27 Nov 2006

Al Gore Told Us: Hurricanes Will Increase Due to Global Warming

, , ,

2006 was predicted by the climatologists who believe in Global Warming, and by the climatologists who don’t believe in Global Warming, to be a humdinger of a year for storms, as “Global Warming of the oceans” spawned more vigorous and more numerous storms, or simply as the regular climatic cycle ticked round to a period of greater storm activity.

But, as the Tampa Tribune observes, all those predictions failed to pan out.

It was not the hurricane season we expected, thank you.

With cataclysmic predictions that hurricanes would swarm from the tropics like termites, no one thought 2006 would be the most tranquil season in a decade.

Barring a last-second surprise from the tropics, the season will end Thursday with nine named storms, and only five of those hurricanes. This year is the first season since 1997 that only one storm nudged its way into the Gulf of Mexico.

Still, Florida was hit by two tropical storms, Alberto and Ernesto. But after the pummeling of the previous two years, the storms barely registered on the public’s radar.

So what happened? Lots.

Storms were starved for fuel after ingesting masses of dry Saharan dust and air over the Atlantic Ocean. Scientists say the storm-snuffing dust was more abundant than usual this year.

In the season’s peak, storms were curving right like errant field goals. High pressure that normally hunkers near Bermuda shifted far eastward, and five storms rode the clockwise winds away from Florida.

Finally, a rapidly growing El Nino, a warming of water over the tropical Pacific Ocean, shifted winds high in the atmosphere southward. The winds left developing storms disheveled and unable to become organized.

As they say about the stock market: Past results are no indication of future performance.

Take off the bedsheet, and come down from the roof, Al! The world isn’t ending after all.

StumbleUpon.com
4 Feedbacks on "Al Gore Told Us: Hurricanes Will Increase Due to Global Warming"

Dominique R. Poirier

Yeah. Weather forecasting is a tricky subject indeed; much too tricky for fools, tree-huggers, and other agitprop folks.

I used to ride on motorbike some years ago and, except sailors and pilots, no one is more attentive to weather than bikers. That’s how I came to appreciate the true validity of weather forecast beyond three days; and, by the same token, how – after I experienced repeated showers weathermen missed to see – I contracted anti weatherman disorder (AWD).

Like most astrologists and charlatans use to Al Gore point is most probably: “If facts match my forecast next year it will be all for the good. If not, never mind, I’ll muddy the waters before I’ll attempt others tries til I’ll be in favor with the odds.”

I suggest someone manage to organize a casual dinner between Al Gore and Rael. They would get along good together.

About the global warming, see also my previous (and more serious) comment on this same blog:
http://neveryetmelted.com/?p=1841#respond



John Loomis

I dno’t get it . What part of the Global Warming Theory is too hard for you to understand.. The weak counterargument due to the lack of hurricanes this year is incredulous. 1 year is less than a split second ingeological time. Two important points 1. CO2 in the upper atmosphere is increasing due in larg part to industrial pollution. 2. CO2 blocks infared light. Therefore as the infared light is blocked the air temp increases…. BADDDD BADDDD.. The point is we are contributing to the acceleration in climate change at an unnatural rate and Earth cannot adapt to the increased rate of change … bad for living things GET IT NOW !!!



Dominique R. Poirier

This comment addresses to John Loomis. In case you’ll come back here, may I ask you a question?

Does your professional activity relate, one way or another, to your concern about global warming, and if not, what are the reasons that make you feel concerned by this subject?

P.S.: A more personal question. Would you have an ancestor named Alfred Loomis in your family, by sheer coincidence?



JDZ

Mr. Loomis writes:
>The weak counterargument due to the > lack of hurricanes this year is
> incredulous. 1 year is less than a split > second in geological time.

Quite right. And so are the twenty five years we’ve had of slightly warmer weather insignificant as data.

> Two important points 1. CO2 in the
> upper atmosphere is increasing due in
> large part to industrial pollution.

It is apparent that during past warmer periods higher CO2 also occurred. And warmer periods (even than today) are known to have occurred long before modern industrial civilization.

The Viking settled on Greenland, remember?

More CO2 and warmer weather are very probably just associated with cycles of solar activity having nothing whatever to do with human activities.

> 2. CO2 blocks infared light. Therefore
> as the infared light is blocked the air
> temp increases…. BADDDD BADDDD..
> The point is we are contributing to the > acceleration in climate change at an
> unnatural rate and Earth cannot adapt > to the increased rate of change … bad > for living things GET IT NOW !!!

Some people have proposed models of this sort, but the Earth’s climate is a lot like the market as a whole: too large and too complex to understand or model effectively.

You can tell that Global Warming is bunk very easily.

If it wasn’t bunk, there would be an open scientific debate conducted in a free and unemotional atmosphere. The fact that you see so many attempts at intimidation and censorship makes it perfectly clear that Global Warming advocates are operating in bad faith.

JDZ



Comments

Please Leave a Comment!




Please note: Comments may be moderated. It may take a while for them to show on the page.






















Feeds
Entries (RSS)
Comments (RSS)
Feed Shark