Did Global Warming Make Hurricane Ian Intensify Faster than Normal?

By Neil L. Frank

Hurricane Ian “rapidly transformed from a relatively weak storm into a strong one, [a] phenomenon that has become more common” due to climate change.

So reported the New York Times in its daily email newsletter. It also said, “Ian embodies several of the major hurricane trends in recent years, as the world copes with the effects of climate change. It’s a strong storm — and strong storms are becoming more common in the Atlantic Ocean, as its surface water has warmed.”

The prayers of a nation go out to the people in Florida devastated by Hurricane Ian, particularly those in the Ft. Myers area. Ian was indeed one of the most powerful and destructive hurricanes ever to strike southwest Florida.

Unfortunately, the tragedy is compounded by climate-change activists who are using it for political purposes. They blame Ian on global warming. Headlines in the mainstream media claimed Ian was the fourth-strongest hurricane ever to hit Florida and that its strong winds were caused by global warming. Both statements are wrong.

The strength of a hurricane can be determined in two ways. First, you can fly into the storm and measure the winds. Second, you can drop a barometer into the eye and determine the pressure. There is an excellent relationship between wind and the pressure in the eye. The lower the pressure, the stronger the winds. If you know one, then you can calculate the other. For decades before the 1990s, pressure was the main factor in determining the strength of a hurricane.

Using pressure, Ian was not the fourth-strongest hurricane in Florida history but the tenth. The strongest hurricane in U.S. history moved through the Florida Keys in 1935. Among other Florida hurricanes stronger than Ian was another Florida Keys storm in 1919. This was followed by the hurricanes in 1926 in Miami, the Palm Beach/Lake Okeechobee storm in 1928, the Keys in 1948, and Donna in 1960. We do not know how strong the hurricane in 1873 was, but it destroyed Punta Rassa with a 14-foot storm surge. Punta Rassa is located at the mouth of the river leading up to Ft. Myers, where Ian made landfall.

Note well: all these hurricanes occurred before SUVs, so CO2 and the warming it purportedly causes were not their cause.

Another false claim is that CO2 generated by burning of fuels is causing an increase in the number of Atlantic hurricanes. This is based on the historical list of hurricanes since 1850, which shows a significant rise over time. But this claim rests on misunderstanding hurricane science. There are two reasons for the apparent rise in the number of hurricanes, and neither is related to global warming.

First, there has been a dramatic change in our ability to detect hurricanes.

In the 1800s and early 1900s, only sailors on ships could detect a hurricane far out in the ocean, so we missed a lot. We started flying into hurricanes in the 1940s, enabling us to locate and track them in the western third of the Atlantic. But not until satellites became operational in the 1970s were we able to follow storms in the eastern two-thirds of the Atlantic other than by ship. On the average, satellites have enabled us to detect three additional storms per year in the eastern Atlantic, and in 2005 we identified seven that never moved westwards into the range of our weather aircraft. Before satellites, historical records show only one storm every two years in the eastern Atlantic.

Second, there has been a major change in the philosophy of whether and when to name a storm in the north Atlantic. As I have explained in greater depth before, key to this is distinguishing two different kinds of storms — and deciding which to name a hurricane.

Two primary energy sources in the atmosphere cause wind. The first is the presence of cold air beside warm air. The cold air, being more dense and hence heavier, moves under the warm air, producing wind. In meteorology we call this baroclinic energy. This is the classical energy process for all winter storms.

The second is when, in the tropics, thunderstorms heat the air. The rising hot air is replaced by air spiraling in at the surface, and if the wind reaches certain threshold speeds, it becomes a tropical storm.

Cold fronts and winter-type storms (baroclinic) can occur over the north Atlantic not only in the winter but also in the summer. A disturbance (baroclinic) may form along the stalled front. This can generate thunderstorms. The result is a developing storm driven by both baroclinic and thunderstorm energy. If the thunderstorm energy overwhelms the baroclinic energy, the system can morph into a tropical-type storm.

The question then is, should this type of system be named? Before satellites, we rarely named this type of system. On average, we named fewer than one storm of this type per year.

In contrast, during the record-breaking year 2020, 10 out of the 30 named storms were of this type, and last year 11 were. The result has been a dramatic apparent, but not real, increase in the number of tropical storms/hurricanes in recent years — apparent because they’re named.

The dramatic conclusion is that we cannot use the raw historical record to draw any conclusion about the trend in Atlantic hurricane activity. The only valid indicator of changes in Atlantic hurricanes is to examine the landfall of major hurricanes (categories 3, 4, and 5, or winds in excess of 110 mph) in the lower 48 states. Hurricane specialists agree that tropical storms or weak hurricanes might not have been observed in remote areas in the 1800s, but I am confident all major, landfalling hurricanes are in the record books.

An analysis of major hurricane landfalls by decade shows a significant downward trend — not the upward trend predicted and claimed by climate-change activists who insist that global warming will generate more and stronger hurricanes. Today’s landfalls do not compare to those of the middle of last century. Florida was hit by seven major hurricanes in the 1940s. Six major hurricanes slashed the east coast in the 1950s. But not a single major hurricane made landfall in the entire United States from 2005 until 2017.

So much for the claim that global warming has brought more and stronger hurricanes. What of the claim that it made Ian intensify more rapidly than it otherwise would have? That, too, is questionable. If global warming is not causing more and stronger storms, it follows that it cannot be making storms intensify more rapidly.

Buried in the midst of all these claims is a logical fallacy — the fallacy of hypothesis contrary to fact. We simply do not know if Hurricane Ian would have been weaker, or would have intensified more slowly, in the absence of global warming. Why not? Because it did not occur in the absence of global warming.

What we do know is that hurricanes were at least as frequent and powerful before the current period of global warming as they have been during it — indeed, we know they were actually more frequent and more powerful.

Climate-change activists and the mainstream media are wrong. There has not been an increase in the frequency, intensity, or speed of intensification of Atlantic hurricanes in the past several decades. You might clue your representatives in Congress about that so they won’t be so likely to cater to alarmists.

Neil L. Frank, Ph.D., Meteorology, was the longest-serving Director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–1987) before becoming Chief Meteorologist of KHOU-TV, Houston, TX, until his retirement in 2008, since when he has continued his research on hurricanes independently. He is a Senior Fellow of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

Original posted at American Thinker

Image: NASA

4.9 35 votes
Article Rating
117 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve Case
October 6, 2022 10:21 am

Here’s what the IPCC says:

IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 11 Page 1587

In summary, there is mounting evidence that a variety of TC[*] characteristics have changed over various time periods. It is likely that the global proportion of Category 3–5 tropical cyclone instances and the frequency of rapid intensification events have increased globally over the past 40 years. It is very likely that the average location where TCs reach their peak wind intensity has migrated poleward in the western North Pacific Ocean since the 1940s. It is likely that TC translation speed has slowed over the USA since 1900.

*TC= Tropical Cyclone
__________________________________________________

Predictable that every metric they can come up with is claimed to be in favor of the narrative.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Steve Case
October 6, 2022 11:26 am

A realistic discussion of tropical cyclones in the US would start by pointing out that these events have always occurred, and will always occur.
There are long lists of hurricanes and tropical storms hitting the US that extend back in time as long as we have records.
Even a cursory examination shows a large number of absolutely terrible hurricanes hitting every place along every coastline in the Eastern US, from Texas to Cape Cod, going back centuries in time.
The very morphology of our coastlines is formed and shaped and regularly reconfigured by hurricanes.
Name nearly any inlet on any barrier island or barrier island chain in the US, and I can tell you the hurricane that caused it. There are very few exceptions. Maybe none.
Overwash of these islands is key to understanding how they form, why they have the shape and width they have, why they are so low, and why they tend to all be backed by a bay of a certain width.

Understanding this leads to the inevitable question: Why do we build homes and lives and entire towns and cities on them? Well we know why…memories are short, and so is a human lifespan, in relation to the average interval between any particular place being hit directly by two such storms. But only sometimes.

As noted, and as we have discussed here after every hurricane, there have been long lulls between periods of more frequent hurricanes, and it just so happens that most of Florida and the East Coast of the US had a very long period of time during which remarkably few hurricanes made landfall. But prior to that was a several decades long period of frequent and terrible coastal storms in Florida and the Eastern US.

We tend to see powerful hurricanes hitting a particular location as one off events, and a confluence of factors leads us to a situation wherein no matter how bad one of them is, the usual priority is rebuilding as fast as possible and “getting back to normal”.

Even now, there are large swaths of the Florida coastline, and along the East Coast states, that have not been hit directly by a really bad hurricane in a very long time. But one does not have to go back very far, historically speaking, to see periods of time when all of these areas had repeated and devastating impacts from hurricanes.

The only reason for the IPCC to talk about the past 40 years is if the objective is a misleading narrative.

Last edited 1 month ago by Nicholas McGinley
Steve Case
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 6, 2022 11:58 am

“The only reason for the IPCC to talk about the past 40 years is if the objective is a misleading narrative.”
____________________________

Here’s a LINK to:

Continental United States Hurricane
   Impacts/Landfalls 1851-2021

Year
Month
States 
Category
Central Pressure
Wind Speed
Name

Yes, when they have 170 years of good data and they only use the last 40 you know that cherry picking is part of the agenda.

ATheoK
Reply to  Steve Case
October 6, 2022 6:04 pm

Eighty years of decent data, from 1940 when plane flights started getting frequent over certain specific air corridors between major cities.

Prior to that, hurricanes, if spotted, were logged by ship. Their reporting was paper format report documented until most large ships purchased ship-to-shore radios.

Even during the period between 1970s and 2000, hurricanes were overlooked unless they threatened certain countries land or ocean traffic zones.

Only a couple most recent decades have hurricanes been analyzed in real time via excellent live satellite feeds.

Yet, the pubescent climate whiners appear to only have a decade or 1.5 decades of hurricane history memory.
Some of the most avid true believers have a two year memory span, maybe.

