Experts: Man, nature share typhoon tragedy blame
Source: AP-Excite
By SETH BORENSTEIN
WASHINGTON (AP) - Nature and man together cooked up the disaster in the Philippines.
Geography, meteorology, poverty, shoddy construction, a booming population, and, to a much lesser degree, climate change combine to make the Philippines the nation most vulnerable to killer typhoons, according to several scientific studies.
And Typhoon Haiyan was one mighty storm.
Haiyan slammed the island nation with a storm surge two stories high and some of the highest winds ever measured in a tropical cyclone - 195 mph as clocked by U.S. satellites, or 147 mph based on local reports. An untold number of homes were blown away, and thousands of people are feared dead.
FULL story at link.
Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20131112/DAA0N4NG1.html
Survivors move past the damage caused by Typhoon Haiyan in Tacloban city, Leyte province, central Philippines on Monday, Nov. 11, 2013. The typhoon-ravaged Philippine islands faced an unimaginably huge relief effort that had barely begun Monday, as bloated bodies lay uncollected and uncounted in the streets and survivors pleaded for food, water and medicine. (AP Photo/Aaron Favila)
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I suspect climate change played a much bigger role in this than the AP acknowledges, while I can't prove that claim the AP can not prove their claim that it is only responsible "to a much lesser degree" either. I suspect the AP threw those words in to please their corporate advertisers.
Snake Plissken
(4,103 posts)and convulsing like worms on hot pavement for attacking their cult leaders' agenda.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)If they did that, as in doing what Bjorn suggested, TBH, THEN that'd be a sign that they were trying to please the 'Baggers; nothing makes a 'Bagger denier happier than the media posting something that makes us look positively nutty. And unfortunately, that's been happening on a regular basis with the mainstream media. I've seen it all too often.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)The point that I was *trying* to make was, there are those who blame climate change either mostly or entirely for EVERY storm of any significance out there these days. The problem is, not only is this not provable, but it doesn't paint a very flattering picture of us trying to fight climate change, either; in fact, that particular kind of thinking makes us sound loopy, and there's nothing more that denialist 'Baggers like than seeing their adversaries look foolish on TV, or in the papers, etc.
Please do try to read more carefully next time, alright?
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)You just built a huge strawman here, I never claimed all storms were caused by climate change. You said that if the AP were to use my argument the teabaggers would like it because it would make our side look nutty. What exactly did I say that was nutty? Please don't try to create another strawman and try to claim I blamed every storm on climate change because I never said such a thing, please tell me what part of the actual words I did type sound nutty to you.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Come on now. Be serious.
And yes, I did take issue with your claim that climate change supposedly played a much bigger role than stated by the AP.
But I did *not* claim or imply that you, in particular, blamed *every* storm entirely or mostly on climate change.
I hate to be blunt but it sounds like need to work on your reading comprehension.....or stop jumping to conclusions so quickly because someone disagreed with you.
And yes, I do apologize if my first two comments sounded a little harsh. With that said though, we do need to be careful. There are plenty of malevolent people out there willing to sabotage our efforts and the mass media is all too willing to jump in on it if they can make a quick buck out of sensationalizing things and making us out to be crazy, when 97% of us are just trying to get the word out.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)So I ask again, what did I say that you think sounds nutty? And don't tell me what some imaginary person said and then claim I don't have reading comprehension skills when I tell you that I never made such a claim. You said I made a claim that sounds nutty, please tell me what that claim is.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)And I did say the media posting something loopy, and not yourself, so my point still stands.
As for the problem, Here, I'll even repost it:
The point that I was *trying* to make was, there are those who blame climate change either mostly or entirely for EVERY storm of any significance out there these days. The problem is, not only is this not provable, but it doesn't paint a very flattering picture of us trying to fight climate change, either; in fact, that particular kind of thinking makes us sound loopy, and there's nothing more that denialist 'Baggers like than seeing their adversaries look foolish on TV, or in the papers, etc.
And frankly, if I had intended to refer to you, specifically, here, I would have said so outright. And I only referred to you once during this whole time, and not even on the exact thing that you claimed. So there's not much I can tell you here.......
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I want names or else I am going to assume these are imaginary people you are talking about.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I usually don't have the time for that, honestly, and when I do manage to dredge up the facts, most of the people I try to talk to in this regard don't bother to listen anyway. At this point, I gotta say, "Why bother?".
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)If there were actually a significant number of people who made such a claim Google would bring such claims up in seconds, if it takes you hours to find something on Google then it is not a very widespread belief. If you can't cite even a single person then it is pretty clear to me that you made up a strawman argument.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I realize the AP is far from perfect, but they were actually close to hitting the mark this time.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Please cite some actual science that shows conclusively that climate change only effected this to a "much lesser extent".
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Granted, there may be some development over the next decade or two that may change this, but right now, all we have is evidence for general trends, and not for particular singular events.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)We may not be able to pin specific events to climate change but what the AP did in conclusively saying that it was a much smaller issue was not basing their claims on science.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Seriously, poor comprehension much?
And yes, what the AP was basically saying is that climate change may have played a role in this storm and it's effects, but if so, much less than other factors(as stated, geography, meterological factors, poor construction, etc.).
Dude, I get that climate change is serious.....I never once implied otherwise, in fact. But right now, we don't have much that conclusively ties climate change to any specific weather events, only trends & frequency of storms at the moment.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)My point is that the AP was not basing their words on any sort of scientific fact whatsoever, they tried to conclusively say that climate change was a much smaller factor when they have nothing to base that claim off of. I said from my very first post that I SUSPECT it is a bigger factor, unlike the AP I never stated my suspicions as if they were conclusive.
On edit: My comprehension is fine, you said that what the AP claims is where "all available evidence points" and that is false, there is no evidence that climate change was merely a "much smaller factor".
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)you said that what the AP claims is where "all available evidence points" and that is false
I didn't say that they said that exact thing(see what I mean?). I merely pointed out that it just happens to be true. And it is.
The *possibility* exists that we may be able to tie specific events to climate change to a degree at some point, but all the conclusive evidence we have right now doesn't point in that direction at the moment; all we have in that particular regard is trends and such.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I never disagreed with the notion that we can't conclusively tie a single storm to climate change, in fact I said in my very first post that I can not prove that it was a bigger factor than the AP claimed. My point was that the AP can not prove it was "a much smaller factor" either, they made that claim with no evidence to back it up. The AP were the ones who made a conclusive statement not me.
rosesaylavee
(12,126 posts)Check out the IPCC Fifth Assessment that came out in September 2013 - climate change is happening and it is human caused.
Storms like Yolanda, Sandy and Katrina were huge due to the warmer oceans, warmer air (which holds more water) - we have 4% more water in our atmosphere due to climate change than we had just 30 years ago. More info HERE re climate and hurricanes (typhoons)...
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)What I did take issue with was a particular claim made by a certain other DUer who believes that climate change is much more responsible for Haiyan's creation than the article let on.
While this isn't impossible, there simply is no conclusive evidence that says that climate change played any major role in this particular storm, or any other individual storm for that matter. All we have in terms of conclusive evidence is general long-term trends and projections, although many of them do suggest more hurricanes may be possible, we simply don't know how much climate change may play into any individual storm right now.
Does that make sense?
rosesaylavee
(12,126 posts)I know it would be comforting to think that this is not conclusive, that this is just a trend that may go the other direction. But, I am sorry to have to say that it is reality now that these storms will continue to be this large and larger until we, on a global scale, work on some solutions. This is the result of the huge amounts of carbon that has been and is being spewed into our atmosphere.
Do not not feel foolish for not knowing this... our media is so grossly under reporting it, it makes me weep. I wish it weren't so. I very much wish it weren't so. This IS the crisis of our lifetimes and our time to address it is running out.
More info here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/ and http://climaterealityproject.org/
Please, let me know if you have questions. I will answer whichever ones you post.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I know it would be comforting to think that this is not conclusive, that this is just a trend that may go the other direction.
I didn't imply it *would* go in the other direction, TBH. This is actually something you and I will agree on.
Do not not feel foolish for not knowing this... our media is so grossly under reporting it, it makes me weep. I wish it weren't so. I very much wish it weren't so. This IS the crisis of our lifetimes and our time to address it is running out.
And a lot of times when they do report it, they often tend to engage in sensationalism and scaremongering(and, more occasionally, the other way around); while it doesn't appear to be the case here, this has happened on a number of occasions. Unfortunately, I'll admit that I'm not as prudent about writing down stuff as I once was, but the proof IS out there.
And yes, again, I think we all agree climate change is one of the most serious problems that we have to face during the 21st century & even beyond.....
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)If the "certain other DUer" you are referring to is me then I remind you once again that I have been saying from the very beginning that I SUSPECT climate change played a role I NEVER made a conclusive statement that it did. The AP did make a conclusive statement that it was a "much smaller factor" so if you are upset at anyone for making a conclusive statement you should be upset with the AP.
ConcernedCanuk
(13,509 posts).
.
.
New Orleans comes to mind, as do many others.
We KNOW where momma nature does her worst,
yet we still choose to live there.
CC
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)To the US. I mean for god sake, we live in the middle of a Swamp. Theres a friggin reason why it sits in a Semi-Tropical swamp with almost no cover from storms. Yeah it's just been here since 1618 because of puppies, rainbows and Mardis Gras.
New Orleans (/nuː ˈɔrliənz/ or /ˈnuː ɔrˈliːnz/, locally /nuː ˈɔrlənz/ or /ˈnɔrlənz/; French: La Nouvelle-Orléans [la nuvɛlɔʁleɑ̃] is a major United States port and the largest city and metropolitan area in the state of Louisiana.
The Port of New Orleans handles about 62 million short tons of cargo a year. The port also handles about 50,000 barges and 700,000 cruise passengers per year with several ships from Carnival, Royal Caribbean, and Norwegian cruise lines making it one of the nation's premier cruise ports. The Port of South Louisiana, based in the New Orleans suburb of LaPlace, Louisiana handles 193 million short tons. The Port of New Orleans and the Port of South Louisiana combined forms one of the largest port systems in the world by bulk tonnage, and ranked top 10 in the world by annual volume handled.
It is the 1st in the United States based on volume of cargo handled, second-largest in the state after the Port of South Louisiana, and 13th largest in the U.S. based on value of cargo. It also has the longest wharf in the world, which is 2.01 miles (3.4 km) long and can accommodate 15 vessels at one time.
76% of ALL rubber comes in through New Orleans due to the unique nature of its port and rail system
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Even the experts are saying they can't necessarily conclusively tie climate change to any one particular storm(James Kossin's opinion notwithstanding). It's not impossible, but the truth is, we just may not have the ability to quite figure that out yet, regardless; all we have is evidence for general trends right now.
The best thing that can be done, honestly, is just to set aside this talk of climate change for the moment and send some much needed aid to the Phillipine people, including helping their government construct sturdier buildings for when the next big storm comes thru, as well as food, water, etc.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)This is my problem with the AP story, you are right that it is impossible to determine conclusively one way or another whether or not climate change was responsible or the extent in which it was responsible. The AP is saying it was only responsible to a "much lesser extent" when they have no way of knowing the extent to which it was responsible. I think it is very likely climate change was responsible to a much greater extent but it would be wrong for me to conclusively say that as well because I can't prove it just as the AP can't prove that it was to a lesser extent.
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)ABSTRACT
Sediment cores from Western Lake provide a 7000-yr record of coastal environmental changes and catastrophic hurricane land-falls along the Gulf Coast of the Florida Panhandle. Using Hurricane Opal as a modern analog, we infer that overwash sand layers occurring near the center of the lake were caused by catastrophic hurricanes of category 4 or 5 intensity. Few catastrophic hurricanes struck the Western Lake area during two quiescent
periods 3400-5000 and 0-1000 "C yr B.P. The landfall probabilities increased dramatically to ca. 0.5% per yr during an "hyperactive" period from 1000-3400 "C yr B.P., especially in the first millennium A.D. The millennial-scale variability in catastrophic hurricane landfalls along the Gulf Coast is probably controlled by shifts in the position of the jet stream and the Bermuda High.
http://www.usouthal.edu/geography/fearn/hurr.htm
rosesaylavee
(12,126 posts)rosesaylavee
(12,126 posts)The warming oceans, the warming air lend themselves to larger storms. This is the cost of all that carbon released into our atmosphere from our energy choices over the past 100 years. Our atmosphere is nearing full capacity for carbon to support life as we know it and yet, we still have media and people not educating themselves on the effects that will happen more and more if we continue to ignore and deny this problem.
The International Panel on Climate Change, in their fifth assessment that came out at the end of September, stated unequivocally that Climate Change is happening and that humans are causing it. http://www.ipcc.ch/
And there will be more and more of these extreme weather events until we agree to work together on a global level. And the longer we wait to address this, the more we hem and haw about 'hunh, I wonder if climate change could be behind this, the fewer options we have to address it.
This is NOT for some future generation's benefit.
This is for RIGHT NOW FOLKS!
More information here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
http://www.thecostofcarbon.org/
http://climaterealityproject.org/
