NOAA: U.S. has gone 11 years without a major (Cat 3+) hurricane strike
…Did Hurricane Matthew Ever Get Anywhere Near Cat 5? ‘Wind speeds are not based on actual measurements’
By Paul Homewood
According to the official records, it hit 160 mph sustained speeds on 1st October, making it the first Cat 5 Atlantic hurricane since 2007. Apparently, if you believe the official view of events, Matthew intensified from a Category 1 hurricane on the Saffir–Simpson scale to a Category 5 hurricane in just 24 hours.
However, extremely suspiciously, it only stayed at Cat 5 for 6 hours, before weakening. (In fact, NOAA’s records are at 6-hourly intervals – Matthew reached Cat 5 speeds of 140 Kts at 6.00am on Oct 1st, but dipped to Cat 4 speeds of 135 Kts at 12.00 am. Therefore it stayed at Cat 5 speeds for UNDER 6 hours.)
However, as I have pointed out before, these categorisation of wind speeds are not based on actual measurements, as they would have been in the past. Instead, they are derived from Track History, which in NOAA’s own words is defined as:
Track history for each storm is created from the operational warnings that are issued every six hours by NHC, CPHC , and JTWC . The positions and intensities are best estimates of those quantities when the warning is issued. THESE ARE NOT BEST TRACKS – having not been reanalyzed in any systematic manner.
So, somehow, Matthew’s windspeeds are supposed to have risen precipitously not in actuality, but because that is what was forecast by NOAA.
But what actually happened?
Whether we trust what the satellites tell us or not, NOAA’s actual plots show that Matthew barely got above 100 Kts, and nowhere near the green line, which is the Best Track which they forecast, and on which all of the hyped news reports have been based on. (100 Kts would put Matthew as a Cat 3).
…
Hillary’s Claim That Matthew Was Caused By ‘Climate Change’ Refuted By Science
By Brittany M. Hughes | October 12, 2016 2:19pm ET
There are a few glaring problems with Clinton’s premise that Hurricane Matthew was actually worse because of “climate change” – the first and most obvious being the question, worse than what? There was no bare-minimum destruction standard for Matthew, or any other hurricane for that matter. It was what it was, and any one of a million different variables could have caused it to turn out differently. This wild assumption of a statement may seek to carry emotional weight to influence voters, but it’s heavily lacking in factual evidence.
But if past hurricanes are the standard by which Clinton and her climate town criers are judging Matthew, it doesn’t take long to deflate that argument, either. As noted meteorologist Anthony Watts points out in his response to Clinton’s comments, Matthew was far from the worst hurricane in history:
…Matthew only spent 6 hours as a category 5 storm, the record was the “Cuba” hurricane in 1932 with 78 hours as a Cat5.
…The worst hurricane ever to hit the USA was The Great Galveston Hurricane in 1900, which killed up to 6000 people, long before CO2 ever became an issue.
Watts also pointed out it’s been 11 years since a category three or higher hurricane or made landfall in the U.S. – something we’ve reported on extensively here at the Media Research Center – along with a handy chart showing that tropical storms and hurricanes pretty much haven’t changed – if anything, they’ve actually decreased – over the last 50 years.
Figure from Dr. Ryan Maue: Last 4-decades of Global Tropical Storm and Hurricane frequency — 12-month running sums. The top time series is the number of TCs that reach at least tropical storm strength (maximum lifetime wind speed exceeds 34-knots). The bottom time series is the number of hurricane strength (64-knots+) TCs.
So when making broad claims about the coming climate apocalypse, perhaps Ms. Clinton should collect a bit of back-up evidence from one of the “97 percent of scientists” who allegedly support the theory, and whose identities remain cloudy to this day.
But then again, this is the politically-motivated climate agenda we’re talking about here: where the threats are made up, and the science don’t matter.…
‘Are Global Warming Alarmists Disappointed Hurricane Matthew Wasn’t Worse?’
Their impatient craving for a crisis was summed up well two years ago in August when a fellow named Greg Blanchette tweeted that he “kind of” hoped that North America “gets its ass kicked this hurricane season. It would motivate us on climate action.”
Is this the same Greg Blanchette who proposed that service stations be forced to placefrightening global warming warnings on gas-pump nozzles, an idea that’s now law in North Vancouver, British Columbia? Maybe not. But it doesn’t matter. If they’re not the same person, it simply means there are two climate cranks running loose out there with the same name.
A couple of years before Blanchette was wishing for wreck and ruin, British naturalist David Attenborough said that “disaster” was needed to wake people up to the threat of climate change.
The “disasters” the U.S. had experience up to that point “with hurricanes and floods”, he said, “doesn’t do it,” so the crisis he was been hoping for must be truly cataclysmic.
On Friday, as Matthew barreled up Florida’s coast, Marshall Shepherd, a professor in atmospheric sciences at the University of Georgia, tweeted about the “ridiculous complaining” he was seeing about the hurricane being less severe than expected.
“Some seem disappointed there isn’t tragic loss of life/apocalyptic,” he said.…
Hurricane Matthew: Apocalypse Not Now
Hurricane Matthew: Apocalypse Not Now
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/10/hurricane_matthew_apocalypse_not_now.html
At risk of sounding like a Hallmark card, life has taught me to look for the blessing in every situation.
— gReader Pro…
Monckton & Soon: Clinton, Gore and U.N., Profiteers of Doom, vs. Donald Trump, Prophet of Freedom
First, the rate of global warming has not been accelerating. In fact, it is little more than half of what the UN had predicted in 1990, even though, despite the squandering of hundreds of billions on the climate scam, CO2 emissions are rising faster than predicted.
Secondly, Hurricane Matthew was no worse for global warming. Until it struck the U.S. coast, no hurricane of category 3 or more had made landfall for 4001 days – the longest period without a major hurricane landfall in the U.S. since records began almost 150 years ago. Warmer weather reduces the temperature differentials that drive storms, making severe hurricanes less likely.
Thirdly, sea level, which Gore and Clinton said was a big issue for Florida’s coastline, has not been accelerating, though the south-eastern seaboard of the U.S. has been subsiding.
Fourthly, there is no “consensus”. Two of us were co-authors of a paper printed last year that examined 11,944 peer-reviewed papers on climate and related subject published in the learned journals over the 21 years 1991-2001. Just 41 papers – 0.3 percent of the sample – went as far as to say that what little global warming there has been in recent decades was mostly manmade.
In 2007, one of us ran ads in major daily papers throughout the U.S. challenging Al Gore to a debate about global warming. He was too terrified to accept. In 2009, one of us asked him how much global warming would be prevented if the U.S. stopped emitting CO2 altogether. Gore could not answer: for the truth is that global temperature would barely change.
The cost of compliance with the Paris climate agreement has been estimated at $90 trillion over the next 14 years. Yet that monstrous sum – four times the entire federal debt – would not even reduce global temperature by a tenth of a degree.
Measures to tackle global warming that are inexpensive enough to be ineffective will be unaffordable. Measures that are expensive enough to be effective are unaffordable. And there is no climate crisis anyway. As a recent Pew survey showed, the global warming scam is now a vote-loser for its promoters. We, the people, are no longer fooled.…
Fact checking Al Gore’s first climate rally in hurricane-ravaged Florida
Former Vice President Al Gore rallied yesterday with #Hillary Clinton to young Miami voters about #Climate Change, even as attendees seemed more engaged with their smartphones than the so-called risks from a global climate apocalypse. Clinton rope-a-doped Gore into hitting the campaign trail despite their decades-long ‘cold war.’ Clinton is hoping to scoop up Bernie Sanders’ supporters thinking of voting for Green party candidate Jill Stein but weary of Clinton’s climate creds.
Clinton knows that millennials are generally more worried about global warming, except anyone born after 1998 hasn’t experienced any statistical warming. Those who were too young to remember Gore’s 2000 run don’t recall the circumstances behind his failed presidential bid. Gore’s other goal was to give the mostly Miami Dade Collegecrowd a history lesson about losing an election by 500 votes because people voted for Ralph Nader.
Gore and Clinton Hold a Wonkfest http://politi.co/2dcemrF
Gore and Clinton Hold a Wonkfest
They came to talk about climate. They really talked about … climate. What if the 2016 race had been about policy?
politico.com