Hurricane Otis' Wind Speed Increased by 115 mph in 24 Hours. That's Normal... Right?

[Flash]

2nd time, you easily triggered putz.

So you are a science denier?

 

[Crick]

So you are a science denier?

What science do you believe you are applying here?

 

[Flash]

What science do you believe you are applying here?

Weather.

It happens. We have only been tracking weather events like this for the last hundred years or so. For all we know the same kind of storm hit Mexico or another part of Central America thousands of times in the past but never made it to any database. Weather has been around billions of years longer than the National Hurricane Weather Center.

You stupid uneducated science deniers have a difficult time understanding things like this.

 

[AMart]

Hurricanes are normal, have been around forever, but 1,000 years ago there wasn't hundreds of condo highrises along the beach. We use the name hurricane from the Taino hurukan. The natives of the W. Indies were well versed in this.

“Hurricane.” A depiction of the swirling-armed Taíno storm goddess, Guabancex

 

[Crick]

Weather.

You'll have to pardon me if I don't accept your expertise in meteorology

It happens.

What happens? The rapid intensification of storms? That point is that the rate of occurrence and the severity of the intensification are increasing in line with global warming, particularly of the ocean.

We have only been tracking weather events like this for the last hundred years or so. For all we know the same kind of storm hit Mexico or another part of Central America thousands of times in the past but never made it to any database.

"For all we know"? You seem to think you can justify any point of view whatsover with that phrase. How many storms have been directly observed by humans at sea and on land, from aircraft and from satellites? Tens of thousands? Millions? Do you think we do not have enough knowledge and experience to make judgements?

Weather has been around billions of years longer than the National Hurricane Weather Center.

Modern humans have been around 200,000 years and human infrastructure a fiftieth that long

You stupid uneducated science deniers have a difficult time understanding things like this.

I'm not the one rejecting mainstream science. You are.

 

[Crick]

Hurricanes are normal, have been around forever, but 1,000 years ago there wasn't hundreds of condo highrises along the beach. We use the name hurricane from the Taino hurukan. The natives of the W. Indies were well versed in this.

“Hurricane.” A depiction of the swirling-armed Taíno storm goddess, Guabancex

The topic here is not hurricanes. It is the rapid intensification of hurricanes that is being enabled by record high sea surface temperatures (SST).

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So you think that's normal?

What is "normal"?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Then how do you know it has EVER happened before?

The probability it has occurred before is unknown, which tends to the possibility it has occurred. We just have no evidence.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I am saying, sarcastically, that global warming leads to rapid storm intensification. We're seeing more and more global warming, so we will see more and more rapid storm intensificiation. Was I just too subtle for you?

So? If you are correct, what do you plan on doing about it?

 

[Crick]

What is "normal"?

1. conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
   "it's quite normal for puppies to bolt their food"
   
   
   

 

[AMart]

So? If you are correct, what do you plan on doing about it?

-Less constitutional rights for Americans
-prop up phony "renewable" energy (best is nuclear they seem to hate it).
-destroy the environment with massive wind and solar farms.

 

[luiza]

I am saying, sarcastically, that global warming leads to rapid storm intensification. We're seeing more and more global warming, so we will see more and more rapid storm intensificiation. Was I just too subtle for you?

That will be the day .
Strange that the brighter element here are not more interested in weather engineering and its underlying science .
It is a good 60 years old and if anyone thinks that matters stopped at successfully shooting silver nitrate into clouds they are in cuckoo land .

 

[Crick]

-Less constitutional rights for Americans

What constitutional right(s) do you believe are endangered by the effort to slow and stop GHG emissions?

-prop up phony "renewable" energy (best is nuclear they seem to hate it).

What makes you call renewable energy technology "phony"? And not all of us oppose nuclear power and after Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, not all opposition to nuclear power comes from greens.

-destroy the environment with massive wind and solar farms.

How is the environment destroyed by wind and solar and, apparently per your view, not harmed by the exploration, extraction, refining and combustion of fossil fuels?

 

[Crick]

That will be the day .
Strange that the brighter element here are not more interested in weather engineering and its underlying science .
It is a good 60 years old and if anyone thinks that matters stopped at successfully shooting silver nitrate into clouds they are in cuckoo land .

Really? Do tell. You believe the rapid storm intensification seen in Otis and other storms is the result of weather manipulation? Or do you believe that global warming in general was an intentional manipulation?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

1. conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
   "it's quite normal for puppies to bolt their food"
   

But because we have limited information, you do not know what normal is! You cannot tell me to what standard we should be conforming. For example, what is the ideal temperature average for Earth? What is ideal relative humidity? What is the ideal precipitation?

Answer those questions and then we can discuss what is "normal".

 

[Crick]

But because we have limited information, you do not know what normal is! You cannot tell me to what standard we should be conforming. For example, what is the ideal temperature average for Earth? What is ideal relative humidity? What is the ideal precipitation?

Answer those questions and then we can discuss what is "normal".

The question at present concerns rapid storm intensification and we have lots of data on it. We can tell that the frequency and intensity of such rapid intensifications are both increasing in conjunction with global warming, particularly of the oceans.

 

[Flash]

You'll have to pardon me if I don't accept your expertise in meteorology

What happens? The rapid intensification of storms? That point is that the rate of occurrence and the severity of the intensification are increasing in line with global warming, particularly of the ocean.

"For all we know"? You seem to think you can justify any point of view whatsover with that phrase. How many storms have been directly observed by humans at sea and on land, from aircraft and from satellites? Tens of thousands? Millions? Do you think we do not have enough knowledge and experience to make judgements?

Modern humans have been around 200,000 years and human infrastructure a fiftieth that long

I'm not the one rejecting mainstream science. You are.

You dumbshit.

If a Pacific or Atlantic storm intensified like this one did more than about about 70 or 80 years ago in most parts of the world nobody would have recorded it as such. Just another hurricane.

We know this one intensified because we were tracking it as a low before it hit landfall. Not very many decades ago the only tracking that was done at sea were ships when they recorded it.

A couple of hundred years ago only some Injins lived where the hurricane hit and they didn't have any idea what the storm was was doing a day or so.

In the late summer and early fall it is not uncommon to have rapidly intensification. This one was a doozy but it has nothing to do with any idiotic "man made warming" that you science denying morons are obsessed with.

You are confused about things like this, aren't you? You stupid Environmental Wackos never get anything right, do you?

 

[Crick]

You dumbshit.

If a Pacific or Atlantic storm intensified like this one did more than about about 70 or 80 years ago in most parts of the world nobody would have recorded it as such. Just another hurricane.

Both oceans were well occupied with shipping even then and such storms would be witnessed. Besides, as I pointed out, we have directly observed tens or hundreds of thousands of storms from sea, from land and from space and have a very good idea how often and under what conditions rapid storm intensification will take place.

We know this one intensified because we were tracking it as a low before it hit landfall. Not very many decades ago the only tracking that was done at sea were ships when they recorded it.

And still, we have records of hundreds of thousands of storms.

A couple of hundred years ago only some Injins lived where the hurricane hit and they didn't have any idea what the storm was was doing a day or so.

And still, we have records of hundreds of thousands of storms.

In the late summer and early fall it is not uncommon to have rapidly intensification.

In hurricane season we have huricanes. Now that was fucking profound.

This one was a doozy but it has nothing to do with any idiotic "man made warming" that you science denying morons are obsessed with.

It was caused by record high SST temperatures which are the result of the greenhouse effect acting on increased levels of GHGs put there by the human use of fossil fuels.

You are confused about things like this, aren't you? You stupid Environmental Wackos never get anything right, do you?

You have not found a single error of mine yet. That would make YOU the confused party here.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The question at present concerns rapid storm intensification and we have lots of data on it. We can tell that the frequency and intensity of such rapid intensifications are both increasing in conjunction with global warming, particularly of the oceans.

Tell me about the intensification of the hurricane that hit Galveston Texas in 1900. Where did the storm originate and how quickly did it achieve its highest strength?

 

[Flash]

Both oceans were well occupied with shipping even then and such storms would be witnessed. Besides, as I pointed out, we have directly observed tens or hundreds of thousands of storms from sea, from land and from space and have a very good idea how often and under what conditions rapid storm intensification will take place.

And still, we have records of hundreds of thousands of storms.

And still, we have records of hundreds of thousands of storms.

In hurricane season we have huricanes. Now that was fucking profound.

It was caused by record high SST temperatures which are the result of the greenhouse effect acting on increased levels of GHGs put there by the human use of fossil fuels.

You have not found a single error of mine yet. That would make YOU the confused party here.

Ships recorded storms but nowhere the sophistication we have now with extended tracking because of satellites and air reconnaissance. Nobody would have been around to record an event that happened in Mexico or most parts of the rest of the world and all you spin won't change that you moron.

You Envionmental Wackos ain't too bright, are you? You deny real science and replace with your stupid AGW religion bullshit. You idiots are obsessed with it.