Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[Tiberius]

16 hours ago, GaryPinC said:

Well, the hurricane hunters (Air Force Reserve unit) came to officially be in 1946, measuring hurricane speeds.   If you assume their measurement instrumentation was sound back then, and they investigated all hurricanes  (which is not a given considering the lack of satellites),  and they consistently checked hurricane speed as well as today then you have some facts:

 

-the longest duration of a category 5 was back in 1932.  Of course this was not official weather unit monitoring.

-Only in six seasons—1932, 1933, 1961, 2005, 2007 and 2017—has more than one Category 5 hurricane formed.

-Only in 2005 have more than two Category 5 hurricanes formed, and only in 2007 and 2017 did more than one make landfall at Category 5 strength.

-The years 2016 through 2019 are the longest sequence of consecutive years which all featured at least one Category 5 hurricane each.

-Officially, the decade with the most Category 5 hurricanes is 2000–2009, with eight Category 5 hurricanes having occurred.

-The previous decades with the most Category 5 hurricanes were the 1930s and 1960s, with six occurring between 1930 and 1939.  Of course this was not official weather unit monitoring during the 30s.

 

So, a legitimate argument can be made that they are increasing in intensity (partial points for you), but given the relatively short sampling record(reliably also!) I would say it's trending but about 10-20 more years are needed to fully validate this assertion.

Thanks, interesting stuff. 

 

Since you seem pretty informed about this, has the destruction increased because of hurricanes or is that just a result of growing populations in hurricane areas? From a non-scientific viewpoint, just eye balling it, it seems the destructive power is massive now. But I get people are flocking to these areas and that might not be the smartest move because sooner or later they are going to get hit in the south east. 

[SoCal Deek]

You people are insane. You’re looking at storm pattern records dating back 50 years for a planet that’s 3 Billion years old! That’s like saying that slight breeze you felt a few seconds ago is a precursor to a tornado. 

[GaryPinC]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Thanks, interesting stuff. 

 

Since you seem pretty informed about this, has the destruction increased because of hurricanes or is that just a result of growing populations in hurricane areas? From a non-scientific viewpoint, just eye balling it, it seems the destructive power is massive now. But I get people are flocking to these areas and that might not be the smartest move because sooner or later they are going to get hit in the south east. 

It would seem like both.  Saffir-Simpson wind scale (category 1-5) is pretty standard wind speed measures.  More major hurricanes is more destructive wind force.  The rest is us and our stuff being in the way.  Certainly coastal populations in the US have changed greatly in the last 100 years so I kind of put it on that.

[GaryPinC]

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

You people are insane. You’re looking at storm pattern records dating back 50 years for a planet that’s 3 Billion years old! That’s like saying that slight breeze you felt a few seconds ago is a precursor to a tornado. 

Sure, and in some cases records are over 100 years though spotty at best.  I don't care about conditions billions of years ago, I'm just trying to make sense of the data we have now.  The standardized data we've collected over the last 60+ years shows that at the moment the cyclical number of hurricanes isn't overall changing much but that we're seeing a few more major hurricanes.   It is entirely reasonable to argue hurricanes are increasing in intensity based on this data.   I'm not saying what will happen in the future, only what's been happening.

 

I'm not worried about attributing it to man's role in climate change, the planet has been in a warming trend, much like in the 1930's.  The hurricane activity in the 1930's wasn't due to AGW, just overall warming.  These days, regardless of the cause, we've been in a warming trend and the incidence of major hurricanes seems slightly upticked over the last 10-20 years while total number of hurricanes is not.

Give it 10-20 more years to see if the trend holds but certainly I don't believe it's just going to keep going up,up,up like some who are uninformed.  The balances of the planet will level things out.  And while man's behavior and pollution affects the planet I still don't see enough convincing evidence that we will overwhelm the planet within a short time frame (100 to 200 years).

[Tiberius]

8 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

Sure, and in some cases records are over 100 years though spotty at best.  I don't care about conditions billions of years ago, I'm just trying to make sense of the data we have now.  The standardized data we've collected over the last 60+ years shows that at the moment the cyclical number of hurricanes isn't overall changing much but that we're seeing a few more major hurricanes.   It is entirely reasonable to argue hurricanes are increasing in intensity based on this data.   I'm not saying what will happen in the future, only what's been happening.

 

I'm not worried about attributing it to man's role in climate change, the planet has been in a warming trend, much like in the 1930's.  The hurricane activity in the 1930's wasn't due to AGW, just overall warming.  These days, regardless of the cause, we've been in a warming trend and the incidence of major hurricanes seems slightly upticked over the last 10-20 years while total number of hurricanes is not.

Give it 10-20 more years to see if the trend holds but certainly I don't believe it's just going to keep going up,up,up like some who are uninformed.  The balances of the planet will level things out.  And while man's behavior and pollution affects the planet I still don't see enough convincing evidence that we will overwhelm the planet within a short time frame (100 to 200 years).

Sure hope you are right 

[3rdnlng]

Our perceived hurricane problem is due to air conditioners. Yes, air conditioners. Not that they necessarily contribute to the warming of waters (they might) but because they have allowed the South East part of our country and other areas to be populated in real numbers. The amount of people coupled with our advancement in technology just accentuates our awareness of the affect and damage done by these storms. Basically we were just ignorant previously while we are now "woke".  

[Gary M]

3 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Our perceived hurricane problem is due to air conditioners. Yes, air conditioners. Not that they necessarily contribute to the warming of waters (they might) but because they have allowed the South East part of our country and other areas to be populated in real numbers. The amount of people coupled with our advancement in technology just accentuates our awareness of the affect and damage done by these storms. Basically we were just ignorant previously while we are now "woke".  

 

I think that applies to droughts in southern California also.

