Discussion in 'USMB Breaking News' started by usmbguest5318, Sep 6, 2017.
I did not contradict myself....Explain how I did so or STFU.
I'm not going to get into listing all the crap that pig has said.
Read it again for yourself, or get someone else to explain it to you. I'm too busy laughing.
Of course you are not because all you have is hate.
How about you provide proof? Apparently you have none.
Unknown by ignorant fuks, computer models are used all through every industry by the best engineers.
As I have shown so many times before, when the Right get caught with their foot in their mouth, they play dumb.
Especially when he said he was staying to do his radio show as long as he had electricity even though he chickened out and fled Thursday without doing his Friday show.
RUSH: Look, the program has to go on. I can sit here and say, “You know what, I’m gonna stay, I’m gonna ride this out.”
It's called; "Culling the herd." Not a bad thing.
"A lot of truth" is not at all what I've heard spewed from that man's mouth. Maybe once in a blue moon, yes, but on a routine basis, hell no.
Hindsight has already shown us Rush wasn't anything even resembling right.
People who know the MSM doesn't have any reason to willfully lie to them will not at all be thus surprised. Conspiracy theory acolytes, however, may find themselves taken aback, though I doubt they'd admit to it.
LOL Did he recant his earlier attestations about the farcical nature of the forecasts? Maybe he did, but my guess is that venal knave did nothing of the sort.
Normally, I won't dignify that man by remarking upon or responding to him or his comments. His hurricane comments, however, struck me as too over the top....Not in the abstract; his remarks were par for the course in that regard. What spurred my mention is the reprehensibility of his profligate disregard for the fact that there are people who take seriously his dupery.
Rush knows well that he has a large following of idiots. He should know too that his deprecating and discounting of the veracity of myriad scientists' efforts to share critical information to help Americans proactively avoid harm may inspire some of those loons to needlessly risk their lives on account of his BS. Rush's remarks were licentiously iniquitous.
ROTFL at you! Being a social Darwinist and a Christian, I am truly torn between wishing you live in south FL and have taken Rush's remarks to heart and hoping you don't live there or if you do that you at least had the sense to ignore his remarks and "rationale" and get the hell out of Irma's way. It's rare I'm genuinely so conflicted, yet at this moment, I am.
Looking at the video and images of Irma's aftermath, one can only say "so much for that assertion being so."
The circumstance there literally is that of paradise lost. 95% of the country has been destroyed. Do you not realize what that means? There is, for all intents and purposes, no place on the island for Barbudans to be. Almost every single Barbudan has no choice but to leave and pick up their lives somewhere else.
Would it need to have been 100% destroyed for you to construe that the statements about Irma's might to have been by you construed as not inflated?
The two people I've heard from didn't suffer much other than flooding, a lot of debris, and a few minor structures badly damaged, but they say it's a totally different story for folks closer to the beach. The business I was planning to buy with them, however, is just gone.
This used to be a house, a very nice one.
Hurricane Irma damage considerable - Macron - BBC News
Video: St. Barts destroyed by Hurricane Irma
St. Barts Struggles Under Irma | The Weather Channel
I've been on the boat coming back from dinner and partying on Ile Chevreau, in the bay and seen exactly the view above.
I booked this suite for a getaway a few years back.
Before and after -- Gustavia
Trump's vacation place
Tortola before and after
I have to ask. What exactly would have aligned with your notion of a not "inflated" warning of hurricane Irma's potential for devastation?
Who the hell looks to politicians for input about the potential impact of a storm? Meteorologists are whose input one needs. As go hurricanes, politicians don't do much other than parrot the advice of meteorologists.
Does it truly not register with you that, regardless of what Rush may have to say, politicians have nothing to gain by overstating the potential impact of foreseeable natural disasters like hurricanes? While politicians may have plenty of "hay" to make from the molehills come mountains they erect on public policy matters, they have no benefit accrues to them from upsetting their constituents' applecarts by exaggerating the potential harm of a looming natural disaster.
Yes and no. Predicting the quantity of and intensity of hurricanes is as much art as science, but it's nowhere near as inaccurate as that oversimplified statement you made implies.
Every year around April the meteorologist on the news starts talking about how many named storms are predicted for the season and how many hurricanes are expected to make landfall. Scientists can predict the number of named storms and their breakdown by intensity (i.e. the number of hurricanes, tropical storms, intense hurricanes, etc.). They can also predict approximate wind speeds and intensity for sustained winds. These can be easily calculated using elementary statistics. Compared to past seasons, the sustained wind speed follows the Poisson Distribution with fairly consistent accuracy. Named storms are typically predicted based on past occurrences and current measures of factors in the climate. At the beginning of the season these are only labeled as probabilities. Scientists cannot say that the third named storm of the season will hit Florida on June 30th. They can only say that there is a five percent chance of a major hurricane hitting the coast from April to November.
There have been great strides forward made in the science of forecasting hurricanes, but there is still a lot to do. One major problem is accuracy. The National Hurricane Center has been forecasting the paths of hurricanes since the early 1950’s. They issue 120 hour, 96 hour, 72 hour, 48 hour, 24 hour, and 12 hour forecasts. (The 120 hour and 96 hour forecasts were introduced in 2003.) The error decreases as the time before landfall decreases. The error has also decreased over the years as models become more accurate. Despite becoming more accurate, the error is still relatively large, ranging up to a 100 miles off even 24 hours before landfall.
These errors still have a substantial effect on the damage done to a certain area. A difference of one hundred miles could determine whether or not people are forced to evacuate. These are large distances for errors in forecasting landfall.
So, yes, the precision isn't perfect. That matters for small to medium sized hurricanes. Such a storm with an eye that hits, say, Biloxi need not militate for people in New Orleans to evacuate. On the other hand, for a huge and powerful storm like Irma that is bigger than the whole of FL, no low-lying areas are good places to be, regardless of whether the eye itself or a portion near the eye is what slams into the place. To that end, hurricane prediction is good enough to tell that "getting out of Dodge" is the thing to do.
And that's the reason this thread exists. Rush made his remarks with reference to Irma, a storm that well before it got near the U.S. was identified as one not to mess with.
Here are some of the Irma predictions.
The state of hurricane track and impact forecasts:
How Hurricane Forecasts Have Improved
Scientists at Work: Forecasting the Atlantic Hurricane Season
Scientists use ocean data to more accurately predict a hurricane's strength as it approaches landfall
Separate names with a comma.