Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, September 10, 2017

James Hamblin, The Atlantic: In an interview with CNN on Thursday, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said that now is not the time to talk about climate change. "Here's the issue," he said. "To have any kind of focus on the cause and effect of the storm, versus helping people, or actually facing the effect of the storm, is misplaced." ... In the interest of minimizing harm to people, it's always an important time to talk about climate change. We don't have to choose between helping current victims and working to prevent the next tragedy.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

There is still no proof it is man caused.

#1 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-09-09 01:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 4

There is still no proof it is man caused.

#1 | POSTED BY SNIPER

Anyone remotely familiar with science would never use the word proof.

#2 | Posted by jpw at 2017-09-09 01:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

Isn't that what science is all about, proof, not fiction?

#3 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-09-09 06:20 PM | Reply

#1 | POSTED BY SNIPER
"There is still no proof it is man caused."

Sniper, the evidence could sit on your face and wiggle, and you'd still be too afraid to acknowledge it.

#4 | Posted by TheTom at 2017-09-09 06:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Ever notice that whatever heat builds up in the daytime is lost at night?
The greenhouse effect is nullified every day by exposure to outer space. Half the planet is in darkness every day.

The sun drives climate change. It's been warming earth for 12,000 years. No other source of energy comes close.

If the planet burns up, feel free to say you told me so.

#5 | Posted by Ray at 2017-09-09 07:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 2

The greenhouse effect is nullified every day by exposure to outer space.

The atmosphere goes away at night? Good to know.

#6 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-09-09 07:53 PM | Reply

I kind of lost track but I think I've lived through maybe 5 doomsday scenarios. This sounds like number 6.

#7 | Posted by mysterytoy at 2017-09-09 08:37 PM | Reply

It's always the last one that gets you

#8 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-09 09:25 PM | Reply

Isn't that what science is all about, proof, not fiction?

#3 | POSTED BY SNIPER

It's about weight of evidence, sniper.

Nothing is ever definitively "proven".

#9 | Posted by jpw at 2017-09-09 11:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Ever notice that whatever heat builds up in the daytime is lost at night?
The greenhouse effect is nullified every day by exposure to outer space. Half the planet is in darkness every day.
The sun drives climate change. It's been warming earth for 12,000 years. No other source of energy comes close.
If the planet burns up, feel free to say you told me so.

#5 | POSTED BY RAY

This is so bad I almost think Ray is just messing with us.

Did you evacuate? Or are you riding it out in your pyramid of gold bricks?

#10 | Posted by jpw at 2017-09-09 11:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

t's about weight of evidence, sniper.

Nothing is ever definitively "proven".

#9 | Posted by jpw at 2017-09-09 11:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's been proven by "weight of evidence" that all Dr.'s scales are broken.

#11 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-09-10 07:07 AM | Reply

#11 Just cuz they say numbers you don't like doesn't mean they aren't right. Lol.

#12 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-09-10 10:07 AM | Reply

I read an article a while back that soon(if I remember correctly) in 2020 the sun will be in a solar minimum for a while. That along with some pole shifts. So I'm waiting to see how that plays out. IMHO I think that that along with some other factors is going to do some major changes to what we are seeing now. So soon enough we will either still be heating up(which will give evidence that man his causing it) or cooling off which (which will give evidence the earth could care less about what we do) regardless we need to keep the environment cleaner. I'm just against actions that are feel good ones that do nothing. Like taxing for carbon footprints and the like.

#13 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-09-10 10:15 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#11 Just cuz they say numbers you don't like doesn't mean they aren't right. Lol.

#12 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-09-10 10:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

LMFAO Oh hush!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I went into the hospital to have a colonoscopy and endoscopy. They made me get on the scales and it read a real low number. I said wow you mean to tell me all of those scales were wrong and the nurse goes No that's in kilograms. You want to see what it is in pounds and she flipped this switch. I go well that went swimmingly for 30 seconds.

#14 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-09-10 10:17 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

People with a brain listen....

The dorks cannot stand the idea that man has contributed to the increase of the speed of naturally occurring global warming.

But the dorks are not the only ones unwilling to really admit it, to the point of doing anything about it. No one wants to go back to a state of living exposed to the natural elements, so we create shelters for ourselves and we heat and cool them. This takes fuel. Using fuel adds the very same substances into the air that naturally occurs in cycles, thereby speeding up the cycles.

So, let's ignore the question of whether or not man contributes to global warming. It is an academic and rhetorical question, one which no one really wants to know the answer to anyway.

Let's just deal with the reality of it. Now, if the 80% of the population of earth that lives close to the coastlines, will just move ... And stop using gasoline in your cars ... And stop making plastics ... And stop using HVAC systems ... and fertilizer ...

To hell with all that ... THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!!! (see how that works?)

#15 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-09-10 11:22 AM | Reply

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
Isaac Asimov

#16 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2017-09-10 11:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

You can't talk about not allowing idiots who think they are going to overthrow the government to have 100 round magazines for their tin can plinkers after a mass shooting, you also can not talk about climate change when 2 or 3 states are submerged.

The bottom line is the money grubbing bastards just want to make more money. They don't care how many of us die so they can do it.

It really is that simple.

#17 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-09-10 11:39 AM | Reply

Hear a lot about Humans causing Global Warming, but what is the solution??? A Carbon Tax???

#18 | Posted by cmbell73 at 2017-09-10 04:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

This is so bad I almost think Ray is just messing with us.
Did you evacuate? Or are you riding it out in your pyramid of gold bricks?
#10 | POSTED BY JPW

You mean bad from your pespective.

If you were open minded, I would be glad to direct your attention to sites that make a strong case for global cooling. Climate change is cyclical. AGW pails in significance compared to natural cyclical forces.

The greenhouse effect is nullified every day by exposure to outer space.
The atmosphere goes away at night? Good to know.
#6 | POSTED BY REDIAL

You don't know what conduction is. The near zero temperature of outer space pulls heat from earth's atmosphere on the dark side of earth. Heat flows in one direction, from hot to cold. Whatever heat builds up in the day is lost at night. The sun is the only source of climate change. You're comparing the sun to 40 PPM CO2. No contest.

