Alberta floods

[waldo]

Why would I challenge the NOAA? The WMO made the claim. Please get that straight

oh please! You know the WMO attributes the statement to NOAA. You haven't actually stated who you claim manipulated data - please do.

now, to your claim of manipulated data, should we now add you also claim that the WMO is falsely attributing the statement to NOAA? Just how far are you willing to take this?

[Accountability Now]

pfffft! I have no interest in wasting further cycles/time engaging you. You have nothing to contribute... well... nothing other than a spurious attempt to globally extrapolate localized data, data from a subset, of a subset, within a minority of a minority of the global overall. Some... certainly not the waldo... would suggest you're manipulating that data! Oh my!

This is the second time you've stated this. Will you say it a third time after another thousand trolling posts?

[Accountability Now]

oh please! You know the WMO attributes the statement to NOAA. You haven't actually stated who you claim manipulated data - please do.

now, to your claim of manipulated data, should we now add you also claim that the WMO is falsely attributing the statement to NOAA? Just how far are you willing to take this?

You said I should challenge the NOAA. Why would I do that when it was the WMO that manipulated the NOAA data?

[waldo]

This is the second time you've stated this. Will you say it a third time after another thousand trolling posts?

again, no trolling on my part. Given you've come full-cycle on your earlier claims of scientists/reputable organizations manipulating data, I think it's quite prudent to highlight your own efforts to attempt to globally extrapolate your most selective U.S. only landfall hurricane event data. You know... that subset of landfall, which is itself a subset of all hurricanes, which is itself a subset of North Atlantic Basin hurricanes, which is itself a small minority of the overall global tropical storms. Oh wait now! There's another subset here!!! Of course, the actual statement you take such extreme exception to is one referencing tropical storms, of which hurricanes are only a subset within, So, some... certainly not the waldo... would claim your own data manipulation was actually manipulating data from a subset, of a subset, of a subset, of a minority, within a minority, of the global overall!!! Oh my... that's some data manipulation on your part... some might claim... but certainly not the waldo!

[Accountability Now]

again, no trolling on my part. Given you've come full-cycle on your earlier claims of scientists/reputable organizations manipulating data, I think it's quite prudent to highlight your own efforts to attempt to globally extrapolate your most selective U.S. only landfall hurricane event data. You know... that subset of landfall, which is itself a subset of all hurricanes, which is itself a subset of North Atlantic Basin hurricanes, which is itself a small minority of the overall global tropical storms. Oh wait now! There's another subset here!!! Of course, the actual statement you take such extreme exception to is one referencing tropical storms, of which hurricanes are only a subset within, So, some... certainly not the waldo... would claim your own data manipulation was actually manipulating data from a subset, of a subset, of a subset, of a minority, within a minority, of the global overall!!! Oh my... that's some data manipulation on your part... some might claim... but certainly not the waldo!

I thought you were done?

There is no global data. How can there be a subset of nothing? I provided my conclusions from the most reliable long term data (landfall hurricanes) which is confirmed by the scientist that you based your premise on. Conversely you based yours on nothing!

[waldo]

You said I should challenge the NOAA. Why would I do that when it was the WMO that manipulated the NOAA data?

nice dodge! Again, for the brazillionth time, per the WMO report, the statement you isolated on, the statement that you highlighted, the statement that you took extreme exception to, as follows:

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. An average of 15 named storms per year was recorded, well above the long-term average of 12.

now I did ask/challenge you to state just "who" manipulated data. You dodged this. Now I did ask if we should add to your data manipulation claim another claim that you believe the WMO has falsely attributed the statement to NOAA. You also dodged this. C'mon... are you now making 2 claims? Please be precise - yes?

.

[waldo]

There is no global data. How can there be a subset of nothing?

please sir... it's the global complement of data... of which your isolated lil' piece that you presumed to extrapolate globally, belongs to a subset, of a subset, of a subset, of a minority, within a minority, of the global overall!!! Again, some... but certainly not the waldo... might say, your data manipulation is very profound... indeed!

[waldo]

yes... I'm done... the waldo's work is done here (for today)!

[Accountability Now]

nice dodge! Again, for the brazillionth time, per the WMO report, the statement you isolated on, the statement that you highlighted, the statement that you took extreme exception to, as follows:

now I did ask/challenge you to state just "who" manipulated data. You dodged this. Now I did ask if we should add to your data manipulation claim another claim that you believe the WMO has falsely attributed the statement to NOAA. You also dodged this. C'mon... are you now making 2 claims? Please be precise - yes?

.

Based on numbers from the NOAA. I can use they're numbers too to make false claims but it doesn't make it their fault.

The WMO made the false claim. Need that any clearer?

[Accountability Now]

please sir... it's the global complement of data... of which your isolated lil' piece that you presumed to extrapolate globally, belongs to a subset, of a subset, of a subset, of a minority, within a minority, of the global overall!!! Again, some... but certainly not the waldo... might say, your data manipulation is very profound... indeed!

Show me one of your peer reviewed scientific studies that contains these global facts. Come on...have a little pride in your argument.

[Accountability Now]

yes... I'm done... the waldo's work is done here (for today)!

One could consider the trolling as work...I wouldn't but you might.

[Accountability Now]

nice dodge! Again, for the brazillionth time, per the WMO report, the statement you isolated on, the statement that you highlighted, the statement that you took extreme exception to, as follows:

now I did ask/challenge you to state just "who" manipulated data. You dodged this. Now I did ask if we should add to your data manipulation claim another claim that you believe the WMO has falsely attributed the statement to NOAA. You also dodged this. C'mon... are you now making 2 claims? Please be precise - yes?

.

I am flat out saying that the WMO manipulated the data by ignoring the spurious nature of the data prior to 1966. Furthermore I am also flatout saying that the WMO has falsely attributed this statement as if the NOAA was saying it (instead it should say Citing numbers from the NOAA).

I believe I posted this link before but I'm not sure. Its a gem from Chris Landsea (who of course is one of the world's authorities on hurricanes and works/represents the NOAA directly). http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html

Contributed by Chris Landsea

The Atlantic hurricane database (or HURDAT) extends back to 1851. However, because tropical storms and hurricanes spend much of their lifetime over the open ocean - some never hitting land - many systems were "missed" during the late 19th and early 20th Centuries (Vecchi and Knutson 2008). Starting in 1944, systematic aircraft reconnaissance was commenced for monitoring both tropical cyclones and disturbances that had the potential to develop into tropical storms and hurricanes. This did provide much improved monitoring, but still about half of the Atlantic basin was not covered (Sheets 1990). Beginning in 1966, daily satellite imagery became available at the National Hurricane Center, and thus statistics from this time forward are most complete (McAdie et al. 2009).

For hurricanes striking the USA Atlantic and Gulf coasts, one can go back further in time with relatively reliable counts of systems because enough people have lived along coastlines since 1900.

Thus, the following records for the period of reliable data hold for the entire Atlantic basin (from 1966-2012) and for the USA coastline (1900-2012)

So again...take any satellite you want but the NOAA did not use satellite data until 1966 therefore making your Climate Central chart unreliable. Done!

As for the claim itself....if the NOAA has numerously stated that the data is only reliable after 1966, then WHY would they actual back a claim or make the claim themselves that 2001-2010 was the most active decade since 1855? Why? The answer....they didn't. The WMO made the claim 'citing NOAA numbers'. The NOAA never said it they just provided the statistics for this. The WMO ran with it knowing that the numbers prior to 1855 were unreliable and manipualted the data to serve their agenda. They also mislead the public by saying "According to the NOAA" and not saying "Citing data from NOAA" like these guys did:

"Citing data from NOAA, the WMO notes that the 2001-10 decade was the most active for Atlantic tropical cyclones since 1855, although in other regions, tropical-cyclone activity was near or below normal"

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130703/un-last-decade-was-warmest-record-weather-related-fatalities-fell

The bottomline is this:

1. WMO manipuated the spurious data to work to their self driven benefit

2. WMO's statement alludes that the NOAA is backing their claim when they have outright stated that any data prior to 1966 is unreliable. The NOAA did not make this claim and you know it.

3. The only data that can be used is from 1966 forward....so your entire WMO claim dating back to 1855 is absolutely false.

4. It is very difficult to believe organizations like WMO that make future claims once they have stetched the numbers so much and incorrectly.

Its not even funny any more that you are even debating these FACTS! Of course, if I am wrong then I welcome you to provide the data from a peer reviewed study showing the increase in frequency or intensity for global events (of course on a global level). Additionally you can provide the NOAA site or study that says they back the WMO statement that you so adamantly protect.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Accountability Now

[waldo]

So again...take any satellite you want but the NOAA did not use satellite data until 1966 therefore making your Climate Central chart unreliable. Done!

1960 versus 1966? You're claiming that NOAA never used any of the data/imagery resulting from the initial TIROS satellites launched in 1960... and you're basing your claim on a reference attached to NOAA's National Hurricane Center (NHC)... which was established in 1965! Oh my. Do you see how foolish your claim is?

the graphic is unreliable? I've already suggested to you that you can ignore that graphics 1950-1960 data reference... why, bump that right on up to 1966 if you'd like! That leaves you with 47 years to ply your denial around... a period well beyond the 'benchmark' 30 year reference period to distinguish climate from it's weather makeup. Of course, I offered you that suggestion in the context of the study that focused on post-1975 data... but advised study results were consistent back to 1960... study results that definitively showed that hurricanes in the North Atlantic Basin have intensified in strength over this period (based on a comparison of Cat1-2 versus Cat4-5). You also refused to take up my suggestion for you to address that study.

equally... your whole premise (i.e., your purposely crafted nit), where you pulled a single sentence out of WMO 2001-2010 climate extremes report, has you incessantly beating on the unreliability of the historical (pre-satellite monitoring) tropical cyclone records. That still leaves you with 53 years to ply your denial around (to the start of 1960 satellite monitoring)... or 47 years to ply your denial around (to the start of NHC 1966 satellite monitoring). Go with either one; your choice.

you've devolved to an unsubstantiated level of claiming scientific malfeasance, of outright claiming scientists have manipulated data, of outright claiming reputable organizations have manipulated data (and attribution of that data). It's quite revealing to recognize lost perspective, to read you, with a google in hand, claim scientists agree with you... to read you, effectively, making direct claims and assertions on behalf of an organization (as if you were internal to the organization).

you've repeatedly labeled the pre-satellite monitoring record as "completely unreliable". It's not. It has a reliability less than that of the satellite monitoring period. A part of this thread spoke directly to the reanalysis efforts taken to improve/better the historical record... somewhat extensive efforts... by the very organization you appear to be a part of - or at least speak for! Is that record as reliable as that of the satellite monitoring period? Of course not - that point was never in dispute... how could it be?

clearly, given your denial, your outright expressions of "global warming BS", any discussion of... any reference to... weather extremes in a global warming/climate change influencing context is a very challenging cross for you to bear.

[Accountability Now]

1960 versus 1966? You're claiming that NOAA never used any of the data/imagery resulting from the initial TIROS satellites launched in 1960... and you're basing your claim on a reference attached to NOAA's National Hurricane Center (NHC)... which was established in 1965! Oh my. Do you see how foolish your claim is?

I'm not claiming anything rather I am reporting a categorically sound FACT that they started using satellite data in 1966. This was stated in the NOAA report as well as by Chris Landsea (NOAA). I have given you the links and the quote but yet you still choose to deny it. So are you saying the people at the NOAA are wrong about when THEY started using this data? Are you also saying the sky is brown? Perhaps the earth is flat? What other FACTS would you like to deny?

the graphic is unreliable? I've already suggested to you that you can ignore that graphics 1950-1960 data reference... why, bump that right on up to 1966 if you'd like! That leaves you with 47 years to ply your denial around... a period well beyond the 'benchmark' 30 year reference period to distinguish climate from it's weather makeup. Of course, I offered you that suggestion in the context of the study that focused on post-1975 data... but advised study results were consistent back to 1960... study results that definitively showed that hurricanes in the North Atlantic Basin have intensified in strength over this period (based on a comparison of Cat1-2 versus Cat4-5). You also refused to take up my suggestion for you to address that study.

Again...I took your suggestion head on by addressing the error in a 30 year period is significantly more than a 160 year period as demonstrated by the most reliable data we have. I have also shown that I can pick out other 30 year intervals that have shown higher intensity (if you are so intent on sticking with a small sliver of time.) Of course if you choose to ask me for this answer again , full well knowing that I have answered it, then I will consider you to be trolling.

equally... your whole premise (i.e., your purposely crafted nit), where you pulled a single sentence out of WMO 2001-2010 climate extremes report, has you incessantly beating on the unreliability of the historical (pre-satellite monitoring) tropical cyclone records. That still leaves you with 53 years to ply your denial around (to the start of 1960 satellite monitoring)... or 47 years to ply your denial around (to the start of NHC 1966 satellite monitoring). Go with either one; your choice.

That one claim is now being used by numerous activist groups all purpoting this claim...with you being one of them. Ignorance is being spread because data has been misused and you seem to be A-OK with it. How shocking! Do you always use false data to serve your point? I guess you do believe the world is flat?

you've repeatedly labeled the pre-satellite monitoring record as "completely unreliable". It's not. It has a reliability less than that of the satellite monitoring period. A part of this thread spoke directly to the reanalysis efforts taken to improve/better the historical record... somewhat extensive efforts... by the very organization you appear to be a part of - or at least speak for! Is that record as reliable as that of the satellite monitoring period? Of course not - that point was never in dispute... how could it be?

Again....I did not have to say it....the professionals already did. I have cited Chris Landsea, one of the world's authorities on hurricane data who also works directly for the NOAA, who said this data is unreliable. I have also quoted scientists from ESCAP's Typhoon Commitee who said the same thing. Are you possibly suggesting that these authorities in the field of tropical storms are wrong about the data that they have spent their entire lives working with and continue to work on this very day? Is that seriously what you are suggesting? Please stop wasting bandwitdth with such wasteful trolling. You are adding nothing to this conversation with such quips.

clearly, given your denial, your outright expressions of "global warming BS", any discussion of... any reference to... weather extremes in a global warming/climate change influencing context is a very challenging cross for you to bear.

The cross that you have to bear right now is that I have categorically blown holes in the organization that you so blindly follow. I have proven that the science they push and the statements they issue (the same ones that you purpot) are based on spurious data. You now have to go forward knowing this and second guessing everything.

Of course, there is still some unfinished business. I have challenges out to you for the following two items from a previos post:

1. Show a peer reviewed study which encompasses the rise is extremes based on global data

2. Provide proof that your claim which says 2001-2010 was the most active decade for hurricane activity since 1855 was originated by the NOAA.

You absolutely scurried away from this one the first time I asked you so I will give you the chance to face the challenge one more time.

[waldo]

NOAA existed before..... it created it's Hurricane Center in 1965 - duh! Images and data associated with the post-1960 TIROS satellites were going..... somewhere... being analyzed by some entity/some persons within that entity. Who could it be/who could they be?

you're so flummoxed, you don't know which way to turn! I even gave you a recent hint... a waldo teaser! Your whole missive has been to rail against that isolated WMO sentence that you picked upon... that you purposely chose/highlighted. Of course, that WMO sentence/statement that you so object to references, wait for it, wait for it... tropical cyclones! Of course, all your bluster has been focused on the most isolated segment... the U.S. landfall hurricanes that you have been incessantly holding up as the only "reliable benchmark"... which is simply a subset within tropical cyclones. You really need to pay better attention to what words are used and their meaning. You might want to start with wind speed to allow you to recognize the distinction within tropical cyclones and its depression, storm and hurricane sub-components. You really should do this... should have done this... before wailing on about scientific malfeasance, fraud, data manipulation, etc. You really should have - yes?

as I said, as I'll keep repeating, your cherry-picked best is but a subset, of a subset, of a subset, of a minority, within a minority, of the global overall! But why would that give... you... pause?

as I keep stating/emphasizing, landfall storms/hurricanes(typhoons) are but a fraction of the total... those hitting the U.S. mainland... even more so. There is a scientific consensus on intensity increasing, coincident with increased ocean surface warming. You can presume to ply your best googly efforts and go up against that consensus... you really need to write up your googly findings and publish!

you keep mentioning one particular scientist... you somehow conveniently overlook the study I linked (with that scientist as a co-author) that spoke to increased activity. Wonder why you would overlook that study, hey? In any case, that scientist you presume to latch onto, is but one of many "experts". That scientist, any scientist, is not the single definitive expert; however, the study does include explicit wording that addresses your repeated, ad nauseum, blathering on a most selective accounting of the "reliable record".

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.

from your 'listing' of unfinished business, with you continuing to ask for "global data", even with explicit clues provided for you, it's clear you still haven't even figured out what weather actually is! As for your placing "proof onus" on me to "prove" the WMO attribution (to NOAA) of the statement you so object to, I'm quite content to accept that WMO statement (and its declared attribution to NOAA)... if you object to the statement, the onus is on you to address the statement directly - which you've never done. You could seek a retraction from the WMO... you could press NOAA to provide a formal counter... you could do a lot of things; however, as I mentioned above, you may want to start with first realizing the distinction between a tropical cyclone and its sub-components! That would be a good start for you... a very good starting point!

[Accountability Now]

NOAA existed before..... it created it's Hurricane Center in 1965 - duh! Images and data associated with the post-1960 TIROS satellites were going..... somewhere... being analyzed by some entity/some persons within that entity. Who could it be/who could they be?

waldo, on 09 Jul 2013 - 10:43 PM, said:

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

Quote

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 isn't even fun anymore....its kind of sad really. In your own sinlge reply you state that the 'reliable data' started in ......wait for it.....1971!!!!! LMFAO. Too funny. Feel like contradicting yourself anymore?

As for Landsea and his study on the "RECENT" increase in activity....what does that have to do with the goats in China? Seriously? He's noticing a trend that he feels should be watched for FUTURE developments. I guess you have conveniently forgotten the umpteen quotes that I gave directly from Landsea discussing the relation to past trends.....and of course to your so beloved 1855 bench mark. Again...the fact that you are now arguing about the increase from 1995 to present says all I need to know about your pulse on the original claim of worst since 1855. You really backpeddled on that one...hey? Soon it will be worst since last year.....

you're so flummoxed, you don't know which way to turn! I even gave you a recent hint... a waldo teaser! Your whole missive has been to rail against that isolated WMO sentence that you picked upon... that you purposely chose/highlighted. Of course, that WMO sentence/statement that you so object to references, wait for it, wait for it... tropical cyclones! Of course, all your bluster has been focused on the most isolated segment... the U.S. landfall hurricanes that you have been incessantly holding up as the only "reliable benchmark"... which is simply a subset within tropical cyclones. You really need to pay better attention to what words are used and their meaning. You might want to start with wind speed to allow you to recognize the distinction within tropical cyclones and its depression, storm and hurricane sub-components. You really should do this... should have done this... before wailing on about scientific malfeasance, fraud, data manipulation, etc. You really should have - yes?

as I said, as I'll keep repeating, your cherry-picked best is but a subset, of a subset, of a subset, of a minority, within a minority, of the global overall! But why would that give... you... pause?

as I keep stating/emphasizing, landfall storms/hurricanes(typhoons) are but a fraction of the total... those hitting the U.S. mainland... even more so. There is a scientific consensus on intensity increasing, coincident with increased ocean surface warming. You can presume to ply your best googly efforts and go up against that consensus... you really need to write up your googly findings and publish!

I can't help but think of how confused you are. We have mostly focused on the North Atlantic basin and hurricanes because that is the statement that YOU provided. You have blabbered on about a global level now for countelss posts but you keep coming up with NOTHING, ZERO, ZIP to back it up. At least I brought a bit of global flavor as I posted data and statements from the ESCAP Typhoon Committee and you still bury your head. I can't hold your hand on this waldo...

from your 'listing' of unfinished business, with you continuing to ask for "global data", even with explicit clues provided for you, it's clear you still haven't even figured out what weather actually is! As for your placing "proof onus" on me to "prove" the WMO attribution (to NOAA) of the statement you so object to, I'm quite content to accept that WMO statement (and its declared attribution to NOAA)... if you object to the statement, the onus is on you to address the statement directly - which you've never done. You could seek a retraction from the WMO... you could press NOAA to provide a formal counter... you could do a lot of things; however, as I mentioned above, you may want to start with first realizing the distinction between a tropical cyclone and its sub-components! That would be a good start for you... a very good starting point!

So you can't step up and face the challenge. No problem...

Again I will help you out....the NOAA never did purpot that claim that you so proudly but blindly trot on this thread. More importantly, there is no global data that backs up the over all sentiment that the WMO is trying to push upon unsuspecting warming activists like you.

On a side note....I think the funniest part is when you try to divert the attention away by asking me to "seek a retraction form the WMO". You have done other times when you have no ability to argue on your own. LMFAO!!!!

Good luck waldo.

[waldo]

This isn't even fun anymore....its kind of sad really. In your own sinlge reply you state that the 'reliable data' started in ......wait for it.....1971!!!!! LMFAO. Too funny. Feel like contradicting yourself anymore?

As for Landsea and his study on the "RECENT" increase in activity....what does that have to do with the goats in China? Seriously? He's noticing a trend that he feels should be watched for FUTURE developments.

in the past I've highlighted significant comprehension difficulties you've repeatedly exhibited... this is simply your latest comprehension fail. It's not your worst display, but its certainly up there! Within the quoted study abstract I red bold-highlighted the words, "reliable record". In your most bizarre way, you associate an example reference given within that abstract (an example starting in 1971), as the study author's representation of the start of that, "reliable record", reference! Oh my... well done!

you amazingly ignored the same study provided previously; now, when you obtusely ask the significance of the study, you simply ratcheted up your comprehension failure another notch. Let's see: you've been all about your most selective subset of tropical cyclone activity qualified within a "reliable record"... while repeatedly referencing a particular scientist. I offer you up a study with that same scientist as a co-author, with the study specifically addressing activity within a "reliable record" period. Of course you would ignore it! Of course, for the bonus win, the study findings speak directly to a causal link for the increased activity - "The greater activity results from simultaneous increases in North Atlantic sea-surface temperatures and decreases in vertical wind shear".

now... the waldo enjoys a lil' tease here and there... letting you run with the bait once in a while. But, of course, every so often, the waldo just needs to reel in the line a bit. Your guy writes that the reliable record starts in 1944... associated with the beginning of regular scheduled aircraft reconnaissance. Oh my! And here you so blathered on about 1966 versus 1960!!! So... I guess you can't be so, 'hot & bothered', as you've been over that graphic starting in 1950, hey? I trust you'll really enjoy the following study extracts:

The years 1995 to 2000 experienced the highest level of North Atlantic hurricane activity in the reliable record.

.

During 1944–1970 (the portion of the previous active multidecadal period shown in Fig. 1), the average number of major hurricanes per year was 2.7. Six of the years produced four or more major hurricanes. In contrast, the average for the quieter period of approximately equal duration, 1971–1994, was only 1.5, with no years having more than three major hurricanes. The quieter period’s threshold of three major hurricanes was then exceeded in 1995 for the first time since 1964. The average number of major hurricanes for 1995–2000 is 3.8. Three of those years had four or more. The Net Tropical Cyclone activity (NTC) for the North Atlantic, another measure of activity, shows a similar combination of interannual and multidecadal fluctuations. The only year since 1995 with below average activity was 1997, when the Atlantic hurricane activity was suppressed by the strongest El Nin˜o event of this century. Even with 1997 included, the mean number of major hurricanes and mean NTC for 1995–2000 are the highest of any consecutive 6 years in the 1944–2000 record.

as for the rest of your nonsense, as you've done before, your latest post has you improperly, and repeatedly, tagging me as emphasizing the WMO statement and the 1855 reference (attributed to NOAA). Of course, that sentence was simply one within an extended quote extract... it was you... you... who purposely/repeatedly has zeroed in on that sentence. That was you, over, and over, and over again! That wasn't me, that was you - you! Of course, as is your way, you triple-down now... in your continuing role as a spokesperson for NOAA, you now offer up a most definitive statement... a, "NOAA never did" statement! What's your position in NOAA again?

you can continue on with your nonsense - you can whine, squawk, rant, rave, etc., over that 1855 reference. I could care less. As I said, I'm quite content with the WMO statement and the NOAA attribution attached to the statement. By the way, have you finally figured out the component makeup within the term, 'tropical cyclone'... perhaps not, as it seemingly hasn't stopped your nattering over the 1855 reference to tropical cyclones in the face of your past page, after page, after page postings, where you only speak to a subset within tropical cyclones. Of course you ignore this... I'm waiting for you to call this another one of your "nuances"!

like I said, continue on blustering over that 1855 date... now that we've firmly established, per your guy from NOAA, the "reliable record" start date, I'm quite content to have you dwell on that 1944 starting point! 70 years is a very healthy period for you to ply your denial around. Get to it! Oh my, feel the burn, hey.

[Accountability Now]

in the past I've highlighted significant comprehension difficulties you've repeatedly exhibited... this is simply your latest comprehension fail. It's not your worst display, but its certainly up there! Within the quoted study abstract I red bold-highlighted the words, "reliable record". In your most bizarre way, you associate an example reference given within that abstract (an example starting in 1971), as the study author's representation of the start of that, "reliable record", reference! Oh my... well done!

you amazingly ignored the same study provided previously; now, when you obtusely ask the significance of the study, you simply ratcheted up your comprehension failure another notch. Let's see: you've been all about your most selective subset of tropical cyclone activity qualified within a "reliable record"... while repeatedly referencing a particular scientist. I offer you up a study with that same scientist as a co-author, with the study specifically addressing activity within a "reliable record" period. Of course you would ignore it! Of course, for the bonus win, the study findings speak directly to a causal link for the increased activity - "The greater activity results from simultaneous increases in North Atlantic sea-surface temperatures and decreases in vertical wind shear".

now... the waldo enjoys a lil' tease here and there... letting you run with the bait once in a while. But, of course, every so often, the waldo just needs to reel in the line a bit. Your guy writes that the reliable record starts in 1944... associated with the beginning of regular scheduled aircraft reconnaissance. Oh my! And here you so blathered on about 1966 versus 1960!!! So... I guess you can't be so, 'hot & bothered', as you've been over that graphic starting in 1950, hey? I trust you'll really enjoy the following study extracts:

Is that seriously the best you can do? Honestly? You provided me a paper from 2000? 13 years ago? I guess you have forgotten some of the small work that has been done since then....like say the RE-ANALYSIS project which only started in 2000. Do you possibly think that during this process they started to have a better understanding for what was reliable and unreliable. Is this how far you have stretched your strawman? Wow. My stomach hurts from the laughter!

Of course you could be reminded of some of Landsea's recent work from 2012 and comments AFTER the Re-Analysis:

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.

Or perhaps this one which is CURRENTLY on the NOAA site....

Thus, the following records for the period of reliable data hold for the entire Atlantic basin (from 1966-2012) and for the USA coastline (1900-2012)

Would you like me to go back to the 1950s and cite you some papers that show that smoking is healthy? Or perhaps I could find some historical quotes from scientists that believed the world was flat? What ever blows your hair back waldo. Just as long as you can sleep at night.

Nice try on your data manipulation. Or should I say nice FAIL.

Of course the one nice thing about your article which again you did not provide a link for (scared I assume) is that I was able to find this little ditty. You keep pushing the concept of INCREASED ACTIVITY on a GLOBAL SCALE. Of course the only data you have ever pushed was local regional examples even though I have repeated asked you a number of times to show such data. Well..read what the very paper you are flaunting had to say about it.

North Atlantic versus North Pacific Activity

In contrast with the large increase in Atlantic basin activity during the last six years, total tropical cyclone activity for the North Pacific basins (including East, Central and West) has decreased. If one combines Atlantic and North Pacific activity, there is a net downward trend for 1995-2000 (4). It has been shown that overall Atlantic activity tends to be negatively correlated with activity in most other basins (5). Hence, an interpretation of the recent elevated activity in the Atlantic as a measure of increases in global tropical cyclone activity is not consistent with world-wide experience.

Again....you have a choice here. You can either assume that this paper your are pushing is out of date and that the reliable data is in fact from 1966 onward (like Landsea has recently said) or you can accept the paper and the statement that there is no global increase in activity. You pick.

In the mean time, I will sit back and wait for you to repsond to my challenge to provide proof that the NOAA stated your purpoted claim and/or that global data exists showing an INCREASE in extremes. I will admit that I am getting bored waiting on you to provide this.

[waldo]

Again I will help you out....the NOAA never did purpot that claim that you so proudly but blindly trot on this thread.

does your role as NOAA spokesperson extend to all areas within NOAA? That's a pretty big reach ya got there... you've got a lot of area to cover, hey? That's a huge responsibility you bear. I mean, how do you do it? How do you speak for those 30+ breakouts within the NOAA organization proper... all those Service Line divisions, those National Centers, those National Environmental Prediction Centers, those National Specialized Centers, etc.; why, by golly, it even has a dedicated weather extremes area. Oh wait, you mean you don't realize there's a formal working relationship between the WMO and NOAA? Oh wait... you mean you didn't realize NOAA was more than just the NHC?

oh wait, you mean through all your vitriolic posturing and accusations/labeling charges of scientific malfeasance, fraud, data manipulation... you mean you never actually looked beyond that WMO press release that included a NOAA attribution association to the single sentence..... that single sentence you so have made your trumped up personal cause celebre? You mean you never really actually looked at the full WMO report? You mean you never went there? Oh my!

like I said, every once in a while, the waldo just needs to reel the line in a bit more! Perhaps the following quote (from the full report) might give you a clue on where to channel your real energies... talk to your guys... have them talk to their guys. I'm sure you can sort this all out. Your choice. Of course, as I said, I could care less if you want to continue beating on that single sentence - we can certainly work with that 70 years of "reliable data" your guy wrote about in his co-authored study.

According to NOAA-NCDC, 2001–2010 was the most active decade since 1855 for tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic Basin. An average of 15 named storms per year was recorded, well above the 1981–2010 long-term average of 12 named storms per year.

[waldo]

Is that seriously the best you can do? Honestly? You provided me a paper from 2000? 13 years ago? I guess you have forgotten some of the small work that has been done since then....like say the RE-ANALYSIS project which only started in 2000.

as I wrote in the original linked reference to the study... it's a somewhat dated study... but still very actively referenced... ongoing citations, year upon year upon year... something like ~60 just this 2013 year. And now you again reach for the "Reanalysis"? Oh my... didn't the waldo take painstaking efforts to show you just how complete that reanalysis is... all but three years could be tagged with dedicated reanalysis documentation links. But really, are you going to suggest that aircraft reconnaissance data (from the 1944 starting point) is NO longer reliable? Even though your guy said it was? As you say, seriously... is that the best you can do? I mean, c'mon, it holds certain caveats... but it's far from deserving of your most liberally applied "completely unreliable" designation that you've repeatedly beaked off about.

[waldo]

Nice try on your data manipulation.

Of course the one nice thing about your article which again you did not provide a link for (scared I assume) is that I was able to find this little ditty. You keep pushing the concept of INCREASED ACTIVITY on a GLOBAL SCALE. Of course the only data you have ever pushed was local regional examples even though I have repeated asked you a number of times to show such data. Well..read what the very paper you are flaunting had to say about it.

Again....you have a choice here. You can either assume that this paper your are pushing is out of date and that the reliable data is in fact from 1966 onward (like Landsea has recently said) or you can accept the paper and the statement that there is no global increase in activity. You pick.

no data manipulation on my part. However, with this gem you've just written, we can certainly elevate... yet another... of your fabrication attempts. Clearly, you have certain "failings" in not being able to actually follow discussions - to not being able to read/comprehend what's been written.

no where have I, as you say, "pushed the concept of, with respect to tropical cyclones, INCREASED ACTIVITY on a GLOBAL SCALE" (your caps!!!). No where. You continue to, over and over and over again, mash the terms activity, frequency and intensity. If you had any initiative to extend beyond your denial, you'd recognize that within the broader extremes categorization, frequency and intensity are separately distinguished in terms of both past observations and future projections... and when spoken to in this isolated regard, they are not encapsulated under some generalized activity moniker. What I have said, repeatedly, is that no trend association to global warming/climate change has been shown for tropical cyclone frequency... what I have said, repeatedly, is that a positive trend association between global warming/climate change has been shown for tropical cyclone intensity. In that regard, I supplied you the direct relevant quote from the latest IPCC SREX report.

quit making shyte up, hey!

[waldo]

In the mean time, I will sit back and wait for you to repsond to my challenge to provide proof that the NOAA stated your purpoted claim and/or that global data exists showing an INCREASE in extremes. I will admit that I am getting bored waiting on you to provide this.

purpot? Again, I've made no such claim... I've quoted an extract from a WMO report that attributes... the single sentence you so object to... to NOAA. Of course, you clearly haven't the wherewithal to read beyond the press release - to actually read the report. My previous post has shown the idiocy of your blustering ways in presuming to speak for the entire NOAA organization based on your most isolated myopic world of the NHC within that most broad and expansive organization. It was gold Jerry... reeeaaalll gold!

wake me up when you actually understand what weather is! Of course, you could take the next step to really showcase your denial. Are you stating, unequivocally, that no weather extremes have been correlated with global warming/climate change? Is that what you're saying here. Given it typically takes a dozen or so pages to get you to actually definitively say what you're blustering about, we really need you to formalize just what your claim/position is here?

[Accountability Now]

does your role as NOAA spokesperson extend to all areas within NOAA? That's a pretty big reach ya got there... you've got a lot of area to cover, hey? That's a huge responsibility you bear. I mean, how do you do it? How do you speak for those 30+ breakouts within the NOAA organization proper... all those Service Line divisions, those National Centers, those National Environmental Prediction Centers, those National Specialized Centers, etc.; why, by golly, it even has a dedicated weather extremes area. Oh wait, you mean you don't realize there's a formal working relationship between the WMO and NOAA? Oh wait... you mean you didn't realize NOAA was more than just the NHC?

oh wait, you mean through all your vitriolic posturing and accusations/labeling charges of scientific malfeasance, fraud, data manipulation... you mean you never actually looked beyond that WMO press release that included a NOAA attribution association to the single sentence..... that single sentence you so have made your trumped up personal cause celebre? You mean you never really actually looked at the full WMO report? You mean you never went there? Oh my!

like I said, every once in a while, the waldo just needs to reel the line in a bit more! Perhaps the following quote (from the full report) might give you a clue on where to channel your real energies... talk to your guys... have them talk to their guys. I'm sure you can sort this all out. Your choice. Of course, as I said, I could care less if you want to continue beating on that single sentence - we can certainly work with that 70 years of "reliable data" your guy wrote about in his co-authored study.

Show me a quote from anyone in the NOAA (NHC, HRD, SSD....any of them) that has said that quote which was actually purpoted by the WMO. Show me waldo. Otherwise stop your incessant trolling and actually contribute to this thread by leaving it.

[Accountability Now]

as I wrote in the original linked reference to the study... it's a somewhat dated study... but still very actively referenced... ongoing citations, year upon year upon year... something like ~60 just this 2013 year. And now you again reach for the "Reanalysis"? Oh my... didn't the waldo take painstaking efforts to show you just how complete that reanalysis is... all but three years could be tagged with dedicated reanalysis documentation links. But really, are you going to suggest that aircraft reconnaissance data (from the 1944 starting point) is NO longer reliable? Even though your guy said it was? As you say, seriously... is that the best you can do? I mean, c'mon, it holds certain caveats... but it's far from deserving of your most liberally applied "completely unreliable" designation that you've repeatedly beaked off about.

So the paper still works for you....ok so there is no global increase in intensity. Perfect. That's all you need to say

[Accountability Now]

no where have I, as you say, "pushed the concept of, with respect to tropical cyclones, INCREASED ACTIVITY on a GLOBAL SCALE" (your caps!!!). No where. You continue to, over and over and over again, mash the terms activity, frequency and intensity. If you had any initiative to extend beyond your denial, you'd recognize that within the broader extremes categorization, frequency and intensity are separately distinguished in terms of both past observations and future projections... and when spoken to in this isolated regard, they are not encapsulated under some generalized activity moniker. What I have said, repeatedly, is that no trend association to global warming/climate change has been shown for tropical cyclone frequency... what I have said, repeatedly, is that a positive trend association between global warming/climate change has been shown for tropical cyclone intensity. In that regard, I supplied you the direct relevant quote from the latest IPCC SREX report.

No where....hey? Really? No where? Again...you forget that this a written forum. I have highlighted increased intensity and global just to show you exactly where you have said this. I am quite sure you repeated this "consenses" a number of times.

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.

This one really burns you doesn't it. Caught in your tracks on this lie. I think its time to hand this over to the moderator as your trolling and desire to derail this thread is a detriment to this forum.

Of course I forgot to add this little ditty of your increased activity....

waldo, on 15 Jul 2013 - 02:29 AM, said:

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

So which is it waldo? Increased activity, intenisty....you seem to say both while saying nothing at all.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Accountability Now