Super Typhoon Haiyan is being characterized as more powerful than any other storm that's been recorded since the age of satellite weather data began.

This article explains the meteorological factors that are making this storm at least as energetic as any previous storm in the past 100 years.

http://www.livescience.com/...t-intense-storm.html

Feeling it down on the East coast of Australia. Been looking at the radar and the weather within 6000 kms of it is all getting sucked towards it.

"with gusts up to 225 mph "

"The storm is expected to make landfall near where a deadly magnitude-7.1 earthquake struck the country less than one month ago, killing more than 200 people, according to news reports."

Wow they cant catch a break there.

I hope them the best. The worst is on its way.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: Super Typhoon Haiyan is being characterized as more powerful than any other storm that's been recorded since the age of satellite weather data began. This article explains the meteorological factors that are making this storm at least as energetic as any previous storm in the past 100 years. http://www.livescience.com/...t-intense-storm.html

AS energetic as anything in the last 100 years? AS POWERFUL as any other storm in the satellite era? So why is this so scary?

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 11-08-2013).]

Inference of course.

I think it's because there is the potential for people to die and given the storm is larger than they normally get it tends to make people scared.

[This message has been edited by TK (edited 11-08-2013).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: AS energetic as anything in the last 100 years? AS POWERFUL as any other storm in the satellite era? So why is this so scary?

I didn't say myself that this storm was any proof or evidence of MMGW.

I expected that someone would make a connection. Someone wearing the MMGW jersey, or someone wearing the other colored jersey.

In the same vein, I have read various media reports and tried to weigh various interpretations of what is being called a "16 year cessation in global warming."

I doubt that this perceived cessation has any significant reality to it.

So I am not ready to switch my MMGW jersey for the other colored jersey.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: I have read various media reports and tried to weigh various interpretations of what is being called a "16 year cessation in global warming." I doubt that this perceived cessation has any significant reality to it. So I am not ready to switch my MMGW jersey for the other colored jersey.

Wow, that's handy, it buys 16 years.

Christ, I hope my ex next door neighbor is there in her little hut and gets washed away and drowns.
I hope everyone else is OK but I could care less about her.
Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't



Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Wow, that's handy, it buys 16 years.

Not sure how to take you here, 2.5

Some are saying that their data reveals that global warming stopped about 16 years ago.

I am saying that I doubt that this is a valid interpretation of the data.

Estimates are running as high as 1200 dead so far.

Update--10,000 estimated dead.

http://www.reuters.com/arti...dUSBRE9A603Q20131110

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-09-2013).]

I don't think "global warming" has anything to do with this storm. It is caused by a combination of multiple factors falling into place. If "global warming" was the only factor the storm would not have occurred. The right mixture of wind currents, ocean currents, ocean temperature, air temperature, moisture content, what season it is, etc determine if there is going to be a storm and how intense it is going to be. There are just too many variables in play to just blame "global warming". Storms are more butterfly effect than "global warming" effect.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: I don't think "global warming" has anything to do with this storm. It is caused by a combination of multiple factors falling into place. If "global warming" was the only factor the storm would not have occurred. The right mixture of wind currents, ocean currents, ocean temperature, air temperature, moisture content, what season it is, etc determine if there is going to be a storm and how intense it is going to be. There are just too many variables in play to just blame "global warming". Storms are more butterfly effect than "global warming" effect.

Lots of factors. Why are you so desperate to eliminate global warming as one of them?

Typhoons have hit the West Pacific for hundreds of years before GW is reputed to have began. The original Kamikaze or Divine Wind occurred in year 1274 and again in 1281.

quote The first invasion devastated the Japanese. The battle took place on the beaches where the two forces met. The Mongols had several advantages; the Japanese were overwhelmed and began to retreat. Not knowing they had won, the Mongols feared the Japanese were coming back with reinforcements and also retreated, taking the land force on board and putting out to sea at nightfall to avoid being marooned by the oncoming typhoon. By daybreak, only a few ships had not set out to sea. Those that had, met their doom at nature's hand. During the time period between the first and second invasion, the Japanese prudently built two-meter-high walls to protect themselves from future assaults. Seven years later, the Mongols returned. Unable to find any suitable landing beaches due to the walls, the fleet stayed afloat for months and depleted their supplies as they searched for an area to land. After months of being exposed to the elements, the fleet was destroyed by a great typhoon, which the Japanese called "kamikaze" (divine wind). The Mongols never attacked Japan again

I endured several West Pacific and Indian Ocean typhoons--they were not fun at all --especially the one in the Indian Ocean.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-10-2013).]

quote Originally posted by dratts: Lots of factors. Why are you so desperate to eliminate global warming as one of them?

Why are others so desperate to blame Global Warming?

Brad

quote Originally posted by Fats: Why are others so desperate to blame Global Warming? Brad

Just my suspicions. I'm not saying MMGW is the cause. I suspect that it is a factor.

Based on the magnitude of the storm, the rising death toll and destruction does not surprise me one bit. Anyone who has be to the Philippines knows that the general population lives at an extreme poverty level, compared to other Countries. By this I mean their towns are nothing more that poorly constructed buildings and shack type homes. I only expect the news to keep getting worse as more news if focused on the area.

PI isn't what it used to be CK--it appears a lot if not most of the casualties is going to be in Tacloban City. It's a fairly modern city, with less than a 10% poverty rate.

For sure, further out in the archipelago, the villages are less modern--even archaic by our standards, but according to Tacloban's mayor, the death toll in his city is going to be in the thousands.

Never underestimate a typhoon or Hurricane!! we live in a different world than most of the world
the quality of our buildings is better ,,unless Andrew storms over you
New Orleans found out the hard way
as did Miami 23 years ago
I went thru a hurricane aboard a Navy LST ship during the Cuban crisis,scary,
the tank deck ramp fell down,,thought a russian torpedo had hit us!!
Global warming is comnplete crap, made up by a University in England
the libs said it was Global freezing in 1980,, REMEMBER!! I WAS THERE ...
GLOBAL FREEZING & GLOBAL WARMING ARE THE LIAR,s GAME
JUST HOPE THE BIG BURNING BLAZING hot THING IN THE SKY KEEPS
CHURNING ,BURNING & FLEXING

[This message has been edited by uhlanstan (edited 11-10-2013).]

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: Not sure how to take you here, 2.5 Some are saying that their data reveals that global warming stopped about 16 years ago. I am saying that I doubt that this is a valid interpretation of the data.

Cessation, to cease, a break, a gap.
I took that to mean they are saying "nothing may happen for 16 years, yet we know the problem still exists". This buys them 16 years with people who are skeptical. Because those people now are told there wont be any so they shouldnt or dont need or expect any "evidence" for 16 years.
Laymans terms.

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 11-12-2013).]

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Cessation, to cease, a break, a gap. I took that to mean they are saying "nothing may happen for 16 years, yet we know the problem still exists". This buys them 16 years with people who are skeptical. Because those people now are told there wont be any so they shouldnt or dont need or expect any "evidence" for 16 years. Laymans terms.

Where are you getting this from?

Correlating Deadly Cyclones With CO2

http://stevengoddard.wordpr...y-cyclones-with-co2/

(Graph at link)

