Slashdot Mirror

• (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.

Female names started in 1953. Male names didn't show up until '79. Way back in the past it was named after the partiuclar Saint's Day in which it showed up. Ref: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/reason.html "History of Hurricane Names"

When they said "we'll have to use Greek letters if we run out", I assumed that they meant "use Greek names starting with the appropriate letters" (and use the Greek letters themselves as the single-character symbols on maps). Names "Athena", "Basileus", "Chronos", "Dionysus", etc. would have been really neat for tropical storms, and they'd have helped to make people more familiar with classical mythology as well.

But no, apparently they're just using the Greek letters themselves. Quite apart from being unimaginative... what happens if Hurricane Epsilon is particularly destructive and NOAA decides to retire the name? They can hardly retire a letter of the Greek alphabet.

Well, this is getting completely off topic, but "hardest hit" doesn't necessarily mean "most deaths". The northeast corner of a hurricane is by far the most damaging. The Northeast corner of Katrina travelled over Mississipi (source).

Modern buildings in hurricane prone areas are built to withstand winds up to 150MPH. Katrina reached wind speeds of up to 175 mph sustained (source). Buildings were razed to the ground by those forces. New Orleans had more deaths because of the higher population density.

That said, 1003 dead is more tragic than 221 dead. But I'd rather not get into statistical counts of dead people. It demeans them. Each one of those dead was an individual with a name, a family, friends, a life story, ...

"....around 30,000 feet...at that altitude...temperatures of 140 degrees below freezing would kill passengers within minutes." The above, from the article, doesn't sound right. 140 degrees below freezing (assuming fahrenheit) equals a temperature of -108F(-77C), which might be a valid temperature for the tropopause over the tropics, at 50,000ft. But, at 30,000ft, it's more likely that the temperature would be about -50F(-45C), or about 80 degrees below freezing.

NASA has big archives of space data, and they're only going to get bigger - the next generation of earth observing satellites are expected to generate 4 petabytes/year. That's 4 * 10**15, folks - think 8,000 500 GB drives. Per year. For at least the next ten years. One year is on the order of the size of Google's web cache.

Current archives are merely huge, and off-the-shelf databases are having trouble indexing it all - I've heard of a database holding just metadata (date/time, geographic extent, data type, resolution, format, etc.) for millions of observations where queries were taking tens of seconds, and this was with top-of-the-line commercial database software with all the spatial search bells and whistles.

If anybody can come up with a better way to store and index this stuff, it's Google.

Not to minimize katrina, but:

I believe last time I looked there were approx 1400 deaths due to Katrina...lets double it in case I missed some massive updates recently:
If we look at general natural disasters in the past century alone, Katrina wouldn't even make the list
There are still at least 14 atlantic tropical cyclones (hurricanes) ahead of Katrina in the last 230 years.

But why let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good trolling...

You need to be a bit clearer about your terms here. There are scientific standards for naming various things (taxonomy, astronomy, etc.), and the article referrs to a standard proposed by the International Astronomical Union, which according to the article isn't coping with the large numbers of things now being named.

But I'm not aware of any "standards" for naming kids. What's a standard name? Is "Rush" a standard name?

Some dippy Congresswoman is calling for more "African-American names", when there's no such thing. But you're apparently arguing that we stick with "standard" names, when there's likewise no such thing.

I would like to see a hurricane Shafreeka, but I understand that naming the hurricanes standard names helps to get people mobilized to evacuate. So for practical reasons, I say we stick with the most common, lilly-white names that we've got.

The article you just linked to gives this list of tropical cyclone names.
Are you saying that "Igor" and "Paloma" are "common, lilly-white" names?
How does "Igor" help people get mobilized better than "Jamal"?

Geeze anyone can google and find out the truth in 10 seconds. Try the National Hurricane Centers own statistics. Look at the 10 year statistics.

Wow. Touched a nerve there didn' I? Emotional tirade aside, you were right about one thing, I was in a hurry when I typed that post. I was eating a late lunch after a long day of troubleshooting.

Regardless, I will now take the proper time to address your concerns.

Perhaps I was a bit hasty in attacking your use of the word "proving", but it smacked of the semantic word games played by Humanities students worldwide. The game is to use emotionally laden words to convince people; rather than actual facts or objective science. By using the word "proving" (regardless of colloquial definitions) you introduce an emotional aspect into peoples' cognitive processes as they absorb the sentence (Hrm... well this theory is supported, but he's right, they can't actually *prove* it can they?).

Whether or not it's what you intended (and I don't believe it is what you intended - given that my comments made you so angry), it introduces an element of emotional/mental equivocation in the mind of the reader. I abhor such trickery (had you done it on purpose) and maybe came off a little strong because of it.

As for your claim that distinguishing between evidence and coherence is redundant, might I direct you to the following book by the good Prof. Thagard on the subject. Or you could go straight to his website and read the articles on the subject he has published in peer-reviewed journals.

Evidence and coherence are not the same thing, and distinguishing between them is not redundant. Evidence is (essentially) empirical observations, whereas coherence is a process akin to (but largely superseding) logical deduction by which we arrive at certain conclusions/end states.

Now for the reasons I did not post any references to support my claims, I was (as I mentioned earlier) in a hurry and secondly, there had been an ample amount of supporting references already posted in this very forum. Here's a sample:

The original article from Science:

http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/katrina/#new/

An article from a reputable Japanese project building climate simulations:

http://www.prime-intl.co.jp/kyosei-2nd/PDF/24/11_m urakami.pdf/

Information from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Tempe rature_Comparison.png/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming/

An article from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (which has references to further supporting articles published in such peer-reviewed journals as Science, Climate Dynamics and the Journal of Climate):

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html/

An excellent comment from this discussion itself:

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=162830 &cid=13606953/

So there you have it, references and data supporting the arguments I made in my post. As to addressing the arguments that you made in your original post (in so far as you made any) the above references should suffice. Your numbered list amounts to nothing more than an enumeration of possible alternatives, with no data, evidence or references whatsoever to demonstrate that any of them is more likely than the currently accepted scientific consensus.

Also, you accuse me of not RTFA, well, I did, and by the time I got through with it, I had noticed many of the discrepencies pointed out i

I hope the people of Texas are prepared! http://www.redcross.org/services/prepare/0,1082,0_ 253_,00.html Hurricane Rita http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/storm_graphics/AT18/refres h/AL1805W+gif/084857W_sm.gif is sporting 140 mph winds as of today!

Newt-dog

This thread is concentrating on Atlantic hurricanes. Here's an excerp from Noaa's archives about hurricane Linda in 1997, the strongest hurricane ever recorded in the eastern Pacific Ocean. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/1997linda.html For this discussion, the final two sentences are the ones that count:

Although maximum sustained winds of 160 knots and minimum central pressure of 902 mb indicated in the best track makes Linda the strongest hurricane on record in the eastern North Pacific to date, one should remember that intensities are almost always estimated from satellite interpretations for this basin. Also, the record is quite short, since routine satellite surveillance began in 1966. There could well have been other cyclones as strong as, or stronger than, Linda.

On particularly hot days, I often hear the weatherman always citing the previous record for that date, in 1915 or some such date. Geez, the world sure was hot about a century ago.

My father talked about how, several decades past, the waters around his hometown became a couple of degrees farenheit warmer than usual, putting the population too close for comfort to hurricane territory. Fortunately, no hurricane hit during that period, and water temperature dropped back to normal after four or five years.

For these reasons, I am unimpressed about particular events like hot days and a seasonal increase in hurricane activity, as we truly don't have enough data to reach a definitive conclusion. However, the receding north pole ice scares the hell out of me. The north pole ice cap was NOT melting about a century ago and it is NOW, and THAT is a definitive conclusion.

The conclusion they reached first mentioned the observed trend from satellite data over the past 30 years: an increasing frequency of intense hurricanes.

Sure, over the last 30 years maybe, but what about the past 150 years?

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

You'll notice that although the number and strengths of hurricanes have increased since the '70s, They're much lower then in the 1940s and 1890s. The chart seems to show a 50 year cycle of strong hurricanes, with us currently being in the next cycle. In fact, we're lower now then the last two cycles.

Sure it's controversial, if you hate science. Like when Republicans at the Heritage Foundation twist the number of hurricanes to hit the US mainland into "the number of hurricanes". And ignore that even those fewer storms in that category are still fiercer. There's "controversy" when Republican governors of Alabama lobby to deny the Greenhouse, then collect FEMA $billions for their favored reconstruction companies like Halliburton. I've got to admit that I'm running out of names to call these envirocaust deniers.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml NOAA seems to confirm what junk science is saying...there's no obvious pattern.

The objective science...http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

1933 was a freak year. 2005 isn't.

Do you have a citation for this theory?

According to NOAA statistics (Fig 1., fig. 2, table). neither 1933 nor 2004-5 have been "freaks". 1933 was in the middle couple of decades of intense activity which was at it's peak in the 30's and was followed by a lull through the 60's - 90's which we appear to be coming out of now (something that's been predicted for a while on account of the decades long cycle of water temp fluctuation in the atlantic).

1933 was a freak year. 2005 isn't.

Do you have a citation for this theory?

According to NOAA statistics (Fig 1., fig. 2, table). neither 1933 nor 2004-5 have been "freaks". 1933 was in the middle couple of decades of intense activity which was at it's peak in the 30's and was followed by a lull through the 60's - 90's which we appear to be coming out of now (something that's been predicted for a while on account of the decades long cycle of water temp fluctuation in the atlantic).

1933 was a freak year. 2005 isn't.

Do you have a citation for this theory?

According to NOAA statistics (Fig 1., fig. 2, table). neither 1933 nor 2004-5 have been "freaks". 1933 was in the middle couple of decades of intense activity which was at it's peak in the 30's and was followed by a lull through the 60's - 90's which we appear to be coming out of now (something that's been predicted for a while on account of the decades long cycle of water temp fluctuation in the atlantic).

You do not read the article before posting.

You say: "Maybe the author is on to something. Perhaps he would publish in a serious journal, or make the data freely available?"

The whole point of the Micheals' article is that the Science data only goes back to the 70's and that data that goes back longer shows something different.

Free Republic linked to the article in Tech Central Station http://www.techcentralstation.com/091605F.html which used data from the national hurricane center. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/data_sub/hurdat.html

Michaels is a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, CATO Institute Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies, and visiting scientist with the Marshall Institute in Washington, D.C. He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. He holds A.B. and S.M. degrees in biological sciences and plant ecology from the University of Chicago, and he received a Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979. Michaels is a contributing author and reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. His writing has been published in the major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science, as well as in popular serials such as the Washington Post, Washington Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Houston Chronicle, and Journal of Commerce. He has appeared on ABC, NPR's "All Things Considered," PBS, Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, BBC and Voice of America. According to Nature magazine, Pat Michaels may be the most popular lecturer in the nation on the subject of global warming.

List of retired names

When you have alot of chicken littles running around crying 'the end is near', and make unsubstantiated claims, nobody can take you seriously. You end up getting compared with crop circles, yeti and ufo's.

How about the NOAA?

The link has some interesting quotes:

"The strongest hurricanes in the present climate may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the earth's climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

"The results described above are based on a recent simulation study carried out by Thomas R. Knutson and Robert E. Tuleya at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL). This study examined the response of simulated hurricanes to the climate warming projected for a substantial build-up of atmospheric CO2. Such an increase in the upper-limit intensity of hurricanes with global warming was suggested on theoretical grounds by M.I.T. Professor Kerry Emanuel in 1987."

MIT, NOAA - pretty reputable sources. So point me to the articles where the link between Global Warming and extreme weather (like hurricanes) is dismissed?

What pattern of slow, continual growth are you getting? Backup your assertions.

As a counterpoint, I'd point you at:
http://www.junkscience.com/Hurricanes/Hurricanes.h tm, which granted dates to 2004 -- but certainly a "slow, continual growth" pattern where 2005 isn't a freak year would show up in that data.

More importantly, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml has the raw data. I tend to agree with the JunkScience analysis of it, which implies that we're simply on the rising edge of the cycle coming out of a lull.

Perhaps you should read http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/G3.html, which goes into quite some depth about the factors for hurricane formation and strength in a warmer world.

Their answer seems to be "we don't know, but our models seem to suggest at most a minor increase which may not be measurable in the real world due to the unpredictability of hurricanes. Oh, and, btw, our models are probably borked because they leave out certain factors..."

Richard Feynman supposedly referred to relying on models as a "disease". As I read more about models, especially climate models, I can see why someone could utter that statement.

You're just looking in the wrong region. Full list for other regions here. Theres a Jova, a Pilar, and someone better call Hercules if we have a hurricane Xina. Then look at the western pacific names. Not sure how it works, but it has the USA down for the names Utor, Chataan, Etau, Kodo, and Vicete. Now those would be some cool names to see and hear on the news.

What's with the trolling final sentence? Give me hotel card articles anytime. Anyhow, if you look at the data from the same site (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml) it shows that the number of major strikes is actually much lower in recent decades than in the past.

BTW, the link in the OP doesn't work (remove the trainling slash).

Clipped from the report, The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Hurricanes from 1900 to 2000:

(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.

--

Today's Anger Level: Orange - Easily irritated by little things.

Clipped from the report, The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Hurricanes from 1900 to 2000:

(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.

--

Today's Anger Level: Orange - Easily irritated by little things.

Clipped from the report, The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Hurricanes from 1900 to 2000:

(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.

--

Today's Anger Level: Orange - Easily irritated by little things.

Clipped from the report, The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Hurricanes from 1900 to 2000:

(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.

--

Today's Anger Level: Orange - Easily irritated by little things.

Clipped from the report, The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Hurricanes from 1900 to 2000:

(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.

--

Today's Anger Level: Orange - Easily irritated by little things.

Clipped from the report, The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Hurricanes from 1900 to 2000:

(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.

--

Today's Anger Level: Orange - Easily irritated by little things.

Clipped from the report, The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Hurricanes from 1900 to 2000:

(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.

--

Today's Anger Level: Orange - Easily irritated by little things.

Clipped from the report, The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Hurricanes from 1900 to 2000:

(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.

--

Today's Anger Level: Orange - Easily irritated by little things.

Clipped from the report, The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Hurricanes from 1900 to 2000:

(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.

--

Today's Anger Level: Orange - Easily irritated by little things.

Clipped from the report, The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Hurricanes from 1900 to 2000:

(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.

--

Today's Anger Level: Orange - Easily irritated by little things.

Clipped from the report, The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Hurricanes from 1900 to 2000:

(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.

--

Today's Anger Level: Orange - Easily irritated by little things.

Different areas use different lists of names.

The Central North Pacific has a single circular list of 48 names. If the last storm of one year is Hana, the first storm of the next year is Io. Some other regions take a similar approach.

There are 21 names each in 6 year-long cycles. They alternate between men's and women's names. Whenever there is a major hurricane, the name is retired (i.e. Katrina, Andrew). Otherwise, the names ascend alphabetically from A-W in 6 year cycles. Why do Greek letters when they could simply add Xavier, Yolanda, and Zach if there are too many storms in a season?

Actually, everything I have read indicates that we Global Warming don't know how global warming will effect the number of hurricanes. (http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html/

However, due to how hurricanes gain strength (by pulling heat from the water) global warming could be linked in an increase in strength.

The storms are named A-Z, with a few letters skipped.

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

Katrina was the (one, two three.. ) 11th tropical depression/storm/hurricane of the 2005 season.

Next year, the 11th storm will be named 'Kirk'.

Experience shows that the use of short, distinctive given names in written as well as spoken communications is quicker and less subject to error than the older more cumbersome latitude-longitude identification methods. These advantages are especially important in exchanging detailed storm information between hundreds of widely scattered stations, coastal bases, and ships at sea.

And what if he had exposed the corruption and incompetence in Louisiana state and New Orleans city government that diverted federal levy funds to cronies and failed to follow it's own evacuation plans?

What if he predicted that a city that can mobilize the poor to vote with the aid of city and school busses wouldn't bother to do the same to move those same voters out of harm's way because the school busses weren't comfortable enough according to Mayor Nagin and they wanted to wait for the feds to send greyhounds?

And what if he had screamed "murderer" at Clinton and cried "where was FEMA?" and "the federal government and the president are racist because they didn't evacuate or help the 1,000 mostly poor, old, and black people who died in the Chicago Heat Wave?

What about those? Or are those points not on your anti-Bush agenda?

Hurricanes are powered by the differential in temperature between the water and the atmosphere. Since global warming increases the temperature of both the water and air the affects on hurricanes are small compared to the natural variablity of hurricanes according to NOAA's faq. Here is NOAA's page listing the number of tropical storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes going back to 1850. The data from 1944 onwards is considered accurate with data on storms that actually strike the U.S. East and Gulf Coasts considered to be accurate back to 1899. They have graphs of 1944 to near present of the number of named storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes. Note that these graphs do not resemble monotonically increasing functions as one would expect if global warming were continously causing more numerous and larger storms, but instead are closer to periodic funcions. Here is the NOAA faq page stating the increase in number and strength of Atlantic hurricanes since 1995 is due to the hurricane cycle. Note that 1991-94 are the quietest four years in the 1944-present record.

Hurricanes are powered by the differential in temperature between the water and the atmosphere. Since global warming increases the temperature of both the water and air the affects on hurricanes are small compared to the natural variablity of hurricanes according to NOAA's faq. Here is NOAA's page listing the number of tropical storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes going back to 1850. The data from 1944 onwards is considered accurate with data on storms that actually strike the U.S. East and Gulf Coasts considered to be accurate back to 1899. They have graphs of 1944 to near present of the number of named storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes. Note that these graphs do not resemble monotonically increasing functions as one would expect if global warming were continously causing more numerous and larger storms, but instead are closer to periodic funcions. Here is the NOAA faq page stating the increase in number and strength of Atlantic hurricanes since 1995 is due to the hurricane cycle. Note that 1991-94 are the quietest four years in the 1944-present record.

Hurricanes are powered by the differential in temperature between the water and the atmosphere. Since global warming increases the temperature of both the water and air the affects on hurricanes are small compared to the natural variablity of hurricanes according to NOAA's faq. Here is NOAA's page listing the number of tropical storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes going back to 1850. The data from 1944 onwards is considered accurate with data on storms that actually strike the U.S. East and Gulf Coasts considered to be accurate back to 1899. They have graphs of 1944 to near present of the number of named storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes. Note that these graphs do not resemble monotonically increasing functions as one would expect if global warming were continously causing more numerous and larger storms, but instead are closer to periodic funcions. Here is the NOAA faq page stating the increase in number and strength of Atlantic hurricanes since 1995 is due to the hurricane cycle. Note that 1991-94 are the quietest four years in the 1944-present record.

Hurricanes are powered by the differential in temperature between the water and the atmosphere. Since global warming increases the temperature of both the water and air the affects on hurricanes are small compared to the natural variablity of hurricanes according to NOAA's faq. Here is NOAA's page listing the number of tropical storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes going back to 1850. The data from 1944 onwards is considered accurate with data on storms that actually strike the U.S. East and Gulf Coasts considered to be accurate back to 1899. They have graphs of 1944 to near present of the number of named storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes. Note that these graphs do not resemble monotonically increasing functions as one would expect if global warming were continously causing more numerous and larger storms, but instead are closer to periodic funcions. Here is the NOAA faq page stating the increase in number and strength of Atlantic hurricanes since 1995 is due to the hurricane cycle. Note that 1991-94 are the quietest four years in the 1944-present record.

Hurricanes are powered by the differential in temperature between the water and the atmosphere. Since global warming increases the temperature of both the water and air the affects on hurricanes are small compared to the natural variablity of hurricanes according to NOAA's faq. Here is NOAA's page listing the number of tropical storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes going back to 1850. The data from 1944 onwards is considered accurate with data on storms that actually strike the U.S. East and Gulf Coasts considered to be accurate back to 1899. They have graphs of 1944 to near present of the number of named storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes. Note that these graphs do not resemble monotonically increasing functions as one would expect if global warming were continously causing more numerous and larger storms, but instead are closer to periodic funcions. Here is the NOAA faq page stating the increase in number and strength of Atlantic hurricanes since 1995 is due to the hurricane cycle. Note that 1991-94 are the quietest four years in the 1944-present record.

Hurricanes are powered by the differential in temperature between the water and the atmosphere. Since global warming increases the temperature of both the water and air the affects on hurricanes are small compared to the natural variablity of hurricanes according to NOAA's faq. Here is NOAA's page listing the number of tropical storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes going back to 1850. The data from 1944 onwards is considered accurate with data on storms that actually strike the U.S. East and Gulf Coasts considered to be accurate back to 1899. They have graphs of 1944 to near present of the number of named storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes. Note that these graphs do not resemble monotonically increasing functions as one would expect if global warming were continously causing more numerous and larger storms, but instead are closer to periodic funcions. Here is the NOAA faq page stating the increase in number and strength of Atlantic hurricanes since 1995 is due to the hurricane cycle. Note that 1991-94 are the quietest four years in the 1944-present record.

You need to check your numbers because you're very, very wrong:

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