From NASA’s PR engine:
NASA Sees Hurricane Sandy as the “Bride of Frankenstorm” Approaching U.S. East Coast
NASA’s TRMM satellite revealed Hurricane Sandy’s heavy rainfall and the storm is expected to couple with a powerful cold front and Arctic air to bring that heavy rainfall to the Mid-Atlantic and northeastern U.S. Some forecasters are calling this combination of weather factors “Frankenstorm” because of the close proximity to Halloween. However, because Sandy is a woman’s name, the storm could be considered a “bride of Frankenstorm.”
NASA satellites have provided forecasters at the National Hurricane Center with rainfall data, infrared, visible and other data on Sandy and will continue to do so. Dr. Marshall Shepherd who works with TRMM data provided an insight into the storm’s development.
NASA’s TRMM Satellite Sees Sandy Drench Jamaica and Eastern Cuba
The Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) satellite had a partial view of hurricane Sandy on Oct. 25 at 1425 UTC (10:25 a.m. EDT) after it had passed over Cuba and moved into the Bahamas. An eye was hard to find but TRMM’s Microwave Imager (TMI) data showed that a large area of intense rainfall was occurring around Sandy’s center of circulation. Hal Pierce of NASA’s TRMM Team at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. used a GOES-13 satellite image captured at the same time to fill in the part of the image not viewed by TRMM to create a total picture of the storm.
TRMM rainfall totals were tallied for the seven-day period from Oct. 18-25, 2012. The heaviest rainfall occurred over open ocean where totals were as high as 325 millimeters. Rainfall amounts as high as 250 millimeters were measured over eastern Cuba and some extreme southern areas of Hispaniola. Hurricane Sandy’s track with appropriate symbols is shown overlaid in white. Credit: SSAI/NASA, Hal Pierce
With its combination of passive microwave and active radar sensors, TRMM is ideally suited to measure rainfall from space. For increased coverage, TRMM can be used to calibrate rainfall estimates from other additional satellites. The TRMM-based, near-real time Multi-satellite Precipitation Analysis (TMPA) made at NASA Goddard can be used to rainfall over a wide portion of the globe. TMPA rainfall totals were tallied for the seven-day period from Oct. 18-25, 2012.The heaviest rainfall occurred over open ocean where totals were as high as 325 millimeters. Rainfall amounts as high as 250 millimeters were measured over eastern Cuba and some extreme southern areas of Hispaniola.
› View larger image On Oct. 25 at 1425 UTC (10:25 a.m. EDT), NASA’s TRMM satellite saw that rain associated with Hurricane Sandy storm’s center, was moderate (in green and blue) and falling at a rate of 20 to 40 mm per hour. The heaviest rainfall at the time of this image was falling over the Dominican Republic at more than 2 inches/50 mm per hour (red). Credit: SSAI/NASA, Hal Pierce
Hurricane Sandy passed over the islands of Jamaica and Cuba causing at least 21 deaths. Extensive flooding and other damage were reported near the capital city of Kingston and other areas of Jamaica.
National Hurricane Center Rainfall Expectations
The heavy rainfall potential is evident in the National Hurricane Center’s (NHC) forecast on Oct. 26. The NHC noted that Sandy is expected to produce total rainfall amounts of 6 to 12 inches across Haiti and the Dominican Republic with isolated maximum totals of 20 inches possible. Rainfall totals of 3 to 6 inches are expected over portions of the Bahamas with isolated maximum amounts of 12 inches possible. Rainfall totals of one to three inches are expected across the Florida Keys into southeastern and east-central Florida with isolated maximum amounts of six inches possible. Rainfall totals of 4 to 8 inches are possible over far eastern North Carolina.
Interview with Research Meteorologist Dr. Marshall Shepherd
Dr. Marshall Shepherd, University of Georgia Professor and Research Meteorologist has worked with TRMM satellite data since its launch in 1997. Dr. Shepherd provided his take on the storm event. “Models are coming into consensus on a landfall, if you will, in the DelMarVa area. Comparisons are being made to the Perfect Storm of 1991, but many folks won’t remember that. Storm will bring very strong winds (hurricane force) over a strong area. Remember the Derecho of June 29, 2012. Expand that to the entire Delaware/Maryland/Virginia and New York/New Jersey region.”
Shepherd said that the event will bring significant rains and inland freshwater flooding , that he said was often the deadliest threat from tropical systems. He also cited concerns about the storm surge and coastal flooding as full moon will mean elevated water levels/tides coupled with the storm-induced surge. Finally, he noted, there is likely to be heavy wet snow into the inland and higher elevations of the effected region. “Pay attention to the cone or area of influence rather than a specific track as the storm will affect an area not a point,” he said.
“Advances from NASA satellites, aircraft, and models are essential for ingest into the models, assessing storm locations and intensity, and testing future modeling techniques. It may not be obvious to many, but our warning and prediction capability does have traceability to the NASA program in numerous ways and I have been happy to play some small role as a former NASA scientist and current member of the NASA Precipitation Science Team and Earth Science Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council.”
Where is Sandy on Friday, Oct. 26?
A Hurricane Warning is in effect for the Northwestern Bahamas Except Andros Island. A Tropical Storm Warning is in effect for the Central Bahamas, Florida East Coast from Ocean Reef to Flagler Beach, Lake Okeechobee and Andros Island in the northwestern Bahamas. A Tropical Storm Watch is in effect for Savannah River to Oregon Inlet North Carolina, Pamlico Sound, the Florida east coast from North of Flagler Beach to Fernandina Beach, the Florida Upper Keys from Ocean Reef to Craig Key, and Florida Bay.
On Friday, Oct. 26, at 8 a.m. EDT, Hurricane Sandy’s maximum sustained winds were near 80- mph (130 kph). Sandy is a category one hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane wind scale. Some weakening is possible during the next day or so, according to the National Hurricane Center. It was centered near latitude 26.4 north and longitude 76.9 west. Sandy is moving northwest near 10 mph (17 kph) and is expected to turn north and then northeast on Oct. 27, while slowing down.
Storm surge is expected to be big factor as Sandy approaches the Mid-Atlantic coast. Very rough surf and high and dangerous waves are expected to be coupled with the full moon. The National Hurricane Center noted that the combination of a dangerous storm surge and the tide will cause normally dry areas near the coast to be flooded by rising waters. The water could reach the following depths above ground if the peak surge occurs at the time of high tide. Some storm surge forecasts include: 5 to 8 feet in the hurricane warning area in the Bahamas and one to three feet along the Florida coast in the warning areas on Oct. 26.
GOES-13 Satellite Shows Sandy and Powerful Cold Front
NOAA’s GOES-13 satellite monitors weather over the eastern U.S. and the Atlantic Ocean. In a visible image taken from NOAA’s GOES-13 satellite on Friday, Oct. 26 at 1415 UTC (10:15 a.m. EDT) Hurricane Sandy’s huge cloud extent of up to 2,000 miles extended into the Atlantic, while its center was over the Bahamas. At the same time a long line of clouds associated with a powerful cold front approaching the U.S. east coast stretched from the upper Midwest to the Gulf coast. The image was created by the NASA GOES Project at NASA Goddard.
“Bride of Frankenstorm”
Hurricane Sandy is expected to mix with a powerful cold front approaching the east coast, and cold Arctic Air mass, setting up for a powerful storm, a “Bride of Frankenstorm.”
The cold front stretching from the upper Midwest to the Gulf coast is moving eastward and is expected to temporarily push Sandy away from the coast. However, the front is expected to break down as it moves toward the coast, allowing Hurricane Sandy to come back toward the coast.
As happens when any storm becomes extra-tropical, Sandy will go from a warm to cold core center and the strongest winds spread out and the storm will expand. According to the National Hurricane Center, hurricane force winds extend outward up to 35 miles (55 km) from the center and tropical storm force winds extend outward up to 275 miles (445 km). The wind field of Sandy is expected to grow in size during the next couple of days. The storm’s circulation almost reaches 2,000 miles.
Although landfall is expected in southeastern Delaware early Tuesday morning as a hurricane, the Mid-Atlantic is expected to start feeling the storm’s effect starting Sunday, Oct. 28.
For updates on Hurricane Sandy’s forecast, go to the National Hurricane Center: www.nhc.noaa.gov
For the GOES-R and JPSS National Centers Perspective Blog: http://goesrnatcentperspective.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/what-to-do-with-sandy-pt-ii/
Text credit: Rob Gutro/Hal Pierce/Marshall Shepherd
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
What are rules, regulations (and tradition) in case this were to significantly affect Election Day?
ps in the recent past, everything that has been pumped up so greatly has been a dud, Katrina aside perhaps
I worked as a poll watcher in South Carolina and endured Hurricane Hugo in September, 1989 non-coincidentally, and recall no particular on point statute. But I’ll rummage around and report back.
I worked as a poll watcher in South Carolina and endured Hurricane Hugo in September, 1989 non-coincidentally, and recall no particular on point statute. But I’ll rummage around and report back.
Sandy has eaten a chunk of dry air over the past 24 hrs.
I have reviewed South Carolina Code of Laws, Title VII, Elections, Chapter 13, Conduct of Elections and found no existing on point statute.
Unless it begins to “tighten up”, I’ve seen many storms like it come through Chicago.
Of course, not with its tropical moisture content.
It seems the predicted storm tracks, are getting further from the coast ?
It is getting harder to believe in that hard left turn ??
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/graphics_at3.shtml?5-daynl#contents
Maybe New York ???
doughuffman,
Maybe you should move to North Carolina, people seem to live just about forever there:
http://silencedogood2010.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/massive-voter-fraud-in-nc/
Sandy Koufax says “Girl’s name what?”
What are the blue areas in the Bahamas that show up on sat pics? Very shallow water? Corral?
“Some forecasters are calling this combination of weather factors “Frankenstorm” because of the close proximity to Halloween.”
Or is it an attempt to hype up and subconsciously tie a storm near election day to Frankenstein as if manmade from global warming, with anti-technology and anti-mankind bias?
Judged from past experience on other matters (such as Hansen’s GISS), the NOAA and the terrestrial climate observations part of NASA has gotten infiltrated in recent decades by partisan environmentalist ideologues, who are largely the very opposite of what the spaceflight part of NASA has stood for at its best.
With that said, the vast bulk of the “Frankenstorm” references come from the news media with its usual bias and agenda, not so much from government sites in this particular case.
“Sandy is a woman’s name”.
In America, perhaps. It’s also been known to be applied to numerous hairy Scots.
“Sandy” can be male or female.
You just knew this would happen. An article in Grist claims this storm is “God’s revenge for the refusal of the U.S. government to take action on the climate crisis.”
http://grist.org/article/frankenstorm-gods-latest-warning/
It even quotes an unnamed NWS meteorologist as stating: “I’ve never seen anything like this and I’m at a loss for expletives to describe what this storm could do.”
Unbelievable! Perhaps he should study Hurricane Hazel in 1954 or the Long Island Hurricane in 1938 that produced a one minute wind speed of 130 mph with gusts to 180 mph in Rhode Island.
A “consensus” on where the landfall will be, huh? I skeptically assert that it is more likely to follow the usual path eastwards into the Atlantic, and head for a rendezvous with Castle Frankenstein in Germany.
I was asking about Sandy on the first thread Anthony posted the other day. Early, I was hearing conflicting reports. The next day the locals were really talking up the strength of the cold front coming through. It seemed to me that the cold front might bump Sandy far enough off the coast that the storm would be not all that terrific.
That satellite image above of the front and the storm is awesome! The front is very strong looking and the storm seems disorganized. I’m putting my 25-cents on the cold front. Still we’ll just have to wait and see.
“Comparisons are being made to the Perfect Storm of 1991, but many folks won’t remember that.” I remember that storm well. I had modest wind and decent rain where I live W of Boston. That was a nor’easter, plain and simple. It hung around for a day or two before it ingested Grace and flung that moisture into New England. Then it meandered over some warmer waters and became a bit tropical. But those are really just details. It was a nor’easter.
This storm is not a nor’easter although it is expected to morph into one (or more precisely it will be absorbed by a rapidly developing nor’easter). I think it will do that off the coast like most nor’easters so I would expect that it will get close to NJ, then stall for a while as it transitions, then take off into the ocean or up into New England. I base that on all the models trending east. That will be bad enough with prolonged coastal flooding but would not have much inland impact.
cjames, it will make him look (expletive) stupid.
Will forecasters be faced with an “Italian dilemma?” Damned if you play it down, or damned if you overstate the impact.
Disputin says:
October 26, 2012 at 4:26 pm
“Sandy is a woman’s name”.
In America, perhaps. It’s also been known to be applied to numerous hairy Scots.
================================
I agree. My Glasgow-native mother-in-law has quite the moustache ;o)
(I’m safe, ya’ll. She doesn’t read WUWT.)
This situation is weather, not climate change. It is a rare confluence of events. Living in Florida through 5 recent hurricanes, two of which were direct local hits (yes Virginia, a locally spawned tornado did go between our two buildings shattering cat 5 storm proof glass set into 1/4 inch thick aluminum frames that were ripped off their 4 inch deep concrete set anchors), and happening to have been in Chicago yesterday when the cold front passed through and the temperature dropped from 79F to 40F in less than two hours, I am concerned.
Better that the dangers be overplayed ( not likely given the facts) than there be much worse problems than Irene wrought last year.
This thing could be very bad, no matter whether Sandy is a male or female name. But has nothing to do with CAGW. Folks raise the level of your comments to something worthy of this important site.
My youngest sister is often called and uses the name Sandy (it’s officially Sandra), though for the first few years of her life I thought her name was Buba. If that’s not confusing enough, my twin brothers name is Dana.
Interesting graphic on landfall hurricanes and precipitation here: http://icons.wxug.com/hurricane/2012/heavyprecip_hurricanes.png
Figure 3. Time series of the 15-yr running average (plotted at the end point of the 15-yr blocks) of the tropical cyclone Heavy Precipitation Index (red) and the associated 15-yr total of U.S. landfalling hurricanes from Atlantic HURDAT hurricane data base, from 1895 – 2008 (blue). Note the steep rise in heavy precipitation events from tropical cyclones over the past 20 years, which has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in landfalling hurricanes. Image credit: Kunkel et al., 2010, Geophysical Research Letters.
Great. A hurricane PREDICTED to be Category 1 (74 mph winds) when it reaches shore is big news. The standard Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale says “Minimal damage” and “approximately 4 ft. storm surge”. Of course, it could be worse or better, we’ll see. It could interfere with voting too.
How Sandy compares to other weather events
Farnell isn’t expecting the same outcome as 1954’s Hurricane Hazel, which left 81 dead and almost 2,000 families homeless as winds hit 124 kilometres per hour and rains flooded low-lying areas of southern Ontario after crossing the Caribbean and eastern U.S. However, he does note that both Sandy’s track and the interaction with a strong cold front is similar to that of Hazel.
http://www.globaltvedmonton.com/hurricane+watch/6442741824/story.html
Sandy Koufax – Baseball player
Sandy Duncan – Female actress
I wonder if they’re calling it a Frankenstorm with the insinuation that it’s man made.
NZ Willy says:
October 26, 2012 at 5:10 pm
A “consensus” on where the landfall will be, huh?
I predict that it will follow its current path and come ashore in Jersey in 10 days. Perhaps Boston might get some rain but I doubt that the MET would predict out that far.
Buncha’ east coast lightweights.
Mike in Houston
Anthony:
About a week and a half ago you featured a prediction of a sharply colder incursion of Canadian air running from eastern Montana down through central Nebraska. Whoever made the prediction hit it pretty well.
Franknstorm? Who the hell is Frank, and who the hell is Storm?
James Schrumpf says:
October 26, 2012 at 4:12 pm
“Girl’s name what?”
Context is important.
. . . Patty, Rafael, Sandy, Tony, Valerie . . .
http://geography.about.com/od/lists/a/2012hurricane.htm
Kent Beuchert says:
October 26, 2012 at 4:30 pm
> “Sandy” can be male or female.
Oh come on all of you, names alternate between male and female. The previous storm was Rafael, the next is Tony. Sandy is used as a female name.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutnames.shtml
Regardless of the weather, they continue to push it.
Just sayin, look for yourself in the MSM.
We have upon us what will be spun as “Dirty Weather”.
> Some forecasters are calling this combination of weather factors “Frankenstorm” because of the close proximity to Halloween.
No – as I mentioned elsewhere, it’s a reference to the storm assembled from parts. http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/discussions/hpcdiscussions.php?disc=preepd&version=4&fmt=reg says, but I think is not the first reference:
DESPITE A MODEST CLUSTER OF OUTLYING DETERMINISTIC SOLUTIONS AND
ENSEMBLE MEMBERS FROM THE VARIOUS MODELING CENTERS, THE LION’S
SHARE OF GUIDANCE INDICATES THAT THE CIRCULATION ASSOCIATED WITH
HURRICANE SANDY WILL PASS CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE AMPLIFYING POLAR
TROUGH OVER THE EASTERN UNITED STATES TO BECOME INCORPORATED INTO
A HYBRID VORTEX OVER THE MID ATLANTIC AND NORTHEAST NEXT TUESDAY.
THE HIGH DEGREE OF BLOCKING FROM EASTERN NORTH AMERICA ACROSS THE
ENTIRE ATLANTIC BASIN IS EXPECTED TO ALLOW THIS UNUSUAL MERGER TO
TAKE PLACE, AND ONCE THE COMBINED GYRE MATERIALIZES, IT SHOULD
SETTLE BACK TOWARD THE INTERIOR NORTHEAST THROUGH HALLOWEEN,
INVITING PERHAPS A GHOULISH NICKNAME FOR THE CYCLONE ALONG THE
LINES OF “FRANKENSTORM”, AN ALLUSION TO MARY SHELLEY’S GOTHIC
CREATURE OF SYNTHESIZED ELEMENTS.
H.R. says:
October 26, 2012 at 5:10 pm
“Still we’ll just have to wait and see.””
Of interest in the case of where H. Sandy might go is what is to the NE of it and not so much as to what is coming from the west. And again, this is not new as explained here – March 1953:
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/081/mwr-081-03-0067.pdf
Recent view of the setup is here:
http://imgur.com/Ec5Ll
Which reminds me of the old question:
http://www.elyrics.net/read/j/jane_s-addiction-lyrics/irresistible-force-lyrics.html
eric1skeptic says:
October 26, 2012 at 5:31 pm
Keep in mind it didn’t reach land. Todd Gross, who may have named it, wrote an interesting report about going out during the storm to look at the waves breaking near Boston, I think he reported them as 30′ tall. Of course, you remember the 100′ waves reported by a buoy.
The storm is one of nine storms listed in http://www.stormsurge.noaa.gov/event_history.html , this storm is described:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Perfect_Storm says in part:
In Massachusetts, where damage was heaviest, over 100 homes were destroyed or severely damaged. To the north, more than 100 homes were affected in Maine, including the vacation home of then-President George H. W. Bush. More than 38,000 people were left without power, and along the coast high waves inundated roads and buildings. In portions of New England, damage was worse than that caused by Hurricane Bob two months earlier.
Aside from tidal flooding along rivers, the storm’s effects were primarily concentrated along the coast. A buoy off the coast of Nova Scotia reported a wave height of 100.7 feet (30.7 m), the highest ever recorded in the province’s offshore waters. In the middle of the storm, the Andrea Gail sank, killing its crew of six and inspiring the book, and later movie, The Perfect Storm. Off the shore of New York’s Long Island, an Air National Guard helicopter ran out of fuel and crashed; four members of its crew were rescued, and one was killed….
The Perfect Storm originated from a cold front that exited the east coast of the United States. On October 28, the front spawned an extratropical low to the east of Nova Scotia. Around that time, a ridge extended from the Appalachian Mountains northeastward to Greenland, with a strong high pressure center over eastern Canada. The blocking ridge forced the extratropical low to track toward the southeast and later to the west. Hurricane Grace was swept aloft by its cold front into the warm conveyor belt circulation of the deep cyclone on October 29. The cyclone significantly strengthened as a result of the temperature contrast between the cold air to the northwest and the warmth and humidity from the remnants of Hurricane Grace. The low pressure system continued deepening as it drifted toward the United States.[2] It had an unusual retrograde motion for a nor’easter, beginning a set of meteorological circumstances that occur only once every 50 to 100 years.[3] Most nor’easters affect New England from the southwest.[4]
While situated about 390 miles (630 km) south of Halifax, Nova Scotia, the storm attained its peak intensity with winds of up to 70 mph (110 km/h).[2] The nor’easter reached peak intensity at approximately 12:00 UTC on October 30 with its lowest pressure of 972 millibars. The interaction between the extratropical storm and the high pressure system to its north created a significant pressure gradient, which created large waves and strong winds.[2] Between the southern New England coast and the storm’s center, the gradient was 70 mbar (2.1 inHg).[5] A buoy located 264 miles (425 km) south of Halifax reported a wave height of 100.7 feet (30.7 m) on October 30. This became the highest recorded wave height on the Scotian Shelf, which is the oceanic shelf off the coast of Nova Scotia.[6] East of Cape Cod, a NOAA buoy located at 41°06’N 66°36’W / 41.1°N 66.6°W / 41.1; -66.6 reported maximum sustained winds of 56 mph (90 km/h) with gusts to 75 mph (121 km/h), and a significant wave height (average height of the highest waves) of 39 feet (12 m) around 15:00 UTC on October 30. Another buoy, located at 40°30’N 69°30’W / 40.5°N 69.5°W / 40.5; -69.5, reported maximum sustained winds of 61 mph (98 km/h) with gusts to 72 mph (116 km/h) and a significant wave height of 31 feet (9.4 m) near 00:00 UTC on October 31.[2]
Upon peaking in intensity, the nor’easter turned southward and gradually weakened; by November 1, its pressure had risen to 998 millibars (29.5 inHg). The low moved over warm waters of the Gulf Stream, where bands of convection around the center began to organize.[7] Around this time, the system attained subtropical characteristics. On November 1, while the storm was moving in a counter-clockwise loop, a tropical cyclone had been identified at the center of the larger low.[8] (Although these conditions are rare, Hurricane Karl during 1980 formed within a larger non-tropical weather system.)[9]
“because Sandy is a woman’s name”.
Rubbish.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20106270
The good old BBC are on the case as well “‘Frankenstorm’ bears down on US east coast”.
But judging by lots of other news in the UK the BBC can take 40 years to spot what’s going on under their noses.
“””””…..beng says:
October 26, 2012 at 4:16 pm
What are the blue areas in the Bahamas that show up on sat pics? Very shallow water? Corral?…..”””””
They are “Blue holes” very deep holes in shallower surroundings.
” It’s never difficult to tell the difference between a bright sunny day and a Scotsman with a grudge.” P. G. Wodehouse.
“However, because Sandy is a woman’s name…” Anthony Watts
Not in Scotland, it is exclusively a man’s name, and having served in the forces with many Scots, their legendary valour is only matched by their sensitivity to criticism. I’d keep a look out for a Scotsman with a grudge if I were you Anthony.-:)
Dr. Ryan Maue has a great discussion called “Warm Seclusion Sandy” on the WeatherBELL Professional Site. Forsome the artical might be worth a free trial subscription, as he dives into the science of things in a wonderful way.
In a nutshell, it suggests that there could be some strong gales on the north side, away from the center, as Sandy transitions from a Hurricane to a North Atlantic Gale. Even though the storm may head inland down in New Jersey, Boston shouldn’t lower its guard.
There’s no “Italian dilemma.” Overstating the risk is better than understating, because overpreparing is INFINITELY better than underpreparing. The Italian court was exactly right.
@John F. Hultquist says:
October 26, 2012 at 10:07 pm
@H.R. says:
October 26, 2012 at 5:10 pm
Of interest in the case of where H. Sandy might go is what is to the NE of it and not so much as to what is coming from the west. And again, this is not new as explained here – March 1953:
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/081/mwr-081-03-0067.pdf
That was a good read along with the better satellite image. Thanks!
What is a ”strong” area. Does the good doctor mean large and if so why not say it.
Can I make a suggestion. Can we have a day of mourning for the AGW disciples who were and always are trying to capatilise on normal weather events and deaths there from, in order to try to persuade people that the earth is in turmoil.
Surely, Sandy is a diminutive of Alexander and hence also of Alexandra and so can denote either a man or a woman.
Of course Alexander / Alexandra also has as diminutives:
– Sasha (female only in English but either gender in Russian I believe)
– Sandra (female only in English)
– Alex (either gender in English)
Sandy can also be a diminutive of Sandra (as someone else has pointed out), so it can be a two-stage diminutive of Alexandra or of Cassandra.
