Atlantic Hurricane Season Sets Records

MSNBC will probably use that report as proof that this was the “Worst huricane season since records began”.
Well, NOAA needed to report something! Pats NOAA on the head… “That’s nice NOAA I’ll put it on the fridge”.

How many major hurricanes (Cat 3 or higher at landfall) hit the U.S. mainland in 2008? How about 2007? As of 2006, the count of major hurricane strikes for the current decade was seven. Does anyone know if it increased in 2007 or 2008?
The record of ten was set in the 1940s and has yet to be surpassed. There is no higher high to see yet.
There are only two years left in the current decade (2001 to 2010). If the total remains unchanged, this decade will only be slightly above the decadal average of 6.2 in terms of major strikes.
One can’t help but wonder if some of the increase in activity is an artifact of the data collection process, which has changed quite a bit over the last century and a half. That would be my bet.

How is that a different take? Maue’s data is for the Northern Hemisphere, while the NOAA press release is about the Atlantic. It was the Pacific that was dead this year.

I didn’t realize “consecutive storms to strike the US” was a metric that indicated AGW.
Learn something new every day….

Please click the link: http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

Some have scolded me for my repeat accusations over the years of count padding and fueling of AGW hysteria by the NHC. Well? Where are my critics today?

NOAA’s report pertains to the 2008 tropical cyclone season in the North Atlantic Basin. COAP’s report pertains to the 2008 tropical cyclone season in the NH.
Ryan Maue’s data below shows activity was above normal in the North Atlantic Basin and below normal in the Pacific Basins.
Recent Activity (Updated through Nov 24, 2008, 12:00)
Basin 2008 ACE CLIM ACE % of NORM
Western Pacific 158 298 53%
Eastern Pacific 82.9 140.7 59%
North Atlantic 141.7 101.8 139%
North Indian 18.8 14.1 133%
Northern Hemisphere 400 555 72%

Fred:
Seriously? Come on. You cannot possibly hold the position that alarmist such as Gore have not directly stated increased hurricane activity is an indication of CO2 induced warming.
Ron:
I know.
Steve:
I am in agreement that someone is padding the hurricane stats. They have assigned names to storms that I am POSITIVE 10-15 years ago would have never recieved a name. Maybe it’s simply a matter of we have significantly better technology to identify these storms now than we did 10-15 years ago. Does that mean we need a “correction” so we can compare to the 1980s and before? I think ACE is a better measuring stick in this regard.

Hi,
I recently posted on the TWC/FE/Dr. Cullen sacking thread the question:
“What would it take to convince you that GW or AGW is real? What is the one absolute irrevocable fact that would convince you that we need to act to prevent total disaster?”
I thought we had a pretty spirited discussion and a few folks came back with these questions:
– Prove, without pre-programmed “models” that a doubling of CO2 results in a 2-5C increase in global temperature. It has already been long established that doubling of CO2 just by itself, in a laboratory experiment, resuslts in .6C. That is without any feedbacks. The IPCC contends that water vapor feedback will supply the rest of the warming, while ACTUAL OBXERVATIONS from the Aqua satellite show the increase in water vapor to be a NEGATIVE feedback, instead of positive like the models are programmed to show.
– Prove to me WITH ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC ATMOSPHERIC OBSERVATIONS that a doubling of CO2 leads to the positive feedback loop as indicated by the IPCC.
1.) I would have to be shown that the CO2 feedback loop theory was correct. The Aqua Satellite observations clearly indicate it is not. The middle and upper atmosphere are not becoming more humid. High-level clouds are not on the increase. Low level humidity is not causing positive feedhback, but to the contrary is forming low-lying clouds which increase albedo and create negative (not positive) feedback, and push us towards homeostasis.
But the final verdict is not yet in. CO2 as a significant factor all hangs on that one question. We need to know more about the saturation level of CO2.
—
I promised to see if I could find counter-arguments/proofs to the above challenges.
Here’s what I have.
Study: Water-vapor feedback is “strong and positive,” so we face “warming of several degrees Celsius”
A new study in Geophysical Research Letters (subs. req’d), “Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008” analyzed recent variations in surface temperature and “the response of tropospheric water vapor to these variations.” They concluded that the “water-vapor feedback implied by these observations is strongly positive” and “similar to that simulated by climate models.” The analysis concludes:
The existence of a strong and positive water-vapor feedback means that projected business-as-usual greenhouse-gas emissions over the next century are virtually guaranteed to produce warming of several degrees Celsius. The only way that will not happen is if a strong, negative, and currently unknown feedback is discovered somewhere in our climate system.
A “warming of several degrees Celsius” = the end of life as we know it (see “Is 450 ppm politically possible? Part 0: The alternative is humanity’s self-destruction“).
While some denyers/delayers/inactivists, like MIT’s Richard Lindzen, have argued that negative feedbacks dominate the climate — all of the evidence points to amplifying feedbacks dominating (except the one negative feedback that the deniers fiercely fight, discussed below).
That was a key point of my post “Are Scientists Underestimating Climate Change, Part 1“: In the real world, key climate change impacts — sea ice loss, ice sheet melting, desertification, and sea level rise — all are either near the top or actually in excess of their values as predicted by the IPCC’s climate models. For a more recent detailed discussion of accelerating climate impacts and what that portends for the future on our current emissions path, see the new WWF report “Climate Change: faster, stronger, sooner.”
The major climate models are missing key amplifying feedbacks, some of which were discussed in “Are Scientists Underestimating Climate Change, Part II.” These feedbacks include:
The defrosting of the permafrost
The drying of the Northern peatlands (bogs, moors, and mires).
The destruction of the tropical wetlands
Decelerating growth in tropical forest trees — thanks to accelerating carbon dioxide
Wildfires and Climate-Driven forest destruction by pests
The desertification-global warming feedback
The saturation of the ocean carbon sink
And this all supports the analysis that the climate is much more sensitive to changes in greenhouse gas emissions and other “forcings” than the IPCC models have been saying and that a doubling of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide from preindustrial levels to 550 ppm will ultimately warm the planet far more than 3°C, as NASA’s James Hansen argues (see ‘Long-term’ climate sensitivity of 6°C for doubled CO2).
A number of major studies looking at paleoclimate data come to the same conclusion. Here are three:
Scientists analyzed data from a major expedition to retrieve deep marine sediments beneath the Arctic to understand the Paleocene Eocene thermal maximum, a brief period some 55 million years ago of “widespread, extreme climatic warming that was associated with massive atmospheric greenhouse gas input.” This 2006 study, published in Nature (subs. req’d), found Artic temperatures almost beyond imagination–above 23°C (74°F)–temperatures more than 18°F warmer than current climate models had predicted when applied to this period. The three dozen authors conclude that existing climate models are missing crucial feedbacks that can significantly amplify polar warming.
A second study, published in Geophysical Research Letters (subs. req’d), looked at temperature and atmospheric changes during the Middle Ages. This 2006 study found that the effect of amplifying feedbacks in the climate system–where global warming boosts atmospheric CO2 levels–”will promote warming by an extra 15 percent to 78 percent on a century-scale” compared to typical estimates by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The study notes these results may even be “conservative” because they ignore other greenhouse gases such as methane, whose levels will likely be boosted as temperatures warm.
The third study, published in Geophysical Research Letters (subs. req’d), looked at temperature and atmospheric changes during the past 400,000 years. This study found evidence for significant increases in both CO2 and methane (CH4) levels as temperatures rise. The conclusion: If our current climate models correctly accounted for such “missing feedbacks,” then “we would be predicting a significantly greater increase in global warming than is currently forecast over the next century and beyond”–as much as 1.5°C warmer this century alone.
Yes, natural negative feedbacks exist that would “eventually” absorb any excess carbon dioxide, but as one of the authors of a 2008 Nature Geosciences article explained, “not for hundreds of thousands of years” (see “Humans boosting CO2 14,000 times faster than nature, overwhelming slow negative feedbacks“).
Truly only one negative feedback in the planet’s overall carbon cycle can act with sufficient speed and strength to avert catastrophic climate impacts: The dominant carbon-based life form on this planet will have to respond to the already painfully clear impacts of our carbon emissions by slashing those emissions sharply and eventually running the planet on carbon-negative power.
The time for this negative feedback is now.
____
The citations are in this link:
http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/26/study-water-vapor-feedback-is-strong-and-positive-so-we-face-warming-of-several-degrees-celsius/
Also, see this:
Let’s look at the evidence that scientists are seriously underestimating climate change.
To do that, the fatal flaw with the IPCC’s over-reliance on the poorly named “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS) must be understood. Recall that the ECS is the “equilibrium change in global mean surface temperature following a doubling of the atmospheric (equivalent) CO2 concentration,” which the IPCC’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report concluded was 2 to 4.5°C.
You might think that the ECS tells you how much the planet’s temperature will rise if humans emit enough CO2 to double its atmospheric concentration. But it doesn’t. It is just a theoretical construct. It tells you only how much the planet’s temperature will rise if CO2 concentrations double and then are magically frozen.
That’s because the ECS omits key carbon cycle feedbacks that a rise in the planet’s temperature will likely trigger. For instance, a doubling of CO2 to 550 ppm will lead to the melting of the permafrost and the release of huge amounts of carbon currently frozen it it. These amplifying (or positive) feedbacks are the main subject of this post.
The ECS includes only “fast feedbacks” which NASA’s James Hansen defines as follows:
For example, the air holds more water vapor as temperature rises, which is a positive feedback magnifying the climate response, because water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Other fast feedbacks include changes of clouds, snow cover, and sea ice. It is uncertain whether the cloud feedback is positive or negative, because clouds can increase or decrease in response to climate change. Snow and ice are positive feedbacks because, as they melt, the darker ocean and land absorb more sunlight.
While some Denyers, like MIT’s Richard Lindzen, have argued that negative feedbacks dominate the climate — all of the evidence points to amplifying feedbacks dominating. That was a key point of Part I of this post, that in the real world, key climate change impacts — sea ice loss, ice sheet melting, temperature, and sea level rise — all are either near the top or actually in excess of their values as predicted by the IPCC’s climate models. The models are missing key amplifying feedbacks.
A number of major studies looking at paleoclimate data come to the same conclusion. Here are three:
Scientists analyzed data from a major expedition to retrieve deep marine sediments beneath the Arctic to understand the Paleocene Eocene thermal maximum, a brief period some 55 million years ago of “widespread, extreme climatic warming that was associated with massive atmospheric greenhouse gas input.” This 2006 study, published in Nature (subs. req’d), found Artic temperatures almost beyond imagination–above 23°C (74°F)–temperatures more than 18°F warmer than current climate models had predicted when applied to this period. The three dozen authors conclude that existing climate models are missing crucial feedbacks that can significantly amplify polar warming.
A second study, published in Geophysical Research Letters (subs. req’d), looked at temperature and atmospheric changes during the Middle Ages. This 2006 study found that the effect of amplifying feedbacks in the climate system–where global warming boosts atmospheric CO2 levels–”will promote warming by an extra 15 percent to 78 percent on a century-scale” compared to typical estimates by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The study notes these results may even be “conservative” because they ignore other greenhouse gases such as methane, whose levels will likely be boosted as temperatures warm.
The third study, published in Geophysical Research Letters (subs. req’d), looked at temperature and atmospheric changes during the past 400,000 years. This study found evidence for significant increases in both CO2 and methane (CH4) levels as temperatures rise. The conclusion: If our current climate models correctly accounted for such “missing feedbacks,” then “we would be predicting a significantly greater increase in global warming than is currently forecast over the next century and beyond”–as much as 1.5°C warmer this century alone.
What are these “missing feedbacks” in the global carbon cycle? I devote a chapter in my book to this question (where you can find all the source material). They include four key carbon sinks:
The oceans — which likely become less able to take up carbon dioxide as they heat up and become more acidic.
The soil — which also takes up less CO2 and starts emitting CO2 as it heats up.
The tundra — which contains more carbon than the atmosphere does (much of it in the form of methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) and which is poised to release that carbon as we warm the planet.
Tropical forests — which store carbon but in places like Brazil and Indonesia are being cut down. Deforestation coupled with warming-induced drought could lead to the complete collapse of the Amazon rain forest.
Some combination of these carbon sinks saturating — or turning into carbon sources — probably help drive the amplifying feedbacks that the paleoclimate studies show make the planet’s true climate sensitivity far greater than the equilibrium climate sensitivity in the IPCC models.
http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/26/study-water-vapor-feedback-is-strong-and-positive-so-we-face-warming-of-several-degrees-celsius/
Is that sufficient proof now that GW/AGW is a real phenomenon requiring immediate action?
Please be gentle. I’m not a scientist.
Will – Just a concerned citizen of Planet Earth.

Steve, here’s what I’m talking about. Here’s what Bertha looked like when they named it: http://attachments.climatepatrol.com/98/bertha_444488.jpg
Here’s the infrared: http://satimg.climatepatrol.com/disk1/e6/ey1iccmzut4eqolfe4wvjc54zkjpw3bx.jpg
So when they say: “Bertha was a tropical cyclone for 17 days (July 3-20), making it the longest-lived July storm on record in the Atlantic Basin.”
I say: No kidding! You named a 14mph clump of thunderstorms with ZERO defined eye much less circulation the instant it came off the African continent. When you do stuff like that, it’s not a surprise it’s the longest lived storm. Not saying it didn’t (eventually) deserve to be named, but come on! Naming that storm at that time was serious BS. Then declaring it the longest lived July storm ever when you pull a stunt like that is insulting to anyone who stops to think about what just happened.

I believe that Will has demonstrated and the NOAA data confirms that we have passed the tipping point of Hansen, and only total catastrophe awaits us now. If you would please visit my website http://www.dieoff.org to see my authoritative proof of a massive impending loss of human life from carbon dioxide asphyxia. The modern human body, homo sapiens sapiens sapiens, is not equipped to breathe air with CO2 concentrations above 380 ppm.
It may seem as if they are alive, walking, talking, breathing normally. But even as you observe them they are becoming carbon zombies, dead to reality and their inner selves. Eventually, the zombie bodies will carbonize completely, like Han Solo, and remain frozen in that state as a caution for the next life form to develop intelligence on this planet.
Humans. They just didn’t listen.

Anthony, we need so LOL-smiles around here. Bill’s post above is comedy GOLD!

Will Small (13:53:05) :
You’ve just given a list of things of things that are predicted to happen, such as melting ice caps, but which are clearly not. That is not much of a proof. If you want to be really concerned then this is a more complete list of things ‘predicted’ to be caused by global warming.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

A bit off topic but this site provides some quotes by notable scientists on the importance of CO2. You may or may not like Alex Jones but he’s put together a pretty impressive list of comments on this page.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.html
Now where is the list of scientists who say CO2 is bad?

Will Small,
Quite a post. I would say that the only study that is really interesting is: “Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008” This implies a significant positive water vapor feedback, but, once again, ignores the complexity of the atmosphere and some obvious problems with their conclusions. They state that between 2003-2008, the average, global tropospheric temperature changed by 0.6 degrees. It did not warm by that much. It actually had a net cooling! So here is the obvious question, since CO2 is increasing and the water vapor increases with increasing temperatures, how did the planet have a net cooling from 2003 to 2008?
The whole theory pivots on the fact that CO2 causes warming and warming causes more water vapor which in turn cause much more warming! Yet the troposphere cooled! If the theory is correct…cooling is impossible. The theory does not recognize any factor (outside of a major volcanic eruption, which did not happen) that would generate the observed temperatures! CO2 increased. Watervapor increased with warming. The temperature cooled. Obviously the theory is wrong!
The paleo studies you mention verify that warming releases more CO2 into the atmosphere, but not that CO2 is the cause of the warming. High resolution paleo studies indicate that something causes the warming and the CO2 follows. The also show that concentrations of CO2 are at a relative maximum as global temperatures begin to cool, indicating that something besides CO2 drives global climate.
In reality, each addition of CO2 has less of an effect on temperature than the addition before it, as the absorption bands become saturated. Here is an interesting article that indicates any additional CO2 over present levels will have almost no impact on temperatures due to saturation:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSENMARSCHALLENGE.pdf
So even if the permafrost melts and all those other things were to happen (which they won’t) the greenhouse effect would be inconsequential. The absorbtion bands are saturating.
You wrote:
While some Denyers, like MIT’s Richard Lindzen, have argued that negative feedbacks dominate the climate — all of the evidence points to amplifying feedbacks dominating. That was a key point of Part I of this post, that in the real world, key climate change impacts — sea ice loss, ice sheet melting, temperature, and sea level rise — all are either near the top or actually in excess of their values as predicted by the IPCC’s climate models. The models are missing key amplifying feedbacks.”
Sorry Will, but temperatures are actually near the bottom of the range predicted by the IPCC, and will soon drop out of that range. More importantly, oceanic heat content has been decreasing in recent years. Antarctic sea ice set a maximum record last year (satellite era), while Arctic sea ice set a record min. The net result is little significant change in sea ice. Sea level rise has been fairly steady for decades, but recently started slowing down! All of these facts indicate that the models are missing key negative impacts, are overestimating positive feedbacks and/or underestimating natural climate forcers.
I am a concerned citizen of Planet Earth too, but I am more concerned about what governments do to people than what ‘climate change’ does to people. See the history of the 20th century as the primary example.

James G: “Will…get a life.”
Hello? That’s exactly why I’m here. To learn from you so that we can all have a life.
I think I’m having flashbacks from our previous thread. Before everyone starts throwing out their favorite theories about hurricanes and ice caps, let’s try and stick to the topic.
Go back and read my challenge. Read the proofs that were requested by WUWT commenters, and the research that was brought forward. That was the agreement we had, remember? I’ve held up my side and now it’s your turn.
Graeme has it right. He’s examined the response and provided a counter. Thank you Graeme. I’ll dig around and see if I can find something useful for our debate.
With that said, does that mean that WUWT folks accept the presented proofs? I’m not saying slam dunk yet, but I’m feeling better than AGW is real and does need action.
Absolutely yes on carbon trading and carbon taxes.
It’s a small price to pay to continue to sustain life on the planet as we know it. Don’t you think? Let’s think long term and not be short-sighted.
Will

Proof once again the media will manipulate the information to fit their agenda. …typical…
http://www.cookevilleweatherguy.com

Where did they get this “On average, the tropical Atlantic was about 1.0 degree Fahrenheit above normal during the peak of the season.”
When I was dancing with Gustav, I suspected this. I saved the SST Anomaly map for “Aug 23rd”.
At that time there was a good sized anomaly of over 2 degrees near and to the west of Bermuda. But the gulf, caribbean and Atlantic from 0 deg to 30 deg N showed only a small area in the bay of Campichi, and 3 small areas of the atlantic with a 1 deg anomaly. And one hot area off Africa at -10 and about +3.
It’s hard to take these people seriously.
Maybe they’ll look into their data and divine another storm so intense they missed it.

“Absolutely yes on carbon trading and carbon taxes.
It’s a small price to pay to continue to sustain life on the planet as we know it. Don’t you think? Let’s think long term and not be short-sighted.
Will”
This statement astounds me every time I hear/see it. Small price?…according to whom?…the people starving to death in Africa because the corn market went through the roof? The people that were killed in the food riots?
It is an ill-informed and niave belief system that would allow this statement to be made.
I would also submit that it’s you who is being short-sighted when you think that carbon trading is in any way a solution to the things that you seem to believe are a problem. Did you read the article in the telegraph.uk about the government taking the money from the carbon credit auction and putting it in the general fund?…which has what to do with C02 emmissions?
The reason this gets so much political support is that it’s another stream of revenue for governments at the national/state/local level.
Jim

For the first time on record, six consecutive tropical cyclones (Dolly, Edouard, Fay, Gustav, Hanna and Ike) made landfall on the U.S. mainland and a record three major hurricanes (Gustav, Ike and Paloma) struck Cuba.
So then, since it wasn’t mentioned, is it safe to assume that the record for the number of hurricanes in months with ‘u’ as the second letter remains unbroken by the 2008 season?

Will Small
Just a short note for you. Despite all the solutions and mitigations you support, not a one of them will have any effect at all when compared to nature.
Nature and the forces it harbors will squish you like a bug anytime it damn well pleases. There’s nothing anyone can do about it, so stop acting like you can control it.
Cap and trade is a pipe dream on par with the investor shams that have corrupted our economy. If you support it, you must be a shyster on par with Gore’s favored Lehman Brothers outfit.

Me:
“Absolutely yes on carbon trading and carbon taxes.
It’s a small price to pay to continue to sustain life on the planet as we know it. Don’t you think? Let’s think long term and not be short-sighted.”
JimB (16:26:30) :
This statement astounds me every time I hear/see it. Small price?…according to whom?…the people starving to death in Africa because the corn market went through the roof? The people that were killed in the food riots?
It is an ill-informed and niave belief system that would allow this statement to be made.
Me:
Jim – you mis-spelled naive. Exactly, short term sacrifice means that people have pain. Prices go up. Quality of life goes down. People die in riots. Precisely. That’s where this is heading with or w/o addressing carbon. Over 350ppm we’re in serious trouble.
Let’s not get off track.
But back to the core issue that no one but Jim Clarke has taken up. Thank you Jim for your response. It’s appreciated. Just as I promised Graeme, I’ll delve into your response to see if I can find counter-arguments.
Glad to hear that you’re a concerned citizen of Planet Earth too. I’m intrigued by “I am more concerned about what governments do to people than what ‘climate change’ does to people.”
Fascinating. Especially, how their seems to be a huge groundswell for the gov’t to help bailout banks, insurers, car companies, etc.
Hmm.
Maybe gov’t is the solution and the problem is stupid corporations and their short-sighted executives?

Will,
Here’s the comparison of James Hansen’s ‘scenario ‘A” (no significant action to reduce C02) temperature vs actual over the period 1988 – 2008. As you can see the actual temps are becoming ridiculously lower than HAnsen’s prediction (a prediction based on his understanding of climate sensitivity to COO2 and the IPCCs acceptance of his calculations). Pretty clearly Hansen is wrong and the climate is not nearly as sensitive to CO2 increase as he or the IPCC would have you believe.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/GISSvs_Hansen.JPG (Hansen Scenario A in green)
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/RSSvs_Hansen.JPG RSS is the Satellite derived Temps

The figure of 16 storms is a stretch, at best. Several of them, as posted above, were barely more than a clump of thunderstorms; Nana, Laura, and Josephine come to mind and really make one wonder if NHC is padding the numbers to fit the AGW agenda and/or to help to verify their seasonal forecasts.
In addition, I do not feel it is not meaningful to compare tropical storm/hurricane numbers before satellite observations were available since there could have been many pre-satellite storms that would not have been detected unless they went over inhabited areas or if a ship sailed into them. NHC uses statistical methods to account for satellite vs. pre-satellite figure but in view of the statistical methods of Mann, Hansen, etc., pardon me if I am cynical about the validity of these methods. Perhaps Steve McIntyre can analyze them with the same bulldog determination that he displays in debunking Mann et al.

Will Small and other unfortunate disillusioned unhappy individuals.
I say unhappy, because you are so eager to crawl under a rock
and stop living; run for cover Will, the sky is falling, the sky is falling!
Reality is,,,, the weather is the weather, and the weather changes, always has, always will,,, (no pun intended Will), so sit back Will, re-adjust your tin foil hat and just wait for a little while longer before begging them to accept more money for everything you depend upon in order to have the lifestyle that you and everyone deserves.
The earth is cooling and soon even the likes of you will have no doubt as each year continues getting colder and colder and colder for who knows how long.

“Me:
Jim – you mis-spelled naive. Exactly, short term sacrifice means that people have pain. Prices go up. Quality of life goes down. People die in riots. Precisely. That’s where this is heading with or w/o addressing carbon. Over 350ppm we’re in serious trouble.”
Will…thank you for the valuable spelling lesson.
My understanding is that we’re already over 350ppm. Prove that this puts us “in serious trouble”.
I agree that we’re IN serious trouble, btw, but not for the reasons you promote.
JimB

Will Small, an old proverb: Empty pitchers make the most noise.

Will Small,
Whats a “denyer”?
You make quite a few wild assumptions about positive feedback ‘proofs’ and quoting Hanson isnt going to win you many converts here as he has shown himself to be an AGW/MMCC extremist with a rather plastic view on scientific reality.
I note that the main planks of your arguments for positive feedback are at best hypothetical, a main supplier of atmospheric oxygen/consumer of atmospheric carbon is the northern forests that surround the arctic circle and these are showing an increase in carbon take up not a decline.
The point about the ‘four key carbon sinks’ only apply IF AGW is real and warming is actually occurring which it clearly isnt at present, the northern permafrost ring isnt melting is it? The mature rain forests take up less CO2 than the new agricultural lands that surround them and per active intensively farmed hectare the farmed land produces roughly the same O2 as the mature rain forest, the argument for retaining tropical rain forests like the Amazon basin forests is a biodiversity argument NOT a carbon/oxygen cycle argument
I understand your points are based on many ‘ifs’ and ‘coulds’ and ‘mays’, if the planets heats up to a critical point, could lead to a mass release of stored carbon, may result in positive feedback amplification are just a few of the assumptions you make, there is an old saying where I come from, ‘if ifs and ands were pots and pans there’d be no need for tinkers’, you make a great many assumptions based on events that have not occurred and quote sources that have a vested interest in AGW/MMCC theory.
Your post rests on just one basic proposition and that is a continued and marked warming of the planet, everything you claim may happen in the future rests entirely on the assumption of continued global warming and continuous ramping up of global temperatures BUT the uncomfortable fact(for warmists)is that global temperatures are no following the AGW/MMCC preset political directives, they are in fact following a completely different path better fitting a long term natural cyclic variation based on solar activity and earths variable orbit.
You see IF we were to strip away the ‘ifs’ and ‘mays’ and ‘coulds’ from the whole climate debate and stick to observable facts and reality,cold hard facts measured without bias then I feel we may be able to move the debate forward but untill we have this I fear the debate will not progress much beyond the current finger pointing.
Disclaimer, I am not a scientist nor do I have any scientific qualification, some of my points made could well be mistaken and I would value any corrections offered.

evanjones
Overall agreeing with your point. My bad for missing to point out the domestic in my talk of reclining dynamic effects from trickle down. Just sticking purely to accepted models rather than opinion: As an economy become relatively more open and relatively smaller (to others) both will reduce the domestic trickle down dynamics. The same principle apply to the Kyoto approach to emissions where the exact same drivers of international trade will merely disperse emissions to other places. In a globalized world, regionalised (or domestic) approaches will simply not work as intended. All in (global) or no point in such programs.

MattN said
“I say: No kidding! You named a 14mph clump of thunderstorms with ZERO defined eye much less circulation the instant it came off the African continent. When you do stuff like that, it’s not a surprise it’s the longest lived storm. Not saying it didn’t (eventually) deserve to be named, but come on! Naming that storm at that time was serious BS. Then declaring it the longest lived July storm ever when you pull a stunt like that is insulting to anyone who stops to think about what just happened.”
That’s incorrect though, it did have circulation even before it was named a stopical storm, see here
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=972&tstamp=
Wind speeds were 35mph+ .
Just because it doesn’t look like what you wish it to look like does not mean it is not what it is ! 🙂 It was a tropical storm.
Of course you could argue that without satellites you would’t have spotted it as early so it wouldn’t have been classified to have lasted so long, but that’s another argument.
Regards
Andy

2008 VRS 1969
I thought it would be interesting to compare these two seasons. Assuming there are no additional storms this year. Raw data comes from Wiki.
2008 had 16 systems (not counting depressions) of these 8 became hurricanes for 50%. There was an average max. wind speed for these 16 storms was 89mph. There was a total of 105 storm days. With an average of 6.5 days/storm.
1969 Had 17 systems. 12 became hurricanes. For 70%. Two tropical storms were never named. (TS 11 and TS 16) Two hurricanes, were never named. (Hurricane 10, and 17) The average max. winds for these 17 storms was 94 mph. There was a total of 128 storm days. Or an average of 7.6 per storm.
I also looked at the 1893 Hurricane season. There were only 9 systems listed. All Hurricanes. With an average of 105 mph per system.
It’s hard to take these folks serious.
Interesting trivia. Being NOAA wants to talk about records.
On Feb 2, 1952 a tropical storm formed in the NW Caribbean. It eventually goes over Key West and up the eastern seaboard.
March 6, 1908 A system was observed NE of the Lesser Antillies and becomes a cat 2 hurricane before dispating March 9th.
NOAA may want to adjust the data some more.
Have a great Thanksgiving everyone.

press release=public relations
This isn’t about science. It’s about presenting the facts in such a way as to reflect favorably on the organization and the important work it does so that come funding time their requests will be looked upon with great favor.
This release reminds me of a line from Dr. Robert Stadler in Atlas Shrugged when justifying another shoddy press release, “But what can you do when you deal with people?”

How many of the ‘tropical storms’ named by NOAA were glorified mesoscale clusters that huffed and puffed up to 35 MPH in mid-Atlantic and blew themselves out before Advisory 2?

Robert Wood (16:33:41)
I would contend that this board/forum/blog comments section is far, far more political than NOAA. You do realize that naming of the storms is the duty of the NHC, and it has been pretty well established that the NHC is not on board with the AGW/hurricane link (Landsea is the SOO for cripes sake!!). So for all of the conspiracy theorists on here that think that NOAA has been fudging the figures, why would they be doing that?

It’s simple really. If there weren’t enough very strong negative feedbacks, this planet long ago would have ended up like Venus. Long before man was even a gleam in mother nature’s eye.
If water vapor is such a huge positive feedback as Will’s article suggests, then we are all screwed no matter what we do about CO2.

danbo (15:58:30) :
Where did they get this “On average, the tropical Atlantic was about 1.0 degree Fahrenheit above normal during the peak of the season.”
When I was dancing with Gustav, I suspected this. I saved the SST Anomaly map for “Aug 23rd”.

This is the SST map for the 25th August http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.8.25.2008.gif.
They would have been correct if they had stated northern tropical Atlantic, the sea from the Cape Verde islands to the Caribbean was about 1 degree warmer. As this is the significant stretch of sea for hurricane formation this must have been that the referred to.
You are right though that the tropical Atlantic was not warmer than average over the whole.

GRL rejects 2 papers from Spencer: http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
“November 9, 2008:
The two papers we had submitted to Geophysical Research Letters have both been rejected, with instructions to not resubmit either one. The first paper showed how none of 18 IPCC climate models, in over 1,000 years of global warming simulations, ever exhibits the negative feedback we have measured from global satellite data.
The second paper revealed new satellite evidence that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation modulates the Earth’s radiative balance by an amount that, when put into a simple climate model, can explain 75% of global warming over the 20th Century….including the slight cooling between 1940 and 1980.
Since our previous publications have been basically censored by the news media, and I have now experienced scientific censorship (which I suppose was long overdue), I have decided to take my message to the people in a second book.”

Mary
My error. I was looking at deg C. not deg F. He said F. I can buy 0.5 C.
My map shows a slight warming. Just not that much.

“The truth shall set you free,
Will”
Only if it’s recognized as such 🙂
JimB

No thread that concerns peaks and valleys in hurricane frequency should ignore paying obeisance to the pioneering work of Dr William Gray.

@Will Small (13:53:05) :
WRT: ““What would it take to convince you that GW or AGW is real? What is the one absolute irrevocable fact that would convince you that we need to act to prevent total disaster?””
To be convincing – one must first be credible.
Please demonstrate answers to these questions.
1. Is the current practice of “Climate Science” as sanctioned by the IPCC in fact Science – as opposed to pseudoscience.
1a. Are the Temperature data measurements credible, using calibrated instruments set to defined and commonly accepted industrial standards of operation.
1b. Are the Temperature Data storage methods credible, using techniques in accordance with defined and commonly accepted industrial standards for Data and Configuration Managment.
1c. Are the Temperature Data evaluation and interpretation methods and software, documented, transparent and freely available for the inspection of third parties.
1d. Is the IPCC Peer Review process, objective and independent?
1e. Are the results of the IPCC sanctioned climate science activities repeatable by independent scientific bodies?
1f. What proportion of IPCC sanctioned climate science activities actually test the link between man-made emissions of CO2 and global warming.
1g. What are the defined and published falsification criteria for the concept that man-made emissions of CO2 cause global warming and that the warming will be of a magnitude as to cause catastrophic damage.
Successfully answering the above questions would give credibility to the idea that current climate science activities are in fact science.
If you can do that, then I will specify in detail the next two sets of questions to determine if your position is credible enough to cast doubt on the sceptic position.
I.e.
2. If Climate Science is Science, is AGW (catastrophy – see 3. next) correct? and
3. If Climate Science is Science, and it is correct that man-made emissions of CO2 cause global warming and that the warming will be of a magnitude as to cause catastrophic damage. Is Cap and Trade, Carbon Taxes and other Carbon reduction schemes the best approach (Cost/Benefit Analysis for a Cost effective solution) to dealing with the problem of catastrophic damage.
To recap – there is no single fact – first show me that we are dealing with science and not politics/pseudoscience.

Hi Graeme,
That’s quite a homework assignment! I’ll need to take this back over to my folks who are in a better position to answer this. We’ll be back!
Thanks!
Will