wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:07:22 -0600, Ken Marino
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:21:02 -0700, Charles Momsen wrote:

Report found he

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

Recent historical Northern Hemisphere tropical cyclone inactivity is
compared with the strikingly large observed variability during the past
three decades. Yearly totals of Northern Hemisphere ACE are highly
correlated with boreal spring sea-surface temperatures in the North
Pacific Ocean and are representative of an evolving dual-gyre,
trans-hemispheric correlation pattern throughout the calendar year. The
offsetting nature of EPAC and NATL basin integrated energy and the
strong dependence of combined Pacific TC activity upon ENSO suggest a
hypothesis that overall Northern Hemisphere TC behavior is largely
modulated by global-scale, non-local climate variability.

Yet:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0130130647.htm

Finds that sea surface warming increased hurricane activity by 40%.

Peer reviewed Natu

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture06422.html

"Large contribution of sea surface warming to recent increase in
Atlantic hurricane activity"


These fine, peer reviewed papers are contradicted by measurements in the
first link.


How can actual data contradict the consensus?


What happened to the highly accurate models?


Science is based upon understanding to predict outcomes.


If it's not predicting outcomes, it's not science nor understanding.

How come we have an overactive hurricane season in '05 and 08 and
everyone blames gobal warming. We have lower than normal activity in'06
and '07 and global temps are never mentioned?

For openers, Ken, Climate and weather are not interchangable terms.
The ice age, as an example, was not just a streak of cold weather. It
also lasted a little longer than a few years.


I heard it was three months vs. two. LOL

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com