Study confirms Satellite era increases numbers...

[drezee]

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories200 ... pical.html

[RL3AO]

Not exactly breaking news.

I love these studies that point out the obvious.

[drezee]

Hey everyones been saying it...finally good to be confirmed...

[JonathanBelles]

Interesting timing on this study publication. I think they still need to do more research. I think the missed Ana, but thats because it only lasted at most 4 hours.

[HURAKAN]

Code: Select all

A NOAA-led team of scientists has found that the apparent increase in the number of tropical storms and hurricanes since the late 19th and early 20th centuries is likely attributable to improvements in observational tools and analysis techniques that better detect short-lived storms.

Shouldn't it be late 20th and early 21th centuries???

What techniques were used to detect short lived storms in late 1800s, ships?

[Frank2]

I love these studies that point out the obvious.

I agree - it seems a total waste of money to point out something that's as obvious as saying, "Studies show that coastal residents have an increased chance of experiencing a tropical cyclone during the summer months"...

Quack...

[otowntiger]

Not exactly breaking news.

I love these studies that point out the obvious.

Yeah, its kind of like saying someone sees more leaves on a tree after they get prescriptions eyeglasses. LOL!

[Category 5]

In other news, the earth is round and the sun is hot.

[Frank2]

As they say on the teen shows, "Gee, you think?"

LOL

[artist]

so does this now prove all those studies showing increasing storms due to global warming wrong?

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

so does this now prove all those studies showing increasing storms due to global warming wrong?

Somewhere Al Gore is crying.

[somethingfunny]

so does this now prove all those studies showing increasing storms due to global warming wrong?

Somewhere Al Gore is crying.

Thank you for playing Devil's Advocate. I was afraid I might have to be the one to do it.

It may have been as obvious as gravity to you and me ever since it was first brought up....but some of the most powerful leaders in the world haven't grasped the concept yet and went public saying that global warming caused recent hurricanes. That's why this study was specifically comissioned and published, as was the study suggesting that global warming would increase upper-level shear and actually suppress tropical cyclone formation. Unfortunately, our politicians make statements regarding science without actually practicing the scientific method.

It goes both ways - those AGW proponents will take this study and claim it as proof that all of global warming has been a hoax, which isn't at all true either....it's too bad that the sanity at the middle of the spectrum doesn't ever get respect in the halls of Congress or the talking head boxes of cable news networks.

Gosh I got a bit too political with this one I think. It's late at night so I'm not sure... but if I crossed the lines, moderators please delete this post without hesitation.

[Cleveland Kent Evans]

Thank you for playing Devil's Advocate. I was afraid I might have to be the one to do it.

It may have been as obvious as gravity to you and me ever since it was first brought up....but some of the most powerful leaders in the world haven't grasped the concept yet and went public saying that global warming caused recent hurricanes. That's why this study was specifically comissioned and published, as was the study suggesting that global warming would increase upper-level shear and actually suppress tropical cyclone formation. Unfortunately, our politicians make statements regarding science without actually practicing the scientific method.

It goes both ways - those AGW proponents will take this study and claim it as proof that all of global warming has been a hoax, which isn't at all true either....it's too bad that the sanity at the middle of the spectrum doesn't ever get respect in the halls of Congress or the talking head boxes of cable news networks.

Gosh I got a bit too political with this one I think. It's late at night so I'm not sure... but if I crossed the lines, moderators please delete this post without hesitation.

Good post, but I think in your second paragraph you meant to say "AGW opponents", not "proponents".

[somethingfunny]

I get the feeling that without visible sattelite imagery and ample recon flights this season would be 1/1/1 instead of 5/1/1 right now. Maybe 2/1/1 to be generous to Claudette (which never produced a sustained TS force wind over land), but I doubt anybody would have reported and initiated advisories on short-lived Danny, Erika, or Ana.