3 ms·

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

by 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.
- 1123581321 7y ago
  Everyone in this discussion is vulnerable to that, including me. It’s better to just disagree based on cited weather data.
EdwardDiego 7y ago
You've only lived through nearly 1.5 climatic periods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate#Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate#Definition The plural of anecdote isn't data.
- kls 7y ago
  And I was not alive in the 1930's (absolutely the worst decade for major storms). But I know that things have not changes and they are certainly not more sever than the 1930's storms or for that matter the 1700's storms referenced in my families diaries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlantic_hurricanes_in_the_18th_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlantic_hurricanes_in... Those where the two generations that saw the most sever storms. I am sorry but it's going to take a lot more data that the fact that the Keys got hit by a Cat 4 and the Bahamas got hit by a CAT 5 right near the peak of a cycle to convince me that this is somehow irregular when I have seen it every 8-9-10 years of my life on interval. Especially when I absolutely know there is science behind the 9 year cycle and have lived thru it. The article does a disservice because I live in the Keys and I absolutely know for a fact that the exodus is due to affordable housing. I talk to locals every day that are leaving, not a single one has mentioned the storm as a reason other than the fact that affordable housing has gotten even more expensive. The article is false on it's face no if and's or buts about it.
  - EdwardDiego 7y ago
    > But I know that things have not changes and they are certainly not more sever than the 1930's storms or for that matter the 1700's storms referenced in my families diaries. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08471-z.epdf?author_access_token=_9OqacbRYOHwslEUu3098tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M9qdk4C5vdts5LWxw9W-qg0U_ub3N4DZI4Xtz-bIk9W9KfkC6fOfEiNNoy1twMvawPWEaScUWcLz_m8se4lob-OadIiDSYz68K3d5FuPgxOg%3D%3D https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08471-z.epdf?auth... > Both observed datasets show significant increases in tropical cyclone intensification rates in the Atlantic basin that are highly unusual compared to model-based estimates of internal climate variations. Our results suggest a detectable increase of Atlantic intensification rates with a positive contribution from anthropogenic forcing and reveal a need for more reliable data before detecting a robust trend at the global scale I'm not sure if you're expecting "Day After Tomorrow" sized storms or what, but the actual data points to changes in hurricane behaviour due to the warming climate.

by kls 7y ago

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.
1123581321 7y ago
Everyone in this discussion is vulnerable to that, including me. It’s better to just disagree based on cited weather data.

EdwardDiego 7y ago

You've only lived through nearly 1.5 climatic periods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate#Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate#Definition The plural of anecdote isn't data.

kls 7y ago
And I was not alive in the 1930's (absolutely the worst decade for major storms). But I know that things have not changes and they are certainly not more sever than the 1930's storms or for that matter the 1700's storms referenced in my families diaries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlantic_hurricanes_in_the_18th_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlantic_hurricanes_in... Those where the two generations that saw the most sever storms. I am sorry but it's going to take a lot more data that the fact that the Keys got hit by a Cat 4 and the Bahamas got hit by a CAT 5 right near the peak of a cycle to convince me that this is somehow irregular when I have seen it every 8-9-10 years of my life on interval. Especially when I absolutely know there is science behind the 9 year cycle and have lived thru it. The article does a disservice because I live in the Keys and I absolutely know for a fact that the exodus is due to affordable housing. I talk to locals every day that are leaving, not a single one has mentioned the storm as a reason other than the fact that affordable housing has gotten even more expensive. The article is false on it's face no if and's or buts about it.
- EdwardDiego 7y ago
  > But I know that things have not changes and they are certainly not more sever than the 1930's storms or for that matter the 1700's storms referenced in my families diaries. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08471-z.epdf?author_access_token=_9OqacbRYOHwslEUu3098tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M9qdk4C5vdts5LWxw9W-qg0U_ub3N4DZI4Xtz-bIk9W9KfkC6fOfEiNNoy1twMvawPWEaScUWcLz_m8se4lob-OadIiDSYz68K3d5FuPgxOg%3D%3D https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08471-z.epdf?auth... > Both observed datasets show significant increases in tropical cyclone intensification rates in the Atlantic basin that are highly unusual compared to model-based estimates of internal climate variations. Our results suggest a detectable increase of Atlantic intensification rates with a positive contribution from anthropogenic forcing and reveal a need for more reliable data before detecting a robust trend at the global scale I'm not sure if you're expecting "Day After Tomorrow" sized storms or what, but the actual data points to changes in hurricane behaviour due to the warming climate.