Hurricane frequency and intensity at record low, despite Al Gore

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by TimBikes, Aug 20, 2011.

  1. icarus

    icarus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    4,884
    976
    0
    Location:
    earth
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Enough of the Piers Corbyn clap trap and his non peer reviewed "science"!

    Icarus
     
  2. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
    You dismiss validated outcomes,but you believe computer models which have been absolutely wrong for the past 12 years.
    ENOUGH is right.
    Do you realize how amazing it is to predict a hurricane 85 days ahead of time?
    The time,the location of origin ,the track?
    Its phenomenal.
    Your scientists are always wrong on predictions .
    Even 4 days out they are wrong much of the time .
    But you believe they can program a computer to predict 100 years from today?Even though the first 12 years are wrong you continue to believe the next 88 will be correct?
    You are GULLIBLE to put it politely.
    If your AGW "scientists" ever predicted anything correctly ,perhaps I would have some respect for the THEORY.
    But they have been wrong.Recent temps have not risen although CO2 levels have risen.
    The past 10,000 years temps were higher but CO2 was lower.










     
  3. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
    BTW peer review is for unproven hypothesis.

    You believe in peer reviewed hypothesis .
    I believe in proven observation.
    "Observation trumps hypothesis."
     
  4. drees

    drees Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    1,782
    247
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Vehicle:
    2008 Prius
    Only a hundred year storm resulting in widespread record flooding and widespread record rainfall (on top of a record wet month in many areas). No biggie. It's just weather. :p

    I can pretty clearly observe that Piers' web site reads more like a bad eBay auction than a professional's web site interested in actual science.
     
  5. cyclopathic

    cyclopathic Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2011
    3,292
    547
    0
    Location:
    2014 Prius c
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    It really depends on the scale; cruder predictions, less contradiction, YMMV

    so can we then dismiss Vostok ice cores, since they show this isn't the case and with a few exceptions the temperatures in past 10,000 years were lower then present?
     
  6. MontyTheEngineer

    MontyTheEngineer New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    63
    19
    0
    Location:
    Colorado
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    Did no one actually go and look at the Accumulated Cyclone Energy figures?

    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulated_cyclone_energy]Accumulated cyclone energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

    While the Pacific has been calmer than usual for 5 of the last 10 years, the Atlantic has been going crazy. 4 of the last 10 years have been classified "hyperactive" in the Atlantic, another 3 "above normal," 2 "normal," and only 1 "below normal."

    We've got 5 pages of arguing kicked off by people accepting the faulty premise that hurricane activity is all dying down, when most of it is just shifting from the Pacific to the Atlantic.
     
  7. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,625
    4,157
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Well he is a weather man, he doesn't predict in climatic time, and its for pay. We don't know how accurate he is because he cherry picks the data, since it has not been scrutinized. Part of your link says in August he predicted Irene would hit NY/NJ as a catagory 2, and was bigger than the catagory 1 prediction of government meterologist. The storm hit these areas as a tropical storm, 2 levels below your weather man's forecast.
    Note the fact that it mainly hit populated areas as a tropical storm, the blame that the storm is bigger than "before warming"

    Note the 1938 huricane hit these areas as a catagory 3 huricane. Those claiming these storms are getting much more intense and frequent seem to ignore most of the data and only look at 1970.

    All theories are unproven, even relativity. What these theories have is supporting data, and people that decide if the data is being used properly. AGW passes peer review. The theory that anthropomorphic climate change is resulting in more huricanes or more intense huricanes is not supported well in peer reviewed literature. Your guy doesn't even show all the predictions, so how can they be confirmed. The theory that they are more expensive is supported and Huricanes have gotten more expensive, and the universally understood explanation is more property has been built in areas likely to be hit by huricanes. The us and other world governments supports this building by providing insurance to those that are building in areas likely to be destroyed.
     
  8. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
  9. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    9,390
    3,637
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    Thanks for the pointer, mojo, I don't get to that journal as often as I should.

    I like this study because it uses a technique (optically stimulated luminescence) which we should see more of in the future. It works on material that cannot be dated by the more conventional isotopic decay. The uncertainty in the technique is relatively large in this study; I have seena few others report better. Not quite sure why though.


    Anyway, the report establishes that local storms at Ocacroke have been more or less intense during 2200 years. Their most recent sampled event was from the year 1880 +/- 20 years. As such, I don't see that it speaks to the question Atlantic whole basin storminess in the last 130 years. Do you?



    Thanks also for your implicit support of US funding for Earth system science research (in this case the US Geological Survey). We need more of that, not less.
     
    3 people like this.