OT: Hurricane Maria - Science Deniers Should Skip This One

[Stormin' Norman]

Nothing is cast in stone as of yet, but this is an interesting early assessment of the storm.

Science deniers should consider this to be rated "X"

[Kurt V. Ullman]

Yeah. Hurricanes are related to CC. That is why the average of both named hurricanes and major (Cat 3 or greater) has stayed basically the same over 48 years (1968-2016). The averages for years since Katrina (2006 to 2016) are the same as before 2005 (when Katrina struck and we were all told that was the new norm- 15 named hurricanes and 7 major ones). Those saying CC is the cause also are sorta ignoring that other factors impacting on hurricane formation including the La Nino/La Nina happening and the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation measures are in high territory for hurricane formation as is sunspot activity (although full disclosure requires me to say that this is a little iffy) this year. And weren't over the last few years when we 2 storms and no major ones in 2012, 2 and NONE in 2013, 6/2 in 14, 4/2 in 15 and 7/4 in 2016. So, if CC was really involved, why is there such a big variation over the years? And why has there been essentially no change in average since 1968? And why have alternate measurements been a much better predictor?

[Stormin' Norman]

Kurt, I suspect you have either not had your coffee or have recently switched to decaf.

A. Where in my post did I mention ANYTHING about CC?

B. My comment about science deniers had to do with the science of forecasting and the intricacies of the super computer modeling which was referenced in the video.

If you would like to have a discussion about climate change, we can do that, but for you to reply to my post, making assumptions and spewing non-sequitur scientific assertions is kind of sloppy, based upon what I have observed from you previously.

[Stormin' Norman]

It is fascinating when a Trump supporter inadvertently admits that Trump is a racist slob, even when it is done in jest.

[gfretwell]

Two days out the center of the plots was 120-150 miles off on Irma and that made the difference between whether I was just going to have a rainy day or have the eye come over my house as a Cat 3, which it did. Science is still evolving IMHO and if you looked at the models it is clear they were all just spit balling.

[Stormin' Norman]

It is all relative, it was during my lifetime that the only warning of approaching ocean storms, let alone hurricanes, came from ships and aircraft caught in those storms (if they weren't destroyed) and from falling barometric pressure.

Looking back at the scientific advancements in meteorology over the past century, the improvement is remarkable. I seriously doubt, thanks to science and the media, the USA will ever again see the massive hurricane death tolls like we saw in the 1915 Galveston storm which killed 8k - 12k people.

It is a GREAT thing that science continues to evolve. That is certainly something that can not be said of religion.

[trader_4]

+1

Here is the forecast from 8 days before it made landfall on FL, the models show it headed right for it.

Here it is 4 days out, clearly centered on FL.

Here it is 3 days out, clearly centered on FL.

IDK what better forecasting than that can be expected. The probability windows narrow, the forecasts become more accurate the more time goes on. But you can't have millions of people waiting until the last hours to evacuate. Unless you have your G4 waiting, like Rush.

I'm also not sure that characterizing it as the center of the plots was 120 to 150 miles off is correct. The forecast is that all the areas in the cone are at risk because we are dealing wit probabilities and exactly where it will hit won't be known until it hits. This was a powerful storm, hundreds of miles wide, the center missed many people by that much and there was still flooding, destruction, tornadoes, etc.

+1

But now they complain that two days before the models had the probability centered right on the east coast of FL, but it wound up on the west coast, inland a bit. And of course if you waited, 36 hours, 24 hours, the margin of uncertainty continued to decrease. Those forecasts look very good to me. Eight days out they had it aimed at most of FL, and that's what it hit, from Key West up to the Georgia border.

[Kurt V. Ullman]

Actually neither. It is a knee jerk reaction to the Deniers part. Took context and ran with it whether it was correct or not. Mea culpa

>

[Stormin' Norman]

No sweat.

By the way, the one thing you didn't consider with regard to hurricanes has been their size. The categorization system is almost completely dependent on wind speed.

If one considers the severity of a cat 3 storm that is 300 miles in diameter compared to the severity of a cat 3 storm that is 700 miles in diameter, it is obvious the categorization system currently in use is sorely lacking.

I have not done the research, but it would be interesting to evaluate not only the categorization, but also the size, amount of moisture released, total energy released (wind and electrical) duration and frequency of such storms on a year by year basis for as long as such records have been kept.

[Wally]

Maybe rate the hurricanes based on how many trailer houses they flatten?

[gfretwell]

I have no problem with science or religion but I do not want either one to be political footballs and they both are. Unpopular science does not get funded and unreligious candidates do not get elected. As far as global warming goes, no politically aware scientist will admit the problem is not the fuel we use, it is the number of people on the planet. The CO2 hockey stick looks exactly like the population hockey stick and that is undeniable. Just look. You just do not hear anyone say it. If you want to cut CO2 levels, scrub a few billion off the population and reforest/turf the land we have cleared to feed them. Making us all live like the 3d world will not help.

[Kurt V. Ullman]

The chart that I used for my diatribe includes accumulate cyclonic energy. Is a seasonal measure combining the number of systems, how long they lasted, and how intense they became,which probably talks to most of your concerns. This remains roughly the same over the last 11 years as compared to the 1968-2016 average. I figured the average ACE/storm and that has actually gone down from 8.08 during the entire time to 6.96 over the last 11 years. The standard deviation of all measures are really high, most around half of the average, so there is a LOT of scatter. (The ACE calculations were for ALL named storms including tropical storms hurricanes and subtropical storms. The rest were just hurricanes.)

[Stormin' Norman]

Would you please provide a link to the chart and associated study you referenced?

[Kurt V. Ullman]

Hurricane Research Div, NOAA.

[Stormin' Norman]

1. How would you propose scrubbing "a few billion people" off the planet? Genocide? Forced birth control? Public information campaigns in China, India, etc?
2. Science and religion are part of human society and will always be part of politics as long as both exist and society embraces democracy. You might not like it, but there you have it.
3. As for your comment about it not being the fuel, but the number of people. That reminds me of the arguments about obesity and guns. It's not the food, it's how much is consumed or, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

On the surface, the three arguments seem reasonably, but when scrutinized and carefully evaluated, they are specious. Fossil and other organic fuels are expedient and initially inexpensive, but, technical sources are far more logical and less harmful to all aspects of the environment.

Even if the world population were only 2 billion people; fusion, solar, tidal, and wind energy are far superior technologies. It makes no sense to plan on burning and emitting, as the dominant source of societal energy, when science and technology is making such rapid advances in renewable energy. Poisoning the planet more slowly, because of a fictional smaller population, is still poisoning the planet. Additionally, the issue isn't just climate change, but environmental damage as well.

Lockheed Martin's, Advanced Development Programs (a.k.a. The Skunkworks), is feverishly developing a compact fusion reactor. See:

Yes, we as a society could try to change the human desire and instinct to procreate, we could be draconian and commit genocide against yellow and brown people, we could sterilize Trump-like mentality inhabitants, or, we can move forward, develop new and better technologies in an effort to accommodate all.

I do agree that ultimately, population is an issue that must be dealt with and I do not have any reasonable, practical or moral solutions to that issue. Do you?

[trader_4]

I agree that no one will address the issue of population growth. Not just CO2 is linked to it, but so too is all pollution, the rapid reduction of rain forest, etc. A big part of the problem is the world's govt rely on unchecked population growth to fund their govt spending. In the USA if population growth declined, the national debt and social security underfunding would get proportionality worse. The only country that did try to address aFAIK was China.

[trader_4]

We could start by replacing a tax policy that encourages having more kids with one that does not. Same thing with the welfare policy. The more kids you have, the more welfare you get. If you're an illegal, you can't get welfare, but if you have 4 kids, they can.

Technology can only do so much. It's not going to replace the rainforests and similar being cut down all over the world which is fueled by human expansion, for example. It's not going to replace the species being wiped out as they continue to lose their habitat. Why does the population have to continue to grow and what's wrong with trying to take steps to deal with it?

That makes no sense. What's fictional? If population growth was slowed, or stopped, it would not be fictional, anymore than any other possible way of reducing pollution. And saying we're still poisoning the planet, you could say that about anything, like reducing pollution from autos, they are still polluting, so why bother?

Additionally, the issue isn't just climate change, but

Good grief, we have been trying for 40+ years to develop *any* kind of fusion reactor, never mind a compact one.

