By Paul Homewood
h/t Joe Public
From the failed Independent:
The horrifying weather that has swept over the Atlantic is just a light example of things to come, according to researchers.
The Americas have been hit by three destructive hurricanes in recent weeks: Harvey, Irma and then Jose. That is not simply a coincidence, say climate experts – instead, it is a demonstration of global warming in action.
Scientists have already warned that the response to the recent hurricanes shows how terrifying unprepared the world is for the kind of extreme weather events that will become more and more common as the Earth gets hotter.
But they warn also that the combination of the hurricanes is a particular warning about the damage being done to the environment. What’s more, the weather effects that usually slowed the damage caused by such a run of hurricanes is likely to stop – meaning not simply that we will get more dangerous hurricanes, but they are more likely than ever to chain together in this way.
"Perhaps Harvey was happenstance, and Irma could be coincidence," said Philip Williamson, NERC Science Coordinator at University of East Anglia. "But Jose following close behind has to be climate change in action. Damaging hurricanes, cyclones and typhoons occur in tropical parts of the world, at the time of year when the sea is warmest. So if the world gets warmer still, the risk increases – it’s as simple as that.
Philip Williamson seems to make a habit of misleading the public, for instance a Spectator article a couple of months ago. Maybe that is the purpose of his job, whatever it is that a Science Coordinator is supposed to do.
He has also attempted to shut down debate on climate change by making complaints to the press regulatory body IPSO, something that has backfired on him more than once.
As to the core of his argument, if a sceptic had pointed out that the record breaking dearth of major US hurricanes in the last 12 years was caused by climate change, the likes of Williamson would immediately have accused him of cherry picking.
But what about the longer trends?
We already know that US major hurricanes are not getting more common.
As for the wider Atlantic basin, NOAA’s ACE calculations again show little change, other than the dip in the 1970s and 80s, when the AMO was in cold phase.
Significantly, the above analysis only begins in 1950, as reliable measurements from hurricane hunter aircraft only began in the late 1940s. (Even then, hurricane strengths were frequently underestimated).
We also know that there were more major US hurricanes in the 1940s than any other decade. It is therefore highly likely that an extension of the ACE back to 1940 would show levels higher than currently.
Williamson’s implication that three hurricanes so close together is unheard of is nonsense anyway.
Back in 1780, there were three killer hurricanes in October alone, including the deadliest of all time.
In 1893, five hurricanes made landfall in the US between August and October, three of them major ones.
In 1915, four arrived in August and September.
Of course, these are only US landfalling hurricanes. There were many more which avoided the US.
For instance, in 1933 the US was hit by three hurricanes in September alone. Two had peaked at Cat 4 prior to landfall, and the other Cat 5. But in addition to that, the infamous Tampico Hurricane, another Cat 5 monster ploughed into Mexico with winds of 160 mph in September as well:
- Hurricane 8 – Cat 5 – Landfall Texas Sep 5th
- Hurricane 11 – Cat 4 – Landfall Florida Sep 4th
- Hurricane 12 –Cat 4 – Landfall N Carolina Sep 16th
- Tampico – Cat 5 – Sep 22nd
There are no doubt many other examples of similar frequency. And the reasons are much more complex than the simplistic theory he advances.
Does Williamson know any of this? Is he deliberately misleading the public? Or is he just incompetent?
Perhaps he would like to enlighten us.
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
September 12, 2017 at 03:45PM
Iowa Climate Science Education 