On Sep 13, 10:14 am, Martin Baxter wrote:
Bart wrote:

I agree the weather has not been cooperating with the
liberal's science-fraud theories about global warming.

Sadly there were a few people killed by Hurricane Dean.
The estimate were that more than 26 were killed. This
places it as a weak Hurricane in my estimation.

Ah the new Hurricane Strength Scale, Bart0, Bart1,....Bart5.

Hurricane Flora (1963) comes in as Bart5 (7000 or so deaths), dumb
National Weather Service only gave it a 3!

Cheers
Marty

Perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully
Marty. Dean did not strike a highly populated area.

What is significant is the number of hurricanes, for the
second year in a row was far less, and caused less
damage, [and fewer deaths] than predicted.

On 2007-09-13 22:15:52 -0400, Bart said:

What is significant is the number of hurricanes, for the second year in
a row was far less, and caused less damage, [and fewer deaths] than
predicted.

It seemed so when the thread started, but we *are* just into prime-time
for 'canes, and I believe this is the first year that two category 5s
hit land, at least so close together.

I can't figure out why some seem so worked up about the NOAA
predictions not "tracking true" early in the season.

If "your" crystal ball is better than theirs, I wanna go to the casino
with you.

--
Jere Lull
Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's new pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI pages: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

Bart wrote in news:1189736152.911810.199030@
19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:

On Sep 13, 10:14 am, Martin Baxter wrote:
Bart wrote:

I agree the weather has not been cooperating with the
liberal's science-fraud theories about global warming.

Sadly there were a few people killed by Hurricane Dean.
The estimate were that more than 26 were killed. This
places it as a weak Hurricane in my estimation.

Ah the new Hurricane Strength Scale, Bart0, Bart1,....Bart5.

Hurricane Flora (1963) comes in as Bart5 (7000 or so deaths), dumb
National Weather Service only gave it a 3!

Cheers
Marty

Perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully
Marty. Dean did not strike a highly populated area.

What is significant is the number of hurricanes, for the
second year in a row was far less, and caused less
damage, [and fewer deaths] than predicted.

September 10th is the historical peak for hurricane activity. Thus we're
barely into the 2nd half of the season and there's a lot of time for a lot
of damage and death to occur. We've just been lucky that nothing major has
hit the US. Take a look at the current tropical cyclone chart
(http://weather.noaa.gov/pub/fax/PWEK11.gif) and you'll see Ingrid headed
towards us. When December rolls around and not much has happened, then
perhaps you'll have a point.


-- Geoff
www.GeoffSchultz.org

Bart wrote:


Ah the new Hurricane Strength Scale, Bart0, Bart1,....Bart5.

Hurricane Flora (1963) comes in as Bart5 (7000 or so deaths), dumb
National Weather Service only gave it a 3!

Cheers
Marty

Perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully
Marty.

'sok Bart, perhaps I should have included a smiley, (at the risk of
offending Donal). On the other hand, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad
think to have a scale based on loss of life and destruction of property.

I think there's a few other elements at work here; better building
practices, better (i.e. earlier warnings) forecasting, better evacuation
plans, better communications. All factors that lead to less loss of
life.

Cheers
Marty