Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 Next
Comments 51901 to 51950:
-
gws at 21:19 PM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Dale, are you listening? "[...] Sandy being influenced by climate change, which I called out since there is no observational evidence to support such a claim. Hmmh, maybe you could tell your definition of "influenced" then, as there are several lines of evidence, summarized in the newest post, that describe said influence. Always good to broaden your mind. You don't have to aggree on how to interpret the evidence, but you should not deny it either. "[...] the amount of times AR4 has been proven incorrect since it was published makes anything they claim suspect" And if you want to be taken seriously, may I suggest that being conspiratorial about the IPCC this way is trolling, at best. Of course the IPCC AR4 was "wrong" about some things (e.g. Arctic sea ice decline) and will be shown wrong about other things in the future, such is the nature of science. In ten years, we may well have the understanding and scientific tools to show that Sandy was indeed "caused" by a warmer climate relative to 50 years earlier. This site lists and describes what we know now, for the benefit of those who care to listen. And it shows plainly that you are wrong. -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:13 PM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Dale, I haven't moved the goal posts. It was you that introduced papers on the lack of a trend in the frequency of storms. I am asking you in what way this contradicts mainstream scientific opinion on, given that the IPCC reports say that there is no clear trend. It seems to me that you are "calling out climate science" while not actually being aware of what climate science actually says, which frankly is not very reasonable behaviour on your part. So, tell me: (i) Exactly how does the lack of a trend in storm frequency contradict mainstream scientific opinion. (ii) Why are you avoiding discussing trends in storm intensity? So far you have provided no evidence that contradicts the mainstream view on that matter. -
Brian Purdue at 21:11 PM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Sorry Dale, I remember reading that - pays to check. "Why don't YOU tell me what the IPCC claims then? Obviously me two dum two wrok it out, eh?" Stop trying to dodge Dikran’s question by being smart. You’re making it obvious by using the denier’s well-worn tactic of attacking the IPCC. -
CBDunkerson at 20:47 PM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Today the 'not even a small hurricane' named Sandy continues to kill people here in New Jersey. More than 80% remain without electricity. Fires still burn in half a dozen cities around the area. Gasoline for automobiles and generators is nearly gone as the ports and pipelines are still recovering from the storm and many local stations that have gasoline have no electricity to pump it. Temperatures are set to plunge below freezing for the next week, which will cause pipes to burst and leave many without water. Thank goodness it wasn't a serious storm. -
Dale at 20:27 PM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Just noticed the mod has commented on my post @36, and changed it recently. Stupid how it doesn't notify you when that happens, specially when you're on another page. Mod: "Add in the warmest 17 years in the instrumental record are all the most recent 17 years" And the last 17 years have also been my tallest. I also haven't grown in those last 17 years either.Moderator Response: (Rob P) 93% of global warming has gone into the oceans over the last 5 decades. See Levitus (2012) & Nuccitelli (2012). And note this graph from Nuccitelli (2012):
I'm sure you are aware of this given that you commented on this SkS thread when Nuccitelli (2012) was accepted for publication.
These facts make clear that your comment was simply the repetition of a contrarian myth, and one you know well to be erroneous. As such, this constitutes sloganeering, your third such breach despite being warned.
Revocation of posting rights is sure to follow.
