Canadian Politics Today

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:

[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



 

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

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!

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!

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.

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!

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.