Where is the evidence that scientists have predicted an increase in the number of tropical cyclones?
The IPCC, which synthesizes the relevant scientific literature, has been extremely consistent in not predicting an increase in tropical cyclone numbers. It's so easy to find this stuff, so why do some individuals still try to deceive?
IPCC 5th Report, 2013 :
"Projections for the 21st century indicate that it is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged, concurrent with a likely increase in both global mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed and rain rates"
IPCC 4th Report, 2007:
"There is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones...Multi-decadal variability and the quality of the tropical cyclone records prior to routine satellite observations in about 1970 complicate the detection of long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity and there is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones."
IPCC 3rd Report, 2001 :
"There is little consistent evidence that shows changes in the projected frequency of tropical cyclones and areas of formation."
IPCC 2nd Report, 1995 :
"Knowledge is currently insufficient to say whether there will be any changes in the occurrence or geographical distribution of severe storms, e.g., tropical cyclones."
IPCC 1st Report, 1990 :
"Climate models give no consistent indication whether tropical storms will increase or decrease in frequency or intensity as climate changes; neither is there any evidence that this has occurred over the past few decades."
Troll I didn't "answer a question I had prepped", I've understood the distinction between number of storms, and intensity of storms, for quite a long time, as well as what the IPCC generally says on the subject. Finding the actual quotes took about 15 minutes with simple Ctrl + F in the pdfs, which I realize is still a level of effort you are incapable of.
It seems all you are capable of is changing your identity and spamming "you are Dirac" again and again and again. Which basically is just your fallback when you don't have a good answer to whatever lie you're being called out on that day. Is it working? Because I'm still here, and I'm (still) not Dirac.
- skeptikLv 71 month agoFavourite answer
In the imaginations of the professional deniers. For whom facts have never mattered.
You know, the same people who are about to pounce all over this question claiming the both you and I - as well as anyone else who doesn't accept their BS - are the same person.
The best they can ever come up with is an example of someone (like Al Gore) who is NOT a climate scientist, making a prediction that was corrected immediately by people who are.
- Anonymous1 month ago
The National Weather Service puts out a prediction every year at the start of hurricane season.
- Anonymous1 month ago
David, Darwinist and Skeptic seem to all be the same person. If Dirac is doing this, I feel sorry for him.
- 1 month ago
The guy with the purple and green avatar is correct. He said you posted your prepped answer in 4 minutes. It was not 15 minutes.
The ONLY way you could have done that is if you typed the question yourself. You are a pitiful liar and disgusting human being.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- DarwinistLv 61 month ago
There isn't any, nor have any of the regular proponents here claimed otherwise, as far as I'm aware. But you know the "skeptics"; they never let a good strawman go to waste!
- ?Lv 41 month ago
We know it's you, Dirac. None of your theoretical musings will ever erase the evidence.