Was the 2010 Haiti Earthquake triggered by deforestation and the 2008 hurricanes?

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 2:57 PM GMT on December 20, 2010

Share this Blog
11
+

Major earthquakes occur when the stress on rocks between two tectonic plates reaches a critical breaking point, allowing the earth to move along the connecting fault. While the slow creep of the tectonic plates makes earthquakes inevitable along major faults, the timing and exact location of the quake epicenter can be influenced by outside forces pushing down on Earth's crust. For example, the sloshing of water into the Eastern Pacific during El Niño events has been linked to magnitude 4, 5, and 6 earthquakes on the seafloor below, due to the extra weight of water caused by local sea level rise. Sea level rise due to rapid melting of Earth's ice sheets could also potentially trigger earthquakes, though it is unknown at what melting rate such an effect might become significant.


Figure 1. Google Earth image of Haiti taken November 8, 2010, showing the capital of Port-Au-Prince and the mountainous region to its west where the epicenter of the 2010 earthquake was. Note the brown color of the mountains, where all the vegetation has been stripped off, leaving bare slopes subject to extreme erosion. Heavy rains in recent years have washed huge amounts of sediment into the Leogane Delta to the north.


Figure 2. Zoom-in view of the Leogane Delta region of Figure 1, showing the large expansion in the Delta's area between 2002 and 2010. High amounts of sediments have been eroded from Haiti's deforested mountains and deposited in the Delta. Recent expansion of the river channel due to runoff from Hurricane Tomas' rains is apparent in the 2010 image. Image credit: Google Earth, Digital Globe, GeoEye.

At last week's American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting last week in San Francisco, Shimon Wdowinsky of the University of Miami proposed a different method whereby unusual strains on the crust might trigger an earthquake. In a talk titled, Triggering of the 2010 Haiti earthquake by hurricanes and possibly deforestation , Wdowinsky studied the stresses on Earth's crust over the epicenter of the mighty January 12, 2010 Haiti earthquake that killed over 200,000 people. This quake was centered in a mountainous area of southwest Haiti that has undergone severe deforestation—over 98% of the trees have been felled on the mountain in recent decades, allowing extreme erosion to occur during Haiti's frequent heavy rainfall events. Since 1975, the erosion rate in these mountains has been 6 mm/year, compared to the typical erosion rate of less than 1 mm/yr in forested tropical mountains. Satellite imagery (Figure 2) reveals that the eroded material has built up significantly in the Leogane Delta to the north of the earthquake's epicenter. In the 2008 hurricane season, four storms--Fay, Gustav, Hanna, and Ike--dumped heavy rains on the impoverished nation. The bare, rugged hillsides let flood waters rampage into large areas of the country, killing over 1,000, destroying 22,702 homes, and damaging another 84,625. About 800,000 people were affected--8% of Haiti's total population. The flood wiped out 70% of Haiti's crops, resulting in dozens of deaths of children due to malnutrition in the months following the storms. Damage was estimated at over $1 billion, the costliest natural disaster in Haitian history. The damage amounted to over 5% of the country's $17 billion GDP, a staggering blow for a nation so poor. Tragically, the hurricanes of 2008 may have set up Haiti for an ever larger disaster. Wdowinsky computed that the amount of mass eroded away from the mountains over the epicenter of the 2010 earthquake was sufficient to cause crustal strains capable of causing a vertically-oriented slippage along a previously unknown fault. This type of motion is quite unusual in this region, as most quakes in Haiti tend to be of the strike-slip variety, where the tectonic plates slide horizontally past each other. The fact that the 2010 Haiti quake occurred along a vertically moving fault lends support to the idea that the slippage was triggered due to mass stripped off the mountains by erosion over the epicenter, combined with the extra weight of the extra sediment deposited in the Leogane Delta clamping down on the northern portion of the fault. Wdowinsky gave two other examples in Taiwan where earthquakes followed several months after the passage of tropical cyclones that dumped heavy rains over mountainous regions. His theory of tropical cyclone-triggered quakes deserves consideration, and provides another excellent reason to curb excessive deforestation!


Figure 3. Two of 2008's four tropical cyclones that ravaged Haiti: Tropical Storm Hanna (right) and Hurricane Gustav (left). Image taken at 10:40 am EDT September 1, 2008. Image credit: NASA/GSFC.

Christmas in Haiti
Portlight.org will brighten the lives of hundreds of kids in Haiti this week, thanks to their successful Christmas in Haiti fundraiser. Portlight raised $1800 to buy toys, candies, and other assorted goodies. The shipment left Charleston last week, and will arrive in time for Christmas. Thanks to everyone who helped support this worthy effort!

