Image Credit: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
By WUWT Regular Just The Facts
From the Insurance Journal:
“The 2013 Atlantic hurricane season looks set to go down as a big washout, marking the first time in 45 years that the strongest storm to form was just a minor Category 1 hurricane.
There could still be a late surprise in the June 1-Nov. 30 season, since the cyclone that mushroomed into Superstorm Sandy was just revving up at this time last year.
But so far, at least, it has been one of the weakest seasons since modern record-keeping began about half a century ago, U.S. weather experts say. Apart from Tropical Storm Andrea, which soaked Florida after moving ashore in the Panhandle in June, none of this year’s cyclones has made a U.S. landfall.”
“It has been “a very strange sort of year” in the unpredictable world of cyclones, said Jeff Masters, a hurricane expert and director of meteorology at Weather Underground. “We’ve been in this multi-decadal pattern of activity but it just didn’t happen this year,” Masters said, referring to the prolonged period of increased hurricane activity that began in 1995.”
“There were two short-lived Category 1 hurricanes this year, making it the first Atlantic season since 1968 when no storm made it beyond the first level of intensity, according to the National Hurricane Center.
It has also been a year marked by the fewest number of hurricanes since 1982 and the first since 1994 without the formation of a major hurricane.
In terms of so-called “Accumulated Cyclone Energy” (ACE), a common measure of the total destructive power of a season’s storms, 2013 ranks among the 10 weakest since the dawn of the satellite era in the mid-1960s, said Dennis Feltgen, a spokesman for the Miami-based National Hurricane Center. “The ACE so far in 2013 is 33 percent of normal,” he said.”
“Phil Klotzbach, a Colorado State University climatologist, readily admits that the forecasts are based on statistical models that will “occasionally fail,” since the atmosphere is chaotic and subject to fluctuations that cannot be predicted more than a week or two in advance.”
For reference here are Global Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) – 1971 to Present;
Global Tropical Cyclone Frequency- 1971 to Present;
Global Hurricane Frequency – 1978 to Present;
US Hurricanes 1851 – 2010;
and Australian Region Tropical Cyclones 1970–2011 (Severe tropical cyclones are those which show a minimum central pressure less than 970 hPa);
So I guess that we don’t need to buckle up for those Category 6 hurricanes after all?:
If you look at superstorm Sandy on October 29th, the ocean water east of New Jersey was nine degrees fahrenheit above average. That’s what put so much more energy into that storm. That’s what put so much more water vapor into that storm. Would there be a storm anyway? Maybe so. Would there be hurricanes and floods and droughts without man-made global warming? Of course. But they’re stronger now. The extreme events are more extreme. The hurricane scale used to be 1-5 and now they’re adding a 6. The fingerprint of man-made global warming is all over these storms and extreme weather events. Al Gore – Washington Post
To see more information on Sea Ice please visit the WUWT Tropical Cyclone Page and WUWT “Extreme Weather” Page.
2010 and 2011 look to be even quieter, judging from Figure 1: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/cei/step6.02-01.gif
A prediction for 2014.
Hurricanes will number between, very roughly, -3.762 and 117.508. More-or-less, about. Note that no responsibility whatsoever is taken for those relying on the precision – or even the order – of these close climate estimates.
No children or animals were harmed in the production of these scientifically precise numbers, from random.org, with added kitten-power from Twizzle [who’s spoilt!].
Sorry – /sarc.
Did you guess?
We cannot guess the next solar cycle. We cannot guess the hurricane count six months in advance. We cannot guess el Niño or la Nina a year in advance. We cannot guess Arctic sea ice extent. We don’t even try to guess cloud cover. Regardless we know with 95% certainty what is going on with CAGW for the next century.
And Al Gore had a meeting with insurance companies to raise everyone’s rates due to global warming causing more hurricanes. When will Gore face jail time?
This trend should continue into 2025. Then, if my hypothesis is correct, a season with out tropical storms should occur.
My paper. http://sunspotshurricanesandglaciers.com/image/62226346.png
We are in Solar minimum. Hurricanes should drop off and glacier and Polar Ice Caps should pick up. There should be longer winters and winters without summers.
We may have seen the start of the cooler climate with the lost of more than 20,000 head of cattle in the winter storm that hit South Dakota 4 weekends ago.
This already showed up in smaller countries over the last couple of winters with lost of elderly in the United Kingdom and lambs in Scotland and New Zealand.
The drought worldwide is the result of the lack of sunspot activity
Sincerely,
Paul Pierett
Using Al Gore’s counting methodology – see previous post – the US has experienced 127 hurricanes so far this year with a firm prediction for another 17 over the next six weeks.
You see, this is just more proof that the climate is changing and we’ve got to stop it.
Extreme hurricanes are just a thing of the past? Children won’t have a clue what these things were. :-)It won’t be long before a paper comes out blaming man’s eeeeevil Satanic gases for this awful state of affairs.
The models predicted it!
On the Extreme Weather page, what’s with the Tornadoes’ US Departure from Normal Annual Running Total 2011 vs 2012 — yoo hoo, it’s 2013 now.
What a tragedy for the catastrophists!
looking at your 3rd graph you can see that up until about 98 hurricanes were up , globally, whereas from that time they were down, similarly to temperatures going up until 2000 and global temps. down from 2002. You can see what’s happening?
Just like I told you.
In 7 years time there will be disaster.
No winds…no rain…just droughts up north.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
Excuse me,
Lets stay with the current data as compared to past data and not get mired into fanciful futures.
A fact is a fact and this past season is still weather.
lsvalgaard says: October 26, 2013 at 10:19 am
2010 and 2011 look to be even quieter, judging from Figure 1: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/cei/step6.02-01.gif
The “US Extremes in Landfalling Tropical Systems – 1910 to Present – Annual” isn’t a pure count, it is based on:
They note that:
In further detail:
For reference, the “first five indicators” are as follows:
Also, the Extremes in Landfalling Tropical Systems graph shows the Most Recent 12-Month Period (Feb-Jan), thus it is not to present. I would expect that it would return to zero like 2010 and 2011, once it is updated in Feb 2014.
On the two-tailed Gaussian distribution this lack of hurricane activity falls into the extreme low end of occurrences. Thus, it is representative of extreme weather and fully supports climate change and global warming. Should next years hurricane activity be completely average, it could be judged representative of extreme average weather and fully support climate change and global warming. But then, what doesn’t support global warming?
lsvalgaard says:
October 26, 2013 at 10:19 am
2010 and 2011 look to be even quieter, judging from Figure 1: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/cei/step6.02-01.gif
—————————
“Atlantic” and “US” are different things.
I almost wish we did have a major hurricane this year. We know The Weather Channel has “gone green” but to keep recycling Sandy……..it must be getting boring even for them.
Obviously, the heat that used to go into hurricane formation is now being sucked into the deep oceans. Scary thought for Halloween, no? How many thought of Ross Perot?
Most hurricane scales go up to five, but Algore’s goes up to six (with apologies to Spinal Tap fans).
Big storm due this weekend the other side of the pond. 80 mph winds.
Worst in 26 years.
No guesses as to headlines.
Good golly, did ya have to quote Masters! He is one of the biggest alarmists out there. When the weather channel bought his Web site their alarmism stepped up 2 fold. BTW, he is an air pollution meteorologist. WUWT?
This eerie calm is unprecedented. The eeriness and lack of precedence are worse than we thought. Mutilple independent studies confirm the adverse effects of eeriness when unprecedented…
Oh, for chrissake! I can’t keep this tripe up for much longer. Just give me my bloody Nobel!
Well researched, as usual, JTF.
Thanks!
But but but more frequent weather extremes are consistent with global warming…err, climate change…theory.
Now there are even more hurricanes “in the pipeline.”
Is the windy stuff hiding somewhere?
The UK papers are full of a monster storm arriving there on Monday, where is it coming from if you guys are having it so good?
the forecasts are based on statistical models….
You don’t need all that money and computers to do this…..and who was stupid enough to think you can predict the weather with statistics in the first place…
Is that all we’ve got? after all this time and money?…..betting on a friggin horse race
ACE…is even stupidier!…..a tiny weak storm that just lasts a long time can have an extremely high ACE
Peter Melia says:
===
Peter, that might be it, top left corner……right below Iceland
http://www.weather.unisys.com/satellite/sat_wv_hem_loop-12.gif
What the purpose of top figure in the post (Extremes in Landfalling Tropical Systems)? It seems to me it is decidedly misleading both graphically and descriptively. First off, what “Extreme” are they featuring with the graph? Is it up to the reader to spot it?
Secondly, it’s not particularly clear what “Tropical Systems” count. By my understanding, I would think it includes more than named storms since they have descriptions for the “Tropical Systems” — Tropical Depression, Tropical Storm and they are classified Category A and Category B with max sustained wind speeds and damage estimates. But they show nothing for 2010 or 2011, which means it doesn’t include those, so it would mean would it is limited to hurricanes But they would then need to eliminate Irene in 2011< which made landfall in NC, for some reason, wouldn't they?
Then they have 2012 with a 14%, but there were ten hurricanes in 2012 of which either one or two made landfall in the US and there were two hurricanes Issac and Sandy so the percentage should be either 10% or 20%, not 14% right?
Now I look at 2006 and there we only 5 hurricanes in 2006, none of which made landfall in the US, yet we have a bar showing 93%?
What's going on here? My intent to write this comment started with the thinking there ought to metric incorporated to distinguish between 3 out 3 landfall yearly event vs 3 out of 4 or 3 out of 6, as well and comparing 0 out of 1 or 0 out of 6, none of which you can do with only a 20% average as a guide. I had also thought some shaded standard deviation might help in gauging what is supposed to be the "Extreme" that is shown on the graph. But now I'm just wondering what info they used to create this graph?
I can’t stand this normalcy!
Global sea ice average ✔
Hurricanes unimpressive ✔
Hot air standstill ✔
Antarctica sea ice bit abnormal ✔
Arctic sea ice – rotten rebound X
Soon, global warming alarmists will be a thing of the past. We won’t know what an alarmist is.
Sadly, the lack of destructive storms making landfall or disrupting shipping is a bad thing.
During this quiet time, more people are forgetting just what these storms do. They’re building up in unsafe areas. They’re building their homes by the shore. They’re reducing budgets for disaster relief because they’re not using it. They are getting complacent.
Next time a Cat 1 hits, it’s going to be non-stop bleating about unprecedented destruction and unusual climates. A whole new generation will be blind-sided by what they think is an unexpected catastrophe.
And it will all be because of “carbon pollution”.
Hi JTF
Don’t wish to steal Dr. S. thunder, but the NOAA graph
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/cei/step6.02-01.gif
is strictly (scientifically) speaking a bit of a let down, coming from such august institution, namely the 5 year moving average is displaced by 2 (2.5) years to the right.
At this rate tropical storms may quickly become things of the past… Children just aren’t going to know what a good ole hurricane is. Or, again, they may.
Anyway, the extreme lack of storms is extreme weather in itself, may well be worse than we thought. If nothing else, projected massive loss of reconstruction jobs is a nightmare.
More to the point the 5yr average at all time lows.
Or do we need a 17yr moving avg to draw any comment under the new rules?
In some of the communications above I saw phrases such as “above normal” and “below normal.” Weather cannot be logically treated in terms of “normal.” Normal means conforming to a norm, a pre-set reading or figure arrived at in each case, but not applicable to a chaotic system such as weather is.
For example: Normal eyesight has been designated in part as 20/20 (seeing something 20 feet away as though it actually is twenty feet away); as playwright George Bernard Shaw learned, he had normal eyesight, which condition was very rare, according to his oculist.
Who has set the bounds for normal weather–i.e., what weather is supposed to be? No one knows what it is supposed to be. We did not create it; we can’t set it. The correct term in the above communications is “average,” not “normal.” Even the average is suspect because the period from which the average is derived is arbitrary and most likely does not go back to the beginnings of keeping records. (Going back to the previous example: Note that normal eyesight is not at all like average eyesight and cannot be derived from averages.)
Today in central Virginia the high temperature has been 56 degrees Fahrenheit after an early-morning low of 27 with frost. The average temps for this date are (guessing here) about 68 and 48. Thus, our high today is about 12 degrees below average, and the low about 21 degrees below average. Is this, therefore, an abnormal day? Hardly–it is perfect late October weather that happens to be cooler than average. Earlier this month the temperature reached 90 degrees one afternoon, which at that point in the month was about 18 degrees above average. Unusually warm, but nowhere near a record; not abnormal; just not average.
Dusty says: October 26, 2013 at 1:29 pm
vukcevic says: October 26, 2013 at 2:04 pm
The more I read the less I like the Climate Extremes Index and its Extremes in Landfalling Tropical Systems component, i.e.:
Now if I were a layman,(I am), and I was just eyeballing Fig 1 ( I am ) I could conclude that it was the global cyclonic activity that dispersed the rising ocean heat in both the time periods ’93-’98 an’ 03-’07. Then I might think about these storms as a global temperature regulator. But alas, I am just a layman and just eyeballing a simple chart and will leave it to the experts to decipher.
justthefactswuwt says:
[October 26, 2013 at 11:21 am]
Okay, I never expected. Is there useful purpose for creating this graph?
http://flhurricane.com/index.php?nonews=1#Blog94901
Could we possibly get some statistics on the sale of baked beans in relationship to the magnitude and frequency of hurricane/cyclone activity.
I am sure there is a link in there somewhere…
Latitude says:
October 26, 2013 at 1:19 pm
“ACE…is even stupidier!…..a tiny weak storm that just lasts a long time can have an extremely high ACE.”
=================
I’ll admit to being stupider than a stone.
But, have you any better metrics to use ?
If so, please enlighten us.
@CodeTech,
This is an important point to make. That is also why I shiver when I hear the term “Superstorm” Sandy. Sandy was “super” because of death and destruction for the reasons you just described and it was only a Category 2!
I would also watch out for the Warmists spinning this recent NOAA statistic. Anything deviating from the average frequency is considered Extreme. Too many, or too few. You can all already see it appear in The Literature. Lack of Hurricans/Tornadoes being “blamed” on Climate Change /Global Warming.
models that will “occasionally fail,” since the atmosphere is chaotic and subject to fluctuations that cannot be predicted more than a week or two in advance.”
So why do they make predictions that are years in advance.
Meanwhile National Geographic has a scary looking tornado on its cover with with the even more scary headline THE MONSTER STORM.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/
In reply to:
Taphonomic says:
October 26, 2013 at 11:23 am
Should next years hurricane activity be completely average, it could be judged representative of extreme average weather and fully support climate change and global warming. But then, what doesn’t support global warming?
William:
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm
The following supports the assertion that AGW will not affect Hurricane Activity (along with the fact that hurricane activity has been the lowest in modern history) and that IPCC works to push an agenda rather than to solve a scientific puzzle. Not surprisingly the IPCC have failed to solve the scientific puzzle. No worry other scientists are still practicing science. See paper attached to end of this comment.
”After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns. …. ….Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4’s Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic “Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity” along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted). …. ….It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity.”
William: In response to your last question what does not support AGW. The following does not support global warming. The following supports (one of about 6 fundamental observations/analyses that disproves the AGW hypothesis) the assertion that the majority of the 20th century warming has caused by solar magnetic cycle changes rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2 and that the majority of the increase in atmospheric CO2 was caused the warming, rather than by anthropogenic increases. If the assertions made in the attached paper are correct the planet will now cool and atmospheric CO2 will now drop.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
…As cause always must precede effect, this observation demonstrates that modern changes in temperatures are generally not induced by changes in atmospheric CO2. Indeed, the sequence of events is seen to be the opposite: temperature changes are taking place before the corresponding CO2 changes occur. …. …..As the theoretical initial temperature effect of changes in atmospheric CO2 must materialize first in the troposphere, and then subsequently at the planet surface (land and ocean), our diagrams 2–8 reveal that the common notion of globally dominant temperature controls exercised by atmospheric CO2 is in need of reassessment. …. ….Empirical observations indicate that changes in temperature generally are driving changes in atmospheric CO2, and not the other way around….
justthefactswuwt says:
[October 26, 2013 at 11:21 am]
Thanks again for that additional info, JTF-WUWT. I’m just a lowly civil engineer, so while I’m generally conversant in the sciences, this climate stuff is not my bailiwick and when it gets complicated, I only try to take what’s given and lay it over general principles to get a feel for what is being presented for understanding it. That is why, lacking any explanatory legend, I was so off the mark in my presumptions of what they were graphing.
I’m not sure what to make of your bolded portions of their explanation. I have no clue what they mean by “This new indicator is calculated only for periods in which tropical storms and hurricanes are consistently active. Results for periods where tropical system activity is extremely infrequent (i.e. a few observations for the entire period of record) were difficult to work with and were subsequently left out of the index.” Did they skip 2011 because Hurricane Irene and TS Don and Lee weren’t worth the effort or something?
I think my last question still pertains: For what useful purpose is this graph being created? Or put differently, What will this graph help climate scientists understand?
u.k.(us) says:
October 26, 2013 at 3:03 pm
=====
a stupid metric is still a stupid metric…
No, I don’t have a better one…..but I wouldn’t use a stupid one just to say I have one
Currently, 2013 as far as ACE goes, is the 7th smallest ACE since 1950, and in two days that drops to 6th smallest. Yeah team!
All summer I waited for the ITCZ to move north, as it usually does, to generate those big cyclonic storms that surge across the Atlantic. It never happened and neither did the hurricanes. Maybe some of you could explain why the ITCZ stayed so far south that it was seldom north of the South American land mass.
CO2 in the atmosphere makes the air heavy and butterflies are having trouble flapping their wings.
Also global warming is reducing the number of butterflies.
Could someone explain to me, when measuring hurricane activity, why only landfalling hurricanes are considered.?
It is interesting to speculate, of what other things accumulated cyclone frequency and global hurricane frequency might be a proxy.
“Phil Klotzbach, a Colorado State University climatologist, readily admits that the forecasts are based on statistical models that will “occasionally fail,” since the atmosphere is chaotic and subject to fluctuations that cannot be predicted more than a week or two in advance.”
Well, d’uh, Phil. Was Dr. Trenberth in the room when you wrote that? C’mon, just say it: MODELS DON’T WORK. Simple. Fact.
@Latitude
You didn’t explain why ACE is a stupid metric. I think it is a useful measure. Why do you think it is stupid?
@chris
It isn’t the case that only landfalling hurricanes are considered. There are many metrics, and people look at both total hurricanes as well as landfalling.
However, there are (at least) two reasons for being interested in landfalling hurricanes.
The obvious one is that if you are interested in the damage caused, as you might be if you are an insurance company, or a relief agency, it is the landfalling hurricanes that are of interest.
A second technical reason is if you are trying to do some analysis of long term numbers. Prior to satellites, non landfalling hurricanes could be missed. If they weren’t tracked by ocean going ships, no one might know they existed. In contrast, no one missed a landfalling hurricanes, so the count of landfalling hurricanes is accurate over long period of time, while the counts of all hurricanes is much less accurate in earlier years.
There does appear to be a slight correlation between the PDO and hurricanes. However, given the small amount of data it might just be coincidence. Has anyone studied this?
