Discovery Channel FAIL – Sandy was not a 'megastorm'

Daveburton
“The truth is that global warming has caused no detectable increase in sea-level.”
Straight from wiki but it could be any number of informed sources.
“Two main factors contributed to observed sea level rise. The first is thermal expansion: as ocean water warms, it expands. The second is from the contribution of land-based ice due to increased melting. The major store of water on land is found in glaciers and ice sheets.
Sea level rise is one of several lines of evidence that support the view that the climate has recently warmed. It is likely that human-induced (anthropogenic) warming contributed to the sea level rise observed in the latter half of the 20th century.”
I think you might be wrong.

OK, Simon, please. Tell us how a minute fraction of the ocean’s surface layer, warming at best by a fraction of a degree kelvin, is going to expand into a detectable rise in sea level? Oh. Sorry, I thought you could. My bad.

Sandy was special because it was a exceptionally strong extratropical storm. I wrote an article comparing Sandy to another very similar storm… the 1962 Columbus Day Storm in the Pacific Northwest:
http://informthepundits.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/superstorm-sandy-vs-the-big-blow/

Simon says:
“Sea level rise is one of several lines of evidence that support the view that the climate has recently warmed.”
Flat wrong. The sea level rise has not accelerated. Thus, the false claim that sea level rise is due to human CO2 emissions is proven to be baseless nonsense.
The planet has not warmed at all for the past sixteen years, falsifying your AGW belief system. If AGW exists, it is too small to measure. There are no empirical measurements of AGW. So go peddle your climate alarmist nonsense elsewhere.

It was a really big storm. The effects were increased by AGW. Really tough decisions about rebuilding in coastal areas in the face of rising sea levels have to be made now.
But if you want to pretend that nothing much happened, and that even if it did, it was nothing to do with AGW, and that even if it was, it wasn’t actually caused by CO2, and that even if it was, it wasn’t CO2 that we emitted – feel free.
REPLY: “The effects were increased by AGW.” Your are an “academic” so, go ahead, prove it. Otherwise your claim is just like the rest of the noise coming out of Australia’s SkS zealots – Anthony

D Böehm
I didn’t say it had accelerated, I merely said it was increasing and that is undeniably true. I don’t think there is any doubt the oceans sea level rise is because of the recent (last 100 years) warming. And am I wrong in thinking this is an open forum, where one can discuss ideas freely. Is there no room to discuss things here? Have I got this wrong?

KiwiSi,
Of course this is an open forum. What are you going on about? Others have a different view, do you expect that your view should not be challenged?
You write: “I don’t think there is any doubt the oceans sea level rise is because of the recent (last 100 years) warming.”
You ‘think’ wrong. The rise in sea level is right along its long term trend line. There has been no acceleration of sea level rise, despite the large increase in [harmless, beneficial] CO2, thus falsifying your belief that anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming.
The planet has been warming along the same long term trend line since the Little Ice Age, irregardless of whether CO2 has been low or high. Therefore, the rise in CO2 has had no measurable effect. QED

The show also wondered if Sandy was “the new normal” because of rising sea temperatures. This was in the last 30 seconds of the show.

Hey, if you live in Manhattan, whatever happens there in your lifetime defines the biggest, worst, best, etc. The Capital of the World is filled with insulated people, whose world view is constantly reinforced with messages from ABC at Lincoln Square, CBS over on W57th St., NBC in Rockefeller, and FOX on 6th Ave. Therefore Sandy must be a megastorm, not matter what reality actually is. To be fair, coastal CA has a larger population of colossal dopes, completely out of touch with the real world. So, you goofballs over there, enjoy the sunset while you can, the party isn’t going to last. In a real disaster, I’d rather be with the NYers, no doubt about it.

KiwiSi;
Is there no room to discuss things here? Have I got this wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Have you been snipped? Banned from posting? No? So what’s stopping you from continuing the discussion?
Several points have been made in response to you. If you wish to clarify your assertion, by all means, I for one am listening. But simply saying the sea levels are increasing is kinda meaningless. As I said earlier (presuming you and “Simon” are one and the same) the rise isn’t accelerating even though CO2 emissions have increased massively in recent years.
Suppose you threw a ball in the air, and kept track of its height every tenth of a second. You’d notice that as it rose in the air, itz rate of ascent kept on slowing down until it reached itz peak trajectory. So for the time segment prior to the peak it would be fair to say that it is still rising, but it would also be fair to say that the deceleration will eventually overcome the ball’s momentum, it will reach a peak, and then fall back to earth.
We don’t have close to the data required to know exactly what is driving sea level rise, but we do know that it is decelerating and we know also that the temperatures which are supposedly driving it upward have not changed in about 15 years, suggesting that other factors are at play.

I am watching a bizarre show on the History Channel. I have learned that a cold front energized Sandy and turned it into a super-storm. The Storm of The Century. This proclamation by a ‘scientist’. Gov. (Useless Andy) agrees. There was absolutely nothing he could have done in the face of this disaster caused by conservative industry. Nothing. No storm was ever so great.
It is like listening to drug addicts discuss the best high, but with their added expertise on neurology. . .

