2013 Lack of Hurricanes

And how does this have anything to do with the false huricane discussions. Again from the resignation letter. You can't change the subject and excuse the denial of science by Tenberth and this organization organizing name the huricane.

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

Can you lie about the scientific consenses, then keep claiming the lies?

 

I think the scientific method will survive as I'm thinking of Einstein's mistake. The method isn't perfect, only faith claims perfection and that makes God double over laugh his nice person off. So if someone makes a claim that later is shown to have no significant effect, I don't really care. It is replication by independent observers that provides the current proof subject to new observations.

Increases in severe weather is reasonable as the earth warms. More water vapor provides the energy. But I'm Ok with wider Monsoon patterns and perhaps mega-typhoons like the one headed to China.

Bob Wilson

 

^^ Blah, blah blah from AG.
Tempest in a teapot and some toe steppings on, if you gain a little perspective and realize that Dr. Landsea accepts the reality of AGW no less than Dr. Trenberth.

Why don't you go and make yourself useful by chatting with the denialists who claim AGW is a 'hoax.'

 

Perhaps you don't realize I don't use personalities as my 'touch stone' of truth. Rather I use their claims to seek independent observations, ways to assay their claims. Along the way, I'm sensitive to 'tells' that suggests something other than facts and data drives their claims.

Bob Wilson

 

Again.

Trenberth threw out the scientific method. He changed the null hypothesis, and ignored peer reviewed papers. He even wrote a paper claiming we need to pretend its manmade if we can not prove completely it is not.

All you are hearing is the sound of hand waving when people tell you this crap. Now we don't have enough evidence to prove a negative, but when your prediction is more class 3+ in north america, and we are in the longest period in recorded history of no major huricanes you have to question those that want to throw away the scientific method, and claim frequency is going up.

When data contradicts the hypothesis you need to change the hypothesis. Claiming hotter weather more huricanes is against the data. We can not prove that it is wrong, but there is no evidence that it is right, and a great amount of evidence that it is wrong.

 

Will they change the name again, oh wait, they already have . . .

First it was "Anthropogenic Global Warming," but it wasn't warming, so they renamed it to "Climate Change" because, , , well, , , that was just a stupid name. Then came "Climate Disruption" i.e. increasing worse weather due to warming, but it wasn't getting worse, so now it's "Carbon Pollution" according to the White House.

EDITORIAL: Wearing out words - Washington Times

 

Treb, as you seem to think these descriptors are more important than the underlying issue, you should tell us which political focus group asked to say climate change instead of AGW.

If you haven't the time, that's OK as well, because it is well documented and findable. But I'd rather hear it from you.

 

You're assuming facts not in evidence which is part and parcel of the AGW game, don't play it. I believe the term "Climate Change" just like the phenomena itself, has been used and misused many times before. In fact the term "Climate Change" has been in use for longer than the term "Global Warming" or "Anthropogenic Global Warming." The switch to AGW most likely occurred because "climate change" just didn't have the punch or dramatic effect needed for politicians and "climate experts" to use as a cudgel to extort hundreds of billions from gullible sheeple. The switch back came about for other reasons one of which I'm sure is to keep the sheeple ignorant of the gigantic ripoff and fraud which is AGW. What is important is that hundreds of billions have been wasted over human caused global warming. It is'nt, hasn't and won't by human means, other means are completely possible, but they aren't really spending the hundreds of billions preparing for that now are they?

 

What you've chosen not to say is Frank Luntz climate memo. So I say it, to save our readers here a few moments of internet searching.

And there's the hundreds of billions again, which deserves to be opened up. (a) what fraction of that is for satellites, anybody know? I'm going to keeping thinking that it is 'most' until we get some numbers on that (b) is having a bunch of look-down satellites a good thing? I'm going to keep thinking that it is, because they serve many other purposes than illuminating climate discussions.

Treb has provided an interesting discussion @28. Starts with facts not in evidence, passes through cudgel, and ends up at 100s billions. It is almost as if he doesn't realize he is doing that which he accuses me of doing.

+++

Chris Landsea got brought in above, so I'll mention that he along with Bill Gray originated seasonal hurricane forecasting. Again, because ENSO is so important for those, and because ENSO remains unforecastable, I don't think hurricane patterns are forecastable on decadal scales. Not yet.

It is only fair to also say that the people who publish sudies predicting hurricanes over decades (about half saying 'more' and half saying 'same') would not agree with me. So, you'd probably be better off reading what they've done.

+++

Typhoon (taifeng) Usagi pasted the coastal areas pretty well. But from my perch far inland, Last month's Utor was a bigger deal. Quite a bit more inland rain. The Luosuo river got as high as any locals could remember (that is how hydrology is done in countries where river-flow data are state secrets ).

 

We don't have good historical data on smaller hurricanes, but we seem to on cat 3 or above making landfall. We have some predicting higher frequency in the future based on the 2004 US hurricane season. We have some saying that it will not vary much from natural variation, and lets add a third choice which must be a statistically significantly less than natural variation.

U.S. Hurricane Strikes by Decade
We can look at the data and see 1941-1950 had 10 major huricanes, this was the highest decade in US recorded history. We are in a record draught of no major hurricanes since october 2005, the longest period in recorded history.

Those predicting higher frequency of huricanes need to either change the model or explain the data. There has been great property loss in the US due to storms, but these have not been major hurricanes making landfall. Based on the data, I would be highly skeptical of blaming global warming on the next major hurricane to hit the US, but I am sure there will be some in the press and politics that do just that.