As for the value of ACE, I think it is important. Tropical cyclones are heat pumps. They pump energy from the surface and oceans to space very efficiently. The ACE index gives us a global indicator of how much energy is involved in this process. The current low ACE values show us the planet is retaining more energy. That may be one reason why we haven’t cooled as much as we might otherwise would have with a negative PDO.
Phil Klotzbach notes that the atmosphere is chaotic. If you read Chaos Theory you will that there are “attractors” that are identified to explain how choatic systems behave. Currently a number of models, other than long term climate models, are showing varying degrees of bias in their outputs. Joe Bastardi, on Dr Spencer’s blog noted that for the last 7 months weather models have forecast warm and the forecast gets colder as the date approaches. The NOAA forecast on the Southern Oscillation is biased toward El Nino. The hurricane forecast was a bust and the number of tornados was much lower this year. These are the ones that I have noticed, there are probably more. I suspect that one or more attractors in the climate system have changed and the changes are not recognized by the models. Does anybody have any ideas?
In my neck of the woods the expected storm to hit the UK on Monday is already being blamed by the alarmists from FOE on climate change and say the next 3 or 4 years will give us even bigger storms. I do wish these morons would just go away and leave us in peace.
John C
Well, somehow Reuters, with help from Jeff Masters, has been able to report this as a brief lull in a period otherwise high in tropical storm activity–
“We’ve been in this multi-decadal pattern of activity but it just didn’t happen this year,”Masters said, referring to the prolonged period of increased hurricane activity that began in 1995.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/atlantic-hurricane-season-quietest-45-years-experts-170425159.html
As my son points out, technically, a lack of hurricane activity is “Extreme Weather”. It does negatively impact rainfall in the SE US as that region is somewhat dependent on tropical storms and the like to replenish their reservoirs. Also, I seem to remember reading Pat Michaels saying that one impact of warming due to CO2 would be a lessening of the temperature gradient between the arctic and tropics which would cause fewer rather than more hurricanes and TS’s. Precisely what has happened. If only the temperature had not stagnated for 17 years …
Meanwhile, across the Pond:
http://news.yahoo.com/england-wales-brace-worst-storm-years-103639850.html
Mike O says:
October 27, 2013 at 8:46 am
Correct about T gradient & storms. Wrong that warmer temperatures are attributable primarily to CO2. In uncooked books, temperatures were higher during the last warm interval, in the 1920s to ’40s, the second such phase since end of the LIA.
As you know, milder WX isn’t what CACA advocates mean by “extreme”.
milodonharlani says:
October 27, 2013 at 9:05 am
To compare & contrast with present storm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Storm_of_1987
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Storm_of_1703
Re forecasting by NOAA:
1)”(ACE), a common measure of the total destructive power of a season’s storms, 2013 ranks among the 10 weakest since the dawn of the satellite era in the mid-1960s, said Dennis Feltgen, a spokesman for the Miami-based National Hurricane Center. “The ACE so far in 2013 is 33 percent of normal,” he said.”
2) “Phil Klotzbach, a Colorado State University climatologist, readily admits that the forecasts are based on statistical models that will “occasionally fail,”
Given 1), why was 2) forecasting an active hurricane season? I recall Bob Tisdale’s article here at WUWT showing the underwhelming warmth of hurricane alley from W. Africa onwards showing a bit of heat in the Gulf of Mexico but otherwise lower SST on average. At the time, I, a mere layman was perplexed at the “active h. season” forecast. Even the ENSO was neutral, which is apparently unfavorable. La Nina’s are indicators of strong Atlantic huricane seasons.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/lanina/
Here is a paper from NOAA itself on the subject.
Naturally, any deviation more than 0.5% from the long-term average is proof positive that MMGW exists and requires governments to take control over energy and the means of production immediately or we’re all doomed doomed DOOMED!
As my late father used to say, “How can believe they know the temperature and sea levels fifty years from now when they can’t even tell me if it will rain tomorrow?”
The Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939 was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
I find that as we are moving back, up, from the deep end of the 88 year sine wave, there will be a standstill in the change of the speed of cooling, neither accelerating nor decelerating, on the bottom of the wave; therefore naturally, there will also be a lull in pressure difference at that > [40 latitude], where the Dust Bowl drought took place, meaning: no wind and no weather (read: rain). However, one would apparently note this from an earlier change in direction of wind, as was the case in Joseph’s time. According to my calculations, this will start around 2020 or 2021…..i.e. 1927=2016 (projected, by myself and the planets…)> add 5 years and we are in 2021.
Danger from global cooling is documented and provable. It looks we have only ca. 7 “fat” years left……
WHAT MUST WE DO?
We urgently need to develop and encourage more agriculture at lower latitudes, like in Africa and/or South America. This is where we can expect to find warmth and more rain during a global cooling period.
We need to warn the farmers living at the higher latitudes (>40) who already suffered poor crops due to the cold and/ or due to the droughts that things are not going to get better there for the next few decades. It will only get worse as time goes by.
We also have to provide more protection against more precipitation at certain places of lower latitudes (FLOODS!), <[30] latitude, especially around the equator.
From
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
The Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939 (north America) was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
I find that as we are moving back, up, from the deep end of the 88 year sine wave, there will be a standstill in the change of the speed of cooling, neither accelerating nor decelerating, on the bottom of the wave; therefore naturally, there will also be a lull in pressure difference at that > [40 latitude], where the Dust Bowl drought took place, meaning: no wind and no weather (read: rain). However, one would apparently note this from an earlier change in direction of wind, as was the case in Joseph’s time. According to my calculations, this will start around 2020 or 2021…..i.e. 1927=2016 (projected, by myself and the planets…)> add 5 years and we are in 2021.
Danger from global cooling is documented and provable. It looks we have only ca. 7 “fat” years left……
WHAT MUST WE DO?
We urgently need to develop and encourage more agriculture at lower latitudes, like in Africa and/or South America. This is where we can expect to find warmth and more rain during a global cooling period.
We need to warn the farmers living at the higher latitudes (>40) who already suffered poor crops due to the cold and/ or due to the droughts that things are not going to get better there for the next few decades. It will only get worse as time goes by.
We also have to provide more protection against more precipitation at certain places of lower latitudes (FLOODS!), <[30] latitude, especially around the equator.
From
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
We’re tipping into a dangerous period of lack of extremes. Why isn’t anybody worried?!
Bill Parsons asks
why isn’t anybody worried
henry says
Jesus is with us in whatever storm may come against us
sometimes you must take the time and trouble to wake Him up?
Makes quite a liar out of the alarmists who claimed there were “70 percent more severe weather events in 2012” at the Senate committee meeting, doesn’t it?
HenryP says:
October 27, 2013 at 12:30 pm
Or just pray that people recognize humor when they see it?
@Bill Parson
there was an earlier comment of mine that is no joke
Henry, as far as I know, U.S.is an exporter of most agricultural products – projected net exports at $140 B, and imports at 105 B for 2013.
http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/AES/AES-08-29-2013.pdf
Whereas some farmers may be able to parlay a misdirected climate change policy into a subsidy, I’d guess their biggest concerns are with current prices, which determine how much they plant and how much they harvest. As long as there is abundance (and usually there is in the U.S.), prices reflect that. In times of dearth, or when they can keep certain products off the market long enough, farmers can sell what they have at inflated prices. U.S. is big. A drought in one part of the country will mean a bumper crop somewhere else.
One useful adaptation might be to help all our most reliable trading partners to have the strongest annual crop production they can have – in the event that the entire U.S. were to be blighted.
Isn’t this more an argument for global warming that against?
I mean, after all, the more extreme temperature differences are what feeds stronger storms, and smaller temperature differences result in less severe storms… Isn’t that correct?
Snow was never again to fall in Britain. Ever.
Overheated polar bears were to be wandering aimlessly in an iceless North Pole *this* year.
The coasts were to be inundated. (Obama, peace be upon him, was going to stop it, though.)
The answer? Give Gore and the UN billions. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Kevin Burnett says:
October 27, 2013 at 3:01 pm
Few doubt that the planet is warmer now than in the LIA or the interval c. 1944-76. The issue is whether the minor difference is a normal, natural fluctuation or something extreme, unprecedented & caused by human activity. The correct answer is no, there is nothing at all unusual about the apparent warming from c. 1977-96 & the observed flat-lining c. 1997-2006 (even with a super-El Nino) & cooling since then.
I know the Pacific is named for being just that, and compared to the Atlantic it is quite expansive so that typhoons can be born and die without making any landfall, (e.g. currently Raymond s.w. of Baja California). Consequently there is not as much media hype about the typhoons that it does generate. Are there any theories/models for attempting to predict frequency of Pacific storms that reach hurricane categories?
Dusty says: October 26, 2013 at 2:47 pm
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Dusty says: October 26, 2013 at 3:37 pm
Is there useful purpose for creating this graph?
If it was an accurate representation of the tropical storms that strike land, then it would be a valuable graph, however I am not sure that it is.
I’m not sure what to make of your bolded portions of their explanation. I have no clue what they mean by “This new indicator is calculated only for periods in which tropical storms and hurricanes are consistently active. Results for periods where tropical system activity is extremely infrequent (i.e. a few observations for the entire period of record) were difficult to work with and were subsequently left out of the index.” Did they skip 2011 because Hurricane Irene and TS Don and Lee weren’t worth the effort or something?
Your interpretation seems as good as any. Their methodology seems arbitrary, which has no place in science.
I think my last question still pertains: For what useful purpose is this graph being created? Or put differently, What will this graph help climate scientists understand?
I have to do more research before I strip the NOAA NCDC U.S. Climate Extremes Index (CEI) off the WUWT Reference Pages, but based on my initial research, I am wondering if the Climate Extremes Index was developed to help propagate the “Extreme Weather” meme, e.g.:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
Here is the CEI data;
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cei/
and here are there images:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/cei/
At this point the NOAA NCDC U.S. Climate Extremes Index (CEI) and associated graphs are suspect.
@AussieBear: ” Sandy was “super” because of death and destruction for the reasons you just described and it was only a Category 2!”
When Sandy finally hit New Jersey and New York it was a tropical storm. What made it bad was when Sandy met up with the cold front coming from the west, which kept it running right along the coast while slowing it down, allowing it to hammer the Jersey shore and New York City and its environs for an extended time.
A quick look at the National Hurricane Center’s web page for the Atlantic says – “No Tropical Cyclones At This Time”: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
[heh]
It should pointed out that the alarmists have long predicted that hurricanes will become more intense and more numerous due to “global warming”. Here’s a news article from last July – just when the alarmists thought we were going to get a bumper crop of Atlantic hurricanes:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/07/08/climate-change-global-warming-hurricanes/2498611/
Storm warning: Climate change to spawn more hurricanes
by Doyle Rice, USA TODAY 4:44 p.m. EDT July 8, 2013
The Atlantic Ocean — where most hurricanes that impact the USA come from — is projected to see more hurricanes develop.
The world could see as many as 20 additional hurricanes and tropical storms each year by the end of the century because of climate change, says a study out today.
The study was published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), written by top climate researcher Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
…
Emanuel’s study used six newly upgraded global climate computer models to simulate future hurricane activity around the world. His study found that these killer storms will not only increase in intensity during the 21st century, as many previous studies had predicted, but will also increase in frequency in most locations.
To Aussiebear:
Following onto DCE‘s reply, Sandy also struck at not just
high tide on the New Jersey & New York coast, but during a spring tide.
This caused the high tide to be significantly higher than normal, enhancing
the flooding.