It's important to realize the different characteristics in seasons.
They usually work in cycles, but different cycles. Out of seasons hurricanes seem to work as I described earlier.
Unusually active seasons seem to follow a different cycle, which fluctuates at about 30-50 years, and the stretches of high activity seem to last
longer- 10 or more years of high activity can happen, separated by patches of extremely low activity, and moderate seasons on between the highs and
What bothers me really is the overall intensity, as well as the track that hurricanes take. I don't have much information on if or how tracks are
changing because it takes a lot of research to see that patterns sometimes. I've spent hours in Wikipedia this year learning about this stuff, and I
there are still some things I understand and many things that I don't.
Activity can be bad, but a shift in where they form and what tracks they take would probably be worse because that affects strength and landfall, and
I believe would have to be the result of a very dramatic change.
If storms start regularly taking the "under Cuba" route, as we saw a few times recently, getting into the gulf without losing too much strength,
things could get really bad for the gulf coast in America and Mexico.
Also, I have looked at maps, although I haven't identified a year-to-year pattern, and I have seen that some seasons have their own trend in tracks.
Some seasons they like to hit the Eastern seaboard and turn North. Sometimes the majority seem to shoot the gulf, either under, over, or through the
My major worry isn't really how many there will be. My main concern is how bad they will be and where they will hit. It's hard to fathom what would
happen if we saw a string of seasons where there Rita/Katrina model prevailed. That particular track is extremely dangerous.
Of course I also have an open mind to weather manipulation. My question on that is what in the world is wrong with humanity, if that technology exists
(and I'm confident that it does, and if not, almost certainly is attainable).
Why would you turn something into a weapon against civilians when it could just as easily be used to protect them.
We're looking at a field of knowledge which could be, and possibly has been developed to the extent that it could be used to end droughts, prevent
loss of life, and possibly even engineer conditions on earth at least to a certain degree. I'd like to think that we'll come to a point in the
development of society where the UN or just nations working alone or in smaller coalitions could harness such a technology to use for the good of the
world. Imagine being able to steer a typhoon away from India, feed it enough to keep it healthy, then seed it and let it dissipate as it approaches
Africa to provide a healthy rainfall in Ethiopia.
Seems like there's more money and power in that than in destroying New Orleans.