Interesting Article About Hurricanes

[tugmistress]

What a difference one year makes. With the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina's landfall (August 29, 2005) rapidly approaching, who would have predicted that we would now be in the middle of a near-normal Atlantic hurricane season? Weren't the global warming pundits' predictions for this hurricane season that it would be just as bad -- maybe even worse! -- than last year?

the rest of it here...

Article

[johnholmes]

interesting article Paula. I'm sure our hurricane pundits will have comments to make on it.

John

[parmenides3]

I think this response was inevitable, given the cynicism in the US media about GW.

There are interesting write-ups on the ocean cooling paper mentioned on Climate Science and Realclimate.

Interesting SSTA map. This is the one on NOAA at the moment; strange how different it looks, don't you think?

P

Edit; sorry, couldn't get it to load! :blush:

Edited August 21, 2006 by parmenides3

[SnowBear]

A very interesting article indeed.

When we think on it, last year, a record year for hurricanes/storms (going by our meagre records anyway which is not even complete up to 100 years), a terrific amount of heat, water vapour and energy was used in those storms over a very long storm season, which, transfered that heat and energy into higher lattitudes. So by rights, we are seeing what should be expected in many ways?

Cooler lower lattitude sea temps this year, but warmer nearer the North Pole we get, both being the residual effect of the large heat/energy transference last year.

Will be very interesting to see what happens in the next say 5 years.

The function of hurricanes becomes apparent when we view what is happening this year and the events of last year, they are regulators, and as such those systems must not be tampered with, as was attempted some years ago to ( hopelessly I might add) alter the track, or lessen the force of these storms.

[kold weather]

I personally believe that the lower SST's (though they are still ABOVE average for the time of year!) is purely down to the El nino type pattern that is present in the Pacific and as I've said before, while we have not got an offical El nino, its as good as being one right now and El nino tends to both cool the Atlantic and also create a stronger sub-tropical jet which causes shear over the tropics.

As for this season, plenty of time to ramp up yet, only will take a fairly active September and once again we'd looking at a season with 13-15 tropical storms. It's just that in terms of hurricanes its been a touch slow thats all.

Intresting article and proves that there is still a long way to go before we can accuratly forecast long range but I think its evident that thid year was gonig to be no 2005 and all we had was hype. It's the same as when we have a cold November last year people were claiming it'll be another 1963 when it is clear that it won't be.

Remember....2005 was a huge freak...with a return rate of about once every 70-100 years presently. This season, this is the way it should be!

Edited August 21, 2006 by kold weather

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Nice article and good subject...just when some folk thought AGW was in the bag! :blush: Just goes to show...so much still to learn and understand!

KW I really cannot see this hurricane season now being anything other than average at best.

BFTP

[parmenides3]

Nice article and good subject...just when some folk thought AGW was in the bag! :blush: Just goes to show...so much still to learn and understand!

KW I really cannot see this hurricane season now being anything other than average at best.

BFTP

Oh, Blast!

P

[kold weather]

I'm not quite sure about that Blast, we are still on par with the 2001 seaason that at this point also only had 3 systems and they were all tropical storms and not hurricanes. Infact we didn't get a hurricane till the 9th of September.

That season ended up with 15 tropical storms, quite abit above average of 10-11 tropical storms.

Then there was the 1998 season which also had the El Nino, only had 3 systems, though we did have a hurricane at this point, with the 4th system forming on the 24th...that season ended up with 14 storms as well as hurricane Mitch.

Also one other thing, the actvity on a season isn't only based on the numbers but on a thing called ACE which is a far more effective way of seeing how active a season is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulated_cyclone_energy

you can clearly see that while the 2001 season had 1 more system it was way less active in the bottom 1/3rd, however the 1998 was ranked 7th out of 55.

[parmenides3]

Weren't the global warming pundits' predictions for this hurricane season that it would be just as bad -- maybe even worse! -- than last year?

