Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
BrucePrime

'07 Hurricane Season Least Active in 30 Years

36 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

BrucePrime

Unless a dramatic and perhaps historical flurry of activity occurs in the next 9 weeks, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive TC year for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole. During the past 30 years, only 1977, 1981, and 1983 have had less activity to date (January-TODAY, Accumulated Cyclone Energy). However, the year is not over.

For the period of June 1 - TODAY, only 1977 has experienced LESS tropical cyclone activity than 2007.

linked-image

linked-image

Accumulated Cyclone Energy Plots

linked-image

SOURCE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlimited

ya i predicted in a thread that their wouldnt be any hurricanes in june...despite the forecasters models..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moon Monkey

I blame global...err.....something or other

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Skeptic Eric Raven

Cycles. Thats how they come. People want to blame global warming. Cycles of weather. Thats it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moon Monkey
Cycles. Thats how they come. People want to blame global warming. Cycles of weather. Thats it.

Until it is proven conclusively otherwise, I concur. (cue ...."only scientists in the pay of oil companies...blah de blah")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ships-cat

You see the benefits of a decent Republican administration ? Order and Peace. No more soap-dodging hippy-communo-anarchic-marxist hurricanes on OUR cost, thank you very much ! :D

Well done Mr Bush sir ! :P

What am I saying ? I don't even LIVE in the USA :)

Meow Purr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt_Ripley

yes less hurricanes !!!! more drought instead !!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Celumnaz

Less Drought! We're out of drought finally! Huzzah!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrucePrime
yes less hurricanes !!!! more drought instead !!!!!!!!!!

Funny how the "effects" of Global Warming are constantly changing. Two years ago, after Katrina, we were told there would be more hurricanes, that they would be more powerful. Now that those predictions have flopped, it's suddenly that we are going to have less hurricanes, and droughts. Where were the predictions of droughts two years ago?

More and more, it is being proven that the Global Warming Fundamentalists are talking out of their collective behinds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor Witness

"Activity" is measured in several ways. In terms of [Accumulated cyclone energy,] which now stands

[at 62.7,] you'll note that this assertion is incorrect. WE also had the first two land falling category 5 storms in history, Dean and Felix, and Humberto set a new record for the fastest strengthening system in close proximity to land, EVER.

That's a lot to think about, before declaring this year a dud.

linked-image
Edited by Raptor Witness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory
WE also had the first two land falling category 5 storms in history, Dean and Felix

huh? wikipedia is saying Dean was the first cat 5 storm to make landfall in 15 years

2007 is the first season to have 2 cat 5 storms in one year, of course, it would appear measurements only go back to 1928 which makes that stat kinda redundant

and its also worth noting, there were not cat 5 storms during the 70s, 80s and early 90s, i don't see how anything can be presumed from this?

we aren't talking about a dramatic increase in activity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrucePrime
"Activity" is measured in several ways. In terms of you'll note that this assertion is incorrect. WE also had the first two land falling category 5 storms in history, Dean and Felix, and Humberto set a new record for the fastest strengthening system in close proximity to land, EVER.

Ever?

Really? You want to make that claim? In the 4 billion year history of the Earth, those are the fastest ever?

Sure they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guardsman Bass

Keep in mind that global warming doesn't predict that any particular year will have more or less hurricanes - just that in the long run, it will lead to more and more intense hurricanes. Saying that one year disproves the scientific conclusion is like claiming that there's no such thing as a drought, because your particular area isn't having problems with the water supply at that moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory
Saying that one year disproves the scientific conclusion is like claiming that there's no such thing as a drought, because your particular area isn't having problems with the water supply at that moment.

by that same token, one abnormal year proves nothing either

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES

Gore is probably rain dancing somewhere and hoping for more hurricane. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Keep in mind that global warming doesn't predict that any particular year will have more or less hurricanes - just that in the long run, it will lead to more and more intense hurricanes.

