It's true!

[ucicare]

When you look at the facts, it is obvious that there are LOTS more hurricanes now than in the last ten decades. See here - the proof can't be argued!!!!

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml?

Facts just suck don't they?

Barry

[SoreVagina]

See I can't belive that til the Goverment tells me it Fact like the Convention center.

[diogenes]

hurricane's relative strength is based on the warmth of currents in the atlantic, which may or may not be caused by global warming. The lack of the cold water circulation from the artic ice caps melting every year supposedly cycles the water and creates a rotating current. Again, whether or not this is caused by global warming, I don't know, I'm not an expert. But it does look like the power of hurricanes is on an upswing.

[ucicare]

But it does look like the power of hurricanes is on an upswing.

Obviously you did not click the link and look at the charts.

Hurricanes are NOT more frequent, nor are they MORE powerful than in the past.

There are MORE people, and MORE houses and MORE boats and MORE cars so therefore there is MORE damage and MORE coverage than ever before.

Look at the graph - in the past ten decades there have been an average of 17.6 Hurricanes a decade making landfall, and of those an average of 6 were "major" hurricanes.

From 1961 each decade has averaged LESS than 17 hurricanes, and less than 6 major hurricanes. FOR THE PAST 50 YEARS, WE ARE BELOW AVERAGE EVERY DECADE.

I wonder what people thought in the 1940's, when 24 hurricanes, 10 of them major, hit? With Hitler, WWII, Earthquakes, two nuclear bombs, epidemics, and crazy weather, can you image what the forums would have been saying about the end of the world?

Subjective reasoning creates false declarations.

Look at the facts. The sky is not falling.

Barry

[Nursey]

When you look at the facts, it is obvious that there are LOTS more hurricanes now than in the last ten decades. See here - the proof can't be argued!!!!

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml?

Facts just suck don't they?

Barry

That's for the U.S. as a whole. What about the data specifically relating to the Gulf coast area? And also, hasn't the ferocity of hurricanes been far greater than usual over the past few years?


In other words, Katrina was an Act of God no one could have foreseen, and the politicians we elected to protect us from disaster are not responsible for the unimaginable horror we have witnessed this week.

A horror unimagined by anyone, except by every hurricane scientist and government emergency management official for the past forty years and more. It was a certainty that New Orleans would suffer a catastrophe like this. Every 70 years, on average, the central Gulf Coast has a Category 4 or 5 hurricane pass within 80 miles of a given point. Sometimes you get lucky--for a while. New Orleans had gone over 150 years without a strike by a hurricane capable of overwhelming the levees. Sometimes you get unlucky. There's no guarantee that New Orleans won't get hit by another major hurricane this year. We are in the midst of an extraordinary period of hurricane activity, the likes of which has not been seen in recorded history. Hurricanes Ivan and Dennis, which both had storm surges capable of breaching the levees in New Orleans, smashed into Pensacola in the past year. Either of these storms could have inundated New Orleans, had they taken a slight wobble westward earlier in their track.

http://www.wunderground.com/education/katrina.asp

[ucicare]

That's for the U.S. as a whole. What about the data specifically relating to the Gulf coast area? And also, hasn't the ferocity of hurricanes been far greater than usual over the past few years?

The past two years have seen several hurricanes in the Gulf. It has been above average for the past two seasons, but that is not unusual. Hurricanes tend to follow similar patterens for several years, and then the patterns change.

Alabama has had six major hurricanes in the past 150 years. North Carolina, which is on the Atlantic, has had 12 during the same period.

I do not think that hurricanes are more ferocious now than in the past. I was in the eye of Ivan. It was fierce, but it dropped to a cat 2 almost as soon as it hit. Dennis was a cat 4, but it was small and did little damage.
I think the news does a great job of hyping the very worst of every storm. The truth is, they really just devastate the coastline. Anything a mile inland is usually untouched unless a tree falls on it.



We are in the midst of an extraordinary period of hurricane activity, the likes of which has not been seen in recorded history.

Just not true. See the "recorded history" at the NOAA site linked above. This has been an active season so far, but there have been many active seasons before.



Hurricanes Ivan and Dennis, which both had storm surges capable of breaching the levees in New Orleans, smashed into Pensacola in the past year. Either of these storms could have inundated New Orleans, had they taken a slight wobble westward earlier in their track.

If Ivan and Dennis and their terrible storm surges "smashed into Pensacola", why haven't we had a national crisis in Pensacola? I go there about once a week. Nice dry place. No damage to be found. Go figure.

Barry

[Nursey]

If Ivan and Dennis and their terrible storm surges "smashed into Pensacola", why haven't we had a national crisis in Pensacola? I go there about once a week. Nice dry place. No damage to be found. Go figure.

Barry

I take it that Pensacola isn't a 'bowl' like New Orleans at the mercy of government funding to boost levees then?

[Dwaine Scum]

That's for the U.S. as a whole. What about the data specifically relating to the Gulf coast area? And also, hasn't the ferocity of hurricanes been far greater than usual over the past few years?



I don't think they keep records in Mexico or south america at that

[ucicare]

I take it that Pensacola isn't a 'bowl' like New Orleans at the mercy of government funding to boost levees then?

Pensacola is high ground. Nice military area with lots of planes and ships. Can't afford to have that get damaged now can we?

As far as government funding to boost levees - that is really not how the US is set up to work. The local city and State governments should have put up the money. Federal funds may be available, but the Federal Government, which is funded by the tax dollars from all citizens, should not be expected to spend money on a local project when the locals themselves will not spend their own local tax money on the project.

It is my opinion that the leaders of Louisiana failed miserably to prepare for this inevitable disaster. Alabama and Mississsippi did a much better job. Have you seen anyone from Alabama or Mississippi blasting Bush and complaining of FEMA's response?

Something interesting here. http://ngs.woc.noaa.gov/katrina/KATRINA0000.HTM
Click the boxes to get individual aerial photos. Notice the huge area that was affected. It took a massive response to serve an area this large.

Oh, and just curious - are we actually having a civil conversation? If so, it is kind of a nice break from the usual.

Barry

[diogenes]

Can't really blame geography on the federal government. As for the fact that Louisiana had a poor response, what did anyone really expect. It's Louisiana. Where does New Orleans draw most of it's tax base from, I don't know what they manufacture, what exactly is it that Louisiana does in terms of economics. I'm not saying that they're worthless, I just don't know what Louisiana does for money. There's a tremendous number of poor people down there.

What is the state of Louisiana doing to make the situation better, does anyone know about that? Why do we always assume the federal government should get involved in local problems? They have a hard time making good decisions for Washington, let alone Louisiana, not to mention Hawaii or Alaska. Maybe they should take the 24 billion of pork out of the transportation bill and pump that into emergency management and training. Not that the federal government is a quick and agile thing for responding to anything.

[Nursey]

That's for the U.S. as a whole. What about the data specifically relating to the Gulf coast area? And also, hasn't the ferocity of hurricanes been far greater than usual over the past few years?


I do not think that hurricanes are more ferocious now than in the past.


Well, the scientists do...

ATLANTIC BASIN SEASONAL HURRICANE FORECAST FOR 2005 (http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2005/april2005/)

PROBABILITIES FOR AT LEAST ONE MAJOR (CATEGORY 3-4-5) HURRICANE LANDFALL ON EACH OF THE FOLLOWING COASTAL AREAS:



1) Entire U.S. coastline - 73% (average for last century is 52%)

2) U.S. East Coast Including the Florida Peninsula - 53% (average for last century is 31%)

3) Gulf Coast from the Florida Panhandle westward to Brownsville - 41% (average for last century is 30%)

4) Expected above-average major hurricane landfall risk in the Caribbean

"The probability of U.S. major hurricane landfall is estimated to be 140 percent of the long-period average. We expect this year to continue the past-decade trend of above-average hurricane seasons."

Uncertainty in Hurricanes and Global Warming (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5729/1753)

During the 2004 hurricane season in the North Atlantic, an unprecedented four hurricanes hit Florida; during the same season in the Pacific, 10 tropical cyclones or typhoons hit Japan (the previous record was six) (1). Some scientists say that this increase is related to global warming; others say that it is not. Can a trend in hurricane activity in the North Atlantic be detected? Can any such trend be attributed to human activity? Are we even asking the right questions?

Number Of Strong Hurricanes Doubles Over Past 35 Years (http://voanews.com/english/Number-Of-Strong-Hurricanes-Doubles-Over-Past-35-Years.cfm)

Scientists say the number of violent cyclones around the world has doubled over the past 35 years, and storms such as the one that devastated New Orleans could become more common. Many experts blame violent storm activity on global warming.

Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology say Katrina appears to be part of an increasing trend of category four and five storms, the most violent cyclones to hit land. In the Pacific, such storms are called typhoons.

Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research and colleagues at Georgia Tech's School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences report an average of 10 category four and five hurricanes per year globally during the 1970s. Since 1990, that number has nearly doubled to 18.

"Indeed, if you're taking a proportional sense, they've gone from being around 20 percent of the total to being around 35 percent of the total," said Greg Holland.

Based on satellite data, researchers found the total number of hurricanes has inexplicably decreased while their intensity and duration have increased.

The largest increases in the number of category four and five storms has occurred in the North Pacific, the Southwest Pacific and the North and South Indian Oceans. In the North Atlantic, scientists have found hurricanes have become more numerous and longer lasting, particularly since 1995.