AndyHce
Reply to  Steve Case
October 7, 2022 7:19 pm

Not to defend the narrative, but if you “know” there was no change until recently, then you know that mixing the records of three times recently into your calculations would not give a true perspective on how the change is progressing or what effects the change is producing. It would markedly dampen valid information about the change.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 6, 2022 10:15 pm

Misleading narrative = Lie

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Steve Case
October 6, 2022 1:31 pm

Why did they pick 40 years? First question that should enter the mind of anyone who applies logic and reason to the propaganda.

Reply to  Steve Case
October 6, 2022 3:29 pm

Only three “it is likely” phrases in one IPCC paragraph !
Here’s number four: It is likely the IPCC is spouting BS.

william Johnston
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 6, 2022 4:25 pm

So “It is worse than we thought” has lost its relevancy?

Scissor
October 6, 2022 10:36 am

When I resided in Houston, Dr. Frank was the preeminent meteorologist in the media there, and I tuned into his forecasts regularly. Today, his employment options would be limited because he is an honest straightforward person.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Scissor
October 6, 2022 10:46 am

Anyone who tries to argue from anything like an historical perspective is denounced as a fringe nutcase, a kook, a crank. Collectively we are all deniers.

In this insane world, speaking the truth has no place in dialogue.

Last edited 1 month ago by Nicholas McGinley
Gunny HiWay
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 6, 2022 1:28 pm

I wear my “DENIER” badge with honor.
Deny “Global Warming”, Deny CRT, Deny everything “trans”, Deny “covid”, Deny the “vax”.
Everything they say and print is a LIE.

Be well,
Gunny
#GardasilVaxKilledJessica ~ 12/16/1993-12/24/2013

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 6, 2022 10:19 pm

Speaking truth to power always gets one “killed” in one way or another; I speak from experience.

Nicholas McGinley
October 6, 2022 10:37 am

Unfortunately, it is not just the news media creating and perpetuating these false ideas.
There is an entire industry of climate alarmist so-called “scientists”, and they start out from the premise that global warming caused by CO2 is making every possible thing worse.
There is no evidence that the surface of the ocean is any warmer in the area where this storm formed and intensified, than at some other time with fewer or weaker storms.

There is no convincing evidence that the ocean is in fact warming up at all. What evidence the alarmists can cite is a tiny increase in temperature of the deep ocean on a global basis, and even this is highly suspect and probably made-up for purpose.

On top of that, surface water temperature is not the determining factor when it comes to tropical cyclone formation or intensification. Hurricanes cannot be predicted based on water temperature. Warm water is simply one of many preconditions.

I have been reading from them, more and more, an assertion to the effect that storms in general and hurricanes in particular are becoming wetter and dropping more rain because of global warming, but these assertions are made without any evidence backing them up. None whatsoever. If it was true, it should be easy to prove, because one thing we do have is very good and very detailed records of weather conditions going back a long time, and one of the measured and recorded parameters is the dew point of the air.

The warmistas cannot prove a single one of their assertions, because they are all false.
They do not even try to prove anything.
In fact, lack of proof is exactly why none of them will discuss the basis for the assertions they make.
For every one of them, it is axiomatic that every possible kind of weather is getting worse, and that all the changes are caused by CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increasing due to people burning fossil fuels.

It is so off the rails, that they no longer even make any distinction between weather and climate. Bad weather is itself referred to as “climate change”. And every instance of bad weather and unpleasant atmospheric conditions is routinely referred to as the ongoing “climate crisis”.
Which does not exist.

The people saying these things, whether the media, political leaders, or academics and so-called climate scientists, are not simply mistaken, or exaggerating, or ignorant of history.
It is worse than that. They are in the thrall of an ongoing hallucination of sorts, possibly some sort of mass hysteria.
They are 100% certain of something that does not even exist, and to them, it is all around us, all the time, every day.

They are incapable of seeing anything that occurs in any sort of realistic perspective.
Abandoning any historical perspective happened to them so long ago, they do not even remember doing it.

Last edited 1 month ago by Nicholas McGinley
Robert B
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 6, 2022 2:08 pm

It is amazing that The Science says warmer waters elsewhere made the storms stronger because of a mechanism requiring much warmer water at the location.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 6, 2022 2:13 pm

Excellent comment, Nicholas. Right on the money.

Richard Page
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 6, 2022 2:50 pm

Yeah. “Did climate change cause Hurricane Ian to intensify?” No, I believe it was NOAA, NHC and CNN that caused it to intensify!

Duane
October 6, 2022 10:43 am

As someone who went thru Ian last week in Lee County, and as someone trained in engineering as well as in aviation weather, I can attest that Ian simply responded to the weather conditions in action in the area thru which it traversed – and no amount of global warming, if any, could ever have had any effect.

Ian travelled an unusual path through the southern Caribbean then turned northward and finally northeastward in response to two regional high pressure systems – one to the northeast over the Atlantic, and one to the northwest over the southern Great Plains, and a dip down south by the jet stream to the north. Those three weather systems steered the cyclone on its path that eventually took it over my house.

The waters in the southern Gulf of Mexico have always been warm, in the mid 80s F in early autumn, and were not unusually warm at all for the time of year.

Two days before landfall the consensus of hurricane models was that the three weather systems would steer Ian more or less due north, missing the Florida peninsula and land falling in the panhandle. If that had occurred it would have brought Ian over cooler waters in the northern Gulf (again, this is typical for early autumn), and resulted in reduced wind speeds and storm surge, probably down to Cat 1.

But the weather gods were not good to my community, and the three weather systems moved around a bit and sent Ian straight from western Cuba to southwestern Florida. Ian landfalled before encountering the always cooler waters of the northern Gulf.

None of that has anything to do with climate change, such as it is, or is not.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Duane
October 6, 2022 12:22 pm

Over a week before it hit, when it was a depression that was still south of 15° North Latitude, the model consensus and official forecast had it hitting exactly where it hit.
Over the next five days or so, the models varied somewhat as to exactly where and when it was going to make landfall, and the official forecast track moved first northward for a time and then moved back south. By the time it was a day away, the trend south in the center of the forecast track had moved back to pretty much exactly where it wound up making landfall.

I knew that storm was trouble as soon as it appeared on the RAL | Tropical Cyclone Guidance Project | Home (ucar.edu) guidance maps.
In fact, there was at every point one or more models that had it hitting the Fort Myers region.
And at no time from when it was identified and tracked by model guidance, was Fort Myers every outside of the cone of uncertainty.

The real problem is that it seems almost no one is able to keep in mind what exactly is implied by that forecast cone of uncertainty.
We refer to the center of the cone as the official forecast, but the truth is the cone is the forecast, and no place within the cone should be thought of as any more likely than anywhere else.
Nearly half the time (~40% of the time), a hurricane will not wind up within the cone.
The cone represents the width of a series of circles, with each circle having a diameter which is related to how accurate the sum of each of the storms for the past 5 years has been.

I am astounded that anyone thinks that there is any certainty in where a hurricane will go and where and when it will hit. Ever.

Taking a snapshot a couple of days out and assuming that this indicates where the danger zone is, is ludicrous.
There was never a single 24 hour period during which the center of the forecast cone did not move by 50 to 100 miles.
I hoped that it would not become a major hurricane, and then hoped it would weaken, I hoped that it would keep going right into Mexico as several of the models had it doing for several days in a row. In fact, for more than two full days the storm center was moving south of due west when it had been forecast to move in an increasingly northerly trajectory.
When it got to 80° W longitude (due south of Miami), and was still south of 15° N latitude, and trending somewhat south of due west even then, was as hopeful as I ever was.
But when it took aim at Cuba and hit almost exactly where most of the models had been showing all along, it was obvious that the cluster of models that were mostly in agreement was very likely to be the correct forecast.

I knew that storm was very likely to hit Fort Myers by Monday evening.
In fact, I knew this storm was coming all the way back in 2013.

Everyone should look at every hurricane as the one is going to hit them directly, unless and until it has gone past and it is no longer possible.

Anyone who lives on these flat and low coastlines and is not pretty much a hurricane expert is, IMO, halfway between a child and an insane person.
I can not even believe people are saying they did not get enough warning.
Any adult human being in Florida ought to know long since that hurricane evacuation orders are not to be relied upon for guidance.
By the time they come, it will often be too late to make any real plans except the plan that says get in your car and get away from the coast, no matter what.

If they order evacuations and the storm misses, heads will roll, people can die evacuating, and worse yet, the next time (and this is well known), everyone will ignore the evacuation order.
The people in charge of ordering evacuations know very well what happens when they are not careful.

Most of all, anyone who lives near the coast, let alone on the water, has to know that a hit by a hurricane is not a matter of if, only when.
And everyone ought to know that wind is not what kills people. It is almost always water.

I wrote this the day before the storm:
“September 27th, 6:47PM
If nothing changes and this storm hits where and when and with the strength expected, it is very likely to be the costliest and most disruptive natural disaster in US history.
Looks like over 10 million people are going to get winds above tropical storm force, and most will lose power for a long time.
There will be a lot of people who die because they stayed in dangerous locations.
I do not say this lightly…this one is going to be very very very bad for a very very very large number of people and it is gonna wreck a very very very large amount of very expensive real estate.”

FB Ian.PNG
Last edited 1 month ago by Nicholas McGinley
DonK31
Reply to  Duane
October 6, 2022 12:24 pm

East Naples here. Need some help or supplies?

Around here it’s nearly impossible to tell the difference between Ian and the typical summer thunderstorm. There, but for the grace of God, go I.

Anybody heard anything from Tom In Florida?

Duane
Reply to  DonK31
October 6, 2022 5:24 pm

Thx – relatively minor wind damage (winds measured to 120+ mph in central Cape Coral) and no storm surge at my home. Relatively far from the Gulf with two barrier islands between me and the Gulf. People near or on the coast of course suffered massive damages.

Editor
October 6, 2022 10:47 am

Thanks for highlighting the anomaly between claimed wind speeds and atmospheric pressure.

