Guest post by David Middleton
Funny thing… Hurricane Sandy’s unprecedented storm surge was likely surpassed in the New England hurricanes of 1635 and 1638. From 1635 through 1954, New England was hit by at least five hurricanes producing greater than 3 m storm surges in New England. Analysis of sediment cores led to the conclusion “that at least seven hurricanes of intensity sufficient to produce storm surge capable of overtopping the barrier beach (>3 m) at Succotash Marsh have made landfall in southern New England in the past 700 yr.” All seven of those storms occurred prior to 1960.
Even funnier thing… The 1635 and 1638 hurricanes occurred before Al Gore invented global warming…
Even more funny thing… The 1600’s were the coldest century of the last two millennia…
But the funniest thing is that the 1600’s were possibly the coldest century of the Holocene since the 8.2 KYA Cooling Event…
Disclaimer: I’m not implying that Hurricane (AKA post-tropical cyclone) Sandy or its devastating effects on millions of people are funny. I’m only saying that efforts to link this storm to global warming are 
.
References
Geological Society of America Bulletin 113 (6): 714–727.
Moberg, A., D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén. 2005.
Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data.
Nature, Vol. 433, No. 7026, pp. 613-617, 10 February 2005.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Gunga Din,
You admit your fossil fuel agenda. I have the same agenda. Fossil fuels are the gold standard of energy, better than any alternative. They have made everyone’s life longer, healthier, and wealthier than ever before.
Gary Lance, on the other hand, is just another green hypocrite who uses fossil fuels while he rants against their use by others. Since he believes that fossil fuels will cause climate disruption and harm his fellow man, I challenge Lance to immediately stop using fossil fuels of any kind. Otherwise, he is just a hypocrite, no?
tonyb says:
November 3, 2012 at 5:53 am
Gary
London has had an embankment to protect it since the 1860′s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Embankment
It served several purposes which included protection against the river and reclaiming former marshland. A rising Thames Barrier was added some 30 years ago that straddles the river but is usually lowered into the river bed
London has suffred some notable floods over the centuries including many in the 17th Century when the first serious efforts were made to protect the city. Storm surges are nothing new and depending on the circumstances-such as the position of the storm and the height of the tide- will cause damage ranging from minor to catastrophic.
As I previously posted observations over the last 1000 years tell us that storms were far worse in the past, indeed fire and storms were some of the reasons the first insurance company in the world-Sun-was set up in 1710. Their plaques can still be seen to this day on walls of some old houses that had bought protection.
We must stop looking at thirty years data in the belief that things are much worse than in the past. New York seems to have been substantially unprotected and authorities everywhere must assume that although we live in a relatively benign period future storms could be as bad as in the past and start planning accordingly. Undoubtedly with more people and increased property values catastrophes, loss of life and increased bills to rectify things are bound to happen .
tonyb
You were shown data from a reinsurer that proves the likelihood of a catastrophic event has increased two and a half times in the past 30 years. Instead of having any concern for your fellow man, who has to experience these catastrophic events, you spend your time dismissing the facts and claim how bad it was in the last 1000 years. Well, you don’t need 1000 years now, because just based on the changes of the last 30 years, 400 years will suffice. Catastrophes from earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanos will remain constant, but catastrophes from storms, floods, mass movements, extreme temperatures, drought and forest fires have already increased enough to make all catastrophic events two and a half times more likely than they were 30 years ago. Notice these are forest fires and not fires in the city of London!
I haven’t seen any of you concerned in the slightest that humanity has to suffer this new risk with it’s larger population exposed to these dangers, which only proves how much your agenda has consumed you. Your agenda drives you to prove that AGW doesn’t exist, but no one took up the challenge to explain why weather related catastrophic events have increased. You didn’t do it, because part of your tactic is to claim obvious climate change doesn’t exist.
Building embankments will not make the sewers of London work with rising sea levels. We are years away from an ice free arctic and without sea ice in the arctic Greenland will melt faster than expected. You aren’t going to be able to engineer your way out of it.
Gary
You wouldn’t look at the link I provided from climate etc that demonstrated the reasons insurance information should be taken with a pinch of salt. Now you are ignoring the reality that storms seem to have been worse in the past despite their increase in recent years.
Surely you could see in my last post that i suggested that we need to accept that storms could become worse or more frequent and that we needed to provide the means to protect the population with measures such as better flood barriers in the case of new York. I was merely pointing out that other major cities had already provided them and it seems surprising new York had not done better in protecting its inhabitants
How is that in any shape or form a lack of concern for humanity?
Tonyb
Gary
Perhaps you would like to explain what you believe our ‘agenda’ is? It’s obviously so clever that we even have ‘tactics’ in order to achieve it.
Tonyb
climatereason says:
November 3, 2012 at 4:37 pm
Your agenda is promoted by the fossil fuel industies trying to get the last dime, like the cigarette companies did. The IPCC consists of scientists donating their time to a cause that the world thought was important, but people who take money from special interests like to paint the picture that concerned citizens are behaving as they are. Those scientists aren’t making money off of special interests, but your whole movement is. There is no market for climate change and there is a market for the things that cause climate change. You better hope the world comes to it’s senses before it’s too late, because the tower isn’t going to ask what you think when it falls on you.
Take a look at your whole agenda! The EPA is so strict that it allows coal fired boilers to put mercury, cancer causing arsenic and acid rain sulfates into the atmosphere, when the natural gas can produce electricity at half the fuel price and we already have built capacity to reduce coal fired boiler electricity production to 5% of our electricity needs, according to the EIA. In fact, it isn’t that expensive to convert a boiler from coal to natural gas, but the expense to society never gets the attention of policy that a corporation gets. When the facts are pointed out to Koch supporters, they are quick to respond it will increase the price of natural gas. North America doesn’t have abundant crude oil, but it does have an abundant source of natural gas. Just in the North Slope of Alaska, they pump more natural gas back into the ground, after it’s used to heat crude oil, than any state can produce. During the moratorium on offshore drilling, which by the way was started by Bush Sr., there were exemptions made to all the zones for exploration.
The NRC has allowed it’s authority to be determined by the industry. Three quarters of the nuclear facilities are leaking tritium and if they are leaking tritium, they are leaking other nuclear materials, even if it’s small amounts. You would think being challenged by governments in states asking, how can the NRC regulate pipes leaking under a nuclear reactor they don’t know exist would get more attention, but that’s America.
America is bought and paid for by the corporations and you will know when the revolution by the people begins. The people aren’t going to buy the nonsense that our government hasn’t catered to the corporations. You can’t cover up a track record with your misinformation, your spell of dumbness can only last so long.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a socialist, communist or anything close to it, but you people are so far to the right, you deserve what fate has in store for you. I’d take away everything you have in reparations and see how well your genes manage to adapt to the world you want others to adapt to, when a priviledged or deluded class thinks they have the right to misinform the public and do so intentionally. Free speech is one thing and paid speech is another. Riches have been put away for ages in societies and people like the Koch bros. and their John Birch Society past are doomed to survive in a future. They don’t have enough money to compete when survival will raise it’s head in the near future with real wealth throughout the ages has to risk their fortunes to go along with the new clowns on the block. They are small fish compared to the fortunes amassed in this world, waiting for good investments, and let me assure you, I didn’t spend all my life in science and not know finance and law. Enjoy your day in the sun, because you tobacco days are nearly over!
(Reply: You have worn out your welcome here. ~ mod)
Gary Lance says to TonyB:
“Your agenda is promoted by the fossil fuel industies trying to get the last dime, like the cigarette companies did.”
Gary Lance is a complete ass. Tony Brown is always unfailingly polite, and he has done enormous historical research. He has written well received articles for WUWT, and is a regular contributor.
Gary Lance owes Tony Brown an apology for his despicable and false accusation.
Gary lance
I am British. The idea that I am far to the right is ludicrous. The idea I have an agenda is nonsense. I do not belong to a ‘movement’. I am not a supporter of Koch or even heartland. I do not get a cent from special interests
I am a historical climatologist who carries out a vast amount of research in such places as the Met office and the Scott polar institute. I see nothing alarming about our largely benign age but realise we have much to fear if we have some of the cataclysmic weather events we have had in the past of which you seem to be unaware.
I suggest you take a few deep breaths and calm down before you post anything else. Good night to you
Tonyb
[snip. Apologize to Tony Brown. —mod]
Lance seems to have a common problem among the catastrophists who believe capitalism is evil. Do these people know where wealth and wellbeing come from? Do they think the werewithal is growing on trees for all to pick as they need. No, risk capital is invested in innovation and resources and generates all the cash that pays taxes and underwrites all the current idiocy of the AGW movement. Why did the Soviet Union fall? It was because (if I may claim back the real meaning of sustainability) it couldn’t sustain itself with socialist economics. What about China? Same thing. It is the reason they have shifted their path toward capitalism. Without the capitalist engine, what is there to redistribute or use on unsustainable wind and solar? Get a life Lance.
[snip. No apology, then no comment. -mod]
D Böehm says:
November 4, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Gary Lance says to TonyB:
“Your agenda is promoted by the fossil fuel industies trying to get the last dime, like the cigarette companies did.”
Gary Lance is a complete ass. Tony Brown is always unfailingly polite, and he has done enormous historical research. He has written well received articles for WUWT, and is a regular contributor.
