Storm surges: we ain’t seen nothing yet?

Tamino’s Open Mind remains one of the “must read” climate blogs – a recent post on hurricanes and storm surges is well worth reading:

One of the difficulties studying changes in the frequency and intensity of cyclones is that the record of past storms is inhomogeneous, due to changes in observational capabilities and how storms have been measured and recorded. But a new paper by Grinsted et al. has found evidence of past cyclone occurrence in the western Atlantic which impacted the U.S. east coast, evidence which is homogenous over a period of nearly a century, by studying not storm records, but surges in sea level recorded at tide gauge stations.

The Grinsted paper is well worth noting, and includes the following graph:

Note the correlation between a) surge events b) frequency of surge events c) accumulated cyclone energy and d) annual average global mean surface temperature between the late 1920s and this century (in particular note the period post 2000).

Four separate pieces of data; four different, yet parallel stories; one fact.

The globe is warming, and the climate is changing. Signal from the noise.

Tamino once again proves to be a valuable guide to the science, noting:

In my opinion, Grinsted et al. have identified an important and reliable indicator of landfalling storms in the U.S. southeast, and have found clear (and statistically significant) evidence of increase in activity over time and association with warmer temperatures. As the world continues to warm, expect the trends to continue.

I concur: these trends will continue.

87 thoughts on “Storm surges: we ain’t seen nothing yet?

  1. john byatt says:

    Tamino use statistics like a bulldozer. Makes it indisputable that what is happening is as projected, but it is like there has been a recent dramatic upsurge in the graph data,

    As you say we ain’t seen nothing yet, and here was me thinking five years ago that it would not start till I was long gone, yet we are all witnesses to what has been unfolding since the beginning of the 21st century.

    and the fools want to ignore over 90% of the planets heating to claim no warming since (insert date here)

  2. Nick says:

    A timely paper,a timely post and thanks for reposting it. This may help some to get a handle on the underlying change,and the fact that heavy weather will be sometimes be heavier because of SLR,which is,or should be,undeniable

    This goes hand in hand with a NY Times article from Septemberdiscussing the vulnerability of the area to storm surge,and the slow progress of authorities to strengthen defences.

    Also with recent decisions by new conservative governments in Australia to abandon SLR factoring…amazing but true. Though our current SLR is at a lesser rate than Eastern US,it takes just one well aimed storm to make life very embarrassing for the Liberals. They are taking a very big risk,and seem unaware of it

  3. Watching the Deniers says:

    Indeed – there are opinions, and then there are brute facts.

  4. Roy Mustard says:

    More worrying for me is the likelihood that the depletion of arctic ice caused a pressure system that pushed the hurricane onto land.

    This is a public relations disaster for the deniers who denied these catastrophic events would never happen because AGW was invented by Al Gore, or whatever their argument of the week was.

    When the clowns are arguing the Bloomberg is dishonestly running on an AGW to get re-elected you know the winds of change were blowing.

    Seriously though, I’m sure if they dishonestly quotemine enough emails AGW will all go away. Like it was supposed to in 2009.

  5. Roy Mustard says:

    A politically motivated conspiracy theorist is removing any mention of global warming on the Hurricane Sandy wikipedia page. Popular Science has the story.

    Good to see the creationist tactic of censoring science in favour of ideology and faith continue.

  6. Eric Worrall says:

    The correlation between graph A & B, and graph D, seems pretty feeble.

    I’ll reserve judgement until I see a few responses to this paper.

    • Nick says:

      Well,Eric,its not going to be particularly tight because what is being respectively observed are processes and properties connected indirectly. A and B are regional data from a handful of stations for one process,D is a global mean metric for one property.

      It would be interesting to see Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico SSTs and Atlantic/G of M mean SLR for the period in the same series of graphs.

    • Nick says:

      Paper is available ,here

  7. rubber taster says:

    Yes Eric, reserve judgement because your opinion is sooooo much more important than the facts. We can’t wait for your truthiness.

    Loser.

  8. zoot says:

    I’ll reserve judgement until I see a few responses to this paper.

    Which translates as “I’ll wait until Watts posts on it and I’ll regurgitate what he says”.

  9. Eric Worrall says:

    By other measurements hurricane storm activity is in decline, so my first thought is there is something wrong with the new methodology.

    Since the paper is behind a paywall, I’ll wait until more information is available.

    • john byatt says:

      Eric the paper is about storm surges on the US east coast, not about global numbers of hurricane storm activity

      It uses storm surge data as a proxy, very clever idea’

      so your first thought as with all your thoughts are wrong,you add 2 plus 2 and come up with five

    • Nick says:

      There is a rising trend since 1900 in observed numbers of Atlantic tropical cyclones,but we know observational ability has improved.

      There has been an increase in Atlantic storm activity since the start of the 1970s,with high variability from year to year/

      There has been a slight increase in major [cat 3 and above] hurricane activity since that time. As you can reason,annual variation is again high.

      There has been an increase in Atlantic accumulated cyclone energy [ACE] in that time. Again high variability is seen between years.

      Where the US has been fortunate is the recent lull in landfalling storms out of the total pool. Nations further south have not been as fortunate.

      But these are ‘other measurements’. Back to the paper,it notes an increase since 1923 in frequency of large surge events and notes that there are generally more storms in warm years than cool.

    • Uncle Buck says:

      Hi John, would they be the world’s first climate refugees?

      • john byatt says:

        there is still no official recognition of climate refugees.

        my understanding

      • john byatt says:

        Refugees, as defined by the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, can be granted asylum in other countries. The UN definition of ‘refugee,’ however, does not include those who are displaced by the impacts of climate change

        so when the deniers state that there never has been one climate change refugee
        they rely on the UN definition to distort the facts

        millions have been displaced by climate change already

  10. Eric Worrall says:

    Interesting article from the Huffington Post (h/t WUWT) – apparently while a significant number of people believe we’re contributing to, or are the main cause of climate change, they’re not interested in paying to fix it (the question was would you pay 50% more for energy, if you were guaranteed this would fix the problem).

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blackberry/p.html?id=2067125

    I find this a bit difficult to understand – if I thought the anthropomorphic contribution to climate change was an issue, I’d be happy to pay 50% more for energy.

    Perhaps people believe its our fault, but don’t care enough to want to fix it? Or maybe they think they have to say they believe, but aren’t really convinced?

    What are your thoughts?

    • john byatt says:

      with only 5% of republicans willing to pay , I guess that tells you the answer

      • john byatt says:

        over 60% democrats would or not sure, only 20% republicans would or not sure

        The politics should not come into it but it clearly does.

    • Nick says:

      As with many surveys,not enough questions were asked.

      Were respondents offered any other than a 50% rise? Perhaps many respondents in the survey would like to help but feel they are too poor to contribute that much:perhaps a 10% -20% surcharge would have significantly increased the ‘yes’. Perhaps not…

      Perhaps many feel that transnational fossil fuel companies making hundreds of billion a year should pay–or have their tax incentives reduced or eliminated– and their shareholders should kick in, without being entitled to pass the cost on to consumers. Perhaps they think that the international banking cartel should have their bonuses sequestered as contributions. I do,if you hadn’t guessed😉

  11. john byatt says:

    Eric “I find this a bit difficult to understand – if I thought the anthropomorphic contribution to climate change was an issue, I’d be happy to pay 50% more for energy.”

    that is nonsense as you well know, because no one is ever going to convince you

    you are and will always remain in deep denial, your claim is a fiction

    • john byatt says:

      Another point is that they were only offered an unrealistic 50% more

      my Kwh rate only went up 10% with the carbon price

      there was no demographic for income , one of the problems with accuracy in this kind of poll

  12. rubber taster says:

    From a NY commenter on Jeff Master’s blog:

    You are confusing theory with hypothesis. We have a Theory of General Relativity. We have a Theory of Evolution. We have Heliocentric Theory. These are accepted as facts by scientists in roughly the same proportion, and on the basis of roughly the same evidence, as global warming. Someone who seems to be claiming to be a mechanical engineering meteorologist or something should know that. “Theory” does not mean “unproven;” it merely means “A comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence,” according to the United States National Academy of Sciences.

    There is a difference between being a skeptic and a denier. A skeptic requires extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims. Anthropogenic global warming has a well-supported mechanism, extensive work rejecting the null hypothesis, and experimental and observational verification. There are no competing theories that in any way describe the variation in climate we are currently experiencing. Nir Shaviv’s cosmic ray hypothesis was firmly rejected due to its lack of correlation with past climate events, and that was the furthest into the scientific process competing theories managed to make. Right now, there are uncounted millions of dollars available from the Competitive Enteprise Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, and other Orwellian-named oil-funded groups if you merely speak against the anthropogenic cause of global warming, let alone prove an alternate cause. It’s telling that less than a handful of actual climatologists even bothered to take them up on their offer – the science is that strong. With that extraordinary body of evidence, a skeptic would not uncritically claim “It must be something else.”

    Here in New York, we’re very painfully aware of the fact that the globe is warming. It hasn’t escaped people’s notice that the waves are starting to lap over the walls more often at the Battery. Without the one-foot post-industrial sea level rise, Sandy would have barely flooded our subways at all, and the substation at 14th and Ave. C wouldn’t have exploded, plunging so many people into darkness. Without the massive pumping of heat to northern latitudes, Sandy wouldn’t have been able to strengthen so far north – last I heard on this blog, SSTs were nine degrees above normal near the coast before landfall. I keep hearing from the usual suspects – including people who kept downcasting and downplaying the effects as the storm was going on – that this is no time to talk about the causes.

    To hell with that!

    I have people huddled up in my home waiting for power, unable to return to their homes or go to work and, up until last night, not knowing if their loved ones made it through the storm (they did, praise God, and may the idiots never again ignore mandatory evacuation warnings). They want to know why this happened. They want to know why a storm more destructive than anything that’s come through here since Western habitation began was able to form. They want to know why children and adults alike have died, and they want to know how to make sure it never happens again.

    My shoes are still sticky with the remains of Coney Island Beach spewed more than a thousand feet inland. My nostrils are filled with a strange gagging scent that I’ve never experienced before in my life – I honestly can’t describe it beyond some sort of unholy alchemy applied to gasoline, rotting sea-flesh, and something else I’ve never encountered before. My ears are filled with the unnatural quiet of a neighborhood shell-shocked and still. Of all the times to start a dialogue about how we keep this from happening again, I can’t think of a better time than when the evidence of inaction is all around us and the distractions are fewer.

  13. Roy Mustard says:

    By other measurements hurricane storm activity is in decline, so my first thought is there is something wrong with the new methodology.

    1. It’s not measuring hurricanes.
    2. It’s generally agreed upon by meteorologists and climate scientists that fewer hurricanes will form in a warmer climate.

    But of course it must be wrong because it doesn’t say what you want it to say.

  14. john byatt says:

    A new poll reveals the majority of registered Republican voters believe that demonic possession is a real phenomenon.

    The “Halloween-centric” poll, conducted by Public Policy Polling showed that 68 percent of Republican voters think it’s possible to be possessed by demons.

    Meanwhile, as news website AlterNet notes, only 48 percent of Republicans polled in an earlier survey conducted by the Pew Research Center survey said they believe in climate change.

    As the election looms ever closer, the topic of climate change and global warming has been in the air — with some experts and politicians calling the recent devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy a reality check.

    However, while 88 percent of Obama supporters believe that there is “solid evidence that the earth is warming,” only 42 percent of Romney supporters said that this is true, according to the Pew survey.

    In addition, 33 percent of Romney supporters (compared to 5 percent of Obama supporters) said they believe global warming is “not a problem.” […]

    • Nick says:

      Sheesh,60% of Romneyites couldn’t even figure out if the world is warming….probably the result of sheltered incurious lives under the Murdochcracy. Possessed by demons> ruled by idiots…what’s the difference?

      • john byatt says:

        Yes, we have Xtian fundies, Moon hoaxers, birthers, 911 conspiracy nuts, demonic possession fruitcakes and then we have, all out there by himself , Eric

        he is in good company

  15. […] 2012/11/03: WtD: Storm surges: we ain’t seen nothing yet? […]

  16. john byatt says:

    Sobering,

    while many Atlantic storms hit New York, Sandy was the equivalent of a tropical storm hitting melbourne, still with the fury of a cat 2 cyclone .

    .

  17. john byatt says:

    Anthony Cox’s reply at the climate deniers

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/alan-jones-and-facts-about-co2.html?showComment=1352099228203#c4606598979028909557

    My answer to him at 7pm last night still has not appeared

    Introduction Knorr
    [2] Of the current 10 billion tons of carbon (GtC) emitted
    annually as CO2 into the atmosphere by human activities
    [Boden et al., 2009; Houghton, 2008], only around 40%
    [Jones and Cox, 2005] remain in the atmosphere, while the
    rest is absorbed by the oceans and the land biota to about
    equal proportions [Bopp et al., 2002]. This airborne fraction
    of anthropogenic CO2 (AF) is known to have stayed
    remarkably constant over the past five decades [Jones and
    Cox, 2005], but if it were to increase in a way predicted by
    models, this could add another 500 ppm of CO2 to the
    atmosphere by 2100 [Friedlingstein et al., 2006], significantly more than the current total. While recent studies have
    highlighted a decreasing ability of the Earth system to
    absorb the excess CO2

    Will wait and then congratulate Bill pounder for being officially part of the Cox disinformation campaign

  18. john byatt says:

    While all the deniers are claiming that the scientists are alarmists this reveals the opposite,

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378012001215

    two decades from now and the deniers will be wanting to sue for underestimating outcomes .

    .

  19. Eric Worrall says:

    Here’s an interesting post on WUWT – according to official records, sea surface temperatures have not warmed for over 70 years along the track followed by Hurricane Sandy.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/05/an-inconvenient-truth-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies-along-sandys-track-havent-warmed-in-70-years/

    So global warming over the last century, natural or anthropogenic, made zero contribution to Sandy’s ferocity.

    • john byatt says:

      Read that before the cyclone hit that sea surface temp was about 0.7DegC above normal which would add more rain to outcome

      WUWT’s figures are for the surface to 20metres

      whereas this guy said

      “A five degree rise for just the first inch of ocean, for a static area 900 miles in diameter (the size of hurricane Sandy) requires 95-million terajoules of

      So probably talking apples and oranges, would not even bother to check out either as it is just a look squirrel, if eric is concerned he can follow it up

      temp was warmer than normal which was revealed prior to sandy making landfall

    • Nick says:

      SSTs have warmed quite clearly in that track area since the late 1970s. Bob has cherry picked his start date at another warm period in the late 1930s:go back further and you’ll see SSTs there have risen since the start of the record in the late 1800s.

      As Sandy is a creature of the here and now, and storms are made of many ‘parts’,choosing to focus in on one factor that is similar to a decade 70 years ago is deliberately unenlightening. That is the inconvenient truth about Bob Tisdale’s post:point to one element in Sandy’s time that is matched by past conditions and insinuate that there’s nothing else to see.

      You have to include all the factors that have contributed to Sandy’s freakish breadth and effect. Warmer air,greater atmospheric moisture potential,higher sea level, low sea ice Arctic influencing blocking,and the potent continental trough carry an anthropogenic trace. The water was as warm as it has been recorded,too…and even warmer in the top quarter of the trajectory.

      .

  20. john byatt says:

    sounds like the Australian read wattsupwithcrap as well

    deltoid and link to Tamino

    takedown of The Australian

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/11/04/the-australians-war-on-science-78-2/

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Back to your dodgy “future projections” again.

      Warmer oceans now and into the future are likely to influence the intensity of cyclones. A recent study summarised this as follows:

      The fact is that Sandy was not influenced by warmer temperature water, because it didn’t encounter any.

      • john byatt says:

        At Deltoid they reckon they have the worlds best denier Poe, a fundie who believes that the fossil fuel oil is a result of all the animals drowning during Noah’s flood, his handle is Negotiator, Bet them that our poe Eric Worral is a better denier than theirs.

      • john byatt says:

        You deserve it eric, anyone who can beat a fundie at denial is doing really well.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Here’s another paper from the AGU to keep you amused John (h/t WUWT):-

          It appears expectations of SLR acceleration are about to be sorely disappointed – we’re at the peak of an observed 60 year oscillation which is shortly due to trend downwards.

          http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL052885.shtml

          The paper concludes data is too sparse to conclusively prove the oscillation, but the suggestion of an oscillation is strong enough that it recommends this possibility be considered in any projection of future SLR.

          This is getting downright funny. Will the last alarmist in the room please turn out the lights.

      • zoot says:

        From eric’s link:

        Although the tide gauge data are still too limited, both in time and space, to determine conclusively that there is a 60-year oscillation in GMSL, the possibility should be considered when attempting to interpret the acceleration in the rate of global and regional mean sea level rise. [my emphasis]

        What is it with trolls and comprehension?

      • zoot says:

        Didn’t need to go to the link (must stop speed reading eric’s crap, on second thoughts make that must stop reading eric’s crap):
        Eric says “we’re at the peak of an observed 60 year oscillation which is shortly due to trend downwards” and the article says (in eric’s words) “data is too sparse to conclusively prove the oscillation”
        I repeat, what is it with trolls and (in)comprehension?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          The paper suggests that more data is required for certainty, but also suggests that a sixty year oscillation has been observed in most tide gauges used to compile the paper.

          Given that you want to change the world on the basis of a risk even the IPCC says is not certain (>90% in AR4 – short of the accepted near certainty 95%), you should have more respect for a report which indicates something which is probable, but not conclusively proven.

          But I guess you are used to reading scientific papers which claim scientific certainty, after they use Mike’s nature trick to hide the decline.

      • john byatt says:

        Deltoid reckon their denialist must be a poe

        just posted

        john byatt

        November 6, 2012
        Trust me your Poe is second rate

        Eric is a recognised world famous idiot

        even randi org blog agrees

        [ Global Warming Discussion – – JREF Forum
        comment
        Check out Eric Worrall at watchingthedeniers. for the real business. If it’s a Poe it deserves an award. we no longer get that quality of denial here

      • john byatt says:

        Eric, even if proven it means nothing more than it should be taken into consideration when doing studies of SLR acceleration

        ” the possibility should be considered when attempting to interpret the acceleration in the rate of global and regional mean sea level”

        eric is not even close

        Eric ” that it recommends this possibility be considered in any projection of future SLR”

      • Nick says:

        The water at the top end of Sandy’s track was warmest on record. And what you claimed actually is not what Tisdale ‘allowed’ anyway. He chose the time section to say that it was as warm in the 1940s as it is now. IOW both periods are the warmest in the record,and any storm tracking through them will feed off them.

  21. john byatt says:

    had already read that and noted that willard had to change the heading when his misinterpretation was pointed out to him. try reading the abstract again without the confirmation bias.

    .

  22. john byatt says:

    Watts conversion
    from global warming is a lie
    to
    global warming reduced impact of Sandy
    and it makes plants happy too

    dont bother reading it’s that goose Chip

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Actually it makes a lot of sense.

      The Sandy storm system was amplified by the tropical tornado colliding with a cold weather system moving south from the Arctic.

      Since the Arctic is warming faster than anywhere else, given enough warming, there won’t be any cold weather systems for tropical tornadoes to collide with – or at least arctic weather systems will be a lot warmer, and a collision between an arctic system and a tropical hurricane will be a lot less spectacular.

      So the theory that global warming could reduce the ferocity of at least some tornadoes seems logically consistent.

      • zoot says:

        Eric is not only a gifted statistician, he is a meteorologist, hydrologist and climatologist as well … and he’s written an app!!

        That’s gotta leave Galileo in the dust.

  23. FrankD says:

    While the analysis of storm surges is a nifty idea, I have to wonder about the inclusion of graph C, which is verging on meaningless. It plots a rolling average of accumulated cyclone energy for landfalling storms, which contains two fairly large problems.

    1. “Cyclone Energy” – the measure applies only to tropical storms (warm core, driven by convection), not post-tropical/extra-tropical storms (“baroclinic”, driven by temperature gradients). The measure is calculated off the standard 6-hourly track data (taken at 0000z, 0600z, 1200z and 1800z). Although Sandy certainly retained tropical characteristics as it made landfall, it was post tropical by the next six hourly datum (as the influence of the Polar Front became more important). As such, her accumulation of cyclone energy at that point was zero. So ACE does not reflect storm intensity at landfall and is mostly unrelated to the size of storm surges.

    2. “Accumulated” – this is the biggie. The metric is accumulated over time – every six hours, a storms ACE goes up a bit (or a lot if its a Cat-5). But the history of a storm from when it was out at sea three weeks before landfall is mostly irrelevant? In September, ex-Hurricane Leslie hit Newfoundland. It was weaker than Sandy at landfall, and did little damage, but because it had been buzzing around out at sea for twice as long as Sandy, it finished up with a higher ACE.
    A storm can build to a Cat-5 hurricane out in the Atlantic, build up a huge ACE, but get hit by some windshear and be falling apart as it makes landfall as a tropical storm. Or it make get organised a little way off the coast, last long enough to build up a decent storm surge and make landfall at high intensity but with a fairly low ACE (in 2005 Katrina had half the ACE of Wilma, but the storm surge was 4 times as high).

    I take the point of the paper, but using landfalling ACE is complete boner; quite illogical, IMO.

    +1 for Roy Mustard on Nov 3 – the role of record low Arctic ice in Sandy’s trajectory is a tale yet to be fully told.

  24. john byatt says:

    First time I have seen this word used on the ABC site

    JOHNBARRONABC | 5m
    RT @sullydish: AMERICA FUCK YEAH!!!!!

    • Eric Worrall says:

      For once we agreed on something, America is fucked.

      Obama won’t have any reason to keep his eco-madness in the closet anymore.

      At least it looks like the Republicans have retained control of the lower house.

      • Nick says:

        It’s because of that Rep control that America is fucked,Eric…a bunch of mendacious carpet-baggers and religious fruitcakes to the man. Obama has gone grey trying to negotiate with them,and has been remarkably restrained about publicly berating them.

        This is a win for science. the Reps were going to gut climate study,and anything to do with ecology…they’re the kind of people who make problems vanish by abolishing their study. Yes,Eric,the US has narrowly avoided neo-Fascism at federal level.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          At what point is America going to prune its deficit?

          Obama is for big government (e.g. Obamacare), and expensive energy – he said so himself (see clip). Both of these policies will hamper America’s ability to generate the money required to pay their way out of their horrendous debt mountain.

          Thats how many countries fail you know – their debts outstrip their ability to pay. The Soviets collapsed above all because their economy stopped functioning.

          Romney was no catch – what America needed was Ron Paul. But he has business experience, he could at least have understood the problem.

  25. john byatt says:

    Not a happy camper methinks

    from the asylum that is justgrounds

    Reply by Michaelng Clayton 4 hours ago
    Hello Jan All

    Jan what is even worse is the vote count company based off shore is run by ex Goldman Sacs directors. The vote counting machines are easily rigged. So we will never know who really won.

    .

    • Eric Worrall says:

      I disagree, I think it was probably a fair election. In a democracy you get the government you deserve.

      • john byatt says:

        He is one of your climate change denier mates eric, one of the conspiracy theorist nut jobs that make up the climate sceptics party .

        wonder if you will ever work it out?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Was Osama Bin Laden an alarmist mate of yours? Or is it possible, despite you both expressing concern about global warming, that you had a few differences of opinion?

    • Nick says:

      Ah,the loony conspiracy mongers have another made another absurd leap!.Lewandowsky will be chuckling: they deny climate science,and they now believe GSachs rigged the election,it all fits seamlessly.

      More realistic is that Romney didn’t have a chance because his batshit insane party was too medieval for him to be able to be himself. Instead he flip-flopped around,having to disown his conceptual connection to Obamacare and all his previous pragmatism and moderation,trying to sound hard right and soft right simultaneously depending on the audience.

      Rick Santorum,psycho-religious nutter and failed candidate,thought Romney was the worst candidate the Republican Party could field. Romney was the best of a crazy bunch,Rick,but he couldn’t make those behind him look attractive enough.

  26. john byatt says:

    The global temperature balances out over the globe, eric global Temperature has increased by 0.8DegC over last century not by 10DegC

    first thing came to mind that this would indicate some warmer weather in other places,

    did not bother to find out just how many places, this one was at the top of google

    http://www.extremestorms.com.au/2012/10/31/heat-wave-4th-and-5th-november-2012/

    .

  27. john byatt says:

    no tricks zone, should change it’s moniker to nofuckingideazone

    http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/cgi-app/reports?MENU=UKForecast

  28. john byatt says:

    Eric Worrall says:
    November 9, 2012 at 2:06 am
    I see – so massive snowfall and cold conditions across the Northern hemisphere are balanced out by a heatwave in the Australian desert.

    Reply

    The Australian desert heat would be only part of it, The warmer arctic another part try to comprehend, I did not bother going further as it just displayed your usual ignorance of the subject

    what massive snowfall in UK and New York? read the forecasts and weather again

  29. john byatt says:

    a narrow storm band crosses New York . was the story that you got all excited about, it is over eric,
    you have cried wolf for nothing

  30. john byatt says:

    just realised that we are going to be flooded with every storm or snowfall for the entire NH winter,

    eric do us a favour and just stick to the extreme events as we do, you know like two week heatwave.

  31. john byatt says:

    Eric Worrall says:
    November 9, 2012 at 2:17 am
    All the snow and slush just materialised then John?

    Here’s some more up to date news – it appears it is snowing in New York again.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-09/snow-storm-brings-more-misery-to-sandy-victims/4362262

    this is not again as in now, how hard is this ?

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Sorry I forgot, its only climate if it fits the alarmist narrative, otherwise its just weather.

      • john byatt says:

        No you interpreted “New york hit by snow again” as happening now when in fact it was the storm from yesterday, the again was referring to a past event this month.

        you would be an interesting case study into denial

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: