WunderBlog Archive » Category 6™

Category 6 has moved! See the latest from Dr. Jeff Masters and Bob Henson here.

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

wow thanks for the updat and i can not wait for your next update
What an amazing season. What really, truly amazes me is how much, much worse almost every storm could have been:

Arlene - shear drops, comes ashore as Cat 2
Bret - Has a little longer offshore, does a Stan
Cindy - Has a little longer offshore, comes in as Cat 2-3
Dennis - Fails to weaken before FL landfall, repeats Ivan
Emily - Goes north instead and hits Galveston as Cat 3-4
Gert - See Bret
Irene - Doesn't recurve, hits NC coast as Cat 3
Katrina - Doesn't weaken, hits NOLA dead on as Cat 5
Maria - See Irene
Ophelia - Follows Katrina track, hits Gulf Coast as a major
Rita - Doesn't weaken, hits Galveston as Cat 4-5
Stan - Gets a little longer offshore, comes inland as Cat 3
Wilma - Waits to do crazy strengthening until just before landfall, or misses Cuba extirely and hits Florida with the brunt
Beta - A little longer over water would've been very bad
Gamma - The NHC could've been right - Cat 1 into FL

2006 will be very interesting...
Jeff...check your wunderground email.
Those would be absolutely worst case scenario, Colby. However Arlene and Cindy were dealing with a lots of dry air to the west and were very east loaded. Less dry air would have probably gave them better conditions to get organized. And Wilma hit the Yucatan, not Cuba. Just wanted to clear that up. It could have been real bad it Wilma didnt wander around the down there forever. Thank God she didnt keep her forward speed and go straight through the channel. Wed been screwed here in So. Fla with probably a Cat 3 going through a ERC about to go over the Loop Current.
Dr Master's Great Update.
Always look forward to your information. Thanks for keeping us informed!
What a breathtaking hurricane season. The scary thing is...with such an incredibly mild winter we could in be for a very premature 2006 season that could last just as long as 2005. Would it be suprising to think that 2006 could top 2005? It's looking increasingly possible....

I just hope if it does happen that the majority of these storms don't hit land so we can track these beautiful creations of nature. Most likely not going to happen.
Can anyone tell me if there is a correlation between mild/severe cold/warm dry/wet east coast winters or springs and the preceeding or succeeding year Atlantic tropical season?
Okay, I will probably regret this, but this has been bothering me ever since this subject came up:

Where will you put these tunnels of yours?!?

Hurricanes strike a coastline that is literally thousands of miles long.... the Gulf Stream flows offshore of most of the American coastline that could be effected by a storm. I don't see how you can set up tunnels in one place and protect the entirety of the coast without cooling the Gulf Stream so much that it would possibly fail entirely and certainly have adverse effects on European weather.

And don't try to tell me they will be mobile. I've watched them try to move oil rigs (If they moved readily, do you think they would try to ride out hurricanes in one spot?) and they are a /lot/ more mobile than these tunnels would be.
cyclone just put a sock in it ok thos darn tunnels are really annoying
I wouldn't think the hurricane season will start early. The season is just now beginning to settle down, as surface temps get too low, and shear environments become suppressive. But yes, May/June may be interesting. This year may be the year that breaks the back of the 'anti-global warming' body.
Doubtful in both way globaize. This year will almost certainly be less active then 2005. And I can say with even more certainty that we will have less destruction then this year. Barring an Andrew hitting Miami or a Katrina flooding NO again, there is no way that this year will compare to 2005.

And even if it does, people who refute global warming will still deny it because if they haven't accepted it by now they aren't going to change thier mind no matter what evidence is presented. Global warming IS happening, its a matter of did humans start it, cause we have almost certainly contributed, and what we can do about it.
It's also a matter of should we do anything about it (and no, I'm not advocating continuing to pollute. I believe that should be dealt with anyways, whether it's causing a large effect on global warming or not. it's a separate issue in my book).

I don't like the idea of trying to "make" the Earth stay within the range we want her to. She's got more ways of getting her way than we have of getting ours and if blocked one way she may very well resort to something we will like less!
Good point, that is a valid question also Ft.Walton. I think the biggest question is CAN we do anything about it if it is natural. If the Earth is going to warm I doubt there is anything we can do to really stop it. Just the same if it started to rapidly cool, nothing we could do.
By trends on graphs I think next year could be more active than 2005.

