6 ms·

> they are not getting worse or more frequent NOAA data indicates otherwise: * https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/images/Atlantic_Storm_Count.jpg https://www.nhc.

> they are not getting worse or more frequent NOAA data indicates otherwise: * https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/images/Atlantic_Storm_Count.jpg https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/images/Atlantic_Storm_Count.j... * https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/ https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/ * https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/images/AtlanticStormTotalsTable.pdf https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/images/AtlanticStormTotalsTab...

kls 7y ago
according to the charts you linked to Hurricanes and Major Hurricanes (the only ones a person really needs to worry about) look pretty steady to me. It is well know that storm seasons peak and trough, on a roughly 10 year cycle. I remember the old timers telling me that long before meteorology could predict the weekly weather with any form of accuracy. We peaked in 2005 and hit bottom in 13 we are close to a peak again. I got hit by 4 hurricanes in 2005, it was a freak anomaly and I assume I will never see that again in my lifetime. Take named storms out of the equation, we literally drive around in those things. The north gets worse storms when they get their noreasters. They are of little to no concern other than they have the possibility to develop.
- not_kurt_godel 7y ago
  > it was a freak anomaly and I assume I will never see that again in my lifetime. Why do you believe this? The earth's climate is indisputably changing. This means that different patterns will be established than what was normal in the past. There are good reasons to believe that increasing ocean temperatures and higher ocean levels are likely to increase hurricane frequency, intensity, and destructiveness. Although the data we have so far isn't yet conclusive that this is happening currently, it's definitely suggestive and certainly consistent with said reasoning. Why do you think you know better?
  - kls 7y ago
    Because, I have for the past 44 years been in a hurricanes path on a pretty regular interval. It has not changes with the exception of a single year where I got hit by 4 of them. After that for the past 14 years it has returned to that interval where about once ever 8 years I either get winged or direct hit by a hurricane. Unfortunately the last one was a major hurricane. It's been 2 years so in about 6 I will get winged or hit again. It's like clockwork and has not changed and until it does I will accept that about every 8 years I have to deal with a storm.
    - nl 7y ago
      You realize you are suffering from the human "ability" to make patterns from things that aren't with this theory, right?
      - kls 7y ago
        Yep and I have also learned to not trust everyone that says the sky is falling and attribute every malty to some big bogey man. Let me remind you of the CRU corruption and various other scandals that have taken place in the quest for Cap and Trade. Real pollution is a far greater danger than AGW, I am not against the research into AGW and am not claiming that it does not exist what I am saying that has been proven with absolute certainly is that their are individuals using it as a scare tactic for financial gain, while there are far more immediate issues that we need to be concerned with, the ocean being the front and center issue, the poisoning of it is going to get us far before AGW does. As well I certainly contest that it has a hill of beans to do with Hurricanes or their severity. As the (as recorded by severity) worst seasons seen where almost 100 years ago.
        not_kurt_godel 7y ago
        > Let me remind you of the CRU corruption and various other scandals that have taken place in the quest for Cap and Trade. I'm not familiar with this particular "scandal" (whatever it may or may not be), but you are aware that fossil fuel corporations have been heavily funding climate denial for decades, no? Whether or not some people on one side or the other have engaged in dubious behavior is not the ultimate arbiter of truth. It's clear from your other posts that you have a vested personal interest in believing that you are safe from hurricanes and global warming. That's fine. I don't expect you'll change your position, for better or for worse. But surely you can at least acknowledge that changing ocean temperature may have some effect on hurricanes? If you deny that, how do explain how hurricanes work? Are they not intrinsically dependent on temperature differentials between water and air?
        kls 7y ago