Sounds to me like you really don't know and just rolling the dice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clocker
Funny how the "effects" of Global Warming are constantly changing. Two years ago, after Katrina, we were told there would be more hurricanes, that they would be more powerful. Now that those predictions have flopped, it's suddenly that we are going to have less hurricanes, and droughts. Where were the predictions of droughts two years ago?

More and more, it is being proven that the Global Warming Fundamentalists are talking out of their collective behinds.

Yup, global warming, just like every other phenomenon in the nature, progresses entirely linearly... :rolleyes: Talk about total lack of long-term perspective. One year that is supposedly easier with hurricanes, and that somehow counts as proof or evidence for global warming not happening? What about other phenomenons, long-term phenomenons like the melting of ice caps? Dude you seem pretty desperate to believe global warming doesn't exist. :D

If I were you, I'd patiently wait how it all progresses, see how it goes...and meanwhile, pay more attention to the energy efficiency of the things you buy, just in case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moon Monkey
Yup, global warming, just like every other phenomenon in the nature, progresses entirely linearly... :rolleyes: Talk about total lack of long-term perspective. One year that is supposedly easier with hurricanes, and that somehow counts as proof or evidence for global warming not happening? What about other phenomenons, long-term phenomenons like the melting of ice caps? Dude you seem pretty desperate to believe global warming doesn't exist. :D

If I were you, I'd patiently wait how it all progresses, see how it goes...and meanwhile, pay more attention to the energy efficiency of the things you buy, just in case.

The whole man-made global warming argument lacks long term perspective. How often do we hear "since records began" or " the last 20 years" or "since the industrial revolution" or "post-war" when a simple look at 500,000 years of ice core temperature data or sun activity data will show that we are still well within real historical bounds. The earth is not suffering anything it has not suffered before there just seems to be a wish to proclaim that we live in interesting times and we should be taxed appropiately for being so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clocker
The whole man-made global warming argument lacks long term perspective. How often do we hear "since records began" or " the last 20 years" or "since the industrial revolution" or "post-war" when a simple look at 500,000 years of ice core temperature data or sun activity data will show that we are still well within real historical bounds. The earth is not suffering anything it has not suffered before there just seems to be a wish to proclaim that we live in interesting times and we should be taxed appropiately for being so.

I haven't even claimed this couldn't be part of a natural cycle. That there is a global warming going on, natural or not, is not really debatable in my opinion, and you're not even denying that. Whether man has anything to do with it or not, is still debatable at least when looking at things in the long-term, like you suggest. There's plenty of evidence that the change is more rapid than it has been in the past etc. etc. There's a direct correlation between mankind's industrialization and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which in turn makes the Earth warmer. I've posted links on these before. The fact that there is a lot of evidence human influence on global warming is, for me, enough to make precautions and try to fix things. In the corporate world, it's called risk assessment. You look at possible risks and assess their likelihood to occur, and the possible damage they may cause. Man-assisted global warming is a phenomenon that might have a tremendous negative impact on the globe. A rational company would prepare for a risk like that. The problem is, people (or many companies either) are that rational at all, it seems.

You bring up taxes. I bring up corporations, who want to avoid these taxes. If we assume that both of these want to affect the minds of the consumers, which ones, do you think, have more clout to do that? I'd put my money on corporations. It would be in their short-term interests to prevent these taxes. If it's all about taxes, I'd guess the public opinion would be that global warming is man-made indeed. No, I really think the scientific community does, in general, believe global warming is being affected by humankind.

Edited by Clocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moon Monkey
I haven't even claimed this couldn't be part of a natural cycle. That there is a global warming going on, natural or not, is not really debatable in my opinion, and you're not even denying that. Whether man has anything to do with it or not, is still debatable at least when looking at things in the long-term, like you suggest. There's plenty of evidence that the change is more rapid than it has been in the past etc. etc. There's a direct correlation between mankind's industrialization and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which in turn makes the Earth warmer. I've posted links on these before. The fact that there is a lot of evidence human influence on global warming is, for me, enough to make precautions and try to fix things. In the corporate world, it's called risk assessment. You look at possible risks and assess their likelihood to occur, and the possible damage they may cause. Man-assisted global warming is a phenomenon that might have a tremendous negative impact on the globe. A rational company would prepare for a risk like that. The problem is, people (or many companies either) are that rational at all, it seems.

You bring up taxes. I bring up corporations, who want to avoid these taxes. If we assume that both of these want to affect the minds of the consumers, which ones, do you think, have more clout to do that? I'd put my money on corporations. It would be in their short-term interests to prevent these taxes. If it's all about taxes, I'd guess the public opinion would be that global warming is man-made indeed. No, I really think the scientific community does, in general, believe global warming is being affected by humankind.

I didn't say you did claim this, I just picked up on the "long term perspective" thing.

There is not plenty of evidence that it is faster than in the past, just more data points to plot. We would need thousands of data points around previous rises, like we have for the present rise. Who is to say there haven't been many occasions when the change was more rapid ?

There is a direct corelation between solar activity and climate change, and a direct correlation between climate change and CO2. CO2 lags climate and the man-made C02 output since industrialisation is at best a percent of a percent. The recent C02 rise "since industrialisation" (again) could just as easily be explained by oceanic CO2 output from the middle ages heat wave, the lag fits the historical graph nicely as does the simple global population explosion over the same period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clocker
I didn't say you did claim this, I just picked up on the "long term perspective" thing.

There is not plenty of evidence that it is faster than in the past, just more data points to plot. We would need thousands of data points around previous rises, like we have for the present rise. Who is to say there haven't been many occasions when the change was more rapid ?

There is a direct corelation between solar activity and climate change, and a direct correlation between climate change and CO2. CO2 lags climate and the man-made C02 output since industrialisation is at best a percent of a percent. The recent C02 rise "since industrialisation" (again) could just as easily be explained by oceanic CO2 output from the middle ages heat wave, the lag fits the historical graph nicely as does the simple global population explosion over the same period.

Alright, fair enough.

I remember reading about warming being faster now than before (with evidence) in some magazine, but can't find a source at the moment, so I'll have to agree with you; still due to the difference in the amount of data points, you can't really tell it's not faster either. However, there is a fair bit of evidence that global warming is accelerating, which would coincide with increased CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) emissions.

Well, here'sa pretty basic wiki article that somewhat disagrees with your arguments. Human activity to increase the amount of greenhouse gases has been and still is quite significant in scope and scale. Not only emissions, but also deforestation etc. I don't know how big of a percent of annual greenhouse gas emissions are directly caused by man since there seem to be so many differing results, but the thing we need to consider here is the equation and how that extra amount fits in that equation; what kind of changes it causes in the outcome.

Anyway, it all still comes down to risk assessment, and the price for preparation would be very small compared to the possible outcome if nothing is done and it turns out we have been to blame all along.

Edited by Clocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moon Monkey
Alright, fair enough.

I remember reading about warming being faster now than before (with evidence) in some magazine, but can't find a source at the moment, so I'll have to agree with you; still due to the difference in the amount of data points, you can't really tell it's not faster either. However, there is a fair bit of evidence that global warming is accelerating, which would coincide with increased CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) emissions.

Well, here'sa pretty basic wiki article that somewhat disagrees with your arguments. Human activity to increase the amount of greenhouse gases has been and still is quite significant in scope and scale. Not only emissions, but also deforestation etc. I don't know how big of a percent of annual greenhouse gas emissions are directly caused by man since there seem to be so many differing results, but the thing we need to consider here is the equation and how that extra amount fits in that equation; what kind of changes it causes in the outcome.

Anyway, it all still comes down to risk assessment, and the price for preparation would be very small compared to the possible outcome if nothing is done and it turns out we have been to blame all along.

