Quote of the Week: While Newspaper claims Florida might see a Cat6 Hurricane, scientist says “not so fast”

From this article in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

The QOTW:

“Whether we’re talking about a change in the number of storms or an increase in the most intense storms, the changes that are likely to come from global warming are not likely to be detectable until 50 years from now,” said Brian Soden, professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science.

“There’s so much natural variability in the system, the typical year-to-year variability in hurricane activity, that the signal really doesn’t emerge from that background variability until the latter half of this century.”

“We used to think 20 years ago that in a warmer climate there would be more hurricanes,” Columbia’ Sobel said. “Then the computer models got better. Most of those started to show fewer hurricanes, not more. No one knew why. Then some of the models started to show increases with warming. So I think we’re back to where we don’t know.”

Advertisements

91
Leave a Reply

30 Comment threads
61 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
54 Comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Rick in Calgary

More hurricanes, fewer hurricanes … either way it’s worse than they thought 😉

steve case

Whenever you see the climate related head line “Worse than previously thought” you can be sure that the historical record has been re-written.

hunter

or more commonly, the historical record is simply ignored.

a_scientist

So, basically, ….”So I think we’re back to where we don’t know.”

rocketscientist

Not according to these guys who “know” “that the signal really doesn’t emerge from that background variability until the latter half of this century.”

oeman50

I thought the science was settled….

Time for an old favorite from last year:
comment image

Ralph Knapp

A Cat VI, eh? Actually, their computers are spewing Cat VI BS each time they run the model.

Tom in Florida

For a hurricane to maintain a Cat 5 status takes almost perfect conditions and even then they do not stay at that level very long. Too many variables working against it. So a Cat 6 with 200 mph winds? Well, they can always hope.

Bill

And to think, I thought you were talking about ethernet cables. 🙂

RicDre

It all makes sense now…many buildings these days are wired with Cat 6 ethernet cables so hurricanes should be allowed to upgrade to the newer standard.

Kalifornia Kook

It’s not that hard for a newspaper to correctly foresee a Cat 6 hurricane. The newspaper just redefines Cat 6 as an overlay to Cat 5 without mentioning it. Maybe they add an element, like diameter, or duration. They have done this often enough: redefinition of previously known terms without notifying your opponent. When called on it, the paper makes it obvious that the deniers just aren’t keeping up with the latest definitions. They are out of date. Their notions are date. Don’t listen to them any more.

Bruce Cobb

“So I think we’re back to where we don’t know.”
Right. But then, you never did. You only pretended to know.
Same thing with all climate “science” (or at least the “consensus version”).
Game over.

RicDre

“Then the computer models got better. … So I think we’re back to where we don’t know.”

Or put another way, “better” computer models prove that Climate Scientists don’t have a clue on how to predict project future changes in hurricane intensity.

Latitude

until they admit that hurricanes get stronger…when the eye spins down smaller…nope

RicDre

“until they admit that hurricanes get stronger…when the eye spins down smaller”

They probably can’t account for that in their Climate Models since the average grid size of their models is larger than the average size of a hurricane’s eye. Maybe they need to create a new “parameterization” to account for that factor.

Another Paul

parameterization? Just square the old value, done.

climatebeagle

but I’ve been told the models are just “simple physics”, so how can “simple physics” change from more to less hurricanes ????

Latitude

they just said they need over 100 years of data…
…and they still don’t know

Pop Piasa

Right Latitude, if I read him right the signal won’t be detectable from the noise until vastly more information is collected over many decades.

Latitude

…and they’ve already got 50 years…said they need another 50 = over 100

WXcycles

Redefining “settled”.

Newminster

Work it out, Latitude. They have 50 years of data; they need another 50 years to be certain. These guys are thinking about their grandchildren’s future — as climate scientists!

WXcycles

If you were going by the satellite OBSERVATIONS, you’d call it all a nothing-burger, but models are so much better, it’s a double quarter-pounder with cheese, and supersized freedum-fries.

Andrew Kerber

They have over 100 years of data. No change in number or intensity. “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/

MarkW

Exactly how much stronger will a water temperature increase of maybe 0.01C make hurricanes?

Another Paul

Exactly 1.146734% +/- 2%

Rick C PE

When did the Saffir-Simpson scale add Category 6? Since the designation doesn’t exist, I don’t thing we’re likely to see one ever. Just more journalistic hyperbole.

Pop Piasa

…But an important cog in the propaganda machine of Science, Politics, and Fear.

The cited newspaper article did not claim that Category 6 exists, but overtly raised as a question whether it should be added to the existing categories.

rocketscientist

Needs to be turned up to Cat 11

Louis Hooffstetter

This perfectly illustrates the signature move of climate scientists…
They just make stuff up.

John F. Hultquist

Forecasters debate whether the storm will generate the 200 mph winds to achieve Category 6 status.” [David Fleshler, Contact Reporter]

He just made that up. “debate” = speculate = make up stuff

Pop Piasa

I bet Joe Bastardi would debate them, John. If they were open to it.

Mike S

If they would, it would be one of the very few things I’d ever be willing to pay to watch on pay-per-view.

Tom Abbott

From the article: “the changes that are likely to come from global warming are not likely to be detectable until 50 years from now,” said Brian Soden, professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science.”

You have to laugh at this kind of stuff.

I guess Professor Soden didn’t get the memo from the Climate Alarmist Headquarters where they claim CAGW is already detectable in any and all weather events.

Pop Piasa

Tom, I don’t think these academics are cognizant of the conflicts that exist in the clamor of post-grad papers which seek to cash in on the current hysteria (albeit there are few other current and timely avenues to high-profile scientific celebrity for the “less gifted”).

MarkW

It’s going to take 50 years for the signal to get strong enough to be discernible from the noise.
On the other hand the signal is going to be so strong that it’s going to add 50mph to hurricane speeds.

Cognitive dissonance much?

Mickey Reno

I’m a little upset with the logical Linda Blair head turning being foisted on the public by talking out both sides of their mouths. IF polar amplification is true, then extreme storms MUST diminish, because there is less of a temperature (and subsequent pressure) gradient from which to draw power. You don’t get to have it both ways.

To all climate scientists, I say, PICK A FRICKIN’ HYPOTHESIS!!

Latitude

” and the worsening of storm surges from rising sea levels “…..until they stop blowing their forecasts and proving they don’t know

Their prediction for Irma was Naples Fl would be under 18-20 ft of water….there was barely any water at all

Tom in Florida

Most of us who live on the west coast of Florida know that any storm coming up the coast from the south will not be able to generate that type of storm surge. Even Charley in 2004, a Cat 4, couldn’t do it. To have a storm surge that large on the west coast a hurricane would have to come across the Gulf for several days to build up that much water, and that just doesn’t happen.

Latitude

..not even Wilma
Coming up like Irma….first it blows the water out….then blows it back….
Irma was a hoot for us…blew all the water out of Florida Bay

Didn’t Jacksonville get the most water from Irma?

Michael Jankowski

Maybe not from storm surge, and certainly not 18-20ft…but “barely any water at all?”

ossqss

Irma running aground in Cuba and then doing a right hook through shallow Florida bay taking away the TCHP and making half a cane was what it was. The flow was off shore at that point in Naples, thankfully. Remember the radar only showing storms on the Northern side in Florida Bay?

ossqss

Here is the radar loop showing the imact of the shallow water on Irma’s structure. It is not HTTPS from Miami EDU, so not sure it will display. Here is the root page that contains Irma loops. The one from Key West shows it clearly.

http://andrew.rsmas.miami.edu/bmcnoldy/tropics/radar/

http://andrew.rsmas.miami.edu/bmcnoldy/tropics/irma17/Irma_9-10Sep17_KBYX.gif

Louis Hooffstetter

One crazy effect of Hurricane Irma (which came up the gulf side of Florida), was that on Folly Beach, SC the storm surge here was as high as the storm surge from Hurricane Hugo in 1989. It was very bizarre.

ossqss

Primary storm surge was N/E of Folly beach in Hugo Louis. Irma was a large storm and that area was still subject to her long fetch as was the East coast of Florida. The right side of a storm is called the dirty side for several reasons. A couple graphics, if they work from my mobile device.

https://noaa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/StorytellingTextLegend/index.html?appid=339405fe282446b1a0428999b08c1b62

http://andrew.rsmas.miami.edu/bmcnoldy/tropics/irma17/Irma_9-10Sep17_KBYX.gif

Irma lost the bottom half of her wind field. Only the top half (the east to west wind) remained. So no surge could even happen on Florida’s west coast. I think that is why SC and Jacksonville got it worst.

