2006 Tropical Storm Season Now Below Normal

highwayman

New Member
This is not what the global warming crowd had predicted...



http://www.weatherstreet.com/hurricane/2006/hurricane-atlantic-2006-below-normal-season.htm
(21 August 2006) What a difference a year makes. After the record-breaking 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, the 2006 season is now below normal.

As of yesterday (20 August) three tropical storms will have formed in the Atlantic in an "average" year, which is the same number that have formed this year so far. Because of multi-year averaging, that means that today (August 21) slightly more than three storms would have formed, making this year (statistically speaking) just below normal.

In the hurricane category, this year is decidedly below normal, with no hurricanes so far, while by this date 1.5 hurricanes have formed in the average of years 1944 though 2005.
 
highwayman said:
This is not what the global warming crowd had predicted...

Global warming effects on tropical storms is expressed as a trend not a linear effect. Just like the trend towards record setting high temperatures doesn't mean everyday is going to be a record setting high temperature.
 
spike said:
Global warming effects on tropical storms is expressed as a trend not a linear effect. Just like the trend towards record setting high temperatures doesn't mean everyday is going to be a record setting high temperature.

you mean the prophesy isn't going to be fulfilled RIGHT NOW?

well fuck that, then, cuz we ain't got the attention span.
 
DAMN!!! A bad day in the life of the Republicans. They're losing their ability to kill & maim.
Greenland's glaciers have been shrinking for the past century, according to a Danish study, suggesting that the ice melt is not a recent phenomenon caused by global warming.
Danish researchers from Aarhus University studied glaciers on Disko island, in western Greenland in the Atlantic, from the end of the 19th century until the present day.

"This study, which covers 247 of 350 glaciers on Disko, is the most comprehensive ever conducted on the movements of Greenland's glaciers," glaciologist Jacob Clement Yde, who carried out the study with Niels Tvis Knudsen, told AFP.

Using maps from the 19th century and current satellite observations, the scientists were able to conclude that "70 percent of the glaciers have been shrinking regularly since the end of the 1880s at a rate of around eight meters per year," Yde said.

"We studied 95 percent of the area covered by glaciers in Disko and everything indicates that our results are also valid for the glaciers along the coasts of the rest of Greenland," he said.

The biggest reduction was observed between 1964 and 1985.

"A three-to-four degree increase of the temperature on Greenland from 1920 to 1930, and the increase recorded since 1995 has sped up the ice melt," he said.

The effect of the rising temperatures in the 1920s and 1930s was "visible dozens of years later, and that of the 1990s will be (visible) in 10 or 20 years," Yde said, adding that he expected Greenland's glaciers to melt even faster in the future.

The shrinking of the glaciers since the 19th century is "the result of the atmosphere's natural warming, following volcanic eruptions for example and greenhouse gases, created by human activities, which have aggravated the situation further," he said.

The study also showed new results on galloping glaciers, the name given to glaciers that surge very quickly for a few years, up to 50 meters a day, before advancing more slowly at a rate of 20 meters per year," he said.

"We have identified, thanks to new analyses of aerials photographs and satellite images, almost four times more galloping glaciers, or 75 compared to just 20 in previous estimates," he said.

The two authors of the study were to present their results on Monday at a conference in Cambridge, England on the impact of global warming on glaciers.

Breitbart
 
While clinging to any postive sign is natural I would hope it would be noticed that neither article disputes that global warming is a real problem.

While looking at the article on the Brietbart site I noticed you can click on the words "global warming" for related information.
 
Global warming may be real. Human activity as the cause is pompous & false.
 
spike said:
While clinging to any postive sign is natural I would hope it would be noticed that neither article disputes that global warming is a real problem.

While looking at the article on the Brietbart site I noticed you can click on the words "global warming" for related information.

Global warming and cooling have never really been the issue. Human cause is.
And given that one volcano can spew more dust and gas into the upper atmosphere in a couple of hours as the entire human population can in a year ....?
And then there all that CO2 stored in the ocean that gets kicked out every time there's an undersea earthquake or landslide and that goes completely undetected. Plus all those undersea volcanos spewing more CO2, sulfur, nitrogen monoxide, etc ....
Add all the trapped gasses caught in the melting ice, and the argument for human cause starts to look a little weedy. Not to mention the common targets for that arguement. Cows and sheep produce 10 times the greenhouse gas that cars do. And let's not forget that most plants expell CO2 at night.
 
spike said:
Global warming effects on tropical storms is expressed as a trend not a linear effect. Just like the trend towards record setting high temperatures doesn't mean everyday is going to be a record setting high temperature.


You have the answer right there, the change in weather is nothing more then a trend. If you go back and look at the temperatures and weather conditions since records have been kept the weather cycles through highs and lows...
I am not convinced an average change of a half a degree in temperature is cause for over reaction...
 
Gonz said:
Global warming may be real. Human activity as the cause is pompous & false.

Apparently you're wrong. Assuming Billions of humans brurning fossil fuels could have no effect on the environment is pompous, irresponsible, and foolish.

It's like ignoring a dozen doctors telling you your kid has a potentially fatal disease and refusing to treat him so he can continue to make you a buck. "There's no way a little microscopic organism can have any effect on a human, besides he feels pretty good today".

