100 years of hurricanes hitting and missing Florida
 

A graphical representation of all hurricanes in the vicinity of Florida
shown year by year from 1916.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...ce=twitter.com

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
My web-site: http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
Posted with Claws: http://www.claws-mail.org/

100 years of hurricanes hitting and missing Florida
 

On Monday, 10 October 2016 17:13:42 UTC+1, Graham P Davis wrote:
A graphical representation of all hurricanes in the vicinity of Florida
shown year by year from 1916.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...ce=twitter.com

The tracks for The UK and Ireland are much more impressive.

100 years of hurricanes hitting and missing Florida
 

On Monday, 10 October 2016 17:13:42 UTC+1, Graham P Davis wrote:
A graphical representation of all hurricanes in the vicinity of Florida
shown year by year from 1916.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...ce=twitter.com

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
My web-site: http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
Posted with Claws: http://www.claws-mail.org/

They say "The 2005 season produced 28 named storms, the most since 1851 and eight more than the second busiest season of 1933." Does that mean there were more in 1851, or was that the year they started counting?

100 years of hurricanes hitting and missing Florida
 

On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 14:48:36 -0700 (PDT)
Alastair wrote:

On Monday, 10 October 2016 17:13:42 UTC+1, Graham P Davis wrote:
A graphical representation of all hurricanes in the vicinity of
Florida shown year by year from 1916.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...ce=twitter.com


They say "The 2005 season produced 28 named storms, the most since
1851 and eight more than the second busiest season of 1933." Does
that mean there were more in 1851, or was that the year they started
counting?

If 1933 is described as 'the 2nd-busiest season' I think that implies
that 1851 was the year that counting started. If 1851 was the busiest
season, 1933 would have been the 3rd-busiest. Of course, it could be
that they meant '2nd-busiest season since 1851' but I don't think we're
meant to read that much into it.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
My web-site: http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
Posted with Claws: http://www.claws-mail.org/

100 years of hurricanes hitting and missing Florida
 

On Tuesday, 11 October 2016 06:36:28 UTC+1, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 14:48:36 -0700 (PDT)
Alastair wrote:

On Monday, 10 October 2016 17:13:42 UTC+1, Graham P Davis wrote:
A graphical representation of all hurricanes in the vicinity of
Florida shown year by year from 1916.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...ce=twitter.com


They say "The 2005 season produced 28 named storms, the most since
1851 and eight more than the second busiest season of 1933." Does
that mean there were more in 1851, or was that the year they started
counting?

If 1933 is described as 'the 2nd-busiest season' I think that implies
that 1851 was the year that counting started. If 1851 was the busiest
season, 1933 would have been the 3rd-busiest. Of course, it could be
that they meant '2nd-busiest season since 1851' but I don't think we're
meant to read that much into it.

Yes, it is just me being a grumpy old man!

It really annoys me when they report that it is the most extreme event since xxxx, when in fact it is the most extreme event since records of those events began.

Its the scientists who do it, and then wonder why no one takes global warming seriously.

100 years of hurricanes hitting and missing Florida
 

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 5:52:23 AM UTC-4, Alastair wrote:

Its the scientists who do it, and then wonder why no one takes global warming seriously.


========

No it's not. Lazaro Gamio is a journalist, as is usually the case; in fact, graphics editor.


Stephen
Indianapolis IN

100 years of hurricanes hitting and missing Florida
 

On Tuesday, 11 October 2016 12:09:30 UTC+1, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 5:52:23 AM UTC-4, Alastair wrote:

Its the scientists who do it, and then wonder why no one takes global warming seriously.


========

No it's not. Lazaro Gamio is a journalist, as is usually the case; in fact, graphics editor.


Stephen
Indianapolis IN

Yes, and he is just repeating what he read in the press release. You don't really believe that journalists write their own stuff if they can help it? Especially graphic editors!

Cheers, Alastair.

100 years of hurricanes hitting and missing Florida
 

Press releases usually aren't written by scientists either. For example, "barbecue summer". But maybe you have a link to the original press release anyway?

Cheers,

Stephen.

100 years of hurricanes hitting and missing Florida
 

On Tuesday, 11 October 2016 22:32:23 UTC+1, wrote:
Press releases usually aren't written by scientists either. For example, "barbecue summer". But maybe you have a link to the original press release anyway?

Cheers,

Stephen.

Nope, but it is not just this case I am complaining about. Every report I can remember of an extreme event seems to include some get out clause explaining that it is not evidence of global warming. Only recently do the scientists occasionally admit that it might be related to climate change. e.g http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...emeevents.html

But it is too late now!

100 years of hurricanes hitting and missing Florida
 

On 11/10/2016 22:55, Alastair wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 October 2016 22:32:23 UTC+1, wrote:
Press releases usually aren't written by scientists either. For example, "barbecue summer". But maybe you have a link to the original press release anyway?

Cheers,

Stephen.

Nope, but it is not just this case I am complaining about. Every report I can remember of an extreme event seems to include some get out clause explaining that it is not evidence of global warming. Only recently do the scientists occasionally admit that it might be related to climate change. e.g http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...emeevents.html

But it is too late now!

What they tend to point out is that a single event cannot ever be said
to have been directly caused by climate change (as if would never have
happened at all without it), which of course you can never prove.

--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl
Snow videos:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3QvmL4UWBmHFMKWiwYm_gg