Political Gallery

[Spirit]

Oh sweet bouncing Buddha

 

 

[arch stanton]

Is that someone whose opinion should matter to me?

[Blarg]

No. She is an idiot. 

[krAbs]

She's also right - there has been an uptick in the amount and severity of hurricanes that correlates with global warming, and based on our understanding of hurricane formation this 100% makes sense. Obviously no individual hurricane can be blamed on global warming, but we WOULD certainly have less, and less severe, hurricanes if it wasn't for human caused global warming. She is harsh, sure, but...

[Spirit]

Sooo ... there were no hurricanes prior to humans creating global warming.

Got it.

 

[mtangelsfan]

15 minutes ago, krAbs said:

She's also right - there has been an uptick in the amount and severity of hurricanes that correlates with global warming, and based on our understanding of hurricane formation this 100% makes sense. Obviously no individual hurricane can be blamed on global warming, but we WOULD certainly have less, and less severe, hurricanes if it wasn't for human caused global warming. She is harsh, sure, but...

Uh ok, I guess bad hurricanes only started after the Industrial Age.

[mtangelsfan]

The next great California earthquake will be because of fracking 

[krAbs]

3 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

Uh ok, I guess bad hurricanes only started after the Industrial Age.

"amount and severity of hurricanes". Its like...if pujols suddenly started batting like trout, we would notice. He still gets hits now, and he gets some good ones, but there would be more, and better, if he suddenly started hitting like trout. You wouldn't be able to point to any one of them and say "there! that hit is because he is hitting like trout now!" because he got hits before. but on the whole, there would be a change. That change is super significant when we know the cause, and the effect is mass death and devastation.

[mtangelsfan]

There is absolutely no direct link, no proof that this hurricane is due to global warming

[mtangelsfan]

Next tsunami will be caused by illegal poaching

[krAbs]

5 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

There is absolutely no direct link, no proof that this hurricane is due to global warming

This one specifically, but in general warmer waters cause more and worse hurricanes, meaning in general there will be more. Its statistics at that point. So, that could be said of each and every hurricane. You can make the same argument about Pujols turned trout - every hit that he has, every home run that he hits, there is no proof that THAT specific hit is because of his new Troutlike abilities. You can say that for each hit and be correct, while being horribly wrong in the aggregate.

[krAbs]

https://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm

I stand (partially) corrected. It appears the storm LIKELY would have existed with or without global warming. BUT, its also entirely possible (likely even) that it would be much less severe- possibly not even warranting a name.

[Spirit]

3 minutes ago, krAbs said:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm

I stand (partially) corrected. It appears the storm LIKELY would have existed with or without global warming. BUT, its also entirely possible (likely even) that it would be much less severe- possibly not even warranting a name.

 

Saying it's possible that it would have been less severe is a much different assertion than saying, "Weather does not cause disasters." 

 

 

[krAbs]

5 minutes ago, Geoff said:

 

Saying it's possible that it would have been less severe is a much different assertion than saying, "Weather does not cause disasters." 

 

 

Sure. Well...possible it wouldn't even be big enough to be named, but almost certain that it would be less severe. But, yeah, she for sure went too far- but...her basic point that this is probably not really a totally natural occurrence, and would almost certainly not be as big of a deal if it wasn't for global warming, is almost certainly true. I kinda hate the extreme language in politics...truth is much more nuanced than rhetoric, even if you're correct with a base point...

ANYWAYS. Off with the gallery! Sorry for the disruption. 

[Thomas]

3 hours ago, krAbs said:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm

I stand (partially) corrected. It appears the storm LIKELY would have existed with or without global warming. BUT, its also entirely possible (likely even) that it would be much less severe- possibly not even warranting a name.

The main question nobody is sure yet is how climate change will affect all aspects of what is required for tropical storms to be generated and intensify.  If sea temperatures rise that obviously impacts the need for the water to be above 80F. But what isn't known is how everything else is impacted. Tropical systems require favorable upper level winds. Harvey was previously disapated because of strong upper level sheer. After it reformed the same lack of upper level winds that has it stuck in Texas was super conducive for storm intensification. Will climate change make these winds more or less favorable in the future? How will upper level winds impact where the storms hit? Will the required waves of tropical instability increase in number or decrease? If anyone says they can answer that yet they're lying to you. 

