Cutting through the myths about Irma, Harvey, and climate change.

By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website

Summary: Climate scientist Judith Curry discusses Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, the state of knowledge about hurricanes, and the announcements of their connection to climate change. These storms teach us lessons we cannot afford to ignore.

.
Interview of Dr. Judith Curry
by David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

Discussing Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Irma, and climate change.
15 September 2017.

Here is the transcript. Video of the interview is at the end.


DW: First of all – do we understand hurricanes?

JC: We’re getting a whole lot better at predicting individual storms. This has really been a banner year for long range prediction, and detailed prediction for hurricane impacts. Models like ECMWF {European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts} and the NOAA models – they’re doing a good job. We understand the basics of how hurricanes form and we have a predicative capability using high resolution global and regional weather forecast models. We don’t understand rapid intensification. Like hurricane Harvey this year – it spun up very quickly, rapidly intensified, in less than 24 hours. We don’t know how to predict that much in advance. But in terms of track and overall intensity, rainfall impacts, we’re getting pretty good at being able to predict that. My company Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN) — hurricane forecasting is a big part of what we do, and we’ve have a really good year for our predictions.

The core observatory satellite scans Hurricane Irma on 5 & 7 September 2017.

.
DW: What do we know about, looking backward, in the past, what do we know about the rate of change of the intensity of hurricanes, or the frequency of occurrence.

JC: We only have good satellite data back to maybe 1980. We have some satellite date going back to 1970. But it is of lesser quality. We don’t have long global records. But in the Atlantic, we have pretty good historical records, at least for the landfalling hurricanes. But not necessarily for the total number in the ocean basins. For the satellite record globally, there’s no trend in the numbers or overall accumulated cyclone energy. We have teased out a signal, of increasing percentage of category four and five hurricanes in two of the basins in the Atlantic and the North Indian Ocean. But trying to determine whether this is natural variability or human-caused — we just don’t have a long enough record to tease that out. There are hints of an increasing percentage of category four and five hurricanes, but we don’t have the knowledge or enough data to attribute that to humans versus natural variability.

DW: But some people have said that as a result of hurricane Harvey and Irma, that we live in a warmer world, the oceans are warmer, the sea level is higher, and this is going to make hurricanes more destructive. What do you think of that?

JC: Can they then tell me why we’ve had no major hurricanes strikes in the US for the twelve years preceding Hurricane Harvey? Sea surface temperature is only one ingredient for hurricane development and intensification, and it doesn’t seem to be absolute sea surface temperature, either. You can go back and there were really strong hurricanes in the nineteenth century for example, where surface temperatures were significantly cooler. And there were some horrendous hurricanes in the Atlantic in the early part of the twentieth century, when sea surface temperatures were noticeably cooler. It’s more relative sea surface temperatures and the overall dynamics of the atmosphere that are arguably the key ingredients – not just absolute sea surface temperature itself.

We have a pretty good predictive capability of hurricanes right now. Our understanding of the climate dynamics of hurricanes is a different story. This is something that’s still a work in progress. There is a lot of debate in the scientific community about this, and we’re only now starting to see some high resolution global climate model simulations trying to sort out what we might see in the future.

There was a paper just published by a Japanese group: “Response of Tropical Cyclone Activity and Structure to Global Warming in a High-Resolution Global Nonhydrostatic Model” by Yohei Yamada et al. in the Journal of Climate. They ran the very high resolution Japanese climate model for the current conditions of perturbed warmer conditions, and they found a significant decrease in the number of hurricanes, but they found an increase in intensity, an increase in the horizontal size, which relates to storm surge among other things, and an increase in precipitation. I just glanced at it literally yesterday – I flagged it to read more carefully. That may be the best study that I’ve seen of that kind.

For the sake of argument, assume that is correct. What is the trade-off for 20% fewer hurricanes for a slight increase in overall intensity. In terms of overall damage. I don’t know what the trade-off is, so it might not be a net increase in actual damage if there’s fewer hurricanes. That’s the state of our understanding right now.

The first wave of the revolution in weather forecasting.

DW: So, given the models — what the models say — What people might say will happen in the future, how long will it be before we are observationally able to compare what’s happening with the models?

JC: Kerry Emanuel has said that it will be mid-twenty-first century before we’d expect to see any climatological signal in the observations, because natural variability is so large. And weather roulette — sometimes crazy things happen, and then they don’t have anything to do with climate. By the time you have a long enough time — and this is assuming that we have some substantial warming over the next thirty years — if we do have substantial warming over the next thirty years, probably by 2050 we would start to be able to tease out a signal.

But looking at that period, the next 30 years, we’re probably looking at a shift in the Atlantic to the cool phase of the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation. In 1995, after a relatively quiet period in the Atlantic, we flipped to the warm phase of the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation, and that like really juiced-up the hurricanes. And so, at some time, probably in the order of ten years, we’ll see a flip to the cool phase again, and presumably much quieter situation in the Atlantic for hurricanes.

DW: So are those who point to Harvey and Irma as being climate change in action, are they mistaking weather for climate?

JC: Oh yes, they’re mistaking weather for climate. Harvey and Irma were big storms, but they’re don’t really rank up there with the worst that we’ve seen in the last decade or the last century. There were some horrendous ones earlier in the twentieth century. Including really bad ones that hit Houston and Florida. These aren’t particularly unusual as far as hurricanes go. They’re top-20 kind of storms, but they’re not record-breaking in any way, apart from the overall rainfall from Harvey, which was really more of a fluke from the weather situation that allowed the storm to sit in one place for a very long time. There’s nothing unusual about this hurricane season or about Harvey and Irma. The US had incredibly lucky run of 12 years without a major landfall during this active phase of the hurricane cycle. We were incredibly lucky. Our luck is now broken. But it’s totally expected.

Extreme lightning over the city.

Extreme lightning over the city. Vasin Lee/Shutterstock.

DW: Can I ask you finally about event attribution? Because there are people saying that hurricane Harvey wouldn’t have happened without climate change., there are people say that the heatwave in Russia was made ten times more likely because of climate change, or the drought in America was made X-times more likely. Can I ask you what you think about scientists who try and attribute individual events to climate change in a direct way?

JC: The group that I like is really the NOAA group in Boulder, who looks at the historical record and tries to see is there anything unusual. Looking back a hundred years, is this exceptional in any way? If it is not particularly exceptional, given the record we have for the last hundred years, then it’s hard to argue that climate changed. Occasionally we do get genuinely record-breaking events. Then we need to trace back to what was the atmospheric dynamics, and whatever that contributed to that event and you need to tease it out. It needs a lot of detective work.

There is this new movement to use climate models with natural variability, and then human-caused global warming, but these same climate models they’re using can’t resolve these extreme events. They can’t produce hurricanes, they don’t have the right event-weather distribution to provide heatwaves. It is just Voodoo statistics that they’re playing with these models — which do not have the capability to predict these extreme events in the current climate or an unperturbed climate anyways. I’m not very impressed with the model-based attribution arguments. Carefully-constructed diagnostic analysis and comparisons with historical events — to me those are of much more value.

