You apparently didn't pick up on what I was saying. Ignore everything else for a moment. The weather bureau(s) have been tracking incoming along the southeastern coast of the U.S. and they have DOCUMENTED increasingly larger and more powerful storms in the past decade or less. Annually! Yes, it's short term, but it seems to have exhibited a shift toward really strong storms. Record busters! Something accounts for that. It's a most definite change for the more powerful storms. What do you do, point at one year of powerful storms, and say, "Gee, that was a beaut." A phenomenon. A statistical anomaly. Then next year rolls around, and lo and behold. . . yet another doozy! Two doesn't make a statistical bump in anything, so it's essentially ignored, right. Means nothing in the long run.
But, somewhere, some meteorologist is saying, "I've been watching this stuff for years and years. This sort of thing is starting to make a trend. Sure, a short baseline, but nothing one wants to ignore. These have been storm-of-the-century style storms! Nothing to make light of! Year after year!" What do you want to do? Wait for the next thousand years to set a long term trend? Then you can say with a great deal more certainty, "Yup! Those were indeed record breaking storms we had at the beginning of the 21st Century!" keith Paul Stenquist wrote: > > In Michigan our weather has been quite mild in recent years. But all > this is irrelevant. The kind of changes we're talking about , whether > their due to man's interaction with the environment or the evolving > planet, happen over thousands of years, not from one year to the next. > > On Friday, December 12, 2003, at 04:36 PM, Keith Whaley wrote: > > > Whatever the truth behind the pending climate changes, we're certainly > > already seeing some fantastic storms coming out of the mid-Atlantic, > > some potentially stronger than any storms on record. > > The next decade is projected to bring a lot of massive East Coast > > storms, with very high winds. > > The weather IS changing and getting more severe, whatever is > > responsible > > for it. > > > > keith whaley > > > > Dag T wrote: > >> > >> På 12. des. 2003 kl. 22.15 skrev Bill D. Casselberry: > >> > >>> Could Man actually produce enough "nasty" greenhouse gases > >>> to stem the impending freeze? If such were the dilemma, we > >>> might soon realize how puny our efforts really are in the > >>> grand scheme of things. > >> > >> Maybe, but the down side is the climate changes if the predictions > >> were > >> wrong. Not just warmer, higher sea level and no polar ice, but also > >> even more wind, storms like nothing we have had before. > >> > >> DagT > >
