Reply With Quote
Some islands got wiped off the map
90% of Barbuda is completely obliterated according to Barbuda governor
RIP
Some islands got wiped off the map
Probably lots of wooden shacks with zinc roofs :-( No preparation, no supplies like the gas tanks and water/food flowing into South Florida. Hopefully loss of life is low but where does one shelter from 185 mph winds? Even concrete buildings will blow away - maybe a cave in the side of a mountain?
Are you gonna write your name and SSN on your left like they're saying for people who ride out the storm?
Send pics, tbh.
I actually work out of home. I was a programmer for a while then went to telecommuting doing that but I was kind of at it so I got a search engine analyst job on the side (one of these people https://arstechnica.com/features/201...google-raters/) then they promoted me at that Leapforce so I just quit the programming. Plus I do other work at home sidebjobs (thing called UHRS for Bing plus some customer service e) So I'll still be able to work as long as internet is up. Kind of weirdly looking for forward to it thosince it is kind of weirdly fun going through a hurricane if you don't get any real damage obviouslyyou're actually in a /comfy/ spot then. The storm will have calmed down a little once it gets to your area, but I would make sure you have a full tank of gas and enough nonperishables for atleast a week without power. That's about what I did for Harvey but I was woefully underprepared with generators and like that. Make sure to have booze to enjoy the hurricane time off
I'd stay. I love my & don't want anyone to touch it.
We should all chip in and get you a plane ticket there son
Not sure you'd want to see middle-aged ones that'd been through 4 years of nursing :-)Send pics, tbh.
Lol, just a crude joke. I'm pushing 50 myself.
Hunker down and stay safe.
Record floods. Record temperatures. Record fires. Record droughts. Record rain. Record storm strength.
Three 100-year floods, just in Texas in two years.
We have been told that global warming is real, and it will cause more extreme weather events, and that those extremes will be worse than they would be otherwise.
What I read said that the storm went over a very warm eddy that spun off a regular gyre, and that the oceans are measureably warmer than they were even 30 years ago.
What does your data say about that gyre? Is that warm water gyre warmer, or in the normal range?
When do we get to say "yup, this is what they said would happen"?
Even die hards like Wild Cobra have given up at this point.
An AGW convo with KosmicParasite?
DESTROYED. An aerial photography taken and released by the Dutch department of Defense on September 6, 2017 shows the damage of Hurricane Irma in Philipsburg, on the Dutch Caribbean island of Sint Maarten. Gerben Van Es / Dutch Defense Ministry / AFP
French authorities say at least 8 lives have been lost on the French side of St Martin.
Rutte said the priority now was to get the airport in the southern Dutch part of the island up and running again, to enable aid to be brought in.
After holding crisis talks with his top cabinet ministers, Rutte confirmed "there is no power" on St Martin and the island's "infrastructure is badly damaged."
French Interior Minister Gerard Collomb told reporters the airport on the French side will be reopened, allowing helicopters and aircraft to supply aid.
"The airport in the north has not been hit so much," Collomb said.
Images shot by a Dutch naval helicopter over St Martin revealed the extent of Irma's trail of destruction.
Huge containers normally stacked at a port had been tossed aside like matchsticks, roofs had been peeled off buildings, and debris was scattered everywhere.
Boats in a marina lay on their sides, half-submerged in water.
"The priority now is to bring emergency aid to the people... consisting of sending food and water to 40,000 people over the coming 5 days," Dutch Interior Minister Ronald Plasterk said.
He said Royal Dutch Marine patrol ship Zeeland was in the area while support ship the Pelikaan is expected to arrive in the area at 1500 GMT.
Both carry personnel and vehicles and have the capacity to make potable water.
The Netherlands is also sending a KDC-10 jet to the Caribbean as well as making a C-130 transporter available from the southern Caribbean island of Curacao, Plasterk said.
"Our highest priority is to restore public amenities," naval Lieutenant Egbert Stoel told Dutch television RTL from Curacao.
Rutte also called on Dutch citizens to donate to a special fund set up by the Dutch Red Cross.
He warned there were renewed fears about oncoming Hurricane Jose, expected to make landfall in the area over the weekend.
