NOAA: Hurricane Drought Hits Record 118 Months

I was living in New York City when Sandy hit. Despite all of the preparations in the days leading up to Sandy, the NYC OEM was panicking in the last 24 hours prior to the Sandy coming on shore (not something you want an OEM to do). They had no idea how to handle a hurricane that large hitting the city. And to be fair, it was called a once in a hundred year storm for NYC. One of the main concerns was that nobody in New York had hurricane insurance. After Katrina, many major insurers stopped accepting wind and water damage claims from hurricanes, unless you have supplimental hurricane coverage. But that insurance rule only applies to tropical storms and hurricanes; for all other storms the claims are accepted. Now this is just speculation, and a representative from the OKX NWS office told me it wasn't true, but based upon my conversations with people at the NYC OEM and numerous elected officials, I believe it's possible that the National Hurricane Center was pressured by representatives in New York and New Jersey into calling Sandy an "Extratropical Cyclone" (Post-Tropical Cyclone) rather than a "Hurricane" just two hours before it made landfall (It would eventually be classified post-tropical anyway, as all hurricanes are, but the timing was implacable - especially since the hurricane was still intensifying just 9 hours earlier). Because of this classification, Sandy was not a hurricane when it made landfall in the United States. That means the insurance claims got paid, and it also means Sandy doesn't count towards the 118 month drought.
 
Sandy was a hurricane, as was Irene. The problem is the politics of NOAA and how they have lost all their credibility by pushing the climate change scam, and because many of their "scientists" are pseudo-intellectual overeducated useless people. Just like the ones claiming the California drought is a 4 year drought, when NASA data shows that the water reserves in the state have been dwindling for over 10 years. The truth is that they lied for years in the past about global warming, made absurd claims based on "science" that they told us was "settled," they got their billions and their fraud and lies did not stand the test of time. Nature caught up to them and has proven them wrong.
It's just another agency wasting money and resources that must be held accountable. Defund NOAA and let technical colleges and private companies do what they do.

"NOAA expressed concern that Americans might suffer from “hurricane amnesia." more like Americans expressed concern that NOAA might suffer from hurricane amnesia.

Hurricane Sandy was a Cat 2, while Hurricane Irene was a Cat 3. BTW, Hurricane Irene was the first storm I ever "chased" in, as well as the first time I spend 52 hours straight without sleep while volunteering with my towns PD and FD to clean up the mess. Regarding insurance, Scott is correct about the political influence to mitigate the costs. Too many people are oblivious to mother natures wrath and it's understandable that someone wouldn't want to pay for something that they don't think they need. When I was living in FL, there was a hurricane tax or something like that on my car insurance policy. I can't remember what it was called but essentially, I had to pay for something based on an extreme weather event that regularly impacts FL. On another note, why would you pay more on your homeowners insurance to cover flood damage when you can just go cry to FEMA for aid money after your basement becomes an aquarium? You get a bigger payout with less scrutiny, hence why there is so much fraud with FEMA aid. The economics of disasters are a funny thing. NGOs and Government agencies make more money with the recovery than anything else. People taking care of themselves and their property is bad for government. The government needs you to be a victim because if you're not a victim, you don't need the help of DHS or the Red Cross. If you don't need them, they loose their leverage on congress to allocate funding in the budget. Notice how big these agencies like NOAA and FEMA have gotten since Katrina.

It's politics and it's all about the money, plain and simple.
 

MClarkson

EF5
Sep 2, 2004
892
28
11
Blacksburg, VA
Neglecting any mention of politics, this is still a meaningless article. Major Hurricane winds, cat 3 or higher, onshore in the US are already infrequent enough that something like this is hardly unexpected. Plus, choosing to focus on wind only and not surge is arbitrary at best. Hurricane Ike(2008), despite having "only" cat 2 winds, was large enough to drive before it the kind of surge that should certainly classify it as a monster in any reasonable list of hurricane impacts, and was certainly overall a more dangerous than a small diameter low end cat 3. Sandy might count as well, although being a weaker storm, it was very well aimed in terms of causing damage.
 

rdale

EF5
Mar 1, 2004
7,252
793
21
50
Lansing, MI
skywatch.org
And add a smiley or something to your claims of "lies and fraud" or people might really think you're serious. That would not reflect well on you as this is a weather forum - not a HAARP discussion center :)
 
And add a smiley or something to your claims of "lies and fraud" or people might really think you're serious. That would not reflect well on you as this is a weather forum - not a HAARP discussion center :)
I stand by my comment. Not so much claims, rather statements of fact. Not all weather enthusiasts are pro-government agencies, especially ones that don't need or deserve 1/4th of the funding they currently get. BTW HAARP has nothing to do with NOAA.... It's the Pentagon/military but that's a topic for when I find my foil cap. ;):p
 

John Farley

Supporter
Apr 1, 2004
1,569
775
21
Pagosa Springs, CO
www.johnefarley.com
Dave, it is true that the Hurricane Center mishandled public communications on Sandy (something they would admit) by getting hung up on the technical question of whether it was tropical or hybrid in nature when it approached landfall. However, you are the one who loses credibility when you deny the obvious reality of climate change. And if you don't think we need an effective, well-funded disaster-response capability in the government, well all I can say is look back to what happened 10 years ago with Katrina.
 
Dave, it is true that the Hurricane Center mishandled public communications on Sandy (something they would admit) by getting hung up on the technical question of whether it was tropical or hybrid in nature when it approached landfall. However, you are the one who loses credibility when you deny the obvious reality of climate change. And if you don't think we need an effective, well-funded disaster-response capability in the government, well all I can say is look back to what happened 10 years ago with Katrina.
I'm not talking just about Sandy. Sandy was a total mess on every level. You are misconstruing what I said regarding climate change and no, it's not real in the way that NOAA, Al Gore and the UN push it. Earth has cycles and the emissions from your vehicle have nothing to do with any of it. There are piles and piles of evidence on the fraudsters in NOAA and the scientists who fake models and data to get more funding and resources. It's no different than the inner city schools that have teachers who fake test grades to make all the students look smart, so that their local school district looks good and gets access to more Dept of Education funding.

DHS had loads of funding when Katrina happened and they still flopped. How much money would have made them capable of responding to something that even some of the smartest guys in the room didn't think could happen?

I work in the disaster response industry and am a member of ARES, former ARC volunteer and I know we need an effective response capability. What you don't realize is that government isn't ever going to be able to conduct disaster response in an effective, cost effective way. That's why I said it's better to leave it to private companies as well as local government agencies. Sorry, but I just think it's stupid to give an agency a blank check to study weather. How much more is there for NOAA to learn about hurricanes? Do they really have a legitimate need for millions and billions of tax dollars? That money could be spent better and you know it. They know what damage is caused by mother nature, they have equipment and knowledge that has worked fine for decades. They don't need any more research funding. If they need money for new radars, aircraft and instruments that's fine. You would also see that great innovations would come from technical schools if they got grant money to study the weather and disasters. Privatize and localize all of it and watch how much progress will be made without wasting billions of our tax dollars.
 

rdale

EF5
Mar 1, 2004
7,252
793
21
50
Lansing, MI
skywatch.org
Dave - I looked up your climate change research background to see what warrants your conclusion that NOAA is using falsified data, but am coming up empty... Can you show the peer-reviewed research backing that up?

DHS <> FEMA. Your point that they flopped is valid. Sadly President Bush felt that having an emergency manager in charge of emergency management wasn't important, so used a political favor instead. Now we have much better separation between FEMA and DHS, and a very knowledgeable emergency manager in change of emergency management. So you're wrong on that account too... But carry on - this is fun and certainly on topic with the point of the original post!
 
Dave - I looked up your climate change research background to see what warrants your conclusion that NOAA is using falsified data, but am coming up empty... Can you show the peer-reviewed research backing that up?

DHS <> FEMA. Your point that they flopped is valid. Sadly President Bush felt that having an emergency manager in charge of emergency management wasn't important, so used a political favor instead. Now we have much better separation between FEMA and DHS, and a very knowledgeable emergency manager in change of emergency management. So you're wrong on that account too... But carry on - this is fun and certainly on topic with the point of the original post!
I never said I had a background in climate change, just a background in common sense and reality. There are many articles that I can link that give examples of fraud at NOAA, such as how they (with USHCN) collected temperature data from sensors placed next to walls and parking lots that retained heat, which ended up making it look as if the area was getting exponentially hotter.

Steven Goddard aka Tony Heller has some good info. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/mind-blowing-temperature-fraud-at-noaa/
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...bout-the-noaa-global-warming-faux-pause-paper

There are many other examples and articles. I don't want to dwell on this because I don't want it to lead to an argument or anything. Do some research, read some articles, fact check them etc. You'll find that there are scientists and staff at NOAA that have been committing fraud, using bogus data collected in illegitimate ways, and running weather models to produce fake results based on criteria given to them by certain environmentalist and green groups to push their agenda, bring down the coal industry etc.
 

John Farley

Supporter
Apr 1, 2004
1,569
775
21
Pagosa Springs, CO
www.johnefarley.com
Dave, if you go back to my post, you will see I said "effective and well-funded" - it has to be both. And as Rob points out, it can't be effective when you put people in emergency-management positions as a political favor when they lack experience in emergency management, as was the case at the time of Katrina. And also as he points out, FEMA has been much more effective in emergency response since real emergency managers were put in charge. Even one of the current Republican presidential candidates had good things to say about the federal response to Sandy. (Granted, as we all seem to agree, that the NHC messed up the communications about the storm.) As to the validity of climate change science, you only undermine your own credibility when you say things such as "Earth has cycles and the emissions from your vehicle have nothing to do with any of it. There are piles and piles of evidence on the fraudsters in NOAA and the scientists who fake models and data to get more funding and resources. " If you are going to accuse people of fraud, you better have some real evidence besides claims on one little Webpage. The warming trend is worldwide and not just U.S., and an overwhelming majority of scientists agree that global warming is real. Yes, earth has cycles, but it is also possible for human activity to add to what is going on naturally. You really need to stop putting your politics ahead of the overwhelming scientific evidence.
 
Dave, if you go back to my post, you will see I said "effective and well-funded" - it has to be both. And as Rob points out, it can't be effective when you put people in emergency-management positions as a political favor when they lack experience in emergency management, as was the case at the time of Katrina. And also as he points out, FEMA has been much more effective in emergency response since real emergency managers were put in charge. Even one of the current Republican presidential candidates had good things to say about the federal response to Sandy. (Granted, as we all seem to agree, that the NHC messed up the communications about the storm.) As to the validity of climate change science, you only undermine your own credibility when you say things such as "Earth has cycles and the emissions from your vehicle have nothing to do with any of it. There are piles and piles of evidence on the fraudsters in NOAA and the scientists who fake models and data to get more funding and resources. " If you are going to accuse people of fraud, you better have some real evidence besides claims on one little Webpage. The warming trend is worldwide and not just U.S., and an overwhelming majority of scientists agree that global warming is real. Yes, earth has cycles, but it is also possible for human activity to add to what is going on naturally. You really need to stop putting your politics ahead of the overwhelming scientific evidence.
I agree 100% with you on the effective and well-funded part as do I agree with what Rob said. Regarding the climate change stuff, I believe that it is an extremely corrupted topic that has been hijacked by politicians who are using the fears associated with climate change to push absurd agendas that have nothing to actually do with the wellbeing of earth, nature etc. I never claimed to have any credibility other than stating my honest opinion based on what I know. Those "claims on little webpages" are made by former government employees, whistleblowers and other scientists and professionals. Look into some of what I mentioned regarding the data collection methods used by USHCN. There are many highly reputable individuals who have exposed the "climate change industry" for what it really is. John Casey is one of them as are http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/MKTNews/Global-Warming-climate-change/2014/11/17/id/607827/

The list of scientists who believe that climate change is natural is a very long list. Consisting of scientists from different fields all around the world. Some professionals include:
Meteorologist Lennart Bengtsson, who is among many who believe the IPCC projections are false or inaccurate
Former NASA Astronaut and US Senator Harrison Schmitt
Richard Lindzen
Judith Curry
Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson
Meteorologist Roy Spencer
Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever
.....And many more

If you haven't read Merchants of Doubt, you really should.
 

rdale

EF5
Mar 1, 2004
7,252
793
21
50
Lansing, MI
skywatch.org
...because who knows more about climate change than an astronaut... that seems valid :)

P.S. there is also an astronaut convinced that we are actively being visited by aliens, and that the government is covering that up too... Guess it must be true if an astronaut tells us!
 

rdale

EF5
Mar 1, 2004
7,252
793
21
50
Lansing, MI
skywatch.org
Exactly. Why anyone discusses a part of science based on chatter from astronauts (not climate change researchers), politicians (not climate change researchers), and TV meteorologists (not climate change researchers) amazes me. It would be like asking a physicist (not a tornado researcher) if it'd be a good idea to build a large wall through the middle of the US in at attempt to reduce the number of tornadoes forming.
 
...because who knows more about climate change than an astronaut... that seems valid :)

P.S. there is also an astronaut convinced that we are actively being visited by aliens, and that the government is covering that up too... Guess it must be true if an astronaut tells us!
You probably don't even know who John Casey is. Do your research on his background and you'll see that he is credible.

P.S. There are plenty of people who believe ET exists and the government has spent billions listening for signs of life in space. What's your point?
BTW, to think that we are the only planet with life on it, is very irrational. Do you know what is more irrational? Politicians who have been making fraudulent and stupid global warming claims for decades, yet some people still believe the "settled" science because Obama told them to.

In response to your comment, "It would be like asking a physicist (not a tornado researcher) if it'd be a good idea to build a large wall through the middle of the US in at attempt to reduce the number of tornadoes forming."
Let me ask you an honest question, has extreme meteorologist Reed Timmer discovered anything new about tornadoes? He sure makes a lot of money storm chasing (net worth of $250,000) and I have yet to see any of his research being used to save lives, build stronger houses, create earlier warnings etc. If you look at the research being done over the last 3-7 years, it is wasting money while producing no new data on tornadoes. All of this "science" with NOAA is just a scheme to make certain people richer under the guise of research. BTW, we know what conditions need to exist for a tornado to form, which means that it is possible to modify weather conditions in order to reduce the severity of the storms; reducing the possibility of tornadoes. Humans have been finding ways to gain an upper hand on mother nature for a long time now. Areas in the mid west have large walls in the fields around highways that are designed to reduce the intensity of snow drifts in order to keep motorists on the highways safer. Also, a meteorologist is not an architect or structural engineer, therefore they are not qualified to build anything. (using your logic).

You also don't need to go to college to be knowledgeable in a field and there are plenty of college graduates who wouldn't know steel from aluminum or rubber from plastic.

What I am getting at is: your points are invalid.
 

rdale

EF5
Mar 1, 2004
7,252
793
21
50
Lansing, MI
skywatch.org
You probably don't even know who John Casey is.
I certainly do. The science doesn't support his claims. He doesn't have research that nullifies anthropogenic warming.

P.S. There are plenty of people who believe ET exists and the government has spent billions listening for signs of life in space.
Sure - but not plenty of people think ET actively stops by the Earth for a visit. My point is that you used an astronaut's claim on climate as "verification" that the science is wrong. I'm just saying don't trust an astronaut for things outside of their expertise :)

yet some people still believe the "settled" science because Obama told them to.
You do know that President Bush (the first) is the one who started the US on the climate change path, right? That's why I say any mention of politicians in a climate change discussion is a bad track to take...

Let me ask you an honest question, has extreme meteorologist Reed Timmer discovered anything new about tornadoes?
No idea. His formal research doesn't appear to be in the tornado realm.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2007JAMC1552.1

All of this "science" with NOAA is just a scheme to make certain people richer under the guise of research.
I talked to those "rich" researchers at Michigan State University (making $10 an hour as grad assistants.) Apparently they don't have your source of "research" dollars just waiting for them to claim since they "believe" in climate change :)

Also, a meteorologist is not an architect or structural engineer, therefore they are not qualified to build anything. (using your logic).
Absolutely. So when a physicist claims that a tornado wall would stop tornadoes, your idea of "well they are smart so maybe it's worth a shot" falls flat.

You also don't need to go to college to be knowledgeable in a field
Ehh, I think you'll find when it comes to something like climate change - if you are going to challenge the science you do need to a college education and then some. Science doesn't work based on the number of Wikipedia links you can find. It's based on theories and research and conclusions. You are ignoring the established science because of one reason (and one alone)... It doesn't fit in with the viewpoints of your political party (but it used to.) When politics trumps science, the world is in a very bad place...
 
Apr 22, 2009
230
11
11
preferrably near a storm
Wow...this has shifted beyond what I was thinking about Sandy in my original comment. I was merely recalling that they categorized it as an extra-tropical system at the time, but recall there was controversy about that and there were those who felt it should be left as a hurricane. That's why I love ST with stuff like this...and the fact we have people of such divergent educations and viewpoints who see the limitations and even errors in such articles and point them out. I appreciated the comment about the story looking at only the wind category and not the surge factor. As far as the question of NOAA data manipulation, I recall a story recently about buoy data, here is a link to a story about that (I am one of those interested in straight facts, nothing more..and unfortunately with climate change pure scientific facts without politics infused seem hard to come by). http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/n...a-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/ Did NOAA publish any response to this? I haven't seen one. Here's NOAA's page from the same date as the Daily Caller article (6/4/15) http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/storie...owdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html
 

Todd Lemery

Staff member
Supporter
Jun 2, 2014
609
619
21
55
Menominee, MI
Interesting stuff here. Only had two thoughts here. One was Katrina. One thing everyone saw in the videos and pics were lots of cars half submerged or sunk. This after being told to evacuate. I was down there last year and my tour bus driver told me "momma didn't raise no fool, when they said get out, I got out" looked to me like a lot of fools just didn't listen.
The other thing I saw was someone questioning the falsified data. Well, whoever pointed out about the falsified data is right. Look it up
 

rdale

EF5
Mar 1, 2004
7,252
793
21
50
Lansing, MI
skywatch.org
1) When you have no way to get out, but the city says they will come and get you, and they don't -- well, I don't think those left behind are foolish. Except for believing Mayor Nagin would follow through with his word. Realize what "extreme poverty" looks like. If you are posting here, you are not in that category. Calling them foolish because they didn't evacuate displays a complete lack of knowledge behind the situation.

2) I did look it up. No peer-reviewed research shows any evidence of human-caused climate change being based on falsified data. Please post hard evidence...
 

Todd Lemery

Staff member
Supporter
Jun 2, 2014
609
619
21
55
Menominee, MI
Uhh, Dale, I actually talked to a lot of people who live in New Orleans and lived there pre-Katrina. There of course were some people without the means to get out. I'm talking about all the people who could and didn't, which explains the crap load of flooded cars. I'm not going to argue with the bar owner who said he was "stupid" for not leaving. There were lots of people that just figured they would "ride it out"
Take "peer reviewed research" out of your google search in regards to altered data. It's like looking for peer reviewed research into the Patriots deflate gate or peer reviewed research about Lois Lerner's missing emails. If you don't want to look, that's fine. I still wish you the best.
 

John Farley

Supporter
Apr 1, 2004
1,569
775
21
Pagosa Springs, CO
www.johnefarley.com
While there certainly were some who could have evacuated but did not, Rob is absolutely right that there were a lot of people who had no means to evacuate. New Orleans, at that time, had one of the higher percentages of households without a motor vehicle available of any city. In addition to that, there were a number of households with an elderly or disabled person who could not easily evacuate. So while some people were indeed "stupid" for not leaving, there were thousands who had no means to evacuate without assistance.

As to the falsified data issue, I know after a long career in academic research (with quite a few peer-reviewed papers of my own published) a little bit about how the system works. If any peer-reviewed journal discovered at a later time that an article they published was based on falsified data, they WOULD run a retraction. Todd, I think if you are going to make such accusations, the burden of proof is on you to provide some documentation.