Gary Lance owes Tony Brown an apology for his despicable and false accusation.
====================================================================
Agreed, but I don’t think he’ll get it.
Though I would like to see a few checks from “Them” for supporting “Their” fossil fuel agenda. Oh. I forgot. It’s my agenda too. (If I write myself a check, will the bank cash it?)
Hopefully Gary Lance will be like many of my generation that called our guys returning from Viet Nam “Baby Killers” and are now ashamed they did so. From Granada on, no matter the politics, that never happened again. Most of the Hippies grew up…and matured. We even have something called a mortgage and have to heat our our homes. (I say “we” but I missed the real “Hippies” peak by a couple of years. But I was still under the influence.) Nothing like a dose of Responsibility after “the munchies” have passed to put a crack or two in those rose colored glasses.
Hopefully Gary will get a dose of Reality. A good start would be for him to pay attention to his thermometer.
(I wonder from the things he’s said if he might have actually been in one of Mann’s classes?)
[Reply: Mr Lance’s 2012/11/04 at 2:27 pm post was baseless, derogatory, over the top and unacceptable. It appears that Lance’s pride will not permit him to write a simple “Sorry.” If this moderator had known the easy way to make a site pest go away would be to insist that he must apologize to the esteemed Tony Brown, it might have been done sooner. — mod.]
From Gary Lance on November 4, 2012 at 2:27 pm:
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=8450
According to GL, there is enough gas-fired capacity somewhere to replace what was the source of 34% of the nation’s electricity supply in August, 27% in April.
GL must think peaking generators can replace the baseload generation of coal-fired plants. It’s the only way the numbers even begin to approach what he claimed. If the peakers are supplying baseload, what provides the electricity during peaking?
From GL:
Again, GL says “leaking” when the original AP investigative piece, as breathlessly posted at Huffington Post, clearly says has leaked. The three-quarters is cumulative, not presently happening. Like the difference between saying 90% of all drivers are breaking the speed limit versus 90% have broken the speed limit at some point while driving.
I picked that bit out of sequence as GL is railing against the nuclear plants. At the EIA link you can see the considerable contribution of nuclear to the US electricity supply, easily matching natural gas during non-summer months.
Does GL expect natural gas to replace both coal and nuclear? Sure, why not use an energy source that can be disrupted in a second if a pipeline is destroyed, rather than one with the generating facilities having enough stocks on hand ready to burn to keep generation going for several days to weeks, or one that the facilities don’t need any refueling for years?
From GL:
From the ever-reputable SourceWatch, Coal plant conversion projects:
Contrary to GL’s claim of a “fact”, it is expensive to convert coal to natural gas. They were designed to burn coal efficiently, creating heat to make steam to drive the generators. Slapping in some gas burners is far from ideal.
Thus replacing is the rule. The coal plants are largely old, past their prime, perhaps past their expected life. If going to natural gas, replace with a highly-efficient combined cycle plant.
And finally, as there is too much untrue garbage in his comment to reply to all of it:
He rails against the fossil fuel industries, yet the wise SourceWatch reminds us (bold added):
GL rants and raves about the fossil fuel industries and how we support and promote their agenda, while GL wants us to switch and support and promote the agenda of other fossil fuel industries. If they actually are other industries, the large energy conglomerates have proven themselves capable of selling practically any source of energy the customer wants, whether oil or gas or propane or even wind and solar.
So basically Gary Lance has been demanding we stop using crack and meth, we should switch to heroin. Time to stop supporting the big crack and meth dealing mobs, support the heroin dealers instead to show how much you want to save the neighborhood.
Storm surge is a bit of a misnomer, or at least a bit misleading, as it includes the solunar tide.
Sandy’s surge according the instruments at Battery Park hit on the day of the full moon tide maximum and at the exact hour of the highest tide.
All of the historic storm surges include this variable and its a significant enough of a variable to explain much of the surge.
New York harbor also magnifies the surges. Battery Park recorded an 11 foot surge in 1960 and it shows up in Rhode Island as less than 2 meters in the above chart.
In California where seldom does a hurricane reach the state, we have damages from winter storms. Winter storms are pretty common happening 2 or more times a year.
Its a rare combination of large swells, the wind surge, combined with the arrival of that wind surge with the hour of a spring tide that causes almost all the damage. The only rare variable is the time of arrival coincidence.
On the east coast hurricanes reaching New England are rare.
Thus it appears to me that if Sandy is considered the storm of the century in New England its going be entirely because of its untimely arrival.
Bill Hunter says:
“Battery Park recorded an 11 foot surge in 1960 and it shows up in Rhode Island as less than 2 meters in the above chart.”
Bill, did you forget to post the chart? Or were you referring to a particular chart in the comments or in the article?