• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Study: Strongest hurricanes striking US three times more frequently

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
26,290
Reaction score
16,771
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Study: Strongest hurricanes striking US three times more frequently | TheHill

The largest and most powerful hurricanes are striking the U.S. three times more frequently than they were a century ago, according to a study published Monday.

The Danish authors of the study measured how strong a hurricane was by calculating the total area of destruction, instead of how other researchers have measured destruction, typically by the cost of the storm's damage, NBC News reported.
============================================
A century ago is when the burning of fossil fuel in automobiles etc started to take off.

Climate change? What climate change?
 
[FONT=Lato, Corbel, Lucida Grande, Lucida Sans Unicode, Lucida Sans, DejaVu Sans, Bitstream Vera Sans, Liberation Sans, Verdana, Verdana Ref, sans-serif]Hurricanes are at an historic low.

[/FONT]
Figure: Global Hurricane Frequency (all & major) -- 12-month running sums. The top time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached at least hurricane-force (maximum lifetime wind speed exceeds 64-knots). The bottom time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached major hurricane strength (96-knots+). Adapted from Maue (2011) GRL.

 
Study: Strongest hurricanes striking US three times more frequently | TheHill

The largest and most powerful hurricanes are striking the U.S. three times more frequently than they were a century ago, according to a study published Monday.

The Danish authors of the study measured how strong a hurricane was by calculating the total area of destruction, instead of how other researchers have measured destruction, typically by the cost of the storm's damage, NBC News reported.
============================================
A century ago is when the burning of fossil fuel in automobiles etc started to take off.

Climate change? What climate change?

LOL, the made up their own criteria and published a study using it. We're all going to die! Most REAL studies have found no real change in frequency or intensity. Did the study account for population growth and urban sprawl?
 
[FONT=Lato, Corbel, Lucida Grande, Lucida Sans Unicode, Lucida Sans, DejaVu Sans, Bitstream Vera Sans, Liberation Sans, Verdana, Verdana Ref, sans-serif]Hurricanes are at an historic low.

[/FONT]
Figure: Global Hurricane Frequency (all & major) -- 12-month running sums. The top time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached at least hurricane-force (maximum lifetime wind speed exceeds 64-knots). The bottom time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached major hurricane strength (96-knots+). Adapted from Maue (2011) GRL.

Greta Thunberg on Twitter: ""The numbers don’t lie, and the science is clear.
If anyone tells you, 'This is part of a normal cycle' or 'We’ve had fires like this before', smile politely and walk away, because they don’t know what they’re talking about."
https://t.co/Avl0RATRdl"
 

LOL so now youre using Greta's tweets as evidence to back your case up? :lol:

oNXh4gb.jpg
 
Had they done any actual research, these researchers would have known that nearly one-fourth of the 35 deadliest Atlantic hurricanes occurred during the fifteen year period from 1767 to 1782. (This chart ends in 1996, and is missing Hurricane Mitch 1998 and Hurricane Katrina 2005.)
 
Greta is on the wrong side of the numbers.

Greta is just relaying the overwhelming scientific consensus. You are telling us that every single scientific organization on the planet is on the wrong side of the numbers?
 
Greta is just relaying the overwhelming scientific consensus. You are telling us that every single scientific organization on the planet is on the wrong side of the numbers?

Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. There is no scientific consensus that current wildfires or hurricanes are unprecedented in frequency or intensity. And there is much evidence to the contrary. Greta is spreading ignorance.
 
Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. There is no scientific consensus that current wildfires or hurricanes are unprecedented in frequency or intensity. And there is much evidence to the contrary. Greta is spreading ignorance.

There is consensus that we will be seeing more of these as climate changes progress. It is hard to blame any single current event. We are talking general patterns.

But you know that, I am sure. You are just obfuscating the issue. I don't know why you do it so passionately. It's pretty crazy. I can't figure it out, other than that you are THAT afraid of your taxes going up.
 
There is consensus that we will be seeing more of these as climate changes progress. It is hard to blame any single current event. We are talking general patterns.

But you know that, I am sure. You are just obfuscating the issue. I don't know why you do it so passionately. It's pretty crazy. I can't figure it out, other than that you are THAT afraid of your taxes going up.

The consensus you claim does not exist in the data.

[FONT=&quot]". . . global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago. . . ."[/FONT]

Global trends in wildfire and its impacts - Royal Society ...


Journals | Royal Society › doi › abs › rstb.2015.0345

by SH Doerr - ‎2016 - ‎Cited by 97 - ‎Related articles
Jun 5, 2016 - Wildfire has been an important process affecting the Earth's surface and ... and human societies have coexisted with fire since their emergence.
 
There is consensus that we will be seeing more of these as climate changes progress. It is hard to blame any single current event. We are talking general patterns.

But you know that, I am sure. You are just obfuscating the issue. I don't know why you do it so passionately. It's pretty crazy. I can't figure it out, other than that you are THAT afraid of your taxes going up.


Figure: Global Hurricane Frequency (all & major) -- 12-month running sums. The top time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached at least hurricane-force (maximum lifetime wind speed exceeds 64-knots). The bottom time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached major hurricane strength (96-knots+). Adapted from Maue (2011) GRL.

 
There is consensus that we will be seeing more of these as climate changes progress. It is hard to blame any single current event. We are talking general patterns.

But you know that, I am sure. You are just obfuscating the issue. I don't know why you do it so passionately. It's pretty crazy. I can't figure it out, other than that you are THAT afraid of your taxes going up.

I am on record in this forum advocating that US income taxes are too low.
 
Please see the link in #13.

Again, you are not reading the references you’re posting. Let me quote the concluding paragraph for you:

” The warming climate, which is predicted to result in more severe fire weather in many regions of the globe in this century [53] will probably contribute further to both perceived and actual risks to lives, health and infrastructure. ”

Now, did you look at any of the links from post #18?
 
Last edited:
Again, you are not reading the references you’re posting. Let me quote the concluding paragraph for you:



Now, did you look at any of the links from post #18?

I assume you meant the links in #16; there are no links in #18. And yes, I looked at them. They are speculation and models -- no data.
And yes, I read the paper linked in #13 many times. The passage you chose to quote (and I knew you would) is speculation about speculation. It has nothing to do with the data presented in the paper. My guess? That passage is political insurance to head off attacks by AGW advocates who would see the paper's findings as inconsistent with the AGW alarmist narrative.
 
Back
Top Bottom