Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Hurricanes "overexaggerated": It's Bush's fault
Following last year's record-setting and costly hurricane season, professional forecasters called for more of the same this year. Well, where are the hurricanes? Cooler ocean temperatures and wet weather over the Pacific seems to have, er, dampened hurricanes forming in the Atlantic.
The seasonal forecasts are based on an analysis of sea-surface temperatures in areas where hurricanes form, as well as wind conditions and other factors.
The warmth in the ocean is, in essence, the fuel for hurricanes.
This year, ocean waters are a half a degree to two degrees Fahrenheit warmer than average. That likely will help generate above-average tropical storm activity, but not as much as last year, when comparable ocean temperatures were two to three degrees warmer than average.
Three tropical storms have formed this year; last year, seven had formed during June and July.
Another key factor in the forecast is the strength of high-level winds that can inhibit hurricane formation. Essentially, strong shearing winds can blow apart incipient storms.
Wetter-than-predicted conditions over the Pacific Ocean have forced slightly stronger upper-level winds over the Caribbean, said Christopher Landsea of NOAA's Hurricane Research Division, making the weather this year less amenable to hurricane formation than last year.
The result has been virtually no activity during the first eight weeks of the hurricane season. The hurricane researchers at Colorado State University -- a center for such things, apparently -- have substantially reduced their forecast for both hurricanes and the effects of hurricanes this year. The table below (click to enlarge it) shows how they have reduced their forecast to account for the calm that has prevailed to date.
All of this adds up to an investment opportunity, according to yesterday's "Heard on the Street" column in The Wall Street Journal. The prices of shares of property and casualty reinsurance companies may not reflect the reduced forecasts. Maybe, maybe not. I tend to believe that a market price is a closer reflection of ultimate value than an analyst's prediction, but you never know. I do know, however, that the Journal's headline is hilariously true:
"Overexaggerated" indeed.
11 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Aug 16, 01:30:00 AM:
Angles of reflection and refraction with the axis of the Sun & Earth in orbit combined make a student serious and wise. The heat from the Sun makes the Earth warmer. In what ways depends on their axis to each other, the angles and weather at point in time.
By , at
Wed Aug 16, 01:58:00 AM:
Just saw your post on Western militarization and had to add:
What will it take. First, you guys need to put down your GI Joes.
Your commander and chief wants to democratize them and you (his supporters) want to militarize us. Great.\
As for 9/11, It was not their smarts that pulled it off. It was incredible stupidity on our side. Just two facts, we knew they wanted to do this exact operation, and we knew they were going to flight schools to learn a part of aviation operation. If the govt. can't deal with that, they may want to have second thoughts about running World War 4 or is it 5. Seems World War 3 or 4, just went into cease fire.
You may also try strategy. Your man removed Saddam who could have easily been convinced to be our anti-Iranian puppet. Instead Boy George will be remembered for giving Iraq to Iran.
What should have happened is Afghanistan should have been leveled; it is still in the questionable column. The Special Ops. community could have spent the next three years assasinating every bin-Laden boy from here to Mecca. You would still have the terrorists quaking in their boots. Instead, George has Syria and Iran laughing at us.
You guys need to get out of your WAR GAME. We really don't need your help. YOu should see what the quality of the regular army is. It is a deadly serious business. Just look what happened to Tillman, and he was a Ranger, a quality force. Lord, we don't need you guys sending bullets over our heads. I know it is exciting to play war. Cheney is having a grand time now that he no longer has his azz anywhere near the front line. No 5 deferments from this war. Let's face it, war is exciting and fun on some levels. It beats making energy policy by a mile for most men.
But boys, this is the real world; your days at the rifle range aint gonna prepare you for the reality, not by a mile.
Put down your arms and get on with your boring lives; that's not an insult. We all have em.
But, if you want to be warriors, Go Fill you tubs with cold water and see if you can sit in it for an hour. If nothing else, use that time to meditate. I bet most of you won't make it 15 minutes.
GroupHug
By , at
Wed Aug 16, 10:30:00 AM:
I remember when Katrina struck, the scientific community was adamantly saying that the increased hurricane activity/severity was NOT simply the result of global warming. It was part of a cycle that's been recorded over the past 150 years. We happened to be at the peak in 2005.
Somehow, however, people (news reports, Al Gore) keep repeating the idea that there are more hurricanes because of global warming.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4276242.stm
By 
ScurvyOaks, at
Wed Aug 16, 10:45:00 AM:
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Wed Aug 16, 11:16:00 AM:
I think the "NOT simply the result of global warming" is correct. It is a combination of things - one of them being global warming.
But I imagine that with cooler waters, some tropical storms might never have made it to hurricane status if the warmer waters didn't feed them. Global warming heats up the waters thereby feeding systems that could have stayed tropical depressions or tropical storms. Why is it outside of reason to think perhaps global warming is increasing the amount of hurricanes?
By , at
Wed Aug 16, 03:37:00 PM:
Global warming has substantially and catastrophically interfered with the normal hurricane cycle. Proof of this lies in the fact - the FACT! - that the number and severity of hurricanes each year has changed or, in some cases, stayed the same. And yet, some continue to refuse to see.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Wed Aug 16, 05:06:00 PM:
Bobby, doesn't everything either change or stay the same? I think those are the only options.
I don't get the Bush thing either, is it a play on bad intel?
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Aug 16, 07:32:00 PM:
I think bobby was being sarcastic.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Wed Aug 16, 08:36:00 PM:
Sorry. Extra dense today.
Fifteen named storms would still be 4-5 above average. I bet we have fewer.
By FrauBudgie, at
Wed Aug 16, 09:13:00 PM:
Obviously, it's the Karl Rove weather machine, patented by Haliburton ... and designed go make Democrats look like they've lost their minds!
By , at
Thu Aug 17, 05:57:00 AM:
Karl Rove's Racist Weather machine is just on hiatus, awaiting the return of the black population to the "Chocolate City" of Nawlins.
Then he'll push the "destroy black people with hurricane" button again to pump out more CO2 into the atmosphere...just you wait.
