Obama: Be Prepared for Global Warming Spawned Super Hurricanes

[Crick]

I'm going to collect a hundred observations. I'm going to read then from some instrument and I am going to write them down on a piece of paper. I am then going to type them into a text file on a computer. A calibration sheet on the instrument tells me that I must correct its output by applying the biases in a given graph. I copy the text into an Excel spreadsheet and use the spreadsheet's functions to apply the given calibration adjustments. Then I will email them to you where you will review the numbers to verify the calibration was correctly applied and then find the statistical characteristics of the final numbers. You will take their average, their standard deviation, their mode, their median and anything else you feel like calculating. Then you will put the original observations along with your statistical results into an email and send them back to me. I will use all of that to prepare a written report with text and graphics. This will be submitted to some publishing house where it will eventually be distributed to subscribers both electronically and via printed copy.

What is wrong with that final data? It's certainly not raw. It's been processed and massaged and twisted and turned every which way. Is it any good?

The opinions you've expressed about models and data processing are unrealistic, unjustifiably biased and extraordinarily simpleminded.

 

[flacaltenn]

"TIME SERIES ANALYSIS"......Look it up....

You're a fucking idiot. Time series analysis is an analysis of OBSERVATIONS. You're confusing it with time series FORECASTS and time series PROJECTIONS, both of which require modeling because that is the ONLY WAY to predict the future.

God are you stupid.

Time Series Analysis contains techniques for projections and forecasting. The point was -- (no pun) that picking ONE event in one ocean basin and a second in a different ocean is not a time series. There IS no statistical information to be gleaned by examining only isolated events.

Sampling theory and resultant resolution is a part of this toolkit also.. A part which most all of the Global Warming proxy historical data processing fails miserably to make determinations eligible to be compared with this short modern era..

 

[Crick]

That was not the point Westwall was making. And because it can be used to make projections, does not make TSA modeled.

From Google hits

Time series analysis comprises methods for analyzing time series data in order to extract meaningful statistics and other characteristics of the data. Time series forecasting is the use of a model to predict future values based on previously observed values.

Time series methods take into account possible internal structure in the data, Time series data often arise when monitoring industrial processes or tracking ...

Time series analysis comprises methods for analyzing time seriesdata in order to extract meaningful statistics and other characteristics of the data. Time seriesforecasting is the use of a model to predict future values based on previously observed values.

Unlike the analyses of random samples of observations that are discussed in the context of most other statistics, the analysis of time series is based on the assumption that successive values in the data file represent consecutive measurements taken at equally spaced time intervals.

One definition of a time series is that of a collection of quantitative observations that are evenly spaced in time and measured ...

A univariate time series is a sequence of measurements of the same variable collected over time. Most often, the measurements are made at regular time intervals.

Time Series: A collection of observations xt, each one being recorded at time t. (Time could be discrete, t = 1,2,3,…, or continuous t > 0.) Objective of Time Series Analaysis Data compression -provide compact description of the data. Explanatory -seasonal factors -relationships with other variables (temperature, humidity, pollution, etc) Signal processing -extracting a signal in the presence of noise

 

[RollingThunder]

It may run data through some computer processing, but the output is not the product of a model, dumbass. Its DATA is from OBSERVATIONS

You are correct in the fact that it is real data. However, once they massage it through the magic of data manipulation, it is no longer data, now is it.

Aaaaand ol' BeALoser reverts to his usual fallback position - crackpot conspiracy theory bullshit - to explain away all of the scientific evidence he doesn't like because it destroys his denier cult myths. "ALL OF THE SCIENTISTS ARE IN A HUGE CONSPIRACY TO FUDGE THE DATA", he moronically cries to justify his braindead denial of observed reality.

 

[Decus]

Typhoon Haiyan was a strong typhoon but where does it rank in the list of the strongest recorded typhoons (keep a eye on the dates):

2013 - Typhoon Haiyan - peak winds of 195 mph (314 km/h).

