KillingtonZone.com

Rt 107 washed out areas were backfilled with angular blasted ledge that will be harder for water to move than granular soils which it replaced.

Big Bob wrote:Rt 107 washed out areas were backfilled with angular blasted ledge that will be harder for water to move than granular soils which it replaced.

this is true, it also fell in the river a few times while they tried doing that...they also drove those huge trucks up and down the river to put that in and had excavators actually in the river removing gravel that was trucked elsewhere...I'm not against what they did, how they did it or why they did it...it was the most expeditious and practical way...the point was that restrictive national blanket standards might not be the best approach and that pre-obama standards would stay in place and add'l review at a more local level is always a good idea...projects in potential flood areas should have some guidelines and then also be subjected to more localized scrutiny...

and again congress can always act on it as well...

Planet will warm 2.5c and fail Paris Agreement
http://www.energylivenews.com/2017/09/0 ... arm-by-2-5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;˚c-and-fail-paris-agreement/

I don't know if this has been posted already because I cannot keep up with this thread as there are too many posts. In case it was not, I thought it was important to make you all aware of this. The headline says:

Melting permafrost in the Arctic is unlocking diseases and warping the landscape

You can read all about it at this link:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/weather/m ... spartandhp

madhatter wrote:

Big Bob wrote:Rt 107 washed out areas were backfilled with angular blasted ledge that will be harder for water to move than granular soils which it replaced.

this is true, it also fell in the river a few times while they tried doing that...they also drove those huge trucks up and down the river to put that in and had excavators actually in the river removing gravel that was trucked elsewhere...I'm not against what they did, how they did it or why they did it...it was the most expeditious and practical way...the point was that restrictive national blanket standards might not be the best approach and that pre-obama standards would stay in place and add'l review at a more local level is always a good idea...projects in potential flood areas should have some guidelines and then also be subjected to more localized scrutiny...yeah, kinda exactly like those regulations previously enacted

and again congress can always act on it as well...

Uh huh, right after they:

* Prevent a government shutdown
* Increase the debt ceiling
* Pass funding for Harvey relief
* Renew National Flood Insurance
* Reauthorize Children's Health Insurance Program
* Reauthorize the FAA
* Repeal Obamacare
* Overhaul the tax code
* Deal with DACA
* Fund the imaginary border wall

....a hurricane that claimed the lives of more than 400 people.

It was September when the nation’s first-recorded Category 5 hurricane struck the Florida Keys. The winds: between 200 and 250 miles per hour. The storm surge: 15 feet high. Thirty miles of a railroad track connecting a portion of the archipelago was decimated. Hundreds died, including more than 200 veterans working on an overseas highway linking the Keys.

Irma? No. Global warming? Not according to current mantra.

This was September 1935.

Mister Moose wrote:

....a hurricane that claimed the lives of more than 400 people.

It was September when the nation’s first-recorded Category 5 hurricane struck the Florida Keys. The winds: between 200 and 250 miles per hour. The storm surge: 15 feet high. Thirty miles of a railroad track connecting a portion of the archipelago was decimated. Hundreds died, including more than 200 veterans working on an overseas highway linking the Keys.

Irma? No. Global warming? Not according to current mantra.

This was September 1935.

It is curious that denialists such as yourself have been so quick to point out that major hurricanes have not struck the US coast in umpteen zillion years as if that idiotic statistic meant anything, and then when two arrive in the course of two weeks, revert to, "well, major hurricanes have always been happening". I also find it amusing that another denialist, Rush Limbaugh, who claimed that Irma was a "liberal hoax", is now currently evacuating. Regardless, Mr. Moose, some of your facts are wrong (wind speed), and all of them are irrelevant. Here is a BBC comparison of major storms, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-41177100

The closest thing there is to relevant data with respect to this is the total energy of all hurricanes in a season, Accumulated Cyclone Energy, or ACE. That has been increasing, but it is a noisy data set. (Figure 2, https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/ ... e-activity). I don't consider that data set proof of anything by itself, but along with many other harbingers, contributes to a disturbing total picture.

Finally, like ice expanse in the arctic/antarctic, weathermen who don't believe in climate change, and a host of other absurd cherry picked stats, the major hurricanes one is going by the boards too.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-1 ... ehicle-ban" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

China's Electric (A.K.A. Coal-Fueled) Car Companies Soar On Promise Of Petrol Vehicle Ban

rogman wrote:

Mister Moose wrote:

....a hurricane that claimed the lives of more than 400 people.

It was September when the nation’s first-recorded Category 5 hurricane struck the Florida Keys. The winds: between 200 and 250 miles per hour. The storm surge: 15 feet high. Thirty miles of a railroad track connecting a portion of the archipelago was decimated. Hundreds died, including more than 200 veterans working on an overseas highway linking the Keys.

Irma? No. Global warming? Not according to current mantra.

This was September 1935.

It is curious that denialists such as yourself have been so quick to point out that major hurricanes have not struck the US coast in umpteen zillion years as if that idiotic statistic meant anything, and then when two arrive in the course of two weeks, revert to, "well, major hurricanes have always been happening". I also find it amusing that another denialist, Rush Limbaugh, who claimed that Irma was a "liberal hoax", is now currently evacuating. Regardless, Mr. Moose, some of your facts are wrong (wind speed), and all of them are irrelevant. Here is a BBC comparison of major storms, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-41177100

The closest thing there is to relevant data with respect to this is the total energy of all hurricanes in a season, Accumulated Cyclone Energy, or ACE. That has been increasing, but it is a noisy data set. (Figure 2, https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/ ... e-activity). I don't consider that data set proof of anything by itself, but along with many other harbingers, contributes to a disturbing total picture.

