Hurricane Nicole never hit Florida

[sounding]

This will be the opening discussion at Thursday's (Nov 17) Weather Club meeting at 1:30 PM at Laurel Manor. There is no data showing hurricane force winds came with Nicole -- only tropical storm force winds. This is why The Weather Channel stopped reporting winds as Nicole hit the coast.

[blueash]

From the national hurricane center:
000
WTNT62 KNHC 100800
TCUAT2

Hurricane Nicole Tropical Cyclone Update
NWS National Hurricane Center Miami FL AL172022
300 AM EST Thu Nov 10 2022

...NICOLE MAKES LANDFALL ALONG THE EAST COAST OF FLORIDA JUST SOUTH
OF VERO BEACH...

Radar imagery from Miami and Melbourne shows the center of Nicole
has made landfall on the east coast of the Florida peninsula on
North Hutchinson Island just south of Vero Beach. The maximum
sustained winds are estimated to be 75 mph (120 km/h), and the
minimum central pressure is estimated to be 981 mb (28.97 inches)

Homes Crash Into Ocean, At Least Two Dead After Nicole Batters Florida | The Weather Channel (https://weather.com/safety/hurricane/news/2022-11-10-tropical-storm-nicole-live-updates-florida-impacts)

(​3:25 p.m. ET) Wind Gusts Up To 80 MPH
A​ new list of high wind reports includes gusts up to 80 mph in Melbourne, 78 mph in Cocoa Beach and 75 mph in Cape Canaveral. All those locations are in Brevard County. In Volusia County, Daytona Beach recorded a gust of 70 mph.

(4​:00 a.m. ET) Nicole Now A Tropical Storm Again
N​icole has weakened back to a strong tropical storm just one hour after its landfall. More weakening of the storm is expected as Nicole moves farther inland, but impacts from storm surge, strong winds and heavy rainfall will continue from Florida up the East Coast to end the workweek.

(​3:50 a.m. ET) Wind Gust Over 70 MPH
W​ind gusts of 70 mph or greater have been clocked on Florida's Atlantic coast this morning. That includes 73 mph at Playalinda Beach, 71 mph at Cape Canaveral and 70 mph at Melbourne.

(​3:00 a.m. ET) Nicole Makes Landfall
N​icole made landfall at 3 a.m. ET on Thursday morning just south of Vero Beach, Florida. Maximum sustained winds were 75 mph, making Nicole a Category 1 hurricane.

[sounding]

From the national hurricane center:
000
WTNT62 KNHC 100800
TCUAT2

Hurricane Nicole Tropical Cyclone Update
NWS National Hurricane Center Miami FL AL172022
300 AM EST Thu Nov 10 2022

...NICOLE MAKES LANDFALL ALONG THE EAST COAST OF FLORIDA JUST SOUTH
OF VERO BEACH...

Radar imagery from Miami and Melbourne shows the center of Nicole
has made landfall on the east coast of the Florida peninsula on
North Hutchinson Island just south of Vero Beach. The maximum
sustained winds are estimated to be 75 mph (120 km/h), and the
minimum central pressure is estimated to be 981 mb (28.97 inches)

Homes Crash Into Ocean, At Least Two Dead After Nicole Batters Florida | The Weather Channel (https://weather.com/safety/hurricane/news/2022-11-10-tropical-storm-nicole-live-updates-florida-impacts)

(​3:25 p.m. ET) Wind Gusts Up To 80 MPH
A​ new list of high wind reports includes gusts up to 80 mph in Melbourne, 78 mph in Cocoa Beach and 75 mph in Cape Canaveral. All those locations are in Brevard County. In Volusia County, Daytona Beach recorded a gust of 70 mph.

(4​:00 a.m. ET) Nicole Now A Tropical Storm Again
N​icole has weakened back to a strong tropical storm just one hour after its landfall. More weakening of the storm is expected as Nicole moves farther inland, but impacts from storm surge, strong winds and heavy rainfall will continue from Florida up the East Coast to end the workweek.

(​3:50 a.m. ET) Wind Gust Over 70 MPH
W​ind gusts of 70 mph or greater have been clocked on Florida's Atlantic coast this morning. That includes 73 mph at Playalinda Beach, 71 mph at Cape Canaveral and 70 mph at Melbourne.

(​3:00 a.m. ET) Nicole Makes Landfall
N​icole made landfall at 3 a.m. ET on Thursday morning just south of Vero Beach, Florida. Maximum sustained winds were 75 mph, making Nicole a Category 1 hurricane.

Correct -- but not one report of a measured (not estimated) sustained surface wind of hurricane force wind -- which is 74 mph or greater. Even though the above 3 AM report mentions 75 mph winds -- no one can find any valid reports -- unless you can.

[Bill14564]

Correct -- but not one report of a measured (not estimated) sustained surface wind of hurricane force wind -- which is 74 mph or greater. Even though the above 3 AM report mentions 75 mph winds -- no one can find any valid reports -- unless you can.

So are you claiming fake data, manipulated data, or fake news?

Oh, I know! The National Weather Service knew at 3AM that the wind speeds had decreased and the storm was not a hurricane but they were motivated by political reasons to postpone that announcement until 4AM. It's all part of the global climate change conspiracy!

[Keefelane66]

All I know it was windy not much difference between 73 and 75. For those that may have suffered damage I don’t think they could tell either. Once a tropical storm is named our insurance deductible goes from $500 to 2% assessed value for the duration.

[sounding]

So are you claiming fake data, manipulated data, or fake news?

Oh, I know! The National Weather Service knew at 3AM that the wind speeds had decreased and the storm was not a hurricane but they were motivated by political reasons to postpone that announcement until 4AM. It's all part of the global climate change conspiracy!

All I know is that there are NO wind reports showing Nicole produced hurricane strength winds in Florida. I don't deal in consensus, conspiracy, or narrative -- only data. The data says Nicole hit Florida as a tropical storm -- unless you can show me actual wind data saying otherwise.

[Bill14564]

All I know is that there are NO wind reports showing Nicole produced hurricane strength winds in Florida. I don't deal in consensus, conspiracy, or narrative -- only data. The data says Nicole hit Florida as a tropical storm -- unless you can show me actual wind data saying otherwise.

