TR Forums

I'm not sure if it was because I was too young, but I never could remember these many hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes, earthquakes, and wildfires hitting the US so badly... Now it seems like Florida and the coasts are getting pounded almost constantly by some new hurricane every month... Was it always this frequent?

Excatly, You dont remember thats the KEY here. We have records on Earth for only 100yrs., The world is just doing waht it supposed to be doing. Hands Down ! , Do NOT Let them tell u its global warming that saying is a "crock".

News didn't get around much before. Also ships just friggin vanished back then...pirates, mutiny, hurricane, aliens...no way to know. Hell, whole towns would jump off the map and leave sometimes.

There was an earthquake in the midwest in 1812 that totally screwed with the mississippi, nowhere is safe from anything.

Also the news is always dying for the next big thing today...the reality of life and nature in the long run is Get Used To It™ or Sh*t Happens®.

The latest research I've read says even the hurricanes aren't really getting more powerful, it's just seems that way because the monitoring is so much more sophisticated. As garikfox said, don't get caught up in this silly global warming hysteria.

There's still a lot of research going on to determine the details of how and why hurricanes form, though the overall mechanism for Atlantic hurricanes (basically enormous low pressure regions that form in the Sahara) is generally understood. Nevertheless, there are mysteries: Hurricane frequency seem to operate on a 20-30 year cycle for reasons that aren't entirely understood; the upswing of the current cycle started in about 1995 so it makes sense that we're getting close to the peak now. There were a lot of storms in the 60s (eg Betsy in '65, Camille in '69), and the 30s (eg the "Long Island Express" in 1938), and the turn of the century (the Galveston hurricane). But we quickly forget unless our lives were directly affected -- and in the early days, before hurricanes were understood as distinct phenomena, they didn't get much attention beyond being a really bad storm. Wikipedia has a list but of course gauging hurricanes by loss of life or financial cost is pretty random as that is entirely dependent on the path the storm takes. Andrew was a devasting storm that happened during a relatively quiet period, but it happened to hit a major populated area dead on.

BTW, we have records that go back much further than a hundred years in China and Europe (they go back a couple of hundred years on the east coast for that matter). And before people were writing down measurements, the were being recored naturally. Tree ring data goes back hundreds of years; Ice core samples a few thousand. The evidence for an overall warming trend is quite overwhelming and no reputable climate scientists dispute it. How much of that is due to natural variation, and how much of it is human-instigated is still somewhat open to debate, but it's clear that while the earth has been warmer in the past, it has rarely warmed as rapidly has it has been doing lately. While climate scientists see ample evidence of global warming, they aren't willing to correllate it with hurricane formation because they don't have data that suggests such a connection (at least not yet).

Given that warm water (80ºF) is a requirement for hurricane formation, any increase in the temperature of surface water could increase the frequency of hurricanes and possibly their intensity; it could also increase the length of the hurricane season, if the water reached that temperature earlier and/or retained it longer. Coral "bleaching" in the Caribbean is an indirect measure of increasing ocean temperatures in the mid-Atlantic; however, there are significant variations from year to year that tend to overwhelm the average (and are more significant than any average increase due to global warming, which tends to have more impact at the poles anyway), and these may be part of what drives the hurricane cycle.

So yes, there are more hurricanes than you remember (assuming you're under, say, 40) but perhaps not more than in previous "bad" cycles.

CNN will be out of business if there is no news. They have to find something to report and that something had better be dramatic. With better communication and all it just seems to have better coverage.

I won't dismiss global warming as total BS, but I do realize the earth had its cycles of heating up and cooling down.

Also:
Wildfires in the west? Happens every year. The forest fire supression that was practiced for the latter half of the 20th century made things worse, by allowing fuel to build up. Current practices are to allow controlled burns where possible (fire was a natural part of the environment and one the plants evolved with) -- but it will take a long time to get rid of the fuel, and the fires will be especially bad when they have that to feed on. Drought conditions can make a fire season worse, of course, but that's subject to climate cycles like El Niño. And meanwhile, people keep building houses deeper in the woods, so it's more and more likely a wildfire will threaten houses and hence get on the news.

