Global hurricane activity reaches new lows...

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Global and Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity [still] lowest in 30-years

Tropical cyclone (TC) activity worldwide has completely and utterly collapsed during the past 2 to 3 years with TC energy levels sinking to levels not seen since the late 1970s. This should not be a surprise to scientists since the natural variability in climate dominates any detectable or perceived global warming impact when it comes to measuring yearly integrated tropical cyclone activity. With the continuation (persistence) of colder Pacific tropical sea-surface temperatures associated with the effects of La Nina, the upcoming 2009 Atlantic hurricane season should be above average, as we saw in 2008. Nevertheless, since the Atlantic only makes up 10-15% of overall global TC activity each year (climatological average during the past 30 years), continued Northern Hemispheric and global TC inactivity as a whole likely will continue...

Bottom Line

Under global warming scenarios, hurricane intensity is expected to increase (on the order of a few percent), but MANY questions remain as to how much, where, and when. This science is very far from settled. Indeed, Al Gore has dropped the related slide in his PowerPoint (btw, is he addicted to the Teleprompter as well?) Many papers have suggested that these changes are already occurring especially in the strongest of hurricanes, e.g. this and that and here, due to warming sea-surface temperatures (the methodology and data issues with each of these papers has been discussed here at CA, and will be even more in the coming months). The notion that the overall global hurricane energy or ACE has collapsed does not contradict the above papers but provides an additional, perhaps less publicized piece of the puzzle. Indeed, the very strong interannual variability of global hurricane ACE (energy) highly correlated to ENSO, suggests that the role of tropical cyclones in climate is modulated very strongly by the big movers and shakers in large-scale, global climate. The perceptible (and perhaps measurable) impact of global warming on hurricanes in today's climate is arguably a pittance compared to the reorganization and modulation of hurricane formation locations and preferred tracks/intensification corridors dominated by ENSO (and other natural climate factors). Moreover, our understanding of the complicated role of hurricanes with and role in climate is nebulous to be charitable. We must increase our understanding of the current climate's hurricane activity.

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

steven, the ball is in your court.

[Pooky 3,781]

Global and Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity [still] lowest in 30-years

Tropical cyclone (TC) activity worldwide has completely and utterly collapsed during the past 2 to 3 years with TC energy levels sinking to levels not seen since the late 1970s. This should not be a surprise to scientists since the natural variability in climate dominates any detectable or perceived global warming impact when it comes to measuring yearly integrated tropical cyclone activity. With the continuation (persistence) of colder Pacific tropical sea-surface temperatures associated with the effects of La Nina, the upcoming 2009 Atlantic hurricane season should be above average, as we saw in 2008. Nevertheless, since the Atlantic only makes up 10-15% of overall global TC activity each year (climatological average during the past 30 years), continued Northern Hemispheric and global TC inactivity as a whole likely will continue...

Bottom Line

Under global warming scenarios, hurricane intensity is expected to increase (on the order of a few percent), but MANY questions remain as to how much, where, and when. This science is very far from settled. Indeed, Al Gore has dropped the related slide in his PowerPoint (btw, is he addicted to the Teleprompter as well?) Many papers have suggested that these changes are already occurring especially in the strongest of hurricanes, e.g. this and that and here, due to warming sea-surface temperatures (the methodology and data issues with each of these papers has been discussed here at CA, and will be even more in the coming months). The notion that the overall global hurricane energy or ACE has collapsed does not contradict the above papers but provides an additional, perhaps less publicized piece of the puzzle. Indeed, the very strong interannual variability of global hurricane ACE (energy) highly correlated to ENSO, suggests that the role of tropical cyclones in climate is modulated very strongly by the big movers and shakers in large-scale, global climate. The perceptible (and perhaps measurable) impact of global warming on hurricanes in today's climate is arguably a pittance compared to the reorganization and modulation of hurricane formation locations and preferred tracks/intensification corridors dominated by ENSO (and other natural climate factors). Moreover, our understanding of the complicated role of hurricanes with and role in climate is nebulous to be charitable. We must increase our understanding of the current climate's hurricane activity.

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

I would comment, but I need the article translated into English first, from its original scientific gibberish.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

more hurricanes - proof of global warming

fewer hurricanes - proof of global warming

rising temp. - proof of global warming

falling temp. - proof of global warming

any questions?

[fozzie 41]

Global and Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity [still] lowest in 30-years

Tropical cyclone (TC) activity worldwide has completely and utterly collapsed during the past 2 to 3 years with TC energy levels sinking to levels not seen since the late 1970s. This should not be a surprise to scientists since the natural variability in climate dominates any detectable or perceived global warming impact when it comes to measuring yearly integrated tropical cyclone activity. With the continuation (persistence) of colder Pacific tropical sea-surface temperatures associated with the effects of La Nina, the upcoming 2009 Atlantic hurricane season should be above average, as we saw in 2008. Nevertheless, since the Atlantic only makes up 10-15% of overall global TC activity each year (climatological average during the past 30 years), continued Northern Hemispheric and global TC inactivity as a whole likely will continue...

Bottom Line

Under global warming scenarios, hurricane intensity is expected to increase (on the order of a few percent), but MANY questions remain as to how much, where, and when. This science is very far from settled. Indeed, Al Gore has dropped the related slide in his PowerPoint (btw, is he addicted to the Teleprompter as well?) Many papers have suggested that these changes are already occurring especially in the strongest of hurricanes, e.g. this and that and here, due to warming sea-surface temperatures (the methodology and data issues with each of these papers has been discussed here at CA, and will be even more in the coming months). The notion that the overall global hurricane energy or ACE has collapsed does not contradict the above papers but provides an additional, perhaps less publicized piece of the puzzle. Indeed, the very strong interannual variability of global hurricane ACE (energy) highly correlated to ENSO, suggests that the role of tropical cyclones in climate is modulated very strongly by the big movers and shakers in large-scale, global climate. The perceptible (and perhaps measurable) impact of global warming on hurricanes in today's climate is arguably a pittance compared to the reorganization and modulation of hurricane formation locations and preferred tracks/intensification corridors dominated by ENSO (and other natural climate factors). Moreover, our understanding of the complicated role of hurricanes with and role in climate is nebulous to be charitable. We must increase our understanding of the current climate's hurricane activity.

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

Even if you don't buy into "Global Warming" can't you accept that oil is not the future? If oil and other fossil fuels are not the future and oil finances the war on terror, should we not be looking for alternative fuels anyway?

Why do people not see the bigger picture? Why do people see a conspiracy everywhere they turn?

[NickD 202]

I feel with the likes of Gore and Bush, both nasty four letter words, that what was really proved, is that guys with the best line of BS and can look serious, can reach very high positions in this country. This is perhaps the area that should really be of major concern to the American public.

But getting back to hurricanes, the topic of this thread, and experiencing two such hurricanes myself, hurricanes are nothing more than wind. The effects of this wind can be devastating especially if you live near a large body of water, but it's not the water, but rather than the effect these high winds have on that water that is devastating. So wind is the key culprit.

Now what causes this wind? Is it only extremely tiny molecules measured in just parts per million that consist of two carbon atoms loosely attached to an single oxygen atom? Such a molecule has physical dimensions that correspond with a very narrow spectrum of UV radiation, that causes this molecule to resonate creating friction that produces heat. Is there a sufficient quantity of these molecules to create enough heat to produce hurricane winds? And what about that very narrow spectrum of UV radiation, does that have sufficient strength? And what is that source of UV radiation? From distant stars, or perhaps even our own sun that we cannot survive without, that is our life source. Well apparently Gore thinks so.

I prefer to think the major cause is other aspects of our sun, for one thing, is does not complete the nuclear fusion process at a linear rate. So called sunspot activity generate huge amounts of instantaneous energy that equal millions of times the energy of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan during WW II. Is it possible that when this energy hits the earth with a sudden burst of heat, that the air in the atmosphere will rise creating a low pressure area causing very strong air currents to fill that void? Not according to Gore, it's that minute ppm carbon dioxide atom that is only resonant to a specific UV frequency that is causing it.

