Another week of GW news - January 7, 2007
Lion, Sonoma Co., Cal., USA
> Another week of GW news - January 7, 2007
<http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2007/01/21_cats_45.php>
2007/01/04: CCM: 21 Cat 4-5 Storms for 2006?
Response posted, Let's see if the blog has integrity and allows it...
Cyclones/Hurricanes happen at sea. Nsautical measures are used by
default. 100 knots is impressive to sailors and landgrubbers alike, so
100 knots is the dividing line for MAJOR Hurricanes. That's 115 mph, or
185 kph.
The US Navy has to operate in all seas at any time, so the Navy site
is the authoritarian one, where wikipedia gets it's data. It keeps
extensive archives going back years, especially the current (recent)
year, and is less complete as one goes back in time.
http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/tc_pages/tc_home.html
On average there has been one major hurricane every 13-14 days
somewhere in the world since Katrina leads the list. That is 35 current
major hurricanes.
The navy uses uniform measuring systems, so it is comparing apples to
apples, not apples to oranges. It is also better equipped than most
entire nations with access to over 20 satellite platforms daily. Some
nations only record the values for cyclones that hit them, not stronger
ones that pass them by. They can only tell you the speeds when the
storm got into radar range, not elsewhere for the same storm.
The navy website records 75 named storms for 2006, including tropical
storms and five categories of hurricanes:
09L.ISAAC 08L.HELENE 07L.GORDON 06L.FLORENCE
05L.ERNESTO 04L.DEBBY 03L.CHRIS 02L.BERYL 01L.ALBERTO
21E.SERGIO 19E.ROSA 17E.PAUL 16E.OLIVIA 15E.NORMAN
14E.MIRIAM 13E.LANE 12E.KRISTY 11E.JOHN 10E.ILEANA
09E.HECTOR 08E.GILMA 07E.FABIO 06E.EMILIA 05E.DANIEL
04E.CARLOTTA 03E.BUD 01E.ALETTA 01C.IOKE 26W.TRAMI
25W.UTOR 24W.DURIAN 23W.CHEBI 22W.CIMARON 21W.SOULIK
20W.RUMBIA 19W.BEBINCA 18W.XANGSANE 16W.YAGI
14W.SHANSHAN 12W.SONAMU 11W.WUKONG 10W.BOPHA 09W.MARIA
08W.SAOMAI 07W.PRAPIROON 06W.KAEMI 05W.BILIS
02W.CHANCHU 04A.MUKDA 02B.MALA 23P.MONICA 22S.ELIA
21S.HUBERT 20S.GLENDA 19S.FLOYD 18P.WATI 17P.LARRY
16S.DIWA 15S.EMMA 14S.CARINA 13P.KATE 11P.VAIANU
10P.JIM 09S.BOLOETSE 08S.DARYL 07P.URMIL 06P.TAM
05S.CLARE 03S.BERTIE 07S.ISOBEL 06S.CLOVIS 05S.BONDO
03S.ANITA 02P.YANI 01P.XAVIER
Using Naval windspeed maximums 19 category 4 & 5 storms were active in
2006.
The parameter has very limited usefulness by itself. Cyclone Shanshan
hit Japan at category 4 but hit the USA many days later below tropical
storm strength but causing 70 tornadoes in the Southeast USA. More
people died in the USA than died in Japan from the same weather event.
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_5/Shanshan_Tornadoes.html
The USA and territories was struck by six asian cyclones in 2006, and
IOKE deposited a calculated 27 megatons of heat energy to melt ice in
the Beaufort Sea. That heat storage is now responsible for most of the
bitter winter in the west USA, and is killing 340,000 cattle as you
read this now.
http://ecosyn.us/Temp_4/Arctic_Ice_Melt.html
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_4/Bebinca/Bebinca_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_4/Bebinca/ioke_bebinca_compare.html
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_4/Bebinca_to_Alaska/Bebinca_to_Alaska2.html
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_4/Bebinca_into_Alaska//Bebinca_into_Alaska2.html
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_5/IOKE_into_Arctic.html
steve....@nuclear.com
> Another week of GW news - January 7, 2007
> Meanwhile in the journals:
>
> <http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml>
> 2007/01/04: GRL: On the decadal rates of sea level change during
> the twentieth century by S. J. Holgate
> ...
Holgate finds that that the mean rate of global sea level rise was
"larger in the early part of the last century (2.03 +/- 0.35 mm/yr
1904-1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 +/- 0.34 mm/yr
1954-2003)."
Thanx to het for posting the link here, and to the Idsos, for
highlighting the Holgate paper in the journal review section of
current issue of CO2 Science -- http://www.co2science.org
Best wishes,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
richard schumacher
> http://www.nuclear.com
Global warming is one of the best possible reasons for vastly expanding
our use of nuclear power as a replacement for fossil fuels. Supporters
of nuclear power who are openly skeptical of the consequences of global
warming are denying themselves an excellent public relations opportunity
and are shooting themselves in the foot.
For discussion by scientists of the facts of global warming see
http://realclimate.org
Steve Schulin
> > http://www.nuclear.com
>
> Global warming is one of the best possible reasons for vastly expanding
> our use of nuclear power as a replacement for fossil fuels. Supporters
> of nuclear power who are openly skeptical of the consequences of global
> warming are denying themselves an excellent public relations opportunity
> and are shooting themselves in the foot.
It's the environmental advantages of nuclear power which persuade me
to support it instead of other centralized generation methods, but
that conclusion does not depend on any weight being given to concerns
about CO2. I think you're right in one sense -- the CO2 scare has been
a powerful factor for many folks in re-considering nuclear. And I'm
grateful that the industry seems likely to undergo the renaissance
that's being widely anticipated. In the long run, however, I think the
nuclear industry will regret any granting of additional political
power to the CO2 alarmists.
> For discussion by scientists of the facts of global warming see
> http://realclimate.org
Well, I'm familiar with that site -- I've come to call it
real(biased)climate. I posted there soon after it opened, and was
disappointed that they did not allow their readers to see follow-up
question about the inherent smearing out of variability when combining
many different time series, each with it's own individual dating
error. One of the principals there was also a regular in
sci.environment at the time. His obfuscutory responses then to my
public detailing of realclimate's censorship prompts me now to ask why
you recommend their site. Oh, I still read what they post, but I do
not presume that they've become more honest and open.
Phil Hays
<snip>
So who do?
--
Phil Hays
Vendicar Decarian
"richard schumacher" <no-...@invalid.net> wrote
> Global warming is one of the best possible reasons for vastly expanding
> our use of nuclear power as a replacement for fossil fuels.
So Iran and North Korea keep saying.