Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive (Post 2148914)

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".

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580 (Post 2149030)

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.

Originally Posted by Davonu (Post 2149061)

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.

Originally Posted by sounding (Post 2148652)

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.

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580 (Post 2148789)

Every trend begins with a single event.

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580 (Post 2149103)

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 ....?

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2149156)

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!

Originally Posted by JMintzer (Post 2149170)

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

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

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2149174)

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?????

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2149226)

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

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2149224)

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.

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 2149370)

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.