Pangloss

Sure, they have data, but if memory serves (from the last time we talked about this) the reason for the 1968 date is the advent of satellite weather observation. Prior to that time they only knew about hurricanes when they came on shore or were otherwise noted. I think we talked about that factor in another discussion recently where some researchers wrote a paper projecting (guessing) at a very large number of hurricanes for those earlier decades, and the problem I had with it is that it was based almost entirely on the number of landstrikes extrapolated into X number of at-sea hurricanes based on the ratio we see in a typical year today. But that number varies widely and the low range would create an impression of vast increase while the high range would create an impression of vast decrease, so is it really meaningful to extrapolate data like that? I suggested at the time that they were just reaching for a paper topic. But those are great links and I appreciate them, and like I said I don't think we can rule out a GW factor either in frequency or in intensity. This is something that needs more study, and living in a hurricane-prone area I'm really glad they're studying this. Even if they don't find a direct GW link it's pretty obvious that GW contributes in various ways, and the research will probably lead to greater understanding of hurricanes, which are one of the most serious natural threats that people face on a regular basis. Incidentally, South Florida is one of those places in the country where the general public takes a serious interest in weather (obviously), and some of the things folks do down here are kinda interesting. For example, every year local media outlets, government entities and stores (like Home Depot and Publix) pass out "tracking maps", and you can use them to note the locations of storms. In a sense it's kinda silly but it's educational and fun for the kids, helping draw their attention to it and put it into a perspective they can understand (so they don't freak out when the adults go bonkers and start filling the bathtubs). Anyway, I've seen some local folks who have kept those charts for decade after decade, and some of them are quite detailed. I know one lady down in Miami who has an accurate chart of every Atlantic and Gulf storm with winds higher than 35 mph going back 30 years! Of course in this computer age may be useless scientifically, since it's already in "official" databases, but I've always thought it was a great example of how you can get the public involved in science, and I wouldn't be surprised if all that data has SOME kind of value. It's almost like amateur astronomy, in a sense, minus the target-monitoring problem (in astronomy it's too many targets, not enough eyes; here it's the opposite).

It's too bad they don't stand in the way of a shopping mall or housing development, then eradication would be a matter of course. ;-)

I see where that fellow in the article states that, but the link I posted doesn't seem to support to that point. It shows the trend to be flat, and the data only goes back to 1968, not because they don't want to look at earlier data but because they apparently don't have any (so we don't know what our grandparents experienced, at least not with any accuracy). You could look at that data and say that there's a spike in the 1990s versus the 1980s, but since 1998 the trend seems more downward. But again that's my understanding of this -- if anybody wants to toss some more data out there, please feel free. I'm not trying to stake out a position here, I'm saying I don't know and the data doesn't seem to support a GW link in either intensity of frequency. BTW, your link seems to directly contradict Sisyphus' point.

I give Zacharia a lot of credit for being fair and objective, but I think he's bending over too far the other way in this case. I agree with the incorrectness of some of the rhetoric coming from the right, but that doesn't mean there's "no scintilla of evidence" that Iran is a danger to the region. And nobody ever said they were a direct military threat to the US, so he is exaggerating on that count.

That could be, though if memory serves the IPCC statement indicating "probability" did include frequency as well as intensity (anybody got a link on this?). I do agree that the "linkage" to frequency may be more of a public perception problem than anything else (though you do seem to hear it a lot). That would make sense given the apparent link to water temps, which could easily be linked to GW. It obviously takes a lot more than hot water to cause the formation of a hurricane -- proper wind conditions, pressure systems, and so forth, all of which are influenced by tons of variables. GW might change prevailing wind directions, but not necessarily in such a manner as to produce more hurricanes (or so I speculate).

I'm not downplaying global warming here, I'm just continuing a discussion I've posted on before about hurricane frequency linkage to global warming. It's something I've been following since our "nasty year" in 2005 (in which both Katrina and Wilma passed directly over my house, and six others came close -- yikes!). The idea behind the linkage seems reasonable enough -- warmer water seems to cause more powerful hurricanes, and water temp in general seems to be a key factor in their formation (as I dimly understand it -- I'm not a meteorologist). And with El Nino back and following that amazing 2005 year, everyone thought that 2006 and 2007 would be bad as well. But 2006 was only average, and 2007 is turning into a complete dud! According to the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies at Florida State University, if the current rate holds out for the rest of the season, 2007 will in fact be the lightest hurricane season since 1977. http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/ (Incidentally, if you do a Google News search on this COAPS thing you won't turn up a single hit on it from a major news outlet. What a shocker, huh? I heard about it on an idiotic right-wing popularist radio dweeb called The Schnitt Show (I think that's the guy's last name) on my way in to work tonight.) The current season is farther below the mean line than the 2005 season was above it, and if I read their chart right, 5 of the last 10 years have produced below-average seasons. If you go back a little farther, though, the average climbs above the mean again. Anyway, it's an interesting bit so I thought I'd pass it along. Hurricane-GW linkage is fast becoming a popular belief, and that should probably not happen at this point, because it seems like the science in this area has a ways to go yet.

Yar! Avast Ye!

Cute. Wouldn't THAT be an interesting event!

Thanks, bloodhound, that was interesting.

Geodude was atomikpsycho, if anyone was wondering. His head went spluey and he spammed this thread at about 11:45 (EST), and Cap'n tossed him out on his derrier. (chuckle)

Why would I infract you, iNow? You stopped attacking him; good for you. You do realize, I hope, that he also earned infractions in this thread (and glancing at the above I see he's about to earn another one). I don't think Geodude is being a troll, I think he's frustrated from banging his head against a wall of facts, truths and (to be blunt) locally-accepted norms. I could join you in calling him out for failing to defend his evidence, or remind him that telling people to google is not productive, but in the end he's going to have to learn the hard way that minds are pretty well set on this issue here, for better or worse. And you guys are doing just fine without my underinformed help. Geodude, IMO the best that GW opponents can really accomplish on a regular basis here at SFN are efforts like those of SkepticLance who can routinely hold his own on the sub-issue of the level of human contribution to GW. That's about it. Whether that's a reflection on a higher truth, or just a local social thing, well, I'm not qualified to say. I defer to those more intelligent and informed on the subject, and I have to say they have a lot of intelligent things to say. You should hear them out rather than storm in here with your own conclusions. It has been my experience that debate is about listening far more than it is about speaking. I have learned a LOT about global warming by listening and paying attention here, even when I was strongly inclined to think another way.

I deleted j-chop's post, iNow, and removed his quote from your post above (I'm letting you know in case you want to change the rest of it).

I don't mean to troll, you just happened to catch me online. Let me just briefly reply to that by saying that if that's true, that it's always subjective and political and no scientific studies have been done, then it seems a bit extreme to suggest that the race should be exterminated. I know from personal example that a normal upbringing can produce a tame household pet of that species. I think your concerns are valid. It just feels "overboard" to me to wipe 'em out. However, the opinions of experts does suggest to me that regulations such as the ones my wife had to comply with are reasonable precautions (insurance policy, special restrictions, breeding rules, etc).

Mod Note: I moved some posts over here from the other thread, but something about it doesn't look right to me, though I'm not sure what it is -- I think the posts got merged into the thread in date order, which throws off the accuracy of some of the replies. This is my first individual posting move so I apologize if I screwed it up, but if you see anything missing just reply and I'll straighten it out if I can (or get some help).

Just for the sake of convenience, I've moved the last four Geodue and iNow responses to one another over to the other thread "Global Warming is Bunk". iNow's last post is now (inow?) #19 in that thread. Here's a convenient link to that thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=99

Just move to the 6th burrough.

Those sound like interesting opinions, but I was looking for something of a more scientific nature. They actually describe things in that treatise that were demonstrably untrue in the specific example I'm familiar with, which suggests that it's again not a matter of geneology but rather training/upbringing. The whole "attack without warning" thing, for example -- if it's demonstrably untrue in specific cases, doesn't that prove that it's not a genetic trait? And even if it IS, doesn't normal training clearly remove that trait even when not specifically intended? In short, I see nothing there that proves that pit bulls, specifically, need to be destroyed, or that any special treatment is required in their upbringing. That's the kind of thing I'm looking for here.

I'm still trying to determine the benefit in continuing to permit televangelists to breed.

It's kinda obvious where it comes from, isn't it? Casters are indicated in the diagram. Sounds like fun.

I totally agree with your point about individual cases not proving wider issues. I'm just concerned that you might be promoting the same flawed approach. 66 > 1, but 66 != a scientifically valid sampling; it may simply reflect 66 cases of breeding dangerous animals. What about the millions of pit bulls during those same 19 years that didn't kill anybody? It's also possible that the perception that pit bulls were bred to be fighting dogs is a misconception -- I've never seen actual evidence supporting that hypothesis. Doesn't mean it's not there, though, and I'd be happy to read over any that might be presented (did I miss that from earlier in the thread? if so I apologize in advance). The fact that more deaths result from pit bull attacks (in itself) doesn't prove that they're more dangerous than other breeds, it just proves that more humans died from pit bull attacks. 66 deaths in 19 years IS "ok" if the reason for the deaths was the specific breeding of the dogs involved in those 66 cases and the result of "ok" is that dogs NOT bred in that manner are not banned.

Awesome observatory, nice work. Do you need much of a cooling-off period when you open the dome? Is that a parking lot behind the dome? What kind of heat waves do you get from that direction? What kind of light pollution do you have to deal with in the area in general? What's your effective horizon like? It looks kinda tight with all those trees.

I think the problem is humans, no dogs. Banning them is ridiculous. Many breeds can be turned vicious. What we need to do is just enforce existing laws better, such as leash laws, breeding regulations, etc. My wife had a pit bull and it never hurt a fly (it's dead of old age now), but she was forced to carry a million-dollar insurance policy and a special license. IMO that's not because the breed is dangerous but because some of its owners are. It did get pretty grouchy near the end of its life, as many dogs sometimes do, but it never attacked anyone. Still every time we took it for a walk people would fear the grouchyness if it appeared, thinking this 17-year-old dog could actually hurt someone. But the real problem when walking it was that other people would fail to use a leash on their own dogs, and this aging dog would get really grouchy around other dogs and bark at them, scaring the hell out of their unattentive owners. If a pit bull is barking, someone's calling the cops, even if the reason for the barking is their own stupidity. It's pretty ridiculous if you ask me.

I'm posting this warning right now: Any personal insults in this thread, regardless of how well couched in seemingly polite rhetoric, will be met with infraction notices and deletions.

Is it illegal where you live?

Ew, that's gross. Ok, that's enough with the personal attacks. If you can't talk civilly to one another we're going to have to shut down the thread. Edit: You know what, in reviewing this thread the infractions list is longer than a call girl's appointment sheet at a "Family Values" convention. Either you people cool it or you're going to find out a whole different kind of "inconvenient truth"! 'Nuff said.