Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) (sci.geo.meteorology) For the discussion of meteorology and related topics. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Go here for a quick chart that clearly shows the number of hurricanes
has decreased since either 1941 or even earlier. A no-brainer: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml Intensity is another issue, but numbers have gone down. RL |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
That table only includes huricanes that have struck mainland USA, which
is a subset of all Atlantic storms. It is also affected by the multi-decadal osscillation, as the position of surrounding anticyclones changes the tracks cyclicly, and therefore the odds of them hitting the USA. Tricky things, statistics - one word can change the whole meaning of a graph or table. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks for that clarification Hoggle.
I will then revise my memory bank to these facts: 1. Hurricanes _have_ increased, if you include all Atlantic storms, in both numbers and intensity. 2. The link between hurricanes increasing and AGW (Anthro. GW) is tenuous to non-existent. RL |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Could you also check out the Emmanuel paper (link given several times)
and perhaps be open to the possibility that, globally, hurricanes are becoming more energetic in line with global warming predictions? Same number of storms (globally) but they are bigger. Possibly more to the point, because this is a global trend (it's actually less marked in the atlantic iirc) it eliminates local oscillations as a cause and requires a global cause, such as global warming. |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "raylopez99" wrote in message ups.com... Let me help: "Observed and recorded" Hurricanes _have_ increased, if you include all Atlantic storms, in both numbers and intensity. I won't even ask how category numbers were applied in 1851. The more I study Wikipedia, the more of a pile of **** it appears. It sure gets a lot of mileage here as "peer reviewed" fact, though. That figures . . . . . |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
The Numbers don't lie. COUNT THEM YOURSELF. See if you get different
numbers. Do the sums. See if your figures differ. Dived by terms, see if your averages are off by one speck. 1851-1995 (145 years) 369/145 = 2.5 TS per year = 25 per 10-years Tropical Storms 275/145= 1.9 C1 per year = 19 per 10-years Hurricanes Category 1 197/145= 1.4 C2 per year = 14 per 10-years Hurricanes Category 2 153/145= 1.05 C3 per year = 10.5 per 10-years MAJOR Hurricanes Category 3 76/145= 0.52 per year = 5.2 per 10-years MAJOR Hurricanes Category 4 21/145= 0.14 per year = 1.4 per 10-years MAJOR Hurricanes Category 5 1996-2005 (10 years) 61/10= 6.1 per year = 61 per 10-years Tropical Storms 28/10= 2.8 per year = 28 per 10-years Hurricanes Category 1 12/10= 1.2 per year = 12 per 10-years Hurricanes Category 2 16/10= 1.6 per year = 16 per 10-years MAJOR Hurricanes Category 3 19/10= 1.9 per year = 19 per 10-years MAJOR Hurricanes Category 4 5/10= 0.5 per year = 5 per 10-years MAJOR Hurricanes Category 5 PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1996-2005 to averages 1851-1995 1/25 x 61 = 144% MORE Tropical Storms, 1996-2005 1/19 x 28 = 47% MORE Hurricanes Category 1, 1996-2005 1/14 x 12 = 14% LESS Hurricanes Category 2, 1996-2005 1/10.5 x 16 = 52% MORE MAJOR Hurricanes Category 3, 1996-2005 1/10 x 19 = 90% MORE MAJOR Hurricanes Category 4, 1996-2005 1/1.4 x 5 = 257% MORE MAJOR Hurricanes Category 5, 1996-2005 |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Hoggle wrote: That table only includes huricanes that have struck mainland USA, which is a subset of all Atlantic storms. LIAR. Cheap whore sucking the Petroleum Jelly Pipeline. HURDAT is the only databses we have for Atlantic Basin cyclones. It includes every one known to date, pending further reviews of obsure historical sources refining the passages of ancient storms through ships logs and yellowed newspapers copied to microfilms. It is also affected by the multi-decadal osscillation, as the position of surrounding anticyclones changes the tracks cyclicly, and therefore the odds of them hitting the USA. LIAR, TRAMP. Big Gobs of Goo drolling down your chin onto your Blue Dress, Monica. Tricky things, statistics - one word can change the whole meaning of a graph or table. Yeah. Look at Lomborg. That's why I provided the data in two versions, with link to the original HURDAT. So people could do their OWN STATISTICS and not be lied to by ANYBODY. Then Check your whore figures to the ones you actually produce with your own calculator. See whose lying and who is telling the truth. 