This will be enough,** this point is false**, even if you think it was vague, what I said **will **falsify what Emmanuel claimed.
And what you doing now is to claim that** if researchers look at how Emmanuel got the data and find a problem in his numbers that that will not falsify it.
**
That if researchers find that the hurricanes are not intensifying that will *not *falsify it. **
And you call that vague? If you are claiming that those implications are not in what I said clearly eons before, be my guest, it is really ridiculous from your part.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
And what you doing now is to claim that **if researchers look at how Emmanuel got the data and find a problem in his numbers that that will not falsify it.
That if researchers find that the hurricanes are not intensifying that will not falsify it.**
And you call that vague? If you are claiming that those implications are not in what I said clearly eons before, be my guest, it is really ridiculous from your part.
[/QUOTE]
Well, that’s – an answer, I’ll grant you that. And it’s not vague; it’s even a falsifiable prediction, as far as it goes.
If that’s indeed your last word on the subject, then all I can say is that it’s a peculiar one. When you predicted an increase in warming, you meant that the temperature would go up by at least A amount from year B to year C and from year C to year D. When you predicted an increase in hurricane intensity, you meant that – researchers will say there’s an increase in hurricane intensity.
I hereby accept your definition, and will defend you against anyone who claims you aren’t making a falsifiable prediction.
We will see how far that defense goes :), No, really, I have seen **TOWP **defend me before, but it takes a while. 
Those falsifications BTW were already implied in the early post. One thing that was missed is that -regarding the intensity of the hurricanes- it was not much of a prediction, the quoted research by Emmanuel was based on already recorded data, falsifying that is mostly an effort that can be done in the present as pointed before.
So. Going forward and dealing with Aji de Gallina and others:
As for the future, the evidence is that warming has not stopped, and the data shows that more energy and water vapor come in areas where hurricanes do appear. And those factors will most likely increase.
- Kerry Emmanuel interviewed at Discovery.
As for other “hurricany” things, the usual, Emmanuel reports that there is uncertainty on how many hurricanes will come, it is a gamble right now to make predictions on the frequency of landfall of intense hurricanes in North America, what one should understand is that besides the most likely problem of an increase in the damage once a hurricane comes, a few contrarians are asking us to ignore the issue and so we **are **gambling on what we could get regarding the frequency of landfall of the hurricanes.
It is bad enough to see more water and energy added to the background where hurricanes appear. It is irresponsible in the extreme for a few to tell us that we should continue with the gamble and continue to increase the GWG in the atmosphere.
How is asking for a falsifiable prediction “cherry picking”?
Do you disagree that a falsifiable prediction should be made in this case?
If so, why?
I’ll quote directly form the article you have linked, from the website you linked to, from the author you’re refering about. I hope this clears any “source” problems.
Less total storms.
Cat 3/4/5 increase.
Both measurable and falsifiable.
BTW, he mentions models.
I like the last part. lots of uncertainty.
Uncertainty again.
Uncertainty yet again.
Decades, wow.
His other clear, and therefore falsifiable, cite.
I applaud Emanuel’s sincerity as to uncertainty.
OK, done. I will assume that you adscribe to Emanuel three positions:
a) Fewer storms.
b) More cat 3/4/5 storms.
c) More rainfall from hurricanes.
Warming may not have stopped, but temperature have not increase in at least 11 years and possibly back to 1996 (and maybe even further if we take Pinatubo and Chicnchon out of the equation)
Nice post.
And another demonstration that you do not have a clue about what uncertain is, Hint: it does not mean fewer or more. so, not my problem that you show all the levels of “not even wrong” you are reaching here.
Only for the ones not paying attention.
Once again, no explanation whatsoever about the fact that the la nina years are getting warmer.
This is only a denial that natural cycles can mask the increase, but regardless, the cycles **are **getting warmer.
What does that have to do with the accuracy of climate models with respect to predicting future storm trends?
Why do you keep posting about a different topic?
This doesn’t make sense.
The fact that I pointed for a long time ago that I’m not talking about models, but the attempt to ignore furiously the bit that the warming trends observed do not depend of computer models.
And this:
Was already posted just today too here before, as the trend shows, you did miss it again as usual, the temperatures already recorded are shown to be within the envelope (in grey) that encloses 95% of the model runs.
As one can see, on the surface temperatures the models are still showing a good level of matching reality, the big exception is in the predicted ice loss on the Arctic, unfortunately for the “we should do noting brigade” the reality is looking **worse **than the conservative predictions.
So when he says (my bolding)
he doesn’t mean fewer as in “a smaller number”? What is the other possible meaning of “the actual total number should decline”?
Also, posting 2010 chart (the real climate one) in the middle of 2013 is old news.
I’ll post the whole question and answer. (my boldings)
The topic of the thread is the accuracy of climate models with respect to predicting storm trends.
Your response quoted in this post misses that fact again. You linked to something that has absolutely nothing to do with predicting storm trends.
Maybe you can explain: why do you think the link is relevant to the topic of accuracy of climate models with respect to predicting storm trends?
Not mentioned in the OP, once again the counterpoint I did showing that the OP was a straw man was that the models are not good enough for that resolution yet, so scientists like Emmanuel reported already that your point is also a straw man.
As pointed out, and this is now a painful trend, you also missed the last cite from Emmanuel. There is no consensus there for the limitations, there is no predicted up or down trend in the number of hurricanes coming when more warming will appear..
Maybe you can explain why one is not supposed to reply to a different point raised by the one that you recklessly said had made a nice post.
Will it ever dawn on them that accepting that point actually makes the fake skeptics the alarmists?
Oh well, you are missing that the interviewer put a virtual gun to the head of the scientist, preliminary speaking and based on models that he himself reports are not good enough, the gamble is likely to go snake eyes on the number of hurricanes but that is not at the more certain levels of the increase we are more likely to get 12s on the dice on the intensity of the hurricanes that coming, (the consensus of why is because of the increase on the rain and energy that he himself explains is coming from more reliable sources other than computer models) so once again, exactly my point.
The conclusions are still valid, even if you add a couple of “flat” years the actual temperature still makes it inside the envelope.
It’s you very own quote, dude.
So, you finally accept that he DID say
a) Fewer storms
b) More Cat 3/4/5 storm.
I can’t see the gun, because for the rest of the article he says on several occacions the he isn’t sure. You’re now tryng to squirm away from your own expert.
Acknowledged from the beginning of my posts, but do not let that fact get into your sorry narrative.
Also mentioned by me at the beginning, you are not even trying.
Nope, read it again for comprehension, as even the interviewer says, it is an exercise done “at the risk” of cherry pickers like you to make hay from it, one has to look at the published science to get a better picture, in the end, the consensus is clear, the intensity is increasing thanks to all the material that is accumulating in the background thanks to global warming.
Title: “Climate Change” Was Supposed to Spawn Monster Storms-What Happened?
From OP: Should the assumptions made by Al Gore be challenged? Or “is the science indisputable”
The title sets the context - future storms.
The OP states the question: Essentially, are models accurate enough for these types of predictions?
How can that be a straw man if it’s the topic of the thread?
You’ve been repeating “straw man” for 7 pages but it makes zero sense.
The very topic of this thread, the question being asked (essentially, can we accurately predict storm trends due to climate change?) is the very thing you keep insisting is a straw man.
WTF?
Then why are you arguing?
And that was the straw man, bingo, the models are not accurate enough, hence no confidence in general on what the number of future storms are coming. The OP claimed that the scientists were saying that we should see “the incidence of tornados, hurricanes, wind storms” UP. because as the OP said: “Instead, the incidence of tornados, hurricanes, wind storms is way down.” so, scientists needed to be ridiculed.
Unfortunately for the OP: **THAT WAS NOT WHAT THE SCIENTISTS WERE REPORTING. ** and there is even less certainty on the tornado front regarding the number of them that are coming.
Indeed a straw man. And there is also the misleading bit from the word “Spawn” as I noticed before in a previous tread, there is a misleading tactic from many denial sites to ask an specific question: Is this X hurricane caused by climate change? That question then leads to the sincere answer from the scientists that climate change is not the cause.
The misleading bit then comes by ignoring the rest of the history: the best evidence is telling us that even forgetting about how they are being created one should worry about the mess of “steroids” we have added in the path of those hurricanes and tornadoes, even if (and is a big if) there are less coming.
The consensus once again is that the intensity of the ones that still manage to come is up, thanks to the increase of energy and material in the background.
Someday it should dawn on you guys. And the question really is: why are you guys arguing?.