Jeff Masters

Stuff for Haiti (Portlight)
Stuff for Haiti
Ms. Mae (Portlight)
Ms. Mae

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 576 - 526

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22Blog Index

Quoting moonlightcowboy:
Merry Christmas, all, and have a healthy and prosperous 2011! :)
merry christmas MLC to you and yours and all the best for the new year ahead
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 171 Comments: 53841
Complete Update

Possible Tropical system formation ....






Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Concerning the record high/low ratio:

The ratio of record highs to lows really only gives us an idea of where the global temperature stand in relation to the average of the entire record (ca.1850-2010). As long as temperatures are at current levels—even if they were to remain relatively constant for the next twenty years—there will still be more record highs than lows overall. This should still be true even if temperatures were to decrease, as long as they remain above the ca.1850-2010 average.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting calusakat:



Poor Minniemike.

Wouldn't know the truth if it up and bit him.

Look back on my posting history and you will see that I am a dyed in the wool GREENIE since 1970.

In 1973, I drove my 1972 240 Z from Orlando to Atlanta and got 27.2 miles per gallon. I drove my 2000 Villager SUV from Naples to Paris Island, for my son's graduation from Marine Boot Camp and was surprised when it got 28.7 per gallon.

My last gas guzzler was a 1958 Dodge that had a disappointing 10 miles to the gallon consumption which disappointed me at the time because it didn't have the 8 miles to the gallon consumption of all my other car buff friends.

My turning point was back in about 1968 when my aunt from Chicago sent me some of her old 45 RPM records. I opened the box and started to clean the first record and the cloth was pitch black from the first side. Coal dust from the power plants in Chicago was deemed the culprit.

That was so disturbing that I totally changed how I thought about pollution and things like that.

Today and since 2003, all of my incandescent bulbs were changed to CFL in my home and business. Our family vehicles get at least 25-28 miles to the gallon. Two of them get 33 miles per gallon.

We do not use poisons to control our yards. We do not use artificial fertilizers instead we use compost. We were recycling long before recycling was an accepted practice

Errands are scheduled to make the most for the trip into town.

Green is good. I am a GREENIE.

I am not a AGW Lemming.

Pollution is bad.

Photovoltaic energy is wonderful. Why? Because it is infinite.

Wind energy works where the wind is always blowing.

AGW is a money grabbing lie.



Well even if we disagree on the science, we can work together on the solutions!
http://www.sierraclub.org/coal/
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Minnemike:
no, follow all the posts. it is an utter disregard for the scientific community that comes from the blogger.

there is a tinge of that in your own post, but what surprises me is that you speak of a harmonious coexistence, while Calusakat views the entire 'Green' industry as a fraud. you and i are certainly far more aligned if you are honest about your statements. i seek stewardship above all else, and regardless of the outcomes of the AGW debate, there is so much to be improved upon by the way we coexist. i can assure you by all i've read of Calusakat's posts that coexistence is not on the agenda.



Poor Minniemike.

Wouldn't know the truth if it up and bit him.

Look back on my posting history and you will see that I am a dyed in the wool GREENIE since 1970.

In 1973, I drove my 1972 240 Z from Orlando to Atlanta and got 27.2 miles per gallon. I drove my 2000 Villager SUV from Naples to Paris Island, for my son's graduation from Marine Boot Camp and was surprised when it got 28.7 per gallon.

My last gas guzzler was a 1958 Dodge that had a disappointing 10 miles to the gallon consumption which disappointed me at the time because it didn't have the 8 miles to the gallon consumption of all my other car buff friends.

My turning point was back in about 1968 when my aunt from Chicago sent me some of her old 45 RPM records. I opened the box and started to clean the first record and the cloth was pitch black from the first side. Coal dust from the power plants in Chicago was deemed the culprit.

That was so disturbing that I totally changed how I thought about pollution and things like that.

Today and since 2003, all of my incandescent bulbs were changed to CFL in my home and business. Our family vehicles get at least 25-28 miles to the gallon. Two of them get 33 miles per gallon.

We do not use poisons to control our yards. We do not use artificial fertilizers instead we use compost. We were recycling long before recycling was an accepted practice

Errands are scheduled to make the most for the trip into town.

Green is good. I am a GREENIE.

I am not a AGW Lemming.

Pollution is bad.

Photovoltaic energy is wonderful. Why? Because it is infinite.

Wind energy works where the wind is always blowing.

AGW is a money grabbing lie.


Member Since: October 10, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 716
Quoting cat5hurricane:

A week? And how long has the Earth been spinning?

Are you REALLY making a case for global warming here? REALLY?
IN THE WINTER!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cat5hurricane:

A week? And how long has the Earth been spinning?

Are you REALLY making a case for global warming here? REALLY?


Yup. 70% of ice volume in the arctic gone in the last 30 years. What is your explanation for such a huge change in so short a time?
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting moonlightcowboy:
Merry Christmas, all, and have a healthy and prosperous 2011! :)
Mi Amigo!!!!!! same to you.... oh yes,
and MAY PEACE PREVAIL ON EARTH.
CHRISTMAS CANE!!!!! ya never know....

okay.... Minn -- I see quicksand I would most prefer to avoid - I am most honest in my statements, and I much respect science, but it's confined to what we see and presently know & understand, quite primitive. (remember Drs discounted germs, because they couldn't see them.... for HOW LONG???)..... there's sooo much we can't "see" & don't understand ....much (but not all) is an exercise in male-mind busy work which is a distraction from the Big Picture - fighting over AGW keeps the masses busy, while The Powers that be/were continue their agendas.

Wish I could continue chattering this AM -- but work is calling

I guess I just hope people discuss w/out slamming & dunking each other -- I love the reads and thoughts --just not the "ick"
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting greentortuloni:
All the agencies are reporting that sea ice shrank in the last week. The data is from the Fairy Godmother of Denialist himself, Anthony Watts.

LOL!
Greenland has had temperatures in the 50s in midwinter this year. Next years ice melt will be worse than last years. Thankfully its cooled down the last time I checked. Anybody have up to the minute data on greenland?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
565. flsky
Quoting Jax82:

Gorgeous! Thanks so much for posting this! I'll forward it on to my son who was under heavy cloud cover last night and couldn't see it
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
All the agencies are reporting that sea ice shrank in the last week. The data is from the Fairy Godmother of Denialist himself, Anthony Watts.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting surfmom:

Rather gruff comment - I think it's just a different view, not a lack of respect
no, follow all the posts. it is an utter disregard for the scientific community that comes from the blogger.

there is a tinge of that in your own post, but what surprises me is that you speak of a harmonious coexistence, while Calusakat views the entire 'Green' industry as a fraud. you and i are certainly far more aligned if you are honest about your statements. i seek stewardship above all else, and regardless of the outcomes of the AGW debate, there is so much to be improved upon by the way we coexist. i can assure you by all i've read of Calusakat's posts that coexistence is not on the agenda.
Member Since: July 31, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 1320
Merry Christmas, all, and have a healthy and prosperous 2011! :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Hey gaiz New Years Eve southern snow still forecast by the GFS, although far out:



Member Since: Posts: Comments:


...Christmas Cane???
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Minnemike:
Calusakat has no respect for the rigors of science, and has no respect for the intelligence of our species. this is proven by that last post.

Rather gruff comment - I think it's just a different view, not a lack of respect
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting calusakat:



AGW is a money based fraud. Get over it.

seriously, where is the evidence of this? are you going to tell me they cover it up?? if so, then how do you know?

so if they haven't covered it up, and you know where the evidence is, show us!! this claim is your fundamental false accusation. you need to prove this, stop posting this, or admit you don't really know these details such that you are essentially lying. it's got to be one of the three.

well, there is a 4th option... continue posting it with no supportive evidence knowing fully that people who already believe it's true need no evidence.... cause you all just know. something tells me you will go for this 4th, intellectually dishonest approach. it would match your modus operandi.
Member Since: July 31, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 1320
POST 550 - CalusaKat - Bravo

I usually avoid ALL AGW disc -- personally a fan of the vocab word Climate Change -- but then when isn't there change???

I am far more simplest in my view and find "male" think almost amusing. Predict??? how can one predict a Living Entity & natural chaos - our planet is a living being, while affected by our actions, has it's own story and we are but specks in the biggest picture.. I find it most amusing to observe "man" thinking they can predict what the earth/universe will do. Our responsibility is to coexist w/nature and leave a minimal - non-assault footprint -- but she will do what she wants, when she wants and all the human pencil pushing, number entries won't make a difference - the variables are endless.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/20/australias-white-summer-monbiots-red-fury/#more-29819

More subjective results from twisting and cherry-picking objective facts.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Calusakat has no respect for the rigors of science, and has no respect for the intelligence of our species. this is proven by that last post.
Member Since: July 31, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 1320
Quoting hcubed:
"...I realize you and a few other others may be accusing HAMweather--and the NWS--of hanky-panky with the numbers to help them perpetuate the "scam" of global warming,..."

Huh? How can asking if a temp recorded is a new high or a tie with an EXISTING high be construed as a accusation that HAMweather or the NWS is cooking the books?

It's a QUESTION - what constitutes a record high?

"...but, seriously, as I said a bit ago: a record is a record, whether a new one is set or an old one is tied. If someone's asking what's the warmest Anson, Texas, has ever been on December 20th, the answer is 76, period..."

Agreed. The record for that day is 76. No problem there. It was originally set in 1976, and tied in 2010.

"...So far as weather records go, it doesn't matter much whether that's happened once before, or twice, or a dozen times, or a hundred: the record high for that date in that location is 76. That's not a biased answer; that's not an agenda-driven response. It is, simply, fact..."

Agreed, it's a fact that the existing record was tied in 2010.

"...(It's a different story, of course, where climate is concerned; that deals with long-term patterns, such as the increasingly lopsided ratio of record warm days to record cold days when looked at on a year-to-year or decade-to-decade basis, yet another sign that the planet is warming overall.).."

And there's the problem - using those tied records to build on the "increasingly lopsided ratio" of record highs to record lows, just to "prove" the planet is warming overall.

We know the planet has warmed. No arguement there. I mean, it's gone up a whole .6 - .8 degrees in the past century or so, right?


Serious question: How does it build on the lopsided ratio when record cold is treated the same way? There's always cold records that equal previous records as well!
Member Since: November 6, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 165
we have more to lose as a species by the lack of understanding and respect for the hardest working people in science, than by the results of the AGW argument. should someone with fallacy based rhetoric, who makes baseless accusations gain a following of those looking for a leader who states what they already believe, we will lose the ability to manage our increasing population in this environment of limited resource, and we will lose the ability to teach our children the gifts of knowledge and rigorous hard work. if we lose those abilities, we will lose far more than the icecaps, or economic well being.... whoever you are, look at your biggest opposing character who embodies such fallacious rhetoric... for some it may be a personality on MSNBC or FOX. think about the harm you believe they do.

well, illuminating those voices here that fall under such epitomized versions of the very same type of blowhard is my motivation. with the help of a blowhard's pathology to continue spouting fallacy, rhetoric, and false accusations, i will succeed in making visible such voices.
Member Since: July 31, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 1320
551. hcubed
3:01 PM GMT on December 21, 2010
"...I realize you and a few other others may be accusing HAMweather--and the NWS--of hanky-panky with the numbers to help them perpetuate the "scam" of global warming,..."

Huh? How can asking if a temp recorded is a new high or a tie with an EXISTING high be construed as a accusation that HAMweather or the NWS is cooking the books?

It's a QUESTION - what constitutes a record high?

"...but, seriously, as I said a bit ago: a record is a record, whether a new one is set or an old one is tied. If someone's asking what's the warmest Anson, Texas, has ever been on December 20th, the answer is 76, period..."

Agreed. The record for that day is 76. No problem there. It was originally set in 1976, and tied in 2010.

"...So far as weather records go, it doesn't matter much whether that's happened once before, or twice, or a dozen times, or a hundred: the record high for that date in that location is 76. That's not a biased answer; that's not an agenda-driven response. It is, simply, fact..."

Agreed, it's a fact that the existing record was tied in 2010.

"...(It's a different story, of course, where climate is concerned; that deals with long-term patterns, such as the increasingly lopsided ratio of record warm days to record cold days when looked at on a year-to-year or decade-to-decade basis, yet another sign that the planet is warming overall.).."

And there's the problem - using those tied records to build on the "increasingly lopsided ratio" of record highs to record lows, just to "prove" the planet is warming overall.

We know the planet has warmed. No arguement there. I mean, it's gone up a whole .6 - .8 degrees in the past century or so, right?
Member Since: May 18, 2007 Posts: 289 Comments: 1639
550. calusakat
2:56 PM GMT on December 21, 2010
Quoting Minnemike:
what's an information network? is that where the evil do their deeds, collecting money to shovel an agenda down the throats of unsuspecting sheeple?

you do precisely that which you think you're fighting against... talking points, no facts, conspiracy theories. a denier refuses to accept information that counters their own position. a herd follows a master.... who's your master? why do you refuse to accept information, yet at the same time provide absolutely no countering information from any source whatsoever.... i'm going to keep poking at you until you come up with some supporting evidence and actually expose the thinness of your carelessness. the responsibility is yours to prove that the scientific community at large is responsible for making up figures to get money. you haven't proven, or even remotely shown that, not once. you only claim opinions and command people take you at your lonesome word. i'm just playing your game here... see how easy it is. i just type what i think, and poke at you and your falseness. you do no different, and as long as you engage in that methodology, you will garner nothing from the endeavor other than to make yourself look stupid and excite others who share your narrow conspiratorial belief system that all the science are lies and money is at the heart of this whole debate.

i needn't make a single entry using any information to counter you, first, because you provide zero information, and second, because there is a wealth of it provided in this very forum about the state of our climate, no matter how many times you point the finger at the credential bearing, hard working, rigorously scientific community, lambasting them with false accusations of corruption. and no, Al Gore is not a scientist nor in this equation whatsoever.



AGW is a money based fraud. Get over it.

AGW is a hypothesis. As such , it is your obligation to prove that it is correct. Using computer simulations will not suffice, except among fellow AGW lemmings.

A simulation is not the same as true experimental proof.

Computer simulations are not dependable because the underlying code was written by a human and humans are fallible. Not to mention that computer simulations are structured to emulate the data presented. That is not the way science works.

In the real world data is collected and then analyzed. A hypothesis is formed and over time as the data is further gathered and experiments are performed, (ever hear of blind testing), to verify the hypothesis, at some point it may become a theory.

Weather data, according to the folks at East Anglia is proprietary as well as the computer simulations.

They admit to altering the data.

There is no protocol for placement of the data gathering devices.

There is no protocol for verification of the placement.

There is no protocol to insure the continuing accuracy of the instrumentation.

There is no protocol to insure that the individuals, charged with implementing such a nonexistent protocol, are properly trained and certified to perform such duties.

For all anyone knows all of the data is false. There is no way to prove otherwise.

Want to change that?

Demand complete and open access to the information as well as the computer assumptions and programs so that others can perform their own error checking on the data and programs.

For now, since they collectively assert that such information is proprietary, there is no way to verify anything.

And AGW is, in truth, unproven.

Except to AGW lemmings.

Remember, it is not my responsibility to disprove your hypothesis.

You must prove it with real life experiments and not computer simulation which are replete with human bias.

The responsibility is all yours and you are doing a pitifully poor job.



Member Since: October 10, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 716
549. FFtrombi
2:56 PM GMT on December 21, 2010
Quoting calusakat:



Oh wow.

There's a new version of the AGW Talking Points booklet out!!! That was quick.

If you really believe that the petroleum companies aren't feverishly working behind the scenes to tap into the AGW craze, you really are ill-informed.

Go to Amazon and look for a book about how and why people invest their money and you will see that investors go where they believe the money well be. With all the AGW hype talking about taking from the middle class to pay for AGW, investors are clamoring for an opportunity to cash in on it, even petroleum companies and other energy companies as well.

It would appear that you are one of the AGW lemmings and that is truly sad for you.





hehe :D Teeple keep going hehe :D :D The new teeple handbook is topping the sales charts :D :D

I am so sorry you have got lemminged into denial :D:D:D
Member Since: November 6, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 165
548. ncgnto25
2:49 PM GMT on December 21, 2010
Quoting Neapolitan:
HAMweather says there have been no record lows set in the CONUS in the past 24 hours, and only 2 record low maximums. Meanwhile, there were 7 high temp records set in that time same span, and 55 record high minimums. Almost all of the records can be attributed to the moist and relatively warm air being pumped into the southwest. (Thanks to the cold snap in the east, over the past week record lows/low maximums in the CONUS have outnumbered record highs/high minimums by 1253 to 693, or about 1.8 to 1)

The sky was crystal, and the eclipse was awesome as they always are.




Can you say 'heat dome' for the record high minimums? Albuquerque, for one, is now consistently several degrees warmer that surrounding small towns in the morning. That didn't used to be the case. Many mornings we have the warmest reading in the entire state-at 5000 plus feet. And we are high desert.
Member Since: October 5, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 50
547. Minnemike
2:43 PM GMT on December 21, 2010
Quoting cat5hurricane:

Not like I see much from you other than jumping on the other blogger. You gotta put your own work in around here.
no, i don't. not according to Calusakat. your constituency wants a mirror, i'll be your mirror.
Member Since: July 31, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 1320
545. Minnemike
2:34 PM GMT on December 21, 2010
Quoting calusakat:



Oh wow.