===========================

Deadliest Tropical Cyclones in History
The 35 Deadliest Tropical Cyclones in World History
Rank Name / Areas of Largest Loss Year Ocean Area Deaths
1. Great Bhola Cyclone, Bangladesh 1970 (Nov 12) Bay of Bengal 300,000 - 500,000
2. Hooghly River Cyclone, India and Bangladesh 1737 Bay of Bengal 300,000
3. Haiphong Typhoon, Vietnam 1881 West Pacific 300,000
4. Coringa, India 1839 Bay of Bengal 300,000
5. Backerganj Cyclone, Bangladesh 1584 Bay of Bengal 200,000
6. Great Backerganj Cyclone, Bangladesh 1876 Bay of Bengal 200,000
7. Chittagong, Bangladesh 1897 Bay of Bengal 175,000
8. Super Typhoon Nina, China 1975 (Aug 5) West Pacific 171,000
9. Cyclone 02B, Bangladesh 1991 (May 5) Bay of Bengal 138,866
10. Cyclone Nargis, Myanmar 2008 (May 3) Bay of Bengal 138,366
11. Swatlow, China 1922 (Jul 27) West Pacific 100,000
12. Great Bombay Cyclone, India 1882 Arabian Sea 100,000
13. Hakata Bay Typhoon, Japan 1281 West Pacific 65,000
14. Bangladesh 1942 (Oct 14) Bay of Bengal 61,000
15. India 1935 Bay of Bengal 60,000
16. Calcutta, India 1864 Bay of Bengal 60,000
17. Barisal, Bangladesh 1822 Bay of Bengal 50,000
18. Sunderbans coast, Bangladesh 1699 Bay of Bengal 50,000
19. India 1833 Bay of Bengal 50,000
20. India 1854 Bay of Bengal 50,000
21. Wenchou, China 1912 (Aug) West Pacific 50,000
22. Bengal Cyclone, Calcutta, India 1942 Bay of Bengal 40,000
23. Bangladesh 1912 Bay of Bengal 40,000
24. Bangladesh 1919 Bay of Bengal 40,000
25. Canton, China 1862 West Pacific 37,000
26. Bangladesh 1965 (May 11) Bay of Bengal 36,000
27. Backerganj (Barisal), Bangladesh 1767 Bay of Bengal 30,000
28. Barisal, Bangladesh 1831 Bay of Bengal 22,000
29. Great Hurricane, Lesser Antilles Islands 1780 Atlantic 22,000
30. Chittagong, Bangladesh 1963 (May 28) Bay of Bengal 22,000
31. Great Coringa Cyclone, India 1789 Bay of Bengal 20,000
32. Nagasaki Typhoon, Japan 1828 Western Pacific 15,000
33. Urir, Bangladesh 1985 (May 28) Bay of Bengal 15,000
34. Devi Taluk, SE India 1977 (Nov 12) Bay of Bengal 14,204
35. Bangladesh 1965 (May 31) Bay of Bengal 12,047
Death counts from large killer cyclones are highly uncertain, particulary for those before 1900. The above rankings are somewhat speculative. Information sources: EM-DAT, the International Disaster Database; Banglapedia, Wikipedia, Climate change impacts and adaptation assessment in Bangladesh" by Anwar Ali, and Encyclopedia of Hurricanes, Typhoons, and Cyclones (1999), by David

http://www.wunderground.com...deadlyworld.asp?MR=1

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Correlating Deadly Cyclones With CO2 http://stevengoddard.wordpr...y-cyclones-with-co2/ (Graph at link) =========================== Deadliest Tropical Cyclones in History The 35 Deadliest Tropical Cyclones in World History Rank Name / Areas of Largest Loss Year Ocean Area Deaths 1. Great Bhola Cyclone, Bangladesh 1970 (Nov 12) Bay of Bengal 300,000 - 500,000 2. Hooghly River Cyclone, India and Bangladesh 1737 Bay of Bengal 300,000 3. Haiphong Typhoon, Vietnam 1881 West Pacific 300,000 4. Coringa, India 1839 Bay of Bengal 300,000 5. Backerganj Cyclone, Bangladesh 1584 Bay of Bengal 200,000 6. Great Backerganj Cyclone, Bangladesh 1876 Bay of Bengal 200,000 7. Chittagong, Bangladesh 1897 Bay of Bengal 175,000 8. Super Typhoon Nina, China 1975 (Aug 5) West Pacific 171,000 9. Cyclone 02B, Bangladesh 1991 (May 5) Bay of Bengal 138,866 10. Cyclone Nargis, Myanmar 2008 (May 3) Bay of Bengal 138,366 11. Swatlow, China 1922 (Jul 27) West Pacific 100,000 12. Great Bombay Cyclone, India 1882 Arabian Sea 100,000 13. Hakata Bay Typhoon, Japan 1281 West Pacific 65,000 14. Bangladesh 1942 (Oct 14) Bay of Bengal 61,000 15. India 1935 Bay of Bengal 60,000 16. Calcutta, India 1864 Bay of Bengal 60,000 17. Barisal, Bangladesh 1822 Bay of Bengal 50,000 18. Sunderbans coast, Bangladesh 1699 Bay of Bengal 50,000 19. India 1833 Bay of Bengal 50,000 20. India 1854 Bay of Bengal 50,000 21. Wenchou, China 1912 (Aug) West Pacific 50,000 22. Bengal Cyclone, Calcutta, India 1942 Bay of Bengal 40,000 23. Bangladesh 1912 Bay of Bengal 40,000 24. Bangladesh 1919 Bay of Bengal 40,000 25. Canton, China 1862 West Pacific 37,000 26. Bangladesh 1965 (May 11) Bay of Bengal 36,000 27. Backerganj (Barisal), Bangladesh 1767 Bay of Bengal 30,000 28. Barisal, Bangladesh 1831 Bay of Bengal 22,000 29. Great Hurricane, Lesser Antilles Islands 1780 Atlantic 22,000 30. Chittagong, Bangladesh 1963 (May 28) Bay of Bengal 22,000 31. Great Coringa Cyclone, India 1789 Bay of Bengal 20,000 32. Nagasaki Typhoon, Japan 1828 Western Pacific 15,000 33. Urir, Bangladesh 1985 (May 28) Bay of Bengal 15,000 34. Devi Taluk, SE India 1977 (Nov 12) Bay of Bengal 14,204 35. Bangladesh 1965 (May 31) Bay of Bengal 12,047 Death counts from large killer cyclones are highly uncertain, particulary for those before 1900. The above rankings are somewhat speculative. Information sources: EM-DAT, the International Disaster Database; Banglapedia, Wikipedia, Climate change impacts and adaptation assessment in Bangladesh" by Anwar Ali, and Encyclopedia of Hurricanes, Typhoons, and Cyclones (1999), by David http://www.wunderground.com...deadlyworld.asp?MR=1

Wow, that is one bad attempt at science right there.

Thanks for pointing out what a poor site that is.

quote Originally posted by newf: Wow, that is one bad attempt at science right there.

Science smience, what ever.
It is no worse than the claim that 97% of scientists believe global warming and it's consequences are indeed happening.

quote Originally posted by newf: Wow, that is one bad attempt at science right there. Thanks for pointing out what a poor site that is.

that chart is historic data organized by death rate, and is in and of itself not scientifically produced.

So you are right, it is not science at all, it is statistical data

Arn

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: that chart is historic data organized by death rate, and is in and of itself not scientifically produced. So you are right, it is not science at all, it is statistical data Arn

Exactly and has little to no relevance.

quote Originally posted by newf: Where are you getting this from?

Just commenting on what rinselberg posted.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: I have read various media reports and tried to weigh various interpretations of what is being called a "16 year cessation in global warming."

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 11-12-2013).]

quote Originally posted by 2.5:

Oh Ok, yeah many people who are trying to make the case that there is no Climate Change happening have claimed that there has been a "pause" in warming since 1998. They are not saying there is going to be a 16 year pause upcoming.

quote Originally posted by newf: Oh Ok, yeah many people who are trying to make the case that there is no Climate Change happening have claimed that there has been a "pause" in warming since 1998. They are not saying there is going to be a 16 year pause upcoming.

Doesnt surprise me I took what someone said somewhat literally again. Or thinking about it differently than the speaker may have intended.

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 11-12-2013).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Exactly and has little to no relevance.

It means there is no upward trend in the casualty rate despite claims otherwise. Good god, you are a moron.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Good god, you are a moron.

god's a moron?

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Doesnt surprise me I took what someone said somewhat literally again. Or thinking about it differently than the speaker may have intended.

I hear you.