Jim
since I published my first data set summarizing all results from 47 weather stations I found that my sine wave for the drop in maximum temps. gives me best correlation:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
The point I have been trying to make for a long time:
Earth stores energy in its waters, vegetation, chemicals, even in currents and weather, etc. On top of that we have earth’s own volcanic actions which also provides heating/cooling, whatever. Ice, more or less of it, also becomes a factor. Movements of earth’s iron core may also cause temporarily changes in the average mean temp. on earth. So whatever comes out as average temp. is bound to be very confusing.
Maxima is a much better parameter to look at as it gives us a sense of energy in. There must be a lag between energy out and energy in, so even though my sine wave indicates a wavelength of 88 years for energy-in , I am more inclined to believe in a 100 year cycle consisting of 2 x 50 year cycle (44 + ca.5 ; remember 7 x 7 + 1 jubilee year?) for energy out.
To explain this cycle, before they started with the carbon dioxide nonsense, they did look in the direction of the planets, rightly or wrongly.See here.
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
To quote from the above paper:
A Weather Cycle as observed in the Nile Flood cycle, Max rain followed by Min rain, appears discernible with maximums at 1750, 1860, 1950 and minimums at 1670, 1800, 1900 and a minimum at 1990 predicted.
(The 1990 turned out to be 1995 when, according to my dataset, cooling started!)
Indeed one would expect more condensation (bigger flooding) at the end of a cooling period and minimum flooding at the end of a warm period. This is because when water vapor cools (more) it condensates (more) to water (i.e. more rain, snow, clouds, etc).
Now put my sine wave next to those dates? Not too bad, heh?
1900- minimum flooding : end of warming
1950 – maximum flooding: end of cooling
1995 – minimum flooding: end of warming
I want to postulate something here, seeing that I am right, and nobody has yet proven me wrong. What we are seeing with this storm is exactly as predicted by me: we are now nearing the bottom of the sine wave curve at maximum speed of cooling. We see increased cloud formations and more precipitation (I even notice this here in SA, I have similar reports from AU and UK and NL) exactly as predicted, as we are moving toward the next maximum flooding of the Nile which would occur around 2040.
But now I am thinking, it is this curve, this change in the speed of warming/cooling over time that actually produces the weather as we know it. Without it, there would be little or no weather. There would be little or no rain as the clouds would not move but stay where they are. It is this curve, mainly that ultimately causes and initiates the differences in pressures, meaning it “spreads” the weather (rain) over the earth. Isn’t that amazing?
What say you?
HenryP says:
October 27, 2012 at 5:08 am
“I want to postulate something here, seeing that I am right, and nobody has yet proven me wrong.”
Most posters, including me, rarely go out of our way to enter debates which could border on argument. (Usually, especially to save time, I just respond if someone says something to me directly first). However, in the spirit of constructive criticism:
Your prior post includes, among other aspects:
(1) noting temperature readings from an assortment of stations from the 1970s through now
(2) assuming that segment of data means temperatures followed a 88 / 100 year sine wave throughout the past century or beyond, on the basis of similarity over the 1970s-now period but plotting no pre-1970s temperature data
#1 is quite good, relatively proven.
#2, though, is a different matter
HenryP says:
October 27, 2012 at 5:08 am
“Now put my sine wave next to those dates? Not too bad, heh?
1900- minimum flooding : end of warming
1950 – maximum flooding: end of cooling
1995 – minimum flooding: end of warming”
From this plus prior posts, it sounds like you are assuming there was overall global cooling from 1900 to 1950. That is utterly not so, not for global average temperatures (regardless of whatever rainfall pattern in a single locality like the Nile River may be doing). For instance, for temperature history from sources even before the global warming movement existed, look at the following:
1976 National Geographic, northern hemisphere average:
http://img240.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=40530_DSCN1557_nat_geog_1976_1200x900_122_75lo.JPG
1975 Newsweek:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-o30PNIBahS0/T2KTNlu3RsI/AAAAAAAAAkY/cItxzMamChk/s1600/newsweek-global-cooling.jpg
I don’t like referencing a Hansen source, but, for southern hemisphere data, the following one back from 1981 probably was not heavily adjusted yet:
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/PERPLEX/fig30.jpg
I have never seen any source with specific temperature data or reconstructions, neither skeptic nor CAGW movement, which has suggested net overall global cooling from 1900 to 1950.
Overall, as a global average, there was warming during the first half of the 20th century.
In fact, global sea level rise was faster in the first half of the 20th century than the second half:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml
“The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003).”
Global average temperature is not a 88 / 100 year sine wave. It may come close to overlapping with such if only 3 or 4 decades of temperature data are plotted, but more data from further back is available. For what it has looked like over several centuries as well as recently, see
http://s10.postimage.org/l9gokvp09/composite.jpg
HenryP says:
October 27, 2012 at 5:08 am
But now I am thinking, it is this curve, this change in the speed of warming/cooling over time that actually produces the weather as we know it. Without it, there would be little or no weather. There would be little or no rain as the clouds would not move but stay where they are. It is this curve, mainly that ultimately causes and initiates the differences in pressures, meaning it “spreads” the weather (rain) over the earth. Isn’t that amazing?
What say you?
Well, there would still be weather even if the planet did not have change in its global average temperature from decade to decade.
For instance, as a thought experiment: Have a giant block of ice or an air conditioner at one end of a room, while having an electric heater running on the opposite end of the room. The temperature difference would result in convective heat transfer, in convective and turbulent air flow, as smoke trails (like we use in wind tunnel demonstrations of turbulent air flow in a different context) or anything else would demonstrate. Such would occur even if the room’s overall total average temperature over time was constant.
A planet is much larger than a room, but, when there is a temperature difference between the cold poles and the warm tropics, that is among factors contributing to air flow and weather.
There is also the jet stream of air moving relative to the surface which is most fundamentally due to the planet’s rotation.
And there is much more including on smaller scale, but presumably I need not get long-winded.
HenryP says:
October 27, 2012 at 5:08 am
“What we are seeing with this storm is exactly as predicted by me: we are now nearing the bottom of the sine wave curve at maximum speed of cooling.”
Although I can’t overall share the same sine wave assumption, we are indeed in a period where relative global cooling has started and looks likely to continue. (You put peak warmth and the end of warming at 1995; I put it at the 1998 El Nino, but both are in the mid to late 1990s basically). And, much as I recall a study which showed there were more storms in Europe during the cold Little Ice Age than during the warm Medieval Warm Period, cooling seems to tend to correspond to more storminess. (Such is not really surprising; since the arctic and high latitudes change temperature more than the equator, cold periods correspond to greater temperature difference between the poles and the equator).
HenryP says:
October 27, 2012 at 5:08 am
I think it’s pretty bizarre that you’re trying to a 100 year cycle and give it credit for daily weather. All you need for rain is heat on wet surfaces at the bottom of the atmosphere and cooling at the top. Combine with a trace of heating gradient from surface features or a spherical surface and presto – convective cells. Throw in some Coriolis Effect and you get rotating systems and things like the Hadley cell. No 100 year cycle necessary.
Also, the EE in me has a lot of trouble with your single sine wave solution. We’re a lot happier with Fourier transforms that look at many cycle lengths.
All in all, I prefer the analysis in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/07/in-china-there-are-no-hockey-sticks/ . I reference it in my Guide to WUWT as one of my favorites:
I thought “cold” was anathema to hurricanes. I can see the lotsa rain part but won’t the cold front kill the hurricane if not wind shear. Also, Do these analysts believe that the paths of the hurricane and the cold front are completely independent and fortuitous? if the cold front were to have arrived a few days earlier, the hurricane would have curved back out to sea.
Ric Werme says
All you need for rain is heat on wet surfaces at the bottom of the atmosphere and cooling at the top.
Henry says
true. But how did you get the rain (clouds) to move from above the oceans to land, involving movement over great distances
It even quotes an unnamed NWS meteorologist as stating: “I’ve never seen anything like this and I’m at a loss for expletives to describe what this storm could do.”
I think this quote was from a super nut job called McKibbern.
Henry@Henry Clarke
Good comment, interesting challenge, thanks.
I would like to respond to that in some detail
It turns out that you accept that my summarizing all 650000 results on maxima coming from ca. 1974 onward from 47 weather stations is pretty good. I put specific care to ensure the sample was balanced by latitude and by 70/30 @sea/inland. Given that I really only look at the average difference from the average, over time, I also excluded a lot of errors.
The final data making up the blue segment are: 0.036 from 1974 (38 yrs), 0.029 from 1980 (32 yrs), 0.014 from 1990 (22 years) and -0.016 from 2000 (12 years) in degrees C/annum. When I first saw this in a plot, I thought somebody had thrown me a curved ball: degrees C/ time2 appears binomial, r2=0.998. That is a very high correlation. In statistics, with such high correlation it is fair to plot this a bit forward and backward to get an overall picture. Do try this, e.g first 10 yrs either way, then, 20 years either way…etc
This also lets me easily determine that cooling actually started in 1995. You will see this, even just from the graphic plot. Remember: this is energy in. There must be a lag. So I am quite happy to accept that earth reached its maximum energy output quite a few years later. So, now on your point no.2,: projecting forwards in time, on either binomial or (nat) logarithmic or even linear, I find tremendously high cooling rates. If that were true, we would all be in an ice age very soon. Then I read the paper from William Arnold and that gave me the idea of a sine wave. On that, I cannot find a better plot then the one with a wavelength of 88 years. Obviously, I do accept that whilst we are within this 88 year curve, we again could be moving in other different sinus waves of 200 and 500 year cycles respectively. This means that, although the average result of the my wave is 0.0 degreesC/per annum over a 88 year period, the true net result each 88 years could be a bit different, depending on where we are in those other waves, as presumed.
I should point out to you that most data sets do show a general increasing trend from 1927.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1927/to:1927/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1927/to:1927/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/trend
This is in agreement with my sine wave.
Looking before 1927 things become a bit dicey. First of all, against what were the thermometers calibrated? Can you show me a calibration certificate of a thermometer, from say, 1920? How were the means established? If it differs from station to station it is chaos. If you came to me with a curve from before 1927 made from maxima I would put some value on it. As it stands, I don’t trust much of anything given to me on average global temp. before 1927.
As to the other arguments made, also by Ric Werme,
I am going to sleep on it. (think about it)
Gary Pearse says:
October 27, 2012 at 8:23 am
Tropical storms are heat engines with the cold part near the tropopause and the hot part at sealevel. Extratropical storms start out with cold on the poleward side and heat on the equatorward side. Tropical storms make a transition to extratropical storms as they get away from the warm water that fueled them and into cold boundary of the higher latitudes.
The cold front provides an inclined plane that helps maintain convection by forcing moist air up where it releases energy that keeps the storm going. I’m not entirely clear as to how all that and the jet stream fits together to power the storm.
The paths of hurricane and front are essentially independent. That’s one reason why a storm like this is rare. Had the front been over the ocean, and if there there hadn’t been the blocking pattern, Sandy would have merged with the front, gone extratropical and accellerated off to the northeast.
HenryP says:
October 27, 2012 at 10:22 am
Cold poles and warm equator. Then the Coriolis effect messes things up and you get all sorts of spinning structures – I mentioned the Hadley (and other) cells, but storms, kinks in the jet stream, the jet streams themselves.
Check out
http://planets.ucla.edu/featured/spinlab-geoscience-educational-film-project/
They have several fluid dynamics demonstrations that show how much you have to keep the Coriolis Effect in mind regarding any atmospheric (and oceanic) fluid motion.
I don’t think they have one, but a similar experiment did a credible job of simulating Jupiter’s Red Spot as a semi-permanent feature. Just motion, heating, and cooling on a rotating disk.
My prediction? By the time it hits land it won’t even be a hurricane.
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
October 27, 2012 at 3:05 pm
> My prediction? By the time it hits land it won’t even be a hurricane.
The proximity of the cold front will have it well along the path to an extratropical storm. Extratropical storms are not necessarily lesser than hurricanes, and with their broad wind field can bring more diffuse damage over a larger area than a hurricane.
To get a hurricane north of New Jersey they generally have to be accelerating and get here before they have time to change, the hurricane of 1938 is the textbook example. This storm is relatively slow, another strike against it being a hurricane.
As an engineer, I am skeptical that the majority of the computer models show the landfall at virtually the same location which happens to be Ocean County NJ where I have my boat.
Given the uncertainties and the unusual hard left turn in the middle of the Atlantic I would expect a much greater scatter in the spagetti plots than NOOA currently displays.
Wouldn’t one expect that a relatively small difference inangle of the left turn would produce a much wider range in the predicted land fall location? Since the projected path before the left turn is dependent on another storm weather pattern initially pushing the hurricane eastward , which normally keeps offshore hurricanes well offshore the NE coast.
Does anyone believe the Computer modes should produce such a tight landfall location given the nature of the uncertanties??
http://my.sfwmd.gov/sfwmd/common/images/weather/plots/storm_18.gif
By the way the extreme nature of the storm is due to the confluence with a large North east storm, high tide, and extra high tides due to the time of the month (astronomical) which alone can cause devastating floods along the coast of New Jersey with severe beach erosion. This is likely to be a devastating storm if it turns into New Jersey with coastal and inland flooding. Last year we had record floods inland from a Hurricane on almost the same date.
The NHC really doesn’t like extratropical storms. They wrote a .pdf about it:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/news/20121027_pa_sandyTransition.pdf
The official NWS term for a tropical cyclone that has evolved into something else is “Posttropical cyclone”, where the post in post-tropical simply means after. Thus, once Sandy loses its tropical cyclone status it will be known as “Post-tropical Cyclone Sandy” in NWS products. Some aspects of this transition are already occurring, and NWS forecasts of storm impacts are based on this expected evolution. Regardless of when this transition formally occurs, Sandy is expected to bring significant wind, surge, rainfall and inland flooding hazards over an extremely large area, and snowfall to more limited areas.
Because Sandy is expected to make this transition before reaching the coast, the NWS has been using non-tropical wind watches and warnings, issued by local NWS Weather Forecast Offices (WFOs), to communicate the wind threat posed by Sandy in the Mid-Atlantic States and New England. (This is why NHC’s tropical storm warnings extend only into North Carolina.) The NWS plans to continue using non-tropical watches and warnings issued by local offices in the Mid-Atlantic States and northward throughout this event. By using non-tropical warnings in these areas from the start, we avoid or minimize the significant confusion that could occur if the warning suite changed from tropical to non-tropical in the middle of the event. When NHC determines that Sandy has become post-tropical, NHC advisory products will cease.
Catcracking says:
October 27, 2012 at 8:34 pm
It looks like a pretty wide spread to me – NYC to southern NJ where the NHC official track is. A number of people think it should at least mid-NJ.
NOAA has been running more flights and radiosonde launches to study the area, in addition to I think fulltime flights in Sandy, so they have significantly better initialization than for many storms.
The last several GFS runs haven’t changed much, so as long as they have the location of the block right, they should have a small scatter.
I remember a storm a few years ago that was barreling toward FL, but the models had it making a hard right just before reaching the coast. The NHC was getting pretty stressed watching the storm approach, but it made a right turn to the north and the forecast verified well.
At least there’s something that shoves the storm aside. It’s the cases where there’s no good steering wind when storms become really hard to forecast. As an engineer myself, I expect that when something is hit by a baseball bat the trajectory is more predictable than when something is hit by a pillow.
Three day track forecasts have gotten pretty good.
I hope LBI doesn’t get hit too badly.
I see the hurricane hunter plots no surface winds over 65 mph, however it is still listed as a 75mph hurricane with gusts op to 90 at 12:48 EST Sunday…
Henry@Ric
thanks. I am not much of a weatherman, as you may have figured out
Henry@Ric&Henry Clark
To satisfy my curiosity I had a look now at all the results on maxima reported from central England, going back to 1879/
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/download.html
You know why I chose maxima: you read the thermometer where it gets stuck so there is not much messing around what people can do, and we have the additional benefits as alluded to earlier, of looking at energy-in which is so much better as looking at energy out
The linear trend for average annual maxima from 1879-2012 has a slope of 0.001 degrees C/annum, meaning that maximum temps. increased by about 0.13 degrees C on average in total since 1879….that is not much….like I said, I wonder if the accuracy of thermometers was even as good as that during the period. Nevertheless, if we put in a running average of 22 years over the plot we do see a slight pattern emerging\. From 1900-1950 the moving average line is either spot on the long term trend or ever so slightly above. From 1950-2000 the moving average is clearly a little bit below the long term trend.
I hear you say I told you so, and if I were to look only at the 1900-1950 result, I would agree. But pray, how then do you explain that whilst the whole world was warming from 1950-2000 central England was going (a little bit) in the opposite direction?
There is a simple explanation for this. It is called the green house effect. If cooling causes more clouds and more weather systems, then certain places, at the receiving end of those depressions, might get a bit warmer. So, in those places the cycle would precisely be opposite as the global average. (It again shows the importance of getting a sizeable sample of weather stations if you want to make global predictions)
All of this means that my sine wave still stands and that a 88 energy-in cycle is very probable.
Count back 88 years and you find hurricane 7 with winds up to 120 miles (1924).
So, although I have to agree with Ric about the difference in temp. between the poles and the tropics being the main driver of weather, this 88 year cycle consisting of 44 years cooling and 44 years warming does seem to add to more potency to weather events.
How else would you explain the flooding of the Nile so precisely correlating to this cycle?
Can we *please* cut the trendy “meme” c**p? The word is FAD…
I see now that on my last comment I did make a mistake.
I misread 0.0099 as being 0.001. That should have been 0.01
this means that maxima in central England rose by ca. 1.3 degrees C since 1879.
HenryP says:
October 27, 2012 at 11:24 am
“On that, I cannot find a better plot then the one with a wavelength of 88 years. Obviously, I do accept that whilst we are within this 88 year curve, we again could be moving in other different sinus waves of 200 and 500 year cycles respectively. This means that, although the average result of the my wave is 0.0 degreesC/per annum over a 88 year period, the true net result each 88 years could be a bit different, depending on where we are in those other waves, as presumed.”
Relatively that would help, coming closer to overall history, but, to make it approach temperatures like the trend over 1900-1927 or 1900-1950, you would need to add in enough overriding influence from other cycles or factors to be no longer particularly describable as primarily a 88 year sine wave.
HenryP says:
October 27, 2012 at 11:24 am
“I should point out to you that most data sets do show a general increasing trend from 1927.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1927/to:1927/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1927/to:1927/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/trend
This is in agreement with my sine wave.”
But actually it is not in agreement even over that post-1927 period. Here, I’ll illustrate by simply adding to the graph you just linked:
http://s14.postimage.org/y6qvaiaq9/vs88yrsine.gif
HADCRUT4 is not the best source (by the CRU of Climategate who rewrote history for CAGW-movement convenience), but all global temperature compilations share the aspect of disagreement with a 88-year sine wave. Such as 1900 to 1927 A.D. was a time of increasing global temperature in all reconstructions.
I can’t tell whether you looked at the plots in my prior comment, but assuming primarily a 88 or 100 year sine wave with a temperature peak in 1995 would be assuming a prior high temperature peak around 1907 or 1895 followed by relative cooling over the next several decades, which was utterly not the case then. Look at all of the plots in my prior comment, and see for yourself.
http://img240.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=40530_DSCN1557_nat_geog_1976_1200x900_122_75lo.JPG
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/PERPLEX/fig30.jpg
http://s10.postimage.org/l9gokvp09/composite.jpg
(click to enlarge)
HenryP says:
October 27, 2012 at 11:24 am
“If you came to me with a curve from before 1927 made from maxima I would put some value on it.”
Making a distinction between average temperatures during a day and maximum temperatures during a day has some effect, but it does not switch the overall picture enough to cancel how 1900 to 1927 would be a time of warming (not cooling) by any metric. Even the 1974-2012 data you collected has, on the scale of decades, maxima tending to rise in decades where average temperatures rise, maxima tending to decline in decades where average temperatures declined, and vice versa. Likewise, for instance, when high average temperatures are shown in the late 1930s especially for northern latitudes in the first link above, it is no coincidence that the U.S. had its largest-ever number of record maximum-temperature highs then:
http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/07/19/most-us-maximum-temperature-records-set-in-the-1930s/
HenryP says:
October 27, 2012 at 11:24 am
“Looking before 1927 things become a bit dicey. First of all, against what were the thermometers calibrated? Can you show me a calibration certificate of a thermometer, from say, 1920? How were the means established? If it differs from station to station it is chaos.”
Not only the thermometer temperature record but also tree rings, non tree ring proxies, arctic ice extent trends, and basically everything shows that near-1900 A.D. was a relative low in temperatures compared to the late 1930s-1940s being a relative high in temperature, instead of the other way around. There are always some errors, whether talking about 1920, 1940, or 2010, but moderate errors without a systematic pattern of all being in the same direction wouldn’t reverse the overall picture there.
HenryP says:
October 27, 2012 at 11:24 am
“So, now on your point no.2,: projecting forwards in time, on either binomial or (nat) logarithmic or even linear, I find tremendously high cooling rates. If that were true, we would all be in an ice age very soon. Then I read the paper from William Arnold and that gave me the idea of a sine wave.”
Depending on an uncertain future in solar activity, we might perhaps transition to entering another LIA over the next several decades. Such would be different from a 88-year sine wave, yes, but so was the historical Little Ice Age which became very cold during the Maunder Minimum near 1700 A.D.
Henry Clark says
Relatively that would help, coming closer to overall history, but, …
henry@henry
It seems you missed my last comment. The problem is that we do not really have a global base to speak of before 1927. we only have a few stations.
As you may have picked up from my last comment (ignore the error) some places do get warmer.
in a cooling period and cooler in a warming period. The arctic part of Norway is currently still warming whilst Anchorage is cooling at horrendous rate. It is the GH effect. It depends on where you are situated.
Remember that I do believe there is a GH effect from clouds and enduring cloud formations!
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/
Whilst I admire the work you have done(!!!) to put a sinewave into the plot, it would never work that way. You cannot compare maxima with means. That is the whole point I have been trying to make from the beginning….
Henry Clark says
Not only the thermometer temperature record but also tree rings, non tree ring proxies, arctic ice extent trends, and basically everything shows that near-1900 A.D. was a relative low in temperatures compared to the late 1930s-1940s
henry says
Count back 88 years from now. We are in 1924.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
(almost 1923)
read the whole newspaper report. Sounds familiar? All that ‘lost” arctic ice was back by 1945
Also, 1924 saw hurricane 7 with windpeeds of up to 120 mph. History just repeats itself.
so again:
this 88 year cycle consisting of 44 years cooling and 44 years warming does seem to add to more potency to weather (i.e. clouds and rain) and weather events.
How else would you explain the flooding of the Nile so precisely correlating to this cycle?
943 MB and still only a Cat 1? Isn’t this a little odd?
HenryP says:
October 29, 2012 at 8:27 am
“Count back 88 years from now. We are in 1924.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
(almost 1923)
read the whole newspaper report. Sounds familiar? All that ‘lost” arctic ice was back by 1945”
While there is a WWII gap in ice measurements, how near 1940 (and the 1950s) had less ice than the late 1920s can be seen in http://nwpi.krc.karelia.ru/e/climas/Ice/Ice_no_sat/fig3.gif within http://nwpi.krc.karelia.ru/e/climas/Ice/Ice_no_sat/XX_Arctic.htm
Your argument has been for a 88-year sine wave with a high in 1995, as in a prior high in around 1907 A.D. followed by cooling during the 1920s and until around 1951 A.D., but that is not the actual observed temperature (or ice) pattern.
In reality, the warmest arctic temperatures in the 20th century were in the late 1930s as http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif illustrates.
HenryP says:
October 29, 2012 at 8:27 am
“The problem is that we do not really have a global base to speak of before 1927. we only have a few stations.”
A scattering of stations plus non-thermometer proxies from every continent: not enough to be perfect but enough to see the basic picture like that temperatures went up 1900->1927 as opposed to down then.
HenryP says:
October 29, 2012 at 8:27 am
“Whilst I admire the work you have done(!!!) to put a sinewave into the plot, it would never work that way. You cannot compare maxima with means.”
As I pointed out in my prior post, they aren’t too different in the general direction of trends by decade. There is not a situation like the 88-year sine wave working by maxima falling from 1907 to 1951 even while average temperatures rise, as in nobody’s specific data has there ever been any decades observed where they outright go in the opposite directions on the whole.
