Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
mcorioles

IRMA 7th Biggest Hurricane In US History

136 posts in this topic

1 minute ago, banner1124 said:

But apparently if things don't happen on the exact date scientists predicted then all the science should just be thrown out the window

  • It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mcorioles said:
  • It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).

One statement, not in context, out of an entire piece is supposed to be proof of something? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mcorioles said:

From your link.

Guess you muss s that part 

 

  • It is PREMATURE TO CONCLUDE that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities MAY have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).

Also from my link:

There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclone in some basins–an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones.

 

I would imagine the Saffir-Simpson scale will have a category 6 within 10 years. 

But hey, let's not let science ruin your fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, naive said:

Also from my link:

There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclone in some basins–an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones.

 

I would imagine the Saffir-Simpson scale will have a category 6 within 10 years. 

But hey, let's not let science ruin your fantasy.

I don't pretend to have the requisite skills to analyze this. But common sense suggests that all that added energy will have consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ms maggie said:

This is an interesting article. Seems the jury is out. Data pre 1900 is virtually non existent and metrics are much more precise than even 25 years ago.

 

The flaw in this guy's analysis is obvious. The US coastline is an artificial and arbitrary border. Why are storms that don't make landfall, or largely spend themselves prior to landfall, not germane if the data being evaluated is the strength, frequency of storms over time?

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/538362/

I am of the opinion that this statement from ms maggie is the most apposite contribution to this thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, EnochRoot said:

I am of the opinion that this statement from ms maggie is the most apposite contribution to this thread. 

Agreed... and an argument I've been making.  It seems that there's an agenda behind limiting the discussion to storms that make landfall on the continental US

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, banner1124 said:

Agreed... and an argument I've been making.  It seems that there's an agenda behind limiting the discussion to storms that make landfall on the continental US

It's not just about limiting discussion. It invalidates it, because it corrupts the data set.

Edited by EnochRoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, naive said:

I left out the word major.

Yea, that makes it accurate lol......

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, naive said:

Also from my link:

There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclone in some basins–an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones.

 

I would imagine the Saffir-Simpson scale will have a category 6 within 10 years. 

But hey, let's not let science ruin your fantasy.

 

Edited by blowboatbethesda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Eastside Terp said:

Yea, that makes it accurate lol......

 

I know..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EnochRoot said:

I am of the opinion that this statement from ms maggie is the most apposite contribution to this thread. 

Indeed it is. Two or three of us have alluded to the 'parochial' flaw in the OP's theorem but certainly, ms maggie most succinctly hit the nail, smack on the head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, banner1124 said:

But apparently if things don't happen on the exact date scientists predicted then all the science should just be thrown out the window

Love how you guys try and pinpoint things .

Go look at the history.

Theyve been saying since 1990 or so this would already be upon us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, banner1124 said:

Come on dude... this is science.  You can't just pull one statement out of the whole like that and then use it, completely out of context, to make a point.  That's just not a valid way to do things.

Another talking point.

Show us how "it's taken out of context".

I posted the whole freaking paragraph.

The OP lied and now you defend it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, naive said:

Also from my link:

There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclone in some basins–an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones.

 

I would imagine the Saffir-Simpson scale will have a category 6 within 10 years. 

But hey, let's not let science ruin your fantasy.

LOL...exactly my point.

They said the same 20 years ago about today.

Fail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, banner1124 said:

Agreed... and an argument I've been making.  It seems that there's an agenda behind limiting the discussion to storms that make landfall on the continental US

Not if you read the thread.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, WKDWZD said:

Indeed it is. Two or three of us have alluded to the 'parochial' flaw in the OP's theorem but certainly, ms maggie most succinctly hit the nail, smack on the head.

While ignoring my post that all rankings are the same as my link.

Edited by mcorioles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EnochRoot said:

It's not just about limiting discussion. It invalidates it, because it corrupts the data set.

So you and the rest are going sit here and try and deny CC advocate said tornadic and hurricane activity would increase years ago ......the exact opposite has happened.

So one of the only tangible things predicted that we were supposed to see with our eye hasn't happened,and to top it off the exact opposite has happened and it means nothing?

Why make such irresponsible predictions?

Unless you're going to try and tell me no such predictions were made.....

 

I love all the "factors" and distractions about the thread title are rational.......but now after a record period of non activity,THAT IS PROOF.

 

Edited by mcorioles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, mcorioles said:

More than half were before 1935.

 

I didn't expect you to figure it out.

I'd be curious to know how quickly previous hurricanes/typhoons spun up to Cat 4/5 categories. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, flyboy56 said:

I'd be curious to know how quickly previous hurricanes/typhoons spun up to Cat 4/5 categories. 

That's part of it also,correct.

 

No one has any idea what climate was like 500,800 ,3000 years ago.

Yes,core sample ,written text.

Nothing to scientifically prove anything.

Core  samples give a general idea of the climate in any given period.

For example if a core specimen finds fragment of forage in a now in a barren area mye we know within a certain time period it WS wetter,warmer,etc.

Its not going to tell you a 2-3 degree in avg temp change.

Edited by mcorioles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mcorioles said:

That's part of it also,correct.

 

No one has any idea what climate was like 500,800 ,3000 years ago.

Yes,core sample ,written text.

Nothing to scientifically prove anything.

Core  samples give a general idea of the climate in any given period.

For example if a core specimen finds fragment of forage in a now in a barren area mye we know within a certain time period it WS wetter,warmer,etc.

Its not going to tell you a 2-3 degree in avg temp change.

Warm water is key to fueling hurricanes. The warmer the water the quicker hurricanes will strengthen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, flyboy56 said:

Warm water is key to fueling hurricanes. The warmer the water the quicker hurricanes will strengthen. 

I understand and you are correct.

Factors such as currents,El Nina,are also factors.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, flyboy56 said:

Warm water is key to fueling hurricanes. The warmer the water the quicker hurricanes will strengthen. 

Pretty certain conditions simply won't develop for a hurricane to form without the water being at least 80 degrees. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mcorioles said:

 

They said the same 20 years ago about today.

 

They were right. Hurricanes have  and will continue to intensify.

Science can be pretty traumatic to those that ignore it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, naive said:

They were right. Hurricanes have  and will continue to intensify.

Science can be pretty traumatic to those that ignore it.

Another lie,but by all means continue to live in your make believe world.

You can add droughts now to the list of what they are wrong about.

 

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/04/27/analysis-its-not-just-droughts-but-nearly-all-extreme-weather-is-either-declining-or-at-or-near-record-lows/

 

Extreme Weather: Scientist to Congress in 2017: ‘No evidence’ that hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes are increasing – Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. of University of Colorado

Tornadoes: NOAA Tornado data revealing 2016 as ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ and below average for 5th year in a row

Hurricanes: 1) Inconvenient NOAA report: ‘It is premature to conclude (AGW has) already had a detectable impact on’ hurricanes & 2) NOAA: U.S. Completes Record 11 Straight Years Without Major (Cat 3+) Hurricane Strike & 3) 30 peer-reviewed scientific papers reveal the lack of connection between hurricanes & ‘global warming’

Floods: ‘Floods are not increasing’: Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. slams ‘global warming’ link to floods & extreme weather – How does media ‘get away with this?’ – Pielke Jr. on how extreme weather is NOT getting worse: ‘Flood disasters are sharply down. U.S. floods not increasing either.’ “Floods suck when they occur. The good news is U.S. flood damage is sharply down over 70 years,” Pielke explained.

Heavy Rains: 1000 year rainfall study suggests droughts and floods used to be longer, worse

Extreme weather used to be blamed on ‘global cooling’ in the 1970s and early 80s Flashback NOAA 1974: ‘Extreme weather events blamed on global cooling’ – NOAA October 1974: ‘Many climatologists have associated this drought and other recent weather anomalies with a global cooling trend and changes in atmospheric circulation which, if prolonged, pose serious threats to major food-producing regions of the world’

#
 
Waiting for your proof to back up your assertion......
Edited by mcorioles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, mcorioles said:

I understand and you are correct.

Factors such as currents,El Nina,are also factors.

 

The correct term is La Nina. El Nino is the other correct term. Not trying to be offensive. And you are correct, currents and the Nino's play a role in hurricanes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0