Hurricane Jose strengthens to 'extremely dangerous' Category 4

[brooklynite]

Source: CNN

Hurricane Jose strengthened to an "extremely dangerous" Category 4 storm Friday, with maximum sustained winds near 150 mph, according to the National Hurricane Center.

The storm was about 335 miles east-southeast of the Northern Leeward Islands at 5 p.m. ET Friday, moving west-northwest at 17 mph, the National Hurricane Center said.

A hurricane warning was put into effect Thursday for Barbuda and Anguilla, Saint Martin and Saint Barthelemy. A hurricane watch remained in effect for Antigua.

The eye of Irma passed over Barbuda, a tiny Caribbean island of about 1,800 residents, on Wednesday, destroying telecommunication systems and cell towers. The storm damaged about 95% of the buildings on the island, Prime Minister Gaston Browne said.



Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/08/us/hurricane-jose/index.html

---

Hurricane Warning for Barbuda...

[Owl]

1. Poor Barbuda

[tibbir]

2. This is heartbreaking

[DesertRat]

3. Omg, the people in Barbuda have no shelter

Their airport was destroyed and they are surrounded by rumble. I hope they can all be rescued in time by ferry.

[BigmanPigman]

4. I wonder how many are yet to come during the next two months.

Sandy occurred during the last week of Oct.

[SergeStorms]

5. 11:00 P.M.

Now a Cat 5. Another catastrophic hurricane. The Island of Barbuda has been evacuated, since Irma destroyed nearly every building on the Island. If Barbuda takes yet another hit, there will be nothing to go back to, not even wreckage.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Thankfully, it turned a bit further north, so it didn't hit Barbuda and other islands too badly

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at2+shtml/055728.shtml?swath#contents

They had storm-force winds, but not hurricane.

Seems to be headed towards the open ocean between the Bahamas and Bermuda.

[LisaL]

7. But then it's going to turn around. After that, where it goes, nobody knows.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/graphics_at2.shtml?cone#contents

[Abouttime]

8. Unprecedented

I don't think it's just a coincidence that there were no major hurricanes during President Obamas 8 year tenure. We had progressive leadership at the EPA, our use of coal plummeted and the use of renewables skyrocketed, as a nation our relationship with nature was respectful and gentle.
Now we have a rascist, nazi madman in charge of our country, our leadership is openly hostile to environmental concerns. We have returned to our failed coal burning ways and Mother Earth is reacting as even a gentle creature does when her life and well being of her progeny are threatened. The violence manifested in these unprecedented climate events is a natural reaction to the threat, Trump and his wicked followers.

[brooklynite]

9. Sorry, but that's a silly analysis

Notwithstanding Trump's support of coal, there's been no signifi ant. Hange in either coal or gasoline in tbe past 8months.

[MosheFeingold]

11. Did Trump cause the Earthquake in Mexico, too?

Seriously, you are hurting our credibility.

[karynnj]

13. This is silly

I agree that Trump is an asinine creep doing everything he can to destroy any progress made and to move backward. However, he has not yet had the time to make a huge difference in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

Had Hillary won, we would not have pulled out of the Paris Accord and the EPA would not be where it is - working against the mission it was designed for. However, there is no reason to think that what she would have done in the last 9 months would have led to a huge difference in the carbon footprint. We were ahead on our 2025 goal when Obama left -- in addition to the Paris deal, the Kigali agreement on HCF https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/15/kigali-deal-hfcs-climate-change and the agreement on standards for air travel in 2016 were all very big deals. Yet, we wasted precious time in the 1990s - 2000s -- and the actual level is beyond whhat we thought would be the tipping point. No matter what scientist or ,statesman who spoke on this issue, it was clear that weather would become wilder with both more floods and droughts.

The big difference is that if HRC were President, her administartion would have remained as one of the forces fighting this. As John Kerry said when Trump pulled out, the agreement will continue, but Trump has pulled us out of leading. However, one thing that has happened was that that pull out has led many states, cities and businesses to either continue their engagement or in some cases to actually become MORE engaged and active than they were when the US effort was led by people like John Kerry, who had been involved for decades.

Last Week, I went to a UVM based conference on climate change and was amazed by the energy, creativity and the work being done by scientists, engineers, and state and city officials - not all from states as deep blue (and green) as VT. Next month, VT will have its own climate summit - a mini version of Paris, where the state _ led by the Republican Governor, citiesg, businesses, NGos, colleges, religious communities etc can all pledge what they can do to help VT make or improve on their previous goals. Goals will be recorded and tracked and communicated to former NYC Mayor Bloomberg's organization which is collecting similar information from other states and cities in his aptly named "we're still in" Burlington Vermont was the first community to source all its energy from renewable energy and it has a new goal of becoming a net zero carbon emitter.

Now VT is small and I mention it just because I know personally that there is a big bipartisan effort. The imporatnt thing is that many states are "still in". CA is doing some amazing things and it would be the 6th largest economy if it were a separate country. When you hear that Trump wants to lower the CAFE standards - consider CA won't and that means that few manufacturers will shift from meeting the original goals rather than give up both CA and the rest of the world as a market. Not to mention, it has silicon valley. If you think of it, most of the strongest, most creative technology areas in the country are in cities that are blue - even if their state is red - or in blue states. However, even if there was no political agenda to this, they would be all in because it is both the biggest economic opportunity for all those who create anything that helps and because of the very fact that it is a super complex technical problem. Big problems allow the space for really big solutions and that is sure to excite many brilliant creative scientists in many fields that could provide part of the solution.

Harvey, Irma and all other hurricanes this year would almost certainly have happened and been relatively the same no matter who won in November 2016. We can argue honestly and sincerely that science tells us that as the caps melt unpredictable, but devasting changes will occur, but it arguing that a specific storm happened because of things Trump did since mid January just does not pass the red face test. We want to be the side making solid, scientificly defendable statements.

[irisblue]

14. Superstorm Sandy aka Hurricane Sandy hit USMidAtlantic states, Oct 2012

POTUS was Obama.

[onenote]

16. A contender for dumbest thing posted here in a long time.

The areas impacted by Hurricanes Irene, Sandy, and Matthew -- all occurring during the Obama years -- would disagree with you that there were no "major" hurricanes during those years. Plus, hundreds died between 2008 and 2016 from catastrophic weather events, including floods, tornados, and blizzards. 160 people died in the Joplin MO tornados of 2011 and more than double that number died in the several states impacted by the "Super Outbreak" of tornados that same year.

[Abouttime]

10. I feel many here would differ with you

President Obama stated himself "this is the moment when the rise of the oceans will slow and our planet will heal" in his nomination speech. Like most here I believed every word when he said it and his words have been proven to be true, no major hurricanes for 8 years during his administration and our planet began to heal.
This goes to the core of what separates us from the deplorables and republicans in general.
The climate crisis is the political issue of a lifetime, once the general population figures out that Republicans bring chaos in everything from the economy, world peace, social justice and even the weather their brand will become fatally toxic and their southern neo-confederate base will dissolve.

[crazycatlady]

12. No major hurricanes during the Obama administration

I'm sorry but New Jersey would beg to differ.

[karynnj]

15. so would Vermont with Hurricane Irene nt

Note Vermont's response to Irene has been to rebuild the roads with the expectation that something like Irene could occur again. http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/local/vermont/2016/08/29/vermonts-roads-ready-next-irene/89271976/

In 2007, I remember Senator Kerry and Feingold arguing for an amendment on a bill that would have required any bridge being built to consider climate change and - it failed to get 60 votes, getting only 51 votes.

Here was the text:
SEC. 2___. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.

