Global Cyclonic Activity - Oh Noes!

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
16,037
23,754
1
You would think that global cyclonic activity would be a pretty good indicator of global cooling, er, global warming, er, climate change, er climate disruption, right? As the theory goes, as the globe warms, there will be more moisture in the air, causing the air to be less stable, the heat has to go somewhere, so there will be more hurricanes. Easy, peasy. So, people like @PaoliLion point to any hurricane and immediately wring their hands and say, "See, global cooling, er, global warming, er, climate change, er climate disruption! I told you so."

Well, not so fast, hand wringers, everywhere! Dr. Ryan Maue has been studying global cyclonic activity for a long time, and his data clearly shows - wait for it - building suspense - NOTHING! Any of you data geeks out there want to put a trend line to this? Well, you probably don't need to. The human eye is pretty good at detecting even minute changes in a series of data points like this. And, guess what? NOTHING!

global_major_freq.png
 

psuted

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 26, 2010
27,703
23,219
1
You would think that global cyclonic activity would be a pretty good indicator of global cooling, er, global warming, er, climate change, er climate disruption, right? As the theory goes, as the globe warms, there will be more moisture in the air, causing the air to be less stable, the heat has to go somewhere, so there will be more hurricanes. Easy, peasy. So, people like @PaoliLion point to any hurricane and immediately wring their hands and say, "See, global cooling, er, global warming, er, climate change, er climate disruption! I told you so."

Well, not so fast, hand wringers, everywhere! Dr. Ryan Maue has been studying global cyclonic activity for a long time, and his data clearly shows - wait for it - building suspense - NOTHING! Any of you data geeks out there want to put a trend line to this? Well, you probably don't need to. The human eye is pretty good at detecting even minute changes in a series of data points like this. And, guess what? NOTHING!

global_major_freq.png

Stop picking on the environmental wacko’s. They need some type of religion to worship, even if it means ruining the country, the world, and the quality of life.

If they didn’t have the church of the “green new deal” nonsense, they’d have nothing. Remember, we only have 6-7 more years to live before we all burn up.
 
Last edited:

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
5,166
8,414
1
You would think that global cyclonic activity would be a pretty good indicator of global cooling, er, global warming, er, climate change, er climate disruption, right? As the theory goes, as the globe warms, there will be more moisture in the air, causing the air to be less stable, the heat has to go somewhere, so there will be more hurricanes. Easy, peasy. So, people like @PaoliLion point to any hurricane and immediately wring their hands and say, "See, global cooling, er, global warming, er, climate change, er climate disruption! I told you so."

Well, not so fast, hand wringers, everywhere! Dr. Ryan Maue has been studying global cyclonic activity for a long time, and his data clearly shows - wait for it - building suspense - NOTHING! Any of you data geeks out there want to put a trend line to this? Well, you probably don't need to. The human eye is pretty good at detecting even minute changes in a series of data points like this. And, guess what? NOTHING!

global_major_freq.png
Every liberal I know is math and science challenged.

Not one smart one.
 

BrandonRocks

Member
Dec 29, 2021
14
4
1
You would think that global cyclonic activity would be a pretty good indicator of global cooling, er, global warming, er, climate change, er climate disruption, right? As the theory goes, as the globe warms, there will be more moisture in the air, causing the air to be less stable, the heat has to go somewhere, so there will be more hurricanes. Easy, peasy. So, people like @PaoliLion point to any hurricane and immediately wring their hands and say, "See, global cooling, er, global warming, er, climate change, er climate disruption! I told you so."

Well, not so fast, hand wringers, everywhere! Dr. Ryan Maue has been studying global cyclonic activity for a long time, and his data clearly shows - wait for it - building suspense - NOTHING! Any of you data geeks out there want to put a trend line to this? Well, you probably don't need to. The human eye is pretty good at detecting even minute changes in a series of data points like this. And, guess what? NOTHING!

global_major_freq.png

I haven’t heard that there’s consensus from the science community that global warming would result in an observable/measurable increase in global major hurricane frequency in the short-term. Hurricane data can be highly problematic because there are regional cycles, particularly when you’re looking for trends over a few decades.

