Hurricane Center: Global Warming Equals Fewer Storms

NewsMax ^ | 9/25/05 | NewsMax

[hsalaw]

"BTW Why was the Dark Age called the Dark Age?"

Well, I'd guess it wasn't because it was dark all the time. It's called the "Dark Age" because it was - wait for it - unenlightened (i.e, knowledge and education were suppressed and restricted to very few). The Age of Enlightenment followed the Dark Ages.

[supercat]

BTW Why was the Dark Age called the Dark Age?

'Cos there were so many knights.

[Skylab]

The Age of Enlightenment followed the Dark Ages.

No, the Renasaince followed the Dark Ages. Enlightenment was in the 17-18th century.

[gondramB]

"20 category 4-5 per year since 1970? It is a big year if we have 20 per year of all categories, let alone 20 category 4-5."


I shouldn't have paraphrased...

"While studies have not found an overall increase in tropical storms worldwide, the number of storms reaching categories 4 and 5 grew from about 11 per year in the 1970s to 18 per year since 1990, according to a report in Friday's issue of the journal Science."

[gondramB]

"Personally I think the earth -is- in a warming part of a cycle, though not due primarily to human activities. While reducing pollution and emissions is a nice goal, it's because the air will be more pleasant to breathe, not because it's going to make a perceptible difference in global weather. Thinking we have that much effect on Mother Nature -globally- is just so much arrogant p*ssing into the wind."


That is what I think also - and it makes the situation much worse than if we could control the global temperature.

[joonbug]

As Michael Crichton has written, environmentalism has become a religion, especially to the secular left. Matters of faith cannot easily be changed by facts or evidence.

[rx]

With the way everyone is running around these days, I thought Katrina and Rita were the first hurricanes ever to occur.

[arthurus]

The A of E did, in fact, follow the Dark Ages, it just wasn't tailgating.

[dayglored]

>> "... Thinking we have that much effect on Mother Nature -globally- is just so much arrogant p*ssing into the wind."

> That is what I think also - and it makes the situation much worse than if we could control the global temperature.

Assuming the earth is getting warmer, I think a good argument can be made that if we have X dollars to spend on either fighting global warming or making the earth a better place to be -- in other ways -- in the meantime, the latter makes more sense. There's a discernible benefit in the short term, against a speculative (and IMO very doubtful) chance of benefit in the long term. Normally I go for long term benefit over short term. But in this case, the likelihood of sustainable long term change is just so low.... all our efforts would amount to a transient blip in the overall warming trend, and in the meantime a lot of other good causes would go unfunded.

[Das Outsider]

On the "Dark Ages":

It is generally accepted that the term was invented by Petrarch in the 1330s. Writing of those who had come before him, he said that "amidst the errors there shone forth men of genius, no less keen were their eyes, although they were surrounded by darkness and dense gloom" (Petrarch, De sui ipsius et multorum ignorantia)...

Petrarch wrote that history had had two periods: the Classic period of the Romans and Greeks, followed by a time of darkness, in which he saw himself as still living. Humanists believed one day the Roman Empire would rise again and restore Classic cultural purity. The concept of the European Dark Ages thus began as an ideological campaign by humanists to promote Classical culture, and was therefore not a neutral historical analysis. It was invented to express disapproval of one period in time, and the promotion of another.

Entry: Dark Ages

[Sam Cree]

I don't believe the guys at the NHC actually came to the conclusion that Newsmax did, that Global Warming = Fewer Storms. Max Mayfield did say however, that global warming is not to blame for the increased numbers of storms the last couple years.

[Das Outsider]

I remember that from the 1970s: the next ICE AGE is coming!!

The line I quoted above is from 1998. A key difference between the anthropogenic ice age hysterics, the anthropogenic global warming hysterics and de Blij's position is that our actions can only slightly alter things and that natural forces have proven to be stronger, contra the eco-nuts' assertion that we are the first to cause these perceived changes. De Blij is of the opinion that some warming is occuring, but even if everyone were to stop driving cars, factories stop operating, cows stop emitting methane, etc., it wouldn't make a bit of difference: these things happen naturally and have done so time and time again in the past. And in those cases, the warming was brief and cooling followed, as in the case of Europe from the twelfth to mid-nineteenth century (The Little Ice Age in Europe).

[Carl/NewsMax]

I don't believe the guys at the NHC actually came to the conclusion that Newsmax did, that Global Warming = Fewer Storms.

The headline was tongue-in-cheek. But for global warming believers, that's the only fair interpretation of the NHC statistics.

To view the actual NHC "Hurricane by decade" chart, go to:

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

[Carl/NewsMax]

I don't believe the guys at the NHC actually came to the conclusion that Newsmax did, that Global Warming = Fewer Storms.

The headline was tongue-in-cheek. But for global warming believers, that's the only fair interpretation of the NHC statistics.

To view the actual NHC "Hurricane by decade" chart, go to:

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

[hsalaw]

I didn't mean to suggest that DeBlij's opinion is from the 1970s, but only that this is not the first time we've heard the next ice age cometh.

[Sam Cree]

"The headline was tongue-in-cheek."

Thanks, somehow I didn't pick up on that.

One point that isn't being made too much in the rest of the media is that for years, hurricane scientists repeatedly warned that, with millions of Americans moving into areas vulnerable to hurricane strikes, disaster would result. Dr. Neil Frank, former director of the NHC, in particular made a point of trying to keep that in the public eye.

Now that the cycle of low storm activity has ended, and disaster has resulted, it's Bush's fault.

[Binghamton_native]

Is this the article you referenced?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5742/1844

Table 1 in this article says 20 cat 4-5 hurricanes in the North Atlantic in the period 1975-1989, and 25 cat 4-5 hurricanes in the period 1990-2004. That would seem to work out to be an avg of 1.33 per year during 1975-1989, and an avg of 1.67 per year during the period 1990-2004.

[gondramB]

No it was an AP story.

Here is a link.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1126879973313_1/?hub=SciTech

I think these figures are worldwide.

"High category hurricanes on sharp rise: study Associated Press WASHINGTON — The number of hurricanes in the most powerful categories -- like Katrina and Andrew -- has increased sharply over the past few decades, according to a new analysis sure to stir debate over whether global warming is worsening these deadly storms. While studies have not found an overall increase in tropical storms worldwide, the number of storms reaching categories 4 and 5 grew from about 11 per year in the 1970s to 18 per year since 1990, according to a report in Friday's issue of the journal Scienc"

[woofie]

You are correct. Global Hypochondria is the leading cause of birth and death ...It also accounts for misery, pain and comic relief ...something must be done

[dangus]

>> (i.e, knowledge and education were suppressed and restricted to very few) <<

The printing press in the third century, but Exxon-Mobil bought it up and kept it from coming to market so it wouldn't drive down the price of quills.