German Minister Blames American People for Hurricane!

[umbrella39]

Throw some of your own commentary in GTA or it is at the mercy of the lock monster.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Why don't we just harness the hot air of politicians? Talk about an endless supply of renewable energy.

 

[jammur21]

A guy sitting across from me on the MetroLink train out of Los Angeles this morning was telling his friend that the Russians have a Cold War hurricane creator weapon system based on a laser from a satelite or on the electrical grid they placed all over the ocean floor, and they sent the hurricane to New Orleans.

His evidence: "google for weatherwars"
:roll:

 

[desy]

I agree Ididn't include a bunch of nations that scored higher than Germany like Irland and so on, but lets just look at Germany then from HIS nations perspective he is using some flattering statistcs too

 

[vi edit]

I'm asking this because I'm ignorant....

How much of those "per person CO2 ratios" are an caused by factories/production and not by actual "people" per se?

Is it more of an indication of a countries factory/industrial production in relation to population or are they just looking at actual output per person (cars, home heating/cooling, ect)?

Because that really skews things for countries that don't produce much of their own stuff and import it. Like a lot of the smaller, less populated places.

Not to say we aren't disgustingly wasteful when it comes to gas, but it's kind of hard to get around that when you have states that are bigger than some countries.

Or that we have much higher heating/cooling bills because of very inexpensive housing per sqare foot compared to other countries.

 

[Moonbeam]

I have a question. How can you determine the destructive force of hurricanes by an analysis of adjusted destruction over time and call it anything but gestimation at best and conforming the numbers to your preconception at worst?

I have another question. Where does the destructive power of hurricanes come from? Where does the storm get its energy? We are not talking storm frequency here but strength. The energy a storm acquires, I believe, comes from the heat it picks up from the water it passes over. The hotter the water the more destructive the storm in potential. The warmer the earth the warmer the water. The more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere the greater the temperature of the earth. Am I missing something?

And if so is not the damage we see today on TV exactly an image of future potential disasters our greenhouse emissions shall bring to our children?

You may not like the implications of scientific fact, but you cannot change them.
-------------------------

1. Does greenhouse gas cause global warming?

2 Does global warming warm the seas?

3 Do warmer seas generate more powerful storms?

These, I think, are the issues.

 

[Red Dawn]

Tell me again why I should care what some Teutonic Twit Government Official has to say about anything!

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I have a question. How can you determine the destructive force of hurricanes by an analysis of adjusted destruction over time and call it anything but gestimation at best and conforming the numbers to your preconception at worst?

I have another question. Where does the destructive power of hurricanes come from? Where does the storm get its energy? We are not talking storm frequency here but strength. The energy a storm acquires, I believe, comes from the heat it picks up from the water it passes over. The hotter the water the more destructive the storm in potential. The warmer the earth the warmer the water. The more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere the greater the temperature of the earth. Am I missing something?

And if so is not the damage we see today on TV exactly an image of future potential disasters our greenhouse emissions shall bring to our children?

You may not like the implications of scientific fact, but you cannot change them.
-------------------------

1. Does greenhouse gas cause global warming?

2 Does global warming warm the seas?

3 Do warmer seas generate more powerful storms?

These, I think, are the issues.

The destructive force is measured primarily in wind speed and defined by the classification of hurricanes. Hurricane wind speed has been measured for decades so we know with some certainty what the destructive potential of hurricanes are now compared to those of the past, and there doesn't appear to be any significant change whatsoever.

To answer 1 and 2 above, yes. The answer to #3 is not so simple. Hurricanes are basically huge heat transfer systems, where heat is transferred from the ocean and lower atmospheric levels to higher atmospheric levels. The gradient between lower atmospheric temps and upper atmospheric temps is a determinant (one of many) as to the strength of a hurricane. Global warming does not only affect temperatures in the lower atmosphere, but the upper atmosphere as well. Because of that, there should be no significant variance in that temperature gradient and no associated increase in the strength of hurricanes. In fact, heating in the upper atmosphere may well change upper level winds, another factor in the formation of hurricanes, and could actually have a dampening effect on hurricane formation and strength.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Not to mention that there no actual correlation established between global warming and the incidence and/or strength of hurricanes. In fact, according to the article I linked, historical records would agrue against any such correlation.