Where is the data showing Nicole hit as a TS? Where is the data showing Nicole was a hurricane at 2:30AM but no longer a hurricane at 3AM when it made landfall?

[sounding]

Where is the data showing Nicole hit as a TS? Where is the data showing Nicole was a hurricane at 2:30AM but no longer a hurricane at 3AM when it made landfall?

All that data will be shown on Nov 17, at 1:30 PM at Laurel Manor. Pictures (and data) are worth a thousand words. Also, I have queried dozens of meteorologists nationwide (including hurricane experts) and none have yet to identify any surface sustained wind data showing Nicole produce hurricane force winds during landfall. For those who wish look for themselves ... a good starting point is the Weather Underground which has lots of good historical wind data.

[ThirdOfFive]

Why does it matter??

[Bill14564]

All that data will be shown on Nov 17, at 1:30 PM at Laurel Manor. Pictures (and data) are worth a thousand words. Also, I have queried dozens of meteorologists nationwide (including hurricane experts) and none have yet to identify any surface sustained wind data showing Nicole produce hurricane force winds during landfall. For those who wish look for themselves ... a good starting point is the Weather Underground which has lots of good historical wind data.

So you *don't* have data to show Nicole was not a hurricane when it made landfall at 3AM. I can find any number of reports that it made landfall as a hurricane. Lacking any data to the contrary, I'll trust the reports.

Weather Underground was a good source, thank you. I had seen this page (https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/atlantic/2022/subtropical-storm-nicole)earlier then lost it. Interestingly enough, it shows hurricane strength at 3AM when Nicole made landfall.

As for Laurel Manor on the 17th, no thank you. I've already been to enough meetings and read enough of your writing to have a good idea what will be served up at the meeting.

[Kenswing]

Why does it matter??
Because without conspiracy theories conspiracy theorists have nothing to do.

[heron848]

Why does it matter??

Facts always matter.

[sounding]

So you *don't* have data to show Nicole was not a hurricane when it made landfall at 3AM. I can find any number of reports that it made landfall as a hurricane. Lacking any data to the contrary, I'll trust the reports.

Weather Underground was a good source, thank you. I had seen this page (https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/atlantic/2022/subtropical-storm-nicole)earlier then lost it. Interestingly enough, it shows hurricane strength at 3AM when Nicole made landfall.

As for Laurel Manor on the 17th, no thank you. I've already been to enough meetings and read enough of your writing to have a good idea what will be served up at the meeting.

1. Twisting what I said will not work. I said there is no data showing Nicole produced hurricane force winds. If you have this data, please provide.

2. The reference to "this page" is not data -- it does not provide the location of the weather station which produced that wind speed -- not does it provide the value of the maximum "sustained" wind versus wind gust.

[Altavia]

All I know it was windy not much difference between 73 and 75. For those that may have suffered damage I don’t think they could tell either.

Once a tropical storm is named our insurance deductible goes from $500 to 2% assessed value for the duration.

Looks like the OP on point for a verifying a very important distinction.

[RICH1]

The Jewish lasers wiped out the data….

[Taltarzac725]

Florida county puts damage from Nicole at $522 million | AP News (https://apnews.com/article/hurricanes-storms-florida-oceans-business-1ab108ae1ab2648b07626344c7f6ee32)

Nicole hit Florida very hard however you want to describe it.

[Worldseries27]

this will be the opening discussion at thursday's (nov 17) weather club meeting at 1:30 pm at laurel manor. There is no data showing hurricane force winds came with nicole -- only tropical storm force winds. This is why the weather channel stopped reporting winds as nicole hit the coast.
your op implies deception. To what end?

[Mrmean58]

I guess the implications are that since Nicole never made land as a hurricane people either 1) needed to react differently or 2) over reacted due to the "deceptive" reporting. I bet there is a lot of folks who either lost their homes to the surf or sustained flooding that would be to differ.

[sounding]

your op implies deception. To what end?

What's an "op" ?

[jojo]

I had screen damage from Nicole and called the insurance company because I need to replace a large birdcage screen. Parts could be repaired but it was old and we were considering replacing it. I assumed the wind deductible on our policy would apply which is $1000. They said no the hurricane deductible applied which is 2% of home value. I said it was a tropical storm. They said it was a hurricane when it made landfall therefore hurricane deductible applied. Ugh! We have never made a claim for home insurance ever and I guess that continues.

[Sandy and Ed]

What's an "op" ?
Old person or original poster. I like the former. Wonder how many other ways of defining. Sorry, you guys get back to discussing this.

[Worldseries27]

what's an "op" ?
see above. Anyway, i'll repeat, " to what end?"

[NoMo50]

I suppose to the real weather geeks this parsing of words has value. For the folks in Wilbur-by-the-Sea, whose homes wound up as flotsam in the Atlantic, the distinction is likely pointless.

[airstreamingypsy]

What's an "op" ?

Original post.

[airstreamingypsy]

So, let me see if I have the right. A group of Villagers, are holding a meeting to determine if Nicole was, or wasn't, a hurricane. LOL. I'm sure there's a reason why it matters to you, and your group, what I can't understand is why you think other people care. 74 mph, 73 mph, 76 mph..... is really all the same.

[sounding]

So, let me see if I have the right. A group of Villagers, are holding a meeting to determine if Nicole was, or wasn't, a hurricane. LOL. I'm sure there's a reason why it matters to you, and your group, what I can't understand is why you think other people care. 74 mph, 73 mph, 76 mph..... is really all the same.

Nothingcane Nicole is only the beginning of the meeting, because it is current events. All weather club meetings start with current events -- which is what many are interested in. After Nicole is a discussion of EPA's failure to use government weather data when creating their Endangerment Finding -- which is the legal basis of the Green New Deal. It's a minor issue, but important to some.

[sounding]

I had screen damage from Nicole and called the insurance company because I need to replace a large birdcage screen. Parts could be repaired but it was old and we were considering replacing it. I assumed the wind deductible on our policy would apply which is $1000. They said no the hurricane deductible applied which is 2% of home value. I said it was a tropical storm. They said it was a hurricane when it made landfall therefore hurricane deductible applied. Ugh! We have never made a claim for home insurance ever and I guess that continues.

The naming of hurricane, tropical storm, typhoon, etc is not important. It's the "weather" experienced which is important -- such as max wind speed, amount of rainfall, etc.

[Keefelane66]

I had screen damage from Nicole and called the insurance company because I need to replace a large birdcage screen. Parts could be repaired but it was old and we were considering replacing it. I assumed the wind deductible on our policy would apply which is $1000. They said no the hurricane deductible applied which is 2% of home value. I said it was a tropical storm. They said it was a hurricane when it made landfall therefore hurricane deductible applied. Ugh! We have never made a claim for home insurance ever and I guess that continues.
If the storm was a “no named storm” your deductible would apply but since Nicole was named and would be viewed as hurricane even if downgraded the 2% rule applies.

[Love2Swim]

This will be the opening discussion at Thursday's (Nov 17) Weather Club meeting at 1:30 PM at Laurel Manor. There is no data showing hurricane force winds came with Nicole -- only tropical storm force winds. This is why The Weather Channel stopped reporting winds as Nicole hit the coast.

And this is the same weather club that seems to have an agenda, discounts climate change. :a20:

[sounding]

And this is the same weather club that seems to have an agenda, discounts climate change. :a20:

The Weather Club does not do narrative, agenda, belief, consensus, rumor, or discounts -- only data. If you have data other than what is presented or discussed please provide -- for that is how science moves forward. For example, if you have evidence that Nicole hit Florida as a hurricane, please provide a sample Florida wind report. Also, if you have data showing that hurricanes are increasing, please provide that. If you can show that the earth has warmed for the last 7 years then please provide that data. If you know why the EPA refuses to make public the logic they used to claim CO2 is causing climate harm, please so provide.

[Miekies]

I had screen damage from Nicole and called the insurance company because I need to replace a large birdcage screen. Parts could be repaired but it was old and we were considering replacing it. I assumed the wind deductible on our policy would apply which is $1000. They said no the hurricane deductible applied which is 2% of home value. I said it was a tropical storm. They said it was a hurricane when it made landfall therefore hurricane deductible applied. Ugh! We have never made a claim for home insurance ever and I guess that continues.

Pretty sure if it's a named storm, regardless of TS or hurricane status the deductible is higher.

[ThirdOfFive]

The Weather Club does not do narrative, agenda, belief, consensus, rumor, or discounts -- only data. If you have data other than what is presented or discussed please provide -- for that is how science moves forward. For example, if you have evidence that Nicole hit Florida as a hurricane, please provide a sample Florida wind report. Also, if you have data showing that hurricanes are increasing, please provide that. If you can show that the earth has warmed for the last 7 years then please provide that data. If you know why the EPA refuses to make public the logic they used to claim CO2 is causing climate harm, please so provide.
Data is one thing. HOW that data is described, can be quite another.

Back in the day, living as a lad and young adult in the wilds of Northern Minnesota, we experienced a weather phenomenon called a “Canadian High”. Canadian highs usually followed a blizzard or a period of heavy snow. They were characterized by clear, bright blue skies, falling temperatures, and intermittent wind. Canadian highs were welcome; there was always cleanup after a heavy snow; plowing, shoveling, sometimes chainsaw work because of fallen trees and limbs, etc. Plus, the falling temps made icy roads better to drive on: anyone who has experienced a northern Minnesota winter can vouch firsthand for the fact that ice-covered roads at -30 degrees have MUCH better traction than those at, say, +30.

Then, one day, we no longer had “Canadian Highs”. They were instead called “Polar Vortexes”, with all the sinister connotations one could derive from the name. Meteorologists from Duluth to International Falls solemnly warned mothers of young children that the approaching polar vortex could contain GAWDawfully dangerous cold temps, to keep the tykes bundled up, don’t let ‘em outside alone, etc. etc., as well as depending on the depth of cold and velocity of expected wind, warnings about EXPOSED FLESH CAN FREEZE IN _____ MINUTES!!! Gone we’re the days of the welcome Canadian highs, being replaced instead by the apocalyptic warnings and admonishments regarding the upcoming polar vortex.

Some years after the name change, one of the meteorologists up there admitted that the name change was to make the event “more newsworthy”. Says a lot, perhaps too much, not about WHAT we are being told but WHY. Is panic more newsworthy? Apparently so.

So…yeah. Present the data. But keep the unnecessary flourishes out of it.

[Worldseries27]

this will be the opening discussion at thursday's (nov 17) weather club meeting at 1:30 pm at laurel manor. There is no data showing hurricane force winds came with nicole -- only tropical storm force winds. This is why the weather channel stopped reporting winds as nicole hit the coast.
so no response to post # 17

[sounding]

so no response to post # 17

The Weather Club is about data. What data are you talking about?

[jimjamuser]

Florida county puts damage from Nicole at $522 million | AP News (https://apnews.com/article/hurricanes-storms-florida-oceans-business-1ab108ae1ab2648b07626344c7f6ee32)

Nicole hit Florida very hard however you want to describe it.
Well, that link says that Nicole was a Category 1 HURRICANE when it hit. To me, the important thing was the link ALSO said that it was ONLY the 3 rd hurricane to hit Florida since 1853 when records started being kept. That fact coupled with the record Gulf summer temperatures leads ME to BELIEVE the predictions that the EARTH will keep having record heat for the next 30 years. Also, the FACT that worldwide the coral is dying and will be down to only 10% by 2090.

Global warming was mentioned, so I thought about the recent World Conference on the subject. The world considers it a GIANT problem even though perhaps our local weather club may think otherwise. Maybe they want to debate that out with Greta Thunberg. If they can get her here, then I WOULD attend that meeting.

[sounding]

Data is one thing. HOW that data is described, can be quite another.

