NYC Could See More Hurricanes From ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

In the future, of course

Study Finds Climate Change Could Lead to More Hurricanes on NYC Coast

Hurricanes could start flooding New York City’s coastline as often as every 20 years due to the effects of climate change on sea-level rise and hurricane activity, scientists said on Monday.

Water could surge some 9 feet (2.8 meters) in hurricanes occurring anywhere from three to 17 times more often than today, they said.

“That’s approximately – worst case scenario – once every 20 years,” said Benjamin Horton, part of a team of U.S. scientists who published their findings in a study.

The projections act as a reminder of the human cost of climate change, said Horton, in particular after Hurricane Matthew ravaged the southeastern United States over the weekend.

It’s all based on the notion that things will change from today due to “carbon pollution,” because there’s no possible method that the climate could otherwise change in the eyes of the Cult of Climastrology.

The projections highlight the importance of slashing greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change, he said.

The study is based on a combination of historical data and computer model projections.

In other words, just more bullshit from Warmists who program their models to give them the doomsaying projects they want, so they can throw out scientific words like “could” and “might.”

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

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

15 Responses to “NYC Could See More Hurricanes From ‘Climate Change’ Or Something”

  1. drowningpuppies says:

    “This is serial, folks, really!”


  2. john says:

    Why don’t we ever hear of THE PAUSE anymore? Wasn’t that supposed to save humanity?

  3. Liam Thomas says:

    An interesting study done by Tung and Xianyao Chen at Ocean University of China in Qingdao suggests something rather startling for Climate scientists.

    The opening Paragraph of a National Geographic article on Global Warming….aka climate change

    Temperatures at Earth’s surface aren’t rising as fast as they did in the 1990s, even though the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continues to increase steadily. This apparent hiatus in global warming has been fodder for skeptics—but among climate scientists, it has sparked a search for the “sink” that is storing all the missing atmospheric heat.

    No ones talking about global warming cause its like 99th on a list of 100 things that people worry about.


    Because you AGW Environazi’s have been crying wolf for Decades and were still here, still have our heads above water and we are still not starving or dying off because the planet is 1 degree warmer…..

    If you would just forget about crying wolf and just fix things… would all be good….Why isnt warren buffet and george soros sinking billions into GREEN IF were all gonna die?

  4. Liam Thomas says:


    American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005.

    I suggest you subscribe and then you could read all of these highly interesting peer reviewed AGW articles that are starting to question some of the prevailing theories as more and more research data is brought to light.

    We only just barely have scratched the surface of AGW, Global Climate change and certainly Oceanography is a relatively new branch of science in its infancy.

  5. Jeffery says:


    Did you read the Tung and Chen article you cited? It was in Science. You lied about what they concluded.

    If you’re an AAAS member as I am you could read the paper in its entirety, as I did, rather than relying on someone else’s opinion.

    By all means point out some of the AAAS articles that refute the theory of AGW. Certainly the Tung and Chen article SUPPORTS the theory of AGW. Why do you think it supports your case?

  6. david7134 says:

    It has already been shown that peer reviewed literature will not accept material that refutes AGW. Same as medical journals will not accept any material that refutes the cholesterol model of disease origination and propagation. As I have said before, exact parallel.

  7. Liam Thomas says:


    You dont have to be a member to read the article. Stop pretending you are what your not….

    And I never said It disputes anything…….

    What I said was:

    I suggest you subscribe and then you could read all of these highly interesting peer reviewed AGW articles that are starting to question some of the prevailing theories as more and more research data is brought to light.

    Questioning prevailing theories and denying them are totally different concepts in scientific circles…..The facts are clear….In scientific circles when a theory or hypothesis is established then it is incumbent upon the scientific community to challenge and prove or disprove them……..

    This article only offers an alternative explanation to WHERE the excess heat has gone…..and once again…..

    The Janitor who makes 250k plus per year fails to grasp the point of my post…….


    I never claimed they denied AGW.

  8. Liam Thomas says:


    They do occasionally let one or two annually be published, but then they send the text of the research to their AGW groupies who then prepare a crushing defense against the paper in such a way that no scientist who disagrees with the AGW theory or even questions it wants to even publish anymore.

    It has become Staling, Lenin and Hitler in the AGW scientific circles….careers are destroyed over questioning the AGW position…..It is why I refuse to divulge my name and for that matter I use a VPN to even hide what state I live in when I post, knowing that any IP address can easily be traced. That is how afraid of the AGW movement I am personally and professionally.

  9. Jeffery says:

    Since you didn’t read the paper, here are a few excerpts:

    from the conclusion:

    When the internal variability that is responsible for the current hiatus switches sign, as it inevitably will, another episode of accelerated global warming should ensue.

    from the abstract:

    In the 21st century, surface warming slowed as more heat moved into deeper oceans. In situ and reanalyzed data are used to trace the pathways of ocean heat uptake. In addition to the shallow La Niña–like patterns in the Pacific that were the previous focus, we found that the slowdown is mainly caused by heat transported to deeper layers in the Atlantic and the Southern oceans…

    from the intro:

    Increasing anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions perturb Earth’s radiative equilibrium, leading to a persistent imbalance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) despite some long-wave radiative adjustment. Energy balance requires that this TOA imbalance for the planet equal the time rate of increase of the total heat content in the atmosphere-ocean system (1). Because the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the cryosphere is small, about 90% of the total heat content is in the form of ocean heat content (OHC) (2, 3).

    Recall the deniers’ “The Ocean Ate My Warming” meme? 99% of climate scientists understand that the heat distributes between the atmosphere, land and oceans. The high heat capacity of water makes it the primary reservoir for the heat the Earth is accumulating.

    This two year old paper was not shocking, it added the Atlantic Ocean as a major “sink” for the warming Earth.

    The oceans extract heat from the atmosphere and return this warmth to the atmosphere periodically, e.g., via El Ninos. This energy imbalance they talk about arises from the retention of heat because of the increase in CO2.

  10. Jeffery says:

    That is how afraid of the AGW movement I am personally and professionally.

    You’re paranoid and a supporter of bizarre conspiracy theories.

  11. Jl says:

    “Wasn’t the pause supposed to save humanity?” No John, your idiot liberal masters said a carbon tax and more government regulations would save humanity. From what, though, we still don’t know.

  12. Liam Thomas says:

    You’re paranoid and a supporter of bizarre conspiracy theories.

    Whats your name and the name of your company and Id like their address please.

  13. Liam Thomas says:

    Again you dimwit….I was pointing to THE PAUSE which according to you and John did not exist and was some made up story…….

    Once again you prove your more interested in an argument and trolling a conservative website then you are in anything other then the exorbitant amount of time a AHEM….CEO…..has on his hands……

    LOLOLOL….sad Jeffery that your trying to fall on your sword for AGW when my entire post citing this article points out THE PAUSE.

  14. Liam Thomas says:

    In March 2004, Jones wrote to ­Professor Michael Mann, a leading climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University, saying that he had “recently rejected two papers [one for the Journal of ­Geophysical Research and one for Geophysical Research Letters] from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised”.

    In June 2003, as an editor of an unnamed journal, Briffa emailed fellow tree-ring researcher Edward Cook, a researcher at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, saying: “Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting [an unnamed paper] – to ­support Dave Stahle’s and really as soon as you can. Please.”

    I could go on and on….the email scandal shows and active effort by the AGW climate scientists to destroy, prevent or shame anyone who tried to publish that was not in consensus with the prevailing wisdom…..

    There is no paranoia on my part….there is only facts signed by the perpetrators. In fact what I found funny is that in England they let the school do their own investigation and by golly the school was exonerated…..lolol….Same with Penn State….I surmise Hillary Clinton was overseeing the entire thing.

Pirate's Cove