1966 - Typhoon Cora - peak winds of 175 mph (280 km/h)
1979 - Typhoon Tip - peak winds of 190 mph (305 km/h)
1964 - Typhoon Sally - peak winds of 195 mph (314 km/h)
1966 - Typhoon Kit - peak winds of 195 mph (314 km/h)
1958 - Typhoon Ida - peak winds of 200 mph (325 km/h)
1961 - Typhoon Violet - peak winds of 205 mph (330 km/h)
1961 - Typhoon Nancy peak winds were measured at 215 mph (345 km/h)

Of the typhoons listed Typhoon Tip was not only strong but was the largest in terms of size:

"Besides having unsurpassed intensity, Super Typhoon Tip is also remembered for its massive size. Tip's diameter of circulation spanned approximately 1,380 miles (2,220 km), setting a record for the largest storm on Earth. The storm's huge diameter was exactly the same as the distance from New York City to Dallas."

Earth's Strongest, Most Massive Storm Ever

Big storms have always existed but you wouldn't know it with all the hype and sensationalism in journalism today.

.

 

[Olde Europe]

Aaaaand ol' BeALoser reverts to his usual fallback position - crackpot conspiracy theory bullshit - to explain away all of the scientific evidence he doesn't like because it destroys his denier cult myths. "ALL OF THE SCIENTISTS ARE IN A HUGE CONSPIRACY TO FUDGE THE DATA", he moronically cries to justify his braindead denial of observed reality.

Yeah, that may well be the case, but the real objective is considerably more hideous than that.

Signal processing -extracting a signal in the presence of noise

That, I think, is the core of it. Almost no matter where we look, in climate data the noise is an order of magnitude bigger than the trend. So, the denialingdongs' strategy is actually quite simple:

First: Discredit time series or other statistical analyses (a ten year running average is not data, it's a fraud!) so as to hide the trend, and emphasize the noise. That was quite obviously the point on here. Related to that is, of course, the accusation that predictions are akin to astrology and entrails readings. Science would never predict anything. Oh, and haven't you heard, there was a monster hurricane some time around the year 1200?

Second: If scientists still insist there is a trend, and build theories or models based on that, accuse them of failing accurately to predict the noise (failing models!). As in, Haven't you all insisted there were going to be monster hurricanes making landfall by the dozen each year! And now look, no major hurricane for the whole year 2015! As if it weren't well known that the Atlantic hurricane activity is greatly reduced or even shut down during El Niño years.

Of course, discrediting scientists personally (These fraudulent saps are being paid {!!!} to do their research!!!) greatly helps with these objectives.

We really, really need a "Shrug" button on here.

 

[Crick]

Typhoon Haiyan was a strong typhoon but where does it rank in the list of the strongest recorded typhoons (keep a eye on the dates):

2013 - Typhoon Haiyan - peak winds of 195 mph (314 km/h).

1966 - Typhoon Cora - peak winds of 175 mph (280 km/h)
1979 - Typhoon Tip - peak winds of 190 mph (305 km/h)
1964 - Typhoon Sally - peak winds of 195 mph (314 km/h)
1966 - Typhoon Kit - peak winds of 195 mph (314 km/h)
1958 - Typhoon Ida - peak winds of 200 mph (325 km/h)
1961 - Typhoon Violet - peak winds of 205 mph (330 km/h)
1961 - Typhoon Nancy peak winds were measured at 215 mph (345 km/h)

Of the typhoons listed Typhoon Tip was not only strong but was the largest in terms of size:

"Besides having unsurpassed intensity, Super Typhoon Tip is also remembered for its massive size. Tip's diameter of circulation spanned approximately 1,380 miles (2,220 km), setting a record for the largest storm on Earth. The storm's huge diameter was exactly the same as the distance from New York City to Dallas."

Earth's Strongest, Most Massive Storm Ever

Big storms have always existed but you wouldn't know it with all the hype and sensationalism in journalism today.

.

 

[mamooth]

There's a tropical storm coming up from near Yucatan and heading for the west coast of Florida, late Monday. Not a big wind event, but a big rainmaker. It's typical for early June. Water temperatures aren't high enough to make hurricanes yet.

SITUATION OVERVIEW
------------------
TROPICAL DEPRESSION THREE HAS FORMED OVER THE FAR SOUTHERN GULF OF
MEXICO LATE THIS MORNING. THIS DEPRESSION IS EXPECTED TO BECOME A
TROPICAL STORM BY LATER TODAY OR EARLY TONIGHT. THE DEPRESSION
WILL MOVE QUICKLY NORTH AND EVENTUALLY TURN NORTHEAST ON
MONDAY...APPROACHING THE FLORIDA BIG BEND COASTLINE DURING MONDAY
AFTERNOON OR EVENING. TROPICAL STORM WARNINGS ARE NOW IN EFFECT
FROM ENGLEWOOD NORTH TO THE SUWANNEE RIVER.

 

[flacaltenn]

Aaaaand ol' BeALoser reverts to his usual fallback position - crackpot conspiracy theory bullshit - to explain away all of the scientific evidence he doesn't like because it destroys his denier cult myths. "ALL OF THE SCIENTISTS ARE IN A HUGE CONSPIRACY TO FUDGE THE DATA", he moronically cries to justify his braindead denial of observed reality.

Yeah, that may well be the case, but the real objective is considerably more hideous than that.

Signal processing -extracting a signal in the presence of noise

That, I think, is the core of it. Almost no matter where we look, in climate data the noise is an order of magnitude bigger than the trend. So, the denialingdongs' strategy is actually quite simple:

First: Discredit time series or other statistical analyses (a ten year running average is not data, it's a fraud!) so as to hide the trend, and emphasize the noise. That was quite obviously the point on here. Related to that is, of course, the accusation that predictions are akin to astrology and entrails readings. Science would never predict anything. Oh, and haven't you heard, there was a monster hurricane some time around the year 1200?

Second: If scientists still insist there is a trend, and build theories or models based on that, accuse them of failing accurately to predict the noise (failing models!). As in, Haven't you all insisted there were going to be monster hurricanes making landfall by the dozen each year! And now look, no major hurricane for the whole year 2015! As if it weren't well known that the Atlantic hurricane activity is greatly reduced or even shut down during El Niño years.

Of course, discrediting scientists personally (These fraudulent saps are being paid {!!!} to do their research!!!) greatly helps with these objectives.

We really, really need a "Shrug" button on here.

Of course the "GW" signature needs to be separated from the noise. MY LIFE has been in signal and image processing techniques.. You take raw time series and run a validated toolkit of filters, fitters, correlators, etc over the data to extract REAL statistics.

I have 2 major academic objections to what passes for Global Baloney folklore.

1) Folk who obtain time series from only 75 points on the planet of ANCIENT temp, CO2, moisture, etc from ice cores, tree rings, mud bug shells and other NON thermometers, adjust the DICKENS out of the multitude of vastly DIFFERENT time records and resolutions -- sometimes CHERRY PICK proxies that they like -- and FILTER the living BehJeebus out of the result. They produce a "paleo-proxy time series" that doesn't have adequate SPATIAL (land coverage) or TEMPORAL (time coverage) to even WITNESS 200 or 500 year events..

YET--- their press releases and abstract make wildly exaggerated claims like --- "this study shows that the current era rate of warming LIKELY exceeds anything experienced in the last 2800 or 14,000 years on the planet".. This ZEALOTS admit that NOTHING in their "manufactured times series" could ever DETECT a hundred event like ours ---- but they are SO MOTIVATED to create the fables that they EXAGGERATE and DECEIVE the public with these wild claims..

2) Folks who build models that run from PRE-CONCEIVED notions of what the ANSWER is supposed to be ---- Using REAL time series data to coach and correct their models. This is done to give phony "backcasting" results to show how well their "predictive models" work on older data OR to "reanalyze" the ACTUAL time series data to "mold it" to their modeling expections of WHAT IT SHOULD BE -- if their models are correct. And then SOME of these jerks pass it off to "general science" as ACTUAL time series data.. Re-Analyzed data is just a REAL time series FITTING to a set of equations that MAY or MAY NOT reflect the actual workings of the system. .

So here's the deal --- I welcome ANYONE to actually discuss what I am skeptical about. But if you CLAIM that no one except the annointed know shit about signal/image processing techniques and toolkits you should -----

------ about what I know... Especially if your next post doesn't REFUTE the 2 examples of what exactly I am "skeptical" about. Has NOTHING to do with my politics, Heartland, or Dunning Kruger or the phony 97% consensus on a silly question that hardly anybody in science would disagree with..

Grow up -- think critically -- learn something..

 

[flacaltenn]

Typhoon Haiyan was a strong typhoon but where does it rank in the list of the strongest recorded typhoons (keep a eye on the dates):

2013 - Typhoon Haiyan - peak winds of 195 mph (314 km/h).

1966 - Typhoon Cora - peak winds of 175 mph (280 km/h)
1979 - Typhoon Tip - peak winds of 190 mph (305 km/h)
1964 - Typhoon Sally - peak winds of 195 mph (314 km/h)
1966 - Typhoon Kit - peak winds of 195 mph (314 km/h)
1958 - Typhoon Ida - peak winds of 200 mph (325 km/h)
1961 - Typhoon Violet - peak winds of 205 mph (330 km/h)
1961 - Typhoon Nancy peak winds were measured at 215 mph (345 km/h)

Of the typhoons listed Typhoon Tip was not only strong but was the largest in terms of size:

"Besides having unsurpassed intensity, Super Typhoon Tip is also remembered for its massive size. Tip's diameter of circulation spanned approximately 1,380 miles (2,220 km), setting a record for the largest storm on Earth. The storm's huge diameter was exactly the same as the distance from New York City to Dallas."

Earth's Strongest, Most Massive Storm Ever

Big storms have always existed but you wouldn't know it with all the hype and sensationalism in journalism today.

.

And that LAST graph has NOTHING TO DO with the observational biases of better coverage and better instrumention --- Right Mr. CRAG????

If you following along AT ALL in this thread and had an OUNCE of scientific integrity in your bones (or even knew what that was) -- you would have CHOKED yourself to death before trying to pass off that last graph as PROOF of "climate change".. At LEAST without mentioning the MONUMENTAL effect of observational bias over that time period...

 

[RollingThunder]

Aaaaand ol' BeALoser reverts to his usual fallback position - crackpot conspiracy theory bullshit - to explain away all of the scientific evidence he doesn't like because it destroys his denier cult myths. "ALL OF THE SCIENTISTS ARE IN A HUGE CONSPIRACY TO FUDGE THE DATA", he moronically cries to justify his braindead denial of observed reality.

Yeah, that may well be the case, but the real objective is considerably more hideous than that.

Signal processing -extracting a signal in the presence of noise

That, I think, is the core of it. Almost no matter where we look, in climate data the noise is an order of magnitude bigger than the trend. So, the denialingdongs' strategy is actually quite simple:

First: Discredit time series or other statistical analyses (a ten year running average is not data, it's a fraud!) so as to hide the trend, and emphasize the noise. That was quite obviously the point on here. Related to that is, of course, the accusation that predictions are akin to astrology and entrails readings. Science would never predict anything. Oh, and haven't you heard, there was a monster hurricane some time around the year 1200?

Second: If scientists still insist there is a trend, and build theories or models based on that, accuse them of failing accurately to predict the noise (failing models!). As in, Haven't you all insisted there were going to be monster hurricanes making landfall by the dozen each year! And now look, no major hurricane for the whole year 2015! As if it weren't well known that the Atlantic hurricane activity is greatly reduced or even shut down during El Niño years.

Of course, discrediting scientists personally (These fraudulent saps are being paid {!!!} to do their research!!!) greatly helps with these objectives.

We really, really need a "Shrug" button on here.

Of course the "GW" signature needs to be separated from the noise. MY LIFE has been in signal and image processing techniques.. You take raw time series and run a validated toolkit of filters, fitters, correlators, etc over the data to extract REAL statistics.

I have 2 major academic objections to what passes for Global Baloney folklore.

1) Folk who obtain time series from only 75 points on the planet of ANCIENT temp, CO2, moisture, etc from ice cores, tree rings, mud bug shells and other NON thermometers, adjust the DICKENS out of the multitude of vastly DIFFERENT time records and resolutions -- sometimes CHERRY PICK proxies that they like -- and FILTER the living BehJeebus out of the result. They produce a "paleo-proxy time series" that doesn't have adequate SPATIAL (land coverage) or TEMPORAL (time coverage) to even WITNESS 200 or 500 year events..

YET--- their press releases and abstract make wildly exaggerated claims like --- "this study shows that the current era rate of warming LIKELY exceeds anything experienced in the last 2800 or 14,000 years on the planet".. This ZEALOTS admit that NOTHING in their "manufactured times series" could ever DETECT a hundred event like ours ---- but they are SO MOTIVATED to create the fables that they EXAGGERATE and DECEIVE the public with these wild claims..

2) Folks who build models that run from PRE-CONCEIVED notions of what the ANSWER is supposed to be ---- Using REAL time series data to coach and correct their models. This is done to give phony "backcasting" results to show how well their "predictive models" work on older data OR to "reanalyze" the ACTUAL time series data to "mold it" to their modeling expections of WHAT IT SHOULD BE -- if their models are correct. And then SOME of these jerks pass it off to "general science" as ACTUAL time series data.. Re-Analyzed data is just a REAL time series FITTING to a set of equations that MAY or MAY NOT reflect the actual workings of the system. .

So here's the deal --- I welcome ANYONE to actually discuss what I am skeptical about. But if you CLAIM that no one except the annointed know shit about signal/image processing techniques and toolkits you should -----

------ about what I know... Especially if your next post doesn't REFUTE the 2 examples of what exactly I am "skeptical" about. Has NOTHING to do with my politics, Heartland, or Dunning Kruger or the phony 97% consensus on a silly question that hardly anybody in science would disagree with..

Grow up -- think critically -- learn something..

As I previously mentioned...

In the delusional world of the gullible denier cult retards, in their own pitiful excuses for minds, they are all, in spite of being ignorant, uneducated idiots, more than competent to critique and dismiss the scientific research on global warming and its consequent climate changes performed by the tens of thousands of PhD level climate scientists around the planet, who are generally in a high degree of agreement. Fecalhead is a good example of these Dunning-Kruger Effect afflicted, pseudo-science clowns.

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW Crick -- since you deserve to be embarrassed for just trying to coast thru this course ---- I used my powerful meta-search capabilities to find the AUTHORS of that graph..

All that came up was http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes/

Guess what? A NOAA climate ZEALOT first -- and a scientist Second -- Dr Landsea has the unmitigated gall to post a PAGE on NOAA ---- that starts out with a cover shot of Al Gores debunked and failed film career in documentaries. Even WITH the Oscar..The 2 of these Deceptive shills deserve each other.

Only place YOU Crickham can find confirmation of your religious beliefs..
How embarrassing..

 

[flacaltenn]

Aaaaand ol' BeALoser reverts to his usual fallback position - crackpot conspiracy theory bullshit - to explain away all of the scientific evidence he doesn't like because it destroys his denier cult myths. "ALL OF THE SCIENTISTS ARE IN A HUGE CONSPIRACY TO FUDGE THE DATA", he moronically cries to justify his braindead denial of observed reality.

Yeah, that may well be the case, but the real objective is considerably more hideous than that.

Signal processing -extracting a signal in the presence of noise

That, I think, is the core of it. Almost no matter where we look, in climate data the noise is an order of magnitude bigger than the trend. So, the denialingdongs' strategy is actually quite simple:

First: Discredit time series or other statistical analyses (a ten year running average is not data, it's a fraud!) so as to hide the trend, and emphasize the noise. That was quite obviously the point on here. Related to that is, of course, the accusation that predictions are akin to astrology and entrails readings. Science would never predict anything. Oh, and haven't you heard, there was a monster hurricane some time around the year 1200?

Second: If scientists still insist there is a trend, and build theories or models based on that, accuse them of failing accurately to predict the noise (failing models!). As in, Haven't you all insisted there were going to be monster hurricanes making landfall by the dozen each year! And now look, no major hurricane for the whole year 2015! As if it weren't well known that the Atlantic hurricane activity is greatly reduced or even shut down during El Niño years.

Of course, discrediting scientists personally (These fraudulent saps are being paid {!!!} to do their research!!!) greatly helps with these objectives.

We really, really need a "Shrug" button on here.

Of course the "GW" signature needs to be separated from the noise. MY LIFE has been in signal and image processing techniques.. You take raw time series and run a validated toolkit of filters, fitters, correlators, etc over the data to extract REAL statistics.

I have 2 major academic objections to what passes for Global Baloney folklore.

1) Folk who obtain time series from only 75 points on the planet of ANCIENT temp, CO2, moisture, etc from ice cores, tree rings, mud bug shells and other NON thermometers, adjust the DICKENS out of the multitude of vastly DIFFERENT time records and resolutions -- sometimes CHERRY PICK proxies that they like -- and FILTER the living BehJeebus out of the result. They produce a "paleo-proxy time series" that doesn't have adequate SPATIAL (land coverage) or TEMPORAL (time coverage) to even WITNESS 200 or 500 year events..

YET--- their press releases and abstract make wildly exaggerated claims like --- "this study shows that the current era rate of warming LIKELY exceeds anything experienced in the last 2800 or 14,000 years on the planet".. This ZEALOTS admit that NOTHING in their "manufactured times series" could ever DETECT a hundred event like ours ---- but they are SO MOTIVATED to create the fables that they EXAGGERATE and DECEIVE the public with these wild claims..

2) Folks who build models that run from PRE-CONCEIVED notions of what the ANSWER is supposed to be ---- Using REAL time series data to coach and correct their models. This is done to give phony "backcasting" results to show how well their "predictive models" work on older data OR to "reanalyze" the ACTUAL time series data to "mold it" to their modeling expections of WHAT IT SHOULD BE -- if their models are correct. And then SOME of these jerks pass it off to "general science" as ACTUAL time series data.. Re-Analyzed data is just a REAL time series FITTING to a set of equations that MAY or MAY NOT reflect the actual workings of the system. .

So here's the deal --- I welcome ANYONE to actually discuss what I am skeptical about. But if you CLAIM that no one except the annointed know shit about signal/image processing techniques and toolkits you should -----

------ about what I know... Especially if your next post doesn't REFUTE the 2 examples of what exactly I am "skeptical" about. Has NOTHING to do with my politics, Heartland, or Dunning Kruger or the phony 97% consensus on a silly question that hardly anybody in science would disagree with..

Grow up -- think critically -- learn something..

As I previously mentioned...

In the delusional world of the gullible denier cult retards, in their own pitiful excuses for minds, they are all, in spite of being ignorant, uneducated idiots, more than competent to critique and dismiss the scientific research on global warming and its consequent climate changes performed by the tens of thousands of PhD level climate scientists around the planet, who are generally in a high degree of agreement. Fecalhead is a good example of these Dunning-Kruger Effect afflicted, pseudo-science clowns.

And there it is ---- recycled shit and NOT A WORD about any of my posts. Can't do it -- can ya Tink?

I gave 2 very well framed REASONS for my skepticism about the diff between data processing and data manipulation and deceptive claims and you just balk. You're useless to yourself, to me, and to your cause because you don't APPLY AN OUNCE of the 10,000 posts you've posted and read in this forum to your OWN voculabulary or toolkit.

In fact -- your toolkit usually comes with butterfly stickers and glitter doesn't it???
I'm just so entirely bored of you guys. I've got other things to do..

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh my, does that mean that you have given up on it cooling?

 

[mamooth]

Of course the "GW" signature needs to be separated from the noise. MY LIFE has been in signal and image processing techniques.. You take raw time series and run a validated toolkit of filters, fitters, correlators, etc over the data to extract REAL statistics.

Engineer's arrogance fallacy, assuming the entire universe has to behave exactly like their tiny specialty. Being that's always an incorrect assumption, it leads to the engineer failing at something basic, and then getting huffy when people, instead of worshiping his self-proclaimed brilliance, have the gall to point out his failures.

Good climate scientists have to be generalists, to some degree, and have to understand statistics inside and out, backwards and forwards. They have to know way, way more than how to run a package.

I have 2 major academic objections to what passes for Global Baloney folklore.

More like you have objections to some strawmen, and a pack of conspiracy theories. You do a lot of handwaving, but you never back up your claims.

So here's the deal --- I welcome ANYONE to actually discuss what I am skeptical about.

Given how you fling nasty names at such people, it sure doesn't seem that way.

Especially if your next post doesn't REFUTE the 2 examples of what exactly I am "skeptical" about.

They're easily refuted by pointing out how those examples were obvious strawmen.

 

[RollingThunder]

BTW Crick -- since you deserve to be embarrassed for just trying to coast thru this course ---- I used my powerful meta-search capabilities to find the AUTHORS of that graph..

All that came up was http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes/

Guess what? A NOAA climate ZEALOT first -- and a scientist Second -- Dr Landsea has the unmitigated gall to post a PAGE on NOAA ---- that starts out with a cover shot of Al Gores debunked and failed film career in documentaries. Even WITH the Oscar..The 2 of these Deceptive shills deserve each other.

Only place YOU Crickham can find confirmation of your religious beliefs..
How embarrassing..

See post #151.

 

[Crick]

Christopher Landsea is one of the leading experts around in assessing historical records of severe weather in the Atlantic tropical basin. Reanalysis of historical records has been a major portion of his career with NOAA. If you think he was unaware of observational bias, you're a fool. See
A reanalysis of the 1911-1920 Atlantic hurricane database. Journal of Climate, 21(10):2138-2168,doi:10.1175/2007JCLI1119.1 2008 FY2008 for which he was lead author and

Extreme weather records: Compilation, adjudication, and publication. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 88(6):853-860, doi:10.1175/BAMS-88-6-85 2007 FY2007 and

Objectively determined resolution-dependent threshold criteria for the detection of tropical cyclones in climate models and reanalyses. Journal of Climate, 20(10):2307-2314, doi:10.1175/JCLI4074.1 2007 FY2007 and

The deadliest, costliest, and most intense United States tropical cyclones from 1851 to 2004 (and other frequently requested hurricane facts).

Go to Publications and enter C. Landsea, all categories into the document search engine. I got 94 published documents on hurricanes and hurricane history in which Landsea's was an author.

And if you think Landsea is not open-minded, here is a recent abstract of his you should read:

Michaels, P.J., P.C. Knappenberger, and C.W. Landsea. Comments on "Impacts of CO2-induced warming on simulated hurricane intensity and precipitation: Sensitivity to the choice of climate model and convective scheme." Journal of Climate, 18(23):5179-5182, doi:10.1175/JCLI3592.12005 FY2006

Abstract:

In a simulation of enhanced tropical cyclones in a warmer world, Knutson and Tuleya make several assumptions that are not borne out in the real world. They include an unrealistically large carbon dioxide growth rate, an overly strong relationship between sea surface temperature and hurricane intensity, and the use of a mesoscale model that has shown little to no useful skill in predicting current-day hurricane intensity. After accounting for these inaccuracies, a detectable increase in Atlantic hurricane intensity in response to growing atmospheric greenhouse gas levels during this century becomes unlikely.

 

[flacaltenn]

They're easily refuted by pointing out how those examples were obvious strawmen.

Wow --- bold move.. Easy play but you're too chicken OR too lazy to actually debate me on those 2 points.
Another sticker sheet and glue stick help? So many people in this forum are getting by with these barely legal posts and just hanging on for spite I would suppose..

You have NO CLUE how fungible my skills or academic knowledge are. I have been drafted into at least 12 different and diverse application areas. From marine mammal "language" analysis to space travel, to medical imaging and medical device techniques and products, to earth resource analysis, to actual spying (7 years of service), to machine intelligence, to optical computing, to spread spectrum receiver design, to biometric identification, to virtual reality simulators, to battlefield communications and intelligence analysis and on and on and on..

I don't think that reading simple ass papers on temperature times series from proxy studies or reading graphs and charts of TSI are anywhere NEAR as difficult as most of the stuff you'll find in the latest issue of Scientific American. And if you think MODELING is some type of "climate scientist specialty" --- the DEGREES for that are TAUGHT in Electrical Engineering Computational methods..

So --- Mamooth -- easy target.. "OBVIOUS STRAWMEN" -- Take me down.....

 

[flacaltenn]

Christopher Landsea is one of the leading experts around in assessing historical records of severe weather in the Atlantic tropical basin. Reanalysis of historical records has been a major portion of his career with NOAA. If you think he was unaware of observational bias, you're a fool. See
A reanalysis of the 1911-1920 Atlantic hurricane database. Journal of Climate, 21(10):2138-2168,doi:10.1175/2007JCLI1119.1 2008 FY2008 for which he was lead author and

Extreme weather records: Compilation, adjudication, and publication. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 88(6):853-860, doi:10.1175/BAMS-88-6-85 2007 FY2007 and

Objectively determined resolution-dependent threshold criteria for the detection of tropical cyclones in climate models and reanalyses. Journal of Climate, 20(10):2307-2314, doi:10.1175/JCLI4074.1 2007 FY2007 and

The deadliest, costliest, and most intense United States tropical cyclones from 1851 to 2004 (and other frequently requested hurricane facts).

Go to Publications and enter C. Landsea, all categories into the document search engine. I got 94 published documents on hurricanes and hurricane history in which Landsea's was an author.

And if you think Landsea is not open-minded, here is a recent abstract of his you should read:

Michaels, P.J., P.C. Knappenberger, and C.W. Landsea. Comments on "Impacts of CO2-induced warming on simulated hurricane intensity and precipitation: Sensitivity to the choice of climate model and convective scheme." Journal of Climate, 18(23):5179-5182, doi:10.1175/JCLI3592.12005 FY2006

Abstract:

In a simulation of enhanced tropical cyclones in a warmer world, Knutson and Tuleya make several assumptions that are not borne out in the real world. They include an unrealistically large carbon dioxide growth rate, an overly strong relationship between sea surface temperature and hurricane intensity, and the use of a mesoscale model that has shown little to no useful skill in predicting current-day hurricane intensity. After accounting for these inaccuracies, a detectable increase in Atlantic hurricane intensity in response to growing atmospheric greenhouse gas levels during this century becomes unlikely.

All you've done there CrickHam is prove my point. The shill KNOWS BETTER than to open a Government page with a nod to Al Gore. He's one of zealots that put the ISSUE in front of their science. And go out of their way to play and DECEIVE the public about this exaggerated GW/CC crap...

Sad part is -- he's a very bad and OBVIOUS shill. Just like Trenberth, and Hansen and Jones. They lose credibility with ANYONE that has ANY scientific integrity..

 

[Crick]

BTW Crick -- since you deserve to be embarrassed for just trying to coast thru this course ---- I used my powerful meta-search capabilities to find the AUTHORS of that graph..

All that came up was http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes/

Guess what? A NOAA climate ZEALOT first -- and a scientist Second -- Dr Landsea has the unmitigated gall to post a PAGE on NOAA ---- that starts out with a cover shot of Al Gores debunked and failed film career in documentaries. Even WITH the Oscar..The 2 of these Deceptive shills deserve each other.

Only place YOU Crickham can find confirmation of your religious beliefs..
How embarrassing..

Your powerful meta search capabilities? The graphic was the first plot to come up in a Google image search for the terms on its labels and listed the exact same URL (with Landsea's name) that you provided. And, BTW, that URL does not work.