Grist: “Climate Change” Creating Bigger, Badder Hurricanes

Apparently they’re stealth hurricanes, since the US mainland has not been hit by a major hurricane since October 24, 2005

(Hurricane enable: How climate change is mixing up bigger, badder storms )

Global warming and hurricanes are like Bourbon Street and Hurricanes: The farther down the road you go, the more intense they get.

Buy your Hurricanes at the Hard Rock Café, and you can probably make it through a third before you’ve dimmed enough to believe the Republican talking points on climate change. But by the time you get to The Marigny, they’re making those things with three kinds of rum, a half-gallon of rocket fuel, and the soul of an angry leprechaun.

Most climate models predict the same thing with storms: The more we stray from the climate norm, the stronger the hurricanes become. Which makes a lot of sense when you look at how these tempests work.

Those same models have failed spectacularly.

But will hurricanes find our new climate so likeable that they not only become stronger, but more frequent as well? Here, the science is unsettled. One recent model by Kerry Emanuel of MIT makes some worst-case assumptions and predicts hurricanes getting stronger and more frequent. The majority of climate models, however, predict we won’t see more hurricanes — they’ll just get a hell of a lot worse.

Judith Curry discusses this over at NPR, in terms of the big report that stated that 2005, a big, big hurricane year, would be the new norm

Curry actually entered the public eye in 2005, with a paper in Science magazine warning that hurricanes were likely to become more intense as a result of climate change. But in the years since then, she’s soured on the scientific consensus about climate change. Her mantra now is, “We just don’t know.” (snip)

Curry says her 2005 hurricanes paper “generated a lot of media attention which we were ill-prepared to deal with,” she says. “We were being attacked by the anti-global-warming crowd as well as a large number of people in the hurricane community who thought this was natural variability.”

Curry learned quite a bit over that situation, and she decided to dive in and engage with more than just the True Believers, and now wonders how much is anthropogenic and how much is natural variability. After that paper was published, hurricane landfalls dropped off precipitously. So then Warmists said, as the Grist article notes in a disingenuous way, there won’t be more hurricanes, they’ll just be stronger. Which is false, according to actual data, as opposed to “computer models”. A warmer atmospher should actually cause fewer and weaker. We’ve actually seen some of the worst activity over the past 150 years during early parts of pauses and during slight cooling (late 40′s to late 70′s).

But, Warmists have to keep up the scary stories for their cult. Even making it up, like Gore did with his “category 6″ yap yap, for which he was smacked around by science and reality.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

3 Comments

Comment by john
2013-08-23 10:23:40

Only hurricanes that make a landfall on the US should be counted because…….. well just because.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2013-08-23 13:43:25

….hurricanes that make a landfall on the US should be counted because…

……..warmists claim more hurricanes will strike the US.

When the data doesn’t match reality, we must discount the data and reality, rather than the flawed theory.

 
Comment by Filthy_Filner_Friday Subscribed to comments via email
2013-08-23 22:33:19

Right GC. We must now count those storms that have absolutely no impact upon man or land because we must compare them to periods of time when we knew nothing about them prior to satellite.

You know.. apples oranges.

Here’s how this is still going down:
CAGW: Our world will burn, freeze, drown, and boil and not freeze within 10 years.
Realist: Really, do you have any proof other than a few years of data?
CAGW after 10 years: Our world will burn, freeze, drown, and boil and not freeze within 10 years.
Realist: Really, do you have any proof other than a few years of data from bad stations, bad scientists, bad studies?
CAGW after 10 years: It is worse than we thought. We must act now!
Realist: But, you said 20 years ago we’d be dying by now with most people being environmental refugees and wars over food and no oil. What about those emails detailing fraud, lies and corruption and your continued refusal to release data and methods?
CAGW after 10 years: We’ve only got 10 years left or else. We know that there were some bad apples, the measuring devices lie, and that much of the data does not match what was measured, but trust us. The models don’t lie!
Realist: So, you have anti-oil corrupted people doing failed research pushing bad data and falsifiable methods, but you want us to trust you? Care to explain why? So far, what’s the real observable data show?
CAGW after 10 years: We must enact taxes and punitive fees to stop power generation and force people to pay china and unions for their form of expensive power generation. We must tax food and put food in to fuel .. for the poor. If we don’t, we will all die. If the models aren’t reliable over 15 years, then our models are wrong.
Realist: Ok, temperatures have flatlined over the last 15 years. Your data, your researchers, your methods, and now your models are all wrong.
CAGWers cultists: Did we say 15 years? We meant 16 years. Or more. BTW, did we mention that the sun has no affect upon the warming of our earth?
REalists: You guys are actually really stupid aren’t you? Is it too late to call you all snake-oil salesman of the highest traitorous order?

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 8469 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE