NOAA says there is no statistically increased trend in hurricanes since 1851

Primavera said:
There are many phenomena in the quantum world
Click to expand...
Quantum isn't a world.
Primavera said:
that you wouldn't be able to wrap your head around, entanglement being one.
Click to expand...
Quantum mechanics does have a theory about entanglement, but no more than that.
Primavera said:
Einstein called it spooky action at a distance and it's truly hard to understand how two protons separated by a vast distance can interact simultaneously
Click to expand...
No, they can't.
Primavera said:
yet they do all the same.
Click to expand...
No, they can't.
Primavera said:
If you measure one photon it instantly affects the other—no matter how far you separate them.
Click to expand...
Protons are not related to each other.
Primavera said:
This is not supposed to happen. Einstein's theory of relativity says nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
Click to expand...
That theory has not been falsified, though you are trying to discard it.
Primavera said:
And they are inextricably bound together. When you observe the first photon, there are even odds that it will show itself as "either up or down". But if it is up, then its twin is instantly forced down, or vice versa.
Click to expand...
There are no 'twin' photons.
Primavera said:
I don't deny anything,
Click to expand...
Yes you do. You just denied Einstein's theory of relativity, quantum mechanics (including the work of Schrodinger), and Einstein's theory of special relativity.
Primavera said:
it's you that is incapable of understanding 20th century science,
Click to expand...
Nah. You just deny and discard theories of science.
Primavera said:
you're still stuck in the 19th century, sad really.
Click to expand...
Nah. You just deny and discard theories of science.
 
martin said:
Your "effect nothing else" is idiotic and I'm not your teacher.
Click to expand...

So you can't state any theory of science that describes hurricanes and nothing else. I already knew that. Yes you constantly chant 'hurricane science'.
No, you are not my teacher. You can teach me nothing but about your own ignorance.
 
domer76 said:
He didn’t cite NOAA. He cited Chris Martz’s interpretation of NOAA data. Cherry picked, too, BTW.
Click to expand...

It is data from the National Hurricane Center, currently funded by NOAA. It's method of collection is from aircraft flying through such storms and station reports of landfall. There is nothing cherry picked here. Fallacy fallacy.
 
McRocket said:
Ummm...looks like you missed some parts:

'Scientists say that while the historical record shows an increase in the numbers of Atlantic hurricanes since the early 1900s, this record does not reflect how much easier it has become to identify hurricanes since we began using satellites. Once this is factored in, scientists say there has been no significant overall increase in Atlantic hurricanes since the late 1800s.
Click to expand...

There were no satellites in the 1800's or the early 1900's. Science isn't data.
McRocket said:
On a shorter timeframe, however, the numbers of Atlantic hurricanes have increased, much of it beginning in 1995,
Click to expand...
The data doesn't agree with this statement.
McRocket said:
as the tropical North Atlantic warmed
Click to expand...
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the ocean.
McRocket said:
and atmospheric conditions became conducive to increased hurricane activity,
Click to expand...
Weather is not climate, dude.
McRocket said:
similar to what occurred during the mid-20th century.'
Click to expand...
Circular argument fallacy.
McRocket said:
...

Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases
Click to expand...

No gas or vapor can increase the temperature of Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.
McRocket said:
have very likely contributed to the warming of tropical North Atlantic sea-surface temperatures observed over the past century.
Click to expand...
Not possible. No gas or vapor can create energy out of nothing.
McRocket said:
The World Meteorological Organization in 2010 concluded that by the late 21st century greenhouse warming
Click to expand...
No such thing. No gas or vapor can create energy out of nothing.
McRocket said:
is not expected to increase the number of tropical cyclones, but is expected to increase the average intensity of tropical cyclones.
Click to expand...
Climate is not weather. Warmer water does not increase the intensity of any cyclone.
McRocket said:
Near-storm rainfall rates are also expected to increase.'
Click to expand...
Why?
McRocket said:
https://www.noaa.gov/explainers/hurricane-forecasting
Click to expand...
NOAA is not science. It is a government agency.
McRocket said:
Let the war of the 'doom-and-gloomer's' versus the 'climate change deniers'...continue...
Click to expand...
Since you agree with the Church of Global Warming except for the 'doom and gloom' part, you are just as religious.
 
Primavera said:
There is a vast difference between a sceptic and denier, I think you know that well enough. You should also know that scepticism is integral to the scientific method, if you don't then there's not much more to be said. Anybody who tells you the science is settled is either a fool or a liar and quite probably both.

If somebody uses the term climate denier that tells me straight away that they are not from a scientific background and are usually not very bright.
Click to expand...

Science is not a 'method' or procedure. Science is simply a set of falsifiable theories. Otherwise you are correct. Anyone using the term 'climate denier' is simply someone from the Church of Global Warming. There is a sect in that religion that discards the usual 'doom and gloom' predictions, but it is nevertheless the same religion.

To discard science in favor of a fundamentalist religion is indeed stupid.
 
domer76 said:
Citing just hurricanes, then just landfall hurricanes vs all severe weather or all hurricanes is cherry picking.

The statement of no statistical difference is his interpretation. I saw no statistical breakdown.
Click to expand...

Fallacy fallacy. There is no cherry picking. Showing hurricanes that make landfall is a valid figure to discuss. Showing hurricane numbers is a valid figure to discuss.
You just want to deny and discard the valid data at the National Hurricane Center.

Why do I consider this data valid? That is answered in my sig, but I'll go into a bit of detail here:
* I know how the data was collected. It is a valid method. It is a bias free method, particularly after aircraft were sent into hurricanes to measure them on a regular basis.
* I know when the data was collected.
* I know the authority by whom the data was collected.
 
Into the Night said:
So you can't state any theory of science that describes hurricanes and nothing else. I already knew that. Yes you constantly chant 'hurricane science'.
No, you are not my teacher. You can teach me nothing but about your own ignorance.
Click to expand...

If you already knew it you were stupidly wasting time asking about it. I can’t remember ever chanting “hurricane science” anywhere. I doubt you would recognize what is ignorance from what isn’t.
 
martin said:
If you already knew it you were stupidly wasting time asking about it. I can’t remember ever chanting “hurricane science” anywhere. I doubt you would recognize what is ignorance from what isn’t.
Click to expand...

He was trying to tutor you out of your abyss of stupidity, Marty.

You could at least thank him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top