Here’s a summary from NOAA talking about Atlantic hurricane activity


Are you saying:
1. It has been concluded and this chart shows that there is no global warming? or are up I saying…
2. It hasn’t been concluded and this chart shows that there is actually no observable correlation in the short-term observable data?
 
Last edited:

Pardlion

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2014
8,853
11,199
1
You would think that global cyclonic activity would be a pretty good indicator of global cooling, er, global warming, er, climate change, er climate disruption, right? As the theory goes, as the globe warms, there will be more moisture in the air, causing the air to be less stable, the heat has to go somewhere, so there will be more hurricanes. Easy, peasy. So, people like @PaoliLion point to any hurricane and immediately wring their hands and say, "See, global cooling, er, global warming, er, climate change, er climate disruption! I told you so."

Well, not so fast, hand wringers, everywhere! Dr. Ryan Maue has been studying global cyclonic activity for a long time, and his data clearly shows - wait for it - building suspense - NOTHING! Any of you data geeks out there want to put a trend line to this? Well, you probably don't need to. The human eye is pretty good at detecting even minute changes in a series of data points like this. And, guess what? NOTHING!

global_major_freq.png
Well, my house was hit by a tornado. That sucked.
 

HartfordLlion

Well-Known Member
Sep 28, 2001
21,858
14,748
1
I haven’t heard that there’s consensus from the science community that global warming would result in an observable/measurable increase in global major hurricane frequency in the short-term. Hurricane data can be highly problematic because there are regional cycles, particularly when you’re looking for trends over a few decades.

Here’s a summary from NOAA talking about Atlantic hurricane activity


Are you saying:
1. It has been concluded and this chart shows that there is no global warming? or are up I saying…
2. It hasn’t been concluded and this chart shows that there is actually no observable correlation in the short-term observable data?

1) the world is warming with or without the CO2 emissions nonsense. We are coming out of a mini-ice age period.

2) no conclusion from short term observable data??? If it had any loose correlation to warming temperatures the climate change cult would be all over it as proof CO2 inducted climate change is real. . You can't have it both ways.

3) Every time a climate event happens climate change cult blames it on climate changed due to CO2 emissions, see the Weather Channels constant banner. 100 year flood in a region ==> climate change; bad cat 4/5 hurricane hits the US coast ==> climate change; fires burning out West ==> climate change. There are naturally occurring phenomenon, yet the climate change cult will use it every time to blame CO2 emission induced climate change.
 
Last edited:

PSU87

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2001
12,985
7,595
1
Florida, where the weather suits my clothes
So, as a Florida resident I obviously follow these things closely.

To be clear, I am not saying global warming causes an increase in hurricanes, however...

While the number of hurricanes over time is either flat or slightly down, I have read some articles on total cyclonic energy trending upwards. So in other words, while the number of majors has not increased they have been "more" major.
 

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
5,166
8,414
1
Hahahah
So, as a Florida resident I obviously follow these things closely.

To be clear, I am not saying global warming causes an increase in hurricanes, however...

While the number of hurricanes over time is either flat or slightly down, I have read some articles on total cyclonic energy trending upwards. So in other words, while the number of majors has not increased they have been "more" major.

Hahahahaha.

Yeah, image our ability to calculate cyclonic energy is so fraught with uncertainty that any trend line is EASILY within any margin of error.

Ridiculous.
 

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
16,037
23,754
1
I haven’t heard that there’s consensus from the science community that global warming would result in an observable/measurable increase in global major hurricane frequency in the short-term. Hurricane data can be highly problematic because there are regional cycles, particularly when you’re looking for trends over a few decades.

Here’s a summary from NOAA talking about Atlantic hurricane activity


Are you saying:
1. It has been concluded and this chart shows that there is no global warming? or are up I saying…
2. It hasn’t been concluded and this chart shows that there is actually no observable correlation in the short-term observable data?
You should Google "global warming hurricanes" and see what you come up with.

I'm saying there are enough hand-wringing, science-denying liberals saying this that pointing outthe actual data is worthwhile from time to time.
 

PSU87

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2001
12,985
7,595
1
Florida, where the weather suits my clothes
Hahahah

Hahahahaha.

Yeah, image our ability to calculate cyclonic energy is so fraught with uncertainty that any trend line is EASILY within any margin of error.

Ridiculous.
Firstly, I think I was pretty clear about my beliefs on global warming vis a vis hurricanes.

Secondly, the calculation is simply surface wind speed multiplied by duration. Not exactly a true measurement of total energy, but an easy tool to put a number on time/duration.

So as an example, let's say in the 90s we had 10 of each category of storm. Let's say in the 2010s we had 10 of each category of storm. At first glance (like in the graph above) the intensity and frequency shows flat. However....lets say in the 90s the average CAT2 storm was 105 knots for 72 hours and in the 2010s the average was 107 knots for 74 hours.

It's an incredibly simple calculation.

I will caveat it with this: I think our ability to measure wind speed inside a hurricane has improved dramatically and it skews the numbers. I think storms that are getting names today because of wind speed aren't getting named 20 years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Spin Meister

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
61,058
37,471
1
So, as a Florida resident I obviously follow these things closely.

To be clear, I am not saying global warming causes an increase in hurricanes, however...

While the number of hurricanes over time is either flat or slightly down, I have read some articles on total cyclonic energy trending upwards. So in other words, while the number of majors has not increased they have been "more" major.
If so we have two choices:
  1. Build higher sea walls, don't build in flood areas, stronger building standards.
  2. Wait for Biden to change the weather.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LioninHouston

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
47,521
21,190
1
Gawd, what I wouldn't give for a new post here from poor, dead Boris. This thread is worthless without his participation in it.
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
24,285
27,979
1
An altered state
Firstly, I think I was pretty clear about my beliefs on global warming vis a vis hurricanes.

Secondly, the calculation is simply surface wind speed multiplied by duration. Not exactly a true measurement of total energy, but an easy tool to put a number on time/duration.

So as an example, let's say in the 90s we had 10 of each category of storm. Let's say in the 2010s we had 10 of each category of storm. At first glance (like in the graph above) the intensity and frequency shows flat. However....lets say in the 90s the average CAT2 storm was 105 knots for 72 hours and in the 2010s the average was 107 knots for 74 hours.

It's an incredibly simple calculation.

I will caveat it with this: I think our ability to measure wind speed inside a hurricane has improved dramatically and it skews the numbers. I think storms that are getting names today because of wind speed aren't getting named 20 years ago.
Bingo there. There is huge inconsistency in the data....which allows for distorted conclusions. According to Joe Bastardi....one of the best on historical hurricane data.....says the hurricane frequency in the 1930s was much higher than now.......and we didn’t have satellite imaging nor were there cross Atlantic flights nor was there radar and ocean shipping was far less so there is no doubt many hurricanes went undetected prior to the sixties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSU87

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
5,166
8,414
1
Firstly, I think I was pretty clear about my beliefs on global warming vis a vis hurricanes.

Secondly, the calculation is simply surface wind speed multiplied by duration. Not exactly a true measurement of total energy, but an easy tool to put a number on time/duration.

So as an example, let's say in the 90s we had 10 of each category of storm. Let's say in the 2010s we had 10 of each category of storm. At first glance (like in the graph above) the intensity and frequency shows flat. However....lets say in the 90s the average CAT2 storm was 105 knots for 72 hours and in the 2010s the average was 107 knots for 74 hours.

It's an incredibly simple calculation.

I will caveat it with this: I think our ability to measure wind speed inside a hurricane has improved dramatically and it skews the numbers. I think storms that are getting names today because of wind speed aren't getting named 20 years ago.
Well, if they're doing it right, Total Cyclonic energy would be the sum of individual MV^2, so you need to take the integrated field from R=Ri to Ro (eyewall radius to outer flow radius is probably OK). and also integrate in the vertical direction.

