Fact Check: Hurricanes Are Not Strengthened by Our CO2 Emissions

[mamooth]

There's a very good reason why basic climatology is taught at the junior level of college ... the student is busy with all the prerequisites the first two years of college ... traditionally, climatology is a back water sub-discipline, for the students who struggled to pass two years of calculus and the idea of having to take a third year of calculus for Dynamic Meteorology is out of the question ... thus with just a second year of statistics, one can get their degree ...

Where do you come up with this nonsense?

Climate scientists start with degrees in physics. And they go on to a masters, specializing in atmospheric physics. And then a doctorate. And then postdoc work. It's among the hardest of the hard sciences.

As far as the OP goes, the hard science says hurricanes are getting stronger, just as AGW theory predicted.

Hurricanes really are getting stronger, just like climate models predicted

The authors of a new paper studied 4,000 tropical cyclones spanning 39 years.

www.livescience.com

Compare that to Tommy's collection of anecdotes and media sound bites, and there's no comparison. Tommy couldn't cite a scientific paper because there are no papers backing him up. That's why he had to go with anecdotes. Which are, of course, now soundly refuted.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Roy Spencer

Dr. Mann made a bunch of error filled statements, why does anyone still take this charlatan seriously?

Roy Boi got caught fudging the satellite data by using the opposite sign to calculate diurnal satellite drift, satellite"expert" that he is.
why does anyone still take this charlatan seriously?

AHa! Mann's tree ring PROVE CO2 makes hurricanes stronger!

 

[Sunsettommy]

There's a very good reason why basic climatology is taught at the junior level of college ... the student is busy with all the prerequisites the first two years of college ... traditionally, climatology is a back water sub-discipline, for the students who struggled to pass two years of calculus and the idea of having to take a third year of calculus for Dynamic Meteorology is out of the question ... thus with just a second year of statistics, one can get their degree ...

Where do you come up with this nonsense?

Climate scientists start with degrees in physics. And they go on to a masters, specializing in atmospheric physics. And then a doctorate. And then postdoc work. It's among the hardest of the hard sciences.

As far as the OP goes, the hard science says hurricanes are getting stronger, just as AGW theory predicted.

Hurricanes really are getting stronger, just like climate models predicted

The authors of a new paper studied 4,000 tropical cyclones spanning 39 years.

www.livescience.com

Compare that to Tommy's collection of anecdotes and media sound bites, and there's no comparison. Tommy couldn't cite a scientific paper because there are no papers backing him up. That's why he had to go with anecdotes. Which are, of course, now soundly refuted.

It is obvious you didn't read the article.

Post one article remains unchallenged

 

[ReinyDays]

Where do you come up with this nonsense?
Climate scientists start with degrees in physics. And they go on to a masters, specializing in atmospheric physics. And then a doctorate. And then postdoc work. It's among the hardest of the hard sciences.

From the UCLA course catalog for Climate Science ... and I do apologize, apparently they are making climatologists take Diffy Q now ... but it's always been its own bachelor program ... where the hell did you get the idea this was a graduate program only ...

Note that it's 69ºF at 8 pm on December 7th there ... so you know those are the smartest weather people in the world ...

As far as the OP goes, the hard science says hurricanes are getting stronger, just as AGW theory predicted.

Hurricanes really are getting stronger, just like climate models predicted

The authors of a new paper studied 4,000 tropical cyclones spanning 39 years.

www.livescience.com

Compare that to Tommy's collection of anecdotes and media sound bites, and there's no comparison. Tommy couldn't cite a scientific paper because there are no papers backing him up. That's why he had to go with anecdotes. Which are, of course, now soundly refuted.

The National Enquirer isn't a scientific publication either ... would you know a scientific paper if you saw one? ... now, I'll give LiveScience credit for posting a link to the paper the article it's based on, and if you had bothered to follow that link, you would saw that the paper has been corrected recently, and the LiveScience article is outdated ... perhaps ... not my job to sort it out ...

As I said above ... 50 years of satellite data isn't considered enough to make 100 year projections ... why do you think 40 years is enough? ... looks to me the authors are applying the math to the data in hand, which isn't itself wrong, but must be considered in the context of a limited data set ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Where do you come up with this nonsense?
Climate scientists start with degrees in physics. And they go on to a masters, specializing in atmospheric physics. And then a doctorate. And then postdoc work. It's among the hardest of the hard sciences.

From the UCLA course catalog for Climate Science ... and I do apologize, apparently they are making climatologists take Diffy Q now ... but it's always been its own bachelor program ... where the hell did you get the idea this was a graduate program only ...

Note that it's 69ºF at 8 pm on December 7th there ... so you know those are the smartest weather people in the world ...

As far as the OP goes, the hard science says hurricanes are getting stronger, just as AGW theory predicted.

Hurricanes really are getting stronger, just like climate models predicted

The authors of a new paper studied 4,000 tropical cyclones spanning 39 years.

www.livescience.com

Compare that to Tommy's collection of anecdotes and media sound bites, and there's no comparison. Tommy couldn't cite a scientific paper because there are no papers backing him up. That's why he had to go with anecdotes. Which are, of course, now soundly refuted.

The National Enquirer isn't a scientific publication either ... would you know a scientific paper if you saw one? ... now, I'll give LiveScience credit for posting a link to the paper the article it's based on, and if you had bothered to follow that link, you would saw that the paper has been corrected recently, and the LiveScience article is outdated ... perhaps ... not my job to sort it out ...

As I said above ... 50 years of satellite data isn't considered enough to make 100 year projections ... why do you think 40 years is enough? ... looks to me the authors are applying the math to the data in hand, which isn't itself wrong, but must be considered in the context of a limited data set ...

The two strongest Hurricanes were left out of the Livescience paper (39 year time frame), but addressed in the post one article because it goes back to the 1960's.

From post one article:

"The global warming/hurricane connection completely falls apart when one looks more closely at the observational data.

For example, it was during the 1945-77 global cooling period, when ocean temperatures worldwide were undoubtedly lower than today, that we witnessed stronger hurricanes than now. For example, Hurricane Camille, the second-most intense tropical cyclone to strike the U.S. on record, slammed into Mississippi as a category 5 (the strongest) hurricane on August 18, 1969, producing a storm surge of 7.3 meters.

The most powerful tropical cyclone on record worldwide was not recent either. Immediately following a cooling period, the 2,200 km-wide “Super Typhoon” Tip, the strongest ever, made landfall in southern Japan on October 19, 1979 (Irma was 680 km across; Harvey 400 km). And the deadliest tropical cyclone was in the Bay of Bengal November 12-13, 1970, when the earth’s mean temp was decreasing. Sadly, it killed an estimated quarter-million people in East Pakistan, which is now Bangladesh.

According to the World Meteorological Organization, the biggest storm surge worldwide was 13 meters at Bathurst Bay, Queensland, in 1899. Some contemporary accounts assert the surge was 14.6 meters, or almost the height of a 50-story building. During the warmer 20th and 21st centuries, no tropical cyclone was strong enough to generate a surge greater than 10 meters."

bolding mine

 

[ding]

How do climate scientists make money again?

 

[ReinyDays]

The two strongest Hurricanes were left out of the Livescience paper (39 year time frame), but addressed in the post one article because it goes back to the 1960's.

From post one article:

"The global warming/hurricane connection completely falls apart when one looks more closely at the observational data.

For example, it was during the 1945-77 global cooling period, when ocean temperatures worldwide were undoubtedly lower than today, that we witnessed stronger hurricanes than now. For example, Hurricane Camille, the second-most intense tropical cyclone to strike the U.S. on record, slammed into Mississippi as a category 5 (the strongest) hurricane on August 18, 1969, producing a storm surge of 7.3 meters.

The most powerful tropical cyclone on record worldwide was not recent either. Immediately following a cooling period, the 2,200 km-wide “Super Typhoon” Tip, the strongest ever, made landfall in southern Japan on October 19, 1979 (Irma was 680 km across; Harvey 400 km). And the deadliest tropical cyclone was in the Bay of Bengal November 12-13, 1970, when the earth’s mean temp was decreasing. Sadly, it killed an estimated quarter-million people in East Pakistan, which is now Bangladesh.

According to the World Meteorological Organization, the biggest storm surge worldwide was 13 meters at Bathurst Bay, Queensland, in 1899. Some contemporary accounts assert the surge was 14.6 meters, or almost the height of a 50-story building. During the warmer 20th and 21st centuries, no tropical cyclone was strong enough to generate a surge greater than 10 meters."

bolding mine

If they're so sure ... they should publish in a scientific journal ... oh wait, Dr Mann keeps his data private ... so, no way to verify these claims ...

 

[ReinyDays]

How do climate scientists make money again?

Working for NOAA ... I guess ... teaching ... managing at McDonald's ... reading script into a TV camera ... programming computers ... live like a hermit in Montana ... the typical stuff you can do with a BS from UCLA ...

 

[ding]

How do climate scientists make money again?

Working for NOAA ... I guess ... teaching ... managing at McDonald's ... reading script into a TV camera ... programming computers ... live like a hermit in Montana ... the typical stuff you can do with a BS from UCLA ...

I didn't realize there was that much turnover at NOAA.

 

[ReinyDays]

I didn't realize there was that much turnover at NOAA.

I don't think many people make it through the program ...

 

[ding]

I didn't realize there was that much turnover at NOAA.

I don't think many people make it through the program ...

I hear the lobotomy is killer.

 

[ReinyDays]

I don't think many people make it through the program ...

I hear the lobotomy is killer.

The only thing I can think of is that so many folks want to become climatologists, they had to make the program more difficult ... one would need a lobotomy to take a year of differential equations ... math nerds have better options ...

I guess I'll have to update my rhetoric ... "Climatology is for people who struggled through three years of vector calculus such that the year of tensor calculus needed for dynamic meteorology is out of the question" ... risky, I could get away with that here on USMB but if I tried posting that on Facebook, I'd get reamed big time ... [sigh] ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

According to the World Meteorological Organization, the biggest storm surge worldwide was 13 meters at Bathurst Bay, Queensland, in 1899. Some contemporary accounts assert the surge was 14.6 meters, or almost the height of a 50-story building. During the warmer 20th and 21st centuries, no tropical cyclone was strong enough to generate a surge greater than 10 meters."

Or a 5-story building........

 

[ding]

I don't think many people make it through the program ...

I hear the lobotomy is killer.

The only thing I can think of is that so many folks want to become climatologists, they had to make the program more difficult ... one would need a lobotomy to take a year of differential equations ... math nerds have better options ...

I guess I'll have to update my rhetoric ... "Climatology is for people who struggled through three years of vector calculus such that the year of tensor calculus needed for dynamic meteorology is out of the question" ... risky, I could get away with that here on USMB but if I tried posting that on Facebook, I'd get reamed big time ... [sigh] ...

Well it is an anonymous forum. It’s not like that degree is useful for anything other than justifying carbon taxes.