How are climate denier claims of a quite hurricane season going ?

I think by now it is obvious to all that maxx is a fantasist, he also claims the Arctic ice is not melting, he supports this with a blog post of sea ice in winter, when any images of summer ice melt clearly show the ice has melted.

His answer here is more of the same

"We have in fact had very quite hurricane seasons for many years"

This is the denier fantasy, what are the facts, up till now we had indeed had only 1 hurricane above Cat.3 but hurricane numbers are at 10, far from quite this is one of the more active years in a while

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Atlantic_hurrica...

go back through the years and check for yourself and see what rubbish deniers like maxx are talking.

As for deniers claims of alarmist trying to link them to AGW, odd how that works as it is deniers who are trying to claim the absence of hurricanes (even if the absence is only in their minds) disproves AGW. But I doubt they will address that point anymore than they seem willing to try and answer your question.

Oh Dear Maxx, perhaps you should have stuck to your usual mime of ignoring me as when you try to answer you simply make a fool of yourself

a) look at your own posted graph it ends in 2004 yet you are trying to talk about 2005-present, whoops

b) Are you denying 10 as the number for 2012 or that numbers of hurricanes between 2006 were for the most part in the range of 5-6 that would be less than 10 would it not maxx. One year had a 12 and 2005 was a 15 which is the all time high, so the 10 we have now, with the season still not over) is hardly a low by any measure.

c) As for low activity since 2005, really you want to try and play that one

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20081126_...

you seem to be trying to limit this to level 5 hurricanes when anything above a 3 is consider a major hurricane, Katrina was only a level 3 when it made landfall in Louisiana

2008 had Bertha, Gustav, Ike, Omar and Paloma the first time 5 above cat 3 hurricanes formed in the same year, now perhaps denier calendars work differently but according to mine 2008 is after 2005.

So please tell me how 10 hurricanes constitutes a slow year when most of years since 2005 have been less, your lack of knowledge or willingness to even try to understand these issues is breathtaking. Based on these numbers with the exception of 2010, 2012 is easily one of the most active hurricane seasons since 2005. Others here accuse you of being payed by oil interests I personally doubt they would waste their money on the ill informed rot you cut & paste

It is not the strongest storm on record. It is, however, the largest Atlantic hurricane for at least the past quarter century. That is why it has been classified a 'superstorm' or a 'frankenstorm' despite what those ignorant of the news above state.

Maxx: As I have posted numerous times in here cyclones and hurricanes remain one of the unknowns as they are built and maintained by numerous variables. Here is what the IPCC 2007 report stated:

"A study with roughly 100-km grid spacing shows a decrease in tropical cyclone frequency globally and in the North Pacific but a regional increase over the North Atlantic and no significant changes in maximum intensity (Sugi et al., 2002). Yoshimura et al. (2006) use the same model but different SST patterns and two different convection schemes, and show a decrease in the global frequency of relatively weak tropical cyclones but no significant change in the frequency of intense storms. They also show that the regional changes are dependent on the SST pattern, and precipitation near the storm centres could increase in the future. Another study using a 50 km resolution model confirms this dependence on SST pattern, and also shows a consistent increase in precipitation intensity in future tropical cyclones (Chauvin et al., 2006). Another global modelling study with roughly a 100-km grid spacing finds a 6% decrease in tropical storms globally and a slight increase in intensity, with both increases and decreases regionally related to the El Niño-like base state response in the tropical Pacific to increased greenhouse gases (McDonald et al., 2005). Another study with the same resolution model indicates decreases in tropical cyclone frequency and intensity but more mean and extreme precipitation from the tropical cyclones simulated in the future in the western north Pacific (Hasegawa and Emori, 2005)."

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/e...

So while you are busy attempting to argue the hurricane and cyclone frequency is down the actual science moves onward. We passed that debate long ago. What the above states is that the number of tropical cyclones will either remain steady or decline however the precipitation will increase as will storm power as a percentage of the whole. Less hurricanes but those that do form will be stronger. However these projections still remain uncertain. You are arguing against something that was never stated.

Hurricanes are caused by Antarctic sea ice increasing. Kidding! Read this: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1275441-...

I will hold to the belief that man is too small to cause major climate changes. Please understand that today's satellites are far better than the ones used in the 1930s. The point is that "on record" sounds like a hysterical claim. Rememer that the planet is over 5 million years old.

Deniers aren't the only ones who understand that future predictions of catastrophic events is impossible. The IPCC has concluded this also in their 2001 TAR (Third Assessment Report), Chapter 14.2.2.2 final paragraph and not much has changed from this conclusion.

My sympathies for my US colleagues for this impending crisis

I read about the severe blowing all down the east coast - apparently the worst experienced since Ted Haggard

If you valued the principles of the Enlightenment (aka The Age of Reason) you would not refer to people who disagree with you by using pejorative names.

If you understood the Poisson distribution, you would not have asked such an embarrassingly silly question. One arrival in seven years suggests lambda is very small.

If you had done your homework, you would have known that a storm forecast to be 'at or near hurricane strength at landfall' may not even qualify as a hurricane, and certainly cannot reasonably be characterized as 'the storm of the century'.

If you would learn to spell, it would improve your credibility.

Strongest storm on record? Not by a long shot. In fact, it is only a category 1 storm. It is wide and will cause problems because of the cold front it is running into. But calling it the strongest storm on record is flat out rediculous.

Now it is the denialists who are quiet. Except for Madd Maxx. I think that he must be a bot.

Madd Maxx

<At least antarcticice you are consistent. Consistently WRONG.>

Yeah! Only Maxx knows anything.

According to the deniers, There is no hurricane

Sooner or later there was going to be a hurricane. How does Sandy prove man-made Global Warming?

--------------------------

We have in fact had very quite hurricane seasons for many years... years for which Warmists were screeching that man-made Global Warming causes more frequent and stronger hurricanes. But the record for hurricanes certainly shows that for the bunk that it is.

But given enough time, mother nature will give us a hurricane. The longer we went without a major hurricane the greater the odds became that we would have one. So ... OK, maybe Sandy is the one that is LONG OVERDUE by anyone's standard... especially WAY LONG OVERDUE by the WARMIST STANDARD. Just like the warming itself, is WAY LONG OVERDUE and MISSING.

--------------------------

antarcticice - Why do you always get it so dead-wrong? Do you work at it?

Before Sandy, the US didn't have a major hurricane since 2005, that's 7 years. That doesn't sound like the Warmist prediction of more frequent and stronger hurricanes due to your imaginary man-made Global Warming.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

Oh... and Tornadoes are way down too

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/torn...

And guess what... so are cyclones

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047711...

At least antarcticice you are consistent. Consistently WRONG.

--------------------------

antarcticice - Huff and puff and spin all you want to but GLOBAL hurricane activity is way down compared to the last couple of decades.

Global hurricane activity reaches new lows (graph updated to 2012)

http://climateaudit.org/2009/03/12/great-depressio...

--------------------------

According to an honest analysis of "Inconvenient Truth," almost none of the lies about it claimed by deniers are true.