No hurricane damage in the United States this year

[Peikko 1,575]

Small enough for it to be considered 'cute'

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Small enough for it to be considered 'cute'

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

Bad HAL!!

Be nice to God's little creatures

[HAL 9000 96]

Bad HAL!!

Be nice to God's little creatures

[Pooky 3,786]

Gore may well be wrong, but for the rest of the world GW isn't about Gore

I find it odd this determination to prove GW false for some spurious points scoring. If there isn't a danger from GW, then hurrah I say. However, I still want scientists and climatologists to carry on investigating the science of climate - it will always be useful. I still think to dismiss change in the environment just because the environment has always changed as very head in the sandish behaviour.

Just about the best response to the back and forth about Global Warming/Climate Change/Why is it so f***ing cold this morning? that I have on the 974,234 VJ threads on the subject.

Support it or not, we do not have an answer, we have theories. Theories get closer/get proven/are disproved by continuing research. We MUST continue research to try and understand the global climate better, for better or worse. Because right now, here's where we live - we got nowhere else to go.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Quiet Atlantic hurricane season a boon for insurers

MIAMI (Reuters) - Thanks to El Nino, the 2009 Atlantic hurricane season has been the quietest in more than a decade, offering a reprieve for residents in the danger zone and a chance for insurance firms to refill depleted coffers.

With the peak of the season -- late August to mid-October -- now behind, the Atlantic-Caribbean basin has seen just two hurricanes and a total of eight tropical storms.

El Nino, the Pacific warm-water phenomenon that can produce destructive weather in other parts of the world, played a big role in suppressing Atlantic cyclones this year, experts said.

If the full season, which runs from June through November, ended today, it would be the lowest number of storms since 1997. The last time an Atlantic season produced only two hurricanes was 1982.

After a 2008 season that produced Hurricane Ike, one of the most destructive in U.S. history, the cyclones of 2009 have had virtually no impact on the populous U.S. coasts, the vulnerable islands of the Caribbean or the Gulf of Mexico oil patch.

"There was for all intents and purposes no hurricane damage in the United States this year," Robert Hartwig, president of the Insurance Information Institute, told Reuters.

"It's something that will help the insurance industry create very favorable earnings comparisons in the third quarter compared to the third quarter of last year," he said.

Forecasters saw nothing on the horizon on Wednesday.

"El Nino produced an increase in wind shear," said meteorologist Todd Crawford of private forecaster WSI Corp.

"If you have an increase in the speed of the winds aloft over the Atlantic it acts to basically chop the heads off any kinds of storms," he said. Wind shear is a technical term for different wind speeds at different altitudes.

Crawford also said sea temperatures in the tropical Atlantic are cooler, by about 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.12 degrees Celsius) on average, than the blistering seasons of 2004, when four hurricanes hit Florida, and 2005, which produced 28 storms, the highest single-season total in recorded history.

Hurricanes draw energy from warm water, so cooler sea temperatures can mean fewer and less intense storms.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNew...E59D2UK20091014

Global warming is a hoax. Evidence continues to be ignored. If Al Gore were right about anything, I would say he is a hypocrite for flying around in a private Jet and having a 10,000 sq, ft. to heat and cool. But since he is a liar, he is not a hypocrite.

Obama could use a good hurricane to stimulate the economy. I did some work in Alabama and Mississippi after Katrina, and I assure you it is a major boost to the construction economy, except in New Orleans where only 5% of the money actually gets used for reconstruction and the rest gets absorbed into Democrats freezers

Edited October 15, 2009 by Gary and Alla

[Ban Hammer 13,348]

Obama could use a good hurricane to stimulate the economy. I did some work in Alabama and Mississippi after Katrina, and I assure you it is a major boost to the construction economy, except in New Orleans where only 5% of the money actually gets used for reconstruction and the rest gets absorbed into Democrats freezers

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

He also said about 5 years ago that we had 10 years to solve GW or we all die.

Show us, word for word, what he said.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with that little move called "an inconvenient truth"

Al Gore is not a scientist. His words don't mean jackshit.

But but but... that would mean that those with an Al Gore hard on are fixated on exactly that!

I see. What he says is only important if someone doesn't refute it. Ok.

Not really. Saw it once and moved on with my life.

Now if only you'd back up your whining with the actual 'record' then perhaps we could all move on too.

No, what Al Gore says about science is never important.

That some make it important is not my problem.

His opinions on science are as valid as my opinions on high finance.

Point taken.

Exactly. And you 'got' them too huh?

I haven't actually seen Gore's movie, but then again - GW theory was around before he came on the scene. All the way back to the early 70's I believe.

Yes, of course, Al Gore is not smart enough to come with this himself. He is not even smart enough to come up with it while he was Vice President for 8 years, a Senator for 8 years before that, a congressman before that and couldn't even think to mention it when running for President. (Actually he did, but his first book "Earth in the Balance" was so full of errors he was hoping everyone would forget and hasn' mentioned it since...ever notice that?) After GWB handed him his @ss in the election ( it was only Democrats that couldn't handle a hole punch ballot...almost embarrassing to admit) he went into hiding, gained a ton of weight (what do you think his carbon footprint was?) grew a beard and basically converted to Robinson Carusoe. Then he snapped out of it (well, maybe not) and came roaring back with all this information about Global Warming

And only if you use the word "Climate change" the new Global warming theorists word, has the movement been around since the 1970s Because in 1974 the focus was on Global Cooling and the coming of the new ice age, per the editions of popular news and science magazines I have at the time.

But whatever...there is always some vague calamity perpetrated by the politicians seeking power and control. Global warming, global cooling, whatever. The answer is that it can ONLY be solved by Government...it can ONLY be solved by taxing something...and it can ONLY be solved by the guilty citizens of the United States.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Gore may well be wrong, but for the rest of the world GW isn't about Gore

I find it odd this determination to prove GW false for some spurious points scoring. If there isn't a danger from GW, then hurrah I say. However, I still want scientists and climatologists to carry on investigating the science of climate - it will always be useful. I still think to dismiss change in the environment just because the environment has always changed as very head in the sandish behaviour.

Just about the best response to the back and forth about Global Warming/Climate Change/Why is it so f***ing cold this morning? that I have on the 974,234 VJ threads on the subject.

Support it or not, we do not have an answer, we have theories. Theories get closer/get proven/are disproved by continuing research. We MUST continue research to try and understand the global climate better, for better or worse. Because right now, here's where we live - we got nowhere else to go.

We need to study the problem.

I can tell you the answer to the next 400 studies we PAY for.

1. The problem is much worse than we thought

2. We need to more study

[Mark&Steph 0]

Okay, Cliff.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

He also said about 5 years ago that we had 10 years to solve GW or we all die.

Show us, word for word, what he said.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with that little move called "an inconvenient truth"

Al Gore is not a scientist. His words don't mean jackshit.

But but but... that would mean that those with an Al Gore hard on are fixated on exactly that!

I see. What he says is only important if someone doesn't refute it. Ok.

Not really. Saw it once and moved on with my life.

Now if only you'd back up your whining with the actual 'record' then perhaps we could all move on too.

No, what Al Gore says about science is never important.

That some make it important is not my problem.

His opinions on science are as valid as my opinions on high finance.

Point taken.

Exactly. And you 'got' them too huh?

I haven't actually seen Gore's movie, but then again - GW theory was around before he came on the scene. All the way back to the early 70's I believe.

Yes, of course, Al Gore is not smart enough to come with this himself. He is not even smart enough to come up with it while he was Vice President for 8 years, a Senator for 8 years before that, a congressman before that and couldn't even think to mention it when running for President. (Actually he did, but his first book "Earth in the Balance" was so full of errors he was hoping everyone would forget and hasn' mentioned it since...ever notice that?) After GWB handed him his @ss in the election ( it was only Democrats that couldn't handle a hole punch ballot...almost embarrassing to admit) he went into hiding, gained a ton of weight (what do you think his carbon footprint was?) grew a beard and basically converted to Robinson Carusoe. Then he snapped out of it (well, maybe not) and came roaring back with all this information about Global Warming

And only if you use the word "Climate change" the new Global warming theorists word, has the movement been around since the 1970s Because in 1974 the focus was on Global Cooling and the coming of the new ice age, per the editions of popular news and science magazines I have at the time.

But whatever...there is always some vague calamity perpetrated by the politicians seeking power and control. Global warming, global cooling, whatever. The answer is that it can ONLY be solved by Government...it can ONLY be solved by taxing something...and it can ONLY be solved by the guilty citizens of the United States.

[Peikko 1,575]

It's a very sad day when scientific research is dismissed as merely political skulduggery. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Will politicians use scientific findings to their own advantage if/when they can? Sure, but the actual research is fundamental to the continued prosperity of the human species, not to mention it's fun and interesting.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

It's a very sad day when scientific research is dismissed as merely political skulduggery. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Will politicians use scientific findings to their own advantage if/when they can? Sure, but the actual research is fundamental to the continued prosperity of the human species, not to mention it's fun and interesting.

And a waste of billions while millions starve around the world. But then again, the more humans we can eliminate the better for the planet right?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not to mention the folks here are dismissing it based on nothing but their own gut.

Meanwhile, it can be reasonably demonstrated what the current state of world scientific opinion is on this issue - but rather than acknowledge that, people would rather give credence to claims that not only do they not fully understand, but also cannot place within the context of overall scientific understanding.

[Peikko 1,575]

It's a very sad day when scientific research is dismissed as merely political skulduggery. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Will politicians use scientific findings to their own advantage if/when they can? Sure, but the actual research is fundamental to the continued prosperity of the human species, not to mention it's fun and interesting.

And a waste of billions while millions starve around the world. But then again, the more humans we can eliminate the better for the planet right?

Define waste? Oh right anything that you personally don't deem as worthy of study is 'wasteful'. I remember. That being said, you seem to be labouring under a very sad misapprehension. Whatever money is or isn't "wasted" on scientific study would not be spent saving the starving millions were they not to be spent on research.

As for population contraction. Yes, I am all for it, via increased availability of birth control, on a voluntary basis. Nice try though Joe

Edited October 15, 2009 by Madame Cleo