The peer-reviewed scientific literature robustly affirms that land-falling hurricane frequencies and intensities have remained steady or declined in recent decades. So have droughts, floods, and other extreme weather events. But the editorial board of The Washington Post spurns this scientific evidence and inexplicably blames politicians and “those who deny” climate change for landfalling hurricanes and the associated damage.
Image Source: The Washington Post 11/09/2018
It is well documented in the scientific literature that a cooler climate is associated with more weather extremes and hurricane activity, whereas a warmer climate leads to a reduction in weather extremes and hurricane activity.
“Recent review papers reported that many high-resolution global climate models consistently projected a reduction of global tropical cyclone (TC) frequency in a future warmer climate.“ (Sugi et al., 2015)
“Our work illustrates a major constraint on the large-scale global atmospheric engine: As the climate warms, the system may be unable to increase its total entropy production enough to offset the moistening inefficiencies associated with phase transitions. This suggests thatin a future climate, the global atmospheric circulation might comprise highly energetic storms due to explosive latent heat release, but in such a case, the constraint on work output identified here will result in fewer numbers of such [highly energetic storm] events. … On a warming Earth, the increase in perceptible water has been identified as a reason for the tropical overturning to slow down, and studies over a wide range of climates suggest that global atmospheric motions are reduced in extremely warm climates.“ (Laliberté et al., 2015)
“Extratropical cyclones cause much of the high impact weather over the mid-latitudes. With increasing greenhouse gases, enhanced high-latitude warming will lead to weaker cyclone activity. Here we show that between 1979 and 2014, the number of strong cyclones in Northern Hemisphere in summer has decreased at a rate of 4% per decade, with even larger decrease found near northeastern North America.” (Chang et al., 2016)
“The impact of climate change is seen in slightly decreased intensities in landfalling cyclones.” (Perrie et al., 2010)
The Washington Post editorial board has apparently decided that contrarian scientific evidence is subservient to their political aims.
This way they can justify blaming out-of-favor politicians and those who “deny” climate change for the devastating consequences of an impending landfalling hurricane.
Below are several scientific papers published within the last year that do not seem to support the Post’s angle that says we can reduce hurricane landfall frequencies if only we can agree to believe, rather than deny, that humans are responsible.
“Downward Trend Since 1950” In Landfalling Hurricane Frequency/Intensity
“The extremely active 2017 Atlantic hurricane season concluded an extended period of quiescent continental United States tropical cyclone landfall activity that began in 2006, commonly referred to as the landfall drought. We introduce an extended climatology of U.S. tropical cyclone activity based on accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) and use this data set to investigate variability and trends in landfall activity. The [hurricane landfall] drought years between 2006 and 2016 recorded an average value of total annual ACE [accumulated cyclone energy] over the U.S. that was less than 60% of the 1900–2017 average.”
“Scaling this landfall activity metric by basin-wide activity reveals a statistically significant downward trend since 1950, with the percentage of total Atlantic ACE expended over the continental U.S. at a series minimum during the recent drought period.”
“Continental United States (CONUS) hurricane-related inflation-adjusted damage has increased significantly since 1900. However, since 1900 neither observed CONUS [Continental United States] landfalling hurricane frequency nor intensity show significant trends, including the devastating 2017 season.”
“Over the 1997–2014 period, the mean frequency of western North Pacific (WNP) tropical cyclones (TCs) was markedly lower (~18%) than the period 1980–1996. Here we show that these changes were driven by an intensification of the vertical wind shear in the southeastern/eastern WNP tied to the changes in the Walker circulation, which arose primarily in response to the enhanced sea surface temperature (SST) warming in the North Atlantic, while the SST anomalies associated with the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation in the tropical Pacific and the anthropogenic forcing play only secondary roles.”
“A vigorous debate has currently focused on the relationship between increasing TC [tropical cyclone] activity and increasing SST [sea surface temperatures] (Knutson et al. 2010). … [O]ver the WNP [Western North Pacific] basin,a significant decrease of TCF [tropical cyclone frequency] has been observed since 1998 (Liu and Chan 2013; Lin and Chan 2015; Zhao and Wang 2016). Global TCF [tropical cyclone frequency] has showed a similar reduction since the late 1990s (Maue 2011). Change of TCF over the past few decades does not appear to be consistent with changes in local SST. Observational analyses further pointed out that there is no significant correlation between the TCF [tropical cyclone frequency] and local SST [sea surface temperatures] over the WNP [Western North Pacific] basin (Chan 2006; Yeh et al. 2010).”
“The hurricane analysis conducted by Burn and Palmer (2015) determined that hurricane activity was subdued during the [warm] Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) (~900-1350 CE) and became more produced during the [cold] Little Ice Age (LIA) (~1450-1850 CE), followed by a period of variability occurred between ~1850 and ~1900 before entering another subdued state during the industrial period (~1950-2000 CE). In general, the results of this study corroborate these findings.”
“[W]hile hurricane activity was greater during the LIA, it also had more frequent periods of drought compared to the MCA (Burn and Palmer 2014), suggesting that climate fluctuations were more pronounced in the LIA compared to the MCA. The changes in the diatom distribution and fluctuations in chl-a recorded in this study starting around 1350 also indicate that variations in climate have become more distinct during the LIA and from ~1850-1900. … [C]limate variability has increased following the onset of the Little Ice Age (~1450-1850 CE), however it is difficult to distinguish the impacts of recent anthropogenic climate warming on hurricane activity from those of natural Atlantic climate regimes, such as ENSO.”
“Since the late 1800s, in contrast to much of the Southeastern USA, the Georgia coast has experienced infrequent hurricane landfalls, particularly in recent decades. As a result, coastal storm preparedness complacency appears to be rampant along the Georgia coastline. Both local and state governments were unprepared for shadow evacuation during Hurricane Floyd in 1999. The study described here includes an examination of temporal and spatial trends in hurricane landfall along the Georgia coast from 1750 to 2012. Since 1750, 18 of the 24 recorded hurricanes that made landfall along the Georgia coast occurred between 1801 and 1900, yet the hurricane intensities have declined since 1851.”
No Increasing Trend In Drought/Flood Frequency, Severity
“In drought-prone regions like Central Asia, drought monitoring studies are paramount to provide valuable information for drought risk mitigation. In this paper, the spatiotemporal drought characteristics in Central Asia are analyzed from 1966 to 2015 using the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) dataset. Central Asia showed an overall wetting trend with a switch to drying trend since 2003.”
“The main objective of this paper is to detect the evidence of statistically significant flood trends across Europe using a high spatial resolution dataset. … Anticipated changes in flood frequency and magnitude due to enhanced greenhouse forcing are not generally evident at this time over large portions of the United States for several different measures of flood flows. … Thus, similarly to the main findings of Archfield et al. (2016) for the US, the picture of flood change in Europe is strongly heterogeneous and no general statements about uniform trends across the entire continent can be made.”
“For the extreme drought and flood events in total, more frequent of them occurred in the 1770s and 1790s, 1870s–1880s, 1900s–1920s and 1960s, among which the 1790s witnessed the highest frequency of extreme drought and flood events totally.”
Schedel, Jr. and Schedel, 2018
“Flood events on the U.S. East Coast are not more severe or frequent than in the past. However, because of sea-level rise, these events are starting from a higher baseline height. Thus, the same severity of a flood event today reaches a greater absolute height than an identical flood would have reached 50 or 100 years ago.Based on current data, the good news is that the apparent worsening of flood events is due to a single, primary cause: sea level rise. Flood events are not getting stronger or occurring more frequently than in the past. They are instead starting from a higher point, allowing them to reach higher levels more often. The bad news is that sea-level rise will be a fact of life for many years into the future. Communities need to start now to make informed plans and decisions about how best to adapt.”
“This study presents a chronology of historical and measured flood events in the Papaloapan River basin of Mexico during 450 years. Twenty-eight historical floods were recorded during the period 1550–1948 [7 per century] on this river and one flood event (1969) in the instrumental era (1949–2000) [2 per century], of which 14 were extraordinary floods and only 15 were catastrophic ones. There were several flood-rich decades during 1860–1870, 1880–1890, 1920–1930 and 1940–1950. Wavelet analysis found a significant flooding periodicity of 58 years. The wavelet coherence analysis found that flooding had an in-phase relationship with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and also with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.”
“The new MJJ precipitation reconstruction is restricted to inter-annual and inter-decadal variability, which is in line with our understanding of natural precipitation variability. Reconstruction reveals two long periods of low precipitation variability, in the 13th–14th centuries and 1630s–1850s. It also demonstrates that precipitation anomalies of larger amplitude and longer duration occurred in the earlier part of the last millennium than those found in the instrumental period. Negative trends in soil moisture content and gradual changes in annual precipitation distribution leading to higher extremity of precipitation regime may be responsible for the lower sensitivity of oaks to precipitation after the 1980s. The new reconstruction does not indicate any exceptional recent decline in MJJ precipitation.”
Extreme, Unstable Weather Decreases With Warming
51 responses to “New Science Says Hurricane Frequencies Are Declining, Yet U.S. Media Blame ‘Climate Deniers’ For Florence”
Are you sure?
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/ (uuuh, models, so totally fake, right?)
And yes, strong Hurricanes exist with warmer SSTs. Why would warmer temperature reduce the amount of power a storm can “collect” on its path?
“We are unaware of a climate change signal that would result in an increase of only the shortest duration storms, while such an increase is qualitatively consistent with what one would expect from improvements with observational practices. Thus, we interpret the increase of short duration storms as further evidence for a spurious increase in Atlantic tropical storm counts since the late-19th Century. Further, the absence of an increase in moderate duration tropical storm counts is consistent with expectations from high-resolution dynamical models of a modest (and possibly negative) sensitivity of North Atlantic tropical storm counts to increasing greenhouse gases.”
That’s from your second link, seb. Care to try again?
“shortest duration storms” … why are we talking about those now? Care to try again?
SebastianH, do you even read the links you cite, or do you just look at the pictures?
“We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there is a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. But statistical tests reveal that this trend is so small, relative to the variability in the series, that it is not significantly distinguishable from zero (Figure 2). Thus the historical tropical storm count record does not provide compelling evidence for a greenhouse warming induced long-term increase.”
“…the reported numbers of hurricanes were sufficiently high during the 1860s-1880s that again there is no significant positive trend in numbers beginning from that era”
“The evidence for an upward trend is even weaker if we look at U.S. landfalling hurricanes, which even show a slight negative trend beginning from 1900 or from the late 1800s“
Yes I do.
Just relaying what the peer-reviewed scientific literature says.
Hoarau et al., 2012
“There has been no trend towards an increase in the number of categories 3–5 cyclones over the last 30 years.”
Hsu et al., 2014
“All of the counts, lifespans, and accumulated cyclone energy of the late-season typhoons during the 1995–2011 epoch decreased significantly, compared with typhoons that occurred during the 1979–94 epoch.”
Chang et al., 2016
“Extratropical cyclones cause much of the high impact weather over the mid-latitudes. With increasing greenhouse gases, enhanced high-latitude warming will lead to weaker cyclone activity. Here we show that between 1979 and 2014, the number of strong cyclones in Northern Hemisphere in summer has decreased at a rate of 4% per decade, with even larger decrease found near northeastern North America.”
Chan and Liu, 2004
“No significant correlation was found between the typhoon activity parameters and local SST [during 1960-2003]. In other words, an increase in local SST [sea surface temperatures] does not lead to a significant change of the number of intense TCs [tropical cyclones] in the NWP, which is contrary to the results produced by many of the numerical climate models.”
“Multi-member ensembles show that the overall number of TCs [tropical cyclones] generated by the model is reduced by 5-9% when allowing for two-way air-sea interactions. TC [tropical cyclones] intensity is greatly impacted; the strongest 1% of all TCs are 20-30 hPa (4-8 m s−1) weaker and the number of simulated Category 4 and 5 TCs [tropical cyclones] are reduced by 65% in slab ocean configurations. Reductions in [tropical cyclone] intensity are in line with published thermodynamic theory.”
