Mother Nature nixes global warming...

[Crookshanks]

2006 Tropical Storm Season Now Below Normal

(21 August 2006) What a difference a year makes. After the record-breaking 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, the 2006 season is now below normal.

As of yesterday (20 August) three tropical storms will have formed in the Atlantic in an "average" year, which is the same number that have formed this year so far. Because of multi-year averaging, that means that today (August 21) slightly more than three storms would have formed, making this year (statistically speaking) just below normal.

In the hurricane category, this year is decidedly below normal, with no hurricanes so far, while by this date 1.5 hurricanes have formed in the average of years 1944 though 2005.

Reason for the Season?: Cooler Sea Surface Temperatures
Part of the reason for the slow season is that tropical western Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are running about normal, if not slightly below normal.

In contrast, at the same time last year SSTs in the same region were running well above normal.

The cooler SSTs in the Atlantic are not an isolated anomaly. In a research paper being published next month in Geophysical Research Letters, scientists will show that between 2003 and 2005, globally averaged temperatures in the upper ocean cooled rather dramatically, effectively erasing 20% of the warming that occurred over the previous 48 years.

Global Warming?
The slow hurricane season and the cooling sea surface temperatures might be somewhat surprising to the public. Media reports over the last year have suggested that, since global warming will only get worse, and last year's hurricane activity was supposedly due to global warming, this season might well be as bad as last season. But it appears that Mother Nature might have other plans.

The Rest of the Hurricane Season
With only 3 named storms compared to 9 on this date last year, it is nearly impossible at this late date to have a season anywhere near as busy as last season, which totaled 27 by the end of the year. The most recent prediction from the National Weather Service is for there to be 12 to 15 named storms by December -- only half of last year's total. It now looks like that prediction might be too generous. :spin

While it is still possible for this hurricane season to end up above normal in activity and reach that forecast, each day that passes without so much as a tropical 'depression' makes that target less and less likely.

===========================

Calling Al Gore, calling Al Gore... hmm, wonder what he has to say about this?!

[smeagol]

NYC in August has been beautiful. Most of the days in the low 80s.

[Extra Stout]

See, leftists, this is what happens when you fear-monger; it comes back to bite you in the face.

I vividly remember all the BS Katrina-global warming articles, pundit opinions, and editorial cartoons from last year.

[Extra Stout]

no wonder it's so cold in austin this summer and that the caribbean coral reefs are bleaching...global cooling!
When I'm trying to convince somebody of something, and I have a whole bunch of solid evidence, nothing works better than to ignore all that and use specious arguments that stir up emotions, but are readily disproven, instead.

Like hurricanes!

[exstatic]

When I'm trying to convince somebody of something, and I have a whole bunch of solid evidence, nothing works better than to ignore all that and use specious arguments that stir up emotions, but are readily disproven, instead.

Like hurricanes!
Or WMDs! Hello Kettle, you're black. Fear mongering is a staple of the GOP, and for you to paint it as a "Leftist tool" is disengenous.

[Extra Stout]

Or WMDs! Hello Kettle, you're black. Fear mongering is a staple of the GOP, and for you to paint it as a "Leftist tool" is disengenous.
Sigh. Another teachable moment lost.

You're right, the whole WMD thing has done wonders for the GOP's credibility. I bet we get to 60 Senate seats this November!

[exstatic]

Sigh. Another teachable moment lost.

You're right, the whole WMD thing has done wonders for the GOP's credibility. I bet we get to 60 Senate seats this November!
What are we betting, and do you include Herr Liebermann if he wins?

[ChumpDumper]

The hurricanes have already won.

They have nothing to prove.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

The fact that ES blamed lefties for Fear Mongering totally makes his opinion worthless in this thread.

[Extra Stout]

What are we betting, and do you include Herr Liebermann if he wins?
Hello McFly.

I also salute the Democrats for their intelligence on this whole Liebermann thing. God knows the right play, when fighting to regain control of one or both houses of Congress, is to devote lots of scarce money and resources to a race between one liberal Democrat and another.

[Extra Stout]

The fact that ES blamed lefties for Fear Mongering totally makes his opinion worthless in this thread.
Teachable moment #2.

Tell me, LaMarcus, do you believe global warming is actually happening, and that policymakers should do something about it?

[scott]

I don't know if it's global warming, but its at least 20 degrees warmer than it was this morning.

[Phenomanul]

See, leftists, this is what happens when you fear-monger; it comes back to bite you in the face.

I vividly remember all the BS Katrina-global warming articles, pundit opinions, and editorial cartoons from last year.


I was meaning to start a thread to remind them of their over-reaction last year based on the lack of tropical activity this year (thus far)... but I didn't want to jinx my coastal city.... (which is long overdue for a Cat-3 storm :wow)

[Phenomanul]

The hurricanes have already won.

They have nothing to prove.


