86% Of US Hurricane Strikes Occurred Below 350 PPM CO2

The graph below is a good visualization of the criminally incompetent nature of the IPCC, who told the US Congress this week :

IPCC scientists tell Senate committee drought, wildfires and hurricanes are becoming normal because of climate change

Climate change the cause of summer’s extreme weather, Congress told | Environment | guardian.co.uk

www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/ushurrlist18512009.txt

Eighty-six percent of all US hurricanes occurred below Hansen’s safe level of 350 ppm.

www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/ushurrlist18512009.txt

Advertisements

About stevengoddard

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

30 Responses to 86% Of US Hurricane Strikes Occurred Below 350 PPM CO2

  1. Don Sutherland says:

    Since 1851, 85% of years occurred when CO2 was below 350 PPM. There’s no meaningful difference in terms of U.S. landfalls pre- and post-350 PPM.

  2. WOT says:

    Maybe because we haven’t gotten above 350ppm until recently…?

    You really know how to cook the numbers.

  3. johnmcguire says:

    Hey that wot dude is still hanging around I see . Hahahaha if you and Don know so much about climate and weather then let’s hear your weather predictions for the next three month period and next winter and then your long term prediction. We have Joe Bastardi’s prediction now and we have heard wild speculation from other warmists and apparently you guys know so much so let’s hear it. The warmists always come back with excuses why their models didn’t line up with reality and blah blah blah we should believe them and not our own eyes.

    • WOT says:

      I don’t know about Don, but I know I’m not an expert and I don’t pretend to be one. However, it doesn’t take an expert to point out fundamental problems and outright lies in Goddard’s posts.

      Goddard pretends to be an expert though. I do not. I cannot speak for Don, though.

    • Don Sutherland says:

      Climate research is ongoing and there is room to improve climate models. Climate models, like any other model, is a representation of a phenomenon.

      In terms of the evolution of the climate, the role of CO2 offers the best available explanation for the observed warming that remains underway. The explanatory power of natural forcings has become relatively lower when it comes to observed temperature trends, especially since the mid-20th century. To date, those offering contrarian positions have not published any credible work that can use entirely natural forcings to explain the climate trend anywhere near as accurately as the addition of CO2 does.

      Finally, the recent deepest and longest solar minimum since at least the early 20th century did not eliminate the earth’s energy imbalance. A large energy imbalance persisted. Hence, some other factor–and it is CO2–is playing the dominant role when it comes to forcings.

      • Eric Barnes says:

        The phenomenon I find interesting is that you and WOT were given a brain, but refuse to use them for anything other than re-bleating alarmist tripe.

  4. scizzorbill says:

    I caught the last 2 minutes of a PBS program in my hometown of San Diego, CA. in ’09. The hosts were interviewing a young woman about her doctoral thesis on historical weather. Her last comment was: “by the way,the last time a hurricane hit San Diego was in 1858”.

    Two reasons for posting this: Extreme weather can occur on the west coast; and this happened as we were climbing out of the Little Ice Age. Since CO2 is not a factor for extreme weather, I won’t mention the CO2 level at the time.

    • Don Sutherland says:

      Natural or internal variability has always occurred. It will continue to occur. Such variability is now occurring within the context of a warming climate. Climate change can impact natural variability and the literature suggests that it will likely amplify extremes.

      • Sparks says:

        That’s a very odd line of thought, saying that; the Natural Variability will likely amplify extremes due to a warmer climate, we know the climate was much warmer in the past and we know it has also been much cooler too. This appears to suggests that you may not understand what Natural Variability actually is. The literature suggests Natural Variability has more of an “impact” than any other realistic climate variable, including the small amount and composition of those atmospheric gases that are classified as the “Green House Gases”.

      • Don Sutherland says:

        Sparks,

        For illustrative purposes, I’ll use the example of temperatures. The literature suggests that the distribution of temperatures will shift to the right (making warmer outcomes relatively more likely) and flatten with longer tails (higher standard deviation, meaning what were once considered once in a century events will occur somewhat more frequently).

        Let’s say a high temperature level is a 3 sigma event. That event would have about a 1-in-741 probability of occurrence. Assume, nothing else has changed but the standard deviation (flattening of the curve, which elongates the tails) to the point that the event is now a 2.5 sigma event. The new statistical probability of occurrence would make it a 1-in-161 occurrence. If the mean temperature shifts to the right (warms), then the probability of occurrence would be even greater than 1-in-161. That’s the effect the literature is describing.

      • scizzorbill says:

        I agree with the 1st. 2 sentences. What warming climate? There has been no warming for the last 15 years no matter what the Big Green Propaganda Machine says.

        Sentence 4: Since the climate is always in a state of flux, and natural variability exists, pinning one on the other or vice a versa is like saying water is wet except when it is frozen. “the literature suggests”. You use the words ‘can’, ‘suggests’, and ‘likely’ as if they had some value. This is here-say. There is no scientific basis for your claim to ‘literature’ suggesting the amplification of extreme weather.

      • Eric Barnes says:

        Like causing hurricanes to be as frequent as they were thousands of years ago?
        Thanks for the warning genius.
        http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/hurricane/

      • gofer says:

        Where’s the rise in humidity? Without that, CAGW is a non issue. What happened to the “tropical hot spot” that was the smoking gun of GW? Nothing seems to work in their hypothesis, so they just keep changing the subject and do more “adjusting.”

  5. rocknblues81 says:

    Left wing environmentalist… Always “fearing” that big disaster. Always fear and cynical feelings.

    • gofer says:

      There’s a show on Discovery Channel “How Will the World End?” Of course, the Superstorm was highlighted with 2″ rain for a month…………..I changed the channel.

  6. Sparks says:

    Hurricane strikes have no link to CO2 that I can find. There are plenty of articles by the usual man made global warming advocates scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for any Anthropogenic link to all things climate.

    • gofer says:

      Hurricanes were used as a huge fear factor. They were supposed to get stronger and more frequent and when that didn’t work out, they were to get less frequent but stronger, and when that didn’t occur, they changed the subject.

  7. WOT says:

    “Hurricanes were used as a huge fear factor. They were supposed to get stronger and more frequent and when that didn’t work out, they were to get less frequent but stronger, and when that didn’t occur, they changed the subject.”
    Citation needed.

  8. Sparks says:

    Don Sutherland,

    You have described a model reasonably well, although the assumption you are making is that if there were an increase of occurrences of Let’s say your Model accuracy to give us a level of confidence of it being correct, lets give the 3 sigma event an equal probability of 1-in-741.
    To cut a long story short, If the standard deviation changed as above to the point the event is now a 2.5 sigma event. The new statistical probability of your Model accuracy would still give us a 1-in-161 level of confidence of it being correct. Which as you can clearly see, it’s still only a probability and not a scientific observation of cause and effect.

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