Posted on 11/25/2012 7:54:34 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Climate change? Global Cooling worries became Global Warming fanaticism. Now we have “Climate Change” to cover all bets and eventualities. But whatever happens, the anti-capitalist, Chicken Little Crowd will blame it on the “greedy” rich, who will be expected to compensate Third World victims for the alleged damage they have caused.
The surge from the 1938 storm was much higher than Sandy’s although it did not extend over as wide an area. In comparing overall effect the extra width of Sandy still does not stack up to the height of the 1938 storm.
Just responding to this:
“Hurricane Sandy was no Super storm.
It hit where a hurrican hadn’t hit that hard since 1938, but the 1938 storm was much worse.
It was a Hurricane with some unusual pattern, but the winds were not that high— Hurricane Andrew had winds of 200 mph, If that had hit where Sandy did it would have been a super storm.Sandy was indeed a bad storm, did a lot of damage, but it was just anther hurricane”
And what you say:
“In comparing overall effect the extra width of Sandy still does not stack up to the height of the 1938 storm.”
Here, whether you are right or wrong, does not equal “Snady was no super storm”
The superstorm label undoubtedly fits March 1993 where it was first used. If it is used for transitioning hurricanes like Sandy then we will have to relabel a lot of hurricanes from the past as "superstorms". Sandy's unusual track came from the strength of the upper jet and short wave that coincided with Sandy that would have caused a strong nor'easter without any Sandy around. That nor'easter would have been notable, so adding Sandy's effects makes Sandy even more noteworthy. So while I don't disagree with the superstorm label, it should be put in perspective.
I never said it wasn’t a big storm. What I said was that is was no super-storm.
It was a hurricane and hurricanes are big storms. Circumstances made this storm very damaging, but Global Warming did not create it and it wasn’t so strong as to be out of the ordinary.
“it was just anther hurricane”
Is what you said.
I just pay so much of no attention to man made global warming that I don’t get into these things passionately.
It DOES seem to me that the locals deserve a lot of credit for putting up with the magnitude of this thing. I’ve been through many weather events and in that are as well. This is the worst. Been through a few hurricanes and this wan simply not “just another hurricane”.
I am just saying.
Oh blah blah blah.
Could we give the locals some just some credit for having put up with this thing?
Super, big, just another hurricane, what ever.
The UN should not be blathering on about this they should be interested in the fact that our ambassador was killed as they would if we (like the Libyans did ours) killed their ambassador in Washington.
No doubt it was destructive, But it was no Frankenstorm.
It left a lot of misery and suffering in it’s path, but so have many other hurricanes, certainly the people still recovering from it will remember it all their lives, Just as I remember Hazel ,Isabel, Agnes,it was a dangerous storm and will be recorded as such. The one you are in will always be the one you say was the worst.
Was it worse than Katrina? Was it worse than the 200 MPH winds that destroyed the Florida Keys in 1935?
There have been terrible hurricanes throughout history one that destroyed Brownsville Texas in 1933.
I am not here to argue how bad this hurricane was. Certainly it was bad and caused a lot of human misery, I am here to say that only in the last couple of years have these bad hurricanes been blamed on Global warming ,and that blame is BS. It was this years worst hurricane -—Period.
It wasn’t global warming as far as I’m concerned, and I’ve said that in every post I’ve made on this thread. I never said anything about Frankenstorm never.
I want to call attention the resilience of the locals.
That’s all I’m going to say on this subject.
“Everyone inland in NJ, LI, Conn has damage -trees down etc. It’s not fully poered up yet.”
No; NOT “Everyone”; by far. Did the storm reach far inland? Yes. Was it as great and severe far inland? No. The further inland you go, the less severe the damage and NOT everyone in NJ, Conn. & on Long Island had damage. Some had none at all.
Everyone was without power for days, some weeks, with derption to their transportation not to mention friends & family, so, yes, everyone.
U.N. Officials Upset U.S. Not Going Along on Climate Change
Green Agenda May Make Obamacare Costs Look Thrifty
The True Brilliance and Evil of Al Gore
Surprise! Which country has had the greatest CO2 cuts since Kyoto went into effect?
Al Gore in Agony: The Gasbag vs. Natural Gas
A chat with Al Gore on carbon taxes, natural gas, and the ‘morally wrong’ Keystone pipeline
Global Warming on Free Republic
U.N. Officials Upset U.S. Not Going Along on Climate Change
Green Agenda May Make Obamacare Costs Look Thrifty
The True Brilliance and Evil of Al Gore
Surprise! Which country has had the greatest CO2 cuts since Kyoto went into effect?
Al Gore in Agony: The Gasbag vs. Natural Gas
A chat with Al Gore on carbon taxes, natural gas, and the ‘morally wrong’ Keystone pipeline
Global Warming on Free Republic
“Everyone”
Define “everyone”.
I live in NJ just 16 miles (by the way the crow flies) from Manhattan - never lost power.
Everyone was effected.
If you had no effect, and still don’t, from the storm, I’ll have been mistaken.
My point was that it was not “just another hurricane” but global warming doesn’t have to have anything to do with it.
“Everyone was effected.”
You are mistaken.
We never lost power and I live due west of Manhattan. Lots of people in New Jersey never lost power.
The storm made landfall from Atlantic City north. Most beach communities in New Jersey south of Atlantic City were not damaged. Lots of south Jersey, including scenic Cape May had no damage.
Lots of places on Long Island had damages, particularly on the south shore; while many Long Island towns did not.
Similar facts are true about Connecticut as well.
YOUR claim was that EVERYONE in New York, New Jsrsey and Connecticut was affected.
The facts are EVERYONE there was not.
I agree with your assertion. Respectfully, though, you missed my point.
Did you have trouble getting to wor? Wait on a gas line? get caught in bad traffic? Lose pay or revenue?
A 40+ billion dollar per stae NY & NJ is not just another storm. At $40 B for NJ, I cannot imagine you were not affected. Perhaps I am wrong.
“Did you have trouble getting to work?” No.
“Wait on a gas line?” No.
“get caught in bad traffic?” No.
“Lose pay or revenue?” No.
Again, even a major impact on a state does NOT mean “everyone” was affected.
Your use of the term “everyone” is as bad as scientists who claim “all” climate scientists accept the “man-made” global warming premise. It is false. It pretends it does not have to prove itself. It trys to draw “everyone” in as if “who can object”. It’s an indea sales mechanism. It’s not evidence.
Secondly, Christies needs to account for his $40 billion dollar statement. Of course, I realize in as much as it’s the media’s job to help increase public spending, there is not much hope that anyone will either seriously question the figure are attempt to force him to fully and totally account for it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.