Marginalized Action Dinosaur

So I’m finally reading it and what can I say it agrees with me lots.  But I started looking at links and what do you know he links to government websites in the book and if you type in the URL’s they work.

Though they changed the page format on this one shown on page 425 in his book.

Number of hurricanes by Saffir-Simpson Category to strike the mainland U.S. each decade.

¹ Only the highest Saffir-Simpson Category to affect the U.S. has been used.

This is taken from NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS TPC-4:
THE DEADLIEST, COSTLIEST, AND MOST INTENSE
UNITED STATES HURRICANES FROM 1851 TO 2004
(AND OTHER FREQUENTLY REQUESTED HURRICANE FACTS)
by
Eric S. Blake, Jerry D. Jarrell(retired) and Edward N. Rappaport
NOAA/NWS/ Tropical Prediction Center
Miami, FloridaChristopher W. Landsea
NOAA/AOML/Hurricane Research Division
Miami, Florida

Full Report available in HTML and PDF formats.

---

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtmlNow would NOAA lie about the number of hurricanes or would Al MR [50 million]  Gore.  One wonders if realclimate has ever linked to this? Because while they are good at talking lots one would think instead of just talking one would have counted to see if all their hot air fits whats happening.  The number is dropping.  Thats the number overall and the number of severe ones.What’s most funny is they claim to be real scientists and have bigcitylib posting there a lot.From “real climate”, read this then look again at the numbers up top. 

Yet this is not the right way to frame the question. As we have also pointed out in previous posts, we can indeed draw some important conclusions about the links between hurricane activity and global warming in a statistical sense. The situation is analogous to rolling loaded dice: one could, if one was so inclined, construct a set of dice where sixes occur twice as often as normal. But if you were to roll a six using these dice, you could not blame it specifically on the fact that the dice had been loaded. Half of the sixes would have occurred anyway, even with normal dice. Loading the dice simply doubled the odds. In the same manner, while we cannot draw firm conclusions about one single hurricane, we can draw some conclusions about hurricanes more generally. In particular, the available scientific evidence indicates that it is likely that global warming will make - and possibly already is making - those hurricanes that form more destructive than they otherwise would have been.

…

But what about the past? What do the observations of the last century actually show? Some past studies (e.g. Goldenberg et al, 2001) assert that there is no evidence of any long-term increase in statistical measures of tropical Atlantic hurricane activity, despite the ongoing global warming. These studies, however, have focused on the frequency of all tropical storms and hurricanes (lumping the weak ones in with the strong ones) rather than a measure of changes in the intensity of the storms. As we have discussed elsewhere on this site, statistical measures that focus on trends in the strongest category storms, maximum hurricane winds, and changes in minimum central pressures, suggest a systematic increase in the intensities of those storms that form. This finding is consistent with the model simulations.

 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181

Now ask youself if realclimate was serious about climate would they have looked at the evidence? Is the number of strong ones not listed above? Or at least say NOAA is lying and where and why NOAA is wrong alas if they do I was unwilling to spend that much time there but if someone has seen where they do pls leave a link.  They deleted me a few times for posting hurricane numbers previously so you know their science is faith based.  Now who funds real Climate?

Conversely if the record via NOAA shows the numbers dropping and you use a 12 sider because there were 1/2 as many severe ones in the 80’s and 90’s as the 50’s and 11’s no longer count How many Katrina’s has so called Global warming saved us from? they don’t care to ask.

The last decade close to average was the 60’s with 6 severe ones since then the numbers have been falling!  Look to the numbers again and read real climates baloney, and thank God the numbers aren’t the other way around for they would be using that as evidence of their theory instead of ignoring them. 

More here,

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/shear-turbulence/#more-437 

Maybe the CBC needs to read Mike’s book.

*** Update ***

I’ve noticed a few RC types here FYI I’m still waiting for my cheque from Exxon do tell me the PO number and address I send it to.  How much $$$ should I expect?

Wonder how long until my link is deleted?  If my assertion is so lame, you would think they would put the boots to me metaphorically, instead of deleting it.  Surprised it showed up at all.