There's a new version of the AGW Talking Points booklet out!!! That was quick.

If you really believe that the petroleum companies aren't feverishly working behind the scenes to tap into the AGW craze, you really are ill-informed.

Go to Amazon and look for a book about how and why people invest their money and you will see that investors go where they believe the money well be. With all the AGW hype talking about taking from the middle class to pay for AGW, investors are clamoring for an opportunity to cash in on it, even petroleum companies and other energy companies as well.

It would appear that you are one of the AGW lemmings and that is truly sad for you.



you just don't get it, don't think you ever will, but that's okay, you are doing GREAT! keep it up... your posts are the best thing ever for folks in the AGW camp... if only someone like Atmo made it this easy, but no, he uses facts and evidence... that rascal.
Member Since: July 31, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 1320
544. calusakat
2:28 PM GMT on December 21, 2010
Quoting FFtrombi:


There you go again :D Quoting from the handbook for oil company employees :D Where can I buy this handbook for Teeple (Tar sheep people :D)??

Can I get it for kindle or is this new revised 2010 edition of how to deny global warming for oil company profit available on amazon???

I would like to read it because it sounds like new info :D I am always interested in new stuff :D Teeple in the church of oil hehe :D



Oh wow.

There's a new version of the AGW Talking Points booklet out!!! That was quick.

If you really believe that the petroleum companies aren't feverishly working behind the scenes to tap into the AGW craze, you really are ill-informed.

Go to Amazon and look for a book about how and why people invest their money and you will see that investors go where they believe the money well be. With all the AGW hype talking about taking from the middle class to pay for AGW, investors are clamoring for an opportunity to cash in on it, even petroleum companies and other energy companies as well.

It would appear that you are one of the AGW lemmings and that is truly sad for you.



Member Since: October 10, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 716
542. Minnemike
2:20 PM GMT on December 21, 2010
Quoting calusakat:



It all depends on the agenda of the person reporting the event.

To exaggerate a certain bias, they report the event as a record and, conveniently, omit the truth that it, as you said in a follow-up post, 'tied the record' not exceeded it. Its called tap dancing.

Or, they do the right thing and tell the truth up front. That is why 'honest' reports make sure to mention that the temp record was originally set in some time period earlier as opposed to insinuating it was the original, first time ever, record.

It appears that we have a long way to go in order to get the bias out of our information network.

Until then...trust but verify.



what's an information network? is that where the evil do their deeds, collecting money to shovel an agenda down the throats of unsuspecting sheeple?

you do precisely that which you think you're fighting against... talking points, no facts, conspiracy theories. a denier refuses to accept information that counters their own position. a herd follows a master.... who's your master? why do you refuse to accept information, yet at the same time provide absolutely no countering information from any source whatsoever.... i'm going to keep poking at you until you come up with some supporting evidence and actually expose the thinness of your carelessness. the responsibility is yours to prove that the scientific community at large is responsible for making up figures to get money. you haven't proven, or even remotely shown that, not once. you only claim opinions and command people take you at your lonesome word. i'm just playing your game here... see how easy it is. i just type what i think, and poke at you and your falseness. you do no different, and as long as you engage in that methodology, you will garner nothing from the endeavor other than to make yourself look stupid and excite others who share your narrow conspiratorial belief system that all the science are lies and money is at the heart of this whole debate.

i needn't make a single entry using any information to counter you, first, because you provide zero information, and second, because there is a wealth of it provided in this very forum about the state of our climate, no matter how many times you point the finger at the credential bearing, hard working, rigorously scientific community, lambasting them with false accusations of corruption. and no, Al Gore is not a scientist nor in this equation whatsoever.
Member Since: July 31, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 1320
541. FFtrombi
2:17 PM GMT on December 21, 2010
Quoting calusakat:



It all depends on the agenda of the person reporting the event.

To exaggerate a certain bias, they report the event as a record and, conveniently, omit the truth that it, as you said in a follow-up post, 'tied the record' not exceeded it. Its called tap dancing.

Or, they do the right thing and tell the truth up front. That is why 'honest' reports make sure to mention that the temp record was originally set in some time period earlier as opposed to insinuating it was the original, first time ever, record.

It appears that we have a long way to go in order to get the bias out of our information network.

Until then...trust but verify.





There you go again :D Quoting from the handbook for oil company employees :D Where can I buy this handbook for Teeple (Tar sheep people :D)??

Can I get it for kindle or is this new revised 2010 edition of how to deny global warming for oil company profit available on amazon???

I would like to read it because it sounds like new info :D I am always interested in new stuff :D Teeple in the church of oil hehe :D
Member Since: November 6, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 165
539. Neapolitan
2:02 PM GMT on December 21, 2010
Quoting hcubed:
"...FWIW, more of the record lows/low maximums over the past week have merely tied old existing records; should I discount them, as well? Of course not; a record is a record is a record..."

As long as both sides (high/low) are treated equally, yes. Call them as they are: they TIED an existing record.

In your analogy of the race times, both times would go in the books, but honestly listed "on this date, X tied the currently existing record of 3:40:45, held by Z".

I realize you and a few other others may be accusing HAMweather--and the NWS--of hanky-panky with the numbers to help them perpetuate the "scam" of global warming, but, seriously, as I said a bit ago: a record is a record, whether a new one is set or an old one is tied. If someone's asking what's the warmest Anson, Texas, has ever been on December 20th, the answer is 76, period. So far as weather records go, it doesn't matter much whether that's happened once before, or twice, or a dozen times, or a hundred: the record high for that date in that location is 76. That's not a biased answer; that's not an agenda-driven response. It is, simply, fact.

(It's a different story, of course, where climate is concerned; that deals with long-term patterns, such as the increasingly lopsided ratio of record warm days to record cold days when looked at on a year-to-year or decade-to-decade basis, yet another sign that the planet is warming overall.)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13537
536. Jax82
1:42 PM GMT on December 21, 2010
Member Since: September 2, 2008 Posts: 1 Comments: 1261
535. calusakat
1:41 PM GMT on December 21, 2010
Quoting hcubed:


Still wonder how you can call a temp a "record high" when it MATCHES the old record.

TX Anson Mon, 20 Dec 2010

New "record": 76
Old record: 76 in 1978



It all depends on the agenda of the person reporting the event.

To exaggerate a certain bias, they report the event as a record and, conveniently, omit the truth that it, as you said in a follow-up post, 'tied the record' not exceeded it. Its called tap dancing.

Or, they do the right thing and tell the truth up front. That is why 'honest' reports make sure to mention that the temp record was originally set in some time period earlier as opposed to insinuating it was the original, first time ever, record.

It appears that we have a long way to go in order to get the bias out of our information network.

Until then...trust but verify.



Member Since: October 10, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 716
534. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
1:35 PM GMT on December 21, 2010
TPPZ01 PGTW 211201

A. REMNANTS OF TROPICAL STORM 01C (OMEKA)

B. 21/1130Z

C. 27.1N

D. 171.1W

E. FOUR/GOES11

F. XT2.0/2.5/W0.5/24HRS STT: D0.5/06HRS

G. IR/EIR

H. REMARKS: 13A/PBO TIGHTLY CURVED BAND/BANDING EYE/ANMTN. THIS
WILL BE THE FINAL FIX ISSUED BY JTWC ON THIS AREA. THE AREA
WILL CONTINUE TO BE MONITORED FOR POSSIBLE REDEVELOPMENT.

I. ADDITIONAL POSITIONS: NONE


HATHAWAY
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 171 Comments: 53841
533. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
1:34 PM GMT on December 21, 2010
Tropical Storm 01C (Omeka) Warning #05 Final Warning


