A report from Germany by KlimaNachrichten Editors
“Science is still far from reaching the end of its knowledge”
Symbol image. Source: NASA
According to the NOAA US weather agency, the hurricane season lasts from June 1 to November 30 of each year. During this time, the conditions needed for extreme areas of pressure to build up prevail. First and foremost, the water temperature of the Atlantic is decisive, but so is wind shear.
Storms were actually predicted for this year too. However, there have been almost no storms so far.
At X, US meteorologist Ryan Maue ponders the possible reasons and asks colleagues to think about why the models have failed so far this year. Some storms moved far from land to the north, where they weakened and only affected parts of the east coast of the US or Canada. At some point, they arrived in Europe as an area of low pressure.
Sahara dust
Maue suspects various reasons: The eruption of the Hunga Tonga volcano or a lot of Saharan dust over the Atlantic. Maue notes that the absence of hurricanes does not completely contradict the conventional theories on climate change. Fewer storms are expected, but possibly more severe ones. They have so far failed to materialize, which is a blessing for the people who may be affected. The Sahara itself is also currently experiencing a very rare weather phenomenon. It is raining heavily for the conditions there.
The reason for this precipitation pattern can be found in the so-called Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ). An area around the equator where the trade winds from the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere meet. The winds are weak here, but the humidity is very high. This zone is known for its heavy rainfall and thunderstorms, which occur when the warm, moist air rises, cools and then falls back to earth as rain. The ITCZ is a kind of low-pressure trough that stretches around the globe and follows the zenith of the sun with a delay of around 3 to 4 weeks. Depending on the ratio of land and water masses, the ITCZ is deflected regionally more to the north or south. As land masses have a significantly lower heat storage capacity compared to water masses, the land warms up faster than the sea and the ITCZ meanders more strongly here.”
On the hurricanes that have failed to materialize, the site writes:
Normally, wave-like weather systems (so-called African Easterly Waves, AEW) develop at this time of year, which move from east to west and typically move from the Guinea Highlands across the equatorial Atlantic and act to spawn hurricanes. Currently, this process is somewhat suppressed, which is currently reducing tropical activity in the Atlantic. At the beginning of the hurricane season, a much more active season had been forecast for this year due to the high water temperatures and the transition to La Niña conditions.”
Both events are good evidence that science is still far from reaching the end of its knowledge in this area and that research remains important.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Maybe it’s this:
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
Maybe we should wait until November to draw conclusions.
After all, at the halfway point of the hurricane season, we don’t yet know how much damage to blame on Trump or how much credit to ascribe to Harris for storm damage averted.
In due time, the MSM will let us know.
a year with no hurricanes does not disprove the effects of CO2 on hurricane activity. Here’s why:
In conclusion, while a year without hurricanes might seem like a contradiction to the link between CO2 and hurricanes, it’s essential to remember that climate change is a long-term issue with complex and multifaceted effects. A single year’s data cannot disprove the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the relationship between CO2 emissions and the potential for more intense and impactful hurricanes.
Another very obvious cut-paste from moosh.
Parroting blatant propaganda is meaningless.
There is absolutely ZERO scientific evidence that atmospheric CO2 enhancement has any effect on hurricanes.
I don’t think that’s mosh. It’s too inane even for him. A bot, me thinks.
I must concur. It is categorically not from mosh. It has:
capitalization
punctuation
accurate grammar
no spelling errors
bullet points
bolding
hell, it even has ñs!
What it does show is that the science is still to be classed as unknown.
The study just had to include CliSciFi conclusions (lies) that CO2 causes extreme weather to increase. Since the 2021 UN IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) Scientific Basis (WG1) concludes that there have been no increases in adverse weather events over time, you would think that people working in the climate business would have taken notice of that fact. Official silence is a powerful weapon against regular people.
“science is still far”
But the science is settled…
David,
And OWNED!
Geoff S
….
“UN Secretary for Global Communications Melissa Fleming has revealed how they have ensured you get the science they “own” when you search for climate change information online.
She told a World Economic Forum meeting:
CORRECT YOU ARE, DAVID.
Such is textbook FASCISM: that is, the establishment of GOVT-private partnerships; where, in exchange for their “services”, such private corps receive special GOVT considerations; that is, such is a method by which GOVT, contrary to the law, gets involved with private enterprises — some say enables and facilitates monopolistic entities — and thereby selects commercial winners and losers. Typical lack of fair and free competition.
[The definition of fascism that I use is derived solely from “The Doctrine of Fascism”, by Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile].
Thank you! Good definition of fascism. Most people who throw the word around have no idea what it means, equating it erroneously with “dictatorships” or “mean tweets”.
Thank you for reading and replying. Please note: In my original comment, I referenced only one aspect of fascism, the one that was appropriate for addressing the comment to which I was replying. My comment was not to define comprehensively this govt type.
To fill in this understanding of the three members of the “Evil Trinity”, in general terms, communism, socialism, and fascism are all related by the fact that they are all centralized top-down, command-and-control govt types, where, in the end, they all prioritize the demands of the State over the rights of the individual; their differences, one might argue, are in their respective “intensity” of State control.
Further, to distinguish them, most people understand that a basic tenet of socialism is that the state OWNS the means of production; that is, there is no private property; where, as a result, by definition, there is no need for State-private enterprise.
OTOH, with fascism, the little step-brother of socialism, the State does not OWN the means of production — private property is permitted — but effectively the State CONTROLS the property by implementing mountains of laws and all sorts of rules and regs, etc; thereby, the State can establish self-serving — often illegal monopolistic, the citizens be damned — entities by such partnerships.
[This is the point that I was making originally: krony mercantilism is a primary aspect of fascism; which, again, by definition, is possible with fascism because the State permits private property. Such is a key distinction — some argue it is the primary distinction — between fascism and socialism].
Just to finish this abbreviated definition of the “Evil Trinity”, communism, which in the words of Lenin and his countless Rat Minions, is the purpose or the objective of socialism. Beyond this, communism is a Mickey Mouse form of govt [read: it is imaginary]. Yes, Marx and Engels, and, many others, before and after, have characterized this “joke of a govt type” with different terms, but, for practical purposes, it is impossible to achieve.
IOW: socialism, the degree to which it was taken in its most severe instances on those many damned nations, was all the people could take. By the time socialism ran its course [read: cancer metastasized], the subjects had lost all stomach for communism; in so many instances these people wanted no more centralized command-and-control govt types.
So, IMO, and that of many others, there are many Western-type countries that, at this point in history, are not “deep into socialism”; rather, they are “deep into fascism”; and, that We The People, collectively are not yet anywhere near grasping this point; that is, not the point that we are fascists and not socialist, but, the point that We are permitting ourselves, as NATIONS, to be fundamentally transformed from being ones of FREE CITIZENS to ones of CONTROLLED SUBJECTS.
Barack Obozo and his anti-liberty globalist handlers — including all their Rat Minions, Puppets, etc — must be very proud.
Such is textbook FASCISM:
[The definition of fascism that I use is derived solely from “The Doctrine of Fascism”, by Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile].
hardly
you are taking a terteriary aspect of italian fascism and pretending it is the core
more gibberish from mosh.
“terteriary” is not even a word.
If Mussolini doesn’t know what fascism is, moosh most certainly doesn’t..
…. even though I’m sure he has his own nonsense definition.
Kind of like when the government meets with a large social media company and gives them a list of people and sites to ban or demote in searches. The question is what benefits the social media company got for doing so.
F*** me, I had no idea that there even was a “UN Secretary for Global Communications.” Then again, why should anyone be surprised.
The precursor to the UN, UNESCO was founded with its publishing house “The Lucifer Trust.”
Funny that? There was me thinking UNESCO was just an arm of the UN, while its precursor was actually the “League of Nations”!!
In the NOAA blog they say that the developing Atlantic Nina may suppress hurricane formation, but they don’t know what is causing the Nina condition as the trade winds that normally drive the upwelling are weak.
Atlantic Nina? Qu est Que C’est?
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/atlantic-nina-verge-developing-heres-why-we-should-pay-attention
OMG, there’s an Atlantic ENSO? How long has this been going on and why didn’t anybody tell me? Is there an El Niño too? Is it included in GCMs? I couldn’t find any mention of it before August. Somebody needs to notify the IPCC.
But the science is settled…
onl skeptics argue that the science is settled as the tout “final nails” in th agw coffin every week
Another load of incoherent gibberish from mosh.
One too many wines.
Only Climate Alarmists use the science is settled to silence any and all questions about their religion.
If Mother Nature has an infinite number of controls each with an infinite number of positions then couldn’t we accept that while conditions may appear to be similar they are in fact always unique.
Humans look for patterns because they ‘comfort’ us (e.g. knowing the next door neighbour cleans the street outside their property once a week means they’re still alive if nothing else). Even now we can see how uneasy some people are about the cool summer we have just had as if all bets are off on what 2050 may bring with it.
The reality is that nothing has changed only our perception (or misconception) of it. If we were wrong at the start then will we be wrong all the way through that is the question?
Nature may have very different ideas about what “comfort” really means since whilst things may seem superficially familiar every event may in fact be completely unique (and unrepeatable). Any pattern we may think we see is therefore false.
