"Roger Coppock" wrote in
oups.com:

James wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
ups.com...
James wrote:
Prior to the first satellite that looked at this stuff sometime in
the
70s,
many storms went unnoticed.

Yes. When I looked at hurricane data I also found increases
at about the time ships gave up sail power, and another near
the time when ships started carrying radio.

That's a problem to be sure, but I don't think it's the major
one here. According to what I have read, models do not
show increasing hurricanes for another half-century or so.
I think everyone is counting hurricanes before they're hatched.
This business about increasing strengths, is tricky to model
and hard to measure, so the claims are hard to verify. Put
me in the doubters camp on this issue, at least for about
another two decades.


How about a few more decades. To compare 1995 - 2005 is a bit much
comparing the period the 1950 -1960 don't you think?

The cycle's thing is just fossil fool spin.
Seeing bumps on a graph is not detecting a cycle.
Much more information is needed. A mechanism
for starts.

The AMO can be debunked on the basis of this year's satellite records, of which I daily download copies for
my personal archives every day.

The flooding two days ago in Madison, WI, Cleveland, OH, BUffalo, NY would in times past have been
attributed to Atlantic moisture, but in fact was remnants of an Asian Pacific typhoon Ewiniar. You can follow
the cloud masses every half hour as they move over the screens -- but they don't move fast enough to
bother with that level of detail for most oceanic areas -- I collect every 2-hourly intervals.

In science nothing is ever sure except that somethings are proved not true. There's always some element of
suspense that what you know may be undone by new discoveries. The AMO is undone by this discovery that
powerful eastern US and even European moisture events can be tracked to the Pacific, both EPAC and
WPAC. Tree rings can't tell you where the moisture rose up in the world.

There is NO 50-60 year cycle of Atlantic cyclones. There was a strong uptick from 1945 through 1969 and it
has a likely genesis from the carbon burning of WWII. One would need to be a student of history to
understand the intensity of war production in order to find this causal role, and most climatologists are not
human history buffs. They never associated it before. Tree rings can't tell you if the moisture was ATL, EPAC
or WPAC.