Hurricane frequency and intensity at record low, despite Al Gore

Hey Tim - you're mixing up weather and climate again.

BTW - apparently the reason for low hurricane activity this year in the Atlantic is because of an influx of dry air into the region where hurricanes form from Africa and the upper atmosphere.

Pretty lucky, actually, considering that Atlantic ocean temps are currently the 3rd warmest on record.

Source: Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog : TD 8 forms; 97L a potential threat to the Caribbean and U.S. : Weather Underground

 

As though hurricanes were the only aspect of global warming... A lack of Atlantic hurricanes will not stop sea level rise, and it may hasten the US Midwest drying up and blowing away. But thanks for sharing.

 

Five years? I'll ditto Drees.

Second, why not take like 2 minutes and see what the predictions actually were?

Here's my recollection.

There's a fairly strong prediction of higher intensity of storms, because there is a well-established association between water temperature and hurricane intensity. All of that makes sense because the warmer water embodies more energy, and so on.

In terms of frequency, it's much more complex. For example, when El Nino warms the pacific, it also sets up wind currents that tend to sheer off the tops of storms in the tropical Atlantic before they can get organized. That actually suppresses hurricane frequency on our side of the globe. Effects like that make it unclear what will happen to the number of storms.

So why don't I take the two minutes to look it up. Google IPCC, click on publications, look at the 4th AR, and see what they say.

Start with the synthesis for policy makers. If there is an important finding or prediction, it will be in there.

In the section labeled "Some aspects of climate have not been observed to change" (emphasis mine):

"There is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones. {WGI 3.2, 3.8, 4.4, 5.3, SPM}"

That can be found here: AR4 SYR Synthesis Report - 1.4 Some aspects of climate have not been observed to change

To find the detail, look in the physical sciences section. In their section on projections for tropical cyclones:
Tropical Cyclones (Hurricanes and Typhoons) - AR4 WGI Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections

Again, emphasis mine.

"Results from embedded high-resolution models and global models, ranging in grid spacing from 100 km to 9 km, project a likely increase of peak wind intensities and notably, where analysed, increased near-storm precipitation in future tropical cyclones. Most recent published modelling studies investigating tropical storm frequency simulate a decrease in the overall number of storms, though there is less confidence in these projections and in the projected decrease of relatively weak storms in most basins, with an increase in the numbers of the most intense tropical cyclones. "

The upshot is pretty simple. If you want to know what mainstream science says, it says: 1) They haven't observed a (statistically significant) increase in number of tropical cyclones, and 2) they don't really expect to, if anything, they expect to see a decline, and 3) they do expect to see storm intensity increase.

Addendum: Golly, even Wikipedia has a pretty nice summary of the relationship between global warming and tropical cyclones. Anybody can read about it there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone#Global_warming

"A statement by the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Meteorological_Society"]American Meteorological Society[/ame] on 1 February 2007 stated that trends in tropical cyclone records offer "evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal" in [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclogenesis"]tropical cyclogenesis[/ame].[152]" They also note that research suggests that intensity is increasing. Not sure I'd believe that without seeing the statistics.

 

am I missing something.. did Al Gore say it is gonna increase?

 

TimB, I also directed PC's attention to this publication, although it was on a 'shopping list' and not singled out. The abstract attributes the multi-decadal patterns to PDO and ENSO cycles, but I've not read it further.

If you've been following publications on this topic, you know that they have come to 'a wide range of conclusions', and this is yet another one. Those who fear that scientific censorship is selecting publications that favor a particular conclusion should take some comfort from this topic area.

Likely that the AGU meeting in San Francisco will have a session devoted to this topic, and that it could get exciting. Ah well, I'll probably be in a boring terrestrial carbon session instead.

 

I'll predict that cyclonic activity will increased once the oceans regain all the energy expended during the last high. I figure it's a pretty safe bet.

 

Is this a dumb thread or what?

 

"Climate Change" does not imply all changes will be for the worst, only that changes will happen.

We have been changing the climate since we invented agriculture, perhaps since we tamed fire. (If only we had invented meteorology and writing first, we would know how much. With a data record dating to the invention of agriculture, even I would trust the trend line)

 

I do not hold either of the two most prevalent views about Climate Change, so I feel safe pointing out this bit of insanity. If you want to 'win' this debate, you need to work against your side.

If you believe that man made changes are altering the climate, the only way to 'win' in this debate is to let the inevitable happen. If we really make changes to reduce CO2, the deniers will claim it was all a sham as the predictions did not come true.

If you really believe that no changes man makes to the world will have any effects, and you do not want to lose that argument, then you better be working to eliminate negative changes so you don't have to admit you were wrong.

Me? I would rather be 'wrong' in a balanced world than right. A lot of population growth has to be reversed for that, I am hoping not to involve the four horsemen in that adjustment, but I do not expect that.

 

this is probably linked with the glaciers in western Antarctica. Come to think when ice slides into ocean level rises instantaneously, then it will stay the same whether it melts or not.

Iceberg B-15 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Iceberg C-19 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Iceberg D-16 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

so where does he say that the frequency of hurricanes shall increase? in quote below?

 

Man-made reservoirs are responsible for at least some of this.

Of course, ground water depletion has the opposite effect.

Which is greater?

 

In what is to be the aftermath of Irene, the feds should only give support to those that believe climate change has anything to do with a giant hurricane that far north.

BBC News - Hurricane Irene: Obama warns of 'historic' storm

 

^^^ Why?

Did these storms not exist prior to AGW / GCC?

 

If I get any damage from Irene, I'm going to hold the deniers on this board personally responsible.

 

Yes the new alarmist null hypothesis. If anything bad happens the people posting a different opinion than you on the internet caused it. All bad climate variation must have a cause. Any difference that deviates in a different way than hypothesized must either be variation if good, or really caused by greenhouse gasses if bad.

btw: we locally have some of this feedback from two idiot camps. Austin has set the record for most days 100 degrees C or over, previously set in 1925. Now some claim this is proof of warming, but really global temperatures have only warmed 0.75 degrees and most of this is not at my latitude, and this year is much much hotter locally. Something else is also going on, but warming doesn't help.

On the other hand we are in severe drought, although not the worst in our history. There was a trickle of rain yesterday that kept the temperature less than 100 for the first time since june. The sea surface temperatures may have something to do with this percipitation shift, and cause more year to year variability (warming may be responsible, more data is needed). But what has the Governor done? He is on the campaign trail being skeptical of warming, but has been calling on the people of Texas to pray for rain. I think there is something really wrong with his belief that prayer will end the drought. Though IDK, maybe god is punishing Texans for electing perry.