And the radius of the storms vary. Some have a very tight eyewall with high maximum velocity, but don't extend nearly as far out as other storms with lower eyewall speed. Which has more "total cyclonic energy"? Well, you only know if you integrate it over volume.

Obviously, our observational powers, especially over oceans is much, much greater today than it was in 1965 (and even 1980), so I'm sure the estimates we have from those years are lower.

Calculation is easy (although Energy would be calculated as I showed it), but the data inputs are going to be very, very sketchy.

Think there weren't hurricanes that formed and dissipated before any ship observed them in the ocean in 1950? You can bet on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSU87

PaoliLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2003
12,081
6,082
1
You would think that global cyclonic activity would be a pretty good indicator of global cooling, er, global warming, er, climate change, er climate disruption, right? As the theory goes, as the globe warms, there will be more moisture in the air, causing the air to be less stable, the heat has to go somewhere, so there will be more hurricanes. Easy, peasy. So, people like @PaoliLion point to any hurricane and immediately wring their hands and say, "See, global cooling, er, global warming, er, climate change, er climate disruption! I told you so."

Well, not so fast, hand wringers, everywhere! Dr. Ryan Maue has been studying global cyclonic activity for a long time, and his data clearly shows - wait for it - building suspense - NOTHING! Any of you data geeks out there want to put a trend line to this? Well, you probably don't need to. The human eye is pretty good at detecting even minute changes in a series of data points like this. And, guess what? NOTHING!

global_major_freq.png




“Maue is part of a think tank that’s co-founded by wealthy climate denial funders, the Koch brothers”
1) the world is warming with or without the CO2 emissions nonsense. We are coming out of a mini-ice age period.

2) no conclusion from short term observable data??? If it had any loose correlation to warming temperatures the climate change cult would be all over it as proof CO2 inducted climate change is real. . You can't have it both ways.

3) Every time a climate event happens climate change cult blames it on climate changed due to CO2 emissions, see the Weather Channels constant banner. 100 year flood in a region ==> climate change; bad cat 4/5 hurricane hits the US coast ==> climate change; fires burning out West ==> climate change. There are naturally occurring phenomenon, yet the climate change cult will use it every time to blame CO2 emission induced climate change.

Which climate scientist can you cite that says “the uptick in global warming over the last ~100 years is because we’re coming out of a mini-ice age”? Is there one????????? Or are you just making up your own narrative to fit your agenda?

If there are 500 climate scientists that say that global warming is predominantly man made and there are 2 that say “it’s because we’re coming out of a mini ice age” - should we believe the 500 or the 2?
 

PaoliLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2003
12,081
6,082
1
You should Google "global warming hurricanes" and see what you come up with.

I'm saying there are enough hand-wringing, science-denying liberals saying this that pointing outthe actual data is worthwhile from time to time.

I see - the chart was taking out of context, you don’t know what it means, but you think it disproves something that someone else is saying, but you can’t say who
 

HartfordLlion

Well-Known Member
Sep 28, 2001
21,858
14,748
1
“Maue is part of a think tank that’s co-founded by wealthy climate denial funders, the Koch brothers”


Which climate scientist can you cite that says “the uptick in global warming over the last ~100 years is because we’re coming out of a mini-ice age”? Is there one????????? Or are you just making up your own narrative to fit your agenda?

If there are 500 climate scientists that say that global warming is predominantly man made and there are 2 that say “it’s because we’re coming out of a mini ice age” - should we believe the 500 or the 2?

The warming we are seeing has been going on for 100s of years and it is well documented science

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
 

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
16,037
23,754
1
I see - the chart was taking out of context, you don’t know what it means, but you think it disproves something that someone else is saying, but you can’t say who
Taking <sic> out of context? WTF?

How many "who"s do you want, hand wringer?



 

PaoliLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2003
12,081
6,082
1
Taking <sic> out of context? WTF?

How many "who"s do you want, hand wringer?




You actually read anything? You’re retarded

Let’s take the first article from the NYTimes - in the first two paragraphs;

While researchers can’t say for sure whether human-caused climate change will mean longer or more active hurricane seasons in the future, there is broad agreement on one thing: Global warming is changing storms.

Let’s take the second article:

The conventional wisdom is that storm intensity will increase but storm frequency will either decrease or remain unchanged.

Finding trends in either the number or intensity of tropical cyclones is complicated because reliable records date back only as far as consistent and complete global satellite observations. Since 1985, a remarkably consistent average of approximately 80 tropical cyclones has formed each year, rangingfrom a low of 65 to a maximum of 90.

In terms of frequency, studies have consistently shown “no discernible trend in the global number of tropical cyclones.”
 
  • Haha
Reactions: LioninHouston

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
61,058
37,471
1
You actually read anything? You’re retarded

Let’s take the first article from the NYTimes - in the first two paragraphs;

While researchers can’t say for sure whether human-caused climate change will mean longer or more active hurricane seasons in the future, there is broad agreement on one thing: Global warming is changing storms.

Let’s take the second article:

The conventional wisdom is that storm intensity will increase but storm frequency will either decrease or remain unchanged.

Finding trends in either the number or intensity of tropical cyclones is complicated because reliable records date back only as far as consistent and complete global satellite observations. Since 1985, a remarkably consistent average of approximately 80 tropical cyclones has formed each year, rangingfrom a low of 65 to a maximum of 90.

In terms of frequency, studies have consistently shown “no discernible trend in the global number of tropical cyclones.”
Was the science settled in 1977?

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bison13

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
16,037
23,754
1
You actually read anything? You’re retarded

Let’s take the first article from the NYTimes - in the first two paragraphs;

While researchers can’t say for sure whether human-caused climate change will mean longer or more active hurricane seasons in the future, there is broad agreement on one thing: Global warming is changing storms.

Let’s take the second article:

The conventional wisdom is that storm intensity will increase but storm frequency will either decrease or remain unchanged.

Finding trends in either the number or intensity of tropical cyclones is complicated because reliable records date back only as far as consistent and complete global satellite observations. Since 1985, a remarkably consistent average of approximately 80 tropical cyclones has formed each year, rangingfrom a low of 65 to a maximum of 90.

In terms of frequency, studies have consistently shown “no discernible trend in the global number of tropical cyclones.”
"Since 1985, a remarkably consistent average of approximately 80 tropical cyclones has formed each year, rangingfrom a low of 65 to a maximum of 90."

So, 35 years of data isn't enough to see any difference? But, but, but, it's getting worse! LOFL.
 

JR4PSU

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2002
40,563
11,538
1
SE PA
Firstly, I think I was pretty clear about my beliefs on global warming vis a vis hurricanes.

Secondly, the calculation is simply surface wind speed multiplied by duration. Not exactly a true measurement of total energy, but an easy tool to put a number on time/duration.

So as an example, let's say in the 90s we had 10 of each category of storm. Let's say in the 2010s we had 10 of each category of storm. At first glance (like in the graph above) the intensity and frequency shows flat. However....lets say in the 90s the average CAT2 storm was 105 knots for 72 hours and in the 2010s the average was 107 knots for 74 hours.

It's an incredibly simple calculation.

I will caveat it with this: I think our ability to measure wind speed inside a hurricane has improved dramatically and it skews the numbers. I think storms that are getting names today because of wind speed aren't getting named 20 years ago.
uh, if the average strength of all hurricanes, i.e. all catagories, were higher, then that would necessarily mean that the number of hurricanes in each category would increase, as well, no? With the intensity going up, that would mean some CAT1 hurricanes would be pushed to CAT2. Some CAT2 hurricanes would be pushed to CAT3, etc. So the end result would be that the number of total hurricanes would have to had increased. More tropical storms would have been pushed to hurricane strength. Just makes sense that would be the case if the average strength is increasing.
 

