Team climate moron tells us that the US is now vulnerable to hurricanes, due to climate change.
The US has always been vulnerable to hurricanes. Eighty-six percent of US hurricane strikes occurred with CO2 below Hansen’s safe level of 350 PPM.
www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/ushurrlist18512009.txt
Hurricane strikes are declining in the US.
First time I watched O’Rielly in ages, and who do I see on the show? Joe B. giving them hell about hurricane!
FYI is this what you are referencing?
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/11/01/meteorologist-joe-bastardi-blasts-al-gores-claims-that-global-warming-caused-hurricane-sandy/
Team climate moron, enough said!
So this is a way of showing how much CO2 rise has accelerated? A point well made ,Steve.
I can’t help it if you are an idiot.
Forgive my ignorance. What proportion of the time since 1850 was CO2 above/below 350ppm?
David,
You can see the CO2 levels here:
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/research/atmospheric_co2.html
You will see that CO2 got to 350 in about 1990. I’ll let you do the rest of the math.
Yes, you do the math – dumbass
So showing me that 14% / 86% of hurricanes says nothing unless you kow the proportion of years in each sample – hence the question to find out that it as 14%/86%. What were people supposed to make of that number without the proportion of years in each?
Wheras the graph I get sent for being a “dumbass” actually makes a point about a declining trend fairly well. Go figure.
Charming site you have here – toodle pip
The point of the post is that there were plenty of hurricanes below 350 PPM, and that recent claims hurricanes are caused by CO2 are simply idiotic.
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Real Science
Claims that hurricanes are caused by CO2 are simply absent.
David,
Charming indeed, that’s if you like a right wing circle jerk site that has nothing to do with science, real or otherwise, cherry picks data, thinks raw data has meaning, creates strawman arguments to shoot down, supports and gives a platform to commenters that are misogynistic, racist, homophobic, islamophobic, xenophobic, anti-science, you name it…..
In other words, hurricanes have decreased as CO2 has increased, so the only thing you have to say is stupid ad homs.
Where has it been published in the climate science literature that the number of hurricanes striking the US mainland is function of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Where has it been published in the climate science literature that the number of hurricanes (or big storms, or big weather events, or droughts, etc) was zero before the industrial revolution and only appeared after the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere began to increase? Nonetheless, your newspaper clippings are indeed interesting to read.
Where has it been published in the climate science literature that there were no strong (cat 4 or 5) hurricanes before the industrial revolution and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere began to increase?
Where in the climate science literature, or science literature in general, does any scientist just take raw data and say that it has any meaning. With that lack of understanding of data and data analysis, you could not make it through my introductory physics class.
Where in the climate science literature has it been said that the raw temperature data for temps in Illinois is proxy for the entire earth? Or is that your contribution to the science?
Using raw data puts you in the same class as that warmonger-in-chief Dickus Cheney, who went to Langley and used raw intel data to blow smoke up the US population’s ass about WMD in Iraq, and lead the US into an illegal and unnecessary war.
Just like you are blowing smoke up people’s ass here on climate science. And since you don’t have any real science to present, you are reduced to ad homs against Jim Hansen, Michael Mann, and climate scientists in general.
The great thing about CO2 and climate science is that it can produce more or less hurricanes, depending on the latest news cycle and funding opportunities.
You’re right, physicist; those things don’t appear in the climate science literature, which is precisely the point. This post is about refuting the hysterics presented as science in news stories quoting zealots with climate credentials.
I can tell that you are one of those, when your doctor ‘hysterically’ tells you that you have heart disease or cancer that you will forego proper medical treatment by those ‘medical zealots with medical credentials’ who have learned their medicine from the ‘medical science literature,’ and instead you will listen to some medical quackery at some internet website that tells you ‘not to worry,’ it is all in your head. Take two aspirin and come back and see me in a year.
Well, this website is climate quackery.
And if you believe what your read here, I’ve got some property on Staten Island and the Jersey shore that you might be interested in.
The point of this website and others like it are to counter the drivel of imbeciles such as yourself.
Yes, I made up the thousands and thousands of historical events posted here, like in 1821 when Manhattan got split into two islands by a storm surge.
For ‘Physicist’ the historical record doesn’t matter. What the data sets show doesn’t matter. He makes up crap on the fly and proudly declares hundreds, thousands, millions of climate scientists agree with whatever he just thought up.
That is what smoking the whacky weed will do.
1. Claims are flying that hurricanes are increasing due to CO2 2. I show that they are not increasing 3. He responds by saying that no one said they would increase
What a genius
Kevin Trenbeth and James Hansen have gone on the record declaring hurricanes will get worse and it’s due to CO2. These are the climate scientists New Scientist and Bloomberg cite as per your recent posts. So even an attempt to throw in a red herring fails. ‘Physicist’ is the classic ‘dumb-smart’ activist. He thinks he is smarter than your average activist (who simply defers to his or her preferred authority), so he attempts to debate instead. But when he ‘debates’ he can’t get a single fact straight and looks even dumber after the attempt.
If the doctor has a history of falsely diagnosing heart disease or cancer, I might check the internet for information, but certainly would get a second opinion from other doctors. That is what this site and others provide with real data and links to climate scientists who provide more thorough analysis based on all information. Hansen and Trenbeth have established a record of false projections and sputtering, unscientific rage at data which failed to confirm their doomsday models, threatens their grant funds and adulation in the gullible media.
“2. I show that they are not increasing”
No, for anyone familiar with the data you are (presumably) using for CO2 levels, all your chart is showing is the inverse derivative of CO2 increase. But you’re using an incomplete data set for your first data point.
You seem to think it significant that there were more US mainland hurricane strikes over the 40 year period between 1875 and 1915 than there were in the, for example, 5 years between 1995 and 2000.
Nice try
your plot is bull shit.
Now make a 11 year moving average plot of the Saffir-Simpson Category strength from the same data set. Keep your trend-line.
Do the same with the Central Barometric pressure.
Data can be manipulated to show you what ever you want people to see.
You want the data to show a drop in hurricane strikes. Others might want to show an increase in strength, as defined by category or barometric pressure. Someone with even more of an agenda might only plot, to use nice round numbers, say the last 30 years of your plot above. Now THAT’S a correlation with atmospheric CO2
I think cherry picking is irresponsible.
What are you talking about? Hopefully you aren’t as stupid as you pretend to be.
Yes, NOAA is lying to you about hurricane landfalls, to mess with your mind.
Modern technology guarantees that measured peak wind speeds and minimum pressures are more extreme than they used to be. You may be surprised to learn that no airplanes were flown into the eye of the Galveston hurricane in 1900, and no satellite observations were made.
Hopefully you aren’t as dense as you pretend to be.
To answer the question about what the Hurricane Strikes/Atmospheric CO2 chart means, it tells you that since 1850 there have been more US hurricane strikes per year on average in years when CO2 was below 350 than there were in years when it was above 350. CO2 hit 350 PPM in 1988. That’s 85.18% of years recorded in the graph, and 86% of hurricanes.
Granted, I’m very well-read on a variety of subjects, but I run a lawn mowing company, and some of you are supposedly scientists? You all blindly spout off about something that’s very easy to check, and it’s intuitively obvious that strikes were about the same on average per year before and after 350 PPM; crunching the numbers isn’t even really necessary to get the point.