Tornado in the midwest? Happens every year too. Warnings are better, so fewer people are generally killed, but with all the video cameras they get more reach on the news... and with more housing developments (not to mention trailer parks) they're more likely to hit something photogenic too.

UberGerbil wrote:

BTW, we have records that go back much further than a hundred years in China and Europe (they go back a couple of hundred years on the east coast for that matter). And before people were writing down measurements, the were being recored naturally. Tree ring data goes back hundreds of years; Ice core samples a few thousand. The evidence for an overall warming trend is quite overwhelming and no reputable climate scientists dispute it. How much of that is due to natural variation, and how much of it is human-instigated is still somewhat open to debate, but it's clear that while the earth has been warmer in the past, it has rarely warmed as rapidly has it has been doing lately. While climate scientists see ample evidence of global warming, they aren't willing to correllate it with hurricane formation because they don't have data that suggests such a connection (at least not yet).

Given that warm water (80ºF) is a requirement for hurricane formation, any increase in the temperature of surface water could increase the frequency of hurricanes and possibly their intensity; it could also increase the length of the hurricane season, if the water reached that temperature earlier and/or retained it longer. Coral "bleaching" in the Caribbean is an indirect measure of increasing ocean temperatures in the mid-Atlantic; however, there are significant variations from year to year that tend to overwhelm the average (and are more significant than any average increase due to global warming, which tends to have more impact at the poles anyway), and these may be part of what drives the hurricane cycle.

Oops hit the post button far too soon.

I would like to point out that I beleive you are only partially correct.

The Delaware river that Washington crossed during the war for independence that fateful Christmas eave was chocked with ice. Just as it shows in that famous picture.
Now notice this was christmas eve NOT Februrary. And these does the river freeze at all?

Next take a look at the Thames in London this is one of the most titdally active rivers on the world. It froze so solid they had bonfires and parties on it!

But got back even further to the time of the beginning Renaisance englad was so warm that they started growing their own wines and some even rivaled the french!

Go back a bit more and MAN! was it COLD!!!!

Go back a bit more and hey check this out is WARM again. So warm that Iceland and GREENLAND could be settled by the vikings. In fact at the time region was WARMER that it is now.

I will have to find the linky if possible but the latest report is the global earth tempurature is DOWN since 1998. This is why we have more storms right now. If all you have is stable warm air you don't get massive storms. You must have instability. That instability comes from more dry cool/cold air.

In fact for Michigan this summer has been quite cool with most days under 85 degrees. I personally have only gone swimming in my In-Laws pond twice. And my neices and nephews have not gone swimming much either because the pond or the day is just too cold!

You will continue to see this cooling trend for another 20 years or so and then the temp will go back up.

Here is something to start you on your way...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main ... do0907.xml

Lots more stuff to find just google it.
I found this by searching for global wraming 1998.

Thought i would add this one in as well.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 69,00.html

The reason I posted it was to set your sites a wider. Weather has many causes not just green house gases.

There is no such thing as global warming, so feel free to pollute all you want.

Terrorism on the other hand, is a real threat we face every day. It's probably the terrorists.

He's telling you of fallacies, not that fact that it isn't possible global warming isn't possible. But with all the computers that are working on it right now, it has yet to be proven, I think that is his point. You do realize that with science you start with a non biased point, not that you prove global warming is true based off your assumption (actually thats one of the problem that science is having right now).

garikfox wrote:

Excatly, You dont remember thats the KEY here. We have records on Earth for only 100yrs., The world is just doing waht it supposed to be doing. Hands Down ! , Do NOT Let them tell u its global warming that saying is a "crock".

I see someone's sure drunk on the "ignorance is bliss and what I desparately want to be right must be" kool aid.

