Alberta floods

[Accountability Now]

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!

Again...you have yet to supply anything showing the global correlation at all, rather you choose to take issue with me discussing the local/regional points that your study focused on. You took extra effort to quote the claim from the WMO report stating that 2001-2010 was the most active decade for the North Atlantic basin....the local and regional example. Where are the numbers globally?

Don't confuse the fact that I was easily able to poke holes all through the assumed data that I don't understand a global example versus local. The problem however is that if your global example is going to be built off the local examples, then you should ensure that you choose GOOD local examples and not pick the items that rely on data that are questinable at best. Of course, you don't have to believe me that they are questionable....Chris Landsea and a wide assortment of other scientists have said the same thing. You just choose to ignore this. You also choose to ignore that landfall hurricanes are the most accurate long term data we have AS STATED by the scientist you quoted your numerously emphasized statement. You can choose to ignore these things but don't expect me to.

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.

Nope. No failure here just more manipulation on your part. Your focus extracts 40 years of data when 160 years is available. The percentage for error decreases by the square root of the sample size....as such the larger the sample size the less error. It is clear that you are picking that 40 year period because it serves your purpse. However it would be just as easy to look at another 40 year period, say 1871-1910 where the hurricane activity was most active 40 years. I personally like to reduce the error and go with the largest sample size. Based on this size 2001-2010 was normal.

There are obvious highs and lows in the landfall hurricane cycle. That is why they call it a cycle. Your interpretation would be equivalent to saying there was a sharp decrease in temperature during an ice age compare to the previous warm period. That is what happens in cycles. These cycles creates 'norms' or activity that we would expect over a long term. The period of 2001-2010 is well within the norm based on all the long term data present...plain and simple. That fact that you choose not to see this is not my fault howver my interpretation is dead on.

[Accountability Now]

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."

Again...the failure on this is completely on your end. I have posted numerous times where Chris Landsea and other reknown scientists in this field have admitted that earlier years data is not reliable but you apparently know more than them? Most specifically....polar orbitting satellite coverage didn't commence until 1966 not 1960. So at the very least 27% of your data did NOT include satellites. Of course, the first satellites and data coming in 1966 can't possible compare to the data being delivered today. I have to believe that bugs were incurred and improvements were made largely in the first 10 years. As such stating 1975 as the start of the robust satellite era is quite accurate. Again....you circle around things that even you have already claimed. Amazing.

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.

Its not what I categorize....its what people like Chris Landsea have said about it. If they have gone to such efforts to say that the data is unreliable then who are you to suggest it is?

I don't feel like circling on this so I will again provide the link to the previous post showing the numerous scientists addressing this issue here

If you choose to ignore their warmings about the spurious data then go right ahead but that would be another fail on your part.

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.

LOL. You have already discussed this in your attempted claim at fail #1. Is that your only way to make it three fails? Now you are cicling yourself!! Please look above for the explaination as above specifically noting that satellites started in 1966 not 1960 which easily brings the number to 27% assuming of course that the data being pushed out in 1966 was the exact same as it is today (which its not)

Defining climate by 30 year increments is further proof of a self serving and manipulating tactic used by WMO. I guess the long term stuff wasn't working out for them so they had to switch it up? I guess we can't look at ice ages or warming periods or CO2 past 1980 anymore....that damn 30 years.

[Accountability Now]

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.

The article was actully referenced on the Climate Central home page. I didn't have to search anything once I found the Climate Central page but you go ahead and search deep into the back pages for your stuff.

It has all sorts of bearing on this thread. My entire point is that activists like you will use whatever data you can if it serves your purpose. This chart was intended to proove the point of someone who disagrees with you and your concensus however you have no problems coming up and snatching that little ditty when it serves your purpose. If I were arguing the same thing as Emmanuel then I am 100% sure that you would have steered clear of that chart altogether!. Very self serving and very proving of my point.

[Accountability Now]

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!

It doesn't correlate? So why does it appear in Climate Centrals article about Emannuel? Are you suggesting they are wrong? Are you suggesting they are manipuating data? Please tell me? The chart was created by Climate Central and they chose to implment it within an article they wrote on their website...so clearly they must feel it correlates. I trust at this point 'the waldo' has contacted Climate Central to tell them the error of their ways?

As for the study.....I don't need to read the study to know that you are using the same data as someone who conclusively disagrees with you. That is my only point in bringing up Emmanuel. It proved the point and I moved on but feel free to keep stirring in your projections, causal ties, and basic lack of proof for anything.

[Accountability Now]

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.

And I have shown that my interpretations that spurious data is being used for hurricane analysis was backed by numerous, prominents scientists as per this. But yet you have aligned yourself in blind faith behind the WMO consensus without any numbers showing a global trend rather the use of local examples. Its not a matter of wrong perspective for you.....rather you have no perspective.

[Accountability Now]

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"!

If we have to take sides then I will gladly take the side opposite of you.

[Boges]

Is any truth to the theory that the Floods were worse because of development on flood plains?

Toronto had some serious flooding last week but it wasn't considered catastrophic because there aren't as many people living directly on flood plains.

Most major problems were isolated to transportation routes and Toronto's weak electricity system.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Boges

[waldo]

As for activity...

if you persist in claiming/asserting that the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has taken a counter position... expresses a counter position... from that of the consensus, state exactly that. State exactly what you claim - and support your claim as to what you believe/interpret the WMO to have incorrectly stated/expressed.

the quote and graphic both emphasize named storms as a qualifier:

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]

If we have to take sides then I will gladly take the side opposite of you.

please sir... Moderator Charles Anthony has requested you 'play the ball'... 'not the player'. Are you capable of that?

[waldo]

It doesn't correlate? So why does it appear in Climate Centrals article about Emannuel? Are you suggesting they are wrong? Are you suggesting they are manipuating data? Please tell me? The chart was created by Climate Central and they chose to implment it within an article they wrote on their website...so clearly they must feel it correlates. I trust at this point 'the waldo' has contacted Climate Central to tell them the error of their ways?

As for the study.....I don't need to read the study to know that you are using the same data as someone who conclusively disagrees with you. That is my only point in bringing up Emmanuel. It proved the point and I moved on but feel free to keep stirring in your projections, causal ties, and basic lack of proof for anything.

the graphic doesn't correlate. Again, you don't understand the study. If you're so adamant the study has bearing/relevance, explicitly state how the graphic correlates with the study. And again, you lose your perspective when you claim, "a scientist doesn't agree with me"!

to suggest you've moved on from that study is quite telling... since you completely and improperly presumed to utilize that study, one that forecasts a futures projection, in regards to the previous thread discussions that speak to past observable events/data. Yes, clearly... you've moved on - once the error of your ways has been explained to you!

[waldo]

The article was actully referenced on the Climate Central home page. I didn't have to search anything once I found the Climate Central page but you go ahead and search deep into the back pages for your stuff.

It has all sorts of bearing on this thread. My entire point is that activists like you will use whatever data you can if it serves your purpose. This chart was intended to proove the point of someone who disagrees with you and your concensus however you have no problems coming up and snatching that little ditty when it serves your purpose. If I were arguing the same thing as Emmanuel then I am 100% sure that you would have steered clear of that chart altogether!. Very self serving and very proving of my point.

it's off the homepage now... hence my helpful hint for you to find it in an easy search using the websites search function. Yes, as I clearly stated, that graphic most certainly fits the narrative of the World Meteorological Organization's statement... that's why I sourced/linked it. Again, you simply don't understand the study you presumed to use... it's intended to provide a forecast futures projection.

and again, the same challenge to you: if you believe the article's graphic directly correlates to the referenced study within the article... show the correlation! Show it.

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!

[Accountability Now]

if you persist in claiming/asserting that the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has taken a counter position... expresses a counter position... from that of the consensus, state exactly that. State exactly what you claim - and support your claim as to what you believe/interpret the WMO to have incorrectly stated/expressed.

the quote and graphic both emphasize named storms as a qualifier:

Ive already stated exactly what I've claimed. How many more times do you need to see it on this well documented forum. Or are you just trolling now?

[waldo]

And I have shown that my interpretations that spurious data is being used for hurricane analysis

says the guy who tries to extrapolate U.S. landfall records to a global level... again, you presume to use a subset, of a subset, of a minority, within a minority, of the global overall. Some... certainly not the waldo... would suggest your attempted extrapolation is, as you say, spurious!

[waldo]

I've already stated exactly what I've claimed. How many more times do you need to see it on this well documented forum. Or are you just trolling now?

state it explicitly - state exactly what you believe/interpret the World Meteorological Organization has incorrectly and/or improperly done/expressed in the WMO statement you so take exception to. State it exactly... and while you're doing that, explain why you refuse to directly challenge the WMO statement.

Edited July 15, 2013 by waldo

[Accountability Now]

please sir... Moderator Charles Anthony has requested you 'play the ball'... 'not the player'. Are you capable of that?

Nice try on the bait. I have played the ball. I would never side with someone that presents the close minded, skewd arguments that you have. So if I had to pick sides, I certainly would want to keep an open mind to the pure and unadultered scientific facts that seem to evade you.

[Accountability Now]

it's off the homepage now... hence my helpful hint for you to find it in an easy search using the websites search function. Yes, as I clearly stated, that graphic most certainly fits the narrative of the World Meteorological Organization's statement... that's why I sourced/linked it. Again, you simply don't understand the study you presumed to use... it's intended to provide a forecast futures projection.

and again, the same challenge to you: if you believe the article's graphic directly correlates to the referenced study within the article... show the correlation! Show it.

Have you called Climate Central to complain yet that they used their graphic to correlate to their article?

[Accountability Now]

says the guy who tries to extrapolate U.S. landfall records to a global level... again, you presume to use a subset, of a subset, of a minority, within a minority, of the global overall. Some... certainly not the waldo... would suggest your attempted extrapolation is, as you say, spurious!

You have yet to show ANY correlations to global levels. ZERO, ZIP, NATTA!! Keep trolling.

[Accountability Now]

state it explicitly - state exactly what you believe/interpret the World Meteorological Organization has incorrectly and/or improperly done/expressed in the WMO statement you so take exception to. State it exactly... and while you're doing that, explain why you refuse to directly challenge the WMO statement.

Already done. Troll on...

[Accountability Now]

Is any truth to the theory that the Floods were worse because of development on flood plains?

Toronto had some serious flooding last week but it wasn't considered catastrophic because there aren't as many people living directly on flood plains.

Most major problems were isolated to transportation routes and Toronto's weak electricity system.

I'm not sure if the floods were objectively worse (ie larger flooding) but it may have caused more damage. I was just reading an article today that the province of Alberta is taking a hardline on people or companies that choose to rebuild in these flood plains. The article went on to say that Calgary isn't the only area with this issue as Fort McMurray is almost entirely on a flood plain.

[waldo]

Most specifically....polar orbitting satellite coverage didn't commence until 1966 not 1960. So at the very least 27% of your data did NOT include satellites. Of course, the first satellites and data coming in 1966 can't possible compare to the data being delivered today. I have to believe that bugs were incurred and improvements were made largely in the first 10 years. As such stating 1975 as the start of the robust satellite era is quite accurate. Again....you circle around things that even you have already claimed. Amazing.

no - 1960... was the beginning - the beginning of NASA TIROS satellites --- for your edification, TIROS satellites were/are also referred to as polar orbiting satellites. Even in their early 'rudimentary' stages, even in the first few days of the TIROS-1, it captured an image of a typhoon off Australia.

.

[waldo]

Nice try on the bait. I have played the ball. I would never side with someone that presents the close minded, skewd arguments that you have. So if I had to pick sides, I certainly would want to keep an open mind to the pure and unadultered scientific facts that seem to evade you.

yes, clearly... you've demonstrated your "open-mindedness" with such comments as "global warming BS". In any case, in just a few short posts you've already begun to personalize. I trust you will be able to temper your... extremism... yes?

[waldo]

Have you called Climate Central to complain yet that they used their graphic to correlate to their article?

I certainly don't see any problem with the article's author throwing in the graphic... per the graphic, per the reason I used it, it does provide a perspective on the increased number of named storms, directly following the narrative of the WMO statement. Again, that's why I sourced/linked it.

again, you have now refused twice to provide a correlation between the graphic and the study you so failed on. This is now the third request/challenge for you to do so. Is there a problem?

[Accountability Now]

no - 1960... was the beginning - the beginning of NASA TIROS satellites --- for your edification, TIROS satellites were/are also referred to as polar orbiting satellites. Even in their early 'rudimentary' stages, even in the first few days of the TIROS-1, it captured an image of a typhoon off Australia.

Good for NASA and TIROS. The NOAA started using satelitte data in 1966 as per http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/nws-nhc-6.pdf. And your WMO claim was 'attributed to NOAA' ....right?

Speaking of your WMO claim which of course stated that 2001-2010 was the worst decade since 1855. Glad to see that we've widdled it down to the 1960s. I guess your claim of 1855 was a bit much hey? You should have just accepted my suggestion that comparing to that early of a time was not possible. It would have saved you bunch of time.

[Accountability Now]

yes, clearly... you've demonstrated your "open-mindedness" with such comments as "global warming BS". In any case, in just a few short posts you've already begun to personalize. I trust you will be able to temper your... extremism... yes?

Nothing personal....all fact. Your arguments in this thread are weak and can't be upheld which is why you deflect and circle around in a trolling manner. I trust the moderators of this forum will be interested in that.

[waldo]

You have yet to show ANY correlations to global levels. ZERO, ZIP, NATTA!! Keep trolling.

global levels??? What? Aren't you aware of those global hurricanes... of global floods... of global droughts... of global wildfires.....

you see... this is your most fundamental failing throughout this whole thread. Here's a handy reminder I just wrote to another MLW member - if you actually read it, perhaps it just might register!

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.