The Atlantic: Exploiting Hurricane Disasters to Talk Climate is OK

Hurricane Harvey Rescue Operations

Hurricane Harvey Rescue Operations. South Carolina Army National Guard Soldiers and civilian rescuers of the S.C. Helicopter Aquatic Rescue Team (SC-HART). By SC National Guard170831-Z-II459-002, Public Domain, Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

James Hamblin of The Atlantic seems to think it is OK to use hurricane disasters to raise awareness of climate change, because most Americans are not currently threatened by extreme weather.

It Is a Time to Talk About Climate Change

A note on the false dichotomy between prevention and treatment

JAMES HAMBLIN

In an interview with CNN on Thursday, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said that now is not the time to talk about climate change.

“Here’s the issue,” he said. “To have any kind of focus on the cause and effect of the storm, versus helping people, or actually facing the effect of the storm, is misplaced.”

Fortunately this is not a choice that need be made. There is vulgarity in politicizing tragedies for the sake of gaining power, and crassness in pointing fingers and placing blame instead of mourning a tragedy. But of course these aren’t the only options. In the interest of minimizing harm to people, it’s always an important time to talk about climate change. We don’t have to choose between helping current victims and working to prevent the next tragedy.

Even amid this unprecedented sequence of hurricanes and destruction, most Americans are not in the path of danger. Those who want to lend a hand—to save lives and minimize harm and do something—stand to do much good by using this moment of awareness to prepare for a severe-weather event that does eventually affect their community.

Doing so does not require litigating the exact degree to which carbon emissions contributed or didn’t contribute to these exact hurricanes. It only means acknowledging that climate change is occurring, and it increases the likelihood of severe weather that will harm people.

In addition to preparing homes and communities accordingly, we make daily and hourly decisions about how much we contribute to that risk, and how much we do to mitigate it. It’s more than possible to talk simultaneously about prevention and treatment; it’s irresponsible not to.

Read more: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/09/fake-dichotomies/539259/

As I noted in a previous post, NOAA doesn’t think the alleged impact of anthropogenic CO2 on storm intensity is detectable. (h/t Benny Peiser)

… It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate). …

Read more: https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

Here is what the IPCC says about climate change and hurricanes;

… Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin … In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low …

Read more: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/coverage-of-extreme-events-in-ipcc-ar5.html

You don’t have to be in the path of a disaster to feel its impact.

My opinion, if organisations like NOAA and the IPCC have both concluded there is currently no discernible anthropogenic influence on hurricanes and cyclones, what James Hamblin is pushing isn’t science.

Advertisements

95 thoughts on “The Atlantic: Exploiting Hurricane Disasters to Talk Climate is OK

  1. Any movement that survives the refutation of Mann et al and Climategate is not all that concerned with truth.

      • If it makes sense to connect the occurrence of a major weather event with climate change, it makes equal sense to associate the lack of such an event over a remarkable twelve year period with climate change, otherwise you are cherry-picking.

    • There is vulgarity in politicizing tragedies for the sake of gaining power,

      well, he got that right just before saying it was OK to do that at the same time as helping people, which of course he is not doing anyway.

      • Exactly! He describes the low approach -and then piles right in and uses it.
        Nobody is that unaware of their own hipocrisy. It is a writing ploy. Akin to sleight of hand.

    • I’m actually fine with this, because it means we’re free to proclaim every blizzard in every winter as Proof that Climate Change is a Hoax.

      Besides, it drives them so crazy when they hear that – it’s always good for a laugh!

  2. So the last twelve years without a hurricane touching US continental shores is forgotten already? Or more likely never acknowledged by the MSM due to no direct input from their favorite sources?

    • “So the last twelve years without a hurricane touching US continental shores is forgotten already?”

      That’s an untrue statement

      • One or two links (or even a reasoned argument) would back up your contention … otherwise you’re just wasting keystrokes and bandwidth.

      • “One or two links (or even a reasoned argument) would back up your contention … otherwise you’re just wasting keystrokes and bandwidth.”

        Yet you don’t require that of the original statement.

        You know it’s untrue, as Hunter showed. Markl said “12 years without a hurricane touching US continental shores”. Do you think that’s true?

      • So the last twelve years without a hurricane touching US continental shores is forgotten already?

        “That’s an untrue statement”

        Wrong, Jeff . . that’s a question . . But hey, clever people got the idea . .

      • “Wrong, Jeff . . that’s a question . . But hey, clever people got the idea . .”

        Wrong, John. It was a false statement framed as a question. Guess you’re not that clever.

    • Clarify to “12 years without a category 3 or better storm hitting the US”.
      But the climate creeps don’t care.
      They have suffering and death to profit from.

      • They are indeed playing down the 12 year absence and saying there have been lots of Hurricanes all this time, just not making landfall. In other words saying it doesn’t matter that they don’t hit land, they have been happening anyway. So no absence of hurricanes in the last 12 years. Not sure if there is any reliable stats for Cat 3+ that didn’t make landfall. I spent some time going through various related sites and articles, but can’t find anything conclusive. If anyone has any info. I would appreciate it.

        Eamon.

    • Facts are ignored if they contradict the narrative and they are embraced and championed if they don’t. It’s impossible to reason with such a mindset.

  3. If you repeat the lies often enough people come to believe them. As long as Western media continues to facilitate the spreading of these falsehoods the task of convincing the average man or woman in the street that CAGW is an unproven hypothesis is, sadly, nigh impossible

    • I’m no expert, but I would offer an opinion that we forget the ‘Climate Change backtrack-revision-update-it’s not really the heat anymore’ statement and hold them to their original flagship proposition: CAGW.

      Aren’t storms created by a temperature differential and not necessarily by heat? How about upper atmospheric cooling that creates storms?

  4. So a 12 year drought in serious storms doesn’t matter to the committed climate look.
    Listening to the kooks talk about the weather is like listening to UFO believers go on about men in black.
    Except UFO kooks, unlike climate kooks, don’t worry on suffering people.

    • The Men in Black actually existed.

      Back in the 20s and 30s. They worked for the brand-new, up-and-coming OIL companies. Everyone was out for themselves and who got there first got the black gold.

      So you had men going about in black cars, wearing black full-length jackets and black brimmed hats to hide their faces. Searching, searching…. looking for any hint from anyone, anywhere that there might be oil under that ground…

      This is truth.

  5. Seems the leftist greens /Warmunists will do anything, say anything, and use anyone to advance their false cause.

    • Its the beauty of the climate change train. In any year, the weather will do something devastating. No matter what it is, man can be blamed.

  6. In fact there is a need to study in detail before making statements on extreme weather events: For example, undivided Andhra Pradesh state in India receives rainfall during the southwest monsoon [June to September], northeast monsoon [October to December] — cyclonic storms are the major contributors of rainfall and havoc and April-May cyclonic storms. The annual rainfall simply plotting from 1871 presents a 132 year cyclic variation — 2000 ended the cycle and started new cycle from 2001. The first 66 years presented below the average part wherein 24 years showed 110% of the average with 30 years between 90 and 110% of the average. The next 66 years presented above the average part wherein 24 years showed > 110% of the average and 12 years showed < 90% of the average. Below the average started in 2001 is continuing the same pattern.

    However, the individual seasons rainfall presented 56 year cycle with southwest monsoon cycle in opposition to northeast monsoon cycle and cyclonic activity in Bay of Bengal followed northeast monsoon pattern.

    This region is divided in to three meteorological sub-divisions. Coastal Andhra is one. This presents a typical pattern for the two monsoons. In the case of southwest starting period showed sharp up and down pattern and then low variations. The same is reverse in the case of northeast monsoon rainfall.

    So, we need details studies to work out the extremes.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

    • Very interesting. There seems to have been some global “change of state” around the turn of the millenium. The start of the hiatus, AMO changes, the changes you have noted in the Indian monsoon, perhaps the start of growth of Antarctic sea ice extent to record levels.
      It should be obvious that the AGW hypothesis is predicated on the idea that there are no negative feedbacks to heat accumulation, a foundation that I consider ridiculous and even a denial of proven physics. Heat gained must equal heat shed. This happens everywhere on earth on a nightly basis, which is a very short time frame. The only significant location for heat retention beyond that short time frame is the oceans. Even this is limited because our climate is largely a product of the constant interface between the ocean surface and the atmosphere. The only elements that can effect longer cyclicality between orbital and geologic regime changes are the sun and the temperature of the oceans near surface water. CO2 effects, if they even exist, are overcome every night, everywhere in the world.
      Since there seems to be little evidence for significant changes in solar output on time scales consistent with the mild climate change we saw up to 2000, my default candidate for changes over the period from 1970 to 2000 is a minor change in ocean surface temperatures due to some peculiarity of currents or upwelling . My particular candidate is an accumulation of warmer water in the Arctic, under the sea ice.
      The water is insulated by the ice and so is unable to shed heat. Heat slowly builds up until the ice thins and becomes weak enough for the intense Arctic winds to cause massive break up. In this phase the wind dominates and cools the water while limiting the freeze. The water cools quite deeply due to the mixing by the wind, Eventually the Arctic waters cool to the point that the freeze over paradigm is reestablished.
      This cycle appears to take approximately 70 years,
      The Arctic receives warm surface water largely from the North Pacific and drains colder water into the N Atlantic.
      There is also an important role for wind created “old ice” in extending this cycle.
      The Arctic sea ice appears to have bottomed in 2012, leading to peak heat loss since then.
      Sea ice looks set for a long term increase.
      The minor, temporary excess heat is largely gone from the surface waters and the weather will steadily cool going forward
      There is no politics in this analysis and it is just a hypothesis, not a theory- just like AGW.
      If I win a fake Nobel I want Mikey Mann to give me his, with his name scratched off and mine written in in crayon.
      GREEN crayon!
      A little jest but I am serious about this cyclic idea.

  7. As a central florida resident I’ve been following this very closely since Tuesday. One thing that got me looking deeper at this was seeing all the raw data from the planes flying into the eyewall each day.

    After digging into the specs and extracting the measurements from the transmitted data it looks like the advisory intensity is purely based on a peak wind speed measurement over a 10 second interval at flight level between 2200-3000 m altitude. I found a decent paper on the measurement equipment aboard the aircraft from 2007 (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Uhlhorn/MWR2007Uhlhorn.pdf) and thought some of their conclusions were interesting.

    Prior to 2005 intensity was determined by a model that took the flight level winds and extrapolated 10m surface winds from those. In 2005 the planes were outfitted with an updated SFMR radar that measures the ocean surface emissivity which is correlated to surface wind speeds. Due to lots of tropical activity in 2005 the new radar was able to help derive a better physical model matching the readings with dropsonde data.

    In their conclusions the earlier quadratic models consistently underestimated winds at speeds > 50 m/s (111 mph). They also found that earlier boundary layer models were underestimating winds in the eyewall by as much as 10% when compared to dropsonde readings.

    So are the storms more intense because of increased SST or because of better models, higher frequency sampling, changes to peak measurements from 1 minute averages, and improvements in the sensor equipment?

    For any interested it looks like the historical raw data is available for investigation. Out of curiosity I checked out this: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Storm_pages/andrew1992/pass.html

    Looks like peak winds were 74.3 m/s (165 mph) recorded in northern eyewall on pass number 71 with storm center 27 miles due east of Homestead on August 24. NHC advisories listed MSW as 140 mph in the 3 updates before landfall.

    So if the Uhlhorn paper is correct the BL model for surface winds should have been about 78% of flight level or 130 mph. The post 2005 model would extrapolate 145 mph and the NHC report on Andrew mentions highest sustained wind speed was measured at Turkey Point Nuclear Plant of 146 mph.

    If we look at the most recent Air Force data in Irma the peak flight level wind was 133 kts (153 mph) SFMR surface wind was 120 kts (138 mph) and same 88% linear adjustment would extrapolate 134 mph. NHC 11 pm advisory for Irma is 160 mph.

    As others have pointed out surface data from Barbuda is not in agreement with the advisory intensity. Also any watching the NE eyewall pass within 10 miles of the Providenciales weather station in Turks & Caicos last night would have seen gusts of 83 mph and sustained winds just over 50 mph.

