All one need to do to explode the memes that paid political activists Bill McKibben and Brad Johnson are pushing is to look at a history book. In this case, WeatherBELL’s Joe Bastardi points us to NOAA’s National Hurricane Center history book:
Source: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/images/tracks/majors_1951_1960.jpg
Joe says via Twitter:
Track of major hurricanes, 1951-1960..for the record: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/images/tracks/majors_1951_1960.jpg … How would you like that period (54-60) pic.twitter.com/mIfH8CGt
So what were those 6 IN TWO YEARS ( 5 majors)??? CAROL, EDNA, HAZEL, CONNIE,DIANE IONE, Nothing even CLOSE on east coast since then
Along the same lines of looking at history, what was the CO2 level then? The Keeling Curve tells us:
Source: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Looks like the CO2 level was less than 310ppm prior to 1958, when the data begins.
So here’s the question, if 350 ppm is the “safe” level as defined by activists Dr. James Hansen and Bill McKibben how did all those hurricanes happen back then?
From http://www.350.org/en/node/48
Regarding the last question, we are only doomed if we continue to listen to opportunists like Bill McKibben that try to spin fear of climate (aka Tabloid Climatology) into every weather event now.
h/t to Tom Nelson
In related news, see why the sea floor geography increased the storm surge, as Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. explains:
New York City is particularly vulnerable to storm surge because of a geographic characteristic called the New York Bight.
See the full post here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
At and just before landfall, Sandy was NOT a hurricane. There were no sustained winds anywhere near land that qualified for the 33 meters per second hurricane threshold.
Scanning for the maximum sustainded winds in the area from the NDBC I found the max was
28.3 meters per second (55 knots) at Robbins Reef, NJ recorded by ROBN4
26.8 meters per second (52 knots) recorded by station CMAN4 at Cape May, NJ.
Other stations were less, eg. SJSN4 (Ship John Shoal, NJ) max was 26.3 meters per second.
NDBC 44065 and 44025 off New York Harbor showed 24.4 and 25.1 meters per second.
Station 44009 off Delaware at 23.7 meters per second.
Other stations were substantially less, especially land stations.
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=robn4
Also, read the NHC reports, before landfall, they always over-estimate the surface winds estimated from aircraft. Sandy might have been a hurricane well off-shore, but it weakened when it merged with the cold front some hours before landfall.
It is amazing isn’t it! Any scientist, or really anybody at all, that uses the word “unprecedented” is doomed to fail immediately, and I’m sorry, should be summarily rejected from any position of importance. There is almost nothing that can be described using the word “unprecedented”. Not even their own innate stupidity.
What we are seeing is the literal definition of doomsayers, who are well-represented throughout human history, formerly warning of catastrophe from a comet spotted in the sky or a plague decimating the population, resulting in the summary sacrifice of a hundred cattle or maybe virgins to appease the angry Gods.
This time around they want us to pay an even higher cost by sending civilization back to the dark ages where these very doomsayers ironically would fit right in. These nitwits were harmless when they only strolled through Times Square wearing sandwich boards that said: “The Day Of Judgment is at Hand. Repent!”. Somehow we allowed them to migrate from there to positions in the Media, Academia and Scientific Institutions.
Check out Hurricane Agnes in 1972 as well:
link
Because apparently hurricanes just don’t suddenly turn left like that without global warming. (Once again, I posted this at Phil Plait’s place – after he smeared Dr Pielke Jr by linking to Joe Romm – but it got disappeared. Phil doesn’t like the science)
[snip – waaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy off topic – Anthony]
Eh?
Werner Brozek asks above: “Now exactly what does Bloomberg expect from Obama?” and I respond (in a not so direct way) with an implication that Bloomberg has taken a lesson from Rahm E. in ‘never letting a crises go to waste’?
Ooooookaaaayyyyyyy …
.
“So here’s the question, if 350 ppm is the “safe” level as defined by activists Dr. James Hansen and Bill McKibben how did all those hurricanes happen back then?”
Sorry, this just isn’t a good argument. It leaves one open to this of (course phony baloney) reply.”Guess we were wrong. 350 ppm is not safe after all. Which (naturally) means things are much worse than we thought.”
Facile arguments reflect poorly on skeptics just as efficiently as they do on warmists.
Cat 1 storm. Full Moon. High Tide. Very negative NAO provided blocking and turned the storm right into the “funnel” causing the surge. Nothing about CAGW.
Some how this whole saga reminds me of some Will Rodgers quotes.
It isn’t what we don’t know that gives us trouble, it’s what we know that ain’t so.
Will Rogers
There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.
Will Rogers
Larry
Werner Brozek says:
November 2, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Now exactly what does Bloomberg expect from Obama? Does he expect Obama to spend tens of billions to reduce CO2 which will do nothing or does he expect him to spend billions wisely by helping New York build systems that will protect the city from the effects of future storms?
Well,being a good DemoncRat,Bloomberg will hope he spends billions on AGW,and throw a few bucks his way.
Cripes. These eco-cultists are getting desparate. It’s to the point now where they have not only soiled the respect of reputable scientists,now they have made the word unprecedented passe.
And as an aside,Frankinstein built the monster,whose name was Adam.
Blade says:
November 2, 2012 at 5:39 pm
There is almost nothing that can be described using the word “unprecedented”.
=================================================================
How about they way they are using “unprecedented”?
(I doubt the word has ever been more popular.)
Nice that someone mentioned the storm of 1987, that destroyed nearly 80% of the mature trees in Kentm Sussex and surrey, not that much property damage as the brits build the homes properly, look at the pictures from NJ the condos are Ok but the wood homes get swept away like toys, also the exploding transformers, why were they not disconnected before the water hit? why were the subway tunnels not protected with flood gates? I suspect the answers are all the same, the feds have picked up the tabs in the USA so why worry?
