This is one subject that I feel qualified to speak on. I went through my first Florida hurricane in 1960, Donna which took a similar path to Helene with similar devastation to Florida. Milton was the hurricane old Florida hands pray for. Fast moving directly across the peninsula. About all that was damaged was that which wasn't prepped for hurricane force winds. I live on the Gulf coast and have seen tropical storms that stalled in place do more damage and drop more rain than a typical hurricane (if there is such a thing). 65 years of evacuating and sheltering in place do not make me think tropical storms (of which hurricanes are just a subset) have gotten more powerful and certainly not more common. The Gulf coast has been in a hurricane drought for a decade. No complaints here. I built my house high and dry and as protected from wind and water as I could manage. When the ENSO cycle changes we will be back to "stormy weather".
Growing up, my parents had a vacation home in Stone Harbor NJ (Cape May County) and we drove down there from Central NJ each weekend every Spring and Fall. After Donna hit, there was a boat -we called them cabin cruisers back then- that was wrecked by Donna and just left stranded off shore in the wetlands. We'd see it from the Garden State Parkway and it was there for decades. It finally disappeared. My mom would always comment on Donna when we drove by. You've stirred childhood memories for me. Good memories. :)
The worst we ever had in Stone Harbor was the March Storm of '62. Not even a hurricane, but a Nor'easter that stayed for 3 days. Our home was on one of the bays and the wind wouldn't allow the water to exit the back bays. At all. For 3 days. The water came up and over and stayed.
In '92 we bought our present house, an 1884 Victorian, and while we were having it modernized we moved into that same house on the bay. In early '93 there was a storm that brought a blizzard to Norther and Central NJ but it rarely snows by the sea. What we had was a blow out tide, the opposite of '62: the wind blew for 3 days but blew the water OUT of the bay. What was normally 30 feet deep was walkable. Just soggy seabed. I was amazed... I could have walked across the bay. I'd never seen this, and haven't again since. When I saw that I knew immediately how the Israelites crossed the Red Sea with Moses to escape Egypt. "And the the Lord caused an east wind to blow..." (Exodus 10 & 14) - I've never forgotten that experience. It blew my mind when I saw it.
I have no doubt these 'events' have been happening for ages, and will continue to here and there. You see it for yourself in Florida. Just a short span in time, but enough to shake your head at these "foregone conclusions". As I do.
similar phenomenon is possible on the Great Lakes, I believe its called a 'sache' (unsure of the spelling). water retreats from the shore, almost like a tide, but then quickly comes back. there's only been two that I know of, in my lifetime, on the southern shore of Lake Michigan (I'm 63).
Seiche. When I was 4 or 5 or so back in the late 1940's we lived in a little house perched on top of the second line of dunes in what is now the westernmost edge of the Indiana Dunes National Park. My mother and I were on the beach one day when we saw a strange 'wave' (more of just a radical change in water level) rise up from horizon to horizon and begin to flood the entire beach, which at that time was about 50 feet wide before the first dune. The wave was probably less than three or four feet high but was unlike any wave I had ever seen, since it was backed not by a trough and another wave but by the entire surface of Lake Michigan. Luckily, we were far enough up the beach to make a successful run for it. These kinds of seiches result from very high pressure at the north end of this long and relatively narrow lake and low pressure at the south end, forcing a 'tilt' in the entire lake surface. I suppose it must have slowly sloshed back and forth over a fairly long time, but we didn't hang around long enough to watch, given we didn't realize what was happening and whether it would increase further. Pretty scary. There was a 10-foot seiche in 1954 that drowned 8 fishermen on a Chicago pier, but by that time we had moved a couple of miles inland.
wow, cool! thanks for that fantastic explanation! I had no idea how/why these happened. I know the exact location you are talking about too! my ASD son and I went dune hiking (one of our favorite activities) there back in August.
Lake Michigan is not to be trifled with, that's for sure. my oldest son was a lifeguard here on the southernmost shore (we live less than a mile from it). the conditions that produce dangerous rip currents have to be monitored constantly during the swimming season. we get some crazy bad winter storms off the lake as well. our proximity to the lake very much effects our weather, locally, being cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter, with temperatures as much as 10-15 degrees different than even 5 miles inland
An articulate dissection of pseudo-science by someone who understands how real science works. Articles like you descibed are part of psyops called nudge theory in which fake claims bowing to authority are repeated often enough that the unsuspecting are taken in. Few have the time or the inclination to do the deeper dive you did... to expose that the authorities referenced were just opion pieces. Kudos!
How did we get here, where "science" is bent and broken in order to reach a conclusion the "researcher" desires. Where merely asking the question is a means to be attacked and cancelled. This is rhetorical - I think I know the reasons. I just have a difficult time believing this is where we are.
We know for a fact that there is ongoing natural climate change. Some people (journalists) seem to presume that, barring anthropogenic climate change, there would be no climate change at all. That is absurd.
I challenge Chicken Littles to tell us how climates today would be different, if man had never existed. I insist on mathematical derivations, not hyperbole. They call me a denier.
World Weather Attribution rears its ugly head once again.
Professor Roger Peilke Jr has been writing a long series on their shenanigans over on his Substack.
Here’s an excerpt:
—-
First, event attribution research is a form of tactical science — research performed explicitly to serve legal and political ends. This is not my opinion, but has been openly stated on many occasions by the researchers who developed and perform event attribution research.2 Such research is not always subjected to peer review, and this is often by design as peer-review takes much longer than the news cycle. Instead, event attribution studies are generally promoted via press release.
For instance, researchers behind the World Weather Attribution (WWA) initiative explain that one of their key motives in conducting such studies is, “increasing the ‘immediacy’ of climate change, thereby increasing support for mitigation.” WWA’s chief scientist, Friederike Otto, explains, “Unlike every other branch of climate science or science in general, event attribution was actually originally suggested with the courts in mind.” Another oft-quoted scientist who performs rapid attribution analyses, Michael Wehner, summarized their importance (emphasis in original) — “The most important message from this (and previous) analyses is that “Dangerous climate change is here now!”
Weather event attribution methodologies have been developed not just to feed media narratives or support general climate advocacy. Otto and others have been very forthright that the main function of such studies is to create a defensible scientific basis in support of lawsuits against fossil fuel companies — She explains the strategy in detail in this interview, From Extreme Event Attribution to Climate Litigation.
... we've not much to go on regarding the meteorologic sequence-of-events. Going off what I have been privy to, the accounting that most resonates is one of topography being a defining factor.
Hi Heather. I emailed your substack a 2019 list from Wikipedia of scientists who do not believe in the current climate change narrative. Technical commentary can also be found on Wattsupwiththat.com and on Realclimatescience.com.
'I also have reason to think that there are other, non-anthropogenic forces that are affecting our climate.'
Volcanoes like Hunga Tonga, for example. I would like to know how many of these models incorporate volcanoes, which are inherently unpredictable but have significant impact on the atmosphere.
This is one subject that I feel qualified to speak on. I went through my first Florida hurricane in 1960, Donna which took a similar path to Helene with similar devastation to Florida. Milton was the hurricane old Florida hands pray for. Fast moving directly across the peninsula. About all that was damaged was that which wasn't prepped for hurricane force winds. I live on the Gulf coast and have seen tropical storms that stalled in place do more damage and drop more rain than a typical hurricane (if there is such a thing). 65 years of evacuating and sheltering in place do not make me think tropical storms (of which hurricanes are just a subset) have gotten more powerful and certainly not more common. The Gulf coast has been in a hurricane drought for a decade. No complaints here. I built my house high and dry and as protected from wind and water as I could manage. When the ENSO cycle changes we will be back to "stormy weather".
Growing up, my parents had a vacation home in Stone Harbor NJ (Cape May County) and we drove down there from Central NJ each weekend every Spring and Fall. After Donna hit, there was a boat -we called them cabin cruisers back then- that was wrecked by Donna and just left stranded off shore in the wetlands. We'd see it from the Garden State Parkway and it was there for decades. It finally disappeared. My mom would always comment on Donna when we drove by. You've stirred childhood memories for me. Good memories. :)
The worst we ever had in Stone Harbor was the March Storm of '62. Not even a hurricane, but a Nor'easter that stayed for 3 days. Our home was on one of the bays and the wind wouldn't allow the water to exit the back bays. At all. For 3 days. The water came up and over and stayed.
In '92 we bought our present house, an 1884 Victorian, and while we were having it modernized we moved into that same house on the bay. In early '93 there was a storm that brought a blizzard to Norther and Central NJ but it rarely snows by the sea. What we had was a blow out tide, the opposite of '62: the wind blew for 3 days but blew the water OUT of the bay. What was normally 30 feet deep was walkable. Just soggy seabed. I was amazed... I could have walked across the bay. I'd never seen this, and haven't again since. When I saw that I knew immediately how the Israelites crossed the Red Sea with Moses to escape Egypt. "And the the Lord caused an east wind to blow..." (Exodus 10 & 14) - I've never forgotten that experience. It blew my mind when I saw it.
I have no doubt these 'events' have been happening for ages, and will continue to here and there. You see it for yourself in Florida. Just a short span in time, but enough to shake your head at these "foregone conclusions". As I do.
Just be cautious. That water can come back as quickly as it left, as Pharoah discovered.
similar phenomenon is possible on the Great Lakes, I believe its called a 'sache' (unsure of the spelling). water retreats from the shore, almost like a tide, but then quickly comes back. there's only been two that I know of, in my lifetime, on the southern shore of Lake Michigan (I'm 63).
Seiche. When I was 4 or 5 or so back in the late 1940's we lived in a little house perched on top of the second line of dunes in what is now the westernmost edge of the Indiana Dunes National Park. My mother and I were on the beach one day when we saw a strange 'wave' (more of just a radical change in water level) rise up from horizon to horizon and begin to flood the entire beach, which at that time was about 50 feet wide before the first dune. The wave was probably less than three or four feet high but was unlike any wave I had ever seen, since it was backed not by a trough and another wave but by the entire surface of Lake Michigan. Luckily, we were far enough up the beach to make a successful run for it. These kinds of seiches result from very high pressure at the north end of this long and relatively narrow lake and low pressure at the south end, forcing a 'tilt' in the entire lake surface. I suppose it must have slowly sloshed back and forth over a fairly long time, but we didn't hang around long enough to watch, given we didn't realize what was happening and whether it would increase further. Pretty scary. There was a 10-foot seiche in 1954 that drowned 8 fishermen on a Chicago pier, but by that time we had moved a couple of miles inland.
wow, cool! thanks for that fantastic explanation! I had no idea how/why these happened. I know the exact location you are talking about too! my ASD son and I went dune hiking (one of our favorite activities) there back in August.
Lake Michigan is not to be trifled with, that's for sure. my oldest son was a lifeguard here on the southernmost shore (we live less than a mile from it). the conditions that produce dangerous rip currents have to be monitored constantly during the swimming season. we get some crazy bad winter storms off the lake as well. our proximity to the lake very much effects our weather, locally, being cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter, with temperatures as much as 10-15 degrees different than even 5 miles inland
An articulate dissection of pseudo-science by someone who understands how real science works. Articles like you descibed are part of psyops called nudge theory in which fake claims bowing to authority are repeated often enough that the unsuspecting are taken in. Few have the time or the inclination to do the deeper dive you did... to expose that the authorities referenced were just opion pieces. Kudos!
Dick Minnis removingthecataract.substack.com
How did we get here, where "science" is bent and broken in order to reach a conclusion the "researcher" desires. Where merely asking the question is a means to be attacked and cancelled. This is rhetorical - I think I know the reasons. I just have a difficult time believing this is where we are.
We know for a fact that there is ongoing natural climate change. Some people (journalists) seem to presume that, barring anthropogenic climate change, there would be no climate change at all. That is absurd.
I challenge Chicken Littles to tell us how climates today would be different, if man had never existed. I insist on mathematical derivations, not hyperbole. They call me a denier.
I don't know about frogs, but these folk have been licking toads.
Hah!
Lmao.
World Weather Attribution rears its ugly head once again.
Professor Roger Peilke Jr has been writing a long series on their shenanigans over on his Substack.
Here’s an excerpt:
—-
First, event attribution research is a form of tactical science — research performed explicitly to serve legal and political ends. This is not my opinion, but has been openly stated on many occasions by the researchers who developed and perform event attribution research.2 Such research is not always subjected to peer review, and this is often by design as peer-review takes much longer than the news cycle. Instead, event attribution studies are generally promoted via press release.
For instance, researchers behind the World Weather Attribution (WWA) initiative explain that one of their key motives in conducting such studies is, “increasing the ‘immediacy’ of climate change, thereby increasing support for mitigation.” WWA’s chief scientist, Friederike Otto, explains, “Unlike every other branch of climate science or science in general, event attribution was actually originally suggested with the courts in mind.” Another oft-quoted scientist who performs rapid attribution analyses, Michael Wehner, summarized their importance (emphasis in original) — “The most important message from this (and previous) analyses is that “Dangerous climate change is here now!”
Weather event attribution methodologies have been developed not just to feed media narratives or support general climate advocacy. Otto and others have been very forthright that the main function of such studies is to create a defensible scientific basis in support of lawsuits against fossil fuel companies — She explains the strategy in detail in this interview, From Extreme Event Attribution to Climate Litigation.
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/weather-attribution-alchemy?utm_source=post-banner&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&triedRedirect=true
... we've not much to go on regarding the meteorologic sequence-of-events. Going off what I have been privy to, the accounting that most resonates is one of topography being a defining factor.
https://open.substack.com/pub/helenenof1/p/helene-hear-tell?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=y3h60
The link to "The Blue Ridge Escarpment" https://highsouthadventures.com/Blue%20Ridge%20Escarpment.html
was enlightening. Thank you.
One example of "manmade climate change " journalist won't touch: Solar Radiation Management
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/
It's the foregone conclusions that are killing us.
Hi Heather. I emailed your substack a 2019 list from Wikipedia of scientists who do not believe in the current climate change narrative. Technical commentary can also be found on Wattsupwiththat.com and on Realclimatescience.com.
'I also have reason to think that there are other, non-anthropogenic forces that are affecting our climate.'
Volcanoes like Hunga Tonga, for example. I would like to know how many of these models incorporate volcanoes, which are inherently unpredictable but have significant impact on the atmosphere.