PDA

View Full Version : Number of Powerful Hurricanes Has Doubled



Fraser
2005-Sep-20, 03:30 PM
SUMMARY: Think there are more hurricanes these days? Well, you're right. In the last 35 years, meteorologists have recorded that the number of powerful category 4 and 5 hurricanes has doubled. In the 1970s, there were approximately 10 category 4/5 storms globally each year. In 2004 there were 18. The trend is happening because global sea temperatures have risen over the last half century. Powerful hurricanes in the North Atlantic, such as Hurricane Katrina, have increased at an even faster rate.

View full article (http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/powerful_hurricanes_doubled.html)
What do you think about this story? post your comments below.

jarany
2005-Sep-20, 05:14 PM
Yeah but I think they also said that there are more 4 and 5 category hurricanes, but less hurricanes overall..

agesilaus
2005-Sep-20, 05:28 PM
I say: what hogwash. This ignores the 60 year hurricane cycle. You notice that they pick the 1970's as the start point since that is the start of the minimum period of the cycle. From 1942-1962 the US had:
16 cat-1
6 cat-2
13 cat-3
5 cat-4
total-40

these are storms that hit the US, two hits a year on average and one of those a cat 3 or 4 storm. From 1994-2004 we had:

1 cat-1
7 cat-2
3 cat-3
1 cat-4
total-12

Thats 1.2 storm hits a year and only 0.4/yr cat 3 or 4

I don't see any trend in the data. I just see AGW radicals lying about the data as usual. The above data is from the NWS web site:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/Deadliest_Costliest.shtml

Furthermore we only have good data for one or two of these 60 cycles. Who knows how many storms were out in the middle of the Indian Ocena back in 1800, we don't. Hardly enough data for any sort of predictive value.


agesialus

myrkat
2005-Sep-20, 05:46 PM
I say: what hogwash. This ignores the 60 year hurricane cycle. You notice that they pick the 1970's as the start point since that is the start of the minimum period of the cycle....
I am glad someone beat (likely most of) us to this. "Weather" you're in the global warming camp or the doesn't-exist camp, lying and exaggerating data is terrible. It's bad enough that errors and non-intentional misinterpretations occur with data, let no one exacerbate it by intentionally skewing results.

Of course, that will never cease; but it is nice to see clear-thinking people jump in and point out the blatant shortcomings of the interpretations when such statements are not only made, but "published" via news media as facts and valid theories.

Is there global warming? You betcha. Is there global cooling? Yep. Just depends on when you look at the data. Rinse, wash, repeat.

Just my $0.02 worth,
-myrkat

Greg
2005-Sep-21, 06:58 AM
This kind of finding confirms predictions that cyclonic activity would pick up in both intensity and frequecy with warming ocean temperatures. I believe warming ocean temperatures are the key to what is driving this, but as far as global warming goes, there is little doubt that this is part of what has happened over this timeframe and it is not just all cyclical changes. Global warming not only adds fuel to hurricanes in the form of warmer ocean temperatures, but arctic melt from it slows the global conveyor belts such as the Gulf Stream which is a principal means of dissipating this heat. Cyclones would then be expected to pick up the slack so to speak.

Fram
2005-Sep-21, 07:57 AM
I say: what hogwash. This ignores the 60 year hurricane cycle. You notice that they pick the 1970's as the start point since that is the start of the minimum period of the cycle. From 1942-1962 the US had:
16 cat-1
6 cat-2
13 cat-3
5 cat-4
total-40

these are storms that hit the US, two hits a year on average and one of those a cat 3 or 4 storm. From 1994-2004 we had:

1 cat-1
7 cat-2
3 cat-3
1 cat-4
total-12

Thats 1.2 storm hits a year and only 0.4/yr cat 3 or 4

I don't see any trend in the data. I just see AGW radicals lying about the data as usual. The above data is from the NWS web site:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/Deadliest_Costliest.shtml

Furthermore we only have good data for one or two of these 60 cycles. Who knows how many storms were out in the middle of the Indian Ocena back in 1800, we don't. Hardly enough data for any sort of predictive value.


agesialus

Lying? As in using the wrong data? Be careful before making wild accusations...
From this list (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/gifs/table3a.gif) (of your website) with only the thirtyfive costliest mainland US cyclones between 1900 and 2004, I have already for the period 1994-2004
Cat 4: 1 (Charley)
Cat 3: 5 (Ivan, Jeanne, Fran, Opal, Georges)
Cat 2: 6 (Frances, Floyd, Isabel, Bonnie, Erin, Marilyn)
Cat 1: 2 (Lili, Hortense)
Which makes fourteen of the costliest 35 hurricanes appear in that period.

Adding data from other lists on the same site, we find another cat 3, Bret. So taking only the strongest and most costly ones together, we already have a number which exceeds yours. I would probably be able to find a lot of cat 1 and some cat2 hurricanes for those years by looking further, but I'll let the link you gave do it's job for me.

The most revealing chart of that link you gave may be table 7 (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/gifs/table7.gif), which does show that the last ten years have an above average number of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes.
6 of the last ten years are amongst the 13 years with the most tropical storms, 5 of the last 10 years are amongst the 17 years with the most hurricanes.
On the contrary, none of the last ten years are among the years with the least storms or hurricanes: table 8a (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/gifs/table8a.gif)

Oh, and by the way, you do believe in a 60 year cycle, even though we only have enough data for one or two of those cycles? That is amazing...

hamops
2005-Sep-21, 08:02 AM
I don't think that increase of frequency and intensity of hurricanes (in last years) is only due to 1|2 C warming of oceanic water. Seismic, vulcanic, solar activity,...is increasing too.
Warming of the same level is on Mars! Look on pictures of ice caps melting on both poles of Mars (from last year) and compare them with older photos.
If there is the big one earthquake 8-10 Richter about 26th dec. 2005, so it would mean that Sumatra's earthq. from 26th dec. 2004, Bam (Iran) earthq. from 26th dec 2003 wern't only accidental catastrophes, but that there is outdoor force-from direction Orion, Gemini,..
Last solar super erruption from 6th sept. was also accomp. with strong 7.7 Richt. earthq.on 9th sept.,...

Swift
2005-Sep-21, 03:05 PM
I don't think that increase of frequency and intensity of hurricanes (in last years) is only due to 1|2 C warming of oceanic water. Seismic, vulcanic, solar activity,...is increasing too.
Warming of the same level is on Mars! Look on pictures of ice caps melting on both poles of Mars (from last year) and compare them with older photos.
If there is the big one earthquake 8-10 Richter about 26th dec. 2005, so it would mean that Sumatra's earthq. from 26th dec. 2004, Bam (Iran) earthq. from 26th dec 2003 wern't only accidental catastrophes, but that there is outdoor force-from direction Orion, Gemini,..
Last solar super erruption from 6th sept. was also accomp. with strong 7.7 Richt. earthq.on 9th sept.,...
Are you saying that earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, solar flares, and global warming on Earth and Mars are caused by some external, astronomical force?

TriangleMan
2005-Sep-21, 04:34 PM
This website (http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/) contains year-by-year data on tropical storms and hurricanes in the Atlantic area. It includes ones that did not hit the US, which I think are important to include if one wants to draw inferences as to whether there is more or less storm activity in a given period.

hamops
2005-Sep-22, 06:54 AM
For Swift,...Yes, earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, solar flares, and global warming on Earth and Mars are caused by some external, astronomical force,...
Look on Saturns rings-changes in density, knots, disturbances caused by moons, Saturns magnetic field changed dramatically in last years too, this is esp. in last years and will culminate about 2007.

Greg
2005-Sep-22, 09:31 PM
Hamops, Please provide us with the means (evidence/observations) by which you came to believe in this force. Also, it would be most helpful if you could provide a weblink so we can assess the validity of this evidence ourselves. I personally am not aware of any direct observations of such a force, nor am I aware of any observations that would indirectly implicate such a force either. What I am guessing you mean is that there is a dense object with a gravatational vector acting on the solar system, pulling it in that direction. I am aware of a theory that the gravatational effects of the large planets in our solar system influences solar activiy depending upon how the planets are aligned. The more distant the dense object is, the more likely that its gravatational effect would be constant and have no net effect on solar activity over time. Also recall that the effect of gravity decreases directly with the Square of the distance, so that there is little liklihood that a superdense object that far away would have any significant influence on the Sun.

tbm
2005-Sep-22, 09:41 PM
Greetings.
I wonder greatly where Hamops is getting the information for his assertions. I would bet that the info is coming from less-than truly scientfic sources, perhaps websites that specialize in far-out but ultimately unprovable "theories"

Regards, tbm

hamops
2005-Sep-23, 04:41 PM
Rita (and next another very probable superstrong hurricane on USA shore this year) will show you what are "less-than truly" scientific sources,...

myrkat
2005-Sep-24, 06:08 PM
Rita (and next another very probable superstrong hurricane on USA shore this year) will show you what are "less-than truly" scientific sources,...Another "superstrong" hurricane? As in RITA is superstrong? How so?

According to latest Internet posts of the Miami-based National Hurricane Center (NHC), Rita was downgraded to Category 2 with winds of 167 kph at 8 a.m. (1200 GMT), and was centered between Jasper and Beaumont, Texas.
How about "less-than truly" remarkable? Can we say, MEDIA FRENZY? It's good we are now planning better, and practicing getting out of the way, but storms in the ocean do often change strength when hitting land. I don't remember hearing anyone speculate that Rita *might* get weaker.