#19 | Posted by Ray at 2017-09-10 04:55 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

It's over folks. Ray knows more than all those scientists with their "doctors degrees" that they went into debt to get just so they could get mid-level bureaucrat pay-scale jobs, just because they have loved science since they were kids and dedicated their lives to it. Republican politicians and oil company executives know much more about it (although even Exxon has admitted that their studies back in the 70's showed that the globe was warming and that burning of fossil fuels was causing it) than a bunch of eggheads with their computer models, right?

#20 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-09-10 05:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

All solar heat is absorbed as radiation. Similarly, at night, the earth irradiates to outer space at lower energy. Any conductive effect is trivial since the air is mighty thin at the edge of space and even at sea level atmospheric convection is a stronger effect than conduction. The use of the term conduction to balance the earth's heat flux proves Ray has no idea what he's talking about and no quantifiable reason or reaching such an incorrect conclusion. aka FoS

#21 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-09-10 05:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#20 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN

I gave you a reason based on science. I'm an engineer. I know enough about heat transfer to explain it. You don't know what I'm talking about.

All you told me is why you believe what you believe. I accept that.

#22 | Posted by Ray at 2017-09-10 05:26 PM | Reply

Very stupid comments to be coming from an "engineer".

#23 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-09-10 05:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Ray has no idea what he's talking about and no quantifiable reason or reaching such an incorrect conclusion. aka FoS

You're right. Solids conduct. Air radiates. I can feel the outporing of love that comes from that mistake.

Still, whatever heat is gained on the sun side is lost on the dark side. There can be no long term accumulation of heat from greenhouse gases. If my sources are correct, all CO2 is composed of 80% natural and 20% human. Water vapor and clouds are much more significance.

This is going to go nowhere.

#24 | Posted by Ray at 2017-09-10 05:40 PM | Reply

"If my sources are correct, all CO2 is composed of 80% natural and 20% human."

Presumably it was once 100% natural and 0% human, yeah?

So we added more, yeah?

When do you figure humans contribution was 1%, 2%, 5%, 10%, etc of total?

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-10 05:44 PM | Reply

"There can be no long term accumulation of heat from greenhouse gases."

Without the greenhouse effect the planet would be about 15C cooler.

What you're saying is wrong.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-10 05:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The primary source of night time radiation is the earth, water and land with clouds and other contaminants, many man made, doing some absorbing and emitting. Man's impact is significant, though volcanic events have been larger at times.

#27 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-09-10 05:50 PM | Reply

Without the greenhouse effect the planet would be about 15C cooler.

Understood. I'm talking about accumulation above that baseline. What is gained during the day is lost at night. Just like the glass windows in your car.

When do you figure humans contribution was 1%, 2%, 5%, 10%, etc of total?

Who the hell knows. Or cares.

#28 | Posted by Ray at 2017-09-10 05:55 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

If you were open minded, I would be glad to direct your attention to sites that make a strong case for global cooling. Climate change is cyclical. AGW pails in significance compared to natural cyclical forces.

Don't start with that open minded crap. All that is is code for 'agrees with me'.

Stating the obvious of cycling climate conditions is a common argument that shows one doesn't understand what the science says in the first place.

Whatever heat builds up in the day is lost at night.

If that were true then we wouldn't be here talking about it.

#29 | Posted by jpw at 2017-09-10 06:00 PM | Reply

The primary source of night time radiation is the earth, water and land with clouds and other contaminants, many man made, doing some absorbing and emitting.

Outer space is at near absolute zero. That's one hell of a heat drain that nullifies daytime buildup.

Man's impact is significant, though volcanic events have been larger at times.
#27 | POSTED BY BAYVIKING

Underwater volcanoes are largely uncharted.

This is one of those cases where I would have send you to other sites that can explain global cooling with charts, facts and references. I'm not that articulate on this subject. What I know is that what I read makes a whole lot more sense than the AGW argument.

#30 | Posted by Ray at 2017-09-10 06:11 PM | Reply

If that were true then we wouldn't be here talking about it.
#29 | POSTED BY JPW

I'm talking about temperature variation over a 24 hour period.

#31 | Posted by Ray at 2017-09-10 06:12 PM | Reply

Don't start with that open minded crap. All that is is code for 'agrees with me'.
#29 | POSTED BY JPW

I get you. In science the evidence and logic stand on their own. It's not a belief system dependent on who says what.

#32 | Posted by Ray at 2017-09-10 06:15 PM | Reply

I have yet to hear some solid solutions to Global Warming. All this tit for tat solves nothing

#33 | Posted by cmbell73 at 2017-09-10 06:16 PM | Reply

All this tit for tat solves nothing

The same three solutions that solve all problems: Tax, regulate and spend.

#34 | Posted by Ray at 2017-09-10 06:21 PM | Reply

Tesla is doing a good job trying to fix our energy/pollution problem.

China is planning to have every car be electric in the near future.

#35 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-10 06:24 PM | Reply

I like to know how taxing will solve the problem. Nobody has yet to explain that

#36 | Posted by cmbell73 at 2017-09-10 06:24 PM | Reply

"When do you figure humans contribution was 1%, 2%, 5%, 10%, etc of total?

Who the hell knows. Or cares"

Well the point is humans are making the greenhouse effect stronger.

If our contribution used to be zero, and now it's 20%, the total greenhouse effect is somwthing like 120%, yes?

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-10 06:25 PM | Reply

"I like to know how taxing will solve the problem. Nobody has yet to explain that."

But... Has taxing ever solved anything you'd care to name???

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-10 06:26 PM | Reply

"Outer space is at near absolute zero. That's one hell of a heat drain that nullifies daytime buildup."

A vacuum can't hold heat.
So you can't dump heat to a vacuum.

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-10 06:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I like to know how taxing will solve the problem. Nobody has yet to explain that

#36 | POSTED BY CMBELL73 AT 2017-09-10 06:24 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Taxation is a mechanism to make certain financial choices less attractive and others more attractive. It's the government putting their finger on the scale.

