Using your same logic, we could never convict anyone of murder, because people have been dying naturally for millennia.....
Why some scientists are worried about a surprisingly cold ‘blob’ in the North Atlantic Ocean
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Using your same logic, we could never convict anyone of murder, because people have been dying naturally for millennia.....
Could you please figure out what each of those terms means so you wouldn't look like an idiot? Please?
And could you PLEASE stop using asinine arguments like this? This has got to be the stupidest argument one could possibly use.
I have no idea what you're asking for or implying, but you can easily look up prior year hurricane records via Google or Wikipedia.
Per Wiki, you can easily identify an increasing trend in Atlantic basin hurricane activity, from a decadal perspective. That doesn't mean we won't have a 'below average' year once in a while, but we seem to be 'above average', on balance, particularly over the last 10-15 years.
Again, this is tracking ALL storms, not just the ones that reach the US mainland, which is my point here.
I was hoping you would figure it out for yourself. The fact that things occurred on the planet before man was present has absolutely nothing to do with what man IS doing now.
For the learning-impaired, here's what the 2015 Atlantic basin hurricane season looks like now (based on historical storms occuring by 10/1):
Named systems: 10 (2015), 8 (normal, but usually 9 by 10/4)
Hurricanes: 3 (2015), 4 (normal, but usually 5 by 10/7)
Major hurricanes: 2 (2015), 1 (normal, but usually 2 by 10/3)
So, again, although we haven't had anything strike the US in a while, they are still occurring, and this year fits right into the 'normal' range despite being an El Nino year with higher wind shears which usually stem some hurricane formation.
We were told global climate whatever was going to increase the occurrence and severity of hurricanes. do you admit that claim has been proven false by ummm i dont know, uhh reality?
or going with denial and spin?
Are you incapable of interpreting the graph of hurricane activity over the past century that is 3 posts above yours?
Are you aware that most of the highest intensity storms have all occurred in the past decade or two? Or is that not enough 'reality' for you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_intense_tropical_cyclones
Per Wiki, of the strongest storms on record in the Atlantic basin:
1 2010-2015
6 2000-2009
3 1990-99
4 1980-89
6 in the REST of the historical record 1851-1970 combined!!!
So, yes, I'd say that having 2x as many of the strongest Atlantic storms in the past 35 years vs. the previous 70-120 years (depending on whether that data set truly goes back to 1851 or not) is a pretty good indicator of 'stronger storms'.
In the Eastern Pacific:
8 during the 2000s
3 in the 1990s
1 between 1949 and 1980!
In case you truly suck as bad at math as at reading a simple graph, that is 11 TIMES the number since 1980 vs. prior to 1980.
Are you incapable of reading your own stats? I can.
1 in the last five years.
seems to me occurrences going down there ya math whiz.
No, you really cannot.
Compared with the pre-1980s records? Hardly.
You can find DOZENS of '5-year stints' with ZERO in that Atlantic dataset.
Let's finish off the decade before we declare a 'lull' in the most violent hurricanes list, particularly since there are as many of the biggest storms in the past 2.5 decades than the rest of the 16+ decade record for the Atlantic basin combined!
(this is why they like to call people like you 'deniers', because you cannot acknowledge basic facts even when they are spoon-fed to you)
you idiots said it would raise severity and occurrences and that has not happened. Who is the denier here? you are.
Wrong. You're just another willfully ignorant denialist, proudly refusing to learn the facts of the situation, proudly touting your ignorance due to your political inclinations. Sadly, the world and future generations of humans and all other life forms on earth will pay the price for your willing ignorance and denial.
He's probably a Millennial, too....they seem to have the penchant for needing to see results immediately (a la 'Star Trek', where they can 'terraform' a planet within 15 seconds of CGI time of a 1-hour episode).
The reality is that it has taken several decades to observe the increases in storms that is already apparent in the data. Expecting to see it occur 'over 5 years' is beyond ridiculous. We will likely see even bigger signal over the next 20-30 years, but there is already a fairly clear indication in the data we have through the past 100-150 years.
I have no idea what you're asking for or implying, but you can easily look up prior year hurricane records via Google or Wikipedia.
Per Wiki, you can easily identify an increasing trend in Atlantic basin hurricane activity, from a decadal perspective. That doesn't mean we won't have a 'below average' year once in a while, but we seem to be 'above average', on balance, particularly over the last 10-15 years.
Again, this is tracking ALL storms, not just the ones that reach the US mainland, which is my point here.
Would you agree that pre-1960's (satellites) that we couldn't possibly know every storm that occurred in the Atlantic Basin, named or otherwise?
No. Pre 1900s or early 1800s, maybe. But there have always been plenty of seafaring vessels throughout the Atlantic ocean basin to track storms. We easily have good/complete records for >100 years now; probably 150 years.
And barometers have been around as a metric for tracking storm intensity since the mid/late 1800s; barometric pressure has been the preferred method vs. windspeeds which have only been available in the past few decades with Doppler radar systems.
If it's pretty pictures of storms and real-time tracking, then yes, that's the satellite and Doppler era.
Thanks, one more question... they've only been naming storm (at least officially) since 1950 and typically anything pre-1900 was named for the place where it happened (i.e. Galveston hurricane of 1900) and it looks like pre-1900 the discrepancy between named storms and hurricane is very small. From the graph you provided the it looks, at first glance, that almost every named storm became/was a hurricane. And then in 1930s-ish the discrepancies become greater... that was my initial skepticism that not every storm that "should have" been named pre 1900, or 1960, actually was.
My question is... Is it possible that the graph is not complete??
Pre-1900s, it certainly has higher error in overall estimates the further left you go (and to your point, the 'error' absolutely is in 'missing data' and missed storms).
Since the early 1900s, and certainly the 1930s, aerial reconnaisance has enabled fairly clear pictures of the numbers of storms, so the bias through the 1900s would not be nearly as significant.
If the pre-1930s 'completeness' is a concern, then look at the activity pre/post 1970 or 1975 (1930-1970 vs 1970-2015). If you were to 'cut out' and weigh that graph using '70 or '75 as the pivot point, you still see an increase in storms, particularly over the past 20 years.
Consistent with that, the most violent/largest storms are very UNlikely to have been 'missed' in even the earliest records (dating to at least 1900). As we do have good barometric pressure data on those throughout the records, we see an even MORE pronounced increase in the biggest storms over the past 20-30 years vs the 20-30 (or even 100 years) prior (the other Wiki link in the thread).
So, I understand with your criticism - the numbers on that graph pre-1900 could be lower due to smaller storms or those tracking far from shipping lanes being missed/not recorded. But I doubt we missed too many storms through the 1900s based on all the burgeoning sea travel with steam ships, around since the early 1800s.
Great question/observations.
So, what if the data shows a correlation between the sun's output, the cloud cover, and the earth's temperature? Then what do we conclude?
We've looked. None of them correlate. Not that this has anything to do with the discussion at hand.
If they DID, we'd certainly be able to conclude that SOMETHING OTHER THAN human influences were driving current climate warming.
But you can look at those data for yourself and see there is simply no trending correlation. If anything, solar output is 'down' over the past 20-50 years; a stark contrast to where temperatures have been heading. Only a true 'denier' and not an honest skeptic would continue to bring up already debunked hypotheses. Or someone who is woefully misinformed on the actual science.
