Rud Istvan
This simple guest post was prompted by an alarming WaPo report ‘today’ of a new PNAS study seriously proposing an expansion of the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale to a ‘level 6’, (beyond the current peak of 5) because of intensified tropical cyclones caused by climate change.
The PNAS reasoning was that a few Pacific Hurricanes (aka tropical cyclones) have exceeded SF level 5. True, sort of. All 5 cited by PNAS only temporarily exceeded Cat 5. For example, quoting from the new paper, “The most intense of these hypothetical Cat 6 storms, Patricia, hit landfall in Jalisco, Mexico as a cat 4.” OOPS.
The PNAS paper reached its new and alarming future ‘Cat 6’ conclusion by applying ‘bias corrections’ to CMIP5. Although it then states, “None of these high resolution climate model projection should be taken too literally.” Especially after PNAS ‘bias corrections’. But IPCC said CMIP5 was then the best and brightest.
There are two basic skeptical problems with this newly alarming ‘climate science’—albeit ‘not to be taken too literally’.
First, almost all the recent ‘worst satellite wind speed’ Florida hurricane alarms were not ground truthed by observations near eye wall ground wind speeds—by a lot.
Ian was an exception to this, unfortunately as bad as predicted. So the satellite and hurricane hunter CatX estimates are generally high compared to ground truth. That is probably OK when NHC warnings a threatened Florida populace to evacuate—but not for ‘climate science’ in PNAS.
Second, Ryan Maui’s ACE shows no such ‘Cat 6’ strengthening over time.
So PNAS published an alarming model speculation based on “corrections to climate model biases’, then failed to publish the observed facts.
Feynman is surely rolling over in his true science grave.
Force 6 huricanes? Why not create a whole new numbering system to panic and confuse Beaufort does go up to 12 you know
In the UK, and Europe for that matter, naming anything Force 6 and above hasn’t really had the impact expected. The is supposed to make storms memorable but doesn’t. Conversations go something like this
Storm Babet cause £x millions of damage
Which one was that?
The one that flooded Teignmouth Skate Park
Where’s that?
Down in the South West somewhere, it flooded houses in Brechin too and that’s in Scotland!!
Normal winter weather then?
In that famous piece of satire, we learned of the superior Spinal Tap amplifier volume knob that was calibrated up to 11.
Precedent?
Geoff S
You beat me to it! 😄
It has to be said…
Yet in the UK we understand immediately the summer of 1976 and the winter of 1963.
In practice, any wind above Beaufort 10 will cause damage to roofs, blow trees over and make it hard to walk outside. Any number over 10 on a list is just an excuse to prove that you can count above the number of your fingers.
And giving normal frontal depressions names is a mistake, it just encourages them and makes them feel more important than they really are.
Personally I believe they don’t want to go above ten so they can keep their shoes on when counting
Climate Tap
This one goes up to 11…
More like 111
Eleventy first. A most auspicious number.
Wouldn’t the proper way to measure the intensity of a hurricane be to plot the depression of the barometric pressure?
And before you know it, Cat 1 hurricanes will be history.
No, tropical storms will just be “upgraded” to hurricanes via “analysis.”
It’s a whole new spectrum from light breeze Brian to storm Florence and right on up to Cat 6 Dylan
If they used Magic Roundabout character names I might recall them more easily. As it is, I can remember the new names only during the brief period when I could—with equal clarity—say “the storm tomorrow” or “this storm now”.
I really don’t get the point of “named storms” (even after having it patiently explained to me).
I do totally get the point of breathless reporters want to be able to wet themselves with stories about “more named storms this year than
since they started naming them in 2015since records began”.I hear they are now contemplating naming UK heat-waves too. You know: those days when it goes above room temperature. (For reals.)
“I really don’t get the point of “named storms””
You won’t find yourself in the psychologist’s waiting room with a climate-driven mental affliction. But many do; primarily amongst the young. And we know why.
“I really don’t get the point of “named storms” (even after having it patiently explained to me).”
It used to be that a storm, summer or winter, was named after they happened because they were exceptional in strength or damage.
“The Labor Day Hurricane”. “The Long Island Express”. “The Great Blizzard of ’78” and “The Blizzard of ’78”. (Two major blizzards in 1978 from different storm systems.)
“Generic” ways to classify hurricanes and tornados were developed as a help for scientist and meteorologist.
A list of names began to be used to help the public keep hurricanes straight in weather forecast and reporting. The names of those that would have “earned” a name in the past were retired from the list.
Good system especially for those living in the path of a hurricane.
Enter CliSy hype and the system is being abused.
Naming weather events will stop immediately when one is named “John”, and the woke crowd get outraged at such a “white, racist, male supremacist” name.
(They’ll maintain that the storm should have been called something like “Jazweeza”)
Just wait till they name one Donald, you know the storm that’s coming in November….
Sshhh. They might hear you. Next, anything over 25 mph will be Cat 1 so they can go to 10.
I knew this bullshit was coming sooner or later. Create a new “Category” based on nonsense and then claim the “need” for it is “because Climate Change.”
Before you know it, they’ll have a scale that “goes to 11” just like “Spinal Tap’s” volume control.
From the article: “There are two basic skeptical problems with this newly alarming ‘climate science’—albeit ‘not to be taken too literally’.”
I saw several articles yesterday where “science” wrtiers are hyping this Cat 6 claim.
A climate alarmist claim like this will generate dozens of scary climate change articles.
The alarmist climate change propaganda never stops.
One of my local news stations just reported this Cat 6 narrative, although they did not connect it to human-caused climate change.
Story Tip:
Information, misinformation, disinformation and now… ‘mistruths’.
“”Electric cars: Lords urge action on ‘misinformation’ in press
The government must do more to counter “misinformation” on electric vehicles published in parts of the UK press, a Lords enquiry has said.
…
The Lords Climate Change Committee urged the government to build consumer confidence and push back against what it called mistruths on range and cost.
…
Baroness Parminter, chair of the committee, told the BBC that both government officials and other witnesses to the enquiry had reported reading disinformation on the subject in national newspapers.
“We have seen a concerted effort to scare people… we have seen articles saying that cars are catching fire – but had evidence that the fire risk is absolutely the same as [petrol and diesel] cars,” she said.””
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68130432
The UK government should take urgent action to encourage people to switch to electric vehicles, from targeted subsidies to speeding up new charging infrastructure, said a report from Britain’s upper house of parliament released on Tuesday. The House of Lords report, entitled “EV strategy: rapid recharge needed,” which follows an inquiry into Britain’s electric vehicle transition strategy, also calls on the government to clearly communicate to the general public why they should buy EVs.”
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/uk-house-lords-report-urges-ev-subsidies-faster-charger-rollout-2024-02-06/
More subsidies?
…also calls on the government to clearly communicate to the general public why they should buy EVs
If the public has to be prodded by the government to purchase anything then there is obviously something wrong with the product.
They are advertised daily on every medium imaginable. The public is being prodded because the public doesn’t want them.
Yep sales are almost all to businesses and fleets. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) is calling on the Treasury to halve VAT on EVs in next months budget. (Unlikely that ,if it happens, will have much effect – few people want them)
In recent temperatures near -50 C in my area, the range of many EVs was reduced to zero. Of course my ICE vehicle had problems too, but a warm booster pack and an engine block heater solved the problems rather easily without a significant reduction in range.
evidence that the fire risk is absolutely the same as [petrol and diesel] cars
Where is the evidence that ICE cars spontaneously combust while sitting in your garage?
It’s kind of an odd thing seeing Hurricane Ian mentioned so often when Hurricane Michael was a stronger hurricane making US landfall in recent memory. According to the Hurricane Research Division, Hurricane Michael in 2018 was rated #6 with winds at 160 mph while Hurricane Ian in 2022 was tied with a number of others at #9 with winds at 150 mph. Michael seems to have dropped off everyone’s list.
As a disclaimer, Hurricane Michael passed almost directly over where I live. Even though I am around 60 miles inland from where Michael made landfall, winds were still in the 140 mph range.
Michael did not get the publicity because it hit in a less populated area so the ground destruction was pictorially less dramatic. And that is a media issue not a scientific one.
And because it was upgraded in an analysis well after the fact.
The Saffir-Simpson scale of winds is based on estimated damage caused by such winds on property and landscape. See the link for a full explanation.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshws.php
Because of newer building codes, the scale is getting outdated. Prior to building with the new, better codes, total destruction was achieved by Cat 5s so there was no need to go to a Cat 6 category.
Also, wind insurance usually ends coverage at certain officially rated wind speeds or category.
Thus one might suspect the higher ratings put out by the government are influenced by those companies. But that is speculation on my part..
Why don’t they name them for billionaires and rate them by damage in billions of dollars on a 10^x.
National Hurricane Center says Saffir Simpson is based on wind speed taken 10 meters above the surface.
The Fujita and Enhanced Fujita scale used for Tornadoes is based on type of damage.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshws.php#:~:text=The%20Saffir%2DSimpson%20Hurricane%20Wind,Scale%20estimates%20potential%20property%20damage.
How they measure the wind speed is one thing, the damage that wind speed is likely to cause identifies why that speed is listed as a certain category.
“The scale provides examples of the type of damage and impacts in the United States associated with winds of the indicated intensity.
In general, damage rises by about a factor of four for every category increase”
Maybe on re analysis but the category are reporting at the time of the event is supposedly based on wind speed. There was no such thing as re analysis when the Saffir Simpson scale was created in 1969.
Max wind speed sustained for 1 minute at 10 meters above the surface by an approved station is the standard.
I’ve said my piece now . It is up to you to look it up and learn.
You are missing the point. The wind speed puts the storm in a category, but the damage that wind speed does is what defines the category.
OK, in 1969 I was 60 feet up in an Air Traffic Control Tower in Vietnam, when a Hurricane (Typhoon? Cyclone? Climate Change before its time?) hit us. The wind speed indicator, mounted on top of the tower cabin, irregularly rose to 90 knots indicated (a knot is about 15% faster than a mph), then shot up to 111 knots (about 127 mph) and stayed steady. The eyewall was on us. Never saw blue sky, and after about 15 minutes the wind speed reduced and got irregular again. I thought I was going to die. So, here’s the Cat 6 deal: in a Cat 5 you’re dead, and in a Cat 6 you’re extra dead. Wait for it.
Note: this was not official wind speed as the anemometer was on top of the tower, about 75 feet above the ground, and official wind speeds are measured at about 33 feet above the ground. But judging from the roofs, helicopters, and unidentified debris flying around it was a fast wind.
I was in that Typoon (dont’ know it’s name) and we were told afterwards that it dropped 22 inches of rain on us in 24 hours.
I watched a placid creek turn into a roaring river in a very short time. It was pretty amazing.
Tom, thank you for your service. That monster dropped about three feet of rain on us, and when the clouds lifted a bit we realized we were on an island, with only water as far as you could see in any direction.
The study apparently claims windspeeds much above the minimum required for a category 5 classification.
I am certain those high wind speeds could occur if you cherry pick your measurement locations such as within a hurricane induced tornado. These are also the locations which would sustain the most damage, but are irrelevant to the actual hurricane strength.
Of course these wind speeds could only be the result of climate change according to the study and the MSM.
A link to a story by Global News in Canada. http://tinyurl.com/ykr2mn9n
From that Global article….
In an interview with Global News, Wehner maintained that the researchers’ analysis of climate models shows that the “risk of Category 6 storms is increasing dramatically with warming.”
“Our work is solely intended to raise awareness about climate change,” he said.
So just another useful idiot for the climate crazy cult…
“I am certain those high wind speeds could occur if you cherry pick your measurement locations such as within a hurricane induced tornado. These are also the locations which would sustain the most damage, but are irrelevant to the actual hurricane strength”
I would tend to agree with that after my experience with Ian. Our building only sustained damage because debris from the gas station across the street took out our window coverings and broke the windows. The result was a total loss of our show room but no roof or building damage.
The building next to us had the roof torn off and the building next to that had both the roof ripped off and the block wall on one side destroyed. The distance between my building and the latter is about 100 yards.
So most likely a mini tornado with very strong winds hit between those other two buildings very briefly. I will also note that the houses behind all three buildings sustained only minor damage.
I just installed a new speedometer. It goes to 250 m/h. I now have a racing bolide.
The low end on my new speedometer starts at 25 mph. The top end is 250 (like yours).
I set mine up for strip racing. I would have set the low end higher, but I still wanted to be able to drive on the residential streets.
According to the climate alarmists, if the models predict it, it is happening.
If the real world data does not agree with the models, that just shows that there is a problem with how the data is being collected. The solution to this is to figure out why the data is wrong, and to then adjust the data to what it should have been.
Why do they use CLIMATE models to predict WEATHER?
The quetion is: Why model climate at all when weather models generally can’t get it right more than three days out.
Did the guy who wrote the WaPo article also write the script for “The Day After Tomorrow” and/or “2012”?
Continental United States Hurricane Impacts/Landfalls
Lists only five Class five hurricanes
There will be an occasional hurricane notably above Cat 5 ones, that is the nature of severe events – rare but they can happen.
Very nice Rud. Keep these rascals honest.
I think they meant to add category Styx for the river of hades (i.e. ocean) which all must cross to their doom should they be blown and drenched by any tropical storm that is enhanced by the dreaded CO2 from human industrial success.
The alarmists could attach 50 different levels to these storms, and there would be no guarantee or evidence that they’d be more intense, deadly or destructive. Even NBC, which rarely misses the chance to sensationalize any weather/climate event, has pointed out that 7 of the 10 worst tropical storms ever recorded in terms of lives lost occurred before 1900. How much man-made global warming caused by excessive carbon emissions or overpopulation was occurring then, or was it just not fashionable to talk about it at the time?
Hell, make it a 1,000 point scale so changes in wind speed are beyond cataclysmic! Hurricane Jenne strengthened from 276 to 840 on the Walter Douglas scale in 48 hours! Damn, that’s dramatic!