Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 12 Sep 2006 06:05:35 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 12 Sep 2006 05:04:33 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:

Report links global warming, storms
Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer

Have you seen the research that states, quite unequivocally I might
add, that the reason there are more bigger storms is that the
technology allowing for better eyeballing and dissecting storms has
caused over reporting of their strength.

The reverse of this is that storms before the advent of the
technological edge were under estimated as to their strength, size and
power - even in the number as satellites has given the modern
forecaster and scientist a tool to watch storms born, live and die in
remote areas of the earth.

Interesting concept.

Interesting, yes, but full of holes, so to speak. When the storm hits
an area that has weather instruments, even simple ones such as a
barometer and wind speed indicator, it is what it is.

Well that's not really true for, say ten years or so ago, but that
still doesn't address the main issue - how severe were the historical
storms of record. Some studies say that that's it's about 70/30 over
estimating the actual severity of any particular storm. Others are in
the 50/50 category - basically a wash.

There has been quite accurate barometric pressure indicators as well as
wind speed indicators for many, many years

You also have to take into consideration building codes and locations
of major population centers for historical storms - current codes are
much safer in higher winds and water situations. Damage in, say a Cat
1 storm is hardly noticeable where in historical storms, it would be
much more severe.

Well, yes and no. Large buildings, before the vast knowledge we have
today in the engineering field were often over designed. With the
advancement of structural modeling, the goal was to make a structure as
economical as possible and still resist the forces applied.

There is also an effect from sun spots. The current cycle has been
much more active than previous cycles and it's pretty much a proven
fact that all that energy does affect our atmosphere in extreme ways
and in ways not fully understood as of yet.

Yes, that is true.

So to just patently say that storm severity and frequency is
increasing and it's global warming as a cause is not only short
sighted but lousy science.

What is true is true. No one is saying that storm severity and
frequency is 100% because of man, at least as far as I've seen. I'm
not, anyway.

Consider this year's cycle. By the global warming model, we were all
about to be screwed, blued and tattooed - as many as 14 hurricanes and
17 named storms or some such. So far, two and seven.

Ain't happened has it?

Again, there are more variables. You are just trying to take one and
say that it hasn't done anything.

If you really want to swallow the global warming Kool Aid

There is overwhelming science that man has contributed to global
warming. Only Bush has told you that that isn't the case.