NOAA Revisits Historic Hurricanes

Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, Hurricane Research Division: NOAA Revisits Historic Hurricanes

Major revisions to the Atlantic basin hurricane database (or HURDAT) have just been completed for the second half of the 19th Century and early 20th Century. HURDAT is the official record of tropical storms and hurricanes for the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea, including those that have made landfall in the United States. This database is utilized for a wide variety of purposes: setting of appropriate building codes for coastal zones, risk assessment for emergency managers, analysis of potential losses for insurance and business interests, intensity forecasting techniques, verification of official and model predictions of track and intensity, seasonal forecasting, and climatic change studies.

Number 3 on the list of highlights:

3. Cycles of hurricane activity: These records reflect the existence of cycles of hurricane activity, rather than trends toward more frequent or stronger hurricanes. In general, the period of the 1850s to the mid-1860s was quiet, the late 1860s through the 1890s were busy and the first decade of the 1900s were quiet. (There were five hurricane seasons with at least 10 hurricanes per year in the active period of the late 1860s to the 1890s and none in the quiet periods.) Earlier work had linked these cycles of busy and quiet hurricane period in the 20th Century to natural changes in Atlantic Ocean temperatures.

In other words, global warming is not having an impact on hurricanes.

Comments

[Sam Carr]

Michael, the case for GW is fairly strong though whether it's due mainly to increasing radiation or whether man is a culprit and can reduce the impact by taking drastic action is not definitive.

However, there has to be real concern about the loss of biodiversity. This is definitely a man made crisis and it's getting worse. The interconnectedness of ecosystems, biodiversity and habitats has been proved. As we lose species after species permanently, we will ruin ecosystems and we will eventually destroy our own habitat. Christians have to get more active and start leading from the front on preseving biodiversity, ecosystems and habitats and stop worrying too much about GW as that seems to be more of a red herring at present.

[Michael W. Kruse]

Surface temp GW seems unquestionable in my mind. As you note the hows and whys are much less clear, as is what (if anything) we should do about it.

While some sources have exaggerated the potential species loss, I fully agree about the interconnectedness of ecosystems, biodiversity and habitats.

"Christians have to get more active and start leading from the front on preseving biodiversity, ecosystems and habitats and stop worrying too much about GW as that seems to be more of a red herring at present."

Bingo! There is also concern about the human habit in developing nations without clean water and cities belching out pollution at toxic levels. One World Bank study I read some time back suggested that pollution per captia increases with income per capita up to about $1,500-3,500(depending on which type of pollution.) Beyond that, income level pollution per capita goes into significant decline. Once people have provided for basic needs they begin to turn their concerns to their environment.

I think the 21st Century challenge is how to bring as many people as possible up above that $3,500 level while conserving our biodiversity and ecosystems. We create more people who can afford to be conservationists.

I think GW hysteria is encouraging policies that will stagnate global economic growth and divert hundreds of billions of dollars into zero environmenal impact efforts and away from efforts that may actually contribute to conservation.

I am all for Christian environmental stewardship!