Climate Alarmism – Using Our Fear of Hurricanes

Guest post by Steve Goreham

Hurricane Sandy has come and gone, leaving a path of destruction. More than 100 people have been killed and 8.5 million lost power. Nineteen states from Maine to Tennessee were impacted, with deaths reported in 10 states. Widespread flooding and fires caused extensive damage in New Jersey and New York. More than two feet of snow fell in western Maryland, West Virginia, and parts of Tennessee. The power of nature in action is frightening to behold.

But some believe that mankind is now causing hurricanes, or making them worse. Former Vice President Al Gore warns, “Hurricane Sandy is a disturbing sign of things to come. We must heed this warning and act quickly to solve the climate crisis. Dirty energy makes dirty weather.” Activist Bill McKibben declares, “…what it means that we’re now seeing storms of this unprecedented magnitude. If there was ever a wake-up call, this is it.”

These comments are an outgrowth of Climatism, the belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth’s climate.

The theory of man-made global warming claims that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing stronger hurricanes and storms, droughts and floods, the melting of Earth’s ice caps, and dangerous sea-level rise. Mr. Gore now paints the Halloween image of “dirty weather.”

Yet, carbon dioxide is only a trace gas in our atmosphere. Only four of every 10,000 air molecules are carbon dioxide. Mankind’s contribution in all of human history is only a fraction of one of those 10,000 molecules. Nevertheless, proponents of the theory of man-made climate change now claim that this one molecule was responsible for Sandy, a hurricane with a 1,000-mile diameter.

But hurricanes are the result of larger forces. Sunlight falls directly on Earth’s Tropics, where much energy is absorbed, and indirectly on Polar Regions, were little energy is absorbed. All weather on Earth, including hurricanes, tropical storms, tornados, storm fronts, and the jet stream, along with ocean currents, acts to redistribute heat from the Tropics to the Poles. Hurricanes are born in the Tropics, where water evaporates from warm oceans, forming powerful rotating storms. Earth’s rotation then bends the path of hurricanes as they move north from the Tropics.

A large hurricane releases heat energy at the rate of one exploding 10-megaton nuclear bomb every 20 minutes. Climatists claim that CO2, a trace gas, controls the weather, a system of huge forces with thousands of times more energy. This is more like the flea wagging the dog than the tail wagging the dog. Even more incredible, some claim that we can control the weather by controlling this trace gas. “Man-made warming has consequences. The time to act is now,” according to environmentalist Joseph Romm.

But, wasn’t hurricane Sandy unique in history? Well, not quite. The 1821 Norfolk and Long Island hurricane battered the New Jersey coast with winds estimated at 135 mph (Category 3), much stronger that those of Sandy (Category 1). Manhattan Island was flooded to Canal Street and this occurred at low tide. In 1954, Hurricane Hazel struck the Carolinas with 140 mph winds (Category 4). Hazel continued north along the U.S. Atlantic coast, through New York State and into Canada. Deaths from Hazel totaled 95 in the U.S. and 81 in Canada. More than 80 tropical or subtropical cyclones have hit the state of New York since the 1600s.

Climatism plays on human fear of nature to promote policy. Subsidize wind and solar power, stop using fossil fuels, switch to electric cars, change your light bulbs, green your business, become a vegetarian, have fewer kids, we are told. If you do all these things and more, then man will be able to control hurricanes, stop the rise of the seas, and save the polar bears.

Climate alarmists excel at gathering government funding to “fight” climate change. Today, the U.S. government is spending almost $9 billion each year in grants to study man-made climate change. Tens of billions more are spent for green energy subsidies, grants and loans. The world is spending over $250 billion each year to try to “decarbonize” national economies. Yet, mounting evidence shows that climate change is natural and man-made influences are very small. Suppose we shift efforts away from misguided efforts to control climate and toward solving the real problems of our nation and the world?

Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the new book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania

About these ads
This entry was posted in Alarmism, hurricanes, Weather and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

75 Responses to Climate Alarmism – Using Our Fear of Hurricanes

  1. R. Shearer says:

    It has nothing to do with burning of fossil fuels. It all began with the Spanish plundering the sacred Mayan gold.

  2. there are a few SENSIBLE climate people ‘out there’ who are credible like AW and telling it as it really is. Take for instance the following:

    Risk Experts Say It’s Not Climate Change, It’s Coastal Communities. It’s been a common reaction in the days after the hurricane, or post-tropical storm, or whatever we’re calling the 1,000 mile-wide wall of wind and rain that blasted the Northeast on Monday, to blame the shocking wave of destruction on global warming.

    The experts who build the sophisticated models that the insurance industry uses to assess risk, say that global warning wasn’t the first factor responsible for the damage caused by Sandy and other recent storms. Instead, it’s where we’ve built our homes.

    “I don’t know that we have the historical track record to say that weather has become more volatile, but as a society we’ve become more vulnerable to weather risks. There are a lot of people who live in areas that are susceptible.”

    “The big elephant in the room is not climate change,” said the creator of the modern catastrophe modeling industry. “It’s the increasing property values. We continue to build bigger, more expensive homes along the coast.”

    In the late 80′s, the U.S. had gone decades without a hurricane landing, and insurance companies were grossly underestimating the risks involved. Models showed, for instance, that if a Category 5 hurricane hit Miami, the losses would have been on the order of $60 to $70 billion.

    “The insurance companies thought it was $7 billion. They weren’t monitoring the trillions of dollars of property being built on the coastline.”

    After Hurricane Andrew created about $21 billion in insured losses, the catastrophe modeling business took off. To understand the expected cost of a storm, and ultimately, how much property owners should pay for insurance, the modelers map tens of thousands of storms over real-life physical data.

    Each of the hypothetical hurricanes in the catastrophe models is unique, though some more unusual than others. In the real world, storms are unique too. Certainly, much was made of Sandy’s mix of tropical weather with blocking weather patterns from the north and west. But as a destructive force, Sandy is less unusual.

    The so-called Long Island Express, a 1938 hurricane that wrecked the Northeast, racked up $35 billion in insured damages in 2012 dollars. A 1926 hurricane that leveled Miami caused insured costs of $126 billion by today’s dollars.

    “Sandy was unprecedented, it’s a 500-year, 1000-year event, when they focus on the meteorology. The impacts of Sandy are not unprecedented.”

    We can expect more terribly destructive storms – not because of global warming, but because of the concentration of population and property in harm’s way.

  3. Werner Brozek says:

    The theory of man-made global warming claims that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing stronger hurricanes and storms, droughts and floods, the melting of Earth’s ice caps, and dangerous sea-level rise.

    CO2 has not been causing any warming for a while. The 1998 mark is still not beaten on four major data sets. As well, six major data sets have 2012 in 10th place and with just a few months left, the relative ranking will not change much. And if it is not causing any warming, how can it cause all the rest of the above?

  4. LazyTeenager says:

    Only four of every 10,000 air molecules are carbon dioxide. Mankind’s contribution in all of human history is only a fraction of one of those 10,000 molecules.
    ———-
    Misleading use of statistics.

  5. Richdo says:

    Today, the U.S. government is spending almost $9 billion each year in grants to study man-made climate change. Tens of billions more are spent for green energy subsidies, grants and loans.

    When the big earthquake hits San Fran or LA we will be broke. Just sayin’

  6. Chuck says:

    Suppose we shift efforts away from misguided efforts to control climate and toward solving the real problems of our nation and the world?

    Agree 100%. And in this same vein I’d prefer not to call people like Joe Romm “environmentalists” as it give them an air of legitimacy and denigrates real environmentalists who want to solve real problems. Climate Alarmist or Climatist is appropriate for the Joe Romm crowd.

  7. LazyTeenager says:

    Nevertheless, proponents of the theory of man-made climate change now claim that this one molecule was responsible for Sandy, a hurricane with a 1,000-mile diameter.
    ———-
    More misleading statements about what proponents claim. He was more honest in the previous paragraph.

  8. Goode 'nuff says:

    Good post, can I add the one that killed maybe 800… 1938

  9. D Böehm says:

    LazyTeenager says:

    “Misleading use of statistics.”

    Not really. Just stating a fact.

  10. Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says:

    Honestly, Lazy Teenager, You couldn’t have picked a better handle. D Böehm is correct. Stating facts. Where do you get the idea that those were statistics?

  11. Billy says:

    D Böehm says:
    November 4, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    LazyTeenager says:

    “Misleading use of statistics.”

    Not really. Just stating a fact.
    ————————————————
    DB, you are wrong, Lazy is right.
    Arithmetic does not apply to warmism. It is a religion, a question of faith.

  12. D Böehm says:
    November 4, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    Not really. Just stating a fact.

    But even the facts can be misleading out of context…

    Yet, carbon dioxide is only a trace gas in our atmosphere. Only four of every 10,000 air molecules are carbon dioxide. Mankind’s contribution in all of human history is only a fraction of one of those 10,000 molecules.

    Is factual right, but a non-argument: it doesn’t say one damn thing about the influence of those four molecules. Just try the same ratio of cyanide molecules on your body…

    Not that I expect much influence of the extra 1 human made molecule CO2 in 100,000 others on our climate and certainly not on the number of hurricanes (to the contrary…). But skeptics shouldn’t use this kind of arguments in a for the rest good article, as that is easely undermined by counter-arguments…

  13. D Böehm says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen stated on another thread:

    “In my opinion even a doubling [of CO2] would have little impact, as clouds are a negative feedback (while all current GCM’s include clouds as a positive feedback!), thus a doubling of CO2 would have only moderate (and thus globally positive) effects.”

    So then, no problem. More CO2 will have a positive effect. More is better.

  14. John S says:

    What is misleading about the facts?
    Not sure your point other than to prove your screen name or at least part of it anyway. “lazy”

  15. Brian Johnson uk says:

    What about the fact that the rise of CO2 in the last 50 years is not matched by a rise in average global temperatures? Let alone a hockey stick? I think that is a fact [remember even warmists have been known to email "Hide the decline"], that both sides agree on.

  16. GlynnMhor says:

    Well, the ‘fear of warming’ no longer carries as much sting as it might if warming were continuing, so the alarmists and fear-mongers need something with which to bolster their failing paradigm.

  17. PaulID says:

    LazyTeenager says:
    November 4, 2012 at 3:08 pm
    well YOUR saints (Mann, Jones, Hansen, and others) know haw to apply the misleading use of statisitcs.

  18. graphicconception says:

    “Is factual right, but a non-argument: it doesn’t say one damn thing about the influence of those four molecules. Just try the same ratio of cyanide molecules on your body…”

    If the atmosphere is 1.0% natural H2O and only 0.001% manmade CO2 then the ratio of one to the other is 1000:1.

    Are you saying that if someone was poisoned with a mixture of 1000 parts ricin and 1 part cyanide then the cause of death would necessarily by the cyanide?

    So while your argument may be a good one, it carefully omits the natural elements that swamp the man-made one.

  19. What Did I Tell You!? says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 4, 2012 at 3:44 pm

    D Böehm says:
    November 4, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    carbon dioxide is only a trace gas in our atmosphere.

    “Just try the same ratio of cyanide molecules on your body”

    That’s the POINT he MADE.

    The universe is a proportionate-physics built system. Things, that are alike, weigh similarly, have similar physical size, and operate, proportionally, PRECISELY as things with PRECISELY the same number of positive, neutral, & negative charge carriers: protons, neutrons, electrons.

    Carbon dioxide makes it’s way into the environment from the same physical heights and geometries as natural overall, with exception of aircraft traffic.

    that much cyanide naturally bonded to nutrition probably DOES course through one’s body.

    The fact you don’t get that is how Magic Gassers got you thinking Magic Hockey Stick Math that looks into Magical Bore Holes that IGNORE that PROPORTION of ‘LIGHT/canopy HEAT/canopy HEAT/roots WATER/canopy WATER/roots SPACE to GROW/canopy SPACE to GROW/roots

    FIFTEEN SEPARATE ELEMENTS in PROPER PROPORTION
    thing
    holding BORE HOLE SIGNTS
    back
    from being REEL SIGNTS.

  20. What Did I Tell You!? says:

    Ouch to my terrible editing again sorry. Point is, if you realized what you’re saying you’d realize that same check holds up for Magic Gas hypothesis and it fails on it’s FACE.

    And there’s a lot of people who don’t get THAT.

    AND, the ‘cyanide in your body’ argument PASSES that test and it’s obvious YOU don’t know.

    So…

    Thanks for playing though, perfesser borehole.

  21. Gunga Din says:

    LazyTeenager says:
    November 4, 2012 at 3:08 pm
    Only four of every 10,000 air molecules are carbon dioxide. Mankind’s contribution in all of human history is only a fraction of one of those 10,000 molecules.
    ———-
    Misleading use of statistics.
    ====================================================================
    And “Coal trains of Death” is not misleading?
    Oh, wait. Hansen said that. No statistics involved.
    (Mods, Sorry to be off topic.) /sarc

  22. What Did I Tell You!? says:

    People who don’t believe in a proportionate-physics universe BELIEVE in Magic Gas.

    It’s that simple.

  23. Mark and two Cats says:

    “…some believe that mankind is now causing hurricanes, or making them worse”.
    ——————————————–
    No, it was divine intervention to help obama:
    http://tinyurl.com/cmhyazt

  24. What Did I Tell You!? says:

    People who believe in Magic Gas, thus, ALSO believe, we can’t check the atmosphere for risen gas-specific spectra of LIGHT in the infrared.
    We just don’t have thuh tek naw luH gee … two no fer SHUR!

    Pfft…

  25. Louis says:

    Goode ’nuff says: …

    Near the end of your second video, the announcer names a list of climate change events that occurred close together (the floods of 1936 and 1937, fires on the plains, and the hurricane of 1938). After watching the video I’m inclined to conclude that global warming was much worse in the Thirties than it is today. Why hasn’t the increase in CO2 since the 1930′s made things proportionally worse for us now?

  26. D Böehm says:

    What Did I Tell You!? says:

    “…it’s obvious YOU don’t know.”

    You’re new here, so just a friendly heads-up: Ferdinand Englebeen is extremely knowledgeable. I have learned a lot from him.

  27. Peter Miller says:

    When engineers design a project, they are often required to ensure it will withstand a 100, 200, or even a 500 year weather event.

    Storms like Sandy, when combined with other exceptional events, will create a similar size disaster once every 50-150 years.

    End of story.

  28. G P Hanner says:

    Fear of hurricanes? Not me. All right, I’ve never experienced one, but I”ve had to evacuate aircraft and people who were in the path of the things. So maybe I have experienced them. It is a really scary business picking your way through tropical storm in an aircraft that isn’t really built for doing that. But somehow, we did it.

  29. davidmhoffer says:

    The article would be more compelling without the references to CO2 as a trace gas. The point is made without any discussion of CO2 at all. As we see in this thread, the comments about a trace gas leave the article open to criticism which then becomes the focus of the discussion instead of the balance of the facts presented. Without the references to trace gas, the article is pretty much unassailable. Talking about parts per ten thousand actually weakens and distracts from the balance of the points made in my opinion.

  30. eo says:

    allocate the funds out from the alarmist to the skeptics and start counting the modelers, academe, main stream news, politicians, and all sorts of intellectuals change side.

  31. Michael Moon says:

    The 15 micron band correlates to a temperature of -4 F. This means that when the Earth’s surface is at -4 F it radiates IR that CO2 is able to absorb, and by vibrations induced in the CO2 molecule, transfer this vibrating energy to other molecules in the atmosphere as heat. This is the so-called “Greenhouse Effect” of CO2. Of course this is slightly oversimplified because IR is radiated in a spectrum, but the 15 micron band centers on a temp of -4 F. When the Earth’s surface is warmer it radiates a much smaller proportion of its IR in the 15 micron band. So, a tiny fraction of our atmosphere can be heated a tiny bit, and only a tiny bit more because of human-emitted CO2, which is about 3% of Mother Nature’s. Water vapor produces over 100 times the GE of CO2, and light-covered clouds reflect a lot of sunlight creating a cooling effect. This is far more complex than the media are comfortable with reporting. Global warming, pfft. How do you feel about that, Lazy Teenager…

  32. ntesdorf says:

    From the repertoire of LazyTeenager comes the following comment on the quoted statement :

    “Only four of every 10,000 air molecules are carbon dioxide. Mankind’s contribution in all of human history is only a fraction of one of those 10,000 molecules.”
    ———-
    “Misleading use of statistics.”

    The statement is not at all misleading, nor are the statistics. The figures are accurate to a fine degree. We daily see much more perverted and incorrect statistics from the Green Machine of CAGW. “97% of climate scientists” is a good example.
    I can see why he styles himself as “LazyTeenager” as that is what he is and where his understanding of science remains.

  33. Lazy Teenager says: Only four of every 10,000 air molecules are carbon dioxide. Mankind’s contribution in all of human history is only a fraction of one of those 10,000 molecules.
    ———-
    “Misleading use of statistics.”

    Can you please tell me the logic behind AGW (if there is any, which I very much doubt!), when mankind has possibly, and only possibly, created an extra 10 molecules of CO2 per 100,000 molecules of atmospheric gas?

  34. Skeptik says:

    But, wasn’t the Category 1 hurricane Sandy unique in history? Yes it was.
    The 1821 Norfolk and Long Island hurricane was Category 3 and Hurricane Hazel may have been Category 4 but Sandy was on television with all the attendant hype.

  35. pokerguy says:

    “Yet, carbon dioxide is only a trace gas in our atmosphere. Only four of every 10,000 air molecules are carbon dioxide. Mankind’s contribution in all of human history is only a fraction of one of those 10,000 molecules. Nevertheless, proponents of the theory of man-made climate change now claim that this one molecule was responsible for Sandy, a hurricane with a 1,000-mile diameter.”

    These kinds of arguments…a sort of appeal to what might be called “common sense” are not worthy of WUWT, and all the good work it has done to articulate the skeptical case. One might very well say with respect to the bomb over Nagasaki, that since less than 1 gram (0.035 oz) of mass was converted into energy ( a number I got off the “net so it could easily be wrong), it couldn’t possibly have caused al that much damage.

    PLease Anthony, guest blogs reflect on you and leave you open to fair criticism. There are far too many valid arguments against CAGW to have to resort to facile ideas like this.

  36. Russ R. says:

    The argument that “carbon dioxide is only a trace gas” is laughably idiotic, and any educated skeptic should be truly ashamed of himself for arguing it.

    There are many, many better arguments to be made.

  37. D Böehm says:

    pokerguy,

    You’re right, that is not a conclusive argument. I think a better argument is to point out the fact that there is no empirical evidence confirming AGW. Not to say that AGW cannot exist. But if it does, it is obviously too minuscule to measure, because so far no one has been able to measure an AGW effect. And since global warming has been on hold for the past 16 years while CO2 continues to rise, the entire AGW conjecture must be re-assessed. Because it is also possible, as climatologist Ferenc Miskolczi states, that CO2 has no global warming effect.

  38. Eric Dailey says:

    Maybe I’m unusual but I do not fear hurricanes. I live in NC, USA. I have suffered hurricane damage before. BTW, I do not watch TV. That is a clue.

  39. eric1skeptic says:

    “Subsidize wind and solar power, stop using fossil fuels, switch to electric cars, change your light bulbs, green your business, become a vegetarian, have fewer kids, we are told. If you do all these things and more, then man will be able to control hurricanes, stop the rise of the seas, and save the polar bears.”

    On the DC news radio station they play calls from the typically liberal listeners. Today’s topic was “what do you think of climate change brought back into the campaign” Obviously their goal was to cast aspersions on any candidate who “doesn’t take climate change seriously”. They only played two callers both “concerned about climate”. One said basically nothing. The other offered something like the list above. However they left out the difficult or impossible things like stop using fossil fuels (i.e. freeze in the dark), have fewer kids (probably because they don’t then anyway), become a vegetarian (unless they already are), etc.

    In other words the meme propagated by the media is that tackling climate change is easy. Only fossil fuel special interests are standing in the way (rather than keeping your house warm for the cheapest possible price). There is a short list of simple actions (the caller listed CFL bulbs, carpooling, and one other thing I now forget) that would ultimately stop surges from inundating NYC. This level of cluelessness is by design, climate change science is easy: it causes “unprecedented” storms. Solving climate change is similarly easy. Everything is easy.

  40. Oatley says:

    Stand ready folks. If Obama gets beat, the EPA will stuff the system with new rules in a lame duck Congress. In there will be carbon rules for existing coal plants. It will bring havoc to the country’s grid reliability.

  41. Caleb says:

    During the Roman Warm Period a Germanic people called the “Frisii” lived in the coastal area now inhabited by the Frisians. I recall reading an interesting history of their downfall, which was partly due to the Romans attacking from inland, but also due to the end of the Roman Warm Period and the attack of the ocean. They were getting it from both sides.

    One interesting idea was that, because they had to deal with the advance of the ocean, they were the first builders of dikes, and developed the skills which were later passed on and developed by the Dutch. Although they were largely erased from history as a people, for several hundred years they made a gutsy stand, and had ideas which might sound a bit familiar to us: For a time they elected their kings.

    As climate has shifted back and forth between warm times and cold times, there have been occational monster storms that have hit the Dutch, and Denmark, and Northern Germany. When you read about these gales it seems impossible the water charged as far inland as it did. Not thousands, but tens of thousands died. These events so deeply impressed the survivors that they took the Frisii idea of dikes and built dikes that really mean business.

    Rather than blowing money funding useless climate scientists and ridiculous outfits like Solyndra, we ought learn from our mistakes and build dikes that really mean business, and floodgates for subways near the sea. If you insist upon using taxpayer’s hard-earned money, you might as well use it on public works projects that make sense.

  42. The claims that there are more hurricanes now that at other times is disprovable. They are providing their own rope so that it will be easier for their enemies to hang them.

  43. Caleb says:

    What do you call money spent on controlling the wind?

    Blowing money.

  44. Doug Proctor says:

    Sandy was a Category 1 Post-Tropical Storm when it came ashore, I understand. Imagine the PR if it had been a Cat 3 Hurricane?

    Still, what is the impact of New Yorkers screaming on the willingness of those in the central and west States to pay $10 for a gallon of gas? Or, closer to the point, what is the impact of those impacted by Sandy on their willingness to pay $10/gallon themselves? In time, when the first power blackouts happen after coal plants are shut down for CO2 reasons and not economics or technical ones, who will agree their pain is worth the benefit given to the “world”?

    The grand thing about the American electoral system is that bad ideas are publicly punished every two to four years. Messages, even mixed ones, are written at the polls.

  45. Caleb says:

    I live in New Hampshire and have a land line. I’m in a “Batlleground State.” You would not believe the number of polls that call me up. Between eight and fifteen every evening, for weeks now. Sometimes they are absurd: Malfunctioning robo-calls; young ladies who ask me my age and then tell me I’m too old; automatic voices which tell me I have an invalid extension and should use another phone; (though I only have one.)

    It is really annoying, when I am trying to study up on things on the web. How am I to read the comments on WUWT??? Therefore, though it is slightly off topic, I have composed the following poem:

    If I get one more phone call
    From a presidential pollster
    I’m purchasing a cowboy hat
    And buckling up my holster
    And next time that my telephone
    Dares to ding-a-ling
    I’ll whip out my revolver
    And I’ll shoot the stupid thing.

    Everybody vote!

  46. Gail Combs says:

    Mark and two Cats says:
    November 4, 2012 at 4:41 pm

    “…some believe that mankind is now causing hurricanes, or making them worse”.
    ——————————————–
    No, it was divine intervention to help obama:
    http://tinyurl.com/cmhyazt
    ___________________________________

    Naw, Mother Nature just missed the mark a bit. She was aiming to dump directly on the District of Criminals but only managed a glancing blow. It is really hard to steer those 1,000 mile wide storms you know. /sarc

  47. Neville says:

    Have a look at co2 emissions out to 2035 from the EIA. The non OECD (China, India) will increase emissions by 73% while OECD ( first world advanced countries) countries will increase by only a tiny 6%.
    The entire OECD could live in caves and it wouldn’t make a scrap of diffence to the climate or temp.
    The mitigation of AGW is a total fraud and con, just look at the simple graph and use simple maths and you’ll easily understand this nonsense.

    http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/emissions.cfm

  48. Neville says:

    Just had a look at the climate commission’s site ( in Australia) and noticed the video on the side that has a message from big HIPPO Al Gore.

    He thanks the people of OZ for leading on CC because we introduced a co2 tax and he says we have “inspired the world.”
    This site is a disgrace because they allow this idiot to claim that our cyclones, bush fires etc are all the result of AGW.
    He states that Flannery is a good friend so you know where he’s coming from I suppose.
    If you have the stomach for delusional BS have a look at his stupid video.

    http://climatecommission.gov.au/report/queensland-climate-impacts-opportunities/

    Pity they didn’t put up these facts front and centre on their homepage. But it would rather wreck their idiotic message.

    http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/emissions.cfm

  49. Gail Combs says:

    Eric Dailey says:
    November 4, 2012 at 6:07 pm

    Maybe I’m unusual but I do not fear hurricanes. I live in NC, USA. I have suffered hurricane damage before. BTW, I do not watch TV. That is a clue.
    ________________________________
    I too live in NC but I have enough sense to NOT build on the flood plain of the Cape Fear River like my neighbors have done and I have made sure there are no trees, especially pine trees near enough to fall on the house.

    The shear stupidity of some people never ceases to amaze me. If Sandy had hit Raleigh NC my neighbors would have lost their homes. Despite all the hype this summer about a ‘drought’ in NC the Jordan Lake reservoir is at or close to capacity. If Sandy like Fran produced over 10 inches of rain the Cape fear would again be in flood.

    Here is a more recent hurricane that came ashore a bit south of Sandy’s landfall

    …Hurricane Fran slammed into North Carolina’s southern coast on September 5th, 1996 with sustained winds of approximately 115 MPH, and gusts as high as 125 MPH. At some point, 1.7 million customers in North Carolina and 400,000 customers in Virginia lost electricity. The overall death toll was 37, including 24 in North Carolina. Flooding was also a severe problem in North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland. Fran produced rainfall amounts of over 10 inches in parts of eastern North Carolina and western Virginia.

    Damages for homes and businesses in North Carolina were estimated at approximately $2.3 billion. Damages/costs related to public property (debris removal, roads and bridges, public buildings, utilities, etc) were estimated at about $1.1 billion for NC. Agricultural damage (crops, livestock, buildings) in NC was over $700 million. Wake County (Raleigh and vicinity) alone reported over $900 million in damage to residential and commercial property. Finally, forestry/timber losses for the state probably exceeded $1 billion…. http://www4.ncsu.edu/~nwsfo/storage/cases/19960906/

    The difference between Sandy and Fran is the population density of the area hit, high tide and a full moon.

  50. Gunga Din says:

    Caleb says:
    November 4, 2012 at 6:42 pm
    I live in New Hampshire and have a land line. I’m in a “Batlleground State.” You would not believe the number of polls that call me up. Between eight and fifteen every evening, for weeks now. Sometimes they are absurd: Malfunctioning robo-calls; young ladies who ask me my age and then tell me I’m too old; automatic voices which tell me I have an invalid extension and should use another phone; (though I only have one.)

    It is really annoying, when I am trying to study up on things on the web. How am I to read the comments on WUWT??? Therefore, though it is slightly off topic, I have composed the following poem:

    If I get one more phone call
    From a presidential pollster
    I’m purchasing a cowboy hat
    And buckling up my holster
    And next time that my telephone
    Dares to ding-a-ling
    I’ll whip out my revolver
    And I’ll shoot the stupid thing.

    Everybody vote!
    ======================================================================
    8-)
    I lived in NH for 3 years in the early ’80s. (Can you still buy liquer at a state store at a rest stop on the Interstate?)
    I’m in Ohio now. Not only a “Battleground State” but a “Swing State”.
    Can I borrow your revolver?

  51. captainfish says:

    Guys,
    May I make an unscientific suggestion? I know this is a blog that touts itself as scientific and it appears that alot of scientists come to this blog to pontificate. However, alot of non-climate-based scientists do as well. There are a number of posts on WUWT that speak of galactic body temperature and their effect upon …. .. … … I get lost after “galactic”.

    The reason I and so many others have fallen in love and give alot of respect to WUWT and Anthony is because he makes the science of climate understandable for the normal folk.

    The statement about the percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere and how much man contributes to it makes alot of sense to me and allows me to visualize the context which the author is writing about.

    While there are arguments that “better arguments can be made”, and I am sure that there can be (and many good ones are on WUWT), please don’t attack the messenger. If you feel that better arguments could\should be made on a point you feel strongly about, then ask Anthony if you can write up a post about it.

    For now, please remember that normal folk come here as well and that statement about man’s contribution to CO2 does make alot of sense. Especially when he ties it in to how that one molecule can affect a very wide hurricane. Even for me, the argument against it by using cyanide on the human body does not make much sense. The human body is minuscule compared to the vast expanse of the atmosphere and oceans.

  52. MattN says:

    I’ve simply run out of things to say about this. It was barely a Cat 2 storm. It was intensified by COLD air from a COLD front and a full moon (tide). How is this cause by global warming when COLD made it more intense? Perhaps if the houses it hit weren’t worth $750,000+ the dollar value would be significantly less. If the Long Island Express (Cat 3) happened today, what would the damage/cost be? Or The Great Colonian Hurrucane of 1635 (at LEAST at Cat3)?? And before you say I am being a jerk, I live in NC and was lucky enough to have the eye of BOTH Hugo and Fran go directly over me. I know me some hurricane damage….

  53. Caleb says:

    RE: Gunga Din says:
    November 4, 2012 at 7:33 pm

    In New Hampshire, Massachusetts is jokingly called Taxachusetts. It helps New Hampshire a lot that people from “down there” (sometimes called “Flatlanders,”) come up here to avoid sales taxes. (Also to buy fireworks, which are illegal “down there.”) When the voters “down there” rebel, and get so mad about all the taxes, fees, tolls, and what-have-yous that have to pay that they riot and throw their politicians into Boston Harbor like tea, it will be a sad day for New Hampshire, for we will lose a lot of business. However that day hasn’t come yet. And therefore, to answer your question about whether you can still buy (relatively) tax-free liquor at a rest area just across the border on Interstate 95, my answer is, (To quote Democrats,) “Yes, You can!”

    Don’t shoot your phone. It feels good at the time, but afterwards you’re sorry. It’s not the poor telephone’s fault so may pollsters call..

  54. davidmhoffer says:

    captainfish;
    The statement about the percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere and how much man contributes to it makes alot of sense to me and allows me to visualize the context which the author is writing about.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    There are many articles on WUWT which delve into the subject in various amounts of detail. I suggest you start with the series by Ira Glickstein, What you will find is that this is a tremendously complex issue. Reducing it to a “one in ten thousand” argument is vastly over simplifying it, and I say that as a raging skeptic.

  55. _Jim says:

    Michael Moon says November 4, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    The 15 micron band correlates to a temperature of -4 F. This means that when the Earth’s surface is at -4 F it radiates IR that CO2 is able to absorb, and by vibrations induced in the CO2 molecule, transfer this vibrating energy to other molecules in the atmosphere as heat. This is the so-called “Greenhouse Effect” of CO2. Of course this is slightly oversimplified because IR is radiated in a spectrum, but the 15 micron band centers on a temp of -4 F. When the Earth’s surface is warmer it radiates a much smaller proportion of its IR in the 15 micron band.

    Ouch. Reading that was a little painful in spots .. I think in that first sentence you’re implying that the radiative power ‘curve’ peaks at 15 microns for a temperature of -4F, perhaps true (I have not checked or verified that), but as temperature increases the ‘peak’ moves UP in frequency (also DOWN in wavelength to shorter wavelengths as Wavelength is proportional to 1/Freq) BUT the absolute value of radiated IR energy near 15 microns doesn’t go down (decrease) as temperature increases … relative to the peak it may LOOK like it decreases, but of course it isn’t … the reference to a ‘smaller proportion’ of its IR in the 15 micron band does therefore seem to hold up, but, as I was saying reading the above was a little painful in spots …

    Also bear in mind that these CO2 molecules are busy re-radiating this energy; ANY time these molecules are vibrating, the *oscillating (moving) charges” (molecule stretching and bending with their respective ‘charges’ or constituent charged particles that make up the molecule) are able to set up EM ‘fields’ that then according to Maxwell’s equations are able to radiate …

    .

  56. Gunga Din says:

    captainfish says:
    November 4, 2012 at 7:35 pm
    Guys,
    May I make an unscientific suggestion? I know this is a blog that touts itself as scientific and it appears that alot of scientists come to this blog to pontificate. However, alot of non-climate-based scientists do as well. There are a number of posts on WUWT that speak of galactic body temperature and their effect upon …. .. … … I get lost after “galactic”.

    The reason I and so many others have fallen in love and give alot of respect to WUWT and Anthony is because he makes the science of climate understandable for the normal folk.
    ================================================================
    I think this blog is great because “they” (the scientist) and “us” (the non-scientist) can voice what we percieve. If we didn’t put up with each other, what would this blog be?
    Sometimes you have to wait a bit for someone to put it in “layman’s terms”. It’ll come.

  57. davidmhoffer says:

    Caleb;
    Don’t shoot your phone. It feels good at the time, but afterwards you’re sorry. It’s not the poor telephone’s fault so may pollsters call..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    As soon as they start talking, interrupt, tell them you are the county sheriff, and demand to know who they are and how they know the murder victim….

    (Way more fun and the phone doesn’t get hurt)

  58. Before the alarmists took hold of the media, I thought fear of hurricanes would only be used to sell red shoes in Kansas.

    Sadly, none of the alarmists appears to have ever been in “Kansas”.

  59. ferd berple says:

    A large hurricane releases heat energy at the rate of one exploding 10-megaton nuclear bomb every 20 minutes.
    ==============
    Approximately, the same as 1 Hiroshima or Nagasaki bomb every 1 to 2 seconds second. These bombs killed 150,000 each, so by that measure large hurricanes must be killing 75,000 people per second.

    Reminds me of the 10 megaton nuclear bomb that fell on Washington DC. $1.49 net damages, after the useless politicians and their $16 trillion dollar deficit were eliminated.

  60. ferd berple says:

    Gunga Din says:
    November 4, 2012 at 7:33 pm
    young ladies who ask me my age and then tell me I’m too old;
    ==============
    too old to vote!! what the heck, invite them over for sex. A poor substitute, but any port in a storm.

  61. Jimbo says:

    I say we can fight changes in climate by reducing our trace rise of the trace gas co2 at massive cost and energy pain. We should do all we can to keep the climate in a steady state. No more hurricanes, no more tornadoes, floods will be a thing of the past, droughts will be forgotten. Our children won’t know what a changing climate looks like. Everything will be steady and still as it has always been prior to 1960 or is that 1900?
    / SARC

  62. Jimbo says:

    Back in the day people just could not understand how the far ‘safer’ level of co2 could cause such damage.

    The Galveston hurricane killed 8,000 Americans in 1900.
    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1841442,00.html

    1821 hurricane – New York
    “The tide rose 13 feet in one hour and inundated wharves, causing the East River to converge into the Hudson River across lower Manhattan as far north as Canal Street. However, few deaths were attributed to the storm because flooding was concentrated in neighborhoods with far fewer homes than exist today.”

  63. James Cook says:

    What we have here is a conjunction of events, rise of CO2, and decline of religion. Thus the advent of new science-based religion, and Climatism is probably not the last.

  64. Obama seems to have forgotten those in NY now. It’s getting colder and nothing is being done to house the homeless. Some President.

  65. graphicconception says:
    November 4, 2012 at 4:28 pm

    If the atmosphere is 1.0% natural H2O and only 0.001% manmade CO2 then the ratio of one to the other is 1000:1.
    Are you saying that if someone was poisoned with a mixture of 1000 parts ricin and 1 part cyanide then the cause of death would necessarily by the cyanide?
    So while your argument may be a good one, it carefully omits the natural elements that swamp the man-made one.

    The real ratio in quantity (not in original molecules) is 100:1 for water/man made CO2, but that is another discussion…

    If the amount of ricin is not just enough to kill you, the 1 part of cyanide may be what is needed to push you over the edge… But because these poisons act via different pathways, the effects may be additional, or may be non-additional. In the latter case you may escape being killed for two just non lethal doses at the same time.

    Of course that is not comparable: in the case of CO2 and water, there is a huge difference in mixing: water is very abundant in the lower atmosphere but getting very tiny with increasing height. CO2 is more or less (+/- 5%) at the same mixing ratio everywhere in the atmosphere and its absorption bands are (in part) not overlapping with the water bands, so IR absorption by CO2 is additional to what water does, but works all the way up to the stratosphere, while water is mainly absorbing (and partly re-emitting) in the lower troposphere. That makes a difference in what ultimately is emitted to space…

    But while interesting, it is not the main point in this article. Only a pity that this argument is used, because it distracts from the main very good article, as davidmhoffer already said…

  66. Just got the book on kindle. Great so far, I drive my wife mad with global warming. Thank you Steve Goreham.

  67. Michael Moon says:

    Jim,

    “Re-radiating?” I have read about that, in climate “science” journals, but my professor in Transport of Heat and Mass never mentioned it. There is a word you should look up, “flux,” and get back to us…

  68. beng says:

    If you want to see a Hurricane that moved westward into the mid-Atlantic states, here’s an example that affected me when I was in mountainous SW VA:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Dennis_%281999%29

  69. Keith AB says:

    Goode ’nuff says:
    November 4, 2012 at 3:11 pm (Edit)
    Good post, can I add the one that killed maybe 800… 1938

    ——————————————————————————————-

    Great clips. Just change the fashions and it could be Sandy today.

    I do hope people take the trouble to learn about the storm of ’38 and also about Galveston in 1900.

    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34304/34304-h/34304-h.htm

  70. davidmhoffer says:

    Michael Moon says:
    November 5, 2012 at 7:08 am
    Jim,
    “Re-radiating?” I have read about that, in climate “science” journals, but my professor in Transport of Heat and Mass never mentioned it. There is a word you should look up, “flux,” and get back to us…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    You should do some reading on radiative physics as applied to gas molecules, and then revise your remark accordingly.

  71. Michael Moon says:

    The subject is heat transfer from the Earth’s surface to the atmosphere. Gases radiate of course, but the interesting parameter here is IR absorption by CO2. “Re-radiation” within the atmosphere cannot transfer heat either to the Earth’s surface or to space, as the net flux is entirely responsible. The heating is due to the molecule’s dipole moment which lets the molecule heat by vibrating. It then heats surrounding molecules, transferring heat from the surface to the atmosphere rather than the IR radiating out to space. This is a very minor effect, as the fraction of CO2 is tiny and the heat transfer from the cold surface of the Earth is mostly saturated in the first 10 meters of atmosphere.
    Heat transfer? Talk to a mechanical engineer, this is what we do…

  72. davidmhoffer says:

    Michael Moon;
    “Re-radiation” within the atmosphere cannot transfer heat either to the Earth’s surface or to space
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    You’d do well to put the preconceived notions of your mechanical engineering background to one side and study the radiative physics involved in this specific instance. Check out the articles by Ira Glickstein on this site, or pick up a text book on the specific subject matter. At the very least, think through your conjecture. |If you allow that a CO2 molecule can absorb a photon and re-radiate it, then the re-radiated photon only has three possibilities. It can a) escape to space or b) heat the surface or c) be absorbed by another molecule. The blanket statement that re-radiation cannot xfer heat to either the Earth’s surface or space just isn’t plausible, defies instrumental data, and would require a century of physics to be rewritten.

  73. Michael Moon says:

    Think through your own! Mechanical engineering is “pre-conceived?” This blog has a very famous name, not the man who writes it, but possibly an ancestor, James Watt, maybe you have heard of him? If a CO2 molecule absorbs and “re-radiates” a photon, effectively nothing has happened assuming the energy level is the same. CO2 absorbs 15 micron photons and the molecule itself vibrates due to this excitement, and the surrounding molecules are heated by the increase in kinetic energy. You ignore the flux, where an object either heats up or cools down, cannot do both at the same time. Heat transfer from each square meter of the Earth’s surface to the atmosphere proceeds in one direction, not two. Heat transfer from the atmosphere to space proceeds in one direction, not two. Much heat transfers directly from the Earth’s surface to space, as the atmosphere is transparent to much infrared. On a clear night water can freeze at 59 degrees F ambient due to radiative heat transfer. The Second Law is one of the all-timers, ignore it at your peril…

Comments are closed.