Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 I bow to your pomposity! You most certainly were offering nothing... and now you've simply amplified your own nothingness contributions! 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. Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 if i could actually figure out what you're saying here, 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. Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 "you're onto to me now"!!! Oh my! Should I be wary of your... inconsequential contributions? Here's you actual statement/claim: you quote the actual years, as in single years... and you, yes you... draw the inference. You really have difficulty with comparisons... this example simply adds to your past stumbling on comparative review. I went out of my way to over-emphasize "decade & decadal perspective"... just for you. Clearly, it didn't register. The reference is decade/decadal being compared to respective decades with starting points 1901 & 1855. In your statement, as quoted again below, you've narrowed that to a singular years focus..... implying those single years as, respectively, more wet and more active. You blew it again! 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: from a July 3, 2013 World Meteorological Organization (WMO) press release detailing a new WMO report: The Global Climate 2001-2010, A Decade of Climate Extremes The 2001-2010 decade was the second wettest since 1901. According to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2001-2010 was the most active decade since 1855 in terms of tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic Basin. Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 would I like to try again? Would you? You're quoting from an FAQ... did you ever think that FAQ might be drawn from something else? Again, I suggest you slow down and take the time to save you embarassment. It's quite telling that you would read the first entry and assume it reflects on "everything" historical that's been added. This really explains a lot of the problems you have - you're just not complete/thorough! Your stated, "numbers trickling in", is a hoot! 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. Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 like I said, I can only hold your hand so far... I even re-linked you my previous post - again, in your haste you don't take the time to save yourself further embarrassment! There is no legitimacy in using a landfall reference as anything indicative of overall frequency and/or intensity. The waldo will will re-quote a very short extract of the prior linked post, since you clearly have trouble with examining provided links! waldo, on 28 Jun 2013 - 04:08 AM, said: an active Atlantic hurricane season does not necessarily translate into a U.S. landfall for respective hurricanes. There are an assortment of factors at play, including the most fundamental aspect that those forming to the east and north have a greater propensity to 'recurve' into the ocean. Of course, you went to NOAA for your misdirected initial reference... you should have stuck with it in regards your landfall talking point: Warmer Ocean Could Reduce Number of Atlantic Hurricane Landfalls Quote Using data extending back to the middle nineteenth century, we found a gentle decrease in the trend of U.S. landfalling hurricanes when the global ocean is warmed up. This trend coincides with an increase in vertical wind shear over the tropical North Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, which could result in fewer U.S. landfalling hurricanes. 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: “We looked at U.S. landfalling hurricanes because it is the most reliable Atlantic hurricane measurement over the long term" 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. Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 again, above is the full and complete extent of the WMO's report references to Hurricane Katrina... none of which supports or lends credence to your rambling rant! 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 The first decade of the 21st century was the warmest decade recorded since modern measurements began around 1850. It saw above-average precipitation, including one year – 2010 – that broke all previous records. It was also marked by dramatic climate and weather extremes such as the European heatwave of 2003, the 2010 floods in Pakistan, hurricane Katrina in the United States of America (USA), cyclone Nargis in Myanmar and long-term droughts in the Amazon Basin, Australia and East Africa. 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 The most active season ever recorded was 2005, with a total of 27 named storms, of which 15 reached hurricane intensity and seven were classified as major hurricanes (Category 3 or higher). Katrina, a Category-5 hurricane, was the most devastating hurricane of the decade, making landfall in the southern USA in August. 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 Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) Maximum winds - 280 km/h Deadliest hurricane to strike the USA since 1928. Deadliest since 1928 and third deadliest overall. Not the worst ever. Keep trying though. Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 activists??? Who are you referring to - specifically? Man you're desperate to manipulate that NOAA quote for your self-serving purpose! Of course, the 7-year sociologist remembering estimate was made in regards to a concern over hurricane preparedness; i.e., it appears people have a tendency to let their 'preparedness guard' down after a certain period of time. That's certainly a nice spin you've taken with that reference... why... some might say you've "manipulated it"!!! . I have no doubt that your insular, myopic and skewed viewpoint doesn't provide you an opportunity to examine any significant degree of science. And now... you jump full bore, full speed ahead into conspiracy - "scientists manipulating data"! You're no fence sitter... I expect you fell off the fence long ago... if you truly were ever 'on it'! Just say it... I'm sure you'll feel liberated! 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. Quote
waldo Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 “We looked at U.S. landfalling hurricanes because it is the most reliable Atlantic hurricane measurement over the long term" 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. you clearly can't work within context!!! The scientist (and his study) that I linked to/referenced, speaks to the concerns of using landfall hurricanes as a measure of the overall intensity and frequency of Atlantic Basin hurricanes. You pull a quote of his (from the link I provided you) and you proceed to steamroll with it - totally against the author's intent and the context it was spoken in. Yes, he says he's using the landfall record for it's accuracy... to use within his study... on landfall hurricanes!!!!! here's the lil' ditty quote from the scientist - the one I made reference to... the one you initially ignored... the one you now ignore, in context! “Using data extending back to the middle nineteenth century, we found a gentle decrease in the trend of U.S. landfalling hurricanes when the global ocean is warmed up. This trend coincides with an increase in vertical wind shear over the tropical North Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, which could result in fewer U.S. landfalling hurricanes.” the study: "uses observations to show that warming of global sea surface temperatures is associated with a secular, or sustained long-term increase, of vertical wind shear in the main development region for Atlantic hurricanes. The increased vertical wind shear coincides with a downward trend in U.S. landfalling hurricanes" you're tooooooo easy! Quote
waldo Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 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. I give you multiple links highlighting a degree of the reanalysis undertaken... I emphasize examples: from 1851-1930 & 1944-1953. So, of course, you zero in on the gap 1931-1943... cause, you need that gap to play out/emphasize your bias angle. We can narrow that a bit further for ya... let's take off another 5... => "May 2012 - A complete reanalysis of the Atlantic hurricane database (HURDAT) was conducted for the 1931 to 1935 seasons." oh my, now you're down to only 8 years to play out your bias theme! But wait... what's this: => "December 2012 - A reanalysis of the 1936 to 1940 hurricane seasons has been conducted." oh my, that's another 5 years lopped off your bias theme! You're down to three years!!! now, if you want to keep this nonsense going, if you want to hang your hat on "unknown unknowns"... go for it! Most thinking people would concede that NOAA has done it's best to address historical inconsistencies. I certainly have no trouble focusing more on the satellite era - I trust you will enjoy the following recent graphic, with data (also) attributed to NOAA. Of course, this graphic ties in quite nicely with the WMO quote/statement (also attributed to NOAA) concerning activity... you know, the statement you took such exception to, but won't actually challenge directly. As I said, enjoy! Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 the study: "uses observations to show that warming of global sea surface temperatures is associated with a secular, or sustained long-term increase, of vertical wind shear in the main development region for Atlantic hurricanes. The increased vertical wind shear coincides with a downward trend in U.S. landfalling hurricanes" you're tooooooo easy! 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 : which could result in fewer U.S. landfalling hurricanes.” 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? Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 I give you multiple links highlighting a degree of the reanalysis undertaken... I emphasize examples: from 1851-1930 & 1944-1953. So, of course, you zero in on the gap 1931-1943... cause, you need that gap to play out/emphasize your bias angle. We can narrow that a bit further for ya... let's take off another 5... => "May 2012 - A complete reanalysis of the Atlantic hurricane database (HURDAT) was conducted for the 1931 to 1935 seasons." oh my, now you're down to only 8 years to play out your bias theme! But wait... what's this: => "December 2012 - A reanalysis of the 1936 to 1940 hurricane seasons has been conducted." oh my, that's another 5 years lopped off your bias theme! You're down to three years!!! now, if you want to keep this nonsense going, if you want to hang your hat on "unknown unknowns"... go for it! Most thinking people would concede that NOAA has done it's best to address historical inconsistencies. I certainly have no trouble focusing more on the satellite era - I trust you will enjoy the following recent graphic, with data (also) attributed to NOAA. Of course, this graphic ties in quite nicely with the WMO quote/statement (also attributed to NOAA) concerning activity... you know, the statement you took such exception to, but won't actually challenge directly. As I said, enjoy! You're still missing 1941 to 1943 but who's counting? Again....do your best to find all the storms they missed. Quote
waldo Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 you can continue to bark loudly and claim landfall hurricanes are the reference benchmark!!! do you have a percentage for hurricanes that reach landfall... one that you believe/interpret represents an appropriate reference to extrapolate upon? do you have any scientific based work/research/study that speaks to why fewer landfall hurricanes are occurring... one that categorically eliminates any considerations of warming/climate change? You do know that warmer water is the fuel right? Quote
waldo Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 You're still missing 1941 to 1943 but who's counting? Again....do your best to find all the storms they missed. I'm not missing anything! As I said, feel free to hang your bias hat on those 3 years. Of course, this database, referred to and linked by the name "Reanalysis Database" contains those 3 years --- one would think your bias play should put some effort into advising the entries for those 3 years haven't been "reanalyzed"!!! Go fetch! Quote
waldo Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 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. I'm slummin'... and your posts are too inviting in their utter banality! Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 do you have any scientific based work/research/study that speaks to why fewer landfall hurricanes are occurring... one that categorically eliminates any considerations of warming/climate change? You do know that warmer water is the fuel right? 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. Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 I'm not missing anything! As I said, feel free to hang your bias hat on those 3 years. Of course, this database, referred to and linked by the name "Reanalysis Database" contains those 3 years --- one would think your bias play should put some effort into advising the entries for those 3 years haven't been "reanalyzed"!!! Go fetch! 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 Quote