Laliberté et al., 2015
“Our work illustrates a major constraint on the large-scale global atmospheric engine: As the climate warms, the system may be unable to increase its total entropy production enough to offset the moistening inefficiencies associated with phase transitions. This suggests that in a future climate, the global atmospheric circulation might comprise highly energetic storms due to explosive latent heat release, but in such a case, the constraint on work output identified here will result in fewer numbers of such [highly energetic storm] events.”
“On a warming Earth, the increase in perceptible water has been identified as a reason for the tropical overturning to slow down, and studies over a wide range of climates suggest that global atmospheric motions are reduced in extremely warm climates.”
From your 2nd link:
” Storms lasting less than two days have increased sharply, but this is likely due to better observations”
Wapo is a well known fake news vomiter.
Just like our resident Russian.
Seb and others –
My favorite paragraph from some crazily worded “science.”
“Therefore, we conclude that despite statistical correlations between SST and Atlantic hurricane activity in recent decades, it is premature to conclude that human activity–and particularly greenhouse warming–has already caused a detectable change in Atlantic hurricane activity. (“Detectable” here means the change is large enough to be distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes.) However, human activity may have already caused some some changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observation limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).”
This was updated in June and before the update this was the 2nd or 3rd paragraph.
And? What is your take on this paragraph?
Maybe this little GIF helps:
I used to post a graph with periodic changes (sine-curves) overlayed with a small exponentially growing offset. The offset is not detectable from looking at the graph until its influence is already pretty big. Nevertheless it is there and a science suggests this is what the human influence does to the climate.
So we’re now supposed to take twitter graphs and hold them in higher regard than graphs from peer-reviewed scientific papers?
And what, exactly, would that human influence do to the climate? There isn’t even a detectable human influence in the Arctic climate, where the “amplification” is supposed to have taken place.
“The anthropogenic melt from the Greenland ice sheet is still too small to be detected.”
“There is no clear change in the delivery of Arctic freshwater to the North Atlantic due to human climate forcing.”
Hansen et al., 2016
“…we found that there is (yet) no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming in the world’s best recorded region.”
Yeah, sure … graphs posted by PhD climate scientists aren’t worth anything in your world. Only “rebuttals” posted by “software experts” like Tony Heller or pseudoscientific textbooks count … you have a very weird concept of what to consider to be the truth 😉
Do you understand what that “twitter graph” is trying to convey?
No seb, the graph is based on IGNORANCE and mindless supposition.
It bears ZERO relationship to REALITY.
So right down your alley.
It is a hinderance to rational thought and comprehension.
That’s because your reality is very different from the reality the rest of us live in. Haven’t you noticed that by now? In your reality gravity can cause a higher level of heat without further compressing matter/gas. Your bike tire stays warm forever after pumping it to full of air. In your reality the math for CO2 concentration increase and who causes it, works completely different than in our universe. In your reality, garnishing replies with lots of insults is considered to be a strategy to make your claims even more convincing.
Should I continue?
-snip. C’mon spike…that horse has been beaten for months now- -PG-
“that horse has been beaten for months now”
But NEVER been answered.
seb has NO EVIDENCE to back up the CO2 warming conjecture.
And HE KNOWS IT.
Seb. do you think it takes NO ENERGY to hold a 50kg bar above your head.
ANSWER THE QUESTION. !!
“In your reality gravity can cause a higher level of heat without further compressing matter/gas”
Doesn’t comprehend that the atmosphere has to RETAIN the energy needed to hold up the air above.
Physics is NOT your strong suit at all, is it seb.
Just like the tyre has to RETAIN its kinetic energy to keep the tube inflated.
“In your reality the math for CO2 concentration increase and who causes it, works completely different than in our universe.”
Your universe you mean?
