PDA

View Full Version : Double the Hurricanes, Half the Fun



Fraser
2007-Aug-01, 09:28 PM
Researchers are reporting that the frequency of Atlantic hurricanes has doubled over the last century. 100 years ago, the Atlantic saw 6 severe storms a year, and now it experiences 15. ...

Read the full blog entry (http://www.universetoday.com/2007/08/01/double-the-hurricanes-half-the-fun/)

Lord Jubjub
2007-Aug-02, 03:27 AM
The observer effect should be taken into consideration. Quite a few of those Cat 4 and Cat 5 storms from the last ten years were in those categories in open seas and detectable at those strengths only by aircraft and satelllite.

The storms in the 1930s and even in the 1950s were observed by steel ships driven by internal engines. They would have been able to get closer to storms and give a better open sea record than the ships in the late 19th century.

LPScott
2007-Aug-02, 11:32 AM
From the article - "The first period was between 1900 and 1930, with 6 major storms a year. From 1930 to 1940, the number increased to 10. And then it increased again to an average of 15 from 1995 to 2005."
Now look guys!!
This data stream leaves out 55 years of data !!
What happened from 1940 to 1995? That was the REAL start of the industrial buildup - So -- Where's the data ? We could still be looking at a natural variation - NOT manmade!
Maybe the frequency of storms during that missing period is not supportive of the "global warming" myth and thus intentionally left out ??
Curious minds want to know!
Patrick

Jerry
2007-Aug-02, 01:23 PM
Unfortunately for many in the US, the thirty-plus year conspiracy by the energy industry to highlight and publisize every scientific indicator that runs counter to the general trend has accomplished exactly what they set out to do: inspire confidence in a doubtful position.

John Mendenhall
2007-Aug-02, 01:42 PM
Unfortunately for many in the US, the thirty-plus year conspiracy by the energy industry to highlight and publisize every scientific indicator that runs counter to the general trend has accomplished exactly what they set out to do: inspire confidence in a doubtful position.


Say what you mean, Jerry, I can't figure out your position.

Thanks, John M.

danscope
2007-Aug-02, 05:11 PM
Hi, What is worse is that with increasing ocean temperature, the potential for
far more destructive hurricanes is there. Once conditions for formation are right,
severe hurricanes can build in allarming strength in less time...look at Andrew.
What is dangerous is that we get "lucky" sometimes, and no storms develope,
so a few fools say "Blah..blah...blah, where's the big hurricanes?
That heat is a potential nightmare waiting to happen. I don't wish that kind of danger on anyone.
Dan

Jerry
2007-Aug-02, 08:05 PM
Say what you mean, Jerry, I can't figure out your position.

Thanks, John M.

There are 'think tanks' in the United States that are funded by oil companies. When most temperature indices indicated global temperatures were rising; there was great publicity about the U-Alabama/NASA atmospheric study that seemed to indicated that they were not. (These studies were later retracted by the the authors; due to a data reduction error - the corrected data are consistent with the global warming trend.)

Likewise, the fact that in certain parts of Antartica, the level of snow and ice is actually increasing was brought to the attention of every member of congress. In the United States, any and every argument against global warming has been highly publish and lobbied before American policy makers.

It has been a long time since the balance of evidence was ambiguous: The earth is warmer. But in the minds of many Americans, even if the evidence today is consistent with global warming; it is at least as likely due to natural climate change as it is the result of human activity. (Apparently the head of NASA shares this opinion.)

In the international science community the scientific issue has long been settled: Our best research, our best analysis of observational data, tells us we are screwing with mother nature, and the results of our first global experiment do not look promising.

The debate in the politically arena should not be over the value of the science, but what course of action will do the most good for the greater global community.

Disinfo Agent
2007-Aug-02, 09:35 PM
From the article - "The first period was between 1900 and 1930, with 6 major storms a year. From 1930 to 1940, the number increased to 10. And then it increased again to an average of 15 from 1995 to 2005."
Now look guys!!
This data stream leaves out 55 years of data !!
What happened from 1940 to 1995? That was the REAL start of the industrial buildup - So -- Where's the data ? We could still be looking at a natural variation - NOT manmade!The dumping of man-made CO2 into the atmosphere began with the Industrial Revolution, 100 years earlier than that.

LPScott
2007-Aug-03, 11:06 AM
So manmade CO2 is what percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere? .....?

LPScott
2007-Aug-03, 11:08 AM
The point is - the quoted data leaves out about one half of the database of hurricanes by year! - Why was that - ?

JustAFriend
2007-Aug-03, 03:06 PM
... and exactly how many hurricane-watching space-cams did we have orbiting before 1960??

Last year was a light year and this year we've had ZIP so far...

Jerry
2007-Aug-03, 04:43 PM
Again, the contributors are raising questions about the assumptions made by the scientists who have carefully evaluated data. We all know the assumptions could be wrong, but who is in the best position to establish which assumption may be incorrect? Who is more likely to be the least biased?

There will be more storms in the future. One scientific fact alone means they will on average, be more powerful: The oceans that we know pump energy into the storms are warmer.