Hurricanes continue to get stronger
- Thread starter Ucfmikes
- Start date
So, not for nothing, but here’s Wikipedia’s list of Strongest Recorded Atlantic hurricanes. I also have to wonder where and how the pressures were measured for all of these storms. Would today’s measurement techniques have caught some of these even stronger out to sea somewhere? Would some not on the list today because they were only measured at landfall actually be on the list if they had 2 planes (called Kermit and Miss Piggy) going out performing measurements and satellite imagery to determine pressure for the entire timespan? I mean, if we’re going to say people are anti-science, then we should at least acknowledge the advancements in measurement technologies over the relatively short history of recording these storms and the effect that would have on the simple list of strongest storms.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis...s#By_highest_sustained_wind_speed_at_landfall
https://sciencing.com/tools-used-measure-hurricanes-6862094.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis...s#By_highest_sustained_wind_speed_at_landfall
https://sciencing.com/tools-used-measure-hurricanes-6862094.html
We didn't have sat images 50 years ago.
As for global warming
It is a natural event that happens. and you don't have to go back millions of years, only a few centuries. It was warmer than now in the 1300's, and colder during the mini Ice age in between.
We have no clue what normal or optimal weather is.
There were prehistoric periods of global warming, but observed changes since the mid-20th century have been much greater than those seen in previous records covering decades to thousands of years.
Storms are getting stronger now using the technology that we have in the past 50 plus years
It’s not a natural cycle for this to happen so quickly and to such a degree.
Aside from the fact that I just think that he’s wrong, a part of my concern with the OP’s line of posting is not in the trend of strong hurricanes but in the alarmism that he is displaying. Playing on the “never let a crisis go to waste” theory, politicians have seemingly increasingly been using hysteria to push and enact more and more sweeping legislation. I know this has always happened, but it seems to have accelerated with the increasing effect that modem communications have on stirring up the public mob. So I wanted to show that the alarmism is probably not as warranted as it seems due to a number of factors.
Legislation should be measured and deliberate, not reactionary. It should be enacted on the strengths of its effects not on the amount it assuages emotional guilt. So it is concerning when people say “worst ever” or “more than ever in the world” or whatever doomsday predictions form the premise for an argument to justify sweeping policy changes that restrict or eliminate liberties. This goes to both sides of the aisle by the way but it does seem to be coming more from the Democrat side at the moment.
I do feel that the OP was building a premise to justify climate change initiatives. I’m all for being good stewards of the planet, doing things to increase air and water quality, etc. just not for emotional brinksmanship designed to force in sweeping legislation that will do as much, if not more, harm than good.
Legislation should be measured and deliberate, not reactionary. It should be enacted on the strengths of its effects not on the amount it assuages emotional guilt. So it is concerning when people say “worst ever” or “more than ever in the world” or whatever doomsday predictions form the premise for an argument to justify sweeping policy changes that restrict or eliminate liberties. This goes to both sides of the aisle by the way but it does seem to be coming more from the Democrat side at the moment.
I do feel that the OP was building a premise to justify climate change initiatives. I’m all for being good stewards of the planet, doing things to increase air and water quality, etc. just not for emotional brinksmanship designed to force in sweeping legislation that will do as much, if not more, harm than good.
Did you even look at the list? 2 storms out of 12 in the last decade and 4 in the last 20 years.
You’ve just dug your heels in on your theory and that’s all there is to it, I guess.
You think that I’m wrong that hurricanes are getting stronger and you believe that they aren’t?
Tell people in the Bahamas that they shouldn’t be alarmed
Oh wait.., it’s too late for that
Did you even look at the list? 2 storms out of 12 in the last decade and 5 in the last 20 years. And they’re interspersed throughout and clustered. As if there are groupings that have more and some with less.
You’ve just dug your heels in on your theory and that’s all there is to it, I guess.
You’ve just dug your heels in on your theory and that’s all there is to it, I guess.
You’re trying to prove that water isn’t wet
It’s already been determined that there are more stronger hurricanes in the past 50 years
Just stop
No, I think you’re wrong in your emotional argument that they’re stronger than ever.
Nobody is being emotional and nobody said that they are or aren’t stronger than ever
With the data that we have in modern times, there is a trend
Stop making more of this than it is
At some point it was determined that the earth was flat and that the sun revolves around it, but that didn’t make it true.
You’re saying that you’re not an anti-science guy as you act like an anti-science guy
The people that are denying the science are the people who equate to the flat earthers in your reasoning, you realize that right?
You put things in better terms than me and seem reasonable, can you add something here?
This is one of those issues I don't really know how you get through to people. The science is pretty clear, so if people don't believe it there isn't much you can do other than hope they come around at some point.
You are Mr. Strawman. No one is rejecting the fact that the climate is changing. No one on this board is rejecting that humans have an impact on the climate. The argument point is about what policies should be enacted, how much effect will they have, and what is the cost-value tradeoff. Of course, anytime someone attempts to discuss any of those three, you and your compatriots just say we deny science. Oh, and god forbid we question the accuracy of a model or a study on its merits, then we’re evil science deniers. You move the argument point for no reason other than to label people you disagree with as crazy.
