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.
The link you placed on your chart indicates that most of the states affected by hurricanes in the timeline were not Northern states. The fact the more storm systems have been affecting “NORTHERN” states IS an indicator the something is definitively different. I’ve noticed reference to Maine, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New York, and Pennsylvania. However the frequency in comparison to southern states which are obviously closer to the equator is undeniably notable. Your claims that the mere idea CO2 is the root cause of storms coming inland is preposterous IS true. But, the fact that satellite imagery of the accumulative ice degradation from 1979 to now is undeniably the culprit for weather patterns changing to compensate for such an ecological imbalance. You ARE correct in stating CO2 is not the reason for the storms affecting more northern states to a point. However, CO2 is the reason our polar caps are receding. And furthermore is a direct correlation to said storm damage. SO.. you are correct and incorrect in the same sentiment. Sorry to deflate your theory. But someone had to do it.
Jeffrey VJ says:
“CO2 is the reason our polar caps are receding. And furthermore is a direct correlation to said storm damage.”
Horse manure. Provide even one credible citation containing verifiable, empirical evidence proving that CO2 is the reason ice caps are receding. Just one.
Your wild-eyed speculation is not science. It is based on the AGW scare tactic. There is NO empirical scientific evidence that supports your false assertion. You need to post at RealClimate, or tamino. They like anti-science there. But this is a science site. Your baseless alarmism sounds stupid here.
Roger Knights says:
November 2, 2012 at 10:54 pm
I am familiar with the AMO, but don’t bet on past climate patterns existing as they have been in the future. It’s my understanding AMO not only affects global warming predictions, but is having it’s SSTs adjusted in some models so global warming isn’t obscuring the phases. It was only discovered in 1994 and may not be able to give us prediction in the future. Why?
Take a good look at the changes in the arctic and also take a good look at how SSTs and sea ice are compared to a base period! Here is a link for SSTs:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/clim/sst.shtml
Notice the NOAA base period for daily values of anomalies is 1971 – 2000 and the weekly, monthly and seasonal products use 1981 – 2010. Sea ice gets compared to a 1979 – 2008 base. Global temperature is often compared to a base of 1901 – 2000. In all cases the base period involves times of known warmer conditions, so even though mathematically it doesn’t make a difference, it does make a difference in appearance.
This may seem like a long way to make a point, but it’s important to be precise. Look at the data for instrumental temperature measurements for the 20 warmest years on record and fast forward to the end of 2015!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
Notice there really isn’t much change in the temperature measurements for the ocean from the bottom to the top of the 20 warmest years on record, but there is for the land! Also notice the ocean temperatures vary more from year to year than the land temperatures do. It’s only logical that ocean water will retain heat better than land, so that heat has to be going somewhere besides the atmosphere. I’m sure scientists have also noticed this, hence the ARGO array looking for heat at depths below the very surface like the old buoys did. The 20 warmest years data also shows that by the end of 2015, only the year 1995 will not be one of the last 20 years, unless it gets much colder in the near future.
Since AMO is determined by SST measurements that need to be adjusted for global warming, it becomes problematic to assign the contribution of global warming and there are even proposals to make ENSO adjustments. AMO worked fine in hindsight, but what happens when SSTs are always higher than they were? The North Atlantic is the main opening to the Arctic Ocean and the arctic is warming faster than any place on Earth. This change will affect the northern part of the North Atlantic Ocean and it’s already evident with open areas in arctic seas during arctic sea ice maximums.
I picked 2015 for a reason and it wasn’t to dramatize the instrumental temperature records. I think there is a very good chance the arctic will become ice free by then, but even if it happens 5 years later in 2020, an obscure climate pattern like the AMO isn’t going to rush in and save the day. An ice free arctic means the multi-year sea ice is gone and the period of being ice free is going to expand each year. That’s going to affect everything in the world and especially anything close to that area. The theory goes that AMO is caused by fluctuations in thermohaline circulation and we don’t know if it’s true or what causes such fluctuations. It’s logical to expect changes in climate patterns and who knows what changes could happen in thermohaline circulaton. The AMO may not last long enough for us to figure out why it happens.
Gary Lance says:
“…don’t bet on past climate patterns existing as they have been in the future.”
But that is the way rational people bet. Because you have no understanding of the climate Null Hypothesis, you assume that trees will grow to the moon, and that global warming will never stop.
Once you get some real world experience under your young belt, you will begin to see things in perspective. That is the hope, anyway.
Gary Lance refers to the ARGO buoy network. But that empirical evidence falsifies the notion that the deep oceans are warming:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/argodata.jpg
And the ARGO buoys agree with evidence showing global cooling. Sorry to bust Lance’s bubble, but the ARGO data shows gradual cooling of the deep oceans.
From D Böehm on November 3, 2012 at 10:14 pm:
Actually back when Gary was showing his ignorance like how he thinks cyanobacteria are plants as well as many misconceptions on ancient geography/geology, he mentioned taking a bunch of geology-type courses forty years ago.
So he’s had the opportunity for lots of real world experience, but apparently hasn’t learned much. And as he’s claimed certain “scientific facts” haven’t changed since then despite science moving forward with new theories and newer “facts”, and nothing we present as evidence can change his mind, if he deigns to look at any of it as he knows it cannot be true since it conflicts with what he knows is true, I’m doubting he’s capable of learning anything here.
jayhd says:
November 1, 2012 at 4:02 pm
There are lot of people in the New Jersey/New York area now getting a taste of living (temporarily) in a “low carbon” world. And they don’t seem to like it very much.
==================================================================
Excellent point
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
November 4, 2012 at 1:08 am
You don’t have scientific facts. You have a trolling style that even ignores what is said and changes every discussion into an ad hom attack to hide the fact that you can’t win a debate on climate science. You were asked where the oxygen in the atmosphere originated and how did it go from nothing to 34%. You didn’t answer, because you can’t admit CO2 does anything but feed plants.
I pointed out taking geology courses before global warming was a concern and how no one suggested CO2 changes didn’t affect climate then. The CO2 connection is in fact fundamental to geology. Global warming only became a concern years after temperatures increased and never returned to previous levels. Your voodoo “science” was only born after global warming became a threat to the fossil fuel industry. The fact is, if you don’t know the basics of science, how can you pretend to know the more advanced things without constantly being shot down? Science doesn’t care what you or the fossil fuel industries want. It’s created it’s own realities without your consent. Science didn’t ask you if it was OK if they set the standard that BP meant before 1950 and if you don’t believe me ask Easterbrook! He was a Geology Professor at WWU and knows this.
I find it remarkable that the reinsurer industry was gathering statistics on global warming or climate change in 1973. To put it in the perspective of those times, when I took a Physical Geography course in ’75 there was no concern about global warming, but it was mentioned that some scientists had shown that it may be a future concern. When you are in the business of risk management, like a reinsurer is, any risk that may develop in the future is a concern. It’s a brilliant strategy to look for all events and figuring the probability of it happening to the degree of it being catastrophic, even down to a specific area of the world. There is no built in bias in gathering statistics for weather related catastrophes, because the same rules apply to geophysical catastrophes. Essentially insurance is gambling with the house setting the odds so the house will always win. The legacy of the reinsurers statistics is they have determined weather related catastrophic events have increased significantly over a short period of time. A person would be hard pressed to figure out some kind of insurance they pay that hasn’t been inflated by the insurance company’s concerns of climate change.
Now since you like to make things so personal, let’s see if we can do it in a way that gets back to the topic of this thread/article and sticks to the general theme of what this forum should be about and that is climate change, whether it exists or not. My background was in the Physical Sciences, but even way back in my early years I took plenty of other science courses that weren’t required for a degree. To get a degree in Geology, like all those people who work for the fossil fuel industry, you need a course in Physical Geography and Invertebrate Paleontology (and, I’ll let you figure out why). I didn’t take some baby course like many did to get a degree in Geology, I took the Biology Department’s course, which was a two semester course. My logic was simple and based on my major. My degree required top level courses in the Physical Sciences and Mathematics, so why should I pay my money to take a course in any subject that a major in that subject wouldn’t take. I took a lot of courses I didn’t have to take, because I was interested in the subject and there are very few subjects I’m not interested in.
As far as Bloomberg is concerned, he’s a politician, so unless you are devoid of any concept of Political Science, Psychology, Sociology, Philosophy and common sense, who cares what he says? You are the ones creating the strawman out of your own desperation. When it comes to science, who cares what Al Gore says? I think both of them are big enough to admit they aren’t experts in the field of science, but that doesn’t mean they don’t respect science. That said, we should applaud any politician standing for the people of this country. Since you like to change the subject to me all the time, I think any politician caring for the people he took oath of office to serve is doing a good job. When Mayor Bloomberg sees the artery of his city repeatly shut down because of climate change, he speaks his mind. When Governor Christie sees his people damaged, he isn’t on the internet blowing smoke, he speaks his mind. Of course these politicians aren’t scientists, but they are smart enough to listen to science, which is much more than you people can do.
See? Doesn’t matter how often he’s refuted, what evidence is presented, it cannot be evidence since it doesn’t confirm the “known fact of climate change” he absolutely knows is incontrovertible truth, thus he was never refuted, so he can repeat the same things forever as there is no evidence that can change his mind.
Thanks for providing another fine long example, Gary.
Roger Knights says:
November 3, 2012 at 2:35 am
“So you say, but nullius in verba. What I want to see are citations backing your claim up, or experts weighing in here to that effect.”
Yes, probably better we wait on expert opinion,
I’m not convinced by Popular Mechanics. Still waiting on the flying car.
It was not a normal Hurricane Stupid.
[do a bit of reading around. Around the thirties for instance . . then comment . . mod]