Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 5
Hurricanes Displaying Explosive Growth Due To Rising Water Temperatures – Hurricane Michael, one of the four strongest hurricanes to ever hit the U.S. mainland (the others were Andrew in 1992, Camille in 1969 and the 1935 Labor Day hurricane), will be remembered for how it grew from Category 1 to Category 4 within 24 hours. All of the worst hurricanes of the past two years (Harvey, Irma, Maria, Florence and Michael) have displayed such rapid strengthening. A story in the Washington Post on October 12th explains why and adds this observation: “Climate scientists have begun to focus on hurricane rapid intensification as an increasingly prevalent feature in the world we’re entering. Simply put, with warmer seas, storms ought to be able to pull this off more often. In a recent study in the Journal of Climate, researchers found more rapid intensifications in a simulation of a human-warmed world, and also that this would prove a key pathway toward more intense hurricanes in general.” Source: Washington Post.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Hurricanes Displaying Explosive Growth Due To Rising Water Temperatures

This is Fake News because Hurricane data do not show explosive growth.

1. This is the Atlantic Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) going back some 70 years to 1950 and it does not "Display Explosive Growth Due To Rising Water Temperatures." If anything, it displays a decline the last 22 years. https://www.investors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/NAT_ace...

2. This is the Pacific Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) going back some 50 years to 1970 and it does not "Display Explosive Growth Due To Rising Water Temperatures." If anything, it displays a decline the last 25 years. https://www.investors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/EPAC_ac...


"Climate scientists have begun to focus on hurricane rapid intensification as an increasingly prevalent feature in the world we’re entering...

This is fiction - the data do not show such a thing!


researchers found more rapid intensifications in a simulation of a human-warmed world, and also that this would prove a key pathway toward more intense hurricanes in general." Source: Washington Post.

The result of a simulation is not data. And if the result of a simulation contradicts actual data, then your theory is wrong and needs to be thrown out. Instead, you have the Washington Post publishing this garbage as if it is real. The problem with your so-called Climate Scientists, is that they don't bother to look at the actual data and they are publishing Fake News in an effort to support the fraud of Global Warming. That is why this so-called Climate Science is the only science that contradicts the laws of physics and all the other sciences put together!

More from "Despite What You've Heard, Global Warming Isn't Making Weather More Extreme" at: https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/despite-what-y...


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
It should be noted that in their report that came out this month (October 2018) the IPCC wrote that:
"there is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades....There is consequently low confidence in the larger number of studies reporting increasing trends in the global number of very intense cyclones."

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
More from "Despite What You've Heard, Global Warming Isn't Making Weather More Extreme"

=======================================================================

Little ajax uses IBD as a science reference. That is like someone using Donald Duck comics to teach world literature.

LOL!

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It should be noted that in their report that came out this month (October 2018) the IPCC wrote that:
"there is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades....There is consequently low confidence in the larger number of studies reporting increasing trends in the global number of very intense cyclones."

============================================

Yep it came out before the huge global cyclones in October 2018. They need to revise their report.

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
the IPCC wrote that:
"there is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades....There is consequently low confidence in the larger number of studies reporting increasing trends in the global number of very intense cyclones."
====
Yep it came out before the huge global cyclones in October 2018. They need to revise their report.


Do you think that one month changes four decades of data?

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
"Yep it came out before the huge global cyclones in October 2018. They need to revise their report."

Nothing new here. Cyclones happen in the east.

Hurricanes happen in the US.

For the past 10 years, hurricanes are way below normal - ones that hit the US. More built up shores get clobbered, naturally, than decades ago before massive new construction along the coasts. Plus, obviously, the 'value' of stuff goes up with inflation so you got more and more expensive. so a storm hits and it's 'record damage'. Duh......simple math. Not really folks.


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This kind of argument, whether we are actually seeing an affect on storms, is a fine academic exercise but not really useful.

What we do know is that during rapid climate change weather will less predictable. The models, based on years of observation, stop working.

So meteorologist weren't sure whether Michael would be a minor hurricane or a major one until 24 hours before it hit land. They knew the Gulf was hot, but weren't sure whether the usual sheering force winds would show up. The jet stream has become loopy and not reliable. That is the sort of thing that we'll see more of in the future, more uncertainty.

What that means is that we have to be more conservative in our planning, since we don't know what to expect.


Anyhow, I personally have no plans to invest in beachfront real estate.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
"What that means is that we have to be more conservative in our planning, since we don't know what to expect."

You see the house that survived on Mexico Beach? Designed to withstand hurricane force winds? Cable tied down roof, concrete walls, up on stilts to withstand flood surge. Next to no damage. Most decent housing in the Caribbean is built to withstand 150 mph winds...and do......

Meanwhile, with tax payer subsidized flood/hurricane insurance.....people here build wood houses designed to fly apart at 120 mph winds.......

Others built on the ground? gone.....but that is normal......

Yeah, we need to built better if we are going to continue to build on 'beaches' 300 feet from the ocean.

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
ajax uses IBD as a science reference. That is like someone using Donald Duck comics to teach world literature. LOL! jaagu

Imagine that. Using the Investor's Business Daily as a reference - and this in a Financial forum of all places! Or for that matter, listening to the advice of Berkshire’s CEO, Warren Buffett - one of the most successful investors...

"We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them," he said. "They don’t make sense without the tax credit." http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436228/wind-energy-sub...

The fact remains jaagu. There is no science behind Climate Science and Global Warming is the greatest fraud of all time.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Imagine that. Using the Investor's Business Daily as a reference - and this in a Financial forum of all places! Or for that matter, listening to the advice of Berkshire?s CEO, Warren Buffett - one of the most successful investors...

===================

No this is the climate change forum.

Using National Review to backup IBD's bogus science is like using Mickey Mouse comic to vouch for Donald Duck comic on science.

Warren Buffet's statement on wind subsidies in 2014 is old and he no longer makes those claims.

Warren Buffet knows that unsubsidized wind, solar and natural gas are the cheapest in levelized cost of electrical energy now.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
ajax uses IBD as a science reference. That is like someone using Donald Duck comics to teach world literature. LOL! jaagu

The Investor's Business Daily is using NOAA data. And NOAA data show that Hurricanes are not Displaying Explosive Growth Due To Rising Water Temperatures. Are NOAA data "Donald Duck comics" for you jaagu?

Here are some more NOAA data showing that "US Hurricanes Have Plummeted As CO2 Has Risen." https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/us-hurricanes...

Bottom line: The claim in the OP that Hurricanes are "Displaying Explosive Growth Due To Rising Water Temperatures" is bunk.


Warren Buffet's statement on wind subsidies in 2014 is old and he no longer makes those claims.

So you are admitting that wind energy was a fraud up until 2014? And what happened in 2014, did the wind start blowing 24/7 and it is now a viable source of energy?


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I rarely have reason to rec a post by a denier on this board. At least DB2 cited the IPCC as an authority rather than summarily dismiss the science just because it contradicts his ideology like ajax and his merry band of reality deniers.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
I rarely have reason to rec a post by a denier on this board. At least DB2 cited the IPCC as an authority rather than summarily dismiss the science...

Thank you -- I think. At any rate, I'm not a denier of AGW. What I'm not on board with is CAGW (the C stands for catastrophic).

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I rarely have reason to rec a post by a denier on this board. At least DB2 cited the IPCC as an authority rather than summarily dismiss the science just because it contradicts his ideology like ajax and his merry band of reality deniers.

I gave you data from NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Are you saying that the scientists at NOAA are deniers, if not, what are you talking about?

Or... heh... are you just a zealot who refuses to see the light no matter what?

Given that what you have in front of you are the data from NOAA, then what part of the "Hurricane data do not show explosive growth" don't you understand? Is this difficult for you to grasp?

By the same token, what part of what was posted in the OP is Fake News don't you understand? What was posted is contradicted by the data from NOAA - is that rocket science to look at the data and decide for yourself? Is it?

And you are posting this nonsense in a financial forum of all places?


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Warren Buffet's statement on wind subsidies in 2014 is old and he no longer makes those claims.