For the record, I’m not disagreeing that we are seeing strong storms recently, just the implications that this is unprecedented and it’s mostly because of human beings.
IT isn't a strawman at all. Your posts most certainly read like you are rejecting humans part in it. If that isn't what you intended that's fine, but you might want to clarify that. Even in this post, on one hand you say that you aren't denying that humans have an impact on climate, and then you end it your post by implying it isn't that much to do with humans. I honestly don't really know what your position on it is.
But even beyond that, your position (and my position) don't really matter. This isn't a political opinion we are both entitled to, this is science based. And I tend to believe the vast majority of scientists who believe humans are having a major impact on the climate.
It's science based, but the problem is that it comes with a God-complex and a lot of sensationalism. Yes we can affect the climate but we definitely can't affect it as much as the things that are naturally occurring. A single volcano eruption can change the Earth's climate for at least 5 years in ways that are much more significant than anything we have the capacity of. Even if we completely eliminated the human part out of the equation, we are still going to experience swings in the climate on a much greater scale. We don't even understand the small intricacies of what affects our climate but those are far greater than what we are capable of.
I don't know what you mean by a God-complex or sensationalism. On whose part? The scientists? I don't really see that, but even if you do, if they have scientific evidence to back it up, we shouldn't believe them because they are arrogant? I don't really get your point with that.
So do you think humans impact it or not? We all understand there are other things that can impact the climate, so we don't need that brought up in every post. But, I am still not really clear on your and Sk8's position on humans impacting the climate. You both give it some lip service, but then go off in other directions, so I am just honestly asking if you think human behavior is currently having an impact on the climate? Or if the things going on would be happening whether humans existed or not?
Last edited:
Dude are you even reading their posts? They've said that they believe scientists when they say that humans are having an impact on climate. The issue is that this sentence alone is so vague and leaves so much room for context and caveat, but you don't want to even have that debate. Much like how ANY scientist that dares go against the grain of what the conventional "consensus" is on climate change gets ostracized and ridiculed for daring to use research to raise a contrary opinion.
It's become almost a religious experience for people who have decided that debate on the subject is not even tolerable. You either believe with every ounce of your body and refuse to question the consensus, or you're a heretic who wants the planet to die.
The science isn't vague, that is a ridiculous notion by people who are essentially deniers.
Scientists that go against the grain typically don't back it up with evidence. Not all scientists are created equal and some are paid by people who profit off of the idea that it isn't real, for instance scientists who directly work for oil companies.
It isn't a religious experience, it is simply believing the science. I think the religious aspect of it is from people who put more credence in the very small % of scientists who don't believe it, than the vast majority that do. Those are the people treating their denial as a religion and putting their faith in something that is very unlikely.
Last edited:
Let me give you an example where the science wasn't vague (and on a much easier subject). For decades, it was "settled science" that all cholesterol was bad and fat was going to kill you. We swung policy and behavior to eliminating cholesterol from diets and created all these lite product lines. To make them palatable, we even added things like sugar to the products. There was no science at the time that said sugar was bad (in any form including High Fructose Corn Syrup) so we didn't pay as much attention to it. Hell, we loved sugar so much that almost all of our children's food was laced with it. When Susan Powter was leading the charge against fat and cholesterol on every talk show and channel, you'd have been excommunicated from American society if you even suggested that maybe this wasn't fully thought out.
Yet here we are with the recent science is saying that cholesterol and fat isn't necessarily bad and sugar isn't necessarily good and our policies and behaviors might very well have been about the worst thing that we could've done. But, given your perspective, anyone who suggested that maybe the way we were eating and the food policy that we had for decades is just plain crazy because the science is not vague and is absolutely settled.
We're not saying the studies are wrong. We're not saying that there are things we can do better. All of that is obvious. What we are saying is that it is extremely dangerous to treat it as an all-or-nothing issue and go off and impose policies that have a great effect on every aspect of American life based upon the emotions of the situation.
Last edited:
I don't know what "all or nothing issue" even means. Nobody is expecting us all to be Ed Begley jr. We are basically saying lets look at cleaner energy sources, lets not destroy all of our forests, and things of that nature. What is going to impact American lives is going to be doing nothing about it. Having to rebuild cities and towns is going to have a much bigger impact on American's lives than raising fuel standards in cars or what not.
Emotions of the situation? Believing the science isn't emotion, it is believing the science.
And as for your food examples, I don't know that any of that was really settled science as you say. The food pyramid and things of that nature were things basically written by industry lobbyists, not by scientists.
Last edited:
When you say "rebuild cities and towns," do you mean as "green" or do you mean because of catastrophes?
Do you think there isn't any lobbying in climate science? Do you think that policy is written by scientists?
I mean because of catastrophes. Peoples homes being destroyed and entire cities suffering millions up millions in damages is far more impactful to our lives than simple things like raising fuel standards. So I think it is a completely out of place argument to say addressing climate change would have a huge impact on American lives, because ignoring it is going to have a far bigger impact on our lives.
I think the studies are done by scientists yes. I don't think the whole idea behind climate change comes from a powerful solar panel lobby if that is what you are getting at.
The whole idea for food science doesn't come from the food industry either. There are multiple industries and special interest groups involved food policy, including agriculture and medicine. That's where the problem starts, because policy isn't science and following the scientific logic to the T isn't necessarily good policy.
As is the case with climate science; there are a raft of industry and special interest groups spending huge amounts of money to shape policy. There's also been a huge amount of government money spent on studies that are directed towards pro-human-caused climate change and not nearly as much directed towards the opposing side. It's not even and not even close. This dis-proportionality of funding doesn't discredit any of the studies that support human-driven climate change, but it does mean that the apparent consensus should be questioned when the government is blatantly funding one side so strongly over the other. Scientists are not pure beings. They keep their seats because they bring in funding; they are every bit as revenue-motivated as anyone in industry.
By "God-complex" I mean that we think we are much more powerful than we are. We can't kill the planet and we can't heal it, it's stupid to think that we can. We can affect it, but it the grand scheme of things our effects are pretty miniscule in scale. Like I said earlier, a single volcanic eruption can put the entire planet into a 5 year ice-age. Tambora or Krakatoa erupt again and literally everything that humans have done over the last 200 years is completely wiped out 1000 fold. Yellowstone erupts and we probably lose half of the world's population and have a thousand year ice-age. The sun burps and the entire planet is completely destroyed in 10 seconds. We focus on how we can raise global temperatures by 2 degrees over the course of 100 years, well whipty frigging Doo.
In all likelihood, there have been hurricanes in the past that make the ones in the last few years pale in comparison. Are we making hurricanes more powerful? Probably, but it's fractional in comparison to what the Earth can produce on its own.
Dairy farmers pushing milk products on people wasn't based on any sort of science, it was based on dairy farmers wanting to sell more milk. The entire food pyramid and push to eat certain foods years ago was based on nothing more than that. You are conflating actual science with industries pushing to sell their products. But also in saying that, you also have to consider we are more scientifically advanced than we used to be as well.
They are trying to shape policy based on the science. Nobody just one day decided to pull one over on the world and decide to pretend the world was warming. Green energy might have some lobbyists sure, but it isn't a powerful lobby, and it followed the science, not the other way around.
But if you think that those lobby groups are responsible for the global warming scare, then what in the world do you think of the oil industry and their lobbyists pushing for global warming denials? They are by far the wealthier and biggest lobbyists. They don't factor into this at all? Or only greedy scientists apparently pulling a scam on the world?
Last edited:
We might not be able to kill the planet but we can certainly kill parts of it.
And yes, we know there are other factors, but what is the point of bringing up Yellowstone? Because Yellowstone could be catastrophic we shouldn't even try and care about the Earth? What is the purpose of bring up other things like Yellowstone (that nobody is denying would be horrible) other than to imply because that could happen at some point, we shouldn't even worry about the planet. I don't get it.
You seem to believe that scientists who work through government grants or who you agree with are pure and those that get their funding from other sources are liars at best or evil at worst. That government is some great fair patriarch of the sciences and there is never a bias or ulterior motive. I have to ask, have you ever worked with or for the federal government?
Why bring it up? Because it displays exactly how ridiculous our God-complex is. We can't do 1/1000th of the damage to earth that it can do to itself, and even if it does the planet will recover. Yes we should be good stewards, but let's not act like the Earth isn't resilient and we can do catastrophic damage to it.
So far, man has been able to affect hurricanes by approximately .5% in intensity at the most. We can't create ice-ages, we can't warm the planet to a level that will kill off any species, we can't even scorch the dirt that lasts more than a few years. Our capacity for destruction and restoration is highly exaggerated. The only significant thing we have ever done is to "try" to stop the ozone layer from depleting, and all of the best scientists said that no matter what we did, the hole would remain. Well, it closed back up. That just proves how the Earth is resilient in ways that we don't understand and our God-complex is exactly that.
What does me having to work with the government or not have to do with anything other than distracting from the point? Do you believe global warming is a scam? At this point it seems like you do believe that, you just don't want to admit it.
You also realize that even Exxon at this point admits it is real don't you? (they have known about it for 40 years, but just started admitting it a few years ago, they still aren't great on it, but they do admit its real) Even their scientists are beyond the point of denying it, so what scientists should I be looking to that aren't biased?
When Exxon's scientists are saying it is real even though it is in their businesses best interest to not be real, then you are going to have to provide examples of serious scientists who don't believe it. You are trying to make me out to be gullible, which is fine, but you cant pretend I am gullible without providing a shred of evidence of your own. So what scientists do I need to look to that would pass your credibility requirements?https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/energy-and-environment/environmental-protection/climate-change
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
Last edited:
But we all know about natural disasters. SO what is your point in telling us something over and over that we all already know? It honestly seems like you are using it as an excuse to not give a shit about the planet. That is the only reason I can see by pointing out something that is obvious to everyone and nobody is arguing with you about.
The ozone layer closed up after we did things to address it as well. It closed because we put effort into closing it, which would tend to be more of an argument for trying to do something about climate change.
Last edited:
Your whole argument is a waste of breath
Can’t worry about things that we can’t control
