Guest post by Joe Bastardi
“it’s part of a trend, Katrina, the record season of 2005 was part of a trend towards more destructive storms”
Is Dr. Mann kidding? The facts below will show the fallacy of this statement. I will do him the favor of showing him the facts of the matter, since statements like this reveal he does not know them, of if he does, defies logic with the statement above attributed to him.
First of all, we are in the warm AMO and as you will see, if anything, one has to wonder why this has not been worse!
Global ACE index
Major impact storms, 3 or greater on the US coast, by Decade
Hit points ( take the intensity category at landall and add up)
1940s 10 Majors ( one double hit, 1947 so it could be 11) 34 hit points
1950s 9 majors ( We could count Donna 3 times to make it 11 as it hit as a major in 3 separate places) by hit points this was number one 37
8 majors 1930s hit points 28
1890s 8 Majors 27 points
1911-1920 8 majors 27 hit points
2001-2010 SEVEN HITS 22 POINTS. How is that any sign of a trend UP?
According to NOAA, this is the longest stretch of of no major hits on the US coast since the 1860s ( btw, because of the physical reality of the overall pattern the next several years, cold pdo, warm amo, that should change and perhaps with a vengeance
In fact even the 1960s Beat this 7 Hits, but more Intensity upon landfall 25 points ( the warm amo lasted into the early to mid 60s)
This warm cycle of the AMO HAS BEEN MILD compared to the last one and the one before and the LANDFALL IMPACT PROVES IT. We did not have the kind of saturation of data gathering we do now, then. For instance, we know that a Katrina was a cat 5 in the gulf but could we have known that in the 1940s, or back in 1915-1916 when storms hit the coast as cat 3s, like Katrina, but may have been stronger in the gulf. If anything, it seems like they ARE NOT AS STRONG at landfall in this current cycle, but I am not willing to attribute that to anything beyond natural variability. But What we do have is reliable landfall data, that is a constant from the 1800s . If you are arguing storms are “more destructive” it can not be from a physically sound meteorological point as the reality proves that. From the point of inflation and more population on the coast, well that has nothing to do with the reality of storm intensity upon landfall
My question to Dr Mann is are you aware of these truths?. This is on the NHC site, anyone can see this. Haven’t you looked at the ACE Index. There is no way anyone can hide the decline since the peak in 04-05 in the ACE, or the decline in the amount of majors/decade striking the US coast in this AMO compared to the others IT IS DOWN, NOT UP. You have to know we are in a warm AMO (I am astounded there has not been more major hurricane activity, especially near the east coast, though now we are entering the period where we should see it before the AMO flips to cold in 10 years). But your statements, along with others, for instance on Irene being a sign of global warming, and now this, are not supported anywhere in the data. You can not compare the saturation of data over the water now with constant recons with what went on before. For instance, one of the only recon flights into the 1944 Great Atlantic hurricane, came back with 50% of the screws stripped. Do you realize how powerful that storm was? But there was no recon every 6 hours into the storms in the last warm cycle of the AMO.
So I submit that in no way is your statement supported by the actual facts, which are plain for everyone to see. If you have not seen them, well hopefully now you will. Many on my side of the debate, the weather intensive group that does not believe in the AGW idea, would love to see your data that supports such a headline grabbing statement, one I am sure the media loves to see. But we have our facts, a few listed above, that would seem to overwhelmingly disprove your idea, so if we can see evidence contrary to ours, please reveal it.