Back in the day, living as a lad and young adult in the wilds of Northern Minnesota, we experienced a weather phenomenon called a “Canadian High”. Canadian highs usually followed a blizzard or a period of heavy snow. They were characterized by clear, bright blue skies, falling temperatures, and intermittent wind. Canadian highs were welcome; there was always cleanup after a heavy snow; plowing, shoveling, sometimes chainsaw work because of fallen trees and limbs, etc. Plus, the falling temps made icy roads better to drive on: anyone who has experienced a northern Minnesota winter can vouch firsthand for the fact that ice-covered roads at -30 degrees have MUCH better traction than those at, say, +30.

Then, one day, we no longer had “Canadian Highs”. They were instead called “Polar Vortexes”, with all the sinister connotations one could derive from the name. Meteorologists from Duluth to International Falls solemnly warned mothers of young children that the approaching polar vortex could contain GAWDawfully dangerous cold temps, to keep the tykes bundled up, don’t let ‘em outside alone, etc. etc., as well as depending on the depth of cold and velocity of expected wind, warnings about EXPOSED FLESH CAN FREEZE IN _____ MINUTES!!! Gone we’re the days of the welcome Canadian highs, being replaced instead by the apocalyptic warnings and admonishments regarding the upcoming polar vortex.

Some years after the name change, one of the meteorologists up there admitted that the name change was to make the event “more newsworthy”. Says a lot, perhaps too much, not about WHAT we are being told but WHY. Is panic more newsworthy? Apparently so.

So…yeah. Present the data. But keep the unnecessary flourishes out of it.

Ditto. With the media, it's all about sensationalism -- because it sells. All this verbiage about Polar Vortex, Atmospheric Rivers ... and no doubt more to come ... are nothing new -- just flowery labels for atmospheric characteristics that have been going on for millions of years. But in the Weather Club, hype and consensus are replaced by data.

[jimjamuser]

see above. Anyway, i'll repeat, " to what end?"
Personally and for what it is worth, I don't use OP. I prefer to say thread starter.

[sounding]

Well, that link says that Nicole was a Category 1 HURRICANE when it hit. To me, the important thing was the link ALSO said that it was ONLY the 3 rd hurricane to hit Florida since 1853 when records started being kept. That fact coupled with the record Gulf summer temperatures leads ME to BELIEVE the predictions that the EARTH will keep having record heat for the next 30 years. Also, the FACT that worldwide the coral is dying and will be down to only 10% by 2090.

Global warming was mentioned, so I thought about the recent World Conference on the subject. The world considers it a GIANT problem even though perhaps our local weather club may think otherwise. Maybe they want to debate that out with Greta Thunberg. If they can get her here, then I WOULD attend that meeting.

The AP is a great source of climate misinformation #1. For example, over 100 hurricanes have hit Florida since 1853 ... Why Does Florida Have So Many Hurricanes? - AZ Animals (https://a-z-animals.com/blog/why-does-florida-have-so-many-hurricanes/)

[sounding]

Well, that link says that Nicole was a Category 1 HURRICANE when it hit. To me, the important thing was the link ALSO said that it was ONLY the 3 rd hurricane to hit Florida since 1853 when records started being kept. That fact coupled with the record Gulf summer temperatures leads ME to BELIEVE the predictions that the EARTH will keep having record heat for the next 30 years. Also, the FACT that worldwide the coral is dying and will be down to only 10% by 2090.

Global warming was mentioned, so I thought about the recent World Conference on the subject. The world considers it a GIANT problem even though perhaps our local weather club may think otherwise. Maybe they want to debate that out with Greta Thunberg. If they can get her here, then I WOULD attend that meeting.

The AP is a great source of misinformation #2. How can they say Florida was hit by a hurricane if there is no data to support the claim? It's kinda like saying DDT causes cancer -- but it does not.

[jimjamuser]

Nothingcane Nicole is only the beginning of the meeting, because it is current events. All weather club meetings start with current events -- which is what many are interested in. After Nicole is a discussion of EPA's failure to use government weather data when creating their Endangerment Finding -- which is the legal basis of the Green New Deal. It's a minor issue, but important to some.
So, I am guessing that the 2nd part of the meeting is to "throw shade" on the Green New Deal and say that WIND generators lower property value, make people sterile, and are the work of the devil. Then the meeting finishes up with a rousing chorus of " the Flat Earth Society's Theme Song"

[jimjamuser]

The Weather Club does not do narrative, agenda, belief, consensus, rumor, or discounts -- only data. If you have data other than what is presented or discussed please provide -- for that is how science moves forward. For example, if you have evidence that Nicole hit Florida as a hurricane, please provide a sample Florida wind report. Also, if you have data showing that hurricanes are increasing, please provide that. If you can show that the earth has warmed for the last 7 years then please provide that data. If you know why the EPA refuses to make public the logic they used to claim CO2 is causing climate harm, please so provide.
Increased ocean CO2 has already caused worldwide reef coral to DIE. That is an established FACT. Just like worldwide glaciers are retreating. And large areas of Arctic peat-covered lands are burning adding more CO2. Just more FACTS.

[sounding]

So, I am guessing that the 2nd part of the meeting is to "throw shade" on the Green New Deal and say that WIND generators lower property value, make people sterile, and are the work of the devil. Then the meeting finishes up with a rousing chorus of " the Flat Earth Society's Theme Song"

The Weather Club does not throw anything, but instead examines data. In this case the EPA Endangerment Finding gives Congress the legal basis to implement the Green New Deal, because it "claims" CO2 and other greenhouse gases are harming the climate -- and that Finding lists specific claims -- which are easily checked against the government's own official data. Anyone who looks at the "data" as compared to the "claims" can see a problem. Would like the URL to see the EPA IG Report?

[sounding]

Increased ocean CO2 has already caused worldwide reef coral to DIE. That is an established FACT. Just like worldwide glaciers are retreating. And large areas of Arctic peat-covered lands are burning adding more CO2. Just more FACTS.

While facts can be fun, data trumps facts all the time. You know people are dying all the time -- everyday -- and yet the world population keeps growing. And corals, they die too, as they have been doing for millions of years. How do you think the coral foundations can be thousands of feet thick? Plus, the data shows coral are doing just fine because they love warm water -- which is why they grow in the world's warmest waters ... https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2022/08/Ridd-Record-Coral-GBR.pdf?mc_cid=4682239443&mc_eid=2757d1864c

[sounding]

Increased ocean CO2 has already caused worldwide reef coral to DIE. That is an established FACT. Just like worldwide glaciers are retreating. And large areas of Arctic peat-covered lands are burning adding more CO2. Just more FACTS.