Ian made landfall at 940 Mb, with claimed wind speeds of 150 mph.

Yet the Great Miami Hurricane in 1926 had a pressure of 929 Mb, but official wind speeds are stated as 144 mph.

And that 1926 hurricane was not the only one to trigger doubts. Most other hurricanes back then show a similar pattern, eg

Indianola in 1886 – 925 Mb and 150 mph

Okechobee – 1928 – 929 Mb and 144 mph

And in contrast, Laura in 2020 was also overstated in comparison – 939 Mb and 150 mph

More detail here

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/09/29/hurricane-ian/

It may well be that Ian’s winds really were 150 mph, but in that case the 1926 hurricane and those others were much higher.

Greg Lane
Reply to  Paul Homewood
October 6, 2022 12:11 pm

The older storms were most likely measured close to the ground. Now, the sustained wind-speeds are measured higher up (Hurricane aircraft). But the land level wind-speeds are decidedly lower than those aloft. Tighter spirals, like that of Andrew, create more tornadic activity, which will, of course raise land wind-speed accordingly. That’s my take anyway.

OweninGA
Reply to  Greg Lane
October 6, 2022 1:13 pm

The aircraft do measure flight level winds, but they also drop sensors into the storm to give them pressure temperature and windspeed readings all the way to the surface.

Experience from years of doing those measurements gave them a correction curve to adjust the surface wind speeds based on winds aloft at flight level. The whole process is pretty neat.

I spent 4 years putting WC-130s back together when they broke things flying through the storms. They did occasionally lose panels and covers in the turbulence.

Last edited 1 month ago by OweninGA
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  OweninGA
October 6, 2022 2:46 pm

I was just thinking about those dropsondes and wondering…how does an object that is falling, measure the lateral wind speed?
How would anything that is not mounted to a stationary object measure the velocity of the wind in relation to the ground?
They are falling, getting pushed by the wind, buffeted by sheets of water going 150 mph but not steadily… but probably do not go as fast as the wind pushing them…or do they? Do they use GPS location to measure how fast it is being pushed sideways?

Duane
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 6, 2022 5:19 pm

It is easy to sense and measure relative wind speed at the sensor, and gps position data provides a correction for the absolute speed and direction of the sensor. Easy peasy.

Last edited 1 month ago by Duane
Duane
Reply to  OweninGA
October 6, 2022 5:17 pm

The difference in wind speeds at 10K ft and sea level is minimal over ocean surfaces – maybe 5 mph max difference.

Greg Lane
Reply to  Duane
October 7, 2022 7:14 am

Duane … This chart is during the initial on-shore location of Ian. I notice this all the time, as I live on the water in Palm Harbor (nearby Tampa). It is always the same thing; the gusts/wind speed is always well below the “sustained” reported speeds. I’ve seen this play out time and again, for 55 years. Since I moved to Florida.

wind speeds.pdf.png
Duane
Reply to  Greg Lane
October 6, 2022 5:14 pm

The sensors are dropped by the hurricane hunter aircraft and report data all the way down to the surface, so it does not matter what altitude the aircraft cruises at.

We did not have hurricane hunter aircraft before the mid-20th century and did not have remote sensors from those aircraft until a few decades ago. We also did not have sensitive ground based Doppler radar until fairly recently. So the measured data from decades ago were far less granular and representative than the available data today.

Measured wind speeds in the eyewall of Ian gusted up to 236 mph, with sustained winds of up to 177 mph. It was a cat 5 storm and it is likely that NHC will soon reclassify it as such once all the measured data are crunched.

Last edited 1 month ago by Duane
Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Paul Homewood
October 6, 2022 12:45 pm

For one thing the Pressure-Wind relationship is based on a graph of widely scattered points of the central pressure measured in a storm and the maximum sustained wind measured at about the same time. The point is, it’s a scattergram. But then someone fits the data to a curve and we human beings like things neat and tidy. We keep the curve and forget the scatter. Then when we have a central pressure measured at “X” we think the corresponding wind speed MUST BE “Y”.
There are many factors why the data points are scattered. Difference in the outer pressure versus central pressure, latitude of the storm, size of the storm, etc. And for the older storms some of these other conditions are unknown. So in short, hurricanes with the same central pressure do not all have the same maximum wind speed.

On a second point, maximum wind speeds are estimated by the hurricane specialist. He is looking at a variety of measurements: satellite, aircraft, buoys, and ships. All of these will offer slightly different values because they’re in different parts of the wind field. So he estimates what he thinks is the correct value (also based on history). Once the storm comes ashore, there will be various wind measurements from land stations, again in different parts of the storm. However, almost all of these land stations are inland, so friction reduces the winds they measure. Very rarely to we directly measure winds on land that are as high as over the water. But some people complain that the winds are less than what NHC was estimating before landfall as if there was some conspiracy to overestimate the storm’s winds.

Last edited 1 month ago by Mumbles McGuirck
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
October 6, 2022 1:53 pm

In the strongest storms, it is rare to still have power and for everything to not be knocked down by the time the strongest winds approach.
Sensitive instruments on 30′ high poles in a major hurricane?
Even if there is a generator, phones lines and such are out. Radio does not tend to work well inside of the center of a hurricane. The strongest winds always correspond to giant bursts of intense rain.

The big question I have always had is, how do storms compare to each other?
What we really want to know is how storms today compare with the ones we have studied and learned or heard about from the past, right?
And so for that we need to know how winds were arrived at in the strongest storms from many years and decades ago.
From what I have seen, almost never is there a functional anemometer that survives to measure the wind in the core of the eyewall of a cat 4 or 5 hurricane. Rare even for lesser ones.
They have to be estimated, and inferred, and extrapolated from what was measured just before the wing gage broke, or at some point further along the storm track, etc.
At those wind velocities, the rain in the strongest gusts has a different character.
It is more like rocks in terms of the impact.

Last edited 1 month ago by Nicholas McGinley
Robert B
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
October 6, 2022 2:34 pm

The conspiracy is to ignore that the wind speeds of older storms would almost certainly have been greater if measured using today’s equipment.

And possibly more cynical. Cyclone Yassi in Australia was reported as Category 2 at landfall, soon after landfall. It was Category 5 by the morning. And while damage on land was significant, it was far from what you would expect to be caused by such a more powerful storm. If for some genuine reason it was Cat 5 as it hit the beach and weakened to Cat 2 before it made it’s way past the first bath towel, it probably would not have been written down in the history books as a Cat 2 even, 100 years ago.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Paul Homewood
October 6, 2022 2:39 pm

Paul,
I think that nearly all or maybe even all, of the historical storms you mention, had the winds speeds estimated, or extrapolated in decades past.
In Andrew, none of the anemometers survived the core of strongest winds.
And here in Florida, even places like airports get evacuated.
And everyone loses power.

I would like to see some report or analysis of how the max winds were arrived at for each of these storms from many years ago, personally.
Out of curiosity, but also because that may give us some way to determine if all of the recent storms are being measured in ways that will give a higher reading than the way it was done in the past.
In the hours prior to landfall, I was on front of my computer every minute of the time, from Midnight to about 9:00PM or later.
I was watching a lot of sources and channels and sites.
The report I saw of 155 mph and 937mb was when the storm was still a ways from landfall, and those winds were in the part of the eyewall opposite the coast…IOW the far side.

When I do a search now for “Strongest winds recorded in Hurricane Ian”, I am finding wide range of values depending on the source.
One thing I did note was that when the wind report had a time attached to it, rather than just a place, they all seemed to be an hour or more prior to the time recorded as the official landfall, which is the place the center of the eye passes a coastline.
Most locations anywhere near the coastlines of the islands and the mainland are residential housing. And they are scattered all over the place.
I want to see a map showing the locations of every official recording station in this region, and a time series of the wind speeds. The “gusts” in a hurricane, and specifically this one, are not brief one time sudden spikes that come once and not again. They go on and on with some sudden blasts, but series of them, not one or a few. Hours of them. In those come with the bands and eyewall cells that have hugely increased wind over what is in between, maybe 20mph or so lower between bands.

I can tell you the strong winds went on and on.
I can also say with certainty, that no place where the eye came ashore and for some distance from that point, still had power or internet when the eye was passing.
Maybe that is why so many reports are from 1:30, 2:00, etc.

Besides for all of that, max winds are supposed to be a one minute average, but not any sort of wide area average.
We had dozens of weather people standing near the shore in this hurricane. Has anyone seen any video of any of them with a handheld anemometer?
Do they not bring stuff like that and maybe mount it someplace out in the open?
Because I have never seen a weather station on the coast around here.

Richard Page
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 6, 2022 3:00 pm

I think that a lot of people today dismiss observers in the past because they lacked sophisticated radars and specialised equipment, but then forget that many of these observers would have been highly skilled meteorologists with decades of experience observing weather phenomenon.

rah
Reply to  Richard Page
October 6, 2022 7:08 pm

Ha! The whole scam NOAA is pulling off with altering recorded temperature data is based on the idea that the old timers did not know when was the proper time to read the thermometers. And to this day they are still trying to get the world record temp set in 1913 in Death Valley dropped from the records book based on claims the guy reading it was not stable and reliable.

Duane
Reply to  Paul Homewood
October 6, 2022 5:28 pm

Measured wind speeds were very sparse and nongranular in those days, using just a couple of land based sensors with poor precision, or perhaps one or two ship based sensors, with no hurricane hunter aircraft dropping remote sensors into the precisely located eyewalls, and no Doppler radars. Consider those old data to be no better than plus or minus 100% of reality.

Last edited 1 month ago by Duane
Gary Pearse
October 6, 2022 10:48 am

“…but not real, increase in the number of tropical storms/hurricanes in recent years — apparent because they’re named.”

They also began naming rain and snow storms in the land of the scene of the original CAGW crime. I’m sure this lesser storm naming idea and the reason for it would be seen developing in emails if obtainable by FOI request.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 6, 2022 10:54 am

Didn’t activist scientists also modify or propose altering the Saffir-Simpson scale for hurricanes
several years ago during the long hurricane drought?

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 6, 2022 12:52 pm

Some activists have advocated creating a Category 6 in the scale. Presently, Category 5 is unbounded at the top. However, there are no plans to add categories.
There was a modification the S-S Scale a few years ago, but it was only a minor adjustment to the category limits of about 1 knot or so.

rah
October 6, 2022 10:50 am

Despite the credentials of the author is there any doubt that this article will not appear in the “news” sources spouting the party line because it refutes what they are claiming.

In other Ian news, the press has been doing its worst to Katrinaize Ian as a DeSantis failure and will continue to do so during recovery efforts.

But here is an interesting account of the outstanding recovery efforts occurring in Florida.

Hurricane Ian Recovery, Day 7 – The Last Refuge (theconservativetreehouse.com)

One major fact that stands out of the many is the following:

  • There are currently 298,820 people without power.
  • Nearly 2.4 million accounts have already been restored across Florida.
  • For a full report on current outages, click here.
  • 42,000 linemen from utilities across the state are working 24/7 to restore power.
  • 325 Florida Highway Patrol are transporting utility crews.
  • 560 health care facilities have had power restored since the onset of the event.
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  rah
October 6, 2022 1:39 pm

I have a FB post from about 7:00 AM, the morning of:

Ian, morning of, De Santis.PNG
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  rah
October 6, 2022 1:42 pm

At 1:00 AM when the storm was approaching, I got a report that 5,000 national guardsmen (and women I suppose), were stationed a few blocks from my house, with a fleet of huge trucks and all manner of heavy equipment and deep water vehicles.
Ahead of the storm, onsite and waiting.
I have never seen that level of preparedness and planning.

rah
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 6, 2022 2:10 pm

I saw poster talking about convoys of utility trucks heading for Florida from from as far away as Minnesota and Iowa 3 days before landfall. For the east coast the majority were apparently staged at Jacksonville, but I don’t know where they were primarily staged at for the west coast.

But no matter, what it is clear that the leftist press attempt to Katrinaize this storm to hurt De Santis has already failed. I suspect that many of the emergency repairs to infrastructure are being set up on a cost plus and time and material basis. Awarding contracts to companies with a history of good performance without competitive bidding.

A temporary bridge connecting Cape Coral to Pine Island has already been put in service. The contract for repairing the devastated Sanibel Causeway has already been awarded.

None of that could be done so quickly with a formal bidding process. I suspect that much more of that will be done for clean up and repair of other vital infrastructure.

I await the leftist press claiming corruption and fraud without any evidence of such.

As I wrote before. Once it is all said and done it would be interesting for someone to do a postmortem comparing and contrasting the preparation/evacuation efforts, emergency reaction, and recovery efforts for Ian and Katrina.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  rah
October 6, 2022 2:17 pm

Yes, the power restoration efforts have been outstanding.

Richard Page
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 6, 2022 3:06 pm

Very impressive. I posted the day after with a figure of about 785,000 floridians that were without power then. For it to have shrunk right down to under 300,000 in just a few days is incredibly impressive given the circumstances.

Gunga Din
Reply to  rah
October 7, 2022 9:53 am

It’s been reported that a large number of EVs exposed to the salt water are now beginning to short out causing lithium battery fires.

Last edited 1 month ago by Gunga Din
Rob_Dawg
October 6, 2022 10:53 am

Circa 1967 my parents tossed us Massachusetts ragamuffins into the GMC Suburban (rare drop tail) and visited their friend in Naples, FL. Wonderful experience. While there we stayed at his modest bungalo just up the “hill” from the Naples pier. This was so long ago he just tied up at the pier nightly. I asked him why there were no houses south of the pier. He replied “There used to be. Hurricane Donna.”

Peta of Newark
October 6, 2022 11:22 am

Quote:”Hurricane Ian Intensify Faster than Normal?
‘We’ really are grasping at straws here, is that all they’ve got left?
Certainly no self-awareness that’s fo’sure

Kevin Mowen
October 6, 2022 11:26 am

Can someone tell me what was the exact category Ian was when it near Ft. Meyers? The media kept reporting that Ian had sustained windspeeds of 150+ MPH. But many of the wind speeds reported at several weather station sites in the area mostly reported wind gusts in the mid 120’s. I saw one station report a 130 MPH gust, and most of the other reports were in the high teens or low 120’s for wind gusts (not sustained windspeed). That would make Ian a category 3 maybe? Someone should know the correct answer.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Kevin Mowen
October 6, 2022 1:26 pm

Cat 4 is any storm that has a sustained wind measured above 130 mph.
It does not mean that every weather station in the area records winds that strong.
By definition, the max winds are the reported wind that exceeds all others.
For one thing, by the time the eyewall hits any location, power is almost certainly out already.
even at the airport, everyone is evacuated.
No one except those weather chaser nutjobs deliberately stays where they know a strong hurricane is about to hit.
I have been looking at this for a few days now: How have winds been recorded in hurricane direct hits, historically speaking?
The truth is, there are very few times an actual ground based weather station has managed to record on official instrumentation, the strongest winds known or thought to exist in a cat 4 or higher hurricane.
Most of the strongest storms that have ever hit the US in decades prior, are categorized by estimated wind speed. Estimated maximum wind speed.

It takes a certain wind speed to pile up the ocean and push it onshore to a given height.
High water marks make a sort of permanent record. Barometers tend not to break like anemometers do, and even mechanical ones can make a record of lowest pressure.
Remotely monitored devices and those that record generally need power.

Another thing I have been seeing a lot is, people who have obviously not looked very hard or for very long at every possible source for information, and yet somehow have decided that only what they are personally aware of right after the storm hits, or while it is hitting, is relevant info.

Historically, the Safir Simpson scale was not based only on wind speed.
Also taken into account were storm surge and barometric pressure.
That changed in 2009, when it was altered to only include wind.
That is too unlikely to ever be measured in the strongest part of a major hurricane.
For this one, the western eyewall is where, AFAIK, the strongest winds were measured or estimated or extrapolated or whatever.
IOW, the far side out over the Gulf.
Hitting land slows wind down. Hitting a large city with high rise buildings over a wide area could just possibly slow them even more.

The storm hit several layers of barrier islands prior to making landfall on the mainland.
For some reason, we do not have wind measuring devices or really anything much in the way of instrumentation, lining the coastlines where a hurricane is about to hit. Or anywhere.

It is not a small area either. The core of strongest winds in this storm covered an area tens of miles wide.
Having said all of that, I did a much better job than you of finding many sources for wind reportage. I was watching while a team of meteorologists from the local TV station, WINK, measured the winds in hundreds of spots with Doppler Radar. Besides for that, I saw and heard dozens of reports of winds in excess of 120mph, over a period of hours.
And doing a search of the internet right now, and not just looking at the first few items, shows a lot of reports of stronger winds.

The way you say it, it sounds like you think that for a few seconds, one or two places had a big gust of wind.
I am 50 miles inland of where the center of the eye passed the coastline the first time, a skinny barrier Island north of Captiva.
I had well over 6 and maybe ten hours of winds over hurricane force. I have a whole forest of huge trees upwind of my house for many miles, including some right on my property, and lots of places likely have that circumstance.

Anyway, here are a few of the reports I found with a few minutes of searching.
It is very likely that some time after things calm down, a more complete compilation of what was recorded will be available.
It is not reasonable to think that in a place reduced to rubble and a time when alive and dead people are still buried under the rubble, all measured data will be readily available.
Remember too about the whole “No Power” thing.
Even if a place has a generator, cell service and internet are generally going off when the power fails in a given place. Something that keeps being true in hurricane after hurricane.

It is very likely that everyplace that had winds like this, had them for hours and hours at a similar strength. Also it may be that no place had intact power and a way to transmit once the center of the storm was passing over. So these may ALL be winds well ahead of the eyewall, recorded and sent right before the building collapsed, or flooded, or the power went out, or the anemometer broke, or it’s mounting broke, or got hit by debris, etc…

RSW is the letter code for the Fort Myers International Airport.
Here is a list, tentative and incomplete, of locations that recorded winds of over 100 mph:
Lee County
1)3mi SE Cape Coral,140 MPH
2)Southwest Florida International Airport, 110 MPH
3)Tarpon Pt., 109 MPH
4)Fort Myers, 100 MPH
Charlotte County:
1)Punta Gorda Airport, 135 MPH
2)Punta Gorda, 124 MPH
3)Grove City, 110 MPH
Collier County:
1)S Pelican Bay, 112 MPH
2)2mi ENE Collier, 105 MPH
Hendry County:
1)La Belle, 110 MPH
(La Belle is way far inland…over 10 miles inland even of me. 50 miles inland of the point of landfall, in fact!)
Maritime Locations:
1)Sarasota Bay Marker 17, 106 MPH
2)1mi S Venice, 104 MPH
Honorable Mention:
1)Ding Darling Nwr, 98 MPH
2)3.8mi SE Estero, 95 MPH
3)2.2mi NE Port Charlotte, 90 MPH
4)2mi SE Bonita Shores, 99 MPH
5)Melbourne Beach Barrier Island, 81 MPH
(well over 100 miles from landfall, on the other coast entirely)
6)New Smyrna Beach, 86 MPH
(likewise, over 100 miles from first landfall)
7)Sarasota Bradenton International Airport, 86 MPH
8)Tampa Bay Cut, 87 MPH
9)New Pass Shoal Light, 85 MPH

All of these seem to be something like an hour or more prior to landfall, except the ones inland and on the other coast of course.
Landfall was 3:45 PM, and the place that the center passed at that time, 3:45, was a tiny barrier island not very close to any of these places.

Most reports I have seen of “strongest winds in Ian” are before 2:00PM.
So what does that tell us?

Storm surge and barometric pressure may be far more reliable ways to determine a storm’s particulars.
Prior to landfall, it seems indirect measurements or measurements from dropsondes, etc, are the best and most reliable way to get a max wind speed.
Buoys do not seem to ever record strong winds when hurricanes go past them.
I suspect that maybe when the ocean is turning them upside down and washing over them with 50 foot seas, they do not work as well as they do in nice calm normal weather. BUT IDK.
Maybe there are no real hurricanes.
It is all fake news.
Wrecked property stretching for a hundred miles up and down the coast, and over 100 miles inland, is just making a mountain out of a molehill.

All reports, even now, are preliminary at best.

But I can tell you this…I have not heard from a single person who was in this thing saying they doubted it was a cat 4, or doubting any of the wind reports.
People who have made a living standing in hurricanes for 30 and 40 years, all said it was the worst hurricane they had ever experienced.

I have been watching you tube videos taken by some people that I am surprised they lived and did not get injured badly.
Houses disintegrating into a cloud of debris in an instant, like I have only ever seen in tornado footage.

Last edited 1 month ago by Nicholas McGinley
rah
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 6, 2022 2:23 pm

The barometric pressures recorded in the eye do not match up well with a top end CAT IV almost CAT V that the reported 155 mph windspeed indicated.

I would like someone to find a single land station near the coast where landfall was made that recorded a sustained windspeed in the eyewall because I have failed to find a single one. From what I have seen, not a single one did. They all apparently failed before the arrival of the eyewall where maximum sustained winds would be.

It amazes me that with Florida being prone for the landfall of hurricanes that NOAA does not seem to have anemometers located there capable of withstanding the gusts associated with such storms so the actual windspeed data can be recorded from the eyewall as per the standards of the Saffir-Simpson scale.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  rah
October 6, 2022 7:08 pm

It may be the case that there is data that was recorded. Too soon to say for sure.
Everyone sensible evacuates when there is a mandatory evacuation order.
And power goes out. And people cannot get back in, even if they have no damage and still have a car and gas. Then there is still no power.
I do not really know. Someone was saying the modern anemometers are some sort of electronic device, and so with no power, no internet…
The places with the worst winds have the most damage.
But there are a large number of recorded and reported wind speeds that are in excess of what many people are stating.
In that list I gave, South Pelican Bay is way down in Naples.
50 miles south of the landfall. Tampa Bay is even farther away but north.
La Belle is way far inland, at least 50 miles from the coast, and about ten miles due east of me. I am about ten miles from RSW, which is about 30 miles from where the center made landfall.

Besides for everything else, I am sure there is more information than what these spotty reports are giving. And I am also sure that the reports are not just of one isolated short gust or anything like that.
In the middle of all of this, I can tell you people have other things on their mind than talking about the wind speed and doing everything humanly possible to get the data out, if they even have more.
I do not really know, but I am pretty sure that anything reported at the time is considered preliminary, and it takes a while to do a thorough investigation. Even once things settle down and power is back on and debris is cleared, etc.
When and where power is off, life comes to a dramatic halt.

Just visually, I have seen a large amount of damage that is as bad as anything I have ever seen in historical photos, or whatever.

Here is a video of 21 minutes of drone flight over Fort Myers beach. It is all pretty bad, but some is incredible.
For wind damage, check out at about 13:01, the top of a high rise ripped all the way off, and some others partially so.
It is like 8 stories up, so I am pretty sure that is wind, not surge.

https://youtu.be/WxGS_4lLkxQ

rah
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 6, 2022 8:56 pm

Actually NOAA says:

174-95 mph
64-82 kt
119-153 km/hVery dangerous winds will produce some damage: Well-constructed frame homes could have damage to roof, shingles, vinyl siding and gutters. Large branches of trees will snap and shallowly rooted trees may be toppled. Extensive damage to power lines and poles likely will result in power outages that could last a few to several days.

296-110 mph
83-95 kt
154-177 km/hExtremely dangerous winds will cause extensive damage: Well-constructed frame homes could sustain major roof and siding damage. Many shallowly rooted trees will be snapped or uprooted and block numerous roads. Near-total power loss is expected with outages that could last from several days to weeks.

3
(major)111-129 mph
96-112 kt
178-208 km/hDevastating damage will occur: Well-built framed homes may incur major damage or removal of roof decking and gable ends. Many trees will be snapped or uprooted, blocking numerous roads. Electricity and water will be unavailable for several days to weeks after the storm passes.

4
(major)130-156 mph
113-136 kt
209-251 km/hCatastrophic damage will occur: Well-built framed homes can sustain severe damage with loss of most of the roof structure and/or some exterior walls. Most trees will be snapped or uprooted and power poles downed. Fallen trees and power poles will isolate residential areas. Power outages will last weeks to possibly months. Most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks or months.

5
(major)157 mph or higher
137 kt or higher
252 km/h or higherCatastrophic damage will occur: A high percentage of framed homes will be destroyed, with total roof failure and wall collapse. Fallen trees and power poles will isolate residential areas. Power outages will last for weeks to possibly months. Most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks or months.

Now according to then NHC Ian had 155 mph winds as per the criteria of the Saffir-Simpson scale.
That is on the verge of being a CAT V.

For a CAT IV they say that “Most trees will be snapped or uprooted”
I saw a few palms near the coast snapped and a few with most of their fronds gone. But the vast majority still stood with all or most of their fronds.

There were some trees deciduous trees uprooted but as we know that ground was already saturated and in those conditions even in the soil here in Indiana trees are uprooted in 80 mph winds. Obviously easier in the sandy soil of Florida.

Lots of homes kept their roofs even if they were blasted off their foundations by the surge.

The wind damage does not look to add up to an almost CAT V storm to me as per NOAAs own description of the level of damage expected for a middle of the road CAT IV.

I am not one of those claiming that Ian wasn’t even a Major. To me it obviously was. I do not believe that it was the near CAT V storm that the reported 155 mph wind speed given implies.

And I will repeat that storm surge and flooding is the real story of Ian. Far more people and property effected by that surge and the huge amount of rain fall on already saturated ground with all the aquifers filled already. Even my girls in Daytona Beach that are west of the track and close enough to hear the cars when their running races watched the water come up their driveway and into their garage.

The day after the storm they were running errands for people in their neighborhood because they have a jeep and it could negotiate the 3′ deep water they had to drive through to get around town.

The family vacation home is near the end of a channel that comes off Charlotte Harbor with a Port Charlotte address. The home had a new roof put on it this spring and the hurricane shutters were down. Luckily the water did not top the channel wall and all the wind did was take out the pool cage. No other damage other than one palm tree leaning a bit more than it was before. And Port Charlotte was not far from the eye as it passed south and went over Porta Gorda.

A neighbor across the street had wind damage to their garage door. Another a couple houses down had some structural damage to their house. But that was about it on their street.

Hurricane Charley did much more wind damage to their area than Ian did

Last edited 1 month ago by rah
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  rah
October 7, 2022 4:15 am

Areas wrecked by Charley obviously fared far better when a similar strength of storm hit the area after everything was rebuilt to new and strict standards.
Garage doors in particular are now built to withstand winds based on the hazard zone, and that close to the coast, they must be rated at 175 or something like that. Most people just spend a little more and get the strongest ones they make.
It is easy to build roofs that will not blow off.

Instead of looking at what survived, look at what was wrecked.

It is simply not true that cat 4 is “almost cat 5”.
The relationship is not linear. And anyplace that was to the left of the eye had offshore and not onshore winds. All the difference in the world in any storm.
It is well known that winds on the right side of the eye at landfall will be far worse, because they are coming over water and onshore, whereas any locations to the left of the center will have only offshore winds.
Believe what you want.
I am not going to argue with anyone who uses such sophistry.
I am not even sure what your point is.

Mike Maguire
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 6, 2022 8:04 pm

“I am 50 miles inland of where the center of the eye passed the coastline the first time, a skinny barrier Island north of Captiva.
I had well over 6 and maybe ten hours of winds over hurricane force. I have a whole forest of huge trees upwind of my house for many miles, including some right on my property, and lots of places likely have that circumstance.Anyway, here are a few of the reports I found with a few minutes of searching.
It is very likely that some time after things calm down, a more complete compilation of what was recorded will be available.”

“Having said all of that, I did a much better job than you of finding many sources for wind reportage. I was watching while a team of meteorologists from the local TV station, WINK, measured the winds in hundreds of spots with Doppler Radar. Besides for that, I saw and heard dozens of reports of winds in excess of 120mph, over a period of hours.
And doing a search of the internet right now, and not just looking at the first few items, shows a lot of reports of stronger winds”

Nicholas,
Almost all the wind GUSTS that you showed were right along the coast and brief.
There were probably a few, brief minimal hurricane force winds for the first hour just a bit inland too, then there were no other hurricane force wind GUSTS, let alone sustained hurricane winds for 6 to 10 hours anywhere.

Your data for wind gusts above, is still mostly the same data from a week ago, the day after Ian hit.

A bunch of magical mystery wind data isn’t going to suddenly come from nowhere to contradict the 65 stations at the link below(and your data from the coast) that gave a good representation along the entire path for 15 hours after Ian hit. All the recorded surface data on , calibrated/dependable instruments at the surface strongly contradicts your version.

Also, as shown below with the accurately measured empirical data on the ground, Irma was a much stronger hurricane.
Ian had around 2 dozen hurricane forecast wind gusts, mostly along the coast.
Irma had 80 separate locations with hurricane force wind gusts, more than 3 times as many as Ian and the majority of those were inland.

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/89366/#89370

The VAST majority of wrecked property you refer to was on the coast and from the storm surge NOT from the wind.

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/89399/

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Kevin Mowen
October 6, 2022 1:34 pm

BTW, the final determination is always made after careful investigations.
Not arrived at with incomplete data as quickly as possible.

Howard Dewhirst
October 6, 2022 11:47 am

Too often WUWT and other posts that hope to counteract false claims of climate alarmists begin by citing the alarmist text without a caveat, so a casual reader would think the article was in support of the claim. Would it not be beneficial to begin with a phrase such as “Yet again the alarmist media makes false claims, this time that ……Hurricane Ian “rapidly transformed from a relatively weak storm into a strong one, [a] phenomenon that has become more common, due to climate change.”?
People remember the first lines and not the following explanation. Better to knock the claim on the head at the beginning?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Howard Dewhirst
October 6, 2022 12:30 pm

“Yet again the alarmist media makes false claims,

This is what the MSM does routinely with things that don’t toe the party line, such as, “Trump again falsely claims …” Unless you have rock solid evidence that it is false, one should say “the alarmist media makes unsupported claims,”

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 7, 2022 11:41 am

I fear the fact of this discussion means that some people do NOT trust the Official PTB.
Had the PTB rigorously kept to fact, labelling estimates and conjecture as such, trust would be higher.
It seems almost as if their schiency-stuff, n feelings, is intended to replace real science with emotions & propaganda.

That is sad.

Auto

Mike Dubrasich
October 6, 2022 11:57 am

Thank you, Dr. Frank, for nailing the sadly popular Counter Factual Fallacy, as in comparing apples to unicorns.

Another CFF heard frequently on the Marxist Media is the claim that vexxed folks who later get China Virus have a milder case. Since they didn’t get it before the vexx, that unicorn cannot be calculated or compared to factual reality, even by fancy statisticians.

bdgwx
October 6, 2022 12:17 pm

Neil Frank said: “Did Global Warming Make Hurricane Ian Intensify Faster than Normal?”

Maybe. All things being equal higher tropical cyclone heat potential (TCHP) results in faster intensifying and more intense cyclones in general. The problem is that TCHP isn’t the only thing that modulates cyclone intensity. Wind shear is another significant factor. If global warming also causes an increase in wind shear then that would offset some of the TCHP increase. At most the contribution would only be a few percentage points anyway. That means sans global warming Ian would have still been a destructive major hurricane regardless.

On thing the mainstream media gets wrong about global warming is that they make the issue binary and imply that global warming was 100% responsible for weather events which isn’t supported by the evidence. Global warming certainly contributes to extreme weather events, but it’s not an all or nothing situation. Higher global temperatures are associated with changes in frequency and magnitude of events, but it is not solely to blame for individual events in the way mainstream media implies. And this appears to be especially true for tropical cyclones. From the evidence I’ve seen heat waves are the one notable event type that appears to be significantly enhanced by global warming to the point that we can say that the global warming made the heat wave significantly more likely to the point that we could probably eliminate its occurrence in a sans global warming world.

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
b.nice
Reply to  bdgwx
October 6, 2022 12:59 pm

“Global warming certainly contributes to extreme weather events,”

No indication in data of any change in extreme weather events.

Heat waves only increase in urban areas and airports…

… and only if you change the definition of “heat wave” and adjust past data.

Reality is against you all the way.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  b.nice
October 7, 2022 5:29 am

Global warming must have been absent from 2005 until 2017. No major hurricanes hit the U.S. during this entire 12-year period. Global warming seems to have fallen down on the job during that period. Or maybe CO2 just doesn’t have the influence alarmist attribute to it.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  bdgwx
October 6, 2022 3:30 pm

Let’s leave aside that all things are never equal.
History does not support a warming world in which tropical cyclones are any more frequent, or any more powerful, or any wetter.
The opposite is the case.
There are libraries of evidence that the period prior to 1900, also known as the Little Ice Age, had frequent and terrible hurricanes, worse than anything we have seen in recent decades.
In terms of hits on the US, the past 50 years has been a beach blanket picnic compared to the prior 50 year period.
There were stronger storms, more of them, and they hit a wider field of the coast…all the way to New England in a large number of very notable and well known instances.
And the flooding they caused was far worse, as were the death tolls, even though there was far fewer people, and fewer still living on the beaches and adjacent coastal areas.

There is no correlation between either the number or the strength of any type of storm, tropical cyclones included, and fluctuations in the GAST.

The non-correlation is even worse if we used the warmista fake adjusted temperatures.
Did you miss the part where we had zero major hurricanes for the longest stretch in the recorded history of North America?
Including a record stretch of none in the entire Gulf of Mexico?

Last edited 1 month ago by Nicholas McGinley
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 6, 2022 3:41 pm

Likewise there is no correlation whatsoever between hurricane frequency and/or strength and sea surface temperatures.
In fact, we can have hurricanes that go all the way up the East Coast, in Fall.
And we have very few and most often none of them when the Sun is strongest and the days are longest the air and ocean are the hottest. They mostly only start coming in reliable frequency around the end of August, and are far more common in October than in July or June or even August.
And they can and have occurred in every month of the year, across a wide range of SST’s.
What you just said, is simply a warmista talking point, devoid of any connection to what actually occurs.
It is not just that there is no evidence for it, it is that there is plenty of evidence, and it is all showing very clearly that all of that you just said is wrong.
To the extent there has been some warming since the Little Ice Age, it is not in the form of hotter hot periods.
The warming has been all in eh form of less cold nights, less cold winter times, and a slightly less frigidly frozen polar wasteland in the Arctic.

Mike Maguire
October 6, 2022 12:20 pm

This is a map of Gulf of Mexico temperatures just before Ian tracked into the GOM.

Climate change can’t cause pockets of warmer water to form, like the one off the southwest coast of Florida and hurricanes to track over them.

The actual very warm pocket anomaly was caused by natural variation, based on the Golden Rule of extreme weather/climate(from Cliff Mass).

https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-golden-rule-of-climate-extremes.html

“The more extreme a climate or weather record is, the greater the contribution of natural variability.
Or to put it a different way, the larger or more unusual an extreme, the higher proportion of the extreme is due to natural variability.”

However, with +1 deg. C being superimposed on the entire system, including GOM temperatures, THAT added heat counts as coming from climate change and that DOES add to a hurricanes potential ability to strengthen.

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/89399/#89413

Screenshot 2022-10-06 at 13-54-18 Here comes........... Hurricane IAN! - MarketForum.png
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Mike Maguire
October 6, 2022 3:45 pm

That one degree…you mean since the Little Ice Age?
That one degree?
On our Ice Age having planet that is routinely cold enough to kill a person across wide stretches of the surface and long periods out of every year, I can think of no downside whatsoever to a (probably all too temporary) respite from the Little Ice Age in the form of a slightly less Ice Age-y planet.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mike Maguire
October 7, 2022 5:39 am

“Climate change can’t cause pockets of warmer water to form, like the one off the southwest coast of Florida and hurricanes to track over them.”

Climate Alarmists want us all to think that the oceans are uniformly getting warmer and warmer because of CO2. But that’s not the case, the oceans have areas of cooler water and areas of warmer water, and these constantly shift, and there is no uniform temperature increase. So claiming CO2 is increasing the power of hurricanes by making the oceans of the world warmer is wrong.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tom Abbott
Doonman
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 7, 2022 6:12 pm

The only thing that warms the oceans is sunshine. So if the oceans are getting warmer and you don’t want that to happen, then you should dump SO2 into the atmosphere like crazy to stop it.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Mike Maguire
October 9, 2022 6:16 am

You seem to conveniently overlook that it is temperature DIFFERENTIALS, not “average” temperatures, that drive violent weather.

IF the warming were due to “greenhouse gas” changes, that would warm the upper atmosphere more than the sea surface, thereby reducing the temperature differentials and decreasing, NOT increasing, the “potential ability to strengthen.”

Mike Maguire
October 6, 2022 12:39 pm

Neil Frank was the director of the NHC for many years and knows a thing…or 100 about hurricanes!
I agree strongly about the sensationalizing and exaggerating of this and all extreme events to support a false narrative about the fake climate crisis.

Latest 1 in 1,000 year rain event(not)

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

Irma was a much stronger hurricane. Outside of the coast, there were no hurricane force winds, even hurricane wind gusts were not reported very far from the coast.
Comparison of Ian-2022 to Irma-2017

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/89366/

Most of Ian’s catastrophic damage and deaths occurred right along the coast from the Storm Surge.

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/89399/

rah
Reply to  Mike Maguire
October 6, 2022 2:27 pm

The story of Ian is not really windspeed but storm surge and flooding.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  rah
October 6, 2022 5:21 pm

There was plenty of wind damage in this one.
Besides, wind flows in response to pressure gradient, and the low pressure and the wind causes the storm surge. Huge amounts of rain make it worse in many locations, as the surge prevents storm flow from making it’s way out to sea.
Also, if the ocean just rose up, it would not be anywhere nearly as deadly and damaging as having all that water driven by intense wind and causing huge currents and waves.
There are tens of thousands of structures destroyed by wind from Ian.
Most deaths are from flooding, that is for sure.
And also, homeowners insurance covers a home wrecked by wind, but does not cover flooding at all.
I was wondering if some of those fires may have been set?
Apparently, a lot of people, even people on low lying islands and coastal locations, did not have flood insurance. It is always true that some do not, but they recently jacked up the rates hugely, and a lot of people that used to have it, do not anymore.
I stopped paying it after Irma. With terrible flooding all around me, my house was feet above any water. My driveway was not even puddling up, while a mile away cars were stacked up from streets becoming rushing rivers.

rah
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 6, 2022 8:22 pm

The size of the storm is every bit as significant a factor as the wind speeds for storm surge. The larger the storm the larger the dome and the longer the winds have to drive the water ashore. And Ian was a good sized hurricane.

As for flood insurance. Those near the coast in low lying areas and on barrier islands are charged exorbitant rates and so many simply do not pay for it, is what I have been told by some people that live there.

It seems that those that do not have insurance get direct assistance from FEMA while those that have flood insurance have to go through a third party.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  rah
October 7, 2022 4:50 am

“… size of the storm is every bit as significant a factor as the wind speeds…”
Every bit?
You really think that is true?
It is not.
It is a factor.
The configuration of the shoreline is a larger factor than the fetch of the wind, but a larger wind field is pushing more water, which can then be funneled into a higher surge if, for example, the coastline is concave.
Also important is the slope of the sea floor.
The Gulf is very shallow for over a hundred miles offshore of Florida.
That makes for higher surge potential but less potential for huge surf on top of the water that is driven onto the shoreline.
Where the ocean is deep near to the shore, surge potential is lower but wave potential much higher.
Every segment of coastline is rated with a specific amount of surge a given wind speed is capable of producing.
Wind speed is by far the dominant factor.
Second is the barometric pressure drop.
But it seems that the pressure was not extremely low.
(Winds are not correlated as closely with the pressure as they are with the pressure gradient. Pressure gradient drives all movement of air in the atmosphere.
Friction with land causes the wind field to slow down and also to expand.
Winds aloft generally run parallel to the isobars, and friction causes them to cross the isobars. This causes winds to spiral into low pressure and out under higher pressure near the surface. This effect also has important consequences where zones of high pressure cause winds to come ashore. Divergence increases in that situation, and is one reason why, for example, the Atacama and Western Australia are so incredibly dry.)

Tide gauges all over SW Florida registered the highest water levels ever recorded, before most of the gauges broke.
There was over six feet of water rise all the way down in Naples.
Marco Island was submerged completely according to some reports.
Naples is 50 miles south of the point of landfall.

The Dark Lord
October 6, 2022 12:41 pm

Can anyone define normal ? of course not … they are guessing …

Gunny HiWay
October 6, 2022 1:24 pm

NO… It did not.
“Global Warming” had nothing to do with Ian. ~ IMO
My money is on HAARP or VOLCANOS.

I will take HAARP for $1000 Alex.

The current occupants of the White House hate Florida, Ron DeSantis and all conservatives.
Destroying a conservative/successful state with weather weapons is nothing for them.

Evil has a name, it is called “Liberal Democrat”.

Carry On,
Gunny

sh.jpg
Last edited 1 month ago by Gunny HiWay
Robert B
October 6, 2022 2:05 pm

Which accounts will be blocked by Twitter and Facebook? Those pointing to the science or those reporting The Science?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/climate-skeptics-falsely-deny-link-between-global-warming-hurricanes/ar-AA12GmjJ

Paragraphs of evidence of denial before any evidence that they were wrong.

AFP consulted several scientists and experts to investigate the link between hurricanes and climate change. While causality is hard to prove, all of them agreed global warming is making tropical storms more intense and potentially more destructive.”

As in 1-2 mph stronger winds?

I can’t read the rest.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Robert B
October 7, 2022 5:50 am

“While causality is hard to prove,

Impossible, so far, in the case of CO2.

” all of them agreed global warming is making tropical storms more intense and potentially more destructive.””

A consensus of the stupid. They all agree that global warming is making things worse, but there is no proof. How stupid is that? This is typical for climate change alarmists: Evidence is foreign to them. They are stuck on unsubstantiated assumptions and assertions. The reason being that they have no evidence for what they claim so all they have left are assumptions and assertions. It’s really kind of pathetic.

Robert B
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 7, 2022 3:09 pm

The only evidence is modelling that gives a result of a very small increase in strength so far, and 2-11% with the predicted warming in 2100, negated by the hurricanes being less likely to form. It’s actually dishonest to say that even warmer sea surfaces caused a mild storm to be destructive, although they are careful to only imply it.

Doonman
Reply to  Robert B
October 7, 2022 6:21 pm

Notice how msn.com includes “falsely” in the URL title as if writing that makes it true. I see this all the time now in the NYT, WAPO, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc etc. They all seem to believe that global atmospheric average temperatures can warm ocean water. But no one ever demonstrates how this occurs.

Nelson
October 6, 2022 2:05 pm

I have yet to find any wind speed data that shows IAN was any more than a Cat 1 at landfall. The NHC is not using measured wind speed to Categorize Ian. All you have to do is look at the buoy data from the NDBC. All of the pictures showing damage indicate sustained winds of less than 100. If you look at the NHC updates, it sticks out like a sore thumb that they had no measured wind speed data (1 minute average at 10 meters) that showed a Cat 4+ storm. Below is a map of the buoy data available. None of the buoys show wind speeds above 80 (gusts are higher) The NHC is no longer a trusted source for reporting of hurricanes.

Buoy Data.png
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nelson
October 6, 2022 5:04 pm

Do you know how high the waves are out on the open water when a major hurricane approaches?
Do you think those buoys are just standing tall, while 50′ seas are rolling them over?

I have found that random sleuths on the internet are not exactly known for their uniformly omniscient perspicacity, neither.

It has been obvious for decades that buoys do not record hurricane winds.
It has also been noted that every time a huge awful hurricane wrecks someplace, there are people who claim that because they are looking at data from buoys and see no hurricane force winds, that it is therefore quite impossible that there was actually a hurricane.

In science and in courts of law, it is almost always best to look at the totality of the evidence.
And also critically important to not let one’s mind form judgements using fragments of information on top of intrinsic bias.
Because once we convince ourselves of something, it is very hard to change one’s mind.
That is one reason it took thousands of years before we actually learned anything. We had to invent the scientific method, and separately, the type of legal system we used to have in the US.
Sadly, we are now devolving to a method of jurisprudence (Specifically, plea bargaining: “You can either plead guilty and take two years, or go to trial and face life, and our conviction rate is 95%”. How would you like to be falsely accused and hear the prosecutor tell you that?) that is a lot like putting people on the wrack inside the courthouse, and stretching them until they either confessed or died.

Science seems to likewise be undergoing a de-evolution back to the system where a few people just decide what they think is true, and then tailor the evidence to match that viewpoint.

Nelson
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 6, 2022 5:59 pm

No offense Nicholas, but you reported Punta Gorda Airport data for wind gusts, not wind speed. The last report of wind speed was in the 70s. It went off line during the storm. I followed the storm in real time. Buoy data isn’t perfect, but the data from them is a better indicator of the Saffir Simpson scale than eye wall data 1000s of feet up.

bdgwx
Reply to  Nelson
October 7, 2022 6:13 am

The problem with buoys is that they are almost never in the band of maximum winds. Recon flights are by far the best way to measure the band of maximum winds because the aircraft can purposely target it.

bdgwx
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 7, 2022 6:16 am

Nicholas, do you see what I mean. Every time I post observations of the maximum winds showing that Ian was, in fact, a category 4 storm it is rejected.

bdgwx
Reply to  Nelson
October 6, 2022 7:16 pm

NOAA2, AF301, and AF307 measured category 4 surface winds just prior to and at the time of landfall. You can view the data here.

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
Mike Maguire
Reply to  bdgwx
October 6, 2022 9:14 pm

Have you ever noticed how so many people have assumptions or form conclusions about things, almost from the get go and often on flimsy evidence well before much of the data/information is in?

Then, even if the data coming after they made the assumption/conclusion is 10 times greater and strongly contradicts their flimsy evidence………..their response is to keep repeating the flimsy evidence over and over and over, while ignoring the more powerful evidence that contradicts that.

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/89366/#89370

And if an objective source tries to sincerely get them to open their minds and try to see the authentic data that they’re ignoring, the response is often to assume that the source just won’t see what they already know.
This results in emotional not critical thinking and using the ANTI scientific method by looking at ONLY the things that will prove they are right and ignoring everything else.

Proving that they are right trumps everything else.

Robert B
Reply to  bdgwx
October 6, 2022 9:36 pm

They’re flights.

bdgwx
Reply to  Robert B
October 7, 2022 6:06 am

I know.

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
Robert B
Reply to  bdgwx
October 7, 2022 3:15 pm

Do you understand that the argument is previous storms are categorized with data measured by instruments at the surface, and with much fewer instruments. These indicated Ian were much weaker? It just highlights measurement techniques create a false positive trend in strengths.

bdgwx
Reply to  Robert B
October 7, 2022 5:00 pm

The argument is that Ian was not a category 4 hurricane and that the NHC is not trustworthy.

Robert B
Reply to  bdgwx
October 8, 2022 2:45 pm

Why is it so hard to reason with a self-designated defender of the science.

If it’s a Category 4, the earlier ones categorized as smaller were probably Category 5. Did you actually see that there were very few measurements anywhere near 150 mph? If those earlier storms were measured similarly, it’s likely that many more measurements were as large or greater, evidenced by the huge difference in what was measured at the surface.

Nelson
Reply to  bdgwx
October 7, 2022 3:08 am

The data you link to isn’t surface data.

bdgwx
Reply to  Nelson
October 7, 2022 6:06 am

Yes it is.

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
Mike Maguire
Reply to  Nelson
October 6, 2022 9:39 pm

Yes, Nelson,
The NHC has done so much for us with their incredible timely, comprehensive reports. Saved many thousands of lives. Provided the information for people like me (an operational meteorologist) and thousands of others in fields that disseminate their information for enlightenment that includes actions. and act as conduits of their live saving messages.

I flew into Hurricane Gloria with their meteorologists in September 1985 and still think that they are underappreciated by most people.

However, it’s hard to come to any other conclusion with Ian regarding what they reported for winds at landfall and especially for 6 hours after that, inland.

They just really blew it with winds they claimed were occurring from late afternoon thru the entire evening compared to what every land based wind reading showed. 6 dozen of them all saying the NHC was high by 30-50 mph in many cases compared to what their updates were saying. The data doesn’t lie.
In the past, because of the way they measure winds, their readings have usually been higher than land readings. I get that.
Of the many dozens of hurricanes I’ve followed closely for decades, this one stood out because the disparity was embarrassingly huge.

Since they have no accountability, whatever they say will be what stands. However, I hope that during their post Ian investigation, they will do an honest reconciliation that dials down some of the purported winds so they better match the actual measured winds at 6 dozen locations, exactly in the path of the worst weather.

If you disagree with that statement, please provide more than hurricane force wind GUSTS along the coast for a couple of hours.

I WANT to be wrong. Help me to get there.

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/89366/

bwegher
Reply to  Nelson
October 7, 2022 8:03 am

Ian surface winds can be compared with other storms based on damage photos.
Saffir-Simpson scale describes damage to surface structures and trees exposed to sustained winds. Saffir scale winds for Ian were exactly as described for other storms with Category 1 winds speeds in the 70 knots range.
Most of Ian damage was storm surge, not part of the Saffir-Simpson scale.
If surface winds were as claimed by the NHC, the surface damage would have looked like Hurricane Andrew in 1992. Andrew was a Category 5 by Saffir-Simpson. Seeing photos of damage for Ian and seeing post storm damage from Andrew in person I can say with certainty that comparing Ian to Andrew is like comparing a Category 1 to Category 5, which is pointless. Both storms matched the Saffir-Simson category descriptions for their respective categories.
Ian was Category 1
Andrew was Category 5.

n.n
October 6, 2022 2:17 pm

Faster than normal, at normal altitude, perhaps.

Last edited 1 month ago by n.n
Rick C
October 6, 2022 2:40 pm

After hurricane Andrew wiped out Homewood, FL in 1992, the Florida Building Code went through several major revisions and upgraded building construction requirements. Included in the process were several revisions to the design wind speed maps to better align with actual ultimate wind speeds that occurred during hurricanes. The design wind speeds for Lee County (Fort Meyers) are 160 to 170 mph. So to claim that Ian was unexpected or unprecedented is obviously false. Florida building code authorities have obviously anticipated storms of this strength for years. Of course most buildings and infrastructure in the area were built to far less stringent codes long ago and there’s probably no way the prevent severe damage from 15+ foot storm surge.

I do feel for those who have been devastated by this storm. But if you want to live along the gulf coast or the eastern sea board, hurricanes are going to be a real risk.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Rick C
October 6, 2022 4:41 pm

Exactly. And everyone knows it.
Just like at any moment, California will be wrecked by one or several gigantic earthquakes that will cause damage and death and destruction on a scale never seen in the US.
And at some point, Mt Hood will erupt and send a lahar to somewhere miles away and kill a whole bunch of people, Ranier will erupt and do likewise, quite possibly for the area between it and Tacoma* and also at some point the offshore Cascadia subduction zone will slip, and cause a huge underwater earthquake that will send a mega tsunami onto the land areas of the Pac NW, and across the entire Pacific, and we will all be in for it when a repeat of The Carrington Event recurs, and don’t even get me started about the New Madrid Fault Zone.

Cascadia may be the worst one and the most likely to occur in the near future and effect the most people very severely.
For the past 10,000+ years, it has slipped about every 250 years.
The last time was in the 1700s.
It was so bad, it killed a huge number of people as far away as Japan.
Seismologists predict there is a 37% chance that the Cascadia Subduction Zone will let loose a magnitude 8+ megathrust earthquake within the next 50 years. This earthquake is expected to be the largest natural disaster in North American history.”

*”Past lahars at Mount Rainier traveled as fast as 70-80 km per hour (45-50 mi per hour) and were as much as 150 m (490 ft) deep where confined in valleys near the volcano. They thinned, slowed, and spread out in the wide valleys and lowlands downstream. Deposits of past lahars crop out in all of the valleys that head on Mount Rainier’s summit edifice. To read more detail about these events at Mount Rainier, visit the significant lahars page.
Lahars that begin as large landslides high on Mount Rainier’s flanks can occur without warning—that is, without any precursory activity detected by seismometers or other instruments.”

Hurricanes are awful.
So are car wrecks, drug overdoses, being a victim of crime…in fact…so is every other way to die.

It may not matter how much you prepare or how carefully your select your home when Cascadia slips, or the San Andreas unzips, or a volcano erupts or just lets loose a random lahar because it is a volcano and there are massive glaciers up on them.

People live in these places because they are nice places to live, almost all the time and almost everywhere.
Maybe several of these events will happen all at about the same time, so we can all suffer together.

KcTaz
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 7, 2022 12:03 am

So, you are saying the same thing this guy said. You are both correct.

“Mankind exists by geological consent, subject to change without notice.”

Will Durant

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  rah
October 6, 2022 4:50 pm

I was wondering the other day how those fires started in Ian, and the first thing I thought of was…Tesla in the garage. Or some other EV. Maybe even just a powerwall.

October 6, 2022 3:26 pm

 “We simply do not know if Hurricane Ian would have been weaker, or would have intensified more slowly, in the absence of global warming. Why not? Because it did not occur in the absence of global warming.”

This article is about hurricanes that form in the Atlantic Ocean near Florida and may pass over the Gulf of Mexico. That means GLOBAL warming is not relevant. The only relevant warming would be the warming in the region where these hurricanes that hit Florida develop.

I was hoping that a meteorologist would have those data.
i don’t, but I do have a few facts that may be relevant:
— There has been no global warming in the past 8 years (UAH data)
— Global warming since 1975 had only a small effect on the tropics
— Global warming since 1975 has mainly been in the coldest six months of the year

Based on these facts, I believe it’s likely that warming in the Atlantic Ocean where hurricanes that hit Florida develop (and the Gulf of Mexico) has been small, especially in the past 8 years, assuming there was any warming at all.

Rud Istvan
October 6, 2022 3:36 pm

Read all the comments, thought would make a few from personal experience, which it is apparent many here do not have.

  1. My father was XO and a command pilot of the 409th typhoon chasers using retrofitted B-29s to hunt pacific typhoons from 1948-1950 in the earliest days of tropical cyclone research. Many stories. Dad survived WW2, was sent to UCLA for double masters degrees in weather radar and meteorology, before being assigned to Guam for the typhoon mission. (BTW, I am technically a Guamian ‘gook’, having been born in the naval hospital there.)
  2. To this day, the advanced weather (not climate) models have uncertainty out 2-3 days. TC are incredibly sensitive to steering currents. Hence the cone of uncertainty from NHC and the late eastern IAN jog.
  3. To this day, TC spooled up intensity is impossible to predict 24 hours out. Warm water patches, eye wall replacement, …

Here in Fort Lauderdale directly on the barrier island beach, we have learned three things from Wilma (2005) and Irma (2017) destruction:

  1. Based on our unit in our building, we stay on 3 and go on 4.
  2. Tracks are unreliable. Go if within track with 24 hour warning. Back roads better than obvious (jammed) interstates. Have pre planned go maps.
  3. Keep go bag and car ready hurricane season round. If you have to restock it/refuel it within 48 hours of storm arrival, you cannot—too late.
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rud Istvan
October 7, 2022 6:06 am

I landed on Guam on my way to Vietnam one time. A little bitty speck in a great big ocean!

I was wondering how you fared during the hurricane. I guess you evacuated?

Last edited 1 month ago by Tom Abbott
Bob
October 6, 2022 3:50 pm

Excellent report, short, to the point and in language everyone can understand. This needs wide distribution.

MarkW
October 6, 2022 3:54 pm
KcTaz
Reply to  MarkW
October 7, 2022 12:44 am

WUWT is wonky, again. I tried to give you an upvote but it wouldn’t let me. Weird.

Wait, I happened to look again, and it did, I think. Still weird, though.

Last edited 1 month ago by KcTaz
Tom Abbott
Reply to  KcTaz
October 7, 2022 6:12 am

My upvote worked.

I wonder if these fires are limited to the lithium-powered EVs? How do nickel-metal hydride batteries behave when wet?

Does this mean you can’t drive an EV through high water? At one time I thought an EV might be better in high water than an ICE vehicle, but any advantage, other than getting you across a flooded street, would be gone if water ruined the batteries.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 9, 2022 9:27 am

I never thought that…electricity and water?! Not good bedfellows!

Olen
October 6, 2022 4:45 pm

Global warming are like vampires, do not exist. So the answer to the headline is no.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Olen
October 7, 2022 6:13 am

Based on current scientific knowledge, you are correct: No, is the answer.

KcTaz
October 7, 2022 12:56 am

Ian has made me wonder why do humans want to live and build in places that are prone to severe weather or major geological events? I get that being by the water is really nice as is being in many places where volcanic eruptions, tsunamis or earthquakes are frequent or just inevitable, some day but it really makes no logical sense to live in many of these places, especially, like Florida (except for their sane and effective Governor), or on barrier islands or on land so close to sea level it’s hard to measure the difference like Ft. Meyers. The entire island nation of Japan, also, comes to mind.
I wonder if cavemen did the same thing or if they had better sense? We know some lived in caves on the shores but higher up and caves don’t blow away so, that makes some sense, at least, and they were close to their food source which was important as they didn’t have SUVs.
It just seems strange we willingly put ourselves in areas with such dangers but we do and, often, pay big bucks for the privilege.

October 7, 2022 8:02 am

Note well: all these hurricanes occurred before SUVs, so CO2 and the warming it purportedly causes were not their cause.

please update your logic software

myocarditis occured before any mnra vaccines so mnra cannot be the cause of myocaditis.

your fallacy is ‘every effect can have one and only one cause”

thank you for playing

R_G
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 7, 2022 5:45 pm

That was rather poor quality comment of yours. The crux of the matter is how many cases of myocarditis and other injuries in population happened before and after rollout of the genetic mRNA jab. The answer depends on the age group. In younger males (below 35 years of age) the post-jab myocarditis has increased between 20 to 50 times (depending of specific age stratification).
Next time try comment with more diligence and not such a straw man argument nonsense.

bigoilbob
Reply to  R_G
October 8, 2022 9:55 am

“The answer depends on the age group. In younger males (below 35 years of age) the post-jab myocarditis has increased between 20 to 50 times (depending of specific age stratification).”

Would you please document this fold increase, as well as the probabilities before and after mRNA? If you can document this, then I can understand that mRNA might be causing an increase. But since the benefits of the vax are so greatly greater than it’s side effects, your comparison to CO2 and warming are not valid.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/myocarditis.html#:~:text=These%20rare%20cases%20of%20myocarditis,Pfizer%2DBioNTech%20and%20Moderna).

%d bloggers like this: