2013 Lack of Hurricanes

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/hurricane-marco-rubio-a-winning-climate-campaign/

 

Seasonal hurricane predictions were first made by William Gray in 1984 (approx). Now, many groups including Natl Hurricane Center do similar. AFAIK, most are based on a very similar group of factors, so not suprisingly, they intercorrelate well during the same year.

Broadly speaking, those predictions are accurate more than half of the time, although not close to 80/90%. They are certainly useful to indicate how well the causal factors are understood, which is 'incompletely'. They are probably useful for planning for a hurricane season. However, the path/threat of a particular storm is something one can know generally about 10 days in advance and specifically, about 3 days.

They are interesting topics for discussion, more or less in the same way that professional sports teams' prospects for an upcoming season get discussed. People like to discuss things that contain an element of uncertainty

Finally, when a prediction goes poorly (as has everyone's for the 2013 North Atlantic), they might be 'repurposed' as indications that climate and climate change are poorly understood. I suppose it's a temptation for someone with an agenda.

 

I'm not sure why this two week old article was brought up after it was obsoleted by Hurricanes Humberto and Ingrid, the later of which combined with Hurricane Manuel to devastate Acapulco.

And why just the U.S.-centric viewpoint, even East-Coast-centric viewpoint? The Eastern Pacific this season has had Hurricanes Barbara, Cosme, Dalila, Erick, Gil, Henriette, and Manuel. The other side of the Pacific has had Typhoons Soulik and Utor. And right now, Super Typhoon Usagi (equivalent to Cat 5 on our hurricane scale) is bearing towards Honk Kong or the nearby coast.

 

Hi Fuzzy (may I call you fussy? ) Usagi is big to me now. Mostly because I have not succeeded in getting the 'front people' on the CH coast to measure their current downed wood, for comparison to the next big blow.

Usagi won't do anything to me, it is only now sucking up clouds so that I see blue sky instead of the typical monsoonal cloud cover.

In the NW Pacific, Usagi is the biggest storm of the season so far. Seasonal forecasts were average, we have had average, and this one won't much alter that. In two months (end of season) NW Pacific might end up + or - vs. predictions.

The NE Pacific (like Acapulco) looks pretty frisky but I don't have data on whether it is + or - vs. predictions. Is that something we want to talk about? I do not know, mojo has not yet returned to define his thread. Were it mine, I'd want to talk about why some years predictions match observations, and other years they don't.

To instead proclaim that this year's predictions are a bust (well, they are) and to murmur that it means climate modeling can teach us nothing?

Awfully glad that I am not murmuring thusly. Maybe mojo is not either. So just tell us please, the purpose of the top post.

 

"Sound and fury, signifying nothing." - Shakespeare, Macbeth.

We've had impressive flooding in Colorado (refreshing an aquafer?) but I also remember the Mississippi flooding in more recent decades. I'm fairly calm about flooding but living an area subject to tornadoes, more interested in high speed wind events like tornadoes and hurricanes. But ice and sea levels, these are the handmaidens of climate change.

Land locked glacier declines have been known for decades. Arctic, Greenland, and Antarctic changes are also well documented from the growing world of satellite data and automated, remote weather stations. So I'm fairly sanguine about what is going on.

Bob Wilson

 

Have the denialists forgotten that global warming is predicted to lead to a *decrease* in hurricane frequency, according to their favorite (at least in the past) scientist Richard Lindzen ?

Bob Wilson has it right -- the overall picture is entirely consistent with climate change from global warming. I'll add that only flat earthers and the hopelessly scientific illiterate cannot grasp the CO2 connection.

By the way, artic ice has reached it's nadir for the year. Summary from NASA:

• 6th lowest on record
• Following overall trend downward
• Average ice thickness 50% decreased from a few decades ago
• Predicted absence of sea ice at nadir before the end of the century

So, denialists, what fantasy is up next ? Sun spots or cosmic rays ?

 

Agreed with that, just because we had a year not topping high average temperature doesn't mean we can dismiss the last 14 years of record heat.

I always look at why we should act for a cleaner world this way; what's wrong with living in a cleaner, less oil dependent world? We only need to look at China and some of their worst polluting cities for motivation. Their government couldn't give a rat's about the environment in the last 30 years of industrialisation and as a consequence, the people have to now live with extreme level of pollution.

Should they have some considerations for the environment, the China today could be a much different place. Your thoughts?

Galaxy Nexus ? 2

 

Trenberth, Gore, and Hansen, are still sticking to their guns that the IPCC like the pope is infailable, and that even though Trenberth used only grey liturature (insurance losses non peer reviewed) to claim in his IPCC chapter that major hurricane frequency would be going up, well it just hasn't happened. Why the US centric, its because that is where these men make their claims about things like katrina being caused by global warming.

The facts are all the scientific peer reviewed literature finds no links, these guys take some things that are likely natural variation and claim it must be warming. It is likely the IPCC will reverse its position as rivkin reported, and remove tTrenberth's claim more heat must mean more major huricanes, to more heat likely fewer major huricanes.

So why no major huricanes have hit land fall in the US since 2005, a long draught? Is it ghg reduce huricanes or is it natural variation. Remember Sandy was not a huricane let alone a class 3+ when it caused the damage, and super storms like sandy may be less likely in the future. A huricane did hit the same area in 1938.
No Major U.S. Hurricane Has Hit Since 2005. Why?

 

Not just China but add to that list, Alabama, and a host of States where due to accident of climate and economics, pollutants were tolerated until Federal legislation led to changes. But now we can also see a generational effect.

I was 20 years old when the EPA was created December 2, 1970 and while living, still have strong memories of that time. Without a 'fresh air' sanctuary, Los Angeles air was worse than a Marine gas chamber 80 miles South when my eyes teared up to blindness while driving. Our equivalent to the Chinese developers are those born fifteen years after the EPA was created: who have no memory of a Pittsburgh surrounded by denuded hills; urban air too toxic to breath, and; rivers little more than sewers.

Those denying climate change use similar tactics and arguments of pollution deniers and tobacco supporters. So common to Roy Spencer's claims are questionable claims of the 'economic impact':

Source: Climate Scientists Debunk Latest Bunk by Denier Roy Spencer | ThinkProgress

The term I use is "reality training" and several billion Chinese are getting an object lesson in pollution effects. There are scattered reports of local Chinese opposing some projects because of their locally bad pollution would get worse. But these are scattered reports not yet reflected in Chinese government policy in the USA press.

Bob Wilson

 

Breathe, AG.

IPCC4 estimated the likelihood of increased hurricane frequency as 'more probable than not.' Hardly a prediction to base a reputation on.

 

I think about half the modeling studies conclude that hurricane power will increase, the other half do not. AG@10 suggests none of them do. That ought to be pretty easy to resolve.

Which conclusion is the more accurate? A tougher question. All current seasonal hurricane forecasts are , um, less than fully predictive. These suggests the underlying mechanisms are not well understood.

 

To be clear, I posted on frequency, not increase in power. The latest I read on realclimate.org is that confidence in the prediction that hurricanes will strengthen overall is increasing, but still pretty unsure (IIRC in the 60-70% range.) The increased prediction is based on studies that were published too late to make it into the upcoming IPCC report.

 

There seems to be a really strong effect of ENSO on N Atlantic wind shear. It's in all the seasonal forecast models. Meanwhile, no climate models make skillful ENSO forecasts. Until that situation improves, I don't expect useful decadal scale hurricane predictions.

However the coastal storm-surge effects of any hurricane that does show up are really non-linear. This is where sea-level rises of much less than a meter can really mess things up. Plus 30 cm in this century is the lowest projection. That's enough to matter.

 

^^ Yup.

The Denialists and Ostriches are obsessed with hurricane frequency because it might be one little aspect of the weather that is not worsened by AGW, all the while blind to the floods and droughts, emerging diseases etc.

 

I suspect that it is also because a significant portion of the public, the news media, and even some of the 'warmist' activists (more political than technical), do believe that AGW is supposed to increase hurricane frequency. That mis-belief gives the 'denialists' something easier to knock down.

 

What? What?

We're supposed to let the denialists not only throw up misleading claims but they really expect everyone to conform to their 'opinions' about how we think and approach problems? Talk about hubris . . . LOL!

Bob Wilson

 

Please don't put words in my mouth. In the conflict between Chris Landsea and Keneth Trenberth all the evidence is you believe in scientific method is on Landsea's side.

Basic Issues
Trenberth claims that grey ligature is acceptable, and that scientific method, testing against the null hypothesis (in this case huricane frequency is not significantly higher because of global warming) does not need to be applied.

An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea (Resignation Letter)

In this IPCC chairman pachauri supported trenberth, even though he had no credentials with huricanes. Hansen supported trenberths conclusions and has written at length on how scientists should not wait for data to jump to conclusions. We know that Gore loves to speak about Hansen and Trenberths connection between global warming and increased frequency of major huricanes, which are not supported by the data.

So there you have it, Landsea's research, and that is the peer reviewed stuff says that hotter temperatures will cause small increases in huricane strength but these can be caluclated, and that there is not evidence frequency should go up, in fact there is theory that warmer temperatures should reduce the chance of cat 3 and higher hurricanes. This is supported by the data.

It is quite likely the IPCC given the overwelming evidence against their previous conclusion will change the next assesment. Unfortunately there are some that think any criticism of anything Hansen or Trenberth says means you must be labeled a denier.

It is here that we get this video

claiming that if you do not have absolute faith that a huricane is caused by global warming, it will get named for you. What a bunch of absolute nonsense.

 

Sea level and ice . . . hard to deny what is going on. As commercial shipping through Actic waters grows from zero to larger numbers, global warming becomes more stressed to find some other distraction.

Bob Wilson

 

Who says that, other than bombastic you ?

AGW is highly politicized, and personally I think it is brilliant PR to ridicule high profile denialists by attaching their names to catastrophic weather events.