Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:45:01 -0000 From: Gary Fritz <fritzxxxnospamrii.com> Subject: Re: Octane ratings.....what's the truth?
"Richard" <rootnospamlhost> wrote: > that would be an easy one: Just change the way you count. > For me, a tropical storm might be something different from your > tropical storm. Quite possible. However, I might point out that the data counting tropical storms comes from the National Hurricane Center, a division of the US National Weather Service. Which is not generally considered a wild-eyed raving algore-ist global-warming fanatic organization. You can find the data used in that chart at http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html. It's possible the criteria used to define "named storms" have changed over time. I can't find a reference for that. However that page also has history for hurricanes and "major" hurricanes. I believe those numbers result from applying the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale to weather records for the last 160 years, which should produce fairly consistent results. The 10-yr average for hurricanes is higher than at any time in the previous 10 years. Moreover the 10-yr average of "major hurricanes" (S-S level 3-5) has been dramatically higher in most of the last 50 years than in the 100 years before that, and it is currently at or near a record high. I will concede that we may be detecting more tropical storms (with current satellite technology) that were previously missed because they never made landfall. But it seems unlikely that major hurricanes could have been missed. They cover enough territory that even 1850's sailing ships would have encountered them. > How and where do you measure your rising sea levels? At high tide? At > low tide? Spring tide? At high winds? No wind? No wind for how long? > Sea levels are not nearly as constant annd predictable as you would > assume, a little wind for a few days make the water rise or fall by > half a meter regularly here. If you think the scientists who did these studies (and there are MANY people reviewing the JASON/TOPEX data) would change their measurement methods in the middle of a study, or ignore obvious factors like tides and winds, and then use that slipshod methodology to publish claims of rising sea levels -- then you do not understand how scientific papers are published and reviewed. The offending scientists would be laughed out of their profession. Information on these studies is available online. You are free to dig into it yourself, or not. If you think there is some kind of liberal conspiracy that's fabricating or altering this data, then you probably won't believe anything you find, but I invite you to go look. Gary
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
