'Hurricane Sandy: The next climate wake-up call?'

[skierinvermont]

Msalgado - I have to disagree that 4" of SLR made the damage much worse. It probably made a significant but small difference. Irene caused plenty of surge damage and even if sea level was 4" lower, Sandy's levels would have been much much higher than Irene.

If sea level was a foot lower, then yeah, that might have made a pretty big difference, but it still would have been really really bad.

[Snow_Miser]

They conclude that it is the ENSO and PDO, that have known natural forcing, unlike AMO, which does not Its just the nonlinearity in the last centuries Atlantic warming, volcanoes, aerosols, methane, fluorocarbons, ect.. The pre-industrial signal is very weak.

Huh?

What does this have to do with the fact that Global Accumulated Cyclonic energy is at a record low right now?

[aslkahuna]

Huh?

What does this have to do with the fact that Global Accumulated Cyclonic energy is at a record low right now?

Details-there are those who would use the ATL data to represent the entire Global WRT TC activity because it fits their view-truth is, though you can't. AGW is GLOBAL hence you need to look at the global numbers. Fact is that for AGWers there's not one point in the process of development and morphology of Sandy where they can clearly identify a signal of AGW. OTOH, there is also no signal to suggest that Sandy isn't the harbinger of a trend towards more such events triggered by AGW (as point in fact TY Bolaven has some characteristics similar to Sandy-large wind field, very low pressure and relatively weak maximum winds for the pressure). As Dr. Elizabeth Ritchie, Professor of Tropical Meteorology at the UofA said in an interview the other day, we don't have enough information to be sure one way or another. As a matter of fact, improved sampling methods, better understanding of TC structure and processes shows that Tropical Cyclones despite their apparent symmetry and highly complex systems and the epitome of chaos with processes operating in them on every scale from the micro to the synoptic and that the simple idea of a clear cut relationship between pressure and winds is now rubbish. ith this in mind it may be that Tropical Cyclones are the worst type of systems to look for AGW signals in.

Steve

[TerryM]

Why on earth are you bringing up arctic ice drops? What does taht have to do with proving the associations you've made in this thread?

First of all, I never said that the changes were isolated to any particular area. Just like above, you're constructing some beautiful straw men and then doing a bang up job of taking them down. I'm saying that there is no proof for the affects you are claiming are a direct result of AGW. You're connecting dots that can't be connected and wen you're called on the lack of evidence your fallback is to compare your theories to those of gravity and the like?

humorous relief indeed.

You want a theory for Sandy that doesn't involve AGW, Terry? Its not very hard. A hurricane formed, moved north, ran into a ridge and changed paths, gained energy from the jet stream and formed into a very usual although very strong mid latitude storm system.

Let me know when you have data that contradicts that.

Ms Algado

Your paragraph asking for scientific proof did cause quite a round of hilarity at a usually rather staid and stuffy function & for that I should thank you.

Someone recommended "A Beginner's Guide to Scientific Method" by S.Carry - I hope I've got the title correct - but my guess is that you've already decided that your method is far superior & that proof is the only standard you will deign to accept.

Your "not very hard" theory above runs into problems when one asks where the ridge came from, why the jet stream was so far south & why this would be so unusual if the component parts were all parts of natural cycles.

Your "not very hard" theory turns out in fact to be exceedingly soft.

When you said

"But every other claim of AGW influence in the thread seems to be predicated on "take our words for it"

You set yourself up, straw men weren't necessary.

AGW is of course responsible for sea level rise - but where did you pull 4" from, the WMO figure is 7.87" and the New York coastal area has been rising 3.5 to 4 times faster than the global average according to the USGS. Your figure isn't just low - it's so low that it minimizes the scope of the problem, and that's equivalent denying that a problem exists.

AGW is also responsible for a whole lot more than just sea level rise & your failure to acknowledge that speaks volumes.

I think I'll go back to ignoring your posts. Your obvious lack of education, objectivity and common sense overweigh any humorous moments you may inadvertently provide.

Terry

[TerryM]

Vergent's graph has been debunked by peer review research already in this thread. You will have to do better than a "named storms" graph to prove AGW is increasing hurricane frequency.

I prefer this peer reviewed quote - & mine's been cited more than yours

higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/abs/ngeo779.html

Actually I think Verg's study using tide gauges supersedes both these peer reviewed pearls.

Wasn't there some famous quote about modelers preferring their models - even when data proved them wrong?

Terry

[skierinvermont]

You're right Terry, science doesn't offer "proofs" but it does offer evidence. But you're just playing gotcha games on technicalities.

If the hypothesis is "AGW is making severe hurricanes in the northeast more common" then the hypothesis fails. There is no empirical evidence to support this theory. There has not been an increase in severe hurricanes in the northeast. Nor has there been one in nearby Canada.

[skierinvermont]

I prefer this peer reviewed quote - & mine's been cited more than yours

higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre.

http://www.nature.co...bs/ngeo779.html

Actually I think Verg's study using tide gauges supersedes both these peer reviewed pearls.

Wasn't there some famous quote about modelers preferring their models - even when data proved them wrong?

Terry

Indeed models do predict an increase in intense storms (2-11% to be exact) but the SAME STUDY you cite says quite clearly that such an effect has yet to be observed. So this is a case of modelers bowing before empirical observation, not vice versa as you would have us believe. It seems that even modelers who believe TC intensity will increase are saying that to date it has not (even though, according to you, they would be the last people to admit it). It turns out they're not the last people to admit it (although it flies in the face of their modeling) - the agw alarmist ideologues and media are.

Are you going to be such a hypocrite that you would have us believe one half sentence from a study you cite, but ignore the rest of it for no other apparent reason than you don't like what it has to say?

Here's the two sentences you left out of your quote (because it disagrees with just about everything you've said in this thread):

Trend detection is further impeded by substantial limitations in the availability and quality of global historical records of tropical cyclones. Therefore, it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes.

I thought you were the one about 'observation over modeling' but instead we find out that you quote the half-sentence about modeling but ignore the two sentences about current observations? Hypocrisy at its finest.

[TerryM]

Indeed models do predict an increase in intense storms (2-11% to be exact) but the SAME STUDY you cite says quite clearly that such an effect has yet to be observed. So this is a case of modelers bowing before empirical observation, not vice versa as you would have us believe. It seems that even modelers who believe TC intensity will increase are saying that to date it has not. The only people left standing saying it has increased are the anti-science ideologues.

Are you going to be such a hypocrite that you would have us believe one half sentence from a study you cite, but ignore the rest of it for no other apparent reason than you don't like what it has to say?

No - I was attempting to show that when the modelers come up against hard data - Verg's study - they should sit back down and let the data speak.

Terry

[skierinvermont]

No - I was attempting to show that when the modelers come up against hard data - Verg's study - they should sit back down and let the data speak.

Terry

The study YOU cited performed an extensive review of all observational studies to date and found no evidence that changes in TC frequency or intensity were beyond natural variation.

And as I've already pointed out, the tide gauge study makes the mistake of assuming that the strengthening a hurricane undergoes when it passes over a warm eddy will be the same effect that hurricanes in a warm climate system will undergo. That simply is not the case. Raising SSTs only in a cold atmosphere is highly unstable and creates convection. All the tide guage study shows is that when hurricanes pass over warm eddies, they strengthen. Well NO **** sherlock... the NHC has been using SSTs to predict TC strength for decades. The tide gauge study is highly controversial according to the article, and I am not surprised.

The nature paper I posted, and you have since begun quoting your preferred sections of, was a review of ALL observational studies. But if you want to cherry-pick the ONE observational study that, despite its obvious flaws, supports your ideology, go right ahead. Nobody here will be convinced.

[TerryM]

The study YOU cited performed an extensive review of all observational studies to date and found no evidence that changes in TC frequency or intensity were beyond natural variation.

I was/am disputing the study I posted, using both as exemplars of what goes wrong when observational data is assumed to be in error.

Can you think of one reason not to believe tide gauges?

They've been in place for very long periods.

They cover vast areas of the worlds oceans.

The data has been meticulously recorded.

They can be verified against modern sat data.

I haven't yet read Verg's paper but his accuracy has been admirable in the past.

If the tide gauges show an increase in frequency over time they are self verifying - any extrapolations based on what wasn't reported at some time in the past have to be rejected.

Are you:

Disputing Verg's account?

Disputing the accuracy of tide gauges?

Disputing the accuracy of the records?

Disputing that storms produce surges?

Terry

[WeatherRusty]

Can we at least all agree that the indisputable threat posed by AGW as it pertains to tropical cyclones involves sea level rise and storm surge?

Those who would argue that 4 inches or 8 inches or whatever is a minor contribution are implying higher isn't worse. As we all should be aware, this thread is about a "wake up call", and in this context that means sea levels are continuing to rise and are projected to do so much more than just 4 or 8 inches over the next century.

[tacoman25]

Can we at least all agree that the indisputable threat posed by AGW as it pertains to tropical cyclones involves sea level rise and storm surge?

Those who would argue that 4 inches or 8 inches or whatever is a minor contribution are implying higher isn't worse. As we all should be aware, this thread is about a "wake up call", and in this context that means sea levels are continuing to rise and are projected to do so much more than just 4 or 8 inches over the next century.

But as skiier pointed out, the problem is when people confuse projections with actual empirical evidence. AGW has been ongoing for a long time, and in that period of record, so far there is no evidence that TC activity is increasing or that storms are getting stronger. I have also not seen any study indicating that higher sea levels have led to significantly more damaging storm surges.

Yes, I'm sure slightly higher sea levels will make some storms a little more damaging than they would have been 100 years ago. And if sea levels rise another 6-8" over the coming 50-100 years, then some coastal cities will be increasingly vulnerable.

But this thread is specifically about Sandy, because some in the media have been eager to attribute this disaster to climate change. But that belief in regards to this storm and its effects, simply does not hold water.

[Msalgado]

Ms Algado

Your paragraph asking for scientific proof did cause quite a round of hilarity at a usually rather staid and stuffy function & for that I should thank you.

Someone recommended "A Beginner's Guide to Scientific Method" by S.Carry - I hope I've got the title correct - but my guess is that you've already decided that your method is far superior & that proof is the only standard you will deign to accept.

Your "not very hard" theory above runs into problems when one asks where the ridge came from, why the jet stream was so far south & why this would be so unusual if the component parts were all parts of natural cycles.

Your "not very hard" theory turns out in fact to be exceedingly soft.

When you said

"But every other claim of AGW influence in the thread seems to be predicated on "take our words for it"

You set yourself up, straw men weren't necessary.

AGW is of course responsible for sea level rise - but where did you pull 4" from, the WMO figure is 7.87" and the New York coastal area has been rising 3.5 to 4 times faster than the global average according to the USGS. Your figure isn't just low - it's so low that it minimizes the scope of the problem, and that's equivalent denying that a problem exists.

AGW is also responsible for a whole lot more than just sea level rise & your failure to acknowledge that speaks volumes.

I think I'll go back to ignoring your posts. Your obvious lack of education, objectivity and common sense overweigh any humorous moments you may inadvertently provide.

Terry

Lets be clear here. I didn't bring up the concept of proofs. You did. You decided that when I said proove it that you could play word games instead of actually addressing the fact that your argument here is entirely devoid of evidence.

So once again, let me state clearly:

Your argument is entire devoid of evidence.

If that is not clear enough for you to understand and you would like to instead talk about how gravity is a theory and not a mathematical proof then you are more than welcome to.

As for the number of inches that I used, perhaps if you go back and exercise some reading comprehension you will see what I said was that even if it is as low as 4 inches then the contribution was substantial. I'm not holding my breath here, but if you think that is me denying a problem exists then you probably also think that rain at the poles is apocalyptic.

Oh wait....

The best part of your post is the one where you accuse me of being unobjective. Next you'll accuse me of being old, cranky, unable to read, and hyperbolic.

Enjoy ignoring my posts in the future Terry. I look forward to the next time you tell me that you're ignoring me. And the time after that. And after that. And after that.

[Msalgado]

Can we at least all agree that the indisputable threat posed by AGW as it pertains to tropical cyclones involves sea level rise and storm surge?

Those who would argue that 4 inches or 8 inches or whatever is a minor contribution are implying higher isn't worse. As we all should be aware, this thread is about a "wake up call", and in this context that means sea levels are continuing to rise and are projected to do so much more than just 4 or 8 inches over the next century.

The ultimate point I was trying to make (and obviously I did so extremely poorly) is that its pretty much undeniable that AGW made the impact from climate change induced sea level rise made a substantial impact to the damage from Sandy. So yeah, I obviously agree.

Instead of arguing over whether or not AGW contributed to 3 or 4 mb in Sandy's strength isn't it much more pertinent to discuss the impact of sea level rise?

[tacoman25]

The ultimate point I was trying to make (and obviously I did so extremely poorly) is that its pretty much undeniable that AGW made the impact from climate change induced sea level rise made a substantial impact to the damage from Sandy. So yeah, I obviously agree.

Instead of arguing over whether or not AGW contributed to 3 or 4 mb in Sandy's strength isn't it much more pertinent to discuss the impact of sea level rise?

Where's the proof? Again, and you didn't respond to this before, the major flooding with Sandy started about 2' below the peak of the surge. So how do you figure 4" or whatever amount of SLR New York Harbor has seen made a substantial impact?

[The_Global_Warmer]

lol, so we are going with a joke 4" figure of AGW driven SLR?

[Msalgado]

Where's the proof? Again, and you didn't respond to this before, the major flooding with Sandy started about 2' below the peak of the surge. So how do you figure 4" or whatever amount of SLR New York Harbor has seen made a substantial impact?

Assuming that 4 inches is the correct amount - thats 10% of the flooding at 3.5 feet (actually more since it allows the water to overflow earlier and stay longer but whatever - we'll go wit 10%). You don't think 10% is substantial? At your figure of 2 feet below peak surge its an even greater contributor to the flooding (closer to 20%).

Thats not substantial?

[TerryM]

Sea Level at the Battery in NYC has been accurately measured since 1856. The linear trend (which we're at present well ahead of) is .91'/century or 17" in the 156 years since record keeping began, or 15.5" since the 1870 date often given as the start of the industrial age.

Since about 2010 the seasonal minimums have never dropped below the trend line so 15.5" since the industrial age it too small a figure.

Irene's Surge was 4' with little damage. Sandy took us up to 13.5' with devastating results.If we accepted NC's legislation & didn't allow for sea level rise to accelerate it would appear that flood control walls will have to be raised by over 10' if we expect them to hold for a 50 year period, or 11' if we expect it to last a century.

NYC begins to sound like New Orleans.

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750

Terry

[tacoman25]

Assuming that 4 inches is the correct amount - thats 10% of the flooding at 3.5 feet (actually more since it allows the water to overflow earlier and stay longer but whatever - we'll go wit 10%). You don't think 10% is substantial? At your figure of 2 feet below peak surge its an even greater contributor to the flooding (closer to 20%).

Thats not substantial?

In terms of Sandy being a major disaster, no. It would have caused basically the same level of flooding either way, with or without an additional 4".

The main thing that caused the storm surge to be so bad for parts of NYC was the wind direction and the size of the storm. And these factors caused major overspill for about 3 hours surrounding high tide. If there had been 4"- 6" less water to work with, that major overspill may have only occurred for 2.75 hours. But the same areas would have seen essentially the same flooding impact.

[tacoman25]

lol, so we are going with a joke 4" figure of AGW driven SLR?

How much has sea level risen at NYC over the last 100 years?

[WeatherRusty]

In terms of Sandy being a major disaster, no. It would have caused basically the same level of flooding either way, with or without an additional 4".

The main thing that caused the storm surge to be so bad for parts of NYC was the wind direction and the size of the storm. And these factors caused major overspill for about 3 hours surrounding high tide. If there had been 4"- 6" less water to work with, that major overspill may have only occurred for 2.75 hours. But the same areas would have seen essentially the same flooding impact.

Taco,

You have found a rationalization which allows you to minimize the impact of AGW contributed sea level rise. I think you have outsmarted yourself on this one. Give it up! Rising sea levels are a reality, and that's not a good thing for our coastal communities.

Bring the same Sandy along in another 50 years and what do you suppose will be the outcome?

[tacoman25]

Taco,

You have found a rationalization which allows you to minimize the impact of AGW contributed sea level rise. I think you have outsmarted yourself on this one. Give it up! Rising sea levels are a reality, and that's not a good thing for our coastal communities.

Bring the same Sandy along in another 50 years and what do you suppose will be the outcome?

Lol, the ones doing the rationalizing are those that are intent on tying any weather disaster to AGW! Including Sandy.

Again, I've seen this happen over and over: some alarmists have this mindset where they need to justify their beliefs, and pointing to current natural disasters is vindication for them. It's been all over this thread and portions of the media. People making up their minds that climate change must have played a significant role in Sandy, evidence be damned.

It's all about getting the alarmist message out, and any headline-grabbing disaster is an opportunity. The ends justify the means...even if the means are a bit baseless.

[skierinvermont]

I don't think anybody is really that far apart on the impact of SLR. It seems more like each of you are just using different terminology.Obviously if sea level is higher, it makes a difference. The question is how much. I think Msalgado's 10% worse figure is a reasonable starting point. And it might roughly correspond to a $ amount as well in terms of damage.

In other words, if there was $10 billion in coastal damage, it would have been $9 billion. Still a major disaster, but given SLR at NYC has been more like 8 or 10", I could even see 20% of the storm damage being AGW related. In other words, $10 billion instead of $8 billion.

These are just very rough ballpark estimates. The general idea is SLR made it worse, but it still would have been a major disaster. Can we all agree on that?

[tacoman25]

I don't think anybody is really that far apart on the impact of SLR. It seems more like each of you are just using different terminology.Obviously if sea level is higher, it makes a difference. The question is how much. I think Msalgado's 10% worse figure is a reasonable starting point. And it might roughly correspond to a $ amount as well in terms of damage.

In other words, if there was $10 billion in coastal damage, it would have been $9 billion. Still a major disaster, but given SLR at NYC has been more like 8 or 10", I could even see 20% of the storm damage being AGW related. In other words, $10 billion instead of $8 billion.

These are just very rough ballpark estimates. The general idea is SLR made it worse, but it still would have been a major disaster. Can we all agree on that?

Yes, the most we can really say with an educated guess at this point is that SLR probably made the impact a little bit worse. And 10% might be a reasonable guess, we don't really know. But what we do know is that even if there had been zero SLR over the past 100 years, Sandy still would have been a major disaster for NYC with and the overall impact would not have been much less.

So to blame AGW for Sandy being a major disaster is just silly. Which has been my point all along.

Has anyone actually found a chart showing longterm NYC sea level rise? From what I've seen so far, there is not much correlation between SLR and the number/severity of damaging NYC storm surges.

[WeatherRusty]

I don't think anybody is really that far apart on the impact of SLR. It seems more like each of you are just using different terminology.Obviously if sea level is higher, it makes a difference. The question is how much. I think Msalgado's 10% worse figure is a reasonable starting point. And it might roughly correspond to a $ amount as well in terms of damage.

In other words, if there was $10 billion in coastal damage, it would have been $9 billion. Still a major disaster, but given SLR at NYC has been more like 8 or 10", I could even see 20% of the storm damage being AGW related. In other words, $10 billion instead of $8 billion.

These are just very rough ballpark estimates. The general idea is SLR made it worse, but it still would have been a major disaster. Can we all agree on that?

I don't understand how anyone could not agree to that. To many people seem to regard concern over AGW as an overreaction to a questionable issue, when global warming is in fact very real and headed in a dangerous direction.

As long as some people feel the environmentally conscious are somehow the enemy, pushing an agenda for selfish gain, then there is little hope for progress in areas that threaten our future.

This threat to New York has been recognized for years, yet the area remains the 2nd most vulnerable large port city in the world to tidal inundation. Ignoring problems does not make them disappear. The only real proposals out there involve the building of barriers to hold the water back, like putting a bandage on a festering wound and taking a few pain killers, rather than addressing the bacterial cause of the infection. Palliative treatments to AGW won't work, the problems are accumulative, and will only worsen with time.

[tacoman25]

I don't understand how anyone could not agree to that. To many people seem to regard concern over AGW as an overreaction to a questionable issue, when global warming is in fact very real and headed in a dangerous direction.

As long as some people feel the environmentally conscious are somehow the enemy, pushing an agenda for selfish gain, then there is little hope for progress in areas that threaten our future.

This threat to New York has been recognized for years, yet the area remains the 2nd most vulnerable large port city in the world to tidal inundation. Ignoring problems does not make them disappear. The only real proposals out there involve the building of barriers to hold the water back, like put a bandage on a festering wound and taking a few pain killers, rather than addressing the bacterial cause of the infection. Palliative treatments to AGW won't work, the problems are accumulative, and will only worsen with time.

I think a number of us have a problem with using AGW as the all-in-one whipping boy for major weather events/disasters, when that approach an overly simplistic copout, and hardly scientific.

See this article posted by Terry in this very thread: http://www.businessw...-warming-stupid.

[WeatherRusty]

Yes, the most we can really say with an educated guess at this point is that SLR probably made the impact a little bit worse. And 10% might be a reasonable guess, we don't really know. But what we do know is that even if there had been zero SLR over the past 100 years, Sandy still would have been a major disaster for NYC with and the overall impact would not have been much less.

So to blame AGW for Sandy being a major disaster is just silly. Which has been my point all along.

Has anyone actually found a chart showing longterm NYC sea level rise? From what I've seen so far, there is not much correlation between SLR and the number/severity of damaging NYC storm surges.

You don't know that either. I will ask again, if sea surface temps in her path were 0.6C cooler would she have maintained a warm core structure until just before landfall? If not, would the wind field have spread out even more and the central pressure been somewhat higher, at least along the Jersey shore?

The impact would have been somewhat less, at least in some parts. Of course absent AGW, that particular storm would never have formed in the first place. You know what they say about those butterflies.

[WeatherRusty]

I think a number of us have a problem with using AGW as the all-in-one whipping boy for major weather events/disasters, when that approach an overly simplistic copout, and hardly scientific.

See this article posted by Terry in this very thread: http://www.businessw...-warming-stupid.

I agree with the article. What is your problem with it?

I know of no one so ignorant to claim AGW THE cause of weather events/disasters. It plays a part in creating the weather, how can anyone deny that when global warming changes the very parameters which do create the weather?

[tacoman25]

You don't know that either. I will ask again, if sea surface temps in her path were 0.6C cooler would she have maintained a warm core structure until just before landfall? If not, would the wind field have spread out even more and the central pressure been somewhat higher, at least along the Jersey shore?

The impact would have been somewhat less, at least in some parts. Of course absent AGW, that particular storm would never have formed in the first place. You know what they say about those butterflies.

1. There is a lot more evidence that Sandy would have been a major disaster no matter what than there is that AGW was a major contributor.

2. Have you seen how warm SST along the Atlantic Coast were during the last +AMO phase? How do you think powerful storms that struck the NE from the 1930s to 1950s were able to maintain then? And have you considered skiier's points about how it matter that it's not just SST rising, but air temps as well, as far as storm convection?

3. As far as AGW and the butterfly effect, you must then also apply that logic to a good snow season in the Sierras that is beneficial for water supply, an early spring that allows for a longer growing season, or pleasant weather on your friend's wedding day. Or any other weather we deem positive. It's illogical to only point to the omnipotent AGW only when bad things happen.

[WeatherRusty]

1. There is a lot more evidence that Sandy would have been a major disaster no matter what than there is that AGW was a major contributor.

2. Have you seen how warm SST along the Atlantic Coast were during the last +AMO phase? How do you think powerful storms that struck the NE from the 1930s to 1950s were able to maintain then? And have you considered skiier's points about how it matter that it's not just SST rising, but air temps as well, as far as storm convection?

3. As far as AGW and the butterfly effect, you must then also apply that logic to a good snow season in the Sierras that is beneficial for water supply, an early spring that allows for a longer growing season, or pleasant weather on your friend's wedding day. Or any other weather we deem positive. It's illogical to only point to the omnipotent AGW only when bad things happen.

Let play!

1. I'll give you that one. AGW was a factor though, even if not a major one.

2. Global SSTs are about 0.33C warmer than a century ago. The AMO had nothing/little to do with it. The likelihood of Atlantic Coast SSTs being higher has increased. I'm sure the SSTs were warm enough to sustain fast moving tropical systems over the northeast water during the past storms. Could even have been as warm as today, I don't know. Hurricane Carrol was one of the first weather events which sparked my interest way back when, the huge elm tree that fell on the front porch did the trick. Carrol was a cat3 storm right into New England I believe. The water must have been plenty warm.

Well, as to lesser lapse rates, in Sandy's case the storm was moving into and mixing with cool air invading the circulation. Lapse rates were steep, except of course in the core which retained it's column of deep warm convection till landfall.

3. Right, all the weather is affected by chaos, not just the bad. Nonetheless, Sandy would not have existed as the same entity. Maybe something else similar would have happened last year, today or tomorrow. So, technically, Sandy was made possible by the exact state of the global weather pattern it formed and moved through which happened only because of the exact state that preceded it etc. etc.

Seriously, how do we impart the AGW message without emphasizing the risks?