Posted on 10/18/2016 4:09:51 AM PDT by SSS Two
Whether they admit it out loud or not, many global warming alarmists want more destructive weather events to validate their assumptions. But what happens when they can't get their "dirty weather," as Al Gore calls it? Then they'll just have define down what a disaster is.
After Matthew dumped more than 17 inches of rain in North Carolina, science editor Andrew Freedman wrote in Mashable that "it's time to face the fact that the way we measure hurricanes and communicate their likely impacts is seriously flawed. "
"We need a new hurricane intensity metric," he said, "that more accurately reflects a storm's potential to cause death and destruction well inland."
The current measure is the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale, which, according to the National Hurricane Center, provides "a 1 to 5 rating based on a hurricane's sustained wind speed." But if the intensity of a storm is redefined by using other criteria, such as rainfall and storm surge flooding, the game changes.
"So with a new metric, warmists can declare every storm 'unprecedented' and a new 'record,' " says Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot and producer of "Climate Hustle," a movie that "takes a skeptical look at global warming."
The alarmists need to redefine hurricanes especially now, since the data show that hurricane and tropical storm frequency is "flat to slightly down," and science — yes, that "settled" field that somehow continues to discover new things — has failed to show a link between hurricanes and global warming. They still need to hide the decline, except this time the decline that must be buried is in hurricanes, not the temperature record.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
(Disclaimer: Hurricanes are serious events. Asking for accurate information about hurricanes does not mean I do not take them seriously. In fact, my preference for accurate information suggests I am more serious about tropical systems. Requesting accurate information about hurricanes is not inconsistent with encouraging people in harm's way to take appropriate precautions.)
LOL. Did you manage to use “honest” and “gummint” in the same sentence? ROTFLMAO.
The Weather Channel started naming winter storms a few years ago; I suppose they’ll name thunderstorms soon.
Maybe they could name the next hurricane “Christopher Hayes”.
The biggest hurricanes are these guys’ mouths.
BTW, any FReepers that withstood this past hurricane, I hope you came out ok.
Example: Redefine "obesity" and then run headlines, "25% more kids are obese! Ban this or that!"
So now it's redefine hurricane severity so they can run headlines, "x% more devastating hurricanes! Globull warming!"
I hate these people.
Fishing report, wind speeds, buoy data, and stop yer yappin’ and just show me the doppler loop for the past hour. I’ll take it from there. :-)
Redefine 1 nonendangered species into multiple species based on trivial distinctions so as to claim most or all are endangered...then try to ignore that they interbreed freely where the one-spotted junglemouse population meets the two-spotted junglemouse population after a drought dries up the river in between.
There are several private weather companies who have created their own scale and it helps their clients tremendously. I know of one that has a scale that includes wind speed, size, surge and rain. It actually works really well.
I guess my point is: This is not a new idea brought on by the AGW crowd. It's an idea which has been suggested by the pro-mets for years. It's just the NHC is so antiquated they don't want to mess with their golden calf and have the headache of re-training the public.
The AGW crowd may not have originated this idea, but you know they will parley it into “proof” of their unholy religion.
Follow the money.
So-called “global warming” provides endless numbers of mediocre scientists with fat government grants, perks, and privileges with which to manufacture half-arsed theories to fund their Porsches, summer homes, and private schools for the kids.
It’s a fraudulent taxpayer-funded Twenty-First Century cottage industry.
Of that there is no doubt. I've been fighting those people inside and outside of my field...for years.
When the average person finds out I am a meteorologist...one of the first questions I will usually get is about climate change. My favorite story is: I was at NORTHCOM at Petersen AFB a few years back and decided to get a one day lift ticket at the MWR place at the AFA...and went skiing at Breckenridge. I got on a lift (the long one...it's about 8-10 minutes long) with a couple from Connecticut. Within the first minute they made the mistake of asking about my profession...and then asked the AGW question. They were a VERY captive audience and for the remainder of the ride they got lectured about AGW and the lies involved. Never seen two people get off a lift and ski in the opposite direction so fast.
Actually, this is a needed change, as two of the three most destructive storms in US history - Ike and Sandy - were not considered major hurricanes at landfall (Sandy wasn’t even officially a hurricane at landfall). However, risk from surge and rainfall can be very tough to predict - witness the higher-than-anticipated rainfall in NC from Matthew. And a minor wobble in Ike’s track to the north spared Galveston from getting hammered by the surge that wiped out the Bolivar Penisula.
Are you suggesting that SE Texas was insufficiently prepared for H. Ike because it was “only a Category 2”?
I am saying that Ike had Cat 4 surge as a Cat 2 storm, just as Katrina had Cat 5 surge as a landfalling Cat 3. Also, tens of thousands of people remained on Galveston Island for Ike and would have been in profound risk if the track had not wobbled to the north. So we need a better, more robust classification system so people see a storm like Cat 2 Ike and think it’s not going to be a big deal since it technically is not a major under the S-S scale.
your assumption that the total variability of the storms can be fit into little boxes is fallacious.
No two storms are identical and each individual storm is constantly variable such that a classification is continuously variable.
wind speed is the only measurable variable
See post 9 and get back to me. Plus, N'oreaster forecasts factor in fetch for severity of surge and waves, so it is do-able. Water is the biggest killer and most damaging component of most hurricanes. So forecasts need to do more to factor in surge and rainfall.
Re Sandy, few if any predicted the damage that would be caused on its back end by snowfall.
Up to five feet of heavy, wet snow (with NO wind) piled up to cave in roofs and bring down trees and powerlines throughout WV and the MD panhandle.
In some places, as the NG was clearing roads of trees, more continued to fall behind them.
Cracked up, big time, over that one! Good for you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.