It is difficult trying to calculate the time we have exhausted searching for hydroponics gardening research….

Personally I think the money would be better spent on Tsunami inundation maps, risk evaluations, paleotsunami studies, etc. But thats only based on the ugly reality of loosing 230,000 humans and countless $$$ in property a couple years ago.

Currently, no So Cal County wants to or see’s a need for these types of studies. Makes me sick. Lets just worry about AGW

For the record, “being disingenuous” is not exactly the same as “lying”. But, I will also not argue about that.

I will however, mention that I think that expertise in cyclone physics has anything to do with the line of argument above? I think those who have studied both viscous flow, inviscid flow, heat and mass transfer and are familiar with the meaning of the terms like “vorticity”, “deformation rate tensor”, “turbulence closure models” and are familiar with the Richardson, Prandlt and Reynolds numbers, will say those topics have nothing to do with the discussion above.

1. No one is saying the slope is not of great interest in the “broader” context. What is in dispute is the main contribution of H&W’s paper and whether or not their failure to consider the undercount prior to 1945 puts their findings in dispute.

2. Your quote fails to show the slope is the point of main interest to H&W 2006.

If you wish to be appear disingenous on a blog where you do not have the power to delete your comment, that is your choice. You will no salvage the contents of H&W this way.

3. What are the projections of tropical cyclone and hurricane frequency and
intensity, given an accelerating increase in SSTs associated with greenhouse
warming? We have noted that the current climate regime seems more indicative of a
transition phase than the settling into a new steady regime. Whether this will stabilize
soon, or continue to increase is a matter of great scientific interest and a matter of
considerable concern for coastal communities in the impacted regions. If we project
past increases forward, then an increased SST over the next 50 years of, say, 1-2oC
could lead to an average of 20-25 cyclones and 10-15 hurricanes per year. This
conclusion raises another question; are there inhibiting factors that will impede this
potential increase?

If yes, do you have Holland and Webster 2006 handy? Might I suggest you click here, download the paper and re-read it.

Begin by reading the abstract, which starts:

We find that long-period variations in tropical cyclone and hurricane frequecy over the past century has occurred in three, relatively stable regimes separated by sharp transitions.

It continues in that veine, and as far as I can determine never mentions this “main point of interest” (i.e. the slope relating ToC and SST).
But who knows, maybe my reading has been cursory. So do read it, then me know if you find any direct mention of this sois-dissant “point of main interest” in: a) the abstract, b) the conclusions c) andy of the 8 figures or the text.

When you are finished, please return and tell us where you found any direct mention of that “main point of interest.”

Meanwhile, I will assume you misunderstood the exchange between Lee and myself and did not realize we were discussing the main point of interest in Holland and Webster 2006.