And as for baseball, I doubt that the PED testing is that effective, but certainly you don't go from having one guy hit 60 HRs in the 30s, and another in the 60s to multiple guys hitting way over that every year without some kind of change.

If the high total in one year is due to noise, that'd one thing and easily detactbel as being the result of natural variation. However, if it is part of the long term upward trend, then something is driving it, and whatever it is is potentially implicated in all those HRs. Of course, this is probably too sophisticated a concept for you to grasp

When did I display "brutal indifference toward future generations and the rest of life on earth with my climate change denialism policies'?

Or did you just assume that I am conservative and deny climate change because I point out the hypocrisy of your posts?

Wouldn't that be stereotyping me as a conservative and stereotyping all conservatives as anti global warming neo-Nazi lovers?

You want everyone to provide proof and evidence behind your posts.

Please provide the proof and facts that you have acted any differently than the conservatives you stereotype and post hate against when you make such outrageous stereotypes.

Because you will find nowhere have I denied the existence of global warming or the impact it could have on the climate now and for future generations. In fact I have remained clear of the scientific talk because I know that is not a strength of mine.

You saying all conservatives deny climate change and have brutal indifference on future generations while having a clear association with right wing extremists is no different than what the neo Nazis you condemn say when they would say something like all African Americans (I clearly know they would not use that term) are on drugs and in gangs and murder people. This is in no way a defense of what either side stupidly says.

Both statements are equally stupid and lacking in accuracy.

Whoops.

If you want to talk baseball, bring it. I can go all day.

The spike in HR's in the late 90's early 2000's was not part of a "long term upward trend", it was exactly as I just stated. A spike.

Home Runs jumped by almost 900 HR from 95 to 96 and the 96 total was about 1900 more than in 1992.

The MLB record for single season HR's (till this season ends as this will be the record) was in 2000.

After 2000 HR's dropped by almost 250 HR's in 2001 (The year Bonds set the single season HR record) and in 2010 the total HR's were about 1000 less than they had been in 2001.

This years spike in HR's is not different than the spike in 1998-2001.

Plus it is common knowledge that it is extremely likely that just as many pitchers were juicing as hitters back in that day. Roger Clemens was winning Cy Young Awards at an unprecedented amount and age back in the "steroid days".

So if an equal amount of pitchers were juicing in those days as hitters, wouldn't that by definition element any "advantage" hitters had? It sure would.

It is what baseball does. It goes through peaks and valleys.

It peaked in the late 90's early 2000's and it is peaking again now.

Last year and this year will end up being two of the three highest total HR's totals in the history of baseball and yet you want to dumb it down to just steroids.

Couldn't be that the ballparks are smaller? The mound lower than it was in the 60's? A lack of quality pitching watered down by expansion? Baseball wound tighter so the seams are lower causing less break on the pitches? Better information and video available for the hitters so they know exactly what the opposing pitchers throw?

Nah. Let's simplify it down to only one reason.

Baseball is a bad analogy.
Flood statistics are great and far better.
Also NFL statistics.

Harvey dumped an equivalent of a1000 years flood on texas.
To expand on this, Hurricane Harvey is the third event in the Houston area in the past three years which has been a (500 years flood event)

This would be like the New York Jets winning the Super bowl three years in a row.
Currently 1000:1 odds.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2017/08/29/houston-is-experiencing-its-third-500-year-flood-in-3-years-how-is-that-possible/

Baseball is more fun though :)

But its woefully incomprable and supports your scientifically benign views that all is well and hamburgers eat people

When did I claim that all is well and hamburgers eat people?

Do people actually read here? Or is everyone just paranoid that any response is an attack on what they've written?

Did you actually read that I said I am terrible at science so have pretty much avoided all the actually scientific talk?

I measure all human beings by their ability to rapidly recognize random quotes from the simpsons. You failed bro

If that is the measure then I did indeed fail miserably.

But I do now want a hamburger.

hey the best cheap hamburgers are these:
-at Carl's Jr. (Hardee's) order the big hamburger with no mustard add extra beef patty.
-at McDonald's order two McDouble's with no mustard or ketchup add shredded lettuce and Big Mac sauce.

Yum and cheap

at Denny's just get the regular hamburger, no cheese or fancy additions; and aren't their fries to die for? Ahhhh. and the next generations be damned. the millenials' have killed it for you.