    I’m just hoping that all along the coast people have heeded evacuation notices and found suitable shelters and high ground away from storm surge.

    • As others have pointed out surface data from Barbuda is not in agreement with the advisory intensity. Also any watching the NE eyewall pass within 10 miles of the Providenciales weather station in Turks & Caicos last night would have seen gusts of 83 mph and sustained winds just over 50 mph.

      Also, photos from those areas show palm trees still having their leaves, mostly unflattened buildings, mostly shallow flood waters, etc. Maybe because they were on the milder (south) side of the eye.

      • IOW, the damage looks more like that from a category 4 storm than a category 5, even though the damaged site were fairly close to the eye.

  8. The Ends justify the Means.
    To a ________ (Choose One: ISIS, AGW, socialist, animal rights) fanatic, lying is acceptable, if it serves the greater ’cause’.

    • J Mac
      September 8, 2017 at 11:18 pm

      The Ends justify the Means.
      To a ________ (Choose One: ISIS, AGW, socialist, animal rights) fanatic, lying is acceptable, if it serves the greater ’cause’.

      Can I add green, progressive, communist and democrat to the list.

      SteveT

  9. Eric Worrall said: “James Hamblin of The Atlantic seems to think it is OK to use hurricane disasters to raise awareness of climate change, because most Americans are not currently threatened by extreme weather.”

    Most Americans are not currently threatened by extreme weather? Let’s look at the number of states affected right now. Harvey: Texas and Lousiana. Irma: Florida, Georgia, South and North Carolina. Wildfires in the West: Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California, Nevada, Idaho, Colorado, Wyoming and Utah. That’s 30% of all states. By population it’s 45% of the population. Anytime 45% of the population is threatened by extreme weather, I think the other 55% are going to be pretty aware about it.

    • Chris, you are relying on a complex question fallacy. First, you have to establish that the bad weather is caused by CO2 caused by man, then you can decry the lack of response to the threat that may or may not exist.

    • These states are and always have been threatened by Hurricanes. That is just something that comes with the territory, and is due to their geography.

      The point is that there is no evidence that the frequency of Hurricanes is increasing, nor their intensity is increasing. In fact, the data suggests the very opposite. See the below chart where one can clearly see that the number of Cat 2, and Cat 3 hurricanes are down, and there has been no change with Cat 4 hurricanes.

    • Tom & Richard, Eric’s post was about the occurrence of extreme weather and the degree to which American’s were personally affected by it. That is all. It was not a post about whether CO2 played a causal role.

    • Summer time fires out in the Western US are pretty typical.
      Hurricanes from the Gulf and Atlantic during peak hurricane season, again, pretty typical.

      I lived in New England for 9 years. Had some pretty extreme snow storms during that time. Pretty typical too.

      Average climate is the average of weather extremes.

    • Wildfires are extreme weather??

      You know why Oregon and Washington have so many evergreens, don’t you? Fire over millennia.

  10. “amid this unprecedented sequence of hurricanes and destruction…”

    What is unprecedented about Harvey and Irma?

    – We are in the heart of the hurricane season.
    -There was a 12 year stretch prior where no Major Hurricanes hit the US mainland that was unprecedented.
    – We’ve had a Gulf of Mexico hurricane into the Texas coast, now followed 2 weeks later by a Atlantic/Caribbean hurricane into Florida.

    Prior to the beginning of the Climate Change hustle, this was pretty typical.

    It takes a weak uneducated mind to believe this is unprecedented.
    Hello common core, meet Millennial, I suppose.

  11. The Atlantic article is mostly about the need for more adaptation, which we should all agree with. Indeed, we all have, in the past. And its remark about increasing climate change (i.e., warming) is something we mostly agree on too—i.e., all things being equal, increasing CO2’s direct effect will raise temperatures slightly during this century. Monckton he’s said so several times, and so have other prominent skeptics. I think that Florida could/should have been better “adapted” to cope with Irma and its after-effects.

    • Couldn’t agree with you more – but the billions already spent (wasted) on this whole climate change by mankind, could have been more productively spent doing that very thing – adapting to any of the inevitable change brought about by our changing climate.

