Guest post by Steve Goreham
Hurricane Sandy has come and gone, leaving a path of destruction. More than 100 people have been killed and 8.5 million lost power. Nineteen states from Maine to Tennessee were impacted, with deaths reported in 10 states. Widespread flooding and fires caused extensive damage in New Jersey and New York. More than two feet of snow fell in western Maryland, West Virginia, and parts of Tennessee. The power of nature in action is frightening to behold.
But some believe that mankind is now causing hurricanes, or making them worse. Former Vice President Al Gore warns, “Hurricane Sandy is a disturbing sign of things to come. We must heed this warning and act quickly to solve the climate crisis. Dirty energy makes dirty weather.” Activist Bill McKibben declares, “…what it means that we’re now seeing storms of this unprecedented magnitude. If there was ever a wake-up call, this is it.”
These comments are an outgrowth of Climatism, the belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth’s climate.
The theory of man-made global warming claims that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing stronger hurricanes and storms, droughts and floods, the melting of Earth’s ice caps, and dangerous sea-level rise. Mr. Gore now paints the Halloween image of “dirty weather.”
Yet, carbon dioxide is only a trace gas in our atmosphere. Only four of every 10,000 air molecules are carbon dioxide. Mankind’s contribution in all of human history is only a fraction of one of those 10,000 molecules. Nevertheless, proponents of the theory of man-made climate change now claim that this one molecule was responsible for Sandy, a hurricane with a 1,000-mile diameter.
But hurricanes are the result of larger forces. Sunlight falls directly on Earth’s Tropics, where much energy is absorbed, and indirectly on Polar Regions, were little energy is absorbed. All weather on Earth, including hurricanes, tropical storms, tornados, storm fronts, and the jet stream, along with ocean currents, acts to redistribute heat from the Tropics to the Poles. Hurricanes are born in the Tropics, where water evaporates from warm oceans, forming powerful rotating storms. Earth’s rotation then bends the path of hurricanes as they move north from the Tropics.
A large hurricane releases heat energy at the rate of one exploding 10-megaton nuclear bomb every 20 minutes. Climatists claim that CO2, a trace gas, controls the weather, a system of huge forces with thousands of times more energy. This is more like the flea wagging the dog than the tail wagging the dog. Even more incredible, some claim that we can control the weather by controlling this trace gas. “Man-made warming has consequences. The time to act is now,” according to environmentalist Joseph Romm.
But, wasn’t hurricane Sandy unique in history? Well, not quite. The 1821 Norfolk and Long Island hurricane battered the New Jersey coast with winds estimated at 135 mph (Category 3), much stronger that those of Sandy (Category 1). Manhattan Island was flooded to Canal Street and this occurred at low tide. In 1954, Hurricane Hazel struck the Carolinas with 140 mph winds (Category 4). Hazel continued north along the U.S. Atlantic coast, through New York State and into Canada. Deaths from Hazel totaled 95 in the U.S. and 81 in Canada. More than 80 tropical or subtropical cyclones have hit the state of New York since the 1600s.
Climatism plays on human fear of nature to promote policy. Subsidize wind and solar power, stop using fossil fuels, switch to electric cars, change your light bulbs, green your business, become a vegetarian, have fewer kids, we are told. If you do all these things and more, then man will be able to control hurricanes, stop the rise of the seas, and save the polar bears.
Climate alarmists excel at gathering government funding to “fight” climate change. Today, the U.S. government is spending almost $9 billion each year in grants to study man-made climate change. Tens of billions more are spent for green energy subsidies, grants and loans. The world is spending over $250 billion each year to try to “decarbonize” national economies. Yet, mounting evidence shows that climate change is natural and man-made influences are very small. Suppose we shift efforts away from misguided efforts to control climate and toward solving the real problems of our nation and the world?