The other option is spending. In America, spending is done in a very strange way and it is harder to spend to promote our emerging new energy industry, even while it is acceptable/lauded to spend on the old energy industry.

Other countries spend and tax to promote their new energy markets. We are just falling further and further behind them.

#40 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-10 06:39 PM | Reply

"Without the greenhouse effect the planet would be about 15C cooler.

Understood. I'm talking about accumulation above that baseline. What is gained during the day is lost at night."

Why would physics change once accumulation exceeds baseline???

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-10 06:41 PM | Reply

#38 What do you mean??? Are to talking about the infrastructure of government, and Nations

#42 | Posted by cmbell73 at 2017-09-10 06:48 PM | Reply

Now is the time to talk about how we are going to solve global warming. You know reducing fossil fuel use has other benefits other than reducing green house gases. You reduce the amount of mercury in the food chain, you reduce the need for foreign and off shore oil and you make economic growth less vulnerable to fluctuations in oil and gas prices

#43 | Posted by danS at 2017-09-10 07:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Increasing energy independence is also good for national security.

#44 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-10 07:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

But bad for profits for those who privatize America's natural resources.

So it won't ever happen.

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-10 07:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Check out the Labor Day storm of '35 or Hurricane Donna of '60 [just to name a couple] and tell us how man caused such strong storms; then get back to me. The 'believers' will use any natural weather event to blame mankind an tell us we need to give more money to the govt and UN to 'change the weather'. As for world temperature I cannot believe that people can take a slice of a few hundred years out of billions and tell us that should be a 'norm'.

#46 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-09-10 07:33 PM | Reply

I like to know how taxing will solve the problem. Nobody has yet to explain that
#36 | POSTED BY CMBELL73

Taxes are the objective. Politicans don't give a damn about solving problems. The make problems that need to be 'solved' with taxes, spending and regulations.

#47 | Posted by Ray at 2017-09-10 07:45 PM | Reply

A vacuum can't hold heat.
So you can't dump heat to a vacuum.
#39 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

OMG! My head is swiveling in circles.

Yes vacuum can't hold heat. It can't keep heat from losing its energy as it escapes into space.
Heat always flows from high temperature to low temperature.

#48 | Posted by Ray at 2017-09-10 07:54 PM | Reply

Check out the Labor Day storm of '35 or Hurricane Donna of '60 [just to name a couple]

Dude, do you listen to yourself? We've had 2 historically, ALL-TIME record breaking hurricanes in the last couple of weeks and you want to talk about storms that occurred decades apart? We've had 3 Category 4 storms simultaneously in the Atlantic for the first time in recorded history and it's you just think human existence hasn't contributed to this problem when every factor in science including our history of deforestation, industrialization and the effects of burning fossil fuels proves it so?

Good Lord, all the REPUBLICAN mayors of Florida's coastal cities now taking on water are trying to deal with today's realities, not your hazy, allegories of halcyon days far in the past. Did you see the visual and actual size difference between Andrew and Irma? accuweather.brightspotcdn.com Anecdotal? At this point yes, but are we entering a new phase of normal where denying reality endangers millions of lives and trillions in lost property and production? How much can this nation afford to continually rebuild our coastal cities without increasing their likelihood of withstanding these 500-year storms and flooding events? What, are you a liberal or something that thinks tax money grows on trees?

You just don't get it at all. We don't need billions of years of temperature information to see that if humans want to remain alive on the planet Earth in appreciable numbers our current trendlines are unsustainable to that end. The Earth will be around to regenerate and moderate itself to whatever form it takes after human life becomes non-viable. And in the end, you may be right. Our current evolutionary period may be just a bleep, but the human species likely be gone before the evidence can be analyzed.

#49 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-09-10 07:55 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 5

Why would physics change once accumulation exceeds baseline???
#41 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Seasonal changes. That's about all.

Well the point is humans are making the greenhouse effect stronger.

You can say it. Doesn't make it true.

FIY, IPPC models have been consistently wrong. Earth has been warming for 12,000 years. Now it's going into a cooling phase. Al Gore had bad timing. Not that he cares. He's wealthy now.

#50 | Posted by Ray at 2017-09-10 08:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

It was night and day changes, now it's seasons.

Seems like you're clueless and flailing.

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-10 08:04 PM | Reply

Snoofy

If you want to believe humans can affect climate, be my guest.

#52 | Posted by Ray at 2017-09-10 08:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If bacteria can affect climate why can't humans?

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-10 08:18 PM | Reply

Bacteria affect climate? That's a new one.

#54 | Posted by Ray at 2017-09-10 08:37 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Bacteria is what causes methane in cattle farts and landfills. Heat is just a wave in the full spectrum. The heat from the sun travels as a wave through a vacuum no problem. It could also travel back into space except for greenhouse gases which to a certain allow life on this planet to exist. On the other hand as you sit on the freeway or in line at a drive thru and imagine the magnitude and logistics of keeping all those engines going or how much it takes to keep everyone in Arizona at 78 degrees when my airconditioner still kicks on at 4 in the morning. Yeah it's not us,well okey dokey.

#55 | Posted by bruceaz at 2017-09-10 08:50 PM | Reply

Ray if a few hundred parts per million of CO2 can affect climate, then when humans add a few hundred ppm more, what can humans do?

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-10 08:53 PM | Reply

Ray came back because his dementia made him forget why he left in the first place.

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-10 08:54 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The atmosphere is not a vacuum, that said as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere it traps heat, similar to a cloud cover. So things heat up forests, seas, lakes etc. Now with the temperature gradient changing in the west we have massive forest fire events due to pine bark beetles drought etc. As the ash is swept up to the higher latitudes it falls upon the northern ice caps creating a cover of dark ash that increases heating of the northern polar ice cap. So as ice melts sea levels rises and more heat and moisture gets trapped in the atmosphere. We get increasing destructive weather events fueled by higher temps.
I have no idea where Ray gets this global cooling phase or evidence from the science community verifying this event.

