A useful retort for those claiming #Irma & #Harvey hurricanes are a sure sign of 'climate change'

History can be a pesky thing, facts are stubborn things. There’s lot’s of caterwauling in the left about hurricane Irma on the heels of Harvey, being a sure sign of ‘climate change’ or global warming, or ‘climate disruption’ or something. A couple of days ago, king of the alarmists, Dr. Michael Mann, and his ex NCDC/NCEI toadie Dr. Thomas Peterson (architect of the Karlization of the global temperature record),  penned a ridiculous op-ed in the Washinton Post:

Only in the mind of Mann can such drivel be produced. Mann is not a hurricane expert, he’s also apparently not a scholar of history.

Dr. Philip Klotzbach is both:

So the question for Mann et al. is: what drove those major hurricanes to be so close together in 1933? Surely if that happened today, it would be used to “kill any doubt” Right?

And what about the fact that Irma and Harvey have come in 7th and 18th compared to storms of that era, hmmm?

Inquiring minds want to know.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 10, 2017 10:14 am

Maybe both “parties” in this debate just should shut up an await what the science tells us in five or ten years.
To claim that these events is a proof of anything, or i disproof of anything, or is unrelated, is just a proof of tribalism.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Emeritus
September 10, 2017 10:18 am

Straw man much?

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 10, 2017 10:36 am

So You have an opinion, good for You, but totally irrelevant.

Reg Nelson
Reply to  Emeritus
September 10, 2017 10:30 am

Forty years of failed predictions, no need to wait another five or ten years. The hypothesis has been falsified. It lives on because of political reasons, not scientific ones.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Reg Nelson
September 10, 2017 11:13 am

I would say it differently. Words matter in science and its communication.
The Catastrophic part of AGW/CC hypothesis demands to be rejected based on observation. Falsifying a hypothesis is difficult to impossible. Rejecting the null hypothesis or rejecting the hypothesis is a matter of strength of evidence, and that is the proper language of science. It allows for self-correction and advancement.
The only “evidence” for the alarmist position of Climate Change is in the models. And subjectively tuned model outputs are not evidence in any way shape or form in science, except in the strange pseudoscience world of today’s climatology.
And in fact, the observation that these 2-week apart storms are first major hurricanes (Harvey and Irma) to strike the US mainland in 12 years is strong evidence to reject the Catastrophic CC hypothesis. These 3 clowns (Mann, Hassol, Peterson) seem to be unaware that their stated evidence actually favors their coveted hypothesis to be rejected.

Reply to  Reg Nelson
September 10, 2017 11:42 am

The alleged “evidence” for a human fingerprint in “climate change” since 1950, or whenever, is the same as Al Gore’s question about Arctic sea ice, ie “What else could it be?”
This attitude assumes that science knows all the natural factors in climate change. But now even consensus “climate scientists” have been forced to resort to unknown natural variability factors to try to explain away the “Pause”. That’s an admission that there “reason” for human causal attribution is totally bogus.

Reply to  Reg Nelson
September 11, 2017 9:50 am


Eustace Cranch
Reply to  Emeritus
September 10, 2017 10:33 am

No one I know of on the skeptical side is saying these events “prove” anything. But they damn sure don’t prove any connection to CO2 or human activity.

Reply to  Emeritus
September 10, 2017 12:27 pm

“Democracy dies in darkness,” with the last Democrat out turning out the light. We’re on to you, Bezos–sorry!

Tom - the non climate scientist
Reply to  Emeritus
September 10, 2017 12:56 pm

We had the proof in 2005 with Katrina –
1) when the climate scientists told us the hurricanes would become stronger and more frequent.
2) We have the proof now with Harvey and Irma – when the climate scientists tell the hurricanes will be less frequent but more intense

Reply to  Emeritus
September 10, 2017 1:10 pm

I believe your response is arguably a restatement of the point being made by Mr. Watts.

Shanghai Dan
Reply to  Emeritus
September 10, 2017 1:49 pm

That’s a deal I’ll take!
And of course, because we’re going to wait for the science, there won’t be any demand to “take action today”, right? We don’t need to change our society and our standard of living on a chance that, in 10 years, the science may say we should?

Steve Vertelli
Reply to  Emeritus
September 10, 2017 2:52 pm

Emeritus in case you haven’t heard, there’s an international physics and regulatory law called the International Standard Atmosphere and it’s based on the characteristics of the global atmosphere, according to real, actual, physical relationships.
Those values are set in stone, Emeritus, if the climate were actually changing, the values of that International physical and regulatory standard would be flexible: they would move.
In the most technically true way it can be said, international physical and regulatory standards law, etched into the stone of being just that, formally and specifically forbid climate changing, or those values, must change with it.
The Standard has been in place, unchanged, since it’s inception. So your fears of the climate changing are now relieved.
If they do
international regulatory physics overseeing things like life support and spacecraft and aerospace technologies will be the first to let you know.
Till they start talking about how fundamentals of atmospheric absolutes are changing, it’s ok to go outside.

Reply to  Emeritus
September 10, 2017 4:56 pm

In pointing out the 1933 data and Harvey’s and Irma’s respective positions on the hurricane totem pole [rankings which unless there is an “adjustment” of the hurricane records can only go down, not up] Klotzback is providing grade A proof that the alarmists and their MSM megaphones are outdoing themselves in their hyperbolic propagandistic fervor, consistent with their “OMG this-is-the-new-normal” track record.
You don’t need to be a skeptic to understand that’s a verifiable fact, not an opinion.

Andy pattullo
September 10, 2017 10:14 am

There was never any doubt that climate change is real, but there remains considerable doubt as to wether people like Mann et al understand what natural climate change is, what drives it, or if they even care about the truth. The fact that they will lean heavily on individual weather events as anecdotal evidence to support their unfounded claims means that they clearly do know they have no useful evidence in support.

Reply to  Andy pattullo
September 10, 2017 1:25 pm

Mann understands that the sky is falling–if it KEEPS falling, he’ll keep getting paid. Capiche?

Reply to  Andy pattullo
September 11, 2017 9:56 am

A very salient point. Thank you.

