freediver wrote on Apr 21^st, 2019 at 7:01pm:


Oh you wanted more than the satellite era?

We don't have good quality data for the Southern Hemisphere, BoM goes back to 1971, but we do for the USA -



Of course feel free to post rebuttal, graphs etc. I know the US is not global, but it should be a fair proxy.

The red line shows the linear trend, exhibiting a decrease from about 2 to 1.5 landfalls per year since 1900. Source: NOAA

lee wrote on Apr 21^st, 2019 at 7:53pm:


Is there a reason that you posted this information ? How does it relate to a Carbon tax ?

Dnarever wrote on Apr 21^st, 2019 at 8:08pm:


Yes because doubt was put on earlier hurricane numbers. Don't let it bother you, it is above your comprehension level.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 21^st, 2019 at 8:08pm:



Because CO2 is supposed to be the harbinger of all extreme weather and needs a tax to mitigate it.

lee wrote on Apr 21^st, 2019 at 8:27pm:


You see? Option 3.

lee wrote on Apr 21^st, 2019 at 8:30pm:


Yes because doubt was put on earlier hurricane numbers.


My q meant to include the relevance of posting earlier hurricane numbers as well ?

Quote:


You argument is based solidly on an untrue assertion. In fact there are theories that show how warming can be associated with more moderate weather conditions like less hail and less Hurricanes in some areas.

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Apr 21^st, 2019 at 10:08pm:


It's just meaningless mud in the water.

It is not on the topic of Carbon Tax. It isn't about Global warming, it does not either support or undermine Global warming in any obvious way.

While it is true it does not really mean anything unless you want to argue that it does actually support climate change. Which it does in the case of one theory but I suspect that is not Lee's intention.

Ajax wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2019 at 9:48am:


Quote:



We had a system in place 10 years ago that did that. The options left on the table are not impressive and in many cases seriously flawed - you can thank Tony Mal and So low for this position.

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Apr 21^st, 2019 at 10:09pm:


So you don't understand. I will try and make it even easier for you.

The claim - It shows greater variability in recent times, which is what most scientists were predicting.

What I wrote - "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

So here we have cyclones/hurricanes that are definitely "chaotic" because they show great variability and don't occur in a linear fashion, there is no tail of one to the head of another.

So in essence they have predicted a variable, non-linear event to be variable and non-linear.

Wow. That must seem to some to be an amazing prediction. Tomorrow's news - Water is wet? ( except in the case of dessicated water.)

But really I thought they said they would be more common and more severe not that they would be subject to "more variability".

From the Union of Concerned Scientists, you know Will Steffen, Michael E Mann etc -

"The number and strength of storms is highly variable from year to year, which makes it challenging to detect trends in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes over time.

The advent of satellite technology in the 1970s made it possible to more consistently track hurricanes. Storm counts and strength measurements from before to the 1970s are less consistent, further complicating the study of long-term trends."

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/impacts/hurricanes-and...

But please feel free to show your knowledge and understanding by referring me to a scientist who merely said they would be "more variable".

Here is you big chance - don't fluff it.