Skip to comments.CO2 Cyclone Doomsday Flat Out Refuted: 170 Years “Absolutely No Trend” In Hurricane Intensity/Frequency
Posted on 05/24/2021 9:04:18 AM PDT by MurphsLaw
If you repeat a truth often enough, then it stays that way.
Comprehensive analyses of data again show no link between rising CO2 and tropical storm intensity or frequency. It’s important to repeat that regularly.
The latest comes from statistics expert, Zoe Phin, who looks at the alarmists’ claim that increasing CO2 emissions are leading to more frequent and intense Atlantic hurricanes.
Alarmist claims cost nothing, and so easily made. Zoe Phin looks at whether the hurricane alarmist claim holds up.
First Zoe looked at the (HURDAT2) data to find out if the first of the two claims (increasing frequency) is true. At first glance it would appear so.
But Zoe asks if the method of measuring the frequency really is sensible and if it maybe weren’t better to measure the amount of time the Atlantic spends in hurricane mode? To find out, Zoe plotted the hurricane hours data and the 10-year moving average:....
(Excerpt) Read more at notrickszone.com ...
This will help. It’s pretty fresh, too (today).
I’ve seen similar data on Watts up with that showing that wildfires, ocean levels, tornados, drought, floods - all the horsemen of the CO2 warmist apocalypse - all show similar long-term trends, ie) there is no trend.
One of the reason I discount the idea that hurricanes are becoming stronger and more frequent because of Climate Change is this...
170 years ago, how did we even how many hurricanes developed, think about today, we know because of weather satellites and observation points when a puff wind comes off the coast of Africa that might cause a hurricane, often those hurricanes veer north and come nowhere near land and no one probably had any idea a hurricane formed or where it went....
When was the first weather satellite launched ?? 1960 and it last 79 days in space and orbited at around 450 miles, it wasn’t until 1970 NOAA launched a geosynchronous orbit satellite....
Up until that time we had no idea how many hurricanes developed or the intensity of many of them....
If this country can send rovers to Mars, they can damn well construct photosynthesis plants to take CO2 out of the air and put out O2 and H2O!
Cut out all of this global warming THEORY (not a proven FACT) and start building the photosynthesis plants!
If this is not even on the table, then we KNOW this global warming theory is just being used to control the masses and create TAXES.
Thanks for the link- what a con job Al Gore got away with...
and the hockey stick fraud guy Mann....
Dumbed down meets brainwashed... AOC’s America....
WUWT is one of my favorite websites.... reliable science... not the consensus crap...
The wildfires out in the western US are because of bad forest management on Federal and State lands.
Not private timber lands.
The planet is “greening” due to the higher CO2 levels. Shara Desert is shrinking. Yet I’ve heard speakers complain about the plant “browning”.
Throw in a few long-term droughts...
Yes, technology makes us more aware of the details of all tropical storms - so too does the simple fact that now a much larger portion of America lives by the exposed ocean (rather than inland waterways, natural sheltered ports, etc...). We all want to live by the beach.
My point is, if you lived in Florida or anywhere along the Atlantic or Gulf Coasts 170 years ago, there was very little way to know a hurricane was headed your way....or the intensity of the hurricane.....
Technically, hurricanes should theoretically decrease because of fake global warming. Why? Storms are not created by heat. They are created by differential energy. All the outer gas giants are extremely cold yet have the largest storms in the solar system.
Even if it was true that the 0.01% change in CO2 over 100 years causes global warming, it would cause less differential between the equator and poles. Why? First, most heat received from the sun that is not absorbed deep into the ocean is discharged to space via the process of convection with massive heat carried from the ocean from evaporated water. Water not only has a massive heat capacity compared to CO2 but its mass in the air makes CO2 neglible. Huge amounts of heat is transfered from what was absorbed in the ocean by the sun through the process of converting water from its liquid state to a gas state. This heats the lower atmosphere, thus reducing the density. As the air becomes less dense, colder air in the stratosphere sinks as the humid air rises. Eventually the humid air rises to a critical point and transitions once again to liquid which once again releases massive amounts of heat to the upper atmosphere which can then radiate to space. This is why there are thunderstorms in the tropics every day and this is not impeded at all by CO2. The heat retained by extra CO2 is absolutely neglible. It is a little different at the poles however. The lack of sun and the albedo and the lack of humidy prevents convection. There is a lack of humidy at the poles because it is so cold that any water freezes out. Dry air has virtually no thermal capacity so it takes very little energy to effect a temperature change. If you have ever been in the desert at night, you will have noticed that even if it was 100 degrees during the day, it can drop below freezing at night, or a cloudy night in the winter is much warmer than a clear night. So anyway, the arctic can be a “record” high temperature in the winter, but with a complete lack of humidy there is little to no energy in the air, and tiny shifts in the jet stream or the ocean current will change the amount of heat being delivered to the region and relatively tiny amounts of heat flux can cause massive temperature swings but relatively no increase in energy. Ok, so assuming global warming causes a blanket effect, this will only have an effect at the poles since there is no significant convection at the poles. The only effect from the CO2 would be to slow down heat loss to space delivered by ocean currents or the jet stream. However, the heat carrying capacity of the relatively tiny mass of CO2 is negligible, but assuming that it was a significant amount of heat energy the effect of that would be to reduce the heat differential between the poles and the equator which would reduce the strength of hurricanes.
Hopefully, the gist is understood. This is off the top of my head quickly so definitely scattered. One of these days I need to write all this up and more properly
Good point. The earlier numbers should have been significantly understated.
They like to use damage costs as their proxy. But replacement costs of buildings steadily go up. There are also more building along the coasts than in the past.
Another issue is before the satellite era how many storms formed off africa and just spun harmlessly in the atlantic with no landfall?
“One of the reason I discount the idea that hurricanes are becoming stronger and more frequent because of Climate Change is this...
They just named a thunderstorm as the first storm of the year (Ana). It was nothing, and I mean nothing.
“It begins. The official start to hurricane season is more than a week away, but the first-named storm of the season formed early Saturday morning as Subtropical Storm Ana took shape over the Atlantic Ocean, east of Bermuda.
It transitioned to a tropical storm Sunday morning, and is Ana is forecast to become post-tropical by Sunday night and dissipate on Monday, the National Hurricane Center said Sunday.”
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.