Remember me
▼ Content

Hurricane Patricia


Hurricane Patricia23-10-2015 14:31
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
The most powerful tropical cyclone ever observed, with sustained wind speeds of 200 mph and gusts of 245 mph, is currently bearing down on the western coast of Mexico. Its minimum central pressure of just 880 mbar is also a new record.

Let's hope the people there are prepared and survive this.
23-10-2015 15:02
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
Surface Detail wrote:
The most powerful tropical cyclone ever observed, with sustained wind speeds of 200 mph and gusts of 245 mph, is currently bearing down on the western coast of Mexico. Its minimum central pressure of just 880 mbar is also a new record.

Let's hope the people there are prepared and survive this.

Is this more proof of Global Cooling?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-10-2015 15:22
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
It's not proof of anything (the concept doesn't exist in science), but it does tally with IPCC projections of increasingly frequent intense storms as the Earth warms. It therefore supports the current consensus on the causes and effects of global warming.
23-10-2015 15:59
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
Surface Detail wrote: It's not proof of anything (the concept doesn't exist in science),

Right, right, ...it's merely "evidence" of Global Cooling, yes?

Surface Detail wrote: ...but it does tally with IPCC projections of increasingly frequent intense storms as the Earth warms.

Well, that certainly is their Nostradamus-type prophecy, and what they claim will be "signs" of the prophecy coming true.

Of course others who are prophets of Global Cooling claim intense weather as "signs" of the truth of their wisdom, e.g. the windiest place on earth is one of the coldest, the most intense storms in the solar system are on the coldest planets, etc..

I find both faiths to be fascintating. But the IPCC's is yours, you say?

Surface Detail wrote: It therefore supports the current consensus on the causes and effects of global warming.


I'm just curious, how does this hurricane support your belief the earth is warming instead of cooling?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-10-2015 16:05
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
What are you gibbering about?

It's quite simple. The consensus opinion of climate scientists is that emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are causing the planet to warm. One of the predicted consequences of this is that intense storms will become more frequent. The fact that intense storms are indeed becoming more frequent therefore supports the theory behind the consensus.
23-10-2015 16:39
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
What are you gibbering about?

It's quite simple. The consensus opinion of climate scientists is that emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are causing the planet to warm. One of the predicted consequences of this is that intense storms will become more frequent. The fact that intense storms are indeed becoming more frequent therefore supports the theory behind the consensus.


Storms are less frequent than they were in the 1970's.

If you actual evidence that severe storms are actually more frequent then please present it. One storm is not enough.
23-10-2015 16:44
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
Surface Detail wrote: What are you gibbering about?

It wouldn't appear to be gibberish if you had better English comprehension. I'll try to dumb it down for you.

Surface Detail wrote: It's quite simple. The consensus opinion of climate scientists is that emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are causing the planet to warm.

That's fine, but there is no such thing as "climate science" and "climate scientists" are simply a bunch of wacked-out (and typically dishonest) religious fanatics, typically analogous to televangelists. Their consensus about anything is about as valuable as the College of Cardinals' consensus that Jesus Christ really did die for our sins.

Surface Detail wrote: One of the predicted consequences of this is that intense storms will become more frequent.

...and I mentioned to you that one of the predicted consequences of Global Cooling is that intense storms will become more frequent.

So, I'll ask you again, why is this hurricane "evidence" of Global Warming and not "evidence" of Global Cooling?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-10-2015 16:53
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
What are you gibbering about?

It's quite simple. The consensus opinion of climate scientists is that emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are causing the planet to warm. One of the predicted consequences of this is that intense storms will become more frequent. The fact that intense storms are indeed becoming more frequent therefore supports the theory behind the consensus.


Storms are less frequent than they were in the 1970's.

If you actual evidence that severe storms are actually more frequent then please present it. One storm is not enough.


See, for example:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5742/1844.full

"We examined the number of tropical cyclones and cyclone days as well as tropical cyclone intensity over the past 35 years, in an environment of increasing sea surface temperature. A large increase was seen in the number and proportion of hurricanes reaching categories 4 and 5. The largest increase occurred in the North Pacific, Indian, and Southwest Pacific Oceans, and the smallest percentage increase occurred in the North Atlantic Ocean. These increases have taken place while the number of cyclones and cyclone days has decreased in all basins except the North Atlantic during the past decade."

And that's from 2005; intense storms have continued to increase in frequency since then.
23-10-2015 17:27
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
And that's from 2005; intense storms have continued to increase in frequency since then.


It seems like Atlantic storm activity has been in a nosedive since 2005.

2005
Total depressions: 31
Total storms: 28
Hurricanes: 15
Major hurricanes (Cat. 3+): 7

...but recently, activity seems to be tanking.

2012
Total depressions: 19
Total storms: 19
Hurricanes: 10
Major hurricanes (Cat. 3+): 2

2013
Total depressions: 15
Total storms: 14
Hurricanes: 2
Major hurricanes (Cat. 3+): 0

2014
Total depressions: 9
Total storms: 8
Hurricanes: 6
Major hurricanes (Cat. 3+): 2

2015
Total depressions: 11
Total storms: 10
Hurricanes: 3
Major hurricanes (Cat. 3+): 2


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-10-2015 18:19
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Why single out the Atlantic and those particular years?
23-10-2015 18:24
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
Surface Detail wrote:
Why single out the Atlantic and those particular years?

I don't have all data for everything handy.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-10-2015 18:25
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
What is the source of your data?
RE: Data Mine Candidate23-10-2015 18:43
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
Surface Detail wrote: What is the source of your data?

My source is terrible. If you don't accept it, I'll understand. I grabbed the first datums I encountered.

Oh, yeah, I got it all off Wikipedia.

This would be a great candidate for the Data Mine thread. Let's confer with Into the Night for acceptable data.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-10-2015 18:51
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Just provide a link to the source of your data, please.

FWIW, I reckon your data is correct, but I suspect you've cherry-picked the location and years in an effort to mislead. Give a link and prove me wrong!
23-10-2015 19:41
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
Surface Detail wrote:
Just provide a link to the source of your data, please.

FWIW, I reckon your data is correct, but I suspect you've cherry-picked the location and years in an effort to mislead. Give a link and prove me wrong!


You do realize that "cherry picking" means "arbitrarily selected," yes?

You do realize that "cherry picking" is the essence of the scientific method, yes?

You do realize that experiments are arbitrarily tailored to test hypotheses, yes?

You do realize that theories need to align to all (valid) historical data, which means to any arbitrarily selected (valid) data, yes?


...oh, and didn't I mention that I just lifted those figures from Wikipedia?

If you'll meander on over to the Wikipedia page, and then look up "2005 Atlantic hurricane Season."
Then look up "2012 Atlantic hurricane season."
Then look up "2013 Atlantic hurricane season."
Then look up "2014 Atlantic hurricane season."
Then look up "2015 Atlantic hurricane season."


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-10-2015 20:15
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
You obviously have no clue at all. Cherry picking means the exact opposite of arbitrarily selected.
23-10-2015 20:50
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
Surface Detail wrote:
You obviously have no clue at all. Cherry picking means the exact opposite of arbitrarily selected.


Thank you. I'll quote you on this.

I hope you realize that when it turns out that you are very much mistaken, everything you argued prior that you based on this misunderstanding, becomes falsified.

Otherwise, have a great day.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-10-2015 21:47
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/66-cherry-picking

"When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary

Meaning 1 (the scientific meaning): "not planned or chosen for a particular reason"
23-10-2015 22:32
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
Surface Detail wrote:
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/66-cherry-picking

"When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary

Meaning 1 (the scientific meaning): "not planned or chosen for a particular reason"


Sorry, not an authoritative source.

OXFORD DICTIONARY
Definition of cherry-pick in English:
verb

1 [WITH OBJECT] Selectively choose (the most beneficial items) from what is available:
the company should buy the whole airline and not just cherry-pick its best assets

MERRIAM WEBSTER

cher·ry–pick
\ˈcher-ē-ˌpik\
verb
: to pick or accept the best people or things in a group
Full Definition
intransitive verb
:to select the best or most desirable
transitive verb
:to select as being the best or most desirable; also :to select the best or most desirable from


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-10-2015 22:53
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Cherry-picking data may be beneficial for a lawyer, salesman or sports coach, but it's absolute anathema to science. I'm astonished that you're not aware of this. People are accused of cherry-picking in science, not lauded for it!
Edited on 23-10-2015 22:54
23-10-2015 23:13
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
Surface Detail wrote:Cherry-picking data may be beneficial for a lawyer, salesman or sports coach, but it's absolute anathema to science.

We have already established that you haven't the vaguest idea of what science is.

So either the data falsify your argument of Global Warming or the data supports Global Cooling. I'll take you on your word, but which is it?


Surface Detail wrote: People are accused of cherry-picking in science, not lauded for it!

Not only are people lauded for it, not only must scientists be skilled in it, engneering firms have entire departments dedicated to robustness testing.

"Cherry-picking" as an accusation is purely a religious thing because you know how the religious hate/fear science. The last thing any warmizombie wants is for some scientst to start robustness testing the dogma because that will show the dogma to be false rather expediently. Warmazombies try to nip that in the bud with a preemptive accusation of "Cherry-picking! "


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-10-2015 23:21
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
at your extreme ignorance. Show me a recruitment ad for a scientist or engineer skilled in cherry picking, and I'll show you where Santa and his elves hang out.
Edited on 23-10-2015 23:21
23-10-2015 23:29
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
Surface Detail wrote:
at your extreme ignorance. Show me a recruitment ad for a scientist or engineer skilled in cherry picking, and I'll show you where Santa and his elves hang out.


Is that because you know that ads instead use the words "robustness testing" and that now you are merely quibbling over wording?

https://www.linkedin.com/topic/robustness-testing


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-10-2015 23:31
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Robustness testing doesn't mean cherry picking! Whatever gave you that idea?
24-10-2015 00:22
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
Surface Detail wrote:
Robustness testing doesn't mean cherry picking! Whatever gave you that idea?

We have already established that you aren't the expert on what things mean.

Arbitrary selection. Cherry-picking is arbitrary selection of specific elements in a set. Robustness testing is the arbitrary selection of specific elements in a set (to be tested).


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-10-2015 00:30
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
You're talking complete nonsense. It's like arguing with Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty.
24-10-2015 00:37
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
Surface Detail wrote:
You're talking complete nonsense. It's like arguing with Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty.


So you're tipping your king. You won't talk about the Atlantic because it shows your dogma to be the religious nonsense it is.

Next topic?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-03-2017 20:55
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
As a postscript to this thread, which seems to have died either due to a lack of interest or an excess of condescending insults:

I was in Puerto Vallarta, just north of Patricia's landfall, at the time. Where I was, there was hardly any wind and no rain, just overcast skies. It needs to be said that there was a low mountain range between me and landfall. Near landfall there was moderate damage, but the mountains literally knocked the wind out of Patricia.
23-08-2017 03:48
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Frescomexico wrote:I was in Puerto Vallarta, just north of Patricia's landfall, at the time. Where I was, there was hardly any wind and no rain, just overcast skies. It needs to be said that there was a low mountain range between me and landfall. Near landfall there was moderate damage, but the mountains literally knocked the wind out of Patricia.

Once, a hurricane hit the islands of Hawaii & the mountains disrupted that storm.
Similarly, a science team of Professor Mark Z. Jacobson, ran computer simulations, indicating that a very large Wind Turbine Farm could siphon enough energy from the leading edge of a hurricane, to disorganize the storm center.
Indeed, enough electrical power could be generated from the storm's leading edge to downgrade the hurricane.




Join the debate Hurricane Patricia:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Hurricane mechanism5414-09-2019 19:08
Hurricane Dorian, sign of Global Warming?4709-09-2019 19:15
Climate Change Was The Engine That Powered Hurricane Maria's Devastating Rains019-04-2019 15:38
Hurricane Michael Is Officially More Powerful than Hurricane Katrina3115-10-2018 22:49
Hurricane Florence is a Once IN A Lifetime storm3618-09-2018 19:45
Articles
Al Gore: Hurricane Katrina and Global Warming
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact