Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[Mr.Canada]

Many conspiracies have been proven true over the years. Are you willing to take that chance on the entire human race?

There is documented proof that the aristocrats plan to only keep 500 million people living on Earth. They want the planets dwindling resources for themselves. They are the only ones deemed worthy of them. They want to populate the planet with their pure blood and not that of the stupid masses.

[jbg]

Whatever they've got wrong, it doesn't compare to what the oil lobby and their political hacks have gotten wrong! Mitten's speech at the Republican Convention, mocking Obama for showing even a tepid concern for rising sea levels looks like words he may be eating on election day!

The last of these landfalling hurricanes directly affecting New York City was in 1821. Is that wrong?

Right now he and his budget expert - Paul Ryan, are busy trying to explain how their proposed cuts to FEMA would not compromise the kind of relief efforts that will be needed for some time in New York, New Jersey and other affected states.

FEMA is essentially a super-agency bossing around other agencies. For my money I'd rather have money spent on relief than on layers of leaders.

[Sleipnir]

Many conspiracies have been proven true over the years. Are you willing to take that chance on the entire human race?

There is documented proof that the aristocrats plan to only keep 500 million people living on Earth. They want the planets dwindling resources for themselves. They are the only ones deemed worthy of them. They want to populate the planet with their pure blood and not that of the stupid masses.

Are you okay?

[Pliny]

Many conspiracies have been proven true over the years. Are you willing to take that chance on the entire human race?

There is documented proof that the aristocrats plan to only keep 500 million people living on Earth. They want the planets dwindling resources for themselves. They are the only ones deemed worthy of them. They want to populate the planet with their pure blood and not that of the stupid masses.

There is documented proof that many people believe the world is overpopulated, man is destroying the environment and is consuming non-renewable resources at an unsustainable level.

Many people have decided that they will be responsible individuals and not have children, mostly individuals in western nations, to reduce the population - I don't know if the goal is 500 million though. Many people wish to save the environment by stopping development and preserving nature - I don't know if their goal is to keep the environment for the rich or Aristocrats though. As for populating the planet with pure blood lines - that's just plain fascism and evil.

[WIP]

The last of these landfalling hurricanes directly affecting New York City was in 1821. Is that wrong?

Technically yes! There have been hurricanes in 1851 and 1903 hit the New York/New Jersey area http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2283

But, that one in 1903 called the Vagabond Hurricane was in September, not late October. A late season hurricane with this much power (total energy was greater than Katrina, but less concentrated) and traveling this far north, are both unprecedented. Usually, an October hurricane loses power fast as it moves north that late in the season (like last year's Irene) because the north Atlantic waters have already started cooling and wind shear caused by late summer turbulence breaks up the eyewall of the hurricane and prevents it from reforming. This was the major reason why Irene dropped so fast from a category 4 hurricane to a mere tropical storm by the time it reached the New England coast. Unfortunately, the waters were still warm enough to keep Tropical Storm Irene swirling for an extended period and dumping massive amounts of rain in Vermont and the nearby areas. I heard a lot of people in Vermont, who had bridges and roads washed out were really pissed about the way New York media acted when they called the storm a "near miss" and treated the damage in Vermont as a backstory.

But, Hurricane Sandy is clear systemic evidence of global warming whether the major news networks are willing to mention that fact or not! Just like last year, the Gulf Stream was 5 degrees warmer than normal - and allowed the storm to keep gaining energy much further north than any October hurricane or tropical storm would have been able to previously. Bad luck for New York and the Jersey Coast that wind shear was relatively low and allowed the eyewall of the hurricane to almost completely reform prior to landfall....and of course the other bad luck factor was arriving on the coast during a full moon high tide! But, the biggest change in recent years which is unprecedented is that normally the jet stream would be moving to lower latitude in late October, so any storms coming up the coast would be pushed out to sea.

But, as Jeff Master's article notes, this new phenomena of high pressure blocking fronts coming off the North Atlantic, prevented the storm from going out to sea, and forced it into a sharp left turn for the coast...a far more damaging phenomena compared to the usual direction that would be traveling up the coast prior to landfall. These blocking fronts correlate with the much warmer temperatures in the far north thanks to the record sea ice melt. So, this sort of superstorm - combined with an early winter storm that was also pushed in the path of Sandy, is new and unprecedented, and cannot occur without the rising ocean temperatures allowing it to come together. The takeaway for anyone living in New York or New Jersey, or New England, is that you are going to be at the same risk of hurricanes as Virginia, the Carolinas and Florida!

Don't think Sandy was a fluke, and look back centuries for evidence of a prior, similar storm. Sandy is a sign that New York should have long ago started building real flood barriers to protect the Subway and underground systems, and protect coastal areas from storm damage. It's been noted already that many areas along the Jersey Coast look much different after the storm from the aerial photos. It's likely that there have been permanent changes, and some areas of the coast should not be abandoned and not rebuilt....as their big fat governor wants to do. Some areas should be abandoned because they will eventually be permanently washed away.

FEMA is essentially a super-agency bossing around other agencies. For my money I'd rather have money spent on relief than on layers of leaders.

Well, let's say that Romney was already the President, or go ahead a few years in the future when President Romney fulfilled his campaign promise to abolish FEMA and turn all the funding over to the state governments. It's a nobrainer that some states are richer than others, and there will be obvious winners and losers from such a policy, as poor states like Louisiana and Mississippi, would never be able to afford to rebuild after a major storm, or more importantly - get relief to people stranded by the storm. I think Chris Christie is the poster boy for how self-centered conservatives change their tune about government when they find themselves in over their heads and need outside help. It's easy to by greedy and complain that a federal agency might redistribute some of your tax funds to other, poorer states until your state needs help from the Federal Government - i.e. the collective tax base of all Americans.

[WIP]

There is documented proof that many people believe the world is overpopulated, man is destroying the environment and is consuming non-renewable resources at an unsustainable level.

Many people have decided that they will be responsible individuals and not have children, mostly individuals in western nations, to reduce the population - I don't know if the goal is 500 million though. Many people wish to save the environment by stopping development and preserving nature - I don't know if their goal is to keep the environment for the rich or Aristocrats though. As for populating the planet with pure blood lines - that's just plain fascism and evil.

It's true that the world is overpopulated, no matter how you want to look at the numbers! Our present 7 billion population is already 3 times what the planet can permanently support, even by the most generous measurements (which assume a reversal of present increases in energy and resource exploitation) The U.N. released a report two years ago stating that the world population would level out and plateau around 9 or 10 billion around the middle of this century. But that report isn't even worth the paper it was written on because they could have cross-referenced their findings with environmental data provide by another U.N. agency - the FAO - which released a report showing that an increase in population to 10 billion would require doubling the present world food production totals, because of declining arable lands. They advise a policy of factory farming the oceans....which also would not be sustainable because it's the dying of ocean life which is likely the most serious environmental crisis we are facing today.

But, the problems of sustainability are more closely correlated to resource and energy use, than they are with population totals! That's why there is such a wide range of numbers for trying to determine maximum sustainable population. The gradual declines in birth rates afforded by declines in childhood mortality and improved access for women to birth control, seem to indicate that the population aspect of the sustainability problem would take care of itself over a century or two, if not for deliberate interference from religious reactionaries. The BIG problem is our way of life and the economic system we are enmeshed with, which demands constant increases in economic output. There is no way to increase GDP without increasing energy and resource consumption! The big question for the near future is whether the world will develop a new outlook, or maybe re-adopt the attitudes prior to the Enlightenment Age, and settle in to living in the new era of scarcity.....or whether greed will prevail, and their will be a suicidal fight for control of the resources that are left.

[PIK]

We have enough hydro dams to do the job. The greenest, cleanest, cheapest energy of all time. But oh no we have to spend billions on solar and wind, and now I understand niagra falls is producing nothing right now. And that is why I think enviros are complete idiots, have no clue what they are doing, but they will sleep better at nite. Fools.

[TimG]

We have enough hydro dams to do the job.

No we don't. And when someone suggests building new dams the enviros oppose the vehemently.

[wyly]

It's true that the world is overpopulated, no matter how you want to look at the numbers! Our present 7 billion population is already 3 times what the planet can permanently support, even by the most generous measurements (which assume a reversal of present increases in energy and resource exploitation) The U.N. released a report two years ago stating that the world population would level out and plateau around 9 or 10 billion around the middle of this century. But that report isn't even worth the paper it was written on because they could have cross-referenced their findings with environmental data provide by another U.N. agency - the FAO - which released a report showing that an increase in population to 10 billion would require doubling the present world food production totals, because of declining arable lands. They advise a policy of factory farming the oceans....which also would not be sustainable because it's the dying of ocean life which is likely the most serious environmental crisis we are facing today.

suddenly China's one child policy begins to look like a very astute move in long range planning...

[TimG]

But, as Jeff Master's article notes, this new phenomena of high pressure blocking fronts coming off the North Atlantic, prevented the storm from going out to sea, and forced it into a sharp left turn for the coast.

And, there has been a lot of other research on changes in the patterns and characteristics of the Northern Hemisphere jet stream during the period of anthropogenic global warming which did not find that same thing that Francis and Vavrus found (we detailed many of these findings in our March 8, 2012 Current Wisdom). At least one of those papers suggested that the methodology employed by Francis and Vavrus “can generate false, or mask actual, variability patterns including trends” (Strong and Davis, 2007). Others concluded that global warming contracted, the jet stream, flattened it over the eastern U.S., and sped it up a bit—characteristics, which, along with a decreased temperature gradient, if applied to Sandy, would have combined to produce a less intense post tropical storm system than if global warming had not been occurring.

[source]. That last bit is very important because it says exactly the opposite of what you claim: that global warming could have *reduced* the damage caused by Sandy. Edited November 5, 2012 by TimG

[TimG]

suddenly China's one child policy begins to look like a very astute move in long range planning...

Well, as long as you have no issue with forced abortions and sterilizations.

[wyly]

No we don't. And when someone suggests building new dams the enviros oppose the vehemently.

because the traditional damns come with their own problems...there need to be new designs that avoid environmental damage, salmon hate damns....

[wyly]

Well, as long as you have no issue with forced abortions and sterilizations.

well, as long as you have no issues with 10's of millions starving...

[Moonbox]

Too many people living in one place is a sure recipe for that. Imagine if everywhere in the world was as crowded as India/Pakistan.

[WIP]

[source]. That last bit is very important because it says exactly the opposite of what you claim: that global warming could have *reduced* the damage caused by Sandy.

Really! "Wattsup" is the source of truth again? But now they are talking like they acknowledge global warming, but want to claim it's a good thing. They're all over the map...just like creationists! Do they have any explanations for the negative effects on the jet stream over the past few winters attributed to the strengthening of the Polar Vortex and the North Atlantic Oscillation due to the increased melting of Arctic sea ice?

But, the biggest question they would have to explain if they could theorize their way to a claim that global warming reduced the superstorm's impact is why hasn't it happened before? There are so many records broken here: the diameter of the storm, the record low pressure, the record storm surges....but instead of these being effects that have been aggravated by climate change, we're asked to believe that it would have been worse without global warming!

[wyly]

Really! "Wattsup" is the source of truth again? But now they are talking like they acknowledge global warming, but want to claim it's a good thing. They're all over the map...just like creationists!

whoops!...good observation WIP...they've shifted the goalposts once again...1st it was there's no evidence for warming... then "it's been warm before this is natural"... now it's "it is anthropogenic but it's okay, it's a good thing and we'll adapt"...if they didn't move the goalposts they'd have no reason for the website($$$) as the number of denier faithful drop in numbers...they're struggling to maintain what little relevance they have left...

warmer seas= stronger storms...there will always be hurricanes they will vary in size and strength as usual but the probability of stronger or larger storm occurring will increase, it has to with a warmer ocean...

[GostHacked]

You need to learn about the distinction between weather and climate. This superstorm was only so bad because three separate storm systems converged. It was a fluke. Nothing more, nothing less.

We need to understand why they end up calling this a Frankenstorm. Looking at the radar maps after it hit Cuba the storm was practically dead. It was manipulated through various methods to churn back up ... this happened twice because the storm was almost dead, twice. I know weather modification and manipulation are something not generally known or shrugged off as crazy talk, but there seemed to be a lot of evidence pointing towards this storm being heavily manipulated if not outright controlled through artificial means.

[TimG]

Really! "Wattsup" is the source of truth again?

Why is it any different from the blog you linked to? The person writing the article is worked for government climate agencies just like yours.

But, the biggest question they would have to explain if they could theorize their way to a claim that global warming reduced the superstorm's impact is why hasn't it happened before?

The records show a steady or declining trend in storm strength across the globe. Of course you refuse to look at that data because it fails to conform to your 'end of the world' narrative.

http://policlimate.com/tropical/global_major_freq.png

http://policlimate.c...running_ace.png

Edited November 6, 2012 by TimG

[TimG]

warmer seas= stronger storms...there will always be hurricanes they will vary in size and strength as usual but the probability of stronger or larger storm occurring will increase, it has to with a warmer ocean.

Gawd you are like a broken record. Warmer temperatures also equals lesser pole-equator differential which means fewer storms. Warmer temperatures also mean storm forms further out to sea and never reach the US coast (i.e. a good thing!).

The Sandy storm surge was 13 feet - 10 inches of SLR is not going to make any difference.

When it comes to Sandy the scientists that study these things seem to be pretty united that AGW had nothing to do with it. You constantly scream about the 'scientific consensus' but here you are ignoring it because you don't like the conclusions.

Edited November 6, 2012 by TimG

[Sleipnir]

We need to understand why they end up calling this a Frankenstorm.

"Forecasters were calling the hurricane headed for New York, New Jersey, and as far inland as Ohio, “Frankenstorm” because (like the monster in Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus) this storm is stitched together from three different weather systems, Hurricane Sandy from the Caribbean, a western early winter storm, and a cold influx of Arctic wind from the north."

[TimG]

whoops!...good observation WIP...they've shifted the goalposts once again.

Neither you nor WIP are in any position to comment on whether Watt's position has changed since you both admit you don't read what he has to say. Second or third hand gossip on warmist sites does not constitute evidence of 'goal post moving'. All it is evidence that warmists like to make stuff up when they talk to each other, Edited November 6, 2012 by TimG

[wyly]

Gawd you are like a broken record. Warmer temperatures also equals lesser pole-equator differential which means fewer storms. Warmer temperatures also mean storm forms further out to sea and never reach the US coast (i.e. a good thing!).

The Sandy storm surge was 13 feet - 10 inches of SLR is not going to make any difference.

When it comes to Sandy the scientists that study these things seem to be pretty united that AGW had nothing to do with it. You constantly scream about the 'scientific consensus' but here you are ignoring it because you don't like the conclusions.

warm seas =hurricanes...warmer seas=stronger hurricanes...consistently warmer seas=higher probability of stronger hurricanes....that's not consensus that's fact tim...the laws of physics cannot and will not be denied...

[TimG]

warm seas =hurricanes...warmer seas=stronger hurricanes...consistently warmer seas=higher probability of stronger hurricanes....that's not consensus that's fact tim...the laws of physics cannot and will not be denied.

You don't listen do you? Hurricanes could be slightly stronger but they will occur less often and strike the US fewer times. On balance AGW is a *good* thing when it comes to Atlantic hurricanes. You are so addicted to you doomsday narrative that you can't see the forest for the trees.

[wyly]

You don't listen do you? Hurricanes could be slightly stronger but they will occur less often and strike the US fewer times. On balance AGW is a *good* thing when it comes to Atlantic hurricanes. You are so addicted to you doomsday narrative that you can't see the forest for the trees.

WHOOPSIE! Tim gets caught moving the goalposts again....

so what's your story now tim? ten pages or so back you link to a site claiming storms are increasing naturally over the last 600 years(and that was after claiming there were no trends )... NOW and you claim Hurricanes will occur less often!...Where's your trend Tim? ....

Timg Posted 30 October 2012 - 12:48 PM

Of course it always helps to look at what scientists actually said:

http://dotearth.blog...limate-context/

During the past ~600 years, New England storminess appears to have been increasing naturally. This rhythm in storm frequency may explain some of the recently observed increases in extreme precipitation events. If the pattern of millennial-scale variability that we documented through the Holocene persists into the future, New England storminess would continue to increase for the next ~900 years. Because climate synopses compiled from instrumental records cannot distinguish underlying natural increases in storminess from anthropogenic effects, detected increases in contemporary storminess may not be a reliable indicator of human-induced climate change.

Edited November 7, 2012 by wyly

[TimG]

so back you link to a site claiming storms are increasing naturally over the last 600 years(and that was after claiming there were no trends

Well - the "storminess" in New England has traditionally come from nor-easters out of the north Atlantic. Sandy was amplified because it combined with one of those storms. The issue I was dealing with in later posts was the science of tropical cyclones. When it comes to those storms the science is clear that AGW may increase the intensity but it will also reduce the number.