Applied from the Katrina Special: Worst Canes yet to come?

[Weatherfreak000]

If this is true the city of New Orleans may never be rebuilt if hit enough o.o

[MiamiensisWx]

Well i'm not trying to be a harsh critic but how could you possibly get this info? We're talking Millions of years ago...


Anyway, i'm definitely excited about 06, seeing as how my name Tony although shortened from Anthony will be out there.



I just hope I can see it thrive and with these past seasons it appears very possible.

I did not get that track from anywhere. I just creared it and showed it as a scenario that, if it happened, would not be good at all.

Still, we don't have to come anywhere close to that track and intensity to have serious inclinations.

[Ivanhater]

This would DEFINATELY NOT BE GOOD if this verified...

no, no, that would not be good at all

[terstorm1012]

that means cities like Miami, New Orleans again, Tamp, NYC, Houston, and Galveston are all going to be effected- some of those cities may literally be wiped off the charts. New Orleans is the most likely area, as they could get hit again in time

don't forget inland cities and others: Norfolk/VA Beach, DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, well techincally three of those four aren't total inland cities, they have outlets to the ocean and are either in the coastal plain or at the boundary between coastal plain and Piedmont.

I think it'd be easier to say "every state/Province in the eastern third of North America will feel the effects of this cycle, weather wise."

[hicksta]

The last track you posted #10. Would put my house underwater

[Brent]

This would DEFINATELY NOT BE GOOD if this verified...

I'll do you one better... large Cat 4 or 5 into Miami/Fort Lauderdale/Palm Beach and then the same into Houston/Galveston. I would use New Orleans, but Katrina took care of that...

[jes]

I'd be glad if those gigantic condo's on our waterfronts were knocked away for good so that we could have the beauty of our beaches back. However, it would not be good if everyone up to 50 miles inland had to move because of the constant terror of killer hurricanes each season.

[canetracker]

Remember seeing the LSU scientist, but don't remember which Katrina special it was on (Anatomy of a Hurricane or New Orleans Levee Fails). Anyway, Anatomy of a Hurricane is due to air tomorrow on the Discovery channel at 6PM EDT.
If the LSU scientist are correct, wouldn't it be interesting to be in a mini active cycle within an upcoming major cycle?

[Weatherfreak000]

It was the anatomy program.

[CFL]

I saw this program, and then I saw some taped Senate hearings with Max Mayfield on TV last night. (Hearings occured on Friday.) Both programs left me with a definite expectation of more frequent and severe storms in the seasons ahead. I worry for all of these people trying rebuild on the coast. Will they get everything in place only to get knocked back down next year? One thing I found interesting that Max Mayfield said was that you usually see stronger storms associated with increased activity.

[Downdraft]

Let me toss in another point to ponder. According to the fossil record we are about 10,000 years overdue for another ice age. That data is scientific and exact taken by ice core samples and soil deposits, carbon dating, etc. Now it's also possible that global warming may come from changes in the sun's energy output. Interestingly enough there may be a correlation to earth weather this year. I'm not a Jim Williams but it is a fact that while the solar sunspot cycle should be at an ebb now it is in fact extremely active. So, as much as I hate Hollywood there is enough data to suggest that an episode of global warming naturally induced melts the polar ice and shuts down the thermohyline thus inducing an ice age. The fact is I don't know what I'm talking about but it's an interesting premise if true.
It was not my intent to flame anyone yesterday in my reply to the global warming comment. What irriates me is to politicize the issue where one party blames the other for it and uses hurricanes to make their point. The United State has been consuming fossil fuels at a gluttonous rate for the last 50 years regardless of what political party is in control of the government. That being said a volcano throws more sulfur dioxide into the air during an eruption episode than we could even think of on a man-made basis. Depending on your point of view you can make the case either way that man-made global warming is causing more intense hurricanes. The only problem is you can only make the case one way if you use science to explain your position.

[oneness]

Let me toss in another point to ponder. According to the fossil record we are about 10,000 years overdue for another ice age. That data is scientific and exact taken by ice core samples and soil deposits, carbon dating, etc. Now it's also possible that global warming may come from changes in the sun's energy output. Interestingly enough there may be a correlation to earth weather this year. I'm not a Jim Williams but it is a fact that while the solar sunspot cycle should be at an ebb now it is in fact extremely active. So, as much as I hate Hollywood there is enough data to suggest that an episode of global warming naturally induced melts the polar ice and shuts down the thermohyline thus inducing an ice age. The fact is I don't know what I'm talking about but it's an interesting premise if true.

It was not my intent to flame anyone yesterday in my reply to the global warming comment. What irriates me is to politicize the issue where one party blames the other for it and uses hurricanes to make their point. The United State has been consuming fossil fuels at a gluttonous rate for the last 50 years regardless of what political party is in control of the government. That being said a volcano throws more sulfur dioxide into the air during an eruption episode than we could even think of on a man-made basis. Depending on your point of view you can make the case either way that man-made global warming is causing more intense hurricanes. The only problem is you can only make the case one way if you use science to explain your position.

The next glacial was not ‘due’ to begin 10,000 years ago at all, in fact, the last major glacial event only finished slightly over 10,500 years ago.

Some perspective: An 'ice age' is any period where earth has large standing ice sheets upon continental land masses (Greenland and Antarctica etc). These are rare in earth's geological history, but earth is currently in one of these unusually cold periods. Normally earth is significantly hotter than it has been for the last 4-5 million years and a slow general cooling in long-period palaeoclimatic trend commenced around 15 million years ago and is associated with circum-Antarctic ocean and atmospheric flow. This flow became established as other continents separated further away from Antarctica as the volcanic circum-antarctic mid-ocean ridge system grew new ocean basin crust all around the Antarctic basin. That slow fundamental geological alteration of the planet also altered all ocean circulations in all basins, in an irreversible way. Ever since this circum-Antarctic flow became established earth has been vigorously oscillating between massive icesheet/glacial advancements (lasting ~100ky, on average), punctuated by shorter periods of massive icesheet break-up, melting and glacial retreat (lasting ~20k years, on average).

These mega-cycles of warming and cooling (but general long-term planetary cooling overall) are also routinely interspersed with periods of more rapid advancement and more rapid retreat of ice on continents. There is sound evidence for a distinct ~1470 year warming and cooling oscillation which overprints this longer ‘ice-age’ cycle.

Geologic palaeo-temperature record for several hundred million years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_t ... ure_record

Detailed past five million years of climate oscillations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Five ... Change.png

Glacial to interglacial fluctuations of the past 400 thousand years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_ ... rature.png

Recent paleoclimate records indicate the following will generally be the natural expression of the near term climatic oscillation trend (minus or regardless of spurious anthropogenic contributions):

"The current trend of climate change
If the cycles of the last 10,000 years continue we can expect, on average for a little ice age to occur every 2000-3000 years. If the cycles are symmetrical (meaning you spend half the time going into one and half the time coming out of one) then we should expect global temperatures to climb for 1000 to 1500 years following the middle of the last little ice age. So, global climate should warm slowly at least until the year 2600, although it probably won't do so steadily and smoothly."
Source: http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/j_b_b ... _ages.html

-

So should anyone be surprised by a warming trend? According to palaeoclimatology the answer is negative, as we are in the warming phase of this cycle (whether this includes or contains a further anomalous warming is another issue).

But nothing can be concluded from two newly active Atlantic tropical storm seasons, and if the generation of storms were to become the new pattern for the next decade this also should not be surprising to anyone given what is already observed from previous recorded decadic storm cycles. If the frequency of storm generation per year were to routinely begin to exceed the historic peaks of other active periods, then this would be something interesting.

But thus far, that hasn’t occurred either.

And then there’s the fact that today we see each and every blob which becomes a cyclonic swirl and becomes named, whereas in the past this was surely not the case. i.e. there may be many such closed low storms which basically went unnoticed during past seasons and active peaks. They don’t go unnoticed today, so it could be expected from this alone that present observed named storm numbers may rise higher than ‘normal’ during an active period, from better observation coverage alone. In other words, past active periods may have been more active than was generally recognised, and produced more storms than are recorded in historical databases. In fact, it would be a bit odd if this were not the case, given the lack of satellites, automated buoys and long-range recon during other pronounced peaks of activity. If such storms form and dissipate away from historical shipping routes who would notice, log or report them?

As a result, even if this current more active storm generation period were to become routine for many years to come this still could not necessarily indicate or establish that anything had actually changed climatically in the interim. By the time we find out there has been unaccountable change (if there were any that is), most of us will be very old, or just a memory. This of course won’t suit the aims or persuasions of some, but even an observed sustained higher rate of storm formation still is not going to electrify everyone into thinking that has anything to do with an actual change beyond what should ordinarily be expected based upon recent palaeo-climatic records, and also upon historical records … and … of course, the principles of Ockham’s Razor and reason.

[Downdraft]

Excellent post Oneness! I do stand corrected I did not mean overdue but that the last one occurred roughly 10,000 years ago. Your excellent post does support mine in that I believe that global warming may very well be a natural cyclic phenomena and not necessarily induced by man in the modern age. If you take all the data available both seismic and atmospheric something is going on with the planet and your right it won't be an overnight event.

[HURAKAN]

This would DEFINATELY NOT BE GOOD if this verified...

That would also be the longest a hurricane has maintained Cat. 5 status!

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

Let me toss in another point to ponder. According to the fossil record we are about 10,000 years overdue for another ice age. That data is scientific and exact taken by ice core samples and soil deposits, carbon dating, etc. Now it's also possible that global warming may come from changes in the sun's energy output. Interestingly enough there may be a correlation to earth weather this year. I'm not a Jim Williams but it is a fact that while the solar sunspot cycle should be at an ebb now it is in fact extremely active. So, as much as I hate Hollywood there is enough data to suggest that an episode of global warming naturally induced melts the polar ice and shuts down the thermohyline thus inducing an ice age. The fact is I don't know what I'm talking about but it's an interesting premise if true.
It was not my intent to flame anyone yesterday in my reply to the global warming comment. What irriates me is to politicize the issue where one party blames the other for it and uses hurricanes to make their point. The United State has been consuming fossil fuels at a gluttonous rate for the last 50 years regardless of what political party is in control of the government. That being said a volcano throws more sulfur dioxide into the air during an eruption episode than we could even think of on a man-made basis. Depending on your point of view you can make the case either way that man-made global warming is causing more intense hurricanes. The only problem is you can only make the case one way if you use science to explain your position.

I apologize. I now realize that you were referring to the political
argument, not my argument when you posted.

[weatherwoman]

at what point will they stop saying we are above normal and make what is going on right now normal. we have been in this cycle for several years and they keep saying that we have serverl years of above normal hurricane to come. when will this be the norm

[SkeetoBite]

yes but there have never ever been any hurricanes in the history of the united states to reach cat5 and stay cat5 at landfall

Public warning!!! One more post like this and you are gone! We all know this is a false statement.

Just the facts:

No Name #2 1935 - FLorida Keys
No Name #4 1947 - Just north of Miami, FL
Ethel 1960 (debatable - extreme east LA coast)
Beulah 1967 - Brownsville, TX
Camille 1969 LA, MS coast (similar landfall to Katrina 2005)
Andrew 1992 - Homestead, FL

All Cat 5 at landfall. Some may argue the specifics, but these storms were all at cat 5 intensity at landfall according to the official HURDAT data provided by the NHC

All Cat 5 storms in recorded history (since 1851): http://www.skeetobiteweather.com/cat5.asp