All kinds of things cause climate change. A singlular volcano can belch out enough ash to cause dramatic global shifts in weather. Two examples within recorded history are The Year Without A Summer and within the same century Krakatoa. Both events caused cooling on a global scale. BTW, Krakatoa's anniversary just came and went. Very interesting topic since a lot of information was recorded about the event.

We could and possibly are causing climate change. But there are greater things at work on earth than we. And I'm not talking about god. Earth has much more tricks than we can possibly understand now.

thecoldanddarkone wrote:

He's telling you of fallacies, not that fact that it isn't possible global warming isn't possible.

He as in who?

thecoldanddarkone wrote:

But with all the computers that are working on it right now, it has yet to be proven, I think that is his point.

Like all of science, it will never be "proven". What's your point?

thecoldanddarkone wrote:

You do realize that with science you start with a non biased point, not that you prove global warming is true based off your assumption (actually thats one of the problem that science is having right now).

It's only part of the larger problem of people (like you) not really knowing what science is and isn't.

Weather is ****. And the thing with blabla we only have weather reports 100years back is wrong too. And those where we measured 100years ago are most likely inaccurate.

Anyway, here in denmark we got more rain than ever before in august. The summer was alot warmer too. And its a continual change.

But global warming and human effect on nature is a thought subject when the corporate dollar rule. What country was it again that didnt sign the Kyoto treaty? Oh ye....

If you think the weatherchange is normal you are nuts and nature will **** you over badly. We got more changes the last 25years than we usually would in 1000years.

Shintai wrote:

If you think the weatherchange is normal you are nuts and nature will **** you over badly. We got more changes the last 25years than we usually would in 1000years.

What is "usually?" The earth goes through all kinds of cycles that we don't have the slightest clue as to how they work. We understand the results and kind of understand parts of the processes. But we do not understand the big picture. How all the different processes fit together to form what goes on to create our varying climates.

The Year Without A Summer breaks your idea of climate change. This change happened over the matter of a couple months. It was snowing in August in places it would normally be warm. That change was not caused by humans.

While "global warming" itself, in the sense that humans are contributing to the warming, is true or not, eh. *shrug*

However, it should be noted that ice shelfs and glaciers that have been in place hundreds, if not thousands, of years are melting. This should provide some pause for reflection.

Taddeusz wrote:

The Year Without A Summer breaks your idea of climate change. This change happened over the matter of a couple months. It was snowing in August in places it would normally be warm. That change was not caused by humans.

which just illustrates what a fragile environmental system we live in. If one "little" vulcano can cause us to miss a summer then what effect does a few hundred years of heavy industrial out put have?

Answer: nobody really knows.

but I've always thought you shouldn't crap in your own back yard and since we haven't invented the hyper drive or colonised Mars, Earth is the only back yard we've got

In middle ages apperently the earth was a little warm than it is now. In England they have vineyards 300miles north of the wine line. So that makes me think are we really experince a greenhouse effect of is this apart of some warming cycle that is taking place.

Shintai wrote:

But global warming and human effect on nature is a thought subject when the corporate dollar rule. What country was it again that didnt sign the Kyoto treaty? Oh ye....

But we pay others not to pollute for us.

mattsteg wrote:

thecoldanddarkone wrote:

He's telling you of fallacies, not that fact that it isn't possible global warming isn't possible.

He as in who?

thecoldanddarkone wrote:

But with all the computers that are working on it right now, it has yet to be proven, I think that is his point.

Like all of science, it will never be "proven". What's your point?

thecoldanddarkone wrote:

You do realize that with science you start with a non biased point, not that you prove global warming is true based off your assumption (actually thats one of the problem that science is having right now).

It's only part of the larger problem of people (like you) not really knowing what science is and isn't.

Really, hmm ok. If thats what you think. Honestly though, I don't think you actually do either.

thecoldanddarkone wrote:

Really, hmm ok. If thats what you think. Honestly though, I don't think you actually do either.

I'm pretty sure that global warming is a generally accepted fact.

Now, whether people have an large effect on it is under debate.

I don't generally accept it. There are lots of holes in it.

