Slashdot Mirror

"Overall, land precipitation for the globe has increased by ~2% since 1900, however, precipitation changes have been spatially variable over the last century. Instrumental records show that there has been a general increase in precipitation of about 0.5-1.0%/decade over land in northern mid-high latitudes, except in parts of eastern Russia. However, a decrease of about -0.3%/decade in precipitation has occurred during the 20th century over land in sub-tropical latitudes, though this trend has weakened in recent decades." -http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming .html#Q5

"I was talking to a woman in the store and she was saying global warming, there has never been so many hurricanes, which at that point in the season was not true. I told her that in 1921 they nearly ran out of names for storms and if the global warming people are right it should have been much cooler back then. "

First.. They didn't start naming storms until the 50's.. So they couldn't have run out of names back in 20's..

Second.. The last peak was in 1933 and that record stood at 21 cyclones.. until 2005 came along and GW cooked up 27 cyclones, three of them Cat-5's (another record) and one of those being the lowest central pressure (strongest) ever recorded in the Atlantic basin.

The facts seem pretty clear to me:

1. We know CO2 levels are rising (and we know human activities add CO2 to the atmosphere)

2. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. (However, water vapor is actually the number one greenhouse gas, followed by CO2.)

3. We know the greenhouse effect warms our planet. (Without it the average temperature would be -18C http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_Effect)

So how can we not be concerned about global warming? You may be able to argue that the effects won't be that bad or that humans simply aren't creating enough CO2 to cause problems (not sure if I'd agree with you on either point) but it just doesn't seem logical to assert we're having no affect on the environment.

The fact is, no one knows.

Claims that CO2 fluctuation is the culprit are unsubstantiated. Show me a climate model that can model clouds accurately. You can't do it because no one has solved that problem. How about solar luminosity? Forget it, it's treated as a constant, or at best, a simple approximation of past solar output. 99.9% of the solar system's mass and we haven't a clue as to how hot the sun will be a year from now. All we can do is guess. And yet, climatologists are confident that their models which can't accurately model major components of the earth's climate can accurately forecast 50 years out. It's bull, pure and simple.

I'm not so sure I would call the Goddard Institute for Space Sciences a liberal media source. Unless of course you think that ALL media except Fox News is liberal, Fox is moderate, and only a handful of fringe blogs are actually conservative.

You point out the problem in your own statement, you are using just three sampling points. Where I live (Fayetteville, AR), if the forecast for the remainder of the month holds up, this will end up being the warmest January ever recorded. This same trend applies to most of Arkansas, Oklahoma, and north Texas (see source). Again, a very small sample of the world's climate, but a demonstration that at least some places in the world ARE getting warmer. Still though, this sort of science doesn't look at extremes like this, it looks at the average temps for huge numbers of places. Show me a scientific article that uses actual data to say that 2005 was the coldest year on record (for the Earth, not a localized place) and I'll take a look at it. The only sources that I've seen say anything like that at all are just journalists take on something, not an actual article with data to back them up.

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/printable.php?pil=AFD&sid= TSA&date=20060124205219
FXUS64 KTSA 242052
AFDTSA

AREA FORECAST DISCUSSION
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE TULSA OK
252 PM CST TUE JAN 24 2006 .DISCUSSION...
TRULY AN INCREDIBLE MID WINTER DAY. 100
PERCENT SUN...LIGHT WIND...TEMPERATURES
IN THE LOW AND MID 60S. FORECAST TEMPS
THROUGH JAN 31ST...ADDED TO PREVIOUS 24
DAYS THIS MONTH..SET AN ALL TIME RECORD
FOR WARMEST JANUARY ON RECORD IN TULSA.
(THAT COMES WITH THE MEP GUARANTEE).

Quote: "At very high temperatures, air is rarely if ever close to saturation because the saturation vapor pressure is very large. Thus there are blank entries in the Table for high temperature and high relative humidity combinations. In the United States, the highest dew point temperatures to persist for at least 12 hours are in the upper 70'soF, which, combined with a temperature of 90oF, corresponds with relative humidities about 70%. Only where both air and nearby water surfaces become very warm (such as in the Persian Gulf or the Red Sea, or immediately following a rain shower that saturates the soil on a hot summer day) are higher temperatures and relative humidities seen.

Relative Humidity is just that - relative to the temperature. 100% morning RH could mean 40% afternoon RH. Get the morning's wet bulb reading - it will tell you how humid the entire day will be.

