During the past 6-years since Hurricane Katrina, global tropical cyclone frequency and energy have decreased dramatically, and are currently at near-historical record lows. According to a new peer-reviewed research paper accepted to be published, only 69 tropical storms were observed globally during 2010, the fewest in almost 40-years of reliable records.
Furthermore, when each storm’s intensity and duration were taken into account, the total global tropical cyclone accumulated energy (ACE) was found to have fallen by half to the lowest level since 1977.
In his new paper “Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity”, Dr. Ryan Maue, a meteorologist from Florida State University, examined the last 40-years of global hurricane records and found strikingly large variability in both tropical cyclone frequency and energy from year-to-year. Since 2007, global tropical cyclone activity has decreased dramatically and has continued at near-historical low levels. Indeed, only 64 tropical cyclones were observed globally in the 12-months from June 2010 – May 2011, nearly 23-storms below average obliterating the previous record low set in 1977.
On average, the North Atlantic including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea accounts for about 1/8 of total global tropical cyclone energy and frequency. However in 2010, the Atlantic saw 19 tropical storms, of which 12 became hurricanes as expected (and forecasted) due to the intense La Nina event and continued positive Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). The Atlantic Ocean’s accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) corresponded to about 1/3 of the global calendar year output while the Western North Pacific typhoon season experienced a record few number. Seasonal forecasters of Atlantic hurricanes expect a similar but somewhat tempered outcome for the 2011 season, which has yet to get underway.
While the North Atlantic continued a 16-year period of above-normal activity in 2010, the North Pacific including the warm tropical waters from China to Mexico experienced the quietest tropical cyclone season in at least 40-years of historical records. Similarly, the most recent Southern Hemisphere cyclone season, except for the disastrous impacts of Yasi, was also notably below average. All told through June 27, 2011, overall global accumulated cyclone energy and frequency has settled into a period of record inactivity.
—————————————————————————————————
Abstract of paper:
Tropical cyclone accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) has exhibited strikingly large global interannual variability during the past 40‐years. In the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the global frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low. Here evidence is presented demonstrating that considerable variability in tropical cyclone ACE is associated with the evolution of the character of observed large‐scale climate mechanisms including the El Niño Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. In contrast to record quiet North Pacific tropical cyclone activity in 2010, the North Atlantic basin remained very active by contributing almost one‐third of the overall calendar year global ACE.
Citation: Maue, R. N. (2011), Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, LXXXXX, doi:10.1029/2011GL047711.
Figure 1: (Updated: June 1) Last 4-decades of Global and Northern Hemisphere Accumulated Cyclone Energy: 24 month running sums through June 1, 2011. Note that the year indicated represents the value of ACE through the previous 24-months for the Northern Hemisphere (bottom line/gray boxes) and the entire global (top line/blue boxes). The area in between represents the Southern Hemisphere total ACE.
Figure 2: (Updated: June 1) Last 4-decades of Global Tropical Storm and Hurricane frequency — 12-month running sums. The top time series is the number of TCs that reach at least tropical storm strength (maximum lifetime wind speed exceeds 34-knots). The bottom time series is the number of hurricane strength (64-knots+) TCs. The added red lines are linear trends, which serve the useful purpose of delineating the respective time-series mean, since they are flat and parallel. Updated through June 1, 2011.
More evidence that the AGW hypothesis prediction is a failure.
Evidence of a cooling planet? The spin doctors need to operate on this data stat, otherwise the patient, public belief in AGW, may die…
Can someone explain the relationship between Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) and Tropical Cyclone Activity?
[RyanM: Activity is a generic term. Accumulated Cyclone Energy is a well-used metric of tropical cyclone activity used by NOAA and even the EPA as a “climate indicator”. It is easily calc’d by taking the maximum wind speed reported by the NHC or JTWC every 6-hours and squaring it — then add up and divide by 10^4.]
But I was told that hurricanes are getting worse and more numerous!
As I understand it, weather is more about relative differences in temperature in the atmosphere as opposed to absolute temperature, which, theoretically is the domain of climate. So I’m not sure what this proves except, of course, that the prediction was wrong. Has anybody come up with a view on this? [RyanM: yes, everything is relative. it is a great unanswered question in meteorology, why the number of storms is what it is … ]
I bet even the historically low global tropical cyclone activity will instantly be blamed on AGW by some people.
