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

lol

1) You need all the study aids you can get. (It may help you get that engineering degree you want.)
2) I'll be happy to give you a paragraph on the climate sensitivity of CO2 ... just need a link to that new thread. Should I hold my breath on that?
3) I think that it is hilarious and very telling that you think that 'academic' is an insult. When someone calls you 'ignorant' do you take it as a compliment? lol

 

Why do you need a new thread to do it ??

 

To deny the OP is to deny the data presented by NOAA, very simple really

 

Good evening Alien. I came in from a hard afternoons work and cruised your post as you suggested with my before dinner Scotch. You are correct in that you never directly denied the premise of the OP, my mistake. I took your obfuscation and subject changing as denial but apparently at some level you agree that NOAA data is correct and anybody and everybody that predicted we would be hit with increased hurricane activity with increased intensity due to a warmer gulf was flat out wrong. I agree, have a nice evening.

 

Technically, Sandy was a tropical storm but it killed 233 people and caused $75 billion in damage. Hurricane Matthew technically never struck the United States either, yet it killed 49 people and caused $5B in damage. When the United States represents only 2% of the Earth's surface, why do you think its trend negates a global climate theory?

By the way, none of the "dire predictions" you linked to predicted more hurricanes this decade. Like all climate science, they are talking about longer term trends. Anyone that studies tropical cyclones accepts that sea surface temperature is one of the main factors determining hurricane strength. If global mean surface temperature is increasing, then isn't it logical to expect higher sea surface temperatures and therefore stronger hurricanes?

 

All the links predicted more and stronger hurricanes due to AGW in general and some were specific on the gulf due to its warmer waters. Exactly the opposite has happened and much like the missing rise in earths temperature that the warmers call a pause all you are left with is, well it's coming, we don't know when but be very afraid!

 

They predicted more and stronger hurricanes over the next several decades and century. As far as I can tell, there is still time for these predictions to come true.

When 2015 was by far the warmest year on record and 2016 is well on the way to surpassing that, I'm not sure why you think there is a missing rise in Earth's temperature.

 

Stronger hurricanes (not more) were predicted ~ 15 years ago. That has not come true. Still waiting and it could happen.

 

I have posted numerous links in here about the AGW scientist trying to explain why it didn't warm as predicted over the last decade and trying to call it a "pause" in warming and then coming up with convoluted excuses as to where the heat is hiding. The predictions for more and stronger hurricanes must be on " pause" too.

 

Do you know what the strongest tropical cyclone was and when it occurred?

 

You mean links like this one?
Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus

 

No I ran numerous links like this, not AGW apologist links trying to wiggle out of the fact that it didn't warm as predicted

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/n...acific-oceans-temporarily-hide-global-warming

 

So NASA found that PDO could "temporarily hide global warming" from CO2. Would 2002 thru 2015 count as "temporary"?

Before you try disproving IPCC projections, you should learn what it was they were actually projecting.

 

The point is there has been no warming as predicted and warmers are trying to find a reason (excuse) for it.

 

When denial is this complete the only thing to be done is to ignore it. All the evidence says otherwise. That there is warming but the excuses not to look at the data become dismaying

 

You are arguing with NASA not me

 

If you think the NASA study supports your argument, then you clearly didn't understand it. Here's a clue, when someone says something is hidden, that means it is still around even though you might not see it.

 

Are you referring to this evidence ??

 

AAAAAANNNNNNDDDD the source is Tinypic,com

Yep that sure is academic thinking right there

Tell me do your high schools allow you to hand in homework with random pictures stuck in?

 

His source is actually John Christy. But he doesn't want to say that. So instead he hides behind a picture link of the one graph. A graph btw which has been thoroughly discredited for the following reasons:

- The data are misleadingly misaligned
- The uncertainty is ignored
- Observational data disagreements are hidden
- The chart isn’t peer-reviewed or easily reproducible
- We don’t live on Mount Everest

A full breakdown of the problems with his 'chart' can be found here: Republicans' favorite climate chart has some serious problems

In short, this is the chart that’s become the favorite, go-to among those who distort climate science in order to justify opposition to climate policies.

 

Christy is a scientist. Are you a science deniers? By the way charts don't need to be peer-reviewed there based on the data. You can look at the data yourself. Even though it is a pretty deep subject the difference in computer models and observation are striking and continue to deviate. Surface projections are at least twice observations are and in the troposphere 3 to 4 times.

 

My original statement that you tried to deny was that warmers were desperately looking for a reason why the predicted rise in earths temperature never materialized. NASA confirms my statement and destroys your denial and it is only one of many examples of hard core believers trying to come up with a reason (excuse) for the predicted rise in temperature that never happened

 

LOL, the guardian a pro alarmist rag. Evidently you are not aware that according to the hypothesis the warming is supposed to show first in the troposphere which that chart represents.

 

The source is not tinypic. Anyone with a working knowledge of climate science would know that.

 

Actually his list applies more to the current temperature series which have been manipulated and corrupted and of which the original data is in many cases gone. From another thread - What you are missing is the many and well documented problems with the temp data. This was shown in the ClimateGate emails in which it was discovered that the original data had been deleted and that what remained was manipulated in corrupted to support the warming narrative. Also the number of stations has been reduced and although a significant urban heat island effect has been shown as a function of city/town size no corrections have been made. The Harry-read-me text file also shows the many problems with duplication and other errors in the database. These are summarized in the recent release of the 2nd edition of "Evidence Based Climate Science" - Part Two - A Critical Look at Temperature Measurements - pages 11 - 99. As the chart I posted above shows when the number of stations was reduced at the end of the cold war the temperature went up both is step change fashion.

Both the rss and uah6 data lie virtually on top of each other.