-
ranyl at 20:06 PM on 1 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
"Sandy's barometric pressure at landfall was 946 mb, tying the Great Long Island Express Hurricane of 1938 as the most powerful storm ever to hit the Northeast U.S. north of Cape Hatteras, NC. New York City experienced its worst hurricane since its founding in 1624, as Sandy's 9-foot storm surge rode in on top of a high tide to bring water levels to 13.88' at The Battery, smashing the record 11.2' water level recorded during the great hurricane of 1821." Jeff Masters. http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/archive.html?year=2012&m 1624 seems like 400 years ago. Was also the biggest storm size area in Atlantic since they've been measured. Fairly extreme event to break so many records, lets hope it is a unique event, for if another Hurricane even came close that would be mighty unual, but still possible under natural variation. But this if this Hurricane is an indication of what Hurricanes are going to be more like (wetter, large but lower wind speed as so big) with warmer oceans and a changing climate, then the North East of American needs to start adaptating to the possibility of this being a more regular event. -
Dikran Marsupial at 19:02 PM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Dale, I'm surprised you can't see the point, as it was you that pointed out that there is no trend in the number of storms, even though this is just what mainstream science says, as embodied by the IPCC reports. So exactly what point did you think you were making by blustering on about trends in the number of storms, rather than in their intensity? -
Dale at 18:46 PM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Dikran: Where are you going with this? Seems pointless. 3.8.3 - "definitive results are not available." Yes some basins trended upwards and some trended downwards. But as noted the trends were opposing in the Pacific and Atlantic and correlated strongly to the ENSO index (when one went up, the other went down). Since ENSO was generally positive from the 1970's till about 2000, rising trend in the Pacific and dropping trend in Atlantic. Since ENSO switched early 2000's to negative, we've seen those trends swap. But overall, no statistically relevant trend either way globally. -
adelady at 18:43 PM on 1 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
I read this somewhere, maybe even here. Climate change doesn't cause extreme weather, it makes extreme weather more extreme. Personally, I think that really applies to storms and maybe heatwaves. When it comes to floods, the extra moisture in the atmosphere is enough in many cases (I'd speculate Brisbane/Queensland as a candidate) to tip the event over from manageable/not a flood at all to significant or catastrophic - entirely due to the warmed atmosphere. -
Dikran Marsupial at 18:40 PM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Eric (skeptic) are the trends in either of your plots statistically significant? BTW are we now in agreement about the "loading of the die" analogy? -
gws at 17:38 PM on 1 November 2012The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
jyushchyshyn Indeed, Germany "does need conventional power" now. Not disputed. Equally obvious is that coal must be phased out eventually. As energy production is not everything that drives a society, phasing out something that used to provide a large section of the population with work is no simple task. So a timeline for phase-out makes a lot of sense, especially if you stick to it. It is much more costly changing plans all the time, so I consider it unlikely that Germany will change plans again and bet big on the nuclear power road. It is like a ship: Speeding up is more easily accomplished than turning around ... aka installing decentralized renewables with a large labor compoenent is quicker and societally more accepted than large central power production that takes a long time to plan and build, and a smaller workforce to operate. -
Dikran Marsupial at 17:12 PM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Dale O.K. you found a paragraph about future projectsions, so what do the IPCC say about the observed historical trend? To make it easier for you, do they claim there has been a clear trend in the number of tropical or mid-lattitlude storms? -
Paul Magnus at 14:43 PM on 1 November 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
vrooomie i find your response strange as a simple google produces a host of listings of reputable ilk. And also quite a few scholarly links. I think you should put the effort in to a bit of research before shooting your posts off. There is also this book published quite recently with lots of references and a good read too as Bill discusses what we can look forward to from this aspect of GW.... Waking the Giant, http://www.amazon.com/Waking-Giant-Changing-Earthquakes-Volcanoes/dp/0199592268 -
Bert from Eltham at 14:10 PM on 1 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Maybe this will put it all into some perspective. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-30/infographic-how-hurricane-sandy-compares-irene-katrina-yasi/4341760 Which one of these storms would you invite to your party? Bert -
Alpinist at 12:52 PM on 1 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Thanks Dana, this is a nice summary. It reminds of something Aaron Lewis posted a bit ago at Tamino's site: The composition of the atmosphere affects the weather. All of the weather, all the time. We have changed the composition of the atmosphere. We are affecting the weather, all of the weather, all the time. -
P.T. Goodman at 12:52 PM on 1 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Excellent article. Some of it puts into focus what I've been trying to tell a denier acquaintance. Mainly that the total energy of a storm says more than just wind speed, so storm size matters. But there is plenty of other information here. In far Western New York State, we got high winds and lots of rain, but not the type of destruction that the coastal regions received. -
Bob Lacatena at 12:39 PM on 1 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
ranyl,1:300 year event at least?
Less, if you're talking pre-1950. Post-2010? I shudder to think, but we'll sadly find out. Well-known Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times." -
Jim Eager at 12:02 PM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Dale wrote: All we hear is "this may happen in this range". It's all probabilities on assumptions on how things may work in a hypothetical world. Science is fact, not mumbo-jumbo. With that you demonstrate that you don't even understand what science is. -
ranyl at 11:37 AM on 1 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Thanks Dana. Huge diameter storm ~1000miles. All the ocean to turn, and it was highly wind sheared on the approach to New Jersey, incredible how far it maintained hurricanes winds and a very low pressure, some of that accumulated deep water heat coming to the surface?? As everyone knows global warming didn't cause Sandy and the high lunar tide was very unfortuneate, but global warming as you said does seems to have been a helping hand in the impact path she took and does seem to have amplified her magnitude. For the end of October she was an unprecented storm in a long record of severe storms. 1:300 year event at least? Following the USA drought and several other record rainfall events this year. Global warming does seem to happening and some and in ways only now being fully recognised. The diagnosis is serious extremes and new weather patterns. And there is still another 0.6C warming to come, if not more considering the total lack of effective global action and the permafrost melting situation. What is the next El Nino year going to bring!!!? All natural factors have been tending to cooling recently, but we now entering a potential El nino period with a peak of sunspots combination next year. Intersting times. ?? -
Albatross at 11:21 AM on 1 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
That quote from Roberts is very appropriate and accurate. In a couple of sentences it captures what many of us have being struggling to articulate clearly to the public. Hopefully he doesn't mind people borrowing it (with credit of course). The blog post titled "Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Hens" by The Way Things Break is also worth a read. -
Eric (skeptic) at 10:36 AM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Some people are correctly attributing sea level and some Gulf Stream warming to global warming and from those factors to a stronger hurricane Sandy. However, Arctic heat release (presumably from refreezing) causing jet stream wobbling does not fit into that same clear cut category. I am not ready to accept causation because there are too many other factors. I did however find some support for it. I plotted NAO for April and October for the period of Arctic ice decline (79-present) although October 2012 is missing from the plot, it is negative, probably about -1.25. April seemed like a good pick due to close to maximum ice with the start of melting causing cooling:
Whereas the month of October with heat release from refreezing shows a downward trend in NAO
Data came from CPC at NOAA -
Dale at 10:04 AM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Dikran: I don't see the point of answering the question, but in the interest of humoring the point: "Results from embedded high-resolution models and global models, ranging in grid spacing from 100 km to 9 km, project a likely increase of peak wind intensities and notably, where analysed, increased near-storm precipitation in future tropical cyclones. Most recent published modelling studies investigating tropical storm frequency simulate a decrease in the overall number of storms, though there is less confidence in these projections and in the projected decrease of relatively weak storms in most basins, with an increase in the numbers of the most intense tropical cyclones." -
scaddenp at 09:59 AM on 1 November 2012Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
Dikran - the real question is what would generator look like if they had 100% oxygen intake. sincam - it is not clear at all to me how a boiler running on 100% O2 would be significantly more efficient. It's not like a coal plant has lot a lot of energy in CO emissions or that they could get the steam much hotter. -
scaddenp at 09:42 AM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Eric, the significance of Grinsted, is that other measures of whether storm-intensity correlated with warmer temperatures are plagued by observational bias. Grinsted's tidal gauge method would indicate the temperature does indeed load the dice. -
Brian Purdue at 09:02 AM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Dale, I am an Australian too and I have been fighting global warming ignorance amongst my countrymen for years – with some success. We may call a spade a spade but our character has nothing to do with scientific reality. Your character is misplaced in this case. -
