text:
4,300 Days Since Last U.S. Major Hurricane Strike
July 31st, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Wednesday of this week will mark 4,300 days since the last major hurricane (Category 3 or stronger, 111-129 mph maximum sustained winds) made landfall in the U.S.
That's almost 12 years.
The last major hurricane to make landfall in the U.S. was Wilma striking Florida on October 24, 2005, one of several strong hurricanes to hit the U.S. that year. The unusual hurricane activity in 2005 was a central focus of Al Gore's 2006 movie, An Inconvenient Truth, in which Mr. Gore suggested 2005 was going to be the new normal. As you might recall, Gore went on to receive a Nobel Peace Prize for helping to raise awareness of the severe weather dangers from global warming.
Instead, the bottom dropped out of Atlantic hurricane activity after 2005. The "drought" of landfalling U.S. major hurricanes continues, and as seen in this graphic from WeatherStreet.com, no hurricanes have yet formed anywhere in the Atlantic basin in 2017, despite the forecast for an above-normal hurricane season:
Cumulative number of Atlantic hurricanes by date during the hurricane seasons of 2017, 2016, and the record-active year of 2005.
194 Responses to "4,300 Days Since Last U.S. Major Hurricane Strike"
Dr. Spencer et al,
As has been stated numerous times; the agenda of the climate change alarmists has never been about climate it is about money and political control. Al Gore is a perfect example.
Even better is an article in today's (31 July) Wall St Journal
where David Henderson and John Cochrane quote from the IPCC: "include:"reduced gender inequality & marginalization in other forms," "provisioning of adequate housing,""cash transfers" and "awareness raising & integrating into education."
As we are all aware, these issues are directly related to climate change and, if instituted, as the IPCC recommends, will alleviate any concerns from that direction.
This is my prediction for what we'll hear on the news when the next Cat3+ hurricane finds it's way to the shores of the USA …
What should be heard: "This is first time a major hurricane has made landfall in the United States in well over a decade, in strike contrast to those predictions made by climate scientists …."
What will be heard: "As has been predicted, major storms have become a constant issue in the warming climate of the modern world …."
***sigh***
Al Gore was wrong because meteorologists were wrong. They oversimplified. It was assumed warmer ocean/atmosphere would equal stronger and more frequent hurricanes.
Two key ingredients were overlooked: necessary wind conditions (low wind shear) and humidity (air needs to be very moist, not just warm). These have mostly been absent last 12 years.
Bottom line, all four conditions need to be present in order for strong hurricanes to develop, not just two.
BTW, I think it's a mistake to blame individual storms, like Sandy and Katrina, on climate change. This has always bugged me. The long term trend should be the focus.
An Inquirer says:
Snape, you do establish a great amount of credibility when you make such a statement as your 8:25 statement.
Of course, even if one establishes a long term trend, one still has a long ways to go to establish the cause. For example, one can establish a long term trend in retreating glaciers; however, given the fact the trend has been going on for 200 years — with greater retreat earlier in that time period — the cause is probably not AGW!
Vonnoosh says:
Sandy had nothing to do with 'Climate Change' the storm was a freak occurrence. Typically tropical storms don't storm up the eastern seaboard near November when the Noreasters start slamming the northeast but that one time it did. The result was Sandy combined with a noreaster and the two pushed each other to shore, at high tide (8 pm on the 29th. I should know because I was in the middle of it) and during a full moon no less. If that's not a freak of a perfect storm situation I don't know what is and NOTHING about it had to do with "climate change". Climates change all the time, if mankind were affecting it after nuclear bomb testing and oil spills, we should already be either a frozen to death like they claimed we would be by now in the 70's or roasted alive like they've been claiming is 10 years from today ever day for the last 25 years.
Global warming contributes to all hurricanes — higher SSTs, higher ocean heat content, higher atmospheric water vapor capacity, more rainfall.
g*e*r*a*n says:
Davie, you've confused natural "warming" with AGW, again.
Chris Morris says:
If as David says. global warming contributes to all hurricanes, the fact that there has been below average huricanes in both number and total energy indicates that there is global cooling. Which is it David?
David will answer when he gets his instructions on what to say.
Lewis, you always opt out of giving a meaningful response. Always.
What data supports your claim? None that I know of.
http://policlimate.com/tropical/north_atlantic_hurricane.png
I used the NOAA site for landfalling hurricanes
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E23.html
As you well know, they specifically use them because the records are a lot better so historical comparisons can be done.
With regards ACE https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/accumulated_cyclone_energy.asp?basin=gl
I noticed your post is 5 year old data. The more recent stuff doesn't support your optic.
sunsettommy says:
No David, Hurricane frequency is DOWN from 2005. Did you even read what Dr. Spencer wrote?
1944-2005 average show that by now there should be 2 already, but it is ZERO instead.
Your persistence in avoiding reality is already legendary,why continue to persist in it?
I forgot about another requirement: instability! Lots of stuff have to come together to get a big storm.
Another thing you forgot, was that tropical temperatures have not changed much. And global warming is about increasing average temperature outside the tropics.
And increasing temperature outside the tropics "might" allow hurricanes to develop outside of the tropics, but it should reduce hurricane developing within the tropics.
But I agree that "meteorologists were wrong". Or we don't know enough about the weather [or climate] to have much confidence
about predicting severe weather.
But as general matter it seems severe weather is more associated with colder periods [like Little Ice Age] and this also applies to severe and prolonged droughts.
And we still recovering from LIA.
gbaikie
How much do you know about the frequency or strength of hurricanes during the little ice age?
Can't say a lot, but it's knowable. One could study history of Cuba: Ie. wiki:
"The island of Cuba was inhabited by various Mesoamerican cultures prior to the arrival of the Italian explorer Christopher Columbus in 1492. After Columbus' arrival, Cuba became a Spanish colony, ruled by a Spanish governor in Havana. In 1762, Havana was briefly occupied by Great Britain,
good guess:
"Also in mid-century, Cuban scientist Andrs Poey, collaborating with Redfield, published the most comprehensive synthesis of the knowledge to date: a list of all of previously documented hurricanes. In addition, he supplemented this list with an exhaustive bibliography of 450 secondary sources."
http://latinamericanhistory.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acreore/9780199366439.001.0001/acrefore-9780199366439-e-57
Of course this would lack accuracy.
Of course there also could studies of physical evidence, of effect upon land
There also things like just large wind storms- that do things like sink naval fleets.
Or according to the above link no knew what a hurricane actually was:
"While evidence suggests that, by the early 19th century, the scientific community as a whole was moving towards an understanding of hurricane structure and movement, credit is universally given to William C. Redfield, who, in 1821, established the circular nature of storms and their counterclockwise rotation"
But as to what I know, it seems to me that there was some paper about physical effect of hurricanes. Though I don't know how to verify this- too many years ago.
Link doesn't work, try this:
http://tinyurl.com/y739x9jg
Also I said severe weather rather than
"…frequency or strength of hurricanes during the little ice age"
But I do think there was more hurricane during LIA or more severe hurricane.
"Another thing you forgot, was that tropical temperatures have not changed much."
According to UAH LT v6.0 data, both the globe LT and the tropical LT have warmed by +0.12 C/decade.
David states,
Which is waaay below the IPCC projected rate.
Thank you for beating down a failed IPCC prediction/projection.
zeos386sx says:
Is it possible that the Atlantic and Gulf are like a capacitor and they expended all their energy in 04-05; and now they are recharging?
Snape,
Frequency is not anticipated to increase: IPCC
AR4 2007
"Results from embedded high-resolution models and global models, ranging in grid spacing from 100 km to 9 km, project a likely increase of peak wind intensities and notably, where analysed, increased near-storm precipitation in future tropical cyclones. Most recent published modelling studies investigating tropical storm frequency simulate a decrease in the overall number of storms, though there is less confidence in these projections and in the projected decrease of relatively weak storms in most basins, with an increase in the numbers of the most intense tropical cyclones.
'On hurricanes, climate models predict it is more likely than not meaning that there is over a 50 per cent chance that the number of the most intense storms will increase in certain parts of the world. Globally, however, the IPCC says its likely the number of tropical cyclones will "either decrease or remain essentially unchanged" '.
(By the end of the 21st century)
https://www.carbonbrief.org/what-the-ipcc-report-says-about-extreme-weather-events
Spot on with that!!!
My reply was posted to the wrong comment ! I was agreeing with Jake !!!!
RW says:
Roy, don't jinx us!
G8GT says:
HAARP…..It's real. Even a congressional hearing it was mentioned it can alter weather patterns.
Comeon says:
For those that lived through Matthew, you don't need a direct hit to see a lot of damage. But, we'd still consider that a "strike."
Are you talking about Haiti or the USA? There were about 350 million in the USA who survived Matthew. If you net out the lives saved by people not driving during Matthew, the USA probably had negative lives lost due to Matthew.
Just think of the lives saved if we had major hurricanes every day of the year!
Assumed is the key word here. ALL global warming BS is assumed. So thank you for admitting what we already knew.
Hurricane Sandy – 2012, you must have limited capacity to actually think it's been 12 years….doctor
Sandy was a Cat 2 when it made landfall in the US.
yes.. and-it had already caved to a thinned-out tropical storm by the time it hit Madhattan
Sandy was not a CAT 2, another flat our lie from you clowns..
https://www.livescience.com/24380-hurricane-sandy-status-data.html
Ummm…I guess all the data is wrong then, and you are right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Sandy
Again – both sites agree – it was a very large Cat 1 hurricane when it hit the US…at its peak it was Cat 3 when it hit Cuba.
According to the national weather service, it was a post-tropical cyclone (aka tropical storm, not a hurricane) when it made landfall in the US.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL182012_Sandy.pdf
There were NO sustained hurricane winds on the mainland.
It was NOT a Hurricane when it made landfall.
Your own link never showed any 74 + MPH evidence on the mainland.
Meanwhile from the NOAA's National Hurricane Center,made this report where they stated it was NOT a Hurricane when it made landfall:
Tropical Cyclone Report
(AL182012)
22 29 October 2012
Eric S. Blake, Todd B. Kimberlain, Robert J.
Berg, John P. Cangialosi and John L. Beven II
"Sandy weakened somewhat and then made
landfall as a post-tropical cyclone near Briganti
ne, New Jersey with 70-kt maximum sustained
winds."
Mike you are a fact denier. Look it up.
Sandy wasn't even a CAT 2 when it made landfall. It was extra-tropical and being absorbed by a cold front.
*765 says:
Sandy was class 2 when it hit NY
Lie, Sandy was a strong noreaster and didn't get close to a CAT 2.
My goodness! There are people who still think Sandy was a Hurricane Class 2 at landfall! I would not mind that so many people are so mistaken . . . if not for the fact that they can vote.
Gregg says:
Sandy was Cat 1 (as per google).
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
Ha! I knew Sandy would come up…it does every year…just figured I'd let it happen again.
I just called Sandy a storm…hoping to avoid the argument above. Guess it was inevitable.
brian lesch says:
Dear Dr, Splitting hairs on windspead to make your point…and then to say Ha! like some kind of gotcha moment will do little to comfort the families of the dead, nor will it somehow undo the billions in damage caused by on again off again hurricane, post tropical cyclone,biggest storm to hit the east coast in years, Sandy. You seem so proud to say Ha!. Is that what your PhD was in meteorology was all about, a way for you to diminish those that are not so accurate about the word and categorization of "hurricane". Sandy was a huge storm, that went back and forth between hurricane status, caused damage from Florida to Maine, and was truly a disasterous weather system. You have only Ha! to say, as if to make us non PhD recipients feel somehow foolish. Look in the mirror Dr., that person you see, is the foolish one
Darrin Ballard says:
Mr Lesch,
Respectfully, definitions matter. Especially when trying to define trends and make policy. I don't believe that Dr. Spencer is trying to understate the level of damage, especially when it is obvious to anyone with eyes. What he seems to be doing is stating fact and trying to put a stop to the hysteria about how bad things are.
Any major storm hitting a high population at the right time (tides/time of year, etc) can cause tons of damage, just as a major category 5 hurricane can hit an unpopulated area and do very little.
However; when the government wants to start collecting huge amounts of money to fight a battle that may not even exist, we need people like Dr. Spencer pointing out the pure facts, and lending credible perspective to the argument.
I am sure he needs no defending, but I think that your post was unfair and missed his point.
Storms like Sandy (hurricane transitioning to a strong extratropical low) occur every year, especially in the NW Pacific. But they seldom hit a major population center. So, Sandy's importance gets greatly magnified because of the number of people who happened to be impacted.
John F. Hultquist says:
Further, the residential areas flooded by Sandy are notable for the houses being raised, with the living quarters requiring stairs to enter.
The entire area would be better as a natural wildlife reserve.
I live at 2,200 feet elevation, so flooding is not an issue.
However, if Mt. Rainier becomes active I likely won't be so complacent.
Note that tropical depression Emily is currently over central Florida.
Mr Ballard,
Any time an expert goes to the trouble Dr. Spencer went to in order to set up his "gotcha" moment, his motive deserves to be questioned. Since the good Dr. does not beleive in global warming maybe he can suggest that the new megafactory being built in Paul Ryan's back yard(how coincidental that is) use coal to provide the energy to run it. I am sure tht would be a much cheaper option. And, skip the tower scrubbers, that will save them money too. Afterall, what possible damage could come from that toxic brew coming from the pipes.
Sandy only killed 286 people and had damages of $65 B. But as long as it was below your (arbitrary) cut off of Category 3, all is well.
Just one more metric that Davie rejects because it doesn't fit his pseudoscience.
David will be making up hurricanes to fit his pseudosciencey religion.
I didn't think you'd be able to address the point I made. Bitterness is really blinding you to rational thinking.
Just to be clear, what was the exact MPH of the winds as Sandy hit land so we can appreciate the definitive difference. I may be emotionally attached to the damage done. The history of populations living close to the coast is not a new phenomena, and the subway tunnels of NYC may not have been built to avoid a storm like Sandy. How many times has the flooding of the tunnels occurred due to storm surge reached the level of Sandy? How many times has it occured at all? Again my naivete, and yes, my ignorance of the definitive distinction of these storms is an emotional rather than a debatable point. I accept the actual numbers as they relate to categorization of these storms. So, how many MPH was Sandy short of hurricane satus, I would like to be educated. I do appreciate any specifics anyone can provide.
The 1938 Hurricane that struck near the same area,killed far more people.
The Great New England Hurricane of 1938
Killed at least 700 people.
"On September 21, 1938, one of the most destructive and powerful hurricanes in recorded history struck Long Island and Southern New England. The storm developed near the Cape Verde Islands on September 9, tracking across the Atlantic and up the Eastern Seaboard. The storm hit Long Island and Southern Connecticut on September 21, moving at a forward speed of 47 mph! Sustained hurricane force winds were felt across central and eastern Long Island and southeastern Connecticut. The hurricane produced a destructive storm surge flooding coastal communities as well as producing three to seven inches of rainfall.
This website provides historical information, meteorology, damage photos, video, and news clippings of this powerful hurricane. A focus will be on the locations within the National Weather Service New York, NY forecast area.
Click Panel for Larger Image"
https://www.weather.gov/okx/1938HurricaneHome
Then we have a bunch of powerful Hurricanes strike the mid Atlantic seaboard in 1954,it have never been matched since then.
From Steve Goddard, are THREE more Category 3+ Hurricanes,two hitting the New England area:
1954 : New England Hit By Two Major Hurricanes In Two Weeks
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/1954-new-england-hit-by-two-major-hurricanes-in-two-weeks/
How come they have become very rare that far up north there these days, David?
David, seems to be overrating Tropical Storm Sandy.
The following LAND FALLING Hurricanes killed far more people than Sandy,
Hurricane Audrey, 1957: 416 deaths
Atlantic-Gulf, 1919: 600 to 900 deaths
Hurricane Katrina, 2005: 1,200 deaths
San Felipe Okeechobee, 1928: 2,500 deaths
Galveston, 1900: 8,000 to 12,000 deaths
"The deadliest hurricane in US history happened at the turn of the 20th century. The Category 4 or 5 hurricane with winds anywhere from 130-156 mph made landfall in Galveston, Texas (pictured), then headed north through the Great Plains. Anywhere from 8,000 to 12,000 people died in the storm."
http://www.businessinsider.com/deadliest-hurricanes-storm-in-american-history-2016-9/#san-felipe-okeechobee-1928-2500-deaths-14
And dear Dr., why did you specify category three? I have to assume that was to exclude Sandy. To me, that is a distinction without a difference. Meteorlogically speaking, is the MPH the only standard used to evaluate the true power of a storm? Or was the convenience of hiding behind the specific MPH a way for you to make your point? I am sure you are sincere in your thinking, the problem is almost all evaluators, as a percentage(since you are specifically tied to numbers to define your position), find you in a very small minority. Since you are number specific, why is the miniscule percentage of learned scientific agreement of your position just as definable as the definitive scaling of hurricanes?
wert says:
You lost. Get a life.
Sharon Aine says:
I have never believed in man-made global warming. I just wanted to thank you for the evidence you have and the research you have done to repute the global warming scare mongers!
I was in Deerfield Beach Florida at my grandmothers condo on the water on the eighth floor Of 500 South Ocean Way during hurricane Wilma. First the wind came from the east. And then it blew even harder from the west on the backlash. Paint was sandblasted on all beach facing metal up to a height of about 6 feet . The entire building I was swaying in the wind The water was blown out of the pool that was on the property I was staying. Small rocks used as roofing material turned into projectiles breaking every piece of glass within 500 yards of our building there was a brand new Cadillac XLR that had every single piece of glass including the side and rear view mirror smashed in addition to hundreds of small dents….. it was a total blackout for 12 days you could see the stars like you were in the middle of the Caribbean ocean the Milky Way was vividly clear in the absence of any artificial light anywhere in Florida…. definitely the craziest thing I've ever experienced and hope I ever do this is just a tiny portion of the storm events…..I can't believe that was 4300 days ago I was glad I was there to help my grandmother through it God rest her soul
Interesting details, Mike. Thanks for sharing.
My grandmother's biggest negative from the whole experience was that her Omaha steaks ,which had arrived the day before the storm , were lost due to the power outage. I was able to make her tea by using candles ,bricks, and a small metal pot to soften the tragic loss . Unfortunately we had no milk but at this point she was willing to sacrifice A story she repeated endlessly right up until the day she died .
Christine Noel says:
Your article is INCORRECT – HURRRICANE IKE was a CAT 4 and it hit Galveston and Houston in 2008~! Nobody caught this but me????
Nope, Ike was Cat2 at landfall. It (and Sandy) gets mentioned every year when I (or someone else) does a post about this.
Ok, thanks for the clarification, now I know!!
SBH says:
It had weakened to a Cat 2 when it made landfall. His article is correct.
Limiting consideration of the category is an arbitrary decision. More important are the impacts — to lives, to pocketbooks, to the economy, to ecology. With more people living along the coastlines and more infrastructure there, lower category hurricanes now have more impact than higher category storms long ago.
And there have been some terrible, record-setting hurricanes in the western Pacific in recent years. But they're not Americans, so their deaths and suffering clearly don't count.
Davie admits storms are not the cause of deaths. It is that more people are in the paths of storms that is causing deaths.
The cause of death and monetary losses are directly attributable to mankind's affinity to the water front. He is also inclined to build in inland floodplains or, in the west, on mountain slopes which become mud slides.
Then, when the inevitable happens, it's someone else's fault – in the instant case = AGW strikes and kills.
Bah. Let the alarmists sacrifice a few more virgins on the altar – all will be well. But notice, they don't change their lifestyle, they only require others to.
"But notice, they dont change their lifestyle, they only require others to."
Wow are you full of bitterness.
I'd have a hard time believing that doesn't permeate your whole existence. That's unfortunate.
*Screech* is the sound of goal post moving around.
asdasdasads says:
Surely the article is wrong. We were repeatedly told as the globe warms, we will get more severe and more numerous hurricanes.
yeah, I know, right? The global and hemispheric Accumulated Cycle Energy (ACE) data shows a lot of variability, but no long-term trends: http://models.weatherbell.com/tropical.php
ACE is a useless metric, since it doesn't include the size of storms. It doesn't even have units of energy.
BTW: North Atlantic ACE shows an increase of +17% per decade since 1970.
Global ACE at +2.4% per decade. But it's not statistically significant.
ACE Source:
http://models.weatherbell.com/global_ace_monthly.dat
A baseball traveling at 100 mph and a large hurricane doing the same have the same ACE.
That "useless metric" is well accepted by the NOAA,Weatherball,Weatherunderground and more:
Here is an August 1 report from the National Hurricane Center (NOAA)
"Monthly Tropical Weather Summary
800 AM EDT Tue Aug 01 2017
For the North Atlantic…Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico:
Two named storms and one unnamed tropical depression formed in the Atlantic basin in July. Based on a 30-year climatology (1981-2010),one named storm typically forms in the basin in July, with a
hurricane forming once every other year.
In terms of the Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE), which measures the combined strength and duration of tropical storms and hurricanes,activity in the Atlantic basin so far in 2017 has been below normal since all of the tropical cyclones have been relatively weak and short lived.
Reports on individual cyclones, when completed, are available at the National Hurricane Center website at
http://www.hurricanes.gov/data/tcr/index.php?season=2017&basin=atl "
Once again David, you are incorrect..
Jeff Masters website Weather Underground states this about ACE,
"What is Accumulated Cyclone Energy?
Accumulated cyclone energy, or "ACE," is used to express the activity and destructive potential of individual tropical cyclones and entire tropical cyclone seasons. ACE is calculated as the square of the wind speed every 6 hours, and is then scaled by a factor of 10,000 for usability. The ACE of a season is the sum of the ACE for each storm and takes into account the number, strength, and duration of all the tropical storms in the season. The caveat to using ACE as a measure of the activity of a season is that it does not take the size of the hurricane or tropical storm into account. The damage potential of a hurricane is proportional to the square or cube of the maximum wind speed, and thus ACE is not only a measure of tropical cyclone activity, but a measure of the damage potential of an individual cyclone or a season."
https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/accumulated_cyclone_energy.asp
It is an accepted metric, David.
Article is about hurricanes making landfall in the US since 2005. It's not about total hurricanes or even Atlantic hurricanes over time.
But perhaps you've been repeatedly that more Atlantic hurricanes would make landfall in the US. I've looked for such advice but couldn't find any that specific. Can you help me out?
No. Sandy was a post-tropical cyclone when it made landfall in the U.S.
It's interesting that most people have led to believe otherwise.
Soon they will be saying "we have not had a hurricane in 12+ years. This is an obvious sign that climate change is real" no matter what happens it all points to climate change. Now where do I get my check.
So we're basing all the hurricanes hitting the US ?
Sandy was different levels until it made landfall in the US. Or do we want to base it on the damage it did ? 75 billion dollars, 650,000 homes destroyed, 300,000 business properties, and 233 killed?
It's a unforeseen event is a better way of looking at it, and not a race for Categories.
Basing analysis on damage does not provide much useful information on trends. Damage depends upon economic development through the years and where the hurricane hits. Looking at categories of hits provides a more useful indication of trends.
RobRoy says:
Reply to Gavin.
Check your "facts" dude!
"At least 650,000 housing units, 300,000
business properties, and 250,500 insured vehicles
were damaged or destroyed by Sandy, most of which
occurred as a result of storm surge and/or large wave heights."
http://thoughtleadership.aonbenfield.com/Documents/20130514_if_hurricane_sandy_event_recap.pdf
"Damaged or destroyed" is a far different description than "destroyed"
"At least 159 people were killed in the U.S.of which 72 were directly attributable to Sandy."
233 is not 72
the reason it matters is that if we start basing our measure of severe weather on how many people are hurt/killed and how much property is destroyed, those numbers WILL go up over time even if the weather NEVER changes, because population and infrastructure increase over time, especially in desirable coastal regions.
"…because population and infrastructure increase over time, especially in desirable coastal regions."
I think we should "develop" living on the continental shelves.
Roughly in terms of technology, the structures should designed to last centuries- and that aspect would be related to "develop".
Other aspects of develop would be matters related to transportational systems. And cheapest or quickest part of doing it, might be making laws which allow it.
Related to this and something which one could call high tech are Hyperloops, wiki:
"A hyperloop is a proposed mode of passenger and/or freight transportation, first named as such in an open-source vactrain design released by a joint team from Tesla and SpaceX. Drawing heavily from Robert Goddard's vactrain, a hyperloop comprises a sealed tube or series of tubes through which a pod may travel free of air resistance or friction conveying people or objects at optimal speed and acceleration. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop
Mostly hyperloops thought to involve making underground tunnels, and I mean underwater tunnels. Though I guess one could put them underwater and under the ocean floor. But it seems that merely underwater [tens of meters] should be the cheapest.
Gavin,
I lived through Sandy in CT. We were lucky, only lost power for 8 days, and never ran out of gas. 5 trees fell on my property including one that missed my home by inches and another blocked my driveway. I have friends / family in the harder hit areas of NY, NJ, and Long Island that were in much worse shape. I can certainly understand your emotional response to that event. Certainly I have strong emotions about it.
None of that matters in the context of this discussion. The US has a wonderful long record of hurricanes which is a useful metric of such events. We also have a long record of growing population and more people moving towards the coasts. In 1900 the US population was mostly rural. Today it's mostly urban and most of that population is near the coastal cities. The same hurricane that hit central Florida in 1900 would have mostly hit empty swamps or nearly empty (of people) farm land. Today, it would hit amusement parks and lots of people's homes. The population of the US alone has roughly tripled in that time. My point being that there are more of us living along the coast where we are more exposed.
A smarter solution would be to encourage private and public property owners to harden their homes to the likely hurricane threat. We can build both that can survive, and for those who can not afford to do so, they should not live in those areas.
Recently I had a conversation with a friend who complained about sea level rise, I know, a whole can of worms, but then he bought a home that is 1 foot above sea level, within 1 mile of the Long Island Sound, and was under a foot or two of water when Sandy came through. He bought the house 2 years AFTER Sandy. My home, only a few miles away, is over 150 ft above sea level(ASL), and more importantly the storm surge. Both are nice homes, in "good/expensive" towns, but I bought mine with the threat of storm surge in mind.
My next point is that your points about the human impact could easily be mitigated by good sense and engineering. Regardless of what the weather and climate is doing, storm surge will impact coastal areas, and strong storms will flood the coastal land potentially for miles if the topography allows. The other effects of storms are similar in their impact and mitigation. My experience growing up in land, at about 600 ASL in the 80s in a poorer area, but still near NYC, taught me all of that.
Gloria was similar in many ways to Sandy in that it was a Class 1 at landfall in Long Island, very similar track, and also interacted with a cold front upon reaching the NJ\NY area. Sandy did more damage but there were a lot more people living in the NY area and on the coast of it in 2012 than in 1985. There were more of us, with more valuable stuff to break. It too, though, was a "Storm of the Century", and I've always wondered why folks didn't talk about it more when Sandy came. Coincidentally, several trees fell on my parents yard in that storm as well.
My final point being, why didn't the NY area learn from Gloria to protect against Sandy? Sure I can make some comments about corrupt politicians and such, but I think a lot has to do with your perspective versus mine on this one. In 27 years, NYC, for instance, refused to invest in most of it's infrastructure, allowed greater development in areas prone to flooding, and set the standard for surrounding communities to follow. A perfect case of this is how on LBI in NJ, some towns survived with minimal damage compared to others on the same exposed island: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/11/nj_sand_dunes_protected_shore.html
This is why your argument is valid than Dr Spencer's. His meets the evidence better, and can provide a guide for future situations. People should be thinking about what could happen in their area, and require their homes and towns to be able to meet stress of the likely natural disasters in their area.
Well made point.
But you're asking people to have their political leaders make reasonable decisions. Unfortunately, the big money will push the other direction, all for short term gain and enjoyment.
Mike L: Taxpayers aren't willing to pay for the necessary infrastructure to protect NYC from relatively rare events like Hurricane Sandy.
PS: I was on Long Island (Stony Brook) when Hurricane Gloria struck. I was a grad student and didn't own a thing at the time, so it was more interesting than worrisome, for me. Best part for me was that off-campus electricity was off for about 7 days, so all the professors had to cook the meat in their freezers, or lose it. Made for a great series of nightly BBQs.
Global Wrench says:
TC mitigation/intensification is reality.
Please inform yourself:
Hurricane Aerosol Micro-physics Program (HAMP)
https://antioligarch.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/dhs-final-report-operation-hamp.pdf
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00147.1
"The DHS final report contains many questionable strategies but the most disturbing is the deployment of black carbon aerosols to intensify hurricanes."
Dr. Spencer,
Thanks for your efforts on this and your strong spine.
I live in the Seattle area and took "Rocks for Jocks" at UW back in 1979. In that class I was surprised to find out that a mere 10 to 15 thousand years ago, the Puget Sound region was buried under about 1 mile of ice, but in the native recording of history there are no cars or smokestacks emitting greenhouse gasses or any other explanation of how those glaciers retreated.
Also we were told that Mt. Baker was going to erupt soon and threaten the whole region. We were told that while touring the ice caves around Mt. St. Helens which were toast just 7 months later.
To this day I find it odd that so many "so called" scientists ignore simple examples such as these, while claiming to "know" the answers to this "settled" science. It is like there is no talking to them…….Sad state of affairs.
"In that class I was surprised to find out that a mere 10 to 15 thousand years ago, the Puget Sound region was buried under about 1 mile of ice, but in the native recording of history there are no cars or smokestacks emitting greenhouse gasses or any other explanation of how those glaciers retreated."
{eye roll}
Yes, for the Nth time, CO2 is not the only factor that affects climate.
But the glacial-interglacial temperature difference — what melted your ice over Puget Sound — would only be about 2/3rds as much without the warming from the CO2 emitted as temperature increased.
Davie, how does CO2 heat the planet?
(Please show your work.)
Is there some reason you can't read?
Is it the math you can't handle?
First of all, how do you know? You forgot the second part of my example when I described how the State of Washington had no problem sending van loads of students to ice caves around a "dormant" volcano (which erupted violently 7 months later) because they "knew" another mountain 150 miles away was the one that was in danger of erupting.
It is intellectually arrogant to (eye roll) and insist that you have the answers when clearly you have a hypothesis, that has clearly not been tested, replicated, and proven unassailable.
Secondly, by 2/3 do you mean that the glaciers would have been gone in 1/3 less the time? If so what time scale would you be using? How long were they there before they melted?….Or do you mean that they would be 2/3 of a mile thick today?
In any event, way to purposely miss my point which was, your side plays fast and loose with "facts" and browbeats people into "believing" everything they say.
I am happy to admit that I may not know what is going on, but I get suspicious when simple questions get (eye rolls) instead of respectful answers.
"Secondly, by 2/3 do you mean that the glaciers would have been gone in 1/3 less the time?"
Is that what I wrote? No.
"If so what time scale would you be using?"
As I wrote, the glacial-interglacial period. Look it up.
So you don't understand the science, and you resent anyone who does.
That explains a great deal.
SkepticGoneWild says:
I'm sure Darrin is not stupid enough to believe the earth heats the sun.
SkepticGoneWild
You State: "I'm sure Darrin is not stupid enough to believe the earth heats the sun"
I do not recall anyone saying the "Earth heats the Sun".
You make this claim you have actually studied higher level heat transfer and you don't understand how this works?
Who are you trying to fool here?
The actual claim is that the presence of the Earth in the Sun system allows the Sun to reach a higher equilibrium temperature than if the Earth were not present. This is not the same as saying the "Earth heats the Sun". Very different concept and meaning. What you are doing is using a "Straw man Argument".
The amount of solar increase temperature would be extremely small, not detectable. The only reason to suggest it is to help people understand how heat transfer works.
I hope you did not receive all your training in heat transfer from the PSI blog. As soon as I linked you to a textbook on the topic you quit responding to my posts.
I already said Im done wasting my time with your foolishness.
Link to the textbooks and they run. You and g*e*r*a*n have similar cult programming. He thinks textbook information is pseudoscience and you think it is "foolishness".
Just trying to deprogram you. I am amazed at the strength of the cult indoctrination. It is strong in both of you.
I guess I could be impressed with the ability of the PSI group to convince you that their physics is good and true and the real textbook physics is falsehood and foolishness.
yawn…..
Jeff G says:
Man-Bear-Pig (Al Gore) will save us…
Michael Combs says:
No matter what, we will be told "it's even worse than we thought." I have been on several Lindblad/National Geographic tours, and that is the phrase the naturalists (plus James Balog of "Chasing Ice") all began their "climate change" presentations with.
For what it's worth:
"NOAA's 2017 Atlantic Hurricane Season Outlook indicates that an above-normal or near-normal hurricane season is most likely. The outlook indicates a 45% chance for an above-normal season, a 35% chance for a near-normal season, and a 20% chance for a below-normal season. See NOAA definitions of above-, near-, and below-normal seasons. The Atlantic hurricane region includes the North Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico.
The outlook calls for a 70% probability for each of the following ranges of activity during the 2017 hurricane season, which runs from June 1st through November 30th:
11-17 Named Storms, which includes Tropical Storm Arlene in April
5-9 Hurricanes
2-4 Major Hurricanes
Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) range of 75%-155% of the median, which includes Arlene in April"
Hurricane Sandy was relatively weak and nowhere near a Cat 3. Damage was mannified when it collided and combined with a Noreaster. Your expressed doubt is how fake news is started and spread. Stick to the facts and not the narrative.
dr No says:
A good unbiased article on this subject is:
A RETROSPECTIVE ON 10 YEARS OF MODELING HURRICANE RISK IN A WARM OCEAN CLIMATE
"Scientists do widely agree that anthropogenic warming is occurring, and the latest projections show that it will likely result in fewer (but more intense) hurricanes globally. However, there is no concrete evidence that climate change has already influenced Atlantic hurricane activity, or that near-term activity should be expected to significantly deviate from what has been observed in the past. High year-to-year variability is expected, and the fact that two very high loss years occurred in succession2004 and 2005is of interest from a statistical point of view, but not indicative of a fundamental shift in hurricane climatology."
AIR Worldwide, 2015.
Globull Warming = ClimAstrology
Salvatore Del Prete says:
A WARM GLOBE IS A LESS STORMY GLOBE.
A COLD GLOBE IS A MORE STORMY GLOBE.
AGW theory has it backwards as usual.
Evidence?
I'm glad you reminded me, Davie. Where's your "evidence" that the Sun can heat the Earth to 800,000K?
Bill F says:
g*e*r*a*n
I do applaud the effort you put forth to reply to Appell. He is rude, obnoxious and all around insufferable as an alarmist, writer and human being.
G*e*e, please don't encourage him.
Bill: You insult me terribly just because I ask for evidence?
Says a lot about you.
g*: You're *STILL* struggling with this calculation??
Did you ever study basic — and I mean very basic — thermodynamics.
Even you should be able to do this calculation.
gallopingcamel says:
If you had a grain of sense you would realize that in a warming world the poles warm at roughly three times faster than low latitudes. As a consequence temperature gradients by latitude are decreased. Lower temperature gradients mean less violent storms.
OK that is probably to hard for an ideologue so here is the the Cliff's notes version:
A warming climate tends to reduce the violence of storms.
Says the CLOWN who thinks the earth heats the sun. LMAO.
And you have the gall to lecture someone on thermo?!
I remember CLEARLY the warming alarmists guaranteeing that the severity and NUMBER of hurricanes would INCREASE due to global warming. I think they meant glo-BULL warming!
Marjorie Spacek says:
It seems so obvious: the IPCC itself has said that climate is so chaotic that predictions are unreliable. I have not been able to learn why this statement has been ignored. It is there in either the third or fourth report. Why has this Glabal Warming/Climate Change monster continued to grow?
Do you think this year will run out of water in the Colorado River?
http://powell.uslakes.info/Level/
You so I guess Hurricanes that destroy property today are far more powerful that those of the past as everything costs more now hence more monetary damnage… that is sarcasm just invade you are dumber than your posts would indicate.
Sam G says:
I installed 12 mill Hurricane/security film and Dow 995 glaze to every window in my home back in 2009 in FL.
I'm glad I haven't had a chance to see how well it works.
Hatvey says:
"in which Mr. Gore suggested 2005 was going to be the new normal."
Good gracious, Algore is a moron.
Dave Samson says:
Global warming = Fakenews at its worst…
JD Carpanzano says:
Oh dear, 4,300 days and no deaths or property loss from Biblical storms spawned by SUVs, air conditioners or coal. Must suck for you lunatics. AlGore (like Igor) said NYC would be under water as of 4 years ago. I didn't need a scuba tank last week when I was there. This is the biggest hoax since Orson Wells and War of the Worlds. Well may be hillry was a close second.
"Typhoon Haiyan: at least 10,000 reported dead in Philippine province," The Guardian, 11/10/13
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/10/typhoon-haiyan-thousands-dead-philippines
(Category 5)
Davie, as you Alarmists like to remind us about the U.S., what percentage of the Earth's surface is the Philippines?
Disgusting use of a talking point – like saying 9/11 wasn't a big deal because the damage area was tiny.
tonyM says:
The deadliest overall tropical cyclone to impact the Philippines is believed to have been the Haiphong typhoon which is estimated to have killed up to 20,000 people as it passed over the country in September 1881.
Wikipedia says up to 300,000 fatalities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1881_Haiphong_typhoon
When the next hurricane to strike the Philippines only kills 10,000 people, I'll point to you to say it's not relevant.
RAH says:
According to the JMA (Japanese Meteorological Agency) the incidence of Typhoons has declined since 1951 as have landfalls on Japan.
http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.z8JtTO41.dpbs
Casualties are as much a function of where a tropical storm happens to land as intensity. But since there has been no increase in either intensity or incidence of tropical storms/cyclones, the dishonest must focus on casualties and damage as if that is the scientific measurement of storm severity.
David, I have been there at Tacloban several times, the main city is about 2-4 feet above sea level.
It also happened in 1912 and 1898 too.
TYPHOON AND TIDAL WAVE IN THE PHILIPPINES 7,000 LIVES LOST
"The [hurricane] reached Leyte on October 12 [1897], and striking Tacloban, the capital, with terrific force, reduced it to ruins in less than half an hour. The bodies of 120 Europeans have been recovered from the fallen buildings. Four hundred natives were buried in the ruins, the report said.
A town called Hermin was swept away by flood rendering 5,000 inhabitants missing. A small station called Weera, near Loog, was also reported gone. Only three houses were reported to be left standing in Loog itself.
Thousands of natives are roaming about the devastated province seeking food and medical attendance. In many cases the corpses were mutilated as though they had fallen in battle, and the expressions of their faces were most agonising.
"15,000 reported killed in 1912
Fourteen years later, in 1912, another typhoon that hit Visayas probably killed and wounded 15,000 people, a report from the American newspaper the Washington Herald said.
The typhoon swept the Visayas and and is said to have practically destroyed Tacloban, the capital of Leyte, and to have wrought enormous damage and loss of life at Capiz, the capital of the province of Capiz, the report said.
No figures of the dead or injured were given, but it was stated that probably half the population of the two cities had been lost.
Tacloban at that time reportedly had a population of 12,000, while Capiz had over 20,000.
A dispatch from the governor general of the Philippines then brought the first news of the catastrophe. The report said that he was rushing a shipload of food, clothing and all available medical supplies to Tacloban.
https://ph.news.yahoo.com/history-storms-1900s-newspaper-reveals-devastating-leyte-typhoon-134230084.html
Alan J. Perrick says:
ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!
Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.
The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.
Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to assimilate, i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?
How long would it take anyone to realize Im not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?
And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldnt object to this?
But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
What is anti-idiot code for?
Category 5 off-topic rant
Jomama says:
Stay tuned for Roy's next books: Evangelical Climatology , the new frontier and Jesus' pet dinosaur
jimc says:
http://www.kcm.org/watch/live?keywords=
Al Gore was wrong because Mother Nature has a wicked sense of humor. She loves deflating pompous asses.
Ike hit Texas in 2008 and believe me it was major.
Jonathan Richards says:
Dr. Roy Spencer – liar extraordinaire. Nothing this ass-hat publishes is worth reading. He's a discredited hack.
Is that you, Davie?
I put my name on my comments. You should be brave enough to do the same.
Jon Ric: And yet here you here, reading through the comments, adding your own inanity. Please, crawl back into the muck with the other underdeveloped pond scum.
Roy Spencer is actually a real climate scientist. I haven't seen any lies from him here, on the contrary he has tried hard to refute some of the crazy stuff, e.g. no GHE.
Meet the scientists: https://tinyurl.com/y7tkdguc
Jonathan, shows his desperation of being unable to come up with a cogent counterpoint to Dr. Spenser's blog post, falls to something that requires negligible mental effort in making personal attacks.
You sir have destroyed yourself.
davidgmills says:
Ike was bad. The home I grew up in in Galveston had no sea water in it during Carla in 1960 (recognized as a major hurricane) but had four feet from Ike in 2008. Some times storm surge is far more indicative of a major hurricane than winds. Storm surge is usually more deadly and causes more damage.
Transport by zeppelin says:
Does the graph shown in Dr Spencers article represent the number of hurricans in general, or just hurricans that made landfall?
Just landfall.
ok then, what about total hurricans. Has the number of hurricans >>in general << increased
Do the alarmists have any argument there
Look it up, present your point.
I have no point; I'm asking a question!
Has the incidence of hurricans increased, stayed the same, or reduced, whether or not they made landfall, in the time period mentioned?
Are there specific circumstance that occur that dictate whether or not a hurrican reaches land that are relevant to global warming?
OK, re-reading Dr Spencer's post, he refers to the graph, stating – "and as seen in this graphic from WeatherStreet.com, no hurricanes have yet formed anywhere in the Atlantic basin in 2017.
So the graph if for hurricans forming in the Atlantic basin, not hurricans making landfall.
So Barry, you were incorrect in regards to your response to me.
Roy is making 2 different points – one about US landfall, and one about total Atlantic, noting no Hurricanes for this season. Atlantic Hurricane season tends to start in June, peaking in September.
Only in terms of impacts, and not limited to the US. It's impossible to predict where future Hurricanes will track, and can't remember if there have been any projections about a general migration in any direction. Discussion is usually about frequency (not expected to increase) and intensity (may increase) rather than the number making landfall. But someone here may have more info on the latter.
Transport by zeppelin
It seems that studies on the topic would indicate no noticeable long term change in the total number of hurricanes.
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/
From the article: "But statistical tests reveal that this trend is so small, relative to the variability in the series, that it is not significantly distinguishable from zero (Figure 2). Thus the historical tropical storm count record does not provide compelling evidence for a greenhouse warming induced long-term increase."
Norman,
What I've found interesting is to look at a long term record and notice how many different tracks hurricanes will take. So, over a long period of time, the entire east coast is subject to suffer the effects.
My mistake – the graph is of total Atlantic hurricanes, though Roy's opening point was about US landfall hurricanes.
Just as Dr Spencer is amused by people mentioning Hurricane Sandy, I am amused that his metric is only those that made landfall in the US.
Cat 4 hurricanes across the Atlantic in recent years.
Hurricane Gustav 2008
Hurricane Ike 2008
Hurricane Omar 2008
Hurricane Paloma 2008
Hurricane Bill 2009
Hurricane Danielle 2010
Hurricane Earl 2010
Hurricane Igor 2010
Hurricane Julia 2010
Hurricane Katia	2011
Hurricane Ophelia 2011
Hurricane Gonzalo 2014
Hurricane Joaquin 2015
Hurricane Nicole 2016
barry, how many Cat 4 hurricanes occurred in mid-Atlantic before 1940?
I think landfall in the US is the proper measure if that was the claim of more landfalling hurricanes. The graph is showing total hurricanes.
Am I the only who has noticed, or is aware that we are very early in this season?
Tim, see the first sentence in my post.
Also Cat 3, 4 and 5 Atlantic hurricanes have made landfall since 2005 – just not in the US. I live in Australia, so that may be why my focus is not so narrow. I did avoid bringing up Pacific Storms, though. :smilie:
Landfall causes damage to people and buildings. It is a reasonable metric. So too, is yours, but storms at sea don't cause so much damage so are less memorable, if at all.
Actually they are two sides of the same coin. My guess is that if the number of storms goes up, the number which hit land will also rise. Why don't more hit land? Perhaps it has to do with changed circulation patterns? Are those due to warming?
I noticed a few years ago that numerous low pressure systems started off Africa but blew out halfway across. Why, the tops were getting sheared off by an unusual system.
The fact is there are many things which influence storm generation, not just warmer water. It may be changed circulation patterns will keep many storms from hitting land, that they turn northeast sooner or their tops are sheared off.
We shall see.
In the meantime, always BE PREPARED – Boy Scout Motto.
I agree with this, and is something scientists are looking at.
Along similar lines, are wind patterns changing in a way that favors storms in the Pacific and inhibits storms in the Atlantic?
It's seems feasible that a warming arctic, for example, could
have a significant impact on wind patterns.
AFAIK, cyclones form when ocean water is warm enough (among other things), and weaken toward and over land because they rely on a significant moisture source to energise them (ocean water).
Atlantic Category 3 Hurricanes across the Atlantic in recent years:
Hurricane Helene 2006
Hurricane Michael 2008
Hurricane Bertha 2008
Hurricane Fred 2009
Hurricane Carl 2010
Hurricane Irene 2011
Hurricane Rina 2011
Hurricane Sandy 2012
Hurricane Edouard 2014
Hurricane Danny 2015
Hurricane Gaston 2016
Hurricane Otto 2016
The most recent Cat 5 Hurricane was Matthew in 2016, making landfall over Haiti and Cuba as a Cat 4. Hurricane Felix in 2007 was the last Cat 5 to make landfall, in Central America.
Hurricane Patricia (October, 2015) is worth mentioning. Pacific, not Atlantic, but made landfall in Mexico.
The ocean was unusually warm due to the big el nino. Atmospheric conditions became very favorable. When I went to bed, it was a category 4. When I checked in the morning, it had a central pressure of 875 millibars and sustained winds of 215 MPH. Both records for the Western Hemisphere.
Pacific hurricanes don't count!
(I kid, naturellement)
barry, did anyone say there were no Category 3+ Hurricanes in the Atlantic?
The ZERO Landfalling Category 3+ since October 2005 is for the AMERICAN coastline.
Why can't understand the difference, Barry?
From Weather Underground is an useful list:
Hurricane and Tropical Cyclones
https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/top10.asp
Harry Cummings says:
So Barry lives on a small Island off the coast of New Zealand !!!!!! It works out one every 280 days
Concordia Station
Partly sunny.
Feels Like: -83 C
Tintagel today was sunny with showers.
One man's Hurricane is another ones drought relief. Georgia has been in perennial drought since the reduction of Land falling huricanes in 2006.
MikeW says:
Global cyclonic frequencies and accumulated energy have been flat or declining since 1970. Contrary to alarmist claims, there is nothing to be concerned about here.
http://models.weatherbell.com/tropical.php
ACE is about the worse measure of hurricanes.
Far far better is TIKE:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2013/05/a-new-hurricane-metric.html
David, the creators of TIKE indicate that TIKE is not meant to replace ACE and other well-established metrics, but to complement them (Misra, 2013). In any case, TIKE data where available agree with ACE and frequency count data in showing that global cyclonic storms are not increasing in frequency and intensity,
Because of course the vagaries of whether a hurricane hits land in the US is a great measure of the total number of hurricanes.
Average number of hurricanes per year in Atlantic basin in 2010s:
Average number of hurricanes per year in Atlantic basin 2000-2009: 7.4
Average number of hurricanes per year in Atlantic basin 1966-1999:
(1966 being start of satellite record):
uk ian brown says:
history can teach us a lot about extreme weather events
Richard the 111 was defeated by Henry Tudor at the battle of Boswell
Field not by Henrys army but by the weather.in unseasonable heavy rains and gale force winds horses and men floundered in the bog like conditions to be picked off by long bows.in 1917 at the battle of
Passchendaele in July the worst rains for 75 yrs lasted most of the month .thousands drowned in the trenches and shell holes ,August and September were blisteringly hot. in October the rains returned along with the floods and mud.World history is littered with such events making weather events today seam quite benign
Historians have much more credibility than "Climate Scientists" when it comes to discussing climate over the last 3,000 years,
Really? 3000 years is 1.1 million days. Lets say we divide the divide the earth into only 25 climate regions, each a massive 20 million square km in area. What percentage of those 27.5 million data points have historians pieced together to form a 3000 years climate story?
Des I think the difference is our predecessors called it weather and just got on with it .we call it climate change.they blamed the Gods.and Witches. We blame ourselves?
Yep. And anything that happens along the I-95 corridor is far worse than the equivalent which happens anywhere else. Thus we see those that still don't know that Sandy was no longer even a Hurricane when it made landfall.
DJinks says:
Looking at the 10-day forecast for pressure-precip on weatherstreet.com (http://www.weatherstreet.com/states/gfsx-slp-forecast.htm), we might get a tropical storm or possible hurricane hit on east Florida coast.
Mickey Prumt says:
Funny : one more hurricane, and it's above average.
Will we see that plot again at the end of the year if final number exceeds the average ?
Scratch that about the forecast. Nothing showing up now. Amazing what a couple of days does to a forecast model.
http://www.weatherstreet.com/states/gfsx-slp-forecast.htm
El Nio index decreases and increases the probability of a hurricane in the Atlantic.
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/east/natl/h5-loop-rb.html
abc Tst def.
Can develop into a hurricane in the Caribbean.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00926/jiyssexgkzkm.gif
« Study: Sea Level Rise Revised Downward
UAH Global Temperature Update for July, 2017: +0.28 deg. C »