TerryM Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 No, this is a completely false statement! Provide a link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Provide a link After google searching for 3 seconds... http://articles.sun-...-phil-klotzbach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 From your link: Satellites have been "crucial" toward determining which systems actually are tropical storms, Landsea said. From studying detailed satellite images of a storm's structure, forecasters can closely estimate a storm's strength. This is exactly what Verg claimed which you said was "a completely false statement" If you are going to insist on making false accusations, you should at least learn to link to something that agrees with your assessment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 From your link: Satellites have been "crucial" toward determining which systems actually are tropical storms, Landsea said. From studying detailed satellite images of a storm's structure, forecasters can closely estimate a storm's strength. This is exactly what Verg claimed which you said was "a completely false statement" If you are going to insist on making false accusations, you should at least learn to link to something that agrees with your assessment. He claimed that we could detect all significant storms from a distance with barometers. I don't even know what you're reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 He claimed that we could detect all storms from a distance with barometers. I am ****ing sick of all you making **** up in here. What's the point of being so disconnected from reality? Who are you people trying to convince? http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html I think that is the reanalysis. If not, let me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 I can't speak much for the rest of it. But doing a lot of arctic sea ice research the most BS thing is the Satellite record. 1. It goes back to 1961. That is 50+ years now of data. Just because we don't have algorithms giving us multi-channel measurements. Do not mean we do not have a reliable visible satellite record of ice. The same folks who ignore it completely accept the historical snow record based on theses images as well. 2. There was a couple world wars and globalization going on far before the satellite era. There has been global trade for centuries. The Russians have tried to exploit the NE Passage since the 1920s and have had ice stations since the 1930s. the way our incredible technologies over the years gets drummed down from this stuff to the magnificent buoys we have now in the arctic tracking anything want. We have a damn good grasp on these things. exploit what? It's a shipping lane, what is there to exploit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 He claimed that we could detect all significant storms from a distance with barometers. I am ****ing sick of all you making **** up in here. What's the point of being so disconnected from reality? Who are you people trying to convince? Calm down - actually he claimed that: The flooding data comes from satellite altimetry, and has nothing to do with population or land use. The definition of tropical storm and hurricane has not changed, and we have had continuous weather satellite coverage since 1960. http://science.nasa....missions/tiros/ The storms are named when they reach tropical storm strength, far out in the tropical Atlantic. While it is true that before 1960, we relied on ship and aircraft for storm detection, barometric storm detection is long range, so it is unlikely that significant storms were missed. Then you threw a hissy fit and accused him of "making a completely false statement", without a link. When called on it you offered a link that only strengthened his claim re. satellite detection. Now you accuse me of making things up? What did I make up and when did I do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Calm down - actually he claimed that: The flooding data comes from satellite altimetry, and has nothing to do with population or land use. The definition of tropical storm and hurricane has not changed, and we have had continuous weather satellite coverage since 1960. http://science.nasa....missions/tiros/ The storms are named when they reach tropical storm strength, far out in the tropical Atlantic. While it is true that before 1960, we relied on ship and aircraft for storm detection, barometric storm detection is long range, so it is unlikely that significant storms were missed. Then you threw a hissy fit and accused him of "making a completely false statement", without a link. When called on it you offered a link that only strengthened his claim re. satellite detection. Now you accuse me of making things up? What did I make up and when did I do so. The only reasonable explanation for what you're saying is you can't read. Look at the bolded, perhaps you might need a dictionary to understand the sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 It's good that you edited your initial response - it was a little over the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 exploit what? It's a shipping lane, what is there to exploit? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/business/global/warming-revives-old-dream-of-sea-route-in-russian-arctic.html?pagewanted=all Using it all the time is exploiting it..for commercial use. In the past there have been times routes near the coasts have opened up for short times in the summer..but not for large scale use that is starting to take place. But my point is that there are records going back from the Former Soviet Unions. Mostly used in peer reviewed papers from soviet shipping up there and buoys showing the ice has never been this low during those periods from the 1920s to the 1950s. Yet, time and time and time and time and time and time again this knowledge is dismissed here like we lived in the stone ages before the satellites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 The only reasonable explanation for what you're saying is you can't read. Look at the bolded, perhaps you might need a dictionary to understand the sentence. Your link responded to this how? BTW Your reference to me as one of "you people" I find offensive. Are you referring to me as a foreigner, an educated individual, an older person? Often "you people" is used by bigots referencing those they conciser to be the "other" and I for one resent it. A person who has been exposed to even a modicum of higher education should know enough to avoid such declasse generalizations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all Using it all the time is exploiting it..for commercial use. In the past there have been times routes near the coasts have opened up for short times in the summer..but not for large scale use that is starting to take place. But my point is that there are records going back from the Former Soviet Unions. Mostly used in peer reviewed papers from soviet shipping up there and buoys showing the ice has never been this low during those periods from the 1920s to the 1950s. Yet, time and time and time and time and time and time again this knowledge is dismissed here like we lived in the stone ages before the satellites. The word exploit as a verb has a connotation of doing something that is wrong for personal gain. That's fine though I expect nothing less from you when talking about the arctic. —vb 2. to take advantage of (a person, situation, etc), esp unethically or unjustly for one's own ends Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 The only reasonable explanation for what you're saying is you can't read. Look at the bolded, perhaps you might need a dictionary to understand the sentence. This is the data set we are talking about. Read the title please. Does it say the tropical West Atlantic. Tropical storms can be identified by pressure for hundreds of miles. In the 20th century the North Atlantic was continuously the cargo and passenger lane between North America and Europe. While i agree there were probably storms missed in the West Atlantic, That says nothing about the north Atlantic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 You cannot diagnose how strong a tropical cyclone is without being in the strongest winds or center. Suggesting anything otherwise is preposterous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 You cannot diagnose how strong a tropical cyclone is without being in the strongest winds or center. Suggesting anything otherwise is preposterous. Since the early '50s, we have had long range storm tracker planes, any major depression would be investigated, it was a danger to shipping. Note that the increase in activity started in the late '80s, deep in the satellite record, so your argument is total trolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 The word exploit as a verb has a connotation of doing something that is wrong for personal gain. That's fine though I expect nothing less from you when talking about the arctic. —vb 2. to take advantage of (a person, situation, etc), esp unethically or unjustly for one's own ends ex·ploit2 [ik-sploit] Show IPA verb (used with object) 1. to utilize, especially for profit; turn to practical account: to exploit a business opportunity. 2. to use selfishly for one's own ends: employers who exploit their workers. 3. to advance or further through exploitation; promote: He exploited his new movie through a series of guest appearances Stop trying to troll me and move the goal posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 You cannot diagnose how strong a tropical cyclone is without being in the strongest winds or center. Suggesting anything otherwise is preposterous. Vergent isn't saying that you can fully measure a TC through barometric measurement - your reading comprehension could use some work. But you can detect the presence of a TC through land and ship based barometers. This was an important technique in the pre-satellite era. Here is an excerpt from a paper from Landsea (who you must like since you linked to him earlier) which mentions the technique: The year 1909 marked the first time that a ship reported a hurricane by radio in the Atlantic basin (Neumann et al. 1999). Despite the substantial increase in shipping traffic during the first few decades of the twentieth century, more widespread utilization of onboard barometers and the use of radio to both send and receive reports about these storms led to modest decreases in ship-based observations of TCs because of better knowledge of where the systems were occurring and where they would likely track. Barometric data has been an integral part of weather monitoring and forecasting for a very long time. Were you not aware of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 The word exploit as a verb has a connotation of doing something that is wrong for personal gain. That's fine though I expect nothing less from you when talking about the arctic. —vb 2. to take advantage of (a person, situation, etc), esp unethically or unjustly for one's own ends ex·ploit 2 [ik-sploit] exploitation;promote: He exploited his new movie through a series of guest appearances Stop trying to troll me and move the goal posts. lol, you didn't use the word to signify promoting. Everyone who knows you on this forum knows what you insinuated. You didn't use the phrase move the goal posts correctly either but yes I'll move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Stop trying to troll me and move the goal posts. I was also accused of trolling in the past hour. Must be the go to strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 lol, you didn't use the word to signify promoting. Everyone who knows you on this forum knows what you insinuated. You didn't use the phrase move the goal posts correctly either but yes I'll move on. 2. There was a couple world wars and globalization going on far before the satellite era. There has been global trade for centuries. The Russians have tried to exploit the NE Passage since the 1920s and have had ice stations since the 1930s. the way our incredible technologies over the years gets drummed down from this stuff to the magnificent buoys we have now in the arctic tracking anything want. We have a damn good grasp on these things. verb (used with object) 1. to utilize, especially for profit; turn to practical account: to exploit a business opportunity. 2. to use selfishly for one's own ends: employers who exploit their workers. 