biffvernon

Seems to be cat 5 now, with China landfall just south of Shanghai from where a lot of people are being evacuated.

Quite different geographies. Arctic is almost landlocked ocean, Antarctic is ocean surrounding landmass. Antarctic sea ice is very variable in extent from year to year and the slight increase in recent years is hardly statistically significant. Global warming may increase snowfall on the developing Antarctic sea ice adding to thickness so expansion of ice is to be expected. There's very little snowfall in the Arctic 'desert' More info on this at NSIDC

How many Pacific typhoons have there been this year? Is it normal?

So hot air rises. Glad we've got that clear.

Just read the Open Mind blog at http://tamino.wordpress.com/. He puts it all quite neatly.

Oh and if anyone has been foolish enought to waste their time actually reading the Daily Mail article, you'd better read this piece by Fergus Brown as well http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/uns...t-air/#more-369

B) Nah, I was kidding. I've known for decades that the Daily Mail is rubbish . And I've known that AGW is true since I first studied meteorology in the early 1970's. Of course there will be loads of folk who deny it, just as there are loads of folk who deny evolution etc. etc. but that doesn't alter the science. Eli makes an interesting observation in his latest post on the Rabett Run

I have long held to the theory that the Daily Mail is rubbish. Now I have the proof.

When? When have we seen the combination of events that Geraint Vaughan descibes. And not just in Britain. A hurricane in the Arabian Sea. Record hurricane activity in the Pacific. Unusual monsoons. Two cat 5 Atlantic storms in a row. Less ice than ever in the Arctic. Seems to me Vaughan is right on the button. It's the only way to study weather and climate. That's why I think it strange that so many contrarians, deniers and skepics use this forum. Maybe their home met stations are dominated by a piece of seaweed.

We don't know who you listened to at uni, SF, and they were clearly talking nonsense, but that has no bearing on the future. Certainly no-one I know in the Peak Oil community said that that North Sea oil would run out in 2000. Of course higher prices leads to demand destruction, perhaps to the extent of global economic recession. How much of the current jitters in the money markets can be related to high energy prices is up for debate, but it is likely that the relationship between economic problems and geology will go unrecognised with people blaming all sorts of intermediate causes. The idea that high energy prices make previously 'uneconomic reserves more economic' has to be seen in the light of the 'Law of Receeding Horizons'. The cost of everything involving energy, rises when energy prices rise. So an energy project that looked too expensive whaen energy was cheap remains too expensive when the energy price rises. The costs of steel and rubber and concrete and transport and labour are all found to have risen. For a perceptive treatment of this topic see Chris Nelder's piece, Tar Sands: The Oil Junkie's Last Fix on The Oil Drum

Isn't it strange that how folk who have no conception of thinking scientifically, contribute to a weather forum. Ho hum.

Coal will ‘last for a while yet’ but it is a widely held misconception that there is a great deal left. Peak Coal will follow hard on the heals of Peak Oil and Peak Gas. Perhaps more important than total recoverable resources is the rate of production possible. Coal to liquid will certainly not meet the oil shortfall. Of course climate modellers are not stupid but the IPPC scenarios that assume Business as Usual do not take into account the realities of fossil fuel production rates. We will not have BAU. I don’t hear the ‘Peak Oil is soon so we don’t have to worry about emissions’ argument amongst the more serious peak oilers. What is apparent is that that the likelihood of beating the oil depletion curve is remote. Thus one person’s noble act to deny himself air travel will have no effect on climate change – the oil saved will be used elsewhere in the global economy. All the oil will be used just as fast as it can be sucked out of the ground. If we are to limit CO2 emissions we must concentrate on reducing electricity demand and hence avoid the need for coal, most coal being used for electricity generation.

Actually conventional crude oil peaked in May 2005, and total liquids reached a maximum production rate of 86 million barrels per day in July 2006. With the decline of the easy oil, the production plateau is now being maintained by more heavy crudes, deep water sources and the oil shale and tar sands. For an up to date analysis see Oilwatch monthly - August 2007

Time to head out for ASPO6

Stratus Ferric, your veiws about oil, gas and coal do not fit reality. A good place to start learning about the subject is The Oil Drum.

That's not a very scientific approach to the sciences of meteorology and climatology.

Very well put, P3.

Those pics are truely awesome!

Still in the 'cool' water. It's a degree warmer past Jamaica and two degrees warmer the other side of Yukatan.

Ha! And 1921 was closer to the next interstadial. Mine was, of course, a rhetorical question.

Why do some folk like to point out that 1934 was the warmest in USA without at the same time reminding us that 1917 was the coldest?

Sepat has already caused a lot of flooding in th e Phillipenes, and it will bring a great deal of rain to an already wet mainland China, never mind the damage it will do to Taiwan.

14th August 1979. Looks like it's going to be exactly 28 years to the day since the Fasnet Race met stormy waters. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/s...000/3886877.stm

Is it usual for storms to form quite so thick and fast in the Western Pacific? 06W, Papbuk and Wutip currently forming a disorderly queue.