September 10, 2017 10:15 am

For educated people certainly.
For alarmists and their ill-educated followers, this is devastating information. IF they even acknowledge it.

September 10, 2017 10:15 am

I hate when I word things the wrong way. eh.

Gunga Din
Reply to  ClimateOtter
September 10, 2017 1:13 pm

Maybe we’ll meet face to face someday and we can swap “YTPO!” stories, 😎

September 10, 2017 10:16 am

If you want to prove global warming, then the scientific (and patently obvious) method would be to examine the Earth’s temperatures. If global warming is occurring, those temperatures are, you know, supposed to rise.
If you are claiming the presence of hurricanes over the past month are sure signs of global warming, then why doesn’t the absence of significant hurricanes over the past 12 year period prove there is no warming? 12 years beats one month, you know.

Jan Christoffersen
Reply to  arthur4563
September 11, 2017 9:43 am

Exactly. If Harvey and Irma are proof of climate change, then, the 12-year hiatus of strong Atlantic-basin hurricanes striking the American mainland is also proof of climate change.

Reply to  Jan Christoffersen
September 11, 2017 9:58 am

That’s why they stopped calling it global warming. EVERYTHING is proof of climate change, so they are never wrong!

Leo Smith
September 10, 2017 10:19 am

and to think that was the newspaper that did ‘watergate’

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 10, 2017 11:20 am

They were going after a Republican administration target.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
September 10, 2017 2:05 pm

There were much worse allegations during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. They were ignored.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
September 10, 2017 8:13 pm

Yes, and we’ll probably never know the half of what really was behind his assassination.

Bill Murphy
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
September 10, 2017 8:19 pm

And because both Ben Bradlee and Kate Graham were Kennedy clan buddies. It’s now nothing but a Bezos megaphone, even worse than in ’72.

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
September 11, 2017 6:17 am

I notice that the Russians bragged about helping get Kennedy elected. I don’t remember a big hue and cry about that, not that I was around at the time. Was there a big hue and cry? Or is it okay if they help Democrats but a major scandal (according to the leftists) if they help Republicans?

Jon Jewett
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 10, 2017 8:50 pm

I once went to the WaPo we site and looked up their comments on Watergate. Compared to the Clinton and especially Obama’s misdeeds, Watergate was trivial. Their pursuit of Nixon was Alynskite politics of personal destruction. There were plenty of reasons to get rid of Nixon. E.g. wage and price controls and starting the EPA and appointing Ruckelshaus to head it up.

Bruce Cobb
September 10, 2017 10:21 am

“We can’t afford to keep pretending”. Yes. Climate pseudoscientists like Mann et al should stop pretending to be doing science.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 10, 2017 11:34 am

Mann frequently chastises non-climate scientists who comment or critique on climate science, as if only a true “anointed” climate scientist can critique the data analysis methods or claims employed by trained, credentialed climate scientists.
But then Mann frequently himself ventures off into economics and meteorology, areas clearly outside his trained field of expertise, to critique and give “expert” sounding opinions.
This blatant hypocrisy has been dubbed “Mann-splaining” by others. Mann is indeed a disgrace to science and an affront to attempts to maintain science’s integrity in the eyes of the public.

September 10, 2017 10:22 am

“Fake news” (trite but accurate phrase) doesn’t have to be accurate. The intent is to support a narrative in the minds of the readers….. “but that’s what the newspaper/newscast said”. Don’t hold your breath on corrections either. Once the propaganda has been released their job is done. The real question is who’s paying for this disinformation to be disseminated? Surely news outlets must know without truth eventually their readers/listeners will go elsewhere for their “news”.

Ian W
Reply to  markl
September 10, 2017 11:09 am

The people paying are those that are still hoping to make a fortune from ‘carbon trading’; who want to ‘deindustrialize’ the USA; and those who want to industrialize the competitor countries to the capitalist ‘first world’.

Reply to  Ian W
September 11, 2017 10:03 am

I would count Leo DiCaprio in that first category. His buddy act with Al Gore undoubtedly has a financial angle to it.

Bill Murphy
Reply to  markl
September 10, 2017 8:38 pm

Actually, Mark, they are adept at creating an alternate reality that their readers lap up like a starving cat at a milk bowl. I recently sent a copy of Steyn’s “A Disgrace To The Profession” to a relative who is a hard core CAGW believer. She trashed it and told me she didn’t read “propaganda.” They are so caught up in the web of deception that any truth is dismissed as a lie. Pitiful but true.

Reply to  Bill Murphy
September 11, 2017 10:07 am

Keep hammering her. Like “the force that through the green fuse drives the flower” (Dylan Thomas), truth is unstoppable.

September 10, 2017 10:23 am

The WashPost ist buyed by Al Gore and his co-operates. That`s the real fight Pres. Trump has to fight against the fake news media. But Trump is a scotch fighter with german blood, he will stand this media storm. Scotchs have been fighting over hundreds of years against the normans, saxons and vikings on the british islands and Scotland is still standing until today. It is, in line with Ireland ( which is an island) and Wales the last bastion af the once great celtic nation.

Reply to  Hans-Georg
September 10, 2017 11:08 am

Scottish and Scots, please mein Herr.

Reply to  Hans-Georg
September 10, 2017 12:25 pm

I’ll pass him a claymore! 😉

Reply to  Hans-Georg
September 10, 2017 12:50 pm

Alba et.al as the old saying goes: “Scotch is what a Scotsman uses to wet his whistle”

Mike McMillan of the Lake Argyle clan
Reply to  Hans-Georg
September 11, 2017 12:22 am


D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Hans-Georg
September 11, 2017 8:51 am

“Scots is wa’ ye are, Scotch is wa’ ye drinks.”

Reply to  Hans-Georg
September 11, 2017 9:47 am


September 10, 2017 10:27 am

Example of Michael Mann using the Washington Post as his preferred medium to broadcast good news to his NSF Program managers, NSF President and friends on the National Science Board (NSB). The good news is not the alarmism but the new cash that will be coming to the NSF Program managers and President who signed off on his latest alarm-grant-exercise and the NSB too who are on the receiving end of the cash. Michael typically starts farming cash, in bank-wire checks, during December before the AGU Fall meeting.
Ha ha

September 10, 2017 10:31 am

So just four days ago the hurricane model’s best predicted path was up the East coast of Florida, then on to hit Jacksonville, Savannah and Charleston, residents of which were all planning to evacuate west.
Turns out to be completely wrong. And I’m supposed to think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell of far less reliable “climate” models being correct about ONE HUNDRED YEARS from now?

September 10, 2017 10:31 am

From the german wikipedia: “Am 5. August 2013 wurde der Verkauf der Zeitung an den Amazon-Gründer Jeff Bezos bekanntgegeben.” “On August 5, 13, the sale of the newspaper to the Amazon founder Jeff Bezos was announced.” Anyone has any open questions about the political direction?

Reg Nelson
Reply to  Hans-Georg
September 10, 2017 10:43 am

I wondered why Bezos (or anyone) would buy a money losing business in a dying industry. The New York Daily News recently sold of one dollar. That’s how worthless these old media news outlets have become.
Shortly after Bezos bought WaPo, he eliminated pay-walled articles and made everything free to read. Which seems to me indicates he doesn’t care about revenue or earnings for this company, and that he bought it solely to promote political views.

Sandy In Limousin
Reply to  Reg Nelson
September 10, 2017 10:54 am

Wasn’t that always the case with newspapers and media, Hearst, Rothermere, Beaverbrooke, Berlusconi, Turner, Pulitzer, Murdoch are names which immediately spring to mind.

Reply to  Reg Nelson
September 10, 2017 11:04 am

And the next Anti-Trump and global warmier sheet: the NYT-Times: “At the beginning of 2015, Carlos Slim made use of his option right from the 2009 credit, earning around 11 percent of the New York Times for 101.1 million dollars, which was about half the market value. Slim thus holds 16.8 percent of the company and is the largest external shareholder. With the proceeds from the business, the company wants to repurchase own shares.”
“It was good with the different political parties (in Mexico), financed the election campaign of President Vicente Fox (in the office from 2000 to 2006) and was supposed to have helped Hillary Clinton in the USA.”
Al Gore calls his companions and they follow. Buy the media and you have the public opinion. Fortunately, there is internet, if it is not as in China any “beautiful” day circumcised. Google already makes the first approaches to this in its search engine.

Reg Nelson
Reply to  Reg Nelson
September 10, 2017 11:09 am

@Sandy In Limousin
Yes, media has always been biased. The difference is those were for-profit companies, some of which earned enormous fortunes for their owners.
In my eyes, WaPo is strictly a pay-for-propaganda play.
But I could be wrong, Lampert bought Sears and KMart, both of which won’t be around in a few years.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Reg Nelson
September 10, 2017 11:46 am

Which is also precisely why Amazon’s purchase of Whole Foods has the rest of the grocery market very worried. A WSJ op-ed discussed that fact that an Amazon-run Whole Foods can absorb losses for years by price undercutting their competitors. Such a position allows Amazon quick access to an established grocery netork to run a same-day grocery delivery business without having to start from scratch.
Shrewd purchases both Whole Foods and WaPo by the Billionaire who can afford any losses they might generate

Reply to  Reg Nelson
September 10, 2017 11:54 am

The only thing that can sink Bezos is if shareholders start dumping stock in a runaway cascade. He needs the preposterously overvalued stock to be able to keep running losses indefinitely.
Most “investors” know that AMZN is a Ponzi scheme, but also don’t expect any rush to the exits, since so many institutions are so heavily invested in the pyramid.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Reg Nelson
September 10, 2017 12:06 pm

I would call it a pyramid scheme as it is apparently legal. Ponzi schemes are by definition an illegal pyramid scheme where fraud is employed to deceive investors who might employ due diligence.

Reply to  Reg Nelson
September 10, 2017 5:50 pm

It is a dominant compute environment and growing rapidly within the government agencies. This creates a mutually beneficial relationship where the bigger government gets, the bigger Amazon gets.
Of course, none of the participants will acknowledge the conflict of interest for the public.

Reply to  Reg Nelson
September 11, 2017 10:09 am

I’d say that’s a fair conclusion.

Reply to  Reg Nelson
September 11, 2017 11:36 am

Yes, but it’s a crime that it’s legal.

September 10, 2017 10:32 am

When have facts ever slowed down a climate fanatic?

Reply to  hunter
September 10, 2017 10:39 am

When have facts ever slowed down a climate “sceptic?”

Reg Nelson
Reply to  Emeritus
September 10, 2017 10:53 am

Feel free to provide some. It’s an open forum.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Emeritus
September 10, 2017 11:12 am

When have facts ever slowed down clueless climate trolls?

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Emeritus
September 10, 2017 11:56 am

Beyond the subjectively tuned GCMs, please cite some facts that strongly support the catastrophic part of CC. And please cite whole-truths, not half-truths.
For example: A half-truth is that 2016 was the warmest year ever in satellite global temperature anomaly data sets. The full truth was that it was a strong El Nino year also. And GHE AGW theory doesn’t explain strong El Ninos, or ENSO in general. This is because there are ENSO-AGW hypotheses predictions that cut both ways.
“In short, if you are someone who wants more or stronger ENSO events in the future, I have great news for you–research supports that. If you are someone who wants fewer or weaker ENSO events in the future, don’t worry–research supports that too.”

Reply to  Emeritus
September 10, 2017 11:59 am

All the facts support skeptical positions. No facts support alarmist positions. All the Warmunistas have are epically failed GIGO models. No facts need apply.

TC in the OC
Reply to  Emeritus
September 10, 2017 6:55 pm

Some how this has slipped through and has not been edited or the data modified.
The 30’s had been the hottest until it was modified out but according to the article (see the paragraph in the season summary)the 1933 year was reinstated as the year with the highest ACE on record.
Just a silly little fact.

Steve Vertelli
Reply to  Emeritus
September 10, 2017 11:30 pm

Emeritus says ”When have facts ever slowed down a climate ”skeptic?”
When your church told the world that magical insulation
mixed into the cold atmospheric bath conduction-chilling the sunlight-warmed planet,
refracting 20% of total otherwise-available warming firelight to space,
was making sensors on earth detect and depict more and more sunlight warming it, and them
with every percent less warming sunlight,
the insulating gases made reach them.
That’s your church’s teaching, Eeritus. Magical gases in the sky, are making sensors depict more and more light reaching them as the insulating gases make less reach them.
Facts like that – your church being a temperature inversion scam – slowed down skeptics’ perception of your church’s teachings as being true;
since it’s obvious, outright, violation of Conservation of Energy.
You tell me one time in physics
when insulation refracting light from fires away from sensors,
made them detect and depict more light reaching and warming them,
with every percent less light the insulation made reach and warm them.
I’ll wait here,
you go find the indicators, that’s not direct and crass violation of Conservation of Energy.

Reply to  Emeritus
September 11, 2017 12:39 am

We don’t need our own facts. Scepticism requires those making claims to prove their claims, not provide alternative theories or proof.
If you want to try and be smart, better try and understand the argument first.

Robert Austin
September 10, 2017 10:33 am

Just one more episode in the saga of “A Disgrace to the Profession.”

September 10, 2017 10:33 am

The woman’s name is a joke, right?

September 10, 2017 10:38 am

“Mann faked the data” at least according to the movie Interstellar

September 10, 2017 10:45 am

I know, acknowledge and believe that CO2 has some effect on the Earth’s temperature. However, the climate change “facts” pushed by the money grubbing AGW crowd is much more than hype or propaganda. It is only worthy of being placed in a manure spreader, driven through the fields for use as fertilizer or mulch.

Reply to  usurbrain
September 10, 2017 1:29 pm

Maybe they use that manure to grow the “magic” mushrooms they seem to have eaten!

September 10, 2017 10:47 am

Does Mickey Mann actually KNOW people who don’t believe the climate changes?? The climates been changing for billions of years, he just looks silly pretending it’s a recent phenomenon.

Reply to  Aphan
September 10, 2017 12:16 pm

“Does Mickey Mann actually KNOW people who don’t believe the climate changes?”
Yes. The Hockey-Stickers, who believe temperature was flat until we invented SUVs.

Bill Taylor
September 10, 2017 10:47 am

the mann fella needs a serious mental evaluation…..he is out of touch with reality IF he believes any of the idiocy he writes.

Reply to  Bill Taylor
September 11, 2017 10:21 am

I quite agree with you. I firmly believe Mann knows how weak his position is, but he’s got too much time and psychological capital invested to abandon it. Despite being thoroughly debunked by top statisticians and dropped by the IPCC, he still maintains a cadre of shills who push the hockey stick meme. He is the Don Quixote of climate science-tilting at windmills, hallucinating that he’s slaying climate dragons.

September 10, 2017 10:50 am

“There’s lot’s of caterwauling in the left about hurricane Irma on the heels of Harvey,”
Of you were not so obsessed with political beliefs, you would probably notice there are such opinions across the political divide. You don’t have to be left wing to be a believer in the established science, or right wing to see the flaws.

Reg Nelson
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
September 10, 2017 11:01 am

Fox is the only major media outlet in the US that isn’t Left leaning. Just had a look, no mention of Climate Change as a cause of this. Can you provide some examples of Conservative media outlets that are claiming this?

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
September 10, 2017 11:05 am

“established science”….”establishment science”….there fixed…..

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
September 10, 2017 11:51 am

What established science is that?
The hypothesis of man-made “climate change” has been repeatedly shown false, let alone catastrophic.
There is no evidence in support of that falsified (in both senses of the term) hypothesis, and all the evidence in the world against it.
There are local and regional human effects on temperature and humidity, but none detectable on a global scale. And if they were measurable, the effect would have to be negligible. Human activities both cool and warm the air, dry and moisten it.

Steve Vertelli
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
September 11, 2017 12:13 am

Gareth your church taught you the green house gases which stop 20% of all sunlight from reaching earth, are making sensors detect and depict more light warming earth, for every percent less the gases make reach it.
That’s called ”Violation of Conservation of Energy.”
Tell us all an instance in history when insulation making less light reach a thermometer made it detect and depict more light leave it.
We’ll wait.

Louis Hooffstetter
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
September 11, 2017 5:42 am

Gareth, if you took the time to objectively examine what you call “established science”, you would realize it’s not science all. It’s the drivel of witch doctors.

September 10, 2017 10:52 am

This is just politics by proxy, now widespread in the MSM, fueled by the horrors of Trump and by Brexit in the UK. The alarm has to be controlled though, just imagine if the US govt conceded defeat and spent all its money on sea walls, rather than on climate science.

Steve Vertelli
Reply to  climanrecon
September 10, 2017 2:48 pm

Dang climanrcon that’s gotta be the best wise crack in the faces of those effing thieves I’ve ever heard.
They’d sure figure out it wasn’t all that bad once working people started getting the money for it, wouldn’t they?
They’re government employees determined to make everyone – everyone – income stream, with every dime they can forcefully extort at the point of law enforcement guns.
If everyone has liked 80 years of ”pot is just like heroin and we have the critical scientific peer review to prove it” from government employees,
they’re gonna love the next 100, with ”you used fire and that is immoral, give me your money.”

Reply to  climanrecon
September 11, 2017 9:48 am


Reply to  climanrecon
September 12, 2017 10:49 am

I’m guessing he’s saying that the progressives in most countries would like to change legislation based on the continually disproved invalid AGW and all their failed climate models Gerry. He’s also saying how much property damage could be prevented and tax dollars used intelligently if we actually used them for things that actually work rather then go off fighting windmills with the climate “scientists”. I also want to add how many 100’s of millions of $$$ we could save in the U.S. if we stopped fighting brush fires that naturally create ash to fertilize forests. Maybe brush lines could be increased in California and other states affected and or literal fire walls. I may not have a researched answer yet but fighting nature is a game we seem to be loosing at our expense.

