Based on what criteria?Originally Posted by Eric the Green
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Posts
- 2,244
Based on what criteria?
Well, according to the font of all human knowledge, it has the highest 1-min sustained wind speed of any tropical cyclone to ever make landfall, exceeding (by 5 mph) the previous record, set in 1969. It is also the second deadliest typhoon to strike the Phillippines, behind Thelma in 1991.
So, by Eric standards of logic, we can safely infer that he cares more about wind speed records than he does about people's lives.
Unfortunately you haven't stated any facts yet. Were you going to, or were you just planning on offering more of the same?
I also noticed you haven't blamed the slow hurricane season on the Democrats. That would seem to be a major oversight on your part. Perhaps you should try to make that argument?
Last edited by Copperfield; 11-14-2013 at 08:35 PM.
Ah! Wind speed. That is a criterion excellent for making a comparison.Well, according to the font of all human knowledge, it has the highest 1-min sustained wind speed of any tropical cyclone to ever make landfall, exceeding (by 5 mph) the previous record, set in 1969. It is also the second deadliest typhoon to strike the Phillippines, behind Thelma in 1991.
So, by Eric standards of logic, we can safely infer that he cares more about wind speed records than he does about people's lives.
What we have to be careful about is Eric's use of the term ever. Ever in this case actually means during the period that we have been able to reliably measure wind speeds which is only maybe 100 years. Very accurate measurements have only been possible for the past 50 or 60 years.
If one wants to measure "worst ever" by death toll, then one need to go all the way back to the 1970 Bhola cyclone which hit Bangladesh and killed an estimated 500,000. There are no death estimates from Haiyan that come anywhere near that number. It likely won't exceed 10,000.
Sorry, no can do. I need to get a stronger one. But meanwhile, you could help the Earth by taking on vandal once in a while instead of me. This post of his was clearly nonsense from start to finish. Pick on your fellow Xer for a change; we boomers have been bashed enough already. Time to start a new political faction: the BEA Party!
Xers who wish to stuff my bullhorn, are also stuffing their ears so they don't have to hear the truth and the facts from anyone.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 11-14-2013 at 08:51 PM.
It was also extremely obvious to anyone who heard the report that this was the criterion. And if you didn't, what planet are you living on, pray tell? I see it was so obvious that even Jordan got it!
I think that's all correct, but it doesn't matter. Just as One Direction's new song is not the Best Song Ever, it's still their best song ever. So in this case, the important point is that storms are getting worse, people are dying, and Republicans have refused to deal with the cause. Those who continue to vote for them, are contributing to the problem, even if one vote by itself is not a big deal. Wise up; stop supporting global warming. But then, if this problem does not interest you (in which case I also question what planet you are living on), then you might as well go on as you are doing.What we have to be careful about is Eric's use of the term ever. Ever in this case actually means during the period that we have been able to reliably measure wind speeds which is only maybe 100 years. Very accurate measurements have only been possible for the past 50 or 60 years.
If one wants to measure "worst ever" by death toll, then one need to go all the way back to the 1970 Bhola cyclone which hit Bangladesh and killed an estimated 500,000. There are no death estimates from Haiyan that come anywhere near that number. It likely won't exceed 10,000.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 11-14-2013 at 08:51 PM.
Republicans deny global warming, and have for decades. Democrats generally don't. Global warming is caused by human use of fossil fuels for energy. That's a fact. President Carter and Gov. Brown started the process of shifting to solar and wind energy in the 1970s. Reagan stopped it. Clinton and Gore started it again; the Republicans stalled it and Bush refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol. Obama and the Democrats proposed cap and trade and carbon taxes, and set new car mileage standards. Republicans are still denialists; they passed oil company subsidies, and insist on the Keystone Pipeline and more oil drilling instead of supporting alternative energy. Polls show that Republicans are far less concerned with the problem than Democrats. 90-55 is a pretty big difference; as President Clinton might have said, that's "arithmetic." Is that enough facts for you? Given that these facts were obvious to begin with, why do you have the need to argue with my statement and call my pronouncement an idiot one?
And again, by what criteria are "the storms getting worse"? How much worse? 0.00001% worse? 5% worse? 75% worse? Worse for whom? What is the cost/benefit analysis?
Go on and work on that math. I'll wait.
Why do you feel the need to bob and weave and utterly fail to address the single issue I raised a couple of days ago: Single weather events cannot be directly attributed to global warming or the Republican party, and that trying to do so in the clumsy and cack-handed fashion you have in this thread undermines all of the serious points that could be raised on the subject instead.
Stop damaging your side, dude. How difficult is it for you to understand? Presenting nonsense arguments in favor of a position hurts that position.
I already adjusted and clarified my statements sufficiently. So you can call it bobbing and weaving when I adjust them, and nonsense when I don't.
You are not on my side; I don't need your silly advice. Correct your own posts before you prattle on about mine.
Without Republican inaction, the fact is that the typhoon would have been less severe. No-one knows by how much.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 11-14-2013 at 09:34 PM.
While you wait, you might estimate how many Republicans it takes to screw in a light bulb. I'll tell you soon.
I already said by what criterion. I don't need to know any more, and neither do you. More people have died in this storm in the Phillippines, and there is more damage from it there, than any other. I believe that is correct as far as I know. You go ahead and figure cost-benefit analyses. They don't matter. It's pretty clear it was terrible by any measure, and it's clear too that storms are getting more severe by any measure.
Of course, anarchists have a solution: put your head in the sand. Wait for the winds to blow and hope your butt isn't blown off, or the waters (or the sand) don't suffocate you. Rather than calculating cost-benefit analyses of action vs. non-action, we need people to calculate how to make, distribute and sell green/clean energy generators and vehicles and delivery systems, and how to get Republicans out of office so they can proceed faster.
How many Republicans does it take to screw in an LED light bulb?
None; they refuse to do it. They'd rather keep paying through the nose to their energy company and polluting the air. They'd rather pay higher energy costs than higher taxes, even if the former also ruins their own environment.
Actually, as stated above, more people died from a typhoon in the Philippines in 91. Seriously, do your research. You sound like a damn fool, otherwise.
How many died in the 91 storm? We don't know yet how many more will have died from this one.
Really? Your criterion for calling it the "worst storm ever" is because a journalist told you it was? That's sad, even for someone as anti-intellectual as you are.
And we do know that it was not the worst storm ever. We know this because by nearly every reasonable standard of measuring a storm, it wasn't.
Maybe you should, you know, look it up. Try this new thing called the internet.
Dunno, that might result in more pumpkin tossing.
Vandal isn't the one who's a climate change denier. I'd suggest and suggest only that folks switch from incandescent lighting to CFL's and if available, get an energy audit. My electric company will be out Tuesday to conduct one on my house. I'll then have a list of stuff I can do to save energy and by extension $. Now if we have some stubborn Xer's who insist on using ancient light bulb technology then it's they who are suckers.But meanwhile, you could help the Earth by taking on vandal once in a while instead of me.[ Now that is how you get your Xer audience attention. Just point out that they might be doing something that's making them look like a sucker.
That is one of the worst things for Xer ego's. That's point out that they've been had and snookered. ]
That would be BOOB wouldn't would it not? Bashed on, on Boomers?This post of his was clearly nonsense from start to finish. Pick on your fellow Xer for a change; we boomers have been bashed enough already. Time to start a new political faction: the BEA Party!
Xers who wish to stuff my bullhorn, are also stuffing their ears so they don't have to hear the truth and the facts from anyone.OK, what kind of light bulbs do you have Copperfield? Eric and I want to know.
There, Eric. Happy now?
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP
There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."
Wind speeds are good proxies for the severity of any tropical storm. Barometric readings are another. So is area of the storm. This storm is the worst recorded, and more severe and frequent tropical storms (typhoons in the western Pacific and related seas) are consistent with models of climatic warming. Those show much heavier precipitation in the Philippines, and the only possible interpretation in an area that already gets huge levels of rainfall is that such would come largely from typhoons -- some of the most dangerous and destructive storms.
