I believe I was composing post #175 when you posted that one and I didn’t see it.
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.
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.
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:
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” reused graphics and ideas, this is almost no different like when Lu did this in 2009:
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 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.
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.**
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
As I said, total numbers AND total energy are down.
There is no increase in intensity.
[/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.
This is a direct denial of what the science reports, but we knew that already.
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.
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.)
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?
Fisheries are important, but also vaccination in South Sudan.
Let’s focus on storms.
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.
