Investments in forecasting and research yield more accurate predictions
Today marks the official end of the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season, which matched NOAA’s seasonal predictions for being extremely active. The season produced 17 named storms of which 10 became hurricanes including six major hurricanes (Category 3, 4 or 5) – including the first two major hurricanes to hit the continental U.S. in 12 years.
“Throughout this devastating hurricane season, NOAA provided vital forecasts and data that helped save many lives,” said U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross. “I commend the scientists and forecasters who worked long hours tracking every storm and guiding federal and local officials’ efforts to prepare and respond.”
Based on the Accumulated Cyclone Energy index, which measures the combined intensity and duration of the storms during the season and is used to classify the strength of the entire hurricane season, 2017 was the seventh most active season in the historical record dating to 1851 and was the most active season since 2005.
Though it was a furious season, NOAA issued early and reliable forecasts to communities in the path of this year’s storms. NOAA’s preliminary data show that the National Hurricane Center issued storm track forecasts with record-setting accuracy. These forecasts for the three most damaging hurricanes were about 25 percent more accurate than average.
This year, three devastating major hurricanes made landfall (Harvey in Texas; Irma in the Caribbean and southeastern U.S.; and Maria in the Caribbean and Puerto Rico). Harvey was also the first major hurricane to hit the U.S. since Wilma struck Florida in October 2005. Additionally, four other storms hit the U.S., including Cindy in Texas, Emily and Phillipe in Florida, and Nate in Mississippi.
“This was a hurricane season that wouldn’t quit,” said retired Navy Rear Adm. Timothy Gallaudet, Ph.D., acting NOAA Administrator. “The season started early with a storm in April and the peak of the season featured an onslaught of ten successive hurricanes. NOAA forecasters rose to this challenge to keep emergency officials and the public aware of anticipated hazards.”
Supporting the accurate forecasts is an array of essential observations that are processed by high-resolution models run by powerful supercomputers – all of which are underpinned by research. Key NOAA activities this season include:
- NOAA aircraft flew more than 500 hours to support forecasting, research and emergency response. Scientists with NOAA Research flew on the aircraft to gather the data used to generate accurate forecasts of the storms’ paths and catastrophic rainfall forecasts. Meanwhile, unmanned aircraft and underwater drones probed Hurricane Maria’s eyewall, soared at 60,000 feet over Hurricane Harvey and dove through the storm-churned waters of the tropical Atlantic and Caribbean to gather unique insights on the storms. Experimental NOAA forecast models run during the storms continue to push the frontiers of weather forecasting skill in storm track, intensity and rainfall amounts. Researchers are now assessing how this data may improve hurricane prediction in the future.
- Forecasters accessed pre-operational imagery from its new geostationary satellite, GOES-16, to track storms with greater detail than ever before. GOES-16 will become operational next month and will be renamed GOES-East. NOAA launched its newest polar-orbiting satellite, JPSS-1, earlier this month and will launch GOES-S next spring. Together, these satellites will provide a significant boost to hurricane monitoring for the 2018 season.
- NOAA’s National Water Center in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, supported local officials in Texas during Hurricane Harvey by providing specialized and supplemental “worst case” river flooding maps for a region that would experience days of excessive rainfall. This tailored decision, coupled with accurate and consistent warnings of historic rainfall and catastrophic flooding from NOAA’s Weather Prediction Center, allowed Texas emergency managers to stage resources, recovery encampments, evacuation areas, and other relief activities safely outside the areas of likely flooding.
- NOAA’s National Ocean Service provided crucial information and expertise before, during and after all of the storms. Leading up to and throughout the storms, NOS issued Storm QuickLooks which provide near real-time coastal and weather data. Once the storms passed, NOS collected more than 65,000 post-storm aerial images in priority areas to assess damage to coastal areas, covering more than 9,200 square miles. NOS also provided emergency hydrographic services at affected port areas. This data was used to detect potential hazards that could delay the delivery of emergency supplies and maritime commerce and help the U.S. Coast Guard to make decisions on reopening ports.
- NOAA’s NWS and National Hurricane Center successfully launched new Storm Surge Watches and Warnings in 2017 for the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the U.S. Despite a record three landfalling Category 4 hurricanes, there are currently no known deaths from storm surge in the United States. NHC also issued new Potential Tropical Cyclone advisories on seven systems in the Atlantic basin that allowed the timely issuance of watches and warnings for land areas. All but one of these systems went on to develop into a tropical storm or hurricane.
“In six short months, the next hurricane season will be upon us,” added Gallaudet. “This is a good time to review and strengthen your preparedness plans at home as we continue to build a Weather-Ready Nation.”
The 2018 Atlantic hurricane season officially begins on June 1 and NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center will provide its initial seasonal outlook in May.
I honestly do not see the improvement….and there’s a lot of discussion about wind speeds/intensity at land fall and how they came up with numbers that make no sense
..plus having everyone in the state of Fla jumping from one side to the other until there’s no where left to go
predicting 20 ft of flood in Naples, Fl, etc
I was in Orlando during Irma. Indeed the forecasting was not much help. I realize it is difficult as small changes result in significantly different tracks. However, that is the whole point of forecasting. Helping people know what to expect.
Drive North my friend.
“I was in Orlando during Irma.”
yes, and the biggest part of their “prediction” was that it was going to hit you as a cat 4
Regarding people “jumping from one side to the other” of Florida, Irma’s path was extremely difficult to predict. The center went west into the Straits of Florida, then actually went a little south and made landfall on the north coast of Cuba, then suddenly tracked due north into Naples, FL, and up the middle of the peninsula.
The prediction of “20 ft of flood in Naples, FL” was a precautionary move, because if Irma’s eye had tracked to the NNW off the west coast of Florida, the strongest winds would have been out of the SW, bringing a huge storm surge into Naples, up the Caloosahatchie River into Fort Myers, and into Charlotte Harbor and Tampa Bay.
These heavily populated areas dodged a bullet when Irma’s eye tracked overland to the east of these coastal areas, meaning that the strongest winds were out of the north, pushing the Gulf waters parallel to the coast instead of into the coast.
But if NOAA had not issued the warning for the Gulf coast of Florida, and there had been massive flooding there, many people would have blamed them for not evacuating the coast.
every hurricane is extremely difficult to predict….the point is…their predictions have not improved one bit
The predictions are much more accurate than they were 20 years ago.
It’s just that some people demand perfection now.
Their predictions are a guess….what they guess will happen
…and no more accurate than they have ever been
It just that some people forget how far off they have been in the past few years
“…Irma’s path was extremely difficult to predict…actually went…suddenly tracked…a precautionary move… because if…would have been…dodged a bullet…if NOAA had not…and if there had been…people would have blamed them…”
Forecast: cloudy crystal balls with chance of weasel words.
Yup, unless they can pick the path of the eye within 50 feet, it’s all a scam.
Latitude,
Excellent comment especially the wind predictions. It seem as though they get the wind max velocity at a high elevation constantly allowing the media to report this high news worthy velocity and fail to get the ground level velocity correct. As an Engineer who has been involved in designing structures for wind, yet properly designed major structures rarely fail, Although the ASCE seems to be raising design wind velocities.
Of course I know full well that there is significant damage from Hurricanes and don’t want to minimize the damage from Hurricanes but the ground level wind seems to always be exaggerated. .
The wind speed “measurements” are garbage. They’ve got a “new” radar (in use almost 10 years now) that purports to “measure” wind speed at 10 meter level from thousands of feet in the air. Funny thing, these “measurements” are ALWAYS higher than than buoys and oil rigs report.
I’m sure having high measurements does not hurt when it comes times for getting money from Congress, but as a coastal dweller I would appreciate having accurate data instead of someone pissing on my boots and telling me it’s raining.
So how did NOAA do, pre-hurricane season versus what actually happened? Article says “season matched NOAA’s seasonal predictions for being extremely active.” What did they predict and what occurred?
I saw it now, it was on a chart in the article. I was just reading the text. Sorry for silly comment, more a text person and not graphics.
Actually, the numbers on the slide show NOAA’s prediction released in August. Their initial prediction at the beginning of the season wasn’t drastically different, but:
Named Storms: 11-17 Actual: 17
Hurricanes: 5-9 Actual: 10
Major Hurricanes: 2-4 Actual: 6
Read the slide in the middle of the article – they underestimated the number of hurricanes, including majors, but were right on with the number of named storms
They were shy by one on named hurricanes and major hurricanes. I’m not going to pillory them for that. IIRC, their range is one sigma on either side of their central estimate. The season was a bit more vigorous than that, but only just.
