‘Nuff Said!

See: Article

Full Disclosure: BusinessWeek is my former employer.

— Peter Galuszka

There are currently no comments highlighted.

17 responses to “‘Nuff Said!

  1. Yeesh, Hurricane Sandy, a category 1 storm, is confirmation of Global Warming?

    Talk about cherry picking facts!

    Chew on these facts cited by Holman Jenkins in the WSJ: The 1821 Norfolk and Long Island hurricane was a Category 3 by current metrics when it laid waste to Lower Manhattan. The 1938 New England hurricane was a Category 3 when it flooded parts of the city and battered Long Island. Hurricane Donna in 1960 was considered a strong Category 1 when it produced an 11-foot storm surge in New York harbor.

    Seventy-five hurricanes have hit or passed near New York since 1800.

    The fact is, the frequency and severity of Atlantic Ocean hurricanes has not increased one whit in the past 20 years, defying the predictions of the alarmists. That’s not an argument against man-made Global Warming, but it is> an argument against the alarmist idea that global warming will bring nothing but a string of environmental disasters.

    ‘Nuff said.

    • Indeed, there has been a marked decline in Hurricane activity over the past decade. The 1950’s Va. coast likely suffered triple the amount of Hurricane damage (inflation adjusted). Virginia Beach was Hurricane Alley back then.

  2. You seem to be confused.

    A “category 1” storm is only a measure of wind velocity and it applies to tropical cyclones.

    Tropical cyclones, typically, tend to be tightly packed and fast moving with tremendous force hitting a relatively small area.

    Sandy started out as a tropical cyclone but changed into something else much larger after it passed abnormally warm North Atlantic water and then slammed into an arctic cold front.

    It’s winds and effects stretched at least 800 miles. That is much bigger than a tropical cyclone, which Sandy was NOT when it hit the Jersey coast.

  3. whatever Sandy was – you’d better pray that cat 2, 3, 4 versions of it don’t show up.

    what Sandy shows us (I think) is how easily we underestimate what weather can do – do even cities.

    If there is GW and it does result in higher seas – and storms like Sandy revisit places like NY and refill those tunnels and take out electricity for days – what will the insurance companies do?

    If continue in future years to see storms like Sandy what should we make of it?

    we are much more vulnerable that we think we are and that’s what Sandy showed us.

  4. re: decreased storm activity. As the folks in NoVa about Derechos and those in Richmond about Gaston.

    if we get many more “freak” storms, we’re going to have more freak storms than normal storms.

    Remember, we used to judge how severe a storm would be by cat 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and who would have that a cat 1 would have done a Katrina on NYC of all places?

  5. Oh and by the way,
    This guy has been going through hurricanes since Hazel in 1954. My personal life has dealt with many since and I will be happy to share details with you if you ask.
    But we haven’t seen New York City and Washington DC. shut down because of them.
    I would be interested in knowing how DENIERS like the big Bacon address this. Category One and all that nonsense.

  6. I’m not sure hurricane frequency is as important a metric – as the kinds of storms we are seeing – and the damage done.

    clearly over the last 20 years – we have seen some of the most massive and costliest hurricanes on record.

    It may be inconclusive in terms of whether our activities have had a causative effect on weather but in our zeal to deny it, we still ought to be cognizant that the kinds of storms that we are seeing of late are unusual and costly and I think troubling.

  7. the data about frequency and energy are inconclusive but it’s hard to look at NYC when has been dealt a blow similar to Katrina.

    In New Orleans, they just bulldozed the structures and started over.

    it appears that’s going to happen to parts of NYC.

    Insurance companies and their willingness to continue to insure properties that are susceptible to storms are an important metric also and they know the damages.

  8. If in the next year or two – NYC or some other unlucky place gets a “Sandy”, and NoVa gets another Derecho, and perhaps Richmond another Gaston – what will we make of it?

    Will it make any difference at that point, if more people become convinced that maybe there IS something going on?

    I guess that’s my take away – that it does not really matter if GW is behind this on not because we have so many that are skeptics that by the time it is conclusive there won’t be anything than can be done about it anyhow.

    that’s seems to be the way that we deal with such things – we have to see “proof” and no conniving conspiracy of scientists are going to convince us otherwise – as we look at similar scientists hurricane model tracks that tell us who will get the next storm.

    I think as soon as we find out that hurricane track scientists are also involved in a giant conspiracy by finding out that they have purchased stocks in companies that benefit from hurricanes – the next step will be that the public will demand the hiring of witch doctors who will also assist with burning at the stake any remaining scientists.

  9. What would happen if carbon trading could only be done by companies that produce carbon? X has cut emissions; Y needs them. What if Wall Street was bared from trading?

  10. “Our cover story this week may generate controversy,” Bloomberg Businessweek Editor-in-Chief Josh Tyrangiel wrote on Twitter, “but only among the stupid.”

  11. re: carbon trading. I don’t think we can agree on WHAT to do until we agree on GW and climate change itself.

    the politics of it are so in dispute that it will be interesting to see
    if more people become convinced or we keep the big divide .

    I’m not optimistic – even for things like DDT or the Ozone hole – there are folks who STILL object to those changes and still disbelieve the “problem” AND the solution.

    Our history for most things like this is that we don’t act until the damage is clear to enough people and climate change is one of those things that by the time the damage is no longer contested, doing something about it might be too late.

  12. According to Rich Lowry”
    “University of Colorado professor Roger Pielke notes that a Category 3 hurricane hasn’t made landfall in the U.S. since 2005, the longest spell without one in more than a hundred years. “While it’s hardly mentioned in the media,” he writes, “the U.S. is currently in an extended and intense hurricane ‘drought.’”

    On the other hand, there were fearsome hurricanes long before anyone dreamed up, let alone manufactured, an SUV. In 1938, the so-called Long Island Express devastated Long Island and New England. An old newsreel film describing it sounds like a report on Sandy. A high-pressure system kept it from blowing out to sea. It hit densely populated areas. It brought a huge storm surge. The Category 3 storm killed hundreds of people.

    In 1821, another storm flooded New York City all the way up to Canal Street. If Bloomberg Businessweek had existed 190 years ago, it might have reported on the damage and warned: “This is our future if we develop modern industry and transportation and make them both dependent on fossil fuels, idiots.”

    For complete article by Rich Lowry see: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/332640/stupid-sandy-rich-lowry#

  13. As I have noted in an earlier comment, points like this are off-topic. It doesn’t matter if Super Storm Sandy was a Category Five or whatever (thank God it wasn’t) It was a different kind of storm with a huge impact. Parts of New York City are still shutdown 10 days later. DC was shut down for two days. Something is new here.The impacts are huge.

    Why is it so hard to understand?

  14. one word: denial

Leave a Reply