Speaking of holes. Remember the hole in the ozone layer that was supposed to kill everyone? It's closing back up. And according to recent discoveries about CFC's in no part due to us. The propellants that were supposed to not depleat the ozone layer like CFC's do actually.

So, I repeat myself. The earth is far more complex than we can currently understand. It goes through cycles. Relatively speaking the earth just came out of an ice age and we had nothing to do with it. Sure, the earth is warming. We don't have the evidence to conclusively say that we are causing said warming. How can we say we are changing things when we don't understand the dynamics to begin with?

Year-to-year fluctuations, and momentary spikes caused by one-time events like large volcanic eruptions ("noise") are going to be much larger than the long-term trend ("signal"). In order to not get fooled by the noise, you need to look at indicators which have enough built-in inertia that the shorter fluctuations don't have a big effect on them.

Glaciers and polar ice caps are ideal for this. A single warm season or two may cause some shrinkage, but for them to advance or retreat significantly requires a prolonged, long-term climate shift.

If you look at the overall glacier and ice cap data, on the whole you see a tremendous amount of shrinkage in ice cover. For every glacier which has advanced, there are many more which have retreated. We're not talking about a short-term blip; ice cover is smaller than it has been in centuries. The available evidence indicates that long-term warming is in fact happening.

Is human activity primarily responsible? That we don't know for certain yet (it seems plausible though). But -- and here's the key point -- regardless of whether we were ultimately responsible for causing it, it is still in our best interests to try and slow it down.

NeRve wrote:

I'm not sure if it was because I was too young, but I never could remember these many hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes, earthquakes, and wildfires hitting the US so badly... Now it seems like Florida and the coasts are getting pounded almost constantly by some new hurricane every month...

Actually it's been a very light hurricane season so far with only five named storms. We've still two months left in the season, but last year I think we had something like 30 named storms.

And when was the last time a typhoon hit the U.S? By definition, this isn't even possible, except for maybe Hawaii.

Globial Warning really is climatic change, because the 60-70s had the Globial cooling FUD going around.

We then to forget that the Earth is not a 100% static/stable enviorment. It goes through contast climiatic changes over its geological history. The problem is we lack the data to make an accurate analysis on what cases the problems. IMO, I think human civilization has a played a minor role at best in the recent climatic changes.

I suspect that the sheer amount of change that civilization itself did to the natural landscape has done far more damage then the supposed "CO2 emissons" of industrial revolution could ever hope of producing.

The worse that human civilization can currently do the enviorment pales in comparison on what mother nature tends to do every 100-200 million years which are known are mass extinction events. The current evidance suggests they are the results of large meteor impacts and a following hotspot on the opposite side of the giobal where the impact struck.

Does it mean we should care about the enviorement? Of course we should give a damm because agraculture the foundation of our civilization can get serevely impacted by some of its adverse effects. The quality of life can get impacted by mindless pollution just look at workers and city dwellers from 19th century USA and current workers in China.

Vrock wrote:

And when was the last time a typhoon hit the U.S? By definition, this isn't even possible, except for maybe Hawaii.

That's because they are called hurricanes if they occur in the Atlantic and typhoons if they occur in the Pacific.

It really has been a light storm season this year. I really don't know what the point of the OP was. He obviously doesn't have a grasp of what storms or hurricanes have been happening this year.

Even here in OKC we've had a very light storm season. It's been very hot as well. Not sure about breaking any records but it has gotten up to 110F a couple days in areas and I'm still alive.

I think it is Dr Evil and his weather machine myself causing the problems.

Taddeusz wrote:

Vrock wrote:

And when was the last time a typhoon hit the U.S? By definition, this isn't even possible, except for maybe Hawaii.

That's because they are called hurricanes if they occur in the Atlantic and typhoons if they occur in the Pacific.

Er...I know. Hence my post.

Stripe7 wrote:

I think it is Dr Evil and his weather machine myself causing the problems.

I blame George W. Bush and Karl Rove.