The one based on FANTASIES and fairy-tales,
A land DEVOID of science or evidence.
seb’s own little fantasy troll-land
Lol, here we go again. Do you think the chair you are sitting on needs energy to hold you up? You are really hilarious. Go on, “educate” me about how strain energy does all kind of things and warms our planet 😉
OMG! This is even worse than I thought.
You really need to write the energy budgets down my troll friend and hopefully realize something in the process.
Oh spike55, when you have a cup containing 200 ml of coffee, add 50 ml milk to it and drink 230 ml from the mix leaving 20 ml in the cup … how much of this 20 ml leftover was caused by the coffee? How much by the added milk?
In your universe it’s 80% since the leftover contains this much coffee. Right? And that highlights a fundamental misunderstanding of math on your side. Feel free to request help on this matter from your peers that have (hopefully) a better grasp on this …
Seb. do you think it takes NO ENERGY to hold a 50kg bar above your head.
ANSWER THE QUESTION. !!
A YES or NO answer , seb
Not more zero-knowledge evasion.
Just because you know NOTHING about how structures work, need to smear your ignorance over everyone else.
You really think the chair holds you up by by “magic”…. WOW.
You really think a chair made out of thin balsa wood would hold you up…. WOW.
zero education about materials science
Thinks there is no energy holding the atmosphere up… WOW .. just WOW..
What a bizarre little seb-world.. where thing happen just by “magic”
Your comprehension of basic structural physics seems to be close as possible to NIL, seb.
And then another wacky attempt at an irrelevant idiot’s analogy, to boot, just to show how little you understand of the world around you.
Only 4 ml out of the 20 ml left is milk, agreed seb? Not much left of that 50mls of milk you added, is there seb.
I suppose you think that what is left is 100% milk.. WOW. just WOW.
Seems even basic maths is WAY beyond you.
This is TRULY BIZARRE existence your feeble little mind lives in, seb
You are essentially saying that it takes ZERO ENERGY to counter the force of gravity.
In seb-fantasy-world, all a helicopter has to do to hover in a stationary position, is turn off its engine.!
WOW.. just WOW. !!
“Go on, “educate” me about how strain energy”
There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO CHANCE of anyone educating you passed your junior high level remedial understanding of reality.
Sorry that you are TOTALLY IGNORANT of strain energy and kinetic energy.
There is NO helping you, since you make it perfectly clear you have zero intention of learning anything..
So you are imagining that because holding something up with your body in a specific way requires your muscles to work, that this is what explains a warmer atmosphere? Really? 😉
This is so much worse than what one could expect from a normal pseudoskeptic, it’s downright physics denial.
But I’ll answer your question, so you can’t complain that I didn’t. No, you don’t need energy to hold up a 50 kg bar over your head. The energy that you spend while keeping the bar above your head is entirely spend on the muscles that keep relaxing. There is no work being performed at all.
If you don’t understand this answer, feel free to use colorful insults to further enhance the image that I have of your interesting mind and how it works.
Why would it? Is your char made out of thin balsa wood?
Do you think “there is energy” holding up water in a glas? Is that why the cold water always warms up to room temperature when I leave it on the table for too long? Wow, thanks for the revelation 😉
See, I described your reality perfectly above. 20% milk in the 20ml left and thus 80% of the leftover ofter consuming 230 ml of the mix was caused by the coffee and not by the addition of 50 ml milk. You see the world with completely different eyes than the rest of us, thus you live in a different reality dettached from ours. A – no doubt – very interesting one, but one that isn’t what really happens.
Just to clarify, yes … 4ml out of the 20 ml left is milk. No, it’s not 100% milk. What is flawed is your way of attribution or – much more likely – your understanding of math. It’s also of not much use to keep explaining these concepts to you (or Kenneth, who argues similarly). Me and others have tried that and failed miserably … why? Because you won’t accept anything that endangers your perceived reality. And that’s perfectly ok with me (now) … I completely accept that you are lost to reasoning and just try to have fun with you and your wildly inappropriate replies. That or ignoring you and hoping you don’t hurt yourself physically or mentally are the only alternatives.
Nope. Neither I or anybody else who tried to explain these basic concepts to you ever suggested this.
If you could take the Moon and release gas around it that gets pulled down by the Moon’s gravity, it would surely warm up by the compression. Once (und during the process) settled the heat will dissipate. Just like when you pump air into a bicycle tire. That’s the physics. Holding something in place in a gravitational field that “sits” on something else does not require work to be performed. That’s a one time thing. You could also fill a balloon with helium in space and let is enter the atmosphere (slowly). It will sink down until it floats on the atmosphere left below it. That will warm up the atmosphere a tiny bit, but once it floats no further energy is spent. The heat from the entry will just dissipate into space/surroundings.
This is cute and all, but you are the one who is very resistant towards learning something here. This must really concern you a lot since it took you 3 hours from the first reply to your next two additions.
Poor seb reiterates that he has ZERO COMPOREHENSION of how ANYTHING works
STILL won’t answer a YES or NO
STILL thinks energy is NOT REQUIRED to hold up a mass of air.
Sorry child-mind, but holding something up against gravity ALWAYS requires energy.
Keeping a bicycle tube inflated ALWAYS requires energy. Internal energy in this case.
Don’t you comprehend any basic physics whatsoever?? you think these things happen just by “magic”
Seems you are ignorant of how buoyancy works as well… quite funny
WOW…ignorance, they name is seb. !!!!
Realises his coffee-milk analogy fell apart , so just blathers. Only 4ml of the 50ml of milk you added is left, seb.. GET OVER IT !!!
Then tries another moronic moon atmosphere brain-f**t. hilarious.
A HILARIOUS non-response from you seb
Do try harder.
Your ignorance is showing BIG TIME.
You show you have a child’s comprehension of anything related to science or maths. Remedial education would be a great start for you.
That is why you will always FAIL MISERABLY to get your idiotic anti-science points across.
They are NOT based on any known rational thought process.
“No, you don’t need energy to hold up a 50 kg bar over your head.”
That would be one of the most IDIOTIC, UNREALISTIC statements you have ever typed.
Hold it there all day, you could.. 😉
Once the helicopter is hovering stationary, no energy needed.. right seb ??????
What a weird anti-science, ANTI-REALITY world your poor little mind lives in. !!
“Holding something in place in a gravitational field that “sits” on something else does not require work to be performed.”
Just happens by “magic”, hey seb. 😉
No energy required at all, hey seb.
If that were the case, it would not matter what the supporting structure was and structural mechanics would not exist.
You can lift a heavy rock to waist high, then once its stationary.. no more energy required.. right seb ??
Put that heavy rock on a table.. doesn’t matter if its steel or balsa wood. No energy required to hold it up, after all.
WOW.. non-reality.. thy name is seb. !!!
Do you know what the main theory is that is used in the analysis of ALL structures, seb ????
It is based on work-strain equivalence.
I feel sorry for you that your education and learning seem to have ceased completely at a junior high ‘F’ level.
Remain IGNORANT, little mind.. its all you have left in your life.
Don’t call someone child-mind and then claim something like this. No, it doesn’t. There is no force acting on something at rest, therefore there is no energy required to keep said object at rest. If you observed anything different and can repeatably show us how to observe such a thing, the Nobel prize will be yours soon.
Nope. It doesn’t require energy to keep the tire inflated. Who taught you something like that?
I leave the magic to you, spike55. This is hilarious …
When in a hole, don’t dig yourself in deeper! It’s only a small step to the revelation of how wrong you are … you can make it! 16 ml of the 200 ml of coffee is left, how much coffee would have been left if no milk was added to the cup? Can’t be that hard to connect the dots and come over to our reality. You know, the one where math and physics are consistent.
Oh stop it, spike55 … I can barely contain myself. I met someone like you on a German forum as well. Had his own version of physics and was so convinced that everyone around him was doing it wrong. No amount of explanation and making him actually calculate stuff could change his mind. Until one of his peers stepped in and couldn’t bear his nonsense anymore. Surprisingly this guy listened to those corrections.
I’m not giving up hope some skeptic who actually knows how physics work could make you understand how wrong you are. It certainly can’t be me, since this is a classic “he is from the other side of the argument, I can’t believe anything he says and will always claim the exact opposite”- conundrum for you. Even if you’d realize you’ve been wrong, you couldn’t admit to it. Right or wrong?
You are very confused if you think a hovering helicopter, holding a bar above your head and holding an atmosphere up are the same thing. Please go back to whoever you had as a physics teacher and explain this to him/her … tell us the reaction afterward 😉
This is really great. You don’t realize how wrong you are and genuinely think you are right. Hmm, maybe you can tell us how much energy is needed to hold up a helicopter that has landed. Does it get warmer from just standing there? Or let’s take that 50 kg bar above my head. I pulled it up there and now I’ll balance it perfectly on a steel rod that sits on the ground. Did the energy required to keep the 50 kg bar up there change?
Poor seb, continues to think it requires no energy to resist the force of gravity.
BIZARRO FANTASY WORLD !!
ADMITS he cannot hold a 50kg bar above his head, IT REQUIRES ENERGY.
WELL DONE. one tiny step for seb..
then he falls over and lands on this botty. slap-stick comedy to be sure.
Does NOT COMPREHEND that the same energy that would be required for HIM to hold the bar above his head, MUST be required for anything else to hold the bar up.
That energy requirement CANNOT magically disappear.
Are you now DENYING that the atmosphere has MASS that is worked on by gravity, just like the any other object, therefore requires energy to hold it up.
WOW.. denial of physics.. bizarre times 10 !!!!
Lack of comprehension of basic physics runs very deep with you, doesn’t it seb-troll.
DENIAL of basic physics
Any object at rest, is still subjected to the force of gravity seb,
There MUST be an equal and opposite force to the force of gravity.. ALWAYS.
Even when a helicopter is sitting still on the tarmac. Where does that force come from seb?
MAGIC !!! obviously 😉
Go and get an education passed junior high level.
“When in a hole, don’t dig yourself in deeper!”
…says seb from the bottom of his abyss of ignorance. !!
Only 4ml of the 50ml of milk you added is left, seb.. GET OVER IT !!!
And you DID put milk into it, to make it drinkable. Just like adding more CO2 to the atmosphere makes it more usable for plant life.
Why you left the 20mls in the cup, is anybody’s guess. !!
Stop inventing mindless garbage you cannot support with anything except mindless ranting.
“It doesn’t require energy to keep the tire inflated. Who taught you something like that?”
WOW, just WOW.
seb has never heard of kinetic energy
That explain all his idiotic replies !!
Ignorance to very bottom of his troll-hole,
and he just keeps digging deeper.
“I pulled it up there and now I’ll balance it perfectly on a steel rod that sits on the ground.”
What size steel rod, seb
1mm diameter ?
And how does the steel rod sit on the ground
Describe your design mechanisms.
This will be slap-stick hilarity at its best 🙂 🙂
” There is no force acting on something at rest, therefore there is no energy required to keep said object at rest. ”
SebH is wrong in basic physics.
He mix up Energy and Force.
There is Forces acting on for example a book resting on the table. He might try looking Balanced Force.
Now that is TOTAL and UTTER NONSENSE and BILGE-TALK.
You really have sunk to the depths of DENIAL OF PHYSICS this time, seb.
You have just countermanded Newton’s third law.
Even pre-junior high students know that one.
You have just proven to EVERYONE just how utterly and completely IGNORANT you are. !!
Next you will be saying that a stationary object under the effect of gravity doesn’t exert a force, thus countering the law of gravity and every piece of structural analysis ever done in the world. !!
What a truly WEIRD, WACKED-OUT FANTASY LA-LA-LAND your brain-hosed mind lives in. !!
Facts don’t matter to these potato head liberals.
If it’s ill weather, climate deniers and the fossil fuel industry caused it.
I can’t even look at “newspapers” like Washington Post any longer, and there are very few German language periodicals that I care to read any more.
This scam just keeps going on and on and on
Nope, you didn’t cause anything but stupidity to rise. But you aren’t helping either 😉
Excellent rebuttal, SebastianH! As substantive and persuasive as we’ve come to expect. Perhaps you’ve convinced others how right you are?
Rebuttal for what, Kenneth? Are you seriously expecting that “Facts don’t matter to these potato head liberals.” warrants a substansive reply?
Um, you weren’t replying to that sentence according to what you blockquoted. You replied to/blockquoted this:
“If it’s ill weather, climate deniers and the fossil fuel industry caused it.”
And yes, that commentary — which is not much of an exaggeration given that a hurricane and its destruction is being blamed on “climate deniers” by a major US media outlet — deserved something more substantive than calling the one who posted the comment stupid.
But then again that seems to be about what we can expect from you lately. Your posts have become less substantive and more cheap-shotty within the last few months.
I strongly suggest you use the normal comment system like the rest of us. Context matters and if you are only seeing what I blockquoted, then it’s not enough context …
Maybe you should read that Washington Post article again …
Cheap-shotty? Like claiming a major US media outlet is blaming deniers for a hurricane and its destruction?
You are making it too easy to refute you lately. Excessive cherry picking, well displayed misunderstanding or no understanding at all about basic mechanisms, contradicting claims and so on. I wonder when we can expect the next post of a wild new paper that you can’t not correctly classify as junk science 😉
Again, not ONE SINGLE THING to counter the facts of the post.
Just your normal mindless chackling
You really are getting more and more desperate in your child-minded trolling attempts, seb
You have not “refuted” one single thing K has said, except in your own pitiful arrogance.
The ONLY one who believes anything you rant about, is YOU, seb.
The only one who sees even the remotest comprehension of maths, science or anything else in any of your posts, is YOU seb
Your baseless arrogance will not let you see how pathetically desperate you have become.
Apart from being mindless space-wasters, your comments are IRRELEVENT.
yes potato headed leftists like the Washington Compost who breathlessly talked of Florence like it was going to smash the coast with Category 4 140 mph winds, when it actually weakened so much that it made landfall as a Category 1 with 90 mph winds, which is quickly degrading into a Tropical storm.
From the NOAA is this just updated report:
8:00 AM EDT Fri Sep 14
Location: 34.1°N 77.9°W
Moving: W at 6 mph
Min pressure: 958 mb
Max sustained: 90 mph
Its a hurricane alright but far short of the warmist apocalyptic scenario of recent days past, and in a small area that still has 90 mph winds.
Why would that be necessary in a reply in a subthread? But since you demand countering of fact, please … where is your counter of any fact in your reply?
Don’t project onto others, spike55!
Stop your attention-seeking trolling seb.
You know that is the ONLY PURPOSE of 99% of your posts.
You never have ANY evidence to back up anything you say.. just your FACT-FREE ranting.
“Nope, you didn’t cause anything but stupidity to rise
Gees seb, just when your stupidity was up to 11 on the dial, you managed to find another two notches.
Hilarious slap-stick faceplanting from you.
Please try again. its so funny ! 🙂
[…] New Science Says Hurricane Frequencies Are Declining, Yet U.S. Media Blame ‘Climate Deniers’ For… […]
[…] Full post […]
Living in the Washington DC area, I’ve read the Post for the last 35 years. I recall an article 20 years ago talking about coastal development in Hurricane prone areas. The thrust of the story was that in the 80’s and 90’s there were few hurricanes giving people a false sense of safety while in the same areas were hit repeatedly by hurricanes in the 30’s through 50’s. https://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre1992020700 The thrust of the article is opposition to shore development the greenhouse effect does get a passing mention fo rising sea levels. That old article, while opposed to developenny had much more concrete suggestions about how to control coastal erosion and minimize storm damage through things done locally. Now the Post just vents.
LOL…. From WUWT.
This little climate graph.. I’ve added some names of who was USA PM during the different periods.
No wonder some people suffer from TDS ! 🙂