Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#91
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Read the study. Then your "understanding" will change.
Don't comment on studies you haven't read -- then you won't get embarassed in public saying stupid things. |
#92
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Scott wrote: Bill Habr wrote: "Scott" wrote in message ... Bill Habr wrote: "Lloyd Parker" wrote in message ... The article covers time since 1970. Believe it or not, the world was rather good at record-keeping back then. Why didn't they look at before 1970? Say go back to 1950 or 1960? Oh wait, that would show a dip in activity from 1970 to 1995 and wouldn't show the dramatic increase but would show a fluctuation from high to low and back to high. Or maybe they couldn't find satellite data from back in the 1950s. Scott So are you saying that presence of satellite data would show less activity? If not you are making my point stronger. I'm not sure what you mean. It was my understanding that the study used satellite data. How many weather satellites were flying the 1950s? Scott I double checked, the word satellite does not appear in the document. I see no reason to leave out prior data. You could make a case that storms might not be detected before satellites, but I think the issue would be huricane hunter aircraft which I believe began in the 50's. |
#93
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Huh? A dip from 1970 to 1955? Sorry, not what the study found. The number
of storms stayed fairly constant, but the percentage of major storms went up. Try reading the article. You are the one not reading the article! The study did not address the issue of storms before 1970. If it had it would have found that the storms of the 50s nearly numbered the present ones and the graph would not have looked like an uptrend! Bill is entirely correct! |
#94
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Scott" wrote in message ... Bill Habr wrote: "Scott" wrote in message ... Bill Habr wrote: "Lloyd Parker" wrote in message ... The article covers time since 1970. Believe it or not, the world was rather good at record-keeping back then. Why didn't they look at before 1970? Say go back to 1950 or 1960? Oh wait, that would show a dip in activity from 1970 to 1995 and wouldn't show the dramatic increase but would show a fluctuation from high to low and back to high. Or maybe they couldn't find satellite data from back in the 1950s. Scott So are you saying that presence of satellite data would show less activity? If not you are making my point stronger. I'm not sure what you mean. It was my understanding that the study used satellite data. How many weather satellites were flying the 1950s? Scott Question: Leavingout all data from before 1970 enhances the study? My point is that by using a period of time of below normal activity the study skews. Example: Using the Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index, North Atlantic Hurricane Activity. 1950 to 1971 inclusive (22 seasons) Seasons with activty: Above Normal 11 Normal 7 Below normal 4 1972 to 1994 inclusive (22 seasons) Seasons with activty: Above Normal 3 Normal 7 Below normal 12 1950 to 1994 inclusive (44 seasons) Seasons with activty: Above Normal 14 Normal 14 Below normal 16 |
#95
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#96
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:23:42 GMT, "Bill Habr"
wrote: Question: Leavingout all data from before 1970 enhances the study? He didn't. He concentrated on global data from the 70s fwd because it met the requirements. There's a myth around that he didn't look at data before this, and focused incorrectly on the Atlantic basin. Neither are true. My point is that by using a period of time of below normal activity the study skews. Using bad data does the same thing. Emmanuel's primary contribution to the process is the new perspective of total energy dissapation. Studying temporal satellite data allowed him to do that. Example: Using the Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index, North Atlantic Hurricane Activity. 1950 to 1971 inclusive (22 seasons) Seasons with activty: Above Normal 11 Normal 7 Below normal 4 1972 to 1994 inclusive (22 seasons) Seasons with activty: Above Normal 3 Normal 7 Below normal 12 1950 to 1994 inclusive (44 seasons) Seasons with activty: Above Normal 14 Normal 14 Below normal 16 Now you're the one making the error because you've focused on the Atlantic Basin. "The analysis by climatologist Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology shows for the first time that major storms spinning in both the Atlantic and the Pacific since the 1970s have increased in duration and intensity by about 50 percent." http://www.livescience.com/forcesofn..._stronger.html And the number of events world-wide has not changed from a range of low 80s to about 90. So your objection that he chose a low to accent the growth - is incorrect. Altho your criticism doesn't reflect knowledge of Emmanuel's study, if you read the article it's pretty clear that this is a new look in a new way. And the right approach comes from the science - chew on it for a while before any saying yea or nay to any conclusions or connections. |
#97
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#98
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bill Habr wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message ... The article covers time since 1970. Believe it or not, the world was rather good at record-keeping back then. Why didn't they look at before 1970? How many weather satellites were there before 1970 with global coverage? Say go back to 1950 or 1960? Not many satellites. josh halpern |
#99
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
As long as they keep wiping out red states
I say, "Bring 'em on!" Roger Coppock wrote: Please follow this URL to see the press release with a graph: http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...ort-49334.html |
#100
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Here's another reference (from National Geographic) that probably says
about the same thing: ". . .a new study in the journal Nature found that hurricanes and typhoons have become stronger and longer-lasting over the past 30 years. These upswings correlate with a rise in sea surface temperatures. The duration and strength of hurricanes have increased by about 50 percent over the last three decades, according to study author Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...0804_hurricane... |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
El Niño becoming more likely and perhaps, stronger, later in the year. | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Global Warming=Stronger Hurricanes | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
Stronger evidence of global warming | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
Stronger Evidence For Human Origin Of Global Warming | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
Deep BAM model is biased towards stronger storms? | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) |