KRISTEN'S BOARD
KB - a better class of pervert

News:

climate change thread

Lois · 17105

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,152
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-56

Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,152
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-56
Reply #81 on: August 02, 2017, 12:29:56 AM
The Permian extinction may have more parallels to what is happening today than originally thought.

Underground magma triggered Earth’s worst mass extinction with greenhouse gases
There are parallels between today’s and past greenhouse gas-driven climate changes
by Howard Lee

Coincidence doesn’t prove causality, as they say, but when the same two things happen together over and over again through the vast span of geological time, there must be a causal link. Of some 18 major and minor mass extinctions since the dawn of complex life, most happened at the same time as a rare, epic volcanic phenomenon called a Large Igneous Province (LIP). Many of those extinctions were also accompanied by abrupt climate warming, expansion of ocean dead zones and acidification, like today.

Earth’s most severe mass extinction, the “Great Dying,” began 251.94 million years ago at the end of the Permian period, with the loss of more than 90% of marine species. Precise rock dates published in 2014 and 2015 proved that the extinction coincided with the Siberian Traps LIP, an epic outpouring of lava and intrusions of underground magma covering an area of northern Asia the size of Europe.

But those rock dates presented science with a new puzzle: why was the mass extinction event much shorter than the eruptions? And why did the extinction happen some 300,000 years after the lava began to flow?

Now in a new study published in Nature Communications, Seth Burgess of the US Geological Survey, along with James Muirhead of Syracuse University and Samuel Bowring of MIT, think they have the answer. As Burgess told me:

It’s clearly not the entirety of the LIP that’s guilty. There’s a subinterval that’s doing the work, and I set out to figure out which subinterval that was, and what makes it special.

Burgess noticed that the beginning of the mass extinction, as well as a jolt to the carbon cycle and abrupt climate warming, coincided exactly with a switch in the style of volcanic activity in the Siberian Traps. During the initial 300,000 years of the eruptions, basalt lava poured over a vast area of Siberia building to several kilometers thick. In this time there was some stress to life in the Northern Hemisphere, but no mass extinction. Life only began to disappear across the globe at exactly the same time that lava stopped erupting above ground, and instead began to inject as sheets of magma underground.

In Siberia you have got the Tunguska Basin which is a thick package of sediments that contain carbon-bearing rocks like limestone and coal. When you start intruding magma, [it] cooks those sediments and liberates the volatiles. So the deadly interval of magma in the entire Large Igneous Province is the first material to intrude and pond into the shallow crust

In other words, it wasn’t the lava, it was the underground magma that started the killing, by releasing greenhouse gases.

Norwegian scientist Henrik Svensen had earlier identified hundreds of unusual volcanic vents called “diatreme pipes” all over Siberia that connected underground intrusions of magma (“sills”) to the atmosphere, showing signs of violent gas explosions. This new work emphasizes the importance of Svensen’s 2009 conclusions:

The diatremes that have been mapped are the geologic representation of that gas escape on a catastrophic level. Our hypothesis is that the first sills to be intruded are the ones that really do the killing [by] large scale gas escape likely via these diatremes.

Svensen, who was not involved in Burgess’ study, commented:

The Burgess et al paper is a crucial step towards a new understanding of the role of volcanism in driving extinctions. It’s not the spectacular volcanic eruptions that we should pay attention too - it’s their quiet relative, the sub-volcanic network of intrusions, that did the job. The new study shows convincingly that we are on the right track.

Greenhouse gas as a killer

While other scientists have proposed that an array of killers may have been involved in the end-Permian mass extinction, from mercury poisoning to ultraviolet rays and ozone collapse to acid rain, Burgess argues that it was principally greenhouse gas emissions triggered by magma intrusions that caused the extinction through abrupt global warming and ocean acidification. I asked him to outline the evidence for that.

There are 3 primary lines of evidence that support that link. The first is: right before the onset of the mass extinction we have evidence for a massive input of isotopically light carbon into the marine system.

He went on to explain various lines of evidence that point to the source of that carbon being methane and carbon dioxide resulting from magma intruding and cooking organic-rich sediments. He continued:

Just prior to extinction and persisting after the mass extinction the sea surface temperature is thought to have gone up about 10°C. You get that increase by pumping greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. So that’s the second.

And then the third line of evidence is a physiologic selectivity to the marine mass extinction. Organisms that make their shells out of calcium carbonate suffer much higher mortality than organisms that make their shells out of silica, for example, which suggests that the ocean was acidified, and you get that by pumping gases like CO2 into the atmosphere.

That’s not to say that other factors had no role in ruining the environment:

There is a cacophony of kill mechanisms, and I think that this first pulse of sills is the trigger for quite a few of those, sitting at the top, and beneath it are a cascade of negative effects from ocean acidification to climate warming and on down the line.

Coincidentally, Joshua Davies of the University of Geneva and colleagues have just narrowed down the trigger for the end-Triassic mass extinction, another of Earth’s biggest mass extinctions, to the underground phase of its associated Large Igneous Province. The Central Atlantic Magmatic Province (CAMP) is another enormous igneous province which stretches from Maine to South America, and includes the Palisade Sill visible from Manhattan.

They too used high precision rock dates on a vast sill that intruded organic rich sediments in the Amazon Basin, and found that this underground magma intrusion also coincided with the extinction. Like Burgess, Davies also argues that greenhouse gas baked from sediments drove climate change, which drove the mass extinction in a smaller repeat of the end-Permian events, this time 201.5 million years ago.

“I think CAMP is very similar to the Siberian Traps and that’s the reason why there’s an extinction at that time. I’m not surprised that they got similar results,” said Burgess.

Diatreme pipes from magma intrusions have also been identified as a likely cause for a more recent global warming and very minor extinction event – the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) 56 million years ago. Again, prodigious quantities of greenhouse gases erupted from oil-rich deposits, although in that case it’s been hard to locate and date the “smoking gun” intrusions due to the fact that they are under the Atlantic Ocean.

A predictive model
Burgess’ insight makes a testable prediction:

Only Large Igneous Provinces characterized by sills intruded into a volatile-fertile basin are going to be lethal on a global scale.

This may explain why some Large Igneous Provinces are tied to mass extinctions, and some are not. Burgess thinks that the Deccan LIP, which happened at the time when the dinosaurs disappeared at the end of the Cretaceous, would not have triggered a major mass extinction on its own:

The Deccan Traps doesn’t satisfy those 2 criteria. It’s predominantly flood basalt lavas erupted onto old granitic rock. Acting alone there would likely have been negative effects on the biosphere because of the gases and the particulate matter released by those lavas, which are not insignificant, but I would argue that acting alone it would have been minor relative to the observed mass extinction. But with the Chicxulub impactor sharing the causal burden together they caused the mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous.

Parallels today?
The more science learns of these past greenhouse gas-driven events, the more uncomfortable the parallels to today become. I asked Burgess if it was ridiculous to make the comparison.

No, I don’t think the comparison is ridiculous at all, and I think that the timescales over which the environment changes associated with mass extinctions are frighteningly similar to the timescales over which our current climate is changing. The cause might be different but the hallmarks are similar.

Geologically fast build-up of greenhouse gas linked to warming, rising sea-levels, widespread oxygen-starved ocean dead zones and ocean acidification are fairly consistent across the mass extinction events, and those same symptoms are happening today as a result of human-driven climate change. Even though the duration of those past events was longer, and the volume of emissions was larger than we will produce, we are emitting greenhouse gases around 10 times faster than the most recent, mildest example – the PETM. The rapidity of today’s emissions prompted scientists Richard Zeebe and James Zachos to observe in a 2013 paper:

The Anthropocene will more likely resemble the end-Permian and end-Cretaceous disasters, rather than the PETM.

When the promises made for the 2016 Paris Agreement on climate change are added up, they aim to limit peak warming this century to about 3.3ºC compared to about 4.2ºC for the business-as-usual scenario, and the 2ºC limit the world is aiming to stay under. It’s sobering to compare those numbers to the majority of mass extinctions in the geological record which were characterized by abrupt warmings typically around 6-7ºC.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/01/underground-magma-triggered-earths-worst-mass-extinction-with-greenhouse-gases



Offline herschel

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 1,702
    • Woos/Boos: +222/-1
Reply #82 on: August 02, 2017, 05:12:51 AM
Gee Lois, I'm impressed that you think there are enough members here on KB who will read this kind of argument and understand half or more of it. Stick that in your NYT/WaPo and see what Trump twitters, or any of the Foggy Bottom nincompoops.

This makes me wonder that one of our esteemed members makes fun of me when I say my main source of news is right here on KB. Of course you still have to be careful to apply critical thinking to what is argued, but that's true no matter where you go.



Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,152
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-56
Reply #83 on: August 02, 2017, 06:31:22 PM
I was able to understand it, therefore I believe there are others who can, too.  But of course there are Trump voters about and I suspect they won't understand a word.

Sick of my copy and paste?  Too bad.  I offer reading that I think is important.  I also provide full text when I am able so that others with slow connections don't have to go to the source and wait for the article to load.  I also don't want to hide my links because if it is to a source like the New York Times I want people to think before they waste one of their limited free articles per month.



Offline herschel

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 1,702
    • Woos/Boos: +222/-1
Reply #84 on: August 02, 2017, 07:23:01 PM
Apparently I gave the wrong impression in my comment, which I meant to be entirely favorable and complimentary. I see now how my tone might be taken as snarky, but that was not my intent.

I know there are plenty of very intelligent members here on KB, some of whom I may occasionally disagree with, but I don't hold that against them, as in holding a grudge. Thoughtful minds will differ.

I like it when the tone of debate is elevated, and I thought your cut-and-paste was an entirely appropriate means of achieving that. I have thought of doing the same thing from time to time, but wondered if it was worth the effort, so left it undone.

What I meant to be a right-handed gesture of approbation came off as left-handed. The fault is mine. I apologize. (And, by the way, I did give you a woo.) Let us smoke the pipe of peace.



Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,152
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-56
Reply #85 on: August 02, 2017, 08:22:29 PM
Ah, thank you.  :emot_kiss:



Offline joan1984

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 11,270
    • Woos/Boos: +616/-270
    • Gender: Female
  • Co-POY 2011
Reply #86 on: August 03, 2017, 07:00:08 PM
https://patch.com/california/hollywood/fido-fluffy-are-hurting-environment-ucla-study-says

No wonder our planet is dying. Now we finally know, and we can act!

Or not, lol.

Woof, Woof, Woof!

Some people are like the 'slinky'. Not really good for much,
but they bring a smile to your face as they fall down stairs.


Offline msslave

  • Co-POY 2019
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 8,841
    • Woos/Boos: +1380/-3
    • Gender: Male
Reply #87 on: August 03, 2017, 07:10:48 PM
Global warming will be solved once we kill all the alarmists and stop all the hot air they are blowing out their collective asses! :emot_laughing:

Shakespeare was wrong.  We don't start with the attorneys. :emot_laughing:

Well trained and been made compliant....by my cat Neville


Offline redhatlover

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 2,842
    • Woos/Boos: +255/-3
    • Gender: Male
Reply #88 on: August 03, 2017, 08:49:56 PM
Global warming:  A localized phenomenon within the Beltway caused by politicians & bureaucrats talking about it.

I am like Charlie the Tuna.  I don't want women with good taste, I want women who taste good.


Offline joan1984

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 11,270
    • Woos/Boos: +616/-270
    • Gender: Female
  • Co-POY 2011
Reply #89 on: August 06, 2017, 06:00:47 AM
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/08/04/temperatures-plunge-after-australias-bureau-of-meteorology-orders-fix/

Hmmm... seems "smart cards" have been 'adjusting' the input of actual temps and reducing the coldest recordings... hey, if reality does not fit the Agenda, change it!

Some people are like the 'slinky'. Not really good for much,
but they bring a smile to your face as they fall down stairs.


Offline Athos_131

  • ΘΣ, Class of '92
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 8,759
    • Woos/Boos: +376/-53
    • Gender: Male
  • How many Assholes do we got on this ship, anyhow?
Reply #90 on: August 08, 2017, 05:27:21 AM

#BlackLivesMatter
Arrest The Cops Who Killed Breonna Taylor

#BanTheNaziFromKB


Offline Athos_131

  • ΘΣ, Class of '92
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 8,759
    • Woos/Boos: +376/-53
    • Gender: Male
  • How many Assholes do we got on this ship, anyhow?
Reply #91 on: August 08, 2017, 05:30:04 AM

#BlackLivesMatter
Arrest The Cops Who Killed Breonna Taylor

#BanTheNaziFromKB


Offline Athos_131

  • ΘΣ, Class of '92
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 8,759
    • Woos/Boos: +376/-53
    • Gender: Male
  • How many Assholes do we got on this ship, anyhow?
Reply #92 on: August 10, 2017, 12:12:06 AM

#BlackLivesMatter
Arrest The Cops Who Killed Breonna Taylor

#BanTheNaziFromKB


Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,152
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-56
Reply #93 on: September 08, 2017, 06:02:28 PM
It was predicted that global warming would mean more storms and those storms would be more powerful.  A warming ocean means more water evaporated into the atmosphere fueling more powerful hurricanes. 

So is that what we are actually seeing?  Are hurricanes Harvey, and Irma sending us a message?


President Trump, hurricanes Harvey and Irma are sending you a message
BY ANDRÉS OPPENHEIMER

As a Miami Beach resident who is writing this surrounded by sand bags in preparation for Hurricane Irma, only a week after Hurricane Harvey ravaged Texas, I have an urgent question for President Donald Trump and his fellow climate change deniers: how many natural disasters will it take for you to listen to the world’s most prestigious scientists?

Last week, it was Hurricane Harvey, which left billions of dollars in damages and caused at least 60 deaths. This week, it’s Irma, already described as the biggest hurricane in recent memory in the Atlantic. And Hurricanes Jose and Katia are already forming behind it.

Climate deniers like Trump, citing fake news reports and pseudo-scientific studies, say the world has always had warmer and colder periods, and the current wave of global warming is just one more. According to their logic — and that of polluting industries that are behind it — mankind has nothing to do with this. It’s just nature, they claim.

But 97 percent of climate scientists agree that global warming is being caused by man-made toxic gases, according to a 2013 scientific paper that examined 11,944 climate abstracts. That paper drives climate skeptics mad, but virtually all studies show that there is a near total consensus around man-made climate change among scientists, and that climate deniers are in most cases pseudo-scientists or conservative radio charlatans.

Ligia Collado-Vides, a professor of marine sciences at Florida International University who like most South Floridians was doing last-minute shopping in anticipation of Irma, told me that “it is irresponsible for our political leaders not to accept that man-made climate change is happening, and that there is a clear link between that and the intensity of the hurricanes that are hitting us.”

The earth is getting warmer, which makes oceans get warmer, which in turn makes hurricanes stronger, she said. “Hurricanes feed on warm water. The warmer the water, the stronger the hurricanes will be,” Collado-Vides told me.

The irony of Trump and his cadre of climate skeptics is that while they rely on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its National Hurricane Center to warn us about incoming hurricanes, they don’t pay attention to NOAA’s own scientific conclusions about human-caused climate change.

In a Dec. 15 scientific paper titled “Explaining Extreme Events from a Climate Perspective,” scientists from the American Meteorological Society and NOAA — a U.S. agency whose 12,000-person staff includes 6,737 scientists and engineers — concluded that “human-caused climate change very likely increased the severity of heat waves” in five continents in 2015.

“We’re seeing mounting evidence that climate change is making heat waves more extreme in many regions around the world,” said NOAA scientist and lead editor of the report, Stephanie C. Herring.

Another NOAA scientific paper published on Jan. 18 in collaboration with Princeton University scientists concluded that the number of “mild” days — between 64 and 86 degrees — in U.S. cities is declining rapidly, which will have a huge economic impact on the travel, tourism, construction, transportation and agriculture industries.

While there are currently 97 mild days a year in Miami, 83 in New York and 77 in Chicago, these numbers will drop to an average of 69 days in Miami, 77 days in New York and 68 days in Chicago in the years 2081-2100, the study says.

There is a chance that Congress may push the Trump administration to act more responsibly, especially after the president’s reckless decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord.

The Senate is about to debate the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which sets policy and security goals, and includes an amendment that could call on the Defense Department to write a report on the security risks of global warming. The military tends to take climate change seriously, and could recommend approving the project, known as the Langevin amendment.

Whether the Senate approves the project or not, it’s time for climate change deniers to accept reality. President Trump, Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Jose and Katia are trying to send you a message. Don’t ignore it.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/andres-oppenheimer/article171750372.html



Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,152
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-56
Reply #94 on: September 08, 2017, 06:10:55 PM
No big surprise here!

Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed
by Katherine Ellen Foley

It’s often said that of all the published scientific research on climate change, 97% of the papers conclude that global warming is real, problematic for the planet, and has been exacerbated by human activity.

But what about those 3% of papers that reach contrary conclusions? Some skeptics have suggested that the authors of studies indicating that climate change is not real, not harmful, or not man-made are bravely standing up for the truth, like maverick thinkers of the past. (Galileo is often invoked, though his fellow scientists mostly agreed with his conclusions—it was church leaders who tried to suppress them.)

Not so, according to a review published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology. The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results.

Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, worked with a team of researchers to look at the 38 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade that denied anthropogenic global warming.

“Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,” Hayhoe wrote in a Facebook post.

One of Hayhoe’s co-authors, Rasmus Benestad, an atmospheric scientist at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, built the program using the computer language R—which conveniently works on all computer platforms—to replicate each of the papers’ results and to try to understand how they reached their conclusions. Benestad’s program found that none of the papers had results that were replicable, at least not with generally accepted science.

Broadly, there were three main errors in the papers denying climate change. Many had cherry-picked the results that conveniently supported their conclusion, while ignoring other context or records. Then there were some that applied inappropriate “curve-fitting”—in which they would step farther and farther away from data until the points matched the curve of their choosing.

And of course, sometimes the papers just ignored physics altogether. “In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup,” the authors write.

Those who assert that these papers are correct while the other 97% are wrong are holding up science where the researchers had already decided what results they sought, the authors of the review say. Good science is objective—it doesn’t care what anyone wants the answers to be.

The review serves as an answer to the charge that the minority view on climate change has been consistently suppressed, wrote Hayhoe. “It’s a lot easier for someone to claim they’ve been suppressed than to admit that maybe they can’t find the scientific evidence to support their political ideology… They weren’t suppressed. They’re out there, where anyone can find them.” Indeed, the review raises the question of how these papers came to be published in the first place, when they used flawed methodology, which the rigorous peer-review process is designed to weed out.

In an article for the Guardian, one of the researchers, Dana Nuccitelli points out another red flag with the climate-change-denying papers: “There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming,” he writes. “Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other.”

The Galileo example is also instructive, Nuccitelli points out. The “father of observational science,” championed the astronomical model that the earth and other planets in our solar system revolve around the sun—a view that was eventually accepted almost universally as the truth. “If any of the contrarians were a modern-day Galileo, he would present a theory that’s supported by the scientific evidence and that’s not based on methodological errors,” he writes. “Such a sound theory would convince scientific experts, and a consensus would begin to form.”

https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/



Offline mark_lp

  • Pervert
  • **
    • Posts: 63
    • Woos/Boos: +17/-5
    • Gender: Male
Reply #95 on: September 09, 2017, 01:59:29 AM
It was predicted that global warming would mean more storms and those storms would be more powerful.  A warming ocean means more water evaporated into the atmosphere fueling more powerful hurricanes. 

