We're changing our WunderBlogs. Learn more about this important update on our FAQ page.

New record for the Hurricane Season of 2005

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 2:38 PM GMT on January 28, 2006

The National Hurricane Center has released its final report on Hurricane Cindy of 2005. Cindy, which had been considered a tropical storm with peak winds of 70 mph when it made landfall, is now considered a hurricane with 75 mph winds. This increases the all-time record number of hurricanes for a season in the Atlantic from 14 to 15. The previous record was 12 hurricanes, set in 1969.

Cindy followed almost the exact same track as Hurricane Katrina. Cindy made landfall in Southeast Louisiana near Grand Isle, then again on the Mississipi coast near Waveland (which doesn't exist anymore, thanks to Katrina). Detailed analysis of Doppler radar wind estimates from the New Orleans radar, plus ground-based measurements from sites not available for analysis at the time Cindy made landfall, led to the upgrade of Cindy to a hurricane. Cindy came ashore on July 5-6, 2005, and did $320 million in damage, thanks to its winds, 33 tornadoes, and 4-6 foot storm surge. Much of this damage occurred in the New Orleans area--which was only the beginning of what the Hurricane Season of 2005 had in mind for that unfortunate city. Wunderblogger squeak thought it would be intere3sting for me to mention that noticed that the surge was higher (6') on the eastern MS Coast--Jackson County--80 miles east of where landfall occured in Waveland (4' surge). according to NHC, this was because a small area of high winds to the SE of the center (the same ones that were used to identify Cindy as a hurricane for a short time) moved over Jackson County, causing the higher surge there.

I'll be back next week with my promised analysis of whether Category 4 and 5 hurricanes are increasing globally. Plus, I'll report live from the annual meeting of the American Meteorological Society in Atlanta, the world's largest gathering of meteorologists.

Jeff Masters

The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Log In or Join

You be able to leave comments on this blog.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 99 - 49

Page: 1 | 2Blog Index

99. TampaSteve
9:51 PM GMT on January 30, 2006
Hey hurricanechaser,

I'm so glad you are on this blog, because you echo my point of view on "global warming" and the environment exactly...and have thus saved me a lot of typing!

Keep up the good work!
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
98. ProgressivePulse
2:26 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
Same here in West Palm Global. Warm temps, breif shot of cold and bye bye.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
97. globalize
2:12 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
Bet those plows are really moving the snow on Snoqualmie Pass.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
96. globalize
2:07 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
Progressive- as a comparison, we generally do have some cold shots and from time to time a snow event in central Alabama. Haven't seen a snowflake in six or seven years. This year, average temp has been 5-15 degrees above normal for nearly the whole of Fall and Winter. We usually get at least twenty nights of frost temps during the 3 Winter months. Hardly a single frost this season or last.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
95. Trouper415
1:38 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
Let up a bit, not as impressive atm. But the hardest ive seen seattle being hit with rain and it gets hit often.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
94. Trouper415
1:29 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
Man Seattle is getting pounded with rain right now. Check out this link.

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
93. ForecasterColby
12:57 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
TC Jim really looking healthy now - I set up a discussion thread at my site Link
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
92. ProgressivePulse
11:32 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
Brief shot of cold, one month left. Amazing the lakes at my fathers house in southern Michigan froze over at the begining of the season and have been open for well over a month now. Don't see them covering again this year, I lived there for 24 years and never has there been a season where the lakes did not freeze for the winter.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
91. FtWaltonBch2Tucson
11:32 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
I"f a undereducated ex-southern hick can see the huge holes in your plan, it needs a lot of work. I only have two years of high school physics and even I know the principle you are basing these tunnels on won't work because it never occurs in nature!"

It does occur.


So if it occurs in nature it can be reproduced.

Cyclone, that is a completely different mechanism of uplift. It's not based on the principles you are trying to base your tunnels on. You could attempt to 'build' a hump, but there would not be any control over it. It would always be "on." Please, review your science. Undisciplined gasping at straws in the quickest way to shatter your dream.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
90. quakeman55
11:25 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
Heads up everyone! Looks like the NAO's making its switch now...better prepare for some cold weather ahead! Sheez, about time.

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
89. KatrinaRitaWilmaZeta
10:59 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
oops sorry about that i mean to say hey that storm is jim cantore from twc all you need to do is this add cantore on jim and it would be hurricane jim cantore you all get it?
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
88. KatrinaRitaWilmaZeta
10:53 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
hey its jim catore
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
87. globalize
10:37 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
Az- Did I attribute anything to good or evil? I spoke about a frenetic drive toward expansion and consumption, and that having its engine in the corporate world. And it will change soon.

And please don't next call me a Communist, a socialist rather.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
86. theboldman
10:26 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
opps a little big(:
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
85. theboldman
10:25 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
84. theboldman
10:25 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
hey done anyone want to know bout jim
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
83. KatrinaRitaWilmaZeta
10:14 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
i love The Day After Tomorrow movie i think it a vary good movie do you and wow -150
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
82. F5
10:08 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
Want to read more about global warming...


Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
81. ForecasterColby
10:01 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
And yet, Jeff, a lot of them watched The Day After Tomorrow - that's certainly an accurate movie
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
79. Skyepony (Mod)
9:28 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
Here's an interesting article on albedo, clouds & what they have to do with globial warming.

Also a little something on the contrails affect on global warming~ A study performed in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, when U.S. skies were clear of airplanes, found that contrails have a small but measurable effect on daily temperatures on Earth. The temperature range was more than one degree Celsius (about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) larger than when contrails were present, scientists reported in the journal Nature.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
78. F5
9:27 PM GMT on January 29, 2006

Thanks for your comments (both personal and those directed to the group). Your voice is needed on this issue. Please continue to post when you can. As always, I look forward to reading your comments.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
77. hurricanechaser
9:11 PM GMT on January 29, 2006

Naturally, you like to try and rebut my arguments because I am NOT, unlike most others from your apparent alarmist point of view declaring unsubstantiated, unprovable, and nothing more than a well hyped hypothesis as fact.

Instead, I have tried to simply change the discussion to a place where it should've been all along. That it's not about the undeniable fact that the temperatures around the globe are in a warming phase, but rather WHAT is actually responsible for this SLIGHT warming trend(which by any other common sense definition should be called Global warming).

The FACT that the vast majority in this Country and around the world hear the term, "Global warming" and automatically attribute that phrase to human induced causes is unfortunate proof that the debate is inherently skewed for the "undereducated masses" as I have seen it termed here today.

How can anyone look at the REAL ISSUE objectively when those like yourself consistently and intentionally try to divert the central focus off what COULD actually be causing it, and rather turn it into a political and heatedly divided debate in doing so.

Such irresponsible comments by yourself and others that belittle "conservatives" and the current administration that you know is conservative, are not relevant to the TRUTH whatever it actually may be, in determining the direct cause of global warming, as it SHOULD be correctly defined.

The more this debate continues, the more we see the attacks on conservatives by those who seem to be liberal in attempt to build on the unpopular and media bashed "oil companies" which are an easy target to dislike by most.

I stand by my previous post that no matter how you try to divert the validity of my simple and truly objective view of the issue, it still rings true because I am very careful NOT to use the term FACT to anything that has not already be proven.

Let us review your summary statement since your other points are simply conservative bashing that I feel don't deserve a rebuttal, because they are not any valid arguments found therein, but amount to little more than a smear campaign of those sources you personally don't like.

"So, if you're worried about the clueless crowd falling for slanted pro-global-warming coverage, remember that there are a lot of countervailing forces at work as well."

My simple and logical response to that blanket statement is that there is very little "countervailing forces" at work, because the Main stream media and the most widely read articles are inherently liberal as you well know. The reason people like yourself don't like Fox News for example is that they are truly objective(or as close as you'll ever find)in stark contrast to the MAJOR most watched networks by the vast majority of people in our country who have grown up watching the SLANTED liberal point of view from ABC,CBS, and NBC.

Moreover, most people can't afford cable so that Fox News isn't able to come close to reaching the "critical masses" as some have called them in comparison. So, any attempt to suggest that this playing field is even is not only untrue, but is completely unfair to even suggest that it could be.

"Oh, and the researchers who are actually trying to figure out the answers? Well, they're all wrong most of the time anyway, so it's just as well that nobody's listening to them."

Once again, my simplistic yet proven statements regarding this issue(because I don't simply spout things unproven as FACT)that the rebuttals to my comments are being typically met with sarcasm rather than any substantive response.

Like I mentioned previously, the only defense in a fair and balanced objective debate on this issue for the alarmist point of view is to use fear tactics with all the "WHAT IF" worse case GUESSES while intentionally or possibly unintentionally manipulating the truly undereducated. It is a undeniable reality that our planet has and will continue to go through warming and cooling cycles DIRECTLY related to NATURAL climate variability.

I will once again state the obvious for which there can't be any substantiated rebuttal. The simple FACT is that the present SLIGHT warming of global temperatures cannot be proven to be directly attributed to any human activities regardless of how many scientific studies or how the well funded propaganda machines try to erroneously suggest otherwise. The idea of human induced Global warming amounts to nothing more than an UNPROVABLE GUESS and it is truly arrogant to think we as humans are DIRECTLY responsible for it.

Two important things to consider here. There is NO WAY to attribute the PROVEN and undeniable reality of NATURAL climate change which is still occurring and will do so if humans were to suddenly cease to exist has LESS influence on climate change than ALL human activities combined. It is truly mind boggling than anyone could objectively think such a thing.

Secondly, I am not saying that human activity is NOT having any effect on our climate or that it couldn't, but that whatever effect is VERY INSIGNIFICANT in comparison to NATURAL climate variability that has happened before and will continue to happen for as long as the earth exists.

The same standard can't even come close for the GUESS that humans are the DIRECT cause of global warming. To even suggest such an illogical position, one has to to DIRECTLY ignore the FACTUAL EVIDENCE of NATURAL CLIMATE VARIABILITY. Therefore, how can you or anyone else seriously make such an outrageous claim to the contrary.

I will summarize my thoughts for you and the others who don't share my views.

1) The well accepted definition of "global warming" has and continues to distort this debate and encourages the "undereducated" as you put it, to simply observe increased temperatures and blindly accept the idea of Global warming. It is most unfortunate that they aren't given the more logical and PROVEN reality of NATURAL climate variability as a possible alternative view, and how it can NEVER be discounted as the DIRECT cause for it has been the only cause for thousands of years.

To suggest that the media and other sources are giving even a 90% to 10% percent articulation of these opposing views is completely false and it would be very difficult for anyone to objectively suggest otherwise no matter how hard they tried.

2) It is most illogical to accept that humans are DIRECTLY responsible for the SLIGHT increases in temperatures around the globe and give that distinction to human induced causes. Even if this hypothesis could ever be proven(which can't be done, since no one could ever know what the earths temperatures would've been without these human activities)the only way to have ANY SIGNIFICANT impact on eliminating ALL human effects on our climate can't seriously be accomplished without the extinction of ALL HUMAN LIFE no matter how anyone tries to redirect the discussion.

3) Naturally, I do believe humans do have some VERY MINIMAL effects on our planet and I am TOTALLY in support of cleaning up our environment as everyone should, but NOT because of the unsubstantiated "WHAT IF" dooms day alarmist view as to what's causing global temperatures to rise at a very SLOW pace.

4) There is NOTHING that is occurring or would be occurring with our Earths climate that has not happened in the Earths past. Simply put, No one can make a blanket claim that the earth is experiencing more devastating storms, and the like when record keeping ONLY dates back a couple hundred years. The seemingly more extreme events are simply more significant than what we can compare them with our very limited data over an EXTREMELY short period of time.

Naturally, it should be expected that a warming phase of NATURAL climate variability would enhance record breaking temperatures around the globe as a result along with storm events that seem so unusual to us, but may NOT have been for our ancestors for which NONE of us could or will ever know.

5) I ask those with an opposing view to read my posts and see that you will NOT find any statement I refer to as FACT that isn't undeniable by the historical record or is strictly based on logic, such as, "it is impossible to ever know whether Global warming is being enhanced by any significant impact by human activities much less the absurd claim that human activities are the DIRECT cause of it.

In summary, I once again ASK that those with an opposing view please keep your political views out of this debate and not to try and sidetrack the debate by redirecting it to a conservative versus liberal issue. In my humble opinion, it should be neither.

Once again, I am in favor of cleaning up our environment for the right reasons to reduce UNNECESSARY pollution and strongly believe that any effect by human activities on the current warming trend is VERY INSIGNIFICANT at best, and possibly unnoticeable in comparison with the most likely and well documented and proven effects of NATURAL climate variability dating back thousands of years.

In light of all of the aforementioned, I will never understand how any OBJECTIVE person can look at the evidence and suggest that human activities could possibly be a DIRECT cause for something as large as the entire earths climate which is extremely complex and has undergone countless NATURAL climate cycles and will do so again. Please excuse my typos for I don't have the time to proofread what I've written. I hope everyone continues to have a great weekend.:)


Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
76. AZuRe033
8:03 PM GMT on January 29, 2006

I seriously believe that the world is driven by the desire for power and money..weather it be an evil corporation or an environmental group.

Is is really any mystery to anyone why suddenly the big oil corporations are paying for advertising expousing their search and drive for new energy sources etc?? They follow the almighty dollar and the money right now is in the new fade of alternative energy and hybrid technology. And yes it is a fade just like SUV's and the Adkin's Diet.

But to blanket everything an "evil" corporation has ever done is showing your blind slavery to a particular political propaganda.

You toss off all the good and wonderful things corporations have done and are responcible for including the very quality of life you enjoy now including sitting behind your computer screen right now...or the billions of dollars that are given by these evil corporations and the evil rich people to charities.

I am by no means taking away the truly horrible things that these entities are responcible for, but to make blanket and outright wrong statements about an entity or group is irresponcible. There is no black and white to any issue, thus the power of debate, but I'm sure you shall only focus on the things that support your point and will continue to ignore or lambast anything and anyone that doesn't agree with you..constuctive isn't it??


Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
75. Skyepony (Mod)
7:54 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
An earlier promised link: How Lowly Bacteria Froze Earth Solid There's many good articles out there on this, it was presented by the researchers at Caltech.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
74. Skyepony (Mod)
7:30 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
Each time you don't erodes your credibility~ So true, buster been in your courner here, but lately~ What about making electricity while in a non-cooling state of opperation. Wasn't it open 'em up, get electricity while upwelling is occuring, happy side affect? & (it's been a few days) your explination of producing the energy by slowing the flow at the top to 4 mph from 32 or 34? If it's only able to pass at 4 on the top, pressure (i'm pretty sure on this) builds till the whole tube flow reduces to 4mph. Don't pull out of the air anything that might convince someone. You need to go research. How the WMA going? You've contacted someone, joined? They got a blog, been there?
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
73. FtWaltonBch2Tucson
7:09 PM GMT on January 29, 2006

Not really. There could be two rows of them one down near the keys and the other up the coast near the Cape. Another could be built in the Yucatan current near the Yucatan Peninsula. This would cool the loop current and would protect the gulf states. Remember they can be turned off or on at will and we would surly do so to prevent an ice age well before that happened. During the cooling phase they weaken hurricanes and generate power and during the non-cooling phase they just generate electricity.

As far as shutting down the stream they reverse what is already happening due to global warming and restore the stream to pre industrial revolution conditions. Oh and by the way you forgot Andrew on your list and it would have turned him into a much weaker cane.

Cyclone, my first list of storms comes from this year and last.... that's all it took to get a long list of storms that have effected the Gulf Coast. The second list is by necessity from a different set of years because since I have moved from Virgina I have had no reason to memorize the storm names that have hit the NC coast... I know that it has been fewer storms than have hit the Gulf. I might have missed one or two in the last 10 to 15 years.

My parents and sister still live in the Gulf Coast (My parents in Ft. Walton Beach, FL; my sister in Slidell, LA) so I pay careful attention to any storm that comes into the Gulf.

I know Andrew hit Florida first back in 92. He was the first big scare I had as an adult because they thought for a while he would hit Fl again. But I don't see where you would have helped cause any less devastation.

