Forecasters predicted an “extremely active” 2013 hurricane season in the Atlantic – and they were right. But so far this year’s tropical storms haven’t lived up to the hype.
Which is a good thing …
As of this writing there have been only five named tropical storms – Andrea, Barry, Chantal, Dorian and Erin – none of which developed into a hurricane. Meanwhile only one of these systems – Andrea – made landfall as a named storm. While five named storms is normal for an active season, typically at least one hurricane would have formed by August 10. By August 28, at least two hurricanes have usually formed.
Hurricane season runs from June 1 to November 30 each year. The peak of the season occurs on September 10. Forecasters say excessive dust in the Sahara has prevented the development of tropical systems, although as forecaster Jeff Masters notes “the Atlantic is capable of getting very active in a hurry.”
Last year there were 19 named storms including 10 hurricanes – two of which were major storms (i.e. category three or stronger). There were 19 named storms in 2011, too, including seven hurricanes – four of which were major storms. In 2010, twelve of the 19 named storms were hurricanes – including five major storms.
South Carolina has seen 23 hurricane landfalls since 1893 – the most infamous being Hurricane Hugo in 1989. Fortunately the state has avoided any direct hits from major storms since then, although there have been several close calls – including Hurricane Irene in 2011.
The Palmetto State made major modifications to its hurricane preparedness efforts under the administration of Mark Sanford – a coastal resident. In addition to allowing for greater involvement from municipal leaders during the emergency response planning stages – Sanford’s administration also introduced new lane reversal plans for our state’s most populated coastal regions. Sanford’s efforts were in response to the 1999 Hurricane Floyd debacle, in which poor planning on the part of former Gov. Jim Hodges’ administration turned the westbound lanes of Interstate 26 into a parking lot.
S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley – whose administration has yet to stare down a major storm – has made her own modifications to the state’s plan. She’s also made a boneheaded comment related to Hurricane Hugo.
So … what’s the deal with the shortage of hurricanes this year? Who knows … although our guess is it will be blamed on global warming. How do we know this? Because no matter what sort of weather pattern the earth is experiencing, global warming is always to blame.
Too many hurricanes? It’s global warming’s fault. Too few? Again … that pesky global warming.
UPDATE: While we’re on the subject of hurricanes check out this excellent piece from Howard Rich on the politics of disaster relief.
Comm(ie)entators are prohibited from using the words “Howard” or “Rich” on this post. I don’t want to hear. I will ban you.
Interesting. Supports the theory that Frank Pytel and Sic Willie are one and the same.
THHHAANK YOU. :) :) :). You are too kind. I feel so humbled. :)
“Pytel” used to appear occasionally.His ubiquitous presence seemed to coincide with the unexplained disapoearance of the formerly hourly visitor,Big T aka Gran Tango.
Yeah, what do they call those these days? Sock puppets?
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
They always say it’s going to be an “active season” and most of the time…it’s just a scare tactic. Weather forecasters get off on the idea of a major storms causing lots of damage. And oh yeah…they’ll find a way to blame global warming. Because “Super Storm” Sandy was purely a result of global warming…
Super Storm Sandy?
BBwwwwahahahahahahahahaha. Not even an H1. What a joke. That dogs tail is busy boy I tell you what. :)
“2013: Where The Hurricanes At?” They are behind the at.
Thank you English teacher CNSYD.
We are just speaking the language of the Bush/ Obama dumbed-down masses, yo.
We old timers had it drilled into our heads back in the day at government-run public schools. Just like the “times” tables.
When TBG gets corrected for ending a sentence with a preposition, he always corrects it by adding “,@$$hole” to the offending sentence.
ie:213, Where the hurricanes at, @$$hole?
Oops. Sorry. TBG doesn’t want to be *disappeared* like BigT/GrandTango and 9″ because of the new kinder gentler FITSNEWS.
Obviously, what TBG meant to post was:
When TBG gets corrected for ending a sentence with a preposition, he always corrects it by adding “,cuz” to the offending sentence.
ie: “2013, Where the hurricanes at, cuz?”
what you talkin bout,big boy?
You haven’t bben posting lately. TBG and some others were concerned whatwith FITSNEWS going all mainstream and national, that they might have Ernst Roehmed you or something…
I thought you was beginning a rap,baby boy
“Where the Hurricanes At, Asshole?”
This is SC, you know.
Perhaps this is the norm in the hinterlands but not in the Holy City.
You need a compass. They are in front of the at.
Don’t you mean,’in my behind’? A big wet hairy hurricane can be good..
Goddammit, Will. You do not post shit suggesting that the ocean is quiet. You’re just inviting a hurricane to make landfall in SC.
Global warming is not the current lingo, it’s global climate change(because the whole “warming” thing is becoming statistically dubious)….because global climate change allows for taxing your ass no matter what the weather patterns happen to be at any given moment:
“It’s raining too much-so we have to tax your ass to study clouds”
“It’s too hot in the Southwest, so we have to tax your ass to study the Sun.”
Etc, et al, you get the point.
Cool, wet summer = CLIMATE CHANGE! (and the Miss Lindsey’s and Obama’s of the world shriek, “WE MUST DO SOMETHING!”
Warm, dry summer = CLIMATE CHANGE! (and the Miss Lindsey’s and Obama’s of the world shriek, “WE MUST DO SOMETHING!”
Cool, dry summer = CLIMATE CHANGE! (and the Miss Lindsey’s and Obama’s of the world shriek, “WE MUST DO SOMETHING!”
It is the ultimate megalomaniacal expression by our rulers that they think even if “climate change” was caused by man that they have the ability to centrally plan it’s reversal.
They can’t even balance a budget…lol…what hubris.
The only hope for man if all this climate change banter has any remote basis in accuracy is his continued technological development until such activities are no longer necessary.
It is only statistically dubious to the anti-science, anti-intellectual dim bulbs on the right. Yes, the same crowd that created “unskewedpolls.com” (hey, how’s Romney’s first term going?) and want to teach creationism in public schools. Maybe you can put the kids in the van and head down to Kentucky to enjoy this:
“PETERSBURG, Ky. — The Kentucky museum where dinosaurs and biblical characters coexist has rolled out new exhibits and attractions — some with no religious message — to try to lure visitors.
The Creation Museum has added a bug exhibit that would fit right in at a natural sciencecenter, an outdoor zip-line course and a display examining whether the dragons of ancient tales were actually dinosaurs.”
Way to tie in people that believe in dinosaurs walking around with man, and the reality that several statistical anomalies have popped up in “global warming” theories aside from the outright manipulation of data recently uncovered by MSM, showing some researchers skewing #’s to perpetuate their grants.
Maybe you can figure out another such equally effective red herring in explaining the change of terminology from “global warming” to “climate change”.
I’m not going to bother explaining why it’s called climate change. A simple google search will suffice. Give it a try.
Speaking of red herrings, these supposed “statistical anomalies” are a fantasy of the right, much like the “outright manipulation” that was exhaustively investigated and found to be nonexistent. But in the echo chamber of the right, the myth lives on. But for a conspiracy crank like you, that’s hardly a surprise. Speaking of that, do you think the moon landing was filmed in a studio in Burbank?
And why wouldn’t I tether together creationism (cough* I mean intelligent design) and climate change denialism? It’s all part of the same anti-science, anti-intellectual ideology of the right.
” But for a conspiracy crank like you, that’s hardly a surprise.”
The last time you leveled that charge at me was when I was sporting a “DHS is Watching” avatar…lol
If your definition of “conspiracy crank” holds to reality I’ll gladly wear the label and call you a truth denier.
I’ll respond to you a bit later with links in regard to global warming research controversy in light of your retard level google skills.
Your posts read like a 16-year’s text message. Lol! Hey, have you found the evidence to prove the US Gov’t was complicit in the OKC bombing?
Can’t wait for the links. I’m guessing Alex Jones has a lot to say about the subject.
“Your posts read like a 16-year’s text message.”
Would you like you edit that so it resembles a complete sentence?
So says…the guy… that hasn’t…a clue…how to use…a comma…”lol.” Will Folks has the same problem with punctuation. Perhaps you’re just another one of his sock puppets.
lol…you have the balls to comment about punctuation in the comment section of a local blog after the abortion of a sentence you just constructed? You are a joke.
You are focusing on punctuation because your ideas have little to no merit at times. (and I’ll grant that is not all the time-which is much more generous than you’d ever do)
“You are focusing on punctuation because your ideas have little to no merit at times. (and I’ll grant that is not all the time-which is much more generous than you’d ever do”
“abortion of a sentence you just constructed”
Are you familiar with irony?
I do enjoy these food fights.
Here’s the best and most balanced run down of the whole debate I’ve seen:
I’m linking page 4 because it’s most relevant. Specifically in relation to the framing of the 97% of scientists “agreeing” that man is causing global climate change.
Now, do I think that there’s a possibility of anthropological global climate change? Yes.
Do I think it’s proven? No.
I think it’s obvious that the earth is warming currently when looked at in a 100 year time span.
More importantly though, it DOES NOT PROVE IT’S BEING CAUSED BY MAN.
It’s a scientific guess based on empirical observation, nothing more.
There was a point of time in which the dominant view among astronomers was that the Sun revolved the Earth, and you were a “crank” if you believed otherwise:
“Despite the near universal acceptance today of the basic heliocentric idea (though not the epicycles or the circular orbits), Copernicus’ theory was originally slow to catch on. Scholars hold that sixty years after the publication of The Revolutions there were only around 15 astronomers espousing Copernicanism in all of Europe, “Thomas Digges and Thomas Hariot in England; Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei in Italy; Diego de Zuniga in Spain; Simon Stevin in the Low Countries; and in Germany, the largest group – Georg Joachim Rheticus, Michael Maestlin, Christoph Rothmann (who may have later recanted), and Johannes Kepler.” Additional possibilities are Englishman William Gilbert, along with Achilles Gasser, Georg Vogelin, Valentin Otto, and Tiedemann Giese.”
Or how about a more recent one? Just 1 year ago 99% of scientists thought it impossible to ever exceed the speed of light. Now there is science showing what has been accepted by the scientific community for some 100 years to be suspect.
More important than all of this though is that I see the “debate” over global climate change as nothing more than a charade to impose more taxes in the name of “fear”(sound familiar? how about all of our undeclared wars for our safety?).
You on the other hand, I suppose, think that regardless of the complete failure of our gov’t to do even the most basic of functions, that this drumming of the “climate change” drums and subsequent taxation that follows is going to allow them to actually reverse it(even if it is caused by humans, which is debatable).
Hell, humans can’t even predict the current weather patterns accurately a week out let alone predict the context of the current warming trend.
lol…I’m sorry…but for one who is so critical of those believe in some sort of god(and I’m an agnostic)…do you realize how silly this belief of yours sounds?(if I’ve accurately described it)
All you’ve done is exchange some fairy land belief in god for a fairly land belief that gov’t is our “savior”. So in essence, you too have your god…it’s just takes a different form.
I offered no solution for climate change. I have no illusions about the lack of political will to do anything. The vote in the US Senate on Kyoto is proof enough. I’m not even sure if they understand the consequences. So yes, you’re assuming a lot without any evidence. Sounds about right.
The little history lesson on pre-Scientific Revolution astronomy, I’ll ignore.
But now we get to my favorite part. THE CONSPIRACY. Cue sinister music.
“More important than all of this though is that I see the “debate” over global climate change as nothing more than a charade to impose more taxes in the name of “fear”(sound familiar? how about all of our undeclared wars for our safety?).”
I’d love to know who is involved in the conspiracy. Certainly, the scientific community. I’m guessing they get a cut in the form of fat research grants. The liberals, too, no doubt. Their intentions are obvious – 47% gots to get paid, right? How about the UN? Or the Bilderbergers? You tell me.
It certainly is funny from the perspective the following:
The receivers of subsidizes(taxpayer money) for:
“Green Energy”(solar power manufacturers for example)
or associated federally subsidized providers of battery’s, cars, etc.
They are all laughing.
I understand the term “conspiracy” is a charged terms with connotations of lunacy, but let’s look at it from a pragmatic perspective(which I know you aren’t interested in doing, but hey, I’ll try anyway):
Here’s one definition of the word:
“The action of plotting or conspiring.”
Every time a law is passed in the Senate for example, that is a result of “conspiracy”. It doesn’t happen without a bunch of people getting together, often times in “secret” and plotting who gets what as a result of their collective vote.
If you are so naive that you believe that conspiracy’s do not exist, let alone abound then I can not help you. Even if the face of outright truth, like gov’t watching all of us…you deny it…so in that you are a “truth denier”.
“The little history lesson on pre-Scientific Revolution astronomy, I’ll ignore.”
Of course you will, as you obviously also ignored the current day example I gave you, because as you said, you “offer no solutions” and well as the obvious in that you offer no answers.
Instead you cheer lead for gov’t control of everyone/everything or why else would you give two shits about the need to convince everyone that man is causing global warming?
I propose to you that the entire issue of “climate change” is yet another vehicle for more taxes. Yes, it’s a “conspiracy”, and not too difficult to surmise why.(money)
Funny, I’m sitting here editing a journal article on desertification in the American West by a soil scientist that’s a friend. In fact, he doesn’t think that climate change is caused by human activity, but is part of a larger trend that began with the end of the last pleistocene period. He even asked if I’d help with a book he’s proposing. I told him I’d be glad to help in editing, but I wasn’t qualified to contribute to the science. In any event, I’ll ask him if he’s heard about the cabal of scientists, politicians and alternative energy companies in on this conspiracy. As a business owner, I’m sure he’ll be interested in these new taxes.
Again, too funny.
lol…that’s right…no groups get together and plan anything…it’s all “spontaneous order”.
Certainly there aren’t any people in related industries benefiting financially from the climate change agenda. Yea.
In fact, I’m sure cap and trade won’t ever come up again either.
Well, I work in the industry so it’s a good bet I’m in on it, too.
Yeah, there’s a whole cottage industry of scientists cooking up bogus evidence on climate change and working to ensure that the financial interests of a few industries are protected. Except you have it exactly backwards. They’re on the payroll of Exxon and the Koch brothers.
“Except you have it exactly backwards. They’re on the payroll of Exxon and the Koch brothers.”
So are you saying it’s true?
My paradigm doesn’t include protection of the Koch’s or anything/anyone else.
Crony capitalism is just that.
I was opposed to loaning money to alternative energy companies in that godforsaken monstrosity they called a stimulus bill, but Congress didn’t ask my opinion on the subject.
But that doesn’t mean there’s a conspiracy afoot as it relates to climate change. Hell, I don’t know enough about the subject to hazard a guess on how to mitigate the effects, but I sure as hell will not be going to Howard Rich or Sarah Palin for answers.
And you should keep an eye on Charles Mann’s defamation case against CEI and National Review. After daring Mann to take them to court, they’re now trying everything to get it settled. He’s having none of it. The “manipulated data” accusation will get its day in court. I know where I got my money and it ain’t Mark Steyn.
“Hell, I don’t know enough about the subject to hazard a guess on how to mitigate the effects, but I sure as hell will not be going to Howard Rich or Sarah Palin for answers.”
Well neither would I, so I hope you aren’t making assumptions.
“But that doesn’t mean there’s a conspiracy afoot as it relates to climate change.”
With all the stimulus dollars floating around and crony capitalists and pols benefiting from such, how could you possibly say there would be no conspiracy’s about?
If anything, if there wasn’t a conspiracy it would be amazing.
“Calling BS” wasn’t me btw…I think you’ve upset someone who has familiarity with the topic, so you now get to enjoy the expansion of your food fight.
Damn mph, you are irritating. I’m editing a paper for “Climatic Change” on hurricanes right now. Why? Because I study this shit for a living. If you want to portray yourself as an academic, what the F are doing as a business owner?
Tell ya what: read
Robbins, M., R.B. Lund, C. Gallagher and Q. Lu (2011). Changepoints in the North Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Record,
Journal of the American Statistical Association, 106, 89-99.
Then come back with blathering comments on statistical anomalies, what’s real, what’s spurrious, and your Arizona soil scientist friend (lol). Then we’ll talk.
Then surely raising taxes on everyone will fix the problem, amiright?
That’s one of the dumber attempts to connect an apple to an orange I’ve seen on this site (and that’s a tall fucking statement, that).
“Global Warming” (especially of the anthropomorphic variety favored by Prius driving granola eaters everywhere) became “climate change” when its “undeniability” flattened out due to the same “hard science” that brought us not only the warming scare, but the very real “coming ice age” scare in the 70’s. You have to be over 35 or so to remember that, but I still remember reading the stories (from many of the same scientific groups, by the way) that talked about the seas freezing, the expanding polar ice caps, and the progressively colder temps we were going to see by that far away date of 2030.
I’m no dim bulb. I just read the science with an open mind. I don’t let any politician, Republican or Democrat read for me. They’re ALL idiots.
What ? and Mike said!
Claiming not to be something generally increases the chances you are. I.E…. I’m not prejudiced, I did not inhale, I never lie, etc.
I’m tying one anti-science position of the right (climate change denialism) to another anti-science position (intelligent design). Seems pretty obvious.
As for this nonsense about there being a scientific consensus in the 1970s that we entering a period of global cooling – um, bullshit. A Time Magazine cover is an anecdote, not real evidence. Here’s the reality:
Another canard of the right. Epistemic closure strikes again.
Sorry, friend, I just can’t debate you tonight. I kinda lumped you into my post above…
Besides, “Epistemic closure?” Seriously? That’s the copout folks throw when they want to be condescending knowitalls. It’s basically “my facts are better than your facts because I say so.” Climate science debate has become politicized to the point that the entire process is tainted. To argue otherwise is pretty tough. No time for rhetoric class tonight, though (although that was one of my favorite undergrad courses). Some other day!
“the very real “coming ice age” scare in the 70’s”
Mike, there is just a slight difference with a media freak-out (e.g. TIme magazine cover re: cooling trend) and peer reviewed science. You do understand the difference; the former is often conjecture while the latter consists of just a bit more than opinion? If so, understand the numbers of peer reviewed papers from 1965-79 concluding global cooling was 7. That in comparison to 44 predicting warming.
Wow, Kelly…thanks – I had no idea about the difference. Oh wait, you were just being condescending and smarmy. Oh, wait…now I’m being smarmy. Sorry about that.
Anyway, let’s not get too far off track from the hurricane predictions (although I admittedly asked for it with the 70’s reference). You will note upon re-reading my comment that I said not a thing about a Time cover. I mentioned scientific groups. You are partially right – there was a “media freak-out” then, just as there is now. Both are banal and lack academic rigor. The likewise tired reference to the 44 to 7 win for the warming team has been proven to lack rigor as well. Those peer-reviewed papers were carefully selected via a process that, according to the authors themselves, eliminated conference sessions, posters, and other forums where both sides of the debate were well represented (and even then the
actual “score was 6 – 12 warming team, with 9 “neutrals”).
Even the Peterson, Connolley, and Fleck analysis from 2008 (also commonly cited to refute claims that cooling was a common scientific prediction in the 70’s) admitted this, and even went as far as to say that the cooling papers should be disregarded because they weren’t cited as often. You do see the circular logic there, I hope.
As what is only recently called “climate change” began to coalesce as the global warming political / scientific movement, guess whose papers got cited? The answer would be the warming papers. Guess whose projects got funded? Popularity and majority do not necessarily equal good science. Examples abound – string theory, travel at above light speed, the existence of neutrinos, and those old standbys from centuries ago, Copernican theory and the flat Earth crowd.
My only point is that there is “science” on both sides. Both sides suffer from an element of political influence, although most fair-minded people can admit that the warming / climate change camp is a bit more “enthusiastic” in their politics. I will stipulate that your side definitely publishes more papers, gets more funding, and is fawned over by the press. I just don’t attribute that to their inherent correctness; I believe it to be a function of the political climate and well-documented left-leaning politics of the academic world (of which I am part).
There’s no time (or inclination on my part, sadly) as I am on the road… presenting some research at a conference. Different science, but the irony amused me. If you have an open mind, read some papers from the “other side.” I do this a good bit and it’s not only a fun mental exercise, but occasionally changes one’s position on things.
The science is there on some “little” ice ages that were totally and wholly decoupled from greenhouse gasses, manmade or natural. There’s good, solid research that can’t get much press (or funding) in the current political climate (pun intended) dealing with ocean churn and temps, especially the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Read up, too, on the Wolf and Sporer Minimums attendant to sunspot cycles. Great stuff.
The earth warms and it cools. Global temps plateaued and cooled from 1945 through the “media freak-out” in the 70’s despite the barely regulated post-war industrial boom pollution. Likewise, we’ve dumped more than 100 billion tons of carbon into our atmosphere in the first decade of this century, yet temps have plateaued again. Some mainstream warming cheerleading groups are even actually starting to shift (albeit only slightly). James Hansen (NASA’s head warming guy and an absolutely ferocious proponent of anthropogenic
theory) is retiring, so it will be interesting to see how that affects their positions. Several key climate groups in Britain and Germany, formerly staying out of the fray or leaning toward warming, are now publishing on the cold records experienced across Europe over the past few years.
In my opinion, not that you asked for it, the most interesting reading out there right now deals with the sunspot cycles, especially a few groups (including NASA) who are publishing on the possibly upcoming “mini-Maunder” event and magnetic weakening that could dramatically lessen sunspot activity over the coming decade. Check it out; fascinating stuff, even if you choose to disregard its relevance to the climate debate (Penn and Livingston of the National Solar Observatory are doing the most interesting work on that, I believe). I also think manmade carbon is a factor, but by far the least important factor in worldwide temperature regulation. Keep in mind that our (manmade) emissions are around 5% (or less) of the total worldwide.
So, I dig science too. I do it for a living (well, in one of my three jobs, anyway). I fully understand the difference between some idiot reporter writing an article on something he Googled that morning and a peer-reviewed paper. I just don’t get all smarmy and start breathing heavily when I disagree with folks.
This thing will play out on its own, and one side or the other will be proven wrong. You think your side will be proven correct; I do not. I actually think the numbers will continue to shift, and the warming/change crowd will shift right along with them because that’s what they’ve done several times in the past decade or so. We’ll just have to see, right? Peace!
Took your advice and piled all the younguns in the Econoline and headed down to Kentucky. Slight problem…we ran into Georgia and Florida and wound up in some place called the Conch Republic…but we ain’t never seen no Kentucky.
It’s called a sand storm. Try reading the news.
And you got to love a guy lamenting the “dumbed-down masses” and then ridiculing climate change. Why listen to the National Academy of Sciences and NASA when you have Howard Rich and James Inhofe? Oh, and how could I almost forget Todd “legitmate rape” Akin that represents the Republicans on the House Science Committee.
Didn’t Haley already ask for Federal Relief Aid because we had too much rain?
Yes. Moron. Freaking Agri dude.
The way for academics, the Dems call scientists, to get a grant is to study what the Dems are pushing and miraculously come up with findings that support the Dems programs. Is it any wonder that their scientists are pushing global climate change, global warming or another mini ice age. Which is it? It really doesn’t matter, no one in the media has the intestinal fortitude to question. And yes, we were all taught in public schools, that used to have discipline, not to end a sentence with a preposition.
The hurricane gurus are always right, for the same reason the little British girl inside my Garmin GPS is always right about my arrival time. She can say that I’m going to be 10 minutes late the whole trip, but when I make that little shortcut at the end she simply adjusts her ETA, and voila! Right every time. Maybe the feds should hire her.
TBG: Hey, Brett….I’d like to switch my bet from “UNDER 58” to “Over 58″…
BP : Dude…It’s the middle of the Third Quarter….and there’s ALREADY 60 points on the scoreboard!!!
TBG: *chuckles* I know! Ain’t it sweet. Just call me the “Bob Sheets of sports gambling”.
Or the Space Cowboy.
Cuz I speak with the Pompatus of Love…..
Mike, you might want to check out The Personalized GPS
Glow Bull warming is just that; bull. Is the Earth getting warmer, maybe. Is mankind’s burning of fossil fuels to blame, doubtful. The Earth goes through cycles, i.e. Ice ages, warming cycles. This year is either an outlier or proof that you can not predict climate change with so few years of observation. Geological time is vast compared to our puny recent observations. We have only been using satellites since the mid 60’s (45 years) that is not much time to make a prediction about global warming.