I don't think Katrina was abnormal, I was just saying that frequency is not the same as intensity. On the whole, the number of Category 1, 2 and 3 storms have fallen slightly, while the number of Categories 4 and 5 storms have climbed dramatically. Let's go back to the 1970s again. Back then, there was an average of about 10 Category 4 and 5 hurricanes a year worldwide. Since the 90s, the annual number has almost doubled to 18. Overall, the big storms have grown from around 20% to about 35%. That's a big increase. So it's the frequency I was speaking of.

Can we be 100% sure that some of this isn't tied to the degree to which we can/do measure things now versus how we did it in the 1970s?

I think corn based ethanol would be a good replacement for gasoline, once it's perfected. Right now, the use of ethanol as a fuel remains financially viable only because of a 51 cents/per gallon tax exemption granted by the Federal Government to refiners who produce a gasoline ethanol blend. Another problem with ethanol right now, is it has to be transported to refining plants by trucks and trains, burning emissions producing hydrocarbons in transit.

Personally, I do think we should make the switch ASAP, even though it's not the end all be all to America's fuel problems, but I think for the time being it would be a temporary fix, at least until it's perfected.

Yes, because it's an average numbers comparison.

Also, if you look at the total number of hurricanes and their power measured by wind speed and duration, it's jumped 50% since the 1970s.

It will take time to get the distribution across the US. Ethanol is a good option for certain areas of the country, not the entire country. Corn ethanol will not catch up to the level of demand--especially for my area. Most folks here sell biodiesel from used frying oil. There are other alternative fuels, like coal, some depleted nuclear materials and plenty of unused wood products.

I agree, there are other alternatives of fuels, like hydrogen. It's in plain sight as we know it. It's everywhere we look, but it's almost always chemically locked in compunds like water, which binds hydrogen together with oxygen, and is sort of tricky to undo. I think our best way right now to get power from hydrogen is by burning oil, coal and natural gas. Their concentrated hydrogen content is what gives them energy in the 1st place. What causes the problems is the actual hydrocarbon.

Running a vehicle on hydrogen without using carbon involves using either hydrogen fuel cells or ordinary engines modified to burn hydrogen.

If you really look at it, this technology isn't really new. Over 100 years ago, the fuel cells combined hydrogen and oxygen, producing heat and water, the heat was used to create electricity, and the water was like a waste product. As in ethanol, fuel cells are still kind of pricey though.

Maybe engineers can retool a vehicle's engine to run on hydrogen. I'm not sure how expensive or complicated this would be though.

All I know is I have heard of the Hindenberg blimp and the way folks drive these days, I would be freaked out if there H2 fuel cells in them...

Well, there are several bonds that when broken will give several levels of energy. From what I remember from chem, is that H2O is an ionic bond with dipole moments on the oxygen. It is H-O--H that has resonance from one H to the other. When protonation occurs due to stronger ions, like salt, the furthest H+ or proton will leave. The only other way to break that bond is through a radical formation either by HOOH or HO(.) or a straight nuclide attack (fission). That is how I understand it, and I could be wrong...

When we use H2CCHOH, in a combustible system, because the m.p. is lower, even due to some level of evaporation, we burn steam. But the octane in gas is what gives us the power generation to put through the cylinders in the engine. Other oil products, besides gas, will still need to be used, such as motor oil, transmission, brake fluid, coolant, etc. Coolant is something else, I think--Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) they smart chemists have probably changed it now...

It sounds dangerous, but if it's perfected I don't think it will be. Yes, this is true to an extent. If we were to use this method right now as we speak, yes, a lot of the additives we currently use in our engines would still have to be used, but that could also possibly change with technology. Hydrogen is a fuel we wouldn't run out of. It's the most abundant element in the universe, and it burns far more cleanly than fossil fuels.

I disagree.

I think the Industrial Revolution has something to do with it. Though it was a great leap forward for mankind, as we began to harness the energy in fossil fuels to power new machinery and generate electricity, the waste matter in the process of doing this helped to trap heat in the planet's atmosphere.

The worst place in FL for a Hurricane to hit is not the panhandle- a storm that causes a surge in Tampa Bay would inundate all of downtown Tampa.
But there is no denying that Global Warming is occuring at a rate that is faster than it would be naturally but the increase is still not substantial.

Someone please explain to me -- if man causes global warming, how come Mars is experiencing global warming as well?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

An alarming article I read!!

That's right!! Unanimous scientific opinions that the world is COOLING!! Of course, this article was written back in 1975 in Scientific American, back when they were telling us that we were going into another ice age.

Just wait a few years, and then lets see what is happening with Mother Earth.

I honestly don't think corn-based ethanol is the answer, and I live in the Midwest and have felt the direct benefit of the current ethanol boom. It is a highly inefficient way to create ethanol and the toll it takes on the natural resources (especially the water table) isn't worth it, IMO. We'd be better off focusing on switchgrass or other forms of cellulose.

I agree. I think that there has to be a better resource available besides corn-based ethanol, perhaps one that our society isn't so dependent upon for a food resource? The price of corn on a bushel basis has gone up significantly over the past few years, great for farmers selling the corn, not so good for consumer looking to buy a product that uses corn as its base. There's also a lot of farmers that are opting to plant corn instead of what they probably should be planting in their respective areas. So the quality of the product may not be as good because the soil where it's being planted may not be right for corn. Like trying to grow peaches in Nebraska, you'd probably just end up with crappy peaches.

Cheerfulgreek as far as your hurricane analogy regarding the present day intesity vs. the 70s. I think your comparison is both a frequency and severity concern. You're seeing stronger storms (severity) more often (frequency). Do I think that they're happening stronger and more often? Yes. Did we luck out in 2006 due to a weather system that was parked over FL and pushed everything back out to sea? Yes. And I'm very thankful for it. As far as last year I didn't watch the hurricane season as closely so I have no idea why there wasn't much activity.

There was a good special on HBO a while back where they talked about all the things that they could be using to make ethanol that we just toss away now. They suggested things like: Having an ethanol production facility next to an orange juice production facility and using the orange peels that get tossed and things like that. I don't get why they're pushing corn so much either. It's not the best thing to be making ethanol from, from everything I've read.

There are many reasons to move to alternative fuels whether Global Warming is really happening or not. Wouldn't it be nice to be less dependent on foreign oil? Wouldn't it be nice to breathe cleaner air? Have asthma rates go down? Eliminate ozone action days?

Wind and solar is where I think we should really be focusing our attention.