Oh for god’s sake. Sandy was a notable autumn gale, nothing more. That a stiffish autumn gale did so much damage is entirely down to the complete unpreparedness of New York for even a minor sort of storm.

Bill Jamison says:
November 18, 2012 at 6:53 pm

Sandy qualifies as a megastorm in sheer size and damage it caused.

Define “megastorm.”
Hint: mega-, the SI prefix for one million (10^6)
FYI:
1900 Galveston hurricane, fatalities 6000–12,000 direct
Damages $20 million (1900 USD) – $558,720,000 (2012 USD)
145 mph (230 km/h) Lowest pressure 936 mbar (hPa); 27.64 inHg
Sandy: Pressure bottomed at 939.9 mbar; 27.76 inHg and had maximum sustained winds of about 90 mph.
Sandy went extra-tropical as it was making landfall, as such, it’s wind field opened up to a size more appropriate for that structure.
“Megastorm” my arse.

D Böehm
I am happy for you to challenge my view. It was just your statement..”So go peddle your climate alarmist nonsense elsewhere.” Pardon me for saying, but It seemed, a little well….unwelcoming.
So now I feel welcome, here is what I have to say? You seem reluctant to credit CO2 with the warming. I can excuse that. But there has been increased warming. We can argue about how much, but it is there. Pretty much every scientist (every scientist really) on both sides of the debate accepts that. And sea level rise has increased as a result. As water warms it expands and swells. Simple. And that is without the melt from glaciers etc.
If you take the time to even skim read this:
http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/hastindw/MS1410-001_FA08/handouts/2008SLRSustain.pdf
you will see there has been an increase in the speed of rise. Graph (a) on page 12 says it all.
Please direct me to a reputable link that says otherwise and I will happily read it.

Discovery Science channel just aired the program “A Few More Degrees” as part of their “Avoiding Apocalypse” series. It ends with the preposterous statement of “Eliminating Co2 from the air we breathe is the key to our survival”. Simply astounding.

Utterly predictable the rush for interested parties to push the line that this storm was something greater than it was, of course for the people caught up in the storm I am sure it was a frighting experience, yet for a storm which has been billed as one of the worst on record the loss of life’s has been (thankfully) remarkably small.

The storm came ashore on the high spring tide. Most unfortunate timing to be sure. But let’s not make it something it was not. There is always a chance with late season hurricanes that they can be swallowed up by a mid latitude cold core cyclone. That has happened many times in the past. The “Perfect Storm” in 1992 to which Sebastian Junger writes about is one such example, though luckily (for Boston) it was further out at sea when it became extra-tropical.

Simon says:
November 18, 2012 at 11:01 pm
It’s your imprecise language that is the problem. There has been no accelerated increase in sea level rise. There is ample proof from the physics of heat transfer between gas and liquid to show that it is virtually impossible for a low density gas to transfer significant quantities of heat to a high density liquid. If the gas of influence is only 0.0004 mole (partial pressure, Dalton’s Law) of the carrier gas it cannot under any circumstances heat the liquid. Read the physics and stop listening to the clowns.

Simon says:
November 18, 2012 at 11:01 pm
– Simon’s link is to Church & White (2008), probably the most referenced paper in recent years on sea-level rise. He points us to the familiar fig. 3(a) on p12. I point you all to fig. 4 (a & b) on the following page. They show that virtually all the satellite-era (since 1993) rise is in those areas where the upper 700m of the ocean has warmed, manly the western Pacific and eastern Indian Ocean. In the main, tide gauge data I’ve analysed confirms the satellite data. There’s no actual discrepancy (in my opinion) between rise measured by gauges and rise measured by satellite. It’s just that most of the rise is localised and remote from most tide gauges worldwide.
The assertion that expansion-driven rise is entirely localised and that coastal gauges won’t show it is generally true, but not borne out everywhere. There’s a fairly convincing correlation between recent rates of rise and SST around Australia, for example, once changes in land height are taken into account. In my opinion wind direction, strength and barometric pressure may help explain why sea level correlates well or partly with SST even in some areas with shallow coastal waters (e.g. continental shelves). Pacific Islands are mostly surrounded by steeply-shelving seabed (almost vertical for volcanic islands and volcano-based atolls).and generally reflect SST (increased or otherwise) in rates of sea-level rise.

Simon…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/sea-level-rises-are-slowing-tidal-gauge-records-show/story-fn59niix-1226099350056

Frankenfurter storm? Or is that too Rocky Horror-ish? — John M Reynolds

In November 2010 WUWT posted on sea level rise and the absurdity of the hysterical predictions being made by scientists and a press which delights in scaring people. It was clearly demonstrated, using data from the Battery Park tide gauge, New York, that sea level was rising at only 2.77 mm per year.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/28/freaking-out-about-nyc-sea-level-rise-is-easy-to-do-when-you-dont-pay-attention-to-history/
A graph in the same post showed that sea level rise was not linear and had leveled out in the the last 6000 years after several thousand years of steeply rising.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level_png
Clearly if CAGW was being taken seriously the huge institutions and corporations located in New York would be heading for the hills without delay.
One problem with the CAGW scare is that it is seen by investment portfolio managers as an opportunity to make fortunes. A report last year by global investors managing
$2 trillion in assets considered scenarios to 2030. The report was welcomed by the Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR) which comprises “95 institutional investors in North America managing more than $9 trillion in assets.”
Some of the findings of the report were that, within 20 years:
“Low-carbon technology investment opportunities could hit $5 trillion. The impact on food security, the physical environment, and health could result in costs that exceed $4 trillion. Carbon emission costs could rise by as much as $8 trillion due to climate change-related policy changes.”
“A statement from Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres and director of INCR claimed, “that no prudent investor could ignore either the portfolio performance risk, as high as 10%, or the potential rewards offered by low-carbon investment opportunities.
“However, Lubber warned, in order for regulators and policy makers to make the right investment decisions, they must have accurate information from companies; they must also, she added, put in place carbon-reducing policies that will allow investors to shift “large amounts of capital” away from polluting technologies and into low-carbon opportunities.”
http://www.advisorone.com/2011/02/21/climate-change-puts-institutional-investors-at-ris
It’s another potentially monstrous financial bubble, based on the results of computer modelling and both climate predictions which are not born out by data and pessimistic financial risk predictions based on flawed science.
And bubbles always burst eventually.

First, “mega” means “large, impressive, great” in informal usage, so I don’t have that much problem with “megastorm” – as long as through overuse we don’t wind up with a climatological Lake Wobegon effect, where today “all the storms are above average”. Which, of course, they aren’t.
In fact, according to the ICAT damage estimator site (which has estimates of the amount of damage various storms would have caused if they had happened this year instead of whenever they actually occurred – a good way to “compare apples with apples”), half of the top ten hurricanes occurred before 1940, with only two coming since 2000. The top three are all pre-1930: the Great Miami Hurricane of 1926 ($180.2B), the Galveston Hurricane of 1900 ($105.6B), and the Galveston Hurricane of 1915 ($84.9B, just edging out Katrina’s $84.6B in 2005).
Assuming Sandy’s damage comes in close to the $50B I’ve seen quoted, that would put her in seventh or eighth place (bumping 2005’s Wilma out of the top ten), right next to the 1938 New England Hurricane ($46.8B).

Massive Waterspout Forms Off Australian Coast
http://news.sky.com/story/1013352/massive-waterspout-forms-off-australian-coast
Finishing off a weekend of wild weather.
McKibben will be McGibber’n!
Never been one like that before! Unprecedented! Megastorm Sandy in the North Hemisphere, now here’s the counterpart on the opposite side of the planet!
Must be climate change AGAIN!
Time to get out the hip boots, and that ain’t water we’ll have to wade through.

KiwiSi says: November 18, 2012 at 8:19 pm
“D Böehm
I didn’t say it had accelerated, I merely said it was increasing and that is undeniably true. I don’t think there is any doubt the oceans sea level rise is because of the recent (last 100 years) warming. And am I wrong in thinking this is an open forum, where one can discuss ideas freely. Is there no room to discuss things here? Have I got this wrong?”
Here comes the sophistry. In Doomsday Cult style, KiwiSi comes out of the gate with an ad hominem attack. My prediction model sez he or she will scurry off to the Critical Studies department claiming that no one was willing to engage in scientific discussion, but trounced aggressively on him or her. Let’s see if KiwiSi can stick to an evidence-based discussion of sea level change, or will play the liberal pseudo-intellectual game.

Donald L. Klipstein says: November 18, 2012 at 9:02 pm
“Anthony Watts said in part: “Sandy wasn’t even a category 1 hurricane
when it made landfall.”
Sandy did have hurricane force sustained winds at landfall, according to
National Hurricane Center determinations. There were merely unusually at an
offshore location on the unusually left side storm – and in an offshore direction.”
At what elevation? According to what data buoy? I looked for this and did not find it. At 20 meters, the technical criterion for a hurricane. Not at 3K meters – the wind is always close to 75mph there. This is another trick to make a storm seem worse than it is – find a wind speed at a great elevation.

Sandy was a pin prick compared to this:
http://news.uk.msn.com/environment/climate-change/photos.aspx?cp-documentid=150370774&page=1
And that was during the mid 20th century cooling period.
Mid latitude storms are generally stronger during cooling periods.

There are many people who wrongly think that storms are always weaker than hurricanes and therefore always cause less damage. Storms that are not hurricanes can cause more damage than hurricanes. Hurricanes that are weaker than storms can cause more damange than stronger storms. Hurricanes that collide with storm systems can really shake up the population but because all they see in print is “Sandy”, all they know is that Sandy was at fault for all the damage. The labels are causing confusion.
This befuddled thinking and wrong assumptions could be cleared up if required basic science classes included more advanced lectures in weather science. Many textbooks through high school include the hydrological cycle, cloud types, and storm systems but do not include more advanced Earth science centered on micro and macro weather parameter drivers. They should. A case in point: Most people have barometric pressure gauges somewhere in their house but I wonder if they know what the measurement means and why pressure readings are important in understanding severe weather systems?

Bill Jamison says:
November 18, 2012 at 6:53 pm
Sandy qualifies as a megastorm in sheer size and damage it caused.
—
We rate stormes based on how unprepared those who were hit are?

Simon says:
November 18, 2012 at 7:10 pm
Mike Bromley
The sea is rising. About 3mm a year at present. Are you saying it isn’t?
—
And has been for the last 300 to 400 years.

There are some very convincing points and links posted here in this thread, as usual
But the problem facing us, is how to get journalists, activists, teachers, and parents to read such stuff in order to better inform themselves. For example, I posted a few incontrovertible links on an activist friend’s Facebook page recently, since he’d been propagating the usual post-Sandy / AGW alarmism and false correlation.
His immediate response was to delete me from his page. I was a real-life friend too, from so far back as 1970! It’s impossible to get such people to look at the facts. They simply refuse to consider they might be wrong. How to around this, is the main problem facing every thinking person.

Sam the First says:
“…His immediate response was to delete me from his page…It’s impossible to get such people to look at the facts. They simply refuse to consider they might be wrong.”
You are dealing with religious zealots, Sam.

@John Brookes says:
>Crispin in Waterloo noticed the recent dip in sea level rise. But this is just a temporary blip, and no reason to doubt that the sea will continue to rise.
I am interested to know why you think the rise will continue. There is no significant net increase in the bulk temperature of the oceans, and there is no increase in the loss of land-based ice (Arctic sea ice melt does not increase the sea level).
>Just as atmospheric temperatures regularly drop down – amidst a generally increasing trend, the sea level will continue to rise.
That is a completely inappropriate comparison. The sea level in 700 AD was almost exactly what it is today. In between it was lower. Global temperatures are apparently following a 60 year sine wave – something flatly denied by the vast majority of AGW alarmists. Until climate alarm-promoting scribes admit to the basic mechanisms at work in the atmosphere I don’t see much change taking place in their position.
Roger’s contribution was helpful. He also has given us links previously which discuss the matter in detail. I have been quoting 1.8mm/yr for sea level rise. I see that is now reduced to 1.6 for the 20th Century (average). At present it is not rising or is rising at a very reduced rate. Unless something ‘new’ happens it is not going to ‘accelerate’ that’s for sure!
So far as I have seen, there is no established link between CO2 and sea level nor any sound mechanism proposed for how an anthropogenic increase in CO2 (which appears to be the case for at least some of it) would warm the oceans as oceans are not warmed by IR radiation or re-radiation in any meaningful manner.
I undertand from your comment, John, that you feel a temperature cycle would necesssarily impact the ocean temperature, right? If this is the case, we would like to know the mechanism for this. If on the other hand if it is the oceans impacting the air temperature (which I see as likely) then we have several mechanisms by which that can happen. That being the more likely case, as it is at least possible, then there being no mechanism for CO2 to heat the oceans indicates that CO2 may have nearly no influence on air temperature at all. The parts must be viewed in the context of the whole.

A few things to think about.As water expands because of temperature doesn’t it also phase change to vapor? I know when i run the hot water at my house steam arises but the water is not boiling(i.e.212°).
Does not land and objects in the water also have “thermal expansion”or is the rate of expansion different ? Does evaporation remove water from the ocean and maybe deposit some of it on land?Does more water get made somewhere?………….WUWT?
Thanks for the interesting articles and comments

Kyle,
Your moral outrage has brought a tear to my eye…not really, the tear was from me laughing so hard about this: “Spawn of MegaDoppler 9000”. This site does do a lot of good. Instead of just standing by while brain washed do-gooders try to tax us back to the stone age and make energy and food so expensive that impoverished peoples can not afford it and die by the hundreds of thousands, this site does what it can to dispel the myths of man made catastrophic global warming. Sandy has been politicized by the (mostly liberal) global warming alarmists as caused by CO2 emissions. By making the storm seem worse than it was the alarmists can say that Sandy was unprecedented and unusual, therefore caused by man. This site dispels that myth. It’s not that I don’t care about the human aspect of Sandy, I do. I also care about the ramifications of a false CO2 to storm link that will have an even greater impact on humanity. Oh, and I enjoy a good laugh.

mbur says:
November 19, 2012 at 11:14 am
A few things to think about.As water expands because of temperature doesn’t it also phase change to vapor? I know when i run the hot water at my house steam arises but the water is not boiling(i.e.212°).
You might see small water droplets but technically not “steam.” There is a bit of loose usage with these terms. When you can no longer see this that you are calling steam, then it is vapor and properly called steam. Wet your hand and slide it over a smooth kitchen counter surface – note the sheen. Watch it disappear. Did it boil? At what temperature? Again, “boiling” has a technical meaning(s) and you could spend a little time researching these concepts.
Sea (salt) water behaves a little differently than pure water but they are equally amazing substances. A beginning discussion is here:
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Physical_Properties_of_Matter/Intermolecular_Forces/Unusual_Properties_of_Water

John Brookes says:
November 18, 2012 at 9:49 pm
….Crispin also tries to comfort us by pointing out extremely rapid sea level change in the past. Somehow that doesn’t reassure me. If it changed rapidly in the past, it could do it now (but lets hope not).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh for crying out loud, use your brain.
The extremely rapid sea level change in the past were due to the melting of mile high glaciers one of which sat on top of where NYC is sitting right now. Do you see any glaciers sitting on NYC, NO? Then you are not going to see an extremely rapid sea level change.
This graph shows what I mean.

