On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:32:21 -0500, Scott
wrote:

owl wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 10:55:27 -0500, Scott
wrote:


owl wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 06:19:25 GMT, "Steve Bloom"
wrote:



"dan" wrote in message
...


Just an ordinary year. Couldn't be global warming. Nah.

Holy ****, is this going to start happening every year, or even get worse?


I wonder how many cat 4 or 5 hurricanes there have been this late in the
season in prior years.


Two - Mitch (98), and Hattie (61)

http://www.weathermatrix.net/tropical/cat5storms.htm

Interestingly, only 6 of the CAT 5's were in hot August, and 18 were
in September.

Why is that at all interesting? September is the peak hurricane
month -- why shouldn't you expect more strong hurricanes in Sept?
You seem to be implying that SSTs are remarkably warmer in August
than in September. Are you? On what basis?

Scott


Feel better?

Actually, no change. Gonna answer the question?

I found it interesting. You turned it into an assumptive pile-up of
questions. My guess is you figured if you threw enough chum in the
water you could make something out of my observation that was never
there.

(and somehow I think you felt better after your machine-gun set than
after reading my responses)


btw, re-learned a word today: trochoidal. Where's my
super-spirograph? What a great satellite loop of Wilma.

scott

owl wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:32:21 -0500, Scott
wrote:


owl wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 10:55:27 -0500, Scott
wrote:



owl wrote:


On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 06:19:25 GMT, "Steve Bloom"
wrote:




"dan" wrote in message
...



Just an ordinary year. Couldn't be global warming. Nah.

Holy ****, is this going to start happening every year, or even get worse?


I wonder how many cat 4 or 5 hurricanes there have been this late in the
season in prior years.


Two - Mitch (98), and Hattie (61)

http://www.weathermatrix.net/tropical/cat5storms.htm

Interestingly, only 6 of the CAT 5's were in hot August, and 18 were
in September.

Why is that at all interesting? September is the peak hurricane
month -- why shouldn't you expect more strong hurricanes in Sept?
You seem to be implying that SSTs are remarkably warmer in August
than in September. Are you? On what basis?

Scott


Feel better?

Actually, no change. Gonna answer the question?


I found it interesting. You turned it into an assumptive pile-up of
questions. My guess is you figured if you threw enough chum in the
water you could make something out of my observation that was never
there.

So what was there in your observations?

I still don't understand why 6 cat 5s in August vs. 18 in September
is interesting. Please enlighten me.

Scott

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 12:03:49 -0500, Scott
wrote:

owl wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:32:21 -0500, Scott
wrote:


owl wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 10:55:27 -0500, Scott
wrote:



owl wrote:


On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 06:19:25 GMT, "Steve Bloom"
wrote:




"dan" wrote in message
...



Just an ordinary year. Couldn't be global warming. Nah.

Holy ****, is this going to start happening every year, or even get worse?


I wonder how many cat 4 or 5 hurricanes there have been this late in the
season in prior years.


Two - Mitch (98), and Hattie (61)

http://www.weathermatrix.net/tropical/cat5storms.htm

Interestingly, only 6 of the CAT 5's were in hot August, and 18 were
in September.

Why is that at all interesting? September is the peak hurricane
month -- why shouldn't you expect more strong hurricanes in Sept?
You seem to be implying that SSTs are remarkably warmer in August
than in September. Are you? On what basis?

Scott


Feel better?

Actually, no change. Gonna answer the question?


I found it interesting. You turned it into an assumptive pile-up of
questions. My guess is you figured if you threw enough chum in the
water you could make something out of my observation that was never
there.

So what was there in your observations?

I still don't understand why 6 cat 5s in August vs. 18 in September
is interesting. Please enlighten me.

Scott

Not enlightenment, but sure. It struck me that the historical pattern
of recorded CAT5's matched, as you noted, the historical pattern of
hurricane season. This year, not only was there an increase in
intensity, but also an anomaly to the pattern - one each month and new
records of different types. That's why I only noted the CAT 5s
instead of both the 4s and 5s the original request was about.