“If Mother Nature has an infinite number of controls each with an infinite number of positions then couldn’t we accept that while conditions may appear to be similar they are in fact always unique.”
______________________________________________________________________________
The IPCC agreed with you in 2001:
IPCC TAR Chapter 14 Page 771 pdf3
In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled
non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states
is not possible.
But they have continued to produce models trying to do exactly that.
The models don’t TRY to’ do that’, they actually ‘do that’, except that what they find is not at all accurate..
Always, always this quote is truncated at sites like this.
Here it is in full context… again.
That’s what they did, and the multi-model means compare very favourably with observations.
You obviously FAILED maths in high school, (if you even got that far), and are just copy-pasting stuff you do not actually have a hope of comprehending.
While you’re providing more context, Rusty, how about acknowledging the fact that the modestly milder temperature isn’t remotely close to any sort of climate catastrophe?
There in NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!
Averaging the results of several models to get a better answer is an admission that none of the models is actually correct.
If the programmers are presenting what their team thinks is the most probable prediction, and none of them agree, then, logically there could only be one that is correct, or at least closest to being correct (OK, there could be two, one each on either side of the correct prediction.) However, it is also possible that none are correct, or even close to being correct. Then averaging all the incorrect models gives one, wait for it, — garbage!
Except it doesn’t. It produces exactly what the multi-model ensemble was designed to produce. A very close projection of the observed trend (actually running slightly slower than observations at the moment, but well within the expected range).
That is what you and supporters of the approach assert. However, where is the evidence or logic to support that assertion? How can one produce a “probability distribution of the system’s future possible states” if none of the predictions that constitute that ensemble are correct? The best that one can logically claim is that the ensemble gives a probability distribution of the output of many computer models, which the IPCC says cannot reliably predict the future state for even one scenario. What you are denying, or ignoring, is that the two sentences you provided are logically contradictory.
It’s right there in the observations.
No assertions necessary.
Read the IPCC quote! (The full one, not the truncated one beloved of ‘skeptics’.)
They’re acknowledging that long term prediction is not possible for any single model because the system is too chaotic.
That doesn’t mean that a range of models using different inputs, such as timings of ENSO events, etc, can’t be used as an ensemble to produce a probable long-term estimate of trend.
That’s exactly what they’ve done, very successfully.
So you assert, without supporting facts being in evidence.
Well, if you can’t read temperature charts or follow model projections that were published decades ago then this is the very site for you.
You’ll love it here.
The IPCC quote never stipulated “single.”
The guestimates uses as inputs are not validated.
If, as you assert, they have been successful, then why are the alarmists contradicting the IPCC summary that concluded there is no emergency?
If the statement is true, why would one expect that the average of an ensemble would be trustworthy or skillful? They are all individual predictions, none of which have any reasonable hope of being in violation of the claim. If they are all wrong, then the quote is validated. However, it is unreasonable to expect to extract truth from an average of un-truths. They can’t all be true or valid because they contradict each other. If some are valid, then the quoted statement is not true, and predictions are possible. However,while it appears that the Russian forecasts have some utility because their warming tracks reality better than the others (They may be the ‘best’ case discussed below.), nobody seems to be studying them and modifying their ‘impossible’ predictions to get better results.
For the sake of illustration, let’s assume that the quote is not true. Then we can assume that amongst the ensemble there is one ‘best’ prediction (No guarantees that even the best is usable!). If one averages that singular (maybe tied) best prediction with all of the inferior ones, the result will, by necessity, be inferior to the best one. Why would the author(s) of the IPCC TAR, and apparently you, support contradictory statements?
The ensemble approach appears to be a chimera that promises something that can’t be delivered.
I think I tend to agree with bnice2000 that you don’t comprehend what you are pasting.
The Almighty Average is the only tool in the climatology toolbox.
Because you have once again truncated the IPCC statement! It is true, which is why no single model can suffice. That’s why they go on to say, in the immediate next sentence, same paragraph:
Is there some kind of special reading glasses ‘skeptics’ have that renders these words invisible?
The unstated assumption is that the ensemble approach can provide a way to deal with unpredictable scenarios. That is not proven and is doubtful for the simple reason that they also claim that, even given perfect knowledge of the initial conditions, the final state is not amenable to computation. It is you who reads into the intention what is not written.
You apparently are having difficulty realizing that a probability distribution of calculated values that don’t match reality — because they can’t — will not magically provide the answer that you want!
It’s not “unstated”. It’s stated up front and central.
Again, can you not read what they said?
It’s the very basis upon which the multi-model system was developed, as they stated very clearly at the outset. Unpredictable scenarios mean you can’t rely on a single model.
What is so hard to understand about this?
Again, the multi-model mean, the average of all the models, bears a very close resemblance to the observations, albeit that the models are currently running cooler than the observations.
The IPCC made no claim that the ensemble approach would give better model results. It only states the ensemble approach will generate POSSIBLE future states, nothing to do with probabilities.
Maybe the quote is truncated because the second sentence is meaningless gibberish. Just saying…
Ensembles of computer simulations produce probability distributions of the outputs of computer simulations, not predictions of future climate states.
‘Just saying’ what, exactly?
In your opinion.
To create a model/programme, four criteria must be satisfied.
All the variables in a system must be used.
How those variables function must be completely understood.
The interaction between those variables must be completely understood.
There must be no ambiguities or contradictions.
The models fail the first criteria (let alone the other three) . Therefore they can be nothing more than a crude guess.
They’d be better off hanging seaweed by the door.
Add to your list the inputs must be well supported data with probability and error budgets assigned that propagate through the simulations.
“…about the cool summer…”. Huh?
you are looking at local weather, check UAH to see how “cool” the rest of the world is.
Apparently the UK had it’s warmest May ever followed by the coldest summer ( June, July, August) since 2015.
I miss IceAgeNow which was a great antidote to the “we’re all going to fry a week on Tuesday ” stories elsewhere.
You mean to tell us that the only thing that controls climate and weather is not the only thing???
We was robbed!
Was robbed?
They’ve only just got started.
“At X, US meteorologist Ryan Maue ponders the possible reasons and asks colleagues to think about why the models have failed so far this year.”
duh— maybe because the models are worthless?
They must be worth something to someone,
Yes, of course – to those being paid to produce them and those who gain from their production
Sure, they have marginal values- as a tool in “the science”- but they prematurely consider the models to be representative of reality.
When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.
You could probably paraphrase that for computer scientists and climate models.
Politicians?
I just finished reading “This Hurricane Season Is Confounding….” over at CNN.com, and they note two things: 1. the Forecasters predicted the most bullish forecasts on record, and 2. “…there is a burgeoning Atlantic La Niña near the equator…”. The tone was that if you think fewer hurricanes are good just wait until the “…climate change driven by fossil fuel pollution…” is going to kill us all, maybe via other mechanisms than just hurricanes. Wait for it.
yuh, they’ll become like those big storms on Jupiter 🙂
Is “the Forecasters predicted the most bullish forecasts on record” true for the CSU forecast?
Apparently so. It looks like their previous high forecast was in 2022:
And 2024:
Note that the “Major Hurricanes” forecast for both years is 5. Apparently they don’t subscribe to the theory that major hurricanes will be less frequent but more severe.
Atlantic La Niña… of course new because of climate change,
“Mysteries Surrounding The 2024 Atlantic Hurricane Season”
Translation: We don’t know
“CO2 Definitely Not the Driving Factor”
Translation: We do know
The title contradicts itself
The Atlantic hurricane season ends November 30, 2024. There are 11 more weeks. This article is premature.
The only interesting mid-season news is:
No Tropical Storms Or Hurricanes Have Developed In The Atlantic For 3 Weeks | ZeroHedge
Oh Richard, sigh.
It’s a mystery who will win the World Series this year. Definitely not the Detroit Red Wings.
“Oh, so we do know?”, squawks RG.
(for our non-Murcan readers, the World Series is major league baseball’s championship. The Red Wings are an ice hockey team).
“”Storms were actually predicted for this year too. However, there have been almost no storms so far.””
The thing about yer average climate alarmist, and this has been true for decades, is they say one thing and the weather does something completely different. The same is true for our weather-people. They came a right cropper on the hurricane prediction front in 1987. Then there were the BBQ summers famously drenched all summer long. And more recently (this week in fact) the month’s worth of rain in two days that never materialised.
“”Where Did The Month’s Rain Go, BBC?””
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/
“”science is still far from reaching the end of its knowledge “”
Much of it (narrative incompatible) is censored, cancelled and memory-holed. Science, for the globalist fraternity, is now a matter of “ownership“, not knowledge or understanding…
“”“We own the science, and we think that the world should know it, and the platforms themselves also do” — Melissa Fleming, Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications at the United Nations.
https://sociable.co/government-and-policy/we-own-science-world-should-know-un-wef-disinformation/
Arrogance and hubris are always on display.
The false-positive error rate for rain in Ohio has been ludicrous. They keep predicting rain, and all we get is clouds. We were supposed to get drenched Friday, and just a few drops on the windshield of some cars.
A long time ago when Bill Gray started his seasonal forecasts at CSU my first reaction was total skepticism. Forecasting hurricanes from Colorado – he must be nuts! After a few years it became clear he wasn’t going away and I finally took a fair look at a forecast and began to understand what he was doing. Most fascinating were the end of season postmortems, especially after seasons where the forecast was a bust.
The 1995 bust was especially interesting as that was when the AMO/thermohaline circulation flipped positive.
Along the way Chris Landsea (great name) came and went, but definitely not forgotten as he went to the NHC, I saved a copy of his resignation letter to Kevin Trenberth somewhere. Phil Klotzbach showed up, became co-author, is still there and took over after Gray’s death.
My interest in following their forecasts has waned, but this year is and will be an exception, of course.
I just took a look at CSU’s web site, their latest seasonal forecast is from Aug 6, see https://tropical.colostate.edu/Forecast/2024-08.pdf . Their latest two week forecast is at https://tropical.colostate.edu/Forecast/2024-0903.pdf – I posted a few of those at WUWT in the past.
There’s not much new in them, but their postmortem will be out Nov 26th, and I’m sure that will be fascinating. Probably worth me posting a summary here.
The two week forecast includes:
I don’t see the note yet. Perhaps they’ve rewritten it multiple times and still isn’t fit for publication. Perhaps I haven’t found the right place to look. I’m especially curious to see what they say about the MJO, a lot of people seem to have been ignoring it – big mistake, especially by knee-jerk critics.
I’ll add a comment with a link when I find it.
On the Landsea/Trenberth affair, I had forgotten it predates WUWT. It’s worth reading if you haven’t seen it, it’s worth rereading if you have seen it.
https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/Hurricanes/more/Landsea-letter-resigning-from-IPCC.pdf
https://www2.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/landsea.affair/email.response.html
Thanks Ric. I had not seen any of that. Comments were interesting too. The first by William Connolley. Is he the one that did so much to make the “climate” posts on Wikipedia biased?
Such as: “Willard Anthony Watts (born 1958) is an American blogger who runs Watts Up With That?, a climate change denial blog that opposes the scientific consensus on climate change.”
Indeed. I haven’t been paying any attention to him lately, all I really needed to know was to not use Wikipedia for climate stuff. Or anything else that might be controversial. They’re still good for things like U238 decay chains. 🙂
If you don’t have anything better to do today, check out https://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=William+Connolley
What is the scientific consensus on climate change these days?
Did they find those tropical tropospherical hot spots yet?
Has the Arctic ice all melted yet?
Have the polar bears all drowned yet?
Are the oceans boiling yet?
Has the ocean sea level started accelerating yet?
It has to be below average almost half the time. Predicting above average every year is hype not science.
Think about human nature….If you are a meteorologist tasked with providing the media a forecast for the season ahead (by your deluded boss who thinks your department needs the media coverage to justify its gov’t funding)….a forecast that there are going to be fewer extreme weather events than historical averages would result in you being an easy target for being fired by management when it doesn’t come true (probably half the time of course)…a prediction of “same as normal” makes it sound like you don’t do a day’s work to start with…while “more events than normal” sounds like you are doing your part to protect the public by sounding the alarm based on the findings of your research and calculations…
Which would you pick, knowing it’s random anyway, to assist with your future ability to pay for your groceries, home, and car ?
Add in the litigation intensity our society embraces.
Indeed. No one is claiming that temperatures will be above average every year, whether locally, regionally or globally.
It’s just about long term trends.
Really? You must not read any of the media sites.
“think about why the models have failed so far this year“. The models did not fail. Their purpose is to spread fear which can then be exploited by dishonest politicians. They achieved their objective before the hurricane season started. When the real hurricane season arrives, it is irrelevant to these people because they are already onto the next scare.
PS. Sorry about the tautology.
So far very few are talking about the climate elephant — Tonga — which is the leading suspect of the 2023-2024 global warming temperature spike.
Tonga doesn’t fit the agenda. It wonbe talked about.
I really need an “edit” button. I’m horrible at avoiding my misspellings and often see them only AFTER the fact.
Should be: won’t be* talked about.
There is an edit button that becomes visible when the cursor is at the right bottom of the post across from “Reply”.
I only post from a real computer (not a cell phone) and use a text processor (LibreOffice Writer). Then copy & paste. It helps avoid spelling, grammar, and formatting errors. But not always. 😏
It’s OL. We het it.
That’s why I’m talking about it, on X, and during my climate talks.
This is nonsense. ‘Tonga’, as you call it, erupted in December 2021. Nearly 3 years ago. There was a minimal warming impact at the time, visible in the UAH data you show, that quickly died down.
Even Spencer and Christy of UAH said it’s impact was small, estimated to be in the hundredths of a degree warming.
But, any port in a storm…
I’ve just come across a new paper that concludes that Hunga-Tonga’s overall effect was a slight cooling (due to volcanic aerosols); it had no effect after 2023. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2024JD041296 This is a scientific paper and very likely settles the debate (I love this word, “settle”, deniers here start crossing themselves when they read it).
Abort….. They only look up to +/-60 degree latitude.
…. ignoring the blocking of escaping energy by the WV which is now mostly over the polar regions.
You should get an education, then learn to understand and see the flaws in what is being published…
It is a glaring an obvious problem, but I’m guessing you didn’t even look at the actual paper.
Now, where is your evidence of any human causation in the strong and persistent 2023 El Nino event ?.
One paper “settles the debate?” That is rarely the case. What do you consider unique about the paper that in your mind settles it? Was it because it was “scientific?”
Maybe.
We are years after the event, all the information should’ve been already collected by now.
This is an important part of the equation. It means the paper’s been through the first important filter. Almost no denier stuff survives this, and in the extremely rare cases when it does, it’s almost invariably the error in the filter.
The unexamined assumption is that the “first important filter” is unbiased.
Wrong. It’s been examined and found to be false.
I don’t follow opinions or consensus — I follow data — just like Javier Vinos does .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7GN96BUCEo
Good on you. How lucky you are ‘cos science is no opinions.
Well, there’s consensus in science. The Law of Energy Conservation is a empirical law. In other words, there’s consensus that energy gets conserved. So you’d better follow the consensus otherwise you look like a crank.
Good on you. Scientists have a hard time doing that. Perhaps you should follow them instead of making up crap.
Political science is based on consensus. Practical science is based on data. I made a video just for you … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1-FxwVkQ60
How do you think the Law of Energy Conservation was accepted?
If it’s a LAW then it was accomplished via political consensus.
Congratulations. We have to put this as a motto for this site. Denier energy is flowing around. After being created.
Spencer has never made any “scientific” statement on HT.
Guesses and estimates and “suggests”… are not “scientific”
NASA stated the effects of Tonga would last at least 5 years.
I wonder … maybe warmth in one place isn’t what drives Atlantic hurricanes, maybe it’s temperature difference between two places.
Since global warming inhibits tropical activity, the additional warming produced by Tonga’s water-vapor is further inhibiting tropical activity … https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/04/08/global-warming-inhibits-hurricane-activity-as-indicated-by-decreasing-tropical-cape-values/
Which also explains the reduction in typhoons this year.
Same chart, same nonsense. An eruption from ~3 years ago suddenly causes a surge in global warming ~2 years later?
Get a grip.
Mt Tambora’s cooling began 15 months after eruption. Tonga’s warming began 18 month’s after eruption. Plus Tonga’s warming effects will last much longer — many years.
Same commenter, same idiotic non-science blather..
You have zero grip on reality, fungal.
Now, where is your evidence of any human causation for the strong and extended 2023 EL Nino event.
Quite simple. There was an ongoing La Nina as well as sufficient SO2 emissions to counter any initial warming. The SO2 generally starts to dissipate after a year and the La Nina, which held on for awhile, came to an end. This allowed the warming effect to take hold.
And you call that “quite simple”?
That’s an important part of the heat engine aspects of any storm, as is water vapor content. E.g. “The commonly accepted SST necessary for hurricane development is between 26 – 27 °C (79 – 81 °F).”
Another important part is water vapor content, and that’s strongly tied to sea surface temps.
Tropical storms need a strong difference between surface and high level temps, and Saharan dust both lets sunlight warm the high level air and reduces sunlight at the sea surface. Hence, Saharan dust is a driver, one that weakens later in the season.
Some extremely strong nor’easters north of the tropics develop something that looks like an eyewall, but it doesn’t last long, I assume there just isn’t enough energy from condensing water vapor to maintain an eye.
I’m pretty confident Hunga Tonga is behind the recent surge in air temp, not so confident about its connection to tropical cyclones. Other than the Madden-Julian Oscillation, I’m not sure what else else might be suppressing things now The CSO folks know a lot more about the MJO than I do, I’m sure it will be in their postmortem.
See Klotzbach et al at https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023GL102762
How relieved I feel.😃 Uncertainty indeed has muddied the climate model predictions. There is still time, though before the season ends.
Great! Another article focusing on energy accumulation and flow, which, unlike minuscule temperature changes, actually have something to do with climate. Of course the hot/humid tropics are important! They get the most direct radiant energy that must be distributed by energy flow. And, of course the energy flow near the equator must be east to west as the hot/humid air rises – kinetic energy! Now tell me more about energy-flow-dependent climates and forget about all that GAT nonsense!
The tropics are also the source of most of the world’s stratospheric ozone.
Attributed to Meteonews.ch in the above article:
” The ITCZ is a kind of low-pressure trough that stretches around the globe and follows the zenith of the sun with a delay of around 3 to 4 weeks.”
Say what???
The “zenith of the sun” scientifically translates to “local noon” between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn, but only when and where the Sun is directly overhead (i.e., at the zenith point). Local noon is a daily phenomenon.
The only manner is which I can interpret that quoted phrase to be internally consistent is to conclude it asserts the ITCZ varies in latitude annually between both Tropics.
Really?
Really. Perhaps that’s why it’s not the “Equatorial Convergence Zone.” From a trivial search, https://siddhartha01writes.medium.com/intertropical-convergence-zone-itcz-7de592bbd7ef says:
So, the ITCZ does not follow the Equator or any other latitude; it follows the low-pressure zone where the Earth receives most heat from the Sun. ITCZ is not any fixed line or pattern. The position of ITCZ also varies with seasons; the variation depends upon regional heat and pressure conditions. Near the pacific ocean and America variation is not much as compared to variation near India, ASEAN or Australia, Maximum it can shift up to 25 degrees north latitude and 20 degrees south latitude. As ITCZ follows low pressure and high surface temperature, the surface temperature can be sea temperature of [or?] land temperature.
There’s a nice graphic there, but you were too lazy to look for anything so I won’t bother posting it here. Just click the link.
Wow, Ric. I’m really surprised to find such an ad hominem attack coming from you. I thought better of you given that you are an editor for WUWT.
While I’m not disputing outright what you found at https://siddhartha01writes.medium.com/ (BTW, not a site I run across in normal Web searches related to climate), I find the following different take on the subject at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intertropical_Convergence_Zone , for what it may be worth to you:
“The ITCZ appears as a band of clouds, usually thunderstorms, that encircle the globe near the Equator . . . The location of the ITCZ gradually varies with the seasons, roughly corresponding with the location of the thermal equator. As the heat capacity of the oceans is greater than air over land, migration is more prominent over land. Over the oceans, where the convergence zone is better defined, the seasonal cycle is more subtle, as the convection is constrained by the distribution of ocean temperatures. Sometimes, a double ITCZ forms, with one located north and another south of the Equator, one of which is usually stronger than the other.”
(my bold emphasis added)
Since the Earth is not only inclined in its spin axis with respect to it’s orbital plane about the Sun, but also moves in an elliptical orbit, at any give time in a year there is only one hemisphere where the Earth is receiving maximum insolation from the Sun . . . it cannot happen simultaneously at the same latitude north and south except in the special case of the equinoxes.
Bottom line: the ITCZ sounds like a very wavy “band” stretching around the globe, one that can sometime split into two separate “bands” or zones despite where “Earth receives the most heat from the Sun”.
Wiki again.
Wikipedia is certainly not above having errors in its encyclopedia of articles on various subjects. However, by your comment, you appear totally unaware of the extent that Wikipedia uses footnoted references to provide independent backup reference(s) for its statements.
With respect to the Wiki article I cited, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intertropical_Convergence_Zone , that article is supported by 20 separate footnoted references.
Perhaps you would care to suggest an alternative on-line encyclopedia that is as well, or better, supported with clearly identified references?
In context, it surely is that the term “zenith” is meant to refer to the daily max latitude of the sun, which, as you say, varies between the Tropics daily, reaching max variation at Summer and Winter Solstices
Early 2024 storms were TS Alberto (June 19), H. Beryl (late June), earliest-forming Category 5 hurricane on record, and TS Chris (June 24) that brought heavy rainfall and flooding to parts of Mexico. Tracks are shown on wiki: 2024_Atlantic_hurricane_season
This is above my pay grade, but do these storms not change the characteristics of the ocean to a depth of (?) 100 m. or so? Evaporation first, then heavy rain. [And yes, I know there are other factors.]
DISCUSSION OF 2024 ATLANTIC HURRICANE SEASON TO DATE AND FORECAST THOUGHTS ON THE REST OF THE SEASON
https://tropical.colostate.edu/Forecast/2024_0903_seasondiscussion.pdf
“The 2024 Atlantic hurricane season got off to an extremely fast start, with Hurricane Beryl becoming the earliest Category 5 hurricane in the Atlantic on record. Hurricanes Debby and Ernesto followed in early and mid-August, respectively, leading to a well above-average season through the middle part of August. However, since Ernesto dissipated on 20 August, the Atlantic has had no named storm activity. As we near the climatological peak of the Atlantic hurricane season, we discuss the 2024 season in detail, including several possible reasons for the recent dearth in Atlantic hurricane activity. These reasons include: 1) a northward-shifted monsoon trough resulting in African easterly waves emerging at too far north of a latitude, 2) extremely warm upperlevel temperatures resulting in stabilization of the atmosphere, 3) too much easterly shear in the eastern Atlantic, and more recently 4) unfavorable subseasonal variability associated with the Madden-Julian oscillation. We believe that it is likely a combination of these factors (and perhaps others) that have led to this recent quiet period. We still do anticipate an above-normal season overall, however, given that large-scale conditions appear to become more favorable around the middle of September. We note that we are not issuing a new seasonal forecast with this discussion. (as of 3 September 2024)”
Thanks, that was what I was looking for. Well worth reading.
The conclusion will have to do until November:
Strange that there was no mention of Saharan dust.
4 reasons given now that were not predicted or considered as factors ahead of time.
And unnamed and unnumbered others.
Sort of spoils the effect of claiming predictive skill, doesn’t it?
Because they are not predictable, and as the forecast is statistically based (not a “model” – as in integrated forward in time from initial conditions), the forecast can only include factors that have occurred in the historical record with enough frequency to produce a statistically robust response.
What, no dust storms in the past?
Of course – but the parameters that are available at the time the forecast was made – did not include a “dust storm” and if it did was it likely to last the whole hurricane season?
As I said, not forecastable..
Only those things such as the ENSO, SSTs, West African monsoon activity are likely to persist through the season.
That something cropped up later was not with statistical analysis is just a limitation of the process.
Dust storms are not a new and unexpected phenomenon, and at the time of the first revision in the forecast, one was active. You are making excuses for a serious oversight.
I “discovered” early on in my engineering career that one can learn a lot more from a system that’s gone wrong than one that’s working as expected. So I’m expecting to celebrate this season for what we’ll learn from it.
BTW, maybe only 3 reasons. Consider “more recently 4) unfavorable subseasonal variability associated with the Madden-Julian oscillation.” The MJO has a ragged period of a month or two. Back in April, and even in June, we don’t have much skill in predicting it. That’s likely a big reason why Klotzbach isn’t forecasting a bust for the rest of the season.
As for claiming predictive skill, read some of their postmortems. IIRC, they were pretty hard on themselves in 1995, a very instructive year.
Too far, extremely warm, too much, unfavorable…
See? Even when you’re flat-out WRONG, you can still spin a yarn full of hysterical arglebargle that someone will surely conclude is proof positive that we’ve hit the tipping point!
“We believe that it is likely a combination of these factors (and perhaps others)”
WOW…. ultra-science !! 😉
It sounds more like CYA than an actual explanation of why the forecasts were so wrong.
Indeed.
Get over it.
Your craving for 100% certainty is not possible in this world.
I wish you luck in finding it in the next one Oxy.
Without criticism, internal or external, improvement is unlikely. You are again acting as an apologist for those doing a poor job of forecasting and then making excuses for the poor job other than what their function is.
But they predict with 100% certainty that increasing CO2 leads to a burning earth.
Darn those pesky hurricanes. Half way through the season and they are still hiding?
Maybe the overhyped early predictions of 2024 being a record number plus record strength hurricane season, was simply another example of Climate Alarmists desperately seeking publicity. No matter how misconceived their message might be, they like to be out there spreading their message.
With roughly ten weeks of the hurricane season still to go, we must be careful not to jump to an early conclusion. You never know. Perhaps this record hurricane season might happen yet. Always remember the past failures of Climate Alarmists is no guarantee that this one time they could be right. Random guesses can sometimes come true….
If they were to say now that they expect the absence of hurricanes to continue, they would be on a winner – at the end of the season they could just point to the statement that got it right, and ignore the other. The smart thing would be to put both statements out at the start of the season.
Oops, I forgot. They couldn’t do that because the objective isn’t to make a correct forecast, the objective is to make a scary forecast.
Quite right. I cup my ear for the Guardian ‘s forecast for a quiet hurricane year
600 years of sunspot activity and the algorithm which matches it by that lady russian mathematician point to a mini ice age from 2025 to 2050…and fakirs like gates know it so they want to inject crap into the sky to take credit for “saving the world”. the incans who believed their priests had more sense than the science as religion idiots of today.
Summary – Valentina Zharkova’s GSM (solargsm.com)
Photo:
valetina-zharkova-solar-masterclass-part-2-youtube-thumbnail.jpg (1280×720) (thebasesproject.org)
Initiation of hurricanes is not well understood but it seems to me that the following may be a partial explanation.
Two current factors seem to be significant.
These two effects reduce the driving pressure and the velocity of the inflowing air to the plume. Thus the intensity of any cyclonic storm that may develop will be reduced and there will be a lesser chance of the expansion of such a storm into a full blown hurricane. There is also a lesser ability of wind shear or atmospheric waves to initiate cyclonic storms in a more gently moving atmosphere.
The result is a much milder hurricane season and it is clear that CO2 has no effect on this.