Accountability Now

Please do. I would also encourage you to play back the quote where you said I was a waste of time and continued your onslaught now into numerous more pages. Or...you could also repeat the doozy where you started pouting and gave MLW the ol' 'Catch you on the flip side". That was a good one too.

LMFAO....you are so desperate. Soooooooooooooo despearate. What are we at now....I showed your the error of your ways in green economy versus green energy. I also showed you up in the Calgary flood.....but that was easy. And now hurricanes. Yikes....3 and 0!

Nope...nice deflection. I clearly showed you that I referenced further back and used the 30 years to put the nail in the coffin. Just because you don't realize that your coffin is now closed is not my fault. Yup....challenged and defeated those statements. Anything else on your self serving agenda?

Did you bump your head? Perhaps that knocked some sense into you?

Yup....there you have it.....you missed the part after FOUND. I'll finish it for you....we found a GENTLE decrese. Wow...if that isn't convincing then I don't know what is. Then throw the could on there....that seals it! You apparently need a holiday. I would suggest going to Florida and swimming in the warm Altantic waters. According to you, there will be less hurrincanes so you'll be happy. Of course the facts will tell you that you're wrong.

You just can't keep in on the tracks....can you. The data I'm using is from 1851-2010....160 years. You chose to isolate your self serving point to show the most recent 60 years. I only needed to pick out 30 years prior to this to show that your so called escillation in activity is just fine. Should we just look at 2005 alone....is that what you really want? Will that help you prove it? Yikes....

COULD....would you like me to define that for you? Your theory involves a COULD. Bottom line!!

I did look at the graphic which is why I showed values dating back to the 1800s. Deflecting again hey waldo. Yikes... Bottomline is that there were 30 years from 1871-1900 that were consectutivley worse than current times. Keep deflecting...you are getting so far from the truth.

A study that says a decreased trend COULD be caused by relation to warming water. Keep it straight now.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahah! You keep trying and continue to fail. Who cares where he places the world 'could'? The fact is that he is saying could and not IS. Keep dreaming these up.

I specifically like how you tried to show the increase in activity since 1995. Oh wow...a sliver of time! Perhaps you would like to isolate everything on 2005? That would really help your cause. Of course, if we look back to the most reliable data we have (US landfall hurricanes) you will clearly see that the exact same increase happend during that same period you quoted. However, if you are so brave to look, you will see that many years before showed activity much higher than current levels. Lets's take the years from 1941-1950....hmmm 24 versus 19 in 2000-2010. AND WOW....three decades (1871-1900) where it was each year was above 20. OH MY!!!!!!!!!!! What the hell were those farmers doing back then to cause such mass destruction to our earth!!! If you choose to ignore this correlation....then you are truly helpless

Ummm...how about the fact that the actual number of landfall hurrincanes has NOT changed since 1851. The only thing to change is our technology.

You're still missing 1941 to 1943 but who's counting? Again....do your best to find all the storms they missed.

Context? Sorry...but when someone says the sky is blue...it means blue....not white, or pink...blue. So when he says that the US landfall data is the most accurate data we have over long periods....well...it means EXACTLY THAT. Just because you say he is implying something else certainly does not make it so. The fact that you or he wants to extrapolate and create theories based on the historical FACTS does not make them true. Even his quote states this : Note...it does not state it does result in few hurrincanes. It COULD. Of course you go off on your normal 'sky is falling' tangent to now claim that this theory now supercedes FACTS. Well done waldo...you have now hit a new level of scientific incompetance. So lets see....the US landfall hurricanes have remained steady over the years and that is the most accurate data we have. Try and compare it to the number of total cyclone activity in Altantic and it shows an increase right around 1950-1960s right when the modern technology comes in. HMMMMMMM???? I wonder why there is such an increase? I wonder why the NOAA ensures to mark these significant technolgy changes on their charts? Oh...I know why...so its that people like you don't skew the numbers. I guess that didn't even stop you! And your answer for this is that warmer oceans COULD cause fewer hurricanes? Good luck with that one waldo.... Another fail....what does that make three now?

Self serving purpose? Who was the one that randomly threw up a post quoting this article without adding one word of his own input. You broadcast this self serving message thinking that you are some sort of preist speak from up high when really everyone is walking around shaking their heads at your incoherent babbling. I've seen you post the same message using the same words over and over again. This is a discussion board and you have zero interest in discussing because you already have the answer to a question that no one asked you. Unfortunately....your answer is wrong but hey....whatever blows your hair back. Any degree of science? I have yet to see you provide one iota of sciecne that means anything. Lets remember your basis here....a gentle trend that COULD cause fewer hurricanes? Seriously? You hide behind your charts and your rants and raves and you actually think people can't see that you are full of it. Most people don't have the desire to expose you but I do. And I have done so numerous times now. Keep throwing up those flops waldo....and I'll keep slamming them down.

None of it makes sense to you...that I get but don't let your inabilities get in our way. I'll waldosize it for you.... Quote Wrong. Hurricane Katrina was third in minimum pressure and sixth in landfall windspeed. That is not a weather extreme its a NORMAL hurricane. Its happened before and will happen again with or without your outlandish claims. Quote Wrong...Katrina was a Category 3 when it hit landfall (as per NOAA and everyone else that is interested in the truth). Way to maniputate those numbers. The Category 5 out in the middle of the ocean didn't kill anyone. Also....most devastating hurricane of the decade? There were worse storms to hit the US in the same year but they just happened to hit less populated areas. But lets use Katrina because people will remember it.... Quote Deadliest since 1928 and third deadliest overall. Not the worst ever. Keep trying though.

Thanks for that link. I just love it when you prove my point. I have stated that we have to use US landfall data because it provides the longest history with the most accurate data. And the person who quoted your claim above (Chunzai Wang) states the following: How convenient that you quoted everything said EXCEPT for that little gem! And you wonder why I say that activists manipulate data. Atlantic hurricane measurement is the most reliable over the long term and it has shown NO increase in minor or major hurricanes since 1851. So your whole claim about the numbers increasing or severity increasing or whatever desperate stretch that you were trying to make can now be put to rest. Of course don't let me stop you.... if you want to rest your claim on a GENTLE decrease that COULD result in fewer hurricanes hitting the US then have at er'. I prefer logic but do what you feel like. Talk about desperate though. Again...you wonder why people don't take global warming seriously.

Are you going to post the documentation for the reanalysis from 1931 to 1943? If everything is in then provide those numbers. Also provide proof that this updated data has been applied to the tabulation. They just released the most recent data as of June 2013....perhaps you haven't left your parent's basement for a while but that was just 10 days ago. More importantly....stop deflecting away from the fact that the reanalysis will only take into account known storms. It will not account for anything they missed prior to satellites. I know its tough but I can maybe put it into a chart which you can repeatly post on multiple threads not really knowing what it means. That might help you.

Who was the one to compare a decade to a single year? Who was the one to refer to 1855? Check below....I have quoted your original quote to which I repeated your nonsense in the form on a question. You blew it from the start and its another vain attempt to deflect away from your incoherant lack of logic. waldo, on 05 Jul 2013 - 3:03 PM, said:

It would help us both if you could educate yourself more so that you could raise yourself to my level. Keep reading those Where's Waldo books and possibly, just possibly in my lifetime you will be able to comprehend what is happening.

Considering you have responded to this post and added six addtional replies, I think it is clearly obvious that I am offering a hell of a lot. Unless you want to say that you often have elbaorate conversations with nothing because that wouldn't surprise me either.

Actually...I didn't care about either of these so much but I was just drawing you back in after you claimed that I offered nothingness and you refused to discuss anything with me. Obviously you aren't even consistent in your own statements. Yikes.....apparently I do offer something. But now that I have you drawn in.... I based everything your posted quote....of course you didn't actually say anything about uncertainty there....in fact you didn't say anything at all. Just posted a link and quoted from it. But glad to see that you at least agree with me that the details differ based on the years. Clearly you can't remember who said what. It was YOUR quote from YOUR study that claimed 1855....I just repeated it. Please at least get that straight. I certainly did not claim 1855 was the most active hurricane. I cut and pasted exactly what your quote said....go back and read. Kudos for you on the attempted deflection but I'm onto you now. I didn't link a paper...I quoted directly from the NOAA website (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html). Would you like to try again? As for your claim that they have finished updating the historical account....please review the Re-Analysis Project webpage (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/data_sub/re_anal.html). They just recently added 1941 -1945 as of June 2013. Not sure how many others have yet to be done but the numbers are still trickling in. Regardless...the original point remains regardless of your deflection. As stated above....many storms in the Atlantic basin were missed because they never hit landfall. The re-analysis study is as NOAA says is "information on tropical cyclones is revised using an enhanced collection of historical meteorological data in the context of today's scientific understanding of hurricanes and analysis techniques." In other words...they can only upgrade or downgrade known storms they can't go and make them up from non-existent data. For the most part, they only kept data from landfall hurricanes. So....lets look at landfall hurricanes in the US. NOAA has a nice little PDF (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/nws-nhc-6.pdf) which outlines the number of hurricanes to hit landfall (table 7). In this table you will notice that the number of hurricanes to hit the US for each decade dating back to 1851 yet the number is very consistent to the average of 17.8 over the entire period. 2001-2010 had 19 hurricanes with 7 of them being major hurricanes. 1941-1950 was the most frequent and most severe registering 24 hurricanes with 10 of them being major. 1871-1880 seems to match up quite well with 2001-2010 as it had 20 hurricanes with 7 of them being major. I wonder if that was global warming then too? Bottom line is that data WAS available to track these landfall hurricanes and they have not shown any major trends in numbers or severity. Convesely they have only been able to track all cyclones in recent years thus showing the increase that global warming activists jump on. (PS...anyone who refers to themselves in the third person (ie the waldo) tells me everything I need to know ) As per your statement on prevelance of Cat4/5 versus Cat 1/2.... you should look again at table 6 which breaks down the number of US landfall hurrinances by category. It again shows no significant increase to past decades. Of course this table is directly from the NOAA and not 'atributed to NOAA'....so you can challenge it too...if that's your perogative. As for having skin in the game....I too don't really don't invest a lot of time in the hurricane chasing game. However, this does come back to my original point from the start of this talk on floods such that global warming activists will use what ever statistic they can (whether proper or not) to try and prove their point. These people do have skin in the game and I personally have lost faith in most things they say because they manipute the data to their advantage. One of the first quoted lines from your first statements talks about Hurricane Katrina. Katrina ranks as the third deadliest hurricane and the costliest IF you don't account for inflation. However those rankings are based on human connections. How many people would have died if the levees hadn't broken? How much money would it have cost then? What if that exact same storm hit a less populated area? Would it be the big bad Katrina? Probably not. Yet when you look at the objective measurements, Katrina was third on pressure (behind) 1935 and 1969. Hmmm...did global warming cause those attrocities too? And somewhere else I read that Katrina ranked 6th for wind speed. But yet Katrina is lablled as this global warming nightmare? The activists do know what they are doing though....they know they only have so long to strike before people tend to forget these things. As per the linked paper from NOAA above "Katrina provided a grim reminder of what can happen in a hurricane landfall. Sociologists estimate, however, that people only remember the worst effects of a hurricane for about seven years (B. Morrow, personal communication)" Make sure the sky is falling and people will listen.....well for 7 years anyway. I know you don't really care but my point is that I have seen too many agendas and not enough pure science when it comes to the global warming scare tactics. I can't trust scientists who will manipulate data....unfortunately that same statement can be applied to those opposing global warming too. Hence the reason I am a fence sitter.

Actually the NOAA tracks back to 1851. Just sayin...but more imporantly.... Any chance this had anything to do with the increased tropical cyclones?

So again...what happened in 1901 and 1855 that made them more wet and more active?

No need for the personal attack. I'm still waiting for you answer the questions I posed which started this so called discussion