Alberta floods

[waldo]

You started off by obliviously cutting and pasting your so trusted article (of course without adding any insight of your own).

the topic of discussion was extreme events... the linked/quoted World Meteorological Organization (WMO) reference was in regards to "2001-2010, A Decade of Climate Extremes" - the quote presented was self explanatory.

[waldo]

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."

that sentence was the last in the quote... it wasn't highlighted. You were the one that pulled that sentence out and ran with it. That was you.

it's not my claim... it's the World Meteorological Organization's (WMO) claim, one it attributes to NOAA.

you've already mentioned the WMO reference to the hurricane Katrina. As you always do, you exaggerate and amplify points for your self-serving agenda. I quoted the 3 references to Katrina in the WMO report - all rather benign, matter of fact and providing nothing that supports your focus and improper interpretation. The WMO mentions Katrina simply in the context of it having occurred in the decade being highlighted... along with an assortment of other world-wide events that occurred during the decade. The WMO makes no comparative suggestion as to the ranking of Katrina. That's you... that's you doing that. You seem to hang your objection to Katrina even being mentioned, apparently, because it's referred to as a Category 5 hurricane and that it was only a Cat3 when it hit the U.S.. It was a Cat5 hurricane - that's how it's classified and, again, the WMO made no comparative reference for the hurricane Katrina... other than to state it was the most devastating hurricane of the decade. A point in fact.

[waldo]

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!!

your entire "argument" has been nothing but bluster... where you repeatedly trip over yourself, where you repeatedly show you have very limited reading comprehension, where you repeatedly show you can't follow the actual discussion in progress, where you ignore everything directed your way, where you selectively pull references and quotes for your self-serving purpose; i.e., your manipulation!

what you showed, in your self-destructing way, is that you centered your entire premise on your apparent belief the NOAA historical record was deficient... relative to the satellite monitoring era. After I went to the lengths to highlight the extensive reanalysis work that NOAA has done, your bias argument is failed/flawed. Unless you want to forever hang your argument on "unknown unknowns"!

the icing on this cake is that the very (WMO) statement that you highlighted, that you took/have extreme objection to, that you have made your supposed "argument" on/against, that statement is attributed to NOAA... the very source you keep referencing. You really need to get your "argument" together! Of course, I've repeatedly highlighted this contradiction you have to deal with... I keep repeatedly challenging you to directly refute the NOAA attributed statement/claim. You ignore, you refuse, you bluster, you... are you!

[waldo]

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.

if there is, as you state/claim, "standard statistical propagation of errors", you haven't shown it/any. And yes, there is uncertainty - uncertainty I've highlighted.

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.

this shows your failings - to a tee! Apparently... you equate errors as uncertainty! Oh my! I spoke to uncertainty... the same uncertainty I've highlighted, particularly in terms of why my personal interpretation doesn't hold to an increase of hurricanes having occurred in relation to warming/climate change... why I only hold to an interpreted position that intensity has increased. No flip-flopping, no back tracking on my part. I've been consistent - unlike you.

as for your speaking to the truth of the WMO statement, the one attributed to NOAA. Until you actually take my personal repeated challenge asking you to refute that WMO/NOAA statement, I will hold with it's accuracy, based on the established reputations of WMO/NOAA. I realize you have highlighted that scientists are agreeing with you... I would rather side with the actual scientific organizations/scientists directly over your pompous and unsubstantiated claims... over your personal opinion!

[Accountability Now]

your entire "argument" has been nothing but bluster... where you repeatedly trip over yourself, where you repeatedly show you have very limited reading comprehension, where you repeatedly show you can't follow the actual discussion in progress, where you ignore everything directed your way, where you selectively pull references and quotes for your self-serving purpose; i.e., your manipulation!

what you showed, in your self-destructing way, is that you centered your entire premise on your apparent belief the NOAA historical record was deficient... relative to the satellite monitoring era. After I went to the lengths to highlight the extensive reanalysis work that NOAA has done, your bias argument is failed/flawed. Unless you want to forever hang your argument on "unknown unknowns"!

the icing on this cake is that the very (WMO) statement that you highlighted, that you took/have extreme objection to, that you have made your supposed "argument" on/against, that statement is attributed to NOAA... the very source you keep referencing. You really need to get your "argument" together! Of course, I've repeatedly highlighted this contradiction you have to deal with... I keep repeatedly challenging you to directly refute the NOAA attributed statement/claim. You ignore, you refuse, you bluster, you... are you!

