Data Shows No Change or Pattern in Hurricane Frequency Over Last 50 Years
- Thread starter wvkeeper(HN)
- Start date
I thought these storms were caused by God to punish us for the Liberals and gays.
That makes as much sense as coal mining and oil drilling causing hurricanes.
Worst hurricane in recorded history:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/natural-disasters/10-worst-hurricanes10.htm
Worst wildfire in history:
https://www.firesciencedegree.com/top-25-wildfires-of-all-time/
Worst flooding:
https://www.rankred.com/top-10-biggest-and-worst-floods-ever-in-history/
Worst drought:
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/worst-drought-famine
Worst tornado:
https://www.google.com/amp/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2015/12/151204-tornado-environment-display-el-reno-samaras-storm-science
Other than the tornado (which can partially be explained by the fact that means and methods of recording tornados are fairly modern), almost all of the "worst" from your stupid cartoon occurred before any at all, or any appreciable, man-made carbon emissions. Weird. It's almost as if weather - related disasters have been occurring since the dawn of recorded time. But that can't be right. Everyone knows they only happen because we use fossil fuels.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/natural-disasters/10-worst-hurricanes10.htm
Worst wildfire in history:
https://www.firesciencedegree.com/top-25-wildfires-of-all-time/
Worst flooding:
https://www.rankred.com/top-10-biggest-and-worst-floods-ever-in-history/
Worst drought:
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/worst-drought-famine
Worst tornado:
https://www.google.com/amp/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2015/12/151204-tornado-environment-display-el-reno-samaras-storm-science
Other than the tornado (which can partially be explained by the fact that means and methods of recording tornados are fairly modern), almost all of the "worst" from your stupid cartoon occurred before any at all, or any appreciable, man-made carbon emissions. Weird. It's almost as if weather - related disasters have been occurring since the dawn of recorded time. But that can't be right. Everyone knows they only happen because we use fossil fuels.
More people live in the coast and in places like Florida. Look at the population changes in places like Florida and the Carolinas since 1900. There ar no more hurricanes. Now we just have more tv, social media, and more people in typical effected areas.
Florida was a big swamp 70 years ago.
Florida was a big swamp 70 years ago.
Last edited:
Are you suggesting that God does not have control over the weather and does not punish us for our sins?
I'm glad you guys are celebrating the information that science has been telling you for the last 15 years. I can go back 15 years and provide numerous studies that suggest that frequency increase isn't an issue. I even said the same on this board in the last month prior to the Maue statement. What scientist have also said was that although the frequency might not change, due to rising temperature levels in the ocean, the severity of the Hurricanes will increase. And evidence shows that they have.
The question is...why would Ryan Maue be releasing information that only confirms what studies have been showing for 15 years as though it is some type of revelation? It's simple...Ryan Maue is employed by the Cato Institute...a foundation that was founded by Charles Koch. This already known information will create the end zone dancing on politically like minded people like we see on this thread as though they got some kind of confirmation for their previously held positions.
In the meantime, we're seeing a rise of storm intensity just as predicted. But...but...but...global warming.
The question is...why would Ryan Maue be releasing information that only confirms what studies have been showing for 15 years as though it is some type of revelation? It's simple...Ryan Maue is employed by the Cato Institute...a foundation that was founded by Charles Koch. This already known information will create the end zone dancing on politically like minded people like we see on this thread as though they got some kind of confirmation for their previously held positions.
In the meantime, we're seeing a rise of storm intensity just as predicted. But...but...but...global warming.
Provide the data that the hurricanes have got more severe. It is a cycle
As I said more people live in coastal areas. We have the weather, CNN, fox news, constant reporting on social media.
We all grew up in WV. We never paid any attention to hurricanes growing up. Now constant media.
What is the population changed in Florida since 1960? Myrtle Beach? Houston? North Carolina? New Orleans and we all knew it was a ticking time bomb and a cluster **** when the hurricane hit.
When a cat 2 used to hit Florida back in 1960 nobody other than those in Florida paid attention.
Worst ever hurricane to hit Florida was in 1935.
I say this as a person who has coastal property and didn't sleep last week because of Irma. Glad that bitch is gone
As I said more people live in coastal areas. We have the weather, CNN, fox news, constant reporting on social media.
We all grew up in WV. We never paid any attention to hurricanes growing up. Now constant media.
What is the population changed in Florida since 1960? Myrtle Beach? Houston? North Carolina? New Orleans and we all knew it was a ticking time bomb and a cluster **** when the hurricane hit.
When a cat 2 used to hit Florida back in 1960 nobody other than those in Florida paid attention.
Worst ever hurricane to hit Florida was in 1935.
I say this as a person who has coastal property and didn't sleep last week because of Irma. Glad that bitch is gone
And yet when I provided you evidence in the past that some of your "independent" sources were also funded by large liberal organizations....you left the thread.
"Intensity" measured by what? Property losses/claims ($$$$$$$) most likely being a large component of such studies?? No way we honestly know what the true "intensity" of a hurricane was hundreds of years ago.
Don't use logic and reason!!! They are obviously more intense now! I mean, c'mon man!!! Climate change!!! CO2!!! Of course they're worse!!! Algore and Leo told me so!!! Not to mention Beyonce'!!! And if there's anything that b*tch knows, its science!!!
Nice strawman. Who said that intensity was measured by property damage? I haven't read a credible scientific study that uses property damage as a measure of intensity. Of course there's more damage today because of the increase of population in hurricane areas. What scientist use to measure intensity is pressure, storm surge, the amount of water in the air, and sustained wind velocity. And almost every study shows that the intensity of storms are increasing. For example this NASA article sites numerous studies that show increase of intensity and water output...
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php
The whole property damage statement is as contrived as the frequency one. Absolutely no scientist is saying different and are actually the ones providing evidence to support your assertion.
But here we are using examples that aren't even argued and ignoring the real way they measure intensity and all of the examples that support an increase in it. And for what? So we can get a chorus of..."boom.roasted" ...from other people following the same false argument and ignoring the facts that do point in an increase in intensity.
None of which we have appreciable comparative data on extending back beyond the mid 1900s, at best. Has there been an increase in these things since the 90s? Data suggests so. However, even legit climatologists will admit that this is an insufficient sample size. Nor can other factors, such as normal ebb and flow of global temperature fluctuations, solar activity, etc. be ruled out as possible causes or contributing factors. In other words, the religion of climate change requires as much faith in the unseen and unknown as any other church in order to equate storm impact with man-made causes.
Intensity would be measured by barometric pressure, wind speed, storm surge minus tidal influence.
Irma did go Cat 5 in an odd location. One could compare water temps by year to get some idea of why, but to definitively declare "climate change" we would need to see storms over that area over many years and compare water temps and intensity. Still, the defining metrics for the US will be more influenced by water temps closer to the US and sea level changes...even a couple of inches makes a big difference with storm surge in a flat-assed place like Florida.
But as I said about Harvey, at a certain point there's no real difference in 140 and 145 mph winds...both are going to wreck your shit. A more important consideration would be changes in winds and climate change...will sheer be different in different places would be more important to frequency.
"None of which we have appreciable comparative data on extending back beyond the mid 1900s"...
But we do know temperatures prior to the 1900s. If we didn't you couldn't argue that it's happened before...
None of which we have appreciable comparative data on extending back beyond the mid 1900s
"Has there been an increase in these things since the 90s?"...
From above article linked...
Kerry Emanuel, a hurricane expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, developed a method to measure the total energy expended by tropical cyclones over their lifetimes. In 2005, he showed that Atlantic hurricanes are about 60 percent more powerful than they were in the 1970s. Storms lasted longer and their top wind speeds had increased by 25 percent. (Subsequent research has shown that the intensification may be related to differences between the temperature of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.)
"solar activity"...
We are in a quiet cycle of solar activity. I can site a million sources if needed.
If any of you care to look, there's a map online, that shows the percentage of people, by voting district, that believe in this global warming hoax. Pull it up, and then take a look at the Election map. It's astonishing just how much they match up to one another. Snowflakes on the west coast, and Northeast are big believers, and fans of Hillary.
However, I assume you would agree that temperature data, standing alone, is an insufficient basis on which to make the conclusion in question.
First, on what factors does Emanuel base his conclusions, i.e., what constitutes "power"? Second, I would imagine Emanuel is an outlier in his findings as most other studies, including those conducted by NASA, the GFDL, and others have concluded that (1) there simply isn't enough data to make a conclusive finding, and/or (2) upward trends are no where near the 60% cited by your study.
I agree. Not my best example. Isimply meant to point out that there are other factors and data that must be considered before making the leap of logic that climate change has created worse storms. Solar activity was a poor choice on my part.
I can't speak for ThunderCat, but I don't think temperature data is the information he's talking about. How reliable is data on hurricanes prior to 1940?
Which hurricanes were used for these studies to come to these conclusions?I would assume since man made climate change is based on climate models pre 1900's and earlier, that surely we have actual pressure readings, storm surge, etc of hurricanes pre 1950's?
Yes, this is true. But you have to understand....only those questioning the legitimacy of man made global warming are the political ideologues.
Correct. Nor was it listed by GK as one of the data points I quoted in the initial response. It was (apparently) a fallback since it is one of, if not the only, measurable(s) we have somewhat valid data for beyond the last century. Moreover, as I noted above, standing alone, air temperature tells us very little in this regard.
The water is the most dangerous thing IMO. The wind is of course dangerous, but the water is a bigger killer. See Harvey for the holy wow factor.
Take Hurricane Matthew for example last year. Hits SC as Cat 1(was a 5 out in the ocean at one point). NC is at the end of the trail but gets it worse than anybody(USA) in terms of flooding. And, it barely made landfall in NC just over Cape Fear. But, it sat and dumped rain.
Maybe you deniers need an electoral college system for global warming. How else are you going to overcome the fact that well over 90% of the world climate scientist as well as the majority of the world and an ever increasing percentage of US residents who believe in man's culpability. Here are several articles showing how US consensus is changing...
Recent Gallup poll shows that global warming concern is at a three decade high in the US...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/206030/global-warming-concern-three-decade-high.aspx
From the article...
"Sixty-eight percent of Americans -- the highest Gallup has recorded -- believe increases in Earth's temperatures over the last century are mainly due to the effects of pollution from human activities. Just 29% now attribute global warming to natural changes in the environment. These opinions were gathered prior to the Environmental Protection Agency chief, Scott Pruitt, saying he is not persuaded that human activity is a primary factor in global warming."
Also this article ...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...s-think-about-climate-change-in-six-maps.html
From the article...
"By NADJA POPOVICH, JOHN SCHWARTZ and TATIANA SCHLOSSBERG MARCH 21, 2017
Americans overwhelmingly believe that global warming is happening, and that carbon emissions should be scaled back. But fewer are sure that the changes will harm them personally. New data released by the Yale Program on Climate Communication gives the most detailed view yet of public opinion on global warming.
Americans want to restrict carbon emissions from coal power plants. The White House and Congress may do the opposite.
In every congressional district, a majority of adults supports limiting carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal-fired power plants. But many Republicans in Congress (and some Democrats) agree with President Trump, who this week may move to kill an Obama administration plan that would have scaled back the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Nationally, about seven in 10 Americans support regulating carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants — and 75 percent support regulating CO2 as a pollutant more generally. But lawmakers are unlikely to change direction soon."
You can go ahead and call people snowflakes and draw political parallels in the sand all you want. That just tells me that you have a greater desire to craft the argument in a way where you can believe this whole thing is being created by weak minded individuals who don't line up politically with yourself. In the meantime you are ignoring overwhelming scientific consensus and worldwide belief in that consensus by simply saying...hey...these are just Hillary lovers and idiot liberals. I'd argue that way myself if I was a denier. No way I'd argue on the field of science. I'd get my ass kicked by a snowflake.