DW: So we have to wait and see?

JC: We just have to wait and see. The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Working Group I introduced this concept of time of emergence – when you would expect to see the statistics of the future climate breakout from the variability statistics of current climate, then they come up with something like 2050. We are not able to see a signal where the statistics would be genuinely different from what we have now. We’re not able to see that.

I don’t quite understand why it is important to attribute these extreme events other than to hysterically advocate reducing fossil fuels. In terms of trying to figure out how to manage extreme events and reduce our vulnerability, what’s causing it is almost a secondary concern. We’re not preparing for the events we have now, or the events we’ve seen in the twentieth Century, let alone for the events that we might see in the latter part of the 21st century. If we have enough money for that extra resilience – wow, that would be great to prepare for even bigger events than we’ve seen. But adapting and preparing for the ones we’re seeing now would be a big step in the right direction to reducing our vulnerability to what we might be facing in the future.

Thinking that reducing fossil fuels is going to help with extreme events on the timescale of the 21st century is a pipe dream. Even if you believe the climate models, and we are able to drastically reduce fossil fuel emissions by 2050, we’re going to see miniscule impacts on the climate and the weather by the end of the 21st century. Any benefits would be realised in the 22nd and 23rd centuries. If we think we have enough wisdom and knowledge to what might happen in the 22nd and 23rd Century — personally I’d rather see us deal with here and now, and maybe focus on what we might be facing out to 2050. That seems a more practical and realistic goal, for what we should be trying to do. That’s my opinion.
.


———————————————————–

Judith Curry

About Judith Curry

Judith Curry recently retired as a Professor of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She is now President and co-owner of Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN). Prior to joining the faculty at Georgia Tech, she served on the faculty of the University of Colorado, Penn State University and Purdue University.

She serves on the NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee and the DOE Biological and Environmental Science Advisory Committee. She recently served on the National Academies Climate Research Committee and the Space Studies Board, and the NOAA Climate Working Group.

She is a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Geophysical Union. Her views on climate change are best summarized by her Congressional testimony: Policy Relevant Climate Issues in Context, April 2013.

Follow Dr. Curry on Twitter at @curryja. Learn about her firm, CFAN, at their website.

The bottom line

“We don’t even plan for the past.”
Steven Mosher (of Berkeley Earth), a comment posted at Climate Etc.

The public policy gridlock about climate change has left us unprepared for the inevitable repeat of past weather. This year the people of Puerto Rico paid for that. Next time the cost in blood and money might be even larger.

For More Information

To learn more about Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.

For more information about this vital issue see the keys to understanding climate change. Also, see all posts about hurricanes, about extreme weather, and especially these …

Advertisements

109 thoughts on “Cutting through the myths about Irma, Harvey, and climate change.

    • Joe,

      Thanks for posting those links! Since few will click through to read them, here’s the conclusion to your “after Irma” article. https://patriotpost.us/opinion/51257

      “So was it CO2 that “saved” Florida and forced the storm south into Cuba, or the totality of the forcing that has always been there and resulted in such things since we have started studying hurricanes? How can one tell if CO2 caused Irma to be a monster in one place but less of a beast in another? The fact is, some modeling caught the move into Cuba, and no model I know of has a CO2 input. The argument that the water is warmer because of climate change doesn’t hold water because we have had stronger storms in there (the 1935 Labor Day storm was 35 millibars lower and 50 m.p.h. higher than this), so preexisting knowns debunk the argument of the unknown.

      “It really is getting absurd. That these missives are being used at a time of tragedy to push an agenda with an “I told you so” attitude based on something that

      a) just looking at history showed was bound to come back and

      b) was warned about by our forecast team before this season using analogs of other seasons where CO2 had nothing to do with the impact makes it more absurd.

      “And the same people who are trying to shut down debate are in reality the ones in this case crying fire in a crowded theater to create chaos.

      “So here is the rule of the AGW agenda-driven comments: If it hits someone, it’s climate change. If it misses or is way out at sea, it’s weather. The truth: It’s all weather, and there is nothing new under the sun.”

      Just like the 12 year hurricane drought was “weather”, but the first two big hurricanes are “climate change.” Alarmist logic, Q.E.D.

      • Larry…..your opening statement is exactly my thinking.

      • I read all the stuff Joe posts and watch every single one of his free videos at weatherbell.com. I have learned a lot from them. And when tropical storms are in the offing my first clicks when I get on the computer will be either weatherbell.com or Tropical Tidbits. Between Joe and Levi I gain a far better handle on what is going on and expected to occur in a concentrated from than I can get from any government or university source.

      • Ditto me too, RAH. I don’t miss a day of Joe Bastardi’s free videos at weatherbell.com (hit the Premium tab and choose the free vids on the right). I too have learned a lot from them. He tosses off more info and wisdom about meteorology in some of them than any scientific paper that hems and haws and plops four-syllable words about something that could–and should–be said simply.

        I’ve been watching for Joe Bastardi’s free videos for three years. He has beat every single forecaster with his analog comparisons using a remarkable knowledge of history, facts, and data–and frankly pure lust for the field–than any other forecaster I know.

        If you’d watched his free vids back in April and May, you’d have known this hurricane season was coming, when, and how it was going to develop. None of this was a surprise. Climate change my a$$. Bastardi saw it coming and explained why months before the fact. He’s a national treasure, in my view.

      • I agree. I look at Joe’s daily updates every day, and since I have been tracking hurricanes since the early 1950’s, I think he is the most reliable source for weather/hurricanes, etc. – JPP

    • Thanks for a great job this year, Joe.

      I especially liked the pre-Irma storm you foresaw off Cape Hatteras, which popped up right where you said it would. That prediction won’t appear on any “hurricane score sheet”, but I saw it. I imagine that, back before they had satellites, it would have been named “Irma”, because they would only have had the shore observations to go by. They would have seen northeast gales in September with no involved front.

      In some ways they have redefined what constitutes a tropical storm, using satellites. Trying to compare storms before satellites, and most especially before hurricane-hunter aircraft, with modern storms is like comparing apples with oranges. We have no idea how strong those storms became, off shore. It is very likely some of those hurricanes reached Cat 5, but we can never know about it. All we see are the coral encrusted cannons of ships that vanished long ago.

      • Indeed, and to my mind, if there is any man-made component to the higher Cat4/5 thing; it is from ‘moving the goal posts’ via changing the definitions.

        I am an old man. I remember what they used to say about tropical systems. 1. Water temperature at depth of at least 25C/77F. 2. An existing surface or mid-level low pressure system, so you already have a ‘spin’ and 3. High pressure aloft with little to no wind shear. You had to have all 3.

