season this year, huh? Worst ever on record!
Or, at least, that's what the predictions were this year and last. The reality? No real hurricanes to speak of outside of two in the Gulf of Mexico, but neither hit the U.S.
Still, I'd wager that next spring we'll see the exact same predictions again.
When Hurricane Felix reached category 5 status, 2007 became one of four recorded Atlantic seasons that have had more than one category 5 storm; the others being 1960, 1961 and 2005, and the only time two Atlantic hurricanes have ever made landfall at Category 5 strength in the same season. September had a record tying 8 storms but the strengths and durations of the storms were low.
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:40 pm
Mexico would like to disagree with what?
As I said:
The predictions were for the U.S.
Fuck Mexico.
We were supposed to have 4 hurricanes make landfall here.
And that's the crap that really bugs me. In all honesty, what the fuck do they know about hurricanes? Pretty much dick.
"The only time"? Maybe since you've been recording them, but how long has that been? And how long has the Earth been around? Who is so arrogant that they think they know the cycles of weather on this planet? The same people who draw up maps because the land masses never change...
Ok, that was a cheap shot and extreme, but it proves the point. It also applies very well to this chain since it's about Doomsday predictions and what have we all heard about California since forever...?
More stuff from the wiki on hurricanes:
So yeah, the storms are killing more and doing more damage, but that's because there are more people and development in the areas hit by these storms.
Edited By Leisher on 1192048855
As I said:
Speaking of global warming, hell of a hurricane season this year, huh? Worst ever on record!
Or, at least, that's what the predictions were this year and last. The reality? No real hurricanes to speak of outside of two in the Gulf of Mexico, but neither hit the U.S.
The predictions were for the U.S.
Fuck Mexico.
We were supposed to have 4 hurricanes make landfall here.
When Hurricane Felix reached category 5 status, 2007 became one of four recorded Atlantic seasons that have had more than one category 5 storm; the others being 1960, 1961 and 2005, and the only time two Atlantic hurricanes have ever made landfall at Category 5 strength in the same season. September had a record tying 8 storms but the strengths and durations of the storms were low.
And that's the crap that really bugs me. In all honesty, what the fuck do they know about hurricanes? Pretty much dick.
"The only time"? Maybe since you've been recording them, but how long has that been? And how long has the Earth been around? Who is so arrogant that they think they know the cycles of weather on this planet? The same people who draw up maps because the land masses never change...
Ok, that was a cheap shot and extreme, but it proves the point. It also applies very well to this chain since it's about Doomsday predictions and what have we all heard about California since forever...?
More stuff from the wiki on hurricanes:
While the number of storms in the Atlantic has increased since 1995, there is no obvious global trend; the annual number of tropical cyclones worldwide remains about 87 ± 10. However, the ability of climatologists to make long-term data analysis in certain basins is limited by the lack of reliable historical data in some basins, primarily in the Southern Hemisphere.
Atlantic storms are becoming more destructive financially, since five of the ten most expensive storms in United States history have occurred since 1990. This can be attributed to the increased intensity and duration of hurricanes striking North America,[94] and to a greater degree, the number of people living in susceptible coastal areas, following increased development in the region since the last surge in Atlantic hurricane activity in the 1960s.
So yeah, the storms are killing more and doing more damage, but that's because there are more people and development in the areas hit by these storms.
Often in part because of the threat of hurricanes, many coastal regions had sparse population between major ports until the advent of automobile tourism; therefore, the most severe portions of hurricanes striking the coast may have gone unmeasured in some instances. The combined effects of ship destruction and remote landfall severely limit the number of intense hurricanes in the official record before the era of hurricane reconnaissance aircraft and satellite meteorology. Although the record shows a distinct increase in the number and strength of intense hurricanes, therefore, experts regard the early data as suspect.
The number and strength of Atlantic hurricanes may undergo a 50-70 year cycle, also known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.
These active hurricane seasons predated satellite coverage of the Atlantic basin. Before the satellite era began in 1960, tropical storms or hurricanes went undetected unless a ship reported a voyage through the storm or a storm hit land in a populated area.[95] The official record, therefore, could miss storms in which no ship experienced gale-force winds, recognized it as a tropical storm (as opposed to a high-latitude extra-tropical cyclone, a tropical wave, or a brief squall), returned to port, and reported the experience.
Edited By Leisher on 1192048855
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 5:40 pm
You are mistaken.Leisher wrote:The predictions were for the U.S.
The predictions are for the entire Atlantic basin.
People then make additional predictions on top of that for landfall in the U.S., but the hurricane season affects the entire west of Atlantic.
Historical data on hurricanes goes back about 100 years, but is much more reliable in the past 40-50 years for obvious technological reasons.
Here is Gray's prediction from 12/06 for US landfall:
PROBABILITIES FOR AT LEAST ONE MAJOR (CATEGORY 3-4-5) HURRICANE LANDFALL ON EACH OF THE FOLLOWING COASTAL AREAS:
1) Entire U.S. coastline - 64% (average for last century is 52%)
2) U.S. East Coast Including Peninsula Florida - 40% (average for last century is 31%)
3) Gulf Coast from the Florida Panhandle westward to Brownsville - 40% (average for last century is 30%)
4) Above-average major hurricane landfall risk in the Caribbean
I am not a meteorologist, but weather impacts my entire business, and we get hurricane predictions every time they are updated.
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:40 am
You are mistaken.
The predictions are for the entire Atlantic basin.
People then make additional predictions on top of that for landfall in the U.S., but the hurricane season affects the entire west of Atlantic.
Dig up the article I posted and am referencing from the Spring(I tried and can't find it). The article was all about the upcoming hurricane season and the U.S.
I know the number of predicted storms applies everywhere, but the article was specific about the number of hurricanes that would make U.S. landfall. Landfall elsewhere was not discussed.
And 4 was the number of predicted hurricanes to hit the U.S.
So I stand by my "Fuck Mexico". I'm not trying to be mean to the 10 people still there, but it didn't apply to the predictions I heard.
Historical data on hurricanes goes back about 100 years, but is much more reliable in the past 40-50 years for obvious technological reasons.
I barely trust the data from the past 40-50 years, I certainly don't trust the data from 100 years ago.
Just because Frank the Fisherman told a story about surviving a Cat 5 hurricane to impress the pants off of Betty the Barmaid doesn't make it fact.
And today's technology may be awesome in some ways, but it sure as hell can't predict the weather.
My only point is that they don't know shit. They're making educated guesses and predictions, yes, but they're doing so with very, very limited and incomplete data and I think treating such conclusions as absolute fact is dangerous and irresponsible. I don't mean that warning people about the upcoming season is bad, although considering where they live I think they should be at least conscious of the possibility of a hurricane at a certain time each year. I mean that using said data to proclaim the sky is falling in the form of global warming is bad.
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:12 am
Here's what I think you are referring to, post-wise.
That being said, the NOAA prediction does not mention 4 hurricanes hitting the US at all. No reputable predictor estimates the # of landfalls. Not NOAA, not Dr. Gray. They only give percentages of landfall chances in various parts of the country. It just doesn't happen.
NOAA prediction you linked in that post.
The article even mentions contingencies with their forecast (El Nina development for example), but people don't read the details. Their article says they predict an above avg season, but only a 75% chance of that. They say 20% "near normal" <not sure how that is defined" and 5% of below normal.
That being said, the NOAA prediction does not mention 4 hurricanes hitting the US at all. No reputable predictor estimates the # of landfalls. Not NOAA, not Dr. Gray. They only give percentages of landfall chances in various parts of the country. It just doesn't happen.
NOAA prediction you linked in that post.
The article even mentions contingencies with their forecast (El Nina development for example), but people don't read the details. Their article says they predict an above avg season, but only a 75% chance of that. They say 20% "near normal" <not sure how that is defined" and 5% of below normal.
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:56 am
I'm pretty sure Al Gore told me we were all going to die of global warming hurricanes, and I never believe anything until I hear it from him.