Accountability Now Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 (edited) 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? Look me up when you decide to actually take up my challenges and back up the statements that you have purpoted on this forum. Edited July 17, 2013 by Accountability Now Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 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. I guess you didn't read this quote from before: 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. Quote
waldo Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 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. as stated previously, I'm quite content with that WMO report and its attribution to NOAA. If you have a difficulty with it I suggest you pursue that elsewhere... if you ever actually figure out the full and expansive organization makeup of NOAA! Quote
waldo Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 So the paper still works for you....ok so there is no global increase in intensity. Perfect. That's all you need to say no - that's not what I said. More of your reading comprehension difficulty. Why make up more shyte? Quote
waldo Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 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. no - clearly, you can't read... or comprehend!. Here, try it again... read slower... digest it... think about it! 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! 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. the graphic doesn't speak to either frequency or intensity. You've already failed this, several times over. You first misinterpreted this graph to imply frequency... to the point of ad nauseum, I tried to impress upon you that there is no trend representation, nothing to presume to suggest an increasing frequency trend representation. I also emphasized to you that neither the WMO statement or the graphic have anything to do with frequency... suggest no associated increase in frequency with respect to the statement or the graphic. The statement and the graphic are both qualified by references to the number of named storms. After all this you still don't get it! Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 as stated previously, I'm quite content with that WMO report and its attribution to NOAA. If you have a difficulty with it I suggest you pursue that elsewhere... if you ever actually figure out the full and expansive organization makeup of NOAA! Deflection #1 Quote
waldo Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 I guess you didn't read this quote from before: you struggle so! Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 no - that's not what I said. More of your reading comprehension difficulty. Why make up more shyte? Deflection #2 Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 no - clearly, you can't read... or comprehend!. Here, try it again... read slower... digest it... think about it! the graphic doesn't speak to either frequency or intensity. You've already failed this, several times over. You first misinterpreted this graph to imply frequency... to the point of ad nauseum, I tried to impress upon you that there is no trend representation, nothing to presume to suggest an increasing frequency trend representation. I also emphasized to you that neither the WMO statement or the graphic have anything to do with frequency... suggest no associated increase in frequency with respect to the statement or the graphic. The statement and the graphic are both qualified by references to the number of named storms. After all this you still don't get it! Deflection #3. Man you are really good at the art of delection. Quote
waldo Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 Deflection #1 no deflection. If you have concerns the onus is on you. Again, I'm content with that statement... you're not. The onus is on you. Snap, snap, chop, chop... get to it, hey. Have you figured out just how big NOAA is yet? Do you think you can handle speaking for it's entirety? Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 you struggle so! I particularily like this deflection where I purposely added what the NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER defines as activity and you convenienty crop in in your response. Do you not agree that is how they define activity? Are you again saying the NOAA is wrong? When you figure out what activity is let me know. Quote
waldo Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 the waldo's work is done... I'm quite content to see you left in your trail of blubbering, flustering and flummoxed, 'Deflection #x' idiocy! Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 the waldo's work is done... I'm quite content to see you left in your trail of blubbering, flustering and flummoxed, 'Deflection #x' idiocy! I'll see you in your new thread Quote
waldo Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 I particularily like this deflection where I purposely added what the NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER defines as activity and you convenienty crop in in your response. Do you not agree that is how they define activity? Are you again saying the NOAA is wrong? When you figure out what activity is let me know. show where the graphic content speaks to activity... a journalist/blogger throws the label on the graphic and proceeds to document a 1950-2012 history of named storms. Apparently... to you... named storms is another equivalency to frequency and intensity!!! Quote
waldo Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 I'll see you in your new thread the thread is intended for intelligent input/contribution... you won't like it, at all. I note you... DEFLECTED (as in ignored)... from my most purposeful question asking you to define your (denial) position on weather extremes and a correlation to global warming/climate change. Is there a problem? Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 the thread is intended for intelligent input/contribution... you won't like it, at all. I note you... DEFLECTED (as in ignored)... from my most purposeful question asking you to define your (denial) position on weather extremes and a correlation to global warming/climate change. Is there a problem? You want me to respond to one of your challenges when you have yet to come close to any sort of response on my challenges to you. LMFAO. BTW...are you playing the player here with your above quote? Quote
waldo Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 You want me to respond to one of your challenges when you have yet to come close to any sort of response on my challenges to you. LMFAO. BTW...are you playing the player here with your above quote? piss off - you have nothing to contribute. Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 piss off - you have nothing to contribute. Thank you for your opinion. I just wish you could learn to play the ball and not the player Quote
waldo Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 I'll see you in your new thread try to up your game, hey? Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 try to up your game, hey? No playing here...just facts Quote
waldo Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 No playing here...just facts "facts" within your isolated, skewed, selective and self-serving reality are anything but... facts. Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 "facts" within your isolated, skewed, selective and self-serving reality are anything but... facts. Nope...just hard nosed objective facts from the NOAA. You know the ones that you manipulate to make your WMO statements Quote
waldo Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 Nope...just hard nosed objective facts from the NOAA. You know the ones that you manipulate to make your WMO statements you keep claiming I've manipulated data. Each and every time I've challenged your assertion and explained your misunderstanding. You've extended that personal charge against me to also include broader and quite liberal charges of scientific malfeasance, fraud and data manipulation against scientists and reputable organizations. You continue to do this in spite of attempts to provide you a better understanding. your post has been reported to board moderation. Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 (edited) you keep claiming I've manipulated data. Each and every time I've challenged your assertion and explained your misunderstanding. You've extended that personal charge against me to also include broader and quite liberal charges of scientific malfeasance, fraud and data manipulation against scientists and reputable organizations. You continue to do this in spite of attempts to provide you a better understanding. your post has been reported to board moderation. You posted and backed a claim that has been shown to use spurious data and falsely attribute to the NOAA. You have purported this claim a number of times on various threads. I have no problem with you reporting this as its a fact.But don't worry....I'm sure they're not going to like your "piss off" little ditty either! Edited July 18, 2013 by Accountability Now Quote
waldo Posted July 18, 2013 Report Posted July 18, 2013 You posted and backed a claim that has been shown to use spurious data and falsely attribute to the NOAA. You have purported this claim a number of times on various threads. I have no problem with you reporting this as its a fact. But don't worry....I'm sure they're not going to like your "piss off" little ditty either! that is nothing but your interpretation. You continue to label charges of data manipulation. That is a most egregious personal affront. your post has been reported Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.