[Jason]

4 hours ago, mtangelsfan said:

There is absolutely no direct link, no proof that this hurricane is due to global warming

That's very anti science sounding

[Kevin]

I have no opinion on the matter. I just wanted to use this. 

[Jason]

[Spirit]

[krAbs]

On 8/26/2017 at 4:18 PM, Thomas said:

The main question nobody is sure yet is how climate change will affect all aspects of what is required for tropical storms to be generated and intensify.  If sea temperatures rise that obviously impacts the need for the water to be above 80F. But what isn't known is how everything else is impacted. Tropical systems require favorable upper level winds. Harvey was previously disapated because of strong upper level sheer. After it reformed the same lack of upper level winds that has it stuck in Texas was super conducive for storm intensification. Will climate change make these winds more or less favorable in the future? How will upper level winds impact where the storms hit? Will the required waves of tropical instability increase in number or decrease? If anyone says they can answer that yet they're lying to you. 

What you're talking about has more to do with the number of storms though, correct? What I mean to say here has more to do with the strength of them. The question is certainly still out about whether or not more storms will appear, but the reality is that, as is shown in the link I posted before, there is a huge correlation between warming waters and higher category hurricanes. This isn't some question of "who knows what future change will bring" as much as looking at what the change that has already happened has brought. Sure, correlation doesn't imply causation, but this whole thing would be one hell of a coincidence. Its also possible, because weather prediction from climate models is very difficult, that you could get unexpected results from further warming. But, it is extremely difficult to make a convincing case that the extreme storms we have been seeing lately haven't been made more powerful from global warming. Hell, there is even talk of creating a new category of hurricane because of some recent incredibly strong ones.

ALSO, even outside of the 'warming -> larger storms' issue, warming DOES increase sea levels (because liquids take up more volume at higher temperatures - in this case, levels are up an average of 6 inches), which makes flooding much worse.

[Thomas]

16 minutes ago, krAbs said:

What you're talking about has more to do with the number of storms though, correct? What I mean to say here has more to do with the strength of them. The question is certainly still out about whether or not more storms will appear, but the reality is that, as is shown in the link I posted before, there is a huge correlation between warming waters and higher category hurricanes. This isn't some question of "who knows what future change will bring" as much as looking at what the change that has already happened has brought. Sure, correlation doesn't imply causation, but this whole thing would be one hell of a coincidence. Its also possible, because weather prediction from climate models is very difficult, that you could get unexpected results from further warming. But, it is extremely difficult to make a convincing case that the extreme storms we have been seeing lately haven't been made more powerful from global warming. Hell, there is even talk of creating a new category of hurricane because of some recent incredibly strong ones.

ALSO, even outside of the 'warming -> larger storms' issue, warming DOES increase sea levels (because liquids take up more volume at higher temperatures - in this case, levels are up an average of 6 inches), which makes flooding much worse.

Even the intensity may be affected. If the upper level winds are affected in certain way by changing weather patterns the storms be unable to form as often or would be impacted enough to limit development. Granted these may also change in a way that would increase the number of storms and the intensity. Harvey has reentered the Gulf to very warm temps but there is too much sheer for considerable strengthening before it reaches land again. These changes may vary depending on location as well. For instance combined with increased sea temperatures we may see an increase in tropical activity in the Atlantic of the Southern Hemisphere while another area would see a decrease or even a complete elimination of storms. Remember that a rise in sea temperatures in one part of the world has seen an effect on the number of hurricanes in another part of the world. This would include a dramatic decrease in tropical activity in the Atlantic during El Nino years.  Remember also that it was only in the 1960s that we even knew about all the storms in the Atlantic, let alone around the globe. Before satellites meteorologists would often depend on reports from ships regarding these storms and to say the data was incomplete is kind.  This means the amount of data is limited in scope. It's the meteorologists who have been either cautious to downright skeptical of our current ability to accurately model what these changes will mean, especially in any one location.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/knutson-et-al-nat-geo.pdf

 

[red321]

 

[Thomas]

43 minutes ago, red321 said:

 

Well to be fair I don't think she's ever said where she was that night. Unless someone asked her which would have been weird.

[Tank]

wait a sec. katrina happened 12 years ago. the obamas were not in the white house then.

[Thomas]

8 minutes ago, Tank said:

wait a sec. katrina happened 12 years ago. the obamas were not in the white house then.

Yeah pretty much why Red posted it.