Hurricane Irma

[Raven]

There was some stupid cunt moaning on the news about there not being money set aside for travel problems, emergencies etc.

Kind of like travel insurance then.

 

[old.user4556]

Do you give every bit of wind a name? Its all the rage with the vapour chambers down here, anything that knocks some garden furniture over must have a name or they can't think properly.

Aileen.

UK weather to see storm hit Britain with 60mph gales and torrential rain THIS WEEK

 

[Raven]

I'll be sure to lock the gate, don't want it banging in the wind.

 

[old.user4556]

I'll be sure to lock the gate, don't want it banging in the wind.

I'm going to masturbate in the rain so I can say "I came on Aileen".

 

[Raven]

gtfo!

 

[Scouse]

Quarter of Florida Keys homes destroyed

at least 25% of homes in the Keys were destroyed and 65% suffered significant damage.

"Basically, every house in the Keys was impacted"

 

[Raven]

Dramatisation!

Our storm was serious business, it knocked the bin over.

I am glad nobody is becoming blase about every bit of wind becoming a named storm so that when the real deal hits, nobody gives a fuck.

 

[old.user4556]

Dramatisation!

Our storm was serious business, it knocked the bin over.

I am glad nobody is becoming blase about every bit of wind becoming a named storm so that when the real deal hits, nobody gives a fuck.

But then, how will the Daily Express justify headlines like 'WORST WINTER FOR DECADES'?

 

[BloodOmen]

Another one gathering strength apparently in the same region - Hurricane Maria.

 

[Bodhi]

Another one gathering strength apparently in the same region - Hurricane Maria.

Crazy. You'd almost think it was hurricane season.

 

[BloodOmen]

Crazy. You'd almost think it was hurricane season.

It's not global warming that's for sure... it doesn't exist according to Donald Trump.

 

[Job]

Yeah, some years they run out of letters and have to start again, but of course once world attention concentrated on anything that is connected to a larger story, then they dissect it, over hype it and it ends up a bigger story itself.

 

[Bodhi]

It's not global warming that's for sure... it doesn't exist according to Donald Trump.

Seeing as there doesn't appear to be a trend in either Hurricane frequency or strength over the last 100 years, I'd agree with you there.

Number of people being killed by them is going down however. So it's something.

 

[Scouse]

Seeing as there doesn't appear to be a trend in either Hurricane frequency or strength over the last 100 years

Interesting that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Hurricane Centre disagrees with you.

Their evidence shows the frequency of named storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes on a clear (and marked) upward trend from 1850>2015.

Spoiler

Evidence (from reputable sources) is a bitch, eh @Bodhi

 

[Raven]

Well ofc there is an upward trend in "named storms" since 1850, we didn't have such good methods of detection and monitoring in 1850, they weren't named.

Number of pirates vs global warming.jpeg

Anyway, by the way that they spike every 10 years, one could almost get them to fit the solar activity cycle theory, "just sayin"

 

[Scouse]

Total education fail. Total.

The data is very very clear. Back to school for you.

 

[fettoken]

Are you educated in the field to make that statement Scouse, more precisely connect the dots between something and what's causing it. I mean, there are endless factors to take into consideration here.

 

[Raven]

No, ofc he isn't.

He is now upset about an observation that they work in 10 year cycles.

Or that in 1850 radar wasn't a thing.

One of the two, hard to tell.

 

[Scouse]

Are you educated in the field to make that statement Scouse

Yes. My degree is in that field.

more precisely connect the dots between something and what's causing it. I mean, there are endless factors to take into consideration here.

No - I answered exactly this:

Seeing as there doesn't appear to be a trend in either Hurricane frequency or strength over the last 100 years

With a dataset that shows there is a clear and obvious upward trend in hurricane frequency and strength since 1850.

I've not implied anything else. I've used actual real data to prove that statement incorrect. Period.

I will now be ignoring anything else said on this topic unless and until someone brings an equivalent dataset that shows differently. But that'd be pretty amazing - as the NOAA is the authoritative source of information on this subject.

Anything else said without said data is pointless bluster, whining and waffle.

 

[Job]

Looks like a downward trend from 2005 to me.

 

[Raven]

um..

The main graph on that page, that shows frequency and strength, quite clearly shows that it has changed by a tiny amount in the last 165 years. It also shows that there is a rough 8-10 year cycle (caused by something) and a large spike every 50 years.

The graph itself is actually distorted because it starts just after a presumed, 50 year spike.

Not only that but as already mentioned, detection and tracking methods have come a very, very long way since 1850, so is this actual recorded or recorded (Corrected by assumption) data? (It doesn't say)

With no references or methods its pretty much useless data. The data table link for the graph just links back to some Excel table.

I am not sure why there is a jump in the last 15 years (although actually, small) but it seems strange that there would be a sudden jump that doesn't correlate to anything else...maybe down to the recent reclassifications? 1970s and 2000s?

But besides all that, I wouldn't trust anything that comes out of US gov climate data, to be honest.

I realise it is simple physics that the warmer the water, the bigger the storm, although I fail to see how a couple of degrees (annual average) make any difference at all. The data on that page just doesn't stand up to scrutiny, not without backup.

Also, random question. Why, if you have a degree in climate science, or meteorology, or whatever, do you work for banks?

 

[Raven]

lol, that was quick

Its an angry pyjamas day today I see.

But, instead of frothing at the mouth and getting yourself all upset, why not answer the questions raised?

 

[Scouse]

lol

Edit: Wow. I facepalm you after 6 minutes, and write "lol" as a reply- but before I can hit submit you've already responded! Wowzers! Refresh much?

Tip: Don't try science. Your failure to even get an F in woodwork makes you woefully underequipped.

 

[Raven]

Ah right, so in short, you googled something you have zero understanding of, posted a link and cannot explain the data therein.

Not a problem

 

[dysfunction]

Oh great another Raven vs Scouse thread fight.

 

[Raven]

Nah its Ok. I asked him a couple of questions that he can't answer, he's gone now.

 

[Bodhi]

Interesting that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Hurricane Centre disagrees with you.

Their evidence shows the frequency of named storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes on a clear (and marked) upward trend from 1850>2015.

Spoiler

Evidence (from reputable sources) is a bitch, eh @Bodhi

Lol. So, in your scientific opinion, it is perfectly OK to splice together two datasets, using two entirely different measuring methodologies (ships captains vs satellites), with hugely different accuracies and detect a trend from that?

Sorry which ex Polytechnic did you get your degree from again? As it's pretty obvious for anyone to see you aren't comparing apples to apples there, rendering much of the data fairly meaningless.

Yet if you look at the point that probably can be relied on (70s onwards), then it's clear there is no real trend. Probably why NOAA are struggling to link hurricanes and Manbearpig.

Pretty hard to deny that the number of deaths from hurricanes has gone down however - thanks to Fossil Fuels, mostly. That must really stick in the craw.

 

[Scouse]

Unable to provide an alternative authoritative dataset I will resort to personal insult and disparagment of the primary datasource of this information, in the time honoured tradition of the wrong

On your separate point - I'm glad that deaths from hurricanes are going down tho (have you a source?). That's testament to humans increasingly understanding what dangers occur during hurricanes and them mitigating those risks. I'd be interested to know how fossil fuels (which may be responsible for the large increase in major hurricanes since the 1850s) are directly responsible for this though. Have you a source for that too, or should we continue to take everything you say at face value?

 

[Job]

This thread is cyclonephobic, I'm not even going to mention Typhoons.

 

[Scouse]

This thread is cyclonephobic, I'm not even going to mention Typhoons.

Northern hemisphere obvs...