It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The last major hurricane to strike the US was Hurricane Wilma during late October of that record-breaking year of 2005
Hurricane Sandy was the deadliest and most destructive hurricane of the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season, as well as the second-costliest hurricane in United States history. Classified as the eighteenth named storm, tenth hurricane and second major hurricane of the year, Sandy was a Category 3 storm at its peak intensity when it made landfall in Cuba.
- The 2006 Atlantic hurricane season was significantly less active than the record previous season. It marked the first since 2001 in which no hurricanes made landfall in the United States, and was the first since 1994 that no tropical cyclones formed during October.
- The 2007 Atlantic hurricane season was an active Atlantic hurricane season that produced 17 tropical cyclones, 15 tropical storms, six hurricanes, and two major hurricanes.
- The 2008 Atlantic hurricane season was a very active hurricane season with sixteen named storms formed, including eight that became hurricanes and five that became major hurricanes.
- The 2009 Atlantic hurricane season was a below-average Atlantic hurricane season that produced eleven tropical cyclones, nine named storms, three hurricanes, and two major hurricanes.
- The 2010 Atlantic hurricane season was the third most active Atlantic hurricane season on record, tying with the 1887, 1995, 2011, and 2012 Atlantic hurricane seasons. It had the most number of named storms since the 2005 season and also ties with the 1969 Atlantic hurricane season for the second largest number of hurricanes. In addition, the activity in the north Atlantic in 2010 exceeded the activity in the northwest Pacific Typhoon season. The only other known time this event happened was in 2005.
- The 2011 Atlantic hurricane season is tied with 1887, 1995, 2010, and the following 2012 season for the third highest number of named storms since record-keeping began in 1851...During the month of September, Tropical Storm Lee and Hurricane Nate moved into the central United States Gulf Coast and central Mexico, respectively; the former led to 18 deaths, and the latter 5 deaths. As an extratropical cyclone, Lee caused significant damage in the form of flooding across the Northeast United States, especially in New York and Pennsylvania.
- The 2012 Atlantic hurricane season was extremely active, tied with 1887, 1995, 2010, and 2011 for having the third-most named storms on record...Impact during the 2012 season was widespread and significant. In mid-May, Beryl moved ashore the coastline of Florida, causing 3 deaths. In late June and early August, Tropical Storm Debby and Hurricane Ernesto caused 10 and 13 deaths after striking Florida and the Yucatán, respectively. In mid-August, the remnants of Tropical Storm Helene killed two people after making landfall in Mexico. At least 41 deaths and $2.39 billion[nb 1] were attributed to Hurricane Isaac, which struck Louisiana on two separate occasions in late August. However, by far the costliest and deadliest cyclone of the season was Hurricane Sandy, which formed on October 22. After striking Cuba at Category 3 intensity on the Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale, the hurricane moved ashore the southern coastline of New Jersey. Sandy left 286 dead and $68 billion worth of damage in its wake, making it the second-costliest Atlantic hurricane on record, behind only Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Collectively, the season's storms caused at least 355 fatalities and nearly $70.9 billion in damage, making 2012 the deadliest season since 2008 and the costliest since 2005.
Finally, another interesting stat with respect to hurricanes has to do with the fact that we are currently in the longest period since the Civil War Era without a major hurricane strike in the US (i.e., category 3, 4 or 5). The last major hurricane to strike the US was Hurricane Wilma during late October of that record-breaking year of 2005 - let’s hope this historic stretch continues. By the way, just as a point of comparison, in 1954 the US was hit by 3 major hurricanes in less than 10 weeks.
Antarctica set a third All-Time Record for sea ice extent while the US federal government was “shutdown”. Data here.
Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year−1, respectively.
Estimates of recent changes in Antarctic land ice (see above) range from losing 100 gigatons/year to over 300 gigatons/year. Because 360 gigatons/year represents an annual sea level rise of 1 mm/year, recent estimates indicate a contribution of between 0.27 mm/year and 0.83 mm/year coming from Antarctica. There is of course uncertainty in the estimations methods but multiple different types of measurement techniques (explained here) all show the same thing, Antarctica is losing land ice as a whole, and these losses are accelerating quickly.
So. Have there been any major hurricanes which did not strike the US in that time period? Or is it only the US which is of concern? Is there some agenda behind the cherry picking?
They defined major hurricane as being cat 3,4, or 5
Phage
And let's not forget that the summer of 2012 was the hottest summer on record for the USA, by a long shot.
Phage
reply to post by 727Sky
So. Have there been any major hurricanes which did not strike the US in that time period? Or is it only the US which is of concern? Is there some agenda behind the cherry picking?
They defined major hurricane as being cat 3,4, or 5edit on 10/19/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)
On Tuesday, a group of 50 international scientists released a comprehensive new report on the science of climate change that concluded that evidence now leans against global warming resulting from human-related greenhouse gas emissions. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, or NIPCC, which produced the report, is described as "an international panel of scientists and scholars who came together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change." Unlike the "United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is government-sponsored, politically motivated, and predisposed to believing that climate change is a problem in need of a U.N. solution," NIPCC "has no formal attachment to or sponsorship from any government or governmental agency" and is "wholly independent of political pressures and influences and therefore is not predisposed to produce politically motivated conclusions or policy recommendations."
In Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, which The Heartland Institute published and released on Tuesday, lead authors Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer worked with a team of scientists to produce a 1,200-page report that is "comprehensive, objective, and faithful to the scientific method." They found that even "if the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide were to double," whatever "warming may occur would likely be modest and cause no net harm to the global environment or to human well-being."
NIPCC's findings "point toward several policy recommendations quite different from those that have come from the IPCC and its related agencies, bureaus, and commissions at the United Nations," and they include: taking into account "long-term trends" in climate science; seeking out advice from "independent, nongovernment organizations and scientists who are free of financial and political conflicts of interest"; allowing individual nations to "take charge of setting their own climate policies based upon the hazards that apply to their particular geography, geology, weather, and culture"; and recognizing "the theoretical hazard of dangerous human-caused global warming is but one small part of a much wider climate hazard," which is as much a "geological as it is a meteorological issue."
The study's authors conclude that "atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is a mild greenhouse gas that exerts a diminishing warming effect as its concentration increases" and even "doubling the concentration of atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial level, in the absence of other forcings and feedbacks, would likely cause a warming of ~0.3 to 1.1°C, almost 50% of which must already have occurred." Further, the study found that "a few tenths of a degree of additional warming, should it occur, would not represent a climate crisis" because, over recent geological time, the earth's "temperature has fluctuated naturally between about +4°C and -6°C with respect to twentieth century temperature. A warming of 2°C above today, should it occur, falls within the bounds of natural variability."
In light of these findings, which are "stated plainly and repeated in thousands of articles in the peer-reviewed literature" that are not "fringe," the authors emphasize that policymakers "should resist pressure from lobby groups to silence scientists who question the authority of the IPCC to claim to speak for 'climate science.'"
Weather is the state of the atmosphere, to the degree that it is hot or cold, wet or dry, calm or stormy, clear or cloudy.[1] Most weather phenomena occur in the troposphere,[2][3] just below the stratosphere. Weather generally refers to day-to-day temperature and precipitation activity, whereas climate is the term for the average atmospheric conditions over longer periods of time.[4]
Climate is the pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods. Climate can be contrasted to weather, which is the present condition of these variables over shorter periods.
Records are proof of nothing because the earth has been creating records since day one!
Kali74
reply to post by pasiphae
It would be interesting to see how much farther out from norms of previous years as well. Of course scorched ground from previous years won't burn. I think the data is fine but it is very selective data used to paint an obfuscated picture.
And Sky, just a heads up... you should check on all the contributing scientists of the IPCC and see if it fits what denier blogs want you to think about the IPCC.
No. The IPCC says nothing about whether the decrease is “unusual” or ‘unnatural”. It says that the rate of ice loss has increased in the past four decades. The IPCC makes it quite clear that in some cases the loss of ice is not well understood while in others, it is. The IPCC says that it likely that the loss of ice is due in great part to human influences. It does not deny that there are also natural factors.
IPCC Claim #1: Unusual melting is occurring in mountain glaciers, Arctic sea ice and polar icecaps.
No. The IPCC makes no claim that global sea levels are rising “at an enhanced rate”. It does discuss regions of enhanced sea level increase due to changes in ocean circulation. It distinguishes these changes from those caused by thermal expansion and loss of land ice.
IPCC Claim #2: Global sea level is rising at an enhanced rate and swamping tropical coral atolls.
No. The IPCC does not claim that. The IPCC has low confidence that there has been an increase in intensity and/or duration of drought in the past decades. The IPCC does not address flooding at all but it does find that heavy precipitation events have increased. The IPCC has low confidence that monsoon variability and intensity have increased.
IPCC Claim #3: Droughts, floods, and monsoon variability and intensity are increasing.
No. The IPCC makes no such claim.
IPCC Claim #4: Global warming is leading to more, or more intense, wildfires, rainfall, storms, hurricanes, and other extreme weather events.
No. The IPCC makes no such claim.
IPCC Claim #5: Unusual melting of Boreal permafrost or sub-seabed gas hydrates is causing warming due to methane release.
And "deniers"? That's close to a slur the way it often gets used. I don't think anyone of any intelligence can deny that climate changes over time.
The real quibble is what if any mankind's overall contribution to the global party may be and if it's significant enough to warrant deconstructing and obstructing sectors of the global economy to the detriment of mankind as a whole as well as the type of social engineering that hasn't worked at a national level let alone on a global one as is being proposed. Every time it has been tried, millions have suffered and died for it.