And what do you know? The bump in home runs IS due to a change in the underlying conditions: the baseball

https://www.google.com/amp/mlb.nbcsports.com/2017/06/29/a-second-study-confirms-that-home-runs-are-up-due-to-a-change-in-the-baseball/amp/

That affects every single hit making them all go farther ( though some more than others) so, one can't point to any single HR this year and say it wasn't affected by the baseball, because it's a factor in all of them

So, yep, the point is spot on: when there is an underlying factor affecting every event across the board you cannot say that there are hits that aren't affected by that factor

after a 4 year hiatus from this place, I remember a few people Bosox is one of them, and his reputation and knowledge as a stormchaser was one I recall very well.

Ogion, I dont know you at all, but if you want to tell Bosox he has no idea what he is talking about (summary of what you said) when he has spent his whole life doing it, and you are sourcing obscure 1895 papers to try to refute his vast knowledge and acces to information you dont have, then it really just makes you look like a, for lack of a better word "know-it-all"

BoSox for the few years I was on site, was always well-known as a storm guru, with access to information nobody (including yourself) has, and something he puts his time into.

Lets go with his 'educated guess" and see what happens?

@brain … Harvey moved into waters (the Gulf) as a tropical storm that were absolutely ripe for creating a monster. Some chasers were talking on Facebook about just how primed the Gulf was for a major hurricane a few days before Harvey was spoken about because there was a European model that predicted it forming and it caught their attention. The storm itself didn’t do anything that any other storm in that situation wouldn’t have done - the Gulf being so perfectly convective is what was abnormal and worth studying more than the formation and landfall of Harvey itself.

The rest of that post is largely spot on.

As for land having “resurrected” Harvey, I’m not sure what you mean. It regained strength once it found its way back into the Gulf basin and had access to the unbelievably ripe waters again. It weakened considerably over land each time it made landfall, hence it stalling out, dumping a shitload of rain, and spinning along the coast back toward the Gulf in the first place.

@Stressed … as much as I appreciate it, the fact that I chase storms doesn’t preclude me from being wrong. In this case, I’m not - Irma fortunately doesn't happen every day, but there is nothing preventing it from happening during hurricane season whether the climate is changing or not - but trusting the judgment of so-called experts in deference of one’s own ability to research and learn on their own is a pretty big issue that the environmental camp has today.

@Ogion … I have no idea how the Pacific waters are right now. Radioactive, I suppose? Sure seems like the northern I’ve been catching out of Lake Michigan are a little bigger and stronger too lately, so maybe some of that has gotten here.

bosox, I will take your educated guess over most ...actually any single person i know.

How ya been man?

Hamburger anyone?

All that said, here is the latest model imagery for Irma, because everyone in the US should know, especially those on the east coast:

https://puu.sh/xtkGR/6b4b67514a.png

Recently, the NOAA flew a plane into the eyewall of Irma and came back with some pretty substantial data, so the models over the last 18-24 hours have begun to get a lot clearer and a lot more consistent. This is the stage in forecasting (~4-5 days out) that there is generally more consistency and the models generally become correct, so if there's a time to get on board the hype train for this thing, it's about now.

What the model above shows right now is that Irma will take a sharp turn to the north once it finds its way into the channel between Florida and Cuba, which is not a huge surprise. The cold front is jutting out around the coast to prevent it from heading to the western edge of Florida, as some people thought might happen, but the much stronger high pressure system in the Bermuda is preventing it from retreating back into the Atlantic. As such, it will likely make landfall, possibly more than once, and it's pretty reckless to assume that it will weaken considerably from where it is at right now on any of those landfalls. Those on the east coast of Florida, Georgia, and the Carolinas should have a plan at hand at this point. Either leave or hunker down for what could easily equate to EF-2 or EF-3 speed winds in a tornado sustained over a long period of time. Irma's eyewall is far larger than Matthew or any of the other major hurricanes in somewhat recent memory in this region and hurricane force winds will probably reach dozens, if not a full hundred, miles inland ahead of landfall and when landfall happens. It's a really big hurricane.

Just an FYI, the one line indicating that it might head toward the Gulf is simply an extrapolation line, meaning that that is what would happen if it remained exactly on the same track it's on now. No model is predicting that this will go to the Gulf and with the cold front and various pressure systems pushing against it, there is basically a 0% chance that that will happen at this point.

Obviously, if you're prepping for a hurricane and need a game or games paused, email [email protected].

I've been good, Stressed. Are you back for the long term? Level heads are hard to find around here sometimes.

@ stressed. That's nice you like Bo. He is a great guy. I just happen to have PhD from Harvard in climate science, so while Bo is undoubtedly far better to interpreting meteorological data (e.g. Information about the current state of weather) that doesn't mean he is well versed in either the current state of climate science or in scientific methodology and reasoning.

Here, he readily admits that the Gulf was abnormally warmthat the eastern pacific abnormally warm, and acknowledges that warmer waters are conducive to the rapid development of strong storms (among other factors) but then fails to acknowledge the role of the well established factors driving those abnormal conditions. That's where he isn't understanding the science.

In fact, even phrasing the question as one of either a storm is "caused by climate change" or isn't is very much showing a lack of understanding. It is clearly that climate change is making storms bigger and stronger across the board, and these big storms popping up now are as big as they are because of warming

And Arrhenius' paper isn't obscure. Neither is the Keeling data. In fact, anyone who knows much about climate science knows both very very well and they're very famous parts of climate science.

My sister is fleeing miami.

@bo

slightly different question as to hurricanes, but do you chase tornados ever?

I know you have a PhD from Harvard You are clear to make that point in every single thread you post in almost. As someone who lived in Boston for a while, I know I have to knuckle under that.

I only chase tornadoes, JY. Chasers get in the way during hurricanes. They try to get to the most dangerous places and then they take refuge in their car. It's extra rescue work served up on a platter by people that don't need to be there.

a PhD in "climate science" ........................................................... let me guess all you learn about is global warming this and global cooling that............. lol

Bosox, I have been busy business building, and feel secure now where I am Once Fedex laid me off from my job and shipped it overseas, they gave me 1 year pay, and benefits, so i took the proverbial 'swing or the fences' Right now, doing well, got several nice accounts and its moving forward.

If things stay okay with business, I intend to stay.

KansasBoyd - your opinion please on the mathematics on the following from Scientific American

Big Consequence of Small Increase in Bat Speed from Steroids

September 25, 2007

By enabling just a 4 percent increase in bat speed, steroids may turn hundreds of a season's long outs into home runs.

It’s been a fun baseball season. But the storm cloud of steroids has hung over the game for years now, especially tarnishing Barry Bonds’s assault on the all-time home run record. Tufts University physicist Roger Tobin is a big baseball fan and recently did some calculations to evaluate just how much of an impact steroids could actually have on power hitting.

When he crunched the numbers, he found the following: steroids might bring about a 10 percent increase in muscle mass. That extra muscle could help a batter swing five percent faster. And that extra bat speed could cause a ball to jump off the bat 4 percent faster. Doesn’t sound like much.  However, if you add four percent initial velocity to a model distribution of trajectories of batted baseballs, you can increase homers by a full 50 percent.

Tobin’s research will appear in theAmerican Journal of Physics. He notes that weightlifting and smaller ballparks also played a role in pumping up the number of home runs.  But the power surge of the ‘90s coincides with steroids more than the other factors.

I have seen his his mathematical normal distribution of Barry Bonds hits associated with the article, and how only a 4% velocity change pushed him to 62 or more home runs (with the same distribution). It was interesting that steriods only affected velocity, not reaction time, or accuracy, or anything else. Yet it made a record setting difference. Amazing.

The point I originally made was that it is impossible to look at a single storm as say "yes, this is because of human induced climate change", and equally, Bo's original statement categorically said it was NOT, which is likewise not a logical statement.

Climate change as bo correctly pointed out is all about trends not single data points. We here in Australia get plenty, as does the rest of the South Pacific.

Storms are also not the only indicators, with mass bleaching events of he Great Barrier Reef increasing in frequency and intensity, in line with water temperature spikes. Again, in each case you cannot point to one event and say AH - that was climate change! Its nonsensical.

My personal view (with absolutely ZERO data to back it up so fuck you naysayers), is that the Earth has undergone whole series of Naturally occurring temperature oscillations, and that if man has much input into it, is is less likely to be via mass pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere, and far more likely to be the combined actions of mass destruction of carbon sinks, and proliferation of animals as food sources.

Waves of forestation and deforestation have accompanied the long term temperature oscillations and we are screwing with the natural stabilisers. But again, I have no statistical evidence. Maybe I should go to Harvard and do a PhD on it :)