        I was born in the Southern USA and have lived there for almost all of my years on Earth. The Gulf of Mexico is warm enough at depth every year. Most years, though, you don’t have 2 or 3. Some years you have 1 and 2, some years you have 1 and 3. Only years with all three will we see a tropical storm or hurricane. Even then, where they go depends on ‘steering currents’; so where the troughs and ridges set up matter. The storms go toward the troughs and around the ridges. Since all of these conditions are moving or changing in some fashion, determined by *local* weather; it is the weather that matters. The climate, not so much; since the climate is a statistical summary statement of the previously realized weather at any specified spot on the surface.

  1. The aspect that is missing from such storm studies is the variability of temperature in the stratosphere just above the tropopause.
    Currently, everything in the models is focused on events at the tropopause and below.
    The truth is that storm system severity is based on the steepness of the temperature gradient in the vertical plane and the height to which that gradient reaches.
    Temperature changes in the lower stratosphere can change the steepness of the gradient and the height of the tropopause thereby inhibiting or allowing less strong or more strong convection.
    Explosive cyclogenesis is more a result of cooler air moving in laterally above the tropopause (as opposed to a warmer surface) with an increase in tropopause height so that the storm system is thereby given a fresh shot of convective energy.

    • It’s more relative sea surface temperatures and the overall dynamics of the atmosphere that are arguably the key ingredients – not just absolute sea surface temperature itself.

      The atmosphere is a heat engine. As such it is driven by differences in temperature. As Dr. Curry notes, the sea surface temperature by itself doesn’t matter much.

      Anyone who says that increased sea surface temperatures will, by themselves, lead to more severe weather, is assuming that everything else will remain the same. It won’t. The other possibility is that they know less about thermodynamics than the average second year engineering student.

  2. But Dr Curry not spreading panic violates the narrative that we must do something (which happens to match the same recommendations made when alarmists were predicting global cooling).

  3. Once again rational thought and common sense JC explains that science fiction alarmist AG types don’t know what they’re talking about, because no one understands how these Hurricanes are created…yet…because the science is too young, that it may be one to two centuries before science can understand how they’re created and can then be predicted, and that with stronger hurricanes in the past at lower carbon dioxide levels it is doubtful it has anything to do with their occurrences.

    At some point rational thought and common sense needs to overcome the Alarmist hold of denial. It is them not us that are the “denialist” that the science is settled by the fact that it is not settled. Science is in its infancy in terms what is and isn’t known about weather and climate. The “alarmist” are like the “quack doctor’s” of early last century that flooded the market with devices and cures for ailments that caused more harm than healed anyone and they profited from it because the ignorance of the population bought their BS.

    • “At some point rational thought and common sense needs to overcome the Alarmist hold of denial”

      Totally agree jochi7 and well said but I’m not holding my breath…it may take a while. I live in Toronto, Ontario and here the alarmist narrative is not in question. Our educated, political and corporate classes are in complete agreement with the academic climate community on the imagined perils of combustion given it’s perceived “effect’ on the weather. And they have to be as this is about saving the planet. To be otherwise is to be irrelevant.

      None of them seem to have any idea of, understanding of, or interest in the uncertainties of significance concerning the transient response from the ACO2 induced TOA radiative deficit. It’s as if we’ve moved on and are well past that part of the discussion…so to be of influence you have to be on board with the program.

      We shouldn’t be surprised, throughout human history perception has always trumped reality, and it still does. A house for sale in my neighbourhood will not sell for market price if the property borders the hydro line…people think you will get cancer…go figure.

      I like this recent quote from Lindzen….

      “What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.”

    • johchi7
      If you really think it’s all BS, then please provide a plausible cause for the warming over the last 100 or so years. Until then, you are just another no name blog contributor.
      Let’s not forget that Judith Curry thinks we are warming (and so does Mr Watts and so does Roy Spencer) and that we are part of the cause. The science is settled that the increase of CO2 by humans is warming the planet. From here there are really on two questions.
      1.How much more warming will we get?
      2. How much disruption/damage will it cause?
      Perhaps Watts, Curry and Spencer are right that we will cope. But that is a big “perhaps.”

      • Will we climb up anywhere near the nice warm MWp, is that what you are asking

        Cold does far more damage than the HIGHLY beneficial warming since the LIA.

        Plenty of causes for the REAL warming since the cold 1970s. Solar effects, ocean oscillations etc
        UHI affecting thermometers,

        Remember, the reality is that the NH is maybe about on par with the 1930s temperature wise. USA is certainly significantly below those temperatures.

        And yes plenty of reasons for the pseudo-warming in GISS et al.. the main one being AGENDA.

        The science is a long way from settled on the effects of CO2.

        Please provide empirical proof that CO2 causes warming in our convectively control atmosphere.

      • It does not matter what Watts, Curry, Spencer think. What matters is a correct understanding of how the atmosphere really works. We are a long way away from that being settled. There are very different theories about and virtually no real attempt to conduct some sensible experiments to either eliminate or confirm any of them. It’s a disgrace really. Amazingly some theories or bits of theories are dismissed even though some evidence exists to support them.

        Even if 99% of the entire population of the world “think” a theory is nutty I suggest it is still worth investigating and conducting some experiments. Anyone who has just a bit of knowledge of the history of science and how progress is made will understand why thinking like this is the most sensible thing to do.

        Unfortunately groupthink and fear of being put in the “nutter” category seems to reign supreme now. It didn’t used to be like this. Universities had lots of “strange” investigations going on 40-50y ago, they liked pushing the boundaries and letting some researchers go their own way.

      • Simon, ‘The science is settled that the increase of CO2 by humans is warming the planet’. Can you please demonstrate how ‘human produced’ CO2 varies from naturally produced CO2, because CO2 has been far higher than it is now with far lower temperatures.

      • please provide a plausible cause for the warming over the last 100 or so years

        This is typical of AGW alarmism. Anyone looking at the last 100 years and declaring “warming” is deliberately ignoring hundreds of thousands of years of very well documented climate change, and hundreds of millions of years of rather less well documented climate change.

        Learn some earth history and get a life, Simon.

      • Simple Simon I have never denied GW occurrences have occurred or will occur in any of my commens anywhere. But of what is known of past occurrences the Earth has had extremely hotter climates when Human’s didn’t exist and when they evolved to their use of fire it has made closer to no affect even at today’s level of industrialization of fractions of a degree. AGW is therefore BS that “Alarmist” are in “denial” of historical occurrences because they cannot – with any scientific proof – attribute our uses of fossil fuels to weather or climate change. It is therefore a political scam against Capitalism and a push towards Socialism that has to Centralize control over every aspect of our lives and fund Government’s by taxation and heavily regulated industry and personal uses of products that are made from or use fossil fuels. This ideology has created massive price distortions on everything by driving up the cost of products production, distribution and their end cost to the consumers. When natural disasters occur it cost more to replace what was destroyed because those price distortions have increased cost since the last time a disaster occurred and because the exponentially increasing population building more in area’s subject to those disasters. This all increases the funding of the Government’s by demonizing Carbon Dioxide as the cause of the problem they push through education indoctrination and the media that the population of the ignorant masses believe their Government is there to help them and never lies to them. So I call it BS when I see it.

      • Simon, warming prior to 1950 is all natural according to our beloved ipcc. They also add that as much as half of recent warming may be natural. So even according to the establishment 3/4 of “the warming over the last 100 or so years” might be natural. (so why don’t you go ask them for a “plausable cause”?)

      • Simon October 7, 2017 at 12:45 pm
        johchi7
        If you really think it’s all BS, then please provide a plausible cause for the warming over the last 100 or so years.

        The “adjustments” to past records aside, how about “Nature”?
        Listen to the “CAGW” crowd and you’d think there’s no such thing as “natural events”. Man is Supreme. Man causes it all, therefore Man must be controlled..by the the men (and women and those in between) who have truly “supreme” goals.

      • Simon, if the science is settled, then perhaps you can quantify how much warming we WILL get ? Future damage and disruption is abstract and I doubt you think it is quantifiable before it happens. Can you quantify how much past warming can be attributed to Carbon dioxide, specifically the Anthropogenic component? Is there any benefit to warming over cooling? How much better will a future climate be (in the context of a conceptual single climate) if we rid ourselves of Fossil fuels? If it’s plausibility you’re looking for, and the only plausible cause is CO2, in your view, you’re missing a much bigger picture. Though you mention them to support your assertions, I’m sure you know that Mr.Watts, Profs. Curry and Spencer do not share your fears for the future.

        Eamon.

      • Eamon Butler October 8, 2017 at 4:11 am
        “Simon, if the science is settled, then perhaps you can quantify how much warming we WILL get ?”

        Silly question. Typical of those who don’t understand the science.

        “Future damage and disruption is abstract and I doubt you think it is quantifiable before it happens.”

        Do you smoke? If you do, can you tell me how much damage you will do to your body in the future? Will it be going to reduce your lung and heart capacity by 66%? Maybe 67%? My point is you can’t put an exact figure on it. But… you know (you should know) your future is at risk, if you do smoke. And the more you do, the higher the risk. So just because I can’t “quantify” the risk ahead, with an exact figure, doesn’t mean it is not real.

        Learning about and addressing future risk has been a hallmark of human intelligence. It is to a large extent why we have done so well on this planet. Hiding behind “it hasn’t happened yet, so you can’t prove it” is just plain dumb. I for one don’t want to use such an ignorant excuse to justify inaction.

        “Can you quantify how much past warming can be attributed to Carbon dioxide, specifically the Anthropogenic component?”

        See above…..

      • Lame analogy. My father smoked from the age of 13 until he died at 73 from unrelated causes. At his last physical, his doctor said he had the lungs of a teenager.

        That something has a high risk, is not guarantee that it will even happen, especially if there’s an uncertainty or RANGE of uncertainty in the calculated risk.

        “Learning about and addressing future risk has been a hallmark of human intelligence”

        Completely unsupported statement. I offer up aids, increased abortion rates, increased drug addiction, increased obesity and a multitude of other things that cross all ranges of human IQ and demonstrates that humans can KNOW of future risks and completely disregard them.

        There’s a difference between “hasn’t happened yet” (which you attributed to someone else even though they never said it or even implied it) and the idea that it is irrational and illogical to assign ANY type of risk to something has not been scientifically proven to even be a future physical possibility.

        “So just because I can’t “quantify” the risk ahead, with an exact figure, doesn’t mean it is not real.”

        No, the fact that you cannot prove there is any risk at all, means it’s not real. (Doesnt mean it cannot become real at some point…but theres no solid evidence at the moment) You cannot quantify the risk of things that don’t exist yet.

      • “You cannot quantify the risk of things that don’t exist yet.” just like you cannot quantify Carbon Dioxide being near the suffocation point for flora during the LGM for the Global Warming that ended it, then having nearly the same CO2 when the highest Global Warming occurred or the Global Cooling that followed it, etcetera, to the LIA and the Global Warming that has occurred since. Just because a “trend” correlates for a short period between CO2 and Global Temperatures doesn’t show cause and effect when that trend is broken by having increased CO2 and no matching increased Global Warming. People hate it when their beliefs are proven false and denial is the first defense they use, followed by trying to convince themselves they’re right by holding onto their ideologies that they cannot be wrong.

      • Obfuscation is the same as “bla bla bla…” that since the industrial age we have increased the CO2 some 88ppm and with all the alarmism the global temperatures haven’t even increased a degree F. That alarmist have been saying for decades will increase multiple degrees and they revise it every time it failed to do so. You are whom is in Denial and cannot accept the the facts that increasing CO2 has failed to raise the global temperatures with any significant amount. And because it has not caused any significant amount of warming the science is flawed. Just because the CO2 has increased without a significant amount of warming, the warming that has occurred cannot be linked to any temperature variations, because at this point it’s only an observation that temperatures have increased along with CO2 increasing more and not the creator of the temperature increase. Your analogies are also flawed because only 10% of smokers get cancer or have any heath issues like heart diseases connected to smoking. That over 70% of that 10% have problems is how the healthcare issues were devised that pushed smoking as hazardous to your health. That issue goes back to Hitler banning tobacco because a German scientist linked it to cancer and that the healthcare for them was expensive for people they said were going to die anyway and to not spend any kind of health treatments on tobacco user’s that they sent home to suffer and die. Something we are seeing today because of health insurance not covering illnesses linked to tobacco use because of the high cost of treatments. Just more ways that the government has controlled the population.

      • johchi7
        You might want to check this out before you go all denial on me re the link between CO2 and temperature…

        chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/annual-with-forcing.pdf

      • Thanks Alphen. I thought the same thing. Without a separation of the CO2 and volcanic activities to temperature fluctuations it doesn’t answer anything. I’ve viewed charts that show an increase of volcanic activities since the early 1800’s to the 2000’s that in 2014 alone there were more active volcanoes than in the whole 1900’s that were nearly double of the 1800’s…yet in 2014 there wasn’t any extreme temperature changes. With all those volcanic activities pumping aerosols and GHG’s along with CO2, ash and dust increasing for over a century we had a nearly stable global temperature for over 18 year’s…and that includes all the increases of CO2 blamed on Human sources. But some people just “can’t see the forest for the tree’s.” or just refise to accept they’re wrong. To start their arguments in the Little Ice Age that was colder and then say it is unprecedentially warming is a ludicrous argument by ignoring previously recorded temperature fluctuations scientist determined existed back to the Glacial Maximum. That makes them denialist.

