It is apparent that global warming supporters virtually root for the kind of horrible weather conditions that can help them promote global warming "fixes," such as taking away SUVs and limiting the amout of heating and air conditioning you can do in your home.

They predicted a major rise in hurricanes after the bad season two years ago, but the opposite has happened.

Do you think it makes the global warm-ers look like alarmists? Do you think it exposes them as people with a political agenda, which would be stop technological advances and allow the government to exert more - total - control over the masses?
Richard V
Referring someone to the NYT and the politically driven agencies they quote is hardly directing someone toward "real science."

The polar bear estimate has been derided by many opposing sources, the way all the new predictions are.

Also, if the caps are warming and species go extinct because of it, there’s no "real science" showing that it’s because we (Americans) use too much energy, or that cows are cutting too many f****.

Explain why hurricanes hit south florida frequently and how it correlates to hurricane season

Don’t Believe the Hype
Al Gore is wrong. There’s no "consensus" on global warming.

BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

According to Al Gore’s new film "An Inconvenient Truth," we’re in for "a planetary emergency": melting ice sheets, huge increases in sea levels, more and stronger hurricanes, and invasions of tropical disease, among other cataclysms–unless we change the way we live now.

Bill Clinton has become the latest evangelist for Mr. Gore’s gospel, proclaiming that current weather events show that he and Mr. Gore were right about global warming, and we are all suffering the consequences of President Bush’s obtuseness on the matter. And why not? Mr. Gore assures us that "the debate in the scientific community is over."

That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this "debate" actually is in the first place.

The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed that all scientists agreed. Periodically thereafter it was revealed that although there had been lingering doubts beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree. Even Mr. Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he made it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists "don’t have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way or the other and went on to claim–in his defense–that scientists "don’t know. . . . They just don’t know."

So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the "consensus." Yet their research is forced, whether the evidence supports it or not, into Mr. Gore’s preferred global-warming template–namely, shrill alarmism. To believe it requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore’s movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming.

They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don’t know why.

The other elements of the global-warming scare scenario are predicated on similar oversights. Malaria, claimed as a byproduct of warming, was once common in Michigan and Siberia and remains common in Siberia–mosquitoes don’t require tropical warmth. Hurricanes, too, vary on multidecadal time scales; sea-surface temperature is likely to be an important factor. This temperature, itself, varies on multidecadal time scales. However, questions concerning the origin of the relevant sea-surface temperatures and the nature of trends in hurricane intensity are being hotly argued within the profession.
Even among those arguing, there is general agreement that we can’t attribute any particular hurricane to global warming. To be sure, there is one exception, Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who argues that it must be global warming because he can’t think of anything else. While arguments like these, based on lassitude, are becoming rather common in climate assessments, such claims, given the primitive state of weather and climate science, are hardly compelling.

A general characteristic of Mr. Gore’s approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended–at least not in terms of the actual science.

A clearer claim as to what debate has ended is provided by the environmental journalist Gregg Easterbrook. He concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been widely contested. Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early ’70s, increased again until the ’90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.

There is also little disagreement that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million by volume in the 19th century to about 387 ppmv today. Finally, there has been no question whatever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas–albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system. Although no cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an intense effort to claim that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected.

Given that we do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change, this task is currently impossible. Nevertheless there has been a persistent effort to suggest otherwise, and with surprising impact. Thus, although the conflicted state of the affair was accurately presented in the 1996 text of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the infamous "summary for policy makers" reported ambiguously that "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." This sufficed as the smoking gun for Kyoto.

The next IPCC report again described the problems surrounding what has become known as the attribution issue: that is, to explain what mechanisms are responsible for observed changes in climate. Some deployed the lassitude argument–e.g., we can’t think of an alternative–to support human attribution. But the "summary for policy makers" claimed in a manner largely unrelated to the actual text of the report that "In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

In a similar vein, the National Academy of Sciences issued a brief (15-page) report responding to questions from the White House. It again enumerated the difficulties with attribution, but again the report was preceded by a front end that ambiguously claimed that "The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability." This was sufficient for CNN’s Michelle Mitchell to presciently declare that the report represented a "unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse and is due to man. There is no wiggle room." Well, no.

