THE US Navy’s Joint Typhoon Warning Center, using satellite analysis to estimate wind speeds, has claimed that Typhoon Haiyan, that hit the east coast of Samar in the Phillipines on November 8, 2013 is one of the strongest storms in recorded history.
According to the New York Times [1]:
Before the typhoon made landfall, some international forecasters were estimating wind speeds at 195 m.p.h., which would have meant the storm would hit with winds among the strongest recorded. But local forecasters later disputed those estimates. “Some of the reports of wind speeds were exaggerated,” Mr. Paciente said.
The Philippine weather agency measured winds on the eastern edge of the country at about 150 m.p.h., he said, with some tracking stations recording speeds as low as 100 m.p.h.
The United States Navy’s Joint Typhoon Warning Center used satellite analysis to estimate sustained winds at 195 m.p.h., with gusts up to 235 m.p.h., but that measured the center of the storm when it was over the ocean.
“As far as satellite imagery was concerned, it indicated that this was one of the strongest storms on record,” said Roger Edson, the science and operations officer at the United States National Weather Service in Guam.
He said 195 m.p.h. winds would put the storm “off the charts,” but he acknowledged that satellite estimates require further study on the ground to determine if they were accurate.
I can’t find information on the sea level pressure recorded for Typhoon Haiyan.
Typhoon Tip had been considered the largest and most intense tropical storm ever recorded with a worldwide record-low sea level pressure of 870 mbar and peak winds of 190 mph (305 km/h) on October 12, 1979. It was also the largest storm ever recorded with a wind diameter of 2,220 km (1,380 miles) [2]. US Air Force aircraft flew 60 weather reconnaissance missions into this typhoon.
The deadliest storm in recorded history is known as Great Boha hitting Bangladesh on November 12, 1970. This cyclone sustained a record high 40-foot storm surge and killed 300,000 to 500,000 people [3].
***
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/09/world/asia/powerful-typhoon-causes-mass-disruption-in-philippines.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Tip
3. http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/comment.html?entrynum=204
More images at this Facebook page.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The Bolter put up this post today that seems to dispute many of the claims about Haiyan being the most powerful or biggest etc.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/typhoon_plus_poverty_equals_destruction/#commentsmore
So the Australian BOM is claiming a world record ‘highest’ wind gusts (as opposed to speed) at 408 km/h at Barrow Island during cyclone Olivia on 10 April 1996…
http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/about/extremes.shtml
Strongest wind gust on mainland is apparently 267 km/hr during cyclone Vance on 22 March 1999.
WUWT has supplied the best available data to replace some of the fake numbers reported in the MSM.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/09/super-typhoon-haiyanyolanda-another-overhyped-storm-that-didnt-match-early-reports/
The general prediction regarding hurricanes and the like is not that there will necessarily be more of them, but that they will become more intense and longer lasting. From what I have read, there is insufficient evidence to date to support that view (although I’ve not read any of the papers Luke linked to back on the Open Thread).
However, whether Haiyan was the strongest on record or not, it WAS a big storm. But it appears not to have especially long lived and there is some doubt whether it was unusually intense.
I noted on the other thread that the most cursory examination finds evidence of at least several previous storms that were more destructive and/or more lethal, by far.
I think Haiyan was a bad one, but the media hype seems overblown to me…
No pun intended!
Interesting summary from the paper by Knutson et al in 2010, as found on the page Luke linked to:
SUMMARY ASSESSMENT:
Detection and Attribution:
It remains uncertain whether past changes in any tropical cyclone activity (frequency, intensity, rainfall, etc.) exceed the variability expected through natural causes, after accounting for changes over time in observing capabilities.
Tropical Cylone Projections:
Frequency: It is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged due to greenhouse warming. We have very low confidence in projected changes in individual basins. Current models project changes ranging from -6 to -34% globally, and up to ± 50% or more in individual basins by the late 21st century.
Intensity: Some increase in mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed is likely (+2 to +11% globally) with projected 21st century warming, although increases may not occur in all tropical regions. The frequency of the most intense (rare/high-impact) storms will more likely than not increase by a substantially larger percentage in some basins.
Rainfall: Rainfall rates are likely to increase. The projected magnitude is on the order of +20% within 100 km of the tropical cyclone center.
Genesis, Tracks, Duration, Surge Flooding: We have low confidence in projected changes in genesis location, tracks, duration, or areas of impact. Existing model projections do not show dramatic large-scale changes in these features.
The vulnerability of coastal regions to storm surge flooding is expected to increase with future sea level rise and coastal development, although this vulnerability will also depend on future storm characteristics.
When the Cargo Cult of Global Warming point to weather events like the typhoon as proof “their ships have come back”, rational folk can turn this to their advantage with some common sense.
That this typhoon exists at all is further positive proof that 25 years of world carbon(sic) taxes FAIL to stop the climate from change.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/10/29/factbox-carbon-taxes-around-world
Let’s face it reducing OZ’s co2 emissions by 5% by 2020 or whatever will not change the temp or climate at all.
It certainly won’t change the number and strength of cyclones/typhoons in the Phillipines or OZ or anywhere else on the planet.
You can yell about climate criminals and deniers but you only show what a fool you are and that you are someone that is motivated by a fanatical religious desire. Certainly not science.
Bob Carter mentions the much stronger super cyclones during the LIA as does the ABC Catalyst program. So why is that?
Philippine Weather Agency says it was a category 4 with 147 mph peak, but what would they know?
A new paper by Spencer and Braswell shows that the climate is less sensitive to a doubling of co2. They found that a co2 doubling would produce a 1.3c increase in temp.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/11/new-study-climate-system-is-only-about-half-as-sensitive-to-increasing-co2-as-previously-believed/#more-97238
They found that clouds and PDO/ENSO etc combined to change the climate since 1950. And co2 has some impact as well, but not as much as the C models show.
Just backs up earlier work and Bob Tisdale’s findings as well. How anyone could think that we can somehow change the climate by reducing our miniscule co2 emissions by 5% is beyond belief.
We certainly couldn’t hope to reduce extreme weather events like typhoons or bushfires or floods etc by any measureable amount at all.
The Greens once again ignorantly enter the argument about typhoon Haiyan. Just like their pig ignorance on display last month about the NSW bushfires.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/greens_feed_on_another_disaster/#commentsmore
Just think 8%+ of the electorate actually voted for these fools just a couple of months ago. Incredible.
Can anyone tell me what the lowest recorded barometric pressure was associated with this typhoon?
Also the maximum wind speed of 147 mph, how was this measured and also when and where?
And just filing this from WUWT… Given the geography of the Pacific, most typhoons stay out at sea, or only hit land once they have weakened. But in total terms, the busiest typhoon season in recent decades was 1964, whilst the following year logged the highest number of super typhoons (which equate to Cat 3 +). Of the eleven super typhoons that year, eight were Category 5’s.
Even the Washington Post understands that Haiyan wouldn’t even be in the top 35 deadliest typhoons.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/11/11/inside-the-staggering-death-toll-from-haiyan-and-other-southeast-asia-typhoons/?hpid=z1#cop19
The deadliest was in 1970 with the loss of 300,000 lives.
I noticed as this story unfolded in the MSM that there seemed to be a great amount of contradictory information about wind speeds and death tolls.
Too much sensationalism and alarmism and a rather blatant attempt by political ideologues to try and take political/policy ownership of a natural disaster. . .not unlike what occurred when the NSW bush fires struck a few weeks ago.
The idea that Australian Governments can control or mitigate the climate by introducing taxes and policy and that anyone who questions this idea is a ‘climate criminal’ or doesn’t care or is somehow scientifically illiterate ect. . .is truly absurd.
Why would anyone think that a bushfire or a typhoon or a cyclone or a hot/cold snap etc takes any notice of human politics, political ideology, or government policy?
It is also rather sad that the focus is on trying to claim political/policy ownership of theses events rather than focusing on the real tragedy.
This really is a silly debate.
The issue is trend. Not records. Complicated by decadal influences of the PDO and AMO.
AGW theory suggests stronger tropical cyclones but not an increase in numbers.
So the question is how to detect a trend
As you all would know is that Kerry Emanuel did the famous paper showing peak storm intensity and storm lifetime have increased (PDI). Which of course has been refuted and un-refuted.
BTW – if you get the point where you have detected a trend it’s too late. All in the risk assessment.
How times have we been over this? So come back in 30 years when it’s all 100% certain and we’ll denounce your memory for being reckless contrarians, non-scientists, shills and inactivists that you are.
Deniers of course are biting like crazy – Neville’s got a big lather up – the risks of Abbott’s non-policy and anti-science stance are plain for all to see. But ho hum.
She’ll be right. Haven’t you all got something better to do. Tones is now in charge. It’s all inactive – so don’t you worry about that. Go and have a beer or cafe latte or shoot something.
Bob’s your uncle, hey Luke.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/11/some-historical-perspectives-on-typhoon-haiyan-yolanda/
Luke,
Along with Bazza, I respectfully suggest that you might need to get over yourself.
Your name calling and sneering insinuations that people don’t care is starting to become extremely tedious.
You may think that it is about ‘trends’ but that’s not what the incessant political hand waving is about.
Also. . .inaction about what?
IMHO. . . the blinkered political focus on the ‘risk’ of raising CO2 level on future climate is drawing focus and resources away from taking sensible action. . .the recent NSW bushfires and now this Typhoon being classic cases.
@luke
You keep saying this Luke and I asked you before, what if it is You who is wrong?
I have a very good chance of still being here in 30 years time, where can I look you up and call you to account?
Trend, you use this word like George used ‘Gortex’ you seem to like the sound of it.
What trend Luke?
You are saying that we have more max day and night time temps, I say BS to that.
It came about by manipulating and adjusting records, by reducing the recording stations and averaging temperatures on as wide an area as Alice Sprigs to Adelaide. Of course the average temperatures will be different.
All last week it was above 28/30 in Shepparton but for nearly 2 weeks we had record lows in Melbourne as we did for last month. No sceptic makes a lot of noise about it, it’s just weather.
But wait for a couple of days of high temp and we won’t hear the end of it from the likes of you.
Luke “science” that relies on data manipulation/distortion and outright scare tactics is not science, at best it’s political science with an agenda, and I don’t believe in conspiracies, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
There is no question that the typhoon was HUGE with loss of life and has done considerable damage.
Was it the largest? NO.
Was it the most destructive – NO.
Was it the deadliest – NO.
There is a question about the wind speed that needs to be clarified. At WUWT site there has been a comment about how the various agencies calculate wind speed and the instruments they use here:- http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/10/an-ethical-challenge-for-greg-laden-put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is/
Dylan, November 11, 2013 at 12:48 am in part wrote:-
“I do not know whether you simply are mistaken, accidentally misinterpreted something, or are purposefully trying to mislead people here, but the assertion that Haiyan was at it’s height, simply a high end Catergory 4 equivalent cyclone, is false.
In terms of the the PAGASA advisories listing Haiyan as a Catergory 4 equivalent cyclone, this is a understandable mistake. PAGASA uses a different measuring standard when reporting the windspeeds of tropical cyclones, compared to the NHC and the JTWC. Instead of using a 1-minute average that these two agencies use, PAGASA uses a 10-minute sustained average. Now the effect of this in terms of reporting is that their estimation of the strength of tropical cyclones is usually substantially less than that of what the aforementioned forecasting agencies would report.
To give some recent examples, Typhoon Megi (deemed Juan by PAGASA) was reported by the weather agency to have winds on the ten-minute scale of 225 kph (140 mph) which in the one minute scale would be approximately 185 mph-190 mph, a windspeed which was confirmed by both satellite measures done by the JWTC and by aircraft recon inside the storm, making Megi officially a 185 mph Catergory 5 hurricane equivalent cyclone.”
If anyone can clear up this issue it would be appreciated.
JW – off topic hand waving waffle. Honestly. What does a Victorian fuel stop have to do with this topic. Zilch! Instead of filler why don’t you minimally acquaint yourself with the science in the his area instead of blowing up party balloons. On yer bike.
Debbie – you do enough sneering yourself. Don’t be precious. And put your own hands down.
A mock debate about whether Haiyan is the biggest biggie ever is just classic Wattsup misdirection technique. It’s not the relevant question.
Rubbish Luke,
It has been all over the MSM aided and abetted by the usual suspects. . . Greens amongst the guiltiest.
luke
so it’s perfectly all right and “on topic” for you to write what I quoted but me replying to it is not?
There is no point even talking to you any more, some time back you at least showed a semblance of reason, lately you are nothing more than a foul mouth bore and bully.
Jennifer,
There appear to be plenty of Typhoon details on Wiki!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Nancy_%281961%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Tip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Megi_(2010)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Bopha
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Lekima_(2013)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Usagi_(2013)
In the Australian region we have not had anything of the force of Mahina since 1899, but Yasi was very recent and an absolute brute. Also, Tip (1979) wins all the prizes for force and size, but Megi and now Hayan have been horrors. I read once that the mid-sixties had the most Cat 3 and over cyclones in the Pacific. If there was a “trend” there, thank God it did what all trends do: it got replaced by other trends. But what guarantees us against another Tip, a Tip which comes ashore in full force and well aimed, like tiny Tracy?
Look, New Yorkers, who like to look down on Red Staters who live in Tornado Alley, are themselves living near sea level in Hurricane Alley. (Their worst ones were in the Colonial period and in 1821.) In a world where you have a lot of people – something I don’t mind in the least – just having the will and means to attach roofs to foundations in tropical zones can save lives and property. Not letting certain clever New Yorkers dump rubble in the mouth of the Hudson would probably save some non-tropical lives. (No wonder the cream of city society would rather talk about carbon pricing, or any subject that’s not Battery Park real estate.)
Spending public money on human safety sounds good to me. Pink batts weren’t a bad way to spend public money. The trick is not to put the money and execution into the hands of born wreckers like Rudd and Gillard. We can certainly find billions for public safety if we can find them for S.A. whirlygigs and Timmy’s comical Geothermia. Or do we think we can dial the climate quickly back to a time when cyclones weren’t a regular feature of existence? (Hint to aspiring climate diallers: don’t dial back to cool times. Doesn’t work like that.)
here’s an example for you Luke.
Filed as a “Science” story.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/world/asia/typhoon-in-philippines-casts-long-shadow-over-un-talks-on-climate-treaty.html?_r=0
Interesting link Debbie. Would this bloke have a clue:
“Dr. Emanuel said that as the planet warms because of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, the difference between sea and air temperatures increases. It is this difference that fuels these kinds of cyclonic storms.
“As you warm the climate, you basically raise the speed limit on hurricanes,” he said.”
But-but-but the air is not warming and the sea is…..isn’t it?
One thing that is warming in Warsaw is that lovely feeling of being surrounded by fellow warmers, urinating into each other’s pockets.
Then the Warsaw warmers gathered,
Major reps from many nations,
In high level consultation,
Deeply probed the carbon budget.
Many breakthroughs were expected
Though they never ceased to argue,
Hurricanes are getting bigger,
Forest burning is the answer.
Truly, Jimmy Hansen’s chickens.
This: in WIKI: The WMO definition of sustained wind is 10 minutes at 33 feet.
