DEBUNKED: Hurricanes Harvey And Irma Were NOT Caused By 'Climate Change'

[Revmitchell]

New scientific data debunks the hyperventilating journalists suggesting the latest hurricanes to hit the United States, Harvey and Irma, were the cause of man-made Climate Change.

As explained by environmental analyst Nicholas Loris — who cites findings and analysis from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration and the National Hurricane Center — "Man-made warming did not cause Harvey and Irma."

"As carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions have increased, there have been no trends in global tropical cycle landfalls," states Loris. "Before Harvey and Irma, with a little bit of luck, the United States was in a 12-year hurricane drought. More importantly, the average number of hurricanes per decade reaching landfall in the U.S. has fallen over the past 160 years."

DEBUNKED: Hurricanes Harvey And Irma Were NOT Caused By 'Climate Change'

 

[rlvaughn]

DEBUNKED: Hurricanes Harvey And Irma Were NOT Caused By 'Climate Change'

But, but, but, we want them to be. They have to be!!

 

[TCassidy]

The key phrase is "man made." There is little to no evidence to support the hypothesis that global warming is man made. Every solar physicist will tell you the sun is nearing the peak of an 1100 year hot/cool cycle. The average ocean temperature is 1.7 degrees (F) hotter than it was 50 years ago. To heat 140 million square miles of Ocean 1.7 degrees takes a LOT of heat.

Hurricanes are heat machines. The hotter the water the more hurricanes we see. It is a logical consequence of the solar cycle (Maunder Cycle). We are now about 500 years from the last Maunder Minimum (during which the sun only experienced about 50 sun spots per year compared to today's 40,000 to 50,000 per year -the Maunder Maximum) so we will remain this way until around 2070-2100 when we will reach the peak and start back down. The earth will cool and may face another "mini ice age" such as we had in 1550-1650 some time around 2700 AD, if the Lord tarries.

We didn't do it and we can't fix it. It is called "nature." And it was designed this way for a purpose by nature's God.

 

[OnlyaSinner]

The evidence that a warming climate will result in more and/or stronger tropical cyclones (hereafter, TCs) seems to be ambiguous - the most recent theories I've read suggest that TC numbers won't change or might even decrease, but that the number to majors (Cat 3 or stronger) may increase. And counting TCs is not a particularly useful way to evaluate the trend - how much of recent change is due to more thorough survey. Something called Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE), which is based on TC wind speeds over time, is a much better metric, though not perfect because I don't think it accounts for TC size - Harvey was less intense than Andrew, but far bigger. With ACE, one Cat 3 might count for more energy than ten named but short-lived TCs that fail to develop beyond minimal hurricane strength, if that. Another thing I've wondered about TCs - like all cyclones, they are heat translocation engines, which feed on temperature contrasts, among other things. Climate models consistently show (and data supports) that warming is much greater at high latitudes than near the Equator. This trend would tend to decrease the north-south temperature contrasts; whether that would be sufficient to affect TCs, I've no idea.

The North Atlantic basin is definitely having a high-ACE season, after a run of low-moderate years. At the same time, the Western Pacific, by far the planet's most prolific generator of TCs on average, is having a relatively tame season. The current ENSO (El Nino/Southern Oscillation) is currently in its La Nina phase, which tends toward low wind shear in the Atlantic basin, and that low shear favors development of strong TCs. A warming climate is theorized to favor having more El Ninos, which typically increase shear in the Atlantic.
My bottom line: Anyone looking for an easy way to attribute strong TCs in a particular region to climate change is likely to be disappointed. (But they will do it anyway.)
Disclosure: I'm neither a meteorologist nor climatologist, merely a weather hobbyist.

 

[TCassidy]

There is a broad consensus that storms are increasing in strength, or severity. This attribute, called the Power Dissipation Index, measures the duration and intensity (wind speed) of storms, and research has found that since the mid-1970s, there has been an increase in the energy of storms.

Recent research has shown that we are experiencing more storms with higher wind speeds, and these storms will be more destructive, last longer and make landfall more frequently than in the past. Because this phenomenon is strongly associated with sea surface temperatures, it is reasonable to suggest a strong probability that the increase in storm intensity and climate change are linked.



What is the link between hurricanes and global warming?

 

[Reynolds]

New scientific data debunks the hyperventilating journalists suggesting the latest hurricanes to hit the United States, Harvey and Irma, were the cause of man-made Climate Change.

As explained by environmental analyst Nicholas Loris — who cites findings and analysis from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration and the National Hurricane Center — "Man-made warming did not cause Harvey and Irma."

"As carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions have increased, there have been no trends in global tropical cycle landfalls," states Loris. "Before Harvey and Irma, with a little bit of luck, the United States was in a 12-year hurricane drought. More importantly, the average number of hurricanes per decade reaching landfall in the U.S. has fallen over the past 160 years."

DEBUNKED: Hurricanes Harvey And Irma Were NOT Caused By 'Climate Change'

What's wrong with you man? You know that there were no Hurricanes, earthquakes, or tornadoes prior to the Industrial Revolution.