September 10, 2017 10:59 am

Oh Yes! Irma is 100% caused by man-made global-warming/climate-change. If it wasn’t for human use of fossil fuels it would be a quiet sunny day in Florida today.
Harvey on the other hand was only 50% caused by man-made global-warming/climate-change. (The other 50% was caused by bad drainage, land speculation and ‘capitalism’ generally.)

peanut gallery
September 10, 2017 11:01 am

Odd, half the eyewall seems to be missing. Should they change its name to Bill the cat?

September 10, 2017 11:32 am

Let Mann and his ilk keep embarrassing themselves publicly so that their future grows exceedingly dim,

September 10, 2017 11:38 am

Since most believers of man made climate change are genetically incapable of critical thought and original thinking, only parrots, in terms of relevance a simple process is to confront these blinded with a starting point, by asking where in the time line of history they would like to start. Eventually, their brain swelling irritation at being asked to think will end the conversation, resulting in them spewing aspersions. It’s a wonderful excuse to drink ….heavily, laugh heartily and move on, thanking them for the entertainment. lol

September 10, 2017 11:46 am

From the WaPo article:
“Fundamental physical principles and observed weather trends mean we already know some of the answers — and we have for a long time.
Hurricanes get their energy from warm ocean waters, and the oceans are warming because of the human-caused buildup of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, primarily from the burning of coal, oil and gas ”
Pray tell oh Mickey Mann, what “fundamental physical principle” demonstrates that the oceans are warming because of the human-caused buildup of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere”???
I cannot think of ONE fundamental physical principle that demonstrates that long wave radiation in the atmosphere can “heat” anything more than a few millimeters of the ocean’s surface waters, much less the “OCEANS”….and in LESS than 100 years??? It’s the fundamental physical principles that make such things IMPOSSIBLE. Mann is an ignorant moron who is CLEARLY unfamiliar with fundamental physical principles.

Reply to  Aphan
September 10, 2017 12:08 pm

Hurricanes get their energy from the DIFFERENCE between warm ocean water and cooler air temperatures. If everything warms up equally there’s a *reduction* in the energy available in the difference.

Reply to  prjindigo
September 10, 2017 12:40 pm

Which is why the Little Ice Age suffered so many strong hurricanes. Tropical SST didn’t change much, but global average air temperature was lower than now.

Steve Vertelli
Reply to  Aphan
September 11, 2017 12:28 am

When James Hansen’s boss called him a fraud and said his ”computer programmer friends” like he was talking about a band of rapists, one of them he was talking about was Mann, I believe. His former supervisor – Hansen’s – was the one who spilled the beans about none of Hansen’s climate models having the gas laws in them: using only, Stefan-Boltzmann massage, refusing to solve for atmospheric density thus delivering up that legendary ”33 degree” shortfall between the magic gas church’s claim for global temperature,
and the real global temperature as established in the international regulatory and physical standard called the International Standard Atmosphere. The International Standard Atmosphere’s global temperature is known to be true: we calibrate everything associated with gas pressure or temperature, against it, ultimately.
Mann’s fakes don’t even come up with the proper atmospheric global temperature – then bragg their 33 degree shortfall is the result of ”green house gases.”
When in fact it’s the result of not solving the temperature of the planet properly. What’s the shortfall if you try to calculate the global atmospheric temperature using only Stefan-Boltzmann and not the Gas Law for solving global atmospheric temperature? Go figure, – 33 degrees.
When Hansen bragged his ”modern government computers” could do something others couldn’t, what was it?
Calculate the temperature of the global atmosphere not using Gas Law, but rather, Stefan-Boltzmann only.
I heard Hansen’s supervisor lay it all out point by point, in an interview he gave a reporter, many years ago.
Every word of AGW is fraud.
Hey – it’s the story that refractive insulation making less light reach a rock,
makes sensors detect and depict more light reach the rock,
every time the insulation makes less reach it.
That’s not science. That’s direct, crass, violation of Conservation of Energy. End of Story about it possibly being even partly

September 10, 2017 12:06 pm

Simplest retort is that “climate change” isn’t happening in the tropics.

September 10, 2017 12:12 pm

The 97% consensus is clearly that Harvey and Irma are the first hurricanes ever to occur in the world.
And that the new post-modern socially just alphabet begins with H, not A).
But, if no hurricane ever happened before carbon emissions, gender inequality and LGBTI discrimination caused Harvey and Irma, then – why and from where do we have the word “hurricane”?

Reply to  ptolemy2
September 10, 2017 12:20 pm

Betty Friedan wanted to change it to “himmicane”.
And insisted and won that men’s names be included.

Reply to  Sixto
September 10, 2017 4:16 pm

But why is a hurricane like a woman?
When they come they’re wild and wet.
When they go, they take away your house and your car.

Gunga Din
Reply to  ptolemy2
September 10, 2017 1:31 pm

It’s a transgender thing. “Hurricanes” are confused about what they really are. (All that spinning.)

Reply to  ptolemy2
September 10, 2017 1:32 pm

Ever notice the world is rapidly becoming a “Far Side” cartoon? Like, scores of fat dopey looking people in cat glasses, running off a cliff yelling “GAAAAAAAAA!!!!” in respone to like, anything? 😉

Reply to  ptolemy2
September 10, 2017 1:42 pm

Hurricane comes from hurry cane, the 5.th hollywood actor, who wants to be a vampir.whirlwindTM.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  ptolemy2
September 11, 2017 6:51 am

“…… – why and from where do we have the word “hurricane”?…..”
@Ptolemy2: The world “hurricane” actually comes from the ancient Mayan word “Huracan” which was the ancient Mayan mythical god of storms: http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/mayan-mythology.php?deity=HURACAN.
The Mayans probably saw their fair share of hurricanes while their civilization was active centuries ago down in Central America.
However, I fully realize that one would probably have a difficult time trying to convince radical feminist activists that the word derives from Mayan mythology and the first first four letters of the word have nothing to do with the female gender. Ignorance at its finest.

Another Scott
September 10, 2017 12:26 pm

They probably had the rough draft for this op-ed piece sitting ready for years waiting for a busy hurricane season. They finally got one.

September 10, 2017 12:33 pm

Being part of the conversation here takes hours… WUWT?

September 10, 2017 12:35 pm

That headline, about 2 hurricanes, is glaringly unscientific by nature. These people are religious fanatics, not scientists.

September 10, 2017 12:44 pm

Some people call it “climate change”. I call it “fraud”.

Gunga Din
September 10, 2017 1:29 pm

Only in the mind of Mann can such drivel be produced. Mann is not a hurricane expert, he’s also apparently not a scholar of history.

Mann is only the poster boy for those who profit (in cash or power) from the CAGW meme.
PS How many of them filed an amicus brief in his behalf lawsuit? He’s cannon fodder to them.

September 10, 2017 1:51 pm

Hum, I thought the absence of C3 hurricane strikes was supposed to prove global warming a hoax. OOPS.
[of course, you’d be wrong on that point “babs” Gore said in 2005 after Katrina that hurricanes would become more frequent and more intense, but for 12 years the USA had no C3 stikes, it simply disproves Gore -mod]

Ron Clutz
September 10, 2017 1:54 pm

For anyone who might have it, Ross McKitrick wrote a strong response on this issue. Main point:
“I am grateful to the scientists who work at understanding hurricane and typhoon events, and whose ability to forecast them days in advance has saved countless lives. But when opinion writers tacitly assume all good weather is natural and GHGs only cause bad weather, or claim to be able to predict future storms, but only after they have already occurred, I reserve the right to call their science unsettled.”
Full article is at https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/09/07/co2-also-explains-fair-weather/

Ron Clutz
Reply to  Ron Clutz
September 10, 2017 1:56 pm

Meant to write anyone who might have missed it.

September 10, 2017 3:04 pm

Who in their right mind even claims that climate change is NOT real?
Nobody I know denies climate change, and so the headline of Dr. Mann’s et al. op ed is a straw man.
The correct title of such an alarmist op ed would be: Irma and Harvey should kill any doubt that humans cause catastrophic climate change
Why was this not the title chosen? I’ll tell you why — because a straw man is easy to defeat, since it has NO substance whatsoever. You simply confuse what you are really talking about with something that is NOT being talked about, make your case against what is NOT being talked about, and then claim your victory over what is REALLY being talked about. Victory by substitution. Very smart.

September 10, 2017 3:06 pm

Folks, let’s face it: Even if by some miracle the scientific truth – the idea that human influence on climate is even detectable against natural variation is, at best, unproven, and the notion that human influence is the dominant factor, driving climate to extremes it otherwise wouldn’t reach, is idiotic on its face – became universally accepted, it would take about a New York minute for the CACA bunch to gin up some new else we’re all gonna die “reason” necessitating totalitarian statist collectivism.

Ray in SC
September 10, 2017 3:59 pm

“The earth orbits the sun”
According to your logic, this is not a true statement. Do you see your fallacy?

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Ray in SC
September 11, 2017 8:54 am

I could be wrong, but I believe Dean was referring to the Washington Compost editorial, not the WUWT blog post.

September 10, 2017 5:11 pm

The projection models on Irma have been unable to predict accurately three hours ahead. They have been wrong on direction, strength, trend, timing and yet they have nearly instantaneous hind cast data to improve their accuracy in real time.
Neal DeGrasse made some idiotic analogy between the eclipse path and AGW models calling those that don’t agree with the AGW models as unscientific.
If the hurricane models can’t predict the landfall within 300 miles five days out with constant data input, anyone who thinks climate models can predict the temperature in 10, 20, 50, 100 years is daft, including Neal.

Jeol O'Bryan
Reply to  FTOP_T
September 10, 2017 7:32 pm

The path models are having to deal with weak steering winds and weak pressure systems. Those are normally 1st order effects and usually dominate and control hurricane directionality. When they are weak, 2nd order effects can affect path. I suspect the models do poorly or not at all on 2nd order effects like having a substantial land mass near the eyewall.

Reply to  Jeol O'Bryan
September 11, 2017 3:13 am

That may be, but why do we need such models at all? Old weather forecast with good synoptics (a German word for experienced metereologists) in this case and if I interpret your words correctly also in all other cases of Hurricanes also sufficed. I ask again: Why do we need such useless models and is not it better? For example, in synoptics as a human resource is invested rather than in computer models. This also brings work to the people in the US and not to the computer manufacturers in the Far East.

Reply to  FTOP_T
September 11, 2017 12:16 pm

“If the hurricane models can’t predict the landfall within 300 miles five days out with constant data input, anyone who thinks climate models can predict the temperature in 10, 20, 50, 100 years is daft, including Neal.”
NHC prediction made on 6th Sept….comment image
Actual path ….comment image
What you see here was weather.
Not climate.
And NWP models made a brilliant job of providing guidance for it.

Reply to  Toneb
September 11, 2017 12:31 pm

That was four days out, and the landfall was off by about 11 hours for the Keys and way off on projected continental landfall. What everyone got horribly wrong was where the storm would go after landfall. In fact, they never really made up their minds, hence a lot of needless evacuation, which means that in future, people will be reluctant to trust the supposed authorities.

Reply to  Toneb
September 11, 2017 1:30 pm

“In fact, they never really made up their minds, hence a lot of needless evacuation, which means that in future, people will be reluctant to trust the supposed authorities.”
What do you want – a crystal-ball?
Be realistic and try actually recognising what happened for a start.
That forecast was spookily correct.
What mattered was the track, given that a mandatory evacuation had occured.
However the authorities had to take into account the cone of probabilities.
Are you suggesting they shouldn’t have, and left the east alone.
What would you have done in the “authorities” place?

Reply to  Toneb
September 11, 2017 1:42 pm

BTW: have you attempted to figure the margin of error re a difference of 11 hours out of 96 when Irma was doing an ave of ~15mph over it’s path?
At some 1300 ml that makes an error of around 2mph in it’s speed of movement.
Like I said a brilliant forecast.

