Rapid Climate Change

[The Eagle]

Hi Icicles.

Apart from the scientific theories that the NAD is beginning to shut down the fact that the atlantic has been generally quiet for the last 18 months makes me think that this change might have actually commenced

As you said "who knows for certain" is of course the big question.

All i know is that the answer may well be shown over the next few years. If it does not happen i will be the first to hold my hands up and say that my view was wrong.

If it does happen I will be delighted .........for a while and then its survival of the fittest

[Roger J Smith]

I think there may be some confusion about what I was saying regarding public opinion on global warming. I gather that public opinion in Europe has swung to about 70% or so in favour of the prevailing scientific view that human contributions are probably the main cause of recent warming. Here in Canada I would say it is a lower percentage than that, but the question is so muddy that you get rather vague readings on public opinion depending on the wording of the question. Probably there are some people who don't believe there has been warming at all, because of the high variability of our climate here. We have not any recent winter trend like you have in Europe, where formerly common events have become rare or not observed. In other words, it still gets damned cold here and snows a lot (not in Vancouver, but almost everywhere else). However, a larger proportion believe that there has been some warming, and are not sure why, and tend to be skeptical of the more adamant assertions that claim a largely human source for it. Also some of the numbers are seen as exaggerated. This is probably the view of about 30 or 40 per cent of the population. And the rest, maybe a half, take the Al Gore view of the situation and believe what "The Scientists" tell them. But behind the scenes, quite a few scientists are not that enthused with the AGW theory. It is risky to one's career to say so in public (except in my case, because I was blacklisted years ago for entirely separate reasons, which I sum up as a cantakerous decision to do my own thinking and not recite some creed of opinion which is presented to the public as fact.) Since there are three or four university level researchers who have spoken out against the AGW lobby, I assume but I have no way of knowing that there are others less brave or foolhardy.

The main problem with the theory, as I keep saying, is that it asks us to believe that all observed facts are evidence for the theory, and the paradigm keeps shifting. After major warm spells or heat waves, it's all about the world warming up. After big storms or hurricanes, it's all about cause and effect for storminess. After droughts, it's drought, after wet spells, it's more moisture, and so on. Being a climatologist very familiar with long-term historical records, I take all of this with an enormous grain of salt, especially when computer models are involved, because these can, quite frankly, be programmed to display nasty looking red blobs over the subarctic at a moment's notice, to represent 5-10 C degree warming events that lie (always) just over the horizon. Then these are shown on TV documentaries and people who don't have much of a scientific education assume that this means Albert Einstein was seanced and gave absolute assurances that said computer graphics were exact forecasts of the climate fifty years from now. Meanwhile, we are lucky to get an accurate forecast for the day after tomorrow (not that I need one).

And my final thought is perhaps rather cynical, but if Al Gore and Bill Clinton assure me that something is true, then I tend to assume it is false, because that tends to be the track record. Their bland, almost hypnotic way of speaking about these matters to the American public is creating the same 50-50 split in public opinion in the USA, but as some have said here, this is basically a "problem" that may not even exist, if it does exist we don't know why with any certainty, and if we want to do something about it, we're not really sure if what we've been told will work, will actually do anything at all.

I think a better response would be this -- assume that warming is real, 75% natural and 25% human-related, then assume we're going to face climate shifts of largely unknown details, rising sea levels, and plan around that. I am not in any position to stop the AGW lobby from creating all kinds of political and social initiatives, and I don't really fear the results of it all that much, except that I think personally it will be a huge waste of time and effort, and could result in some economic dislocation that could be avoided, while at the same time nothing is done to plan for rising sea levels, something that will have largely negative impacts and needs to be worked on from the present time with considerable vigour. But I stress that most of this would be happening even if squirrels were the most intelligent beings on the planet (and the way things are going, well ...)

Edited May 28, 2006 by Roger J Smith

[Dawlish]

I think there may be some confusion about what I was saying regarding public opinion on global warming. I gather that public opinion in Europe has swung to about 70% or so in favour of the prevailing scientific view that human contributions are probably the main cause of recent warming. Here in Canada I would say it is a lower percentage than that, but the question is so muddy that you get rather vague readings on public opinion depending on the wording of the question. Probably there are some people who don't believe there has been warming at all, because of the high variability of our climate here. We have not any recent winter trend like you have in Europe, where formerly common events have become rare or not observed. In other words, it still gets damned cold here and snows a lot (not in Vancouver, but almost everywhere else). However, a larger proportion believe that there has been some warming, and are not sure why, and tend to be skeptical of the more adamant assertions that claim a largely human source for it. Also some of the numbers are seen as exaggerated. This is probably the view of about 30 or 40 per cent of the population. And the rest, maybe a half, take the Al Gore view of the situation and believe what "The Scientists" tell them. But behind the scenes, quite a few scientists are not that enthused with the AGW theory. It is risky to one's career to say so in public (except in my case, because I was blacklisted years ago for entirely separate reasons, which I sum up as a cantakerous decision to do my own thinking and not recite some creed of opinion which is presented to the public as fact.) Since there are three or four university level researchers who have spoken out against the AGW lobby, I assume but I have no way of knowing that there are others less brave or foolhardy.

The main problem with the theory, as I keep saying, is that it asks us to believe that all observed facts are evidence for the theory, and the paradigm keeps shifting. After major warm spells or heat waves, it's all about the world warming up. After big storms or hurricanes, it's all about cause and effect for storminess. After droughts, it's drought, after wet spells, it's more moisture, and so on. Being a climatologist very familiar with long-term historical records, I take all of this with an enormous grain of salt, especially when computer models are involved, because these can, quite frankly, be programmed to display nasty looking red blobs over the subarctic at a moment's notice, to represent 5-10 C degree warming events that lie (always) just over the horizon. Then these are shown on TV documentaries and people who don't have much of a scientific education assume that this means Albert Einstein was seanced and gave absolute assurances that said computer graphics were exact forecasts of the climate fifty years from now. Meanwhile, we are lucky to get an accurate forecast for the day after tomorrow (not that I need one).

And my final thought is perhaps rather cynical, but if Al Gore and Bill Clinton assure me that something is true, then I tend to assume it is false, because that tends to be the track record. Their bland, almost hypnotic way of speaking about these matters to the American public is creating the same 50-50 split in public opinion in the USA, but as some have said here, this is basically a "problem" that may not even exist, if it does exist we don't know why with any certainty, and if we want to do something about it, we're not really sure if what we've been told will work, will actually do anything at all.

I think a better response would be this -- assume that warming is real, 75% natural and 25% human-related, then assume we're going to face climate shifts of largely unknown details, rising sea levels, and plan around that. I am not in any position to stop the AGW lobby from creating all kinds of political and social initiatives, and I don't really fear the results of it all that much, except that I think personally it will be a huge waste of time and effort, and could result in some economic dislocation that could be avoided, while at the same time nothing is done to plan for rising sea levels, something that will have largely negative impacts and needs to be worked on from the present time with considerable vigour. But I stress that most of this would be happening even if squirrels were the most intelligent beings on the planet (and the way things are going, well ...)

HI Roger,

I wasn't asking you about public opininion on AGW, I was asking you about your comment that public opinion on GW in Canada, or elsewhere, for that matter, was split 50-50. If you remember, you wrote:

"As for Canada being my new home, well I moved here forty-nine years ago today, so I've lived here 90% of my life. Canadian political opinion on global warming tends to be divided right down the middle as with most other topics, but is more similar to European public opinion than American on most issues."

I don't think Canada's politicians, or Canada's public are split 50-50 on whether GW is happening. I would assert, again, that the vast majority of Canadians, Scientists (including Canadian Scientists) and others in the world agree with the fact that the world is warming. AGW is a completely separate topic and. I'm sure, as a scientist yourself, you would agree must be kept so. There are many overlaps between GW and AGW, of course, but in terms of acceptance, the former is almost universally accepted. The latter's importance is certainly not fully established, I would agree with you there.

Edited May 28, 2006 by Dawlish

[West is Best]

Hi Icicles.

