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
###
press release=public relations
This isn’t about science. It’s about presenting the facts in such a way as to reflect favorably on the organization and the important work it does so that come funding time their requests will be looked upon with great favor.
This release reminds me of a line from Dr. Robert Stadler in Atlas Shrugged when justifying another shoddy press release, “But what can you do when you deal with people?”
Atlantic is not the northern hemisphere.
apples and oranges, anyone?
How many of the ‘tropical storms’ named by NOAA were glorified mesoscale clusters that huffed and puffed up to 35 MPH in mid-Atlantic and blew themselves out before Advisory 2?
But in the end, a tropical cyclone is what the TPC declares it to be: la tempete, c’est nous!
Robert Wood (16:33:41)
I would contend that this board/forum/blog comments section is far, far more political than NOAA. You do realize that naming of the storms is the duty of the NHC, and it has been pretty well established that the NHC is not on board with the AGW/hurricane link (Landsea is the SOO for cripes sake!!). So for all of the conspiracy theorists on here that think that NOAA has been fudging the figures, why would they be doing that?
“Maybe gov’t is the solution and the problem is stupid corporations and their short-sighted executives?”
Will, I suggest you put a little more effort into understanding the current global economic problems.
OTOH, I agree that more considered input from AGW supporters can only help this site debate the issue. For myself, I can only assume that the lack of posts from supporters demostrates they have little to say or don’t want an OPEN debate. This has led me to lean towards the skeptical side.
Mikkel: Yes, I at least partially agree. Though trickle-down does work domestically as well as internationally. Most domestic salaries ultimately trickle down from somewhere higher up. And in the US the great majority of government income/cap gains revenues derive from the rich, 40% from the richest 1%.
But, yes, money, like water, finds its own level. If Kyoto affects the terrain, it will likewise affect where the money goes (with the attendant inefficiencies). The Stern article on the concrete makers (whose profits in Germany would be half wiped out by carbon caps) makes that point clearly.
Will, you must remember that if a company is making a 10% profit, a 10% increase in costs wipes out 90% of its profit.
Pierre Gosselin/Mr Artday,
I think the English quote is “empty vessels make the most sound”.
David Porter
It’s simple really. If there weren’t enough very strong negative feedbacks, this planet long ago would have ended up like Venus. Long before man was even a gleam in mother nature’s eye.
If water vapor is such a huge positive feedback as Will’s article suggests, then we are all screwed no matter what we do about CO2.
I think what Will is refering to is this study http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626271.900-cosub2sub-dont-count-on-the-trees.html
Tree growth was reduced by 50% after local temperature rises of 1 degree C. I think Will is referring to the result of extra CO2 rather than the effects of the extra gas itself.
Extra CO2 can increase plant and crop growths as long as there is sufficient water and food to support this extra growth. The shortage of water would be the key to the extra CO2 being a plus or a negative result.
This is the SST map for the 25th August http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.8.25.2008.gif.
They would have been correct if they had stated northern tropical Atlantic, the sea from the Cape Verde islands to the Caribbean was about 1 degree warmer. As this is the significant stretch of sea for hurricane formation this must have been that the referred to.
You are right though that the tropical Atlantic was not warmer than average over the whole.
The record number of hits on the U.S. coastline in one season occurred, I believe, in the mid 1890’s.
GRL rejects 2 papers from Spencer: http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
“November 9, 2008:
The two papers we had submitted to Geophysical Research Letters have both been rejected, with instructions to not resubmit either one. The first paper showed how none of 18 IPCC climate models, in over 1,000 years of global warming simulations, ever exhibits the negative feedback we have measured from global satellite data.
The second paper revealed new satellite evidence that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation modulates the Earth’s radiative balance by an amount that, when put into a simple climate model, can explain 75% of global warming over the 20th Century….including the slight cooling between 1940 and 1980.
Since our previous publications have been basically censored by the news media, and I have now experienced scientific censorship (which I suppose was long overdue), I have decided to take my message to the people in a second book.”
‘How many major hurricanes (Cat 3 or higher at landfall) hit the U.S. mainland in 2008? ‘
The inadequacies of the Saffir-Simpson scale for measuring the impact of landfalling storms were well-illustrated this season with Hurricane Ike. Barring post-season upgrading by the NHC (remember that Andrew was carried as a Cat 4 for ten years before it was upgraded), Ike was a solid Cat 2, but it still had the effects of a major hurricane on Galveston Island.
Joe Bastardi at Accuweather has developed a metric for hurricane impact using criteria in addition to central pressure and wind speed. Two of the factors he includes are the angle of attack on the coast and whether the storm is intensifying at landfall (as Ike was) or diminishing (as, e.g. Rita was in 2005). For an intensifying storm, initial contact with land may actually tighten the eye up leading to a sudden drop in central pressure and a ramping up of wind speeds. Katrina hit south Florida as a solid Cat 1, defying the overlords at the NHC, who insisted that it would be no more than a strong tropical storm.
Mary
My error. I was looking at deg C. not deg F. He said F. I can buy 0.5 C.
My map shows a slight warming. Just not that much.
Thanks Mikkel for the kind words. It’s appreciated.
You’re right. I’m here to learn.
The truth shall set you free,
Will
“The truth shall set you free,
Will”
Only if it’s recognized as such 🙂
JimB
Will,
Apocalyptic cults always use very convincing arguments to justify why *this* apocalypse is the one that is actually going to happen.
Since the AGW cult is censoring the studies that show that in fact H2O vapor is net negative in feedback, I suggest that you just enjoy the show. We are not going to die. We are not going to manage the climate.
And the bizarre-o economics site you posted about is just that: bizarre-o.
From the deluge stories of the ancient world to Malthus to the Millerite cults of the 19th century, apocalyptic stories enchant all humans.
AGW is no different.
Temperatures have not risen significantly. Storms globally have not increased in frequency or strength.
The NOAA report discusses the Atlantic storm basin. The Florida report discusses the northern hemisphere.
The facts seem to be that overall storm strength is down or unchanged, while regional storms may increase.
And by the way- calling skeptics ‘denyers’ is not just bad spelling, it is intellectually compromised.
No thread that concerns peaks and valleys in hurricane frequency should ignore paying obeisance to the pioneering work of Dr William Gray.
MattN notes that Geophysical Research Letters has arbitrarily rejected two scholarly papers submitted by Dr. Spencer — and furthermore told Spencer that he may not re-submit the papers [normally re-submission is routinely accepted, after changes that a reviewer objects to are rewritten].
Want to guess why Dr. Spencer is being censored?
Here’s a hint:
Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann is a “referee” for the journals Nature, Science, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, JRG-Oceans, JRG-Atmospheres, Paleo Oceanography, Eos, Climate Change, International Journal of Climatology, and the UN/IPCC, and an advisor to the grant programs of the NSF, NOAA, and DOE.
Hmm-m-m…
In the corrupted peer-review system of climate science [see the Wegman Report], the role of the anonymous referee confers the unilateral power to reject any papers that are deemed, in the personal opinion of the referee, not to meet vague scientific ‘standards’.
This is the same Michael Mann who refuses to publicly archive his taxpayer funded data and methodology, claiming it is his own personal property.
Mann is clearly — and unethically — using his position to silence his critics. He should be investigated for misappropriating taxpayer money.
But don’t hold your breath.
@Will Small (13:53:05) :
WRT: ““What would it take to convince you that GW or AGW is real? What is the one absolute irrevocable fact that would convince you that we need to act to prevent total disaster?””
To be convincing – one must first be credible.
Please demonstrate answers to these questions.
1. Is the current practice of “Climate Science” as sanctioned by the IPCC in fact Science – as opposed to pseudoscience.
1a. Are the Temperature data measurements credible, using calibrated instruments set to defined and commonly accepted industrial standards of operation.
1b. Are the Temperature Data storage methods credible, using techniques in accordance with defined and commonly accepted industrial standards for Data and Configuration Managment.
1c. Are the Temperature Data evaluation and interpretation methods and software, documented, transparent and freely available for the inspection of third parties.
1d. Is the IPCC Peer Review process, objective and independent?
1e. Are the results of the IPCC sanctioned climate science activities repeatable by independent scientific bodies?
1f. What proportion of IPCC sanctioned climate science activities actually test the link between man-made emissions of CO2 and global warming.
1g. What are the defined and published falsification criteria for the concept that man-made emissions of CO2 cause global warming and that the warming will be of a magnitude as to cause catastrophic damage.
Successfully answering the above questions would give credibility to the idea that current climate science activities are in fact science.
If you can do that, then I will specify in detail the next two sets of questions to determine if your position is credible enough to cast doubt on the sceptic position.
I.e.
2. If Climate Science is Science, is AGW (catastrophy – see 3. next) correct? and
3. If Climate Science is Science, and it is correct that man-made emissions of CO2 cause global warming and that the warming will be of a magnitude as to cause catastrophic damage. Is Cap and Trade, Carbon Taxes and other Carbon reduction schemes the best approach (Cost/Benefit Analysis for a Cost effective solution) to dealing with the problem of catastrophic damage.
To recap – there is no single fact – first show me that we are dealing with science and not politics/pseudoscience.
@Will Small (13:53:05) :
If this were a baseball game, it’s the bottom of the 9th innings, currently your on first base and you need a home run to win…
Can you demonstrate that IPCC Sanctioned Climate Science is indeed Science and get off first base?
Hi Graeme,
That’s quite a homework assignment! I’ll need to take this back over to my folks who are in a better position to answer this. We’ll be back!
Thanks!
Will
@Will Small (16:29:41) :
Fair enough.