Reply to  FTOP_T
September 11, 2017 2:42 pm

“What do you want – a crystal-ball”
That is exactly what the AGW community is pretending to have.
The amount of data fed into the various hurricane models is enormous, constant and provides immediate hind cast testing.
With all of this robust input, the various models are widely divergent. I live in Tampa and rode this one out. At roughly 5:30, there were models showing starting points for the center 70 miles southwest of its actual position and going in a direction not possible. I understand the timing issues in model runs, but this shows the uncertainty is very high.
This is not a condemnation of the work. Quite the contrary.
It is a recognition that we can continually improve the benefits from science if we focus on tractable problems and stop wasting funding on CO2 Don Quixotic “scientists” who believe there is certainty in a future of catastrophic global temperatures where we have infinitely more variables. All the while, simultaneously changing the values in the past because they can’t even hind cast.
Not to mention, they have provided erroneous attributions for the Boston snow and Harvey while failing on every prior prediction.
At what point, does 300 strikes mean you are out?

Bill Parsons
September 10, 2017 8:42 pm

So the question for Mann et al. is: what drove those major hurricanes to be so close together in 1933? Surely if that happened today, it would be used to “kill any doubt” Right?
And what about the fact that Irma and Harvey have come in 7th and 18th compared to storms of that era, hmmm?

This just highlights how short our recorded history of hurricanes is. It would be instructive to know how many big hurricanes have hit the Florida peninsula over the last thousand years, and how they would compare.
In the cooler Little Ice Age, if temperature differentials between air and sea were comparable, wouldn’t there have been just as many hurricanes?
Till the citizenry develops an interest in real history and silences the “climate catastrophist” barkers, there seems nothing for the average person to do but plug their ears, as the cacaphony is getting worse by the day.

September 10, 2017 8:49 pm

DR. Mann and his ilk, starts with a STRAWMAN,then goes downhill in B.S.
“Irma and Harvey should kill any doubt that climate change is real”
then this howler,
“We can’t afford to keep pretending”
That is another STRAWMAN.
Do you know anyone who doesn’t think climate can change or pretend it doesn’t exist?
They are supposed to be College grads,who writes like idiots.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
September 10, 2017 9:01 pm

By the way, they completely glossed over inconvenient stuff,such as the 12 year long drought of Category 3+ landfalls, They didn’t mention the ACE measure of Tropical storms and seasons. either.
They ignored incredible Hurricanes of the past with greater damage than Harvey and Irma.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
September 11, 2017 3:01 am

I have developed my own theory: Human intelligence is finite. However, not human stupidity. Albert Einstein has already ascertained this, but his theories were in another field.

Mr Bliss
September 10, 2017 9:16 pm

Have any other climate scientists agreed with Mann? Have any been challenged to agree with him?

J Mac
September 10, 2017 9:28 pm

We can’t afford to keep pretending.
What? Can’t afford….?
Are Michael E. Mann, Susan J. Hassol and Thomas C. Peterson running out of money?
If only they would stop their ‘sky-is-falling’ pretenses….

Bill Parsons
September 10, 2017 9:28 pm

Another retort: “Read your history!”
Violent Harms of wind and destructive inundation (1237)
On the day after the feast of St. Martin, and within the
octaves of that feast, great inundations of the sea suddenly
broke forth by night, and a fierce storm of wind arose, which.
caused inundations of the rivers as well as of the sea, and
in places, especially on the coast, drove the ships from their
ports, tearing them from their anchors, drowned great
numbers of people, destroyed flocks of sheep, and herds of
cattle, tore up trees by the roots, overthrew houses, and
ravaged the coast. The sea rose for two days and the inter-
mediate night, a circumstance before unheard of, and did not
ebb and flow in its usual way, being impeded (as was said)
by the violence of the opposing winds.
Matthew Paris, “Matthew Paris’s English history, from 1235 to 1273, tr. by J.A. Giles”

Bill Parsons
September 10, 2017 9:38 pm

Another retort:
“Monster hurricanes reached U.S. during prehistoric periods of ocean warming”
FEBRUARY 11, 2015Intense hurricanes, possibly more powerful than any storms New England has experienced in recorded history, frequently pounded the region during the first millennium, from the peak of the Roman Empire into the height of the Middle Ages, according to a new study. The findings could have implications for the intensity and frequency of hurricanes the U.S. could experience as ocean temperatures increase as a result of climate change, according to the study’s authors.
A new record of sediment deposits from Cape Cod, Mass., show evidence that 23 severe hurricanes hit New England between the years 250 and 1150, the equivalent of a severe storm about once every 40 years on average. Many of these hurricanes were likely more intense than any that have hit the area in recorded history, according to the study. The prehistoric hurricanes were likely category 3 storms – like Hurricane Katrina — or category 4 storms – like Hurricane Hugo — that would be catastrophic if they hit the region today, according to Jeff Donnelly, a scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) in Massachusetts and lead author of the study published in Earth’s Future, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.
The study is the first to find evidence of historically unprecedented hurricane activity along the northern East Coast of the United States, Donnelly said. It also extends the hurricane record for the region by hundreds of years, back to the first century, he said.

September 10, 2017 10:47 pm

Harvey and Irma made landfall at 130 mph. This was Category 3 until they changed the Saffir Simpson scale in 2012. Old storms ratings did not change. And now al the hype about two Cat 4s.

Dr. Strangelove
September 11, 2017 12:44 am

Here’s a useful retort to those claiming greenhouse warming made hurricanes stronger. Greenhouse warming models predict a hotspot in the tropics at 12-16 km altitude. The upper troposphere will warm twice faster than surface warming (see charts A and F)
Here’s a model of hurricanes as a Carnot heat engine (see link) http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.1.20170908a/full/
According to this model, the theoretical maximum wind speed of hurricanes (Vmax) is
Vmax = (E (To – Ta)/Ta)^0.5
Where To is ocean surface temperature, Ta is upper troposphere temperature (12-18 km altitude), E is an empirical factor that depends on temperature, pressure, humidity
Note that according to greenhouse warming models, the term (To – Ta)/Ta will decrease because of the hotspot – the upper troposphere is warming twice faster than the surface. Hence, tropical hurricanes should be getting weaker. If hurricanes today are as strong as hurricanes in the past, it is because the predicted hotspot does not exist.

September 11, 2017 2:49 am

“The warming patterns shown in the revised dataset are similar to those shown in the original study except that expected patterns now appear somewhat more clearly. These include a near-moist-adiabatic profile of tropical warming with a peak warming rate of 0.25–0.3 K/decade near 300 hPa since either 1959 or 1979. This is interesting given that (a) many studies have reported less-than-expected tropospheric warming, and (b) there has been a slowing of ocean surface warming in the last 15 years in the tropics. We support the findings of other recent studies (Po-Chedley et al 2015) that reports of weak tropospheric warming have likely been due to flaws in calibration and other problems and that warming patterns have proceeded in the way expected from models. Moreover our data do not show any slowdown of tropical atmospheric warming since 1998/99, an interesting finding that deserves further scrutiny using other datasets.”
Also, SST warming will far overcome a top of Trop warming.
Study the CC relation.
I’ll help you….
Here is the UKMO Tephi form.comment image
Take a 30C SALR from 1000mb up to 150mb … it arrives there at at -49C
Now take a 32C SALR FROM 1000mb to 150mb … it arrives there at -42C
A 2C delta at surface becomes 7C at 45,000ft.
Release/transport of latent heat from the ocean via convection. Tops in a TS would be beyond 150mb and so the contrast with the environmental LR even greater.
In fact NASA have reported that cloud top temps in the eye reached -83C, corresponding to around 90mb or near 90,000ft.
Yes, the LH energy burst the Cb tops through the Tropopause into the Stratosphere.
What delta did the CC relation create there?
In short, no the empirical physics within NWP models is not wrong.

Dr. Strangelove
Reply to  Toneb
September 11, 2017 4:29 am

Yes that paper by Sherwood and Nishant (2015) was criticized by Spencer (see link) http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/05/new-satellite-upper-troposphere-product-still-no-tropical-hotspot/
Interesting how the hotspot has been missing all these years (scientists have been looking for it since 1990s) Then lo and behold, as if by magic, Sherwood made it appear by creative ‘homogenization’ of radiosonde data. I suppose with a bit more creative ‘homogenization’ an elephant will appear in the upper troposphere fulfilling Walt Disney’s dream that Dumbo can fly

Dr. Strangelove
Reply to  Toneb
September 11, 2017 5:26 am

Jo Nova also criticized that paper (see link)
Desperation — who needs thermometers? Sherwood finds missing hot spot with homogenized “wind” data. There’s no documented, physical reason for the homogenizing and there’s no new insight gained. The raw data was used by airlines, the military, and meteorologists for years, yet the suggested new results are quite different to the raw data. It’s as if we can’t even measure air temperature properly. Somehow we’ve made multivariate complex models work but not simple temperature sensors? The main problem with the old results was that they didn’t fit the models. Now, after torturing the data, they still don’t.
Nope, still no hotspot. Only in Sherwwod’s moist-adiabatic wet dream

September 11, 2017 4:24 am

Phil Plait is best when he sticks to astronomy. He’s no Phil Kotzbach. Anyway, here’s his mind-numbed screed.

Carbon BIgfoot
September 11, 2017 5:14 am
September 11, 2017 6:18 am

From Mann’s WP Op-Ed:
“For example, without the taxpayer-subsidized National Flood Insurance Program, banks would be less likely to provide mortgages for rebuilding houses in locations that have been flooded before, sometimes repeatedly.”
Crazy lefty “spend other people’s money” talk right there.

Gary Pearse
September 11, 2017 6:19 am

It’s only the headline for useful idi0ts that counts. What has Mann done since his PhD hockeystick SciFi works? Is it because a hurricane looks like tree rings? How many millions have we paid for that last century’s work. Now he’s cheering on floods, droughts, storms and going around in circles, the fate of a tree ring performer.

September 11, 2017 7:15 am

Their real agenda is protecting their own status and story line and has nothing to do with hurricanes or their lack of expertise with hurricanes.

Coach springer
September 11, 2017 7:57 am

A useful retort: Unprecedented is such a plastic term.
This morning, I sat on the toilet in a place 1 10,000th of a millimeter from where I’ve EVER. SAT. BEFORE.

Frank Andrews
September 11, 2017 9:51 am

Depending on the metric you choose to use in ranking hurricanes, whether it is, max. wind speed, min. pressure, population affected, damage cost caused, economic impact, duration, rainfall amount, area affected, lives lost, etc., you will achieve a particular ranking. Often this choice is influenced by a desire to support some agenda or notion you harbor.

Joel Snider
September 11, 2017 10:10 am

‘facts are stubborn things’
The funny thing is, I live down the road from a local community college, and in my parking lot, there are all these bumper stickers (next to their Hillary or Bernie stickers), that say ‘facts matter.’

September 11, 2017 1:36 pm

Alarmists haven’t wasted a second getting these hurricane ‘crisis’s into court as ‘evidence’ against the suspect in chief, man-made climate change. They’re quite shameless in fitting up the defendant. Yet again hysteria presented as irrefutable proof. It’s complete b*ll*cks.

September 12, 2017 1:35 pm

All you guys who are trying to write oh-so-sophisticated comments, do you actually ever go outside of your air-conditioned homes and cars ? Then you would see that nature is changing already a lot. For this you don’t have to be one of your so despised scientists: Flowers appear earlier in spring and harvesting starts earlier in automn. Abnormally warm winter days happen more and more often. In places where there used to be masses of snow in the winter like the German Alps (where I come from, that s why this is my local example), there is hardy anything left. Not to mention all the major global phenomena such as the melting of the North pole or the increase in flooding and draught worldwide.How can you ignore simple statistics showing that the 15 hottest years ever recorded were all after the year 2000? Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere creates the Greenhouse effect keeping warmth created by the sun. Why is it so difficult to fathom that adding extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will intensify this effect? Is it the fear that after all Mother Earth is not so strong as we wish her to be, and we might actually be capable of destroying her?

September 13, 2017 2:49 pm

And knowledgeable minds know better.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights