NYT : It Will Take 260 Years To Diagnose Your Hurricane

Apparently the hurricane forensic labs have a 260 year delay in diagnosing whether a hurricane was caused by CO2, or if it was just a regular non-CO2 hurricane.

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/01/04/04climatewire-finding-the-fingerprints-of-climate-change-i-22773.html

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to NYT : It Will Take 260 Years To Diagnose Your Hurricane

  1. glacierman says:

    How Convenient.

  2. PhilJourdan says:

    So let me get this straight – we now can determine unequivocally that hurricanes in 1750 were or were not caused by climate change?

    I can save them a lot of trouble. The answer is no. However they were caused by WEATHER change.

  3. It's always Marcia, Marcia says:

    This is not the topic of the post, but does anyone know why ice from Hudson Bay to Greenland is so far behind?

  4. YFNWG says:

    This study was authored in part by Pielke Jr. (see http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/01/signals-of-anthropogenic-climate-change.html). As per the Climatewire article, the initial assumption is “the number of strongest hurricanes, categories 4 and 5, could double in 100 years because of climate change.”

    • truthsword says:

      Which is insane as it goes against the basic principles of weather… warm + warm can’t equal stronger storms, only warm + cold can. It’s like saying AGW will double the force of gravity in 100 years.

      • truthsword says:

        Oh… they are only assuming a false premise is true for the sake of study. Heh… should have known better.

      • glacierman says:

        CO2 are some powerful molecules, magical in fact…..it may be possible……we need more money to study the problem because if we don’t there will be an urgent situation that requires government intervention and global rationing. hehe.

  5. Andy Weiss says:

    Another study with absolutely no basis in fact.

    Most intense hurricane is US History was the Labor Day Hurricane that hit the Florida Keys in 1935, pressure 26.35″.

    2nd most intense hurricane in US History was Camille that hit the Mississippi Gulf Coast in 1969, pressure 26.61″.

    We have not had a landfalling US huricane under 27.00″ since Camille, 42 years ago. If global warming is causing more intense hurricanes, why haven’t those storms even been approached in recent years?

    God knows if there will even be a human race in 260 years. Projections of anything at that time scale in laughable.

    • truthsword says:

      The study ws actually looking at damage and cost on the assumption that hurricanes would get harsher via AGW. Like saying, okay for sake of argument look, it still won’t cost much more…

  6. Mike Davis says:

    Someone needs to look at what has happened in the past. It is the transition period and colder weather patterns that cause extreme weather events. Pressure differences create stronger storms so a cooling world or even a recovery from a cooling period will create stronger storms.

    Natural variations will follow their own patterns driven by solar and restricted by influences in the biosphere. We can observe history to see what is possible but we will not now until it is happening!

  7. Hal says:

    From that NY Times article;
    “The average time before a signal might be seen is 260 years, according to the combined findings of an 18-model ensemble used by the researchers.”

    ..an 18-model ensemble, …10 Silver Saxes,… a bass with a bow, the drummer relaxes…

  8. Dr. Killpatient says:

    The good news is that there will be guaranteed employment for more climate scientists in 260 years.

    Talk about long-term job security…

  9. John DeFayette says:

    It’s not as bad as it appears. The article is actually a warning to environmentalists to avoid using hurricane damage numbers for there cause, since the numbers may not be available in our lifetime and since they may not even be indicative of any climate change.

    There are no loony calls in the article for policy actions, and there is no connection to CO2 levels. It seems like a rather sane piece from the NYT.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s