If Gore wants to be accurate, he would have to control sunspot activity, but sunspot activity does not sell hybrid cars, yet another bad joke that is used to only recover a very small amount of braking energy used to stop our vehicles where the real main culprit here is stop signs and traffic signals that are always red.

The only way Gore can do this, is to be placed on the surface of the sun, and I suggest, this is exactly what we do.

[HAL 9000 96]

My family has lived in the tropics for generations and I trust their accounts of more frequent tropical storms, depressions, waves, and yes... hurricanes... over the past century-

and

It is no secret hurricanes flourish in warmer surface waters. Hurricanes are what? A weather phenomenon. A symptom of immediate climate. So all of you with anti-anthopomorphic hardons, perhaps you should read the link a little more carefully:

During the past 2 years +, the Earth's climate has cooled under the effects of a dramatic La Nina episode...

Conversely, due to well-researched upper-atmospheric flow (e.g. vertical shear) configurations favorable to Atlantic hurricane development and intensification, La Nina falls tend to favor very active seasons in the Atlantic (word of warning for 2009). This offsetting relationship, high in the Atlantic and low in the Pacific, is a topic of discussion in my GRL paper, which will be a separate topic in a future posting.

This is again a case of the usual suspects reading very, very selectively and ignoring key differences between climate science and weather observations filtered using approximation equations that do not account for complete data sets.

[tmma 467]

I feel with the likes of Gore and Bush, both nasty four letter words, that what was really proved, is that guys with the best line of BS and can look serious, can reach very high positions in this country. This is perhaps the area that should really be of major concern to the American public.

But getting back to hurricanes, the topic of this thread, and experiencing two such hurricanes myself, hurricanes are nothing more than wind. The effects of this wind can be devastating especially if you live near a large body of water, but it's not the water, but rather than the effect these high winds have on that water that is devastating. So wind is the key culprit.

Now what causes this wind? Is it only extremely tiny molecules measured in just parts per million that consist of two carbon atoms loosely attached to an single oxygen atom? Such a molecule has physical dimensions that correspond with a very narrow spectrum of UV radiation, that causes this molecule to resonate creating friction that produces heat. Is there a sufficient quantity of these molecules to create enough heat to produce hurricane winds? And what about that very narrow spectrum of UV radiation, does that have sufficient strength? And what is that source of UV radiation? From distant stars, or perhaps even our own sun that we cannot survive without, that is our life source. Well apparently Gore thinks so.

I prefer to think the major cause is other aspects of our sun, for one thing, is does not complete the nuclear fusion process at a linear rate. So called sunspot activity generate huge amounts of instantaneous energy that equal millions of times the energy of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan during WW II. Is it possible that when this energy hits the earth with a sudden burst of heat, that the air in the atmosphere will rise creating a low pressure area causing very strong air currents to fill that void? Not according to Gore, it's that minute ppm carbon dioxide atom that is only resonant to a specific UV frequency that is causing it.

If Gore wants to be accurate, he would have to control sunspot activity, but sunspot activity does not sell hybrid cars, yet another bad joke that is used to only recover a very small amount of braking energy used to stop our vehicles where the real main culprit here is stop signs and traffic signals that are always red.

The only way Gore can do this, is to be placed on the surface of the sun, and I suggest, this is exactly what we do.

NickD-is this copied and pasted or your own writing?...if c/p , as a meteorologist with a specialty in thermodynamics-I would love to see where this is from.

[NickD 202]

Like anyone else, just my opinion from what I read on this subject and all freely written as fast as I can type, generally about 60 WPM.

In regards to the science of meteorology, five days ago, all the forecasts for this weekend were in the 30's, we hit 50*F yesterday, is meteorology really a science?

[HAL 9000 96]

As a scientist I'd just like to know what C2O (dicarbon oxide) is in relation to the atmosphere.