"This concept uses a high fraction of the magnetic field pressure, or all o f its potential, so we can make our devices 10 times smaller than previous concepts. That means we can replace a device that must be housed in a large building with one that can fit on the back of a truck.concepts.

ROFL. There is nothing to replace! It's taken 40 years and billions to create whole factory size devices to just demonstrate breakeven energy output, or a bit beyond, for a nanosecond. No one has shown anything anywhere close to being capable of generating commercial power. And that's not even with taking cost into account. With billions poured into it, we haven't generated the first kilowatt hour of power, at any cost.

"The smaller the size of the device, the easier it is to build up momentum and develop it faster. Instead of taking five years to design and build a c oncept, it takes only a few months. If we undergo a few of these testing an d refinement cycles, we will be able to develop a prototype within the same five year timespan."

It's never been the size of the device. Do they think all the world's scientists never thought that, gee if we make it smaller it will work? Building small things fast doesn't solve the inherent physics and engineering problems that everyone has known about for 40 years and so far, no one has a solution.

I'd say this is probably an example of what you get when there are govt funds being handed out. This almost certainly is federally funded and Lockheed will do anything as long as the govt funds it, no matter if it makes sense or not. They need some angle, they found it, they got someone to fund it.

Oh please, stop the drama. Gfre made a very reasonable comment and you turn it into genocide?

[Stormin' Norman]

Your tax policy changes are USA centric, which is the third most populace nation on the planet with approximately 330 million people. How would you propose dealing with countries like:

China - 1,379,302,771 India - 1,281,935,911 Indonesia - 260,580,739 Brazil - 207,353,391 Pakistan - 204,924,861 Nigeria - 190,632,26 Bangladesh - 157,826,578

A smaller world-wide human population is fictional, it has never been purposely accomplished and has certainly not happened at all in the past 1400 years or longer.

Can you cite a single decade, in the past 1400 years where the overall human population of the planet declined?

A whole 40 years? I had no idea it had been that long. Then, by all means, fusion power is an impossibility........ ;-)

Do you pay any attention to the way in which you phrase your comments?

My question as to how anyone proposes to reduce the human population of the planet, which is something that has never been purposely accomplished by society, is a reasonable one. Just as the possible options I listed are not outside the experience of human history.

Reducing the world population is a lofty and worthwhile goal, to be sure, but, tell me how you propose to accomplish such reductions in places and societies such as China, India, Pakistan and Brazil? be specific, please.

[Kurt V. Ullman]

It is actually happening already. The World Bank stats note that the fertility rate of the world has been cut in half since 1960 and currently sits at 2.5. This is how many kids per woman. 2.0 is usually considered replacement (1 kid for the woman and 1 kid for the man to put it rather grossly). Most of your list is at or near replacement fertility rates with exception of Afghan and Nigeria and both of these are at least 1/3 of what they were in 1960.

So. population growth related to birthin' babies has slowed and is nearly at replacement world wide. The reason for growth in the population numbers is largely on life expectancy at birth. World wide life expectancy at birth has increased between 60 and 2015 by 20 years. So it isn't that lots of people are being born, it is just that lots of people are hanging on longer. I don't have an exact time, but probably within the next 50 years or so, if fertility rates stay the same and life expectancy stabilizes you will begin to see a drop in population, on purpose.

It is not only possible, it is inevitable. (assuming no major changes for the "worse" in fertility rates and life expectancy.)

[gfretwell]

I didn't say I had a socially acceptable answer and neither does "science", The religious and the athirst progressives both think every life is sacred and they make unnatural efforts to save every sick person. Then they wonder why the population blossoms. The fact is still there that CO2 tracks population as closely as any other metric. It started with the rise in agriculture 8000 years ago. It is simply because crops are no match to natural ecosystems when it comes to sinking CO2. Just about the time they get going good, we cut them down, plow under the part we don't eat and look at largely barren soil for months. That is more of a problem in the tropical 3d world than it is in the temperate zones where the ground is covered with snow. Brazil draining the wet lands and burning the rain forest to use "renewable" ethanol is worse than if they just burned oil. I suppose the thing that will scrub off those billions will be thermonuclear war.