ADVERTISEMENT

Hurricanes continue to get stronger

Ucfmikes

Todd's Tiki Bar
Gold Member
Jun 6, 2015
42,595
43,144
113
ANOTHER category 5 and now 927 millibars

I know we have discussed this before, but definitely seeing a change in the last 10-20 years

This hurricane is EXPECTED to turn northward, but what if it didn’t?

Are we going to see a complete annihilation someday of a city like Fort Lauderdale, Jacksonville, West Palm Beach or Miami?
 
This is nothing new. There are cycles, big storms small storms, a lot of storms few storms. add to that before the 1960's We had much more limited knowledge of what those storms were like. We had no satellite coverage, limited flights into the storms, with far less sensors on those flights. and if you go back to the early 40's we never had any plane fly through the storms. All we had were reports from ships that happened to run into those storms. Heck even when I was a kid, the reporters would talk about estimated coordinates and winds, Why? They really didn't know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nautiknight
Yeah, screw any scientific evidence to the contrary!!!
Hahahahaha. As it grew even bigger since this post

175 mph winds.

913 millibars

Ridiculous

Looks like I’m going to have to spend Monday morning putting up those damn shutters :rolleyes:
 
Its hard to jump to that conclusion withonly a few decades of data. Labor day storm of 1935 was a cat 5 with lower pressure. This is also the 4th named storm this season which is far below average. I wouldnt jump to conclusions in either directoon
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nautiknight
Its hard to jump to that conclusion withonly a few decades of data. Labor day storm of 1935 was a cat 5 with lower pressure. This is also the 4th named storm this season which is far below average. I wouldnt jump to conclusions in either directoon
There wasn’t many in the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s.

Now there are a ton of 4’s and 5’s
The numbers aren’t up, but the numbers of strong ones are
 
Would it be correct to assume that storms of this strength aren’t moved as easily by opposing adjacent pressure systems in the atmosphere?

Therefore, this storm will not turn north quickly enough or abruptly enough to keep it from hitting Florida?
 
This has never happened in the millions of years the world has existed!
Probably not. Not sure if you’re serious


If it has, randomly IT JUST HAPPENED TO BE NOW?

It’s basic statistics
 
Last edited:
Probably not.

If it has, randomly IT JUST HAPPENED TO BE NOW?
Or more likely this is a cycle that’s happened a thousand times before and we are observing it now. We fall victim to the fallacy of “recency” all the time. This is no different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nautiknight
Or more likely this is a cycle that’s happened a thousand times before and we are observing it now. We fall victim to the fallacy of “recency” all the time. This is no different.
With all due respect, that’s a very weak and non scientific argument. It doesn’t really apply here.


We already know that ocean temperatures are rising. We know that’s in direct relationship to strength of hurricanes. Not really arguable

The sample size isn’t really THAT small

If you want to say that it is small compared to millions of years, then you would be correct
However, that’s not a very strong argument against recent data and increased ocean temperatures

We can’t assume that 1,000 years ago or more that we had category 5 storms often. There is weak evidence that we didn’t

So.., more scientific evidence goes for my theory
Yours is merely speculation
 
Last edited:
With all due respect, that’s a very weak and non scientific argument. It doesn’t really apply here.


We already know that ocean temperatures are rising. We know that’s in direct relationship to strength of hurricanes. Not really arguable

The sample size isn’t really THAT small

If you want to say that it is small compared to millions of years, then you would be correct
However, that’s not a very strong argument against recent data and increased ocean temperatures

We can’t assume that 1,000 years ago or more that we had category 5 storms often. There is weak evidence that we didn’t

So.., more scientific evidence goes for my theory
Yours is merely speculation
In the history of the world, the time period of our human existence, much less the amount of time that we’ve measured, is statistically insignificant. We know that there have been long periods of time on this planet both hotter and colder than it is right now. Yet you’re getting alarmed about a recent trend in less than 100 years of recorded metrics and telling me that my argument is weak?

Sure, against recently observed phenomena in a ridiculously small window of time, there’s a difference. Why are you acting like it’s something the world has never seen? Or even humanity? More importantly, what are you suggesting should be done about it?
 
In the history of the world, the time period of our human existence, much less the amount of time that we’ve measured, is statistically insignificant. We know that there have been long periods of time on this planet both hotter and colder than it is right now. Yet you’re getting alarmed about a recent trend in less than 100 years of recorded metrics and telling me that my argument is weak?

Sure, against recently observed phenomena in a ridiculously small window of time, there’s a difference. Why are you acting like it’s something the world has never seen? Or even humanity? More importantly, what are you suggesting should be done about it?
This thread has absolutely nothing to do with doing anything about hurricanes

Your argument is completely guesswork and speculation. How is it to be considered anything otherwise? Is that a strong argument?

The world HAS BEEN hotter and colder in its existence

However, was it man made or natural phenomena?
 
In the history of the world, the time period of our human existence, much less the amount of time that we’ve measured, is statistically insignificant. We know that there have been long periods of time on this planet both hotter and colder than it is right now. Yet you’re getting alarmed about a recent trend in less than 100 years of recorded metrics and telling me that my argument is weak?

Sure, against recently observed phenomena in a ridiculously small window of time, there’s a difference. Why are you acting like it’s something the world has never seen? Or even humanity? More importantly, what are you suggesting should be done about it?
Perhaps you can read one of the hundreds of articles on this

If you simply don’t believe in science, I can’t help you there
 
Perhaps you can read one of the hundreds of articles on this

If you simply don’t believe in science, I can’t help you there
I like your rhetorical trick. Because I am saying that the world has gone through similar phenomena before, you are saying I don’t believe in science because you are freaking out about a spate of recent storms. How does that even work?
 
I like your rhetorical trick. Because I am saying that the world has gone through similar phenomena before, you are saying I don’t believe in science because you are freaking out about a spate of recent storms. How does that even work?
Tell me one example that you have of trends of category 4 and 5 hurricanes from 1 million years ago. I’ll wait
 
I like your rhetorical trick. Because I am saying that the world has gone through similar phenomena before, you are saying I don’t believe in science because you are freaking out about a spate of recent storms. How does that even work?
tenor.gif
 
In the history of the world, the time period of our human existence, much less the amount of time that we’ve measured, is statistically insignificant. ... Sure, against recently observed phenomena in a ridiculously small window of time, there’s a difference.
Are you saying that scientists are unable to measure what our climate was like in the Earth's far distance past?

If so, I've got some breaking news for you.
 
Tell me one example that you have of trends of category 4 and 5 hurricanes from 1 million years ago. I’ll wait
I’m not the one acting like this is unprecedented in history and OMG humans must be responsible and we better do something about it now and on and on. And before you act like you’ve never said that, you broached the question of manmade or not and you’ve been toeing the line for the whole conversation.

Also, at the risk of using Wikipedia as a quick source, there have been other periods where hurricane activity spiked as much as 3-5 fold that neither correlated with industrial activity nor a political urge to waste huge sums of money on political vote pandering.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlantic_hurricanes_before_1600
 
I’m not the one acting like this is unprecedented in history and OMG humans must be responsible and we better do something about it now and on and on. And before you act like you’ve never said that, you broached the question of manmade or not and you’ve been toeing the line for the whole conversation.

Also, at the risk of using Wikipedia as a quick source, there have been other periods where hurricane activity spiked as much as 3-5 fold that neither correlated with industrial activity nor a political urge to waste huge sums of money on political vote pandering.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlantic_hurricanes_before_1600
I’m not saying anything about hurricane activity

If you’re referring to an increase in ACTIVITY, that’s a much more random thing

I’m talking about the STRENGTH of hurricanes

Additionally, if I was hinting of man made activities, it certainly was scientific and I could care less about it being political

Politics aren’t going to save my house from a category 5 hurricane. It’s too late to change a thing and nobody gives a crap
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaShuckster
This is the weirdest damn argument. It's warmer than it's been in our very short window of time that we've had the capability to measure and observe. But since we KNOW there were periods of time when the earth was warmer than it is now then it is very reasonable to assume we've had periods of extremely powerful storms as well.

That is a discussion separate and apart from humans impact on global warming.
 
This is the weirdest damn argument. It's warmer than it's been in our very short window of time that we've had the capability to measure and observe. But since we KNOW there were periods of time when the earth was warmer than it is now then it is very reasonable to assume we've had periods of extremely powerful storms as well.

That is a discussion separate and apart from humans impact on global warming.
It’s really not a separate argument at all

Why is it warmer now?

Additionally, it’s not a weird argument

It’s only on every damn news station 24/7 right now

Would you rather talk about Trump?
 
It's weird bc either you're arguing with him bc you don't know wtf he's saying or you're intentionally being difficult.

It is factually accurate that there have been many warming periods throughout history. It should then be rather obvious that during those times we had massive storms. You asking him to prove it is absurd since has he said we've only been around to study this stuff for an insignificant amount of time and he can't pull up satellite images from 85 million years ago.

But if you insist, here's the first thing that popped up when searching prehistoric hurricanes:
Monster hurricanes reached U.S. during prehistoric periods of ocean warming

And this is just when looking at New England during a particular climate cycle over a certain time period.

All @sk8knight said was what appears to be something new is actually what has happened time and time again over hundreds of millions of years. This is ANOTHER one of those warming periods where we get monster storms. This should be obvious.

That is one conversation.

The other conversation is why it's warmer. Some people believe we are the sole cause of warming and some people believe we are accelerating a natural cycle. Whatever the case it has nothing to do with the obvious conclusion that there were super massive storms during prehistoric periods where there was NO human impact. Try reading what he was actually saying.
 
Paleotempestology is a field of science with important practical and social implications.[20] The insurance industry factors in paleotempestological information in risk prediction analysis[90] and when setting insurance rates,[69] and it also funds paleotempestological research.[91] Archeologists, ecologists, forest and water resource managers could also make use of paleotempestology information.[11]

Recurrence rates

The recurrence rate is an important metric with which one can estimate tropical cyclone risk, and it can be determined by paleotempestological research. In the Gulf of Mexico, catastrophic hurricane strikes at given locations occur once about every 350 years in the last 3,800 years[22] or about 0.48%-0.39% annual frequency at any given site,[92] with a recurrence rate of 300 years or 0.33% annual probability at sites in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico;[93] category 3 or more storms occur at a rate of 3.9 - 0.1 category 3 or more storms per century in the northern Gulf of Mexico.[94] Elsewhere, tropical cyclones with intensities of category 4 or more occur about every 350 years in the Pearl River Delta (China),[95] 1 storm every 100–150 years at Funafuti and a similar rate in French Polynesia,[80] 1 category 3 or stronger every 471 years in St. Catherines Island (Georgia),[96] 1 storm every 140–180 years in Nicaragua,[97] 1 intense storm every 200–300 years in the Great Barrier Reef[48] - formerly their recurrence rate was estimated to be one strong event every few millennia[98] - and 1 storm of category 2-4 intensity[99] every 190–270 years at Shark Bay on the other side of Australia.[100]Steady rates have been found for the Gulf of Mexico and the Coral Sea[101] for timespans of several millennia.[92]

However, it has also been found that the occurrence rates of tropical cyclone measured with instrumental data over historical time can be significantly different from the actual occurrent rate. In the past, tropical cyclones were far more frequent in the Great Barrier Reef[48] and the northern Gulf of Mexico than today;[102] in Apalachee Bay, strong storms occur every 40 years, not every 400 years as documented historically.[103] and serious storms in New Yorkoccurred twice in 300 years[104] not once every millennium or less.[105] In general, the area of Australia appears to be unusually inactive in recent times by the standards of the past 550–1500 years,[106] and that the historical record underestimates the incidence of strong storms in Northeastern Australia.[107]

Long term fluctuations of tropical cyclone activity

Long-term variations of tropical cyclone activity have also been found. The Gulf of Mexico saw increased activity between 3,800 - 1,000 years ago with a fivefold increase of category 4-5 hurricane activity,[108] and activity at St. Catherines Island and Wassaw Island was also higher between 2,000 and 1,100 years ago.[109] This appears to be a stage of increased tropical cyclone activity spanning the region from New York to Puerto Rico,[110] followed by an inactive interval since 1,000 years that also affected the Gulf Coast.[111] The US Atlantic coast and the Caribbean saw low activity between 950 ADand 1700 with a sudden increase around 1700.[40]Such fluctuations appear to mainly concern strong tropical cyclone systems, at least in the Atlantic; weaker systems have a more steady pattern of activity.[112] Rapid fluctuations over short timespans have also been observed.[11]

In the Atlantic Ocean, the so-called "Bermuda High" hypothesis stipulates that changes in the position of this anticyclone can cause storm paths to alternate between landfalls on the East Coast and the Gulf Coast[19][113] but also Nicaragua.[114]Paleotempestological data support this theory[115]although additional findings on Long Island and Puerto Rico have demonstrated some complexity in the patterns[111] as active periods appear to correlate between the three sites.[116] A southward shift of the High has been inferred to have occurred 3,000[117]-1,000 years ago[118] and has been linked with the "hurricane hyperactivity" period in the Gulf of Mexico between 3,400 - 1,000 years ago.[119]Furthermore, a tendency to a more northerly storm track may be associated with a strong North Atlantic Oscillation[120] while the Neoglacial cooling is associated with a southward shift.[119] A north-south anti-correlation has also been found in West Asia between the South China Sea and Japan.[121]

Influence of climate modes on tropical cyclone activity

The influence of natural trends on tropical cyclone activity has been recognized in paleotempestology records, such as correlation of Atlantic hurricanetracks[122] and activity with the status of the ITCZ,[123][124] position of the Loop Current (for Gulf of Mexico hurricanes),[92] North Atlantic Oscillation, sea surface temperatures[125] and the strength of the West African Monsoon,[126] and correlation between Australian cyclone activity and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.[127] Increased insolation - either from solar activity[128] or from orbital variations - have been found to be detrimental to tropical cyclone activity in some regions.[129] In the early Common Era, warmer sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic as well as more restricted anomalies may be responsible for stronger regional hurricane activity.[130]

Among the known climate modes that influence tropical cyclone activity in paleotempestological records are ENSO phase variations, which influence tropical cyclone activity in Australia and the Atlantic[131] but also their path as has been noted for typhoons.[132][133] More general global correlations have been found, such as anticorrelation between tropical cyclone activity in Japan and the North Atlantic[129] and correlation between the Atlantic and Australia on the one hand[134] and between Australia and French Polynesia on the other hand.[135]

Influence of long-term temperature variations on tropical cyclone activity

The effect of general climate variations have also been found. Hurricane[136] and typhoon tracks tend to shift north (e.g. Amur Bay) during warm periods and south (e.g. South China) during cold periods,[137]patterns that might be mediated by shifts in the subtropical anticyclones.[111] Such a behaviour (northward shift) has been observed as a consequence of man-made global warming and the end of the Little Ice Age[136] but also after volcanic eruptions (southward shift).[138]

During the last 600 years in the Little Ice Age, there were more but weaker storms in the Gulf of Mexico[139] while hurricane activity did not decrease in western Long Island.[116] Increased hurricane activity during the last 300 years in the Caribbean may also correlate to the Little Ice Age.[140]

The response of tropical cyclone to future global warming is of great interest. The Holocene Climatic Optimum did not induce increased tropical cyclone strikes in Queensland and phases of higher hurricane activity on the Gulf Coast are not associated with global warming;[40] however warming has been correlated with typhoon activity in the Gulf of Thailand[141] and marine warming with typhoon activity in the South China Sea,[142] increased hurricane activity in Belize (which increased during the Medieval Warm Period)[143] and during the Mesozoic, when carbon dioxide caused warming episodes.[89]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleotempestology
 
  • Like
Reactions: sk8knight
Somehow you think throwing out lengthy and random articles is going to prove a point
It does not

Perhaps you should read THIS article

https://www.yaleclimateconnections....MWG3OmEa0fdAKRgDs5DDms6dObAYRFQBoCfjUQAvD_BwE

Once again, the increase in the strength of hurricanes (category 4 and 5) in such a short present time is unheard of and there is no reason to believe that this is a “natural cycle” or something that is going to change

That’s the original argument
 
Last edited:
All @sk8knight said was what appears to be something new is actually what has happened time and time again over hundreds of millions of years. This is ANOTHER one of those warming periods where we get monster storms. This should be obvious.
This is completely inaccurate. This is not obvious
THIS is not one of THOSE warming periods where we get monster storms


Somehow you think throwing out lengthy and random articles is going to prove a point
It does not

Nobody is arguing that there were periods of global warming and cooling during the millions in of years of the earths history. In those periods climate changes were relatively slow.

Your argument that what happened millions of years ago or even thousands of years ago in relationship to the speed that things have changed in just the last 20 or 50 years is not a valid argument.

The fact of the matter is we have PROOF of this speed now and anything of this speed/magnitude relationship in past history is mostly speculation or cannot be accurately documented

Additionally, we are not going through any other natural temperature changes at this present time. We are not in an ice age and we are not going through times of massive volcanic activity like millions and billions of years ago.
 
Last edited:
The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Climate changes that happen naturally other than comets hitting the earth take 10,000 to millions of years to develop. That’s still a small fraction of the Earth’s history

I’m talking 20-50 years of change.