    • It is unscientific to state that CO2’s direct effect will raise temperatures slightly. There is no actual evidence that CO2 has had that effect. It is purely conjectural. Whatever effect there is if any is minor, and simply gets lost in the noise of climate. IOW, in terms of climate, it doesn’t matter.

  12. Does anyone really think that trying to control the weather through trace gas emission constraints is a better policy than storm shelters and flood defences?

    Even if the Atlantic is right and it is worse than the IPCC think… there will still be weather.
    You will still need storm shelters and flood defences.

    Money wasted on inefficient energy production is money not spent on keeping people alive.

    • “Does anyone really think that trying to control the weather through trace gas emission constraints is a better policy than storm shelters and flood defences?”

      Storm shelters save lives, they don’t prevent property damage. And how exactly do you propose having flood defenses along a 1350 mile long coastline?

      • Targeted adaption is a much more sensible policy.

        After all, we do not know how to mitigate, nor whether any attempt at mitigation would prove successful.

      • “Targeted adaption is a much more sensible policy.

        After all, we do not know how to mitigate, nor whether any attempt at mitigation would prove successful.”

        We do know how to mitigate. We do know that successful mitigation will reduce the severity of the impacts of AGW.

        Specifically how do you suggest adapting to a 1-2m rise in sea level? Especially when places like Florida refuse to even acknowledge AGW, and states like North Carolina have banned the use of scientific projections on sea level rise in setting coastal development policy and regulations?

      • 1-2m sea-level rise? By when do you expect this to happen?
        The Netherlands is already below sea level and they cope. They plan for the weather.

        The idea that we can take a few hurricanes so long as they aren’t exacerbated by CO2 would be laughable if it weren’t so callous.

      • Yes, chris, we know one really Great way to mitigate:

        Completely evacuate any region that can be affected by a hurricane, and declare it off-limits to habitation or development.

      • We do know how to mitigate. We do know that successful mitigation will reduce the severity of the impacts of AGW.

        We have no idea whether there is any Climate sensitivity at all to CO2, and if so then how much. That is why when you look up the properties of CO2 in the standard physics and chemistry reference books they do not list as a property of CO2 that say 1 mole leads to X degC rise in temperature, or 1 ppm leads to Y degC of temperature.

        As you will have noted from the plot that I set out above, there were more hurricanes making landfall when CO2 was say 300ppm than when CO2 was in the range of 380 to 400 ppm. If we were to reduce CO2, it maybe that we will see an increase in hurricane activity just as was the case prior to when manmade CO2 emissions began to escalate significantly at the end of the 1940s.

        There has been no significant sea level rise these past thousand or so years.

        There has been no acceleration in the rate of sea level rise these past 100 years. There is no CO2 signature in sea level rise.

        Turning now to the area where these hurricanes develop, you will note that there has been no warming in the North Atlantic for some 20 years during which time man has emitted more than 30% of all manmade CO2 emissions, viz:

        There has been no warming in the South Atlantic for some 30 years during which time man has emitted more than 50% of all manmade CO2 emissions, viz:

        Presently, we do not understand this planet’s climate and what drives changes to the climate. One thing is sure is that CO2 does not appear to be much of a driver and that is why it has proved impossible to date to wean out the warming signal of CO2 over and above natural variability notwithstanding the use of our best measurement equipment.

        Targeted adaption is by far the better policy.

      • Further to my above post.

        There is nothing unusual about the recent/late 20th century warming. It is indistinguishable from previous warming episodes in the thermometer record as Phil Jones, the head of CRU and one of the IPCC lead authors acknowledged when interviewed by the BBC, viz:

        And there has been no increase in temperature in and around the US states which are impacted upon by hurricane activity To the contrary temperatures in and around the region have fallen as CO2 has increased.. Viz:

        AND

        Chris, the bottom line is quite simply this. Until such time as we fully know and understand absolutely everything there is to know about natural variability, each and everyone of its constituent (forcing) components, and the upper and lower bounds of each and every one of these constituent components, we will never be able to defect the Climate Sensitivity to CO2, if there be any at all, and we until that time we will be unable to ascertain a quantitative figure for Climate sensitivity to CO2.

        Let us not be delusional, worse still dish@nest, and pretend that we know and understand sufficient about the climate system, when it is quite apparent that we do not know and understand natural variability, and we are completely unable to explain the variability of climate over the Holocene, what drove those changes, and if the changes were regional why that was the case etc.

      • Um, easy one, Chris, we Engineers use tools, one of those tools is piles of dirt. It’s relatively inexpensive to pile up a couple of metres of dirt along 1350 miles of coast (noting that cliffs don’t need any dirt) compared with the trillions being spent on useless windmills and solar panels that will do nothing to hold back storm surges. At a reasonable cost of $400 per metre ( 640,000 per mile) it would cost $864 Million to flood proof that 1350 miles compared with the trillions being wasted on Windmills and Solar power. The benefit being that the piles of dirt will actually work, while the trillion dollars of windmills and solar panels won’t stop one flood. Windmills and Solar panels if they did do anything would only mitigate one factor, Piles of Engineered dirt mitigates all factors, piles of dirt don’t care whether the water is from global warming, cooling, subsidence, storms, or just tides – they just hold back water.

      • M Courtney September 9, 2017 at 12:24 am
        Does anyone really think that trying to control the weather through trace gas emission constraints is a better policy than storm shelters and flood defences?
        Chris said:

        We do know how to mitigate. We do know that successful mitigation will reduce the severity of the impacts of AGW.

        “We do know..”! No we don’t.
        The best way to “mitigate” against the severity of impacts of caGW in the real world is to ignore the theorized “threat” and stop letting it siphon off resources and freedoms.
        Prepare for nature. (**it happens) Strengthen infrastructure. Supply reliable power sources and boost the ability to repair downed power lines.
        Locally, “Government” should help, not hinder, even non “PC” groups in their efforts to render aid. And keep the profiteering “aid” groups and events at bay.

    • Did it again.
      ““We do know..”! No we don’t.
      The best way to “mitigate” against the severity of impacts of caGW in the real world is to ignore the theorized “threat” and stop letting it siphon off resources and freedoms.
      Prepare for nature. (**it happens) Strengthen infrastructure. Supply reliable power sources and boost the ability to repair downed power lines.
      Locally, “Government” should help, not hinder, even non “PC” groups in their efforts to render aid. And keep the profiteering “aid” groups and events at bay.”
      Was not supposed to be a “blockquote”.

  13. I posted this chart on another article. But since it is relevant to this article, I will post it again:

    There appears absolutely no link whatsoever between rising levels of CO2, claimed Climate Change and Hurricanes.

  14. Three category 4 plus hurricanes in the region…
    Those who study hurricanes using terms like unprecedented

    The discussion here?

    Trying to prove that some other storm was bigger.

    It is enough that these are very extreme storms, surely?

    and a prudent person would be looking at why so bad, why now -and not ignoring that an increase in intensity is exactly as predicted by climate science.

    Predictions which say there’ll be more of this thing this century… is anyone going to take that as something which is worth planning for, or just continue to prove that these are nothing to worry about?

    Because I wonder in the US can take these if, say, they turn up on a regular 5 year basis.

    • Griff, please look just above at Richard Verney chart and tell me if it’s climate science that shows an increase in landfalling hurricanes due to CO2 increase or whether its Political Climate Science that makes this up for their own agenda. Thank You.

    • The weather happens. Did you question the unprecedented dearth of Cat 3 and higher hurricanes making US landfall?
      No.
      Because weather happens. And it isn’t expected to be regular.

    • GRIFF, please, the threats are not manifesting. There is no increase in land falling major storms. Actually a decrease, but it is weather. Global ace this year will be about average, a very strong Atlantic, a very low Pacific.

    • You, like so many of your Alarmist brethren are simply using magical thinking, and preying on people’s fears and emotions. These events are simply weather. That is all.

    • The problem with people like you griff is that you use both the current situation and the opposite situation to justify your world view. Then you wonder why people tune out.

      • and a prudent person would be looking at why so bad, why now -and not ignoring that an increase in intensity is exactly as predicted by climate science.

        Presumably the same people that predicted the lull of the last decade or so? Too hot, too cold and just right. Hurricanes, no hurricanes. All consequences of global warming.

        If I back every horse in every race then I’m always a winner.

    • Simply because there is NO evidence that your theory is correct, there ISN’T an increase in landfalling cyclones. Australia had one of the quietest seasons EVER in spite of the bureau of meteorology predicting climaggeddon for last years season. The USA has had the longest cyclone drought ever. Then there is the math.

      Back radiation from CO2 and it’s feedbacks according to the climate science bible, amounts to just 0.6Watts per square metre, added to peak insolation (which is what warms the water that feeds cyclones) this adds just 0.00054 (0.054%) energy over peak insolation. So that is enough energy to turn a 925 millibar storm like irma, into a umm 924.95 millibar storm…. oops significant figures, better correct that…. To turn a 925 millibar storm into a 925 millibar storm.

      Cyclone IRMA is around 7 trillion watts ( 7000 gigawatts) so in the last 7 days it generated 1,176000 GWh of energy, the core of the storm is around 7 billion square meters in size. So it has cost around 170,000kWh per square meter to sustain over that period or around 1Kw per square meter, somehow I don’t think reducing that to 999.4 watts is going to make any difference at all.

      The problem with the zealots and climate change faithful is that they don’t “Do” math. In energy terms the contribution by CO2 and feedbacks is miniscule, it makes NO difference. Temperature doesn’t melt ice – energy does, temperature doesn’t evaporate water – energy does, temperature doesn’t sustain storms – energy does and a given Energy quantum is ONLY EVER IN ONE PLACE AT A TIME. 0.6Watt per square metre is a very small amount, too small to matter.

    • Griff,

      “and a prudent person would be looking at why so bad, why now -and not ignoring that an increase in intensity is exactly as predicted by climate science.”

      Actually, in this day and age, I think the prudent person would be looking at your comment and wondering if you were paid to hang out here and say that sort of thing . . or, if you were a “climate scientist” yourself, here on a voluntary basis ; )

    • “and not ignoring that an increase in intensity is exactly as predicted by climate science.”

      More of your Left-wing paid-for propaganda, Skanky?

      Unfortunately for that piece of alarmist BS, any inspection of the history of hurricanes clearly indicates that there is precisely zero evidence of an increase in intensity, despite the alarmist prognoses of the so-called “climate science”, so as usual you’re lying – as you know full well.

      There is in fact evidence that exactly the opposite is the case.

      Now go and apologise to Dr. Crockford.

  15. I wonder how much the Clint@n foundation will make from the destruction suffered by some of the Caribbean islands.

    We all know how philanthropic the former first family is, so we can all guess what is being discussed around the breakfast table.

  16. The stupid thing is that as a concept climate change only exists because the world stopped warming. It’s actually that in the last 6-7 years when global warming became climate change there have been so few extreme weather events to exploit. The reality is that warmists would feel far better if not only is there billions of dollars damage but lots of people losing their lives, collateral sacrifices to the climate change God.

    • I have tried to explain that to people many times but they just don’t seem to get it.

      PS, Not being picky but don’t forget the man made part Zigmaster.

  17. Irrespective of what the science says – there is a clear opportunity to manipulate the masses.
    And to journalists – that’s all that counts.

  18. 1954 featured 3’major hurricanes that hit the East coast within 3 months….during modest global cooling.

    With regards to the current situation and 2 major hurricanes hitting the US within 1 month……so what?

    It was only a matter of time before major hurricanes started hitting the US again. There is no proper perspective on the reality of the current situation if 2 major hurricanes in a month is climate change and no major hurricanes in almost 12 years is not.

    The saddest part is that the authentic science in climate science has been obliterated and replaced with a political believe system.

  19. I can acknowlege that luck and natural factors allowed us to somehow go almost 12 years withought a major hurricane making landfall. Matthew, last year came dang close to breaking that streak with the eye barely too far to the east off the southeast coast.

    But so what? Where is the perspective?

    The view projected is that these last 2 hurricanes acted this way and existed this way from climate change. The reality, however if you want an honest discussion is that we can say things like……a 4% increase in atmospheric moisture from global warming may have caused that record rain total of 51 inches in Texas to be 2 inches greater than it would have been.

    Instead, people are given the impression that the entire event or the part that took it into the realm of being extreme was the result of humans caused climate change.

    The authentic science can recognize that an additional X amount of rain was likely from a 4% increase in atmospheric moisture. Unfortunately, the ones who want the discussion to focus on authentic science have been labeled as deniers because they don’t follow the sensationalized and exaggerated version of climate science………sold as settled science by authorities who constantly and blatantly violate the scientific method when applying the principles of their area of expertise.

    • Mike, has there even been any increase in rain fall globally? ( first we must show that) ACE is varied but flat, and it is likely early storms under estimated, so no increase in storms or intensity is yet observed.
      As the blip was erased, we do not know if the warming now is greater then the 30s 40s warming.

  20. “Preppers” will (or should) get more cred in the media henceforth. Because, at least, they’ll be less of a burden on official responders and facilities. Maybe the state will even encourage citizens in vulnerable areas to create a bug-out bag, have a checklist for emergencies, have rope to tie together loose outdoor items, etc. Maybe the state could even distribute some of such stuff.

    Also, a software infrastructure to assist in rescue efforts should be assembled, building on lessons learned from Harvey, and instructions on how to use it should be distributed. Maybe neighborhood-based email lists could be circulated within neighborhoods. (The NextDoor software app could perhaps be tied in somehow: it has the (voluntarily submitted) emails of about 1/3 of the houses in my neighborhood.)

    • The Whitehouse issued a presidential directive last year that discussed response to emergencies. It clearly stated that the previous suggestion that people keep a three day supply of food and water on hand was inadequate. The directive said that people should be prepared to look after themselves for up to several weeks. It was taking the potential destruction of electrical infrastructure from solar storms into consideration as well as the experience with Katrina (major event in a densely populated region).

  21. Perhaps there is an important “take-away” from this experience with Irma – how can anyone watching the traffic exodus from Florida not imagine what it would be like without petroleum-powered vehicles. Bad as it now is, if everyone had to depend on plugging-in to electricity to power their travel, it would be a total catastrophe. Chaos would rule. Unfortunately ideology will likely trump common sense and the governments will push their policies despite the evidence to be seen on every TV screen.

  22. Friends of ours have a vacation home in St. Thomas, VI. They decided to go St. Johns as a mountain between the two was supposedly offering some protection. After the storm struck they estimate about 30-50% of homes were wiped out. They say the media is not reporting the true extent of damage.

    They were lucky enough to find a boat yesterday and made it to Puerto Rico which was spared the brunt. Earliest flight out is on Thursday.

    Also looks like the USVI’s spent hurricane recovery money in other things…

    https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1BH38I

  23. I well remember one of the few intelligent questions put to the hurricane experts during Katrina. The question was simple : how much would hurricanes be affected if the ocean temps were 2 degrees C warmer. The answer was that the max wind speeds would likely increase, by about 5 MPH. In other words, not much. How about frequencies of storms? Not much – they are created as a result of many factors, warm water being but one, and warm waters are always present in this time of the year, especially in the Gulf , although, strictly speaking, it wasn’t Gulf warm water that blew up Katrina -it was the warm current that circulates between the Carribean and the Gulf, which, unfortunately, Katrina tracked for many hours. causing it to explode.

  24. Well, Seth Borenstein in an AP story and Jeff Masters think that nature has just gone nuts, and we are to blame:
    https://apnews.com/b0860812593744c588dd9db9f6a8b599/Winds,-fire,-floods-and-quakes:-A-nutty-run-of-nature

    I know who’s nuts, and it’s not Mother Nature. Or maybe they’re not nuts but are just pushing an agenda, or if I were ungenerous, I’d say they are as much con men as they are “science writer” and “meteorologist”…shameful and shameless at the same time.

  25. “We don’t have to choose between helping current victims and working to prevent the next tragedy.”
    As if we could. Cutting our CO2 emissions won’t “prevent the next tragedy”.

Comments are closed.