Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[Sleipnir]

I'm having difficulty understanding why people arguing for or against the concept of anthropogenic-assisted climate change using singular weather event

Arguing whether or not such phenomenon occurring based on singular short term atmospheric condition reduce the entire purpose of the conversation to a senseless chatter equivalence to "a dog bitten a child, therefore all dogs are getting more violent".

Edited November 8, 2012 by Sleipnir

[WIP]

whoops!...good observation WIP...they've shifted the goalposts once again...1st it was there's no evidence for warming... then "it's been warm before this is natural"... now it's "it is anthropogenic but it's okay, it's a good thing and we'll adapt"...if they didn't move the goalposts they'd have no reason for the website($$$) as the number of denier faithful drop in numbers...they're struggling to maintain what little relevance they have left...

warmer seas= stronger storms...there will always be hurricanes they will vary in size and strength as usual but the probability of stronger or larger storm occurring will increase, it has to with a warmer ocean...

Yes, the computer model predictions for more than 10 years have generally agreed that although there may not be an increase in the actual number of storms, the increased heat energy in the oceans would cause some storms to be larger and occur later in the season than before.

From following the weather blogs at Weather Underground over the last couple of years, I've learned a few of the details about why weather and climate is such a complicated subject. One of the key limiting factors of hurricanes and typhoons is that our increasingly volatile atmosphere has a tendency to increase wind shear....which tends to break up, or at least weaken a hurricane. So, not every hurricane is going to be stronger. But if wind shear is less of a factor, look out! A strong wind shear last year was the main factor in Hurricane Irene losing its strength before making landfall. Otherwise, the damage from Irene could have been worse than Sandy!

But, instead of taking Irene as a shot across the bow, nothing was done in the past year to prepare residents along the more northerly coast for the fact that global warming was putting them at a greater risk of hurricanes, and they needed to think like those living from Florida to Virginia when it comes to preparing for storms. They knew the risks of storm surges and worried about the threat to the subways and underground substations, but did nothing to improve the levee systems. I don't know how verifiable the statements are, but some electrical engineers have claimed that if lower Manhattan and other areas were flooded for more than a day, the sea water could permanently damage all of the electrical systems. Imagine all of the trouble they would have then getting the subways running and the power back on!

And the worst back page story of all is one that could have been the greatest disaster - most of nuclear power stations along the coast made no preparations for shut down, or take any precautions for operating on backup diesel generators for an extended period of time. At least two of the stations were made by G.E., and have the same design as the Fukushima reactors. They are disasters waiting to happen....just like Fukushima!

The takeaway seems again to be that governments and corporations only see the future 3 months or maybe a year at a time. The concept of preparing long term just doesn't occur until the crisis happens and there is an immediate threat. And by that time, it may be too late to do anything about it! If more people can't be taught to think years, decades and even centuries into the future, there is no hope for the human race.

[WIP]

Why is it any different from the blog you linked to? The person writing the article is worked for government climate agencies just like yours.[/font][/color]

The records show a steady or declining trend in storm strength across the globe. Of course you refuse to look at that data because it fails to conform to your 'end of the world' narrative.

http://policlimate.c..._major_freq.png

http://policlimate.c...running_ace.png

That first graph (which once again you are posting graphs without including the context of what exactly is being measured) appears to be measuring storm frequency, which is not the topic of discussion. If the second one is not some mickey mouse playing with charts game, how do they explain the finding that Hurricane Sandy....a very late season hurricane I might add, was stronger in total kinetic energy than Hurricane Katrina, and the 2nd strongest storm ever measured? Will that be part of their next set of charts? Or will they try to marginalize it as an outlier? They could easily accomplish that by just measuring wind speed and ignoring a storm's total kinetic energy.

The horrific storm surge flooding in New Jersey and New York caused by Sandy was almost perfectly predicted well in advance, but was more extreme than the average person might expect from a minimal hurricane. That’s where Sandy’s immense size comes into play.

There is a metric that quantifies the energy of a storm based on how far out tropical-storm force winds extend from the center, known as Integrated Kinetic Energy or IKE*. In modern records, Sandy’s IKE ranks second among all hurricanes at landfall, higher than devastating storms like Hurricane Katrina, Andrew and Hugo, and second only to Hurricane Isabel in 2003.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/sandy-packed-more-total-energy-than-katrina-at-landfall/2012/11/02/baa4e3c4-24f4-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_blog.html

[TimG]

and the 2nd strongest storm ever measured?

Complete nonsense. Sandy was *tropical storm* when it hit the coast. It was never larger than a Category 2. The damage was caused entirely by a storm surge hitting inadequately prepared cities (normally wind is source of damage). The kinetic energy is simply a measure of the size of the storm and Sandy was large because it was three storm systems combined into one - a complete fluke not a trend.

Of course, if you want to find someone to blame I would say it is ignorant local politicians like Bloomberg which want to waste billions on useless anti-CO2 measures instead of actually building barriers to protect population centers against such incidents.

The hype of Sandy illustrates the pathetic nature of environmentalists who would rather preach about the evils of civilization instead of looking for practical measures that would actually make civilization better.

Edited November 8, 2012 by TimG

[Bonam]

I'm having difficulty understanding why people arguing for or against the concept of anthropogenic-assisted climate change using singular weather event

Arguing whether or not such phenomenon occurring based on singular short term atmospheric condition reduce the entire purpose of the conversation to a senseless chatter equivalence to "a dog bitten a child, therefore all dogs are getting more violent".

Because they've been going in circles about climate change for thousands of pages in dozens of threads, and there hasn't been anything meaningful left to say for a long long time.

[Sleipnir]

Because they've been going in circles about climate change for thousands of pages in dozens of threads, and there hasn't been anything meaningful left to say for a long long time.

lol it sure looks like that. Meanwhile scientists, the public and governments are coming to term of what is coming our way, the fringe party focus on conspiracy theories on whether climate change is occurring or not.

[TimG]

lol it sure looks like that. Meanwhile scientists, the public and governments are coming to term of what is coming our way, the fringe party focus on conspiracy theories on whether climate change is occurring or not.

Of course this discussion is not helped by yahoos who constantly misrepresent the arguments of the opponents in order to create confusion.

This debate is always about one thing and one thing only:

What is the best policy response to the hypothetical concern of a warming climate?

To illustrate. Which policy would have helped New Yorkers more if it was adopted in 1992:

1) A strategy to spend billions building dikes and barriers to protect the coast against storm surges.

2) A strategy to spend billions buying expensive and inefficient energy sources.

Seems to me that 1) is the only viable option since it the only one that actually addresses the problem.

Doing both is a naive answer since it presumes that governments have an infinite amount of money. Resources are limited and we must invest those resources in ways that deliver the best return.

So why don't we change the discussion to this:

What is the best policy given the fact that society has limited resources to spend on climate change concerns?

Edited November 9, 2012 by TimG

[Moonbox]

That's where a lot of people start getting stupid about the argument. The assumption IS that there's infinite money, or at least that the proposed environmental initiatives (ie powering our homes by wind/solar) would be anything near affordable. Neither is true, but alternative, as it's presented to us, is the end of the world by 2040 apparently.

[Guest]

Okay, now climate change is getting serious...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20252472

[jbg]

Technically yes! There have been hurricanes in 1851 and 1903 hit the New York/New Jersey area http://www.wundergro...l?entrynum=2283

But, that one in 1903 called the Vagabond Hurricane was in September, not late October. A late season hurricane with this much power (total energy was greater than Katrina, but less concentrated) and traveling this far north, are both unprecedented. Usually, an October hurricane loses power fast as it moves north that late in the season (like last year's Irene) because the north Atlantic waters have already started cooling and wind shear caused by late summer turbulence breaks up the eyewall of the hurricane and prevents it from reforming. This was the major reason why Irene dropped so fast from a category 4 hurricane to a mere tropical storm by the time it reached the New England coast. Unfortunately, the waters were still warm enough to keep Tropical Storm Irene swirling for an extended period and dumping massive amounts of rain in Vermont and the nearby areas. I heard a lot of people in Vermont, who had bridges and roads washed out were really pissed about the way New York media acted when they called the storm a "near miss" and treated the damage in Vermont as a backstory.

But, Hurricane Sandy is clear systemic evidence of global warming whether the major news networks are willing to mention that fact or not! Just like last year, the Gulf Stream was 5 degrees warmer than normal - and allowed the storm to keep gaining energy much further north than any October hurricane or tropical storm would have been able to previously. Bad luck for New York and the Jersey Coast that wind shear was relatively low and allowed the eyewall of the hurricane to almost completely reform prior to landfall....and of course the other bad luck factor was arriving on the coast during a full moon high tide! But, the biggest change in recent years which is unprecedented is that normally the jet stream would be moving to lower latitude in late October, so any storms coming up the coast would be pushed out to sea.

That is not at all what happened with Sandy. What happened to prevent Sandy from deteriorating into a minor tropical storm was the enormous winter-type troughing in the U.S. midwest. When that trough "negatively tilts" during the winter it moves storms due south to north, or sometimes southeast to northwest. Examples of that other than Sandy was the December 25, 1969 storm that brought 2-3 feet of snow as far north from the coast as Montreal. There was enough warm air mixed in that even Montreal got some freezing rain mixture. Negatively tilted troughs are rather common in the winter, and often fuel large and deadly storms since when they move in a northwesterly direction they are coming off open ocean.

What happened was that Sandy was entrained in to one of these troughs and gained new life as a winter-type storm. There was so little warm air left in it that West Virginia received a huge dumping of snow. While I think that AGW is pure BS, this storm, if anything, is evidence against AGW since it reflected an unseasonably early winter pattern.

But, as Jeff Master's article notes, this new phenomena of high pressure blocking fronts coming off the North Atlantic, prevented the storm from going out to sea, and forced it into a sharp left turn for the coast...a far more damaging phenomena compared to the usual direction that would be traveling up the coast prior to landfall. These blocking fronts correlate with the much warmer temperatures in the far north thanks to the record sea ice melt. So, this sort of superstorm - combined with an early winter storm that was also pushed in the path of Sandy, is new and unprecedented, and cannot occur without the rising ocean temperatures allowing it to come together. The takeaway for anyone living in New York or New Jersey, or New England, is that you are going to be at the same risk of hurricanes as Virginia, the Carolinas and Florida!

A "front" is a low pressure trough, not a "high pressure" event. Either your verbiage or Mr. Masters is nonsense. The Gulf Stream is always a warm current. Just ask Reykjavik's fishermen.

Well, let's say that Romney was already the President, or go ahead a few years in the future when President Romney fulfilled his campaign promise to abolish FEMA and turn all the funding over to the state governments. It's a nobrainer that some states are richer than others, and there will be obvious winners and losers from such a policy, as poor states like Louisiana and Mississippi, would never be able to afford to rebuild after a major storm, or more importantly - get relief to people stranded by the storm. I think Chris Christie is the poster boy for how self-centered conservatives change their tune about government when they find themselves in over their heads and need outside help. It's easy to by greedy and complain that a federal agency might redistribute some of your tax funds to other, poorer states until your state needs help from the Federal Government - i.e. the collective tax base of all Americans.

Politicians are notoriously inconsistent. And Christie as governor has a responsibility to shed ideology for the public good when needed. He has no right to stick to pure conservatism and let his constituents suffer. Even if he thinks that certain programs are a terrible idea he must seek available funds for his constituents.

Complete nonsense. Sandy was *tropical storm* when it hit the coast. It was never larger than a Category 2. The damage was caused entirely by a storm surge hitting inadequately prepared cities (normally wind is source of damage). The kinetic energy is simply a measure of the size of the storm and Sandy was large because it was three storm systems combined into one - a complete fluke not a trend.

Don't overmake the point. The most publicized damage, to the NYC subway system and motoring tunnels, was from the storm surge. There was little rain with Sandy but tons of wind damage to trees and power lines. There is a lot of suffering in areas not near the coast. I lost power for four days and internet for another two.

Contrary to the ridiculous AGW arguments, the 1821 hurricane would have caused the same storm surge damage as this storm did. The Hudson and East River did merge and submerge much of Lower Manhattan. Also, we just had 14 cm. snow on Wednesday. Hardly a global warming event. Normally our first snow is sometime in mid-December and in years that the warmistas point to, in late January (that being 2007, but they forget about 1972-3, where the earliest accumulating snow was January 29).

[WIP]

Of course this discussion is not helped by yahoos who constantl

To illustrate. Which policy would have helped New Yorkers more if it was adopted in 1992:

1) A strategy to spend billions building dikes and barriers to protect the coast against storm surges.

2) A strategy to spend billions buying expensive and inefficient energy sources.

Since 2. wasn't even started 30 years ago when the first warnings about climate change were coming out, then 1. is the only strategy left....which also wasn't done in case you noticed!

We always hear in health that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," and that would have been a sensible strategy, but it may be too late already, and strategy 1. will require retreating from cities like some areas of New York, Atlantic City, and Norfolk Virginia, as they become increasingly susceptible to rising sea levels and storm damage. One foot of sea level rise represents 50 to a 100 feet of lost land area depending on elevation.

[WIP]

Complete nonsense. Sandy was *tropical storm* when it hit the coast. It was never larger than a Category 2. The damage was caused entirely by a storm surge hitting inadequately prepared cities (normally wind is source of damage). The kinetic energy is simply a measure of the size of the storm and Sandy was large because it was three storm systems combined into one - a complete fluke not a trend.

You spend so much time arguing this subject, you should at least know some of the fundamentals. If the storm is larger in total size (like Sandy) and it is approaching coastal port areas like New York and the New Jersey coasts, that wider storm surge water gets forced into a narrower channel. That should be enough information necessary to tell you that the danger of a storm is not all about wind speeds....unless you're a complete idiot. What are the damage estimates now for Hurricane Sandy? 50, 60 billion? The numbers keep rising every time I check a new story on the subject of storm damage.

And your point about Sandy being a "fluke" because it was a combination of three storms is also pure idiocy! Because, as many meteorologists have noted so far, the warmer Gulf and Atlantic waters are enabling hurricanes and tropical storms to form later in the season than previously, and the Nor'easters are occurring earlier in the fall season. So, this sort of "superstorm" is an anomaly that will become more and more common over the coming years.....just like those 50 and 100 year floods and droughts that are happening every 3 or 4 years now.

[TimG]

You spend so much time arguing this subject, you should at least know some of the fundamentals.

You are the one claiming that the storm was the "2nd strongest storm ever measured". If you meant "strong" to mean storm surge and not wind speed you should have indicated that. In any case, the last storm that had a surge this high occurred in 1821 which demostrates that Sandy is nothing but a 1 in 100 year weather event. http://en.wikipedia....York_hurricanes

What are the damage estimates now for Hurricane Sandy? 50, 60 billion? The numbers keep rising every time I check a new story on the subject of storm damage.

So what? NY is more populated today than in the past so the damage from the same storms will be higher. The correct response to this risk it to build barriers not windmills.

So, this sort of "superstorm" is an anomaly that will become more and more common over the coming years.....just like those 50 and 100 year floods and droughts that are happening every 3 or 4 years now.

Yawn. The same doomsday claptrap is rolled out whenever a major weather event happens nature always seems to prove the alarmists wrong. Edited November 11, 2012 by TimG

[WIP]

That is not at all what happened with Sandy. What happened to prevent Sandy from deteriorating into a minor tropical storm was the enormous winter-type troughing in the U.S. midwest.

No, that is not what happened! Sandy gained strength after leaving the Bahamas, and didn't lose much on its approach to landfall. What you are lucky with is that it was moving so fast...so it didn't linger on the coast as long as Irene did last year. Sandy was still at near full strength when it combined with the other storms.

A "front" is a low pressure trough, not a "high pressure" event. Either your verbiage or Mr. Masters is nonsense. The Gulf Stream is always a warm current. Just ask Reykjavik's fishermen.

Okay, I just looked it up -- it's called a Blocking Ridge. And the high pressure cell came off Greenland and forced Hurricane Sandy to make a sharp turn....unless you also want to deny that too!

Don't overmake the point. The most publicized damage, to the NYC subway system and motoring tunnels, was from the storm surge. There was little rain with Sandy but tons of wind damage to trees and power lines. There is a lot of suffering in areas not near the coast. I lost power for four days and internet for another two.

I have heard electrical engineers claim that if the storm surge lasted longer, the damage to the subway and other underground electrical systems could have been permanent because of the corrosive effects of salt water. They're lucky the surge only lasted a few hours. They may not be so lucky next time!

Contrary to the ridiculous AGW arguments, the 1821 hurricane would have caused the same storm surge damage as this storm did. The Hudson and East River did merge and submerge much of Lower Manhattan. Also, we just had 14 cm. snow on Wednesday. Hardly a global warming event. Normally our first snow is sometime in mid-December and in years that the warmistas point to, in late January (that being 2007, but they forget about 1972-3, where the earliest accumulating snow was January 29).

1821 is a hell of a long time ago! And sea levels were not near as high back then either. Will New York just wait for its luck to run out and end up with most of the city flooded some time in the near future?

[jbg]

One foot of sea level rise represents 50 to a 100 feet of lost land area depending on elevation.

Man doesn't have much to do with the phases of the moon that can create that extra foot.

[GostHacked]

No, that is not what happened! Sandy gained strength after leaving the Bahamas, and didn't lose much on its approach to landfall. What you are lucky with is that it was moving so fast...so it didn't linger on the coast as long as Irene did last year. Sandy was still at near full strength when it combined with the other storms.

Sandy was practically dead after the hit on Cuba and the Bahamas. What's that red streak?

http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mimic-tc/2012_18L/webManager/displayGifsBy12hr_09.html

Edited November 11, 2012 by GostHacked

[jbg]

No, that is not what happened! Sandy gained strength after leaving the Bahamas, and didn't lose much on its approach to landfall. What you are lucky with is that it was moving so fast...so it didn't linger on the coast as long as Irene did last year. Sandy was still at near full strength when it combined with the other storms.

The vigor of the troughing allowed Sandy to gain strength after leaving the Bahamas and moving off the Gulf Stream. Troughs have been part of East Coast weather from time immemorial; just ask the concert-goers at Woodstock in 1969. It is coincidental and fortunately rare that an East Coast hurricane is entrained into a strong, negatively tilted trough.

Okay, I just looked it up -- it's called a Blocking Ridge. And the high pressure cell came off Greenland and forced Hurricane Sandy to make a sharp turn....unless you also want to deny that too!

I certainly would never deny the effect of the -NAO blocking ridge. The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and Arctic Oscillation (AO) veer between positive and negative over decades. During periods of strongly "blocking" or negative NAO's and/or AO's, the Arctic is indeed quite warm compared to normal. For example, during the December 19, 2009 snowstorm that impacted New York City and Washington, D.C. the temperatures in Iqaluit were warmer (link) than in Washington, DC (link). This was during a period where there was a strong "blocking ridge".

Compare to December 19, 2011 where the NAO was strongly positive. Iqualuit's (link) and Washington, DC's (link) relationship was closer to normal, and reversed. These blocking ridge situation and the opposite have cycled back and forth for millenia.

Why not do a bit more research?

1821 is a hell of a long time ago! And sea levels were not near as high back then either. Will New York just wait for its luck to run out and end up with most of the city flooded some time in the near future?

How do you know sea levels (other than through tidal fluctuations) have risen much since 1821? And my point by raising 1821 is to show that this can happy before the presumptive beginning of "globaloney warming."

[WIP]

The vigor of the troughing allowed Sandy to gain strength after leaving the Bahamas and moving off the Gulf Stream. Troughs have been part of East Coast weather from time immemorial; just ask the concert-goers at Woodstock in 1969. It is coincidental and fortunately rare that an East Coast hurricane is entrained into a strong, negatively tilted trough.

And the Gulf was 5 degrees warmer than usual....but as usual, those who want to deny climate change can't accept that warmer oceans make more powerful storms and lengthen the hurricane season as well.

I certainly would never deny the effect of the -NAO blocking ridge. The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and Arctic Oscillation (AO) veer between positive and negative over decades. During periods of strongly "blocking" or negative NAO's and/or AO's, the Arctic is indeed quite warm compared to

normal. For example, during the December 19, 2009 snowstorm that impacted New York City and Washington, D.C. the temperatures in Iqaluit were warmer (link) than in Washington, DC (link). This was during a period where there was a strong "blocking ridge".

Compare to December 19, 2011 where the NAO was strongly positive. Iqualuit's (link) and Washington, DC's (link) relationship was closer to normal, and reversed. These blocking ridge situation and the opposite have cycled back and forth for millenia.

Why not do a bit more research?

Those who are doing the research have noticed that the melting polar ice cap has had made some unexpected changes to both the Arctic Oscillation and the NAO in recent years, namely that the sort of blocking ridge that forced Hurricane Sandy to come ashore is three times as common now, likely because of the increased heat energy in the melting Arctic Ocean in late summer:

Arctic sea ice loss can cause blocking ridges

Blocking ridges occur naturally, but are uncommon over Greenland this time of year. According to

NOAA's Climate Prediction Center,

blocking near the longitude of Greenland (50°W) only occurs about 2% of the time in the fall. These odds rise to about 6% in winter and spring. As I discussed in an April post,

Arctic sea ice loss tied to unusual jet stream patterns

, three studies published in the past year have found that the jet stream has been getting stuck in unusually strong blocking patterns in recent years. These studies found that the recent record decline in Arctic sea ice could be responsible, since this heats up the pole, altering the Equator-to-pole temperature difference, forcing the jet stream to slow down, meander, and get stuck in large loops. The 2012 Arctic sea ice melt season was extreme, with sea ice extent hitting a record lows. Could sea ice loss have contributed to the blocking ridge that steered Sandy into New Jersey? It is possible, but we will need to much more research on the subject before we make such a link, as the studies of sea ice loss on jet stream patterns are so new. The author of one of the new studies, Dr. Jennifer Francis of Rutgers, had this say in a recent post by

Andy Revkin in his Dot Earth blog:

"While it’s impossible to say how this scenario might have unfolded if sea-ice had been as extensive as it was in the 1980s, the situation at hand is completely consistent with what I’d expect to see happen more often as a result of unabated warming and especially the amplification of that warming in the Arctic."

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/archive.html?year=2012&month=10

Jeff Masters

How do you know sea levels (other than through tidal fluctuations) have risen much since 1821? And my point by raising 1821 is to show that this can happy before the presumptive beginning of "globaloney warming."

There are people who measure these things:

As we detailed in our previous

Nature’s Edge Notebook

, in about the year 1900, after thousands of years of little or no change, sea level started rising steadily.

This was due to man-made global warming, as climate scientists have repeatedly shown, which resulted in water expanding as it warmed and in new melting of land-based ice.

In the 1990s the rate of sea level rise suddenly sped up — again for reasons that the climate scientists can link only to man-made global warming.

It is now expected to increase another two or three feet by mid century, and as much as six feet by 2100.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/11/new-york-can-be-a-vibrant-venice-as-sea-level-now-rises-say-engineers/

It should be noted that not all of the sea level rise is due to melting ice sheets. Much of the increase so far, and in the decades ahead will be due to thermal expansion of the world's oceans. Another factor is that many overdeveloped coastal areas are sinking! I don't know about New York, but I have heard recently that Boston is concerned, and Norfolk Virginia, another major sea port is sinking rapidly...even faster than New Orleans, and in 20 to 25 years, when combined with the effects of rising sea levels, the city may have to be abandoned.

[GostHacked]

It should be noted that not all of the sea level rise is due to melting ice sheets. Much of the increase so far, and in the decades ahead will be due to thermal expansion of the world's oceans. Another factor is that many overdeveloped coastal areas are sinking! I don't know about New York, but I have heard recently that Boston is concerned, and Norfolk Virginia, another major sea port is sinking rapidly...even faster than New Orleans, and in 20 to 25 years, when combined with the effects of rising sea levels, the city may have to be abandoned.

The cities falling into the oceans have more to do with continental drift and erosion of the shorelines. Building on the shoreline you are always going to run the risk of some kind of damage , quakes, hurricanes, ect.

It's not climate change that is the problem, it's our ability to adapt to the changes that is the real problem. We like to think we can keep a city like LA or NY or Boston from falling into the ocean though lots of money developing methods of climate change mitigation.

Also people in NY and NJ are understanding how the government is unable to help in a crisis in which they need to help.

Shelters closed due to weather !!!!!! You can't make this stuff up.

http://rt.com/usa/news/fema-new-closed-weather-359/

Instead of staying open to help displaced victims of the hurricane during the nor’easter that blanketed New York City in snow, the Federal Emergency Management Agency was “closed due to weather” as the storm approached.

FEMA, headed by Craig Fugate, exists to “prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from and mitigate all hazards,” the agency states. Its team is employed to fly into disaster areas to provide relief to victims of both of manmade or natural disasters – like storms.

But this week FEMA seemingly added a special condition to its services: The agency will only help as long as it’s not raining, snowy or too windy. As the nor’easter brought snowflakes to an area where thousands are still without electricity or homes in freezing temperatures, FEMA shut down its operations “due to bad weather.”

[Sleipnir]

The cities falling into the oceans have more to do with continental drift and erosion of the shorelines. Building on the shoreline you are always going to run the risk of some kind of damage , quakes, hurricanes, ect.

It's not climate change that is the problem, it's our ability to adapt to the changes that is the real problem. We like to think we can keep a city like LA or NY or Boston from falling into the ocean though lots of money developing methods of climate change mitigation.

Falling into the ocean? Or do you mean swallowing by the ocean?

Edited November 13, 2012 by Sleipnir

[Keepitsimple]

10 Worst Natural Disasters in the US:

http://www.livescience.com/11365-10-worst-natural-disasters.html

Sandy was a fluke - three storm fronts coming together at high-tide. Worst disaster since 1928. What's that, something like this has happened before? Sandy was really nothing more than a big, fat windy rainstorm that caused a lot of flooding. Take a look at the 3 or 4 wind-related disasters that have occurred in the US - where literally thousands of people lost their lives. It wasn't Global Warming back then - and it's not now.....but it sure attracts news viewers and readers!

[WIP]

The cities falling into the oceans have more to do with continental drift and erosion of the shorelines. Building on the shoreline you are always going to run the risk of some kind of damage , quakes, hurricanes, ect.

It's not climate change that is the problem, it's our ability to adapt to the changes that is the real problem. We like to think we can keep a city like LA or NY or Boston from falling into the ocean though lots of money developing methods of climate change mitigation.

Also people in NY and NJ are understanding how the government is unable to help in a crisis in which they need to help.

Shelters closed due to weather !!!!!! You can't make this stuff up.

http://rt.com/usa/ne...ed-weather-359/

You'll have to clue me in on how continental drift is playing a role in sinking cities. I would figure that continental drift occurs much too slowly and gradually to be a factor in what's happening now in many coastal areas.

One factor that those arguing for remedial efforts preparing for future climate change have to consider is that levee systems, breakwalls, and other efforts to protect major cities leave unprotected areas more prone to storm surges...since the water has to go somewhere! Remember the celebrating last year about the levees holding in New Orleans....while to the east, the area around Lake Pontchartrain...rural cajun impoverished areas, were almost completely ignored. A couple of weeks after the floodwaters receded, I recall listening to a BBC feature talking to some of the locals, and wondering where the hell were the American reporters on a story happening right in their own backyard? No money, no story....especially in an area that's hot and humid and has lots of mosquitos!

It's a shame and almost criminal that major media only concern themselves with big cities....especially the wealthier neighbourhoods in those cities (I couldn't help notice that as soon as the subways were running and the power was back on for Wall Street, news coverage of the most severely damaged areas in Lower Manhattan, the Bronx, and Long Island, started dwindling away even while many areas were left without power, running water, or anyone arriving from FEMA or the Red Cross, all to make room for whether Justin Bieber really broke up with Selena Gomez! Oh well, at least they have their priorities straight!

[WIP]

10 Worst Natural Disasters in the US:

http://www.livescien...-disasters.html

Sandy was a fluke - three storm fronts coming together at high-tide. Worst disaster since 1928. What's that, something like this has happened before? Sandy was really nothing more than a big, fat windy rainstorm that caused a lot of flooding. Take a look at the 3 or 4 wind-related disasters that have occurred in the US - where literally thousands of people lost their lives. It wasn't Global Warming back then - and it's not now.....but it sure attracts news viewers and readers!

I wonder if the people who have to live along the Atlantic Coast are still willing to take such a stupid complacent attitude about global warming? It's one thing to live in denial while you don't have to directly deal with a problem and can still put it off; but after such a disaster, a lot of people living in flood-prone areas are going to start seriously thinking of relocating if they can afford to.

Your list from Livescience is a joke! Now that Christie and Cuomo are going to Obama looking for billions of dollars for reconstruction, and major insurance underwriter - Munich RE, is advising insurance companies to drop flood insurance entirely in some of these areas, denying the obvious is no longer an option! If there is money to be made, you can bet for damn sure that an insurance company will be there to collect premiums. If they're dropping insurance coverage and no other companies are stepping up to offer coverage, that should tell you something about future risks.

And, for what it's worth, past disasters - like Galveston occurred during a time when there was no way to provide advanced warning of major storms approaching. The New York & New Jersey coasts had more than four days warning before Hurricane Sandy arrived. Without that, the death tolls would have been in the hundreds or thousands.

[GostHacked]

Falling into the ocean? Or do you mean swallowing by the ocean?

Falling is the more appropriate term. Land erosion through weather is a real thing.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/02/local/la-me-vanishing-beaches2-2010apr02

[GostHacked]

You'll have to clue me in on how continental drift is playing a role in sinking cities.

The tectonic plates are always moving, and causing friction against each other. Quakes can 'sink' a city. But maybe you are right, not so much tectonic plate movement as it is coastal erosion.

I would figure that continental drift occurs much too slowly and gradually to be a factor in what's happening now in many coastal areas.

It's slow, but consistent.

One factor that those arguing for remedial efforts preparing for future climate change have to consider is that levee systems, breakwalls, and other efforts to protect major cities leave unprotected areas more prone to storm surges...since the water has to go somewhere! Remember the celebrating last year about the levees holding in New Orleans....while to the east, the area around Lake Pontchartrain...rural cajun impoverished areas, were almost completely ignored. A couple of weeks after the floodwaters receded, I recall listening to a BBC feature talking to some of the locals, and wondering where the hell were the American reporters on a story happening right in their own backyard? No money, no story....especially in an area that's hot and humid and has lots of mosquitos!

It's not sensationalist enough. And the real reason for the problems in Orleans is that the levees were neglected. The levees were rebuilt and the next storm did not cause the damage Katrina did, because things were in place and rebuilt to help ward the storm surge off. So breakwalls, levees and such are a great way to mitigate damage against severe storms, no matter if you believe in the climate change or not. Just makes sense to be prepared for a storm. NY does not have anything like that, so that is why one would have been able to swim down 5th Avenue after Sandy.

It's a shame and almost criminal that major media only concern themselves with big cities....especially the wealthier neighbourhoods in those cities (I couldn't help notice that as soon as the subways were running and the power was back on for Wall Street, news coverage of the most severely damaged areas in Lower Manhattan, the Bronx, and Long Island, started dwindling away even while many areas were left without power, running water, or anyone arriving from FEMA or the Red Cross, all to make room for whether Justin Bieber really broke up with Selena Gomez! Oh well, at least they have their priorities straight!

No one gives a damn about the poor people. Also the MSM media loves to sidetrack and distract you from real things with useless celebrity gossip that is meant for 10 year olds or people with low IQs and no critical thinking skills.

My grandparents cottage was located on a floodplain. Now the floods did not happen often but they did happen and a couple times quite extensively. Now knowing we live on a flood plain, it's hard to say that climate change is the cause of it, when it naturally happens now and then. The real thing is what are you going to do about it? If you decide to rebuild and stay, you know you run the risk of a flood sometime down the road.

Living on the coast poses other challenges and risks, but by nature of living on the coast, some storms are going to cause some damage. How much marshland is covered up for houseing developments? What happens when we are changing the landscape to a degree where the natural contingencies to prevent flooding, or to mitigate severe weather are replaced with suburbs and strip malls?