Source: What Happened to the 2013 Atlantic Hurricane Season? | Climate Central Climate science and meterology models evolve and refine from lessons learned. It isn't we're working from perfect knowledge, just perfectible. Interesting, it looks like I've found two good web sites for credible climate knowledge: Climate Change | Climate Central - appears to be a good technical source http://www.skepticalscience.org - more advocacy resource to find technical sources Both provide credible reports but 'skepticalscience' also makes a study of the denial crowd. It treats their misinformation practices as another phenomena with predictable, repeating patterns. It then provides a layman's explanation to immunize against the propaganda. In contrast, 'climatecentral' collects more fact-based articles with less emphasis upon the personalities of the honorable competition. Together, they provide a fact-based, description of what is going on. Bob Wilson
You know damn well SkepticalScience has provided misinformation in the past. As you are obviously spewing misinformation with your post. I dont care that you never contribute an original thought ,but at least be honest. Is that too much to ask?
Why thank you! Quite an endorsement: Well I'm sympathetic to your angst. Perhaps you might click on my profile and set it to 'ignore user' . . . The choice is yours but this strawman is especially weak and useless. You've over used it. What we're seeing in the original article is each year we're still finding new things about the interactions between climate and weather. For example, where did the descending dry air come from? They mentioned the Sahara as one source. So what air relaced the Sahara air? Was there more rain in that area? Once the dry air descended, did it pickup moisture from the warmed, Atlantic or Mediteranian surface? Did it subsequently make a measured change elsewhere? What a fascinating field of study. Bob Wilson
Acknowledging that you support websites known to misrepresent facts . Then my objecting to you you knowingly presenting them as reliable, is creating a strawman? Your straw has been previously digested by a cow.
When your side claims that the "science is settled", implies that you already fully understand the workings of climate only being controlled by CO2. Your side makes yet another wrong prediction, then invents a theory to explain why they were wrong. The "science is settled", but your sides predictions are consistently WRONG. Otherwise what is the need for any further knowledge? If you dont actually know everything that causes climate change ,stop claiming there is a scientific consensus . So that we can actually bother to ponder the unknown.
The first cited article will be of interest to anyone who wants to better understand what 2013 has taught hurricane forecasters about causative factors. Klotzbach and Landsea are not rookies at this.