This was the universal standard a few years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_sustained_wind
The National Hurricane Centre Noaa.gov/glossary/index. has reduced this
to ‘Wind speed determined by averaging observed values over a 2 minute period.’
Monkeying around with the averages allows for more sensational reporting and,
also, its sustained winds that do the damage.
I was looking at some of the pictures from the area – I saw coastal towns chock full of rubbish etc but that’s to be expected when the buildings are pretty much shanty towns yet I also noticed standard timber buildings still untouched whereas had they been in cyclone Yasi they would have been shattered.
Unfortunately the alarmists are going to have a field day with this especially whilst the talks are on in Poland.
The really bad ones go back a long time and cyclone severity doesn’t seem to have much to do with CO2:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/correlating-deadly-cyclones-with-co2/
Thanks Beth.
Which is/where is the link and/or direct quote that says that NOAA has changed how it measures wind speed and when did this occur?
And I noted this from the Wikipedia link that you provided:
“In most basins, maximum sustained winds are used to define their category. In the Atlantic and northeast Pacific oceans, the Saffir-Simpson scale is used. This scale can be used to determine possible storm surge and damage impact on land.[15] In most basins, the category of the tropical cyclone (for example, tropical depression, tropical storm, hurricane/typhoon, super typhoon, depression, deep depression, intense tropical cyclone) is determined from the cyclone’s maximum sustained wind. Only in Australia is this quantity not used to define the tropical cyclone’s category; in their basin, wind gusts are used.”
Well it’s a pretty off topic waffley old discussion isn’t it. Abbott copping it and Warsaw has them all frothing.
The classic: ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/NATURE03906.pdf
About the only science we’ve seen so far. If PDI is up that’s all you need to know. The trend ain’t your friend.
oh Luke, here you go again. I thought the Spangled “roadrunner” Drongo had your trend idea totally flummoxed but as usual “Coyote Luke” keeps coming back for more.
Jennifer,
Found Wind Speed NOAA under noaa.gov/glossary/index but there’s this
re NOAA sustained wind speeds under ‘Categories
bts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_sustained_wind‘
Got omitted, here it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffir%E2%80%93Simpson_hurricane_wind_scale
NOAA glossary definition here.
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/glossary/index.php?letter=s
Bob Carter has covered the really big super cyclones that occured during the LIA, pages 172 to 174 of “Taxing Air.”
This is backed up by the ABC Catalyst program that also showed that the last big super cyclone hit nth Qld in 1801.
Another much smaller super cyclone occured in the early 20th century. But none since.
Here’s a link to Catalyst Super cyclones.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s382613.htm
JS are you actually trying to peddle the ongoing absolute idiocy of a serial denier like Goddard as evidence of anything. You really are gullible mate. So this dude reckons he has a database that goes back 800 years accurately recording global mortalities. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA what rot. And comparing “that” to the modern era of satellite tracking of all storms, telecommunications, air transport, global aid. As I said it’s a cruddy old discussion isn’t it.
Goddard just spends his days desperately trying o come up with something (anything even if rot) to paste up to reassure people who can’t think for themselves like you and SD.
Thanks Beth.
I guess I’m wanting to know whether there has been a recent change to the shorter measuring time period – or not.
Just filing these quotes here:
from: http://enpassant.com.au/2013/11/12/labor-party-philippines-statement-on-yolanda’s-aftermath-they-destroy-we-suffer/
We welcome all international aid and solidarity work coming from Northern countries. This is the least they could do – put their one cent to climate emergencies such as the Philippines. But we demand more. We want climate justice. Capitalist countries must be held accountable for climate crisis. They must be forced to pay the climate debt they owe to poor nations.
Capitalist countries, we emphasize, were responsible for climate crisis. They emit more carbon to the atmosphere many times over what the poor countries do. It is the greenhouse gases emitted from capitalist industries which drove global temperature to rise to new levels. This causes climactic reactions like warmer and rising sea levels and which eventually lead to the formation of monster typhoons as in the case of Haiyan.
from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/11/typhoon-haiyan-philippines-climate-talks
Sano, whose family comes from the devastated town of Tacloban where the typhoon Haiyan made landfall on Friday, said that countries such as the Philippines did not have time to wait for an international climate deal, which countries have agreed to reach in Paris in 2015.
“What my country is going through as a result of this extreme climate event is madness,” he told delagates from 190 countries, as UN climate negotiations get underway for a fortnight today in Warsaw. “The climate crisis is madness. We can stop this madness. Right here in Warsaw. Typhoons such as Haiyan and its impacts represent a sobering reminder to the international community that we cannot afford to procrastinate on climate action..
“Science tells us that simply, climate change will mean more intense tropical storms. As the Earth warms up, that would include the oceans. The energy that is stored in the waters off the Philippines will increase the intensity of typhoons and the trend we now see is that more destructive storms will be the new norm.”.
Sano dared anyone who doubted man-made climate change to visit his country: “To anyone who continues to deny the reality that is climate change, I dare them to go to the islands of the Pacific, the islands of the Caribbean and the islands of the Indian ocean and see the impacts of rising sea levels; to the mountainous regions of the Himalayas and the Andes to see communities confronting glacial floods, to the Arctic where communities grapple with the fast dwindling polar ice caps, to the large deltas of the Mekong, the Ganges, the Amazon, and the Nile where lives and livelihoods are drowned, to the hills of Central America that confronts similar monstrous hurricanes, to the vast savannas of Africa where climate change has likewise become a matter of life and death as food and water becomes scarce.
Luke,
add Jen’s links to the others posted here and ask yourself this question:
Is there a pattern developing here?
Looks like Greg Laden’s rant about sceptics criticising the wild exaggerations of the warmers on Haiyan’s statistics was just that:
RANT!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/10/an-ethical-challenge-for-greg-laden-put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/11/12/shock-news-death-toll-was-exaggerated/
The sad part about it is that the deaths were mainly caused by storm surge close to the coast and probably could have been avoided with sufficient warning.
And as for islands sinking from SLR due to global warming, that has never been the case even when we had 120 metres of SLR a little while back.
It is simply a deck space problem, not freeboard:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/a_judge_shouldnt_be_so_careless_with_the_facts_of_climate_change/
“And as for islands sinking from SLR due to global warming,”
I am of course referring to coral atolls here, not continental islands.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-03/pacific-islands-growing-not-sinking/851738
The Phillipines is probably a little more tectonically unstable than many countries but here is one tide gauge:
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.annual.plots/260_high.png
Worth remembering that the deadliest storm in the Philippines was Thelma in 1991. It was a pea-shooter, but it caused flooding when it came together with high land. At least 5000 dead, maybe 8000, in the flash flooding on Leyte.
Lessons were, in fact, learned successfully. Flood mitigation, reforestation and contouring were implemented, with the Japanese helping a lot. A similar event in 2001 caused few probs to the same region.
But these are conservation measures, something beyond the interest and comprehension of our Green Betters.
There are a couple of cards left to play to bring a bit of cold comfort to the disciples. First if it does seem to be the most extreme by wind speed you can quickly sidestep to another measure – pressure is a good one. You just cant allow fear of such extremes to fear sensible responses to global warming. So you have to show any way you can that it was not so extreme. This is not about science which would simply concentrate on the increased risk of extremes relying on bushfire authorities such as Abbot, clever Hunt, and of course the Bolt unscrewed. But the bar is raised very high – somewhere some time somebody will find a more extreme event and we can all rest easy. Maybe it is in the bible which passes as recorded history. If you deny science you might as well continue your retreat into the dark ages. The bible forces a choice tho between god and the devil . We could start with a dash of Apocalyptic Speculation “There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea”. Luke 21:25 NIV. And this must have broken all records to that time for gusts: “and behold, a great wind came across the wilderness and struck the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young people” job 1;19 ESV
If Bazza was aware of what goes on around him he would know that literally thousands of Australians have gone to the Philippines in recent years, built sea-front villas for a fraction of the price they would pay in this country, lived the high life over there because of their economic superiority and now when these villas get washed away they scream the loudest to the world to come and rebuild them.
People like Bazza and Greg Laden are very impressed by this loud screaming and insist we [not them] attend to it seeing as we caused it as made evident through their newly acquired religious science.
Baz, does that mean you do think this storm is unprecedented? or in any way unusual?
once again from my perspective the screaming about the storm being an example of CAGW is doing even more damage to” the cause”, and makes me even more stringent in my “denial”.
You obviously want to see some action but are there any sensible propositions being put forward to “control climate”…..or even do you think it is possible to control the climate?
And on and on they trot – arguing whether it’s the biggest bigger biggie beast ever.
Well Luke and bazza for the zillonth type please tell us what your answer is to your CAGW? You’re the dills bleating about it forever on this blog.
So tell us your answer for mitigation of CAGW and how would you could reduce the damage from extreme weather events in the future?
Just a hint, 5% of 1.2% by 2020 will have zip impact, even 1000 new nukes will have little impact and full compliance with Kyoto will only delay CC by about 4 years by 2100.
Even if OZ stops emitting today it will still have zip impact and anyway the OZ sink is at least 10 times greater than our emissions. So mission accomplished before we start.
It looks like the Poles are a wake-up:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/12/50000-at-rally-against-climate-agenda-in-poland/
I wonder why our ABC didn’t mention it instead of this:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-12/philippine-delegate-breaks-down-as-he-addresses-un/5085898
Well Luke and bazza for the zillonth type please tell us what your answer is to your CAGW? You’re the dills bleating about it forever on this blog.
So tell us your answer for mitigation of CAGW and explain how you could reduce the damage from extreme weather events in the future?
Just a hint, 5% of 1.2% by 2020 will have zip impact, even 1000 new nukes will have little impact and full compliance with Kyoto will only delay CC by about 4 years by 2100.
Even if OZ stops emitting today it will still have zip impact and anyway the OZ sink is at least 10 times greater than our emissions. So mission accomplished before we start.
Sorry for the double post, grrrrrr.
Everything Milne and Bandt have said about this latest typhoon is wrong.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/everything_the_greens_claim_about_this_typhoon_is_wrong/#commentsmore
And just think that 8%+ of the electorate voted for these fools in the fed election. What hope has this country got?
Don’t know what happened to my post, Jen, but responding to yr question on sustained
wind metrics, Wiki says that Cyclone Nancy in 1961 was measured at the one minute
sustained metric @ wind speeds of 215mph which would have been the fastest wind
speed of a tropical cyclone ever recorded. Tip in 1978 was recorded by the new ten
minute sustained metric which someone @ WUWT says came into operation in 1978,
but some still use the prior metric without stating which is being used. Confusing
situation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Tip
Well Toby it’s very basic. Increasing CO2 changes the atmospheric radiative balance. Higher energy leads to a myriad of effects. A number of which will be unpleasant. A risk manager would want to see the science on the matter not be scrambling full pelt to a denialist position. But I guess that’s the anti-science denialists that you support and love.
But Luke, it is not unusual for a storm like this!? It is not “us’ making exaggerated claims. The more people like Bandt and any “warmer” make exaggerated and unsubstantiated statements of fact to drum up support for their cause, the more a thinking person should fight it.
Luke, I know CO2 is a greenhouse gas….but clearly its warming effect has been exaggerated in the past and is likely to be exaggerated still. clearly the science is far from settled and given humanities reliance on cheap energy to improve living standards, current policy actions are examples of human insanity.
Of course the phillipines, Vietnam, pacific islanders etc are vocal in blaming humans and in particular westerners for their problems. They are eager for a cash transfer from the rich to themselves. I don’t blame them its called humanity….self interest guides everything….but don’t blame others for pointing this stuff out!
There is one thing that does make me think, and that is that the sun appears to be unusually quiet at the moment at the end of its 11 year cycle. whilst the world has stopped warming it has not cooled as much as it probably should have done ( this is good I would think for now, but not so good in the future if sun spot activity picks up). Perhaps focusing on real events rather than exaggerations would do more for the “cause”?
I would love some warm weather down here in Melbourne, it has felt like midwinter here for most of the last 6 weeks…..but that is NOT evidence against climate change. Just like this devastating storm is not evidence for…and nor were the bushfires.
Once again Bob Tisdale provides the facts about SST in relation to cyclone Haiyan. The graphs are over the last 23 and 33 years.
Just a pity Milne and Bandt didn’t look at these facts before they displayed their ignorance.
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/typhoon-haiyan-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies-for-early-storm-track/
It seems the death toll from Haiyan has reduced from 10,000 to perhaps 1800+. But it is still early days.
http://www.wcyb.com/news/officials-rush-to-save-haiyan-survivors-new-storm-forms/-/14590844/22926350/-/fyu5jyz/-/index.html
But the highest death toll recorded is in 1970 from a Bangladesh typhoon that killed between 300,000 to 500,000 people.
“As a result of economic development and technological advancement, the world is getting increasingly better at coping with and adapting to the effects of extreme weather events.
As Goklany concludes: ‘Currently many advocate spending trillions of dollars to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gases, in part to forestall hypothetical future increases in mortality from global warming induced increases in extreme weather events.
Spending even a fraction of such sums on the numerous higher priority health and safety problems plaguing humanity would provide greater returns for human well-being.’”
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/11/global-warming-isnt-to-blame-for-the-disaster-in-the-philippines/
Bazza,
I think you are still winning the prize for being able to get some form of the word denial into as many of your comments as possible 🙂
This one is a doozy:
” If you deny science you might as well continue your retreat into the dark ages”
I’m a little puzzled that you seem unable to recognise the differences between opinion, political, advocacy and ‘science’
While I don’t disagree that much of Abbot’s, Hunt’s or Bolt’s comments are more politically motivated than anything else, I am a bit curious why you are not recognising that comments made by Bandt, Milne et al re the connection between such things as bushfires and typhoons and policy mitigation of AGW are really no different.
BTW here a couple of today’s gems that are filed under ‘science’ in the MSM.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-12/an3a-indian-academic-27disappointed27-in-australia27s-carbo/5087142
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/phillipines-ambassador-to-australia/5087998
And BTW Bazza,
Another way to check if claims about strongest, biggest, most damaging are scientifically valid, would be to check all the measurements wouldn’t it?
The claims in the MSM are most certainly cherry picking…and it isn’t one sided.
The claims about this particular typhoon and its link to AGW is not backed up by scientific evidence, but rather by academic opinion/ hubris. . .Kahneman would be probably be somewhat critical of that behaviour don’t you think?
Toby – “.but clearly its warming effect has been exaggerated in the past” NOPE – palaeo would put 2X CO2 at 3C – so silly statement ….
Don’t trust Tisdale – he may have made one of his many errors. Who can be bothered checking now. Let’s stay in the real world.
As for number of people killed – well it’s a question of exposure, preparedness, resources and technological sophistication of the target nation (and some luck). Don’t conflate greater exposure risk with system strength.
But Luke, basically all the models predicted more warming by now! so clearly they are wrong. Now real scientists would question the theory, but somehow we are told its all worse than we thought! How can it be?
To get to 3 c of warming in the next 90 years its going to have to start warming up pretty soon. The correlation between co2 and temp over the last 100 years is not very strong…….they spend almost as much time moving together as they do moving in opposite directions. That would also make me question how important co2 is as a greenhouse gas. Note that is not a statement saying co2 is not a greenhouse gas….we both know water vapour is far more significant and operates in pretty much the same spectrum.
The physics is clear about the effect of a doubling of co2…its about 1c…only with positive feedback effects does it get higher…..and clearly the world is dominated by negative feedback effects.
The science is not settled but we are supposed to dramatically try and change the way we source energy.
Why are you defending clearly false statements about this storm being evidence of CAGW? It is not!
Say, toby, sometimes a picture’s worth a thousand words, note fig 2
spaghetti graph of model projections/ predictions. Its not easy makin’
predictioons, especially about the fuchure, as some one or other said.
bts
http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/
It is all exaggeration to Toby so “the more a thinking person should fight it”. Maybe first think. Is it unusual? – is it only weather? – is it consistent with expectations of more extreme events because of the physics etc. But wait you say, the IPCC has low confidence in more frequent extremes like this, as best I recall. But isn’t there something about some being more intense. And think what does low confidence mean?
Does this typhoon think it is a child of the 20th century climate, not the current one?
Most denialists I know are as fearless as they are ignorant on these matters. My understanding is that low confidence in there being more of some sort of extreme is not the opposite of being high confidence in unchanged extremes ( statisticians recognise low confidence as indicating a low powered test because of small sample, high variability for example!). What do the thinking persons think of that.
As for whether I think decreasing emissions will help, I think there is a much better than even chance given that increasing emissions has not helped. What do the thinking risk managers think of those odds.?
Thx Beth, I agree but ntg i said hasnt been discussed in detail before, I am just pointing this out to Luke who seems to want to defend what appears to me should be indefensible.
I like your link though!…and sorry i can be a touch verbose at times!
We can only talk about a very limited period for “records” but the two years with the most Super Typhoons (that’s actually officialese, not me trying to impress) are 1965 and 1997. They had eleven each.
Typhoon Kit in 1966 achieved wind speeds the same as Haiyan but by air pressure it was much more intense than Haiyan. It’s still official, but measurement was in its infancy (probably it’s now adolescent) so maybe Kit was more or less fierce than Haiyan. It was a beast, but it didn’t come to land in full force. In its weakened state it grazed Honshu and still managed to kill scores.
While wind and pressure like Haiyan’s sadly have occurred a number of times (Nancy 1961 etc), it is, of course, what happens when typhoons come ashore that matters. 1959 had “only” 8 super typhoons, but the damage to China, Japan and the Philippines was truly incalculable. 1959’s Joan, like Kit, was the equal of Haiyan with even lower pressure, but other and lesser storms did more of the damage.
When our climate diallers are being responsible managers and tipping billions into the European Union’s carbon price-rigging scam, please do not have the climate dialled back to the 1960s. What with plummeting arctic temps (yep!) and super typhoons in the Asia Pacific, I don’t think we could stand the strain.
Very amusing thread with luke and bazza doing their best A&C impersonation; bazza resorts to the bible displaying IMMENSE irony and luke is as scatological as ever; luke says:
“Well Toby it’s very basic. Increasing CO2 changes the atmospheric radiative balance. Higher energy leads to a myriad of effects.”
Nope; a very elegant disproof of this nonsense is here:
http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2013/10/18/canadian-geophysicist-calculates-the-greenhouse-effect-for-the-first-time-exposing-climate-change-as-a-trillion-dollar-fraud/
Incidentally is that a photo of either luke or bazza in the top left corner.
As for the essay Kalmanovitch simply uses Hansen’s famous definition of the Greenhouse effect from his 1981 paper expressed thus Te = [So(1-A)/4σ]1/4 where So is TSI and A albedo and σ the SB constant with Te is the Greenhouse effect.
Since TSI and A are known and σ is a constant Kalmanovitch simply used the values for So and A between 1980 and 2010 and shows the Greenhouse effect, Te, has reduced over that period despite increases in CO2; Ts is the base temperature on the NCDC graph:
1980 Ts = 288.2 K Te = 252.64 K greenhouse effect = 288.2-252.64=35.56°C
2010 Ts = 288.6 K Te = 253.18 K greenhouse effect = 288.6-253.18=35.42°C
So there you are; using Hansen’s definition of the GHE, and the known values of the formula the Greenhouse effect is conclusively shown to have declined.
I reckon the definitive expert on cyclone, hurricane and typhoon activity is Ryan Maue:
http://policlimate.com/tropical/
Isn’t he a good looking chap:
http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://icons-ak.wunderground.com/data/wximagenew/r/RyanFSU/1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.wunderground.com/wximage/viewsingleimage.html?mode%3Dsingleimage%26handle%3DRyanFSU%26number%3D1&h=604&w=478&sz=42&tbnid=wwWrN7_GRGKSlM:&tbnh=121&tbnw=96&zoom=1&usg=__YAcniKTSQZxVcGmQ3n3m2pUWdyk=&docid=5p7y67mIwTNtzM&sa=X&ei=Q0GDUpj3EIOklQWf5IGoAg&ved=0CCsQ9QEwAA
“What do the thinking risk managers think of those odds.?” I think that given the cost of altering our energy sources is enormous and emissions are still very unlikely to come down without new technology that any real risk manager would just laugh at you?…or try and sell you something at huge cost with a very small pay off….oh that’s right that’s what you and the warmers are advocating!?
also you ask “Maybe first think. Is it unusual? – is it only weather?” to which it seems quite clear it is not unusual and is probably just weather! Interesting how people look at the same data but reach different conclusions. And that is exactly what is happening between “real” scientists as well as we laypeople.
The warmers seem to want to use small samples and periods of time to make exaggerated claims of certainty. I seem to recall Kahneman writing about this and also about “availability cascades”…..’a self sustaining chain of events which may start from a media report of a relatively minor event and lead up to public panic and large scale govt action….the cycle is sometimes sped along deliberately by “availability entrepreneurs”, individuals or organisations who ensure a continuous flow of worrying news’ ( pg 142) he goes on to say that those who try to dampen the increasing fear and claim the danger to be overstated are suspected of “heinous coverup” …with the political system being guided by the intensity of public sentiment. and crucially the paragraph finishes with ” other risks and other ways that resources could be applied for public good, all have faded into the background”
sounds very familiar to me….but I acknowledge as Deb so wisely said ( in different words), people will take from the book what suits them.
I still believe firmly that the science is irrelevant, without a real solution even if it is a real problem we are just wasting resources that could be used much better elsewhere.
Interesting Cohenite, I shall have to absorb that all slowly….but a very interesting conclusion!
Toby – Models are just one part of AGW theory. Palaeo much more convincing and more scary.
the Permian-Triassic boundary event
– other major ocean anoxic events (eg ocean anoxic events, Cenomanian-Turonian boundary
– the PETM
And of course the cyclone was AGW enhanced. Isn’t it obvious? Perhaps strongest winds to make landfall.
Cohenite pretends to do science. Publish it and we might read it. Meanwhile – join Tisdale having a crank session. Cohenite has been running around for years going “THIS IS IT, THIS IS THE KILLER (always a blog) PAPER”.
Remember his sad cosmic ray phase – ROFL – but now even that is goooonnneee http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/simple-physics-and-climate/
Toby – you have a real solution. Gun 4th gen nuclear and Thorium NOW !
Luke,
The science may well be right, although there seem many doubts to me, but when the real emitters do something about it, then and only then should we waste our resources on nuclear.
But as i have said so long as there is a level playing field it becomes harder to argue against action, until then we are playing with platitudes that come at a large cost with basically no pay off.
I see that as an example of humanities insanity.
And remember you’ve been well warned
ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/Emanuel_PNAS_2013.pdf
Toby – you’ll be the one that waits till the evidence is clearly in – then you’re trapped. No mitigation – no way out. This is not like seeing if your flu gets worse overnight before seeing the doctor. Indulge Neville’s best dream and pump as much CO2 skywards as you can and you won’t be coming back down.
Thorium cheaper than coal.
sorry Luke, I know you will hate this comment and pls dont smash your keyboard….but its all based on models! and i seem to recall that the intensity of storms has not been increasing?
So poor Luke and bazza think we have to do something but then can’t tell us what that someting is that we should do.
So here’s a different question. Can you please tell us the best era or period that provided the planet and life on earth with the best or optimum climate?
Was it the holocene optimum or other warm periods, like RWP or med WP or perhaps the colder LIA? Just tell us where you would return the planet to and why? Come on you must have a favourite period?
We know you think the last 50 years was so horrible. But perhaps not, what about the 1945 to 1975 period of cooler PDO and more la ninas? Just give us a hint, please.
So if the world acts then so should we, but not before. And given that we do not need to spend the money on nuclear they actually are not cheaper, they bring an additionally huge start up cost and pay off over a long time.
Although that is exactly how you will get the world to act. Find a cheaper source of base load power and people will change because of self interest, and the co2 problem will solve itself.
Remember I started out a warmer, but the more exaggerations and distortions i saw the more sceptical i have become, ….hence my comment about thinking people needing to speak up.
of course you see it the other way and you are also right to be speaking up!…but please when it involves exaggerations to build the case it just makes it harder to prosecute your position
This would be a good Xmas present. A lot of good ammo to be found within the covers.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/11/a-skeptics-christmas-wish-list-taxing-air-by-carter-and-spooner/#more-31700
Well anyway,
It’s pretty clear that the answer to the question that was posed at the start of this post is NO! Haiyan is NOT the strongest and/or the most damaging and/or claimed the most lives in recorded history.
I still think that it’s very poor form that politically motivated groups are trying to claim some sort of vaguely academic ownership of such events, pointing fingers and making claims about ‘climate criminals’ and consequently drawing attention and resources away from the real tragedy.
We, er, don’t know what speed Hurricane Camille reached in 1969. It was clocked at around 310kmh before it came to land and destroyed the weather equipment. Estimate was for 320kmh. Not bad for an Atlantic blow. Maybe stronger winds at landfall than Haiyan, maybe not. Not that it matters.
Even the US has been hit by three Cat 5s at landfall, the most intense being the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935. Its windspeed was a bit less than Haiyan’s, it had somewhat greater intensity. Not that it matters.
Sub 900 pressures and windspeeds around 300 at landfall are what make a mega-disaster when you have population centres in the path. (Of course, you don’t even need that.) Fortunately, there’s a lot of ocean. If there is a connection between making landfall and “AGW” that must remain a mystery to me.
By the way, as far as I know, only four cyclones have had a measured intensity below 880hPa. All were in the Pacific, one occurred in 1958, the other three were in the 1970s.
Well tell us Neville do you think it would be a good idea to widen the sub-tropics, intensify ENSO, increase fire weather days, increase storm velocity, increase peak rainfall, and acidify the oceans all in a geological instant with 7-9 billions humans on board?
Only a climate crim would say yes.
I burnt my copy of Carter and Spooner – felt good ! After drilling a hole in it. After shooting it full of buckshot. Felt good too. And after dropping a hackie on it (all offset).
wow – I didn’t know you were a member of the shooters party Luke. Have you registered your shotgun?
Weather events, for the AGW true believer, is like any other religious believer: Any manifestation is seen through the lens of faith and interpretted accordingly. this leaves the weak minded believers prey to exploiters. For the AGW believer every weather event offers proof of the reality of the CO2 crisis. so superlatives must be used by any exploitative media if they want to keep their shills in line. This allows for ‘confusions’ between MPH and KPH; for the old trick of using satellite estimates of storms at sea vs. acual measured wind speeds at landfall; for ignoring the history of strong storms; the ignoring of the impacts of poorly developed strom defenses and over development of badly designed coastal structures, etc. This is like the self-declared greens in the US and Australia making forest fires/bush fires worse by their allegedly green land management laws and regs.
Think of what the $billion per day pissed away on rent seeking AGW con-artists could do to help improve the world’s storm resistance infrastructure. Instead, we end up in endless discussion with AGW believers about how many CO2 demons dance on the head of a pin in a cyclone. While the believers keep needing to absorb more and more the productive world’s resources, of course.
Emmanuel says if he gets to massage the data, he can prove things are getting worse.
The rubes fall for it.
What a hoot.
And the true believer poster child shows his religious reaction by bragging about being a book burner.
Life is sweet.
I apologise if I’ve missed it in the responses so far, but have we found the official sea-level central pressure or windspeed at landfall?
You’d really have to be hopeless to not see Haiyan as extreme. The water down to 100m was enough to generate a cyclone. That’s extreme.
http://www.data.kishou.go.jp/kaiyou/db/kaikyo/monthly/subt_wnp.html
Tough luck deniers – jig is up. No wonder it didn’t slow as it made landfall.
I heard the mayor of Tacloban saying that before the storm the sea receded and they all went out to have a look. Then it suddenly came in and swept across the city.
This storm surge is what obviously caused the bulk of the damage and deaths. People wouldn’t be out inspecting the sea front in record hurricane winds.
Why do we have to put with non-science blowin septic sceptics like hunter – “the world’s storm resistance infrastructure” THE WORLD’s – and he talks about rent seeking. Yea mate – you can pay for ours that’s cool.
“ignoring of the impacts of poorly developed strorm defenses and over development of badly designed coastal structures” What the? so we’re going to line Pacific nation beaches with sea walls are we? you stupid moron !
Who pays you to write these vacuous puff-pieces Hunter. Presumably some fossil fuel funded think-tank. Tell them to get their money back.
SD – I read that there were 5m waves that swept across the nation.
Anyway the extreme warming to depth hardly a surprise as it turns out the global warming has underestimated. What pause?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/global-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/
Oh yes luke, the method of kriging, which is common in mining exploration is finally discovered by the alarmists as shown by Kowtan and Way. There was a post by Willis on this methodology at Watts some time ago;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/31/krige-the-argo-probe-data-mr-spock/
Willis comes down in favour of using kriging to overcome defects in ARGO but note the comment by an experienced mining engineer RockyRoad in the comments:
“1. RockyRoad says:
December 31, 2011 at 9:54 pm
Having done a lot of kriging in my profession as a mining engineer/geologist, I’ve always wondered if there was any way it could be applied to climate data. I’ve used kriging on composited drill hole samples to generate 3-d block models for global reserve estimates, on blast holes to outline grade control boundaries on day-to-day mining in open-pits, on surface geochemical samples to determine trends of anomalous mineralization, and I’ve used the estimation variance that is a byproduct of the procedure as a means of defining targets for development drilling to expand reserves at an operating mine. I’ve even used the technique on alluvial diamondiferous gravels in Africa to determine thickness of the gravels with surprising success.
However, in all the above applications, the first requirement is to determine the spatial correlation between the samples. The technique for this is known as the variogram, which divides samples into pairs separated by increasing distances; in addition, the pairs at increasing distances are generated using relatively narrow directional windows (usually 15 degree increments) around the three orthogonal planes. After being plotted on paper and taped into a 3-d model, it is fairly easy to determine the spatial orientation of the oblate spheroid of the sample correlation as well as the distance of the major, minor, and intermediate axes.
The intercept of each variogram curve with the origin (which should be the same regardless of the direction inspected) defines the “nugget effect”, which is the inherent noise of the sample set. The variogram curves rise with distance until the curve levels off, after which there is no further correlation of the sample values; the distance to the inflection point should be different for each direction inspected—it would be highly unusual to find a spherical range of influence because almost all things in nature display some degree of anisotropy. The sample set is said to have no correlation if the variogram curves display no downward trend for closer samples sets and hence, either because the sampling method is inherently corrupted or the distance between samples is too great or a mixture of sample sets representing a variety of correlations exists; in such situations the kriging methodology breaks down and you might just as well apply current climate science “fill-in-the-box” procedures and do an area- (or volume-) weighted calculation using inverse distance. (By the way, I’ve never understood the way “climate scientists” apply the temperature of one place to another simply because the other had a missing value; in mining you’d get fired for such blatant shenanigans.)
The critical factor in all this is trying to get a handle on the spatial correlation of the sample set being studies. Mining typically targets the concentration of a valuable compound or metal that is the result of geologic processes, which usually include hydrothermal or mechanical fluids, temperature gradients, lithologic inhomogeneities, and structural constraints such as faults and bedding planes. And usually the system from which the samples are derived isn’t in constant motion like the ocean. (I suppose taking the value of each ARGO “sample” at exactly the same time would fix the ocean in place and give one a fighting chance to determine if there is any sample correlation for that time period, although shifting currents later would change the orientation of all sets of correlations.)
Should a variogram analysis of the ARGO data indeed find some semblance of sample correlation, the defined model of anisotropy would be used in the kriging algorithm, which can be used to generate either a 2- or 3-dimensional model. The interesting thing about kriging is that it is considered a best linear unbiased estimator. After modeling, various algorithms can be used (for example bi-cubic spline) for fitting a temperature gradient to the block values and determine an overall average (although in mining it is essentially a worthless exercise to find the average value of your deposit—nobody is encouraged to mine “to the average” as that is a definite profit killer).
Admittedly, as has been noted by other comments, highly sophisticated methods of determining metal values in deposits can cause disastrous results if ALL significant controls on the distribution are not accounted for. I’ve worked at operations where major faults have divided the precious metals deposit into a dozen different zones of rock—the variography of each zone must be determined separately from all the others and blocks within those zones estimated (kriged) using only that zone’s anisotropy. If focus to such details isn’t emphasized, the model results would be less than ideal and may even be worthless.
In summary, I’m trying to think of a way zone boundaries could be delineated in the ocean since I’m pretty sure one 3-d or even 2-d variogram model wouldn’t be sufficient and my concluding remark is: good luck on using kriging. You’re first going to have to figure out the variography and I’m not necessarily volunteering (even though I have variography and kriging software) but it would be a great project if the grant money was sufficient. (Where’s my Big Mining check?)”
His “big mining check” will be being spent by the lukes of the world.
BTW a good column from the Bolter refuting all the Green’s idiocy about Haiyan. Amazing what a few facts will do to clarify the issue and expose their stupidity.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/haiyan-scare-campaign-is-just-shameless/story-fni0ffxg-1226759300130
Of course, the big problem remains of the “sepia photo” effect. What happens now can be reported and put on screens with vivid effect. What happened long ago just words or a feeble image or two. You would not expect this to affect the judgement of people who constantly harp about science and evidence. Sadly, when people are heavily invested in cult or narrow belief system science and evidence will be made to serve the cult or belief.
We know that the typhoon which hit Haiphong, Vietnam in 1881 caused up to 300,000 deaths, making it more deadly than Nina (in 1975) and that the worst death toll from a hurricane in the Atlantic was from the Great Hurricane of 1780 (at least 22000). Vera, in 1959, was a Cat 5 Super Typhoon which should have relaxed a bit as it went north. However, thanks to – you guessed it! – warm water temps, Vera was able to ravage Japan and kill well over 5000 people. Recent hurricanes/typhoons like Wilma and Haiyan have shown like monstrous force.
You can’t mitigate much, but the little you can do should be done. (Carbon casinos don’t count as mitigation.)
Graeme M
“The atmospheric pressure of Yolanda was 895 hPa. Within just the Western Pacific Basin, there have been 20 storms with lower pressure since these figures began to be reliably collected about 60 years ago. The lowest pressure recorded was 870 hPa, with Typhoon Tip in 1979.
Together with ties, typhoons with Yolanda’s atmospheric pressure or less can be expected every couple of years in the Western Pacific. Fortunately the vast majority of these never see land, or do so only after significant weakening.
Storm Surge
Both CNN and the BBC talk about 40 to 50 feet storm surges , yet the official Philippine body responsible for these matters, NOAH, using JMA models, on 7th November forecast about 5 meters or less for the day after when the storm hit land.
Once again, it appears that some media reports have been wildly overhyped…
From…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/13/deconstructing-the-hype-on-super-typhoon-haiyan-yolanda/#more-97356
I would like more information about the actual typhoon at this thread and also instances of specific misreporting by the MSM. I will delete general AGW guff and repetitive reporting of misinformation from individuals. There is a new ‘Open Thread’ for chit chat.
Good detail from Lubos here:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/lying_about_haiyan/
Thanks jen, I didn’t think I’d missed too much. From the little I’ve read, it seems clear that Haiyan was not something out of the range of likelihood based on the historic past. Of course, claims about it’s properties on the basis of modern instrumental recording which of course was absent for many previous storms are tenuous at best.
From reading some of Luke’s links it seems there is still no clear observational evidence that such storms have increased notably in intensity. I haven’t read Emanual yet.
I do agree that there seems to be a greater incidence of weather events that equal or exceed previous ‘records’ in recent times, but would be of the opinion that much of this is due to modern instrumentation, reporting regimes and recording parameters. But that is just me…
Fair enough Jen,
This is probably relevant.
Filed today in the MSM under ‘science’:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-13/australia-suffers-most-extreme-warming/5090398
This one is filed today under ‘science’ as well:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/abbott-governments-climate-policy-likely-to-see-emissions-rise-not-fall-groups-say-20131114-2xhpx.html
The above two offerings of misreporting appear to be misreporting of misreporting ( unless specific statements are offered with supporting evidence)
Errrr. . .No Bazza,
I simply posted them for comment as I thought they were relevant to Jen’s last comment . . .and I also stated which category they were filed under.
If you go to the Google news home page and scroll down to the section that says ‘science’. . .which appears after ‘entertainment’ and ‘sport’. . .you should find them there unless they have since been tipped off by newer ‘science’ reports.
Hope that clears it up for you?
Good ol’ ABC. When ya can’t pound the facts, pound the emotions:
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2013/11/14/3890214.htm
That’s terrible SD; this thread and many others have clearly shown the catastrophe in the Philippines was not the product of an exceptional typhoon or in any way linked to AGW but the vulture like Greens and the despicable abc still lie through their teeth in promoting any disaster as evidence.
All discussions about AGW are now discussions about belief systems, ideology and the distortion of fact and science by those AGW believers to achieve political and economic sway.
Luke discovers that cyclones take more energy than from the top few meters of sea water and so that is proof of the CO2 catastrophe and why the storm did not slow down as it came ashore. So when Rita and Katrina slowed down before coming ashore, that was proof of…..? And when Camille sped up that was proof of…? There is little more entertaining than watching a fundie of any religion flailing away trying (and failing) to fit the reality of the world into the faith-based lens of their pre-conceptions. Perhaps if the fundies were not out burning books for having ideas challenging to their narrow views
If you haven’t read Emanuel and haven’t got the extreme temperatures to 100m depth associated with Haiyan you’re in denial. As so often with this blog when it’s happening it’s still not happening. It’s called denial.
I did read the article, and it is more magical AGW claptrap. 100 meters is not a new depth. claiming it is ‘extreme’ is just so much typical AGW bullshit. He has no trend lines, no comparison with the other typhoons of similar or great strength to correlate the 100 meter temps to. And you AGW clowns might want to consider that since evaporative processes drive cyclones, the temps at 100 meters does not drive much in the way of evaporation at the surface.
“Denial” is what AGW fundies do with reality, as they pathetically try to to turn every weather event into *proof* of their obsession.
Go burn another book, Luke, it beats thinking.
Why is the heat at 100 metres so critical? What is the heat at other depths doing? WUWT has a post on just that with some interesting graphics showing the heat at 50, 100, 200 metres along with surface temps.
Regardless, the question is whether the storm was exceptional for this time and place, or whether the average intensity of storms for that time and place is increasing. The fact that ocean heat at the time is warmer than some recent baseline doesn’t tell us much about things really, it is observational evidence of the effects that count. And it certainly doesn’t tell us how ocean heat there compares to other times in the past 100 years.
What I observe is that haiyan while a big storm is not in the bracket of exceptional OR beyond historical ranges. We cannot argue that AGW had any particular contribution. It is not until we see events beyond historical ranges, or an increased frequency of events in the upper ranges, that we can point to a causative relationship, or so it seems to me.
“Why is the heat at 100 metres so critical?”
Because 100 metres is a magical number as Robin Williams noted all those years ago.
The fallacy involved with even saying a storm is ‘stronger than it would otherwise have been’ is profound. Every weather event is as powerful as conditions allow it to be. And as this yer’s completely failed predictions regarding the Atlantic hurricane basin storms proved, meteorologists and especially climatologists have no real understanding of the conditions required for storms to form. Much less the ability to be at all credible (except to gullible fools) in claiming that not only was this region of warm water was involved in a particular weather event. And then by implication to claim it is connected to CO2’s malicious influence on the Earth. To assert that evaporative processes at the surface are energized by 100 meter water that is under mostly cooler water is basically homeopathic physics. The missing heat was hiding under 1000 meters, but some of it snuck up and hid at the 100 meter level, just waiting to fuel the biggest storm in Earth history.
Here’s one from this morning’s MSM filed under ‘science’
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/rich-nations-must-meet-climate-promises-before-talks-can-advance-china-says-20131115-2xkfh.html
And to calm down Bazza. . .
here a couple of quotes from the article:
“The issue of climate finance is at the forefront of the U.N. talks after the Philippines and parts of southeast Asia were ravaged this week by typhoon Haiyan, one of the most powerful storms ever recorded.”
At least they have toned it down a bit and now say “one of the most”.
and following:
“We are firmly committed to the mandate we agreed to (at (2011 U.N. talks) in Durban that the parties would take enhanced action after 2020,” Su said, offering no more details.
China’s veteran negotiator would not comment on when China will announce its own post-2020 emissions reduction targets.
I’m not so sure Hunter. I am not at all across the science of storm formation but from my little reading the surface temps are what gives rise to cyclones, but the lower water temps need to be high too to fuel the thing. The water overturning caused by the storm brings lower level waters to the surface. If these were unusually cool I assume the storm would weakem, if they are unusually warm they will strengthen it. That makes sense to me. The question is from how far down does a fast moving storm draw heat? My understanding is that Haiyan was fairly fast moving so I’d be surprised if 100m depths would be involved. I’d be more interested in surface to 50 metres. Which as far as I can tell were not exceptional.
Regardless, AGW can only be CAGW in terms of effects if events are out of the range of historical likelihood. A cyclone that is at the upper end of the scale means nothing in itself. An increasing frequency of such cyclones does – it indicates something out of the range of historic probability.
If a storm is within historic bounds AND there is no evidence for increasing likelihood of intense storms, then what of it? It doesn’t matter a damn what the water temperature is.
On the other hand, if Haiyan had the most intense low pressure yet recorded, or the highest winds ever seen, or something that put its properties beyond historic norms AND water temps were unusually high, we have something to point to.
I am still trying to get over the novelty of the idea that the media would sensationalise something. I suppose one hypothesis would be that exaggeration on the typhoon stories was excessive compared to most other tabloid front page efforts on most other topics. But an even better analysis would be whether said exaggeration was in excess of the Murdoch press beat ups of antiscience rubbish trying to undermine AGW peer reviewed science. It is relentless through opinion stuff. letters to ed etc etc which escapes media accountability requirements for accuracy etc. Sadly, surveys in the US shows those exposed to Fox News sources are more ignorant of climate science basics than the rest of the population. Closer to home, misleading the population on increasing bush fire risk is just as irresponsible.
eerrrr no again Bazza,
You are missing the point that the ‘beat up’ is endemic from whichever side or whichever news service you may be ‘exposed’ to.
Are you implying that the MSM links above are not . . .to quote you. . .” ignorant of climate science basics” ?????????
Jen has asked for specific reports that clearly overstate the recent Typhoon and/or attaching CAGW significance to the Typhoon.
Therefore. . .people are linking MSM reports that are doing that.
I hope, once again, that helps to clear it up for you?
I am however fascinated by this comment:
“Closer to home, misleading the population on increasing bush fire risk is just as irresponsible.”
I actually agree with the sentiment but strongly suspect that your opinion of ‘misleading the public on increasing bush fire risk’ is based on something quite different and rather closely allied with those ‘climate criminal’ comments made by some of our politicians.
It is much easier to make a beat up case against strongest in recorded history to the more useful question of whether it was the strongest to hit the Phillipines.
I agree Bazza,
That would be a much more useful question. It would be even better if it was not accompanied by unsubstantiated finger pointing and attempts to gain rather arrogant academic ownership of any answers.
However, I am still fascinated with this comment of yours:
“Closer to home, misleading the population on increasing bush fire risk is just as irresponsible.”
This typhoon was not the most powerful to strike the Philippines:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/11/10/typhoon-yolanda-the-strongest-since-2006/
Beat away bazza!
Cohenite
That link gives answers to Bazza’s more useful question.
I think the final question at that link would also be a more useful question.
As far as I know, Haiyan was the strongest typhoon to hit the Phillippines by measured wind (not intensity), though obviously it was not the strongest Pacific typhoon by any standard.
Why anybody would want to draw conclusions from that is mystifying. I would not be inclined to believe that Australia is getting safer because its strongest cyclone occurred in 1899. Or that the US is hunky dory because its strongest was in 1935 (or 1821?). Yasi and Andrew were recent beasts, and I wouldn’t be relaxing because something else was stronger in a previous century. Should NSW relax because its worst October fires were in 1951, or the winter fires of 1895 were far more severe than the recent spring fires?
In dealing with Haiyan, the problem was the reportage and slack use of terms like “record”, “ever” etc. (by the Murdoch press as well as the luvvie press). It always is. It’s amazing how quickly their scientific precision deserts the dogmatists when the dogma needs a boost. if someone thought it worthy of note that Haiyan’s windspeed was a record for the Phillippines, they could have just said that. And as far as I know, it would be true.
Yes,
Well said Robert!
I need that ‘like’ button again.
In regard to the weather. . .it now gets reported as if it’s some sort of Olympic sporting event.
It is close to meaningless. . .records are always vulnerable to being broken.
http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/aus-govt-mocked-by-ngos-at-climate-summit/story-e6frfku9-1226761116478
here’s one of the latest filed under ‘science’.
Not a lot of ‘science’ in this one.
Graeme,
My point is that unless the energy held at 100 meters gets up to the surface to release by evaporation, it is useless to a storm’s strengthening.
Think of a man starving to death in a room of canned food but no can opener.
It would be interesting to see how much and how deep the cooling from the the typhoon’s passage has been.
The issue for me is this odd dysfunction of our AGW true believers to use conspiracies, magical thinking, and faux attribution of everything to CO2, to support their obsessions.