For First Time, 5 Named Storms Could Crowd Atlantic Ocean

By | September 14, 2018

  • September 14, 2018 at 1:21 pm
    craig cornell says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 15
    Thumb down 15

    “Okay, well the Scary Monster Climate Change stories fizzled when Florence dropped from a 4 to a 2 . . . but HERE is something else we can scare everyone with!!! UNPRECEDENTED!”

    Except that, you know, like all the “worst in weather history” stories from the Climate Zealots, the records only go back about 150 years or so. And the Earth has been around for what, a little bit longer than that?

    But never mind facts when we are trying to scare the public into Climate Hysteria! Whatever works! The Wolf is always at the door . . .

    • September 14, 2018 at 1:37 pm
      confused says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 14
      Thumb down 1

      every hurricane or tsunami ever formed has dropped in intensity over the course of its life

      • September 14, 2018 at 2:39 pm
        Craig Cornell says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 7
        Thumb down 10

        Number of hurricanes that hit the mainland US in 51 years ending in 1966: 19.

        Number of hurricanes that hit the mainland US from 1966 to 2016 (51 years): 7.

        confused is so damn accurate a webname: Every major media outlet was predicting Florence to be at least a Cat. 4 when it hit land. And so they could yell and scream Climate Change over an over (yawn). But what did Florence register when it hit land after all? ZZZZZZZ.

        • September 14, 2018 at 3:27 pm
          dot hemath says:
          Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 11
          Thumb down 1

          Let’s put things into perspective. The third costliest wind event in recorded history was Sandy. But what did Sandy register when it hit land after all? ZZZZZZZero!

          • September 14, 2018 at 4:19 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 12

            Must be evidence of Climate Change, right? Everything is evidence of Climate Change. Just turn on CNN.

        • September 14, 2018 at 3:35 pm
          Bugsy says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 6
          Thumb down 2

          Please clarify your 7 hurricanes in the last 51 years. Florida 2004 – 4 hurricanes made landfall; Florida 2005 – 4 hurricanes made landfall.

          I am not a believer in climate change by humans, but your count of 7 hurricanes is low. Are your numbers major hurricanes?

        • September 14, 2018 at 4:48 pm
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 7
          Thumb down 2

          Geez man. You just tried to argue there were ZERO hurricanes that made landfall in the USA since Katrina in 2005 on another thread (link below).

          I am skeptical about the veracity of your “facts” here too, but I’m sure you won’t actually back them up with any source material, will you?????

          Confused — I would suggest you don’t believe a word of Craig’s so called “facts” on hurricanes right now. He’s proven to be nothing but a lying troll on this topic.

          https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/09/12/500825.htm/?comments

          • September 14, 2018 at 5:12 pm
            helpingout says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 9
            Thumb down 0

            I know that Craig does not like to post links and will still believe he knows everything. I found a source from weather.com (don’t worry if you go to the last sentence the source will be there since we have not talked about this topic already) that shows 55 hurricanes have hit the US since 1985. It shows it broken down by month if you choose to examine it that way. You can also see where it transforms from a hurricane to a tropical storm and see how far up into the continental US. This does not include storms that only hit our territory Puerto Rico. Craig do you have any stats to back up your claim of 7. Because I cannot find any valid evidence and studies to support your claim, but here is mine https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/hurricane-strikes-month-united-states

          • September 17, 2018 at 2:52 pm
            Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 8

            Did you ever find out the difference between an island and an estuary Rosenblatt? If a Hurricane hit Long Island, what would be damaged and would it damage Connecticut?

          • September 17, 2018 at 3:55 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 1

            Nice trolling attempt, Agent. Try harder next time.

  • September 14, 2018 at 1:30 pm
    Captain Planet says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 16
    Thumb down 5

    Funny, I didn’t see climate change mentioned in this article at all, Craigy-Poo. They are just mentioning the fact there could be 5 storms in the Atlantic. No worries, though – it isn’t happening in your backyard after all.

    • September 14, 2018 at 2:30 pm
      Libertarian Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 10
      Thumb down 1

      I always look forward to your replies to craig and agent….although I still suspect they are the same guy. LOL

      • September 14, 2018 at 2:40 pm
        Craig Cornell says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 7

        Me Too! Still waiting for a single actual insight . . .

      • September 17, 2018 at 2:49 pm
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 7

        Does anyone wonder why the Libertarian movement hasn’t caught on in the USA?

        • September 17, 2018 at 6:04 pm
          UW says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 6
          Thumb down 0

          Because the Republican Party has embraced White supremacism and there’s no need for those people to carry their own movement anymore.

        • September 18, 2018 at 1:41 pm
          Ron says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 0

          “Does anyone wonder why the Libertarian movement hasn’t caught on in the USA?”

          Because too many people have been brainwashed into thinking that you must choose to be a Democrat or Republican and that their side is always right and the other side is always wrong.

          • September 18, 2018 at 4:13 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            This is an article about climate change – not sure how a retiring NFL player is relevant here.

          • September 18, 2018 at 4:53 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            My reply was to an off-topic comment posted by Agent. I have no qualms if my last reply and this post are also removed.

    • September 14, 2018 at 3:01 pm
      Craig Cornell says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 6

      Then why is this even a story, Mr. Wizard? “The FIRST TIME EVER!” Who gives a damn?

      • September 14, 2018 at 5:14 pm
        helpingout says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 7
        Thumb down 0

        Maybe it mentions that it is the first time ever due to the fact most on here are insurance agents who could have clients affected by the storms so it is a warning to keep an eye on the development for your clients?

        • September 14, 2018 at 6:01 pm
          Craig Cornell says:
          Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 14

          Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

          • September 17, 2018 at 8:39 am
            ??? says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 7
            Thumb down 0

            Oh? Is it fishing boats the incur the most damage during a hurricane?

          • September 17, 2018 at 1:58 pm
            Fair Playing Field says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 0

            @???

            I think you just speared a flounder.

          • September 17, 2018 at 6:06 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 0

            Wow. Unbelievably dumb. Yeah, no effects on anything in North Carolina except for fishing boats right now. Absolutely immoral for you to accept money to advise people on risk.

      • September 17, 2018 at 10:12 am
        SWFL Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 3

        These post, for both sides, are ridiculous. None of you are scientists and even if you were, your conclusions would be disputed by people, like yourselves, that want your beliefs to align with your political party. None of us can know the real long term impact that we collectively have on climate change but here’s what we do know and should agree on: more concrete, more roof tops, less trees, more building on the coastline, and more garbage in the ocean & waters will make life miserable for us all in the future.

        • September 17, 2018 at 3:06 pm
          Craig Cornell says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 6

          Thanks for the insight. I never knew that more garbage in the ocean would be bad. Also, I have read that global tree growth is actually greater now than 20 years ago, thanks to a warming climate. So I guess that part is good.

          Maybe if we just refuse to name all the storms, Climate Change won’t be so bad . . .

          • September 18, 2018 at 4:55 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            “Also, I have read that global tree growth is actually greater now than 20 years ago”

            I don’t believe you … where did you read that? Did the study take into account deforestation and population growth? Was the study limited to a small area and wasn’t actually a GLOBAL study, as you claim? Is there even such a study in the first place?

            Source required please!

  • September 19, 2018 at 3:15 pm
    Craig Cornell says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 2

    Geez, Rosenblatt. Are you helpless? This is one of the easiest facts to find on the internet. Just put in any variation of “are there more trees on Earth today?” . . . dozens of answers come up from reputable sources.

    • September 19, 2018 at 4:40 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      You mean like this???

      “The study also finds that there are 46 percent fewer trees on Earth than there were before humans started the lengthy, but recently accelerating, process of deforestation.

      “We can now say that there’s less trees than at any point in human civilization,” says Thomas Crowther, a postdoctoral researcher at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies who is the lead author on the research. “Since the spread of human influence, we’ve reduced the number almost by half, which is an astronomical thing.”

      In fact, the paper estimates that humans and other causes, such as wildfires and pest outbreaks, are responsible for the loss of 15.3 billion trees each year — although the authors said at a press conference that perhaps 5 billion of those may grow back each year, so the net loss is more like 10 billion annually.

      http s://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/09/02/scientists-discover-that-the-world-contains-dramatically-more-trees-than-previously-thought/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.84470b60d512

      • September 19, 2018 at 5:35 pm
        Craig Cornell says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 1

        I said the last 20 years. You cite a study about “any point in human civilization”.

        Try to focus, Rosenblatt. We are talking about Climate Change. Which is only in the last 100 years or so . . .

    • September 19, 2018 at 4:43 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      Or maybe this??

      “A report from the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, for example, says there has been a net loss of 1.29 million square kilometers of forest between 1990 and 2015.”

      • September 19, 2018 at 5:41 pm
        Craig Cornell says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 1

        A team of researchers from the University of Maryland, the State University of New York and NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center has found that new global tree growth over the past 35 years has more than offset global tree cover losses. In their paper published in the journal Nature, the group describes using satellite data to track forest growth and loss over the past 35 years and what they found by doing so.

        Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-global-forest-loss-years-offset.html#jCp

    • September 19, 2018 at 4:44 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      Even if it is true, is that a good thing?

      “Tree loss in the tropics is caused by agricultural expansion, while the new growth areas is in regions which were previously too cold to support such flourishing life, suggesting global warming is causing previously unidentified changes to the planet’s landscapes.

      The study, which took two years to compile, also found the earth’s bare ground cover – natural vegetation – has decreased by more than 3 per cent, most notably in agricultural areas of Asia.”

      http s://www.independent.co.uk/environment/tree-cover-increase-world-deforestation-farming-rainforests-forests-a8486096.html

    • September 19, 2018 at 4:46 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      I provided sources to back up my skepticism which you can review, analyze and argue if you think they’re valid conclusions or not. Now I shall ask again … what’s your source(s)?

      • September 19, 2018 at 5:38 pm
        Craig Cornell says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 1

        Even with billions of trees being cut down every year, a new study estimates there are seven-and-a-half times more trees on Earth than previously believed: 3.04 trillion, to be precise — or roughly 422 trees per person.

        An international team of researchers used tree density information from forests around the world, satellite imagery and supercomputer computations to map tree populations worldwide at the square-kilometer level. The results were much higher than expected.

        “Trees are among the most prominent and critical organisms on Earth, yet we are only recently beginning to comprehend their global extent and distribution,” Thomas Crowther, a postdoctoral fellow at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies and lead author of the study, said in a statement.

  • September 19, 2018 at 6:43 pm
    Rosenblatt says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    Craig – I stand corrected. Your source confirms your post and refutes my article from 2005. Thank you for backing up your argument with evidence.

    I was NOT surprised to read WHY that is true, though.

    “The researchers report that most of the new tree cover occurred in places that had previously been barren, such as in deserts, tundra areas, on mountains, in cities and in other non-vegetated land. They further report that much of the new growth came about due to efforts by humans (such as reforestation efforts in China and parts of Africa) and because of global warming—warmer temperatures have raised timberlines in some mountainous regions, and allowed forests to creep into tundra areas. Other areas of new tree growth resulted from large farm abandonments in places like Russia and the U.S. The researchers report that their calculations showed that human activities have directly caused approximately 60 percent of new global tree growth. They suggest their technique for monitoring tree cover could be used to predict tree cover changes in the future due to global warming.”

    • September 19, 2018 at 6:45 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Typo: my citation was from 2015, not 2005. The rest of my comment stands as written.

    • September 19, 2018 at 7:08 pm
      Craig Cornell says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Don’t be such a sucker for the Climate Nazis. The Earth has been warmer than today many times. Much, much warmer.

      And during those times, life absolutely flourished on Earth.

      The amount of actual warming we have experienced so far is far less, far slower than all the computer projections said it would be based on increasing green house gasses over the past 50 years. The actual warming trends so far indicates that the warming we will experience in the future will actually be good for life on Earth, including human life.

      Could the warming speed up? Could the warming turn out to be too much at some point in the future? Yes, of course.

      But the actual, real warming experienced so far is not on track to produce catastrophe. Instead, what we have actually experienced indicates we are on track for a BETTER climate for man. For plants. For animals. For trees.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*