The physics of tropical storms are fairly simple to explain. Tropical seas get hot by world standards, and the western Pacific is a huge reservoir of warm water. 30C (86F) may not seem all that hot on land, but water that warm yields huge amounts of heat into the lower atmosphere, fostering convective storms. The western Pacific can easily become the biggest reservoir of overheated sea water, and the heat has to go somewhere. It does not peacefully radiate into the sky as might heat from a hot desert like the Sahara, the Kalahari, or the Mojave. The heat of a tropical sea evaporates water, but evaporated water carries the latent heat of vaporization. As the water vapor recently in the sea rises it condenses into rain and snow in high clouds, and some of the heat is released in mechanical energy (wind).
Trade winds drive any tropical storm, and a gigantic storm in the western Pacific may make landfall. One obvious landfall is the Philippines.
A quibble. The storms of today are better recognized from satellites and the measurements are now by radar. They have been getting more severe on the whole.What we have to be careful about is Eric's use of the term ever. Ever in this case actually means during the period that we have been able to reliably measure wind speeds which is only maybe 100 years. Very accurate measurements have only been possible for the past 50 or 60 years.
More specifically, that storm hit Pakistan and India - the former "East Pakistan" that soon rebelled against Pakistan and became Bangladesh after a revolution against an incompetent, despotic, and corrupt regime.If one wants to measure "worst ever" by death toll, then one need to go all the way back to the 1970 Bhola cyclone which hit Bangladesh and killed an estimated 500,000. There are no death estimates from Haiyan that come anywhere near that number. It likely won't exceed 10,000.
Bangladesh has very different topography in contrast to the Philippines. Bangladesh is a large, low land mostly a river delta extremely vulnerable to flooding. Deaths from the cyclone Bhola came first from flooding and then from famine. The Philippine archipelago is a volcanic arc, and it has high ground as a possible escape from flooding.
There's another huge difference. Both countries are poor, but the Philippines has American-style media and widespread television. Few people got warning in East Pakistan in 1970. They got it in time in the Philippines this time. Television in East Pakistan 43 years ago was rare.
The Filipino people knew that the storm was coming. The people of East Pakistan did not. The Philippines has a government capable of responding with life-saving aid (including food); the Pakistani government neglected the people of its eastern section except to repress dissent and made things worse. Famine may have killed more people.
Unlike you I never trivialize a death toll. So far the death toll is of the magnitude of the 9/11 attack. I have a suggestion for you: never trivialize any mass death from any cause. Doing so indicates a gap in one's morals.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
Journalists are what we have, days after such an event. Knocking journalists is rather useless, it seems to me. They are just reporting on the measurements that were made. That is not a very complicated procedure requiring some kind of separate scientific research. They said it had the highest wind speed of any storm to hit land.
Why don't you do it? You are the one trying to refute my claims. And for good measure, maybe you can state why it is relevant. That factor seems to be a difficult stretch for you.
That's fine; better than the tomatoes usually thrown at me by denialists and fanatics.
He was doing a pretty good job at making silly denialist comments to my astute post.Vandal isn't the one who's a climate change denier.
That might work I suppose, although many Xers around here do everything possible to avoid facing realities if they conflict with their egos.I'd suggest and suggest only that folks switch from incandescent lighting to CFL's and if available, get an energy audit. My electric company will be out Tuesday to conduct one on my house. I'll then have a list of stuff I can do to save energy and by extension $. Now if we have some stubborn Xer's who insist on using ancient light bulb technology then it's they who are suckers.
We'll need a lot more than individual $-saving efforts for energy conversion to end climate change. We'll need huge solar power plants and wind farms, and solar panels on every roof, powering electric cars on streets that recharge automatically, and whatever else we can dream up and make real over the next century.
No, we Boomers have been Bashed Enough Already, and we like a Party!That would be BOOB wouldn't would it not? Bashed on, on Boomers?
It's a start. Now let's see if Copperfield answered you.OK, what kind of light bulbs do you have Copperfield? Eric and I want to know.
There, Eric. Happy now?
I think that is an excellent point for Mr. Copperfield the anarchist to ponder. Another great post brower; thank you!
