While we should all be dismayed by a Cat 4 making landfall in a heavy population with inadequate infrastructure, what is the point of complaining of the very existence of Cat 4s? Like the poor, they have always been with us. Along with Cat 5s! If they ceased to occur, that would indeed by a radical climate change. (Even a huge no-category storm like Sandy can hit the wrong place on the wrong tide...with the wrong mayor.) Some decades will be busier for storms (frequency down, severity much the same in Oz last 30 years) but reportage does not increase storms. They just happen, even without NYT and BBC to fib about their status.
Climate money should be for the unexpected, but, above all, for the expected. Australia's North West is a true cyclone alley, and the only good news is that the cyclones track a bit more predictably than elsewhere. But they have to come, and you have to watch well into autumn. What kind of "trend" or "energy budget" are we supposed to see in that killer cyclone which just camped in Exmouth Gulf for a fortnight in 1875? Unprecedented duration in one place? Probably not. "Unprecedented" is what happens now...once you sweep away all those untidy precedents.
I must be a bit of a leftoid, since I'm happy to see all kinds of regulation and public expenditure...so some Australian never blows away again! If we had one Mahina (1899) we can have another. Are we thick, or what?
GraemeM - all useless really - the actual question is the Power Dissipation Index of hurricanes/tropical cyclones and typhoons increasing with time. i.e. are there STRONGER and LONGER lived storms. Other wise simply handwaving by both sides. (BTW AGW theory does not predict more).
Graeme, when the media of long ago reported equally horrendous typhoons causing the deaths of thousands only in a single column on page 6, they would not have rated climate change as worthy of a mention [unless it was associated with a similar catastrophe and then only for a similar small report].
The magnitude of the importance of CC as bed-wetting [and therefore ad selling, grant extracting and politician influencing] fodder can be gauged by these current reports.
The bigger the beat-up the better for all [until we get the bill].
I don't wish to make light of the impact of the typhoon in the Philippines, but the level of reporting reflects the kind of manipulation of public understanding that I've referred to before. The coverage is substantial and there is I think some sense that this is about the worst storm ever with the implication it's all we can expect in this time of global warming.
Also Robert, this "unprecedented" cyclonic stuff is a sure sign of global cooling and we could be in for a lot worse.
While we should all be dismayed by a Cat 4 making landfall in a heavy population with inadequate infrastructure, what is the point of complaining of the very existence of Cat 4s? Like the poor, they have always been with us. Along with Cat 5s! If they ceased to occur, that would indeed by a radical climate change. (Even a huge no-category storm like Sandy can hit the wrong place on the wrong tide...with the wrong mayor.) Some decades will be busier for storms (frequency down, severity much the same in Oz last 30 years) but reportage does not increase storms. They just happen, even without NYT and BBC to fib about their status.
Climate money should be for the unexpected, but, above all, for the expected. Australia's North West is a true cyclone alley, and the only good news is that the cyclones track a bit more predictably than elsewhere. But they have to come, and you have to watch well into autumn. What kind of "trend" or "energy budget" are we supposed to see in that killer cyclone which just camped in Exmouth Gulf for a fortnight in 1875? Unprecedented duration in one place? Probably not. "Unprecedented" is what happens now...once you sweep away all those untidy precedents.
I must be a bit of a leftoid, since I'm happy to see all kinds of regulation and public expenditure...so some Australian never blows away again! If we had one Mahina (1899) we can have another. Are we thick, or what?
GraemeM - all useless really - the actual question is the Power Dissipation Index of hurricanes/tropical cyclones and typhoons increasing with time. i.e. are there STRONGER and LONGER lived storms. Other wise simply handwaving by both sides. (BTW AGW theory does not predict more).
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/papers-on-hurricanes-and-global-warming/
I don't think the likes of Goddard deserves serious comment. Let's keep some science perspective.
Graeme, when the media of long ago reported equally horrendous typhoons causing the deaths of thousands only in a single column on page 6, they would not have rated climate change as worthy of a mention [unless it was associated with a similar catastrophe and then only for a similar small report].
The magnitude of the importance of CC as bed-wetting [and therefore ad selling, grant extracting and politician influencing] fodder can be gauged by these current reports.
The bigger the beat-up the better for all [until we get the bill].
I don't wish to make light of the impact of the typhoon in the Philippines, but the level of reporting reflects the kind of manipulation of public understanding that I've referred to before. The coverage is substantial and there is I think some sense that this is about the worst storm ever with the implication it's all we can expect in this time of global warming.
Yet...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Nargis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Nina_(1975)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_Bhola_cyclone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Bangladesh_cyclone
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/screenhunter_786-sep-20-23-10.jpg
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/1898-hurricane-killed-all-plant-and-animal-life-on-st-vincent/#comments
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/123596868
As the years pass and it doesn't warm, the past just has to get cooler.
Bob's your uncle:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/another-view-of-nasa-temperature-tampering/
More of Luke's "Bob's your uncle" science:
http://notrickszone.com/2013/11/08/renowned-warmist-scientist-peter-lemke-antarctic-sea-ice-more-extensive-thicker-and-more-densely-packed-than-in-1992/
When it comes to sus science, Bob's your uncle with Luke.