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.
Apologies for sounding like an irritating a**, let me rephrase.
The point is, the last plot is meaningless. In order to make a rigorous comparison of US hurricane strikes vs. CO2, you need to normalize to the number of hurricane seasons spent within each CO2 bin (e.g. time). The growth of CO2 in the atmosphere is non-linear, which would tend to bias the above plot toward showing less hurricane strikes with higher CO2 even if the number of hurricane strikes was constant thru time. To say that that suggests decreasing hurricane strikes with increasing CO2 is a misleading logical fallacy and sweeps all the known variability in hurricane activity (ENSO, etc) under the rug.
I agree that the AGW-Sandy link is totally overblown. Though SSTs on the East Coast were ridiculously warm and the track it took was ridiculously weird…
Elena Bennett-Goulet says:
November 1, 2012 at 5:45 pm
http://www.edf.org/climate/how-we-know-the-earth-is-warming
You must be new here! I think you’ve come to the wrong place.
No, Bloomberg Businessweek is right – not about the science, but about the economy. Global warming really has screwed up Wall Street, Main street, and most streets in nations where socialism has taken root. As we know, climate hysteria is used as a ploy for government to increase its power over citizens. That stupid, or more accurately, evil tactic destroys economies and lives. Mayor Bloomberg uses it effectively.
In referring to hurricanes, the cause seems to be usually associated with warm sea-surface temperatures which are then attributed to CO2 in the atmosphere. I see no mention of the fact that mankind has been polluting the ocean with flotsam and jetsam which now includes a layer of hydrocarbons, underlain by a layer of micro-plastic particles underlain by all manner of crates, shipping containers, thongs, hard-hats and what-have-you. Beneath that is salt water contaminated by sewerage, pharmaceuticals, fertilisers and other man-made chemicals. Yet there is no mention as to how these may be warming the oceans.
For a start, the surface layer of hydrocarbons and micro-plastic chips must inhibit wave action which, in turn, will reduce evaporation and increase the sea-surface temperature. Add to this the film reducing the ability of water molecules to evaporate from the ocean and there is more than enough cause for a warm ocean.
Large areas of each of the world’s oceans have been reported as suffering this pollution so I do not see any need to incur CO2 as the source of warming. Mankind’s distain for the purity of our oceans is a sufficient source of warming but that does not appear to attract doomsday scenarios from climate scientists and journalists. Too hard or not enough money in it ?
CD (@CD153) –
anthony should begin a new thread with your link to Fox – Eco-Taxes? Study Financed by U.S. Treasury Will Link Tax Code to Carbon Emissions.
however, the Fox piece is wrong to single out this lot:
“A major tax study currently being sponsored by the U.S. Treasury will give environmental activists a powerful new weapon in their campaign to alter the entire American economic and social landscape in the name of halting “climate change”—including the possible levying of new carbon taxes.”
INSTEAD THE FOLLOWING IS WHAT WE NEED TO GO VIRAL TO COUNTER THE YEARS OF PROPAGANDA CLAIMING BIG OIL IS BACKING THE CAGW SCEPTICS:
28 Oct: Forbes: BP: Renewables Growing Fastest But Can’t Compete Without Help
Renewable forms of energy are growing far faster than any other form of energy, a BP economist said in Chicago last week, but are unlikely to significantly impact the world’s reliance on fossil fuels without continued government interventions, such as a price on carbon…
“The other big issue of course is climate change, and a price on carbon, all else being equal, seems like it would help the cost competitiveness of most renewable forms of energy. We do believe that there will be continued government policy action to deal with climate change—haltingly, and maybe not as coordinated as we would have thought ten years ago—but we do continue to believe that there will be some action on the climate front…
Another corporation in the business of economic forecasting, Lloyd’s of London, has predicted different criteria for the success of renewables: energy demand in the Third World will bring the price of oil far higher than the price of renewable energy…
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/10/28/renewables-growing-fastest-but-cant-compete-without-help-bp/
28 Oct: UK Telegraph: Emily Gosden: Shell attacks ‘ridiculous’ effects of European energy policy
Royal Dutch Shell has attacked the “ridiculous” impact of European energy policy, warning that governments are erasing the environmental benefits from expensive renewables by allowing coal use to increase.
“You have this ridiculous situation where cash-strapped Europe is putting a lot of money into renewables to reduce CO2, meanwhile allowing … the power generators to take much more coal and back out gas,” he said.
All the benefits you’re getting from the renewable energy are being counteracted by far too much coal.”
Mr Brown said the EU’s Emission Trading Scheme (ETS), designed to reduce emissions by placing a price on carbon, “doesn’t work”. “CO2 is priced at such a low level it’s meaningless,” he said. “We want a higher CO2 price…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/9639356/Shell-attacks-ridiculous-effects-of-European-energy-policy.html
I emailed this:
Patti Straus:
Guess what, I will NEVER buy Bloomberg Businessweek again. Your Stupid headline did it. You are very stupid as you just lost lost a shit load of cash.
Below is the correct headline. So get lost forever.
(Not I sent her the, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr proper headline)
What’s sad is that assuming that North/South Hemisphere to equator temperature deltas play a significant role in storm frequency/severity, then in the coming years (with cooling) their predictions will possibly occur. Of course there will not be any mention of the cooling, especially with rigged temperature data.
The onslaught of GW spin is upon us. I just reviewed some stats on this storm and they now state the pressure was 945.5 mb at landfall.
Why,,,,, because they can now say it exceeded the 1938 storm (946) in the same area.
How many times, in the current records, have you ever seen pressure readings stated in that form for Hurricanes?
Never!
.
Weather is not climate, unless it helps the CAGW Gravy Train. Nom nom nom.
Most “news bias” is simply selecting stories that conform to your worldview.
I want to know about Kevin Trenbeth’s 10%. He’s reported all over the mainstream media saying that Sandy’s energy could be 10% from global warming.
How can he let that stand? How does he expect to ever be considered credible again?
Roger Knights says:
November 1, 2012 at 3:45 pm
Holding back storm surge from buildings, subways, etc is impractical. There are very strong hydrostatic pressures involved.
In South Louisiana we have learned to place electrics and anything else that can be damaged by salt water on an upper floor. The ground floor typically is reserved as a garage/storage and “things you can afford to lose”. Ground floor walls are designed to break away to allow the hydrostatic pressure to flow through the pilings.
If they had tried to keep the surge out of the subway system, the walls would probably have collapsed. Flooding them equalized the pressure.
This kind of stuff arises from the human tendency to want to attribute cause and attach blame to everything. Once upon a time Sandy would have been called an “act of God”. It isn’t regarded as cool to blame God any more. But the desire of people to blame someone hasn’t gone away. Hence the finger gets pointed at CO2 instead.
Maybe the “skeptics” can just be quiet for a few years, until the weather returns to normal?
Daniel says:
November 1, 2012 at 4:44 pm
Watts refers to Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. as a “hurricane expert.”………..
=============
Daniel, didn’t deserve the respectful response received, IMHO.
But then again, Anthony runs a classy joint.
John Brookes,
The weather is normal.
People who live in big cities I think don’t really ‘get’ how nature works or how big it is. Think about it, their whole life is spent in man made buildings, on man made roads in man made cars, walking on man made sidewalks… When something goes wrong or someone gets hurt the first instinct is to look for who screwed up, who the blame can be placed on (who has to pay up). CAGW is just that same mindset writ large. You know? That’s why CAGW has such resonance. ‘We can blame these natural disasters on the lifestyles of the affluent.’ Little dollar signs light up in their eyes. Anyhoo that’s my slightly inebriated rant for the night.
Raising a finger in salute to you, Bloomberg.
Bloomberg is far from being stupid. He does exactly what is necessary for the ruling gang to suppress competition and stay in power. In Bloomberg’s world, there are no such things as “truth” or “lie,” there are no facts, nothing needs to be proven or falsified. Anything and everything is just a perception, a tale to be told, a sale to be sold. Anything and everything either serves or doesn’t serve a purpose. The most effective way to manipulate people is to instill guilt and fear, while leaving no time, no space, no money, no health, no opportunity for any dangerous competition to rise.
Bloomberg never asks himself if what he is doing is right or wrong. The only question Bloombergs, Clintons, Reids, Obamas, Gores & other assorted gangsters-in-law ask themselves, the only thing they absorbed completely and unquestioningly with heir mothers’ milk is: “Can we use it and get away with it?” If the answer is “Yes,” anything goes: global warming, New Deal, printing trillions of dollars backed up by nothing, insider trading, making deals with dictators and terrorists, “disappearing” a bunch of people — you name it. They make one big mistake, though, a fatal mistake in the long run. But I am not going to explain it to them here or anywhere else.
That is pretty silly to plot CO2 level vs hurricane strikes. On par with warmista misleading nonsense. Hardly the way to counter them by being just as illogical.
Sandy was a reversal of the longterm success of human influence on climate, in sharply reducing the number of landfalling hurricanes. Excess pollution controls and reductions in CO2 output are the probable culprits, and the Precautionary Principle demands that those trends be reversed.
It’s only logical.
Why would there be catastrophically more hydrostatic pressure on a subway tunnel that runs under a river if the water level above it is temporarily eight feet above the normal maximum? These tunnels are circular, a form that resists stress, and are presumably “over-engineered” to resist much greater stress. The surge from last year’s hurricane Irene was only three feet less than that from Sandy, but the tunnels were nowhere near their breaking point. I.e., no cracks or seeps developed, AFAIK.
The Lincoln Tunnel’s entrances were above the surge level, so it didn’t get flooded. But the tunnel didn’t collapse. Ditto with the subway tunnels under the Harlem River into the Bronx (although the surge was lower there, about eight (??) miles north of the Battery).
Regarding buildings, none of them in NYC collapsed from hydrostatic pressure, although none were designed with break-away walls. It seems unlikely to me on the face of it that the pressure on the walls of a stone-and-metal office building or brownstone residence in NYC from a few feet worth of water would collapse them. (If the water overtopped their windows, the windows would likely serve as safety valves, collapsing before the walls did.) The lessons learned in Louisiana regarding the sort of buildings found there, which are brick or wood, don’t automatically apply to the buildings in NYC.
NYC’s situation differs also in that the flooding to be expected would not be accompanied by strong wave action (except for buildings on the waterfront) or flowing water (the Hudson and East Rivers move at a leisurely pace).
Certain engineers and architects, who have studied the matter, surely know the answer as to the vulnerability of NYC-type buildings to collapse from flood waters, so I hope one of them will weigh in.
Dont try and argue with John Brookes.
Wasting time and energy.
jHe is an Australian school boy of about 14 years old.
Kids eh 🙂
.
Alexander Feht says:
November 1, 2012 at 8:09 pm
“They make one big mistake, though, a fatal mistake in the long run. ”
____________
Great comment. Would their big mistake be- they forgot what PT Barnum said?
I really don’t know how much more of this I can take before I go postal.
[snip . . hi Dave, you must be new to these parts. Profanity is a no-no here. Try again without profanity and let’s see how it goes . . mod]
The Mean Sea Level near Hobart Tasmania as carved in stone at the shore in the 1820’s has not varied to this day. They either do things differently in Tasmania or this hyper-terror is all bull[snip]. I lean towards the bull[snip] explanation.