The North Carolina Legislature

[Jhhnn]

Jumping Jehoshaphat Josephus! I have a degree in Geology and i'm quite familiar with land subsidence as it relates to sea level, especially in the Carolinas and Florida.

https://www.quora.com/Where-did-the-phrase-jumping-jehoshaphat-come-from

So, land subsidence is an additional problem in the Carolinas & Florida on top of a real & measurable rise in mean global sea level? I wonder if the N Carolina legislature considers that in their plans. Probably not, huh?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

So, land subsidence is an additional problem in the Carolinas & Florida on top of a real & measurable rise in mean global sea level? I wonder if the N Carolina legislature considers that in their plans. Probably not, huh?

Yes they do. In fact in some cases land subsidence due to pumping out ground water and other causes is measured in meters as opposed to the small and incremental rise due to the changing sea level.
In fact Jhhnn you can join Dr. Curry here next week.
https://www.wcrp-climate.org/s2s-s2d-2018-home

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes they do. In fact in some cases land subsidence due to pumping out ground water and other causes is measured in meters as opposed to the small and incremental rise due to the changing sea level.

Yawn-

https://sealevelrise.org/causes/land-sinkage/

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Yawn-

https://sealevelrise.org/causes/land-sinkage/

Good God, sinkage. lol

 

[Paratus]

As you well know before the 12 year hiatus of powerful hurricanes making landfall in the United States that Curry was right, after that hiatus Spencer is right.

I don’t agree with your interpretation of Curry’s positions and Spencer’s position.

Curry is stating the number of major hurricanes almost doubled from the 1970’s to the 00’s.

Looking at this table of storms I found:
http://www.stormfax.com/huryear.htm

• From 1968-1977 they averaged 1.7 major hurricanes per year
• From 1998-2007 they averaged 3.7 major storms - more than double.
• From 2008-2017 they averaged 3.2 major storms almost double

It appears that Curry’s paper from 05 is still basically correct.

What Spencer is saying can’t be directly compared to what Curry said. I was expecting that you knew that.

Spencer is saying that the number of major storms that hit the US has decreased since the 30’s. Something I completely agree happend per the definition of ‘major storm’.

While Curry said the number of major storms has increased since the 70’s. She’s says nothing about hitting the US

These statements aren’t opposed.
The number of major storms can increase while the number that hits the US decreases.

The problem with Spencer’s article isn’t the data he presents so much as the conclusions he leads you to aren’t supported.

He leads you to believe that major storms are less frequent, (which you did), but if we look at all major storms and not just the ones that hit the US:

• From 1938-1947 they averaged 1.7
• From 1948-1957 they averaged 3.9
• From 1998-2007 they averaged 3.7
• From 2008-2017 they averaged 3.2
• From 1938-2017 the average was 2.6

The last 20 years has been 33% above the 70 year average. Even if we cherry pick the 3.9 value vs the 3.2 that’s only a 21% drop not 50%.

If we step back and look at the frequency of named storms (Tropical Storms and up) we’ve been averaging 15 named storms per year over the last twenty years. Compare that against the 70 year average of around 11 named storms.

At no point does Spencer suggest why the increasing number of major and hurricanes doesn’t hit the US. Mostly it looks like he’s hoping you won’t realize the number of storms across the board are increasing across the board as climate scientists like Curry have suggested will happen due to climate change. He’s doing that by cherry picking which statistic he provides. His choice of major hurricanes at US impact allows him to ignore Cat 4 hurricanes like Ike that hit as historically massive Cat 2.

He then goes on to state that the reason for the costlier storm damage is that more construction in vulnerable areas is the cause. That’s also correct. Increased coastal building is a cause of the increased storm cost. But then he says it’s not due to global warming and supports this conjecture by linking to his “Denier for Dummies” style book on Amazon. This is utter bull as there’s nothing that says the increased cost can’t be caused by both.

In fact there are several studies that directly show increased rainfall and wind speeds for individual storms due to climate change:

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...-the-gulf-of-mexico/?comments=1&post=35310645

 

[imported_tajmahal]

As you yourself stated, Curry was looking at the 1970's to the 00's timeline,

"Curry is stating the number of major hurricanes almost doubled from the 1970’s to the 00’s. "

not the 1930's to the present day timeline that Spencer used in the article i posted. You're taking the apples of one climate scientists papers and comparing them to the oranges of another climate scientists paper. So as you usually do when confronted with facts that don't agree with your opinions, you change the subject.
Nice try, but Dr. Spencer's paper is correct as was Dr. Curry's at the time it was written.

 

[Paratus]

As you yourself stated, Curry was looking at the 1970's to the 00's timeline,

"Curry is stating the number of major hurricanes almost doubled from the 1970’s to the 00’s. "

not the 1930's to the present day timeline that Spencer used in the article i posted. You're taking the apples of one climate scientists papers and comparing them to the oranges of another climate scientists paper. So as you usually do when confronted with facts that don't agree with your opinions, you change the subject.
Nice try, but Dr. Spencer's paper is correct as was Dr. Curry's at the time it was written.

Taj, was something I wrote unclear? Not only do I agree that Spencer is correct insofar as the number of major storms hitting the US has dropped since the 1930s and coastal building is causing increased costs from storms I also agree Curry’s paper was correct at the time it was written.

So do you understand that we agree on these points?

My other points were:

• Curry’s paper is still essentially correct through 2017 as this last decade the average number of major storms is well above the 1970s average and only slightly below the decade leading up to her paper. Also named storms overall have been increasing through 2017
• Spencer’s doesn’t count all the major storms.
• Spencer doesn’t prove that the increased cost of storms isn’t caused by coastal building AND increasing intensity

So I’m sorry this is hard for you to understand but Curry’s research supports increasing numbers of major storms due to climate change and Spencer’s comments do nothing to disprove that.

It’s ok though, while I can’t respect it, I know you’ll ignore evidence that’s contrary to your beliefs so I don’t expect you address anything I wrote.