Senate disaster thread. Realities and Responses to the Force of Nature

Thing is, even if Rita was a category 4, we'd still be outside expectations for the number of category 4-5 storms for this period since 2001. Charley from 2004, Katrina and now Rita were/are all cateogry 4-5.

 

I was just thinking about the same thing.

No good, this.

 

I think it's too early to tell if hurricanes are getting more intense based on the data we have. There have been four decades where three category 4 or 5 storms have hit and they're fairly evenly spaced out: 1891-1900, 1911-1920, 1951-1960 and 2001-2005.

Certainly if this pattern of intense hurricanes continued through to 2010 I think you'd have a point, (i.e. there would be two more cat 5 and one more cat 4). But there's nothing to suggest this isn't just a normal increase in the hurricane cycle.

 

Ocean water is rising in temperature. Thats a direct result of global warming - assuming you believe that old, dubious, wives tale, witches coven cult of SCIENCE. ( not you Gonk ).

I don't really know anyone who denies that the earth is getting warmer. What I doubt (as well as several other people, including quite a few scientists) is the cause of the current warming trend. There is quite a bit of evidence from the geological record to indicate that the earth has gone through warming and cooling periods before, well before mankind became involved in the process. We really don't have enough data at this point to determine whether we are really having a significant effect on the trend, or whether any of our actions could significantly change it.

I wanted to post again my points here in the wake of the latest reports of Hurricane Rita being upgraded to a category 5 storm -- in fact CNN having reported it being the third most violent storm on record. I noted some of the other facts earlier -- at least one hurricane outside of the hurricane zone (rare), a 6 storm season last year (also rare) and now this year not just one Category 5 hurricane but... two? Before this year there were only 3 Category 5 storms since 1851. Now suddenly there's 5?

I will emphasize that my analysis was a very simple statistical one. It ignored quite a few other factors that you would need to take into account in order to support the contrapositive conclusion.

For example, if ocean conditions happen to be just right for a single category 5 hurricane one year, depending on what happens with the weather systems, you might actually get multiple strong storms. Within a year, hurrucanes tend to follow similar tracks (look at how many hurricanes have turned north, and then north-east in the Atlantic this year), which tends to take them over the same patches of water, at more-or-less the same temperatures. This can lead to several similar storms in the same year.

Also, as I pointed out before, that analysis only covered Atlantic hurricanse that had made landfall in the Unites States since 1851, because that was the only area for which I had data. It neglects those that never make landfall (such as the ones I mentioned above), those that hit Canada (like you pointed out in the other thread, Gonk), and those that hit in Mexico or Central America. If Rita turns (or had turned) to the south, it would not be included in the analysis.

It is statistically possible to have two outlier points in succession. If you assume a standard gaussian distribution, the probability of such a pattern is roughly 3-5%. As I said in that other thread, we don't really have enough data at this time to make any reliable determinations. We need at least a couple more years of increased activity to draw conclusions.

Kimball Kinnison

EDIT: I will also point out that the data I was using only takes into account the strength of the storms at landfall. There have been other storms that reached a higher strength at sea, and then weakened before hitting land. Those storms would distort the data to make current storms seem stronger than previous ones. Katrina was like that, in fact. According to the National Hurricane Center Tropical Weather Summary for August:

KATRINA BEGAN TO STRENGTHEN...
REACHING CATEGORY 5 STRENGTH ON 28 AUGUST ABOUT 250 MILES
SOUTH-SOUTHEAST OF THE MOUTH OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER. KATRINA'S
WINDS REACHED THEIR PEAK INTENSITY OF 175 MPH WINDS AND THE
PRESSURE FELL TO 902 MB...THE FOURTH LOWEST PRESSURE ON RECORD...
LATER THAT DAY. KATRINA TURNED TO THE NORTHWEST AND THEN
NORTH...MAKING LANDFALL IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH LOUISIANA JUST SOUTH
OF BURAS WITH 140 MPH WINDS...CATEGORY 4...AT 610 AM CDT ON 29
AUGUST. CONTINUING NORTHWARD...KATRINA MADE A SECOND LANDFALL NEAR
THE LOUISIANA/MISSISSIPPI BORDER AT 1000 AM CDT...WITH MAXIMUM
WINDS OF NEAR 125 MPH...CATEGORY 3.

Whe

 

As persuasive I found your use of the word 'contrapositive', I must object that when a period of intense weather is predicted by computer models as a result of climate change, we should not be as quick to assume it's just 'one of those dodgy years'.

As for scientific opinion, I know a lot of scientists working for international economic organisations and conservative think tanks disagree, as do analyses edited by the Bush administration, but don't the majority of scientists attribute the bulk of climate change to human activity? Wouldn't decades of sending just assloads of pollutants do something? Honestly, I could be wrong, I'm mostly going by popular perception and from what I've read in Discover and Scientific American. Those magazines could be in the Liberal Media Cabal, as I don't keep track of this stuff. Maybe Fox News should start a science magazine that will put that evolution and climate change crap to rest.

 

Similarly, we should not be as quick to assume it isn't unique. There have been periods of similar intense weather before. Just because scientists predicted this pattern does not mean that climate change has anything to do with it. I'm a believer that humans are causing climate change, but the data shows that we've had these periods of intense weather before and there's nothing extraordinary about having two strong hurricanes in one season.

If this pattern continues and there is a marked difference between previous periods of intense weather and what's happening now, I'll be glad to accept the scientists reasoning.

 

As persuasive I found your use of the word 'contrapositive', I must object that when a period of intense weather is predicted by computer models as a result of climate change, we should not be as quick to assume it's just 'one of those dodgy years'.