#58 | Posted by Badcat at 2017-09-10 08:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Ray if a few hundred parts per million of CO2 can affect climate, then when humans add a few hundred ppm more, what can humans do?

Kill a few million North Koreans?

#59 | Posted by Ray at 2017-09-10 08:59 PM | Reply

If you want to believe humans can affect climate, be my guest.

#52 | POSTED BY RAY AT 2017-09-10 08:13 PM

Genghis Khan's reign killed so many people it shows up in the climate record, through a huge dip in pollution output. Millions died, so they weren't making camp fires to cook.

#60 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-09-10 09:00 PM | Reply

I have no idea where Ray gets this global cooling phase or evidence from the science community verifying this event.
#58 | POSTED BY BADCAT

There's a world of knowledge out there you have no idea exists. All based on hard science. All shut off from mainstream exposure.

#61 | Posted by Ray at 2017-09-10 09:06 PM | Reply

#60 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

The point is?

#62 | Posted by Ray at 2017-09-10 09:10 PM | Reply

I have no idea where Ray gets this global cooling phase or evidence from the science community verifying this event.

POSTED BY BADCAT AT 2017-09-10 08:57 PM

Out of his backside, the same place he's pulled all his other brilliant Raystradumbass notions from for years and years in between respites of cherished silence while he's holed up in his gold-filled bunker, incommunicado.

#63 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-09-10 09:10 PM | Reply

There's a world of knowledge out there you have no idea exists. All based on hard science. All shut off from mainstream exposure.

#61 | POSTED BY RAY

Along with the burrito he had for lunch.... But he promises it's coming to light soon as well....

In his toilet, where it should be.

#64 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-09-10 09:12 PM | Reply

#64 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

Still living in a cave.

#65 | Posted by Ray at 2017-09-10 09:23 PM | Reply

Still living in a cave.

POSTED BY RAY

Thankfully not the one you call your home and hovel....

Can't live that deep underground.

Have another shovel of dirt. Maybe you'll stay planted this time.

#66 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-09-10 09:34 PM | Reply

That's great. Bring the conversation right down to where you are most comfortable.

#67 | Posted by Ray at 2017-09-10 09:51 PM | Reply

If you want to believe humans can affect climate, be my guest.

#52 | POSTED BY RAY AT 2017-09-10 08:13 PM | REPLY | NEWSWORTHY 1

You would think that if humans were the problem, that the solution would be to get rid of humans. Hell, UN should mandate population control to save that Planet..... But no, they rather have the money, and the Climate Change crowd laps it up

#68 | Posted by cmbell73 at 2017-09-10 10:07 PM | Reply

I think they should start naming hurricanes after notable climate change deniers.

#69 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-09-10 10:08 PM | Reply

That's a wonderful idea. Maybe not enough deniers for the storms though. We can just give them the 800 year storms that come every year now.

#70 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-10 10:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

On another site about this subject I render this post:

"Liberal fake catastrophes by the decade.

1970s....Ice age coming ... Liberals...help we're all going to die. send me all your money
1980s... Acid rain ...Liberals ... Help we're all going to die ... Send money
1990s ... Hole in the Ozone... Liberals ... Help we're all going to die... Send money
2000s... Glo-bull warming ....liberals ... Help we're all going to die ... Send
money
2010.....Climate Change... Changed from global warming because of cooling and faked data... Liberals... Help we're all going to die .. Send money."

'nuff said.

#71 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-09-10 11:20 PM | Reply

'nuff said

Good on them for fixing the acid rain and hole in the ozone issues.

One thing at a time.

#72 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-09-10 11:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Didn't know so many liberals lived in Texas, Louisiana and florida..

#73 | Posted by Badcat at 2017-09-10 11:46 PM | Reply

#71 so everything the liberals said was true and in the cases of the ozone layer and acid rain, we were able to take action to fix the problems..... In the case of global warming/climate change we are seeing the predictions come true....

#74 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-11 01:57 AM | Reply

#71 The "Ice Age is Coming" was from from one Time magazine article that was debunked inside the very same article. Sure, it made it the headlines, but the two people who where saying it didn't know anything about the climate data at the time. They based it on Milankovitch cycles (look those up). We broke that cycle with global warming. The Earth actually is heading into a warming cycle despite the fact that Earths orbit is shifting farther away from the Sun....

Or don't you know anything about Milankovitch cycles and the origin of ice ages?

#75 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-09-11 02:12 AM | Reply

#71 | POSTED BY MSGT

Bitch slapped.

'nuff said.

#76 | Posted by jpw at 2017-09-11 08:29 AM | Reply

If you want to believe humans can affect climate, be my guest.
#52 | POSTED BY RAY AT 2017-09-10 08:13 PM
The point is?
#62 | POSTED BY RAY AT 2017-09-10 09:10 PM | REPLY | FLAG

It's a simple example of human impact on climate. Kill enough people and pollution goes way down.

#77 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-09-11 08:58 AM | Reply

Hurricanes are the Lord's way of saying that people who profit off of killing the rest of us need tax breaks.

-- the GOP

#78 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-09-11 08:58 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Ray you are making a huge false assumption. You are assuming that the rate of insolation is identical to the rate of heat lost to space.

The truth is there are a lot of variables to the equation and one of those variables is the chemical makeup of the atmosphere. CO2 both increases absorbsion of light, which is converted to heat, and is a very good insulator which prevents transfer of heat to space. Enough of an insulator that contact with 400 degree colder space on the dark side of the planet only reduces the temperature by 25-30 degrees overnight.

The planet can get rid of some excess CO2. We don't really have a solid idea of what that rate is but as long as we are adding more than it can take care of on its own the temperature will continue to rise.

There is a real concrete solution and most of the world is on board. The solution is to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses produced to where we are not exceeding the natural buffering systems of the planet. A carbon tax is a way to encourage movement in that direction. True some will just pay the tax but that money can fund research into other methods. Some WILL reduce carbon emissions to avoid the tax, especially if we give the tax enough bite.

#79 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-09-11 10:33 AM | Reply

The effect of co2 is logarithmic. You have to continually add much, much more to continue the warming effect.