It's not that I don't believe it was going to be weaker or stronger; I just like to see accuracy and a non-ideological assessment. Seems we can never get that from either group of fanatics.

-myrkat

tbm
2005-Sep-24, 06:25 PM
Rita (and next another very probable superstrong hurricane on USA shore this year) will show you what are "less-than truly" scientific sources,...

Actually, Hamops, I'm counting on YOU to provide your "scientific sources". After all, if (IF!) they are truly on the up and up, we would surely be able to check them out and verify their credibility.

tbm

hamops
2005-Sep-25, 03:53 PM
Something is hurtling toward us from direction, const. Orion, Gemini.
Astronomers in last, in 19th,... century knew it well, thanks to them was discovered also Neptune, Pluto, many big asteroids,...
Study more history and you can realise that such events (similar to that one what is coming now) were here and will be more times,...
Placing of planets on their orbits, gap in Kuiper belt speak that around end 2012 will something extraord. happen.
Not only Venus transit (6.6.2012) when Jupiter is in aphelia.
In simul. soft (Ciel),...you can test it. There is made path for arriving body, in coincid. with Keplers, Titus/Bodes laws,...
Read more about Narmer palette, Dendera zodiac, Senmut map, Lady Tai funneral banner, Mayan codexes, Bible, Enuma Elish, Popol Vuh, Texts from pyramids, more about Chronos, Yggdrasil,...read results from GISP2 Greenland ice core, Vostok projects, you cant cheat history,...
Look on orbit of Sedna on another TNOs.
From perturbances of orbits of planets, from inclinations of their planes is clear from what place, in what direction is something heavy hurtling,...

TriangleMan
2005-Sep-26, 05:47 PM
Hmmmmm, this all seems familiar. Hamops, you wouldn't happen to be from Slovakia perchance?

Wolverine
2005-Sep-26, 10:33 PM
Something is hurtling toward us from direction, const. Orion, Gemini.

hamops, please provide specific evidence to substantiate this claim without relying upon word salad and cultural mythology. Thanks.

Duane
2005-Sep-26, 11:37 PM
You're all wasting your time. The infamous Pavel is back, using his painted carpet as his astrological reference.

Pavel, consider this a warning. We have an area (Against the Mainstream) where you can discuss your idea all you want, so do not post in support of it in this or any other forum.

You will not be warned about this again.

hamops
2005-Sep-27, 07:42 AM
Do you warn me to tell the truth!
Why don't we (public) have temperature records from Moon, Mars?!
Global warming on Mars is proved by heaps of photos of both ice caps (melting) from last 20 and more years!!! Over there (on Mars) is nobody burning fosil fuels, cutting trees, or yes!?
Global warming is not only global, but whole solar system is warming, esp. closer planets,...in last years it is accelerated,...
Rita, Katrina,Charly, Frances, Ivan, Jeane,....wern't only results of global warming due to mankinds activities, there are cosmical reasons.
If you want to hide them, so you are in service of evil, of consume society,...
My articles were tied with topic of this news so why do you want to make censorship here again?
Is it public discussion?!
Did I use bad words?!
Is it allowed only to do agreement with conclusions submited by state officials!?

TriangleMan
2005-Sep-27, 10:59 AM
You're all wasting your time. The infamous Pavel is back, using his painted carpet as his astrological reference.
It is resenmut then! Hi resenmut, how are you doing?

hamops
2005-Sep-27, 03:31 PM
I had done some simulations on winorsa and they show that X and Nemesis could be be there in stable system.
Binary researche of Walter Cruttenden support even my results and also so by you dishonested "carpet researche".
Carpets were here many thousands years, we are less than 100 years,....

aurora
2005-Sep-27, 03:48 PM
Seismic, vulcanic, solar activity,...is increasing too.


No, it isn't. Global earthquakes are not more frequent or more powerful now than they have been in the past. Same with volcanic eruptions.

What could have lead you to the conclusion that they are?

EDIT to add:

Never mind. I just saw the new posts which answer my question and make it clear what thought process you are using.

TriangleMan
2005-Sep-27, 04:25 PM
Just to get this back on track I read that August 2005 National Geographic article on hurricanes which did mention that by using things such as ice-core data there is evidence that Atlantic temperatures do fluctuate over a cycle. The length of the cycle is uncertain, 30-years and 60-years was mentioned. Why this occurs is still a matter of debate.

It would be tough to draw conclusions about global warming playing a role. According to the NG article while ocean temperatures from 1995-2005 were above average 1985-1994 temperatures were below average. If global warming were a main factor then one would think the 85-94 sea temperatures would still be higher than normal, or at the very least around average.

aurora
2005-Sep-27, 08:19 PM
There is also an article in this week's Science News that covers the topic of hurricanes. The article presents both sides, and includes references to published articles like a recent one in Nature.

tbm
2005-Sep-28, 11:14 PM
Ahhh, the quiet sound of sanity..........

tbm