Hey! They name the storms! For the last several years they have named storms that a decade ago would not have been named. The number of “named storms” is not a scientific metric.
My cast of typing monkeys were so close…
Squiggs,
Need more monkey.
This prediction was no more accurate than any other prediction they have made in 50 years.
25 May – 11-17 Named Storms, 5-9 Hurricanes, 2-4 Majors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Atlantic_hurricane_season
Figure they have a 50/50 chance of being correct. You know what they say about a broken clock …
To paraphrase Jefferson: “millions for weather forecasting defense, not one cent for tribute to AGW …”
Unfortunately, they have not been accurate in what really matters, such as where will it hit and at what wind speed. The inability to correctly show the path of Irma and the overhyped reporting as to Irma’s power AT SEA LEVEL is a permanent stain on the reputation of the American models.
Why did private models and the European model more accurately forecast Irma’s path than the American models?
“Why did private models and the European model more accurately forecast Irma’s path than the American models?”
Luck.
“Unfortunately, they have not been accurate in what really matters, such as where will it hit and at what wind speed.”
That will happen when high altitude porcine fatalities become part of hurricane statistics.
Most people don’t understand how small the area of intense winds are in a hurricane. 50 miles makes a huge difference on catastrophic wind/water damage. Say what you will, forecasting to a 50 mile target two days out is almost impossible, especially later in the season when winds and pressure systems start to strengthen and move faster.
For those of you who are baffled by the English system of measurements, 50 miles = 80 kilometers (kilometres)
It’s actually the American system of measurement.
Nobody else uses it now, including the English.
New Zealand can’t quite make up its mind. Last time I was there, I could still buy a “Quarter pounder with Cheese.” at McDonalds.
G
Much in “america” is referred to in metric units. Two that matter are medicines and wine.
Much will not be changed as it would make very little sense.
For example look via Google Earth at this location:
42.743312, -94.664808
This is an area around Pocahontas, Iowa.
Back off (zoom out) until the eye elevation is about 35,000 feet (~11,000 m).
Note the squares and rectangles, within squares and rectangles.
These represent property boundaries, measured in feet, and tallied in acres. The N-S lines are based on Lines of Longitude – the distance between them becomes less as one goes north. The grid has to be adjusted.
Property deeds are based on these measurements and were originally hand written.
What is to be gained to require all of these things to be written as meters and hectares?
A field now recorded as 40 acres will become 16.18742568 hectares.
This is not an improvement.
True in Canada too. Sounds better than an ‘eighth kilo with cheese.’ Pounder is a great word all round.
They also sell food by the pound as well as by the kilo. Many (ancient) Canadians still think in pounds and, even better, it sounds cheaper by the pound.
Back in the pre-metric era Canadians also used (British) Imperial Gallons which are different (larger?) than American gallons and, as the name suggests, are much more regal and majestic.
As we say in aerospace, there are 2 types of nations in the world: those that use the metric system, and those that have put a man on the moon.
BTW, NASA does report its values in metric units (for appeasement?) but they do not design in metric. example: The external fuel Tank for the Space Shuttle (the big tank on its belly) is reported to be 8.41 m in diameter, but the actual number is exactly 330 inches in diameter.
We coyly call the units reporting “NASA Metric”.
The British still use miles.
Pocahontas, Iowa? Really John, do you have to talk like Trump and resort to racist name calling? (/Sarc)
Evidence doesn’t matter, it’s the optics. Politically you have to adhere to the scary narrative or face irrelevance.
More intense hurricanes, melting ice caps, rising seas, record heat….etc., etc, …Al Gore is correct, the science is settled.
Atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen’s insight on this issue is timeless
“What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.”
Here’s a recent insightful comment from McIntyre:
“We are already a very long way towards doubling CO2 (esp if effect is logarithmic). If doubling CO2 was to have a very bad impact on human civilization, then we’re far enough along that it should be biting hard. But our civilization is experiencing unprecedented prosperity. Even if there is some extra impact on weather disasters, the effect in world terms is third-order effect relative to human prosperity.
