We ALREADY HAVE an "inexhaustible supply" of space-based solar power: The SUN. It is powered by hydrogen fusion, it delivers far more energy than we can ever use, and it is clean and reliable.

The ENORMOUS investment proposed to create this elaborate technology will work just as well to create technology to collect the solar energy that is already here. No space-based component is needed.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html

Dr William Gray, ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists, said that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

According to the article, there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.

"We're brainwashing our children"

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html

Sounds like we're well on our way to having the death ray in Sci-fi movies. So are other countries going to be going up there with us? If so, will they eventually send their own platform up there? Then will we be at war over the sun's energy? will we eventually have "No hover zones" over conflicting countries on the planet?

A great idea, especially for remote areas or applications that require mobility. On the other hand, as the article states, the upfront costs are steep, not to mention the high-risk financial nature of such a venture. I think it has a long way to being a viable means of mass-produced electricity.

In the meantime, much research is being done to make photovoltaics not only more efficient, but more easily applied. The newly released November issue of Discover magazine has a short bit about photovoltaics that can be painted onto a surface. Previous studies were only successful with toxic substances like lead, but recent research has shown that it can be done with silicon as well. It involves a mix of carbon nanotubes and carbon "buckyballs" though I don't know any more of the technical details than that.

This configuration is not yet as efficient as conventional solar cells, but is said to have the potential to be far more efficient than the ones we have today. There's still plenty of research to be done, but if its potential is realized, the upfront costs and risk will be much less than that of space-based power. Plus, its ability to be applied anywhere would essentially eliminate the need for a power grid as we know it.

The 5 to 10 MWe system that is discussed would be insignificant from the perspective of meeting the worlds energy demands. However, anybody controlling a system capable of beaming such power to earth would have the equivalent of a death ray.

Military implications would be huge.

Suspect that the cost of such a spaced based system would be totally uneconomical.

What we really need are photovoltiac cells that can produce power for less than 2c a KWH to meet everybodys AC and transporation needs.

Brett-this was my question from earlier from email:
Do scientists who work with "global warming" take into account cloud cover, precipitation, cold fronts, warm fronts, drylines, and surface areas of high pressure- reason i ask is simply because cloud cover DOES have an effect on temperatures RAIN has an effect on temperatures, WARM FRONTS have an effect on temperatures, COLD FRONTS have an effect on temperatures- SURFACE HIGH PRESSURE SYSTEMS not only have an effect on precipitation-which is the reason for the drought but they also do have an effect on temperatures- i mean theres already has been several frost advisorys in the upper midwest and northeast- Little rock Arkansas (close to where i live) was 46 degrees a few nights ago- with the record low at 38, several snow advisorys in colorado. In conclusion- i hope you can respect my opinion- as i respect yours even though i dissagree.

Reply: I believe they would certainly take into account long term cloud cover and precipitation trends. In regards to fronts, drylines and such those are very short term events which a meteorologist looks at in preparing a 3-day forecast or whatever, but not something a climatologist is going to be concentrating on. The things you bring up are very small scale and are one or two day events which just does not have much influence when you compare them to the big picture of climate change. Also, what are you disagreeing with?

Patricks tunnel idea is a better idea than this. All Patrick needs is a good article, clearly explaining the concept, maybe with some pictures, printed here and his idea should be taken just as seriously.
Patricks tunnel idea is cheaper than windmills or solar collectors for the return and sounds just as possible as any idea. The tunnels are designed to cool ocean currents, transfers deep water nutrients and generates power and do not involve billions of billions of dollars to provide just one nation with electricity.
The only draw back seems to be that Patricks idea is low tech and that the technology is within reach of the poorest nations as long as they have access to an ocean.
This plan ignores the pollution involved in the launch of hundreds of space missions to set up the scaffold and the fact that the platforms in stationary orbit will be in daylight just as much as if the platforms were set up on the ground.
It saddens me that these dumb ideas get all the attention while we overlook less expensive alternatives. Is it because there can be no solution unless it can be owned and operated by a single organisation ?

Patrick, would you like to respond to Simon?

If it works..why not? I don't think it matters what side you are on.. you can't argue against finding alternate energy sources..can you?

Old idea, lots of issues. Biggest point was that this was doable with 70s technology and the costs have been dropping. Biggest problem? Not the money, it could be partly financed by selling bonds or stock, I'd bet you'd get a nontrivial amount from space geeks like me. Solutions to all the objections above could be found or already exist.

The one you cannot find a ready solution to is the rabid greenies, including the AGWers. There would be a flood of "reports" tailored to "prove" that the microwaves would do Evil Things (TM) to the earth, environment and (of course) The Children! (TM)

The receiving stations would "destroy" habitats (that are already being "destroyed" by catastrophic ACC), so they couldn't be built. After all, they cannot give up one inch of the tiny area required to safely store radioactive waste generated by a 100% nuclear USA with electric usage growing at the most extravagant rate.

Space launches would "make pollution" so it would be too "rough" on mother gaia (asserted without any cost benefit analysis). Ways to reduce the number of launches required would raise other spurious objections (like using nukes to pat a NEO into orbit for raw materials usage or starting up Von Neumann machines).

Of course, in any great endeavor some would probably die, which would then be paraded about as "martyrs" to our "evil" energy habits. Doesn't matter that they died doing something they believed in. Doesn't matter that green policies butcher people by denying them adequate economic and technological help (DDT anyone?). They will be "martyrs" to "evil".

Of course, this falls into line with using the technological way out, which means I support it. Getting us off fossil fuels is a good thing IMO. After all, reductions in fossil fuel usage will mean cleaner factories in two ways. First by not using polluting sources of fuel and secondly by making power so cheap that chemical methods of neutralizing toxic wastes become economically viable.

Snow machine.

We can argue against anything. What we should be encouraging is saving energy.
Simple low tech solutions can now be employed and should be the focus of any first step. Boring things are being ignored like Insulating new buildings and retrofitting old, saving energy is simple and should be subsidised enforced and ignoring the issue should be punishable. Bans placed on all products that do not meet tougher standards that have not as yet not been introduced will save energy and reduce future demand while encouraging small enterprise to exploit new local markets. Place a tax on imported goods and manufacturing may return to take its place in our economy under our environmental regulations which will save even more pollution
We could save the same amount of energy that a space based solar generator could supply which would make the effort a complete waste of time, but instead demand is growing while we look for new technology to feed inefficient use.
However the original author�s effort was not to develop such a technology, these ideas are just to offer false hope that new inventions may one day solve the problem for us, allowing us to wait while the problem gets worse and business goes on as usual.
Locally a housing development won an environmental award for its suburb, lovely parks and gardens, trees and skinny streets to slow the traffic. This year the suburb had the greatest demand for power. The homes are detached two story warehouse style or Georgian two stories all running industrial reverse cycle air-conditioning chewing through power like it was free. This year they will not have the supply to meet the demand and in summer blackouts makes the homes uninhabitable.
Try the simple solutions fist and if that fails give up.

RICH,

William Grey opinions are OT, but it's great that he has made the following statement.

However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.

Very true! In 10 or 15 years we will look back and realize just how wrong he is.

The ocean current oscillations are all on CO2 steriods right now. It is only human nature to hope that it is just nature. However, the people who have studied this objectively for over 20 years have concluded that the chances of the current warming being due to anything other than human causes is less than 10%.

Can you imagine the added microwave heating added to the already microwave smog we are experiencing now? Do you all understand how much radar broacast energy is used every day just to track space junk for satelite and shuttle launches? Do yall ever contemplate the accumulative effect of billions of watts of radio freaquency energy from TV station, Cell Phone Towers, Radio Station, Police scanners and CB radios and military equipment and instalations has on the water vapour in the atmosphere? Infrared Heat energy is only one part of the light spectrum, the sun and cosmic energy from space also contribute to the heating of the earth quantitatively...Add in artificial clouds of high metalic content and you have a kind of blanket to hold heat to the lower troposphere...these artificial clouds can be steered using microwave/scalerwave directed energy. This Solar Energy from satellites idea is not new and surely ties into death ray technologies. YUK!

I think it would be better to just raise taxes and send the money off to the United Nations.

Real world energy solutions run counter to the underlying goals of many greenies, and one can be certain will be strenuously opposed.

hey, we could save all of that microwave heating by just running an extension cord up to the array to feed the power back down. Guess plans would have to fly around it but that should not be too big of a deal. Right. LOL.

BT: How big of wire would we need for that?

I liked that 'ole sun shade in space idea put forth a bunch of months ago. THAT would fix this "problem".

Simon:

You are right, energy conservation is a good thing no matter which side of the issue you fall on. I agree with it wholeheartedly as a skeptic.

"Simon:
Patricks tunnel idea is a better idea than this. All Patrick needs is a good article, clearly explaining the concept, maybe with some pictures, printed here and his idea should be taken just as seriously.
Patricks tunnel idea is cheaper than windmills or solar collectors for the return and sounds just as possible as any idea. The tunnels are designed to cool ocean currents, transfers deep water nutrients and generates power and do not involve billions of billions of dollars to provide just one nation with electricity.
The only draw back seems to be that Patricks idea is low tech and that the technology is within reach of the poorest nations as long as they have access to an ocean.
This plan ignores the pollution involved in the launch of hundreds of space missions to set up the scaffold and the fact that the platforms in stationary orbit will be in daylight just as much as if the platforms were set up on the ground.
It saddens me that these dumb ideas get all the attention while we overlook less expensive alternatives. Is it because there can be no solution unless it can be owned and operated by a single organisation ?

Patrick, would you like to respond to Simon?"

Simon,
The tunnels will work as long as the Gulfstream still flows. Many think it may slow to a stop in the future as the polar ice melts. It is critical
to start computer modeling the Tunnels now. If we don't, it may be to late for them in the near future. As long as they are in operation and cranking out 3+ million MWs per hour they can power our nation and therefore eliminate the fossil fuel industries "Jack Boot" hold they have on our society. There are 200 + items I have bulleted that the Tunnels can solve all this while REGULATING SSTs between 70 to 90+ degrees if needed. The list is long and so any article written you better have a seat for it will take some time to fully grasp the GOOD for "GODS GOOD EARTH" the Tunnels do.

Nikoli Tesla had solved the energy problem almost a century ago, he had devised electric cars powered by freelectrons collected by copper coils, and other machinery. The corporate leaders of his day were horrified at the thought of free energy and squashed his inventions and he himself. Tesla devised ways of havesting and wireless transmission of electricity and we are still prohibited by the Powers That Be from having access to free energy, zero point energy and various other lovely technologies.

The ocean current oscillations are all on CO2 steriods right now

Andrew,

That explains the FLO (Floyd Landis Oscillation) near France last year.

Andrew: However, the people who have studied this objectively for over 20 years have concluded that the chances of the current warming being due to anything other than human causes is less than 10%.

Reply: Any truly objective look at this will come to Dr. Grey's conclusion. It's those who go into it already believing in AGW that get it wrong. I would say that the chances of the current warming being due to anything other than natural causes is less than 10%.

george n,

You have not a single clue about how microwaves work. Do an internet search. No, be daring, look up and actual engineering paper on the subject of solar power satellites and power transmission methods.

I've decided to run for President on a "keep the Gulf Stream flowing" platform. I understand that worries about the Gulf Stream are right at the top of most young people's concerns. Go to any high school lunchroom in the country and that is all you will hear them talking about any more. It is unconscionable that we ignore this critical problem.

Colorado is suffering again this fall from Global Warming.
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_7183921

Rack up another vote for Jimmy Carter's legacy!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3G5ZRX43C1TXNQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/10/16/wqaeda116.xml

"The ocean current oscillations are all on CO2 steriods right now. It is only human nature to hope that it is just nature. However, the people who have studied this objectively for over 20 years have concluded that the chances of the current warming being due to anything other than human causes is less than 10%."

Andrew,
You make these statements like you are some kind of authority, when, in fact, you merely parrot the party line. Your constant dismissal of anyone who dares to challenge the fait accompli of anthropogenic GW speaks more to your human nature than anything else. The bottom line here is that Dr. Grey is merely the latest in a long line of scientists whose opinions make a mockery of the concept of "settled science" on this issue. There are still far too many components to global climate changes to discern and single out any one particular cause. It is healthy to discuss and argue points, but it serves no purpose to constantly dismiss those whose ideas run counter to our own.

Dr. Grey is a bitter man who has become irrelevant to those in the scientific community, even amongst skeptics such as Dr. Lindzen. He claims the world will cool in ten or fifteen years, but he also said the same thing, oh, fifteen years ago.

Considering that he's busted on this year and last year's hurricane forecast, he should put more focus on his day job and leave climate science to those who actually know something about it.

Perhaps PH can explain why the GS is slowing down at this inconvenient moment in human history. Is it just a reoccurring natural event, coincidence perhaps? Can maritime history show us that in the past the current has slowed down and sped up for no apparent reason?

How important is the speed of the Gulf Stream anyway? Does it have to maintain a certain speed for the momentum to carry its energy forward?
I think its kind of like the flywheel on an old steam engine, but is that too simple?.

Shipping has used the current for centuries so we must have reliable records about its speed, width and reliability.
we should be able to say this happened before, like the droughts hurricanes and heatwaves that deniers claim are all just natural.

Can PH assure us all that its recent declining speed will not continue to slow, perhaps to a stall over the next few years as increasing volumes of fresh water continue to be dumped into its northern turning point ?
PH, what was the salinity level of the north Atlantic in 1995 and what is it now?

15 years ago the Gulf Stream was 30 % faster, so at this rate, by 2027 it will be flowing at 10% of its pre AGW speed which will be about zero miles an hour. What effect will that have on the weather I wonder?

I personally feel the AccuWeatherSage has been intentionally silent on this subject for a long time, and has conveniently overlooked certain information that supports this obvious Accelerated Global Warming reality.

The list in recent years has been impressive, a rise in Global temperatures which heaped ridicule on 1970�s theories of another ice age, a higher frequency of natural disasters resulted in alarmist predictions of severe weather that took out half of New Orleans, melting polar caps and a significant braking of Gulf stream flow now removes any reasonable doubt that global warming has accelerated away from the natural norm.

Therefore something very unnatural is going on. Maybe its AGW, but it no longer matters.

Deniers are frightened of losing grip on scepticism by bringing ocean currents into the debate, by doing so they fear attracting attention to a colossal trigger from this one tipping point that may just usher in a rapid ice age theory this century.

Not to mention triggering volcanic activity with warming seas and global weight redistribution, but that�s Armageddon, which comes just a little later.

The idea of an ice age being triggered by GW is not new, but with so many scientist currently predicting a 4 degree increase in temperatures by 2050 its hard to deliver an statement that says exactly the opposite. What would it take for another ice age to occur PH?

I would say stopping the ocean conveyer that transports warm waters north over half the planets surface, will do the trick. Unfortunately under these circumstances the SH will boil with temperatures not being cooled by the southward journey of deep sea currents surfacing in the Indian Ocean. While at the equator the extra moisture in the air will make monsoons last all year.

Come on PH come out of the closet, you�re a believer, say it loud, say it proud! And Let us launch into delivering an Anthropological Ice Age theory, just as the public is falling for the AGW catastrophe, lets hit them with the real mindblower. You know you want too.

Patrick Tunnel,
you have 1500 words to explain how your Tunnels will work, keep it simple, what are they?, how big, how long, how deep do they go, how many will churn the water enough to make the difference. What would it cost, how far from the coast? How big would a test model have to be???
How much money will you invest?
Cooling the ocean might slow things down by speeding the GS up, but if they are getting attention with space platforms I would chase the energy dollar rather than the save the world from global warming twaddle.

Kamatu, what is your point? I have a fairly good grasp of what microwaves are. I have a broad understanding of electromagnetic pollution as well. If you have an argument with me in what I suggest, have at it, I am all ears. The artificial (man made) radiation (i.e. cell phone and radio and TV and radar broadcasts) make earth one of the brightest objects in the galaxy in terms of those freaquencies. Nikoli Tesla was brilliant and graced us the AC motor, he designed the hydro-power plants at Niagra Falls...he perfected wireless transmision of electricity and his lab was well lighted with wireless gas filled tube lighting. The earth is bathed in huge abundance of energy from space and the sun every seccond, Tesla knew how to tap this "Free Energy". So what is your point?

Simon,

How BIG is a function of how many we need. Computer Models can determin that.They do need to tap into 50 degree water at depth which is about 1000-1200 feet.Even if they were to cost a 100 billion they will save the disaterous results of run away global warming that will far exceed 13 TRILLION dollars by 2050. These Tunnels will also have a return on the investment fairly quick as they produce an enormous amount of KE from the full width of the Gulfstream which is about 40 miles wide and 2000 feet deep at points. The Tunnels move a wall of water about 100 feet deep 20 miles wide at 20+ Mph through a venturi located inside the Tunnels once they are all added up together.How you like those Joules?There is no way I can fund something like this it is way to BIG.My investment here is the concept.I want the scientist to act by computer modeling the idea at some fine university in the states as Frank Marks once told me.

From: "Frank Marks" Frank.Marks@noaa.gov
> To: "Stackgenerator" stackgenerator@cableone.net
> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 2:19 PM
> Subject: Re: TUNNEL IDEA??
>
>
> > Unfortunately there is a dearth of models capable of testing
> such a
> > hypothesis. The operational models are coupled to the ocean in
> a 1-D
> > sense eliminating any advection in the ocean. Research models
> are coming
> > along that could be used to look at 3-D interactions, but they
> are so
> > new I am not sure that you could be sure the results was caused
> by the
> > changes you induce or by other issues the new models have not been
> > tested for yet. The big challenge is the ocean modeling (there
> are some
> > good research ocean models, but the issue of forcing in a
> hurricane > environment is not completely understood yet - spray,
> wave breaking,
> > etc), and then the coupling of it to the atmosphere to get the
> > appropriate feedback. We are working on that for the next
> generation > operational models, but it still a work in progress.
> I think in a few
> > years we may have such a tool ready to test your idea in a
> credible
> > manner.

The Idea involves mixing ocean waters in the Gulfstream using Pascal and Bernoulli principles! The Idea can regulate SSTs anywhere from 72 degrees on up to 90+ degrees if needed! The tunnels basically upwell cooler waters to the surface like a Scoop as Hugh Willoughby once told me long ago! Flow occurs because of the pressure differential between the two openings.Basically, the inlet which I call F1 is > F2 at the tunnel outlet! Pascal says any pressure differential within an enclosed system where energy is conserved a flow will occur! Therefore, Pascal's law can be interpreted as saying that any change in pressure applied at any given point of the fluid is transmitted undiminished throughout the fluid including against the walls. F1 at depth opposes the flow of the gulfstream while F2 near the surface is faced away from the gulfstream causing this pressure differential! I call this the cooling stage of the tunnels as this will mix the warm surface waters with the cool water exiting the tunnel thus cooling them prior to a hurricanes landfall. Only if a storm is forecast to hit our coastlines will this stage be used to weaken the storm! During cooling stage the tunnels remove 26 trillion BTUs from the SSTs per/day. This now cooler layer of water flows at the rate of 120 miles per day to the North in the gulfstream. In just three days the whole East Coast, GOM states, and Mexico can be offered protection from any hurricane that may hit them! There are three tunnel locations one in the Yucatan Channel, near Key West and just offshore in St. Lucie Fla.!

There are two stages for this idea, the one above prior to the emails is just 1/2 the story of the Tunnels! During both stages of operation I have designed them to produce electrical power through a venturi section of the tunnel near the discharge end. All totaled up I have calculated they produce 23 trillion joules of electrical power per /hour during both stages of operation! When not in cooling stage, which is only about 6 % of the time the flow is shunted or bypassed back to the surface where the warm surface water flows through the Tunnels and no cooling occurs!

I know it may sound complex but I hope you can see what I am trying to do with the Tunnels! I think they are the answer to the problem we face with the fossil fuels and Global Warming. Trust me I know it exists I was a control room operator for FPL at the Cutler Ridge Power plant for over 20 years and I am presently in the control room at the Anniston Army Depot in Alabama destroying this countries chemical stockpile of weapons of mass destruction! This is just an idea I came up with when hurricane Andrew rocked my world. It took about five years of thinking everyday. If you have any questions please feel free to get back with me! I also have a blog up about them at Jeff Masters Weatherunderground. If you would like to comment feel free, you are not intruding! Right now I am just having fun with it and kid around a lot. But trust me they are based on sound scientific principle!

My name is Cyclonebuster!

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/cyclonebuster/show.html

Perhaps PH can explain why the GS is slowing down at this inconvenient moment in human history

Spent the last 10 days in the UK. Weather was lovely thanks despite being at the latitude of the Hudson Bay. This forum seems to have been taken over by the hysterical left and I have decided to spend my free time figuring out how to take money away from Chicken Little rather than arguing with him.

I suspect none of you will actually enjoy it when the UN starts dictating your freedoms, or when you can't purchase gas. But keep up the good work. I really enjoyed hearing from Brits how the US is the "world's greatest polluter" and "coalition troops kill 1,000 Iraqis a day." You guys are awesome and you may well succeed at destroying America.

l8r

I'm intrigued by the utter aghast of those running around like chicken little over "global warming" to this idea. This idea has been around for awhile, but the technology is getting to the point where it would be technically feasible to have such a system. There are of course logistical issues such as launch and assembly (the space shuttle system will be retired in 2010 and thus we would have to rely on the Atlas V and Delta IV launchers to orbit components,) but the technology to remotely refuel and repair such an on-orbit system has been recently demonstrated and quite successfully. Legally, there doesn't appear to be an impediment with any treaties or conventions, because such a system would conform with the 'peaceful use of outerspace.' Noted are the paranoid 'death ray' scenerios, but that argument isn't new and really doesn't surprise me.

"Spent the last 10 days in the UK. Weather was lovely thanks despite being at the latitude of the Hudson Bay."

Yes, Patrick, there's this little thing called the Gulf Stream that keeps Europe warmer than other land masses of similar latitude. You might want to study the weather before attempting to learn about the climate.

"I suspect none of you will actually enjoy it when the UN starts dictating your freedoms, or when you can't purchase gas."

The fear-mongering on your end gets old, Patrick.

"I have decided to spend my free time figuring out how to take money away from Chicken Little rather than arguing with him."

Translation: My cherry-picked arguments have been torn apart by those who have more of an understanding of climate th an I do, and those who aren't politically motivated like I am.

I'm sure you'll be back tomorrow. Until then, good day, Patrick!

Mark,

You are again, incorrect with your facts.

You: Considering that he's busted on this year and last year's hurricane forecast, he should put more focus on his day job and leave climate science to those who actually know something about it.

After the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, Professor Gray announced that he was stepping back from the primary authorship of CSU's tropical cyclone probability forecasts.

Why did he step down? The reason was because of the relentless pressure from the special interests, the AGW lobbyists, and his entourage.

They were convinced that the "active" 2005 season was a result of AGW. He disagreed and stepped down after the 2005 season. He knew that historically, there were more hurricanes when the earths overall temperature was cooler.

There were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed. (Mind you that the 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949 were "known" hurricanes. How many were not recorded because they were not seen by satellites? That number could easily be higher.)

The incorrect, HYPED up AGW hurricane forecasts for 2006 & 2007 were grossly exaggerated. This embarrassment forced "them" to decrease the predicted amount of hurricanes for 2 years in a row, making "them" look all the fools, not Dr. Gray. Judging by history and Dr. Gray�s belief, the �bitter man who has become irrelevant to those in the scientific community� was actually...correct. I am sure that he felt vindicated by being correct, not bitter.

I will understand though if you and the hurricane forecasters now have bitter tastes in your mouths.

Forecasting biblically proportionate, apocalyptic-like conclusions based on climate, is simply sciences attempt at being prophetic. Keep trying pipers. The church of environmentalism will not go down without a fight!

Rich,

Dr. Gray co-authors the hurricane forecast with Phil Klotzbach. You can find his forecasts here:

http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/

He "stepped back" from being the lead author, giving that title to Klotzbach, but it's just semantics -- he's still the one who is the brains behind those forecasts.

Two of the most prominent hurricane forecasters, Dr. Gray and Joe Bastardi, both of whom busted two years in a row, are AGW deniers. These "alarming" forecasts aren't even being made by people who believe the scientific consensus on AGW.

When was the last time 2 Cat 5 hurricanes hit land in a row? Looks like Kerry Emanuel is correct in forecasting more powerfull cat 5 hurricanes.

Mark,

You: He "stepped back" from being the lead author, giving that title to Klotzbach, but it's just semantics�

You are correct sir. I apologize. This bite of humble pie was indeed bitter.

Patrick,

You: When was the last time 2 Cat 5 hurricanes hit land in a row?

Good point. I cannot refute history. Although there have been multiple Cat5�s during the same season, these just happened to hit land as Cat 5�s. I encourage you to look into recorded hurricane history. Specifically, look into the mid to late 1600�s, when Captain Henry Morgan sailed the seas. Let me know what you find out about Cat 5 hurricanes during those years.