I’ll be looking to see this highlighted at Dr. Master’s hurricane blog since he didn’t mention it in conjunction with his year of horrific events.
[ryanm: Masters will not cite my work.]
Oh and the relationship to Global Hurricane activity might be interesting as well.
It’s worse than we thought.
All our evidence has blown away.
Must have been a storm…
Another CO2 = CAGW failure of prediction divergence toward even the opposite of what the allegedly ever present “climate change” has been ordered to do by the “the physics” and “data” represented by the GCM Models. Sadly for the Anthropomorphizing Anthropogenic Anthrowbacks, the climate seems to be in a kind of denial too.
Thanks, Ryan. Very interesting (and a lot of work). But still, Al Gore “sees” hurricanes. Okay, his spin the wrong direction, produce negative energy, and cause ACE to be historically low. It is hard to compete with good fiction:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/not-finding-any-gore-airbrushes-in-hurricanes-for-his-new-book/
Ryan’s post, but see comment #2 by rxc.
mike sphar says:
June 26, 2011 at 9:30 pm
I’ll be looking to see this highlighted at Dr. Master’s hurricane blog since he didn’t mention it in conjunction with his year of horrific events.
[ryanm: Masters will not cite my work.]
===========================
What? He will not cite your work?
So…. Dr Jeff Masters…you are a scientist, right?
But yet you will not cite Dr. Maue’s work?
What are you afraid of?
[PS the fact that you ignore anything contrary to you is very very similar to the problem that Ayn Rand expounded upon more than a half century ago.
When Ellsworth Toohey was confronted with the incontrovertible evidence of Howard Roark’s brilliance, Ellsworth said simply: “Well I just don’t notice him.”
Res ipsa loquitur.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
[RyanM: Masters had a post in early April about the global decline in TC activity — which coincidentally occurred 3-days after I gave a presentation about it … and of course, a simple google will show that I keep track of such TC related things…Masters is a self-admitted ideologue at this point in his scientific career. He doesn’t publish research that I know of.]
Thanks RyanM, I thought I was going mad.
Remember when snow was going to be a thing of the past 10 years ago? Yet, record snowfalls these past two winters were deemed “consistent with” CAGW conjecture.
Same deal here. The koolade drinkers will come up with some contrived explanation how fewer storms is “consistent with” CAGW.
That’s when you know CAGW is more religious cult than science: it cannot be falsified. Even in the face of multiple failed predictions, the true believers cling true to their doctrine.
Ryan if you have a chance read The Fountainhead. The book was written at the median of the last century but gets EXACTLY at what is wrong with everything.
Probably the most important book written in the 20th century.
Oh wow….the 20th century….that is a relic. LOL
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Jason Bair says (June 26, 2011 at 9:28 pm): “But I was told that hurricanes are getting worse and more numerous!”
Despair not, ye faithful! No doubt the good Prof(it) Dr. Michael “Siltdown” Mann shall soon turn his attention to this blasphemous data, and lo! A blessed Hockey Stick shall miraculously appear and smite the heathen disbelievers! And the almighty See-O-Tou shall once again smile upon his flock and bless them with taxpayer money.
/sarc
Seems like the hurricanes are suffering from a lack of energy.
I see some hint of Solar Cycle minimum mixed in there, as well as Neutron Counts, but it is on for one cycle, and out of phase the next. Fascinating.
If you listen carefully, you will hear the prayers of the Gaya worship-freakamonks desperately hoping for just one deadly hurricane to hit the US mainland.
Celebrations to follow immediately thereafter.
I think it’s a great set of data. I was fiddling around with just the Atlantic basin a few years ago and was intrigued by the trends. I stopped when I found out that an actual researcher was doing real research on it. The only part about it that I was unhappy with was the lack of availability of the data in either table or csv data format.
That it’s being seriously looked at makes me happy. I can live with that.
Bravo Zulu.
It kinda runs in the face of the “worse than we thought” doctrine of wildly escalating superstorms and the like, doesn’t it? Heaven forbid, While Al Gore implodes, so does his silly theory.
