Hurricane experts now declare every storm to be the most powerful on record. In 2013, they declared Typhoon Yolanda at Tacloban to be the most powerful storm ever.
Tacloban Survived the World’s Strongest Recorded Storm, but Only Just | TIME
This year experts declared Hurricane Patrica to be the strongest storm on record, and blamed the lack of damage at landfall as retroactively caused by what happened after it made landfall. (Utter morons.)
Comparing Hurricane Patricia and Typhoon Haiyan – The New York Times
The one thing that global warming experts never do is check the historical record. Because that would show that they are dishonest, incompetent political hacks – not scientists.
29 Nov 1912, Page 1 – at Newspapers.com
Atlantic hurricanes have dropped 80% since experts declared 2005 to be “the new normal”
Steven, your blog is misleading again. First, you cherry-picked your start year, 2005, but even then you didn’t show the trend. The trend is shown here: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records The trend is increasing.
If you continue to lie, you will be banned from commenting on this blog. I’m stick of your disgusting and dishonest accusations. 2005 was the year they made the claim.
https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/screenhunter_6911-feb-07-20-03.gif?w=640
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/All_U.S._Hurricanes.html
Sorry, that’s the number of hurricane strikes per year, not the number of hurricanes. And your link doesn’t go to the source of your graph, not that that matters with the graph being irrelevant. Here are the correct graphs for the number of Atlantic storms: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records
How long is it since a major hurricane hit land in the USA, little child ?
Oh and you are using the incorrect graph.. as usual.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
“This article will show that this presumption is not reasonable and that improved monitoring in recent years is responsible for most, if not all, of the observed trend in increasing frequency of tropical cyclones.”
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/landsea-eos-may012007.pdf
Again, some REAL DATA for you..
Which you will, as a matter of course, ignore… because ignorance is your soul attribute.
https://climatesanity.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/global-hurricane-frequency1.png
Oh and look at the very steep DOWNWARD trend this century. !!
or ignore the data … yet again.
WOW ! look at the tropical cyclone intensity this century
http://coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/global_running_ace.jpg
REAL DATA scares you doesn’t it little worm. !! 😉
Steven, “most if not all” means the trend is increasing partly because the number of storms is increasing. You have now changed arguments twice because they were wrong both times, and now you have changed arguments a third time, posting a paper that shows the trend is indeed increasing, even when allowing for improved monitoring.
WRONG again Martin.
Yes, they now name very marginal storms at 40N and 40W that no one would have cared about 50 years ago. Or name phantom “storms” with no clouds and a 1009 mb central pressure.
They can puff up the number of “fish storms” in the middle of nowhere to create the impression of an increasing trend, but what they can’t fudge is the number of actual hurricanes hitting the US mainland!
Martin, this is from the link you provided:
“Recent papers (Vecchi and Knutson 2008; Landsea et al 2010; Vecchi and Knutson 2011.; Villarini et al. 2011) suggest that, based on careful examination of the Atlantic tropical storm database (HURDAT) and on estimates of how many storms were likely missed in the past, it is likely that the increase in Atlantic tropical storm and hurricane frequency in HURDAT since the late-1800s is primarily due to improved monitoring.”
SG, have you got that graph showing that its the LONGEST PERIOD ON RECORD since a major hurricane made USA landfall.?
Needs posting here. 😉
“The one thing that global warming experts never do is check the historical record.”
You sure got that right.
They check the historical record then the burn it, hide it under the rug or rewrite it. Can’t have facts get in the way of the Propaganda!
“your blog is misleading again”
Poor child, are you being led-astray from your brainwashing ?
NO, there is no misleading by SG.. just FACTS..
Try them… for once in your insignificant, pre-pubescent life
NOT STEVEN GODDARD:
Global Warming = Worsening Hurricanes? Wrong, So Far
It’s hard to say who was right in the absence of any warming 🙂
More lies, Marty?
Have you considered seeking professional psychiatric assistance?
You know very well that historical data for storms that did not make landfall are nearly nonexistent whereas today we can count them all no matter where they are and regardless of whether they encounter land. Therefore you can’t compare the 1920s with today, unless you want to mislead and misdirect.
Can’t you read, Martin
The report you link to starts with a graph captioned:
Atlantic tropical storms lasting more than 2 days have not increased in number. Storms lasting less than two days have increased sharply, but this is likely due to better observations.
Would anyone care to comment on the fact that hurricanes that hit Florida decades ago were measured by the wind speed as they made landfall but now the federal propaganda agencies seem to rate the cane before it makes landfall often giving it a much larger wind-speed.
Anytime I look at the on-line wind gauges as the cane makes landfall the number I get is less than the NASA number. Why is this?
I know this site has mentioned this in the past, just can’t find it right now.
Sure. It’s part of the “improved monitoring” Steven’s last argument change is based on. We now know a lot more about storms long before they reach the US. It makes sense to publish this information so people in the storm paths can take evasive action.
But you shouldn’t be focusing only on wind speed. AGW is changing the other measures of storm intensity. Thy are described here:
Arbitrary focus on hurricane wind speed has birthed a new climate myth
http://www.skepticalscience.com/arbitrary-focus-hurricane-wind-speed-birthed-new-myth.html
Again the moronic link to SkS..
You are making a massive FOOL of yourself, child-mind. !
Martin, “Arbitrary focus on wind speed?”. The article referenced in this post outlines the DAMAGE done by past hurricanes. That damage was much more than applied by the “Mother Of All Human CO2 Induced Hurricanes” Patricia. You seem to like repeating yourself, so, I’ll repeat too. Here’s a source that has more credibility than Skeptical Science: http://www.theonion.com/americanvoices/climate-change-causing-giant-arctic-mosquitoes-thr-51349
Wind speed is one of the defining characteristics of what is or is not a hurricane. Continuing to call a storm a hurricane when it has fallen to tropical storm status at landfall is just another way of misrepresenting the facts.
How about this … Instead of linking to an obviously biased article maybe you can explain the ACE in the Atlantic and Pacific basins and why they are not rising due to AGW.
Seems like wind speed is not the only thing used to measure storm strength.
Steven, “most if not all” means the trend is increasing partly because the number of storms is increasing. You have now changed arguments twice because they were wrong both times, and now you have changed arguments a third time, posting a paper that shows the trend is indeed increasing, even when allowing for improved monitoring.
Look at the REAL DATA posted above..
I KNOW you are allergic to it.. but do try,
That’s the only way you brain-washed ignorance will be overcome.
So sorry that you LACK the capabilities to link SG, postings together.
Did you fail a low-end arts degree or something ?
NOAA doesn’t agree with your BS MS when it comes to Atlantic Basin storms.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/images/Atlantic_Storm_Count.jpg
Frequency and strength are way down in the historic context despite the lack of air recon and satellites for most of the record which greatly enhanced detection and measurements of storms out at sea in more recent times.
Somebody help me here: Is “Martin” really “Tony” of pages past? Or some other permatroll?
If I were SG, I would ban, because its obvious he is a paid AGW troll sent to “slow down” or “obfuscate” or drag the comments out until the reader just gets tired. Re MS the fact that hasn’t even mentioned Antarctic ice expansion re arctic ice stability at all costs is clear proof that he is a salaried AGW troll. Normally I would be 100% against banning but its very obvious in this case. This site poses a very major threat to the AGW establishment. The data and before after comparisons arfticles ect are overwhelmingly proving AGW to be false and fraudulent so that they will try everything to bring it down.
Seriously Eliza, .. who would waste any money paying this ineffective twerp..?
All his comments do is increase traffic to SG blog and show how brain-dead and unintelligent the below average alarmista is. (nb… all alarmistas are below average)
Yea maybe you are right LOL. They definitely increase traffic but note how other trolls suddenly appear. Ok let him stay I say LOL
He’s so inept, .. its really quite funny 🙂
And he’s on my hook… I can reel him in anytime I want.
He cannot escape.. just watch. 😉
Eliza,
M.S. brought a water pistol to a gang war. He is so out gunned people will think he is in the pay of the Oil Compnaies….Oh WAIT!
Eliza, I would also advocate for keeping Speedy Smith, despite the fact that he’s destroying the jobs of millions of Goddard’s minions. It’s my principled position to let the free market work. If Speedy can do the minions’ job faster and better by convincing the world that all alarmists are just as smart as him, I say let him do it.
The only risk is that government-employed alarmists will demand Goddard be prosecuted under the RICO statute for not banning him. A legal case could be made that Goddard, in collusion with others *), had deliberately manipulated public opinion by encouraging Speedy to comment here.
https://coloradowellington.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/troll-on-bicycle.jpg
———-
*) I’m afraid we are colluding right now!
You guys make me laugh, truly.
But not the deep down belly laugh I get from reading Smitty’s childish whining.
Sorry to say…he is funnier, but only because he has no clue what a nitwit he makes of himself.
Speedy Smith is a pigeon
manageralarmist according to the Urban Dictionary🙂
I reckon he is a software engineer or something like that.
A little bit of maths, long forgotten.
Locked behind a desk all day with little interaction with the REAL world outside, and no actual interest in it either.
A lot of bluster , and basically zero knowledge of how anything to do with climate actually works.
Software engineer? I know some dense ones but did you see Speedy’s reasoning in this thread about why this static page was inaccessible? Wouldn’t a frustrated women’s studies major working in a multinational’s corporate social responsibility group fit the profile better?
And as he has shown, the most research he can muster up is SkS and Wiki.
CW, I point you to
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/11/09/what-part-of-the-un-is-corrupt-doesnt-newsweek-understand/#comment-550693
Heh, I was just responding to your comment there when I saw this …
Do you want a link to his faceplant page.
He is a very lonely little man
https://plus.google.com/110936642099821448073/about
Wow – just wow…
Even the alarmists I know agree that hurricanes are down… they just think it’s just a matter of time before it all “ramps up” and we see the full fury of “climate change”.
I can’t even comprehend the willful blindness required to look at data and see some sort of dramatic increase.
I point you to…
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/11/09/what-part-of-the-un-is-corrupt-doesnt-newsweek-understand/#comment-550693
Another day, another doomsday scenario.
BTW Dr. Roy Spencer has a nice piece of the hurricane pause at his blog:
Atlantic Hurricanes Down 80% from 10 Years Ago
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/11/atlantic-hurricanes-down-80-from-10-years-ago/