By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website
Summary: Millions of words were expended reporting about Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, but too little about the science connecting them to climate change. Here are the details, contrasted with the propaganda barrage of those seeking to exploit these disasters for political gain. Let’s listen to these scientists so we can better prepare for what is coming. Failure to do so risks eventual disaster.

(1) A politically useful catastrophe: the Left speaks up
The record-setting twelve-year long hurricane “drought” (no major hurricane landfalls on the US) was just weather. But the Left immediately boldly and confidently declared Harvey and Irma to be caused (or worsened) by anthropogenic climate change. Some of these screeds are mostly rational, just exaggerated or imbalanced. Such as “Harvey Is What Climate Change Looks Like” by Eric Holthaus at Politico — “It’s time to open our eyes and prepare for the world that’s coming.” And “Stop talking right now about the threat of climate change. It’s here; it’s happening” by Bill McKibben at The Guardian — “Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Irma, flash fires, droughts: all of them tell us one thing – we need to stand up to the fossil fuel industry and fast.”
Many are simple political propaganda. “Irma Won’t ‘Wake Up’ Climate Change-Denying Republicans. Their Whole Ideology Is on the Line.” by Naomi Klein (activist) at The Intercept. Note this story is not labeled as an “op-ed”. “As Planet Rages With Fires and Storms, Ire Aimed at Murderous Climate Denialism” by Jessica Corbett (staff writer) at Common Dreams. “Climate Denialism Is Literally Killing Us” by Mark Hertsgaard (editor) at The Nation — “The victims of Hurricane Harvey have a murderer — and it’s not the storm. …It is past time to call out Trump and all climate deniers for this crime against humanity. No more treating climate denial like an honest difference of opinion.”
Many just assume the science says what they want it to say, without recourse to the IPCC, NOAA, or a similar authority. For example, Paul Krugman (professor of economics at Columbia, Nobel Prize 2008) says this at his NYT blog.
“The disaster in Houston is partly Mother Nature — natural disasters will happen sometimes whatever we did — but with a powerful assist from human action. Climate change definitely made such an event more likely …”
Similarly, Joseph E. Stiglitz (Professor of economics at Columbia, Nobel Prize 2001) in “Learning from Harvey” says this at Project Syndicate.
“It is ironic, of course, that an event so related to climate change would occur in a state that is home to so many climate-change deniers – and where the economy depends so heavily on the fossil fuels that drive global warming.”

(2) Scientists tell us about hurricanes and global warming
Although many on the Left ignore, misrepresent, or exaggerate the science, there is well-established data about these matters. Here is a look at recent research (i.e., since the IPCC’s AR5 report), the foundation for the statement at NOAA’s website that concludes this section. Red emphasis added.
Look at the trends in the number and intensity of Atlantic hurricanes.
A good place to start is “Extremely Intense Hurricanes: Revisiting Webster et al. (2005) after 10 Years” by Philip J. Klotzbach and Christopher W. Landsea in Journal of Climate, October 2015. Abstract…
“Ten years ago, Webster et al. documented a large and significant increase in both the number as well as the percentage of category 4 and 5 hurricanes for all global basins from 1970 to 2004, and this manuscript examines whether those trends have continued when including 10 additional years of data.
“In contrast to that study, as shown here, the global frequency of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has shown a small, insignificant downward trend while the percentage of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has shown a small, insignificant upward trend between 1990 and 2014. Accumulated cyclone energy globally has experienced a large and significant downward trend during the same period.
“The primary reason for the increase in category 4 and 5 hurricanes noted in observational datasets from 1970 to 2004 by Webster et al. is concluded to be due to observational improvements at the various global tropical cyclone warning centers, primarily in the first two decades of that study.”
Articles about hurricanes often say there is a strong and direct link to sea surface temperatures (SST). Reality is more complex. Philip Klotzbach explained his findings to me in more detail.
“Our paper found that the large increasing trends in Category 4-5 hurricanes observed in Webster et al. (2005) were primarily due to changes in observational technology at the various warning centers. Most model projections predict a slight increase (on the order of 5-10%) in storm intensity, with perhaps fewer storms, over the next century.
“SSTs correlate tightly with Atlantic hurricane activity, due to other large-scale climate features such as sea level pressure and vertical wind shear. In the tropical Atlantic, warm sea surface temperature anomalies result in lower tropical and subtropical Atlantic pressure. The associated weaker pressure gradient results in weaker trade winds, reducing vertical wind shear (since upper level winds blow out of the west in the tropical Atlantic). The weaker trade winds cause less mixing, evaporation and upwelling of the sea surface, which then feed back into reinforcing the warm SST anomalies in the tropical Atlantic.
This wind-evaporation-SST feedback process in the Atlantic has been shown to be critical for the Atlantic Meridional Mode. Generally, positive values of the Atlantic Meridional Mode are associated with warm SSTs, low sea level pressure, and reduced vertical wind shear. The actual impact of the SST anomalies themselves is shown to be relatively small in partial correlation analysis. This was first demonstrated two decades ago in “Atlantic Sea Surface Temperatures and Tropical Cyclone Formation” by Lloyd J. Shapiro and Stanley B. Goldenberg in Journal of Climate, April 1998.
These types of relationships do not necessarily occur in other basins. For example, the NW Pacific has just had its 2nd Cat. 3+ typhoon this year, while the average to date is 4.5. All of this despite record warm SST anomalies in their Main Development Region. Circulation features are a far more critical driver of typhoon activity than SSTs, since they are always plenty warm to support intense activity.”
Dr. Klotzbach is a research scientist at the Tropical Research Project at Colorado State U.
Cliff Mass describes the relationship of global warming to hurricanes.
See “Global Warming and Hurricane Harvey” by Cliff Mass at his website. He gives a rebuttal to those articles asserting a clear link between Global Warming and Hurricane Harvey. Opening…
“Before the rains had ended, dozens of media outlets had published stories suggesting that global warming forced by humans (mainly by emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere) played a significant role in producing the heavy rainfall and resulting flooding associated with Hurricane Harvey.
“Most of the stories were not based on data or any kind of quantitative analysis, but a hand-waving argument that a warming earth will put more water vapor into the atmosphere and thus precipitation will increase. A few suggesting that a warming atmosphere will cause hurricanes to move more slowly.
“This blog will provide a careful analysis of the possible impacts of global warming on Hurricane Harvey. And the results are clear: human-induced global warming played an inconsequential role in this disaster. …”
Dr. Mass is a professor of atmospheric sciences at U Washington. See his bio, presentations and papers.
Roger Pielke Sr. tells me about an important but often ignored point.
“Model projections of hurricane frequency and intensity are based on climate models. However, none have shown skill at predicting past (as hindcasts) variations in hurricane activity (or long term change in their behavior) over years, decades, and longer periods. Thus, their claim of how they will change in the future remains, at most, a hypothesis (i.e. speculation). When NOAA, IPCC and others communicate to the media and public, to be scientifically honest, they should mention this.”
Dr. Pielke Sr. is a Senior Research Scientist in CIRES and Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State U. See his bio.
Judith Curry discusses the link between global warming and Hurricane Harvey.
From her post about Hurricane Irma at Climate Etc.
“Ever since Hurricane Harvey, the global warming – hurricane hysteria has ratcheted up to levels I haven’t seen since 2006. NOAA GFDL has written a good article on Global Warming and Hurricanes. {See below.} …I much prefer {NOAA’s} model-based quantitative estimates (but they need some serious uncertainty estimates, including structural uncertainty), relative to hysterical arm waving by Mann and Trenberth using undergraduate basic thermodynamics reasoning. There is nothing basic or simple about hurricanes. …
“{See} my 2010 post Hurricane Katrina – 5 years later, particularly relevant given the cool SST values that Irma formed and intensified.”
Dr. Curry is a professor emeritus at the Georgia Institute of Technology and President of Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN). See her bio.
NOAA gives their verdict.
The bottom line comes from NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory: “Global Warming and Hurricanes – An Overview of Current Research Results.” Journalists should consider this definitive. But few of them mention it.
Summary.
“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. …”
A. Statistical relationships between SSTs and hurricanes.
… The Power Dissipation Index (PDI) …is an aggregate measure of Atlantic hurricane activity, combining frequency, intensity, and duration of hurricanes in a single index. …
This is in fact a crucial distinction, because the statistical relationship between Atlantic hurricanes and local Atlantic SST shown in the upper panel of Figure 1 would imply a very large increases in Atlantic hurricane activity (PDI) due to 21st century greenhouse warming, while the statistical relationship between the PDI and the alternative relative SST measure shown in the lower panel of Figure 1 would imply only modest changes of Atlantic hurricane activity (PDI) with greenhouse warming. In the latter case, the alternative relative SST measure in the lower panel does not change very much over the 21st century in global warming projections from climate models, because the warming projected for the tropical Atlantic in the models is not very different from that projected for the tropics as a whole. …
B. Analysis of century-scale Atlantic tropical storm and hurricane records.
To gain more insight on this problem, we have attempted to analyze much longer (> 100 yr) records of Atlantic hurricane activity. If greenhouse warming causes a substantial increase in Atlantic hurricane activity, then the century scale increase in tropical Atlantic SSTs since the late 1800s should have produced a long-term rise in measures of Atlantic hurricanes activity.
Existing records of past Atlantic tropical storm or hurricane numbers (1878 to present) in fact do show a pronounced upward trend, which is also correlated with rising SSTs (e.g., see blue curve in Fig. 4 or Vecchi and Knutson 2008). However, the density of reporting ship traffic over the Atlantic was relatively sparse during the early decades of this record, such that if storms from the modern era (post 1965) had hypothetically occurred during those earlier decades, a substantial number would likely not have been directly observed by the ship-based “observing network of opportunity.”
We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there is a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. But statistical tests reveal that this trend is so small, relative to the variability in the series, that it is not significantly distinguishable from zero (Figure 2).
In addition, Landsea et al. (2010) note that the rising trend in Atlantic tropical storm counts is almost entirely due to increases in short-duration (<2 day) storms alone. Such short-lived storms were particularly likely to have been overlooked in the earlier parts of the record, as they would have had less opportunity for chance encounters with ship traffic. …
“While major hurricanes show more evidence of a rising trend from the late 1800s, the major hurricane data are considered even less reliable than the other two records in the early parts of the record. Category 4-5 hurricanes show a pronounced increase since the mid-1940s (Bender et al., 2010) but again, we consider that these data need to be carefully assessed for data inhomogeneity problems before such trends can be accepted as reliable.”
E. Summary for Atlantic Hurricanes and Global Warming.
In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts over the past 120+ yr support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic. …
(3) See the trends for yourself in hurricane energy and frequency
Graphs from Ryan Maue (click to enlarge). He also notes that the “Southern Hemisphere 2016-17 tropical cyclone season was weakest/quietest in 50-years since reliable records (sort of) exist.” His dataset has 4,137 named global Tropical Storms since January 1970. Of those, 2242 has a period of hurricane level force (54%).
Global frequency of tropical cyclones.
Global accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) of tropical cyclones.
(4) About those wildfires!
The National Interagency Fire Center shows year-to-date statistics for wildfires in the US. This year ranks third in the past eleven years. The total acres burned per year have been in a flat range since 1999 (details here).
In the 20th century forests were managed by Smokey the Bear — “only you can prevent forest fires” — in the mistaken belief that forest fires must be prevented. This made the western US forests into tinderboxes. The Left blames the resulting massive fires on climate change.
The big picture trend looks better. It is more good news that journalists don’t report. See “Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: perceptions versus realities in a changing world” by Stefan H. Doerr and Cristina Santín in Philosophical Transactions B, 23 May 2016. Excerpt from the abstract…
“{G}lobal area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago. Regarding fire severity, limited data are available. For the western USA, they indicate little change overall, and also that area burned at high severity has overall declined compared to pre-European settlement.”
(5) Results from the propaganda campaign
Much of the propaganda about Harvey and Irma has been directed at Trump. How has his job approval levels changed — an instant measure of their success? Harvey made landfall in Texas on August 26. Trump’s job approval numbers began to improve on September 1 and have remained flattish since September 3 (graph as of Sept 15). Lots of firepower expended on Trump to no visible effect.
