NOAA: U.S. Completes Record 11 Straight Years Without Major Hurricane Strike

There is a parable about a foolish man building a house/argument on sand. I'd recommend review of this lesson.

 

Congratulations,you have successfully derailed a thread that you found to be an extremely uncomfortable and undefendable subject as I'm sure was your intent all along. Well done and maybe you will get a bonus for this and buy hour kids a nice Christmas present.

 

Of course you have failed to point out any irony. It seems you want to do anything but talk about the subject of the thread.

 

Actually the resident alarmists have conceded that there is no link between global warming and cyclones/hurricanes.

 

This thread was a wreck long before anyone derailed it (and there are many derailments here). In truth it was derailed at the outset. Here is some constructive advice:
- If you want to talk about a given topic, state your opinion clearly and give a source if you have one (not necessary but helpful). Remember that people will look at your source, so it should be a reliable one. If it is not a good source then don't be surprised if that source becomes a point of contention in your thread and you have to defend it.
- Your thread poisoned the well in the first sentence. You will get much better and more civil responses if you avoid characterizing people negatively at the outset. In your first paragraph alone you refer to any potential respondent as 'cultists' and 'true believers'. Pre-insulting people like this will not lead to the most civil of exchanges.

Your OP amounted to little more than flamebaiting and you got flamed in response .. is that really so surprising?

Here is how your OP could have gone: "Past predictions that the gulf was warmer than ever before and hurricanes were going to become stronger and more frequent don't seem to have panned out. Why is that?"

Notice one thing there. I said 'don't seem to have panned out' instead of making a blanket assertion of 'have definitely not panned out'. There is a good reason for stating it this way. Using softer language like 'seem' put's the proponents of the theory on the defensive. They have to then prove why the predictions have failed. Using strong language like 'definitely not' puts them on the attack. Because once you use an absolute statement like 'definitely not', all that someone needs to do is to show that your assertion is false (rather than showing their statement to be true). It's all about where the burden of proof lies.

But I am making the assumption here that what you want is a rational discourse. If flame wars is what you want, you are doing it correctly.

 

You forgot to mention the fact that premise in Sawyer's OP is correct. The flame accompanies the truth.

 

Thanks for showing up on queue to give another example of a bad post. Nothing more than flame bait. Don't you get tired of me owning you in flame wars? We could always discuss the issues for a nice change.

You forgot to mention that the premise in Sawyer's OP is not correct. (wow! that exchange was productive)

And sorry Master Po, your clumsy attempt at philosophy makes no literal or metaphorical sense. I already told you once. We can add philosopher to the list of things you definitely are not .. right after 'engineer'.

 

The premise is not correct? Which premise? No hurricane landfall for 11 years or the fact that after Katrina the media claim that this is going to be the future only worse?

 

The truth kinda trumps (pun intended) all the gibberish ^^ above. Sawyer's premise is correct.

 

No it isn't. (Your next move should be "Yes it is, infinity!"

 

Why would you ask me this question and not AFM? My question was posed as a mirror of his, intended to point out the nonproductive and contentious nature of his phrasing (as was evidenced by my ironic parenthetical statement which followed).


But to attempt to answer your direct question, the answer is 'neither'. Your question is a fallacy commonly called a false dilemma. It is a false dilemma because there are more than just those two premises offered in the OP. In fact, one of the false choices you offered is not even one offered in the OP.

The OP states that the "AGW Cult" made that claim. Not the media. This is a very important distinction. There are several actual premises offered in the OP both voiced and implied. Including:

- The press made statements about future hurricane activity
- Scientists made statements about future hurricane activity
- The gulf coast has had no hurricane landfall in 11 years
- The gulf coast is representative of the world as a whole
- The press was wrong
- Scientists were wrong
- Probably more implied that I am missing but that makes my point

Some of these are true and some of them are not. This makes for a muddled point which seems to prove more than it actually does. imo.

 

You've got to be an academic. Does anybody in the real world actually think like this. ^^

- - - Updated - - -

The fallacy of your comments is the plethora of fallacies used to muddy the water. Again this is only seen in academia and not in the real world.

 

You claim OP premise was incorrect. Instead of writing a word salad why don't you say which premise is incorrect?

BTW, asking you a question to clarify your position is not a logical fallacy.

 

That is what academics do - focus on the quantity of words instead of quality. The inability to clearly state a value for the climate sensitivity of CO2 as the basis for their beliefs on global warming is a prime example.

 

You are taking my juvenile exchange with AFM far to literally. It was an attempt to show how empty his statement was and intended ironically. That you are asking me to clarify my position and not for him to clarify his is kinda telling.

1) It's not a word salad. It's a pretty clear description of exactly what I mean. 2) You show with this question that you understand what it is that I mean despite your question above. In the first section you say that I make the claim that the premise in the op is false, and here you acknowledge that there are multiple premises by asking 'which premise'.

I very intentionally did not give my answers to the above premises because I have no idea at this point if you are an honest party in this exchange. Why would I provide answers to this if you have yet to even acknowledge that those premises are even present.

That is a true statement. However what you did was ask a question and then provide a false dilemma for my options to answer it. A false dilemma IS a logical fallacy.

 

Unbelievable that ^^. So what again is your answer on the climate sensitivity of CO2 that explains your position on global warming ??

 

Is this like your go-to thing? ... It comes up in every conversation you have. It has absolutely nothing to do with the thread. I think it is AFM code for "I have been backed into a corner and wish to leave now so I don't have to admit anything"

You know what you should do? You should start a thread about that, state a position, back it up and we can discuss it there. The responses in your new thread will be a civil (or not) as you make the OP, I am sure.

 

So what was Hurricane Sandy in 2012 when it slammed into NJ and NY?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Sandy

 

I wondered that myself but apparently it's official designation was a tropical storm by the time it hit the US. That's a technicality though and most of us would call it a hurricane.The point made in the OP remains valid, the past 11 years have had a very quiet hurricane season after the exact opposite was predicted by the AGW boys and girls.

"In a technical report released on Tuesday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reaffirmed its initial conclusion that Hurricane Sandy was no longer officially a hurricane when it made landfall on Oct. 29 near Brigantine, N.J., just north of Atlantic City. Instead, it was a “post-tropical cyclone” packing hurricane-force winds, the report said."

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/nws-confirms-sandy-was-not-a-hurricane-at-landfall-15589

 

I tried that and could not get an answer.

 

So basically you are just trolling.

 

I was 40 miles inland and about 90 miles north of where Hurricane Sandy made landfall and the drenching rain was coming "down" almost horizontally with massive wind gusts. I have been through Cat 2 hurricanes that were like local thunderstorms compared to Sandy. Furthermore the sheer size was off the charts.

So anyone who wants to pretend that this nation isn't in the path of severe hurricanes must be deluding themselves. Another big one is only a matter of time.

 

It would take a pretty tortured reading of my post to get that out of it. I am trying to have an honest conversation with you. Although it is fair to say that I was trolling AFM a bit with that post if you consider 'making fun of his non-information post in a juvenile exchange' to be trolling. But that takes two sides.

BTW - There was a lot of information in my post that you had to ignore to get to the point of a trolling accusation.

 

In what geologic period of time has North America or any continent for that matter not been in the path of severe hurricanes? This include periods when proto-humans were still trying to learn to use fire much less polluting the planet with CO2.

 

I have already posted information showing hurricanes and tropical storms are on the decline and have been for over 30 years. If you think about it, warming would not cause more hurricanes or tropical storms. The meme is that a warmer ocean will create more but in fact the opposite should happen. Storm fronts and extreme weather are caused by atmospheric temperature differences. As the world warms, it warms at a faster rate the further north you go in the NH. The tropics warm very little. This reduces the temperature differential between latitudes which should, in effect, reduce the chance of more extreme weather.

During the last glaciation the tropics only cooled by about 3C.