If a Mann works a Tijlander magic on those beautiful graphs …………….
rateman said
” Seems like the hurricanes are suffering from a lack of energy.”
* * *
IMO, you hit the nail on the head.
And thanks Ryan, for a very interesting study. If I had to wager a guess, ( pretty much the only thing I’m qualified to do on this issue), is that after a period or year of strong highs, as evidenced by the graphs, ( 94, 98, 06) it seems to taper off a bit, into a period of lower activity and intensity.
Like rbateman says, this could be due to a lack of energy, which seemed to be expended during the last “high” period.
Of course, this is all speculation, and I could be completley off my rocker.
Anyways, thanks Ryan, for a very through study. Very pleasant to read. I just hope you didnt have to be in the middle of any cyclones to record it. Very nasty pieces of business, they can be.
[ryanm: doubtful, i live near Anthony in California…]
Yet more proof of …. a new Maunder minimum?
… OK, only kidding! But, even now I can see how something like this will be used in a few years when the “heat” is off and the “cool” topic is … global cooling and the Maunder minimum.
Somehow I know we are going to get just as sick to death of the “is it more proof of an impending ice age” as we were with the “is it more smelly socks from mann”!!
It is quite a pleasure to be able to write a paper, get it published, and then present it to the skeptical masses here at WUWT. I left out the requisite commentary that I would usually supply with my posts to keep it as professional as possible.
You’ll note if you read the paper that global warming doesn’t really come up. Indeed, I do describe climate change effects on tropical cyclones, but only in the respect of honest to goodness natural non-AGW climate change.
Ryan, congrats…… and well done. To see some realism in some research work is a breath of fresh air.
Other than the obvious oscillating events and Nino/Nina, have you noticed any other precursors to an active season?
[ryanm: yeah, the TC heat potential — or the heat content down to the 26C isotherm below the surface: see http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/SST/tcheat_atl_epac.html and look at the individual years’ anomalies, as of today…]
I am wondering if this is solar related. It’s a hypothesis that has not been rejected nor really tested to my satisfaction. Indeed, the variance explained by solar fluctuations may not be measurable with our instruments or manifest itself in the cyclone records. We know it is non-zero, but we don’t know the sign nor the number of zeroes after the decimal point …
BDF @ 9:34
Oooh, excellent. My only suggestion would be to remove ‘our’ and ‘has’ from the middle line.
===========
Eye of Chris Mooney.
Ideology? Science?
Let him write ‘Calm World’.
==============
Ryan, in May, 2009, I had all the pleasure of presenting your graph of ACE to a literary group’s discussion of Mooney’s ‘Storm World’. A cloud modeler moderated the discussion. Needless to say, I had fun that evening. Thank you.
==========
[ryanm: mooney is a moonbat leftist, i applaud your efforts in injecting some sanity]
Well – if I was one of the faithful, I’d spin it like this:
“Tropical storms rely for their creation on the difference in temperature levels between the equator and (sub)tropics. The low number of cyclones and their low energy indicates that the (sub)tropics, mid-latitudes, etc, are getting warmer. This reduces the energy gradient and less storms result.”
One of the original objections to the “more storms with global warming” was the observation that temperature gradients cause storms, not temperatures per se. However, the “more storms” meme was the more interesting, and the one that easily took hold. Less storms (“it’s not as bad as we thought”) doesn’t grab the imagination of the faithful and the MSM.
[RyanM: as the planet warms, we go back to the tropical cyclone activity levels of the 1970s when the earth was cooler… conundrum]
Looking at the bottom NH line of the top ACE graph, it looks like levels are heading down to those seen during the 70’s. Another sign that the Earth is losing energy and we can expect more cold NH winters?
Yup good paper – started with no pre-conceptions and left us wanting more. Have you tried bundling a whole bunch of global met, climate, seasonal and oceanic data together and seeing if a principal components analysis gives you anything useful. I know that’s not how you are supposed to do stats but it might allow you to formulate a hypothesis for testing.
>>goldie says: June 26, 2011 at 9:29 pm
>>As I understand it, weather is more about relative differences in temperature
>> in the atmosphere as opposed to absolute temperature
Which is one reason you can get massive planetry-wide dust storms on frigid Mars. But the wonderful climate computer model said that more heat equates to more hurricanes. And this is the same wonderful computer model that predicts
huge tax rises in the futurehuge temperatue increases in the future.The only benefit we have is that, unlike in the 16th century, we are free to believe what we want to believe, without being burned on a funerary pyre.
.
Thank you very much Dr Maue for showing un-varnished data. It is greatly appreciated by this geologist and ex-academic research scientist.
[RyanM: Activity is a generic term. Accumulated Cyclone Energy is a well-used metric of tropical cyclone activity used by NOAA and even the EPA as a “climate indicator”. It is easily calc’d by taking the maximum wind speed reported by the NHC or JTWC every 6-hours and squaring it — then add up and divide by 10^4.]
Where did the formula come from?
Thanks
Sandy
[ryanm: originally a State of the Climate report from 2000. Bell et al. — it has been used since. Kerry Emanuel devised a similar metric — v^3 and called in Power Dissipation Index for his Nature 2005 paper]
Here’s a thought, not much of one, probably. It seems deep water upwelling might dominate the Pacific. We know the surface water from 400 to 700m is quite warm, while deep water is around 3 °C. Apparently [see ref], sea water gets denser until it freezes, so deep ocean current water could potentially be colder than -1 °C. It takes over 1000 years to travel from the North Atlantic to the Eastern Pacific. While water is incompressible, the current could widen and narrow over the centuries depending on the volume sinking, like a deep water tsunami. Pulses of more or less cold water upwelling could coincide with solar activity producing synchronized heating or cooling effects.
I’m assuming the temperature doesn’t change much given the large volume and limited mixing potential of the denser current. I would expect too much mixing would sap energy through turbulence and slow or stop the flow. The outflow of warmer surface water from the Pacific into the Indian draws up the colder deep water.
The point is, events 1000-1600 years ago that affected the amount of cold water entering the global conveyor could reinforce or cancel out solar-driven events now. If we knew the volume of cold water in the pipeline and about to make an appearance, we might have a chance of doing some better prediction. Can we determine whether the water coming up in the Pacific sank during the Dark Ages, or perhaps the Medieval Warm Period? If recent upwelling is actually from the tail end of the Roman Warming, that suggests more cold water from the Dark Ages would be coming up soon. Tie that together with a napping sun, and we might be in for some cold times in the Pacific.
Do any temperature fluctuation patterns in Eastern Pacific water temps seem to match temperature estimates in the North Atlantic 1000+ years ago? Can we get any indication from Greenland ice cores (maybe δ18-O)? Does colder Greenland temp mean colder water sinking and more volume? Is there any way to date the water coming up (apparently [see ref], there is a way to date ocean water using 231Pa/230Th). Can we compare Indian Ocean sediment cores to Pacific Ocean sediment cores to confirm conveyor circulation time differences and surface temperature changes?By looking at the Indian Ocean, we might be able to predict what the Pacific will do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
They could better change their crystal ball.
The only benefit we have is that, unlike in the 16th century, we are free to believe what we want to believe, without being burned on a funerary pyre.
Ralph says: June 27, 2011 at 12:21 am
I think It should be : we are still free to believe
What I find interesting about the ACE is that there is less variation year-to-year than one would imagine, when one focuses on the Atlantic alone. In the Atlantic you can notice fairly wild swings from over twenty storms one year to down around ten the next, but these wild swings don’t appear in the world-wide data.
Therefore, because the ACE is low now, you can be fairly sure it won’t be high for the next few years.
However it only takes one hurricane to spoil a summer. Just because the ACE is low doesn’t mean that a single hurricane couldn’t clobber New England.
I was looking at the tree rings on a hillside that was recently clear-cut, here in southern New Hampshire, and I noticed that most of the stumps were from trees that began growing between 1950 and 1958. I wondered if any tree that was larger than a sapling on that hillside was flattened by Carol in 1954.
Less active sun, more meridional jets, more cloud, higher global albedo, less energy into the oceans, less Accumulated Cyclone Energy.
