An artcle in the March 17 issue of the journal Science believes that a rise in the world's sea surface temperatures was a statistically significant contributor to the formation of stronger hurricanes since 1970, and contends that stronger storms are likely to be the norm in future hurricane seasons.
Other scientists see the rising strength of hurricanes as being part of natural weather cycles in the world's oceans, via the Atlantic multi-decadal mode. The Atlantic Ocean is currently going through an active period of hurricane activity that began in 1995 and which has continued to the present. The previous active cycle lasted from the late 1920s to 1970, and peaked around 1950.
An article at LiveScience recaps some of the issues, and the debate.
The abnormal weather year 1816, known as "Eighteen Hundred and Froze to Death", is now known to have been caused by massive volcanic eruptions. At the time, though there was a more popular explanation: it was all the fault of the United States. Specifically, American experiments with electricity (that goddamn Benjamin Franklin!) must have damaged the atmosphere.
Science has come a long way since then. For example, some climatologists have perfected the science of using "science" to advance the cause of Idiot Luddite-Socialism, and they're much better at it than they were in Napoleon's day.
I think we will finally be back to normal when the Vikings can re-inhabit profitably their settlements in Greenland. Some of which are currently under 6 ft. of ice.
If humankinds activity is going to destroy humanity, then by Gaia, it is the miracle of evolution at work. Hakuna Matata - it's the circle of life! I would think the junk scientists should be the ones best able to "lie back and enjoy it".
Seven of the world's most damaging hurricanes have come ashore in the last ten years. Whether or not these are part of a natural cycle, its clear that people are moving and building closer to the coasts and the government is paying for it on both ends. Federal insurance programs subsidize the development, the corps of engineers builds the levees, the bridges, the jetties and barrier islands, and local governments refuse to enforce flood prevention requirements that might stifle development. On the back end, we pay billions in hurricane claims each year and if the cycle heats up, we'll be paying before the last round of damage was fixed.
This is actually a pretty cool link that lets you chart all hurricane activity in the US since 1900.
Interactive Hurricane Chart
Of course "scientists" have been saying this crap about hurricanes for years, but the data shows a far different picture
The good folks at Junk Science were all over this back in 2004, their research still holds valid
I've never understood why the cause of global warming is even relevant to the debate.
If global warming is going to kill us all, then it doesn't make a difference whether it's caused by nature or man - either way, we'll all be just as dead. So, if there is a consensus agreement that global warming is for real, and that it will result in Very, Very Bad Things™ if left unchecked, shouldn't those be enough in themselves to warrant action, even drastic action, to prevent it or at least slow it down? Or isn't there even a consensus on that?
Methinks the global-warming crowd is compromising its own putative agenda in order to guilt-trip the eeeeevil American government. Maybe they're right and the sky really is falling, but by focusing on the blame game they have only themselves to blame for coming off as a bunch of Chicken Littles.
There isnt even any real evidence that global warming is a bad thing. The largest land masses on earth are in Siberia and Canada- the amount of agriculture their dethawing would open up is staggering. The argument is that change is bad, as a general principle. This is unfortunate because whether temps are rising or falling, the one thing we are sure of is that change is inevitable. The globe is constantly getting warmer or colder. There is no pause button on global weather patterns. Instead of burning billions and trillions of dollars fighting what cant be fought we should be researching how to mitigate the human impact and maximize the potential for benevolent outcomes.
That Junkscience article appears a bit stale after the record setting 2005 hurricane season.
2004 wasn't a shabby year either with Charley, Ivan, Jeanne and Frances hitting the U.S. A record eight storms made landfill in 2004, tying 2005 and 1916
So we have a whopping 55 years of "accurate" storm tracking. Given the age of the planet, and the ability of our current scientific groups to predict basic weather (let alone climate which is wholly different), I can't put much alarm into a "record breaking" hurricane season. I most certainly will not buy into the "global warming" as the cause.
Lets just face it, from a scientific standpoint there is just not enough evidence to support these particular hypothesis, sadly this doesn't prevent the media from overhyping theory as fact.
As long as a tropical storm does not flood Mesopotamia again, I don't think we will having the normal weather we had 6,000 years ago.
Too bad we no longer have that 24 year old flukie fundamentalist at NASA editing everything they try to print, hey fellas?
"There were a record 27 named storms [breaking 1931 record], of which 14 were hurricanes, exceeding the 1969 record of 12 hurricanes, and 7 were major hurricanes [which ties the 1950 record]. "
Might be good to recall at this point there wasnt a Weather Channel with satellites peering down at every weather front every second of every day 30 (or 100) years ago. Its axiomatic that you tend to find more of what you are looking for.
Mark: Might be good to recall at this point there wasnt a Weather Channel with satellites peering down at every weather front ...
I thought this part was especially funny:I suspect they had the "right answer" before they even looked at any data, but it's kind of sad to think that all that satellite technology is good for only a slight improvement in quality.
"I suspect they had the "right answer" before they even looked at any data, but it's kind of sad to think that all that satellite technology is good for only a slight improvement in quality."
Heck, there wasnt even radar before the late 40s. Storms were named when they smacked into something. Its absolutley outrageous to claim they have anything like a equivalent storm record from the first half of the 20th century as they do today.
As a Canadian, there's a lot to be said for global warming. The agricultural improvements would happen in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, northern Ontario, and Northern Quebec. Southern Ontario would be able to grow different kinds of crops.
On the down side, much of Alberta (cornerstone of Canada's cattle industry, and oil) would turn into a desert - but the flooding of most of Toronto and parts of Montreal once the icecaps melt probably make that a wash (as it were) from the Albertans' point of view.
Bring on the tanning gear. Not sure what we'd do with all of the American coastal refugees, though...