Forums

hurricanes

Started by John Larkin August 24, 2013

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/screenhunter_19-may-08-06-04.jpg



-- 

John Larkin                  Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com   jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com   

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME  analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 18:28:02 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

> > >http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/screenhunter_19-may-08-06-04.jpg
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/slowest-start-to-a-hurricane-season-on-record/ Global warming, you know.
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 21:49:41 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 18:28:02 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> >>http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/screenhunter_19-may-08-06-04.jpg > >http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/slowest-start-to-a-hurricane-season-on-record/ > >Global warming, you know.
Hey they call it Climate change now. But I dont see the Hockey stick in that chart. Cheers
On 8/24/2013 9:28 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> > > http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/screenhunter_19-may-08-06-04.jpg > > >
Looking at the number of storms that hit the CONUS is disingenuous. With the exception of 2006 and 2009, every Atlantic hurricane season in the past ten years has been significantly above average. It's only luck that say, Hurricane Gustav in 2008 didn't make landfall in Louisiana as a category 3 or 4 storm, rather than striking Cuba first and weakening. If it is indeed the case that statistically, more bullets are being fired, you're going to be hit more often. That it hasn't happened to the US yet doesn't say anything profound about climate change, only her standing with the Fates. The 8 year US drought is probably cold comfort to the residents of the Caribbean and Central America, who are getting drilled by Cat. 3s and 4s every other year.
On 8/24/2013 8:05 PM, bitrex wrote:
> On 8/24/2013 9:28 PM, John Larkin wrote: >> >> >> http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/screenhunter_19-may-08-06-04.jpg >> >> >> >> > > Looking at the number of storms that hit the CONUS is disingenuous.
LOL, of course it is, but when you're grasping at straws to combat a mountain of scientific evidence, you take what you can get. Climate change deniers don't care about evidence. They have spent their lives avoiding the examination of evidence because it might contradict what they've been told to believe. The reality is that many of them really don't deny what's happening, it's just that what's necessary to mitigate it is not something they are interested in doing.
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 18:28:02 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/screenhunter_19-may-08-06-04.jpg
Weird. Counting hurricanes by president is a bit odd because the terms served by each president varies. FDR served 3 terms and therefore had the most hurricanes. Jimmy Carter and G.H.W. Bush only served one term, and therefore had fewer hurricanes. Unless the author was trying to demonstrate that Republicans or Democrats cause hurricanes, the graph makes little sense. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
On 8/24/2013 11:58 PM, sms wrote:
> On 8/24/2013 8:05 PM, bitrex wrote: >> On 8/24/2013 9:28 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>> >>> >>> http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/screenhunter_19-may-08-06-04.jpg >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> Looking at the number of storms that hit the CONUS is disingenuous. > > LOL, of course it is, but when you're grasping at straws to combat a > mountain of scientific evidence, you take what you can get. > > Climate change deniers don't care about evidence. They have spent their > lives avoiding the examination of evidence because it might contradict > what they've been told to believe. > > The reality is that many of them really don't deny what's happening, > it's just that what's necessary to mitigate it is not something they are > interested in doing. >
It's been my contention that the majority of climate change deniers are denialists on ideological grounds, due to the implications of the scientific evidence presented when followed to its ultimate conclusion, i.e. that fossil-fuel based capitalism is an unsustainable long term economic model. "Green is a front for RED."
On 8/24/2013 10:02 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 18:28:02 -0700, John Larkin > <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/screenhunter_19-may-08-06-04.jpg > > Weird. Counting hurricanes by president is a bit odd because the > terms served by each president varies. FDR served 3 terms and > therefore had the most hurricanes. Jimmy Carter and G.H.W. Bush only > served one term, and therefore had fewer hurricanes. Unless the > author was trying to demonstrate that Republicans or Democrats cause > hurricanes, the graph makes little sense.
If we had had more hurricanes during Obama's presidency then the Tea Party lunatics would be insisting that it was somehow Obama's fault.
On 8/24/2013 10:28 PM, bitrex wrote:

> It's been my contention that the majority of climate change deniers are > denialists on ideological grounds, due to the implications of the > scientific evidence presented when followed to its ultimate conclusion, > i.e. that fossil-fuel based capitalism is an unsustainable long term > economic model. "Green is a front for RED."
No one would think any less of them if they would simply state "yes, we understand the evidence but we care only about ourselves." They don't understand that if they are _really_ worried about the government exerting more control over their lives then they shouldn't be advocating policies that will eventually lead to the government telling them where they can live, how much energy they can use, how much water they can use, and what they can eat.
On Sunday, 25 August 2013 15:28:03 UTC+10, bitrex  wrote:
> On 8/24/2013 11:58 PM, sms wrote: > > On 8/24/2013 8:05 PM, bitrex wrote: > >> On 8/24/2013 9:28 PM, John Larkin wrote:=20 > >>>=20 > >>> http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/screenhunter_19-may-=
08-06-04.jpg=20
> >> =20 > >> Looking at the number of storms that hit the CONUS is disingenuous.=20 > >=20 > > LOL, of course it is, but when you're grasping at straws to combat a=20 > > mountain of scientific evidence, you take what you can get.=20 > >=20 > > Climate change deniers don't care about evidence. They have spent their=
=20
> > lives avoiding the examination of evidence because it might contradict=
=20
> > what they've been told to believe.=20 > >=20 > > The reality is that many of them really don't deny what's happening,=20 > > it's just that what's necessary to mitigate it is not something they ar=
e=20
> > interested in doing. =20 >=20 > It's been my contention that the majority of climate change deniers are =
=20
> denialists on ideological grounds, due to the implications of the =20 > scientific evidence presented when followed to its ultimate conclusion, =
=20
> i.e. that fossil-fuel based capitalism is an unsustainable long term =20 > economic model. "Green is a front for RED."
Capitalism with a lightly regulated free market would be perfectly sustaina= ble, if you charged people who burnt fossil carbon for energy enough to cov= er the long term damage the CO2 produced was going to do to the environment= and spent that money on subsidising less damaging energy generators. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt talks about the ideological stance of the of the anti-regulation enthusiast= s and makes the point that what they objected to was *any* government inter= vention in the free market - confusing the lightly regulated free markets w= e've got in pretty much every advanced industrial country with the centrali= sed state planning that worked much less well in the USSR and its satellite= states. It's the same kind of idiocy that confuses socialism (which works rather be= tter in Germany and Sweden than US capitalism works in the US) with communi= sm, which utterly failed in the USSR and survives in more-or-less Communist= China with a lot less central control and a lot more almost-free market th= an the USSR was ever willing to tolerate. --=20 Bill Sloman, Sydney