OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
 

wrote:
On 12 Sep 2006 09:25:59 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:

You also have to take into consideration building codes and locations
of major population centers for historical storms - current codes are
much safer in higher winds and water situations. Damage in, say a Cat
1 storm is hardly noticeable where in historical storms, it would be
much more severe.

Well, yes and no. Large buildings, before the vast knowledge we have
today in the engineering field were often over designed. With the
advancement of structural modeling, the goal was to make a structure as
economical as possible and still resist the forces applied.

That may be true in some commercial buildings, certainly not all, but
usually hurricane damage is expressed in homes destroyed.

That's why I qualified it with "large buildings".

The fact remains we build a lot stronger homes in Florida under the
current codes than we ever built anywhere at any time in the past.

If by stronger you mean able to resist wind loads, then yes. There is
still a problem with wind blown debris, however.

That would be true of all but the toughest commercial buildings too.
The only reason why we think they built them better in the olden days
is a few survived.

No, not true. In the days of tabby structures, for instance. The walls
were very thick, sometimes up to a couple of feet. They were excellent
at resisting wind forces and wind blown debris.



The people who do study weather say this was not a global rise in
storms last year anyway since the rest of the planet did not see the
increase. We just had a busy season. Let's noit get too silly about
it.

Again, many many studies by many many authorities suggests otherwise!

OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
 

Interesting, yes, but full of holes, so to speak. When the storm hits
an area that has weather instruments, even simple ones such as a
barometer and wind speed indicator, it is what it is.


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
Well that's not really true for, say ten years or so ago

Oh come on. There have been accurate weather instruments
(barometer, anemometer, thermometer) for over 150 years. And
the U.S. set up a weather collecting & analyzing service
around 1885. Historical records of storm strength would as
reliable and accurate as anything nowadays. What they didn't
have was satellites to get real-time data and such a huge
plethora of data collection points.



You also have to take into consideration building codes and locations
of major population centers for historical storms - current codes are
much safer in higher winds and water situations. Damage in, say a Cat
1 storm is hardly noticeable where in historical storms, it would be
much more severe.


That's true. In fact it kind of is a double whammy because
now coastal building are tenable in conditions that
previously would have been *obviously* unsafe. And it leads
people to build in places that are entirely unsuitable. I
mean, it's great if your house can withstand a Cat 5+
hurricane but if the land it's on washes away, where are you
then?



There is also an effect from sun spots. The current cycle has been
much more active than previous cycles and it's pretty much a proven
fact that all that energy does affect our atmosphere in extreme ways
and in ways not fully understood as of yet.

So to just patently say that storm severity and frequency is
increasing and it's global warming as a cause is not only short
sighted but lousy science.


Huh
Don't take this personally, but going by your statements in
the past your opinion about science is profoundly suspect.
Aren't you the guy who wants to take biological science back
to the 1500s?

For another thing, I'd be very surprised if any scientists
really said that. 250 years after Newton they are still
calling gravity just a theory.




If you really want to swallow the global warming Kool Aid

Oh, global warming is really happening. The cause is
uncertain, but before I started huffing & puffing about how
humans can't possibly be the cause, I would at least do a
slight amount of math. How many million barrels of oil a day
are burned in just the U.S.? How many BTUs is that?

DSK

OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
 

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
Consider this year's cycle. By the global warming model, we were all
about to be screwed, blued and tattooed - as many as 14 hurricanes and
17 named storms or some such. So far, two and seven.

I'm still waiting for the actuaries to readjust my insurance premiums
downwards as quickly as they adjusted them upwards.

OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
Consider this year's cycle. By the global warming model, we were all
about to be screwed, blued and tattooed - as many as 14 hurricanes and
17 named storms or some such. So far, two and seven.

I'm still waiting for the actuaries to readjust my insurance premiums
downwards as quickly as they adjusted them upwards.


DO hold your breath. Just you, though.

OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
Consider this year's cycle. By the global warming model, we were all
about to be screwed, blued and tattooed - as many as 14 hurricanes and
17 named storms or some such. So far, two and seven.

I'm still waiting for the actuaries to readjust my insurance premiums
downwards as quickly as they adjusted them upwards.


DO hold your breath. Just you, though.

Thanks, that was fun. But next time warn me to put a pillow and blankets on
the floor to cushion the fall.

OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
 

wrote:
On 12 Sep 2006 10:42:34 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:

If by stronger you mean able to resist wind loads, then yes. There is
still a problem with wind blown debris, however.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the code. Windows and doors require
impact protection too . Typically they measure that by shooting a 2x4
out of an air cannon at them. The 2004 Florida Building code is
tougher than the 2001.
http://www2.iccsafe.org/states/2004_florida_codes/
The wind code also applies to screen cages and outbuildings like
sheds. Those little bolt together things you buy at Home Depot are
illegal here. If code enforcement sees one in your yard it will get
tagged.

Oh, but I am familiar with the code. I am not, however, a expert on the
residential portion of the code. They have tested wall systems by
firing a 2x4 out of an air cannon, and such, but there is no code
requirement that I am aware of that states that a wall system be
designed to resist any sort of flying objects.
I fully understand the portion of the code dealing with wind. The
highest probability of failure of a wall due to wind is on a leeward
corner. In a typical wall design, the a portion of the corner needs to
be resistant to a wind pressure greater than the rest of the wall. But,
again, we are talking about wind pressure, not resistance to airborne
debris.

OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
 

DSK wrote:
Interesting, yes, but full of holes, so to speak. When the storm hits
an area that has weather instruments, even simple ones such as a
barometer and wind speed indicator, it is what it is.


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
Well that's not really true for, say ten years or so ago

Oh come on. There have been accurate weather instruments
(barometer, anemometer, thermometer) for over 150 years. And
the U.S. set up a weather collecting & analyzing service
around 1885. Historical records of storm strength would as
reliable and accurate as anything nowadays. What they didn't
have was satellites to get real-time data and such a huge
plethora of data collection points.



You also have to take into consideration building codes and locations
of major population centers for historical storms - current codes are
much safer in higher winds and water situations. Damage in, say a Cat
1 storm is hardly noticeable where in historical storms, it would be
much more severe.


That's true. In fact it kind of is a double whammy because
now coastal building are tenable in conditions that
previously would have been *obviously* unsafe. And it leads
people to build in places that are entirely unsuitable. I
mean, it's great if your house can withstand a Cat 5+
hurricane but if the land it's on washes away, where are you
then?



There is also an effect from sun spots. The current cycle has been
much more active than previous cycles and it's pretty much a proven
fact that all that energy does affect our atmosphere in extreme ways
and in ways not fully understood as of yet.

So to just patently say that storm severity and frequency is
increasing and it's global warming as a cause is not only short
sighted but lousy science.


Huh
Don't take this personally, but going by your statements in
the past your opinion about science is profoundly suspect.
Aren't you the guy who wants to take biological science back
to the 1500s?

For another thing, I'd be very surprised if any scientists
really said that. 250 years after Newton they are still
calling gravity just a theory.




If you really want to swallow the global warming Kool Aid

Oh, global warming is really happening. The cause is
uncertain, but before I started huffing & puffing about how
humans can't possibly be the cause, I would at least do a
slight amount of math. How many million barrels of oil a day
are burned in just the U.S.? How many BTUs is that?

DSK

But BushCo's way of thinking is that we negate the amount of heat
transfer to the air because of all the ice we make!!!!

OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
 

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 12 Sep 2006 09:25:59 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:

There is overwhelming science that man has contributed to global
warming. Only Bush has told you that that isn't the case.

Of course.

Oh well, rational is not one of your strong points.

Yeah, I guess if believing Bush over good science is irrational, so be
it.

OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
Consider this year's cycle. By the global warming model, we were all
about to be screwed, blued and tattooed - as many as 14 hurricanes and
17 named storms or some such. So far, two and seven.

I'm still waiting for the actuaries to readjust my insurance premiums
downwards as quickly as they adjusted them upwards.




Downward? ROTF! Sure, when hell freezes over!

OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
 

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:58:17 GMT, Don White
wrote:


Chuck Gould wrote:
snip...take a good look at the NG, you'll see that

almost *nobody* is posting political crap here anymore. Makes it a
better group.

With very rare exceptions:


snip

Don White has pretty well stopped or cut back a lot
And the list goes on.


Does this mean my 'Wanted Poster' will be recalled and the bounty
removed from my head?


No, but that's just because you are Canadian.


On the other hand...I don't know why I should worry...
we don't allow bounty hunters and the sheriffs up here simply escort
prisoners around (to & from court from the lockup etc)
Now if we had a US Marshall in here enforcing the peace I'd probably
watch myself, as I'm sure they have some kind of exchange agreement with
our Mounties.