Nope. I was pointing out that your "astute" post was anything but. In fact, your "astute" post is so moronic that it gives deniers more excuses for not facing the facts. You were, in a sense, supporting the deniers by making stuff up.
Very good point. Eric don’t go here. I will give you the straight dope right now.
As the planet and oceans gets warmer there is more energy in the system to drive weather. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to hypothesize that this increased energy would lead to an increase frequency or severity of extreme storms. But once the hypothesis has been made then it’s time to check it out. That’s how one does science. Based on what I have read there is no evidence for greater frequency of severe storms as of yet. There is some evidence suggesting a greater frequency of very severe storms, but it does not rise to the level of statistical significance. I am inclined to believe that global warming is not affecting storms in any significant fashion because of my own little investigation (I like to look into things myself when I can).
Consider the fact that women live longer than men, on average. By itself this information will not necessarily allow you to predict which individual will live longer. In a given male-female pairing the man will outlive the woman a not-insignificant fraction of the time. Nevertheless if you look at who holds the individual records for longevity, you would expect women to dominate. And they do. The last time I checked 9 of the 10 longest living people were women (and it might be all ten now). The dice analogy gives a nice way to think about this.
A similar argument could be made about extreme temperatures. I looked at state all-time record temperatures some years back. I figured rising average temperature should result in a weighting of record towards the more recent decades. I did not see this. The records were pretty much scattered throughout the decades with the national (and world) record set one hundred years ago. Thus, although average temperatures have risen this has not shown up in the extremes. After thinking about it a bit I could see why this result might happen (the greenhouse effect should serve more to retard daily and seasonal cooling, resulting in higher night-time and winter temperatures and not increase maximal daytime temperatures which should reflect maximal solar insolation which has not changed in 60 years).
A lack of effect of higher average temperature on temperature extremes is like the lack of effect of greater weather energy on weather extremes.
Apparently, you didn't look close enough.
The records were pretty much scattered throughout the decades with the national (and world) record set one hundred years ago. Thus, although average temperatures have risen this has not shown up in the extremes. After thinking about it a bit I could see why this result might happen (the greenhouse effect should serve more to retard daily and seasonal cooling, resulting in higher night-time and winter temperatures and not increase maximal daytime temperatures which should reflect maximal solar insolation which has not changed in 60 years).
A lack of effect of higher average temperature on temperature extremes is like the lack of effect of greater weather energy on weather extremes.
Straight dope, or just dopey?
I am not a climate scientist, so I rely on them, not my own investigations. Any research relies on the reported facts.
(quote)
Extreme storm events such as super typhoon Haiyan, which wreaked havoc in the Philippines on Friday, are more likely in the future as the build-up of greenhouse gases warms the planet, scientists say.
Winds from typhoon Haiyan were estimated to have been 314km/h or higher when the monster storm made landfall on the Philippine island of Samar. That speed, if confirmed, would make it the strongest storm on record, exceeding hurricane Camille, which hit Mississippi in the US in 1969, according to US meteorologist Jeff Masters' WunderBlog.
Australian scientists say gauging the intensity of the storm – which included a tsunami-like storm surge and heavy rainfall – would be difficult because of limited information emanating from the storm-battered region. The death toll from the city of Tacloban alone may exceed 10,000 people, local authorities say.
Warmth in the Pacific ahead of Haiyan's formations.
Waters to the east of the Philippines were warmer than normal in the region where Haiyan formed. Photo: NOAA
Professor Will Steffen, a researcher at the ANU and member of the Climate Council, said scientists understand how a hotter, moister climate is already affecting storms such as Haiyan.
Advertisement
“Once [cyclones] do form, they get most of their energy from the surface waters of the ocean,” Professor Steffen said. “We know sea-surface temperatures are warming pretty much around the planet, so that's a pretty direct influence of climate change on the nature of the storm.”
Data compiled from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows sea temperatures were about 0.5 to 1 degree above normal in the waters to the east of the Philippines as Haiyan began forming. The waters cooled in the storm's wake, an indication of how the storm sucked up energy.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/cl...#ixzz2krXyrqZh
