From CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY and the “Hurricane Sandy was not a Cat5 storm but let’s not worry about such details for headlines” department.
More category 5 hurricanes forecasted by scientists
New research investigates the impact that dust storms played in the formation of Hurricane Sandy
In the midst of hurricane season, climatologists around the world are monitoring tropical storm formations that have the potential to escalate into deadly hurricanes. The Atlantic hurricane season included 17 named storms last year, many of which proved to be costly and destructive for communities in their path. Hurricanes are becoming stronger and wetter due to rising sea and air temperatures. Saharan dust storms can also play a role in hurricane formation. Researchers at Chapman University have learned from studying 2012’s Hurricane Sandy, that we are more likely to see larger, more powerful hurricanes in the future.
“Although Sandy was a Category 3 storm when it made landfall in Cuba, it became the largest Atlantic hurricane on record when measured by diameter, with winds spanning 900 miles,” said Chapman University Climatologist Hesham El-Askary, Ph.D.
A Saharan dust event occurring in West Africa weeks before Sandy had formed carried large amounts of mineral dust into the troposphere, filling the tropical wave that became Sandy with aerosols along a majority of its path. By monitoring dust storms, Dr. El-Askary was able to tie this occurrence to the role it played in the hurricane’s development from a Category 1 to a Category 3 storm. With this work, he hopes to provide more accurate forecasting for these types of extreme weather occurrences.
###
The research, titled “Characterizing the Impact of Aerosols on Pre-Hurricane Sandy” was published in the IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing. Dr. El-Askary investigates the impact that African dust storms over the Atlantic played in the formation of the tropical storm system that eventually became Hurricane Sandy in October 2012. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8345587/
Abstract:
Dust is not an aerosol.
particle matters, PM’s, sure are condensation nuclei. And thus aerosols.
So would the microscopic hairs on blades of glass be aerosols, too? They’re of a similar size and attract condensation. 😉
The problem with the hairs on grass (and other plants, of course) is that they are so close to the ground that there is insufficient drop time and distance for any measurable effects to occur. If average lawn height is 2.5″, the mean distance above ground (DAG) is 1.25″; such a short distance makes it extremely difficult to ascertain the difference in effect between an altitude of 0″ above the ground to 1.25″. I’m waiting, of course, to see who leaps forward and snares a large grant to study this set of phenomena.
John,
Where do I apply?
I have a lawn – currently brown-ish, it is true, here in South London.
No measurable rain for a month or so, I guess, might be connected, or causative.
But if someone will pay me a couple of hundred thousand dollars, and be good enough to tell me what result they want [Ideally writing my paper for me!], I could author it, claiming appropriate expenses/tax allowances for lawn ownership, oversight, husbandry, tool provision and repair, and lawn maintenance & regeneration, and – well, Bingo!
Auto
Oh, do I need to claim relevance?
Obviously, I would claim Globull warming etc.; worse than we thought!; and Mann-made gore-bull warming.
Cheques to be made out to ‘Cash’ [no, emphatically not the Johnny-person!].
If they got up into the atmosphere, they would be.
#particlemattersmatter
Dust suspended in the air is an aerosol. The more important question here is whether the dust particles can be CNNs (cloud condensation nuclei).
Size matters. It sounds like the sweet spot is around 150 nm. Dust particles very very much larger or smaller may not act as CCNs.
From my Mac dictionary: • Chemistry- a colloidal suspension of particles dispersed in air or gas.
Although I’ve always thought aerosols as molecules like SO2 or HFC’s, I guess under this definition carbon soot or fine dust would be considered an aerosol.
Try a spray can of Baker’s Joy.
In this context, what matters is that they can be CNNs (cloud condensation nuclei).
I thought CNN was a network that pretended to be a news outlet?
Propaganda network would be a more accurate description of what they are trying to be I think MarkW.
Though lately with the Trump Putin thing I have been laughing at them so much my sides are sore and I think they are some of the best comedy out there.