Dikran Marsupial at 08:59 AM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Dale, if you want to "call climate science out", then it is incumbent on you to at least demonstrate that you actually know what climate science actually says. So how about answering the question? -
Dale at 08:25 AM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
vrooomie @ 79: I find it funny how you believe WUWT to be my "home turf". I'm Australian, my "home turf" (if you want to call it that) is Jo Nova. ;) WUWT, like SkS, is a minor interest site to me, not a daily visit. michael @ 75: I was not being deliberately offensive. I was calling climate science out. All we hear is "this may happen in this range". It's all probabilities on assumptions on how things may work in a hypothetical world. Science is fact, not mumbo-jumbo. Sorry if that offends you, probably the Australian way of calling a spade a spade coming out in me. -
ranyl at 08:04 AM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
It seems that we can all see what we want as the truth when we don't want to see the actual truth. If somone doesn't want to see the truth then nothing anyone else says will make them see it, for the only way to see the truth is to look, and firstly to want to look, without any self orientated motivations or preconceptions. However giving the false truths credence in agruement lets them spread to a wider audience and thus challenging every denial claim (when most are clearly irrational now) just gives them unwanted air time, unwarranted credence, creates unecessary doubt and is distracting away from the real issues as is the intent of those in denial. At present there is already a real and very alarming change in the weather arround the world, (everywhere extremes are already the norms) and this is just the start, just the start! Therefore maybe instead of trying to convince someone in denial of their denial state of mind, to get them out of it somehow (which is an impossible task), we should be discussing more urgent things? Like how on earth is NYC going to adapt its infra-strcutre for future norms and extremes, sea level rise and water security whilst also not having the luxury of any fossil fuels? For the truth of the current situation is that burning any more fossil fuels than essential for adaptation and transformation is really just too dangerous. -
Dikran Marsupial at 07:53 AM on 1 November 2012Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
sincam wrote: "What would they look like on a planet that had a 100% O2 atmosphere?" Non-existent I should think. In a 100% O2 atmosphere more or less everything carbon-based would be so flamable that we wouldn't have evolved enough to make them. -
sincam at 07:48 AM on 1 November 2012Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
Re: "pure" O2 in an engine, I'll stand by my statement: There is *NO* internal combustion engine that will run on pure O2, nor benefit appreciably by the use of O2. I agree. It would take a new design, not a jury rig. Check patents 8176884, 7543577, and others. The original post pointed out POSIBILITIES because of a NEW efficient, economical way to produce pure O2 and allow carbon capture. All present methods to produce O2 are about 14% efficient compared to the theoretical energy it should require (exergy). This means it takes about 8 times the energy and lots of equipment. Coal power plants, fuel cells, industrial furnaces, and cars and everything else, are designed to operate in our 21% O2 atmosphere. What would they look like on a planet that had a 100% O2 atmosphere? -
jyushchyshyn at 07:21 AM on 1 November 2012The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
will Germany does need conventional power, but it does not need new coal power. All Germany has to do is retain its nuclear power plants and build new ones. By mid century, assuming that they would be including hydro under renewable, all of the conventional power could be nuclear. -
tksoft at 07:15 AM on 1 November 2012The Big Picture (2010 version)
I think you nailed it. Thanks! -
DSL at 07:06 AM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Quite so, Dikran. I'm all ears. -
vrooomie at 07:03 AM on 1 November 2012Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
W'OK! I was following--I thought!--the instructions at the bottom of the page...they are not clear, to a newbie-to-HTML as I am. Please tone it down, and I apologize. -
vrooomie at 06:47 AM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Alpinist@77: Even Dale's home turf, WUWT, isn't exactly safe for a rational person to point out what you've pointed out, in your last sentence. Even there, it's considered in pretty bad taste to minimize a storm that has, to date, killed over 50 people, and looks like it will easily top the damage from a "real" hurricane, Isaac. They're eating their own. -
idunno at 06:37 AM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Climate Central has had some excellent coverage of the build up, the arrival and the linkages of the storm to Global Warming. Also the Jeff Masters wunderground blog. It's really none of my business, as I am not a US citizen, but I think that those of you who do not wholly support Governor Romney's programme should be thanking Dale and his ilk, and encouraging him to continue posting these comments as much as possible and as widely as possible for the coming 5 days. -
Alpinist at 06:37 AM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Dale: I'd recommend you have a look at Jeff Maser's Wunderblog regarding Sandy. Jeff has a very detailed history there and determined very early that Sandy had no escape route and could be extremely damaging. Jeff also has an excellent discussion of the Greenland blocking ridge and its effect and potential relationship to the loss of Arctic sea ice. As for your initial comment downplaying the severity of Sandy...this is probably the wrong site for that sort of comment as you've figured out by now... -
Michael.M at 06:17 AM on 1 November 2012It's the sun
New Research for the topic: Evidence of recent causal decoupling between solar radiation and global temperature "We have shown that there is an evident causal decoupling between total solar irradiance and global temperature in recent periods. Our work permits us to fix the 1960s as the time of the loss of importance of solar influence on temperature. At the same time greenhouse gases total radiative forcing has shown a strong Granger causal link with temperature since the 1940s up to the present day. ..." Well, eyeballing MarkIII the TSI/Temperature Graph gives a similar impression, but scientific proof of it gives a way better argument. -
wili at 06:14 AM on 1 November 2012New research from last week 43/2012
Last full abstract posted-- "Increasing seabed temperatures make gas hydrate unstable in shallow Norwegian-Svalbard margin regions Ocean temperature variability for the past 60 years on the Norwegian-Svalbard margin influences gas hydrate stability on human time scales" --seems pretty darn important to me. It seems to contradict what Archer and others have been saying--that these hydrates would take a very long time to destabilize, so they don't pose an immediate risk. Also, if the methane can be released faster than it breaks down into CO2, we could see significant (perhaps catastrophic?) increases in atmospheric methane from this source. (I'm hoping that someone will show me how I am--or this article is--wrong. 'Cause if I'm right, we are in a world of even deeper hurt than most imagine.) -
Dikran Marsupial at 06:12 AM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Dale I am not asking you to accept what the IPCC says, I am asking whether you know what it actually says on this matter. So please, rather than further evasion, please can you summarise what you believe the IPCC has to say on the subject of historical and projected trends in tropical and mid-latitude storms. -
michael sweet at 05:55 AM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Dale, You are being deliberatly offensive. You said: "Have you wondered why meteorologists were able to call this storm a week out, say its path, its force and what impact it would have? Yet climate scientists were caught surprised with their pants down? " Climate scientists do not attempt to predict individual hurricanes. You statement is deliberately offensive and hopefully your post will be deleted by the moderators. You deserve to be banned if you continue with such trash talk. You contribute nothing to the discussion. You provide no data to support your wild claims. At least you provide an clear example of what absurd claims deniers are willing to say. -
Dale at 05:34 AM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Jim @ 57: Yes, Atlantic hurricane intensity has risen, offset by a reduction in Pacific cyclone intensity. Which results in a global trend of nothing. I thought only deniers cherry-picked? @Dikran: I've learnt over the last few years to take the IPCC reports with a pinch of salt. It's been years since AR4 and a lot of research has shown the IPCC not correct on a number of things. Recent research into cyclones shows no trend change in major storm activity. Individual basins change, but globally there's none. Yet you want me to take the word of a single paper over the many. (-snip-) (-snip-). Have you wondered why meteorologists were able to call this storm a week out, say its path, its force and what impact it would have? Yet (-snip-).Moderator Response: [DB] Note that you have previously been given a final warning for sloganeering (snipped above) and other things. Reverting to type will assure corrective action. FYI. -
wili at 05:34 AM on 1 November 2012The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
Don't believe every Fox (aka Faux) News blurb you read or hear. "Opponents of renewables in North America are pouncing on the news of a new coal plant in Germany, especially because German Environmental Minister Peter Altmaier cut the ribbon, so to speak. Altmaier said Germany will need the conventional fossil power plants for "decades to come," though he did not say it was, as Fox Business put it, to "complement unreliable and intermittent renewable energies such as wind and solar power." In fact, he stated that "fossil energy and renewables should not be played as cards against each other" and that we have to move beyond "making enemies of the two." It took six years to build the plant, meaning that the process started in 2006. It is by no means a reaction to the nuclear phaseout of 2011. And as Altmaier himself points out, the new plant can ramp up and down by 150 megawatts within five minutes and by 500 megawatts within 15, making it a flexible complement to intermittant renewables. In the area, 12 coal plants more than 40 years old have been decommissioned, and the new 2,200 megawatt plant is to directly replace 16 older 150 megawatts blocks by the end of this year, so 2,200 megawatts of new, more flexible, somewhat cleaner capacity (the new plant has an efficiency of 43 percent, whereas 35 percent would be considered ambitious for most old coal plants) is directly replacing 2,400 old megawatts. Germany has a target of 35 percent renewable power by 2020, rising to 85 percent by 2050 – meaning that 65 percent of its power supply will be conventional in 2020, and the country will still have 15 percent conventional power by mid-century. Obviously, Germany needs to build some new conventional power plants to reach even that ambitious goal for renewables." http://www.renewablesinternational.net/is-germany-switching-to-coal/150/537/56081/ -
Chris G at 05:32 AM on 1 November 2012The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
I'd be pleased if there were more general acknowledgement in the U.S. that a problem exists; dealing with reality in other words. It's hard to have a discussion about how best to handle a problem if half the people won't acknowledge that a problem exists. I wonder if part of the problem is that nothing really bad has happened to the U.S. for too many generations for the general populace to realise that bad things can happen. Universally, no one wants to believe that bad things will happen to them as individuals; and if the cultural memory of past events has grown dim, maybe there is a cultural reluctance to believe what is happening. I mean, for example, WWII was not a good time for anyone, but the U.S. never experienced substantial bombing or foreign troops on its soil, and a lot of countries did. Most of our wars that anyone can remember have been fought on television in some remote place. You have to go back to the 1930s to find large impacts felt at home, and there isn't much living memory of that time. -
wili at 05:17 AM on 1 November 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
Adelady, was it Edward Blakely, by any chance? : http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3622437.htm?site=tropic "You see these major floods - these floods wouldn't be there if they hadn't filled in all the swamplands and lowlands and given permits to build in areas where the so-called 100-year flood occurs, and this is the 100-year flood that is now coming every five years. This is a time to reposition, and not say, "We will rebuild". The smart thing to say is, "We will reposition"." -
Dikran Marsupial at 05:16 AM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Dale - no problem, I look forward to your answer. -
Dale at 05:15 AM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
doug @ 58: Not sure if you're aware, but due to the spherical nature of our planet, and my location in relation to yours, that whilst you are awake, I am asleep. So I apologise for finding it difficult to address the IPCC question whilst I was in sleep mode. -
wili at 05:12 AM on 1 November 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
Good point, adelady. As usual, $$$ is likely to be the only reality that significantly changes habits and habitats. IIRC, last week SwissRe increased it's rates for insurance companies doing business in North America because the rate of pay outs for disasters was going up so quickly. They also made it very clear that the kinds of disasters that were increasing so dramatically were specifically weather, heat and drought--the ones most closely linked to GW. -
vrooomie at 05:05 AM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Sorry: this was the link I messed up, in 53. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOjfxEejS2Y -
Jim Eager at 04:43 AM on 1 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
The media speculation about how long it will take for subway service to resume in the flooded tunnel sections are laughable. Salt water and electrical equipment are incompatible. The entire train detection system, signal system, Automatic Train Stop system, switch motor control system and all switch motors in the flooded tunnels will need to be completely replaced, not to mention any substations and main bus junctions for the power third rail. In short, we're talking months before through service can resume in the tunnels that were flooded. When was the last time that happened again, Dale?
Prev 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 Next