Methane traps 100x more heat. It's 19x worse for the atmosphere despite being a much smaller overall concentration.

#80 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-09-11 11:30 AM | Reply

xkcd.com

Takes a little while to load on wireless devices, no time at all on the computer.

#81 | Posted by TedBaxter at 2017-09-11 11:57 AM | Reply

When CO2 is only considered, no?

CO2 isn't the issue, as you mentioned. It's the feed forward cycle mediated largely through increased water vapor and methane concentrations that's the major concern.

#82 | Posted by jpw at 2017-09-11 11:59 AM | Reply

The effect of co2 is logarithmic. You have to continually add much, much more to continue the warming effect.
Methane traps 100x more heat. It's 19x worse for the atmosphere despite being a much smaller overall concentration.

#80 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG AT 2017-09-11 11:30 AM |

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, but the total global methane produced by agriculture has a smaller effect than the CO2 emitted by one average sized coal burning power plant.

We are releasing huge amounts of CO2. While the logrithmic effect of CO2 means you have to add 10 times as much to double the RATE of temperature rise, temperature will continue rising at the same rate if the CO2 level remains the same. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere

#83 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-09-11 12:06 PM | Reply

Yes, One gram of Methane is 19x as bad as 1 gram of CO2. That is mitigated by two things:

1) Methane does not persist in the atmosphere.It is chemically very reactive and Released methane only stays in the atmosphere for 9 years on average. CO2 stays in the atmosphere sometimes for thousands of years

2) Methane releases have increased by only 150% since 1790

Human activity including agriculture released over 200 times as much CO2 as methane in 2016. A single averagesized coal burning power plant releases more CO2 each year than the global release of methane.

The biggest worry about methane is that temperatures will rise enough to release the huge amounts of methane hydrates on the ocean floor

#84 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-09-11 12:36 PM | Reply

"Methane traps 100x more heat."

So by raising livestock we can change the climate.

Ray, is this information making it past the tinfoil hat and the metal plate, all the way to your brain?

#85 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-11 12:43 PM | Reply

There is still no proof it is man caused.

#1 | Posted by Sniper

Yeah and if you just live the rest of your life with your head shoved up fox news' ass, you'll NEVER see or hear any proof of climate change.

#86 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-11 01:00 PM | Reply

1980s... Acid rain ...Liberals ... Help we're all going to die ... Send money
1990s ... Hole in the Ozone... Liberals ... Help we're all going to die... Send money
2000s... Glo-bull warming ....liberals ... Help we're all going to die ... Send
money
2010.....Climate Change... Changed from global warming because of cooling and faked data... Liberals... Help we're all going to die .. Send money."

'nuff said.

#71 | Posted by MSgt a

We FIXED acid rain and the ozone hole WITH GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS dumbass.

They weren't fake liberal conspiracies. They were problems that we listened to our scientists about and SOLVED.

nuff said.

YOu're rooting against the well being of your only home and your children's future, because the polluters control your favorite propaganda channels. You're a sucker.

#87 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-11 01:03 PM | Reply

You think acid rain is a hoax?

Did you graduate high school?

If so you should go back and ask your teachers "how?"

#88 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-11 01:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

We've had 3 Category 4 storms simultaneously in the Atlantic for the first time in recorded history - #49 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-09-10 07:55 PM

Mistaken or intentionally lying? Katia maxed out at a Cat 2 Hurricane, Harvey wasn't a 4 any time that Jose was. Was there a secret hurricane? Would you care to back up your assertion?

#89 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-09-11 01:26 PM | Reply

You think acid rain is a hoax?
Did you graduate high school?
If so you should go back and ask your teachers "how?"

#88 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-09-11 01:12 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 1: Hoax? - No, WAY overblown? YES!

#90 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-09-11 01:40 PM | Reply

Why does being a conservative or a right winger mean that a person rejects basic science? I do not get it. Is it some sort of Know-Nothing political outlook which glorifies ignorance? Is it insecurity in the face of reality? Is it just stupidity? Why would it be in any way inconsistent or against conservative principles to be passionate about combatting MMGW and other environmental dangers? I don't get it.

#91 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-09-11 01:47 PM | Reply

Why does being a conservative or a right winger mean that a person rejects basic science? I do not get it. Is it some sort of Know-Nothing political outlook which glorifies ignorance? Is it insecurity in the face of reality? Is it just stupidity? Why would it be in any way inconsistent or against conservative principles to be passionate about combatting MMGW and other environmental dangers? I don't get it.

#91 | Posted by moder8

It's really very simple if you look at it from this perspective:

Conservative have been brainwashed by conservative propaganda media to think that ANYTHING liberals advocate is 100 percent wrong and evil.

Liberals want to protect the planet, therefore a good patriotic conservative has to fight AGAINST protecting the planet.

If liberals put anti-pedophilia into the party platform, conservatives would start arguing that pedophilia is being unfairly demonized.

#92 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-11 01:50 PM | Reply

Man, I need to keep a list. Can someone remind me of all the groups that it ok to judge by the actions of a few and which ones it isn't?

#93 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-09-11 01:53 PM | Reply

"Hoax? - No, WAY overblown? YES!"

Before they put in the scrubbers the local power plant in Springdale would pay to repaint neighborhod cars every couple years.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

#94 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-11 01:56 PM | Reply

Man, I need to keep a list. Can someone remind me of all the groups that it ok to judge by the actions of a few and which ones it isn't?

#93 | Posted by Avigdore

It's not the actions of a few. If you vote republican, you are voting for environmental destruction. And not just voting for the destruction of those wussie lib's environment, but voting for the destruction of YOUR OWN environment, just to spite those wussie libs.

#95 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-11 01:59 PM | Reply

"Can someone remind me of all the groups that it ok to judge by the actions of a few and which ones it isn't?"

Which few?

You can judge, for example, Trump supporters by the actions of Trump.

But you can't judge Trump supporters by the actions of some random financially inconsequential Trump voter.