waldo Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 The fact that you or he wants to extrapolate and create theories based on the historical FACTS does not make them true. it's quite telling when you want to use the scientist's statements only for your purpose and completely discard the same scientist's statement, in context, that offers a possible tie between fewer landfall hurricanes and warming/wind shear. 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. you really have difficulty with comprehension. The scientists statement advises a decreasing landfall trend was found with warming ocean water. The "could" emphasis is on the coinciding vertical wind shear... which could result in fewer landfall hurricanes. Another of your fails - another of your BigTimeFails! “Using data extending back to the middle nineteenth century, we found a gentle decrease in the trend of U.S. landfalling hurricanes when the global ocean is warmed up. This trend coincides with an increase in vertical wind shear over the tropical North Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, which could result in fewer U.S. landfalling hurricanes.” of course, all I said, was this: "an active Atlantic hurricane season does not necessarily translate into a U.S. landfall for respective hurricanes. There are an assortment of factors at play, including the most fundamental aspect that those forming to the east and north have a greater propensity to 'recurve' into the ocean"... and then I also linked to the study and quoted from it. Of course, this is sufficient for you to wig-out in yet another of your rounds of idiocy! Quote
waldo Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 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. the study I linked to advises a decreasing trend in landfall hurricanes was observed in relation to warming water. Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 you really have difficulty with comprehension. The scientists statement advises a decreasing landfall trend was found with warming ocean water. The "could" emphasis is on the coinciding vertical wind shear... which could result in fewer landfall hurricanes. Another of your fails - another of your BigTimeFails! 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. Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 the study I linked to advises a decreasing trend in landfall hurricanes was observed in relation to warming water. A study that says a decreased trend COULD be caused by relation to warming water. Keep it straight now. Quote
waldo Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 (edited) 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. don't be afraid to actually look at the graphic... you'll realize the recent activity is greater than the 2 greater periods identified (1950-1970) & (1971-1994). Does this increase your declared "sliver of time"? Oh man, another of your fails - BigTimeFails! Now, since the data is attributed to NOAA, I expect you'll take up your concerns with it, right? Oh wait, no... you won't. Cause, as I just stated a couple of posts back, this activity theme is what set you off in the first place... all the way back to the WMO report/statement (also attributed to NOAA). you have a lot to bluster about! But that's it... that's the extent of your contribution - bluster! You refuse to challenge the WMO statement... I expect you won't touch this graphic, either!!! . Edited July 9, 2013 by waldo Quote
waldo Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 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. no - the study clearly delineates the observation from the accompanying 'could' reference associated with coincidental wind shear. Again, your comprehension difficulty is shining through! Here, read it again: Using data extending back to the middle nineteenth century, we found a gentle decrease in the trend of U.S. landfalling hurricanes when the global ocean is warmed up. This trend coincides with an increase in vertical wind shear over the tropical North Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, which could result in fewer U.S. landfalling hurricanes. Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 don't be afraid to actually look at the graphic... you'll realize the recent activity is greater than the 2 greater periods identified (1950-1970) & (1971-1994). Does this increase your declared "sliver of time"? Oh man, another of your fails - BigTimeFails! Now, since the data is attributed to NOAA, I expect you'll take up your concerns with it, right? Oh wait, no... you won't. Cause, as I just stated a couple of posts back, this activity theme is what set you off in the first place... all the way back to the WMO report/statement (also attributed to NOAA). you have a lot to bluster about! But that's it... that's the extent of your contribution - bluster! You refuse to challenge the WMO statement... I expect you won't touch this graphic, either!!! . 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. Quote
waldo Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 A study that says a decreased trend COULD be caused by relation to warming water. Keep it straight now. no - since you refuse to actually read, again, the statement: Using data extending back to the middle nineteenth century, we found a gentle decrease in the trend of U.S. landfalling hurricanes when the global ocean is warmed up. This trend coincides with an increase in vertical wind shear over the tropical North Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, which could result in fewer U.S. landfalling hurricanes. Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 no - the study clearly delineates the observation from the accompanying 'could' reference associated with coincidental wind shear. Again, your comprehension difficulty is shining through! Here, read it again: COULD....would you like me to define that for you? Your theory involves a COULD. Bottom line!! Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.