Hurricane Claudette was caused by SUVS

[Mill]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Millennium

What pure fallacies have I asserted? Where have I said anything about associations between global warming and severe weather? Please go back and read my posts and point this out.

So the wsr-88ds have been around for 15 years, what kind of climatological data set is that?

You said:

There is hardly any climo data that can be considering accurate that is more than a few hundred years old.

Are you kidding me!!! LOL!! Have you ever heard of paleoclimatology, for example? Or perhaps the Journal of Climate. Most of the articles in there are about climate from "more than a few hundred years" ago. Do you think they just make up the data??

More sidestepping, and still not a single link to disprove what I said. Climatology has little to do with modern climatology. I didn't know we still looked at a Tree's ring to determine if we are in a drought or not. We use rain guages and past RECORDED data now. There is a huge difference, but I wouldn't expect someone with your intelligence or lack of education about the subject to know anything about it. BTW, all you are doing is using google to try and find information to support your claim. Are you a google warrior? Is that all you can do? Use a search engine? How about doing some research and then TRYING to point out an article to me. Right now you are weakening with each turn.

Paleo vs modern? HAHAHA idiot.

Hey look! The N hemisphere temp drops when the southern hemisphere goes up. That couldn't be due to El/La Nino could it? NAH!

And hey, Paleoclimatology still doesn't say ANYTHING about tornadoes or Hurricanes. The most violent hurricane the US has encountered this century was in the 1960's. So why does anyone say global warming caused this hurricane? If Camille wasn't affected by WARMER temperatures back then(look at the run up after 1950, until the decrease lately) then how was Claudette? You want the answer? They are affecting by ocean and surface temperatures to some degree, but there is not ENOUGH data to determine if this is the result of temporary influences or a permanent warm up. You are WANTING to draw conclusions with data that doesn't even support your position. There is very little record of Hurricanes or Tornadoes prior to the 1900's, and most certainly not the databases we have now.

How are we supposed to make inferences without enough data? Why the more active 1998 and 1974 severe weather seasons? If you look at YOUR charts is seems we have been on a decline for a while in the Northern Hemi. The Southern has increased, but the ARTIC temps have dropped. Guess the polar ice caps are not going to be melting eh?

You said:
"Surprise, but the number of Violent tornadoes or Hurricanes has not increased moreso than any other fluctuations during the past 100 decades."
That statement cannot be proven and I asked you what data you had to back that up. Look back through the thread, I have made no assertion about the incidence of tornadoes on any timescale. So I don't get why you're asking me to disprove your statement when it stands on no grounds itself. Please, please point out where I said anything about the frequency of severe weather other than to call your bullsh!t.
You say:
"You are WANTING to draw conclusions with data that doesn't even support your position."
Exactly what conclusions am I drawing and what position do I have? I just pointed out where you have put your foot in your mouth by making ignorant statements like "there is no accurate climatological information that is more that a few hundred years old."

You are demonstrating that you have a very limited and incorrect view of what climate and climatology is. In order the know and study the climate processes today, we have to study the climate of the past. To know how something like an increase of greenhouse gases will affect our climate, you have to have some idea of what drives climate and the only way to do that is to look at the past.
You say:
"Climatology has little to do with modern climatology"
How so? And WTF is "modern climatology" and how does it differ from normal "climatology" as you put it?

I almost missed it, but you put your foot in your mouth again, when saying "Hey look! The N hemisphere temp drops when the southern hemisphere goes up. That couldn't be due to El/La Nino could it? NAH! "
Well, those figures you link to are for the time period 1400-present. You're telling me that you can pick out particular years in a plot that spans 600 years? Or that individual El Ninos are reflected in the 30-year running mean lines??

You say:
"They (hurrincanes) are affecting by ocean and surface temperatures to some degree, but there is not ENOUGH data to determine if this is the result of temporary influences or a permanent warm up."
To some degree?? Of course hurricanes are affected by ocean temperatures. SST is a prime factor in how intense a hurricane will be. If, as a result of global warming, global SSTs rise, then, on average, hurricanes will be more intense.
You say:
"How are we supposed to make inferences without enough data?"
By understanding the processes that drive climate and understanding past climate, that's how.
"BTW, did you want to LINK me a specific article in the Journal of Climate? All the papers I looked at were discussing current trends or very short past events."
Here, here.[/quote]

Supposed to be Paleo-Climatology vs Climatology. Picking on spelling and typos eh? Sure bet you have a strong argument. You still haven't proved we have accurate Climo data that is more than a few hundred centuries old. We don't. All we can do is look at things like tree rings and the like to get a FEEL of what happened. Anyways, sorry you don't what you are talking about. I guess you think shear is just a minor factor in Cane eh? Yeah you can have great temps, but what is major shear going to do? I will let you figure that out. BTW, you of course haven't told me anything I don't know yet, and have posted maybe or two half-relevant(me being nice) points. You still can do no more than accuse me of putting my foot in my mouth. You can't find ANYTHING to state Paleo records are as precise or as accurate as current(see last 150-200 years) records.

BTW, please understand how the NEXRAD can collect climo data... it can. It can estimate wind and rain. I didn't know we had a rainfall and wind station in every sq ft of the Nation. Oh we don't.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Supposed to be Paleo-Climatology vs Climatology. Picking on spelling and typos eh? Sure bet you have a strong argument. You still haven't proved we have accurate Climo data that is more than a few hundred centuries old. We don't. All we can do is look at things like tree rings and the like to get a FEEL of what happened. Anyways, sorry you don't what you are talking about. I guess you think shear is just a minor factor in Cane eh? Yeah you can have great temps, but what is major shear going to do? I will let you figure that out. BTW, you of course haven't told me anything I don't know yet, and have posted maybe or two half-relevant(me being nice) points. You still can do no more than accuse me of putting my foot in my mouth. You can't find ANYTHING to state Paleo records are as precise or as accurate as current(see last 150-200 years) records.

BTW, please understand how the NEXRAD can collect climo data... it can. It can estimate wind and rain. I didn't know we had a rainfall and wind station in every sq ft of the Nation. Oh we don't.

You say:
"Supposed to be Paleo-Climatology vs Climatology"
HTF am I supposed to know that? Its still a ignorant point to make, paleoclimatology and current climatology have alot to do with each other. Climate proxies such as tree rings and ice cores can provide very accurate records of past climate. Sure, the temporal and spatial resolution of such records is much much poorer than current records, but did I ever claim that the accuracy was the same? Can the climate proxies be used to help reconstruct past climate features? Yes, so there is accurate climatological data that is more than 100 years old. And you don't look at climate proxies and just get a "feel" for it as you put it. There is statistical analysis of the data, not some guy making stuff up while looking at a tree ring.
you say:
"Anyways, sorry you don't what you are talking about. I guess you think shear is just a minor factor in Cane eh? Yeah you can have great temps, but what is major shear going to do?"
No, did I ever say or imply that I think shear is not a major factor in hurricane formation? I said that "SSTs are a prime factor in hurricane intensity." Can there be other factors? Of course. Given two scenarios, both with equal atm. shear, but with different SSTs, which case will result in a more intense hurricane? Most likely the case with a higher SST.

you say:
"BTW, please understand how the NEXRAD can collect climo data... it can. It can estimate wind and rain."
I never said that wsr-88ds can't collect climological data. I implied that the 15 year data set is not as of yet an adequate climotological data set, esp. when talking about global warming and the implications of it.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Millennium

Supposed to be Paleo-Climatology vs Climatology. Picking on spelling and typos eh? Sure bet you have a strong argument. You still haven't proved we have accurate Climo data that is more than a few hundred centuries old. We don't. All we can do is look at things like tree rings and the like to get a FEEL of what happened. Anyways, sorry you don't what you are talking about. I guess you think shear is just a minor factor in Cane eh? Yeah you can have great temps, but what is major shear going to do? I will let you figure that out. BTW, you of course haven't told me anything I don't know yet, and have posted maybe or two half-relevant(me being nice) points. You still can do no more than accuse me of putting my foot in my mouth. You can't find ANYTHING to state Paleo records are as precise or as accurate as current(see last 150-200 years) records.

BTW, please understand how the NEXRAD can collect climo data... it can. It can estimate wind and rain. I didn't know we had a rainfall and wind station in every sq ft of the Nation. Oh we don't.

You say:
"Supposed to be Paleo-Climatology vs Climatology"
HTF am I supposed to know that? Its still a ignorant point to make, paleoclimatology and current climatology have alot to do with each other. Climate proxies such as tree rings and ice cores can provide very accurate records of past climate. Sure, the temporal and spatial resolution of such records is much much poorer than current records, but did I ever claim that the accuracy was the same? Can the climate proxies be used to help reconstruct past climate features? Yes, so there is accurate climatological data that is more than 100 years old. And you don't look at climate proxies and just get a "feel" for it as you put it. There is statistical analysis of the data, not some guy making stuff up while looking at a tree ring.
you say:
"Anyways, sorry you don't what you are talking about. I guess you think shear is just a minor factor in Cane eh? Yeah you can have great temps, but what is major shear going to do?"
No, did I ever say or imply that I think shear is not a major factor in hurricane formation? I said that "SSTs are a prime factor in hurricane intensity." Can there be other factors? Of course. Given two scenarios, both with equal atm. shear, but with different SSTs, which case will result in a more intense hurricane? Most likely the case with a higher SST.

you say:
"BTW, please understand how the NEXRAD can collect climo data... it can. It can estimate wind and rain."
I never said that wsr-88ds can't collect climological data. I implied that the 15 year data set is not as of yet an adequate climotological data set, esp. when talking about global warming and the implications of it.

Now you are bastardizing why the WSR-88D was brought up. It had to do with the "If a tree falls in the forest argument." If a tornado occurs in an unpopulated area, but the NEXRAD was putting out a TVS the whole time, we might be able to survey the area and conclude it was a tornado. Before, how would you even know where to look? You could only rely on inaccurate accounts from untrained citizens. There is a reason we have storm spotters and radio networks for them such as SKYWARN.

 

[Sleestak]

You can't argue with the global warming crowd Millennium. They are right and the rest of us are wrong. Science be damned!

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Millennium

Supposed to be Paleo-Climatology vs Climatology. Picking on spelling and typos eh? Sure bet you have a strong argument. You still haven't proved we have accurate Climo data that is more than a few hundred centuries old. We don't. All we can do is look at things like tree rings and the like to get a FEEL of what happened. Anyways, sorry you don't what you are talking about. I guess you think shear is just a minor factor in Cane eh? Yeah you can have great temps, but what is major shear going to do? I will let you figure that out. BTW, you of course haven't told me anything I don't know yet, and have posted maybe or two half-relevant(me being nice) points. You still can do no more than accuse me of putting my foot in my mouth. You can't find ANYTHING to state Paleo records are as precise or as accurate as current(see last 150-200 years) records.

BTW, please understand how the NEXRAD can collect climo data... it can. It can estimate wind and rain. I didn't know we had a rainfall and wind station in every sq ft of the Nation. Oh we don't.

You say:
"Supposed to be Paleo-Climatology vs Climatology"
HTF am I supposed to know that? Its still a ignorant point to make, paleoclimatology and current climatology have alot to do with each other. Climate proxies such as tree rings and ice cores can provide very accurate records of past climate. Sure, the temporal and spatial resolution of such records is much much poorer than current records, but did I ever claim that the accuracy was the same? Can the climate proxies be used to help reconstruct past climate features? Yes, so there is accurate climatological data that is more than 100 years old. And you don't look at climate proxies and just get a "feel" for it as you put it. There is statistical analysis of the data, not some guy making stuff up while looking at a tree ring.
you say:
"Anyways, sorry you don't what you are talking about. I guess you think shear is just a minor factor in Cane eh? Yeah you can have great temps, but what is major shear going to do?"
No, did I ever say or imply that I think shear is not a major factor in hurricane formation? I said that "SSTs are a prime factor in hurricane intensity." Can there be other factors? Of course. Given two scenarios, both with equal atm. shear, but with different SSTs, which case will result in a more intense hurricane? Most likely the case with a higher SST.

you say:
"BTW, please understand how the NEXRAD can collect climo data... it can. It can estimate wind and rain."
I never said that wsr-88ds can't collect climological data. I implied that the 15 year data set is not as of yet an adequate climotological data set, esp. when talking about global warming and the implications of it.

Now you are bastardizing why the WSR-88D was brought up. It had to do with the "If a tree falls in the forest argument." If a tornado occurs in an unpopulated area, but the NEXRAD was putting out a TVS the whole time, we might be able to survey the area and conclude it was a tornado. Before, how would you even know where to look? You could only rely on inaccurate accounts from untrained citizens. There is a reason we have storm spotters and radio networks for them such as SKYWARN.

I agree that wsr-88ds vastly improve detection of tornadoes. The wsr-88d 15 year dataset is not adequate because it is not long enough of a record to draw any kind of climatological conclusions. Drawing any conclusions from pre-wsr-88ds days is difficult as well, given the problems with detection that you pointed out. If you know this, then (getting back to the original point) why are you making claims such as "the number of Violent tornadoes has not increased moreso than any other fluctuations during the past 100 decades?" How could you ever definativly know that? For all we know, the number of violent tornadoes may decreased, increased or stayed the same within the past 100 decades or the past 100 years for that matter.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Millennium

Supposed to be Paleo-Climatology vs Climatology. Picking on spelling and typos eh? Sure bet you have a strong argument. You still haven't proved we have accurate Climo data that is more than a few hundred centuries old. We don't. All we can do is look at things like tree rings and the like to get a FEEL of what happened. Anyways, sorry you don't what you are talking about. I guess you think shear is just a minor factor in Cane eh? Yeah you can have great temps, but what is major shear going to do? I will let you figure that out. BTW, you of course haven't told me anything I don't know yet, and have posted maybe or two half-relevant(me being nice) points. You still can do no more than accuse me of putting my foot in my mouth. You can't find ANYTHING to state Paleo records are as precise or as accurate as current(see last 150-200 years) records.

BTW, please understand how the NEXRAD can collect climo data... it can. It can estimate wind and rain. I didn't know we had a rainfall and wind station in every sq ft of the Nation. Oh we don't.

You say:
"Supposed to be Paleo-Climatology vs Climatology"
HTF am I supposed to know that? Its still a ignorant point to make, paleoclimatology and current climatology have alot to do with each other. Climate proxies such as tree rings and ice cores can provide very accurate records of past climate. Sure, the temporal and spatial resolution of such records is much much poorer than current records, but did I ever claim that the accuracy was the same? Can the climate proxies be used to help reconstruct past climate features? Yes, so there is accurate climatological data that is more than 100 years old. And you don't look at climate proxies and just get a "feel" for it as you put it. There is statistical analysis of the data, not some guy making stuff up while looking at a tree ring.
you say:
"Anyways, sorry you don't what you are talking about. I guess you think shear is just a minor factor in Cane eh? Yeah you can have great temps, but what is major shear going to do?"
No, did I ever say or imply that I think shear is not a major factor in hurricane formation? I said that "SSTs are a prime factor in hurricane intensity." Can there be other factors? Of course. Given two scenarios, both with equal atm. shear, but with different SSTs, which case will result in a more intense hurricane? Most likely the case with a higher SST.

you say:
"BTW, please understand how the NEXRAD can collect climo data... it can. It can estimate wind and rain."
I never said that wsr-88ds can't collect climological data. I implied that the 15 year data set is not as of yet an adequate climotological data set, esp. when talking about global warming and the implications of it.

Now you are bastardizing why the WSR-88D was brought up. It had to do with the "If a tree falls in the forest argument." If a tornado occurs in an unpopulated area, but the NEXRAD was putting out a TVS the whole time, we might be able to survey the area and conclude it was a tornado. Before, how would you even know where to look? You could only rely on inaccurate accounts from untrained citizens. There is a reason we have storm spotters and radio networks for them such as SKYWARN.

I agree that wsr-88ds vastly improve detection of tornadoes. The wsr-88d 15 year dataset is not adequate because it is not long enough of a record to draw any kind of climatological conclusions. Drawing any conclusions from pre-wsr-88ds days is difficult as well, given the problems with detection that you pointed out. If you know this, then (getting back to the original point) why are you making claims such as "the number of Violent tornadoes has not increased moreso than any other fluctuations during the past 100 decades?" How could you ever definativly know that? For all we know, the number of violent tornadoes may decreased, increased or stayed the same within the past 100 decades or the past 100 years for that matter.

Because you can make inferences and hypotheses from actual data, rather than something experimental like Paleo-climatology. People hear what they want to hear. People discount El Nino, because it had to be GLOBAL warming that caused that Hurricane. There is no alternative. Global warming is the only cause of bad weather ever. Period.

That is the kind of stuff I am talking about, and stuff that I have encountered before. There is no way to be sure of the accuracy of Paleo-climatology, no more than the accuracy of Carbon dating when talking about certain time periods. There is no WAY to know for sure, or to make anything more than a guess. Maybe, it is a hypothesis to them, but I prefer something concrete and established. If I am going to make an inference, it is going to be off of GOOD data and not something that has never been widely popular or accepted.

If and when Paleo-climatology can show tornado data, it would be relevant to the debate. My point the whole time, is that the most violent outbreak of tornadoes occurred in 74, and the most violent US Hurricane happened in the 60's. Now why was that if we are still warming up?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Sleestak
You can't argue with the global warming crowd Millennium. They are right and the rest of us are wrong. Science be damned!

That is an interesting point you raise.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Sleestak
You can't argue with the global warming crowd Millennium. They are right and the rest of us are wrong. Science be damned!

That is an interesting point you raise.

As is yours.

 

[ReiAyanami]

the number of violent tornadoes has not increased

as compared to the peace loving hippy tornadoes

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Nope... it is cause by Moonbeam making waves again.

Too many ducks in the water at one time can be bad. My Caddy gets up to 31 mpg. It's a wonderful car. The white color reflects the suns rays into space like somebody else I know.

I know about these things... I've all the ducks in the water on this one.. they've been quacking about for quite some time and they tell me... it's all about the spin the Liberals put on the earth. That and the Kids of the Mexican folks who are still upset over the treaty of Hidalgo Something or another.. back in 1848.. Your White Caddy notwithstanding... the Moonbeams are a heating up the water and as the water rises the land is submerged... and the cane hurries while it can... and there it is.. Got not to do with anything Luny..

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Millennium


Because you can make inferences and hypotheses from actual data, rather than something experimental like Paleo-climatology. People hear what they want to hear. People discount El Nino, because it had to be GLOBAL warming that caused that Hurricane. There is no alternative. Global warming is the only cause of bad weather ever. Period.

That is the kind of stuff I am talking about, and stuff that I have encountered before. There is no way to be sure of the accuracy of Paleo-climatology, no more than the accuracy of Carbon dating when talking about certain time periods. There is no WAY to know for sure, or to make anything more than a guess. Maybe, it is a hypothesis to them, but I prefer something concrete and established. If I am going to make an inference, it is going to be off of GOOD data and not something that has never been widely popular or accepted.

If and when Paleo-climatology can show tornado data, it would be relevant to the debate. My point the whole time, is that the most violent outbreak of tornadoes occurred in 74, and the most violent US Hurricane happened in the 60's. Now why was that if we are still warming up?

Since climate in general is a very slow changing process, if we make observations about the current climate, we only have data about one type of climate, the current state. How are we to gain any additional information about climate and what would happen under different conditions?? By collecting and modeling past climate. I'm sorry for you if you don't think this is legit, but this is what climatology is based upon. Look in any physical climatology textbook and you'll see plenty of data and information based on climate proxies.

You say:
"Because you can make inferences and hypotheses from actual data"
What inferences did you make on actual data?? That the incidence of tornadoes has remained the same for 100s of years?? Where did you get that data?

You say:
"People hear what they want to hear. People discount El Nino, because it had to be GLOBAL warming that caused that Hurricane. There is no alternative. Global warming is the only cause of bad weather ever. Period."
Way to mischaracterize everything I've said. You're just assuming that I'm one of those people that you are talking about (why else would you be ranting about it in responce to me?).

You say:
"If I am going to make an inference, it is going to be off of GOOD data and not something that has never been widely popular or accepted."
You sure haven't done this here. BTW, climate proxies are widely popular and accepted.

You say:
"My point the whole time, is that the most violent outbreak of tornadoes occurred in 74, and the most violent US Hurricane happened in the 60's. Now why was that if we are still warming up?"
I don't get it. Above, you rant about the people of point to particular everts or seasons as evidence of global warming, yet here you are saying that since the most violent tornadoes were in 1974 and most single violent hurricane was in the 60's global warming is not occuring.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Millennium


Because you can make inferences and hypotheses from actual data, rather than something experimental like Paleo-climatology. People hear what they want to hear. People discount El Nino, because it had to be GLOBAL warming that caused that Hurricane. There is no alternative. Global warming is the only cause of bad weather ever. Period.

That is the kind of stuff I am talking about, and stuff that I have encountered before. There is no way to be sure of the accuracy of Paleo-climatology, no more than the accuracy of Carbon dating when talking about certain time periods. There is no WAY to know for sure, or to make anything more than a guess. Maybe, it is a hypothesis to them, but I prefer something concrete and established. If I am going to make an inference, it is going to be off of GOOD data and not something that has never been widely popular or accepted.

If and when Paleo-climatology can show tornado data, it would be relevant to the debate. My point the whole time, is that the most violent outbreak of tornadoes occurred in 74, and the most violent US Hurricane happened in the 60's. Now why was that if we are still warming up?

Since climate in general is a very slow changing process, if we make observations about the current climate, we only have data about one type of climate, the current state. How are we to gain any additional information about climate and what would happen under different conditions?? By collecting and modeling past climate. I'm sorry for you if you don't think this is legit, but this is what climatology is based upon. Look in any physical climatology textbook and you'll see plenty of data and information based on climate proxies.

You say:
"Because you can make inferences and hypotheses from actual data"
What inferences did you make on actual data?? That the incidence of tornadoes has remained the same for 100s of years?? Where did you get that data?

You say:
"People hear what they want to hear. People discount El Nino, because it had to be GLOBAL warming that caused that Hurricane. There is no alternative. Global warming is the only cause of bad weather ever. Period."
Way to mischaracterize everything I've said. You're just assuming that I'm one of those people that you are talking about (why else would you be ranting about it in responce to me?).

You say:
"If I am going to make an inference, it is going to be off of GOOD data and not something that has never been widely popular or accepted."
You sure haven't done this here. BTW, climate proxies are widely popular and accepted.

You say:
"My point the whole time, is that the most violent outbreak of tornadoes occurred in 74, and the most violent US Hurricane happened in the 60's. Now why was that if we are still warming up?"
I don't get it. Above, you rant about the people of point to particular everts or seasons as evidence of global warming, yet here you are saying that since the most violent tornadoes were in 1974 and most single violent hurricane was in the 60's global warming is not occuring.

I think you are looking at it in the wrong way. If GLOBAL warming was occuring, then why is the weather not been more violent? Why are our most violent storms in the past?

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Millennium




You say:
"My point the whole time, is that the most violent outbreak of tornadoes occurred in 74, and the most violent US Hurricane happened in the 60's. Now why was that if we are still warming up?"
I don't get it. Above, you rant about the people of point to particular everts or seasons as evidence of global warming, yet here you are saying that since the most violent tornadoes were in 1974 and most single violent hurricane was in the 60's global warming is not occuring.

I think you are looking at it in the wrong way. If GLOBAL warming was occuring, then why is the weather not been more violent? Why are our most violent storms in the past?

Because single events do not define climate. Using your logic I could claim that if we have the hottest summer on record this year it would prove that global warming is occuring.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Millennium




You say:
"My point the whole time, is that the most violent outbreak of tornadoes occurred in 74, and the most violent US Hurricane happened in the 60's. Now why was that if we are still warming up?"
I don't get it. Above, you rant about the people of point to particular everts or seasons as evidence of global warming, yet here you are saying that since the most violent tornadoes were in 1974 and most single violent hurricane was in the 60's global warming is not occuring.

I think you are looking at it in the wrong way. If GLOBAL warming was occuring, then why is the weather not been more violent? Why are our most violent storms in the past?

Because single events do not define climate. Using your logic I could claim that if we have the hottest summer on record this year it would prove that global warming is occuring.

I think the fact that our most violent weather has been during El Nino/La Nina is pretty damning evidence. Hey, everyone has their perspective and it is obvious we are not going to agree here. Let us save some typing and agree to disagree.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Millennium

I think the fact that our most violent weather has been during El Nino/La Nina is pretty damning evidence. Hey, everyone has their perspective and it is obvious we are not going to agree here. Let us save some typing and agree to disagree.

Fair enough. But just FYI
Text
"The black dots are the raw data and, again, the line is a filtered version of it. It's possible that the 1970s were a big time, or that the 1990s have represented a decrease, but, given the scatter of the data, I'm not too confident about that. The most days we've seen since 1921 in any year was 80 in 1954. The least has been 33 in 1987. Over the 75 year period, the mean number of days has been about 53/year, with a standard deviation of 9. As an aside, there are no statistically significant differences between El Niño, La Niña, and other years."

 

[LunarRay]

Millennium says
I think the fact that our most violent weather has been during El Nino/La Nina is pretty damning evidence. Hey, everyone has their perspective and it is obvious we are not going to agree here. Let us save some typing and agree to disagree.

***

The climatic events are termed as you indicate... the cause is many fold.. and dynamic... but, SUV emissions are of little importance to the overall ...

Earth has survived a pretty long time already and has had more pollution about than today... keep in mind Earth allows humans to be here for one purpose and when that purpose has been forfilled we will join the 90 + % of all creatures to have ever exist... we will become extinct... when we provide Earth the Plastic is Wants...