[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Actually that would be four decades: the 1980s, the 1990s, the 2000s, and the 2010s. which would mean, if the research quoted was accurate, that hurricanes in 1980 were 32% less severe than hurricanes in 2020.

I did quite a bit of clicking around this morning to see if I could find evidence to support or refute the theory that there was that much variation in hurricane severity over the years, but the data I could find was all over the map. Interestingly enough the "severity" of hurricanes are measured in one of two ways; wind speed or barometric pressure, and depending on the method the list of "severe" storms can be quite different. Some people attempt to categorize hurricanes according to damage and/or deaths, but that is sophistic. For instance, the deadliest Atlantic hurricane on record was the "Great Hurricane" (Huracán San Calixto) killed over 22,000 people (some estimates of close to 30,000) but that was back in 1780! No data about wind speed of that storm is available, only estimates, though it is believed to have been a category 5. It should be noted as well that Huracán San Calixto struck the Antilles (Hispaniola, St. Kitts, Nevis, several other islands) which were agrarian cultures, growing mainly sugar cane, and as I assume slaves were counted as property, not people, the toll could have been far higher than reported.

Interestingly enough, 1780 is still the deadliest hurricane year on record, though I'll bet the farm that many people believe it was actually 2005 and Katrina.

Another fly in this particular ointment is that the old data records probably only the hurricanes that made landfall, and many don't, so it is quite possible that in years like 1780 there were quite a few more storms than were reported. Today we track every tropical depression using a variety of methods and get hour-by-hour updates, but 200 years ago those methods didn't exist.

Bottom line: we can choose whatever we want to believe and can find statistics to support it. But, as Mark Twain once observed, there are three kinds of untruths, "lies, damned lies, and statistics".

You are correct about the 4 decades. My bad, I will try harder in the future. Impressive that your post was so well-researched. As to the conclusion that basically anybody can find support for anything that they believe. Yes, I guess that is true. It is said that as people age their belief systems harden like their arteries. So, here in the Villages, it is hard to find open-minded discussions. I remember a few philosophy club meetings that I attended. It was a waste because one very closed-minded belligerent man would dominate the group discussions. I imagine that the Village weather and climate club has some rowdy exchanges. I can only imagine because I have never attended that club.

I guess each person has to make up their mind about how they feel about climate change, recent Global Warming, and whether hurricanes are increasing in intensity. For any family living in the coastal areas of Florida, it becomes a practical and NOT academic decision - they must decide IF they rebuild their destroyed homes and can they afford to rebuild to the newer housing standards (stilt basements). And Florida may eventually decide to set a no-building limit some certain distance from the water line - depending on if there are more KILLER hurricanes like IAN for the next 10 years.

So, here in north central Florida, the Villagers can be more academic about warming and intensifying hurricanes. The hurricane threat is not quite as real as someone living on the coast. I will just conclude by saying that we will likely know who is correct about Global Warming and hurricanes within the next 10 years. So. just buckle up and be aware!

[Davonu]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

No need to be sarcastic. We all know that the earths climate has gone thru a lot of changes since it formed. The current question is, has man-made destruction of habitats and man-made pollution exacerbated/increased the rate of rise of the average global temperature? I say it has. I am guessing you don't agree.

Mankind’s activity does effect climate. The big issue I have is with the argument that humans are solely responsible for…or even a MAJOR contributor to…climate change. Not even close.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Davonu

Mankind’s activity does effect climate. The big issue I have is with the argument that humans are solely responsible for…or even a MAJOR contributor to…climate change. Not even close.

We certainly are not solely responsible for climate change. And, as continuing study and discussion of the findings are known, the exact amount of effect will certainly be recalculated and stats revised. But, you might be familiar with the phrase, "the straw that broke the camel's back". Our growing population has been adding a lot of straws, particularly in the latter years. We have overloaded the camel far beyond normal load rate and the camel is suffering greatly. We better slow down before that last critical straw goes on or ....?

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by sounding

1. Florida's population is increasing because people are moving out of colder regions. Humans are tropical in nature because we are born without fur -- which is why cold is the bigger killer. 2. Coral diversity and coverage has been changing up & down for the past 160 million (or so) years -- and records clearly show that they were more diverse when global temps and CO2 were much higher than today -- plus today, Great Barrier Reef coral growth is at a 36 year high. Find out much more on Oct 20 at 1:30 at Bridgeport.

Just did a simple google of ......coral on the Great Barrier Reef. That reef has LOST 50% of its coral since 1995. This was an NPR report. It is expected to have a 90% LOSS in 75 years. And YES I consider NPR to be a legitimate source of information. If someone else does not like NPR then that is on them!

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

Every trend begins with a single event.

[B-flat]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

Our growing population has been adding a lot of straws, particularly in the latter years. We have overloaded the camel far beyond normal load rate and the camel is suffering greatly. We better slow down before that last critical straw goes on or ....?

Exactly and this is why if you read between the lines the elites want us, peasants, dead and they will do it systematically.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Just did a simple google of ......coral on the Great Barrier Reef. That reef has LOST 50% of its coral since 1995. This was an NPR report. It is expected to have a 90% LOSS in 75 years. And YES I consider NPR to be a legitimate source of information. If someone else does not like NPR then that is on them!

So, in other words, it's my news source or the highway?????

I also didn't realize NPR did original research----or were they just reporting on a paper by yet another climate change flunky?????

[JMintzer]

Where is the guy who always shows us how many people post in certain threads?

I guess he only does that in threads where he doesn't like the replies...

[Stu from NYC]

If we can get enough people to pay for my trip, I will volunteer to go to the great barrier reef and do my own research into its status.

I do expect to go there in the status I want to become accustomed to in my own private jet with all the accouterments.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

I just did. And, as usual, you are wrong...

Despite Media Fearmongering, Great Barrier Reef Is Growing Quickly: Study - Climate Change Dispatch

Actually, in this case, I would NOT be wrong. Either NPR is RIGHT and the other study is wrong. Or visa versa. Either way, I am just the messenger and we all know NOT to shoot the messenger.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

So, in other words, it's my news source or the highway?????

I also didn't realize NPR did original research----or were they just reporting on a paper by yet another climate change flunky?????

As I said, I consider NPR to be at the top of the news pyramid. Others can disagree if they must.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

As I said, I consider NPR to be at the top of the news pyramid. Others can disagree if they must.

Doesn't address the question of NPR doing research, which we all know they don't
So once again, sounds like reporting on the work of another climate change advocate

[Byte1]

If the Great Barrier Reef has been there for millions of years and is so big that it can be seen from space (over 70 million football fields in length), exactly how long will it take for mankind to destroy it by using ICE vehicles and smoking cigars? Just a question for the climate change experts on here.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Actually, in this case, I would NOT be wrong. Either NPR is RIGHT and the other study is wrong. Or visa versa. Either way, I am just the messenger and we all know NOT to shoot the messenger.

Some of us think it is ok to shoot the messenger especially if you do not trust their message

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Byte1

If the Great Barrier Reef has been there for millions of years and is so big that it can be seen from space (over 70 million football fields in length), exactly how long will it take for mankind to destroy it by using ICE vehicles and smoking cigars? Just a question for the climate change experts on here.

Don't forget Coppertone suntan lotion