#96 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-11 02:01 PM | Reply

Had the world not signed the Montreal Protocol Treaty banning ozone-depleting chemicals, the ozone hole would have been global by 2040, and the ozone layer essentially depleted by 2060--from a high of 500-600 Dobson Units in 1974 to less than 100 DU in 2060.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

#97 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-09-11 02:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

US pollution control legislation administrated by Nixon's EPA solved the acid rain problem, meaning it saved Canada's lakes and forests.

Ray should clarify what kind of engineer he claims to be and university or college he claims to have graduated from so I can warn people to steer clear, especially my own children, Ice melting is radically changing the earth's heat balance. If all our streets and rooftop[s were white, it would neutralize this one effect, of many effects.

#98 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-09-11 02:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Why does being a conservative or a right winger mean that a person rejects basic science? I do not get it. Is it some sort of Know-Nothing political outlook which glorifies ignorance?

#91 | POSTED BY MODER8 AT 2017-09-11 01:47 PM | FLAG:

Scientific rejection is bi-partisan, it just depends on the particular subject.

#99 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-09-11 02:47 PM | Reply

#84 | POSTED BY HATTER5183 AT 2017-09-11 12:36 PM | FLAG:

Methane lifetime is actually 12 years if you go by the IPCC. The metric when determining how dangerous a green house gas is to climate is the GWP, Global Warming Potential. Co2 = 1 over 20 years. Methane = 86 over 20 years. The rate of release is also on the verge of dramatic expansion since we're sitting on the "methane bomb". All of this is vastly more dangerous than co2, and even if all man-made co2 is sequestered right this moment, the already existing trend towards global warming is going to release it sooner rather than later.

#100 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-09-11 02:54 PM | Reply

On what particular subject do Democrats reject the incontrovertible science?

#101 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-09-11 02:54 PM | Reply

Scientific rejection is bi-partisan, it just depends on the particular subject.

#99 | Posted by sitzkrieg

As usual, when confronted with their own destructive stupidity, all conservatives can do is play the false equivalence game.

Many MANY conservatives reject climate science, and some reject evolution science, and many reject the basic economic science that says tax cuts for the rich don't help the economy.

Show me any scientific area that liberals reject on the same scale, or with the similar level of consequence as rejecting climate science.

#102 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-11 03:02 PM | Reply

There are certain aspects of science denial that are squarely in the liberal left. -Neil Degrasse Tyson. He's not wrong.

#103 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-09-11 03:02 PM | Reply

Show me any scientific area that liberals reject on the same scale, or with the similar level of consequence as rejecting climate science.
#102 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-09-11 03:02 PM | FLAG:

Same argument Maher makes. "It's not as bad". Wrong. Actual life threatening diseases are making a comeback and having outbreaks. Measles, mumps, whooping cough, chicken pox, etc.

Also, everybody is "conservative" compared to you. Hate to break it to you, but I'm more moderate than Moder8.

#104 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-09-11 03:05 PM | Reply

Sitz, I'll repeat the question: On what particular subject do Democrats reject the incontrovertible science?

#105 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-09-11 03:09 PM | Reply

Same argument Maher makes. "It's not as bad". Wrong. Actual life threatening diseases are making a comeback and having outbreaks. Measles, mumps, whooping cough, chicken pox, etc.

#104 | Posted by sitzkrieg

False equivalence as usual.

Even a massive measles outbreak pales in comparison to the effects of climate change. In fact, climate change BRINGS more third world disease with it.

And the anti vaxxers are on all sides. Left AND right.

So again, show me an area of science that is destructively rejected EXCLUSIVELY by the left, like climate science is rejected exclusively by the right.

#106 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-11 03:11 PM | Reply

www.politico.com

"As one of those who claims science denialism is more egregious among Republicans than among Democrats, the journalist Chris Mooney has argued that the small amount of anti-science views found on the left does not drive policy. But digging a little deeper reveals plenty of bills that ignore the scientific consensus. Sure, they are mostly at the state level. But then, so are the Republicans' bills pushing creationism into schools."

#107 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-09-11 03:14 PM | Reply

So again, show me an area of science that is destructively rejected EXCLUSIVELY by the left, like climate science is rejected exclusively by the right.

#106 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

God, I almost hate to bring this up (giving that I don't give a crap about it) but how about the left's stance that a third trimester abortion isn't killing a person? I would argue that is a view held exclusively by the left.

#108 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-09-11 03:22 PM | Reply

God, I almost hate to bring this up (giving that I don't give a crap about it) but how about the left's stance that a third trimester abortion isn't killing a person? I would argue that is a view held exclusively by the left.

#108 | Posted by MUSTANG

False equivalence again. The percentage of dems who approve of late term abortion is far lower than the the percentage of repubs who doubt climate science.

And late term abortion doesn't have nearly the destructive effect on humanity that climate denial does.

Try again.

#109 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-11 03:25 PM | Reply

You asked for an example and he provided one.

Also, disagreeing with the left's so-called solutions to the problems inherent in a warmer planet is not science denial.

#110 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-09-11 03:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There are certain aspects of science denial that are squarely in the liberal left. -Neil Degrasse Tyson. He's not wrong.

#103 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG AT 2017-09-11 03:02 PM

He never said anything of the sort.

www.livescience.com

#111 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-09-11 03:31 PM | Reply

The percentage of dems who approve of late term abortion is far lower than the the percentage of repubs who doubt climate science.

Citation? Not that it matters. I provided what you asked...a position held exclusively by the left that is destructive and contrary to science. The level of destructiveness of killing a baby is, I surmise, subjective. Let's ask the baby.

#112 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-09-11 03:35 PM | Reply

www.politico.com

"As one of those who claims science denialism is more egregious among Republicans than among Democrats, the journalist Chris Mooney has argued that the small amount of anti-science views found on the left does not drive policy. But digging a little deeper reveals plenty of bills that ignore the scientific consensus. Sure, they are mostly at the state level. But then, so are the Republicans' bills pushing creationism into schools."

#107 | Posted by sitzkrieg

Even in your link, they say science denial between the parties isn't nearly equal.