Why are you worried about more CO2? It is plant food, and it helps keep the earth warm. Each time over the past several thousand years, the climate has been warmer than today, and they are called the climatic optimums, because those were the times when civilizations thrived, while during the intermediate cooling periods, there was famine and depopulation -- like during the Little Ice Age.

[sounding]

Well, that link says that Nicole was a Category 1 HURRICANE when it hit. To me, the important thing was the link ALSO said that it was ONLY the 3 rd hurricane to hit Florida since 1853 when records started being kept. That fact coupled with the record Gulf summer temperatures leads ME to BELIEVE the predictions that the EARTH will keep having record heat for the next 30 years. Also, the FACT that worldwide the coral is dying and will be down to only 10% by 2090.

Global warming was mentioned, so I thought about the recent World Conference on the subject. The world considers it a GIANT problem even though perhaps our local weather club may think otherwise. Maybe they want to debate that out with Greta Thunberg. If they can get her here, then I WOULD attend that meeting.

The AP is a great source of climate misinformation #3. Regarding numbers of Florida hurricanes -- and those that attend the Weather Club already know this -- in 1947 (when CO2 levels were much lower) Florida was hit 6 times by 4 hurricanes! No one back then complained about climate change. Why didn't the AP story mention that?

[Taltarzac725]

https://towardsdatascience.com/hypothesis-testing-for-data-scientists-everything-you-need-to-know-8c36ddde4cd2

The data really depends on your hypotheses. Or in computer parlance-- Garbage in, garbage out.

[sounding]

https://towardsdatascience.com/hypothesis-testing-for-data-scientists-everything-you-need-to-know-8c36ddde4cd2

The data really depends on your hypotheses. Or in computer parlance-- Garbage in, garbage out.

The data determines if a theory is right or wrong. Richard Feynman says it nicely in 60 seconds ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIxvQMhttq4

[HORNET]

And all the damage to peoples property is the only concern. What’s to debate!

[dewilson58]

And all the damage to peoples property is the only concern. What’s to debate!

:bigbow::bigbow::bigbow:

[sounding]

And all the damage to peoples property is the only concern. What’s to debate!

What's to debate? There's no debate -- but there are consequences -- depending on which groups you hang out with. Just Google "landfalling hurricanes" (with quotes) and you get 30,000 hits. Landfalling hurricanes are one of many trigger-points for children who throw paint on artwork and stand in the middle of roads to stop traffic and stand on blocks of ice on makeshift gallows to protest a non-problem -- called global warming. So now, officially, there is one more landfall hurricane -- but it is another in a long list of junk-science statistics -- Nicole did not hit Florida as a hurricane. In fact, there are many who don't even think Nicole ever attained hurricane strength to begin with -- because there is no validated supporting evidence -- unless you can find some. People and offices and media can say anything -- but when you ask them to provide supporting data, they change the subject, or call you a denier. And this is why the Weather Club keeps growing in size because they want to see the "data," so can see for themselves what is going on. You don't need to be a scientist to read temperature and wind data.

[Bill14564]

What's to debate? There's no debate -- but there are consequences -- depending on which groups you hang out with. Just Google "landfalling hurricanes" (with quotes) and you get 30,000 hits. Landfalling hurricanes are one of many trigger-points for children who throw paint on artwork and stand in the middle of roads to stop traffic and stand on blocks of ice on makeshift gallows to protest a non-problem -- called global warming. So now, officially, there is one more landfall hurricane -- but it is another in a long list of junk-science statistics -- Nicole did not hit Florida as a hurricane. In fact, there are many who don't even think Nicole ever attained hurricane strength to begin with -- because there is no validated supporting evidence -- unless you can find some. People and offices and media can say anything -- but when you ask them to provide supporting data, they change the subject, or call you a denier. And this is why the Weather Club keeps growing in size because they want to see the "data," so can see for themselves what is going on. You don't need to be a scientist to read temperature and wind data.

Where can I find the validated supporting evidence that Ian was a hurricane? That might be a good place to start looking for the Nicole evidence.

Alternately, where is the validated supporting evidence that Nicole was not a hurricane? Surely there must be data to show the wind speed was under hurricane rating throughout the entire life of the storm.

[sounding]

Where can I find the validated supporting evidence that Ian was a hurricane? That might be a good place to start looking for the Nicole evidence.

Alternately, where is the validated supporting evidence that Nicole was not a hurricane? Surely there must be data to show the wind speed was under hurricane rating throughout the entire life of the storm.

For Ian, or any storm, just go to the WeatherUnderground" and see the historic wind data for the location where the storm made landfall -- that is the easiest starting point. From there, you go the National Hurricane Center website, and then look into the actual aircraft recon data.

Regarding whether a storm was a hurricane or not, it's just a matter of using available data. For times and locations with no data, you are welcome to theorize all you want, but unless you are seasoned professional with accomplished experience in that field, your opinions will not go very far. But as for me, I'm just a data guy. Like my dad would always say, where's the beef. Anyway, enjoy tomorrow's global warming -- but it's just a 7-year trend -- going on 8.

[sounding]

I suppose to the real weather geeks this parsing of words has value. For the folks in Wilbur-by-the-Sea, whose homes wound up as flotsam in the Atlantic, the distinction is likely pointless.

Parsing of words is not important. What is important is why people continue to build on sandbars, in flood plains, next to volcanoes, fault zones, etc. Public education is failing society.

[Bill14564]

For Ian, or any storm, just go to the WeatherUnderground" and see the historic wind data for the location where the storm made landfall -- that is the easiest starting point. From there, you go the National Hurricane Center website, and then look into the actual aircraft recon data.

Regarding whether a storm was a hurricane or not, it's just a matter of using available data. For times and locations with no data, you are welcome to theorize all you want, but unless you are seasoned professional with accomplished experience in that field, your opinions will not go very far. But as for me, I'm just a data guy. Like my dad would always say, where's the beef. Anyway, enjoy tomorrow's global warming -- but it's just a 7-year trend -- going on 8.

?? The data shows a four year warming trend -- going on five

[sounding]

?? The data shows a four year warming trend -- going on five

Here is a graph of global surface (NOAA) temperature and satellite (UAH) temperature -- as compared to CO2. When you draw a linear trend line, the surface and satellite temperature shows slight cooling. Year 2022 continues the linear trend downward.

[jimjamuser]

Why are you worried about more CO2? It is plant food, and it helps keep the earth warm. Each time over the past several thousand years, the climate has been warmer than today, and they are called the climatic optimums, because those were the times when civilizations thrived, while during the intermediate cooling periods, there was famine and depopulation -- like during the Little Ice Age.
Yes, I agree that the excess CO2 that we have today is making the earth warmer. THAT is NOT a GOOD thing! It is a VERY bad thing. because of TODAY'S global warming, farmers in South America are migrating north to the US and adding to population pressure...........because we are the number 2 polluter in the world. That will make more pollution going to the upper atmosphere and thus more HEATING of the earth. The US may end up in a Climate Heating feedback loop (like a tightening vise) that we can't extract ourselves from. it is a bad situation for the US and a bad situation for the migrants.

Meanwhile, poor farmers and goat herders of central Africa are TODAY migrating toward Europe. Again, bad for the migrating people and BAD for Europe.

Please don't tell me that EXCESS CO2 is good for either the land or the oceans. I know better. I know a TRAIN WRECK when I see one developing.

[jimjamuser]

Parsing of words is not important. What is important is why people continue to build on sandbars, in flood plains, next to volcanoes, fault zones, etc. Public education is failing society.
That's true about public education. I would add that it is foolish to build on the ocean shoreline since the glaciers are melting and the oceans are rising. In 20 or 30 years Miami will be flooded at high tide. People will be swimming in the Miami Dolphins' football field.

[Bill14564]

Here is a graph of global surface (NOAA) temperature and satellite (UAH) temperature -- as compared to CO2. When you draw a linear trend line, the surface and satellite temperature shows slight cooling. Year 2022 continues the linear trend downward.

If you start from 2018 and include 2022 data there is a slight warming trend.

If you start at any year from 2010 to 2014 there is a significant warming trend. (I got tired of checking after that)

[fdpaq0580]

Facts always matter.

Agree!
So, is it "toe-MAY-toe" or "toe-MAH-toe"?
😕 Lives hang in the balance!

[fdpaq0580]

That's true about public education. I would add that it is foolish to build on the ocean shoreline since the glaciers are melting and the oceans are rising. In 20 or 30 years Miami will be flooded at high tide. People will be swimming in the Miami Dolphins' football field.

No worrie! Dolphins are great swimmers. 🐬🐬

[Nordhagen]

What's to debate? There's no debate -- but there are consequences -- depending on which groups you hang out with. Just Google "landfalling hurricanes" (with quotes) and you get 30,000 hits. Landfalling hurricanes are one of many trigger-points for children who throw paint on artwork and stand in the middle of roads to stop traffic and stand on blocks of ice on makeshift gallows to protest a non-problem -- called global warming. So now, officially, there is one more landfall hurricane -- but it is another in a long list of junk-science statistics -- Nicole did not hit Florida as a hurricane. In fact, there are many who don't even think Nicole ever attained hurricane strength to begin with -- because there is no validated supporting evidence -- unless you can find some. People and offices and media can say anything -- but when you ask them to provide supporting data, they change the subject, or call you a denier. And this is why the Weather Club keeps growing in size because they want to see the "data," so can see for themselves what is going on. You don't need to be a scientist to read temperature and wind data.
Just follow the money.

[sounding]

If you start from 2018 and include 2022 data there is a slight warming trend.

If you start at any year from 2010 to 2014 there is a significant warming trend. (I got tired of checking after that)

The current slight longer-term warming trend is because we are still thawing out from the Little Ice Age. But why is there a slight 7-year cooling trend (going on 8) now?

[Keefelane66]

Nothing to see here said the man behind the curtain, if you put a frog in a pot of boiling water it will instantly leap out. But if you put it in a pot filled with pleasantly tepid water and gradually heat it, the frog will remain in the water until it boils to death.
Similar to global climate change

[tvbound]

Here is a graph of global surface (NOAA) temperature and satellite (UAH) temperature -- as compared to CO2. When you draw a linear trend line, the surface and satellite temperature shows slight cooling. Year 2022 continues the linear trend downward.

Anyone with a modicum of skills can make a graph, what is the origin/source of this one? Since the difference between a hurricane and a tropical storm boils down to a negligible 1mph, of which the unfortunate people who had their property destroyed don't really care, what is the real reason for this thread?

[sounding]

Anyone with a modicum of skills can make a graph, what is the origin/source of this one? Since the difference between a hurricane and a tropical storm boils down to a negligible 1mph, of which the unfortunate people who had their property destroyed don't really care, what is the real reason for this thread?

It's not the who -- it's the data.

The UAH satellite data is here ... https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

The NOAA surface data is here ... Global Time Series | Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) (https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ann/12/1880-2022)

[Love2Swim]

Nothingcane Nicole is only the beginning of the meeting, because it is current events. All weather club meetings start with current events -- which is what many are interested in. After Nicole is a discussion of EPA's failure to use government weather data when creating their Endangerment Finding -- which is the legal basis of the Green New Deal. It's a minor issue, but important to some.

That sounds political to me. More conspiracy theories. Thanks, but no thanks. If I want to listen to conspiracy theories I'll watch Fox News.

[Bill14564]

The current slight longer-term warming trend is because we are still thawing out from the Little Ice Age. But why is there a slight 7-year cooling trend (going on 8) now?

Confirmation bias - you chose the small window that confirmed what you were looking for.

Remove the influence of a particularly warm 2016 and your 7-year cooling trend turns into 7-year (going on 8) warming trend.

We have a one-day trend of significant cooling - should I plan for snow on Thanksgiving? On the other hand, the temperature trend from September until yesterday shows significant warming and suggests a very hot December. Perhaps the timeline for a "trend" needs to be a tad bit longer.

