• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Season Approaches: U.S. Hits Record 127 Months Since Major Hurricane Strike

American

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,085
Reaction score
33,411
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Season Approaches: U.S. Hits Record 127 Months Since Major Hurricane Strike

(CNSNews.com) – With hurricane season set to start next week, Tuesday marks a record 127 months since a major hurricane has made landfall in the continental United States, according to statistics compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Hurricane Research Division, which keeps data on all the hurricanes that have struck the U.S. since 1851.
The last major hurricane (defined as a Category 3 or above) to hit the U.S. mainland was Hurricane Wilma, which made landfall in Florida on Oct. 24, 2005.
Although a major hurricane typically strikes the U.S. about once every two years, no major hurricanes have made landfall in the U.S. for more than 10 and a half years.
The second longest stretch between major hurricane strikes was between the major hurricane that struck in August 1860 and the one that struck in September 1869, NOAA records show. The third longest stretch was between the major hurricane that struck in September 1900 and the one that struck in October 1906.
Wilma was one of four major hurricanes – including Hurricanes Dennis (July 10, 2005), Katrina (Aug. 29, 2005) and Rita (Sept. 24, 2005) - that came ashore in the U.S. during the 2005 hurricane season. (The season starts on June 1 and runs through November 30.)
Click to expand...
Damn I wish climate change would make up its mind. :lol:
 
American said:
Season Approaches: U.S. Hits Record 127 Months Since Major Hurricane Strike


Damn I wish climate change would make up its mind. :lol:
Click to expand...

Oh, look. Another guy who thinks global climate means 'America' and specifically the North Atlantic US coastline.

Hurricane landfall is capricious, but it's clear there is no lack of Hurricanes, and their intensity seems to be getting even more powerful over time especially in the Pacific, as predicted.

It's not real complicated...warmer water leads to greater strength in cyclones.

9a7921e29c1435fd16db39c3ab735e05.jpg


But there is also strong local cycles that play a major role, like the AMO, and currently, a cold cycle is present in part of the North Atlantic that may be minimizing hurricanes for a while.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n10/full/ngeo2529.html

It's science, though, so it's hard to understand, especially for those who can confuse the US Atlantic seaboard with the entire globe.
 
Threegoofs said:
Oh, look. Another guy who thinks global climate means 'America' and specifically the North Atlantic US coastline.
Click to expand...

Please pass the word to Al Gore.

GwSurz.jpg
 
The oscillation in the "normal" patterns has made predicting hurricane formation more difficult, as well as the actual natural formation of hurricanes more difficult to accomplish.

We go through a similar lull in formation and landfalling systems about every 20 to 40 years or so. This is part of the normal oscillation pattern. Even Threegoofs' chart shows the same pattern.

However, what is not normally discussed is how during the lull's time period, construction and development has invariably increased putting more people, infrastructure, and buildings in harms way, as well as the fact that the tree canopy has increased allowing for any storm that does make landfall to generate more damaging debris that costs more in both money and general harm. The toll in the cost to the government, insurance companies and their policy holders, and the economy as a whole could be record setting should a major hurricane make landfall this year in south Florida or along the southeast coast. The last major hurricane to make direct landfall on the southeast coast was Hurricane Fran in 1996 (20 years ago) and the last to make a glancing blow was Hurricane Floyd in 1999 (17 years ago). During that 20 years, the eastern sections of South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia have increased exponentially in development both industrial and private.

Use this as a gauge - In 2003, a Category I Hurricane Isabel made landfall in northeast North Carolina with the bulk of the storm impacting southeast Virginia and the US Capital Region later on. That small Category I storm did $1.85 billion (2003 USD) in damage and cost 10 lives directly and 26 lives indirectly. Can you imagine what the cost in money and lives could be if a Category 4 or 5 hurricane made landfall anywhere from Savanna, Georgia up to the Delmarva Peninsula? I shutter to think what would happen.

The costs of Superstorm Sandy could be dwarfed in comparison.
 
MrT said:
How are you capable of keeping a straight face while defining "climate change" as "hurricanes making landfall in one country?"
Click to expand...

How do you keep a straight face overlooking the significance of the change, after 2005 was a banner year?
 
American said:
How do you keep a straight face overlooking the significance of the change, after 2005 was a banner year?
Click to expand...

Who said that I was overlooking the significance of the lack of hurricane landfall? It is a good thing that Americans have not suffered a major hurricane landfall in several years.

But what does that have to do with climate change? Climate Change doesn't mean that every part of the globe will experience "x" result. Hell, just last year we saw three category four hurricanes in the Pacific Ocean at the same time for the first time in recorded history. Is that proof of climate change?
 
MrT said:
Who said that I was overlooking the significance of the lack of hurricane landfall? It is a good thing that Americans have not suffered a major hurricane landfall in several years.

But what does that have to do with climate change? Climate Change doesn't mean that every part of the globe will experience "x" result. Hell, just last year we saw three category four hurricanes in the Pacific Ocean at the same time for the first time in recorded history. Is that proof of climate change?
Click to expand...

Warmers called for increased numbers and intensity of hurricanes? So where the **** are they? Someone posted a graph that demonstrated no such thing.
 
American said:
Warmers called for increased numbers and intensity of hurricanes? So where the **** are they? Someone posted a graph that demonstrated no such thing.
Click to expand...

Say it with me: "America is not the world. America is not the world. America is not the world."

And no one claimed that the prediction of increased hurricane intensity/number had to occur within a set amount of time - and certainly not one arbitrarily set by individuals that are more likely to disbelieve global warming in the first place.
 
American said:
Warmers called for increased numbers and intensity of hurricanes? So where the **** are they? Someone posted a graph that demonstrated no such thing.
Click to expand...

Apparently, graphs are hard for some to comprehend.


Here's a video.

 
American said:
How do you keep a straight face overlooking the significance of the change, after 2005 was a banner year?
Click to expand...

Oh. So you're basing this off of a 'banner year' while ignoring all the long term data.

A common denier misconception - a highly variable system is looked at at the most convenient outlier points - and since every year after that is lower than the outlier - it must be all getting better!

Looking at long term trends is the key here.

This reminds me of the other denier meme that arctic ice is doing great and recovering all the time!

sksci-graph_550x377.jpg
 
Threegoofs said:
Oh. So you're basing this off of a 'banner year' while ignoring all the long term data.

A common denier misconception - a highly variable system is looked at at the most convenient outlier points - and since every year after that is lower than the outlier - it must be all getting better!

Looking at long term trends is the key here.

This reminds me of the other denier meme that arctic ice is doing great and recovering all the time!

sksci-graph_550x377.jpg
Click to expand...

That's not even "long term"

But a moment in time.

BTW: how do you know what a good amount of ice is in the Arctic?
 
It must be because God is happy with the US currently.

Thanks Obama
 
WCH said:
That's not even "long term"

But a moment in time.

BTW: how do you know what a good amount of ice is in the Arctic?
Click to expand...

I would imagine that losing half the ice during a human's lifetime would be classified as 'not a good sign', but I'm sure you have a different perspective, informed by literally several minutes of thought on the topic.
 
Threegoofs said:
I would imagine that losing half the ice during a human's lifetime would be classified as 'not a good sign', but I'm sure you have a different perspective, informed by literally several minutes of thought on the topic.
Click to expand...

There was a crap load...way too much, just 10,000 years ago. There's been less and there's been a lot more.

What is the perfect amount?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom