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.
Advertisement
60 Responses to “More Hurricane Reality”
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 » Show All
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 » Show All
Thank you Mr. Goldenberg.
Look here what, I found googling Lower Mystic Lake.
http://insidemedford.com/2008/02/19/bald-eagle-spotted-near-lower-mystic-lake/
Perfect!
Look at what the scientists are saying now about global warming and cyclones.
Global warming ‘induces fewer, but meaner, cyclones’
http://www.scidev.net/en/news/global-warming-induces-fewer-but-meaner-cyclones-.html
“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.”
Oh dear, another one of those ‘appeals to authority’. Naughty man. We’ll have to let loose some of our resident AGW warmer pit bulls onto him. That’ll teach him.
The Australian research by Crompton and McAneney makes the same conclusion: “Once the weather-related insured losses are normalised, they exhibit no obvious trend over time that might be attributed to other factors, including human-induced climate change”. Seems quite clear that idea of storm effects from increased CO2 is now completely refuted. The Garnaut report must be rewritten.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VP6-4S0HC75-1&_user=918210&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2008&_rdoc=2&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%236198%232008%23999889994%23691545%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=6198&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=9&_acct=C000047944&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=918210&md5=c1b49ce10bce0378b7e5292d36b16dce
“We’ll have to let loose some of our resident AGW warmer pit bulls onto him.”
Steve,
Send him around to doltoid. They’ll show him the error of his ways.
He’s far too knowledgable, needs re-educating badly. [pun intended]
In the Coral Sea the supposed reason we weren’t getting cyclones was that it was not hot enough.
However it was supposedly hot enough to cause coral bleaching.
Why weren’t we getting coral bleaching back in the 60s when we were getting all the cyclones?
Its just so depressing that we have a bit of a trick of language here that stops people saying outright that this global warming business is science fraud.
And the trick is that, climate rationalist that I am, I would still believe a priori that extra CO2 would warm the atmosphere A TINY BIT. There is really no doubt that since the industrial revolution we would have actually cooled the planet from what it otherwise would have been. We would have cooled the planet A TINY BIT, because the air pollution would have been AT TINY BIT more important than the (at best guess CONTRARY) influence of the extra CO2 attributable to human behaviour.
I put the word CONTRARY in the brackets since one assumes that the extra CO2 is a tiny warmer rather than a tiny cooler. This is speculative. But what is not really speculative is the fact that pollution would have an effect of greater magnitude.
So many people, myself at one time included, are hesitant to call this out as science fraud, and science fraud that within the last century would probably have been actionable………. simply because of provisos of this sort.
We know that aerosols trump CO2 both through logic and through the empirical evidence associated with volcanic eruptions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
One of the worst offenders in this fraud is the guys who do the last edit of the material coming out from the CSIRO.
And thats what really got me started. Since it is a matter of both logic and climate history that the severity and frequency of hurricanes and other extreme weather events happen in the cold times and not the warm times. And it is a matter of logic that this will be even more the case in the hypothetical that the warmer times came about as a result of extra greenhouse as opposed to a burst of solar activity. Since the initial burst would increase the energy that needed to be distributed between the equator and the poles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Australians are very proud of the CSIRO and 99 in 100 of them would be loathe to see it trashed. But its proud history comes not from stolen-money financing, but from instead the awesome ingenuity of prior generations of Australians and the crusader-like attitude these guys had towards the scientific ethos.
Some say that no woman brought up on indoor plumbing is to be trusted, but I’m getting the feeling that this ethos mostly still exists in the scientists that grew up in the provinces and country towns.
“Marohasy was born Jennifer Joyce Turnour in Darwin in the Northern Territory of Australia in 1963. Her parents were farmers at Coomalie Creek near the uranium mine of Rum Jungle. They grew tomatoes and pasture seed, ran buffaloes and cattle and built their home from handmade mud bricks…..”
You have a theory. You go to the data and Eureka. I swear to you that I did not know this prior to finishing the last sentence of my own.
As a scientific experiment lets try Bob Carter:
Unfortunately the Wiki tells me nothing about Carters upbringing.
Lets try someone else who has that sort of MUMMIFIED scientific ethos. Lets try Arthur Robinson:
No background there. But I now realise I have made a mistake. You see pretty much all scientists over about 65 or so, supposing they weren’t communists or nazis, would have had this ethos, one would imagine.
But matters have gotten to such a low pass that it seems you have to go and find people who incinarated their own rubbish in a rusted 44 gallon drum as one of their childhood chores, or it would be the case that they don’t have the scientific ethos and can never get it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is true that my stay on any blog is a thing with short legs. I have been banned from more blogs than anyone else who uses his own name.
But while I’m here, and while Paul and the Doctor are too busy doing other things to put some sort of block on me, don’t be coming here with these stories about how people like me should behave and not use words like fraud, liar and so forth.
Don’t hang out at Deltoid, calling the Doctor a “shill” and then come here and expect me to do what you guys do and be oh so polite and say everything through a shit-eating grin.
I really hate you guys.
I look down on you people.
I worry for my country when I think of you because you are proof that the stupid have become upwardly-mobile.
One time or another I’ve signed up to fight and for pitiful and discrimatory reasons have been excluded, and thats a good thing because I would not fight for you parasites knowing what I know now.
It is NOT OK for you people to be slandering a female SCIENTIST (A real scientist and not just a grant-whore or field-worker) either outright or by implication, either here or at Deltoid. Its not Ok. Its not alritght. Because if it was me I’d either be angry or I wouldn’t give a toss.
But female psychology is such that a scientist, hypothetically speaking, of that gender, would not give a toss most of the time, but every so often this campaign of slander and abuse would really hurt.
So don’t come here, while I’m here however briefly, and run these poopy-pants leftist walkouts like Crawford just did.
You people make me sick. You make me want to be sick. You make me want to throw up. Specifically you make me want to throw up ON YOU.
You are all pathetic.
Forget everything you ever thought you knew.
But if you want to come here and engage in honest speculation, thats fine. Only remember I’m better AT IT than you will ever be.
“Global warming ‘induces fewer, but meaner, cyclones’”
Say what you mean!!! Do you mean global warming or do you mean industrial-CO2?
Its important to get this right. This is supposed to be science. So lets have some precision to your statements or otherwise get ye to a church.
And no thats all nonsense. Global warming (literally speaking) means fewer and less severe, extreme weather events.
So I go to their link. And its just a lie. Because this is not the real world. Its just something that these research-grant-whores have rigged up on the computer.
Uh huh. Gawd …