Gail Combs
That is one interesting graph. Just shows what can be achieved with a little licence and a creative mind.

Sandy was not a megastorm because there were reporters out reporting during the storm!

What are the odds on New York doing anything to prepare for the “new normal”, or even a proper hurricane.
Low to non existent ?

Sam the First says:
November 19, 2012 at 8:36 am
There are some very convincing points and links posted here in this thread, as usual
But the problem facing us, is how to get journalists, activists, teachers, and parents to read such stuff in order to better inform themselves….
_______________________
It is very frustrating especially since the Greens keep morphing from “Global Cooling” to “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” to “Weather Weirding” This alone tells you the basic fight is really about whether humans should be allowed to advance scientifically and technologically or whether western civilization should retreat back into a Dark Age of superstition and serfdom. An age where capitalism and individual freedom are submerged into communitarianism.

Andy: I think you’ve grossly mischaracterized Sandy by saying it “wasn’t even a category 1 hurricane when it made landfall”. Although the storm no longer had the characteristics of a hurricane (a warm core), it came ashore with the wind speed (85-90 mph) of a Category 1 hurricane. The storm was poorly organized, so the area covered by hurricane force winds reached 175 miles from the center. This means that a much larger area was damaged than typical for even a Category 3 hurricane (www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hurricanes/archives/2012/h2012_Sandy_prt.htm), but that much less severe damage occurred near the track of the eye. Most importantly, the storm was powered by a 940 mb low pressure center typical of a Category 3 hurricane, a record for the region.
In many cases, most damage from hurricanes is caused by storm surge. The direction of approach and the shape and steepness of the coast have a great influence on how much water strong winds can push onto land. Sandy’s track directed the greatest storm surge into densely populated Northern New Jersey shore and New York Bay. New York Bay had been previously identified as being unusually vulnerable to storm surge (www.nhc.noaa.gov/surge/risk/).
Below is a comparison of Sandy and The Great Hurricane of 1938 using information from the source you linked and data of unknown reliability from the web. Sandy comes close to 1938.
The Great Hurricane of 1938 Sandy
Peak Steady Winds 121 mph 85 mph
Lowest Pressure 946 mb 940 mb
Peak Storm Surge 17 ft. 14.6 ft
Peak Wave Heights 50 ft. 40 ft
Deaths 700 131
Homeless 63,000 40,000
Cost $47 billion $20-50? billion
Rate of Advance 50-70 mph 18-25 mph
(slower = more time for damage)

Kyle says:
November 19, 2012 at 10:49 am
… Do you think this is a joke? Do you like making fun of a storm that ruined peoples lives and destroyed every possession they owned? …. you should use this blog to inform people of ways to stay alive if a disaster happens to them. This is a waste of a website and you waste your life doing absolutely no good on here.
____________________________________
You are addressing the WRONG people.
I have complained here as have others, that building on a flood plain, as my geology prof. explained, is building IN A RIVER, it is just a part of the river not used very often. Others here have noted barrier reefs MOVE.
Anyone with a lick of sense DOES NOT BUILD in those locations. If the people are too ignorant to understand that, then complain to the school system that is SUPPOSED to prepare them for life. Complain to the local and state government that let local planners get away with being bribed by construction companies so they could build in unsuitable locations.
Remember Katrina? That should have never have been the disaster it was and the politicians who allowed it to happen should be up on manslaughter charges and I do Not mean Bush.
Again, you are addressing the wrong people. Worse, by the media calling this a mega-storm caused by CO2 instead of explaining what is actually happening more people will die while funds are wasted on pork barrel solar and wind projects that do nothing but transfer wealth from the poor tax payer to the politically connected ‘Investor’

Jimmy Haigh (Nov 18, 2012 at 10:28 pm) says: “For all those deniers of natural sea level changes – here is some information… At several times in the geological past sea level has been 200 to 300 metres higher than present.”
And what was the comparison of the mean volume of the ocean below present sea level in those past eras, compared with the present time?
The topography of the hard surface of the planet was very different in the geological times for which sea levels are claimed to be 400 metre above the present level.

There is only one thing “super” about Sandy. It struck a densly populated area, filled with Chicken Littles. Those impacted by the strorm, needed a PR system to milk the federal system, and in stepped the NY media. The transformation was a win-lose. The winners get to re-build, on the taxpayers expense, in an area exposed to storms of this type, and the losers, get the bill. And the winners even get to blame the losers for the causing the storm, by their “reckless use of energy”.
This is another effort to justify building structures in risky locations, and transfer the financial risk of “inevitable” distruction, to those that did not build at those locations. If you want to build next to the ocean, accept the risk that goes with it. Coastal residents are fine, with accepting the benefits of easy access to the oceans, they just want to be subsidized for the associated financial risk.

See – owe to Rich says:
November 19, 2012 at 2:18 pm
As a non-American it continues to amaze me that power is carried by relatively flimsy overhead cables. New Jersey’s electricity supply devastation is, I believe, a consequence of past design decisions that that is an OK and cost-effective thing to do. Still, it may actually be more cost-effective to replace them on rare storm occasions than to invest in underground cables.
***
Not so much a problem w/overhead lines per say, but trees draping over & around them. I doubt many lines were directly blown off the poles. Maintaining proper clearances around the lines would have vastly decreased the damage.
As a former power plant engineer, underground lines are impractical/too expensive in rural areas and much more time-consuming to locate faults on when they occur.

[snip. You know why. — mod.]

“And people don’t generally lie, particularly not our host.
When your science is non-existent, name-calling is your fallback position.”
Our host does not lie?
I submit that he does.
Occam’s razor strongly suggests that he is just another paid off spokesperson for a particularly well paid point of view, rather than a selfless seeker after truth who just can’t particularly see a melting icecap.

It’s an argument based on common sense.
Paid off liars are as common as dirt.
Noble seekers after truth who can’t see melting icecaps must be comparatively rare.
Therefore our host is very likely just another paid off liar:
Study:
9 out of 10 top climate change deniers linked with Exxon Mobil

A recent analysis conducted by Carbon Brief investigated no less than 900 published papers, all of which cast doubts on climate change, or even speak against it. After concluding this investigation, they found that 9 out of 10 of the most prolific ones had some sort of connection with Exxon Mobil. You can find a link to these papers at the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
The results showed that out of the 938 papers cited, 186 of them were written by only ten men, and foremost among them was Dr Sherwood B Idso, who personally authored 67 of them. Idso is the president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, an ExxonMobil funded think tank. The second most prolific was Dr Patrick J Michaels, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, who receives roughly 40% of his funding from the oil industry.

Pat Michaels admitted to Fareed Zakaria on national TV that 40 percent of his funding comes from the oil industry. But, he was obviously lying about even that. If you toss in funding from the Cato Institute (funded mostly by the Koch Brothers – who control the largest privately controlled oil corporation in the U.S.) and from other oil industry related sources, essentially all of his funding probably comes from the oil industy, think tanks funded by the oil industry, or the super rich made rich by oil.
So for Pat Michaels, it’s “oil all the way down”.
When confronted about it, Michaels lied even about this basic fact.
Watts is doing mighty work for the climate change denial community. If he’s not riding that gravy train, he’s about the only “climate skeptic” who’s not.
It’s an argument based on probabilities, and common sense.
The simplest explanation is that Watts is a paid off liar.

Leland Palmer says:
November 22, 2012 at 2:45 pm
It’s an argument based on common sense.
Paid off liars are as common as dirt.
Noble seekers after truth who can’t see melting icecaps must be comparatively rare.
Therefore our host is very likely just another paid off liar:
Study:
9 out of 10 top climate change deniers linked with Exxon Mobil
A recent analysis conducted by Carbon Brief investigated no less than 900 published papers, all of which cast doubts on climate change, or even speak against it. After concluding this investigation, they found that 9 out of 10 of the most prolific ones had some sort of connection with Exxon Mobil….
________________________________________
SO that makes Phil Jones of CRU a paid off LIAR since CRU received start-up funds from BP and Shell.
Climategate e-mails: from link

cc: “Mike Hulme” , “Neil Adger”
date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 23:32:53 -0000
from: “Tim O’riordan”
subject: WSSD [World Summit on Sustainable Development] conference
to: “Trevor Davies”
Dear Trevor, Mike and Neil,
I support Mike’s suggestion of a clear contact person for this task as there will be a lot to do and it must go smoothly.
I phoned Sheila McCabe who was full of good cheer. She has virtually guaranteed five grand and told ud also to to hard for DTI funding as they will bite if DEFRA is in the frame.
I also talked to Bill Clark. I got a supportive email from him with an excellent summary of all that is going on in sustainability science in the world. I will forward his email onto you all. The big meeting is in Maxico City on 20 to 23 May where the position paper for WSSD will be drawn up. I feel someone from UEA should try to get to that meeting,< possibly with RS [Royal Shell?] grant aid.
Bill simply cannot do it but will lean on Corell to come. They are all very impressed with what we are trying to do so we are on the right track.
I will email Bob Corell again and will call him from New York next week. I think we can land him given the profile we are generating.
My list for invitees includes
Richard Newton, BP; Richard Sykes, Shell; Martin Stanley TXU-europe, Angela Wilkinson, Shell; Jim Skea, PSI; Paul Ekins,PSI; Diedre Hutton Consumers Association; Ann Power, LSE; Rod Aspinwall, Enviros; Becca Willis, Green Alliance; Ute Collier, WWF; Charles Secrett, FoE; Mike Ashley,LGIB; Bill Adams, Cambridge; Polly Courtice, CPI;Malcolm Grant, Cambridge; Chris Harrison CUP; Sheila McCabe, DEFRA.
I have not looked at the science community in any great detail. But people such as Brian Hoskins, Richard Mcrory, John Pethick, Geoffrey Boulton, Brian Moss, and Ghillain Prance spring readily to mind.
Cheers, Tim
Prof. T. O’Riordan
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich
NR4 7TJ

from: Mike Hulme
subject: BP
to: shackley
Simon,
Have talked with Tim O about BP and he knows Paul Rutter but reckons he is junior to his two contacts Charlotte grezo (who is on our Panel!) and Simon Worthington.
Tim is meeting Charlotte next week and will do some lobbying and we will also make contact with Simon Worthington.
So I guess there is no necessity to follow up on Paul right now (I’ll wait for Tim’s feedback), but if you feel there is a strong enough UMIST angle then by all means do so (but bear in mind that we will be talking to some other parts of BP).
We’re getting a few letters back from people here too which I will copy onto you – two water companies, Shell and the Foreign Office (the latter is not really business though).
All for now,
Mike

from: “Elaine Jones”
subject: ECF Autumn Conference
to: “Martin Welp”
Martin,
Just to confirm and clarify a few of our views expressed in Monday’s telecom (I listened with interest alongside Mike) on the ECF Autumn Conference Preliminary Programme.
The programme looks very good so far….
In case Mark MS cannot accept an invite (he would also be an excellent dinner speaker) you could consider Phil Watts, who is actually Mark’s replacement as Chairman of the CMD of Royal Dutch/Shell Group, (and a Yorkshire Geophysicist) but rather for his other role as chairman of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development ( a coalition of 160 International companies from >30 countries and 20 sectors and a global network of 35 national and regional business councils) , which he took on in November 2001, succeeding Charles Holliday, DUPONT Chair and CEO. Of course, he’s incredibly busy but would be an excellent dinner speaker if he couldn’t manage day-time – and with an attractive letter invite may be tempted (e.g. building on his “I am honoured to become chairman of the WBCSD, it plays a vital role in helping both to challenge and encourage business, governments and institutions to address the issue of sustainable development”). As an alternative, and not to be to Shell biased, Rodney Chase deputy group chief exec. of BP (former Exploration Head) is also on the WBCSD Exec. Committee. I don’t know him – but I’m sure he would be good… he gave a Pew Centre presentation in 2000 – Innovative Policy Solutions to Global Climate Change http://www.pewclimate.org/media/rchase_speech.pdf – one might consider inviting him to “reflect on the subsequent 2 years track record of innovative solutions” ! he may be most useful for session 4, given the BP-Amoco (Arco) transatlantic make-up ! (and they are also a PEW member). He’s also a non-exec. director of DIAGEO plc (Europe’s largest Beverages co.).
I will continue to think of other options.
ref the Session 4 title, we wondered whether something like “EU perspectives on US (policy) trends (or signals)” or “EU perspectives on the implications of US(policy) trends (or signals)” would be better. The latter would capture the Developing Countries dimension which was mentioned.
We could see some merit in Jean-Charles’s suggestion to bring the ‘Dangerous Climate Change’ and the ‘Emission targets and timing’ break-out groups together since the subject does require a truly integrated approach; the main concern is whether the resulting merged group would perhaps be too large for effective discussion. A compromise may be that the synergies/connection of the 2 themes could be a discussion item tabled both groups ?
One final point is that Mike feels that an overall title is needed …… something along the lines of ‘Setting and achieving climate change targets: European perspectives’
Regards,
Elaine
Tyndall Centre

re: List of Industrial and Commercial Contacts to Elicit Support for the Tyndall Centre

>dear colleagues
>
>re: List of Industrial and Commercial Contacts to Elicit Support
>from for the Tyndall Centre
>
>This is the list so far. Our contact person is given in brackets
>afterwards….
>SPRU has offered to elicit support from their energy programme
>sponsors which will help beef things up. (Frans: is the Alsthom
>contact the same as Nick Jenkin’s below? Also, do you have a BP
>Amoco contact? The name I’ve come up with is Paul Rutter, chief
>engineer, but he is not a personal contact]
>
>We could probably do with some more names from the financial sector.
>Does anyone know any investment bankers?
>
>Please send additional names as quickly as possible so we can
>finalise the list.
>
>I am sending a draft of the generic version of the letter eliciting
>support and the 2 page summary to Mike to look over. Then this can be
>used as a basis for letter writing by the Tyndall contact (the person
>in brackets).
>
>Mr Alan Wood CEO Siemens plc [Nick Jenkins]
>Mr Mike Hughes CE Midlands Electricity (Visiting Prof at UMIST) [Nick
>Jenkins]
>Mr Keith Taylor, Chairman and CEO of Esso UK (John
>Shepherd]
>Mr Brian Duckworth, Managing Director, Severn-Trent Water
>[Mike Hulme]
>Dr Jeremy Leggett, Director, Solar Century [Mike Hulme]
>Mr Brian Ford, Director of Quality, United Utilities plc [Simon
>Shackley]
>Dr Andrew Dlugolecki, CGU [Jean Palutikof]
>Dr Ted Ellis, VP Building Products, Pilkington plc [Simon Shackley]
>Mr Mervyn Pedalty, CEO, Cooperative Bank plc [Simon Shackley]
>
>
>Possibles:
>Mr John Loughhead, Technology Director ALSTOM [Nick Jenkins]
>Mr Edward Hyams, Managing Director Eastern Generation [Nick
>Jenkins]
>Dr David Parry, Director Power Technology Centre, Powergen
>[Nick Jenkins]
>Mike Townsend, Director, The Woodland Trust [Melvin
>Cannell]
>Mr Paul Rutter, BP Amoco [via Terry Lazenby, UMIST]
>
>With kind regards
>
>Simon Shackley
Subject: Re: industrial and commercial contacts
Date: Mon Jan 10 17:01:32 2000
Simon,
I have talked with Tim O’Riordan and others here today and Tim has a wealth of contacts he is prepared to help with. Four specific ones from Tim are:
– Charlotte Grezo, BP Fuel Options (possibly on the Assessment Panel. She is also on the ESRC Research Priorities Board), but someone Tim can easily talk with. There are others in BP Tim knows too.
– Richard Sykes, Head of Environment Division at Shell International
– Chris Laing, Managing Director, Laing Construction (also maybe someone at Bovis)
– ??, someone high-up in Unilever whose name escapes me….

Tyndall°Centre for Climate Change Research ®
The Tyndall Centre is a unique partnership between a selection of researchers from eight UK research institutions, who together with contributions from Fudan University form the Tyndall Consortium.

The following Tyndall staff and researchers are based at partner institutions within the Tyndall Consortium.
There is also the Scenarios – SRES description 2 SRES WRITING TEAM ADDRESS LIST And it includes among others

…
Dr. Gerald R. Davis
Group Planning
Shell International Petroleum
London, UK…
Mr. William Hare
Greenpeace International
Amsterdam, the Netherlands…
Dr. Richard Moss
Head of Technical Support Unit
IPCC Working Group II
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

You can do a search for Gerald Davis yourself in the Climategate e-mails and on the internet.
Accusing Anthony or the rest of us of taking ‘Oil Money’ is nothing more than projection. Activists have been trying for years and found nothing yet a quick search turns up lots of ‘Oil Money’ funding activists and researchers.
Give it up and take off your blinders.

Anthony Watts says, “Sandy wasn’t even a category 1 hurricane when it made landfall. Yet somehow, that elevates it for “megastorm” status?” Well Mr. Watts you really need to learn your facts before you come on here and say things that you know absolutlely nothing about. Yes Sandy lost it’s hurricane status, do you know the real reason why? Of course you don’t, or you would never had made that stupid comment. Sandy was a category one hurricane in carribean, then strenthened to a category 2 hurricane as it moved across the Atlantic Ocean. Then the REAL reason the storm lost its status as a hurricane was because it no longer had a warm core center nor the convection — the upwards air movement in the eye — that traditional hurricanes have. It was still every bit as dangerous when it had the “hurricane” status, but because it met with TWO different cold air pressure systems- which is why it got the the nickname “Frankenstorm”. Also it lost it’s hurricane status and it tipped into the post-tropical category because it became devoid of thunderstorms near the center. Any minor detail that changes in a storm changes the name of the storm. Shouldn’t you know this since you supposedly run a site with “commentary on science, news, climate, etc..). Sandy had EVERY aspect of a category 1 hurricane, her winds were at 92 mph when she made landfall in NJ. If she would have reached 96 mph, she would’ve been a category 2. Also with hurricanes, in order to classify them they must have all this: 74-95mph winds, 4-5 foot storm surge, and a minimum central pressure of 980 mb. Sandy had 92 mph winds, 14 foot storm surges, and a central pressure of 950 mb when it hit landfall. That is the lowest pressure system ever recorded in the east coast. Thats one reason it was so damaging. Sandy moved north and made a left hand turn and slammed the jersey shore, which is something that never happens, but did because it got caught in the cold pressure system that was drawing it inland, and a high pressure system from the east blocking it and pushing it to the west, along with the wide spread devestation it caused is why it is now called a MEGASTORM or a SUPERSTORM. A post tropical storm doesn’t cut it. I am a Sandy survivor, I live on the Jersey Shore. I didn’t evacuate, and I was stuck inside for 4 days because there was 8 feet of water surrounding my house. Unless you lived through a hurricane, especially one like Sandy, don’t underestimate what you see or hear. And definitely DO NOT let a storm fool you. And one more thing, do your homework before posting. Its embarressing…