There are no tropical storm, depressions, or hurricanes anywhere on Earth.
Guest essay by Dr. Richard Keen
Today is the normal peak of the Atlantic Hurricane season,
![peakofseason[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/peakofseason1.gif)
So far, the 2015 Atlantic hurricane season has been a dud. For the past few days Tropical Storm Henri has churned, or at least ruffled, the waters of the central Atlantic. But a few hours ago our friends at the National Hurricane Center
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ issued this sad news:
Remnants of HENRI …HENRI DISSIPATES… …THIS IS THE LAST ADVISORY…
Bye bye Henri.
Meanwhile, in the Eastern Pacific, NHC says:
Tropical cyclone activity is not expected during the next 48 hours.
In Honolulu, the Central Pacific Hurricane Center says:
No tropical cyclones are expected through Sunday evening.
But it’s a big planet, so out in the seas of typhoons and Bengal cyclones, the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) chimes in:
There are no active tropical warnings in the Northwest Pacific/North Indian Ocean, Central/Eastern Pacific, or Southern Hemisphere at this time.
Today there are no storms in the Southern Hemisphere, or in all of the ocean basins of the Northern Hemisphere (barring an undetected tropical storm over the Arctic Ocean).
Putting it all together…
It’s the peak of the hurricane season, and guess what…
There are no hurricanes, tropical storms, or even tropical depressions anywhere on Planet Earth.
I’m not sure how common this is, but to paraphrase Al Gore, Michio Kaku, and other experts, is this the new normal?
For posterity, here’s a screen shot of the NHC front page this evening:
http://i60.tinypic.com/vsf9me.png
And the JTWC page:
http://i60.tinypic.com/11qq0dc.png
UPDATE: Dr. Philip Klotzbach agrees. In a tweet today he says:
The globe remains TC (>=35 kts) free today. The last time that September 12 was TC-free around the globe was 1977.
[added by Anthony at publication time] And here are satellite views spanning the globe:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
But a couple of weeks ago, when there were three short lived Cat Fours out at once, it was headline news on the pro-warmer circuit…
Wow , four cat 4’s now nothing? That’s WEIRD
and we all know what causes weird weather …. global warming !
QED.
It’s worse than we thought. Climate change is turning the world into a dull, boring place.
When it comes to weather, I like dull.
…but then there’ll be nothing to talk about…
Living on the odd southeastern appendage, dull hurricane seasons are great. Bastardi scared me into starting my generator after nine years (yea Honda engines) with the forecast that if a hurricane survived the shear it could intensify really quickly. I’m thinking Andrew here. Was a good exercise anyway.
I’ve stared at the 100 year graph for quite a while. It always seemed heuristically the season falls off rather rapidly after mid Sept. but it’s not supported by the data. Maybe the late season paths tend to be fish storms that I don’t really pay attention to.
Question on the 100 year graph: it’s never made sense to me that there are upticks just before Oct. 20 and Nov. 10. I would expect 100 years and (approximating) 1200 storms to rather smooth that graph. I can’t tell; were there some anomalous year(s) throwing that into the data or is there really some kind of other underlying effect????? Ideas????
It’s also making the ground harder, I can testify. Fifty years ago, I could sleep on the ground all night, now I can hardly do it with an air mattress. Proof positive, and it’s all due to global warming.
I agree! I did fine during a bicycle tour 1974. Not quite so comfortable in 2003! Also – the hills have grown since 1974. I’d like to find out who’s been feeding them.
And my knees hurt when the barometer falls. Yes, it is proof of global warming. 🙂
Conclusion: On the hottest year ever 2015 (yet to be named) Man-Made Global warming causes fewer hurricanes or more if there are more than normal or the same amount if there are average amount of hurricanes. Did I miss anything?
Substituting with ‘the peak of the hysteria season’, we have …
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/11/burning-all-fossil-fuels-will-melt-entire-antarctic-ice-sheet-study-shows
… from those cheery folks in Potsdam. 🙂
Why would we burn it all at once? The effect is obvious, but we don’t have the technology to do it.
“The effect is obvious, . . .”
I understand that earthlings cannot burn all the fuel at once. However, if that were possible the obvious would be a collapse of commercial agricultural, energy powered industry, fuel based transportation, and so on and on. Most people would soon die, cities would be abandoned, movement of people and goods would be by wheeled carts, horses, and travoises.
JFH, the very scenario you describe is what was supposed to be happening right now as we speak due to high fossil fuel prices.
Potsdam are in bed with the insurance industry, in particular Munich Re. Munich Re has been trying to flog climate insurance for over 40 years. I may be mistaken but I vaguely recall they sometimes sponsor Potsdam’s ‘research’.
NTZ posts on Munich RE and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact ‘Research’
http://tinyurl.com/np4fv2d
where did the ‘all at once’ come from?
“The conclusion of a new scientific study shows that, over the course of centuries, land currently inhabited by a billion people would be lost below water.”
Potsdam is german for damn potty.
In terms of hyper non-scientific bull, this has to take the all time prize. We barely know how to measure ice volume yet think they know enough about how polar climate works to talk about projecting, not decades, not centuries but MILLENNIA into the future.
Sorry guys you are talking shite . Your PhDs have just been declared nul and void. You are now require to go and get real job. Try rent-boy if you like jerking people off. We’ve had enough.
BTW there’s a pretty damn good chance that we will be heading into another glaciation in three millennia , if not before. That is if human civilisation has not long since collapsed.
What are these guys smoking ???
Based on the eccentricity cycle, we also might be enjoying one of those every 400,000 year super interglacials that last more than 20 thousand years. In fact, the Holocene could be a super, duper one enduring another 50,000 years.
In that case some natural “catastrophic” warming could occur, but depends on how warm the interglacial stays. Probably not very. My guess would be chilly but not as cold as a glacial. Maybe a continuation of the cooling trend for the past 3000 years, with ups, as now, and downs, as in the LIA.
So we lose a bit of the current coast line, but gain an entire continent. Sounds like a good deal to me.
Muchas gracias El Nino.
Yes, but yesterday, 9/11 in Mecca, in the Grand Mosque no less, a freak thunderstorm toppled a giant crane and killed over 100 “pilgrims’ and wounded over 200.
There are still acts of God.
Latest news is the Bin Laden family owned the crane. #karma
Really? We’re going there? 109 innocent people at worship died.
The crane was owned by a German company, but it was being operated by the company owned by the binLaden family.
Clearly, the Evil Israelis have developed a weather-control device capable of surgical targeting . There are unconfirmed reports that Jerry Brown has applied to Israel for the use of rain-making applications in California.
“…killed over 100 “pilgrims’ and wounded over 200.”
They were injured, not wounded!
Slywolfe, please explain the difference between injured and wounded? One thing is for certain, some worshipers were wounded.
Oxford English Dictionary
‘Wound’
“An injury to living tissue caused by a cut, blow, or other impact, typically one in which the skin is cut or broken: a knife wound chest wounds a wound to the thigh”
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/wound
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/injure#injure__2
Wounds are inflicted, injuries happen.
Sly might be thinking of the distinction in the military between a wound and an injury, in which the former is inflicted by the enemy. But you’re right, in the civilian world a distinction might be that a wound could be a particular kind of injury, such that all wounds are injuries but not all injuries are wounds. For example, a head wound might suggest a particular kind of head injury, ie involving a cut, but not necessarily.
That is correct. Wounds result from direct aggression: Injuries are the result of accidents.
IMO it’s correct to say that someone suffered an accidental puncture wound.
Perhaps not a definitive source, but jibes with my belief that a wound can be suffered accidentally, not just inflicted by violence from another person or animal:
http://www.healthline.com/symptom/puncture-wound
What Are Cuts and Puncture Wounds?
A cut (also called a laceration) is a tear or opening in the skin caused by an external injury. It can be superficial, affecting only the surface of your skin or deep enough to involve tendons, muscles, ligaments, and bone.
A puncture wound is a deep wound caused by something sharp and pointed, like a nail. The opening on the skin is small, and the puncture wound may not bleed much. Puncture wounds can easily become infected. A doctor should always examine a deep puncture wound. Puncture wounds caused by a bite or stepping on a rusty piece of metal, like a nail, need prompt medical attention.
A cut can cause external and internal bleeding. A significant cut can cause profuse bleeding if it isn’t treated promptly and properly. Cuts and puncture wounds that cause excessive blood loss or those that damage the organs can be fatal.
What Are the Causes?
The most common causes for cuts and puncture wounds are external injuries that break or tear the skin. These causes include:
falling
car accidents
broken glass
stabbing
razor cuts
The most common causes for puncture wounds include:
stepping on sharp objects such as a nail
getting bitten
falling onto something sharp
Although puncture wounds don’t normally bleed heavily, they are prone to infection. This is especially true if a bite or a rusty object caused the wound. See your doctor immediately if this is the case.
https://englishlanguage101.wordpress.com/tag/difference-between-wound-and-injury/
Slywolfe, you need to stay off the ‘grass’. Please reference your assertions as I did.
Oxford seems to agree that a wound is inflicted. Why do you defend poor journalism or translation?
OED
‘especially’ is not exclusively.
ok
Doesn’t this point out that there is no unusual warming anywhere? I have noticed a trend over the last few months….. The average difference between the reported temperature in Modesto Ca. ( my nearest official reporting station) and my home weather station has increased from by nearly one half a degree F. When they reported 100 F my station shows 96.5 in the suburbs . I understand that since their station is at the airport surrounded buy runway concrete and jet exhaust they will be the hottest place in the area, but could it be they are enhancing their numbers to insure that once again we have had the hottest year ever? They wouldn’t do that….would they?
Have a look at Addis Ababa. Suddenly the hottest place on earth. During their winter. At 10,000′ altitude. In the only certified weather station in the country and so extrapolated.
Airports tend to round up to the nearest whole degree, as a safety measure.
Drop in the accumulated cyclone energy as anticipated in 2012 and updated in 2013
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AHA.gif
This would happen if the sub-equatorial North Atlantic is cooling, implying that the N. Atlantic SST is overestimated. Some of my other recent calculations suggest that the SST may be currently over-inflated by about 0.2 to 0.3C, and that the actual temperature may be more in line with 1950’s.
Where is the sub equatorial north atlantic?
Next to the sub equatorial Artic.
Subequatorial – Merriam-Webster
constituting a region just outside the equatorial region.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SER.jpg
http://models.weatherbell.com/tropical.php
Thanks Mike M
Updated ACE graph
So the accumulated cyclone energy world-wide for 2015 so far is 50 per cent above normal.
But there just don’t happen to be any tropical storms today. So what?
And you’d expect the North Atlantic to be below average in an el Nino year.
Vuk’, this is interesting. I have also found that Arctic Oscillaiton seems to lead tropical climate, though only by a few years. not 15.
I guess by your previous work that red line is some kind of running average. You may find that a proper low pass filter works better. At least it will not produce false results, with troughs in the wrong places.
I don’t like incompatible formats on graphs. If Arctic data is a line graph so should ACE be.
How did you get to 15y lag? What does a cross-correlation plot give as the lag with the strongest correlation? is it significant?
Graph (bar + curve) I based on Dr. J. Curry’s presentation
http://www.eas.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/ins_tampa_09.pdf (pages 13-22). The red curve is 11 year centered moving average (properly calculated, Excel is no good it shifts everything to the right-hand side), I might try a LP filter sometime. If not coincidence, JC thinks it is likely to be associated with the ‘stadium wave’ hypothesis.
Hi Mike
It was 3 (not 11) year moving average.
Here I compare average with a LP filter output, not much in it, perhaps the LPF looks a bit better, would you agree?
Solar minimum activity anything to do with it?
Yes, Climatologist, but that’s not important right now.
Also no trends in tropical cyclone activity 1945-2014
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2630932
Seriously though, may this be a sign of global cooling?
It’s weather. It could all change next week.
Accumulated Cyclonic Energy (ACE) is a much better estimate of the strength of the hurricane season than the numbers of tropical storms (aka tropical cyclones is you want to scare people) and hurricanes. Essentially ACE is the integral of hurricane strength vs. time over the entire hurricane season. So far the season looks quite weak (but it ain’t over yet). For details see http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/accumulated_cyclone_energy.asp
You don’t have to be a tropical storm for very long to boost the storm number, but it doesn’t increase the ACE by much.
The same link shows just how piddling 6/8 of the tropical storms/hurricanes have been.
So the comments are that a one-time view of the world’s weather says something (anything) about long term climate trends?
“a one-time view of the world’s weather says something (anything) about long term climate trends”
Funny how that knife cuts both ways
Nice try troll bait. It isn’t a one time event. It’s the continuation of a 3 year trend.
Well, these one-time views are adding up, right? How many consecutive warmest-ever years with quiet hurricane seasons does it take to break the assertion: “Hurricanes and storms are expected to increase in a warming world”? I, for one, am starting to not expect increasing hurricanes.
”Urricanes ‘ardly ever ‘appen in ‘Amshire’: My Fair Lady.
Tell that to your own side. Every day, every bad weather event is labelled a sure sign of climate change. Baaaah humbug to you.
Well since the EPA is blaming Boston’s record snow on global warming then it’s almost certain this will be blamed.
Our children won’t know what hurricanes are…..
Oh! The humanity!
1977 was before the satellite era, so there is a chance that there was a small, weak storm somewhere in the world, and if no ship sailed through it, or plane flew through it, it would have gone undetected.
Not correct for weather satellites. The first were put into orbit in the 60’s.
Could they determine whether a collection of clouds was a hurricane or just a lot of rain?
These kinds of facts HAVE to be embarrassing for the warmists. Why does anyone keep publishing the predictions of these people when the facts consistently prove them wrong?
I dont think it embarasses them at all. Everything that happens seems to confirm how right they were all along.
Their party line seems to be that increase or even average incidence or severity is a sign of climate change. But a lower than average season with no strikes on the US or even FOUR consecutive years of such seasons is just chance.
I’m beginning to think it has something to do with long term memory deficiencies.
The tropical storms are hidden deep in the oceans, right alongside all the missing heat.
you didn’t mention the association between solar flares and hurricane formation. I think it would be good to point out this mechanism where the suns activity directly influences earth weather events.
The overall trend is that there is no significant change over long term (climate relevant) periods.
The climate obsessed claimed loud and clear in no uncertain terms that the freakish tragic seasons of 2004 & 2005 were the “new normal”. Skeptics asserted that a two year spike was not unusual in climate history, and that none of the storms in those terrible two seasons were particularly unusual either.
The climate obsessed (academia, media, activists, popular opinion leaders) are proven wrong by reality.
The skeptics are once again proven right.
Yet people world wide are paying ridiculously high insurance premiums based on AGW inspired predictions that at best are wrong.
All the depressions have taken up residence in the warmists.
Reality is failing to live up to the proclamations of Dr. Trenberth who indicated (post-Katrina) that we would see increases in hurricane frequency and intensity due to AGW. Instead, it has gone the other way. Maybe he has an Algore effect on hurricanes?
I note that the ‘Gore Effect’ has been in Wikipedia since shortly after it snowed at COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009 (which Gore attended)!
The ‘Gore Effect’ so often happens it will be in climate ‘science’ text books soon.
Yes the season got off to a record start. Let’s see how it ends.
http://s.w-x.co/rec-2015-start-july13.jpg
What does the circle mean around the one on the right?
That graph is two months out-of-date. Where’s the current one?
Obama and his minions still insist that hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones are “worse than we thought” and will continue to increase in both frequency and intensity the higher CO2 levels become….
The empirical evidence conclusively show these catastrophic predictions made by CAGW beneficiaries were hilariously inaccurate and false…
If CAGW is such a slam dunk and can longer even be debated, why do political hacks feel the need to lie about the facts?
Lying is what they do. They just can’t help themselves. It was once said of Bill Clinton by a fellow Democrat that he would tell a lie, even when the truth would be more beneficial to him.