I am suspicious of why you still don't understand this.

[Keefelane66]

It's not the who -- it's the data.

The UAH satellite data is here ... https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

The NOAA surface data is here ... Global Time Series | Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) (https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ann/12/1880-2022)
I’ll take the NASA for $500 john

[sounding]

That sounds political to me. More conspiracy theories. Thanks, but no thanks. If I want to listen to conspiracy theories I'll watch Fox News.

How is weather data political? Science is not political -- unless you are talking about political science -- but that's not science either. The Weather Club examines claims using government generated data. If you don't like the data, complain to the government -- not the Weather Club.

[sounding]

I’ll take the NASA for $500 john

NASA alters data like NOAA does. They say it's for a good cause -- but you decide ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_Rc301T-hY

[Bill14564]

... The Weather Club examines claims using government generated data. If you don't like the data, complain to the government -- not the Weather Club.

NASA alters data like NOAA does. They say it's for a good cause -- but you decide ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_Rc301T-hY

So the Weather Club examines claims using government generated data then disputes the data when it doesn't lead to the desired conclusion.

[sounding]

So the Weather Club examines claims using government generated data then disputes the data when it doesn't lead to the desired conclusion.

Again, twisting my words does not work. I did not dispute what NOAA and NASA do, I only inform people what is happening. At the Weather Club we actually use the "altered" data during the data comparisons -- we don't dismiss it. Note that only the "surface" temperature data is altered -- but not the satellite data -- at least not yet. But as for all the other forms of data, sea ice, winds, glaciers, volcanoes, and solar and oceanic cycles -- there is no altering as far as I know. Bottom line -- all available government data is used -- altered or not. It's really quite amazing to see what the media will not show you.

[Bill14564]

Again, twisting my words does not work. I did not dispute what NOAA and NASA do, I only inform people what is happening. At the Weather Club we actually use the "altered" data during the data comparisons -- we don't dismiss it. Note that only the "surface" temperature data is altered -- but not the satellite data -- at least not yet. But as for all the other forms of data, sea ice, winds, glaciers, volcanoes, and solar and oceanic cycles -- there is no altering as far as I know. Bottom line -- all available government data is used -- altered or not. It's really quite amazing to see what the media will not show you.

Did not twist your words at all - I quoted them exactly as you wrote them.

[ThirdOfFive]

Again, twisting my words does not work. I did not dispute what NOAA and NASA do, I only inform people what is happening. At the Weather Club we actually use the "altered" data during the data comparisons -- we don't dismiss it. Note that only the "surface" temperature data is altered -- but not the satellite data -- at least not yet. But as for all the other forms of data, sea ice, winds, glaciers, volcanoes, and solar and oceanic cycles -- there is no altering as far as I know. Bottom line -- all available government data is used -- altered or not. It's really quite amazing to see what the media will not show you.
Forgive my ignorance—but what is the purpose of the weather club? Activity clubs (poetry, chess, writing, astronomy, etc. etc.) I can understand. But what does the weather club do?

Even more precisely, what does it accomplish?

[Carlsondm]

This will be the opening discussion at Thursday's (Nov 17) Weather Club meeting at 1:30 PM at Laurel Manor. There is no data showing hurricane force winds came with Nicole -- only tropical storm force winds. This is why The Weather Channel stopped reporting winds as Nicole hit the coast.
Are you sure of your conclusion. The wind speed estimate at landfall may have been a best professional judgement (BPJ) based on several data sources. Sometimes a human makes the call. Hopefully the meeting includes representatives of the decision making/reporting meteorology staff. They can explain the basis for the news release.

[spinner1001]

This will be the opening discussion at Thursday's (Nov 17) Weather Club meeting at 1:30 PM at Laurel Manor. There is no data showing hurricane force winds came with Nicole -- only tropical storm force winds. This is why The Weather Channel stopped reporting winds as Nicole hit the coast.

I look forward to hearing from OP the names of people located precisely at the point of peak winds taking wind measurements with scientifically calibrated instruments to measure wind speeds. Almost certainly, there were none. Remote sensors or sensors not at the precise location cannot resolve whether the peak winds at landfall were 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 … mph. Consequently, there is a margin of error around published speed reports for peak winds at landfall for Nicole.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Much ado about nothing.

[jimjamuser]

The current slight longer-term warming trend is because we are still thawing out from the Little Ice Age. But why is there a slight 7-year cooling trend (going on 8) now?
The better (and more important with respect to killer hurricanes) question to ask .........is WHY is the Gulf of Mexico water showing a pattern of record temperatures in recent years. And WHY are world temperatures predicted to increase for the next 30 years? And why is the CO2 increasing in the upper atmosphere AND in the world's oceans?

Personally, I wonder why MORE members of the Villages Weather Club are NOT commenting and giving THEIR opinions on THIS forum? There must be OTHER points of view.

Just to throw out suggestions.......IMO a weather club might work with an agriculture club to grow trees from seeds and have as a club activity, the planting of small trees around the local area. This would be a good response to the excess CO2 in the atmosphere. They could advocate for electric-powered cars, boats, motorcycles, bicycles, golf carts, and lawnmowers here locally. They could advocate for locally-grown farm produce instead of produce TRUCKED in from long distances..........thus adding to the excess CO2. The US is the 2nd LARGEST polluting country on the planet so we are in a unique position to DO something about pollution (excess CO2). Pollution is a 1st world PROBLEM, so a Weather Club could be part of the SOLUTION. The large polluting countries are MAKING the WEATHER of the FUTURE.

A weather club could advocate against WARS which waste energy and cause excess pollution (CO2) production. A Weather Club could advocate FOR the prevention of old-growth forest destruction in the US and the Amazon Rain Forest. Weather is NOT just a LOCAL phenomenon, it is part of a large CHAIN of GLOBAL considerations

[jimjamuser]

Nothing to see here said the man behind the curtain, if you put a frog in a pot of boiling water it will instantly leap out. But if you put it in a pot filled with pleasantly tepid water and gradually heat it, the frog will remain in the water until it boils to death.
Similar to global climate change
Great analogy !

[Bill14564]

I look forward to hearing from OP the names of people located precisely at the point of peak winds taking wind measurements with scientifically calibrated instruments to measure wind speeds. Almost certainly, there were none. Remote sensors or sensors not at the precise location cannot resolve whether the peak winds at landfall were 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 … mph. Consequently, there is a margin of error around published speed reports for peak winds at landfall for Nicole.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Much ado about nothing.

Thank you

[jimjamuser]

That sounds political to me. More conspiracy theories. Thanks, but no thanks. If I want to listen to conspiracy theories I'll watch Fox News.
Yes, I agree. And I would like to hear from other members of the Weather Club to find out as a matter of transparency what the other members think. If the Weather Club is trying to recruit new members from The Village Forum, it would be nice to hear the philosophies of multiple members.

[jimjamuser]

How is weather data political? Science is not political -- unless you are talking about political science -- but that's not science either. The Weather Club examines claims using government generated data. If you don't like the data, complain to the government -- not the Weather Club.
"The Weather Club EXAMINES CLAIMS".........what claims and whose claims and why is the Weather Club the EXAMINER of these CLAIMS. Is the purpose of the club to REFUTE government scientific data and conclusions or to substantiate the government's conclusions? It seems confusing to me (and others) as to what the Weather Club (and these threads) are TRYING to accomplish. I would prefer a simple, straightforward discussion of the objectives here. Right now it is like a confusing SALES presentation. WHAT is being sold here?

[jimjamuser]

NASA alters data like NOAA does. They say it's for a good cause -- but you decide ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_Rc301T-hY
OK, I'll decide. The link says that on the graph, " CO2 has been growing fairly rapidly since 1900. OK that is logical because the world's population has been growing and in the 1st world there is large usage of burning fossil fuels in IC engines. The rest of the link made no sense to me because I see no particular point (other than confusion) to talk about the correlation of the temperature of ONE city on the coast of Iceland to the graph of increasing world CO2. The temperature of that ONE city could be affected by many factors, especially being on the coast.

Scientists have determined a correlation between the recorded temperatures all around the world (NOT just ONE city) and the increased CO2 in the world since 1900. The whole-earth temperatures ate increasing just like the CO2 increase BECAUSE they are CORRELATED. The proof is that glaciers are melting. Polar ice is melting. Reef coral are DYING. Animal species are going extinct at a RECORD pace. Economic migrants are moving northward into BOTH the US and Europe. And Scientific prediction is for INCREASED heat and hurricane STRENGTH for the next 30 years.

And one more thought.....it is easy enough to find a link or one expert to disagree with the GENERAL scientific CONSENSUS. And WHY ...........because the gas and coal industries in the US have a vested ECONOMIC interest in maintaining the STATUS QUO. They sell DIRTY energy! Therefore, they RESIST clean energy. There IS the "follow the money" situation. I wonder if that is discussed at the local WEATHER CLUB ?????

[jimjamuser]

Here is an article that the Weather Club SHOULD (?) be interested in........Newsbreak......"Devastating floods in Nigeria were 80 times more likely because of climate crisis". In the article, there are direct quotes from world renowned SCIENTISTS about global HEATING. The subject of this thread.

[Love2Swim]

The better (and more important with respect to killer hurricanes) question to ask .........is WHY is the Gulf of Mexico water showing a pattern of record temperatures in recent years. And WHY are world temperatures predicted to increase for the next 30 years? And why is the CO2 increasing in the upper atmosphere AND in the world's oceans?

Personally, I wonder why MORE members of the Villages Weather Club are NOT commenting and giving THEIR opinions on THIS forum? There must be OTHER points of view.

Just to throw out suggestions.......IMO a weather club might work with an agriculture club to grow trees from seeds and have as a club activity, the planting of small trees around the local area. This would be a good response to the excess CO2 in the atmosphere. They could advocate for electric-powered cars, boats, motorcycles, bicycles, golf carts, and lawnmowers here locally. They could advocate for locally-grown farm produce instead of produce TRUCKED in from long distances..........thus adding to the excess CO2. The US is the 2nd LARGEST polluting country on the planet so we are in a unique position to DO something about pollution (excess CO2). Pollution is a 1st world PROBLEM, so a Weather Club could be part of the SOLUTION. The large polluting countries are MAKING the WEATHER of the FUTURE.

A weather club could advocate against WARS which waste energy and cause excess pollution (CO2) production. A Weather Club could advocate FOR the prevention of old-growth forest destruction in the US and the Amazon Rain Forest. Weather is NOT just a LOCAL phenomenon, it is part of a large CHAIN of GLOBAL considerations

:bigbow:

[Keefelane66]

OK, I'll decide. The link says that on the graph, " CO2 has been growing fairly rapidly since 1900. OK that is logical because the world's population has been growing and in the 1st world there is large usage of burning fossil fuels in IC engines. The rest of the link made no sense to me because I see no particular point (other than confusion) to talk about the correlation of the temperature of ONE city on the coast of Iceland to the graph of increasing world CO2. The temperature of that ONE city could be affected by many factors, especially being on the coast.

Scientists have determined a correlation between the recorded temperatures all around the world (NOT just ONE city) and the increased CO2 in the world since 1900. The whole-earth temperatures ate increasing just like the CO2 increase BECAUSE they are CORRELATED. The proof is that glaciers are melting. Polar ice is melting. Reef coral are DYING. Animal species are going extinct at a RECORD pace. Economic migrants are moving northward into BOTH the US and Europe. And Scientific prediction is for INCREASED heat and hurricane STRENGTH for the next 30 years.

And one more thought.....it is easy enough to find a link or one expert to disagree with the GENERAL scientific CONSENSUS. And WHY ...........because the gas and coal industries in the US have a vested ECONOMIC interest in maintaining the STATUS QUO. They sell DIRTY energy! Therefore, they RESIST clean energy. There IS the "follow the money" situation. I wonder if that is discussed at the local WEATHER CLUB ?????
Just can’t make this stuff up
All told, ExxonMobil has spent more than $37 million on climate science denier organizations from 1998 through 2019, more than any individual funder besides Charles Koch and his brother, the late David Koch, the billionaire owners of the coal, oil and gas conglomerate Koch Industries.