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the new book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
Related articles
- A note to Bill McKibben: get used to it, few care enough to pony up money for your concerns (wattsupwiththat.com)
- This is the new normal, warn climate scientists. (smh.com.au)
Goode ’nuff says: …
Near the end of your second video, the announcer names a list of climate change events that occurred close together (the floods of 1936 and 1937, fires on the plains, and the hurricane of 1938). After watching the video I’m inclined to conclude that global warming was much worse in the Thirties than it is today. Why hasn’t the increase in CO2 since the 1930’s made things proportionally worse for us now?
What Did I Tell You!? says:
“…it’s obvious YOU don’t know.”
You’re new here, so just a friendly heads-up: Ferdinand Englebeen is extremely knowledgeable. I have learned a lot from him.
When engineers design a project, they are often required to ensure it will withstand a 100, 200, or even a 500 year weather event.
Storms like Sandy, when combined with other exceptional events, will create a similar size disaster once every 50-150 years.
End of story.
Fear of hurricanes? Not me. All right, I’ve never experienced one, but I”ve had to evacuate aircraft and people who were in the path of the things. So maybe I have experienced them. It is a really scary business picking your way through tropical storm in an aircraft that isn’t really built for doing that. But somehow, we did it.
The article would be more compelling without the references to CO2 as a trace gas. The point is made without any discussion of CO2 at all. As we see in this thread, the comments about a trace gas leave the article open to criticism which then becomes the focus of the discussion instead of the balance of the facts presented. Without the references to trace gas, the article is pretty much unassailable. Talking about parts per ten thousand actually weakens and distracts from the balance of the points made in my opinion.
allocate the funds out from the alarmist to the skeptics and start counting the modelers, academe, main stream news, politicians, and all sorts of intellectuals change side.
The 15 micron band correlates to a temperature of -4 F. This means that when the Earth’s surface is at -4 F it radiates IR that CO2 is able to absorb, and by vibrations induced in the CO2 molecule, transfer this vibrating energy to other molecules in the atmosphere as heat. This is the so-called “Greenhouse Effect” of CO2. Of course this is slightly oversimplified because IR is radiated in a spectrum, but the 15 micron band centers on a temp of -4 F. When the Earth’s surface is warmer it radiates a much smaller proportion of its IR in the 15 micron band. So, a tiny fraction of our atmosphere can be heated a tiny bit, and only a tiny bit more because of human-emitted CO2, which is about 3% of Mother Nature’s. Water vapor produces over 100 times the GE of CO2, and light-covered clouds reflect a lot of sunlight creating a cooling effect. This is far more complex than the media are comfortable with reporting. Global warming, pfft. How do you feel about that, Lazy Teenager…
From the repertoire of LazyTeenager comes the following comment on the quoted statement :
“Only four of every 10,000 air molecules are carbon dioxide. Mankind’s contribution in all of human history is only a fraction of one of those 10,000 molecules.”
———-
“Misleading use of statistics.”
The statement is not at all misleading, nor are the statistics. The figures are accurate to a fine degree. We daily see much more perverted and incorrect statistics from the Green Machine of CAGW. “97% of climate scientists” is a good example.
I can see why he styles himself as “LazyTeenager” as that is what he is and where his understanding of science remains.
Lazy Teenager says: Only four of every 10,000 air molecules are carbon dioxide. Mankind’s contribution in all of human history is only a fraction of one of those 10,000 molecules.
———-
“Misleading use of statistics.”
Can you please tell me the logic behind AGW (if there is any, which I very much doubt!), when mankind has possibly, and only possibly, created an extra 10 molecules of CO2 per 100,000 molecules of atmospheric gas?
But, wasn’t the Category 1 hurricane Sandy unique in history? Yes it was.
The 1821 Norfolk and Long Island hurricane was Category 3 and Hurricane Hazel may have been Category 4 but Sandy was on television with all the attendant hype.
“Yet, carbon dioxide is only a trace gas in our atmosphere. Only four of every 10,000 air molecules are carbon dioxide. Mankind’s contribution in all of human history is only a fraction of one of those 10,000 molecules. Nevertheless, proponents of the theory of man-made climate change now claim that this one molecule was responsible for Sandy, a hurricane with a 1,000-mile diameter.”
These kinds of arguments…a sort of appeal to what might be called “common sense” are not worthy of WUWT, and all the good work it has done to articulate the skeptical case. One might very well say with respect to the bomb over Nagasaki, that since less than 1 gram (0.035 oz) of mass was converted into energy ( a number I got off the “net so it could easily be wrong), it couldn’t possibly have caused al that much damage.
PLease Anthony, guest blogs reflect on you and leave you open to fair criticism. There are far too many valid arguments against CAGW to have to resort to facile ideas like this.
The argument that “carbon dioxide is only a trace gas” is laughably idiotic, and any educated skeptic should be truly ashamed of himself for arguing it.
There are many, many better arguments to be made.
pokerguy,
You’re right, that is not a conclusive argument. I think a better argument is to point out the fact that there is no empirical evidence confirming AGW. Not to say that AGW cannot exist. But if it does, it is obviously too minuscule to measure, because so far no one has been able to measure an AGW effect. And since global warming has been on hold for the past 16 years while CO2 continues to rise, the entire AGW conjecture must be re-assessed. Because it is also possible, as climatologist Ferenc Miskolczi states, that CO2 has no global warming effect.
Maybe I’m unusual but I do not fear hurricanes. I live in NC, USA. I have suffered hurricane damage before. BTW, I do not watch TV. That is a clue.
“Subsidize wind and solar power, stop using fossil fuels, switch to electric cars, change your light bulbs, green your business, become a vegetarian, have fewer kids, we are told. If you do all these things and more, then man will be able to control hurricanes, stop the rise of the seas, and save the polar bears.”
On the DC news radio station they play calls from the typically liberal listeners. Today’s topic was “what do you think of climate change brought back into the campaign” Obviously their goal was to cast aspersions on any candidate who “doesn’t take climate change seriously”. They only played two callers both “concerned about climate”. One said basically nothing. The other offered something like the list above. However they left out the difficult or impossible things like stop using fossil fuels (i.e. freeze in the dark), have fewer kids (probably because they don’t then anyway), become a vegetarian (unless they already are), etc.
In other words the meme propagated by the media is that tackling climate change is easy. Only fossil fuel special interests are standing in the way (rather than keeping your house warm for the cheapest possible price). There is a short list of simple actions (the caller listed CFL bulbs, carpooling, and one other thing I now forget) that would ultimately stop surges from inundating NYC. This level of cluelessness is by design, climate change science is easy: it causes “unprecedented” storms. Solving climate change is similarly easy. Everything is easy.
Stand ready folks. If Obama gets beat, the EPA will stuff the system with new rules in a lame duck Congress. In there will be carbon rules for existing coal plants. It will bring havoc to the country’s grid reliability.
During the Roman Warm Period a Germanic people called the “Frisii” lived in the coastal area now inhabited by the Frisians. I recall reading an interesting history of their downfall, which was partly due to the Romans attacking from inland, but also due to the end of the Roman Warm Period and the attack of the ocean. They were getting it from both sides.
One interesting idea was that, because they had to deal with the advance of the ocean, they were the first builders of dikes, and developed the skills which were later passed on and developed by the Dutch. Although they were largely erased from history as a people, for several hundred years they made a gutsy stand, and had ideas which might sound a bit familiar to us: For a time they elected their kings.
As climate has shifted back and forth between warm times and cold times, there have been occational monster storms that have hit the Dutch, and Denmark, and Northern Germany. When you read about these gales it seems impossible the water charged as far inland as it did. Not thousands, but tens of thousands died. These events so deeply impressed the survivors that they took the Frisii idea of dikes and built dikes that really mean business.
Rather than blowing money funding useless climate scientists and ridiculous outfits like Solyndra, we ought learn from our mistakes and build dikes that really mean business, and floodgates for subways near the sea. If you insist upon using taxpayer’s hard-earned money, you might as well use it on public works projects that make sense.
