Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum Very Active 2007 Hurricane Season Predicted

The U.S. Atlantic basin will likely experience a very active hurricane season, the Colorado State University forecast team announced today, increasing its earlier prediction for the 2007 hurricane season. The team's forecast now anticipates 17 named storms forming in the Atlantic basin between June 1 and Nov. 30. Nine of the 17 storms are predicted to become hurricanes, and of those nine, five are expected to develop into intense or major hurricanes (Saffir/Simpson category 3-4-5) with sustained winds of 111 mph or greater. No hurricanes made landfall along the U.S. coastline in 2006. The 2006 season witnessed a total of 10 named storms, 5 hurricanes and two major hurricanes. The 2005 season, considered unusual by the Colorado State forecast team, witnessed 27 named storms, 15 hurricanes and seven intense hurricanes. Long-term averages are 9.6 named storms, 5.9 hurricanes and 2.3 intense hurricanes per year. For the full story Click Here .

I wonder what their prediction was for the 2006 season? Ah, that's right, I remember hearing the very same thing last year at this time - Higher than average year for hurricanes. Then they revised their "forecast" in August

Well like most predictions, say it often enough and it will come true eventually.

Canuck is just being a troll.

Here is what actually happened:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurricane.shtml

Note where they wrote:
NOAA continues to predict a high likelihood (75% chance) of an above-normal 2006 Atlantic hurricane season and a 20% chance of a near-normal season,....

It didn't come in as the 75% and Canuck has had an apparent and convenient lapse in understanding of what the word "percentages" mean.

That happens when you are working for Exxon-Mobil.

I've read these forums for a long time with interest. I decided to log on for comment on rare occcasion. May I assume DA Morgan that you know Dr W. Gray does not beleive man has any appreciable influence on global warming. Also that global warming is not the cause of active hurricane activity. Unfortunate for me that my first comment is so anti as I respect your considerable knowledge on scientific subjects.

Then you will probably think I am one too. I don't work for Exxon though.

There are a small number of scientists that disagree with respect to human influence. Put that up against the tens of thousands that are in total agreement with respect to human influence.

No doubt Al Capone's attorney swore that his client innocent.
Reasonable people disagreed.

The ice is not melting without cause.
CO2 can not be pumped into the atmosphere without consequence.

And smoking tobacco causes cancer.

scpg02 wrote:
"Then you will probably think I am one too."

I will reserve judgment on that.

If you can find articles for reputable sources that support your position then you are most certainly free to disagree and present a contrasting point-of-view.

If, on the other hand, you think you can spin reality in a manner that contradicts peer reviewed research from NOAA, NASA, CSIRO, and essentially every college and university on the planet this will likely by short-lived experience for you.

We'd like to have you here ... but not if attitude trumps aptitude.

Saying that the dissenters are small in number and that any dissenting view comes from non-reputable sources already puts us on the wrong foot. As for labeling anyone who disagrees as a troll, I find that disquieting. I thought this was a science forum not a political one.

scpg02 wrote:
"Saying that the dissenters are small in number and that any dissenting view comes from non-reputable sources"

That is not what was said.

What was said was that if you propose a dissenting view then the onus is upon you to support it. GreenPeace for dissenters on one side and Cato for dissenters on the other is politics ... not science.

Morgan (thought you were ignoring me)- you're now accusing me for being on the payroll of Exxon Mobile?
Honestly, do you take yourself seriously? Do you expect anybody to take you seriously?

You really, really need to get a grip on reality. It's moved past the point of being funny, and delving into the pathetic. Anybody going back and reading any threads will quickly come to the same conclusion.


scpg02 - welcome, but prepare to be labeled a troll. But hey, you'll be in fairly good company. Morgan has also labeled a past moderator of this forum a troll. Why? Because he didn?t subscribe to Morgan?s beliefs.
You're right though - this section of the forum has nothing to do with science, it's wholly political (thanks to a supposed moderator)

Well - just had to bring this one back to the top.

The 2007 hurricane season is almost over, and what do you think happened?

Here's a link to the season summary thus far
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
Of particular relevance

I am new to this forum. I was suprised to see D A Morgan appeal to the old chesnut that thousands of people agree with me and only a few disagree. Climate change is not popularity poll regardless of the credentials (or lack thereof) of the voters.
It is also unacceptable to call names (troll) and refer to someones supposed bias without at least expressing your own.

It is also unreasonable to assume that everyone you disagree with works for an industry you disagree with or can easily demonize. Much of the climate change argument revloves around long term effects. Much of the long term effects of temerature change as well as others effects is contained within the geological record. Many high quality scientists in the geosciences work for Exxon and other oil companies. To ignor their high quality input is bad science.

I am a Phd Geophysicist(no I do not work for Exxon or any other oil company) and I think a review of the last time we had high co2 levels on the planet is very instructional. Needless to say it does not agree with the large effects predicted by many of the large number scientists who are predicting disaster.

Well - depends on how far back you want to go, but, seeing as we are having a discussion that also involves the word 'geoscience', attached link has a great chart of the temp and CO2 record last 600 mln years.

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

And as a geoscientist in the 'energy industry' I can assure you that opinions are healthily wide and diverse and there is a great appreciation of the uncertainty range.