AARGH! That should be CCN. Thanks to the magic of copy/paste, I was able to make the same mistake twice.
“Experience is that wonderful thing that allows you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.”
So you think CNN is more of a propaganda network than Fox. If so, name a regular host how is as unashamedly left, as Hannity is right?
Hannity, Limbaugh, etc are commentators who do not hide their bias and make no attempt to mislead their audience as to their politics.
Wolf Blitzer, Andrea Mitchell, Brooke Baldwin, etal are CNN NEWS hosts who taint their “reporting” with their biases while claiming political neutrality. Same with MSNBC and other “news” outlets.
Big difference between right wing opinion and left wing propaganda
Yep those guys are straight up front where they’re coming from while even someone like Blitzer at CNN is not. Leading the news every 15 minutes with the fact that George Bush’s approval number had fallen to 27%.
There are others much worse there. Why just this week:
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2018/07/18/cnn-historian-what-trump-did-was-clearly-treasonous-flashed. You see It is not just the fake journalists, it is also the “guests” they give a platform to and allow to say the most outrageous things without any attempt to challenge or balance it. It is presented as news, not commentary.
Simon that CNN is mostly propaganda is well proven.
You don’t like Fox because they cover stuff that you and CNN would prefer to remain ignored.
Hannity is pretty middle ground politically and economically. He only appears far left to those from the idiot extremes of the left.
“You don’t like Fox because they cover stuff that you and CNN would prefer to remain ignored….”
I enjoy Chris Wallace and Bret Baier. Shep Smith can be fair too.
“Hannity is pretty middle ground politically….”
WTF? Are you serious? Hannity? You would struggle to find a more right wing commentator. He has never had a kind word to say about the left.
I mean I watched Hannity after the Putin blunder by Trump. Not a bad word about Trump. No criticism of a guy who thinks tries to convince the public he used the wrong word.
Simon,
That’s too easy. Don Lemon, Anderson Cooper, Chris Cuomo, Wolf Blitzer, Christiane Amanpour, Erin Burnett … stop me when you get the point.
I agree they are left leaning, but the likes of Hannity and Judge Jeanine are beyond anything CCN have. They get on to a line of thinking and never let go, even when they are shown to be wrong. The Uranium one thing is an examaple. And Hannity’s none stop take down of H Clinton is so boring. Someone needs to tell him she’s not the president, and that Trump is. So hold him accountable, instead of worshipping the ground he walks on.
At least the conversation from the likes of Cuomo has a semblance of credible journalism.
Uranium one good example of evil people working towards evil goals. Pain is on the way for Barry and his band of evil traitors. Where did the missing U go? Any chance could be returned to USA as a
‘device”? The sheepeople of the world will be soon learning the truth. What has Huber been doing?? Who does Military Intelligance work for?? WWG1WGA
Freudian slip, that.
Water droplets (lumps of molecules) in the atmosphere is an aerosol. Water vapour (single molecules) in the atmostphere isn’t.
Currently, the jet stream changes the direction of the wave in the direction of Africa.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mimic-tpw/natl/main.html
https://earthdata.nasa.gov/user-resources/sensing-our-planet/saharan-dust-versus-atlantic-hurricanes
NASA and probably every hurricane expert on the planet thinks the opposite of this study. Saharan dust, is accompanied by two main hurricane killers. Dry continental air and strong wind shear.
Yet another of a long list of examples of climate scientists having no idea about atmospheric dynamics and weather. Next time please consult a Met.
The number of microparticles depends on the direction of the wind.
Particulate Matter < 1 µm
mass of atmospheric particles with a diameter less than 1 micron
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/particulates/surface/level/overlay=pm1/orthographic=-27.77,12.90,786
97 percent agree to disagree.
97 percent agree to disagree……50% of the time 😉
“Saharan dust, is accompanied by two main hurricane killers.”
Saharan dust is also apparently accompanied by unnecessary commas. 😉
It is called changing your mind mid sentence then not checking grammar because your wife is hassling you to get off your phone syndrome.
In fact, in recent weeks there has been a Saharan dust event stretching across the Atlantic all the way through Texas. It was reported – oh, a week & 1/2 back – that they were blaming the dust for killing hurricane development – just the opposite of a ‘nontrival role’ in keeping them alive.
Oh, and naturally, the dust storms would be the result of man-made climate change.
Well, since Saharan dust deposition in the Atlantic is much heavier during glaciations and decreases during interglacials this implies that CAGW should result in less persistent hurricanes. Dust deposition bottomed out during the Early Holocene climatic optimum but has been slowly increasing as climate has cooled:
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/11/e1600445.full
Hmm, increased dust from the Sahara (and everywhere else) during glacial max would seem to be a mechanism for melting by albedo reduction once snowfall declined. The famous loess (silt) deposits broadly over China and around the world attained thicknesses of 100m. There was a lot blowing around in the general dryness.
Re climate in general, “Strange Attractors” of chaos theory that excites physicists I believe is a cop out that acts as a barrier to cogitation, giving the comfort of never having to tackle the beast. Milankovic seems to have solved the big picture of ice ages, the details can be ferreted out some where in between the a priori mindless linear thinking of climate scientists and the impenetrable darkness of chaos. Maybe the silliness of this unholy combination of social and physical science is a teething period that will attract some brains into the study.
Colder times like that are dryer and stormier times. It takes a lot of factors to come together for a hurricane to form and one of them is temperature/pressure contrast.
Superstorm Sandy was not a hurricane at landfall.
That is why it was called a “SuperStorm”.
It did not even rate as a tropical storm, or as they say, an extratropical storm.
We watched it in near real-time thanks the the resources made here at WUWT. Sandy made first landfall at the Carolina Outer Banks and ran right over the Cape Fear weather station.
Cape Fear is a highly sophisticated and well funded station due to the important US Navy installations in the area.
Top wind speeds were 38 kts. (gusts), and 28 sustained.
Did not even rate a Tropical Storm rating, never mind a Hurricane rating.
Dude, such a wet blanket … Sandy the super-stiff-breeze … doesn’t quite have the same gravitas.
The only element of the disaster that was “super” was the level of unpreparedness.
…and organized political noise for money
Sorry, but Sandy was nowhere near either the Outer Banks nor Cape Fear (which is not on the Outer Banks BTW). Its large wind field did affect the Carolina coast, but those weren’t its main winds. It made landfall in NJ as an Extratropical Storm with maximum sustained winds estimated at 70 kt (80 mph).
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL182012_Sandy.pdf
However, the damage Sandy did was due to the high storm surge which affected a large area of NY/NJ coast. Sandy was an unusual case, transforming several times from tropical to hybrid system. The fixation the public has with the Saffir-Simpson scale and the winds at the storm’s core was the reason too many people dismissed Sandy as a stiff-breeze, stayed in their homes along the shore, and drowned.
It’s not the wind that kills, it’s what’s riding in on it.
Andrew in 1992 was a very compact CAT V and it was a house flattner even when well inshore. The most destructive hurricane to hit the Florida mainland in history until Irma and the costliest until Katrina. When a storm gets like that, it’s more like some kind of super tornado than a typical hurricane. Just imagine what we would hear if an Andrew hit the Jersey shore or Manhattan.
It’s not the fall that kills, it’s the sudden stop.
The very fact that the populous had plenty of warnings starting as much as five days out but ignored them all indicates how ignorant of the dangers of storm surge they were. It is also indicative just how long it had been since something similar had happened there.
This year, due to the SSTs off the coast of the eastern seaboard and the prevailing weather patterns, the possibility of a significant storm hitting up that way again is pretty good. If one happens to come ashore or near shore in the NJ/NY area I suspect that many more people will be heed the warnings.
One should never forget that “Super Strom Sandy” only got that name because of where it hit. Just watching he way weather and “news” is reported and hyped over the years has left me with the strong impression that anything that occurs along the I-95 corridor from Boston down to Washington, DC will be presented as being worse than if the same thing happened anywhere else.
The very fact that the populous had plenty of warnings starting as much as five days out but ignored them all indicates how ignorant of the dangers of storm surge they were. It is also indicative just how long it had been since something similar had happened there.
Gov Christie issued mandatory evacuation orders for the Jersey shore the weekend before Sandy hit. There were also mandatory evacuations in nyc, late monday morning, the authorities were starting to shut down the tunnels connecting Manhattan to Brooklyn and NJ. As to timing my power went out at 5:20pm on monday, didn’t get it back until lunchtime friday. I don’t recall the populace ignoring the warnings, we were taking them seriously. As I recall close to a million evacuated from the Jersey shore, true many stayed in place despite the rather accurate warnings about storm surge. Gov. Christie was reported as saying that “staying on the barrier islands was ‘stupid’.”
For Americans, Sandy 2012 was not a hurricane. The sustained winds at NJ/LI landfall were in the 50 knot range. The Tides and Currents website has the recorded wind speeds for all the official NWS stations, such as Robbins Reef, with 55 knots sustained winds at the peak of the storm. The overwhelming majority of the reported sustained winds listed in the NOAA final report were well below 50 knot sustained winds.
Sandy’s high storm surge was due to
A) arriving at new york at high tide
B) The new moon/lunar phase which is the highest tide of the month
c) landing in what is the land funnel of new york harbor,
none of those factors can be attributed to global warming.
Without those three extraordinary factors, the storm surge would have been relatively minor.
“A Saharan dust event occurring in West Africa weeks before Sandy had formed carried large amounts of mineral dust into the troposphere, filling the tropical wave that became Sandy with aerosols along a majority of its path. By monitoring dust storms, Dr. El-Askary was able to tie this occurrence to the role it played in the hurricane’s development from a Category 1 to a Category 3 storm.”
_____________________________________________________
Sahara dust not necessarily enforces increase in hurricanes.
But Sahara dust offers condensation nuclei for cloud formation.
and thus promotes precipitation.
Donald, du Kasper –
don’t know what you’re up to:
particle matters aerosols
https://www.google.at/search?q=particle+matters+aerosols&oq=particle+matters+aerosols&aqs=chrome.
Here we go again.
It’s much more likely that Saharan dust feeds Amazonia’s Plants:
https://www.google.at/search?q=sahara+dust+amazons+soil&oq=sahara+dust+amazons+soil&aqs=chrome.
https://www.google.at/search?q=sahara+dust+amazons+soil&oq=sahara+dust+amazons+soil&aqs=chrome.
No need for new studies. The phenomenon ‘cyclogenesis’ is already known:
https://www.google.at/search?client=ms-android-samsung&ei=EV1QW_z_FsuPmgX5q4yoCg&q=cyclogenesis&oq=&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.
Johann – you are confusing baroclinic cyclogenesis w/ barotropic cyclogenesis. Yes, they both product a low pressure system but the genesis processes are quite different & the barotropic process is not well understood.
JKrone,
no problem with confusion.
just an informations offer.
“Evidence suggests that aerosols played a nontrivial role…”. Nontrivial? Hardly the most emphatic or scientific word!
It sounds like “nontrivial” is Climate Scientologist™©® code for “a role of some sort because we say so and at what level we haven’t a damn clue. Just givvus the money already!“.
50/50 chance of being right. I’m going to forecast fewer based on the experts usually being wrong.
If that’s a direct quote, it’s bad. It shows someone who’s pushing the alarmist agenda. That means his science is deeply suspect. Why do I say that?
He states the force of the storm when it hit Cuba. He then notes that the storm became very large. He didn’t state what the storm’s force was when it became large. Was it even still a hurricane? Probably not.
Sandy set records. “Sandy was the second-largest tropical cyclone in terms of gale diameter since records began in 1988.” Its diameter was 845 miles. The diameter is defined by gale force winds. That means the winds at the edge of the storm would have been 34 mph. It says nothing about the strength of the storm elsewhere.