Don't blame 'the GW pundits'; the active season was NOAA's idea. No GW pundit worth her/his salt will accept that last year's hurricane season was a GW phenomenon, just as any season, it stands on its own. GW is about trends, not regional interannual variations, (this is Pielke's objection to IPCC, by the way). GW models predict an increasing likelihood of extreme weather; there's plenty of that in India & China, S. Africa, Australia... though GW specialists wouldn't accept that as evidence, either. It does not pretend to act as a seasonal predictor of weather. This is a very familiar, often media-based, often US-based non-sequitur; it proves nothing about GW, AGW or climate models. Sorry.

:blush: P

[johnholmes]

I'm not quite sure about that Blast, we are still on par with the 2001 seaason that at this point also only had 3 systems and they were all tropical storms and not hurricanes. Infact we didn't get a hurricane till the 9th of September.

That season ended up with 15 tropical storms, quite abit above average of 10-11 tropical storms.

Then there was the 1998 season which also had the El Nino, only had 3 systems, though we did have a hurricane at this point, with the 4th system forming on the 24th...that season ended up with 14 storms as well as hurricane Mitch.

Also one other thing, the actvity on a season isn't only based on the numbers but on a thing called ACE which is a far more effective way of seeing how active a season is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulated_cyclone_energy

you can clearly see that while the 2001 season had 1 more system it was way less active in the bottom 1/3rd, however the 1998 was ranked 7th out of 55.

nice post Kold, sets things out nice and clearly. This next sentence is a compliment even if it may not sound it! I

am constantly amazed at your depth of knowledge on this item in particular.

John

[Devonian]

Don't blame 'the GW pundits'; the active season was NOAA's idea. No GW pundit worth her/his salt will accept that last year's hurricane season was a GW phenomenon, just as any season, it stands on its own. GW is about trends, not regional interannual variations, (this is Pielke's objection to IPCC, by the way). GW models predict an increasing likelihood of extreme weather; there's plenty of that in India & China, S. Africa, Australia... though GW specialists wouldn't accept that as evidence, either. It does not pretend to act as a seasonal predictor of weather. This is a very familiar, often media-based, often US-based non-sequitur; it proves nothing about GW, AGW or climate models. Sorry.

:blush: P

Good, the above is pretty much the post I don't now have to write.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

KW

You cannot compare 1998 to this year...that was a serious EL NINO event, currently we are still neutral? No correlation there IMO. I cannot see where the energy would come from to make this year anymore than average...just my opinion and no doubt time will tell and I ease away from this topic to your superior knowledge in this field and watch developments with interest.

P of course my tongue was firmly in cheek :blush:

BFTP

Edited August 21, 2006 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[kold weather]

You may well be right about that Blast, all I was pointing out is that we are still early enough int othe peak to see a massive upsurge in actvity that could well take us to 12-13 storms which would be above average and is how many storms i think that we can expect this season if El nino doesn't really kick in until after the season.

The only thing I'd say about that 1998 El nino is thats even more amazing that we had that strong El nino just really getting going at that point yet the 1998 still had 14 storms!!!

Most strong El nino hurricane seasons only have between 4-8 storms in general!

[parmenides3]

Good, the above is pretty much the post I don't now have to write.

:blush:

Like John, I'm impressed by KW's encyclopaedic knowledge; one of several good 'teachers' on NW. Thanks, Kold.

My guess would be that the Pacific ACEs are going to be pretty high already, and that the Atlantic still has time - following the other threads - to pick up plenty, such as the nice pattern coming off Africa at the moment.

P

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

You may well be right about that Blast, all I was pointing out is that we are still early enough int othe peak to see a massive upsurge in actvity that could well take us to 12-13 storms which would be above average and is how many storms i think that we can expect this season if El nino doesn't really kick in until after the season.

The only thing I'd say about that 1998 El nino is thats even more amazing that we had that strong El nino just really getting going at that point yet the 1998 still had 14 storms!!!

Most strong El nino hurricane seasons only have between 4-8 storms in general!

KW

Yes it is still early enough and as a betting man I would back your forecast than mine, I throwing in my thoughts for what they may be worth :blush:

regards

BFTP

[Devonian]

See post #85 of this RealClimate thread for an interesting comment by Judith Curry on this hurricane season in the NH. It's nowhere near over yet.

[kold weather]

Also Blast, TD4 has just formed, which is nearly the exact same time as the 2001 season and also a touch ahead of 1998.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Also Blast, TD4 has just formed, which is nearly the exact same time as the 2001 season and also a touch ahead of 1998.

KW

We'll keep watching. By the way can you update folk like me on the track of remnants...I believe that they will hug the eastern seaboard.

BFTP

[Stratos Ferric]

Don't blame 'the GW pundits'; the active season was NOAA's idea. No GW pundit worth her/his salt will accept that last year's hurricane season was a GW phenomenon, just as any season, it stands on its own. GW is about trends, not regional interannual variations, (this is Pielke's objection to IPCC, by the way). GW models predict an increasing likelihood of extreme weather; there's plenty of that in India & China, S. Africa, Australia... though GW specialists wouldn't accept that as evidence, either. It does not pretend to act as a seasonal predictor of weather. This is a very familiar, often media-based, often US-based non-sequitur; it proves nothing about GW, AGW or climate models. Sorry.

P

Excellent post, the core substance of which could easily be applied to many such arguments on NW. Data points are just that, data points, and on their own prove nothing either way.

[Mr Sleet]

Excellent post, the core substance of which could easily be applied to many such arguments on NW. Data points are just that, data points, and on their own prove nothing either way.

The best indicator of Global warming is " global temperature" - and that of course is where the fun starts !

[parmenides3]

Excellent post, the core substance of which could easily be applied to many such arguments on NW. Data points are just that, data points, and on their own prove nothing either way.

Thank you.

Mr. S: Indeed! 'Global Warming' means 'the warming of the globe', so temperature is the parameter. But temperature of what?

Though a lot of emphasis is placed on tropospheric atmosphere temperature, as this is what we experience most directly, it seems to be generally agreed amongst climate scientists that the most important measure of temperature is ocean heat content. There are a lot of reasons for this, but the main one is that, at the upper ocean level at least, this is what most influences both the climate and the weather.

To paraphrase, the Climate Science blog has; the spatial pattern of ocean heat content change is the best way to assess climate system heat changes.

One of the big debates at the moment in the field is about whether the recent/current anomalies of sea surface temperature are significant as indicators of a climate change beyond the range of previous such changes. Part of this debate also takes issue with the accuracy of records, another part with the (as yet uncertain) importance of vertical heat flux (thermohaline circulation, if you like) in the oceans. A third issue is the effectiveness (or otherwise) of climate models in predicting future changes based on these measurements.

One of the most recent discussions has been about the significance of a paper which indicates a cooling of the ocean mid-layer between 2003-2005. Was this predictable? What is the cause? Is it an indicator that the climate models are still too simple to rely on for future policy/planning?

So you are absolutely spot on; in terms of both climatology and GW, this is where the fun begins.

P

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

One of the most recent discussions has been about the significance of a paper which indicates a cooling of the ocean mid-layer between 2003-2005. Was this predictable? What is the cause? Is it an indicator that the climate models are still too simple to rely on for future policy/planning?

So you are absolutely spot on; in terms of both climatology and GW, this is where the fun begins.

P

Folks

The world's oceans cooled suddenly between 2003 and 2005, losing more than 20 percent of the global-warming heat they'd absorbed over the previous 50 years. That's a vast amount of heat, since the oceans hold 1,000 times as heat as the atmosphere. The ocean-cooling researchers say the heat was likely vented into space, since it hasn't been found stored anywhere on Earth.

John Lyman, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, says the startling news of ocean cooling comes courtesy of the new ARGO ocean temperature floats being distributed worldwide. ARGOs are filling in former blank spots on the world's ocean monitoring system – and vastly narrowing our past uncertainty about sparsely measured ocean temperatures.

Lyman says the discovery of the sudden ocean coolings undercuts faith in global-warming forecasts because coolings randomly interrupt the trends laid out by the global circulation models. As Lyman puts it, "The cooling reflects interannual variability that is not well represented by a linear trend."

The new ocean cooling also recalls several NASA studies in the past five years that found a huge natural heat vent over the Pacific ocean's so-called warm pool, a band of water thousands of miles wide, roughly astride the equator. Studies coordinated by Bruce Weilicki, of NASA's Langley Research Center, found that when sea surface temperatures rise above 28 degrees C, Pacific rainfall becomes more efficient. More of the cloud droplets form raindrops, so fewer are left to form high, icy, cirrus clouds that seal in heat. As a result, the area of cirrus clouds is reduced, and far more heat passes out into space. This cools the surface of the warm pool, the world's warmest ocean water.

Weilicki's research teams say that the huge natural heat vent emitted about as much heat during the 1980s and 90s as would be expected from a redoubling of the carbon dioxide content in the air. They used satellites to measure cloud cover and long-range aircraft to monitor sea temperatures.

Layman says the sudden ocean coolings particularly complicate the problem of separating natural temperature changes from man-made impacts on the Earth's temperature. The impact of human-emitted CO2 has been assumed to accumulate in a straight-line trend over many decades.

Meanwhile, since the 1980s, the Earth's ice cores, seabed sediments and cave stalagmites have been revealing a moderate, natural 1,500-year climate cycle linked to solar irradiance. Temperatures jump suddenly and erratically 1 to 2 degrees C above the mean at the latitude of Washington, D.C., and New York City for centuries at a time, and more than that at the Earth's poles.

Temperatures vary hardly at all at the equator during the 1,500-year cycle, and Bruce Weilicki's NASA heat-vent findings seem to indicate why. The warm pool of the Pacific acts like a cooking pot, with its "lid" popping open to emit steam when the water gets too hot.

The more we look, the more we learn about the Earth's complex climate forces – though not much of the new knowledge comes from the huge, unverified global circulation models favored by the man-made warming activists.

Good reading don't you think

BFTP

Added point in response to P3 observation. Look at the findings AND not the opinions. Dig some more and form your own...it mixes things up nicely

Edited August 24, 2006 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[parmenides3]

That's from Climate science, isn't it Blast?

As I said, this is a subject of hot debate, both on the Climate science website and on Realclimate. The discussions go on for over 200 posts.

I'm not surprised you chose to print this extract, but, be honest, it's only telling one side of the story, isn't it?

P

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

That's from Climate science, isn't it Blast?

As I said, this is a subject of hot debate, both on the Climate science website and on Realclimate. The discussions go on for over 200 posts.

I'm not surprised you chose to print this extract, but, be honest, it's only telling one side of the story, isn't it?

P

P

Ocregister.com

I think it highlights a very important point, our lack of understanding still! Not intended to prove any point but to allow folk to read article and go dig some more Fascinating stuff wouldn't you say?

BFTP

Edited August 24, 2006 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[parmenides3]

P

Ocregister.com

I think it highlights a very important point, our lack of understanding still! Not intended to prove any point but to allow folk to read article and go dig some more Fascinating stuff wouldn't you say?

BFTP

Absolutely! This has produced more response on the Climatology blogs than almost anything this year, and the arguments are, at times, quite heated (sorry, unintended pun). This is rather good evidence of a point you made some time ago, that if the climatologists/experts can't agree on what's happening, it's no surprise if the rest of us get confused.

A couple of points, though:

Lyman says the discovery of the sudden ocean coolings undercuts faith in global-warming forecasts because coolings randomly interrupt the trends laid out by the global circulation models. As Lyman puts it, "The cooling reflects interannual variability that is not well represented by a linear trend."

This is a major issue. One 'camp' says the models aren't good enough, as above, the other 'camp' responds 'Of course they don't; that's not how they work, but it doesn't show they are not effective.

The more we look, the more we learn about the Earth's complex climate forces – though not much of the new knowledge comes from the huge, unverified global circulation models favored by the man-made warming activists.

Unfortunately, this shows the intention of the poster; describing climatologists as 'man-made warming activists' implies that they are some kind of radicals, with a 'wacky' idea about AGW. It also ignores the fact that not all AGW adherents (Pielke, for one) 'favor' the 'huge unverified' GCMs. It also fails to realise that new knowledge about the climate is not the purpose of GCMs.

As you say, BFTP, it could well encourage folks to dig, so it's a good article to post on that point. All I'm saying is that it is biased, so that readers who might not otherwise be aware take this into account. Good sparring material, though.

P