#
CNN: Why was Hurricane Helene so bad? Fossil fuel pollution. – Excerpt: “For decades now, scientists have been warning us that extreme weather events will be exacerbated by this blanket of carbon pollution we’ve been wrapping around our planet,” said Katharine Hayhoe, chief scientist at the Nature Conservancy. “But as a human, it is shocking to see the devastation occurring in front of our eyes, affecting the people and places we know and love.”
#
CNN: “It’s not rocket science”: Prof. Michael Mann explains why hurricanes are getting stronger –
From CNN’s Elise Hammond
The world is getting hotter and hurricanes are getting stronger, according to climate scientists.
Hurricane Helene hit the Florida as a Category 4 storm on Thursday night, destroying homes, knocking out power and bringing deadly flash flooding.
“It’s not it’s not rocket science, it’s pretty basic physics that tells us that the warmer you make the oceans, the more moisture they evaporate into the atmosphere, the more energy there is to intensify these storms,” Michael Mann, a leading climate scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, told CNN on Friday.
Stronger storms means stronger winds, which leads to more life-threatening storm surge and catastrophic flooding. After it makes landfall, the storm is still dangerous, thanks to that increased amount of moisture that allows it to continue to dump rain, Mann said.
…
But, Mann said there are things we can do to prevent it from getting worse, including stopping carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels and transition to renewable energy “as rapidly as possible.”
#
Meteorologist Joe Bastardi fact checks Mann’s claims to CNN:
This is sick. What tormented demonic soul is “giddy” when they feel that destructive events are increasing in intensity?
BTW, aren’t we supposed to be up to 20 hurricanes and storms right now?
Not mentioned is they fiddle the updates as the season progresses – Aug 8 was one.
So far 5 Hurricanes of which 2 are major…hmmm
What Michael Mann failed to mention is the use of fossil fuels have made us much safer from climate. In the past century deaths from climate have plummeted by 97%. Were it not for the benefits of fossil fuels, the death toll from Helene would have been catastrophically higher?
The “giddy” feeling that they admit might best be understood as Radical Joy. It’s a somewhat obscure aspect of Marxist ideology, though most commonly referenced today in the sub-set of “Trans Joy”. It amounts to a sort of schadenfreude, an elation at the suffering of the “enemies”. Yes, it’s sick. It is probably best described as evil.
Let’s see—finally a bad hurricane. Yup. Climate change.
In an over rated season. Ignored.
With no increase in ACE. Ignored.
Weather does not equal climate. Never did, Never will.
AS Rud Istvan notes :
With no increase in ACE.
the Atlantic basin as all the ocean basins have warmed over the last 150-200 years
Ie SST has increased since the mid 1800’s
according the the Climate scientists, that should cause an increase in ACE.
However, after adjusting for observational deficiencies, there has been no detectible change in ACE since the Mid 1800’s
perhaps the hurricane experts know more than the climate science experts
“It’s not it’s not rocket science, it’s pretty basic physics that tells us that the warmer you make the oceans, the more moisture they evaporate into the atmosphere, the more energy there is to intensify these storms,” Michael Mann, a leading climate scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, told CNN on Friday.
************
I am willing to bet that Mann knows perfectly well that the sun is the primary warming agent of the world’s oceans. If I am wrong about the sun warming the oceans, anyone is free to correct me.
Otherwise, Mann should consider himself fortunate that he does not have the same problem as the Disney character Pinocchio. His nose would stretch halfway to the moon by now.
“If I am wrong about the sun warming the oceans”
What Mann described is a consequence of the oceans warming, from whatever cause. And as a matter of observation, they have warmed.
There is more heat retained in the cooler regions of the oceans. In that sense they have warmed.
?ssl=1
The greatest increase in retained heat of the oceans by latitude occurs at 45S. The peak in the NH is at 35N.
The warm surfaces that creates the convective potential to wind up cyclers has not increased,. In fact, no open ocean surface can sustain more than 30C. That is the limit given the present atmospheric mass. That is basic physics of Earth’s atmosphere.
So warming the cooler regions of the oceans reduces the temperature differential that fuels cyclones. Cyclone intensity is reducing as a matter of observation.
“The warm surfaces that creates the convective potential to wind up cyclers has not increased”
What you have plotted is total ocean heat, not warm surfaces. SST has increased. Here is a plot of trends over the 5 decades 1971-2020. Even the green areas near Florida signify 0.5 degrees of warming.
During that period there was a Grand Solar Maximum.
It would be amazing if the oceans hadn’t warmed.
There is no evidence humans have had anything at all to do with ocean warming.
You once told me to save on CO2 emissions you just added an extra blanket to keep warm. Have you thrown out that blanket?
But wait there.. according to Nick and his mate John Kerry……..
…. CO2 is the blanket. 😉
Awww,
Someone stole all of Nick’s blue crayons.
Anyone else notice that Nick’s alleged temperatures are artifacts from expanding the ‘accuracy’ of calculations beyond the actual measurement standards.
More splitting of nonexistent hairs.
It is the differential that matters. Look at the mid latitudes. They have warmed significantly. The tropical zone hardly warmed at all. That means the temperature differential is declining. It follows the cyclone intensity and frequency is declining.
Warm surfaces do not themselves wind up cyclones. They are only a part of the conditions that allow a cyclone to start. Once started, quite different factors determine how much the cyclone grows. I suspect that Michael Mann knows this perfectly well.
“I suspect that Michael Mann knows this perfectly well”
I’m not convinced. Mann hasn’t exactly been spouting any knowledge for over a decade now.
His religion coupled with his egocentric narcissism makes Mann’s knowledge claims all posturing and reflexive exposition.
e.g., Mann’s rush job to blame Helene on anthropogenic caused warming that no one has been able to prove.
Mann is carrying a AGW flag, blaming weather on mankind…
Looks to me that Mann’s flag is upside down and backwards. Maybe if he wore sack cloth or a hair shirt?
What do you think I meant by “the convective potential to wind up cyclones”?
Without convective potential. There is no cyclone. If theCoriolis acceleration s low, they will not spin up. Many factors involved but they need CAPE to start.
Exactly. Nick knows this too
Unlike the usual suspects that post here, Nick has knowledge. Though it’s mostly used here in obsfucation.
Except there hasn’t been an increase in hurricanes or hurricane energy.
This is just a normal hurricane that has happened many thousands of times before.
There is no evidence of any human causation in ocean warming.
CO2, 0.042% of the atmosphere near the surface, could not be the cause, because it is a WEAK absorber of low energy surface photons at 14.8 micrometer, its large window. The other windows are much smaller.
Water vapor, 1.5% of the atmosphere near the surface, is a STRONG absorber of low energy surface photons with different energies, including 14.8 micrometer, because, it has many large windows covering a broad area of the spectrum.
Almost all surface photons, of all energies, lose their energy by collisions with hugely abundant air molecules
As the slightly warmed air and water vapor rise, they expand and cool, to form clouds at about 2000 meter
The upshot is, all surface photons are wiped out within about 10 meters of the surface.
You have it backwards. CO2 is a significantly stronger absorber around 14.8 um vs H2O. The following plots take into account the atmospheric concentration of both.
What does this mess mean?
Nick Stokes – That the oceans have warmed in not in dispute.
Adjusting for observational deficiencies, there has been no detectible increase in ACE since the mid 1800’s
there have been several very short term increases and decreases in ACE over the last 150-200 years, but no detectible long term change in trend.
MIckey may be a Mann but he’s not the man.
Hey, Joe knows. And I ain’t talking the current occupant of the WH. Bastardi is a meteorologist and always seems to have his facts lined up to back him up when he calls it like it is. The rest are just pretending.
They are ideological shills and profiteers from the climate scam. They know that even the IPCC acknowledges in the science sections of their Assessment Reports that extreme weather globally is getting no more frequent, intense nor longer-lasting including for hurricanes, major storms, floods, tornadoes, droughts, wildfires & etc.
A wildfire is neither weather nor climate.
I’m not sure what a “climate expert” is, but my best guess is that it’s someone whose predictions have been more right than wrong over a long period of time.
Nope,, totally incorrect. 🙂
In “climate™” parlance, an “expert” is one whose predictions are mostly wrong all the time.
“In “climate™” parlance, an “expert” is one whose predictions are mostly wrong all the time.”
So you are calling yourself an expert now?
Except it is you that have been proven WRONG with basically every post you make.
Only thing I predict is that you will continue to make moronic comments.
Did you find the pee pee tape for your Russia colluuuusion?
I never said the pee tape was real. But you knew that… like most Trump supporters, you seem to need to lie to get through the day.
And I couldn’t care or less about a pee tape fake or not. I’m far more concerned with the real issues. You should try growing up and reading more it may help settle your nerves.
Name three.
Real issues Simon is concerned with:
The oceans are boiling because humans burn oil
Republicans are evil and so a one party state of democrats is necessary
We’re all going to die if “action” is not taken
You make stuff up. I’ve never said nor do I believe and of the bull shite you just wrote.
lol colluuuusion was based on the pee Poe’s tape. You are a known liar. Now find that pee pee tape or admit collusion was made up.
So Derg the Dreadful has no proof I ever said the pee tape was real. Coz I never have. I couldn’t care or less about it. But what is noteworthy is the way this plays for you. You must be one very boring man to know.
“that you will continue to make moronic comments.”
My case rests. !! You have proven me correct again.
Same applies to economists (see Krugman)
So now the CAGW narrative is there will be more hurricanes and more of them will be strong hurricanes and if that does not occur, then the hurricanes that do will be worse than they should be.
And since that isn’t happening, it will shirley happen in the future. 🙄
And don’t call me “shirley.” I know, but I couldn’t resist.
don’t call me Sue
Similarly, the official slogan of The Establishment is that heatwaves are becoming hotter, longer and more frequent. I can find many exceptions to this dogma. Do they intend to modify it to be closer to what the data show?
No, that is not they way to play the game, their way.
If there is a dissenting view, they ignore it or try to hide it.
Geoff S
The Establishment is more than willing to destroy the messenger to extinguish the dissenting view.
There’s no evidence that ANY storm has been made worse by “carbon pollution”. It’s simply scientifically indefensible.
No one has any idea if any storm would have been different. No one.
Hayhoe is carbon pollution.
Didn’t Dr Hayhoe used to be a university professor? Or is she still, and the chief scientist of the Nature Conservancy as well?
Just curious: just exactly what sort of education, credentials, course work or research does Dr. Mann command that granted him a PhD in climate science? Seems like a nebulous field. These statements without comparative data to frame it within context is designed only to scare the low intelligence crowd. I wonder how many of them have come to realize they are being bamboozled?
I believe that Dr Mann’s doctorate is in meteorology.
the study of meteors? 🙂
Dr Michael E Mann:
1989 A.B. (double), University of California-Berkeley, Applied Math, Physics (Honors)
1991 M.S. Yale University, Department of Physics
1991 M.Phil. Yale University, Department of Physics
1998 Ph.D. Yale University, Department of Geology & Geophysics
Joe Bastardi:
1978 Bachelor’s degree in meteorology, Penn State
So let’s all listen to Joe…
At long last, you’ve made a sensible statement …
“let’s all listen to Joe”
At least He doesn’t make stuff up, unlike the moronic Mann.
And Mickey Mann still can’t get anything right.
That is because his “so-called” science is totally twisted by idiotology.
Just like you are… except you obviously lack any scientific education whatsoever.
Impressive! As others have stated, it appears ideology likely has impaired his ability to think critically. It suggests he so desperately wants to be “right” in his reasoning; he has failed to apply observation and rigorous field work which has resulted in the outcome of group think. Apparently, admitting you might be wrong in your reasoning or your methodology is a hard pill to swallow. When you consider the energy policies Germany, Great Britain and the USA are embarking upon based on faulty science and logic the only thing to come of this is inefficient and wasteful application of resources, higher costs, and misery as people struggle to meet basic needs.
Joe Bastardi runs a business and makes a living on him being correct on his predictions. Mann makes a living whether what he says is correct or wrong.
So yes listen to Joe he has skin in the game.
One of Joe Bastardi’s biggest predictions is a return 1970’s temperature by 2030. According to Berkeley Earth the 5 yr centered average in 1975 was 0.05 ± 0.03 C. 2023 ended at 1.22 ± 0.03 C. I’m not one to call a prediction bad until the prescribed date, but I will say it isn’t looking good.
If the temperatures during the period 2030-2035 repeat the temperature tendency during 1970-75 then the temperatures from 2030-35 will be downward.
Another one of Joe Bastardi’s predictions is 25-30 named storm in the Atlantic Basin during the 2024 season. That is not looking good either.
So what?
Joe Bastardi predictions:
Weather systems are chaotic but similar in nature year after year and prior observations of events are therefore key to understanding future events.
Michael Mann predictions:
We’re all going to die if we don’t change our ways back to 1850 and climate statistics tells us so.
Mann is the perfect example of a highly educated agenda driven idiot. The left is full of such people.
Having a PhD is no impediment to being stupid.
No one should be surprised that the CAGW clowns are saying what they are saying. They have no real science to back up what they say so they wait for anything damaging to make a big deal of. If they didn’t have lie they wouldn’t have anything.
It’s “the spirits are displeased” all the way down.
Behind every warmist alarmist nutball is a leftist democrat, thus reading the bile from Hayhoe and Mann are unsurprising.
The correct term is: “warm monger.”
Or correct term is Watermelon. Green on the outside and red on the inside. Red=Commie.
Have the people who claim that storms are getting worse ever provided evidence to corroborate the claims?
How does a scientist ever prove that any change in climate was caused by fossil fuel emissions?
He can’t. Climate is the average weather in a region for a period 30 years. Weather in region is determined by its place on the earth surface and the geophysical features of the region, such as mountains, forests, bodies of water, etc.
Presently, one cubic meter of air at 70 deg. F and with 70% RH has only 0.8 gr. of CO2. The concentration of H2O in this air is 14,780 ppmv. One cubic of this air has 14.3 gr. of
H2O. The amount of the greenhouse effect due to water is about 98%.
The claim by the IPCC that CO2 cause of global warming is a lie.
They can’t- they make note of an increase in CO2- then they decide that a correlation is causation. That’s a fine conclusion for simpletons.
Thanks to Joe Bastardi for reminding us basic facts on hurricanes and also that there is nothing new here : the same bunch of World class climate clowns are at it again.
This is probably a naive question, but can we learn anything from the temperatures and other characteristics that exist in and around the Great Red Spot on Jupiter, which is 22 degrees South? Jupiter has an axial tilt of 3 degrees cf 23 degrees for earth.
Thus isn’t the Great Red Spot equivalent latitude on earth 42 degrees south?
A GRS was observed between 1665 and 1713, possibly before that.
There are records of observations from 1830 of the GRS. Whether this is the same GRS is in doubt
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024GL108993
As I said a naive question
Sure it’s not rocket science- which is well understood- climate science is not. It certainly ain’t basic physics. Climate science isn’t a subset of physics the way astronomy is- it’s an entirely different beast. Mann is a f*cking moron.
For such a [powerful Cat 4 storm, why isn’t there any land based weather station data showing hurricane force winds.
NOAA told us that the storm came ashore about 10 miles from Perry. Yet the Perry airport weather station showed a maximum wind speed of 52 mph. There was one wind gust of 92 mph and a couple around 70 mph. Offshore buoy 42036 was right in the path of Helene and it showed a maximum wind speed of 72 mph.
Helene was a wide storm and the storm surge and torrential rain caused massive damage. However, the claims of a Cat 4 storm are not supported by the data that I have looked at.
NOAA should explain why the land-based data doesn’t support their Cat 4 classification..
There was no land based weather station in the band of maximum winds.
Let’s take a deeper look at buoy 42036. It is located at 28.5N,84.5W. Helene made her closest approach between 23:00Z and 23:10Z at 949 mb. The highest wind speeds were 32 m/s sustained and 45 m/s gust during this period. The center of Helene was located at 28.3N,84.4W moving 23 mph at 23:00Z with a pressure of 945 mb and maximum wind of 130 mph. This means buoy 42036 was likely in or at least clipped the western eyewall. Given the speed of 23 mph we expect a 23 mph augmentation of the eastern eyewall winds and 23 mph attenuation of the western eyewall winds assuming Helene had a symmetric storm relative horizontal profile (it didn’t, but that is complicated detail that isn’t significant in this context). This means the storm relative winds were about 107 mph with the western eyewall closer to 84 mph. 32 m/s is 72 mph so buoy 42036 is consistent with at least a maximum wind of 118 mph assuming Helene was symmetric (it wasn’t) and that the buoy was directly in the western eyewall (it may not have been).
AF306 made a pass through the western eyewall at 23:30Z and reported flight level winds of 75 mph and consistent with buoy 42036 observations 20 minutes earlier. AF306 continued through the eye and reported flight level winds of 151 mph in the eastern eyewall. So from the recon mission we know that the western eyewall was generating winds about 50% less than the eastern eyewall. At the surface we would expect 130 * 0.5 = 65 mph which again is consistent with buoy 42036 observations.
The point…buoy 42036 observations were consistent with Helene being a category 4 hurricane. And if anything those observations might suggest that Helene was even stronger than the 130 mph that the NHC officially reported when she was over the buoy.
You should look at the data within the band of maximum winds. I suggest looking at AF306 mission 18, NOAA2 mission 17, ADT, and KTLH WSR-88D for measurements in the band of maximum wind.
bdgwx, you are either very dense or you have bad reading comprehension skills. Please provide a link to land-based weather station data that show hurricane force winds. is it really that hard, f course it is because there isn’t any. You misrepresented the data from Perry. You focus on the one gust that hit 99, ignoring the maximum wind speed data of 52 mph. Your claim about the flight missions is a dodge. Why can’t you admit the obvious. There is no land-based data that shows hurricane force winds. Hurricane categorization using the Saffir Simpson scale is measured at 10 meters.
I can’t. There was no land station in the band of maximum wind.
No I’m not. I’m focused on the many observations taken in the band of maximum wind. The reason I’m focused on the band of maximum wind is because hurricanes are classified based on band of maximum wind. Hurricanes are not classified based on the wind speed at random sites that are not in the band of maximum wind.
Hardly. The recon flights is an example of measurements taken in the band of maximum of wind. Therefore it is data that supremely relevant to the intensity and classification of hurricanes like Helene.
That’s because there is no land based station that was in the band of maximum wind.
…in the band of maximum wind. I have boldened “band of maximum wind” to drive home the point that hurricane intensities and classifications are based on winds speeds in the narrow band in which the maximum occurs.
There seems to be a lot of confusion on WUWT on how hurricanes are classified. Many here think that they are classified based on arbitrary land station reports. They are almost never based on land station reports. And when they are it is only when the land station happens to be in the band of maximum wind and lives to tell the tale.
It might be helpful if I walk you through the process of how hurricanes are classified. Let’s start with question #1.
1) Just prior to Helene making landfall what were the coordinates (lat/lon) and time where ground relative winds were the highest within Helen’s outmost closed isobar?
Are you going to tell him how to calculate uncertainty and how an oven door heats the inside of a convection oven?
IDK about landfall, but in western South Carolina we had several gusts over 70 MPH.
Joe Bastardi (aka Joe Baloney) is a hurricane predicting con man whose 2024 prediction seems far from reality so far:
In December 2023, forecast firm Weather Bell (Joe Baloney) said that 2024 could be the “hurricane season from hell.” Weather Bell opts for between 25 and 30 named storms, an extraordinary amount if that plays out, with 14 to 16 hurricanes and 6 to 8 major hurricanes.
Michael Mann predicted 33 named storms
Richard, You are quick to cast aspersions. Joe made a prediction based on data at hand. My experience with Joe is that he will reconcile the actual hurricane data to his prediction and discuss what he got right and what he got wrong. Joe is a straight shooter.
Joe Baloney has been the worst conservative climate writer since Tim Ball died. His hurricane predictions have NOT been better than the simple prediction that every year will be average. That means his predictions have been worthless.
But Joe Baloney is a good salesman (con man).
RG is not even good at cleaning lavatories, despite slinging BS all the time.
RG is a scientific non-entity with deep seated jealousy of anyone that knows far more, and that gets more attention that he does.
Both Joe and Tim Ball are/were several magnitudes of scientific knowledge ahead of anything RG is even remotely capable of.
The Helene hurricane quickly lost strength after landfall
The storm surge was expected, but many houses are not built on stilts, so unstilted houses got wiped out
The Netherlands spent decades to build large sea walls, which do double duty as 4 lane divided highways.
Tides are 15 to 20 ft, so storm surges are serious business.
The seawalls are designed for a 10,000 year flood!!
The US should do the same
Instead it is playing $policeman of the world
So, if increasing CO2 is the cause, then why are cyclones in the vicinity of Australia decreasing in number and intensity?
Hmmm…. You’re not the first to notice that globally well distributed atmospheric CO2 behaves differently in the Southern Hemisphere.
South Pacific Cyclones- accumulated energy.
Like any other terrorist org, claiming credit regardless of reason.
Hayhoe, and off they all go!
The storm of 1915 caused similar damage.
The latest IPCC annual statement declares that there has been NO increase in global warming for 26 years!
On the news I keep hearing the word unprecedented. It might be that no other storm followed the same path but Hugo devastated Charlotte in living memory.