Sandy was bad. There’s no need to pump things up with careless or deliberately misleading rhetoric. The attempt to do so reflects badly on the scientist and the science.
Not to mention, our ability to measure such things hasn’t existed very long at all. We have no idea if there were larger storms just 100 years ago. Calling it a “super storm” is simply myopic and ignorant.
The paper discusses the role of aerosols in the early development of the hurricane from the initial wave, it says nothing about its subsequent development into a hurricane, certainly not its development from Cat.1-3. The paper makes no mention of the potential for more Cat. 5 hurricanes, presumably some publicity department made that up.
In their conclusions they say, referring to the possible role of “the environmental and dynamical effects of dust aerosols on tropical cyclones and TC environments”:
“If these effects can be clarified, we may be able to look at future easterly waves and better determine if they or the environments they will be entering are more suited for TC development, which in turn can give us more accurate forecasting for these devastating events.”
We need to winnow out the substance of this actual scientific paper from the chaff of the university’s public affairs writer announcement. All too often we see science-ignorant PAOs trying to ‘sex up’ a legitimate paper by throwing in CAGW blather.
CommieBob,
Ummm, what about the quote is bad? You apparently don’t dispute the part about is being cat 3 when it hit Cuba. He says it was the largest Atlantic *hurricane* on record in terms of diameter. Your own quote backs up that assertion. (If anything, the difference in the quoted diameter might be a reason for skepticism, but you don’t mention that.) So what is the problem here exactly? Do you have evidence that El-Askary’s assertion is untrue, or “deliberately misleading”? It seems to take very little to make science and scientists reflect badly to those who want to find bad in them.
I fail to see why, even if it were wrong, this quote could be said to be “pushing the alarmist agenda,” or why that would make the science deeply suspect. Apart from the fact that the abstract and his quote say nothing about climate change, someone can support an agenda and still have scientific integrity. Applying your reasoning makes the scientific articles written by people at WUWT deeply suspect, as well as all the research done by contrarian scientists who have ever publicly supported or condemned a policy related to climate.
Many skeptics seem to have a double standard about the relationship between scientific integrity and political/economic agenda, and it simply baffles me why they don’t see it (or don’t care). If skeptics are ever going to show that their reasoning is better than their opponents’ – or that the label “skeptic” is more appropriate than “denier” – they will have to start acknowledging poor science and reasoning in their own ranks, and not just accuse others of having it based on assumptions like, “Was it even still a hurricane? Probably not.” Does this not make sense? It is a crucial question in my own search for the truth: do skeptics reason any better than alarmists?
Makes sense…and a good bet
What with drops and satellites…..NHC calls cat 5’s even if they only find one gust in one little spot
Accuweather has (for the north Atlantic region) 10 to 12 named storms, 5 to 6 hurricanes, and 2 to 4 of those as major hurricanes for this year’s hurricane season.
NOAA has 10 to 16 named storms, 5 to 9 hurricanes, and 1 to 4 major hurricanes.
I think this was issued ahead of Bert, which went north from the Gulf of Mexico to my kingdom. The other two petered out to rain and wind and didn’t do much of anything to the East Coast except flood it and knock down a few trees. Bert gave us a good rainy start to the growing season, but no tempestuous stuff on Lake Michigan like seiches. The last seiche episode was 2014. Really big waves that briefly shut down the Outer Drive.
“Named Storms”. Quite an ambiguous metric don’t ya think? When they first started doing that in 1957 they did not name them until they were deemed to have reached Hurricane strength. Then they started naming them when they reached TS strength. Now they are naming subtropical storms! IE: “Alberto”
Many insurance policies are written so that a higher deductable comes into effect once a storm is named. Think about that!
Maybe it’s time to sue the weather guessers for creating hysteria and providing exaggerated information, which drives up insurance costs for the public?
I’m game for that!
