This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Jump to new
Warmist David Appell
http://davidappell.blogspot.co.nz/2012/10/about-sandy-and-ultimate-in-cherry.html

Storms happen. As far as I can tell, Hurricane Sandy was a Cat 1 that just happened to coincide with (1) a storm from the west, (2) a cold front from the north, and (3) and full-moon tide.

Climate science is all about trends -- where are they?
Click to expand...

There are some interesting graphs at the post.


And this has been my argument against the Goreist Climate Apocalypse Cult all along. It causes people to not only diss even reasonable climate science, it causes them to diss reasonable environmental science altogether.

Unfortunately, there is no branch of science more full of nutters and the pollution of political advocacy than the environmental sciences.

People see through that, but don't see far enough to see the real concerns. It is a massive own goal if these clowns want to benefit the planet.
 
Sandy was still unusual even without the full moon and connection to northern cold front. If the bell curve has been shifted to the right, we would expect to see more unusual events.

From Mish's blog.

Sandy is classified as a Hurricane 1 status, a low-grade hurricane. However, don't let that fool you in terms of impact. It's not the absolute magnitude of the hurricane, but rather the magnitude vs. what the infrastructure can handle that matters.

Barometric pressure is 27.76, the lowest pressure recorded for a storm in the Northeast. Sandy is unprecedented in size as well. The hurricane is likely to reach shore with a full moon high tide raising storm surges several more feet.

Read more at http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogs...ndy-update-first-100.html#xEIe4QMb7dW7Itco.99
 

Didnt they have a big one back in the late 1930s?
 
Back to your familiar head in the sand approach Wayne.

The question abut whether Sandy was caused by global warming is misleading . There have been storms before and there will always be storms.

The issue is how much is global warming affecting the severity and outcomes of these storms.
.

.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...andys-cause-20121101-28l5j.html#ixzz2AvRbTyEZ
 
moXJO said:
Didnt they have a big one back in the late 1930s?
Click to expand...

True - from wiki

The New England Hurricane of 1938 (or Great New England Hurricane, Yankee Clipper, Long Island Express, or simply the Great Hurricane) was the first major hurricane to strike New England since 1869. The storm formed near the coast of Africa in September of the 1938 Atlantic hurricane season, becoming a Category 5 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale before making landfall as a Category 3 hurricane[1] on Long Island on September 21. The hurricane was estimated to have killed between 682 and 800 people,[2] damaged or destroyed over 57,000 homes, and caused property losses estimated at US$306 million ($4.7 Billion in 2012).

The fact we have had another one is neither here nor there. Global warming only has a small effect at this stage.
It will be interesting to see if they become more common.

The hurricane was so strong because it moved at 50km/hr - sort of bounced off the existing weather system and didn't have time to degrade. Very different to Sandy. It's all quite fascinating but I have no desire to experience one.

 
Actually if you look at the number of hurricanes influencing New York according to Wikipedia over recent times you get interesting results:

1900-1949 11 - including that shocking 1938 one (though it missed New York itself)
1950-74 15
1974 - 1999 21
2000 - 2012 19 (over only 12 years!)

Maybe the data is faulty but incidence appears to be increasing rapidly!!

Maybe the size and frequency of hurricanes hasn't increased but the warmer northern waters have increased the numbers hitting New England?
 
Knobby22 said:
Maybe the data is faulty but incidence appears to be increasing rapidly!!

Maybe the size and frequency of hurricanes hasn't increased but the warmer northern waters have increased the numbers hitting New England?
Click to expand...

Or you could look at it that times between major incidents are roughly the same
1869-1938 69 years
1938-2012 74 years
 
Knobby22 said:
It's all quite fascinating but I have no desire to experience one.
Click to expand...
"Fascinating" might not be the word the thousands of people without electricity or water, many still trapped in high rise buildings, would use.
 
Julia said:
"Fascinating" might not be the word the thousands of people without electricity or water, many still trapped in high rise buildings, would use.
Click to expand...

I find crocodiles fascinating, but if I was in one's jaws, I am sure other emotions would probably take over.
 
basilio said:
Back to your familiar head in the sand approach Wayne.
Click to expand...

Oh bassa, rather than direct tit for tat ad hominem, which is all rather tedious and puerile, let me just make this observation:

There are a number of egregious pissants in this world, mendacious morons to a (wo)man are they; and I wonder why you seem so increasingly determined to join their ranks. I would have thought you would aspire to better. :shake:

Now, if you can explain to me how desiring a more holistic consideration of environmental issues and the sober consideration of Sandy rather than knee jerk Rommisms, is having my head in the sand, I'd appreciate it.

Also do you think David Appell has his head in the sand?

How about Pielke Jnr? http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.co.nz/2012/10/sandy-and-top-20-normalized-us.html and via Terrance Corcoran http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/10/29/terence-corcoran-frankenscience/

How about Judith Curry http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/30/frankenstorm/#more-10332

How about Martin Hoerling of NOAA

"Great events can have little causes. In this case, the immediate cause is most likely little more that the coincidental alignment of a tropical storm with an extratropical storm. Both frequent the west Atlantic in October…nothing unusual with that. On rare occasions their timing is such as to result in an interaction which can lead to an extreme event along the eastern seaboard. As to underlying causes, neither the frequency of tropical or extratropical cyclones over the North Atlantic are projected to appreciably change due to climate change, nor have there been indications of a change in their statistical behavior over this region in recent decades (see IPCC 2012 SREX report).

So, while it will rain like “black cats and Frankenweenies” over the midatlantic, this is not some spell conjured upon us by great external forces….unless you believe in the monster flicks of Universal Stuidios fame!"

ET AL

The question abut whether Sandy was caused by global warming is misleading . There have been storms before and there will always be storms.

The issue is how much is global warming affecting the severity and outcomes of these storms.
Click to expand...


A fair point, but one which shows no clear trend. (as per above links )
 
Now, if you can explain to me how desiring a more holistic consideration of environmental issues and the sober consideration of Sandy rather than knee jerk Rommisms, is having my head in the sand, I'd appreciate it
Click to expand...
.

Because Wayne, all intelligent, honest, climate scientists in the world are in furious agreement that climate change caused by human produced excessive greenhouse gases is the most critical environmental issue facing us. Its effects will dominate our landscape and irrevocably change our way of life.

One of troubling issues we will face is that we won't be able to tackle all the environment issues we face. We will have to prioritise and attempt to solve as many as we can using creative solutions rather than one solution actions.

For example ... reducing and eliminating fossil fuel energy in favour of clean renewable energy will reduce toxic smoke emissions, stop the destruction of water resources, tackle climate change and dramatically reduce our reliance on limited fossil fuels.

We should be taking this path anyway if we were serious about tackling broader environmental issues.
 

Mendacious exaggeration is not answering the question. And many so called climate scientists have proven to be less than honest.

Need I go to the drudgery of having to list them?
 
Yep Wayne all of the climate scientists are liars arn't they ? The world has not gotten any warmer in the past 100 years. Its just dodgy figures.

Sea levels havn't risen either have they ? More dodgy figures .. And of course there hasn't been a clear increase in sea temperatures as a result of the "dodgy" increase in overall temperatures.

Glaciers havn't dried up either have they ? They have just changed places perhaps. And the Arctic and Green land of course arn't having their warmest climate since god knows when and melting at rates never see for many thousands of years.

All just lies isn't it Wayne ?

For the sake of readers who may not share your views on the complete corruption of modern science I'll finish with a summary which highlights what has happened with Sandy.

If you want to see the evidence for these statements read the whole story. I'm off to bed.

[/QUOTE]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricane-sandy-climate-connection.html
 
basilio, you seem incapable of grasping the point of the discussion. It is not that climate is or isn't change. It is not whether the Earth is warming, or even whether humans are affecting climate.

We have repeatedly established these things to a greater or lesser degree.

The greater point is whether change will ultimately be catastrophic, this is the area of disagreement.

The minor point that has arisen, is the integrity of the catastrophists (which you have once again resorted to argumentative fallacy to try to deflect the awful truth).

After, climategate, fakegate, BESTgate, the Gore ruling, the disingenuous ranting of lunatics like Romm, Hansen et al, and now the Mann fiasco (and a hundred other issues that have arisen over the years).

In addition, I can't think of one catastrophist who is willing to change their usually fossil fueled lavish lifestyles. They are even blatant in their consumption at their yearly jaunt.

As for you, your tacit admission of your refusal to change your lifestyle in accordance with your beliefs is typical.

This is all in a rotten pattern of dishonesty and you have the temerity to claim that catastrophists are honest?

Puleeze.

Not to say some individuals aren't making best efforts to be honest (but may be unwittingly promulgating tainted data), however as a group, there is a very big problem.
 
Wayne you know xxxx all about me and the assumptions you do make are so wrong its laughable.

After the years of watching your dissembling on this forum I simply don't trust you enough or care about you sufficiently to want to correct you.

But in the end all that is a just a possum running across the road. A distraction to take our eyes off the main picture. What really gets up my nose with your comments is how you attempt to debase an entire scientific set of observations on a sliver of alleged incidents (which then prove to be totally unremarkable)

I refer to millions of independent observations which show rising sea levels, increased ocean warmth, massive ice melt, rising wold temperatures and clear changes in biology as result of these changes. Your response? An abuse of the scientists involved that never, ever ever actually has the gonads to show where the evidence showing widespread climate change is wrong. Its just a smear without substance.

The hypothetical question is "Will Climate change ultimately be catastrophic " ? Well this is 2012 and we are already seeing climate events like Sandy, and the American heat waves and Russian heat waves that are on 3rd and 4th Standard Deviation of previous normal weather. Their impacts are very serious. Catastrophic may simply be having them repeat themselves every 5-10 years. After all how many times can you afford to rebuild a city.

But this is just the start Wayne. Climate science is clear that the amount of greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere (390 + PPM CO2 )will cause at least a further .6 C temperature rise on top of the .8C we already have. And that doesn't add the effects of many tipping point events already unfolding around the world. ( Loss of Arctic summer ice , melting of permafrost, rising ocean temperatures reducing CO2 absorption and so on )

From the earliest days scientists realised how CO2 trapped heat and kept our planet warm. After that was established the question of what would happen if CO2 levels were raised caused concern. We are now way past that point.
 
From the famously climate catastrophist organisation, Bloomberg:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-01/its-global-warming-stupid#p1

 

if we are past the tipping point why are you still using computers, cars, producing carbon with everything that you do, your fetish for alarm-ism is the only thing to be alarmed about

or are you the classic inner city progressive douche making coffees
 
Oz, White_G..... Indeud.

Well back to science and an great post from Warmist Eric Berger: http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/11/there-will-be-fewer-sandy-like-storms-in-the-future/

Snip:

My concern is whether the end justifies the means. My concern is setting expectations that Sandy, that large, destructive hurricanes striking the United States, is the “new normal.” My concern is that we’re telling people that we’ve entered an era in which super-storms are the new normal and that there will be a mega-disaster every year.

My concern is that we’re not debating facts when it comes to hurricanes and climate science.

IT’S SCIENCE, STUPID

Science tells us this is not a new normal.

Science tells us climate change has not had a discernible impact on global hurricane activity. A warmer climate, of course, is changing hurricanes. But, scientists consistently tell us, that change is so small it cannot be measured at the present and likely won’t be measurable until the middle of this century.

Snip:

Of course Sandy’s effects were exacerbated by rising sea levels. According to NOAA data, the sea level in Manhattan has risen by about half a foot during the last century. Some, but not all, of that rise is attributable to human greenhouse gases. So the surge was a few inches worse because of climate change.

But that’s as far as the science goes. And my purpose here is to follow the science, not an agenda to change U.S. carbon emissions policy nor deny science or climate change.

So where does the science take us in regard to hurricanes and climate?

WHAT SCIENCE TELLS US

I have already posted about an influential paper in Nature Geoscience, published in 2010, that surveyed all of the recent climate science and hurricane literature. In summary, after studying past and present hurricane data the scientists did not conclusively find any detectable human influence on hurricane activity.

Snip:

It is true that Sandy was a human-caused disaster. We build cities on the coast. We don’t adequately protect them. We don’t heed evacuation warnings. That is where the blame lies for this one, not climate change.

Bolds Mine
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

4 reasons why the ASX 200 will struggle in September
Replies
8
Views
561
DannyB0000
August 2024 DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
25K
ducati916
February 2025
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
14K
ducati916
ZYAU - S&P/ASX 300 High Yield Plus ETF
Replies
0
Views
2K
divs4ever
July 2025 DDD
2 3
Replies
45
Views
7K
ducati916
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...