This NOAA press release just showed up in my inbox, it seems to be a completely different take on the Hurricane season than that of Florida State’s COAPS and Ryan Maue who says:
Record inactivity continues: Past 24-months of Northern Hemisphere TC activity (ACE) lowest in 30-years.
Global and Northern Hemisphere Accumulated Cyclone Energy: 24 month running sum through October 31, 2008. Note that the year indicated represents the value of ACE through the previous 24-months.
This was discussed at length at Climate Audit here
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Carmeyia Gillis
Nov. 26, 2008
301-763-8000, ext. 7163 (office)
240-882-9047 (cellular)
Dennis Feltgen
305-229-4404 (office)
305-433-1933 (cellular)
Atlantic Hurricane Season Sets Records
The 2008 Atlantic Hurricane Season officially comes to a close on Sunday, marking the end of a season that produced a record number of consecutive storms to strike the United States and ranks as one of the more active seasons in the 64 years since comprehensive records began.
A total of 16 named storms formed this season, based on an operational estimate by NOAA’s National Hurricane Center. The storms included eight hurricanes, five of which were major hurricanes at Category 3 strength or higher. These numbers fall within the ranges predicted in NOAA’s pre- and mid-season outlooks issued in May and August. The August outlook called for 14 to 18 named storms, seven to 10 hurricanes and three to six major hurricanes. An average season has 11 named storms, six hurricanes and two major hurricanes.
“This year’s hurricane season continues the current active hurricane era and is the tenth season to produce above-normal activity in the past 14 years,” said Gerry Bell, Ph.D., lead seasonal hurricane forecaster at NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center.
Overall, the season is tied as the fourth most active in terms of named storms (16) and major hurricanes (five), and is tied as the fifth most active in terms of hurricanes (eight) since 1944, which was the first year aircraft missions flew into tropical storms and hurricanes.
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. This is also the first Atlantic season to have a major hurricane (Category 3) form in five consecutive months (July: Bertha, August: Gustav, September: Ike, October: Omar, November: Paloma).
Bell attributes this year’s above-normal season to conditions that include:
- An ongoing multi-decadal signal. This combination of ocean and atmospheric conditions has spawned increased hurricane activity since 1995.
- Lingering La Niña effects. Although the La Niña that began in the Fall of 2007 ended in June, its influence of light wind shear lingered.
- Warmer tropical Atlantic Ocean temperatures. On average, the tropical Atlantic was about 1.0 degree Fahrenheit above normal during the peak of the season.
NOAA’s National Hurricane Center is conducting comprehensive post-event assessments of each named storm of the season. Some of the early noteworthy findings include:
- Bertha was a tropical cyclone for 17 days (July 3-20), making it the longest-lived July storm on record in the Atlantic Basin.
- Fay is the only storm on record to make landfall four times in the state of Florida, and to prompt tropical storm and hurricane watches and warnings for the state’s entire coastline (at various times during its August lifespan).
- Paloma, reaching Category 4 status with top winds of 145 mph, is the second strongest November hurricane on record (behind Lenny in 1999 with top winds of 155 mph).
Much of the storm-specific information is based on operational estimates and some changes could be made during the review process that is underway.
“The information we’ll gain by assessing the events from the 2008 hurricane season will help us do an even better job in the future,” said Bill Read, director of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center. “With this season behind us, it’s time to prepare for the one that lies ahead.”
NOAA will issue its initial 2009 Atlantic Hurricane Outlook in May, prior to the official start of the season on June 1.
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.
A graphic track map of this season’s storms and satellite visualization of the entire season is available at http://www.noaa.gov.
On the Web:
NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov
NOAA’s National Hurricane Center: http://www.hurricanes.gov
NHC 2008 Tropical Cyclone Reports: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2008atlan.shtml
###
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.
Yes, you are allowed to challnege the data quality and integrity that government agencies or it’s contractors put out. It is called the DQA of 2000 — The Data Quality Act, which has been anathema to environmental groups, which have seen it as a way to stymie regulation. So far, it has been primarily been invoked by corporations questioning studies that raise alarms about their products.
The Data Quality Act is less than half a page in a public law of more seven hundred pages — Public Law 106-554 Sec. 515; Statutes at Large volume 114, pages 2763A-153 to 2763A-154, available online as plain text and as pdf.
Here is a link to the pertinent DQA part of the larger law, from the NRC … …
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/info-quality/pl106-554.pdf
Time to take to the lawyers. Everybody who has to pay exorborant insurance rates because of the nonsense data output should join in a class action to stop it.
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.
The major media outlets will just parrot the party line. Its another sad day for science.
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.
It didn’t take long for the “OMG the records have fallen!” news stories
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6134160.html
Anthony, we need so LOL-smiles around here. Bill’s post above is comedy GOLD!
Didn’t they change the standards for hurricanes several years ago?
It seams like every low pressure area in the tropics gets a name these days.
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
Dear Will,
The climate is cooling and the AGW figures are being fitted to their increasingly desperate argument.
