From a NOAA press release that came out to me via email just minutes ago:
NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON, DC
Contact: Dennis Feltgen, NOAA 305-229-4404Increased Hurricane Losses Due to More People,
Wealth Along Coastlines, Not Stronger Storms, New Study Says
A team of scientists have found that the economic damages from hurricanes have increased in the U.S. over time due to greater population, infrastructure, and wealth on the U.S. coastlines, and not to any spike in the number or intensity of hurricanes.
“We found that although some decades were quieter and less damaging in the U.S. and others had more land-falling hurricanes and more damage, the economic costs of land-falling hurricanes have steadily increased over time,” said Chris Landsea, one of the researchers as well as the science and operations officer at NOAA’s National Hurricane Center in Miami. “There is nothing in the U.S. hurricane damage record that indicates global warming has caused a significant increase in destruction along our coasts.”
On the Web:
NOAA National Hurricane Center: http://www.hurricanes.gov
Link to paper:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2476-2008.02.pdf
UPDATE: URL to paper as originally posted above was missing a period, works now, try again if you missed it before.
Well that pretty much says it all don’t you think? Will Gore revise AIT now?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
All the weather scientists who use short periods – 1980 – present seem to ignore previous periods. 25 years is the fly-speck on the backside of an elephant in regard to weather trends. In Australia, the first 50 years of 1900s was much drier than the second half, but seems to be ignored when looking at droughts etc. OF course there were variations in the location of the dry and wet periods.
We have just had the coolest summer for 30 yrs and that followed one of the hottest – normal variations, I’d say. Cooler weather came with a rising SOI and La Nina but despite feet of rain along the coast of Qld and in the Central Highlands, our particular area has not received drought-breaking rain. We are in a green drought with plenty of grass but no run-off for the local water supply.
RE Hurricanes and cost: I am waiting until a cyclone strikes SE Qld because much of the housing on the Gold Coast is built on the flood plains of the local rivers. In the 1950s what is now suburbs was farm land and there is a picture of a farmhouse with just the tip of the roof out of the water. The big floods of 1974 and 1976 (both 1/100 year events) were the last cyclones and cyclonic depressions to occur.
From the Australian National University website :-
“bogan
Bogan is Australian (especially teenage) slang for someone who is not `with it’ in terms of behaviour and appearance, someone who is ‘not us’; hence, someone horrible, contemptible.
Some lexicographers have suspected that the term may derive from the Bogan River and district in western New South Wales, but this is far from certain, and it seems more likely to be an unrelated coinage.
The term became widespread after it was used in the late 1980s by the fictitious schoolgirl ‘Kylie Mole’ in the television series The Comedy Company.
In the Daily Telegraph (29 November 1988), in an article headed “Same name a real bogan”, a genuine schoolgirl named Kylie Mole “reckons it really sux’ ” [i.e., finds it horrible] to have the same name as the television character.
In Dolly Magazine, October 1988, “The Dictionary According To Kylie [Mole]” has the following Kyliesque definition: bogan “a person that you just don’t bother with. Someone who wears their socks the wrong way or has the same number of holes in both legs of their stockings. A complete loser”.
Now, now, how can we blame anyone for believing in a probably exaggerated version of AGW? There is a singularly one-sided reporting of it, it is ensconced as core curriculum and it is reported ubiquitously that there is a scientific concensus and that those who doubt are either idiots or villains.
You know it. I know it. It’s the main reason we get as mad as wet hens. But we MUST NOT fight fire with fire.
It is therefore unseemly that we take those who believe thus to task, and I implore my fellow skeptics not to do so. We must not deal in scorn or rejection. we must appeal to a sense of fair play. Balance. Openness. Observation. Science. Too many on the AGW side of this debate will try to drive off their opposition. But we must not do that. We must win them over with logic, science, and an appeal to fairness. We need them on our side. Already, so many who have come to scoff have remained to pray. Let us in the name of intellectualism and charity encourage this growing trend.
gullybogan seems to be a fairminded person. He has been respectful and has made an appeal to reason, unlike a lot of others who believe as he does. I find that refreshing. I encourage a reasonable dialogue with him.
[…] week, I broke the story of a press release issued by NOAA where they publish an opinion smashing any link between […]
“But we MUST NOT fight fire with fire”. Hmmm… While we’re sitting around singing Kumbaya, they’re busy laughing, and plotting their next move. When you pick up a weapon, you can’t whine and complain if it then gets used against you. The only weapon we WON’T use is their nuclear one; that of lies. But, you’re right, I do feel sorry for BG. He just doesn’t know any better.
Evan,
Check out my comments at the end of the Cedarville and GISS Adjustment thread, and get back to me.
Being reasonable and having the facts on one’s side–and not giving ground–is an extremely powerful weapon. Sometimes it won’t do to use weapons used against you. Not if the weapon (scorn, belittlement) has no place on the field of conflict. Part of the reason we are in this “conflict” is that we object to the use of those weapons in the first place.
Lots of people don’t know any better. It is on us to change that. Yeah, it’s an unfair burden, but if it were fair we wouldn’t be here in the first place. The majority of the folks out there think they are doing the right thing. We’ve got to change their opinion, not do to them what they are trying to do to us.