We have run out of ram letters!

Don't worry - they've thought of such an eventuality - when all the letters are used up they simply move on to the list of reserved names.

If another RAM is invented this year, it will be Alberto-RAM, then Beryl-RAM, etc etc.

Full list here

Well, there's actually several kinds of permafrost, mainly continuous and discontinuous. I'd imagine the plans for this seed bank are probably in an area of continous permafrost. Depending on how far north you go there are areas in the Arctic where the permafrost is over a mile thick so, not much to worry about there. If you're curious, here's a good reference about changing permafrost from one of the rock star scientists of the permafrost domain:
Romanovsky Paper

The signs of the formation of the tropical depression that became TS Bret was noticed on satellite, and a hurricane hunter (WC-130, IIRC)just happened to be in the air to be sent out to verify it.

TS Gert was very similar; a short-lived Bay of Campeche storm.

Ditto Jose

Lee was a tropical storm for only one advisory cycle (six hours). The upgrade to tropical storm was based off satellite imagery, see the discussion

and so on...

Also compare the 1933 chart to the 2005 chart Note how nothing was noticed east of 45 West. While it is possible that '33 was just a 'close in' season, I wouldn't bet the house that there were no tropical storms out in the mid to eastern atlantic

Oh, and to clear up something that seems to be confusing some people... The practice of naming storms did not start until 1953 (1950, if you consider the phonetic alphabet to be names). However, meteorolgists tend to not be too literal when they talk about 'named storms'. That is, they will talk about how many named storms there were in 1933 even though storms weren't being named back then. In such cases, what is being referred to is the number of storms that attained tropical storm strength (storms that would have received a name had that been the practice).

Zeta is the latest a tropical cyclone was formed in the Atlantic, forming around 11 AM ET; this dethrones Hurricane Alice of 1954, which formed December 30th around 2 AM ET.

THE HISTORICAL RECORD SHOWS THAT ALICE OFFICIALLY BECAME A TROPICAL STORM AT 1200 UTC 30 DECEMBER 1954. MY WORKING BEST TRACK FOR ZETA CURRENTLY SHOWS STORM STATUS BEGINNING AT 1200 UTC THIS MORNING... WHICH TENTATIVELY ALLOWS ZETA TO TIE ALICE FOR THE LATEST FORMING TROPICAL STORM IN THE ATLANTIC BASIN. HOWEVER...A CASE CAN BE MADE FOR CONSIDERING ZETA A TROPICAL STORM AS EARLY AS 0600 UTC THIS MORNING. WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE FINAL ANALYSIS OF ZETA'S TRACK TO SEE EXACTLY WHERE ITS FORMATION FALLS RELATIVE TO ALICE'S.

This is what the "greenies" forget. they get all up in arms about there being more storms in a hurricane season when we never used to record storms.

Yeah, like those "greenies" at NOAA:

"This hurricane season shattered records that have stood for decades -- most named storms, most hurricanes and most category five storms. Arguably, it was the most devastating hurricane season the country has experienced in modern times." -- Navy Vice Adm. Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., Ph.D., undersecretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator.

The frequency of storms seems to be cyclical and unrelated to global warming trends. Their strength, however, is related to the temperature increase.

they get all up in arms about there being more storms in a hurricane season when we never used to record storms. we only used to record hurricanes.

The NOAA link I give above notes that in 1933 there were 21 named storms. So apparently they were recording and naming them seventy years ago. When exactly is it that you're claiming "we only used to record hurricanes"?

They've been naming Storms as well for over 50 years.
Since 1953, Atlantic tropical storms have been named from lists originated by the National Hurricane Center.

but I think the National Hurricane Center makes a much more relevent and useful link when it comes to HURRICANES.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov

Katrina was bad because of its size. In fact it was so large that the potential for damage was said to be greater than some previous category 5 hurricanes.

Here's a look at Katrina from NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2005 /katrina/katrina-satellite-t.gif

Compare it to Hurricane Andrew
http://www.noaa.gov/images/hurr-andrew-082492.jpg

Now to category 5 Hurricane Camille
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Camille

You'll see that while Katrina may have had ultimately lower overall windspeed, it had a lot more energy (as evidenced by its size). Whereas many hurricanes will weaken and dissipate after making landfall, Katrina had so much energy that it was able to sustain its strength and make a second landfal even after venturing far enough inland to cause huge damage.

Katrina was bad because of its size. In fact it was so large that the potential for damage was said to be greater than some previous category 5 hurricanes.

Here's a look at Katrina from NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2005 /katrina/katrina-satellite-t.gif

Compare it to Hurricane Andrew
http://www.noaa.gov/images/hurr-andrew-082492.jpg

Now to category 5 Hurricane Camille
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Camille

You'll see that while Katrina may have had ultimately lower overall windspeed, it had a lot more energy (as evidenced by its size). Whereas many hurricanes will weaken and dissipate after making landfall, Katrina had so much energy that it was able to sustain its strength and make a second landfal even after venturing far enough inland to cause huge damage.

Katrina was bad because of its size. In fact it was so large that the potential for damage was said to be greater than some previous category 5 hurricanes.

Here's a look at Katrina from NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2005 /katrina/katrina-satellite-t.gif

Compare it to Hurricane Andrew
http://www.noaa.gov/images/hurr-andrew-082492.jpg

Now to category 5 Hurricane Camille
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Camille

You'll see that while Katrina may have had ultimately lower overall windspeed, it had a lot more energy (as evidenced by its size). Whereas many hurricanes will weaken and dissipate after making landfall, Katrina had so much energy that it was able to sustain its strength and make a second landfal even after venturing far enough inland to cause huge damage.

1 in 250000? That's a whole lot better than the odds in a typical, large jackpot lottery. In fact, it is roughly on par with getting struck by lightning if you live in the US (and, odds of dying in a given year, not merely being struck, are worse than 1 in 4 million). So, 1 in 250000 is pretty good, because the odds for winning lotteries are usually worse than the odds of being struck by lightning.

If this GPS idea works as advertised, it'll be a very useful incremental improvment to the tsunami warning networks. But it'll hardly be revolutionary. Being able to determine which events will produce a tsunami just from the seismic data - that would be revolutionary.

Here is the Alaska/Pacific tsunami detection data from NOAA: http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/dart.shtml
Interesting stuff.

Explanations for our planet's warming seem more credible when they can account for the concurrent warming on other planets in our solar system, where there are drastically fewer SUV's

You have fallen for Anti-Global Warming Myth #81.

Can the observed changes be explained by natural variability, including changes in solar output?

Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the sun, it stands to reason that if the sun's energy output were to change, then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary. ... There is though, a great deal of uncertainty in estimates of solar irradiance beyond what can be measured by satellites, and still the contribution of direct solar irradiance forcing is small compared to the greenhouse gas component. -- http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming. html

It should be noted that I'm 100% against the monster trucks that are passing for SUVs these days (and most other vehicles that get less than 30mpg); if you need a truck for hauling a boat or the trailer you live in there's no reason you can't use bio-diesel!

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np.html

Watch as the pole shifts oh sooo slowly...

whyyyy would you admit to working for a "three letter Government Agency" in a public forum? And why would you do it using your userID which can probably be easily linked to your real name? You're turning yourself into a target.

Have you ever had a counterintelligence briefing? Maybe you should read this: word/google html

If the Gulf Stream isn't pushing as much water toward Europe, then the water is lingering longer in the Gulf of Mexico, which goes a long way to explain why so many storms churned up to Category 5 hurricanes as soon as they reached the Gulf all through this autumn.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report the recent hurricane season is not related to global warming or a shift in the Gulf Stream:

"NOAA research shows that the tropical multi-decadal signal is causing the increased Atlantic hurricane activity since 1995, and is not related to greenhouse warming. "

Their research suggests the major factors are changes to the east-west convection currents and the periodic El Nino cycle.

The reason that this is important is that it validates some of the predictions made by the global warming models (http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/climate_dynamics/cli mate_impact_webpage.html/). Pay specific attention to the section titled "Thermohaline circulation changes". Essentially, it states that with the arctic ice melting, more sweet water (non-salty) gets released into the Atlantic Ocean, which changes the density of the water there, which in turn disrupts the gulf stream that keeps Europe warm.

It seems the idiots are out in force today. All I see is stupid "The Day after Tomorrow" jokes and braindead comments about how they think that "the earth is supposed to get warmer, and now it's getting colder! Stupid scientists!". Sheesh. Apparently, science education has been going downhill long before Intelligent Design flap.

Forgot to post the link where I got the 0.27% number from: Global warming--a closer look at the numbers

... tropical storm DELTA is brewing.

I'm sympathetic to your position but making shit up doesn't help anybody.

Try visiting the NOAA National Hurricane Center. The advisory this morning was that Delta would lose strength during the day. It has actually increased (slightly) both wind and ground speeds. It isn't predicted to reach hurricane strength.

Yesterday it was headed roughly for the Azores. It is now predicted to curve around and head for Morocco. The storm has been wobbling around a lot, though, so it could hit anywhere. Or fizzle.

Anyway, if you're involved in North Atlantic shipping, you are following this storm. You don't really want your ships to tangle with it.

There are several problems with trying to stop hurricanes, see section C5 of the NOAA Hurricane FAQ: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/tcfaqHED.html

Sure:
      Annual solar energy received by the Earth: 5.44x10^24 Joules (1)
      Estimated annual 'extra' energy absorbed by the earth due to human increases in CO2 levels: around 2x10^22 Joules (2)
      Annual energy use by humanity: 4.31x10^20 Joules (3)

The actual heat produced by combustion is fairly insignifant at the scale of climte--it's around a 50th of the change in Earth's energy balance due to human activity.

Sources:

(1) from http://marine.rutgers.edu/mrs/education/class/yuri /in_energy.gif)
(2) forcing value of 1.4 W/m^2 taken from standard IGCC reference at http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/climate.html, multiplied by surface area of Earth, which might not be exactly right.
(3) from http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/balancetable.asp ?country=World&SubmitA=Submit&COUNTRY_LONG_NAME=Wo rld

Actually, there were 21 named storms in 1933. From the Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory's Hurricane Research Division:

During World War II, tropical cyclones were informally given women's names by US Army Air Corp and Navy meteorologists (after their girlfriends or wives) who were monitoring and forecasting tropical cyclones over the Pacific. From 1950 to 1952, tropical cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean were identified by the phonetic alphabet (Able-Baker-Charlie-etc.), but in 1953 the US Weather Bureau switched to women's names. In 1979, the WMO and the US National Weather Service (NWS) switched to a list of names that also included men's names.

Hi Paul,

I am glad to see you respond. I know that it can be hard to be gracious when everyone is throwing stones, and I do appreciate your gracious response.

Now, I am afraid I must proceed to throw a few pebbles of criticism:

1) You have stated that "Annual lighting discharges are well in excess of any heat energy input to the planet." What is your source for this calculation? The earth receives on the order of 10^17 Watts of solar irradiation.
According to the NASA Global Hydrology and Climate Center (http://thunder.nsstc.nasa.gov/primer/primer4.html ), about 100 lightning strikes occur per second. I have had trouble finding a definitive value for the average energy of a lightning strike, but wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning) gives an average of 500 MJ for negative strikes (95%) and 300 GJ for positive strikes (5%) for an average energy of about 15 GJ per strike. That is only 1.5x10^12 Watts. I also wonder about this storm that is supposed to have used a quarter of a year of earth's sunshine energy. That must have been one hell of a storm. I'm not sure you have your numbers right.

2) Recorded pressure levels in a tornado are less than 100 millibars below atmospheric (reference: http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/ ). That means that the pressure inside a tornado is about 9/10 of an atmosphere. I would hardly call that a vacuum level appropriate for a particle accelerator. Generally in a particle accelerator you at least want to get well below the conductivity peak in the Paschen curve at about 10^-3 atmospheres. The last particle accelerator I built operated at 10^-10 atmospheres (10^-11 on a good day).

3) Putting charge on one side of a capacitor draws charge onto the other side of the dialectric of the capacitor but does not transmit energy to the other side, unless you are using a very high frequency. Try charging one side of a capacitor while the other side is disconnected from the circuit and see how much energy is stored in the cap. I once tried building an electric motor based upon this misconception, so I am very familiar with it. You can test this using a capacitor and battery with some wires, so I encourage you to explore this yourself.

4) Cerenkov radiation is usually blue. Mako1138 had a good post addressing this point. Of course, I suppose that interaction with some sort of atmospheric chemicals could result in green light coming from a Cernkov radiation source. However, if you want anyone to think that the green is from Cerenkov radiation, you will need to have some proof that it is.

I have seen both Cerenkov radiation and the weird yellow-green sky in person (I was in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Lake_City_Tornad o ). In my own estimation the color is very different, although they both looked 'weird'. I can't explain it, but both kinds of light were what I would describe as 'penetrating to the eye'. I suspect that this may have had to do with the ambient light conditions in which I observed both.