Most homes and businesses in that area where not built to code. A cat 4 storm (and quite possibly a cat 3 storm!)would have still done as much damage. My father looked into land down there and was told- I kid you not!- that Hurricanes are a myth. They just don't hit the Miami-Dade area. He asked about hurricane clips and was told that if he really wanted them they would cost extra and then was quoted an exorbitant fee. My father decided it wasn't worth investing down there. That was in 1990.

So even if your tunnels worked (which I haven't conceded yet) it would not have reduced the damage caused by human negligence and failure to adhere to building codes.

But on to your other point. You had not thought these tunnels through enough to realise you would need more than one set to do what you claim. This does not reassure me that you have thought the rest through enough to prevent global weather changes.

And what level of flow is pre-industrial revolution? We didn't have the equipment to know what it was accurately. So how can you claim that it would restore the flow. Or for that matter, since current scientific thought is that there was an interruption in the Gulf Stream that caused the mini-ice age would we want to bring it back to pre-industrial revolution status?

We were still in the ice age for the first hundred years or so of the industrial revolution. Are you prepared to plunge the world back into one to "right the wrongs" humans have caused? I have no problem with cleaning up our world. It needs to be done. We're poisoning the cradle of mankind. But active attempts at changing the weather... That worries me. I don't see how humans can keep every variable in mind. We can't even do it to predict the weather 5-7 days out!

Your tunnels, if they work, would be more of a hazard than a blessing I think, and that is probably why you have met with such resistance to the idea. It's obvious you haven't thought them though fully, and no-one wishes to fund half-baked science. Spend a few years working on the details. Have firm, well thought out science (preferably by more than one person) to present. Maybe someone will look at them then. Right now you are just convincing the very people you need assistance from that you are a crackpot. If you want these things to become reality, do the work.

If a undereducated ex-southern hick can see the huge holes in your plan, it needs a lot of work. I only have two years of high school physics and even I know the principle you are basing these tunnels on won't work because it never occurs in nature!

Please, work more on the science before you make anymore claims you can't currently substantiate about it. Each time you don't erodes your credibility.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
72. AZuRe033
6:53 PM GMT on January 29, 2006

Thank you for the welcome and totally agreeing with everyone all the time is not only boring, but unconstructive.. :)

It is ignorant to think that we, as human, do not have any impact on our environment or even to the extent that we have no impact on the big picture on our Earth. It is only resonable to asume that six billion people do have some impact, even globally.

It is also extremely arrogant to believe that humans can destroy the Earth and we MUST DO SOMETHING NOW!!!

The truth is somehwere in the middle and only through honest research, investigation, and debate can we start to get at the truth if there is one to get at. I stress the word honest here because there is a huge amount of money and power involved in this issue that it is getting increasingly hard to sift through the propaganda...


Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
71. globalize
6:40 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
Az- do you seriously believe that the 'corporate mind' of an oil concern has any interest whatsoever in paring down its potential expansion by calling attention to the fact that burning of fossil fuels at present levels is detrimental to human existence on the earth. To my mind no, never, not from the holder of a single stock to the Chairman of the Board. This 'corporate mind', from oil companies to burger joints now advocates purely expansion and consumption. And it is fostered by the suppression of intelligence, which, if it continues will indeed cause a disastrous correction eventually.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
70. AZuRe033
6:35 PM GMT on January 29, 2006

Your post regarding cleaning up your immediate environment is one of the points I was trying to make and you stated it much more clearly than I.


Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
69. AZuRe033
6:30 PM GMT on January 29, 2006

Thank you for your welcome and I agree with you.

Constructive debate is the lifeblood of positive change. I fully expected to take some heat for expressing some opinnions. The irony is I never once stated whether I believe in or do not believe in human induced global warming.... :)

I have enjoyed your posts and again..thank you for the welcome.

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
68. AZuRe033
6:22 PM GMT on January 29, 2006

I find your extrapolations from my post interesting..

You said "You seem to say human efforts to reduce global warming may lead to another 'holocaust'?"

No I did not...but you have to be very careful with the political, social, and economic consequences of any theory that is shoved down everyones throat as fact and anyone who disagrees with this theory is told that they are stupid and ignorant and told they should just shut up. If you are so sure that you are "right," why then stiffle potentually important points and debate? If you are so "right," then why do you immediately call anything that disagrees with your point of view either being fueled by ignorance or funded by the big evil corporate machine? In short, if you are so "right," what are you afraid of?

You said, "Sadly, your statement about giant corporations contributing even to the study, let alone the solution of global warming, insults the intelligence of people contributing here."

The only insult being slung around is your insistance that you are 100% right, and anything or anyone that disagrees with your point of view is wrong. Answer my why most major environmental groups share the same board members with industry?

Finally, you said, "Finally, your statement that 'nothing should be done even if something could be done' is about the most pitiful thing I've read in this forum."

Interesting that you use the word "pitiful." Likewise I am sure. I said no such thing and I consider your deliberate misconstrued extrapolation to be, in itself, insulting.

Good day to you...

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
67. HurricaneMyles
6:21 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
Did you read my post above? I thought it explaind my veiws on global warming quite well.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
66. jeffB
6:13 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
Unfortunately, the undereducated masses will catch a few sound bytes, some will actually read the article, and more people will start demanding that we do "something" before it's too late. God, you gotta love that alarmist point of view.

Well, before you get too worried about the "undereducated masses" of America and their credulous willingness to do as they're told, please remember that:

(1) A lot of them are getting their news from Fox, where they'll never be in danger of getting an "alarmist point of view". Ahem.

(2) A lot of them are also listening to Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the conservative talk-show constellation, where, again, they'll get little exposure to this point of view.

(3) All of them are being led by a chief executive and national legislative majority clinging desperately to the notion that anthropogenic global warming is a globalist-socialist myth designed to hurt America.

So, if you're worried about the clueless crowd falling for slanted pro-global-warming coverage, remember that there are a lot of countervailing forces at work as well.

Oh, and the researchers who are actually trying to figure out the answers? Well, they're all wrong most of the time anyway, so it's just as well that nobody's listening to them.

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
65. globalize
6:10 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
HM- regardless of the kinds of 'reports' anyone might come by, are you going to deny the report of temperature guages nearly everywhere, whether in water or on soil surface. Are you going to argue the fact of the warming of the earth just because in one area on its surface snow may be falling??
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
64. globalize
5:59 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
The real fluke to be observed about hybrid technology in the automobile industry is the fact that the first models offered nearly ten years ago by Asian manufacturers get better mileage than the present models.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
63. palmettobug53
5:54 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
Lordy, I'm probably gonna get chewed out! I ought to just stick to lurking here on Dr. Master's blog!
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
62. palmettobug53
5:45 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
Musings from one member of the Silent Majority:

I'm kinda middle of the road on the whole Global Warming debate. I do feel that the increase in human population has led to an increase in human activity that does affect the environment, such as coal burning, the byproducts of the Industrial Revolution and modern day manufacturing. So does the accompanying increase over thousands of years of the livestock population, required to feed everyone. (Can we say methane gas? LOTS of it? ) I also know, that the Earth has a long history of warming/cooling cycles. Don't think that either one is strictly the one cause for the warming trends being discussed increasingly in recent years. Believe it's a combination of the two, along with other factors, which I'm not sufficiently educated enough on this subject to start enumerating. This is probably the view of the rest of the so-called Silent Majority. Most of what we know is whatever headline is being screamed loudest by one or the other of the two extremes in this debate.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
61. Trouper415
5:26 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
To forcastercolby, giving us those predictions.

The difference between 8,000 years ago and today is...there are probably 4.5 billion more people here now than there were then. And the impacts of a scenerio like that as you so mildly put it, are incredible. Why let something like that happen, when really it is most likely preventable. And really, what is the downside of making this place a cleaner one? For if that scenerio were to take place that you mentioned, hundreds of millions of lives would be lost if not more, and billions would be displaced of homes.

As I said, the state of the world is not as compatable as it has been throughout our enire history. Never have we even had to worry about the wellbeing of our children, as it was a given that they would have the same amenities as their mothers and fathers did. You must put it context scenerios that play out in this century as humans have never have had the effect that they do today. Not even close. Its finally time for us to take action, which we never have had to do in our existence, starting the reform, whether small or large.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
60. HurricaneMyles
5:21 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
Nice Post Skyepony.

I will clarify my view on the matter. I feel that global warming is happening and that humans certainly arent helping. Whether we are directly or indirectly causing the warming; I'm not sure. There is not enough evidence to single this out as something different then the thousands, if not millions of times the Earth has warmed before. We simply do not have the understanding about all the variables that we need to, at this time. In the future Im sure well discover how these things really work, and probably come to find out we were wrong for hundreds of years, but right now we dont know. So lets clean up the environment and start using renewable recourses so we can sustain ourselves even if the Earths climate doesnt dramatically change. Because the way were headed we wont be able to survive the next few hundred years with all the polluting and mismanagement of recourses that really kill the future of humanity.

The thing that I really hate is seeing people say things as facts when they are actually highly contested opinions. And you can claim whoever denies human induced global warming is stupid, or insane, or whatever, but that doesnt do anything to prove your point and only makes it harder for the other party to accept. So please, lets stop calling opinions facts, and no more name calling and lets continue to have a healthy debate.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
59. Trouper415
5:18 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
HurricaneMyles, Thanks for responding.

It will by no means an easy task to get the 'millions upon millions of lbs of c02 out of the atmosphere. However, if we start the reform now, it may be a small at the moment, but it will increase as time goes by. And the most important thing, no matter the size of the operation at this time, will be the action being taken place and at least a slowdown/cutback in c02 emissions will help this is a great deal. From there, we would have our eyes set on reducing the amount of c02 emissions, and thats when the prgress really sets foot.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
58. ProgressivePulse
5:18 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
Another funny note is the more Hybrid's you see on the road the higher the gas prices are going.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
57. ProgressivePulse
5:17 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
The funny thing is that I am sure they have cures for all these problems but they get shunned for the almighty dollar. I am positive they have developed a car that runs on alternative fuels like hydrogen long ago. Oil companies would not have it, just now you are staring to see more hybrid's.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
56. Skyepony (Mod)
4:59 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
Hey All~ Glad to see some new posters:) Welcome AZ! Even perhaps if we don't totally agree.

Trouper~ Since we've found ourselves on oppisite sides so often, had to say well written, totally agree.

We have many reasons before us to limit & reverse polluting. To think we have no impact is crazy since in the history of the globe it seems a long time ago (i'll find a link later), tiny bacteria began releasing O2 as a waste, long story short that combined with other chemicals greenhouse gases shot up, globe heated then froze, all the way to the equator (snowball earth).

As for those that believe we will never figure out the atmosphere, ocean reactions & what drives our climate. We've made baby steps so far, if weather becomes more of a problem, more effort will be concentrated. Granted this is a very complex question, but consider what other questions humans have worked out in just a hundred years~ DNA, space travel & well the fact your reading this is pretty amazing as well (this list could go on & on). To say we will never figure it out is a little far fetched considering what so far we've acomplished as a race.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
55. HurricaneMyles
4:42 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
I'm all for cleaning up the Earth and reducin fossil fuels and other non-renewable recources. However, simply because it's better for the enviornment, not that it will stop global warming.

And it seems to me that people are easily swayed that humans ARE THE ONLY cause of global warming and that without human interference the Earth would stay at a steady-state with constant temperature and climate.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
54. HurricaneMyles
4:37 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
"Just a few common sense regulations could help the climate reverse the warming trend"

Really, thats a fact? We've been emitting millions apon millions of lbs of C02, but we can easily reverse it, as implied by your tone.

Also, scientists have no idea how the whole albedo(thats the light absorbtion and reflection) thing with the Earth works. They report that with less ice we'll obsorb more heat, but I've heard reports thats the Earth is REFLECTING more heat, excactly opposite of what they hypothisize. Just shows you we really dont know whats going on.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
53. Trouper415
4:36 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
To take a side with the people who think that humans are NOT causing global warming. Please for the sake of the place that we live in. Whenever you you preach that humans are not the cause of global warming, if you could advocate a cleanup of this planet, conserving what you have and being less careless with the place you live, that would make a big difference here. For people are easily swayed in this subject sometime, and for every person you tell humans are NOT the reason this planet is warming, 10 people will follow you and continue the non progressive trend of 'humans cant help so I'm going to sit on my ass and do nothing.' Preaching things as little as recycling, conserving recourses (for any other nation it would still not be conserving), and something as little as picking up garbage when you see it, all helps in the long term. Humans can no longer go about life as we have for the last 50,000 years. We have not had NEAR the impact we have on the globe today and thus, our need to start the positive reform. I speak for our generation and the generations that will follow us.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
52. ForecasterColby
4:35 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
Just a note - the climate has been fluctuating wildly for the past 100,000 or so years. We're just now coming back above average for that time period after the Ice Age 10,000 years ago and the Little Ice Age a few hundred years ago. We're not at a 'tipping point' where if the world gets any warmer we'll all die. Or are we? Assuming we are, it's a 'tipping point' that has been hit once in human history, about 8,000 years ago. Prehistory, it has been hit and surpassed several times in the past 100,000 years. We already know we can survive it. So let's take the worst predictions:

-The earth warms by 5C everywhere.

Okay, so we stop living in the tropics. Boo hoo. All that means is everyone moves 8 or 9 degrees to the north to keep their current climate.

-All the ice caps melt, raising global sea levels by 200 feet.

Unfortunate, my house is now underwater. However, in the several milennia they took to melt, I've taken advantage of the balmy climate in Colorado and moved.

What's so awful terrible sad about this? Think about it.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
51. globalize
4:28 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
Even the adoption of the most unrestrictive solutions of the Kyoto Treaty would be a start. Just a few common sense regulations could help the climate reverse the warming trend, but more than that, realization in the collective mind would begin. And that is the element most feared by 'corporate America'.
Take for instance building materials and the light spectrum. We know from color analysis that anything on the bright, or white side of the color spectrum tends to repel heat, darker colors absorb it. Scientists are telling us that the melting of the ice caps (snow caps reflect heat) exposing the ocean underneath (ocean absorbs heat) is intensifying the warming effect.
Initial progress could begin if a world accord required all building materials to remain on the heat reflecting side of the spectrum. Would it hurt these corporations so much if the road surface had to be light grey instead of black, or if dark greys and blacks had to be eliminated as colors for home roofing? No, it would not hurt them one bit, if the regulation applied to all manufacturers. Any additional expense would be borne either by the taxpayer or the consumer.
Please guys, don't roof your house with black shingles!! It's the ugliest roofing color, and it harms the environment!!!
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
50. HurricaneMyles
4:21 PM GMT on January 29, 2006
Trouper, we have no idea what kind of things humans are causing. Persoanlly, to claim anything as a fact without much evidence (and there isnt much evidenc for or against global warming being human induced.)is irresponible imo.

We know very little about the history of the Earth and even less about the details like hurricanes. I can tell you this though, the ice caps have dissapeared before. Infact, they started out as never there. They melt and come back as the Earth changes climate. And as far as cooling trends and what, the Earth's climate changes all the time. And we've just come out of a small ice age, so a warming trend would almost be expected
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
49. F5
4:12 PM GMT on January 29, 2006

Good post...No doubt, your opinion, like mine, weatherchaser, and a few others, try to bring a measure of objectivity to the debate, and re-center it where it should be, instead of the alarmist point of view. There are a some with the opposite view who of course disagree with our opinions, and then there is the silent majority as usual. We need to continue to push the debate because there is always a danger in letting one side capture the public voice in a debate. Even if the silent majority never speak out, they likely have thoughts about it, and in the end, will be a major driving force behind any policies and procedures that occur as a result of any decisions made.

Therefore, please continue to talk out about it, not only here, but to others, whether they agree with you or not.

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 99 - 49

Page: 1 | 2Blog Index

Top of Page
Ad Blocker Enabled

Category 6™


Cat 6 lead authors: WU cofounder Dr. Jeff Masters (right), who flew w/NOAA Hurricane Hunters 1986-1990, & WU meteorologist Bob Henson, @bhensonweather

Local Weather

Light Rain
43 °F
Light Rain

JeffMasters's Recent Photos

Mountain wave clouds over Labrador
Mountain wave clouds over Labrador
Mountain wave clouds over Labrador
Labrador ice