To be honest I think the whole story is all over the place, I read that deforestation is masking the effects by reflecting sunlight so the situation should be worse than it is, then there is global dimming which has also been proven to be masking. All I am saying is that we just don't know, you might be right but my footprint is tiny compared to most in the west so I begrudge the extra green taxes for my one return flight a year whilst China and India are playing catch up without a care in the world, why do we have to pay the price for them being behind the curve ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusty Digital
Anyway, it all still comes down to risk assessment, and the price for preparation would be very small compared to the possible outcome if nothing is done and it turns out we have been to blame all along.

I believe that this is the essential point that most global warming sceptics choose to ignore. Even if global warming isn't a certainty, it seems a far wiser strategy to minimize our effect on it than to just wait and risk a catastrophe.

All I am saying is that we just don't know, you might be right but my footprint is tiny compared to most in the west so I begrudge the extra green taxes for my one return flight a year whilst China and India are playing catch up without a care in the world, why do we have to pay the price for them being behind the curve ?

The CO2 in the atmosphere is mostly from developed countries from when we were "behind the curve". CO2 stays in the atmosphere and builds up. Developing countries have, in my opinion rightly, stated that its the western countries that need to lead the way in preventing global warming, since we've essentially benefitted from lax laws back when we were polluting. The fact that a large part of production has now moved to countries like China and India (still largely driven by European/American demand) doesn't reduce our responsibility. They're paying the price for our past indifference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moon Monkey
I believe that this is the essential point that most global warming sceptics choose to ignore. Even if global warming isn't a certainty, it seems a far wiser strategy to minimize our effect on it than to just wait and risk a catastrophe.

The CO2 in the atmosphere is mostly from developed countries from when we were "behind the curve". CO2 stays in the atmosphere and builds up. Developing countries have, in my opinion rightly, stated that its the western countries that need to lead the way in preventing global warming, since we've essentially benefitted from lax laws back when we were polluting. The fact that a large part of production has now moved to countries like China and India (still largely driven by European/American demand) doesn't reduce our responsibility. They're paying the price for our past indifference.

So how do you explain past falls in the CO2 levels in the atmosphere if it just stays in the atmosphere and builds up ?

If you do believe man-made CO2 is the major component surely as green field sites India and China should have learnt from our 'mistakes', whoever drives the need for production isn't important. Whats the point of us in the UK worrying about a small percent of a small percent when that is completely wiped out by these countries daily increase ? Why should I pay extra green taxes for my plane ticket whilst China builds 200 new airports and the chinese pay an average of a 10th of the price for a similar journey ? Because we industrialised first ? Tough...you snooze you lose IMO. It is like saying italians cannot have marble tops in their kitchens because the romans used their share.

Edited by Moon Monkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clocker
To be honest I think the whole story is all over the place, I read that deforestation is masking the effects by reflecting sunlight so the situation should be worse than it is, then there is global dimming which has also been proven to be masking. All I am saying is that we just don't know, you might be right but my footprint is tiny compared to most in the west so I begrudge the extra green taxes for my one return flight a year whilst China and India are playing catch up without a care in the world, why do we have to pay the price for them being behind the curve ?

Essentially, I agree with you here. My footprint is quite small too; I don't own a car, have a very small apartment with that many appliances and so on. I'm a student and my income is very modest, therefore I don't consume all that much. Still, I have chosen to pay a bit more for my electricity for it to be generated using (at least mostly) sustainable methods such as wind and water. I could also pay a small tax for it; in fact I think it's ok to, say tax cars according to their carbon footprint. In fact they just passed a law for that in Finland, and most new cars' taxation will actually be lower than it is now. But my point is, we should do our part because we are able, because we can afford that.

China and India...well, China has several sustainability programs but on the scale they're expanding as an economy...not that significant at the moment, unfortunately. They have several city projects going on in which they're trying to design cities that would be as efficient as traditional ones but with a lot smaller environmental impact (I'm talking about significant results here, if they can make them work). Hopefully they will start to catch up, and some measures are initiated so they will, because we are talking about pollution and waste on a whole different level if they become like the US, or even Europe, in their standard of living or more precisely, lifestyle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.