NYTimes Hurricane Analysis is Purposefully Misleading

HT/Junk Science for the title.

Originally tweeted by Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) on September 29, 202

The NY Times article on linking Hurricane Ian to climate change is interesting.

Their data analysis for Cat 4/5 starts in 1980 for the Atlantic with a 20 year moving average.

Why not go back further?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/29/briefing/hurricane-ian-storm-climate-change.html

There’s no statistical or physical reason to produce a chart or data analysis of only Atlantic hurricanes starting in 1970 or 1980.

We have data records going back to the 19th century, with reasonable reliability back to 1945, especially with landfalls.

Let’s consult the leading authority on Atlantic hurricane research: NOAA.

They have assembled numerous task forces, assessments, and workshops to reach a consensus on Atlantic hurricanes and climate change.

A highly detailed website is here:

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

There is no strong evidence of century scale increasing trends in:

U.S. landfalling hurricanes, frequency of hurricanes or major hurricanes, or the proportion of hurricanes that reach major hurricane intensity.

This conclusion is based upon a research paper in Nature from Summer 2021 from the leading climate scientists in the entire field.

So, instead of citing the clear and convincing scientific consensus, the NY Times substitutes their own narrative. Yikes!

“What to Know About Ian and Climate Change.”

Not much.

Originally tweeted by Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) on September 29, 2022.

4.9 22 votes
Article Rating
89 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
HotScot
September 30, 2022 2:05 am

Break out the pitchforks and torches. The NYT is practising witchcraft.

KcTaz
Reply to  HotScot
September 30, 2022 2:15 am

HotScot, since we seem to have entered a new era of religiosity, or should we say superstition wherein the Devil is named Climate Change, I do believe your idea is excellent and most appropriate!

Ron Long
Reply to  KcTaz
September 30, 2022 2:19 am

Not so fast, HotScot and KcTaz, the NYT and the Brandon Administration, and their Woke Associates everywhere, think in reverse, ie, deniers are the witches, and they’re coming for you! Pitchforks and torches, oh my!

Tom
September 30, 2022 2:18 am

What is the black line on the x-y plot at the top of this post? Looks like the major trends are roughly the same as temperature trends since the twenties. Can someone overlay the two?

Editor
Reply to  Tom
September 30, 2022 2:47 am

It’s a 15 year running average Tom, taken from that Nature paper quoted:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24268-5/figures/1

Smart Rock
September 30, 2022 2:32 am

How can you have a time-series graph covering a 41 year period, showing a 20-year moving average from beginning to end?

Presumably, it’s a trailing average over a longer period, truncated at 1980. Why on earth would they do that? (rhetorical question)

Mark BLR
Reply to  Smart Rock
October 1, 2022 5:06 am

Presumably, it’s a trailing average over a longer period, truncated at 1980.

That annoyed me too, so I finally dug out my spreadsheet with HURDAT2 data (from 2017, when “major” hurricanes were “Cat. 3+” instead of “Cat. 4/5”), “tweaked” it, and updated it with “Atlantic hurricane season” numbers from 2017 to 2021.

NB : The verification for your (/ our …) “presumption” is how well (or badly) the “20-year average” lines agree from 1980 to 1999.

Atlantic-Cat45-Hurricanes_1980-2021.png
Mark BLR
Reply to  Smart Rock
October 1, 2022 5:15 am

The full dataset, with HadCRUT5 (Analysis / Infilled version) added to show the “obvious” correlation between changes in the frequency of “intense” Atlantic hurricanes and GMST changes.

Atlantic-Cat45-Hurricanes_1851-2021.png
fretslider
September 30, 2022 3:08 am

It’s propaganda. It is designed to bolster the narrative and the alarm. I suppose the NYT is working under the assumption that some of their disinformation sticks in some minds, at least.

Honest, objective journalism is so 20th century. It’s gone underground.

According to The Guardian’s CO2 Tracker chart

“The most important number of the climate crisis: 417.8

it claims we are 67.8 ppm (yes, 67.8) above the safe level. The legend states that we passed the safe level in 1990 – when we had just 10 years to save the planet…

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/environment

And the safe level? Bill McKibben’s favourite number

Last edited 2 months ago by strativarius
HotScot
Reply to  fretslider
September 30, 2022 3:21 am

Safe level for the majority of plant life is around 1,000ppm – 1,200ppm. Somehow, over millions of years plants figured out what’s best for them.

As plant life is the dominant organism of the planet, I rather think we should trust Mother Nature on this one.

fretslider
Reply to  HotScot
September 30, 2022 3:24 am

 the NYT is working under the assumption that some of their disinformation sticks in some minds”

But thankfully, not all.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  fretslider
September 30, 2022 9:56 am

However, it it bad news if it is still resident in 51% of the voter’s minds at election time.

Steve G
Reply to  HotScot
September 30, 2022 4:53 am

Yep — Without plants we all die, so let’s wage war on co2, the precise compound plants require to survive.

Reply to  Steve G
September 30, 2022 6:59 am

sorry im fine without broccoli

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
September 30, 2022 11:20 am

Good one, Steve. Glad to have you back.

Barry Malcolm
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
September 30, 2022 5:29 pm

And data and facts and mb integrity?

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 2, 2022 11:41 am

OK, this one time you got it right.

paul
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 3, 2022 5:50 pm

sorry, I do like it, quite a lot

Reply to  HotScot
September 30, 2022 6:58 am

i heard it was 1137.5 is that the optimum c02 for plants. ill ask my cactus

Mr.
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
September 30, 2022 8:08 am

Ex-prince Charles was the only other climate crazy who talked to his plants.

Now that’s probably no worse than talking to oneself, but expecting a response is where we get into “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest” territory.

Barry Malcolm
Reply to  Mr.
September 30, 2022 5:31 pm

Since human exhalations are above 30,000 ppm, one’s plants would likely appreciate the breath of “fresh (food) air!

Tony.K
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
September 30, 2022 10:45 am

Your cactus has a higher IQ than you.

Old Cocky
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
September 30, 2022 4:03 pm

Agronomists must not conduct experiments.

Scissor
Reply to  fretslider
September 30, 2022 5:28 am

Jacinda Ardern calls internet freedom a “weapon of war”. I don’t think she means NYT.

Nelson
September 30, 2022 3:20 am

Ian passed between 2 offshore buoys before hitting shore. Both showed a category 1 storm. There is no way surface winds were 155 when Ian hit. The pictures showing palm trees with all their fronds tell the tale. The huge storm surge did the damage.

Matt Kiro
Reply to  Nelson
September 30, 2022 4:17 am

The winds speeds they post on TV and weather reports is never the speeds at ground level over land. And while I believe 155 mph winds were recorded, this storm was not about wind damage, it is the incredible flooding that will be far costlier.

Nelson
Reply to  Matt Kiro
September 30, 2022 4:58 am

The SS scale for categorizing storms is the 1 minute average wind speed at 10 meters. Gusts don’t matter in categorizing storms other than how they effect the average. My issue is the purposeful misclassification in order to gin up climate alarm.

MarkW
Reply to  Nelson
September 30, 2022 7:30 am

The posted speed is for the eye wall. Hurricane wind speeds drop rapidly the further away from the eye wall you get.
You seem to be under the impression that the entire hurricane rotates at the same speed as the eye wall.

ATheoK
Reply to  MarkW
September 30, 2022 8:51 am

Strange to read you posting red herrings then answering them as replies to others.

Nelson made no such claims. He simply cited facts.
Others also posted wind speed recordings and it was hard to find even hurricane force winds.

Look at the alleged damage pictured in many places. Most photographs focus on buildings exposed to storm surge water areas. Plus the Fort Myers area had significant wind driven water levels pushed into the estuary.

While those same pictures clearly show trees keeping their leaves and palm fronds.

155mph winds strip all leaves and quite a few palm fronds.

Just like tornadoes; damage caused by the storm provides the final rating of the storm’s power.
An F2 tornado, 113-157mph winds, which are the wind speeds alleged of hurricane Ian, causes:

“Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile homes demolished; boxcars overturned; large trees snapped or uprooted; light-object missiles generated; cars lifted off ground.”

The real problem comes when an honest category 4 or 5 hurricane actually land falls and the damage it will cause.
e.g., Hurricane Andrew

MarkW
Reply to  ATheoK
September 30, 2022 11:28 am

He stated the fact that no weather station that he checked showed the hurricane had speeds of 155 mph.
Hence my response. No red herrings, just undisputable fact.
If the eye wall does not pass over one of the weather stations, than no weather station will show the max wind.

Nelson
Reply to  MarkW
September 30, 2022 1:43 pm

Of course. My only point is that I have not found any measured speed speed data to back up the claim of a Cat 4. If you have a link to such data I would love to see it.

MarkW
Reply to  Nelson
September 30, 2022 5:45 pm

Why do you expect that there must be a sensor that measured this maximum wind speed? That would only happen if the eye wall passed over a sensor. Beyond that, most of the sensors are inland, so even if the eye wall does pass over them, it won’t do so until after it makes landfall.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  MarkW
October 2, 2022 11:44 am

Mark W, that speed was at the eyewall at 10,000 feet, not ground level.

janice baker
Reply to  Nelson
September 30, 2022 7:47 am

while i am very dubious about the cat 4 designation (after seeing photos and following the debate on an earlier posting), I am utterly ignorant of why the storm surge was so strong. any answers??

rah
Reply to  janice baker
September 30, 2022 8:09 am

Sure. Ian was a big storm moving very slow. Generally the larger the hurricane the greater the storm surge simply because the wind is pushing the water longer. Then add to that the fact that Ian was moving slow and you see the results. And then there is the mound of water that peaks under the eye formed by the circular pattern of the winds and the low atmospheric pressure.

What is a Storm Surge and What Causes It? (sofarocean.com)

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  rah
September 30, 2022 10:09 am

Interestingly, I have not seen anything reported about the pressure within the eye.

janice baker
Reply to  rah
September 30, 2022 1:05 pm

thank you

ATheoK
Reply to  janice baker
September 30, 2022 8:54 am

Wind driven water filled the estuary before the storm surge hit. Combined storm surge, wind driven water, wind driven waves can cause massive damage to even the sturdiest buildings.

A counter example is all of the news regarding Tampa’s Bay and river bottoms exposed from wind driven water out to the Gulf.

janice baker
Reply to  ATheoK
September 30, 2022 1:05 pm

thank you

rah
Reply to  Nelson
September 30, 2022 9:32 am

I saw video even down at Ft. Meyer of palms with their fronds completely stripped off and others that were snapped off above the ground.

Last edited 2 months ago by rah
Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Nelson
September 30, 2022 11:22 am

Probably reporting a gust.

Steve Case
September 30, 2022 4:15 am

“since 1980 When satellite imagery began reliably tracking Atlantic hurricanes.”

We have data records going back to the 19th century, with reasonable reliability back to 1945, especially with landfalls.
___________________________________

Here’s a nice link to All U.S. Hurricanes Current to
the 2021 season with:

Year
Month,
Location
Name
Category
Pressure
Wind speed

So it seems rather contrived to pick a start date just
because that’s when we could get a satellite image.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steve Case
September 30, 2022 10:11 am

And, to get a 20-year average for 1980, they would have to use data from the previous ten years.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 2, 2022 11:46 am

Depending on whether or not it was a trailing average or a centered average.

Boff Doff
September 30, 2022 4:23 am

Does anyone give any credence to “the consensus” any more? The “consensus” says that the current warming is almost certainly mostly man made.

fretslider
Reply to  Boff Doff
September 30, 2022 4:29 am

Does anyone give any credence to “the consensus” any more?”

Ironically enough, I think the consensus on that is, no.

Well, the media and politicians do. But then they have a gravy train to keep going.

Sharm el Sheik this year pip pip

Bryan A
Reply to  fretslider
September 30, 2022 9:09 am

Biden and Pelosi have stated that we’ve solved the crisis…
Scam El Shriek can be cancelled.

Last edited 2 months ago by Bryan A
Steve Case
Reply to  Boff Doff
September 30, 2022 5:56 am

“Does anyone give any credence to “the consensus” any more?” 
___________________________________________________

Does anyone give any credence to obvious propaganda? What we are being told and what we can observe are two wildly different things. Observation isn’t limited to just looking out your window. Regarding the “current warming,” looking out of my window says winters are warmer I don’t need a graph for that, I remember the cold snaps from the ’60s & ’70s.. But it takes some investigation to find that summer afternoons are a bit cooler in my neck of the woods. Did my investigation find the truth or is the hysterical media right?

ATheoK
Reply to  Boff Doff
September 30, 2022 9:36 am

“Does anyone give any credence to “the consensus” any more?”

Not in any sense of the phrase!

Any alleged consensus is what is fashionable to activists, advocates, disciples, political campaigns, and clueless deluded groupies. Climate Change narcissists, egocentrics and politicians cashing in on the latest scare propaganda publicity.

Ergo; Global warming (GW), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), Catastrophic Global Warming (CAGW), Climate Disruption, Climate Weirding, Climate Change, blah, blah, blah.

The alleged “consensus” has changed the name every time they realize the then current name is not returning higher incomes.

Otherwise they:

  • Don’t have to run inferior statistics and models or adjust documented temperatures endlessly;
  • Destroy incredibly large areas of land with wind farms or solar arrays;
  • Demonize a molecule essential to life as we know it with billions of years at atmospheric levels far higher than today.

Well, maybe they do to keep the scam going for their incomes sake.

Consensus is not science!

Last edited 2 months ago by ATheoK
Climate believer
September 30, 2022 5:21 am

The NYT has been an antisemitic, racist, lying lefty rag for a long time.

Bari Weiss quit because of the militant wokist agenda that was engulfing everything.

Barnes Moore
September 30, 2022 5:59 am

The one issue I have with this post is the use of the word “consensus”. We condemn the use of the word when it is used in reference to the 97%, but somehow it is ok in this context? I suggest some re-wording and substitute “findings” for “consensus” for a couple of reasons – further research and questioning can produce more “findings” be they contradictory or supportive of the original findings. May be a a bit of a nit, but I find using the the term consensus, in general, to be inappropriate for scientific debate. Consensus is a political construct, not a scientific one.

Paul Johnson
September 30, 2022 6:01 am

New York Times …Purposefully Misleading. Is that supposed to be news?

fah
Reply to  Paul Johnson
September 30, 2022 6:49 am

“New York Times” is just an anagram of its actual name “Monkeys Write.”

fretslider
Reply to  fah
September 30, 2022 7:03 am

NYT is an anagram of

Wot Enemy Risk
Seek Tiny Worm
Try Meek Winos

ad nauseam

Last edited 2 months ago by strativarius
Slowroll
Reply to  Paul Johnson
September 30, 2022 9:26 am

The fishwrap of record…

Coach Springer
September 30, 2022 6:31 am

I will wait for a better presented refutation.

September 30, 2022 6:53 am

There’s no statistical or physical reason to produce a chart or data analysis of only Atlantic hurricanes starting in 1970 or 1980.

except thats when you have the best detection data from satellite imagery.

otherwise you have a structural bias in the count toward lower early counts

MarkW
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
September 30, 2022 7:34 am

Interesting, we have to ignore data before 1980 because of the possibility of lower counts.
However the data collected actually shows that there has been no trend since the beginning of the record.
So you are arguing that the total number of hurricanes has been falling for the last 100 years, it’s just that the poor quality of the data has been hiding that fact.

I guess we can tell the writers at the NYT that they have gotten worried for nothing.

Gregg Eshelman
Reply to  MarkW
September 30, 2022 10:15 pm

Someone was going to ‘hindcast’ the potential number of historic storms that might have been observed had there been satellites, RADAR, and hurricane hunting aircraft back then.

Right concept but wrong direction. To get a better idea of how the later record compares to the historic record the process would be to X out any storm that didn’t make landfall or cross a major shipping route. If it was only detected by satellites, RADAR, aircraft or other means only available from the mid 1960 to present, take it out of the comparison.

That way it can be known exactly how many later storms would have brewed up and blown out without anyone knowing they happened.

Alan M
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
September 30, 2022 7:55 am

 best detection data from satellite imagery

Or is that “over detection” ? Can you exactly compare the historic record with the satellite record? I would have thought the satellite record would record additional events, hey but I’m just an ordinary Earth Scientist

Mr.
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
September 30, 2022 8:16 am

So only compare landfall hurricane events?

Which makes sense to me, because that’s where the notable effects on humanity will occur.

TonyG
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
September 30, 2022 8:42 am

Not observed != didn’t happen.

Since we don’t have reliable data of total hurricanes formed in the Atlantic prior to 1970ish, why not use the reliable data that we DO have: total landfalls?

Paul Johnson
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
September 30, 2022 9:07 am

You seem to be suggesting that earlier counts should be higher than shown and that therefore the decline over the past century is actually GREATER that the data indicates. Good point.

DonM
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
September 30, 2022 12:34 pm

are you saying that it is not reasonable to fill in the missing data points with adjustments?

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  DonM
October 2, 2022 11:48 am

I see what you did there… 😀

Last edited 2 months ago by D. J. Hawkins
MarkW
September 30, 2022 7:25 am

Showing only the part of the record that supports your argument is the very definition of cherry picking.

September 30, 2022 7:48 am

Not enough data….thousands of years of data needed. You could start flipping a coin and after 100 flips , it comes up heads 10 times in row – does not mean coin is unfair – not enough flips to determine that….it could have just been chance that 10 heads in a row happened.

rah
September 30, 2022 7:53 am

So the bull crap mills are cranking up. Here is another example:

Snap Study: ‘Climate Change’ Added 10% to Ian’s Rainfall (breitbart.com)

rah
September 30, 2022 7:58 am

Gee! Who would have thought that a big hurricane like Ian at 10 mph would dump massive rainfall?

rah
September 30, 2022 8:27 am

There’s no statistical or physical reason to produce a chart or data analysis of only Atlantic hurricanes starting in 1970 or 1980.
We have data records going back to the 19th century, with reasonable reliability back to 1945, especially with landfalls.

No there isn’t. The Hurricane hunters started flying missions in 1946.

Jtom
Reply to  rah
September 30, 2022 9:35 am

Why would you think reliable records of landfalls would require Hurricane Hunters? Land-based equipment was very accurate long before then. That’s why the 1935 Labor Day Hurricane, the strongest on record, metrics have never been questioned.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Jtom
September 30, 2022 10:22 am

While Ian was captured by astronauts on the ISS, the image shows that satellites aren’t necessary for people on land to be aware of it. Big hurricanes influence a huge area, even if the eye doesn’t go over land.

Rah
Reply to  Jtom
September 30, 2022 11:06 am

The claim in the NYT article is not about land falling hurricanes but Atlantic hurricanes.

Jtom
Reply to  Rah
September 30, 2022 4:25 pm

But I was replying specifically to this.

We have data records going back to the 19th century, with reasonable reliability back to 1945, especially with landfalls.
No there isn’t. The Hurricane hunters started flying missions in 1946.”

Do you agree that we have reliable records of landfalls going further back than the Hurricane Hunters?

Further, we have reliable records of SOME storms going much further back than the Hunters. We may not know exact numbers of storms by year, but there is plenty of data indicating that storms a century ago or more were just as severe as today.

rah
Reply to  Jtom
September 30, 2022 10:54 pm

Don’t disagree with that at all. I was merely pointing out that the NYT claim about not having adequate data was BS. And besides, as I pointed out elsewhere even if they were going by just satellite data, there was far more than adequate satellite coverage in the 70’s. But that would have been when the AMO was going through its negative/cold phase wouldn’t it!

rah
September 30, 2022 8:42 am

The first weather satellite was launched in 1960 and they are saying we did not have reliable coverage until 1980? Such an obvious cherry pick.

Bob Hunter
September 30, 2022 9:03 am

The NOAA in the link indicated sure does seem to rely on models and their assumption about SST for their predictions on the future cyclone/hurricane activity. IMO because the evidence for the past century does not support their narrative and therefore must be explained away.

Clyde Spencer
September 30, 2022 9:43 am

Why is the NYT graphic of the “20-year average” not truncated at 2011? Is it not centered but shifted 10 years to the right?

TheFinalNail
September 30, 2022 9:51 am

I checked the paper the author seems to be quoting via the link at the base of the quote (the one starting “There is no strong evidence of century scale increasing trends…”). The link leads to a paper by Vecchi et al. (2021). The quote isn’t contained in that paper.

Reading on, the author states that the quote is merely “based upon” that paper. This could be a simple linking error, but placing a link to an article that doesn’t contain the cited quote is a bad look for someone accusing others of being “deliberately misleading”.

The Vicchi et al paper is open access and an interesting read. What they conclude is this (and yes, this quote really is from the paper and not just ‘based upon’ it):

After homogenization, increases in basin-wide hurricane and major hurricane activity since the 1970s are not part of a century-scale increase, but a recovery from a deep minimum in the 1960s–1980s. We suggest internal (e.g., Atlantic multidecadal) climate variability and aerosol-induced mid-to-late-20th century major hurricane frequency reductions have probably masked century-scale greenhouse-gas warming contributions to North Atlantic major hurricane frequency.

In other words, the increase in major Atlantic Basin hurricane activity from the 1990s onwards is a continuation of the impacts of greenhouse-gas warming that started in the early 20th century, but was interuppted between 1960-1980 by the cooling impacts of a combination of natural (ocean cycles) and human (industrial aerosls) causes. Once these cooling effects passed, the greenhouse-gas effects dominated.

A rather different take by that paper’s conclusions than the one depicted by based upon ‘quote’.

Mr.
Reply to  TheFinalNail
September 30, 2022 11:29 am

So natural variability once again dictates what weather events occur.

Here’s a thought –
maybe natural variability is ALL that goes on with climates?

Mark BLR
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 1, 2022 6:33 am

I checked the paper the author seems to be quoting …

“The author”, Ryan Maue, linked to a GFDL (/ NOAA) webpage that included an embedded link to the paper in Nature in the paragraph cited.

GFDL didn’t use “quotation marks” on their webpage, indicating they were providing a “summary / paraphrase” instead.

The “quote” from GFDL (Edit : My “Copy / Paste” managed to include the embedded HTML link as well !) :

There is no strong evidence of century-scale increasing trends in U.S. landfalling hurricanes or major hurricanes, Similarly for Atlantic basin-wide hurricanes (after adjusting for observing capabilities), there is not strong evidence for an increase since the late 1800s in hurricanes, major hurricanes, or the proportion of hurricanes that reach major hurricane intensity.

From the Vecchi et al paper :

The low values in the 1850–1878 period, while being unique in the record, also occur during the period when we have least confidence in the data—based on these considerations, we view with skepticism any century-scale trend that arises only once the 1850–1878 period is included.

We find here that, once we include a correction for undercounts in the pre-satellite era basin-wide NA HU and MH frequency, there are no significant increases in either basin-wide HU or MH frequency, or in the MH/HU ratio for the Atlantic basin between 1878 and 2019 (when the U.S. Signal Corps started tracking NA HUs).

NB : “NA” = North Atlantic”, “HU” = “(Atlantic basin) Hurricane” and “MH” = “Major Hurricane”.

It appears that when you “checked the paper” you didn’t “check” hard enough.

– – – – –

In other words, the increase in major Atlantic Basin hurricane activity from the 1990s onwards is

Scientific papers are noted for avoiding definitive declarations like the word “is”, and tend to use conditional-tense conjugations instead, like “may” or “could” or “might” or “error ranges / confidence intervals”.

I agree with you that “The Vicchi et al paper is … an interesting read”.

What they “conclude”, however, is this (and yes, these really are the last two sentences of the main body of that paper) :

Given the uncertainties that presently exist in understanding multi-decadal climate variability, the climate response to aerosols and impact of greenhouse gas warming on NA TC activity, care must be exercised in not over-interpreting the implications of, and causes behind, these recent NA MH increases. Disentangling the relative impact of multiple climate drivers on NA MH activity is crucial to building a more confident assessment of the likely course of future HU activity in a world where the effects of greenhouse gas changes are expected to become increasingly important.

Last edited 2 months ago by Mark BLR
Mike Maguire
September 30, 2022 10:25 am

And using the latest and greatest false narrative created to sensationalize extreme weather that’s been happening similar to the rate in the past but to convince people it’s unprecedented.

“Another 1 in a 1,000 year event”

No it wasn’t. Here’s the empirical data using weather records that proves it wasn’t(using a rational definition).

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/89333/

Last I checked, 2014 was 8 years ago and 1950 was 72 years ago and 38.7 inches of rain is double the top amount from Ian.
One would think that a 1 in 1,000 year rain event for 24 hours would do better than just 50% of the state record for 24 hours.
This was also less than 50% of the record for wettest tropical cyclones………see below, which was the same system (Hurricane Easy-1950) that STILL holds the 24 hour record.

Nelson
September 30, 2022 3:18 pm

It’s an interesting exercise to go to the National Hurricane Center and look at the archive for the 28th. If anyone can find measured data above a Cat 1 please point it out to me. Every picture I see screams sub 100 mph sustained winds. This reminds me of Tropical Storm Sandy hype.

Dr. Jimmy Vigo
September 30, 2022 3:59 pm

Wow 😮 This makes feel that we went to school in vain: MSNBC faster than science is claiming that 10% of Ian’s “extra rain” is climate change. Can’t find the study! Where was it published? By who? Which journal? How they got to that conclusion??? My God what a push!
Dr. JBVigo

Wily Ghost
September 30, 2022 4:10 pm

“Why not go back further [than 1980]?”

The NYT would probably answer, “Because that’s when ‘satellite imagery began reliability tracking Atlantic hurricanes,'” as was quoted above from the NYT article. They would think that that has no possible reply from reasonable folks that would rid them of their hubris.

Last edited 2 months ago by Wily Ghost
Ken Shersley
October 1, 2022 12:28 am

Not sure if the writer means ‘purposely’ rather “purposefully”, but either works in this context.

Captain climate
October 1, 2022 8:58 am

Same for the Boston Globe. They have “reporters” whose only job is to crank out climate alarmism.

H.R.
October 1, 2022 10:37 am

Is it true, or did you read it in the NYT?

%d bloggers like this: