How record-breaking Hurricane Beryl is a sign of a warming world

bbc ^ | 07/05/2024 | Mark Poynting

[ChicagoConservative27]

Hurricane Beryl has wreaked havoc in parts of the Caribbean – and put the role of climate change under the spotlight. With maximum sustained wind speeds of more than 160mph (257km/h), it became the earliest category five Atlantic hurricane in records going back around 100 years. In fact, there has only been one previous recorded case of a category five Atlantic hurricane in July – Hurricane Emily, on 16 July 2005. The causes of individual storms are complex, making it difficult to fully attribute specific cases to climate change. But exceptionally high sea surface temperatures are seen as a key reason why Hurricane Beryl has been so powerful. Usually, such strong storms only develop later in the season, after the seas have heated up through the summer. Hurricanes generally need the sea surface to be at least 27C in order to have a chance of developing. As the map below shows, waters along Hurricane Beryl’s path have been much warmer than this.

[cgbg]

New suckers are born every day....

[Vendome]

Circle back to me when Venice is under water

[nutmeg]

Good grief… 🙄

[nutmeg]

And when Obama’s and numerous other democRATs’ oceanfront homes in chic, massively expensive places like Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket are underwater. 🙄

[JimRed]

And the thing with the 1900 Galveston storm is that it not only went through Galveston, but the entire middle of the country and including Canada, even killing some up there in Canada.

A Mighty Day

I remember down in Galveston, when storm winds hit the town
The high tide from the ocean Lord, put water all around

Wasn't that a mighty day (a mighty day)
a mighty day (a mighty day),
A mighty day Great God, that mornin' when the storm winds hit the town!

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=f679bd25ecceb8bfJmltdHM9MTcyMDEzNzYwMCZpZ3VpZD0xOTMyOGI0Yy0zNTkxLTZjMWUtM2QzYy05OTcwMzRiODZkMDMmaW5zaWQ9NTIwNw&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=19328b4c-3591-6c1e-3d3c-997034b86d03&psq=A+mighty+day+lyrics&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9nZW5pdXMuY29tL1RoZS1jaGFkLW1pdGNoZWxsLXRyaW8tbWlnaHR5LWRheS1seXJpY3M&ntb=1

[Da Coyote]

As with most, if not all, of our formerly respected institutions, the BBC has become a joke.

[JJBookman]

Record _________ anomaly, proves once again that Climate Change is a crisis of our very existence!

[Magic Fingers]

“Some of the ocean warming can be attributed to this change.”

Uh huh. I estimate that this change accounted for approximately .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%.

[Magic Fingers]

“Cat 5s could have happened multiple times over the past 500 years but are unrecorded.”

Or the past 5,000,000 years.

[budj]

It is, indeed, a warming world. We emerged from the Little Ice Age in around 1850, and we've been warming since. There are also over ten million thermal subsea vents warming the oceans.

[CodeToad]

These weirdos said this type of crap for years as hurricane season had nothing year after year. For something like 12 years they predicted the worst hurricanes ever, only to have nothing.

[SomeCallMeTim]

exactly right... 100 years, in the grand scheme of things, doesn’t matter at all... Even less when you take into account what you said. We wouldn’t have known about it if it did happen.

[Racketeer]

So now that global warming is upon us we can expect a Cat 5 hurricane every 19 years somewhere. Gotcha!! With that being said, must we look at what happened in 2005 to get a better feel for what should happen now?

[Karoo]

what about that hurricane that tore down the railroad going to KeyWest FL?

Wasn’t that about 100 yr ago. There were a lot of huricanes in 1930s and 40s

[bk1000]

Katrina was a Cat 5

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

It was THE COMING ICE AGE scare in the 1970s.

[Retain Mike]

“The causes of individual storms are complex, making it difficult to fully attribute specific cases to climate change.”

You think?

If you want valid information about weather events like hurricanes and typhoons you need to accumulate the records for all storms since about 1850 or 1900 then use curve smoothing. You could add up the information for maybe ten years and compute an average. Now drop the first year, pick up the next one, and repeat the process. The resulting curve from graphing those computed points might tell you something you could use for further investigation, which if done professionally would not be intended to affirm any previous assumptions.

By the way, I had the 20:00 to 24:00 watch to maneuver our ship to relieve the strain of chains and ropes on the buoy as we withstood Typhoon Rose in Hong Kong harbor in August 1971. We were in the dangerous semicircle and the eye passed within 6-8 miles of us. Our wind gage had already pinned at 92 miles an hour when I began the watch. The gage at the British observatory broke at 175 miles an hour.

Such was my final exam as a Navy officer of the deck.

[teeman8r]

Must have been a wild ride. Tthanks for your service.

[Tell It Right]

I like your concept of collecting data for trends across 10 year periods and 50 year periods. Except that, IMHO, it seems like there wouldn't be enough data to build true trends. There are only a few hurricanes and typhoons per year. Thus, to get enough data points it'd probably need to extend for at least 100 years.

It's unlike me studying trends of temperatures in my area (downloaded at https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/search in CSV format). Every day there's a high temperature and a low temperature. Thus, every year I have 365 highs and 365 lows. Thus looking across 10 years I could surmise if it was worth going solar in my area (not for the grid, that's dumb, but for me to create enough homemade power to reduce my power bill enough that I don't worry about the Dims' warmageddon cult energy policies draining my retirement finances just to keep the house cool and warm).

I've had solar now for 3 years, plus my inverters record telemetry in 5-minute candles. I can download that, import it into a SQL Server database, and study how much solar power was coming in at any point in time, how much power my electrical panels consumed at that time (my load), how much excess power was stored to the batteries, how much power was pulled from batteries, and how much power was either pulled from the grid (buying power) or exported to the grid (selling power). Two years ago I used that detail of information to determine if it was worth upgrading the solar and, if so, which parts (i.e. more solar panels and/or more inverter capacity and/or more battery storage). Also if it was worth getting an EV since it was time to replace my wife's car anyway. With each of those decisions I was able to determine how much to invest in what component to upgrade it to take advantage of the economies of scale (more is better ROI), but not invest so much I would be fighting the law of diminishing returns (more is more expensive with less ROI). The same for other decisions like if it was worth it to replace my standard AC and gas furnace with a variable speed heat pump and heat strips, and replace my gas water heater with a hybrid water heater (built-in heat pump, or it can use normal heat strips).

End result: in the past 365 days 82% of the power we consumed was homemade power from solar/battery storage, with the other 18% having to be pulled from the grid. That includes charging the EV for 13K home charged miles (not counting charging away from home during trips). That's in an all-electric home. I don't recommend this for everybody. Just for those who can do this kind of detailed analysis on their own energy consumption habits and weather patterns.

My point: There's no way I would have spent the money to do it if my decision was based on only a few data points per year, like the # of hurricanes and typhoons per year in a 10 year or 50 year period. IMHO there's just not enough data points with that to build trends to warrant scaring the public over climate-ageddon. At least with my energy project, since it depends on daily high and low temps and daily sun hours and cloudy hours and rain hours, just a few years' worth of daily data is enough to build trends that matter for my project.

[Retain Mike]

Thank you for the response and your original post. I could have added that my graphs of 110 or 160 data point would have to consider changes in the ability to measure. In 1850 or 1900 there would be limited observations. If not careful a researcher would detect an increase in major storms just because more and better instrument and more deliberate attempts at observation.