Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Deadliest World Tropical Cyclones | Weather Underground
And I only copied the top 20 on the list.
Look at the dates..............
Alarmist fear mongering clearly ghey........they pull this phony shit all the time!!And always exposed and publically humiliated by the climate skeptics in here!!!
Crick didn't demonstrate shit because he clings to the worse science website on the web for his info.. Ain't even close to plots of REAL data. See my previous post.
And Yes -- that Trenberth.. Doesn't matter if it assumes EQUILIBRIUM. Because even at equilibrium, A LOT of the forcing power goes into storage. He even took liberties with the term "Energy" because w/m2 is POWER not energy. If you never account for it in an equilibrium snapshot -- it never goes into the ocean. SO -- it would never INCREASE.. But Lo and Behold his explanation circa 2011 for "the hiatus" found a BUNCH of Energy storage in the deep oceans that simply snuck right in without accounting on his "energy budget"..
YET --- this genius managed to balance out 1000s of Watts and find EXACTLY the GW 0.8% or so he was expecting to find in all those GROSS estimates of Power flows. It was literally a God-like moment to pull the EXACTLY expected numbers out of that "envelope" calculation. Even tho 10 yrs or so later -- he finds he missed an "equilibrium imbalance" of a considerable amount due to neglecting the LARGEST pool of global warmth on the planet.
Strange he got the right answer ---- huh???
And if doubt it was an envelope calculation -- Go fetch me the EXACT Global land and ocean IR BlackBody radiation numbers... At least to less than 0.8% precision..
Now who did I need to talk to understand this elementary stuff??? Some of us ARE scientists and can browse a Scientific American with topics outside our immediate day to day work...
Crick demonstrated his point just fine. You don't know what a 10-year running average is.
Of course, in a system in equilibrium, energy/radiation-in equals energy/radiation-out, both at surface and TOA levels, and so, in sum nothing goes into storage. You still haven't read, let alone understood the 1997 paper.
But then, you seamlessly move on to dismiss another paper you probably also have neither read nor understood, and which you, cautiously, neither name nor quote nor link to. Of course, Trenberth, being a renowned scientist and all that, didn't miss and suddenly discover the ocean's energy storage capacity. That's just your silly bluster and Heartland spin on discoveries that inconvenience the denialist ilk. But the bluster you do really well.
Wasn't Sandy 2012?
Yes. And when the storm came ashore it was barely a Cat 1. If you want to see some truly devastating hurricanes I suggest you go back to the 1950's and 1960's for some real doozies. You idiots are all alike you bleat these warnings about impending doom and ignore the simple fact that the storms of today are much, much less powerful than those from the past. If you want to read about a truly epic storm I suggest you look up the Great Flood of 1862 which struck the west coast of the USA and turned the entire Central Valley of California, all 300 miles of it, into a lake. The storm extended as far east as Colorado and impacted the entire west coast.
Your supposed facts simply are not that compelling in light of actual history.
Figure 1. Hurricane Sandy’s winds (top), on October 28, 2012, when Sandy was a Category 1 hurricane with top winds of 75 mph (this ocean surface wind data is from a radar scatterometer on the Indian Space Research Organization’s (ISRO) Oceansat-2.) Hurricane Katrina’s winds (bottom) on August 28, 2005, when Katrina was a Category 5 hurricane with top winds of 175 mph (data taken by a radar scatterometer on NASA’s defunct QuickSCAT satellite.) In both maps, wind speeds above 65 kilometers (40 miles) per hour are yellow; above 80 kph (50 mph) are orange; and above 95 kph (60 mph) are dark red. The most noticeable difference is the extent of the strong wind fields. For Katrina, winds over 65 kilometers per hour stretched about 500 kilometers (300 miles) from edge to edge. For Sandy, winds of that intensity spanned an region of ocean three times as great--1,500 kilometers (900 miles). Katrina was able to generate a record-height storm surge over a small area of the Mississippi coast. Sandy generated a lower but highly destructive storm surge over a much larger area, due to the storm's weaker winds but much larger size. Image credit: NASA.
Hurricane Sandy's huge size: freak of nature or climate change? | Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog
Are we likely to see more such storms in the future?
Global warming theory (Emanuel, 2005) predicts that a 2°C (3.6°F) increase in ocean temperatures should cause an increase in the peak winds of the strongest hurricanes of about about 10%. Furthermore, warmer ocean temperatures are expected to cause hurricanes to dump 20% more rain in their cores by the year 2100, according to computer modeling studies (Knutson et al., 2010). However, there has been no published work describing how hurricane size may change with warmer oceans in a future climate. We've seen an unusual number of Atlantic hurricanes with large size in recent years, but we currently have no theoretical or computer modeling simulations that can explain why this is so, or if we might see more storms like this in the future. However, we've seen significant and unprecedented changes to our atmosphere in recent decades, due to our emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide. The laws of physics demand that the atmosphere must respond. Atmospheric circulation patterns that control extreme weather events must change, and we should expect extreme storms to change in character, frequency, and intensity as a result--and not always in the ways our computer models may predict. We have pushed our climate system to a fundamentally new, higher-energy state where more heat and moisture is available to power stronger storms, and we should be concerned about the possibility that Hurricane Sandy's freak size and power were partially due to human-caused climate change.
Haven't seen a comparison of actual energy of each storm, but would imagine that Sandy was larger than Katrina due to it's size and duration.
And when someone tell you that they project 20% more precipt in storms because of a UNIFORM 2deg rise in troposphere temps -- they are leaving out the important part that ANY storm --- tropical or otherwise -- requires a DRY LINE to feed on. This is set-up by wind differentials and isobars,, NOT JUST by a UNIFORM moisture increase in the air.. So to a THUNDERSTORM on land ---- it's got much more access to dry line feeders than a tropical storm because of evap from warmer waters..
Strange he got the right answer ---- huh???
And if doubt it was an envelope calculation -- Go fetch me the EXACT Global land and ocean IR BlackBody radiation numbers... At least to less than 0.8% precision..
Yeah, things are getting worse. I think I may have found the latter Trenberth paper (2009) you found so amazing (but most likely have not read, much less understood). The earth's surface's blackbody radiation is not representative of the earth's energy imbalance. That balance is measured at the TOA, as a result of the difference between the energy taken in from the sun and the energy radiated out.
The TOA energy imbalance can probably be most accurately determined from climate models and is estimated to be 0.85 ±0.15 W m−2 by Hansen et al. (2005) and is supported by estimated recent changes in ocean heat content (Willis et al. 2004; Hansen et al. 2005).
As that latter paper was also one that concerned itself with the earth's major energy fluxes (like the previous, simpler one of 1997), it did not try, and did not magically find, an imbalance of 0.85 ±0.15 W m−2; rather, that was a figure they found (and deemed accurate) in Hanson et al. (2005). As a wise man once cracked, "Knowledge is your friend."
And you never addressed the MONUMENTAL coincidence that Trenberth balanced his crude Energy diagram to 0.8% in order to find the GW "excess"...
And you never addressed the MONUMENTAL coincidence that Trenberth balanced his crude Energy diagram to 0.8% in order to find the GW "excess"...
You haven't provided a link to that ominous paper, and so for now we have your unsupported but bold assertion, which is not worth a flee's fart in the wind, laced with your contempt for papers you didn't read. Why don't you actually debate, since you otherwise insist others do?
Why should I link it?
And you never addressed the MONUMENTAL coincidence that Trenberth balanced his crude Energy diagram to 0.8% in order to find the GW "excess"...
You haven't provided a link to that ominous paper, and so for now we have your unsupported but bold assertion, which is not worth a flee's fart in the wind, laced with your contempt for papers you didn't read. Why don't you actually debate, since you otherwise insist others do?
Why should I link it? You claimed you understood every BIT of it and were lecturing me because I didn't. One of EASIEST papers to find in the entire world.. Quit fucking with me..
From my work in academic research -- ONE thing I'm certain of OldieEuro -- is that scientists OUGHT to and DO pay more attention to SKEPTICAL points and challenges, than they do to CONFIRMATIONAL papers and comments. Something that the peanut gallery "the science is settled" folks (know any?) just don't understand.
Deadliest World Tropical Cyclones | Weather Underground
And I only copied the top 20 on the list.
Look at the dates..............
Alarmist fear mongering clearly ghey........they pull this phony shit all the time!!
That's impressive. I mean, your oblivious self-congratulation.
Of course, if only those folks in, say, 1584 or 1839 had had their satellites at the ready so as to be able to warn their population of that impending hurricane or typhoon. They could have urged them to seek shelter on higher ground.
Oh, and while you are at it, name the goof who stated there were no hurricanes or typhoons with devastating death tolls prior to the onset of AGW. And, you know what, you should be ashamed of yourself for having your puerile victory dance on the bodies of the roughly three million dead you mentioned in your monumentally stupid non-argument.
)
[/URL]
It was unusually destructive because where it struck is an area unprepared for hurricanes.
Funny, isn't it? Hurricanes suddenly showing up in places where such is not supposed to happen, at least nothing of that magnitude. One would expect that could be a learning experience above and beyond having a go at those dupes who relied upon "isn't supposed to happen" for the safety of their homes. Yet, in the service of climate change denialism, that cannot be allowed to happen.
And they whine about it because they got away with it for so long. Now they know what the risk looks like.
Yeah, the blame-the-victims game never really goes out of fashion.
You're right.....knowledge is our friend.....it sure ain't yours, fecalhead.That doesn't fly.. Knowledge is your friend.
The topic of the thread is 'global warming spawned super hurricanes', numbnuts, not ancient storms, not super-storm Sandy, not poorly considered coastal planning and development. Your denier cult tactics of distraction and diversion are well known and won't "fly".
Hurricane Patricia (Spanish pronunciation: [paˈtɾisia]) was the second-most intense tropical cyclone on record worldwide, with a minimum atmospheric pressure of 872 mbar (hPa; 25.75 inHg).[1] Originating from a sprawling disturbance near the Gulf of Tehuantepec, south of Mexico, in mid-October 2015, Patricia was first classified a tropical depression on October 20. Initial development was slow, with only modest strengthening within the first day of its classification. The system later became a tropical storm and was named Patricia, the twenty-fourth named storm of the annual hurricane season. Exceptionally favorable environmental conditions fueled explosive intensification on October 22. A well-defined eye developed within an intense central dense overcast and Patricia grew from a tropical storm to a Category 5 hurricane in just 24 hours—a near-record pace. On October 23, the hurricane achieved its record peak intensity with maximum sustained winds of 215 mph (345 km/h).[nb 1][nb 2]
This made it the most intense tropical cyclone on record in the Western Hemisphere, and the strongest globally in terms of 1-minute maximum sustained winds.
You poor crackpot asswipe.I AM blaming the victims.
And you never addressed the MONUMENTAL coincidence that Trenberth balanced his crude Energy diagram to 0.8% in order to find the GW "excess"...
You haven't provided a link to that ominous paper, and so for now we have your unsupported but bold assertion, which is not worth a flee's fart in the wind, laced with your contempt for papers you didn't read. Why don't you actually debate, since you otherwise insist others do?
Why should I link it? You claimed you understood every BIT of it and were lecturing me because I didn't. One of EASIEST papers to find in the entire world.. Quit fucking with me..
From my work in academic research -- ONE thing I'm certain of OldieEuro -- is that scientists OUGHT to and DO pay more attention to SKEPTICAL points and challenges, than they do to CONFIRMATIONAL papers and comments. Something that the peanut gallery "the science is settled" folks (know any?) just don't understand.
FCT, you are gaining a strong reputation for avoiding debate.
It was unusually destructive because where it struck is an area unprepared for hurricanes.
Funny, isn't it? Hurricanes suddenly showing up in places where such is not supposed to happen, at least nothing of that magnitude. One would expect that could be a learning experience above and beyond having a go at those dupes who relied upon "isn't supposed to happen" for the safety of their homes. Yet, in the service of climate change denialism, that cannot be allowed to happen.
And they whine about it because they got away with it for so long. Now they know what the risk looks like.
Yeah, the blame-the-victims game never really goes out of fashion.
You're right.....knowledge is our friend.....it sure ain't yours, fecalhead.That doesn't fly.. Knowledge is your friend.
The topic of the thread is 'global warming spawned super hurricanes', numbnuts, not ancient storms, not super-storm Sandy, not poorly considered coastal planning and development. Your denier cult tactics of distraction and diversion are well known and won't "fly".
Hurricane Patricia (Spanish pronunciation: [paˈtɾisia]) was the second-most intense tropical cyclone on record worldwide, with a minimum atmospheric pressure of 872 mbar (hPa; 25.75 inHg).[1] Originating from a sprawling disturbance near the Gulf of Tehuantepec, south of Mexico, in mid-October 2015, Patricia was first classified a tropical depression on October 20. Initial development was slow, with only modest strengthening within the first day of its classification. The system later became a tropical storm and was named Patricia, the twenty-fourth named storm of the annual hurricane season. Exceptionally favorable environmental conditions fueled explosive intensification on October 22. A well-defined eye developed within an intense central dense overcast and Patricia grew from a tropical storm to a Category 5 hurricane in just 24 hours—a near-record pace. On October 23, the hurricane achieved its record peak intensity with maximum sustained winds of 215 mph (345 km/h).[nb 1][nb 2]
This made it the most intense tropical cyclone on record in the Western Hemisphere, and the strongest globally in terms of 1-minute maximum sustained winds.
You poor crackpot asswipe.I AM blaming the victims.
not ancient storms,
What a fruit cake ...
Good thing Indians stopped drilling for oil.
.
And you never addressed the MONUMENTAL coincidence that Trenberth balanced his crude Energy diagram to 0.8% in order to find the GW "excess"...
You haven't provided a link to that ominous paper, and so for now we have your unsupported but bold assertion, which is not worth a flee's fart in the wind, laced with your contempt for papers you didn't read. Why don't you actually debate, since you otherwise insist others do?
Why should I link it? You claimed you understood every BIT of it and were lecturing me because I didn't. One of EASIEST papers to find in the entire world.. Quit fucking with me..
From my work in academic research -- ONE thing I'm certain of OldieEuro -- is that scientists OUGHT to and DO pay more attention to SKEPTICAL points and challenges, than they do to CONFIRMATIONAL papers and comments. Something that the peanut gallery "the science is settled" folks (know any?) just don't understand.
FCT, you are gaining a strong reputation for avoiding debate.
Sandy did so much damage because the area it hit was NOT prepared for hurricanes they normally hit the Carolina's or the rest of the south not New Jersey or New York.Sandy was Cat 1, barely a hurricane when it hit the US.Wasn't Sandy 2012?
Sounded like quite an event with a sizable economic impact. I’m not sure arbitrary storm categorizations by meteorologists indicate a given universal level of destruction to all locations, but whatever. Has nothing to do with the thread’s purpose.
Sandy did so much damage because the area it hit was NOT prepared for hurricanes they normally hit the Carolina's or the rest of the south not New Jersey or New York.Sandy was Cat 1, barely a hurricane when it hit the US.Wasn't Sandy 2012?
Sounded like quite an event with a sizable economic impact. I’m not sure arbitrary storm categorizations by meteorologists indicate a given universal level of destruction to all locations, but whatever. Has nothing to do with the thread’s purpose.
