The folly of NOVA’s “Rise of the Superstorms” by PBS

WUWT regular Mumbles McGuirck writes:

Last night NOVA (PBS) ran it’s newest episode “Rise of the Superstorms”, a look back at the 2017 hurricane season. I watched it so you don’t have to. Here’s the trailer:

The bad news is, from the title on, the assumption by the writer and director that Harvey, Irma, and Maria are the “new normal” and that global warming is causing there to be more and stronger tropical cyclones.

A study led by PNNL shows that hurricanes intensify more quickly now than they did 30 years ago. Hurricanes like Irma (center), and Jose (right) are examples of these types of hurricanes. Hurricane Katia is visible on the left. CREDIT
NOAA

No skeptical views were allowed, the assertion was simply presented as an established scientific fact.

The show featured Jeff Masters and Marshall Shepherd who reinforced this one-sided view. Here are some quotes from the transcript:


JEFF MASTERS: Water is going to be part of our future, both on the rivers, at the oceans. We need to be using the best science we have to prepare ourselves for our Waterworld future.

ANDREA DUTTON (University of Florida): Today, the global average sea level is rising at about three millimeters a year. So, that’s about the thickness of about two pennies stacked together, which doesn’t sound very impressive, right? But when you look at the rate of sea level rise we see today, it far exceeds anything we’ve seen in the past several thousand years, at least. And so, sea level was going along (gestures a flat line) and then it started rising very rapidly, during the industrial period.

Sea level has responded to this increase in temperature and is now rising very quickly.

JEFF MASTERS: By the end of the century, three Category 4 storms hitting is going to be not that unusual. It’s going to happen more often with warmer oceans and climate change.

SARAH-JANE LOCK: As the atmosphere warms and the ocean warms, there’s more energy in the system, and that energy has to be released somehow. So, we expect, from our understanding of the global Earth system, that as we increase the temperatures of the system, we, we should expect to see stronger and probably more frequent storms.

JEFF MASTERS: We need to plan for a future where storms are going to be more intense, and sea level rise is going to be higher, and storm surge is going to wipe out a lot more of the coast when it hits.

MARSHALL SHEPHERD: One of the things that I hope comes from 2017 is forethought on how we plan, in terms of resiliency, in places like Puerto Rico or perhaps even the Keys. We know that we are going to see hurricanes again and perhaps even stronger ones, if the climate change literature is correct.


At least Marshall couches his projection with the caveat “ if the climate change literature is correct.”.

In case you didn’t catch Jeff’s “Waterworld” reference, that was the awful 1995 Kevin Costner movie in which global warming has inundated the entire planet. Yes, the whole globe. Denver the “Mile High City” is several leagues under the sea. And human beings have evolved gills in the matter of a couple generations. So a real sciency movie.

This episode follows recent offerings on NOVA that offer a similar slanted view of hurricanes and global warming such as “Killer Hurricanes”, “Decoding the Weather Machine”, and “Inside the Megastorm”. I used to like NOVA but this venture into pseudo-science makes me very sad.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Mark Fraser

Without even looking at the trailer, I assumed that it would be propaganda. Glad I didn’t watch it.

Aaron

Question: why do taxpayers who make $50,000 still have to subsidize PBS?

Mumbles McGuirck

Because our elected representatives don’t have the courage to garrote Big Bird.

Jax

Sesame Street moved to HBO over two years ago. The left ignores that when it comes to PBS funding, of course.

Kenji

Because we still have a few centavos left over after Jerry Brown has jacked up our gasoline and carbon taxes … and water use punishment taxes … and punishing sales taxes … and exorbitant State income taxes … and usurious property taxes … and cell phone taxes …

MarkW

It’s a classic political trap.
Concentrated benefits, diffuse harm.

PBS is costing the average tax payer just a few pennies a year, if that much.
On the other hand those who benefit are making a lot of money.

Now who’s going to take the time and effort to write their congressman or even go to a rally over a few pennies a year? Answer, nobody.

Now who’s going to take the time to visit their congressman, and even write campaign donations if their entire source of income is being threatened by congressional defunding?
Answer, all of them.

And that’s why congressional programs always become immortal.

wws

But what would rich white people do without their special subsidized tv station? Oh the humanity!!!

DocSiders

137 pennies to be exact. $0.45 Billion last year.

acementhead

Apologies for this but there is a “typo” in the first line. A spurious apostrophe in “it’s”.

I think it’s OK to correct a minor typo without acknowledgement of the change. Then remove this post.

ATheoK

What subsidy?

PBS lost their federal funds shortly after Trump’s Administration began.

Federal funds were authorized to the CPB, ‘Corporation for Public Broadcasting’; which would then appropriate funds to NPR and PBS.

Some of the individual Agencies would allocate funds to PBS for specific broadcasts and shows, but that is ended.

Here is the Federal funds status for 2017, 2018 and planned for 2019:
comment image

Which explains why our local annual PBS funding drive went from one week in previous years to a full month for one PBS broadcaster and three months for another PBS broadcaster.

It also helps explain the utter dross those stations purchased from the BBC this year.

pseudo-intellectual

The need for funding for PBS, if it ever could be justified, is so outdated.

Hard to imagine these days, but once upon a time there was no place on tv you could turn to for documentaries on everything EXCEPT PBS.

Shall we enumerate the channels / internet outlets these days- The History Channel, Discovery, National Geographic, Smithsonian, Curiosity Stream, etc.

James A. Schrumpf

I find more interesting shows on YouTube. Well-made videos by people sailing around the world, hang gliders, surfers, you name it. If you want to see the world in all its glory, YouTube gives it to you on a shoestring budget.

Tom Halla

Typical for PBS.

This disease has affected all programming that supposedly presents objective science as well as much of the main stream media. I cringe every time I hear someone on TV, who after saying a lot of reasonable things about science, punctuates the narrative with some nonsense about ‘climate change’.

It’s hard to comprehend how ostensibly intelligent people can be so incredibly wrong about something so important to mankind, whose evidence of validation is so weak while the evidence of falsification is so strong. Many others do as well and this is why so many have a hard time distancing themselves from the ‘consensus’. This is the only positive feedback effect at work and its not operating on the climate system, but on the minds of the true believers and further reinforced with confirmation bias. This clearly represents an unstable system, as the science embraced by these minds seems to have latched up in an incoherent state.

Unfortunately, those with a propensity to favor emotional arguments over logic also tend to lean left which has made climate science political, given how fear is the intensely strong emotional trigger used by the IPCC’s self serving ‘consensus’ to justify its fake science. It’s become so political that the scientific truth no longer matters and this is far more dangerous to humanity than even the worst case RCP scenarios envisioned by the IPCC.

Wrusssr

“. . . hard to comprehend how ostensibly intelligent people can be so incredibly wrong about something so important to mankind . . . ”

They’re not wrong. They know exactly what they’re doing and have a reason and strategy for producing this propaganda. Which is to deceive the unplugged and keep them on their yellow brick road to a technocratic “centralization of things” that includes information, and in particular, “. . . what the ‘great un washed’ need to know and be thinking about . . .”

ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN’s et al stable of liars are simply daily public doses of the Propaganda Broadcasting System’s (as well as National Propaganda Radio’s,) occasional “documentary”. Virtually everything one sees that’s announced as a “documentary” or “news” or “important information” over the electronic cyclopes is pre-approved, scrubbed, sanitized, and sprinkled for public consumption prior to being forwarded to electronic and print “news rooms”. It’s already centrally con trolled. Been that way since before Walter Cronkite (the “most trusted man in America at the time”) who addressed that August body—the Council on Foreign Relations—as he retired.

Can’t remember which Rockefeller said it: “We should never have given the public access to the internet” – but it was a rare tidbit of information that had a nice, refreshing, truthful ring to it at the time.

John Bell

Liberals air the craziest shows! They think they are convincing people, just the opposite, they are creating more and more skeptics. We are winning!