My memory probably fails me but I thought we were promised stronger and more frequent hurricanes due to global warming. We have just had over 30 years of ‘man-made’ global warming, the ‘hottest’ 10 years on the record, and the 2 ‘hottest’ years on the record.
The result:
Promises promises
Gore, Dr. Hansen et al.
Dr. James Hansen
Dangerous human-made interference
Observations trump theory every time – “The facts don’t lie”. This is what happens when you let an astronomer / venus observer become a climate scientist.
It’s part of the disinformation campaign because the AGW theory continues to be falsified by observations.
See more of their never ending failed predictions / forecasts / projections.
Don’t expect to see this paper highlighted any time soon in the MSM still less on the BBC. One can expect the BBC to carry on reporting the very opposite.
I need to remind folks here about a few other contradictory pieces of weather/climate research.
Floods – no increase in frequency, less intense
Extreme weather events – no trend
Global precipitation – no trends
Rate of sea level rise – deceleration over 80 years
Weird weather – no trends
Forest fires – decreasing frequency
Tropical Pacific sea level rise – fell
and so on……………………
Thanks for this info Ryan, our local BOM NW Australia prediction was for above average numbers of cyclones for the last three years, then went quiet, the predicted numbers did not happen. We did however have a couple of Category 5 that missed towns and fizzled rather quickly. This while temperatures were 1-2C above average. This year is 2-3C below average so far, it will be fascinating to see what happens from November with cooler seas.
Not to worry the models cover this , as they do rains of fish and the second coming of the Lord 😉
Well, the last major hurricane to hit New York was 1938. The New England area has had many hurricane strikes in the past. So it is possible for a strong hurricane to hit New York City. If a strong hurricane hits New York and if it arrives at high tide then the storm surge could cause severe flooding. That would be the Gaia dream, because many lives would be lost, especially the homeless, and because nobody remembers all those hurricanes that hit New York in the past.
Congrats Ryan,
You got a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters about hurricanes without blaming it on global warming or GHGs. Things must be really changing on the hurricane front with the community finally accepting that tropical storms and hurricanes are driven by something else.
Your paper shows some linkage to the ENSO and the PDO, but there are probably other factors to explore as well (ie keep it coming).
As an observer of things logical and real I have noted that not one -prophecy- scientific statement uum prognostication consensus fact from the AGW camp has proven in any way to be close to the facts of real world observation. They have newspeak nailed, hot is cold and more equals less, Today big brother gives us the good news that the chocolate allowance will be increased by minus twenty percent.
Mike Sphar–Welcome! Glad to see you made it over to this neck of the internet woods. If you still visit that alarmist site and see Atmoaggie, tell him I said hi! 🙂
Dr. Maue–Thanks for the update! I find your work extremely interesting, especially considering that it has been over 1000 days since any hurricane hit the U.S. (the longest such streak since before the CIvil War, if I’m not mistaken). Now, if you could find a correlation between OHC/shear and ACE, then you might have a way of more accurately predicting storm numbers.
“Masters is a self-admitted ideologue at this point in his scientific career. He doesn’t publish research that I know of.”
Jeff Masters apparently makes his living running a weather web site – one which I do NOT use anymore (there are much better weather sites out there anyhow – I now use intellicast.com).
The fluctuations in hurricane activity seem quite normal to me. Of course for the AGW alarmists ANY change in weather phenomenon is proof of AGW. You can’t actually “win” with these people as it is akin to arguing with a 4 year old. Now that AGW has ceased being science and has turned into a religion EVERYTHING proves AGW.
I think man-bear-pig did this trickery. It must be his fault that all the evidence is missing to support Al’s claim of Global Warming, I mean Climate Change, or whatever.
Whoo! Yer famous, Ryan! Drudge has got this linked right at the top of the page!
Best,
Frank
[RyanM: fwiw, Matt linked my personal webpage for me as a favor for all of the climate/weather links I provide him… ;-)]
The only paper he cited to “prove” that CAGW causes hurricane activity changes was this:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/full/ngeo779.html
Tropical cyclones and climate change
Thomas R. Knutson, John L. McBride, Johnny Chan, Kerry Emanuel, Greg Holland, Chris Landsea, Isaac Held, James P. Kossin, A. K. Srivastava & Masato Sugi
The CAGW crowd has always shown only those “peer reviewed” papers that support the cause.
Speaking of Jeff Masters, my dad (an AGW believer much to my dismay) posted on his facebook page how he thought Masters presents an evenhanded account of weather and climate. Having never heard of Masters before I decided to check out his blog…
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/show.html
This was one of the first lines I read “Unprecedented heat scorched the Earth’s surface in 2010, tying 2005 for the warmest year“. It appears to me that Mr. Masters has no idea of what the word unprecedented (or scorched for that matter) means. The rest was more of the same, I finally got bored reading.
Dad and I gonna have to have a chat…
Hello Ryan et al.
I’ve begun work on a Tropical Cyclone reference page for WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/tropical-cyclone/
Password: WUWT
Any recommendations of potential content for the page would be most appreciated.
But I thought any dissenting opinion is never published and yet I’ve seen 10+ articles that do just that………..LOL. I guess maybe there isn’t some conspiracy after all.
And Dr. Maue, do you ever talk with Dr. James Elsner……….you have similar research topics.
[no, interestingly he is in Greece right now at the 3rd International Tropical Cyclones conference. I attended the 1st in 2007, but none since.]
[the peer review process is painless if your paper is good enough — remember, that I am not only a paper submitter but also a reviewer of other papers, too]
Ryan, having seen the paper, I am curious as to what your thoughts are on what appears to be ACE actually slightly leading the ENSO indices?
[ryanm: it’s hard to figure this out since the Northern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season occurs when the ENSO signal is not as strong. I suggested in my previous GRL paper in 2009 that the following TC season was set in stone due to the effects of the prior — and the corresponding imprint upon the SST in the North Pacific. It was just speculation / hypothesis, but hell, if I am right, I was the first — and I’ll be the first to take credit]
Wow……….All these dissenting paper are getting published, but I thought that wouldn’t happen. Just goes to show that if the methodology is sound it will get published.
And Dr. Maue , do you ever talk to Dr. James Elsner since your research interests are so close?
My bet:
We will soon hear, from the AGW people, about normal climate variations which are, temporarily, masking human induced warming and the predicted catastrophic events.
You know, those normal climate variations which where so well known in 1998, and so well measured, and so well dismissed, that the only explanation for the warming observed in 1998 had to be burning fossil fuel. Those normal climate variations.
Just got done reading the Big Short, about the subprime real estate bubble. All the experts had it wrong, but they all made BIG bucks until the bottom fell out of the market. The capacity for humans to fool themselves, and others, when it is in their own selfish interests, is amazing. Even more amazing was the credulity of the people who were swindled (I count myself among them). They trusted respected institutions (Investment banks, bond rating agencies, the US government, newspapers, financial advisers. A few mavericks, outside the system, made big bucks shorting the bubble. These mavericks were despised. They were nobodies, and got no respect until the day of reckoning, when they became very wealthy.
The parallels to the global warming industry are all there. Just one example. The short sellers got impatient for the market to implode. They tried getting newspapers to runs stories about the fraud in the subprime bond market. The papers declined to run those stories. They told the SEC all about it. The SEC did nothing. They had to wait until the whole thing just collapsed under its own weight.
Read the Big Short, and think: How can we make money on shorting the global warming industry?
Really. Wouldn’t you like to get rich?
SO, lets see, our hapless National Hurricane predictor(s) who have been wrong more than right predicted 18 major storms this year. The economic effect is that insurance companies base their increased rates and reluctance to cover property on this incorrect data and consumers pay more. When no storms come no one is held into account for the additional cost.
“SO, lets see, our hapless National Hurricane predictor(s) who have been wrong more than right predicted 18 major storms this year.”
Wrong more than right? Care to back that up.
“The economic effect is that insurance companies base their increased rates and reluctance to cover property on this incorrect data and consumers pay more. ”
The insurance companies do not use these predictions as their basis to determine rates et. al.
“When no storms come no one is held into account for the additional cost.”
NOAA doesn’t predict landfall.
