This cover today is making the rounds in the alarmosphere, where a single storm, a single data point in the hundreds of hurricanes that have struck the USA during its history, is now apparently “proof” of global warming causing bad weather. It is just another silly example of Tabloid Climatology™.
Hurricane expert Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. says:
The only accurate part of this Bloomberg BusinessWeek cover is “stupid”
There, I fixed it for you.
The US Has Had 285 Hurricane Strikes Since 1850: ‘The U.S. has always been vulnerable to hurricanes. 86% of U.S. hurricane strikes occurred with CO2 below Hansen’s safe level of 350 PPM’
If there’s anything in this data at all, it looks like CO2 is preventing more US landfalling hurricanes.
Data from: www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/ushurrlist18512009.txt
Source of graph, Steve Goddard.
In case you wish to tell Bloomberg about this fix:
Bloomberg Businessweek Editor
+1 212 617 3279
UPDATE: from Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.
Normalized US Hurricane Damage 1900-2012, Including Sandy
The graph above shows normalized US hurricane damage, based on data from ICAT, which applies an extension to the methodology of Pielke et al. 2008. The 2012 estimate for Sandy comes from Moody’s, and is an estimate. The red line represents a linear best fit to the data — it is flat.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Do you have an email address for the editor of Bloomberg BusinessWeek? I wish to leave him a short message.
REPLY: Bloomberg Businessweek
Patti Straus pstraus@bloomberg.net
+1 212 617 3279
As much as I agree with the point you are arguing, the above chart is meaningless because of the vast differences in years the earth was at the various concetrations of CO2.
A more meaningfull chart would have the horizontal axis by years, and on the vertical axis plot both number of hurricanes and CO2 concentrations.
ACE numbers might be even better than CO2 concentrations, though fewer people know what ACE is. Perhaps all three, though that might be getting a little busy.
Bwahahaa you gotta be kidding me with that last plot. Gee, I wonder why there’s less hurricane strikes at the highest CO2 levels? Perhaps because CO2 is rising at an increasing rate and so the total amount of time spent within each CO2 “bin” becomes less and less?
If there’s anything at all in that data at all, it’s that you cannot come up with a scientifically sound interpretation at all.
Is it the same Bloomberg?
http://junkscience.com/2012/11/01/bloomberg-endorses-obama-because-of-global-warming/
Bloomberg proves you can be very rich and be a complete idiot
Apparently, Michael Bloomberg is a statist. Soda cup sizes, weather, etc.
Bloomberg Businessweek
It’s Just … Stupid
That’s a better fix.
Actually, the LACK of hurricanes is about the only good correlation between CO2 and the climate I have seen.
I’m “this close” from disengaging from this whole debate, the opponent has become too stupid and/or disingenuine to even have an argument with.
I don’t use this term lightly, but Bloomberg is a fascist. He thinks he is right about everything and will break the law to his will and force his agenda on all of NYC come hell or, um, high water.
Are hurricanes common in October?
Is there any measure of energy in those hurricanes so that we can see whether they are more energetic?
How long has CO2 been at 390 ppm and how long was it at 280ppm – I’d like to compare duration with duration?
Just a few questions any skeptic could ask.
It’s big, it’s scary, it’s incredibly destructive and disruptive! Therefore, it’s evil! What’s the most evil thing you can think of, people? Wait for it … “Climate Change!” … Let Forrest Gump have the last word on this – “Stupid is as stupid does”.
Number of hurricanes by Saffir-Simpson Category to strike the mainland U.S. each decade.
Decade Saffir-Simpson Category
All 1,2,3,4,5 Major (3,4,5) /1 2 3 4 5
1851-1860 8 5 5 1 0 19 6
1861-1870 8 6 1 0 0 15 1
1871-1880 7 6 7 0 0 20 7
1881-1890 8 9 4 1 0 22 5
1891-1900 8 5 5 3 0 21 8
1901-1910 10 4 4 0 0 18 4
1911-1920 10 4 4 3 0 21 7
1921-1930 5 3 3 2 0 13 5
1931-1940 4 7 6 1 1 19 8
1941-1950 8 6 9 1 0 24 10
1951-1960 8 1 5 3 0 17 8
1961-1970 3 5 4 1 1 14 6
1971-1980 6 2 4 0 0 12 4
1981-1990 9 1 4 1 0 15 5
1991-2000 3 6 4 0 1 14 5
2001-2004 4 2 2 1 0 9 3
1851-2004 109 72 71 18 3 273 92
Average Per Decade 7.1 4.7 4.6 1.2 0.2 17.7 6.0
Hurricane activity and the severity of them was worse during the 1930’s to 1960’s than post 1970’s. Even the decades 1851-1860, 1871-1880, 1881-1890, 1891-1900, 1911-1920 were worse than post 1970’s. The people that say yes to hurricanes caused by AGW, you clearly don’t have a clue what you are talking about. The scientific facts say you are wrong, but do any of you actually care about science?
I love how LIberals mockingly berate Red States getting hit with natural disasters as God’s revenge and other nonsense. So what’s the metaphysical implications here? The ghost of George Washington smiting NYC for allowing some malevloent dictator to serve an illegal third term? Yep, that’s what I’m going with.
Jesse Farmer says:
November 1, 2012 at 1:44 pm
Bwahahaa you gotta be kidding me with that last plot. Gee, I wonder why there’s less hurricane strikes at the highest CO2 levels? Perhaps because CO2 is rising at an increasing rate and so the total amount of time spent within each CO2 “bin” becomes less and less?
If there’s anything at all in that data at all, it’s that you cannot come up with a scientifically sound interpretation at all.
Is the CO2 ‘bin’ being confused with the loonie ‘bin’ here? Oh never mind. I’ll just say that your ‘critique’ basically makes no grammatical sense. At all.
Typo
“All 1,2,3,4,5 Major (3,4,5) /1 2 3 4 5”
Should be Cat 1,2,3,4,5, All, Major (3,4,5)
Maybe it would be a good idea to read the contents of the Bloomberg article before firing off an emails?
Just a thought….
Here is a list of hurricanes, and note which ones happened in late October
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/outreach/history/
We see that the big late October storm was in 1998,
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/outreach/history/#mitch
which was a very warm year thanks to the El Nino.
I see the other late storm was on 2005
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/outreach/history/#wilma
[snip – language]
Bloomberg is supposed to provide accurate data for investment banking, trading, research, arbitrage, attorneys, private investors and so on, from which it makes up to $6 billion a year. The managers of your pension and other investments frequently have to rely on the accuracy of Bloomberg’s data and journalism, such as that from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The headline implies that your money should be invested in renewable energy to save the world. Investors should not rely on tabloid investment advice.
We can be sure Warran S Warran from the APS will be quick to denounce this….
I can see it now! I’m just trying to sell a few magazines. But, I like your fix. . . very catchy!
Gene Selkov –
of course it’s the same Bloomberg who is now endorsing Obama because of Sandy/CAGW:
Wikipedia: Bloomberg L.P.
Bloomberg L.P. was founded by Michael Bloomberg with the help of Thomas Secunda, Duncan MacMillan, and Charles Zegar in 1981 and a 30% ownership investment by Merrill Lynch…
Bloomberg L.P. was formed as a Delaware Limited Partnership in 1981 and has been in business since 1983. Michael Bloomberg owns 88% of the partnership. Bloomberg’s core business is leasing terminals to subscribers. It also runs Bloomberg Television, a financial Television network, and a business radio station WBBR in New York City at a loss…
In 2009, Bloomberg acquired BusinessWeek, a consumer oriented business magazine and Web property, from McGraw-Hill…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_L.P.
while WUWT concentrates more on the CAGW science, over at JoanneNova Bloomberg/Businessweek’s fanatacism for CO2 trading/renewable subsidies (under their Sustainability section particularly) is closely tracked in the comments. the catastrophic AGW stories are for the general public, but the real backing for CAGW aka “CO2 trading” can be found, more than anywhere else, in the specialist financial press, especially REUTERS POINT CARBON (which is now hiding most of its articles behind a subscription paywall) and Bloomberg/Businessweek.
sceptics would be wise to keep watch on both media outlets, if they appreciate the axiom “FOLLOW THE MONEY”, after all, it is public money we are talking about here, such as pension funds, subsidies, etc.
@Dodgy
The cover provides a bold statement which anyone with even cursory knowledge of Pielke or Goddard’s work would contest. Sure, I could read the article, but then I’d never get those 5 minutes back.
Why even waste the effort? Tabloid climatology indeed.
I do agree however the Goddard graph above is not a well-formed rebuttal, too many holes to poke through it. All one needs do is look at MattG’s response above, or read any of Goddard’s guest posts on ACE versus CO2 rise on WUWT.
@Bob Maginnis
Later in warmer years?
That makes sense, as these storms in this region seem to happen as the northern hemisphere COOLS towards winter.