Noblesse oblige ain’t easy, but it’s what we’re stuck with, and it’s our best, most honest weapon. We lean over and knock them back against the ropes. But we don’t stomp on them when they’re down; we offer them our hand and help them back up. Because we are intellectuals and this is a debate over facts, not values. Today’s rank-and-file opponents are tomorrow’s neutrals–and allies.
Besides, BG isn’t trying to nuke us, he is well within the acceptable rules of engagement. Would that all the “other side” was!
Plus, we have to consider the terrain once the “war” is over. The real objective is to change the entire terrain of the debate so something like this flap won’t happen again.
Stan: Check. Answered there.
I find it interesting that these four reporting agencies like to describe their temperature data as anomalies; and people like to look for “trends” in the data. And of course the perceived trend depends on how long a time interval you select, adn when you start it, and when you end it. Then the four reporting groups use different “baseline” preiods for their temperature scales.
There is nothing at all anomalous about these temperature data; they are (purportedly) what was actually measured in that scientific laboratory known as planet earth; they actually happened as they are recorded here.
So don’t look for trends; the only trend present in any of those data sets, is the progression from one measured data point to the next data point.
If you want to look at trends Jut take the Mauna Loa obsevatory CO2 data and plot it on the same time scale graphs, that the four reporting agency’s data is plotted on. And then try if you dare, to find any correlation whatsoever between the actually measured temperature data, and the actually measured CO2 data. You won’t find any, because their simply isn’t any.
I must say, I really appreciate your work. The flat sunspot siuation probably implies that the earth’s cosmic ray flux, is currently at some sort of high level, maybe historically high. And more cosmic rays leads to more efficient cloud nucleation, so I would bet that this period of sudden cold, occurring even though there was increased global precipitation, means we had unusually high lgobal cloud cover during that precipitous temperature drop; and cosmic rays had a lot to do with it.
I thought that theory was still very much up in the air.
[…] top of that, just last month, NOAA issued a press release saying that “There is nothing in the U.S. hurricane damage record that indicates global warming has caused… The source of the press release was the National Hurricane Center, from Chris Landsea, one of the […]
@ur momisugly Jeff
Cosmic rays have been experimentally determined to be able to produce ultra-small aerosol particles. These particles act as cloud condensation nuclei. It is still classified as a Theory, it has not yet been made into a Law. The test was done at Stanford I believe, and is scheduled to be redone in London and a Russian lab to determine it validity. There have been no tests to disprove it yet.
If you do a google or youtube search for “The Great Global Warming Swindle” you can see the direct correlation sunspot activity vs global temperature. As the Sunspot activity goes down, the magnetic field of the the sun is weaker, and that allows more cosmic rays into out solar system. The reverse is also true. That is why over the past 30 years, every planet in our solar system that has weather has experienced warming. According to Mr Gore, Mars has global warming because someone parked their SuV there. 🙂
REPLY: FYI this is a different Anthony than the blog host
Yes it is, I forgot that Anthony was the name of the blog host. I’ll put my last name on here now.
[…] I previously reported in my post titled: Hurricane frequency and global warming NOT the cause of increased destruction, it appears that the “link” cited by Gore and others trying to equate global warming to […]
[…] made landfall between 1851-1005 and conclusively found that hurricane intensity had not increased. (http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/noaa-hurricane-frequency-and-global-warming-not-the-…). What the study did find, and what Al Gore Jr. will tell you, is that the damage done by […]
[…] not caused by global heating, say scientists – Times Online Discovery News : Discovery Channel NOAA: Hurricane frequency and global warming NOT the cause of increased destruction « Watts Up With … …etc.,ad […]
[…] Except the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration released a paper a while ago with research and numbers proving that landfall hurricane count has NOT gone up since the whole “global warming awareness” (read: scare-mongering) has begun and has, in fact, been generally lower. Oops. […]
Load of shizzle.
global warming is real.
The inconvienent truth
watch it aye
global warming is real -> indeed :(. Sad but true.
Six multidecadal oscillations switched from cool phase to warm phase between 1976 and 2001 (PDO, AMO, NOA, AO, AAO, IPO). A 0.4°C increase occurred (although even the magnitude of that has been called into question.)
Now the PDO has gone cool. Temps are down sharply (after years of flatness). The NAO and AO may be going cold (ahead of expected schedule).
I would definitely take a wait-and-see attitude before either jumping to conclusions or taking economic measures that will cost up to half of world economic growth.
(An inconvenient Truth has been shot so full of holes, there really isn’t much left of it. This does not disprove AGW, but it makes AIT a non-source.)
Ahem…global warming is still happening. Methane clathrates are melting. This has been hypothesised as one of the trigger mechanisms for the Permian-Triassic mass extinction, and is a severe positive feedback mechanism for global warming, along with the melting methane in Siberia…we’re reaching that tipping point now as it was discovered this September…look it up.
Regarding 50x the CO2 in the ocean.
Google “Henry’s Law” and “La Chatelier’s Principle.”