Climate Forces Behind Florence Look Like Those of Harvey, Sandy

By and | September 12, 2018

  • September 12, 2018 at 4:35 pm
    PolarBeaRepeal says:
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 12
    Thumb down 22

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    • September 13, 2018 at 8:02 am
      Rosenblatt says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 18
      Thumb down 10

      Just because a CAT 4 or 5 hurricane doesn’t make landfall in the USA doesn’t prove there have been “so few of them since Katrina” around the rest of the world. The ocean is a pretty big place ya know? :)

      • September 13, 2018 at 1:36 pm
        craig cornell says:
        Hot debate. What do you think?
        Thumb up 14
        Thumb down 18

        Oh, please. Back up your claim with facts. The facts are these: there have been far fewer hurricanes over the past 15 years than normal.

        And today, Florence is being down-graded. Once again, all the hand-wringing was overblown. Once again, the fear-peddlers tried to tie Climate Change to a weather event, something real climate scientists say you can’t possibly do. And when Florence drops in intensity as it did today, will all the sellers of Scary Monster Climate Change stories apologize for the misplaced hysteria?

        Of course not. (Yesterday, the Washington Post blamed Trump. Kid you not.)

        • September 13, 2018 at 2:07 pm
          Rosenblatt says:
          Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 14
          Thumb down 3

          As JS already posted: Rita, Wilma, Dean, Felix, Matthew, Irma, and Maria have all been Category 5 storms in the Atlantic since Katrina.

          That’s only ATLANTIC CAT 5 hurricanes. It doesn’t cover CAT 3 & 4 (which is what Polar originally posted), PACIFIC hurricanes (which usually don’t make it to California), typhoons that hit Japan, Taiwan and other places over on that side of the world, nor does it cover hurricanes that didn’t actually make landfall, nor any that formed in the Gulf of Mexico.

          Now I’m guessing that **if you respond** you’ll either shift the goalposts or argue something nobody here has ever claimed. Your move.

          • September 13, 2018 at 2:32 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 10

            No goal post shifting at all. Show me the numbers for hurricanes going back 100 years, compared to the last 15 years. Brave enough to try?

            You can even game the numbers by breaking out Cat 5 storms.

            But please, be honest and complete when you turn in your work. . .

          • September 13, 2018 at 3:18 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 12
            Thumb down 6

            Why do I have to do your homework?

            craig cornell says: Oh, please. Back up your claim with facts. The facts are these: there have been far fewer hurricanes over the past 15 years than normal.

            Since you made the argument that hurricanes in the past 15 years have been less than normal in the first place … YOU show me YOUR numbers for hurricanes going back 100 years, compared to the last 15 years.

            Brave enough to try?

      • September 14, 2018 at 9:14 am
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 10

        What is important about Cat3, Cat4, Cat5 which don’t reach land? Ships are lost all the time and NO ONE in the Global Hoaxer community gives a hoot about them…. especially oil tankers. Another Straw Man argument about a non-issue, to detract from the meaningful discussion.

      • September 17, 2018 at 3:56 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 1

        Rosenblatt: Point A: This particular site he’s replying to isn’t talking about world wide hurricanes. This seems to be why he questioned it. He already addressed what you said, indirectly. These hurricanes do not on their own point to a world wide hurricane problem.

        Point B: At least Atlantic wise for the last 15 years, Polar is potentially wrong with what numbers we do have, though I would question the numbers. Even 50 years ago we didn’t have good monitoring. So if a boost looked like it happened in 1985 for example, (30 years ago) as we got better monitoring, especially after that point, even if it declined I wouldn’t read much into it 15 years later in 2000. I want so see 1985-2035 at minimum before I say how the 15 year time period from 2003-2018 was compared to the 15 year time periods around it.

        https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/#cp100

        Point C: You have not looked at the numbers just as much as Polar, quit with the mocking with the others here saying he doesn’t read what he posts. He is prone to his biases, as are you. You are equal in it. Not superior, and I get really tired of watching you and 3 other millennials here act like you’re better than him (one who lies and says he isn’t a millennial).

        Ron, Helpingout, Confused being the 3. You all talk like you have alternative facts, yet you parrot what I heard since I was in high school from liberal millennials. You don’t have the research or alternative facts. You are the norm. You are the following crowd. It’s time to stop thinking you’re special.

    • September 13, 2018 at 1:41 pm
      Jihad Crusader says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 8
      Thumb down 11

      Agree with PolarBeaRepeal! This “climate change” BS is a Socialist agenda. The climate has been in constant change for tens-of-thousands of years.

  • September 13, 2018 at 1:46 pm
    J.S. says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 11
    Thumb down 3

    Rita, Wilma, Dean, Felix, Matthew, Irma, and Maria have all been Category 5 storms since Katrina. I didn’t bother looking up category 3 or 4 storms. That doesn’t cover typhoons. So how few is “so few category 3,4, and 5 Polar?

  • September 13, 2018 at 2:50 pm
    J.S. says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 9
    Thumb down 1

    Craig said “Back up your claim with facts. The facts are these: there have been far fewer hurricanes over the past 15 years than normal.”

    The years from 2004 to 2018 had 10 cat 5 storms in the Atlantic. 1988 – 2003 had 5, including one in 2003. The 15 years prior had 3. So Craig, what “so called facts” are you basing this on or are you just making things up and calling others liars?

    • September 13, 2018 at 3:53 pm
      Craig Cornell says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 11

      And just as I predicted, you limited your reporting to Cat 5. (Climate Scientists are laughing at you right along with statisticians. But don’t let that get in the way.)

      Try again. This time, pretend you are a conservative. You know, someone more interested in the truth than your Agenda. Compare the total number of hurricanes for the past, say, 100 years. You won’t.

      Hey Rosenblatt. You started the skepticism with comment number 2 in the thread. Man up and back it up.

      • September 13, 2018 at 4:22 pm
        Rosenblatt says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 7
        Thumb down 2

        Polar said there have been “so few” CAT 3’s & 4’s since Katrina. I expressed skepticism because this “fact” was not supported by any evidence. The onus to prove this falls on he who made the claim in the first place.

        When you chimed in saying “The facts are these: there have been far fewer hurricanes over the past 15 years than normal”, the onus to prove that fact fell in your lap.

        If you post something claiming it’s a “fact” like you two have done, you need to support your argument with data and sources. Simply being skeptical of something does not shift the responsibility to prove the unsubstantiated “fact”

        You have failed to do this basic tenant of honest debate. There’s no need to continue this conversation with you any further until you’re able to prove your facts are real. I look forward to seeing your evidence that backs up your claims.

        • September 13, 2018 at 5:43 pm
          Craig Cornell says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 5
          Thumb down 5

          https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

          Are Category 4 and 5 hurricanes increasing in number?
          The incredible onslaught of the Hurricane Season of 2005, with its unparalleled number of Category 5 hurricanes–four–and the strongest hurricane ever recorded–Wilma–brought up the urgent question–how much of this was due to global warming? The remarkable Hurricane Season of 2005 coincided with the publication of two landmark papers that made a case for a connection between global warming and the strength of the most powerful hurricanes. In September 2005, a paper published in Science magazine reported that worldwide, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes had increased 80% in the past 30 years. The paper, (Webster et al., 2005), titled “Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment”, linked the rise in storms to increasing sea surface temperatures and concluded that “global data indicate a 30-year trend toward more frequent and intense hurricanes.” The authors, led by Dr. Peter Webster of Georgia Tech and Dr. Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, argued that this was consistent with climate models that have predicted a future increase in frequency of the most intense hurricanes due to human-emitted greenhouse gases. This paper, along with another paper published in August 2005, “Increasing Destructiveness of Tropical Cyclones over the past 30 years”, by Dr. Kerry Emanuel of MIT, showing an increase in hurricane power and longevity in recent years, created a huge stir in the media. However, more recent scientific research has raised serious questions about the validity of these results. Hurricane experts are divided on to what degree global warming has affected the number and intensity of hurricanes, and a recent consensus statement by 125 hurricane scientists (see below) concluded: Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point.

          http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/frequency_of_tcs_hurricanes_of_the_atlantic_ocean_over_past_century.pdf

          Let me know how much evidence you need, Rosenblatt. I can post plenty more to prove I was right and you were wrong. But again, as a conservative, I care about truth . . .

          • September 14, 2018 at 8:22 am
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 3

            Please – post more! Got any evidence that discusses the time period we’re debating? Issues I have with your links relative to this debate:

            1) The NHC link has data through 2004. Katrina struck in 2005.

            This link is missing data about the actual time frame we’re discussing (again, Polar said “why have there been so few Cat3 or Cat4 storms over the dozen plus years since Katrina?”).

            This link sheds no light on any events in 2005 and beyond.

            2) The other link, although having a similar limitation in stopping their analysis before the time frame we’re talking about, finds that “it does not appear that tropical storm and hurricane frequencies of the Atlantic Ocean have changed”

            Link #2 finds there’s been no change in frequency, thereby lending credence to my original skepticism that there have not been fewer hurricanes over the past few years compared to historical data.

            Your data dumps have failed to support your argument and, in fact, implicitly support what I’ve said. Got anything relevant to the discussion of post-Katrina hurricane frequency compared to historical hurricane frequency????

          • September 14, 2018 at 9:18 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 7

            LOL @ Rosenblabber about the 2004 time period vs Katrina in 2005. Simply a dodge of the issue.

          • September 14, 2018 at 11:03 am
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 7
            Thumb down 3

            Seriously Polar? YOU put out the “post Katrina” time frame in your first post! I’m not dodging the issue. I’m sticking to the time frame YOU mentioned!

    • September 14, 2018 at 9:16 am
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 6

      Cat5 storms are outliers, and thus, their counts are subject to high variance over short periods of time. Give us the stats I mentioned in my original post and we’ll discuss meaningful stats. I’ve seen them a few years ago on NOAA.

      • September 14, 2018 at 10:59 am
        Rosenblatt says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 2

        I’m not going to do your homework for you. You said “…there been so few Cat3 or Cat4 storms over the dozen plus years since Katrina” which means the onus is on you to prove your statement. Simply replying “goo-gul it yourself” does not meet the burden of proof to back up your argument.

        • September 14, 2018 at 2:34 pm
          Craig Cornell says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 3

          Just to finish the thought on this: From 2005 (Katrina) until today, NO hurricanes have reached the U.S. mainland (Sandy was a tropical storm when it reached land).

          From 1915 to 1965 (51 years), 19 major hurricanes hit the US mainland. From 1966 until 2016 (51 years), 7 major hurricanes hit the US mainland.

          Your serve, Rosenblatt. Send me another foot fault denial without any scientific backing. It is what we all expect!

          • September 14, 2018 at 2:46 pm
            helpingout says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            Hurricane Matthew: Oct. 2016, Matthew devastated the southeast, Florida in particular, as a Category 4 storm before weakening to a Category 1 and making landfall in South Carolina .

            • Hurricane Hermine: Sept. 2016, this Category 1 storm was the first hurricane to hit Florida since Hurricane Wilma in 2005.

            • Hurricane Arthur: July 2014, this storm whipped North Carolina’s Outer Banks with winds of 100 mph, making it a Category 2.

            • Hurricane Sandy: Oct. 2012, Superstorm Sandy, the largest Atlantic system on record, slammed into New Jersey. It was the deadliest hurricane to hit the northeastern U.S. in 40 years and the second-costliest in the nation’s history.

            Facebook
            Twitter
            Google+
            LinkedIn
            Tropical Depression Harvey batters Texas
            Fullscreen
            With one fan already running in this bedroom, Helen Benjamin reaches to turn on the ceiling fan after opening the windows to let her house air out after flooding caused by Hurricane Harvey in Houston. Larry McCormack, The Tennessean

            •Hurricane Isaac: Aug. 2012, this deadly Category 1 storm hit the coast of Louisiana and Mississippi right around the seventh anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.

            • Hurricane Irene: Sept. 2011, Irene hit North Carolina as a Category 1 storm. The storm caused major flooding in the northeast, and Irene’s effects were felt along the entire Eastern seaboard.

            • Hurricane Ike: Sept. 2008, the last hurricane to strike Texas was Hurricane Ike, a powerful Category 2 storm that caused billions in damage and became the third most costly storm in the U.S., after Hurricanes Sandy and Katrina.

            • Hurricane Gustav: Sept. 2008, tens of thousands evacuated before this Category 2 storm hit the Louisiana coast, New Orlean’s first major storm since Katrina.

            • Hurricane Dolly: July 2008, Dolly made landfall in Texas as a Category 2 storm and gradually weakened to a tropical storm as it progressed.

            •Hurricane Humberto:Sept. 2007, although initially weak this record-breaking storm intensified rapidly before making landfall in Texas as a Category 1 storm.

            • Hurricane Wilma: Oct. 2005, this intense Category 3 storm wreaked havoc when it made landfall in Florida. Wilma was one of the most powerful storms in the very active 2005 hurricane season.

            • Hurricane Rita: Sept. 2005, often referred to as the “forgotten storm,” this category 3 hurricane hit shortly after Katrina in a much less populated area along the Texas-Louisiana border.

          • September 14, 2018 at 2:47 pm
            helpingout says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 1

            I also only included Rita and Wilma because you mentioned since 2005 Katrina and both occurred after.

          • September 14, 2018 at 2:48 pm
            helpingout says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 1

            and this is the source that gives this nice little breakdown and why there is the facebook and unrelated information in there.

            https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/08/24/all-hurricanes-hit-u-s-since-2005/598113001/

          • September 14, 2018 at 2:49 pm
            helpingout says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 1

            Also while some major ones have not hit the mainland of the US, Puerto Rico is a US territory and they are American Citizens.

          • September 14, 2018 at 4:42 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 2

            Wow. Thank you SO much, helpingout!! I thought Craig was missing a few storms when he claimed no hurricanes have hit the mainland since 2005 – didn’t realize there were so many!!

            Now Craig – aside from your faulty argument, I noticed you solely brought up hurricanes hitting the mainland USA.

            Maybe you should re-read my original skeptical post when I replied to Polar’s “so few hurricanes since Katrina” comment. Here it is again:

            Just because a CAT 4 or 5 hurricane doesn’t make landfall in the USA doesn’t prove there have been “so few of them since Katrina” around the rest of the world. The [non-USA world] is a pretty big place ya know? :)

            Even if you were right that zero CAT 3 and above hurricanes made landfall in the continental USA, we’re talking about global climate here … you can’t ignore pacific typhoons or storms that devastated islands across the globe when the discussion is global climate.

          • September 17, 2018 at 5:27 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 2

            @helpingout; please thin your list to MAJOR hurricanes of Cat3 and Cat4 status WHEN THEY REACH LAND (landfall category). Let us know what you’ve learned by posting inane, irrelevant stats to pad the stats that are the subject of the discussion.

          • September 18, 2018 at 9:57 am
            helpingout says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 2

            Hey Polar,
            I will not thin out my list. You claim be to intelligent read my comment and dissect the information for yourself. My issue with only looking at category 3 and above storms is that sometimes the smaller storms can cause as much damage depending on where they hit. Not only that but by reducing the number of storms you look at, the difference in numbers is staggering. Also by only having the continental US you are excluding American citizens affected by hurricanes.

          • September 20, 2018 at 1:34 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            You kind of have to in order to take up this debate. Rosenblatt is so stupid he thinks Craig missed Hurricanes, even though the conversation started like this:

            “Are Category 4 and 5 hurricanes increasing in number?”

            From Craig, and then he provided his evidence they are not.

            Craig’s issue is with the implication that national disasters are increasing due to climate change.

            Your list provides nothing to this argument. At all. Rosenblatt then got completely off topic, and missed in your post when you went over none of the storms were category 3 or higher, and in context, that means Craig didn’t miss any storms.

            Rosenblatt, the question is did YOU read what was posted? You claimed again and again Craig didn’t.

            I am not entirely sure Craig is right about hurricanes as it is, but you look foolish when you make such big errors on the debate.

          • September 20, 2018 at 2:05 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Bob says: Craig’s issue is with the implication that national disasters are increasing due to climate change.

            Craig Cornell says: From 2005 (Katrina) until today, NO hurricanes have reached the U.S. mainland.

            (Rosenblatt asks: Where does Craig say anything here about climate change? He simply posted that 0 hurricanes have hit the mainland in the last 13 years!)

            Bob says: I am not entirely sure Craig is right about hurricanes

            There have been over 10 hurricanes that hit the US mainland since 2005. He’s not right that there have been zero since 2005. End of debate.

  • September 14, 2018 at 8:41 am
    Yes says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 2

    “I only seem liberal because I believe that hurricanes are caused by high barometric pressure and not gay marriage.”

    This quote seems to fit.

  • September 14, 2018 at 5:27 pm
    Craig Cornell says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 3

    I may have gotten the data wrong on the definition of a “hurricane” when it came to hurricanes that hit the US Mainland since 2005.

    But my central point is backed up by all science: hurricane activity, according to real hurricane scientists, does NOT indicate any change for the worse, no matter how many times CNN talks about Climate Change when a hurricane develops.

    The science, folks, the science. Try to be honest for once.

    • September 14, 2018 at 5:32 pm
      helpingout says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 4

      I truly do not know if you should be preaching about the science when I rarely see you digging into the science behind many things you post. Science (I am talking about scientific research) has to deal a lot with statistically significant data and bias of studies. While you look at real scientists who have degrees they all admit the client is changing. While it is not just Global warming, it is also about global cooling and the rapid changes between the two that are affecting the climate.

      I do appreciate you admitting you could be wrong about it (first time in my experience debating you), your central point is not backed up by the science. It could be backed up by science that is not true, but real people who are more intelligent (in the field of science) agree with climate change is happening.

      • September 14, 2018 at 6:07 pm
        Craig Cornell says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 4

        Did I ever say Climate Change is not happening? No. Never.

        What I said is that the tying of every weather event to Climate Change is not only unscientific hysteria, it is idiotic. What I said is that the science around Climate Change is some of the most complicated science in any field, and the number of times predictions around Climate Change have been flat wrong should cause everyone to be skeptical of all the doom saying.

        Simple fact: no one really knows exactly what is happening or exactly why. And they especially don’t know what to do about it, other than shut down the economy completely. Because all the incremental solutions – like electric cars – have almost zero scientific impact on reducing CO2 production, while I am being forced to subsidize such nonsense.

        And then I have multiple people – like you – attack me. Without citing any science to back you up.

        Proving my point: all hysteria, no facts.

        • September 17, 2018 at 4:40 pm
          Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 4

          Just in. Scientists are now saying the UK is due for a Tsunami. Of course there hasn’t been one to hit them for 10,000 years according to evidence, but it could, right?

      • September 17, 2018 at 5:29 pm
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 3

        I know; Craig should discuss the matters in the subjects of the article IJ posts. I also know you’d like to censor the opinions of those with whom you disagree, mainly because you can’t often reply in a mature manner, with facts and stats. …. that’s just my opinion.

  • September 14, 2018 at 5:29 pm
    Craig Cornell says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 3

    And Rosenblatt, you keep claiming there is some global evidence to offset the US evidence, some evidence that hurricanes have become worse or more frequent due to Climate Change.

    Man up. Prove it.

    • September 14, 2018 at 7:13 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 6
      Thumb down 3

      I was skeptical of the “facts” you and Polar kept harping were true. You never provided evidence to prove your argument. Heck, you just admitted your data was wrong. You acknowledged your “facts” were wrong. THAT was my point. There’s nothing more I have to do, except to say thank you for posting that your “facts” were actually just made up nonsense.

      • September 14, 2018 at 7:54 pm
        Craig Cornell says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 3

        I admitted one statement wasn’t accurate. ALL of my other statements were right on: hurricane activity is no worse than in the past, in either intensity or frequency.

        And you can’t prove otherwise, even if you pretend you can.

      • September 17, 2018 at 4:37 pm
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 3

        Rosenblatt, many posters have given you links and info and you would rather argue and try to dispute them. When are you going to wake up and smell the coffee? Craig is right and you are wrong to argue with him.

  • September 14, 2018 at 8:06 pm
    Craig Cornell says:
  • September 16, 2018 at 5:01 pm
    Rosenblatt says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 2

    Dude … do you even read the articles you link???

    “”One of the reasons researchers believe that there hasn’t been a real change in hurricane seasons is that Atlantic hurricane seasons have been average, as measured by accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) since 2006. ACE is a measure of tropical cyclone activity, taking into account the number, strength and duration of all the tropical cyclones in a season. According to the researchers, “The 2006-2014 annual mean ACE is 97, compared to a 1951-2000 mean of 93.”

    In addition, major hurricanes have developed in the past nine years, they just have not made landfall in the United States. “”

    • September 17, 2018 at 1:41 pm
      Craig Cornell says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 3

      “. . . Atlantic hurricane seasons have been average . . .”

      Let me translate: Climate Change has NOT increased hurricane activity.

      Do you even read the information? This entire thread has been a discussion about Climate Change. Hello?

      • September 17, 2018 at 2:16 pm
        Rosenblatt says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 1

        craig cornell says: The facts are these: there have been far fewer hurricanes over the past 15 years than normal.

        craig cornell says: From 2005 (Katrina) until today, NO hurricanes have reached the U.S. mainland (Sandy was a tropical storm when it reached land).

        The entire thread has been about Climate Change? Suuuuuuuuure it has … if we ignore the multiple posts you made trying to argue that hurricane activity has actually been decreasing over the past 15 years.

        • September 20, 2018 at 1:38 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 1

          “craig cornell says: From 2005 (Katrina) until today, NO hurricanes have reached the U.S. mainland (Sandy was a tropical storm when it reached land).”

          A misspeak, it was very clear when looking at the surrounding wording “major” hurricanes, and:

          “Are Category 4 and 5 hurricanes increasing in number?”

          You are being disingenuous, and, well, a snot nosed brat.

          • September 20, 2018 at 2:07 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Thanks for adding nothing to the debate, Bob. Glad to see you took the time to post simply to attack me. Great talk buddy. (end sarcasm).

            Craig wrote multiple times that there were 0 hurricanes since Katrina, NEVER ONCE saying anything about Climate Change.

            And hey … even if he would’ve posted “Climate Change isn’t impacting hurricanes as there have been 0 since 2005 to hit the US mainland”, he’d STILL be wrong!

          • September 20, 2018 at 2:16 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            PS – Hurricane Irma was a CAT 4 when it made landfall in FL. But okay bob, Craig is right there’s been no major hurricanes to make landfall on the mainland since 2005. Whatever you say there kiddo

          • September 20, 2018 at 2:29 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 2

            Rosenbratt:

            I came at you because you go at other people. Good try to save face, but I’m not yours.

            You above when referenced by helping out, on category of hurricanes in which ZERO were a category 3 or higher, said basically: “Look at all the hurricanes he missed!”

            I also in my other post said “I am not entirely sure Craig is right about hurricanes as it is, but you look foolish when you make such big errors on the debate.”

            So don’t come telling me now about one hurricane. You messed up in your post, it stands alone, look at your own actions, kiddo.

            Was that attacking Craig? Or was that basically just common sense? Your argument was actually an attack, a big one, it was meant ad hominem and you just tried it again with me.

            I don’t have a side, unlike you. You talk like the brats in my highschool, especially with the brat way you just talked to me above boy. Guys like you need to get clipped. You’re not an alpha. Sit back down, boy.

          • September 20, 2018 at 2:32 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            The topic in that post in particular was category 4. So you were incorrect that he missed hurricanes on that one.

            True, or false?

            We are going to keep it simple.

            So you have also messed up in this debate, due to your bias. In another post, TWO posts, I said I’m not entirely sure Craig is correct, and I don’t think Polar is correct.

            I did not support their arguments, BOY. I’m rather tired of it having to be one side or the other with you, and anyone who supports Polar at all is then attacked, which is what you did BOY.

            You messed up. Own it. I already told the other two where they did.

            I’m not inclined to believe you when you make sleaze ball arguments, boy. Try calling me kiddo again.

            Like I said, clip clip, kiddo.

            Or, take the argument at task and give me numbers. As I said above, neither of you are giving credible numbers, the difference though is you think you’re special. Do you know what I do to men (boys) who think they are special? Clip clip, and with good reason, mr Alpha. Put it away, or I’ll cut it off.

          • September 20, 2018 at 4:32 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            Listen up kiddo – keep threatening me and insulting me all you’d like…it only detracts from whatever point you’re trying to make.

            None of that changes the fact that both Craig and Polar were wrong that hurricane frequency has lessened since Katrina and that zero major hurricanes have made landfall in the USA since 2005. That’s all I’ve been saying, kiddo, and it’s true.

            You can call me boy, you can claim you’re not biased (which is laughable since you attack me for making a verifiable true statement but only beat around the bush saying ‘Craig and Polar MAY be wrong about their data’ even though they’ve already admitted they WERE wrong) and you can attack me all day long.

            The truth is I know what arguments they were actually making, I expressed skepticism towards their “facts”, they failed to prove their arguments with data, and helpingout and I both have evidence to support our side of the debate.

            If that’s not how to debate, kiddo, I don’t know what else to say to you. Oh, and you threatening to clip me if I call you kiddo only makes me more emboldened to stand up to your bullying. May I remind you, kiddo, that making death threats is illegal? Maybe you shouldn’t do that anymore? Maybe you should try to act like an adult and argue your points with rational arguments and evidence without resorting to threats of violence? Just an idea. You do you, kiddo.

          • September 20, 2018 at 4:33 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            To answer you directly:

            You said: The topic in that post in particular was category 4. So you were incorrect that he missed hurricanes on that one. True, or false?

            My answer: False. I was NOT incorrect — A CAT 4 storm has hit the US mainland since 2005. Its name was Irma. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

          • September 21, 2018 at 2:35 pm
            confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            yeah kiddo, i got to agree with rosenblatt here – a cat4 storm has hit the usa mainland since 2005. can’t believe you are really trying to argue otherwise

      • September 17, 2018 at 2:20 pm
        Rosenblatt says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 1

        PS: CLIMATE CHANGE applies to the ENTIRE planet, not just storms over the Atlantic Ocean.

        How can you honestly argue hurricane activity across the 7 oceans hasn’t changed if you’re excluding ~85% of the oceans on the planet? You can’t extrapolate that hurricane activity over 6 oceans is static because it’s been that way in 1 ocean.

        • September 17, 2018 at 5:35 pm
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 2

          Please try to focus on the discussion of the evidence that is pertinent. Many PRIOR studies have used ATLANTIC OCEAN HURRICANES ONLY. If the area is defined consistently, why are you changing the area discussed NOW? Please elaborate on your theory that GLOBAL hurricane activity has increased, providing all of the relevant stats, and a logically defined, rather than cherry-picked, starting period, and an equal length second period which supposedly has statistically-significantly more hurricanes.

          • September 18, 2018 at 8:17 am
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 2

            PolarBeaRepeal says: I agree on the warm ocean waters being an accelerator pedal for the storm. But if Climate Change were a credible reason for this storm growing in strength, why have there been so few Cat3 or Cat4 storms over the dozen plus years since Katrina?

            I just followed along with YOUR cherry-picked starting period!

  • September 17, 2018 at 2:33 pm
    Craig Cornell says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 3

    Here is what the article said, without ANY evidence to support it:

    “Warming oceans, a more rapidly warming arctic, melting ice sheets are all contributing in various way to conditions like what we’re observing now,” Francis said. “It’s favoring slow moving weather patterns, more intense tropical storms and heavier downpours. And they’re all more likely as we continue to warm the Earth.”

    And yet the actual hurricane activity tracked over the past 20 years by you know, meteorologists, does NOT support such scary monster stories. As indicated on Weather.com.

    You think you can prove it, Rosenblatt? Then prove it.

    • September 17, 2018 at 4:45 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 3

      Craig – let’s reset here and do a little analysis before you keep demanding I prove something I’m not arguing. Ready?

      Please count how many times in this thread where I disagreed about the influence (or lack thereof) of Climate Change on the frequency of hurricanes. Now count how many times I argued the “facts” you and Polar were spouting about how frequently hurricanes have occurred is wrong. Now compare how many times I said each of those things.

      (Hint: the score is zero to many, respectively)

      Now ask yourself “What exactly what Rosenblatt trying to say here?” Your conclusion should be “Rosenblatt kept disagreeing with us about how many significant global hurricanes have occurred. In fact, he never actually said Climate Change is or isn’t a factor in any way, shape, or form.” If your conclusion is “Rosenblatt is arguing Climate Change makes more hurricanes” then you need to count my ‘comments about the data you keep presenting is simply wrong’ again.

      • September 17, 2018 at 4:50 pm
        Craig Cornell says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 3

        I love it. “My position is I want to take both sides of the issue. That way, I can’t be wrong. I simply challenge everyone on everything, and take no stance at all. That way, I have a 50% chance of being right, and I don’t have to do anything else at all to prove my point. . .”

        • September 17, 2018 at 5:06 pm
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 0

          I have taken ONE stance in this ENTIRE thread — you and Polar kept posting “facts” that were totally wrong and not supported by any evidence. I have proven the ONLY argument I’ve made here.

          I’ve taken NO side on the “is Climate Change influencing hurricanes” debate, so it’s completely impossible for me to have taken BOTH sides of that debate. 0 =/= 2

          • September 17, 2018 at 5:37 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 3

            Craig posted several articles with studies and facts. I believe you’re trolling here by refuting everything posted by conservatives…

          • September 18, 2018 at 8:20 am
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 0

            I read the links Craig posted which refuted the arguments you guys kept making that I thought were wrong – that hurricane activity has decreased since Katrina (it hasn’t).

            I don’t understand why you two can’t understand this point.

            You were both wrong that hurricane activity has lessened since 2005 and that no CAT 3-5 storms have occurred since Katrina. That’s all I’ve been trying to say.

          • September 18, 2018 at 10:01 am
            helpingout says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 0

            This is my issue with Polar, Craig, and Agent. You post links to journals and only read the summaries of them. The studies themselves often times also refute the points you are attempting to make. You try to say that we cannot argue maturely vs you, but you are the ones refuting yourself and posting statistically significant figures (which Polar is very immature for your viewpoints)

          • September 18, 2018 at 4:51 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            …and then the person who actually READS the article and posts VERBATIM quotes from it to back up their arguments is called out for being a troll. To wit:

            Agent “Rosenblatt, many posters have given you links and info and you would rather argue and try to dispute them”

            (Actually Agent, I would rather read them and post what is actually said – not just base my argument off the URL or title of the post)

            Polar “Craig posted several articles with studies and facts. I believe you’re trolling here by refuting everything posted by conservative”

            (Actually Polar, if you post links that back up your argument with evidence and a statistically valid sample, I wouldn’t have to refute the incorrect summary of the article you tried to pass off as the conclusion)

  • September 18, 2018 at 8:47 am
    ??? says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 0

    I’m thrown off. I’ve been under the impression that the conservative crowd believes in natural climate change, but not climate changed caused by human influences.

    Where in the article does it mention anything about that controversial topic?

    It mentions the key factors that dictated this storms path and strength. The high pressure ridge forcing the storm more south; when it would have normally made it’s way up the eastern coast. And the slowing jet stream.

    Which of those two points are being argued? Is anyone saying that there were neither a high pressure ridge or a slowing jet stream? If not, there isn’t an argument against the climate playing a significant role in the development of Florence.

    The article goes on to mention significant ice melt – also, not a topic of debate. The ice is melting. the arguments have been about what causes the melt.

    the 45 some comments on this page arguing and debating about climate change is irrelevant.

    The discussion for this article, if about the climate, must be about whether you agree or disagree that there was in fact a high pressure ridge, slow jet stream, and significant ice melt around the poles. Is anyone disputing those facts?

    • September 18, 2018 at 1:47 pm
      craig cornell says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 6

      This is an article comparing hurricanes. The article quotes someone saying the conditions you describe will lead to more damaging storms.

      And yet there is no evidence of this in terms of hurricane activity so far. Hurricane activity recently is not more damaging or more frequent than average hurricane activity going back over 100 years.

      The doom and gloom in this article is bald faced speculation based on . . . nothing. As is often the case with Climate Religion.

      Stories like these with quotes like these are what causes conservatives to be skeptical of all Climate Change stories, it discredits reputable climate change reporting when “journalists” are so reckless with the truth. The Boy Who Cried Wolf Syndrome. When the wolf actually shows up, will anyone believe it?

      • September 18, 2018 at 3:09 pm
        ??? says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 0

        I apologize Craig, I didn’t comment on a reply, but i meant to.

        This is not an article comparing hurricanes. This article is explaining how various changes to the climate, regardless of the cause, are affecting the formation, strength and path of the hurricane. They mention the other two hurricanes (Harvey & Sandy) because they were similarly influenced by the mentioned climate factors (Ice Melt, Weak Jet Stream, High Pressure Ridge).

        “Warming oceans, a more rapidly warming arctic, melting ice sheets are all contributing in various way to conditions like what we’re observing now,” Francis said. “It’s favoring slow moving weather patterns, more intense tropical storms and heavier downpours. And they’re all more likely as we continue to warm the Earth.”

        This quote is the only mention toward any speculation of what is to come, and it is not baseless. Scientists understand how hurricanes form and strengthen. If those factors are occurring, and continue to occur in the world, regardless of what causes them, then it is likely that storms/hurricanes that form in the future will be affected similarly.

        I can’t accept the boy who cried wolf argument in regard to this article. There is no shouting about human influenced climate change. Simply that changes to the climate are happening, this is an example of what is happening, how it effects us, and if it continues to change in this direction we would/should expect similar outcomes.

        Again, to argue the facts presented, you would need to refute any changes in the climate (not only that humans help cause it). Do you believe that the “climate forces” that the article mentions are happening, or not (REGARDLESS of it’s actually effected by humans)?

    • September 18, 2018 at 4:11 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      “The discussion for this article, if about the climate, must be about whether you agree or disagree that there was in fact a high pressure ridge, slow jet stream, and significant ice melt around the poles. Is anyone disputing those facts?”

      I am not disputing those facts. And as I just read in your subsequent post where you quoted the article, warming ocean waters is definitely an influential factor here as well. Thank you for attempting to reset the conversation back to the topic discussed in the article.

  • September 18, 2018 at 3:08 pm
    ??? says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 0

    This is not an article comparing hurricanes. This article is explaining how various changes to the climate, regardless of the cause, are affecting the formation, strength and path of the hurricane. They mention the other two hurricanes (Harvey & Sandy) because they were similarly influenced by the mentioned climate factors (Ice Melt, Weak Jet Stream, High Pressure Ridge).

    “Warming oceans, a more rapidly warming arctic, melting ice sheets are all contributing in various way to conditions like what we’re observing now,” Francis said. “It’s favoring slow moving weather patterns, more intense tropical storms and heavier downpours. And they’re all more likely as we continue to warm the Earth.”

    This quote is the only mention toward any speculation of what is to come, and it is not baseless. Scientists understand how hurricanes form and strengthen. If those factors are occurring, and continue to occur in the world, regardless of what causes them, then it is likely that storms/hurricanes that form in the future will be affected similarly.

    I can’t accept the boy who cried wolf argument in regard to this article. There is no shouting about human influenced climate change. Simply that changes to the climate are happening, this is an example of what is happening, how it effects us, and if it continues to change in this direction we would/should expect similar outcomes.

    Again, to argue the facts presented, you would need to refute any changes in the climate (not only that humans help cause it). Do you believe that the “climate forces” that the article mentions are happening, or not (REGARDLESS of it’s actually effected by humans)?

    • September 18, 2018 at 4:25 pm
      Craig Cornell says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 2

      I don’t believe the “climate forces” the article mentions are having an impact on hurricanes. Why do I think this? Because there is NO EVIDENCE that these climate forces are making hurricanes either more powerful or more frequent, according to all records from actual meteorologists.

      You see, I actually do “believe in science”. I don’t just pretend that I do.

    • September 18, 2018 at 4:31 pm
      Craig Cornell says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 1

      The opening paragraph to the article:

      “As Hurricane Florence barrels toward North Carolina, it’s being strengthened and guided by a one-two punch of climate factors scientists have been tracking for years.”

      You see, the writer is definitely tying the “climate forces” to stronger hurricanes than before. How do I know?
      He says so in the opening paragraph.

      • September 18, 2018 at 4:47 pm
        Rosenblatt says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 0

        Pretty sure ??? knows the author is saying there are climate forces influencing hurricane impact. After all, ??? did start his last couple of paragraphs with:

        “This is not an article comparing hurricanes. This article is explaining how various changes to the climate, regardless of the cause, are affecting the formation, strength and path of the hurricane.”

        You can certainly argue if you believe that statement is true or not, but it seems to me like you made your last post as an “A HA – I GOT YOU … SEE, IT IS ABOUT CLIMATE IMPACTING HURRICANES!!” moment when ??? had already acknowledged that sentiment.

        • September 18, 2018 at 5:19 pm
          Craig Cornell says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 2

          But he didn’t acknowledge the lack of any scientific basis for connecting climate forces and stronger hurricanes. And there is none. Meaning the article is BS.

          • September 19, 2018 at 8:20 am
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            But he did talk about the science…

            “Scientists understand how hurricanes form and strengthen. If those factors are occurring, and continue to occur in the world, regardless of what causes them, then it is likely that storms/hurricanes that form in the future will be affected similarly.”

            …and then he asked if you did:

            “Again, to argue the facts presented, you would need to refute any changes in the climate (not only that humans help cause it). Do you believe that the “climate forces” that the article mentions are happening, or not (REGARDLESS of it’s actually effected by humans)?”

            #readingcomprehension101

  • September 19, 2018 at 1:33 pm
    craig cornell says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 1

    Man, Rosenblatt. You are one tough noggin to get through.

    Yes, the article made claims. But the actual historical evidence does not support those claims. There is NO evidence that the hurricanes have changed. And the article is using HURRICANES as the measure of the changing climate, whether the “climate forces” are man made or not.

    I can speculate that driverless cars will cause global warming. But the evidence? None existent. Get it yet? There is no scientific evidence for the claims.

    • September 19, 2018 at 2:11 pm
      J.S. says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      Conservative Commenters: You may or may not know grade school and high school science, I can’t say. But you definitely do not know university level, masters level or PhD level science, much less the specifics of climate science. You are disagreeing with the best experts earth has using primitive arguments trying to prove them wrong. You are using political arguments to make a case on scientific questions, disagreeing with the experts, as though you have something to say. You don’t! If you want to, study all of the known science on climate for the next 5 years or so, maybe longer.

      In the meantime, please stop commenting on the topic.

      My opinion may be just as informed as yours but I’m not trying to disprove the experts when I have nothing to offer. I’m just accepting their informed opinion. If the consensus opinion changes, I will too. Nothing will change your opinion.

      • September 20, 2018 at 3:16 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 1

        You’re right, you’re just shaming people who question the science, are arguing it is established fact (when it isn’t) are misrepresenting what scientists are saying, and want to then shut us up while you pass climate laws based on that, which affect everyone.

        You’re absolutely not trying to do anything that merits debate from the other side, right?

        Is there anything wrong with trying to “disprove the experts”? I don’t think so. However, passing climate laws, business control laws, things that affect the economy, there is an actual tangible affect, as opposed to offending the science God’s, you know.

        I also love how you started off pretending you weren’t insulting anyone, you’re not pretending they do or do not know grade school or high school level science? Keep it classy! (lame Pun intended on school level “class” / info).

        Why don’t you stop trying to shame republicans who question the pushed norm on this?

        The hubris to believe you control climate change to any large degree that could have a catastrophic level effect is something that should be rejected. Hardcore.

    • September 19, 2018 at 2:43 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 0

      Craig – when you said “But he didn’t acknowledge…” I thought you were talking about ??? and not the author. I apologize for misunderstanding who you were referencing.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*