And the destructive effects of avoiding GMO's is minuscule compared to the destructive effects of denying climate change.

Got anything else?

#113 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-11 03:42 PM | Reply

Citation? Not that it matters. I provided what you asked...a position held exclusively by the left that is destructive and contrary to science. The level of destructiveness of killing a baby is, I surmise, subjective. Let's ask the baby.

#112 | Posted by MUSTANG

Math is not subjective.

There are 9,000 third trimester abortions per year.
healthresearchfunding.org

And 400,000 climate change related deaths.
newrepublic.com

And there is no SCIENCE DENIAL involved in late term abortions, only philosophical disagreements about when life begins.

#114 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-11 03:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And the anti vaxxers are on all sides. Left AND right.

Surely, there are nice folks on both sides of this situation.
/meme

#115 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2017-09-11 03:52 PM | Reply

1) Most liberals do not support 3rd trimester abortion on demand

2) only 1.4% of abortions are performed after the 21st week

3) Even most conservatives support abortion to save the life of the mother

4) Even most who would allow 3rd trimester abortions do not deny the science, they deny your morality

#116 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-09-11 03:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#114 You are moving the goalposts. You did not ask for equivocation or scale of impact, you merely asked for anyone to provide you an example of an anti-science belief held exclusively by the left, which I provided.

FYI, nobody but (wait for it...) the far left believes that life doesn't begin until birth, hence the medical term "viable". The "philosophical disagreement" you refer to is more applicable to fetuses less than 22 weeks. Again, I don't care. My pro-choice stance dovetails nicely with my willingness to employ the death penalty.

viable: adj.

able to live after birth

#117 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-09-11 04:01 PM | Reply

#114 You are moving the goalposts. You did not ask for equivocation or scale of impact, you merely asked for anyone to provide you an example of an anti-science belief held exclusively by the left, which I provided.

#117 | Posted by MUSTANG

YOu haven't read the thread. The goal posts are where they were many posts ago - I said name an area where liberals deny science with the same level destructive consequence as denying climate change.

Still waiting.

#118 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-11 04:03 PM | Reply

"a position held exclusively by the left that is destructive and contrary to science."

It's not contrary to science. Science doesn't have a law that says you can't kill people, or even fetuses.

#119 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-11 04:16 PM | Reply

"disagreeing with the left's so-called solutions to the problems inherent in a warmer planet is not science denial."

Oh I dunno. Some would argue economics is a science. I'd put it in there with the social sciences...

#120 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-11 04:20 PM | Reply

I remember when all the cars caused Dinosaurs to die.

#121 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-09-11 05:05 PM | Reply

Also, disagreeing with the left's so-called solutions to the problems inherent in a warmer planet is not science denial.

#110 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2017-09-11 03:30 PM

The right doesn't disagree with the solutions to manmade global warming. The majority of them deny that it exists at all.

If you can find me a majority on the left who deny that abortion happens at all we can have an equivalent discussion

#122 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-09-11 05:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I remember when all the cars caused Dinosaurs to die.

#121 | Posted by Federalist

Let's see if I can follow your "logic":

Since car exhaust didn't kill the dinosaurs then car exhaust isn't a concern for humans?

Yup. Dumb enough to vote for trump.

#123 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-11 06:12 PM | Reply

#121 | POSTED BY FEDERALIST
"I remember when all the cars caused Dinosaurs to die."

Explains your senility.

#124 | Posted by TheTom at 2017-09-11 07:17 PM | Reply

#124 | Posted by TheTom
Ever read Chaos?

#125 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-09-11 07:28 PM | Reply

#123 | Posted by SpeakSoftly
More insults.

#126 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-09-11 07:29 PM | Reply

More insults.

#126 | Posted by Federalist

Feel free to disprove me.

I'd love to hear more about your "cars didn't kill the dinosaurs therefore they cant kill humans theory."

#127 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-11 07:46 PM | Reply

Clearly, cars are deadly. They kill more people than guns every single year.

#128 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-09-12 07:37 AM | Reply

most dishonest pretense of real argumemt award goes to Mustang. Never mind that most late term abortions Re done because of serious defects in the retus or to preserve the life of the mother who often already has other children to care for as did my own. Stuff your objections to such abortions where the sun don't shine, my parents, both devout Catholics, dealt with this issue in the 1960's, actually had priests arguing with doctors. Fortunately the doctors won. Mustang pretending that is a scientific argument is disgusting, it's really aisogynist argument that puts the life of the mother at less value than a deformed fetus.
Typing on cell phone because cable is still down here and wouldn't even bother if Mustang's argument wasn't so disgusting.

#129 | Posted by danni at 2017-09-12 09:10 AM | Reply

Even in your link, they say science denial between the parties isn't nearly equal.

#113 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-09-11 03:42 PM | REPLY

Then you are selectively reading it, because the author points out the anti-science legislation from both parties at state levels is quite extensive.

#130 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-09-12 09:54 AM | Reply

Just a note for the people trying to use abortion as a false equivalent to global warming debate.

Because I think it is wrong to do it is not a scientific argument

The bible says so is not evidence

Science is not about what you believe it is about what is.

#131 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-09-12 09:57 AM | Reply

Good point.

#132 | Posted by danS at 2017-09-12 09:57 AM | Reply

July 4, 2017 : Coldest July Temperature Ever Recorded In The Northern Hemisphere

Greenland just set the record for coldest July temperature ever reported in the Northern Hemisphere at -33C.

?

JULY 3, 2017 3:54PM Australia...

The mercury in the NSW town, close to the Murray River, sank to -5.6C early on Sunday morning -- that's the coldest it's been for 110 years.

www.news.com.au

Are these facts?

#133 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2017-09-12 11:57 AM | Reply

Ok, let's talk about climate change. Last week I spent a few days manually pulling every year's data since 1851 of all hurricanes, which was obtained by Weather Underground. I recorded every storm with 75+ mph wind and the year. Based on that, I created averages of every year. I then created decade averages and totals. Then I did 50-year era totals and averages. It was actually pretty fun to see all the historical years and storms. Anyways, I wanted to do this so when this topic came up about hurricanes and climate change I could have real data I trusted, up to 2016.

