Comments on: Atlantic Hurricane Season 2017 (frequently updated)

By: Wow

Wow — Sun, 25 Jun 2017 04:52:04 +0000

Claims contradicted by evidence again, “mike”?

By: MikeN

MikeN — Sat, 24 Jun 2017 23:43:52 +0000

Reading comprehension doesn’t work for you I guess.

By: Wow

Wow — Sat, 24 Jun 2017 20:51:40 +0000

Oh, another indicator that this latest post from you is a really terrible attempt to lie, “mike” is that the claim you made in defence of my reply was “data is thru 2008, but the paper is later”, but Greg’s graph only goes to 2004 and the paper it comes from is 2005, neither after or even on 2008

By: Wow

Wow — Sat, 24 Jun 2017 20:15:42 +0000

“1970 is from Greg’s chart”

No, it is from the paper and post you supplied:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00146.1

See the graph? The dates? 1970 is in there. See the text in the paper you supplied a link to? 1970 is in there. See the post that you made that link? 1970 is in there from you.

Stop lying so BADLY, “mike”.

By: MikeN

MikeN — Sat, 24 Jun 2017 20:10:53 +0000

>You just read “adjustment in 1970 according to Landsea” and leapt, like any shitheaded denier to a claim of data fiddling to make a trend.

Nope. 1970 is from Greg’s chart, has nothing to do with Landsea.

By: Betula

Betula — Sat, 24 Jun 2017 10:48:06 +0000

Bottom Line:
“it is likely that the increase in Atlantic tropical storm and hurricane frequency in HURDAT since the late-1800s is primarily due to improved monitoring”

“We are unaware of a climate change signal that would result in an increase of only the shortest duration storms, while such an increase is qualitatively consistent with what one would expect from improvements with observational practices”

“We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there is a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. But statistical tests reveal that this trend is so small, relative to the variability in the series, that it is not significantly distinguishable from zero (Figure 2).”

“Thus the historical tropical storm count record does not provide compelling evidence for a greenhouse warming induced long-term increase”

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/

By: Wow

Wow — Sat, 24 Jun 2017 09:03:58 +0000

Oh, and so what if the paper was later? YOU were the one bringing it up in a conversation where “dick” claimed ACE was relevant and showed greg “wrong”. If you bring up an irrelevant (by ending too early) paper to that claim, you can’t blame me for not bothering with what it didn’t cover. It’s ending is just another proclamation you have made and only AFTER the earlier post I responded to.

So you managed a double fail in the latest BS post. Ironny? Is that you?

By: Wow

Wow — Sat, 24 Jun 2017 09:01:03 +0000

Nope, incorrect.

Nor have you managed to earth up what you found.

I take it you didn’t take time to read Landsea, right? You just read “adjustment in 1970 according to Landsea” and leapt, like any shitheaded denier to a claim of data fiddling to make a trend.

Because 2008 is not 1970 and you claimed the trend change was due to 1970. No evidence of the trend change, no evidence it would be due to 1970.

By: MikeN

MikeN — Sat, 24 Jun 2017 00:25:20 +0000

> three claims made, 0 out of 3 valid from data presented. And all in one sentence

You took a lot longer to get everything wrong, and still missed the one error that was made- data is thru 2008, but the paper is later.

By: Wow

Wow — Fri, 23 Jun 2017 19:12:02 +0000

However, that does not prove they are the same thing, therefore despite being “about the same” in the selected period, they aren’t.

So confusing the two is complete idiocy.

Moreover,now having scanned the paper, it’s also not talking about the same thing either. PDI this time.

YOUR idiocy.

” the positive trend comes from using the 1970s start date.”

For this claim to be true, you have to show that the trend varies because of the start date. But there is nothing there that indicates this to be the case and that seems to be your own singular ass-pull of a claim based on, well, fuck all as far as I can tell.

So three claims made, 0 out of 3 valid from data presented. And all in one sentence!