I did. I lamented it. I inwardly agreed, at the time, with drewtoo99’s wish that you’d weigh in. I’m now delighted that you eventually showed up to mention that “the current consensus is that the future number of extreme weather events like hurricanes can not be predicted with a lot of confidence”.
My delight would increase if you could likewise provide specifics about the following:
See, that’s entirely too vague.
And that one, too; don’t just say “we will have to worry about them being stronger” or make general statements about some increase in energy – or, as you do to RaftPeople later on, that “it is a straw man to claim that me or the scientists are talking about an increase in numbers, it is an issue of Intensity.”
You keep stopping short: again and again and again you make broad statements about how the number may well decrease but energy/strength/intensity is the beating heart of that falsifiable prediction. And again and again and again you don’t bother to, y’know, relay that falsifiable prediction.
It’d take fewer words, and less time, for you to simply mention the answer instead of repeatedly hinting at it. Do you – while refusing to make any claims about the frequency of hurricanes in general – predict at least X number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes making landfall over the next Y years?
You of course supply a cite that “as sea temperatures continue to rise, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will inevitably increase.” It of course stops one sentence short of the key point: what number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes, on what timetable, would prove that statement true?
That happens by entirely avoiding the cite. It tells you why I said that.
And once again, you are **ignoring **what the cites say, there very little evidence for the science to claim that the number will increase or decrease, as another cite reported, "The question of hurricane frequency was also addressed in a study that used climate models to simulate hurricane response to warming in the North Atlantic. Increasing temperature leads to an increase in vertical wind shear which may inhibit the formation of hurricanes (Vecchi 2007). Thus, the impact of global warming on hurricane frequency is one area requiring further research and more data. "
Sometimes the correct thing is to say we don’t know. And climate scientists also had this going for the acceleration of ice loss, it was an unknown so the scientific thing to do was to declare that more data was needed, as it turned out the acceleration is happening and now reported as more data is available now. Like the acceleration of the loss of ice before we are now with the number of hurricanes a warming world will bring, it remains an unknown, but hurricanes will still happen and the intensity of the ones that come will still react to the stuff that is in the background, it only takes one Sandy on steroids to create more havoc that one that just arrives with “no artificial additives”.
I didn’t avoid the cite: it spells out, as you do, that frequency can’t readily be predicted but intensity can – and it then stops short, as you do, of actually bothering to supply the prediction about intensity. You’re wasting yet more time and words on generalities instead of skipping straight to a specific answer.
You talk about an increase in intensity. Your cite says more Category 4 and 5 hurricanes will hit land. I therefore ask: at least how many, on what timetable? What amount is being predicted – such that more Category 4 and 5 hurricanes will prove you right, and fewer will prove you wrong?
You’re silent, and so is your cite. You could end my objection with a one-sentence prediction. You instead offer paragraphs about the prediction.
And again: you do a fine job of saying that Sometimes The Correct Thing Is To Say We Don’t Know, and you add that while the number of upcoming hurricanes is one of them, the intensity of the ones that come will – er, it just sort of trails off there, doesn’t it? With nary a falsifiable claim about intensity in sight?
Good heavens, ten words would do it: more Category 4 and 5 hurricanes will hit land? Very well, then: at least what number X, over the next Y years?
You know, I actually expect that you check the links, it is not hard, as this is IMHO the only task needed was to show that the OP was a straw-man, and that is done.
Once again the Skeptical Science link that concerns here is the one from Nature:
Mind you, I do expect others to look at the information, and the experience is always the same, you accuse me constantly of not doing this when I do. And once again, I’m not talking about the quantity, but that the warming world will get any number of hurricanes and increase their strength, the only thing that is needed to falsify this is to find evidence that all that excess water vapor, excess energy in the oceans and ocean rise will magically not increase the strength of **any **number of hurricanes coming up.
You’re right to expect that I’ll check the links; I’ve checked that link now that you’ve posted it. It’s interesting and appreciated – but as far as I can tell, you hadn’t, y’know, posted that link in this thread before; was it maybe a link at the bottom of a page you’d linked to? Was it a link on a page one of those pages linked to? Had you posted that link in a different thread?
In this thread, you’d posted a cite that “as sea temperatures continue to rise, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will inevitably increase.” As you’d expect, I checked that link once you posted it – and I still have absolutely no idea how few Category 4 and Category 5 hurricanes hitting land would prove that first claim false.
Again, you can supply that answer in one sentence. Alternately, you can – in one sentence – say that your claims wouldn’t be falsified even if a whopping zero Category 4 and 5 hurricanes ever hit land again.
I’m not asking you to talk about the quantity of hurricanes in general. I’m asking you to talk about the quantity of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land in particular. Again, your earlier cite says that “as sea temperatures continue to rise, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will inevitably increase.” Read that part about “the number” and “increase” carefully: wouldn’t some number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land (a) be a decrease, and (b) prove that claim utterly false?
Er, no. Look, your cite – the one I checked when you linked to it, not the one you only just now mentioned in this latest post – made a simple prediction: that the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will increase. If fewer Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hit land, will that prediction be proven false?
Hey, careful with the “always” there; after an ridiculously long time, you eventually supplied a falsifiable prediction about warming, and I’ve repeatedly pointed that out in multiple threads. (I never understood why you didn’t do it sooner – but you did it after an unnecessary delay, and that still deserves praise.)
Why not do likewise here? You relayed an unfalsifiable prediction about Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land. You can make it falsifiable in no time flat. You can do it in one sentence. You can do it in ten words. You’ve done this sort of thing before. You can do it again. Whenever you’re ready. Go right ahead.
Nope, as pointed before the blue links in the Skeptical Science site do link to the science, anyone can check the links. Or get burned with extreme self righteousness.
Actually it fairly easy to falsify, just demonstrate that the increase in water vapor in the atmosphere and the increase in temperature of the oceans is not affecting the intensity of the hurricanes. As Kerry Emmanuel reports, so far it is the increase in intensity of things like hurricanes the ones that climate scientists can report is increasing, the number of them remains a gamble, but as Richard Alley reported, just things like the increase of intensity of the hurricanes should be enough to do something about the emissions.
You provided a cite: “as sea temperatures continue to rise, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will inevitably increase.”
It’s a fine claim. You quoted it. You copy-and-pasted it. Do you agree with it?
If that claim happens to be true, then some number X of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land over the next Y years would be an increase – and, in turn, some number would be a decrease. To put it another way: “At least X number in Y years” would prove it true; anything less would prove it false.
It came from the Kerry Emmanuel research, so yes. but pay attention, it is referring to the intensity of the hurricanes, not the quantity.
Too bad that the toy falsification tool fails when scientists report that the number of the hurricanes to come has been found to be inconclusive. More data is needed.
Nope, what is clear is that I see some desperation on attempting to keep a straw man going, already several cites demonstrated that the quantity of the hurricanes (and logically also the number of hurricanes making landfall) are uncertain and more data is needed, The intensity of a hurricane does not depend on how many, it is logical and there is evidence that when a hurricanes comes most of that material and energy in the background will be used by it.
But you’re the one who – for some reason – introduced that bit about how the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will increase. You’re the one who offered up that quote in reply to RaftPeople.
I get that you think it’s uncertain whether there will be more or fewer hurricanes in years to come: maybe that number will increase, maybe it will decrease, we don’t know, neither result would falsify your claims – and that’s swell. You now seem to be saying the same about the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land in years to come: it’s uncertain, maybe it’ll increase, maybe it’ll decrease, we don’t know, neither result will falsify your claims.
If that’s your position, I merely question why you relayed the quote about “as sea temperatures continue to rise, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will inevitably increase.” By all means, clearly disavow it now if it doesn’t reflect your views – but if you’ve got the time and the inclination, mention (a) why the heck you brought it up in the first place, and (b) why the guy you cited would make so incorrect a claim.
(And remember: if a decrease in Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land won’t count as evidence against your views, then an increase won’t count as evidence for 'em. You can pick either side of the issue – with the guy you quoted or against him – but staking out one position means dropping the other.)
If that is the case then you should have no problem finding a quote in his research that refers to an specific quantity, once again he is referring to categories of hurricanes (For example, the ones that where cat 3 before now will reach a 4), not an specific number of hurricanes.
And here is why your toy falsification tool fails, it is incapable of noticing when science has done **already **the job of falsifying the declaration that a few scientists were claiming that the hurricanes were increasing in number in a warming world, you are right now ignoring a perfect example of what happens when some claimed that the number was going to increase and other researchers pointed at the flaws on the early research on the quantity of hurricanes.
As Richard Alley reported, now the scientists are collecting more data and like the ice researchers coming now with the acceleration that was **uncertain **just a few years before, we will see what the data will point to, to an increase or a reduction in the number of hurricanes.
You really can’t understand your own quote, can you? “This means that as sea temperatures continue to rise, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will inevitably increase.” It’s remarkably straightforward sentence. Read it carefully. There’s not much to it. Pay attention to the part after the comma.
Say it out loud: the number, you see, will inevitably increase. You seem to think his claim – doesn’t refer to an increase in number? You say I should have no problem finding a reference to a specific quantity – but my whole point is that your quote fails to refer to a specific quantity!
If your quote had named a specific quantity, I wouldn’t have objected to it in the first place!
It predicts a nonspecific increase in number: anything above quantity X would prove it true, anything below quantity X would prove it false – and right when things get interesting, right where X should be named, it isn’t; right at the point where he could specify, generality sits. I wouldn’t ask for that quantity if he’d said “the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land may increase, or maybe not; it’s uncertain.” But if he says an increase in number is inevitable, the lack of a quantity is galling.
It’d be easy for him to say we’ll see at least X hurricanes of that Category hit land in the next Y years. It’d be easy for you to do likewise. It’d then be easy to see whether either of you happens to be correct. But so long as he’s vague and you quote him, neither of you can be proven wrong. That’s not useful.
But he already sounds plenty certain. He’s already saying that “the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will inevitably increase.” Won’t he be proven right if we see an increase, and wrong if we instead see a reduction?
If you agree with his prediction – of an inevitable increase in the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land – then won’t you likewise be proven right if we see an increase, and wrong if we see a reduction? And if you disagree with his prediction, then why the heck did you so quote him in the first place?
I’m not “right now” referring to predictions about hurricane quantity in general; I’m “right now” referring simply and only to the prediction you relayed, about how the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will inevitably increase. Do you agree that said number will so increase? Or are you uncertain?
Not very amusing to see you fighting with yourself. All that prose an not a single cite from Emmanuel telling you then the quantity predicted, and that is not the point of the paper either. And not my point either.
Take home lesson, the OP was a straw man, and you can not make Emmanuel’s research that refers on the whole to the intensity of hurricanes to refer to the number of them, and clearly you are willing now to dismiss falsification when it is supporting me, as the cite showed many times already, the current state of affairs that supports me and the scientists into saying that the number of future hurricanes is uncertain was arrived by undermining the ones that claimed that it could be done.
I’m not referring to the number of hurricanes in general. I’m referring – as your quote did – to the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land.
My point is the lack of a quantity predicted. I’m not fighting with myself; I’m agreeing that your quote specifies no quantity. If a quantity had been specified, I’d have found it unobjectionable.
Possibly you’re failing to see the obvious because climate change is involved? Change only the subject, leave the claim the same, and see if the scales fall from your eyes: imagine that someone offers up a completely unrelated prediction that (a) sounds good at first, but (b) doesn’t actually mention a quantity.
“As the population of our city continues to rise, the number of male felons being executed across the country will inevitably increase.”
-or, perhaps-
“As this show’s ratings continue to rise, the number of Emmy awards it wins will inevitably increase.”
If I heard either of those claims, I’d ask for a specific quantity: if we don’t see at least X number in the next Y years, I’d say, “then you’d be proven wrong. Kindly specify whatever X and Y you please.” My whole point would be that such a quantity should’ve, but hasn’t yet, been provided: that it could done in one sentence, but for some reason it’s not forthcoming.
Would you follow that reasoning in such cases? Would you say I’m fighting with myself for noting the absence of quantity X?
Of course not. You’d realize I’m speaking with one voice: I’m requesting quantity X precisely because it’s not apparent. Anyone predicting an inevitable increase in number of said executions or said awards should be able to string together a sentence built around ‘at least X in Y years’ falsifiability.
That’s simply incorrect.
You wrote that the number of hurricanes couldn’t be predicted with a lot of confidence, and I – replied that I couldn’t agree more with your comment, which I found magnificent and concise and accurate. I repeated my praise later in the thread: “you think it’s uncertain whether there will be more or fewer hurricanes in years to come: maybe that number will increase, maybe it will decrease, we don’t know, neither result would falsify your claims – and that’s swell.”
But uncertainty about the number of hurricanes in general does not necessarily translate into uncertainty about the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land in particular. You relayed a quote about how the latter number – not the former number, but the latter number – will inevitably increase.
That’s an entirely separate issue: one you introduced, and one you’re not squarely addressing. It was a masterpiece of straightforward language: “as sea temperatures continue to rise, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will inevitably increase.” It says nothing about the number of hurricanes in general, but it says rather a lot about a different number increasing.
Once again it is not mine, Emanuel is just referring to the intensity, it could be just a single hurricane hitting land in a year and because the intensity has increased a cat 3 hurricane is now more likely to be a cat 4 when it hits, so in a few years the number of cat 4 or 5 hurricanes has increased in comparison to a few previous years, and yet just a single hurricane hitting land in a year is on average a reduction of the number of them, indeed the category increase is not the number of them, and indeed Emmanuel is not referring to an increase in quantity.
[Bolding mine] And that once gain shows the OP as being a straw man, scientists know that the current state of affairs is uncertainty in the number of hurricanes to come.
So, once again when I report you are fighting with yourself is because your complaint is based on a misunderstanding of what Emmanuel said, the meaning I take comes from that context, Emmanuel is not referring to an specific number, nor there is a need to specify one, the task now is just do find evidence that even if the number of hurricanes does not increase to counter the science that is reporting that even so the few that will come will not use all that background human caused additions to the atmosphere to not be used by the few hurricanes to come.
That is the current thing that can be falsified, as that is hard now, it is clear that there is a need to continue discussing a silly misunderstanding, made worse by the fact that you can not find corroborating evidence that Emmanuel was referring or needing to refer to an specific quantity, not his point and not mine, again if you need to continue with that silly point you need to find a quote that shows that your interpretation is the correct one, context however shows that I do not need to say anything else about this as you are not capable of finding where is Emanuel making a deal of the number of hurricanes when at the start he is pointing at the evidence that shows no trend on that.
Your quote doesn’t refer to an increase in quantity for hurricanes in general.
Your quote does, however, refer to an increase in quantity for Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land in particular.
The fact that it’s not doing the former is absolutely irrelevant to whether it’s doing the latter.
You keep refuting points I’m not making: I’m not asking about whether the number of hurricanes will increase; I know you’ve boldly staked out a position of uncertainty on that one. I’m asking about whether the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will increase, as per your quote.
If yes, then a specific number for an At-Least-X falsification should be named. If no, then you shouldn’t have relayed that quote to begin with.
That doesn’t make it worse; it’s my entire point. The lack of a specific quantity is my objection. If I’d found one, I wouldn’t have objected at all!
You’re confusing two entirely separate things: you and I agree that uncertainty wins out when it comes to the number of hurricanes – and then, as is obvious to anyone who reads it, your quote does a swift about-face for the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land. See it pivot around the “while”:
“Elsner found weaker hurricanes showed little to no trend while stronger hurricanes showed a greater upward trend. In other words, stronger hurricanes are getting stronger. This means that as sea temperatures continue to rise, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will inevitably increase.”
Bolding mine. See how the part before “while” says “little to no trend” and the part right after switches to discussing a completely different trend? See how the next sentence is then a marvel of follow-up for the second point rather than the first one?
If you truly can’t see that “the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will inevitably increase” is a simple and straightforward claim – no, not of an increase in number for all hurricanes, but for Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land – then I don’t see how any other quote could possibly convince you; the language couldn’t be clearer. If you can read that one wrong, I have little hope that you can read anything else right.
After this bizarre back and forth where he/she doesn’t seem to grasp the meaning of his/her own statement, or more generously, he/she fully understands but is playing games to avoid answering, I think we are wasting our time.
