What's new
By:

Houston..

Bulletproof said:
The signal to noise ratio in Jazzfanz GD is terrible. There is no intelligent discussion to be had.

Sad.
[MENTION=1]Jason[/MENTION], [MENTION=14]colton[/MENTION] this is a legit problem and one that can be fixed. It's up to you guys if you want to let this once vibrant forum die or not.
Click to expand...

Climate change is a pretty small fraction of the discussion going on in this forum, in my opinion.
 
on of my favorite comic books that pitched the left and right against each other!



Adrian Veidt: It doesn't take a genius to see that the world has problems.
Edward Blake: No, but it takes a room full of morons to think they're small enough for you to handle.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Nope. Dollars of damage is a direct measure of economic progress and population growth in these areas. Based on the established measures of the force of the storm it isn't in the top 10. Out at sea Irma was the strongest ever recorded in the Atlantic, but it lost a lot of force as it approached land. It was the 3rd strongest storm to hit the Caribbean I believe, but in sheer size it was one of the largest. From the standpoint of miles of coverage Harvey was quite a bit smaller than Katrina, while Irma was significantly larger than Andrew, for example, but had a smaller force when it made landfall. In lots of ways we got lucky that Irma wasn't significantly stronger when it made landfall or it could have been incredibly devastating. Now the damage done in the Caribbean by Irma was record-setting, but it was greatly diminished luckily before it hit Florida.


edit: I googled it again and saw that they added Irma into the list at #7 for pressure at landfall.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Irma
Click to expand...

Wasn't the question what was so much worse about Irma than the others? You still stated strongest on record, regardless of what it did on land.
 
Harambe said:
Wasn't the question what was so much worse about Irma than the others? You still stated strongest on record, regardless of what it did on land.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? If it is a billion times stronger on the Atlantic where it can cause virtually no damage and then weakens to a category 1 or a tropical depression by the time it hits land that is irrelevant. It was not some epic mega-ultra-end of the world-storm-of-the-century thing. It was a very strong storm that did a lot of damage, much like many other very strong storms that have done a lot of damage historically speaking.
 
LogGrad98 said:
What are you talking about? If it is a billion times stronger on the Atlantic where it can cause virtually no damage and then weakens to a category 1 or a tropical depression by the time it hits land that is irrelevant. It was not some epic mega-ultra-end of the world-storm-of-the-century thing. It was a very strong storm that did a lot of damage, much like many other very strong storms that have done a lot of damage historically speaking.
Click to expand...

so i think he wants to compare this storm at sea, to the others on land. so it fits the narrative! but everybody with half a brain knows storms are stronger at sea where they are created and grow, and then go to land to die!


dammit they gotta do everything to force a square in a round hole so the narrative can go forward!
 
The evidence does show that we have had an increase in the number of "named" storms over the past few decades, but they are not any stronger when they reach landfall than storms were in the past. Really the worst decades on record for this so far were the 20's and 30's when many of the strongest storms on record reached landfall. We were just lucky back then that the number of people and the requisite infrastructure in these areas were much lower back then, hence less of an opportunity for large-dollar damage results but the death tolls were still just as high or higher despite lower population numbers.
 
LogGrad98 said:
What are you talking about? If it is a billion times stronger on the Atlantic where it can cause virtually no damage and then weakens to a category 1 or a tropical depression by the time it hits land that is irrelevant. It was not some epic mega-ultra-end of the world-storm-of-the-century thing. It was a very strong storm that did a lot of damage, much like many other very strong storms that have done a lot of damage historically speaking.
Click to expand...

Sure

Catchall said:
Florida gets hit with deadly tropical storms just about every year. Low-elevation cities on the gulf are susceptible to getting hit. Most areas aren't as populated as Houston, obviously. Is this storm really worse than others of the past 15 or 20 years?
Click to expand...

There was no question or qualification on how, or by what means, this storm was worse than others.

Measurably, Yes. It was. There was no mention of when it hit ground, just the storm itself.
 
Harambe said:
Sure



There was no question or qualification on how, or by what means, this storm was worse than others.

Measurably, Yes. It was. There was no mention of when it hit ground, just the storm itself.
Click to expand...

You don't reading comprehension, do you? Did you miss this part, that set the qualification of "worse"?

Quote Originally Posted by Catchall View Post
Florida gets hit with deadly tropical storms just about every year. Low-elevation cities on the gulf are susceptible to getting hit. Most areas aren't as populated as Houston, obviously. Is this storm really worse than others of the past 15 or 20 years?
Click to expand...

So the parameters were cities being hit by deadly storms. Not simply most power recorded anywhere on the track of the storm. By this measure, what catchall was actually asking, no it was not really far worse than many other storms in the past, and even from measured pressure it was 7th when it made landfall. Strong storm sure, but not the strongest ever that made landfall, which was the original comment/question.
 
LogGrad98 said:
The evidence does show that we have had an increase in the number of "named" storms over the past few decades, but they are not any stronger when they reach landfall than storms were in the past. Really the worst decades on record for this so far were the 20's and 30's when many of the strongest storms on record reached landfall. We were just lucky back then that the number of people and the requisite infrastructure in these areas were much lower back then, hence less of an opportunity for large-dollar damage results but the death tolls were still just as high or higher despite lower population numbers.
Click to expand...

named storms also because of better technology to track storms!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top