Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- First Tracks In The Snow
- UK Green Energy Record
- UN Is Upset
- “Fascist Salute”
- Record Warmth Of January 1906
- Heat Trapping Difficulties
- Visitech – Data Made Simple – Antarctic Sea Ice
- Visitech – Data Made Simple
- California Governor Refused Firefighting Help
- Internet For Drowned Island
- A Toast To President Trump
- 97% Of Government Experts Agree
- Green Energy Progress
- Scientists Concerned
- New Data Tampering By NOAA
- Magical Thermometers
- Responsive Government In California
- Collapse Of The Antarctic Sea Ice Scam
- NPR : Cold And Snow Caused By Global Warming
- Snow Forecast In All 53 States
- 97% Consensus
- “Melting ice reveals millennia-old forest buried in the Rocky mountains”
- America Burning
- Mediterranean Britain
- Californians Celebrate Annual Wildfire Tradition
Recent Comments
- Peter Carroll on “Fascist Salute”
- James Snook on UK Green Energy Record
- Brian G Valentine on UK Green Energy Record
- arn on UK Green Energy Record
- Gamecock on “Fascist Salute”
- Bob G on First Tracks In The Snow
- Brian G Valentine on UK Green Energy Record
- Brian G valentine on First Tracks In The Snow
- Robertvd on First Tracks In The Snow
- Russell Cook on “Fascist Salute”
You can’t go off of landfalls alone. Going off of landfall numbers are completely arbitrary.
Quite the opposite. Detection has gotten much better at sea, and landfall is the only apples to apples comparison which we can make.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/landsea-eos-may012007.pdf
You just negated your own post. If detection was bad out at sea then there’s likely ones we missed that never made landfall. Therefore, going by landfall numbers along is a bad idea.
Get serious. I take it that you didn’t read the NOAA paper I linked. Your logic is completely bass-ackwards.
“Get serious. I take it that you didn’t read the NOAA paper I linked. Your logic is completely bass-ackwards.”
I say I read it. I mention how you got the paper wrong.
You then draw the conclusion that I didn’t read it after I said I read it.
You’re the one who thinks the Atlantic basin is the only place where tropical cyclones could possibly form. So, I’m not surprised you aren’t aware that there is no correlation between landfalls and an active season. What I find amazing though is you not only wallow in this ignorance, you keep posting about it.
You replied to one of my posts with dead silence which re-iterated your ignorance on tropical cyclones.
“Get serious. I take it that you didn’t read the NOAA paper I linked. Your logic is completely bass-ackwards.” I read it, but it is you who obviously didn’t read it and obviously didn’t look at the implications. There is NO correlation known between the number of landfalls and whether or not a season is active. Even Dr. Gray will tell you that – and he is a GW denier just like you are.
Those evil hurricanes have started missing the US just to help out deniers.
Much bee a conspiracy theory err something!!!!
Again, there is no correlation because you can have very active seasons with patterns that take most storms poleward and away from land, and you can have low activity seasons with many landfalls and not a large number of storms. Landfalls are more indicative of short term patterns than long term trends.
It is a 150 year long trend, which you asked for. Now you are denying it.
A newbeee, Bulls Hitter! LMAO!
“It is a 150 year long trend, which you asked for. Now you are denying it.”
It’s a trend of landfalls – which is not indicative of the entire season because there is no correlation between the number of landfalls and whether a season is active or not.
Please don’t put words into my mouth I never said.
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
The NOAA article explained why you can’t make historical comparisons of anything other than landfalls.
“BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!”
What a substantive post. So much data.
If that’s all you have to say about anything then you’re wasting a lot of time.
Got your attention didn’t it! Ya Bulls Hitter! LMAO!
Ya seem to go at who ya think is the easiest the easiest target when you are losing the discussion, and ya did exactly that. Ye can’t help it cant yas, ya bullshitters! LMAO!
“Ya seem to go at who ya think is the easiest the easiest target when you are losing the discussion, and ya did exactly that. Ye can’t help it cant yas, ya bullshitters! LMAO!”
You are nothing but a Grade A troll.
No you are projecting here now, not me friend! And you know what projecting means.
“No you are projecting here now, not me friend! And you know what projecting means.”
3/10 for Trolling. You could try way harder than that.
Yeah, 100% Bulls Hitter, is what ye are WOT! WOT! WOT! WOT! Errrr something like that…….
Way Out There……WOT
Thanks for showing data, facts, and peer-reviewed science to show how my points were wrong… oh wait…
Take it easy on WOT. He’s been assigned the thankless task of refuting Steven Goddard, and it’s really difficult when the facts aren’t on his side. Plus, I think his Kool Aid is beginning to ferment.