:lol

[Extra Stout]

The hurricanes have already won.

They have nothing to prove.
Thak you ChumpDefeatist.

What will it take you for to support our meteorologists?

[Oscar DeLa]

I don't know what it is but its obvious that hurricaines don't listen to polls!

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Teachable moment #2.

Tell me, LaMarcus, do you believe global warming is actually happening, and that policymakers should do something about it?


Anyone with half a brain would know the earth is warming; and yes if it does not adversely effect the majority of the population (population meaning EVERYONE).

[Phenomanul]

Anyone with half a brain would know the earth is warming; and yes if it does not adversely effect the majority of the population (population meaning EVERYONE).


I take it ES means if you believe we are the primary cause for said weather pattern? Or if you believe, like many scientists do, that this has been an ongoing natural cycle that started well before the industrial age began?

[LaMarcus Bryant]

I take it ES means if you believe we are the primary cause for said weather pattern? Or if you believe, like many scientists do, that this has been an ongoing natural cycle that started well before the industrial age began?



many scientists? Dude they have collectively charted the data in teams and maybe you have the link but I certainly have never heard of the study in which they collectively decided the spike in CO2 and parallel temp spike was due to sheer coincidence and natural cycling..

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

OP/ES, if you knew anything about the evidence for enhanced global warming you'd know that it is not something that can be measured in one place or from year to year. There will be fluctuations, of course there will be, but it is all about the TREND. Thousands of studies by researchers and governments, including YOUR OWN, conclude that the trend is one of enhanced gloabl warming, and those same studies have separated out this particular warming period as occuring unnaturally quickly (ie. not a simple background effect caused by nature). FYI, 8 out of the 10 hottest years on record have occured in the last decade.

Here is a very simple BBC article concerning both sides of the debate:

http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/archive2005/december/2005_hottest_year_on_record_north.htm

Please explain to me the unprecedented rates of ice cap and glacier melting? Please explain to me how altering the concentrations of gases in a closed system will not affect the equilibrium of the system?

Dumbass.

PS Love the way ES accuses the scientific community of its specious arguments, when he is relying on the entirely specious arguments of a few oil industry propagandists and sales hungry authors. :lol

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

I take it ES means if you believe we are the primary cause for said weather pattern? Or if you believe, like many scientists do, that this has been an ongoing natural cycle that started well before the industrial age began?

Dude, that is a total misrepresentation of the scientific concensus. Much work has been done to prove that what is happening now IS NOT part of natural climatic cycles. It's happening far too quickly. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree on this.

I bet you read your supposition on "junk science" or some other oil company sponsored propoganda site. :rolleyes

Try your own government's site:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html

or the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change for some idea of the real concensus:

http://unfccc.int/2860.php

or is it just an evil conspiracy by the rest of the world to topple the US? :madrun

[Extra Stout]

Anyone with half a brain would know the earth is warming; and yes if it does not adversely effect the majority of the population (population meaning EVERYONE).
OK, good. So my point is that if you are trying to engender a permanent change in public policy for a long period of time, and you truly believe you have the facts on your side, then it is counterproductive to your cause to latch onto specious arguments that only rile people up in the short term.

Where specious fear-mongering may be beneficial is when you are not sure you have the facts on your side, and you are trying to push a one-time irreversible change in policy.

[Extra Stout]

OP/ES, if you knew anything about the evidence for enhanced global warming you'd know that it is not something that can be measured in one place or from year to year. There will be fluctuations, of course there will be, but it is all about the TREND. Thousands of studies by researchers and governments, including YOUR OWN, conclude that the trend is one of enhanced gloabl warming, and those same studies have separated out this particular warming period as occuring unnaturally quickly (ie. not a simple background effect caused by nature). FYI, 8 out of the 10 hottest years on record have occured in the last decade.

Here is a very simple BBC article concerning both sides of the debate:

http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/archive2005/december/2005_hottest_year_on_record_north.htm

Please explain to me the unprecedented rates of ice cap and glacier melting? Please explain to me how altering the concentrations of gases in a closed system will not affect the equilibrium of the system?

Dumbass.

PS Love the way ES accuses the scientific community of its specious arguments, when he is relying on the entirely specious arguments of a few oil industry propagandists and sales hungry authors. :lol
See, Ruff, you provided OBJECTIVE FACTS. Pounding objective facts over and over again has a good chance of changing people's minds.

Alarmist articles by American newspaper pundits screaming that Katrina was caused by global warming... rile people up for a few months, but then a quiet Gulf hurricane season hurts their credibility.

I'm not dogging on scientists. I'm attempting to give some American leftists some tutorials in "how not to be dysfunctional political idiots." This is because I believe a competent opposition party is necessary to get my own party to listen to its own constituents, rather than just being corrupt corporate whores, so maybe this will help a little, since I'm not actually going to vote for said opposition party.

That is all.