Well, he does say that a study published linked global warming and the incidence and/or strength of hurricanes:

Well, the science is clear. This month, a study published in the journal Nature by a renowned MIT climatologist linked the increasing prevalence of destructive hurricanes to human-induced global warming.

Has anybody read the study referenced? (I have not)

The only problem is that there's no increased prevalence of destructive hurricanes so the initial premise is invalid. But you can go back 50 and 100 years to find equivalents. You'd expect that if global warming were responsible that the incidents would increase with some correlation as temperatures rise. That doesn't appear to be happening. Is more destruction happening? Of course. But it's not because of hurricanes increasing in strength, it's because of population densities increasing in the coastal areas where hurricanes strike.

So what you are saying is that you have not read the study and are happy to throw out your potentially irrelevant perspective as a counter.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Not to mention that there no actual correlation established between global warming and the incidence and/or strength of hurricanes. In fact, according to the article I linked, historical records would agrue against any such correlation.

Well, he does say that a study published linked global warming and the incidence and/or strength of hurricanes:

Well, the science is clear. This month, a study published in the journal Nature by a renowned MIT climatologist linked the increasing prevalence of destructive hurricanes to human-induced global warming.

Has anybody read the study referenced? (I have not)

The only problem is that there's no increased prevalence of destructive hurricanes so the initial premise is invalid. But you can go back 50 and 100 years to find equivalents. You'd expect that if global warming were responsible that the incidents would increase with some correlation as temperatures rise. That doesn't appear to be happening. Is more destruction happening? Of course. But it's not because of hurricanes increasing in strength, it's because of population densities increasing in the coastal areas where hurricanes strike.

So what you are saying is that you have not read the study and are happy to throw out your potentially irrelevant perspective as a counter.

What I'm saying is that I've had meteorological training both as a weather observer and a forecaster, so I know what I'm talking about.

You?

 

[Makromizer]

Originally posted by: desy
I agree Ididn't include a bunch of nations that scored higher than Germany like Irland and so on, but lets just look at Germany then from HIS nations perspective he is using some flattering statistcs too

While true, the U.S. average is still nearly twice as high. But then again, I think this isn't about whether if his statistics are true or not, not even if global warming does cause these hurricanes or not, I think there are more important issues right now than just use this disaster for political purposes. It's not like this is a clear fact, it might be true but it might be not. So let the scientists do their work and say something dignified.

Originally posted by: vi_edit
I'm asking this because I'm ignorant....

How much of those "per person CO2 ratios" are an caused by factories/production and not by actual "people" per se?

Is it more of an indication of a countries factory/industrial production in relation to population or are they just looking at actual output per person (cars, home heating/cooling, ect)?

Because that really skews things for countries that don't produce much of their own stuff and import it. Like a lot of the smaller, less populated places.

Not to say we aren't disgustingly wasteful when it comes to gas, but it's kind of hard to get around that when you have states that are bigger than some countries.

Or that we have much higher heating/cooling bills because of very inexpensive housing per sqare foot compared to other countries.

You have a point here. But then, the U.S. imports much more than Europe, the huge export deficit doesn't come out of nowhere. And it's not true that you can't motivate the industries to use more efficient, less polluting facilities (I don't say you said so). Now while I don't know the numbers, I think countries like Germany also depend on heavy industries (see german cars), so while it might be one of several reason (I don't know if it is), it sure isn't the only one why the U.S. has higher CO2 emissions.
And yeah, I think, the numbers state total CO2 output, divided by capita, so industries are also included.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Not to mention that there no actual correlation established between global warming and the incidence and/or strength of hurricanes. In fact, according to the article I linked, historical records would agrue against any such correlation.

Well, he does say that a study published linked global warming and the incidence and/or strength of hurricanes:

Well, the science is clear. This month, a study published in the journal Nature by a renowned MIT climatologist linked the increasing prevalence of destructive hurricanes to human-induced global warming.

Has anybody read the study referenced? (I have not)

The only problem is that there's no increased prevalence of destructive hurricanes so the initial premise is invalid. But you can go back 50 and 100 years to find equivalents. You'd expect that if global warming were responsible that the incidents would increase with some correlation as temperatures rise. That doesn't appear to be happening. Is more destruction happening? Of course. But it's not because of hurricanes increasing in strength, it's because of population densities increasing in the coastal areas where hurricanes strike.

So what you are saying is that you have not read the study and are happy to throw out your potentially irrelevant perspective as a counter.

What I'm saying is that I've had meteorological training both as a weather observer and a forecaster, so I know what I'm talking about.

You?

Nope, and I do not claim to have any such expert knowledge.

Your meteorological training is irrelevant in discussing the contents of a study which you have not read.

 

[MonkeyK]

also if

a renowned MIT climatologist linked the increasing prevalence of destructive hurricanes to human-induced global warming.

I would think that the "renowned MIT climatologist" had some meteorological training as well...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Not to mention that there no actual correlation established between global warming and the incidence and/or strength of hurricanes. In fact, according to the article I linked, historical records would agrue against any such correlation.

Well, he does say that a study published linked global warming and the incidence and/or strength of hurricanes:

Well, the science is clear. This month, a study published in the journal Nature by a renowned MIT climatologist linked the increasing prevalence of destructive hurricanes to human-induced global warming.

Has anybody read the study referenced? (I have not)

The only problem is that there's no increased prevalence of destructive hurricanes so the initial premise is invalid. But you can go back 50 and 100 years to find equivalents. You'd expect that if global warming were responsible that the incidents would increase with some correlation as temperatures rise. That doesn't appear to be happening. Is more destruction happening? Of course. But it's not because of hurricanes increasing in strength, it's because of population densities increasing in the coastal areas where hurricanes strike.

So what you are saying is that you have not read the study and are happy to throw out your potentially irrelevant perspective as a counter.

What I'm saying is that I've had meteorological training both as a weather observer and a forecaster, so I know what I'm talking about.

You?

Nope, and I do not claim to have any such expert knowledge.

Your meteorological training is irrelevant in discussing the contents of a study which you have not read.

I don't have to read the study when the plainly known facts do not align with his premise. There is NO evidence of increased prevalence of destructive hurricanes in the first place. In fact, historically, we are in a decreasing trend, not increasing.

 

[vi edit]

I think countries like Germany also depend on heavy industries (see german cars), so while it might be one of several reason (I don't know if it is), it sure isn't the only one why the U.S. has higher CO2 emissions.

Germany doesn't do as much vehicle production as it once did. VW has a lot of it's cars built in Mexico and Brazil. BMW has plants in the US. As does Mercedes. Honda, Toyota/Lexus and Nissan/Infiniti also produce many of their cars here in the US. As does Mitsubishi.

Not saying your point isn't valid, but we do a lot of factory and production work here still. Yes we still import a lot of stuff (textiles, small gadgets, and electronics), but a lot of our very large items are still forged and put together here. Boats, planes, military equipment, construction equipment, consumer vehicles, ect.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Not to mention that there no actual correlation established between global warming and the incidence and/or strength of hurricanes. In fact, according to the article I linked, historical records would agrue against any such correlation.

Well, he does say that a study published linked global warming and the incidence and/or strength of hurricanes:

Well, the science is clear. This month, a study published in the journal Nature by a renowned MIT climatologist linked the increasing prevalence of destructive hurricanes to human-induced global warming.

Has anybody read the study referenced? (I have not)

The only problem is that there's no increased prevalence of destructive hurricanes so the initial premise is invalid. But you can go back 50 and 100 years to find equivalents. You'd expect that if global warming were responsible that the incidents would increase with some correlation as temperatures rise. That doesn't appear to be happening. Is more destruction happening? Of course. But it's not because of hurricanes increasing in strength, it's because of population densities increasing in the coastal areas where hurricanes strike.

So what you are saying is that you have not read the study and are happy to throw out your potentially irrelevant perspective as a counter.

What I'm saying is that I've had meteorological training both as a weather observer and a forecaster, so I know what I'm talking about.

You?

