Author Topic: Hurricane Irma - The Strongest Ever Recorded in the Atlantic  (Read 315 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
shocking that you favour a blog that speaks to your, as you say, "agenda"! Shocking...
If a desire for an honest representation of uncertainties is an 'agenda' then guilty as charged....

notwithstanding it's a big global ocean network... more than just your focus on the Atlantic basin; see wind shear and cooler near-coastal water:
Alarmists frequently publish 'post hoc rationalization' papers designed to explain away any difference between the real world and their over heated predictions. Many are nonsense but they feed the propaganda machine.

Cyclone counts are one measure of storm activity. Another is the Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) which show ZERO evidence of any trend despite the warming SST:

Quote
[1] Tropical cyclone accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) has exhibited strikingly large global interannual variability during the past 40-years. In the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the global frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low. Here evidence is presented demonstrating that considerable variability in tropical cyclone ACE is associated with the evolution of the character of observed large-scale climate mechanisms including the El Niño Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. In contrast to record quiet North Pacific tropical cyclone activity in 2010, the North Atlantic basin remained very active by contributing almost one-third of the overall calendar year global ACE.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL047711/full



 


Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8479
If a desire for an honest representation of uncertainties is an 'agenda' then guilty as charged....
Alarmists frequently publish 'post hoc rationalization' papers designed to explain away any difference between the real world and their over heated predictions. Many are nonsense but they feed the propaganda machine.

Cyclone counts are one measure of storm activity. Another is the Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) which show ZERO evidence of any trend despite the warming SST:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL047711/full

A quote from ACE:

According to the total annual ACE Index, cyclone intensity has risen noticeably over the past 20 years, and six of the 10 most active years since 1950 have occurred since the mid-1990s (see Figure 2). Relatively high levels of cyclone activity were also seen during the 1950s and 1960s.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4128
  • Location: Kim City BC
Rush Limbaugh is telling his listeners that the hurricane hysteria is just fake news created to sell emergency supplies and hype climate change.   Hopefully Rush stays in his Palm Beach home when Irma hits to prove that it's all fake.  Hopefully his Florida listeners will likewise follow his advice and give the finger to those liberal climate scientists by staying put to show that hurricanes are fake.

Meanwhile the religious fanatics are reminding everyone that this is all the fault of the homosexuals and that the hurricanes are God's punishment for gayifying everything.  It always puzzles me that God is always punishing conservative states in the US Deep South for the sins of the homosexuals.  It seems like God should be sending the hurricanes to the west coast and the US north east.  God moves in strange ways.  Has anyone explored the possibility that God is punishing the Deep South for voting Trump?

 -k
Masked for your safety.
Funny Funny x 2 View List

Offline MH

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8130

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4248
If a desire for an honest representation of uncertainties is an 'agenda' then guilty as charged....

ya ya, the affectionately known Crazy Aunt Judy has heightened her "on the fringes" profile with that "Uncertainty Monster" bullshyte. This reputable scientist http://variable-variability.blogspot.ca/p/about.html summarily dismisses her nonsense that feeds your "do nothing/delay and Adapt-R-Us-Only, No-Mitigation" agenda:

Fans of Judith Curry: the uncertainty monster is not your friend http://variable-variability.blogspot.ca/2015/12/judith-curry-uncertainty-monster-high-risk.html

"In summary. Uncertainty makes the risk of climate change larger. Uncertainty makes adaptation a less attractive option relative to solving the problem (mitigation). The more we take the climate system out of known territories the more surprises (unknown unknowns) we can expect. In a logical world uncertainty would be the message of the environmental movement. In the real world uncertainty is one of the main fallacies of the mitigation skeptics and their "think" tanks."

Alarmists frequently publish 'post hoc rationalization' papers designed to explain away any difference between the real world and their over heated predictions. Many are nonsense but they feed the propaganda machine.

say what! Wind shear isn't some "post hoc rationalization... isn't your labelled propaganda"... NOAA actually forecast higher 2017 hurricane activity because of a reduction in wind shear (among other factors). That NCEI graphic I linked to comes from... wait for it... a NOAA division named, "National Centers for Environmental Information". NOAA, a part of your declared propaganda machine! ;D

NOAA: Vertical wind shear - involves rapid shifts in speed and/or direction, with the potential to interfere with the formation of tropical systems and weaken or destroy those that have already developed. Forecasters at NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center predicted a 45% chance of an above-normal 2017 season... predicated upon expectation of a weak or non-existent El Nino, near-or-above-average sea-surface temperatures across the tropical Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea, and average or weaker-than-average vertical wind shear in that same region

what does it say ABOUT YOU, that you ready-reach to discount a most accepted concept/contributing influence, like wind shear, simply because it busts your "nothing to see here" narrative. "Do nothing/delay" proponents as yourself have forever trotted out that false narrative that tropical storms only exist if they coincidentally make U.S. landfall! How droll.

Cyclone counts are one measure of storm activity. Another is the Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) which show ZERO evidence of any trend despite the warming SST:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL047711/full

I linked that count graphic principally to counter your standard talking point that presumes to negate all tropical storm activity... if it doesn't actually make U.S. landfall. The ACE measurement and its energy focus has its own failing: it does not take the size of a respective hurricane or tropical storm into account and consequently doesn't factor significant influences like wind field, storm surge and resultant flooding --- see Hurricane Sandy a category 2 hurricane (by the most outdated Saffir-Simpson scale).

as the most devastating Hurricane Harvey has barely passed and Hurricane Irma is just passing/landing... Hurricane Jose is forming along the same projected track as Irma. Ironies of irony as you play out your 'nothing to see here, do nothing/delay' agenda, hey!

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
ya ya, the affectionately known Crazy Aunt Judy
An incredibly sexist comment for someone who styles themself as a 'progressive'. It is good illustration of the how many 'progressives' are hypocrites that would rather lecture other people than look in the mirror. It is this kind of name calling which make me think alarmists can't be trusted. i.e. if an alarmist says something assume it is a false until demonstrated otherwise.

Uncertainty makes adaptation a less attractive option relative to solving the problem (mitigation).
That is an opinion. Nothing more - nothing less. The fact is there is are no real 'mitigation' options that have a snowballs chance in hell of working. Therefore adaption will be what  we have to do. The only difference will between societies that waste resources on feel good exercises designed to appeal to people who think that virtue signalling is more important than results and those societies which spend those resources on adaption.

say what! Wind shear isn't some "post hoc rationalization...
The idea that wind sheer will reduce the number of hurricanes is not  new. What is new is the claim that wind shear seems to uniquely limited to the coasts of the US. In any case, hurricanes that do not hit land are not a problem and this is a good example of how the effects of warming are not necessarily a net negative.

as the most devastating Hurricane Harvey has barely passed and Hurricane Irma is just passing/landing... Hurricane Jose is forming along the same projected track as Irma.
Hurricanes have always occurred and will always occur. The claims that these storms are some how 'worse' are speculation driven by wishful thinking of ideologically motivated alarmists. The data is ambiguous at best.

In any case, the real problem is not whether GHGs are a hypothetical source of future problems (they are). The real problem is whether mitigation is a useful response. When come to hurricane damage adaptation is what we need:

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1860/2717

Quote
It finds in all cases that efforts to reduce vulnerability to losses, often called climate adaptation, have far greater potential effectiveness to reduce damage related to tropical cyclones than efforts to modulate the behaviour of storms through greenhouse gas emissions reduction policies, typically called climate mitigation and achieved through energy policies. The paper urges caution in using economic losses of tropical cyclones as justification for action on energy policies when far more potentially effective options are available.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2017, 04:09:45 pm by TimG »

Offline wilber

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6586
Quote
In any case, the real problem is not whether GHGs are a hypothetical source of future problems (they are). The real problem is whether mitigation is a useful response. When come to hurricane damage adaptation is what we need:

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1860/2717


So we build all structures in low lying hurricane prone areas to withstand 15ft storm surges and 300 KPH winds without doing anything to slow down or mitigate the process? Your link is ten years old and no doubt based on data even older.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3328
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
Canada has today prepared HMCS St. John's for disaster assistance.  They postponed their training exercise and took on a helicopter and additional relief supplies.  If they are called, they will go, along with anything else we are asked for.
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4248
An incredibly sexist comment for someone who styles themself as a 'progressive'. It is good illustration of the how many 'progressives' are hypocrites that would rather lecture other people than look in the mirror. It is this kind of name calling which make me think alarmists can't be trusted. i.e. if an alarmist says something assume it is a false until demonstrated otherwise.

oh pleeeese! You wear your fake outrage well - she's earned that label she's now tagged with. Accept it, loud & proud!

That is an opinion. Nothing more - nothing less.

and you trot out Pielke Jr, no less... in fact, very early Pielke Jr! Cause, like your go-to guy's opinion is universally accepted, right? There's certainly no papers that counter his, his,... opinion. Ya, opinion!

The idea that wind sheer will reduce the number of hurricanes is not  new. What is new is the claim that wind shear seems to uniquely limited to the coasts of the US. In any case, hurricanes that do not hit land are not a problem and this is a good example of how the effects of warming are not necessarily a net negative.

cite your claim/statement that wind shear, "seems to {be} uniquely limited to the coasts of the US." Here, after a quick googly:
- NASA Sees Vertical Wind Shear Affecting (Northwest Pacific) Tropical Storm Muifa --- https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/03w-nw-pacific-ocean
- NASA Sees Wind Shear Battering (Western Pacific) Banyan --- https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/14w-northwestern-pacific-ocean

in any case, the link I provided certainly doesn't align with or support your strawman wind shear attempt - go fish!

In any case, the real problem is not whether GHGs are a hypothetical source of future problems (they are). The real problem is whether mitigation is a useful response. When come to hurricane damage adaptation is what we need:

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1860/2717

this is one of your more prolific strawmen. You purposely conflate short-term adaptation with longer-term mitigation policies. You forever attempt to protect the "sanctity" of status-quo energy policies, always playing your mind-numbing AdaptationOnly narrative. Why, even your just touted boy Pielke Jr. is on record as delineating the two - separating out mitigation policy from adaptation pursuits. C'mon man, you need to build a stronger strawman!

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
So we build all structures in low lying hurricane prone areas to withstand 15ft storm surges and 300 KPH winds without doing anything to slow down or mitigate the process? Your link is ten years old and no doubt based on data even older.
The trouble with mitigation is almost all of the mitigation policies being put forth by virtue signalling politicians are ineffective and will not address the stated problem. These range from efforts to promote diesel in the EU that only resulted in car makers cheating while the bureaucrats looked the other way to bio-fuels which chop forests down to ship them across the world with fossil fuels to bogus carbon credits which trade cash for nothing or to incredibly expensive investments in wind and solar that cannot supply any more than a fraction of our energy needs.

These failures occur because there are no truly viable options for mitigation so politicians posture and pretend. What I would rather see is a cost benefit analysis on every action. The only mitigation measures that should be pursued should be those that provided real reductions in emissions and do so at a cost that that is less than expected harm caused by CO2.  Furthermore, the costs must be based on a complete picture. i.e. the cost of wind is not in the turbines but in the cost of the natural gas or coal plant that needs to exists to provide backup when the wind does not blow. The net result is there are only a few actions that make sense and we would have give up on any pretense of meeting 'reduction targets' that the CO2 cultists are so obsessed with. But it would mean real progress on mitigation while we focus on adaption.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2017, 07:02:46 pm by TimG »

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
And meanwhile, we continue to encourage people to build in flood zones, and then when they get flooded, the government rushes in with emergency money to rebuild for those who never even bothered to get flood insurance. Something very wrong with this picture.
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum