# Are hurricanes getting worse? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [March 9, 2013, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-hurricanes-getting-worse/652462 "2013-03-09T05:09:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2013, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-hurricanes-getting-worse/652462/21 "2013-03-12T16:50:24Z")
> [@Cmoore](#): > > A butterfly flapping it’s wings changes weather patterns. So what? Do you really think you can predict these changes and declare that they’ll be a catastophe? Which butterflies shall we start squishing oh mighty oracle? Do you have a clue what the difference between “weather” and “weather pattern” means? The climate system is pretty darn complex, but as _climate_, it behaves in consistent and predictable ways. The weather may not be what I expect tomorrow, but the climate (long term sum of the weather) is a different animal. As for which butterflies to squash, the ones intent on razing every square inch of forest they can get their paws on would be a good bunch to start with. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2013, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-hurricanes-getting-worse/652462/22 "2013-03-12T18:45:35Z")
> [@Cmoore](#): > > I’m glad somebody made a thread about this, I was thinking along the lines of rowrrbzzle myself. First of all hurricanes get their power from a temperature differential between the ocean temperature at the poles and ocean temperatures at the tropics/equator. The physics tells us that warming due to the greenhouse effect would reduce this differential and lead to less and weaker hurricanes. The people arguing to the contrary are just propagandists (this includes many climatologists). Poisoning the well. [Knutson](http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes) has noted the increasing tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures and their correlation to hurricane intensity, along with correlating sea surface temperatures and greenhouse gases. > [@](#): > > It reminds me of an article I read in the Guardian saying that global waming will lead to bigger spiders, “you don’t like spiders do you?!” Cite? The closest I can find is [this](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/02/specieswatch-house-spiders-climate), which contains the eminently reasonable point that a species acclimatised to warm weather will have a wider area it can habituate to given an increase in warm weather. > [@](#): > > It’s not true that environmentalists are mostly worried about humans, I’ve never seen any groups called “humanity first!” or “save the people”. The [WHO](http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/) (appropriately) address climate change from a health perspective. The [WWF](http://worldwildlife.org/threats/climate-change) are helping people in the Eastern Himalayas adapt to water scarcity. Oxfam claim poor people bear the brunt of [climate change](http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what-we-do/issues-we-work-on/climate-change). [Climate Justice Now](http://www.carbontradewatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=227&Itemid=95)! likewise lists how the poor will be hindered by climate change. [Friends of the earth](http://www.foei.org/en/who-we-are) seek to create “just societies”. Gaia mater advocates humanism and [human progress](http://www.wiser.org/organization/view/9bcd7c3b43fe6738eb793859714d7802). [Global witness](http://www.globalwitness.org/about-us) opposes the effect of corruption on human development. [Greenpeace](http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/climate-change/impacts/) decries the impact of climate change on humans. > [@](#): > > In fact they don’t seem to like human civilisation, they see it as a parasite on the goddess gaia. No valid antecedent for that anaphor. The sole organisation I can think of that resembles this would be the voluntary human extinction movement. > [@](#): > > As to the argument that global warming will hurt agriculture, the term “greenhouse effect” pretty much busts this one. plants like warmth and high concentrations of CO2, obviously that why greenhouses are designed as they are. [Lobell et al. in 2008](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5863/607) came to the conclusion that climate change could reduce crop availability in Southern Africa and Asia. > [@](#): > > These days global warming has had a PR makeover by some high flying marketing folk and the brand has been updated to “climate change” because it was realised that people welcomed warmer weather (as they should, how many people die of cold and how many die of overheating?). Fewer die due to heat, but the number that do is still substantial. Direct deaths due to the temperature will have less of an impact on human mortality than the incidental effects, though. > [@](#): > > To the people who say we should do something about global warming just in case because it won’t do any harm to curb pollution anyway; CO2 isn’t pollution, it’s the product of modern human civilisation With impacts on oceanic acidity, mosquito prevalence and access to drinking water. > [@](#): > > the people who want to restrict it want to stop the third world from developing denying them the benefits of modern technology and leaving them to die like animals in the gutter. At the same time they want to destroy industry in the developed world and wreck the economy. The world is overpopulated they say and they intend to do something about it. These aren’t just hippies in VW vans either, take a look at the Club of Rome, the British royal family, international bankers, multinational energy companies, they’re all pushing the anti CO2 agenda. Cite? Also, see above for individuals taking a decidedly unMalthusian view of human populations - including the WWF and Greenpeace. ---
**Author:** ![antechinus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/fbc32d/32.png) [@antechinus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/antechinus)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2013, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-hurricanes-getting-worse/652462/23 "2013-03-12T19:53:49Z")
> [@Cmoore](#): > > If your definition of pullution is so broad then humans themselves might as well be classified as pollution, exactly what the environmentalists do. You’re saying that anything not caused by people is good and anything anthropogenic is bad, that displays a crusade against humans. How are people not part of the Earth’s dynamic system, but everything else is? > > Global warming would increase temperatures slightly and increase CO2 levels, anyone who argues against this is called a climate denier. Like I said in a previous post people just aren’t scared enough by this prospect so the lie of “cliimate change” was concieved so that the plebs could be threatened with anything the climatologists felt like making up. You say the point is complex, of course it is, that why the models don’t work, they’re only good for churning out propaganda. The climate always changes, always will and nobody can predict it. 1. Re-read my post carefully. It appears you misunderstood it. 2. It only takes a small temperature rise to change climate. Climatologists investigate this for a living. Why dont you trust the great weight of evidence? ---
**Author:** ![space\_loner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6de8d8/32.png) [@space\_loner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/space_loner)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-hurricanes-getting-worse/652462/24 "2013-03-13T00:35:52Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > My study of AGW proved to me that the subject is terrifyingly complex, and any non-expert who is convinced he or she has the last answer on this subject is seriously misled by bias. However, the majority of experts agree that AGW is true, and the small minority experts who disagree have contradictory explanations. > > That’s not terribly convincing, though… This is really, really sensible. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-hurricanes-getting-worse/652462/25 "2013-03-13T01:30:58Z")
> [@Cmoore](#): > > They don’t _have_ to be mutually exclusive but in the real world for the time being they are, when nuclear energy is cheap and plentiful then energy production won’t have to release CO2. That’s nonsense. Something can be pollution whether or not we have the ability to prevent creating it when we do what we humans do for civilization. Something doesn’t start being pollution once we have alternatives. Nuclear energy may provide energy that doesn’t release CO[sub]2[/sub], but there are still outputs that must be controlled, such as heat pollution, and spent nuclear fuel. Every form of power generation has unintended side effects. The scope of those side effects and the ways to use them for other purposes and the means of limiting them are all factors in evaluating any power generation method. That’s not to say I don’t want civilization - understand the consequences and find ways to control and/or mitigate those consequences. > [@](#): > > Right now any developing country that wants nuclear power is considered a rogue state and is threatened with bombing eg Iran. Iran is not considered a rogue nation simply because it wants nuclear power, but rather because it wants nuclear weapons, and has threatened to use them preemptively against Israel, and has a strong animosity towards the Western world, especially the U.S. > [@](#): > > CO2 is NOT a pollutant, it’s vital for all life on earth and has no ill effects, unless you consider a slight warming of the planet to be bad. A slight warming of the planet in itself wouldn’t particularly be bad, but that warming affects the climate in complex ways. By shifting wind patterns and ocean currents. By melting ice caps to raise the sea level, flooding coastal regions, that incidently tend toward being populated by poorer people. Who do you think is going to withstand raising sea levels better, the U.S. or Bangladesh? Sure, it will be expensive to generate sea walls and other controls to, say, New York City, but even in our current economic situation we’re better able to support it than Bangladesh. > [@](#): > > I’ve been involved in a pit thread about the Sierra Club where I go through how environmentalism is a trusty tool of anglo-american imperialists starting with Thomas Malthus, I’m not going into detail here but look up that thread if you’re interested, just put Sierra Club into the pit search. So, no cite. > [@](#): > > Why should we deny the benefits of modern technology to people starving in the third world? If they cut down some pretty trees and kill some fish is that anything to do with us? Because the ecology is global, and changes affect us all. > [@](#): > > If anything we should be providing them with modern know how so they can minimise environmental damage. And some organizations are trying. > [@](#): > > PS. I wish I knew how to use multi quote. Go to a post you wish to quote. Go to the buttons at the bottom right. Next to the Quote button is a “+” button. Select that button and it will turn orange. Go to the next post you wish to quote and select the button. Etc. When you open the Reply pane, all the quotes will be there. [quote=“Cmoore, post:19, topic:652462”] If your definition of pullution is so broad then humans themselves might as well be classified as pollution, exactly what the environmentalists do. You’re saying that anything not caused by people is good and anything anthropogenic is bad, that displays a crusade against humans. How are people not part of the Earth’s dynamic system, but everything else is? > [@](#): > > Like I said in a previous post people just aren’t scared enough by this prospect so the lie of “cliimate change” was concieved so that the plebs could be threatened with anything the climatologists felt like making up. “Global warming” is inadequate because it does not fully describe the scope of changes that could occur. Shifting temperate regions north might sound okay (e.g. making more of Canada farmable), but the effects could also shift desert regions like the Sahara, engulfing more of Africa. Or it could shift rainfall patterns and thereby stop the rainfall to the Amazon, turning it into a matching Sahara. Or it could redirect the Jet Stream and make Europe a colder place. Etc. That’s why “climate change” is more appropriate. We don’t know what all the effects will be. > [@For You](#): > > As for which butterflies to squash, the ones intent on razing every square inch of forest they can get their paws on would be a good bunch to start with. Well, butterflies might not be intent on razing every square inch of forest they can get their paws on, but that’s a fair description of caterpillers. Of course, caterpillers can’t get their paws on very many square inches per caterpiller, so there is that. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-hurricanes-getting-worse/652462/26 "2013-03-13T09:53:19Z")
I think some posters are missing the point. This isn’t about whether global warming is a reality or not, it’s to do with Cecil being content that the public should remain ignorant of some facts in order to encourage their belief in global warming. Once you begin protecting an hypothesis against any facts which tend not to support it you’re abetting ignorance rather then fighting it. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-hurricanes-getting-worse/652462/27 "2013-03-13T16:23:50Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > I think some posters are missing the point. This isn’t about whether global warming is a reality or not, it’s to do with Cecil being content that the public should remain ignorant of some facts in order to encourage their belief in global warming. > > Once you begin protecting an hypothesis against any facts which tend not to support it you’re abetting ignorance rather then fighting it. Right, and any atempt at humor will be punished. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-hurricanes-getting-worse/652462/28 "2013-03-13T20:50:53Z")
I just want to know what the flat-earthers think of global warming. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2013, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-hurricanes-getting-worse/652462/29 "2013-03-14T02:31:12Z")
> [@jdgalt](#): > > The “climate change” scare was a hoax from day one. [Montford’s _The Hockey Stick Illusion_](http://www.amazon.com/Hockey-Stick-Illusion-Climategate-Independent/dp/1906768358) explains the real science, shows how it was faked, and even has copies of the damning e-mails in which the bad guys set up the fraud. Anyone numerically literate should find it readable, but it’s better if you know something about statistical modeling. > > One should ALWAYS be skeptical of any story, especially in news media, which says that there’s a “crisis” and we’ve got to “do something” about it right away. This is always some politician’s way of getting you to give up more of your freedom without asking him hard questions – and news media always go along with it, since emergencies (even phony ones) sell papers and ads. This goes for politicians on both sides of the aisle, though the left is better at it, which is why the media are seen as being slanted left. And one should indeed not rely on internet posts, the real fraud is coming from Montford. > **[RealClimate: The Montford Delusion](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/)** > > RealClimate: Guest commentary by Tamino Update: Another review of the book has been published by Alistair McIntosh in the Scottish Review of Books (scroll down about 25% through the page to find McIintosh's review) Update #2 (8/19/10): The Guardian... > [@](#): > > But if you do know something about climate science and the politically motivated controversy around it, you might be able to see that reality is the opposite of the way Montford paints it. In fact Montford goes so far over the top that if you’re a knowledgeable and thoughtful reader, it eventually dawns on you that the real goal of those whose story Montford tells is not to understand past climate, it’s to destroy the hockey stick by any means necessary. > > Montford’s hero is Steve McIntyre, portrayed as a tireless, selfless, unimpeachable seeker of truth whose only character flaw is that he’s just too polite. McIntyre, so the story goes, is looking for answers from only the purest motives but uncovers a web of deceit designed to affirm foregone conclusions whether they’re so or not — that humankind is creating dangerous climate change, the likes of which hasn’t been seen for at least a thousand or two years. McIntyre and his collaborator Ross McKitrick made it their mission to get rid of anything resembling a hockey stick in the MBH98 (and any other) reconstruction of past temperature. … > [@](#): > > Conspiracies Everywhere > > Montford also goes to great lengths to accuse a host of researchers, bloggers, and others of attempting to suppress the truth and issue personal attacks on McIntyre. The “enemies list” includes RealClimate itself, claimed to be a politically motivated mouthpiece for “Environmental Media Services,” described as a “pivotal organization in the green movement” run by David Fenton, called “one of the most influential PR people of the 20th century.” Also implicated are William Connolley for criticizing McIntyre on sci.environment and James Annan for criticizing McIntyre and McKitrick. In a telling episode of conspiracy theorizing, we are told that their “ideas had been picked up and propagated across the left-wing blogosphere.” Further conspirators, we are informed, include Brad DeLong and Tim Lambert. And of course one mustn’t omit the principal voice of RealClimate, Gavin Schmidt. > > Perhaps I should feel personally honored to be included on Montford’s list of co-conspirators, because yours truly is also mentioned. According to Montford’s typical sloppy research I have styled myself as “Mann’s Bulldog.” I’ve never done so, although I find such an appellation flattering; I just hope Jim Hansen doesn’t feel slighted by the mistaken reference. > > The conspiracy doesn’t end with the hockey team, climate researchers, and bloggers. It includes the editorial staff of any journal which didn’t bend over to accommodate McIntyre, including Nature and GRL which are accused of interfering with, delaying, and obstructing McIntyre’s publications. > > Spy Story > > The book concludes with speculation about the underhanded meaning of the emails stolen from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the U.K. It’s really just the same quote-mining and misinterpretation we’ve heard from many quarters of the so-called “skeptics.” Although the book came out very shortly after the CRU hack, with hardly sufficient time to investigate the truth, the temptation to use the emails for propaganda purposes was irresistible. Montford indulges in every damning speculation he can get his hands on. > > Since that time, investigation has been conducted, both into the conduct of the researchers at CRU (especially Phil Jones) and Mike Mann (the leader of the “hockey team”). Certainly some unkind words were said in private emails, but the result of both investigations is clear: climate researchers have been cleared of any wrongdoing in their research and scientific conduct. Thank goodness some of those who bought in to the false accusations, like Andy Revkin and George Monbiot, have seen fit actually to apologize for doing so. Perhaps they realize that one can’t get at the truth simply by reading people’s private emails. > > Montford certainly spins a tale of suspense, conflict, and lively action, intertwining conspiracy and covert skullduggery, politics and big money, into a narrative worthy of the best spy thrillers. I’m not qualified to compare Montford’s writing skill to that of such a widely-read author as, say, Michael Crichton, but I do know they share this in common: they’re both skilled fiction writers. > > The only corruption of science in the “hockey stick” is in the minds of McIntyre and Montford. They were looking for corruption, and they found it. Someone looking for actual science would have found it as well. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2013, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-hurricanes-getting-worse/652462/30 "2013-03-14T03:12:26Z")
As for the matter at hand, indeed, as reported by Cecil, hurricanes are not cased by AGW, but Global Warming is influencing the strength and frequency of extreme weather. Greenhouse gases are the steroids of the climate system. > **[News | NCAR & UCAR News](https://news.ucar.edu/)** One can not point at an specific home run as caused by steroids, but the increase in distance and frequency are a result of their use. Normally record high temperatures and record low ones happen with similar frequencies, but currently there are 3 record highs for every 1 record low, (IIRC for the last year, the northern hemisphere had more than **10 records highs** for every 1 record low) together with increases of water vapor due to global warming we get to the only nit I have with Cecil’s article, it is not really OK IMHO to declare that we do not have evidence of hurricanes getting worse. All that increase in energy and material in the background has been measured and it has to fall somewhere when a hurricane comes. > **[Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection](https://skepticalscience.com/hurricane-sandy-climate-connection.html)** > > Hurricane Sandy was an unprecedented storm in modern times, arriving late in the hurricane season, making landfall abnormally far to the north on the US east coast, with an exceptionally low pressure, and a record-breaking storm surge. The hurricane... > [@](#): > > Hurricane Sandy was an unprecedented storm in modern times, arriving late in the hurricane season, making landfall abnormally far to the north on the US east coast, with an exceptionally low pressure, and a record-breaking storm surge. The hurricane also had among the most kinetic energy of all tropical cyclones on record at 222 trillion Joules (the equivalent of 3.5 Little Boy Hiroshima atomic bombs) - more energy than Category 5 hurricanes like Katrina despite Sandy just being Category 1, because Sandy was spread over a much larger area. > > Given the unprecedented nature of this event, many people are asking whether it was caused by or its impacts amplified by global warming, and many others are of course trying to deny any hurricane-climate links. There is actually a fairly simple answer to this question: human-caused climate change amplified the hurricane’s impacts. And while it was touched upon in the SD article, I think that what the Skeptical Science link reports should not be ignored also, the rise of the seas thanks to global warming is also an already measured factor that is and will make hurricanes worse. ---
**Author:** ![sunnyone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@sunnyone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sunnyone)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2013, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-hurricanes-getting-worse/652462/31 "2013-03-19T09:19:32Z")
Maybe the earth is rotating more extremely in the opposite direction. I am basing that on nothing. No science or empirical evidence. There is a certain freedom in blatant guesses. ---
**Author:** ![kneegrow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3d9bf3/32.png) [@kneegrow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kneegrow)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2013, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-hurricanes-getting-worse/652462/32 "2013-03-23T04:12:22Z")
> [@rowrrbazzle](#): > > [Are hurricanes getting worse?](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3096/are-hurricanes-getting-worse) > > Cecil, that is PRECISELY the BIGGEST reason people don’t believe in global warming–because those supposedly convinced of it say nothing about non-evidence used convince others. You’ve given the disbelievers ammunition: “See? They have to use non-evidence to convince you! Is the supposedly real evidence any better?” > > Way to go, Cecil. Change your motto right now to “Fighting ignorance 1973-2013 (we gave up and now we depend on it)”. sheez,quit whining. That’s NOT what Cecil is saying. He’s saying that the while the evidence is flimsy on the HURRICANE aspect of climate destabilisation being man made, popularly known as global warming, the evidence of the actual climate destablization is overwhelming. Also, those morons you speak of won’t be convinced one way or another. They will look at the manner in which Obama greets people for evidence for a government take over, are they gonna be convinced if we just tell them the truth? Nope. NOTHING will convince them, if they get wet feet, they won’t see it as proof of mmgw, but of the the Wrath of God. They won’t stop believing their false beliefs, not even at the threat of death. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-hurricanes-getting-worse/652462.md?page=1)