Meanwhile in the real world: https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/gtwo.php?basin=atlc&fdays=2
Climate Scientists claim Hurricanes are going to bigger and stronger due to warmer sea surface temperatures (SST).
Since circa 1850, SST have been on long trend line of getting warmer while the trend line for ACE (accumulated cyclone energy) has been flat.
Somehow, the high priests of climate science know that ACE trend will change inspite of nearly 200 years of empirical evidence to the contrary.
“Hurricanes are becoming stronger and wetter due to rising sea and air temperatures.”
The above is an unsubstantiated falsehood.
Well it seems that the climate scientists are working their way back in time so that they will have something to do when their CO2 alarmist study of future climate falls apart. However I don’t think that trying to model past climate will capture the public’s imagination quite the way that modelling the doomsday future climate has.
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/noaa-20th-century-reanalysis-version-2-and-2c
I will quote from the NCAR/UCAR website even though it is NOAA’s project.
“The Twentieth Century Reanalysis (20CR) provides a comprehensive global atmospheric circulation data set spanning 1850-2014. Its chief motivation is to provide an observational validation data set, with quantified uncertainties, for assessing climate model simulations of the 20th century, with emphasis on the statistics of daily weather. The analyses are generated by assimilating only surface pressures and using monthly SST and sea ice distributions as boundary conditions within a ‘deterministic’ Ensemble Kalman Filter (EKF). A unique feature of the 20CR is that estimates of uncertainty are derived using a 56 member ensemble. Overall, the quality is approximately that of current three-day NWP forecasts.”
So they are saying that the quality is as good as a 3 day weather forecast. Hmmmmm. So does that mean that 3 days backward is as good as 3 days forward, or that the hindcast for June 21, 1852 is as good as a 3 day weather forecast? If the latter; that would be very good quality indeed. So it is obviously the former. So that must mean the accuracy of hindcasting the climate in 1850 is about as accurate as forecasting the climate of the year 2185. So come to think of it, I don’t understand the statement “Overall, the quality is approximately that of current three-day NWP forecasts.”
Their other statement “A unique feature of the 20CR is that estimates of uncertainty are derived using a 56 member ensemble.” This certainly sounds like an ensemble of computer climate models. So they are using 56 junk computer climate models , each of which do not understand the underlying science; and averaging the uncertainty to give one estimate of uncertainty and are calling this a strength of their project!!!!!!!!!
Is the objective here to tell you at what hours of the day it rained on June 21 in 1852 in Mobile Alabama? Or is it something grander than that? Your tax dollars, folks, being spent here.
What national security, or national economic. or national pride reasons would we have to fund past studies of weather/climate that go only as far back as 1850. Oh , I can certainly see the long range goal of this is to wipe out any warming that ever appeared without massive mounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. Once they have fiddled their way back to 1850, why stop there? The next target will be the medieval warming period. It certainly looks like the climate scientists want to put the paleoclimatologists out of business. Computer models are always “sexier” than proxies for climate and so much faster in data generation. Whenever you read the word “Reanalysis”, always remember at some point it is computer generated data even if some real world data is mixed in with it. On another page of the site I found this under Key Limitations
“Does not provide the best estimate of the atmospheric state since ~1979, when more complete observations and more comprehensive reanalyses are available” Duhhhhh, 1979 was the year when the UAH satellite started to provide real data.
PS: I obtained a graph of one of their temperature data reanalysis for the US Average Annual temperature degrees Celsius at 2 metres from surface from 1870 to 2010 at 25 degrees N – 50 degrees N and 55 W – 114W.
The graph looked like a long gentle sloping sine/cosine curve with variability from 12.5C to 15 C and no upward trend. Interestingly, the highest was in the 1930s. I guess NOAA hadn’t gotten around to adjusting this computer generated reanalysis data yet.
Analysis? It’s obvious that THEY need to go into analysis, isn’t it? They are nuts!
The lack of accuracy in current weather forecasting is so obnoxiously high now that the only readings I trust are my own thermometer, barometer and humidity detector.
We’re supposed to have rain this afternoon. Well, it’s nearly post-afternoon, the rain that was forecast is petering out to such a low volume that we will get nothing. And we need rain here, going from just needing to it REALLY needing it now.
Nice job of inaccurate forecasting on their part, isn’t it?
Alan,
” So come to think of it, I don’t understand the statement ‘Overall, the quality is approximately that of current three-day NWP forecasts.’
Their other statement ‘A unique feature of the 20CR is that estimates of uncertainty are derived using a 56 member ensemble.’ This certainly sounds like an ensemble of computer climate models.”
Maybe before passing judgment you should try to understand what they mean, rather than basing your assessment on what something “sounds like” to your ears. The ensemble is not a bunch of models, it’s a set of predictions from one “model” (i.e. statistical treatment of the data) to derive probability density of outcomes and the uncertainties associates with them. “Ensemble forecasting is a form of Monte Carlo analysis. The multiple simulations are conducted to account for the two usual sources of uncertainty in forecast models: (1) the errors introduced by the use of imperfect initial conditions, amplified by the chaotic nature of the evolution equations of the atmosphere, which is often referred to as sensitive dependence on initial conditions; and (2) errors introduced because of imperfections in the model formulation, such as the approximate mathematical methods to solve the equations.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensemble_forecasting
“The Ensemble Kalman Filter (EnKF) is a Monte Carlo implementation of the Bayesian update problem: given a probability density function (pdf) of the state of the modeled system (the prior, called often the forecast in geosciences) and the data likelihood, the Bayes theorem is used to obtain the pdf after the data likelihood has been taken into account (the posterior, often called the analysis).
More at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensemble_Kalman_filter
The reanalysis, as I understand it, is not a product of hindcasting, it’s a “a comprehensive global atmospheric circulation data set” against which to validate model skill through hindcasting. This is only as I understand it, and I could be wrong, but perhaps this will provide a different way of looking at what you’ve been reading so that it will make more sense? Using data to formulate a record of the conditions in 1850 is a much different matter than projecting the conditions in 2185.
“Is the objective here to tell you at what hours of the day it rained on June 21 in 1852 in Mobile Alabama?” I very highly doubt it. Why would you think so?
“PS: I obtained a graph of one of their temperature data reanalysis for the US Average Annual temperature degrees Celsius at 2 metres from surface from 1870 to 2010 at 25 degrees N – 50 degrees N and 55 W – 114W.
The graph looked like a long gentle sloping sine/cosine curve with variability from 12.5C to 15 C and no upward trend. Interestingly, the highest was in the 1930s. I guess NOAA hadn’t gotten around to adjusting this computer generated reanalysis data yet.” What makes you think that they would want to do so? Researchers are well aware that increase in average temperature has been regionally variable, even within the U.S. Patterns of climate change have been different in the West vs. the middle of the country. At any rate, if you are going to discuss a graph, it would be nice if we all had access to it.
The greening of the deserts caused by more CO2 in the air should reduce the amount of dust coming off of Africa.
Forget Category 5 hurricanes !
Been there, done that.
I’m forecasting a Category 6 hurricane —
an unprecedented storm of epic peoportions,
that will tear Florida off
from its neighboring states,
and it will become an island.
Where do I apply for a grant
for further study?
When I keep reading the disgusting trash that’s endlessly eminating from ‘climate science’, I keep wondering why not just abolish modern “climate science”, altogether, and permit only palaeoclimatology to discuss actual climate changery-ness?
I can’t see any good or redeeming reasons for civilisation to keep going with this useless voodoo about ‘climate’, going on for any longer.
Why not just ditch all of it, and go with weather forecasting, reject all the hopeless daily blather about ‘climate’, because it simply isn’t discussing, nor even relating to actual global climate-change.
It’s all been false, not one bit of it’s been true, and not one bit of it falls outside of prior known natural weather variability ranges. So the so-called “records” are all fake, baloney, as we know from palaeoclimatology that not even one of those records is a real record, or anything of any global note. lol
It’s all hocus-pocus, sensationalism–the most odious of anthropocentric mega-drivel is what “climate science” actually is, on a daily basis.
The last actual global climate-change that there was, was “The Little Ice Age”, which is now ending (still), i.e. getting back to nothing much happening (thus a ‘hiatus’).
And that’s it! That’s the only global climate change there is, or has been, for most of this millenia.
So why not ignore all the absurd discussion of ‘climate’, outside of palaeoclimatology, and only discuss the weather’s changery-ness?
As that’s the only thing that’s really been changing, on the scale of gen-online-human-being. Who are particularly clueless about actual climate, due to all the ultra neurotic imaginary and fake BS that keeps getting said about it … every freakin day!
Actual climate-change itself has NEVER been a problem for internet-era human beings. Only the daily DISCUSSION of ‘climate change’ blah-dee-blahs has ever been an imaginary ‘problem’ for human beings.
Global weather variation is all that’s been going on, the whole time that this daily crap about ‘climate-change’ keeps getting trotted-out, by the patently neurotic and daft.
lol
/denial
Why stop at 6… Crank it up to 11 !!
Re: All the discussion of Tropical Storm Sandy. Last night I caught a few minutes of a Weather Channel show on deadly storms. #4 on the list of 10 in this program was the “Ash Wednesday Storm” of 1962, a Nor’easter that sat off the mid-Atlantic coast for some days sending the storm surge (at spring tide) through 5 tide cycles. The coast from southern New Jersey south to Chesapeake Bay was pounded by repeated surges. Some number of deaths, thousands of buildings destroyed. I wonder how it would have compared to Sandy on the various measurements now available.
I know that this can change at any time, but currently the National Hurricane Center shows no storms in the Atlantic and:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/gtwo.php?basin=atlc&fdays=5
The eastern Pacific only shows one weak storm wandering aimlessly, with little chance of development.
They will claim credit even in the case of Cat 5 storms in a cooling climate. Win Win
Could have been made of Cumbrian ‘Dust’ – then it would have been called ‘Muddy’
Course it was full of Sahara Dust you dipsticks – that’s why it was called ‘Sandy’
Give me strength
“Although Sandy was a Category 3 storm when it made landfall in Cuba, it became the largest Atlantic hurricane on record when measured by diameter, with winds spanning 900 miles,”
So now we are measuring hurricanes by diameter, ? funny how the “goal posts” keep moving !
Well, what else can you expect from people who can’t even give us an accurate forecast of rain for the next 24 hours?
They’re incompetent. At their current rate of failure, in any other job, they’d be canned, regardless of Reed Timmer’s hysterics while chasing violent windstorms known as tornadoes.
I’m more and more convinced that the current crop of so-called meteorologists don’t have the common sense God gave a goat, or the instincts for predicting REAL weather events AT ALL.
Not only was Sandy not a cat 5; it had gone extratropical before making landfall and NHC had stopped reporting on it. Sandy was not the problem. The problem was it made landfall on a coast where the residents had not prepared for significant storm surge.
Anthony – I am puzzled by the headline that says “More category 5 hurricanes forecasted by scientists” but I did not see anything like that in the abstract. It’s all about the possible role of dust in possibly amplifying a cyclone.
The body of the paper is paywalled. Is that where he predicts more cat-5s?
No, it’s not mentioned at all, the whole paper is about the development of the pre Cat 1 wave.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/19/worse-and-worser-claim-more-category-5-hurricanes-forecasted-by-scientists/#comment-2408375
I remember this article citing Kevin Trenberth back in 2005.
https://abcnews.go.com/2020/HurricaneRita/story?id=1154125&page=1
“There’s good evidence to show that Category 4 and 5 storms indeed are becoming more common…”
hmmm, it became awfully quiet after that year.
“A Saharan dust event occurring in West Africa weeks before Sandy had formed carried large amounts of mineral dust into the troposphere, filling the tropical wave that became Sandy …”
So the storm was fortuitously aptly named.