 

(1) I'm the one (not tochatihu) who posted about it being a Super Typhoon. But I didn't add the AGW label, you did.
(2) The seasonal predictions I looked at were not limited to landfalls, but included open ocean.
(3) This chart does show it making landfall as a typhoon before falling to a tropical storm. News stories I found indicated it made landfall on China Sunday evening as a typhoon. It wasn't downgraded to a tropical until Monday.
(4) The same chart does show that it spent some time as a SUPER TYPHOON. And the Wikipedia article on Usagi indicates that it was a super typhoon from Sept 19 to Sept 21, matching the time frame I made that post.

 

Anyone interested in how typhoons become 'super' (or vice versa) ought to look at the AOML tropical cyclone heat potential maps. Globally, updated daily, and they are the bee's knees. Makes it almost look worthwhile to spend 90 billions on remotely sensing the Earth system

Usagi went super when it was over hot water E of Phillipines. The south China Sea was just not warm enough to feed the beast. That water having been cooled by Utor the previous month. So, Usagi only killed about 30, 1000 fishing boats lost, 3 million displaced from homes and 6 millions affected. That is what I referred to earlier as a pretty good pasting.

I'd have to check news archives to compare the coastal effects of Utor. But what I saw (inland) days ahead, was blue blue skies. People were asking 'where'd all the clouds go?' "Utor took them". a few days later, rain arrived. Lots of rain.

Youse guys ever meet a leech? Gawd they are messy eaters, and they love it when tropical rain forests are rainy.

 

Try to learn to separate common media reports from the better informed discussions. This applies to many many things reported in various popular media (e.g. 12 gauge pump shotguns reported as 'assault weapons'), not just AGW.

Note also that neither side of the AGW dispute is monolithic. (Note also various groups somewhere in between the extremes.) Each is made of different factions, some having much different credibility than others. I don't look for credibility among leading politicians, and try not to hold the exaggerations and distortions of one group against the others nominally on the same side.

Back when I was following AGW only in the popular press, I was a serious skeptic too. But after bypassing that and going to better sources, some real meat became visible. It continues to be buried under lots of junk, but I can still find it.

You may find meat in different places than I. But don't hold the sins of certain individuals against everyone of the same approximate color.

 

We are now in an ENSO-neutral condition. 2013 N Atl hurricanes are below (Gray-and-Landsea-type) predictions, Pacific- and Indian-ocean predictions have been about right. With respect to the first, the predictions have failed for 2013. OK, got it? FAILED FOR 2013!

Let us breeze past the matter that both Gray and Landea got off the global warming bus years ago. Let us do so becaue everyone else who is still on the bus, including NOAA, made similar 2013 predictions. OK, got it? EVERYONE FAILED FOR N ATL 2013!

I haven't claimed that climate change will promptly increase hurricanes in any ocean basin. I have suggested that long-term changes in ocean states may obviate any such claims. OK, got it? If not, just read again.

We have, at best, N Atl records since 1850, and shorter for the other basins. Those records might be long enough, if no long sea-state patterns had influence on hurricanes. But they obviously do. As such, I doubt any decadal predictions of future hurricanes in any basin. OK, got it?

Both Mojo and AustinG have said that 2013 is historically low in N Atl. So has everyone else on Earth with an interest. We got it, OK? But we want to understand that, to understand how that relates to the future.

To effectively predict N Atl hurricanes , we need good ENSO predictions. I think that is a show stopper, but maybe it can be fixed. ENSO appears to figure in at the wind-shear stage, see below.

HOW TO MAKE A US-LANDFALLING HURRICANE:

(1) Get an energetic low-pressure system to exit N Africa; it will rotate CCW on its own
(2) Put it over adequately warm water around the Cape Verde Islands, and west of them
(3) Prevent upper-atmosphere wind shear from ripping the top off during the next steps (ENSO rips)
(4) Let it follow prevailing low-level winds westward
(5) Let it not recurve eastward at higher latitudes, where the winds typically go eastward

That's all you need; 1 through 5. So far in 2013 it has not happened to the US. Does this not happening in some way indicate that the Earth has not accumalated energy since 1980 (the satellite record) and arguably before? Based on your deep knowledge of the earth climate system? If NIPPC has informed you please cite chapter and verse.

BTW The Manchurian Candidate is a great movie. We should have a 'Pancakes' thread about brainwashing movies.

 

We visited historic Jamestown this past weekend. The settlers arrived in ~1607 during Year#2 of the worst 6-year drought in Virginia history. Many settlers died due to lack of fresh water. I couldn't help but think if the same drought happened today, it would taken as unequivocal proof of man-made climate change.

 

The larger matter is not a single year, we are in the longest period in US history by a larger margin, almost 8 years without a major huricane (cat 3+).

We need to clearly define how you measure frequency of huricanes, but there is strong evidence that the frequency of major huricanes making landfall in the US is not going up with ghg.

I posted landsea from NOAA. He never put anything against AGW in his papers. What he researched AGW causing increased huricanes or increased strength. He seems to have many peer reviewed papers. Trenberth and pachuri have none. I guess they have that global warming minister tradition though. If IPCC does not change its previous findings based entirely on grey research and conjecture, based on current research, then they will have shown they are not to be trusted.

Climate change should not be a religion. We should look at the data. If the data doesn't support the theory, then that theory needs to change. The theory that hotter means more huricanes is directly contradicted by the facts that huricanes do not peak in the summer. That means you need a more complex theory supported by data if you are going to blaim something like katrina or sandy on ghg, or pretend a cap and trade bill funneling money to big utilities is going to stop future huricanes or super-storms from happening.