Where Have the Hurricanes Gone?

[snoopy369]

Aww, I had hoped that someone renewed this thread to discuss Larry Coker

[Solly]

Originally posted by TCO
Oceans over last 2 years have lost substantial heat content.

Good post. Have our omniscient climatologists discovered an ad-hoc reason for that yet?

[Drake Tungsten]

For Odin...

Here is corresponding data on Atlantic hurricane days. Hurricane days were down 70%, cat 3+ days down 80% and, as of right now, it doesn’t look like there were any cat 4+ days (down 100%).

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=919#comment-68540

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
but why does an El Nino suppress hurricane activity?

High level wind shear inhibits the formation of thunderstorms.

All I know is I'm very happy we didn't have any major storms.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Odin
Mr. McIntyre apparently forgot that El Ninos supress Atlantic hurricane activity and there is an El Nino right now...

This is pretty close to heresy.

[Solly]

During this past Wednesday’s oral argument in the Supreme Court global warming case of Massachusetts v. EPA, a seemingly perplexed Justice Antonin Scalia pointedly asked the Massachusetts assistant attorney general, “When is the predicted cataclysm?�

That’s a question with more than a little irony this week – the end of the much dreaded hurricane (non-)season.

On May 22, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued its “2006 Atlantic Hurricane Outlook,� forecasting an “80 percent chance of an above-normal hurricane season, a 15 percent chance of a near-normal season, and only a 5 percent chance of a below-normal season.� NOAA called for “a very active 2006 season, with 13-16 named storms, 8-10 hurricanes, and 4-6 major hurricanes.�

NOAA based its forecast on “an expected continuation of conditions associated with the multi-decadal signal, which has favored above-normal Atlantic hurricane seasons since 1995. These conditions include considerably warmer that normal sea surface temperatures, lower wind shear, reduced sea level pressure, and a more conducive structure of the African easterly jet [stream].�

And NOAA was quite sure of upcoming calamitous storms. “The main uncertainty in this outlook is not whether the season will be above normal, but how much above normal it will be,� the agency stated in the section of the report entitled, “Uncertainties in the Outlook.�

NOAA’s forecast prompted scary headlines on May 23, including: “Brutal string of hurricanes threatens U.S. once again,� (Globe and Mail, Canada); “Coming hurricane season looks to be another tempestuous one (San Francisco Chronicle); “Hectic hurricane season predicted,� (Charlotte Observer); and “U.S. braced for another battering by storms,� (Financial Times, UK).

Though the predicted storms were slow to develop during the ensuing months, NOAA remained confident of an above-average hurricane season when it issued the “August 2006 Update to Atlantic Hurricane Season Outlook.� NOAA continued to predict a 75 percent chance of an above-average season, a 20 percent chance of a near-normal season and only a 5 percent chance of a below-normal season, including 12-15 named storms, 7-9 hurricanes and 3-4 major hurricanes.

NOAA attributed the slight change in forecast due to three reasons: less conducive atmospheric and oceanic conditions; (2) unexpected change in rainfall patterns; and (3) the absence of upper-atmospheric conditions present during the hyperactive 2003-2005 hurricane seasons.

NOAA has yet to issue its final seasonal summary for 2006, but one thing is clear – NOAA’s predictions for the 2006 hurricane season were way off. During the 2006 hurricane season there were only nine named-storms, five hurricanes, and two major hurricanes – none of which hit the U.S.

According to NOAA’s own classification system, these numbers classify 2006 as a “below-normal� hurricane season – something NOAA gave only a 5 percent chance of happening.

How can so many smart folks be so wrong? What’s the lesson to be learned from NOAA’s big whiff? Could it possibly be that predicting weather and climatic events isn’t so easy?

Consider NOAA’s predictions for the 2006 hurricane season in the context of the manmade global warming hypothesis.

Despite the vast collective expertise of NOAA scientists, immense quantities of atmospheric and oceanic data, and unprecedented computing power, NOAA failed miserably in predicting weather events a mere six months into the future – and reiterated those same ill-conceived predictions at mid-season.

Yet global warming alarmists, including those at NOAA, expect us to unthinkingly buy into their dire forecasts of global warming – predictions that extend 100 years or more into the future. Forecasting global climate change decades into the future can only be described as orders of magnitude more complex than forecasting an imminent, six month-long hurricane season.

And let’s not forget that the mathematical climate models used to forecast future global climate gloom-and-doom don’t come close to matching up with historical climate change. How can we reasonably expect them to be predictors of the future climate change? Is it wise to spend trillions of dollars based on such predictions?

The point here is not that the “below-normal� 2006 hurricane season disproves the global warming hypothesis. It doesn’t any more than the “above-normal� 2005 hurricane season proves the hypothesis.

What the 2006 hurricane season reveals is our – or in this case NOAA’s – susceptibility to producing and relying on wildly wrong climate-related predictions. This failure should humble our rush to try modifying weather through economy-killing greenhouse gas regulation – not embolden it.

linky

[Zkribbler]

During this past Wednesday’s oral argument in the Supreme Court global warming case of Massachusetts v. EPA, a seemingly perplexed Justice Antonin Scalia pointedly asked the Massachusetts assistant attorney general, “When is the predicted cataclysm?�

Correct response:

I don't know. I'll ask the former residents of New Orleans and get back to you.

[Solly]

He was referring to a cataclysm caused by "global warming", as your first quote identifies.

[Zkribbler]

Global warming > more hurricanes > one less New Orleans

[Solly]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Global warming > more hurricanes

What was it Al Gore said, you can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.

[Zkribbler]

I'll use someone else's facts then:

Global Warming and Hurricanes
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

The strongest hurricanes in the present climate may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the earth's climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Most hurricanes do not reach their maximum potential intensity before weakening over land or cooler ocean regions. However, those storms that do approach their upper-limit intensity are expected to be slightly stronger in the warmer climate due to the higher sea surface temperatures.

According to a new simulation study by a group of scientists at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), a 5-12% increase in wind speeds for the strongest hurricanes (typhoons) in the northwest tropical Pacific is projected if tropical sea surfaces warm by a little over 2°C (Figure 1). Recent preliminary findings indicate that these results may apply to the other tropical cyclone basins as well. Such an increase in the upper-limit intensity of hurricanes with global warming was suggested on theoretical grounds a decade ago, but the NOAA investigation is the first to examine the question using a hurricane prediction model that can simulate realistic hurricane structures.

[Solly]

According to a new simulation study...

Really convincing


"A consensus of 125 of the world’s leading tropical cyclone researchers and forecasters says that no firm link can be drawn between human-induced climate change and variations in the intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones."

http://www.wmo.ch/web/arep/press_rel..._statement.pdf (The WMO International Workshop on Tropical Cyclones)

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Doddler

... no firm link can be drawn ...

That's real definitive

[Solly]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


That's real definitive

Yes, given where the quote comes from, it is.

[Zkribbler]

I still think my experts can beat up your experts.

The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) or "NOAA Research" provides the research foundation for understanding the complex systems that support our planet. Working in partnership with other organizational units of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a bureau of the Department of Commerce, NOAA Research provides better forecasts, earlier warnings for natural disasters and a greater understanding of the Earth. Our role is to provide unbiased science to better manage the environment, nationally and globally.

But the point I was trying to make was the Scalia's question implied that Global Warming is going to one day appear as if someone turned on a switch. The effects are already appearing, and they are getting worse.

The real debate is how much should be attributed to greenhouse gasses being churned out by humanity and how much is just a normal weather cycle.