The claims that there are more hurricanes now that at other times is disprovable. They are providing their own rope so that it will be easier for their enemies to hang them.
What do you call money spent on controlling the wind?
Blowing money.
Sandy was a Category 1 Post-Tropical Storm when it came ashore, I understand. Imagine the PR if it had been a Cat 3 Hurricane?
Still, what is the impact of New Yorkers screaming on the willingness of those in the central and west States to pay $10 for a gallon of gas? Or, closer to the point, what is the impact of those impacted by Sandy on their willingness to pay $10/gallon themselves? In time, when the first power blackouts happen after coal plants are shut down for CO2 reasons and not economics or technical ones, who will agree their pain is worth the benefit given to the “world”?
The grand thing about the American electoral system is that bad ideas are publicly punished every two to four years. Messages, even mixed ones, are written at the polls.
I live in New Hampshire and have a land line. I’m in a “Batlleground State.” You would not believe the number of polls that call me up. Between eight and fifteen every evening, for weeks now. Sometimes they are absurd: Malfunctioning robo-calls; young ladies who ask me my age and then tell me I’m too old; automatic voices which tell me I have an invalid extension and should use another phone; (though I only have one.)
It is really annoying, when I am trying to study up on things on the web. How am I to read the comments on WUWT??? Therefore, though it is slightly off topic, I have composed the following poem:
If I get one more phone call
From a presidential pollster
I’m purchasing a cowboy hat
And buckling up my holster
And next time that my telephone
Dares to ding-a-ling
I’ll whip out my revolver
And I’ll shoot the stupid thing.
Everybody vote!
Mark and two Cats says:
November 4, 2012 at 4:41 pm
“…some believe that mankind is now causing hurricanes, or making them worse”.
——————————————–
No, it was divine intervention to help obama:
http://tinyurl.com/cmhyazt
___________________________________
Naw, Mother Nature just missed the mark a bit. She was aiming to dump directly on the District of Criminals but only managed a glancing blow. It is really hard to steer those 1,000 mile wide storms you know. /sarc
Have a look at co2 emissions out to 2035 from the EIA. The non OECD (China, India) will increase emissions by 73% while OECD ( first world advanced countries) countries will increase by only a tiny 6%.
The entire OECD could live in caves and it wouldn’t make a scrap of diffence to the climate or temp.
The mitigation of AGW is a total fraud and con, just look at the simple graph and use simple maths and you’ll easily understand this nonsense.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/emissions.cfm
Just had a look at the climate commission’s site ( in Australia) and noticed the video on the side that has a message from big HIPPO Al Gore.
He thanks the people of OZ for leading on CC because we introduced a co2 tax and he says we have “inspired the world.”
This site is a disgrace because they allow this idiot to claim that our cyclones, bush fires etc are all the result of AGW.
He states that Flannery is a good friend so you know where he’s coming from I suppose.
If you have the stomach for delusional BS have a look at his stupid video.
http://climatecommission.gov.au/report/queensland-climate-impacts-opportunities/
Pity they didn’t put up these facts front and centre on their homepage. But it would rather wreck their idiotic message.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/emissions.cfm
Eric Dailey says:
November 4, 2012 at 6:07 pm
Maybe I’m unusual but I do not fear hurricanes. I live in NC, USA. I have suffered hurricane damage before. BTW, I do not watch TV. That is a clue.
________________________________
I too live in NC but I have enough sense to NOT build on the flood plain of the Cape Fear River like my neighbors have done and I have made sure there are no trees, especially pine trees near enough to fall on the house.
The shear stupidity of some people never ceases to amaze me. If Sandy had hit Raleigh NC my neighbors would have lost their homes. Despite all the hype this summer about a ‘drought’ in NC the Jordan Lake reservoir is at or close to capacity. If Sandy like Fran produced over 10 inches of rain the Cape fear would again be in flood.
Here is a more recent hurricane that came ashore a bit south of Sandy’s landfall
The difference between Sandy and Fran is the population density of the area hit, high tide and a full moon.