waldo Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 *** bump ***apparently, you believe this to be a most radical, uncalled for and unsupported position for the WMO to have taken! But... you choose to not address it - directly. Apparently, your bluster only reaches so far! per the World Meteorological Organization's (March 2013 release) of its annual Statement on the Status of the Global Climate: WMO statement on the status of the global climate in 2012... continued warming leading to climatic changes generating increased extreme weather-related events, including "major heatwaves and extreme high temperatures, major drought and wildfires, extreme precipitation and floods, snow and extreme cold, and tropical cyclones." The continued upward trend in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and the consequent increase in radiative forcing of the Earth’s atmosphere confirm that the warming will continue...Natural climate variability has always resulted in such extremes, but the physical characteristics of extreme weather and climate events are being increasingly shaped by climate change. Quote
waldo Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 You're right...you have no point in continuing as you should have realized that you were fighting a lost caused from the begininning. You can't fight facts waldo....but like I said...keep reading your Where's Waldo books and one day you can compete at my level. facts? Let me know if you ever decide to present any... particularly in context to what is actually being discussed, particularly addressing a premise you actually grasp/understand. Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 *** bump *** apparently, you believe this to be a most radical, uncalled for and unsupported position for the WMO to have taken! But... you choose to not address it - directly. Apparently, your bluster only reaches so far! Again with your deflections. I have outright said that I don't approve of the examples they use. They called hurricane Katrina an extreme event when its clearly not. You then went on a tirade trying to prove the increase in atlantic hurricanes and it took me two seconds to realize that isn't true either. My entire point all along is that activists much like yourself try to use individual examples as scare tactics when even those examples aren't extreme. Of course you just don't have the capacity to understand..... Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 facts? Let me know if you ever decide to present any... particularly in context to what is actually being discussed, particularly addressing a premise you actually grasp/understand. Do you mean like the NOAA numbers, Environemnt Canada numbers....anything else you would like? Quote
waldo Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 Do you mean like the NOAA numbers, Environemnt Canada numbers....anything else you would like? yup! Your Bragg Creek (Environment Canada) numbers were a classic!!! On par with your NOAA landfall hurricane numbers!!! Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 yup! Your Bragg Creek (Environment Canada) numbers were a classic!!! On par with your NOAA landfall hurricane numbers!!! Exactly....you have no clue with either. Both of which added to my 3 and 0. Quote
waldo Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 Again with your deflections. I have outright said that I don't approve of the examples they use. They called hurricane Katrina an extreme event when its clearly not. You then went on a tirade trying to prove the increase in atlantic hurricanes and it took me two seconds to realize that isn't true either. My entire point all along is that activists much like yourself try to use individual examples as scare tactics when even those examples aren't extreme. Of course you just don't have the capacity to understand..... bully! You don't "approve of them". Again, with your pomposity! My position was made clear to you concerning hurricane frequency versus intensity... don't try to fabricate your BS. As you said earlier, "I'm onto you"! I've not said anything about an increase... what I've said/offered was in regards to landfall - a decrease! You know, the "gentle decreasing trend"!!! It's no wonder you don't understand the overall premise, the global perspective... you can't even keep posts straight and what's actually been stated! clearly you have no game! Move along now... leave this thread for serious discussion/contributions - you clearly have none to offer! I asked you earlier to speak to your "activist labeling". You dodged that, of course. I asked you to speak to your claims of scientists manipulating data. You also dodged that one too - of course you did! Quote
waldo Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 Exactly....you have no clue with either. Both of which added to my 3 and 0. what's the term for someone who repeatedly claims his superiority... for a person who repeatedly needs to reinforce his presumed superiority? You're a lightweight - you have no game... you offer nothing to support your personal opinions. What you do offer is so easily batted away. like I said, like I'll keep saying. You're no self-proclaimed, self-described "Fence Sitter". Just admit your denial - you'll feel better for it! Quote
waldo Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 enjoy your local perspective! I'll check back on your (to be expected) further banality you'll add later on tonight. "LocalBoy goes astray"! Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 bully! You don't "approve of them". Again, with your pomposity! My position was made clear to you concerning hurricane frequency versus intensity... don't try to fabricate your BS. As you said earlier, "I'm onto you"! I've not said anything about an increase... what I've said/offered was in regards to landfall - a decrease! You know, the "gentle decreasing trend"!!! It's no wonder you don't understand the overall premise, the global perspective... you can't even keep posts straight and what's actually been stated! clearly you have no game! Move along now... leave this thread for serious discussion/contributions - you clearly have none to offer! I asked you earlier to speak to your "activist labeling". You dodged that, of course. I asked you to speak to your claims of scientists manipulating data. You also dodged that one too - of course you did! bully? what are you in grade 2? Of course you said increase....well at least the post you offered up with zero words of your own which makes me have to believe that you back everything it says it. Remember the ditty below where you posted that this was the most active decade since 1855. So most active decade doesn't mean increase to you? Tropical cyclones: Between 2001 and 2010, there were 511 tropical cyclone related events which resulted in a total of nearly 170,000 persons reported killed, over 250 million people reported affected and estimated economic damages of US$ 380 billion. 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. Stop flip flopping around. Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 what's the term for someone who repeatedly claims his superiority... for a person who repeatedly needs to reinforce his presumed superiority? You're a lightweight - you have no game... you offer nothing to support your personal opinions. What you do offer is so easily batted away. like I said, like I'll keep saying. You're no self-proclaimed, self-described "Fence Sitter". Just admit your denial - you'll feel better for it! Like I said waldo...this is a written forum where everyone can go back at any time and read what was said. I am 100% positive that my 3 and 0 record would be supported. But...you say what you need to make yourself feel better. Tell your parents i say hi. Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 enjoy your local perspective! I'll check back on your (to be expected) further banality you'll add later on tonight. "LocalBoy goes astray"! You'll check back....that is of course if your parents let you. Quote
Claudius Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 (edited) It'll be funny to watch "staunch" Alberta conservatives come cap in hand to the feds. Why it it funny? Because you're an a-hole? What is funny is how Alberta can pay such high federal tax amounts and transfer payments that go towards things like money for Manatobas' floods or Montreals ice storms but when it comes time to treat Alberta with the same support all we get is classless juvenile schadenfreude and bigotry from hipster larvae like yourself. Edited July 9, 2013 by Claudius Quote There is virtually no difference between the 3 major parties once they get into power.
Sandy MacNab Posted July 10, 2013 Report Posted July 10, 2013 what's the term for someone who repeatedly claims his superiority... for a person who repeatedly needs to reinforce his presumed superiority? You're a lightweight - you have no game... you offer nothing to support your personal opinions. What you do offer is so easily batted away. like I said, like I'll keep saying. You're no self-proclaimed, self-described "Fence Sitter". Just admit your denial - you'll feel better for it! It's obvious, the term is "a waldo"> Quote
waldo Posted July 10, 2013 Report Posted July 10, 2013 It's obvious, the term is "a waldo"> no, sorry... I make no claims - it's not necessary as what is self-evident... is self evident! But really, oh vaunted drive-by guy! Stick around... why not actually contribute to the thread with something that might actually cause you to reach beyond your typical drive-by contributions. Quote
waldo Posted July 10, 2013 Report Posted July 10, 2013 Of course you said increase....well at least the post you offered up with zero words of your own which makes me have to believe that you back everything it says it. Remember the ditty below where you posted that this was the most active decade since 1855. So most active decade doesn't mean increase to you? Tropical cyclones: Between 2001 and 2010, there were 511 tropical cyclone related events which resulted in a total of nearly 170,000 persons reported killed, over 250 million people reported affected and estimated economic damages of US$ 380 billion. 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. Stop flip flopping around. this is emblematic of why you struggle so much! No - an active decade, in this case, NOAA's declaration that the 2001-2010 decade has been the most active for tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic Basin, does not necessarily translate into a definitive increase... one that establishes an increasing trend. All the NOAA statement says is that the decade has been the most active... which translates into the most named storms. I've repeatedly stated what my interpreted position is and what it relies upon; again, specifically, I hold with what I understand to be the prevailing consensus on tropical cyclone activity (the North Atlantic Basin or globally). That is to say, in association with and attributed to warming/climate change, an increase in intensity but no apparent increase in frequency. I provided you a sample study that spoke to an example of that intensity increase; specifically, again, the comparison of Cat1-2 versus Cat4-5 hurricanes in the North Atlantic Basin. I think it prudent to highlight your own inconsistency, which you're not even aware of. Your prior NOAA links had significant attachment/association to the NOAA scientist, Landsea. For what any single study is ever worth, you may want to digest the words of the following study that Landsea, your guy, is a co-author of... the study is somewhat dated but is still timely in being cited regularly, year to year (almost a thousand citations to-date, and about 60 this 2013 year (to date)): The Recent Increase in Atlantic Hurricane Activity: Causes and Implications abstract: The years 1995 to 2000 experienced the highest level of North Atlantic hurricane activity in the reliable record. Compared with the generally low activity of the previous 24 years (1971 to 1994), the past 6 years have seen a doubling of overall activity for the whole basin, a 2.5-fold increase in major hurricanes (≥50 meters per second), and a fivefold increase in hurricanes affecting the Caribbean. The greater activity results from simultaneous increases in North Atlantic sea-surface temperatures and decreases in vertical wind shear. Because these changes exhibit a multidecadal time scale, the present high level of hurricane activity is likely to persist for an additional ∼10 to 40 years. The shift in climate calls for a reevaluation of preparedness and mitigation strategies. this is your guy... the guy associated with your prior NOAA links! Enjoy. Quote
waldo Posted July 10, 2013 Report Posted July 10, 2013 Tell your parents i say hi. You'll check back....that is of course if your parents let you. and there we have it - your inner-self, the real you, struggling to the top! . Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 10, 2013 Report Posted July 10, 2013 (edited) this is your guy... the guy associated with your prior NOAA links! Enjoy. Yup...Chris Landsea is my guy. I didn't realize you were a fan. That's good because you will enjoy these Landsea beauties. Chris Landsea showed a time series of observed Atlantic category 5 hurricane occurrence since 1900 which exhibited a large upward trend over time. He concluded that this trend was not reliable and that one must first account for changing observing capabilities over time in such trend analyses http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/final_WWRP_2011_1_TD_No_1561.pdf Or how about this one.... The database goes back to 1851, but it is far from being complete and accurate for the entire century and a half. Uncertainty estimates of the best track parameters available for are available for various era in Landsea et al. (2012), Hagen et al. (2012), Torn and Snyder (2012), and Landsea (2012). Moreover, as one goes back further in time in addition to larger uncertainties, biases become more pronounced as well with tropical cyclone frequencies being underreported and the tropical cyclone intensities being underanalyzed. That is, some storms were missed and many intensities are too low in the pre-aircraft reconnaissance era (1944 for the western half of the basin) and in the pre-satellite era (late-1960s for the entire basin). Even in the last decade or two, new technologies affect the best tracks in a non-trivial way because of our generally improving ability to observe the frequency, intensity, and size of tropical cyclones. See Vecchi and Knutson (2008), Landsea et al. (2010), Vecchi and Knutson (2012), Uhlhorn and Nolan (2012) on methods that have been determined to address some of the undersampling issues that arise in monitoring these mesoscale, oceanic phenomenon. Ouch that one hurts...hey. Landsea and all the other professionals agreeing with little ol' me? The data used back in the day is FAR from being complete. My word...sounds like an echo going off here. I actually put Landsea in red because the paper they refer to in that quote is linked below. It is a paper based on the uncertainty even in today's technolgical era. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/landsea-franklin-mwr13.pdf I know you like to pretend you are a global thinker so lets shift over to the North Pacific where the ESCAP/WMO released The Second Assement Report on the Influence of Climate Change on Tropical Cyclones in the Typhoon Committee Region. Lets look specificially at Chapter six where it again addresses Uncertainties. While uncertainties in future emission scenarios and anthropogenic and natural climate forcing agents contribute to uncertainties future TC projections, large uncertainties remain even if the 21st century climate forcing scenario (e.g., IPCC A1B) is assumed to be known. Oh...but it gets better... For climate change detection, an essential issue is the homogeneity of data over time, since spurious trends may be induced by non-climatic influences, such as instrumental changes, etc. The current TC best track datasets over the WNP all suffer from inhomogeneity induced by various reasons. For instance, improvements or changes in measurement techniques (e.g.,aircraft to satellite-based) and development of the observation systems (Landsea, 2000; Chu et al., 2002) may be important sources of temporal inhomogeneity in WNP TC climate records. There may be some TCs which were simply missed due to relatively sparse observations over the open ocean before the satellite era, as has been argued for the Atlantic basin (Vecchi and Knutson 2011). The under-sampling in early years of a TC record may lead to difficulties in detection and attribution of the long term trends in TC activity since undersampling can result in spurious positive biases in trends in TC numbers or other metrics. There you have it waldo. All experts from the reputable organizations that you admire agree that at this point there is just TOO MUCH uncertainty which is why they will only say warmer oceans COULD cause fewer hurricanes. But of course, don't let me stop you from disagreeing with Mr. Landsea et al. But you wouldn't be that pompous....would you? Would you? Is this where we see the infamous "Catch you on the flip side MLW"? Edited July 10, 2013 by Accountability Now Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 10, 2013 Report Posted July 10, 2013 It's obvious, the term is "a waldo"> That is priceless! LMFAO!!! Quote
waldo Posted July 10, 2013 Report Posted July 10, 2013 Ouch that one hurts...hey. Landsea and all the other professionals agreeing with little ol' me? the scientists... are agreeing with you! Oh my! Your pomposity level has reached... extremes! clearly, the Landsea study I quoted from went right over your head... it spoke directly to the activity point you've been stumbling over from the first post that referenced the WMO report. Most particularly, the recent decade's activity level relative to the historical record. As I said, could you be any more naive in declaring that an increase!!! and yes, there is uncertainty - I've spoken of it directly... repeatedly! It's the principal reason, as stated, my interpretation doesn't hold that the frequency of hurricanes has increased. Did you really think you had a... 'bazinga moment'... with your scurrying about/quote selection speaking to uncertainty? But of course, don't let me stop you from disagreeing with Mr. Landsea et al. But you wouldn't be that pompous....would you? Would you? you'll need to be more precise... and besides, you have a tight grip on this threads pomposity... a very tight grip! . Quote
waldo Posted July 10, 2013 Report Posted July 10, 2013 Yup...Chris Landsea is my guy. I didn't realize you were a fan. That's good because you will enjoy these Landsea beauties. Chris Landsea showed a time series of observed Atlantic category 5 hurricane occurrence since 1900 which exhibited a large upward trend over time. He concluded that this trend was not reliable and that one must first account for changing observing capabilities over time in such trend analyses http://www.wmo.int/p..._TD_No_1561.pdf you're just repeating yourself... and you're addressing occurrence... increased occurrence. I've already told you, repeatedly to the point even you should take note of it, I don't hold to an interpreted position of increased frequency. I'm not sure why you continue to beat this drum! Well, other than you don't actually follow/understand anything of what's being said! Of course, Landsea's main objection, one he has continually brought forward, was to critique the historical record versus that available since the satellite monitoring period. Of course, as I rigorously worked through your stumbling on, the NOAA reanalysis of its historical accounting appears to be complete... well, other than perhaps 3 years you need to keep your bias theme in play! . Quote
waldo Posted July 10, 2013 Report Posted July 10, 2013 still waiting for you to challenge the WMO statement/position (per the NOAA claim) that this recent decade has been the most active for North Atlantic Basin hurricanes. I mean, c'mon... this is what set you off on your full blown tirade/meltdown. Surely, you can muster a few cycles to go after this statement/position/claim. Surely! What are you waiting for? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 10, 2013 Report Posted July 10, 2013 the NOAA reanalysis of its historical accounting appears to be complete... . Of course..... The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA; pronounced /ˈno(ʊ).ə/, like "Noah") is a scientific agency within the United States Department of Commerce focused on the conditions of the oceans and the atmosphere. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
waldo Posted July 10, 2013 Report Posted July 10, 2013 cause, like... since the support for the WMO statement is attributed to NOAA... one must accept/assume NOAA is referencing it's own historical reanalysis - ya think? So... the latest and greatest from NOAA concerning the relative activity level for North Atlantic Basin hurricanes in the last decade: still waiting for you to challenge the WMO statement/position (per the NOAA claim) that this recent decade has been the most active for North Atlantic Basin hurricanes. I mean, c'mon... this is what set you off on your full blown tirade/meltdown. Surely, you can muster a few cycles to go after this statement/position/claim. Surely! What are you waiting for? Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 10, 2013 Report Posted July 10, 2013 still waiting for you to challenge the WMO statement/position (per the NOAA claim) that this recent decade has been the most active for North Atlantic Basin hurricanes. I mean, c'mon... this is what set you off on your full blown tirade/meltdown. Surely, you can muster a few cycles to go after this statement/position/claim. Surely! What are you waiting for? As per usual, I will waldosize the whole conversation for you. You started off by obliviously cutting and pasting your so trusted article (of course without adding any insight of your own). In your claim you highlight that the world is seeing such weather extremes like Katrina....which took me two seconds to show everyone that Katrina was not extreme and not even the worst. Secondly you so proudly boast the statement "2001-2010 was the most active decade since 1855 in terms of tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic Basin." My entire arguement has been that activists like you go and flaunt these scare tactics when the basis of these are simply not accurate. I spent numerous posts showing you examples of how the data prior to 1961 was not reliable and therefore making such a statement was not possible. And now....the experts, the very scientists that you so admire have been quoted stating EXACTLY just that. And yes...that is a bazinga!! This goes beyond your standard statistical propagation of errors. They all fully acknowledge that complete data sets are missing and the ones they do have are not reliable. Adding to the fact that even today's numbers carry uncertainty. Point set and match waldingo. I would say try again next time but its getting boring making you look this bad. I love how after this post you so cowardly say "I never said there wasn't errors". Lmfao!!! Seriously...stop flip flopping all over the place. The fact is that you offered up a statement not having the first clue if it was true and now you look like a pompous buffoon trying to back track!!!! So I suggest you move along son and let the men continue this conversation. 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.