So is that what we are actually seeing?  Are hurricanes Harvey, and Irma sending us a message?

There were 14 Category 4+ hurricanes that made landfall in the USA from 1926 to 1969, and only four in the entire last 50 years.

I guarantee you that if we were still riding around on horses and pulling buggy's, this hurricane still would have happened with the same results. They've existed for a millennium and will still exist after we're dead and gone as a human race.



Offline Athos_131

  • ΘΣ, Class of '92
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 8,759
    • Woos/Boos: +376/-53
    • Gender: Male
  • How many Assholes do we got on this ship, anyhow?
Reply #96 on: September 09, 2017, 03:33:58 AM
I guarantee you that if we were still riding around on horses and pulling buggy's, this hurricane still would have happened with the same results. They've existed for a millennium and will still exist after we're dead and gone as a human race.

Guarantee?  Ok let's see your proof.

#Resist

#BlackLivesMatter
Arrest The Cops Who Killed Breonna Taylor

#BanTheNaziFromKB


Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,152
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-56
Reply #97 on: September 09, 2017, 08:14:08 AM
There were 14 Category 4+ hurricanes that made landfall in the USA from 1926 to 1969, and only four in the entire last 50 years.

The last 50 years would be 1967-2017.  So let's take a look at the NOAA list.  Hurricanes greater than a four have been highlighted.  Sorry, but your numbers simply don't add up.

GALVESTON 1900 (4)
ATLANTIC-GULF 1919 (4)
MIAMI 1926 (4)
SAN FELIPE-OKEECHOBEE 1928 (4)
FLORIDA KEYS LABOR DAY 1935 (5)
NEW ENGLAND 1938 (5)

GREAT ATLANTIC 1944 (3)
CAROL AND EDNA 1954 (3s)
HAZEL 1954 (4)
CONNIE AND DIANE 1955 (3&1)
AUDREY 1957 (4)
DONNA 1960 (4)


1967 (next 50 years)

CAMILLE 1969 (5)
AGNES 1972 (1)
TROPICAL STORM CLAUDETTE 1979 (0)
ALICIA 1983 (3)
GILBERT 1988 (5)
HUGO 1989 (4)
ANDREW 1992 (4)

TROPICAL STORM ALBERTO 1994 (0)
OPAL 1995 (4)
MITCH 1998 (5)
FLOYD 1999 (4)
KEITH 2000 (4)

TROPICAL STORM ALLISON 2001 (0)
IRIS 2001 (4)
ISABEL 2003 (4)

CHARLEY 2004 (3)
FRANCES 2004 (4)
IVAN 2004 (5)

JEANNE 2004 (1)
DENNIS 2005 (4-5)
KATRINA 2005 (5)
RITA 2005 (5)

WILMA 2005 (2)
IKE 2008 (4)

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/outreach/history/

Now maybe all of the above did not hit the USA, but that would be cherry picking, and I know you would never do that.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 08:19:57 AM by Lois »



Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,152
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-56
Reply #98 on: September 09, 2017, 08:24:19 AM
Here's a list of category 5 Atlantic Hurricanes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Category_5_Atlantic_hurricanes

Again, your numbers don't hold up.



Offline mark_lp

  • Pervert
  • **
    • Posts: 63
    • Woos/Boos: +17/-5
    • Gender: Male
Reply #99 on: September 09, 2017, 04:01:18 PM
1926-1969 (44 years) = 14 Category 4+ US landfalls

1970-2017 (46+ years) = 4 Cat 4+ landfalls

Decrease of >70%

Looks like you don't add up.

If global (fraud) warming were an issue there would be an increase in out of season hurricanes. For the warming alarmists, every major weather event is never really a disaster or even a crisis but a heaven-sent opportunity to promote their alarmist (fraudulent) narrative.

Personally speaking, I think the moisture that fed Harvey and Irma was all the leftist tears shed since the election. So it was actually Hillary that caused the hurricane to be so huge. Damn her!!! It's either that or these hurricanes are caused by Confederate statues built by Russia in conspiracy with Trump.