More Hurricane Reality
Posted by Paul, August 22nd, 2008 - under Uncategorized.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
A new paper published in GRL gives a 1000-year perspective on Hurricane activity in Boston, USA. The paper is entitled: ‘A 1,000-year, annually-resolved record of hurricane activity from Boston, Massachusetts,’ by Besonen et al.
The Abstract states:
The annually-laminated (i.e., varved) sediment record from the Lower Mystic Lake (near Boston, MA), contains a series of anomalous graded beds deposited by strong flooding events that have affected the basin over the last millennium. From the historic portion of the record, 10 out of 11 of the most prominent graded beds correspond with years in which category 2–3 hurricanes are known to have struck the Boston area. Thus, we conclude that the graded beds represent deposition related to intense hurricane precipitation combined with wind-driven vegetation disturbance that exposes fresh, loose sediment. The hurricane signal shows strong, centennial-scale variations in frequency with a period of increased activity between the 12th–16th centuries, and decreased activity during the 11th and 17th–19th centuries. These frequency changes are consistent with other paleoclimate indicators from the tropical North Atlantic, in particular, sea surface temperature variations.
The paper concludes:
The LML sedimentary record provides a well-controlled and annually-resolved record of category 2–3 hurricane activity in the Boston area over the last millennium. The hurricane signal shows centennial-scale variations in frequency with a period of increased activity between the 12th–16th centuries, and decreased activity during the 11th and 17th–19th centuries. We recognize that the LML record is a single point source record representative for the greater Boston area, and hurricanes that passed a few hundred km to the east or west may not have produced the very heavy rainfall amounts and vegetation disturbance in the lake watershed necessary to produce a strong signal within the LML sediments. Nevertheless, we also note that clear evidence of a secular change in hurricane frequency identified in the LML record is consistent with other lines of evidence that conditions for the development of hurricanes have changed on centennial timescales. Hence, it appears that hurricane activity was more frequent in the first half of the last millennium when tropical Atlantic SSTs were warmer and eastern equatorial Pacific SSTs were cooler than in subsequent centuries.
Also, a NOAA climate realist speaks out:
Excerpt: “I did not say if there is global warming, it would be man-made,” Mr. Goldenberg emphasized. “Not all scientists agree that the warming we’ve seen is necessarily anthropogenic. It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” According to Stanley Goldenberg, meteorologist with the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, based in Miami, “Numerous hurricane meteorologists agree that the historical data has not produced any evidence of changes [due to climate change] in the number or intensity of hurricanes, particularly in the Atlantic Basin, and even globally. “There are some who have done studies that do claim a link, [but] virtually all those studies have been heavily rebutted by others in the hurricane community,” he noted. “In my opinion, the flaw in those studies is an improper utilization of historical databases. I have been a specialist in hurricane climate data for close to three decades, and others who know the databases well agree with what I am saying.” Mr. Goldenberg pointed to a number of confounding problems in such studies, including the time frame chosen, the techniques available now and in the past to measure hurricane activity, the ways in which such activity was recorded, and the availability of satellite data—or lack thereof. “The biggest fallacy is that people think that a hurricane feeds off a warm ocean, and if the ocean gets warmer, we will have more intense hurricanes,” he explained. “But there are other factors involved, such as vertical wind shear, which is the difference between the upper and lower layers of the atmosphere. You could also have drier air. These are far more critical factors than the ocean being warmer. “Everything else being equal, if you warm the ocean under a storm, you might get a stronger storm—but everything else is not equal,” said Mr. Goldenberg. “Warming may increase vertical shear and therefore inhibit storms. The ocean itself warming is such a little effect.” […] Mr. Goldenberg of NOAA added, “There are those who want to attribute any perceived increase in natural disasters to anthropomorphic global warming. I predict that if we have an active hurricane season, someone will attribute it to AGW. They’re not really looking at the science; they’re looking at the disaster.
All of that contains no information whatsoever. All filler.
“I made a lot of predictions” OK – well show us the hindcast stats then and we can evaluate.
No no. The proposition is this: Climate science is easy.
And it is. Because its just basic science applied to explaining the massive geological record.
“the carbon dioxide levels were roughly 16 times higher than today.”
Obviously any Arrenhius based model that cannot account for the conditions 440 million years ago cannot be thought of as scientific. Same goes for the heat maximum and the rest of the data.
There is just so much data. There is no excuse for having an understanding of climate in contradiction to any of it. This makes the subject incredibly easy by its nature. One just forms ones hypotheses on the basis of the evidence.
Well if it’s “easy” and you know so much you’ll have done a simple seasonal climate forecast. NOT a weather report. Now I reckon you’re a lying little fatso cissy – so put up or GET OFF THE BLOG.
I don’t want to hear all the repetitious stupid nonsense you’ve read off Weetbix blogs – forget about AGW for a while – I want your science mate. But if you are just a friggin wannabe idiot say so and we can walk away.
If I thought that seasonal weather forecasting was suitable for a part-time unfunded one man gig THATS WHAT I WOULD HAVE SAID YOU MORON.
I didn’t say that. I said that climate science was by its nature easy. I never claimed that it was a one-man-gig. Its a civilisational gig. But the work is straightforward.
In economics the good stuff comes through the British classical school and through Menger, Boehm Bawerk, Mises, Hutt, Rothbard, Reisman and others. Its harder than climate science. But its not a one-man-gig.
And climate science is actually reliant on far more people than economics.
Now stop being an idiot. And if you disagree with me find some evidence-or-argument that falsifies what I’m saying or verifies something contrary to what I’m saying.
You might have been trained to think that science was about maths, statistics and field-work and thats all important stuff. But human reason is the essence of science. And the others things are tools that are useless or even destructive in the wrong hands.
You can use hammers, saws, drills, screwdrivers and dingo diggers to make a house. But you need human reason behind these tools. Without that reason you’ve got a vandal. The tools are worse than useless. You have someone sawing down the tree to your treehut. Or you have the Texas chainsaw massacre.
No a single person can do it. What’s wrong with you pussy pants. Lordy you’re so piss weak. What a dweeb. You’re a clueless unelectable moron — GET OFF THIS BLOG. Useless handwaver that you are.
Graeme; Why do you even bother with this clown Luke he reminds me of Polly parrot he keeps repeating the same piece of inane stupidity over and over again, it reminds of the way children behave in a kindergarten schoolyard. I think it is becoming pretty obvious by now that the Kyoto accord which runs out in 2012 will never be resigned because to get the first one off the ground India and China were given a free ride Russia was allowed to use 1990 as their CO2 target which means they have $60 Billion of carbon credits to sell, these were the bribes handed out to get the first agreement signed, they will not be repeated so the next agreement is a no go. In addition in another 3 years the cooling trend will be well established so all the politicians who back this farce will be so disgraced that neither they nor their parties will have a hope in hell of getting back into power. I think the news media will be so busy pointing the finger at others to distract people from their own complicity in this swindle they will turn on the IPCC like the snakes they are ( Jen and a few others excepted)
Excellent – a moron who supports Birdy – well we found one finally.
He’s an idiot Barry. But I’m not letting him get the last word in.
It would be appropriate if someone came in and just erased nine-tenths of the two-way communication between the both of us. But the fact is the leftist obsession with getting the last word in is powerfully malignant in its effectiveness. So much so that its driving this entire science fraud.
I won.
Just an observation for you Global Warming kooks:
How can we accept as true these theoretical weather scientists about something that has purportedly caused a lot of studying over millions of man hours, if these same scientists can’t even agree on where a storm is going in real time?
The Earth has been around reasonably a long time, and will persist to subsist even well after us as a species are extinct. The earth goes through changes, just as women do, who’s to say that the same thing didn’t take place a million years ago? No one can. In the grand scheme of things a people as a whole are just specks on the big ass of Earth – so stop being so supercilious – you’re a bunch of Gores!