Your absolute deflection and idiotic rambling a wont help you. "Oh...i didn't say it....it was the WMO!!! not me!!!!" Have a little pride waldo. You sound so pathetic when you flip flop like this.

You posted the content and it absolutely blown up in your face.

Do you fail like this in every aspect of your life?

[waldo]

Your absolute deflection and idiotic rambling a wont help you. "Oh...i didn't say it....it was the WMO!!! not me!!!!" Have a little pride waldo. You sound so pathetic when you flip flop like this.

You posted the content and it absolutely blown up in your face.

Do you fail like this in every aspect of your life?

you stated "my claim"... I simply pointed out your inaccuracy. Again, it's a World Meteorological Organization report/statement, one the WMO attributes to NOAA.

I note you are still refusing to take up the challenge and directly refute that WMO statement (attributed to NOAA).

[Accountability Now]

you stated "my claim"... I simply pointed out your inaccuracy. Again, it's a World Meteorological Organization report/statement, one the WMO attributes to NOAA.

I note you are still refusing to take up the challenge and directly refute that WMO statement (attributed to NOAA).

No refusal here....the statement from the WMO posted by YOU is inaccurate.

[waldo]

again, it's a statement within a WMO report, attributed to NOAA, as posted by me. You can claim it's an inaccurate statement - your personal opinion, notwithstanding. You simply refuse to refute the NOAA attributed statement, one that relates activity in terms of named storms. I followed up on that WMO statement (attributed to NOAA) with a more current dated activity reference (with data also attributed to NOAA).

of course, it took some time to pull out your most significant misunderstanding concerning that WMO statement (as attributed to NOAA). You simply improperly equated increased decadal activity with an overall increase, a positive trending increase, in the occurrence of 'tropical storms'. As I stated, you've essentially been arguing a false position, one that doesn't reflect upon the actual statement... your misplaced argument, your misunderstanding is glaringly facing you and certainly puts these many past pages of your bluster in proper perspective. You don't even know what you've been arguing!

[Accountability Now]

again, it's a statement within a WMO report, attributed to NOAA, as posted by me. You can claim it's an inaccurate statement - your personal opinion, notwithstanding. You simply refuse to refute the NOAA attributed statement, one that relates activity in terms of named storms. I followed up on that WMO statement (attributed to NOAA) with a more current dated activity reference (with data also attributed to NOAA).

of course, it took some time to pull out your most significant misunderstanding concerning that WMO statement (as attributed to NOAA). You simply improperly equated increased decadal activity with an overall increase, a positive trending increase, in the occurrence of 'tropical storms'. As I stated, you've essentially been arguing a false position, one that doesn't reflect upon the actual statement... your misplaced argument, your misunderstanding is glaringly facing you and certainly puts these many past pages of your bluster in proper perspective. You don't even know what you've been arguing!

Its absolutely embarrassing even having a conversation with you. You are either wasting bandwidth by ignoring the basic facts placed right in front of you or you lack the basic comprehension that is expected in elementary school. Sadly I am certain it's the latter.

You keep hiding behind WMO but you fail to admit that all the documents I cited in my recent bazinga post came directly from the WMO or WMO joint effort projects. The WMO disagrees with you. The NOAA disagrees with you. ESCAP Typhoon committe disagrees with you. EVERYONE disagrees with you. This is your worst childhood memories all coming back...isn't it?

Like I said...it's time for the adults to talk which means you can run off and play make believe somewhere else.