5) Usually when people use the term "vacuum energy" they are speaking of the energy associated with quantum fluctuations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy). You seem to be using the term to talk about the energy in the interplantetary plasma. Could you be more specific about which vacuum energy you mean? There is a large amount of energy total in this plasma because space is so large, but the energy density is fairly small. If you are referring to interactions between the interplantary plasma and the weather, could you be a little more specific about what that interaction is, and what the predictions or observations of your theory are?

6) What sort of observation

EMP or not... Why hasn't the government spent any of it money to destroy hurricanes while they are offshore; instead, they just sit back and watch the destruction.

The National Hurricane Center covers reasons why these attempts aren't made in their FAQ. Specifically, section C, Tropical Cyclone Modification and Myths. In short, as other posters mentioned, the government tried with Project Stormfury, which was determined to be a failure for a couple reasons. Given the size and energy of these storms, pretty much any other idea people have come up with just isn't feasible.

Especially as a researcher of hurricanes.

This man needs to look at some actual real atmospheric science work. Even a little search would get him a wealth of hurricane information:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/tcfaqHED.html

I would suggest anyone interested in hurricanes to read this FAQ. It is relatively regularly updated with new research and information.

TFA has some interesting points, but electromagnetic forces? How about simple thermodynamics? The troposphere responds to thermal forcings more readily than electromagnetic. (This is not necessarily true of the very upper reaches of the atmosphere, e.g. ionosphere, where electromagnetic forcings by the sun have not been heavily filtered and where the diatomic molecules of N2 and O2 do not make up the majority of the air.)

He is right, though, in a analogue way about the hurricane being a capacitor and that it needs to release heat energy somehow. He's just completely wrong on how hurricanes typically do this.

Hurricanes are warm core systems. This means that the center of the hurricane is warmer than the environment it lives in. This is required to keep the winds in balance. In a developing storm, the warm core is thought to form because of all the condensational heating. Then, as the storm strengthens, the heating from the convection (in a way) fluxes into the eye which allows the storm to strengthen and stay in balance (this is known as thermal wind balance, one of the fundamental balances in vertically-varying fluids... it is the phenomenon that explains why jet streams happen over frontal systems). In a way, one could think of the warm core of the hurricane as a sort of thermal capacitor... but it's not a perfect analogue.

Additionally, with all that energy transfer, why doesn't a strong hurricane keep strengthening even with all the convection happening? Simply put, the convection helps maintain the hurricane vortex against friction. Since the hurricane has strong winds near the surface, an unforced vortex will spin down very quickly. The convection around the eyewall provides the energy needed to keep the vortex spinning against friction. Take a moment and think about how much energy friction must be dissipating, then, if you need as much convection as is seen with strong hurricanes.

The hurricane is well-known to be a strongly balanced vortex that has an obvious structure that doesn't require any odd forcings like electromagnetics. Thermodynamics and fluid dynamics are all that are needed to understand 90% or more of the hurricane's structure. Electromagnetics in hurricanes is pretty silly. Besides, it's been well-observed that, given the strength of the convection in hurricanes, they have very little lightning compared to continental thunderstorms. The exact reasons for this are still speculative, but deal with the different precipitation processes in the two types of convection. Either way, I found all this rather silly. It's interesting to think about, but, from an expert in the field, pretty much ludicrous on its face.

-Jellisky

The all caps format on forecast products is a policy requirement. The applicable policy can be found at http://www.nws.noaa.gov/directives/010/pd01017001a .pdf.

The reason for the policy requirement is backward compatability. The first electronically disseminated weather forecasts were in the days of the ASR-33 teletype machine. Over time commercial software was developed that would decode the forecasts and build screen crawls for TV stations. Since much of the old software is still out there, and there may even be some ASR-33's, the products have to remain in all caps in order to not break the legacy stuff.

What really annoys me about the requirement for all caps, is that the meteorologists leave the caps lock on when they leave the workstations. I usually type in a command or two before I realize nothing happened other than linux reminding me that LL, CAT and GREP are not valid commands.

Hmmm it's been snowing all day better post a dupe article about Google's Coding Summer being over just in case we forgot!

It's record-breaking in terms of numbers, but in terms of overall storm energy, it's actually both lower than the record and lower than forecast. I am interested (as are a lot of climatologists, I imagine) in how it is that Wilma scaled from a Cat-1 to a Cat-5 so fast.

