Gondwanaland
Well-known member
Oh boy, the utter irony of this statement.never ever said that, either.
Why the need to distort my views? Can't address what I actually say?
Oh boy, the utter irony of this statement.never ever said that, either.
Why the need to distort my views? Can't address what I actually say?
Escapes herOh boy, the utter irony of this statement.
This thread is about Ian. Nothing about your political issues.And a forum where posters believe that COVID vaccines are the deadliest poisons ever created. And that Putin is doing the will of god by invading Ukraine and slaughtering women and chldren. And that tens of millions of illegal votes were cast in the 2020 election, resulting in Biden illegally being declared President. And so on...
You claim to be an engineer, right?Ft Myers
Sanibel Causeway is busted up. Only road to Island with 6,000 residents. No ferry service. They can't clean up and rebuild because trucks can't go there.
America's Finest engineers will have road and bridge access in 30 days.
2 days ago. Tampa on the clean side.The point is that DeSantis is ignoring the things that could be done for mitigation or to protect the people and property in his state.
The science IS NOT clear on "man-made" climate change. Sorry friend, but this isn't the first hurricane to ever happen in Florida.
You trying to make it up?You claim to be an engineer, right?
For @vibise , again, the only reason your source's analysis did the 39 year with a cutoff in 79 was to game the data to fit their predetermined outcome.Vibise
Did you ever figure out why your source only did a 39 year analysis starting in 1979?
A little digging indicates to me it is likely because a longer analysis does not show the increase they are trying to claim.
Indeed a NOAA agrees and cites a Nature article from last year:
Who would have thought that not cherrypicking a tiny part of the data that can be manipulated to show an "increase" would end up showing no such increase?
OopsActually, yes, the science is clear on the fact that human activities are largely responsible for climate change.
And sure, this is not the first hurricane in FL, but:
Twitter feeds, even if accurate, leave much to be desired as studies. The two factoids you shared concern (1) frequency of landfall on the US, a useless metric for determining intensity, and (2) storms hitting Florida only. Again, this is a useless metric for determining intensity trends in the Atlantic basin. Here is the study I presented earlier that shows hurricane intensity is trending upward, at least in the Atlantic basin.
They're still learning.Using a homogeneous record, we were not able to corroborate the presence of upward trends in hurricane intensity over the past two decades in any basin other than the Atlantic. Since the Atlantic basin accounts for less than 15% of global hurricane activity, this result poses a challenge to hypotheses that directly relate globally increasing tropical SST to increases in long-term mean global hurricane intensity.
Let me remind you that you get all hot and bothered when someone, looking at your myriad RW views, describes you as a RWer.Because your brethren have been screeching against it for decades, my dear.
And you differ from your fellow RWers on some issues.You differ with your fellow libs then.
So why don't you write up your analysis and submit it for publication?@vibise
Did you ever figure out why your source only did a 39 year analysis starting in 1979?
A little digging indicates to me it is likely because a longer analysis does not show the increase they are trying to claim.
Indeed a NOAA agrees and cites a Nature article from last year:
Global Warming and Hurricanes – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
Contents Summary Statement Global Warming and Atlantic Hurricanes Statistical relationships between SSTs and hurricanes Analysis of century-scale Atlantic tropical storm and hurricane frequency Analysis of other observed Atlantic hurricane metrics Model simulations of greenhouse warming...www.gfdl.noaa.gov
Changes in Atlantic major hurricane frequency since the late-19th century - Nature Communications
How tropical cyclones have varied in intensity and frequency in the past is not well known as longer records are rare. Here, the authors show that changes in observing practices explain the recorded century scale increase in Atlantic major hurricane frequency, and recent increases are not part...www.nature.com
Who would have thought that not cherrypicking a tiny part of the data that can be manipulated to show an "increase" would end up showing no such increase?
Not addressing the content of the link, eh?So why don't you write up your analysis and submit it for publication?
Useless for determining intensity. Hmm, maybe that's what that P(hPa) is for... .Twitter feeds, even if accurate, leave much to be desired as studies. The two factoids you shared concern (1) frequency of landfall on the US, a useless metric for determining intensity, and (2) storms hitting Florida only. Again, this is a useless metric for determining intensity trends in the Atlantic basin. Here is the study I presented earlier that shows hurricane intensity is trending upward, at least in the Atlantic basin.
They're still learning.
In the Atlantic basin, yes, it's useless. How many hurricanes don't hit Florida? Those need to be included if you're tracking climate and not just Florida weather.Useless for determining intensity. Hmm, maybe that's what that P(hPa) is for... .
In the Atlantic basin, yes, it's useless. How many hurricanes don't hit Florida? Those need to be included if you're tracking climate and not just Florida weather.
Facts don't matter to the "climate change" fear mongers. One of the best I've seen is Meteorologist Joe Bastardi, he brings up historical facts just like you did. I mean really, has everyone forgotten already the lying that came from East Anglica University in England on this issue? First, they come up with the "science" in their heads, and then they manipulated the information to conform to their ideas.
Are you asking a question here?But tracking Atlantic basin weather is different.....
Typical. Come back when you can address the facts. I provided a peer reviewed study (and thus it's already been submitted and published so why would i need to?)and NOAA information that debunk the link you posted (without writing up your analysis and submitting it for publication, I note) that selectively cut its analysis at 1979 in order to make it look like an increase that isn't there.So why don't you write up your analysis and submit it for publication?