My Hurricane Ian Prediction

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Clean up.

It just hit me. electric cars. No way they can evacuate. 4 hours to charge?

The power will be out most places and petrol power will be at work doing cleanup.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
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...
This thread is about Ian. Nothing about your political issues.
 

Backup

Well-known member
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.
You claim to be an engineer, right?
 

Gondwanaland

Well-known member
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?
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.

Reality is quite different:

 

Michael R2

Well-known member
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.


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.
They're still learning.
 

vibise

Well-known member
Because your brethren have been screeching against it for decades, my dear.
Let me remind you that you get all hot and bothered when someone, looking at your myriad RW views, describes you as a RWer.

Just because I hold many LW views, I don't hold all of them.
 

vibise

Well-known member
@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?
So why don't you write up your analysis and submit it for publication?
 

Gondwanaland

Well-known member
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.
Useless for determining intensity. Hmm, maybe that's what that P(hPa) is for... .
 

Misfit

Well-known member
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.

1. The climate is changing, it always changes, that's what happens on planet earth.
2. I agree that there is "climate change", it just isn't man-made.
3. They can never answer the question about all the heating and cooling cycles that have happened on the earth before man was supposedly the #1 factor. In fact, they never, ever, bring that question to the fore. And we know why, and that is because it blows their "man-made climate change" hypothesis completely out of the water.
 

Gondwanaland

Well-known member
So why don't you write up your analysis and submit it for publication?
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 go read the information, write up your analysis, and come back when you can address the facts
 
Top