Total number of hurricanes per year, by decade:
1850 51.2
1900 43.8
1950 59.2
2000 58 - only 16 years of data in this.

Average wind speeds of hurricanes per year, by decade:
1850 99.2
1900 102.4
1950 105.4
2000 109.7 - only 16 years of data in this.

As you can see, both the number of hurricanes and the average speeds are up. While the totals haven't always been higher than the preceding era, wind speeds have only increased. Keep in mind, this is only per year averages. So one year if there is only one hurricane that is 150mph, the average for that year is 150. So the numbers are slightly skewed by year but the end results will show the same trend regardless of how averages are generated.

So, yes, people who say that hurricanes are becoming stronger and more are occurring are correct. There is no denying that. What we need to find out now is if a 10mph difference over 150 years is cause enough for concern to do anything about.

I'll be doing 50 year eras so they match up to 2016 instead of 2000, but I'm still working on the data and figuring out what else I can do with it.

#134 | Posted by humtake at 2017-09-12 12:35 PM | Reply

@#134 | Posted by humtake at 2017-09-12 12:35 PM
I love seeing the data, humtake. Thank-you.
Any thoughts on how much the variation on the wind speed measurement is due to increased sensitivity, measurement method and gauge survivability through the years?

#135 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-09-12 12:51 PM | Reply

What we need to find out now is if a 10mph difference over 150 years is cause enough for concern to do anything about.

What about a 50 mph increase over 750 years? Are we willing to wait until then to do anything about it?

wind speed is not a linear function of energy. data from wind farms shows us this:

looking at a turbine with a 10 ft blade,

5 mph will generate 5.5 watts
10 mph will generate 43.7 watts
20 mph will generate 349.9 watts
35 mph will generate 1875.2 watts

Loss to friction IS linear and can be discounted.

A 35 mph wind has 340 times as much energy as a 5.5 mph breeze

When you talk about adding "only" 10 mph to the strength of a hurricane you are adding an enormous amount of energy. Going from 100mph to 110 mph is not a 10% increase in strength. It is more like a 900% increase in strength

#136 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-09-12 01:02 PM | Reply

Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of speed. So a 10 mph wind has 99x more energy than a 1 mph breeze.

#137 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-12 01:33 PM | Reply

Sure, Snoofy, snub special relativity. ☺

K.E. = mc²(1/(1-v²/c²)½-1)

And, K.E. at low speeds ≈ mv²/2.

#138 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-09-12 02:05 PM | Reply

#134 How much of that increase (in both # of observed and average speed) has to do with technology being able to detect, measure and record tropical storms, hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones that didn't make landfall or make landfall in what previously were sparsely populated and/or isolated parts of the world?

#139 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-09-12 02:10 PM | Reply

#134 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

Love that data thanks for sharing it.

? Question ? and not snarky one, I don't know the answer so.... With the advance in tech was the wind data taken with the same kind of equipment? Or are we getting more accurate readings of the wind speed then we were in 1900's?

#140 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-09-12 02:24 PM | Reply

Most of the old wind speed data was not measured speeds but speeds based on levels of damage.

www.crh.noaa.gov

#141 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-09-12 02:54 PM | Reply

#140 That was sorta what I was asking. We can fly airplanes through the eye today to measure wind speed and barometric pressure, but not in 1950, and we wouldn't even have known about some storms without satellites. If we had relied on 1950's technology for Irma, we would have recorded 135 mph winds on Barbuda and a Cat 2 at Naples. Using modern technology, we know Irma hit 185mph. That's a huge delta.

#142 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-09-12 02:58 PM | Reply

The other thing to consider is that when hurricanes increase in strength they also tend to increase in size. So not only are you gaining wind speed, you are also moving a much larger volume of air at that speed. So instead of the difference between being hit by a toyota at 60 and being hit by a toyota at 70 now its the difference between being hit by a toyota at 60 and being hit by a ford Galaxie 500 at 70.

#143 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-09-12 03:01 PM | Reply

Another thing Mustang is the same hurricane from 50 years ago will probably do far more damage today, because there's so much that's been built since then.

#144 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-12 03:36 PM | Reply

#144 True, as were all of what I consider to be a damned fine series of points going back to Hatter's original post. It's nice to engage in reasoned discussion on the DR from time to time.

#145 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-09-12 03:48 PM | Reply

Trump and his supporters are disgusting. He appointed a man who made his career fighting against the environment to be in charge of protecting the environment, and his approach has been to destroy the EPA.

I honestly love it when climate change deniers get hit by hurricanes, floods, droughts, and wildfires. I just wish non-stupid people didn't have to suffer too.

#146 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-12 04:44 PM | Reply

#145 Then Speaks goes and blows some hot air back on it.... really Speaks smh

#147 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-09-12 05:24 PM | Reply

#145 Then Speaks goes and blows some hot air back on it.... really Speaks smh

#147 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain

That's exactly how I feel every time a moron votes for a pollution-defending politician.

#148 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-12 05:32 PM | Reply

In ignoring the white noise......

So it's an interesting data set but without any real meaning then. Still liked the info, that was well done.

#149 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-09-12 05:35 PM | Reply

"We can fly airplanes through the eye today to measure wind speed and barometric pressure, but not in 1950"

I looked it up.
en.wikipedia.org

Manned flights into hurricanes began in 1943 when, on a bet, pilot-trainer Colonel Joseph Duckworth legendarily flew a single engine plane into a category 1 storm near Galveston, Texas.

...

Before satellites were used to find storms, military aircraft flew routine weather reconnaissance tracks to detect formation of tropical cyclones. Today, satellites have revolutionized weather forecasters' ability to detect signs of such cyclones before they form, yet they cannot determine the interior barometric pressure of a hurricane nor provide accurate wind speed information -- data needed to accurately predict hurricane development and movement.

#150 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-12 10:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Nice find snoofy!

#151 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-09-13 12:16 AM | Reply

#150 Nice...

#152 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-09-13 09:38 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort