The photo below is a stunning and novel piece of imagery and I commend NOAA’s Environmental Visualization Laboratory for this nicely done graphic. If they had done it last year, Al Gore would not have had to Photoshop in some fake (and reverse spinning) hurricanes for his most recent book. See: Not finding any, Gore airbrushes in hurricanes for his new book
11/30/2010 Hurricane Season Ends With High Activity But Few Landfalls
The 2010 Atlantic Hurricane Season ends today after an incredibly active season. A total of 19 storms were named by the National Hurricane Center. This number ties 2010 with 1887 and 1995 for the 3rd most active season on record.
This level of activity was not unexpected, as initially NOAA predicted 14-23 named storms. Twelve of the storms became hurricanes, with sustained winds of at least 74 mph – tied for the second highest number on record. Five storms reached Category 3 strength (111-130 mph), and both Hurricane Igor and Julia reached Category 4 strength (131-155 mph) at the same time. The last time there were to Category 4 storms in the North Atlantic simultaneously was in 1926. Driving this activity was the intensifying La Niña in the Pacific. While La Niña typically produces very few storms in the Eastern Pacific, due to cooler ocean temperatures, it usually results in higher activity in the Atlantic. La Niña tends to reduce the amount of wind shear in the Atlantic Intertropical Convergence Zone, which in turn promotes the formation of storms.
Higher resolution images -2000 x 1500 pixels (suitable for Al Gore Book covers)
View Hurricane Season Ends With High Activity But Few Landfalls – High Resolution VersionView Hurricane Season Ends With High Activity But Few Landfalls (No Labels) – High Resolution Version
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
My God! Their coming right at us!!!
How did they determine how many storms formed in the Atlantic in 1887?
That image sets a new “scientific” gold standard for all future alarmists.
Roger says:
December 6, 2010 at 3:04 pm
“How did they determine how many storms formed in the Atlantic in 1887?'”
They use the “strip-kelp” seaweed as a proxy.
That should have been “they’re”.
Do we suppose that if they made a composite of ALL past known and possible hurricane tracks it would tell us anything? – like, ‘hey man, look – hurricanes come in all shapes and sizes and from many directions’! Wow, says you – ‘the atlantic is covered in swirly cloud!’
scare tactics and very poor ones at that!
moreover, it is ridiculous to try and compare real measurement data (i.e. currently measured temps and hurricanes) with historical ‘recorded’ data. It’s like trying to reconcile crime figures from years ago (even a few decades?) with today – most crime before wasn’t recorded (who were the ‘peasants’ gonna tell?) but nowadays everyone calls the cops for every little thing! apples and oranges – yet again!
you gotta love the extent of the snow cover in that photo composite.
L Nettles you got there before me.
Pity they left out the Arctic ice!
Offtopic – but its got to be said.
Today in Scotland literally thousands of motorists were stuck on the major motorways between Scotland’s two biggest cities Glasgow and Edinburgh. According to those there there was no help and after 10 hours stuck in the same place, the police’s response? To tell them they were to stay in their vehicles and not walk the few hundred yards to the service station!
Scotland has been at a virtual standstill – due to a totally inadequate forecast from the Met Office and what has been the politicians response by this global warming obsessed “government” — no apologies … because they provided a “premier response”.
What a joke both the Met Office and so called “Scottish government” are. We’ve had the same “once in a lifetime” cold weather twice in a year and the response has been atrocious both times, no doubt because they wasted all their “emergency planning” working out how to respond to warming of 1C, given us the usual weather for England!
Interesting how Sydney’s Herald is always quick to mention La Nina in articles relating to the heavy rainfall here and the end of the drought. Of course there were dozens of articles on how the drought was a result of global warming … always forgetting to mention the increase in rainfall in NSW over the past century.
Pielke Jr and I submitted an article three years ago about trends in the mid-Atlantic versus trends in the west Atlantic.
One reviewer said that everything in the article was already well known in the literature and recommended rejection. The other reviewer said that everything in the article was wrong and that our statistical analysis was fraudulent.
The editor said that there was a consensus that the article be rejected. Too bad, it had some interesting points.
Roger says: “How did they determine how many storms formed in the Atlantic in 1887?”
They measure the thickness of multi-annual layers of guano deposits on certain islands in the Caribbean. It’s called coproclimatology.
“How did they determine how many storms formed in the Atlantic in 1887?’”
Jon P answers
They use the “strip-kelp” seaweed as a proxy.
How many strip kelps were whatevered by Gaston? Zero would be my guess. There is no way that some proxy (for strong storms) is going to be comparable to satellite estimates like Gaston which barely made storm status.
Which, of course, begs the question:
How many storms did they miss in 1887?
also, I think I remember two ‘hurricanes’ this year that you could count their time
in seconds or minutes…………….
Did global warming cause the same high number of hurricanes in 1887? Or was there some other phenomenon at play. And if that other phenomenon was at play, could that phenomenon be at play in 2010? (yes, this is rhetorical except for the warmers)
So, if they’re still looking for more 1887 storms, would that be a kelp strip search?
The number of storms was high, but I do not think the total energy was particularly high. The last ACE number I saw was 130 which is above average but well below the highest levels. That was before the last few storms. Will be interesting to see the final number.
Very nice.
The picture would be perfect if the hurricane tracks would be included.
Not only were there no landfalling US hurricanes because of the cold fronts, it’s now going down in the 30s tonight in SWFL. There goes our crops. The inshore fish have been devastated by the cold, and the manatees are stuck in the hot water dischares of those evil power plants.
Such is the state of global warming in Florida.
Oh yeah, our insurance rates are going up because NOAA counts every wind gust as a named storm.
Nice graphic …
To reiterate the comments of others, until weather ships ( a WW II thing), we would have little or no historical accounts of Hurricanes at sea. Even when encountered, there would be no lasting historical accounting. The storms were not even named until the modern era.
jorgekafkazar says:
December 6, 2010 at 3:51 pm
A reliable proxy, seriously, would be to go to ships’ logs for 1887, and find out how many large ships were lost that year, since it is an accurate matter of maritime record, with the assumption that they had to have been sunk by storms of at least magnitude 2. A simple ratio comparing that number with how many ships were lost in 2010 due to known hurricanes gives you the adjusted storm number.
As an example, let’s say that one large ship was lost in 2010 due to a known hurricane (one would be the default denominator, since division by zero is a no-no); if, say, one finds that 50 large ships were lost in 1887, then multiply the hurricane number for 1887 by 50/1.
Simple proxy—logical and not in need of heavy computing power.
You heard it here first!
latitude
(December 6, 2010 at 4:00 pm)
Based on Landsea et.al. 2009 Impact of Duration Thresholds on Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Counts :
In that time period an average of 2 to 3 hurricanes (of 2+ day duration) were missed per year. (see top of page 2514) Plus ??? shorter ones.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/landsea-et-al-jclim2010.pdf
Idk. The multiple storms chosen to evoke the emotional “omg look at all the storms” response – rather than explain anything?
I’d rather have had some ACE data embedded somehow ala Edward Tufte (www.edwardtufte.com). Not sure how that would turn out (include an ACE graph vs time at bottom?) – but would leave viewer more knowledgeable.
They’re showing 12 storms, but, it looks like only 10 were properly developed. Is there any justification for this?