[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I would say hurricanes land falling on something the size of the US over 130+ years is a pretty good sample size.

Unlike the data cherry picked by the belivers the hurricanes land fall data going back to 1885 is immune to the "corrections" they like to apply to temperature data.

Super storm sandy was the only major thing to happen over that time. Sandy was a hurricane, but it was more like a storm called a "noreaster" that was supercharged by tropical storm remnants.
Thats why what hit the east coast of the United states is called "super storm sandy" and not hurricane sandy, though strong enough to be a hurricane.

That noreaster was going to hit, it just happened to sweep up tropical storm remnants and the 2 systems fed off each other.

The last one like that was the "perfect storm" in 1991. Every 20 to 30 year the east coast gets something like that.
Then going back further the one before the perfect storm was in the early 1980s.

They said on the weather channel that climate change driven warmer waters will make more hurricanes, make them stronger and change the jet stream to cause them to hit the US more often.
That's why I used the 1885 up land falling hurricanes data, because that's exactly what the weather channel specifically said "major land falling hurricanes".
But we are on a downward trend for major land falling hurricanes since about the 1930s.

The believers / pushers say one thing when the long term data says the opposite.

The weatherchannel people never tried to show that there was any kind of long term increase in major land falling hurricanes either, because there isnt.
They merely stated a hypothesis that historical evidence does not supoort.

What did the climatologists say?