1851-1995 (145 years) 369/145 = 2.5 TS per year = 25 per 10-years Tropical Storms 275/145= 1.9 C1 per year = 19 per 10-years Hurricanes Category 1 197/145= 1.4 C2 per year = 14 per 10-years Hurricanes Category 2 153/145= 1.05 C3 per year = 10.5 per 10-years MAJOR Hurricanes Category 3 76/145= 0.52 per year = 5.2 per 10-years MAJOR Hurricanes Category 4 21/145= 0.14 per year = 1.4 per 10-years MAJOR Hurricanes Category 5 1996-2005 (10 years) 61/10= 6.1 per year = 61 per 10-years Tropical Storms 28/10= 2.8 per year = 28 per 10-years Hurricanes Category 1 12/10= 1.2 per year = 12 per 10-years Hurricanes Category 2 16/10= 1.6 per year = 16 per 10-years MAJOR Hurricanes Category 3 19/10= 1.9 per year = 19 per 10-years MAJOR Hurricanes Category 4 5/10= 0.5 per year = 5 per 10-years MAJOR Hurricanes Category 5 PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1996-2005 to averages 1851-1995 1/25 x 61 = 144% MORE Tropical Storms, 1996-2005 1/19 x 28 = 47% MORE Hurricanes Category 1, 1996-2005 1/14 x 12 = 14% LESS Hurricanes Category 2, 1996-2005 1/10.5 x 16 = 52% MORE MAJOR Hurricanes Category 3, 1996-2005 1/10 x 19 = 90% MORE MAJOR Hurricanes Category 4, 1996-2005 1/1.4 x 5 = 257% MORE MAJOR Hurricanes Category 5, 1996-2005 |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
idiot
I was refering (as the thread tree makes perfectly clear) to ray's table: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml which is headlined: Number of hurricanes by Saffir-Simpson Category to strike the mainland U.S. each decade |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
You shouldn't need somebody to do your counting for you, as an adult.
Why are you an information-welfare-queen crying big sreaks of mascara down your cheeks Tammy Fae, that people want you to count for yourself. You suckle on a Bu****e govt website teat for your second-hand information when you could have gotten truer information by counting them yourself. Deap Throat that Oil Pipeline, Monica, cover that Blue Rag with gobs of Petroleum Jelly from liars who brought you WMDs and Swift Boats. |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
You shouldn't need somebody to do your counting for you, as an adult.
Why are you an information-welfare-queen crying big steaks of mascara down your cheeks Tammy Fae, that people want you to count for yourself, instead of expecting true information to come from Bu****e-controlled websites. You suckle on a Bu****e govt website teat for your second-hand information when you could have gotten truer information by counting them yourself. Deap Throat that Oil Pipeline, Monica, cover that Blue Rag with gobs of Petroleum Jelly from liars who brought you WMDs and Swift Boats. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Painting by numbers without the numbers | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
I've Lost Count ... no wonder, lie-berals do have seriousissues with numeracy and science. | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
Run the numbers for yourself (was: more agw ass-covering - tryingto buy more time to 2015 | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
Does Bashir Salamati's internet provider at Adelphia Cable Communications REALLY know whom he is ... you can contact them and let them know about his posts ...HE | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
COUNT THEM YOURSELF: Same data COMPACT VERSION -- Don't be Lied to by 'Experts' -- You Count!!! | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) |