Here's What the Media Get Wrong About Hurricanes
No, a big storm does not require big government.

Hurricane Ian is gone, but the media's myths about hurricanes live on.
Reporters say the federal government must direct disaster response, as if only the feds have the knowledge and money to do it.
"Debate is already growing about how big federal aid must be," says CNN.
Why?! Don't they know that government has no money of its own? That everything federal bureaucrats spend is taken from the rest of us?
They don't think about that.
Federal "disaster relief" is doled out after storms because, as a headline at The New York Times put it, "A Big Storm Requires Big Government."
But it doesn't.
My video this week debunks four myths about hurricanes.
Myth No. 1: We need the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for disaster relief.
That's just dumb, given FEMA's history of incompetence.
FEMA once spent millions on bottled water and expensive trailers for housing. Then they just left them on an airfield.
Matt Mayer worked at the Department of Homeland Security during Hurricane Katrina. He says the federal government was just too bureaucratic to be much help.
"States, locals, communities, neighbors" just do a much better job, Mayer told me.
FEMA fails because, like all government bureaucracies, there's no incentive to spend efficiently. Charities are more flexible, and "they've been doing it for 200 years."
Right now in Florida, while some people wait for FEMA, religious charities help people rebuild.
Myth No. 2: Government must stop greedy businesses from abusing customers.
Some businesses do raise prices when storms approach. Politicians call that "illegal price gouging." This is just dumb, if not cruel.
When storms approach, people rush to buy supplies. If stores don't raise prices, people buy anything they might possibly need, and probably some stuff they won't need. The first shoppers buy extra bottled water, generators, sandbags, etc.
Stores sell out, so only the quickest customers get what they need.
But if stores raise prices for items in demand, fewer people hoard, and more people get what they need. Yes, it's tough on poorer people, but the price boosts give stores extra incentive to restock. Prices quickly come back down.
Banning price increases harms more people.
After Hurricane Katrina, when John Shepperson learned that parts of Mississippi lost power, he bought 19 generators, left the safety of his home and drove 600 miles to the disaster area. He offered to sell his generators for twice what he paid for them. People were eager to buy.
But Mississippi police called that "gouging." They jailed Shepperson and confiscated his generators.
I bet the cops used the generators themselves.
What the law calls "gouging" is just supply and demand. It saves lives.
Myth No. 3: Hurricanes are getting worse.
The media say, "Storms are getting worse because of human-caused climate change!" Are these "climate experts" sure it's "human-caused"? All of it? Never mind.
When I showed video of reporters talking about hurricanes getting stronger to the late climatologist Pat Michaels, he shouted, "No, they aren't! Look at all the hurricanes around the planet. We can see them since 1970 because we've got global satellite coverage. We can measure their power….There is no significant increase." There isn't.
Even our government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration admits, "There is no strong evidence of century-scale increasing trends in U.S….major hurricanes."
There may be evidence in the future. But there isn't now. That doesn't stop media fools from saying there is.
Myth No. 4: America must have government flood insurance. After all, private flood insurance costs "too much."
But private insurers charge more for good reason: Homes in flood zones are more likely to flood.
I should know. I once built a house near the ocean.
It was a stupid idea. The ocean was a stone's throw away.
Private insurers wanted fat premiums. I couldn't afford that. I wouldn't have built had I not discovered cheap government insurance. Thanks, Uncle Sam!
Ten years later, my house washed away. It was upsetting, but I didn't lose money. You covered my loss.
I won't do it again, but others will.
Until we learn the myths about government "help," we'll keep making the same costly mistakes.
COPYRIGHT 2022 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
John :
Please think twice, and Reasonably, before you channel Tucker Carlson.
Hurricanes are heat engines , and rising sea surface temperatures lead to more wind and wave destruction in the long run.
Do you realize how much Florida waters have warmed since you were born ?
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/09/pride-goeth-before-squall.html
Oh, look at that. Russell changed the "w" in wattsupwiththat to a "vv".
Fuck off, slaver.
Nice lies you got there
Do you realize how much Florida waters have warmed since the end of the last glacial maximum, about 12,000 years ago?
"Hurricanes are heat engines"
This is true, but it doesn't mean what you think it means.
A heat engine derives it's power not from raw temperatures, but from temperature gradients (a difference in temperature between two points). What a heat engine does is move heat from here to there and in order to do that the source temp has to be higher than the destination temp. Once temps equalize the heat engine stops working.
The largest temperature gradient on the Earth is that between the equator and the poles.
Under the IPCC models, under all warming scenarios, the poles warm more than the equator.
A warming world means weaker temperature gradients and weaker temperature gradients means fewer and weaker storms.
Mathew, confusing horizontal and vertical gradients is not a good way to start.
Here's a page of climate literacy resources:
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/literacy.html
Russell, choosing an even more steep gradient, literally or metaphorically, to impossibly wail against is not a good way to bolster your pro-wailing argument.
and pigs ears are longer and milk has more calcium. Assume a connection and then concentrate on the assumption.
Such a relief to have smart Reason readers reply, so I don't have to. I could spend my whole life replying...
Russell:
I'd ask you to please think twice about something before posting, but you've demonstrated that you have a pretty hard limit on thinking even once and may not even approach that.
Ask anyone who's heard the story of 3 pigs how unilaterally destructive the force of the wind should be considered.
You are proposing a hypothesis. It is not backed up by the available evidence.
A rise in temperature does not make a "heat engine" more powerful.
Really? How?
But you know what rising sea surface temperatures do lead to? More evaporation and more precipitation, hence less drought around the world. Good stuff!
To the public temperature is in physics and chemistry it is energy. That energy be added to the system must be accounted for and that means more powerful storms.
instead of always leading to "more powerful" storms it can also lead to more of them, or larger ones. Remember, this whoe planet is very uch in flux. What seems to be solid and normal today here, may be the exception there, or here next year.
Climate is defined as "weather over a long period of time". HOW long? Does not say. Wisdom is sometimes very scarce, but needs to be found and applied in this instance.
Watch surface temps as recorded in the same places change over a few centuries, and your conclusions might not seem so obvious.
Energy added to the system uniformly does nothing. Storms are created by heat differentials. That's what the physics means when they call it a "heat engine".
The global warming climate models, on the other hand, all predict increases in nighttime temperatures and increases in polar temperatures without corresponding increases in daytime or equatorial temperatures. In other words, assuming the global warming models are correct, they should be predicting fewer and less severe storms.
That's an explanation at the level of the phlogiston theory of fire. No, that's not how heat engines work.
“2006: Expect Another Big Hurricane Year Says NOAA”—headline, MongaBay .com, May 22, 2006
“NOAA Predicts Above Normal 2007 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration press release, May 23, 2007
“NOAA Increases Expectancy for Above-Normal 2008 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, gCaptain .com, Aug. 7, 2008
“Forecasters: 2009 to Bring ‘Above Average’ Hurricane Season”—headline, CNN, Dec. 10, 2008
“NOAA: 2010 Hurricane Season May Set Records”—headline, Herald-Tribune (Sarasota, Fla.), May 28, 2010
“NOAA Predicts Increased Storm Activity in 2011 Hurricane Season”—headline, BDO Consulting press release, Aug. 18, 2011
“2012 Hurricane Forecast Update: More Storms Expected”—headline, LiveScience, Aug. 9, 2012
“NOAA Predicts Active 2013 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, NOAApress release, May 23, 2013
“A Space-Based View of 2015’s ‘Hyperactive’ Hurricane Season”—headline, CityLab .com, June 19, 2015
“The 2016 Atlantic Hurricane Season Might Be the Strongest in Years”—headline, CBSNews, Aug. 11, 2016
“NOAA: U.S. Completes Record 11 Straight Years Without Major Hurricane Strike”—headline, CNSNews, Oct. 24, 2016
A "heat engine" is just a fancy, and somewhat misleading, name for the Second Law of Thermodynamics: energy always moves from hotter objects (molecules) to colder objects (again, molecules). As pointed out in these comments, another way of characterizing this is: it is only the temperature gradient between objects that is important.
and pigs ears are longer and milk has more calcium. Assume a connection and then concentrate on the assumption.
So you started a whole chain of exchanges based on "this is very hard to understand so just do as I say"
But it hasn't. The scientific data doesn't support the argument unless you want to call the head of the NOAA a liar.
NOAA drew the map of gulf of Mexico warming gradients at the top of the Climate Wars post which you evidently did not read:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/09/pride-goeth-before-squall.html
John knows hurricanes feed on the temperature contrast between warm sea surface waters ,and frigid air at the tropopause , not the difference between the respective climates of the equator and the poles.
The saddest thing about climate cranks is their refusal to avail themselves of all the real time data NOAA animates in ways that transparently illustrate what the atmosphere and the oceans are doing 24-7 , at all elevations from the surface to space . The graphic interfaces it provides are as easy to use as an Iphone, so instead of embarking on meme barking , do yourself a favor and see how much you can see for free in real time at :
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-34.66,24.61,410
John knows hurricanes feed on the temperature contrast between warm sea surface waters ,and frigid air at the tropopause , not the difference between the respective climates of the equator and the poles.
If you thought my idea of cooling the oceans to the temperature of the poles to lessen/avoid hurricanes was utterly retarded, wait until you see my next trick!
That is a seriously dumb idea MC, have you considered publishing it as a Watts Up With That article?
I agree. Trying to cool the oceans by reducing CO2 levels to lessen the intensity of hurricanes is a stupid idea regardless of whether the differential to be leveled is between the equator and the poles or the surface and the troposphere. Even if I wanted to join, unfortunately, you’ve got the field covered.
You really aren't very good at this whole 'two or more concepts at once' thing.
WTF?
Take the L, Russell.
The saddest thing about flat earthers like you is that while you often get the science wrong, what you really get wrong is economics. Even if climate change did everything you claimed it does, we would still be better off focusing the world's resources on maximizing economic development, not engaging in fruitless efforts to try to reduce carbon emissions.
NoyB2,
Really dislike the unneeded 'flat Earthers comment but the rest is dead on.
Oh, look at that. Russel is still doubling down on replacing "w" with "vv". Not that he's being deceptive in the least.
Fuck off, slaver.
The data shows there has not been an increase in either the frequency or intensity of hurricanes in the last 50 years.
But we have Ian as proof - how many times have you ever seen a hurricane in Florida? And now this year we've seen one? Seems pretty obvious to me the global warmists have the better of the argument.
During hurricane season, no less!
how many times have you ever seen a hurricane in Florida?
Having lived through the 90s, I can say the Thomas/James/Lewis/Sapp fans were truly insufferable.
If I am not mistaken prior to Katrina FEMA did very little.
The local and state governments and private parties did the work.
All FEMA did was reimburse some of the costs.
FEMA should be called FEAR (The Federal Egg Answering Room,) in reality a front name for FEABLE (The Free world Extra-earthly Bodies Location and Extermination center.). 🙂
Monty Python's Flying Circus Season 4 Episode 5 Mr Neutron (Forward to 6:24-636)
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x85wffw
Lee Ving isn’t take issue with that.
Reason writers should watch “Elizabeth English on Ted Talk/Manhattan Beach 2019”
English founded an organization (Buoyant Home Foundation) to design hurricane resistant houses called “Amphibious Houses” that could not only save lives but save billions of dollars in property damage. The centuries old technology originated in the Netherlands and homes surviving monsoons in Asia.
At the very least building codes should be amended to allow private contractors to retrofit existing houses. Apparently the biggest obstacle to this life-saving technology is FEMA.
I'll have to look at this I've often though of putting houses on pontoons to float during floods but not sure how it survies a hurrican since the floating boats didn't survive
It's perfectly feasible to build homes that survive hurricanes... just expensive.
Very wonderful idea!
Before hearing about that, I was an enthusiast for having a house with the "Wed Button.". Heh-heh-heh-heh! 🙂
Looney Tunes "Designs For Leaving"
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3fu6di
"Why?! Don't they know that government has no money of its own? That everything federal bureaucrats spend is taken from the rest of us?"
What? Don't you even magic money tree?
Robert Reich, Bill Clinton’s Labor Secretary and film-maker (documentary “Inequality for All” starring Conservative Senator Alan Simpson and Warren Buffet) recently pointed out that a company had about a 20% increase in costs due mostly to Covid and Putin’s invasion.
Although the company had about a 20% increase in costs, it marked up some of it’s profits to 200%. This is a company that most Americans rely on for household products disproportionately affecting poor people. This example seems like real price gouging.
Move to Venezuela.
StARt YoUr OwN cOmPaNy
But make sure you don't end up in jail for price gouging.
Your denial of inflation is appalling. Read this:
https://thenationaldesk.com/news/americas-news-now/economists-say-bidens-american-rescue-plan-has-contributed-to-inflation-economy-president-joe-biden-2-billion-covid-coronavirus-relief-congress-inflation-rising-prices
"a company"
I'm betting this company doesn't have a name.
Have you considered getting a real job, as a rhinoceros?
Alan Simpson was no "Conservative" unless you compare him to the Occupy crowd wanting Universal Basic Get-Paid-To-Exist Income.
“A company”? Are you effing serious? Care to name that “a company” so that we can get down to the numbers?
Neither COVID nor Putin’s invasion caused any significant price increases. The price increases and inflation were caused by Biden’s utter and complete incompetence, aided by a Democrat majority in Congress.
Companies can mark up prices, they can’t “mark up profits”. "Profits" is simply left after subtracting expenses from revenues.
A “200% increase in profits” is not much, given that the profit margins in many industries are very low. That is, the company may have gone from a 0.5% profit margin to a 1.5% profit margin. The "200% increase in profits" may simply the company returning to normal profit margins after a couple of bad years.
We have literally dozens of companies selling household products; if you don’t like the prices of one company, buy from another.
Yes, to an economic imbecile like Robert Reich, that would “seem like real price gouging”. That's why one should listen to economic imbeciles for information about economics.
Robert Reich is in no way credible. I question the veracity of anything with his involvement.
"Here's What the Media Get Wrong About Hurricanes"
Everything?
And by "get wrong" we mean "lie".
The first people to respond are usually electrical contractors. The power company-they have a vested interest in restoring power so their customers can continue using their product, and in many regards, keeping those customers safe so they can continue purchasing more. They're consistently the most efficient organ of disaster relief and it's all done through a profit motive.
The first outside people to respond are usually electrical contractors.
I continually point out that there are 0th responders, the (semi-)random survivors at the scene. My FIL bought a tri-source generator for specifically this purpose. The most aesthetic hookup was the also the closest to grade. Water rose to the point that the generator couldn't be run safely. The neighbor had lumber and a dolly to move the generator to an alternate hookup. Currently, he's keeping his beer and other less important perishables cold in my FIL's fridge. My FIL isn't physically capable of going around to help people with their own reconstruction. However, it is/was well known in his community, even before the storm, that his garage is open to run power tools.
I'm glad there's still one Libertarian writer left at this site. Gonna be a sad day when Stossel calls it a day. His TV specials and reporting back in the 20/20 days was what got me (a kid) to start thinking of things differently.
I like the fact that Stossel admitted that his uses of Federal Flood Insurance was part of the problem. At least he is consistent.
If you quote Pat Michaels in support, you're dishonest by proxy. The man is a paid professional shill/liar for Big Denial.
Is Big Denial bigger than Big Oil? Seems like it would be an industry that's hard to pin down.
So you're not even going to attempt to address the facts, the charts or the underlying evidence. You're going straight to the ad hominems? And we're supposed to pay attention to that rant why?
My favorite part was the appeal to an ad negatio.
Michaels said that he does not contest the basic scientific principles behind greenhouse warming and acknowledges that the global mean temperature has increased in recent decades. [...] A 2002 article published in the journal Climate Research by Michaels and three other scholars predicted "a warming range of 1.3–3.0°C, with a central value of 1.9°C" over the 1990 to 2100 period,
Doesn't sound like "Big Denial" to me.
What Michaels was skeptical of was: (1) that climate change is an existential threat, (2) that it can be counteracted, and (3) that it is automatically bad for people. That makes him rational, unlike you.
Was- Pat suffered a hard delete in July.
His sense of humor will be missed- he wore green sneakers to AGU meetings as a conversation starter
"No, they aren't! Look at all the hurricanes around the planet. We can see them since 1970 because we've got global satellite coverage. We can measure their power….There is no significant increase." There isn't.
This is myth number 4. The damage done by hurricanes or any tropical storm is overwhelmingly done through storm surge and heavy rains. The power, or wind speed that determines the classification of cyclones - cat 5, cat 4 etc - is marginal in comparison.
"The damage done by hurricanes or any tropical storm is overwhelmingly done through storm surge and heavy rains."
The damage done is because more and more people live in these areas, bringing more and more resources to be damaged. IOW, damage isn't done through storm surge and heavy rains, it's from putting valuable things in an area likely to see storms.
You could also argue that residents don't put enough resources into securing what they value from storms. The truly wealthy have their own fresh water, food and medical supplies, electrical generators, sea walls, areas sealed off with those submarine-style hatches etc.
If you can't afford to protect yourself from hurricanes, don't live in a hurricane prone area!
I can't and I don't.
OK. Is there evidence that those things are getting worse?
Yes
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/04/should-the-official-atlantic-hurricane-season-be-lengthened/
That shows an increase in the "Average number of named storms by day of the year in the historical record from 1851–2019 (dark blue line)". It's a reflection of our change in propensity for naming storms, not a scientific demonstration of an increase in the actual number of storms.
"It’s a reflection of our change in propensity for naming storms"
Storms are named when wind speeds reach a certain level, 18m/s, as the very first sentence in the article states. Your notion that storms are named out of some foolish whim is myth number 5.
Yes, that's how they are named today; when, where, and how storms are named has changed tremendously over the past 150 years. They were regularly named with women's names only starting in the 1940's and 1950's.
In any case, that's not even my point. My point is that in order to determine that a storm has reached a wind speed of over 18m/s you have to observe it. And in 1851, with sparse settlements, few weather stations, no satellites, and much less shipping, there was much less opportunity to observe such wind speeds. Hence, fewer named storms.
Wow, you really are a shining example of Dunning-Kruger; even the simplest comment about selection bias in climate observations goes over your head.
"Yes, that’s how they are named today; when, where, and how storms are named has changed tremendously over the past 150 years. "
Only since the 1970's have satellites given us a reasonably clear idea about what's going on in the oceans and atmosphere. And only in the past decade or so can we get measurements of the ocean temperature beyond a fathom or two.
"They were regularly named with women’s names only starting in the 1940’s and 1950’s."
The name of any cyclone is essentially arbitrary. It's their size, wind speed and trajectory that meteorologists are interested in.
Are you seriously so dumb that you think that needs stating?
Yes, and the notion that this has been done consistently for the past 150 years is ludicrous.
Which is precisely why Russell's claim about increasing hurricanes based on the "number of named hurricanes" is bullshit.
"Are you seriously so dumb that you think that needs stating?"
You seem confused about the naming of hurricanes. Or typhoons or cyclones. I wanted to clear things up for my readers here.
"Yes, and the notion that this has been done consistently for the past 150 years is ludicrous."
Again, satellites have been providing data only since the 70's. 150 years ago other methods were used. Like collecting water from the surface of the ocean in a bucket and using a thermometer. If they had satellites back then they would probably have used them, as they give more accurate data. But they didn't so they didn't.
"Which is precisely why Russell’s claim about increasing hurricanes based on the “number of named hurricanes” is bullshit."
Take it up with Russel. My claim is that strength of hurricanes tends to be fetishized by the media and that the bulk of the damage done by hurricanes is done by rain and storm surge, and weaker hurricanes can cause more damage than stronger ones on this account. If you agree, you can simply say so or just ignore the comment and save everyone time.
Take your own effing advice. And stop making a fool of yourself.
No.
The study Russell sites has been repeatedly debunked for conflating improvements in detection with changes in the occurrence of the underlying events. To be blunt, what they demonstrated is that we have been getting better and better at detecting nameable storms, not that more nameable storms are occurring.
How plausible is it that in the past there were a wealth of 'secret cyclones' that remained undetected and unnamed? 500 years ago, quite plausible. Since the data of satellites of 1970's and onwards, less so.
Since most of those storms occurred at sea and never made landfall and many of the ones that made landfall only did so in relatively desolate areas with no one to make accurate measurements, not merely plausible but known. Yes, the advent of satellite measurement is what’s changed it. But you can’t start that in the 1970s because even then, there was still statistical bias in coverage.
Since the advent of truly universal satellite coverage, the trend lines for hurricane frequency and strength are (drum roll, please) statistically indistinguishable from flat.
"Since the advent of truly universal satellite coverage, the trend lines for hurricane frequency and strength are (drum roll, please) statistically indistinguishable from flat."
Is it so truly universal? Perhaps there are secret cyclones that exist now, as we write, that remain undetected and unnamed, making a mockery of your statistically indistinguishable flatness.
In a thread where I've come to expect incoherent arguments, that one takes the cake. Congratulations.
It's your own argument. You are the one asserting, without evidence, that secret cyclones existed in the 70's but don't exist today. I am simply pointing out the flaws of your own efforts.
(We're talking about hurricanes, not cyclones.)
There is no unexplained increase in hurricane activity since the 1970's.
Hurricane, typhoon are essentially the same thing. Different languages, different parts of the world. Cyclone is a word used to cover them both. Monsoon, though, is a different kettle of fish. It's a prevailing seasonal wind that brings rainfall to certain parts of the world. You might enjoy Somerset Maugham's short story "Rain," about a group of people stranded by the rains in a hotel in the tropics. Malaysia, if memory serves.
Russell pointed to hurricane statistics, statistics about the Atlantic and Carribean, statistics that he (falsely) claims show an increase in such events.
Whether there are similar phenomena elsewhere in the world is irrelevant to the discussion because Russell didn't point to any data about events elsewhere.
"If 'ifs' and 'buts'
Were candies and nuts,
We'd all have
A Merry Christmas!"
Stick to your rickshaw, Watermelon Boy! And Home, James!
And what do you know: there is no increase in hurricanes in the North Atlantic and Carribean since the 1970's, beyond the normal 20-40 year variation. QED
The warmer oceans though could lead to an increase in number and intensity.
Since the oceans have gotten warmer and since hurricanes have not increased beyond their normal range of variability, that seems less and less likely given the data we have.
"that seems less and less likely given the data we have."
We have data showing the oceans are getting warmer. And that hurricane season is getting longer. Why does this make it likely that the number and intensity of hurricanes in the future will be less than or equal to the number and intensity of today's hurricanes? Hurricanes are spawned by cold air meeting warm water. Warmer water indicates more spawning, not less.
We have questionable data showing that the ocean might be getting warmer but we don’t really know by how much because the measurement methods have changed so much over time.
We have predictions that the hurricane season will get longer but no evidence to date that it is so.
Warming ocean temperatures do not automatically lead to increased hurricanes, especially when the warming is apparently concentrated at the poles and not at the equator where those storms are generated.
Note that we have have predictions that the hurricanes will get more severe, less frequent, less severe and more frequent. In other words, we have multiple predictions all coming out of the same underlying computer models about future warming. This should call into question the predictive power of those models.
Yes, oceans have been getting warmer and hurricane season has been getting longer. Yet, despite these changes having already occurred, we have not actually observed an unusual increase in the number or intensity of hurricanes. Therefore, your hypothesis is false.
You're assuming that the only thing that climate change affects is ocean temperatures. That's obviously wrong.
Horsefeathers, witness the unabridged text John cherrypicked :
"Tropical cyclone rainfall rates are projected to increase in the future (medium to high confidence) due to anthropogenic warming and accompanying increase in atmospheric moisture content. Modeling studies on average project an increase on the order of 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm for a 2 degree Celsius global warming scenario.
Tropical cyclone intensities globally are projected to increase (medium to high confidence) on average (by 1 to 10% according to model projections for a 2 degree Celsius global warming). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size. Storm size responses to anthropogenic warming are uncertain.
The global proportion of tropical cyclones that reach very intense (Category 4 and 5) levels is projected to increase (medium to high confidence) due to anthropogenic warming over the 21st century. There is less confidence in future projections of the global number of Category 4 and 5 storms, since most modeling studies project a decrease (or little change) in the global frequency of all tropical cyclones combined. "
—
NOAA GFDL - Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
Global Warming and Hurricanes
An Overview of Current Research Results
This site authored and maintained by: Tom Knutson, Senior Scientist, NOAA/GFDL
Posting an article about future projections to defend a claim about past events? How do you think that provides even the slightest support for your argument?
Did he call you John? I was only kinda joking about Russell’s inability to string two thoughts together, but reading his posts, it seems like he really does have a cognitive disorder.
Edit: Ah, my bad, he's using John's source as an explanation for a question not directed at John, nor exactly answered by John's source. So, no cognitive disorder, just bog-standard cognitive self-impairment from Russell as usual.
Another awing and a miss. Is this guy a Jeffy sock? It’s hard to keep up sometimes.
That seems like a good thing, doesn't it.
That's an insignificant change, given that population distribution and infrastructure have a much bigger effect on the impact of storms.
Thanks for debunking the fear mongering about increasing cyclones: you have shown conclusively that we don't have to worry about it even if the projections of the alarmists are true.
"OK. Is there evidence that those things are getting worse?"
Warmer oceans have been observed and measured. Both on the surface and more recently, at deeper levels.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think drives storm surges?
Hint, it's wind.
The only other factor that significantly affects storm surge is time of day that the storm hits shore - does the storm surge coincide with high time (making it worse) or low tide (making it less) - and that's essentially random.
Heavy rains, by the way, do not actually add that much independent damage to the situation. Homes, vehicles and sewer systems are built to handle lots of rain. Heavy rains are only a significant contributor to hurricane damage after the high winds compromise the roofs, windows and other rain-protective measures. So again, the article is right - it's wind.
don't forget tides high tides plus storm surge equals greater damage but since its a timing matter it has nothing to do with climate change
Sorry, yes. My comment above should have said "high tide", not "high time". Looks like even the new edit function isn't a panacea.
1 It's more complicated- the spiraling winds create peak surge dome height in the eye, inside the flow field , where the horizontal wind velocity is lowest
On landfall, the surge sloshes around to fit the coast and onshore shoaling.
To get a feel for the enegetics check out the Convective Available Potential Energy (CAPE) channel at both surface and tropopause on
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/overlay=cape/orthographic=-93.58,27.35,423
2. Tesla is fruitless?
Who knew?
"Just out of curiosity, what do you think drives storm surges?
Hint, it’s wind. "
What drives wind? It's the differential in ocean and atmospheric temperatures. That's not what's causing the damage, though. The damage is caused by rain and storm surge. And a cat 3 or 4 cyclone can cause as much or more damage than a cat 5 cyclone.
Why don't you use your rickshaw to get away from hurricanes, Watermelon Boy?
Enough about hurricanes. Let's discuss me!
You're the one who wants us all to ride rickshaws as a "Green-friendly" means of transportation.
Fuck Off, Watermelon!
Let's discuss me again!
Stossel needs a shave. Change my mind.
I agree. Looks nasty.
But my wife likes it.
So do the young people on my 5 person staff.
Since I'm trying to reach younger people, I figure they matter more.
Back in your days with just the 'stashe, my Aunt thought you were "easy on the eyes.". 🙂
Living near water is generally for the wealthy. I have little doubt that flood insurance will be extended because money and political power will favor its continuation. We compare the damage between the shoreline neighborhoods and those neighborhoods built back from the water. This should tell you where it is safe to rebuild.
Stossel is too dumb to hate.
As my Florida-based colleague explained just today, you can hardly get insurance in Florida. Certainly not from a major firm. Sure, you could say that all Floridians ought to follow the market more closely and time travel to the past and refuse to live there. And that's reasonable, but these are Floridians we're talking about.*
*This cheap shot at Floridians' intelligence is in poor taste and does not reflect my actual belief but merely the choice to hitch a joke to a cultural stereotype. I never encountered anyone but cool people in the rather idyllic time I spent in Florida as a youth, and I'm planning to go back as soon as they repeal the law that says I have to present my genitals to state border security, for the children.
Myth No. 1: We need GUNS against those 'icky' people for disaster relief.
Myth No. 2: GUNS must stop greedy businesses from raising prices.
Myth No. 3: GUNS will stop hurricanes from getting worse.
Myth No. 4: America must use GUNS as flood insurance.
The biggest MYTH of them all...
Government isn't just a monopoly of GUN force; it's a Almighty Miracle working Wizard/God!
And until people realize the FACT that the only 'tool' in 'governments' toolbox is GUN-Force; the people will just keep making the same stupid mistake over and over and over again.
Nazi(National Socialist)-Fan = Criminal Minded GUN-Threaten those 'icky' people into Slavery (The party of slavery/dictation) while practicing an unprecedented amount of cognitive dissonance as to what 'government' really *IS* and using endless greedy selfish excuses to justify their dissonance.
USA Patriot = A monopoly of GUNS only practical human resource is to ensure Individual Liberty and Justice for all. Because GUNS don't make human resources; Individual PEOPLE do.
Thanks Mr. Stossel for teaching me that *nothing * is sacred. Given a choice between less-expensive government insurance and more-expensive private sector insurance, that's all it took for your Libertarian bona fides to fall by the wayside.
paraphrased, "STEALING from others is less-expensive for me..."
That is the appropriate blog for anyone who wants to find out about this topic. Very useful and interesting site, found a lot of useful information, thanks! I am very happy to watch your informational content. I would recommend reading Rich Dad Poor Dad's Book which is enter-relatable with this content. JRich Dad Poor Dad's Book
Also thermodynamics, economics, and consequences.
And gender assignments at birth.