More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.

Even more recently, the Climate Change Science Program, the Bush administration’s coordinating agency for global-warming research, declared it had found "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." This, for Mr. Easterbrook, meant: "Case closed." What exactly was this evidence? The models imply that greenhouse warming should impact atmospheric temperatures more than surface temperatures, and yet satellite data showed no warming in the atmosphere since 1979. The report showed that selective corrections to the atmospheric data could lead to some warming, thus reducing the conflict between observations and models descriptions of what greenhouse warming should look like. That, to me, means the case is still very much open.

So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.
First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists–especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.

Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce–if we’re lucky.

Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

All of the following characteristics are associated with cyclonic storms, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and mid-latitude cyclones, except

clockwise movement in the Northern Hemisphere

low pressure

rising warm air

stormy weather

Complete the following matrix. An example is provided.

EventMarket affected by eventShift in supply, demand, or both. Explain your answer.Change in equilibrium
Frozen orange crops in CaliforniaOrange juiceSupply (left)—Not as many available oranges to offer consumers.Price will increase and quantity will decrease.
Hurricanes in the Gulf CoastGulf Coast tourism
Price of hot dogs increasesHamburger
Price of sugar increasesCandy
New auto company opens in DetroitAutomobile
War in Middle EastGasoline
Movie theaters increase admission pricesVideo rentals
Very trendy designer handbag manufacturer enters the marketHand bags
Cost of cotton decreasesTextiles
Tennis racquets decrease in priceTennis balls
Technology improves efficiency in pasta manufacturingPasta

I’m looking to study in Guatemala next summer, and I’m wondering what type of weather to watch out for. I know that it’s tropical, but I’m particularly concerned about hurricane season. Before surfing the net for one simple answer, I thought I’d check here first to see if someone may know off the top of their head: Would I need to watch out for hurricanes during the months of May and June?

Many thanks!

1. What is supply curve shift, demand or both of the following.
2. What is the change in equilibrium.

Event - Market affected by event

a. Hurricanes in the Gulf Coast - Gulf Coast tourism
b. Price of hot dogs increases - Hamburger
c. Price of sugar increases - Candy
d. New auto company opens in Detroit - Automobile
e. War in Middle East -Gasoline
f. Movie theaters increase admission prices -Video rentals
g.Very trendy designer handbag manufacturer enters the market- Hand bags
h. Cost of cotton decreases - Textiles
i. Tennis racquets decrease in price - Tennis balls
j. Technology improves efficiency in pasta manufacturing -Pasta

Thank you for your help.

ENOUGH of Hurricane Katrina. YES it was horrible & sad . SO was 9/11. Life goes on! Ever since Katrina every1 scared it’s "going to happen again". Does any1 hate how the media scares us. I live in Houston so I have an idea of what Hurricanes are too! I am so sick of hearing about a storm off the coast of AFRICA & people in Houston making evac. plans & stokcing up on supplies. I know you can’t be too careful but some ppl take it too far don’t you think?
Sorry Nicole :(.
Sorry Nicole :(.
I’m referring to people in Houston worrying about Gustav & I don’t need to hear about N.O for the 3001th time. Why does everyone mention New Orleans when it comes to Katrina? What in the HELL about Mississippi?

Weather Has Always Happened,
But Now It’s Political and It’s on the News
May 10, 2007

Listen To It! WMP | RealPlayer
Audio clips available for Rush 24/7 members only — Join Now!

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Yesterday I actually opened the program by asking if anybody had seen Algore or Laurie David conducting a press conference on the first subtropical storm out there, subtropical storm Andrea Mitchell — which, by the way, have you seen the latest forecast track? They’ve got it doing circles. It’s going to come close to making landfall a little south of Jacksonville. Now it’s not going to make landfall and it’s going to turn back out to sea. You watch. The thing is going to head our way before it’s all said and done. You just watch. Regardless, I was prescient once again. Laurie David shows up on PMSNBC this morning. Joe Scarborough is taking his shot at the morning show and Scarborough asking her about the Malibu fires, California fires, and she launched.

