Time To Connect The Dots

Posted: August 14, 2015 by oldbrew in alarmism, Idiots, Incompetence, media
Tags: ,

New York Times 2005: ‘Hurricanes have therefore become bigger and more destructive and are likely to grow even more violent in the future.

This cycle cannot be reversed any time soon.’

Climate fortune telling is a risky business.

Real Science

Ten years ago, experts told us that hurricanes like Katrina and Rita were the new normal, due to global warming.

ScreenHunter_10077 Aug. 14 09.07

Time to Connect the Dots – The New York Times

The period since has been the quietest on record for US hurricanes, with no major (category 3-5) hurricanes.

ScreenHunter_10076 Aug. 14 09.02

Weather Street: 2015 Atlantic Hurricanes and Tropical Storms

It is time to connect the dots, and recognize that climate experts have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

View original post

  1. Joe Public says:

    Never forget it’s the likes of Munich Re softening up prospective punters to higher premiums:


    And facing lower risks. “Insured losses from disasters below average in 2014”


  2. tchannon says:

    Isn’t it simple?

    Large storms are natural thermodynamic engines. The direct energy source is ocean heat.

    Hiding. (if it wasn’t the storms would help get rid of it)

    My guess is this is solar driven but evidence is too sparse. Some time ago I did the best I could with the little safe-ish data and it looked like a solar activity link, not clear enough to say anything. Given the current low-ish solar activity, go figure.

    I’ve been expecting an upturn in activity, delayed from solar activity.

    The temperature data is poor, not a lot of use.

  3. oldbrew says:

    One theory that ‘did the rounds’ was that higher polar temperatures should reduce the ‘gradient’ with equatorial and therefore – it was said – a less active climate system should follow.

    Of course that didn’t suit the alarmists who want everything to be more…well, alarming 😉

  4. Gail Combs says:


    Hurricanes/ large storms are due to a temperature differential between the poles and the equator. The larger the differential the larger the number of storms. BUT it takes a while for the heat caused by solar warming in the tropics to migrate north. I think I read something like a decade somewhere. Therefore even though the sun is in a funk and the arctic air is a bit cooler, we will not see an increase in storms until all that old warm water has dissipated.

    Also you have to have enough solar energy going into the equatorial oceans to generate the energy in the storms in the first place. You have to have warm water and the formation of thunderstorms as the first step.

    Evidence linking solar variability with US hurricanes

    This seems to be a decent document

  5. oldbrew says:

    ‘until all that old warm water has dissipated’

    aka El Nino?

  6. michael hart says:

    Well isn’t extra CO2 supposed to change the vertical temperature gradient, thus favouring local convection, as opposed to larger scale advection. Maybe?

  7. Gail Combs says:

    oldbrew, Yes, El Nino water gradually heads up towards Alaska over time. Of course the Blob may have other origins. Volcanic???

    I think it was Bob Tisdale who said it takes about a decade but I am not sure. (I read too much.)

  8. hunter says:

    Tropical cyclones are amazing powerful storms but are not well understood if one confuses descriptive metaphors with the reality of the storms. They are not actually powerful engines. They are not actually monsters. They are not simply driven by heat differentials. They are complex huge movements of air that can be disrupted by many things: airborne dust, upper level wind patterns, dry air, high pressure ridges, cold fronts, land masses, etc. The dots the alarmist claptrap in the NYT and other popular media did not bother to connect was just how rare the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons were. And the climate obsession of science has reduced the curiosity of researchers to figure out what variables aligned to produce the conditions to create those two exceptional years.
    Connecting the dots, as Steve Goddard points out, shows another cost of the CO2 obsession: bad science that does not bother to investigate things that may conflict with the obsession.