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.
Break out the pitchforks and torches. The NYT is practising witchcraft.
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!
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!
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?
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
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)
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.
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.
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
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.
“ the NYT is working under the assumption that some of their disinformation sticks in some minds”
But thankfully, not all.
However, it it bad news if it is still resident in 51% of the voter’s minds at election time.
Yep — Without plants we all die, so let’s wage war on co2, the precise compound plants require to survive.
sorry im fine without broccoli
Good one, Steve. Glad to have you back.
And data and facts and mb integrity?
OK, this one time you got it right.
sorry, I do like it, quite a lot
i heard it was 1137.5 is that the optimum c02 for plants. ill ask my cactus
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.
Since human exhalations are above 30,000 ppm, one’s plants would likely appreciate the breath of “fresh (food) air!
Your cactus has a higher IQ than you.
Agronomists must not conduct experiments.
Jacinda Ardern calls internet freedom a “weapon of war”. I don’t think she means NYT.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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
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.
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.
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.
Mark W, that speed was at the eyewall at 10,000 feet, not ground level.
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??
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)
Interestingly, I have not seen anything reported about the pressure within the eye.
thank you
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.
thank you
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.
Probably reporting a gust.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FdpBzHDUoAAWZPQ?format=jpg&name=large
“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.
And, to get a 20-year average for 1980, they would have to use data from the previous ten years.
Depending on whether or not it was a trailing average or a centered average.
Does anyone give any credence to “the consensus” any more? The “consensus” says that the current warming is almost certainly mostly man made.
“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
Biden and Pelosi have stated that we’ve solved the crisis…
Scam El Shriek can be cancelled.
“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?
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:
Well, maybe they do to keep the scam going for their incomes sake.
Consensus is not science!
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.
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.
New York Times …Purposefully Misleading. Is that supposed to be news?
“New York Times” is just an anagram of its actual name “Monkeys Write.”
NYT is an anagram of
Wot Enemy Risk
Seek Tiny Worm
Try Meek Winos
ad nauseam
The fishwrap of record…
I will wait for a better presented refutation.
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
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.
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.
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
So only compare landfall hurricane events?
Which makes sense to me, because that’s where the notable effects on humanity will occur.
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?
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.
are you saying that it is not reasonable to fill in the missing data points with adjustments?
I see what you did there… 😀
Showing only the part of the record that supports your argument is the very definition of cherry picking.
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.
So the bull crap mills are cranking up. Here is another example:
Snap Study: ‘Climate Change’ Added 10% to Ian’s Rainfall (breitbart.com)
Gee! Who would have thought that a big hurricane like Ian at 10 mph would dump massive rainfall?
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.
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.
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.
The claim in the NYT article is not about land falling hurricanes but Atlantic hurricanes.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
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):
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’.
So natural variability once again dictates what weather events occur.
Here’s a thought –
maybe natural variability is ALL that goes on with climates?
“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 !) :
From the Vecchi et al paper :
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.
– – – – –
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) :
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.
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.
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