"However, I assume you would agree that temperature data, standing alone, is an insufficient basis on which to make the conclusion in question. "
I'm not really following. You stated that we only have temperature data from back to the early 1900s. I gave evidence of proxy measures to determine past temperatures. Now you're saying that alone isn't enough to draw conclusion. So my question is...how can you use the argument that deniers always pull out..."This warming happened before man was even here...how could ithe man made activity?" How do you think we know it happened before? You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that it's happened before using the proxy measurements of science while simultaneously arguing that those same proxy measurements aren't enough.
As far as what Emanuel based the definition of power on...the very things I stated earlier and reiterated by Raoul...barometric pressure, wind velocity, and storm surge. And this isn't the in,y study concluding the same thing.
And the solar activity concession...man...that's refreshing. Not many people concede points on this board. My respects. And I get your point.
Not as reliable as it is today certainly. The advent of satellite data certainly changes the effectiveness of the data. But that doesn't make the data useless nor does it say we can't draw conclusions from it. But as I stated before and I'll repeat here...deniers have little problem with using the data when they say..."The earth has warmed before man was even in the picture." How do you think they know the earth has warmed in the past? The exact same proxy measures that support that are the exact same ones that are being questioned for reliability here. You can't believe the data is reliable when it supports your assertion and question it when it doesn't.
And that's either a blatant lie or you completely misread my statement. I quoted you saying:
No mention of temperature there. In direct response to this statement, I argued:
Not once did I say anything about temperature in my initial response - nor did you in your original premise.
You then brought up temperature in your reply to my response, which I readily agreed we have much better data for.
This entire post is irrelevant to the issue at hand - that is whether or not man- made climate change has had any appreciable impact on tropical cyclone frequency and/ or intensity.
The quoted post has to do with whether or not man-made climate change even exists. You have essentially "moved the goalpost" to argue a point that isn't even really being contested in this particular thread.
Lie? Why would I do that? I might of misunderstood your point, but I have no reason to lie. I don't need to. There's too much supporting data to have the need to resort to that. I guess I got the impression you were talking about temperature from this statement...
" normal ebb and flow of global temperature fluctuations..."
If not...my bad. I'm kind of going against a mountain of different points being thrown out and I'm fighting it alone. I don't mind, mind you. I'm enjoying the back and forth. But I'm not going to get into one if those "liar" and "moron" slinging things. It's not productive and shows it more personal than it is honest discourse. I have nothing personal against anyone here so I won't participate if that's where it's heading.
You're mixing up my direct reply to backward Michigan as addressing the content of the thread. It isn't. It's my response to his assertion that the "global warming hoax" belief falls along Hillary demographics and is a result of "snowflakes" buying into the sham. I simply pointed out that this isn't an issue of some gullible weak demographics of "Snowflakes on the west coast, and Northeast are big believers, and fans of Hillary."
My post is very relevant to his comments. He's insinuating that this is confined to a single demographic...Hillary voters. That couldn't be further from the truth. There's a world wide consensus of both scientist and citizens. If he can comment off topic I can respond.
That really isn't addressing global warming, but yeah...building on the ocean in hurricane prone areas...what could go wrong?
Well GK what caused the Galveston Hurricane in 1900? The 1935 Labor Day Hurricane or Hurricane Hazel in 54 or Camille in 69? The 1938 Hurricane hit the mid atlantic and northeast. 1928 Florida Hurricane? 1926 Miami Hurricane?
Katrina is considered the worst but not the strongest. The thing right in the worst possible area and New Orleans had an old failing system. Sandy was a huge superstorm, not the strongest but hit a massive population center.
Look up the worst hurricanes. We don't even have a real good history prior to 1900.
Katrina is considered the worst but not the strongest. The thing right in the worst possible area and New Orleans had an old failing system. Sandy was a huge superstorm, not the strongest but hit a massive population center.
Look up the worst hurricanes. We don't even have a real good history prior to 1900.
Similar threads