Jose, classified as a Category One hurricane on the 5-level Saffir-Simpson scale, is hurtling through the Caribbean and set to follow in Irma's path. – Rappler.com
indeed. Predictability in a complex system is the hallmark of meteorological forecasting. There are just so many variables and very sensitive variables at that. However, the random variations in our climate, I think, are no match for the variations which are not bred by chance and thus, it is the latter that most likely leads to this systemic vertigo you speak of. And I agree that there is a psychological element to this but also an element that is just one of greed and dishonesty on a far more sentient level.
Watching the streams shows Irma is not ing around. Whilst I have prepared for the Big One on this side of the country, I can't imagine the constant fear hurricane season presents. Even if you're a denier ans whatnot, there has to be something in the back of your mind that allows you the chance that something is changing and furthermore impacting these storms. Either way, if you're in South Florida, be safe and don't let pride be the fall. If you can get out, do it.
I'm not a denier just not an outright believer yet. 2005 was just as bad and since then it's been relatively normal so that's not enough evidence for me. The only reason Harvey was bad was due to the fact that it stalled.
So far the only two reasons I feel somewhat inclined to believe in climate change are due to the media always shoving it down my throat and reading scientific papers that I'm too dumb to understand. But I don't see any evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger year by year
Now link me all the scientists who claim that climate change is causing more hurricanes
ing re
Media is awful at reporting scientific throry/findings. Would stick to the papers. Abstracts and conclusions are easy enough to understand. If their math is flawed, it would be challenged and eventually retracted. It's not like we have a shortage of skeptics chomping at the bit at a chance to prove the damn elitists wrong.
The main place you see denial is on TV in the form of some guest on a Fox program and in congress, usually from that one party. The only major political party among developed nations with their firm stance on that issue.
yeah that's what I was getting at. To kind of rephrase what I am saying, I trust the scientists like Manny that they know what they're doing as opposed to Alex Jones
But the link between current weather events and climate change is too complicated for me to understand. My issue is the common layman saying "Oh c'mon, two bad hurricanes in a row! You know it's gotta be climate change, right?" pretending like they actually know what's going on and that they didn't get it straight from CNN
yeah that's what I was getting at. To kind of rephrase what I am saying, I trust the scientists like Manny that they know what they're doing as opposed to Alex Jones
But the link between current weather events and climate change is too complicated for me to understand. My issue is the common layman saying "Oh c'mon, two bad hurricanes in a row! You know it's gotta be climate change, right?" pretending like they actually know what's going on and that they didn't get it straight from CNN
Sure but what would be the motivation of the climate treehugging hoaxers to persist with this "hoax"?
I just cant find any possible motivation from them, so I usually side with the climate change scientists. Pkus I know lots of scientists and although many exagerate their conclusions, they never would go along with a hoax imo
So, there were more landfalling storms in the eight years in the last bar than there were for more than 50% of the full decades of the last century?Even if you're a denier and whatnot, there has to be something in the back of your mind that allows you the chance that something is changing and furthermore impacting these storms.
Once again, your graph probably doesn't say what you think it does. About all you have done, yet again, is make a case for AGW.
(total for decade ended up at 19 hurricanes of cat 3 or higher hitting landfall for the decade, the 3rd highest total)
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/tropical-cyclones/201013
Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed
But what about those 3% of papers that reach contrary conclusions? Some skeptics have suggested that the authors of studies indicating that climate change is not real, not harmful, or not man-made are bravely standing up for the truth, like maverick thinkers of the past. (Galileo is often invoked, though his fellow scientists mostly agreed with his conclusions—it was church leaders who tried to suppress them.)
Not so, according to a review published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology. The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results.
“Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,” Hayhoe wrote in a Facebook post.https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scie...re-all-flawed/Broadly, there were three main errors in the papers denying climate change. Many had cherry-picked the results that conveniently supported their conclusion, while ignoring other context or records. Then there were some that applied inappropriate “curve-fitting”—in which they would step farther and farther away from data until the points matched the curve of their choosing.
And of course, sometimes the papers just ignored physics altogether. “In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup,” the authors write
https://link.springer.com/article/10...704-015-1597-5
Cherry picking is one of the main ways that really dishonest hacks use, in my experience.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