        To be clear I am not a AGW denier, I agree just like there where vested interest in denying the link between cancer and tobacco there are industry interests in AGW not being a thing. That being said, fear mongering and predictions being made on unfounded research because we want them to be true actually plays right into those interests hands, hence the reference to the CRU. Here is a good paper, which states the facts without trying to attribute every disaster to AGW. You will note that they quickly distance themselves from any predictions being used by their study. Which is the right thing to do because we know, that the data does not lead to any other conclusion: https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/ https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/ Some quick excerpts, but you should read the article, it is the most logical stance one can take on climate change and it's relationship to hurricanes: >>Storm size responses to anthropogenic warming are uncertain. >>There is less confidence in future projections of the global number of Category 4 and 5 storms, since most modeling studies project a decrease (or little change) in the global frequency of all tropical cyclones combined. >>but these observed changes have not yet been confidently linked to anthropogenic climate change. Human activities may have already caused other changes in tropical cyclone activity that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of these changes compared to estimated natural variability, or due to observational limitations. >>We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there remains just a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. Statistical tests indicate that this trend is not significantly distinguishable from zero >> the reported numbers of hurricanes were sufficiently high during the 1860s-1880s that again there is no significant positive trend in numbers beginning from that era >>In short, the historical Atlantic hurricane frequency record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase. >>In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm activity support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic. Point being, we don't know, and it will be a long time before we do know. So claiming the sky is falling only leads to people rejecting the real science, because it gets blurred with agenda and advocacy. Which brings it full circle, as to why I replied to this article. Which was to let HN know that people are not leaving the keys in some mass climate exodus as the article implies. They are leaving because of some very real economic issues local to the keys. The article is false on it's face and a reporter could have spent a day in the keys, to find that out, but they did not want to. They already had a title for the article, now they just need to make the facts fit. As a person that has dedicated my life to the sciences, I find advocacy hidden behind science to be detestable. This climate change fear mongering is what is turning peoples ears off to real environmental issues. It's causing more damage than good as when the predictions don't manifest, you have lost them for good. The CRU got the EPA gutted and now we are seeing many hard won environmental battles, based on good science reversed due to the fact that their very support is being eroded with lies. The very people you are talking about that have a vested interest in denial, where quick to capitalize on the fact that more people where no longer listening, by going back and fighting old lost battles with new troops.
  - EdwardDiego 7y ago
    > There are good reasons to believe that increasing ocean temperatures and higher ocean levels are likely to increase hurricane frequency, intensity, and destructiveness. Actually, from my reading, it's a lot more complicated than that - I can't quite recall the scientific reasons why, but it's something to do with temperature gradients in the atmosphere, or wind patterns (I vaguely recall, very happy to be corrected) . But basically, the frequency of hurricanes overall might decrease, but the frequency of severe hurricanes will probably increase. > For the 21st century, some models project no change or a small reduction in the frequency of hurricanes, while others show an increase in frequency. More recent work shows a trade-off between intensity and frequency – that as warmer oceans bolster hurricane intensity, fewer storms actually form. For the continental United States in the Atlantic Basin, models project a 45-87 percent increase in the frequency of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes despite a possible decrease in the total frequency of all storms. https://www.c2es.org/content/hurricanes-and-climate-change/ https://www.c2es.org/content/hurricanes-and-climate-change/

kls 7y ago

according to the charts you linked to Hurricanes and Major Hurricanes (the only ones a person really needs to worry about) look pretty steady to me. It is well know that storm seasons peak and trough, on a roughly 10 year cycle. I remember the old timers telling me that long before meteorology could predict the weekly weather with any form of accuracy. We peaked in 2005 and hit bottom in 13 we are close to a peak again. I got hit by 4 hurricanes in 2005, it was a freak anomaly and I assume I will never see that again in my lifetime. Take named storms out of the equation, we literally drive around in those things. The north gets worse storms when they get their noreasters. They are of little to no concern other than they have the possibility to develop.

not_kurt_godel 7y ago
> it was a freak anomaly and I assume I will never see that again in my lifetime. Why do you believe this? The earth's climate is indisputably changing. This means that different patterns will be established than what was normal in the past. There are good reasons to believe that increasing ocean temperatures and higher ocean levels are likely to increase hurricane frequency, intensity, and destructiveness. Although the data we have so far isn't yet conclusive that this is happening currently, it's definitely suggestive and certainly consistent with said reasoning. Why do you think you know better?
- kls 7y ago
  Because, I have for the past 44 years been in a hurricanes path on a pretty regular interval. It has not changes with the exception of a single year where I got hit by 4 of them. After that for the past 14 years it has returned to that interval where about once ever 8 years I either get winged or direct hit by a hurricane. Unfortunately the last one was a major hurricane. It's been 2 years so in about 6 I will get winged or hit again. It's like clockwork and has not changed and until it does I will accept that about every 8 years I have to deal with a storm.
  - nl 7y ago
    You realize you are suffering from the human "ability" to make patterns from things that aren't with this theory, right?
    - kls 7y ago
      Yep and I have also learned to not trust everyone that says the sky is falling and attribute every malty to some big bogey man. Let me remind you of the CRU corruption and various other scandals that have taken place in the quest for Cap and Trade. Real pollution is a far greater danger than AGW, I am not against the research into AGW and am not claiming that it does not exist what I am saying that has been proven with absolute certainly is that their are individuals using it as a scare tactic for financial gain, while there are far more immediate issues that we need to be concerned with, the ocean being the front and center issue, the poisoning of it is going to get us far before AGW does. As well I certainly contest that it has a hill of beans to do with Hurricanes or their severity. As the (as recorded by severity) worst seasons seen where almost 100 years ago.
      - not_kurt_godel 7y ago
        > Let me remind you of the CRU corruption and various other scandals that have taken place in the quest for Cap and Trade. I'm not familiar with this particular "scandal" (whatever it may or may not be), but you are aware that fossil fuel corporations have been heavily funding climate denial for decades, no? Whether or not some people on one side or the other have engaged in dubious behavior is not the ultimate arbiter of truth. It's clear from your other posts that you have a vested personal interest in believing that you are safe from hurricanes and global warming. That's fine. I don't expect you'll change your position, for better or for worse. But surely you can at least acknowledge that changing ocean temperature may have some effect on hurricanes? If you deny that, how do explain how hurricanes work? Are they not intrinsically dependent on temperature differentials between water and air?
        kls 7y ago
        To be clear I am not a AGW denier, I agree just like there where vested interest in denying the link between cancer and tobacco there are industry interests in AGW not being a thing. That being said, fear mongering and predictions being made on unfounded research because we want them to be true actually plays right into those interests hands, hence the reference to the CRU. Here is a good paper, which states the facts without trying to attribute every disaster to AGW. You will note that they quickly distance themselves from any predictions being used by their study. Which is the right thing to do because we know, that the data does not lead to any other conclusion: https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/ https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/ Some quick excerpts, but you should read the article, it is the most logical stance one can take on climate change and it's relationship to hurricanes: >>Storm size responses to anthropogenic warming are uncertain. >>There is less confidence in future projections of the global number of Category 4 and 5 storms, since most modeling studies project a decrease (or little change) in the global frequency of all tropical cyclones combined. >>but these observed changes have not yet been confidently linked to anthropogenic climate change. Human activities may have already caused other changes in tropical cyclone activity that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of these changes compared to estimated natural variability, or due to observational limitations. >>We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there remains just a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. Statistical tests indicate that this trend is not significantly distinguishable from zero >> the reported numbers of hurricanes were sufficiently high during the 1860s-1880s that again there is no significant positive trend in numbers beginning from that era >>In short, the historical Atlantic hurricane frequency record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase. >>In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm activity support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic. Point being, we don't know, and it will be a long time before we do know. So claiming the sky is falling only leads to people rejecting the real science, because it gets blurred with agenda and advocacy. Which brings it full circle, as to why I replied to this article. Which was to let HN know that people are not leaving the keys in some mass climate exodus as the article implies. They are leaving because of some very real economic issues local to the keys. The article is false on it's face and a reporter could have spent a day in the keys, to find that out, but they did not want to. They already had a title for the article, now they just need to make the facts fit. As a person that has dedicated my life to the sciences, I find advocacy hidden behind science to be detestable. This climate change fear mongering is what is turning peoples ears off to real environmental issues. It's causing more damage than good as when the predictions don't manifest, you have lost them for good. The CRU got the EPA gutted and now we are seeing many hard won environmental battles, based on good science reversed due to the fact that their very support is being eroded with lies. The very people you are talking about that have a vested interest in denial, where quick to capitalize on the fact that more people where no longer listening, by going back and fighting old lost battles with new troops.
- EdwardDiego 7y ago
  > There are good reasons to believe that increasing ocean temperatures and higher ocean levels are likely to increase hurricane frequency, intensity, and destructiveness. Actually, from my reading, it's a lot more complicated than that - I can't quite recall the scientific reasons why, but it's something to do with temperature gradients in the atmosphere, or wind patterns (I vaguely recall, very happy to be corrected) . But basically, the frequency of hurricanes overall might decrease, but the frequency of severe hurricanes will probably increase. > For the 21st century, some models project no change or a small reduction in the frequency of hurricanes, while others show an increase in frequency. More recent work shows a trade-off between intensity and frequency – that as warmer oceans bolster hurricane intensity, fewer storms actually form. For the continental United States in the Atlantic Basin, models project a 45-87 percent increase in the frequency of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes despite a possible decrease in the total frequency of all storms. https://www.c2es.org/content/hurricanes-and-climate-change/ https://www.c2es.org/content/hurricanes-and-climate-change/