Global Warming Hoaxsters--The flip side of years of no hurricanes: Good luck runs out

[wildchild]

For years we have been told that global warming causes these hurricanes. Of course global warming is caused by people, so they say. If that is the case, how could recent decades been quiet as far as hurricanes are concerned while we have burning fossil fuels? According to the hoaxsters, the opposite should be true. The entire premise of this story goes against everything the global warming hoaxsters have put out over the last 40 years. Everything that FutureCurrents has copied and pasted has been contrary to this article. I wonder why that is. That right wing Associated Press must be at it again.

Of course, I still love the alarmism that is included in the story. This story is written by a global warming hoaxster, who can't even get the global warming hoaxster propaganda right. That is classic and highlights the stupidity of the entire argument.

http://news.yahoo.com/flip-side-years-no-hurricanes-good-luck-runs-135554175.html

"OCEAN CITY, Maryland (AP) — For millions of Americans living in the hurricane zones on the Gulf and East coasts, recent decades have been quiet — maybe too quiet.


Cities like Tampa, Houston, Jacksonville and Daytona Beach historically get hit with major hurricanes every 20 to 40 years, according to meteorologists. But those same places have now gone at least 70 years — sometimes more than a century — without getting smacked by those monster storms, according to data analyses by an MIT hurricane professor and The Associated Press."

 

[achilles28]

Climatologists can't reliably predict the weather 3 days in advance. So why should we be surprised they can't predict the weather decades in advance? First it was cooling, no warming! no cooling! with hurricanes becoming more frequent and severe....no wait, less!!

They have no idea. It's all pseudo science.

 

[futurecurrents]

They are getting stronger. Not more numerous.

 

[gwb-trading]

They are getting stronger. Not more numerous.

Not a single major hurricane has hit the U.S for a decade. The average intensity of hurricanes during the season has been below average for over a decade.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Speaking as a resident of Tampa, I would appreciate it if the lot of you would please stop jinxing this run of good luck.

Thank you.

 

[fhl]

Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels: ‘When Will Climate Scientists Say They Were Wrong?’


'Day after day, year after year, the hole that climate scientists have buried themselves in gets deeper and deeper. The longer that they wait to admit their overheated forecasts were wrong, the more they are going to harm all of science.'

--

edit: science has already been harmed

 

[futurecurrents]

Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels: ‘When Will Climate Scientists Say They Were Wrong?’


'Day after day, year after year, the hole that climate scientists have buried themselves in gets deeper and deeper. The longer that they wait to admit their overheated forecasts were wrong, the more they are going to harm all of science.'

--

edit: science has already been harmed

That chart is a clear case of selective data sets and deceptive presentation. The two temp sets shown are the the ones showing the least heat gain out of the six data sets generally used. The satellite data is problematic and the author John Christy has been shown wrong with his use of the data in the past. He is a "skeptic". There are also no probability bands around the model projections. If there were one could see that temps are within them. Also the "balloon temps" are from the middle latitudes and altitudes only. IOW the chart is BS propaganda, not science. It is typical of the obfuscation and deception that is promoted by the interested parties. In the past it was tobacco. Today it is global warming and the fossil fuel companies and their lackeys like the Cato Institute and the GOP.

 

[futurecurrents]

Patrick J. Michaels is the director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute.



lol

Yes, the fox says, the chickens will be just fine. Mmmmmm.

 

[fhl]

He is a "skeptic". ...... the fossil fuel companies and their lackeys like the Cato Institute and the GOP.

Global warming con men raking in billions pointing at others and claiming they're on the take.

Good one, fraudboy!

 

[jem]

what deceptive bs from you again fraudcurrents. you know the data sets don't matter... the instrument data sets only vary from the satellite data sets by de minimis amounts when compared to how badly the models missed.


secondly the probability bands would not change anything. as of 2 years ago... the models were outside the 2.5% cut off. (there were only two out of over 100 models were within the 2 sigma bands and at least one of those models predicted almost no warming... so it was not really a nutter model.

Even famous agw nutter scientists admit the models are failing outside the acceptable bands.
you have read this 10 times now... stop lying your ass off you troll.


http://www.spiegel.de/international...lems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html

Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.

SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?

Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.

That chart is a clear case of selective data sets and deceptive presentation. The two temp sets shown are the the ones showing the least heat gain out of the six data sets generally used. The satellite data is problematic and the author John Christy has been shown wrong with his use of the data in the past. He is a "skeptic". There are also no probability bands around the model projections. If there were one could see that temps are within them. Also the "balloon temps" are from the middle latitudes and altitudes only. IOW the chart is BS propaganda, not science. It is typical of the obfuscation and deception that is promoted by the interested parties. In the past it was tobacco. Today it is global warming and the fossil fuel companies and their lackeys like the Cato Institute and the GOP.