[waldo]

your "bazinga post"? The one where you beak-off about uncertainty? Duh! Ya, there's uncertainty... the same uncertainty I've highlighted from the onset. Again, as relayed to you several times over, the same uncertainty that has me not breaking with the consensus, has me not taking an interpreted position that hurricane frequency has increased. Just what are you arguing... who are you arguing with - other than yourself?

as I said, as I'll say again, you don't even know what you're arguing... the waldo has you so twisted inside-out, you don't know whether you're coming or going!!! Again, your whole premise against the WMO statement (as attributed to NOAA) was that you interpreted increased decadal activity (specifically, the most recent past decade) to mean increased frequency! Like I said - you blew this - BIG TIME! As I said, you've been arguing a false position, one you didn't even understand... one that has no bearing on the actual WMO statement.

you're so deluded - and pompous! Nothing puts it into perspective better than to read you state that, "you have scientists agreeing with you/with your position"!!! If only... if only I had scientists that agreed with me... if only I was as pompous as you!!!

Edited July 10, 2013 by waldo

[Accountability Now]

as I said, as I'll say again, you don't even know what you're arguing... the waldo has you so twisted inside-out, you don't know whether you're coming or going!!! Again, your whole premise against the WMO statement (as attributed to NOAA) was that you interpreted increased decadal activity (specifically, the most recent past decade) to mean increased frequency! Like I said - you blew this - BIG TIME! As I said, you've been arguing a false position, one you didn't even understand... one that has no bearing on

You see waldo...this is the beauty of a written fourm....you can't hide behind the BS that you normally spew as its all written for everyone to see. The VERY FIRST POST I made said this:

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 warmig activists jump on.

Did you see that waldo? Would you like me to spell it out for you? NUMBERS OR SEVERITY. Numbers of course relating to frequency and severity relating to intensity. The combination of which results in activity. You are UTTERLY HOPELESS. I suggest you try your antics on forums that don't keep records of the crap you say.

But lets stick with your profound discussion of activity because either you don't know what it is or you are proving my original point that activitst LIKE YOU will manipute anything they can to prove the point. Let's look at the little ditty that you have posted from Climate Central COUNTLESS times:

Wait...what is that? YOUR CHART is citing ACTIVITY? Why I see nothing on there about instensity? Only frequency. Hmmmm....at this point you can either admit that your content is full or crap!

I trust you won't stop there so I'll help you once again. The conent from the above chart ranges from 1950 to 2012...63 years. However how many of those years are reliable? Well I could show you again by virtue of this written forum that all the experts agree that the early data was unreliable....but I don't need to prove that to you. Why? Because you said it:

with an emphasis on the robust/detailed period of satellite coverage from 1975 on.

So...you have botched your whole arguement a number of times by posting this little ditty while whole time while 26 years of the 63 years on YOUR little ditty are completely unreliable. That is almost 40%. 40%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your argument is not even an arguement any more it is a complete and utter JOKE.

Don't worry...I'm not done yet. I noticed that you never made a citation as to the article that you pulled your little ditty from.Obviously hiding something, hey? Googling Climate Central I was able to find the article and oh boy was I surprised and of course happy to find it (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-projects-more-frequent-and-stronger-hurricanes-worldwide-16204)

A new study by Kerry Emanuel, a prominent hurricane researcher at MIT, found that contrary to previous findings, tropical cyclones are likely to become both stronger and more frequent in the years to come, especially in the western North Pacific, where storms can devastate the heavily populated coastlines of Asian nations. Emanuel's research showed the same holds true for the North Atlantic, where about 12 percent of the world's tropical cyclones spin each year.

Emanuel's study casts doubt on what had been the consensus view of most climate scientists — that in most ocean basins, tropical cyclones are likely to become less frequent as the world warms, but that the storms that do occur are likely to contain stronger winds and heavier rains. That view was expressed most recently in a 2012 report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Through your entire botched attempt at posing an arguement you have so cowardly steered away from saying anything was you. But you did say:

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.

So lets just be clear....Emmanuel FLAT OUT disagrees with you and the article is using that graphic to drive home HIS point and you thought you could just steal it and MANIPULATE it to serve your purpose. EXACTLY my point with activists LIKE YOU. Stop manipulating data....the truth will set you free!!

And of course the nail in your coffin...

Emanuel’s study notes that the relationship between global climate and hurricane activity is “only beginning to be understood.”

So.....you can take all your global warming BS and cram it for at least another 20 years because right now you have zip, zero, nothing, natta, zilch.

The one positive out of all of this is that i realized why you flagrantly circle around and try to keep arguements going. I have to beleive its that this forum is the only chance you get to talk to people. Having people not respond to you would be devastating which is why you will do what ever you can to keep this conversation going. Unfortunatley as far as I'm concerned...I have educated you enough and I am happy with my solid 3 and 0 record.

[Charles Anthony]

Folks,

Calm down. Play ball -- do not play the player.

If you encounter somebody who is violating the forum rules, report it and ignore it. DO NOT RESPOND IN KIND otherwise a lesson in "ignore it" will be imposed upon you.

This thread is locked for a while.

Ch. A.

[WWWTT]

Looks like the good folks in Alberta are not the only ones getting soaked!

Last week here in the GTA we received around 125mm of rain (5")!

At least I don't have to water the garden/grass.

The records that lead to the conclusion that this was a record rainfall only go back around 100-150 yrs so I am not convinced that a major climate change caused by human activity is upon us.

However I believe that climate does change and that we should adapt.

WWWTT

[waldo]

The records that lead to the conclusion that this was a record rainfall only go back around 100-150 yrs so I am not convinced that a major climate change caused by human activity is upon us.

However I believe that climate does change and that we should adapt.

you wouldn't base your understanding, your conclusion, your position, simply on the recent single localized GTA rainfall event/record... or, a single localized weather event of any kind. For what its worth, given your past avowed denier position, 100-150 years of observed local weather event data is a most significant figure/amount... applied in a relative context. The real questions you should be asking yourself... and looking to resolve... is where does this record GTA rainfall fit within relatively recent like rainfall events? Was there a pattern of increased moisture fueling the event... if so, what might have caused it? Is there a possible causal tie to, for example, recent unusual jet-stream patterns... if so, what might have caused this? Is there a possible causal tie to, for example, recent unusual blocking patterns that caused the storm to 'stall out', not move on and recycle/repeat within the same general geographic area... if so, what might have caused this?.......etc..

of course, in the broader global context, you should be looking to gain an appreciation... an understanding... of the correlation of local/regional weather events to a broader global assessment of increases in respective observed local/regional weather events (intensity, frequency, or both)... and if increases exist, what might be causing them? Equally, in the broader global context, no single localized event with an observed increase validates a global climate change influence on like events; nor does any single localized event with an observed decrease invalidate a climate change influence on like events.

[waldo]

MLW member, 'Accountability Now'...

let's recap: your over-riding premise has you incorrectly interpreting the scope/range of statements correlating an observed global increase in particular extreme weather events with global warming/climate change. These statements hold an inherent (and emphasized caveat) that the increase, dependent on the respective weather extreme, is either an increase in frequency, in intensity, or both. Your incorrect interpretation has you (and the scientists you claim... agree... with you!!!), believing that if you can 'poke a hole' in a particular observed local/regional extreme, you've "refuted" the global in scope/range statements that you take exception to. As I've emphasized, local/regional is not global - obviously... and your over-riding premise is flawed... even if you could show it, which you haven't!

let me again highlight the 2 principal references you have taken... extreme... objection to. An objection that centers on regional cyclone activity (characterized by reference to an associated number of named tropical cyclones) in the North Atlantic Basin, and your incorrect association; an association that has you improperly equating the 2 principal references use/emphasis on 'increased activity', to 'increased frequency' of event.

the 2 references use the number of named storms over a period of time to qualify their use of the term activity. As I've repeatedly advised you, increased activity (increased named storms) does not imply increased frequency. Increased activity (increased named storms), does not provide a foundation to state an overall positive increased trend in frequency exists. Accordingly, the 2 principal references do not hold to... do not hold to... an observed increase in the frequency of observed storms (categorized by those named) in the North Atlantic Basin exists.

again, the 2 principal references you have taken extreme objection to, both draw their attribution directly from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); specifically:

1. in regards its report, "2001-2010, A Decade of Climate Extremes", the World Meteorological Organization's statement that, "2001-2010 was the most active decade since 1855 in terms of tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic Basin. An average of 15 named storms per year was recorded, well above the long-term average of 12."

2. a graphic detailing the number of Atlantic named storms across the period 1950-2012, showing increased activity from a 1995 reference point.

as I have repeatedly emphasized, you refuse to take up my challenge to directly refute these 2 references... you refuse to directly address these 2 references. The 2 references you take such... extreme... objection to! The 2 references that say nothing more than an increase in activity of North Atlantic Basin tropical cyclones (categorized by the number of named storms) has occurred over particular periods of time... activity (categorized by the number of named storms), not frequency!

[waldo]

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.

Did you see that waldo? Would you like me to spell it out for you? NUMBERS OR SEVERITY.

again, you have over-reached, drawn improper context and, essentially, crafted your own strawman. Your statement references Table 7 within your supplied link's document. You actually meant to say Table 6. In any case you, again, place a too far reaching emphasis on landfall. Most pointedly, your link is specific to American landfall; that is to say, you are attempting to use a subset of landfall (American only), within a subset itself, landfall proper. Yours is a subset within a subset of the overall categorization. And, of course, the number of tropical cyclones that actually reach landfall is a significant minority of the overall number of tropical cyclones. And even more pointedly, the North Atlantic Basin only accounts for ~12% of all global tropical cyclones. Again, your emphasis is a subset, within a subset, itself a minority. within a minority, of the global overall!

you continually contradict yourself, this simply being another example. The following is your referenced Table 6: Number of hurricanes by category to strike the mainland U.S. each decade.

per your supplied link's related statement, "Table 6, which lists hurricanes by decades since 1851, shows that during the 40-year period 1961-2000 both the number and intensity of landfalling U.S. hurricanes decreased sharply. However, landfall activity during the 2000s has picked up significantly, and is now near the frequency seen in the very active 1950s."

your supplied link speaks to a 'sharp decrease' over a 50 year period, only returning to the prior '1950's period' within the last decade. The reference doesn't specifically speak to trends, but neither did you supply an actual trend assessment when you simply declared, "they have not shown any major trends". Clearly, you failed to interpret your own referenced table properly.

in any case, the more salient point remains... that making any global extrapolations based on a subset, within a subset, itself a minority, within a minority of the global overall, is improper and incorrect. Of course, I did directly address landfall once myself... it was to provide you an example study of scientists looking to resolve just why the number of hurricanes hitting the U.S. landfall... had decreased. Again... decreased, per the following:

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

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.

so, again, you improperly interpreted your own supplied reference, and you ignored earlier discussion highlighting an observed decrease in hurricanes hitting the U.S. mainland... and, you improperly presumed to globally extrapolate your regional landfall subset within a subset, itself a minority, within a minority, of the global overall.

[waldo]

Let's look at the little ditty that you have posted from Climate Central COUNTLESS times:

The conent from the above chart ranges from 1950 to 2012...63 years. However how many of those years are reliable? Well I could show you again by virtue of this written forum that all the experts agree that the early data was unreliable....but I don't need to prove that to you. Why? Because you said it:

with an emphasis on the robust/detailed period of satellite coverage from 1975 on.

So...you have botched your whole arguement a number of times by posting this little ditty while whole time while 26 years of the 63 years on YOUR little ditty are completely unreliable. That is almost 40%. 40%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your argument is not even an arguement any more it is a complete and utter JOKE.

no - what is a, as you say, 'utter JOKE', is you've selectively pulled out a partial statement of mine, taken it out of context, and improperly applied it for your self-serving purpose. Specifically, the complete statement you selectively pulled a piece from, is as follows:

first, let's make my personal position clear by drawing your attention to this earlier post within this very thread... the one that has me emphasizing uncertainty over hurricane/cyclone frequency increase... that's a global position/uncertainty (not just limited to the Atlantic Basin). My particular focus was/is on intensity and, yes, my citation/study reference did isolate on the Atlantic Basin - with an emphasis on the robust/detailed period of satellite coverage from 1975 on.

note: the study, offered as one of many examples, does corroborate my position reference concerning intensity. Within the above quote, I've highlighted the partial extract you've selectively taken/applied. What you've done is taken a partial statement that applies only to the study's focused analysis period and assumed it to be the starting point reference for satellite monitoring. Even as you've taken the statement out of its proper context, you've essentially taken the partial statement... my partial statement referencing 1975... as the authoritative declaration on when satellite monitoring started. Two, actually three, FAILS on your part!

FAIL #1: As I stated, 1975 is the starting point emphasis the study chose; specifically, from the study itself: "For the global hurricane analysis we choose to focus on the slightly shorter period from 1975 to 2010, as this is a reasonably homogeneous period of global satellite data; going back to 1960 does not affect our conclusions."

FAIL #2: you apparently don't understand the terms 'robust/detailed', particularly as you choose to cast doubt on the reliability of pre-satellite monitoring data. You emphatically categorize the pre-satellite monitoring period as "completely unreliable". Of course, you ignore this within this threads much discussed historical reanalysis performed by NOAA.

FAIL #3: you perform a simplistic "reliability calculation", one in which you improperly use my 1975 reference as a starting point. In fact, the actual recognized starting point for satellite monitoring is 1960, in relation to the first NASA launch of the TIROS group satellites. If you read my extracted study quote (within your FAIL #1 listing above), you will read this same reference to 1960, and the differentiation the study authors make concerning a starting point of 1975 versus 1960. That brings your simplistic calculation down to an ~15% "completely unreliable" figure! If you really want to quibble about the degree of reliability within the 1950-1960 period, I have no problem limiting that graphic's reference to only ~55 years, from 1960-2012. Considering the longest recognized period requirement for interpreting climate from the weather events that contribute to climate, to account for and limit/discount natural variability influences, is 30 years (per the World Meteorological Organization)... a period of ~55 years is a most lengthy extension of that 30 year requirement.

[waldo]

I noticed that you never made a citation as to the article that you pulled your little ditty from. Obviously hiding something, hey? Googling Climate Central I was able to find the article and oh boy was I surprised and of course happy to find it (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-projects-more-frequent-and-stronger-hurricanes-worldwide-16204)

hiding something? No! Hiding nothing.The graphic includes a logo identifying it's origination - Climate Central. The supplied url of the graphic includes the necessary info to quite easily identify the source website and find the related article the graphic associates to. The graphic link as: http://www.climatecentral.org/images/sized/images/uploads/news/7_8_13_news_andrew_stormsclimatology-500x282.jpg

simply input, News July 8 2013, into the Climate Central website search bar. The very first entry returned within the search list is the related article the graph associates to. How difficult is that?

of course, you incorrectly think the article has bearing on this threads past discussion. It is quite telling that in your complete misunderstanding you would project the thought that I was being deceptive in not including a direct reference to the article. Clearly, as I relate in the following post, I was not... you simply aren't following the discussion, don't understand the study and you improperly associate the study with the referenced graphic.

[waldo]

Googling Climate Central I was able to find the article and oh boy was I surprised and of course happy to find it (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-projects-more-frequent-and-stronger-hurricanes-worldwide-16204)

A new study by Kerry Emanuel, a prominent hurricane researcher at MIT, found that contrary to previous findings, tropical cyclones are likely to become both stronger and more frequent in the years to come, especially in the western North Pacific, where storms can devastate the heavily populated coastlines of Asian nations. Emanuel's research showed the same holds true for the North Atlantic, where about 12 percent of the world's tropical cyclones spin each year.

Emanuel's study casts doubt on what had been the consensus view of most climate scientists — that in most ocean basins, tropical cyclones are likely to become less frequent as the world warms, but that the storms that do occur are likely to contain stronger winds and heavier rains. That view was expressed most recently in a 2012 report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Through your entire botched attempt at posing an arguement you have so cowardly steered away from saying anything was you.

as I said, you haven't any understanding as to the study's underlying methodology. More pointedly, to this stage in the entire thread, any discussion of tropical cyclones has been in terms of past observation... all data presented has been data from past periods/events, including the data you have sourced. Equally, my references to the scientific consensus on tropical cyclones has been with respect to past observations and attributed causal ties to those past observations. The study you so incorrectly reference has nothing to do with providing an attribution for past occurrences; rather, it is a study projecting into the future... your own quote even states that, and yet you didn't understand what you read, or what you wrote!

the actual graphic supplied within the article has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual study. I realized that... you clearly didn't! However, the graphic quite nicely fit the narrative put forward by the original World Meteorological Organization (WMO) statement you so objected to - the WMO statement concerning an increase in activity of North Atlantic Basin tropical cyclones (categorized by the number of named storms). So... I referenced the graphic within the article but not the actual study referenced by the article.

quite obviously, you didn't even bother to read the study. But that certainly didn't preclude you from directing the most negative aspersions my way.

as to the study itself, for downscaled resolution purposes, the study author used local/regional climate models to simulate tropical cyclone events every year between the years 1950 and 2005... then ran the models forward to project a forecast conclusion to the year 2100 based on a scenario of global CO₂ emissions tripling by 2100.The study author projects that the frequency of tropical cyclones will increase between 10%-to-40% by 2100; projects that the intensity of tropical cyclones will increase by 45% by 2100. But again, this study's forecast projection has nothing to do with this threads past event observations, attributing causal ties to those past event observations, or any consensus statement on those past event observations.

setting aside the fact the study doesn't correlate with the actual graphic presented and doesn't correlate with anything prior to this point in the thread, you clearly hold a most naive understanding of the relevance/significance of any single study, particuarly one just published, one that hasn't even undergone the rigour of peer-response. More significantly, no single study can overturn a consensus position. Quite obviously you hold that single study to an improper relevance and weight positioning!

[waldo]

But you did say:

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.

So lets just be clear....Emmanuel FLAT OUT disagrees with you and the article is using that graphic to drive home HIS point and you thought you could just steal it and MANIPULATE it to serve your purpose. EXACTLY my point with activists LIKE YOU. Stop manipulating data....the truth will set you free!!

as I stated in the preceding post, you incorrectly correlate the graphic to the study. I didn't, as you say, steal anything! I didn't, as you say, manipulate anything! You flat out don't understand what you're talking about! Clearly! Most emphatically!

again, my statement on my interpretation of the prevailing consensus on tropical cyclones was in the context of past event observations... as has been the entire focus of this thread to-date - past event observations. My interpreted consensus statement is one consistent with the IPCC AR4 report or the more recent SREX report you linked above; specifically:

With regards to tropical cyclones, no statistically significant trends have been detected in the overall global annual number although a trend has been reported in the intensity of the strongest storms since 1980

.

I said, as you quoted above: "an increase in intensity but no apparent increase in frequency". My interpreted statement on the consensus matches the above quoted IPCC consensus statement.

(note: the intensity trend drops out beyond 40 years; however, the period since 1980 forward to today (30+ years) is a most representative and qualified period for assessing climate change trends associated with weather events. And, of course, the post 1980 attribution assessment presumes to a level of warmer ocean surface sufficient to drive the accelerated winds associated with increased intensity).

I note again you phrase a statement suggesting a scientist agrees/disagrees with one of us. I was somewhat taken to mocking you earlier when you said the same thing with respect to yourself... that a scientist agreed with you! Again, clearly... no scientists are agreeing/disagreeing with us! Rather, our interpreted positions/statements/understandings are one's that may or may not align with the work/research/study/assessment of respective scientists.Obviously, you have the wrong perspective.

Edited July 15, 2013 by waldo

[Topaz]

What are the views of the Premier saying if you live in a flood plain, move or pay for the next flood yourself. I doubt if any insurance company will give anyone coverage,even if one pays very high premiums to have it. Glad to see someone has common sense out there.

[BubberMiley]

What defines a flood plain?

Edited July 15, 2013 by BubberMiley

[waldo]

What defines a flood plain?

from an Alberta government perspective: a 'flood hazard area' is defined by 'floodway' and 'flood fringe' zones:

Flood Hazard Area - The area affected by the design flood under encroachment conditions. The flood hazard area is typically divided into floodway and flood fringe zones, and may also include areas of overland flow.

Floodway - The portion of the flood hazard area where flows are deepest, fastest and most destructive. The floodway typically includes the main channel of a stream and a portion of the adjacent overbank area. The floodway is required to convey the design flood. New development is discouraged in the floodway and may not be permitted in some communities.

Flood Fringe - The portion of the flood hazard area outside of the floodway. Water in the flood fringe is generally shallower and flows more slowly than in the floodway. New development in the flood fringe may be permitted in some communities and should be floodproofed.

Overland Flow - Areas of overland flow are part of the flood hazard area outside of the floodway, and typically considered special areas of the flood fringe.

Design Flood - The current design standard in Alberta is the 100-year flood, determined when a flood hazard study is undertaken. A 100-year flood is defined as a flood whose magnitude has a one percent chance of being equalled or exceeded in any year. The design flood can also reflect a computed 100-year water level resulting from an ice jam or be based on a historical flood event.

Edited July 15, 2013 by waldo

[waldo]

So.....you can take all your global warming BS and cram it for at least another 20 years because right now you have zip, zero, nothing, natta, zilch.

BS? Global warming BS??? Such a strange comment from someone who has repeatedly claimed to be undecided... who has repeatedly claimed to be a self-described "fence-sitter"!

[Accountability Now]

MLW member, 'Accountability Now'...

let's recap: your over-riding premise has you incorrectly interpreting the scope/range of statements correlating an observed global increase in particular extreme weather events with global warming/climate change. These statements hold an inherent (and emphasized caveat) that the increase, dependent on the respective weather extreme, is either an increase in frequency, in intensity, or both. Your incorrect interpretation has you (and the scientists you claim... agree... with you!!!), believing that if you can 'poke a hole' in a particular observed local/regional extreme, you've "refuted" the global in scope/range statements that you take exception to. As I've emphasized, local/regional is not global - obviously... and your over-riding premise is flawed... even if you could show it, which you haven't!

Sure...let's recap. You have stated that there is a global increase yet neither you or your supplied WMO article goes into any detail to show numbers that correlate on a global scale. There is nothing showing the total number of global cyclones rather THEY chose to use the Northern Atlantic basin which is a local/regional example. More specifically, THEY chose very specific local/regional examples (as per your orginal supplied quote) to use Hurricane Katrina as their example of an extreme event when it clearly is NOT. You have focused on the statement that Hurricane Katrina was the most devasting hurricane of the decade. Two other hurricanes in 2005 were more intense than Katrina. Hurricane Charley one year previous to Katrina hit Catgory 4 at landfall contrast to Katrina which was only 3. Of course Charley only killed 40 people verus the thousands killed by Katrina so which one makes more sense to use? To me it is nothing more than agendra driven manipulation that they chose Katrina for their example as the number of deaths as nothing to do with the objectivity of the force of a hurricane. If storms are getting more intense...then use Charley as your example....not Katrina.....but of course that doesn't make people fear anything....does it?

All of the data that you have submitted to support your so-called global approach has ALL been local/regional examples. As such I have worked with what you have supplied such as the below chart again localized to the North Atlantic basin. You continue to gripe about this global connection yet you have nothing to support it. However when I easily pick apart your local/regional examples, all that you can retort with is that the argument is global. That is what we call circling.

2. a graphic detailing the number of Atlantic named storms across the period 1950-2012, showing increased activity from a 1995 reference point.

as I have repeatedly emphasized, you refuse to take up my challenge to directly refute these 2 references... you refuse to directly address these 2 references. The 2 references you take such... extreme... objection to! The 2 references that say nothing more than an increase in activity of North Atlantic Basin tropical cyclones (categorized by the number of named storms) has occurred over particular periods of time... activity (categorized by the number of named storms), not frequency!

I have responded to your references countless times now. In fact you have even responded to my repsonses already. This is the clearest evidence that you are simply ignoring the facts in order to drag on a conversation for your own enjoyment. Go back and read as this forum records it all.

As for activity...I am now certain that you don't know what activity means. You conveniently pick and choose between frequency and intensity however as per below, the NHC defines activity as both. Again..I easily point out that your chart above shows nothing in regards to intensity but yet choses the term activity.

What do we mean by hurricane activity?

There are three terms generally used to describe a hurricane season: frequency, intensity and activity. Hurricane frequency refers to the number of hurricanes that occur. Hurricane intensity is a measure of the strength or maximum wind speed of a hurricane (the category). Hurricane activity is the term used by the National Hurricane Center that encompasses both the frequency and intensity of hurricanes in a season.

http://www.c2es.org/science-impacts/basics/faqs/hurricanes#activity