Economic Impact Of Hurricanes

[Randolph Kinney]

EXCLUSIVE: The A-list celebrities who turned up at a telethon to raise funds for those affected by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma have been clocking up hundreds of thousands of air miles contributing to the global climate linked to the devastating floods. Tuesday night's Hand in Hand: A Benefit for Hurricane Harvey Relief telethon brought together stars from around the world in a bid to raise millions of dollars for those affected by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. The hour-long special included performances and messages from A-list celebrities including Beyoncé, Justin Bieber, George Clooney, Cher and Leonardo DiCaprio, all asking viewers to donate to help with relief from the disastrous storms that hit the southern US. But an exclusive MailOnline investigation has revealed the stars could well have contributed to the catastrophic weather phenomenons with their jet-setting lifestyles. Justin Bieber is thought to have travelled at least 136,000 miles, active environmentalist DiCaprio is believed to have done more than 87,000 in a plane with fellow actor Clooney just behind with 61,000 guzzling tonnes of CO2 along the way.

Read More

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

The idiocy of the deniers is pretty hilarious. Few, except a couple of knuckleheads here, acknowledge a contribution to the severity of the storms arising from rising water temperatures exacerbated by climate change.

As to Mr. Rex, you are hilarious. If I'm a loser, I'm not sure what to call a yokel whose closest and only loved ones seem to have four legs! I feel for you!

 

[Randolph Kinney]

The idiocy of the deniers is pretty hilarious. Few, except a couple of knuckleheads here, acknowledge a contribution to the severity of the storms arising from rising water temperatures exacerbated by climate change.

You know Pete, It has not and can not be shown that human emissions contribute anything to global warming or climate change much less storms.

https://appraisersforum.com/forums/threads/economic-impact-of-hurricanes.217981/page-6#post-2792499

A federal judge in Boston dealt a major blow yesterday to environmental activist groups seeking to sue fossil fuel companies for supposedly ignoring the risks of climate change. The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) had sued ExxonMobil for allegedly failing to sufficiently prepare a facility in Everett, Mass., for the effects of climate change, including sea level rise and more frequent and severe storms.

U.S. District Court Judge Mark Wolf allowed ExxonMobil’s motion to dismiss to proceed, in part. Wolf repeatedly suggested that CLF was unnecessarily injecting climate change into its complaint, to the detriment of the group’s own argument. As Wolf saw it, the case is about whether ExxonMobil has violated the terms of its permit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and he thus ordered CLF to refile its complaint with the references to climate change removed.

Wolf made clear that in order for CLF’s claims to stand, the organization needed to show that ExxonMobil had either caused harm to the plaintiffs or that harm was “imminent.” The CLF complaint was filled with references to the projected effects of climate change by 2050 or 2100, which the judge said didn’t qualify as imminent. He suggested that if the plaintiffs were concerned about the effects of climate change on the facility in 2050, they should refile their case in 2045.

Again, claiming it so don't make it so. You have to prove to the court that you have damages and it was caused by ExxonMobil or human emissions that ExxonMobil knew would cause damage.

No damages yet so no standing in court.

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

Randy, duly noted that you, Rush Limbaugh, and Alex Jones are in the same camp of ignoring the preponderance of science.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Randy, duly noted that you, Rush Limbaugh, and Alex Jones are in the same camp of ignoring the preponderance of science.

Thank you. It is not I that ignores science, it is I who understands what is purported to be science. No forecast yet of global average temperatures has been accurate or shown to follow a mathematical relationship for prediction of human emissions versus temperature.

Too bad you can't understand mathematical relationships or lack there of.

And, no court yet has validated human emissions as a basis of causing damage.

 

[Bobby Bucks]

Pete is the childish name calling really necessary? Your use of the word "deniers" is telling; for some, weather has become a religion.

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

Pete is the childish name calling really necessary? Your use of the word "deniers" is telling; for some, weather has become a religion.

Facts and reality are what it's all about. People deny scientific finding.

BTW could it be construed as hypocritical that you call me out for "childish name calling" while ignoring Randy and Mr. Rex who do it with amazing regularity? Consistency is generally a good thing.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Facts and reality are what it's all about. People deny scientific finding.

Did you understand Dr Mann's dissertation of how hurricanes formed? You said human emissions cannot cause a hurricane to form. You said human emissions only contribute to the hurricane's intensity. Yet, Dr Mann and you failed to say what hurricane Irma category 4 would have been if the there were no human emissions? Why? Because it is known that no climate scientist can say how much. They don't have a mathematical model that will predict anything about CO2 levels and hurricane intensity.

Post your science Pete. Show how much of hurricane Irma's intensity was due to human emissions.

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

Did you understand Dr Mann's dissertation of how hurricanes formed? You said human emissions cannot cause a hurricane to form. You said human emissions only contribute to the hurricane's intensity. Yet, Dr Mann and you failed to say what hurricane Irma category 4 would have been if the there were no human emissions? Why? Because it is known that no climate scientist can say how much. They don't have a mathematical model that will predict anything about CO2 levels and hurricane intensity.

Post your science Pete. Show how much of hurricane Irma's intensity was due to human emissions.

No one said human action caused the hurricane to form--that is a function of nature. But Dr. Mann and a whole host of other scientists have acknowledged that climate change intensified the storms. The hurricane would have been there anyway, but its intensity was impacted.

That's what the scientists have all said and that you continue to ignore. Why do I feel like I'm debating with an adolescent?

 

[Randolph Kinney]

No one said human action caused the hurricane to form--that is a function of nature. But Dr. Mann and a whole host of other scientists have acknowledged that climate change intensified the storms. The hurricane would have been there anyway, but its intensity was impacted.

And yet they don't tell you how much it was impacted. They lead you down the primrose path with fear mongering.

From NOAA

1. Summary Statement
Two frequently asked questions on global warming and hurricanes are the following:

• Have humans already caused a detectable increase in Atlantic hurricane activity or global tropical cyclone activity?
• What changes in hurricane activity are expected for the late 21st century, given the pronounced global warming scenarios from current IPCC models?

In this review, we address these questions in the context of published research findings. We will first present the main conclusions and then follow with some background discussion of the research that leads to these conclusions. The main conclusions are:

• It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).
• Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/#summary-statement

Did you understand the above from NOAA? Premature to conclude that humans caused a detectable change in hurricanes.