NOAA: More tropical storms counted due to better observational tools, wider reporting. Greenhouse warming not involved.

As I’ve been saying 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.

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.”

NASA's Quick Scatterometer (QuikSCAT) satellite.

NASA’s Quick Scatterometer (QuikSCAT) satellite.

High resolution (Credit: NASA/JPL)

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”

About these ads

57 thoughts on “NOAA: More tropical storms counted due to better observational tools, wider reporting. Greenhouse warming not involved.

  1. That’s not what Al Gore says, and he’s the one we should listen too, not these pesky scientist types.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. “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.

  6. 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

  7. 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!

  8. 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?

  9. 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! ;)

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. “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.

  14. 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/

  15. 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.

    .

  16. “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.

  17. 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!

  18. As I’ve been saying for some time when it comes to the imagined link between AGW and more tornadoes – there is none.

    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.

    “the weather service has told us we are going to have more and more intense storms”

    From the IPCC SPM:

    Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical sea surface temperatures. There is less confi dence in projections of a global decrease in numbers of tropical cyclones. The apparent increase in the proportion of very intense storms since 1970 in some regions is much larger than simulated by current models for that period.

    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.

  19. 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.

  20. “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.

  21. 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.

  22. I am at loss at the responses touting the models forecasts of increased storm intensity. The metric for measuring intensity is ACE, Accumulated Cyclone Energy. If the models show that storm intensity should increase, then they have been falsified yet again. There is no correlation between ACE and temperatures or C02 levels.

    The ACE value for 2008 was the third lowest in 39 years, and the lowest for the last 31 years. 2007 was the fourth lowest in 39 years. Any bets on 2009?

    It appears that storm intensity is dependent upon ENSO, not GW.

    BTW, I had to laugh when the article said ” is consistent with several recent global warming simulations.” ‘Several’, not ‘all’ simulations. That wording implies that it was INCONSISTENT with OTHER global warming simulations. So if the number of hurricanes had INCREASED, they could say that THAT ” is consistent with several recent global warming simulations!” In toto, the models predict ALL types of weather! All I can say is…….it ain’t getting warmer.

  23. We will never be able to compare the strength of storms today to those of the 1870-1950 range. Today, we have hurricane hunter aircraft going into any major Atlantic storm within flying distance from land every 24 hours at least. They pick up the peak strongest peak 30 second wind speed they find at a higher altitude, make an average reduction to ground level unless dropsondes show a drastically different vertical profile, and use this as the strength.

    Compare this to earlier times when the only measurements were either boat data over the ocean which I would assume were rarely in the eyewall of major storms and ground measurements which rarely pick up the true max wind speed and tend to break before ever measuring the true max strength of major hurricanes.

    Given we can’t compare this history, we simply need more data with modern instruments. The studies I’ve seen showing more stronger hurricanes use a 1970-2000s data set. The 1970-1990 era was a weaker time for hurricanes and the 1990-2010 era has stronger storms. If that same cyclical patern continues, I would say we will need data through at least 2050 to get a true idea of any changes human induced climate change have made.

  24. Adam Grey (02:25:15) :

    “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.”

    So the climate models are resolving hurricane-sized structures in a time-accurate manner over simulated time periods of multiple decades? Do you have any references as to how this is done, and to the numerical methods involved is keeping the simulation time-accurate over such a long period of time? Thanks!

  25. Even more than the French, you american people like very much acronyms.

    Sorry if this one was already found, but adding one ‘I’ at the right place in “AGW” gives “AGIW” => Al Gore Is Wrong.

    This post is one additional nail on the coffin.

  26. There is quite a battle going on amongst hurricane researchers who have separated into two camps.

    There is a group that variously say hurricane numbers are increasing and/or the strength is increasing and the reason is likely global warming. And they cite the lack of coverage in the past as the reason they can come up with these numbers.

    Then there is a group that say the numbers do not show any trend so global warming, if it exists, is not changing the hurricane numbers and/or strength. And they cite the lack of coverage in the past as the reason they can come up with these numbers.

    The NOAA seems to be mostly in the not increasing camp.

    Anyone who has looked at the actual data and has not applied the usual global-warming-alarmist-data-torture-technique to it has not found any trends but may find some small cycles up and down.

    I think, even if there some global warming and some increasing ocean surface temperatures, there will be no change in hurricane numbers unless there is also a change in the pressure and temperature differentials between the sea surface and the atmosphere and/or between temperatures in hurricane-generating regions versus nearby regions. There has to be increased differentials not just increased temperature. If anything, warming is supposed to reduce the differentials versus increase them.

    This year so far, there have been less Atlantic storms than expected because tropical Atlantic temperatures are well-below normal while a little farther north, temps are mostly normal. The Atlantic actually has a rather significant La Nina-like event occurring now. There is less differentials to drive bigger storms.

  27. “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,
    May I ask: What “global warming”?.

  28. BTW, I had to laugh when the article said ” is consistent with several recent global warming simulations.” ‘Several’, not ‘all’ simulations.

    The key word is recent. They don’t run the things every day. It may well have been ‘all’ recent runs, numbering in the several.

    It’s also consistent with the model means for the IPCC AR4, which is why that body said that frequency increase was unlikely.

    Before we get too carried away, the confidence on cyclone metrics, both past and future projections, is not very high – about 66% (estimating from reading the material, and the ‘likely’ designation. IPCC also acknowledges a link between ENSO and cyclones (someone mentioned it upthread). Always pays to check what’s actually been said.

    Observations – http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter3.pdf

    Projections – http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf

    That’s about 3 years old now, of course, but it’s the standard until better info comes out ion the next one.

  29. Yet, here in Oregon our former Secretary of State Bill Bradury, whom my wife and I know, goes around with Algore’s “Inonvenient truth” film and a copy tucked under his arm like a holy book,scaring kids with his “Sinners in the hands of an angry Gaia
    speech”.He is convinced that Katrina was due to AGW.,,,

  30. Joe Romm snipped my comments on this very subject and then I blogged about the incident on my site. This was part of what I was saying and he responded by saying it was throughly debunked and I was spreading misinformation.

    Apparently this NHC researcher never read his blog or got the memo on this one. Hard to imagine that an issue of “settled science” would even be researched, I mean the science is clear (ala UN Sec Gen) so why are we wasting our time trying to find the truth? Scientists taking sides? Is science not the ultimate truth as the AGWers would claim?

    We are reaching the apex of the AGWers final push, this is the big one and over the next 4 months it is going to get bad in the media. Health Care is pulling attention away from the issue, as planned, leading into Copenhagen but the AGW forces are very active.

    The calls are getting more and more dire and shrill and it is almost to the point where we just have to make sure people know what they said because they are hurting their own cause. Look at the rash of stupid politicians and pundits statements of late.

    I fear the Senate may slip something through on the ACES Bill while Health Care is distracting everyone, it would not be the first time.

  31. Excellent.

    Now, how about all those “fastest forming” and “fastest strengthening” storms? Also a result of better observations?

  32. Bill Illis (06:17:39) :

    It sounds like you are just making stuff up in the section of your post I pasted below:

    ———————————-
    I think, even if there some global warming and some increasing ocean surface temperatures, there will be no change in hurricane numbers unless there is also a change in the pressure and temperature differentials between the sea surface and the atmosphere and/or between temperatures in hurricane-generating regions versus nearby regions. There has to be increased differentials not just increased temperature. If anything, warming is supposed to reduce the differentials versus increase them.

    This year so far, there have been less Atlantic storms than expected because tropical Atlantic temperatures are well-below normal while a little farther north, temps are mostly normal. The Atlantic actually has a rather significant La Nina-like event occurring now. There is less differentials to drive bigger storms.
    —————————————–

    First of all… tropical systems are “warm-core” which means they are NOT energized through temperature/pressure differentials (gradients) like cold-core synoptic scale systems are. Actually, the presence of temp gradients implies wind shear (e.g., thermal wind balance; see a basic dynamic meteorology textbook) which is bad for warm-core systems.

    Second, the Atlantic “La Nina” is well south of the North Atlantic tropical cyclone genesis region. Thus, it shouldn’t have any direct impact on tropical cyclogenesis. In fact, most of the Atlantic genesis region has above normal SSTs. The reason Atlantic activity has been quiet relative to recent years is the increased wind shear related to the developing El Nino in the Pacific.

  33. NOAA: More tropical storms counted due to better observational tools
    Then…: If more counted, there will be more!. That’s nice!…but for who

  34. Any time you open the tap to take a shower this system will be able to detect it and name it as a tropical storm or hurricane (it will depend on the shapoo brand you use).

  35. Hello all. It’s Mr. obvious again. Your responses to the report caused me to reread it because I thought I had missed something of importance. I didn’t. So I deleted all the meaningless fluff (from the above summary, not the report itself) and what you have left is why, the average person asks (as someone above did), “These people get paid for this?!?” (Parenthetical comments are mine, obviously)

    “apparent increase” – “is likely attributable to” (better) “observational tools” “The report shows” – “short-lived storms” – “have increased”
    (What? I thought there was NO increase?)

    “strong evidence” – “no systematic (climate) change in the number”
    (Oh, that clarifies it……)

    “developed a sampling methodology to measure” – “missed medium- to long-lived tropical storms AND hurricanes” “When the researchers discounted the number of short-lived tropical storms….” (from 1950 on) – “added the estimated number of missed medium- to long-lived storms…..” (from 1950 back) “no increasing trend in” – “tropical storm counts”
    (What? I thought there WAS an increase in storm COUNTS….)

    “This new study is one piece of the puzzle of how climate may influence hurricanes.”
    (What? “may influence”? I thought there was “no systematic” climate influence?”)

    “this study does not address how the strength and number of the strongest hurricanes have changed or may change due to global warming”
    (What? You spent all that money and DIDN’T use your wonderful “sampling methodology” to measure Cat 4-5 storms? Why? The computer couldn’t handle a few extra numbers?
    Oh, RIGHT! That’s the next grant!)

    “The team is not aware of any natural variability or greenhouse warming-induced climate change that would affect the short-lived tropical storms exclusively.”
    (WHAT? What climate “variability” would EVER affect, ONLY short-lived storms?)

    The report says absolutely NOTHING of any importance, IF you can even decipher what it really is saying! Wait! Before you jump all over me. Knowledge before action is essential. But knowledge with no follow-on action is meaningless.
    ALL this is, is the second best thing government does – feed at the trough – this time to gain – knowledge?
    No one is going DO anything with anything from this information.
    Governments are GREAT at KNOWING the right stuff (or so they think), but are terrible at DOING stuff right (which we all know).
    Health-care reform, anyone? Opps, sorry. It’s NOW health-INSURANCE reform.
    Which is as hysterical as the above report – the government telling a private industry what they are doing wrong, when that industry is arguably the most government regulated industry there has ever been! And therein IS what government does best – pass laws that create a problem, then pass more laws to solve the problem, which then create even more problems. Cap-and-trade, anyone?
    Ah, politics! Self aggrandizement and perpetuation at its human best!

  36. This paper is obvious to anyone with the ability to reason, but in the world of science, even the obvious remains untrue until someone publishes a paper in the peer-reviewed, socially acceptable literature.

    For all of you whining “Its not the number. Its the intensity.” Do you actually believe that we could measure peak intensity of all storms when we could not even detect the smaller and/or more distant ones in decades past? It is painfully obvious that improvements in observation technology not only increase the the detected number of storms, but the detected intensity as well.

    This is not a difficult concept and it has continually astounded me that so called AGW tropical ‘experts’ have refused to acknowledge the effect of improving technology in the historical hurricane record, both number and intensity. I actually heard one of them at a conference defend their stance by proclaiming the the historical record is all that we have, so they had no choice but to use it as it was. With this so-called logic, we can argue that hurricanes did not exist until Europeans began to explore the New World.

    I have judged grade school science fairs and frankly, 11-year olds seem to be more adept at recognizing such confounding factors than AGW proponents.

  37. Milwaukee Bob (10:50:04) :

    I thought it was pretty clear what it said. Better measurement techniques pick up short lived storms today that would have been missed in the past. This is the reason for any increase in Atlantic storms rather than anything else. That seems like an important point. It’s official that climate change is not causing more storms.

    The BS part was the where NOAA forces someone to add in something to tow the AGW line, stating that it’s consistent with the models and they didn’t look at strength, which could be effected by climate change.

    I’d love to the see the exact predictions climate models are making on hurricanes. Modern weather models struggle with them (though they have improved a lot in recent years) and they have to be at a much higher resolution than climate models. They didn’t look at strength because modern measurements have had an even bigger impact on determining that aspect of storms. I doubt any determinable trend could be established. Before we started sending aircraft into storms, ships were the only way to know it’s strength out at sea. These ships not only did not provide enough data to determine the real strength, they were actively trying to avoid the most intense parts of any storm.

    The rest of your post is a meaningless rant on government that adds about as much information as the BS part of the NOAA release. I think it’s misplaced here. There are some things that the government does better than private industry. If you don’t believe that, compare Accuweather’s forecasts to the NWS or NHC. Accuweather constantly overhypes danger and predicts extreme possibilities. This is because they are reliant on subscribers and they get more when they can scare them. The NWS and NHC, at least the day to day forecasters, are trying to be as accurate as possible and this accuracy is done via public and scientific verification calculations.

  38. Someone should inform Sen. Debbie Stabenow (previous story) that the greater atmospheric “volatility” she’s been feeling is merely an artifact of her [self-censored]‘s growing sensitivity.

  39. Bill Illis (06:17:39)

    This situation is constantly present in the medical world. Modern technology and medical diagnosis allows greater detection of all kinds of diseases and illnesss. On the face of it, especially to the media, it seems the incidence is increasing. But no one knows how the underlying prevalence might have changed. With a growing population one would expect the headline figure to rise but is the underlying rate any different?

  40. I especially like those storms that they get to name TWICE and count as TWO storms.

    Specifcally those that cross from the Atlantic to the Pacific and vice-versa.

    Global warming fans get all giddy when they do it too-they say: SEE! Twice as many storms this year as last. ~sigh.

    Too bad that, lately, scientists have a reputation BELOW that of Used Car Salesmen, and Politititans. (In that order but polititians are dropping FAST.)

  41. AKD (16:24:52) :

    I especially liked this quote from Dr Mann…

    “Studying these layers is a bit like using tree rings to see what the weather was like hundreds of years ago.”

  42. @ AKD, WRT:

    (16:24:52) Well, this didn’t make the front page at NPR, but this did, courtesy Michael Mann:

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111809658

    The study looked at hurricane activity during the past 1,500 years using techniques that have emerged from a field often called paleotempestology.

    Isn’t an art as old as the hills, in itself worth studying? Paleoscamology, we could call it.

    Anyway, Michael Mann always did sprinkle in just enough truth to make his claims interesting. What else to make of this (?):

    Medieval Era Ideal For Hurricanes
    When Mann and his team reviewed that sort of evidence, they found that the conditions were ideal for hurricanes in the Middle Ages. “There appears to have been sort of a perfect storm of conditions about a thousand years ago that relate to these various influences,” he says.

    Sounds plausible to me… but then I still think that the right tree rings may have a story to tell.

  43. Prof. William Gray, a staunch AGW crisis skeptic, predicted the up tick in hurricanes years before it actually happened. He also predicted global cooling during the first part of the 21st century, way back in the early 1990s. He did it by recognizing the overlying cycles of the oceans and atmosphere and he was absolutely correct.

    The AGW crisis folks have been wrong at every turn and, in the case of Mann, have been shown to be somewhat fraudulent. So who gets the funding and all the press? The fraudulent folks with no demonstratable skill!

    Who says crime doesn’t pay?

  44. A thought! Isn’t this the guy who claimed in 2000 that the MWP didn’t exist? Now all of a sudden it’s legit!

  45. Frank K. (05:55:02) :

    So the climate models are resolving hurricane-sized structures in a time-accurate manner over simulated time periods of multiple decades? Do you have any references as to how this is done, and to the numerical methods involved is keeping the simulation time-accurate over such a long period of time? Thanks!

    My source was clearly referenced – the IPCC. I recommend AR4 Ch 9 (Understanding and Attributing Climate Change – page 711) and Chapter 10 on projections (page 786) to find answers to your questions. You may find more information in the cited papers at the bottom of each chapter.

    A large number of the issues brought up here (including your query) are quantified and qualified in the IPCC docs. I’m sure the top post authors read them, but I’m not so sure that many of the other commentators do. Which would be a strange way to go about criticising the mainstream view.

  46. Just one question: Just ~how~ does Nova Scotia qualify as being in the tropics?
    .
    The caption under one of the above illustrations reads: “Short-lived Tropical Storm Chantal forms 210 miles south of Halifax, Nova Scotia on July 31, 2007.”
    .
    According to the American Heritage English Dictionary, the term ‘tropic’ resolves to:
    ———-
    tropic
    trop·ic
    n.
    1.
    a. Either of two parallels of latitude on the earth, one 23°27. north of the equator and the other 23°27. south of the equator, representing the points farthest north and south at which the sun can shine directly overhead and constituting the boundaries of the Torrid Zone.
    b. Tropics or tropics The region of the earth’s surface lying between these latitudes.
    2. Astronomy Either of two corresponding parallels of celestial latitude that are the limits of the apparent northern and southern passages of the sun.
    adj.
    Of or relating to the Tropics; tropical.
    ———-
    Now then, the most southern reach of Nova Scotia is situated as such:
    43° 50′ N & 66° 5′ W
    .
    Ref.: http://www.bcca.org/misc/qiblih/latlong_ca.html
    .
    So, will someone please inform me as to HOW a —ahem— SUBTROPICAL storm off Nova Scotia is considered ‘tropical?’
    .
    Is that yet another machination which we are just supposed to swallow and say ‘thank you’?

  47. I suggest requesting that the BBC cover this paper, “in order to present a balanced view”. This is something they are ‘required’ to do, so they might take notice.

  48. Sean H,
    .
    I’ve a feeling the only ‘balance’ you’d likely get from the British Government’s very own propaganda machine is either stolid silence, or you’ll be told to mind your own yank business.
    .
    But then, if you’re a Brit? You’ll likely be placed on a ‘watch list’ and harassed endlessly for being an AGW ‘denier.’

  49. Adam Grey (18:03:21) :

    (trimmed)

    My source was clearly referenced – the IPCC. I recommend AR4 Ch 9 (Understanding and Attributing Climate Change – page 711) and Chapter 10 on projections (page 786) to find answers to your questions.

    ????? Please double-check your reference:

    My (on-line) copy of the IPCC’s Assessment Report 4, Chapter 9, is on Africa (not Understanding and Attributing ..) and Chapter 10 is on Asia. (Not Projections).

    See: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter10.pdf

    By the way, Chapter 3 very clearly states that small disturbances can’t be modelled nor predicted by the climatemodels, but can – at best – be individually approximated by the regional models. The IPCC is assuming that the climate models predictions of greatly increased warmth means more hurricanes.

    But they do not establish or support that claim. They merely make the claim.

Comments are closed.