Trevor

This is a “Dear John” letter………….I am so sorry……….
John Bell :
“Liberals air the craziest shows! They think they are convincing people, just the opposite, they are creating more and more skeptics. We are winning!”
FIRSTLY : What you call Liberals you would be better calling
Post-Modernist Neo-Marxists based on THEIR political actions and ideology.
You are probably MORE of a “Liberal” in the “L” sense of the word
than ANY of those people. ( They lack an open-mind ! )
SECONDLY : They ARE convincing people……..unfortunately !
Most people DO NOT QUESTION THE OPINIONS OF THE EXPERTS on T.V. !!!!!
THIRDLY : We are NOT winning ! Beginning to make SOME HEADWAY would be
about as far as you could take that ! It is STARTING to turn…..I THINK……..but
almost imperceptibly so……there is an awful lot of INERTIA to overcome !
However , I remain optimistic !

Latitude

..and they vote democrat…in this country, democrats represent the lowest dregs of our society…..people are realizing that
It’s amazing to me that people will vote for a party…who represents and who’s members they would no more associate with than anything

John Bell

Trevor, points well taken, thank you!

honest liberty

Trevor, again, I appreciate your input but please chill on the ALL CAPS man! I do understand the emphasis, but the tone of so much emphasis is read as though you are beating us over the head with inflection and yelling.

ARex

Sadder yet: It was produced on your dime.

meteorologist in research

What did they say in the program that was wrong?

DonM

one thing I saw before I changed the channel: The “ferocity” of the hurricanes are dependent on ….

(implying that “ferocity is a measurable entity”, that ferocity is increasing, that “climate change” is associated with increasing ferocity).

meteorologist in research

The wind field is stronger and the ocean is warmer?
Theoretically, increased wind shear reduces the number of hurricanes. I think they got this wrong, in their enthusiasm.
More data, more data.
A warmer ocean later in the season allowed Hurricane Sandy to reach the Polar Jet energy which was already in Pennsylvania.

Bryan A

NOVA productions are beginning to be like Bad SciFi End of the World Destruction Movies
2012
The Day After Tomorrow
Geostorm
Sharknado
10.5
Visually stunning at times but scientifically lacking

Mumbles McGuirck

Don’t forget “Hurricane Heist”.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing

“…at times”???

the_scientist

I am guessing they did not mention the 12 years preceding the storms where no major storms hit the continental USA.

Alarmists just trying to scare the uninformed with weather.

Mumbles McGuirck

They did mention the 13-year hiatus in major hurricane landfalls in the U.S., but somehow that wasn’t part of the ‘new normal’. Only bad things are.

Kenji

There was no PAUSE in Global Warming despite a massive rise in Co2. Pay no attention to the PAUSE … there are thousands of theories as to why the PAUSE didn’t really happen. Pay no attention to the REAL temperatures. Pay no attention to the long PAUSE in hurricane activity. Here … look at the Wookie, look at the Wookie. Now … why is a Wookie telling you there was a PAUSE? That … does not make sense. Look at the Denying Wookie. Denier! Denier!

Bryan A

The Pause never “really” happened and Man never “really” went to the moon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWL25QXaJMs
/snark

Paul

You mean Mann never went to the moon.

HotScot

Paul

Mann did go to the moon, and returned in some grotesque unworldly form.

There’s something going on up there.

Bryan A

Thought there was something cheesy about him…
He’s a Pod Person

Phil Rae

He should have gone and just stayed there. At least he wouldn’t have had to try to scare the inhabitants with fictional concerns about CO2 levels on the atmosphere.

“What was true at one moment may become untrue, or at least irrelevant, in the next.”

Lance Morrow

Henry

The “most self-absorbed generation” has no interest in history, since everything is different now. What about Camille, the Great Galveston Hurricane and the Great Hurricane of 1938?

Bryan A

The Greatest Hurricane … of 1780
Scrubbed several Caribbean Islands clean and killed almost 24,000 people

Paul

They measured storm intensity different back then.

Mumbles McGuirck

Actually,NOVA did an episode about the 1780 Great Hurricane. And some how, the discussion STILL came around to global warming causing more & worser hurricanes.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/search/results/?x=0&y=0&q=hurricane%201780

Bruce Cobb

They put the BS in “Public”.

Bryan A

Proof Positive that increasing levels of CO2 are making Production Executives More Stupidder. Perhaps even the Dumberest of all

Proof tax dollars are making Production Executives richer.

HotScot

Bryan A

Now that’s a study worth a few taxpayers dollars.

“How much atmospheric CO2 does it take to make scientist’s really stupid’

Present company excepted.

Bryan A

I have a model which, after 132 different runs, indicates by the means that once CO2 reaches a level of 4 molecules per 10,000 in atmospheric concentration, it will have a direct reverse logarithmic effect on the scientific relevance of PBS programming

Bruce Cobb

It’s the Rise of the StupidStorms.

J Mac

I watched the first 10 minutes of that last night. That was enough.
The ‘BS’ part of PBS is certainly warranted…..

“Mumbles”? Every concerned citizen, still in possession of their faculties, should let President Trump know they do not want their federal tax dollars going to support this nonsense.

buggs

None of this is new, be it PBS stateside or CBC in Canada. I’m into my fifth decade now and grew up watching “The Nature of Things”, David Suzuki’s show broadcast on CBC for decades. It inspired my interest in science. And while I didn’t realize it at the time it was tinged (substantially) with political views of the time (mostly Club of Rome style stuff). Nonetheless I wandered off to university and picked up a few degrees in science and can’t abide The Nature of Things even remotely any longer. There’s grains of truth to be found in the show, but it’s always spoiled by absurd extrapolations that don’t apply if you actually understand a)science and b)history.
So that this latest bit of fluff is unacceptable is just more of the same. Same approach as CBC has always taken as well – make it believable and then throw in the unbelievable because the vast majority of the population doesn’t actually grasp science.
I can’t recall the exact statistical breakdown but it goes something like this: only about 25% of the population takes a science-based course (physics, chemistry, biology) in their last two years of high school; of that 25% only about 10% goes on to post secondary education; of that 10% only 20% take any science courses at the post secondary level (and that includes those that take a single course such as Basic Astronomy); less than 20% of the overall post secondary graduates have taken a minor in sciences.
The moral of the story being it’s easy to fool people with what appears to be scientific but actually isn’t.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing

Buggs

I write Standards from time to time and they have to be very logical, very disciplined, and make it hard to cheat. Surprisingly, the second most helpful person who has really given me ideas new ‘the right words’ is a professor of philosophy. I admit to being surprised and impressed.

My point is that philosophers are systematically logical and spend ages picking over arguments looking for errors of logic or weaknesses in the premises. Science failures are frequently the result of logical failures, not bad measurements. Most climate science alarmist projections result from failures of logical rigour.

It is not only science courses that teach us how to receive and process information. Many advanced studies require examination of how to use statistics, logic, structured arguments, and physical facts. I feel that learning how to think and process information is universal and it should be possible for any well educated person, however young or old, to separate fact from fancy.

I spend my life trying to interpret and implement Standards. I can assure you that most Standards authors are incompetent. Most leave the users to guess at the intention, and huge holes that allow ‘cheating’.

HotScot

Jeff in Calgary

Standards.

I’m not sure if there is more convoluted or corruptible subject.

HotScot

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing

Crispin. I respect your intelligent contributions immensely. But if what you say is true, why do we get insane articles about climate change from said philosophers in the MSM.

Mind you, we get the same from other ‘informed’ commentators on the subject as well.

Kenji

This is the SAME reason why the general public is so gullible about “alternative” medicine, non-“Western” medicine. And gullible about every diet fad and “hidden cures” that big Pharma are “keeping from the people so they can make money from disease” … yes … the general public is an ignorant ass. Sorry. Don’t want to sound elitist … but as a non scientist, engineering graduate (who is in the small percentage of science-educated citizens) … I get really frustrated by the ease with which the public is defrauded. And the same lack of basic education about simple money management and business basics leaves the average citizen vulnerable to every crackpot scheme and scam thrown at them. Our education system has become a joke of leftist political propaganda and nonsense that serves little purpose in advancing mankind. Shameful.

HotScot

Kenji

On the one hand, my organised side agrees with you entirely, we should all organise ourselves and our lives.

On the other, I think, feck it, why bother. I’m no man’s keeper, shouldn’t I just get on and take what I want?

If the morons that buy into scams do it, with the same knowledge you and I have, then feck them. It’s their fault, not mine.

Kenji

Apologies for my indifference, but I heartily agree … feck em … and the horse they rode in on.

ScienceABC123

I DVR “Nova” to see what my grand kids are being taught. After this week I have some remedial teaching to do…

Kenji

Good for you. I had to do the exact same thing for my own children and teach them all the things left OUT of their textbooks. I look forward to teaching my grandchildren in the same manner.

HotScot

Kenji

I have a 37 year old son. We were estranged for 20+ of those years so I had no influence over his political education. He rolls his eyes when I mention the subject of capitalism and climate change, like I’m a simpleton.

He is, of course, a socialist, by belief, rather than practice. He’s a capitalist by practise, but refuses to acknowledge that. His ambitions are for personal gain, and he has dodged paying tax (in minor ways) to that end, but he demands society supports our UK NHS, armed forces,welfare etc.

It’s unbelievably frustrating to point out to a member of your family that they are both ignorant of politics in general, and that they themselves have gamed the system. They of course claim that the only ones gaming the system are capitalists. A little bit of cheating is allowed under socialism.

The consequences are utterly beyond them, including my brainwashed son.

Kenji

Sorry to hear about your wayward son … hopefully he will be granted the perspective of age and wisdom (and your good teaching and role modeling). I am fortunate as my kids have remained well grounded in their conservative values … despite their contemporary ‘liberal’ social values. They shatter the stereotype of young conservatives in that my (‘white’) son is in a LTR with a half-black, half-Japanese girl (who happens to hold a PhD in biochemistry) and my daughter is marrying a half-First Nation’s, half-Irish Canadian man. Socially liberal, completely UN-bigotted, UN-prejudiced … but intellectually and fiscally conservative.

Ed Zuiderwijk

I think you got the Waterworld movie reference wrong. It depicts the future state on Enceladus after all the ice there has melted because of Solar warming.

Steve Lohr

NOVA has fallen off my shelf and won’t be put back. Legions of people believe this chyt and I don’t know what it will take to reverse it. The political ploy, of course, is to take command and control of, well, just about everything. The only way I see that this can be stopped is to gut the money supply and choke off the ability to make a living telling this lie. While I originally took a very jaundiced view of the Trump administration, I now applaud the efforts to crush these evil charlatans. I only wish the pace would pick up. Confront, defund, and dismiss anyone who promotes this nonsense.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing

Well, if there is ‘more energy in the system’ and it makes a big storm that dissipates that energy, the system cools. That is how the physics of energy works.

As the input of energy is the same from the sun almost all the time, it is not possible to ‘have more energy flowing through the system’ even if the total energy (enthalpy) occasionally increases. It seems to me the speakers are not aware enough about the science of storms to realise that temperature (intensity) is not the same as enthalpy (quantity of energy).

Oh, what to do. Without the basics, they are unable to discuss the issue, let alone make meaningful speculations about what will or could happen.

If the surface of the ocean is warmer, then it takes less energy to evaporate water and create clouds that cover the surface again moderating the temperature. Oops.

Today I was explaining to a grad student the Thunderstorm Cooling Hypothesis, and we watched for the second day in a row the early morning crystal clear Beijing air cloud over as the temperature rose. The hypothesis was once again confirmed by observations. As the temperature rose to 38 C, the clouds drew in to cover the ground to maintain a constant temperature which lasted will into the evening (34).

So the frothing about the hurricanes has to be balanced with the cool chill of sober observations. Willis was right.

As for hurricane formation, stronger winds (also forecast to be caused by global warming) will shear the tops off the thunder clouds preventing hurricanes from forming. If someone could show that global warming will reduce the strength of the upper winds, then one might find support for hurricanes forming ‘more quickly’. Alas, that is not the narrative. Everything will “get worse” because of all that additional “energy in the system”. The understanding of the speakers on this point about energy is so fundamentally lacking, it the leads to the conclusions they espouse.

I am not surprised they did not have counterfactual views presented. Any mechanics or physics instructor would have set them straight and their fears would have evaporated like the morning dew.

dj_pseudo

You hit the nail on the head here – just because the system (climate) is warmer doesn’t mean it has more usable energy for storms. So where is all this extra storm energy coming from? Well, unless CO2 is a magical, produces-extra-storm-energy-from-nothing substance, the solar energy coming from the sun is unchanged even if we are 2C, 3C, or more hotter. Therefore, the real energy available for storms is also unchanged. How do the climate scientists explain this extra storm energy?

Goldrider

“Water is going to be part of our future.” Yeah, you better HOPE so!
Anything from PBS, NPR, or BBC these days can be dismissed as propaganda/fake news.

I often chide people that they watch too much CBC…

Curious George

After a record “hurricane drought”, one year establishes a new normal. Long live Socialism!

John Bell

Still, what is the average person going to really DO about it? He watches this PBS show, gets a little scared (just like the evening news) then goes to bed, forgets about it, the weather at his house is like always, at the end of the day does nothing. PBS is beating a dead horse.

Mumbles McGuirck

Never-the-less, a dead horse can stink up the neighborhood. 😉

I think the the reason that global warning has lost standing the polls about things that concern the public is that people are NOT seeing changes in their day-to-day weather or even their climate. Programs like “Rise of the Superstorms” is meant to change that opinion by making random events seem to be proof of a change.

Dipchip

So let us consider what the data that we have accepted as mostly true is.

The Polar Regions are warming more than the tropics, Winters are warming more than Summers, and Night time is warming more than Daytime. The data therefore tells us the differentials are decreasing. Severe storms are made more severe by an increase in the differential intensity of the seven elements of weather.

We could then assume that the advocates of Climate Change should be expecting reductions in severe storms, rather than their prophecy of future ruination.

PBS = “Public Bull Shit”, in this case. Decoding the Weather Machine, which I watched parts of, is classic BS for the Public.

My viewer rating is … MINUS 5 stars.

Jacob Frank

Nova used to be my favorite show, now I doubt everything I ever “learned” from watching it.

Kenji

And all the science, these Warmists don’t understand … it’s just their job,five days a week … A Warmist Maaaan aaaan … Warmist Maaaan.

And I think it’s gonna be a long, long, time
‘Til sanity brings me ’round again to find
I’m not the man they think I am at home
Ah, no no no…
And I think it’s gonna be a long, long, time
‘Til the truth brings me ’round again to find
I’m not the man they think I am at home
Ah, no no no…
I’m a Warmist man
Warmist man
Burnin’ out his lies
Up here alone

beng135

Kenji, thanks for the laugh….

BCBill

Was this a sequel to Sharknado? Same level of ‘sciency’?

Jacob Frank

I have high confidence that it is likely the sciency is very robust in this PBS special.

Mumbles McGuirck

Tara Reid would not lower herself to appear on PBS. She has some standards.

Richard T
John Garrett

Unfortunately, I wasted thirty minutes of my life watching the first half of this farce. The trailers made it fairly obvious that this was going to be a propaganda piece so I was, somewhat, forewarned.

I admit to a morbid curiosity as to who would be interviewed, whether their would be even the slightest attempt at balance, and whether there would be any acknowledgement of the preceding decade without a major U.S. landfalling hurricane.

Thirty minutes was all I could take. While I have a reasonably high intellectual pain tolerance, I am not a masochist. Faced with the choice of either turning off the television or vomiting, I chose the former.

Mumbles McGuirck

Believe me, it was hard sitting through the whole thing, I kept yelling refutations at the TV. But they didn’t listen. You probably did yourself a favor, because the real CAGW push began about 45 minutes in. A lot of the quotes I pulled were from late in the show.

Yuppybottom

Did they mention the hurricane season of 1780 when a series of highly destructive hurricanes swept across the Caribbean and killed around 30,000 people?

Mumbles McGuirck

I mentioned this in a previous thread, but NOVA did an episode about the 1780 Great Hurricane. And some how, the discussion STILL came around to global warming causing more & worser hurricanes.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/search/results/?x=0&y=0&q=hurricane%201780
This program never examined the actual hurricane database to determine if there has been an uptick in major hurricanes. It just looked at the three major hurricanes from last year that made landfall and proclaimed that proof of a ‘new normal’. This was not serious science but pure scaremongering.

Louis Hunt

“Water is going to be part of our future, both on the rivers, at the oceans.”

It never occurred to me that water wasn’t part of our past when it came to rivers and oceans. I guess our history books left that part out. /sarc

Thanks Mumbles, Deleted it from my DVR.
Didn’t watch it last night for the sake of my TV’s survival.

The new normal, even though we just experienced the longest recorded time between major storms hitting USA, and ACE has no trend (up or down).

Gary Pearse

So one month into the 2018 Atlantic Hurricane Season, wattsup?

ren

A little chilly North Atlantic.
comment image

Dr Bob

So, this is an image depicting variation from normal or ‘average’ SST, but how has the normal or average SST been determined? … what is the period of observation, and what proportion of the Holocene does this period represent? … just asking so that I can have some perspective on the significance of such an image in the ‘big picture’ of the entire Holocene …

HDHoese

The Abstract from Case, R. A. 1986. Atlantic Hurricane Season of 1985. Monthly Weather Review. 114:1390-1405. “A summary of the 1985 hurricane season is presented including detailed accounts of individual hurricanes. There were eleven named tropical cyclones, seven of which reached hurricane force. A record-tying six hurricanes crossed the U. S. Coastline causing a record damage of $4 billion.” I remember that year, including the little known previous June unnamed storm with a surge that wiped out a colony of skimmer young and eggs on a Louisiana island. It was quite a stormy year.

I have a great suggestion for PBS, for a new special titled, Decoding the Delusion.

ClimateOtter

Actually, Kevin Costner was genetically engineered. But nice try.

ATheoK

Watch PBS for news?
Hahahahaha! That’s a good one.

I do not remember a time when PBS broadcast news that was not slanted and severely biased. That’s going back to the 1960s.

Over the last couple of decades, there is no evil mankind has not visited upon this planet, wildlife, atmosphere, fellow man and all countries worldwide.

Since Attenborough and his fiction writers fantasizing anthropomorphic roles and discussions for wildlife with ever greater levels of doom and disaster upon Earth and it’s inhabitants, I’ve stopped watching all alleged “nature” specials.
Thus, saving our TV from harm.

wsbriggs

I’ve always found the delight that PBS has in showing such achingly class conscious shows peculiar. BBC has such a raft of such shows. I’ve always felt that those who watch them want to emulate the way the “Uppers” administer to the “Lowers”.

beng135

Sometimes NOVA has interesting subjects, but then predictably go loony-green w/fake-science like this. The real issue, obvious to a child, is endless new construction in vulnerable storm/flood-prone (hurricane-prone, seaside, barrier islands, flood-plains, etc) locations.

Tom

I saw it last night, and it was pretty good as long as they stuck with verified data, (wind speed, barometer readings, water depth) Then the warmist indoctrination began, and verified data was replaced with vague blanket predictions of gloom and doom. I didn’t hear a lot about the unnamed nonstorms from 2006-1016.