Anyone trying to speak authoritatively about the relationship of global warming to any specific hurricane or cyclone (as we antipodeans call them) is talking through their arse - and that goes for BOTH sides.

The trend to more extreme weather is pretty well accepted now however, so why are we even talking about it? Neocons will never believe it because it doesn't fit into their worldview, and liberals will believe everything is it due to THEIR worldview.

Bottom line is let the stats talk - and they are pretty frightening. The only debate is man's part in it.

ND - I don't think they were saying it's the largest ever. Just that it's the largest recorded. Everyone will accept that we have a small dataset to work with, but new records are always something that will gather attention, and this is exactly that.

Also, most recent forecast shows it dipping into the Gulf west of Florida. That would be really bad. But I guess it would avoid a direct hit on Miami

Also, there's a tropical depression in the gulf tracking east that's expected to turn into a hurricane over the next few days.

Have hurricanes ever collided before?

Eh, looks like they won't. It's expected to turn south and Irma turn north

people scared of droughts with climate change? no, it's the rain i fear. storms like this won't be record holders for long

Hurricanes can't collide. They're giant warm fronts that eat. Physics and all that.

https://www.thoughtco.com/are-super-storms-meteorologically-possible-3443932

anyone notice that the Great Red Spot is getting smaller?

Valis once ate at Applebees. He ordered a hurricane. They brought him a drink. He brought them a 21 Supply Center solo.

i have only has one hurricane and that was in the french quarter and it was not during mardi gras

I would like to see your sources, Bo? I've forgotten what your doctorate is in, also.

Zach, what is your source on Atlantic temperatures relative to historical averages?
Links, folks

And Wisti, no, actual scientists aren't talking out their asses, no matter how much knuckledragging conservatives pronounce it

In fact, there are some critical factors here: Atmospheric temperatures are well above historical average, as are water temperatures,( but perhaps the east Atlantic is in a current cool spell). Those both contribute to hurricane strength. Also, the Arctic circulation is highly destabilized (so much for the "high pressure has nothing to do with climate change" canard) which shapes circulation globally. Also, I'd be quite curious to know whether the 2015 data suggesting the Gulf Stream has slowed by15% is still holding true, since that is a big energy export.

Long story short, a lot of forcers of big storms are pushing for bigger storms and the incidence of cat 4 and cat 5 storms has doubled since the 1970s. So, pretty much any storm is developing with those forcers intact.

So, at this point, if you're going to claim that climate change isn't influencing these storms, you'd need to first show that the atmospheric and water temperatures at at historical averages. Those of your claiming this need to post your datasets (not links to some morons blog)

Thanks

They dont read about typhoons in the pacific so they dont realize that even we go 5 years without a major storm, the pacific might get 8-9 cat 4 typhoons in a year

There is that. And Americans never pay any attention when giant storms run over the Caribbean or Central America either. Hell, American weather people repeatedly come out with "the hurricane is clobbering Puerto Rico but doesn't look like it will hit the Us". Dumbasses don't even know where their own country is

@Ogion

if you demand sources from others, you should at least give them the courtesy by providing your own

Sources for what? Have I said anything devastatingly controversial here? I am a storm chaser and I am not unaccustomed to taking models, data, and other public information and interpreting it for myself. There are no scholarly articles for your daily weather report.

The observation that Irma is not an abnormality in the middle of hurricane season in the Atlantic following the most typical hurricane track in the midst of a low pressure system and a high pressure ridge off of the current movements of Hadley cells is based off of modeling and forecasting data I derive typically from measurements on Pivotal Weather. I also analyze various documents from the SPC and NOAA. I use measurements from Radarscope, AllisonHouse, and some apps that fellow storm chasers have created over the years to make forecasting more efficient, if not simpler. If you asked your weather man on the morning news for sources, he would laugh at you, and so will I. Everything Irma has done is making sense based on the current atmospheric and marine conditions present. Everything it will do will similarly make sense. If the cold front pushes it out to sea, then it won't make landfall. If it stalls the cold front inland, it will make landfall and likely follow a track northward, away from the Gulf, and dissipate over the inland states. The high pressure ridge it is following is not in a particularly unusual place for this time of year either, hence the persistence of hurricanes surrounding it. There is nothing out of the ordinary about any of this other than Irma's intensity, but that too is explained easily by the surrounding dynamics. You can argue all day about what causes these dynamics to exist in the way that they do, but the fact of the matter is that it is hurricane season and this set of conditions is not at all unheard of. Despite the hyperbole/"fake news" that makes it sound like Irma is the strongest hurricane ever, it is not even the strongest this century, and it will diminish somewhat (to a Cat 4 in all likelihood) as it creeps closer to landfall - as expected and explained by current conditions.

Long term trends are the result of climate change. The fact that we seem to see so many more major hurricanes over shorter periods of time than we have in the past is possibly a trend indicating that the climate is changing but one also must consider that we didn't even acknowledge, track, or rate hurricanes outside of the Atlantic and Gulf areas until the mid 1950s, so our data preceding your trend from the 1970s is slightly lacking. We can still reasonably conclude that major hurricanes are more common because we have observed wacky seasons like this one and like 2005 where they are the norm instead of the unfortunate anomaly, but that trend needs time to develop. As I'm sure you're aware, we don't have that luxury anymore, so pinning more and more major hurricanes as a specific sign of ongoing climate change is risky even though it is certainly not wrong.

Saying that Irma is a result of climate change is erroneous. Putting aside the massive difference between weather and climate is flat out stupid - the conditions for Irma exist, so lo and behold, Irma exists. Weather is really that simple, which is why it can sometimes be predictable. If you want to delve into why those conditions are the way they are, you can, but you're better off putting your energy into calling out abnormalities on things that are actually abnormal. Start with Sandy, perhaps the most abnormal storm we have seen since the term climate change surfaced. Don't start with Irma.

Actually, the latest modeling indicates that the cold front will push it off Florida and toward the Carolinas and Georgia. If a cold front and a warm front interacting sounds like climate change and not a very simple weather pattern that happens on a smaller scale all the time, take a meteorology class.

Irma could end up being a nothing. I thought the point of it forming over Atlantic Basin and it churning into C5 rapidly was a result of being over abnornally warm waters which normally produce the early ingredients for a tropical storm or a depression but usually are too deep or too cold to create a full blown Hurricane before entering the Caribbean.
Correct me on that if its poor science.

Isnt that also why its almost impossible for a Hurrican to veer off into South America? The waters too deep and cold to create a full hurricane that close to Africa?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-fix/wp/2017/09/06/rush-limbaughs-dangerous-suggestion-that-hurricane-irma-is-fake-news/

Irma won't be a nothing. If the eyewall avoids Cuba and the Caribbean islands, it will still track along the east coast. Likewise, if they eyewall doesn't go over any major landmasses like the Caribbean islands, it may very well not weaken at all.

The western Atlantic is generally quite warm right now and the Hadley cell concentrates in such a way that makes hurricanes prevalent during this time of year. Hurricanes need warm water, so they won't go through cool water to get somewhere else. They die inland because that fuel source goes away for the same reason. It is easy to chart a general path of where a hurricane could go because of their limitations, but a general path isn't good enough when the storm is as strong as this one is.

Thanks Rush. Climate change is a hoax invented by Nancy Pelosi to sell Christmas Ornaments.

Actually saying that climate and weather are two totally separate and independent things is what is stupid

I realize this might be a bit difficult, but yes, the conditions for a RECORDBREAKING storm exists, so the storm exists. And why do those conditions exist? In part because of forces making the air and water warner. One of those forcers is climate change.

If you want to say there is no connection between the increases in severity of storms and climate change, you need to prove that the water is at historical averages Ana's are air temperatures. Which you just admitted they aren't.

So, who is being stupid here?

Oh, and please tell us which storm was stronger 300 miles east of the leeward Islands this century. Go ahead. Name it

And it has already made landfall in the Caribbean for all intents and purposes

Limbaugh: another genocidal America who would happily kill billions for a few bucks

And weather people are famous for their scientific illiteracy. So, who gives a shit whether they're laughing?

The fact is you actually cited some data sources, so, yeah, at least you have some data, so that's a start

“I realize this might be a bit difficult, but yes, the conditions for a RECORDBREAKING storm exists, so the storm exists. And why do those conditions exist? In part because of forces making the air and water warner. One of those forcers is climate change.”

Sure, this is possible. It’s quite an assumption, though. For someone so insistent on data and backing proof, why not provide some? The burden of proof is on you, a problem that environmentalists have had substantial difficulty recognizing since the advent of the internet, strangely enough.

The reason that I don’t go ahead and say things like this is because I have access to the most sophisticated weather data and tracking software in the world. It costs a lot of money and it is pretty exclusive in that someone that doesn’t know their shit can’t even read it. I still can’t confirm or deny what you’re assuming, and for that reason, I’m not going to make that assertion. I don’t have proof at hand, nor do other meteorologists and forecasters with the same access I have. As far as I am concerned and as far as I can interpret on my own, Irma exists because the conditions are right. If you can prove that the conditions today, right now, that make Irma a Cat 5 that has absolutely devastated St. Martin and will shortly similarly devastate Puerto Rico, then be my guest. I would be happy to agree with you.

“If you want to say there is no connection between the increases in severity of storms and climate change, you need to prove that the water is at historical averages Ana's are air temperatures. Which you just admitted they aren’t.”

Something that isn’t at a historical average is an anomaly, but you make a hell of a jump to attribute that to climate change. Again, prove that the conditions in the central Atlantic, today and right now, are attributable to climate change and again, I would be happy to agree with you. Until you do that, I’m not going to say that. Averages are averages, not fixed quantities that never change. I see plenty of regularities in this hurricane season, with both Irma and Harvey, and a number of abnormalities that I can explain through weather patterning and mapping. For example, Harvey made landfall three different times in Texas and brought with it such massive rainfall because it went stationary, not because it was substantially different than other storms, and the flooding in Texas has been so intense because Texas, particularly Houston, is built up pathetically against flooding. Flash floods in Texas are quite normal and in fact it is by far the most dangerous state when it comes to flooding, Harvey aside.

If you have something that indicates that these historical averages are changing and can concretely connect it to climate change right here and right now, then you’re absolutely right. Otherwise, you have to continue to separate weather and climate because we’re not good enough at weather and climate to intertwine the two on such a level yet.

“And weather people are famous for their scientific illiteracy. So, who gives a shit whether they're laughing?”

If someone on the right claimed that the NOAA, NWS, SPC, and WDT were scientifically illiterate, you would have a field day with them. Check yourself, or go twiddle your thumbs elsewhere.

Sweet JesuS. Quite a leap to say that there is a connection between climate change and warming temperatures? Man, could you be any more scientifically illetieraye? There is only a megashit ton of scientific literature establishing that link unequivocally

Here read the AR5.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/mindex.shtml

That link is beyond question at this point

And yet, you and your fellow "storm chasers" persistently deny that adding energy to a system makes it warmer. And yes, we understand rather a lot about the links between physical characteristics and weather. In fact, that's the basic science underpinning every thing you pay that money for

And NOAA and the like actually include scientists, and they are pretty clear that climate change is driving a lot of weather patterns (hint: another words for weather patterns is "climate"). Ditto for NWS. And if I asked them for their data they'd present, as they have to you. So, yeah, those guys get it. The bimbos on TV, not so much.

This notion that we aren't able to connect climate to weather is stunningly scientifically illiterate. Bizarrely so. I don't even know where to begin with such a phenomenally stupid statement

Climate change is a hoax invented by valis to get 5$ footlongs.

Ogion, again, get off your high horse and connect the conditions in the Atlantic that contributed to Irma's strength to climate change. Your assertion, not mine. I don't care about whether any old whatever weather pattern is being altered due to climare change. That's not what we are talking about. You are making a vast number of assumptions about Irma that no credible meteorological voice is making at this stage because there hasn't been time to process the data and link abnormalities in it to climate change like they were able to with Sandy but unable to with many other strong storms. You don't get to make that claim lightly and then fall back on data from other systems of the past and assume that all things here are equal. If you could, every major hurricane, every EF-3, every wildfire, every anything is directly caused by climate change, and we know that that isn't the case.