PSU87

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2001
12,985
7,595
1
Florida, where the weather suits my clothes
uh, if the average strength of all hurricanes, i.e. all catagories, were higher, then that would necessarily mean that the number of hurricanes in each category would increase, as well, no? With the intensity going up, that would mean some CAT1 hurricanes would be pushed to CAT2. Some CAT2 hurricanes would be pushed to CAT3, etc. So the end result would be that the number of total hurricanes would have to had increased. More tropical storms would have been pushed to hurricane strength. Just makes sense that would be the case if the average strength is increasing.
Well, exactly, and it's one reason to question the data. It stands to reason if the energy was going up, some of those Cat1 storms would cross the Cat2 line.

However, the other variable is duration.....which could increase without changing the category of the storm.

Bottom line...the 30s and the 50s were pretty bad when compared to current numbers. 1933 still ranks #1 in ACE and the 1935 Keys hurricane ranks as the strongest hurricane ever in the Atlantic basin (as measured by presdure)

As I stated....its just another data point to consider. I am not saying it is proof that storms are getting stronger. But as a Florida resident this is close to my heart, so I really do look at all the data.
 

PaoliLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2003
12,081
6,082
1
Hey, dipshit @PaoliLion, just wanted to make sure you had seen this message. You know, because you indicated that I was confused, even though you posted a quote with the words that I quoted.

So, no, @PaoliLion, I'm not the confused one. You are.

I have a series of rules with various folks + thread that determines if I engage with them 1 of 2 times they DM me, 1 of 5 times, 1 of 10 times, 1 of 20, etc. Your placement is based on the quality and spirit of your responses, how decent of a human being you are, and how important the topic is. Unfortunately, you have fallen pretty low in that list and you’ll need to earn your way back up the ladder.

I obliterated your ass on the climate change topic and I’ve moved on.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: psuted

psuted

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 26, 2010
27,703
23,219
1
I have a series of rules with various folks + thread that determines if I engage with them 1 of 2 times they DM me, 1 of 5 times, 1 of 10 times, 1 of 20, etc. Your placement is based on the quality and spirit of your responses, how decent of a human being you are, and how important the topic is. Unfortunately, you have fallen pretty low in that list and you’ll need to earn your way back up the ladder.

I obliterated your ass on the climate change topic and I’ve moved on.

So, in other words you had your ass handed to you and you have your tail between your legs and don’t want to engage.
 

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
16,037
23,754
1
I have a series of rules with various folks + thread that determines if I engage with them 1 of 2 times they DM me, 1 of 5 times, 1 of 10 times, 1 of 20, etc. Your placement is based on the quality and spirit of your responses, how decent of a human being you are, and how important the topic is. Unfortunately, you have fallen pretty low in that list and you’ll need to earn your way back up the ladder.

I obliterated your ass on the climate change topic and I’ve moved on.
Let's review, shall we? You posted:
You actually read anything? You’re retarded

Let’s take the first article from the NYTimes - in the first two paragraphs;

While researchers can’t say for sure whether human-caused climate change will mean longer or more active hurricane seasons in the future, there is broad agreement on one thing: Global warming is changing storms.

Let’s take the second article:

The conventional wisdom is that storm intensity will increase but storm frequency will either decrease or remain unchanged.

Finding trends in either the number or intensity of tropical cyclones is complicated because reliable records date back only as far as consistent and complete global satellite observations. Since 1985, a remarkably consistent average of approximately 80 tropical cyclones has formed each year, rangingfrom a low of 65 to a maximum of 90.

In terms of frequency, studies have consistently shown “no discernible trend in the global number of tropical cyclones.”
Which included the words:
"Since 1985, a remarkably consistent average of approximately 80 tropical cyclones has formed each year, rangingfrom a low of 65 to a maximum of 90."

So, 35 years of data isn't enough to see any difference? But, but, but, it's getting worse! LOFL.
You, apparently forgetting, our having not actually read what you posted, posted the following:
tropical cyclones?
I then told you that you posted it:
You posted it, dipshit.
Which, you denied, by saying that I was confused:
You’re probably confusing me with someone else.
And, I then pointed out that your first message actually contained the quote.
I quoted it from message 22, which was yours, dipshit. 🤡🤡
Now, you're going to try to somehow claim you've destroyed me? LOL. That's funny. 🤡🤡
 
  • Like
Reactions: psuted