DAVID: I mean, do you believe what’s going on in this country weatherwise? I mean, are you guys talking about this? I mean, honestly, let me just ask you this here, okay? When you were growing up, do you remember that "severe weather" was a regular category every night on the evening news? Do you remember that?

RUSH: No. The reason was there was no political agenda behind the weather when we were growing up, Laurie. Now there’s a political agenda driving the weather. It’s called global warming. There are no such things as "weather phenomenon." It’s a sorry thing that happened in Greensburg, Kansas, but tornadoes happen. They’ve been happening long before we were born, Laurie, before we were kids, and so do hurricanes and they’ve been happening. There’s nothing that happens in weather that’s unique. Nothing that happens in weather that is unprecedented. It’s not possible. This planet has been around too long! How many billions and billions and billions of years have the planet been around? All of a sudden for us, during our lifetimes, all of a sudden things are happening that have never happened before? Oh, my God, and we’re the ones responsible! Oh, my God. We’re ruining the planet. Oh, no. Really? Oh, my God, we gotta do something! We need higher taxes. One square of toilet paper per bathroom visit. Why, we’ve got to change our light bulbs.

It’s absurd. It’s patently absurd.

I’m going to read something to you from our local paper here, the Palm Beach Post. This is about Tropical Storm Andrea Mitchell out there. I want to read the first couple of lines, and see if anything reaches out and grabs you. "Three weeks before hurricane guides appear in local grocery stores, subtropical storm Andrea [Mitchell] swirled off the north Florida coast Wednesday, a reminder that Mother Nature is in charge here. The first named May storm in more than a quarter century, Andrea [Mitchell], isn’t expected to strengthen much beyond its current 45-mile-per-hour winds and may not even strike land." What stands out at you in that sentence? Dawn, what stands out? No. See, this is how they do it. Dawn’s reaction: "It’s not going to strike land." No, what stands out is this: "The first named May storm in more than a quarter century." That means that 25 years ago there was one in May. There was a named storm prior to the June 1st hurricane season, 25 years ago. Twenty-five years ago they were warning us of global cooling, a new ice age. So, yeah, we got this thing out there, and the Laurie Davids of the world hype all over this and claim it’s a result of global warming — and, of course, man’s decadent lifestyle. But there’s nothing happening today in weather that has not happened before countless, countless other times.

More audio sound bites. Katie Couric, by the way, let me tell you what happened on this. Yesterday I also opened the show and I offered — because when I saw that the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric’s ratings are the lowest they’ve been since 1987, 20 years, I offered — myself as exclusive interview subject to Katie and the CBS Evening News. I’d do a live interview, in order to jack the ratings, because I’m Rush Limbaugh: I am ratings. I offered to help. CBS did call. 60 Minutes called. My old buddy from 60 Minutes who produced the first segment, the only one, the first one they did of me way back in the early ’90s, Bob Andersen, called and he said, "We’ll be happy to have Katie interview you for 60 Minutes and then run excerpts of that interview on the evening news."

We smiled. "Nice try, Bob. You’re a smart guy, but, no, the deal was I offer myself to Katie for the evening news: one shot, live interview," knowing full-well it will never happen, ladies and gentlemen, for a host of reasons, but among the reasons at the top is: Can you imagine if a live interview with me actually did jack the ratings? What would that say? We know that it would. We would make sure that it did, because I am Rush Limbaugh. I am ratings. Anyway, we have a sound bite from Katie on her CBS Evening News last night about all this "extreme weather."
COURIC: Already this month federal disasters have been declared in six states. By the way, don’t think nature has spared the rest of the world. Australia is dealing with its worst drought ever. Italy is also suffering through a drought. Meanwhile, usually dry parts of northern Africa have been hit with deadly rainstorms. And it seems almost biblical that 2007 is the Year of the Locust.

RUSH: Wait, it’s a newscast. How does that get thrown in? And it seems almost biblical? By the way, Katie, your audience doesn’t want to hear references to the Bible. Big no, no, don’t know who put that on the prompter. But somebody should have gotten it off of there. Now we have a montage from MSNBC’s Amy Robach, ABC’s Sam Champion, NBC’s Dawn Fratangelo and Matt Lauer on subtropical storm Andrea Mitchell.

ROBACH: We have a named storm three weeks before the season is even supposed to start.

CHAMPION: Tropical Storm Andrea is three weeks ahead of the hurricane season.

FRATANGELO: She’s called Andrea, arriving a full three weeks before the official start of hurricane season.

LAUER: The first named store is hovering offshore weeks before it should be there. Andrea only the 17th named storm in history to arrive before June 1st.

RUSH: Only the 17th? Only the 17th? Only the 17th? Why, that means there have been 16 named storms before the start of hurricane season before Andrea Mitchell. Well, that indicates some sign of tumult and chaos in the natural order of things out there. Only the 17th time in history. Now, not in history, in recorded history, because until we came along, the earth didn’t know that June 1st was the start of hurricane season. You think Mother Nature knew that June 1st was — do you think that Mother Nature even knows when it’s June? We call it June and we say hurricane season starts on June 1st. Look at Palm Beach. We’ve got turtle season starting on March 1st. They don’t show up until May 1st. You think the turtles know they’re supposed to be here in March because we’ve got a town council making an ordinance saying we gotta turn out the lights? I have an Abyssinian cat. Do you think my cat knows it’s an Abyssinian cat? In fact, do you think my cat even knows it’s a cat? I guarantee you my cat thinks it’s a person. Cats have staff. Dogs have masters. We invent all these terms, so the idea that there have been 17 named storms before hurricane season — did we get hurricane season in the 10 Commandments? Is there some proclamation from some higher power that says June 1st, anything that happens before that, something is wrong. Grow up, folks.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: This is Rick in Malibu. Nice to have you, sir, and welcome to the EIB Network.

CALLER: Thanks, Rush. Thanks for having me on. I had to call because I started giggling a little bit about all this global warming hysteria. When you played that clip earlier of Laurie David connecting the Los Angeles wildfires, the one in Griffith Park to global warming, when the conventional wisdom and the current theory out here is that the fire was started when a man with a lit cigarette fell asleep in the park. That’s what the news is out here. So unless global warming caused that man to fall asleep, I don’t really see the connection, do you?

RUSH: No, no, no, no. That’s not what they’ll say. It might have been a cigarette. It might have been a bum or anybody else throwing a cigarette, but if it weren’t for global warming causing less rainfall than normal, the Griffith Park wouldn’t have gone up in flames the way it did! That’s what they’ll say. They’ve got this down pat. But all they’re doing is playing on the fact that, okay, we’ve got fires in Georgia. In fact, I have to tell you. We had fires in Florida here. It’s bad. Alligator Alley, which connects Fort Lauderdale to Naples, has been shut down, parts of it have been. I told you yesterday that I walked outside and the sky is totally gray, looks overcast, but there’s not a cloud nearby. It’s the smoke from all the fires. You can smell it a little bit out there. The kids are out playing in the schoolyard, being highly irresponsible. (I’m joking about this.) It’s as though all these kind of fires — you heard Katie Couric — biblical proportions, 2007, the Year of the Locust! It’s preposterous. All of this is preposterous. Global warming is responsible for all the fires!

When did we start naming hurricanes? I happen to know. Do any of you know when we started naming hurricanes? It was 1951, which happens to be the year that I was born. 1951. What were hurricanes before that? What did we call them? By the way, how do we know this is only the 17th storm to precede hurricane season because we’re only able to see these things around the world with satellites, and how long have we had satellites? Not much before 1951. How do we even know? All of this is just… I don’t know how to describe it, but it really frightens me for the overall intelligence of the people of this country. I’m starting to agree with those of you that have called me and said we’ve got way too many idiots in this country. You can see them easily by how many of them just suck up all the BS from the left.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Welcome back. Rush Limbaugh, talent on loan from God. Johnny in El Paso. Thanks for calling and welcome to the EIB Network, sir.

CALLER: Thanks, Rush. Thanks for taking my call. That guy in Griffith Park that burned down the park? If the smoking Nazis had allowed that guy to smoke indoors instead of outdoors, he probably would have just burned his cigarette out in an ashtray. You know, in New Mexico when they had the peak of the forest fire season, it was against the law to smoke outside. You would get a ticket for smoking outdoors.

RUSH: You can’t smoke inside anymore. I don’t know who started this fire out in Griffith Park. The caller said it was a bum. If it was a bum that means the bum didn’t have an indoors to go to. But it is an interesting thought. If the bum had been indoors somewhere and threw the cigarette down, it would just be one house that went up instead of a whole park. Outdoors… I don’t want to call the guy a bum because it would be an unfair characterization. He was an outdoorsman, out there trying to enjoy life, had a little cigarette, flipped it off and bam! We’ve got a fire. It is an interesting thing: the unintended consequences of all this liberal do-gooderism.
END TRANSCRIPT
Read the Background Material…
Palm Beach Post: Andrea rare May tropical storm
Reuters: Storm dissipates off Florida but rain welcomed
NewsBusters: Waiting for Katrina

I was just listening to Pat Robertson on You Tube. Terrorists do take advantage of political changes, 1993 (Clinton), 2001 (Bush), 2007 (New Congress?). Not a big leap to think of a terrorist attack in 2007. Kind of an anti-climax announcement.

But it did get me thinking, how many people actually prepare for a possible disaster by having a few days of food around, flash lights, medical supplies, that kind of thing. The normal Red Cross Be Prepared kind of thing.

All the "Oh my God the world is going to be destroyed by…" Nuclear war, global warming, terrorists, hurricanes, tornadoes, infestations of caterpillars, etc can leave this one alone.

I just want to know how many reasonably normal people have checked out ready.gov and have some emergency supplies around in case of a disaster.
Thanks. The ratio of real answers to silly answers tells me a lot too. Looks like if there was a major disaster any major urban center in the country things would end up a lot like they were in Louisiana. On the other hand, it kind of looks like people in rural or suburban areas might be better prepared. Kind of a common sense thing I would guess. some kind of ratio of storage space versus costs versus convince and availability, I would assume.

Thanks.

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!

it’ll be that time again in 3 months. I live in louisiana and it seems like we just barely went through hurricane gustav and hurricane season is already coming again. I always get kinda nervous about us having another 2005. not just talking about new olreans either, that year was crazy as hell when it came to hurricanes. do you think this’ll just be another season to come and go or something worse? also have they made the predictions on how many storms we’ll have?

Nuclear energy already supplies 20 percent of our energy. If we were to build my plants, how would we handle the waste? After all, it does have a half-life of 10000 years.
Who would want it in their backyard? What place is safe from earthquakes, fires, hurricanes, and far from a population center?

Explain each of the following by answering these questions?
What is the shift in supply and demand, or both explain answer?
What is the change in equilibrium?

Event Market affected by event

1) Hurricanes in the Gulf coast Gulf Coast Tourism
2)Prices of hot dogs increases Hamburgers
3)Price of sugar increases Candy
4)New auto company Automobiles
5)War in Middle East Gasoline
6)Movie theaters price increase Video rentals
7)Trendy designer handbag Handbags
manufactureer enters market
8)Cost of cotton Decreases Textiles
9)Tennis raquets decrease tennis balls
10)Technology improves efficiency Pasta
in pasta manufacturing

Ok thank you so i now know hurricanes are a clear danger in miami!!! and the best thing to do is evacuate, but who is responsibel for the apartment, must i put the storm shutters and everything else on the apt?
Thanks
Jeff

Yesterday, I saw many signs & boxes about donating food & school supplies to places, like Africa & Honduras. But do other countries do that for us when our country is struggling? I understand that those are poor countries, but I’m just curious.

People cared more about the tsunami in Asia than they cared abut Hurricanes Katrina & Rita. Why is that?
Yeah. That’s what I’m saying. People here in the US didn’t care about the disasters of their own country.

I am traveling to San Salvador this week and heard that their school buildings were destroyed by hurricanes a few years back. Do you know if the schools have been rebuild yet, or are the kids still in trailers. I would like to bring some donations with me for the primary school kids and teacher and want to be sure I bring something they need.

I was planning on taking down some playground toys (soccer balls, jump ropes, etc.) and maybe some books and/or school supplies that might be useful.

Thanks in advance for any first-hand information.

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.

I was just curious because my mom & I are planning on going to Disney World in Orlando, FL sometime in early June.

Do i need to be worried about Hurricanes? I just don’t want my big 18th birthday to get ruined by a hurricane.

Thanks

"Tropical cyclone (TC) activity worldwide has completely and utterly collapsed during the past 2 to 3 years with TC energy levels sinking to levels not seen since the late 1970s."

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

In 2005 we were told by the "experts" that Hurricane Katrina was a product of "Global Warming", that we should expect a greater number and greater strength of hurricanes in the future. The climate models backed up the claims of the scientists, and these statements were widely reported as facts about man’s effects on the climate.

Now the long term study is out that did study the number and strength of tropical storms and the facts are that both the number and intensity have decreased over the years since Katrina.

How did these climate models miss something as easy as this, and how were the top "Global Warming Experts" fooled by the data?

If something as simple as the number and strength of the storms are wrong, than can we accept that there is more data that is wrong that we don’t know about yet?

Should the data from "Global Warming" institutes be reviewed to separate what is opinion, emotion, political from true objective science?

Hurricane strength has long been understood to correlate quite tightly with SST:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr/Fig_PDI_SST.html

Recently someone used this data to conclude that global warming has no effect on increasing hurricane strength/number:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

The data is specifically for the number of US hurricane strikes.

But it seems obvious that, while this specific variable may not be increasing, the total number of hurricanes is:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr/Fig_Hurr_major_USland_count.html

Tastiness of cherries aside, is there any good reason to focus only on "number of hurricanes which strike the US" and not on an increase in hurricane strength/frequency as a whole?
By the way, for the first graph:

"PDI is a combined measure of Atlantic hurricane frequency, intensity, and duration."
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr_webpage.html#section1

Hurricanes, tornadoes, cyclones, earthquakes, etc??

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1469610.stm
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002163.html
http://pesn.com/2005/09/06/9600160_Weather_Modification/
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/11/china-leads-wea.html

what does 10Mbps x 2Mbps mean for internet speed.

BrightHouse Cable
Get incredibly fast Internet access to move high volumes of data. Includes 1GB remote backup to avert business data loss due to hurricanes, fire, theft, system failures and human error. This package is the ultimate for business. 10Mbps x 2Mbps Internet Access
25 Email accounts
EZ Armor Personal Security
1GB Remote Storage
5 Static IP

Hello

I am quite new with hurricanes as I am not floridian… and I have difficult hurricane shutters to install (not the nice accordeon ones).
I did not put the shutters so far since it seems that Fay is going on the North west… but should I do ?
It is raining quite a lot now and it is the night

Thanks for your answers!

Self-Funding Method to "Reverse" Global Warming
while providing Abundant Clean Energy:
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/jamesbdunn?p=224

NASA has already identified these systems as being able to provide many times the global needs for energy production by using space based solar concentrators. So why are we still using fossil fuels?

If we used fossil fuels JUST for producing products (asphalt, antifreeze, plastics, …) then we would have a supply that would last a thousand years and more. However, by using fossil fuels as fuel, we have less than a 100 year supply while producing enormous amounts of pollution.

Also, the mechanism by which solar concentrators work, is the same mechanism by which global weather can be controlled. (dissipating hurricanes, dissipating tornados, eliminating droughts, providing predictable rainfall, eliminating extreme temperatures, rebuilding glaciers and the artic ice pack, ….)

How do we influence politicians to actively create a system?