ADVERTISEMENT

Data Shows No Change or Pattern in Hurricane Frequency Over Last 50 Years

By the way ThunderCat (and Rox)...I see your point now on the hurricane data vs temperature. I was arguing the wrong tangent. I agree that Hurricane data wasn't as abundant a hundred years ago as it is today. I also agree that more data is needed to be totally certain if there's a causal relationship between storm intensity and global warming. But the data we do have certainly suggests that it's highly likely. And the data we've amassed since the 1970s certainly shows an increase in severity (according to the MIT study).

Our knowledge of physics tells us that when you add more energy to the system (rising ocean temperatures) that it will result in increased intensity of storms that are generated by...well...ocean temperatures. Also physics tells us that rising ocean temperatures will result in higher evaporation which puts more water in the air. Rising ocean temperature isn't in dispute. That's a direct measurement. So all of this energy needs to manifest itself somehow. The laws of thermodynamics tells us the energy just doesn't disappear.
 
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.


We know what caused all of the Hurricanes way back when herdman. We've known the answer before global warming was even argued. Hurricanes are created by the energy of warming oceans. That's not even arguable. We also know what the fuel of hurricanes are as well...water condensation resulting from the heating of the ocean. That's what creates all that wet stuff that falls out of the sky during a hurricane.

Now...ocean temperatures have increased since all of those hurricanes you've mentioned. You tell me. If hurricanes are formed by the energy of warming oceans...what happens when the oceans warm even more adding more energy to the equation?
 
How in the world were there 5 Sharknado movies? And more importantly...who are the people watching the movie to begin with? I haven't studied it yet but I'm sure global warming is involved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThunderCat98
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.

My apologies. That was an a$$hole response. I'm actually really enjoying the back and forth (mainly because I like to argue:D). There was no need for me to get snippy.
 
I suspect the same type of people and science that denies man made climate change also contended that smoking doesn't affect health and coal mining doesn't cause black lung.
Your comparing mans health with the health of our enviroment. If people believe coal can cause earth to burn can youn imagine the havoc that coal causes my lungs. People for climate change need to fight for miners black lung. Goverment claims it barely exists. They did improve the dust systems but even as late as 2010 I had days when at times i couldnt see my hand in front of my face. Bronchitis is something I have had one time and it was this summer. Dr said xrays showed that my black lung was showing its ugly face. Its scary when you cant catch your breath. Wonder if trump cut out regulations on breathing tests during physicals for employment? Would like to drill one day a week for 400 under the table. I do hundreds of curls a day with dumbells. I appear in much better shape than im in. Im not fat but Im no little runt am i extragreen.
 
We know what caused all of the Hurricanes way back when herdman. We've known the answer before global warming was even argued. Hurricanes are created by the energy of warming oceans. That's not even arguable. We also know what the fuel of hurricanes are as well...water condensation resulting from the heating of the ocean. That's what creates all that wet stuff that falls out of the sky during a hurricane.

Now...ocean temperatures have increased since all of those hurricanes you've mentioned. You tell me. If hurricanes are formed by the energy of warming oceans...what happens when the oceans warm even more adding more energy to the equation?
The problem is nobody knows what happened prior to 1850 and between 1850 and aboout 1900 the data is sketchy. My contention is the storms might be slightly stronger at best(debatable) but the reason there is the sounding of alarms is because more people live in areas affected and we have constant coverage and Joe Cantore on tv 24/7

I don't care about global warming. When you get a Cape Verde Hurricane like Irma in early to mid September and that ridge pushing it down it is going to be a bitch of a storm. Then it gets on that warm Caribbean water(regardless of global warming) it is going to screw some stuff up. Whether that be in 1817 or 2017.

Harvey got stuck between two systems and sat there on a city(area) built below or at sea level with 6 million people.

All these smart people can't tell us what the net effect is? Would Irma have had 182 mph winds instead of 187? Harvey would have dumpted 48 inches of rain instead of 50? What?
 
Last edited:
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.

Storm surge and flooding kill the most people, for sure. Harvey was blocked by a high pressure ridge, that's why it sat there. We had beautiful weather here while Houston was getting 50 inches of rain.
 
All these smart people can't tell us what the net effect is? Would Irma have had 182 mph winds instead of 187? Harvey would have dumpted 48 inches of rain instead of 50? What?

Somewhere out there is someone that ran a model and inputted different water temps. But I am not going to waste my time looking for it.

I don't understand why people cannot concede climate change is real, Cat 1's are not suddenly becoming Cat 5's, and even without climate change a big hurricane is wrecking your shit. That goes for both sides. Hurricanes are the least of my concerns with climate change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThunderCat98
Somewhere out there is someone that ran a model and inputted different water temps. But I am not going to waste my time looking for it.

I don't understand why people cannot concede climate change is real, Cat 1's are not suddenly becoming Cat 5's, and even without climate change a big hurricane is wrecking your shit. That goes for both sides. Hurricanes are the least of my concerns with climate change.
I saw something and they said it best(if it changed it) it was perhaps a 2% -11% difference but could not be validated.

Here is the deal with climate change in my book. Is it real? Yehh, but I believe it is more cyclical in nature and the man made effect is way overblown and perhaps to the level of scare tactics and fraud.
 
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.
surely you must know that any left wing news site is to never be questioned.LOL
 
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.
I would say that there is no world wide consensus on this subject. I don't like to debate this because I am not a scientist. However, I have read viewpoints different from the current view held by the social elites and have reservations. I do like the debate because I think it is needed. I always cringe when I hear people say it is already decided on any subject when their are millions who have a different view. Calling people names and assigning people to extreme camps for holding a view seem to me to do no justice to the advancement of truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThunderCat98
I saw something and they said it best(if it changed it) it was perhaps a 2% -11% difference but could not be validated.

Here is the deal with climate change in my book. Is it real? Yehh, but I believe it is more cyclical in nature and the man made effect is way overblown and perhaps to the level of scare tactics and fraud.


I tend to agree with this view as well. That climate change is indeed cyclical, history proves that. But the population growth and advancement of man has contributed in some ways.
 
I don't have any doubt that man-made carbon emissions impact the environment in a negative way. It's the extent and nature of this impact that I question.

When you take into account the numerous cases of data manipulation; the trend of ever-changing predictions (like cities disappearing into the sea and all the ice melting in the poles) that never come to fruition; and man's inherent belief that he is more important/impactful to the Earth as a whole than he really is, I believe healthy skepticism is necessary in this dialogue. This is especially true in light of the cult-like status many climate change believers project.
 
I would say that there is no world wide consensus on this subject. I don't like to debate this because I am not a scientist. However, I have read viewpoints different from the current view held by the social elites and have reservations. I do like the debate because I think it is needed. I always cringe when I hear people say it is already decided on any subject when their are millions who have a different view. Calling people names and assigning people to extreme camps for holding a view seem to me to do no justice to the advancement of truth.

If you take a look at worldwide polling data, there is a consensus and it isn't even close enough to make it debateable. The US has consistently lagged behind the rest of the world as far as the percentage that acknowledge GW and those who attribute it to man made activity. However, the recent polling shows that the number of people both concerned and attributing it to man made activity in the US is increasing and now hold the majority view. I've linked the Gallup Poll, but if you take just a few minutes to google the issue you can easily see that there is a ton of polling data and information that verifies that fact.

I agree it needs debated, but that doesn't mean we can give equal weight to the statement that, "I would say that there is no world wide consensus on this subject," when clearly there is. Just because there are still people saying the earth is flat, doesn't mean it's up for debate. The consensus among climate scientist worldwide exceed 90%. There is also an overwhelming consensus worldwide of citizens and a growing consensus in the US who believe the same. For someone to say different means they are ignoring what is published on that or you haven't looked into it.

The thing that sells me most is the worldwide climate scientist consensus. How many on here have had outsiders comment on your job? Many times the things they say are so far off base and not rooted in reality it's fascinating how off track their opinion is. Kind of like people commenting on coaching decisions. Some of the comments, if viewed from the position of an experienced coach, is so far off base and out of touch that I'm sure it's frustrating for the coaches.

That's true about other professions as well. Climate science is no different. Just this thread alone was started with the presentation of a tweet about how the frequency of storms haven't increased. Well scientist have been saying that for 15 years but that doesn't stop a bunch of people from end zone dancing and believing it actually validated some kind of slam against climate change believers. The point is, that the climate scientist know more than we do. There are too many of them spanning countries worldwide and crossing international politics for it to be credibly believed that there is some kind of lockstep March to bilk funding dollars. It would be the greatest conspiracy in history. Yet this very large group representing different international governments and interest believe in man's culpability by far greater than 90%. To not give that credibility is willfully ignoring overwhelming consensus from the very people who know more than anyone else about the matter.
 
You mean coal companies claim it barely exists?
Its a bad situation when the goverment and coal companies both working together against you. I bet i will die from it and my wife will get my black lung after I die. Grandma got grandpa's 6 yrs after he died. Robert Byrd made one phone call and she got it. Just kick the miners to the curb. Why couldnt all those jobs they put in california to produce ways for clean energy been put in wv and ky. Biggest new industry out there. Thousands of people put to work.. Making turbines and wind mills and solar panels. Miners would have been cheaper than those sissy boys in california to put to work. Other options,,, 100 female pot plants. Half a pound to each plant. 1300 × 100 == 130,000. Thats 1300 for half a pound. 25 different plots with 4plants in each one. 4 plants is the same as jaywalking. A man can get by
 
If you take a look at worldwide polling data, there is a consensus and it isn't even close enough to make it debateable. The US has consistently lagged behind the rest of the world as far as the percentage that acknowledge GW and those who attribute it to man made activity. However, the recent polling shows that the number of people both concerned and attributing it to man made activity in the US is increasing and now hold the majority view. I've linked the Gallup Poll, but if you take just a few minutes to google the issue you can easily see that there is a ton of polling data and information that verifies that fact.

I agree it needs debated, but that doesn't mean we can give equal weight to the statement that, "I would say that there is no world wide consensus on this subject," when clearly there is. Just because there are still people saying the earth is flat, doesn't mean it's up for debate. The consensus among climate scientist worldwide exceed 90%. There is also an overwhelming consensus worldwide of citizens and a growing consensus in the US who believe the same. For someone to say different means they are ignoring what is published on that or you haven't looked into it.

The thing that sells me most is the worldwide climate scientist consensus. How many on here have had outsiders comment on your job? Many times the things they say are so far off base and not rooted in reality it's fascinating how off track their opinion is. Kind of like people commenting on coaching decisions. Some of the comments, if viewed from the position of an experienced coach, is so far off base and out of touch that I'm sure it's frustrating for the coaches.

That's true about other professions as well. Climate science is no different. Just this thread alone was started with the presentation of a tweet about how the frequency of storms haven't increased. Well scientist have been saying that for 15 years but that doesn't stop a bunch of people from end zone dancing and believing it actually validated some kind of slam against climate change believers. The point is, that the climate scientist know more than we do. There are too many of them spanning countries worldwide and crossing international politics for it to be credibly believed that there is some kind of lockstep March to bilk funding dollars. It would be the greatest conspiracy in history. Yet this very large group representing different international governments and interest believe in man's culpability by far greater than 90%. To not give that credibility is willfully ignoring overwhelming consensus from the very people who know more than anyone else about the matter.
okay like I said I dont agree their is a consensus at all. here are some articles from some conservative mags etc. It doesn't necessarily prove they are right, it does say that many people dont agree with your assessment that everyone agrees with you... far from it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexep...e-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#2ef219b13f9f

here is another one and there are plenty others.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/05/lets-talk-about-the-97-consensus-on-global-warming/

let’s talk about the 2013 study led by Australian researcher John Cook claiming there’s a 97 percent consensus on global warming.

What Does The ‘Consensus’ Really Mean?

Cook and his colleagues set out to show just how much scientists agreed that humans contribute to global warming.

To do this, Cook analyzed the abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published between 1991 and 2011 to see what position they took on human influence on the climate.

Of those papers, just over 66 percent, or 7,930, took no position on man-made global warming. Only 32.6 percent, or 3,896, of peer-reviewed papers, endorsed the “consensus” that humans contribute to global warming, while just 1 percent of papers either rejected that position or were uncertain about it.

Cook goes on to claim that of those papers taking a position on global warming (either explicitly or implicitly), 97.1 percent agreed that humans to some degree contribute to global warming.

In terms of peer-reviewed papers, the “97 percent consensus” is really the “32.6 percent consensus” if all the studies reviewed are taken into account.

But Cook also invited the authors of these papers to rate their endorsement of the “consensus.” Cook emailed 8,574 authors to self-rate their papers, of which only 1,189 authors self-rated 2,142 papers.

Again, 35.5 percent, or 761, of those self-rated papers took no position on the cause of global warming. Some 62.7 percent, or 1,342, of those papers endorsed the global warming “consensus,” while 1.8 percent, or 39, self-rated papers rejected it.

Twisting the numbers a bit, Cook concludes that 97.2 percent (1,342 of 1,381) of the self-rated papers with a position on global warming endorsed the idea humans were contributing to it.
 
Its a bad situation when the goverment and coal companies both working together against you. I bet i will die from it and my wife will get my black lung after I die. Grandma got grandpa's 6 yrs after he died. Robert Byrd made one phone call and she got it. Just kick the miners to the curb. Why couldnt all those jobs they put in california to produce ways for clean energy been put in wv and ky. Biggest new industry out there. Thousands of people put to work.. Making turbines and wind mills and solar panels. Miners would have been cheaper than those sissy boys in california to put to work. Other options,,, 100 female pot plants. Half a pound to each plant. 1300 × 100 == 130,000. Thats 1300 for half a pound. 25 different plots with 4plants in each one. 4 plants is the same as jaywalking. A man can get by

How is the government working against people who have black lung? Where are you getting the "Goverment claims it barely exists" information?
 
okay like I said I dont agree their is a consensus at all. here are some articles from some conservative mags etc. It doesn't necessarily prove they are right, it does say that many people dont agree with your assessment that everyone agrees with you... far from it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexep...e-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#2ef219b13f9f

here is another one and there are plenty others.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/05/lets-talk-about-the-97-consensus-on-global-warming/

let’s talk about the 2013 study led by Australian researcher John Cook claiming there’s a 97 percent consensus on global warming.

What Does The ‘Consensus’ Really Mean?

Cook and his colleagues set out to show just how much scientists agreed that humans contribute to global warming.

To do this, Cook analyzed the abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published between 1991 and 2011 to see what position they took on human influence on the climate.

Of those papers, just over 66 percent, or 7,930, took no position on man-made global warming. Only 32.6 percent, or 3,896, of peer-reviewed papers, endorsed the “consensus” that humans contribute to global warming, while just 1 percent of papers either rejected that position or were uncertain about it.

Cook goes on to claim that of those papers taking a position on global warming (either explicitly or implicitly), 97.1 percent agreed that humans to some degree contribute to global warming.

In terms of peer-reviewed papers, the “97 percent consensus” is really the “32.6 percent consensus” if all the studies reviewed are taken into account.

But Cook also invited the authors of these papers to rate their endorsement of the “consensus.” Cook emailed 8,574 authors to self-rate their papers, of which only 1,189 authors self-rated 2,142 papers.

Again, 35.5 percent, or 761, of those self-rated papers took no position on the cause of global warming. Some 62.7 percent, or 1,342, of those papers endorsed the global warming “consensus,” while 1.8 percent, or 39, self-rated papers rejected it.

Twisting the numbers a bit, Cook concludes that 97.2 percent (1,342 of 1,381) of the self-rated papers with a position on global warming endorsed the idea humans were contributing to it.


Here's the rebuttal...


https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm
 
Also, Ohio...just so you know the background of Alex Epstein, the author of the Forbes article, here's a bio...


"Alex Epstein is the director of the Center for Industrial Progress (CIP), a for-profit think tank he founded in 2011. Its mission is to “inspire Americans to embrace industrial progress as a cultural ideal.” Epstein is also a blogger at Master Resource, a “Free Market Energy Blog,” and a past fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute, an organization that has received funding from the Koch Foundations amounting to $100,000 between 2005 and 2011. [3]

“As the Founder and the Director of the Center for Industrial Progress, I make it my job to educate the public about the incredibly positive role energy and industry, particularly the oil industry, play in their lives,” Epstein wrote at CIP. [4]"


And this...



Alex Epstein's Center for Industrial Progress was listed among organizations named in a Massachusetts subpoena looking for communications between ExxonMobil and organizations denying climate change, reports The Washington Times. [43]

Epstein's response, writes The Washington Times, was“Buzz off, fascist. […] Only he didn’t say 'buzz.'” Epstein posted his response on Twitter (see screenshot below):



Organizations named in the Massachusetts subpoena included the following: [43]

This latest inquiry by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey is one in a series of investigations into what ExxonMobil knew about climate change and when, started by a coalition of attorneys general in the US. [44]
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT