The big story about Tropical Storm Chris, at least from a U.S.-centric perspective, is that it could wind up hitting Florida or intensifying in the Gulf of Mexico, and then going God knows where. AccuWeather put that plainly with its latest report:
Those residing in South Florida and the Keys need to monitor the storm's approach carefully. There is a good chance that Chris will be churning through the Straits of Florida over the weekend and could bring strong winds and some heavy rainfall. Chris should then move into the Gulf of Mexico by early next week. It is possible Chris' eventual destination could be the western Gulf of Mexico by Wednesday and Thursday of next week.
Meanwhile, in the Gulf of Mexico, oil and gas drillers are already putting in place their evacuation strategies. This is called PLANNING AHEAD.
Yet what is our beloved FEMA up to? Well, here's the agency's "National Situation Update" for today. You will note that although the update does warn southern Florida residents about the storm, it says nothing about the possibility of Chris winding up in the Gulf (whose warm waters essentially provide a kind of trampoline for hurricanes to bounce off of). Is this agency on the ball? We certainly have grounds for wondering.....
UPDATE: Well, perhaps this is a non-issue, as Chris has started to weaken dramatically.....
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Before spending millions of taxpayers' dollars on emergency measures, I think we need to examine the evidence and determine whether these "hurricanes" actually exist.
Giant whirling storms hundreds of miles across? Very likely. I think rational people should think twice before taking reports of their existence seriously.
The science on hurricanes is uncertain. Steve Malloy told us so.
And if there is a hurricane, we can't do anything about it. So we should just adapt. Because funding FEMA would hurt the American economy.
Hurricanes are just a way to get Al Gore elected.
Oh boys?
I hate to throw a wet blanket on your ghoulish hurricane anticipation party but there is a new study disputing the link between hurricane strength and GW. It is by Chris Landsea of the National Hurricane Center and was published in Nature.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-0729globalwarmi…
Don't worry we all know that the journal Nature is funded by big oil and who can trust the National Hurricane Center anyway?
I hope soon to be hurricane Chris is a whopper and really clobbers Florida. That'll show those denialists!
Jon, would you pass the Cheetos?
I am aware of the studies supporting the existence of hurricanes. But more studies need to be done.
This is not to say hurricanes aren't important. People should get the hurricane support that they need. That's why FEMA should optimize its resources in the form of providing call center support from its new operations center in Bangalore, India. Press 1 to hear about new Halliburton cleanup jobs in your hurricane-struck area, starting in a month or so after the no bid contracts. Press 2 to hear the Marshall Institute's talk about how if your bootstraps have blown away, you can use downed phone line debris to fashion new ones (take notes, because you won't have this information later). Press 3 to talk to a customer relations specialist about how to get the most from your friendly local officials, who have copious spare time and resources to help you right now. Press 4 to end this call. Please make your selection, now.
Some people say that hurricanse exist, others say that they're actually just terrorists striking during thunderstorms. I say let's split the difference, and bomb some country in the Middle East.
Even assuming that hurricanes exist, why rush to judgement and assume that they're bad?
Sorry to disappoint you fellars,
Reuters
UPDATE 6-Oil falls as Tropical Storm Chris weakens
Thu Aug 3, 2006 11:41am ET
"Tropical Storm Chris' top sustained winds slowed to near 40 mph (65 kph) on Thursday, making it only barely a tropical storm, and government forecasters said it could dissipate over the coming days."
I notice that the study in Nature didn't dampen your sarcastic enthusiasm for the prospect of deadly storms to help frighten the public into accepting AGW.
Truly a sad display of politics over reason and compassion.
I think before you assume that hurricanes exist, you need to read the studies. And not just those written by real scientists. They're just going after the grant money. You should go to junkscience.com.
I haven't made up my mind about "hurricanes," but there's been a sharp increase in hot air lately.
Hehe,
"...there's been a sharp increase in hot air lately."
Amen brother.
That describes most of the alarmist hoopla over AGW.
Hell freezes over, pigs fly; Film at Eleven:
It's called a "paradigm shift."
Wow, Stefan!
I blogged about something similar to this back in April. Here's the link, plus what I wrote.
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/the_politics_of_climate_change_10446.html
I'm confused. Given what the best, impartial science is telling us about climate change, the two key constituencies in the Republican Party--religious conservatives and capitalists--ought to be calling for more agressive action to control greenhouse gas emissions before the climate reaches a "tipping point."
What's going on here?
As I noted in an earlier blog entry ( http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/has_the_climate_change
_debate_reached_a_tipping_point_9982.html ), some religious conservatives have indeed recognized that working to control CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions does indeed constitute doing "God's work." Though they and I approach it from different perspectives, we share a sense of wonder that this small chunk of rock that we live on is indeed remarkable and more fragile than many people realize.
Capitalists, except for those who are beholden to companies that are better served in the short run by the status quo, ought to recognize an enormous business opportunity here. Tim Flannery discusses many of the possible technological solutions toward the end of his book The Weather Makers ( http://www.scienceshelf.com/WeatherMakers_FieldNotes.htm ), pointing out that there is plenty of money to be made, even in the short run.
Yet Republicans allow their party machinery to work against meaningful climate change policies. The control seems to reside not in the true, forward-looking capitalists but in the big-money corporations whose short-term bottom line would be threatened if they permitted entrepreunial capitalists to thrive.
As a moderate Democrat who has recently become more active with my words and my money, whenever I get questionnaires and fund-raising calls, I have been encouraging my party to seize on climate change as an issue for everyone's future.
Yet, as I look at the two key consituencies of the Republican Party, "going green" looks like a more natural fit for them.
Another devastating hurricane or record-breaking heatwave/drought will propel this issue to the fore in a national election, and I think that one of the parties should sieze on it before that. No matter which party you consider yours, I urge you to direct your contributions and your comments to persuading it to address the greenhouse gas problem now.
Pat Robertson's science credentials:
He thinks that god helps him see people with illness, who happen to be watching his TV show at that moment, and then heals them. He is a big ID proponent and says, "Evolution is a lie of the devil". He is of course against embryonic stem cell research because it's "murder".
He believes in "demons" and "the rapture". I'm not sure his endorsement of anthropogenic global warming has scientific significance.
Politically? That's a different story. As I have said I expect that once politicians on the right see the opportunity to be seen as "saving the world" they will find ways to co-opt AGW.
Robertson can claim to be saving souls and the planet!