..07 First Atlantic Hurricane Nearing ..."Perfect"...More Global Warming Evidence

The news group idiot Joe S. wrote:

"PauL" wrote in message
...
Jonathan wrote:

What I want to see is if the eye starts growing in size once
it reaches category 5 strength. At that strength, and an eye
on the order of a hundred miles across, Dean would be
another super-hurricane like Katrina and Wilma in 05.

Oh No!
Maybe I should move the lawn furniture into the garage?

Paul in Houston, Texas.

Well, dumbass, before that, maybe you want to take a look at this slideshow.
The Mississippi Gulf Coast after Katrina.

http://psds.wcu.edu/1564.asp

http://psds.wcu.edu/1565.asp

Nice pictures but your comment displays your ignorance.
How many hurricanes have you ridden out?
I have been thru 9.
That includes one on a service barge in the GOM while doing a
TA on a well. Eye walls are quite interesting when seen
from inside. The calm give you time to pump out the barge
to keep from sinking.

"PauL" wrote in message
...
How many hurricanes have you ridden out?
I have been thru 9.
That includes one on a service barge in the GOM while doing a
TA on a well. Eye walls are quite interesting when seen
from inside. The calm give you time to pump out the barge
to keep from sinking.

I enjoyed Elena. Strangely enough, while the power company had a problem
keeping the juice flowing when things were bright and sunny, my computer was
on the whole week the storm was parked off Tampa and the power didn't
flicker once.

I was watching Channel 10 News- you could barely hear the anchors over the
roar of the rain on their metal-roofed studio, and you could hear splashes
as the camera crew moved around.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 13:38:06 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


"Adam Lea" wrote in message
...

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...




Fact:

Isolated events cannot be used as evidence of climate change. It is
long
term trends that are important.


That's what 'they' said about Andew, and Katrina and Wilma and Jean
and...

The point is we're in the middle of establishing a clear trend of larger
more powerful hurricanes. Out of the last ten most damaging storms
in US history...seven..have been since just 2004. While the number
of landfalling hurricances of all types have stayed roughly unchanged.

RANK HURRICANE YEAR CATEGORY DAMAGE (U.S.)

1 KATRINA (SE FL, SE LA, MS) 2005 3 $81,000,000,000
2 ANDREW (SE FL/SE LA) 1992 5 26,500,000,000
3 WILMA (S FL) 2005 3 20,600,000,000
4 CHARLEY (SW FL) 2004 4 15,000,000,000
5 IVAN (AL/NW FL) 2004 3 14,200,000,000
6 RITA (SW LA, N TX) 2005 3 11,300,000,000
7FRANCES (FL) 2004 2 8,900,000,000
8 HUGO (SC) 1989 4
7,000,000,000
9 JEANNE (FL) 2004 3
6,900,000,000

That's because property values have been going up, and there has been
much more construction and population growth in hurricane zones, not
because hurricanes are getting more powerful.



Oh, you mean in the last ...three years...property values have
gone up so much as to make this list meaningless???
Or has the population skyrocketed in the last ...three years?
A larger storm is more likely to hit a populated area.
For instance, Katrina was so large it encompassed
two states making a minimal impact impossible.



There was virtually no
property damage in Florida at all from Cat 5 storms a few hundred
years ago. It doesn't mean that there weren't any.


The 'effects' of the weather have changed in a very quantifiable
way, as the list shows. Yet you dismiss it as a short term
aberation. The facts speak pretty clearly, you're in denial.

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:22:51 GMT, Scott Lowther
wrote:

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:57:17 -0300, in a place far, far away, robert
casey made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


Theory:

"Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones
(typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger
peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation."



Looks like we need to establish a category 6 for the really big boys...


The physics sets an upper limit on how powerful they can get.


Come now. We all know that the Bush/Cheney/Rove Hurricane Machine can
target blacks with storms having peak winds speeds that are well into
the hypersonic. That's why Rove is leaving the White House... Bush
Doesn't Care About Black People so much that he's ordered Rove to
improve the Hurricane machine so that instead of simply blowing houses
down, it will hurl them into space in excess of escape velocity.

I mean come on, it's obvious.

Exactly. And I have proof.
http://i9.tinypic.com/6fsjjf7.jpg



--
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS

Joseph R. Darancette

"robert casey" wrote in message
...


Theory:

"Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones
(typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger
peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation."



Looks like we need to establish a category 6 for the really big boys...


That is a problem. They do tell us how far from the center hurricane
winds exist. But that doesn't really establish a relationship combining
speed and size. And it doesn't include the effects of forward motion
and rainfall. One category three can be an order of magnitude more
destructive than another category three of smaller size.

"robert casey" wrote in message
...


Remember, global warming doesn't mean gradual warming everywhere.

Heard it said that, if humans never happened, the Earth would be
starting another ice age right now (more like a thousand years ago).
Seems we humans canceled it.


That's the way I read it too. I'm still not sure if global warming
is a good or bad thing. I tend to lean towards warming being
a good thing as it should allow more life to exist. But what
I'm certain about is we need to be able to manage the
warming, and not just hope it all works out. Continuing to
depend on fossil fuels means not being able to manage
future climate changes.



Even the small populations back then
burned enough fuel to have an impact.


Maybe.

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:31:50 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Fact:

Isolated events cannot be used as evidence of climate change. It is
long
term trends that are important.


That's what 'they' said about Andew, and Katrina and Wilma and Jean
and...

The point is we're in the middle of establishing a clear trend of larger
more powerful hurricanes. Out of the last ten most damaging storms
in US history...seven..have been since just 2004. While the number
of landfalling hurricances of all types have stayed roughly unchanged.

RANK HURRICANE YEAR CATEGORY DAMAGE (U.S.)

1 KATRINA (SE FL, SE LA, MS) 2005 3 $81,000,000,000
2 ANDREW (SE FL/SE LA) 1992 5 26,500,000,000
3 WILMA (S FL) 2005 3 20,600,000,000
4 CHARLEY (SW FL) 2004 4 15,000,000,000
5 IVAN (AL/NW FL) 2004 3 14,200,000,000
6 RITA (SW LA, N TX) 2005 3 11,300,000,000
7FRANCES (FL) 2004 2 8,900,000,000
8 HUGO (SC) 1989 4
7,000,000,000
9 JEANNE (FL) 2004 3
6,900,000,000

That's because property values have been going up, and there has been
much more construction and population growth in hurricane zones, not
because hurricanes are getting more powerful.



Oh, you mean in the last ...three years...property values have
gone up so much as to make this list meaningless???
Or has the population skyrocketed in the last ...three years?

No.

There was virtually no
property damage in Florida at all from Cat 5 storms a few hundred
years ago. It doesn't mean that there weren't any.


The 'effects' of the weather have changed in a very quantifiable
way, as the list shows. Yet you dismiss it as a short term
aberation.

No, it's not a short-term aberration. It's a long-term problem, as
more and more people move into hurricane zones. But it tells us
nothing about frequency or intensity of hurricanes, despite your
illogic.

Jonathan wrote:
"robert casey" wrote in message
...
Remember, global warming doesn't mean gradual warming everywhere.
Heard it said that, if humans never happened, the Earth would be
starting another ice age right now (more like a thousand years ago).
Seems we humans canceled it.

I doubt it. Hey, has anyone ever figured wildfire emissions into these
CO2 increases?

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...

No, it's not a short-term aberration. It's a long-term problem, as
more and more people move into hurricane zones. But it tells us
nothing about frequency or intensity of hurricanes, despite your
illogic.

It tells us a lot about the mindset of AGW advocates.

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:33:54 +0100, "Adam Lea"
wrote:

Fact:

....Here's one for you, Adam: "Jonathan" is a known troll. Most of us
on .history have killfiled the offensive, retarded ******* long ago.
Do yourself a favor and follow suit. This will once again put him out
of our misery.

Thanks!

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[