(6) A better lesson from these hurricanes (bitter if we wait too long)
“We don’t even plan for the past.”
— Steven Mosher (of Berkeley Earth), a comment posted at Climate Etc.
The debate about the best US public policy response to climate change has run for three decades, with Left and Right relying on misinformation and exaggeration to influence the public. We should be able to agree on the need to prepare for the inevitable repeat of past weather — like category 3, 4, and 5 hurricanes hitting the east coast.
It is pitiful that a rich nation like America has hysterics from events so commonplace as a cat 3 hurricanes. We should be prepared for the on average six major hurricane landfalls per decade (see the average return period for each section of the East Coast.
Eventually a cat 5 will hit the center of a major city. Then perhaps we will take some simple steps to build a more resilient America.
(7) For More Information
To learn more about the matters discussed here.
- See the records set by Irma – at Weather Underground.
- See some thoughts by an engineer about these disasters: “After Hurricane Harvey, don’t empower the engineers” by Charles Marohn at the Strong Towns website. Lots of good material at this site.
- To learn more about the state of climate change see The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters and Climate Change
by Roger Pielke Jr. (Prof of Environmental Studies at U of CO-Boulder).
For more information see all posts about the IPCC, see the keys to understanding climate change and these posts about the politics of climate change…
- How we broke the climate change debates. Lessons learned for the future.
- Important: climate scientists can restart the climate change debate – & win.
- Ignoring science to convince the public that we’re doomed by climate change.
- A leaked memo about climate change explains why we’re unprepared.
- Irma might defeat the skeptics and end the climate wars – a thought experiment.









Good summary.
First line in #6, policy response to climate change has ran for three decades, Should be ‘run’
The warming hysterics are like the scorpion in the fable. it’s just what they do. They do not need any evidence.
There is in fact a negative correlation between higher air temperatures and hurricane frequency and strength. Both are worse (greater) when the air is cooler, as SST doesn’t change much in the tropics.
The differential in air temperature and SST is what makes hurricanes, and makes them more powerful. Hence, the LIA was stormier than either the Medieval Warm Period or the Current WP.
AGW is a conjecture that is based on only partial science. The AGW conjecture depends upon the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect which has not been observed in a real greenhouse, on Earth, or anywhere else in the solar system for that matter. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction. Hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction.
Hey, I live on the west coast…where’s the fire? Heck it’s not even all that warm here in LA.
Seems like the class clowns are still as ignorant as ever.
There is another aspect of this that space precluded discussing (this post was already 3x what I consider the ideal length for such an essay for a general audience). What is the relationship between Sea Surface Temp and Hurricane Intensity. Do they growth more intense as the seas warm? Alternatively, do the very powerful ones become more intense?
Lots of interesting work on this. There have been graphs exchanged on Twitter. I’ve asked some climate scientists to explain this debate to me. The graphs and papers of both sides look convincing.
If anyone cares, I can post a few links and graphs. This debate is an expansion of some issues touched lightly upon in the NOAA statement.
Attributing natural events like hurricanes, wildfires and floods to CAGW with no long term trends of increase in frequency or intensity is bad enough but the earthquake in Mexico too? These people are deranged!
What do the experienced among us make of the track changes for Jose.
Will it be getting into cooler water and loose energy?
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at2+shtml/235324.shtml?cone
Washington State Governor Inslee – said to be the greenest governor in the country – says we are to blame. See: http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/Inslee.htm
Harvey was not a Cat4 at landfall.
There were no landfall reports of surface winds at or over 110MPH.
I have not explored Irma yet, but if Irma was Cat3 at landfall, it was such very briefly and in a limited area.
Irma as Cat4 hit some islands – the impact there was observably different. We can see the difference right in front of our eyes.
Excellent summary.
With regards to statistics of hurricanes in the past compared to today, the only way they can be apples to apples is if we compare landfalling stats to landfalling stats.
If Irma existed 80 years ago for instance, almost all the information that we would have known would have come from land reports. A ship obviously would have gone the other way or perished. Hurricane Hunters did not start doing surveillance of the Atlantic Basin until the 1940’s, which is when we greatly boosted our information about hurricanes. However, it wasn’t until the age of satellites in the 1970’s, when we really got tuned in.
With regards to the warmer atmosphere holding more moisture(maybe 4% more from +1 Deg.C), that is pretty clear. OK, so Harvey rained 51 inches in one place instead of 49 inches but there is ZERO evidence that anything related to global warming/climate change caused Harvey. Tropical Storm Claudette still holds the record for the most rain in one day:
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/texas/article/After-35-years-Alvin-still-holds-U-S-record-for-5644837.php
Here’s some interesting statistics on record rainfall amounts for time frames going from 1 minute to 1 year in the United States. Note the years on all of them(prior to 1983).
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/hdsc/record_precip/record_precip_us.html
This shows that the 4% increase in atmospheric moisture is less important for the most extreme precipitation events than the actual weather pattern at that time. Though I believe we have in fact had an increase in high end flooding events during the past 30 years.
Slightly warmer SST’s can cause hurricanes to be slightly stronger too…….all things being equal. OK, so we can add, maybe 10 mph to the intensity of some hurricanes in the future. However, going well beyond that with statements and claiming that Harvey and Irma were caused by climate change is junk science.
And with the authentic science showing a slight increase in rain/intensity, if one is looking objectively at authentic science, the area in which the greenhouse gas, CO2 is having the biggest impact………by a wide margin relates to the scientific law of photosynthesis(no, it’s not been abolished).
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject.php
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/co2benefits/MonetaryBenefitsofRisingCO2onGlobalFoodProduction.pdf
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject.php
Should this be considered in a discussion about climate? Well, certainly the massive increase in vegetative health is effecting the earths albedo, evapotranspiration, soil moisture and other factors in a beneficial way but even if it wasn’t, the topic climate change from humans burning fossils fuels is focused on the effects of CO2(the beneficial gas).
Suggesting that we take actions to curb CO2 emissions requires that we look at the entire picture of what CO2 is doing.
One way to think of this objectively is to think of how life on earth would testify about CO2, including plants/the biosphere and all living creatures.
Would life be concerned about a 4% increase in atmospheric moisture or an increase in wind speed of 10 mph in some hurricanes? Life would be asking for MORE CO2.
Humans have built their society along coastlines though. So a tiny change in something that has a negative impact on the coastlines (sea level increase too) is getting tremendous OVERweighting and massive exaggeration in the discussion.
Something that has 10 times more positives for life on earth than negatives.
It feels like the scientific version of the Twilight Zone. If all there was no CO2 or fossil fuels, would people be alarmed at anything that has happened in weather or climate the past 40 years?
The climate/weather and CO2 has been the best during that time for growing crops and for most life since the Medieval Warm Period, 1,000 years ago. There are around 100 studies that suggest it was likely this warm…….not just regional. (The claim that the planet warmed for a couple hundred years in one or two regions is absurd) Read the history/reports from people living then. Life and humans flourished because of those conditions during the Medieval Warm Period……..and the Roman Warm Period, 2,000 years ago.
Despite the IPCC rewriting climate history to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period, it really happened. Why deny this truth?
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/qualitative.php
Just what constitutes “powerful assistance from man”?
I already know what powerful assistance Mann can give.
“Many just assume the science says what they want it to say, without recourse to the IPCC, NOAA, or a similar authority”
In this article we mainly hear from a few rather carefully selected scientists. They are certainly worth listening to, but it is a narrow selection. There is just one recourse to GFDL, an NOAA group. But the quotes are also rather selective. For example, the first:
““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. …””
continues:
” 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).”
Section E as quoted:
“In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts over the past 120+ yr support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic. …”
continues:
” One modeling study projects a large (~100%) increase in Atlantic category 4-5 hurricanes over the 21st century, but we estimate that this increase may not be detectable until the latter half of the century.”
So there is a projection of a big increase – it’s just going to be hard to establish statistically for a while. And it goes on to say:
“We also conclude that it is likely that climate warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense globally and to have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes. In our view, there are better than even odds that the numbers of very intense (category 4 and 5) hurricanes will increase by a substantial fraction in some basins, while it is likely that the annual number of tropical storms globally will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged.”
From the NOAA (via the Curry link) Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day ones, with a model-projected increase of about 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center.
Like the storm intensity projections, that is in 100 years time using models that hindcast poorly with a temperature input of 3-4°C higher SST that comes from models that overestimate warming. The 15% more rain roughly translates to 7% higher floods and yet the floods from Harvey wouldn’t have occurred if there was no climate denial.
A bit of a stretch.
I’m wondering if the references to the Mexico earthquake is a sort of tag.
1) it’s undeniable that sea level rise
affects storm surge height
2) SSTs feed hurricanes. higher SSTs
are more food. global warming has
created higher SSTs
3) ACE is the worst hurricane metric
ever proposed – it does not take
into account hurricane size
Last time I checked, we all live on the same planet.
Many in the US have enjoyed a 12 year long pause in experiencing a major hurricane. (It must be remembered that those over 12 might not have been in the area the last one hit. For them the pause in actually experiencing one could be much longer.)
A return to what their parents or grandparents experienced is NOT, in any way, “CLIMATE CHANGE” that a windmill or a solar or driving a Prius would have stopped.
It’s natural.
That’s in regards to hurricanes and storms (winter or summer) in general.
Wildfires?
Always have happened.
(There are plants that depend on fire to “crack” their shell so the seed can propagate.)
Has what Man has done made them worse?
Seems like it.
But that is hardly due to Man’s failure to manage CO2, More likely due to Man’s attempts to manage forest and suburban brush because it might be some critters habitat.
Regulation overreach.
I see CNN has joined the chorus http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/15/us/climate-change-hurricanes-harvey-and-irma/index.html including a very curious metric for extreme precipitation based on Kunkel et al 2013 that is designed to exaggerate the recent increases (and Kunkel et al didn’t use it). They say: “For extreme precipitation, there is strong evidence for a nationally averaged upward trend in the frequency and intensity of events. The causes of the observed trends have not been determined with certainty, although there is evidence that increasing atmospheric water vapor may be one factor. “
I think that Nobel laureates, like Paul Krugman and Joseph E. Stiglitz, should refrain from making statements without a traceable and verifiable account. They should know that every statement they make without a sound argument and/or a traceable account, is an attempt to use their authority for political influence.
That reminds about the embarrassing failure with The Maineau Declaration for climate protection:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/03/oddly-nobel-prize-winner-michael-mann-was-not-invited-to-sign-the-mainau-declaration-for-climate-protection/
That attempt clearly singled out the noble scientists among the Nobel laurates. (The noble scientists was on the long list of Nobel laureates that did not sign the declaration):
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/03/oddly-nobel-prize-winner-michael-mann-was-not-invited-to-sign-the-mainau-declaration-for-climate-protection/#comment-1978750
Imagine that. Reading the science rather than reacting to newspaper articles about the science.
We are ill prepared for the storms of the past. The best science suggests a small increase in the strongest storms.but this is really beside the point. The point is prepare for cat 5. Whether or not the predicted small increase occurs..prepare for cat 5 and don’t burden others with your risky decision to live in the path of destruction.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
~
If one is going to pretend that natural disasters, especially earthquakes, are divine retribution, shouldn’t one consider the sin supposedly responsible? Specifically, is divine retribution more likely because we heat our homes and drive a little slightly bigger vehicle than we need, or is it more likely the result of selfishness and lasciviousness?
Consider some stereotypical jet-setting movie star. If he incurs divine retribution, is it more likely due to his use of his private jet, or is it more likely his devilish personal life and debaucheries?
I think it is silly to suppose God punishes us for our weaknesses, no matter what those are, but we obviously will reap what we sow. I don’t see burning that extra gallon of petrol as sowing the wind. We have significantly bigger problems both now and in the future.
Readily available and affordable fuel and electricity are what lifts the enslaved and impoverished to productive, fruitful lives. Those who condemn fossil fuel ultimately condemn the poor.
The connection between wildfires and fossil fuels is so distant and obscure that I cant believe anyone is even having the discussion
Storms are not caused by absolute temperatures, but by temperature differentials. We have been at the peak of the ~65 year cycle for the past dozen or so years, so temperatures have been relatively stable (remember your first year calculus – the rate of change goes to zero at the peak).
It is no coincidence that storm activity is picking up now that we are heading into the La Nina that will augur in the declining phase of that cycle. The years ahead will see accelerated storm activity, and the usual suspects will try mightily to pin it on AGW. Unfortunately for them, global temperatures will be seen to be falling, unless they come up with even more fantastical methods of cooking the books than they have yet assayed.
It’s just amazing to hear and read people discuss the climate science with regards to heavier rains.
Many on one side are convinced that human caused climate change is causing widespread catastrophic flooding, some even believe that many of the events themselves would not even have occurred if not for climate change.
At the other (less) extreme, we have a group that doesn’t think increasing the global atmospheric temperature 1 deg. C and its ability to hold 4% more moisture is a factor and that more global warming will not add to that effect.
40 years ago, climate scientists could have just stated facts or provided explanations based on meteorological principles or the laws of physics.
Not today though. Most people are on one side or the other(lopsided numbers to one side). They are all in for proving their side is right……..or mostly convinced that it was already proven over 10 years ago, when the climate science, somehow was settled.
What was settled? Almost all the global climate models that use the equations to represent the speculative theory have been too warm.
On the other hand, climate and other models can be good tools when used realistically.
There are many good things and bad things about global warming. For most life, modest, realistic warming would be better than cooling. For human life living along the sea coast, warming is bad and could be real bad, worst case scenario. Sea levels “should” accelerate a bit higher if global temperature keep rising.
Some hurricanes “should” be a bit wetter and a bit stronger.
But the potentially real bad scenario is unfolding so slowly right now, that it’s not even distinguishable from the noise of random variation related to weather that has always happened before……..with the exception of an increase in some high end flooding events(in my opinion but again, the atmosphere holds 4% more moisture, not 40% more).
No land falling major hurricanes for 12 years is a stat that I read alot about from one side but the reality is that was a natural and statistical fluke and not representative of the reality of the realm of global hurricanes………but still fun to point out to one side that was waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting for the next major hurricane to hit.
The other side is sickening the way it uses every extreme weather event to play up and sensationalize man made climate change. We all knew that a Harvey and Irma were coming and the reaction was predictable. The 2012 Cornbelt drought, after 24 straight years without a widespread drought, a new record got the same treatment.
Super Duper unprecendented Mega Monster FrankenStorm Sandy too.
Hurricane Hazel, a cat. 4 hurricane did a similar thing in 1954(phased with a -NAO cold pattern upper level trough in southeast Canada). 1954 also featured 3 major hurricanes in 3 months to clobber the East Coast-during global cooling.
These people don’t even realize that the synoptic weather pattern that caused Sandy was a cold weather pattern in late October.
Take out the -NAO, cold upper level trough and Sandy isn’t anything special.
The unprecedented California drought that was more likely ended by global warming than caused by it. Forget the fact that California will probably be wetter with global warming and that they’ve had droughts lasting decades in the last 2,000 years, even one that lasted for 200 years.
When we had the extreme cold in the US 3 Winters ago, even that was caused by global warming.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/john-holdren-video-polar-vortex/
“A growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern that we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues,”
Though I understand the speculative theory behind this(and am don’t completely reject it), this also happened in the mid/late 1970’s numerous times and also prior to that.
Can’t we have any extreme weather that isn’t being caused by global warming/climate change?
Funny thing is that when you decrease the meridional temperature gradient with global warming(more at the higher latitudes), the atmosphere doesn’t need to work as hard to balance the heat disparity and some extreme weather decreases…….jet streams, cold fronts, violent tornadoes, for instance.
The objective is to link every single extreme weather episode to human caused climate change.
Not having extreme, record breaking weather occurring every year, in numerous places on this planet would be more extraordinary than the expected extreme weather that we’ve been having.
Earthquakes?? …. how in the heck do these idiots associate earthquakes to greenhouse gasses.