(a) Planning Considerations.--To account for the potential
long- and short-term effects of global climate change, the
Secretary shall ensure that each feasibility study or general
reevaluation report prepared by the Corps of Engineers--
(1) takes into consideration, and accounts for, the impacts
of global climate change on flood, storm, and drought risks
in the United States;
(2) takes into consideration, and accounts for, potential
future impacts of global climate change-related weather
events, such as increased hurricane activity, intensity,
storm surge, sea level rise, and associated flooding;
(3) uses the best-available climate science in assessing
flood and storm risks;
(4) employs, to the maximum extent practicable,
nonstructural approaches and design modifications to avoid or
prevent impacts to streams, wetlands, and floodplains that
provide natural flood and storm buffers, improve water
quality, serve as recharge areas for aquifers, reduce floods
and erosion, and provide valuable plant, fish, and wildlife
habitat;
(5) in projecting the benefits and costs of any water
resources project that requires a benefit-cost analysis,
quantifies and, to the maximum extent practicable, accounts
for--
(A) the costs associated with damage or loss to wetlands,
floodplains, and other natural systems (including the
habitat, water quality, flood protection, and recreational
values associated with the systems); and
(B) the benefits associated with protection of those
systems; and
(6) takes into consideration, as applicable, the impacts of
global climate change on emergency preparedness projects for
ports.
(b) Additional Considerations for Flood Damage Reduction
Projects.--For purposes of planning and implementing flood
damage reduction projects in accordance with this section and
section 73 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (33
U.S.C. 701b-11), the term ``nonstructural approaches and
design modifications'' includes measures to manage flooding
through--
(1) wetland, stream, and river restoration;
(2) avoiding development or increased development in
frequently-flooded areas;
(3) adopting flood-tolerant land uses in frequently-flooded
areas; or
(4) acquiring from willing sellers floodplain land for use
for--
(A) flood protection uses;
(B) recreational uses;
(C) fish and wildlife uses; or
(D) other public benefits.

To me it seemed just common sense - as Senator Kerry said in his initial comments on the amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this be
considered as an amendment to the Boxer substitute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, this amendment is a bipartisan amendment
introduced with Senator Collins, Senator Feingold, Senator Carper,
Senator Reed of Rhode Island, Senator Biden, Senator Whitehouse, and
Senator Cantwell.
This is an amendment regarding the impact of global climate change
and the need for the Congress, as we consider spending money and
requiring the Corps of Engineers to undertake certain projects across
the country--it just seems logical as a matter of protecting the
taxpayers' dollars as well as thinking about the future that we ask the
Corps to include in their analysis of these projects judgments about
the potential impact or the real impact of global climate change on
that particular project.
Now, I am going to speak more about the common sense of doing that,
why it is important, but I will just say very quickly, if you look at
New Orleans where we had a breach of the levees as a consequence of the
hurricanes and the rise of the seas, it is clear that much of the
infrastructure of America is designed without reference at all to what
is now happening to climates, to water bodies, to the various
challenges we face with respect to global climate change. So you need
to sort of lay out the parameters within which we ought to be making a
judgment about this particular issue. That begins by sort of setting
forth the facts. We ought to deal with facts with respect to the
situation on global climate change.
This will be the first time Senators in the 110th Congress have been
asked to vote on the floor in some way with respect to this issue of
climate change. But it is an important opportunity for Senators to
stand up and be counted with resp Senator Johnson of ND ect to this issue.
All this amendment seeks to do, as a matter of common sense, is to
ask the Army Corps of Engineers to factor climate change into their
future plans. By doing that, we are taking a small corrective measure
to a process that is currently flawed because it does not do that.
Secondly, we are making a statement here in the Senate about the need
to finally, once and for all, recognize the reality of what is
happening with respect to climate change.

This amendment had bipartisan support, but failed the filibuster because Baucus, Byrd, Conrad, Nelson (NE), Pryor, Salaazar, and Webb voted no and Sherrod Brown, and Jay Rockefeller did not vote. (Senator Johnson of ND was recovering from a stroke thus did not vote) Had the all the Democrats (other than Johnson) voted for it, it would have passed. This is one of many times when climate change has differed from other issues. Where many have been straight party lines, on climate change, there were more Republicans with us -- but we lost coal state Democrats. Even in cases like this, where it really was just requiring that climate change be considered when infrastructure was built.

In fact, 14 Democratic coal state Senators were part of the problem in getting a cap and trade bill passed in 2010.