All one need to do to explode the memes that paid political activists Bill McKibben and Brad Johnson are pushing is to look at a history book. In this case, WeatherBELL’s Joe Bastardi points us to NOAA’s National Hurricane Center history book:
I don’t see the significance of posting an image of hurricanes passing east of New York City. Hurricanes have counterclockwise winds, so the storm surge is to the right side of a hurricane’s direction.
We were lucky Sandy had better ground speed than the forecast, which allowed it to pass by faster. The mph of ground speed was suppose to drop from 19 to 9 to 3 in 12 hour intervals, but it increased to 28 as it changed course and went through New Jersey. Sandy had sustained winds of 90 mph before landfall, but unfortunately for NYC that wind direction was blowing the surge right at them.
Chris Edwards says:
November 2, 2012 at 7:34 pm
Nice that someone mentioned the storm of 1987, that destroyed nearly 80% of the mature trees in Kentm Sussex and surrey, not that much property damage as the brits build the homes properly, look at the pictures from NJ the condos are Ok but the wood homes get swept away like toys, also the exploding transformers, why were they not disconnected before the water hit? why were the subway tunnels not protected with flood gates? I suspect the answers are all the same, the feds have picked up the tabs in the USA so why worry?
================================================================
I think that you also have to consider that the local office holders at the time(s) the suggestions came up didn’t think beyond the poll numbers and their term of office.
Upon further review,,,,,,,,,, the only thing that will be unprecedented will be the amount of lawsuits with respect to mold.
Make a note of that.
I think it was at the low end of category 1, is that correct?
Once the pro AGW/Climate Change lobby called the storm frankenstorm or used the adjective unprecedented I found that my tendency was to discount many of the storm warnings. IMO many of the forecasters have been co-opted by the AGW forces and I find their writings less than trustworthy. I wonder how widespread such distrust is?
DaveW
Regarding use of the word unprecedented. “They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.”
I think we should just start replying in kind to any climate tabloid use of unprecedented with a single word declaration.
“Inconceivable!”
JM
James Mayo says:
November 2, 2012 at 10:25 pm
Regarding use of the word unprecedented. “They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.”
I think we should just start replying in kind to any climate tabloid use of unprecedented with a single word declaration.
“Inconceivable!”
JM
For everyone who doesn’t like the word unprecedented and believes Sandy was precentented, let’s start by naming one hurricane in that area heading in a westerly direction. Don’t embarrass yourselves by taking too long giving an example, because you didn’t hesitate to make all these articles and posts claiming there were precedents. And, before anyone tries to pull the bull, yes the direction of a hurricane when it hits land is very important to the amount of storm surge.
Cough up with a precedent!
I guess NOAA’s knowledge base on this subject doesn’t go back beyond 1951.
I heard a meteorologist say during the storm that the “left turn was unprecedented” meaning the change of course from the expected NW to ENE was something that had never happened and should not happen. But it did happen in 1938. It has even been covered on the History Channel. They never learn. This hurricane did exactly the same thing as is happening now, for the same reason, only a little farther north, and not complicated by other storms from the west. It was more concentrated, with peak winds of 180 mph or so, but in a smaller area, and the damage it did was prodigious. Watch it here:
or here:
It had no doubt happened before, and will probably happen again. Just a matter of time, but we don’t seem to be able to remember anything for more than 50 years, which is why AGW gets so much traction. The geologists are laughing up their collective sleeves.
What I’ve been hearing warmists say is that the effects of Sandy were magnified due to the higher sea levels which were due to global warming. Thoughts?
Gary Lance,
You are such an obnoxious little puppy. The direction of a hurricane has nothing to do with whether it is ‘unprecedented’. See Rusty W’s post above. The hurricane of 1938 made the same move as Sandy, and it was a much stronger Cat 3 storm, with 120 mph winds. You are still a wet behind the ears juvenile puppy who knows nothing except the talking points you get from from alarmist blogs. And as we see here, you are proven wrong once again.
pokerguy says:
November 2, 2012 at 6:09 pm
I’d agree with that sentiment – the trouble is; that with trying deflect the NUTTY claims of AGW effects, there will always be another one around the corner (and probably a direct opposite of the first claim!).
The various AGW ‘effects’ can be twisted to the ‘data’ or vice versa (as we all know). That is, of course, the sign of the religous zealotry expounded by the warmista – and one, which, to be frank, we cannot really deal with in true science terms.
Nevertheless, the skeptical side must stick to actual facts, and in your example, the argument would NOT be that 350ppm ‘may not be safe’ but that more clearly that ‘Hurricanes and or hurricane intensity/frequency are unrelated to increased CO2’ as the data shows – end of discussion! The positive correlation by the warmista is NOT demonstrated and the hypothesis of CO2 causing increased hurricanes is simply rejected. Those are the facts, based on the real data!
In short, double bluffing or twisting the presentation of facts to the level of the warmista is simply bad science and we should avoid it at all costs.
http://www.skynews.com.au/eco/article.aspx?id=812413
more scumbaggery from Australias finest.
disgraceful
regards
I’ve added the 1938 storm to the track of Agnes 1972 on the damage estimator, so people can see the tracks. It seems this sort of storm, with the sharp left turn, occurs around once every 30-40 years; not unprecedented, not unexpected. Agnes was a bit weaker since it already made landfall in Florida prior to hitting New York, but only just weaker than Sandy (TS vs. Cat 1). New England 1938 turned less tightly, but was a cat 3 at the time of the turn. A link to the tracks is provided below.
Agnes and New England 1938 Tracks
There has been an unprecedented increase in the use of the word ‘unprecedented’.
I see desmugblag.com have an article on Bloombergs lurid cover page that has aroused a whole raft of… three comments.
Lol.