As for the loose atomic attachments... oh well...

[NickD 202]

As a scientist I'd just like to know what C2O (dicarbon oxide) is in relation to the atmosphere.

As for the loose atomic attachments... oh well...

Ha, fingers faster than the brain, LOL, feel like an #### on this one, Yeah CO2, thank you for the correction, my face is redder than the setting sun now.

[tmma 467]

Like anyone else, just my opinion from what I read on this subject and all freely written as fast as I can type, generally about 60 WPM.

In regards to the science of meteorology, five days ago, all the forecasts for this weekend were in the 30's, we hit 50*F yesterday, is meteorology really a science?

Yes, meteorology is a science encompassing hydrodynamics, thermodynamics, physics, mathematics, chemistry...yadda yadda, with still much unknown about the evolving and ever changing atmosphere. That's why I love it. There is so much UNKNOWN right here on our own planet.

I can talk about it until someone starts to decay where they sit.

As for the accuracy of forecasts. I cannot and won't 'defend' inaccuracies in your local surface forecasts[ my speciality is more the dynamics of the atmosphere on a macroscale and point weather at altitude] , I will only say that the forecasts you get are NOT specific to YOUR exact location, but more generalized where conditions can vary widely based on numerous local factors.

You are a fast typer!

Yeh-HAL-I caught the '2 carbon loosly tied to oxygen' bit too! Didn't like to mention it, but seeing as you did...LOL

[HAL 9000 96]

As a scientist I'd just like to know what C2O (dicarbon oxide) is in relation to the atmosphere.

As for the loose atomic attachments... oh well...

Ha, fingers faster than the brain, LOL, feel like an #### on this one, Yeah CO2, thank you for the correction, my face is redder than the setting sun now.

Just messing with you man. I knew you meant CO2.

As for that very narrow spectrum of UV hitting and exciting CO2... its only part of the equation. Molecules resonate due to excitation at the molecular level due to this- yes... because that very narrow (and relatively CONSTANT - * HINT* - coming from the Sun) UV is being absorbed primarily by those bonds between the Carbon and Oxygen atoms in the molecule. Now add to that the following:

Brownian molecular collisions. The more molecules collide, the more energy is released as a result. Heat energy.

Brownian means 'random' molecular collisions in essence.

The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the higher the probability that these molecular collisions will ensue.

Like anyone else, just my opinion from what I read on this subject and all freely written as fast as I can type, generally about 60 WPM.

In regards to the science of meteorology, five days ago, all the forecasts for this weekend were in the 30's, we hit 50*F yesterday, is meteorology really a science?

Yes, meteorology is a science encompassing hydrodynamics, thermodynamics, physics, mathematics, chemistry...yadda yadda, with still much unknown about the evolving and ever changing atmosphere. That's why I love it. There is so much UNKNOWN right here on our own planet.

I can talk about it until someone starts to decay where they sit.

As for the accuracy of forecasts. I cannot and won't 'defend' inaccuracies in your local surface forecasts[ my speciality is more the dynamics of the atmosphere on a macroscale and point weather at altitude] , I will only say that the forecasts you get are NOT specific to YOUR exact location, but more generalized where conditions can vary widely based on numerous local factors.

You are a fast typer!

Yeh-HAL-I caught the '2 carbon loosly tied to oxygen' bit too! Didn't like to mention it, but seeing as you did...LOL

Just don't mess with Tom Skilling! He's my homey.

[NickD 202]

I do proofread my IRS tax returns, immigration forms, tech articles, and patent abstracts, as many as several dozen times, ha, here, just having fun, but was an incredibly stupid error.

Global is an extremely complex issue, difficult enough to design a simple heat sink, or to predict the temperature rise of a transformer. But those can be inclusively tested to meet required specifications. Is there means to test these theories with the earth? And would there be drastic consequence if it could be done?

To me, just opens the door for BS, and certainly getting enough of that.

[tmma 467]

Just don't mess with Tom Skilling! He's my homey.

I like him.....

He sings about as well as I do.....