Slower decay of landfalling Hurricanes in a warmer world — really?

[Robertinfremont]

A paper is out discussing slower decay in landfalling hurricanes in a warmer world. This paper deals with that discussion.

What worries me so much about the alarmists is that they are one trick ponies. Get off your arse and ban carbon dioxide is their claims. I am not going to stop breathing or living a good clean productive life over your fears I say back.

Slower decay of landfalling Hurricanes in a warmer world — really?

by Frank Bosse A recent paper published in “Nature” made some excitement in the media, see here or here.

judithcurry.com

by Frank Bosse

A recent paper published in “Nature” made some excitement in the media, see here or here.



In the paper by Li & Chakraborty (L&C 2020 thereafter), the authors find a statistically significant increase of the decay time when a North Atlantic hurricane makes a landfall due to warmer SST in a warming environment. They also undertake some model-related research about the impact of this observations.

The key point of thepaper is the finding that warmer SSTs lengthen the decay time of hurricanes after landfalls.

In L&C 2020, this is shown by figure 1f:

 

[watsup]

A paper is out discussing slower decay in landfalling hurricanes in a warmer world. This paper deals with that discussion.

What worries me so much about the alarmists is that they are one trick ponies. Get off your arse and ban carbon dioxide is their claims. I am not going to stop breathing or living a good clean productive life over your fears I say back.

Slower decay of landfalling Hurricanes in a warmer world — really?

by Frank Bosse A recent paper published in “Nature” made some excitement in the media, see here or here.

judithcurry.com

by Frank Bosse

A recent paper published in “Nature” made some excitement in the media, see here or here.



In the paper by Li & Chakraborty (L&C 2020 thereafter), the authors find a statistically significant increase of the decay time when a North Atlantic hurricane makes a landfall due to warmer SST in a warming environment. They also undertake some model-related research about the impact of this observations.

The key point of thepaper is the finding that warmer SSTs lengthen the decay time of hurricanes after landfalls.

In L&C 2020, this is shown by figure 1f:

Deniers are one trick ponies: NO MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING!

 

[Robertinfremont]

Deniers are one trick ponies: NO MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING!

Actually you made global warming. Do you deny you are personally responsible?

 

[watsup]

Actually you made global warming. Do you deny you are personally responsible?

Is there a point here? I sure don’t see it. And you do know that the paper indicates even more destruction from hurricanes over land that’s in the past, right?

 

[Robertinfremont]

Is there a point here? I sure don’t see it. And you do know that the paper indicates even more destruction from hurricanes over land that’s in the past, right?

Here is the point one more time. Actually you made global warming. Do you deny you are personally responsible?

 

[danielpalos]

Seawalls that promote the general welfare not landwalls that don't!

 

[watsup]

Here is the point one more time. Actually you made global warming. Do you deny you are personally responsible?

If you have a point, make it, and quit asking ridiculous questions.

 

[Robertinfremont]

If you have a point, make it, and quit asking ridiculous questions.

You are wasting time on this topic. First you blame humans and when given the chance to be personal about it you act as if you can't read English.

 

[watsup]

You are wasting time on this topic. First you blame humans and when given the chance to be personal about it you act as if you can't read English.

And you act like this is not a collective problem among humans. And no, I’m not going to waste my time answering “loaded” questions to which you already have a reply awaiting. If you want to discuss this in a serious and thoughtful manner, let me know. If it’s just a game of one-upsmanship to you, I’m really not that interested. Up to you.

 

[Robertinfremont]

And you act like this is not a collective problem among humans. And no, I’m not going to waste my time answering “loaded” questions to which you already have a reply awaiting. If you want to discuss this in a serious and thoughtful manner, let me know. If it’s just a game of one-upsmanship to you, I’m really not that interested. Up to you.

I have discussed the topic in a serious and thoughtful manner since the beginning. No reason to stop today.

Let me give you a whiff of thoughtful and serious.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Deniers are one trick ponies: NO MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING!

We are still waiting for you to make a point.

 

[watsup]

I have discussed the topic in a serious and thoughtful manner since the beginning. No reason to stop today.

Let me give you a whiff of thoughtful and serious.

I don’t watch videos. I will welcome a summary by you, if you wish.

 

[watsup]

We are still waiting for you to make a point.

There is manmade global warming and the economic and “natural” (floods and hurricanes and wildfires) results will be much greater if we don’t do anything on a collective basis than if we do.

 

[Robertinfremont]

There is manmade global warming and the economic and “natural” (floods and hurricanes and wildfires) results will be much greater if we don’t do anything on a collective basis than if we do.

What is your point?

 

[Robertinfremont]

I don’t watch videos. I will welcome a summary by you, if you wish.

You want me to read to you when you say how lazy you are?

 

[CaughtInThe]

climate change. abortion. mexicans. debt. christian values. nationalism.


it's what's for republican dinner for the next 4 years.

 

[Robertinfremont]

There is manmade global warming and the economic and “natural” (floods and hurricanes and wildfires) results will be much greater if we don’t do anything on a collective basis than if we do.

This song and dance is not new, it is old. When the hell will all this destruction commence? Where is it happening?

I am told by the faithful Democrats man is not in charge of Climate. So since Man is not in charge, how can man be in charge of Hurricanes?

Fires come from known causes. Normally the root cause is some regulations by Government. Such as do not burn anything in forests.

 

[watsup]

You want me to read to you when you say how lazy you are?

Then don't. I don't care. If you think the video is important enough to post, then you should be able to summarize it.

 

[watsup]

This song and dance is not new, it is old. When the hell will all this destruction commence? Where is it happening?

I am told by the faithful Democrats man is not in charge of Climate. So since Man is not in charge, how can man be in charge of Hurricanes?

Fires come from known causes. Normally the root cause is some regulations by Government. Such as do not burn anything in forests.

Destruction has already commenced. This past year's hurricane season. Forests dryer due to drought. South Seas island becoming inhabitable. Permafrost thawing and becoming inhabitable for Eskimos. These are all canaries in the bird cage. They are the foundation of things to come, where more and more people are affected.
Man caused this climate change, should not man take responsibility for acting to stem it? And here I thought that you right winger Republicans were all for responsibility. Guess not, eh?

 

[mike2810]

Actually you made global warming. Do you deny you are personally responsible?

Do you include your

Here is the point one more time. Actually you made global warming. Do you deny you are personally responsible?

I take as much responsibility as you do.

 

[mike2810]

As more research is done the linked OP article findings will either be confirmed or not. Some reviewers of the paper agree with the findings of the researcher.

"Since flooding is the major cause of death and destruction from landfalling tropical storms, this study suggests the potential for even greater risk than has been established in past studies,” Mann said “It’s a simple idea, but it requires quite a bit of work to establish that this is really happening. And that’s what the authors, in my view, have done here.”

Noting the findings, Jim Kossin, a hurricane expert with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who also did not participate in the study, said,“I find it somewhat remarkable that these trends we keep discovering are so disproportionately for the worse.”

In a Warming World, Hurricanes Weaken More Slowly After They Hit Land - Inside Climate News

 

[watsup]

As more research is done the linked OP article findings will either be confirmed or not. Some reviewers of the paper agree with the findings of the researcher.

"Since flooding is the major cause of death and destruction from landfalling tropical storms, this study suggests the potential for even greater risk than has been established in past studies,” Mann said “It’s a simple idea, but it requires quite a bit of work to establish that this is really happening. And that’s what the authors, in my view, have done here.”

Noting the findings, Jim Kossin, a hurricane expert with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who also did not participate in the study, said,“I find it somewhat remarkable that these trends we keep discovering are so disproportionately for the worse.”

In a Warming World, Hurricanes Weaken More Slowly After They Hit Land - Inside Climate News

So much evidence, and yet none of it will convince the denier community, At least we will now have a real president who understands the threat instead of a yellow-tufted ostrich.

 

[Montgomery]

A paper is out discussing slower decay in landfalling hurricanes in a warmer world. This paper deals with that discussion.

What worries me so much about the alarmists is that they are one trick ponies. Get off your arse and ban carbon dioxide is their claims. I am not going to stop breathing or living a good clean productive life over your fears I say back.

You immediately set a tone of disingenuous twisting of facts and that comes off as anger. Come back down to earth and reality.
Nobody wants to ban carbon dioxide and nobody wants you to stop breathing or living a good life.
You failed to stick it out and stand your ground on another thread about a history ph.d and so are you going to do the same on this thread?

The science is in Robert but it's not 100% conclusive. It's up to the denialists who represent the remaining 2 or 3%, to present their evidence. Instead of doing that you suggest that you will have to stop breathing or stop living a good clean life.

 

[Robertinfremont]

You immediately set a tone of disingenuous twisting of facts and that comes off as anger. Come back down to earth and reality.
Nobody wants to ban carbon dioxide and nobody wants you to stop breathing or living a good life.
You failed to stick it out and stand your ground on another thread about a history ph.d and so are you going to do the same on this thread?

The science is in Robert but it's not 100% conclusive. It's up to the denialists who represent the remaining 2 or 3%, to present their evidence. Instead of doing that you suggest that you will have to stop breathing or stop living a good clean life.

VIVID IMAGINATION ⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆

This is all that I said.

A paper is out discussing slower decay in landfalling hurricanes in a warmer world. This paper deals with that discussion.

What worries me so much about the alarmists is that they are one trick ponies. Get off your arse and ban carbon dioxide is their claims. I am not going to stop breathing or living a good clean productive life over your fears I say back.

 

[Robertinfremont]

So much evidence, and yet none of it will convince the denier community, At least we will now have a real president who understands the threat instead of a yellow-tufted ostrich.

Why are you so frightened of weather? Biden knows his masters are in Paris. Also in China.