A new paper published in GRL gives a 1000-year perspective on Hurricane activity in Boston, USA. The paper is entitled: 'A 1,000-year, annually-resolved record of hurricane activity from Boston, Massachusetts,' by Besonen et al.
The Abstract states:
The annually-laminated (i.e., varved) sediment record from the Lower Mystic Lake (near Boston, MA), contains a series of anomalous graded beds deposited by strong flooding events that have affected the basin over the last millennium. From the historic portion of the record, 10 out of 11 of the most prominent graded beds correspond with years in which category 2–3 hurricanes are known to have struck the Boston area. Thus, we conclude that the graded beds represent deposition related to intense hurricane precipitation combined with wind-driven vegetation disturbance that exposes fresh, loose sediment. The hurricane signal shows strong, centennial-scale variations in frequency with a period of increased activity between the 12th–16th centuries, and decreased activity during the 11th and 17th–19th centuries. These frequency changes are consistent with other paleoclimate indicators from the tropical North Atlantic, in particular, sea surface temperature variations.
The paper concludes:
The LML sedimentary record provides a well-controlled and annually-resolved record of category 2–3 hurricane activity in the Boston area over the last millennium. The hurricane signal shows centennial-scale variations in frequency with a period of increased activity between the 12th–16th centuries, and decreased activity during the 11th and 17th–19th centuries. We recognize that the LML record is a single point source record representative for the greater Boston area, and hurricanes that passed a few hundred km to the east or west may not have produced the very heavy rainfall amounts and vegetation disturbance in the lake watershed necessary to produce a strong signal within the LML sediments. Nevertheless, we also note that clear evidence of a secular change in hurricane frequency identified in the LML record is consistent with other lines of evidence that conditions for the development of hurricanes have changed on centennial timescales. Hence, it appears that hurricane activity was more frequent in the first half of the last millennium when tropical Atlantic SSTs were warmer and eastern equatorial Pacific SSTs were cooler than in subsequent centuries.
Also, a NOAA climate realist speaks out:
Excerpt: “I did not say if there is global warming, it would be man-made,” Mr. Goldenberg emphasized. “Not all scientists agree that the warming we’ve seen is necessarily anthropogenic. It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” According to Stanley Goldenberg, meteorologist with the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, based in Miami, “Numerous hurricane meteorologists agree that the historical data has not produced any evidence of changes [due to climate change] in the number or intensity of hurricanes, particularly in the Atlantic Basin, and even globally. “There are some who have done studies that do claim a link, [but] virtually all those studies have been heavily rebutted by others in the hurricane community,” he noted. “In my opinion, the flaw in those studies is an improper utilization of historical databases. I have been a specialist in hurricane climate data for close to three decades, and others who know the databases well agree with what I am saying.” Mr. Goldenberg pointed to a number of confounding problems in such studies, including the time frame chosen, the techniques available now and in the past to measure hurricane activity, the ways in which such activity was recorded, and the availability of satellite data—or lack thereof. “The biggest fallacy is that people think that a hurricane feeds off a warm ocean, and if the ocean gets warmer, we will have more intense hurricanes,” he explained. “But there are other factors involved, such as vertical wind shear, which is the difference between the upper and lower layers of the atmosphere. You could also have drier air. These are far more critical factors than the ocean being warmer. “Everything else being equal, if you warm the ocean under a storm, you might get a stronger storm—but everything else is not equal,” said Mr. Goldenberg. “Warming may increase vertical shear and therefore inhibit storms. The ocean itself warming is such a little effect.” […] Mr. Goldenberg of NOAA added, “There are those who want to attribute any perceived increase in natural disasters to anthropomorphic global warming. I predict that if we have an active hurricane season, someone will attribute it to AGW. They’re not really looking at the science; they’re looking at the disaster.
"Other scientists found conflicting evidence. In 1992, a team from the University of New Mexico reported that ancient soils showed extremely high levels of carbon dioxide 440 million years ago, an age of primitive sea life before the advent of land plants and animals. The carbon dioxide levels were roughly 16 times higher than today. Surprisingly, the scientists said, this appeared to coincide with wide glaciation, an analysis, wrote Crayton J. Yapp and Harald Poths in the journal Nature, that “suggests that the climate models require modification.”
CARBON DIOXIDE LEVELS 16 TIMES WHAT THEY ARE TODAY AND ICE AGE CONDITIONS PREVAILED.
So thats the end of this argument. The leftist crowds incredibly crude understanding of matters based on some model they dug up for political purposes are wrong. And yet both sides are still following this dumb model. Dead from the neck up. A failed paradigm. Now it used to be "back to the drawing board" but not with this crowd.
Had this science fraud politicisation not broken out we would be years ahead of where we are now. Since this is actually a very easy subject by its nature.
We just have to keep on going over it again until that dim bulb Luke gets it.
We have just enormous data in the geological record that we can use to fashion our understanding of the climate. If our understanding of the climate is pretty much right than none of these examples of geological evidence will stand out in contradiction of the understanding we have fashioned.
Now its pretty clear that the Goddard institutes understanding is not in accordance with the geological record. They felt they needed to try and hide the medieval optimum. They have tried to downplay the holocene optimum ludicrously claiming it was probably cooler in winter during that time. They are in denial of the snowball earth. They cannot rightly explain the many glacial periods.... and so forth.
There has been an ice age where the CO2 levels were 16 times as high as they are now. Goddard deals with that by just saying it never happened.
So you are trying to think of an implicit model or understanding that can account for all of this evidence.. No use adding exact numbers and computer modelling until you have that basic understanding. And hopefully there will be other people who have different views of it that also doesn't contradict the data.
Now apart from that we are really just talking about basic ideas to do with strata-and-heat budgets. In other words we are talking very simple physical processes. Of heat transport, buildup, absorption, conduction, overturning, and so forth. Just thermal energy. Easy.
It just couldn't get simpler were it a sober field of study.
The difficultly only begins with the lying. By its nature this is a dead easy field of study. Perverted by leftist lunatics.
This is why in the laity we might not see too strong a left-right-split. But in the actual business all the main believers are hard-leftist lunatics. Lovelock alone excepted.
So still we have to conclude that climate science is easy. Its predictable physical stuff. It doesn't thave the wild card of human behaviour. Furthermore we have millions of years of geological data to make sure that our thinking is consistent with.
Too easy.
Stop spamming Luke. Concentrate on finding a way to dispute what I actually said. Climate science is easy. At least compared to what the best of the economists have been able to acheive.
Now try and dispute that statement. Or rather find someone smarter than yourself to dispute it.
Now we know that experienced people can do very good forecasts. I've pointed these people out. Were I in the business no doubt I could learn to do the same. Eveylyn Garriss learned her trade partly from her father. The bloke who made all the money on Martin Durkeims masterpiece got his experience from relating solar activity to the subsequent weather.
This is not inherently difficult stuff at all if you are not a fraudster like yourself. If you are into science fraud you can spend 50 billion and not make any progress.
"I made a lot of predictions" OK - well show us the hindcast stats then and we can evaluate.
I made a lot of predictions. Now we are not getting back to the question. Since the question doesn't relate to the thesis. People who do this for a living can indeed make good predictions of the type you asked for. But weather prediction and climate science are not the same thing.
Climate science is easy. If you want to test that assumption you have to come up with a meaningful test for oit.
Look if you are too stupid to understand that, and you are, just don't bother Luke.
Yes - but back to the question.
So you come here, you go over to Barry Brooks site. You go and see what Karoly has to say. You see taxeaters Luke, Gavin and international frauds like Steve Bloom getting about the place. You look at that malignant dwarf and DDT holocaust denier Lambert.
This fraud cannot be beaten except by mass-sackings. It doesn't matter how frigid the weather will get. And it will indeed get very cold. They won't be shaken out until they are punished for their lying, fraud and incompetence. They will find a way of rewriting history if they are not punished. Science fraud used to be a crime. People would be punished for it. We must revive this. Its not OK to be a science fraud like these people.
Only mass-sackings can do the job. They will still be committing this fraud no matter how cold the weather gets. Only massive cuts to government spending can reverse this thing.
So have you got it yet you moron. I have put forward the assertion that climate science is easy. I have given a great many arguments for this assertion. You have no counterargument for that assertion.
Do you understand that yet you idiot? Little bit beyond your pay grade you moron?
Are you in fact the stupidest person on the internet? I think you are. Now where is that evidence?
I've given you the answer you moron. The answer is that a weather forecast from someone who isn't a forecaster is NOT A TEST TO THE THESIS.
Climate science is easy. This I have shown. Since you were not able to falsify anything I said above. Since people working in the business are able to make good predictions if they aren't science fraudsters.
The problem is with you. The problem is that you are a moron. Someone totally incapable of developing a counter-argument to the idea that climate science is easy.