# "Climate Change" Was Supposed to Spawn Monster Storms-What Happened? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 10, 2013, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982 "2013-05-10T12:10:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2013, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/181 "2013-05-28T06:55:22Z")
**GIGO** , why would you label me as part of the “JAQ effort” and refuse to even explain what JAQ means? I’ve asked multiple times and you keep avoiding the question. Care to explain? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2013, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/182 "2013-05-28T07:14:33Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > **GIGO** , why would you label me as part of the “JAQ effort” and refuse to even explain what JAQ means? > > I’ve asked multiple times and you keep avoiding the question. > > Care to explain? :rolleyes: Missed post #174? I mean, this is really sad, there is really nothing more to be said. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2013, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/183 "2013-05-28T15:59:35Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > :rolleyes: Missed post #174? > > I mean, this is really sad, there is really nothing more to be said. Yes I missed it. I believe I was composing post #175 when you posted that one and I didn’t see it. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > BTW, It really stretches credulity that after all the mentions in many previous treads that one is not aware of what Just Asking Questions is. Are you talking climate threads? I’ve never read or participated in any threads debating the climate other than one brief ATMB thread on usage of terms. In addition I’ve stated my point clearly multiple times, hardly just asking questions. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2013, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/184 "2013-06-01T20:42:10Z")
Implicit in the assumptions of the so-called “climate science” is the idea that the earth’s climate (before man began mucking with it) was in some kind of equilibrium. This is NOT true-the climate is constantly changing, and such equilibrium is only what we think we see. We are in an inter-glacial period, and such periods have always been ones having extremes of weather.😉 ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2013, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/185 "2013-06-01T22:46:34Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Implicit in the assumptions of the so-called “climate science” is the idea that the earth’s climate (before man began mucking with it) was in some kind of equilibrium. . . . Nope. Nobody believes this. Point to a climate scientist who’s never heard of Ice Ages or natural climate change. An absurdity. ---
**Author:** ![Foggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foggy/32/1082_2.png) [@Foggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Foggy)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2013, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/186 "2013-06-02T00:09:32Z")
Why do you, **ralph124c** , keep saying > [@](#): > > the so-called “climate science” ? ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2013, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/187 "2013-06-02T00:35:47Z")
Interesting article that implicates CFCs in global warming instead of CO2. Would be funny if it turns out to be true. > **[Global warming caused by chlorofluorocarbons, not carbon dioxide, new study says](https://phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html)** > > Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide, according to new research from the University of Waterloo published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B this week. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2013, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/188 "2013-06-02T00:47:29Z")
Here’s the article for anyone who can either understand it or cares > **[1210.6844.pdf](https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.6844.pdf)** > > 494.31 KB ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2013, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/189 "2013-06-02T02:21:15Z")
It’s not hard to understand. The global temperature has been dropping since 2002, water vapor has been decreasing as well. As the paper says clearly: > [@](#): > > This prediction seems to be surprising, but it is actually consistent with the 2011 WMO Report. The latter states that “There have been no significant long-term trends in global-mean lower stratospheric temperatures since about 1995”, and that following an apparent increase from 1980–2000, the stratospheric water vapor amount has decreased in the past decade. > **[1210.6844.pdf](https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.6844.pdf)** > > 494.31 KB Combined with the trend since 88 of colder NH winters, certainly the hypothesis of CO2 driven climate change is on life support. It doesn’t take a rocket scientists to see what the data shows. That climate change it is now connected to other man made chemical pollution, actually means AGW was the cause of the past rise in global temperatures. It just wasn’t CO2 doing the damage. Interesting times. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2013, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/190 "2013-06-02T05:14:03Z")
2777 days since a Category 3 or more has landed in the US. Longest span since at least 1900. Clearly, we’re doomed. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2013, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/191 "2013-06-02T07:42:58Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > It’s not hard to understand. The global temperature has been dropping since 2002, water vapor has been decreasing as well. As the paper says clearly: > [http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.6844.pdf](http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.6844.pdf) > > Combined with the trend since 88 of colder NH winters, certainly the hypothesis of CO2 driven climate change is on life support. > > It doesn’t take a rocket scientists to see what the data shows. That climate change it is now connected to other man made chemical pollution, actually means AGW was the cause of the past rise in global temperatures. It just wasn’t CO2 doing the damage. > > Interesting times. “Interesting” reused graphics and ideas, this is almost no different like when Lu did this in 2009: > **[CFCs contribute only a fraction of global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/CFCs-global-warming.htm)** > > \Models and direct observations find that CFCs only contribute a fraction of the warming supplied by other greenhouse gases.\ > [@](#): > > Lu argues that the correlation between global temperature and CFCs is evidence that CFCs have been the dominant driver of climate over the past century. While there were large short-term fluctuations between 1850 to 1950, global temperature did not show significant overall rise over this period when CO2 was rising. Temperatures started increasing around 1950, when EESC levels started to become significant. Finally, EESC peaked around 2000 and has fallen in the last few years while the HadCRUT3 temperature record shows cooling in the same period. Based on this correlation, Lu concludes that “these data strongly indicate that global temperature has been dominantly controlled by the level of CFCs… over the past century”. > > There are several problems with this analysis. The notion that global cooling has been occuring over the last few years is not borne out when one peruses the full range of empirical data. Lu uses HadCRUT data which does not cover the entire globe - the regions where most warming has occured are excluded from the HadCRUT record. Consequently, HadCRUT underestimates recent warming. When one considers the energy building in the entire climate system (especially the oceans where most heat resides), we see that the planet is still accumulating heat through to 2009 (Murphy 2009, von Schuckmann 2009). In recent years while the radiative forcing from CFCs was falling, the planet has still been in positive energy balance. > > The physics of how CFCs might impose such a strong radiative forcing are not addressed. Lu mentions that the radiative forcing from CFCs haven’t been directly measured, then moves onto statistical correlations. In fact, the greenhouse effect from CFCs have been quantified from surface observations of the infrared radiation spectrum (Evans 2006). The observed results are broadly consistent with model predictions of greenhouse forcing (although observations show slightly higher forcing than model results). The proportion of CFC forcing compared to total greenhouse forcing is still around 14%, a close match to the IPCC estimate of 13%. > Figure 2: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). > > So we see that CFCs play only a small part in driving global temperatures. Unfortunately, this means that the recent drop in CFC levels will only have a small impact on global temperatures (if only it could be that easy). Of more concern is the increasing radiative forcing from CO2. The infrared spectrum analysis in Evans 2006 measures the extra heat trapped by rising carbon dioxide, finding a CO2 radiative forcing of 2.1 W/m² (again slightly higher than model predictions). This begs the question to those that argue that CFC (or any other mechanism) is meant to be causing global warming. If so, what’s happening to all the heat trapped by CO2? So, \*\*yorick73 \*\*and **FXMastermind** , will you ever learn that a single contrarian study does not overturn all the other publish science? This is BTW less effective when the same maker of the study was already replied to on virtually the same ideas, and not supported after. Time will tell if there is any useful things coming from this paper, but looking at the previous results and source I will not bet on it. And sure enough: [http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/05/31/qing-bin-lu-revives-debunked-claims-about-cosmic-rays-and-cfcs/](http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/05/31/qing-bin-lu-revives-debunked-claims-about-cosmic-rays-and-cfcs/) > [@](#): > > A new paper by Qing-Bin Lu in the International Journal of Modern Physics B is gaining coverage for its claim that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), not CO2, is causing global warming. This sensationalist headline is often repeated with little mention that Lu’s claims are not new, and have not held up to scientific scrutiny in the past. > > The following is a guest post by Climate Nexus. Text in PDF format here. > > Qing-Bin Lu Revives Debunked Claims About Cosmic Rays and CFCs > > A new paper by Qing-Bin Lu in the International Journal of Modern Physics B is gaining coverage for its claim that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), not CO2, is causing global warming. This sensationalist headline is often repeated with little mention that Lu’s claims are not new, and have not held up to scientific scrutiny in the past. In fact, Lu has been promoting his theories about CFCs for years, and mainstream scientists have found no merit in them. Critics have said Lu makes a fundamental scientific error by confusing correlation with causation, and does not effectively challenge the physical evidence of the warming effects of CO2, a body of knowledge built up over 150 years. And sure these are interesting times, but in this case the interest I get is to see how deep some still go for sources that are discredited, as usual, most sources that are mentioning this sorry paper with no criticism are the same old poisoned well sources. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2013, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/192 "2013-06-02T08:02:03Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > 2777 days since a Category 3 or more has landed in the US. Longest span since at least 1900. > Clearly, we’re doomed. And clearly not the point of what the climate scientists I mentioned found regarding the increase in intensity, and the Global warming in the background is not just referring to hurricane categories, once again the material and energy in the background are pointing to situations where hurricane categories are not just the only things to look for regarding how the landing of a hurricane will get worse. Like Sandy,\*\* just last year.\*\* > **[How Global Warming Made Hurricane Sandy Worse | Climate Central](https://www.climatecentral.org/news/how-global-warming-made-hurricane-sandy-worse-15190)** > > Global warming made Hurricane Sandy more destructive through sea level rise, warmer ocean temps, and other influences. > [@](#): > > The most damaging aspect of the storm was the massive storm surge that struck the coastline from Massachusetts to Maryland. Global warming-related sea level rise gave the surge a higher launching pad than it would have had a century ago, making it more damaging than it otherwise would have been. This is only going to get worse as sea level rise continues as a result of warming ocean waters and melting polar ice caps and glaciers. > > The storm surge at The Battery in Lower Manhattan was the highest ever recorded at that location. It surpassed even the most pessimistic forecasts, with the maximum water level reaching 13.88 feet above the average of the daily lowest low tide of the month, known as Mean Lower Low Water, including a storm surge component of 9.23 feet. That broke the official record of 10.5 feet above Mean Lower Low Water set in 1960 during Hurricane Donna, as well as a record set during a hurricane in 1821. > > Or, to put it in simpler terms, the water level reached 9.15 feet above the average high-tide line. > > Katharine Hayhoe, a climate researcher at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, said manmade climate change likely contributed to the storm surge at The Battery in Lower Manhattan, with 15 inches of long-term sea level rise recorded at that location, the result of manmade sea level rise, sinking land, and ocean currents. She said the manmade contribution to the storm surge may have been a small amount. > > But to the Metropolitan Transit Authority or Con Ed, the main electric utility in Manhattan, each inch of sea level rise matters a great deal. > > If a similar storm were to strike New York in 2050, it would cause even more damage, since sea levels are expected to be considerably higher by midcentury. In fact, a recent study found that sea level rise has taken place at an accelerated rate at locations north of Norfolk, Va., and if this pace continues the Northeast could see much higher sea levels than other parts of the East Coast by midcentury. > > A 2012 report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found that sea level rise has likely increased extreme coastal high water events around the world. And of course that cite was mentioned early, but we also know that not paying attention is a demonstrated quality of the ones that just want to ignore science. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2013, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/193 "2013-06-02T16:24:45Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And clearly not the point of what the climate scientists I mentioned found regarding the increase in intensity, and the Global warming in the background is not just referring to hurricane categories, once again the material and energy in the background are pointing to situations where hurricane categories are not just the only things to look for regarding how the landing of a hurricane will get worse. > > Like Sandy,\*\* just last year.\*\* > [How Global Warming Made Hurricane Sandy Worse | Climate Central](http://www.climatecentral.org/news/how-global-warming-made-hurricane-sandy-worse-15190) > > And of course that cite was mentioned early, but we also know that not paying attention is a demonstrated quality of the ones that just want to ignore science. At least you didn’t deny the number. Sea surface temperature in the “Sandy” area has a -0.002 °C/decade trend since 1940. Ergo, no warming. Total cyclonic energy is not up. Sea level rise hace badically stayed the same from more than a century. Sandy was a Cat 1, the damage was caused by full moon, lots of sea travel by her bringing water and bein held by a pressure system form Canada. Surge was about 4 meters and since sea level rise in the last 100 years has been about 20 cm maybe 10cm due to GW, it isn’t a real difference. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2013, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/194 "2013-06-02T17:50:50Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > At least you didn’t deny the number. And thank you for showing \*\*all \*\*once again that you guys are not paying attention. The numbers are not the issue. Sea surface temperature in the “Sandy” area has a -0.002 °C/decade trend since 1940. Ergo, no warming. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Total cyclonic energy is not up. > > Sea level rise hace badically stayed the same from more than a century. > > Sandy was a Cat 1, the damage was caused by full moon, lots of sea travel by her bringing water and bein held by a pressure system form Canada. > > Surge was about 4 meters and since sea level rise in the last 100 years has been about 20 cm maybe 10cm due to GW, it isn’t a real difference. And thank you for showing all that you do not understand what significant it. Not to mention that most of what you claimed here is not coming from what Emmanuel and others reported regarding the increase in intensity of the hurricanes. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2013, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/195 "2013-06-02T18:31:05Z")
Ran out of edit time, the second line in my post is from Aji, and I wanted to add that when I say that “the numbers are not the issue”, it is once again referring to the expected numbers of the hurricanes that could come in a warming world. Once again, the attempt is furious at propping up a straw man, the scientists quoted reported that an increase in numbers has not been seen, but the hurricanes are increasing in intensity, still trying to have opponent claim that scientists agreed that the number was increasing is even more ridiculous when that straw man is attempted again after it was pointed out countless of times that that is not what they are saying. BTW, claiming that “Sea surface temperature in the “Sandy” area has a -0.002 °C/decade trend since 1940.” was pulled from an unsavory place, whoever told you that number, it is not looking at the region and the time Sandy came in. [http://www.earthweek.com/2012/ew120921/ew120921a.html](http://www.earthweek.com/2012/ew120921/ew120921a.html) > [@](#): > > The average sea surface temperature from North Carolina to Maine was just over 50.5 degrees Fahrenheit from January through June, compared to the long-term average of about 48 degrees. > > Some areas were 6 degrees warmer than normal with temperature records for the coastal waters going back to as early as 1854. > > The warmth triggered one of the longest and most intense plankton blooms ever observed early this year—a sign marine biologists say demonstrates the coastal ecology is undergoing dramatic changes. And looking at the North Atlantic: [http://www.wwfblogs.org/climate/content/sea-surface-temperatures-tropical-north-atlantic-and-impacts-2010](http://www.wwfblogs.org/climate/content/sea-surface-temperatures-tropical-north-atlantic-and-impacts-2010) Even at simple glance one can see that the temperature has increased more than the -.0002 you are reporting in your post. Conclusion: once again you got that number from already poisoned well of information. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2013, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/196 "2013-06-03T02:55:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And thank you for showing \*\*all \*\*once again that you guys are not paying attention. The numbers are not the issue. Numbers are the issue. Hurricane numbers are down and total energy is down. Fewer Cat 374/5 hurricanes. You can’t refer to increasing hurricanes without numbers. Also “may have beenn caused” is different form “caused”. > [@](#): > > And thank you for showing all that you do not understand what significant it. Not to mention that most of what you claimed here is not coming from what Emmanuel and others reported regarding the increase in intensity of the hurricanes. Of course it doen’t come form what Emanuel says. If Emmanuel says that the number of Cat 3/4/5 landings in the US has increased he is wrong. If he says that the total energy is higher, he is wrong. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Ran out of edit time, the second line in my post is from Aji, and I wanted to add that when I say that “the numbers are not the issue”, it is once again referring to the expected numbers of the hurricanes that could come in a warming world. As I said, total numbers AND total energy are down. > [@](#): > > Once again, the attempt is furious at propping up a straw man, the scientists quoted reported that an increase in numbers has not been seen, but the hurricanes are increasing in intensity, still trying to have opponent claim that scientists agreed that the number was increasing is even more ridiculous when that straw man is attempted again after it was pointed out countless of times that that is not what they are saying. There is no increase in intensity. > [@](#): > > BTW, claiming that “Sea surface temperature in the “Sandy” area has a -0.002 °C/decade trend since 1940.” was pulled from an unsavory place, whoever told you that number, it is not looking at the region and the time Sandy came in. > > [http://www.earthweek.com/2012/ew120921/ew120921a.html](http://www.earthweek.com/2012/ew120921/ew120921a.html) > And looking at the North Atlantic: > > [http://www.wwfblogs.org/climate/content/sea-surface-temperatures-tropical-north-atlantic-and-impacts-2010](http://www.wwfblogs.org/climate/content/sea-surface-temperatures-tropical-north-atlantic-and-impacts-2010) > Even at simple glance one can see that the temperature has increased more than the -.0002 you are reporting in your post. Conclusion: once again you got that number from already poisoned well of information. [/QUOTE] First, a trend is different form a data point. Trend from HADLSST (ffrom NOAA) 12N-40N/70-80W Jan1938-Aug2012 = -0.002°C/decade Trend for the extratropical part = -0.02°C/decade. Your “earthweek” quote talks about fisheries., and also it’s not like earthweek is something I should be paying attention to. At least SkS sound like science. If HADLSST and NOAA are unsavoury places then I don’t know which are kosher for you. Don’t forget: TREND is not the same as DATA POINT. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2013, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/197 "2013-06-03T03:30:21Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > There is no increase in intensity. This is a direct denial of what the science reports, but we knew that already. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > First, a trend is different form a data point. > Trend from HADLSST (ffrom NOAA) 12N-40N/70-80W Jan1938-Aug2012 = -0.002°C/decade > Trend for the extratropical part = -0.02°C/decade. > > Your “earthweek” quote talks about fisheries., and also it’s not like earthweek is something I should be paying attention to. At least SkS sound like science. > > If HADLSST and NOAA are unsavoury places then I don’t know which are kosher for you. > > Don’t forget: TREND is not the same as DATA POINT. Easy, cite the specific location where NOAA is claiming that, the reality is that you copy pasted that from a place that as usual misrepresents what real scientists conclude. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2013, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/198 "2013-06-03T03:50:57Z")
BTW the fisheries organization is part of NOAA and it is from NOAA where they got that report on the increase in temperatures: > **[New England/Mid-Atlantic](https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/new-england-mid-atlantic#science)** > > Learn about NOAA Fisheries' work in New England and the Mid-Atlantic region. > [@](#): > > Sea Surface Temperatures Reach Highest Level in 150 Years on Northeast Continental Shelf Once again, the best conclusion here is that interpretation of the NOAA data is just cherry picking as usual. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2013, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/199 "2013-06-03T06:09:45Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > 2777 days since a Category 3 or more has landed in the US. Longest span since at least 1900. > Clearly, we’re doomed. I’m an ignorant layman, but the idea that warming would increase hurricanes’ _intensity_ rather than their _number_ seems logical enough, and whether the hurricane “lands” or not seems of lesser relevance to hypotheses about warming. Oh … and “sarcasm” doesn’t rhyme with “intelligence.” Let me contribute my five seconds worth of “research”: [QUOTE=Wikipedia] Only six times—in the 1932, 1933, 1960, 1961, 2005 and 2007 hurricane seasons—have multiple Category 5 hurricanes formed [in the Atlantic]. Only in 2005 have more than two Category 5 storms formed, and only in 2007 has more than one made landfall at Category 5 strength. [/QUOTE] (I realize that the two Category-5 landfalls in 2007 “do not count” given Mr. de Gallina’s wording, as only Mexico and Central America suffered the full Category-5 strength.) ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2013, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/200 "2013-06-04T10:41:31Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > This is a direct denial of what the science reports, but we knew that already. Yeah, sure, FUD, whatev… If I cite a "denier"it doesn’t count. If I cite a “deluded” fully, it doens’t count. But just in case you actually want to discuss real data: Do you mean total cyclone energy in the Pacific AND the Atlantic? Only Atlantic? Only East Pacific? > [@](#): > > Easy, cite the specific location where NOAA is claiming that, the reality is that you copy pasted that from a place that as usual misrepresents what real scientists conclude. [/QUOTE] [Website](http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere) You select HadISST1 > [@GIGObuster](#): > > BTW the fisheries organization is part of NOAA and it is from NOAA where they got that report on the increase in temperatures: > > [New England/Mid-Atlantic | NOAA Fisheries](http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/press_release/2013/SciSpot/SS1304/) > Once again, the best conclusion here is that interpretation of the NOAA data is just cherry picking as usual. Fisheries are important, but also vaccination in South Sudan. Let’s focus on storms. > [@septimus](#): > > I’m an ignorant layman, but the idea that warming would increase hurricanes’ _intensity_ rather than their _number_ seems logical enough, and whether the hurricane “lands” or not seems of lesser relevance to hypotheses about warming. Oh … and “sarcasm” doesn’t rhyme with “intelligence.” > > Let me contribute my five seconds worth of “research”: > (I realize that the two Category-5 landfalls in 2007 “do not count” given Mr. de Gallina’s wording, as only Mexico and Central America suffered the full Category-5 strength.) So it’s a problem of wording when I say US landfalls and you put one in Mexico? Landings are not some crazy contraints. Hurricanes that don’t land are simply not particualrly relevant for humans relative to landings. If Sandy had moved east instead of landing nobody would remember a Cat 2 hurricane disappearing in the Atlantic. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982.md?page=11)