Is the cost of anything not going up?

[Doug Garson]

Not at all surprised. Every single agency that is funded by the government takes that position. Easy money.

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/...more-frequent/

Isn't Miami supposed to be under water by now? All I am saying regarding all this is the hyperbole is THICK. And facts are being manipulated, ignored and even fabricated. There is no need for all the hysteria. Chart a sane course to reduce fossil fuels over the next few decades to ease the burden on those of moderate means.

I guess it depends on who you choose to listen to. By their own words the Conservative Woman is "counter-cultural offensive against the forces of Leftism, feminism and modernism – against the left-liberal cultural zeitgeist, to counter its anti-family, authoritarian identity politics and ‘equality and diversity’ ideology which had swept through the country’s institutions." Not one mention that I saw about being guided by the science. On the other hand,The Environmental Defence Fund, by their owns words is "Guided by science and economics, and committed to climate justice, we work in the places, on the projects and with the people that can make the biggest difference."
According to the Environmental Defence Fund "Stronger hurricanes are becoming more common in a warmer climate. Researchers suggest that the most damaging U.S. hurricanes are three times more frequent than 100 years ago, and that the proportion of major hurricanes (Category 3 or above) in the Atlantic Ocean has doubled since 1980."
https://www.edf.org/climate/how-clim...0since%201980.

And yes we need to chart a sane course towards reduction in fossil fuel use but not one lead by groups like the Conservative Woman, more like NASA or the Environmental Defence Fund and I think the timeline has to be less than the next few decades, that would have worked if we started a few decades ago.

[Dave Zellers]

I guess it depends on who you choose to listen to.

Totally agree. I was only interested in the charts provided and points made. I know nothing about TCW. But I do know it is extremely important to pay attention to opposing viewpoints. Today, everyone has taken sides and completely dismisses any arguments that come from outside their camp.

It seems quite logical that hurricane data historically consists of named storms and today we have skewed the data by naming many more storms.

[Lee DeRaud]

It seems quite logical that hurricane data historically consists of named storms and today we have skewed the data by naming many more storms.

Have a cite for that? (I'm finding lots of stuff about how names are picked, not so much about what qualifies a storm for naming.)

It seems quite logical that "historically" (prior to weather satellites) a named storm would only be one that made landfall or at least got into shipping lanes: you don't name a storm you never saw. But that still allows a pretty accurate count over the last 50+ years.

(Of course one obvious possibility for naming more storms today is that, well, there are actually more of them.)

[Dave Zellers]

Have a cite for that?

Geeze. I included it in the above post. We have satellites that see every storm now. Many (most?) of them fizzle out. But it gets a name when in the past few would have even been aware of it.

[Lee DeRaud]

We have satellites that see every storm now. Many (most?) of them fizzle out. But it gets a name when in the past few would have even been aware of it.

That is pretty much exactly what I said in the portion you redacted. If you don't want to compare current data to historical data, don't. But there are decades of current (i.e. satellite) data available for analysis, not to mention trivially simple ways to resolve conflicts in data collection methods for older data.

(Hint: the mere number of named storms is not a factor in any meaningful analysis of trends in hurricane number/strength.)

[Dave Zellers]

That is pretty much exactly what I said in the portion you redacted.

Yep. I see that. My bad. I fall victim to that which I criticize. Too much multi-tasking on my end. I'm at the same time learning how to grow potatoes in pots.

[Doug Garson]

Yep. I see that. My bad. I fall victim to that which I criticize. Too much multi-tasking on my end. I'm at the same time learning how to grow potatoes in pots.

I give you credit given for admitting your mistake, too many are incapable of doing that. Never tried growing potatoes in or out of a pot.

[Dave Zellers]

Never tried growing potatoes in or out of a pot.

Oh man- it's subtle but spuds fresh out of the ground are awesome.

Hey- maybe I can turn this thing into a gardening thread.

[Doug Garson]

Oh man- it's subtle but spuds fresh out of the ground are awesome.

Hey- maybe I can turn this thing into a gardening thread.

Really getting off topic but hey, why not. When I was a kid we rented a cottage in Port Elgin Ontario that backed on to a farm. The field behind us was a potato field and the farmer had harvested the crop mechanically which left lot's of small potatoes behind. We went out and picked a few dozen and yes, much better fresh out of the ground.

[Dave Zellers]

Allrightythen! My BIL lives on 26 acres right next to a corn farmer in Ohio. Every year, as soon as they have harvested the field they let my BIL know to come in and help themselves to the edges which for them is an endless supply of fresh corn for weeks. Heaven. Growing potatoes in large pots or fabric bags is the latest thing. I have high hopes for this year.

[Dave Zellers]

(Hint: the mere number of named storms is not a factor in any meaningful analysis of trends in hurricane number/strength.)

I will take your word that is true but I constantly see articles in the media with the phrase "More named storms than ever in the history of record keeping" There is a battle going on now between the right and left and truth be damned.

Sorry, I said I'd stop droning on and on.

[Doug Garson]

Totally agree. I was only interested in the charts provided and points made. I know nothing about TCW. But I do know it is extremely important to pay attention to opposing viewpoints. Today, everyone has taken sides and completely dismisses any arguments that come from outside their camp.

It seems quite logical that hurricane data historically consists of named storms and today we have skewed the data by naming many more storms.

I tend to look at the credentials and mission statements of groups before I look at what they post. NASA put a man on the moon, seems like they would do their homework and apply the science on climate change before making any statements or predictions.

[Dave Zellers]

I tend to look at the credentials and mission statements of groups before I look at what they post.

That was my point about taking sides. Just because you disagree with their mission statement doesn't mean they do not have valid points to make.

Everyone seems to have chosen a side. The result is: "I'm right, and you're stupid". Data that should be analyzed is instead ignored.

[Dave Zellers]

Man made climate change should be taken seriously. It is not. It has been completely politicized and as a result serious scientists who have data that might challenge the status quo stay silent for fear of being canceled. As Nancy Pelosi said "The science is settled" Science is never settled.

[Dave Zellers]

OK. I'll stop now.