WTPN51 PGTW 211000
WARNING ATCP MIL 01C NEP 101221100435

2010122106 01C OMEKA 005 01 025 18 SATL 060
T000 254N 1737W 035 R034 050 NE QD 050 SE QD 040 SW QD 000 NW QD
T012 285N 1726W 035 R034 050 NE QD 050 SE QD 050 SW QD 000 NW QD
T024 318N 1718W 035 R034 050 NE QD 050 SE QD 050 SW QD 000 NW QD
T036 341N 1690W 030
AMP 000HR BECOMING EXTRATROPICAL
012HR EXTRATROPICAL
024HR EXTRATROPICAL
036HR EXTRATROPICAL
NNNN
SUBJ: TROPICAL STORM 01C (OMEKA) WARNING NR 006
1. TROPICAL STORM 01C (OMEKA) WARNING NR 006
01 ACTIVE TROPICAL CYCLONE IN EASTPAC
MAX SUSTAINED WINDS BASED ON ONE-MINUTE AVERAGE
WIND RADII VALID OVER OPEN WATER ONLY
---
WARNING POSITION:
210600Z --- NEAR 25.4N 173.7W
MOVEMENT PAST SIX HOURS - 025 DEGREES AT 18 KTS
POSITION ACCURATE TO WITHIN 060 NM
POSITION BASED ON CENTER LOCATED BY SATELLITE
PRESENT WIND DISTRIBUTION:
MAX SUSTAINED WINDS - 035 KT, GUSTS 045 KT
WIND RADII VALID OVER OPEN WATER ONLY
BECOMING EXTRATROPICAL
RADIUS OF 034 KT WINDS - 050 NM NORTHEAST QUADRANT
050 NM SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
040 NM SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
000 NM NORTHWEST QUADRANT
REPEAT POSIT: 25.4N 173.7W
---
FORECASTS:
12 HRS, VALID AT:
211800Z --- 28.5N 172.6W
MAX SUSTAINED WINDS - 035 KT, GUSTS 045 KT
WIND RADII VALID OVER OPEN WATER ONLY
EXTRATROPICAL
RADIUS OF 034 KT WINDS - 050 NM NORTHEAST QUADRANT
050 NM SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
050 NM SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
000 NM NORTHWEST QUADRANT
VECTOR TO 24 HR POSIT: 010 DEG/ 17 KTS
---
24 HRS, VALID AT:
220600Z --- 31.8N 171.8W
MAX SUSTAINED WINDS - 035 KT, GUSTS 045 KT
WIND RADII VALID OVER OPEN WATER ONLY
EXTRATROPICAL
RADIUS OF 034 KT WINDS - 050 NM NORTHEAST QUADRANT
050 NM SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
050 NM SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
000 NM NORTHWEST QUADRANT
VECTOR TO 36 HR POSIT: 045 DEG/ 16 KTS
---
36 HRS, VALID AT:
221800Z --- 34.1N 169.0W
MAX SUSTAINED WINDS - 030 KT, GUSTS 040 KT
WIND RADII VALID OVER OPEN WATER ONLY
EXTRATROPICAL
---
REMARKS:
211000Z POSITION NEAR 26.4N 173.3W.
//
BT
#0001
NNNN
0110121712 264N1777W 30
0110121718 250N1780W 30
0110121800 242N1785W 30
0110121806 238N1786W 30
0110121812 236N1787W 30
0110121818 230N1798W 30
0110121900 222N1794E 30
0110121906 216N1791E 30
0110121912 201N1799W 30
0110121918 201N1798W 30
0110122000 202N1794W 45
0110122006 206N1784W 45
0110122012 210N1773W 45
0110122018 224N1761W 35
0110122100 238N1746W 35
0110122106 254N1737W 35

Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 171 Comments: 53841
532. hcubed
1:27 PM GMT on December 21, 2010
"...FWIW, more of the record lows/low maximums over the past week have merely tied old existing records; should I discount them, as well? Of course not; a record is a record is a record..."

As long as both sides (high/low) are treated equally, yes. Call them as they are: they TIED an existing record.

In your analogy of the race times, both times would go in the books, but honestly listed "on this date, X tied the currently existing record of 3:40:45, held by Z".
Member Since: May 18, 2007 Posts: 289 Comments: 1639
531. CyclonicVoyage
1:24 PM GMT on December 21, 2010
Alert *Special Tropical Weather Outlook (en Español*)


Gotta love the tropics, lol.

Morning All.
Member Since: January 30, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 3259
530. wunderkidcayman
1:19 PM GMT on December 21, 2010
the only thing that I see rear cat5hurricane is that we have been seeing storms in december for the past 5-10 years and we have not seen any from 2007
Member Since: June 13, 2009 Posts: 2 Comments: 12035
529. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
1:16 PM GMT on December 21, 2010


GFS showing some deep cold air coldest of the season building and drifting south to ring in the new year
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 171 Comments: 53841
527. Neapolitan
12:59 PM GMT on December 21, 2010
Quoting hcubed:


Still wonder how you can call a temp a "record high" when it MATCHES the old record.

TX Anson Mon, 20 Dec 2010

New "record": 76
Old record: 76 in 1978

That's how it's done. Note that I didn't say "new record"; I just said "there were X number of records" (though at times I have used the somewhat redundant phrase "there were X number of records set or tied").

Look at it this way: if someone runs the mile in 3:40:45 one week, and then you run it in 3:40:45 a week later, have you not run the mile in record time? Of course; your time would go down in the books as a record, whether you were first or not.

FWIW, more of the record lows/low maximums over the past week have merely tied old existing records; should I discount them, as well? Of course not; a record is a record is a record...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13537

Viewing: 576 - 526

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather

Overcast
77 °F
Overcast