Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:09:32 +0200 From: "Richard" <rootnospamlhost> Subject: Re: Octane ratings.....what's the truth?
"Gary Fritz" <fritzxxxnospamrii.com> wrote in message news:Xns991D6D5AA5FA3fritzfriicomnospam168.3.50... > "Richard" <rootnospamlhost> wrote: >> that would be an easy one: Just change the way you count. >> For me, a tropical storm might be something different from your >> tropical storm. > > Quite possible. However, I might point out that the data counting > tropical storms comes from the National Hurricane Center, a division of > the US National Weather Service. Which is not generally considered a > wild-eyed raving algore-ist global-warming fanatic organization. You can > find the data used in that chart at > http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html. > > It's possible the criteria used to define "named storms" have changed > over time. I can't find a reference for that. However that page also > has history for hurricanes and "major" hurricanes. I believe those > numbers result from applying the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale to > weather records for the last 160 years, which should produce fairly > consistent results. The 10-yr average for hurricanes is higher than at > any time in the previous 10 years. Moreover the 10-yr average of "major > hurricanes" (S-S level 3-5) has been dramatically higher in most of the > last 50 years than in the 100 years before that, and it is currently at > or near a record high. > > I will concede that we may be detecting more tropical storms (with > current satellite technology) that were previously missed because they > never made landfall. But it seems unlikely that major hurricanes could > have been missed. They cover enough territory that even 1850's sailing > ships would have encountered them. > >> How and where do you measure your rising sea levels? At high tide? At >> low tide? Spring tide? At high winds? No wind? No wind for how long? >> Sea levels are not nearly as constant annd predictable as you would >> assume, a little wind for a few days make the water rise or fall by >> half a meter regularly here. > > If you think the scientists who did these studies (and there are MANY > people reviewing the JASON/TOPEX data) would change their measurement > methods in the middle of a study, or ignore obvious factors like tides > and winds, and then use that slipshod methodology to publish claims of > rising sea levels -- then you do not understand how scientific papers are > published and reviewed. The offending scientists would be laughed out of > their profession. > > Information on these studies is available online. You are free to dig > into it yourself, or not. If you think there is some kind of liberal > conspiracy that's fabricating or altering this data, then you probably > won't believe anything you find, but I invite you to go look. > > Gary Gary, first of all: You completely mis-interpret my words, and take them to mean something they do not say. What I mean to say is that there is much more to the "hard data" than you think there is. Hard data is not so hard when examined in detail. That holds true for all the links and pointers you have provided so far. The things / facts presented are NOT the data. They are summaries of research and sometimes even contain conclusions. BE VERY CAREFUL to take that as DATA, because in most cases it is NOT. The reports are created by HUMANS, who try to interpret the data, and give meaning to the numbers. Another person / researcher with the same data might end up at a different conclusion. Example below. Science is oh so much more complex and subltle than most people like it to be. It does NOT present the truth. It is not meant to do do that. And please do not get me wrong here: I am very concerned about the climate change. Dont try to even push me towards the "ignore" camp, that just shows you do not understand the details. I am just VERY critical of the way things are presented as FACTS, when they are clearly only interpretations or models. As for the hurricanes: From the page you linked to: Subject: E11) How many tropical cyclones have there been each year in the Atlantic basin? What years were the greatest and fewest seen? Contributed by Chris Landsea Starting in 1944, systematic aircraft reconnaissance was commenced for monitoring both tropical cyclones and disturbances that had the potential to develop into tropica cyclones. This is why both Neumann et al. (1993) and Landsea (1993) recommend utilizing data since 1944 for computing climatological statistics. However, for tropical cyclones striking the USA East and Gulf coasts - because of highly populated coast lines, data with good reliability extends back to around 1899. Thus, the following records hold for the entire Atlantic basin (from 1944-present) and for the USA coastline (1899-present): <snip> This says that they indeed changed their way of measuring twice. Once around 1899, and once again in 1944. I assume they tried to make the data fit as best as they could, as a scientist is supposed to. But still... all 3 different measuring systems are incoorporated into 2 tables, and the conclusion might seem obvious. BUT IT IS NOT. Where are the exact observations from around 1900? What changed in 1944? Are satellite measurements included? Since when? No mention of any of this. What I want to say is: this is compiled data, NOT hard facts or raw data. This is already an interpretation. A few more things about that page: 1: Did you also notice that the number of years with no hurricanes are spread over the entire range of the table? 2: Where is the data from before 1850? This is not very much data to draw any serious conclusion on. 3: Of course you know that windspeed at sea is different from windspeed over land, right? 4: How many observing post where there in 1850 and how did they measure these things? 5: From the page: * As a footnote, 1933 is recorded as being the most active of any Atlantic basin season on record (reliable or otherwise) with 21 tropical storms and hurricanes. + 1886 is recorded as the most active hurricane season for the continental USA with 7 landfalling hurricanes. And still YOUR conclusion is that there are more hurricanes in the last 50 years? That is a strange conclusion. If you are still here and reading this: I have put the numbers from that page in a spreadsheet and made some nice graph of it. I want you to see it. It does show te ME that there is NO soignificant change in the number or severity in THIS DATA. Please give me an email adress and I will send you the file, and you should take a look for yourself. Or better: I will publish the whole thing on a website somewhere. Well... so far for hard data and insults. I like a good discussion, but this is just a shouting excercise. I am out. Sorry. Good luck, Richard.