“NOAA’s seasonal hurricane outlook does not predict where and when any of these storms may hit. Landfall is dictated by weather patterns in place at the time the storm approaches.”
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110519_atlantichurricaneoutlook.html
Does this mean Gorbull Warmmongering is over?
As someone who lived in Charleston, SC when Hugo hit, I will say “all it takes is one.”
JAFO
“the peer review process is painless if your paper is good enough”
Partly true it certainly painless if you part and the ‘Team’ , even when its rubbish , look at the recent paper on sea levels.
But try taken on the icons of AGW and expect to find yourself getting the run around.
Meanwhile to stay on message you need to remember that the dogma is that there ‘no science ‘ that refutes AGW , otherwise you in danger of called a ‘denier ‘ HTH
[ryanm: i should have put a /sarc after my quip]
I think Joe Bastardi got this right.
[ryanm: please explain]
He’s very brave. Hope the good Dr. Maue doesn’t lose his funding over what many in the university community consider blasphemy.
savethesharks says:
Ryan if you have a chance read The Fountainhead. The book was written at the median of the last century but gets EXACTLY at what is wrong with everything.
Probably the most important book written in the 20th century.
Did you perhaps mean Atlas Shrugged? My wife just got through reading that (after much prodding) and was quite amazed at the parallels to present-day events.
The Fountainhead, as I recall, doesn’t involve the larger scale as much – it’s more one man’s story.
JAFO, the issue of hurricanes/tropical cyclones and climate has not become nearly so entrenched as other issues. Additionally, given that the tropical cyclone research community has largely been of the belief that climate impacts on them would be minimal to begin with, this paper really doesn’t rock the boat that much. Your statement that “if the methodology is sound it will get published” is not supported by the preponderance of evidence. Perhaps you would like to explain what was not sound about the methodology of Ross McKitrick’s paper showing that an important claim of the IPCC was flat wrong that had to eventually be published in a stats journal because none of the climate journals would tolerate it?
The paper:
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/ac.preprint.pdf
The story of what it went through to get published:
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/gatekeeping_chapter.pdf
How much extra energy is leftover in the climate system when it isn’t transported to space in these hurricanes?
Dr Maue, as long as your’e answering some posts, can we get your input on the following?
http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2010/2010-25.shtml
This paper states that ocean color can affect a hurricane’s path (and strength).
Could the loss of chlorophyll in the phytoplankton also be affecting the ACE?
One simulation had hurricane formation dropping by 70% in one area (but a 20% increase in another area).
[ryanm: i remember this paper. It is the classical “what-if” toy model type study to determine the sensitivity of the earth-ocean system to a given parameter or factor. However, when doing these studies, often the most extreme scenario is chosen — turning off all of the chlorophyll. While this may be a factor in hurricane frequency and intensity, it is probably undetectably small with our current tools and theories of tropical cyclone dynamics. File this one away in the “cool, but not currently relevant” category.]
Sincerest congratulations Ryan, not only for the paper, but also for giving us a tool by which to quantify the energy of TS activity.
Gorebull Wormmongering should have stopped in 1998 when climate warming stoped and global warming became climate change.
So having tested the waters a bit, I learned that the future of tropical cyclones would be fewer in number worldwide by higher in categorization yet ambiguous regarding cumulative ACE values. I wonder does this ring true within the sceptical community ?
[ryanm: global ACE can be approximated by the number of hurricane each year globally — the weakest tropical storms do not contribute much to the overall total. So, as expected, hurricanes will become more intense, slightly, yet less numerous probably the year 2030-2050 or 2070. That’s when we’ll be able to detect an anthropogenic trend in ACE. Start the clock.]
TonyG says:
June 27, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Did you perhaps mean Atlas Shrugged? My wife just got through reading that (after much prodding) and was quite amazed at the parallels to present-day events.
The Fountainhead, as I recall, doesn’t involve the larger scale as much – it’s more one man’s story.
===========================
No. I absolutely meant The Fountainhead….but Atlas Shrugged is good in its own right too.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Just The Facts says:
June 27, 2011 at 8:11 am
I left you a bunch of resource links in a comment on the webpage you listed. Hope some of them will be of interest/use to you.