There was 9% more sea ice in the Arctic at the end of the melting season in September and we now have 30% more ice now than a year ago,
James Hansen is currently re-processing his figures to ensure that what he said in the past is now low enough to show temps still increasing.
If that is not bad enough we are now informed that hurricanes are on the increase…when the Florida State people tell us what we all know.
Hurricans are down!
Even in England we can tell that…..there are few if any sitings of British journalists standing in the wind on a cliff top around Florida or the Eastern Seaboard telling us of a the coming storm.
The warmers have an agenda…and when mother nature does the opposite they change the method and lie through their back teeth.
Also in the UK the prime mover for AGW is “The Indpendent” newspaper who’s role in the general scheme of things is to warn us of impending climate disaster.
From circa 2000 – 2005 they hed wall to wall front pages with photos of polar bears and icebergs…however as we have cooled we hardly see a front page polar bear anymore!!!!!!
Will…get a life.
AGW means…carbon trading and carbon taxes.
In London the former mayor was going to levy a £35 per day congestion charge on cars.
Which roughly translated means the workers can use public transport…whilst the rich and famous cough up their £35 loose change to drive the streets in peace.
Nice trip to Knightsbridge…shop at Harrod’s and Harvey Nicholls.
How pleasant….the streets are cleaar of cars.
James,
PS
Al Gore lives in three houses and runs up power bills twenty times the average. He also uses jet aircraft to spread the message!
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 (13:53:05) :
A gentle introduction.
Will, you make a claim that “Decelerating growth in tropical forest trees — thanks to accelerating carbon dioxide”
Please read the following info and link and provide a reply comment?
The SeaWiFS instrument aboard the Seastar satellite “ref” at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-is-booming-co2-the-cause/ measures photosynthesis and draws an interesting conclusion.
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.
Meanwhile…back at the ranch,
The release from the National Hurricane Center is factual. It is also true that our ability to measure peak winds inside tropical cyclones has been increasing for 150 years, resulting in scewed data. The current count is not too high. The storms did happen, just like the release states, but the historical count is obviously too low. Any study ignoring this fact is wrong before it begins. All studies tying global warming to increasing hurricanes ignore this fact and are wrong.
The fact that AGW promoters will use this release to bolster their claims is not the fault of the release! The Atlantic season was what it was and there is no sense in denying it. But the G in AGW stands for global, so what happened in the Atlantic is not nearly as important as what happened across the globe, which was a significant reduction in total cyclone energy! AGW promoters attempting to use the 2008 Atlantic Hurricane Season to bolster their claims can easily be hoisted on their own batards!
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
Will Small (13:53:05)
“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. ”
Only if the water vapor leads to more “Heat” trapping clouds (which is a major part of the CO2 induced global warming theory). But that is not happening in the real world. (think swamp cooler and the roll of water vapor or a misting system in yuma az).
http://www.weatherguestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-globsl warming.htm
Proof once again the media will manipulate the information to fit their agenda. …typical…
http://www.cookevilleweatherguy.com
petards.
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.
Re “NOAA understands and predicts changes …” = Hubris
Why didn’t they just say, “NOAA strives to understand and predict changes …”?
I think both of these are useful reports. Maue’s is the more interesting to me, as I tend not to worry about tropical storms outside of the Atlantic and I wasn’t aware of the decreasing ACE of the NH & global storms.
The NOAA report has some silly records, but no worse than what you hear on baseball and football telecasts here in the US. Some of those silly records help get people interested in hurricanes or drive home what fickle things they can be. (Fay’s four landfalls is pretty remarkable. While not as disruptive as mountains, Florida is land and Fay did a good job surviving over land.
The next few years with a cool PDO, meaning propensity for La Ninas, meaning lowish wind shear in the Atlantic combined with the warm AMO et al in the Atlantic suggest we may have several more busy years before things settle down there.
Oh – the Klotzbach/Gray season summary is out. Their forecasts and post-mortems are quite readable and educational. About Bertha’s early formation, they say “Bertha formed from a tropical wave in the eastern Atlantic on July 3. It reached tropical storm status later that day, becoming the farthest east that a storm has formed in July in the deep tropics.” Silly record, I suppose, but tropical storm status require 35 mph winds, so I don’t think Bertha is a good storm to complain about NHC jumping the gun. (There are several other cases over the last few years that leave K&G fuming.) The images MattN posted clearly show rotation, not just the usual tropical wave that comes through that part of the Atlantic.
As usual, they have a section about Global Warming and is quite informative this year. When the section was first added it was clearly in response to the “Global Warming Means Stronger Hurricanes” claims and focused on the quality of the historical hurricane record. This year it focuses on variance of the Atlantic hurricane records vs. circulation patterns.
Their first 2009 forecast comes out on December 10th.
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/
It was the 8th worst hurricane season this millenium! How can you not be convinced that the end of the world is not only nigh, but right here, now!
“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
No, Fred (12:27:47) , the NOAA bashing here is totally called for and justified. This bureaucracy is becoming delaminated from reality. They lie, cheat, exagerate, fiddle with the data and run into denial when they are caught out. NOAA is a bureaucracy and NOT a scientific organization. It’s purpose is political, not scientific.
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?