3. to advance or further through exploitation; promote: He exploited his new movie through a series of guest appearances. Yeah man you got me. So let's review I make a comment about the Russians trying to use the NE Passage since the 1920s. I use the word exploit as a verb. Which fits the definition by many accounts. To describe their objectives. To show that Humans have a longer history in the arctic and an idea of what the arctic sea ice was like pre-sat era than has been suggested on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 I was also accused of trolling in the past hour. Must be the go to strategy. You said the sharper rise and falls over the last decade were from more sensitive equipment. Then you said: So the year we start using satellite measuring it starts falling....nice coincident. Face it... It's been melting gradually since well before the industrial era. I know it grinds your @as to hear it. You were asked to back that up: All of this fails to prove it wasn't a constant rise since the last ice age. Eventually we will hit a feedback that will cycle us back into an ice age... Isn't it every 15,000 years? We end up running around having to defend every last bogus claim to no end. I remember using United States Navy Data to prove Bottom Ice Melt which has been measured by buoys and satellites for decades and I was told it wasn't true after loading mountains of data. Your running around these threads with bogus claim after bogus claim. I guess I am the sucker trying to stop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 Fact: you like to post bull**** exponential charts. Amphibian declines and extinctions are critical concerns of biologists around the world. The estimated current rate of amphibian extinction is known, but how it compares to the background amphibian extinction rate from the fossil record has not been well studied. I compared current amphibian extinction rates with their reported background extinction rates using standard and fuzzy arithmetic. These calculations suggest that the current extinction rate of amphibians could be 211 times the background amphibian extinction rate. If current estimates of amphibian species in imminent danger of extinction are included in these calculations, then the current amphibian extinction rate may range from 25,039–45,474 times the background extinction rate for amphibians. It is difficult to explain this unprecedented and accelerating rate of extinction as a natural phenomenon. http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1670/0022-1511(2007)41%5B483:ADOECD%5D2.0.CO%3B2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Verg Perhaps we're destined to add spice to the amphibian soup since those in charge refuse to lower the heat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 You should probably rephrase this to "more observed TCs"...it is likely that better detection networks nowadays allow us to find storms that were not detectable even a couple decades ago and certainly before that. There's been no trend in the number of major hurricanes and no trend in the number of landfalling hurricanes which are the type of storms least likely to be overlooked in a more primitive detection system. Exactly, there haven't been more tropical systems lately, there have just been more observed one due to upgrades in technology in the last 30-40 years. I am sure that 100 years ago there were tropical systems that occurred that weren't detected at all. Satellite has allowed for more systems to be detected than ever before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Exactly, there haven't been more tropical systems lately, there have just been more observed one due to upgrades in technology in the last 30-40 years. I am sure that 100 years ago there were tropical systems that occurred that weren't detected at all. Satellite has allowed for more systems to be detected than ever before. There have certainly been more storms observed in populated areas - I'd assume about the same percentages in less observed areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Still no snow here in Southern Ontario. I'm sure that if this had occurred at some point in the 1940's, 50's, 60's - indeed at any time in my lifetime the news would not have escaped me. To pretend that this weather in any less than catastrophically out of kilter borders on the criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 Exactly, there haven't been more tropical systems lately, there have just been more observed one due to upgrades in technology in the last 30-40 years. I am sure that 100 years ago there were tropical systems that occurred that weren't detected at all. Satellite has allowed for more systems to be detected than ever before. What a lousey argument. The increase happened around 1990, thirty years after we began continuous satellite weather monitoring. All of the old data has been subjected to reanalysis. finally, this is the North Atlantic, so there is lots and lots of data. Global shipping lanes. Your argument validates the premise of the thread, the life experience of younger people clouds their judgement, climate change is normal to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 What a lousey argument. The increase happened around 1990, thirty years after we began continuous satellite weather monitoring. All of the old data has been subjected to reanalysis. finally, this is the North Atlantic, so there is lots and lots of data. Global shipping lanes. Your argument validates the premise of the thread, the life experience of younger people clouds their judgement, climate change is normal to them. The first graph can be explained easily 75-95 held more El Nino to La Nina years which El Nino is less favorable than La Nina in the N Atlantic basin, before 1975 satellites were in their infancy so you can probably skew the numbers downward as such. Trust me you are basing your claim upon the wrong thing. The second graph I have no idea what year that is so I have no point of reference. Also to skew the numbers more, before 1972 Sub-Tropical storms were not named nor recognized by NHC which does lower your totals over the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 The first graph can be explained easily 75-95 held more El Nino to La Nina years which El Nino is less favorable than La Nina in the N Atlantic basin, before 1975 satellites were in their infancy so you can probably skew the numbers downward as such. Trust me you are basing your claim upon the wrong thing. The second graph I have no idea what year that is so I have no point of reference. Also to skew the numbers more, before 1972 Sub-Tropical storms were not named nor recognized by NHC which does lower your totals over the long run. Do you actually understand that el-nino / la-nina happens in the tropical Pacific? The second graph are shipping routes where hard measurements have been made by the mandatory meteorology on such ships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Do you actually understand that el-nino / la-nina happens in the tropical Pacific? The second graph are shipping routs where hard measurements have been made by the mandatory meteorology on such ships. Obviously I do, but you seem to not understand that it effects the climate globally. For when though? Now? If so that is a faulty graph for your point of reference which is before satellite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.