GaryH845

The Los Angeles Times put that story in the Sunday paper this week – Page A-6. I posted a few comments – inc this, and then got black-listed ‘for life’ they told me.

The study period, 1949–2016, is suspect. Especially after he breaks it down into two parts, 1949-1982 and then 1983 – 2016. First, the data on tropical cyclones prior to 1982 is not complete, with many hurricanes not being studies at all. Many, out at sea, were hardly, or never seen, and others simply were not accurately tracked, nor measured. Note – early satellite data (1970’s) was only of poor quality black and white images, with no other scientific data collected.

Secondly – there are major shifts in the various ocean oscillation phases during the time period, most notably the shift of the PDO in about 1979-1980. This alone created a major shift in the frequency and intensities of tropical hurricanes. I’d bet that most all of his findings are because of natural climate changes of the Earth.

Thirdly, and also not referenced in his report is the North Atlantic Oscillation, NAO. It completed it’s phase shift – to positive – between 1975 and 1980.

“The Positive NAO index phase shows a stronger than usual subtropical high pressure center and a deeper than normal Icelandic low. The increased pressure difference results in more and stronger winter storms crossing the Atlantic Ocean on a more northerly track. This results in warm and wet winters in Europe and in cold and dry winters in northern Canada and Greenland.”

Though it’s more studied in regards to winter systems in the NE part of the US and NW Europe, it’s believed that it causes hurricane tracks to come closer to the NE US Coast – Tropical Super Storm Sandy ring a bell? And recently, we went through the longest period on record with out a major hurricane making US landfall.

There are major powerful natural forces driving cyclonic activities and patterns; that some fraction (be it small, or large) of 0.50 C of global warming since the late 1970’s may have some human footprint in it, is not what is driving changes in these storm systems – at least not yet. Also missed in his study, is the fact that Mother Earth was experiencing global cooling from 1945 thru the late 1970’s. Then a warming cycle returned, almost identical to the global warming trend between 1910 and 1945. So roughly speaking, the first half of his study period was during a cooling cycle, and the second half during a warming cycle – yet, he makes no mention of that. Many scientists believe that those shifts are mostly driving by phase shifts of the various ocean oscillation cycles.

RicDre

“… and then got black-listed ‘for life’ they told me.”

Question: Did give you a reason for the blacklisting?

GaryH845

Working on that, as we speak.

FTR – Obviously, I’m a pretty non-vile commenter.

GaryH845

Technically – they could have added a cat 6 to the scale a long time ago. A cat 5 is 157 MPH+. I was in Cozumel, MX in 1988 when Cat 5 Gilbert hit us dead center with sustained winds of 185 – gusts of 226 – and double eye wall (sorta like a 50 mile wide eye wall that lasts for a long long time). I’d be happy to call it a cat 6.
Here’s the deal. The increase in wind speed for the different cat’s are:
1-2 = 21mph
2-3 = 14mph
3-4 = 18mph
4-5 = 26mph

Don’t quite get the pattern – must have been designed over cocktails.

Anyway – to take the last delta. 157 + 26 = 183. Gilbert was a Cat 6, and I can attest to it. HA!

FTR – the guy’s article and the ‘study’ it’s based upon, are pure bunk, as is any newspaper that would publish such.

Tom in Florida

I think the basis for Cats is the destruction expected from the speed of the winds. Any winds over 155 mph blow down just about everything so what’s the sense of having a higher category.

GaryH845

Yes – I knew that it was based on something in that arena. Still, those are weird numbers. Perhaps TXS Sandy is a good example of that. But, the numbers are weird. I was kinda joking around – but still impressed by Hurricane Gilbert.

I think the categories were indeed based on damage, then worked back to wind speed.

Bob Koss

The Saffir-Simpson scale is based mainly on wind damage. Here is how NOAA describes it.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshws.php

Peter Morris

Has anyone even tried to figure out if there’s an upper limit on hurricane strength? These systems are so chaotic the extra energy may just cause it to rip itself apart.

Jim Clarke

All of these speculative papers about increasing the intensity of tropical cyclones with global warming are based on the assumption that the intensity is limited by insufficient water temperature. This assumption is false. While warm waters are essential for cyclones to form and thrive, the required temperatures are almost always available in places like the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico and tropical Atlantic during the summer and early fall. The limiting conditions are in the Atmosphere. They are so poorly understood, that the yahoos writing these articles don’t even know that atmospheric changes are the only things that can cause a trend in cyclone development and intensity. They aren’t even studying the proper part of the Earth!

hunter

I raised that question years ago.
It appears there are limits on wind speed in storms.
Sustained winds if about 200mph seem to be the maximum.
The wind limit is not due to a shortage of energy.
The energy levels in storms of all types are tremendous.

drednicolson

The pressure and temperature differentials are the main limiters. Wind blows from warm to cold, from moist to dry, from high pressure to low pressure. Greater the difference, faster the winds. As temperature and pressure equalize, winds slow and ultimately stop. Faster wind, faster effort to equalize. Classic negative feedback.

To get much beyond 200mph you need to go elsewhere in the solar system where the differentials are orders of magnitude wider. IIRC Neptune is the current record holder at around 1300mph. 😮

J Mac

The world has never seen a Category 12 Hurricane either… but the day may be coming!

commieBob

Who says that a Cat 6 hurricane has never occurred? How do they know? No time in the last million years? How about before the Panama Seaway closed and changed the climate?

hunter

“Cat 6” has never happened because the scale is a made up scsle.

Arild

So…..may be, maybe not then.

ATheoK

““We used to think 20 years ago that in a warmer climate there would be more hurricanes,” Columbia’ Sobel said. “Then the computer models got better. Most of those started to show fewer hurricanes,”

Bafflegab, false claims and false attributions. This guy must be the life of the parties.

GaryH845

His very next sentence goes on to say . . . “So I think we’re back to where we don’t know.”

No kidding, Shinola.

Smart Rock

Just think, our children may never know what a hurricane is.

Edwin

A good news reporter, from days gone past, would have pointed out that no one making such predictions today that are fifty years out will be around to accept accolades or blame. Some would have even compared such predictions to the past Apocalypse Predictions where some “authority” convinced a bunch of folks to meet on a hill because end days were upon the world. I guess when you throw in that these modern predictions all come from a computer, well gee whiz that must give them more validity. The only thing news worthy in this report is Soden admitting they were wrong before.

Michael Jankowski

“…No one knew why…”

Really? A total mystery? Even the people who build the models – supposedly on science and physical equations – couldn’t figure it out? What a pathetic field.

Another Paul

“What a pathetic field” Whaaa? It’s a GREAT field. What other field allows you to pull predictions out of your…um your model, and present them as future possibilities with no accountability what so ever, none. It’s a fantastic gig, prolly pays well too.

clipe

cat6 hurricane? Is that anything like a Scottish summer?

J Mac

Clipe,
I grew up in Wisconsin.
Some years our hope was for summer to come on a weekend so we could have a picnic….

Roger Knights

Is this site now indenting the first indentation level by a lesser amount? Good, if so—it looks that way. (But it should be decreased still further.)

ossqss

Yeah, we have accurate sustained wind measurments on peak hurricane intensity back to the Roman Warming Period. Oh wait, no we don’t!

Heck we don’t even have very much data on Tip, compared to the degree we watched Patricia every second of its existence. Just look at Hurricane Beryl recently, we would have never even noticed that brief 50 total mile wide storm 60 years ago, but I digress…..

Phillip Bratby

Models, all unverified and unvalidated. No wonder they can and do give any answer the user requires.

In engineering, if you can’t validate a model, you can’t use it.

Johann Wundersamer

Whether we’re talking about a change in the number of storms or an increase in the most intense storms, the changes that are likely to come from global warming are not likely to be detectable until 50 years from now,”

said Brian Soden,

professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science.

“There’s so much natural variability in the system, the typical year-to-year variability in hurricane activity, that the signal really doesn’t emerge from that background variability until the latter half of this century.”

“We used to think 20 years ago that in a warmer climate there would be more hurricanes,”

Columbia’ Sobel said.

 “Then the computer models got better. Most of those started to show fewer hurricanes, not more. No one knew why. Then some of the models started to show increases with warming. So I think we’re back to where we don’t know.”
_____________________________________________________

We even can’t say is it a ‘Soden’ or should it be ‘Sobel’.

Shucks.

Rob Dawg

Nul hypothesis for the win. Where’s my Nobel?

If it will take 50 years for a signal to emerge then the honestvanswer is to admit no signal can be detected and any model that shows one is wrong.

hunter

+100.
Best comment of the day.

hunter

Turning it up to “11”…..
Do the extremists realize how much they are a self parody?

Another Paul

Maybe if extremists could realize, they would be extremists?

Bloke down the pub

‘“We used to think 20 years ago that in a warmer climate there would be more hurricanes,” Columbia’ Sobel said. “Then the computer models got better. Most of those started to show fewer hurricanes, not more. No one knew why’

That’s odd, because most people who expressed an opinion on these pages was pretty sure that in a warming world, the poles would warm faster than the tropics, which would reduce the temperature difference between the two, which is the driving force of all tropical storms.

hunter

So once again, skeptics proven right and the “climate consensus” proven wrong.

Peta of Newark

What *is* going on here…. some sort of crazed mating ritual or just childishness?
Looking at it from the ‘romance’ perspective, are they claiming to have got/obtained/found The Biggest and Bestest Thing (a Cat 6 storm)?
This will then promote whoever to being The Alpha Male. ’nuff said there.

Or are they claiming to be super sensitive & caring, in the imagination that that is a desirable & attractive characteristic and will bring the girlz racing to their company.
=One Epic Fail: because at the moment(s) when girls *are* actually fertile, that is THE very last thing they’re looking for in a mate. They know fakery when they see it, it gives them headaches.

Or are they using the idea of a Cat 6 as some sort of threat – as in the way schoolboyz might introduce spiders into the hair of their female classmates. Demonstrating the Complete Lack of Social Skillz – simultaneously laughable and sad.
Is Social Skill the only thing lacking in these people, what about scientific skill not least?

All beautifully exemplified by Jeff Masters and his Cat 6 blog at Wunderground.
Epic Big Willyism combined with Dating Profile pictures of himself and how ‘intrepid he is/was, and then, loaded with stomach churning Faux Sincerity and Technicality about Weather & Climate.

Yet go there and watch *anyone* put in a skeptical word and within minutes their comment is blitzed by a storm of horrible Ad Hominem, subsequently to be deleted by folks calling themselves ‘gatekeeper’ Amazing to watch. They constantly give themselves away as rather unpleasant people.
(I did an understatement there, didya see it)

What happened to self awareness and honesty in this world…….

hunter

The key to understanding the thinking behind “Cat 6” :

https://youtu.be/DzLP2Z7JVZA

Andrew Kerber

This is a classic case of people believing their lifetime is the whole world. NOAA has records of hurricanes dating back to the early 19 century. The last time I checked, the use of fossil fuels started around the start of the 19 century, so that gives us over 2 centuries of steadily increasing fossil fuel use, and over a century of hurricane records. Here is what NOAA Says: “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 question to ask, if it hasnt happened in almost a century and a half of increasing co2 generation, why exactly do they think it will happen in the next few decades?

dmacleo

the world has never seen a unicorn. the day may be coming.

Andy Pattullo

“we’re back to where we don’t know”
Don’t be ridiculous. You never left.
That’s what happens when you do science based on the tea leaves in your cup.

“We used to think 20 years ago that in a warmer climate there would be more hurricanes,” Columbia’ Sobel said. “Then the computer models got better. Most of those started to show fewer hurricanes, not more. No one knew why. Then some of the models started to show increases with warming. So I think we’re back to where we don’t know.”

Perhaps the models were adjusted because there’s no grant money in predicting fewer hurricanes.

yarpos

I guess if you wait long enough you might see a bigger better higher lower etc thing. Thats why we have records and why they are occasionally broken. Big Deal.