Nope, and I do not claim to have any such expert knowledge.

Your meteorological training is irrelevant in discussing the contents of a study which you have not read.

I don't have to read the study when the plainly known facts do not align with his premise. There is NO evidence of increased prevalence of destructive hurricanes in the first place. In fact, historically, we are in a decreasing trend, not increasing.

First, you do know know if RFK Jr understands the premise or conclusions of the study. He could be misinterpreting it for all that I know (part of why I asked if anyone had read the study).

Second, you do not know how the study defined an increased prevalence of destructive hurricanes.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Not to mention that there no actual correlation established between global warming and the incidence and/or strength of hurricanes. In fact, according to the article I linked, historical records would agrue against any such correlation.

Well, he does say that a study published linked global warming and the incidence and/or strength of hurricanes:

Well, the science is clear. This month, a study published in the journal Nature by a renowned MIT climatologist linked the increasing prevalence of destructive hurricanes to human-induced global warming.

Has anybody read the study referenced? (I have not)

The only problem is that there's no increased prevalence of destructive hurricanes so the initial premise is invalid. But you can go back 50 and 100 years to find equivalents. You'd expect that if global warming were responsible that the incidents would increase with some correlation as temperatures rise. That doesn't appear to be happening. Is more destruction happening? Of course. But it's not because of hurricanes increasing in strength, it's because of population densities increasing in the coastal areas where hurricanes strike.

So what you are saying is that you have not read the study and are happy to throw out your potentially irrelevant perspective as a counter.

What I'm saying is that I've had meteorological training both as a weather observer and a forecaster, so I know what I'm talking about.

You?

Nope, and I do not claim to have any such expert knowledge.

Your meteorological training is irrelevant in discussing the contents of a study which you have not read.

I don't have to read the study when the plainly known facts do not align with his premise. There is NO evidence of increased prevalence of destructive hurricanes in the first place. In fact, historically, we are in a decreasing trend, not increasing.

First, you do know know if RFK Jr understands the premise or conclusions of the study. He could be misinterpreting it for all that I know (part of why I asked if anyone had read the study).

Second, you do not know how the study defined an increased prevalence of destructive hurricanes.

I can't even tell if the study actually exists. A search of Nature does not bring up any study that claims an increased prevalence of hurricanes, though there was one that talked of increased precipitation due to global warming. I'm not going to pay 30 bucks to verify if that's the correct article though.

 

[raildogg]

who cares what a German Fuhrer has to say.

Germany is irrelevant

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I can't even tell if the study actually exists. A search of Nature does not bring up any study that claims an increased prevalence of hurricanes, though there was one that talked of increased precipitation due to global warming. I'm not going to pay 30 bucks to verify if that's the correct article though.

Another reason to ask if somebody has read the study (I checked on Nature's site too).

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I can't even tell if the study actually exists. A search of Nature does not bring up any study that claims an increased prevalence of hurricanes, though there was one that talked of increased precipitation due to global warming. I'm not going to pay 30 bucks to verify if that's the correct article though.

Another reason to ask if somebody has read the study (I checked on Nature's site too).

Well 100+ years of historical weather data do not back up what RFK Jr. is claiming this MIT climatologist's supposedly concluded. At this point all I can claim is that RFK Jr. is the source of a great wind.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: raildogg
who cares what a German Fuhrer has to say.

Germany is irrelevant

German Fuhrer?

Are you serious?

 

[imported_Pedro69]

Originally posted by: raildogg
who cares what a German Fuhrer has to say.

Germany is irrelevant

Who cares what raildogg has to say.

Raildogg is irrelevant

 

[CanOWorms]

This is typical European action. They waste no time to take advantage of death and destruction. They have learned a lot from colonialism.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

German Fuhrer?

Are you serious?

no i'm not. well not in the sense that hes a fuhrer. but really, why is this douche taking advantage of a tragedy in which potential thousands of people have been killed

Originally posted by: Pedro69

Who cares what raildogg has to say.

Raildogg is irrelevant

:Q

:lips:

:music:

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
This is typical European action. They waste no time to take advantage of death and destruction. They have learned a lot from colonialism.

We're still learning eh?