Finally, like ice expanse in the arctic/antarctic, weathermen who don't believe in climate change, and a host of other absurd cherry picked stats, the major hurricanes one is going by the boards too.

Not my facts. It's The Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ret ... 0c70c1ed53" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Still with the 'denialist' name calling.

I'm not a denialist. However feel free to call me a questioning non-conformist. Something you once were.

I have agreed that co² can contribute to additional warming.

I charted hurricane frequency and intensity data over the last 160 years. It seems to disproove your assertions. Major hurricanes are not increasing in frequency, and 2 in one year is not unusual.

Mister Moose wrote:I don't see any significant changes in the number of major hurricanes, and I don't see any increase since global warming became a concern.

The total number of storms in each decade has decreased, not increased in the last 150 years. (Attention Brownman)

The percentage of storms that are major (Rogman's argument) has decreased since 2 peaks in 1940 and 1960.

I don't see the relevance of the BBC article you quoted, it merely catalogues the many ways hurricanes can differ in character, and points out that Irma was very long lasting compared to other storms that had different characteristics.

Mister Moose wrote:

rogman wrote:

Mister Moose wrote:

....a hurricane that claimed the lives of more than 400 people.

It was September when the nation’s first-recorded Category 5 hurricane struck the Florida Keys. The winds: between 200 and 250 miles per hour. The storm surge: 15 feet high. Thirty miles of a railroad track connecting a portion of the archipelago was decimated. Hundreds died, including more than 200 veterans working on an overseas highway linking the Keys.

Irma? No. Global warming? Not according to current mantra.

This was September 1935.

It is curious that denialists such as yourself have been so quick to point out that major hurricanes have not struck the US coast in umpteen zillion years as if that idiotic statistic meant anything, and then when two arrive in the course of two weeks, revert to, "well, major hurricanes have always been happening". I also find it amusing that another denialist, Rush Limbaugh, who claimed that Irma was a "liberal hoax", is now currently evacuating. Regardless, Mr. Moose, some of your facts are wrong (wind speed), and all of them are irrelevant. Here is a BBC comparison of major storms, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-41177100

The closest thing there is to relevant data with respect to this is the total energy of all hurricanes in a season, Accumulated Cyclone Energy, or ACE. That has been increasing, but it is a noisy data set. (Figure 2, https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/ ... e-activity). I don't consider that data set proof of anything by itself, but along with many other harbingers, contributes to a disturbing total picture.

Finally, like ice expanse in the arctic/antarctic, weathermen who don't believe in climate change, and a host of other absurd cherry picked stats, the major hurricanes one is going by the boards too.

Not my facts. It's The Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ret ... 0c70c1ed53" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Still with the 'denialist' name calling.

I'm not a denialist. However feel free to call me a questioning non-conformist. Something you once were.

I have agreed that co² can contribute to additional warming.

I charted hurricane frequency and intensity data over the last 160 years. It seems to disproove your assertions.

Huricanes.jpg

Major hurricanes are not increasing in frequency, and 2 in one year is not unusual.

Mister Moose wrote:I don't see any significant changes in the number of major hurricanes, and I don't see any increase since global warming became a concern.

The total number of storms in each decade has decreased, not increased in the last 150 years. (Attention Brownman)

The percentage of storms that are major (Rogman's argument) has decreased since 2 peaks in 1940 and 1960.

I don't see the relevance of the BBC article you quoted, it merely catalogues the many ways hurricanes can differ in character, and points out that Irma was very long lasting compared to other storms that had different characteristics.

if only there were a tax to prevent all this....

There are no facts in the Washington Amazon Post - Fake News

What part of Accumulated Cyclone Energy is confusing to you guys?

As I said, noisy data set.
As for the BBC article I was specifically debunking some of Mr. Moose's wind speed claims about '35 hurricane. (250 mph). The drastically reduced death tolls is due to better forecasting and modeling of storms potential tracks. Spot on at 3 days, not too far off at 5 days. Makes a huge difference in lives saved.

Meanwhile:
Moose Are Dying in Horrible Ways Due to Climate Change (2015 article):
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/arti ... ate-change

And Hillbangin' if you want to believe that all the mainstream media is fake news, go ahead, keep living in your bunker.

rogman wrote:What part of Accumulated Cyclone Energy is confusing to you guys?

As I said, noisy data set.
As for the BBC article I was specifically debunking some of Mr. Moose's wind speed claims about '35 hurricane. (250 mph). The drastically reduced death tolls is due to better forecasting and modeling of storms potential tracks. Spot on at 3 days, not too far off at 5 days. Makes a huge difference in lives saved.

Meanwhile:
Moose Are Dying in Horrible Ways Due to Climate Change (2015 article):
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/arti ... ate-change

And Hillbangin' if you want to believe that all the mainstream media is fake news, go ahead, keep living in your bunker.

OMG did you just vouch for the credibility of the WaPo?

Statistics don't matter when you're caught in the crosshairs.
Apparently .. few of you armchair quarterbacks have suffered major direct losses as a result of a natural disaster.
.. tu n'as aucune idée.

brownman wrote:Statistics don't matter when you're caught in the crosshairs. TO the person in the crosshairs, to everyone else you ARE a statistic...that's just the reality of it...
Apparently .. few of you armchair quarterbacks have suffered major direct losses as a result of a natural disaster. MOST people will not experience that...
.. tu n'as aucune idée. MOST people have lost something in some way due to circumstances that may have been beyond their control...most people can understand the grief over another's loss w/o actually shouldering that burden ( emotionally or financially)

first world problems....sux if you were affected by a natural disaster here but your vacation home can be replaced...