On Sep 13, 8:53 pm, (Eric Swanson) wrote:
Humberto didn't exist until late Wednesday afternoon, and wasn't even a
tropical storm until almost midday, strengthening from a tropical
depression with 35-mph winds to a hurricane with 85-mph winds in just 18
hours, senior hurricane specialist James Franklin said at the National
Hurricane Center in Miami.

"To put this development in perspective, no tropical cyclone in the
historical record has ever reached this intensity at a faster rate near
landfall. It would be nice to know, someday, why this happened,''
Franklin said.

-----
More at:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5128029.html
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

So now it isn't the strength of the storm or the number of storms but
how quickly they develop that proves global warming. I get it now.

But I'll bet dollars to donuts that when a storm becomes very strong,
that will be proof of global warming. And when a storm is weak, that
will be proof. And when there are a lot of storms in a season, that
will be proof. And when there are no storms, that will be proof. And
when a bird flies into my living room window with a thud, the thud
will be proof of global warming. And when the bird doesn't run into my
window, that will be proof of global warming. And when
___________________ (enter naturally occurring phenomenon) happens,
that will be proof of global warming. And when ___________________
(enter naturally occurring phenomenon) doesn't happen, that will be
proof of global warming.


Anyone getting tired of this infantile and unscientific game yet?