      • Where I live, there has been no warming over the last 100 years. None whatsoever. To the extent there is ‘warming’, it is the cities that are warming. IR is light, not heat. Heat is the internal kinetic energy within a defined sample of matter. We can’t measure this for the whole Earth, including its atmosphere. The satellites have sensors that see flux or intensity or both of radiation. Using conditions and assumptions, a thermodynamic temperature is deduced, but that temperature has inherent uncertainty. About the only thing that is settled is the absorption spectra of the gases in the atmosphere. Extrapolating from the behavior of gases bottled in a lab to the open atmosphere, like the assumptions used to deduce a thermodynamic temperature from the radiant flux and intensity, has inherent uncertainty, too.

      • cdquarles October 9, 2017 at 8:27 am
        “Where I live, there has been no warming over the last 100 years. None whatsoever.”
        Really? Where is that… let’s check out your statement.

      • Aphan
        Wow thanks for the reference. That is one scary map. But I knew that the whole planet is not warming at the same rate. Which is why when people make such lame foolish comments that it’s not “warm outside my door”…. well….you just wonder why they would even bother? Do they want people to know for sure that they have no clue?

      • If you find that map “scarey,” Sunrise every morning must make you curl into the fetal position screaming!!! There are meds for that honey. (Or we can drive a wooden stake through your heart)

        It refers to increases in DEGREES FARENHEIGHT per CENTURY. Since A -most of us will live LESS than one century, and B- its really, REALLY hard to “notice” increases of 1/100th of degrees F per year…yeah, humans cannot see or feel it, and Nature is completely capable of adapting to it.

        The “average temperature” of Earth is currently calculated to be 15 C. That’s 59 F!!! Most people put on a sweater at that temp. At 68 in my house at night, we’re sleeping under multiple blankets.

        The average temperature in my state is currently 54.8. According to that map the rate of increase for in my state is a WHOPPING 2F per century. That means over the course of my lifetime so far, it went from 53.8 to 54.8!!! The HORROR!!

      • Simon,

        The science is not settled that man-made CO2 is warming the planet. It is settled that more CO2 has been good for the planet’s living things. Any negative effects of CO2 are also unsettled, to say the least.

      • ”1.How much more warming will we get?
        2. How much disruption/damage will it cause?
        Perhaps Watts, Curry and Spencer are right that we will cope. But that is a big “perhaps.”

        Simon, ‘Eamon Butler October 8, 2017 at 4:11 am
        “Simon, if the science is settled, then perhaps you can quantify how much warming we WILL get ?”

        ”Silly question. Typical of those who don’t understand the science.” … It was your question Simon.

        ”Do you smoke? If you do, can you tell me how much damage you will do to your body in the future? Will it be going to reduce your lung and heart capacity by 66%? Maybe 67%? My point is you can’t put an exact figure on it. But… you know (you should know) your future is at risk, if you do smoke. And the more you do, the higher the risk. So just because I can’t “quantify” the risk ahead, with an exact figure, doesn’t mean it is not real.”

        No I don’t. But now you’re confusing issues. There is every likelihood a smoker will develop the observed health issues associated with smoking. Similarly, we know the effects of various weather events as we have observed in the past. Your addition to the story is Anthropogenic Carbon dioxide, and the claim that the science is settled. If this is so tell us about it without the vague generalisations. Given the serious nature of the impacts on our present day society, Carbon taxes, soaring energy costs, destruction of industries and agri. business etc. it deserves more than idle assertions and a best guess of the week. If there’s anything we know about climate science, it is far from being settled. Failing to accept this, hinders a greater understanding and the slow pace of discovery we have witnessed over the past thirty years+.

      • Willy Pete October 9, 2017 at 4:13 pm
        Simon,

        The science is not settled that man-made CO2 is warming the planet.”

        If you are so sure there is not an acceptance that man made CO2 is (at least in part)warming the planet…. give me the name of one active climate scientist who agrees with you. Just one…..

      • Simon,
        Do you understand the difference between what SCIENCE can and cannot tell us, and what people “think” or “believe” that science can/cannot tell us?

        If the SCIENCE was settled long ago, the the past 25+years worth of climate research has been nothing more than one giant, money sucking hoax! Michael Mann…Trenberth…all of them, need to be fired and sued for a refund of all the grant money they took to fund unnecessary and redundant research!!

      • Simon.

        Let’s see your answer first. You were asked a question that you obviously couldn’t answer and countered with a question setting limits on what you would find acceptable – such as a peer reviewed paper by other biased scientists – and then say we’ve got nothing…when you cannot prove that CO2 has anything to do with global warming or climate change when based upon evidence that temperatures have increased and decreased before the industrial age.

      • johchi7
        “….when you cannot prove that CO2 has anything to do with global warming or climate change when based upon evidence that temperatures have increased and decreased before the industrial age.”

        It is not possible to prove anything to someone whose eyes and mind are closed… but read this(one eye is better than none). It is easy to understand and explains the link beyond reasonable doubt. It’s also from one of the most highly regarded scientific organisations on the planet. Chapter 2 is al you need, but the rest is mighty fine too.
        chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf

      • Is your mind open Simon?

        From your link-
        “The expected changes in climate are based on our understanding of how greenhouse gases trap heat. Both this fundamental understanding of the physics of greenhouse gases and fingerprint studies show that natural causes alone are inadequate to explain the recent observed changes in climate.”

        1. Greenhouse gases don’t trap heat. They can’t. They can only slow down its release to space. They absorb radiation energy, get “excited” and then emit that energy to other molecules in the air. If greenhouse gases COULD trap heat, it would not cool at night, and the Sun would have cooked us like ants under a magnifying glass long ago. Along with every other living thing.

        2. Based on the fact that GCMs have FAILED to predict reality, and that GHGs do not TRAP heat, the BRA’s “understanding of greenhouse gases” should be questioned by the open minded.

        3. There have been literally HUNDREDS of peer reviewed papers published that demonstrate OTHER natural factors are more likely to have caused the recent warming, just like the past warming. Are you open minded enough to read them?

        The Royal Academy is just another governmental body with it’s own agenda. Talk to the scientists who belong to it.

      • I have only had time to skim through his link and realize I had read it before. But not enough time to gather pieces in it to address individually. This is one of the published directives – and it is a directive to push one side of the issue – that gave me Red Flags that I learned how scared they are of global warming and climate changes, that they want the environment to stand still in an Ice Age condition and not become greener and more populated. The agenda being apparent when it talks about passing it on to their children and grandchildren. I have yet to see proof that Carbon Dioxide has “caused” the warming and cooling periods. They only point out that warming occurs and carbon capturing by ice cores correlate to it. Where we know that warming occurs first and Carbon Dioxide is released afterwards. I’ll take what time I can to study that link more. But my life doesn’t revolve around it.

    • Don’t all NA hurricanes have origins emanating from about 20N and 20S of equatorial Africa? What starts as terrestrial thunderstorms then getting intensified offshore by westerlies via coriolis, etc?

      • No! During the first half of the seasons most of the storms do form in the MDR from waves coming off of Africa. During the second half of the season more of the storms tend to form in the western Caribbean or much closer to the US shore. Nate formed in the Western Caribbean. Starting next week there are good indication of condition for possible development in a region east of the Bahamas roughly in the area of 20 to 30N and 60 to 70W.

      • “Don’t all NA hurricanes have origins emanating from about 20N and 20S of equatorial Africa?”

        and

        ” During the second half of the season more of the storms tend to form in the western Caribbean”

        Well darn then. Empirical evidence suggests hurricanes originate in third world countries occupied by Africans and folks of African descent!

        Case closed.

      • Hurricanes, though called tropical storms, can arise in the subtropics if the water is warm enough.

        I don’t know what the record farthest north or south “tropical” cyclones have formed is.

  4. The alarmists and their media friends are acting as history informs. In this vein, tell me how it is different than when the U.S. Gov’t, its prior President and Defense Dept head, plus EPA, etc., and the IPCC, Gov’t funded Universities and NGO’s spit out their lies on Syria.

    Anyone that believes Assad used CW on his own people in 2013 (Ghouta) and 2017 (Khan Shiekhun) are the same people that believe in the CO2 Monster.

  5. ““And the same people who are trying to shut down debate are in reality the ones in this case crying fire in a crowded theater to create chaos.”

    Some of those people are dishonest reporters like the one below. He doesn’t care about presenting all sides of the argument. He has a CAGW agenda.

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/07/ap-omitted-expert-quotes-that-didnt-fit-the-narrative-about-global-warming/

    AP Omitted Expert Quotes That Didn’t Fit The Narrative About Global Warming

    “An Associated Press reporter sent some questions to Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. about what role global warming played in this year’s slew of billion-dollar natural disasters.

    Pielke, an expert on natural disaster costs, apparently didn’t give AP reporter Seth Borenstein the answers he was looking for, because his ensuing article didn’t have any quotes from the University of Colorado professor.”

    end excerpt

  6. I hate this “tease” out a signal stuff….
    If the stupid signal is that obscure you wouldn’t even know if you found it

      • And don’t build big cities in low laying coastal drainage basins. But nobody pays attention to that kind of thing really. I guess it’s better than building them on and near large active or semi-active volcanos like oh, say, Naples, Italy?

      • good point, rah. we have enormously
        increased hurricane risk by building where
        they flood. as kerry emanuel keeps pointing
        out, this is a far more important factor than
        gw’s influence.

    • I’m going to say that word choice was intentional to put in context what they are “divining.” All based on assumption on assumption on adjusted data and all subject to the climate and human behavior changing, which they always do.

      • I relate “noise” to doing Atomic Spectroscopy for the PGM’s where Fe has a wide band that masks them. If you don’t prep the sample by removing the iron first you can’t tell the PGM’s from the iron. That may not fit the “noise” seen in what is occurring in the data being discussed. But it’s my view of it.

  7. I’m fascinated by the way the quote “We don’t even plan for the past” seems to be assumed by some to have some significant meaning, sort of like “Give peace a chance” or “Rama Lama Ding Dong”.

    Would somebody like to have a go at explaining the meaning?

    • Forrest, my scant understanding of it is that it’s a “mosherism” (if so, then it doesn’t have a meaning… ☺)

    • Forrest,

      “We don’t even plan for the past.”
      — Steven Mosher (of Berkeley Earth), a comment posted at Climate Etc.

      It means that we are unprepared for the inevitable repeat of past extreme weather events. For example, the hurricane “drought” has allowed us to imagine that our East coast cities are prepared — despite the lessons provided by Katrina hitting New Orleans as a Cat 2 and Sandy hitting NYC as a storm.

      So one side warns of Armageddon in 2100 and the other says “we’re all right, mate”. Eventually our luck will run out, and we will learn that Slow and Stupid are the two sins that “Nature’s God” (to use Jefferson’s phrase) always punishes.

      • Larry, you are pretending to speak for another person. Whether mosher meant anything at all by his remark is up to him to explain. Your interpretation then pretends to speak for some undefined “we”.

        I can only repeat what I said elsewhere that your commentary detracts from Judith’s interview transcript.

      • What rational person thinks “Hey…a hurricane drought….must mean our East Coast cities are prepared”??? I cannot imagine how he gets from point A to point 45.

        Clearly Larry has yet to learn that what HE IMAGINES, is rarely what other people actually do.

      • False dichotomy. There are more than two sides in the climate debate. Most people fall in the middle between your two imaginary extremes.

        I’d also like to know where, exactly, can I find evidence regarding this “God of Nature” and that he/she/it considers both “slow” and “stupid” to be SINS, and that he/she/it ALWAYS punishes them??

        Despite all past experiences, I always find myself unprepared for the inevitable repeat of illogical statements being explained with even less logical responses.

      • Larry, in that case you would have done well to state that clearly BEFORE speaking for Mosher. Regardless of whether your words are an accurate representation of Mosher’s views please confirm that you sought Mosher’s approval for your form of words BEFORE speaking on his behalf.

        There are in fact a range of things you would have done well to consider BEFORE detracting from the transcript by adding your commentary to it.

        Very poor stuff indeed.

  8. “We don’t even plan for the past”….

    Um…what is that even supposed to mean? Even if you believe/pretend/assume that it IS possible (let alone logical) to plan for past weather events, those plans may or may not apply to future events.

    “The public policy gridlock about climate change has left us unprepared for the inevitable repeat of past weather. This year the people of Puerto Rico paid for that. Next time the cost in blood and money might be even larger.”

    No public policy is going to change future natural WEATHER events. Period. Nature doesn’t adhere to public policy. The people of Puerto Rico live in a place where such natural events happen repeatedly. The more people who live there, and the more they build/produce/collect there, the more money such events cost.

    Only 19 people died from direct causes of Hurricane Maria, with 15 more dying from indirect causes related to the hurricane. On an island of 3.4 MILLION people, where our early observation systems allowed for evacuation OFF the island prior to Maria’s landing, I’d say that 34 deaths from a Cat 5 is evidence that our advances in “preparations” have been freaking AMAZING.

    • Agreed. The plan for the past thing is patently false. Building codes and planning laws ARE the plans to deal with past experiences.

      Ditto goes for the Puerto Rico comment. When buildings are rebuilt there is an opportunity to build to higher standards. It is a matter of economics which will determine how many remain at risk when the next hurricane hits.

      And who exactly are the “we” and “us” these people are referring to.

      The transcript of Judith Curry’s interview was well worth reading. The commentary added to it only serves to detract from the clarity of thought she demonstrates.

      • That’s the point I DON’T get….nothing in the Curry interview supports the irrational statement Larry imposed at the end of it.

      • Forrest,

        “Building codes and planning laws ARE the plans to deal with past experiences.”

        (1) Yes, they are one aspect of planning. And they are currently grossly inadequate in many areas. To mention just two of the most obvious, building codes often allow construction in highly vulnerable areas and the National Flood Insurance Program often subsidizes doing so.

        (2) No, they are not “the plans” — they are part of the plans to prepare for the repeat of past events. Some other aspects are —

        (a) A well-designed procedure for decision-making during natural events. Too often it is ad hoc, with ill-prepared officials making decisions with inadequate technical assistance and information.

        (b) Development of public infrastructure — preparation for mass evacuations, shelters in place for those who cannot evacuate

        (c) Improvement of public and quasi-public infrastructure to withstand such events. NYC being hit by Storm Sandy is a glaring example of that.

      • Larry, you are arguing with yourself and all because of your editorialising needlessly appended to the transcript. At least you could have sought to qualify mosher’s empty words as you now seek to do. I remain mystified why you wrote what you did. Please think harder next time.

      • Building something to withstand the destructive forces of nature has an economic factor that’s often ignored. Every area has its own problems from the ground its built upon to the type of forces known to happen. Anything built to have minimal damages has a higher cost that many will not pay to do it. And insurance coverage plays a big part of it, because they take for granted that whatever happens it will just be replaced with new materials…so why bother with paying more now when another storm will come in the future…and they may not even own it any more.

      • “(1) Yes, they are one aspect of planning. And they are currently grossly inadequate in many areas. To mention just two of the most obvious, building codes often allow construction in highly vulnerable areas and the National Flood Insurance Program often subsidizes doing so.”

        Building codes and the NFIP are examples of National PUBLIC POLICIES. Government actions. Something you want more of.

        “(2) No, they are not “the plans” — they are part of the plans to prepare for the repeat of past events. Some other aspects are —

        (a) A well-designed procedure for decision-making during natural events. Too often it is ad hoc, with ill-prepared officials making decisions with inadequate technical assistance and information.
        (b) Development of public infrastructure — preparation for mass evacuations, shelters in place for those who cannot evacuate”

        MOST places that are in danger zones have WELL defined and published procedures that are anything but ad hoc. Some even run drills with their medical/first response/evacuation professionals on a regular basis. Like THIS….here’s the website for “San Juan, Puerto Rico’s Municipal Emergency and Disaster Management Office.” http://sanjuanciudadpatria.com/en/services/emergency-management/

        Note the SHELTERS listed after this statement- “In addition to the management of occurrences before, during and after emergencies, it offers throughout the year a series of services, courses and trainings to prepare the citizens. In this page you will find the different guidance options available for your benefit.”

        Your claim about ad hoc plans is insulting to the professionals who spend their careers, and put their lives on the line every day doing exactly what you pretend does not exist.

        “(c) Improvement of public and quasi-public infrastructure to withstand such events. NYC being hit by Storm Sandy is a glaring example of that.”

        LOCAL governments are charged with the safety and rescue/prep of their citizens, not the US Government. Local governments who are smart and efficient were well prepared and recovered more quickly (and cheaply) than New York did. WHY? Because they had PUBLIC POLICIES and plans IN PLACE. NYC is one of the states with the WORST disaster plan/preparations in the US. Other Eastern sea board states, and ocean island nations, had FEWER deaths and better plans in place than New York did. Whose fault is it that NYC seems to be “slow” and “stupid” when compared to other locations?

        Get your facts straight instead of making sweeping accusations and baseless statements Larry.

    • Aphan,

      “No public policy is going to change future natural WEATHER events. ”

      Wow. “Prepare for repeat of events” means prepare for repeat of the event — not change the event.

      “I’d say that 34 deaths from a Cat 5 is evidence that our advances in “preparations” have been freaking AMAZING.”

      Wow. That’s a “special” view of what’s happening there now.

      • No two storms/hurricanes events ARE THE SAME. The PAST teaches us that clearly. You don’t get “repeat events”. But tell me again why you think policies related to CLIMATE CHANGE have anything to do with WEATHER events?

        DO you assume that every time we rebuild after a hurricane that we do it with the same primitive supplies/tools/designs as they did before? Or is it reasonable to believe we try to improve infrastructure as much as is possible? (To do so is called PLANNING and PREPARING)

        Do you NOT agree that advances in science that allow us to predict and PREPARE for such storms well in advance of what we used to, and PLANNING that allows us to move people off the island before such storms is definitely a move FORWARD???

        So what on earth do you propose could be done that would or could prepare Puerto Rico for “future” events that isn’t already being done? What policy do you think the public would agree on, would change the DIFFERING damages and loss of life that we cannot predict?

        It’s not my view that is “special”, it’s yours. Mine is based on evidence and logic.
        Death is always awful. Always painful. Suffering is NOT something I wish upon anyone or anything. But considering the FACT that such storms used to claim THOUSANDS of lives every time they occurred, how can you NOT say that we haven’t learned anything or made any advancements as far as “preparing”??? Standing on the graves of those who died, and the suffering occurring now, doesn’t make your point logical or rational. It’s doing what Joe said (and YOU posted)…using the current missive as an “I told you so” club to push your agenda. It’s sick as well as irrational.

        But Larry, why wait for “public policy” to do something if you feel so passionately about the plight of the people in Puerto Rico? Start funding a cause to bring people who live on islands in the oceans to the mainland, build them homes FAR from the oceans, and find them jobs. Why aren’t you being “fast and smart” and solving the problem as you see it instead of writing ineffective and illogical essays that only complain about what OTHER PEOPLE are not doing??

        Do you really believe that what you call the “SLOW” and the “Stupid” sinners will just magically come around at some point (when evidence suggests they never do) and then begin creating and/or funding previously undiscovered ways to suspend the very laws of physics so that gravity, force, pressure, wind, and deep water stop producing the results we know they can and do?

      • In my recollection Mosher was referring to Government insurance and some homes having been rebuilt, on tax payer funds, more then once.

        I do not know how factual this is. Left alone it is certainly an overbroad statement.

      • Depends on the reports you read. She was a Cat 5 when she hit Dominica, lost strength, then regained it before reaching PR. She was at least a high end Cat 4 as she moved over the island.

        But thanks.

      • Damage recorded via videos of Puerto Rico hurricane damage was nowhere near that due to a cat 4.

    • Larry,

      “And they are currently grossly inadequate in many areas. To mention just two of the most obvious, building codes often allow construction in highly vulnerable areas and the National Flood Insurance Program often subsidizes doing so.”

      Your use of the word “currently” suggests you believe the regulations can be made to actually make the difference you want them to make. In response please allow me to quote Mr. Mosher also:

      “Unicorns!”

      The medical industry is one of the most regulated industries in the United States and yet, iatragenocide (death by doctoring) went up from being the fourth leading cause of death in the U.S. in 2000 to the third leading cause of death last year.

      FEMA was explicitly created to assist cities and towns in states afflicted by disasters who’ve been overwhelmed by the disaster…like New Orleans during hurricane Katrina.

      The EPA was explicitly created to protect the environment. Environments like the Yellow River.

      The FDA was explicitly created to protect and promote the public health. Never mind that every year the CDC regularly reports the local and regional e.coli outbreaks and let’s just agree that’s me being too critical of bureaucracy. Instead let’s look at how the 2nd Circuit court of appeals agreed that the FDA has no obligation to reign in the use of antibiotics in animal feed despite the strong likelihood this practice is contributing to antibiotic resistance bacteria.

      If the FEC (Federal Elections Commission) actually did what they were tasked to do and enforced campaign finance laws equally so they applied to everyone in the same way then the Supreme Court never would have had to hear the Citizens United Case.

      Four years ago the Union of Concerned Scientists (if you can take them seriously) reported that 30 years after the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) implemented fire regulations for power plants, today nearly half of U.S. operating nuclear reactors do not comply with the regulations.

      Regulatory agencies are largely cosmetic in terms of what they do to prevent harm to the public. Their teeth and fangs are more accessible after the public has been harmed, but even then, remains a lumber-some beast. You want them to be unicorns.

  9. To understand this year’s hurricane season, we need to know the history better.

    Here it is:

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/09/27/this-years-atlantic-hurricanes-in-perspective/

    The simple reality is that this year is not in the least bit unusual.

    We need to appreciate that hurricanes tend to be less intense during the cold phase of the AMO, which ran from around 1960-90, which just so happens to coincide with the start of the satellite era.

    It is also worth noting that the cold AMO is also associated with Sahel droughts:

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/09/08/hurricanes-amo-and-the-sahel/

    So natural weather cycles alternately bring us either hurricanes or droughts. Take your pick- unfortunately weather never has been perfect.

  10. “But adapting and preparing for the ones we’re seeing now would be a big step in the right direction to reducing our vulnerability to what we might be facing in the future.”

    That’s not nearly as much fun and it sort of points to a local solution that doesn’t require Global Governance and taxation. A complete non-starter.

    Sorry Dr. Curry, but someone has to be brutally frank.

  11. Cutting through the myths?
    Judith Currie does that well.
    Seems to me this years storms is the past repeating, didn’t the survivors of one of the Spanish Treasure Fleet describe a miserable hurricane, tropical storm season.
    Claiming we do not learn from our past weather misfortunes is astounding ignorance, if this was true, the increased population in hurricane prone regions would lead to ever increasing loss of life.
    Pretty obvious we have learned plenty, enough to build stronger structures and perform effective evacuation of probable targets.

    • Hurricanes were more frequent and powerful during the Little Ice Age Cool Period (including the era of the Spanish treasure fleets) than during the Medieval Warm Period and the Current WP.

  12. If every US citizen who currently lives on the coast moved inland by say 25 miles I suspect we wouldn’t be having headlines of hurricane destroys billions of dollars of infrastructure and property.

    • Historically coastal area’s were only populated by fishermen seasonally until the invention of boats and then ocean transversing vessels brought more people to the coastline. There wasn’t the leasure time then, as that began in the 1900’s when the industrial age created wealthy people without the constant need of working Sun up to after dark just for survival 365 days a year. Now everyone thinks that time off to vacation is a right they earned for putting in 5 x 8 hour shifts that made the coastline the place to go relax and party creating a whole slew of industrialization catering to it.

  13. It’s nice to see that the FM editor removed all links to his website in the article, and included only 6 links to his website in the “For More Information” section (as opposed to 16 total in the last article). Progress!

    Let’s look at those 6 links shall we?

    Have we prepared for normal climate change and non-extreme weather?
    – Quotes Steven Mosher
    – Validates the idea of “anthropogenic extreme climate change”

    Ten years after Katrina: let’s learn from those predictions of more & bigger hurricanes.
    – “..get clearer answer and act accordingly.” Seems like a desire for more climate science funding.
    – Again quotes Steve Mosher as authority

    Look at the trends in extreme weather & see the state of the world.
    – “We are still face an uncertain future, with the possibility of unpleasant surprises — perhaps the repeat of past extreme weather (inevitable eventually), or new extreme weather caused by climate change. Whatever happens, we need to clearly see the world in order to prepare and cope with whatever happens. Reports from the IPCC and the major climate agencies — not scary headlines fed by climate activists to click-hungry journalists — are our best source of guidance about climate trends”. The IPCC? Seriously? Also, seems to validate the idea of E(xtreme)AGW
    .
    What you need to know about hurricanes and their trends.
    – Again, Steve Mosher quoted as an authority (what is this love affair?)
    – I’m too lazy to look through the rest…

    • Our gracious host seems willing to give Larry free publicity here to spew his CACA verbiage, complete with Mosh contamination, but I’m glad you’re keeping score of the extent to which Larry self-promotes.

  14. About those costs of living and working near areas subject to sea level rise and storm flooding, how necessary, for example, is New Orleans or Miami, why, and how can those costs be borne by those who benefit? There is much non-essential activity to being on the ocean front or below sea level that should be moved or costs directly borne. The choice can still be free, but the responsibility? Not so much.

    But make the users of energy pay for it all plus a hefty skim to the politicians and “managers?” Shifty frauds..

  15. What the recent damage caused by Hurricane Maria shows, is the problem with renewable energy installations and hurricanes. When roofs blew off, the solar panels blew off as well. Solar farms and wind farms were destroyed.
    If rantings about increased frequency and intensity of hurricanes come true, renewable energy will become expensive replaceable energy.
    The ultimate irony – Telsa cars in Puerto Rico are now running on diesel! (The only means of reliably generating electricity on the island).
    Needless to say, the MSM is trying to cover this up.
    Meanwhile, carpetbaggers and PT Barnum characters are showing up “to solve” Puerto Rico’s electricity problems.

  16. Attributing single extreme storm event such as hurricane Harvey or Irma to climate change is immensely difficult. However, there is strong evidence linking multiple extreme weather events such as heavy precipitation and flooding or extreme droughts to human influence on climate:
    -Greenhouse gas emissions linked to flooding in the UK in 2000 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21331040)
    -Extreme hot temperatures such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 are a consequence of global warming (http://www.pnas.org/content/109/37/E2415.full.pdf)
    -Precipitation and heatwave extremes linked to human influence on climate (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n7/full/nclimate1452.html?message-global=remove&foxtrotcallback=true)
    The last article also states that although there is less evidence currently linking sever storms and climate change, observed trends and our physical knowledge of storms shows that it is plausible. So yes, we cannot at this time say that hurricanes Harvey, and Irma are a direct result of climate change, but we cannot refute the fact that climate change is causing extreme weather. There is also evidence that links severe storms to climate change.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s