A Yogi Berra moment – “it’s deja vu all over again…”
From NHC Public Advisory #25
DATA FROM AN AIR FORCE RECONNAISSANCE AIRCRAFT INDICATE THAT MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS HAVE INCREASED TO NEAR 150 MPH…240 KM/HR…WITH HIGHER GUSTS. GUSTAV IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS CATEGORY FOUR HURRICANE ON THE SAFFIR-SIMPSON HURRICANE SCALE. SOME FLUCTUATIONS WITH AN OVERALL SLIGHT STRENGTHENING IS FORECAST DURING THE NEXT 24 HOURS…AND GUSTAV COULD REACH CATEGORY FIVE INTENSITY DURING THIS PERIOD. GUSTAV IS FORECAST TO REMAIN A MAJOR HURRICANE THROUGH LANDFALL ALONG THE NORTHERN GULF COAST.
Here is my own hurricane track imagery of Gustav and Hanna:
Click for a Hi Definition image
I’m sure this will become mass-media fodder again for the ever popular “global warming causes more damaging hurricanes”, but it is important to note that NHC’s own science officer, Christopher Landsea, co-authored a paper that claims otherwise. So have other scientists.
Tom in Florida says: “If, as Algore et al believe, the water temp is the main reason for increased hurricane intensity, then both storms should end up about the same strength. However, as we now see, tropical cyclones are affected by much more than just water temps…The AGW crowd’s simplistic reasoning is once again shown to be flat out wrong.”
It’s always bad form to create a strawman of your opponents’ arguments and then accuse them of simplistic reasoning. Nobody has ever claimed that the only major factor in intensities of individual hurricanes is the water temperatures. The argument is more along the lines that, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, an increase in water temperatures will on average tend to produce an increase in hurricane intensity.
The main questions still being debated is how strong an effect this is and to what extent other factors, such as wind shear, are likely to remain equal in a warmer world. These are valid questions but just pointing to the fact that wind shear does play an important role in the evolution of individual hurricanes isn’t enough to show that any changes in wind shear that are likely to occur as a result of AGW will be less conducive to hurricanes in a way that counteracts the effects due to warmer ocean temperatures.
Ed Scott: “Science and scientists, when practicing science, should be apolitical. I am optimistic that the damage done, and being done, to science by the AGW acolytes can be repaired, but the question remains, where does science go to get its reputation back?”
What about the AGW skeptics? Are they all apolitical? In my experience, it seems like nearly all of them are coincidentally conservative or libertarian in their leanings.
Ed Scott: “A good beginning was the signing of the petition by 31,000 plus physicists. although it received practically no media attention.”
Actually, if you are referring to the Oregon petition (which I assume from the number that you quote that you are), it was not specifically physicists but scientists in general (and with the interpretation of what constitutes a “scientist” being very broad). And, it is a strange example to cite as somehow being apolitical as it seemed to be very political, in the sense that they bombarded science departments across the country with a very one-sided article with a cover letter written by a former head of the National Academy of Sciences (the late Frederick Seitz) that was formatted to look like an article in the Proceedings of the NAS even though it was not a real scientific article at all. The scientists were then asked to sign on to the petition. It is sort of the equivalent of an old Soviet-style election where you are bombarded with propaganda and then asked to vote but with the only option (besides not voting) being to vote YES. The whole thing was so deceptive that the NAS was forced to issue a statement noting that they or that paper were in no way associated with the NAS and that its conclusions did not agree with NAS assessments.
I would guess that the temperature difference between the water and the atmosphere would be really important to hurricane strength. So, since water retains heat better than the atmosphere, if we have cooling, then I would expect (ATBE) that we would have more powerful hurricanes. And since our current culture teaches that all things ARE equal, I rest my case.
Demons? Blame? Heaven? What’s next? “Sins?” “Transgressions?”
Freeman Dyson was totally correct. This issue is about religion. The religion is called “Environmentalism.” The AGW denomination priests are shoveling “blame” dreck by the spadeful into the open mouths of the believers: “This is Gawd’s way of punishing the Republicans….told’ya, GOP choose New Orleans…and God is gonna get ’em.” The “news” loaded with AGW screed….
Sad thing is that I hear almost NONE (other than some like-minded folks on this “blog) saying, hey, now that we have terabytes of computer power, let’s see if we can find out how the latest attractor, the Three Gorges dam, changed the bounds of the previous dynamical system. Let’s study the whole system now these things are happening.
More implications that Darwin was wrong. Man has been going down hill for
5 millenia. I’m thinking Moore’s law should include an indirect variation, squared, for common sense.
[Counters, I said take a time out. Please respect that]
Christopher (18:59:58) :
I guess it would depend on how far west it hits. Driving the water directly up the delta at the levees may be bad or worse. I always thought the east side of the storm was the worst. Not only storm surge but that’s where the rain is going to be.
Looks like the models are moving it eastward. Head on hit on NO.
models
Christopher (18:59:58) :
“Isnt the fact its a good chance its gonna go west of N.O a good thing? While it will put the city in risk of high wind damage, wouldnt that push the surge from the lake away from the city itself and into the opposite shore? I thought Katrina was so bad because it hit at the perfect angle east of the city that the natural spin of the storm caused the lake to push into the city itself.”
As I recall, post Katrina, the analysts said that it was good that the eye went east of N.O, because the worst path was the eye going slightly west with a NW storm direction at landfall. This would push the storm surge up into the lake and also expose N.O to the strongest (right front) quadrant winds which would start about from the East and then turn out of the NE pushing water straight across the Lake into N.O.
During Katrina, N.O. winds weren’t “too” bad being on the weaker side of the storm.
It seems that the central cone path is exactly that worst case scenario.
“I’m thinking Moore’s law should include an indirect variation, squared, for common sense.” Mike Pickette
You mean as the machines get smarter we get dumber? Also, the more advanced the creature, the sooner it goes extinct. Mankind has about 5 million years left. Genetic modification might not help, it might in fact speed the process.
The problem with Katrina was an unexpected failure of the levies.
You are correct Evan. The IPCC’s means don’t justify their desired ends.
counters — I believe the general consensus at the moment is … (stronger) …hurricanes.
Except that Landsea, who is probably the only guy who really has a handle on all this stuff, says otherwise. I’m not sure what to make of appeal to authority arguments like yours. On the surface they seem sound, but my experience is that your best bet is to go with the guy who knows the most about it, and right now that’s Landsea.
Joel Shore — In my experience, it seems like nearly all of them are coincidentally conservative or libertarian in their leanings.
And in mine, more than a few of the skeptics are older rather than younger. As per my comment above, I’m experienced enough to have dealt with all of this same stuff before, which essentially boils down to an attack on evil corporations (capitalists) and their right wing minions. DDT, ozone, unsafe nuclear power, cell phones cause cancer, obesity epidemic, AGW, doesn’t matter; it’s essentially variation #n on the same theme: Exxon or McDonald’s or (insert corporate name here — anyone can play) is evil and must be punished. More to the point, each time out the accusers (generally, the left) have been proven wrong, and I see no reason to think at this point that AGW will prove to be any different.
And to be blunt about things, rarely do the accusers have a handle on the actual science. They *think* they understand. They *assume* they understand. And then you find out that, for example, the accuser still has some sort of quasi-religious belief such as the idiot assumption that we don’t know how to handle nuclear waste. In short, it’s been my life experience that the accusers, usually the left, generally are those who know the LEAST about the subject while simultaneously claiming otherwise. Interestingly the far right religious types have the same problem protesting about stem cells or homosexuality.
Therefore this is not so much a problem of the left so much as a general observation — if something is protested, or on the flip side, promoted in the media, it is almost certainly wrong. Since AGW is promoted by the left, certainly the opposition/skepticism is not.
“Interestingly the far right religious types have the same problem protesting about stem cells …”
I am a libertarian; I have a problem with the violation of human rights.
It is those who justify infanticide that have a problem.
Moore’s law ‘an attack on evil corporations (capitalists) and their right wing minions MAKES ME RICH’
“I’ve concluded that Harry Truman made the right decision.”
Good take.
“What about the AGW skeptics? Are they all apolitical?”
Nature abhors a vacuum. Skeptics have merely joined a political battle prosecuted by AGW believers.
In my opinion 4 things killed people during Katrina.
! Hurricane Betsy. “My house didn’t flood during Betsy”, so they stayed.
2 Hurricane Camile. “My house survived Camile.” So they stayed.
3 Hurricane Ivan. People evacuated for Ivan, only to watch it go to Florida. They stayed.
4 Propaganda and hype. Just about every storm is hyped. From the dinks to big bad wolves. Too many of us never dealt with bad storms. When there is too much hype over dinks people stop listening.
Gary Gulrud says: “Nature abhors a vacuum. Skeptics have merely joined a political battle prosecuted by AGW believers.”
So, let’s see, I am supposed to believe that the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences and analogous organizations in all of the other G8+5 countries, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the councils of the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, and the American Geophysical Union, the editors of Science and of Nature, and corporations such as Shell, BP, Ford, and Dupont (to name just a few) are all in some massive political conspiracy. And, it is only a small band of scientists and their allies who often seem to have connections to various conservative or libertarian think-tanks who have been forced to become political to fight these forces and spread the gospel of what the science really says?
Sounds plausible to me!
I am completely apolitical for reasons that have nothing to do with any of the discussions on this blog. I have never voted in an election and I never will. My reasons are mine and will not be discussed or revealed in this venue. However, this being said, I am not fooled by the rush to “fight” climate change. Whether any coming climate change is catastrophic or not, we are pretty much along for the ride.
Fasten your seatbelts.
The driving forces of growth for Gustav seem to be falling apart. Not saying it will weaken significantly, but a Cat 4 or 5 seems highly unlikely at this point.
http://www.cookevilleweatherguy.com
What about the AGW skeptics? Are they all apolitical? In my experience, it seems like nearly all of them are coincidentally conservative or libertarian in their leanings. That’s an AGW myth, Joel, belied by the fact that many of us skeptics, myself included are, or at least were, die-hard Democrats and liberals.
Your “experience” is colored by your AGW ideology. Our politics run the gamut. But make no mistake, this issue is so huge that it can change one’s entire political persuasion. Your mistake is in believing that it is politics which is driving the skeptic movement. In fact, it is the science.
It is politics, however which has driven, and continues to drive the fraudulent AGW movement.
I still object to classifying AGW as a fraud and insist that it is, rather, merely an error. (A big one.)
And, it is only a small band of scientists
No, not a small band at all. A very large one. After the events of the last 18 months, I daresay it’s split pretty evenly. And the “conversion rate” (the trend, if you will) is all tending towards skepticism.
But no matter. Nearly all scientists (and intellectuals of every stripe) were utterly convinced that we were running out of most vital (and nonvital) natural resources. That turned out to be utterly, 180-degrees wrong (and based on a premise that turned out later to be risible).
Climatology, as it stands, is simply not very well understood. Therefore, what the “crowd” believes is of very little relevance. Heck, by 1998, ten years into the AGW movement, multidecadal ocean/atmospheric cycles had not even been discovered yet.
Actually, I doubt that if we knew then what we know now, AGW would have been a hysterical issue in the first place. It has been a bad few years for the AGW proponents.
As it stands, I am strongly with the skeptics, but I also admit either side could possibly be right (either wholly or partially).
more than a few of the skeptics are older rather than younger.
#B^1
In discussing where the worst damage will be, remember that the gulf coast east of NO in Mississippi, was devastated with storm surge into tree tops. The gambling boats were left high and dry and homes (Trent Lott’s for one) were wiped off the face of the earth. It just didn’t get anywhere near the airplay that NO did because of the Superdome fiasco.
Many skeptics are older rather than younger. This seems natural to me. Older people have seen the majority of people wrong so many times, that to witness the mob dynamics once more is not surprising. Only disappointing.
Maybe we can start a list.
Remember when everyone was making millions on stocks in the tech boom?
Y2K
Population explosion
Peak oil, over and over and over…
DDT
Acid rain
Ozone hole
Eugenics
This is only a very, very small sample of things that should have been met with far more skepticism by the scientific community.