On your other angle focusing on SSTs, I've already posted a bunch of
times - I'm in the camp that thinks over-emphasis of SSTs is going on
these days (and A4B thinks the SST factor for Wilma is curiously
absent.) I'm also waiting to see the reaction statements from
sceptics like Landsea and Gray. NCAR and NOAA appear to have
different takes on the AGW element in the extreme weather events.

At some point, when all this Wilma excitement blows away, you'll have
to explain the H2-PV system, since I could not find it on the web and I
assume it's not a plan to harness hurricanes for power.

RL

Landsea and Gray are finished.

Hurricanes themselves are vast thermometers. They tell you that the
temperature was 28oC or higher, and it was that hot 50 meters deep or
deeper. Unless both those things are true there are no hurricanes.

This years abundance of cat 5 hurricanes tells us more about the depth
of the heat related to the power, and related to pause over the hot
waters.

From facts of physics considerable forensic reconstruction of old sea
temperatures may be possible.

raylopez99 explain the H2-PV system

Let me guess: PV = photovoltaic, H2 = hydrogen, and - means
electrolysis.

The usual problems with such ideas are that PV panels are $4/watt...
and every other problem flows from that. Maybe NanoSolar has a
breakthrough, but then again, maybe not. Folks have been working
on the PV problem for decades so far, it may be decades before the
cost comes down enough.

It's fundamentally hard to compete economically with pumping oil out
of the ground as a source of energy. Digging coal out of the ground
is cheaper, but that's about it. Schemes which involve changing the
relative costs of coal, oil, and renewables (carbon tax, incentives,
whatever) will involve changing a good chunk of the economic
structure of western civilization.

Question: aside from CO2 reductions, does PV actually do anything to
reduce warming? i.e. would massive PV increase the albedo of the
earth noticeably? Seems unlikely....

And great advance have been made in PV during those decades,
particularly since the 60s. However, it is the process of pursuing PV,
hydrogen and electrocatalytic solutions, that will ultimately save our
pathetic asses. Noboby in their right minds thinks that everything will
be switched over to PV - H2 anytime soon, but pursuing it, as if our
lives depend on it, which they do, will generate the technological
advances and evolutionary and revolutionary scientific results, that
will ultimately clarify the practical solutions to humanity's dire and
very real hydrocarbon combustion problem. PV -H2 is the goal that we
must strive for, not the end. When and if we ever do get there, I can
guarantee there will be some other nasty problem to deal with, that we
can't even imagine right now.

http://webpages.charter.net/lifeform

wrote:
And great advance have been made in PV during those decades,
particularly since the 60s.

Hey Rip Van Winkle. It was in the 60s that EMC was patented. It's in
the public domain now, anybody can do it. In 1986 the NREL patented EMC
for PV MC SoG Si, but that's expired too, and anybody can do it.

Japan is doing it at Sumitomo. See their website.

Germany is doing it at Seimens. Too bad you slept through it all.

China has the NREL webpages on EMC posted on one of their National
Laboratories websites. Too bad you're not as smart as a chinaman, eh?


However, it is the process of pursuing PV,
hydrogen and electrocatalytic solutions, that will ultimately save our
pathetic asses. Noboby in their right minds thinks that everything will
be switched over to PV - H2 anytime soon,

ONE PV farm 0.8 acres in size will generate the 36KWs needed to run one
EMC furnace. It takes 32 regular days to get enough sunlight to produce
another 0.8 acres of PV crystal ingots for waferstock. Economic payback
comes at 80 days.

2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2=4096. One year of doubling capacity produces
4096 PV energy farms of 0.8 acreas each (every 32 days it doubles).
That's 17 gigawatts on four square miles of desert land or even midwest
farmland.

The whole transition to H2-PV will be finished in 10 years, dolt.

I think I have to agree with Iain on this one guys. He's right; you're
dreaming.