2024 Hurricane Season Wrap Up

[brenthutch 444]

While we had a busier than average season, in the Atlantic basin, with 18 named storms it was below the 23 storms predicted by Colorado State University and laughably below the 30+ storms predicted by climate scientists Michael Mann and company. Globally the story is even more interesting with below average ACE values in the North Indian basin (-67.69%), Northwest Pacific (-25.71%) and Northeast Pacific (-37.78%). Obviously the prediction that warmer global temperatures would result in more numerous and more powerful storms has fallen flat on its face.

https://www.foxweather.com/extreme-weather/hurricane-season-2024-summary

[billvon 2,990]

15 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

While we had a busier than average season, in the Atlantic basin, with 18 named storms

So well within NOAAs predictions, predictions that take into account the effects of climate change.

More evidence that the climate is indeed changing.

[brenthutch 444]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

So well within NOAAs predictions, predictions that take into account the effects of climate change.

More evidence that the climate is indeed changing.

Well outside the range predicted by CSU and M.Mann, more evidence that the science is far from settled. BTW did NOAA predict a below average global ACE value? If the changing climate results in fewer and less powerful storms would that not be a good thing?

Edited December 9, 2024 by brenthutch

[olofscience 480]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

If the changing climate results in fewer and less powerful storms would that not be a good thing?

For the umpteenth time, YES that would be a good thing. If - and a big if - it's true. (But given the record of your ability to analyse data or...read, you're the last person I'd go to for that information)

 

Tthe fact that you have to keep setting up strawmen makes it almost seem like the person you're trying to convince is yourself.

[brenthutch 444]

21 minutes ago, olofscience said:

For the umpteenth time, YES that would be a good thing. If - and a big if - it's true. (But given the record of your ability to analyse data or...read, you're the last person I'd go to for that information)

 

Tthe fact that you have to keep setting up strawmen makes it almost seem like the person you're trying to convince is yourself.

I just cited data from NOAA, don’t get all butt hurt just because your world view is being crushed by facts.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

46 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I just cited data from NOAA, don’t get all butt hurt just because your world view is being crushed by facts.

speaking of facts.

 

from https://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/index.php?arch&loc=northatlantic

 

 

Now I know numbers aren't your strong suit. But take a look at the data presented on that website and see if you can spot a trend. Now I understand that is like trying to get a horse to drink, but still....

[brenthutch 444]

6 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

speaking of facts.

 

from https://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/index.php?arch&loc=northatlantic

 

 

Now I know numbers aren't your strong suit. But take a look at the data presented on that website and see if you can spot a trend. Now I understand that is like trying to get a horse to drink, but still....

Named storms are a useless metric. Are we really going to get our panties in a bunch over a storm with 35 mph winds? Show me trend for cat 3 and above.

It is interesting to note how the slight increase coincided with widespread aviation and then the satellite era. Just maybe the increase is due to more observational coverage than an actual increase in storms 

[SkyDekker 1,465]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Named storms are a useless metric. Are we really going to get our panties in a bunch over a storm with 35 mph winds? Show me trend for cat 3 and above.

 

That's why they came up with a metric like Accumulated Cyclone Energy. That too is presented on that website. That too seems to have a trend over time.

5 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

It is interesting to note how the slight increase coincided with widespread aviation and then the satellite era. Just maybe the increase is due to more observational coverage than an actual increase in storms 

ahhh we missed all those storms cause we didn't have satellites and airplanes. First of all, your deal leader said there were airports during the civil war. Why would you have airports if you didn't have airplanes?

 

Second, there is a distinct trend up after the early 90s. The first satellite to orbit was in the mid 50s. But sure, it must be the satellites.

[brenthutch 444]

51 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

That's why they came up with a metric like Accumulated Cyclone Energy. That too is presented on that website. That too seems to have a trend over time.

ahhh we missed all those storms cause we didn't have satellites and airplanes. First of all, your deal leader said there were airports during the civil war. Why would you have airports if you didn't have airplanes?

 

Second, there is a distinct trend up after the early 90s. The first satellite to orbit was in the mid 50s. But sure, it must be the satellites.

I don’t know who or what a “deal leader” is, so there’s that. 
Show me a link. Is that just the Atlantic basin or is that globally. Also if we are trading a bunch of weak tropical storms for a few cat3+ hurricanes, I would say that was a good deal.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I don’t know who or what a “deal leader” is, so there’s that. 

That's dear leader with a typo. Thank you for proving out that if it isn't clearly spelled out for you, you don't have the capability to figure it out through context.

 

7 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Show me a link

There is literally a link in the post.

 

8 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Also if we are trading a bunch of weak tropical storms for a few cat3+ hurricanes, I would say that was a good deal.

You think that is what the ACE metric shows you?

[billvon 2,990]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Are we really going to get our panties in a bunch over a storm with 35 mph winds?

Why not?  You get your panties in a bunch over NOAA making a correct prediction for hurricane season.

[brenthutch 444]

8 minutes ago, billvon said:

Why not?  You get your panties in a bunch over NOAA making a correct prediction for hurricane season.

No I was just laughing at how ridiculously wrong the predictions of CSU and M.Mann were. Bottom line, even with record heat, the 2024 Atlantic Hurricane Season was well within historical ranges and globally they were at the low end of historical ranges.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

No I was just laughing at how ridiculously wrong the predictions of CSU and M.Mann were. Bottom line, even with record heat, the 2024 Atlantic Hurricane Season was well within historical ranges and globally they were at the low end of historical ranges.

What historical ranges?

 

2020 had 30 named storm. You would now suggest that is within historical ranges lol.

[billvon 2,990]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Bottom line, even with record heat, the 2024 Atlantic Hurricane Season was well within historical ranges and globally they were at the low end of historical ranges.

Historically there are 14 named storms per season.  There were 18 in 2024; 29% above average.  Sorry!

[brenthutch 444]

4 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

What historical ranges?

 

2020 had 30 named storm. You would now suggest that is within historical ranges lol.

That would be an outlier and would be noteworthy if the trend continued, but it hasn’t 

[olofscience 480]

12 hours ago, brenthutch said:

because your world view is being crushed by facts.

Did you miss the part where I said...oh never mind 

 

Predictably this is how Brent ends his time in SC, and probably in general - shouting against imaginary opponents 

[olofscience 480]

10 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Thank you for proving out that if it isn't clearly spelled out for you, you don't have the capability to figure it out through context.

It's hopeless. He's not actually engaging with you, he's arguing with M. Mann, CSU, and imaginary lefties.

That's why he has to declare he's winning all the time (and how could he lose, it's all in his head right?)

[brenthutch 444]

2 hours ago, olofscience said:

It's hopeless. He's not actually engaging with you, he's arguing with M. Mann, CSU, and imaginary lefties.

That's why he has to declare he's winning all the time (and how could he lose, it's all in his head right?)

Not arguing, just laying out the facts. Here are some more predictions vs observations for you.

P: Arctic to be ice free in summer by 2013

F: Ice still there

P: Polar bears will become extinct 

F: Polar bears still here with stable or growing population 

P: Climate change will cause famine 

F: Global food production increasing 

P: “children won’t know what snow looks like”

F: Our local ski area opens this Saturday 

P: We must keep warming below 1.5C or disaster will occur 

F: we blow past 1.5C, no global catastrophe 

P: Rising seas will drown the Maldives 

F: Even though sea levels have risen, many islands haven’t shrunk. Most, in fact, have been stable. Some have even grown.

I could go on all day but your brain exploded before you got this far 

Edited December 10, 2024 by brenthutch

[lippy 918]

2 hours ago, olofscience said:

It's hopeless.

DINGDINGDING!!!!!!!

[olofscience 480]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I could go on all day but your brain exploded before you got this far 

I wonder who Brent is talking to?

..."Old man yells at cloud" 

 

edit to add: yes, I definitely believe that you can go on all day Whether anyone's there to listen, or not

Edited December 10, 2024 by olofscience

[JoeWeber 2,720]

3 hours ago, lippy said:

DINGDINGDING!!!!!!!

Tell you what, it’s a damn weird world when you come across a kid who wants coal in his stocking. 

[SkyDekker 1,465]

8 hours ago, brenthutch said:

That would be an outlier and would be noteworthy if the trend continued, but it hasn’t 

so you see no trend in the graph that was posted....interesting. I knew percentages and numbers weren't your thing, but I figured your eyes were at least still working.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Here are some more predictions vs observations for you.

Didn't you predict Tesla would be bankrupt by now?

[brenthutch 444]

48 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Didn't you predict Tesla would be bankrupt by now?

Yep, I got that one wrong, but I am still doing better than climate alarmists.

Oh! One more…

P: There will be no glaciers in Glacier National Park by 2020

F: Glaciers are still present 

Edited December 10, 2024 by brenthutch

[brenthutch 444]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

so you see no trend in the graph that was posted....interesting. I knew percentages and numbers weren't your thing, but I figured your eyes were at least still working.

If the trend were statistically significant I’m sure NOAA would make the claim that hurricanes are getting stronger and more frequent, but it’s not and they haven’t.