Global Warming Alarmists Redefine What A Hurricane Is So We'll Have More Of Them

Submitted by: trimble 1 year ago in Science
al-gore-hurricane-image

Eleven years ago, Al Gore swore that "the science is extremely clear now." Global warming was "magnifying" the "destructive power" of the "average hurricane," he said. Man's impact on the environment "makes the duration, as well as the intensity of the hurricane, stronger."

The weather refused to cooperate with Gore and the U.S. went 11 years without a hurricane making landfall. But Hurricane Matthew renewed the alarmists' faith in their own nonsense. Acting is if 11 days rather than 11 years had passed, Gore said last week that in Hurricane Matthew, "Mother Nature is giving us a very clear and powerful message." From the same stage in Florida, Hillary Clinton said "Hurricane Matthew was likely more destructive because of climate change." The Washington Post, ever dutiful to the man-made global warming narrative, asked climate scientist Michael Mann (whose hockey stick chart supposedly proves human-caused warming but fails the test for some) about her statement. Naturally, he told the Post she was "absolutely" right.

There are 22 comments:
Male 10,855
Actually hurricanes have been making landfall since Katrina. My biggest issue with this particular aspect of the AGW case is that they claim that hurricanes are getting worse, WITHOUT adjusting for the infrastructure built along the coastlines. More stuff on coastlines the more it is at risk and when the danger comes, you get the idea. In short it's causing more damage only because we're building more stuff. 1)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Florida_hurricanes_(2000%E2%80%93present)#2014, yes I know the page references Florida but there are links to the Atlantic hurricane seasons
0
Reply
Male 40,772
Yes Cajun, that isn't disputed. The way it is counted is MAJOR Hurricanes and MINOR ones. Force 2.0 (iirc) or over is Major, and those usually come every 1-3 years, sometimes 2-3 in one year, other years none. But for 11+ years there were NO major ones despite the AGW PREDICTION of more and stronger ones in that time! There were weaker ones and ZERO in number major ones. So when Al Gore and the rest of the AGW Fanatics parade Matthew as 'proof of AGW' they are flat-out lying. Period.
0
Reply
Male 6
Global warming is a real thing. It has been happening since the tipping point of the last ice age. This a natural part of Earth's recovery process from the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event .  Any attempt by man to halt or hinder this process will end disastrously for us. AGW is little more than fearmongering at it's worst. Al Gore and his ilk are carpetbaggers hoping to get rich off our fears.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
Al Gore's hope came true! He was rich before, but he's made millions off AGW huckstering. Welcome to IAB, beware of trolls, leftists and Liberals :-) Sorry to be redundant, lolz!
0
Reply
Male 4,953
You're serious? Okay, then. I have a simple question for you, which you should be able to answer with ease since you seem very confident in the explanation of global warming that you've just offered. Exactly what natural "recovery process" is causing the Earth to suddenly warm rapidly in response to an event that occurred 66 million years ago? What's the mechanism?
0
Reply
Male 40,772
Natural cycles is the mechanism. There's dozens of them that affect the Earth over very long periods. The Sun naturally changes over long periods. The Earth's atmosphere naturally changes over long periods. There's natural slight fluctuations in the Earth's orbit and tilt, the albedo changes over time also. (btw: that is indeed one area that humans have had an effect, but just a small one, not +4.4C ok?) Even 'cosmic radiation' changes as the Sun (and us too) circles around in our arm of the Milky Way. >>> How about you Squrlz4? You can easily explain how since the last Great Ice Age the Earth has naturally been warming, but for the past 100 years it has been 100% human caused. Why did natural forces stop entirely?
0
Reply
Male 4,953
 
0
Reply
Male 40,772
And lastly: these 'new records' made with highly adjusted data using 'sketchy' methodology which omits the most accurate data entirely? Are 'records' by numbers like 0.01 or 0.02... FAR LESS that the margin of error! And since they have a history of retroactively lowering past data? No doubt the IPCC will also lower THESE records too... but the sky is falling! We must spend trillions right now! No further science is required... or allowed.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
NOTE: The temps going up doesn't DISPROVE Skeptic Theory at all. We've said from the start that the Earth WILL WARM between 0.9 and 1.3C by 2020, mostly naturally! Like it has for the past 3-600 years in a row. (0.3 to 0.9 apx) At the same time, AGW said +4.4 minimum by 2020. Minimum! The past 18 years have us on a line to warm by... 1.2C by 2020. >>>Look at Paris: their 'worst case prediction' is now 'dumbed down' to 2.2C to 2.4C and if EVERY measure were followed it might lower that by... 0.2C. Maybe. And there's no fucking way their goals will be met since #3 Indixa and #1 Chinxa BOTH will DOUBLE their CO2 by 2050, not reduce it, double, on purpose, for certain.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
The IPCC temps are artificially raised and past temps lowered ON PURPOSE to make it LOOK LIKE these are record levels. This is a fact. Using the actual, most accurate data available? It is lower and a very slight rise over 18 years. NOTE: Your data there does NOT use this NASA data, on purpose, because it 'flattens' their graph too much, so they deliberately exclude it. This all has been on IAB already, but you were away so it's no biggie. NOTE: They lowered the previous 'hottest year' temp (1998) to below many recorded in the 30's (before the IPCC lowered those too!) so I guess they were, by their own data, WRONG eh? But this time we should believe them, oh yes, the science is settled! Except, you know, until it's retroactively altered in secret, again, to support the theory...
0
Reply
Male 4,953
The chart is "meaningless" only if you are unable to understand it. Developed by the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the chart shows that by the year 2000, it was already obvious that global warming could not possibly be explained by natural forcings alone. In the 16 years since, the disparity between observed temperatures and models that exclude anthropogenic causes has grown significantly wider. On balance, natural forcings such as the Milankovitch cycles and solar radiance would be resulting in a steady-to-slight cooling of global temperatures. Instead we have witnessed record-breaking temperatures: 2014 was the hottest year on record since the beginning of instrument records in 1880. Then 2015 came, and that became the hottest year on record. Now 2016 is almost certainly going to eclilpse the record for 2015. In fact, up until last month, the preceding 16 months were each the hottest ever recorded--that's 16 months in a row.  ... As for your statement that modeling past temperaures is "super-easy compared to predicting the future," that's simply a nonsensical statement. Models are painstakingly developed and then tested by using them to retroactively plot temperatures for previous decades. If the model hews closely to what was observed, that suggests the model may do a good job of forecasting future decades. There's no "super-easy" or "more difficult" tasks here, relative to past or future: It's all one and the same. .... Lastly, the latter part of your comment is nonsenical hokum regurgitated from right-wing denialist blogs. In the past 18 years, the models have not "all been wrong," as you glibly and erroneously state--far from it. All of the IPCC models have been reasonably accurate and well within their margins of error. The only models that have been wildly wrong have been the models of the global warming skeptics, who claimed that global temperatures would be stead--or even declining. You would think they would have crawled under a rock in shame. But no--they're still banging away on their blogs, churning out content for the gullible.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
This chart stops at 2000, shortly after the AGW predictions started. It is meaningless to the topic here. Yes, modeling past temperatures is a sign of a half-decent model, but it's super-easy compared to predicting the future, yes? We can agree on that? >>> So the past 18 odd years the models have all been wrong, unless the numbers are altered to MAKE them fit the theory. That is not science. And if they're wrong after 20 years? Why should we believe they'll be right in another 80 years? We will never know! For all we know, we could be making things worse! :-/
0
Reply
Male 4,953
@5Cats: "Natural cycles." That answer of yours is a fudge, about one step removed from replying "Because reasons." Which natural cycle? You provide a hodgepodge of natural cycles--all of which have been studied exhaustively by NASA and climate scientists, and none of which can account for the rapid rise in global temperatures over the past 100 years. As for the question you've asked me, the very question is nonsense. Natural forces have not "stopped entirely"; no climate scientist I know has ever suggested such a thing. In fact, climate scientists, as a matter of course, account for natural forces in their research and in their models. To suggest otherwise is absurd. Please see the graphic in my next comment, which shows a chart illustrating what the models have shown: natural forces cannot account for the warming we've seen; only when anthropogenic causes are added to the models do they track correctly.
0
Reply
Male 4,953
(1) You are literally stating that you think climate models "do a terrible job" because they don't provide the results that you agree with. Wow.  ...  (2) No one is really certain about how global warming is affecting hurricanes. It's a little early in the scheme of things. Certainly in the 1990s, most climate scientists believed that warmer oceans would result in more frequent hurricanes. That was a reasonable expectation, but it doesn't appear to be the case. Now, some scientists are thinking that the net effect will be no increase in frequency, but an increase in intensity. They're working on it.  (3) Your statement that "every single AGW model has been entirely outside the margin of error so far" is absurd. You do know that there are over 5,000 global warming models, at least, that have been developed over the past 20 years, don't you? Some were conservative, some were aggressive, some were what-ifs? Of those thousands of models, the ones that are most significant are the four published by the IPCC in 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007. Those were the models that a large majority of climate scientists had the most confidence in and they have been remarkably accurate, well within their margins of error. Can you kindly take note of this fact and stop repeating, ad nauseam, your false claim that "all models" have been wrong over and over again? Please. (4) Regarding some unidentified climate model's prediction for cooling, I have no idea to what model you're referring, nor do I particularly care. Models are models: Some are made to illustrate impossible scenarios, some are made to test what-ifs, some are made to test the interplay of variables. You seem to think every model created by every climate scientist is designed to produce an equally reliable roadmap to the future and that if any one model produces a screwy result, the entire field of climate science is somehow deligitimized. Strange.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
I just listed 4, you need to eat more carrots, your eyesight is failing. And you never answered my questions at all: 1. Why did natural cycles suddenly stop in 1900 (or whenever AGW began). They constantly tell us that AGW is 100% human caused, and no, the models do a terrible job of including outside factors because if they did? They wouldn't show any 'human caused warming'. 2. Why was there a record-long 11 years without a single major landfall if AGW remains as active as it was when there were lots? (like when the 4 big storms hit, Katrina being the worst) 3. Every single AGW model has been entirely outside the margin of error so far. We've had this discussion before, so let's not bother with that. 4. Why do these models you hold so dearly sometimes predict massive cooling by the next century? If they worked so well, why do they keep spitting out different answers? Hint: because 'garbage in, garbage out' ok? They are run by politics, not science, and that is how it has been from day one.
0
Reply
Male 4,953
5Cats, I wasn't addressing you; I asked my question of Woolph58. (I'll address your response, 5Cats, in a separate comment.) Woolph58, I wasn't asking the question to be a smart-alec. I asked the question because a lot of detractors of global warming science base their objections on what they read on right-wing blogs. Consequently, they are misinformed by idealogues who care more about politics than science. If you can answer my question, please do. Or, if you have a question of your own, ask away and I'll do my best.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
1: No! 97% Consensus! You'd have to be a skeptic liar to claim otherwise. No True Scientist ever disagreed with the consensus, more storms & stronger was what they ALL said 11 years ago. ANYONE who published factual papers claiming otherwise since then has been attacked, even fervent AGW supporters. 1A: No! Al Gore did NOT say 'more OR less' he said MORE. And so did every single AGW alarmist. Not one disagreed with AG back then and that's a fact. Trying to change what they said 11 years ago is a bullshit thing to do. 2: Al Gore talked about the USA specifically, as did many AGW fanatics after Katrina and other big hurricanes. So it fully applies. This happens every time, that dead horse is flogged over and over again, 'USA is not the woooorld!' but it's a sizeable chunk of it... You'd think AGW would be more or less evenly spread, that's what ALL the AGW 'climate models' are based on, ffs. In fact the whole world has NOT seen more OR bigger storms making landfall (that's the keyword here) in the past 10 years. Yes, we 'detect' more but that's because of satellites, duh! It's been proven that accurate records of storms making landfall in several parts of the world go back hundreds of years, almost a thousand in some places. 3: Al Gore was the SPOKESMAN for AGW. He won a fucking academy award for a PowerPoint presentation where he garbled his words and got 17+ basic facts wrong. He still makes huge money selling AGW to people, and the MSM licks it up every time he speaks. He's the MSM's darling and so are a lot of Non-scientists who know sweet fuck-all about the subject, but feeeeel so strongly about it that they want YOU (not themselves!) to pay for everything.
0
Reply
Male 3,425
whats your angle bro?
0
Reply
Male 2,637
1) Actual scientists are diametrically opposed as to climate change's effect on the frequency of storms. Some say more, others less. 2) The US is but one nation. Congrats on the relative calm, but how'd the rest of the planet fare? 3) Who cares what your former politicians think about the science? If you need a devil to blame, fine, but it's not my gospel.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
So they continue to brainwash children, who are helplessly trapped in the 'public education' system. Australian Kids are being fed the most outrageous lies and propaganda, not one of these things is real. Sunsets will NOT be destroyed by HUMANS. Bulldozed land destroys it? I don't hardly think so! Look at every single house, school, road, sidewalk, building: all bulldozed, yet the land all around it continues to thrive. There ARE real ecological disasters that are underway that humans are causing, but those don't get mentioned because... politics! AGW is ALL about politics, not about science in the least. Sunsets will be destroyed by AGW, give me a break.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
Did Matthew actually touch land with it's 'eye'? If not then it doesn't break the calm spell :-) I'm pretty sure it did though, lolz! >>> And the Fanatics wonder why we Skeptics don't believe them and prefer facts over Al Gore's opinion? Here's a good example of why that is. After predicting the next 10 years would see MORE and more powerful storms hit the USA? There were ZERO. Then, 11 years later, ONE storm hits and Al Gore claims he's 100% correct? And Skeptics are just supposed to silently accept this? Sheesh...
0
Reply