Science, Innovation, Politics
'Of course, it could end this month or after, but it will end sometime'And of course, the hurricane that ends the drought will have the fingerprint of AGW all over it ;)
Hi Roger,Do you have calculated uncertainty limits for the trend? I am guessing (by eyeball) the data is so noisy that anything less than a huge trend (up or down)would likely take hundreds of years to be statistically significant.
Remarkable? It's extreme.
Totally consistent with AGW theory.AGW theory says poles warm more than tropics. Thus smaller delta T between arctic and tropics, thus fewer/less intense hurricanes.
It's totally consistent with AGW theory and totally inconsistent with currently fashionable AGW propaganda.
It must be caused by AGW because it is an instance of extreme non-weather. Real hurricane scientists point out that warming has no effect on the frequency of hurricanes, only the average intensity. Only CAGW partisans have claimed (with zero foundation) that AGW increases the number of hurricanes so this drought is a statistical fluke that refutes a Pachuriesque bit of nonsense.
"Real hurricane scientists point out that warming has no effect on the frequency of hurricanes, only the average intensity."I believe this is what their models say. However, the AGW physical theory predicts less energy available for storm heat engines because the pole/tropics temp difference will grow smaller.The data (this post) is consistent with the AGW physical theory not the models.
I'm not getting the bottom scale. Anyone care to explain?
-8-Joel McDadeX-axis shows storm number in chronological order, from 1-78. The Y-axis shows the number of days that passed between successive storms.Ask again if unclear, Thx!
doh! I got it. Nevermind.
Exactly what part of AGW theory postulates that the number of Cat 3, 4, 5 hurricanes that landfall on the USA will decrease? Does it theorize that the percentage of Cat 3, 4, 5 of all hurricanes will decrease? Does it predict that the tracks of most Cat 3, 4, 5 hurricanes will miss the USA? Are there data to validate these aspects?I sure don't see how 2878 days is "almost exactly" twice as long as the previous drought. Half of 2878 is 1439. I see a few lines close to 1500, and I see the longest previous line to be at about 2250 days; twice that is about 4500. The longest line just prior to this one, at about number 71, is about 1800; twice that is about 3600. What kind of rounding is being used?
Roger said 2878 days was longer than any previous drougbt since 1915. If you look at the figure more carefully, you'll notice the two previous droughts >2000 days were in the earliest part of the century.AGW theory does not, if I understand the field correctly, give an unequivocal or consensus answer about hurricanes, but one of the commoner conclusions seems to be that hurricanes will become rarer but more intense, on average.
Lol, the above is being used to support the "Global warming is dead" hypothesis. The hilarious thing about that is despite the current period, the average wait over the last 7 hurricanes is still well within historical norms.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.