[3rdnlng]

17 minutes ago, Gary M said:

 

I think that applies to droughts in southern California also.

Maybe so, but Southern California is nothing but an irrigated desert. Drought there is the norm, thus the need to bring down water from the mountains and divert it from elsewhere. The limited water supply is a major reason for the limited usable land and its high price.

[SoCal Deek]

4 hours ago, GaryPinC said:

Sure, and in some cases records are over 100 years though spotty at best.  I don't care about conditions billions of years ago, I'm just trying to make sense of the data we have now.  The standardized data we've collected over the last 60+ years shows that at the moment the cyclical number of hurricanes isn't overall changing much but that we're seeing a few more major hurricanes.   It is entirely reasonable to argue hurricanes are increasing in intensity based on this data.   I'm not saying what will happen in the future, only what's been happening.

 

I'm not worried about attributing it to man's role in climate change, the planet has been in a warming trend, much like in the 1930's.  The hurricane activity in the 1930's wasn't due to AGW, just overall warming.  These days, regardless of the cause, we've been in a warming trend and the incidence of major hurricanes seems slightly upticked over the last 10-20 years while total number of hurricanes is not.

Give it 10-20 more years to see if the trend holds but certainly I don't believe it's just going to keep going up,up,up like some who are uninformed.  The balances of the planet will level things out.  And while man's behavior and pollution affects the planet I still don't see enough convincing evidence that we will overwhelm the planet within a short time frame (100 to 200 years).

I’m not sure you grasp the statistical  problem here. If you flip a coin three BILLION times there are bound a few instances where heads comes up quite a few times in a row. It means absolutely nothing in the bigger picture of probability of things. 

[Gary M]

5 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Maybe so, but Southern California is nothing but an irrigated desert. Drought there is the norm, thus the need to bring down water from the mountains and divert it from elsewhere. The limited water supply is a major reason for the limited usable land and its high price.

 

Exactly, but more and more people moving there exacerbates the problem.

 

[SoCal Deek]

4 minutes ago, Gary M said:

 

Exactly, but more and more people moving there exacerbates the problem.

 

What problem are you referring to? It could be said that development in Southern California has actually caused millions of trees to be planted in what would otherwise have been arid shrub brush.

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

What problem are you referring to? It could be said that development in Southern California has actually caused millions of trees to be planted in what would otherwise have been arid shrub brush.

Yes, but there's no present way to get around the water problem. Even the San Joaquin Valley which is mainly in the north, has water issues. The state, in all its wisdom had a real dilemma with saving the Delta Smelt or giving water to the drought plagued breadbasket of our country in the recent drought.

[Gary M]

12 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Yes, but there's no present way to get around the water problem. Even the San Joaquin Valley which is mainly in the north, has water issues. The state, in all its wisdom had a real dilemma with saving the Delta Smelt or giving water to the drought plagued breadbasket of our country in the recent drought.

 

 

Screw the smelt, problem solved.

 

And I love smelt, deep fried in beer batter.

 

Edited September 10, 2019 by Gary M

[/dev/null]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

Yes, but there's no present way to get around the water problem. Even the San Joaquin Valley which is mainly in the north, has water issues. The state, in all its wisdom had a real dilemma with saving the Delta Smelt or giving water to the drought plagued breadbasket of our country in the recent drought.

 

He who Delta'd it, Smelt'd it

[keepthefaith]

11 hours ago, GaryPinC said:

Sure, and in some cases records are over 100 years though spotty at best.  I don't care about conditions billions of years ago, I'm just trying to make sense of the data we have now.  The standardized data we've collected over the last 60+ years shows that at the moment the cyclical number of hurricanes isn't overall changing much but that we're seeing a few more major hurricanes.   It is entirely reasonable to argue hurricanes are increasing in intensity based on this data.   I'm not saying what will happen in the future, only what's been happening.

 

I'm not worried about attributing it to man's role in climate change, the planet has been in a warming trend, much like in the 1930's.  The hurricane activity in the 1930's wasn't due to AGW, just overall warming.  These days, regardless of the cause, we've been in a warming trend and the incidence of major hurricanes seems slightly upticked over the last 10-20 years while total number of hurricanes is not.

Give it 10-20 more years to see if the trend holds but certainly I don't believe it's just going to keep going up,up,up like some who are uninformed.  The balances of the planet will level things out.  And while man's behavior and pollution affects the planet I still don't see enough convincing evidence that we will overwhelm the planet within a short time frame (100 to 200 years).

 

Well that's very optimistic with other "experts" only giving us 10.5 since the 12 year prediction of doomsday. 

[SoCal Deek]

Is it written somewhere that this big rock floating through space is supposed to stay the exact same temperature every year...forever? We in fact already know that the planet has changed temperatures many times in its history with no help or hinderance from man. This is utter nonsense science. It’s like seeing the first snowfall of the year and predicting an ice age. Oh wait....Spring showed up again, and again.

[B-Man]

 

[DC Tom]

42 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Please...let the French publicly condemn this.  

[KD in CA]

7 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Is it written somewhere that this big rock floating through space is supposed to stay the exact same temperature every year...forever? We in fact already know that the planet has changed temperatures many times in its history with no help or hinderance from man. This is utter nonsense science. It’s like seeing the first snowfall of the year and predicting an ice age. Oh wait....Spring showed up again, and again.

 

Yes.....but apparently only after first having the big rock's temperature fluctuate for 4.5 billion years .

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

 

Yes.....but apparently only after first having the big rock's temperature fluctuate for 4.5 billion years .

 

I'm always darkly amused by the irony of the global warming crowd's insistence that everything must stay as it always was, for ever and ever, and mankind is responsible for ensuring so, has far more in common with Christian creationism than it does modern science.