Hi,

I’m interested in moving to Florida, because I’m attracted to the idea of living near the ocean. I’m concerned though about the apparent increase in hurricane activity over recent years.

On the one hand, I am aware that hurricanes are simply a part of life in Florida, and it’s just the risk you take living there. But on the other hand, it seems that sometimes just a few miles separate a region that gets slammed from one that doesn’t face very much damage.

So I’m curious if some places have a reputation for getting it really bad, while others very little.

Also, the type of town I’m looking to move to would be rather small (~100,000 people) within an hour or two of a large city. Maybe a small liberal arts college town, or something like this — where the youth culture is thriving

Please let me know if you know of such a place, or if you have a response to my first question (or both!!) — Thanks!

Hurricanes are usually destructive in some way or another. But, what would be the impact if we did not have hurricanes and ultimately the increased water supply driven into the land they cross? Would this ultimately create drought conditions in areas that might actually depend on the hurricanes increasing the local water table? Are we dependent on the water the hurricanes can produce? Could we, and the areas affected by hurricane activity, survive without them? Your thoughts, please. Thanks.

A recent study by Dr Hatton, a fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, proves that there has been no significant increase in global hurricane activity. Hatton says that IPCC statement that claims that there has been an increase in hurricane activity and that that can be blamed on global warming is simply wrong.

Unlike most climate scientists, Dr Hatton has freely made all his data, code and software tools available online, so all you warmists who want to debunk his work can now try and do so!

Have a read of the article and see what you think: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/15/hatton_on_hurricanes/
EDIT - @ Bob

Yes, but that’s because the conclusions of WGII are falsifiable: you can test the assumptions and conclusions of much of what is said, and prove them true or untrue.

With WGI, you cannot do that as the assumptions made are simply unfalsifiable. You can’t add another 50ppm to the atmosphere and prove that the link is tenuous (or not).

Both Northern Hemisphere and South Hemisphere AND therefore overall Global hurricane activity has continued to sink to levels not seen since the 1970s. Even more astounding, when the Southern Hemisphere hurricane data is analyzed to create a global value, we see that Global Hurricane Energy has sunk to 30-year lows, at the least.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/22/global-warming-more-hurricanes-still-not-happening/
Dana:

Hurricane climate experts in your study depend on field data. The amount of hurricane data is not enough for your climate models to project real 20 to 100 year forecasts. Yet again they are estimations!

So maybe the Global Warming Alarmists can explain this data:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/GRAYCYCLES.JPG

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Contrast_tracks_east_coast.jpg

In the quarter-century period from 1945-1969 when the globe was undergoing a weak cooling trend, the Atlantic basin experienced 80 major (Cat 3-4-5) hurricanes and 201 major hurricane days. By contrast, in a similar 25-year period from 1970-1994 when the globe was undergoing a general warming trend, there were only 38 major hurricanes (48% as many) and 63 major hurricane days (31% as many). Atlantic sea surface temperatures and hurricane activity is related to but does not necessarily follow global mean temperature trends.

What made the 2004 and 2005 seasons so unusually destructive was not the high frequency of major hurricanes but the high percentage of hurricanes that were steered over the US coastline.

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

According to this, global hurricane activity is at a thirty year low. I admit I am just a dumb redneck, so I wanted all you self proclaimed climate surgeons to help me. You people keep telling us that worldwide, hurricane activity has increased, even though it has decreased to a whisper here in the Atlantic.

Go ahead, explain this one away…

Another point for the skeptics camp for not using a blog.
Starbuck, honestly I have trouble keeping up with these people and their "science."

Dr. Al Gore and his hockey stick graph was the "in" thing last decade.

After Katrina, they warned of more and more class 5 hurricanes.

Now they claim, that even with the poles defrosting, which should logically mean more rain, we will have another dust bowl era?

And they wonder why they are not taken seriously?
Less hurricanes is, less hurricanes.

Which contradicts what these climate scientists have been saying.

And how can these people look into their crystal balls and prognosticate 50 years into the future, when they could not see this coming?
By "you people" I am referring to, dana 1981, anarticice, paul, and any other self proclaimed climate surgeons who regularly post on this forum. They love to remind me that I am just being provincial, and not looking at the world as a whole.

I eagerly await their response to this contradiction.