How can that possibly be the same as the planet going through natural cycles?

Human beings make up an infinitesimally small part of the history of the earth

Only now are we seeing a 20-50 year change in the strength of hurricanes vs climate changes that we assume changed hurricane strengths, that occurred naturally over thousands to millions of years

Please google “are hurricanes stronger now”

The evidence is overwhelming that they are
 
All he freaking said is that we had mega hurricanes throughout prehistoric history and we did! This whole thing started over a simple comment by sk8knight in response to a tweet saying we're in uncharted territory since 1851. While that may be true he was saying we've seen periods of this before. Full stop.

Part 2.

No shit hurricanes are the strongest they've been since modern human existence, nobody has argued otherwise. Again, you're so set on arguing something that was never presented by anyone.

Not once have I or anyone else in this thread said there hasn't been increase over the last 100 years.

Again, all he's saying is the world has seen storms even bigger than this. Stop conflating two separate points of discussion. There are literally scientists who dedicate their lives studying the strength of these prehistoric storms and climates impact on them.

So again....like I said..... These are different freaking discussions and it's why you keep arguing and don't understand what he's saying.

1. These massive storms aren't new in the earth's history

2. Human impact on growing intensity

DIFFERENT POINTS

We can have a real discussion on 2 once you move beyond arguing about 1.


If he wants to defend his position I'll leave it to him to attempt and translate again for you. Clearly yall weren't on the same page and it started with me clearly identifying from post 1 that you missed his point.
 
Last edited:
All he freaking said is that we had mega hurricanes throughout prehistoric history and we did! This whole thing started over a simple comment by sk8knight in response to a tweet saying we're in uncharted territory since 1851. While that may be true he was saying we've seen periods of this before. Full stop.

Part 2.

No shit hurricanes are the strongest they've been since modern human existence, nobody has argued otherwise. Again, you're so set on arguing something that was never presented by anyone.

Not once have I or anyone else in this thread said there hasn't been increase over the last 100 years.

Again, all he's saying is the world has seen storms even bigger than this. Stop conflating two separate points of discussion. There are literally scientists who dedicate their lives studying the strength of these prehistoric storms and climates impact on them.

So again....like I said..... These are different freaking discussions and it's why you keep arguing and don't understand what he's saying.

1. These massive storms aren't new in the earth's history

2. Human impact on growing intensity

DIFFERENT POINTS

We can have a real discussion on 2 once you move beyond arguing about 1.
Read my post

It simply states that hurricanes are getting stronger

Are they not?

The argument against this was that this is just a cycle that we are seeing. That this is something that is no different than events that have occurred throughout the history of the planet and that we are freaking out about NOTHING

This is completely untrue

Stop making the argument more complicated than it was meant to be

It’s all quite simple
 
Read my post

It simply states that hurricanes are getting stronger

Are they not?

The argument against this was that this is just a cycle that we are seeing. That this is something that is no different than events that have occurred throughout the history of the planet and that we are freaking out about NOTHING

This is completely untrue

Stop making the argument more complicated than it was meant to be

It’s all quite simple
You’re arguing that the planet has never seen storms that are this strong. That is patently false.
 
You’re arguing that the planet has never seen storms that are this strong. That is patently false.
No I’m not.

However, if I WAS, there is no definitive proof that hurricanes were this strong.

Although 3 Billion years ago, I can assume the planet was pretty damn harsh. So.., who knows
 
Quite frankly, there's nothing more entertaining here than watching Holier-than-Thou, Joe Sixpack posters arguing that climate science research is bullshit.
 
Quite frankly, there's nothing more entertaining here than watching Holier-than-Thou, Joe Sixpack posters arguing that climate science research is bullshit.
DETAILED INFORMATION about hurricanes millions of years ago or even a thousand years ago is not quite what it is today to draw
accurate conclusions.

We know that at times throughout history, naturally, the oceans had varying temperatures for EXTENDED periods of time. From that we know that there were periods of strong hurricanes and probably nearly no hurricanes.

We don’t know the wind speeds and pressures of these hurricanes. Therefore, obviously, a comparison study is impossible
 
Quite frankly, there's nothing more entertaining here than watching Holier-than-Thou, Joe Sixpack posters arguing that climate science research is bullshit.

This coming from the guy who thinks the Bible sanctions abortion [roll]
 
ADVERTISEMENT