As I’ve been s
aying for some time when it comes to the imagined link between AGW and more tornadoes – there is none.
I blame Super Mega Doppler StormTracker 7000 HD.
It seems the lead scientist at NHC agrees that our new weather toys make a difference in seeing what we would not have noticed before.
From NOAA NEWS – Study: Better Observations, Analyses Detecting Short-Lived Tropical Systems
August 11, 2009
A NOAA-led team of scientists has found that the apparent increase in the number of tropical storms and hurricanes since the late 19th and early 20th centuries is likely attributable to improvements in observational tools and analysis techniques that better detect short-lived storms.
Short-lived Tropical Storm Chantal forms 210 miles south of Halifax, Nova Scotia on July 31, 2007.
High resolution (Credit: NOAA)
The new study, reported in the online edition of the American Meteorological Society’s peer-reviewed Journal of Climate, shows that short-lived tropical storms and hurricanes, defined as lasting two days or less, have increased from less than one per year to about five per year from 1878 to 2008.
“The recent jump in the number of short-lived systems is likely a consequence of improvements in observational tools and analysis techniques,” said Chris Landsea, science and operations officer at NOAA’s National Hurricane Center in Miami, and lead author on the study. “The team is not aware of any natural variability or greenhouse warming-induced climate change that would affect the short-lived tropical storms exclusively.”
Several storms in the last two seasons, including 2007’s Andrea, Chantal, Jerry and Melissa and 2008’s Arthur and Nana, would likely not have been considered tropical storms had it not been for technology such as satellite observations from NASA’s Quick Scatterometer (QuikSCAT), the European ASCAT (Advanced SCATterometer) and NOAA’s Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU), as well as analysis techniques such as the Florida State University’s Cyclone Phase Space.
“We do not dispute that these recent systems were tropical storms,” said Landsea. “In fact, the National Hurricane Center’s ability to monitor these weaker, short-lived storms provides better warnings to mariners of gale force winds and high seas.”
According to Dr. Brian Soden, a professor at the University of Miami’s Rosentiel School for Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, “The study provides strong evidence that there has been no systematic change in the number of north Atlantic tropical cyclones during the 20th century.”
Co-authors Gabriel Vecchi and Thomas Knutson, both of the NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, developed a sampling methodology to measure whether meteorologists missed medium- to long-lived tropical storms and hurricanes from the late 1800s through the 1950s. They found that about two of the medium- to long-lived storms per year were unaccounted for in the late 1800s. By the 1950s, forecasters missed less than one per year.
When the researchers discounted the number of short-lived tropical storms and hurricanes and added the estimated number of missed medium- to long-lived storms to the historical hurricane data, they found no significant long-term trend in the total number of storms.
The team also noted that the finding of no increasing trend in hurricane and tropical storm counts in the Atlantic is consistent with several recent global warming simulations from high-resolution global climate model and regional downscaling models.
“This new study is one piece of the puzzle of how climate may influence hurricanes. Although Atlantic storm counts overall have not changed, this study does not address how the strength and number of the strongest hurricanes have changed or may change due to global warming,” noted Knutson.
Lennart Bengtsson of the University of Reading, United Kingdom, was also a research team member and co-author on the journal paper.
NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.
Here is the Lansea et al paper:
ftp://ftp.gfdl.noaa.gov/pub/gav/PAPERS/LVBK_08_SHORTSTORMS.submitted.pdf
(h/t to WUWT reader “timetochooseagain”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
That’s not what Al Gore says, and he’s the one we should listen too, not these pesky scientist types.
The team also noted that the finding of no increasing trend in hurricane and tropical storm counts in the Atlantic is consistent with several recent global warming simulations from high-resolution global climate model and regional downscaling models.
…………. well that explains it. And we can stop counting the real ones – just run the “high-resolution” model, look at the output number and we’ll all go home. I’m sure the “model” will also tell us who should put up their hurricane shutters and when, using those regional “downscaling” models.
It seems they have changed the definition of hurricanes also. Used to a hurricane was defined as a tropical storm however as of late any cyclone, even those that develop in the higher latitudes are christened as hurricanes.
Those of us who watch tropical storm development see this pronouncement as obvious. The “record” count of 2005 included short-lived systems in the middle of the ocean which could never have been counted in 1933–the previous record year. How many more would have been counted that year with modern technology?
A press release of a study like this from NOAA is annoying to me. Now that the organization which “understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun” has proclaimed it, it’s fact.
“The recent jump in the number of short-lived systems is likely a consequence of improvements in observational tools and analysis techniques.”
*gasp*
Well, you could knock me over with a feather. There’s a difference in the number of storms detected in 2009 ( or ’08 or ’07…) than could have been detected a generation ago. Someone break it gentle to that Nashville cl**n…I mean citizen. Next thing you know, someone will dare to say that the temperatures in the U.S. for July were below average for the country.
Thanks for the Hat tip Anthony! 😀
Doug, extra tropical storms should not be referred to as hurricanes in this case by the professionals, I’m sure they don’t in general. They can refer to hurricane strength winds though and that then gets picked up as a hurricane by the media and public.
Also, tornadoes in the lead in piece, that’s a bit confusing ?
Regards
Andy
From the post: “This new study is one piece of the puzzle of how climate may influence hurricanes.”
I had an actual puzzle as a child. The box said the puzzle had 1,000 pieces. Maybe it did. We didn’t count them. But, when completely finished there was still one piece left over. Maybe it was a duplicate, or maybe not. Still, it was a piece of some puzzle – just not this one.
Is there a paragraph left out of this NOAA NEWS release? Did I miss a part? This study may be a piece of some puzzle – but what?
The implied assumption is that there has been real climate change.
This climate change has not increased the number of tropical storms.
This agrees with the models:
“. . . the finding of no increasing trend in hurricane and tropical storm counts in the Atlantic is consistent with several recent global warming simulations from high-resolution global climate model and regional downscaling models.”
Therefore AGW was the puzzle and it is now proven. Give us your money!
Better call OnStar. Gore has 4 flat tires on the Cat5Mobile.
Seems to me that if Model ver 2009.7 says that there is no danger from increased Hurricanes, what else does the latest model say?
No Polar Ice Catastrophe?
No Sudden rise in Sea Levels?
No 20 year heat waves?
I hope somebody is picking up the pace on the deepening/widening of the Suez and Panama Canals. Can you imagine, though, the real estate boom as sea levels drop?
rbateman (22:10:48) : “Can you imagine, though, the real estate boom as sea levels drop?” I doubt that would happen except a glaciation suddenly were upon us.
But let’s test the hypothesis that falling sea levels cause real estate boom! How? Well, let’s look at somewhere that sea level has actually dropped! (ie Alaska)
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml
Have property values risen there? I kinda doubt it! 😉
From the article:
“Although Atlantic storm counts overall have not changed, this study does not address how the strength and number of the strongest hurricanes have changed or may change due to global warming,” noted Knutson.
In other words, this study adds nothing to the AGW debate since the more intelligent of the Believers have said for some time that it is the intensity of hurricanes, not the number, that has been increased by AGW.
Surely the hurricane count is not as important as the intensity of hurricanes. Just as the number of times it rains is far less important the total amount of rainfall.
I happened to be reading the history of Hurricane Dot this week. It was the first named hurricane to reach Hawaii, Aug. 6, 1959.
A forming storm was reported by a ship on Aug. 1, then nothing for several days. In the NWS history, they say the storm that arrived on Aug. 6 was probably the one encountered by a ship six days earlier, but they are diffident about it.
Dot was at least an average size hurricane, and before weather reconnaissance flights and satellites, it managed to get completely lost — no reports at all — for the best part of a week even after it was known to exist.
Harder to do in the Atlantic, but before satellites, you could have lost a lot of Cat 4 storms in the eastern Pacific.
“This new study is one piece of the puzzle of how climate may influence hurricanes. Although Atlantic storm counts overall have not changed, this study does not address how the strength and number of the strongest hurricanes have changed or may change due to global warming,” noted Knutson
“Have” or “May” – which is it there’s a bit of a difference there. I know maybe its not really relevant for climate “science” lectures…….Not only is it logically inconsistent it is a logical dichotomy following from the previous paragraph:
The team also noted that the finding of no increasing trend in hurricane and tropical storm counts in the Atlantic is consistent with several recent global warming simulations from high-resolution global climate model and regional downscaling models.
I’m no uni lecturer but I would fail that paper.
Mike Abbott (22:58:27) : Good point. So what has Knutson himself said?
Knutson, T.R. and R. E. Tuleya, 2004. Impact of CO2-Induced Warming on Simulated Hurricane Intensity and Precipitation: Sensitivity to the Choice of Climate Model and Convective Parameterization. Journal of Climate, 17, 3477-3495.
“CO2-induced tropical cyclone intensity changes are unlikely to be detectable in historical observations and will probably not be detectable for decades to come.”
They concluded that changes in intensity may be on the order of a few percent, which, as they noted, is hard to actually catch. BUT it turns out that their models have Hurricanes more closely related to temperatures than reality shows-which suggests to me that he maybe is over estimating AGW’s impact on Hurricane intensity:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2004/10/04/not-a-model-world/
Oh dang. Can the moderators dig that up please?
Duhhh! (Mk2)
As per my tornado posting on previous thread (“AGW creates volatility”).
BTW, do these people get paid to research and publish the bleeding obvious? Whatever they get, I’ll do it for half price.
.
“dennis ward (23:09:45) :
Surely the hurricane count is not as important as the intensity of hurricanes. Just as the number of times it rains is far less important the total amount of rainfall.”
Katrina was a category 5 hurricane over the gulf, but “only” cat 3 at landfall. It is possible it would be counted as a 3 if there were no satellites or airplanes, and not as many ships. More and better possibilities of observation therefore may also lead to “stronger” storms.
We only can hope that in future more scientists write the truth. All the big liars and storytellers like Al Gore and all the Clowns of IPCC should finally keep theire gobs shut and stop make panic!
Indeed, no link between storm frequency and global warming has been made by climatologists. Even Kerry’s comments, which prompted the original post on this, gets the science (mostly) right.
From the IPCC SPM:
Intensity is what is projected to increase, not frequency. And the models appear to have done a better job of estimating no increase in frequency than previous obs, which have now been adjusted (per the above study). Score a point for the models, and one for the efficacy of adjusting data with better information.
Doug (20:10:07)
‘It seems they have changed the definition of hurricanes also. Used to a hurricane was defined as a tropical storm however as of late any cyclone, even those that develop in the higher latitudes are christened as hurricanes.’
If that is true, Hurricanes in west europe form in the winter not summer. But whe just call them Big storms.
“Although Atlantic storm counts overall have not changed, this study does not address how the strength and number of the strongest hurricanes have changed or may change due to global warming,” noted Knutson.
If the strength increases so wil the number. I if a depression just missed tropical storm force than it should make it more often in the future but that is not the case. And thefore I don’t think the stroms are getting stronger.
Peer reviewed research in Australia also shows no increase:
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N4/C2.php
“there is no prima facie evidence of a potential climate-change induced trend in tropical cyclone intensity in northwestern Australia over the past 30 years.”
Reverse INSURANCE FRAUD anyone?
Where’s the Congressional Hearings on this? They say insurance companies are evil.
The insurance co’s took all the doom and gloom Government predictions and jacked up insurance rates in FL and the Gulf so high there’s a veritable depression going on.
Where’s the outrage from Pelosi et. Al on that?
If any of us made false claims, jacked up prices in a coordinated way, and then those claims proved untrue, we’d be next door to Bernie Madoff.
Ask your local Congressman THAT one.