NOAA: U.S. Completes Record 11 Straight Years Without Major Hurricane Strike

Hurricanes and tropical storms may be on the decline but never the less you can bet National Geographic Magazine has reporters and photographers out in the field hoping to catch glaciers melting and ice shelves calving huge icebergs.

 

Or polar bears on ice.

 

Or Vikings settling Greenland or vineyards starting up in England. That's what happened in the MWP which the alarmists ironically deny happened.

 

This is true. And a good link it was. Here is the rest of that data from Dr. Ryan N. Maue if anyone is interested: LINK

Not sure why you call it a 'meme', but that aside, this seems counter-intuitive to me. I would say that if you put more energy into a system you would expect to get more energy out. How that energy comes out is the question.

All of this is true (or at least could be). The science on this topic is very much in contest. Some scientists think that increased temps may lead to more frequent storms, some say it will be less frequent storms but more intense, some say that the increased temps will increase wind shear ultimately leading to more storms dying before they even form. Heck, the scientists have not yet even agreed on which metric to use to even gauge hurricanes. Is it tide surge? Wind speed? Storm area? Storm diameter? etc.
For a good look at the debate ongoing about this topic, take a look at the comments section of this page: LINK

So .. what is my opinion on the science of this? I have no idea. There clearly seems to be a lot of work left to do on the topic of hurricanes. But that said, I would be very wary of anyone who said that they knew the answer. Especially if they cherry picked only a small portion of the data and tried to extrapolate it to a system wide conclusion. (For example, looking at only hurricanes that make landfall or the like).

As for the premises offered in the op,
- The press made statements about future hurricane activity (True. The press loves big headlines. The more dire the better.)
- Scientists made statements about future hurricane activity (False. Some scientists may have, but that would be a rarity. Scientists in general HATE to make positive assertions of absoluteness. It leaves them open to being hammered by their peers. So they always talk in terms of 'certainty')
- The gulf coast has had no hurricane landfall in 11 years (I suppose that's true given the weird definitions as discussed above)
- The gulf coast is representative of the world as a whole (False, looking at just an 11 year period of landfall is just a tiny piece of the puzzle)
- The press was wrong (They usually are)
- Scientists were wrong (Some could have been, but that has yet to be hashed out)

A great video on this topic can be found here: LINK
It talks about just where the science is uncertain and where it is certain and where the climate change deniers are wrong on this. (Note: I am not saying that anyone who disagrees with the science is a denier. There is a difference between a denier and a skeptic, as I have explained before)

 

I agree with most everything but I would avoid using the cartoonists pro AGW conmunucation experiment blog (un)SkepticalScience. Too much misdirection. I prefer scientists blogs like Judith Curry.

No the Gulf doesn't represent the world but no landfall for 11 years also represents the Atlantic and East coast.

Your post points out an important fact. There is still much debate.

 

I provided a link to Prof Curry's update on the matter. Ten years ago she was "on board" with the assumption that higher global temperatures would result in higher intensity cyclones/hurricanes. Ten years later she has recognized that has not been the case.

https://judithcurry.com/2015/08/30/hurricanes-and-global-warming-10-years-post-katrina/

 

I thank you for your excellent posts on these threads. I want to commend your patience and attention to detail which is quite uncommon around here.
I hope you keep up your efforts.

 

Still waiting for both of your climate sensitivity to CO2 numbers.

 

I told you to start a thread, state a position, back it up, and we can talk about it there.

 

Curious that some can go on for paragraphs on academic issues without saying anything but cannot summarize your position in terms of the climate sensitivity to CO2 in one paragraph.

 

Right. -Mainland. So what? Haiti, Cuba, and the Bahamas were hit by a cat 4 and cat 5 in the last 2 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Category_4_Atlantic_hurricanes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Category_5_Atlantic_hurricanes

Count 'em. There have been more cat 4 and cat 5 hurricanes in the last 20 years than in any other 20 year period.

 

Fact is after Katrina the AGW cult said that would be the norm in America as the gulf warmed. The prediction was another in a very long line of massive fails as NOAA makes clear.

 

So in your mind, bookending a thoroughly disproved OP somehow makes it true? I recommend you go back to the start and read the thread thru again.

 

Everything that discredits any and all failed AGW predictions is disproved in a cult members mind but if you want to shout from the rooftop that NOAA is a vast right wing conspiracy be my guest

 

I didn't say or shout (lol) anything about the NOAA .. the only thing that I said that had been thoroughly disproved was your OP. Go back to page 1 and re-read from there for further insight. And when you get back to your post #87, if this is still unclear to you, go back to post #1 and start again. Repeat as necessary.

 

It's clear just who is talking in circles.

 

As usual, you make no sense. Oh, still waiting on your new thread on climate sensitivity ... In case you forgot about it. Maybe you should re-read from post #1 as well.

 

Why do you need a new thread ?? You should be able to state your position on the data based climate sensitivity of CO2 in one short paragraph. As usual there is no reponse.

The point made in the OP is valid. There is no link between global warming and an increase in cyclone intensity even though that was pushed by the IPCC 10 years ago.

 

omg ... let me be very, very clear on this point. No one, and I mean no one, needs a thread from you. But as you want to talk about a different topic, it is on you to start one. ... or not. We really don't care.

I can. I will do it in the thread you are gonna start.

Not only is it not valid, it is nonexistent. Please see the first 90 posts or so of this thread for further details.

 

Harsh words from someone so disinclined to summarize a global warming opinion based on real world data.

 

The NOAA is the subject of the OP and if you deny their assessment that's fine. We have freedom of religion in this country and I respect your right to worship at the alter of AGW. Shout that the sky is falling at the top of your lungs for all I care but don't demand I join your cult. Is that too much to ask?

 

Did all of this happen in some alternate reality that exists only in your head? Cuz none of this happened in the reality that the rest of us are living in. You are, of course, free to point to a post I made that refutes this ... as always. But you, of course, will not ... as always.

Even the idea that the NOAA is the subject of the OP is laughable. Don't worry though, you will learn how to identify the subject of a sentence later as you progress though school. (Hint: Find the verbs. The subject is doing them.) Identifying the topic or 'subject' of a paragraph is a bit trickier and you may have to wait till high school for that. Here's a guide for you though if you want to peek ahead.

Identifying the topic/ideas, coherence & unity in paragraphs

 

Are you denying the NOAA record?

 

Nope. I was very clear about that. Like I said, you need to re-read the thread.

 

More study aids from our resident academic who cannot write a short paragraph on the climate sensitivity of CO2.