Do we need to be preparing for Arctic cruising strategies because of Global Cooling

[SV THIRD DAY]

Remember how the MMGWC were telling us that hurricane activity would increase due to Global Warming...well like most of their Scare Tactic Predictions, it looks like that one has flopped flat on it's face as well.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=nl_amk&wpmm=1

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Remember how the MMGWC were telling us that hurricane activity would increase due to Global Warming...well like most of their Scare Tactic Predictions, it looks like that one has flopped flat on it's face as well.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=nl_amk&wpmm=1

As I recall, most predictions have emphasized increased hurricane intensity.

Quoting your linked article:

“... The number of storms forming in the Atlantic over the past decade or so has been close to normal, but many have remained over the ocean or hit other countries rather than the United States.

A study published by the American Geophysical Union in 2015 said the lack of major hurricane landfalls boiled down to dumb luck rather than a particular weather pattern....”

[SV THIRD DAY]

...then where are these more intense storms....

I also love the line about "dumb luck" protecting us from Storms...I would call Dumb Luck those that worship the Cult of MMGW, but that's the scientist in me who looks at the Data, not hype.

[Celestialsailor]

Ya but I thought scientists were open minded positive people

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Ya but I thought scientists were open minded positive people

Oh I am...extremely open minded and positive.

See but what happens is that when other closed minded people (IE MMGWC) see the positive "we are all not going to die attitude" and true open mindless of not swallowing the Cult-speak it angers them because as we have seen with the Speech Codes on College campuses, the left can not tolerate opposing views or Diversity. The only diversity they want is superficial skin color, but if you don't agree with their dogma, they are quick to attack you as closed minded or negative, just as you have done. So thanks for the illustration...it really goes to help people understand how when the MMGWC can't deal with the issues, they go after the person. Well done...great and valuable lesson for the class.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

...then where are these more intense storms....

I also love the line about "dumb luck" protecting us from Storms...I would call Dumb Luck those that worship the Cult of MMGW, but that's the scientist in me who looks at the Data, not hype.

It appears you dumped the scientist in you a long time ago.

Assuming these records are accurate and not just an artifact of poor historical record-keeping, it appears there has been an increase in strong storms in many ocean basins.

List of the most intense tropical cyclones | Wikipedia

North Atlantic:
1920s - 1
1930s - 2
1950s - 1
1960s - 2
1970s - 0
1980s - 4
1990s - 4
2000s - 6
2010s (1/2) - 1

Eastern Pacific:
1970s - 1
1980s - 0
1990s - 3
2000s - 5
2010s (1/2) - 4

Western North Pacific:
1950s - 11
1960s - 14
1970s - 13
1980s - 12
1990s - 5
2000s - 0
2010s (1/2) - 6

North Indian Ocean:
1960s - 2
1970s - 1
1980s - 1
1990s - 4
2000s - 3
2010s (1/2) - 5

South-West Indian Ocean:
1980s - 1
1990s - 6
2000s - 10
2010s (1/2) - 4

Australian Region:
1890s - 1
1970s - 2
1980s - 1
1990s - 4
2000s - 6
2010s (1/2) - 0

South Pacific:
1980s - 2
1990s - 3
2000s - 9
2010s (1/2) - 2

South Atlantic:
1970s - 1
1980s - 0
1990s - 0
2000s - 1
2010s (1/2) - 4

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by SailOar

It appears you dumped the scientist in you a long time ago.

Assuming these records are accurate and not just an artifact of poor historical record-keeping, it appears there has been an increase in strong storms in many ocean basins.

List of the most intense tropical cyclones | Wikipedia

North Atlantic:
1920s - 1
1930s - 2
1950s - 1
1960s - 2
1970s - 0
1980s - 4
1990s - 4
2000s - 6
2010s (1/2) - 1

Eastern Pacific:
1970s - 1
1980s - 0
1990s - 3
2000s - 5
2010s (1/2) - 4

Western North Pacific:
1950s - 11
1960s - 14
1970s - 13
1980s - 12
1990s - 5
2000s - 0
2010s (1/2) - 6

North Indian Ocean:
1960s - 2
1970s - 1
1980s - 1
1990s - 4
2000s - 3
2010s (1/2) - 5

South-West Indian Ocean:
1980s - 1
1990s - 6
2000s - 10
2010s (1/2) - 4

Australian Region:
1890s - 1
1970s - 2
1980s - 1
1990s - 4
2000s - 6
2010s (1/2) - 0

South Pacific:
1980s - 2
1990s - 3
2000s - 9
2010s (1/2) - 2

South Atlantic:
1970s - 1
1980s - 0
1990s - 0
2000s - 1
2010s (1/2) - 4

Nice try...but A Scientist knows that trying to compare the Historical Data on hurricanes is bogus due to the inability to have good historical DATA vs anecdotal observations. There are many papers and data presented on this topic....Google can be your friend as a way out of MMGWC

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Oh I am...extremely open minded and positive...

Please don't make me laugh. I have chapped lips.

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Nice try...but A Scientist knows that trying to compare the Historical Data on hurricanes is bogus due to the inability to have good historical DATA vs anecdotal observations. There are many papers and data presented on this topic....Google can be your friend as a way out of MMGWC

Yes indeed. You ought to try it!

New Evidence That Climate Change Is Altering Hurricane Season as You Know It | Weather.com

"We're seeing fewer hurricanes, but the ones we do see are more intense," Elsner said. "When one comes, all hell can break loose."...

The study found from 1984 to 2012, wind speeds in tropical cyclones have increased by 3 mph. During that same time period, they discovered there were 6.1 fewer storms than they would expect if ocean and land temperatures have not increased.

“It’s basically a tradeoff between frequency and intensity,” Elsner said...

Global Warming and Hurricanes | NOAA/Geophysical Fluid Dynamic Laboratory

• It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are model-estimated changes with considerable uncertainty (e.g., aerosol effects).
• Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
• There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclone in some basins?an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones.
• Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day ones, with a model-projected increase of about 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center.

Climate Change Impacts | Nature.org

Scientific research indicates that climate change will cause hurricanes and tropical storms to become more intense — lasting longer, unleashing stronger winds, and causing more damage to coastal ecosystems and communities.

[SV THIRD DAY]

We are waiting to see the predicted models and the resulting real life measurements...as a Scientist...that's called having a Theory and then testing said Theory.

Still waiting....

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

We are waiting to see the predicted models and the resulting real life measurements...as a Scientist...that's called having a Theory and then testing said Theory.

Still waiting....

Uncertainty Can't Be an Excuse for Climate Inaction, Researchers Argue | Inside Climate News

...This tactic of using uncertainty as an excuse to stall policy action on global warming is often driven by self-interest and politically motivated, say the essay's authors, led by a senior scholar at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. The authors use the label "neoskeptics" to describe people or companies that have shifted the uncertainty debate in this way...

According to Stern and his colleagues, those who defend business as usual—whether for climate change or other issues—often follow the same pattern. Initially, they deny outright or question new scientific findings that justify change. Then, as the evidence against them mounts, they start to question the severity of the problem and argue that as long as some uncertainty exists, the smartest and financially shrewd move is to do little or nothing...

[SV THIRD DAY]

Tick tock...tick tock...still no model or data to present. Fear isn't a scientific model. Panic isn't the scientific method and Predictions of Doom are as old as man. Back then it was religious end times...today it is, well more Religiously based MMGW Cultism.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

It appears you dumped the scientist in you a long time ago.

Assuming these records are accurate and not just an artifact of poor historical record-keeping, it appears there has been an increase in strong storms in many ocean basins.

List of the most intense tropical cyclones | Wikipedia

North Atlantic:
1920s - 1
1930s - 2
1950s - 1
1960s - 2
1970s - 0
1980s - 4
1990s - 4
2000s - 6
2010s (1/2) - 1

Eastern Pacific:
1970s - 1
1980s - 0
1990s - 3
2000s - 5
2010s (1/2) - 4

Western North Pacific:
1950s - 11
1960s - 14
1970s - 13
1980s - 12
1990s - 5
2000s - 0
2010s (1/2) - 6

North Indian Ocean:
1960s - 2
1970s - 1
1980s - 1
1990s - 4
2000s - 3
2010s (1/2) - 5

South-West Indian Ocean:
1980s - 1
1990s - 6
2000s - 10
2010s (1/2) - 4

Australian Region:
1890s - 1
1970s - 2
1980s - 1
1990s - 4
2000s - 6
2010s (1/2) - 0

South Pacific:
1980s - 2
1990s - 3
2000s - 9
2010s (1/2) - 2

South Atlantic:
1970s - 1
1980s - 0
1990s - 0
2000s - 1
2010s (1/2) - 4

Assuming this data is accurate shows a lacking of common sense. The numbers increased as population spread, measurement technology and satellite observations improved. For example, here is information describing at least two intense cyclones that failed to make the list simply because they hit unexpectedly and weren't measured for their intensity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1910...yclone_seasons

From the above article...

1917-18 cyclone season

1918 Mackay cyclone
The*1918 Mackay cyclone*struck the city of*Mackay, Queensland, Australia on 21 January 1918. It remains one of the most destructive*cyclones*to strike a populated centre in Australia.

The eye of the storm passed to the north of the city just after sunrise. During the height of the storm, barometric pressure was recorded at 932.6 hPa, one of the lowest recordings in Australia. However, the pressure was probably a lot lower, as the barometer would not go beyond 932.6 hPa, and the eye of the storm did not cross directly over Mackay where the measurement was taken. The meteorologist at the time stated that the barometer was at its maximum low reading for at least 30 minutes before the cyclone moved inland and away, allowing the pressure to finally rise. Few buildings in the centre of Mackay escaped without significant structural damage. The accompanying storm surge resulted in a sea-level-rise of 2.36*metres above the highest spring tide level, with one witness later recalling waves of 2–3*metres breaking in the main street.

Communication links into Mackay were destroyed. The outside world did not learn of the Mackay cyclone until five days after impact, leading to some speculation the city had been completely destroyed.

Record amounts of rainfall were recorded in Mackay, the totals to 9 a.m. are as follows:

22 Jan*– 627mm23 Jan*– 438mm24 Jan*– 346mmTotal rainfall for January*– 2161mm

The rainfall resulted in the Pioneer River's highest flood level at the time, which took 2 weeks to subside.

Damage wasn't limited to Mackay. In*Rockhampton, over 350*km south of Mackay, houses lost their roofs and solid jacaranda trees were uprooted. Extensive structural damage was also reported in*Yeppoon*and*Mount Morgan. Rainfall associated with the cyclonic system was responsible for the big*Rockhampton Flood of 1918*in February.

A total of thirty people perished in the disaster, including two in Rockhampton and another in Yeppoon.

1918 Innisfail cyclone

The*1918 Innisfail cyclone*made landfall in the area around*Innisfail, Queensland, Australia on 10 March 1918. It was more severe than the earlier Mackay storm. Only 12 houses survived being unroofed or totally destroyed. Damage was also sustained in Cairns, 100*km to the north, and inland to the Atherton Tableland. A 3.6m storm surge was experienced to the south at*Mission Beach. 37 people were killed in Innisfail, and an estimated 40 to 60 more in outlying areas. The lowest pressure recorded was 926hPa, but again, damage to recording equipment meant that no accurate minimum for the storm's center survived. Estimates place the figure below 910hPa.[15]

Following this destruction, the area experienced a period of prosperity in the local agricultural industries. This led to the construction of many buildings in a grand*art-deco*style





Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[SV THIRD DAY]

Now Reef...I was going to make him work for that basic scientific understanding rather than give it too him so easily. You sir are much more of a gentlemen than I...

[Thorne]

Ok, I have a couple question.

Will someone please explain what MMGW means, I really don't know.

And will one of you scientist please explain this.

My car, when I drive it. puts out more Carbon Monoxide in an hour than I put out or anything else I do, puts out in a Year.

No math here, I don't put out any carbon MONOXIDE. Manufacturing the things I own might create some but that is not me.

Myself, the only carbon dioxide I put out is what I breath out. I'm not a plant I don't have an oxygen cycle. But plants have a carbon dioxide cycle.
( Yes they do look it up. ) Duh.

Ok, so why is all the focus on Carbon DIOXIDE?

Of all the greenhouse gases put out by all the various things that put out greenhouse gases, why is Carbon DIOXIDE the one everyone is shouting about?

Again my car puts out more carbon MONOXIDE which is a greenhouse gas, in an hour than I put out carbon Dioxide in a month.

I mean you can just look at Houston or LA or Denver. That is Carbon Monoxide not carbon dioxide.

Yet no one talks about that.

So here is the question ? If global warming is real ( not my point either way ). then why aren't we talking about Carbon Monoxide, or Sulphur Dioxide, or hydrogen sulfide, or any of the 100 other greenhouse gases.

Why are we talking about the only thing that we know we can't live without producing, and the entire biosphere of the earth can't live without using, as a poison and not about cars and other stuff?

Please do me a favor and just answer the question. If you don't know then this question is not directed at you.

[SV THIRD DAY]

MMGW is shorthand for Man Made Global Warming.

I often add the C on the end (MMGWC) to add Cultist, since in my opinion that is what the believers of the MMGW movement are...it's a religious Cult.
I'd be happy to get into the Replacement Theology discussion of how Environmentalism is a replacement religion if you would like... A work email just came in so I will have to let other deal with your other good questions or get back to them in a moment.