Typhoon Haiyan ripped the Philippines just about a year after Hurricane Sandy came ashore in New Jersey. That's proof of global warming, right? At least that is what the global warming fanatics would have you believe. The problem is that the use of Haiyan and Sandy to support global warming theory is roughly the equivalent of a person who learns that his neighbor has died while on vacation who concludes that rest is bad for you.
The reality of the situation is quite different than the climate hysterics would lead one to believe. Let's start with Sandy. It caused terrible devastation, but, as hurricanes go, it wasn't much of a storm. By the time it came ashore, it had weakened to the point that it was no longer even a hurricane. That's why the media renamed it "superstorm" Sandy. What made Sandy so destructive was not its strength, but the course it took and the other weather in that area. Unlike nearly every other Atlantic storm in the waters off the Northeast coast of the USA, Sandy did not move towards the north or east. Sandy veered to the west and came ashore in New Jersey on a course that no hurricane had taken for over fifty years. Then, as the storm came ashore, it merged with another strong low pressure area that was inland to form an enormous area of bad weather. Because of the course of the storm, the winds pushed ocean waters onshore and caused tidal flooding not seen in the normal hurricane in the area. So Sandy was a rather ordinary and somewhat weak hurricane that was made into a monster not by global warming but rather by coincidental weather conditions and a bizarre course.
Haiyan, unlike Sandy, was a monster storm. There is nothing to suggest that it was the result of global warming, however. Every year, there are a few monster storms in the Pacific. Sometimes these storms hit land, and sometimes they do not. Interestingly enough, the records show that the number of these monster storms in the Pacific have been declining for decades. On top of that, the 2013 hurricane season in the Atlantic was the least active in years as far as major storm activity is concerned. The thing to keep in mind is that there always has been and always will be weather and storms. When a storm passes through an area it does not mean anything about the long term climate of the planet. Ten or twenty years of data might begin to provide an indication, but even that would be only a partial indicator. It is time for the global warming crowd to actually use science instead of constantly talking about the consensus (which really does not even exist.)
The reality of the situation is quite different than the climate hysterics would lead one to believe. Let's start with Sandy. It caused terrible devastation, but, as hurricanes go, it wasn't much of a storm. By the time it came ashore, it had weakened to the point that it was no longer even a hurricane. That's why the media renamed it "superstorm" Sandy. What made Sandy so destructive was not its strength, but the course it took and the other weather in that area. Unlike nearly every other Atlantic storm in the waters off the Northeast coast of the USA, Sandy did not move towards the north or east. Sandy veered to the west and came ashore in New Jersey on a course that no hurricane had taken for over fifty years. Then, as the storm came ashore, it merged with another strong low pressure area that was inland to form an enormous area of bad weather. Because of the course of the storm, the winds pushed ocean waters onshore and caused tidal flooding not seen in the normal hurricane in the area. So Sandy was a rather ordinary and somewhat weak hurricane that was made into a monster not by global warming but rather by coincidental weather conditions and a bizarre course.
Haiyan, unlike Sandy, was a monster storm. There is nothing to suggest that it was the result of global warming, however. Every year, there are a few monster storms in the Pacific. Sometimes these storms hit land, and sometimes they do not. Interestingly enough, the records show that the number of these monster storms in the Pacific have been declining for decades. On top of that, the 2013 hurricane season in the Atlantic was the least active in years as far as major storm activity is concerned. The thing to keep in mind is that there always has been and always will be weather and storms. When a storm passes through an area it does not mean anything about the long term climate of the planet. Ten or twenty years of data might begin to provide an indication, but even that would be only a partial indicator. It is time for the global warming crowd to actually use science instead of constantly talking about the consensus (which really does not even exist.)
No comments:
Post a Comment