Changes in Tropical Cyclone Intensity & Track

[mjscottinnc]

Originally Posted by SuW

Then, dear sir, you'll oblige us by saying nothing either.

Freedom of speech, DA.

Can’t refute it? Cancel it. You fit in today’s culture perfectly..

Cheers

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

... So the next time you read about another "record" that's been "broken," perhaps you'll consider the objectivity of the source. This is, after all, supposed to be a thread about the science.

I presented that little bit of weather trivia, thinking it may have been of moderate interest to cruisers, not as evidence of any larger climate issue.
‘Andres’ is, other than it’s early formation date, an, otherwise unremarkable tropical storm [now decreased to ‘depression’]. I implied nothing further, and can't be held responsible for any conclusions, you may draw.
Perhaps, I was lazy in posting in this current hurricane ‘science’ thread.
As ‘the source’ for this story, I’m moderately offended by your [implied] characterisation of me, as factually unreliable. What do you claim is objectively inaccurate, in my post?
I don’t find your editorial criticism of my contribution to be very “sciencey”.

Methinks, “the lady doth protest to much”

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I presented that little bit of weather trivia, thinking it may have been of moderate interest to cruisers, not as evidence of any larger climate issue.
‘Andres’ is, other than it’s early formation date, an, otherwise unremarkable tropical storm [now decreased to ‘depression’]. I implied nothing further, and can't be held responsible for any conclusions, you may draw.
Perhaps, I was lazy in posting in this current hurricane ‘science’ thread.
As ‘the source’ for this story, I’m moderately offended by your [implied] characterisation of me, as factually unreliable. What do you claim is objectively inaccurate, in my post?
I don’t find your editorial criticism of my contribution to be very “sciencey”.

Methinks, “the lady doth protest to much”

See post #157 where this was already explained. In short, any claim that a serious storm or other such event breaks some sort of "record" -- without any qualification that such "records" have only been kept for a few decades at most -- necessarily and quite obviously implies that such events are correlated if not caused by AGW. After literally years of CF threads, along with media reports, politicking, and sensationalism in the public sphere, your claim of posting what amounts to mere "trivia" seems like a reach.

It is exactly this sort of "trivia," after all, which lay people most often cite in support of their misconceptions of the "science." In fact, they often find "breaking records" so convincing that it's all too easy for them to conclude that anyone who has a different perception must be a "denier," "anti-science" (ironically), or other such derogatory label that marginalizes or suppresses such points of view. So we're left with mere self-ratifying echo chambers, where every new tropical storm, heat wave, forest fire, flood or drought is cause for alarm. They could be, of course, but it is a fallacy to claim or imply that the "science" definitively supports it.

I don't think there's any such thing as "too much protest" when presented with such distortions.

[SuW]

Originally Posted by mjscottinnc

Freedom of speech, DA.

Can’t refute it? Cancel it. You fit in today’s culture perfectly..

Cheers

Free speech isn't the same as free beer. You can have your own opinion but not your own facts.

You're free to say anything (in the USA anyway). However you need to consider the consequences: people may think you are uninformed, ignorant or in denial.

I may be misunderstanding your initial post (containing a common trope), but I'm almost certain that anything I say will not change your opinions. So "refuting" you would be wasting my time, we all get muddy and the pig enjoys it...!

Have a great day, yourself, dear sir.

[mjscottinnc]

Originally Posted by SuW

Free speech isn't the same as free beer. You can have your own opinion but not your own facts.



You're free to say anything (in the USA anyway). However you need to consider the consequences: people may think you are uninformed, ignorant or in denial.



I may be misunderstanding your initial post (containing a common trope), but I'm almost certain that anything I say will not change your opinions. So "refuting" you would be wasting my time, we all get muddy and the pig enjoys it...!



Have a great day, yourself, dear sir.

Not taking the bait, fish elsewhere.

[GordMay]

Tropical Storm Risk (TSR) offers a leading resource for predicting and mapping tropical storm activity worldwide. The public TSR web site provides forecasts and information to benefit basic risk awareness and decision making from tropical storms
TSR ➥ https://www.tropicalstormrisk.com/

Extended Range Forecast for Northwest Pacific Typhoon Activity in 2021
Issued: 11th May 2021
The TSR (Tropical Storm Risk) extended range forecast for Northwest Pacific typhoon activity in 2021anticipates a season with activity ~10% below the long-term norm and close to the 2011-2020 10-year norm level

April Forecast Update for North Atlantic Hurricane Activity in 2021
Issued: 13th April 2021
The TSR (Tropical Storm Risk) April forecast update for North Atlantic hurricane activity in 2021anticipates a season with activity that is~25-30% above the long-term norm and slightly above the 2011-2020 10-year norm level.


FWIW:
CSU researchers correctly predicted extremely active 2020 Atlantic hurricane season
➥ https://engr.source.colostate.edu/cs...ricane-season/

I’ve always subscribed to the thinking that, even a slow year, with a hurricane that hits you, is an active year … For You.

[SuW]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Tropical Storm Risk (TSR) offers a leading resource for predicting and mapping tropical storm activity worldwide. The public TSR web site provides forecasts and information to benefit basic risk awareness and decision making from tropical storms...

Thanks for the info, GordMay. (Keep 'em coming!)

[endlesspursuit]

https://l.messenger.com/l.php?u=http...fD-SuaEAEGB4TQ Rather long but this could also be contributing to some of the problems.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by endlesspursuit

... Rather long but this could also be contributing to some of the problems.

Is that your final answer?
Or, would you like to call a friend?

[laird]

I asked some local fishermen today on Scotland's South East coast ,these guys live in communities that have scratched a living from the sea for centuries ,the question I posed was ,which kind of fish do you normally catch around here

Their answer was one to underline the changing climate ,these people are witness to change , their catch used to be cod and haddock ,even the once abundant mackerel are disappearing , these days the catch is langustines ( large prawns ) and a recent one is Squid

Fishermen went on to blame the rising sea temperatures

These are people on the front line of climate change ,as for storms ,there have been some bad ones on this coast ,one wiped out the entire fishing fleet from 3 small towns in 1881

These guys don't need algorithms or cutting edge satellite tech to tell them that the climate is changing

One of their own a guy called John Muir managed to talk president Roosevelt into creating National Parks and nature reserves and warned about climate changing before the young lady from Sweden .

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by laird

... One of their own a guy called John Muir managed to talk president Roosevelt into creating National Parks and nature reserves and warned about climate changing before the young lady from Sweden .

Who was John Muir? ➥ https://vault.sierraclub.org/john_mu...bit/intro.aspx

However:
Pulling Down Our Monuments ➥ https://www.sierraclub.org/michael-b...ry-sierra-club

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Exile

You're right that it doesn't take a climate scientist to see such changes, but it does take one who's also objective to interpret them properly. There's little if any dispute that the planet has been in an overall warming trend since the last ice age, with multitudes of shorter term periods of warming & cooling since. Whether the rate of more recent warming definitively correlates with AGW is the source of much of the scientific inquiry & controversy, and is hardly resolved by a pretty graph presented from a biased source who's website plainly reveals a desire for a predetermined outcome. In fact, the satellite temp data -- widely accepted within the scientific community -- now shows a cooling trend (attributed to a La Nina) that recently dipped below the 30-year average (1990-2020), along with overall average temps that are ~50% less than what the models predicted.



https://www.drroyspencer.com



Should we declare or insinuate a "new normal" from this data as well?

Of course if you actually read his latest post, he says “The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).” That trend will result in 1.8 degree additional rise thus century. The .18C/decade is the same as NOAA. Which part is not being interpreted correctly?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by laird

I asked some local fishermen today on Scotland's South East coast ,these guys live in communities that have scratched a living from the sea for centuries ,the question I posed was ,which kind of fish do you normally catch around here



Their answer was one to underline the changing climate ,these people are witness to change , their catch used to be cod and haddock ,even the once abundant mackerel are disappearing , these days the catch is langustines ( large prawns ) and a recent one is Squid



Fishermen went on to blame the rising sea temperatures



These are people on the front line of climate change ,as for storms ,there have been some bad ones on this coast ,one wiped out the entire fishing fleet from 3 small towns in 1881



These guys don't need algorithms or cutting edge satellite tech to tell them that the climate is changing



One of their own a guy called John Muir managed to talk president Roosevelt into creating National Parks and nature reserves and warned about climate changing before the young lady from Sweden .

Of course over fishing has nothing to do with this.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Of course over fishing has nothing to do with this.

No it does not.

Over fishing is a sever problem in its own. The point being that colder water fish are being replaced with warmer water fish.

It is not just in Scotland.

I visited the Cote Nord of Quebec (Harrington Harbor) some years back. Had a nice ling chat with an elderly local gentleman and HE brought up warming. He noted that traditionally the island got its firewood over winter, across the water ice. Now they have to get it by rafting the wood out over water, and damn black flies.

Further South in Shelborne, NS a local gentleman told me how they built the granite wall that lines the water front. The rock was cut from a quarry in summer and hauled across the ice by oxen in winter. Now Shelborne is an an all year port. The little ice wont support granite blocks or oxen.

Nkw those are not “fish” stories.

When you go North the effects of climate change are more clear. The changes in tropics are small by comparison. But most folks live below 45° N and don’t feel the effects as much.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Of course if you actually read his latest post, he says “The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).” That trend will result in 1.8 degree additional rise thus century. The .18C/decade is the same as NOAA. Which part is not being interpreted correctly?

Not surprising that Spencer's satellite temp data is the same as NOAA. His publicly funded research uses NASA satellites and is part of the public domain. The overall warming trend he cites since 1979 is not disputed -- it's not his opinion or belief but scientific data. The land based temp data also shows overall warming since 1979, but it shows higher temps that have accrued at a faster rate. Afaik, there are few if any climate scientists who dispute that the planet is in an overall warming cycle, but there are recognized variances between the satellite & land data, varying scientific opinions about why these variances exist, and different opinions on the degree of human contributions as opposed to natural forces. What part of Spencer's latest post do you think I failed to read, and where do you get the expertise to form your own scientific opinion as to which of these differing interpretations are correct or incorrect?

Btw, where does this statement that you wrote come from?

"That trend will result in 1.8 degree additional rise thus century." (Emphasis mine). I don't think it's from Roy Spencer, or is it? Maybe I missed it. I've certainly heard it espoused by the IPCC and other official bodies, but I'm not sure it's been stated so emphatically. What level of scientific certainty does this forecast about additional warming over the next 80 years enjoy?