Making a distinction between average temperatures during a day and maximum temperatures during a day has some effect, but it does not switch the overall picture enough to cancel how 1900 to 1927 would be a time of warming (not cooling) by any metric. Even the 1974-2012 data you collected has, on the scale of decades, maxima tending to rise in decades where average temperatures rise, maxima tending to decline in decades where average temperatures declined, and vice versa. Likewise, for instance, when high average temperatures are shown in the late 1930s especially for northern latitudes in the first link above [ http://img240.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=40530_DSCN1557_nat_geog_1976_1200x900_122_75lo.JPG ], it is no coincidence that the U.S. had its largest-ever number of record maximum-temperature highs then:
http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/07/19/most-us-maximum-temperature-records-set-in-the-1930s/
HenryP says:
October 29, 2012 at 8:27 am
“How else would you explain the flooding of the Nile so precisely correlating to this cycle?”
A single locality is not as much as such as the multitude of graphs in http://s10.postimage.org/l9gokvp09/composite.jpg
henry Clarke says
While there is a WWII gap in ice measurements, how near 1940 (and the 1950s) had less ice than the late 1920s can be seen in http://nwpi.krc.karelia.ru/e/climas/Ice/Ice_no_sat/fig3.gif within
henry says
the missing piece is exactly that: missing. Hitler saw his ass against Russia because of the cold. Many people in Europe remember 1944 as being very cold: it is called the hunger winter. In the Netherlands they had 3 or 4 elfstedentochten in this (war) period, connecting 11 cities by waterways for an ice skate contest, which are extremely rare, meaning that it must have been very, very cold.
The next two decades will be cold. Very cold.
henry Clarke says
In reality, the warmest arctic temperatures in the 20th century were in the late 1930s
Henry says
As I was saying earlier, some places will get warmer during a cooling period due to the Gh effect.
(more clouds prevent more extreme cold during winter)
Check this against the weather station in Anchorage? There is one station there (from the army, I think) with data going back to 1944. (I did not go back that far)
“How else would you explain the flooding of the Nile so precisely correlating to this cycle?”
Henry Clarke says
A single locality is not as much as such as the multitude of graphs in http://s10.postimage.org/l9gokvp09/composite.jpg
Henry says
I have seen those and I know where we differ./ You think it is in the formation of clouds from the beginning and I think it the heat differential over those 44 years of cooling that started in 1995 that cause more clouds and rain.
Either way, the Nile flooding is not caused by a single locality. It is coming from deep Africa which is the largest continent in the world and it covers a multitude of countries and an enormous amount of land.Maybe you guys have another location of a big river with records of height of flooding to which we could counter check? The Mississippi perhaps?
henry Clarke says
While there is a WWII gap in ice measurements, how near 1940 (and the 1950s) had less ice than the late 1920s can be seen in http://nwpi.krc.karelia.ru/e/climas/Ice/Ice_no_sat/fig3.gif within
henry says
the missing piece is exactly that: missing. Hitler saw his ass against Russia because of the cold. Many people in Europe remember 1944 as being very cold: it is called the hunger winter. In the Netherlands they had 3 or 4 elfstedentochten in this (war) period, connecting 11 cities by waterways for an ice skate contest, which are extremely rare, meaning that it must have been very, very cold.
The next two decades will be cold. Very cold.
henry Clarke says
In reality, the warmest arctic temperatures in the 20th century were in the late 1930s
henry says
As I was saying earlier, some places will get warmer during a cooling period due to the Gh effect.
(more clouds prevent more extreme cold during winter)
Check this against the weather station in Anchorage? There is one station there (from the army, I think) with data going back to 1944. (I did not go back that far)
“How else would you explain the flooding of the Nile so precisely correlating to this cycle?”
Henry Clarke says
A single locality is not as much as such as the multitude of graphs in http://s10.postimage.org/l9gokvp09/composite.jpg
Henry says
I have seen those and I know where we differ./ You think it is in the formation of clouds from the beginning and I think it the heat differential over those 44 years of cooling that started in 1995 that cause more clouds and rain.
Either way, the Nile flooding is not caused by a single locality. It is coming from deep Africa which is the largest continent in the world and it covers a multitude of countries and an enormous amount of land.Maybe you guys have another location of a big river with records of height of flooding to which we could counter check? The Mississippi perhaps? I think there must be records of the Rhine somewhere.
henry Clarke says
In reality, the warmest arctic temperatures in the 20th century were in the late 1930s
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif
Henry says
try putting in a 11 year running average in that arctic plot to cover at least one sun cycle. You will see the half part of the sine wave, albeit in the opposite direction as the global trend. The Anchorage plot (elmedorf base station) looks very similar, (11 year running average), especially if you look at maxima, meaning from 1955 the moving average is below the long term trend and it crosses over to the other side by 1995. But it was the same for my CET plot, remember?
i think that everyone agrees that the overall global trend of 1950-2000 was warming=looking at most data sets, including my own?
So, all that we have established now is that there are some places (3 now) that seems to become a bit cooler during a warming period. This has to do with the fact that those places would normally be a lot cooler if they did not have so many clouds. So during a cooling period they have more clouds and this traps the heat. During a warming period they get less clouds and this means lower temps. But, the wave is still there…..
Lots of unusual oddities with this storm. Can anyone explain why the storm had such a low central pressure yet only scaled at Cat1? Also check the link below. In 1997 there was a drill for a hurricane “Sandy” in October that struck the Atlantic seaboard. It was based on a the real one of 1938 yet exhibited many of the same features (name, location, wind reach) as this one. Coincidence or weather mod perhaps?
http://weca.org/SET/report/node6.html
This reply is likely too late, as I was busy for several days. Still:
HenryP says:
October 29, 2012 at 2:06 pm
“Either way, the Nile flooding is not caused by a single locality. It is coming from deep Africa which is the largest continent in the world and it covers a multitude of countries and an enormous amount of land.Maybe you guys have another location of a big river with records of height of flooding to which we could counter check? The Mississippi perhaps?”
Here is an example of Nile river flow from 1870 to 2002:
http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0959378005000026-gr3.gif
“Fig. 3. Annual river flows and lake levels for various periods. Note different vertical scales. Upper panel; Nile flows 1870–2002 (from a combination of records at Aswan, Wadi Halfa, Kajnarty and Dongola). Middle panel; Blue Nile flows 1900–2002 (from a combination of Khartoum, Roseires and el Deim). Lower panel; Lake Victoria levels 1899–2001. Bold line represents 10-year Gaussian filter.”
I wouldn’t count on precipitation in Africa necessarily having the same trend shape over time as (small) variations in global average temperature (which varied over recent decades by only tenths of a degree), but, in any case, as can be seen in the image, Nile river flow is also not much like just a 88/100 year sine wave.
HenryP says:
October 29, 2012 at 2:06 pm
“Check this against the weather station in Anchorage? There is one station there (from the army, I think) with data going back to 1944. (I did not go back that far)”
I don’t know the website of that. I could look around. However, such as http://img240.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=40530_DSCN1557_nat_geog_1976_1200x900_122_75lo.JPG seems more a fuller picture anyway, showing the temperature pattern for the Northern Hemisphere average.
HenryP says:
October 30, 2012 at 1:39 am
“So, all that we have established now is that there are some places (3 now) that seems to become a bit cooler during a warming period”
It is not just http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif for the arctic showing relatively
high temperatures in the late 1930s followed by relative cooling in the 1940s-1950s but also such as http://img240.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=40530_DSCN1557_nat_geog_1976_1200x900_122_75lo.JPG for the northern hemisphere average and http://hidethedecline.eu/media/PERPLEX/fig30.jpg for the world average.
HenryP says:
October 30, 2012 at 1:39 am
“try putting in a 11 year running average in that arctic plot to cover at least one sun cycle. You will see the half part of the sine wave, albeit in the opposite direction as the global trend.”
Many-year running averages can be misleading by getting out of phase with an effective false extra lag time compared to looking at the data directly. (A plot in a recent article was a particular illustration of such, though I’d have to look for it again). There is a 5-year average line in the plot, though. The general pattern of high temperatures in the late 1930s followed by relative cooling in the 1940s-1950s is seen in the arctic, northern hemisphere, and global trends, with all the following fitting together:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif
http://img240.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=40530_DSCN1557_nat_geog_1976_1200x900_122_75lo.JPG
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/PERPLEX/fig30.jpg
HenryP says:
October 29, 2012 at 2:06 pm
“the missing piece is exactly that: missing.”
Missing from that ice dataset, yes. There are other temperature indicators, though, like U.S. temperature readings then, later reconstruction via proxies, etc.
HenryP says:
October 30, 2012 at 1:39 am
“Hitler saw his ass against Russia because of the cold.”
As did Napoleon. Yes, though my impression is that was from lack of full appreciation of and preparation for Russian winters in general, including with a mistaken assumption of a swift victory.
HenryP says:
October 30, 2012 at 1:39 am
“Many people in Europe remember 1944 as being very cold: it is called the hunger winter. In the Netherlands they had 3 or 4 elfstedentochten in this (war) period, connecting 11 cities by waterways for an ice skate contest, which are extremely rare, meaning that it must have been very, very cold.”
http://img240.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=40530_DSCN1557_nat_geog_1976_1200x900_122_75lo.JPG shows a dip around then (compared to most of the couple decades beforehand), and such is for the Northern Hemisphere average so parts of Europe could deviate colder than the average. Also there would be other factors. For instance, a winter in a wartime situation with people lacking enough fuel to heat their houses or enough warm clothing could feel a lot colder than its nominal temperature in absolute terms. If I am not mistaken, apparently there was an elfstedentochten in 1997, which was not a cold year in the global average.
HenryP says:
October 29, 2012 at 2:06 pm
“The next two decades will be cold. Very cold.”
Albeit for different reasons, on that we mostly agree, although I would expect a few years of transition first, and then it depends on how one defines very cold.
Henry@Henry Clarke
Hi Henry! You are never late and better late than never.
I have quoted William Arnold on the Nile data here:
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
and he quoted others. So I am not going into a discussion on that part, I am pretty sure that that part of his study was well researched. Otherwise his whole paper would be a total waste.
In the meantime I had another good look at all the data from Anchorage
(BTW I get all my data from tutiempo.net)
By separating the data from 1942-1972 and from 1972-2012 I was able to find the whole sine wave, which again proves that the 88 year sine wave for incoming energy does exist.
I have published both the graph of the global average and the graph from Anchorage now.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
In hindsight, looking back, I realize now that I have been extremely lucky. For some odd reason I could only get complete reliable daily data going back to 1974 from most stations. That is just after the tipping point of 1972 which is now apparent from my sine waves. So when analyzing these data from 47 weather stations and putting it together in a global result I found a beautiful relationship of the speed in warming degrees C/ year versus time curving down, like as if somebody was throwing me a ball. Had I taken data from before 1972 everything would have been totally mixed up and I might never have picked up any relationship at all…..no ball to catch…
Although, lucky…. as you know I don’t believe in luck, so let me say that I was extremely blessed.
Looking carefully at my graphs, you will note that over the next 8 years or so, we will be cooling down at the maximum rate, of around -0.04 degrees C globally per year. That is ca. -0.3 degrees C down on the maxima by 2020. And I think earth average temps. (means) will follow this trend because it has already used up most of its reserves. So the following two decades will be cold. Very cold. But if you count back 88 years you will always realize that we have been there before.
So there is really nothing new under the sun. Everything is as it has always been. Natural global warming and natural global cooling have been with us, like, forever, or as far as I can see….
HenryP says:
November 5, 2012 at 7:04 am
“Henry@Henry Clarke
Hi Henry! You are never late and better late than never.”
True. Thanks.
HenryP says:
November 5, 2012 at 7:04 am
“I have published both the graph of the global average and the graph from Anchorage now.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/”
Importing data from http://www.tutiempo.net/clima/Anchorage_Elmendorf_Air_Force_Base/702720.htm into a spreadsheet and plotting, I see where you are getting that conclusion from if effectively averaging those figures.
Let’s plot such plus additional data as well, including some other plots from tutiempo.net from the East Coast to Hawaii:
http://s16.postimage.org/6i09v5bdh/comparisons.gif
(click to enlarge)
Out of hundreds of data points, there was an occassional missing year of data several times, but I just interpolated there, making no real difference to the overall shape of the plots.
HenryP says:
November 5, 2012 at 7:04 am
“I was able to find the whole sine wave, which again proves that the 88 year sine wave for incoming energy does exist.”
There is a resemblance. It is understandable why you are coming to that conclusion when using that Anchorage plot for the 1940s-1970s. Yet the plots within http://s16.postimage.org/6i09v5bdh/comparisons.gif illustrate how, to the degree there was a wave, it was closer to around 60 to 70 years between main peaks than 88 years (for the late 1930s were more a high than near 1907 for the example of 1995 minus 88 years), and, as deviating from a pattern like that before then, over the centuries it has been more complicated than a sine wave.
HenryP says:
November 5, 2012 at 7:04 am
“I have quoted William Arnold on the Nile data here:
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
and he quoted others. So I am not going into a discussion on that part, I am pretty sure that that part of his study was well researched. Otherwise his whole paper
would be a total waste.”
My main emphasis in this post is on the prior graph link. I can’t help but note in passing, though, that there are issues with that article, as such has some correct remarks mixed with data having insufficient correlation and excessive assumptions. Among examples, while correctly noting “in astronomical circles these respective eras are known as “Minimum Periods” for their dual nature of minimum temperatures and also minimum sunspot activity,” that article very incorrectly predicted a “minimum at 1990” of low sunspot activity and low temperature. In contrast, solar cycle 22 (1986-1996) was of particularly high sunspot activity, and near 1990 was a time of high temperatures, in fact with peak high temperatures occuring in the late 1990s (including with your data estimating top temperatures at 1995).
I’m relatively more into http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/index1_eng.html
HenryP says:
November 5, 2012 at 7:04 am
“Looking carefully at my graphs, you will note that over the next 8 years or so, we will be cooling down at the maximum rate, of around -0.04 degrees C globally per year. That is ca. -0.3 degrees C down on the maxima by 2020. And I think earth average temps. (means) will follow this trend because it has already used up most of its reserves. So the following two decades will be cold. Very cold.”
I agree in regard to the basic trend of cooling existing in the near future (aside from any short delays or fluctuations on the scale of one to several years like if El Nino weather temporarily released previously stored heat from the ocean heat sink into the atmosphere).
While http://iceagenow.info goes overboard and is blatantly biased (as concluding an incoming ice age is way too much a jump in assumptions, although transition towards another LIA seems a likely possibility), they are a convenient constantly-updated source for not missing news of recent particularly cold weather events which may get more common in a few years.
HenryP says:
November 5, 2012 at 7:04 am
“(BTW I get all my data from tutiempo.net)”
It does seem to be an useful site, once I realized it wasn’t too hard to browse even for someone not fluent in the language (mainly just a matter of realizing Estados_Unidos = United States). Thanks for the reference link.
Henry says ” but I just interpolated there”,
Henry@Henry
impressive piece of work
but be careful how you fill in missing data.
You must remember that we are looking at trends over periods of time. At least I am.
Initially I put the long term average in there but later I realized that was a mistake
If there was a missing year’s data it usually means that only a few months data might be missing, which is why an overall year average could not be reported.
So you have to go the the individual months of that year and see which month(s) are missing.
Then, let us say I found November 2002 is missing, I would go and look at Nov. 2001 and Nov 2003, took the average of those two months and filled it in for Nov. 2002. So, in this way I would still get a good average over 2002. It means more work, because you have to go into all the months of 2002 to get the averages for all the months, to make a final average for the year.
.
Hawaii does seem to go a bit against the flow, maybe because of the volcanoes.
You must remember that after summarizing the results from 47 weather stations I finally came to these results
data in degrees C per annum are: 0.036 from 1974 (38 yrs), 0.029 from 1980 (32 yrs), 0.014 from 1990 (22 years) and -0.016 from 2000 (12 years)
The most logical plot is that it is a sine wave because if you put it in a binomial you do get very high correlation, r2=0.998 but the cooling would be much higher and where will it stop? Let us rather hope my sine wave is correct
Arnolds paper is only interesting to me because the periods of the flooding of the Nile correspond exactly with my sine wave, i.e. higher flooding during a cooling session (44 years) and low flooding during a warming session (44 years). The energy in cycle could have some lag, so in history they have often spoken of the 100 year cycle. Moses seem to have known that every 50 years we are back to the same point. It seems the Egyptians knew about it.