So when Gavin Schmidt announces that 2016 or 2017 was a record “hot” year, it’s worth noting that our civilization easily accommodated this “stress” and also achieved record prosperity.
If we could purchase an actual “insurance policy” i.e. a policy that would fully protect us against adverse climate change for a sensible premium (even 1% of GDP), I’d be OK with that. I’m against pointless feel-good expenditures that, as “insurance”, are fraudulent.”
I like the parenthesis part “esp if effect is logarithmic”…as opposed to exponential, as CO2 increases the CO2 effect declines. The effect is common knowledge and plotted. Given what is known one wonders where the climate concern comes from.
Such insanity, especially amongst our elites.
Insurance policies don’t protect anybody from anything. Nor do the Police.
Both are just for cleaning up the mess afterwards.
G
There isn’t any observational evidence that “the effect is logarithmic.”
If the effect was logarithmic, then a doubling from 280 ppmm to 560 ppmm would have the same effect as going from one ppmm to 2 ppmm, or from one molecule of CO2 to 2 molecules of CO2.
They don’t always go in the same direction; one goes up and the other goes down.
There are no logarithms for negative numbers.
G
PS It may be “non-linear” but it is not enough different from linear to ascribe it to some formula. I could fit the numbers to the form: y = exp(-1/x^2) just as well as logarithmic or exponential. It’s not rational.
>>
There are no logarithms for negative numbers.
<<
Actually, you can take the logarithm of any complex number–including negatives. You convert a complex number into its complex polar coordinate form and the logarithm follows. For example, -1 is
. It’s a vector in the complex plane pointing in the negative direction with an angle of 
(180 degrees). The logarithm of this number (using natural logs, but any logarithm base would work) is 
.
If we take the square root of this number (divide the logarithm by 2) we get
. The antilogarithm will give us +i (the square root of minus 1). We can get the other root by repeatedly adding 
to the log. So the antilogarithm of 
is 
. It’s a vector pointing in the negative i direction and the antilogarithm is -i.
You can even find all three roots by this method when you take the cube root of minus one (
).
Jim
Any link between Richard Lindzen and Peabody Energy?
[wildly off-topic, and don’t be stupid -mod]
Any link between you and useful scientific insight?
Nope.
“tony mcleod November 30, 2017 at 4:47 pm
Any link between Richard Lindzen and Peabody Energy?
[wildly off-topic, and don’t be stupid -mod]”
Sooooooooo typical!
Obvious links between McClod’s mind, and a cow pat.
Both full of semi-digested green mush !
tony,
Are you one of those that Lew and the SS boys describe as being conspiracy nut?
George, thanks for the reply. I think you are much more informed than me. I feel like Shulz (“I know nothing”) of Hogan’s Heroes. It was my understanding some 90% of the CO2 warming effect occurs with the first 100 ppm. However, what do I know.
Still, I remain…I think the decision of the academic climate science community to provide evidence-absent assessments in the form of peer-reviewed research make it impossible for our political and educated elites to know what is and isn’t true.
M.W. Plia. – November 30, 2017 at 5:06 pm
Plia, that was the logarithmic “junk science” that the avid proponents of CAGW have been claiming is actual factual science.
When the atmospheric CO2 continued increasing at a faster pace than what their “guesstimated” average surface temperature would increase, ……. they had to think up a CYA to explain their ideocracy, …… and did so by claiming that ……. “the more CO2 emitted to residency in the atmosphere, ….. the greater the decrease in the increase of average near surface air temperatures”.
Aka: logarithmic decrease ……. like so, ….. after one (1) teaspoon full, the more sugar you add to your coffee the more sour it gets.
I have seen more like the first 20 ppm. I can supply a graph if that will be of any use.
Ian
A graph of what?
Actual measurements of atmospheric CO2 ppm?
Guesstimated estimates of satellite recorded atmospheric temperatures?
Or a science fictional graph of both entities?
Accumulated Cyclone Activity is the metric that covers the entire activity of each Atlantic hurricane season.
ACE is formed basically by multiplying the strength of the tropical storm times the days at that strength. So, a storm at Cat1 for two days and Cat 2 for 1 day would have those two values added, for the entire ACE of that storm. [Wikipedia has actual formula at their ACE entry.]
From this, you can accumulate ACE for the entire season.
ACE for 2017 was 223. That is high. Very high. Wikipedia, in their “Accumulated Cyclone Energy” entry, has ACE annual values back to 1950. For 1950 through 2017, the 2017 ACE is at the 94th percentile: greater than the ACE for 94% of years. Thus, this value would be equaled or exceeded six times across 100 years, considering all things being equal.
Across these years, ACE values range from 17 to 250. Mean is 103.3, while std deviation is 60.4. Median is 88.
Are Atlantic Hurricane seasons getting more powerful, as Al Dork says? The (Pearson “r”) plain ol’ correlation between year and ACE is 0.67, with a “significance” of 0.59. That is the “r” that varies from 0-1, with absolute values closer to 1 being more perfectly correlated data. This correlation of 0.59 is tiny, and indicates absolutely no relation between successive years and increasing ACE. [An unofficial convention is to square the “r” and declare that this is the percent of variation in the outcome – ACE – explained by the predictor – year; here, 0.59 squared is 0.35: knowing the year only helps “explain” or account for zero point four percent of variation in ACE across this time span. Not four percent, but one-tenth of four percent: zero point four percent.]
IOW: there is just as likely to be an ACE of 223 occurring 60 years ago as today.
Are there MORE major (cat3-5) hurricanes in the present, say the recent 20 years (1997-2017) compared with the first 20 years of these data (1950-1970)? A chi-squared test can be done to examine number of seasons with four or more major hurricanes in each epoch, and to see if the current epoch has more. In the early epoch, there were 8 years of the 20 with 4 or more major hurricanes, and in the recent, there were 9 years of the 20 with 4 or more major hurricanes. Folks, we are not getting more of the strong storms. Al Dork is flatly wrong. I don’t need to run the chi-squared test, but just for form, I did – the chi-squared value is 0.1, with “significance” / “p-value” of 0.75. This says the numbers do not diverge from what you would expect by chance. to be “significantly” different, chi-squared value would have to be around 2, or greater (2, 3, 4, in that direction), and the corresponding “p” would have to be/ would mathematically end up being 0.05 or smaller (0.04, 0.03, etc.)
IOW, old and recent epochs are indistinguishable regarding number of years with 4+ major hurricanes.
For fun, you can load the ACE data into your own stats package and answer for yourself. No need to ask Al Dork to show scary pictures of Katrina.
Speaking of Al, here’s a graph showing the “warming” he warned about ten years ago:
http://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2017/08/Screenshot-2017-08-09-07.58.32-1024×506.png
No wonder he’s cranky.
“No wonder he’s cranky.” ?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2017_v6-1.jpg
Ain’t Nature a bitch !
ToneB, you forgot to include the yearly increase in CO2 on your cited temperature graph, so here tis it:
http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/1979-2013UAHsatelliteglobalaveragetemperatures.png
Well, that and the so-called Pervalanch.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22Al+Gore%22+massage&t=hg&ia=news
Thanks. Much appreciated!
Bill Gray, the father of hurricane forecasting, denied funding after he refused to support Gore’s AGW.
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/04/one-year-since-bill-gray-passed-away/
How exactly do the come up the seventh most intense since 1851? When they had know idea for most of that time about all the hurricanes spinning around the Atlantic that never hit land. Now we have constant satalite imaging that see ever tropical depression anywhere in the world.
The guy with a PhD says, ““This was a hurricane season that wouldn’t quit,” said retired Navy Rear Adm. Timothy Gallaudet, Ph.D., acting NOAA Administrator. “
As the end of the season is today and Rina (the last one) went extra-tropical 3 weeks ago that’s hardly the season that wouldn’t quit. Hyperbole.
My complaint would be that they need to refine their measurement and estimation techniques when the storms are out over water. What they are doing now obviously overstates the power of the storms as was demonstrated by Irma (and some other previous storms) when she came ashore in Florida. I monitored buoy and land station data throughout and that hurricane was not a CAT III when it made land fall on the mainland.
I would also contend that storms that would not have been named a decade ago are now being routinely named and thus the record for named storms even during the satellite era.
On average these storms don’t do much damage anyway.
It is only when people have built stuff in the path of the storm that anything goes pear shaped.
Coastal regions are dangerous places to build stuff.
G
“Coastal regions are dangerous places to build stuff.”
I doubt that anyone 200 miles inland would consider themselves beach front….;)
yet a hurricane can wipe you out that far inland too
Florida is a dangerous place to build stuff.
Building stronger helps tremendously.
People who build houses have lived in Florida for well over 150 years, and yet we see very few homes that old here.
If it’s this difficult to forecast the path and intensity of a hurricane two days out, imagine how impossible it would be to forecast the global temperature 100 years out.
Well I can project that the mean global Temperature will be between the same limits of 12 deg.C to 24 deg.C that we have enjoyed for the last 650 million years.
But that won’t guarantee that I will have to endure a greater swing than that almost any week in downtown Sunnyvale California.
Averages are for average people.
G
Weather forecasting is hard.
CAGW doom forecasting is easy.
What’s inconvenient for the doom dudes is that they’d claimed this past year’s season should have been happening (and getting worse) every year for the the past 10+ years.
They finally got a “bad” year and want us to forget it was supposed to have been “the new norm”.
(Along with no snow.8-)
Local WEATHER forecast during these events were “best educated guesses”. Off a tiny bit in the info fed into the forecast models or some unknown significant effect not fed in, and the projected path 5 days or less out and intensity could be way off.
Some were. At least they are trying to be accurate to save lives.
10, 20, 100 year “Climate Models”? Wrong already.
2006 Hurricane season will be unbelievable! Wrong
2007 Hurricane season will be unbelievable! Wrong
2008 Hurricane season will be unbelievable! Wrong
2009 Hurricane season will be unbelievable! Wrong
2010 Hurricane season will be unbelievable! Wrong
2011 Hurricane season will be unbelievable! Wrong
2012 Hurricane season will be unbelievable! Wrong
2013 Hurricane season will be unbelievable! Wrong
2014 Hurricane season will be unbelievable! Wrong
2015 Hurricane season will be unbelievable! Wrong
2016 Hurricane season will be unbelievable! Wrong
2017 Hurricane season will be unbelievable! Right
Investments in forecasting and research yield more accurate predictions.
You do realize that sometime within the next 8 or so billion years the people proclaiming the end of the world are going to be right?
Yes, they will. And they’ll say “See, I told ya so!. That’s just what I was talking about!”
They’ll probably leave out that last line. (They have before.) They’ll just yell the first line louder.
I rushed out and got more candles – thanks.
I am always reminded of the joke about the guy who covers the furniture with newspapers in order to:
“keep the elephants away”
“But there are no elephants around here”
“See it’s working.”
And I haven’t lost any sleep over any of it my entire life.
And blind squirrels stumble over the occasional acorn. According to what I have read we are half way through earth’s life cycle at 4 1/2 billion years which would make the over/under 4.5 billion years. Of course an expanding sun will shorten earths “use by:” date significantly but we still have a few billion years before we have to start worrying.
It was an above average hurricane season in the North Atlantic, but globally it was a below average season. What would be the rationale to defend that global warming is making hurricanes worse but only in the North Atlantic basin? The arguments are starting to be plain stupid.
Just for the Northern Hemisphere
http://www.coyoteblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/hurricanes.jpg
Numbers between parenthesis are averages.
The Southern Hemisphere is having an even lower year.
“Climate change” has always moved about from one place to another depending on where a supposed weather extreme is occurring at a particular time. Indications are that by the end of next week we in the US from the plains to the east coast are dropping into a deep freeze. December is going to be far colder than any we have had for quite awhile. We may well be the coldest sustained period we’ve experienced so far this century. Cue “Polar Vortex”.
Australia here we come. 😉
Yes l also have pick that up on the jet stream forecast. What look like will happen is that large block of high pressure will form over the western half of the USA. Pushing the jet up into the Arctic and then bringing down Polar air from Arctic Canada down across the Mid West and push south as far as the Texas coast.
While at the same time as this is going on there will also be blocking over the northern Atlantic. Which will be bringing a “Arctic blast” down across the UK. So yes it look like a very interesting weather set up is going to take place.
“Climate change” has always moved about from one place to another depending on where a supposed weather extreme is occurring at a particular time.”
Yes, much like the Little Ice Age.
It went from “a local European event only”, to a “that, and maybe a bit of North American” event to a “That, and some part of South America”, to “Well, it happened globally but not at the same time, so it doesn’t mean anything and you aren’t qualified to speak about this and besides you’re a poopy-headed Trump voter” in the True Believer’s Debating Notes.
“What would be the rationale to defend that global warming is making hurricanes worse but only in the North Atlantic basin? The arguments are starting to be plain stupid.”
Starting? How about this:
What would be the rationale to defend that global warming is making hurricanes worse?
Or, what would be the rationale to defend that global warming is making ANYTHING worse?
2017 Global Cyclone Energy Almost 20% Below Normal …Southern Hemisphere Near Record Low!
“A look at Dr. Ryan Maue’s site here tells us a lot about how 2017 cyclone activity is doing as the Atlantic hurricane season winds down.
In September the Atlantic indeed saw some powerful hurricanes, such as Harvey, Irma and Maria, which led the media into a fit of Armageddon hysteria and calls to do something about climate change. It is true that the Atlantic saw an unusually active hurricane season, some 227% of what is normal in terms of energy, but the Atlantic is not the global situation.”
http://notrickszone.com/2017/11/26/2017-global-cyclone-energy-almost-20-below-normal-southern-hemisphere-near-record-low/#sthash.j7PgpIJN.dpbs
That squirrel is named Dr. Mann?
Anyone else every notice, droughts are always followed by floods? Why is that?
Simple – we have a long term average that is driven by climate. Unless the climate is really changing, then a poor year (or string of years) for hurricane production must eventually be followed by a bonanza, just so the long term average does not change. So California drought…followed by California floods. The 50 year average remains the same number.
We have had a drought of hurricanes for many years, meaning, we need an excess of hurricanes for several years to maintain the long term average to stay…average.
Also, it takes a flood to end a drought…regular rains will not really do the trick.
Yes and this is why adequate water storage was figured out over a century ago, except in California where they need the full droughts and floods to sell their carbon snake oil.
An off topic NEWSFLASH! just coming across the wires!
Sea level rises to catastrophic levels overnight!
http://babylonbee.com/news/sea-level-rises-hundreds-feet-due-sweat-celebrities-waiting-outed-perverts/
+10
One of the warmest sites had a lot of comments on how this was going to be the worst year ever, until it wasn’t. Fun to look back on comments and see how wrong they were
It was a bad year. There was a great deal of cyclonic activity in the Atlantic this hurricane season. See my post, above. It was unusual. It was out of the ordinary. But is there any indication that a bad year, such as this year, is becoming more common? Again, my post, above, says “no.” I went ahead and ran a linear regression to get the slope – the rise over run – for ACE across years. This value is: across years, what is the slope of the ACE line. Or, for each year, on average, how much greater, in ACE points, is the ACE for that year? The slope is 0.022. [“p” = 0.59.]
So, with each advancing year, we are getting 0.02 more ACE points.
Point oh two times fifty equals one. If the trend holds, it will take fifty years to have the annual average ACE go up one ACE point.
A critic might say: Sure, but you are confounding the earlier time period, with very little slope, with the recent trend, so overall the trend is disappeared by the early years.
So, I run the regression using only the recent 30 years, 1988-2017. That slope is 0.017. [“p” = 0.68.] The supposedly catastrophically rising ACE trend is weaker in recent 30 years versus the last 68 years.
Yes, 2017 was a bad, heavy Atlantic hurricane season. Many of us know this first-hand, because we were impacted, or loved ones were impacted. No argument.
But, it was yet another occasional, rare, season. To be expected from time to time, across the years, with no empirical evidence of increase in recent years. So, a resident of Florida today should worry just as much as a resident of Florida was worrying in 1950. And, neither should hesitate to buy a full-size pickup when considering the impact of truck emissions upon weather. For him or her, or for their children. Or grandchildren.
A good job. Am I wrong, though, in saying they may do a good job during an active season when their is dramatic empirical data to collect? During a quiet season, ACE seems inadequate by itself. There seems to be a missing ingredient that sets it all off and once the thing gets going, ACE feeds it. Certain weather front locations? High/low pressure systems? We know La Nina causes wind shear that prevents development at altitude- sort of cuts the heads off Atlantic hurricanes.
No, it is El Nino that reduces the Atlantic Hurricane numbers due to excessive shear and enhances East Pacific hurricanes due to warmer waters off west coast of Mexico. La Nina enhances Atlantic Hurricane seasons (reduced shear) & reduces East Pacific hurricanes due to cooler waters off west coast of Mexico.
Yeah I got it backwards, thanks JKrob.
BBC news reports:
‘Tesla mega-battery in Australia activated
The world’s largest lithium ion battery has begun dispensing power into an electricity grid in South Australia.
The 100-megawatt battery, built by Tesla, was officially activated on Friday. It had in fact provided some power since Thursday due to demand caused by local hot weather.’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-42190358
(Tesla invented all sorts of alternate current devices, first battery was invented by Alessandro Volta, based on discoveries of Luigi Galvani )
The Super-battery can power ‘30,000 households for one hour’.
Adelaide, capital of SA, has a population of about 1,300,000; that might give 300,000 households.
So Saint Elon’s Super-battery would give each household – roughly – 6 minutes power.
Six minutes.
No power at all outside Adelaide city limits.
Certainly – a start.
But the uneven nature of renewables – no solar at night, for example – means many more of these batteries will be needed – the more so if it takes a day or two to recover from storm damage.
Renewables have a place, especially for remote installations [with a battery!].
But even St. Elon’s Super-battery is still a midge’s nudger short of what’s is really needed.
And – do you want your bird-life macerated from the coast to coast carpet of bird-choppers?
Not everyone does.
Auto.
I think Ryan Maue and Joe Bastardi have said that ACE was below normal this year. So 7th most active means that every year is NOAA’s very active.
My brother says he will not move to a State where he could lose everything to one storm. That beats buying carbon credits and moving to FL by a long shot.
Coach
So only Alaska, Vermont and Rhode Island have less than 1 tornado/year. RI & VT can get hit by hurricanes, so I guess the brother is off to Alaska.
Probably a lot more humor in all this trivia if it involved a brother-in-law.
What is truly disgraceful is that NOAA has placed the historical tropical storm records on the internet, so the history is freely available, including the NOAA analysis that stats that “Once an estimate for likely missing storms is accounted for the increase in tropical storms in the Atlantic since the late-19th Century is not distinguishable from no change.” https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/ So, the official NOAA data is very clear about the lack of trend in Hurricanes, but even some NOAA and NASA scientists continue to make claims in direct contradiction of the published facts.
In early February of 2017, David Dilley, Senior Meteorologist for Global Weather Oscillations (GWO) said the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season will be stronger than last year – with the potential for 6 named storms making United States landfalls. It will also be the most dangerous since the 2005 season that saw 5 hurricane landfalls and 2 tropical storms made landfall.
Interesting that he predicted 6 named storms making landfall and indeed, there was 6 storms that made landfall. http://www.govtech.com/em/disaster/In-Florida-2017-was-a-Hurricane-Season-to-Remember.html
“Mr. Dilley says the upcoming 2017 hurricane season will be stronger than last year, and it will be the most dangerous and costliest in 12 years for the United States. It will have 16 named storms (14 last year), 8 hurricanes (6 last year), and 4 major hurricanes (3 last year). In addition – the United States will have the potential for 6 named storms making landfall – the most since the 2005 season that saw 5 hurricanes and 2 tropical storms make landfall. GWO also expects 3 out of the 6 landfalls will be hurricanes – with 1 or 2 having the potential for being a major impact hurricane. And there will some different hot spots in 2017.”
More information is available through GWO’s free hurricane webinars and their detailed hurricane zone predictions at GlobalWeatherOscillations.com, or GlobalWeatherCycles.com.
GWO has issued the most accurate preseason predictions of any organization the past 8 years, including last years’ prediction that the “Atlantic Basin” (which includes the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico) – would enter a Climate Pulse Hurricane Enhancement Cycle in 2016.
Seems to be some interesting stuff at his GWO website regarding the CAGW position and his position on the politics of Alarmism. Plus some interesting stuff on weather predictions and the science of meteorology. As a former senior meteorologist for NOAA, and now running his own business in meteorology, he is beholden to no one in stating his views, facts, or opinions. Sure sounds like David Dilley would sure fit in here.