Recent global temperatures correlate somewhat with increases in CO2, but what about the sudden upsurge from 1917 to 1944, where the global temperature increased by 0.59 degrees C in just 27 years before falling back off by 0.38 degrees in a mere 12 years? We're at a 0.66 degree increase in 28 years, inclusive of 2004 data, which isn't terribly much more than was experienced in the early part of the century. In fact, the peak seems to have been in 1998 so far, and 2005 looks on track to be a cooler year than 1998, though perhaps just a shade warmer than 2004.

Data used

A simple rule change would put the Atlantic storms into that format. If the rule were in place now, Wilma would have been followed by Alberto. In addition, the last named storm of 2004 (TS Otto) would have been followed in 2005 by Paula, not Arlene.

Here's the big picture
Note, this graph does not yet include 2005, so we can look forward to another spike.

IAAM (I Am a Meteorologist), and I don't understand why there is so much confusion on the naming convention.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutnames.shtml

"Since 1953, Atlantic tropical storms have been named from lists originated by the National Hurricane Center and now maintained and updated by an international committee of the World Meteorological Organization. The lists featured only women's names until 1979, when men's and women's names were alternated. Six lists are used in rotation. Thus, the 2004 list will be used again in 2010. Here is more information on the history of naming hurricanes."

You don't have letters like Q or X because you really don't have a large pool of names to draw from (equally male and female). Once a NAME is retired, it is never used again. A LETTER is NEVER retired (though I'm not sure what they would do if a an Alpha or Beta was retired).

Names alternate male-female. The beginning sex alternates each year. The first storm this year was Arlene, the first one next year will be Alberto.

• (1901-1910)
• (1911-1920)
• (1921-1930)
• (1931-1940)
• (1941-1950)
• (1951-1960)
• (1961-1970)
• (1971-1980)
• (1981-1990)
• (1991-2000)

Figures 1 through 10 show the landfalling portion of the tracks of major hurricanes that have struck the United States 1901-1999 (there were no major hurricane strikes on the United States in 2000). The reader might note the tendency for the major hurricane landfalls to cluster in certain areas during certain decades. Another interesting point is the tendency for this clustering to occur in the latter half of individual decades in one area and in the first half of individual decades in another area. During the very active period of the thirties this clustering is not apparent.

• (1901-1910)
• (1911-1920)
• (1921-1930)
• (1931-1940)
• (1941-1950)
• (1951-1960)
• (1961-1970)
• (1971-1980)
• (1981-1990)
• (1991-2000)

Figures 1 through 10 show the landfalling portion of the tracks of major hurricanes that have struck the United States 1901-1999 (there were no major hurricane strikes on the United States in 2000). The reader might note the tendency for the major hurricane landfalls to cluster in certain areas during certain decades. Another interesting point is the tendency for this clustering to occur in the latter half of individual decades in one area and in the first half of individual decades in another area. During the very active period of the thirties this clustering is not apparent.

• (1901-1910)
• (1911-1920)
• (1921-1930)
• (1931-1940)
• (1941-1950)
• (1951-1960)
• (1961-1970)
• (1971-1980)
• (1981-1990)
• (1991-2000)

Figures 1 through 10 show the landfalling portion of the tracks of major hurricanes that have struck the United States 1901-1999 (there were no major hurricane strikes on the United States in 2000). The reader might note the tendency for the major hurricane landfalls to cluster in certain areas during certain decades. Another interesting point is the tendency for this clustering to occur in the latter half of individual decades in one area and in the first half of individual decades in another area. During the very active period of the thirties this clustering is not apparent.

• (1901-1910)
• (1911-1920)
• (1921-1930)
• (1931-1940)
• (1941-1950)
• (1951-1960)
• (1961-1970)
• (1971-1980)
• (1981-1990)
• (1991-2000)

Figures 1 through 10 show the landfalling portion of the tracks of major hurricanes that have struck the United States 1901-1999 (there were no major hurricane strikes on the United States in 2000). The reader might note the tendency for the major hurricane landfalls to cluster in certain areas during certain decades. Another interesting point is the tendency for this clustering to occur in the latter half of individual decades in one area and in the first half of individual decades in another area. During the very active period of the thirties this clustering is not apparent.

• (1901-1910)
• (1911-1920)
• (1921-1930)
• (1931-1940)
• (1941-1950)
• (1951-1960)
• (1961-1970)
• (1971-1980)
• (1981-1990)
• (1991-2000)

Figures 1 through 10 show the landfalling portion of the tracks of major hurricanes that have struck the United States 1901-1999 (there were no major hurricane strikes on the United States in 2000). The reader might note the tendency for the major hurricane landfalls to cluster in certain areas during certain decades. Another interesting point is the tendency for this clustering to occur in the latter half of individual decades in one area and in the first half of individual decades in another area. During the very active period of the thirties this clustering is not apparent.

• (1901-1910)
• (1911-1920)
• (1921-1930)
• (1931-1940)
• (1941-1950)
• (1951-1960)
• (1961-1970)
• (1971-1980)
• (1981-1990)
• (1991-2000)

Figures 1 through 10 show the landfalling portion of the tracks of major hurricanes that have struck the United States 1901-1999 (there were no major hurricane strikes on the United States in 2000). The reader might note the tendency for the major hurricane landfalls to cluster in certain areas during certain decades. Another interesting point is the tendency for this clustering to occur in the latter half of individual decades in one area and in the first half of individual decades in another area. During the very active period of the thirties this clustering is not apparent.

• (1901-1910)
• (1911-1920)
• (1921-1930)
• (1931-1940)
• (1941-1950)
• (1951-1960)
• (1961-1970)
• (1971-1980)
• (1981-1990)
• (1991-2000)

Figures 1 through 10 show the landfalling portion of the tracks of major hurricanes that have struck the United States 1901-1999 (there were no major hurricane strikes on the United States in 2000). The reader might note the tendency for the major hurricane landfalls to cluster in certain areas during certain decades. Another interesting point is the tendency for this clustering to occur in the latter half of individual decades in one area and in the first half of individual decades in another area. During the very active period of the thirties this clustering is not apparent.

• (1901-1910)
• (1911-1920)
• (1921-1930)
• (1931-1940)
• (1941-1950)
• (1951-1960)
• (1961-1970)
• (1971-1980)
• (1981-1990)
• (1991-2000)

Figures 1 through 10 show the landfalling portion of the tracks of major hurricanes that have struck the United States 1901-1999 (there were no major hurricane strikes on the United States in 2000). The reader might note the tendency for the major hurricane landfalls to cluster in certain areas during certain decades. Another interesting point is the tendency for this clustering to occur in the latter half of individual decades in one area and in the first half of individual decades in another area. During the very active period of the thirties this clustering is not apparent.

• (1901-1910)
• (1911-1920)
• (1921-1930)
• (1931-1940)
• (1941-1950)
• (1951-1960)
• (1961-1970)
• (1971-1980)
• (1981-1990)
• (1991-2000)

Figures 1 through 10 show the landfalling portion of the tracks of major hurricanes that have struck the United States 1901-1999 (there were no major hurricane strikes on the United States in 2000). The reader might note the tendency for the major hurricane landfalls to cluster in certain areas during certain decades. Another interesting point is the tendency for this clustering to occur in the latter half of individual decades in one area and in the first half of individual decades in another area. During the very active period of the thirties this clustering is not apparent.

• (1901-1910)
• (1911-1920)
• (1921-1930)
• (1931-1940)
• (1941-1950)
• (1951-1960)
• (1961-1970)
• (1971-1980)
• (1981-1990)
• (1991-2000)

Figures 1 through 10 show the landfalling portion of the tracks of major hurricanes that have struck the United States 1901-1999 (there were no major hurricane strikes on the United States in 2000). The reader might note the tendency for the major hurricane landfalls to cluster in certain areas during certain decades. Another interesting point is the tendency for this clustering to occur in the latter half of individual decades in one area and in the first half of individual decades in another area. During the very active period of the thirties this clustering is not apparent.

• (1901-1910)
• (1911-1920)
• (1921-1930)
• (1931-1940)
• (1941-1950)
• (1951-1960)
• (1961-1970)
• (1971-1980)
• (1981-1990)
• (1991-2000)

Figures 1 through 10 show the landfalling portion of the tracks of major hurricanes that have struck the United States 1901-1999 (there were no major hurricane strikes on the United States in 2000). The reader might note the tendency for the major hurricane landfalls to cluster in certain areas during certain decades. Another interesting point is the tendency for this clustering to occur in the latter half of individual decades in one area and in the first half of individual decades in another area. During the very active period of the thirties this clustering is not apparent.