So you are admitting that wind energy was a fraud up until 2014? And what happened in 2014, did the wind start blowing 24/7 and it is now a viable source of energy?

=============================================================

Wind was never a fraud. Wind energy was given a boost to get it going just like coal, natural gas and nuclear got federal and state boosts to get them going.

You sure do not know your history of energy subsidies.

Stop your rant against wind - you are being dishonest. Wind is doing great - there is more wind energy being built in the USA than coal or nuclear energy. Wind is also being built all over the world.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Wind was never a fraud.

Is that why Spain went bankrupt subsidizing wind and solar renewables?

I asked Professor Calzada about... Spain's green energy program... His conclusion, backed up by data and facts not blind hope, is that 2.2 jobs are lost for each one "created" by... green energy... https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/09/obama_green...


Stop your rant against wind - you are being dishonest.

South Australia installed a lot of wind power and they now have the most expensive electricity on the planet - $0.50 per kwh.

Australian electricity costs rise six times faster than wages - up another 12%... Average wholesale energy prices in Victoria and South Australia have more than doubled since this time last year, as experts warn that blackouts and supply issues are likely to increase as state governments chase ­aggressive ­renewable energy ­targets. http://joannenova.com.au/2018/01/mystery-australian-electric...

And according to Berkshire’s CEO, Warren Buffett: "We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them," he said. "They don’t make sense without the tax credit." http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436228/wind-energy-sub...


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Little ajax has to search high and low for some response because he has lost all his arguments so far.

So the only thing little ajax finds is an outdated 2011 article from a comic book called americanthinker (which is worse than his previous comics call IBD and National Review) which claims that Spain is bankrupt. Spain is no more bankrupt than France, Germany or England.

Little ajax is so desperate for a response that he again uses the same 2014 Warren Buffet quote that I told him is no longer true earlier on this thread.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
jaagu is already one of your Ignored Fools.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Little ajax

When you have facts, use facts. When all you have is names to call, call names.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
When you have facts, use facts. When all you have is names to call, call names.

==========================

I won every argument with real facts. But little ajax just keeps on spouting the same old garbage based on his comic book arguments. So I get tired on using only facts -- now I use facts and name calling.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
What jaagu should have said:

ajax won every argument with real facts. But I just kept on spouting the same old garbage based on my comic book arguments. So I get tired on using only comic book facts -- now I use comic book facts and name calling.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
ajax won every argument with real facts.

=======================================================

Little dave and little ajax are two peas in a pod.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
ajax won every argument with real facts.

=======================================================

Little jaagu needs to learn to recognize facts.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Little dave writes:

Little ajax won every argument with real facts.

============================================================

Little dave thinks that little ajax telling the following real lies are real facts:

1. Coal fired power plants do not need backup
2. Spain went bankrupt subsidizing wind and solar

Little dave and little ajax obviously need remedial education. Everybody is laughing at these real facts of theirs!

Maybe it is time for me to stop torturing the children.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Maybe it is time for me to stop torturing the children.

Obviously, jaagu is having an episode. he must have missed his shrink appointment again.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Little wadigo does not want to discuss real facts. He joins little dave into believing little ajax's phony facts. Where are your facts little wadigo?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Hi DB2

"Do you think that one month changes four decades of data?"

Not exactly, but your 4 decades of data is part of the smaller and slower changes that have occurred to the date of the IPCC report.

As we enter the decades of rapidly changing weather patterns, any statistically stable past is increasingly irrelevant to what is happening now. You focus on the Atlantic and the USA. I live in the South Pacific... the difference I see here is actually perceptible and has serious consequences to people.

You are fond of citing statistics from the past. I suggest that this is only reliable if you have a stable economy and a stable climate. We have neither, thanks to the maroons running things. We will likely within my children's lifetimes, have no civilization to speak of because of their (and your) continuous effort to live in the past.

You focus on the wrong things. Past performance is no prediction of future returns. Your concerns are the wrong concerns.

Thanks for being reliably wrong. If I didn't disagree with you I would have to ask myself what my own mistake was. :-)

respectfully BJ
Print the post Back To Top