Myles~ I totally agree with your second paragraph though~ Some will never reconize it (as the whole in the ozone layer)as being something we contributed to, but I hold hope for Globalize's comment "that breakes the back of the anti-global warming body". Even now, many don't think we released cemicals that destroyed parts of our atmosphere, but the people that discovered those chemical's reactions with ozone & sounded the alarms got the prestigious awards, while international laws where quickly formed to stop it. With the hole at it's largest 10 years ago, looking back from here ~ we might have done okay as a race.
Actually, if the folks convinced humans are causing global warming are right with in this whole issue, there is something we could do to warm the planet. O};->>

I don't know if I would advocate it even if we did see a reversal the temperature trends we are seeing now, but at least we do know how to stop a cooling trend if we had to.
HM- what's behind your forecast for a kinder '06 season?
Yes, just as real and serious attention has been brought about ozone depletion, an environmentally conscious world can stop, or at least drastically slow global warming. All hinges on whether the western nations, primarily and initially the Americans are going to lead the effort.
I think it's only a matter of time before the cold air returns. It's already been building up in Alaska and northern Canada, so the supply is coming into place. Now all we need is the Jet stream to take some major north-south dips, allowing some of that cold arctic air to finally filter into the country. With the switching of the North Atlantic Oscillation from the positive to the negative phase, expected to take place sometime after Super Bowl Sunday (according to Dr. Jeff Masters), that just might become a reality. Oh and remember how we were talking about active hurricane seasons such as 1887, 1933, and 1995 being followed by intense blizzards in the Northeast (see Great Blizzard of 1888, Blizzard of 1934, and Blizzard of '96)? Well, after the extreme record-breaking Hurricane Season of 2005, I'd say that EVERYONE in the Northeast needs to keep very close awareness of the weather over the next month or so, because if history happens to repeat itself again this year, they will be in for the blizzard of all blizzards.

What do you all think? Hype, coincidence or real possibility? I'd definitely go with real possibility.
Considering what is happening in the eastern arctic, a shift in the next few weeks might bring generally colder weather for much of the US. But there has been practically no Winter here in the south central US this season. None.
Thanks, Quakeman55, that's information of interest. Do you have information about the years preceding the active tropical seasons. 86, 32, 94?
1886, 1932, and 1994. 1886 and 1932 were pretty average years, and 1994 was the last below-normal hurricane season we'll likely see for a long time, excluding the El Nino year of 1997.
"Waveland (which doesn't exist anymore, thanks to

I would imagine that people in Waveland struggling
to rebuild would quibble with that sentiment. The
city is still together and working to re-establish
themselves, despite the devastation. You don't see it
unless you're down here, but the spirit exists.

It is _way_ too early to call the city extinct.
Oh, for the record: being sick sucks.
ForecasterColby...you forgot Jose - it was rapidly intensifying in the last couple hours before landfall - imagine if it had, say, 24 hours to do so...
Some other worst-case scenarios for the 2005 storms:

TD19 - doesn't turn north and die, becomes a major Cape Verde storm
Tammy - loops around a la Jeanne, strengthens in the Gulf Stream
Alpha - stalls over Hispaniola, massive flood disaster
Delta - strengthens even more in the open water, hits the Canaries as a Cat 1-2 hurricane
No they are not mobile and are anchored off to the sw of Key West. As the cooler water mixes with the warmer surface water near the surface the now cooler water migrates to the north in the stream at about 4-5 mph and so in just a few days the area of cool water is big enough to affect a hurricane if one were to pass over it. It would take equally long for that now cooler water to warm back up do to the sun light but it would be to late for the hurricane that has already passed over it.

So if you left the tunnel on for longer periods the area would be that much longer and so the whole east coast could be protected.

Cyclone, So not only would you have to run the risk of shutting down the Gulf Stream to protect places like NC (one of the most frequently struck areas of the east coast), you would offer no protection for where the vast majority of major hurricanes strike- The Gulf of Mexico itself. I can't think of one /major/ hurricane that struck the east coast this year. Katrina did hit the east coast of Florida, but as a weak Cat 1. Your tunnels would not have stopped her explosive growth on the Gulf of Mexico side of things, nor would they have stopped Charlie, Ivan, Dennis, Emily, Rita, Stan, or Wilma. I will grant they might have weakened Francis, Jeanne and Tammy (though with how much of the damage one of two hurricanes did being the slow moving nature of the storm itself and the flooding rains, even that's debatable)

To have had any effect on Hugo, Fran, Bonnie, Floyd, Isabel, or Ophelia the tunnels would have had to have been running for a unacceptably long time (Assuming they worked at all in the first place.) Cooling the waters off the coast of NC by that much would certainly lead to horrific weather changes at best in Europe and permanent climate change at worse. I know everyone wants to stop any man made factors in global warming, but causing an ice age is more than a bit too far the other way.
I didn't say we would have a kind season. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to see what is normally called hyper-active, 15-17 storms with some landfalls. I'm saying that the likelyhood of seeing a season like 2005 in our lifetimes, let alone next year, is very low. I'm not saying that the season itself will be slow, but that it'd be extremely hard to match 2005's numbers and strenth.

I'm simply going with the stats. For some sports termanology compare 2005 to a homerun slugger in baseball. Once he's hit 2 homeruns in a row the odds are that he wont hit a third in a row. I'm taking the odds that this season cant be near as bad as 2005 as a season like 2005 has never happened before, so the odds of seeing it again are quite low.
Can anyone go to accuweather.com and find Kate Bilo's video blog named confessions of a weathergirl and click on the segments below her picture? It was showing the videos fine yesterday morning, but I haven't been able to get the Interactive Media Player to work since then. Instead of showing the video inside the small window on the page, it now opens a new window with Interactive Media Player and just shows a black screen.

Miss Bilo is very cute and interesting, so I hope to see her new video installments soon. I don't know if the problem is with the website or with my computer. So, if anyone can check this out and let me know, I would appreciate it. This is not a promotion for her video blog, btw. I just need help!
Hurricane Myers - You might be right that it is improbable but not impossible. Before 2004, no one state had been hit by four hurricanes in one year in recorded history. But it happened to Florida in 2004 (Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne) and 2005 (Dennis, Katrina, Rita and Wilma). Mother Nature doesn't always care about statistics and averages.

Sorry I got your username wrong.
dos any one no if there a high way at 14,000ft in co if so can any one find me a forcast on the weather underground for me or tell me the zip code if they no it or a link to the forcast on weather underground for me thanks
Your actally mistaken there dawgfan. Texas is the only other state to be hit by 4 hurricanes in 1 year. Happened in the 1800's. But its true mother narure doesnt care about averages and statistics, but I'll take the field rather then another 2005 season simply because there is no way to tell right now and there is so much stacked against it. It all depends on mother nature at the time.
The only 14ers (as we Coloradians call them) with roads close to the summit are Mt. Evans an Pike's Peak. Other than that, you won't find a highway higher than 12,183 (Trail Ridge Road.) You are from FL, right? Why is a Floridian curious about 14ers? The forcast for any 14er on any given day is cold and windy.
And looking back to that year that 4 hurricanes hit texas, which I found out was 1886, I was real surprised to see that not only did 4 hurricanes hit Texas but 4 hurricanes also effect Florida! In the same year two different states were effected by 4 hurricanes each, with a storm that made landfall in Texas as a Cat 4 effecting both states. And even more amazing is that another hurricane went over the water between FL and the Bahamas and probably effected FL too.

So not only has Florida been effected by 4, and possibly 5, hurricanes in the same year(I say effected because niether Ivan or Rita made landfall in FL and 4 didnt landfall then either) but it happened in the same year that Texas had 4 hurricanes hit it aswell.
I just have two questions:

Are hurricanes caused by Republicans?

Can Democrats prevent them?
i did not think that tx can get hurricane or it this been a long time i all way think that this fl and LA can get hurricane but not tx hmmm all well
Okay, let's just say in the last 100+ years that the only state to be hit by four hurricanes in one season is Florida and it happened in back to back years.

I know that Ivan technically hit at Gulf Shores, AL, but you might not want to tell the people on the western panhandle of Florida, especially Pensacola, that they didn't get a direct hit.
40. F5

Well, this is just the kind of crap reporting and junk science that fuels the alarmists...From the headline, it's no longer a question of the earth is warming, humans are responsible. Now, it's "we're at a tipping point", from which there may be no return. Geez, these people have no shame whatsoever. And if NASA doesn't put a muzzle on James Hansen, then someone else should. He has a political agenda (has for years) that drives his speeches. OIf course, they wait till half way through the article to give an opposing viewpoints any ink whatsoever, and then in the end, discount what they've said anyway.

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.

This article ranks up there with the speech covered by Mother Jones magazine that claimed all research showing humans not the primary drivers in global warming were funded by the oil companies. Of course, no one could possibly disagree with those who hold the moral high ground, so it must be these corporate evil-doers.

I'm sure snowboy and the rest of that crowd will be happy to read it though. Alas...
Thanks for the link F5. The 'tipping point' or 'critical mass' with regard to global warming is approaching. Within two years even you will be convinced.
42. F5

I have an open mind, but I have yet to see any proof that human activity is a) the cause of the current global warming b) that reductions in greenhouse gases will have any effect whatsoever to slow/reverse the current global warming trend, c) anything that we can do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that won't have a profound effect on our economy, and d) that developing nations won't simply become the pervasive contributors of human activity related greenhouse gases that the developed nations reduced.

I would, however, be interested in exactly why you believe within two years I will be convinced. What facts will be forthcoming that will be able to prove what so far is unprovable? As hurricanechaser has repeatedly pointed out, even if temperatures continue to rise, it can never be proven that human activity is the primary, secondary, tertiary, or non-factor in that rise, without first eliminating all human activity from the planet (not something I want to see happen, nor does anyone else I would suspect).

Therefore, we would be wise to take a different tack when searching for solutions to issues such as the effects of human activity on the earth. Instead of make unprovable claims about global warming, we don't we reduce our emissions because it will lead to a cleaner environment, or because it will reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources. If, as a side benefit, it does help slow/reverse the current warming trend, then great.

BTW, one thing I've always been curious about. What if this warming trend is a short one and we revert back to a cooling trend. What if global temperatures fell by 2, 3, 4, or more degrees F. All of the proponents of reducing our greenhouse gases to attempt to combat the warming, will you then be in favor of pumping CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to try and reverse the cooling? If we plunge into another mini ace-age and hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people starve, or freeze to death, what will you do then? And who will you blame then? Or do you only blame human activity for the warming but not for the cooling that has happened in the past and will happen again in the future.
Hey everyone,

I want to reiterate that I agree EXACTLY with the undeniable and indisputable points that F5 made in the post below mine. I also want to commend you(F5)for your objectiveness and realistic views of what the alarmists choose to characterize as Global warming.

What has been most frustrating to me is how successful these alarmists have been in shaping the Global warming issue into such simple and distorted terms where most people automatically assume that any increases in global temperatures corresponds to HUMAN INDUCED greenhouse gas emissions. The attention seeking articles by the alarmists along with the main stream medias spin, have shaped the debate that way. In other words, the most accepted definition understood by most people for Global warming, is human induced greenhouse gas emissions.

If we used our God given common sense, we could see the absurdity of this erroneous definition so easily accepted by the general public without questioning its merits at face value. Think about it, global warming by its obvious meaning should be exactly what it is. In other words, what would you call a basic warming of temperatures around the globe? I would suggest that "global warming" would be the most logical interpretation.

Only after we have put this into its proper perspective, can we truly have a serious and logical debate about what MIGHT be causing the SLIGHT(based only on factual observations and not on computer model predictions for the future that could and most likely are incorrect)increase in Global temperatures which by any logical definition would be Global warming.

I don't think anyone here has any doubt as to my belief on this issue. In short, I believe that the undeniable and Factual proof of NATURAL climate variability that has occurred repeatedly for thousands of years in alternating cycles of warming and cooling, are by far more likely to be the cause of the slightly above average recorded temperatures around the globe. This is in stark contrast to the more popular and well funded, media hyped, and political lobbyist encouraged PRESUMPTION of a completely UNPROVABLE GUESS that this minimal warming phase is directly attributable to human greenhouse gas emissions.

It is refreshing to me that there are some sensible people on here actually looking at this debate with logic, rather than believing the worse case alarmist view propagated by the main stream media and those who appear to have their own political agenda about an issue that should have no political element in my humble opinion. In my personal opinion, I believe that everyone whether they consider themselves conservative, moderate, or liberal, would be in favor of reduced pollution.

However, it is the extremists who try to manipulate the debate by redefining the very definition of global warming and using the "WHAT IF" factor of fear, which can never be PROVEN or completely discounted. Sadly, this seems to be the only defense for the alarmists on an issue that can and will never be able to be proven. This will still be the reality even if there was a 90% consensus(which there will never be)in the scientific community.

We all need to keep this simple, and not be distracted by fear tactics of gloom and doom while realizing that the general standard in the scientific community for acceptance of a theory is just a majority of scientists agreeing to form a consensus. To me, it is illogical to accept such a poor standard that only has to be a 51% to 49% substitute for whatever the actual TRUTH really happens to be(which by its very definition can be no less than 100%).

Once again, I will reiterate my basic point about this debate, that no one can truly deny regardless of how hard they may try and distort my comments. There is NO WAY anyone can EVER PROVE that any increase in global temperatures are a direct result of human induced greenhouse gas emissions such as CO2. Likewise, it is not possible to TOTALLY discount the POSSIBILITY that we have had a very MINIMAL effect on our climate as well. If so, the ONLY way to truly eliminate any possible adverse effects from human activities(whatever they might be)would have to be the elimination of all human existence. There is simply no way to sidestep that reality if you truly believe that humans are the direct cause of the alarmist view, that the planet will become to inhospitable to sustain human life as a direct result of human releases of greenhouse gas agents.

Once again, you can rest assured my comments will be reposted, taken out of context, and those with an opposing view will fall back on the "WHAT IF" it is true and we could've stopped it for one example. My answer would simply be, stop what, why, and how? In other words, the Earth isn't doing anything unusual that is hasn't done before(the what answer). I ask why for essentially the same reason and add that by saying that the most extreme actions encouraged by the alarmists could be far more catastrophic, especially IF my perception is correct that this is simply a warming phase of NATURAL climate change which COULD reverse itself and begin a cooling phase when it chooses to do so. I then ask, "how" because the most extreme steps suggested by the alarmists would have a VERY INSIGNIFICANT effect on climate change even if their view was indeed correct(with the more extreme adverse side effects, some of which can't be known ahead of time).

This all goes back to the central premise that to hold that view and desire to have a SIGNIFICANT and truly NOTICIABLE impact, would be the elimination of ALL HUMAN ACTIVITIES. In order to accomplish that goal would only be possible by eliminating ALL HUMAN LIFE.

To me, I just can't understand how anyone could see any significant benefits in taking actions that are MOST LIKELY unnecessary and if so, COULD have far worse side effects upon all of human life.

In short, great post F5...keep up the great work.:)

Your friend,

I never thought that I would see an Atlantic season so active that the Greek alphabet had to be used. I think it will be interesting to see what the 2006 season will bring. I live in Ct, and New England is looong over do for a major hurricane akin to the 1938 hurricane. I think that would be a major disaster based on flooding. Isn't there still a damn in MA that seems to be on the brink of collapse if they get more water?

Hello everyone. This is my first post here, and probably one that's not going to win me many friends, but the bickering over "global warming" here has been bothering me for a few weeks now. Bothering me enough that I decided to come out of lurk mode.

The two biggest nails on a chalkboard statements that have gotten my ire up is: "If you do not believe in human induced global warming, you do not care about the environment." "Human induced global warning is a scientific fact."

My question to the first statement is this...If you are someone who does not believe in the death penalty, does that automatically mean that you also do not believe in punishment of any kind for criminals? Two different subjects, but the blanket statement is the same. The number of people with asthma has risen sharply in the past ten years. The toxicity of whales and other marine life is astounding. These are the things that have the direct impact to our health and survival, not a mostly abstract theory that is too big for most people to comprehend.

The second statement just shows an ignorance and lack of understanding of scientific history. The world generally accepts human induced global warming as fact. The world accepted as fact that the Earth was flat, the Planets and Sun revolved around the Earth, and plate tectonics and the Big Bang was a joke. Einstein outright refused to believe the Universe could expand or contract and spent years trying to prove the Steady-state theory. What about the existence of other Planets in the Universe or, for that matter, life on other Planets?

Lets look at something a little closer to the debate, and I use that term loosely, at hand. At the turn of the 19th century, a little theory turned "fact" made its rounds through the Governments, scientific establishments, and culture of Europe and America. This theory was Eugenics. This theory proported an imminent crisis was at hand and action had to be taken NOW. All the leading politicians and scientists of the day including Theo Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Alexander Graham Bell supported it. Laws were created and passed, the theory was taught in schools, and money pored into Institutes set up to study it from big name celebrities and philanthropists. Does all this sound familiar? And what exactly was the crisis and impending doom expoused by this theory of Eugenics? Simply that the human gene pool was deteriorating. Too many "undesirables" where breeding and diluting the good genes. Anyone who disagreed with this theory was derided as blind to reality, reactionary, or ignorant. This alarmist theory turned into scientific fact is what led to the Holocaust in Germany. In short, blindly accepting scientific theory as fact can have deadly consequences.

A few other comments I would like to make...

Most big name environmental organizations have big name oil and industrial leaders on their board of directors. Industry contributes huge amounts of money to all the major environmental organizations.

I also want to know how many of those on this blog that taut the doom and gloom of global warming drive SUV's, commute hours each week to and from work instead of using public transportation, do not recycle, leave light on in their house in rooms they do not use, only considered getting a hybrid vehicle after the cost of gas hit their pocketbook etc etc....

The only fact there is to human induced Global warming is that no one has proved anything. We know very little about how our world works and nine times out of ten, our "solution" only creates more problems.

And as a side note cyclonebuster, your tunnel idea has environmentally devastating implications. It is the equivalent of trying to stop a volcanic eruption by putting a cap over the top of it. Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should.

Sorry for the long post..

AZ, afraid your meaning was not quite clear? You seem to say human efforts to reduce global warming may lead to another 'holocaust'? How so?
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.
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.
Good points Globalize. F5,

I believe at this point we are at a turning point. The earth is letting us know with these hurricanes that we need to get things cleaned up. And anyone who thinks that humans are not causing global warming are just plain irresponsible imo at this point. Since when has the very top of the north pole had no ice in some places? And since when have there been this many consecutive years with storms such as this magnitude? Surely not in the last hundred years and most likly no other time previous to that in the last 500 years as the planet was considerably cooler then with the cooling trends of that era.
As for it 'being to late' or 'we simply do not have the power' to reverse this current trend is most likely not true. Just as we 'caused' this warming trend, we can surely reverse it as a majority of the ice caps are still there. I think people need to realize we have more power than we think, and simply not trying and letting this scenerio play out isnt what humans do. For milenia, this world has been a different kind of place. Where one societies actions had little effect on another across the world. However today, societies interact on a daily basis and unfortunetly those new global interactions are having global reprocutions. I may sound like a liberal, however looking into the future, it just wont work to continue our general trends of conquering other land, taking their oil and going on from their scott free. We will have to change our motivations to the most important thing, the wellbeing of our planet if we want to continue living as prosperously, freely and joyously as we do today.

Giants in 06
49. F5

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.

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
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!!!
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Another funny note is the more Hybrid's you see on the road the higher the gas prices are going.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lordy, I'm probably gonna get chewed out! I ought to just stick to lurking here on Dr. Master's blog!
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.
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??
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.

Did you read my post above? I thought it explaind my veiws on global warming quite well.

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...


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.


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.


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.

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...



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.
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?
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.

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??



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.:)


78. F5

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.
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.
And yet, Jeff, a lot of them watched The Day After Tomorrow - that's certainly an accurate movie
82. F5
Want to read more about global warming...


i love The Day After Tomorrow movie i think it a vary good movie do you and wow -150
hey done anyone want to know bout jim
opps a little big(:
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.
hey its jim catore
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?
Heads up everyone! Looks like the NAO's making its switch now...better prepare for some cold weather ahead! Sheez, about time.

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.
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.
TC Jim really looking healthy now - I set up a discussion thread at my site Link
Man Seattle is getting pounded with rain right now. Check out this link.

Let up a bit, not as impressive atm. But the hardest ive seen seattle being hit with rain and it gets hit often.
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.
Bet those plows are really moving the snow on Snoqualmie Pass.
Same here in West Palm Global. Warm temps, breif shot of cold and bye bye.
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!