Lowest Hurricane activity in 30+ years

**ZaPPPa** · October 29, 2007, 10:57 AM

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

For the last couple of years the relatively high hurricane activity was attributed to man-made global warming. Yet, last year activity was mild and this year activity was near non-existent. The predicted rise in actibity turns out to be completely wrong and the difference between prediction and reality gets bigger by the year.

Are these the first little cracks in the fear mongering machine or is this just coincidence?

**Wild Bill Kelso** · October 29, 2007, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by ZaPPPa

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

For the last couple of years the relatively high hurricane activity was attributed to man-made global warming. Yet, last year activity was mild and this year activity was near non-existent. The predicted rise in actibity turns out to be completely wrong and the difference between prediction and reality gets bigger by the year.

Are these the first little cracks in the fear mongering machine or is this just coincidence?

Just out of curiosity, was it the media or actual climatologists who attributed the recent increase in hurricanes to global warming?

**Spurius** · October 29, 2007, 11:52 AM

I'm afraid it's just statistics, Zapppa.

Even runs of 2 decades with very high values can have an off year. That's a pretty normal sight.

Climates don't turn on a penny, if you get my drift. Whatever we do takes decades minimally to have any impact, normally.

Or maybe it was another human activity that stopped it in its tracks: megatons of Bible-Belt prayer... OMG.

OK! STOP PRAYING EVERYBODY! BEFORE WE GO INTO ANOTHER ICE-AGE!

**eventhorizen** · October 30, 2007, 11:51 PM

Interesting data for sure, but I think you are missing some of the fundamental points about climate change if you think a cold year, quiet year, or wet/dry year either 'proves' or 'disproves' it.

**ZaPPPa** · October 31, 2007, 01:41 PM

Just for clarification.. I am well aware of the problems of statistical analysis of data with so few samples. It is impossible to determine the actual rate of global warming of a whole planet using only data over the last couple of decades and the nearly limitless number of variables involved. No to mention the ridiculous political agenda that has taken over from proper scientific fact finding.
I personally believe the whole Global Warming thing is way overhyped. I posted this to see the reactions on the forums and am happy to see that people are pretty level-headed about this.

The latest nonsense I heard is people blaming the earthquake that struck San Jose yesterday on global warming (it hit 4.6 miles from my house by the way). Apparently global warming is warming up the ground and causes it to expand, causing earthquakes..... yah... for real. I wonder how long it will take before Al Gore will incorporate this one in his schtick.

Just out of curiosity, was it the media or actual climatologists who attributed the recent increase in hurricanes to global warming?

Remember the state climatologist that was critical of Global Warming and consequently lost his title?.. Well, it wasn't him. It's scientists that want to keep the government funding flowing and therefore come to the conclusion that will ensure their financial future.

**Spurius** · October 31, 2007, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by ZaPPPa

Apparently global warming is warming up the ground and causes it to expand, causing earthquakes..... yah... for real. I wonder how long it will take before Al Gore will incorporate this one in his schtick.

Maybe tell him global warning is speeding up the universe's expansion. Forget getting better mileage out of your car if miles start getting longer - it's just not fair. The planet's rebelling against us.

The only way warming can cause an earthquake is indirectly, by melting a few billion tons of glacier from a certain location. That will shift things a bit in the vicinity, yes. Other than that, I don't see it. The tensions involved are not exactly superficial. We can't even dig that deep.

**Wild Bill Kelso** · October 31, 2007, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by ZaPPPa

Remember the state climatologist that was critical of Global Warming and consequently lost his title?.. Well, it wasn't him. It's scientists that want to keep the government funding flowing and therefore come to the conclusion that will ensure their financial future.

No I don't recall said climatologist, could you please provide a link? Have you ever written a research proposal? Do you personally know any research scientists? Generally scientists write proposals for topics they WANT to study. If they were in it to make money they sure as hell wouldn't be doing research. This is why i don't tell my wife how much money I could be making if I decided to enter industry rather than continue my studies.

Part of my research will involve topics with global warming implications (tracking Carbon storage/release through forest soils), I study this because I am interested in it, not because I want to ensure my financial future...

**ZaPPPa** · November 01, 2007, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by Wild Bill Kelso

No I don't recall said climatologist, could you please provide a link?

You should give Google a try.. a very handy tool to find stuff on the internet.. Try "state climatologist lost title" or something similar and you'll never have to ask for URL's again.

I study this because I am interested in it, not because I want to ensure my financial future...

Good for you.. Unfortunately many scientists work for big research facilities that are either directly or indirectly government funded.

**Wild Bill Kelso** · November 02, 2007, 12:33 AM

Originally Posted by ZaPPPa

You should give Google a try.. a very handy tool to find stuff on the internet.. Try "state climatologist lost title" or something similar and you'll never have to ask for URL's again.

I shall.

Originally Posted by ZaPPPa

Good for you.. Unfortunately many scientists work for big research facilities that are either directly or indirectly government funded.

Do you know any scientists who have personally divulged this information to you :hmmm:

**Gary88** · November 02, 2007, 01:59 PM

This is why i don't tell my wife how much money I could be making if I decided to enter industry rather than continue my studies

so true, i love when people say that scientists who back climate change (man made) are in it for the money when they could make 10 times as much working in industry (or more working for companies who refute mam made climate change)

**ZaPPPa** · November 03, 2007, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by Gary88

so true, i love when people say that scientists who back climate change (man made) are in it for the money when they could make 10 times as much working in industry (or more working for companies who refute mam made climate change)

Those who can't, teach. Those who can't do that either, work for the government.

**Gary88** · November 03, 2007, 06:46 PM

that doesnt really apply so much in science, especially when at high levels many people take posts as lecturers because of the research benefits at that institute. for instance the guy who teaches my Atoms and Nuclei first year physics module is also in charge of the Spectral and Photometric Imaging Receiver on the soon to be launched Herschel space telescope.

so people can do and teach, especially if they have a PhD