The first mass exodus of people fleeing the disastrous effects of climate change is not happening in low-lying Pacific islands but in the world's richest country, a US study said.

"The first massive movement of climate refugees has been that of people away from the Gulf Coast of the United States," said the Earth Policy Institute, which has warned for years that climate change demands action now.

Institute president Lester Brown said that about a quarter of a million people who fled the devastating impact of Hurricane Katrina a year ago must now be classed as "refugees".

"Interestingly, the country to suffer the most damage from a hurricane is also primarily responsible for global warming," he said.

The United States is the world's largest consumer of energy, but has refused to sign up to the Kyoto pact aimed at reducing emissions of gases that scientists say are to blame for heating up the Earth.

Many environmentalists had expected the first big population shift to come somewhere like the Tuamotu islands in French Polynesia, the world's largest chain of atolls which rise barely metres (feet) from the Pacific.

Rising sea levels are part of the problem afflicting low-lying places but, experts argue, so are tropical storms that are mounting in ferocity because of warmer ocean temperatures.

Brown said many thousands of people who evacuated last year as Katrina slammed into New Orleans and other populated areas on the Mississippi and Louisiana coasts had no intention of returning.

"We estimate that at least 250,000 of them have established homes elsewhere and will not return," he said.

"They no longer want to face the personal trauma and financial risks associated with rising seas and more destructive storms. These evacuees are now climate refugees."

Many businesses have also deserted the coastal towns left ravaged by Katrina as insurance and other costs soar, the study said.

"As rising seas and more powerful hurricanes translate into higher insurance costs in these coastal communities, people are retreating inland," Brown said.

"And just as companies migrate to regions with lower wages, they also migrate to regions with lower insurance costs."

The study also warned: "The experience with more destructive storms in recent years is only the beginning."

The institute said that since 1970, the Earth's average temperature has risen by one degree Fahrenheit, but by 2100 it could rise by up to 10 degrees Fahrenheit (six degrees Celsius).

Rising temperatures could melt glaciers and polar ice caps, raising sea levels and displacing coastal residents worldwide.

"The flow of climate refugees to date numbers in the thousands, but if we do not quickly reduce CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions, it could one day number in the millions," Brown said.

The institute's study classed "climate refugees" as part of a larger group of people who have been forced from their homes by man-made environmental change such as overgrazing.

"Overgrazing destroys the vegetation which leads then to local sandstorms ... we are looking at growing flows of environmental refugees in Africa, for example in Nigeria, Senegal, Mauritania or Kenya," Brown told reporters.

Millions of people in northern and western China have abandoned their villages as the land turns semi-arid because of overgrazing, the study said.

China is also the second biggest greenhouse-gas polluter after the United States thanks to the voracious rise in coal, gas and oil consumption to power its economic growth.

The booming port city of Shanghai could be at risk of flooding from more ferocious typhoons linked to global warming as it is only a metre (three feet) above sea level, Brown said.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/060816195121.cgups3qo.html
 
highwayman said:
You have the answer right there, the change in weather is nothing more then a trend. If you go back and look at the temperatures and weather conditions since records have been kept the weather cycles through highs and lows...
I am not convinced an average change of a half a degree in temperature is cause for over reaction...

Yep, a trend towards dangerous levels of global warming that don't fit your cycle.
 
That's a joke, right? Katrina wasn't even an impressive storm. Hell, it was hardly worth the mention, 'cept that it hit in the worst prepared place in the entire country. And they've been so slow to rebuild because the taxpayer's been putting them up at the Holiday in in Dallas instead of forcing them to go clean up the mess themselves.
 
Professur said:
That's a joke, right? Katrina wasn't even an impressive storm. Hell, it was hardly worth the mention, 'cept that it hit in the worst prepared place in the entire country. And they've been so slow to rebuild because the taxpayer's been putting them up at the Holiday in in Dallas instead of forcing them to go clean up the mess themselves.

No the taxpayer has been spending massive funds destroying and rebuilding Iraq and can't spare a fraction of that to rebuild one of their own cities.
 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13153520/
WASHINGTON - The collection, hauling and smashing of debris in Louisiana and Mississippi resulting from Hurricane Katrina is still a daily ritual that has already cost taxpayers almost $2.5 billion. But government investigators and those closest to the cleanup now say hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars may have been wasted. Workers, contractors and government investigators say the large size of the contracts and the multiple tiers of subcontractors have pushed up the cost of the cleanup while slowing down the pace of the operation.
 
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17819
62 Billion and Climbing

Since Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans while raking across Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama on August 29, the federal government has approved more than $62 billion in relief funding. Some estimates have put total relief costs at upwards of $300 billion, nearly double the cost of the Iraq war.

Soon after levees protecting New Orleans broke, causing the below-sea-level city to flood, Congress approved $10.5 billion in relief. On September 8, by a 410-11 vote in the House and 97-0 vote in the Senate, Congress approved President George W. Bush's request for another $51.8 billion in aid.

Flake was one of a handful of congressmen to oppose that measure.

"Congress has the responsibility to cut spending elsewhere if we are going to commit this amount of money," Flake said in a statement after the vote.
 
2.5 billion? I knew it was pretty tiny compared to the money spent on Iraq rebuilding but not that small.
 
Back
Top