• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Eden is Broken:" Carribean Leader Calls For Action on Climate Change

longview said:
So did I say the people harmed were Americans, no! the inflation numbers in the US matter little to
a guy in Africa trying to feed his family on $30 a month, but the price of corn going up by nearly double
in a decade sure matters.
Click to expand...
sigh

Yet again! Ethanol is NOT GREEN. It generates CO2. Most environmentalists do not support, and did not advocate, for ethanol mandates. Many don't even like it for animal feed, as it's an inefficient use of the resource, as well as bad for the animals.

Nor is there any reason to believe that ethanol mandates in the US were responsible for all of the price increases. How could that possibly be the case, since the mandates weren't changed in the years when corn prices fell? Why did wheat prices spike in 2007, collapse in 2008, rise slowly until 2012, and fell after that? Why did maize, wheat, and rice all follow similar price trajectories during that period? Could it be that... wait for it... something other than US biofuel mandates affected the price?!? Unpossible!

And again, if you're worried about the cost of food going up in Africa, you should really be worried about global warming, which is going to cause lots of harm to African agriculture. There will be more droughts, more floods, less arable land, greater strain on water supplies, all of which will reduce agricultural yields. Plus, as international yields drop, *cough* global prices will go up. Sorry to say that your concern seems awfully... narrow? Targeted, perhaps?

The Conversation: Climate Change is Hitting African Farmers the Hardest of All

Much like Dominica, it is the poorest nations which have coincidentally done the least to exacerbate climate change, who disproportionately feel its impacts.
 
longview said:
You are citing different things from the same storm....
Click to expand...
Err, hello? I'm explaining that Harvey was not normal. By definition, this is going to involve discussing different aspects of the same storm.


Harvey was a very bad hurricane where it hit the coast in
Rockport, but the rainfall totals from Rockport were those of a normal hurricane.
Click to expand...
Hello? Does the phrase "record rainfall" genuinely not ring a bell? No? How about Rockport TX getting an annual rainfall of 36" per year?


Regional weather patterns, not global warming, caused Harvey to stall over the Houston area.
Click to expand...
sigh (again)

- Harvey dumped massive amounts of rain in no small part because there was more water vapor in the atmosphere, due to warming
- The pressure systems that caused Harvey to stall may well have been influenced by climate change, pretty sure I've mentioned that to you before
(https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/28/climate-change-hurricane-harvey-more-deadly)

I find your protestations of normalcy to be decidedly unconvincing.
 
Visbek said:
sigh

Yet again! Ethanol is NOT GREEN. It generates CO2. Most environmentalists do not support, and did not advocate, for ethanol mandates. Many don't even like it for animal feed, as it's an inefficient use of the resource, as well as bad for the animals.

Nor is there any reason to believe that ethanol mandates in the US were responsible for all of the price increases. How could that possibly be the case, since the mandates weren't changed in the years when corn prices fell? Why did wheat prices spike in 2007, collapse in 2008, rise slowly until 2012, and fell after that? Why did maize, wheat, and rice all follow similar price trajectories during that period? Could it be that... wait for it... something other than US biofuel mandates affected the price?!? Unpossible!

And again, if you're worried about the cost of food going up in Africa, you should really be worried about global warming, which is going to cause lots of harm to African agriculture. There will be more droughts, more floods, less arable land, greater strain on water supplies, all of which will reduce agricultural yields. Plus, as international yields drop, *cough* global prices will go up. Sorry to say that your concern seems awfully... narrow? Targeted, perhaps?

The Conversation: Climate Change is Hitting African Farmers the Hardest of All

Much like Dominica, it is the poorest nations which have coincidentally done the least to exacerbate climate change, who disproportionately feel its impacts.
Click to expand...

It does not matter what most environmentalist support but the bad legislation that results from people
wanting to feel like they are doing something.
Again there is not a causative link between AGW and hurricanes being somehow different.
The Rates of sea level rise have not accelerated, and so on.
The trend to blame every unusual weather event on AGW get a bit tiresome,
we have weather, sometimes it is very bad.
 
Visbek said:
Err, hello? I'm explaining that Harvey was not normal. By definition, this is going to involve discussing different aspects of the same storm.



Hello? Does the phrase "record rainfall" genuinely not ring a bell? No? How about Rockport TX getting an annual rainfall of 36" per year?



sigh (again)

- Harvey dumped massive amounts of rain in no small part because there was more water vapor in the atmosphere, due to warming
- The pressure systems that caused Harvey to stall may well have been influenced by climate change, pretty sure I've mentioned that to you before
(https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/28/climate-change-hurricane-harvey-more-deadly)

I find your protestations of normalcy to be decidedly unconvincing.
Click to expand...
The difference is that the Hurricane Harvey that hit Rockport, and the tropical Storm Harvey that deposited
all the rain on SE Texas were separated by several days.
A Hurricane may have come in, but a stalled tropical storm is what deposited all the rain.
Any large tropical storm that stalled would do the same, but perhaps only over a smaller area.
1979 Tropical storm Claudette dropped 45 inches of rain near Alvin, just down the road,
large parts of Southeast Houston flooded, (many of the same places that flooded again).
Again the only difference with Harvey was time over target.
 
longview said:
Like people up north prepare for and expect blizzards, Near the coast we watch for Hurricanes.
I been through 4 major Hurricanes, a few small one and a bunch of tropical storms.
They are all different, yet have some common features.
Thankfully Houston drains very well, and we had enough time between bands to drain.
My unofficial rainfall total was about 48 inches between the evening of Aug 26 to the morning of Aug 29.
A weather center about 6 miles away showed 52 inches.
I know the news coverage showed lots of damage, and there was a lot, but 80% of the city did not flood.
That 20 % is still many thousands of homes and businesses.
Click to expand...

There probably would have less flooding by both Harvey and Irma, if not for AGW. According to the models, the additional effect from AGW, is currently 1.7% to 2.6%, assuming a linear relationship.

The actual numbers from IPCC models are between 2% and 11% increase in hurricane intensity by the end of the 21st century. Assuming a linear relationship, we are 17% of the way to the end of the century. So currently our increase in hurricane intensity would stand between 0.34% and 1.87%. Rainfall rates associated with hurricanes will increase by 10-15% by the end of the century, which puts us currently at 1.7% to 2.6%.

There are two ways to look at this data. First, one can say the percentages are small. However, using a modest 2% for argument's sake, a 24-hour storm, with flooding, could be extended for another 30 minutes. A lot can happen in that 30 minutes. A dam could give way. Another neighborhood could flood. Water could penetrate an area of electrical equipment. Somebody could be killed in that 30 minutes. When one is the midst of a disaster, 30 minutes is a long time. And that 30 minutes will be more than 60 minutes, for our next generation, and about 100 minutes for the generation after that.
 
longview said:
The difference is that the Hurricane Harvey that hit Rockport, and the tropical Storm Harvey that deposited
all the rain on SE Texas were separated by several days....
Click to expand...
cdc.png


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hurricane-harvey-why-is-it-so-extreme/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nprecedented-in-scale/?utm_term=.62918c4407c1
https://patch.com/texas/across-tx/hurricane-harvey-flooding-strands-animals-too
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/us/hurricane-harvey-warnings-unprecedented.html
Harvey: 'Unprecedented' flooding 'beyond anything experienced' inundates Houston area, kills at least 3 - ABC News
http://mashable.com/2017/08/25/hurricane-harvey-unprecedented-flood-risk/#yarJdXzfgOqG
https://newrepublic.com/article/144497/heres-hurricane-harvey-scary-unprecedented

Sorry dude, but I'm sticking with the professionals on this one.
 
Media_Truth said:
There probably would have less flooding by both Harvey and Irma, if not for AGW. According to the models, the additional effect from AGW, is currently 1.7% to 2.6%, assuming a linear relationship.

The actual numbers from IPCC models are between 2% and 11% increase in hurricane intensity by the end of the 21st century. Assuming a linear relationship, we are 17% of the way to the end of the century. So currently our increase in hurricane intensity would stand between 0.34% and 1.87%. Rainfall rates associated with hurricanes will increase by 10-15% by the end of the century, which puts us currently at 1.7% to 2.6%.

There are two ways to look at this data. First, one can say the percentages are small. However, using a modest 2% for argument's sake, a 24-hour storm, with flooding, could be extended for another 30 minutes. A lot can happen in that 30 minutes. A dam could give way. Another neighborhood could flood. Water could penetrate an area of electrical equipment. Somebody could be killed in that 30 minutes. When one is the midst of a disaster, 30 minutes is a long time. And that 30 minutes will be more than 60 minutes, for our next generation, and about 100 minutes for the generation after that.
Click to expand...

A lot of assumptions there, no Dr. Neil Frank the former director of the national Hurricane center agrees with my assessment.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/25/enough-is-enough-stop-hyping-harvey-and-irma/

The amount of rain in a tropical system is not related to the strength of the wind, it depends on the forward speed of motion. Before we had sophisticated numerical models to forecast the amount of rain a system would produce, we used a simple empirical equation that gave good results. Determine the forward speed of motion and divide it into 100.

If a tropical system is moving 10 mph, expect 10 inches of rain, 20 inches for a system moving 5 mph and if the forward speed is only 2 mph be prepared for 50 inches. That is exactly what happened in Harvey. The hurricane was moving around 2 mph for 3 days and a broad band of 40 to 50 inches of rain covered a large portion of southeast Texas and southwest Louisiana.
Click to expand...
Harvey dumped a lot of rain because it stalled, nothing to do with AGW.
 
 
longview said:
A lot of assumptions there, no Dr. Neil Frank the former director of the national Hurricane center agrees with my assessment.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/25/enough-is-enough-stop-hyping-harvey-and-irma/


Harvey dumped a lot of rain because it stalled, nothing to do with AGW.
Click to expand...

I agree that stalling is the main reason. However, "nothing" is a very-very big word, and totally goes against the current scientific consensus. The science models show that the storm could have lasted another 30 minutes and/or had an increase in water of about 2% due to AGW.
 
Media_Truth said:
I agree that stalling is the main reason. However, "nothing" is a very-very big word, and totally goes against the current scientific consensus. The science models show that the storm could have lasted another 30 minutes and/or had an increase in water of about 2% due to AGW.
Click to expand...
Anything is possible, but as Dr. Frank said the formula they have been using for almost a century for
predicting Hurricane rain fall amounts, continued to be accurate, meaning any difference from "normal",
waw within the standard deviation.
 
longview said:
A lot of assumptions there, no Dr. Neil Frank the former director of the national Hurricane center agrees with my assessment.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/25/enough-is-enough-stop-hyping-harvey-and-irma/
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is the retired meteorologist who believes that God deliberately constructed the climate so that it is "self-regulating."

Meanwhile, the vast majority of practicing meteorologists who were working on the storm say that it was unprecedented (see previous wall of links).

Yet another instance where WUWT = Fail
 
Visbek said:
Yeah, this is the retired meteorologist who believes that God deliberately constructed the climate so that it is "self-regulating."

Meanwhile, the vast majority of practicing meteorologists who were working on the storm say that it was unprecedented (see previous wall of links).

Yet another instance where WUWT = Fail
Click to expand...
Dr. Frank was the director of the national Hurricane center for many years, before becoming a TV meteorologist.
The man has spent his lifetime professionally studying Hurricanes.
 
longview said:
Dr. Frank was the director of the national Hurricane center for many years, before becoming a TV meteorologist.
The man has spent his lifetime professionally studying Hurricanes.
Click to expand...
The man is a climate change denier, writing on a site dedicated to climate change denialism.

Meanwhile, pretty much every other reliable (read: scientific) source I can find recognizes that Harvey was unprecedented, and that at climate change contributed to its intensity, rainfall, storm surge and other factors. Some, as noted, even believe that the pressure systems which pinned Harvey down were influenced by climate change.

I suggest you find a better source to back up your claim.
 
Visbek said:
The man is a climate change denier, writing on a site dedicated to climate change denialism.

Meanwhile, pretty much every other reliable (read: scientific) source I can find recognizes that Harvey was unprecedented, and that at climate change contributed to its intensity, rainfall, storm surge and other factors. Some, as noted, even believe that the pressure systems which pinned Harvey down were influenced by climate change.

I suggest you find a better source to back up your claim.
Click to expand...

The man is a Phd who specialization is in Hurricanes, and has spent a professional lifetime studying Hurricanes and the weather.
I can add my own observations, It has rained just as hard in other tropical events (2 to 3 inches an hour),
the only difference was the length of time the storm hung around.
 
Visbek said:
Yeah, this is the retired meteorologist who believes that God deliberately constructed the climate so that it is "self-regulating."

Meanwhile, the vast majority of practicing meteorologists who were working on the storm say that it was unprecedented (see previous wall of links).

Yet another instance where WUWT = Fail
Click to expand...

Visbek said:
The man is a climate change denier, writing on a site dedicated to climate change denialism.

Meanwhile, pretty much every other reliable (read: scientific) source I can find recognizes that Harvey was unprecedented, and that at climate change contributed to its intensity, rainfall, storm surge and other factors. Some, as noted, even believe that the pressure systems which pinned Harvey down were influenced by climate change.

I suggest you find a better source to back up your claim.
Click to expand...

Your blind prejudice is leading you astray.
 
Jack Hays said:
Your blind prejudice is leading you astray.
Click to expand...
Remember the Phd's are judged by how closely they toe the AGW line, not their credentials or experience.
 
longview said:
Remember the Phd's are judged by how closely they toe the AGW line, not their credentials or experience.
Click to expand...
So basically, you can't find anyone else who is a professional climate scientist or meteorologist who supports his view. Noted.
 
Visbek said:
So basically, you can't find anyone else who is a professional climate scientist or meteorologist who supports his view. Noted.
Click to expand...


[h=1]Irma illusions – and realities[/h]If human emissions made Irma worse, did they also bring the 12-year lull in Cat 4-5 hurricanes? Paul Driessen Hurricanes Harvey and Irma brought out the best in us. Millions of Americans are giving money, toil and sweat to help victims rebuild. Unfortunately, the storms also highlighted some people’s baser instincts. Some advanced ideological commitments…
 
Visbek said:
So basically, you can't find anyone else who is a professional climate scientist or meteorologist who supports his view. Noted.
Click to expand...


[h=1]New book: ‘Why Hurricanes Can’t Be Blamed On Global Warming ‘[/h]By Dr. Roy Spencer. Partly in response to the crazy claims of the usual global warming experts (Stevie Wonder, Beyoncé, Jennifer Lawrence, Mark Ruffalo, Bill Nye the Science Guy, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Pope Francis), I decided to write another Kindle e-book. This one is entitled, Inevitable Disaster: Why Hurricanes Can’t Be Blamed On Global Warming. …


 
Visbek said:
So basically, you can't find anyone else who is a professional climate scientist or meteorologist who supports his view. Noted.
Click to expand...


[h=1]What you need to know and are not told about hurricanes[/h]By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website Summary: Millions of words were expended reporting about Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, but too little about the science connecting them to climate change. Here are the details, contrasted with the propaganda barrage of those seeking to exploit these disasters for political gain. Let’s listen to these scientists…

2 weeks ago September 15, 2017 in hurricanes.
 
Visbek said:
So basically, you can't find anyone else who is a professional climate scientist or meteorologist who supports his view. Noted.
Click to expand...
Not at all Judith Curry wrote a similar piece, noting that the waters in the central Atlantic
were not unusually warm.
 
longview said:
Remember the Phd's are judged by how closely they toe the AGW line, not their credentials or experience.
Click to expand...

He's a retired weatherman. Meteorologists are all over the map about climate change. Climatologists are the specialists who study the science, not meteorologists.
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=1]What you need to know and are not told about hurricanes[/h]By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website Summary: Millions of words were expended reporting about Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, but too little about the science connecting them to climate change. Here are the details, contrasted with the propaganda barrage of those seeking to exploit these disasters for political gain. Let’s listen to these scientists…

2 weeks ago September 15, 2017 in hurricanes.
Click to expand...
The very accurate models show that hurricanes carry more water due to AGW. By the end of the 21st century, they will carry 10-15% more water. Assuming a linear model, this puts us around 2% now. That percentage may not sound like much. However, a 24-hour storm could be extended by 30 minutes. In that 30 minutes, levees could overflow, dams could rupture, electrical facilities could see water encroachment, people could die. It's also important to note that the 30 minutes will become 60 minutes for our next generation, and 100 minutes for our grandchildren.
 
Visbek said:
New Yorker article
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news...ean-leader-calls-for-action-on-climate-change

Roosevelt Skerrit is the PM of Dominica, which has been disproportionately impacted by climate change.

To deny climate change is to procrastinate while the earth sinks; it is to deny a truth we have just lived. It is to mock thousands of my compatriots who in a few hours without a roof over their heads will watch the night descend on Dominica, in fear of sudden mudslides . . . and what the next hurricane may bring.... My fellow-leaders, there is no more time for conversation. There is little time left for action. While the big countries talk, the small island nations suffer. We need action and we need it now.
Click to expand...

How much money do they want? When someone says "We need action", it usually translates to " We need money"......
 
A small island in the middle of warm water.

Throw in almost non existent building codes in a lot of areas of the island............ and on the hillsides no less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom