Nope the ones playing games are clear for all to see, the bottom line remains, I’m not making the point you are pushing, it is also a straw man like the the original OP. Emmanuel and Elsner are making the point that hurricanes will intensify, no need to specify how many. That is all.
As even Waldo can not avoid, what is happening is that the effort is furious to get one to follow a point that is not mine, and as I’m not pushing for it it is really silly to continue pushing for it, not my problem though that they look silly for continuing to push for it.
Here’s the quote you provided: “This means that as sea temperatures continue to rise, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will inevitably increase.” If you can’t specify at least how many would prove the statement true – such that anything less would prove it false – then (a) the prediction is useless, and (b) you shouldn’t have relayed it in the first place.
If it’s not your point, why did you bring it up? Nobody was talking about a predicted increase in Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land until you produced that quote to introduce the topic. And, again, I’ll gladly drop the whole thing if you’ll expressly commit to either of two crisp and brisk statements:
Predict that we’ll see at least X number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land in the next Y years;
-or-
State clearly, that, no, you can’t say with any confidence whether there will be an increase or a decrease in such hurricanes hitting land in years to come – such that, as with the number of hurricanes in general, either an increase or a decrease will be entirely consistent with your position; we should disregard anyone foolish enough to say that “as sea temperatures continue to rise, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will inevitably increase.”
I already did say that, and Emmanuel said so too, Elsner can be faulted only for clunky grammar, but once again the context shows that he is not talking about the number of hurricanes, the paper subject is about the increase of their intensity. Anything else is just an attempt to have others say something that they are not talking about.
the reason we have so many tornadoes in the Central United States is because the jet stream drops down and combines with air from Southern California and the Gulf of Mexico. It’s unique to this part of the world due to the landmasses and ocean layout. It wasn’t Jebus or global warming. We’ve had large tornadoes all through the history of the United States and that’s not going to change.
To be really scrupulously fair, we shouldn’t point to a recent series of (hellish) tornadoes, any more than the deniers should point to a really heavy snowfall in New York to show that “warming” isn’t happening.
Is there a meaningful statistical trend of tornadoes getting bigger, faster, and more damaging?
(FWIW, I’m not a denier, or even “just asking questions.” I consider GIGObuster to be one of the most persuasive SDMB posters ever, and I very much agree with darn near everything he’s ever said here.)
(Plus, it really makes me angry when some reeking jackass points to a snowy New York winter and, with all of the snideness bred into him by Rush Limbaugh, says, “I guess global warming is really out of control, huh? Snicker.”)
It is just simple logic that all that stuff and energy added in the background is not going to keep away from adding more intensity to those beasts of nature.
The question here is how much **more **are we willing to add to that extra background already there? Again, the gamble is ongoing in the increase in numbers, but the intensity part of this is getting their dice loaded, as Emmnuel reported, there is no trend going up or down on their number, but the chances of them turning into more intense ones continues to increase.
[QUOTE=Snowboarder Bo]
GIGObuster, I just wanted you to know that yes, you do make sense.
The Other Waldo Pepper, you don’t seem to understand at all what GIGObuster has patiently pointed out several times.
[/QUOTE]
I think you have your tense wrong – I believe I understand him now – but I’d sure appreciate the other half of your opinion, Bo: how do you read the following sentence? “This means that as sea temperatures continue to rise, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will inevitably increase.”
GIGObuster has now “patiently pointed out” that said quote does not, in fact, mean that the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will increase. I applaud him for that, but would he have so clarified without me? Just imagine: he posts that quote, nobody asks him to clarify – and if the number of such hurricanes hitting land increases, he looks to have relayed an accurate prediction. And if the number of such hurricanes hitting land decreases, he can at that time Patiently Point Out that, oh, heavens, no, that quote wasn’t actually predicting an increase in the number of such hurricanes hitting land.
I got him to Patiently Point Out that latter part ahead of time – which I find all-important. If he ever meets anyone foolish enough to say “the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will inevitably increase”, I hope he’ll Patiently Point Out that, er, no, said number will not inevitably increase.
Indeed, I wish he’d Patiently Pointed That Out as soon as he relayed the quote – but I commend him for doing so on request.
As many others noticed, the problem is also one of painfully ignoring the context, indeed repeating the same quote was not the requested item I made in the first place, when I mentioned that we needed to get another quote from them, that was the point: other quotes, repeating the same one demonstrates only that context was avoided.
Not looking at the context, indeed not looking even at the summary of the papers, only leads one to cherry pick, precisely one big nono in issues like this one, it seem that some will continue to get the opposite point of what the researchers are saying by doing that.
I kind of lost interest in this thread a while ago. More accurately, I have other demands on my time that made this thread not a priority. I haven’t read it in its entirety. From what I have read, I don’t see where the confusion is.
Let’s say there are 12 hurricanes one year, and that two of them are Cat 4 and one of them is Cat 5. Some years later, there are 9 hurricanes. Two of them are Cat 5, and three of them are Cat 4. The number of hurricanes has decreased by 25%, but the number of Cat 4 and Cat 5 hurricanes has nearly doubled. ISTM that the point GIGObuster is making (or trying to make) is that there can be an increase in the number of stronger hurricanes even when there is a decrease in the total number of hurricanes.
Am I confused as to what the argument is, not having follwed the thread closely?
Another thing people don’t think about is human sprawl. 50 years ago the Moore tornado wouldn’t have hit nearly as many homes. 100 years ago, maybe none. Look at something like the DFW metroplex, St Louis, any of the large population centers in the middle of the continent. Tornadoes have been passing through these same places for centuries, only difference was there was no city there.
I do not doubt global warming at all. We are feeling it, but to a different end. The last 2 tornado seasons have been particularly dry here, hardly any rain, much less storms or tornadoes. My little town gets hit by a tornado every 10~15 years, I remember 1971, 1982, 1995 - we are probably about due for another. The 1995 was an F4, but so was the 1982. Not any increase in frequency or magnitude in my life so far.
In fact, the biggest tornado most people around here remember was in 1947.
Right. The claim was, by taking a fluky sample period where deaths from tornadoes were low, that a trend exists. My (our) refutation is, “oh look, a significant spike in deaths just counterbalanced your cherry-picked period.”
You’re confused: you relayed the quote in question – “This means that as sea temperatures continue to rise, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will inevitably increase.” And, when asked, you helpfully explained that, no, it doesn’t mean the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will inevitably increase.
Your explanation is the only ‘other quote’ I needed; I therefore requested it, you of course supplied it – and I naturally accept it as context.
Well, by all means, let’s put all the cards on the table.
As I understand it, your position is as follows: the number of tornadoes may well increase, or decrease, in years to come; neither would falsify your position, either is entirely consistent with it. And the number of hurricanes may well increase or decrease in years to come, likewise. And the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land won’t “inevitably increase” so much as “maybe go up, maybe go down, no one can say.”
Those events could all decline in number, and your position would endure; number is irrelevant, your point is that the intensity of such storms will increase.
So: if you’re completely incorrect, how and when will we know? At what point, years or decades from now, would we be able to look back and say, “Well, turns out GIGObuster had no idea what the heck he was talking about; the intensity held steady for a good long while and then fell right off, didn’t it?”
If you happen to be dead wrong – if your prediction of intensification proves utterly false – then what, at a minimum, would that failure look like?
Obviously you are even confused of who requested that, the reason why I requested you to find another quote from the climate scientists was to show you that the only way to make the quote say something different from what the researchers said was cherry picking, it avoided context, it is clear to all that that is indeed the case.
And no, there is no need to go further, you are incapable of realizing how silly it is now to claim that my quote is enough, you need to show that your interpretation was correct, or just say that indeed you are not capable of avoiding cherry picking, and as others noticed, the problem is in reality on how you apply your now broken toy falsification tool.
The quote you relayed: “This means that as sea temperatures continue to rise, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will inevitably increase.”
What you claim it means: as sea temperatures continue to rise, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land may well decrease.
I don’t disagree. You added that the author of the original quote should be faulted for clunky grammar, and I don’t disagree with that either.
Why are we still discussing this? We could, instead, be discussing stuff we actually disagree about. For example:
And I think the problem – yes, in reality – is your reluctance to spell out what would falsify your predictions about an increase in intensity.
So I’ll ask again: given that a decrease in the number of tornadoes wouldn’t falsify your position, and neither would a decrease in the number of hurricanes, and neither would a decrease in the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land – what, exactly, would falsify your position?
After an unnecessarily long delay, you eventually did this for warming. You can, after an unnecessarily long delay, do so once more for intensity. You can, again, name any criteria you like; just spell out what hypothetical evidence would, at a minimum, prove that the intensity isn’t increasing as predicted.
GIGO is simultaneously saying that the number of 4’s and 5’s will inevitably increase…AND at the exact same time…saying that you can’t put a number on the number of 4’s and 5’s over next X years because it’s really intensity that will increase, but the 4’s and 5’s will inevitably increase.
With all due respect Bo, there is simply no way anyone could read the posts in this thread and come to the conclusion you have come to.
GIGO’s responses to simple straightforward posts from Waldo have been ridiculously elusive and off on a tangent, bordering on not making any sense at all.
Summary:
GIGO: Number of 4’s and 5’s will inevitable increase
Waldo: Ok, please provide number over X years so we can confirm or deny
GIGO: I didn’t say the number would increase, I said intensity…but I also say the number of 4’s and 5’s will inevitably increase
Waldo: OK, how many 4’s and 5’s over next X years
GIGO: I said intensity
Waldo: your quote says number of 4’s and 5’s
GIGO: yes, number of 4’s and 5’s will inevitably increase
