... and only 5 of 9 storms were classified as hurricane strength. All weren't that powerful. It's the quietest season in a decade.

http://www.tbo.com/news/metro/MGBHKNBE0VE.html

So what's the excuse this time? The dust from the Sahara that crippled the hurricane mentioned in the article was due to global warming? I'm all for reducing pollution, finding alternative fuels, etc. It NEEDS to be done. My wife and I are probably the only people in our neighborhood that follow what can and cannot go into our green recycling can. We even wash our tin cans. Seems **** at times but at least we're trying... we even cut our driving down considerably.



There are considerable problems regarding our climate and ozone that need to be fixed, stopped or reversed. Is it all our fault or is part or all of it due to a scheduled climate change our planet has seen before? But why have scientists, Gore and the rest of them made global warming out to be this vicious monster waiting in the bushes to pounce on unsuspecting children? Tenure? Grants? What if the Saraha dust really is an equal and opposite reaction of global warming that's countering the water temps?

I'm sure when we have 40 hurricanes a year from now or twenty years from now the peanut gallery will come out of the woodwork and everyone will start foaming at the mouth again. But that doesn't dismiss what happened (or didn't happen) this year. I think this year proves that people are jumping on this wagon too quickly. We're missing something here. What do you think?

 

Statistics like this is what I'm talking about. How can we even begin to call this a cycle or a problem given the age and history of this planet? If that statistic is true we're not even halfway through the initial cycle they claim already exists.

 

First off, you are proving yourself wrong in the statistical sense by using this ONE year's worth of non-hurricanes to say that the 'high cycle' is false...see what I mean? Even in a high cycle of 30-40 years, one or two years can be low...


More importantly, I don't really know of any journal articles in scientific publications that stick to the argument of increased hurricanes as being the sign of global warming; that is largely an argument used by non-scientists who try to appeal to the masses with something tangiable (like Gore). The real journal articles explore things like the kinetics of seasonal change and variations from decade to decade in salinity in polar oceans, etc...


I see your point, that people use bogus arguments to support global warming. My suggestion is that these arguments are used because there are relatively few people on the planet who can understand the real arguments and their implications on the future...if someone tells you that the arctic ocean is 0.5% less salty than 15 years ago, you say so what even though that's a potentially huge deal. Someone tells you that hurricanes will blow your house away, then all the sudden you get attention.

 

I see your point and you're right. One year is too small to tell. What happens when there's FIVE or TEN years of insignificant amounts of hurricanes? Can we still play the hindsight/safe card? If we did make the quota of 17 hurricanes every environmentalist, amateur scientist, and global warming scientist would be saying "I told you so."

I think it's pretty naive to think this. It was originally 17 then lowered a couple times to five: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/01/D8JS41380.html Even hype gets mixed into scientific method. 17 hurricanes would mean that there would always be an active hurricane (not tropical storm) during the season, maybe two or three at a time in some cases. Thing is, Sarahan dust doesn't eliminate storms, it only weakens them. There were still only 9 total storms, 4 of which weren't powerful to be hurricanes. The warm water never left. Where's the 17 tropical storms then?

 

It's pretty clear that Al Gore scared the storms away.