There are multiple computer models out there that can more-or-less predict a single year (or even a short sequence of years). It is only in the long-term analysis (i.e. a statistically meaningful comparison) that you can determine the validity of the model. That ties right back to what I said earlier: we don't have enough data to draw conclusions.

Did the model also predict that 2003 would be a weak year? What does it project for next year? The year after it?

Just because it matches one or two points on the cure doesn't mean the entire curve matches.

As for scientific opinion, I know a lot of scientists working for international economic organisations and conservative think tanks disagree, as do analyses edited by the Bush administration, but don't the majority of scientists attribute the bulk of climate change to human activity? Wouldn't decades of sending just assloads of pollutants do something? Honestly, I could be wrong, I'm mostly going by popular perception and from what I've read in Discover and Scientific American. Those magazines could be in the Liberal Media Cabal, as I don't keep track of this stuff. Maybe Fox News should start a science magazine that will put that evolution and climate change crap to rest.

Yes, the pollution could have some effect, but the important point is that we don't know how much. (I specifically mentioned this earlier). To repeat myself:

We really don't have enough data at this point to determine whether we are really having a significant effect on the trend, or whether any of our actions could significantly change it.

We don't know all of the factors, nor even enough to say with any certainty what changes are because of our actions and what are because of natural processes.

Most of the studies look at the change over time, but rely on assumptions to compare the results to the "original". In some cases, the assumption is that things would remain constant (which is possible, but not necessarily true as the geological records can show). Others project linear or exponential change when there are also other models that could fit.

This has nothing to do with liberal v. conservative (political philosophies don't run every aspect of our lives, you know). It has everything to do with the scientific method and examining the assumptions upon which theories are based. If you go into a study assuming that human factors are a major contributer to the model, then you are more likely to have your unverifiable projection of how the weather would have been without the human factors.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I would agree that at this point, we might not be able to do much to reverse it, apart from not making it worse. And I think we should aspire to not make it worse.

 

Everything is a balance.

For example, does it hurt the environment to cut down trees? Yes, it does. Are you willing to go without anything built from wood in order to save the environment?

In order to almost completely eliminate "unnatural" human effects on the environment, we would need to return to living in caves, with a much smaller world population. How feasible is that?

How much harm to the environment is permissible to preserve your way of life, including such things as Internet, computers, electricity, and so forth? Almost anything we do in those areas hurts the environment in one way or another, "making it worse".

Kimball Kinnison

 

That's not balance at all, K-Man, you're using two extremes, and both are designed to make environmentalism look stupid. The John Stossel Method: baloney.

This is just ridiculous. Who the hell is talking about eliminating any human effect on the environment? How about having a bit more government oversight on how much waste can be sent into the atmosphere, or public land, or public water? Or stiffer penalties for such behaviour? This is again just disingenuous. Everything we do 'makes it worse'? Sure, but is it possible to 'make it less worse'? I think so.

 

This is just ridiculous. Who the hell is talking about eliminating any human effect on the environment? How about having a bit more government oversight on how much waste can be sent into the atmosphere, or public land, or public water? Or stiffer penalties for such behaviour? This is again just disingenuous. Everything we do 'makes it worse'? Sure, but is it possible to 'make it less worse'? I think so.

Aumgn, you are not listening to what I write. Instead, you keep acting like I am being completely unreasonable for asking you questions.

I only asked you "How much harm to the environment is permissible to preserve your way of life?" It's obvious that you have a different standard than I do on that. How else are we to try to find a possible compromise if we don't actually discuss and ask questions?

Yes, I illustrated two different extremes, if only to demonstrate the wide range of possible opinions on the matter. Most people fall fairly close to the middle on the issue, with a bit of variation. I do think we should take efforts to minimize our impact on the environment, but I probably set the balance point different from where you would.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I know that nobody is literally advocating what you were talking about, and that you weren't saying anybody was.

But I had posted that we should aspire to 'not make it worse'. You replied by listing a bunch of crazy extremist envrionmental ideas that nobody is advocating. It was just a patronising way of denigrating the other side, which generally just wants higher standards for pollution control. It was just a nonsense post that advocated balance whilst presenting only an unbalanced view of one side.

 

It was just a patronising way of denigrating the other side, which generally just wants higher standards for pollution control.

The question that I was trying (and it seems failing) to get at is this:

At what cost?

Would you be willing to pay $4/gallon for gas? $5? $10? Environemntalists have opposed new refineries for a variety of reasons (including pollution controls) for decades, and that contributes to the rise in gas prices. Where do you draw the balance?

Similarly, the opposition to nuclear power (one of the cleanest sources out there) drives up other energy costs, especially with limited fuel and coal supplies.

These are the sort of questions that require the balancing act on this issue.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Of course. And that's a fair way to bring up the issue of balance! Not the other post.

I can't outline an environmental policy, though. I do think gas prices should reflect their true cost, as in 'the long term'. I think the recent weakening of environmental policy is pretty senseless, as we had a stronger economy even with the stronger regulations. I'm not at all implying a cause-and-effect here, just saying it can be done.

 

I love how the feds got blamed for everyting when we are dealing with local officals like this.

 

Moved here per KK request:

What will be be blamed for once Rita hits?

He he be called a racist because "white" Texans mostly got out in time where "black" people of New Orleans failed to get out of town?


Will he be accused of favortism because because Texas is his home state?


If the storm makes land fall in Louisiana will he be accused of steering the storm away from Texas?

If Houston get hits bad, where do all the refugees go? And will problems relocating them be his fault?



If he fails to reacted in a timely manner, he should be blamed, but he is in a no win situation. He will be critized wheather he does a good job with this one or not and race will most likely be the card played if things go well in this storm.

 

Well he can't do too much worse than last time. And I'm sure they've already got a head start on the photo ops.