Apart from the scientific theories

Hi John - A theory is no more valid because it has the word 'scientific' in front of it! The NAD theory is just a theory, and personally I think it's a pile of nonsense. Can't pretend otherwise so there's no point my dressing it up - I see no solid evidence for the theory that the NAD would or even could shut down. It's pure guesswork. We've never been here before so no-one knows ... so a theory it conjured up. Conjecture, pure conjecture.

the fact that the atlantic has been generally quiet for the last 18 months

It hasn't John. On a macro scale the 'Atlantic' produced the most active hurricane season on record, and even here in our small neck of the woods April was the most westerly dominated for 30 years, and May will certainly have followed suit when Philip Eden produces his pressure chart analyses. http://www.climate-uk.com/monthly/0604.htm

Edited May 28, 2006 by West is Best

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

But I stress that most of this would be happening even if squirrels were the most intelligent beings on the planet (and the way things are going, well ...)

[Methuselah]

There's one thing that strikes me about this particular debate:

One minute, the 'business as usual' brigade is trying to pretend that global temperature isn't rising (too many thermometers lie within city limits, blah blah blah); then the next they are inventing a raft of purely hypothetical 'other' causes of the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration...It can't be us, it must be - undersea volcanoes; some, as of yet undiscovered, effect from Jupiter, Uranus or the Kuiper belt or whatever???

If we (and thus by association, CO2) CANNOT be the cause of GW, then why the need for ever more speculative surrogates and potential red herrings? Are we really that desperate to exonerate ourselves of blame?

[PersianPaladin]

There's one thing that strikes me about this particular debate:

One minute, the 'business as usual' brigade is trying to pretend that global temperature isn't rising (too many thermometers lie within city limits, blah blah blah); then the next they are inventing a raft of purely hypothetical 'other' causes of the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration...It can't be us, it must be - undersea volcanoes; some, as of yet undiscovered, effect from Jupiter, Uranus or the Kuiper belt or whatever???

If we (and thus by association, CO2) CANNOT be the cause of GW, then why the need for ever more speculative surrogates and potential red herrings? Are we really that desperate to exonerate ourselves of blame?

Good post and a good point.

Humans should not under-estimate the extent of their effect and influence on this planet, just because they have been here in a short time. Hell, look at the USA. Been there a short time, but it's done so much damage to the world on a macrocosmic political level.

[Gray-Wolf]

People live in their own 'Now' and as such can be easily blinded to that that they did not perceive. Our Moors at the back were forests 5,000yrs ago and it was no 'climatic cycle' that was responsible for it's removal and the consequent build up of peat it was us, Homo Sapien Sapien. To be aware that our land, post glaciation, had developed it's deciduous forests, coast to coast, before we (Homo Sapien Sapien) decided to 'alter' things. Now that is in our own neck of the woods so what of mans influence over the rest of the planet? Some jolly wit posted a map of the areas man infests but the map failed to show the areas man has removed from productivity by mis-management (the spread of the Sahara etc.) To paint our influence as small is to do the same for your intellect.

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

It's pure guesswork. We've never been here before so no-one knows ... so a theory it conjured up. Conjecture, pure conjecture.

http://www.climate-uk.com/monthly/0604.htm

Quite true Richard, and this is probably the only thing i'm sceptical about on GW 'effects' and the NAD theory. We havent actually any evidence of either (not from a quantitive research POV), so although I dont think we can deny that the globe is warming, the effects are also 'guess' work as such.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/Correlation/tna.data

Also while I'm here, can I dispel a common myth while I'm here. GW is NOT raising tropical cyclone actvity across the globe. Yes the Atlantic has seen a massive upsurge but overall there has been no rise on planet earth since at least the 80's.

Also, worth pointing out that ever increasing sea temperatures probably won't make a massive difference in terms of raising the strength of hurricanes. Because if you use common sense. If GW warms the seas, it'll also warm the upper temps which are a key part of the strength of a hurricane so actually you'll get no real gain on hurricane strength, or you'd get very little.

Sorry to keep on with this but it would seem that the above statement is becoming increasingly dated as the evidence that AGW IS affecting the frequency and ferrocity of Tropical cyclone activity across the world. Both Penn State university and Mass. Inst. of technology have published research this week which indicates that we had things wrong with our 'understanding' of the AMO and its affects on storm formation. Both M. Mann (assoc. proffessor in meteorology & Geosciences) of Penn State and K. Emanuel (proff of atmospheric sciences) at MIT have apparently studied the record of global sea surface temperatures,Hurricane frequency,aerosol impacts and the 'so called' Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation to find that only the tropical sea surface temps (and not the whole oceanic temp. regime) affects the frequency/strength of Hurricanes and that this was being tempered by the cooling affects of some lower atmospheric pollutants. The Cooling from the 1950's to the 1980's had given the impression that the AMO did affect the number and strength of storms but when this 'cooling period' was removed (1950-1980) the AMO became 'indistinguishable' from the background statistical noise. It would appear the 'man made cooling' between 1950-1980 (anthropogenic production of tropospheric aerosols) gave the impression that it was part of the natural AMO cycle. Better pollution controls since 1980 has led to a resumption in the Tropical sea surface temperature rises. They go on to state that " If the AMO, a regional effect, is not contributing significantly to the increase, then the increase must come from general global warming, which most researchers attribute to human actions"

So it would appear that we were mis-informed as to the function of the AMO in Tropical storm formation and as such any 'historical' records as to frequency/strength of Hurricanes are now becoming outdated as we continue to heat up the globe and radically change the 'playing field'.

I always had a problem with the AMO as I couldn't quite grasp the factors that were driving it (and their infrequency), it makes much more sence to me that it is (the AMO) just part of the imagination of a bod who would 'like ' it to exist. You can find patterns throughout nature but do they have to be more than just a pretty pattern?

[Mr Sleet]

Sorry to keep on with this but it would seem that the above statement is becoming increasingly dated as the evidence that AGW IS affecting the frequency and ferrocity of Tropical cyclone activity across the world. Both Penn State university and Mass. Inst. of technology have published research this week which indicates that we had things wrong with our 'understanding' of the AMO and its affects on storm formation. Both M. Mann (assoc. proffessor in meteorology & Geosciences) of Penn State and K. Emanuel (proff of atmospheric sciences) at MIT have apparently studied the record of global sea surface temperatures,Hurricane frequency,aerosol impacts and the 'so called' Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation to find that only the tropical sea surface temps (and not the whole oceanic temp. regime) affects the frequency/strength of Hurricanes and that this was being tempered by the cooling affects of some lower atmospheric pollutants. The Cooling from the 1950's to the 1980's had given the impression that the AMO did affect the number and strength of storms but when this 'cooling period' was removed (1950-1980) the AMO became 'indistinguishable' from the background statistical noise. It would appear the 'man made cooling' between 1950-1980 (anthropogenic production of tropospheric aerosols) gave the impression that it was part of the natural AMO cycle. Better pollution controls since 1980 has led to a resumption in the Tropical sea surface temperature rises. They go on to state that " If the AMO, a regional effect, is not contributing significantly to the increase, then the increase must come from general global warming, which most researchers attribute to human actions"

So it would appear that we were mis-informed as to the function of the AMO in Tropical storm formation and as such any 'historical' records as to frequency/strength of Hurricanes are now becoming outdated as we continue to heat up the globe and radically change the 'playing field'.

I always had a problem with the AMO as I couldn't quite grasp the factors that were driving it (and their infrequency), it makes much more sence to me that it is (the AMO) just part of the imagination of a bod who would 'like ' it to exist. You can find patterns throughout nature but do they have to be more than just a pretty pattern?

So they had the AMO wrong before - what is to stop them being wrong AGAIN ?

[SNOW-MAN2006]

well i think the topic started by scribbler will answer the question and the answer is that climate change has and always will happen and it is not related to Co2 Gases

SNOW-MAN2006

[Dawlish]

Good point about the research. To say its pushing limits is a massive understatement. As such, to whatever degree, their conclusions are going to be flawed.

Thanks TWS, will check it out.

TBH Im finding it difficult to find a site that isnt biased. There mostly for or against climate change sites. Just one of the reason why the public in confused.

Agreed about the NOAA site. It is American, of course, but it is a repository of information and a collector of data, rather than an opinion former.

Paul

[Gray-Wolf]

So they had the AMO wrong before - what is to stop them being wrong AGAIN ?

Well that has moved things forward now hasn't it Mr Sleet?????

[Mr Sleet]

Well that has moved things forward now hasn't it Mr Sleet?????

It does make me smile when these dependent researchers say we got that wrong before, now we understand it perfectly and this is what will happen...until the next time they say they got it wrong...more research needed is the favourite saying of dependent researchers...what they mean is more paycheques needed

[Dawlish]

It does make me smile when these dependent researchers say we got that wrong before, now we understand it perfectly and this is what will happen...until the next time they say they got it wrong...more research needed is the favourite saying of dependent researchers...what they mean is more paycheques needed

Of course, you don't actually need that research, Mr. Sleet, because you appear to know the answers already!

[Mr Sleet]

Of course, you don't actually need that research, Mr. Sleet, because you appear to know the answers already!

Lose the argument, start slinging insults. The last bastion of the pro -AGW's

[Dawlish]

Lose the argument, start slinging insults. The last bastion of the pro -AGW's

Did you get out of bed on the wrong side? See my reply to your post on the other thread. You have me wrong. I am not "pro-AGW" and these are not insults. However, you certainly appear to have GW and AGW completely confused.

GW is happening. AGW is possible; you must distinguish between the two, for they may not be the same!

Paul

Edited June 2, 2006 by Dawlish

[johnholmes]

to the last 2 posters

As with my comments on the Svalbard item, PLEASE stop chucking insults around.

Sensible positive constructive posts please.

John

[Dawlish]

to the last 2 posters

As with my comments on the Svalbard item, PLEASE stop chucking insults around.

Sensible positive constructive posts please.

John

True John. TY.

I think we have to be clear about what we mean when discussing Global Warming and its causes. This could be causing the misunderstanding, as there is a significant distinction between GW and AGW, which is not being picked up on several of the threads. Sorry if I'm going over old ground.

Global Warming (GW) is simply a temperature increase worldwide. The trend since 1880, when temperature measurements first began to be collated is identifiable, with a slackening from 1950-1975 (ish) and a steeper rise in global temps since. Certainly, the period 1980-the present has seen the steepest rise in temperatures since 1880. I don't think that is in dispute.

Now it could well be argued that this is a short period, or that it may be part of a larger cycle, but presently, no matter which way up you look at the graphs, the world has warmed and all the present evidence shows that the warming has not reversed (last year, worldwide was statistically indistinguishable from the previous record, set in the El Nino year of 1998 - source NOAA). I would argue that the temperature rise, that we know as GW, will never be linear and it is more likely that the rise started well before 1900 and it has accelerated recently.

The scientific argument centres on the causes of this warming trend, of which we are a suspect. Anthropomorphic (from people) Global Warming (AGW) is a possible cause, but there are many others still in the frame and there is a good thread already, on which this topic is being discussed.

To confuse GW and AGW is to muddy the issue dreadfully. When the two are used interchangeably, it is easy to think that GW is not happening, because one believes that humans are not responsible. There the logic breaks down and reason disappears.

Let's keep a clear distinction between the two and let's keep the discussions sensible.

Regards, Paul

[johnholmes]

like the post Dawlish.

I may be an old fool but I was fairly, I repeat fairly, not utterly that is(!), impressed by the temperature curve shown on the first Attenborough programme from the Hadley Institute.

That showed how the earth had warmed up over, I think 150 years, how it MIGHT have been expected to wam up, and then adding the effect of man, or as it was put CO2 emissions, and there the correlation is quite startling to the untrained eye. Yes, as the other thread(Arctic Ice and Svaalbard) mentions they are not identical but the ups and downs are pretty close 'mirrors' on the scale they showed.

I might try and get the full chart from a pal in the Met O to see how it looks close up.

A fascinating subject and full of ifs and buts but the only incontrovertible fact, to me anyway, is that th earth HAS warmed up fairly dramatically in the past 150 years, whatever its cause.

John

Edited June 2, 2006 by johnholmes

[Methuselah]

It does make me smile when these dependent researchers say we got that wrong before, now we understand it perfectly and this is what will happen...until the next time they say they got it wrong...more research needed is the favourite saying of dependent researchers...what they mean is more paycheques needed

And of course there's no vested interest behind anyone's desire to oxhonerate CO2 is there, Mr Sleet?? Are those researchers not also 'dependent' - on the oil companies' paycheques???

But, IMO, who pays whom is not the point here: researchers can be 'independent', i.e. they can follow scientific protocols, irrespective of who's paying their wages...

[kold weather]

Sorry to keep on with this but it would seem that the above statement is becoming increasingly dated as the evidence that AGW IS affecting the frequency and ferrocity of Tropical cyclone activity across the world. Both Penn State university and Mass. Inst. of technology have published research this week which indicates that we had things wrong with our 'understanding' of the AMO and its affects on storm formation. Both M. Mann (assoc. proffessor in meteorology & Geosciences) of Penn State and K. Emanuel (proff of atmospheric sciences) at MIT have apparently studied the record of global sea surface temperatures,Hurricane frequency,aerosol impacts and the 'so called' Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation to find that only the tropical sea surface temps (and not the whole oceanic temp. regime) affects the frequency/strength of Hurricanes and that this was being tempered by the cooling affects of some lower atmospheric pollutants. The Cooling from the 1950's to the 1980's had given the impression that the AMO did affect the number and strength of storms but when this 'cooling period' was removed (1950-1980) the AMO became 'indistinguishable' from the background statistical noise. It would appear the 'man made cooling' between 1950-1980 (anthropogenic production of tropospheric aerosols) gave the impression that it was part of the natural AMO cycle. Better pollution controls since 1980 has led to a resumption in the Tropical sea surface temperature rises. They go on to state that " If the AMO, a regional effect, is not contributing significantly to the increase, then the increase must come from general global warming, which most researchers attribute to human actions"

So it would appear that we were mis-informed as to the function of the AMO in Tropical storm formation and as such any 'historical' records as to frequency/strength of Hurricanes are now becoming outdated as we continue to heat up the globe and radically change the 'playing field'.

I always had a problem with the AMO as I couldn't quite grasp the factors that were driving it (and their infrequency), it makes much more sence to me that it is (the AMO) just part of the imagination of a bod who would 'like ' it to exist. You can find patterns throughout nature but do they have to be more than just a pretty pattern?

Hi Gray-wolf, I need to offer a response as that was a good intresting post.

There is NO evidence that the amount of tropical cyclones are increasing *globally*, yes the atlantic is certainly seeing an increase in TC's but the satilite imformation is very uncertain before 1988 and resolution wasn't great at all in all the other basins so therefore its impossible to tell whether Tc's strength's have also increased.

As for the AMO, well I suppose I can't argue with the experts about what they think, but equally I must also state some studies from K.Emanuel, which states that for every 1F increase in sea temps a hurricane can max its wind speeds by another 2-3mph.

What this really suggests to me is that really SST's don't have that much impact on the tropical cyclone formation, since in the main the tropical region of the atlantic varies from 0.25-1C above average, so prehaps a 5-10mph increase in hurricane strength since the queit period. i hardly think that this is going to be condusive for the sort of massive upturn in tropical actvity we've seen since 1995 and large increase in powerful storms, though it may be a little piece in the puzzle.

Also worth remembering that the SSTA pattern dictateswhere the jet streams lie, which then dictates where the shear is located and therefore whether a system can form there, its really the shear thats the king-pin of TC formation, NOT sst's and as far as we know shear isn't decreasing thanks to GW.

the AMO is affecting those SSTA, which dictates where the jets end up over the atlantic and how strong (Though the Pacific also has a large impact on this I suppose!!!) and where the jet ends up is where shear's highest. The AMO cycles change the general SSTA pattern in the atlantic, by affecting the SSTA distrubution and therefore changing the hotspots for shear, I suppose since 1995 we've seen the tropics out of the way of the main shear and during the cooler cycle of the AMO, more often shear is over the tropics. The key is is the AMO now being drowned out by general GW. I don't personally know, and it'll be at least another 15-30 years before we'll find out. I tend to believe that actually GW won't make to much of a difference to the actual SST disturbtion and places will still be cooler relative to the rest of the sea so I think the same set-up will still be present even if the base is warmer.

That's what I'd think, thats the thing about GW, its far from clear-cut and its what makes for a intresting debate!!!

[Dawlish]

Hi Gray-wolf, I need to offer a response as that was a good intresting post.

There is NO evidence that the amount of tropical cyclones are increasing *globally*, yes the atlantic is certainly seeing an increase in TC's but the satilite imformation is very uncertain before 1988 and resolution wasn't great at all in all the other basins so therefore its impossible to tell whether Tc's strength's have also increased.

As for the AMO, well I suppose I can't argue with the experts about what they think, but equally I must also state some studies from K.Emanuel, which states that for every 1F increase in sea temps a hurricane can max its wind speeds by another 2-3mph.

What this really suggests to me is that really SST's don't have that much impact on the tropical cyclone formation, since in the main the tropical region of the atlantic varies from 0.25-1C above average, so prehaps a 5-10mph increase in hurricane strength since the queit period. i hardly think that this is going to be condusive for the sort of massive upturn in tropical actvity we've seen since 1995 and large increase in powerful storms, though it may be a little piece in the puzzle.

Also worth remembering that the SSTA pattern dictateswhere the jet streams lie, which then dictates where the shear is located and therefore whether a system can form there, its really the shear thats the king-pin of TC formation, NOT sst's and as far as we know shear isn't decreasing thanks to GW.

the AMO is affecting those SSTA, which dictates where the jets end up over the atlantic and how strong (Though the Pacific also has a large impact on this I suppose!!!) and where the jet ends up is where shear's highest. The AMO cycles change the general SSTA pattern in the atlantic, by affecting the SSTA distrubution and therefore changing the hotspots for shear, I suppose since 1995 we've seen the tropics out of the way of the main shear and during the cooler cycle of the AMO, more often shear is over the tropics. The key is is the AMO now being drowned out by general GW. I don't personally know, and it'll be at least another 15-30 years before we'll find out. I tend to believe that actually GW won't make to much of a difference to the actual SST disturbtion and places will still be cooler relative to the rest of the sea so I think the same set-up will still be present even if the base is warmer.

That's what I'd think, thats the thing about GW, its far from clear-cut and its what makes for a intresting debate!!!

Hi Kold/Gray Wolf,

I agree about the link between SST's and the number of Atlantic hurricanes being a weak one, perhaps even an incorrect one. I suspect other factors. Tropical cyclogenesis is far more complex than simply one of increasing the SST, increasing energy input and convection, therefore the number and intensity of Hurricanes will increase. The influence of SST's may have quite a small role to play in this process.

This article by Chris Landsea (a great name for a worker in this field!) can be found on the The Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory's (AOML) site. The AOML is one of the Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) Facilities of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and, in my view, can be trusted.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/G3.html

In summary, Landsea says:

* Modeling and theoretical studies suggest hurricanes will have no major changes in WHERE they form or occur.

* Preliminary analyses hint that globally only small to no change in the NUMBER of hurricanes may occur and that regionally there may be areas that have small increases or small decreases in frequency (on order of +/- 10%).

* The PEAK and AVERAGE INTENSITY of tropical cyclones may increase by about 5% in wind speeds.

* Storm total RAINFALL may also increase on the order of about 5% more precipication.

The link between Atlantic hurricanes and GW is not clear, with the present state of climate modelling.

Regards, Paul

Edited June 3, 2006 by Dawlish

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Kold/Gray Wolf,

I agree about the link between SST's and the number of Atlantic hurricanes being a weak one, perhaps even an incorrect one. I suspect other factors. Tropical cyclogenesis is far more complex than simply one of increasing the SST, increasing energy input and convection, therefore the number and intensity of Hurricanes will increase. The influence of SST's may have quite a small role to play in this process.

This article by Chris Landsea (a great name for a worker in this field!) can be found on the The Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory's (AOML) site. The AOML is one of the Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) Facilities of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and, in my view, can be trusted.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/G3.html

In summary, Landsea says:

* Modeling and theoretical studies suggest hurricanes will have no major changes in WHERE they form or occur.

* Preliminary analyses hint that globally only small to no change in the NUMBER of hurricanes may occur and that regionally there may be areas that have small increases or small decreases in frequency (on order of +/- 10%).

* The PEAK and AVERAGE INTENSITY of tropical cyclones may increase by about 5% in wind speeds.

* Storm total RAINFALL may also increase on the order of about 5% more precipication.

The link between Atlantic hurricanes and GW is not clear, with the present state of climate modelling.

Regards, Paul

Thanks for that Paul, I agree that he believes his 'stuff ' but I will still await this years storms and especially the formation of that Carribean/Cuban warm loop that generated such interest last season. I think the 'key' to increased intensity (and a lot more than 5%) is hidden in that 'feature'. If I see any storm dip its toes in the loop this year then I will not be surprised to see it jump up 2 Cat's overnight (as happened 4 times? last year). I also suspect that we will get the formation of a 'warm loop' off West Africa this year and, if we do, then we may get a few more 'lazy storms' that can't be bothered to cross the Atlantic and will target Nw Africa/the Mediteranean instead.