Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
Recent Comments
- Bob G on Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Greg in NZ on Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- conrad ziefle on Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Margaret Smith on Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Bruce of Newcastle on Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- arn on Obliterating Bill Gates
- oeman50 on Harris To Win In A Blowout
- conrad ziefle on The End Of Everything
- arn on The End Of Everything
- conrad ziefle on The End Of Everything
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.