Obama: Be Prepared for Global Warming Spawned Super Hurricanes

[Crick]

Poor Crick with his CantReadAGraph (CRAG) syndrome. Falls for YET MORE SkepshitScience bullshit. But this time -- it's hysterical..

Only the cartoonist zealots at SkepShitScience could put a horizontal axis on a graph that ENDS in 2005, and then CRAYON IN --- a point labeled 1998 to 2007... It's a fucking cartoon. Not a chart of anything close to reality.

WHY the fuck do you live in intellectual gutters???

THIS is what has happened in the Atlantic Since 1945... Lying bastards at SShit will prey on the stupid.. .

When you only look at TROPICAL STORMS --- like those devious SkepShits did (before they got tthe crayons out) you see the advent of satellites capable of FINDING a mere 4 or 6 hour storm that barely triggers the definition of a Trop storm. And satellites like that were around from 1980 on. Also more ocean buoys and P3 flights going out more often to check on "invest areas"..

Tell us, oh graphing expert, where you would plot an average taken from 1998-2007?

Since when does the AVERAGE conveniently fit onto an existing yearly point anyways. Should have been marked as bar lines. And you don't include any "averages or trend lines" that fit to data OUTSIDE the range of your graph. Didn't even seem to plot from 2004 or 2005.. It's a cartoon Bullwinkly.

And it's purposely deceptive including tropical storms that have been redefined and were largely undetectable prior to about 1980.. The chart I gave above goes back to 1944 or so. THAT's the reality of the Atl. Hurricanes.

THO ---- strangely enough. I could not find ANY CHARTS that went up to 2015.. Since NOAA would be the most likely to publish that crap ---- WHY do you think that might be? (Nobody wants that to be seen).. It's embarrassing..

The average of 1998-2007 is a single value. It would NOT be plotted as a bar. And it would obviously be plotted in the center of its span, the end of 2002, precisely where it WAS placed. You seem to be the one having difficulty with simple graphs Mr Scientist.

Note where the 5-yr average line ends.

 

[flacaltenn]

More evidence how stupid you have to be to pull stuff from SShitScience. Apologies to NOAA -- found an up to date Atlantic chart. It INCLUDES tropical storms. So let's compare the sewage that Crick brings in..

CARTOON FROM THE LYING BASTARDS AT SSScience::::

NOAA COMPOUND RECORD OF TROPICAL STORMS/HURRICANES..

Hey Crickham. .NOAA says that 1969 had a total of 18 trop storms of which 12 were hurricanes.
What does your pile of SkepShit for 1969 or any other year they simply MADE UP for idiots.

Forgot.. You have CRAG... And you're moron for camping out with deviant bastards who torture science and the truth..

Ask yourself WHY anybody would run a 10 moving average over just 40 or 50 years of data. It's BECAUSE they KNOW that will highlight the jump in detection of tropical storms due to modern methods and more attention to finding and tracking. The filter will kick in about 6 or 8 years AFTER the satellites started to be used -- ACCENTUATING the rising slope. And it DE-EMPHASIZE the variation in years previous to the satellite era.. They are TOYING with you.

Do you see how badly these idiots lie??? Of course you don't. You have CRAG..

 

[Billy_Bob]

With the PDO going cold and the ADO also going cold, with major mass of cold water near the equator in both oceans, Obama's prediction is going to fall flat on its face.

No atmospheric heat and no sea surface warmth to create storms makes this prediction empty rhetoric.. We might see things along the lines of what we have seen the last 10 years. Obama's doom and gloom lies. Nothing to see here.

 

[Olde Europe]

Crick didn't demonstrate shit because he clings to the worse science website on the web for his info.. Ain't even close to plots of REAL data. See my previous post.

And Yes -- that Trenberth.. Doesn't matter if it assumes EQUILIBRIUM. Because even at equilibrium, A LOT of the forcing power goes into storage. He even took liberties with the term "Energy" because w/m2 is POWER not energy. If you never account for it in an equilibrium snapshot -- it never goes into the ocean. SO -- it would never INCREASE.. But Lo and Behold his explanation circa 2011 for "the hiatus" found a BUNCH of Energy storage in the deep oceans that simply snuck right in without accounting on his "energy budget"..

YET --- this genius managed to balance out 1000s of Watts and find EXACTLY the GW 0.8% or so he was expecting to find in all those GROSS estimates of Power flows. It was literally a God-like moment to pull the EXACTLY expected numbers out of that "envelope" calculation. Even tho 10 yrs or so later -- he finds he missed an "equilibrium imbalance" of a considerable amount due to neglecting the LARGEST pool of global warmth on the planet.

Strange he got the right answer ---- huh???

And if doubt it was an envelope calculation -- Go fetch me the EXACT Global land and ocean IR BlackBody radiation numbers... At least to less than 0.8% precision..


Now who did I need to talk to understand this elementary stuff??? Some of us ARE scientists and can browse a Scientific American with topics outside our immediate day to day work...

Crick demonstrated his point just fine. You don't know what a 10-year running average is.

Of course, in a system in equilibrium, energy/radiation-in equals energy/radiation-out, both at surface and TOA levels, and so, in sum nothing goes into storage. You still haven't read, let alone understood the 1997 paper.

But then, you seamlessly move on to dismiss another paper you probably also have neither read nor understood, and which you, cautiously, neither name nor quote nor link to. Of course, Trenberth, being a renowned scientist and all that, didn't miss and suddenly discover the ocean's energy storage capacity. That's just your silly bluster and Heartland spin on discoveries that inconvenience the denialist ilk. But the bluster you do really well.

 

[Olde Europe]

When you only look at TROPICAL STORMS --- like those devious SkepShits did (before they got tthe crayons out) you see the advent of satellites capable of FINDING a mere 4 or 6 hour storm that barely triggers the definition of a Trop storm. And satellites like that were around from 1980 on. Also more ocean buoys and P3 flights going out more often to check on "invest areas"..

See how that goes?

This is what actual reporting on actual science looks like:

But while the numbers are not contested, their significance most certainly is. Another study considered how this information was being collected, and research suggested that the increase in reported storms was due to improved monitoring rather than more storms actually taking place.​

But then you didn't read the article, and replaced knowledge about what was there with bluster about Sceptical Science's depravity. The like is well known as transference projection, which is particularly obvious considering that ScepScience very publicly debates the numbers, their interpretation, and the remaining uncertainties.

Also, to make that point perfectly clear, there's this (which you also didn't read), demonstrating how in actual science disputes are being debated and acknowledged:

In July 2007, a survey of hurricanes in the North Atlantic over the past century noted an increase in the number of observed hurricanes, concluding "increasing cyclone numbers has lead to a distinct trend in the number of major hurricanes and one that is clearly associated with greenhouse warming" (Holland 2007). However, this was refuted by an analysis of monitoring systems stating "improved monitoring in recent years is responsible for most, if not all, of the observed trend in increasing frequency of tropical cyclones" (Landsea 2007). In other words, the reason more hurricanes are being observed may be due to an improved ability to observe them, thanks to aircraft, radar and satellites.​

See the gray lines near the top of the pic? What do they indicate?

Here's more, based on satellite data since 1981 (from ScepScience-link above):

Global satellite data since 1981 can be used to extend analysis of hurricane intensity to each ocean, looking for any trend in wind speed (Elsner 2008). Figure 3 plots the long term trend in maximum wind speed (eg - whether hurricanes are getting stronger or weaker) against different strength hurricanes. This tells us not only whether hurricanes are overall getting stronger but also how different strength hurricanes are being affected. Overall, there is a statistically significant upward trend (the horizontal red line). But more significantly, Elsner found weaker hurricanes showed little to no trend while stronger hurricanes showed a greater upward trend. In other words, stronger hurricanes are getting stronger. This means that as sea temperatures continue to rise, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will inevitably increase. More on Elsner's paper...​

While there's a considerable area of remaining uncertainties, this shouldn't surprise anyone: With more energy available in a warming earth's climate system, more energy might go into the formation of hurricanes, the denialists' shrieks about year-on-year variability and the scientists' alleged depravity notwithstanding.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ummm.......just wanted to point out that the data pwns the AGW k00ks on this topic.

Ten years ago, they promised mega-hurricanes at mega-high frequencies were imminent.......hitting the US on every coast!!


How many hit the US since?


zErO

'
In the meantime, what has been happening in the biggest ocean in the world? mega typhoons.

 

[Old Rocks]

Obama is going to continue ramping up the hysteria as he only has a few more months to completely destroy the United States.

And after 20Jan17, you can whine and puke about Hillary for 8 years. Enjoy.

 

[skookerasbil]

Ummm.......just wanted to point out that the data pwns the AGW k00ks on this topic.

Ten years ago, they promised mega-hurricanes at mega-high frequencies were imminent.......hitting the US on every coast!!


How many hit the US since?


zErO

'
In the meantime, what has been happening in the biggest ocean in the world? mega typhoons.

Implying exactly............what?

USATODAY.com - World War II Pacific typhoons battered U.S. Navy

 

[Old Rocks]

Wasn't Sandy 2012?

Yes. And when the storm came ashore it was barely a Cat 1. If you want to see some truly devastating hurricanes I suggest you go back to the 1950's and 1960's for some real doozies. You idiots are all alike you bleat these warnings about impending doom and ignore the simple fact that the storms of today are much, much less powerful than those from the past. If you want to read about a truly epic storm I suggest you look up the Great Flood of 1862 which struck the west coast of the USA and turned the entire Central Valley of California, all 300 miles of it, into a lake. The storm extended as far east as Colorado and impacted the entire west coast.

Your supposed facts simply are not that compelling in light of actual history.

Figure 1. Hurricane Sandy’s winds (top), on October 28, 2012, when Sandy was a Category 1 hurricane with top winds of 75 mph (this ocean surface wind data is from a radar scatterometer on the Indian Space Research Organization’s (ISRO) Oceansat-2.) Hurricane Katrina’s winds (bottom) on August 28, 2005, when Katrina was a Category 5 hurricane with top winds of 175 mph (data taken by a radar scatterometer on NASA’s defunct QuickSCAT satellite.) In both maps, wind speeds above 65 kilometers (40 miles) per hour are yellow; above 80 kph (50 mph) are orange; and above 95 kph (60 mph) are dark red. The most noticeable difference is the extent of the strong wind fields. For Katrina, winds over 65 kilometers per hour stretched about 500 kilometers (300 miles) from edge to edge. For Sandy, winds of that intensity spanned an region of ocean three times as great--1,500 kilometers (900 miles). Katrina was able to generate a record-height storm surge over a small area of the Mississippi coast. Sandy generated a lower but highly destructive storm surge over a much larger area, due to the storm's weaker winds but much larger size. Image credit: NASA.

Hurricane Sandy's huge size: freak of nature or climate change? | Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog

Are we likely to see more such storms in the future?
Global warming theory (Emanuel, 2005) predicts that a 2°C (3.6°F) increase in ocean temperatures should cause an increase in the peak winds of the strongest hurricanes of about about 10%. Furthermore, warmer ocean temperatures are expected to cause hurricanes to dump 20% more rain in their cores by the year 2100, according to computer modeling studies (Knutson et al., 2010). However, there has been no published work describing how hurricane size may change with warmer oceans in a future climate. We've seen an unusual number of Atlantic hurricanes with large size in recent years, but we currently have no theoretical or computer modeling simulations that can explain why this is so, or if we might see more storms like this in the future. However, we've seen significant and unprecedented changes to our atmosphere in recent decades, due to our emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide. The laws of physics demand that the atmosphere must respond. Atmospheric circulation patterns that control extreme weather events must change, and we should expect extreme storms to change in character, frequency, and intensity as a result--and not always in the ways our computer models may predict. We have pushed our climate system to a fundamentally new, higher-energy state where more heat and moisture is available to power stronger storms, and we should be concerned about the possibility that Hurricane Sandy's freak size and power were partially due to human-caused climate change.

Haven't seen a comparison of actual energy of each storm, but would imagine that Sandy was larger than Katrina due to it's size and duration.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wasn't Sandy 2012?

Yes. And when the storm came ashore it was barely a Cat 1. If you want to see some truly devastating hurricanes I suggest you go back to the 1950's and 1960's for some real doozies. You idiots are all alike you bleat these warnings about impending doom and ignore the simple fact that the storms of today are much, much less powerful than those from the past. If you want to read about a truly epic storm I suggest you look up the Great Flood of 1862 which struck the west coast of the USA and turned the entire Central Valley of California, all 300 miles of it, into a lake. The storm extended as far east as Colorado and impacted the entire west coast.

Your supposed facts simply are not that compelling in light of actual history.

.
1862?

Obviously a result of the over use of the cotton gin.

Clearly you're not a scientist and thus have clue what the significance of that storm has vis a vis globalwarmingclimatechangeglobalclimatedisruption, or whatever you guys are calling it this week.

Since the scientists all have scientific societies for their disciplines, what are the policy statements of these scientific societies concerning global warming? Care to review them again, old man? Perhaps we should note the percentage of them that state that AGW is real? Really want to go there?

And, while I am not a scientist, I attend the classes that are taught by scientists, and have yet to meet one that has your views. And, yes, most are Phd's in the scientific disciplines.

 

[Old Rocks]

The fallacy is yours Westwall. You are ignoring the increase in the average intensity of storms. If you want to put every storm in the last thousand years up against those of the last 50, you can probably find some doozies, but your comparisons are meaningless. I suggest you read:

National Climate Assessment

Weather and Climate | Climate Change | US EPA

What is the link between hurricanes and global warming?

Tropical Cyclone Activity | Climate Change | US EPA

The average intensity has not risen in any measurable way. Feel free to link to studies that produced those COMPUTER MODELED graphs. Those aren't data silly boy. Those are fiction.

Crick linked to credible sites with data. You linked to nothing, just flapped yap, and expected us to accept that as gospel. How about linking to a credible scientific source to back your flap yap?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ummm.......just wanted to point out that the data pwns the AGW k00ks on this topic.

Ten years ago, they promised mega-hurricanes at mega-high frequencies were imminent.......hitting the US on every coast!!


How many hit the US since?


zErO

'
In the meantime, what has been happening in the biggest ocean in the world? mega typhoons.

Zomg! Before agw, the Pacific Ocean never had typhoons now they're (cue ominous music) mega-typhoons (more ominous music)

EnviroMarxists just don't care if they're lying. In fact, they HAVE to lie, Goebbels is their patron Saint of Communications

 

[Old Rocks]

Sandy wasn't much for wind but she had developed a doozy of a surge and the effect of that surge was exacerbated by the increased sea level we now enjoy.

Wow, a whole millimeter did all of that?

Now this is why you have earned the moniker of a lying fuck. You know damned well that the sea level rise for the area is about 12 inches in that area.

 

[skookerasbil]

Im laughing.....Emanuel did that study in 2005!! None of his shit panned out. Everybody knows that!!

 

[Old Rocks]

Trenberth is among the handful of GWarning "scientists" that are activists FIRST and lab coated researchers 2nd. This is the guy who LEFT out the MASSIVE Ocean thermal storage in his 1st famous "energy budget" papers and then DISCOVERED that the oceans store heat only when the temperatures refused to climb at his beckoned call for a couple decades recently. He is ALWAYS inserting himself in every convenient event.

You mean "Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget" by Kiehl & Trenberth (1997)? Assuming you have actually read the paper, I'd suggest you go find someone to explain it to you, with a particular focus on what the term "equilibrium" means. More likely, you've just read some WUWT / Heartland bull crap, and mindlessly regurgitate that spew.

Thanks for the hurricane primer. I am somewhat aware that the conditions for their formation are somewhat unique, which is why we don't see dozens of these critters every day. However, the trend, as so often, is not your (and your denialist ilk's) friend, as Crick demonstrated above.

Crick didn't demonstrate shit because he clings to the worse science website on the web for his info.. Ain't even close to plots of REAL data. See my previous post.

And Yes -- that Trenberth.. Doesn't matter if it assumes EQUILIBRIUM. Because even at equilibrium, A LOT of the forcing power goes into storage. He even took liberties with the term "Energy" because w/m2 is POWER not energy. If you never account for it in an equilibrium snapshot -- it never goes into the ocean. SO -- it would never INCREASE.. But Lo and Behold his explanation circa 2011 for "the hiatus" found a BUNCH of Energy storage in the deep oceans that simply snuck right in without accounting on his "energy budget"..

YET --- this genius managed to balance out 1000s of Watts and find EXACTLY the GW 0.8% or so he was expecting to find in all those GROSS estimates of Power flows. It was literally a God-like moment to pull the EXACTLY expected numbers out of that "envelope" calculation. Even tho 10 yrs or so later -- he finds he missed an "equilibrium imbalance" of a considerable amount due to neglecting the LARGEST pool of global warmth on the planet.

Strange he got the right answer ---- huh???

And if doubt it was an envelope calculation -- Go fetch me the EXACT Global land and ocean IR BlackBody radiation numbers... At least to less than 0.8% precision..


Now who did I need to talk to understand this elementary stuff??? Some of us ARE scientists and can browse a Scientific American with topics outside our immediate day to day work...

FCT, are you now claiming to be a scientist? PhD? Paid researcher? Are you getting YOUR material published with YOUR name on it?

Yeah... We've been thru this before.. Ain't gonna refresh your poor memory.. Suggest you take notes and come to class more often.

Something I have always found amazing is that engineers are willing to state that their expertise covers subjects and disciplines in which they have had no training. Yet Geologists would not try to tell an engineer how to build a bridge or dam, only what will support that bridge or dam. And we have seen a number of examples in the West where the engineer thought he knew better than the geologist, and there was major damage and loss of human life because of the engineers arrogance.

And we see the same here. An engineer stating that he knows far more about the effects of GHGs on the atmosphere than the scientists that have studied the discipline for decades.

 

[skookerasbil]

These threads always come to this........the skeptic board member slamming the GW fakes with the hammer square over the head!!!

Those following these threads take note.......the AGW contingent ALWAYS wants the discussion in the present as if there was no history to discuss. Skeptics, or course, navigate in the realm of full disclosure which invariably ends up illustrating the level of fraud from the alarmists!!




1. Bhola Cyclone, Bangladesh 1970 (Nov 12) Bay of Bengal 300,000 - 500,000
2. Hooghly River Cyclone, India and Bangladesh 1737 Bay of Bengal 300,000
3. Haiphong Typhoon, Vietnam 1881 West Pacific 300,000
4. Coringa, India 1839 Bay of Bengal 300,000
5. Backerganj Cyclone, Bangladesh 1584 Bay of Bengal 200,000
6. Great Backerganj Cyclone, Bangladesh 1876 Bay of Bengal 200,000
7. Chittagong, Bangladesh 1897 Bay of Bengal 175,000
8. Super Typhoon Nina, China 1975 (Aug 5) West Pacific 171,000
9. Cyclone 02B, Bangladesh 1991 (May 5) Bay of Bengal 138,866
10. Cyclone Nargis, Myanmar 2008 (May 3) Bay of Bengal 138,366
11. Swatlow, China 1922 (Jul 27) West Pacific 100,000
12. Great Bombay Cyclone, India 1882 Arabian Sea 100,000
13. Hakata Bay Typhoon, Japan 1281 West Pacific 65,000
14. Bangladesh 1942 (Oct 14) Bay of Bengal 61,000
15. India 1935 Bay of Bengal 60,000
16. Calcutta, India 1864 Bay of Bengal 60,000
17. Barisal, Bangladesh 1822 Bay of Bengal 50,000
18. Sunderbans coast, Bangladesh 1699 Bay of Bengal 50,000
19. India 1833 Bay of Bengal 50,000
20. India 1854 Bay of Bengal 50,000


Deadliest World Tropical Cyclones | Weather Underground


And I only copied the top 20 on the list.


Look at the dates..............


Alarmist fear mongering clearly ghey........they pull this phony shit all the time!! And always exposed and publically humiliated by the climate skeptics in here!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Who's not winning?

 

[Olde Europe]

Strange he got the right answer ---- huh???

And if doubt it was an envelope calculation -- Go fetch me the EXACT Global land and ocean IR BlackBody radiation numbers... At least to less than 0.8% precision..

Yeah, things are getting worse. I think I may have found the latter Trenberth paper (2009) you found so amazing (but most likely have not read, much less understood). The earth's surface's blackbody radiation is not representative of the earth's energy imbalance. That balance is measured at the TOA, as a result of the difference between the energy taken in from the sun and the energy radiated out.

The TOA energy imbalance can probably be most accurately determined from climate models and is estimated to be 0.85 ±0.15 W m−2 by Hansen et al. (2005) and is supported by estimated recent changes in ocean heat content (Willis et al. 2004; Hansen et al. 2005).​

As that latter paper was also one that concerned itself with the earth's major energy fluxes (like the previous, simpler one of 1997), it did not try, and did not magically find, an imbalance of 0.85 ±0.15 W m−2; rather, that was a figure they found (and deemed accurate) in Hanson et al. (2005). As a wise man once cracked, "Knowledge is your friend."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sandy wasn't much for wind but she had developed a doozy of a surge and the effect of that surge was exacerbated by the increased sea level we now enjoy.

Wow, a whole millimeter did all of that?

Now this is why you have earned the moniker of a lying fuck. You know damned well that the sea level rise for the area is about 12 inches in that area.

OMFG!!!!

LOL!!!

CO2 made a precision strike in that area alone!

 

[boedicca]

Obama is going to continue ramping up the hysteria as he only has a few more months to completely destroy the United States.

And after 20Jan17, you can whine and puke about Hillary for 8 years. Enjoy.

After Jan 2017, I suspect that hilLIARy will be whining and puking with Bubba in Chappaqua after her last minute pardon by Obabble.