Also, that Sandy was not a hurricane at landfall (via Steven Goddard)
(Washington Post) The U.S. has been extraordinarily fortunate lately: we have not been witness to the fury of a major hurricane (category 3 or higher) landfall since October 2005 when Wilma hit southwest Florida as a Category 3 storm. (Other countries have not had such good fortune these past few years. )
Since the hyper-active 2005 season, the U.S. has had just six Category 1 and 2 hurricane landfalls: Humberto (TX), Ike (TX), Gustav (LA), Dolly (TX), Irene (NC), and Isaac (LA). Â Sandy was not technically a hurricane at its NJ landfall, and if it were, it would have been a Category 1 storm.
They provide this handy dandy graphic
A couple points. First, technically, the WP is wrong. The US hasn’t quite hit the longest period on record, which stretched 3,316 days, from August 11, 1860 to September 8, 1869. Set your calendar for November 22nd, 2014, which will break the record. The WP writer, Brian McNoldy, started with 1900, rather than further back.
Second, Irene was not a hurricane during either US landfall. This was further noted by Warmist Kerry Emanual in the NY Times. Isaac was barely a hurricane at landfall, and it could be argued that the storm was below hurricane strength, which would mean that the last US landfalling hurricane was Ike in October 2008.
Brian does note something important:
…just a single landfall at a vulnerable location can be a major disaster.
Even during an inactive season, a single storm can leave its mark on history (think Andrew in 1992)
To add to that, even a tropical storm can do massive damage. Hurricane Sandy was a tropical storm when it rolled through the Raleigh area in 1996, and was very destructive. Sandy was extra-tropical at landfall, combining with a strong cold front. That said, the point of this exercise is to note that the Warmists hysteria after the big 2005 season, that the year was what the “new normal” would be, was a bunch of mule fritters. When activity dried up, Warmists claimed that there wouldn’t be as many storms, but they’d be more powerful. Along came Sandy, and they said that would be the new normal. Nope. And they’re also claiming that global warming/climate change (meaning man caused) reduces Atlantic hurricane activity by increasing wind shear, something they started heavily bringing up over the last few years.
In reality, it’s all/mostly part of the natural cycles.
Blah, blah, hurricanes, blah, blah.
Just remember: The Earth is rapidly warming because of carbon dioxide we’ve added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.
What will be the effect of warmer oceans and higher seas? We’ll have to wait and see, as we’re in uncharted territory, climatewise.
Rather than worry about what sloppy journos and pundits blather on about, take a look at what the IPCC AR5 had to say about extreme weather. Who are you fighting with? I would find the “warmists” that are wrong and criticize them specifically.
The WaPo agrees with you, the IPCC agrees with you.
List compiled by Roger Pielke Jr, no “warmist” for sure.
•“Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability”
•”There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th centuryâ€
•“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basinâ€
•“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scaleâ€
•“In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systemsâ€
•“In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950â€
•“In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is lowâ€
So who exactly are you jousting with? Yourself?
Keep up the good work Pirate, Jeff is beginning to lose it.
You have problems reading, don’t you.
“What will be the effect of warmer oceans and higher seas? We’re in uncharted territory, we’ll have to wait and see.” Jeffery is losing it. You mean you’re not sure it’s going to be a calamity? Watch out, they may kick you out of the hoax club. And we’re not in uncharted territory, as oceans have warmed and sea have risen in the past. And the planet is not “warming rapidly”, as you have nothing to compare it to. This isn’t your best work, is it J?
J-“Blah, blah, hurricanes, blah, blah.” Blah, blah, another failed prediction, blah, blah.
j,
I save my best work for work. Human civilization is certainly in uncharted territory. But you know that. How old do you think humankind is? How about civilization? Do you still think humans have been around for 4 billion years?
I rely on the experts, for example, the IPCC. They state that the data are not convincing that global warming has contributed to changes in weather extremes. If the data change, I will change my position. What do you do, Sir?
Have you ever had an original thought?